COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A new ERA for Research and Innovation
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU research policy, industry-research relations, innovation, investment, open science, research and development, research infrastructure, research staff, scientific cooperation

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 214 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions    A new ERA for Research and Innovation                   {COM(2020) 628 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1  Context................................................................................................................................ 3 

1.1 

The European Research Area (ERA) .......................................................................... 3 

1.1.1  Origins and development of the ERA .................................................................. 3 

1.1.2 

ERA progress: achievements and shortcomings .................................................. 5 

1.2  A changing world ...................................................................................................... 13 

2  Setting objectives for R&I under ERA ............................................................................. 22 

2.1 

Prioritising investments and reforms......................................................................... 27 

2.1.1 

Facilitating EU and national investment towards the EU’s priorities ................ 29 

2.2 

Improving access to excellence ................................................................................. 37 

2.2.1  Advancing Europe together ............................................................................... 38 

2.2.2  Nourishing talent for excellence ........................................................................ 45 

2.3 

Translating R&I results into the economy ................................................................ 50 

2.3.1 

Competitiveness of European industry .............................................................. 52 

Strengthening innovation ecosystems for knowledge circulation and 

2.3.2 
valorisation ....................................................................................................................... 56 

2.4  Deepening the ERA ................................................................................................... 62 

2.4.1  A European Framework for Research Careers .................................................. 64 

2.4.2  Open Science ..................................................................................................... 70 

2.4.3 

Research and technology infrastructures ........................................................... 74 

Strengthening the public science system through synergies with the European 

2.4.4 
Education Area ................................................................................................................. 77 

2.4.5  Gender equality to strengthen the European R&I potential ............................... 83 

3  The geopolitical dimension of ERA ................................................................................. 89 

3.1 

Progress so far ........................................................................................................... 89 

3.2  Outstanding challenges ............................................................................................. 92 

4  Governance of the new ERA ............................................................................................ 94 

4.1  Current situation ........................................................................................................ 94 

4.2 

Trends and challenges ............................................................................................... 96 

5  References ........................................................................................................................ 98 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figures 

Figure 1. ERA achievements ..................................................................................................... 6 
Figure 2 Participation in PSF activities ..................................................................................... 7 
Figure 3. Doughnut representation of biophysical boundaries and social thresholds (EU)..... 14 
Figure 4. R&I and the economic recovery from the Covid-19 crisis ....................................... 15 
Figure 5. Global GHG emissions and global average temperature change (with median 
probability) ............................................................................................................................... 17 
Figure 6. Time for new products and services to reach 100 million users, by year of launch 18 
Figure 7. EU - Gini index of inequality - market income and disposable income (1995 = 100), 
1995-2016 ................................................................................................................................ 19 
Figure 8. EU age pyramid, 2019(1) and 2100(2) (as % of total population) .............................. 20 
Figure 9. Sustainable Development Goals ............................................................................... 21 
Figure 10. Transformative R&I policy for ERA ...................................................................... 24 
Figure 11.  Main instruments that will contribute to the development of a transformative ERA
.................................................................................................................................................. 25 
Figure 12. Overview of main instruments used at national level ............................................ 27 
Figure 13. Public and business R&D intensity 2018 and total R&D intensity 2000 ............... 30 
Figure 14. Public support for business R&D as % of GDP, 2007 and 2017 ........................... 31 
Figure 15. Evolution of government budget allocations to R&D in the EU (2007 = 100), 
2007-2018 ................................................................................................................................ 33 
Figure 16. Mobility of young professionals (15-34 years) in ICT sector, 2019 ...................... 38 
Figure 17. Share of New Member States in Horizon 2020 and Framework Programme 7 
funding (inner circle) and participations (outer circle) ............................................................ 41 
Figure 18. Map of international mobility flows (>3 months) in post-PhD career stages ........ 47 
Figure 19. Scaleups in Europe, United States and China, 2018 .............................................. 53 
Figure 20. Public-private co-authored scientific publications per million population, 2008 and 
2018.......................................................................................................................................... 59 
Figure 21. Institutional quality- Regional disparities(1) ........................................................... 60 
Figure 22. Share of top-10% most cited publications per 1,000 inhabitants in 2015 (left) and 
R&D intensity 2017 or latest available (right) ......................................................................... 61 
Figure 23. Individual satisfaction with research funding, by country (MORE3/MORE4) ..... 67 
Figure 24. Open access scientific publications with digital object identifier (DOI) as % of 
total scientific publications with DOI, 2009 and 2017 ............................................................ 72 
Figure 25. Scientific quality and R&D investments ................................................................ 78 
Figure 26. Evolution of public funding to universities, 2008-2018 ......................................... 80 
Figure 27. Long-term financial and demographic pressures ................................................... 81 
Figure 28. Gender gaps in R&I in the EU, including dispersion between lowest, median and 
top EU Member State............................................................................................................... 86 
Figure 29. International scientific co-publications as % of total scientific publications, 2000 
and 2018 ................................................................................................................................... 90 
Figure 30. Mission Innovation ................................................................................................. 91 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1  Context 

1.1  The European Research Area (ERA) 

1.1.1  Origins and development of the ERA  

The concept for a European Research Area was proposed by the European Commission in 
2000 with the Communication “Towards a European Research Area”1. The Lisbon European 
Council  in  2000  supported  the  initiative,  as  it  envisaged  to  overcome  fragmentation  and 
isolation  of  national  efforts  and  systems  and  to  reduce  disparities  of  regulatory  and 
administrative  frameworks2.  ERA,  together  with  the  3%  Barcelona  objective  and  the 
accompanying 3% action plan, was part of the new Lisbon Strategy, which aimed to turn the 
EU into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy of the world.  

At  that  time,  the  overall  aim  of  the  Commission’s  approach  was  to  achieve  “a  better 
organisation  of  research  in  Europe”  by  addressing  the  “fragmentation,  isolation  and 
compartmentalisation  of  national  research  systems”  and  “the  lack  of  coordination  in  the 
manner in which national and European research policies are implemented”.  

ERA was underpinned by several principles, such as:  

(i) 

a common approach to financing large research facilities;  

(ii)  more coherent implementation of national and European research activities; more 
mobile human resources, including a European vision for research careers;  

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

greater European cohesion in research;  

improving the attractiveness of Europe for researchers from the rest of the world;  

promotion  of  common  social  and  ethical  values  in  scientific  and  technological 
matters.  

Additionally,  a  number  of  actions  around  the  themes  “infrastructures”,  “coordination  of 
programmes”,  “private  investments”,  “mobility  &  careers”,  “regional  &  international 
aspects”, “society & values”, and “improve evidence-based policy-making” were proposed. 

In  2002  the  Commission  identified  insufficient  Member  State  engagement  as  an  obstacle 
towards the achievement of ERA and sought to identify what needed to be done to give new 
momentum to the ERA initiative by strengthening efforts where necessary and defining new 
perspectives  which  would  provide 
initiative  with  more  effective  means  of 
implementation. 3 

the 

Box 1. ERA and the subsidiarity principle 

The  European  Research  Area  is  a  multi-level  governance  initiative.  It  comprises  policy 
actions in the areas providing most of the EU added value building on and synergetic to the 
national and regional research and innovation policies and initiatives, fully in line with the 
subsidiarity  principle  and  the  autonomy  of  research  funding  and  research  performing 
organisations. 

1  COM(2000)  6.  For  the  historical  background  see  also  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service  (2016), 
European Research Area - Cost of Non-Europe Report; European Parliamentary Research Service (2016), The 
European Research Area - Evolving concept - implementation challenge, In-depth Analysis. 
2  Council  Resolution  of  15  June  2000  on  establishing  a  European  area  of  research  and  innovation;  Lisbon 
European Council conclusions (24/3/2000). 
3 COM (2002) 565. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
In the following years, the Commission published a series of Communications, expert reports 
and  working  documents  on  the  various  dimensions  of  the  ERA  concept.  The  6th  Research 
Framework Programme (2002-2006) and its new instruments were positioned as an important 
vehicle to  implement  ERA and some major achievements during this period include:  ERA-
NETs  (2002),  EURAXESS  (2003),  European  Charter  for  Researchers  and  the  Code  of 
Conduct  for  the  Recruitment  of  Researchers  (2005)4,  Article  185  initiatives  (2003)  and 
Article 187 initiatives (Joint Technology Initiatives - JTIs) (2007). 

From  2007  onwards  a  stronger  partnership  between  the  Commission,  EU  Member  States, 
countries associated to the Framework Programme and stakeholders was sought to revive the 
ERA  process.  The  Green  Paper  “The  ERA:  new  perspectives”,  published  in  April  2007, 
opened  this  avenue  around  six  priorities5.  Three  additional  principles  were  defined:  (i) 
European research policy should be deeply rooted in European society; (ii) the right balance 
should  be  found  between  competition  and  cooperation;  (iii)  full  benefit  should  be  derived 
from Europe's diversity.6 In 2008, the Council took ownership of the ERA process based on 
an  agreed  process  (so-called  “Ljubljana  Process”)  and  setting  out  a  “vision  for  the  ERA  in 
2020”.7 

The  Council  also  endorsed  concrete  initiatives  to  achieve  the  ERA:  a  Commission 
Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities 
and  Code  of  Practice 
research  organisations; 
for  universities  and  other  public 
Communications on a European Partnership for Researchers; Towards joint programming in 
research;  and  a  strategic  European  framework  for  international  science  and  technology 
cooperation;  a  Council  Regulation  for  a  Community  legal  framework  for  a  European 
Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC). 

The  Lisbon Treaty modified the articles  related to research and technological  development. 
Article 179 TFEU explicitly introduced ERA as an objective for the Union: 

“The  Union  shall  have  the  objective  of  strengthening  its  scientific  and 
in  which 
technological  bases  by  achieving  a  European  research  area 
researchers,  scientific  knowledge  and 
freely,  and 
encouraging  it  to  become  more  competitive,  including  in  its  industry,  while 
promoting  all  the  research  activities  deemed  necessary  by  virtue  of  other 
Chapters of the Treaties.” 

technology  circulate 

Article 182(5) opens up the possibility to adopt legislation to enforce the implementation of 
ERA: 

“As  a  complement  to  the  activities  planned  in  the  multiannual  framework 
programme,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  acting  in  accordance 
with  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure  and  after  consulting  the  Economic  and 

4 2005/251/EC , OJ L 75, 22.3.2005, p. 67–77 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2005/251/oj 
5 (i) An adequate flow of competent researchers; (ii) World-class research infrastructures, integrated, networked 
and  accessible;  (iii)  Excellent  research  institutions;  (iv)  Effective  knowledge  sharing;  (v)  Well-coordinated 
research programmes and priorities; (vi) A wide opening of the European Research Area to the world. 
6 COM (2007) 161 Green Paper - The European Research Area: New Perspectives. 
7 Council Conclusions on the launch of the “Ljubljana Process”  - towards full realisation of ERA (30/5/2008); 
Council Conclusions on the definition of a “2020 Vision for the European Research Area” (2/12/2008). 

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
Social Committee, shall establish the measures necessary for the implementation 
of the European Research Area.” 

Although  the  Treaty  does  not  define  a  “completion  date”  for  ERA,  in  2011  the  European 
Council endorsed the objective of ERA to be “completed by 2014 to create a genuine single 
market  for  knowledge,  research  and  innovation”8.  The  Commission  announced  in  its 
Innovation Union Communication that it would propose an ERA framework in 20129. 

As  proposed  in  the  Communication  of  2012  and  endorsed  by  the  Council,  ERA  is 
implemented through six priorities: (i) more effective national research systems; (ii) optimal 
transnational  cooperation  and  competition,  including  “jointly  addressing  grand  challenges” 
and  “research  infrastructures”;  (iii)  an  open  labour  market  for  researchers;  (iv)  gender 
equality and gender mainstreaming in research; (v) optimal circulation, access to and transfer 
of  scientific  knowledge,  including  “knowledge  circulation”  and  “open  access”;  (vi) 
international cooperation (see following section). 

The  Communication  also  specified  concrete  commitments  linked  to  competitiveness  and  to 
maximising  excellence  and  returns  of  public  R&I  and  kept  the  emphasis  on  the  knowledge 
triangle and the interlinkage between policies. It reinforced merit-based recruitment to make 
research  careers  more  attractive,  it  asked  for  brain  circulation  and  it  linked  ERA  to  the 
European  Semester  and  its  national  reform  programmes.  Stakeholder  organisations’ 
involvement  in  the  governance  system  of  ERA  became  more  formalised  through  the  ERA 
Stakeholder Platform. 

Moreover,  the  Council  invited  “Member  States  to  identify  the  national  reforms  and  actions 
needed  for  achieving  the  ERA  […]  and  to  present  these  reforms  and  their  subsequent 
implementation […] where appropriate in the National Reform Programmes starting from the 
2013 European Semester”10. 

In its Conclusions of 30 November 2018, the Council invited the Commission “to publish by 
mid-2020 a new ERA Communication for the period beyond 2020, based on sound evidence, 
which may propose revised ERA policy priorities and ERA governance and monitoring 
mechanisms at national and EU level”.11 

1.1.2  ERA progress: achievements and shortcomings12 

As mentioned above, in 2012 the Commission proposed to achieve ERA with reference to six 
priorities.  This  approach  has  been  endorsed  by  the  Council  and  has  since  2015  been 
implemented through  an ERA Roadmap13. These  six agreed  and current ERA priorities are 
the basis for the following stock-taking of ERA achievements and shortcomings. 

8 European Council Conclusions of 4/2/2011. 
9 COM (2012) 392 A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth. 
10 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/intm/134168.pdf. 
11  Council  Conclusions  on  the  “Governance  of  the  European  Research  Area”,  adopted  by  the  Council  at  its 
3655th meeting held on 30 November 2018, p. 12. 
12 For an Impact Analysis of the ERA until 2012, see SWD (2012) 212. 
13 Council Conclusions on the European Research Area Roadmap 2015-2020, doc 8975/15, 19 May 2015. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Achievements 

Figure 1. ERA achievements 

Source: DG Research and Innovation, European Commission. 

ERA is an established and well-recognised political framework, which has acted as the policy 
counterpart of the funding provided through the Framework Programme. Looking back, it is 
possible to identify a number of success factors. ERA has advanced most through pragmatic 
and concrete initiatives, which offer valuable tools to policy makers and other stakeholders. 
In  more  general  terms,  ERA  contributed  to  creating  a  community  of  research  funders  and 
research performers, it served as a basis for sound mutual learning amongst its governmental 
actors, and ERA has provided the space to raise awareness concerning the divergent research 
performances in Europe. Achievements include: 

  More effective national research systems: indicators show that research excellence 
in  the EU has increased  steadily over time, even  if progress  has slowed down since 
201314.  Reforms  of  national  R&I  systems  are  encouraged  through  the  European 
Semester of economy policy coordination, in which R&I policy has gained increased 
prominence in recent years. The Semester constitutes the basis for an in-depth policy 
dialogue  with  national  authorities  and  stakeholders  based  on  factual  evidence  and 
cross-country  benchmarking:  the  analysis  of  the  capabilities  and  performance  of  the 
different components  of  each national  R&I system  and of the interlinkages between 
enables  to  identify  the  key  bottlenecks  impeding  the  full  contribution  of  R&I  to 
growth and national competitiveness. This approach led to targeted Country-Specific 
Recommendations on issues such as the fragmentation of the public research system, 
science-business  cooperation,  the  availability  of  skilled  human  resources  in  science 
and  technology,  the  balance  between  direct  and  indirect  public  support  and  the 
broadening of the innovation base. The Semester’s analyses can trigger a request for 
assistance by Member States through instruments that support national reforms such 
as the Horizon  Policy Support Facility (PSF  - see Box 2). The recurrent feedback 
on the PSF work received from national policy-makers has shown that the operational 
guidance  formulated  by  leading  experts  and  practitioners  proves  extremely  valuable 
as enabler of national R&I reforms. 

14 +2.3% over 2013-2018 but +1.5% over 2016-2018 (source: European Commission, DG JRC). 

6 

 
 
                                                           
Box 2. Policy Support Facility 

The Policy Support Facility (PSF) is an instrument created in 2015 to help Member States to 
improve their R&I policies. The PSF uses funding from Horizon 2020 (and Horizon Europe 
in  the  future)  to  support  Member  States  (MS)  and  Horizon  Associated  Countries  in 
reforming their R&I system.  

Its  methodologies  allow  drawing  on  the  combination  of  the  high  potential  of  learning 
between  peers  (i.e.  policy-makers)  and  of  high-level  independent  expert  advice.  Country-
specific  projects  provide  national  authorities  with  operational  recommendations  on  how  to 
strengthen  their  R&I  system15  and  tackle  specific  R&I  policy  challenges16.  In  Mutual 
Learning Exercises focused on a particular policy challenge of interest to several countries, 
hands-on  country  visits  and  discussion  among  peers  on  national  experiences  allow 
participants to identify good practices and success factors. 

As visible in  the figure  below, all Member States participated to  at  least  one PSF exercise 
and intensive users of the PSF include both countries with high and low R&D intensities. 

Figure 2 Participation in PSF activities 

Source: Eurostat, World Bank. Note: CH, ME, TR: 2017. 

The main challenges concerning the PSF are now to: 

- 

- 

- 

results,  ownership  and 
(overall  dissemination  of 
strengthen 
implementation of the recommendations at national level, synergies with other tools). 

impact 

its 

strengthen the design stage of each project (considering the critical role of this stage 
for the success of the project). 

extend  the  range  of  policy  needs  that  it  can  address  (notably  how  to  unlock  the 
potential of R&I for systemic transformations towards sustainability) and in synergy 
with the new Technical Support Instrument 17. 

15 Through ‘Peer Reviews’. 
16 Through ‘Specific Support’activities. 
17 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:0409:FIN 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Jointly  addressing  grand  challenges:  national  administrations  work  ever  more 
closely  together  in  public-public  partnerships  (such  as  ERA-NETs,  Article  185 
initiatives,  and  Joint  Programming  Initiatives)  to  jointly  address  global  challenges. 
Joint  Programming  and  other  public-public  Partnerships  allow  the  development  of 
joint R&I agendas and coordinated implementation of activities. A sign of this is that 
the share of GBARD (government budget allocations for research and development) 
allocated to transnationally coordinated research has been constantly increasing since 
201218,  although  it  has  been  slowing  down  over  the  recent  years.  Pooling  resources 
and research capacities to more effectively address common challenges is one of the 
main perceived and actual benefits of EU transnational cooperation19. It is one of the 
most  frequently  mentioned  strategic  goals  in  the  National  ERA  Action  Plans.  This 
ERA priority is one of the most successful with the ERA headline indicator growing 
at 3.9% annually between 2014 and 201620, resulting in more than 700 joint calls with 
a cumulative budget of more than EUR 7 billion in national investments since 2004, 
and current annual spending of EUR 700-800 million. 

  Research infrastructures: over the last twenty years, a collective approach towards  
the joint investment in and the efficient  use of new and existing European research 
infrastructures has been developed. As a result of the close cooperation of the national 
governments,  the  European  Commission  and  the  scientific  community  within  the 
European Strategy Forum for Research infrastructures (ESFRI), the ESFRI  Roadmap 
facilitates  and  promotes  joint  European  investments  in  world-class  infrastructures, 
which complements the closer cooperation with the large European intergovernmental 
organisations.  The  five  editions  of  the  ESFRI  Roadmap  to  date  (2006,  2008,  2010, 
2016 and 2018) have resulted in the joint planning and development of 55 European 
Research  Infrastructures,  of  which  37  have  already  been  implemented,  across  all 
fields  of  science  and  technology,  mobilizing  close  to  €20  billion  in  investments. 
Among  these,  21  new  Research  Infrastructures  were  established  as  European 
Research  Infrastructure  Consortia  (ERIC)  –  a  legal  entity  based  on  the  only  EU 
Regulation  (2009)  in  the  ERA  framework.  Moreover,  this  has  had  an  important 
impact  to  the  strategic  approach  to  Research  Infrastructures  at  national  level,  as  22 
Member  States  have  prepared  national  roadmaps  in  recent  years,  many  of  them 
following  the  ESFRI  methodology  and  in  increasing  alignment  with  European 
priorities.  This  work  has  radically  transformed  the  availability  of  state-of-the-art 
facilities  for  scientists  and  engineers  to  carry  out  their  work  across  Europe, 
reinforcing Europe’s strong research performance. 

  Open  Science  and  knowledge  circulation:  Open  Science  has  increasingly  become 
policy practice across Europe. There is an increased share of open access publications. 
In 2017, the total share of EU Open Access papers was 46%21. In 2018, the European 
Open  Science  Cloud  (EOSC)  as  a  common,  federated,  European  framework  for 
storing  and  sharing  publicly-funded  research  data  and  related  services  has  been 
established. It promotes FAIR22 principles as an important element of Open Science 
and  was  implemented  as  a  common  initiative  of  European  and  national  partners. 
Starting  from  2020,  all  European  researchers  and  research  organisations  should  be 

18 See ERA Progress Report 2018, Technical Report, p. 44. 
19 See ERA Progress Report 2018, p. 6. 
20 See ERA Progress Report 2018, p. 6. 
21 Source: Science-Metrix. 
22 Findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. 

8 

 
 
                                                           
able  to  deposit,  access  and  analyse  European  scientific  data  through  the  EOSC23  . 
Knowledge  transfer  has  always  been  an  important  objective  of  ERA.  The  2008 
Commission  Recommendation  on  the  management  of  Intellectual  Property  (IP)  in 
knowledge  transfer  activities24  was  a  game  changer  for  many  publicly  funded 
knowledge  producers.  Some  EU  Member  States  have  made  strategic  investments  in 
knowledge transfer infrastructures and services such as Technology Transfer Offices 
(TTOs) and other intermediaries; and some have implemented dedicated policies like 
the  National  IP  Protocol  in  Ireland.  Despite  of  these  achievements  the  EU  is  still 
lagging behind its global competitors in turning science-based ideas to innovations25, 
and  the  diffusion  of  knowledge  remains  unequal  in  the  Union.  Digitalisation,  Open 
Science  and  Open  Innovation  have  changed  the  ecosystem  in  which  R&I  actors 
operate. 

  Mobility,  careers,  and  an  open  labour  market  for  researchers:  the  European  
dimension of research careers and mobility has  been a cornerstone of ERA since its 
start.  According  to  ERA  Priority  3,  a  truly  open  and  excellence-driven  ERA  is 
determined  by  highly  skilled  and  qualified  people  who  can  move  seamlessly  across 
borders  to  where  their  talents  can  be  best  employed.  Driven  particularly  by  the 
EURAXESS pan-European network of support services for researchers and its portal 
of research jobs26, significant  progress  has been made  in  removing the  geographical 
barriers  to  researchers’  mobility  and  opening  up  the  recruitment  process  to  non-
nationals, while facilitating open, transparent and merit-based recruitment processes. 

o  The  support  for  the  training,  and  career  development  and  mobility  of 
researchers  through  the  funding  of  excellent  doctorates,  the  provision  of 
fellowships  and  collaborative  research  under  the  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie 
Actions (MSCA) has been remarkable. For the period 2014-2020, MSCA will 
fund the training and intersectoral, interdisciplinary and international  mobility 
of 65,000 researchers, including 25,000 PhD candidates, and more than 1,000 
international doctorates, supporting a new generation of excellent, creative and 
innovative researchers contributing to important scientific breakthroughs, and 
allowing  universities  to  set  up  sustainable  partnerships  with  non-academic 
partners.  

o  The  Standing  Working  Group  on  Human  Resources  and  Mobility  of  ERAC 
(SWG HRM) supported the implementation and the monitoring of progress in 
the  implementation  of  this  ERA  priority  3  (open  labour  market  for 
researchers) at  EU and national  level  (e.g. European Charter for Researchers 
and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers, Innovative Doctoral 
Training,  Career  Development,  EURAXESS  activities),  as  well  as  the 
attractiveness of Europe to researchers in general. The SWG HRM also issued 
a  comprehensive  toolkit  for  assisting  research  performing  organisations  to 
implement  open, 
(OTM-R) 
practices27,28.  

transparent  and  merit-based 

recruitment 

23 ERAC Opinion on the Future of the ERA, Annex 1, p. 9. 
24 C(2008) 1329: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32008H0416 
25 As measured by the Innovation Output Indicator 2016: Japan 121.9, US 107.8 and EU 99.4  
26 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/. 
27 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/content/open-transparent-and-merit-based-recruitment-researchers-otm-r 

9 

 
 
                                                           
o  The 2018 ERA Progress29 revealed that in terms of the number of researcher 
job postings from a given country that are advertised through the EURAXESS 
job  portal  per  1  000  researchers  in  the  public  sector,  the  EU  Member  States 
appeared  to  be  positioned  in  a  downward  trajectory  with  annual  average 
declines of 5 % for the whole country group since 2014. This average annual 
decline reversed  a previous course of positive  growth over the 2012 to  2014 
period. Results at the aggregate level contrasted sharply with a few very strong 
growth  rates  that  stood  out  from  the  portrait  of  individual  countries  (i.e. 
Finland, Germany, Latvia, Turkey and Luxembourg), whereas decreases were 
driven by  Bulgaria (61  % average  annual  decrease), Greece (45  % decrease) 
and Sweden (44 % decrease).  

o  While the last  ERA Progress  Report, based on  MORE3 survey  results found 
that 65 % of respondents in EU Member States were satisfied with the hiring 
procedures in their institution, qualitative analysis confirmed that a large gap 
still exists between EU countries in terms of the open labour market and career 
development  opportunities  provided  to  researchers.  This  concerns  the 
availability  of  opportunities  for  learning,  research  funding  opportunities, 
financial  security,  salaries  and  shares  of  fixed-term  contracts.  This 
heterogeneity reflects different higher education and research systems, as well 
as economic developments influencing public budgets for research and hence 
research funding and working and employment conditions for researchers. In 
addition, different employment status of researchers across different European 
countries  and  the  resulting  limited  portability  of  social  security  and  pension 
schemes  across  borders  remains  one  of  the  key  barriers  for  international 
mobility of researchers.  

o  The  growing  share  of  doctoral  students  with  citizenship  of  another  Member 
State  is  a  positive  sign  of  international  mobility.  Since  2013,  the  EU  has 
experienced  an  annual  average  growth  rate  of  3.9%  for  this  indicator30. 
Instruments  to  foster  structural  institutional  change  in  higher  education 
institutions, research and technology organisations have been introduced, such 
as  the  Principles  for  Innovative  Doctoral  Training.  Moreover,  with  the 
RESAVER  programme,  the  first  pan-European  multi-employer  occupational 
pension  fund  was  launched  in  2017.  Since  mobile  researchers  experience 
significant difficulties accumulating adequate pension provisions, RESAVER 
intends  to  tackle  this  barrier  to  mobility  by  allowing  researchers  to  remain 
affiliated to  the same pension fund while moving between countries. For the 
employer,  the  pension  fund  is  an  attractive  solution  in  terms  of  fees  and 
features. 

  Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research: positive changes in terms 
of gender equality are under way in many countries, in which the drafting of an ERA 
National  Action  Plan  was  an  opportunity  to  define  gender  equality  objectives  and 
measures.  However,  despite  the  continuous  policy  attention  for  gender  equality, 

28 It is based on a checklist for institutions as a self-assessment tool to benchmark their current practices. The 
implementation of OTM-R ensures that the best person for the job is recruited, guarantees equal opportunities 
and  access  for  all,  facilitates  developing  an  international  portfolio  (cooperation,  competition,  mobility)  and 
makes research careers more attractive. 
29 2018 ERA Progress Report, chapter 3.3 Priority 3, page 54 
30 See ERA Progress Report 2018, Technical Report, p. 57. 

10 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
overall progress has been slow. To support Member States in this ERA objective, in 
2016  the  Commission  launched  the  Gender  Equality  in  Academia  and  Research 
(GEAR) tool to provide guidance on how to develop Gender Equality Plans. The 2018 
“She Figures” report on gender in R&I31, shows overall improvement. Gender balance 
has practically been reached in terms of PhD graduates, and the share of women in the 
highest-level research positions is constantly increasing32. 

  International  cooperation:  international  cooperation  activities  between  ERA  and 
non-ERA  countries33  is  on  the  rise34.  ERA  countries  use  different  tools  to  promote 
international  cooperation,  from  bilateral  agreements  and  dedicated  R&I  centres  to 
appointing R&I advisors and specialists in their consulates and embassies worldwide. 
Countries with more developed R&I systems have more collaboration opportunities, 
and  they  are  also  better  equipped  to  sustain  and  initiate  new  partnerships. 
International mobility and training of researchers, and international doctoral networks 
are  promoted  at  the  EU  (EURAXESS  and  Marie-Sklodowska  Curie  Actions  as  key 
programmes)  and  national  level.  There  is  a  particular  need  to  facilitate  international 
brain circulation by creating a more diverse set of incentives while foresee and deploy 
mitigation  actions  to  tackle  potential  negative  effects  of  mobility,  notably  in  the 
sending countries. 

Manifesting  a  clear  EU  added  value,  the  European  Research  Council,  as  well  as  the 
forthcoming  European  Innovation  Council,  can  be  judged  as  achievements  serving  the 
objectives of ERA at the level of the individual researcher and innovator35. 
ERA implementation gaps36 

ERA monitoring  reveals  that ERA has been lacking most so  far in  reforming national  R&I 
policies,  in  attuning  national  and  EU  policies,  and  in  ensuring  co-evolution  of  all  R&I 
policies towards common objectives.  

  Progress  on  ERA  implementation  has  slowed  down  since  2015  and  major 
disparities still exist between countries, or are growing37. For example, the balance 
between  competitive  funding  and  institutional  funding  still  varies  greatly  between 
countries,  with  less  developed  R&I  systems  and  research  performing  organisations 
relying  mainly  on  institutional  funding.  This  often  affects  their  ability  to  attract  the 
best  talents38.  There  is  also  a  persistent  fragmentation  of  the  science  base  in  these 
countries. Moreover, a large gap still exists between EU countries in terms of an open 
labour  market  and  career  development  opportunities  provided  to  researchers.  This 
results  in  large  differences  in  the  attractiveness  of  research  careers  among  different 

31 https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/she-figures-2018_en. 
32 See ERA Progress Report 2018, p. 9. 
33 Third countries that are not associated to the Framework Programme. 
34 Average growth of co-publications with non-ERA partners per researchers in the public sector is 4.2% since 
2007, and average growth of non-EU doctorate students as a share of all doctorate students is 3.8% since 2013. 
35 ERAC Opinion on the Future of the ERA, Annex 1, p. 9. 
36  In  2012,  the  Commission  identified  the  following  problems  hampering  research  performance  in  the  ERA: 
insufficient  competition  in  national  research  systems,  barriers  to  pan-European  cooperation  and  competition, 
persisting  distortions  among  national  labour  markets  for  researchers,  limited  progress  on  gender  equality  and 
gender content in research, and restricted circulation of and uneven access to  scientific  knowledge (see SWD 
(2012) 212, pp. 7-16). 
37 See ERA Progress Report 2018, p. 4. 
38 See ERA Progress Report 2018, p. 5. 

11 

 
 
                                                           
countries and regions in Europe39. Similar differences also exit for industry-academia-
collaboration. The transfer of research results to the market  and closer collaboration 
between industry and academia is still underdeveloped in many ERA countries40. 

  To  achieve  alignment  between  national  policies  and  policies  agreed  with  Member 
States  at  the  EU  level,  more  systemic  coordination  between  the  priorities  of 
public-public  partnerships  and  national  research  agendas  and  programmes  is 
still  required.  Even  for  European  research  infrastructures,  where  a  substantial  level 
of coordination has been achieved, the ERA Progress Report 2018 recommends that 
“to further increase the effectiveness of research infrastructures in Europe, there needs 
to  be a better exchange  of information  on the actual infrastructure capacity, funding 
priorities, plans and strategies — both across countries/regions and between research 
organisations”41. 

  The persistent lack of a strong European dimension in national policies to ensure 
a  co-evolution  towards  common  objectives  indicates  that  the  current  ERA 
framework  could  have  reached  its  limits  with  respect  to  ensuring  strong  political 
ownership  and  commitment42.  The  current  national  priorities  are  simply  juxtaposed, 
each  developing  at  its  own  pace,  with  different  ambitions,  actors  and  mechanisms. 
They  work  in  silos,  which  challenges  the  core  foundation  of  ERA,  i.e.  its  self-
conception of being a “single market for research”. 

  ERA lacks a systemic approach for policies and reforms, which is key in order to 
address the current challenges. There is need to have a well-geared transition agenda, 
supported by the European Commission at all levels of governance. 

  Priority  setting  in  research  &  innovation  was  not  considered  part  of  ERA. 
Hitherto the concept of ERA was used to address mostly horizontal issues relevant for 
the R&I landscape. In particular it does not capture important developments, such as 
the digital economy and artificial intelligence, and it could strengthen relations with, 
for  example,  competition  policies,  state  aid,  innovation  policy,  education,  skills  and 
other policy areas.  

  Regarding  international  cooperation,  despite  many  positive  developments,  ERA 
countries  still  face  several  challenges,  including  a  lack  of  financial  and  human 
resources dedicated to establishing  and managing international partnerships.  Efforts 
to attract the best international talent with the objective to overcome labour shortages, 
strengthen research capabilities, boost innovation and deal with grand challenges need 
to be increased43. 

  Besides, ERA also lacks recognition of its achievements. Such missing or reduced 
attribution of success – which is linked to the lack of clear and quantifiable objectives 
as  well  as    poorly  developed  monitoring  and  assessment  practices  –  “limits  the 
ownership  of  actors  in  the  complex  multi-level  system”44.  As  the  recent  ERAC 
Opinion on the Future of ERA pointed out: “The actual and perceived contributions of 
effective  ERA  policies  at  EU,  national  and  regional  levels  to  competitiveness  and 

39 See ERA Progress Report 2018, p. 8. 
40 See ERA Progress Report 2018, p. 11. 
41 See ERA Progress Report 2018, p. 8. 
42 ERAC Opinion on the Future of the ERA, Annex 1, p. 11. 
43 See ERA Progress Report 2018, p. 13. 
44 ERAC Opinion on the Future of the ERA, Annex 1, p. 11. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
‘welfare’  (quality  of  life  for  EU  citizens)  cannot  be  attributed  and  consequently, 
additional  coordination  efforts  are  often  seen  as  a  burden  and  not  as  an  asset. 
Empirical  evidence  suggests  that  this  attribution  challenge  can  eventually  be 
overcome by demonstrating the added value through joint actions”45. 

