Peer review of the Danish R&I system : Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility : background report.
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: Denmark, EU research policy, assessment, innovation, organisation of research, report, research and development

Background Report 

Peer Review of the 
Danish R&I System

 
 
 
 
 
 
Background Report - Peer Review of the Danish R & I System 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate A — Policy Development and Coordination 
Unit A4 — Analysis and monitoring of national research and innovation policies 
Contact (H2020 PSF Peer Review Danish R&I system): Ana Correia, Ana.CORREIA@ec.europa.eu 

Contact (H2020 PSF coordination team): 

Román ARJONA, Chief Economist and Head of Unit A4 - Roman.ARJONA-GRACIA@ec.europa.eu 
Stéphane VANKALCK, PSF Head of Sector, Unit A4 - Stéphane.VANKALCK@ec.europa.eu  
Marta TRUCO, PSF Team Leader, Unit A4 - Marta.TRUCO-CALBET@ec.europa.eu  
European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Manuscript completed in June 2019. 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-04095-8 

doi:10.2777/995414 

KI-AX-19-006-EN-N 

© European Union, 2019. 
Reuse  is  authorised  provided  the  source  is  acknowledged.  The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission 
documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must 
be sought directly from the copyright holders. 
Cover Image © Eurotop.be 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Background Report 

Peer Review of the Danish 
R&I System 

Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science- Danish 
Agency for Science and Higher Education  

2019 

EN 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Table of Contents 

3 

KNOWLEDGE-BASED INNOVATION INDICATORS ............................................... 8 
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 8 
1 
DANISH INDUSTRIES ............................................................................. 12 
2 
EMPLOYMENT IN KNOWLEDGE INTENSE INDUSTRIES ....................... 13 
2.1 
GROSS VALUE ADDED IN KNOWLEDGE INTENSE INDUSTRIES .......... 15 
2.2 
EXPORTS IN KNOWLEDGE INTENSE INDUSTRIES ............................. 17 
2.3 
CENTRAL INDICATORS ........................................................................... 20 
INNOVATION INPUT ..................................................................... 21 
3.1 
3.1.1 Private R&D investment x .......................................................... 26 
3.1.2 Public investment in R&D ........................................................... 32 
3.1.3 Human capital .......................................................................... 37 
ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 40 
3.2 
INNOVATION OUTPUT ................................................................... 44 
3.3 
BUILDING MORE INNOVATION ....................................................... 50 
3.4 
3.5 
INNOVATION OUTCOMES .............................................................. 52 
PRIVATE FIRMS PERSPECTIVE ON R&D .................................................... 56 
FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS FOR R&D ACTIVITIES ............................ 56 
4.1 
APPENDIX ............................................................................................ 60 
DATA SOURCES ........................................................................... 60 
5.1 
HIGH TECHNOLOGY AND KNOWLEDGE INTENSIVE SECTORS ............ 61 
5.2 
ADDITIONAL INDICATORS ............................................................ 62 
5.3 
DANISH INNOVATION POLICY IN A HISTORICAL CONTEXT ................................ 63 
1  1970-1990: INDIVIDUAL SECTOR-SPECIFIC INDUSTRIAL POLICIES ......... 63 
2  1980S – CONTINUED TECHNOLOGY PUSH MINDSET .............................. 64 
3  1990S:  NEW  POLICY  APPROACH  EMPHASIZING  SYSTEMIC 

4 

5 

RELATIONS AND SYNERGIES .............................................................. 66 

4  2001  –  PRESENT:  STRONGER  NEXUS  BETWEEN  EDUCATION, 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION ............................................................. 68 

5  CURRENT  REVIEWS  AND  POLICY  DECISIONS  WITHIN  KNOWLEDGE 

BASED INNOVATION .......................................................................... 71 
5.1  Review of university knowledge transfer ...................................... 71 
5.2  Evaluation of the Innovation Fund Denmark ................................. 71 
5.3  Investigation of the supply of technological services ...................... 71 
6  RECAPITULATION .............................................................................. 71 

 
 
 
List of Tables 

Table 1: Eurostat definition of high- and medium high technology manufacturing and 
knowledge intensive services .................................................................. 61 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Denmark’s’ ranking relative to no. 1 on selected EIS indicators .............. 8 

Figure 2: European innovation scoreboard, 2018 ............................................... 9 

Figure 3 Average annual growth in hourly productivity, 1995-2015, pct ................ 9 

Figure  4:  Distribution  of  research  and  development  expenditures  across  OECD 
countries and China, 2015, pct. .............................................................. 10 

Figure 5: Gross value added across different sectors in Denmark, 2017 ............... 12 

Figure  6:  The  share  of  total  employment  in  ‘high  and  medium-high  technology 
manufacturing’  and  selected  ‘knowledge  intensive  services’  in  EU-28  and 
Denmark, pct., 2017.............................................................................. 13 

Figure  7:  The  share  of  total  employment  in  high  and  medium-high  technology 
manufacturing in Denmark, pct., 1997-2017 ............................................ 14 

Figure 8: The share of total employment in knowledge intensive services in Denmark, 
pct., 1997-2017 .................................................................................... 15 

Figure  9:  The  share  of  total  value  added  of  high  and  medium-high  technology 
manufacturing, pct., 1997-2017 .............................................................. 16 

Figure  10  The  share  of  total  value  added  from  knowledge  intensive  services,  pct., 
1997-2017 ........................................................................................... 17 

Figure  11:  The  share  of  total  exports  from  high  and  medium-high  technology 
manufacturing, pct., 1997-2017 .............................................................. 18 

Figure 12: The share of total exports from knowledge intensive services, pct., 1997-
2017.................................................................................................... 19 

Figure 13: Innovation process ........................................................................ 20 

Figure 14: Total R&D investments in the public and private sectors, pct., 2016 .... 21 

Figure 15: Business enterprise and public R&D investment, pct. of GDP, 2009-2017
 ........................................................................................................... 22 

Figure 16: R&D expenditure in the public and private sector by field of science, 2017, 
pct. ..................................................................................................... 23 

 
 
 
 
Figure  17:    Flow  of  funds  from  research  funding  sectors  to  research  performing 
sectors, Denmark, 2016 ......................................................................... 24 

Figure 18: Distribution of research and innovation funds in the public research budget 
for the Ministry of Higher Education and Science, 2018, million DKK. ........... 25 

Figure 19: Regional distribution of private R&D investment, 2016 ....................... 26 

Figure 20: Private R&D expenditure by industry, 2008-2016. ............................. 27 

Figure  21:  Private  R&D  expenditure  by  subindustries  within  manufacturing,  2009-
2016.................................................................................................... 28 

Figure 22: R&D personal in private sector by occupation and researchers as a share 
of total R&D personal, FTE and pct., 2009-2016 ........................................ 29 

Figure  23:  Private  R&D  investments,  billion  kr.  number  of  R&D  companies,  2009-
2017.................................................................................................... 29 

Figure 24: Number of R&D active companies, Denmark, Norway and Finland, 2009-
2016.................................................................................................... 30 

Figure  25:  The  20  largest  R&D  companies  share  of  total  private  R&D  investment, 
percent., 2009-2016 .............................................................................. 31 

Figure 26: 8 persistent companies R&D investments and their share of total private 
R&D investment, billion kr. Percent, 2009-2016. ....................................... 32 

Figure 27: Gross domestic expenditure on R&D for the public sector by scientific field, 
pct., OECD, 2016. ................................................................................. 33 

Figure 28: External funding of higher education institutions, pct., 2016 ............... 34 

Figure 29: Selected sources of public research funding, 2008-2016 .................... 35 

Figure 30: Share of 10 percent of the most cited publications distributed by scientific 
field, OECD, 2013-2017 ......................................................................... 36 

Figure 31: Researchers per thousand members of the labour force, 2016. ........... 37 

Figure 32: Education level, population, 25-64 year olds, pct., selected countries, 2017
 ........................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 33: Number of persons with a tertiary education in the Danish labour market, 
2005 to 2040 ........................................................................................ 38 

Figure 34: Fields of education, graduates, selected countries, percent, 2016 ........ 39 

Figure 35: SMEs innovating in-house, percentage of SMEs, 2014. ....................... 40 

Figure 36: Innovative companies cooperating with universities, other higher education 
institutions, government, and public or private research institutes, 2014 ...... 41 

 
 
 
Figure 37: Innovative SMEs collaborating with others, percentage of SME, 2014... 42 

Figure  38:  Research  agreements  between  public  research  institutions  and  private 
companies, 2010-2017. ......................................................................... 43 

Figure 39: Venture capital, pct., 2017 ............................................................. 43 

Figure 40: SMEs introducing product or process innovations as a percentage of total 
SMEs, 2014. ......................................................................................... 44 

Figure 41: SMEs introducing marketing or organisational innovations as a percentage 
of total SMEs, 2014. .............................................................................. 45 

Figure 42: PCT patent, trademark and design applications per billion GDP ........... 45 

Figure 43: Number of university joint patent applications, by type, 2012-2017 ..... 46 

Figure 44: EPO patent applications by geographic origin, per mio. capita, 2017 .... 47 

Figure 45: Danish EPO patent applications by technology field, pct. of total, 2017 47 

Figure 46: Public-private co-publications per million inhabitants, 2017. ............... 48 

Figure  47:  Employment  in  knowledge-intensive  activities  in  percentage  of  total 
employment, 2017. ............................................................................... 49 

Figure  48:  Employment  in  fast-growing  enterprises  in  innovative  sectors  as 
percentage of total employment. ............................................................. 49 

Figure 49: Share of entrepreneurs in the work force by type of education, 2001-2013
 ........................................................................................................... 50 

Figure 50: Average number of employees by type of education of the entrepreneur, 
2006-2015 ........................................................................................... 51 

Figure  51:  Spin-out  companies  from  Danish  universities  and  hospitals,  2008-2017.
 ........................................................................................................... 51 

Figure 52: Sales of new-to-market and new-to-firm innovations as a percentage of 
total turnover, selected countries, 2014 ................................................... 52 

Figure 53: Sales of new-to-market and new-to-firm innovations as a percentage of 
total  turnover  in  manufacturing,  selected  countries,  weighted  for  industry 
structure, 2014 ..................................................................................... 53 

Figure 54: Share of turnover from radical innovations, percentage, 2014............. 53 

Figure 55: Exports of medium and high technology products as a share of total product 
exports, 2017. ...................................................................................... 54 

Figure  56:  Knowledge-intensive  services  exports  in  percentage  of  total  services 
exports, 2017 ....................................................................................... 55 

 
 
 
Figure 57: Post-entry growth of firms, country average of final over initial years 2001 
and 2004, surviving entrants of 3, 5 and 7 years, in percent ...................... 55 

Figure 58: Relevant factors for private companies' R&D activities. Share of R&D active 
companies indicating that the individual circumstances are relevant ............ 56 

Figure 59: Companies' assessment of framework conditions in Denmark. Proportion 
of companies that assess the condition is good in Denmark, 2018 ............... 57 

Figure 60: Companies' assessment of framework conditions in Denmark distributed 
by  the  size  of  the  company.  Proportion  of  companies  that  assess  that  the 
condition is very or somewhat good, 2018 ................................................ 58 

Figure  61:  The  involvement  of  companies'  business  partners  during  the  different 
stages of the research  and innovation  process. Share of companies with their 
own R&D, 2018 ..................................................................................... 59 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

This  report  is  the  background  report  for  the  H2020  Peer  Review  of  the  Danish 
Research and Innovation (R&I) system. Its main purpose is to provide relevant 
context  information  on  the  Danish  R&I  system  in  support  of  the  peer  review 
panel. 

The background report has been drafted by the Ministry of Higher Education and 
Science,  Danish  Agency  for  Science  and  Higher  Education,  and  consists  of  two 
separate reports: a report presenting the key indicators of the Danish innovation 
system and a report setting the Danish innovation policy in the historical context. 

The  background  report  has  two  appendices  (separate  reports):  Appendix  A 
consists of a Self-assessment of the Danish knowledge-based innovation system, 
authored by the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science, Danish Agency 
for  Science  and  Higher  Education;  Appendix  B  contains  the  report  on  the 
Literature  review  and  assessment  of  the  Danish  knowledge-based  innovation 
support system, provided to the Ministry by the IRIS Group. 

7 

 
 
 
 
   
 
KNOWLEDGE-BASED INNOVATION INDICATORS 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

This report presents key indicators of the Danish innovation system. Denmark is 
considered among the innovation leaders according to the European Innovation 
Scoreboard  (EIS).  It  is,  however,  hard  to  summarize  a  countries  innovation 
performance  in  a  single  number.  The  figure  below  illustrates  this  aspect  by 
highlighting Denmark’s ranking on selected EIS indicators. Even though Denmark 
has an overall high EIS ranking there is also areas where Denmark could improve 
such as the sales of new-to-market firm innovations. 

