European Commission. Innovation papers No 22

Transcription

1 European Commission Innovation papers No 22 Innobarometer 2001 A publication from the Innovation/SMEs programme part of the Fifth Research Framework Programme

2 PREVIOUS INNOVATION PAPERS 1. Statistics on innovation in Europe, 2000 edition. 2. Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy (EUR 17023). 3. European trend chart on innovation: Innovation policy in Europe Getting more innovation from public research (EUR 17026). 5. European innovative enterprises: Lessons from successful applications of research results to dynamic markets (EUR 17024). 6. Corporate venturing in Europe (EUR 17029). 7. Funding of new technology-based firms by commercial banks in Europe (EUR 17025). 8. Innovation management: Building competitive skills in SMEs. 9. Promoting innovation management techniques in Europe (EUR 17022). 10. Enforcing small firms patent rights (EUR 17032). 11. Building an innovative economy in Europe (EUR 17043). 12. Informal investors and high-tech entrepreneurship (EUR 17030). 13. Training needs of investment analysts (EUR 17031). 14. Interim assessment of the I-TEC pilot project (EUR 17033). 15. Guarantee mechanisms for financing innovative technology (EUR 17041). 16. Innovation policy issues in six candidate countries: The challenges (EUR 17036). 17. Innovation policy in Europe 2001 (European trend chart on innovation) (EUR 17044). 18. Innovation and enterprise creation: Statistics and indicators (EUR 17038). 19. Corporation tax and innovation (EUR 17035). 20. Assessment of the Community regional innovation and technology transfer strategies (EUR 17028). 21. University spin-outs in Europe Overview and good practice (EUR 17046).

3 European Commission INNOBAROMETER 2001 Flash Eurobarometer 100 Carried out for DG Enterprise Survey organised and managed by DG Press and Communication (Unit Opinion Polls, Press Reviews, Europe Direct) Surveys carried out by EOS Gallup Europe Survey: April May 2001 Report: 1 June 2001 Directorate-General for Enterprise EUR 17048

4 LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the European Commission A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server ( Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002 ISBN X European Communities, 2002 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Italy PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

5 CONTENTS PRESENTATION... 1 Managers opinions can be summarised as follows: THE IMPORTANCE OF INNOVATION TO COMPANIES Share of turnover generated by innovations Share of investment channelled into innovation Driving forces for innovation The innovation performance of the company: self-evaluation ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATION Ways to access advanced technologies Is access to advanced technologies sufficient? Where are advanced technologies most easily available? The potential impact of easier access to advanced technologies HUMAN RESOURCES AND INNOVATION How can human resources contribute to innovation? The problem of finding highly qualified staff The potential impact of greater mobility of highly qualified staff PROTECTING AND SHARING KNOWLEDGE Best means of protecting knowledge acquired The importance of exchanges and networking between companies The potential impact of more opportunities for networking between innovators in the European Union THE FINANCIAL SIDE OF INNOVATION Back-up from banks and investors for innovative efforts Fiscal measures in favour of innovation The potential impact of broader European scale access to funding THE ROLE OF CUSTOMERS Customers as a driving force for innovation Where are the most innovation-oriented customers to be found? III

6 6.3. The potential impact of better access to customers more interested in innovation in the European Union COMPANIES PRINCIPAL NEEDS Annexes IV

7 PRESENTATION 'Innovation - experience and priorities of European managers': that was the subject of an opinion poll carried out by the European Commission in the 15 Member States of the European Union. The objective of the survey was to sound out managers opinions on the role of European integration in facilitating the access to advanced technologies, the mobilisation of human resources, the protection and sharing of knowledge, access to funding for innovations, and customer acceptance of innovations. The survey had been foreseen by the Commission in its communication to the Council and to the European Parliament, 'Innovation in a knowledge-based economy', of September This featured, as one of the a number of measures designed to promote the objective of moving towards a society open to innovation, opinion polls on attitudes towards innovation. The methodology used in this survey, which had been carried out by the company EOS GALLUP EUROPE, was that of the FLASH surveys of the Directorate-General Press and Communication (Unit B/1 'Opinion polls') A total of managers at companies employing at least 20 people were interviewed by telephone between 23 April and 11 May The sample was selected according to three criteria: country, size of company and industrial sector. In the Member States with the most companies (Germany, Spain, France, Italy and the UK), 300 managers per country were interviewed. In those with the fewest companies (Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Finland) the figure was 100 each, and 200 managers were consulted in each of the remaining EU Member States. The person interviewed at each company was the general manager or the person responsible for intra-community business. As it was a telephone survey, the term 'innovation' was interpreted on the basis of the professional experience of the particular manager being interviewed. For each theme addressed, this report presents the results obtained in relation to: the European Union as a whole and each of its 15 Member States; the various types of companies (in terms of workforce size):- 'majors' (250 employees or more), - 'small SMEs' (20 to 49 employees) and 'large SMEs' (50 to 249 employees); the company s sector of activity: 'services', 'distribution', 'industry' (manufacturing companies), 'construction'; the share of turnover accounted for by exports; the age of the company. 1

