UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget 2015-16
UFU Alm.del
Offentligt

nual Review 2010

Annual Review 2010

Economic Impact of International Research and Innovation Cooperation

- Analysis of 25 years of Danish participation in EUREKA

Innovation: Analyse og evaluering 15/2011

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Content

Content ......................................................................................................... 1

Abstract in Danish - Dansk resume ............................................................... 2

Summary & conclusions ................................................................................ 3

Introduction ......................................................................................... 4

Setting EUREKA apart ........................................................................... 5

Danish participation in EUREKA .......................................................... 10

The impact of EUREKA ........................................................................ 19

The transition to Eurostars ................................................................. 28

References .................................................................................................. 36

Appendix 1: Impact study methodology ..................................................... 37

Appendix 2: Interview methodology ........................................................... 42

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Abstract in Danish - Dansk resume

EUREKA er et middel i realiseringen af visionen om Det Europæiske

Forskningsrum (ERA) i tråd med både nationale og internationale

politiske målsætninger. Set fra et dansk nationalt perspektiv er

EUREKA et middel til at høste fordelene ved øget internationalt

samarbejde – både for finansierende og forskningsudførende aktører i

den private og offentlige sektor. EUREKA er først og fremmest rettet

mod international koordinering af nationale midler til forskning og

udvikling (FoU). I modsætning til f.eks. Det Europæiske

Rammeprogram har EUREKA således ingen fælles midler, men er alene

finansieret af nationale midler.

Danmark var blandt stifterne af EUREKA i 1985. Frem til år 2000 havde

Danmark et specifikt EUREKA-tilskudsprogram. Siden 2001 har danske

ansøgere i stedet kunne benytte sig af andre tilskudsprogrammer til

EUREKA-projekter. I perioden 1985-2010 har danske virksomheder

deltaget i 185 EUREKA-projekter, heraf 5 i såkaldte Cluster projekter. I

2008 startede et nyt EUREKA-program, Eurostars. Siden da er der givet

tilskud til dansk deltagelse i 33 Eurostars-projekter.

Den økonomiske effekt af at have deltaget i EUREKA-projekter måles

gennem en statistisk analyse af virksomheder, der har deltaget i

EUREKA-projekter fra 1990 til 2000 i forhold til andre, der ikke har

deltaget. Der indgår 76 virksomheder, der har deltaget i EUREKA

projekter. Heroverfor opstilles to kontrolgrupper:



En gruppe består af 756 virksomheder, der ikke deltager i

samarbejdsprojekter, men ligner de EUREKA-deltagende

virksomheder på en række parametre.



En anden gruppe består af 79 virksomheder, der har deltaget i

andre nationale og internationale samarbejdsprojekter.

Om EUREKA

Sammenligningen med de to kontrolgrupper viser en signifikant positiv

effekt af EUREKA-deltagelse. Effekten vises i årlige ændringer af

vækstrater.

Fire effekter

Effektundersøgelsen viser fire statistisk signifikante effekter af

deltagelse i EUREKA.

Deltagelse øger eksport.

EUREKA-deltagere øgede deres eksport-

vækstrate. Tre år efter deltagelse i EUREKA var væksten i eksport for

EUREKA-deltagere omkring 13 procentpoint højere end i de to

kontrolgrupper.

Deltagelse øger omsætning.

EUREKA-deltagere øgede vækstrate i

omsætningen dobbelt så hurtigt sammenlignet med lignende

virksomheder, der ikke har deltaget i samarbejdsprojekter.

Deltagelse øger beskæftigelse.

EUREKA-deltagere øgede vækstraten

for beskæftigelse med 4-5 procentpoint. Effekten er allerede tydelig

fra det første år, og varer ved i adskillige år, i sammenligning med de to

kontrolgrupper og er stigende henover perioden.

Deltagelse øger produktivitet.

EUREKA-deltagere øgede vækstraten i

arbejdsproduktivitet med 11-12 procentpoint. i forhold til lignende

virksomheder, der ikke har deltaget i samarbejdsprojekter.

De danske resultater peger i samme retning som resultaterne af andre

undersøgelser gennemført af EUREKA-sekretariatet på europæisk plan,

samt de foreløbige resultater af andre medlemslandes undersøgelser.

Dansk deltagelse i EUREKA

Effektundersøgelsen af EUREKA

I tråd med internationale studier

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Summary & conclusions

Setting EUREKA apart

EUREKA is a mean to realise the European Research Area (ERA), in line

with both national and international policy objectives. From a Danish

perspective, EUREKA Denmark is a means to reap the advantages of

international cooperation for both funding agencies and research

performers in the private and public sector in Denmark.

EUREKA is set apart primarily through its efforts to coordinate national

funds for R&D at the international level. Unlike the European

Framework Programmes, EUREKA has no common pot, and relies fully

on national funds.



Another control group is composed of 79 businesses, participating

in other national and international consortia type programs.

In comparison to the two control groups participants in EUREKA-

Individual projects experience significant and positive impact of

participation. Impacts are measured in annual changes in growth rates.

Four effects

The impact assessment shows four statistically significant effects of

participation.

Participation increases exports.

Participants in EUREKA significantly

increased growth rates in exports. Three years after participation,

growth in exports for EUREKA-participants was around 13 percentage

points higher than both control groups.

Participation increases turnover.

EUREKA participation increased

growth rates in turnover twice as much, compared to businesses not

participating in consortia type instruments.

Participation increases employment.

EUREKA-participation increases

growth rates in employment with 4-5 percentage point. This impact is

significant from year-one after participation and persists for several

years compared to both control groups.

Participation increases productivity.

The results of the impact

assessment show that EUREKA participation increased growth rates in

labour productivity by some 11-12 percentage points annually.

Danish Participation in EUREKA

Denmark was among the founding countries of EUREKA in 1985. Until

2000, Denmark had a national funding scheme for EUREKA-

participants. Since 2001, Danish applicants have used other national

funding schemes to fund participation. From 1985 to 2010, total

Danish involvement in EUREKA includes participation in 185 Individual

Projects, 5 Clusters and 33 Eurostars Projects.

The impact of EUREKA

The economic impact of EUREKA participation is measured via a

statistical impact assessment of 76 businesses participating in

Individual EUREKA Projects from 1990 to 2000. This group is compared

to two control groups:



One group of 756 businesses, not participating in consortia type

projects, but are similar to EUREKA participants on a number of

parameters.

In line with international studies

These findings are in line with results of other studies carried out by

the EUREKA-secretariat at European level as well as preliminary results

of the studies made by other EUREKA-member countries.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

1 Introduction

EUREKA is an intergovernmental network launched in 1985 to support

market-oriented R&D and innovation. Today (2011), Denmark has

been a member of EUREKA for 25 years.

This study is an assessment of the economic impact of EUREKA in

Denmark. The study was prepared by DAMVAD for the Danish Agency

for Science, Technology and Innovation (DASTI).

Parallel to this study, a number of other EUREKA-member countries as

well as the EUREKA-secretariat are conducting similar impact studies.

As such, the purpose of this study is threefold: Firstly, in a Danish

context, this study provides a basis for formulating priorities for future

Danish participation in the EUREKA-network. Secondly, in an

international context, this study is one piece of a larger puzzle,

showing the impact of EUREKA internationally. Thirdly, the study

contributes to methodology developments for measuring the impact

of EUREKA in other countries.

This report is divided into four central chapters in addition to the first

introductory chapter:

Chapter 2

sets EUREKA apart from other policy instruments, describing

the goals, organisation and instruments of EUREKA.

Chapter 3

analyses the extent of Danish participation in EUREKA and

contrasts Danish participation with that of other EUREKA member

countries.

Chapter 4

analyses the impact of EUREKA on participating Danish

businesses in terms of productivity, exports, turnover and

employment.

Finally

Chapter 5

explores the early implications for participants of the

transition to Eurostars, the newest policy instrument employed by the

EUREKA-network.

At the core of the report is the impact study of Danish participants in

EUREKA Individual Projects. The impact study is conducted as a

“triplet-study”, in which EUREKA-participants are compared to two

control groups through propensity score matching. One group is

composed of similar businesses in general, while the other is

composed of businesses participating in other funding instruments.

This analysis shows that participation in EUREKA-Individual projects

has significant and positive impact upon participating businesses

compared to similar businesses in general and participants in other

funding instruments.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

2 Setting EUREKA apart

Initially, this chapter describes the goals, organisation and instruments

of EUREKA. It is against this backdrop that the impacts of EUREKA will

be assessed later in this report.

development efforts to the market and to use the multiplying effects

of cooperation.

Figure 2.1 gives an overview of the national and international funding

landscape for R&D in Europe, organised by internationalisation and

closeness to market.

2.1

EUREKA - overview

EUREKA is an intergovernmental

network launched in 1985 to

support market-oriented R&D

and innovation projects by

industry, research centres and

universities across all

technological sectors. It is now

composed of 40 members,

including the European

Community.

EUREKA is aimed at “Raising

the

productivity and competitiveness

of European businesses through

technology. Boosting national

economies on the international

market, and strengthening the

basis for sustainable prosperity

and employment.”

As shown, EUREKA is one of a wide range of national and international

policy instruments directed at

Figure 2.1: EUREKA’s place in the European Research Area (ERA)

intensifying international R&D-

collaboration between

EUREKA

businesses.

What sets EUREKA apart is its

international dimension to

national R&D funds. EUREKA

seeks to do this through three

defining characteristics:

Decentralisation:

EUREKA is a

decentralised cooperation

structure with National Project

Coordinators (NPCs) located in

each of the member countries.

This means that administration

of the Danish EUREKA-applicants

is managed at the national level.

In Denmark, EUREKA is managed

by the Danish Agency for

Science, Technology and

Innovation (DASTI), which is the

central stakeholder in the programme and first point of contact for

Danish businesses planning to participate in a EUREKA-project.

Source: EUREKA (2010)

EUREKA supports the competitiveness of European companies through

international collaboration and in creating links and networks for

innovation. The objective is to bring high quality research and

EUREKA (2011)

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Coordination:

EUREKA facilitates international cooperation between

project partners in the EURERKA-member countries. Here, the NPCs

function as ambassadors for the network as well as advisors to

applicants wishing to apply for EUREKA. Also, EUREKA facilitates

cooperation between national funding instruments and agencies

themselves, also through the NPC’s. Through its coordinating role,

EUREKA attempts to bring an international dimension to national

funding agencies and projects in the member countries.