Figure 1: Denmark’s’ ranking relative to no. 1 on selected EIS indicators 

Note: The relative placements are indexed in relation to the no. 1 placement being=100, *Orange=EU/OECD-
average, Grey=no. 1, Purple=Denmark 

Source:European Innovation Scoreboard 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Since  2010,  Denmark  has  attained  overall  high  achievement  in  the  European 
Innovation  Scoreboard  (EIS).  The  latest  scoreboard  showed  Denmark  in  third 
place, cf. Figure 2. 

EIS score

EIS score

Figure 2: European innovation scoreboard, 2018 

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
a
w
r
o
N

e
c
n
a
r
F

U
E

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Note: Data are not available for the USA.  

Source:European Innovation Scoreboard 

Innovation  performance  is  often  correlated  with  economic  growth.  However, 
despite  the  fact  that  Denmark  is  one  of  the  richest  countries  in  the  world, 
productivity growth in Denmark has been at a low level for two decades compared 
with that of similar countries, cf. Error! Reference source not found.3. 

Figure 3 Average annual growth in hourly productivity, 1995-2015, pct 

Pct.

2,0

1,8

1,6

1,4

1,2

1,0

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0

A
S
U

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

Pct.

2,0

1,8

1,6

1,4

1,2

1,0

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0

y
a
w
r
o
N

9 

l

d
n
a
g
n
E

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

e
c
n
a
r
F

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

Source: OECD 

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Danish economy is small and open. It is vital that Denmark absorb knowledge 
from  other  countries’  research  and development  efforts  because  more  than  99 
percent  of  research  is  performed  outside  Denmark,  cf.  Figure  4.  Some  of  the 
leading Western countries, the USA, Germany, Great Britain, and France, are also 
some of Denmark’s most important trade partners. 

Figure 4: Distribution of research and development expenditures across OECD countries and China, 2015, pct.  

Pct.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Pct.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

A
S
U

i

a
n
h
C

n
a
p
a
J

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

a
e
r
o
K
h
t
u
o
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

n
a
t
t
i
r

B

t
a
e
r
G

n
e
d
e
w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

D
C
E
O

f
o
t
s
e
R

Note: Pct. of investment in OECD and China. The seven countries with the largest shares and Denmark and 
Sweden (12th). 

Source: OECD 

Hence,  the  comparison  throughout  the  report  is  between  Denmark  and  similar 
countries: Austria, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and 
Switzerland, which are all small, open economies. The US, the UK, Germany and 
France  enter  the  comparison  as  well  because  they  are  some  of  the  drivers  of 
technological  change  in  the  world,  and  they  are  some  of  Denmark’s  most 
important trade partners. 

The report is limited to quantitative indicators of the Danish innovation system. 
For an account of Danish instruments and institutions, the reader should consult 
the report by the IRIS Group (IRIS (2018)), which constitutes Appendix A to this 
report. 

To summarize the indicators, Denmark is strong in public investment in R&D. The 
expenditures on public R&D relative to GDP are the highest in comparison with 
those  of  selected  countries.  The  number  of  publications  and  citations  is  also 
among  the  highest  in  the  comparison.  The  share  of  highly  educated  people  in 
Denmark is at approximately the same level as in OECD countries and below that 
in  many  of  the  comparison  countries.  However,  projections  to  2040  show  that 
the  number  of  highly  educated  people  in  the  labour  force  will  increase  by  50 
percent. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Private investment in R&D is highly concentrated both in the number of firms and 
geographically.  Public  and  private  R&D  is  biased  towards  the  health  and 
pharmaceutical  industries.  Indicators  of  product  and  process  innovation  place 
Denmark closer to the bottom of the comparison countries. In line with this result, 
activities  in  Denmark  related  to  cooperation  between  innovative  firms  and 
universities and venture capital expenditures in Danish firms are not among the 
highest in the comparison. Moreover, surviving entrepreneurs stop growing after 
only three years, which indicates that Danish firms have problems scaling up. 

11 

 
 
 
 
2 

DANISH INDUSTRIES 

The following section gives a flash overview of the Danish business sectors. The 
purpose  of  the  chapter  is  to  offer  a  short  description  of  the  Danish  industry 
structure and the knowledge intensive industries.  

The Danish economy is to a high degree a service economy, when looking at the 
size of different sectors in terms of gross value added. The manufacturing sector 
compromises  around  14.4  pct.  of  total  value  added  which  is  below  the  EU-28 
average of 16.4 pct. The biggest exports markets are in order DEU, SWE, USA, 
GRB and NOR. 

Figure 5: Gross value added across different sectors in Denmark, 2017 

31077

21802

272757

43700

99750

386043

63074

407140

176353

197460

109750

84026

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Manufacturing

Construction

Mining and quarrying

Supply and distribution

Trade and transport

Information and communication

Financial and insurance

Real estate

Business services

Public administration, education and health

Arts, entertainment and other services

Source: The Danish National Account 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
2.1  Employment in knowledge intense industries 

Of particular importance to the knowledge economy are high tech manufacturing 
and knowledge intensive service industry. The share of employment in the high 
and  medium-high  technology  manufacturing  in  Denmark  is  below  the  EU-28 
average  by  0.8  percentage  points.  The  share  of  employment  in  knowledge 
intensive  services  such  as  ‘information  and  communication’  and 
‘arts, 
entertainment and recreation’ is slightly above the EU-28 average.  

Figure 6: The share of total employment in ‘high and medium-high technology manufacturing’ and selected 
‘knowledge intensive services’ in EU-28 and Denmark, pct., 2017 

Pct.

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

Pct.

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

EU-28 Denmark EU-28 Denmark EU-28 Denmark EU-28 Denmark EU-28 Denmark

High and medium
high-technology
manufacturing

Information and
communication

Financial and
insurance activities

Professional,
scientific and
technical activities

Arts, entertainment
and recreation

Notes: “High and medium high-technology manufacturing” is derived from the NACE codes at 2-digit level. 
Please refer to the appendix for a definition of the included industries.  

Source: Eurostat - technology and knowledge-intensive sectors 

Approximately  two  percent  of  the  Danish  labour  force  is  employed  within  the 
manufacture  of  machinery,  which  is  the  largest  high  technology  industry  in 
Denmark measured as the share of total employment, cf. figure below. Over the 
last  twenty  years  employment  within  the  manufacture  of  machinery  has  been 
declining while employment within the pharmaceutical industry has been rising. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7: The share of total employment in high and medium-high technology manufacturing in Denmark, 
pct., 1997-2017 

Pct.

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

Pct.

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

Manufacture of chemicals

Pharmaceuticals

Manufacture of electronic components

Manufacture of electrical equipment

Manufacture of machinery

Manufacture of transport equipment

Note:  “High  and  medium  high-technology  manufacturing”  is  derived  from  the  NACE  codes  at  2-digit  level. 
Please refer to the appendix for a definition of the included industries. 

Source: The Danish National Account and Eurostat 

Over the last twenty years employment within in the knowledge intensive market 
services has been increasing in Denmark and in 2017 it constitutes almost nine 
percent of total employment, cf. figure below.  

The  employment  level  within  knowledge  intensive  financial  services  have  been 
more  or  less  stable  around  4  percent  in  the  period  from  1997  to  2017. 
Employment within high-tech knowledge intensive services have increased from 
around 2 percent in 1997 to just less than 4 percent in 2017. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8: The share of total employment in knowledge intensive services in Denmark, pct., 1997-2017 

Pct.

9,0

8,0

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

Pct.

9,0

8,0

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

Knowledge-intensive market services

High-tech knowledge intensive services

Knowledge-intensive financial services

Note:  “Knowledge  intensive  services”  is  derived  from  the  NACE  codes  at  2-digit  level.  Please  refer  to  the 
appendix for a definition of the included industries. 

Source: The Danish National Account and Eurostat 

2.2  Gross value added in knowledge intense industries 

Focusing  on  gross  value  added  (GVA)  from  high  and  medium-high  technology 
manufacturing it is clear that pharmaceutical industry have increased its share of 
GVA in the economy, whereas the other industries have slightly fallen or remained 
at  the  same  level.  Particularly  from  2008  the  pharmaceutical  industry  have 
increased its share of GVA, cf. Figure 9.   

Following the pharmaceutical industry the manufacturing of machinery comprises 
the second largest share of GVA in 2017 with nearly 2.5 percent. The share of 
GVA comprised from manufacturing of machinery has been somewhat stable from 
1997 to 2017 between 2 percent and 2.5 percent. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9: The share of total value added of high and medium-high technology manufacturing, pct., 1997-2017 

Pct.

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

Pct.

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

Manufacture of chemicals

Pharmaceuticals

Manufacture of electronic components

Manufacture of electrical equipment

Manufacture of machinery

Manufacture of transport equipment

Note:  “High  and  medium  high-technology  manufacturing”  is  derived  from  the  NACE  codes  at  2-digit  level. 
Please refer to the appendix for a definition of the included industries. 

Source: The Danish National Account and Eurostat 

Looking  at  knowledge  intensive  services,  market  services  compromises  the 
largest share of GVA over time. In 2017 the market services industry constitutes 
almost 8 percent of the total GVA, cf. Figure 10.  

The  GVA  stemming  from  both  financial  services  and  high-tech  knowledge 
intensive  services  have  also  increased  from  1997  to  2017  and  constitutes  6 
percent and 5 percent of total GVA in 2017, respectively.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10 The share of total value added from knowledge intensive services, pct., 1997-2017 

Pct.

9,0

8,0

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

Pct,

9,0

8,0

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

Knowledge-intensive market services

High-tech knowledge intensive services

Knowledge-intensive financial services

Note:  “Knowledge  intensive  services”  is  derived  from  the  NACE  codes  at  2-digit  level.  Please  refer  to  the 
appendix for a definition of the included industries. 

Source: The Danish National Account and Eurostat 

2.3  Exports in knowledge intense industries 

Since the financial crisis in 2008 the exports from pharmaceutical industry have 
increased from approximately 4.5 pct. to 9.5 pct. of total exports, cf. Figure 11. 
Exports  from  the  pharmaceutical  industry  rose  particularly  from  2008  to  2016 
before dropping slightly in 2017. 

The second largest exports of high and medium-high technology manufacturing 
in Denmark is the manufacture of machinery, which constituted around 8 percent 
of total export in 2017. 

The share of exports has been relative stable for most of the other manufacturing 
industries  since  2017.  However  the  share  of  exports  from  the  manufacture  of 
electronic components have halved since the start of the 2000’s. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11: The share of total exports from high and medium-high technology manufacturing, pct., 1997-2017 

Pct.

12,0

10,0

8,0

6,0

4,0

2,0

0,0

Pct.

12,0

10,0

8,0

6,0

4,0

2,0

0,0

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

Manufacture of chemicals

Pharmaceuticals

Manufacture of electronic components

Manufacture of electrical equipment

Manufacture of machinery

Manufacture of transport equipment

Note:  “High  and  medium  high-technology  manufacturing”  is  derived  from  the  NACE  codes  at  2-digit  level. 

Please refer to the appendix for a definition of the included industries. 

Source: The Danish National Account and Eurostat 

The share of total exports from market services compromises almost 25 percent 
of the total Danish exports, cf. Figure 12. The share of export from this industry 
has  been  steadily  increasing  in  the  period  from  1997  to  2017.  This  is  almost 
entirely derived from the large shipping industry in Denmark, as water transport 
compromises around 1/5 of total Danish exports. 

Exports  from  financial  services  and  high-tech  knowledge  services  constitute  a 
much  smaller  share  of  the  Danish  exports.  The  high-tech  knowledge  intensive 
services  constitute  almost  5  percent  of  the  total  export  whereas  the  financial 
services only constitutes around 2 percent. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12: The share of total exports from knowledge intensive services, pct., 1997-2017 

Pct.

30,0

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

Pct.

30,0

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

Knowledge-intensive market services

High-tech knowledge intensive services

Knowledge-intensive financial services

Note:  “Knowledge  intensive  services”  is  derived  from  the  NACE  codes  at  2-digit  level.  Please  refer  to  the 
appendix for a definition of the included industries. 

Source: The Danish National Account and Eurostat 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
3 

CENTRAL INDICATORS 

The  analysis  is  structured  around  an  innovation  process  approach:  input, 
activities, output and effects. On the input side we have government and private 
firm  activities  to  increase  knowledge  base  (mainly  R&D  investment  and 
education).  The  input  supports  activities  such  as  knowledge  and  innovation 
cooperation,  which 
to  new  products  and  processes, 
entrepreneurship, and cooperation in the short run and ultimately to productivity 
improvement and economic  growth in the  long run. Error! Reference source 
not found.3 presents the highly simplified process of innovation. 

leads 

turn 

in 

Figure 13: Innovation process 

Source: UFM (2018) 

It is tempting to look at the innovation process as an organizational model. The 
actors associated with research, development and innovation could be mapped 
out along the process. On the input side, the government plays a fundamental 
role, but the government also plays a role at later stages in terms of framework 
conditions for private firms. Innovation mainly occurs in private and public firms, 
as do short- and long-term effects. 

