Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

17 . 2 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 40 / 31

Opinion on the Commission communication on industrial policy in an open and competitive

environment

( 92 / C 40 / 15 )

On 21 December 1990 the EC Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
on the abovementioned communication .

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee 's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 November 1991 . The
Rapporteur was Mr Petersen .

At its 291st plenary session ( meeting of 27 November 1991 ), the Committee adopted the
following Opinion by large majority ( one abstention ).

1 . Introduction to strengthen industry and increase employment in one
country could undermine the economy — and thus
employment — in others .

A common industrial policy does not feature in the
Treaties of Rome . Elements of such a policy are to be
found only in the European Coal and Steel Community
( ECSC ) Treaty . The EC Commission made an initial
attempt to frame a coherent industrial policy in the
mid-Sixties : in 1970 it presented a comprehensive mem ­
orandum on Community industrial policy (*), which
was intended to serve as a basis for a detailed discussion
with other Community institutions and with the bodies
representing the Community 's socioeconomic interest
groups . Economic and social differences in the Member
States and the reluctance to tackle structural adjustment
problems jointly with an adequate industrial policy
thwarted the Commission 's proposals and condemned
the industrial policy memorandum to failure . The Com ­
mission 's 1971 proposal to create an industrial policy
committee also got lost in the sands . The action pro ­
gramme in the field of industrial and technological
policy ( 2 ) which the Commission submitted in 1973
likewise failed to achieve any results .

The Economic and Social Committee entered the indus ­
trial policy debate at the end of 1977 with its Opinion
on industrial change and employment — a review of the
Community 's industrial policy and future prospects ( 3 ).
The Opinion pointed out quite rightly that, in the
absence of a Community industrial policy, Member
States ' policies would develop along purely national
lines and, because of these narrower horizons, could
even conflict with each other . Structural problems
would be exported to neighbouring countries under
certain circumstances . Measures which were intended

( 1 ) Doc . COM(70 ) 100 final .

( 2 ) Doc . SEC ( 73 ) 3824 final .

Instances of countries going it alone in the second
half of the Seventies were sufficient reason for the
Commission to take specific measures at Community
level in individual industrial sectors, such as steel, ship ­
building, textiles, chemical fibres and footwear . In
almost all cases the Commission could argue that — mo ­
tivated by difficult structural problems and noticeable
falls in employment — there was a strong tendency for
some Member States to preserve existing structures by
measures which caused new distortions of competition,
triggered protectionist reactions and were ultimately
capable of disrupting the common market .

A new attempt to revive the debate on industrial policy
strategy was made by the Commission in 1981 when it
presented the Council with a communication on the
development of industry in Europe : a Community strat ­
egy ( 4 ). In this communication, the Commission called
on the Member States to meet the challenges facing
economic and employment policy jointly, under the
unifying umbrella of the Community : ' The industrial
strategy of the public authorities, like that of the major
companies and industrial complexes, must now be for ­
mulated on a scale of complexity, a breadth of scope
and a time-span which in Europe are feasible only at
Community level . The aim must be to re-create a cli ­
mate of confidence that will encourage innovative and
expansion investment, both by the major industrial
groupings and by the small and medium-sized business ­
es, whose contribution to the creation of productive
employment is common knowledge .' However, this
urgent appeal also met with a poor response . The

( 3 ) OJ No C 292, 3 . 12 . 1977 . ( 4 ) Doc . COM(81 ) 639 final, p. 2 .

No C 40 / 32 Official Journal of the European Communities 17 . 2 . 92

breakthrough to a comprehensive and future-oriented
industrial policy failed once again .

breakthrough to a comprehensive and future-oriented and technological development . The main responsi ­
industrial policy failed once again . bility for industrial competitiveness lies with industry

itself . The public authorities act mainly as a catalyst
and pave the way for innovation, with firms being
able to expect them to provide a clear predictable
To be precise — and here the Committee agrees unre ­ environment and prospects .
servedly with the Commission — the debate on indus ­
trial policy in the European Community has for years
been hampered by the lack of an ' appropriate conceptual
framework '. On top of this, the idea of global competi ­ This positive and open approach, which is committed
tiveness, which has frequently been pinpointed as the to the principle of subsidiarity, is based on recent
aim of Community industrial policy, is vague and experience . The Seventies and Eighties, in particular,
ambiguous . The Committee therefore welcomes the showed that interventionist policies in individual
fact that, in its newest communication on industrial sectors of industry are not an effective instrument for
policy Commission in an is open making and an competitive attempt to environment develop the con, the ­ promoting make industry structural competitive change . They . These may policies help failed tempor to ­
cept of a modern and dynamic industrial policy . The arily, but they inevitably risk delaying structural
focal point of this concept is the Community interest .

, ­ This positive and open approach, which is committed
tiveness, which has frequently been pinpointed as the to the principle of subsidiarity, is based on recent
aim of Community industrial policy, is vague and experience . The Seventies and Eighties, in particular,
ambiguous . The Committee therefore welcomes the showed that interventionist policies in individual
fact that, in its newest communication on industrial sectors of industry are not an effective instrument for
policy Commission in an is open making and an competitive attempt to environment develop the con, the ­ promoting make industry structural competitive change . They . These may policies help failed tempor to ­
cept of a modern and dynamic industrial policy . The arily, but they inevitably risk delaying structural
focal point of this concept is the Community interest . adjustments and thus causing job losses in the future ;

they also tie up resources which could be deployed
more productively elsewhere . The economy is given
the right signals by being firmly placed within the
international division of labour and by compliance
with the associated rules . Experience has shown that
competition on equal terms is the best guarantee of
2 . Gist of the Commission proposal a strong, competitive industry .

European unification is gaining momentum both politi ­
cally and economically . An initial target — the com ­
pletion of the internal market — will be reached by the
end of 1992 . The internal market — according to the
Commission — will be decisive in helping to force busi ­
nesses to think and act strategically beyond national
frontiers . Global corporate strategies will increase in
importance . At the same time, the environment in which
Europe 's economy operates is undergoing permanent
change : international competition is becoming keener,
technological know-how is necessitating greater invest ­
ment, production cycles are constantly being shortened
and the macroeconomic conditions for manufacturing
investment are deteriorating . In these circumstances the
limits of national policies are soon reached and their
alignment and coordination at European level becomes
an urgent necessity . In the fields of both economic and
industrial policy a high degree of consensus is required
in Europe in order to consolidate and build on what
the Community has achieved . Whoever chooses to
ignore this and insists on continuing to think and act
nationally, is turning his back on growth opportunities,
job openings and greater prosperity .

It is generally believed that only a competitive economy
will meet the challenges and enable the Community to
secure and strengthen its position in the world economy .
The Community 's industrial policy blueprint is there ­
fore prompted by the will to optimize market efficiency .
The main problem according to the Commission is to
create the ' appropriate ' corporate climate for ( a ) an
optimum allocation of the factors of production by
market forces, ( b ) swifter structural adjustment, ( c )
greater economic competitiveness in Europe and ( d ) the
establishment of a platform for long-term industrial

However, the situation in individual sectors of the
European economy is not static and from time to time
problems peculiar to individual sectors must be ad ­
dressed and solved at Community level or by the Mem ­
ber States . It is vital in these cases too, however, for all
measures taken to be fully consistent with the general
principles of Community industrial policy .