Nationally funded:

EUREKA is funded nationally. Unlike the European

Framework Programmes, EUREKA has no common pot, and each

member country primarily funds the costs of its own national project

partners. While some countries have set aside earmarked funds for

EUREKA-participation, others have ‘built-in’ additional funding for

EUREKA-participants in national instruments. As for Denmark,

earmarked funding for EUREKA-participants ceased in 2001. EUREKA is

further set aside by its choice and design of funding instruments. Of

special importance to this analysis is the

Individual EUREKA Projects-

instrument. It is the impact of Individual EUREKA Projects on Danish

business participants, which is the focal point of this impact

assessment.

The four instruments are briefly described below:

Individual EUREKA Projects

are market-oriented R&D projects labelled

by EUREKA and involving partners from at least two EUREKA member

countries. The project consortium develops new project, technology

and/or service for which they agree the intellectual property rights and

build partnerships to penetrate new markets.

Eurostars

are European research and development projects. This

instrument is the newest addition to EUREKA, added in 2008. Eurostars

can address any technological area, but must have a civilian purpose

and be aimed at the development of a new product, process or

service. They must involve at least two participants from two different

Eurostars-participating countries. In addition, the main participant

must be a research-performing small or medium sized enterprise

(SME).

EUREKA Clusters

are long-term, strategically significant industrial

initiatives. They usually have a large number of participants, and aim

to develop generic technologies of key importance for European

competitiveness, primarily in ICT and, more recently, energy and

biotechnology.

Umbrellas

are thematic networks within the EUREKA framework,

which focus on a specific technology area or business sector. The main

goal of an umbrella is to facilitate the generation of EUREKA projects in

its own target area. Umbrella activities are coordinated and

implemented by a working group consisting of EUREKA representatives

and industrial experts. The working group meets on a regular basis.

2.2 EUREKA’s four policy instruments

EUREKA employs four funding instruments targeted at different

aspects of international R&D-collaboration, as shown below:

Figure 2.2: Funding instruments in EUREKA

EUREKA

Individual

projects

Eurostars

Clusters

Umbrellas

Source: DAMVAD 2011

EUREKA (2011)

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Danish participation in EUREKA

From 1985 to 2010, total Danish involvement in EUREKA includes:



Participation in 185 Individual Projects

Participation in 5 Clusters

33 Eurostars Projects

cent of all projects funded under EUREKA since its establishment in

1985. There are currently some 722 Individual Projects running under

EUREKA with a total budget of €1.3 billion.

The key characteristics of

Individual EUREKA Projects are further elaborated in table 2.2 below:

Table 2.2: Key characteristics of Individual EUREKA Projects

Characteristics of Individual EUREKA Projects

International cooperation

Bottom-up

Must involve a minimum of 2 independent partners

from 2 different EUREKA Member Countries.

Applicants are free in their choice of topic, partner(s)

and timeframe, provided there is market potential for

the idea.

EUREKA projects can be of any size.

Project participants retain complete ownership of

intellectual property rights (IPR).

Projects can be launched in virtually all technological

areas.

Projects are approved approximately four times per

year.

There are only limited reporting obligations and a

shorter time to contract than e.g. SME-projects in FP7.

In addition, Danish participants are currently active in two EUREKA-clusters and two EUREKA

umbrellas.

Some key characteristics of each of the four funding instruments are

summarised in table 2.1 below:

Table 2.1: An overview of EUREKA funding instruments

Individual

projects*

Supports

Business-

driven

cooperative

R&D-projects

with

international

participation

Eurostars

SME-driven,

cooperative

R&D-projects

with

international

participation

Clusters

Cooperation

activities

between a

large number

og industrial

participants

around

generic

technologies

Umbrellas

No limitations on size

International

network-

activities

aimed at

creating

Individual

EUREKA

projects or

Eurostars

projects

Ownership of IPR

Non-specific to technology

Multiple annual

application dates

Limited reporting

Source: EUREKA (2011)

Average cost

(M€)

Average

participants

per project

Share of SMEs

1.6

3.4

1.4

3.4

As described in table 2.2, Individual Projects have a very open format.

Its main requirements are international cooperation and market

potential.

52%

70%

35%

2.3 The political context of EUREKA

EUREKA cannot be seen in isolation from the political objectives it is

meant to achieve. As described above, the EUREKA-network both has a

national and an international dimension. The impact of EUREKA should

Source: EUREKA 2011. *2008-2010

Individual EUREKA Projects

The focus of this analysis is Danish participation in

Individual EUREKA

Projects,

which is the first and most frequently used funding

instrument in the EUREKA network. Individual EUREKA Projects is the

oldest funding instrument in EUREKA and accounts for some 90 per

EUREKA (2011)

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

therefore be seen in light of both international and national political

objectives.

EUREKA in European research policy

In its international context, EUREKA should be seen as part of the

broad effort to realise the European Research Area (ERA).

In January 2000, the European Commission launched the policy to

develop a European Research Area (ERA), moving towards a

knowledge-based economy and sustainable development in Europe.

The partnership covers all EU Member States but goes beyond the EU

to other European countries, such as the EFTA countries and candidate

countries. As set out in the ERA Vision, by 2020 all actors should fully

benefit from the "Fifth Freedom" across the ERA: free circulation of

researchers, knowledge and technology. The ERA aims to provide

attractive conditions and effective and efficient governance for

research and investments in R&D intensive sectors in Europe. It seeks

to create added value by fostering a healthy Europe-wide scientific

competition whilst ensuring the appropriate level of cooperation and

coordination. Also, it is to be responsive to the needs and ambitions of

citizens and effectively contributes to the sustainable development

and competitiveness of Europe.

As a policy instrument employed toward the realisation of ERA,

EUREKA seeks to internationalise national funds, rather than creating a

common pot (as is the case for the Framework Programmes). In this

respect, EUREKA is set apart both in its coordinating role of national

funding agencies and as a funding instrument for international

collaboration.

funding agencies, EUREKA should be also be seem as a means to

overcome the challenges involved in international coordination of

Danish national funding agencies. DAMVAD pinpointed a number of

challenges related to international coordination in a recent

international comparison of internationalisation efforts of more than

70 national research councils in Europe.

Like many other countries in the wider OECD area, the rationale

behind the Danish support for international cooperation is driven by

the fact, that only a very small proportion of total knowledge

production takes place in Denmark. For Danish businesses,

transnational R&D-collaboration enables additional exploitation of

complementary research competency, more efficient coordination of

research activities, which in turn increases competitiveness. For

national governments (and funding agencies), international

cooperation enable thematic synergy, financial leverage and easier

access to international funding.

These broader rationales are captured in the five original objectives for

Danish membership of EUREKA:



Technological advancement

An international network of contacts

International profiling of the participating businesses and

research institutions

Development of businesses’ strategy

Market advantages

EUREKA in Danish research policy

In its national context, EUREKA should be seen as a means to reap the

benefits of international cooperation for Danish research performers

in the private and public sector. Moreover, in its coordinating role for

DAMVAD (2009a), see also DAMVAD (2009b)

OECD (2010)

Danish Agency for Development of Trade and Industry (1994)

Council of the European Union (2008)

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

These original objectives are in line with the goals outlined in 2006 by

the Danish Government presented in

Strategy for Denmark in the

Global Economy,

specifically:



Publicly financed expenditure on research and development

should reach 1 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by

2010. Public and private companies and institutions should

spend a total of at least 3 per cent of GDP on research and

development by 2010.

Danish companies and public institutions should be top

performers in innovation

Denmark should be a top performer in turning research results

into new technologies, processes, goods and services.



The goals and rationale behind EUREKA membership is thus closely in

line with the national objectives.

The Danish Government (2006)

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

3 Danish participation in EUREKA

In this chapter we describe Danish participation in EUREKA and

contrasts Danish participation with that of other EUREKA member

countries. Furthermore, we take a closer look at the R&D-behaviour

the businesses forming the treatment group in the impact study.

Figure 3.1: The number of endorsed EUREKA projects 1985-2010

400

350

300

250

200

3.1 A varied history of participation

EUREKA was established by a Conference of Ministers of 17 countries

and Members of the Commission of the European Communities,

meeting in Paris in 1985.

Figure 3.1 shows the total number of

Individual Projects and Eurostars-projects endorsed throughout the

lifetime of EUREKA. In total, 3.156 Individual Projects and 400

Eurostars projects have been endorsed through this period.

Denmark was among these first member countries in the EUREKA

network. Danish participation dates back to the start in 1985 and

Danish partners participated in the first EUREKA Individual Projects.

Figure 3.2 below shows the number of endorsed EUREKA projects with

Danish participation since the establishment of EUREKA.

From 1985 to 2010, total Danish involvement in EUREKA amounts to

participation in 185 Individual Projects, 5 Clusters and 33 Eurostars

Projects.

In addition to these, Danish participants are currently active

in two EUREKA Clusters and two EUREKA-umbrellas.

150

100

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Individual Projects

Source: The EUREKA secretariat 2011

Clusters

Eurostars

Figure 3.2: The number of endorsed EUREKA projects with Danish

participation 1985-2010

Individual Projects

Clusters

Eurostars

EUREKA (2011)

These funding instruments are described in the previous chapter.

DASTI (2011a)

Source: DAMVAD 2011 based on start dates, EUREKA participation data (2010)

As is the case for EUREKA as a whole, Individual Projects have been the

primary instrument for Danish participation throughout the period. As

shown in figure 3.2, the history of Danish participation is characterised

by an initial “uptake”-period from 1985 to 1990 with participation in

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

between five to 10 projects annually. Through the 1990s, participation

increased, averaging some 10-15 projects, albeit with large annual

variations. The number of Individual Projects with Danish participation

decreased significantly in 2001 and stabilised at around 0-3 projects

annually. Through the latter three years participation in Eurostars

usurped Individual Projects before finally replacing them in 2010.

This is illustrated in figure 3.3 below, contrasting Danish participation

in Individual Projects, Cluster projects and Eurostars with five

comparative research and innovation front age countries.

Figure 3.3: The number of endorsed Individual Projects, Cluster projects and

Eurostars Projects in Denmark and comparable countries 1985-2010

250

3.2 A shift in the Danish funding scheme

The marked decline in the number of Individual Projects with Danish

participation followed the decision of the Danish government to

withdraw funding for Danish participants in EUREKA Individual Projects

in 2001. Danish participation is therefore characterised by two distinct

participation strategies – before and after 2001.