Private firms also contribute input, mainly in the form of development, and, to a 
lesser extent, with research. The measurement of effects in the public sector is 
not  sufficiently  advanced  in  the  statistics,  so  it  is  not  part  of  the  analysis. 
Therefore, only private sector innovation behaviour is covered below. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1  Innovation input 

In  2016,  total  R&D  investments  in  Denmark  accounted  for  approximately  66 
billion DKK, which is equivalent to 3.2 percent of GDP and is one of the highest 
among similar countries, cf. Figure 1414. 

Figure 14: Total R&D investments in the public and private sectors, pct., 2016 

Pct.

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

Pct.

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

e
g
a
r
e
v
a
-

D
C
E
O

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
a
w
r
o
N

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

A
S
U

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Private R&D investments

Public R&D investments

Note: Data for Switzerland is from 2015. Pct. of GDP. 

Source: OECD (2018), "Main Science and Technology Indicators", OECD Science, Technology 
and R&D Statistics (database), ”BERD as a percentage of GDP”, ”GERD as a percentage of 
GDP” and Statistics Denmark 

The R&D investments, by percent of GDP, in Sweden and Switzerland are slightly 
higher  than  that  in  Denmark,  which  is  mostly  due  to  higher  private  R&D 
investments in these countries. 

Denmark  has  the  highest  level  of  public  R&D  investments  among  the  OECD 
countries,  which  is  equivalent  to  1.1  percent of  GDP.  Denmark  has  a  target  of 
spending 1 percent of GDP on public R&D investment. On top of government R&D 
investments,  regional  and EU  R&D  investments  are  allocated  under  the target. 
The  1  percent  and  the  regional  and  EU  funds  have  implications  for  the 
government budget. 

Denmark  has  increased  public  R&D  investment  over  the  last  decade.  Over  the 
last 8 years, public R&D investments have risen from 0.9 percent of GDP to 1.1 
percent of GDP in Denmark. There is no clear consensus about the consequences 
of overachieving the target. At the moment, there is a potential for cutting back 
public R&D investment. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In private R&D, investments have not risen at the same rate, which is partly due 
to the financial crisis in 2008 that led to a decrease in business R&D investments. 
Over  the  last  few  years,  private  R&D  investments  have  been  rising  again  and 
have  risen  from  1.8  percent  of  GDP  in  2014  to  2  percent  of  GDP  in  2017,  cf. 
Error! Reference source not found.. 

Figure 15: Business enterprise and public R&D investment, pct. of GDP, 2009-2017 

Pct.

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

Pct.

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Private sector R&D investment

Public sector R&D investment

Source: Statistic Denmark 

The private sector and the public sector prioritize R&D expenditures different, cf. 
Figure 4. Approximately 54 percent of the private R&D expenditure is performed 
within engineering and technology followed by medical and health sciences that 
account  for  nearly  30  percent  of  the  private  R&D  expenditures.  Private  R&D 
expenditures  within  agricultural  sciences,  social  sciences  and  humanities  only 
account for approximately 3 percent of the total private R&D expenditure. 

The public R&D investments are more equally spread across the different field of 
sciences, where the largest is medical and health sciences, which account for 35 
percent of the public expenditure. R&D expenditures within natural sciences and 
engineering  and  technology  account  for  21  and  18  percent  of  the  total  R&D 
expenditure, respectively.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16: R&D expenditure in the public and private sector by field of science, 2017, pct. 

Pct.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Pct.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Private sector

Public sector

Engineering and Technology

Medical and Health sciences

Natural Sciences

Agricultural sciences

Social Sciences

Humanities

Note: The total R&D expenditure in the private sector in 2017 is 42.8 billion kr. and 23.5 billion kr. In the 
public sector. The R&D expenditure in the public and private sector for 2017 is preliminary.  

Source: Statistics Denmark 

The majority of the R&D performed in the public and private sector is financed by 
the  sector  itself,  cf.  Error!  Reference  source  not  found.17.  For  instance,  in 
the public sector, R&D was performed for a total value of 23 billion DKK in 2016. 
Of  this  amount,  17.7  billion  was  financed  by  the  government  sector,  which  is 
equivalent to 77 percent.  

The  same  pattern  exists  in  the  private  sector,  where  companies  themselves 
financed approximately 36 billion DKK of the total 39 billion DKK for which they 
performed R&D. In 2016, the government sector financed R&D activities worth 
approximately a billion DKK in the private sector. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17:  Flow of funds from research funding sectors to research performing sectors, Denmark, 2016 

Note: The percentages on the arrow describe how large a share the given research funding sector constitutes 
of the R&D performing sector. The percentages add up to 100 percent for each of the two R&D performing 
sectors. The calculation is based on preliminary data from 2016 for public R&D investments and data for 2015 
for the business enterprise sector. 

Source: Statistics Denmark 

Innovation is more than investment in R&D. On the private side, we know very 
little  about  how  much  firms  spends  on  non-R&D  innovation  activities.  On  the 
public side, the exact numbers do not exist either, but the Figure below illustrates 
the distribution of funds in the public research budget, which is target towards 
activities with a primary focus on either research or innovation.  

The  Figure  only  accounts  for  activities  organized  within  the  Ministry  of  Higher 
Education  and  Science  and  are  therefore  not  a  complete  picture  of  the  public 
funds  going  towards  innovation  activities.  In  this  respect,  it  is  important  to 
emphasize a lot of the activities are targeted private R&D.  

In  the  research  budget  for  2018  approximately  2  billion  DKK  are  allocated  to 
activities that have a primary focus on innovation activities. The research funding 
organization Innovation Fund Denmark has a budget in 2018 around 1.4 billion 
DKK.  The  organization  fund  a  variety  of  instruments  with  a  primary  focus  on 
increasing the research and innovation activity among private companies.  

24 

 
 
 
Besides  the  Innovation  Fund  Denmark,  funds  are  allocated  to  the  innovation 
networks, innovation clusters and the RTO’s (GTS-institutes). In the budget for 
2018 a total of 630 million DKK are allocated to these three instruments.  

The remaining funds on the public research budget is primarily targeted towards 
activities that focus on public research. The biggest funding is to the universities, 
that receive nearly 9 billion DKK in basic research funding.  

Figure 18: Distribution of research and innovation funds in the public research budget for the Ministry of 
Higher Education and Science, 2018, million DKK. 

630

1356

11840

Research activities
Innovation instruments

Innovation Fund Denmark

Note: The Innovation instrument cover funds to the Innovation Networks (79 million DKK), Innovation clusters 
(224 million DKK) and RTO’s (327 million DKK). Research activities covers a variety of funding such as basic 
research funding for the universities (8.902 million DKK) and research funding organisations (1.673 million 
DKK) as well as international instruments such as CERN and ESA (431 million DKK). 

Source: Ministry of Higher Education and Science 

It’s important to note that there is a variety of instruments aimed towards the 
innovation  activities  of  private  companies  that  are  not  included  in  the  Figure 
above  since  it  only  includes  instrument  organized  under  the Ministry  of  Higher 
Education and Research. 

Other  ministries  spend  almost  3  billion  DKK  on  instruments  targeted  towards 
innovation  activities,  where  the  Development  and  Demonstration  programmes 
(UDP)  are  the  most  important.  Additionally  there  is  a  range  of  tax  support  for 
business  R&D  in  Denmark,  that  encourage  companies  to  invest  more  in  R&D 
activities. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1.1  Private R&D investment x 

The majority of Danish private R&D investments are concentrated in and around 
the  capital,  Copenhagen,  cf.  Error!  Reference  source  not  found.19. 
Enterprises located in the Copenhagen area accounted for more than 50 percent 
of the total private R&D in 2016. 

Figure 19: Regional distribution of private R&D investment, 2016 

Note: The distribution of private R&D investments in the provinces is based on data from Denmark Statistics. 
The  geographic  location  of  the  enterprises  is  based  on  the  location  of  their  headquarters.  Data  for  the  20 
largest R&D companies is based on data from the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard 2016/2017. 

26 

 
 
 
Source: Calculations based on data from Statistics Denmark and EU Commission EU Industrial 
R&D Investment Scoreboard. 

The remaining private R&D investments are primarily located in the provinces of 
northern Zealand, south, west and east Jutland. There is a low level of private 
R&D  investment  in  the  remaining  provinces,  such  as  northern  Jutland  and 
western and southern Zealand, that each make up less than 2 percent of the total 
private R&D investments. 

Enterprises  within  the  manufacturing  industry  perform  the  majority  of  private 
R&D investments. Their share of the total private R&D investments increased by 
12 percentage points from 2008 to 2016. 

Figure 20: Private R&D expenditure by industry, 2008-2016. 

Pct.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Pct.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2016

Manufacturing

Other Business Services

Financial and isurance activities

Information and communication

Other industries

Source: Statistics Denmark 

The  R&D  expenditures  for  companies  within  the  manufacturing  industry  are 
highly  concentrated  among  enterprises  engaged  in  the  manufacturing  of  basic 
pharmaceuticals  and  pharmaceutical  preparations,  cf.  Figure  21.  These 
enterprises have  increased their R&D investments from approximately 6  billion 
DKK  in  2008  to  10.5  billion  DKK  in  2016.  R&D  investments  from  enterprises 
engaged  in  the  manufacturing  of  basic  pharmaceuticals  and  pharmaceutical 
preparations constitute 43 percent of the total R&D investments for enterprises 
in the manufacturing industry. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 21: Private R&D expenditure by subindustries within manufacturing, 2009-2016 

Billion kr.

Billion kr.

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Manufacture of basis pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical preparations

Manufacture of motors and motorparts

Other chemical industry

Manufacture of measuring instruments and optical instruments and photographic
equipment
Manufacture of surgical and medical instruments

Note: The figure only contains the five subindustries within manufacturing with the largest R&D expenditure. 

Source.: Statistics Denmark 

In 2016, the private sector employed nearly 39.000 in full time positions (FTE) 
within  R&D  activities,  cf.  Figure  22.  Researchers  and  specialist  constitute  69 
percent of the total R&D personal in the private sector. In the period from 2008 
to  2016,  the  private  sector  have  employed  fewer  technicians  and  instead 
increased  the  number  of  researchers  and  specialist  among  the  R&D  personal. 
Since 2008, there has been an increase of researchers and specialist employed 
in the private sector from 23.000 FTEs to nearly 27.000 FTEs.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 22: R&D personal in private sector by occupation and researchers as a share of total R&D personal, 
FTE and pct., 2009-2016 

Persons, full time equivalent 

Pct.

45.000

40.000

35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Technichans and other personnel (FTE)

Researchers and specialist (FTE)

Researchers and specialist as a share of total FTE (right axis)

Source: Statistics Denmark. 

In  the years  following the  financial  crisis  the  number  of  R&D  active  companies 
have declined in Denmark, cf. Figure 23. The number of R&D active companies 
have decreased by nearly one quarter from 3.300 companies in 2009 to 2.400 in 
2013.  Since  then  there  has  been  a  small  increase  in  R&D  active  companies  in 
2017 to approximately 2.550, however the level of R&D active companies are still 
below the period before the financial crisis.  

Figure 23: Private R&D investments, billion kr. number of R&D companies, 2009-2017. 

Billion kr.

R&D active companies

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Private R&D investments, billion kr.

Number of R&D active companies (right axis)

Note: Private R&D investments have been converted from regular to fixed prices using the Statistics Denmark's 
deflator. 

Source: Ministry of Higher Education and Science based on data from Statistics Denmark. 

29 

 
 
 
 
A  comparison  with  Norway  and  Finland  shows  a  significantly  different 
development in the number of R&D active companies in these countries, cf. Figure 
24. These two countries have not experienced a similar decrease in the number 
of R&D active companies and both countries have more R&D-active companies 
than Denmark. 

Figure 24: Number of R&D active companies, Denmark, Norway and Finland, 2009-2016 

Number of R&D active companies

Number of R&D active companies

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Denmark

Norway

Finland

Note: Top 20 companies are measured each year as the 20 companies with the largest R&D investment.  

Source: Statistics Denmark 

In addition to the decrease in the number of R&D active companies in Denmark, 
there  has  been  a  concentration  of  R&D  expenditure  on  fewer  companies,  cf. 
Figure 25. Since 2009 the 20 largest R&D companies have increased their share 
of the total private R&D investments in Denmark and constitute 55 percent of the 
total  private  R&D  investment  in  2016.  The  R&D  investments  of  the  20  largest 
companies  in  Finland  and  Norway  constitute  32  percent  and  46  percent  of  the 
countries’ total private R&D investments, respectively.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 25: The 20 largest R&D companies share of total private R&D investment, percent., 2009-2016 

Pct.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Pct.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Denmark - Top 20 R&D companies share of total private R&D investment

Norway - Top 20 R&D companies share of total private R&D investment

Finland - Top 20 R&D companies  share of total private R&D investment

Note: The 20 largest R&D active companies are measured by their R&D investments. 