Structural adjustment and international competi ­
tiveness are closely linked . A dynamic European indus ­
trial policy must therefore focus on the effective and
coherent implementation of all those policies which
make industrial restructuring an easier, more secure
and speedier process . Accordingly, the Commission
thinks that structural adjustment mainly involves three
stages and that the Community 's industrial policy blue ­
print must strike an appropriate balance between the
three :

i ) Necessary prerequisites for structural adjustment

securing a stable economic environment in order,
in particular, to strengthen firms ' ability to invest,

maintaining a competitive environment by keeping
a careful watch on large mergers and acquisitions
and controlling state aid rigorously,

17 . 2 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 40 / 33

— guaranteeing a high level of educational attainment

as the basis for generating and assimilating new
technologies and organizational methods,

— ensuring the requisite conditions for the develop ­

ment of dynamic and competitive business services
( in particular in the field of financial services ).

— promoting economic and social cohesion between The Commission stresses that its industrial policy blue ­

Community regions, with emphasis being placed on print is based on a clear consensus and not on a compro ­
the role of the Structural Funds for areas with mise which represents the smallest common denomi ­
lagging economies : employee information, consul ­ nator acceptable to all . The blueprint rests on the
tation and participation when corporate decisions principle of free trade and cannot be misunderstood
about structural adjustment measures are taken, under any circumstances as a policy of laisser-faire . It

should be seen as being part and parcel of a policy for
shaping rules and regulations designed to ensure that
— achieving a high level of environmental protection market forces and free competition are able to flourish
in the industrial sector, too .

— promoting economic and social cohesion between

Community regions, with emphasis being placed on
the role of the Structural Funds for areas with
lagging economies : employee information, consul ­
tation and participation when corporate decisions
about structural adjustment measures are taken,

in order to safeguard human health and the natural
environment and create new markets as a source of
competition for ' clean ' growth .

ii ) Measures for underpinning structural adjustment

— completion of the internal market, to be achieved

in particular by improving European standards and
product quality, liberalizing public procurement,
abolishing national import quotas ( Art . 115 of
the EEC Treaty ) and establishing a coherent legal
framework and trans-European networks,

— an open trade policy as a necessary complement to

the opening of the internal market, with strict
respect for the internationally agreed rules by all
world trade partners ; this includes refraining from
unfair trading practices and the Community being
willing to take effective action to defend itself .

iii ) Means of speeding up structural adjustment

— development of firms ' technological capabilities by

providing more favourable conditions for the plan ­
ning, development, diffusion and use of advanced
technologies,

— a dynamic policy towards small and medium-sized

enterprises, designed to limit redtape, increase coop ­
eration and improve access to Community and
world markets,

— better use of human resources and easier introduc ­

tion of new technologies and working methods as
a result of worker training and retraining,

3 . Comments

3.1 . The European Community 's industrial policy
approach

The Committee agrees with the Commission that
greater European integration implies that industrial pol ­
icy problems should be solved at European level and
that structural adjustment measures should take the
Community market into account . It also endorses the
view that only competitive industry can contribute
towards Europe 's economic and social development .
The Committee assumes in this connection that the
term ' European industry ' — as used by the Commission
on several occasions — is not confined to ' European ­
owned firms '.

The main idea behind the industrial policy blueprint is
that an open and competitive environment should be
established, and there is no alternative to this which
has any chance of success . Within the field of industrial
policy this is a top priority objective . The European
Community will not master the challenges it has set
itself in the Treaties, and intends to set on the path
towards Political Union, by building a wall around
its market and pursuing defensive policies to preserve
existing structures .

However, the Committee would criticize the failure of
the Community blueprint to give sufficient consider ­
ation to industrial policy 's regional and social dimen ­
sion . The strengthening of European industry 's com ­
petitiveness will not in itself suffice to develop industry
in lagging regions or to cater for social needs . Therefore,
in its industrial policy blueprint, the Commission must
give even greater prominence in particular to the
interests of lagging regions and work these interests
more convincingly into its policy instruments . The gen ­
eral reference to the Community 's Structural Funds
does not go far enough . The view that dialogue and
partnership between industry and the public authorities

No C 40 / 34 Official Journal of the European Communities 17 . 2 . 92

also has a ' vital ' role to play in promoting economic
and social cohesion is ambiguous and therefore requires
urgent clarification .

In practical terms, the Committee would urge that apart
from the horizontal measures for assisting structural
change and increasing industry 's adaptability a place
must be retained for industrial policy measures which
( a ) provide secondary support for the requisite ( regional
and sectoral ) adjustment processes in problem areas
and ( b ) cushion the social impact of structural change
with the aid of suitable co-ordinated transitional
measures . This policy should include the following
ingredients, which overlap and also influence each other
in part :

— a regional policy which evens out discrepancies, for

strengthening lagging regions ' potential and ability
to develop,

— a regional policy which evens out discrepancies, for

regions with economic restructuring problems,

— adjustment assistance for offsetting social hardship

in times of structural crisis or when industry is being
slimmed down .

3.2 . Prerequisites for structural adjustment

3.2.1 . Macroeconomic conditions and
flexibility

The Commission has rightly highlighted the importance
of a favourable and reliable ( macroeconomic ) environ ­
ment for corporate activity, and stressed that Com ­
munity policy must accommodate this requirement . An
important role is also played by the general political
conditions . More often than not, the effect which these
conditions have in shaping industry is overlooked . The
Committee would have welcomed a clearer reference

in the Commission document to the intricate links
between the political, economic and social spheres .

The Committee 's concern is that there should be a clear
distinction in economic policy between ( a ) the general
organization of the economy and ( b ) economic policy
instruments . The former establishes the general frame ­
work for economic activity . Therefore the Commission
should clearly indicate the purpose and shape of the
general economic framework . It should pinpoint the
principles on which this framework rests, and call on
Member States to observe these principles when taking
industrial policy decisions . The organizational frame ­
work should also be able, within limits, to take account
of evolutionary changes . This includes the deliberate
acceptance of temporary exceptions when these are
justified . There is no reason to fear that the principles

underlying the organization of the economy will be
undermined, unless these exceptions become the rule .
As long as this is not the case, the exceptions can be
considered to prove the role .

With regard to the economic policy instruments, the
Committee thinks that initially the package of economic
policy objectives should be specified and spelt out in
the light of EEC Treaty Article 104 . This stipulates that
each Member State is to pursue the economic policy
needed to ensure the equilibrium of its overall balance
of payments and to maintain confidence in its currency,
while taking care to ensure a high level of employment
and a stable level of prices . This catalogue of objectives
is by no means complete . Above all, it does not include
economic growth, which is important for successful
economic restructuring . This growth should contain
both quantitative and qualitative elements, which
should influence and complement each other in appro ­
priate fashion . Protection of the environment and con ­
servation of natural resources are vital for longer-term
quantitative growth .