Prior to 2001, Danish earmarked funds for EUREKA-participants

amounted to some DKK 60-70 million annually (about EUR 10 million).

These funds were granted as conditional loans, co-financing Danish

EUREKA-participants. Maximum funding was set at:



50 percent for SMEs participating in high-risk R&D-projects.

40 percent for large businesses and for SMEs participating in

medium-risk projects.

30 percent for large businesses participating in low-risk

projects.

100 percent for public research organisations participating as

independent partners (not paid sub contractors) in the project.



Conditional loans before 2001

200

Denmark

150

100

1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2010

Source: DAMVAD 2011 based on start dates, EUREKA participation data (2011)

Finland

Israel

Sweden

Switzerland

The Netherlands

Funding was granted as loans with a payback time of five years

conditioned by revenues generated by the results of the project.

The

following costs could be funded through the loan:



Direct use of internal man hours

Materials and equipment

As shown, compared to these countries, Danish participation in

EUREKA in general decreased until the introduction of Eurostars, while

other comparable countries steadily have increased their level of

engagement in most of the EUREKA instruments.

Danish Agency for Development of Trade and Industry (1994)

There are no records as to the exact amounts granted and their distribution

across participant types.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



External assistance/consultants

Travel costs

IT-expenses

Other project related costs

Patenting costs

Figure 3.4: Principal funding schemes in the EUREKA member countries

Austria

Bulgaria

Croatia

France

FYROM

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

Monaco

Netherlands

San Marino

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Turkey

No national

funds for

EUREKA

Denmark

Cypress

Czech Republic

As described in chapter 4, this impact analysis focuses on businesses

participating in EUREKA Individual Projects prior to 2001. It is thus the

impact of this funding scheme, which is assessed. As we will see in the

following, this is a very different funding scheme employed from 2001

and forward.

Earmarked

national funds

for EUREKA

National funds

for EUREKA,

but not

earmarked

Belgium

United

Kingdom

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Iceland

Israel

Italy

Luxembourg

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Rumania

Russia

Serbia

Switzerland

No funding from 2001 and onwards

In 2001, national funding for EUREKA was withdrawn. This decision

was part of shift in policy away from direct government support of

businesses towards framework conditions for business-R&D. From

2001 and onwards, Danish participants in EUREKA received no national

funding through participation in Individual EUREKA Projects.

As shown in figure 3.2 above, this decision meant a significant decline

in the number of Individual Projects with Danish Participation from

2001 through to 2010.

From 2001, Danish partners in Individual EUREKA Projects have largely

been self-funding their participation. This is due to the fact that no

Danish research or innovation programmes have referred to EUREKA

as a platform for international cooperation.

Figure 3.4 below shows the principal funding schemes for Individual

Projects of the EUREKA-member countries.

Source: DAMVAD based on EUREKA participant information and information from national NPC’s.

No information is available for Malta and Ukraine.

As shown above, the current Danish policy of funding for EUREKA is

shared by Cypress and the Czech Republic. The other member

countries are divided between earmarked funds dedicated to EUREKA-

Individual Projects (16 countries) and funding such projects through

other national means (19 countries).

The latter category of countries covers a wide range of funding

schemes in which funding for EUREKA-participants is “built in” to other

national funding instruments. One such example is Germany,

described in the box below:

It is important to note that Danish Participants still can obtain funding from

parallel participation in other funding instruments. Likewise, their EUREKA

project partners retained funding for their EUREKA-participation according

to their national funding scheme.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Example: The German funding scheme

Through the German funding scheme it is possible for German

SMEs participating in Individual Projects to receive grants covering

35-50% of eligible costs to a maximum of 350,000 Euro. Also,

universities and research institutions can receive funding up to

100% of eligible participation costs to a maximum of 170,000 Euro.

These funds are allocated as top-ups through the participation in

national funding instruments.

A third group of countries retains earmarked funding specifically for

EUREKA participants, either in the form of a top-up or a separate

funding scheme in line with the Danish scheme prior to 2001. One such

example is Hungary as described in the box below:

Example: The Hungarian funding scheme

In Hungary, large companies can receive funding for 50-75% of

eligible participation costs in EUREKA Individual Projects. Small

companies can receive funding of a maximum of 80% of eligible

costs. Universities and research institutions can receive funding up

to 100% of eligible costs. These funds are earmarked for EUREKA

through special budget of 2 million euro per year.

Throughout the member circle, EUREKA is funded through a very wide

range of diverse funding schemes, both in terms of source, size and

form of funding.

Unwillingness to do anything ‘extra’.

Nearly all recent Danish

participants reasoned that since additional costs of EUREKA-

participation were not externally funded, they were unwilling to

undertake additional efforts themselves. Recent Danish participation is

therefore limited to projects that meet the EUREKA-requirements by

default or through very limited additional effort (e.g. already have an

attached international partner, an application form already written in

English, people very familiar with EUREKA, etc.).

Using existing international partners.

International partners in recent

Individual Projects were all well known by one or more Danish

consortium partners beforehand. Danish participants felt that they had

little incentive to seek out and engage new international partners in

the project.

Going for the brand value of EUREKA.

The EUREKA-brand played an

important role in considering EUREKA-participation in the absence of

additional funds. This was especially true for participants applying for

national funds in parallel with EUREKA-participation. Here, participants

reasoned, that EUREKA-participation had improved their chances of

obtaining approval for national funds.

Foreign partners’ incentives still work.

The absence of national funds

for Danish participants did not deter foreign partners from involving

Danish participants in their consortia. Several Danish participants said

that their participation in EUREKA was due to invitations from (usually

well known) international partners. These were in turn motivated by

additional national funding obtained through their national EUREKA-

funding scheme.

The implications outlined by recent Danish EUREKA-participants

indicate that the shift in the Danish participation strategy had

significant impact on incentives and motivations for participating in

EUREKA Individual Projects.

Implications for Danish participants

Through interviews with recent Danish participants in EUREKA, it is

possible to shed some light on the implications of the shift in Danish

participation strategy.

These can be summarised as follows:

As part of this study, we conducted interviews with all recent Danish

participants in individual projects ending no earlier than 2008 (see

Appendix 1).

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

3.3 The Danish participants in Individual Projects

Through the period from 1985 to 2010, 290 Danish partners

participated in 185 Individual Projects. In the following, we take a

closer look at the characteristics of Danish participation in Individual

Projects.

Figure 3.5 below gives an overview of the types of organisations

participating in Individual Projects through the full period of Danish

participation in EUREKA:

Figure 3.5: Participants in Individual EUREKA Projects by type (1985-2010)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

23%

12%

21%

43%

11%

25%

14%

Figure 3.6 below shows that Danish participants engaged in Individual

Projects covering a wide range of topic areas.

Figure 3.6: Individual Projects distributed by topic area (1985-2010)

12%

Environment, ICT and biotechnology are most frequent

22%

Environment

Information technology

Medical and

Biotechnology

New Materials

Robotics-Production

Growing share of SMEs

12%

19%

13%

Transport

Energy technology

Lasers

16%

14%

Others

29%

14%

Research Institute

Large company

University

SME

14%

Communications

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

46%

20%

1985-89

Source: DAMVAD 2011 based on EUREKA participation data (EUREKA classification of topic areas)

50%

53%

27%

29%

1990-94

1995-99

2000-04

2005-10

Source: DAMVAD 2011 based on start dates EUREKA participation data. “Others” include

government agencies and other organization types.

The three largest areas: environment, information technology, and

medical and biotechnology accounted for more than half of all projects

with Danish participation. These topic areas are also generally

predominant for Individual Projects in EUREKA as a whole. These areas

correspond to the three priority areas in the Seventh Framework

Programme, where Danish participants are most active (measured by

number of participants).

While large companies held the greatest share of participants during

the early years of EUREKA, the share of SMEs surpassed them through

the latter half of the 90s and through to the mid-00s. During the latter

years of participation, where very few projects involved Danish

participation, the share of SMEs was equaled by larger companies

which could self-fund their participation.

Partnerships concentrated in top-five countries

Figure 3.7 gives an overview of the post frequent partner countries in

Individual EUREKA Projects with Danish participation:

DASTI (2010), p. 34

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Figure 3.7: Top ten partner countries’ share of all partnerships in Individual

EUREKA Projects (1985-2010)

United Kingdom

France

Germany

The Netherlands

Italy

Sweden

Switzerland

Spain

Finland

Norway

3,5%

3,1%

10%

15%

20%

6,1%

5,5%

5,3%

4,6%

8,7%

15,3%

14,6%

17,0%

Figure 3.8: Size of consortia as share of all consortia for Denmark and other

countries (1985-2010)

>10

9 & 10

7& 8

Denmark

Other countries

10%

20%

30%

40%

Source: DAMVAD 2011 base on EUREKA-participation data. Where more than one partner from

the same country participates in a project, these are counted more than once.

Source: DAMVAD 2011 based on EUREKA participation data

As shown above, the top ten partner countries account for 84 percent

of all partnerships. The top three partners – United Kingdom, France

and Germany – account for nearly half of all partnerships (47 percent).

The most important partner countries in EUREKA Individual projects

mirror the most important ones in EU’s Seventh Framework

Programme.

EUREKA thus seems to reinforce cooperative ties with

the “usual” circle of Danish partner countries for international R&D-

cooperation – countries in relatively close geographic proximity and

with a similar level of wealth. Interestingly, EUREKA does not appear to

be widening this circle.

As shown above, Danish partners generally participate in larger

consortia than other EUREKA member countries. This tendency is most

pronounced among the largest and smallest consortia.

As described in chapter 2, the minimum consortium size allowed under

the requirements of Individual Projects is composed of two partners

from separate countries. 19 percent of consortia with Danish

participants are of this type versus 34 percent across all other member

countries. Inversely, 14 percent of consortia with Danish participation

consist of ten or more participants versus six percent for other

countries.

Danish participants are part of larger consortia

Public-private consortia are most common

Figure 3.8 shows the share of consortia of various sizes for Denmark

and EUREKA member other countries.

Figure 3.9 below shows the shares of public and private consortia

constellations in Individual Projects with Danish participation and for

other member countries.