Source:Statistics Denmark 

A  few  large  companies  primarily  drive  the  concentration  of  private  R&D 
expenditures in Denmark. In the period from 2009 to 2016 eight large R&D active 
companies  have  increased  their  R&D  expenditures  by  30  percent  from  12.9  to 
16.9 billion kr. (2017 prices), cf. Figure 14.  

In 2009, the eight large R&D companies accounted for approximately 32 percent 
of  the  total  private  R&D  expenditures  while  they  in  2016  accounted  for  39 
percent. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 26: 8 persistent companies R&D investments and their share of total private R&D investment, billion 
kr. Percent, 2009-2016. 

Billion kr.

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Pct.

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Persistent companies R&D investments, billion kr.
Persistent companies R&D investments af a share of total private R&D investments

Note: Private R&D investments have been converted from regular to fixed prices using the Statistics Denmark's 
deflator. 

Source: Ministry of Higher Education and Science based on data from Statistics Denmark 

3.1.2  Public investment in R&D 

A large share of public R&D investments are spent on research conducted within 
the  medical  and  health  sciences,  where  Denmark  also  has  the  highest  level  of 
R&D expenditure among the OECD countries by percent of GDP. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 27: Gross domestic expenditure on R&D for the public sector by scientific field, pct., OECD, 2016. 

Pct.
0,60

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00

Denmark: 0,39

Danmark - 0,23

Danmark - 0,19 

Denmark: 0,17

Denmark: 0,06

Denmark: 0,08

Pct.

0,60

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00

0

1
Natural Science

2
Engineering and technology

3
Medical science

4

Agricultural science

5

6

Social science

7
Humanities

Note:Data are from 2016 or the most recent available year. Data are not available for Canada, France, Mexico, 
New Zealand, the USA and Australia. R&D investments include all research performed by public institutions, 
regardless of the source of the funding. Pct. of GDP. 

Source: OECD - "Main Science and Technology Indicators", OECD Science, Technology and 
R&D Statistics (database). 

Public  research  investments  in  the  field  of  health  and  medical  sciences  have 
increased by nearly 3 million DKK over the last 8 years, corresponding to a 48 
percent increase. 

Approximately  12  percent  of  research  conducted  at  Danish  higher  education 
institutions  is  financed  by  private  non-profit  funds  and  organizations,  which  is 
one of the highest levels among the OECD countries. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 28: External funding of higher education institutions, pct., 2016 

Pct.

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

Pct.

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

A
S
U

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
a
w
r
o
N

e
c
n
a
r
F

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

External funding by private non-profit funds and organizations

External funding by foreign sources

External funding by private enterprises

Note: Data are from 2016  or the  most recent available year and  include university hospitals. Data are not 
available for Australia. Pct. of total funding. 

Source: OECD (2018), OECD Science, Technology and R&D Statistics (database), “Gross 
domestic expenditure on R&D by sector of performance and source of funds” and Statistics 
Denmark. 

In terms of external funding from private enterprises, Denmark is at the lower 
end  of  the  spectrum  in  comparison  with  the  OECD  countries.  In  this  regard,  it 
should  be  noted  that  private  companies,  in  a  number  of  cases,  are  owned  by 
private  non-profit  funds  in  Denmark  and  that  higher  education  institutions 
indirectly receive a great deal of funding that was originally derived from business 
through non-profit funds. 

The majority of external funding from foreign sources in Denmark originates from 
the European Union Horizon 2020 framework programme. 

External funds from private non-profit funds and organizations in Denmark rose 
from 1.1 billion DKK to 2.7 billion DKK from 2008 to 2016 (cf. Error! Reference 
source not found.29), which corresponds to an annual increase of 14.0 percent. 
In  general,  external  funding  increased  from  5.9  billion  DKK  to  9.9  billion  DKK, 
corresponding to an annual increase of 7.7 percent. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Million kr.

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

Figure 29: Selected sources of public research funding, 2008-2016 

Million kr.

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Total expenditure

External funds

Private non-profit funds

Source:Statistics Denmark and own calculations 

Health and medical sciences received more than 50 percent of the private non-
profit funds in 2016. 

Danish  research  in  general  has  a  high  scientific  impact,  as  measured  by  the 
percentage  of  publications  among  the  10  percent  of  the  most  cited  scientific 
publications worldwide, cf. Error! Reference source not found.30. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 30: Share of 10 percent of the most cited publications distributed by scientific field, OECD, 2013-2017 

Pct.
25

20

15

10

5

0

0

Denmark: 19

Denmark: 20

Denmark: 19

Denmark: 18 

Denmark: 21

Denmark: 20

1
Natural Science

2
Engineering and technology

3
Medical science

4

Agricultural science

5

6
Social science

7

Humanities

Pct.

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Note: The indicator measures the proportion of publications with one or more authors from Danish institutions, 
which are among the top 10 percent most cited publications in the world. The indicator is field-weighted and 
self-quotations are included. Types of publications: articles, reviews and conference contributions. 

Source: Scival, Elsevier B. V. (2018). Scival is based on Scopus data 

Approximately 19 percent of Danish publications within the medical sciences are 
among the top ten percent of the most cited publications worldwide, which is due 
in part to the strong Danish research profile within clinical medicine. 

In  addition,  Denmark  has  the  highest  proportion  of  publications  within  the 
humanities among the top ten percent most cited publications in comparison with 
the OECD countries. 

Denmark  has  the  highest  level  of  researchers  per  thousand  members  of  the 
labour  force  among  the  OECD  countries,  cf.  Error!  Reference  source  not 
found.31. The other Nordic countries, such as Sweden and Finland, also have a 
high level of researchers in the labour force. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 31: Researchers per thousand members of the labour force, 2016. 

Researchers per thousand labour force

Researchers per thousand labour force

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
a
w
r
o
N

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

l

a
t
o
T
-

D
C
E
O

Note: Data for the USA, Switzerland and France are from 2015. 

Source: OECD Science, Technology and R&D Statistics (database) ”Main Science and 
Technology Indicators” 

3.1.3  Human capital 

The share of 25-64 year olds with a tertiary education was 39 percent in 2017 in 
Denmark. This percentage is very close to the OECD average but below that of a 
number of countries, including Nordic countries. In general, the education system 
has a large cultural component, and cross-country comparisons, such as the one 
in Error! Reference source not found.32, can be difficult. For example, some 
countries have a well-developed apprentice system, as in Germany. 

Figure 32: Education level, population, 25-64 year olds, pct., selected countries, 2017 

Pct.
50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Pct.
50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

U
S

U
K

A
u
s
t
r
i
a

l

I
r
e
a
n
d

l

F
i
n
a
n
d

N
o
r
w
a
y

S
w

i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d

S
w
e
d
e
n

D
e
n
m
a
r
k

O
E
C
D

-
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l

a
n
d
s

F
r
a
n
c
e

G
e
r
m
a
n
y

  Short-cycle tertiary education

Master’s or equivalent education

Bachelor’s or equivalent education

  Doctoral or equivalent education

Source: OECD’s database, stats.oecd.org based on data from Labour Force Survey. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The number of persons with a tertiary education in the Danish labour market is 
expected to rise dramatically in the coming years from 800.000 persons in 2015 
to 1.2 million in 2040. This is an increase of 50 percent.  

Figure 33: Number of persons with a tertiary education in the Danish labour market, 2005 to 2040 

Persons (1000)

Persons (1.000)

1.400

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

1.400

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

0
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039

0

Short-cycle tertiary education

Vocational bachelors

Bachelors

Masters

Note: 2005-2015 historical data. 2016-2040 is a projection. 

Source: UFM (2017) 

The distribution of graduates across the field of education in Denmark is close to 
the  distribution  in  the  comparison  countries,  cf.  Figure  34.  A  cross-country 
comparison  shows  a  diverse  pattern.  Denmark  has  a  relatively  high  share  of 
graduates within the social sciences and health and welfare and a low share of 
graduates  within  education  and  engineering,  manufacturing  and  construction. 
However, a clear comparison is hindered by cross-country cultural and historical 
differences in education systems. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 34: Fields of education, graduates, selected countries, percent, 2016 

Pct.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

Pct.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
a
w
r
o
N

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U

Education

Social science

Arts and humanities

Natural sciences, mathematics and statistics

Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and veterinary

Health and welfare

Services

Engineering, manufacturing and construction

Note: Field of education is based on  ISCED fields. Social sciences include business, administration and law, 
and natural sciences, mathematics and statistics includes Information and communication technologies. 

Source: OECD database. OECD.stats 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2  Activities 

Denmark  has  one  of  the  lowest  proportion  of  SMEs  with  in-house  innovation 
among the comparable countries, cf. Figure 35. In-house innovating enterprises 
are defined as enterprises which have introduced product or process innovations 
either themselves or in co-operation with other enterprises or organisations.  

In Denmark, 28 percent of the surveyed SMEs responded that they have in-house 
innovation,  which  is  somewhat  lower  than,  for  example,  in  Finland,  where  38 
percent of the SMEs have in-house innovation. 

Figure 35: SMEs innovating in-house, percentage of SMEs, 2014. 

Pct.

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

Pct.

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

y
a
w
r
o
N

n
e
d
e
w
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

e
c
n
a
r
F

U
E

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Note: SMEs are defined here as including all enterprises with 10 to 249 employees.  

Source: Eurostat, Community Innovation Survey 2014 

Denmark has a lower share of innovative companies cooperating with universities 
and  other  public  research  institutions  than  the  majority  of  the  comparison 
countries,  cf.  Error!  Reference  source  not  found.36.  Approximately  16 
percent of the innovative companies in Denmark cooperate with another research 
institution compared to 24 percent in Finland. 

The level of cooperation between innovative companies and research institutions 
in  Denmark  is  similar  to  other  small  research-intensive  countries,  such  as  the 
Netherlands and Sweden. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 36: Innovative companies cooperating with universities, other higher education institutions, 
government, and public or private research institutes, 2014 

Pct.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Pct.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

y
a
w
r
o
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

n
e
d
e
w
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
n
a
r
F

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

Note: Data are not available for the EU and the UK. 

Source: Eurostat, Community Innovation Survey 2014 

Denmark  also  has  a  lower  share  of  innovative  SMEs  collaborating  with  others 
than the majority of the comparison countries, cf. Figure 37. Around 13 percent 
of  the  innovative  SMEs  in  Denmark  has  collaborated  with  others  compared  to 
Belgium where 28 percent of the SMEs has collaborated with others.  

The level of  innovative SMEs collaborating  in Denmark is similar to France and 
Sweden and are above the average for the EU 28 countries.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Pct.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Figure 37: Innovative SMEs collaborating with others, percentage of SME, 2014 

Pct.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

n
e
d
e
w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

U
E

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
a
w
r
o
N

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Note: SMEs are defined here as including all enterprises with 10 to 249 employees. Collaborating activities is 
defined as any co-operation agreements on innovation activities with other enterprises or institutions within 
the last three years.  

Source: Eurostat, Community Innovation Survey 2014 

From 2010 to 2017, the number of research agreements between public research 
institutions  and  private  companies  have  increased  in  Denmark  from  2,730  to 
3,093 research agreements.  

From 2015 to 2017, there has been a minor decrease in the number of research 
agreements between public research institutions and private companies. It should 
be  noted  that  the  minor  decrease  in  research  agreements  in  itself  does  not 
necessarily demonstrate a negative trend since the Figure shows only the number 
of agreements and does not show the economic scope of these agreements. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 38: Research agreements between public research institutions and private companies, 2010-2017. 

Research agreements

Research agreements

5.000

4.500

4.000

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

5.000

4.500

4.000

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

2.010

2.011

2.012

2.013

2.014

2.015

2.016

2.017

Research agreements concluded without private companies

Research agreements concluded with private companies and possibly third parties (eg public
research councils)

Note: Research agreements cover a variety of different type of activities, such as research projects funded by 
companies, projects co-financed by both parties or collaborations co-financed with a third party (for example, 
through  public  financing  programmes,  such  as  the  Innovation  Fund  Denmark  or  the  EU  Horizon  2020 
programme). 

Source: Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education 

Denmark  has  a  low  level  of  venture  capital  by  percent  of  GPD,  cf.  Error! 
Reference  source  not  found.39,  in  comparison  with  the  other  countries.  In 
Denmark, venture capital, as a percentage of GDP, was 0.06 pct. in 2017, which 
is among the lowest across the comparison countries. 

Venture capital, pct. of GDP

Venture capital, pct. of GDP

Figure 39: Venture capital, pct., 2017 

0,30

0,25

0,20

0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00

e
c
n
a
r
F

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

U
E

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

0,30

0,25

0,20

0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00

n
e
d
e
w
S

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

Note:  Venture  capital  expenditures  is  defined  as  private  equity  raised  for  investment  in  companies. 
Management buyouts, management buy-ins, and venture purchases of quoted shares are excluded. Venture 
capital includes early-stage (seed + start-up) and expansion and replacement capital. Pct. of GDP. 