It is the Member States ' task to adopt the measures
which are suitable for achieving the macroeconomic
objectives . These measures should also be blended in
such a way that corporate initiative and adaptability is
encouraged and strengthened, not impeded . There is a
constant danger that too many unduly complicated
provisions which are guided too little by economic
criteria will restrict firms ' ability to act, weaken the
market 's self-regulatory forces and threaten corporate
flexibility, especially in the small / medium business sec ­
tor . The economic challenges of the future and the
keener competition worldwide require firms to adapt
rapidly to structural changes . Time lags are now toler ­
ated less and less by the market . The Committee shares
the Commission 's views on this, but would underline
that the flexibility which firms need to have should not
call workers ' social protection into question . As the
Commission points out, an ' adequate level of social
protection ... provides a safety net which diminishes the
risks of ( structural ) change and ... promotes mobility '.

Economic policy measures must be coordinated more
closely at Community level . A higher degree of macro ­
economic convergence can only be achieved with the
aid of joint, specially-targeted efforts . The Convergence
Directive was adopted as long ago as 1974 with a
view to improving and streamlining the procedure for
cooperation between Member States in the field of
economic policy . However, little has been achieved on
the ground at Community level . What is the point —

17 . 2 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 40 / 35

the Committee asks — of the European Council and
others making lengthy declarations on Community
economic policy, and of the Commission issuing numer ­
ous proposals on global economic strategies ( the most
notable example being the 1985 cooperative growth
strategy for more employment, which was also firmly
supported by the social partners within the framework
of the social dialogue ), if economic policymakers in the
Member States pay little or no attention . In the final
analysis there has always been a lack of political will
to agree on economic policy objectives, to lay down
their order of priority and, above all, to make agree ­
ments more binding .

In its recent ( Additional ) Opinion on Economic and
Monetary Union the Economic and Social Committee
reiterated the need to agree on common economic pol ­
icy guidelines and objectives ( l ). The Commission
should put forward multiannual economic policy guide ­
lines based on an assessment of economic performance
in the Member States and submit them to the Council

of Ministers of Economy and Finance ( ECOFIN ) and
the European Council, which should act in accordance
with the procedures to be laid down in the EEC Treaty 's
planned Article 102 C. These guidelines should be
adapted each year and should refer in particular to
finance policy, labour-market policy and structural pol ­
icy . The economic reform programmes of the structur ­
ally weaker Member States will need to be given support
and taken into consideration in the Community 's econ ­
omic policy guidelines if these Member States are to
catch up and attain the desired level of economic con ­
vergence . It will also be necessary to strengthen the
multilateral surveillance, launched in 1990, of all econ ­
omic policy aspects of importance to the Community

( price and cost trends ; competitiveness ; employment ;
regional development ; public budgets ). The Committee
considers that the Community 's industrial policy blue ­
print will be deprived of one of its main pillars if the
EC proposal once again fail to score a resounding

success .

3.2.2 . Competition

The globalization of markets and growing economic
interdependence of EC Member States inevitably pro ­
voke structural change . Mergers and acquisitions are
one of the ways of meeting the challenge at company
level and adapting European industry . The Committee

has repeatedly referred to this trend and has called on

( national and Community ) anti-trust bodies to consider
at least the European dimension when assessing perti ­
nent markets . ' The continued existence of national

economic areas is an anachronism when it comes to
achieving a sufficient degree of real competitiveness ',
the Committee stressed in its Opinion on the Com ­
missions ' 15th competition policy report, adding that
' the smallest possible geographical yardstick is now the
Community, and even then the world dimension cannot
be disregarded ( 2 ). US and Japanese competition policy
has long been tailored to cross-frontier, or even world
markets .

At the same time the Committee called for an anti ­
trust system at Community level in order to maintain
competition and secure the best possible mix between
the requirements of international competition and the
maintenance of balanced conditions of competition in
the internal market . The December 1989 Regulation on
the control of concentrations between undertakings was
welcomed in principle by the Committee, because it
also helped to remove legal uncertainties . This applied
especially to the nature and extent of the Commission 's
merger control powers and the demarcation of Euro ­
pean from national law . However, there are still a
number of doubts about the Regulation . In particular,
the ECU 5 billion threshold is ( too ) high and is not
justified on either economic or competition grounds .
' Having thresholds in an initial phase which are too
high will make it more difficult, if not impossible, to
formulate a uniform competition policy for all Member
States — at any rate in the key areas ' ( ? ). With regard to
the second main point of criticism — the substantive
criteria for intervention — the Committee regretted that
important yardsticks, such as degree of development
and need for restructuring in certain areas of the Com ­
munity, were only to be found in the protocol state ­
ments which had no binding force . Industrial and social
policy considerations, and especially the need to pre ­
serve jobs threatened by structural change, made it
imperative to include these criteria in the Regulation .

The Committee is naturally aware that an anti-trust
Regulation based on competition policy considerations
cannot solve all the many economic and social problems
associated with mergers and acquisitions . All the more
urgent therefore — according to the Committee in its
Opinion on the Basic Regulation — is ' the need for
coordination of competition policy with all other
policies, such as regional and sectoral structural

( 2 ) OJ No C 333, 29 . 12 . 1986, p . 86 .
OJ No C 102, 18 . 4 . 1991, p. 24 . ( 3 ) OJ No C 208, 8 . 8 . 1988 .

No C 40 / 36 Official Journal of the European Communities 17 . 2 . 92

policy, research and development (R & D ) policy and
consumer policy '.

Furthermore, competition policy must leave European
firms with enough scope for cooperation in order to
meet the challenges of worldwide competition . In this
# connection, R&D cooperation is particularly

important . Cross-frontier technological transfer and
technological cooperation should nor be stifled by
unduly rigid rules on competition . An important role
is played by group exemptions for research cooperation
which — in view of the growing demands — ought to be
extended . The Commission should also bear in mind
that the cross-frontier transfer of technology will con ­
siderably improve the Community 's overall competi ­
tiveness in relation to third countries and that the
transfer of know-how is vital for increasing the com ­
petitive strengths of small and medium-sized enterprises
in particular and helps to safeguard and create jobs .

3.2.3 . State aid

The Committee expressly welcomes the Commission 's
remarks on aid policy . Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC
Treaty enable the Commission to protect competition
from distortions caused by State aid and to counter the
artificial preservation of structures . However, there is
no question of abolishing aid completely . Aid is fully
compatible with the Common Market in the cases
referred to in Article 92(2 ) and ( 3 ) and, to this extent,
is a legitimate industrial policy instrument . However,
in future it should pave the way for structural adjust ­
ment and support the establishment of new industrial
structures and should not be disbursed to preserve
existing structures . There is a need for the direct ( prob ­
lem-oriented ) granting of aid to tackle deficiencies with
regard to infrastructure, training, industrial sites, recla ­
mation of dumps and basic research . In addition, a
regionally-oriented system of aid is clearly superior to
one which focuses on individual industries . Aid is less
dirigiste and has less of an unwanted tendency to pre ­
serve structures if it goes to regions rather than ailing
industries . This does not exclude the granting of aid to
individual industries in special cases in order to support
an orderly changeover to the new structures .