DASTI (2010), p. 43

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Figure 3.9: Public and private consortia constellations for Denmark and

other member countries (1985-2010)

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Private & public

Private only

Public only

2% 3%

63%

Figure 3.10: Consortia constellations in consortia with Danish participation

SME, LC

SME,LC,UNI,RI

16%

12%

10%

15%

20%

25%

SME

SME,LC,RI

23%

53%

44%

LC,RI

SME,LC,UNI

SME,RI

LC,UNI,RI

SME,UNI

LC,UNI,RI

SME,UNI,RI

UNI,RI

35%

Denmark

Other countries

Source: DAMVAD 2011 based on EUREKA participation data

As shown, consortia with both public and private partners are most

common. Also, public-private consortia take up a larger proportion of

Danish participation than for other countries. Common for all Eureka

Individual projects is that very few consortia are composed entirely of

public sector organisations.

Figure 3.10 below shows a breakdown of the most common consortia

types involving Danish participation in EUREKA-Individual Projects.

Source: DAMVAD 2011 based on EUREKA participation data (SME = small and medium enterprise,

LC = large company, UNI = University, RI = Research Institute). The consortia types involve one or

more of the partner type.

Small and large business partners are most frequent

While public-private consortia are the most common consortium type

overall, the single most common consortia constellation involves one

or more SME’s and large companies. Interestingly, the second most

important consortia type, accounting for 16 percent of all consortia

with Danish participation, has representation from all four partner

types.

3.4 Participants’ R&D behaviour

In this section, we take a closer look at the R&D-behaviour of EUREKA-

participants in comparison with the rest of the business sector. This

analysis is limited to business participants in EUREKA during the period

1990-2000

, which are also represented in national R&D-statistics.

These are the businesses included in the impact assessment, described the

next chapter.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

More R&D-performers among EUREKA-participants

Figure 3.11 below shows the share of R&D performing businesses and

businesses with a dedicated R&D-department among EUREKA-

participants and the rest of the business sector.

Figure 3.11 Share of businesses performing R&D and with R&D-department

80%

75%

The majority businesses choosing to participate in EUREKA-Individual

projects are already actively involved in R&D and nearly half have a

dedicated R&D-department before entering the project.

EUREKA-participants are heavily dedicated to R&D

Figure 3.12 compare time and investments dedicated to R&D for

EUREKA-participants and for the rest of the business sector.

Figure 3.12 R&D-intensity and R&D investments

70%

60%

50%

40%

33%

48%

14%

12%

26%

12%

10%

30%

20%

10%

Performs R&D activities

EUREKA-participants

Has R&D department

Rest of the business sector

Source: DAMVAD 2011 based on EUREKA participation data and private sector R&D-statistics

from Statistics Denmark. For participants N=56 and for the rest of the businesses sector

N=11.112.

R&D-share of full time equivalents

EUREKA-participants

R&D-investments as share of

turnover

Rest of the business sector

As shown above, the share of R&D-performers among EUREKA-

participants is nearly twice that of businesses in general. Noticeably,

one in four EUREKA-participants is not an R&D-performer. The share of

businesses with a dedicated R&D-department is also significantly

higher among EUREKA-participants.

Source: DAMVAD 2011 based on EUREKA participation data and private sector R&D-statistics

from Statistics Denmark. For participants N=56 and for the rest of the businesses sector

N=11.112.

As shown above, EUREKA-participants dedicate significantly more time

and money to R&D-activities than the rest of the business sector – by a

factor of six and five, respectively. While R&D-intensity is already high

before participation, these factors are likely to increase further as part

of the involvement in EUREKA.

Given these differences, participants in EUREKA are already heavily

dedicated to R&D-activities before entering the project compared to

businesses in general.

R&D-data on business participants is selected from the participation year as

well as the subsequent and following year and data is selected for the

earliest possible year. The same method is applied for the business sector

in general. Each participating business appears only once.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Figure 3.13 shows the share of businesses purchasing R&D from

external suppliers among EUREKA-participants and for the business

sector in general. Also, the figure shows the share of businesses

involved in R&D cooperation with external partners.

Figure 3.13 R&D-purchase and R&D cooperation

70%

EUREKA-participants purchase and cooperate more

withdrawn. The annual number of projects with Danish participation

declined significantly. The participants’ interest and willingness to

participate have been declining because of this, recent participants in

Individual Projects say. With the introduction of Eurostars in 2008

Danish participation again increased to mid-1990s levels.

The most frequent topic areas for Danish participation are

environment, ICT and biotechnology. Danish partnerships are

concentrated on relatively few countries. In comparison with other

EUREKA-member countries, Danish participants are involved in larger

consortia, most frequently private-public partnerships. Nonetheless,

the single most frequent consortium type is composed of small and

large businesses.

Taking a closer look at the R&D-behavior of business-participants from

1990 to 2000, these are different from Danish businesses in general on

several accounts: The share of R&D-performers is significantly higher,

they are more R&D-intensive in terms of both time and money, and

they cooperate more with external R&D-partners.

It is these businesses that are the focal point of the next chapter. In

the following, we take a look at the impact of EUREKA on participating

businesses.

60%

50%

40%

30%

38%

58%

20%

10%

Purchase R&D

EUREKA-participants

Involved in R&D-coorporation

Rest of the business sector

Source: DAMVAD 2011 based on EUREKA participation data and private sector R&D-statistics

from Statistics Denmark. For participants N=43 and for the rest of the businesses sector N= 8.179.

The share of businesses purchasing R&D and involved in R&D-

collaboration is significantly higher among EUREKA-participants than

for businesses in general. Interestingly, before involvement in the

EUREKA-project, 42% of participants were not involved in R&D-

collaboration with external partners.

Danish participation in summary

As described in this chapter, Denmark has a varied history of

participation in EUREKA. Denmark was among the first EUREKA-

member countries to join the network in 1985.

Danish involvement in EUREKA is characterized by a marked shift in

participation 2001, where national funding for EUREKA was

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

4 The impact of EUREKA

The focus of this chapter is the impact of EUREKA Individual Projects

on participating Danish businesses in terms of productivity, exports,

turnover and employment. In the following we compare these with

similar businesses in general and with similar businesses participating

in other funding instruments, respectively.

Combined, these two control groups constitute a comparison basis

which allows us to analyze whether participation contributes to

economic performance of Danish businesses and at the same time

analyze whether participants experience an increase in performance

addition

to the effect of participating in other funding instruments.

Companies are selected for a control group according to the matching

method called “propensity score matching”. This method estimates for

each company the probability of participating in EUREKA conditional

on company-specifics, such as industry, company size, turnover per

employee, and exports per employee. According to the estimated

probability, participants are matched to similar non-participants

according to

nearest neighbour

matching method. This is further

elaborated in appendix 1.

As a result, the control groups consist of companies that are similar to

participants, where the only observed difference is the fact that these

companies did not participate in EUREKA.

As a basis for statistical analysis, the 76 EUREKA participants included

in the study is a relatively low number. This constitutes a challenge for

the impact assessment, especially in terms of estimation precision and

the relatively large influence of outliers. In order to improve the

precision of the estimation and to increase the robustness of the

results, this analysis utilizes a matching technique, which identifies ten

similar non-participants for each EUREKA-participant

. As a result, the

number of observations is increased, which improves the estimation

precision thereby enhancing the opportunity of obtaining statistical

significant results.

However, the number of businesses participating in other programs is

relatively low. As a result, participants are matched one to one with

this second control group. As we will see below, it is still possible to

achieve statistically significant results, using this control group.

4.1 What is meant by impact

The key question addressed in this impact analysis is the question of

causality. This means determining whether participation generates an

increase in companies’ performance or whether already well-

performing businesses chose to participate.

In order to tell whether companies experience an increase in

performance

as a result

of participation in EUREKA it is therefore

important to establish a proper basis for comparison – the

counterfactual situation.

The construction of a control group enables a comparison between

participations and a group of similar companies with the purpose of

analyzing whether participants performs better than none-

participants.

In this impact study, we establish two separate control groups and use

each to compare the performance between participants and similar

non-participants.

One consists of a group of 756 Danish companies with similar

characteristics as participants. The second consists of 79 companies,

which in addition to having similar company characteristics as

participants, previously have participated in other funding instrument.

Establishing control groups

Appendix 1 explains the implemented matching procedure in greater detail.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Businesses’ performances are studied across time with the purpose of

analysing any differences in performance between participants and

companies in the two separate control groups. The impact assessment

is carried out using a

difference in difference

approach, as further

explained in appendix 1.

Data for the impact assessment consists of information on businesses’

economic performance during the period 1990-2008, which is found in

the Accounts-Statistics and VAT-statistics provided by Statistics

Denmark.

As performance measurements we use the

growth in:

1. Productivity per full time equivalent

2. Export per full time equivalent

3. Turnover per full time equivalent

4. Total number of full time equivalents

Companies are included in the analysis from the participation year and

onwards,

which enables us to study how the effect of participation

changes over time. Constant prices are used throughout the analysis in

order to avoid any inference coursed by the rate of inflation.

In order to enhance the robustness of the results certain performance

criteria are imposed which are described in appendix 1. To strengthen

the robustness even further we remove the 5 percent best and worst

performances for participants and non-participants.

Impact measurement

In the following, we describe the impact of EUREKA against the two

control groups described above.

Statistical significance

Statistical significance (here shorted “sign.”) indicates the likelihood

that the difference has occurred by chance. A low significance thus

equals a strong result. I.e. 5 pct. sign. indicates that there is a 95 %

probability for having a real correlation. 10 pct. Sign. indicates that

there is a 90% probability for real correlation.

A full time equivalent is equal to the normal hours of labour of a full time

employee.

Companies in the control groups are included in the analysis according to

the year of participation for the matched participant.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

4.2 The impact of EUREKA on productivity growth

Labour productivity is a measure of the average value created by a

business per labour year performed.

Growing labour productivity

means that businesses are improving the size of their income relative

to their expenses – thus becoming more competitive. To increase the

productivity and competitiveness of European businesses through

technology is a key goal of the EUREKA-network, as described in

chapter 2.

Figure 4.1 and 4.2 compares growth in labour productivity of EUREKA-

participants to similar businesses in general and with similar

businesses participating in other funding instruments, respectively.

EUREKA-participants are labelled “treatment”, while the comparison

group is labelled “control”. The blue arrows indicate statistically

significant differences

between the two groups. Both comparisons

are made over a time period of six years since participation in EUREKA.