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Venture  capital  expenditures  are  volatile  over  time.  Changing  the  Figure  to 
include an average of 2016 and 2017 does not change the order of the countries, 
regardless of the order of magnitude. 

3.3  Innovation output 

Compared  to  other  countries,  Denmark  has  a  rather  low  share  of  SMEs 
introducing  product  or  process  innovations  to  the  market.  Approximately  35 
percent of the SMEs  in  Denmark introduced  innovations to the market in 2014 
compared to 48 percent of all SMEs in Belgium. 

Figure 40: SMEs introducing product or process innovations as a percentage of total SMEs, 2014. 

Pct.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

Pct.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
a
w
r
o
N

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

n
e
d
e
w
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

U
E

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Note: SMEs are defined here as including all enterprises with 10 to 249 employee. 

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, Community Innovation Survey (CIS), 2014 

Forty  percent  of  the  Danish  SMEs  has  introduced  marketing  or  organisational 
innovations in 2014, cf. Figure 41. This is the same level as similar small research 
intensive countries such  as Finland and Sweden. The Danish level is above the 
EU average, but is significantly lower then in Switzerland where 62 percent of the 
SME have introduced marketing or organisational innovations. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 41: SMEs introducing marketing or organisational innovations as a percentage of total SMEs, 2014. 

Pct.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Pct.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

U
E

n
e
d
e
w
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
a
w
r
o
N

e
c
n
a
r
F

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Note: SMEs are defined here as including all enterprises with 10 to 249 employee. 

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, Community Innovation Survey (CIS), 2014. 

Denmark  has  a  relatively  high  level  of  different  forms  of  intellectual  property 
rights  (IPR)  generated  in  the  innovation  process,  including  Patent  Cooperation 
Treaty (PCT) patent applications, trademark applications and design applications, 
cf. Error! Reference source not found.42. 

Figure 42: PCT patent, trademark and design applications per billion GDP 

Applications per billion GDP (in PPS)

Applications per billion GDP (in PPS)

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Denmark

Finland

Sweden

Netherlands

Belgium

EU

Norway

Design applications per billion GDP (in PPS)

Trademark applications per billion GDP (in PPS)

PCT patent applications per billion GDP (in PPS)

Note: Data for trademark and design applications are  from 2017,  while data  for  PCT applications  are from 
2015. 

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, 2018 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
In particular, Denmark has a high level of design applications, almost eight per 
billion  GDP,  which  is  the  second  highest  among  the  comparison  countries. 
Denmark also has a high level of trademark applications, approximately 13 per 
billion GDP, which is approximately the same level as in Finland. 

Finally,  Denmark  has  about  six  PCT  applications  per  billion  GDP,  which  is  the 
same  level  as  in  the  Netherlands  but  is  somewhat  lower  than  in  Sweden  and 
Finland. In connection with the interpretation of the indicators, it should be noted 
that  they  measure  only  the  number  of  patent  applications,  which  cannot  be 
directly linked to whether or not these applications actually lead to a new product. 

Each year, Danish universities report the number of joint patent applications that 
they have filed in the current year with the Danish Agency for Science and Higher 
Education.  The  majority  of  Danish  joint  patent  applications  originating  from 
Danish  universities  are  primarily  between  two  Danish  research  institutions,  for 
instance, two universities applying for a patent together, cf. Error! Reference 
source not found.43. 

Figure 43: Number of university joint patent applications, by type, 2012-2017 

Patent applications

Patent applications

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

One or more foreign companies

Foreign universities or foreign research institutions

Danish companies

Another danish institution

Source: Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education 

On  a  yearly  basis,  Danish  universities  have  approximately  15  joint  patent 
applications  with  Danish  companies.  Danish  universities  also  have  some 
cooperation  with  foreign  companies,  but  these  patent  applications  represent  a 
minor part of the total patent applications. 

In 2017 Denmark applied for 377 EPO patents per million capita, which is one of 
the  highest  level  among  the  comparing  countries.  Only  the  Netherlands  and 
Switzerland had more EPO applications per million capita then Denmark in 2017. 
The Danish level is the same level as some of the other Nordic countries such as 
Sweden and Finland. 

46 

 
 
 
Figure 44: EPO patent applications by geographic origin, per mio. capita, 2017 

Per mio. capita

1.000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

n
a
p
a
J

l

e
a
r
s
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
a
w
r
o
N

l

y
a
t
I

e
r
o
p
a
g
n
S

i

i

o
c
R
o
t
r
e
u
P

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U

f
o
c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R

,
a
e
r
o
K

Per mio. capita

1.000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

a
d
a
n
a
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

n
a
p
S

a

i
l

a
r
t
s
u
A

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

g
n
o
K
g
n
o
H

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

l

d
n
a
a
e
Z
w
e
N

i

i

e
p
a
T
e
s
e
n
h
C

i

Note: European patent applications include direct European applications and international (PCT) applications 
that entered the European phase during the reporting period. The geographic origin is based on the country 
of residence of the first applicant listed on the application form (first-named applicant principle 

Source: European Patent Office, 2018 

Approximately  14  percent  of  the  Danish  EPO  applications  was  filed  within 
electrical  machinery,  apparatus,  and  energy,  cf.  figure  below.  Following  the 
electrical  machinery,  a  large  share  of  the  Danish  EPO  patents  applications  was 
filed  within  Civil  engineering  and  transport  that  accounts  for  11  percent  and  8 
percent of the applications, respectively.  

Figure 45: Danish EPO patent applications by technology field, pct. of total, 2017 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Pct. of total

Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
Civil engineering
Transport
Macromolecular chemistry, polymers
Other special machines
Measurement
Machine tools
Medical technology
Materials, metallurgy
Handling
Biotechnology
Furniture, games
Computer technology
Audio-visual technology
Semiconductors
Other

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Note: European patent applications include direct European applications and international (PCT) applications 
that entered the European phase during the reporting period. The geographic origin is based on the country 
of residence of the first applicant listed on the application form (first-named applicant principle 

Source: European Patent Office, 2018 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Denmark  has  one  of  the  highest  number  of  public-private  co-publications  per 
million  inhabitants  among  the  comparing  countries  with  163  co-publications  in 
2017, cf. Figure 46. The Danish level is significantly higher than the EU average 
and  other  small  research-intensive  countries  such  as  Finland  and  Belgium. 
Switzerland has the highest level of public-private co-publications per inhabitants 
in 2017. 

Figure 46: Public-private co-publications per million inhabitants, 2017. 

Public-private co-publications per million inhabitants 

Public-private co-publications per million inhabitants 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

n
e
d
e
w
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

U
E

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
a
w
r
o
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Note:  Publications  are  assigned  to  the  country/countries  in  which  the  business  companies  or  other  private 
sector organizations are located. 

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, 2018. 

The  proportion  of  employees  involved  in  knowledge-intensive  activities  in 
Denmark  was  15  percent  of  total  employment  in  2017,  cf.  Error!  Reference 
source not found.47. This is approximately the same level of employment as in 
Norway and Austria. Switzerland has the highest level of employees engaged in 
knowledge-intensive activities at 21 pct. of total employment. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 47: Employment in knowledge-intensive activities in percentage of total employment, 2017. 

Pct.

25

20

15

10

5

0

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

Pct. 

25

20

15

10

5

0

y
a
w
r
o
N

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

U
E

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Note: Knowledge-intensive activities are defined, based on EU Labour Force Survey data, as all NACE Rev.2 
industries at the 2-digit level, where at least 33% of those employed have a tertiary education degree (ISCED 
5-8).  

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, 2018. 

The  proportion  of  employees  involved  in  knowledge-intensive  activities  in 
Denmark was 15 percent of total employment in 2017, cf. Figure 48. The Danish 
level  is  approximately  the  same  as  other  large  countries  such  as  France  and 
Germany and higher than in Finland and Belgium. The Danish level is a bit lower 
than the average EU level and Sweden. 

Figure 48: Employment in fast-growing enterprises in innovative sectors as percentage of total employment. 

Pct.

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

U
E

n
e
d
e
w
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

Pct.

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Note: Only enterprises with 10 or more employees are included. The following NACE industries is defined as 
the most innovative industries: B06, B09, C11, C12, C19, C20, C21, C26, C27, C28, C29, C30, C32, D35, E39, 
G46, H51, J58, J59, J60, J61, J62, J63, K64, K65, K66, L68, M69, M70, M71, M72, M73, M74, M75, and N79. 

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, 2018 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4  Building more innovation 

The share of university graduates starting a new business is the highest among 
the  different  types  of  education,  cf.  Error!  Reference  source  not  found.49. 
The share of entrepreneurs in the work force with a university education in 2013 
was approximately 0.7 percent. This result is significantly higher than the result 
for entrepreneurs with a vocational bachelor’s degree, which is approximately 0.4 
percent. 

Figure 49: Share of entrepreneurs in the work force by type of education, 2001-2013 

Pct.

0,90

0,80

0,70

0,60

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00

Pct.

0,90

0,80

0,70

0,60

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Vocational training

Short-cycle tertiary

Vocational bachelor

University

Source: Statistics Denmark and own calculations 

The average firm size of entrepreneurs is 1.7 employees. Based on the type of 
education, entrepreneurs with a short-cycle tertiary education employ the most 
workers, followed by entrepreneurs with a university degree. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 50: Average number of employees by type of education of the entrepreneur, 2006-2015 

Employees

Employees

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

Short-cycle
tertiary

University

Upper
secondary

Vocational
training

Vocational
bachelor

Secondary

Unknown

Employees

Average

Source: Statistics Denmark and own calculations 

The  number  of  spin-out  companies  from  Danish  universities  and  hospitals  has 
been relatively stable over the past six years, with approximately 17-22 spin-out 
companies per year, cf. Error! Reference source not found.51. 

Spin-out  companies  from  Danish  hospitals  have  increased  over  the  last  three 
years, and five of the 18 spin-out companies originated from hospitals in 2016. 
However, Danish universities are still by far the type of public research institution 
that has created the largest proportion of spin-out companies. 

Figure 51: Spin-out companies from Danish universities and hospitals, 2008-2017. 

Antal

25

20

15

10

5

0

25

20

15

10

5

0

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Universities

Hospitals

Note:  Due  to  changes  in  the  definition,  the  numbers  of  spin-out  companies  before  and  after  2012  are  not 
comparable. Since some spin-out companies started through collaborations among several institutions, there 
are individual cases of double counting. The dotted line indicates the number of unique companies. 

Source: Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.5  Innovation outcomes 

The sales of new-to-market and new-to-firm innovations as a percentage of total 
turnover constituted seven percent for Danish companies in 2014. 

This is the same level as in Sweden and Norway but is substantially lower than 
in the United Kingdom, where sales of innovations constitute 20 percent of total 
turnover. The Danish level is approximately half of the EU average. 

Figure 52: Sales of new-to-market and new-to-firm innovations as a percentage of total turnover, selected 
countries, 2014 

Pct.

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

U
E

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

Pct.

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

n
e
d
e
w
S

y
a
w
r
o
N

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Note:  This  indicator  measures  the  turnover  of  new  or  significantly  improved  products  and  includes  all 
enterprises. 

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, Community Innovation Survey 2014 

A  general  criticism  against  comparing  countries  unweighted  sales  of  new  and 
improved products is that they differ in composition of industries. I.e. Germany 
and France do have very large car industries, which is not the case in Denmark. 
But accounting for industry structure requires also better data, because estimates 
of sales of new and improved products must be available at the subindustry level.  

A comparison across countries of unweighted sales shares of new and improved 
products  in manufacturing reveal that Denmark is placed low. Sweden  and the 
UK drops out, because the data is not available at such a detailed level for the 
countries in EUROSTAT. By weighting sub-manufacturing sales shares of new and 
improved products with a reference manufacturing structure, the weighted sales 
of new and improved products is calculated. The reference manufacture structure 
applied is the structure of the 10 countries total sales. The results only change 
marginally, though it improves the position of Denmark. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 53: Sales of new-to-market and new-to-firm innovations as a percentage of total turnover in 
manufacturing, selected countries, weighted for industry structure, 2014 

Pct.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

Unweighted Weighted

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

y
a
w
r
o
N

Pct.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Note: Weights constructed by industry structure of all ten countries. 

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, Community Innovation Survey 2014 

Another important dimension is the share of new and improved products that are 
new  on  the  market  often  labelled  radical  innovations.  Denmark,  Sweden  and 
Norway has a much larger share of radical innovations compared to sales of new 
and improved products.  

Figure 54: Share of turnover from radical innovations, percentage, 2014. 

