European Commission Innovation papers No 22 Innobarometer 2001 A publication from the Innovation/SMEs programme part of the Fifth Research Framework Programme
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 2000. 4. 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).
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
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 (http://europa.eu.int). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002 ISBN 92-894-3452-X European Communities, 2002 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Italy PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER
CONTENTS PRESENTATION... 1 Managers opinions can be summarised as follows:... 2 1. THE IMPORTANCE OF INNOVATION TO COMPANIES... 7 1.1. Share of turnover generated by innovations... 7 1.2. Share of investment channelled into innovation... 11 1.3. Driving forces for innovation... 15 1.4. The innovation performance of the company: self-evaluation... 19 2. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATION... 23 2.1. Ways to access advanced technologies... 23 2.2. Is access to advanced technologies sufficient?... 27 2.3. Where are advanced technologies most easily available?... 29 2.4. The potential impact of easier access to advanced technologies... 39 3. HUMAN RESOURCES AND INNOVATION... 43 3.1. How can human resources contribute to innovation?... 43 3.2. The problem of finding highly qualified staff... 47 3.3. The potential impact of greater mobility of highly qualified staff... 51 4. PROTECTING AND SHARING KNOWLEDGE... 55 4.1. Best means of protecting knowledge acquired... 55 4.2. The importance of exchanges and networking between companies.. 59 4.3. The potential impact of more opportunities for networking between innovators in the European Union... 61 5. THE FINANCIAL SIDE OF INNOVATION... 65 5.1. Back-up from banks and investors for innovative efforts... 65 5.2. Fiscal measures in favour of innovation... 67 5.3. The potential impact of broader European scale access to funding... 69 6. THE ROLE OF CUSTOMERS... 73 6.1. Customers as a driving force for innovation... 73 6.2. Where are the most innovation-oriented customers to be found?... 75 III
6.3. The potential impact of better access to customers more interested in innovation in the European Union... 83 7. COMPANIES PRINCIPAL NEEDS... 87 Annexes... 89 IV
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 2000. 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 3 004 managers at companies employing at least 20 people were interviewed by telephone between 23 April and 11 May 2001. 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
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
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
................. The importance of innovation to companies
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 % 01-05 06-10 11-20 21-50 51-100 BASE percentages) % % nothing % % % % % % TOTAL EU 15 10.0 20.4 33.3 13.0 11.3 12.9 17.6 11.9 2644 ITALIA 15.0 28.0 32.3 7.3 9.3 13.3 15.3 22.3 300 ELLAS 12.0 27.2 34.7 8.0 6.7 13.3 17.3 20.0 75 ESPANA 10.0 24.9 35.1 9.7 8.9 12.7 15.1 18.5 259 DANMARK 13.0 24.1 29.6 8.6 11.1 13.0 24.7 13.0 162 PORTUGAL 10.0 23.4 36.9 7.7 6.2 15.4 20.0 13.8 65 FRANCE 10.0 20.6 33.7 11.2 11.6 13.2 19.0 11.2 258 FINLAND 10.0 19.7 16.9 29.2 15.7 15.7 9.0 13.5 89 BELGIQUE 5.0 18.7 38.1 15.6 8.8 13.8 11.3 12.5 160 DEUTSCHLAND 10.0 18.1 29.6 16.9 13.1 13.5 19.1 7.9 267 SWEDEN 6.0 16.6 33.8 15.2 15.9 9.3 18.5 7.3 151 ÖSTERREICH 10.0 16.5 27.2 20.0 16.1 12.8 17.8 6.1 181 UNITED KINGDOM 5.0 15.5 42.4 11.1 10.3 11.4 17.3 7.4 271 IRELAND 7.5 15.3 22.3 26.6 12.8 20.2 13.8 4.3 94 NEDERLAND 5.0 14.1 31.6 22.8 17.0 10.5 11.1 7.0 171 LUXEMBOURG 7.0 12.3 34.5 14.5 20.0 16.4 10.9 3.6 55 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 10.0 23.6 19.6 21.0 13.2 14.7 17.6 13.9 310 SMEs 10.0 20.0 35.2 12.0 11.0 12.7 17.6 11.6 2334 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 8.0 19.3 34.5 14.0 10.0 12.1 18.0 11.4 1024 Empl.: 50-249 10.0 20.6 35.7 10.4 11.8 13.1 17.2 11.8 1310 SECTORS Services 5.0 16.7 47.3 8.9 10.4 8.2 15.4 9.8 760 Distribution 15.0 25.9 20.0 16.2 12.6 15.5 18.8 16.9 498 Industry 15.0 23.4 25.8 12.6 10.9 16.9 20.3 13.6 986 Construction & Prim 2.0 13.0 41.6 19.7 10.9 9.3 13.4 5.1 3066 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 4.0 15.4 45.3 12.4 11.1 8.4 14.5 8.3 1244 1-10% 10.0 22.2 22.5 15.2 12.8 19.3 18.2 12.0 585 11-50% 15.0 24.7 25.5 11.8 10.8 16.1 20.6 15.2 504 51% &+ 20.0 30.4 18.4 12.3 9.6 13.5 26.4 19.8 270 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 7.0 17.4 33.0 16.3 12.7 13.3 15.5 9.2 1338 21-30 10.0 24.4 32.6 8.1 11.3 10.5 21.9 15.6 471 11-20 10.0 23.5 32.5 11.5 8.0 16.1 17.2 14.8 442 6-10 10.0 19.9 39.0 9.4 7.1 10.5 24.8 9.3 223 0-5 years 10.0 27.5 31.5 7.9 14.3 11.9 14.7 19.8 157 6