8 The pages that follow give a summary of the managers responses and the full report, intended to set out the results of the survey as clearly as possible, using the available information as the basis for an in-depth analysis. A description of the sample and a methodological note are attached as annexes. Managers opinions can be summarised as follows: According to the managers responses, innovation is widespread but developing slowly: during the last two years, two companies out of three have introduced new products or services, but for half of these innovative enterprises the share of new products amounts to less than 10% of their total turnover. Business leaders are aware of the important role played by innovation in their company: 90% say they are doing as well as or even better than their main competitors, as far as innovation performance is concerned. The need to explore new market opportunities and to maximise profitability and cost efficiency are the most important incentives to innovate. One manager out of three states that companies are forced to innovate to remain independent and simply to survive. European corporate executives underline in particular the key role of human resources for innovation: training and motivation of existing staff are needed. While enterprises in most European countries experience severe difficulties in hiring high-skilled staff, only in Southern European countries are business leaders optimistic about the impact of a greater mobility of staff at European level. To access hi-tech and new technologies, business leaders rely firstly on the purchase of new equipment, and then count on active collaboration with their customers and suppliers. The majority of managers interviewed for the survey agree that Germany is the most important supplier of technologies required by companies. Internal research and technological development and the acquisition of patents are considered by a minority of enterprises only to be the most important tools to satisfy technological needs. For business leaders, the competitive advantage of being the first to the market with new products and services ensures a far better protection of intellectual property rights and know-how, than do legal tools and procedures. They are also keen on sharing their knowledge within partnerships and consortia with other innovative companies. Nevertheless, only in Southern Europe interest is expressed in strengthening trans-national cooperation at European level. In most EU countries executives consider fiscal incentives to innovate as unsatisfactory. On the contrary, three managers out of four are happy with funding opportunities offered by banks and investors in support of innovation. Customers have a favourable attitude to innovation: this is the opinion of eight out of ten business leaders. When asked in which country customers are most open to innovation, the vast majority named Germany. 2

9 In conclusion, the sometimes diverging attitudes of European managers towards some key factors for innovation, reflect the different structures, market situations and national innovation systems in Member States. This diversity underlines the usefulness of a wider debate on a European approach to innovation, and the necessity to devise tools fine-tuned to the specific needs and situations. 3

10

11 The importance of innovation to companies

12 Question 1.1. Approximately what percentage of your turnover comes from new or renewed products, introduced since less than two years? [If don t know exactly, insist to get an estimate] (Horizontal Median Average 0 % BASE percentages) % % nothing % % % % % % TOTAL EU ITALIA ELLAS ESPANA DANMARK PORTUGAL FRANCE FINLAND BELGIQUE DEUTSCHLAND SWEDEN ÖSTERREICH UNITED KINGDOM IRELAND NEDERLAND LUXEMBOURG BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

13 1. THE IMPORTANCE OF INNOVATION TO COMPANIES 1.1. Share of turnover generated by innovations * Overall picture: In the European Union, new products or products renewed within the last two years account on average for approximately one fifth (20.4%) of companies turnover. Two companies out of every three introduced new products and services over this period and almost 12% of companies can be considered highly innovative, with over half their turnover generated by new products. However, at all the companies surveyed, innovation takes time: the median of shows that, at one company out of every two, innovations within the last two years generated less than 10% of turnover. Q1.1 What percentage of your turnover comes from new or renewed products, introduced since less than two years? 100% 75% UE 15 50% 25% 0% 33.3% 0% :rien 13.0% 11.3% 12.9% 17.6% 11.9% 0% 01-05% 06-10% 11-20% 21-50% % Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 1 * Breakdown by country: A country-by-country comparison of the share of companies sales accounted for by innovations shows that this proportion differs considerably from one Member State to the next: One group of countries - Italy, Greece and Spain - stands out for the number of companies with a high share of turnover generated by innovations (over 50%). Other Member States, such as Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Ireland stand out for the opposite reason, with innovations mainly accounting for a small proportion of companies turnover figures (1-5% %). 1 See also Methodological note attached as an annex. 7

14 As regards companies whose ranges have seen no innovations over the last two years (column '0%: nothing'), the figures for most countries vary little from the overall rate for the EU of 33.3%, notable exceptions being Finland (16.9%) and the United Kingdom (42.4%). The same applies for the 11-20% and 21-50% categories. The median 2 gives us an idea of the share of turnover generated by innovations at a 'typical' company in each country. This figure permits a breakdown of countries into three categories, by reference to the overall EU result: countries where the share of innovations is typically higher than 10.0%: Italy, Denmark and Greece; countries where the share of innovations is typically less than 10.0%, particular the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Belgium and Sweden; countries where the share stands at the typical European level of 10.0% (all other Member States). With slight variations, this also applies to a comparison of the average percentages of turnover generated by new products and services: Average percentage of turnover coming from new or renewed products I GR SP DK P F UE 15 FIN B D SW ÖST UK IRL NL L 28.0% 27.2% 24.9% 24.1% 23.4% 20.6% 12.3% 20.4% 12.3% 19.7% 18.7% 18.1% 16.6% 16.5% 15.5% 15.3% 14.1% 12.3% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig.1A These categorisations of countries are obviously no more than a reflection of managers opinions. They do not provide an instrument for measuring whether a particular country is more or less 'innovative' than the others. What they 2 See also Methodological note attached as an annex. 8

15 express is not the innovative capability of companies, but rather the dependence of their turnover on products which are new for those companies. The term 'new product' can also be interpreted differently, either by stressing technological innovation or by taking into account broader aspects such as design etc. * Breakdown by company category: Here, the main variations are to be found on the export side: it is exporting companies which depend most on new products. The correlation between the share of exports and the share of new products on sales is positive with This correlation, which is not very high but is statistically significant, suggests that innovation and cross-border trade go hand in hand. There is also a statistical link between innovation-generated turnover and specific sectors of the economy: the production and distribution sectors renew their products more frequently than services and construction. By contrast, no correlation was found with company size or 'age'. 9

16 Question 1.2. In the last two years, approximately what percentage of your investment was dedicated to innovation, either in your products, your processes or your organisation? [If don t know exactly, INSIST to get an estimate] (Horizontal Median Average 0 % BASE percentages) % % nothing % % % % % % TOTAL EU ITALIA ESPANA ELLAS PORTUGAL DANMARK SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM NEDERLAND FINLAND DEUTSCHLAND BELGIQUE ÖSTERREICH LUXEMBOURG FRANCE IRELAND BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