The Committee agrees with the Commission that self ­
help incentives must be preserved and strengthened by
public aid, that distortions of competition should be
minimized and that public aid should not discriminate

between the public and the private sector . Public aid
should also be limited in time, should be tapered and
should be spent on the targets for which it is intended .
Community aid should also fulfil these criteria, which
are more or less commensurate with the ones adopted
by the Council of Ministers of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD ) in

1978 under its positive structural adjustment plan .

In this connection the Committee urges the Commission
to make full use of the instruments available for moni ­
toring aid ( Art . 93 of the EEC Treaty ). National
financial support should be strictly vetted, continuously
monitored and made sufficiently transparent . It would
be an utter disaster if competition between firms were
to be increasingly replaced by governments outbidding
each other . The Committee notes with concern that
according to the Community survey on State aids ( 1 ),
between 1981 and 1986 the four largest Member States
accounted on average for roughly 88 % of all national
aid . The initial statistics for 1986-1988 do not indicate
any great change . The Committee therefore calls on the
Member States, and especially the four largest, to sort
out the chaos surrounding subsidies at long last and to
make appreciable cuts . The Commission has repeatedly
pointed out that national aid to Community firms far
exceeds the aid disbursed by the Community 's structur ­
al funds . In view of the level of economic interdepen ­
dence now attained by EC Member States, the Com ­
mittee thinks that the fullest possible record should be
made of all aid and that this aid should be coordinated

in liaison with the EC Member States .

As the Commission quite rightly says, 'a firm aid disci ­
pline is a prerequisite to the increased competition
without which very little of the projected gains from
the internal market will be realized '. This should be
borne in mind by the EC Member States . However,
Europe 's firms are also required to stop their appeals to
their governments and stop demanding State guarantees
for their survival . The social market economy must
once again be conceived as a principle underpinning
life in society — it must not be watered down to an
empty formula .

3.2.4 . Education

One of the keys to successful structural adjustment,
according to the Committee, is a better Community ­
wide standard of education . Lifelong learning

(') Second Survey on State Aids in the European Community in

the manufacturing and certain other sectors ( Commission,
1990 ).

17 . 2 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 40 / 37

and above all permanent readiness to adapt one 's per ­
sonal capabilities and knowledge to new demands are
vital for maintaining and improving the quality of
human capital . The spread of data and information
technologies into all branches of the economy and
society makes the proper handling of new technology
an important part of more and more people 's lives and
plans . However, it also means that education will have
new tasks to face in the Nineties in all EC Member
States . Firstly, it will have to take into account the new,
mostly higher skills needed to cope with technological
change and help to ensure that basic instruction in
information technology is provided at school . And sec ­
ondly, it will have to lay the foundation which will
enable individuals to master this change intellectually .

The new information technologies disseminate know ­
ledge at an unprecedented speed and on an unpre ­
cedented scale . Hence the growing importance of being
able to order and arrange facts . Even now, numerous
occupations are heavily affected by technological
change . By the mid-Nineties — according to the esti ­
mates of various research institutes — more than 50%
of the workforce will have to have a grounding in
data processing . Hence the absolute necessity of skills
offensive with the twin objective of :

— equipping individuals who have poor employment

prospects with a skill,

— catering on a wide scale for the new, more stringent

demands of technical change .

The Committee calls on all those responsible for edu ­
cation policy at Community level and in the Member
States to increase their efforts and help to correct exist ­
ing skills shortages in the coming years . It will not be
possible to reduce tensions and adverse developments
on the labour market until education and employment
are better coordinated . The Committee also warns
against undue specialization by workers, for this could
limit their ability to adapt to structural change and
cause considerable social problems .

Community 's various regions and the backwardness of
the least favoured regions are to be reduced . There is
little trace of this concern in the industrial policy paper .

In connection with the Commission 's remarks on
regional policy the Committee wonders, for example,
why so little attention was paid to the Commission 's
own studies on the internal market and the panorama
of EC industry . Above all, the report published by the
Commission on the impact of the internal market by
industrial sector : the challenge for the Member States (')
contains findings which are highly relevant for the
development of a common industrial policy strategy .
The study — which offers a careful analysis and is
empirically based — provides compelling proof that, as
far as the most highly industrialized Member States are
concerned, the challenges of the internal market are
broadly not of a sectoral nature . For the less-developed
Member States, however, two scenarios are presented
and the sectoral changes which these will cause may be
far-reaching . The first involves greater specialization in
the traditional industries in which these countries have
competitive advantages, whilst the second centres
around the development of new high-tech sectors . In
the first ( inter-industry ) scenario it is presumed that
there will be a greater concentration on branches of
industry in which the expected rise in demand is calcu ­
lated to be rather low . In the second ( intra-industry )
scenario the southern Member States would expand in
branches of industry which offer better growth pros ­
pects and — at least in the medium term — would enable
these Member States to catch up with the rest more
quickly . Economic reality is, however, such that it will
not be a question of either one scenario or the other,
and the completion of the internal market is not likely
to result in fundamental shifts between geographical
zones in the pattern of industrial distribution . Nonethe ­
less, the Committee thinks that both scenarios must be
taken into account in the Commission 's industrial pol ­
icy blueprint and analyzed in depth and that the right
economic policy instruments must be chosen in liaison
with the Member States . This would appear all the more
urgent since — according to the EC Commission — the
probability of each scenario happening will be influ ­
enced by the policy pursued at Community level . In
another prophetic remark it is stated that the role of
the structural funds may also differ in one or the other

case .

The Commission 's remarks on social cohesion in firms
3.2.5 . Economic and social cohesion are also unsatisfactory . Statements such as 'a good
balance between the needs of the various parties con ­
cerned will play an important constructive role in such

The Commission 's remarks on promoting economic
and social cohesion fall well short of the Committee 's

expectations . Article 130 A of the EEC Treaty clearly
states that in order to promote its overall harmonious
development, the Community is to develop and pursue
a policy for strengthening its economic and social
cohesion . In particular, the disparities between the

(') ' The impact of the internal market by industrial sector : the

challenge for the Member States ' ( European Economy, Special
edition 1990 ).

No C 40 / 38 Official Journal of the European Communities 17 . 2 . 92

processes ' are too vague and do not get us anywhere .
The social groupings represented on the Committee
have repeatedly made practical remarks on the subject
of social cohesion . The Committee has repeatedly
endorsed such cohesion in principle, mainly with a view
to the representation of workers ' interests within firms
and their involvement in certain corporate decisions,
emphasizing that worker participation is an important
prerequisite for the development of a democratic
society . Neglecting staff considerations in a firm means
ignoring economic, social, historical and legal reality .
Co-determination at company level should take the
form of an open dialogue . However, this dialogue also
presupposes that entrepreneurs take a clear stance and
heed the effect which corporate activity has on society .
The same applies to the Commission, which should
review and amplify the relevant passages in its blue ­
print .