Figure 4.1: Productivity growth of EUREKA participants compared to similar

Danish businesses not participating in cooperation programmes

Growth in productivity (percent)

Years after participation in EUREKA

Sign. 5%

Sign. 10%

Treatment

Control

Source: DAMVAD 2011. The total number of observations is 76 for the treatment group and 756

for the control group.

Participants outperform similar businesses

Figure 4.1 shows that compared to similar businesses, EUREKA

participants experienced significantly higher growth in labour

productivity three and four years after participation.

Three years after participation, labour productivity of EUREKA-

participants grew more than twice as fast as non-participants (by

11.8% and 5.5%, respectively). Four years after participation, the

difference in growth rates between participants and non-participants

further increased. On average, growth rates for participants were

16.9% while labour productivity of non-participants grew by 5.7%.

Figure 4.2: Productivity growth of EUREKA participants compared to similar

businesses participating in other national and international cooperation

programmes

Growth in productivity (percent)

Treatment

Years after participation in EUREKA

Control

Defined as the business’ turnover minus its expenses divided by the total

number of full time equivalents in the business.

Source: DAMVAD 2011. The total number of observations is 76 for the treatment group and 79

for the control group.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Figure 4.2 shows that growth in labour productivity of EUREKA-

participants was not significantly different from that of similar

businesses participating in other consortia programmes. With some

variation, EUREKA-participants and participants in other consortia type

programmes share similar growth rates in labour productivity

throughout the six year period after participation.

The results of the impact assessment show that EUREKA participation

significantly increased growth in labour productivity. These

productivity gains are on par with similar businesses participating in

other funding instruments.

Recent studies carried out by DAMVAD and others as well as

interviews with recent participants in Individual Projects suggest some

possible explanations for this result:

Raising R&D-expenditure:

In a recent study DAMVAD found that

private R&D-investments had a marginal return of 66%

for R&D-

active businesses and 30% for innovative businesses.

Given the co-

financing-requirements of Individual EUREKA Projects (see chapter 2),

the productivity gains of EUREKA-participants over similar non-

participants may be explained by increasing participants’ R&D-

expenditure over what it would otherwise have been.

Public private cooperation:

In another study, DAMVAD found that

marginal returns from R&D expenditure are increased further if made

in cooperation with a university or TNO and still further if made in

cooperation with both.

As described in chapter 3, Danish EUREKA-

Participants equal participants in other programmes

participants most frequently participate in broad constellations of

public and private partners. .Additional cooperation with other

organisations may likewise have contributed to productivity gains of

participants over non-participants.

Some examples from interviews with recent EUREKA-participants shed

more light on these general findings:

Commercially successful application:

One business interviewed

successfully implemented a new and stronger material in its

production line, decreasing production time and costs. This first

application prompted further experimentation and new applications.

An early “no-go”:

One business interviewed actively used

collaboration to test early development ideas against partners’

expertise, obtaining an early and external go/no-go decision as to

whether to proceed with the project. Interestingly, while the project

was found to be technologically or economically unfeasible, the

project allowed termination of the project much earlier than would

otherwise have been possible. This saved resources, which were then

available for other R&D-efforts.

Raising terminal value:

One business interviewed used cooperation as

a means to raise the secondary value of the project to the point where

failure of the core idea was not decisive for deeming the project a

failure. This business indicated, that even though the project idea

proved infeasible, the secondary value in terms of learning, education,

international development partnerships, and new ideas generated by

the project made up for failure of the core idea.

Interpreting results

In other words, each additional DKK spend on R&D translates into DKK 1.66

of additional turnover.

DAMVAD (2010)

DAMVAD (2011)

As part of this study, we conducted interviews with all recent Danish

participants in individual projects ending no earlier than 2008 (see

Appendix 1).

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

4.3 The impact of EUREKA on export growth

Export per full time equivalent is a measure of the value of the goods

and services that businesses sell outside of their national markets per

unit of labour.

As described in chapter 2, boosting national

economies on the international market is an important goal of the

EUREKA-network.

Figure 4.3: Export growth of EUREKA participants compared to similar

Danish businesses not participating in cooperation programmes

Growth in exports (percent)

Sign. 5%

Treatment

Control

Participants outperform similar businesses

Figure 4.3 shows that compared to similar businesses, EUREKA

participants experienced significantly higher growth in exports three

years after participation.

Three years after participation, exports of EUREKA-participants grew

more than twice as fast as non-participants (by 22.4% and 9.7%,

respectively).

Years after participation in EUREKA

Participants outperform participants in other consortia type

programmes

Source: DAMVAD 2011. The total number of observations is 76 for the treatment group and 756

for the control group.

Figure 4.4 shows that compared to similar businesses participating in

other funding instruments, EUREKA-participants likewise experienced

significantly higher growth in exports three years after participation.

Three years after participation, exports of EUREKA-participants grew

more than twice as fast as participants in other instruments. At this

point the export growth for EUREKA-participants and participants in

other instruments were 22.4% and 8.8%, respectively.

Figure 4.4: Export growth of EUREKA participants compared to similar

businesses participating in other

consortia programmes

Growth in export (percent)

Sign. 5%

Treatment

Control

Years after participation in EUREKA

Defined as the business’ turnover abroad divided by the total number of full

time equivalents in the business.

Source: DAMVAD 2011. The total number of observations is 76 for the treatment group and 79

for the control group.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

The results of the impact assessment show that EUREKA participation

significantly increased growth in exports, some three years after

participation. Growth in exports for EUREKA-participants was higher

than similar businesses in general as well as similar businesses

participating in other funding instruments. Interviews with recent

participants in Individual Projects as well as the impact of EUREKA on

productivity suggest some possible explanations for this result:

The internationalisation requirement.

As described in chapter 2, a key

requirement of Individual Projects is participation from at least two

EUREKA-member countries. This requirement created an economic

incentive to cooperate with new or existing business partners abroad.

Among recent business participants,

there are several examples of

buyers and suppliers cooperating internationally along the value chain.

These relationships may provide more important export opportunities

for EUREKA-participants than for participants in other funding

instruments (with no internationalisation requirement) or businesses

in general.

Increased competitiveness.

As shown above, labour productivity of

EUREKA-participants improved significantly. EUREKA-participants thus

increased their competitiveness, making them more attractive for

international as well as national buyers. While productivity gains of

EUREKA-participants equalled participants in other funding

instruments they outperformed them in terms of exports. This may

suggest that export gains of EUREKA-participants could be due to

increased productivity

in concert

with intensified or new cooperative

ties with international business partners, rather than productivity

alone.

Interperting results

4.4 The impact of EUREKA on turnover growth

Turnover growth per full time equivalent is a measure of the income

that businesses generate from the sale of goods and services.

Growth

in sales is an indication that businesses are growing their markets,

selling more goods and services to existing or new customers.

Figure 4.5 shows that compared to similar businesses, EUREKA

participants experienced significantly higher growth in turnover four

years after participation. Turnover of EUREKA-participants grew more

than twice as fast as non-participants (by 10.5% and 5.1%,

respectively).

Participants outperform similar businesses

Figure 4.6 shows that growth in turnover of EUREKA-participants was

not significantly different from that of similar businesses participating

in other consortia type programmes. EUREKA-participants and

participants in national programmes share similar growth rates in

turnover throughout the six year period after participation.

The results of the impact assessment show that EUREKA participation

significantly increases growth in turnover over similar non-participants.

Growth in turnover is on par with similar businesses participating in

other consortia type programmes.

Participants equal participants in other consortia type

programmes

Interpreting results

As part of this study, we conducted interviews with all recent Danish

participants in individual projects ending no earlier than 2008 (see

Appendix 1).

Defined as the business’ turnover divided by the total number of full time

equivalents in the business.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Figure 4.5: Turnover growth of EUREKA participants compared to similar

businesses not participating in cooperation programmes

Growth in turnover (percent)

This result is in line with an earlier analysis of expected turnover from

participation in EUREKA-projects, conducted by the EUREKA

Secretariat. (see box below).

Conclusions from the EUREKA Secretariats study of final reports

Based on an analysis of 1.000 final reports from businesses

participating in EUREKA from 2000 to 2005 (20% of the overall

participants), this study found, that participation resulted in 13

million of additional turnover for each million of public investment

in a EUREKA project (achieved and expected). Final reports are

based on Participants data and assumptions (not an audit).

While the conclusions of this impact study cannot confirm the sizes of

these figures, both studies indicate a positive relationship between

participation in EUREKA and turnover. This result should be seen in

light of the earlier results of the impact assessment, which suggests

some possible explanations for this result:

Emphasis on foreign markets.

As described earlier, businesses

participating in EUREKA experienced higher growth in exports than

similar non-participants. Combined with higher growth in turnover

(see figure 4.3), this suggests that EUREKA-participation increases

emphasis on foreign markets. For participants in other funding

instruments, a different picture emerges. While EUREKA participants

experience higher export growth, turnover remains the same. One

possible explanation is that increased emphasis on foreign markets –

and thus exports – comes at the cost of decreased emphasis on

national markets.

Increased competitiveness.

The impact of EUREKA on turnover is

similar to impact on labour productivity, which was described earlier.

Here, EUREKA-participants experienced higher productivity growth

than non-participants, but similar productivity growth to participants

in other consortia type programmes. In light of this result, the impact

on turnover may be explained by increased productivity compared to

non-participants.

Sign. 10%

Treatment

Control

Years after participation in EUREKA

Source: DAMVAD 2011. The total number of observations is 76 for the treatment group and 756

for the control group.

Figure 4.6: Turnover growth of EUREKA participants compared to similar

businesses participating in other

consortia programmes

Growth in turnover (percent)

Treatment

Control

Years after participation in EUREKA

Source: DAMVAD 2011. The total number of observations is 76 for the treatment group and 79

for the control group.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

4.5 The impact of EUREKA on employment growth

Growth in employment is a measure of the amount of labour

employed by a business and thus the level of its activity. As described

in Chapter 2, job creation is an explicit goal of the EUREKA-network.

Here, growth in employment is measured as the relative increase in

the number of full time equivalents of labour carried out by a business.

Increasing employment means that the businesses employ more

labour, either by hiring new employees or increasing the hours of

labour of the existing labour force.