17 1.2. Share of investment channelled into innovation While the first question related to the results of innovative activities, i.e. products introduced onto the market, this question is concerned with resources devoted to innovation. * Overall picture: In the European Union as a whole, on average approximately one quarter of companies investment is channelled into innovation (25.4%). Only one company in eight has invested nothing in innovation for the last two years (13.2% in the category 'nothing'). However, the median of 10.0 shows that one company in two has not channelled more than 10% of investment into innovation over the last two years. A 'typical' company in the European Union thus spends 10% of its investment on innovation. Q1.2 Average percentage of investments devoted to innovation I SP GR P DK SW UK 35.9% 33.4% 32.2% 30.6% 28.4% 26.0% 26.0% UE % NL FIN D B ÖST L F IRL 23.5% 23.1% 21.5% 21.0% 20.4% 19.8% 19.3% 18.2% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig 2 * Breakdown by country: Four countries lead the field: Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal, with medians well above that of the typical European company. These medians give us an idea of the share of investment channelled into innovation by a 'typical company' in each country (see table). Taking the average as criteria (see graph above), Denmark can be added to the group of leaders. There is a noticeable match with the results of the previous question on the percentage of turnover generated by new products. The percentages for these five countries were also above average. 11

18 Of course, this does not necessarily mean that companies in these countries are more 'innovative' than those in others (neither the amounts invested, in absolute figures, nor the success of this investment are known). What is clear, however, is that the company managers interviewed in these countries focus - more so than their counterparts in other countries - a significant proportion or their investment on innovation efforts. * Breakdown by company category: Exporting companies clearly channel a greater share of their investment into innovation, as can be seen from the table: both the median and mean values rise with the level of exports. This fits in exactly with the picture painted by responses to the preceeding question regarding new products. The industrial (manufacturing) sector stands out, with the proportion of investment devoted to innovation amounting typically to 20% (29.9% on average). This time, the services sector also posts a percentage slightly higher than that of other enterprises (see table). Company size, by contrast, would appear not to be a factor. 12

19

20 Question 1.3. What are the two most important drivers of your innovation efforts, among the following:...? [Read out two answers expected] (Horizontal Market Protection Creating Com- Share- Com- None BASE percentages) share & of jobs plying holder plying more th. % profita- indepen- envir. Value other other/ oth. bility dence regul. regul. answers TOTAL EU BELGIQUE DANMARK DEUTSCHLAND ELLAS ESPANA FRANCE IRELAND ITALIA LUXEMBOURG NEDERLAND ÖSTERREICH PORTUGAL FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Emlp.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim ESPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

21 1.3. Driving forces for innovation * Overall picture: The greatest driving force for innovation efforts is without doubt the desire to build up market shares and company profitability as cited by eight managers in ten (80.3%). The second major objective pursued is to preserve the independence of the company (36.7%). Vying for third place in this particular ranking in the various countries are the desire to create jobs (21.3%) and compliance with environmental standards (16.3%). Other driving forces, stemming from constraints imposed on the company from outside, e.g. statutory requirements in general or from the need to satisfy shareholders and investors, are considered less important. Q1.3 What are the two most important drivers of your innovaton efforts, among the following:...? Market share & profitability 80.3% Protecting company independence 36.7% Creating jobs Complying environ. regulations 21.3% 16.3% Shareholder value 11.6% Complying with other regulations 9.5% Others 2.4% Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig 3 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% * Breakdown by country: There was practically no difference in results across the various Member States as far as the first two objectives of innovation are concerned. As regards the third priority, managers in seven countries cited job creation. The same result emerged for environmental regulations, though no common factor is easily identifiable. Worthy of note is the importance attached to the demands of shareholders and investors by managers in four countries: the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden and, in particular, Finland. The Finnish result is so untypical of the EU 15

22 as a whole, however, that it should perhaps be viewed in a somewhat sceptical light. * Breakdown by company category: At company level, the driving forces highlighted by the various categories likewise show little variation. Suffice it to note that the 'majors' cite the need to create shareholder and investor value more frequently than the desire to create jobs. 16

23

24 Question 1.4. How would you rate the innovation performance of your company as compared to your main competitors? Is it:...? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal MEAN Far above Above In between, Below Far below BASE percentages) INDEX average average it depends average average % 0<..>100 (100) (75) (50) (25) (0) TOTAL EU SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM DANMARK LUXEMBOURG ELLAS BELGIQUE ITALIA IRELAND FINLAND ÖSTERREICH NEDERLAND PORTUGAL DEUTSCHLAND ESPANA FRANCE BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

25 1.4. The innovation performance of the company: self-evaluation * Overall picture: On the whole, the managers surveyed 3 were fairly upbeat about the innovation performance of their companies compared with their competitors. On average, this performance was considered to be 'above average' by 45.1% of responses and an index of 65 points. Only one manager in ten reckons their company s performance is 'below' or far below the average of its main competitors. Company managers thus feel comfortable with the subject of innovation efforts and are generally satisfied with their own track records, at least as regards market position. Q1.4 The innovation performance of the company: self-evaluation SW UK DK L GR B UE I IRL FIN ÖST NL P D SP F % 25% 50% 75% 100% Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig 3A * Breakdown by company category: Every country expressed virtually the same level of satisfaction. The only two countries to stand out from the rest are even more upbeat: Sweden and the United Kingdom post indices of 76 and 75 points respectively. Among the rest, there is not a single country with significantly greater reservations than in the European Union as a whole: nowhere is the average index lower than 62 points, just three points below the EU average 3 The 'average index' of opinions expressed is calculated by transforming the attidude-scale into numerical values as follows +100and +75 for the 'favourable' opinions, +25 and 0 for the 'unfavourable' opinions and +50 for 'in between'. 19

26 This categorisation of countries according to self-evaluation differs markedly from the previous classifications, which were based on the introduction of new products amongst sales (subsection 1.1) and on investment efforts (subsection 1.2). Pronounced differences in the international comparison would appear not to conflict with a favourable self-assessment in comparison with direct competitors. * Breakdown by company category: The breakdown by company category does not produce any findings worthy of particular note. 20