To sum up, 20 years after its launch, ERA is an established, well-known political framework 
that  stimulates  cross-border  joint  R&I  action  and  provokes  policy  reform  as  the  section  on 
ERA achievements has shown. It has provided important building blocks for ensuring the free 
circulation  of  researchers,  knowledge  and  technology.  However,  ERA  needs  to  adapt 
continuously to changing social, ecological, and economic circumstances as it otherwise loses 
attention, commitment, and purpose, and, most importantly, it also needs to deal with priority 
setting in R&I policies. 

1.2  A changing world 

R&I activities are carried out and R&I policies and ERA measures are developed in a 
context that has changed dramatically over the past years. While the Covid-19 pandemic 
has been disrupting our society only during the past months, Europe has been facing global 
long-term changes that are reducing our choices for the future. These changes include climate 
change,  loss  of  biodiversity,  ageing  population,  and  increasing  inequalities.  The  EU  has 
committed to climate neutrality by 2050, and recently proposed46 an EU-wide, economy-wide 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  reduction  target  by  2030  compared  to  1990  of  at  least  55% 
including  emissions and  removals. Accelerating research  and innovation  and improving the 
collaboration between the private and public R&I in the Member States towards early market 
deployment  of  clean  technology  solutions  is  vital  for  reaching  this  target  and  provides  an 
economic opportunity for the EU.  

Against this backdrop, the current way we produce and consume is not sustainable: currently, 
no country in the  world  seems  to  meet  basic needs for its  citizens at  a  globally sustainable 
level of resource use (see Figure 3), and industry is often more part of the problem than part 
of the solution. It is crucial that we understand what these changes mean for R&I: how they 
affect  R&I,  but  also  how  R&I  can  contribute  to  addressing  the  challenges  they  entail,  by 
providing  solutions,  by  enabling  a  better  understanding,  and  by  making  our  society  more 
resilient in the long term (Ricci et al., 2017). 

45 ERAC Opinion on the Future of the ERA, Annex 1, p. 11. 
46 COM(2020) 562 “Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition – Investing in a climate-neutral future for the 
benefit of our people” 

13 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 3. Doughnut representation of biophysical boundaries and social thresholds (EU) 

Source: https://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/ 
Note: Orange wedges show social performance relative to a threshold associated with meeting basic needs (blue circle), light 
blue wedges show resource use relative to a biophysical boundary associated with sustainability (green circle). Wedges with 
a dashed edge extend beyond the chart area. Ideally, a country would have orange wedges that reach the social threshold and 
light blue wedges within the biophysical boundary. This graphic is based on Kate Raworth’s work on Doughnut Economics 

Europe  is  facing  several  deep  changes  that  are  relevant  for  R&I  policy,  including  the 
following: 

  The COVID-19 crisis is unprecedented and the world has been struggling to contain 
the pandemic.  It  has disrupted our lives,  economy  and society. While  R&I  is  at the 
core  of  the  response  to  the  pandemic  itself  in  the  areas  of  virology,  vaccines 
development,  treatments  and  diagnostics  (see  Box  3  for  a  first  coordinated  response 
under the ERAvsCorona Action Plan), it will be crucial also in the economic recovery 
from  the  crisis,  not  only  to  spur  economic  activity,  but  also  accelerate  the  twin 
transitions that our planet and society need - a new economy for health, wellbeing and 
equality  in  a  broad  sense  (physical,  mental,  skills,  gender,  social,  environmental  and 
economic  aspects).  R&I  can  also  help  building  system-wide  resilience. 
Technologies  already  help  alleviate,  at  least  partially,  the  severity  of  the  economic 
shock,  with  digital  technologies  being  at  the  core  of  business  continuity  in  several 
sectors.  It  is  of  paramount  importance  to  invest  in  making  our  society  and  economy 
stronger,  more  resilient,  sustainable  and  capable  of  a  rapid  and  integrated  response 
drawing  on  the  latest  scientific  discoveries,  ensuring  equal  access  to  healthcare, 
education  and  ICT  across  the  EU,  and  social  and  economic  support  to  its  most 
vulnerable populations (Borunsky, Correia et al, 2020). 

14 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4. R&I and the economic recovery from the Covid-19 crisis47 

Source: Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU, 2020 (European Commission, 2020) 

Box 3. ERAvsCorona 

The first ERAvsCorona Action Plan is a pragmatic48 and coordinated response to the Covid-
19  crisis  and  results  from  dialogues  between  the  Commission  services  and  the  national 
ministries. Also Associated Countries are consulted and contribute with concrete actions. It 
covers  first  short-term  coordinated  actions  only.  It  sets  out  key  measures  the  Commission 
services and the Member States are activating now to coordinate, share and jointly increase 
support  for  research  &  innovation,  in  line  with  the  objectives  and  tools  of  the  European 
Research  Area.  Coordination  is  also  an  important  prerequisite  for  stepping  up  global 
cooperation,  essential  to  tackle  corona-related  issues.  It  will  be  updated  regularly  by  the 
Commission  services  and national  administrations with  other R&I coordinated actions that 
can be taken in the short, medium and longer term.  

It includes 10 priority actions for coordinated R&I actions: 
1.  Coordination of R&I funding against the Coronavirus 
2.  Extending  and  supporting  large  EU  wide  clinical  trials  for  clinical  management  of 

Coronavirus patients 

3.  New  funding  for  innovative  and  rapid  health-related  approaches  to  respond  to 
coronavirus  and  deliver  quick  results  relevant  to  society  and  a  higher  level  of 

47  The  Summer  2020  Economic  Forecast  of  the  European  Commission  projects  that  the  EU  economy  will 
experience a recession of historic proportions in 2020, with a forecasted contraction of 8.3%. 
48  During  an  informal  videoconference  of  7  April  2020,  Ministers  responsible  for  research  and  innovation 
supported the first 10 priority actions of the first ERAvsCorona Action Plan. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
preparedness of health systems 

4.  Increasing support to innovative companies 
5.  Creating  opportunities  for  other  funding  sources  to  contribute  to  R&I  actions  on 

Coronavirus 

6.  Establish a one-stop shop for Coronavirus R&I funding 
7.  Establish an ad-hoc High Level R&I Task Force on the Coronavirus 
8.  Access to Research Infrastructures 
9.  Research data sharing platform   
10. Pan-EU Hackathon to mobilise European innovators and civil society 

  Climate change poses an existential threat and requires enhanced ambition and 
greater climate action by the EU and at the global level49. The past five years were 
the  warmest  on  record.  Global  average  temperature  increased  by  1.1°C  above  pre-
industrial  levels  by  2019.  The  impacts  of  global  warming  are  beyond  dispute,  with 
droughts,  storms,  and  other  weather  extremes  on  the  rise.  We  must  take  urgent  and 
sustained action to preserve the health, prosperity, and well-being of people in Europe 
and all over the world. The recent reports of the IPCC on climate change and 1.5°C 
global  warming,  land,  ocean  and  cryosphere  underlined  the  dire  impacts  if  climate 
change would not be halted. EU citizens are increasingly, and rightly, worried. Nine 
out of ten see climate change as a serious concern. A business-as-usual scenario, with 
continued pollution and greenhouse gas emissions50, largely driven by economic and 
population  growth,  will  lead  to  a  further  increase  in  global  warming,  ocean 
acidification,  desertification  and  changing  climate  pattern.  R&I  as  well  as  the 
development and uptake of eco-innovations will be key to achieving the climate 
goals.  Yet,  there is  an overall decrease in  national  budgets  devoted to  R&I in clean 
energy  technologies  and  a  lack  of  national  objectives  and  funding  targets  that  show 
concrete  and  relevant  pathways  to  2030  and  205051.  There  is  a  need  for  a  new 
strategic approach to clean energy R&I and competitiveness to rebuild the European 
economy  and  accelerate  the  innovation  and  market  uptake  of  new  technologies  and 
innovation  for climate neutrality.  Developing low-carbon technologies  and solutions 
for decarbonisation are needed – at affordable cost - to limit global climate change to 
well  below  2  °C,  pursuing  efforts  to  limit  it  to  1.5  °C,  and  thus  to  mitigate  the 
consequences  of  climate  change,  but  also  to  ensure  that  Europe  emerges  as  a 
technological  and  industrial  leader  in  the  green  transition.  R&I  can  provide  a  better 
understanding  of  the  challenges  related  to  climate  change  and  the  ongoing 
degradation  of  the  natural  environment,  including  loss  of  biodiversity.  It  can  also 
provide better comprehension of the economic and social impacts of climate change, 
promote  the  shift  from  linear  production  to  a  circular  economy,  and  support  the 

49 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/41123/17-18-euco-final-conclusions-en.pdf  
50 Greenhouse gas emissions increased by 100 % since 1980, raising average global temperature by at least 0.7 
degree (IPBES, 2019). 
51  Communication  COM(2020)  564  final  “An  EU-wide  assessment  of  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plans  – 
Driving forward the green transition and promoting economic recovery through integrated energy and climate 
planning” 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
development  of  inclusive  solutions  ensuring  just  transition  to  a  resilient,  climate 
neutral economy. 

Figure 5. Global GHG emissions and global average temperature change (with median 
probability) 

Source: GECO 2018 (POLES-JRC 2018; MAGICC online) Note:  The NDC scenario assumes that the global average rate 
of decarbonisation implied by the NDCs in 2020–2030 is maintained over 2030–2050.  

  Digital technologies, including notably artificial intelligence (AI), are revolutionising 
at  an  unprecedented  speed  the  way  we  live,  work  and  innovate  (Figure  6)  and  pose 
challenges in terms of data privacy and security. Digitalisation is also transforming 
R&I.  All  areas  of  research  are  becoming  data-intensive,  increasingly  relying  upon 
and  generating  big  data.  Technology,  notably  in  the  business-to-consumer  (B2C) 
segment,  is  spreading  faster  than  ever  due  to  the  transition  from  physical  to  digital 
goods  combined  with  network  effects  in  the  age  of  digital  transformation.  The 
convergence  of  the  digital  and  physical  worlds  is  increasing  innovation  complexity 
and  leading  to  deep-tech  science-driven  innovations  (European  Commission,  2020). 
There  is  increasing  industry  (sales)  concentration  and  markups  over  time  (in  North 
America  and  to  a  less  extent  in  Europe),  not  confined  to  digital-intensive  sectors 
(Calligaris  et  al.,  2018).  Digitalisation  is  also  having  major  educational  and  social 
impacts, demanding increased efforts in the development of digital skills, in particular 
women and girls’, and close attention paid to ensuring a just transformation, as well as 
unbiased and fair AI processes. 

17 

 
 
 
Figure 6. Time for new products and services to reach 100 million users, by year of 
launch 

Source:    DG  Research  and  Innovation,  adapted  from  BCG  (2015)  and  based  on  ITU  (Telephone  and  Mobile  phone), 
Scientific  American  (World  Wide  Web),  Internet  Live  Stats,  Fortune  (iTunes),  Facebook,  Wired  (Whatsapp),  Techcrunch 
(Instagram), AppMtr.com (Candy Crush Saga),  arinsider.co (Pokemon Go), Searchengineisland (Twitter). Note:  iTunes: 
number  of  accounts;  Facebook:  monthly  active  users;  Whatsapp:  active  users;  Instagram:  monthly  users;  Candy  Crush 
Saga: Facebook users only; Pokemon Go: number of downloads; Twitter: active users; Skype: registered users. 
Note: The Internet was the driver of many developments in the digital sphere. 

  People  are  increasingly  worried  that  new  technologies  may  exacerbate  social  and 
geographical  inequalities  through  job  and  wage  polarisation,  income  disparities, 
regional  disparities,  and  ‘winner  takes  most’  markets  and  industries.  Overall, 
compared to other countries, Europe is a relatively equal place to live. This situation 
is largely driven by Europe’s distribution of incomes and resources. Nevertheless, EU 
income  inequality  has  increased  during  the  last  two  decades  (Figure  7)52  and  the 
gender pay gap and gender employment gap remains significant53 including in R&I54. 
These  evolutions  challenge  the  view  that  high  competitiveness  and  strong 
investments  in  R&I  automatically  lead  to  more  equality,  driven  by  higher 
growth  and  more  jobs  with  benefits  for  all.  There  is  growing  awareness  that 
competitiveness  and  inclusiveness  must  go  hand  in  hand.  Recent  evidence  suggests 
that  overly  high  levels  of  inequality  are  not  economically,  socially  or  politically 

52 The Gini Index for market income (before taxes and social transfers) in the EU rose from 46 in 1995 to 48.4 
in 2016, being larger than Japan (42 in 2015) and Korea  (34 in 2016) but lower than the United States (50.8 in 
2016). 
53 In 2017, the  gender employment  gap stood at 11%,  with 68.2 % of  women across the EU being employed 
compared to 79.2 % of men. The gender pay gap in the EU stands at 16% and has only changed minimally over 
the last decade. Source: Eurostat.  
54 Women employed in scientific R&D activities earned on average 17% less than their male colleagues in 2014. 
Ref.  She  Figures  2018:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9540ffa1-4478-11e9-a8ed-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
sustainable (Iammarino et al., 2019; IMF, 2018; OECD 2019). If there is no diffusion 
of innovation, there is a risk that the benefits of innovation will be limited to skilled 
individuals,  areas  or  companies  with  strong  R&I  assets.  Evidence  focusing  on  top 
income inequality and its interplay with innovation shows that technological change is 
associated  with  a  higher  share  of  income  for  the  entrepreneur,  at  the  expense  of 
workers’ compensation hence increasing the top inequalities (Aghion et al., 2016).  

Figure 7. EU - Gini index of inequality - market income and disposable income (1995 = 
100), 1995-2016 

Source:  Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU, 2020 (European Commission, 2020) based on Eurostat. 
Note: (1)EU is the weighted average of the values for the 27 EU Member States 

  Another trend that directly relates to R&I is demographic change, in particular the 
EU’s ageing population.  In 2018, 20% of the EU population  was aged  65  years or 
over.  By 2100, the share of people  aged 80  years or more is  expected to more than 
double,  reaching  14.9%  of  the  entire  population55.  An  ageing  population  is  not  a 
phenomenon specific to the EU as the entire planet is ageing. However, one continent 
stands  apart:  Africa,  in  particular  sub-Saharan  Africa,  presents  very  young 
demographics  and  will  be  the  demographic  engine  of  the  world  in  the  21st  century 
(EPRS,  2020).  This  trend  has  several  consequences  for  R&I.  First,  it  means  that 
R&I will be increasingly expected to address the need for ageing-related innovations, 
as  ageing  will  involve  changes  in  lifestyle  and  a  growing  demand  for  specific 
products and services. There will be a greater need for R&I to address ageing-related 
illnesses,  support  active  ageing  and  foster  technologies  such  as  robotics  and 
neurosciences  which  can  provide  support  to  the  elderly56.  Second,  productivity  will 
need to  increase to  compensate for the declining share of the population  in  working 

55 Eurostat. 
56 OECD STI Outlook 2016. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                           
age, together with inflows of high-skilled migrants, especially in the case of an ageing 
R&I workforce. 

Figure 8. EU age pyramid, 2019(1) and 2100(2) (as % of total population) 

Source:  DG Research and Innovation based on Eurostat. Notes: (1)Provisions (2) Projections (EUROPOP2019). 

The  Sustainable  Development  Goals  provide  an  overarching  framework  for  action  to 
address  these  changes  (Figure  9).  In  this  framework,  economic,  social,  and  environmental 
sustainability aspects are not separate and build upon one another: a prosperous and efficient 
economy  thrives  within  a  healthy,  inclusive  and  resilient  society,  and  both  depend  on  a 
healthy  biosphere.  The  interconnected  nature  of  these  issues  calls  for  a  deep 
transformation of our systems, in particular agro-food, energy and transport systems. This 
sustainability  transformation  is  an  unprecedented  governance  challenge  at  all  levels,  from 
local to global. It results from the combined effect of the urgency, the scale of the necessary 
transformations, the complexity and the interdependence of issues in a context of fragility and 
unpredictability.  It  is  essential  that  this  transformation  is  founded  on  education  that  will 
empower  and  equip  current  and  future  generations  with  knowledge,  skills,  values  and 
behaviours for sustainable development.  

20 

 
 
 
Figure 9. Sustainable Development Goals 

Source: Stockholm Resilience Centre 

R&I  are  key  levers  for  the  transformation  required  to  address  SDGs.  It  will  need  to 
interact  with  other  levers,  such  as  governance,  economy  and  finance,  and  individual  and 
collective action, in order to bring about this transformation (United Nations, 2019). Hence, 
R&I is a cornerstone for a robust European project in a global context that can accelerate the 
transition to sustainable development, while improving our well-being, reducing inequalities 
and ensuring longer-term prosperity: 

  R&I  is  needed  to  produce  novel  solutions  in  areas  like  health,  digital  technologies, 
industrial  transformation,  resilient  societies,  natural  resources,  energy,  mobility, 
environment, food, low-carbon economy and security. R&I solutions also enable both 
economic  and  environmental  efficiency  to  be  improved  while  developing  new 
sustainable  ways  to  satisfy  human  needs  and  wellbeing,  in  an  inclusive  manner, 
leaving no one behind.  

  R&I helps to build the necessary knowledge and understanding of the phenomena to 

be addressed.  

  R&I, in particular frontier research, can strengthen the resilience of our economy and 
society by building a reservoir of knowledge over the long term (Ricci et al., 2017).  

R&I can become a compass helping the EU to co-create a common route. R&I can also be the 
engine  room  for  answers  and  solutions  in  the  transformation  towards  sustainability, 
contributing to solving challenges at the global level. 

21 

 
 
 
 
2  Setting objectives for R&I under ERA 

R&I  policy  plays  a pivotal  role  in  the  transition  towards  competitive  sustainability,  in 
line  with  President  von  der  Leyen’s  Political  Guidelines  and  the  new  strategy  for  Europe’s 
Growth laid out  in the European  Green Deal  and elaborated in  the New  Industrial Strategy 
and  the  Digital  Package.  R&I  acts  both  as  driver  and  enabler  for  addressing  the  global 
challenges  Europe  is  facing,  and  for  grasping  the  opportunities  ahead.  A  renewed 
transformative  R&I  policy  could  pave  the  way  for  sustainable,  inclusive  and  competitive 
European  societies  and  economies  of  the  future.  Indeed,  a  new  strategic  approach  to  clean 
energy R&I and competitiveness is needed to rebuild the European economy and accelerate 
the innovation and market uptake of new technologies and innovation for climate neutrality. 
Both EU and national R&I policies as well as funding and national industrial strategies need 
to be better aligned with energy and climate objectives. 

Recent literature shows there is increased awareness that a new R&I policy framework 
is  required to bring the transformation needed to face  the global  megatrends that are 
changing  our  societies  and  economies  at  an  unprecedented  speed.  Neither  the  ‘market 
failure  approach’  rationale  nor  the  ‘systemic  failure  approach’  that  shaped  traditional  R&I 
policy – aiming at delivering economic growth and jobs  – do allow to coordinate and drive 
the direction of change. While economic growth has substantially improved living conditions 
worldwide, lifting millions from poverty, it has often failed to be inclusive57 – leaving some 
people  and  regions  behind  (Iammarino  et  al.,  2019;  European  Commission,  2020)  or  to 
respect the boundaries of our planet (Raworth, 2017). Similarly, the view that all innovations 
are necessarily good, i.e. leading to economic growth with benefits for the whole society, has 
proven  to  be  misleading  (Kalff  and  Renda,  2019).  Therefore  an  R&I  policy  aiming  at 
delivering accelerated transformative change to address social, economic and environmental 
challenges would need to strive for more than to provide a level playing field to and foster 
linkages between R&I performers (Biggeri and Ferrannini, 2020). 

A  transformative  R&I  policy  framework  enables  the  shaping  of  technological  and 
societal  change,  focussing  R&I  efforts  on  achieving  sustainable  development  for  all 
(Lundin  and  Schwaag  Serger,  2018;  Mazzucato,  2018;  Biggeri  and  Ferrannini,  2020).  A 
transformative policy framework aiming at achieving the SDGs, would foster a competitive 
economy,  while  preserving  our  planet  and  making  sure  not  to  leave  anyone  behind.  This 
includes not only developing  new solutions, technologies and inventions, but also changing 
production  and  consumption  systems,  including  mobility,  energy  production,  food  and 
agriculture  and  other  resources  throughout  society  and  industry  (Schot  and  Steinmueller, 
2018).  A transformative framework presents several characteristics:  

  Directionality. A transformative R&I policy framework identifies, shapes and adjusts 
the direction R&I efforts should follow to bring the transformative change required by 
the transition towards sustainable development. Tackling the grand challenges of our 
time  requires  a  clear  “design”  process  developed  in  the  public  sector,  aimed  at 
translating ambitions and aspirations in clear missions and pathways that will channel 

57  Similarly,  a  R&I  system  exclusively  seeking  excellence  without  being  wholly  inclusive  may  have  negative 
consequences on long term cohesion of societies and European regions. See the ERAC opinion on the future of 
ERA  on  the  need  for  an  inclusive  R&I  policy:  https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1201-2020-
INIT/en/pdf. 

22 

 
 
                                                           
the  allocation  of  resources.  For  example,  missions  define  clear  objectives  providing 
the  framework  for  R&I  transformative  policy  actions,  without  being  prescriptive  in 
the way these objectives will be achieved by research innovative efforts (Mazzucato, 
2019).  

  Whole of governance approach. Ensuring that policies are aligned at different levels 
of governance) and across policy domains58 – i.e. a whole of government approach – 
is of paramount importance for an integrated transition towards sustainability and to 
ensure  an  EU-wide  systemic  change.  This  approach  is  in  line  with  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity that the European Research Area was founded on. It would also ensure 
that  R&I  policy  works  in  close  synergy  across  all  levels  of  government  (local, 
regional, national and global), introducing initiatives with the most EU added value at 
the European level linked to and building on national and regional policy responses,. 
This  would  require  a  stronger  governance  framework  to  align  and  fully  exploit  the 
capacities and opportunities of action at every level of R&I policy. 

  Experimentation,  multidisciplinarity  and  foresight.  Public  institutions  need  to  be 
flexible,  experiment59,  anticipate  and  swiftly  react  to  the  challenges  ahead.  While 
there  always  will  be  need  for  evidence-based  policy,  transformative  policymaking 
requires a different mindset to be able to create landscapes rather than purely fixing 
markets  (Mazzucato,  2019).  Policy  actors  will  benefit  from  a  multidisciplinary 
approach,  while  using  strategic  foresight  to  anticipate  changes  and  experiment  with 
new policy tools.  

  Co-creation,  learning  and  societal  engagement  (see  also  Box  4).  A  continuous 
engagement with civil society and the R&I community strengthens directionality and 
stimulates  experimentation.  It  enables  a  collective  discovery  process  that  builds 
approved  and  achievable  pathways  to  sustainability,  thriving  in  diversity  without 
looking  for  consensus  (Schot  and  Steinmueller,  2018).  While  the  identification  of  a 
direction  takes  place  at  the  policy  level,  a  transformative  R&I  policy  is  a  larger 
partnership  with  citizens,  stakeholders,  industry  and  other  actors.  The  move  from 
communicating  the  research  results  and  delivering  innovations  to  an  active 
engagement with society and industry allows for a better monitoring and assessment 
of  policy  design,  implementation  and  results  as  well  as  delivering  genuine  social 
innovation (Mazzucato, 2019), including enhanced trust in new solutions.  

Box 4. Citizen’s engagement under the new ERA 

  The  Commission  will  organise  with  Member  States  and  stakeholders  Europe-wide 
participatory  citizen  science  campaigns 
raise  awareness  and  networking, 
crowdsourcing  platforms  and  pan-European  hackathons,  in  particular  in  the  context  of 
Horizon  Europe  Missions.  The  Commission  will  develop  with  Member  States  best 
practices  to  open  up  science  and  innovation  to  citizens  and  youth.  (Action  13  in  the 
Communication) 

to 

58  This  requires  coordination  between  R&I  and  other  sectoral  policies  (from  industrial  policies  to  education, 
finance, enterprise, trade, regional or employment), engaging both a wider set of stakeholder and society in the 
policy making process, and alignment between all levels of governance (local, regional, national and European). 
59  Experimentation  could  be  applied  in  trialling  and  assess  new  instruments  to  assure  the  effectiveness  of  the 
policy (Bravo-Biosca, 2016). 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 10. Transformative R&I policy for ERA 

Source: DG Research and Innovation, European Commission. 

So  how  can  ERA  help  address  these  important  challenges?  In  order  to  become 
transformative, ERA needs to both deepen and broaden its scope. Transformative R&I policy 
calls ERA to aim for four strategic and interdependent objectives, which are developed in the 
next sections: 

1.  Prioritising investments and reforms:  an essential element  of  a transformative R&I 
policy will be to put in place the necessary tools for R&I to lead the way towards the 
green and digital transitions of Europe’s society and economy.  

2.  Improving  access  to  excellence:  competitiveness  and  inclusiveness  are  two  sides  of 
the same coin  and must go together. A transformative R&I policy needs to embrace 
this and strive towards excellence by exploiting the full potential of the ERA, tackling 
existing R&I divides between and within Member States.  

3.  Translating  R&I  results  into  the  economy:  a  transformative  R&I  policy  needs  to 
build  on  a  competitive  leadership  in  the  global  race  for  technology  by  fostering 
disruptive and breakthrough research and innovation that will contribute to a concept 
of competitive sustainability. 

4.  Deepening  the  ERA:  R&I  policy  will  not  be  able  to  drive  the  transformation  of 
Europe if it does not manage to make decisive progress on deepening and completing 
the single market  of knowledge in  order to make it far more  effective,  efficient and 
creative. 

ERA will continue being underpinned by the principle of excellence. This means supporting 
the  best  R&I  efforts  to  push  out  the  frontiers  of  knowledge  and  ensuring  that  the  best 
entrepreneurial minds can connect to the outcomes of research and turn them into innovations 
that are beneficial to our society and our economy in the most efficient way possible. 

Several  instruments  at  the  EU,  national  and  regional  level  will  contribute  to  implement  a 
future transformative ERA (see Box 5).  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Box 5. Instruments for a transformative ERA 

Different  EU  instruments  will  contribute  to  the  development  of  a  transformative  ERA. 
Among them, the EU’s R&I Framework Programme is the main instrument for investing in 
R&I at the EU level and directing investment towards EU political priorities. There are also 
strong  synergies  between  R&I  policy  and  Cohesion  policy,  notably  to  address  the  R&I 
divide, roll-out and deployment through smart specialisation strategies. The following table 
highlights the main EU instruments that will support the transformative ERA. 

Figure 11.  Main instruments that will contribute to the development of a 
transformative ERA 

Instrument 

Link to R&I 

Budget  2021-2027 
based 
on 
European Council 
agreement60 

Investment 
Horizon Europe, including 

-  Missions 

-  European partnerships 

-  European 

Innovation 

Council 

-  Widening 

The main EU instrument for investing in R&I 

EUR 90.955 bn 

to 

direction 

funding  without 

Providing 
prescribing the exact ways and means 
Providing  a  framework  for  programme  level 
collaboration in the EU 
Supporting  innovators  with  breakthrough  ideas 
and market creating innovations 
Increasing the link of underperforming Member 
States with their better performing peers 

Euratom  Research  and  Training 
Programme 

Developing  comprehensive  actions  to  support 
nuclear research and training activities 

Cohesion  policy  via  European 
Regional  Development 
Fund 
(ERDF) 
European  Agricultural  Guarantee 
(EAGF)  and  European 
Fund 
Agricultural  Fund 
for  Rural 
Development (EAFRD) 
European  Social  Fund  Plus 
(ESF+) 
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)  Supporting 

Supporting  “A  smarter  Europe  by  promotive 
innovative and smart economic transformation” 

and 

use, 
Fostering 
implementation  and  deployment  of  innovative 
solutions in agriculture, forestry and rural areas 

promoting 

the 

Investing 
development, as well as in social innovation 

human 

capital 

and 

in 

skills 

innovative 
the  deployment  of 
technologies  in  the  fields  of  transport,  energy 
and digital physical infrastructures 

Erasmus+ 

Just Transition Fund 

European Space Programme 

60 Current prices. 

-that 

Supporting  mobility,  cooperation  and  policy 
integrate  higher  education, 
initiatives 
research and innovation 
Ensure  that  the  transition  towards  a  climate-
neutral economy  happens in  a fair  way,  leaving 
no one behind, supporting R&I investments that 
foster the transfer of advanced technologies 
Developing  breakthrough  solutions 
research  and 

through 
in  particular  for 

innovation, 

25 

EUR 1.981 bn 

EUR 322.285 bn  

EUR 291.089 bn 

EUR 95.640 bn 

EUR 99.261 bn 

EUR 12.830 bn 
(Transport) 
EUR 5.838 bn 
(Energy) 
EUR 2.065 bn 
(Digital) 
EUR 24.017  bn 

EUR 19.321 bn 

EUR 14.880 bn 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
sustainable  food  and  natural  resources,  climate 
monitoring,  smart  cities,  automated  vehicles, 
security  and  disaster  management.  Contributing 
to the European Open Science Cloud 
Providing blended finance for innovators, where 
there is a high level of risk 
Supporting  the  deployment  of  innovative  new 
technologies  and  solutions 
the  field  of 
security research 

in 

InvestEU Fund 

Internal  Security  Fund  and  the 
instrument for border management 
as  part  of  the  Integrated  Border 
Management Fund  

European  Maritime  and  Fisheries 
Fund (EMFF) 

Digital Europe Programme (DEP)  Ensuring  a  wide  use  of  digital  technologies 
across  the  economy  and  society  and  integrating 
digital across all the relevant policy fields 
Supporting the rolling out of novel technologies 
and  innovative  products,  processes  and  services 
in the fields of marine and maritime policy 
Taking  up  and  applying  R&I  results  for 
environment  and  climate  policy  and  helping 
deploying them at national and regional scale 
Promoting entrepreneurship and the creation and 
growth of companies 

Programme  for  Environment  and 
Climate Action (LIFE) 

Single Market Programme 

EUR 9.142 bn 

EUR 1.931 bn 
(Internal Security 
Fund) 
EUR 6.248 bn 
(Integrated Border 
Management 
Fund) 
EUR 7.588 bn 

EUR 6.108 bn 

EUR 5.432 bn 

EUR 4.208 bn 

Reforms 
European Semester 

Policy Support Facility (PSF) 

Reform 

Structural 
Programme (SRSP) 
Regulation 
Innovation principle 

Support 

Guiding  investments  and  support  the  necessary  reforms  in  Member 
States and regions. 
Supporting  policy  mutual  learning  and  helping  Member  States  to 
improve their R&I policies and reform their R&I system 
Helping EU countries to design and carry out structural reforms as part 
of their efforts to support job creation and sustainable growth 

Helping to ensure that EU legislation is analysed and designed so as to 
encourage  innovation  to  deliver  social,  environmental  and  economic 
benefits 

A  central  part  of  the  funding  from  Next  Generation  EU  (EUR  750  bn61)  will  consist  in 
supporting public investment and key structural reforms in the Member States. This covers 
most notably the Recovery and Resilience Facility (budget of EUR 672.5 bn62) that will fund 
Member States recovery and resilience plans. 

At the national level, most national public funding consists of ‘block’ funding to universities 
and  public  research  organisations  and  only  a  fraction  is  in  the  form  of  project-based 
competitive funding similar to  the EU R&I Framework Programme.  Increasingly, Member 
States complement direct R&D funding with indirect support in the form of tax incentives to 
promote business  R&D and stimulate innovation and economic  growth  (see section 2.1.1). 
The amount of foregone revenue varies across member states, ranging from 0.30% of GDP 
in  countries  strongly  relying  on  tax  incentives,  e.g.  France  and  Belgium,  to  shares  below 
0.01%, e.g. Sweden and Poland63 . 

61 Budget agreed by the European Council in 2018 prices. 
62 Budget agreed by the European Council in 2018 prices. 
63 Source: OECD R&D tax incentives database, http://www.oecd.org/sti/rd-tax-stats.htm 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 12. Overview of main instruments used at national level 

Direct and indirect 
financing 

Demand pull instruments 

Technology adoption and 
generation instruments 

Early-stage support for 
innovative ventures 
Cooperation 
Framework conditions 

Grants and matching grants for innovation and/or R&D projects 
Vouchers for innovation and collaboration 
Loans & guarantees  for innovation  Tax incentives for  R&D (e.g. tax credits) 
Equity finance for  innovative enterprises 
Public procurement for R&D 
Pre-commercial procurement 
Supplier development programmes 
Corporate open innovation 
Business advisory services 
Technology extension services 
Technology centres 
Incubators 
Accelerators 
Supporting clusters and networks for innovation 
Inducement (incentive  setting); recognition  awards; appropriate  IPR; standard 
setting;  quality infrastructure;  investing in education  / skills; ‘green cards’ for 
highly skilled  immigrants 

Source: EC-OECD STIP Compass, https://stip.oecd.org/stip.html 

2.1  Prioritising investments and reforms 

Box 6. ERAC opinion on prioritising investments and reforms 

The ERAC64 recommendation on the new ERA paradigm is to underline the importance of 
ambitious  and  sustained  investments  in  R&I,  possibly  applying  a  ‘smart  directionality’65 
policy approach for knowledge production and exploitation. It should embrace societal goals 
and place a greater focus on responsible use of knowledge and research results for societal 
purposes in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of national, including regional, R&I 
systems.  

What is it about? 

Steering  and  alignment  of  public  and  private  investments  with  mission-setting  and 
societal  engagement  in  the  definition  of  collective  priorities  is  the  starting  point  of 
transformative  R&I  policy  in  the  SDGs  framework  (Schot  and  Steinmueller,  2018; 
Biggeri  and  Ferrannini,  2020). Such directionality, shaping the evolution of R&I pathways, 
needs to be based on sound evidence drawing from current and past trends or to be nurtured 
by  foresight  exercises  (Schaper-Rinkel,  2013).  This  implies  steering  R&I  activities  in 
strategic technological fields to address specific challenges without prescribing the way they 
should be addressed.  

National funding targets should refer to concrete and relevant climate pathways to 2030 
and 2050. The Commission proposed that Horizon Europe includes a 35% funding target for 
climate  change,  and  that  there  is  a  substantial  increase  in  investment  in  core  digital 

64  ERAC 1201/20. ERAC Opinion on the future of the ERA https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-
1201-2020-INIT/en/pdf  
65  The  role  of  policy  as  setting  the  direction  of  change  beneficial  to  society.  Mazzucato,  M.  (2015b).  From 
Market Fixing to Market-Creating: A New Framework for Economic Policy (No. 2015-25). SPRU-Science and 
Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.   

27 

 
 
  
 
                                                           
technologies.  Member States should consider replicating this ambition for green and digital 
investment in their national programmes. 