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 10.0 1 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% 51-100% 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% + 6-10%). 1 See also Methodological note attached as an annex. 7
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
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 +0.1732. 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
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 % 01-05 06-10 11-20 21-50 51-100 BASE percentages) % % nothing % % % % % % TOTAL EU 15 10.0 25.4 13.2 22.2 15.6 14.0 18.6 16.3 2706 ITALIA 25.0 35.9 4.9 16.0 14.7 13.4 25.5 25.5 306 ESPANA 20.0 33.4 11.2 17.5 13.1 13.8 17.9 26.5 268 ELLAS 20.0 32.2 17.3 11.1 11.1 14.8 22.2 23.5 81 PORTUGAL 17.5 30.6 10.0 15.7 21.4 5.7 25.7 21.4 70 DANMARK 10.0 28.4 22.0 24.5 5.7 9.4 18.2 20.1 159 SWEDEN 10.0 26.0 10.8 27.7 16.3 5.4 24.1 15.7 166 UNITED KINGDOM 10.0 26.0 20.0 20.4 10.0 14.6 17.3 17.7 260 NEDERLAND 10.0 23.5 20.8 19.7 16.4 9.3 18.0 15.8 183 FINLAND 10.0 23.1 11.4 34.1 12.5 12.5 13.6 15.9 88 DEUTSCHLAND 10.0 21.5 12.4 22.8 18.7 16.5 18.4 11.2 267 BELGIQUE 10.0 21.0 15.3 24.7 13.5 15.9 17.6 12.9 170 ÖSTERREICH 10.0 20.4 10.8 28.4 21.0 10.2 20.5 9.1 176 LUXEMBOURG 10.0 19.8 17.5 19.0 23.8 11.1 17.5 11.1 63 FRANCE 10.0 19.3 15.2 30.7 17.0 13.4 11.7 12.0 283 IRELAND 5.0 18.2 16.7 38.9 10.0 11.1 12.2 11.1 90 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 11.0 28.2 5.3 27.0 17.7 12.3 17.2 20.5 309 SMEs 10.0 25.1 14.3 21.6 15.3 14.2 18.8 15.7 2398 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 10.0 25.2 12.9 21.8 16.8 13.5 19.0 16.0 1029 Empl.: 50-249 10.0 25.0 15.3 21.5 14.2 14.8 18.7 15.5 1369 SECTORS Services 12.0 25.5 14.3 19.1 15.6 17.2 17.7 16.1 762 Distribution 10.0 21.7 15.9 21.8 14.0 9.9 19.3 13.1 527 Industry 20.0 29.9 8.8 20.7 15.6 12.7 22.1 20.1 1002 Construction & Prim 10.0 18.7 18.5 25.7 17.4 16.5 10.4 11.5 382 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 10.0 20.6 19.9 23.6 15.0 14.4 15.4 11.8 1270 1-10% 15.0 28.5 8.5 23.7 16.5 10.4 21.0 19.9 596 11-50% 20.0 30.0 6.5 16.4 17.6 19.1 21.2 19.3 524 51% &+ 20.0 32.8 4.2 23.9 11.5 12.1 25.1 23.2 276 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 10.0 24.4 11.2 24.2 15.1 15.5 19.3 14.6 1365 21-30 10.0 25.6 13.9 22.9 14.8 12.5 18.8 16.9 478 11-20 10.0 27.1 16.4 19.5 16.9 12.1 14.7 20.3 471 6-10 10.0 25.9 12.7 20.4 19.1 14.4 17.6 15.9 228 0-5 years 15.0 27.4 20.7 12.8 13.0 11.2 25.7 16.6 154 10
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 15 25.4% 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
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
.................
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 15 80.3 36.7 21.3 16.3 11.6 9.5 2.4 2961 BELGIQUE 74.9 26.2 20.4 21.5 11.5 7.3 4.2 191 DANMARK 85.3 24.9 17.3 19.3 11.7 5.6 5.1 197 DEUTSCHLAND 80.3 44.9 24.8 12.6 11.2 5.8 1.4 294 ELLAS 88.8 31.6 6.1 7.1 6.1 3.1 2.0 98 ESPANA 79.0 19.3 20.3 20.0 5.7 9.0 3.3 300 FRANCE 83.1 35.5 19.6 13.0 7.0 10.6 2.3 301 IRELAND 88.8 29.6 10.2 11.2 19.4 8.2 1.0 98 ITALIA 83.9 32.8 18.3 27.3 6.4 14.5 0.3 311 LUXEMBOURG 62.6 33.3 28.3 14.1 11.1 7.1. 5.1 99 NEDERLAND 82.5 33.0 15.8 27.9 11.5 15.3 4.9 183 ÖSTERREICH 80.9 56.8 24.6 16.1 9.0 7.5 3.5 199 PORTUGAL 79.2 26.0 19.8 26.0 11.5 10.4 4.2 96 FINLAND 39.0 37.0 35.5 2.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 100 SWEDEN 74.1 30.1 17.6 6.2 17.6 3.6 3.1 193 UNITED KINGDOM 77.8 35.4 19.5 11.8 23.6 15.5 5.7 297 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 86.1 31.8 17.2 16.6 21.4 8.1 1.8 348 SMEs 79.5 37.4 21.9 16.3 10.3 9.7 2.5 2613 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 79.2 34.7 22.9 15.9 12.8 9.9 3.0 1130 Emlp.: 50-249 79.8 39.4 31.1 16.5 8.4 9.6 2.1 1482 SECTORS Services 76.7 35.3 22.7 13.4 14.5 12.8 2.7 854 Distribution 85.5 35.7 18.0 14.3 10.5 9.1 3.4 592 Industry 84.1 40.0 19.1 17.0 11.3 7.3 1.4 1065 Construction & Prim 72.7 34.2 27.8 22.5 8.0 9.0 2.8 418 ESPORTS SHARE 0% 77.2 35.4 24.3 16.2 8.8 12.0 2.8 1389 1-10% 81.4 40.3 19.3 13.7 13.8 7.2 2.7 652 11-50% 83.4 37.2 19.1 17.3 14.3 8.6 1.7 560 51% &+ 87.1 32.2 17.1 19.7 14.0 6.6 1.4 288 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 80.1 38.9 19.6 17.9 12.0 9.2 2.3 1482 21-30 80.0 36.2 25.3 17.7 6.8 11.0 2.2 526 11-20 81.4 35.8 22.0 12.5 11.5 7.5 4.2 514 6-10 83.1 33.6 20.3 12.7 13.5 11.1 0.6 258 0-5 years 74.7 26.2 25.3 14.7 19.0 11.2 1.3 166 14
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
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
.................