27 Advanced technologies and innovation

28 Question 2.1 In the case of your company, what are the two most important ways to access advanced technologies, among the following :...? [Read out two answers expected] (Horizontal Acquire Cooperate Conduct Cooperate Intellectual None more BASE percentages) advanced with in-house w. universe./ property than others/ % equipment suppliers/ R&D R&D licensing other customers specialists answers TOTAL EU BELGIQUE DANMARK DEUTSCHLAND ELLAS ESPANA FRANCE IRELAND ITALIA LUXEMBOURG NEDERLAND ÖSTERREICH PORTUGAL FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

29 2. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATION 2.1. Ways to access advanced technologies * Overall picture: For most companies (61.0%), equipment acquisition is the most important way to access advanced technology, with cooperation with suppliers and customers coming second (50.9%). In-house research and development (30.3%) or R&D in cooperation with specialists such as universities (10.6%) and intellectual property licensing (11.7%) come next, although in these latter three cases there are strong variations from one country to another, probably reflecting differences in the structure of the national systems for research and technology transfer. On the purchasing side, there is a notable preference for equipment over intangible goods (licences), with the ratio standing at more than 5 to 1 (61.0% against 11.7%). Q2.1 In the case of your company, what are the two most important ways to access advanced technologies, among the following:...? Acquire advanced equipment 61.0% Cooperate with suppliers/customers 50.9% Conduct in-house R&D 30.3% IPR licensing 11.7% Cooperate with Univers./ R&D specialists 10.6% Others 4.0% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 4 * Breakdown by country: Despite a fairly homogenous overall picture, there are nevertheless some differences in the approach taken by the various Member States of the European Union: Managers in all Member States stress the key role which equipment acquisition and cooperation with suppliers and customers play in gaining access to advanced technologies. Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal rate equipment acquisition as the most important factor, while Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden put cooperation with suppliers and customers first. 23

30 In-house R&D was selected in Italy and the United Kingdom in a noteworthy 44.7% of cases, and above all in Finland, where 52.0% of managers cited inhouse R&D as one of the most important ways of gaining access to advanced technologies, putting it practically on a par with equipment acquisition and cooperation with suppliers and customers. As recourse to universities and R&D specialists was also cited frequently, Finland comes through as the country that attaches the most importance to R&D as a way to access advanced technologies. As regards technology transfer by way of contract research (cooperation with universities and R&D specialists) or licences, there are major differences from one country to the next, reflecting thus the diversity of structures in the various Member States. Purchases of licences and of intellectual property are cited with particular frequency in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany. Contract R&D and licences: two ways to access advanced technologies NL UK SW ÖST D 35.5% 29.0% 26.5% 25.6% 25.0% UE % B IRL IRL DK FIN F SP L P GR 22.1% 20.6% 19.6% 17.4% 17.0% 16.5% 16.1% 15.2% 14.2% 11.3% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 4A * Breakdown by company category: The breakdown by company category shows up some interesting differences when it comes to R&D carried out in-house and in cooperation with universities and specialists. Generally speaking, R&D is an important means of access to advanced technologies for: large companies (majors), industry, and above all, exporting companies. There is thus a well proven link between 'proportion of exports' and the importance of R&D (in-house or outsourced). 24

31

32 Question 2.2. Do you feel that the access of your company to the most advanced technologies is currently:...? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal MEAN By far Sufficient In between, Insuf- By far BASE percentages) INDEX sufficient it depends ficient insufficient % 0<..>100 (100) (75) (50) (25) (0) TOTAL EU DEUTSCHLAND DANMARK SWEDEN NEDERLAND ITALIA FINLAND ELLAS ÖSTERREICH IRELAND UNITED KINGDOM LUXEMBOURG BELGIQUE ESPANA PORTUGAL FRANCE BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

33 2.2. Is access to advanced technologies sufficient? * Overall picture: Overall, more than eight European managers in ten are satisfied with the access they have to the most advanced technologies. In no country did managers express pronounced dissatisfaction with such access. Attitude indices range from 60 to 74 points, which represents a narrow variation range and bears witness to a fairly broad consensus at European Union level. * Breakdown by country: Problems nevertheless exist, if only for a minority of companies. Satisfaction is lowest in France, Portugal and Spain. It was in Portugal that the largest share (41.4%) of dissatisfied managers was to be found, with 24.2% giving a 'neutral' and 17.2% a negative response. Particular striking is the similarity between these results and those of the previous question concerning ways to access advanced technologies - it was above all the managers from these countries who highlighted the difficulties faced in accessing outside skills by way of R&D contracts and licences. Q2.2 Is access to advanced technologies sufficient? DK D NL SW I FIN UE IRL ÖST GR UK L B SP P F Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 5 * Breakdown by company category: The breakdown by company category does not produce any findings worthy of particular note. While managers of large companies express a slightly higher degree of satisfaction with their access to advanced technologies than managers of SMEs, the gap is a very narrow one; a wider gap might have been expected in this particular area. 27

34

35 2.3. Where are advanced technologies most easily available? This question was aimed at identifying the 'mental associations' which managers make between access to advanced technologies and geographical locations. In particular, the intention was to find out how respondents saw their technological position within the European Union, on the one hand, and in relation to other major blocs, on the other. These results are therefore presented according to the following breakdown: 1. In the first section, the position between the European Union, the United States and other countries is analysed. 2. On the basis of individual countries responses, the situation within the European Union is analysed: 'my own country' compared with 'the other Member States of the European Union'. 3. To this we add a further two response categories: those who are of the opinion that access is at the same level everywhere and there are therefore no differences, and those who do not know where such access could be better than in their own country. This regrouped and complete table is presented at the end. We have thus exceptionally included therein persons who do not know where such access could be better than in their own country, as we felt that this 'uncertainty rate' was an important item of information. 29