Figure 4.7 shows that compared to similar businesses, EUREKA

participants experienced significantly higher growth in employment

one, two and three years after participation in a EUREKA-Individual

Project. Unlike productivity, exports and turnover described above, the

impact of employment appeared from year one after participation,

and persisted through to (and including) year three.

The relative difference between participants and non-participants is

greatest in year one (8.1% versus 3.9%, respectively), decreasing

towards the end of the period (with 15.1% and 10.9% in year three,

respectively).

Figure 4.8 shows that compared to similar businesses participating in

other funding instruments, EUREKA-participants experienced

significantly higher growth in employment throughout the six year

period of the impact study.

Figure 4.7: Employment growth of EUREKA participants compared to similar

businesses not participating in cooperation programmes

Growth in emploees (percent)

Sign. 5%

Treatment

Control

Participants outperform similar businesses

Years after participation in EUREKA

Source: DAMVAD 2011. The total number of observations is 76 for the treatment group and 756

for the control group.

Figure 4.8: Employment growth of EUREKA participants compared to similar

businesses participating in other

consortia programmes

Growth in employees (percent)

Sign. 5%

Treatment

Control

Participants outperform participants in other instruments

Years after participation in EUREKA

Source: DAMVAD 2011. The total number of observations is 76 for the treatment group and 79

for the control group.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Interpreting results

The results of the impact assessment show that EUREKA participation

significantly increased growth in employment. This impact is significant

from year-one after participation and persists for several years for

both control groups.

In light of the earlier results of the impact assessment as well as insight

into the Danish funding scheme, some possible explanations are:

Increasing turnover and exports.

As shown earlier, EUREKA-

participants experienced significantly higher growth in both turnover

and exports compared to non-participants. A higher level of activity

(more sales) in both the Danish home market and on foreign markets

is likely to have increased the need for labour.

An injection of capital.

As described in chapter 2, funding for EUREKA-

participants was granted in the form of loans with a payback time of

five years conditioned by revenues generated by the results of the

project. Following approval, this loan was granted at the start of the

project. This is likely to have prompted initial hiring of additional

labour for the project itself as well as for any support functions

needed. Additional investments in labour may have persisted for a

number of years after the initial launch of the project, which may

explain why labour growth persists for a number of years after

participation.

A shifting labour force composition.

A third factor potentially

contributing to growth in labour may be a change in the composition

of the labour force to accommodate more the knowledge-intensive

functions of R&D-activities of the project itself or subsequent R&D

activities prompted by it.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

5 The transition to Eurostars

This chapter takes a closer look at the newest policy instrument in the

EUREKA-network, the

Eurostars Joint Programme.

It gained approval

from the European Parliament and Council in 2007 and was launched

in 2008. While it is too early to include Eurostars-participants in an

impact assessment, this chapter introduces the Eurostars Programme

and presents the early indications from Danish participants. These are

based on interviews with participants.

main participant of the consortium must be a research-performing

SME, and at least 50% of the project’s core activity should be carried

out by SME

. With an additional focus on promoting

market-driven

projects,

Eurostars projects must have a maximum of three years

duration, and the products and services developed must be available

to the market no later than two years after project.

The approval of projects for funding is based on formalised project

evaluation and ranking criteria. The national funding bodies only

screen the applications, without a granting mandate. The evaluations

and rankings are centrally performed by a single international panel of

experts consisting of Eurostars technical experts and the Eurostars

Independent Evaluation Panel (IEP). Thus, national funding bodies do

not interfere with the ranking process.

Eurostars-projects are funded through a “virtual common pot”. That is

grants for Eurostars project applications are jointly funded by national

funds and from the EU Commission

. The participating countries, have

committed an earmarked budget to the Eurostars Programme for each

cut-off date (there are two annual cut-off dates) funding participation

from the respective countries.

Member countries fund their national shares of approved Eurostars-

projects in prioritised order, based on project evaluations, until the

national allocation is depleted. Because national earmarked budget

levels vary considerably between member countries, some countries

may run out of its national earmarked funding before others. Eurostars

projects can only be initiated when funding commitments from all

countries participating in the project have been made or alternatively

5.1 Setting Eurostars apart

As described in chapter 2, Eurostars is one of four policy instruments

employed by the EUREKA-network. Eurostars is an initiative set up

under Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European

Union, in partnership between the European Commission, 27 Member

States and 6 associated countries

. Eurostars is organised around and

managed by the EUREKA-network. At the national level, the

programme is coordinated by National Programme Coordinators

(NPCs) and National Funding Bodies (NFBs). In Denmark, DASTI

coordinates the Danish participation in the Eurostars Programme

Eurostars attempts to harmonise and synchronise national support

programmes for SMEs

. The Eurostars Programme aims to give

research-intensive SMEs

the opportunity to apply for grants in

international project consortia, which can comprise R&D performing

SMEs, research organisations and/or large companies from at least

two EUREKA member countries. With its particular focus on SMEs, the

All EU Member States are involved in Eurostars. In addition, Croatia, Iceland, Israel, Norway,

Switzerland and Turkey are also participating (Interim Evaluation, Eurostars (2010))

Interim Evaluation, Eurostars (2010)

An R&D performing SME is an SME in which at least 10% of manpower in terms of full time

equivalent (FTE) is occupied with R&D or 10% of annual turnover is dedicated to R&D.

EUREKA (2011)

The public funding originally committed to the Eurostars Programme between 2008 and 2013

amounts to 400 M€. Of this, 75 pct. (300 M€) is provided by the governments of the Eurostars

Member Countries and 25 pct. (100 M€) by the 7

Framework Programme of the EU. On a

project-level, the Commission’s financial contribution to approved Eurostars projects is at most

33% of the national financial contribution (Interim Evaluation, Eurostars (2010))

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

a partner decides to self-fund their part. A shortfall of any country to

fund the joint project may result in the cancellation of the project,

since no projects with participation from that country will be funded,

despite the formal approval of the project.

Since the first Eurostars call in 2008, the number of applications,

approved projects as well as the national earmarked funds have

increased steadily. A major increase in the number of approved

projects took place when two annual calls were introduced in 2010.

From call to call there has been a steady increase of 15-20 pct. in the

number of applications. In the latest call (spring 2011), 400

applications were received making it the largest call so far. With the

second call coming up in September a total of 850 Eurostars-

applications are to be expected in 2011. Around 150 Danish projects

will receive grants this year. The Earmarked budget has likewise

increased. The development is shown in figure 5.1. Note that

applications for call six have just been received, and have not yet been

evaluated.

Figure 5.1: Development in Eurostars applications from 2008 to 2011

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

Call 1,

2008

Call 2,

2009

Call 3,

2010

Call 4,

2010

Call 5,

2011

Call 6,

2011

Applications received

Applications Above Thresshold

Source: Interim Evaluation, Eurostars (2010)

Applications eligible

Projects Funded

Figure 5.1 also shows the approval rate of applications. Applications

above the funding threshold are applications that have received a

positive evaluation, but were not funded because of insufficient funds.

Summing up, the Eurostars Programme is set apart from Individual

EUREKA Projects through the following characteristics:



the combined central and decentralised management and

common guidelines for all member countries. Whereas other

Individual EUREKA Projects are managed at a decentralised level,

Eurostars applies central programme management for application

and evaluation but national management for funding.

Eurostars has been the first European funding and support

programme to be specifically dedicated to SMEs



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Eurostars projects are collaborative (rather than individual),

meaning that they must involve at least two participants (legal

entities) from two different Eurostars participating countries

the international virtual common pot with joint funding for

Eurostars projects by national research and innovation funds and

the EU Commission

the financial instruments of the two programs also differ. In

Eurostars grants are provided as project funding whereas

Individual EUREKA projects are based on loans.

Figure 5.2: Types of Danish applicants in Eurostars applications



SME

Research institutes/GTS

Universities

Large corporations

In the following, we take a closer look at Danish participation in

Eurostars.

Call 1, Call 2, Call 3, Call 4, Call 5, Call 6,

2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011

Source: DASTI (2011)

5.2 Danish participation in Eurostars

As described in chapter 3, Eurostars have now surpassed Individual

EUREKA Projects as the primary instrument for EUREKA and hence also

for Danish participation.

The number Danish project applications with Danish participation rose

from 21 applications in the first call (2008) to 29 project applications in

call 6 (2011). The types of applicants that participate in the projects

comprise universities and research institutes, large companies and

SMEs as is depicted in the figure below, showing the development in

the types of applicants on the projects with Danish participation.

As the figure indicates it is not surprising that the vast majority of

project applicants are SMEs as their participation in Eurostars is a

funding criterion. SME participation accounts for 72 percent of the

project participants.

The share of Danish university participants is slightly higher than the

overall Eurostars average

. The difference could be seen in relation to

the marked oriented system of Approved Technological Service

institutes (GTS-Institutes) in Denmark which traditionally have played

an important role in creating synergy between SME’s and research

institutions.

Eurostars Secretariat (2011)

Eurostars (2011)

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

In the recent round of applications (call 6), the Danish participants in

the 29 applications with Danish participants contained 29 SMEs, 10

GTS-institutes, 6 universities, and three large companies

Project profile

table below provides an overview of Eurostars funding of projects and

the corporate funding. Furthermore, the table shows the funding of

Danish partners in programme as well as DASTI’s contribution to these

projects.

Table 5.2: Overview of the Eurostars funding (Million Euros)

Call 1,

2008

Call 2,

2009

Call 3,

2010

Call 4,

2010

Call 5,

2011

Total

The overall profile of Eurostars projects are shown in the table below.

Table 5.1: Project profile

Characteristics

Consortia

Budget

Duration

Partnering countries

Average project

3 participants

1,4 million Euro

27 months

2 countries

Average Danish

project

3,7 participants

1,6 million Euro

26 months

2 countries

Soruce: Eurostars Secretariat (2011)

As the table shows, the Danish projects are mirrored in the

characteristics of the average Eurostars projects, however with small

variations. Interestingly, the characteristics of the Danish Eurostars

participants differ from that of Individual EUREKA projects as these

characteristics depicts larger project with bigger consortia,

participating countries and budgets, as described in Chapter 3.