In this context, an agile, responsive and socially accountable transformative R&I policy  
must  encompass  the  coordination  of  instruments,  an  alignment  of  objectives  and  the 
synchronisation  of  investments.  In  the  European  case,  this  calls  for  a  partnership  of  the 
European  Commission,  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries  and  strengthened 
coordination between local, national and EU policies building on commonly agreed priorities. 
This translates into co-creation processes, which allow policy makers, stakeholders, citizens, 
industry and capital markets to ensure that a directional R&I policy foregoes costly solutions 
not delivering to societal needs. 

Box 7. National policy examples related to investment prioritisation  

Sweden 

In  2017,  Sweden  adopted  a  new  climate  policy  framework  that  consists  of  a  climate  act, 
climate  targets  and  a  climate  policy  council.  Sweden's  long-term  target  is  to  have  zero  net 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  by  2045  at  the  latest66.  The  last  national  R&I  strategy  of  2016-
2020  already  aimed  at  directing  3%  of  total  government  budget  allocations  for  R&D 
(GBARD)  towards  six  prioritised  areas,  including  “Climate”  and  “Sustainable  Spatial 
Planning”. In 2015, Sweden allocated 1.5% of total GBARD to environmental topics.  

France 
A recent French law, 2019-1147 on energy and climate, in its article 1 aims to promote an 
R&I  policy  that  favours  the  adaptation  of  business  sectors  to  the  energy  transition67.  The 
French National Research Strategy 2015-2020, among its nine strategic areas, stipulates the 
priority  of  “Clean,  safe  and  effective  energy”.  In  2015,  environmental  research  in  France 
accounted for 3.3% of GBARD, clearly above the OECD average of 1.7%. 

The Netherlands  

In  2019,  the  Dutch  Cabinet  decided  to  implement  a  mission-driven  innovation  policy.  In 
total,  eight  ministries,  together  with  entrepreneurs  and  knowledge  institutions  from  nine 
selected  sectors,  have  established  25  missions.  These  will  strengthen  the  Dutch  economy 
within four societal challenges: 1. Energy Transition & Sustainability, 2. Agriculture, Water 
& Food, 3. Health & Care, and 4. Security & Key Enabling Technologies.  

“Mission-Driven  Top  Sector  Policy”  was  launched  to  work  on  concrete  Knowledge  and 
Innovation  Agendas  (KIAs),  one  for  each  of  the  challenges,  and  an  additional  one  on  key 
enabling technologies. On the basis of the KIAs, Knowledge and Innovation Contracts were 
drawn up.  

Germany 

In  2018,  the  German  Federal  Government  has  adopted  its  new  High-Tech  Strategy  2025 
(HTS  2025).  Since  2006,  the  High-Tech-Strategy  defines  the  strategic  framework  of  the 

66 http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/climate-change-laws-of-the-world/. 
67 http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/climate-change-laws-of-the-world/. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Federal Government’s research and innovation policy. It has three fields of action, namely 
i)  tackling  societal  challenges  of  our  time,  ii)  developing  Germany’s  future  competencies 
and iii) establishing an open innovation and venture culture. In the HTS 2025, the Federal 
Government  has  set  six thematic  priorities:  1.  Health  and  Care,  2.  Sustainability,  Climate 
Protection and Energy, 3. Mobility, 4. Urban and Rural Areas, 5. Safety and Security, and 
6. Economy and Work 4.0. Twelve missions have been set under the new HTS 2025.  

2.1.1  Facilitating EU and national investment towards the EU’s priorities 

Indicator68 

Latest value 

International 
comparison 

Trend 

Assessment of 
trend 

R&D intensity 

2.19% of 
GDP (2018) 

Lower than US, JP and 
KR. Similar to CN.  

Business R&D 
intensity 

1.45% of 
GDP (2018) 

Lower than US, CN, JP 
and KR 

Public R&D intensity  

0.72% of 
GDP (2018) 

Higher than US, CN and 
JP. Lower than KR  

Government budget 
allocations for R&D 
(GBARD)69 

0.64% of 
GDP (2018) 

Lower than KR and JP. 
Higher than US. 

Tax incentives 70 

0.106% of 
GDP (2017) 

Lower than KR and JP. 
Higher than US and CN.   

+1.3% per year since 
2010 
+1.4% per year since 
2015 
+2.2% per year since 
2010 
+2.4% per year since 
2015 
-0.2% per year since 
2010 
-1% per year since  
2015 
-1.6% per year since 
2009 
+0% per year since 2015 

+4.9% per year since 
2010 
+6% per year since  
2015 

GBARD (EUR) 
allocated to Europe-
wide transnational, 
as well as bilateral 
or multilateral, public 
R&D programmes 
per FTE researcher 
in the public sector  

3120 (2018) 

/ 

+2.8% per year since 
2012 
+0.6% per year since 
2015 

 but 

SLOWDOWN 

2.1.1.1  Progress so far  

One of the key goals of the EU during the last couple of decades has been to increase the 
levels  of  R&D  and  innovation  investment,  to  provide  a  stimulus  to  the  EU’s  growth  and 
competitiveness71.  At  the  2002  Barcelona  Summit72,  the  European  Council  agreed  that  the 

68 All indicators are drawn from Eurostat, unless differently specified. EU figures. 
69 Government budget allocation for R&D. 
70 Note that GBARD is not capturing indirect government funding for R&D, such as R&D tax incentives, which 
are  increasingly  used  by  a  number  of  ERA  countries.  Hence,  to  complement  GBARD,  tax  incentives  are 
included as a separate indicator. Source: OECD R&D tax incentives database, http://oe.cd/rdtax. 
71 R&I are drivers of industrial competitiveness, job creation and labour productivity growth. R&I accounted for 
62% of EU productivity growth between 2010 and 2016 (European Commission, 2020). 
72  Barcelona  European  Council  15-16  March  2002.  Presidency  conclusions.  http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_PRES-02-930_en.htm 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
EU should set the objective of devoting 3% of its GDP to R&D activities by 2010. In 2010 
this target became one of the five headline targets of Europe 2020 Strategy73.  

Although R&D expenditure in the EU has been increasing annually by 1.3% since 2010, 
it remains lower than the 3% target, and visibly below the performance of most of its 
main  competitors,  especially  in  terms  of  private  investments.  At  the  EU  level,  R&D 
intensity increased from 1.97% in 2010 to 2.19 % in 2018, leading to a persistent EUR 110 
bn  gap  vis-à-vis  the  3%  target  (Borunsky,  Dumitrescu  Goranov,  et  at.,  2020).  Asian 
countries, in particular China and South Korea, are increasing their investments at a rate that 
is eclipsing both the EU and the United States. Similarly, the European companies among the 
top  2500  global  industry  investors  in  R&D  have  been  losing  ground  to  Chinese  and  US 
businesses  on  key  future  technologies,  in  particular  in  the  digital  sector  (Hernandéz  et  al., 
2019).  At  the  national  level,  R&D  intensity  increased  over  the  2000-2018  period  in  24 
Member States (Figure 13) but significant heterogeneity persists across European countries. 
Only seven member states stand above the EU average intensity (Sweden, Austria, Germany, 
Denmark, Belgium, Finland and France). 

Figure 13. Public and business R&D intensity 2018 and total R&D intensity 2000 

Source: DG Research and Innovation based on Eurostat 
Note: (1) EL, SE: 2001. HR, MT: 2002. 

EU  business  R&D  intensity  (at  1.45%  of  GDP)  is  significantly  lower  in  comparison  to 
other  main  economies.  To  promote  business  R&D  and  encourage  innovation,  apart  from 
direct support in the form of subsidies and grants, governments are increasingly using R&D 
tax  incentives.  Total  public  support  for  business  R&D74  increased  substantially  in  the 
EU, from 0.13 % of GDP in 2007 to 0.2 % of GDP in 2017. Figure 14 shows that the level 
of  public  support  for  business  R&D  grew  in  most  Member  States  between  2007  and  2017, 

73 COM(2010) 2020 final. ‘EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’.  
74 Total public support for business R&D is comprised of direct funding (e.g. grants, loans, procurement) and 
indirect support (R&D tax incentives).  

30 

0,000,501,001,502,002,503,003,504,004,50R&D intensityBusiness R&D intensity, 2018Public R&D intensity, 2018Total R&D intensity, 2000(1) 
 
 
                                                           
particularly through the greater use of R&D tax incentives. In 2017, tax incentives for R&D 
in  the  EU  accounted  for  55  %  of  all  public  support  for  business  R&D.  The  level  of  the 
forgone tax revenues in EU almost tripled since 2007, from 0.04 % of GDP in 2007 to 
0.11 % in 2017. In the EU, the number of countries offering R&D tax relief increased from 
12 in 2000 to 21 in 2018 (Appelt et al., 2019).  

Figure 14. Public support for business R&D as % of GDP, 2007 and 2017 

DG 

and 

Research 

OECD 
Source: 
Notes:  (1)  Estimated  direct  public  support  for  business  R&D  includes  direct  government  funding,  funding  by  higher 
education  and  public  sector  funding  from  abroad.  (2)US:  2014  for  tax  incentives  only;  AU:  2015;  FR:  2016  for  tax 
incentives only; RO, UK: 2016; EL: 2015. (3)CH, TR: 2008; CN, MT: 2009; DE, EL: 2011. (4)The following countries have 
no tax incentives for R&D: BG, DE, EE, HR, CY, LU, CH. (5) Elements of estimation were involved in the compilation of the 
data. 

Innovation, 

Eurostat 

based 

and 

on 

Direct project funding is used more often than other instruments to support R&I policies 
for sustainable development.  In addition to direct measures, some countries are considering 
the  possibility  to  use  tax  incentives  to  incentivise  private  actors’  behaviour  towards 
SDGs.  For  instance,  Belgium  introduced  a  tax  credit  for  environmentally  friendly  R&D 
investments75. However, the tax incentives regime may make it difficult for governments to 
have  the  desired  impact  on  steering  private  investment  towards  sustainability  and  systemic 
change.  

With  a  value  of  0.72%  of  GDP  in  2018,  the  EU  has  one  of  the  highest  public  R&D 
intensities worldwide. Public efforts are of a critical importance. They raise the quality of 
public science and contribute to  advance the overall stock of publicly available knowledge, 
leveraging  and  benefitting  private  investments,  most  notably  in  the  more  innovative  and 
dynamic  industries  (Dosi  and  Stiglitz,  2014;  Mazzucato,  2013;  Archibugi  and  Filippetti, 
2018).  

75 https://www.oecd.org/sti/rd-tax-stats-belgium.pdf. 

31 

0,000,050,100,150,200,250,300,350,400,45%Direct public support(1) for R&D, 2017(2)Indirect government support through tax incentives, 2017(2)Total financial support, 2007(3) 
 
 
                                                           
Public  investments  also  demonstrate  commitment  to  R&I  as  an  engine  of  prosperity  and 
affect the direction of further research. These positive effects of public R&D investments 
may rise the case for further increasing the current public R&D efforts in the EU. At the 
EU level, gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) financed by public sector76 in 2017 
was 0.7% of GDP. In addition, tax incentives accounted for 0.106% of GDP in 2017. Hence, 
publicly funded R&D in the EU equalled 0.81% of GDP in 2017.  

Already in 2009, in the Lund Declaration77, the European Research Area was called to 
address grand challenges and to turn Europe into an eco-friendly economy. This became 
a second ERA Priority with a focus on transnational scientific collaboration to address grand 
socioeconomic challenges78. The national GBARD allocated to EU-wide transnational public 
R&D has an annual growth rate of 2.8% in 2012-2018, resulting in more than 700 joint calls 
with  a  cumulative  budget  of  more  than  EUR  7  billion  in  national  investments  since  2004. 
However, almost all countries have seen a slowdown in recent years.  

At  the  national  level,  many  Member  States  have  taken  policy  initiatives  in  support  of 
R&I for SDGs. Many of these initiatives combine the objective of addressing sustainability 
challenges  with  strengthening  industry  competitiveness.  In  most  countries,  science, 
technology and innovation strategies address demographic change, health, environment, and 
smart transport and cities (OECD, 2018).  

Member  States  are  slowly  steering  their  finances  towards  societal  and  environmental 
challenges.  Figure  15  shows  an  increase  in  energy-related  R&D  budget  appropriations 
(GBARD)79 at the European level. Growth in the budget allocation for total civil, health and 
environmental-related  R&D  is  more  modest.  In  contrast,  the  R&D  budget  for  defence  has 
decreased significantly in recent years. Yet, most R&I strategies of Member States are not 
clearly linked to the SDGs Agendas, the Green Deal or other relevant EU priorities80.  

https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/5641328c-33f8-11e9-

76 GERD financed by GOV, ABR_EC and ABR_INT. 
77 https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/31013-swedish-presidency-research-must-focus-on-grand-challenges 
78 
8d04-01aa75ed71a1 
79 As GBARD measures only direct budget provisions it does not account for the R&D performed.  
80 While R&I strategies have more general objectives, the sustainability turn is more visible only on the specific 
programme  level  with  environmental  sustainability  being  more  prominent  than  the  societal  and  economic 
dimensions (green growth, smart cities and energy technologies).    

32 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 15. Evolution of government budget allocations to R&D in the EU (2007 = 100), 
2007-2018  

Source: Science, research and innovation performance of the EU, 2020 (European Commission, 2020), based on Eurostat. 

At the EU level, R&I plays a prominent role in the President’s Political Guidelines and 
in  the  European  Green  Deal  as  a  driver  and  enabler  of  the  economic,  environmental 
and social transitions. President von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines call explicitly for the 
need to invest record amounts in R&I for Europe to become the world’s first climate-neutral 
continent  and  to  achieve  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs).  The  European  Green 
Deal  is  the  most  prominent  and  important  initiative  to  achieve  these  goals  –  it  is  the  new 
European Strategy for Growth. The Sustainable Europe Investment Plan, which will trigger 
EUR  1  trillion  of  investments  over  the  next  decade,  is  a  key  component  of  this  strategy. 
Moreover, the European Commission will develop an EU R&I investment agendas in areas 
with a focus on enabling better market uptake of innovative technologies and solutions. These 
agendas  will  encompass  the  whole  set  of  funding  instruments  (from  grants  to  financial 
instruments) and relevant EU programmes81 (e.g., the InvestEU Fund, VentureEU, the Digital 
Europe Programme, the EU Structural Funds, the Budgetary Instrument for Convergence and 
Competitiveness)  in  an  integrated  fashion,  offering  connections  to  national  or  regional 
funding.  

The  vast  majority  of  the  Horizon  2020  programme  investments  foster  the  Sustainable 
Development  Agenda.  Potentially,  84%  of  the  Horizon  2020  investments  relate  to  at  least 
one  of  the  SDGs.  Horizon  Europe  will  put  greater  emphasis  on  directionality  through 
Missions and European Partnerships, with the aim to prioritise R&I investments in areas of 
high  EU  added-value  (Box  8).  Additionally,  the  target  for  climate  action  is  proposed  to 
remain at 35%. The Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs)82 run by the European 
Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), also contributed to this agenda. 

Box  8.  Approaches  and  modalities  in  Horizon  Europe  in  support  of  directionality  – 
Missions and European Partnerships  

Missions  will  provide  direction  to  funding  without  prescribing  the  exact  ways  and  means. 

81 Box 8 presents main EU instruments to support the transformative ERA.  
82  KICs  promote  climate  change,  sustainable  energy,  food  for  the  future,  and  smart,  environmentally-friendly 
and integrated urban transport. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                           
Strongly  factoring  the  SDGs  into  their  design  and  implementation,  missions  will  be 
excellence-based and impact driven R&I actions across disciplines and sectors. 

Horizon  Europe  introduces  a  limited  number  of  R&I  missions  (e.g.  on  climate  change, 
healthy oceans, climate neutral and smart cities, and soil health and food) to replace and build 
on  the  Horizon  2020  Focus  Areas83.  Missions  will  be  more  closely  co-designed  with  end-
users  and  citizens,  thus  prioritizing  public  engagement  and  involvement.  The  mission-
oriented  approach  will  work  across  clusters  to  promote  system-wide  transformation 
(European Commission, 2018c). 

European  Partnerships  provide  a  framework  for  programme  level  collaboration  in  the 
EU.  They  allow  to  translate  common  EU  priorities  into  concrete  roadmaps  and 
coordinated implementation of activities. A common R&I  agenda, shared and committed 
by  all  partners  in  the  partnership,  is  a  key  feature  that  distinguishes  European  Partnerships 
from other collaborative research instruments and places them in a unique position to address 
transformational failures. Partners can represent a broad range of public and/or private actors, 
such as research funders and organisations, universities, industry, bodies with a public service 
remit at local, regional, national or international level or civil society. Compared to the past84, 
Horizon  Europe  introduces  a  more  strategic  approach  to  partnerships  allowing  a  new 
quality in programme level collaboration and ensuring that partnerships are better equipped to 
deliver on EU priorities. To deliver on the EU-wide transitions, the Commission proposes to 
step  up  joint  efforts  in  aligning  investments  by  doubling  the  share  of  competitive  R&I 
funding invested through R&I Partnerships in transnational calls by 2030.   

The Horizon Europe Part ‘Reforming and enhancing the EU research and innovation system” 
also  opens  up  a  possibility  for    programme  level  collaboration  between  research  and 
innovation programme of Member States on priorities of their choice, with a clear focus 
on the implementation of transnational joint activities including calls. 

National funding targets should refer to concrete and relevant climate pathways to 2030 
and 2050. The Commission proposed that Horizon Europe includes a 35% funding target for 
climate  change,  and  that  there  is  a  substantial  increase  in  investment  in  core  digital 
technologies.  Member States should consider replicating this ambition for green and digital 
investment in their national programmes. 

Finally,  top industry R&D investors appear to be major players in the development of 
green  inventions  at  EPO85  and  USPTO86.  Based  on  the  EU  Industrial  R&D  Investment 
Scoreboard (Hernández et al., 2019), more than half (53%) of the still limited share (9%) of 
green  patents  registered  at  these  offices  between  2012  and  2015  belongs  to  the  top  R&D 
companies.  Environmental  regulations  seem  to  play  an  important  driving  role  also  for 
top  R&D  investors.  The  intensity  of  green  over  total  patents  of  these  top  players  is  the 

83 They will be well-defined and self-standing programme parts, as opposed to the Focus Areas. 
84 Taking also into account Council conclusions (2017) "From the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 towards 
the 
(1210/18), 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1210-2018-INIT/en/pdf 
85 European Patent Office 
86 United States Patent and Trademark Office  

recommendations 

Programme" 

Framework 

ERAC 

ninth 

and 

34 

 
 
 
                                                           
largest in regulatory driven sectors, such as transport-related industries. EU companies show 
comparative advantages in most green technologies, with the exception of ICTs for energy. 

2.1.1.2  Outstanding challenges 

Although the EU has not fulfilled its R&D investment ambition, the 3% target is a strong 
indicator  within  the  European  Semester  that  has  provided  a  stimulus  to  EU’s  R&I,  growth 
and  competitiveness  policy.  It  is  also  an  essential  compass  that  can  help  accelerate  the 
transition towards an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable Europe. Hence, 
continuation  of  the  3%  R&D  investment  target  and  joint  reflection  with  MS  on  the 
qualification  of  EU  and  national  R&I  investment  targets  is  crucial.  The  EU  R&D  intensity 
would need to increase by 37% to reach 3% of GDP87. Applying this increase to public R&D 
effort means that R&D public support, direct and indirect, would represent more than 1% of 
GDP. 

A  whole  of  a  government  approach88  required  by  the  transformative  change  and  the 
transition towards sustainable development is a significant challenge for policy.  Efforts 
to  better  coordinate  relevant  national  policies  and  resources  will  need  to  be  increased  if 
maximum  advantage  is  to  be  taken  from  a  simpler  and  more  impact-oriented  EU  R&I 
partnership  landscape.  This  requires  clear  national  governance  structures  and  a  robust  and 
comprehensive  framework  for  evaluating  and  monitoring  the  impact  of  P2P  networks  at 
national  level89,90.  Participation  in  transnational  R&I  initiatives,  such  as  European 
Partnerships  –  precisely  due  to  their  cross-cutting  nature  –  requires  significant 
coordination  effort  across  ministries  and  sectors  to  ensure  a  strong  link  between  the 
common ambition and national policies. While countries have been taking steps to improve 
their  participation,  there  are  still  important  challenges  such  as  securing  funding,  as  the 
average annual investment in joint programmes and partnerships in the period 2015-2018 was 
just below 1% of total public funding91 for R&D in the EU. Other outstanding challenges 
include  commitments  and  robust  evidence  on  impacts,  weak  links  with  national  policy 
priorities and end-users.   

Reducing  the  innovation  gap  between  European  regions  is  a key  task  of EU  Cohesion 
policy,  where  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period  about  EUR  65  billion  has  been 
mobilised in support of R&I, which is about 30% of all Cohesion Policy funding. This was 
used  to  support  the  implementation  of  smart  specialisation  strategies  that  provide  direction 
for R&I funding by  exploiting the strengths  and  potential of the regions.  Greater effort  has 
been put into creating the eco-systems that encourage innovation, research and development 
and entrepreneurship by mobilising the quadruple helix. 

87 R&D represents 2.19 of EU GDP (2018). 
88  This  requires  coordination  between  R&I  and  other  sectoral  policies  (from  industrial  policies  to  education, 
finance, enterprise, trade, regional or employment), engaging both a wider set of stakeholder and society in the 
policymaking process, and alignment between all levels of governance (local, regional, national and European). 
89 
https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/5641328c-33f8-11e9-
8d04-01aa75ed71a1  
90 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/research_and_innovation/era/era_progress_report_2018-technical.pdf 
91  Annual 
the  period  2015-2018  was  around  €  800  million,  https://www.era-
investment 
learn.eu/documents/annualreport2019 

in 

35 

 
 
                                                           
Besides  investments  efforts,  the  European  Commission  has  refocused  the  European 
Semester  into  an  instrument  that  integrates  the  SDGs92,93.  The  European  Semester  has 
increasingly recognised the role of R&I to stimulate productivity, economic growth and job 
creation  in  Europe.  Integrating  the  SDGs  could  encourage  Member  States  to  foster  the 
transition towards a sustainable economy and society underpinned by stronger investments in 
R&I and identifying country-specific R&I investment needs. The Recovery and Resilience 
Facility  should  also  contribute  to  encourage  Member  States  to  undertake  reforms  and 
investments in new technologies and in a number of European flagships initiatives. 

2.1.1.3  Expected implications under a new ERA 

Actions under a new ERA  

The Commission: 

  Proposes  that  Member  States  re-affirm  the  3%  GDP  EU  R&I  investment  target  and 
update  it  to  reflect  new  EU  priorities,  including  a  new  EU  1.25%  GDP  public  effort 
target  to  be  achieved  by  Member  States  by  2030  in  an  EU  coordinated  manner,  to 
leverage and incentivise private investments. (Action 1) 

  Support  Member  States  in  the  coordination  and  prioritisation  of  national  R&I  funding, 
and reforms, between countries and with the EU through dialogue and a dedicated ERA 
Forum  for  Transition94.  This  will  focus  Member  States  common  efforts,  to  voluntarily 
commit  5%  of  national  public  R&I  funding  to  joint  programmes  and  European 
partnerships by 2030. (Action 2) 

Expected implications: 

  Increased impact on global challenges and EU policy priorities: Coordination  and 
alignment of policies and  investments will increase  societal impact for end-users and 
citizens,  by  prioritising  investments  and  setting  directions  to  achieve  the  SDGs 
(European  Commission,  2018c).  R&I  also  holds  an  intergenerational  responsibility: 
cooperation  on  concrete 
low-carbon 
technologies,  climate  science  and  policies  as  well  as  adaption,  amongst  others,  will 
not  only  contribute  to  global  solutions,  but  also  provide  a  basis  for  progressive 
exchanges between science and policy-making. 

innovation  of 

technological 

topics  of 

  More efficient EU R&I funding: the EU will increase the impact of its co-funding 
by  focusing  on  the  agreed  EU  strategic  priorities,  including  Missions  and  European 

92 See “Political Guidelines” of the new Commission President. 
93  The  adoption  of  the  Autumn  package  on  17  December  2019  included  the  Annual  Sustainable  Growth 
Strategy, replacing the Annual Growth Survey. 
94  A  Commission-driven  forum  for  discussion  with  Member  States  of  the  4  priorities  of  the  new  European 
Research  Area.  It  would  help  focus  the  new  European  Research  Area  process  by  working  with  the  Member 
States to prepare the research and innovation angle of the national recovery plans, to maximize the benefit from 
cohesion  funds,  to  implement  the  industrial  strategy  through  work  on  industrial  ecosystems  and  to  discuss 
regulatory and non regulatory initiatives to create a favorable framework for research and innovation in the EU. 
It will complement the Horizon Europe Strategic Programming process and offer a platform for the development 
of ambitious joint policy and funding actions in strategic areas and their alignment with other policies. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Partnerships. Hence the overall impact of EU R&I funding is expected to increase by 
leveraging  additional 
investments  on  EU  policy  priorities,  by  providing 
‘directionality’  to  these  investments,  and  by  reaching  out  to  a  broader  set  of 
stakeholders, including investors seeking sustainable solutions and markets.  

  Improved  cross-sectoral  and  cross-disciplinary  cooperation:  The  achievement  of 
the ambitious goals of Horizon Europe, including its research infrastructures, missions 
and European Partnerships will require expertise from different sectors and disciplines 
to  come  together,  resulting  in  system-wide  transformation.  For  example,  climate 
action  requires  meaningful  collaboration  across  sectors  such  as  urban  planning, 
construction,  energy  efficiency  in  buildings,  mobility,  behavioural  aspects,  food, 
environmental capacity, and in many other areas (European Commission, 2018c). 
  More  links  between  science  and  society:  R&I  should  mobilize  citizens,  local 
communities,  stakeholders  and  users  in  their  co-design  and  co-creation,  building  on 
already existing initiatives. Missions are a good way to mobilize citizens and promote 
experimentation.  Also,  R&I partnerships  can act  as experimental platforms  to  at  the 
local  level95.  This  increases  the  relevance  of  science  and  innovation  for  the  society 
and it can stimulate the societal uptake of innovative solutions and leverage business 
investment.  

2.2 

 Improving access to excellence 

Box 9. Council and ERAC on improving access to excellence 
Council  conclusions96  note  with  concern  the  unequal  development  across  the  European 
Research  Area  and  in  this  context  underline  the  need  for  making  ERA  better  equipped  to 
address  the  challenges.  ERAC97  stresses  that  inclusiveness  must  be  based  on  a  broad 
understanding and applies with  regard to  geography,  culture, people   and institutions from 
academia,  RTOs  and  industry  as  well  as  from  the  public  sector  and  society.  ERA  policies 
and  actions  at  all  levels  should  increase  inclusiveness,  openness,  brain  circulation  and 
integrity, pursuing scientific excellence throughout Europe. 

What is it about? 

There  are  concerns  that  changes  in  innovation  dynamics  coupled  with  changes  on  the 
labour market contribute to growing social and geographical inequalities. The observed 
changes  are  driven  by  technology-induced  long-term  structural  changes,  as  well  as 
cumulating  skills  gaps  and  mismatches  accompanied  by  higher  increasing  income 
disparities and mobility of skilled professionals (Sekmokas et al., 2020). Moreover, economic 
activity  and innovation  have become more  concentrated in  core cities  and regions, while 
others face difficulties to develop home-grown innovation and to maintain or strengthen the 
skilled  labour  force.  Since  the  impact  of  these  challenges  on  R&I  systems  varies  across 
Member  States,  there  is  a  need  to  devise  different  measures  for  strengthening  excellence 
across the EU. 

95 E.g. BBI bioefinery flagships, or FCH, which has supported the deployment of Fuel Cell buses in nine cities 
and refueling stations serving bus fleets in cities across Europe. There is also a new partnership on agro-ecology 
living labs aiming to co-create solutions with users and integrate results in real life settings. 
96 14989/18 Council Conclusions on the governance of the European Research Area (30 November 2018). 
97 ERAC 1201/20 ERAC Opinion on the future of the ERA (23 January 2020).  

37 

 
 
                                                           
the  challenge  remains 

Persistent challenges, such as various R&I performance across EU countries,  regional-
specific  competitive  advantages  and  synergetic  approaches  to  R&I  funding  remain  at 
the top of the agenda. In order to support innovation and growth in Europe’s countries and 
through  smart 
regions, 
prioritisation of R&I investments and to approach investment strategies with an inter-regional 
perspective.  A  broader  strategic  planning  and  implementation  in  synergy  with  other  R&I 
relevant programmes, policies and activities at all levels has a potential to improve efficiency 
of  R&I  investments,  strengthen  excellence,  and  align  actions  with  the  broader  goals  of  EU 
policy.  

their  competitiveness 

to  strengthen 

On-going  changes  in  the  economy,  transforming  skills  demand,  coupled  with  slow 
reaction  time  in  education  and  training  systems  may  result  in  cumulating  skills  gaps 
and imbalances  that  require increased intersectoral  mobility. This  could  be particularly 
the case when technological changes transform skills demand faster compared to supply-side 
changes.  It  may  also  happen  when  the  changes  between  supply  and  demand  are  not  fully 
symmetrical. In general, innovation patterns and economic performance across countries are 
determined  largely  by  their  ability  to  ensure  overall  high  level  of  standard  in  the  initial 
education  as  well  as  by  effective  workforce  skills  formation  systems  (Toner,  2011). 
Comparing the share of young individuals having a formal qualification with the share of ICT 
jobs  suggests that only slightly over a third of  ICT jobs  are occupied by individuals with a 
degree in ICT. Even in countries with a large number of ICT jobs (i.e. Estonia or Sweden), 
there seem to be only relatively few individuals with ICT education (Figure 16). 

Figure 16. Mobility of young professionals (15-34 years) in ICT sector, 2019 

14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%

ICT specialists in ICT jobs

Non-ICT graduates in ICT jobs

ICT graduates in non-ICT jobs

Source:  European Commission, DG EMPL based on Eurostat (special extraction from EU LFS) 
Note: Comparison of shares of individuals holding a formal qualification with the share of ICT jobs (though limited to 15-34 
year old job holders). 
2.2.1  Advancing Europe together 

Indicator 

Latest value 

Trend 

Share of Horizon 2020 
funding to Widening 
Member States98 

8.4% (2019)  

+1.9 p.p. since 2015 (6.5% in 
2015)  

Assessment of 
trend 

98 DG Research & Innovation, Corda database. Current Widening Member States are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, 
Czechia,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia  and 
Slovenia. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                           
209 (2019) 

+7.2% compared to 2015 

35% (2018) 

+15% since 2016 

Seal of Excellence 
awards99 
Share of developing 
ESFRI Projects and 
operational ESFRI 
Landmarks in which a 
Member State/Associate 
Country is a partner100 

2.2.1.1  Progress so far  

Increased  inequalities  as  well  as  underperforming  productivity  and  growth  dynamics 
were  among  the  main  challenges  on  Europe’s  political  agenda  in  recent  years.  The 
outbreak of coronavirus and the resulting economic contraction will only underline the sheer 
magnitude  of  these  challenges.  The  digital  transformation  of  our  economy  and  society 
coupled  with  strong  and  rising  network  effects  lead  to  “winner  takes  all”  dynamics.  In 
particular,  the  tendency  to  concentration  of  innovative  activities  stands  in  contrast  to  the 
variety of European research and innovation systems, which have the potential to reduce the 
existing  inequalities  and  reinforce  complementarities  across  Europe.  Nevertheless,  to  fulfil 
this  potential  and  to  advance  Europe  together,  R&I  systems  need  to  maximise  the 
effectiveness  at  all  levels  and  strengthen  their  quality  in  a  way  that  encompasses 
inclusiveness and collaboration. 

Low  investments  in  intangible  assets  and  low  overall  quality  of  the  scientific  and 
technological  systems  hinder  strong  innovation  performance  in  many  countries. 
Although some low-performing countries managed to increase their R&D investment, many 
of  these  rely  predominantly  on  foreign  financing  and  government  financing,  with  weaker 
contributions  from  private  R&D  investments  (European  Investment  Bank,  2018).  The 
translation of R&D investment into high quality scientific and innovation output is lagging, 
for  instance  when  compared  the  share  of  national  scientific  publications  with  the  top  10% 
most  highly  cited  publications.  The  low  innovation  performance  caused  by  insufficient 
quality  of  innovation  systems  may  further  exacerbate  due  to  limited  availability  of  highly 
skilled  or  educated  workers.  About  a  half  of  Member  States  registered  faster  declines  in 
university  students  between  2013  and  2017  than  the  EU  average,  in  case  of  Central  and 
Eastern  European  states  due  to  weak  demographic  developments.  (European  Commission, 
2020).  Such  developments  pose  a  challenge  to  maintain  and  strengthen  the  skilled  labour 
force,  while  further  improving  quality  of  scientific  excellence  and  support  home-grown 
innovation.  

Intra-EU differences persist in investments in the so-called “economic competencies”101, 
which  may  hinder  future  productivity  developments  and  exacerbate  innovation  inequalities 
(European  Commission,  2020).  The  shares  of  investments  in  economic  competencies  show 
wide intra-EU disparities with investments above 3 % of GDP between 2009 and 2017 in the 
Netherlands, Belgium, and Ireland and shares of investments below 1.5 % of GDP in Croatia, 

99 DG Research & Innovation, Corda database 
100 ERA progress Report 2018. Data provided by the ESFRI Executive Secretary. 
101  Such  as  management  quality,  flexible  organisational  structures,  workforce  training,  and  brand  and  market 
research  which  are  essential  ingredients  for  reaping  the  full  productivity  benefits  from  investments  in  both 
tangible and intangible assets such as R&D (Corrado et al., 2005) 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Spain  and  Greece.  An  assessment  of  the  bottlenecks  to  firm  investments  in  the  lowest-
investing  countries  is  crucial  to  boost  both  absorption  capacity  and  the  uptake  of  new, 
productivity-enhancing technologies both in research and innovation activities.  

Differences in the take-up of digital technologies also persist across countries, industries 
and firms. Slightly more than 1 in 10 enterprises in the EU performed big data analyses as 
part of their work in 2018. In Malta, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, 20 % or more of 
all  enterprises  performed  some  sort  of  big  data  analysis,  while  in  Cyprus,  Austria  and 
Hungary,  less  than  7  %  of  enterprises  did  so  (Eurostat).  In  most  Member  States,  big  data 
practices seem less diffused, and with differences by firm size, with large companies clearly 
making more use of big data analytics than medium-sized and, in particular, small firms. 26 
%  of  EU  enterprises  used  cloud  computing  in  2018,  mostly  for  e-mail  and  storage  of  files 
(Eurostat).  However, EU disparities are quite significant,  ranging  from over 55% uptake in 
Finland,  Sweden  and  Denmark,  to  less  than  15%  in  Latvia,  Greece,  Poland,  Romania  and 
Bulgaria. 