36 Question 2.3. TABLE In which countries are the advanced technologies you may need better available than here in [OUR COUNTRY]? [DON T READ OUT - SEVERAL ANSWERS POSSIBLE] ### SYNTHESIS: ANSWERS GROUPED IN MAIN CATEGORIES ### ### 'DO NOT KNOW / NO ANSWER' ARE NOT INCLUDED IN BASE % (Horizontal In Elsewhere Total United Other The same BASE percentages) own in the European States countries every- % country EU Union where TOTAL EU BELGIQUE DANMARK DEUTSCHLAND ELLAS ESPANA FRANCE IRELAND ITALIA LUXEMBOURG NEDERLAND ÖSTERREICH PORTUGAL FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

37 Responses categorised by geographic blocs. (Basis: actual responses, Table 2.3.1) * Overall picture: This table shows attitudes towards geographic blocs in their true perspective: for access to advanced technologies, 67.6% of European managers would look no further than the European Union, while 28.0% would consider the United States and 12.7% other countries (with Japan accounting for 5.1% and Far- Eastern countries a good part of the rest). The high number of managers who see no reason to look beyond the borders of their own country is worthy of note: almost three out of every ten on average, but with major variations from one country to the next. This is an interesting outcome, because the question was formulated in such a way as to explicitly invite the respondent to consider looking elsewhere (... better than here...), i.e. beyond national borders. * Breakdown by country: The European Union is the geographic zone designated by an absolute majority of managers in all the Member States, with the proportion ranging from 58.7% in Denmark to 87.4% in Portugal. Let us consider the individual countries views on ease of access to advanced technologies in the rest of the European Union compared with the United States and other non-eu countries. In the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Sweden, access to advanced technologies was felt to be easier in non-eu countries than in the rest of the Community. Thus, 47.0% of the managers surveyed in the United Kingdom saw the United States as the gateway to advanced technologies, a higher percentage than in the other 14 Member States as a whole (32%). Within the European Union, the ratio between those who feel ease of access is nowhere better than in their own country and those who look to another Member State varies widely: It is in Sweden - by a clear margin - that the highest number of managers see no reason to look to any other country: 51.6% (an absolute majority!) against 13.7% who would turn to another Member State of the European Union. At the other end of the scale, the countries where managers are most inclined to look for access in another EU Member State - and least inclined to look in their own country - are Belgium, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. These trends are analysed in greater detail in the next section dealing with intra- Community structures. 31

38 * Breakdown by company category: Overall, the European Union is considered to be the geographic zone that offers the best access to advanced technologies for all categories of companies (see opposite). Attitudes differ only to a very minor extent. Only larger companies, companies in the services sector and those which started up over the past five years tend to look more to America. 32

39

40 Question 2.3. Table In which countries are the advanced technologies you may need better available than here in [OUR COUNTRY]? ### DETAILS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION ('OUR COUNTRY' REAFFECTED) ### ### BASE % = MENTIONED AT LEAST ONE EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRY (Horizontal B DK D GR SP FIN F IRL I L NL AU P SW UK percentages) Total EU Belgium Denmark Germany Greece Spain Finland France Ireland Italy Luxembg Netherl Austria Portugal Sweden U.K BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

41 Responses for the European Union, country by country (Basis: Table 2.3.2) * Overall picture: The previous table sets out the opinions of managers who cited at least one EU Member State (including their own country) 4 as the preferred source of advanced technologies: Clearly out in front here is Germany, which was cited by one in two respondents as the preferred source of advanced technologies (see column in table opposite). The other countries lag far behind, with Italy second (18%) ahead of France and the United Kingdom (15%). Fifth position goes to the Netherlands (6%), with Sweden coming sixth (5%), etc. * Breakdown by country: There is a genuine consensus regarding Germany, the country mentioned most often in 10 of the European Union s 15 Member States. In the other countries, its position as leader is challenged only by 'pro domo' ('in my own country') responses in Italy, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. Were it not for these 'pro domo' responses, Germany would stand out even more prominently as the leading light for access to advanced technologies in the European Union. * Breakdown by company category: Germany is the country mentioned most by all company categories. It should perhaps be pointed out that Italy (in column) was mentioned most often by the industrial sector and exporting companies, but less often by the services sector. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, scored most of its mentions in the services sector. 4 Third column of table The percentages are thus based on responses from a total of respondents. It should be borne in mind that the percentages add up to more than 100%, as a more than one country could be mentioned by the same respondent. 35

42 Question 2.3. Table In which countries are the advanced technologies you may need better available than here in [OUR COUNTRY]? [DON T READ OUT - SEVERAL ANSWERS POSSIBLE] ### SYNTHESIS: ANSWERS GROUPED IN MAIN CATEGORIES ### (Horizontam In Elsewhere Total United The same (d k/ BASE percentages) own in the European States every- n.a.) % country EU Union where TOTAL EU BELGIQUE DANMARK DEUTSCHLAND ELLAS ESPANA FRANCE IRELAND ITALIA LUXEMBOURG NEDERLAND ÖSTERREICH PORTUGAL FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM BUSINESS TYPE Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

43 'No opinion' responses, total sample (Basis: Table 2.3.3) * Overall picture: In this table, we are only concerned with the percentage of 'don t knows', given the relatively large number of mangers (one in four) in the European Union without a firm opinion as to whether any other country offers easier access to advanced technologies than their own. * Breakdown by country: This attitude is encountered least often in Italy, Portugal and Greece. Managers in these three countries have least trouble in identifying where access to advanced technologies is easiest for them. A 'don t know' response was most frequently encountered, by contrast, in Belgium (50.0%) and was also common in Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom (between 39.5% et 32.5%). Does this reflect a lack of interest or is the question formulated in such a way as to make it unclear how to respond? Both elements probably come into play. * Breakdown by company category: Overall, a 'don t know' response came least frequently from: large companies (majors), industry and exporting companies. This result is very much a mirror image of that relating to the importance of R&D (subsection 2.1 above). 37