Total budget (All countries)

Corporate funding (total, all

countries)

Public funding (total, all

countries)

EC funding

Member states’ funding

Funding of Danish partners

(DASTI + EU)

Share of funding for Danish

partners RTI + EU) of the total

public funding

RTI's contribution for Danish

partners

129

1,3

128

1,4

130

4,1

1,6

107

574

303

271

203

10,4

1,1

1,2

1,5

7,8

Source: Eurostars secretariat (2011). The ”call year” is referring to the year where the funding

decision was taken

Funding

As presented, the funding scheme for projects in Eurostars program is

divided between national funding and funding from EU through the

virtual common pot system. Thus, the projects with Danish

participants activate the funding system from DASTI and the EU. The

The Danish participation in projects as listed in the table above shows

that the share of funding for Danish partners has increased from 1.3

million Euros in the first call in 2008 to 2 million Euros in the fifth call in

2011. The contribution from the Danish National Funding Body, DASTI,

has followed the increase but in a slower rate. In relation to this, it is

worth noting that starting from 2010 there have been two annual calls

which has also resulted in an increase in project funding and thus the

amount of projects that get funded.

During the period from 2008 to 2010, Denmark doubled its share of

the total funding from Eurostars from 2 percent in the first call to 4

percent in the fifth call. The Danish Council for Research and

Technology has thus increased its funding to Eurostars.

According to the common rules of Eurostars, large companies should be

able to receive a small grant for their participation. Because of the limited

grants allocated to the Eurostars program in Denmark, the DASTI has

chosen not to provide grants to companies with more than 500

employees.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

The table below shows the success rate of the applications with Danish

participation and for all applications.

Table 5.3: The success rate of applications with Danish participation

Call 1,

2008

215

42%

24%

Call 2,

2009

317

28%

32%

Call 3,

2010

279

30%

38%

Call 4,

2010

316

20%

28%

Call 5,

2011

342

21%

35%

All applications

Approved applications

Success rate

Applications with Danish

partners

Approved applications with

Danish partners

Success rate

collaborate with Swiss partners. The changes in this behaviour may be

associated with a joint call that has increased the awareness of

collaboration opportunities between the two countries. The same has

been the case for Israel where joint calls and partnering events have

resulted in 15 joint applications of which 10 were approved above the

threshold and 8 was funded by DASTI. The sudden emergence of new

collaboration partners thus also indicates that there may be other

potential collaboration partners that arise in the future application

rounds if PR-campaigns etc. are applied.

Figure 5.3: Partner countries for Danish Eurostars participants (based on

applications)

Source: DAMVAD 2011, based on Haifa State of affairs. The high number of application and the

success rate in call 3 can be contributed to the fact that DASTI had introduced a pre-project

funding programme for Eurostars. This programme was terminated after call 3

Partner countries

The figure 5.3 shows that across the sixth application calls, the

partners with whom the Danish participants have collaborated with

are relatively stable. The three most frequent collaboration partners

being United Kingdom, Sweden and Germany. This corresponds well to

the main collaboration partners from Individual EUREKA Individual

Projects (see Chapter 3).

Interestingly, the figure shows how new countries emerge as

collaboration partners. This is indicated by the presence of Switzerland

and Israel as a new collaboration partners. Up until this recent round

of applications, it was uncommon for Danish participants to

Source: DASTI (2011b)

In the following, we take a closer look at some early indications from

Danish participants in Eurostars projects.

Sweden

Germany

Israel

France

Norway

Portugal

Italy

Spain

Finland

Iceland

Belgium

Poland

Estonia

Latvia

Turkey

Slovenia

Switzerland

The applications with Danish participation have a high success rate as

shown in the table above. The success rate for projects with Danish

participation has improved during the period from 24 percent in 2008

to 35 percent in fifth call in 2010, despite the fact that the overall

success rate for all applications has declined. The decline of the overall

success rate reflects that the competition for funding has increased

and that the amount of approved applications has declined.

Call 6

Call 5

Call 4

Call 3

Call 2

Call 1

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

5.3 Early experiences from Eurostars-participants

Through interviews with recent Danish participants in Eurostars, it is

possible to gain some early insights into the indications from

participants in Eurostars.

These can be summarised as follows:

SMEs at the centre.

The focus on SMEs in Eurostars actively gives

participating SMEs a central role in the innovation and development

process. According to participants, this allows the SMEs to drive the

process and strengthen their competences and skills through a

collaborative process. The SME oriented focus sets Eurostars apart

from other international programmes and is considered by participants

to be a significant benefit to participating.

Administration at a minimum

The administrative burden through the

application process is not considered a barrier to applying for funds.

Participants emphasised the administrative ease in working with

Eurostars. This is an advantage which makes Eurostars stand out in

relation to other international programs. Flexibility was also

mentioned in regards to the fact that Eurostars is not determined by

specific calls with predefined topics. According to respondents, this

entails greater flexibility to define the projects and tailor projects to

the needs of the SME. The ease of Eurostars program organisation is

considered a “best practice” example for international programmes

among the respondents.

Room for high-risk, high-gain projects.

In the interviews, it was

highlighted that a main motivation for applying for funds through

Eurostars is the possibility to get financial support to the development

or testing of ideas that probably would not have been tested or

developed if external resources were not available. In particular, ideas

considered risky for the SME, but with potential high gains are sought

funded through Eurostars. In the absence of Eurostars participants

indicated that they would seek alternative means of external support

for their projects. Participants underlined that should the SME fail to

obtain external financial support, the project proposals would not get

developed due to limited funds and the risk profile of the projects.

Small consortia are welcomed.

Participants praise the fact that

consortia can be kept small (two SMEs from different countries is a

requirement from Eurostars). Small consortia make it easier to

cooperate as well as manage the project for SMEs. In this way,

“shadow partners” only included in the consortium primarily to meet

programme-requirements, can be avoided.

Concerns about commercialisation.

Commercial expectations to

Eurostars projects are high and early signs are promising, according to

interviewees. However, commercialisation and marketing of new

products are seen as potentially challenging for SMEs to manage on

their own due to high demands on additional investments at the end

of the project. This may prevent some projects from reaching the

market.

Relations may be more valuable than the project.

Despite the fact

that projects have not yet been completed, participants highlight that

the process have strengthened and developed competencies through

the collaboration with international partners. It was emphasised that

the value of strengthening of competences reaches far beyond the

value of the Eurostars project.

PROs are important for SME-participants.

Participants indicate that

public research organisations (PROs) serve an important function in

informing SMEs of opportunities for participating in the programme, as

Eurostars is still relatively unknown among SMEs. Additionally, the

PROs play a role in providing support for those SMEs that are

unfamiliar with project management and application processes for

As part of this study, we conducted interviews with recent Danish

participants in Eurostars (see Appendix 1).

Among the respondents 4 out of 9 were TNO’s or research institutes

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

international projects. Further, the PROs have a widespread

international network that is used to help Danish SMEs to get in touch

with relevant international partners and a way to get the SMEs into

interesting projects for Danish SMEs.

Participants already have international experience.

The international

experience varies from participation in other European programs such

as FP7 to international collaboration with other businesses, or through

export markets. Because participants already have international

experience, it is common that the international partners are often

known before. According to the majority of projects covered through

the interviews, the international partner was the initiator of the

project, inviting the Danish SME or PRO to participate in the project

based on previous experience from collaborating.

Eurostars vs. FP7.

Most of the interviewed participants have

experience with or knowledge of participation in EU programs such as

FP7. In comparing the two programs, the participants accentuated

Eurostars as their preferred program based on the SME orientation,

the opportunity to keep projects small, the ability to choose topic

themselves and most explicitly; the administrative ease in applying for

funds. However, participants did highlight advantages of FP7 programs

providing more funds than Eurostars.

countries are in better “standing” than others, is the impression

among participants. Countries are thus unofficially divided into an “A–

team” and a “B-team” dependent on their priority of Eurostars .

Lack of transparency in award systems.

Participants with experience

from several applications noted the lack of transparency in project-

evaluation making learning from one application to another difficult.

The formal project evaluations are not distributed to participants.

Instead oral feedback session with DASTI disseminates the

assessments of the project.

The international dimension

5.4 Suggestions for future improvements

Participants in Eurostars proposed suggestions to how participation

could be improved. Their suggestions are summarised below:

A simpler financial structure.

In order to prevent the problems of

uneven depletion of national funds, leaving some parts of international

consortia unfinanced, participants suggest that the countries agree on

a simpler financial structure. If political support for this suggestion

cannot be found, the contribution of each country to the programme

should be more visible.

Improved readiness of SME’s.

In some European countries (Germany

and the Netherlands, in particular) Danish participants mentioned that

there are substantial efforts getting SMEs involved in R&D-projects,

nationally as well as internationally. Consequently, more attention is

paid to qualifying and preparing SMEs for involvement in Eurostars.

Provide draft contracts.

Participants highlight the problem of

participants spending more time on drawing up contracts than project

related tasks. Providing draft contracts may be of great help to

participants.

Streamline project briefings.

It appears that each country decides on

how to report on the project to the NPCs. It would be an asset to

participants if standard requirements existed across member

Challenges to participation

Although participants overall consider Eurostars as an attractive

programme, there are barriers and obstacles that could be improved.

Concerns about “bad standing”.

Eurostars is currently funded by a

common pot. Member countries thus fund their national shares of

approved Eurostars-projects in prioritised order until the national

allocation is depleted. This will not happen simultaneously for all

member countries and some project consortia may therefore acquire

funding for only some parts of the consortia. Based on this experience,

participants fear that project participants from some countries will be

excluded from consortia as their funding is highly uncertain. Some

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

countries, thus enabling different international project partners to

work out one common project briefing.

Increase awareness among SMEs.

Eurostars is still relatively unknown.

In order to get more qualified SMEs to apply, a promotion of Eurostars

among SMEs would be beneficial.

Larger funds.

Participants advocate for larger project sums in order to

accommodate larger projects. The maximum size of funds available

today results in projects having to split up over several application

rounds.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

References

Council of the European Union (2008),

Council conclusions on the

definition of a "2020 Vision for the European Research Area”,

Council

of the European Union, Brussels, December2008,

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st16/st16767.en08.pdf

DAMVAD (2011),

Økonomiske effekter af erhvervssamarbejde om

forskning, udvikling og innovation

for the Danish Agency For Science,

Technology and Innovation (DASTI), to be published 2011.