3.2.6 . Environment

The Committee agrees with the Commission that
environmental protection is an important part of indus ­
trial policy . Environmental protection is a cross-frontier
challenge which nations cannot solve in isolation .
Environmental policy must therefore be seen as a task
for the Community ; it must be a policy of prevention
based on cooperation, and must be carefully coordi ­
nated with other policy areas ( e.g. regional policy,
R&D policy ). The ' prudent and rational utilization ' of
environmental resources is called for . Environmental
risks must be properly identified at an early stage and
suspected causal chains must be brought to the public
notice . This implies close and loyal cooperation
between the worlds of politics, business and science .
Consideration should also be given to consumer behav ­
iour, which is shaped in many ways by environmental
measures . Environment policy, so the Committee says,
may have a ' major influence on the consumer ( prices,
taxes, diversity of choice, health and safety ); consumer
policy may also, through the consumer choices it trig ­
gers, influence the environment for the good or for
the bad ( ! ). Increasing attention should be paid to the
interface between consumer policy and environmental
policy .

The Committee agrees wholeheartedly with the Com ­
mission that the programme for completing the internal
market will create a ' home market ' of considerable size
and quality and must therefore be considered as an
' industrial policy measure par excellence '. The Com ­
mittee would refer in this connection to its various
positive Opinions on the moves towards the internal
market and would reiterate the expectation that the
internal marker will benefit everybody — workers, firms,
consumers and investors .

markets is made easier if environmental policy targets
are set but industry is left to choose the best path . This
is the only way to develop an innovatory climate which
encourages technical progress, growth and employment
incentives . A major role here has to be played by the
Community and the Member States, which — acting in
liaison with all social groupings — must decide how far
they wish to go with environmental protection . Not
until this has been done can the measures for achieving
environmental targets be introduced .

The Committee would refer in this connection to its
Opinion on environmental policy and the single Euro ­
pean market, which focused on the use of market
economy instruments and incentives for environmen ­
tally — friendly consumption ( 2 ).

In addition, the Community should make full use of its
powers to enact environmental standards, coordinate
the requisite measures with national environmental
activities and seek the harmonization of divergent
environmental provisions and rules in the Member
States . In particular, cross-frontier pollution must be
reduced and the distortions of competition caused by
environmental policies eliminated . The Community
should not be guided by the smallest common denomi ­
nator ; it must achieve what is ecologically necessary .
This includes taking suitable administrative and legal
action to ensure that once measures have been decided,
their implementation is pushed through everywhere
in the Community . The will to take environmental
protection seriously is often still lacking .

3.3 . Measures for underpinning structural adjustment

3.3.1 . Internal market

Economic development is a prerequisite for effective expectation
environmental protection, for it is the only way to meet internal marker will benefit everybody — workers, firms,
the cost of environmental activities . At the same time consumers and investors .

environmental activities create new markets with a
broad and varied range of products and services for
protecting the environment . The development of new The internal market programme 's practical economic
and social repercussions will hinge on whether and to

(') Doc . ESC 1115 / 91 . ( 2 ) OJ No C 322, 31 . 12 . 1990, p . 107 .

17 . 2 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 40 / 39

what extent the internal market initiatives are put into
action in the Member States . There are still short ­
comings and numerous deficits in this area . Even though
the Commission notes in its sixth report concerning the

implementation of the White Paper on the completion
of the internal market (') that the percentage of
measures transposed into national legislation rose from
69% in December 1990 to more than 73% in May

1991, some Member States still lag a long way behind .
The Committee therefore not only calls on the Com ­
mission to make an even greater effort to ensure that
infringement proceedings are institued rapidly ; it would
also ask the Member States to make an effective contri ­
bution to the completion of the internal market by
speeding speeding up their transposition of Community
laws . The Committee also requests the Commission to
act early to ensure that the non-transposition of laws
in individual Member States does not jeopardize estab ­
lishment of the barrier-free internal market in 1993 .

3.3.1.1 . Standards and product quality

European standards are a key factor in Community ­
wide market integration and are extremely important
for industrial competitiveness . They remove technical
barriers to trade and have a deregulating effect, thereby
making cross-frontier industrial cooperation easier and
enabling firms to benefit from economies of scale . When
the basic requirements to be met by products are laid
down, the Commission should ensure that the highest
possible level of protection is provided . This applies
both to the protection of health and safety ( especially at
work ) and to environmental and consumer protection .

Despite the undisputed advantages of European stan ­
dards, Community standardization work presents a far
from satisfactory picture . There is still a plethora of
national standards which act as de facto market barriers
in the Community . As a result small and medium-sized
enterprises in particular have difficulty in gaining access
to public contracts in other Member States . Although
the number of new European standards, according to
the Commission, increased sharply from 19 in 1985 to

150 in 1989, this falls a long way short of the require ­
ments of the internal market programme . The Com ­
mittee calls on the Commission to increase its efforts

to harmonize standards and also to use its influence to
step up the establishment of effective procedures for
the application of standards in the Community . In this
connection the Committee would reiterate the idea
of establishing an organization such as the European
Standardization Council proposed by the Commission,

to improve coordination and coherence, propose pri ­
orities and encourage participation and transparency in
the field of European standardization, including the
national level ( 2 ).

3.3.1.2 . Public procurement

The Committee agrees with the Commission that the
liberalization of public procurement in all areas is cen ­
tral to the internal market programme and is of great
significance in industrial policy terms . European indus ­
try will not move closer together unless the continuing
tendency to favour ' national champions ' when award ­
ing public contracts is abandoned at last once and for
all . ' This continued partitioning of individual national
markets ', as the Commission said already in its June
1985 White Paper, ' is one of the most evident barriers
to the achievement of real internal market ' ( 3 ).

The directives adopted so far on the Community-wide
liberalization of public procurement mark a consider ­
able step forward . However, the fact that small and
medium-sized enterprises still have no adequate access
to public contracts is viewed with concern by the Com ­
mittee . Improvements are especially necessary in the
field of subcontracting, where upper limits should be
imposed in individual cases . The Community should
also press more in future for the worldwide liberaliza ­
tion of public procurement, in keeping with the prin ­
ciple of reciprocal access to markets .

Small and medium-sized enterprises ' access to public
contracts in other countries could be further improved
if the TED data bank were to be broken down by
sector . The German pilot project POINT ( Public Orders
Information Network ) is in progress at the moment
in this field . The purpose of POINT is to provide a
technically perfected service for small and medium ­
sized enterprises in need of reliable information about
public procurement procedures in the Community . The
Commission should lend its support to this project and
further its wider cross-frontier use after its completion .

3.3.1.3 . Abolition of national protective measures

With the completion of the internal market, the cases
where EEC Treaty Article 115 can be applied will
probably become fewer and fewer . National protective
measures are not compatible with the principles of an
open, competitive industrial policy . The Committee
therefore supports the Commission 's efforts to abolish
these measures in order to expose national markets to
a greater degree of intra-Community and worldwide

( 2 ) OJ No C 120, 6 . 5 . 1991, p. 28 .
(M Doc . COM(91 ) 237 final . ( 3 ) Doc . COM(85 ) 310 final .