44 Question 2.4. Would an easier access to the advanced technologies available in other EU countries help your company to become more innovative? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal MEAN By far Sufficent In between, Insuf- By far BASE percentages) INDEX sufficient it depends ficient insufficient % 0<..>100 (100) (75) (50) (25) (0) TOTAL EU ELLAS PORTUGAL ESPANA ITALIA IRELAND BELGIQUE LUXEMBOURG FRANCE FINLAND UNITED KINGDOM ÖSTERREICH SWEDEN NEDERLAND DEUTSCHLAND DANMARK BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Service Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

45 2.4. The potential impact of easier access to advanced technologies * Overall picture: Managers attitudes on the potential impact of easier access to advanced technologies in the European Union averages out as practically 'neutral' (49 points). However, this is a balance between opposites, since virtually no-one is indifferent to this subject. The responses to the previous questions about the availability of technologies already provide a fairly accurate picture of the different expectations in the various countries, and the responses to this question confirm that picture. Q2.4 Would an easier access to advanced technologies available in other EU countries help your company to become more innovative? GR P SP I IRL B L F UE FIN UK ÖST SW NL D DK Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 6 * Breakdown by country: The balance at EU level is the net result of opposite trends in the various Member States: Some countries expect a great deal from easier access. This is the case for Greece, Portugal, Spain and even Italy. These are the Member States where managers feel there is insufficient access to such technologies in their own country (question 2.2) and look more to the European Union than to non-eu countries to meet their requirements. In Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, managers are either already relatively satisfied with the level of access to technologies or are more 39

46 inclined than the average EU manager to turn to non-eu countries. This group thus expects little of the other EU Member States. * Breakdown by company category: The categories which we analysed showed no significant differences. 40

47 Human resources and innovation

48 Question 3.1. In the case of your company, how can human resources and knowledge management contribute best to innovation? Is it by:...? [Read out several answers possible] (Horizontal Training Encourage Hire highly Advanced None more BASE percentages) existing personnel qualif. info/comm. than other/ % staff to innovate personnel Technology other answers TOTAL EU BELGIQUE DANMARK DEUTSCHLAND ELLAS ESPANA FRANCE IRELAND ITALIA LUXEMBOURG NEDERLAND ÖSTERREICH PORTUGAL FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

49 3. HUMAN RESOURCES AND INNOVATION 3.1. How can human resources contribute to innovation? * Overall picture: Managers appear to be convinced that their existing staff are capable of mastering the innovation challenge and deserves support. Intensive staff training was cited by 77% of respondents, while 52.6% mentioned the need for measures to encourage staff to maintain the momentum of innovation efforts and share knowledge. The hiring of new, highly qualified staff (38.5%) and the introduction of advanced information and communications technology (37,8%) thus take third place only. Q3.1 In the case of your company, how can human resources and knowledge management contribute best to innovation? Is it by:...? Training existing staff 77.7% Encourage staff to drive innovation 52.6% Hiring highly qualif. personnel 38.5% Advanced info./ comm. technology 37.8% Others 1.4% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 7 * Breakdown by country: There is a high degree of consensus between the Member States concerning the contribution which human-resource and knowledge management provides on the innovation front. While training is generally foremost among the measures cited, the most frequently mentioned factor in the Netherlands is the need to encourage staff to innovate and share knowledge. 43

50 The hiring of new, highly qualified staff and the introduction of new information and communications technologies are seen as having the same level of importance by managers in all Member States. In some countries, the hiring of new staff is suggested slightly more frequently: it takes second position in six cases - by a narrow margin. Some differences exist between the various countries: Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain cite new technologies more often than the other countries, while the United Kingdom, Greece, Sweden and France stress the importance of hiring suitably qualified staff. * Breakdown by company category: There are no significant differences between the various company categories. The general attitude of the managers in this respect is not depending on the situation or the profile of the enterprise. 44

51

52 Question 3.2. Attracting new and highly qualified personnel you may need to innovate, is this for your company a problem, which is:...? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal MEAN Very Important In between, Not Not BASE percentages) INDEX important (75) it depends important important % 0<..>100 (100) (50) (25) at all (0) TOTAL EU UNITED KINGDOM ITALIA ÖSTERREICH PORTUGAL ELLAS DEUTSCHLAND IRELAND LUXEMBOURG BELGIQUE FRANCE NEDERLAND SWEDEN FINLAND ESPANA DANMARK BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

53 3.2. The problem of finding highly qualified staff * Overall picture: Attracting the highly qualified staff needed for innovation is a real problem everywhere in the European Union. Two managers in every three rate it an important or very important problem, with the average attitude index standing at 62 points. * Breakdown by country As regards the problem of finding highly qualified staff, three countries have a position which differs from the general tendency: In Denmark, attracting highly qualified staff is not a problem for the great majority of managers (78.0%), and the average index stands at only 24 points. In Spain, the general tendency is to see recruitment as not posing too many problems, but opinions are somewhat divided: 54.9% against and 42.2% in favour, with an average index of 46 points. In Finland, the opinions are also divided, but in the opposite direction: 42.9% against and 52.0 % in favour (index of 51 points). Q3.2 Attracting new and highly qualified personnel you may need to innovate, is this for your company a problem, which is:...? UK I ÖST P GR UE D IRL 60 L 59 B 57 F 57 NL 57 SW 55 FIN 51 SP 46 DK Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 8 It is interesting to view the responses in the light of the preceeding question on the importance which managers attach to staff recruitment for promoting innovation at their companies. In the United Kingdom and Greece, for example, 47

54 recruitment problems are cited more than in other countries and more importance is attached to recruitment as a means of managing innovation. These problems are also noted in Austria and Portugal, but managers there put far less emphasis on the recruitment instrument. Sweden is in the opposite situation: managers there regard recruitment as an important instrument for promoting innovation at companies and are in the fortunate position of having relatively few problems in finding suitably qualified staff. In all other cases, attracting new, highly qualified staff can be said to be a genuinely acute problem, albeit in varying degrees from one country to another (see opposite: average index from 55 to 73 points). * Breakdown by company category: The severity of the problem of attracting new talent hardly varies at all between the different categories of company. 48