 Economic  activity  and  innovation  have  become  more  concentrated  in  core  cities  and 
regions,  which  could  potentially  lead  to  a  less  economically  and  socially  cohesive  Europe. 
Capital cities are then the headquarters for large organisations and tend to have a relatively 
high concentration of graduate jobs in dynamic or well-paid areas (Eurostat, 2019). Many of 
the new jobs were created in new industries, e.g. the number of jobs in the ICT sector for the 
period 2010-2017 increased by 72 % in Bucharest, 31 % in Berlin and 27 % in Stockholm102. 
Metropolitan areas in general tend to offer environment conducive to the introduction of new 
ideas, products and processes (European Commission, 2017). The divide is most apparent in 
the  increasing  gap  between  capitals  and  metropolitan  areas,  where  most  of  economic  and 
innovative  activities  are  concentrated,  on  the  one  hand,  and  declining  industrial  and 
peripheral  areas  experiencing  skilled  emigration  and  being  less  resilient  to  change,  on  the 
other hand.  

Participation patterns in the EU R&I Framework Programme suggest a concentration 
of funding that may slow down countries and regions in their efforts to narrow the R&I gap 
between countries: 

  An  analysis  of  the  network  of  participations  across  Framework  Programmes 
(European Commission, 2018d) shows a very dynamic structure,  which is gradually 
opening  towards  the  participation  of  newer  Member  States  and  where  the  most 
connected  countries  are  also  the  largest  ones.  Although  the  participation  network  is 
becoming  relatively  open,  there  is  still  room  for  improvements  in  connectivity  and 
centrality of several  countries with  lower R&I performance  (European Commission, 
2018b).  

  Newer  Member  States103  currently  represent  8.3  %  of  the  participations  in  Horizon 
2020  and  receive  5.6  %  of  the  overall  funding,  which  shows  a  slight  improvement 
from  the  7th  Framework  Programme  with  7.9  %  of  participations  and  4.2  %  of 

102 Employment by economic activity in NUTS2 regions. Estonia and Malta show even higher increases in ICT 
jobs. 
103 Defined as Member States accessing after 2004. On the other hand, Widening Member States are Bulgaria, 
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. 

40 

 
 
                                                           
funding.  Insufficient  R&D  investment  levels,  lack  of  synergies  between  certain 
Member  States’  research  systems  and  EU  research,  limited  access  to  existing 
networks or differential  wage levels between countries belong to the main causes of 
low participation(European Commission, 2017a). 

Targeted  widening  actions,  consisting  of  Teaming,  Twinning  and  ERA  Chairs,  COST 
networking actions and MSCA Widening Fellowships104, are in place to increase the link of 
underperforming Member States with their better performing peers through activities, such as 
short-term  staff  exchanges,  network  seminars  or  communication  activities  as  well  of  the 
development  of  new  or  modernisation  of  existing  centres  of  excellence.  Ongoing  projects 
capitalise  on  countries’  individual  strengths  with  the  objective  of  allowing  the  European 
Research Area to function in a more efficient and homogenous way (European Commission, 
2019). Furthermore, widening countries received 1065 ‘Seal of Excellence’ quality labels that 
help  proposals  to  find  funding  elsewhere  and  thus  support  synergies  with  other  funding 
programmes.  

Other instruments target low-performing countries and regions by dedicated activities. 
European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) developed an outreach strategy 
through Regional Innovation Scheme (EIT RIS), which is carried out through the activities 
of  the  knowledge  and  innovation  communities  (KICs).  Its  main  objective  is  to  support 
countries  and  regions  that  lag  behind  in  innovation  performance105  by  strengthening  their 
capacity for innovation and by bringing the EIT model to these regions. As part of the actions 
aiming  at  increasing  the  regional  impact  of  KICs  in  Horizon  Europe,  Regional  Innovation 
Scheme  activities  shall  become  mandatory  in  Horizon  Europe  and  an  integral  part  of  the 
KIC’s multi-annual strategy. 

Figure 17. Share of New Member States in Horizon 2020 and Framework Programme 7 
funding (inner circle) and participations (outer circle)  

Horizon 2020 

Framework Programme 7 

8,3% 

5,1% 

94,9% 

91,7% 

7,9% 

4,2% 

95,8% 

92,1% 

New Member States

Other States

New Member States

Other States

Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation- R&I Strategy and Foresight Unit, based on Corda. 

104 Established as a successful pilot project in 2018. 
105 Modest and moderate innovators as indicated by the European Innovation Scoreboard. 

41 

 
 
 
                                                           
2.2.1.2  Outstanding challenges 

Box 10. Examples of synergies 

  The  Bayerische  Forschungsallianz  (BayFor),  a  public  body  in  Bavaria  (DE) 
provides  comprehensive  advisory  services  on  EU  research  and  innovation  funding, 
helps putting together applications and looks for suitable project partners in order to 
achieve potential synergies. BayFor has succeeded in supporting H2020 applications 
in combination with  regional  research and innovation programmes through the 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  in  connection  with  Smart 
Specialisation  Strategies  (S3).  It  has  ensured  cooperation  and  coordination  among 
different  ERA-NETs  and/or  JPI  to  increase  synergies  between  cross-cutting  issues. 
Finally,  it  has  fostered  synergies  between  BBI  JU  actions  and  regional  spending 
activities under ESIF as  well as opportunities given by public financial instruments 
(e.g. EIB)106. 

  The  projects  JIVE  and  MEHRLIN  run  in  parallel  and  work  in  close 
cooperation to promote, deploy and commercialise hydrogen as alternative fuel, 
contributing to the European alternative fuel implementation strategy. This effort to 
develop  hydrogen  buses  (JIVE)  and  refuelling  stations  (MEHRLIN)  includes 
operating  real-pilot  hydrogen  refuelling  stations  at  seven  locations  along  four  Core 
Network Corridors of the trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T).  
Most  of  the  buses  co-funded  under  JIVE  will  refuel  at  stations  co-funded  under 
MEHRLIN. The JIVE and MEHRLIN projects will deploy in total 144 hydrogen fuel 
cell  buses  and  seven  large-scale  hydrogen  refuelling  stations  across  five  EU 
countries,  more  than  doubling  the  number  of  fuel  cell  buses  operating  in  Europe. 
While  both  project  received  EU  funding  (below)  the  project  mobilised  additional 
fund  through  national  funding  programmes,  regional  and  local  funding  and  the 
city of Riga secured European Investment Bank financing.   

JIVE project: €32M from the FCH2 JU under the EU Horizon 2020 

· 
·  MEHRLIN project: €5.5M from the Connecting Europe Facility 

The  key  challenge  is  to  address  the  differences  in  innovation  performance  across 
Europe, which requires long-term national and regional strategies that would maximise 
synergies. Since 2007, a number of instruments targeted reinforcement of R&I capacities in 
low  performing  countries.  The  main  expected  outputs  from  these  activities  related  to 
improved  institutional,  scientific  and  networking  capacities  of  centres  of  excellence  and 
research institutions. Specific measures introduced by Horizon 2020, such as teaming (aiming 
at institution-building) or twinning (aiming at networking) increased the attractiveness of the 
participating  institutions  for  international  excellent  researchers  and  boosted  its  capability  to 
compete  for  international  funding.  Furthermore,    instruments  such  as  the  Policy  Support 
Facility  provided  on-demand  advice  to  policy  makers  on  national  R&I  systems  and  thus 
allow  to  strengthen  framework  conditions  for  R&I.  Horizon  Europe  should  reinforce  the 
European  Research  Area  through  continuation  of  all  these  activities  that  pursue  sharing  of 
excellence  together  with  research  and  innovation  policy  reforms  (European  Commission, 
2018c).  

106 Source: Dr. Thomas Ammerl (BayFor) - Synergien nutzen – Möglichkeiten und Praxis. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Moreover,  increased  synergetic  approach  to  other  EU  funding  programmes  and  EU 
policies could particularly capitalise on R&I capacities built over the past decade in low 
performing countries. This requires combining resources in support of activities promoting 
human  capital  development,  introduction  of  innovative  technologies  and  new  business 
models  as  well  as  supporting  infrastructure  maintenance  and  development.  An  effective 
combination  of  the  ERDF  innovation  investments  under  the  smart  specialisation  priorities 
with world-class research and innovation initiatives supported by the Framework Programme 
could significantly improve the performance of lagging regions and strengthen the European 
Research Area as a whole. Cohesion policy develops new tools in order to offer opportunities 
to regions with similar smart specialisation priorities to develop complementary cooperation, 
share  infrastructure,  increase  impact  and  develop  joint  investment  projects.  Following  the 
success  of  the  Vanguard  initiative  and  Thematic  Smart  Specialisation  Platforms  (European 
Commission,  2017b),  the  newly  proposed  Cohesion  Policy  rules  create  the 'Interregional 
Innovation Investments' instrument, that provides new possibility for regions to develop joint 
investment  projects  (European  Commission,  2018a).  This  could  further  allow  regions  with 
matching  ‘smart  specialisation‘  assets  to  access  more  financial  support  and  involve  further 
policy-makers, researchers, businesses and other innovation actors.  

Synergies  need  to  be  understood  broadly  as,  for  example,  synergetic  approaches  can 
ensure  that  education  and  training  initiatives  complement  and  leverage  the  efforts  of 
R&I  for  greater  impact.  Such  a  systematic  approach  needs  to  make  use  of  packages  of 
support  instruments  at  the  European  level  covering  different  stages  of  research  and 
innovation developments, drawing upon multiple funding sources. The European Universities 
initiative  is  one  example  that  links  education,  research  and  innovation  at  policy  and 
programme  levels.  This  initiative  is  a  test  bed  for  the  transformation  of  higher  education 
institutions  in  Europe  to  empower  European  citizens  with  the  high-level  competences 
(knowledge,  skills,  attitudes)  necessary  for  their  personal,  social,  civic  and  professional 
development in a fast changing society. European Universities  is an Erasmus+ led initiative 
supporting EU and national reforms, which R&I transformation part is supported by a top-up 
from  the  R&I  programme.  Alliances  of  higher  education  institutions  also  receive  support 
through national funds and have the potential to secure funding from other European Funding 
programmes  in  order  to  achieve  their  ambitious  long-term  joint  strategy  and  deep 
cooperation.  In this respect, the European Universities is a prime initiative to ensure a broad 
and  coherent  approach  across  policy  fields  of  long-term  national  and  regional  strategies  in 
order to maximise synergies.  

Given  the  limited  number  of  instruments  enhancing  synergetic  approaches  at  the 
European  level,  the  development  of  synergies  between  national  and  EU  R&I 
programmes  requires  a  substantial  amount  of  work  and  efforts  starting  from  the 
strategic  programming  phase  up  to  the  implementation.  European  partnerships  will  be 
one of the key tools  for  developing synergies between the activities at  the EU and national 
level  as  they  allow  long-term  planning  and  have  resources  to  facilitate  this  work.  The  new 
opportunity  under  Horizon  Europe  to  co-fund  national  participation  from  Cohesion  policy 
funds could increase the participation rate of less active member states since a significant part 
of  R&I  funding  in  many  of  these  countries  stems  from  the  Structural  Funds.  Besides 
encouraging  certain  countries  to  participate  more  broadly  in  the  Framework  Programme,  it 
allows  to  concentrate  efforts  on  common  objectives  while  remaining  focused  on  priorities 

43 

 
 
identified  in  smart  specialisation  strategies  via  a  strong  bottom-up  participatory  process 
(entrepreneurial  discovery  process,  Foray  and  Geogana,  2013).  Member  States  and  regions 
could  profit  from  the  improved  strategic  planning  by  reflection  of  European  Partnerships’ 
priorities  when  developing  their  national  programmes  and  Smart  Specialisation  priorities. 
Such  an  approach  offers  more  possibilities  for  alignment  of  priorities,  complementarity  in 
funding and strengthening excellence.  

Another challenge is the promotion of innovation combined with more focus on the local 
context, which would trigger economic dynamism in less-developed regions. Place-based 
approach in promoting innovation, especially the diffusion and commercialisation of existing 
innovation  in  lagging  regions,  is  essential  and  should  be  supported  in  line  with  the 
specificities of each region and its current or possible comparative advantages as mapped in 
‘smart  specialisation  strategies’.  Effective  public  support  for  innovation  must  reflect  the 
specificities of both the national and regional innovation systems and build on these. The next 
generation of Cohesion policy programmes should allow for  targeting of specific resources 
to regions with specific focus on governance of smart specialisation (via its updated enabling 
conditions)  and  economic  transformation.  The  overall  effectiveness  of  the  Cohesion  policy 
investment in the domain of R&I should increase as the enabling condition relating to smart 
specialisation will also focus on effective functioning of national R&I systems. Nevertheless, 
institutional  quality  and  administrative  capacity  remain  a  fundamental  factor  behind  the 
performance  of  public  support  as  the  management  of  Cohesion  policy  involves  a  complex 
ecosystem  of  actors  –  from  multiple  levels  of  government,  to  private  firms  and  non-profit 
entities (OECD, 2020). In addition, when setting out their recovery and resilience plans with 
reform  and  investment  agendas,  Member  States  should  address  the  challenges  identified  in 
the  context  of  the  European  Semester.  The  new  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  will 
financially support such  reforms  and investments undertaken by Member States to  mitigate 
the  economic  and  social  impact  of  the  coronavirus  pandemic,  strengthening  resilience  and 
sustainability. 

Although innovation performance has increased for the European Union, disparities are 
growing  in  a  number  of  lagging  countries.  The  EU  improved  its  performance  by  8.8 
percentage points since 2011 and so did the majority of Member States, but the performance 
of modest innovators declined between 2011 and 2018, thus increasing the performance gap 
with  the  group  of  moderate  innovators.  For  example,  Bulgaria  recently  improved  its 
performance  by  2.4  percentage  points,  but  the  result  is  still  below  the  level  from  2011 
(European Commission,  2019b).  In many cases, the root cause lies in  a lack of vibrant  and 
robust  science  base  and  higher  education  systems.  The  fragmentation  of  the  public  science 
base  along  with  sub-optimal  funding  and  deficient  governance  regimes  damage  the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  or  research  and  education  (Nedeva,  2020).  Weak  science-
business links presents another issue that is pursued by governments in order to catch up with 
innovation leaders (Spiesberger, 2019).   

2.2.1.3  Expected implications under a new ERA 

Action under a new ERA  

The Commission 
  Proposes that Member States lagging behind the EU average R&D investment 

over GDP direct their investment efforts to increase their total investment in R&D by 

44 

 
 
 
50% in the next 5 years. The Commission will support Member States to reform their 
R&I policies, also by targeting technical assistance to this end. It will facilitate the 
coordination and complementarity of national and EU programmes, and contribute to the 
deployment of the recovery package. (Action 3) 

Expected implications: 

  Improved conditions for Framework Programme participation:  An efficient use 
of  cohesion  policy  funds  and  better  governance  policies  would  allow  countries  to 
reform  their R&I  systems.  A solid national  system  together  with  the R&I capacities 
built over the past decade could significantly improve conditions for participation in 
the Framework Programme projects (European Commission, 2018c). 

  Improved  use  of  Cohesion  policy  and  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  for 
R&I  funding  could  redirect  more  resources  towards  national  participation  in 
European  Partnerships,  leading  to  a  higher  involvement  of  certain  countries  and  to 
concentration of efforts on common objectives. 

  Complementary  and  sequential  funding  promoting  interregional  innovation 
investments  and  improving  local  capacities  for  R&I:  Synergies  across  funding 
programmes  will  allow  for  complementary  sources  of  funding  and  thus  more 
efficiently  fund  available  R&I  potential  of  Member  States  and  regions  (European 
Commission,  2017c).  Furthermore,  it  could  help  valorising  knowledge  produced 
through Horizon Europe locally. 

2.2.2  Nourishing talent for excellence 

Indicator107 

Forced moves of 
researchers 
(research options 
lack) 
Forced moves of 
researchers (career 
progress) 

Latest value 
(EU moves) 

International 
(non-EU moves) 

Trend (EU moves) 

Assessment of 
trend 

8.9 % (2019) 

2.2 % (2019) 

-3.6 p.p. since 2016 (12.5% 
in 2016) 

6.2 % (2019) 

6.7 % (2019) 

-0.2 p.p. since 2016 (6.4 % in 
2016) 

= 

2.2.2.1  Progress so far 

Circulation of talents across countries and regions continues to be unbalanced. There are 
vast differences between countries, with a higher share of inflow of researchers observed in 
higher-performing countries and an overall higher mobility of researchers from smaller R&I 
systems. Malta, Greece and Iceland have the highest share of researchers who have obtained 

107 Source: DG Research and Innovation, MORE survey. Distribution of >3 month mobile researchers in post-
PhD  career over  applicable  situation  for  their  last  instance  of  mobility,  for  EU  and  non-EU  moves.  Based  on 
question  72:  “Which  of  the  following  situations  would  you  say  is  most  applicable  to  your  last  instance  of 
mobility?” and question 62: “Please indicate the 3 most recent international steps/moves in the last ten years of 
your research career after  your PhD  up to (but excluding)  your current position in  which  you are employed.” 
(n=1,572). 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
PhDs in a foreign country, as well as lower inflows of foreign researchers. At the same time, 
Austria,  Switzerland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  have  the  highest  share  of  inflows  of 
researchers.  Luxembourg,  Ireland  and  Cyprus  present  both  high  inflows  of  researchers  and 
high  mobility  during  PhD  programmes.  In  general,  countries  with  higher  R&I 
performance tend to have a higher share of researchers who have obtained their PhD in 
another country, and higher researcher inflows. The size of the national research system 
also has an impact on researchers’ mobility. The asymmetry in mobility flows, while highly 
beneficial for hosting countries, may prove detrimental to lower-performing research systems 
if mobility is one directional (Veugelers, 2017). 

Escape  mobility  occurs  when  a  researcher  is  ‘pushed’  away  from  his  or  her 
environment because of lack of funding, of positions, etc. The concept of ‘escape mobility’ 
entails that researchers are mobile because they need to be so if they want to pursue a career 
as a researcher. These specific examples mobility concepts aim to capture the phenomena of 
human displacement, which understanding and quantifying is  often challenging. This  is  not 
only due to the legal limitations allowing the processing of personal data but also in view of 
the  asymmetries  of  information  existing  between  the  relevant  entities  and  public  services. 
Nevertheless, throughout the dedicated MORE studies, certain concepts have been developed 
that can account for the very plural reality of the phenomenon. About 6% of the researchers 
who have been mobile for more than 3 months in the last ten years indicated they felt forced 
to move because there were no options for a research career in their home country. This value 
presents  a  decline  of  3  percentage  points  compared  to  the  previous  MORE3  survey  from 
2016.  Another  6%  felt  forced  because  international  mobility  is  a  requirement  for  career 
progression in their home country (similar to the share of 7% observed in 2016). 

While  the  concept  of  forced  mobility  takes  into  account  the  more  radical  side  of  the 
phenomenon, there are other forms of mobility, such as “exchange mobility”, that cover 
larger  groups  of  researchers.  Exchange  mobility  refers  to  those  situations  in  which  a 
researcher  chooses  to  move  (positive  motivation,  self-chosen)  with  the  aim  of  exchanging 
knowledge  and  work  in  an  international  network,  or  with  the  aim  to  use  international 
experience as a way to boost his or her career. Researchers, who decided to move because of 
the opportunities derived from international mobility in terms of networking and knowledge 
exchange  represent  the  largest  group  of  mobile  researchers  (47%  in  2019).  These  values 
present averages at the Union level, but a closer look at certain areas shows strong disparities 
and a fragmentation of ERA. 

In 2019, about a third of the non-mobile researchers108 in PhD have ever considered to 
take part or all of their PhD in a country other than that in which they obtained their 
previous  degree.  More  precisely,  18%  of  them  never  searched  for  concrete  opportunities 
(22% in 2016), 7% undertook efforts to become mobile (9 % in 2016) and 3% were offered a 
position in another country, but turned it down (3% in 2016). On the other hand, 72% of all 
non-mobile  researchers  indicated  that  they  not  even  have  considered  to  take  part  or  all  of 
their PhD in a country other than that in which they obtained their previous degree (66% in 

108 Non-mobility for PhD is defined as the experience of a researcher who has undertaken neither PhD degree 
mobility nor >3 month mobility during PhD. 

46 

 
 
                                                           
2016). The most frequent mobility patterns of post-PhD’s at both European levels (Figure 18) 
show a central position of Germany and United Kingdom, suggesting that these countries are 
attractive for mobile researchers.  

Figure 18. Map of international mobility flows (>3 months) in post-PhD career stages 

Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation – MORE4 study (forthcoming). 
Note: The maps shows the flow of each nationality to the most common destination. 

In  the  multipolar  landscape,  knowledge  production  and  technological  development  by 
means  of  international  collaborative  research  continue  to  grow  as  scientists  and 
innovators  benefit  from  access  to  resources,  international  mobility  and  the  increased 
impact  and  reach  of  their  scientific  results.  Bibliometric  studies  show  a  higher  citation 
impact  of  researchers  with  international  experience  (OECD,  2017),  while  international  co-
publications, whose share has doubled during the last 20 years, tend to be more often cited. 
Moreover, since 2000 international co-invention of patents has significantly increased across 
almost all technologies109. The number of foreign nationals enrolled in universities has more 
than  doubled  in  the  last  20  years110  and  more  and  more  universities  and  research 
organisations are developing internationalisation strategies111.  

109 OECD Science Technology and Industry Scoreboard (2017); European Commission (2020) 
110 UNESCO Institute of Statistics, Outbound internationally mobile tertiary students studying abroad. 
111 See e.g. Zacharewicz, T., Sanz Menendez, L., Jonkers, K., JRC (2017) 

47 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Attracting  young  talents  to  EU  R&I  is  key  to  sustain  EU  excellence  in  R&I  and  to 
counter-act demographic developments as other countries are expanding their pools of 
talents.  As  in  the  United  States,  the  European  student  population  has  been  progressively 
becoming  more  international,  showing  to  some  extent  that  European  universities  are 
attractive  on  the  global  stage.  The  number  of  mobile  students  from  abroad  increased  in 
Europe  from  1.43  million  in  2013  to  1.64  million  in  2015  (+14.6%).  The  largest  groups  of 
non-European  students  in  2017  descend  from  Asia  (267.000)  and  Africa  (180.000).  At  the 
same  time,  there  was  an  increasing  demography  of  tertiary  students  in  China  and  India.  In 
terms of the absolute number of tertiary students, the EU and the United States lately show 
similar  levels  of  participation  in  tertiary  education.  While  the  EU  had  16%  of  the  world's 
tertiary student population at the beginning of the millennium, the share went down to 9% in 
2017. The share of China and India over 2000-2016 increased by 6 and 13 percentage points 
to reach the value of 15% for India and 20% for China.  

EU  countries  keep  increasing  the  number  of  researchers,  but  so  do  their  global 
competitors, which requires the EU to attract and retain researchers from all over the 
world.  For example, the EU share of researchers in  total  employment still  lags behind  the 
United  states,  Japan  and,  in  particular,  South  Korea.  In  2012,  the  Commission  adopted  the 
Communication  "Enhancing  and  focusing  EU  international  cooperation  in  research  and 
innovation: a strategic  approach112", presenting a new strategy  for international  cooperation 
notably  regarding  the  implementation  of  Horizon  2020.  Horizon  2020,  as  all  other 
Framework  Programmes  did  before,  demonstrates  broad  international  outreach  attracting 
talent from around the world. Countries with strong R&I performances, such as Switzerland, 
Norway  and  Israel,  are  the  most  active  associated  countries  in  Horizon  2020,  while  almost 
one  third  of  the  participation  from  non-associated  third  countries  comes  from  the  United 
States. 
Artificial intelligence is an example of a research field and disruptive technology where 
the EU needs to boost its efforts to promote talent production and retention in the EU, 
while  attracting  foreign  talent.  Currently,  AI  talent  is  relatively  scarce  worldwide  and 
appears  more  predominant  in  the  United  States  (J.F.  Gagné,  2018).  AI-related  jobs  seem 
harder  to  fill  compared  to  the  ‘average  job’113,  which  hints  at  a  limited  pool  of  AI  talent 
worldwide resulting in a global “race” for attracting AI professionals. For the EU, this means 
it  is  important  to  increase  the  number  of  students  and  professionals  with  an  AI-related 
academic  background  and/or  AI  technical  competences  and  skills  acquired,  for  instance,  in 
trainings  that  also  reflect  the  potential  risks  of  AI  technologies.  At  the  same  time,  the  EU 
should enable the right environment for them to work in the EU (i.e. to retain AI talent) and 
attract  more  talent  from  abroad,  as  highlighted  in  the  2018  European  Commission 
Communication on ‘Artificial Intelligence for Europe’, for example through the ‘Blue Card 
scheme’. This is important because the Global AI Talent Tracker114 found that around 60% of 

112 COM(2012) 497 
113 Priceoconomics data studio – Which Industries are investing in Artificial intelligence (18 November 2018) 
based on Indeed data 
114 https://macropolo.org/digital-projects/the-global-ai-talent-tracker/ 

48 

 
 
                                                           
top-tier  AI  researchers  worldwide  work  at  US  universities  and  companies,  with  two  thirds 
having obtained degrees in other countries (11% are “affiliated” to Europe). 
2.2.2.2  Outstanding challenges 

Although  researchers’  mobility  remains  key  to  knowledge  diffusion,  stark  disparities 
remain  between  countries  in  international  and  intersectoral  mobility  patterns  in  the 
EU.  In  general,  countries  with  a  higher  R&I  performance  tend  to  have  higher  inflows  and 
outflows of researchers and the size of the R&I system also plays an important role. Those 
divergences  call  for  a  better  understanding  of  drivers  of  and  barriers  to  international  and 
intersectoral mobility as well as the implementation of policies to foster brain circulation. At 
the same time, there is a need for a strengthened role of place-based innovation based on the 
enhanced partnership of enterprises, universities and government. 

Dedicated  studies  report  various  factors  that  prevent  researchers’  international 
mobility,  such  as  personal  or  family  reasons,  funding,  and  finding  a  suitable  position. 
The evidence shows that 16 % of mobile researchers have experienced ‘forced mobility’ – i.e. 
the  extent  to  which  researchers  feel  forced  to  move  to  another  country  due  to  the  lack  of 
career options in their home country or the requirements of the system (IDEA consult et al., 
2017). In the EU, 16 % of the researchers report international mobility during their PhD and 
13 % are employed currently in a country other than their country of citizenship. Specific EU 
schemes,  such  as  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions,  support  intersectoral  mobility 
through  all  its  actions:  its  doctoral  programmes  (Innovative  Training  Networks),  its  co-
funding  mechanism  for  doctorates  and  post  doctorate  fellowship  (MSCA  COFUND),  its 
Individual Fellowships and the Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE).  

2.2.2.3  Expected implications under a new ERA 

Action under a new ERA 

The Commission proposes to: 
 

Institute  a  dedicated  work  stream  in  the  ERA  Forum  for  Transition    (i)  to 
promote and monitor access to excellence of researchers and institutions from Widening 
Countries,  with  Cohesion  Policy  support,  (ii)  to  support  Member  States  to  better 
integrate researchers in smart specialisation strategies in cooperation with industry, and 
(iii) help them design measures to support researchers in Widening Countries to improve 
their skills for excellence in the labour market. This should support low R&I performing 
countries to increase the excellence of their R&I systems. Member States lagging behind 
the EU average on highly cited publications should reduce the gap to the EU average by 
at least one third in the next 5 years. (Action 4) 

Expected implications: 

  Improved  attractiveness  of  the  researchers’  career  across  the  entire  ERA:  The 
deployment of the European framework for researchers’, a dedicated monitoring and 
reporting  system  on  remuneration  for  researchers,  and  activities  to  stimulate 

49 

 
 
   
 
 
 
knowledge transfer will considerably improve the attractiveness of the entire ERA for 
talents from within EU and worldwide. 

  Boosted and balanced circulation of R&I talents: Better access to mobility funding 
programmes  together  with  better  employability  of  R&I  talents  across  sectors  and 
more  coordinated  training  and  career  development  actions  would  increase  and 
strengthen the different flows of highly-skilled talents within, to and across the EU. 
  Strengthened transnational ties with scientific communities abroad: Physical and 
virtual  networking  and  knowledge-sharing  through  the  joint  effort  of  EURAXESS 
services network and EURAXESS Worldwide could strengthen S&T links with home 
countries  through  policy  feedback  tools  and  dialogues.  Secondly,  it  could  facilitate 
knowledge transfer, scientific collaboration and recruiting processes and thus alleviate 
obstacles to return. 

2.3  Translating R&I results into the economy 

Box 11. ERAC on translating R&I results into the economy 

The ERAC115 notes the importance of achieving a dynamic and integrated knowledge circle, 
promoting and enabling collaboration to find solutions to global challenges and realising the 
full potential of a knowledge-driven society. Involving institutions from academia, research 
& technology organisations, the public sector, society and industry is key for Europe to be 
fully  effective  in  its  capacity  to  create  value  and  deliver  innovation-led  sustainable 
development. ERAC also stresses116 the importance of putting a greater focus on promoting 
and  enabling  collaboration  with  all  relevant  third  countries  to  find  solutions  to  global 
challenges. 

What is it about? 

EU  R&I  policy  can  set  the  direction  for  public  actors  and  industry  to  generate 
knowledge and solutions for a competitive and sustainable Europe, with people and their 
well-being at the centre of policy design. Transformative R&I policy can be a key enabler of 
the  European  process  for  achieving  the  SDGs.  A  new  transformative  R&I  policy  will  also 
need  to  engage  with  other  actors  in  society  to  deploy  new  solutions  on  a  massive  scale,  in 
particular the radical innovations required for such a transformation.  

Europe’s  industry  plays  a  key  role  in  delivering  on  the  environmental  and  digital 
transitions while boosting the resilience and the competitiveness of our economies. While 
R&I are the key  engine  of productivity  and competitiveness  of our  economies,  the EU still 
lags behind its main competitors in business R&D investments and performance, in particular 
in high tech sectors, and in scaling-up innovative SMEs. 

A European Research Area that ‘delivers’ requires that all the R&I actors, systems, and 
geographies  are  connected  to  generate  critical  mass  in  strategic  areas  with  economic 

115 https://era.gv.at/object/document/5133/attach/Opinion_Future_of_ERA_adopted.pdf 
116 ERAC 1201/20 ERAC Opinion on the future of the ERA (23 January 2020).  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
and societal value. Considering the urgency of the global challenges we face- the COVID-19 
pandemic and the threats posed by climate change and rising inequalities-, a full mobilisation 
and alignment of priorities, actions and instruments is, more than ever, an imperative. At the 
same time, these are also the conditions required for ensuring a competitive Europe. 

Although  several  EU  Member  States  are  making  numerous  efforts  to  increase  the 
effectiveness  and  performance  of  their  public  research  systems  (European  Commission, 
2020),  further  efforts  are  needed  to  introduce  the  necessary  policy  reforms  to  boost  their 
impacts and contributions to the society and the economy. ERA Priority 1 recognises this 
by calling for more effective national research systems and richer R&I policy mixes geared 
towards  making  a  stronger  impact.  Many  Country-Specific  Recommendations  made  in  the 
context of the European Semester117 show that in a number of countries it is essential to make 
further  progress  in  relation  to  connectivity  issues  such  as  collaboration  and  knowledge 
transfer  between  public  research  institutions  and  businesses  in  view  of  enabling  a  fully 
functioning,  high  quality  and  high  performing  innovation  ecosystem,  creating  a  continuum 
from basic research over applied research to uptake by industry. 

Knowledge circulation between knowledge creators and knowledge users is paramount 
in creating solutions to the  challenges that Europe and the world are currently facing 
and in ensuring the competitiveness of European companies. Knowledge has to be managed 
in  a  smart  way  and  protected,  where  appropriate.  Knowledge  sharing  and  knowledge 
protection are not opposites, they reinforce each other and together they ensure value creation 
and  benefits  for  society  in  the  Union.  Knowledge  flow  is  closely  linked  to  the  tightly  knit 
pan-European  and  global  networks  across  the  entire  value  chain,  from  curiosity  driven 
creation  of  fundamental  knowledge  to  the  development  of  innovative  applications  and 
solutions for society. The diffusion of knowledge and technology across companies, regions 
and countries helps to address differences in productivity growth and the uptake of digital and 
industrial  technologies,  and  is  a  pre-requisite  to  cope  with  the  growing  complexity  of 
innovation processes. There is a broad need to boost circulation, permeability, diversification 
and employability of especially early career talents as well as to leverage continuous inter-
sectoral brain circulation that improves and diversifies the individual’s career prospects and 
strengthens talent permeability across society. 

Europe has a  strong knowledge community composed  of highly  competitive, research-
intensive  and  entrepreneurial  universities,  increasingly  networked  with  businesses  and 
society, active along strong common values and principles and empowered with missions for 
education, research, service to society and innovation. Working together in a structured way, 
this  community  has  the  potential  to  further  strengthen  its  contribution  to  society,  operating 
around  SDGs  and  Missions,  across  languages,  borders,  disciplines  and  sectors,  pushing  the 
barriers  of  fundamental  research  and  applied  science,  mobilising  innovation  ecosystems, 
supporting the emergence of innovative initiatives and enterprises and empowering engaged 
and active citizens to transform the way we live and work. 

117https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/eu-economic-
governance-monitoring-prevention-correction/european-semester_en 

51 

 
 
                                                           
2.3.1  Competitiveness of European industry  

Indicator 

Latest value 

International 
comparison 

Trend 

Assessment of 
trend 

0.51 (2019) 

7034 (2018) 

50% (2018) 

European 
Innovation 
Scoreboard 
Summary Innovation 
Index118 
Scaleups in 
Europe119 
Share of knowledge-
intensive sectors in 
the economy120 
Share of exports of 
medium/high-tech 
products in product 
exports121 
Share of knowledge-
intensive services in 
services exports122 
2.3.1.1  Progress so far 

61.5% (2018) 

74.8% (2018) 

Lower than JP, higher 
than US and CN’ 

+1.2% per year since 2011 
+2.1% per year since 2015 

Lower than US and CN 

Lower than US 

+5% since 2000 

Higher than US and 
CN, lower than JP 

+0.5% per year since 2011 
+0.7% per year since 2014 

Higher than JP, US, 
CN 

+0.2% per year since 2011 
+0.3% per year since 2014 

= 

= 

Within the context of the global productivity slowdown, there is a lack of high-growth 
firms in knowledge intensive activities in Europe, which would boost EU competitiveness 
in the medium and long term. Firms experiencing high-growth contribute significantly to job 
creation and output growth, while also creating positive spillovers for other companies along 
the value chain (Daunfeldt et., 2014; Goswami et al. 2019). While the share of high growth 
companies has increased across the EU Member States, only a relatively small share (12%) of 
those  belong  to  knowledge  intensive  sectors.  Improving  this  trend  is  of  paramount 
importance in order to support Europe’s transition towards a technology-based economy.  