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 15 65 13.8 45.1 31.1 8.9 1.1 2920 SWEDEN 76 27.4 54.3 14.7 1.0 2.5 197 UNITED KINGDOM 75 27.1 54.5 12.3 5.5 0.7 292 DANMARK 71 15.5 55.7 26.8 2.1 0.0 194 LUXEMBOURG 70 17.0 58.5 14.9 8.5 1.1 94 ELLAS 70 27.4 36.8 27.4 6.3 2.1 95 BELGIQUE 66 12.7 48.1 30.4 6.6 2.2 181 ITALIA 65 10.3 48.4 33.2 7.7 0.3 310 IRELAND 65 13.3 42.9 35.7 7.1 1.0 98 FINLAND 65 14.3 42.9 37.2 9.2 1.0 98 ÖSTERREICH 65 10.8 46.9 33.5 7.7 1.0 194 NEDERLAND 64 13.4 46.2 27.4 9.7 3.2 186 PORTUGAL 64 15.3 29.6 50.0 5.1 0.0 98 DEUTSCHLAND 63 10.8 40.7 38.6 8.8 1.0 295 ESPANA 63 11.0 42.8 33.9 10.6 1.8 283 FRANCE 62 10.2 48.1 24.6 15.8 1.4 285 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 70 16.3 52.5 26.0 4.9 0.3 345 SMEs 65 13.5 44.1 31.7 9.4 1.2 2574 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 66 15.8 43.2 30.8 9.1 1.1 1111 Empl.: 50-249 64 11.8 44.8 32.4 9.7 1.3 1464 SECTORS Services 67 15.4 49.6 25.9 7.5 1.6 849 Distribution 66 13.9 46.7 31.1 6.6 1.6 571 Industry 65 13.1 43.6 32.4 10.4 0.5 1059 Construction & Prim 62 11.8 38.1 37.4 11.8 0.9 408 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 65 11.3 47.0 32.5 8.4 0.8 1374 1-10% 63 14.9 36.9 35.4 10.2 2.6 641 11-50% 67 16.4 46.8 26.2 9.8 0.8 554 51% &+ 70 18.9 49.7 23.6 7.5 0.3 280 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 64 12.2 43.5 33.7 9.3 1.3 1466 21-30 66 12.0 50.3 25.8 8.9 1.0 528 11-20 68 17.0 46.5 29.1 6.7 0.8 497 6-10 67 16.1 49.5 23.1 9.7 1.6 254 0-5 years 67 21.7 33.9 33.9 10.3 0.2 160 18
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 76 75 71 70 70 66 UE 15 65 I IRL FIN ÖST NL P D SP F 65 65 65 65 64 64 63 63 62 0% 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
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
................. Advanced technologies and innovation
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 15 61.0 50.9 30.3 10.6 11.7 4.0 2927 BELGIQUE 49.7 51.4 28.2 13.8 8.3 2.2 181 DANMARK 52.6 63.3 18.4 13.8 3.6 3.6 196 DEUTSCHLAND 65.4 51.7 25.7 11.6 13.4 3.4 292 ELLAS 69.1 38.1 25.8 8.2 3.1 1.0 97 ESPANA 71.9 34.8 22.7 8.7 7.4 2.7 299 FRANCE 54.0 51.3 29.9 5.4 11.1 3.7 298 IRELAND 39.2 64.9 27.8 7.2 13.4 2.1 97 ITALIA 64.6 46.0 44.7 11.9 7.7 1.3 311 LUXEMBOURG 53.5 59.6 23.2 8.1 7.1 2.0 99 NEDERLAND 56.4 66.9 28.5 16.9 18.6 2.3 172 ÖSTERREICH 59.7 66.5 27.2 16.2 9.4 2.1 191 PORTUGAL 72.7 55.6 14.1 8.1 6.1 5.1 99 FINLAND 51.0 57.0 52.0 17.0 4.0 0.0 100 SWEDEN 25.4 66.1 25.9 19.6 6.9 0.5 189 UNITED KINGDOM 50.5 51.6 38.1 11.4 17.6 12.1 289 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 56.5 45.6 41.5 15.3 13.9 3.0 346 SMEs 61.6 51.7 28.8 9.9 11.4 4.1 2581 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 59.9 49.8 30.3 10.5 14.8 3.8 1122 Empl.: 50-249 62.9 53.1 27.6 9.5 8.7 4.4 1459 SECTORS Services 61.0 48.8 26.0 10.4 15.5 5.4 831 Distribution 53.5 59.1 19.9 4.2 14.2 6.8 578 Industry 62.0 47.0 42.5 14.6 9.1 2.1 1075 Construction & Prim 68.2 56.5 21.6 8.5 8.4 2.7 411 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 65.6 54.4 19.0 6.7 11.1 5.6 1360 1-10% 62.1 49.6 32.6 10.7 11.9 3.7 647 11-50% 57.4 46.1 44.3 14.1 13.2 2.3 560 51% &+ 45.5 42.6 53.8 21.3 12.3 1.3 289 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 62.2 52.2 29.8 10.9 10.8 4.2 1470 21-30 62.2 47.8 32.4 10.9 11.0 3.0 519 11-20 58.9 48.9 29.6 8.6 13.5 4.4 507 6-10 58.5 46.3 30.3 10.0 15.3 4.6 251 0-5 years 55.8 61.2 31.1 13.5 10.7 4.0 1064 22
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
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 15 22.3% 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
.................
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 15 69 12.3 69.1 3.1 14.4 1.2 2965 DEUTSCHLAND 74 15.5 75.1 1.3 8.1 0.0 297 DANMARK 74 22.6 59.0 10.8 7.7 0.0 195 SWEDEN 73 21.2 68.7 0.0 0.5 9.6 198 NEDERLAND 73 22.0 61.8 3.2 11.3 1.6 186 ITALIA 72 17.7 66.6 2.6 12.5 0.6 311 FINLAND 69 15.0 63.0 6.0 16.0 0.0 100 ELLAS 68 11.2 65.3 10.2 12.2 1.0 98 ÖSTERREICH 68 6.8 74.0 5.2 14.1 0.0 192 IRELAND 68 9.1 67.7 8.1 15.2 0.0 99 UNITED KINGDOM 67 12.8 64.0 2.7 18.5 2.0 297 LUXEMBOURG 66 7.0 70.0 5.0 16.0 2.0 100 BELGIQUE 65 4.9 72.5 3.8 16.5 2.2 182 ESPANA 63 7.1 63.3 5.4 24.2 0.0 297 PORTUGAL 61 2.0 56.6 24.2 16.2 1.0 99 FRANCE 60 1.7 67.9 1.4 25.3 3.7 296 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 73 13.9 74.7 2.5 8.9 0.0 348 SMEs 69 12.0 68.3 3.1 15.2 1.4 2617 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 69 13.0 67.4 3.0 15.4 1.1 1130 Empl.: 50-249 68 11.3 69.0 3.2 15.0 1.5 1487 SECTORS Services 69 12.9 68.0 2.6 14.8 1.7 860 Distribution 70 13.1 70.7 2.2 12.8 1.2 587 Industry 68 11.1 69.1 3.3 15.3 1.1 1071 Construction & Prim 70 13.2 68.1 4.2 14.1 0.3 412 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 69 11.2 71.2 2.9 13.6 1.2 1401 1-10% 70 15.3 66.4 2.7 14.4 1.1 646 11-50% 67 10.7 67.4 3.2 16.9 1.9 563 51% &+ 70 13.6 68.1 4.1 13.8 0.4 289 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 69 12.4 68.8 2.2 15.7 0.9 1480 21-30 71 15.0 67.6 3.9 12.0 1.6 529 11-20 69 12.1 70.1 2.7 13.8 1.4 512 6-10 67 7.9 69.2 6.9 14.4 1.6 260 0-5 years 69 10.7 70.8 3.1 13.5 1.8 170 26