No C 40 / 40 Official Journal of the European Communities 17 . 2 . 92

competition and so prepare them better for global chal ­
lenges . However, in many cases it is to be assumed that
accompanying structural measures will be necessary so
that unavoidable structural adjustments can be made
relatively smoothly .

3.3.1.4 . Coherent legal framework

Comparable legal conditions in the Member States are
of vital importance for European firms if they are to
operate unhindered throughout the Community . At the
moment identical de facto situations still differ de jure .
Although the Community has made visible progress in
recent years in the approximation of legislation, a whole
series of further measures are needed — not least in the
field of company law . Views differ on the level of
harmonization required in this field, but there is prob ­
ably agreement that the common market requires
national company laws to be aligned to a certain extent .
In addition, there should be more supernational legal
vehicles — such as the European Economic Interest
Grouping — based on European law .

The Committee has in various Opinions called on the
Council and the Commission to ' step up and properly
organize their overdue action ' with regard to the
approximation of legislation ( 1 ). This includes further
improving the protection of intellectual and industrial
property . European firms need a reliable framework
for action and more scope for reorganizing themselves
if they are to strengthen their competitiveness, find a
flexible response to the growing pressures from inter ­
national firms based ouside the Community and create
and permanently safeguard jobs .

3.3.1.5 . Trans-European networks

The Commission rightly stresses that trans-European
networks are vital for the completion of the internal
market and an important prerequisite for the inte ­
gration of the Community 's markets . They close gaps
in existing networks and promote the development of
the Community 's peripheral regions, while also facilit ­
ating the construction of the European Economic Area
and supporting the economic development of Central
and Eastern Europe .

It is with this in mind that the Committee has repeatedly
emphasized the necessity to establish and develop trans ­
European networks — especialy in the transport, energy,
telecommunications and vocational training sectors . In
its Opinion on the Commission 's action programme for
trans-European networks ( 2 ) the Committee calls for a

0 ) OJ No C 124, 21 . 5 . 1990, p. 34 .
( 2 ) Towards trans-European networks — for a Community action

global, integrated, multi-mode approach, providing a
reference framework . Investment risks will thus be
reduced, Community, national and regional measures
will be more effective and due account can be taken of
long-term needs ( 3 ) .

3.3.2 . Open trade policy

There have been considerable changes in the inter ­
national division of labour in recent decades : industries

have been relocated and new economic centres and
areas have sprung up — the most obvious one being the
Pacific area, which includes the US West Coast, Japan
and the countries of South East Asia and South Amer ­
ica . ' Old ' industrial regions have upgraded by changing
their structures, reorganizing and switching to new
technology . This worldwide change has not been with ­
out friction . The risks and dangers involved present
governments and central banks — but also firms and
social groups — with the intricate task of having to
weigh up and settle conflicts .

The European Community, because of its economic
importance, has a lot of responsibility to bear in the
field of world trade . Article 110 of the EEC Treaty
expressly requires the Community to ' contribute, in the
common interest, to the harmonious development of
world trade, the progressive abolition of restrictions
on international trade and the lowering of customs
barriers '. Hence the Committee welcomes the Com ­
mission 's remark that an open trade policy is required
as a necessary complement to the single market . The
liberalization of domestic markets must be
accompanied by a liberal external trade policy . It would
be absolutely disastrous if the Community were to be
the cause of international trade tensions and upheavals .

This being so, the enormous gap between the trade
policy guidelines outlined by the Commission in its
paper and the international reality is a matter for con ­
cern . Administrative trade barriers, subsidies which
distort competition and strategies which restrict compe ­
tition — including the inglorious practice known as
' laser beaming ' — are the order of the day and are gener ­
ating considerable disturbances in world trade .
Regional cooperation is also increasing further .
Countries with the same or similar economic objectives

programme [ doc . COM ( 90 ) 585 final ]. ( 3 ) Doc . ESC 1282 / 91 .

17 . 2 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 40 / 41

have joined forces not only in Europe but also elsewhere
in the world . What was considered an exception at the
time of the establishment of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade ( GATT ) has now become the rule .
The multilateral principle of world trade is thus becom ­
ing more and more of a farce . The international division
of labour is being dominated more and more by econ ­
omic giants and especially the triad formed by Europe,
the USA and Japan . This triad encompasses the main
markets and this is where competition is keenest .

Hence the growing importance — and here the Com ­
mittee agrees with the Commission — of requiring that
' the rules of the game be respected by all trading part ­
ners since the Community 's economy will become more
sensitive to such practices in line with its even greater
openness '. In view of the continual violation of these
rules it is hardly surprising that the call for ' reciprocity '
is becoming louder and louder . Reciprocity alone — ac ­
cording to its advocates — ' can ensure that the markets
of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other Asian
countries are also part of ... the traid 's ( overall market ),
and are not fenced home bases from which Japanese
and East Asian ... ( firms ) conquer the markets of Amer ­
ica and Europe ' (*).

Against a background of latent dangers for the inter ­
national division of labour, the Committee urges the
European Community to continue to make an allout
effort to convince world trading partners of the advan ­
tages of free markets under conditions of fair compe ­
tition and to ensure that the GATT Uruguay Round
is brought to a successful conclusion . The increasing
globalization of corporate activities — even in the small /
medium business sector — demands rules for the inter ­

national division of labour in which we can trust . Above
all, more credibility and discipline are needed in world
trade . Solemn commitments by western trading part ­
ners, reiterated at length again and again at the OECD
or at ' world economic summits ', are no longer enough .
The Committee expects the GATT negotiations to pro ­
duce not only concrete assurances from all GATT mem ­
bers that they will observe existing GATT rules, but
also a noticeable improvement in the rules in critical
areas ( e.g. subsidies, escape clause ) and the inclusion
of new areas in GATT ( e.g. services, protection of
intellectual property ).

There must be a greater general realization that — given
present-day economic and political constraints in the
world — it will not be possible to solve the tasks facing
us and avoid new tensions in world trade unless the

(') K. Seitz, Die japanisch-amerikanische Herausforderung :
Deutschlands Hochtechnologie-Industrien kämpfen ums
Überleben, 2 . Auflage, München : Bonn Aktuell, 1991 .

No 1 rule is international cooperation based on trust .
There is no place any more for nations going it alone .
The world 's trading partners will either have to work
together more in future or they will have to follow the
lead set by others and undergo the painful process of
restructuring .

3.4 . Means of speeding up structural adjustment

The Commission stresses that the capacity to restruc ­
ture must be accelerated by accompanying measures .
Special emphasis is placed on research and technology
policy and a more dynamic policy towards small and
medium-sized enterprises .