Similarly, Europe´s scaling-up performance123 for companies and strategic technologies 
is  lagging  behind  in  global  perspective.  Figures  for  tech  scaleups  –  defined  as  tech 
companies having raised more than EUR 1 million in funding (Mind the Bridge, 2019) – are 
lower in the case of Europe vis a vis other countries, most notably the United States and, to a 
certain extent, China (Figure 13). Europe has only 1.2 scaleups per 100 thousand inhabitants 
compares with 7 scaleups in the United States. Substantial disparities can be observed across 

118 EU28. Source: European Commission (2019). European Innovation Scoreboard 2019. 
119 EU + 18 third countries (LI, NO, CH, RS, ME, BA, MD, XK, AL, IS, UA, BY, MK, UK, SM, MC, AD, VA) 
Source: Mind the Bridge (2019). 
120 EU. Source: Eurostat. 
121 EU. Source: Vertesy and Damioli (2020).  
122 EU. Source: Vertesy and Damioli (2020).  
123  A  legitimate  argument  is  that  scaleups  may  not  be  the  unique  and  most  appropriate  indicator  to  measure 
progress  in  terms  of  technological  uptake  and  transition  towards  a  sustainable  framework.  However,  scaleups 
(and unicorn companies) contribute to the creation of new technologies, and have an economic and employment 
impact in society and are key contributors to technological sovereignty in the current global landscape. There is 
also  a  rising  awareness  that  new  business  models  need  to  embrace  the  three  dimensions  of  sustainability,  to 
which  a 
instance 
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/corporate-responsibility-in-the-digital-era/.  Another  issue  is  the  lack  of 
diffusion  of  technologies  from  the  frontier  to  the  rest,  i.e.  companies  and  regions,  limiting  the  uptake  of 
innovations across European economies. See also European Commission (2020). 

technological  dimension  can  be  added 

the  digital  era.  See 

fourth 

for 

in 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Member States, with more than half of all scaleups in just three countries: France, Germany 
and Sweden.  

Figure 19. Scaleups in Europe, United States and China, 2018 

Source: The Science, research and innovation performance of the EU2020, based on Mind the Bridge data. 
Note:  (1)A  scaleup  is  a  tech  company  (i.e.  a  company  -  operating  in  Tech  &  Digital  industries,  founded  in  the  New 
Millennium, with at least one funding event since 2010. Biotech, Life Sciences and Pharma, Semiconductors are currently 
not  included  in  the  scope  of  research)  which  has  raised  more  than  €1mn  funding  raised  as  defined  by  Mind  the  Bridge 
(2019). (2) Europe includes EU Member States, and 18 other European countries (LI, NO, CH, RS, ME, BA, MD, XK, AL, 
IS, UA, BY, MK, UK, SM, MC, AD, VA). Removing the Top 5 non-EU Member States reduces the number of scaleups in the 
European aggregate substantially, to 4295. 

Europe is transforming into a knowledge-driven economy at a slow pace, slowed down 
by the deindustrialisation process. While more than 40% of EU economic activities belong 
to  knowledge-intensive  services,  the  share  of  knowledge-intensive  activities  has  increased 
only  by  5%  since  2000,  including  in  medium-high-  and  high-tech  sectors  (European 
Commission,  2020).  Furthermore,  the  growth  of  knowledge  intensive  exports  of  both 
products and services has been almost null in the last decade (+0.7% since 2011 and +0.3% 
since  2010  respectively).  These  trends  may  have  negative  bearings  on  European  long-term 
competitiveness,  most  notably  due  to  the  deep  digital  transformation  that  industry  is 
undergoing, revolutionising production systems and business models.  

These issues can be magnified in a context of rapid speed of technological development 
worldwide  that  creates  concerns  in  terms  of  technological  sovereignty.  The  EU  is  a 
renowned global research powerhouse, accounting for almost 20% of worldwide R&D with 
less  than  7%  of  the  world’s  population,  but  it  lags  behind  global  competitors  for  various 
indicators,  including  in  terms  of  investment  in  R&I  and  other  intangibles,  especially  when 
considering the private sector. This creates concerns for the ability of EU industry to access 
and use raw materials, technologies and services that are safe and secure, also in virtue of the 
European long-standing openness approach for knowledge and brain circulation. 

A well-designed regulatory framework contributes to making the best out of innovation. 
The quality of the regulatory  framework is  correlated with  innovation  performance. This is 
not  only true for the EU and its  Member States, but  also  for the peer economies, including 
other  European  countries  and  the  United  States,  with  the  notable  exception  of  China  (see 
Figure  14).  A  fit-for-purpose,  forward-looking  and  overall  innovation-friendly  regulatory 
framework  will  ensure  well-functioning  markets  that  incentivise,  maximising  the  impact  of 
EU R&I investments across sectors. Regulation, when featuring adequate levels of stringency 
and appropriate timing, can steer innovation towards addressing societal needs. 

53 

 
 
 
Currently,  Europe  is  developing  and  building  capabilities  to  be  a  global  leader  in  the 
development of breakthrough technologies while at the same time being the first climate 
neutral  economy  by  2050.  The  new  EU  Industrial  Strategy  aims  at  increasing  the 
competitiveness and sustainability124 of European industry, driving its transformation to cope 
with  and  lead  the  twin  green  and  digital  transformation  that  is  changing  business  and 
societies.  R&I  and  industrial  policies  will  ensure  sustainable  competitiveness  of  European 
industrial fabric125 with various instruments, such as the innovation principle126, the building 
of  technology  infrastructures  and  the  important  projects  of  common  European  interest 
(IPCEI).  In  addition,  the  European  Innovation  Council  will  support  innovators  with 
breakthrough ideas and market creating innovations that currently face high risks due to the 
fragmentation  of  the  innovation  eco-system,  lack  of  risk  finance  and  risk  aversion.  These 
policies include comprehensive measures to modernise and decarbonise industries, invert the 
deindustrialisation  trends  and  increase  the  long-term  competitiveness  of  EU  industry  while 
achieving a sustainable transition. 

2.3.1.2  Outstanding challenges  

Developing  an  overarching  strategy,  bridging  long-term  competitiveness  with  sustainable 
development  for  all,  will  be  key  for  driving  European  economies  and  societies  into  the 
sustainable  transition.  Similarly,  cooperation  between  the  European  Commission,  Member 
States  and  European  industries  will  ensure  coherence  and  a  more  efficient  pursuit  of  EU 
policy objectives. 

Transformative  innovation  policy  can  promote  a  ‘tech-with-a-purpose’  approach, 
leveraging innovation efforts to create the solutions needed to address the challenges of 
our time. While technological progress is behind scientific and technological breakthroughs, 
historically driving economic growth and improving living standards worldwide, there is an 
increasing  debate  to  whether  all  innovation  has  and  can  create  value  for  society  (Kalff  and 
Renda,  2019).  An  innovation  policy  framework  grounded  on  directionality  would  allow  to 
pursue and promote technological change which is relevant for society. This could ensure that 
entrepreneurship and innovation efforts will address the most pressing challenges of our time 
and  contributing  to  the  achievement  of  the  social  good.  This  aim  is  at  the  heart  of  social 
economy,  which  plays  an  important  role  in  developing  technology  that  is  relevant  for  the 
society, and ensuring that the digital transformation is inclusive. This will also be highlighted 
in the context of the Social Economy Action Plan, due to be published in 2021. 

Integrating directionality in innovation policy is not an easy task, but it can improve the 
performance  of  European  businesses  in  the  changing  global  landscape.  This  is  particularly 

124 The EU Taxonomy on sustainable finance is a big step in this direction.  
125  European  partnerships  and  industrial  alliances  are  key  for  transformative  innovation  policy,  as  they 
strengthen large scale directionality of R&I efforts. See Box 8. 
126  The  Innovation  Principle  is  a  tool  to  help  achieve  EU  policy  objectives  by  ensuring  that  legislation  is 
designed in a way that creates the best possible conditions for innovation to flourish. The innovation principle is 
applied  for:  (1)  agenda  setting  on  emerging  technologies  and  new  business  models  through  horizon  scanning 
and the guidance of a Regulatory Advice Mechanism to assess their impact on EU rules; (2) fostering innovation 
in  EU  legislation  through  impact  assessment;  and  (3)  addressing  perceived  regulatory  obstacles  to  innovative 
solutions in existing EU rules through innovation deals.  

54 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
relevant  for  technologies  such  as  artificial  intelligence  and  its  applications,  where 
strengthening EU capabilities will be crucial to keep pace with the main global competitors. 
Innovation policy needs to take into account the fabric of European industries and businesses, 
and to develop tools that are suited for the challenges ahead. However, neutral and horizontal 
policy actions aiming at just fixing existing market failures will not be enough to achieve the 
target.  

Factoring in beneficial innovation throughout the policy cycle constitutes an additional 
challenge.  The  innovation  principle  can  support  policy-makers  in  steering  innovation 
towards  the  EU’s  sustainable  objectives  in  a  systematic  and  evidence-based  manner.  An 
interim  evaluation127  of  the  innovation  principle  found  that  its  application  has  potential  to 
improve the link between innovation and regulation. Similar good practices exist at national 
level,  for  example  the  Dutch  Green  Deals128  scheme  or  the  German  strategy  for  regulatory 
sandboxes129. 

Ensuring a strategic direction to international cooperation in the field of R&I is another 
key  challenge  to  secure  EU  technological  sovereignty  in  the  global  technological  race. 
The EU approach to R&I has long been one of openness to the world to facilitate brain and 
knowledge  circulation,  combined  with  strategically  targeted  actions  with  key  partner 
countries.  Yet,  the  rapid  pace  of  technological  development  of  global  competitors  creates 
concerns  in  terms  of  technological  sovereignty.  Against  this  background,  ensuring 
multilateralism and purposeful openness, while assertively negotiating a global level playing 
field should be at the heart of the EU approach to strategic international cooperation. 

2.3.1.3  Expected implications under a new ERA 

Action under a new ERA  

The Commission will, in cooperation with Member States and stakeholders: 
  Support  the implementation of the New Industrial Strategy by jointly developing 

common industrial technology roadmaps by the end of 2022 to align and link industrial 
results from Horizon Europe, including key partnerships under Horizon Europe with 
industrial alliances and ecosystems, so as to ensure that efforts team up and that research 
results are known and rolled out faster in the economy. (Action 5)  

Expected implications: 

  Increased  scaled  up  and  innovative  companies  in  Europe:  policy  instruments 
targeting bottlenecks for innovative companies will boost the competitiveness of the 
European  economic  fabric.  For  example,  the  EIC  will  support  late  stage  innovation 
activities  and  market  deployment  for  the  most  promising  ideas.  It  will  also  target 

127 https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/study-supporting-interim-evaluation-innovation-principle_en  
128 https://www.greendeals.nl/english 
129 https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/regulatory-test-beds-testing-environments-for-innovation-and-
regulation.html 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
innovative  companies  with  a  great  potential  for  scaling  up,  offering  them  co-
investment to become larger and expand their markets.  

  Reinforced  technological  sovereignty:  strategic  investment  targeted  at  reducing 
Europe’s  dependence  on  others  for  the  things  it  needs  the  most,  particularly  with 
regards  critical  materials  and  technologies,  and  in  sectors  of  systemic  or  critical 
importance (including food, infrastructure, or security), together with multilateralism 
and  purposeful  openness,  can  leverage  European  innovative  outcomes  and  ensure 
technology sovereignty in strategic fields. 

  Enhanced “tech with a purpose” approach: making full use of R&I efforts centred 
on  the  social,  environmental  and  economic  challenges  of  our  time,  in  line  with  our 
values, will spur innovative solutions that will ensure that Europe will be on the path 
of sustainable development. This will allow R&I to drive the transition in key sectors 
as energy, health, food system and mobility among others. The co-creation approach 
of  transformative  R&I  policy  will  also  ensure  a  search  and  learn  process  across 
different pathways, boosting diversity and favouring societal uptake. 

2.3.2  Strengthening innovation ecosystems for knowledge circulation and valorisation  

Indicator 

Latest value 

International 
comparison 

Trend 

Assessment of 
trend 

Share of product 
and/or process 
innovative firms 
cooperating with 
universities, 
government, public or 
private research 
institutes130 
Share of public 
research financed by 
the private sector131 
Number of public-
private co-
publications per 
million population132 
Patent applications 
under PCT per million 
inhabitants133 
2.3.2.1  Progress so far 

15% (2014) 

7.24% (2017) 

81.9 

109.7 

/ 

/ 

Lower than US 
and JP, higher 
than CN 

Lower than JP 
and US, higher 
than CN 

+4.0% per year since 2012 

-0.2%  per year since 2007 
-0.1% per year since 2014 

= 

+6.4% per year since 2008 
+2.4% per year since 2015 

 but 
SLOWDOWN  

+1.5% per year since 2010 

Collaboration  between  enterprises  and  with  public  research-performing  organisations 
enables  faster  knowledge  diffusion  and  valorisation,  and  drives  innovation.  However, 
patterns  show  that  a  few  large  innovative  companies  are  making  the  most  of 
international and intersectoral cooperation.  Companies can benefit from highly qualified 
human  resources,  access 
technology,  and  from  using  research 
infrastructures.  Higher  education  institutions  can  gain  additional  revenue  streams  from 

to  knowledge  and 

130 EU28. Source: Science-Metrix based on Eurostat. 
131 EU28. Source: Eurostat. 
132 EU. Source: European Commission (2020). 
133 EU. Source: OECD, World Bank and Eurostat. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
consultancy  work,  licensing  or  patenting,  and  benefit  from  new  skills  and  insights  into  the 
innovation  process  (Rybnicek  and  Königsgruber,  2018).  The  relatively  low  propensity  of 
academic researchers to cooperate with researchers in non-academic sectors limits knowledge 
circulation134 as well as the lack of capacity of SMEs to engage in R&I collaborations. The 
geographical  proximity  of  academia  is  paramount  for  industry’s  innovative  activities  –  in 
spite of digitalisation – so the ‘physical’ interaction between industry and academia remains 
an important channel of diffusion. 

In  all  EU  countries,  the  number  of  public  private  co-publications  continues  to  rise 
although  the  EU  still  lags  behind  the  United  States  and  South  Korea.  The  EU’s  good 
standing  has  to  be  considered  in  the  context  of  important  differences  between  the  Member 
States:  while Denmark,  Sweden and Austria feature impressive rates, Eastern and Southern 
European countries  are mainly situated at the bottom of the ranking with Poland, Romania, 
Bulgaria  and  Lithuania  registering  the  lowest  rates.  The  Associated  Countries  are  also 
divided  between  high  rankings,  such  as  Switzerland,  Iceland  and  Norway  and  very  low 
rankings, such as Albania, North Macedonia and Ukraine. These stark differences may be due 
to the quality of the science base, the absorptive capacity of the private sector and its R&D 
intensity. 

In  some  European  Member  States,  as  well  as  globally  in  catching-up  economies, 
knowledge  diffusion  and  technological  transformation  are  driven  by  foreign  business 
research investment and foreign direct investment (FDI). The foreign value-added share 
of gross exports in high-tech and medium-high-tech sectors is still very important in Europe, 
notably  for  southern  and  central  eastern  European  countries.  For  Slovakia,  Hungary  and 
Czechia – with its strong manufacturing base – FDI is still a major source of external R&D 
financing. With their open economies, both Malta and Luxembourg attract foreign investment 
in specific tech sectors. 

Technological innovation as a result of investment in R&I is reflected to a certain extent 
in the patenting activities of R&I actors.  In 2017, the EU accounted for 20%135 of patent 
applications filed under the PCT136, a decrease from 30% share in 2000. While the share of 
PCT  applications  has  been  growing  quickly  in  East  Asian  countries,  mainly  in  Japan  and 
China, in Western countries such as United States, European Union and United Kingdom, the 
share  has  been  declining.  In  relative  terms,  however,  a  different  picture  emerges.  When 
normalised by population, PCT applications in Japan and South Korea improved remarkably 
over time. The EU's performance has been rather stable, increasing the gap with Japan, South 
Korea  and  United  States,  but  ahead  of  Canada.  Comparing  these  figures  with  research 
production  in  terms  of  scientific  publications,  one  however  concludes  that  the  EU  is  not 
capable  of  capturing  the  full  value  of  its  excellent  science.  If  the  EU  wants  to  remain 
competitive and catch up with its main competitors, it needs to make extra efforts, especially 

134 Only 35% of academic researchers report cooperation with researchers in non-academic sectors (IDEA 
Consult et al., 2018).  
135 European Commission (2020) 
136 Patent Cooperation Treaty 

57 

 
 
                                                           
reinforcing  science-industry 

in 
management. 

interaction  and 

in 

improving 

intellectual  property 

Efficient management of intellectual property (IP) fosters not only innovation, creativity 
and knowledge sharing, it also improves the chances of knowledge reaching the market 
faster and benefiting society in the EU.  Intellectual property protection, management and 
utilisation are an essential tool to balance the interests of both society and innovators, as well 
as  to  strengthen  the  bargaining  position  of  smaller  innovators  in  cooperation  with  larger 
partners. The most  common  forms  of  IP used by  innovative companies  in  the EU are trade 
secrets and trademarks and, to a lesser extent, patents137. Applications to the European Patent 
Office138originating  from  European  countries  have  been  predominantly  filed  by  large 
companies (72%) followed by SMEs (18%) and only 10% came from universities and public 
research organisations.  

A  stronger  knowledge  valorisation  policy  requires  moving  towards  a  more  holistic 
approach in order to create value from knowledge and turn the results into sustainable 
solutions  with  economic  value  and  societal  benefits.  Many  strategies,  instruments  and 
measures  have  been  developed  at  the  European,  national  and  regional  level,  by  private  and 
public  players,  to  enhance  knowledge  transfer  and  valorisation.  For  instance,  the  EU 
Framework  Programmes  and  Member  States  support  collaborations  through,  for  example, 
collaborative  research,  public-private  partnerships,  mobility  programmes,  knowledge 
clusters,  start-up  finance  schemes,  etc.  Citizen  engagement  is  also  fundamental  to  take  up 
knowledge based solutions to address societal challenges, while strongly relying on citizens’ 
involvement  in  this  process  (societal  pull  for  solutions).  This  would  also  contribute  to  the 
objective  of  the  new  Industrial  strategy  that  place-based  innovation  and  experimentation 
should be encouraged thereby allowing cities and regions to develop and test new solutions 
with SMEs and consumers.   Standardisation, based on robust research results, facilitates the 
access  to  and spreading  of new products  in  the  market.  Standards help  building confidence 
among  industries  and  consumers  and  reduce  production  costs  thereby  facilitating  market 
penetration of innovative solutions.  

137  European  Commission  (2020)  based  on  Eurostat  -  Community  Innovation  Survey  2016  (online  data  code: 
inn_cis10_ipr) 
138 European Patent Office Patstat Spring 2019 database 

58 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 20. Public-private co-authored scientific publications per million population, 
2008 and 2018 

Source:  European  Commission,  DG  Research  and  Innovation,  based  on  Science-Metrix  using  data  from  the  Scopus 
database, Eurostat and World Bank data 
Note: (1)US, JP, CN, KR: 2017. 

2.3.2.2  Outstanding challenges 

There  is  still  room  to  improve  knowledge  transfer  and  valorisation  in  Europe.  A  
comprehensive  European  valorisation  strategy  is  lacking  that  provides  directionality,  sets 
objectives  and  gives  guidance  on  R&I  relationship  management  to  foster  valorisation 
collaborations,  including  advice  on  IP  management  and  use.  It  could  build  on  the 
achievements of the 2008 Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual 
property  in  knowledge  transfer  activities,  but  it  would  need  to  take  account  of  the  more 
complex  R&I  eco-systems  with  a  wider  set  of  stakeholders  and  actors  as  well  as  the  new 
paradigm of dynamic knowledge flows underpinned by Open Science and Open Innovation. 
Deploying  research  results  in  a  way  that  is  driven  by  the  needs  of  citizens  and  industry 
requires experimentation and testing new approaches. A structured exchange of experiences 
and  good  examples  would  help  to  multiplying  successful  knowledge  valorisation  practices 
across  the  Union  and  to  strengthen  valorisation  capacities  and  skills.  The  fragmentation  of 
policies  and  practices  of  IP  management  in  the  Member  States  in  combination  with  the 
limited expert resources constitute a major bottleneck preventing effective IP management by 
R&I actors. A change in the approach to IP management linked with an increase in IP literacy 
is needed, in particular among universities and SMEs.  

Encouraging  the  creation  of  innovation-intensive  sectors  and  upgrading  the  technology 
profiles of countries  would definitely help  Europe to  have more innovative enterprises that 
can boost jobs and economic growth. Given the importance of innovation and technological 
progress  in  addressing  the  SDGs,  the  ERA  countries  should  not  only  continue  to  invest  in 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
scientific  leadership  in  these  areas  but  should  also  promote  a  culture  of  knowledge 
valorisation able to benefit fully from its research results.  

The  complex  nature  of  R&I  ecosystems  and  the  broad  diversity  of  their  activities  at 
European, national and regional levels, asks for more interlinkages that would connect their 
talents,  spread  best  practice,  increase  their  interoperability  and  encourage  higher 
degree  of  coordination.  There  are  multiple  challenges  to  regional  innovation  systems  that 
can be addressed by policymakers (Box 12). 

Box 12: Strengthening regional innovation systems 

A group of low-performing European regional innovation regions has barely improved 
and has slowed down the convergence process. The overall dispersion of regions in terms 
of  innovation  performance  declined  between  2011  and  2019139,  but  only  45  %  of  regions 
within  the  modest-innovator  category  improved  their  performance.  The  comparison  with 
improved  shares  of  64  %  among  the  strong-innovator  regions  and  80  %  in  the  moderate-
innovator category shows a larger group of persistently lagging performers among the least 
developed regions140. Moreover, the lagging  regions tend to  have more small firms,  which 
inhibits  integration  of  new  technologies  and 
connections to  global value chains. The lack of 
large  firms 
these  regions  may  reduce 
technology  transfer  and  innovation  activities  in 
general (European Commission, 2017). 

Figure 21. Institutional quality- 
Regional disparities(1) 
Source:  European Social Progress Index, based on 
Bianchini, 
(2019), 
and  Martino 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/ 
information/maps/social_progress 

Llerena 

in 

Note: (1) The indicators refer to 2013 or are  built 
as an average over the period 2011-2013. 

Furthermore,  the  access  of  scientists  from 
and  in  different  parts  of  Europe  to  high 
quality  resources  is  not  always  homogenous. 
Access to research infrastructures, together with 
research funding and quality of peers, belong to 
basic  working  conditions  that  can  influence 
scientific  productivity  of  researchers  (IDEA 
consult,  2017).  An  asymmetric  access 
to 
resources does not only limit the performance of 
existing  scientific  staff,  but  also  decreases 
attractiveness  of  a  research  system  leading  to  a 
lower  mobility  of  researchers.  More  broadly, 
less  developed  regional  economies  require 
sufficient  knowledge  spillovers  that  could  slow 
down  the  trend  to  concentrate  knowledge  and 
highly  skilled  people 
in  particular  areas 
(Iammarino  et  al.,  2019).  Institutional  quality 
is high in the core of the EU and in capitals, 
but  with  a  high  degree  of  regional  variation 
institutional 
and 
frameworks  improve  economic  and  innovation 
prospects  as  they  reduce  uncertainty  on  the 

heterogeneity.  Good 

139 The coefficient of variation of the regional scores was 0.314 in 2011 and 0.300 in 2019. 
140 In total, the performance increased in two thirds of the regions (159 out of 238). 

60 

 
 
 
                                                           
appropriability of the returns on investment, which is already higher in the context of R&D 
and innovative activities. Good institutions are characterised by an effective and generalised 
protection  of  property  rights,  effective  control  of  corruption  within  a  reliable  legal 
framework,  and  efficient  delivery  of  public  goods  and  services,  including  education  at  all 
levels  and  the  public  infrastructure  needed  for  the  diffusion  and  use  of  technology.  At  the 
country level, southern and central-eastern Member States lag behind, with a few exceptions, 
suggesting 
in  several 
dimensions, including economic and innovation (Rodríguez-Pose and Di Cataldo, 2014). At 
the  regional  level,  Bianchini,  Llerena  and  Martino  (2019)  found  that  EU  regions  differ 
significantly  in terms of institutional  quality, confirming the overall  low performance 
on  Europe’s  periphery  while  also  revealing  considerable  heterogeneity  within 
countries, such as, in Italy and Spain.  

institutional  quality  undermines  countries’  performance 

that 

There  is  a  need  to  boost  underutilised  regional  potential  and  strengthen  regional 
innovation  systems,  which  implies  an  important  role  for  further  place-based  policies. 
While measures such as technology transfer in general help to decrease the productivity gap, 
a  gradually  increasing  role  for  local  innovation  is  necessary  to  maintain  economic 
convergence (EIB, 2018). The transfer of skills and knowledge from mature industries often 
enables the emergence of new industries, but in cases of more radical technological change, 
the  newly  emerging  industries  draw  directly  from  R&D  activities  (Storper  et  al.,  2015). 
Therefore,  a  stronger  role  for  home-grown  innovation  to  increase  productivity  is  a  key 
element of the new growth model for lagging countries and regions. 

 Figure  22.  Share  of  top-10%  most  cited  publications  per  1,000  inhabitants  in  2015 
(left) and R&D intensity 2017 or latest available (right) 

Source: DG Research and Innovation, based on CWTS using data from Web of Science database and Eurostat data 

2.3.2.3  Expected implications under a new ERA 

Actions under a new ERA 

The Commission will: 

  Develop  and  test  a  networking  framework  in  support  of  Europe’s  R&I 

ecosystems,  building  on  existing  capacities,  in  order  to  strengthen  excellence  and 
maximise the value of knowledge creation, circulation and use by 2022 (Action 6)  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Update  and  develop  guiding  principles  for  knowledge  valorisation  and  a  code  of 
practice  for  the  smart  use  of  intellectual  property,  by  the  end  of  2022,  including 
facilitating the implementation of the unitary patent, to ensure access to effective and 
affordable intellectual property protection. (Action 7) 

Expected implications: 

  Diffusion of knowledge, best practice and tools:  The mobility of human resources 
can  lead  to  greater  diffusion  of  knowledge,  new  insights  and  also  tools  and 
instruments for more effective research and knowledge valorisation. 

  More efficient valorisation of science-based solutions in Europe: A comprehensive 
European  valorisation  strategy  can  engage  R&I  actors  to  co-create  and  implement 
guiding  principles  for  improving  the  uptake  and  deployment  of  science-based 
solutions  and  new  technologies  in  the  Union.  It  can  facilitate  companies,  citizens, 
cities  and  communities,  especially  in  catching  up  regions,  to  take  full  advantage  of 
European R&I in meeting their needs. 

  Efficient  management  and  protection  of  intellectual  assets:  Common  principles, 
guidance  and  best  practices  can  sensitize  R&I  actors  and  foster  a  new  culture  of 
efficient  IP  management  in  an  increasingly  competitive  global  environment.  R&I 
actors should move from a focus on IP protection into active use and valorisation of 
their IP assets.  

  Reinforcement  of  the  links  between  standardisation  and  R&I:  Standardisation 
should  be  better  recognised  as  a  tool  to  valorise  R&I  results  to  make  sure  that  the 
European  standardisation  system  is  an  integral  part  of  the  European  research  and 
innovation landscape. 

 

Increased co-creation with regional R&I actors: Although the impact of measures 
will  depend  on  the  local  context,  increased  collaboration  across  regions  would  have 
positive impacts on implementation of best practices across all the Member States. 

2.4  Deepening the ERA 

Box 13. Council and ERAC on deepening the ERA 

Council  conclusions141  stress  the  crucial  role  of  concerted  actions  and  good  coordination 
between  ERA  and  the  Framework  Programme,  including  the  future  Horizon  Europe,  the 
development of a labour market for researchers in Europe, and for Open Science policy on 
improving  recognition  and  reward  mechanisms  as  well  as  skills  development  schemes  for 
researchers. They also call on all involved parties to acknowledge the cross-cutting nature of 
equal  opportunities  and  open  science  in  particular  as  regards  early  stage  researchers  and 
doctoral  candidates.  ERAC142 notes the importance of  achieving a dynamic and integrated 
knowledge circle, promoting and enabling collaboration with all relevant  third countries to 

141 14989/18 Council Conclusions on the governance of the European Research Area (30 November 2018). 
142 https://era.gv.at/object/document/5133/attach/Opinion_Future_of_ERA_adopted.pdf 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
find solutions to global challenges, realising the full potential of a knowledge-driven society, 
encompassing  knowledge  co-creation,  dissemination  and  use/exploitation,  as  well  as  their 
interactions, based on effective Open Science and Open Innovation approaches.  Improving 
the  circulation  of  researchers,  knowledge  and  technologies  ERAC  also  stresses143  the 
importance  of  putting  a  greater  focus  on  promoting  and  enabling  collaboration  with  all 
relevant third countries to find solutions to global challenges. 

What is it about? 

including,  world  class  research  and 

Advances in technology enable science to become both an increasingly open and global 
enterprise.  Technological  advances, 
industrial 
infrastructures, digital or non-digital technology, strong open science policies and bottom-up 
activism as well as funders and institutional policies, drive these changes in science practices. 
Sharing  and  reusing  publicly  funded  research  results  openly  makes  R&I  better,  more 
accurate,  reliable  and  efficient,  ‘democratises’  the  access  to  science  across  countries  and 
widens  it  to  companies  and  citizens.  Open  access  and  trans-disciplinary  data  reuse  and 
interoperability  (FAIR  principles)  are  vital  for  addressing  the  interconnected  and  pressing 
socio-economic  and  environmental  challenges  we  are  currently  facing.  While  open  access 
policies are progressing rapidly within existing European, national and institutional policies, 
advances in data sharing still face many obstacles, given the lack of data sharing valorisation 
(journal impact factors and citations; Scheliga and Friesike, 2014) and research systems that 
for the greatest part do not incentivize and reward data sharing. 

Changing  the  reward  and  incentive  system  for  researchers,  research  and  institutions 
would  ensure  the  higher  uptake  of  open  science  practices,  also  by  involving  major 
stakeholders  (i.e.  researchers,  universities,  research  and  higher  education  institutions, 
funding  organisations,  ministries  of  science,  research  and  higher  education).  Research 
integrity  is  a  foundation  of  excellent  science  and  the  cornerstone  of  societal  trust  in 
researchers and research institutions.  

At  the  same  time,  despite  some  progress,  women  remain  underrepresented  in  science, 
technology,  engineering  and  mathematics  (STEM)  fields  and  research  activities,  in  the 
creation of innovative startups, at the top management levels of higher education institutions 
and  of  the  largest  publicly-listed  companies  in  the  EU.  The  average  EU  gender  pay  gap  of 
16% also showed only very slow progress over time (European Commission, 2019c). 

Box 14. National policy examples related to Open Science 

The Netherlands 

Since  its  first  Open  Access  policy  in  2013,  Open  science,  including  open  access,  is  a  top 
priority of the Dutch government. As response to the ‘Amsterdam Call for Action on Open 
Science’ in 2016, the National Plan Open Science (NPOS) was developed in 2017, of which 
research assessment and rewards for researchers is a focal point. 

143 ERAC 1201/20 ERAC Opinion on the future of the ERA (23 January 2020).  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  Dutch  knowledge  sector  has  taken  a  major  step  forward  in  a  new  approach  to 
recognising and rewarding academics. The focus of the Strategy Evaluation Protocol (SEP) 
has shifted away from numerical indicators and moved towards the goals and the strategies 
of  the  research  unit.  Criteria  include  research  quality,  social  relevance  and  viability  with 
special attention to Open Science, PhD policy and training, academic culture and HR policy. 
Also, the Protocol for Research Quality Assurance in Higher Professional Education (BKO) 
for  universities  of  applied  sciences  contains  elements  of  open  science  and  DANS,  in 
collaboration  with  DTL,  is  developing  a  system  for  the  assessment  of  research  data  in 
accordance with the FAIR principles for research evaluation systems. 
At  the  institutional  level,  for  instance,  Utrecht  University  Medical  Center  had  made  Open 
Science  part  of  their  evaluation  even  earlier,  stating  that  "the  unit  of  assessment  promotes 
open  data  and  reproducibility".  It  further  proposed  a  number  of  indicators  such  as 
"Availability of data management plans" and "Publication of raw data or availability of data 
for external use”. 

Finland 

After an initial Research Data Initiative in 2011-2013, the Ministry of Education and Culture 
of  Finland  launched  the  Open  Science  and  Research  Initiative  (ATT)  in  2014.  Aim  of  the 
initiative was to create a national open access and open science policy as well as building the 
necessary infrastructure to make Finland a leader for openness in science and research. In the 
framework of ATT, Objectives and indicators have been defined. The progress is monitored 
in  a  periodic  evaluation  of  the  institutes’  openness  culture.  To  highlight  best  practices, 
awards  are  being  given  to  organisations  for  their  activities  to  promote  the  culture  of 
openness.  The ministry  has transferred the coordination  of Open Science in  Finland to the 
Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV). In 2019, a national policy for open access to 
scholarly publications has been published. 

To promote and reward Open Science practices further, a special coefficient for open access 
publications  is  added  into  the  funding  model  of  the  universities,  starting  from  2021.    As 
additional incentive, the Ministry of Education and Culture funds infrastructure and services 
that enable digital preservation, and Open science education and skills are provided in many 
research institutions. 

2.4.1  A European Framework for Research Careers 

2.4.1.1  Progress so far 

Still today, assessments and rankings are based on inappropriate indicators rewarding 
publication  in  prestigious  venues,  and  favouring  quantity  of  results  over  quality  and 
priming  individualism  over  open  collaboration144.  Changing  the  reward  and  incentive 
system  for  researchers,  research  and  institutions  would  ensure  higher  uptake  also  involving 
major  stakeholders.  Open  access  and  data  sharing,  reuse  and  reproducibility  of  research 
results,  academia-industry  collaboration,  societal  engagement  and  impact,  and  bridging 

144 See for example the conclusions in the H2020 Policy Support Facility Mutual Learning Exercise on Open 
Science- altmetrics and rewards: https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/policy-support-facility/mle-open-science-altmetrics-
and-rewards 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                           
research and advanced data skills and training are often not rewarded. The Commission will 
incentivize  and  reward  open  science  practices  by  including  them  as  elements  in  the 
evaluation  of  project  proposals  in  Horizon  Europe.  The  recent  survey  of  European 
universities  on  research  assessment,  released  by  the  European  University  Association 
(EUA)145  shows  the  predominance  in  2019  of  publishing  and  attracting  external  research 
funding for building research careers in universities, over research impact, societal outreach 
or the practice of open science. 