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 74 74 73 73 72 69 UE 15 69 IRL ÖST GR UK L B SP P F 68 68 68 67 66 65 63 61 60 0 25 50 75 100 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
................. 28
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
Question 2.3. TABLE 2.3.1. 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 15 27.0 40.8 67.6 28.0 12.7 10.6 2202 BELGIQUE 4.0 66.7 70.7 24.2 14.1 9.1 99 DANMARK 22.3 36.4 58.7 16.5 7.4 28.1 121 DEUTSCHLAND 32.8 31.8 64.6 27.3 12.1 12.6 198 ELLAS 4.8 76.2 81.0 21.4 16.7 1.2 84 ESPANA 12.1 61.5 73.6 26.8 10.9 10.9 239 FRANCE 22.5 42.0 63.2 30.7 17.3 12.1 231 IRELAND 10.3 70.5 80.8 26.9 12.8 2.6 78 ITALIA 30.4 38.1 68.5 22.1 9.0 13.5 289 LUXEMBOURG 15.8 64.5 80.3 19.7 5.3 2.6 76 NEDERLAND 36.1 37.7 73.8 27.9 11.5 4.9 122 ÖSTERREICH 26.8 43.8 70.6 13.1 9.2 18.3 153 PORTUGAL 5.7 81.6 87.4 16.1 9.2 5.7 87 FINLAND 40.7 39.5 80.2 14.8 8.6 9.9 81 SWEDEN 51.6 13.7 65.4 11.1 55.9 22.9 153 UNITED KINGDOM 28.7 33.2 61.9 47.0 17.3 1.5 202 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 22.5 39.1 61.0 38.9 15.4 10.9 281 SMEs 27.7 41.0 68.6 26.4 12.3 10.6 1921 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 29.1 39.0 68.1 26.4 12.2 10.1 856 Empl.: 50-249 26.5 42.6 68.9 26.4 12.3 11.0 1064 SECTORS Services 27.0 30.8 57.6 38.7 12.6 10.4 604 Distribution 29.3 36.9 65.9 28.1 13.9 10.9 409 Industry 24.4 37.9 72.3 22.8 14.0 11.6 891 Construction & Prim 32.3 43.9 75.8 20.6 5.6 8.3 271 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 30.9 39.3 70.1 27.4 11.1 8.9 964 1-10% 22.0 44.6 66.6 27.3 14.3 13.7 473 11-50% 26.3 38.4 64.3 30.9 14.1 10.4 473 51% &+ 22.3 42.2 63.9 28.8 14.6 11.6 241 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 31.3 39.0 70.2 24.1 12.2 10.8 1110 21-30 23.6 44.7 67.9 26.6 13.6 10.9 394 11-20 21.1 43.5 64.5 33.3 11.5 10.7 375 6-10 24.8 36.6 60.8 33.3 15.2 11.0 193 0-5 years 17.7 44.8 62.6 43.8 14.4 8.0 120 30
2.3.1. 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
* 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
.................
Question 2.3. Table 2.3.2. 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 15 3 2 50 0 4 3 15 0 18 1 6 2 1 5 15 Belgium 13 1 40 1 9 1 17 0 14 0 20 0 0 9 10 Denmark 6 38 44 0 1 6 4 1 10 0 4 1 1 11 10 Germany 2 2 68 0 2 2 10 0 9 1 5 2 1 4 9 Greece 0 3 60 6 4 1 25 0 46 0 9 1 0 6 18 Spain 1 2 64 1 16 1 16 1 22 1 5 1 1 5 11 Finland 3 2 20 0 0 69 3 0 2 0 3 2 0 6 2 France 4 2 37 1 3 4 36 1 15 1 8 0 1 5 14 Ireland 0 6 43 0 2 0 8 19 5 0 13 2 0 8 30 Italy 4 1 44 0 3 2 13 1 44 1 2 2 0 1 6 Luxembg 10 0 56 0 2 0 23 0 11 21 7 0 3 0 7 Netherl. 1 3 29 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 58 0 0 1 7 Austria 0 2 55 2 4 2 8 0 6 0 4 38 0 4 6 Portugal 0 4 43 0 28 1 26 0 32 0 3 1 7 7 18 Sweden 1 1 12 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 80 4 U.K. 1 2 35 0 1 2 10 0 6 0 3 1 1 2 52 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 5 2 53 0 2 1 14 0 14 2 9 3 0 3 22 SMEs 2 2 50 0 5 3 15 0 19 0 6 2 1 6 14 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 2 2 50 0 5 5 14 1 17 0 6 2 1 9 14 Empl.: 50-249 3 2 50 0 5 2 16 0 20 1 6 2 1 3 14 SECTORS Services 4 2 44 0 5 4 11 0 8 1 7 2 2 9 25 Distribution 2 1 47 0 6 3 18 1 14 1 8 1 1 4 19 Industry 3 2 51 0 3 2 14 0 28 1 5 3 0 3 10 Construction & Prim 2 2 61 0 4 5 18 1 13 0 6 2 0 5 5 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 2 2 51 0 4 3 15 1 13 1 7 1 1 6 16 1-10% 3 2 45 0 4 4 17 1 22 1 6 6 2 4 15 11-50% 3 2 53 0 5 2 13 0 19 0 6 0 0 6 14 51% &+ 3 4 47 0 2 3 16 0 32 0 6 1 0 6 7 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 3 1 50 0 4 4 14 0 18 1 8 3 1 5 12 21-30 2 4 52 0 4 2 13 1 20 0 4 2 1 3 15 11-20 3 1 51 0 6 2 14 0 21 1 4 2 1 5 18 6-10 0 1 43 0 7 6 18 0 13 0 3 2 2 8 20 0-5 years 0 6 46 0 4 1 26 0 13 0 4 0 0 9 18 34
2.3.2. 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 2.3.1. The percentages are thus based on responses from a total of 1.488 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