Pct.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

n
e
d
e
w
S

y
a
w
r
o
N

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

Pct.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

U
E

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Note: This indicator measures the turnover from new or significantly improved products that were new to 
the market with turnover from new or significantly improved products only new to the firm to calculate the 
share stemming from radical innovations. 
Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, Community Innovation Survey 2014 

53 

 
 
 
 
Nearly  half  of  all  Danish  product  exports  are  exports  of  medium  and  high 
technology products, cf. Figure below. This is approximately the same level as in 
Belgium and Switzerland. 

The Danish  level of medium and high  technology products  is still below the EU 
average,  and  large  countries,  such  as  Germany  and  France,  export  more  high 
technology products than Denmark. 

Figure 55: Exports of medium and high technology products as a share of total product exports, 2017. 

Pct.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

U
E

n
e
d
e
w
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Pct.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

y
a
w
r
o
N

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Note: See the European Innovation Scoreboard Methodology Report 2018 for a definition of medium and high 
technology products.  

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, 2018 

Approximately  72  percent  of  all  Danish  services  exports  are  exports  of 
knowledge-intensive  services.  This  is  the  same  level  as  other  small  research-
intensive countries such as Sweden and Finland and above the EU average of 69 
percent.  

Other  small  research-intensive  countries  such  as  Norway  and  the  Netherlands 
have a higher level of service exports from knowledge-intensive services.  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 56: Knowledge-intensive services exports in percentage of total services exports, 2017 

Pct.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

y
a
w
r
o
N

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

n
e
d
e
w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Pct.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

U
E

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

Note: For a review of the delimitation in relation to knowledge-intensive services, see European Innovation 
Scoreboard Methodology Report 2018 

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard, 2018 

The  ability  of  young  firms  to  scale  up  and  grow  is  considered  important  for 
innovations to contribute to growth. The reason is that start-up firms are more 
productive (and innovative) than mature incumbent firms. Firms in Sweden and 
Netherlands continue  to  grow after five  and seven years, whereas, for firms in 
Denmark,  the  profile  flattens  after  the  first  three  years  of  growth,  cf.  Error! 
Reference source not found.57. 

Figure 57: Post-entry growth of firms, country average of final over initial years 2001 and 2004, surviving 
entrants of 3, 5 and 7 years, in percent 

pct.

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

Netherlands

Norway

Sweden

3 years

5 years

7 years

pct.

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

55 

 
 
 
 
 
Source: Calvino m. fl. (2016) 

4 

PRIVATE FIRMS PERSPECTIVE ON R&D 

The  following  chapter  summarizes  key  survey  findings  on  Danish  companies’ 
perspective  on  their  R&D  activities.  The  survey  was  conducted  among  a 
representative group of R&D active firms in Denmark in the summer of 2018 for 
MHES.  The  companies  have  been  asked  questions  regarding  the  Danish 
framework conditions for R&D, their own strategic choices concerning their R&D 
activities, as well as their views on advantages and disadvantages of participating 
in government programs. 

4.1  Framework conditions for R&D activities 

Access  to  higher  education  institutions  and  highly  skilled  labour  is  the  most 
important framework condition for Danish companies R&D activities. A majority 
of companies rate ‘recruitment of employees from higher education institutions’ 
and  ‘collaboration  with  universities  and  educational  institutions’  as  highly  or 
somewhat relevant for their R&D activities. 

Figure 58: Relevant factors for private companies' R&D activities. Share of R&D active companies indicating 
that the individual circumstances are relevant 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pct.
100

Opportunity to recruit labor from institutions of higher…

Cooperation with universities and educational institutions

Digital infrastructure

Wage level for R&D employees

Oppertunities to recruit scientific staff (eg PhDs,…

Public grant and cooperation schemes

Public investments in R&D

R&D rules and legislation

Access to R&D infrastructure, eg test facilities and…

Tax issues related to  R&D

Other factors

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Highly relevant

Somewhat relevant

Somewhat irrelevant

Highly irrelevant

Don't know

Note:  Question:  Which  factors  are  relevant  for  private  companies'  R&D  investments?  Share  of  R&D-active 
companies. N=658 

Source: Survey conducted by The Danish Ministry of higher Education and Science on the 
R&D-investments of the private sector 

More than 80 percent of the R&D active companies strongly or somewhat agree 
that  the  framework  conditions  for  recruiting  labour  from  the  higher  education 
institutions in Denmark is good. 

56 

 
 
 
A majority of the companies also agree that framework condition for cooperation 
with universities as well as the digital infrastructure in Denmark is good. On the 
other end of the scale is access to R&D infrastructure as well as the tax issues 
related to R&D. 

Figure 59: Companies' assessment of framework conditions in Denmark. Proportion of companies that 
assess the condition is good in Denmark, 2018 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

Pct.

Opportunity to recruit labor from institutions of higher
education

Cooperation with universities and educational
institutions

Oppertunities to recruit scientific staff (eg PhDs,
postdocs and others)

Digital infrastructure

Wage level for R&D employees

Public grant and cooperation schemes

Public investments in R&D

R&D rules and legislation

Access to R&D infrastructure, eg test facilities and
laboratory equipment

Tax issues related to  R&D

Other factors

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Not relevant/don't know

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

Pct.

Note: Question: To what extent is the following external condition good in Denmark? The survey only includes 
companies  which  responded  that  the  individual  condition  is  relevant  to  their  company's  R&D  activities. 
Therefore, the number of responses varies from N = 225 to N = 565 out of total N = 659. There are N = 66 
that have answered "other conditions". 

Source: Survey conducted by The Danish Ministry of higher Education and Science on the 
R&D-investments of the private sector 

In general, both large and small companies largely assess the same framework 
conditions as good, cf. figure below. However, the large companies are generally 
a bit more positive in their assessment of the Danish framework conditions.  

Companies  with  more  than  250  FTEs  are  significantly  more  positive  in  their 
assessment of the conditions for collaboration with universities as well as access 
to R&D infrastructure than smaller companies. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 60: Companies' assessment of framework conditions in Denmark distributed by the size of the 
company. Proportion of companies that assess that the condition is very or somewhat good, 2018 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pct.

Opportunity to recruit labor from institutions of
higher education

Cooperation with universities and educational
institutions

Oppertunities to recruit scientific staff (eg PhDs,
postdocs and others)

Digital infrastructure

Wage level for R&D employees

Access to R&D infrastructure, eg test facilities
and laboratory equipment

Public investments in R&D

R&D rules and legislation

Tax issues related to  R&D

Public grant and cooperation schemes

250 fte's or more

Under 250 fte's

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Note: Question: To what extent is the following external condition good in Denmark? The survey only includes 
companies which responded that the individual condition is relevant to their company's R&D activities. The 
survey only includes companies which responded that the individual condition is relevant to their company's 
R&D activities. Therefore, the number of responses varies from N = 225 to N = 565 out of total N = 659. 
There are too few respondents who have answered "Other factors" to report the result from this category 

Source: Survey conducted by The Danish Ministry of higher Education and Science on the 
R&D-investments of the private sector. 

The companies participating in the survey were also asked how different partners 
such as the universities, RTO’s, etc. play a varying role during different stages of 
the innovation process, cf. Figure 61. 

The  partners  that  most  of  the  companies  participating  in  survey  highlight  are 
customers,  suppliers  and  users.  They  are  highlighted  by  most  companies  in 
almost every part of the innovation process.  

The  companies  highlight  their  cooperation  with  the  universities  as  important 
during the research stage. In relation to the companies' research, the universities 
are the partner that most emphasizes. The companies primarily cooperate with 
the Danish universities in the early phases of the innovation process e.g. research 
process and as well as the idea and inspiration process.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 61: The involvement of companies' business partners during the different stages of the research and 
innovation process. Share of companies with their own R&D, 2018 

Pct.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Pct.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Research

Ideas and inspiration Development and

design

Demonstration,
testing and validation

Operation and
implementation

Customers, users and suppliers

Danish universities and educational institutions

Public authorities and organizations

Foreign universities and educational institutions

RTO* (GTS)

Note: In which stages of the company's development process are external partners included? Only companies 
which responded that that they cooperate with external partners in their development process has had the 
chance to answer the question. N = 529. The research and technology organisations (RTO) refer to the Danish 
GTS-institutes.  

Source: Survey conducted by The Danish Ministry of higher Education and Science on the 
R&D-investments of the private sector 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
5 

APPENDIX 

5.1  Data sources 

The  analysis  is  based  on  data  regarding  different  aspects  of  the  innovation 
process  from  a  variety  of  available  international  data  sources.  It  is  possible  to 
access the databases by following the links below: 

European Innovation Scoreboard: 

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards_en 

OECD (Innovation): http://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/inno-stats.htm 

OECD (Education): http://www.oecd.org/education/ 

Community Innovation Scoreboard: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/science-
technology-innovation/data/database 

Statistics Denmark: 

https://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1920 

In relation to the interpretation of the results in the report, it is relevant to beware 
of  the  different  timespan  as  well  as  the  underlying  methodology  of  each  data 
source.  

The  newest  data  in  this  report  originate  from  Statistics  Denmark  where 
preliminary data regarding the Danish companies R&D expenditures is available 
for 2017. The preliminary Danish 2017 data is however only available on a macro 
level and the more in-depth analysis such as R&D expenditures by subindustries 
in Denmark is from 2016.  

Most  of  the  international  data  from  OECD  and  the  European  Innovation 
Scoreboard  is  from  2016.  However  the  data  originating  from  the  Community 
Innovation Scoreboard that mostly relates to the output indicators dates back to 
2014.  The  Community  Innovation  Scoreboard  is  expected  to  be  updated  with 
2016 data in the near future and the results might change as a consequence of 
the update.  

In  relation  to  the  methodology  behind  the  data  collection  of  the  Community 
Innovation  Scoreboard  it  should  be  noted  that  the  countries  apply  different 
survey methodologies. The majority of the countries carried out a combination of 
sample survey and census of the enterprises with mandatory participation. For 
some ccountries such as the United Kingdom, Belgium and Germany it is however 
not mandatory for the enterprises to participate.  

Because of this, the non-response rate varies between the countries where for 
instance Denmark has a non-response rate of 3 percent compared to the United 
Kingdom  that  has  a  non-response  rate  of  50  percent.  This  could  potentially 

60 

 
 
introduce a bias to the dataset, however Eurostat attempts to correct for this by 
employing a variety of methods such as weighing regimes.   

5.2  High technology and knowledge intensive sectors 

The  second  chapter  offers  a  short  introduction  to  the  Danish  economy  and  its 
strengths.  The  definitions  regarding  high  technology  manufacturing  industries 
and  knowledge  intensive  services  applied  in  the  chapter  are  derived  from 
Eurostat.  The  table  below  specifies  which  industries  that  are  included  in  the 
analyses.  

Table 1: Eurostat definition of high- and medium high technology manufacturing and knowledge intensive 
services 

High and medium- high technology manufacturing industries 

High-technology 

NACE Rev 2. Codes – 2 digit level 

21 

26 

20 

Manufacture  of  basic  pharmaceutical  products  and 
pharmaceutical preparations; 

Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products 

Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products; 

Medium-high 
technology 

27 to 30 

Manufacture  of  electrical  equipment;  Manufacture  of 
machinery  and  equipment  n.e.c;  Manufacture  of  motor 
vehicles,  trailers  and  semi-trailers;  Manufacture  of  other 
transport equipment 

Knowledge 
intensive 

Market  services 
(excluding  high-
tech and financial 
services) 

High-tech 

Knowledge 
intensive 
services 

Knowledge 
intensive 
financial services 

Knowledge intensive services 

50 to 51  Water transport; Air transport; 

69 to 71 

Legal  and  accounting  activities;  Activities  of  head  offices, 
management  consultancy  activities;  Architectural  and 
engineering activities, technical testing and analysis; 

73 to 74 

Advertising  and  market  research;  Other  professional, 
scientific and technical activities; 

78 

80 

59 to 63 

Employment activities; 

Security  and  investigation  activities;  services  to  buildings 
and landscape; other business services 

Motion picture, video and television programme production, 
sound  recording  and  music  publish  activities;  Programming 
and  broadcasting  activities;  Telecommunications; computer 
programming, 
activities; 
consultancy 
Information service activities; 

related 

and 

72 

Scientific research and development; 

64 to 66 

Financial and insurance activities (section K). 

Source: Eurostat 

61 

 
 
 
 
5.3  Additional indicators 

In addition to the abovementioned databases, the analysis report draws on data 
from four publications published by the Agency for Science and Higher Education 
on a yearly basis. These publications primarily focus on the Danish research and 
development system with a special focus on the public sector. 

Research Barometer 2018 – this publication has a primary focus on the Danish 
research system in regard to R&D funding, scientific publications and their impact 
as  well  as  Danish  participation  in  the  European  scientific  programme  Horizon 
2020.  

Knowledge of growth 2018 – this publication has a primary focus on technology 
transfers from Danish public research institutions.  

Business  enterprise  research  and  development  expenditures  2018  –  this 
publication has a primary focus on Danish business enterprise R&D investments 
over the past 8 years.  

Research  awards  2018  –  this  publications  focuses  on  research  funding  from 
Danish public research councils. 