3.4.1 . Technological strength

The Committee agrees in principle that the technologi ­
cal competitiveness of European industry plays a key
role and determines whether European firms can hold
their own on the world markets . It would emphasize
even more clearly than the Commission, however, that
measures for enhancing competitiveness should not be
confined to a few high-tech sectors but must also
address broadly based technologies . In addition, there
is no guarantee that European industry will develop
harmoniously unless these technologies can also be
applied by firms in lagging regions . Member States
have important tasks to perform here . Support for
the Community 's technological capabilities remains an
absolute must, especially where pre-competitive
research and the transfer of technology to small and
medium-sized enterprises and less developed regions
are involved . However, the Committee would point out
that the principle of subsidiarity must be retained in
the field of research policy, too . Community support
for research should be channelled into areas where
national funds do not suffice or the Community can
reap clear benefits . In addition, priority must continue
to be given to corporate responsibility for R&D . Firms
are in a better position than the State to decide where
research is worthwhile and to what extent it can be
seen through and developed into marketable products .

3.4.2 . Small and medium-sized enter ­

prises

Support for R & D in small and medium-sized enterpri ­
ses — especially through better information and advice
in new areas of technology and improvements in the
transfer of know-how and technology — is an important

No C 40 / 42 Official Journal of the European Communities 17 . 2 . 92

concern . Smaller businesses must be involved more
closely in existing ( national and Community-wide )
research programmes and the procedures for the grant
of support must be simplified . Not until this has been
done will it be possible for smaller businesses to fulfil
their central role in the process of industrial adjustment .
In an age in which there is a greater specialization
within sectors, European industry relies more than ever
on a flexible and innovatory small and medium-sized
enterprises sector . However, support programmes are
no substitute for a policy aimed at improving the gen ­
eral environment ( e.g. with regard to taxation ) and the
reduction of red-tape .

The Commission rightly places the emphasis on the
importance of training in this connection . The Com ­
mittee agrees with the Commission that in the face of
the impending skill shortages and a much faster rate
of innovation, the adaptability and quality of human
capital has become the key determinant of industrial
competitiveness and the one on which developed econ ­
omies must place greatest reliance in future . In this
connection the distinction between ' high-tech ' and
' low-tech ' industries is losing its importance . There
must be broadly-based R&D and training in all sectors
and regions .

4 . Application of the industrial policy blueprint to

sectors

The Commission has recently begun to apply the open,
horizontal and offensive industrial policy approach to
individual sectors . The sectors concerned are sectors
which ' can play a key role for the development of
European industry ', such as the information technology

( IT ) and electronics industry and biotechnology . The
Commission is also interested in areas whose worldwide
environmental and economic importance is increasing

( e.g. deep-sea mining ). In addition Community blue ­
prints are to be developed for sectors — such as the
textile and clothing industry — which occupy an
important place in the structure of the Community 's
economy but which are likely to have to ' come to terms
with structural change, which in some cases will be
radical '.

4.1 . The European IT and electronics industry ( r ) is
poorly represented in key areas such as semiconductors,
peripherals and consumer electronics, and in the IT
sector the situation can only be described as difficult .
Whilst the Commission 's analysis of weaknesses does

identify some cyclical causes, interacting structural
weaknesses are far more significant :

— the high degree of fragmentation of the Community

market,

— unequal competition conditions in the various

regions of the world market,

— disadvantages linked to financing,

— lack of highly qualified staff,

— weak points in the structure of production,

— inadequate corporate strategies .

In the Commission 's view measures needed to correct
structural weaknesses and improve competitiveness
should primarily be left to the firms themselves . The
job of the Community and the Member States is, subject
to the principle of subsidiarity, to create a favourable
environment for firms and in so doing to take account
of the potential of IT and electronics technology for
the Community . Against the background of this analy ­
sis the Commission has drawn up a five-point action
programme to complement and reinforce initiatives by
firms . The proposed measures cover demand, tech ­
nology, training, external relations and the business
environment .

In its Opinion ( 2 ) the Committee welcomes the Com ­
mission 's industrial policy initiative and judges the
action programme to be a suitable basis for creating — in
partnership with firms — competitive structures and
good job prospects offering good working conditions
in the European IT and electronics industry . Recent
unfavourable developments such as losses of market
share in consumer electronics to East Asian competition
and current market problems in semiconductors and
the computer industry have clearly shown how urgent
Community action has become . The Committee feels
that the strategically important conditions are to be
found in research and technology, infrastructure, pro ­
duction capacity, training and skills . In these areas the
Committee proposes a broad spectrum of measures to
complement the Commission 's proposed package ; these
should be taken up by the Community and the Member
States and used to construct a framework for the activi ­

ties of firms .

The Council Resolution of 18 November 1991 on elec ­

tronics information and communication technol ­
ogies ( 3 ) has been noted by the Committee with
approval . Basically, this Resolution tallies with what
the Committee says in this Opinion, and also fits in
with the Committee 's Opinion on the European elec ­
tronics and information technology industry .

( 2 ) Doc . ESC 1392 / 91 .
(M Doc . SEC(91 ) 565 final . ( 3 ) No 9298 / 91 ( Presse 208 ) of 18 November 1991 .

17 . 2 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 40 / 43

4.2 . Biotechnology is of strategic importance in deal ­
ing with the major challenges facing both industrialized
and developing countries in the fields of nutrition,
health, environmental protection and population
growth . It should be understood as an interdisciplinary
field stradling chemistry, biology and process engineer ­
ing and using the biochemical synthesis of living cells
to obtain or modify substances as part of industrial
production processes . Biotechnology offers great
opportunities for many sectors of the economy, from
power generation, metal extraction, refuse disposal and
chemicals to bioelectronics . It is true that this tech ­
nology has a bad public image . Reservations are aimed
mainly at the possible consequences of improper use
for human and animal health and safety .

In view of the growing importance of biotechnology —
not least for the EC 's economic future — the Com ­
mission has drawn up a paper on biotechnology and
proposed numerous initiatives across the whole spec ­
trum ( 1 ). Their aim is to improve the competitiveness
of firms involved in biotechnology, to adapt the legal
framework, to establish biotechnology standards, to
provide for the protection of intellectual property and
to help with R&D financing . At the same time, the
Commission says, ethical issues raised by biotechnology
must be taken up by the Member States and at Com ­
munity level and discussed at length in the framework
of an open dialogue .

The Commission identifies the following priorities :

— the establishment of a biotechnology information

infrastructure via research programmes, infor ­
mation policy and international cooperation,

— the phased introduction of support for biotechno ­

logy R&D ( possibly extending beyond the pre-com ­
petitive phase ),

— the drawing up of a clear and precise mandate for

activities of the European Committee for Standard ­
ization ( CEN ) in the field of biotechnology,

— the adoption of Community rules protecting intel ­

lectual property and the incorporation of Com ­
munity law in national law,

— the establishment of biotechnology statistics ( indus ­

try and product statistics ),

— the intensification of bilateral and multilateral con ­

tacts . The setting up of working parties [ GATT,
OECD, the European Free Trade Association
( EFTA )] to formulate objectives for health and
environmental protection,

— the setting up of a suitable Community advisory

body on ethical issues related to biotechnology, e.g.
questions concerning life and human identity .