Question 2.3. Table 2.3.3. 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 15 19.8 29.9 49.5 20.5 9.3 7.8 26.7 3004 BELGIQUE 2.0 33.3 35.4 12.1 7.1 4.5 50.0 198 DANMARK 13.5 22.0 35.5 10.0 4.5 17.0 39.5 200 DEUTSCHLAND 21.7 21.0 42.7 18.0 8.0 8.3 34.0 300 ELLAS 4.0 64.0 68.0 18.0 14.0 1.0 16.0 100 ESPANA 9.6 48.8 58.5 21.3 8.6 8.6 20.6 301 FRANCE 17.2 32.1 48.3 23.5 13.2 9.3 23.5 302 IRELAND 8.0 55.0 63.0 21.0 10.0 2.0 22.0 100 ITALIA 28.3 35.4 63.7 20.6 8.4 12.5 7.1 311 LUXEMBOURG 12.0 49.0 61.0 15.0 4.0 2.0 24.0 100 NEDERLAND 22.9 24.0 46.9 17.7 7.3 3.1 36.5 192 ÖSTERREICH 20.5 33.5 54.0 10.0 7.0 14.0 23.5 200 PORTUGAL 5.0 71.0 76.0 14.0 8.0 5.0 13.0 100 FINLAND 33.0 32.0 65.0 12.0 7.0 8.0 19.0 100 SWEDEN 39.5 10.5 50.0 8.5 4.5 17.5 23.5 200 UNITED KINGDOM 19.3 22.3 41.7 31.7 11.7 1.0 32.7 300 BUSINESS TYPE Majors 18.1 31.5 49.1 31.3 12.4 8.8 19.5 349 SMEs 20.0 29.7 49.6 19.1 8.9 7.7 27.7 2655 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 21.8 29.2 51.0 19.8 9.1 7.5 25.2 1144 Empl.: 50-249 18.7 30.0 38.6 18.6 8.7 7.8 29.6 1511 SECTORS Services 18.8 21.4 39.9 26.9 8.7 7.2 30.6 871 Distribution 20.1 25.4 45.3 19.3 9.6 7.5 31.3 596 Industry 20.1 39.5 59.6 18.8 11.5 9.6 17.6 1081 Construction & Prim 20.9 28.3 48.9 13.3 3.6 5.4 35.4 420 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 21.0 26.7 47.6 18.6 7.6 6.1 32.1 1420 1-10% 15.9 32.2 48.1 19.7 10.3 9.9 27.7 655 11-50% 22.0 32.1 53.8 25.9 11.8 8.7 16.3 565 51% &+ 18.5 34.9 52.9 23.8 12.1 9.6 17.3 291 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 23.2 28.8 52.0 17.9 9.0 8.0 26.0 1499 21-30 17.3 32.8 49.8 19.5 10.0 8.0 26.7 538 11-20 15.3 31.5 46.8 24.2 8.4 7.7 27.5 518 6-10 18.3 26.9 44.7 24.5 11.2 8.1 26.5 262 0-5 years 12.5 31.5 43.9 30.7 10.1 5.6 29.8 171 36
2.3.3. '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
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 15 49 16.4 32.4 2.4 27.8 20.9 2855 ELLAS 80 41.2 49.5 0.0 5.2 4.1 97 PORTUGAL 71 30.0 45.0 8.0 12.0 5.0 100 ESPANA 69 31.9 41.4 4.2 16.1 6.3 285 ITALIA 62 28.1 35.9 2.9 22.2 18 306 IRELAND 58 24.7 31.2 6.5 28.0 9.7 93 BELGIQUE 55 18.9 38.3 1.7 28.0 13.1 175 LUXEMBOURG 53 20.4 31.2 4.3 29.0 15.1 93 FRANCE 53 19.0 35.0 0.3 28.6 17.0 294 FINLAND 47 22.5 23.6 1.1 25.8 27.0 89 UNITED KINGDOM 46 11.2 34.0 2.8 33.0 18.9 285 ÖSTERREICH 44 10.6 27.0 6.3 38.1 18.0 189 SWEDEN 43 10.3 32.1 2.4 29.1 26.1 165 NEDERLAND 41 12.6 27.9 1.6 26.8 31.1 183 DEUTSCHLAND 36 7.1 26.6 1.8 33.0 31.6 282 DANMARK 27 3.4 17.3 3.9 34.1 41.3 179 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 52 17.7 34.9 2.2 27.5 17.7 338 SMEs 49 16.3 32.1 2.5 27.8 21.4 2517 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 47 16.1 31.0 2.0 27.9 23.0 1086 Empl.: 50-249 49 16.4 32.9 2.9 27.7 20.1 1430 SECTORS Service 46 14.7 31.5 1.7 26.1 26.0 828 Distribution 50 15.6 35.1 1.9 26.1 20.2 562 Industry 52 18.7 33.4 2.7 27.7 17.5 1032 Construction & Prim 46 15.6 27.5 3.1 33.3 20.6 397 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 46 14.1 30.9 2.8 29.0 23.3 1342 1-10% 50 18.3 30.4 2.2 29.7 19.4 615 11-50% 52 16.1 38.2 2.6 24.6 18.6 551 51% &+ 55 23.5 32.5 1.5 24.9 18.1 285 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 47 16.3 30.0 2.6 27.3 23.7 1418 21-30 50 17.4 31.9 2.9 28.0 19.7 515 11-20 51 19.1 32.6 1.7 26.9 19.7 501 6-10 50 10.0 41.3 2.0 31.4 15.3 242 0-5 years 55 15.5 42.6 1.6 25.5 14.8 163 38
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 62 58 55 53 53 71 69 80 UE 15 49 FIN UK ÖST SW NL D DK 27 47 46 44 43 41 36 0 25 50 75 100 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
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
................. Human resources and innovation
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 15 77.7 52.6 38.5 37.8 1.4 2979 BELGIQUE 37.8 56.4 44.1 33.8 4.6 195 DANMARK 78.3 61.6 27.8 30.8 0.5 198 DEUTSCHLAND 83.9 67.4 38.6 50.0 0.3 298 ELLAS 70.4 33.7 44.9 37.8 1.0 98 ESPANA 75.4 41.8 37.4 39.1 2.4 297 FRANCE 74.0 36.7 41.0 21.3 2.3 300 IRELAND 61.6 27.3 29.3 20.2 2.0 99 ITALIA 79.1 37.6 32.5 34.7 1.0 311 LUXEMBOURG 65.3 40.8 30.6 21.4 2.0 98 NEDERLAND 52.6 66.8 37.4 26.3 1.6 190 ÖSTERREICH 80.8 45.1 24.4 25.4 2.6 193 PORTUGAL 66.3 28.6 29.6 16.3 6.1 98 FINLAND 80.0 35.0 39.0 37.0 2.0 100 SWEDEN 83.3 48.5 50.0 17.2 0.5 198 UNITED KINGDOM 76.1 59.3 47.8 42.8 2.0 297 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 78.3 51.6 52.9 47.2 0.6 349 SMEs 77.7 52.7 36.6 36.6 1.5 2630 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 80.0 54.6 41.4 40.5 1.4 1135 Empl.: 50-249 75.9 51.3 33.0 33.6 1.6 1495 SECTORS Services 79.6 55.6 44.2 42.0 0.9 860 Distribution 76.7 47.9 35.1 40.7 1.8 593 Industry 77.0 52.1 36.9 34.4 1.4 1074 Construction & Prim 77.1 55.0 36.2 33.8 2.3 416 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 79.3 52.5 35.4 35.9 1.3 1406 1-10% 76.8 52.9 42.7 40.1 2.3 651 11-50% 76.5 53.1 41.2 41.5 0.6 560 51% &+ 76.0 48.9 41.0 34.0 1.3 291 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 76.8 53.2 41.2 41.2 1.6 1487 21-30 82.0 48.4 31.0 33.6 1.1 536 11-20 74.6 54.5 39.8 37.1 1.6 514 6-10 81.7 55.6 30.5 33.1 0.7 261 0-5 years 76.9 49.9 49.3 32.4 0.8 166 42
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
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
.................