The  full  dataset  for  the  four  abovementioned  publications  has  been  made 
available in a separate appendix “Supplementary Figures and tables for Danish 
publications from Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education 2018”. 

62 

 
 
 
 
DANISH INNOVATION POLICY IN A HISTORICAL CONTEXT  

This  document  describes  the  development  of  Danish  innovation  policy  during 
recent  decades.1  It  elaborates  on  how  Danish  policy  has  moved  from  a  linear 
innovation model in the research and industrial policies of the 1980s, to a policy 
with clearer focus on the interdependencies of research, innovation and business 
in the beginning of the new millennium.  

1 

1970-1990: 
POLICIES 

INDIVIDUAL  SECTOR-SPECIFIC 

INDUSTRIAL 

In the 1970s the energy crisis exposed the vulnerability of the Danish economy 
in  an  increasingly  globalized  world.  Denmark  had  experienced  a  slowly 
accelerating  societal  change  away  from  the  sectored  agrarian  and  industrial 
society  towards  a  society  under  growing  international  influence.  Loss  of  old 
industries and the establishment of new ones as well as increased awareness of 
the global influence on Denmark’s ability to secure future welfare, created a need 
for new political priorities, primarily in industrial policy. 

Denmark tried out – initially forced by necessity, but increasingly of its own free 
will  –  new  policies  to  improve  its  industry’s  competitiveness  and  increase  the 
country’s welfare. Since the 70s, Denmark gradually abandoned its laissez-faire 
industrial and research policy in favour of a managed and active technology policy 
with  a  cohesive,  and  in  some  contexts  proactive,  innovation  policy  that 
encompassed significantly more areas and elements of the national economy.2 

Up  until,  and  through  the  1970s,  it  had  been  a  political  objective  to  improve 
competitiveness via devaluation and cuts in production costs, primarily through 
lower  wage  growth.  This  period  was  characterized  by  growing  unemployment, 
high inflation and interest rates as well as pronounced political uncertainty. In an 
attempt to stabilize the economy, the government introduced a fixed exchange 
rate  policy  in  1982  pegging  the  Danish  krone  to  the  Deutschmark  to  reduce 
economic  uncertainty  and  strengthen  Denmark’s  development  potential.  This 
objective  also  led  to  new  policy  approaches  to  secure  and  support  Danish 
industry’s competitiveness, firstly via improved conditions for knowledge sharing 
between  Danish  Research  and  Technology  Organisations  (RTO)  and  industry, 
secondly via support for new research based knowledge and thirdly technology 
policy to support industrial product development, and to a lesser extent process 
development. 

1  This  document  builds  primarily  on  unpublished  work  by  Ebbe  Krogh  Graversen,  associate 
professor at The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy 

2 Aagaard, 2000 

63 

 
 
 
 
                                                
2 

1980S – CONTINUED TECHNOLOGY PUSH MINDSET 

In the early 1980s, the idea took hold that a more active, focused and coordinated 
policy  of  research-based  technological  innovation  would  help  solve  Denmark’s 
structural  problems  of  high  budget  deficits,  high  unemployment  and  declining 
competitiveness. This originated from academic researchers, the OECD and the 
example of some other European countries. 

The political mindset in the 1980s was informed by the linear innovation model 
i.e. scientific knowledge as input to technological development, which industries 
can then use to improve production.3 The international trend thus continuously 
moved  towards  comprehensive,  complex  and  not  least  cohesive  and  active 
innovation policy. This also occurred in Denmark, albeit slowly and driven by the 
wish  to  see  technology  policy  contribute  to  solving  societal  needs,  and  with 
pronounced traits from the technology push mindset.4 

Danish policy development in the 1980s and 1990s found inspiration and ideas 
in other countries. The OECD’s analyses and recommendations, and especially its 
evaluations of Danish research and technology policy in 1988, and of research, 
technology  and  innovation  policy  in  1994  was  also  of  importance  for  the 
development of Danish policy. 

From  1983,  political  initiatives  changed  toward  a  nascent  dynamic  and  active 
industrial  policy  with  strategic  support  via  R&D  programs  under  a  technology 
policy  and  with  a  gradual  blurring  of  the  separation  of  research  policy  and 
industrial policy.5 In these years, Danish innovation policy was generally based 
on  a  combination  of  various  industry  services,  e.g.  technological  service  from 
RTO’s  and  regional  technological  information  centers  as  well  as  technological 
research programs in the fields of biotech, energy, environment, materials, food, 
information technology etc.  

The  program  for  Research  and  Technological  Development  from  1985  is  a 
manifestation of the shift in objectives towards research with focus on industrial 
technology.6 However, even though the coupling of technology policy and overall 
politically determined societal needs was present via the research programs, an 
acknowledgement of the interactive link between research, industry and market 
was  neither  stated  nor  framed  at  this  point  in  time,  except  for  elements  of 
interactivity within the RTO’s development of new technological services. 

The  technology  programs  that  were  launched  focused  on  certain  politically 
prioritized, sectors, and aimed to reallocate resources in favour of technological 

3 Karnøe, 1991; Rothwell, 1992; Freeman and Soete, 1997 

4 Christiansen and Sidenius, 1988 

5 Christiansen and Sidenius, 1988 

6 Christiansen and Sidenius, 1988 

64 

 
 
                                                
development in an otherwise unregulated market. So, despite a sound economic-
theoretical foundation, the programs were still influenced by the simplicity of the 
technology push mindset. By supporting technological knowledge, the state was 
able to improve the framework conditions for Danish industry, which needed the 
new  technologies  developed  in  the  research  programs.  A  more  direct  coupling 
between  technology  policy  and  small  enterprises  was  still  lacking  despite  the 
presence of support for the Danish RTO’s.7 However, during this period, ideas of 
a more cohesive approach to drive societal growth and change emerged, e.g. in 
the  joint  discussion  paper  by  the  ministries  of  labor,  industry,  research  and 
education.8 

Political  priorities  did  not  always  result  in  economic-rational  initiatives,  but 
economic-rational societal arguments became a guiding factor in the selection of 
initiatives in an increasingly interventionist technology and industrial policy in the 
second  half  of  the  1980s.9  From  an  industry-neutral,  passive  and  relatively 
modest  research  and  technology  policy  in  the  1970s,  focus  now  shifted  to 
strategic  initiatives,  collaboration,  knowledge  facilitation  and  service  and  just 
overall a more active engagement by the state. 

International influence and coining of Danish innovation policy 

In 1988, Denmark asked the OECD to evaluate Danish research and technology 
policy, but did not find it relevant to ask for an evaluation of its innovation policy 
(OECD,  1988).  However,  six  years  later,  in  1994  Denmark  asked  the  OECD 
(1994) to evaluate all three policies. Innovation policy had thus reached the level 
of research, technology and industrial policy.10 Innovation had become a positive 
word  late  in  the  decade,  but  innovation  policy  was  still  mainly  conducted  via 
industrial and technology policy. The intensity and scope of initiatives were still 
growing, however.  

Even  though  innovation  policy  was  still  targeted  at  industry,  it  became 
increasingly  clear  in  the  second  half  of  the  1980s  that  several  ministries  could 
join in increasing the effect of the current policies by coordinating them. The first 
inter-ministerial programs for businesses were launched in a partnership between 
the ministries of industry, energy and environment, and later on  science  parks 
were  established  and  seen  in  a  broader  perspective  of  matching  targeted  and 
applied  research  with  industrial  needs.11  In  the  same  category,  in  1985,  the 
European cross-national EUREKA program for market-driven industrial research 

7 Mandag Morgen, 1995; Nyholm and Langkilde, 2003; Lindgaard Christensen, 2003 

8 Arbejdsministeriet et al., 1986 

9 Christiansen, 1988 

10 Olesen-Larsen, 2003; Mandag Morgen, 1995 

11 Forskningsministeriet, 2000 

65 

 
 
                                                
and  development  was  established  in  Paris.12  Likewise,  the  European  Union’s 
research-driven framework program for research, technology and development 
was  increasingly  seen  as  a  proactive  and  useful  national  instrument  that  could 
also benefit the industry via research partnerships with universities.  

3 

1990S:  NEW  POLICY  APPROACH  EMPHASIZING  SYSTEMIC 
RELATIONS AND SYNERGIES 

In 1989-90, the Technology Board under the Ministry of Industry and Commerce 
took  the  initiative  to  reorganize  and  merge  the  36  RTOs  from  1973  into  fewer 
and more robust institutes.13 The institutions that remained after 1990 were still 
quite diverse. The RTO-institutions established the ‘Institution Council’ (now the 
“Advanced  Technology  Group”)  today,  in  order  to  better  coordinate  the 
development of the RTOs. 

In  general,  the initiatives  and programs  from  that  period were  still  targeted  at 
the enterprises with the absorptive capacity to apply the knowledge required to 
benefit from the participation. Despite the increased efforts to disseminate new 
knowledge  to  businesses,  the  dominant  policy  trend  was  to  improve  the 
framework conditions for the industry via technology push, i.e. it was up to the 
businesses to absorb and employ the knowledge that had already been produced. 

The demand for a genuine innovation policy became increasingly pronounced up 
through  the  1990s  and  was  gradually  operationalized  and  implemented. 
However, responsibility for an overall innovation policy was not centralized into 
one  ministry  at  the time.  In  reality,  the Danish  Agency  for  Trade  and  Industry 
headed the development of a systematic clarification of Danish innovation policy 
and  culture  at  the  time.  On  the  Agency’s  initiative,  a  group  of  researchers 
including  Bengt-Åke  Lundvall  provided  an  overall  description  of  the  Danish 
national  innovation  system14  almost  two  decades  after  the  initial  policy  steps 
during the energy crisis.  

Among  the  most  significant  coordination  initiatives  in  the  1990s  was  the 
establishment  of  the  Industry  and  Trade  Development  Council  (ITDC)  and  the 
Council  for  Technological  Service,  CTS,  in  1996.  The  ITDC  would  advise  the 
government about conditions for and the development of production and about 
factors affecting the international competitiveness of Danish industry. CTS were 
responsible  for  planning  and coordinating  the  technological  service  under  ITDC 
and primarily for coordinating activities at the Danish RTO’s and the remaining 
trade promotion system.  

12 Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, 2011 

13 In 1990 they were 20, in 1995 14, and today there are 7 GTS institutions, which are gathered 
in  a  national  GTS  network  to  improve  the  coordination  and  impact  of  their  industrial  contact 
(GTS, 2008). 

14 Lundvall, 1999 

66 

 
 
                                                
The  CTS  included  technological,  societal  and  industrial  expertise  and  was 
specifically responsible for overseeing the RTOs. Every three years, the council 
presented  an  overall  strategy  for  development  of  technological  service  in 
Denmark and allocated subsidies to the RTOs based on their strategy and action 
plans.  The  CTS  recommended  focus  on  strengthening  certain  elements  in  the 
service structure. This was done via increased support to the RTOs as an element 
in public knowledge service.15 (The innovation policy tasks of ITDC and the CTS 
were  superseded  in  2001-02  by  the  Danish  Council  for  Technology  and 
Innovation.) 

New initiatives were ready for implementation in the late 1990s. One example is 
the  innovation  incubator  scheme,  which  offered  support  to  start-ups  through 
office space, business advice and preseed capital investment. The initiative came 
the  year  after  the  entrepreneur  scheme  in  1997,  which  among  other  things 
introduced  subsidies  for  very  small  companies’  initial  contacts  with  the  RTOs. 
Inspired by the notion of an interlinked national innovation system, and OECD’s 
(1994) recommendations, entrepreneurship climbed higher on the policy agenda. 
The establishment of the Danish Growth Fund in 2001 - a state investment fund 
that provides capital for dynamic companies - is another example of the increased 
focus on improving framework conditions and reducing barriers to SMEs. Other 
initiatives at this time were the technology-push TIC-centers directed at SMEs; 
the Industrial researcher scheme (An adaptation of an existing private researcher 
program to fit with universities ph.d. programs) and the Centre contracts which 
co-financed large cooperative research and development activities with multiple 
public and private partners.  

In 1993 the Ministry of Research was established. In the ministry’s early years 
its field of responsibility  was limited to research  and ICT  policies, including the 
introduction  of  a  number  of  research  programs  and  centers.  This  illustrated  a 
continued “linear” belief that it was possible to improve Danish competitiveness 
by  making  new  technology  available  to  Danish  industry  through  research 
activities  (Forsknings-  og  Teknologiministeriet,  1993).  A  decade  later,  this 
ministry would take over responsibility of knowledge based innovation.  