There is now a coherent corpus of recent reports and recommendations146, with a broad 
consensus  among  researchers  and  policy  makers  that  changes  in  the  evaluation  of 
research and researcher’s performance are necessary and that the development of open 
science is closely linked to the modernisation of the system of recognition and rewards. 
The  San  Francisco  Declaration  on  Research  Assessment  (DORA)147,  signed  by  several 
thousands of institutions and individuals, calls for stopping the use of JIF in the assessment of 
research and researchers. The Leiden manifesto for research metrics148 proposed 10 principles 
for  the  measurement  of  research  performance.  The  “Hong  Kong  principles  for  assessing 
researchers:  fostering  research  integrity”149,  sets  principles  on  how  to  assess  researchers  to 
strengthen research integrity. These declarations and principles have brought global attention 
to  the  need  of  transforming  the  assessment  of  research  and  researchers,  but  need  to  be 
translated  into  actions.  A  few  institutions  in  Europe,  including  some  Universities,  are  now 
taking steps in this direction150. 

A  partnership  framework  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  has  been 
initiated  in  the  past  years,  building  upon  several  ERA  policy  implementation 
instruments,  which  have  yielded  results  so  far  in  removing  mobility  obstacles  and 
creating  more  attractive  research  careers.  The  main  instruments  that  have  been  in  place 
include  the  Charter  &  Code  (Council  recommendations,  European  Charter  for  Researchers 
and  a  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Recruitment  of  Researchers)  and  its  implementation 
mechanism  HRS4R  (Human  Resources  Strategy  for  Researchers),  EURAXESS  – 
Researchers in Motion (pan-European gateway delivering information and support services to 
professional researchers), RESAVER (the first multi-country multi-employer supplementary 
occupational  pension  fund  for  mobile  researchers  in  Europe),  the  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie 
Actions  (MSCA)  which  responds  to  the  challenges  faced  by  researchers,  offering  them 

the 

2018 

2019, 

report 

“Open 

Science”, 

transition 

“Research 

to  Open 

assessment 

in 
145  EUA 
https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/research%20assessment%20in%20the%20transition%20to%20open%20s
cience.pdf 
146  2017  Commission  report  “Evaluation  of  research  careers  fully  acknowledging  Open  Science  practices” 
recommendations” 
https://doi.org/10.2777/75255; 
https://doi.org/10.2777/958647; 2019 Commission report “Indicator frameworks for fostering open knowledge 
practices in science and scholarship” https://doi.org/10.2777/4452862018 LERU report “Open Science and its 
role in Universities” https://www.leru.org/files/LERU-AP24-Open-Science-full-paper.pdf 
147 https://sfdora.org 
148 http://www.leidenmanifesto.org 
149 https://osf.io/m9abx/ 
150 For example: Dutch public knowledge institutions and funders of research (VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO 
and ZonMw), cf. https://www.scienceguide.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/283.002-Erkennen-en-Waarderen-
Position-Paper_EN_web.pdf; Ghent University, cf. https://www.ugent.be/en/research/research-ugent/research-
strategy/open-science.htm 

Platform 

Science 

Policy 

65 

 
 
                                                           
attractive  working  conditions  and  the  opportunity  to  move  beyond  academia,  and  the 
European Research Council (ERC) which has become a benchmark for research excellence. 

2.4.1.2  Outstanding challenges 

Occupations commonly considered as highly skilled, such as researchers, are in need of 
additional skills in the EU. Low absorptive capacity of firms coupled with rising and unmet 
skills  demands  of  specialised  labour  on  the  labour  market  constitute  the  main  barriers 
preventing the spread of complex, close to market innovations. Cedefop forecast of expected 
job  openings  in  the  EU  until  2030  projects  45  %  of  jobs  to  be  created  within  the  highly 
skilled  occupations151.  Education  and  skills  development  policies  should  encompass  broad 
skill-sets  to  support  competitiveness  and  innovation,  including  transversal152  and  digital 
skills, which are increasingly determining our ability to adapt, progress and succeed in a fast-
moving labour market. Higher levels of skills and supply of talents are often associated with 
higher  education  institutions,  though  centres  of  vocational  excellence  also  play  a  role,  not 
least  because  of  their  closeness  to  industry.  Therefore,  stronger  synergies  between  the 
European Education Area and the European Research Area are essential to ensure a relevant 
talent  flow  in  research  and  innovation  careers.  An  extended  toolkit  of  arrangements  and 
support  measures  should  manage  and  optimise  the  talents  flow,  diversify  the  careers  of 
researchers,  and  improve  employability  in-  and  outside  academia.  Moreover,  these  efforts 
should  include  development  of  transversal  skills,  including  the  entrepreneurial  thinking 
among researchers and support of researchers job mobility across Europe and especially also 
across sectors as academics and early career researchers could benefit from exposure to R&I 
in the business context. While the engagement of society in the R&I process is increasing, the 
skills to further boost such proximity could positively influence research career perspectives 
and improve public recognition of R&I careers. 

To achieve and sustain competitive advantage in today’s global markets, EU academic 
organisations  must  stand  out  at  attracting,  developing  and  retaining  talents  from  all 
over the world. Finding the right  talent  is  challenging  for  any organisation in  any  form  of 
academia as well  as in  the industry, but  when operating in  an  academic  and technical  field 
that  requires  highly  skilled  workers,  it  can  be  even  more  difficult.  Along  with  the 
understanding of the need to  have access  to  a pipeline of talented people, organisations are 
also aware that they must produce and manage talent as a critical resource to achieve the best 
possible results. In this context, talent management becomes a strategic driver in the research-
researcher-research environment equation. Workforce demographics and skills shortages are 
likely  to  make  the  “war  on  talent”  fiercer  than  ever  before  making  effective  talent 
management a competitive necessity. 

Stark  differences  continue  to  exist  in  terms  of  the  attractiveness  of  research  careers 
across the EU. An important element of this is researcher’s remunerations, where there are 
not only important divergences between Member States, but also between researchers in the 
public sector and people with  a similar skill set  in the private sector. For an effective ERA 
talent pipeline several obstacles hampering the professional development of researchers need 

151 Defined by ISCO groups 1-3. 
152 In general, skills which have been learned in one context or to master a special situation/problem and can be 
transferred to another context are relevant to jobs and occupations other than those they currently have or have 
recently had (as broadly defined by Cedefop). 

66 

 
 
                                                           
to be solved, in both the attractiveness and the upskilling dimensions. The majority (70%) of 
researchers in EU28 countries consider themselves well paid or paid a reasonable salary – a 
slight  increase  of  around  3  percentage  points  since  2016.  However,  there  was  a  great 
heterogeneity between countries with respect to researchers’ satisfaction with remuneration. 
The  indicator  scores  were  the  highest  in  Luxembourg,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Belgium 
and  Austria/Ireland.  The  indicator  scores  were  the  lowest  in  Greece,  Slovakia,  Lithuania, 
Estonia and Poland. 

Yet,  while  remuneration  is  a  major  element  in  the  attractiveness  of  ERA,  so  too  are 
other  socio-economics  variables.  Against  this  background,  it  must  be  noted  that  a  round 
43%  of  all  researchers  consider  that  availability  of  research  funding  is  better  in  non-EU 
countries  than  in  the  EU.  The  share  of  researchers  considering  social  security  and  pension 
plan  better  in  non-EU  countries  than  in  the  EU  was  even  smaller  (29%  and  32% 
respectively). 

Figure 23. Individual satisfaction with research funding, by country (MORE3/MORE4) 

Source: MORE survey. 

There is a set of obstacles hampering the attractiveness of research careers.  First, there 
isn´t a clear legal definition of the research profession itself, which means there is still a lack 
of transparency and clarity on research career structures, the recognition of the diverse roles 
talents  trained  as  researcher  take  up  (e.g.  knowledge  brokers,  data  stewards,  research 
infrastructure operators, talent managers, etc). Second, the situation of precariousness of the 
employment  situation  of  researchers  (notably  postdoctoral  researchers  in  academia  who  are 
often  faced  with  consecutive  temporary  contracts)  has  not  been  duly  addressed.  Third,  the 
remuneration packages for researchers remain heterogeneous across the EU, namely salaries, 
social  security  systems  and  pension.  Fourth,  the  attractiveness  of  research  careers  is  also 
hampered  by  the  narrow  focus  of  current  researcher  career  assessment  systems,  as  flexible 
career  paths  in  terms  of  interdisciplinary,  intersectoral,  and  international  mobility  are 
insufficiently  enabled  or  rewarded.  Although  interdisciplinarity  may  be  well  suited  to 
addressing complex ethical and societal challenges while fostering academic excellence and 

67 

 
 
 
innovation, the development of policies pursuing interdisciplinary careers is hampered by the 
absence of a clear-cut definition and promotion of greater awareness of interdisciplinarity and 
its benefits. 

In addition, the absence of open access to job opportunities is a disincentive to starting or 
remaining in a research career in Europe. Recruitment is characterised by many national 
and institutional-level  specificities.  Institutional and cultural  barriers remain  in  a number of 
countries  and  institutions,  sometimes  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  perceptions  of  researchers 
regarding  fair,  equal  treatment  and  opportunities  for  the  benefit  of  all.    More  progress  is 
needed  to  set  conditions  for  open,  transparent  and  merit-based  recruitment  (i.e. 
advertising  research  positions  more  widely  and  in  English  on  EURAXESS  or  other 
international or national online job boards), also to set clear procedures on the composition of 
selection  panels,  transparent  selection  criteria,  as  well  as  having  in  place  feedback  and 
complaint mechanism offered to applicants. 

Indeed,  the  European  Charter  and  Code  for  Researchers  and  its  HR  excellence  in  research 
award have been an effective tool in strengthening the commitment of research organisations 
towards  human  resources  as  well  as  improving  the  researcher-employer  relationship,  with 
more  than  500  research  institutions  and  universities  having  obtained  the  award  since  2010. 
However, more efforts are needed to ensure common standards for researchers working 
conditions and to render researchers’ careers attractive and sustainable across all EU. 
A  more  ambitious  and  visible  Charter  and  Code  for  researchers  with  a  flexible  and  solid 
implementation  mechanism  suitable  for  all  research  performing  and  funding  institutions 
becomes paramount. 

There  is  a  limited  awareness  of  benefits  stemming  from  intersectoral  mobility  in  the 
industry and variety of approaches in promotion of mobility among Member States. A 
recent assessment of existing provision of EU schemes promoting intersectoral mobility153 
assessed both, supply and demand side of mobility. On the demand side, countries with 
long-established  industry-academia  cooperation  show  strong  demand  for  PhD  and  post-
doctoral researchers, in particular in STEM fields. Such demand is particularly strong in areas 
with shortages of specialist skills, especially programming and cryptography within the ICT 
domain. The demand can also  vary  by the size  of businesses, with  larger firms  being more 
aware  of  benefits  that  recruitment  of  researchers  bring.  Although  not  fully  realising  the 
potential of such recruitments and perceiving research skills as ‘too theoretical’, the general 
attitudes  of  these  businesses  seem  to  be  changing.  Research  on  the  supply  side  showed  a 
variety of intersectoral mobility schemes across the European countries. 

Furthermore,  there  are  also  expectations  on  shifting  role  of  the  employer  as  family, 
well-being,  mental  health,  and  work-life  balance  interplay  with  professional  matters. 
Examined patterns of mobility have also revealed that the so-called “soft-factors” such as the 
relocation  experience  can  influence  the  decision-making  and  researcher’s  willingness  to 

153  Study  on  Fostering  Industrial  Talents  in  Research  at  European  Level  (CSES,  2019).  It  covered  the  Marie 
Skłodowska-Curie  Innovative  Training  Networks  (MSCA  ITN),  the  SME  Associate  Pilot,  and  the  European 
Institute  of  Innovation  &  Technology  (EIT)'s  Knowledge  and  Innovation  Communities  (KICs),  which  offer 
Masters and Doctoral courses and the European Structural & Investment Funds (ESIF) to facilitate  researcher 
mobility  

68 

 
 
                                                           
relocate (IDEA consult et al., 2017). These become rather strategic factors in institutional and 
human  resources  strategies  to  attract  the  right  people  in  a  competitive  environment,  where 
family  life  also  matters.  Family  status  plays  a  role  in  PhD  mobility,  whose  international 
mobility  reaches  26%  when  having  children,  compared  to  38%  for  researchers  without 
children. The barriers to mobility perceived by non-mobile PhD researchers have not change 
over time and are comparable to the post-PhD mobility barriers.154 Family can determine the 
mobility  readiness  and  influence  other  factors,  such  as  culture  or  international  networking. 
Given  that  many  researchers  return  to  their  countries  due  to  lack  of  opportunities  for  the 
accompanying partner, integration services for researchers and their families, as well as 
dual  career  and  spouse  career  orientation  and  guidance  become  an  investment  into  the 
R&I system and a key enabler of brain and knowledge circulation. The EURAXESS network 
of support services improved the relocation experience of internationally mobile researchers 
through assistance with issues such as accommodation, visa and work permits, or recognition 
of diplomas. The network deals with about 450.000 mobility cases per year and leveraging its 
existing capacities to  better address  the physical  and social  integration of researchers  could 
provide a transformation and scale-up mechanism  ensuring inclusive, healthy and attractive 
work environment for research in ERA.  

These  changing  researchers’  expectations  go  hand  in  hand  with  a  growing  interest 
among  universities  and  publicly-funded  research  institutes  in  using  intersectoral 
mobility  as  a  mechanism  to  strengthen  cooperation  with  industry  and  with  individual 
companies.  There is an increased pressure on researchers at all levels to open their horizons 
to  a  non-academic  career.  There  is  also  evidence  of  growing  awareness  and  increasing 
demand, particularly among larger firms and SME’s as to the benefits of taking part in mainly 
one-direction  intersectoral  mobility,  to  be  able  to  identify  the  brightest  industrial  research 
talents, where only very few return to academia at a later stage in their career.    

2.4.1.3  Expected implications under a new ERA 

Action under a new ERA 

The Commission will:  
  Deliver,  by  the  end  of  2024,  in  partnership  with  Member  States  and  research 

organisations,  a  toolbox  of  support  for  researchers  careers  with  the  following 
components: (i) a Researchers Competence Framework, (ii) a mobility scheme to support 
exchange  between  industry  and  academia,  (iii)  targeted  training  under  Horizon  Europe 
and (iv) a one-stop shop portal . The toolbox will lead to the creation of a pipeline for 
talent. (Action 8) 

Expected implications: 

  Acceleration of the achievement of a knowledge-based society and economy: An 
enhanced  framework  for  researchers'  careers  within  the  EU  will  contribute  to  a 
pipeline of highly skilled, creative, and resilient talents. 

154 Emphasis is on personal or family related reasons (58%), the ability to obtain funding for mobility (44%) or 
for research (43%) and finding a suitable position (42%) rank among the top barriers. 

69 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Updated  frameworks  for  how  researchers  are  rewarded,  and  broadening 
researchers´  skill  sets:  The  toolbox  will  allow  to  better  connect  high-quality 
scientific  knowledge  production,  open  access  and  data  sharing,  open  collaborative 
work, societal concerns and engagement and impact to boost the recognition of ‘open 
scholarship’.  This  will  lead  to  an  academic  reward  system  that  prioritises  quality, 
openness, creativity, collaboration also with non-academic sectors, sustainability and 
reusability over quantity.  

  More  equal  treatment  in  recruitment,  working  conditions,  promotion,  pay, 
access to vocational training, occupational pensions and dismissal:  These actions 
will  have  as  their  ultimate  objective  to  incentivise  Member  States  to  put  in  place 
competitive remuneration packages for their public researchers. 

  Increased  circulation  and  mobility  of  R&I  human  resources  worldwide  and 
reinforced  international  partnerships  for  the  training  of  researchers:  With  new 
arrangements  and  global  partnerships  and  efforts  it  is  expected  that  the  mobility  of 
researchers worldwide will increase, as well as knowledge diffusion. This would also 
build upon the very strong international dimension of MSCA to ensure mobility flows 
of  researchers  are  based  on  mutual  interests,  and  reciprocity  when  relevant,  and  to 
have institutional impact, notably for inter-sectoral collaboration or the development 
of international doctoral programmes. 

2.4.2  Open Science 

Indicator 

Latest value 

Share of publications 
available in Open 
Access155 

46.1% (2017) 

2.4.2.1  Progress so far 

International 
comparison 
Lower than US 
and JP, higher 
than CN and KR 

Trend 

Assessment of 
trend 

+2.6% per year since 2000 
+0.4% per year since 2010 

All  areas  of  research  are  becoming  data-intensive,  increasingly  relying  upon  and 
generating  big  data.  Digitalisation  has  the  potential  to  promote  collaboration  as  well  as 
improve  the  efficiency  of  scientific  research  (OECD,  2019a).  The  most  noted  potential, 
which  applies  across  all  disciplines,  concerns  exploiting  data  and  machine-learning 
techniques in the research process (OECD, 2019b). Avenues to promote the digitalisation of 
scientific  research  include  boosting  researchers’  digital  skills  and  ethical  awareness, 
promoting  open  science,  ensuring  appropriate  investments  in  digital  infrastructures  for 
research (e.g. platforms for sharing data and supercomputing facilities for AI), and creating 
incentives for interdisciplinary research.  

The  European  Commission  has  co-designed  and  co-implemented  an  ambitious  and 
holistic  open  science  policy,  as  an integral  part  of  EU  policy.  Open  science  is  emerging 
globally  as  the  new  modus  operandi  for  R&I,  as  researchers  share  and  use  knowledge  and 
data  early  in  the  process,  in  collaboration  with  all  relevant  knowledge  actors.  The 
Commission,  a  global  leader  in  open  science,  has  been  supporting  open  access  to  research 

155 EU. Sources: Science-Metrix based on Web of Science and 1findr. 

70 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
outputs,  including  full  and  immediate  open  access  to  scientific  publications  (as  of  Horizon 
Europe)  and,  where  possible,  open  access  to  research  data,  a  Web  of  FAIR  (Findable, 
Accessible,  Interoperable  and  Reusable)  research  data,  and  a  closer  collaboration  between 
science and society.  By  mobilising collective intelligence, including  citizens and  end-users, 
and  empowering  interdisciplinary  research,  open  science  also  increases  creativity,  leads  to 
more relevant and responsive research, and reinforces trust in the science system. 

The revised ‘Recommendation on access  to and preservation of scientific information’ 
(2018)  provides  guidelines  on  how  publicly  funded  research  should  be  made  openly 
available.  The  ‘EU  Copyright  Directive’  (2019)  establishes  rules  regarding  Text  and  Data 
Mining that allow research organisations and cultural heritage institutions to dig deeper into 
the  existing  knowledge  base  with  greater  legal  certainty.  The  ‘Open  data  Directive’  (2019) 
helps  increase  the  amount  of  public  sector  data  available  for  re-use  in  Europe,  and  now 
includes  research  data  under  its  scope.  The  open  access  policy  for  Horizon  Europe  will 
maintain some of the Horizon 2020 core elements such as the obligation of all beneficiaries 
to  deposit  in  trusted  repositories  and  make  their  peer-reviewed  scientific  publications 
available in open access. Beyond this, it will mainstream research data management and the 
proliferation  of  FAIR  data  by  making  Data  Management  Plans  mandatory  for  all  projects 
producing  data  with  no exception.  It  will  also  require  open  access  to  research  data  through 
trusted repositories under the principle ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’. 

The programme will  present a  comprehensive approach to open science, also  focusing 
on  incentivising  open  science  practices  by  considering  them  in  the  evaluation  of 
proposals, such as for example the early open sharing of research and the engagement 
with  local  communities  and  society  at  large.  Engaging  and  involving  citizens  and  civil 
society in co-designing R&I agendas and co-creating R&I content will be an integral part of 
Horizon  Europe  implementation.  The  EU  has  made  significant  investments  to  build  up 
competences, capacities, networks of practice and knowledge on how to successfully engage 
quadruple  helix  actors,  including  citizens  and  civil  society,  in  R&I.  In  parallel,  the  EU 
continues  to  incentivise  citizen  engagement  in  R&I,  including  in  preparations  for  Horizon 
Europe Missions, Partnerships and Clusters. 

The EU has made significant investments to build up competences, capacities, networks 
of  practice  and  knowledge  on  how  to  successfully  engage  quadruple  helix  actors, 
including  citizens  and  civil  society,  in  R&I.  The  open  access  policy  for  Horizon  Europe 
will maintain some of Horizon 2020 core elements such as the obligation of all beneficiaries 
to deposit and make their peer-reviewed scientific publications available in open access, but 
will also request that a beneficiary deposits its research data in a trusted repository and makes 
them openly available, in line with the principle ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, 
under the FAIR principles. The programme will also incentivise open science practices such 
as engagement with local communities and society at large. 

The European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), as a common, federated, European framework 
for sharing research data, plays a central role to accelerating the production, circulation and 
uptake  of  knowledge  by  enabling  a  European  data  commons  and  by  providing  seamless 
access to existing capacities to store, access, combine, analyse and process research data and 
preserve  them  in  the  long  term.  The  European  Commission  enhanced  the  contribution  of 

71 

 
 
European  R&I  infrastructures  to  the  development  of  the  European  Open  Science  Cloud,  in 
particular  fostering  the  development  and  connectivity  of  data  resources  and  services  of  a 
distributed nature. These European data services form an ecosystem aimed at enabling open 
access of researchers to data across borders and science fields.  The effective and sustainable 
long  term  operation  of  these  European  data  facilities  is  crucial  for  the  realisation  of  the 
EOSC. 

At  national  level,  policies  for  open  access  to  scientific  publications  have  progressed 
rapidly  over  the  last  decade  and  the  majority  of  ERA  countries  have  now  adopted 
strategies  and  also  some  legal  measures.  However,  even  in  countries  that  have  adopted 
legislation, enforcement varies greatly. Regarding open access to research data, progress has 
been much slower across ERA, and there is a great diversity of approaches across countries 
and disciplines. The progress both in open access and in data production and its availability is 
increasing  quality  and  speeding  up  the  research  process,  addressing  also  issues  of 
reproducibility  (e.g.  Ioannidis  and  Khoury,  2011)  and  increasing  the  efficiency  of  public 
investment  in  research.  Recent  evidence  has  found  that  –  as  a  direct  result  of  directional 
policies  by  research  funders  –    open  science  activities  have  structuring  effects  on  both 
scientific  outputs  and  knowledge  flows,  as  well  as  on  institutional  research  structures  and 
practices, increasing research performance and economic performance (Tennant et al., 2016; 
Fell, 2019). 

The EU is also cooperating globally (for example with OECD, the G7, and bilaterally with 
many countries amongst which the US, China, India) to accelerate the transition to full and 
immediate open access to scientific publications, to ensure that FAIR and open data becomes 
the  standard,  and  to  drive  policy  agendas  for  rewards  and  incentives,  open  science  skills, 
opening  science  to  society,  and  reducing  inequalities  in  opportunities  for  practicing  open 
science.  

Figure 24. Open access scientific publications with digital object identifier (DOI) as % 
of total scientific publications with DOI, 2009 and 2017 

Source: DG Research and Innovation, European Commission. 

72 

010203040506070%Open access scientific publications(1)with digital object identifier (DOI) as % of total scientific publications with DOI, 2009 and 20172017: Green Access only2017: Gold Access only2017: Gold and Green AccessTotal 2009 
 
 
Note: Data produced by Science-Metrix using data from Scopus and 1findr databases. The full counting method was used. 

2.4.2.2  Outstanding challenges 

A  pandemic  such  as  COVID-19  has  shown  the  importance  of  rapid  collection  and 
comprehensive  sharing  of  research  data  and  other  research  output,  including  not  only 
the  development  of  effective  diagnostics,  treatments  and  vaccines  and  the  monitoring  and 
tracking of the spread of the virus, but also in gaining a more comprehensive understanding 
of its characteristics, such as the symptoms, the demographics of those most-at risk, the pre-
existing medical conditions that magnify the negative health impacts from those infected, etc. 
Importantly,  it  has  also  led  to  additional  efforts  to  allocate,  coordinate,  and  align  research 
funding at the global level towards research for a vaccine and relevant medicines. The same 
holds true in the fight against climate change (e.g. Mission Innovation), and in finding ways 
to  tackle  rising  inequalities  worldwide,  together.  This  hints  at  the  importance  of  research 
data sharing, and open access to research outputs to speed up the process of scientific 
discovery as well as improve research quality, productivity and reproducibility while taking 
ethics and privacy into account. 

2.4.2.3  Expected implications under a new ERA 

Action under a new ERA 

The Commission will: 
  Launch, via the Horizon Europe Programme, a platform of peer-reviewed open access 
publishing; analyse authors’ rights to enable sharing of publicly funded peer-reviewed 
articles without restriction; ensure a European Open Science Cloud that is offering 
findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable research data and services (Web of 
FAIR); and incentivise open science practices by improving the research assessment 
system. (Action 9) 

Expected implications: 

  Increased  excellence  and  social  relevance  of  research:  encompassing  the 
dimensions of openness, ethics, education and training can elevate both the quality of 
research activities and their purposefulness. 

  More efficient process and faster scientific results and advances: sharing data in a 
privacy-friendly manner  (as open as possible, as  closed as necessary)  and providing 
open  access  to  research  outputs  will  allow  for  faster  and  higher  quality  scientific 
breakthroughs,  which  are  essential  especially  in  the  current  times  of  a  global 
pandemic. 

  High-quality,  reusable  and  reproducible  research:  sharing  data,  publications  and 
other  research  contributions  and  outputs  will  ultimately  make  research  more  robust 
and reliable, as it can be also checked or built upon by others. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4.3  Research and technology infrastructures 

2.4.3.1  Progress so far 

Indicator 

2018 

Trend 

Assessment of 
trend 

Share of developing 
ESFRI Projects and 
operational ESFRI 
Landmarks in which a 
Member 
State/Associate 
Country is a 
partner156 

35% 

+15% since 2016 

Research  infrastructures  (RI)157  are  facilities,  resources  and  services  that  are  used  by 
the  research  communities  to  conduct  research  and  foster  innovation  in  their  fields. 
“They  include:  major  scientific  equipment  (or  sets  of  instruments),  knowledge-based 
resources such as collections, archives and scientific data, e-infrastructures, such as data and 
computing  systems  and  communication  networks  and  any  other  tools  that  are  essential  to 
achieve excellence in research and innovation.”158 Research infrastructures contribute to key 
scientific and technology discoveries and can often have a considerable impact in the broader 
economic  and  societal  context, 
industrial  development, 
environmental protection, improved health and preservation of our cultural heritage. They are 
a  key  element  providing  a  framework  in  which  scientists  and  engineers  can  carry  out  their 
work in the facilities which best meet their needs, irrespective of where they are in Europe. 
Understanding these impacts, and the capability of research infrastructures to achieve them, is 
necessary  for  the  public  authorities  to  make  informed  investment  decisions  aligned  with 
broader political goals.  

for  example, 

including, 

To  support  their  use,  the  Framework  Programme  contributes  to  funding  the 
transnational  access  of  researchers  to  national  facilities.  Up  to  now,  the  EU  research 
infrastructure action covered under Horizon 2020 the costs of transnational access of nearly 
15.000 researchers visiting a research infrastructure not located in their country. In the move 
towards developing a clear ERA policy  for access  to  research infrastructures, the European 
Commission developed, in close cooperation with a broad range of stakeholders, a European 
Charter for Access to Research Infrastructures159. 

The  European  Strategy  Forum  on  Research  Infrastructures,  ESFRI,  has  a  key  role  in 
policy-making on  research infrastructures in  Europe.  It  contributes to the development of  a 
strategic  roadmap  that  identifies  vital  new  European  RIs  for  the  next  10-20  years.  So  far, 
there  are  five  editions  of  the  ESFRI  Roadmaps  (2006,  2008,  2010,  2016  and  2018).  They 
resulted  in  the  development  of  55  European  Research  Infrastructures,  of  which  37  have 
already  been  implemented,  across  all  fields  of  science,  mobilising  close  to  €20  billion  in 

156 EU28. Source : ESFRI. 
157 https://www.esfri.eu/ 
158 Article 2 (6) of the Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of 11 December 2013: `Establishing Horizon 2020 - the 
Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014- 2020)` 
159 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Unit B4-Research Infrastructures, 
European Charter for Access to Research Infrastructures, 2016. 

74 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
investments160.  Moreover,  ESFRI  has  had  an  important  impact  on  fostering  a  strategic 
approach to Research Infrastructures at national level161, as 22 Member States have prepared 
national  roadmaps in  recent  years, many of them following the ESFRI methodology and in 
increasing alignment with European priorities. 

Technology  Infrastructures  (TI)  are  facilities,  equipment,  capabilities  and  support 
services required to develop, test and upscale technology to advance from validation in 
a  laboratory  up  to  higher  Technology  Readiness  Levels  prior  to  competitive  market 
entry. They can have public, semi-public or private status. Their users are mainly industrial 
players,  including  SMEs,  which  seek  support  to  develop  and  integrate  innovative 
technologies  towards  commercialisation  of  new  products,  processes  and  services,  whilst 
ensuring  feasibility  and  regulatory  compliance.  TIs  can  be  understood  as  a  broad  concept 
currently  encountered  under  many  activities  in  various  sectors  across  different  EU 
programmes,  e.g.  pilot  lines,  testing  facilities,  digital  innovation  hubs,  open  innovation 
testbeds, KETs centres, demonstration sites or living labs. Some Research Infrastructures also 
provide services similar to certain technology infrastructures. 

2.4.3.2  Outstanding challenges 

infrastructures, 

Regarding  Research 
the  European  Strategy  Forum  on  Research 
Infrastructures,  in  its  White  Paper  ‘Making  Science  Happen’,162  called  for  a  fully 
consolidated European ecosystem of Research Infrastructures enabling Europe to pursue the 
greatest of scientific challenges and generating the new knowledge necessary to address the 
most  pressing  of  global  societal  challenges  and  improving  the  everyday  life  of  European 
citizens. Achieving this vision requires a strengthened interplay between research, innovation 
and  education,  underpinned  by  greater  coherence  between  European,  national  and  regional 
priorities  and  policies  for  Research  Infrastructure  development  and  funding,  and  effective 
synergies with other European policies and funding instruments.  

In particular, there is a need to closely link and coordinate the research and technology 
infrastructures  with  Cohesion  policy  support.  Some  less  developed  Member  States  in 
terms of GDP have significant resources allocated from Cohesion policy to this end but their 
capacity  to  manage  complex  R&I  projects,  particularly  with  private  sector,  needs  to  be 
reinforced.  

There  is  an  urgent  need  for  aligning  the  European  investment  priorities  in  R&I 
infrastructures  with  key  international  partners  to  support  cutting  edge  science  and 
address  global  challenges.  Cutting-edge  science  in  many  fields  requires  increasingly 
complex instrumentation in order to push beyond the boundaries of current knowledge. This 
is particularly true in the fields of particle physics and astrophysics, where the development 
of future instrumentation is likely to be beyond the financial and human resources available 
to  single  countries  or  regions.  Equally,  cooperation  between  existing  infrastructures  across 
the world, particularly concerning health and environmental science, is necessary to combat 
global  phenomena  such  as  climate  change  and  pandemic  health  risks,  which  will  only 

160 See http://roadmap2018.esfri.eu/. 
161 See ERA Progress Report 2018, p. 7. 
162 ‘Making Science Happen – a New Ambition for Research Infrastructures in the European Research Area’, 
European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, April 2020, see www.esfri.eu 

75 

 
 
                                                           
increase  in  future.  Progress  in  this  direction  requires  coordination  among  governments  and 
funders, strengthening the capacity of existing bodies at European (ESFRI) and international 
(The Group of Senior Officials of G7) level. 

There  is  also  a  need  to  build  upon  the  European  Charter  for  Access  to  Research 
Infrastructures,  to  ensure  harmonised  transnational  access  conditions  across  ERA  and 
policy for the use of R&I infrastructures across regions and countries. However, the access of 
scientists  from  and  in  different  parts  of  Europe  to  high  quality  resources  is  not  always 
homogenous, as highlighted in the ERA Progress Report 2018, with different rules between 
countries  and  between  infrastructures  themselves.  This  continues  to  hamper  access  to 
resources, limiting Europe’s capacity to respond quickly to emerging scientific needs and to 
develop  the  skills  of  researchers,  limiting  the  translation  of  discoveries  into  innovative 
solutions  and  in  general  limits  Europe’s  capacity  to  respond  quickly  to  emerging  scientific 
needs. 

At  present,  the  methodologies  for  monitoring  the  performance  and  impact  used  by 
research infrastructures and their funders are still fragmented and underdeveloped, with ad 
hoc assessments, based on limited data. They are also usually analysed separately, while they 
are  closely  interlinked  and  there  are  significant  overlaps  between  the  indicators  used.  It  is 
important that performance assessment and impact assessment are brought together under a 
single  framework,  for  which  implementation  modalities  have  to  be  agreed  with  public 
authorities and the research infrastructures which will use it. 

The  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  on  Technology  Infrastructures  (SWD  (2019) 
158) has identified four main challenges for technology infrastructures and their role in  the 
creation  of  agile  innovation  ecosystems.  These  challenges  are  priority  setting  mechanisms 
needed  to  help  aligning  public  and  private  investments  in  the  creation  and  connection  of 
technology infrastructures, networking of existing  and new technology infrastructures, their 
visibility to potential users, and the transparency of access conditions.  

2.4.3.3  Expected implications under a new ERA 

Action under a new ERA 

The Commission will, together with the Member States: 
  Support  ESFRI  to  work  towards  a  world-class  research  infrastructures  ecosystem 
focusing on the broader range of the EU’s policy priorities and improve its governance 
to  address  the broadened focus  of its activity by  the end of 2021,  and establish a new 
governance structure for Technology Infrastructures. (Action 10) 

Expected implications: 

  Quicker  development  and 

innovations: 
Improvements in the governance structure of research and technology infrastructures 
will  make  it  ultimately  easier  for  new  solutions  to  be  tested  and  ready  to  enter  the 
market. 

testing  opportunities 

for  new 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Greater alignment of the infrastructures  to support EU´s policy priorities: This 
will  support  cutting-edge  science  to  tackle  social,  environmental  and  health 
challenges with a global dimension. 