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 15 62 21.9 43.2 2.7 24.5 7.8 2926 UNITED KINGDOM 73 29.4 53.2 2.4 11.9 3.1 293 ITALIA 71 32.7 44.1 0.7 18.0 4.6 306 ÖSTERREICH 69 30.5 41.6 6.1 18.3 3.6 197 PORTUGAL 69 25.3 45.1 14.3 11.0 4.4 91 ELLAS 66 17.3 54.1 8.2 16.3 4.1 98 DEUTSCHLAND 61 22.3 40.2 3.1 27.1 7.2 291 IRELAND 60 27.6 29.6 7.1 25.5 10.2 98 LUXEMBOURG 59 25.3 30.3 3.0 37.4 4.0 99 BELGIQUE 57 15.3 43.4 2.6 32.3 6.3 189 FRANCE 57 14.4 47.2 0.3 28.4 9.7 299 NEDERLAND 57 12.5 47.4 2.6 30.2 7.3 192 SWEDEN 55 27.0 31.1 2.0 12.8 27.0 196 FINLAND 51 7.1 44.9 5.1 28.6 14.3 98 ESPANA 46 7.6 34.8 2.8 42.1 12.8 290 DANMARK 24 4.2 11.2 6.3 30.9 47.1 191 BUSINESS TYPES Majors. 66 23.6 48.8 2.0 19.8 5.7 348 SMEs 61 21.6 42.4 2.8 25.1 8.1 2578 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 64 26.1 41.3 2.7 23.2 6.6 1111 Empl.: 50-249 59 18.3 43.3 2.8 26.5 9.2 1466 SECTORS Services 62 24.5 42.0 1.6 21.7 10.2 855 Distribution 59 16.3 45.0 3.3 28.3 7.1 577 Industry 64 24.4 43.4 3.1 22.5 6.6 1045 Construction & Prim 59 17.5 43.9 2.8 28.6 7.3 414 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 59 19.5 42.1 3.1 25.0 10.3 1388 1-10% 62 21.2 44.6 2.3 26.1 5.9 634 11-50% 67 25.2 46.3 2.4 21.7 4.4 551 51% &+ 65 29.1 39.4 1.6 21.8 8.0 281 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 61 21.2 42.1 2.4 26.9 7.5 1463 21-30 62 24.1 41.3 2.6 24.4 7.6 525 11-20 64 21.7 48.6 2.2 19.8 7.7 495 6-10 57 15.6 43.6 4.1 27.5 9.2 258 0-5 years 67 30.4 41.2 4.7 14.6 9.1 170 46
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 15 55 73 71 69 69 66 62 D 53 61 IRL 60 L 59 B 57 F 57 NL 57 SW 55 FIN 51 SP 46 DK 24 0 25 50 75 100 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
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
.................
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 15 46 15.8 29.0 2.0 30.0 23.1 2959 PORTUGAL 68 28.6 37.8 12.2 18.4 3.1 98 ELLAS 67 33.7 37.9 2.1 13.7 12.6 95 ESPANA 62 25.0 42.0 1.7 18.8 12.5 288 ITALIA 61 28.8 38.1 4.2 22.9 10.0 310 LUXEMBOURG 54 31.3 18.2 3.0 29.3 18.2 99 IRELAND 51 21.4 23.5 8.2 32.7 14.3 98 UNITED KINGDOM 47 14.2 30.5 1.7 34.9 18.6 295 SWEDEN 45 15.5 28.9 2.6 25.8 27.3 194 FRANCE 44 17.4 25.4 0.3 28.4 28.4 299 BELGIQUE 43 13.5 27.1 0.5 37.0 21.9 192 ÖSTERREICH 41 14.3 22.4 1.5 37.8 24.0 196 FINLAND 41 19.4 17.3 5.1 22.4 35.7 98 NEDERLAND 38 10.5 26.3 1.1 29.5 32.6 190 DEUTSCHLAND 37 8.8 24.9 1.3 35.4 29.6 297 DANMARK 27 8.6 13.9 0.5 31.0 46.0 187 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 55 17.9 39.5 1.3 27.6 13.6 349 SMEs 45 15.5 27.6 2.1 30.4 24.4 2610 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 45 17.1 25.0 1.9 31.7 24.3 1134 Empl.: 50-249 45 14.3 29.7 2.3 29.3 24.5 1476 SECTORS Services 45 15.9 28.9 0.9 28.3 26.0 862 Distribution 40 12.9 25.5 1.0 32.0 28.7 588 Industry 51 18.3 31.2 2.8 30.0 17.7 1056 Construction & Prim 45 12.8 30.0 3.8 30.1 23.4 416 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 41 13.5 25.2 2.0 30.2 29.1 1401 1-10% 44 14.1 27.7 1.1 35.4 21.7 647 11-50% 55 20.5 35.5 2.8 26.4 14.8 555 51% &+ 59 21.1 41.1 3.2 21.7 12.9 287 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 43 15.4 25.6 1.8 30.9 26.3 1487 21-30 46 16.7 28.7 1.9 28.7 24.0 528 11-20 49 15.0 33.5 2.1 30.0 19.5 500 6-10 48 13.0 32.4 3.0 35.8 15.8 260 0-5 years 59 23.5 40.4 2.7 17.1 16.3 169 50
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 47 51 54 68 67 62 61 UE 15 46 SW F B ÖST FIN NL D DK 27 45 44 43 41 41 38 37 0 25 50 75 100 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
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: +0.36717 (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
................. Protecting and sharing knowledge
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 15 63.3 14.3 13.9 8.5 2845 BELGIQUE 59.4 17.6 12.7 10.3 165 DANMARK 53.2 20.7 8.5 17.6 188 DEUTSCHLAND 66.7 12.1 17.0 4.3 282 ELLAS 32.6 43.8 15.7 7.9 89 ESPANA 56.6 17.4 15.3 10.7 281 FRANCE 61.1 13.8 14.8 10.4 298 IRELAND 73.3 14.4 11.1 1.1 90 ITALIA 73.5 8.4 10.4 7.8 309 LUXEMBOURG 67.1 11.8 16.5 4.7 85 NEDERLAND 60.8 19.9 12.2 7.2 181 ÖSTERREICH 59.2 14.5 15.6 10.6 179 PORTUGAL 38.4 27.9 17.4 16.3 86 FINLAND 65.3 22.1 6.3 6.3 95 SWEDEN 63.4 14.0 11.6 11.0 164 UNITED KINGDOM 59.4 15.3 10.1 15.3 288 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 67.6 12.3 15.6 4.5 342 SMEs 62.7 14.5 13.7 9.1 2502 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 64.8 14.2 13.5 7.6 1085 Empl.: 50-249 61.1 14.8 13.9 10.2 1417 SECTORS Services 68.1 12.2 7.5 12.3 814 Distribution 62.4 20.7 8.1 8.8 559 Industry 60.5 13.3 21.6 4.6 1060 Construction & Prim 62.5 12.4 14.4 10.7 385 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 66.2 12.4 8.2 13.3 1316 1-10% 62.4 18.6 13.1 5.9 628 11-50% 56.4 16.1 23.9 3.6 548 51% &+ 64.6 10.7 22.6 2.2 287 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 64.2 12.9 14.6 8.2 1437 21-30 61.8 14.1 15.1 9.0 501 11-20 63.9 18.1 11.0 7.0 488 6-10 60.9 19.4 9.1 10.6 244 0-5 years 58.4 7.8 21.3 12.6 161 54
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
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 15 63.3% 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
.................