55

56 Question 3.3. Would a greater mobility of highly qualified personnel between the EU countries help your company to become more innovative? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal MEAN Certainly Probably In between, Probably Certainly BASE percentages) INDEX yes yes it depends not not % 0<..>100 (100) (75) (50) (25) (0) TOTAL EU PORTUGAL ELLAS ESPANA ITALIA LUXEMBOURG IRELAND UNITED KINGDOM SWEDEN FRANCE BELGIQUE ÖSTERREICH FINLAND NEDERLAND DEUTSCHLAND DANMARK BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

57 3.3. The potential impact of greater mobility of highly qualified staff * Overall picture Overall, we find highly contradictory assessments of the potential impact of greater mobility of highly qualified staff within the EU in helping companies become more innovative. The average attitude index stands at 46 points, which indicates a reserved stance. * Breakdown by country: The split in attitudes between those for and against reflects deep-seated differences of opinion from one country to another. Managers in Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy and Luxembourg show the greatest belief in the potential positive impact of increased mobility. In Ireland feelings are evenly split, while managers in all the other countries feel that greater mobility would not affect the innovative capabilities of their companies. The most sceptical countries in this regard are Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. Q3.3 Would a greater mobility of highly qualified personnel between the EU countries help your company to become more innovative? P GR SP I L IRL UK UE SW F B ÖST FIN NL D DK Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 8A As already noted in the previous subsection, however, attracting new talent to promote innovation is a problem in virtually every European Union country. Although greater mobility between countries is not regarded by managers 51

58 everywhere as being the solution to the problem, it could nevertheless make a bigger contribution than the percentages in the tables might lead us to believe. At all events, these two attitudes are related, as they have a positive and relatively high correlation coefficient: (a highly significant level). * Breakdown by company category: The result concerning the mobility of highly qualified staff shows a 'variation typology' such as already observed in this report. In overall terms, greater mobility would support innovation, particularly for: large companies (majors), industry, and above all exporting companies. This probably highlights the main thrust of attitudes regarding innovation and the best approach towards its development. 52

59 Protecting and sharing knowledge

60 Question 4.1. In the case of your company, which knowledge protection strategy would be most relevant among the following:...? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal Lead- Register Patenting None more BASE percentages) time design. than other/ % advantage trademarks other answers TOTAL EU BELGIQUE DANMARK DEUTSCHLAND ELLAS ESPANA FRANCE IRELAND ITALIA LUXEMBOURG NEDERLAND ÖSTERREICH PORTUGAL FINLAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

61 4. PROTECTING AND SHARING KNOWLEDGE 4.1. Best means of protecting knowledge acquired * Overall picture: The best way a company can protect the knowledge it has acquired is by leading the field: two managers out of every three take this view (63.3%), while only 28.2% replied that registering designs and trademarks or patenting was the best approach. * Breakdown by country: The same overall trend for the EU is to be observed in all the Member States apart from Greece and Portugal, where legal protection (patenting, registering trademarks or designs and copyrighting) was chosen more often. Q4.1 Best means of protecting knowledge acquired 63.3% 14.3% 8.5% 13.9% Lead time advantage Register design and trade marks Patents Others Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig 9 55

62 Lead time advantage: most appropriate strategy to protect knowledge I IRL L D FIN SW 73.5% 73.3% 67.1% 66.7% 65.3% 63.4% UE % F NL B UK ÖST SP DK P GR 32.6% 38.4% 61.1% 60.8% 59.4% 59.4% 59.2% 56.6% 53.2% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig 9A * Breakdown by company category: Attitudes on the best ways of protecting knowledge acquired do not depend on company profile. 56

63

64 Question 4.2. Innovation is often done through new methods of networking among innovators (combined development of new products; sharing knowledge). For your company, are these new methods of networking...? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal MEAN Very Important In between, Not Not BASE percentages) INDEX important (75) it depends important important % 0<..>100 (100) (50) (25) at all (0) TOTAL EU SWEDEN ELLAS FINLAND PORTUGAL LUXEMBOURG ÖSTERREICH ESPANA DEUTSCHLAND ITALIA BELGIQUE NEDERLAND FRANCE IRELAND UNITED KINGDOM DANMARK BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

65 4.2. The importance of exchanges and networking between companies * Overall picture: Forms of networking between innovators were regarded as important by two managers out of every three (65.1%), with the average attitude indicator standing at 61 points. Q4.2 The importance of exchanges and networking between companies for innovation SW GR FIN P L ÖST SP D UE I B NL F IRL UK DK Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 10 * Breakdown by country: The importance of networking between innovators is recognised in every country. Even in the country with the greatest reservations (Denmark) the attitude index is slightly positive, at 51 points. All the other countries attach far greater importance to this aspect. In Sweden, the country where managers set greatest store by networking, the index stands at 76 points. * Breakdown by company category: Attitudes on the importance of exchanges and networking between companies do not depend on company profile. 59

66 Question 4.3. If you had more opportunities for these new methods of networking with other innovators within the European Union, could this help your company to become more innovative:...? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal MEAN Certainly Probably In between, Probably Certainly BASE percentages) INDEX yes yes it depends not not % 0<..>100 (100) (75) (50) (25) (0) TOTAL EU ELLAS PORTUGAL ESPANA ITALIA IRELAND FINLAND BELGIQUE FRANCE ÖSTERREICH LUXEMBOURG NEDERLAND DEUTSCHLAND UNITED KINGDOM SWEDEN DANMARK BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