2.4.4  Strengthening the public science system through synergies with the European 

Education Area 

Indicator 

Latest value 

Trend 

Research excellence, 
EU163 

38.1 (2018) 

+2.3% over 2013-2018 
+1.5% over 2016-2018 

Assessment of 
trend 

 but 

SLOWDOWN  

2.4.4.1  Progress so far  

The  EU  and  China  are  global  leaders  in  terms  of  scientific  output,  while  the  United 
States retains the lead in scientific quality. With less than 7% of the world population, the 
EU  is  responsible  for  20%  of  global  R&D  expenditure  and  21%  of  scientific  publications 
worldwide.  The  United  States  maintains  its  global  leadership  in  terms  of  highly-cited 
scientific publications. Europe remains in second place, while China continues its sharp rise. 
Although Europe has made some progress in raising the quality of its science, differences 
across  European  countries  persist.  Research  excellence  in  the  ERA  has  improved  over 
2010-2016,  even  though  it  has  slowdown  more  recently.  Switzerland  leads,  followed  by 
western  European  countries,  which  have  been  improving  their  scientific  performance  since 
2000. A decline in scientific output has been noted for Iceland, Israel, Malta and Turkey since 
2007. 

Moreover, a positive correlation between R&D intensity and scientific quality is evident 
in  most  countries.  The  Netherlands,  Switzerland,  Denmark,  Sweden,  Belgium,  Finland, 
Austria, Norway and Germany enjoy higher levels of public investment in R&D than the EU 
average,  as  well  as  better  scientific  results.  All  Mediterranean  (except  Italy),  Central  and 
Eastern  European  countries  show  below-EU-average  R&D  investment  levels  matched  with 
below EU-average levels of scientific excellence. In the European Semester cycle of 2019, a 
number  of  countries  received  a  country-specific  recommendation  (CSR)  to  promote  the 
quality and efficiency of their national R&I systems. 

163 EU27. Source: European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre. 

77 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 25. Scientific quality and R&D investments 

Source: Eurostat (online data code: rd_e_gerdtot), OECD and Science-Metrix using data from the Scopus database 

Europe  has  a  strong  knowledge  community  composed  of  highly  competitive, 
entrepreneurial  universities  and  other  higher  education  institutions,  increasingly  networked 
with businesses and society. Universities exist to serve society and are integrators of society: 
they  create  as  well  as  transmit  talents  and  knowledge  (educate  and  innovate).  Delivering 
flexible, critical-thinking, decision-making, concerned and engaged citizens is a crucial task 
of universities; talented people are essential for the future economy and society. 

Universities  are  key  actors  (and  increasingly  so)  well-integrated  in  local  ecosystems 
serving  economy  and  society,  co-creating  knowledge  and  uptake  of  new  knowledge  and 
know-how  in  cooperation  with  research  organisations,  business,  citizens  and  government, 
fostering  collaboration  with  a  wide  range  of  actors  starting  from  scientific  expertise.  This 
community  of  universities  has  the  potential  to  become  even  more  structured  around 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Missions, across languages, borders, disciplines 
and  sectors.  It  would  be  pushing  the  barriers  of  curiosity-driven  as  well  as  utility-driven 
research,  mobilising  innovation  ecosystems  surrounding  universities  (including  cultural, 
social,  technological,  and  economical  innovations),  supporting  the  emergence  of  innovative 
initiatives and enterprises, and empowering engaged and active citizens to transform the way 
we live and work. 

78 

EUBEBGCZDKDEEEIEELESFRHRITCYLVLTLUHUMTNLATPLPTROSISKFISEUKISNOCHTRILUSJPCNKR2468101214160.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.2Top 10% highly cited scientific publications(1)  (%), 2016 (citation window: 2016-2018) Public R&D intensity (%), 2016Public R&D intensity and top 10% highly cited scientific publications, 2016(citation window: 2016-2018) 
 
 
 
The EU has around 5000 higher education institutions164, of which an estimated 800-1000 are 
operating  (or  aim  to  operate)  in  the  middle  of  the  knowledge  triangle:  education  – 
research  –  service  to  society,  incl.  innovation.  This  part  of  university  sector  currently  is 
amongst the most dynamic sectors in society, and likely entails EU’s most important target 
enabling  effective  realisation  of  ERA.  The  question  is  how  to  step  up  the  game,  including 
introducing  more  systematic  support  for  universities.  At  the  same  time,  it  should  be 
acknowledged  that  the  autonomy  of  universities  is  an  essential  feature  for  ERA  and  for 
Europe’s society; similarly, the diversity of the university landscape in Europe likely remains 
one of ERA’s strengths.  

The rapidly changing environment – including decreasing trust in science and scientists 
– questions what kind of university EU needs, and for what kind of society. The idea of a 
university remains strongly value-driven, though: social engagement, the role of universities 
in  beating  inequalities,  in  fighting  climate  change,  in  diseases,  in  democratic  and  anti-
populism are crucial. 

Several systems visibly consolidated their investment effort in the long run in terms of 
public funding to universities. Iceland now reached the top category (over 20% investment). 
Others recorded further consolidation (Belgium-Flanders, Luxembourg, Poland and Sweden) 
or made significant improvements (Croatia, Slovenia). Several systems reduced the funding 
gap  accumulated  since  2008  (Czechia,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Lithuania  and  Romania).  The 
average annual funding change in real terms significantly differed across 33 systems in 2008-
2018.  Luxembourg  is  on  top  of  the  sample  with  a  nearly  10%  average  annual  increase, 
whereas Wales is subject to a negative trend of the same magnitude. In total, 14 systems have 
negative  average  annual  values  and  19  systems  have  positive  values.  In  10  systems,  the 
average annual funding change remained flat (between -1% and +1%). 

164 Source: EACEA, https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/documents/applicants/higher-
education-charter_en 

79 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 26. Evolution of public funding to universities, 2008-2018 

Source:  EUA  Public  Funding  Observatory,  February  2020,  https://eua.eu/101-projects/586-public-funding-
observatory.html  
Note: Map in the study does not show the border with Kosovo. 

Norway and Sweden have been following a positive funding trajectory that helped this group 
of  countries  preserve  their  student/staff  ratios.  Portugal  has  gradually  re-invested  in  the 
higher education sector since 2013, although the additional funds were largely used to cover 
for rising staff costs including social contributions. The second group of systems are subject 
to higher pressure due to rising student numbers. Italy and Spain, as well as several Central 
and  Eastern  European  countries,  experience  negative  patterns  both  in  terms  of  student 
enrolment and public funding. Poland is an exception to this trend, as it continues to invest in 
public universities to respond to brain drain and reducing student cohorts. Slovenia has been 
reinvesting for three years against a negative demographic background. Ireland, Romania and 
Serbia have cut funds over the monitored period, while facing growing student populations. 

80 

 
 
 
 
Figure 27. Long-term financial and demographic pressures 

Source:  EUA  Public  Funding  Observatory,  February  2020,  https://eua.eu/101-projects/586-public-funding-
observatory.html  

2.4.4.2  Outstanding challenges 

To capitalise on the potential of the rich and diverse higher education institutions landscape 
in  Europe,  universities  will  need  support  for  the  various  institutional  changes  and 
transformations 
institutional 
transformation  narrative  in  a  revitalised  European  Research  Area  would  be  to  strengthen 
universities in the entire European Union by: leveraging research excellence in universities in 
less competitive research systems; supporting transformation of universities and surrounding 
ecosystems; raising the international profile of European universities. 

they  are  deploying.  The  aim  of  a  comprehensive 

The relationship between research and education, including at EU level, is probably the most 
complex  nexus  when  aiming  at  modernising  the  university  sector,  also  because  of  the 
different  competencies  of  the  political  actors  involved.  ERA  is  expected  to  underpin  the 
R&I  dimension  of  universities  through  a  transformation  agenda  together  with  the 
European Education Area, enabling shared objectives between the EU and Member States 
initiatives to transform higher education institutions on their education, research, innovation 
and service to society missions. This transformation is currently piloted under the Erasmus+ 
European Universities initiative, complemented by Horizon 2020 with a view to deploying a 
large-scale testbed to deepen the research and innovation dimension. 

Whilst  there  is  a  consensus  that  pursuing  research  excellence  is  a  continuing  priority, 
the  degree  to  which  competition,  as  opposed  to  cooperation,  should  be  pursued,  is  a 
topic  of  debate  among  universities  across  Europe  and  university  umbrella 
organisations.  Among  universities  in  many  European  countries,  there  is  less  stress  on 
competition  and  more  on  pursuing  cooperation,  which  is  valued  highly,  with  strong 
opportunities for cooperation throughout the EU programmes and the common structures of 

81 

 
 
 
the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). In a recent consultation, the university sector 
advocates  creating  an  enabling  legal  framework  for  (trans)national  cooperation  between 
universities in Europe. 

For the R&I dimension, ERA has an important strategic role to play as an enabler in allowing 
Europe’s  universities  to  flourish165,  solving  various  outstanding  challenges  such  as: 
removing  national  and  regional  regulatory  barriers  to  the  circulation  of  talents  and 
knowledge; defending academic freedom and the freedom of the individual researcher within 
the  EU  and  internationally;  creating  the  legal  mechanisms  for  universities  to  cooperate  on 
research agendas on a cross-border and intersectoral basis; promoting the sharing of access to 
infrastructures;  promoting  greater  uptake  of  digitalisation  by 
universities’  research 
universities, empowering the further transition to knowledge- and digitally-driven universities 
embracing  open  science;  strengthening  attractiveness  of  researchers’  careers,  towards  a 
pipeline  of  talents  crucial  for  an  effective  ERA;  facilitating  co-operation  with  surrounding 
ecosystem  actors  for  the  transmission  of  knowledge  and  talents;  foster  efforts  in  creating 
proximity  to  citizens  for  societal  challenges,  such  as  the  SDGs;  and  providing  support  to 
universities to enable them to strengthen digital and entrepreneurial skills among academics 
and researchers. 

2.4.4.3  Expected implications under a new ERA 

Action under a new ERA 

The  Commission  will,  together  with  the  Member  States  through  the  EEA  and 
ERAC steering bodies: 
  Develop  a  roadmap  of  actions  for  creating  synergies  between  higher  education  and 

research, notably building on the dual role of universities. . (Action 11) 

Expected implications: 

  Greater  support  for  the  transformation  efforts  of  the  university  sector:  the 
development  of  a  transformation  agenda,  empowering  universities  towards  for 
instance  developing  shared  R&I  strategies  to  create  directional  and  interdisciplinary 
critical mass to more effectively create impact for society, facilitate sharing capacity 
and  resources,  strengthening  researchers’  careers  and  developing  an  effective  talent 
pipeline,  and  a  revamped  transition  to  knowledge-  and  digitally-driven  universities 
embracing open science, also with closer proximity to citizens. 

  More facilitated cooperation between universities and with other socio-economic 
actors:  universities  will  benefit  from  the  further  strengthening  of  core  ERA  values 
and principles such as academic freedom and free circulation of researchers. A longer-
term  cooperation  framework  for  transnational  cooperation  between  universities  and 
their  surrounding  innovation  ecosystems  in  Europe  covering  all  their  missions  will 
also prove beneficial. 

165 Consultation “Towards a 2030 Vision on the  Future  of Universities in Europe” (report of the analysis by 
CSES, forthcoming) 

82 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Enhanced  ambition  featured  in  the  investment  agenda  for  universities:  a  clear 
roadmap  on  EU  actions  with  strategic  public  and  private  partners  and  key  actors 
together  with  a  set  of  recommendations  will  tackle  short,  medium,  and  long-term 
needs through targeted spending.  

2.4.5  Gender equality to strengthen the European R&I potential 

Indicator 

Latest value 

Trend 

Assessment of 
trend 

Share of women as 
heads of institutions 
in the Higher 
Education Sector166 
Share of female PhD 
graduates167 

21.5% (2017) 

+2.1% per year (2014-2017) 

48% (2017) 

+0.2% per year (2013-2017) 

= 

Gender dimension in 
research content168 

1.05 (2017) 

+0.3% (2007-2010 to 2014-
2017) 
+2.5% (2011-2014 to 2014-
2017) 

2.4.5.1  Progress so far 

The European Union has been slowly progressing towards gender equality and has still  
room for improvement as shown by the Gender Equality Index score reaching 67 out of 100 
points in 2019 (EIGE, 2020). This applies to European research, but also to an increasingly 
digitally-driven  economy  or 
the  emerging  sectors  of  economic  activity.  Gender 
mainstreaming  has  the  potential  to  build  more  equal  and  value-based  environment,  where 
adolescents’  career  plans  and  choice  of  field  of  study  as  well  as  parental  employment  or 
appointments  to  managerial  positions  would  mirror  gender  equality.  Besides  taking  into 
account potential sex or gender differences, gender equality in R&I enhances the quality and 
the  societal  relevance  of  the  developed  knowledge  and  contributes  to  technologies  together 
with products better suited to potential markets. The integration of the gender dimension into 
scientific publications has slightly progressed, making the EU perform better than the rest of 
the world, but remains still very limited169. 

The adoption of Gender Equality Plans and related policies as a pathway to institutional 
change  has  been  increasingly  embraced  by  many  research  organisations.  However,  the 
ERA  Progress  Report  2018  has  shown  the  significant  heterogeneity  across  Member  States. 
The report points to a need for higher multiplier effect and for broader concepts taking into 
account  gender  equality,  openness  to  intersectionality  (with  other  social  categories  e.g. 
ethnicity,  sexual  orientation,  disability  as  well  as  with  other  sectors  e.g.  business  and 
innovation) and geographical inclusiveness. 

Although  women  represent  48  %  of  EU  graduates  at  the  doctoral  level,  they  only 
account for about a third of all EU researchers and only a fifth of those in the business 

166 EU. Source: Women in Science database, DG Research and Innovation. 
167 EU28. Source: Eurostat. 
168 EU28. Source: Science-Metrix based on Web of Science. 
169 1.79% of total publications in the EU vs. 1.66% at global level (European Commission, She Figures 2018) 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
sector. The share of female researchers is still not balanced, depending to a large extent on 
the sector of activity, with relatively higher shares of female researchers in higher education 
and government sector (41 % in 2017)170  but only about a fifth of researchers in the business 
enterprise  sector  and  less  than  10  %  among  patent  holders.  Similar  and  rather  persistent 
trends  apply  to  the  broader  group  of  STEM  higher  education  graduates,  where  women  in 
2017 represented only about 33 %,   

Women  remain  in  a  minority  in  the  top  academic  positions  with  only  slight  recent 
improvements. Across the EU, the proportion of women among heads  of higher education 
institutions  rose  from  20.2  %  in  2014  to  21.7  %  in  2017,  though  some  countries  actually 
registered  a  decline,  and  women  represent  only  24%  of  full  professors  or  equivalent.  The 
under-representation  of  women  in  leadership  positions  has  wide  implications  for  both 
scientific advancement  and for industries  with  a  strong need  for  a technologically  educated 
workforce  (European  Commission,  2018).  In  recent  years,  more  scientific  institutions  have 
adopted  a  variety  of  measures  to  make  improvements,  such  as  leadership  training,  implicit 
bias training, and broader gender equality plans (Cameron et al., 2015). The progress in the 
ratios of women to men in senior academic and decision-making positions has fallen below 
expectations  given  the  growing  number  of  women  among  higher  education  graduates.  For 
example, in life sciences, women make up the majority of graduates up to doctoral level but 
are  less  successful  than  men  in  securing  research  grants  (ERC,  2018),  and  their  numbers 
progressively decline at higher career steps (Helmer, 2017). 

Box 15. National policy example 

Slovenia 

The  Resolution  on  the  National  Programme  for  Equal  Opportunities  for  Women  and 
Men  2005-2013  foresees  certain  measures  to  improve  the  position  of  women  in  science. 
These include e.g. support to and implementation of programmes and projects for increasing 
participation of women; support to researches and cooperation in the area of gender studies 
and integration of the principle of gender equality; creation and monitoring of EU indicators 
on  assuring  equal  opportunities;  elimination  of  obstacles  for  promotion  encountered  by 
female scientists. 
The  area  of  research  and  innovation  is  regulated  by  the  National  Research  and 
Development  Strategy  2011-2020,  which  foresees  an  Action  Plan  for  researchers’  better 
opportunities  throughout  the  whole  career  and  protects  the  gender  equality  principle.  The 
Ministry of Education, Science and Sport is also involved in GENDER-NET project, which 
encourages the creation of a gender action plan. Specific measures support gender balance in 
decision-making  and  the  enhancement  of  women’s  participation  in  research  organisations 
but  also  tackle  individual  career.  If  the  researcher  is  absent  due  to  parental  leave  in  the 
duration of at least six months, it is duly considered at project applications and eventually it 
prolongs the period until PhD defence. All permanent and temporary bodies of the Slovenian 
Research  Agency  should  guarantee  that  at  least  one  third  of  each  gender  is  represented  in 
science and more specifically at least one fifth of each gender in technical disciplines. 

170 Share of full-time equivalent (FTE) female researchers in the EU (without BE, GR and FI). 

84 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Despite some progress, a pronounced gender gap remains in the creation of innovative 
startups.  Overall,  women  founders  remain  under-represented  in  the  creation  of  startups 
despite  having  doubled  their  representation  from  8  %  in  2000  to  16  %  in  2016  in  OECD 
countries  (Lassébie  et  al,  2019).  Taking  into  account  the  countries  with  available  data,  the 
share  of  innovative  startups  with  at  least  one  woman  founder  is  the  highest  in  the  United 
States,  Italy,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom  (15%  or  slightly  above),  and  the  lowest  in 
Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark. Only 1 manager out of 3 
in the EU is a woman,  even less so in senior management positions of the top publicly-listed 
companies in the EU (Eurostat/EGE): in 2019, women accounted for 28% of board members 
of  the  largest  publicly  listed  companies  (up  from  only  15%  in  2012),  and  18%  of  senior 
executives (up from 10% in 2012). Female-founded unicorns are only 2% of EU unicorns171. 

STEM-related, tech, industries are dominated by men-founded companies. Women-led 
start-ups tend to be in areas generally perceived as less high-tech – such as consumer goods, 
lifestyle,  education,  and  fashion-  rather  than  hardware,  software,  information  technologies 
(Lassebie et al., 2019). A substantial part of the gender gap can be attributed to the origins of 
the  gender  gap  in  tertiary  education  and  later  career  paths  (e.g.  gap  in  STEM  education). 
Policies  to  close  the  participation  gap  of  women  would  need  to  address  upstream  factors 
related  to  education  and  training,  as  well  as  structural  barriers.  These  include  fostering 
institutional changes through the implementation of gender quality plans, as well as targeted 
support  to  women’s  participation  in  STEM  education  and  entrepreneurship,  various 
accompanying  business  supporting  schemes,  and  promoting  female  role  models  at  an  early 
age that can contribute to close the gender gap in top leadership positions. 

The scant research available on gender and platform work suggests that women work 
longer  hours  and  their  hourly  rates  are  on  average  two-thirds  of  those  of  their  male 
counterparts (Renan Barzilay and Ben-David, 2017). Studies have also found a systematic 
bias  in  customer  ratings  against  women  and  ethnic  minorities  (Mitchell  and  Martin,  2018; 
Rosenblat  et  al.  2016).  In  the  digital  sphere,  the  2018  OECD  International  Survey  of 
Scientific Authors  also  found a  ‘marked digital divide by gender and  age’.  In particular, 
female authors were found less involved than their male counterparts in the use of advanced 
tools  and  in  data/code  sharing  practices,  even  though  women  were  more  likely  to  report 
‘engagement in activities contributing to their digital online identity and communication’. A 
gender  gap  in  AI  research  also  remains  in  Europe,  though  less  pronounced  than  in  other 
major  economies  such  as  South  Korea  and  Japan.  The  share  of  AI  papers  with  at  least  a 
female co-author is the highest in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Portugal, and the lowest in 
Finland, Czechia and Greece (NESTA, 2019).  

171 According to H2020-funded KNOWINN Project, based on CRUNCHBASE 

85 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 28. Gender gaps in R&I in the EU, including dispersion between lowest, median 
and top EU Member State 

Source: DG Research and Innovation- R&I Strategy and Foresight Unit, based on Eurostat, EIGE, NESTA (2019), Lassebie 
et al. (2019), Crunchbase. 
Notes:  (1)2017.Tertiary  graduates  in  Natural  sciences,  mathematics  and  statistics,  Information  and  Communication 
Technologies, and Engineering, manufacturing and construction.  (2)2017. EU aggregate estimated and does not include BE 
and FI. BE, EL, FI - head counts (HD) for share of females. (3)2019. Share of female board members in the largest publicly 
listed companies. Board members cover all members of the highest decision-making body in each company (i.e. chairperson, 
non-executive  directors,  senior  executives  and  employee  representatives,  where  present).  (4)2017.  Data  are  in  headcounts 
(HC). BE (French speaking community universities).  CZ, PT, RO, SI: 2016. CY: Academic Year 2015-2016. ES: 2015. LU 
excluded due to lack of data. BG: Data about heads of scientific organisations are not available. IE: Private colleges and 
other  smaller  institutions  are not  included.  (5)2018.  Graph  ranks  countries based on  the  share  of female  co-authors  in AI 
papers; NESTA (2019) uses author affiliations at the date of publication as a proxy of their location and focus on countries 
with at least 5 000 publications and more than 50% of the authors gender-labelled with a high degree of confidence. (6)2019. 
Executives refer to senior executives in the two highest decision-making bodies of the largest (max. 50) nationally registered 
companies listed on the national stock exchange. (7)The EU sample is restricted to companies located in IT, ES, IE, FR, DE, 
SE, NL, DK, founded between 2000 and 2017, and for which the gender of at least one founder can be identified. It refers to 
innovative startups with at least one female founder identified in the CRUNCHBASE database. 
2.4.5.2  Outstanding challenges 

Looking  at  the  underlying  causes  of  gender  inequalities  and  discrimination  can  assist  in 
setting relevant and targeted objectives and measures to eliminate gender inequalities (EIGE, 
2019).  The  European  level  has  a  key  role  to  play  in  shifting  biased  practices,  funding 
experimentation,  promoting  monitoring,  encouraging  workplace  flexibility  and  in 
general establishing a supportive policy context. Furthermore, the European Commission 
could  lead  dialogue  with  Member  States,  social  partners  and  other  relevant  actors  about 
complementary  actions  implemented  at  the  level  of  governments  or  institutions.  This  could 
emphasise the role of institutional change, challenging ideal worker assumptions, redesigning 
jobs  descriptions  and  harnessing  the  creativity  of  work  teams  in  a  manner  that  meets  the 
needs of workers and employers across sectors and organisations. The picture at the Member 
State  level  is  still  a  fragmented  one,  where  some  EU  Member  States  seem  to  have  made 
significant  progress,  but  others  not  so  much.  One  aspect  with  insufficient  attention  from 
Member  States  is  the  integration  of  sex  and  gender-based  analysis  into  research  and 
innovation  content.  However,  a  few  national  research  funding  organisations  are  at  the 

86 

0102030405060%Gender gaps in R&I in the EUincluding dispersion between lowest, median and top EU Member StateEU shareBottomMedianTopGender equality 
 
 
forefront on this key question, and their networking and joint advancement on the integration 
of the gender dimension into their funding programmes could be further stimulated. 

Despite the robust policy framework, there is an imbalance in the EU in the uptake of 
the structural change approach. Majority of countries with better innovation performance 
made institutional change a key element of their national R&I policy framework for gender 
equality unlike many less performing countries (SWG GRI 2018). Furthermore, the structural 
change approach has so far focused on gender equality without attending explicitly to other 
axes of inequality. This approach developed mainly in the public research, higher education 
sector and public research funding organisations but not sufficiently in the private sector. 

The issue of gender-based violence, including sexual harassment, in academia and R&I 
organisations is also increasingly being recognised as an issue needing to be tackled, but 
remains under-addressed by the EC and Member States172. Research shows that gender-based 
violence  is  prevalent  at  all  levels  of  higher  education  and  research  across  all  disciplines 
(Henning et al., 2017; Benya et al., 2018; Bondestam and Lundqvist, 2020). It is particularly 
critical  in  the  context  of the trans-national  mobility of  researcher staff,  and for early  career 
researchers  often  in  precarious  working  conditions  and  facing  asymmetric  power  relations 
with  supervisors.  International  studies  show  that  at  least  25%  of  female  students  have 
experienced  gender-based  violence  during  their  time  in  the  higher  education  sector  (Voth 
Schrag, 2017). While broader data collection among research and academic staff across the 
EU  is  still  lacking,  a  large  survey  conducted  by  the  EU  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights 
(FRA)  estimates  that  45  to  55%  of  women  in  the  EU  have  experienced  sexual  harassment 
since  the  age  of  15.  Among  these  women,  32%  indicated  someone  from  their  employment 
context – such as a colleague, a boss, or a customer – was the perpetrator (FRA, 2015). 

Achieving  an  inclusive  institutional  change  requires  a  comprehensive  set  of  actions 
addressing  the  three  main  ERA  gender  equality  objectives  simultaneously  to  support  a 
gender-equal  culture  within  organisations.  Gender  equality  strategies  could  profit  from 
being developed and supported in an intersectional way, through an analytical framework 
that examines interlocking and intersecting systems of power between gender and other social 
categories  and  identities,  such  as  ethnicity,  migration,  gender  identity,  sexual  orientation, 
socio-economic status or disability. 

2.4.5.3  Expected implications under a new ERA 

Action under a new ERA 

The Commission will:  
  Propose,  as  of  2021,  in  line  with  the  Horizon  Europe  programme  objectives,  the 
development of inclusive gender equality plans with Member States and stakeholders in 
order to promote EU gender equality in R&I. (Action 12) 

172 ERAC Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation, Report on “Sexual Harassment in 
the Higher Education Sector National Policies and Measures in EU Member States and Associated Countries” 
(June 2020) 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Expected implications: 

  Increased success of organisations thanks to greater diversity: there is a positive 
the 
correlation between the share  of RPOs with  gender equality plans (GEPs) and 
that 
innovation and excellence indicators  (Wroblewski,  2019).  Research 
diverse  teams  perform  better  and  make  better  decisions.  Individuals  from  different 
genders,  ethnicities, social  backgrounds and experiences  bring different  perspectives 
that can lead to  innovative solutions  that are more representative of society.  Faculty 
members found guilty of sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based violence 
could  be  denied  research  funds  and  career  advances,  just  as  when  they  are  found 
guilty of plagiarism. Within academia, as elsewhere, the harasser  often enjoys  large 
powers,  but  academic  power  is  strongly  tied  to  research  assessment.  This  is  why 
treating  harassment  as  research  misconduct  promises  to  be  effective  both  at  the 
symbolic level and on a practical level.  

shows 

  Greater  understanding  of  sex  and  gender  specificities:  Better  understanding  of 
stereotypical  alignment  between  gender  and  specific  occupational  activities  would 
help to remove constraints in career choices among youth. Studying gender and sex-
specificities in health research, social sciences, and other fields will allow for the fine-
tuning  of  responses  and  policies.  Thus,  integrating  the  gender  dimension  in  R&I 
content is vital for increasing research quality and societal relevance, and for societal 
acceptance and trust towards R&I solutions. 

thus 

  Improved work-life balance, equal access to opportunities and wellbeing: It will 
allow  for  improved  balance  between  professional  life  and  personal  life  for 
researchers,  and  as  a  result,  provide  greater  wellbeing  throughout  the  career 
development.  It  is  expected that this will contribute to  an increase in  the number of 
women in leadership positions, in both research organizations and companies.Better 
innovation  performance  of  businesses:  Diversity  in  R&I  leads  to  superior  results 
and 
2020).  
The  evidence  points  at  better  performance  of  startups  founded  and  cofounded  by 
women, although they have to face initial obstacles. Women owners who pitch their 
ideas  to  investors  for  early-stage  capital  receive  significantly  less  than  men  –  a 
disparity that averages more than EUR 1 million. (Abouzahr et al., 2018). Women-led 
startups  are  not  funded  on  an  equivalent  basis  due  to  structural  inequalities  in  the 
population of entrepreneurs and persistent biases (Fackelmann and De Concini, 2020). 
Yet  these  businesses  deliver  higher  revenues  suggesting  that  women-owned 
companies offer better investment opportunities for financial backers. 

innovation 

improves 

potential 

(Luqun 

al., 

et 

88 

 
 
 
 
3  The geopolitical dimension of ERA 

3.1  Progress so far 

Indicator 

Latest value 

Trend 

Assessment of 
trend 

Co-publications with 
non-ERA partners per 
1 000 researchers in 
the public sector173 
Non-EU doctorate 
students as a share 
of all doctorate 
students174 

261 (2018) 

+5.2% per year since 2007 
+4.1% since 2015 

16% (2017) 

-0.5% per year (2013-2017) 

= 

In  recent  years  the  global  R&I  landscape  has  shifted  towards  a  more  globalised, 
multipolar  and  diversified  network  of  actors,  while  an  increasing  proportion  of  R&I 
activities is performed outside of Europe. The EU's share of the world's gross expenditures 
in R&D has dropped from one fourth in 2000 to one fifth in 2017. China now ranks similarly 
to the EU in terms of R&D intensity, while the R&D intensity of South Korea is now more 
than  double  that  of  the  EU175.  33  out  of  the  top-50  R&D  investor  companies  are  situated 
outside  the  EU176.  The  EU  shows  high  rates  of  international  scientific  collaboration, 
which has seen sharp increases both in the EU and in the United States and Japan. The 
share  of  international  scientific  co-publications  in  the  EU28  almost  doubled  between  2000 
and  2018  (from  24.6  %  to  43.7  %,  including  intra-EU  collaborations),  with  an  even  more 
significant rate of growth observed in the United States (from 18.7 % to 38.3 %) and Japan 
(from  15  %  to  30.3  %)..  This  trend  leads  to  improved  scientific  quality  since  scientists 
achieve  greater  impact  from  their  international  collaborations.  International  scientific 
collaboration  is  actively  supported  at  the  European  level  through  the  international  reach  of 
Horizon  2020,  including  its  targeted  actions  for  international  cooperation,  the  dedicated 
mobility  and  training  instruments  of  the  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions  and  the 
international  collaborations funded by ERC  grants.  However,  granular data on EU Member 
State  collaboration  shows  that  several  eastern  European  countries  (Romania,  Bulgaria, 
Poland) still report lower levels of international exposure and collaboration. 

173 EU28. Source : Science-Metrix based on Eurostat. 
174 EU28 (without Germany). Source : Eurostat. 
175 Eurostat 
176 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard 2019 

89 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 29. International scientific co-publications as % of total scientific publications, 
2000 and 2018 

Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation, Chief Economist - R&I Strategy & Foresight Unit based on 
Science-Metrix using data form the Scopus database 
Note: (1)EU average includes intra-EU collaborations. 

The  United  States  and  the  EU  are  leading  in  international  technological  cooperation, 
while China and Japan have taken a step back. In some EU countries, as well as in globally 
catching-up  economies,  knowledge  diffusion  and  technological  transformation  continues  to 
be stimulated through foreign direct investment and foreign business research investment177. 
International  technological  cooperation  data  points  to  an  active  policy  in  China,  which  is 
trying to reduce its need for foreign-based technology through domestic competitiveness and 
to  further  facilitate  Chinese  companies’  access  to  international  markets.  This  places 
international  technological  cooperation  policies  in  a  wider  perspective  of  changing 
global approaches to trade, technological sovereignty and geopolitical competition.  

The EU approach to R&I has long been one of openness to the world to facilitate brain 
and  knowledge  circulation,  combined  with  strategically  targeted  actions  with  key  partner 
countries.  This  multilateral  approach  is  at  the  heart  of  the  EU  efforts  for  international 
coordination  towards  achieving  the  SDGs  and  it  has  served  EU  interests  by  establishing 
mutually beneficial cooperation with international partner countries.  Moreover, in the current 
R&D  and  geopolitical  landscape,  setting  up  a  level  playing  field  for  fair  competition  and 
cooperation  with  third  countries  is  in  some  cases  lagging  behind,  calling  for  the  EU  to 
redouble negotiating efforts while anticipating any risks to EU interests. What is at stake is 
not  only  Europe’s  prosperity  and  economic  competitiveness,  but  also  its  ability  to 
autonomously  source  and  provide  crucial  technologies,  raw  materials  and  services  that  are 
safe  and  secure  for  industry  and  people.  The  EU  has  actively  supported  international 
cooperation mainly through the R&I Framework Programmes by means of the association of 

177  Foreign  businesses  investing  in  the  EU  are  indeed  sensitive  to  policy  instruments,  such  as  the  European 
Research  Area  (ERA),  aimed  at  creating  an  integrated  research  and  innovation  area  in  Europe  (Vertesy  and 
Damioli, 2019). 

90 

01020304050EU(1)United StatesJapanSouth KoreaChina%International scientific co-publications as % of total scientific publications, 2000 and 201820002018 
 
 
 
                                                           
third  countries  to  the  Programme  as  well  as  collaborative  projects  and  programmatic 
cooperation  with  partner  countries  and  the  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions,  for  the 
mobility, training of researchers, and development of excellent doctoral programme. 

Geographical  and  cultural  proximities  among  participants  seem  to  play  an  important 
role  in  shaping  the  structure  of  collaboration  networks,  at  least  in  the  case  of  the  EU 
Framework  Programme  (Balland  et  al.,  2019).  The  work  programme  2018-2020  includes 
more  than  30  ‘international  cooperation  flagships’  with  key  third  countries  on  strategically 
targeted  topics.  Notable  examples  include  cooperation  on  global  health,  food  and  nutrition 
security  with  Africa,  food  production,  biotech,  energy  and  natural  resources  with  China, 
cooperation with the United States, Canada, Japan and other third countries on clean energy, 
multilateral  cooperation  on  research  related  to  the  seas  and  oceans,  and  automated  driving 
with United States, Japan, South Korea and others. 

During the last decade, a series of multilateral initiatives such as the Global Alliance for 
Chronic Diseases, Mission Innovation, the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance and others, 
have contributed to coordinating research efforts and shaping the global policy agenda. 
More recently, international coordination of R&I efforts through multilateral set ups such as 
the  Coalition  for  Epidemic  Preparedness  Innovations  (CEPI)  and  the  Global  Research 
Collaboration  for  Infectious  Disease  Preparedness  (GloPID-R)  has  proven  essential  for 
tackling  the  current  pandemic  more  effectively.  Reinforced  support  and  closer  cooperation 
with  developing  countries  on  R&I  is  a  key  element  in  tackling  these  challenges.  A  good 
example of EU multilateral approach and its commitment to global outreach in the context of 
European Green Deal  is  Mission Innovation  (MI)178, a multi-country alliance to  accelerate 
clean  energy  innovation.    MI  partners  committed  to  double  their  clean  energy  financing  in 
five years. In year three, members reported a total annual increase of $4.6 billion against their 
baselines. 