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 15 61 18.9 46.2 2.3 23.7 8.8 2949 SWEDEN 76 44.3 39.7 0.0 6.7 9.3 194 ELLAS 72 16.2 68.7 6.1 7.1 2.0 99 FINLAND 71 31.0 46.0 3.0 16.0 4.8 100 PORTUGAL 69 21.4 53.1 12.2 7.1 6.1 98 LUXEMBOURG 67 27.3 43.4 2.0 23.2 4.0 99 ÖSTERREICH 64 26.1 39.9 6.4 20.7 6.9 188 ESPANA 62 19.0 47.6 2.0 25.5 5.8 294 DEUTSCHLAND 62 22.2 42.7 2.4 25.3 7.5 293 ITALIA 60 20.0 44.2 2.9 23.2 9.7 310 BELGIQUE 60 11.6 54.7 4.7 23.7 6.3 190 NEDERLAND 60 19.3 42.7 0.5 31.8 5.7 192 FRANCE 58 11.2 54.1 1.0 22.0 10.9 294 IRELAND 57 14.4 46.4 55.2 21.6 12.4 97 UNITED KINGDOM 56 14.8 45.8 1.0 26.6 11.8 297 DANMARK 51 20.1 26.3 7.7 29.4 16.5 194 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 65 22.6 46.5 3.0 24.5 3.4 344 SMEs 60 18.4 46.2 2.2 23.6 9.5 2605 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 63 22.4 46.3 1.7 20.8 8.8 1133 Empl.: 50-249 58 15.4 46.1 2.6 25.8 10.1 1471 SECTORS Services 62 24.2 43.1 1.3 20.3 11.2 852 Distribution 64 22.1 46.6 1.7 22.3 7.2 583 Industry 59 15.6 47.1 2.9 26.8 7.6 1067 Construction & Prim 57 11.4 49.7 3.0 25.8 11.1 410 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 59 17.4 45.5 2.4 23.6 11.1 1393 1-10% 62 18.5 49.5 2.1 22.6 7.4 651 11-50% 63 22.1 45.5 1.8 24.1 6.5 544 51% &+ 61 20.2 43.1 3.6 26.9 6.2 290 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 61 19.7 45.4 2.2 24.6 8.0 1473 21-30 58 16.4 45.0 2.8 23.4 11.4 529 11-20 61 18.8 27.5 2.6 22.9 8.2 512 6-10 60 20.3 45.1 1.4 23.0 10.4 250 0-5 years 62 17.5 51.8 2.0 20.6 8.1 169 58
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 76 72 71 69 67 64 62 62 UE 15 61 I B NL F IRL UK DK 60 60 60 58 57 56 51 0 25 50 75 100 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
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 15 59 20.3 42.5 1.8 22.2 13.2 2927 ELLAS 82 51.5 38.1 1.0 6.2 3.1 97 PORTUGAL 76 35.7 45.9 6.1 9.2 3.1 98 ESPANA 75 38.6 44.1 0.0 11.7 5.5 290 ITALIA 67 29.1 46.3 1.0 12.6 11.0 309 IRELAND 64 26.0 40.6 6.3 16.7 10.4 96 FINLAND 61 37.5 26.1 1.1 13.6 21.6 88 BELGIQUE 61 18.2 47.6 1.1 24.6 8.6 187 FRANCE 58 23.7 38.6 0.3 22.4 14.9 295 ÖSTERREICH 58 18.9 38.3 9.4 23.3 10.0 180 LUXEMBOURG 57 23.2 33.3 3.0 28.3 12.1 99 NEDERLAND 54 17.5 42.3 0.5 20.1 19.6 189 DEUTSCHLAND 53 11.6 45.7 1.4 25.3 14.0 193 UNITED KINGDOM 52 16.0 35.7 4.1 30.3 13.9 294 SWEDEN 46 9.7 41.4 2.2 15.1 31.7 146 DANMARK 37 11.9 17.6 9.3 28.5 32.6 193 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 62 20.1 47.9 1.7 20.6 9.8 346 SMEs 58 20.4 41.8 1.8 22.4 13.6 2581 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 59 18.8 46.0 1.7 20.5 12.9 1120 Empl.: 50-249 57 21.6 38.6 1.8 23.8 14.2 1461 SECTORS Services 57 20.4 40.7 2.0 21.3 15.6 954 Distribution 60 21.1 44.0 1.4 21.2 12.3 570 Industry 61 21.2 45.2 1.5 21.5 10.5 1067 Construction & Prim 53 15.7 39.4 2.5 25.1 17.3 400 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 53 17.9 36.9 2.7 24.9 17.7 1382 1-10% 61 21.0 44.2 0.8 23.6 10.3 645 11-50% 67 25.0 49.3 0.7 17.2 7.8 548 51% &+ 65 21.9 51.3 1.3 15.6 9.8 287 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 58 19.7 42.7 1.1 21.9 14.6 1471 21-30 56 19.8 39.5 0.9 25.6 14.2 519 11-20 62 22.4 43.0 3.5 21.3 9.8 503 6-10 57 19.3 40.1 5.0 22.1 13.6 252 0-5 years 66 23.3 50.0 0.3 18.8 7.6 167 60
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 67 64 61 61 75 82 76 UE 15 59 F ÖST L NL D UK SW DK 37 46 58 58 57 54 53 52 0 20 40 60 80 100 Flash EB 100 Avril/Mai 2001 Fig. 10A 61
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
................. The financial side of innovation
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 15 70 32.5 42.8 3.4 13.6 7.7 2833 LUXEMBOURG 81 56.7 26.7 4.4 10.0 2.2 90 IRELAND 79 46.8 35.1 8.5 7.4 2.1 94 DANMARK 77 58 34 3.9 6.6 8.3 181 BELGIQUE 76 39.5 45.4 0.5 10.3 4.3 185 ÖSTERREICH 76 35.3 48.9 4.2 7.9 3.7 190 ESPANA 75 35.1 46.4 5.2 8.6 4.8 291 NEDERLAND 74 42.3 38.3 0.6 9.7 9.1 175 FINLAND 72 50.0 25.0 2.9 7.4 14.7 68 UNITED KINGDOM 72 37.1 41.7 1.4 11.5 8.3 278 FRANCE 70 39.7 35.3 1.0 14.2 9.8 295 ITALIA 69 28.3 45.0 4.8 16.7 5.1 311 DEUTSCHLAND 68 28.1 46.8 3.2 14.4 7.6 278 PORTUGAL 67 34.0 35.1 8.2 9.3 13.4 97 ELLAS 56 21.5 33.3 3.2 30.1 11.8 93 SWEDEN 53 16.9 31.9 14.4 18.8 18.1 160 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 73 37.5 40.3 3.4 13.8 4.9 330 SMEs 69 31.8 43.2 3.4 13.6 8.1 2503 