To complement its policy initiatives and biotechnology
research programmes, the Comission will continue to
assess social, economic and technological consequences .
It also intends to monitor regularly the progress ans
competitiveness of the Community 's biotechnology
industries, in order to ensure that the agreed concept
performs its function . The Commission remains con ­
vinced that future market successes will depend to a
great extent on the strategies developed and followed
by firms .

The Economic and Social Committee reserves the right
to issue a separate Opinion on the Commission 's
biotechnology paper .

4.3 . Maritime issues have become increasingly
important on an international level in ecological, econ ­
omic and political terms . In its Communication on
maritime industries ( 2 ) the Commission says that the
EC should actively react to this . In the light of their
interdependence, shipping, shipbuilding, the use of the
resources of the sea, and the need to keep these
resources and the seas themselves free of pollution, have
to be seen and treated as part of a single maritime
dimension . The Commission 's Communication there ­
fore covers this whole area in order to pave the way
for better use of present and future synergies between
maritime activities .

Only efficient maritime industries can guarantee that
the Community will be in a position to participate
adequately and successfully in international trade and
benefit from the exploitation of the oceans . In the past
the Commission has undertaken and proposed a range
of different initiatives, but until now there has been no
comprehensive view of all maritime issues . A new and
effective global approach is therefore needed . This
does not, however, mean substituting for efforts by
companies themselves . The Commission 's objective is,
rather, to improve the competitiveness of the maritime
industries via appropriate horizontal measures :

— improved conditions ( elimination of trade barriers ),

— improved maritime safety ( navigational safety,
safety on board, safety at work ),

— drawing up of an integrated Community approach

to maritime R&D,

— development of a combined transport network and

extension of transport infrastructure,

( i ) Doc . SEC ( 91 ) 629 . ( 2 ) Doc . COM ( 91 ) 335 final .

No C 40 / 44 Official Journal of the European Communities 17 . 2 . 92

— improved basic and further traning of employees,

— development of common maritime environmental

strategies,

— convergent conditions of competition between the

Member States .

The implementation of the proposed horizontal
measures offers firms in the maritime sector the oppor ­
tunity to keep pace with the most recent developments
and exploit fully the advantages of the internal market,
Preconditions for this however are more efficient
internal coordination of policy and a better understand ­
ing between firms in each sector, the individual econ ­
omic sectors, the Member States and the Commission .
The Commission therefore proposes a discussion forum
consisting of representatives of the various industries
and reserach institutes, the maritime and economic
authorities of the Member States and the Commission .
The forum 's job would be :

— to define in greater detail the scope of the global

and horizontal approach,

— to identify areas and measures which could improve

the competitiveness of the maritie industries,

— to develop appropriate methods for the implemen ­

tation of the necessary measures .

The forum should present a report to the Commission
within nine months of adoption of the Commission
proposal . The Commission will then decide what con ­
crete measures are needed and should be proposed in
the common interest of the maritime industries .

The Economic and Social Committee — one of the
recipients of the Communication — will be submitting
a separate Opinion on the European Community 's
maritime sector .

4.4 . The textile and clothing industry plays an
important role in the Community 's structural make-up,
not only in terms of sales, production and jobs but
also because of the creativity aspect and the wealth of
experience amassed . In the coming years this industry
is once again likely to be under considerable pressure
to adapt . The challenges facing the industry — and in
particular the integration of Mediterranean and East
European countries — are forcing it to speed up the
restructuring process but also require the European
Community to demonstrate its solidarity . The fact that
the textile and clothing industry is of vital importance
for some of the Community 's less developed regions

( especially in Portugal, Spain and Greece ) heightens the
need for solidarity .

several Member states to consider or frame their own

( national ) plans of action . The danger here — according
to the Commission — is that ' failure to establish clear
guidelines ( will ) produce results which will cause prob ­
lems at Community level '. For this reason, but also
to emphasize the importance which the Community
attaches to the textile and clothing industry 's economic
and social difficulties, the Commission has put together
a package of measures for effectively helping the indus ­
try to modernize and strengthen its competitive ­
ness ( ! ). It should be borne in mind in this connection
that even in those areas where the industry has been
extensively restructured and modernized, the task of
safeguarding and strengthening firms ' competitiveness
will be an extremely difficult one .

As the Commission sees matters, the requisite Com ­
munity measures must satisfy two conditions : they must
be in tune with the overall framework of Community
industrial policy and they must do justice to the dis ­
tinguishing features of each region . This will require a
balanced policy-mix, with the firms themselves bearing
responsibility, as ever, for the structural adjustments .
The numerous Community support measures will focus

on :

— promoting and improving communications and

information,

— improving the transparency and coherence of State

aid,

— improving basic and further training for workers,

— stepping up research and development,

— structural fund assistance for the regions affected .

The Community 's textile and clothing industry is
' extremely international ', and industrial policy
measures by the Community must therefore also take
developments on the world markets into consideration .
Top priority should be given to reinforcing the Com ­
munity 's outward-looking approach, while a balance
must also be established between the rights and obli ­
gations arising from the application of competition and
trade rules . The following specific measures are listed
in the Commission Communication 's chapter on com ­
mercial policy :

— opening up the markets of non-Community
countries,

— export promotion,

— making corporate strategies international,

— measures against dumping and subsidies,

The Commission has become increasingly aware in
recent times that the current problems with their poss ­
ible structural and social repercussions have prompted (M Doc . COM ( 91 ) 399 final .

17 . 2 . 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 40 / 45

— cooperation between customs authorities in the

Community,

— protection of labels, designs and models,

— application of commercial policy instruments .

The Commission appeals to the Member States to
ensure that joint complementary action is taken . It is
also the Commission 's firm intention to co-ordinate the
use of its intruments and policy measures so as to
give lasting support to the structural adjustment of the
textile and clothing industry and speed up economic
diversification in the affected regions .

The Economic and Social Committee reserves the right
to deliver a separate Opinion on this Communication,

too .

5 . Conclusions

The conclusions adopted by the Council of Ministers
on the Commission 's industrial policy blueprint are
noted by the Committee with satisfaction . In particular,

Done at Brussels, 27 November 1991 .

the Committee welcomes the fact that the council has
lent its approval to a Community industrial policy
which takes into account ' the complexities of the situ ­
ation both internal and external to the Community '
and allows 'a more balanced development and a greater
economic and social cohesion within the Com ­
munity ' ( 1 ).

The Committee thinks that it would make sense to
include key objectives and elements of a Community
industrial policy in the Treaty, thereby providing firms
in the Member states with the right conditions for
exploiting to the full the benefits of the single market,
Economic and Monetary Union and the common
research and technology policy . Provision should also
be made for coordinating national industrial policy
decisions with corresponding measures taken at Com ­
munity level and involving the Economic and Social
Committee in this .

(') Conclusions of the Council of 26 November 1990 on indus ­

trial policy in an open and competitive environment, docu ­
ment 10159 / 90 ( Presse 198-G ).

The Chairman

of the Economic and Social Committee

Francois STAEDELIN