Figure 30. Mission Innovation 

Source:  Mission Innovation Impact report 2019 

178 Mission-innovation.org 

91 

 
 
 
                                                           
Science,  research  and  innovation  have  an  important  role  to  play  in  integrating  the 
Western Balkan region and in implementing the renewed strategy 'A credible enlargement 
perspective  for  an  enhanced  EU  engagement  with  the  Western  Balkans'.  Research  and 
innovation are the front-runners in accession negotiations and have delivered tangible results. 
Participation  in  Horizon  2020  is  a  Western  Balkans  success  story:  participants  from  the 
Western  Balkans  (all  countries  but  Kosovo  are  fully  associated  to  Horizon  2020)  are 
receiving more than €20 million per year (far higher than the figures from the 7th framework 
programme) in a competitive manner.  

3.2  Outstanding challenges 

Although  the  Framework  Programmes  have  strongly  supported  international  cooperation  in 
R&I, the vast majority of Europe’s R&I cooperation takes place at national level. There is a 
need  for  a  closer  and  more  integrated  coordination  to  increase  coherence,  efficiency  and 
the 
effectiveness  of  EU  action 
international reach at EU level could be strengthened though ambitious targeted initiatives, 
broadening and integrating cooperation on key priorities with targeted partner countries and 
regions. The increasing scope and interconnectivity of global challenges calls more than 
ever  for  international  R&I  collaboration  across  disciplines  and  sectors  and  for  more 
systemic and structural cooperation around common agendas. 

international  R&I  cooperation.  Furthermore, 

in 

Europe's position/excellence in key technologies is subject to challenges  the rise of new 
global  economic  players  and  by  the  growing  importance  and  diffusion  of  ICT179  in 
almost  all  economic  sectors,  where  Europe 
lags  behind  other  major 
economies180.  ICT-enabled  economies  show  higher  productivity  and  R&D  intensity  as 
compared to non-ICT-enabled economies. Global innovation is often hampered by policies in 
certain  third  countries  that  prevent  a  global  level  playing  field,  e.g.  forced  technology 
transfer, local content requirements, state aid rules that distort competition or ineffective IPR 
protection and enforcement frameworks that allow for illegal appropriation of foreign IPs181. 
These  challenges  require  a  greater  focus  by  the  EU  in  its  international  research  and 
innovation cooperation in order to ensure reciprocity and a level playing field. 

largely 

Getting the Western Balkan countries ready for EU membership and fully integrating 
them into the European Research Area is the main challenge. This will include national 
capacity  building,  modernising  the  national  science  landscape,  and  completing  the 
development  of  Smart  Specialisation  Strategies 
focusing  national  R&I  efforts. 
Widening/Sharing  Excellence  under  Horizon  Europe  will  provide  extra  support  to  the 
Western  Balkans  (for  example  the  large  Teaming  grant  ANTARES  to  Serbia  in  Horizon 
2020).  

179 "An  Analysis of the International Positioning of  the EU  Using  Revealed Comparative Advantages and  the 
Control of Key Technologies", EC 
180 See e.g. OECD STI Scoreboard 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933616940: Out of the 20 emerging ICT 
technologies identified in the report, none is led by EU27. See also EU Industrial Scoreboard 2019. 
181 See e.g. SWD(2018) 47 

92 

 
 
                                                           
The strategy 'A credible enlargement perspective for and enhanced EU engagement with the 
Western Balkans182 adopted in February 2018, recognised the European future of the region 
and called for significant enhancement of the EU’s political, technical and financial support, 
to boost the economic growth and support the reforms required to move forward on the EU 
path. The European perspective of the entire region was confirmed again in March 2020, 
when  Member  States  endorsed 
for  a  strengthened 
methodology183  for  the  accession  process  and  decided  to  open  accession  negotiations  with 
Albania and North Macedonia. Fostering the stability and prosperity of this region remains a 
key priority for the EU. 

the  Commission‘s  proposals 

The  green  transition  and  digital  transformation  are  crucial  for  relaunching  and 
modernising  the  economies  of  the  Western  Balkans,  helping  to  create  jobs  and  growth. 
Similarly,  for  an  economy  that  works  for  people,  addressing  the  long-standing  challenges 
faced  by  young  people  in  the  region,  including  limited  job  prospects,  inequality  and  brain 
drain, education, culture, research and innovation are essential drivers. 

182 COM(2018) 65 final 
183 Commission Communication “Enhancing the accession process - A credible EU perspective for the Western 
Balkans”, COM(2020) 57 final 

93 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
4  Governance of the new ERA 

4.1  Current situation 

The  governance of the  European Research Area (ERA) is  implemented  through  a  systemic 
collaboration  between  Member  States,  Council  and  the  Commission.  The  European 
Research  Area  and  Innovation  Committee  (ERAC,  see  Box  16)  acts  as  a  strategic  policy 
advisory committee that advises the Council, the Commission and member states on the full 
spectrum  of  research  and  innovation  issues  in  the  framework  of  the  governance  of  the 
European Research Area.  

Box 16. The European Research and Innovation Advisory Committee (ERAC) 

Members of ERAC and its different configurations include: 

 

 

all the Member States and 

the Commission 

A number of other non-EU countries, which are associated to  EU research and innovation 
programmes may participate as observers in its activities 

ERAC is co-chaired by the Commission and an elected representative from a member state. 
The Council of the EU provides for the ERAC secretariat. 

ERAC also meets in two dedicated configurations, which were established by the Council 
and are chaired by an elected representative of an EU country: 

 

 

the  High  Level  Group  on  Joint  Programming  (GPC),  which  contributes  to  the 
preparation  of  the  debates  and  decisions  of  the  Competitiveness  Council  on  joint 
programming  

the  Strategic  Forum  for  international  S&T  Cooperation  (SFIC),  which  advices 
the Council and the Commission on the implementation of a European Partnership in 
the field of international scientific and technological cooperation (S&T cooperation) 

ERAC  currently  has  three  Standing  Working  Groups  on  Open  Science  and  Innovation, 
Human Resources and Mobility and Gender in Research and Innovation as well as ESFRI, 
the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures. 

The context and rationale for setting up these groups and their composition is optimize the 
input from ERAC and enable progress on the specific ERA priorities. 

ERAC opinions are discussed in the Research Working Party as a preparatory body to the 
Competitive Council and might lead to Council Conclusions if appropriate. 
Its  mandate  (last  revised  in  October  2015[1])  is  focused  on  providing  strategic  advice  that 
usually takes the form of ERAC Opinions addressed to the Commission and to the Council, 
which can be furthered by Council conclusions calling for the Commission and the Member 
States to take action 

Every three years, the ERA advisory system needs to be evaluated and adjusted. In 2018, 
ERAC  conducted  a  first  review  of  the  advisory  system  which  was  welcomed  by  Council 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
conclusions on the governance of ERA184 in November 2018. The next review is foreseen for 
2021, to which the forthcoming Communication on ERA will be a key input.  

In  2014  the  Competitiveness  Council  Conclusions185  called  for  an  ERA  Roadmap  at 
European  level  which  should  serve  the  purpose  of  facilitating  and  reinforcing  the  efforts 
undertaken by the Member States”. The ERA Roadmap developed in consultation with  the 
ERAC,  the  ERA  Related  Groups  and  most  of  the  organisations,  which  make  up  the  ERA 
Stakeholder  Platform186,  responds  to  this  request.  It  is  a  living  document  to  guide  Member 
States in structuring their implementation of ERA at national level.  

The  Roadmap  was  drawn  up  in  full  recognition  that  national  research  and  innovation 
systems  across  Europe  have  different  characteristics  and  that  this  variety  is  an  asset  which 
Europe needs to exploit to the full. It does not propose actions which must be implemented 
Member States, but rather to draw attention to key areas where action is likely to pay most 
dividends  for  the  majority  of  national  research  and  innovation  systems  by  spreading 
excellence  and  strengthening  their  ability  to  operate  at  a  high  level  of  effectiveness.  The 
Roadmap identifies actions at national and European level. This recognises both the leading 
role  of  Member  States  in  ERA  implementation  and  the  value  of  Horizon  2020  and  other 
European co-operation in supporting this.  

In response to the ERA Roadmap Member States and Associated Countries were invited to 
develop  ERA  National  Action  Plans  (NAPs),  in  which  they  presented  their  national 
measures  to  implement  ERA.  Member  States  have  full  autonomy  in  identifying  the 
approaches  most  suited  to  the  structures  and  dynamics  of  their  national  research  and 
innovation  systems  when it comes to  implementing these actions (or other relevant  priority 
actions at national level).  

The  NAPs  are  reported  to  the  Commission  and  provide  official  information  on  ERA 
strategies  and  corresponding  policy  measures  in  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries. 
They  constitute  an important  source  for  charting the progress  of ERA implementation. The 
majority of NAPs  are structured according to  the six ERA priorities  —  further  evidence of 
systematic  and  shared  efforts  to  plan  national  reforms  in  order  to  implement  ERA  –  its 
common  priorities  coupled  with  country-specific  challenges.  The  Commission  on  its  side 
produces a European Research Area Progress Report, which assesses the current state of ERA 
and the progress made.  

Mutual learning and policy learning in the context of ERA has been a success (see e.g. 
the  increasing  demand  for  support  through  the  Horizon  2020  Policy  Support  Facility  since 
2015). ERA has also provided the space to raise awareness concerning the divergent research 
and  innovation  performances  in  Europe.  This  has  led  to  the  widening  measures  under 
Horizon 2020 and complemented capacity-building measures under the European Structural 
and  Investment  Funds  in  support  of  R&I.  However,  these  actions  remain  essentially  a 

184 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14989-2018-INIT/en/pdf 
185 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/intm/146063.pdf 
186  European  Association  of  Research  and  Technology  Organsiations  (EARTO);  European  University 
Association (EUA); League of European Research Universities (LERU); NordForsk; Science Europe; CESAER; 
EU-Life;  European  Infustrial  Research  Management  Association  (EIRMA);  European  Regions  Research  and 
Innovation Network (ERRIN); Association of European-level Research Infrastructure Facilities (ERF-AISBL); 
European Network of Innovation Agencies (TAFTI) 

95 

 
 
                                                           
mechanism  for  introducing  soft  measures  on  a  voluntary  basis,  which  is  currently  the  only 
type of ERA governance measures to be carried out.  

4.2  Trends and challenges 

The  current  global  landscape  calls  for  a  new  ERA  that  goes  beyond  its  traditional 
‘single  market’  remit  and  towards  a  more  ambitious  and  encompassing  approach, 
aiming  at  engaging  with  Member  States  towards  a  world-class,  high-performing,  modern 
European  R&I  system  fit  for  tackling  today’s  challenges.  Despite  the  many  evident 
achievements  of  ERA,  the  European  dimension  is  absent  in  various  national  R&I  policies, 
obstructing joint multi-level action, which is an essential element of a fully functioning ERA. 
The  ERA  roadmap  contributed  to  ownership  and  responsibility  of  the  Member  States  over 
ERA at the national level, but on the other hand, it reduced, to a certain extent, the progress 
of  ERA  implementation  at  the  EU  level.  The  ERA  progress  report  2018  highlights  that  the 
‘speed’  of  policy  reforms  has  faltered  somewhat  since  2015,  which  can  be  viewed  as 
decreasing  political  commitment  at  all  levels.  According  to  the  ERA  progress  report  2018, 
progress on ERA implementation has been slowing and major disparities still exist between 
countries, or are even growing in part.  

Another  important  development  throughout  the  years  was  the  accession  of  new  Member 
States  in  2004,  2007  and  2013,  which  has  made  the  R&I  landscape  more  diversified  and 
resulted in more attention for concepts such as sharing excellence, widening participation and 
inclusiveness.  

In 2020 “The ERAC Opinion on the future of the ERA187” recognizes that the “slowing down 
of  the  implementation  of  the  ERA  at  national  level  manifests  itself  in  the  continued 
fragmentation  of  the  European  R&I  landscape.  Mostly  owed  to  the  still  major  disparities 
among  countries  and  regions  in  Europe.  The  ERA  policy  framework  did  not  succeed  in 
driving sectoral ministries towards  a transdisciplinary R&I-driven ‘directed’ policy change 
on global challenges at EU and national level, such as climate, energy or agriculture, nor did 
it allow individual R&I actors to experience the benefits stemming from it”.  

The  lost  momentum  for  realising  ERA  and  the  absence  of  concrete  deliverables  can  be 
attributed to the low efficiency of the ERA governance structure, coupled with a low level of 
recognition of political ownership. This leads to additional bureaucratic obstacles on national 
level and limits the progress of developing a European dimension within national policies.  

The  Commission  has  considered  these  developments  and  has  identified  some  key 
characteristics for a new and improved ERA governance model:  

  A stronger political commitment and ownership by Member States to deliver on the 
key  principles  and  values  of  ERA,  which  can  be  achieved  through  more  binding 
obligations in reporting, monitoring and assessment of systematic and shared efforts 
in national reforms in order to implement ERA. 

187 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1201-2020-INIT/en/pdf 

96 

 
 
                                                           
  Reinforced role of the Commission, shifting from a mainly supporting and monitoring 
role  to  a  more  active  and  steering  one,  allowing  the  Commission  to  supervise  and 
direct Member States in delivering on their obligations for achieving ERA 

  Strengthen and enhance the process of co-creation between the Commission, Member 

States and other stakeholders in further policy development on ERA  

  Ensure  that  ERA  actions  and  initiatives  achieve  better  coherence  between  European 

and national (regional) R&I policies  

Outlining  these  new  governance  characteristics  requires  a  new  model  of  monitoring  and 
assessing of ERA. The Commission has in this regard reviewed a number of alternative and 
similar governance models:  

  The European Semester - The Semester is the EU’s annual cycle of surveillance and 
coordination  of  national  economic  and  employment  policies.  It  is  structured  around 
four  key  milestones:  i)  in  November,  the  Commission  sets  out  general  priorities 
within  its  Annual  Sustainable  Growth  Strategy;  ii)  in  February,  the  Commission 
publishes  its  analyses  in  the  Country  Reports;  iii)  in  April,  Member  States  present 
their  National  Reform  Programmes  and  Stability/Convergence  Programmes;  iv)  in 
May,  the  Commission  issues  its  proposals  for  Country  Specific  Recommendations. 
The Council adopts these recommendations during the summer; 

  Energy  Union  and  Climate  Action  -  Member  States  develop  integrated  national 
energy and climate plans. The plans cover the five dimensions of the Energy Union as 
Member  States  report  on  the  progress  made  in  implementing  the  plans.  The 
Commission monitors the progress on the EU as a whole. Member States submit their 
final plans for 2021-2030 to the Commission and by 2023 the Member States provide 
updates  of  the  plans,  in  line  with  the  5-yearly  ambition  cycle  of  the  Paris  climate 
agreement. 

Action under a new ERA 

  Building  on  the  lessons  learned  from  the  Horizon  Europe  Strategic 
Planning  process,  develop  with  Member  States  an  approach  to  set  and 
implement strategic priorities that deliver on the ERA agenda through the European 
Forum of Transition and by means of a Pact for R&I in Europe. (Action 14) 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5  References 

Archibugi, Daniele and Filippetti, Andrea (2018), The retreat of public research and its 
adverse consequences on innovation, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127. pp. 
97-111. 

Abouzahr, K., Taplett, F., Krentz, M., Harhorne, J. (2018). Why Women-Owned Startups Are 
a Better Bet. Boston Consulting Group report, available at: 
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/why-women-owned-startups-are-better-bet.aspx 

Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Bergeaud, A., Blundell, R. and Hemous, D. (2016), Innovation and 
Top Income Inequality, The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 86, Issue 1. 

Appelt, S., Galindo-Rueda, F. and González Cabral, A. (2019), Measuring R&D tax support: 
Findings  from  the  new  OECD  R&D  Tax  Incentives  Database,  OECD  Science,  Technology 
and Industry Working Papers, No. 2019/06, OECD Publishing, Paris. 

Bainbridge,  W.S.  and  Roco,  M.C.  (Eds.)  (2016),  Handbook  of  Science  and  Technology 
Convergence: Analyses the convergence of technology and science for the benefit of society 
in an innovative, highly useful reference work, Springer International Publishing. 

Bajgar  et  al.  (2019),  Industry  Concentration  in  Europe  and  North  America,  OECD 
Productivity  Working 
Paris: 
https://doi.org/10.1787/2ff98246-en 

Publishing, 

Papers, 

OECD 

No. 

18, 

Balland, P.A., Boschma, R. and Ravet, J. (2019), Network dynamics in collaborative research 
in the EU, 2003-2017, European Planning Studies 27(9), pp. 1811-1837. 

Balland,  P.A.  and  Boschma,  R.  (2019),  Exploring  the  impact  of  inter-regional  linkages  on 
regional  diversification  in  Europe  in  the  contex  of  smart  specialisation,  European 
Commission Project 2018CE160AT089/090, Final report. 

Benedetti  Fasil,  C.,  Biagi,  F.,  Boden,  M.,  Christensen,  P.,  Conte,  A.,  di  Comite,  F., 
Doussineau, M., Goenaga, X., Hallak, I., Hervas, F., Jonkers, K., Moncada-Paternò-Castello,  
P., Munda, G., Sanchez Martinez, M., Marschinski,  R., Montalto, V., Nardo, M., Nepelski, 
D., Pontikakis, P., Szkuta, K., Vertesy, D. and Zacharewicz, T. (2017), Current challenges in 
fostering  the  European  innovation  ecosystem,  EUR  28796  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978-92-79-73862-3, JRC108368  

Benya,  F.,  Johnson,  P.  and  Widnall,  S.  (2018),  Sexual  Harassment  of  Women:  Climate, 
Culture,  and  Consequences  in  Academic  Sciences,  Engineering,  and  Medicine.  Consensus 
Study Report. Web. 

Bianchini,  S.,  Llerena,  P.,  and  Martino,  R.  (2019),  The  impact  of  R&D  subsidies  under 
different institutional frameworks, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 50, 65-78. 

Biggeri,  M.  and  Ferrannini,  A.  (2020),  Framing  R&I  for  transformative  change  towards 
sustainable development in  the European  Union, European Commission,  R&I Paper Series, 
Working Paper 2020/11. 

Bondestam, F. & Lundqvist, M. (2020), Sexual harassment in higher education – a systematic 
review, European Journal of Higher Education, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2020.1729833. 

98 

 
 
Borunsky,  L.,  Correia,  A.,  Martino,  R.,  Rakic,  R.  and  Ravet,  J.  (2020),  Can  R&I  save  the 
day?  A  fair  green  and  digital  recovery  from  COVID19,  European  Commission,  R&I  Paper 
Series, Working Paper 2020/05. 

Borunsky,  L.,  Dumitrescu-Goranov,  A.,  Rakic,  R.  and  Ravet,  J.  (2020).  Aiming  for  more: 
R&D  investment  scenarios  for  the  next  decade.  European  Commission,  R&I  Paper  Series, 
Working Paper 2020/06. 

Boston Consulting Group (2015), ‘The Digital Imperative’. 

Bravo-Biosca, A. (2016). Experimental innovation and growth policy: Why do we need it?. 
Nesta Innovation Growth Lab (IGL), London. 

Calligaris,  S.,  Criscuolo,  C.  and  Marcolin,  L.  (2018),  Mark-ups  in  the  digital  era,  OECD 
Science,  Technology  and  Industry  Working  Papers,  No.  2018/10,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris: 
https://doi.org/10.1787/4efe2d25-en 

Cameron, I., Synnott, J., Beisiegel, U., O’Carroll, C., Esposito, F., Harrap, K.A., Israel, N., 
Modjeska,  N.,  Predescu,  R.,  Prijic-Samarzija,  S.  and  Vandevelde,  K.  (2015),  Shaping  the 
future of the Human Resources Strategy for Researchers – HRS4R, Brussels. 

Corrado,  C.,  Hulten,  C.  and  Sichel,  D.  (2005),  Measuring  capital  and  technology:  an 
expanded framework, Measuring capital in the new economy , University of Chicago Press 
pp. 11-46. 

Damioli,  G.,  Vertesy,  D.  and  Castellani,  D.  (2019),  The  ERA  of  International  R&D 
Investments,  EUR  29609  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg, 
doi:10.2760/547898, JRC115095. 

Daunfeldt,  S.O.,  Elert,  N.  and  Johansson,  D.  (2014),  The  Economic  Contribution  of  High- 
Growth Firms: Do Policy Implications Depend on the Choice of Growth Indicator?, Journal 
of Industry, Competition and Trade, 14, 337-365: doi:10.1007/s10842-013-0168-7. 

Dosi,  G.  and  Stiglitz,  J.  E.  (2014).  The  Role  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights  in  the 
Development  Process,  with  Some  Lessons  from  Developed  Countries:  An  Introduction,  in 
book: Mario Cimoli, Giovanni Dosi, Keith E. Maskus, Ruth L. Okediji, Jerome H. Reichman, 
and Joseph E. Stiglitz (2014). Intellectual Property Rights:  Legal  and Economic Challenges 
for Development, Oxford, UK and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-53 

EIGE - European Institute for Gender Equality (2020), Index Score for European Union for 
2019, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2019 

EPSC (2019), EU Industrial Policy After Siemens-Alstom: Finding a New Balance Between 
Openness and Protection, European Political Strategy Centre Publications. 

ERC  -  European  Research  Council  (2018),  Annual  Report  on  the  ERC  activities  and 
achievements in 2017, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European  Parliamentary  Research  Service  (EPRS)  (2020),  Demographic  outlook  for  the 
European Union 2020. 

99 

 
 
European Commission (2002), The European Research Area: Providing a New Momentum. 
Strengthening  -  Reorienting  -  Opening  up  new  perspectives,  COM  (2002)  565.European 
Commission (2006), Towards a European Research Area, COM(2000) 6 final. 

European Commission (2007), Green Paper - The European Research Area: New 
Perspectives, COM (2007) 161. 

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

European Commission (2012), A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for 
Excellence and Growth, COM (2012) 392. 

European  Commission  (2017),  My  Region,  My  Europe,  Our  Future,  Seventh  report  on 
economic, social and territorial cohesion, ISBN 978-92-79-71840-3, Publication Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg. 

European  Commission  (2017a),  In-depth  interim  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020,  SWD(2017) 
220 final. 

European  Commission  (2017b),  Competitiveness  in  low-income  and  low-growth  regions. 
The lagging regions report, SWD(2017) 132 final. 

European  Commission  (2017c),  LAB  –  FAB  –  APP  Investing  in  the  European  future  we 
want,  Report  of  the  independent  High  Level  Group  on  maximising  the  impact  of  EU 
Research  &  Innovation  Programmes,  ISBN  978-92-79-70570-0,  Publication  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg. 

European Commission (2017d), Strengthening Innovation in Europe’s Regions: Strategies for 
resilient, inclusive and sustainable growth. COM(2017) 376 final. 

European Commission (2018a), Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the Council, COM(2018) 375 final. 

European Commission (2018b), Dynamic Network Analysis, Horizon 2020 Monitoring Flash 
#2. 

European  Commission  (2018c),  A  New  Horizon  for  Europe,  Impact  Assessment  of  the  9th 
EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. 

European Commission (2018d), Country Participation, Horizon 2020 Monitoring Flash #1.  

European Commission (2019a). Reflection Paper: Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030.  

European  Commission  (2019),  CORDIS  Results  Pack  on  reducing  the  R&I  divide,  ISSN 
2599-8293, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European  Commission  (2019b),  European  Innovation  Scoreboard  2019,  ISBN  978-92-76-
01394-5, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European  Commission  (2019c),  The  Gender  Pay  Gap  Situation  in  the  EU,  Equal  Pay 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-
available 
equality/equal-pay/gender-pay-gap-situation-eu_en. 

at: 

100 

 
 
European  Commission  (2019d),  ERA  Progress  Report  2018,  ISBN  978-92-79-99188-2, 
Publication  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg.European  Commission  (2020), 
Science,  Research  and  Innovation  Performance  of  the  EU  2020,  ISBN  978-92-76-17773-9, 
Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

Eurostat (2019), Eurostat regional yearbook 2019, Publication Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg. 

European Investment Bank and European Commission (2018), Innovation Investment in 
Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe: Building future prosperity and setting the ground 
for sustainable upward convergence, Regional Studies, European Investment Bank, 
Luxembourg. 

Fackelmann, S. and De Concini, A. (2020), Funding women entrepreneurs: How to empower 
growth, Innovation Finance Advisory report for the European Commission, European 
Investment Bank, Luxembourg. 

Fell, M. (2019), The Economic Impacts of Open Science: a Rapid Evidence Assessment, 
Publications, 7(3), https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030046  

Foray, D. and Geogana, X. (2013), The Goals of Smart Specialisation, S3 Policy Briefs No. 
01/2013, EUR 26005 EN. 

FRA - European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2015), Violence against women: an 
EU-wide survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Gagné, J.F. (2018), Global AI Talent Report 2018. 

Geels, F.W. and Schot, J., (2007), Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Research 
Policy 36, 399-417 

Grover  Goswami,  A.,  Medvedev,  D.  and  Olafsen,  E.  (2019),  High-Growth  Firms:  Facts, 
Fiction,  and  Policy  Options  for  Emerging  Economies,  Washington,  DC:  World  Bank.  c 
World  Bank:  https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/  handle/10986/30800  License:  CC  BY 
3.0 IGO. 

Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A. and Battaglia, D. (2017), Gender bias in scholarly peer 
review, eLife, 6, pp. 1-8. 

Henning,  M.A.,  Zhou,  C.,  Adams,  P.,  Moir,  F.,  Hobson,  J.,  Hallett,  C.  &  Webster,  C.S. 
(2017),  Workplace  harassment  among  staff  in  higher  education:  a  systematic  review,  Asia 
Pacific Education Review, 18. 

Hernández, H., Grassano, N., Tübke, A., Amoroso, S., Csefalvay, Z. and Gkotsis, P. (2019), 
The 2019 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg.   

Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A., and Storper, M. (2019). Regional inequality in Europe: 
evidence, theory and policy implications. Journal of economic geography, 19(2), 273-298. 

IDEA Consult, WIFO and Technopolis (2017). MORE3 study - Support data collection and 
analysis concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, ISBN 978-92-79-
80918-7, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

101 

 
 
International  Council  for  Science  (2017).  A  guide  to  SDG  interaction:  from  science  to 
implementation. 

International  Monetary  Fund  (2018),  IMF  Annual  Report  2018:  Building  a  shared  future, 
ISBN 978-1-4843-7345-3.  

International Monetary Fund (2019), World Economic Outlook: Global Manufacturing 
Downturn, Rising Trade Barriers. 

Ioannidis,  J.P.A.  and  Khoury,  M.J.  (2011),  Improving  validation  practices  in  “omics” 
research, Science, 334(6060), 1230-1232. 

IPBES  (2019),  Summary  for  policymakers  of  the  global  assessment  report  on  biodiversity 
and  ecosystem  services  of  the  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity 
and Ecosystem Services: Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio E.S., Ngo, H.T., Guèze, M., Agard, 
J.,  Arneth,  A.,  Balvanera,  P.,  Brauman,  K.A.,  Butchart,  S.H.M.,  Chan,  K.M.A.,  Garibaldi, 
L.A.,    Ichii,  K.,  Liu,  J.,  Subramanian,  S.M.,  Midgley,  G.F.,  Miloslavich,  P.,  Molnár,  Z., 
Obura, D., Pfaff, A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Razzaque, J., Reyers, B., Chowdhury, R. Roy, 
Shin,  Y.J.,  Visseren-Hamakers,  I.J.,  Willis,  K.J.  and  Zayas,  C.N.  (eds.),  IPBES  secretariat, 
Bonn, Germany 

Jonkers, K. and Cruz-Castro, L. (2013), Research upon return: The effect of international 
mobility on scientific ties, production and impact, Research Policy 42 (8), 1366-1377. 

Kalff, D. and Renda, A. (2019), Hidden Treasures: Mapping Europe’s sources of competitive 
advantage  in  doing  business,  Centre  for  European  Policy  Studies  (CEPS),  ISBN  978-94-
6138-746-2. 

Lassébie,  J.,  Sakha,  S.,  Kozluk,  T.,  Menon,  C.,  Breschi,  S.  and  Johnstone,  N.  (2019), 
Levelling  the  playing  field:  Dissecting  the  gender  gap  in  the  funding  of  start-ups,  OECD 
Science,  Technology  and  Industry  Policy  Papers,  No.  73,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris: 
https://doi. org/10.1787/7ddddd07-en 

Los,  B.,  McCann,  P.,  Springford,  J.,  and  Thissen,  M.  (2017),  The  mismatch  between  local 
voting and the local economic consequences of Brexit. Regional Studies, 51(5), 786–799. 

Lundin, N., and Serger Schwaag, S. (2018). Agenda 2030 and A Transformative Innovation 
Policy–Conceptualizing  and  experimenting  with 
towards 
sustainability. WP, 1. 

transformative  changes 

Luqun, X., Jieyu, Z., Qingqing, Z. and Qian, L. (2020), Gender diversity in R&D teams and 
innovation efficiency. Role of the innovation context. Research Policy, Vol. 49, Issue 1. 

Mazzucato, M. (2013), The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector myths. 

Mazzucato,  M. 
opportunities, Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803-815. 

(2018),  Mission-oriented 

innovation 

policies: 

challenges 

and 

Mazzucato  M.  (2019),  Governing  missions  in  the  European  Union,  European  Commission 
Directorate General Research and Innovation, Independent Expert Reports. 

Mind the Bridge (2019), Tech Scale-up Europe 2019 Report. 

102 

 
 
Mitchell, J., Testa, G., Sanchez Martinez, M., Cunningham, P. N. and Szkuta, K. (2020), Tax 
incentives for R&D: supporting innovative scale-ups?, Research Evaluation, Volume 29, 
Issue 2, 121–134. 

Mitchell, K. and Martin, J. (2018), Gender Bias in Student Evaluations. PS: Political Science 
& Politics 51 (3): 1–5. 

Nedeva, Maria (2020), Fragmentation of the Public Science Base in Central and Eastern 
European Countries, Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility. 
NESTA (2019), Gender Diversity in AI Research, 17 July 2019. 

OECD (2016), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016, OECD Publishing, 
Paris 

OECD (2017), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: The digital 
transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268821-en. 

OECD (2018), How Is Research Policy Across The OECD Organised?, OECD Science, 
Technology and Industry policy papers, No. 55. 

OECD (2019), OECD Regional Outlook 2019, Leveraging Megatrends for Cities and Rural 
Areas, OECD Publishing, Paris 

OECD (2019a), Measuring the Digital Transformation - a Roadmap for the Future, Paris. 

OECD (2019b), Digital Innovation – Seizing Policy Opportunities, Paris. UNESCO Institute 
for Lifelong Learning (2016), 3rd Global Report on Adult Learning, Chapter 3 Employment 
and the labour market, p. 87-107. 

OECD (2019c), Going Digital: Shaping Policies, Improving Lives, Paris 

OECD  (2020),  Strengthening  Governance  of  EU  Funds  under  Cohesion  Policy: 
Administrative Capacity Building Roadmaps, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD 
Publishing, Paris. 

OECD 
Developments and Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b9e4a2c0-en. 

(2020a), The  Digitalisation  of  Science,  Technology  and 

Innovation: Key 

Raworth, K. (2017), Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist, 
Chelsea Green Publishing. 

Renan  Barzilay,  A.  and  Ben-David,  A.  (2017),  Platform  Inequality:  Gender  in  the  Gig-
Economy, Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 393. 

Ricci, A. Sessa, C. and Weber, M. (2017), New Horizons: Future Scenarios for Research and 
Innovation Policies in Europe - European Commission report, ISBN 978-92-79-66620-9, 
Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.Roco, M.C. and Bainbridge, W.S. 
(2013), The new world of discovery, invention, and innovation: convergence of knowledge, 
technology, and society, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 15. 

Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2018), The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about 
it), Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11, 189–209. 

103 

 
 
Rodríguez-Pose,  A.  and  Di  Cataldo,  M.  (2014),  Quality  of  government  and  innovative 
performance in the regions of Europe, Journal of Economic Geography, 15(4), 673-706. 

Rosenblatt,  A.,  Levy,  K.,  Solon,  B.,  Hwang,  T.  (2016),  Discriminating  Tastes:  Customer 
Ratings as Vehicles for Bias, Data & Society research papers. 

Rybnicek,  R.  and  Königsgruber,  R.  (2019),  What  makes  industry-university  collaboration 
succeed? a systematic review of the literature, Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 89, No. 
2, p. 221. 

Schaper-Rinkel, P. (2013), The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance 
of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology, Technological Forecasting and 
Social Change 80, 444-452  

Scheliga,  K. and  Friesike, S. (2014), Putting open science into practice:  a social  dilemma?, 
First Monday, Vol. 19, No. 9. 

Schot, J. and Steinmueller, W. E. (2018), Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems 
of innovation and transformative change, Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-1567. 

Sekmokas,  M.,  Borunsky,  L.,  Horgan,  M.,  Ravet,  J.  and  Nurminen,  M.  (2020),  Workforce 
skills and innovation diffusion: trends and policy implications, European Commission, R&I 
Paper Series, Working Paper 2020/01. 

Storper,  M.,  Kemeny,  T.,  Makarem  N.P.  and  Osman,  T.  (2015),  The rise  and  fall  of  urban 
economies:  lessons  from San  Francisco  and Los  Angeles,  Stanford  University  Press, 
Stanford. 
Spiesberger, Manfred (2019), Stimulating science-business links: lessons from the Policy 
Support Facility, Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility – Mutual Learning report. 

Svensson, O. and Nikoleris, A. (2018), Structure reconsidered: Towards new foundations of 
explanatory transitions theory. Research Policy 47, 462-473 

Tennant,  J.P.,  Waldner,  F.,  Jacques,  D.,  Masuzzo,  P.,  Collister,  L.B.  and  Hartgerink,  C. 
(2016),  The  academic,  economic  and  societal  impacts  of  Open  Access:  an  evidence-based 
review, F1000Res., 5:632: doi:10.12688/f1000research.8460.3 

Toner,  P.  (2011),  Workforce  Skills  and  Innovation:  an  overview  of  major  themes  in  the 
literature, OECD Working Paper of the Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. 

United Nations (2019), The future is  now  – science for achieving sustainable development, 
Global Sustainable Development Report 2019, New York. 

United Nations (2019), Emissions Gas Report. 

Vértesy,  D.  and  Damioli,  G.  The  Innovation  Output  Indicator  (2019),  EUR  30104  EN, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-16413- 5, 
doi: 10.2760/540233, JRC119969 

Veugelers, R. (2017), The challenge of China’s rise as a science and technology powerhouse, 
Bruegel Policy Contribution Issue N.19. 

104 

 
 
Voth Schrag, R.J. (2017), Campus Based Sexual Assault and Dating Violence: A Review of 
Study Contexts and Participants, Affilia Journal of Women and Social Work, 32. 

105