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 72 35.0 43.1 3.4 11.9 6.6 1081 Empl.: 0-249 67 29.4 43.2 3.4 14.8 9.3 1422 SECTORS Services 70 34.2 41.9 2.4 13.3 8.1 790 Distribution 72 31.9 46.2 3.6 13.4 4.9 566 Industry 71 34.7 41.6 3.2 12.4 8.1 1044 Construction & Prim 65 26.2 43.8 4.4 16.8 8.8 397 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 69 32.1 42.7 3.3 12.7 9.2 1316 1-10% 67 28.1 43.9 3.1 18.8 6.1 634 11-50% 72 43.2 44.0 3.6 10.8 7.4 544 51% &+ 73 37.1 41.2 3.9 11.5 6.3 278 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 70 33.7 41.8 3.3 14.7 6.5 1417 21-30 71 31.3 48.0 2.8 10.9 7.0 500 11-20 68 32.6 39.6 3.3 14.5 10.0 494 6-10 67 27.3 45.2 6.3 11.8 9.4 249 0-5 years 67 31.1 41.7 2.1 13.4 11.6 159 64
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 81 79 77 76 76 75 74 72 72 UE 15 70 F I D P GR SW 53 56 70 69 68 67 0 25 50 75 100 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
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 15 24 3.6 14.1 3.2 33.7 45.4 2848 LUXEMBOURG 62 25.0 41.7 3.6 15.5 14.3 84 IRELAND 57 20.2 35.1 10.6 20.2 13.8 94 NEDERLAND 54 18.3 39.1 1.2 23.1 18.3 169 FINLAND 34 16.5 7.6 10.1 25.3 40.5 79 UNITED KINGDOM 33 5.1 23.1 5.5 32.2 34.1 273 SWEDEN 33 8.1 9.8 11.0 49.1 22.0 173 ESPANA 31 4.2 20.8 4.8 35.6 34.6 289 BELGIQUE 29 4.5 18.5 4.5 31.5 41.0 178 ÖSTERREICH 27 4.8 12.3 7.5 38.5 36.9 187 DEUTSCHLAND 22 1.7 12.6 2.1 39.1 45.5 286 ELLAS 18 2.3 6.8 3.4 37.5 50.0 88 ITALIA 18 2.3 10.3 1.9 28.9 56.6 311 FRANCE 17 2.4 8.7 0.3 32.9 55.7 289 PORTUGAL 17 4.1 1.0 13.3 21.4 60.2 98 DANMARK 15 2.1 8.0 7.4 14.4 68.1 188 BUSINESS TYPES Majors 31 3.8 18.6 4.4 42.5 30.6 325 SMEs 23 3.5 13.5 3.0 32.6 47.3 2523 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 25 4.5 13.7 3.5 32.8 45.5 1083 Empl.: 50-249 22 2.8 13.4 2.7 32.4 48.7 1440 SECTORS Services 27 5.1 16.2 3.5 32.1 43.1 808 Distribution 23 2.2 13.2 4.1 34.3 46.1 568 Industry 23 3.0 13.4 2.4 33.1 48.1 1041 Construction & Prim 25 3.6 13.5 3.2 38.4 41.3 400 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 24 3.5 13.7 3.9 32.3 46.6 1336 1-10% 23 3.5 12.4 3.9 34.5 46.7 627 11-50% 24 4.1 13.5 2.1 35.9 44.4 538 51% &+ 27 3.2 19.5 1.8 34.0 41.4 284 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 24 4.2 13.0 3.6 34.5 44.7 1431 21-30 21 1.9 14.5 2.6 29.2 51.8 501 11-20 28 3.5 19.3 2.9 34.0 40.3 499 6-10 24 4.1 11.7 11.6 40.1 42.4 248 0-5 years 20 1.9 11.5 4.3 29.2 53.1 155 66
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 34 33 33 31 29 27 54 57 62 UE 15 24 D GR I F P DK 22 18 18 17 17 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 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
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 15 47 18.3 27.6 1.9 28.6 23.6 2915 ELLAS 71 35.6 41.1 3.3 12.2 7.8 90 PORTUGAL 65 27.0 42.0 7.0 13.0 11.0 100 ESPANA 61 29.0 35.3 0.7 21.3 13.6 286 ITALIA 58 27.1 32.6 1.3 21.3 17.7 310 SWEDEN 49 13.1 25.7 9.7 47.4 4.0 175 FRANCE 49 22.3 25.3 0.3 29.4 22.6 296 ÖSTERREICH 48 11.4 32.2 7.6 31.5 16.3 184 IRELAND 43 14.1 23.9 4.3 34.8 22.8 92 LUXEMBOURG 43 26.9 9.7 1.1 32.3 30.1 93 FINLAND 42 25.0 16.7 4.8 9.5 44.0 84 DEUTSCHLAND 42 12.9 26.9 1.7 32.3 26.2 294 DANMARK 40 15.0 20.7 6.7 23.3 34.2 193 UNITED KINGDOM 38 10.8 22.6 1.4 37.5 27.8 288 BELGIQUE 37 14.7 16.3 0.5 40.2 28.3 184 NEDERLAND 30 13.3 11.7 0.5 29.3 45.2 188 BUSINESS TYPES Majors. 45 17.3 23.9 2.1 35.9 20.8 342 SMEs 47 18.5 28.1 1.8 27.7 24.0 2573 SMEs Empl.: 20-49 47 17.2 29.2 2.1 26.1 25.4 1109 Empl.: 50-249 48 19.4 27.2 1.7 28.9 22.8 1463 SECTORS Services 44 17.3 25.0 1.0 28.6 28.0 837 Distribution 46 17.7 25.7 3.5 30.1 23.0 574 Industry 51 20.9 30.1 1.4 26.4 21.2 1062 Construction & Prim 45 13.0 30.3 2.7 31.6 22.2 407 EXPORTS SHARE 0% 45 17.0 26.1 2.1 28.5 26.3 1372 1-10% 46 17.4 28.0 1.5 27.3 25.7 642 11-50% 53 20.5 32.3 1.7 30.5 15.0 555 51% &+ 50 23.0 24.9 1.8 28.3 22.0 285 ACTIVE SINCE +30 years 44 16.9 25.3 2.6 28.6 26.7 1454 21-30 47 19.6 26.4 1.5 27.3 25.2 514 11-20 50 20.0 29.4 0.9 30.6 19.1 507 6-10 51 16.0 34.8 1.0 33.3 14.9 255 0-5 years 57 25.4 34.9 0.6 21.5 17.6 169 68
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 49 49 48 71 65 61 58 UE 15 47 IRL L FIN D DK UK B NL 30 43 43 42 42 40 38 37 0 25 50 75 100 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
* 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
................. The role of customers