67 4.3. The potential impact of more opportunities for networking between innovators in the European Union * Overall picture: European managers expect greater opportunities for networking between innovators in the European Union to have a positive impact, with the average approval index standing at 59 points. The overall result thus closely matches the general attitude towards networking between innovators as discussed in the previous subsection. These two attitudes are indeed linked, as the coefficient of correlation between the two sets of responses is highly significant. * Breakdown by country: In the majority of Member States, the positive assessment of networking is matched by a positive view of the potential impact of more opportunties for networking at EU level. This applies, in particular to Greece and Portugal. In the case of Spain, Italy and, above all, Ireland the rating is even higher than the assessment for networking in general. In countries sharing somewhat greater reservations about networking in general, such as Denmark and the United Kingdom, the prospect of more opportunities for networking at European Union level does not give rise to great expectations either. Sweden is an exceptional case: it is the Member States which attaches the greatest importance to networking, but at the same time it Q4.3 If you had more opportunities for these new methods of networking with other innovators within the European Union, could this help your company to become more innovative:...? GR P SP I IRL FIN B UE F ÖST L NL D UK SW DK Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 10A 61

68 is one of the countries least inclined to believe that greater opportunities for networking within the European Union will have a positive impact. Managers thus apparently feel that networking functions best between companies in one and the same country. * Breakdown by company category: There are no major differences in attitude between the various company categories. 62

69 The financial side of innovation

70 Question 5.1. In your experience, are your banks and investors sufficiently ready to back-up your innovative efforts? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal MEAN Certainly Probably In between, Probably Certainly BASE percentages) INDEX yes yes it depends not not % 0<..>100 (100) (75) (50) (25) (0) TOTAL EU LUXEMBOURG IRELAND DANMARK BELGIQUE ÖSTERREICH ESPANA NEDERLAND FINLAND UNITED KINGDOM FRANCE ITALIA DEUTSCHLAND PORTUGAL ELLAS SWEDEN BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

71 5. THE FINANCIAL SIDE OF INNOVATION 5.1. Back-up from banks and investors for innovative efforts * Overall picture Generally, banks and investors appear to provide good support for companies innovative efforts: three out of every four managers share this opinion (75.3%), and the average attitude index stands at 70 points. * Breakdown by country: Attitudes are positive in every European Union country, although two - Greece and Sweden - have slightly more reservations or are slightly more lukewarm than the others. Q5.1 Are your banks and investors sufficiently ready to back-up your innovative efforts? L IRL DK B ÖST SP NL FIN UK UE F I D P GR SW Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 11 * Breakdown by company category: There are no major differences to report here. Worthy of note is the fact that even managers of new companies (under five years old) and of young companies (under ten years old) were satisfied with the financial back-up received. 65

72 Question 5.2. And would you say that the tax system in [OUR COUNTRY] sufficiently encourages innovation in your company? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal MEAN Certainly Probably In between, Probably Certainly BASE percentages) INDEX yes yes it depends not not % 0<..>100 (100) (75) (50) (25) (0) TOTAL EU LUXEMBOURG IRELAND NEDERLAND FINLAND UNITED KINGDOM SWEDEN ESPANA BELGIQUE ÖSTERREICH DEUTSCHLAND ELLAS ITALIA FRANCE PORTUGAL DANMARK BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

73 5.2. Fiscal measures in favour of innovation * Overall picture: The managers surveyed generally took a distinctly negative view of fiscal measures in favour of innovation. Almost eight out of every ten (79.1%) think that their country s taxation system does not do enough to encourage innovation in their company, and the average attitude index stands at a mere 24 points. Q5.2 Would you say that the tax system in [OUR COUNTRY] sufficiently encourages innovation in your company? L IRL NL FIN UK SW SP B ÖST UE D GR I F P DK Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 11A * Breakdown by country: Happy exceptions to this highly negative overall picture in the European Union are Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands, where on average it is felt that the taxation system provides sufficient encouragement for innovation. * Breakdown by company category Company profile has little bearing on managers attitudes on this subject. The majors appear on average to take a slightly less negative view than SMEs, but this is merely a question of intensity of negative sentiment: managers of majors tend to reply 'probably not' whereas managers of SMEs are more inclined to reply 'certainly not'. Both types of reply definitely point in the same direction. 67

74 Question 5.3. Could a broader European scale access to financing (via stock markets, venture capital, etc) interest your company for its innovation efforts? [Read out only one answer] (Horizontal MEAN Certainly Probably In between, Probably Certainly BASE percentages) INDEX yes yes it depends not not % 0<..>100 (100) (75) (50) (25) (0) TOTAL EU ELLAS PORTUGAL ESPANA ITALIA SWEDEN FRANCE ÖSTERREICH IRELAND LUXEMBOURG FINLAND DEUTSCHLAND DANMARK UNITED KINGDOM BELGIQUE NEDERLAND BUSINESS TYPES Majors SMEs SMEs Empl.: Empl.: SECTORS Services Distribution Industry Construction & Prim EXPORTS SHARE 0% % % % & ACTIVE SINCE +30 years years

75 5.3. The potential impact of broader European-scale access to funding * Overall picture: As regards the opportunities which could be opened up by the development of European stock markets and greater access to venture capital to fund innovations, managers reactions vary considerably from one country to another. On average, the attitude in the European Union is slightly negative (average index of 47 points). While 52.2% of managers would be interested, 45.9% are of the opposite persuasion. However, respondents in four countries expressed a considerable interest in financing conditions being improved. Q5.3 Could a broader European-scale access to financing (via stock markets, venture capital, etc) interest your company for its innovation efforts? GR P SP I SW F ÖST UE IRL L FIN D DK UK B NL Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 11B * Breakdown by country: Underlying the balance that averages out between these two attitudes at European Union level are widely differing national results. Four countries come out clearly in favour of broader access to European funding: Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. Three countries present a balanced picture closely matching the average - i.e. an even split between two opposing schools of thought: Sweden, France and Austria. In the majority of the remaining Member States, managers do not see what benefit broader access to European funding could yield for their companies. The most negative attitude in this regard is to be found in the Netherlands. 69

76 * Breakdown by company category: Company profiles appear not to have a major bearing on managers attitudes towards this question of funding opportunities. Even larger SMEs, which might be expected to derive the greatest benefit from a broadening of access, responded no differently from the others. Companies less than five years old show a slightly more positive attitude. 70

77 The role of customers