Danish Council for Independent Research and Council for Technology and 
Innovation 

As a complement to industry’s more short term application-oriented approach to 
specific competitiveness problems, publicly funded knowledge production at the 
universities  was  increasingly  viewed  as  an  important  strategic  source  of 
knowledge for industry.16 This renewed role for research policy manifested itself 
in an increased focus on strategic research funding via the coordinating so called 
Research  Forum  (Forskningsforum)  and  the  attached  academic  research 

15 Erhvervsfremmestyrelsen, 1995, 1999 

16 Økonomisk Råd, 1997 

67 

 
 
                                                
councils.17  Starting  in  1997,  the  Research  Forum  would  coordinate  joint 
initiatives, including strategic research initiatives that it deemed to be of societal 
importance  for  Denmark  across  the  academic  research  councils’  domains. 
Examples  are  continuation  of  existing  strategic  programs  for  biotechnology, 
materials, health, etc., and introduction of new programs like welfare research, 
elderly research, food technology, etc. The Research Forum and the six academic 
research  councils  were  transformed  in  2002  to  the  Danish  Council  for 
Independent  Research,  the  Strategic  Research  Council,  and five  new  academic 
research councils with more industry- and society-related names. 

After two decades of Danish research, technology and industrial policy, a growing 
focus on synergy via coordination of policies took hold in the 1990s. Late in the 
period, individual sector-specific industrial policies were put aside in favour of a 
a  new  policy  approach  emphasizing  systemic  relations  and  synergies,  and  the 
new bottom line focus became competitiveness in a globalized world; A holistic 
outlook; consensus seeking; coordination and a pro-system approach. This is the 
background of the government’s establishment of the Council for Technology and 
Innovation,  CTI  in  2002.  CTI  was  established  with  the  purpose  of  promoting 
growth and innovation in Danish industry and society. A similar mindset later led 
to the establishment of the Danish Globalization Council in 2005.  

4 

2001  –  PRESENT:  STRONGER  NEXUS  BETWEEN  EDUCATION, 
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 

With  the  establishment  of  the  new  government  of  November  2001  a  major 
change  to  the  national  organisation  of  innovation  policy  was  implemented. 
Relocating a big part of the Ministry of Business to the Ministry of Research that 
changed  its  name  to  the  Ministry  for  Science,  Technology  and  Development 
(Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling). The rationale for this major 
reorganisation was expressed in the government declaration with the words: “The 
government  wishes  a  stronger  nexus  between  education,  research  and 
innovation”.18  For  the  Ministry  of  Research  it  also  meant  integrating  staff, 
instruments  and  schemes  from  the  Ministry  of  Business.  This  included  the 
approved RTO’s, the Innovation Incubators, the Industrial PhD scheme, Centre 
Contracts, and the Regional Growth Centres (Regionale Vækstcentre). 

The  Law  of  Technology  and  Innovation  (Lov  om  Teknologi  og  Innovation), 
entering into force in 2002 also gave the legal basis to establish the Council for 
Research  and  Innovation  under  the  Ministry  for  Science,  Technology  and 
Innovation.  The  major  tasks  of  the  council  included  advising  the  minister, 
especially  preparing  the  approval  of  the  Danish  RTO’s  and  the  Innovation 
Incubators,  as  well  as  to  take  decisions  on  the  instruments  delegated  by  the 
minister. 

17 Forskningsstyrelsen, 2003 

18 Regeringsgrundlag 2001 

68 

 
 
                                                
With  the  reorganisation  of  the  state  apparatus  in  2001  innovation  policy  was 
established as a major political focus area, split into a general innovation policy 
at the Ministry of Business and a knowledge- or research based innovation policy 
that during the 2000s would be crystalized at the Ministry for Science, Technology 
and Innovation (Now the MHES). In the Ministry  of Business,  innovation policy 
had  been  and  would  remain  wide  in  its  focus  articulated  alongside  general 
framework  conditions  (taxation,  business  regulation,  legislation),  while  the 
Ministry  for  Science,  Technology  and  Innovation  (through  the  Council  for 
Technology and Innovation, and the Council for Strategic Research) would focus 
on science and technology-based schemes and programs.  

This  system  for  knowledge  based  innovation  was  elaborated  with  the  later 
addition  of  the  Advanced  Technology  Foundation  (2005)  and  the  works  of  the 
Globalization  Council  -  a  cross  sectoral  council  under  the  PM  who  should  give 
advice  on  a  strategy  for  Denmark  in  the  globalized  economy,  with  a  focus  on 
education, growth, innovation and research (2006),19 as well as the merging and 
creation of the national innovation networks (2008). Hence, in the years after the 
turn  of  the  millennium,  the  Danish  knowledge-based  innovation  system  saw  a 
growth in the number of funding bodies and their areas of responsibility. 

In the 2012 ERAC peer review of the Danish research and innovation system20 
the existing system was assessed as overly complex. The report also expressed 
a  concern  that  activities  were  not  coordinated  effectively  and  pointed  out  that 
instruments overlapped.  

A  central  recommendation  was  that  the  number  of  funding  bodies  should  be 
reduced, pointing out that a possible solution could be “…one funding council for 
basic/strategic research and another for applied/innovation oriented research as 
in  several  other  countries,  such  as  Finland,  the  Netherlands,  Norway,  Sweden, 
etc.”21 

A  direct  response  to  this  was  provided  in  the  strategy:  Denmark  –  the  land of 
solutions.  Drawing  on  the  recommendations  in  the  ERAC  peer  review,  the 
strategy  pointed  to  the  necessity  of  simplifying  the  research  and  innovation 
funding system. The government chose to combine all the three areas of strategic 
research, innovation and high technology in one new comprehensive fund. The 
strategy  was  realized  by  merging  the  three  former  independent  councils  and 
funds  into  one  new  organization:  Innovation  Fund  Denmark  (IFD).  This  meant 

19 Fremgang, Fornyelse og Tryghed, Regeringen 2006 

20  ERAC  peer  review  of  the  Danish  research  and  innovation  system,  Expert  Group  Report 
prepared 
2012: 
https://ufm.dk/publikationer/2012/peer-review-of-the-danish-research-and-innovation-
system-strengthening-innovation-performance 

Committee, 

European 

Research 

Area 

the 

for 

21  ERAC  peer  review  of  the  Danish  research  and  innovation  system,  Expert  Group  Report 
prepared for the European Research Area Committee, 2012, p. 3 

69 

 
 
                                                
that funding of innovation projects was centralised in the IFD, while funding of 
institutions stayed within the MHES.  

Furthermore, as a direct reflection of the peer review it was decided to expand 
the advisory remit of the former Danish Council for Research Policy to encompass 
innovation, so that it now has become a Research and Innovation Policy Council. 

The ERAC peer review also recommended concentrating policy priorities on fewer 
areas aligned with Danish economic strengths and investigating the integration 
of  foresight  activities  involving  key  stakeholders  to  a  greater  extend. 
Subsequently  this  is  mirrored  by  the  outlining  of  the  Research2025  catalogue, 
which  offers  a  broadly  consolidated  guideline  for  policymakers,  funding  bodies 
and  research  institutions  on  national  research  priorities.  Furthermore,  a  new 
grand challenge-initiative is currently under development with the aim to promote 
public-private partnerships in applied research and innovation in specific fields.  

Another concern of the ERAC peer review was the complexity of the innovation 
policy mix directed  at SMEs, which was considered overly fragmented with too 
many  instruments.  Thus,  the  review  recommended  to  investigate  merger  and 
simplification of policy instruments and funding programmes informed via use of 
more  systemic  evaluations.  Concurrenly  it  has  also  been  a  priority  in  the 
Government declaration of 2015 to overlook the entire business support system. 
The following review of the Danish business promotion system (November 2016) 
and a report from the simplification committee (Forenklingsudvalget, April 2018) 
found, that the Danish system was too complex and demand driven.  Based on 
the recommendations from the simplification committee, the current government 
and the Danish People’s Party entered into an agreement in May 2018 with the 
aim of simplifying the existing business promotion system.  

Following the agreement a new act on business promotion came into effect 1st of 
January 2019., Support measures are now to be concentrated at municipal and 
national  level  with  no  regional  operators.  meaning  that  the  Danish  Regions  no 
longer  offers  regional  business  promotion.  The  agreement  and  new  act  on 
(simplification  of)  busness  promotion  also  put  a  stop  to  support  for  the  RTOs 
outreach  work  providing  unexperienced  SME’s  with  reviews  of  technological 
innovation potential. By reducing the number of actors it is expected that private 
companies  will  experience  a  simpler  support  system.  The  law  is  under  the 
jurisdiction of the Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs.  

At national level, it has been a political prioritisation that risk capital instruments 
will  be  concentrated  at  The  Danish  Growth  Fund,  whereas  soft  funding  will  be 
concentrated  under  the  IFD.  This  also  means  that  the  innovation  incubator 
scheme is due to be replaced by proof of concept-funding for researchers from 
IFD as well as new credit facilities from The Danish Growth Fund. 

The  ERAC  peer  review  also  had  a  broad  scope  addressing  how  to  increase 
instance, 
innovation  capacity 
recommendations were given to promote entrepreneurship training, introduce a 
more  performance-based  funding  system  for  education,  and  redirect  student 
uptake  towards  STEM-educations  and  private  sector  employment.  Even  if  not 

the  educational  system.  For 

throughout 

70 

 
 
directly emanated from the ERAC peer review, initiatives in these fields have later 
been implemented by the Government. 

5 

CURRENT  REVIEWS  AND  POLICY  DECISIONS  WITHIN 
KNOWLEDGE BASED INNOVATION 

5.1  Review of university knowledge transfer 

As  part  of  the  current  Government’s  research  and  innovations  strategy,  it  is 
stated  as  an  objective  that  the  transfer  of  knowledge  and  technology  from 
universities  to  SMEs  and  entrepreneurs  should  be  increased.  The  transfer 
processes to SMEs and entrepreneurs should become more agile, and the terms 
in  negotiation  of  IP  agreements  should  be  simplified  and  -  if  possible  - 
standardized.  This  reflects  a  view  from  some  entrepreneurs  and  business 
organisations  that  university  TTO’s  are  not  sufficiently  professional  and 
accommodating.  

In reply, The Ministry of Higher Education and Science jointly with the universities 
in 2018 initiated an inspection of the universities’ technology transfer activities. 
This  will  also  encompass  the  overall  legislation  in  the  area.  The  aim  of  the 
inspection  is  to  remove  any  possible  barriers  and  counteract  any  over-
implementation of EU regulations.  

The final report is due for the first half of 2019.  

5.2  Evaluation of the Innovation Fund Denmark 

As an  integral  part  of  the  political  decision  of  establishing the Innovation  Fund 
Denmark in 2013 it was decided that the IFD should be evaluated in 2018. This  
evaluation  was  commenced  in  the  autumn  of  2018.  An  international  panel  of 
experts does the evaluation. Results of the evaluation are expected by April 2019.  

5.3  Investigation of the supply of technological services 

The Danish  not-for-profit RTO’s are supported through a system of approval by 
the  minister  followed  by  the  opportunity  of  seeking  financial  support  through 
performance contracts that co-finance specific R&D activities at the RTO’s. The 
Danish RTO’s enjoy a general support by interested parties. However, occasional 
suggestions for redesign of the RTO-system has been voiced. To investigate this 
the  MHES  conduct  a  specific  exercise  consulting  interested  parties  on  the 
suitability of the current system. The work is done within the framework of the 
review of the Danish knowledge based innovation system. Conclusions from the 
consultations are expected in March 2019 and will be presented to the panel of 
international experts to reflect upon.   

6 

RECAPITULATION 

The Danish knowledge based innovation system has developed from an original 
industrial  policy  over  technological  and  research  policies  to  present  day 
innovation policy. The development have been driven by technology, by certain 
industrial sectors, and to some degree by a technology push mindset. This has 

71 

 
 
also meant that the policy originated with a focus on multiplier activities bringing 
technology  and  innovation  knowledge  from  few  activities  to  many  recipients. 
Today this approach have been supplemented by projectfunding in the IFD, with 
a  substantial  part  of  the  funding  for  one  on  one  projects  with  industry  and 
research.  

72 

 
 
 
 
Getting in touch with the EU 

IN PERSON 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct Information Centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: http://europa.eu/contact 

ON THE PHONE OR BY E-MAIL 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service 
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or 
– by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact 

Finding information about the EU 

ONLINE 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on 
the Europa website at: http://europa.eu 

EU PUBLICATIONS 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: 
http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting 
Europe Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact) 

EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

OPEN DATA FROM THE EU 
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-
commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
I
-
A
X
-
1
9
-
0
0
6
-
E
N
-
N

This background report for the Peer Review of the Danish R&I system focuses on 
providing the key indicators on knowledge-based innovation in Denmark and sets 
these  indicators  in  the  context  of  the  developments  in  innovation  policy  in  the 
country. Appendices to this report (separate reports) entail a self-assessment of 
the  Danish  knowledge-based  innovation  system  by  the  Danish  Ministry  of 
Education  and  Science  and  a  literature  review  and  assessment  of  the  Danish 
knowledge-based innovation support system, commissioned by the Ministry. 

doi:10.2777/995414 
ISBN: 978-92-76-04095-8