DAMVAD (2010),

Produktivitetseffekter af erhvervslivets forskning,

udvikling og innovation

for the Danish Agency For Science, Technology

and Innovation (DASTI), ISBN: 978 87 923 7249 9, 2010,

http://www.fi.dk/publikationer/2010/produktivitseffekter-af-

erhvervslivets-f-u-i

DAMVAD (2009a),

Knowledge Crossing Borders,

prepared by DAMVAD

for Danish Business Research Academy (DEA), 2009,

http://www.damvad.dk/results.aspx

DAMVAD (2009 b),

International Orientation and Coordination among

European Research Funders, Findings and recommendations from a

recent study, for The Danish Business Research Association:

http://www.dea.nu/Materiale/Publikationer/Gl.+DEA/NOTE+-

+International+orientation+and+coordination+among+European+rese

arch+funders.pdf

Danish Agency for Development of Trade and Industry (1994),

Ydelsesbeskrivelse for EUREKA,

Danish Agency for Development of

Trade and Industry, 1. september 1994.

DASTI (2011a),

The official homepage of the Danish EUREKA National

Point of Contact (NPC), Danish Agency for Science, Technology and

Innovation, 2011,

http://www.fi.dk/viden-og-politik/internationalt-

samarbejde/europaeisk-samarbejde/eureka

DASTI (2011b),

Eurostars brief,

Tværsnit af Eurostars ansøgninger med

danske deltagere i 6. udbudsrunde,

Danish Agency for Science,

Technology and Innovation

DASTI (2010),

Evaluation of Danish Participation in the 6th and 7th

framework programmes,

Danish Agency for Science, Technology and

Innovation, research: Analysis and Evaluation 2/2010

EUREKA (2011),

official homepage of the EUREKA-network,

http://www.eurekanetwork.org/

EUREKA (2010a),

Eureka in Denmark,

presentation by David Garlott,

EUREKA 2010.

Eurostars (2011),

official homepage of Eurostars,

http://www.eurostars-eureka.eu/

Eurostars Secretariat (2011),

Eurostars State of Affairs,

HLG/NPC2,

Haifa April 2011

Eurostars (2010),

Eurostars Programme Interim Evaluation,

Anne

Laperrouze (Chairman), Erkko Autio (Rapporteur), Maja Bucar, Georg

Licht, Jose Molero and Lena Tsipouri, December 2010.

Fischer & Molero (2011),

Fischer, Bruno B./ B and Molero Zayas, José/

Towards a Taxonomy of Firms Engaged in International R&D

Cooperation Programs: The Case of Spain in Eureka,

2011,

http://final.dime-eu.org/files/Fischer_Molero_B4.pdf

OECD (2010),

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook,

OECD,

ISBN: 978-92-64-08467-4, 2010.

The Danish Government (2006),

Progress, Innovation and Cohesion –

Strategy for Denmark in the Global Economy,

The Danish Government,

2006,

http://www.globalisering.dk/page.dsp?area=52

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Appendix 1: Impact study methodology

This paper utilizes a matching approach to estimate the causal effect

of participation in EUREKA. This approach matches each participant

with a similar

non-participant

and hereby simulating the

counterfactual situation.

The counter factual situation describes the performance paths

participants would have followed had they not participated in EUREKA.

Clearly it is not possible to observe the participants’ outcome with and

without treatment at the same time. As a result we must find a proper

substitute for participants’ outcome had they not participated.

Assuming that the average outcome of the population of

non-

participants is a valid approximation for the counter factual situation

is, however, not a possible solution since participants and

non-

participants may differ in the absence of treatment. This selection

problem arises since participants may be more likely to participate and

possibly more likely to benefit from participation.

To circumvent the challenges from selection bias we employ a certain

matching technique which identifies

non-participants

that are similar

to participants on several company specific characteristics.

This paper utilizes a particular matching approach called propensity

score matching. For all companies the estimation of the probability of

participating in EUREKA is conditioned on observed relevant company

specific characteristics.

The probability of participation is estimated using a logit model, which

relates the probability of being treated with several company specific

characteristics such as industry, company size, turnover per full time

equivalent, and export per full time equivalent. Thus, the logit model

estimates the following conditional probability:

Here,

treatment

is a variable that takes the value “one” in the event of

participation and “zero” in the opposite case.

The probabilities are estimated conditional on five different industries

and three different size levels.

Industries are subdivided as:



Low technological manufacturing

High technological manufacturing

Wholesale and retail trade

Knowledge intensive business services

Other

1 to 50 full time equivalent

50 to 250 full time equivalent

Larger than 250 full time equivalent

Company size is subdivided as:

Matching approach

The predicted probability from the logit-model is interpreted as the

propensity score and therefore constitutes the specified probability of

participating conditional on company specific characteristics.

Participants are matched to

non-participants

according to a matching

algorithm which for each treated unit identifies companies in the

population of

non-participants

with identical or similar propensity

score. This matching algorithm is called Nearest Neighbour matching.

Since a relatively low number of companies participated in EUREKA it is

desirable to enhance the number of control units in order to lower the

variance on the estimator thereby raising the estimation precision.

Therefore the Nearest Neighbour matching algorithm is augmented in

such a way that ten control units are identified and selected for each

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

participant according to the propensity scores. In other words, this

matching algorithm picks for each participant those ten

non-

participants that come closest in terms of propensity score.

A matching ratio of 1:10 requires a vast amount of observations and

can as a result not be implemented considering the group composed

of companies, which have previously participated in other funded

research and innovation programmes. For this group of business the

matching algorithm is adjusted to identify one similar

non-participant

for each participant according to the propensity score.

It is important to consider the quality of the matching, which can be

done by testing whether there is additionally explanatory power

stored in the covariates considering businesses’ treatment status after

the matching procedure has been carried out. In other words, the test

indicates whether any observed systematic differences exist between

participants and the control group (consisting of the matched

non-

participants).

For each matching procedure performed the existence of systematic

differences between the treatment group and the control group are

tested. We are able to reject the presence of such differences. A

proper balance between participants and matched non-participants is

thus ensured using this matching procedure. We are thus able to

interpret any differences in outcomes between the well selected and

adequate control group and of participants as the causal effect of

participating in EUREKA.

The difference-in-difference model is implemented in order to

appropriately estimate and detect whether participants and non-

participants performs differently. Any differences can be attributed to

the participation in EUREKA.

This analysis uses four different performance measurements:



Turnover per full time equivalent

Total number of full time equivalent

The difference-in-difference analysis is conducted for each of these

performance measurements which involve the comparison between

participants and non-participants on the basis of each performance

measurement.

The difference in difference estimator is given by:



�½









captures the performance at time

where



is the participation effect and

for group where indicates treatment status. The participation effect is

calculated as the difference in the development in performance between the

treatment group and control group. For both groups the difference in

performance is calculated as the performance at time 1 subtracted

performance at time 0. The difference-in-difference estimator is employed for

each year after participation in order to calculate the participation effect over

time.

Whether or not there is a statistical significant participation effect is tested

using a standard t-test.

Performance criteria

Difference-in-difference method

The presence of extreme observations may distort the participation effect and

reduce the estimation precession. Data can contain extreme values due to the

occurrence of measurement errors or due to mergers and split offs of

businesses. Such extreme observations can have a disproportionately large

impact on the analysis.

To avoid the distorting impact of outliers this paper implements certain

performance criteria, which serve as thresholds for which outliers are

corrected. In the research literature it is common to remove companies that

experience a tripling or a halving in performance between two successive

Productivity per full time equivalent

Exports per full time equivalent

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

years . Due to the relatively low number of participants this approach cannot

be implemented.

Below we outline the chosen performance criteria introduced in order to

correct outliers at the company level.

Where performance in a single year doubles or halves compared to the two

neighbouring years we use the two neighbouring observations to correct the

outlier by taking the average performance of these two years.

The same procedure is implemented in the event that two successive years

are outliers as specified above.

There are certain types of abnormal performances, which cannot easily be

corrected. Two such cases are illustrated in the figure below.

The outlined correction strategy cannot be implemented with the intention to

correct for level shifts in which performance for some reason changes

abnormally from one year to the other but remains at the new level for

remaining period. The case of a level shift is illustrated in path A in the figure

below. To correct for this type of outliers we remove the period from where

the level shift occurs.

Figure A.1: Illustration of abnormal performance paths

Company performance

Years after particiaption

Company performance path A

Source: DAMVAD 2011

Company performance path B

It is however not possible to correct for circumstances described by path B

where performance fluctuates abnormally throughout the period. In this case

we remove the entire business from the sample.

In addition the 5 per cent best and worst performances for each year for

participants and

non-participants

are removed from the sample. This

correction is implemented to further minimize the impact of outliers in order

to secure a high degree of robustness and reliability of the estimated

participation effect.

Before the elimination of outliers there are 95 Danish participations for which

a satisfactory amount of data is available. Due to the elimination of outliers

the number of observations on participants drops to 76, cf. table A.1.

This analysis establishes two separate control groups. One consists of a group

of businesses that are similar to EUREKA-participants. The other consists of a

group of businesses that in addition to being similar in terms of company

specific characteristics also participated in other funded national programs.

The table below shows the amount of observations after correction of outliers

which are used to carry out the impact assessment for both groups.

See as an example Mairesse, Jacques og Hall, Bronwyn Hughes,

1995, ’’ Exploring the Relationship Between R&D and Productivity in

French Manufacturing Firms’’.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Table A.1: Amount of observations before and after correction of outliers

Group 1: Similar business

Group 2: Participants in other

funded programs

onwards. The VAT statistics holds information on companies’ industry,

turnover, total expensive, export, and import

Information on company size is contained in the Accounts Statistics,

which is available for the entire period of the program. We merge

information on the firm level from the different statistics using the

unique company identification number. Information in the Account

Statistics is gathered as stocktaking each year at the end of November.

Every company that is subject to registration according to Danish

legislation is part of the statistics and as a result close to 100 percent

of Danish businesses are included.

This enables the construction of a panel data containing information

on company characteristics and companies’ performance covering the

period 1990-2008. The great time dimension of the panel data enables

the estimation of the effect of participation in EUREKA and in addition

how this effect changes over time.

In addition, this analysis utilizes information from the research,

development and innovation statistics. This information is gathered at

the firm level by the means of a questionnaire, which includes all

business with more than 250 employees. For businesses with less than

250 employees a random sample is selected to participate in the

questionnaire conditioned on preselected criteria concerning industry

and size

In order to obtain information on companies’ previous participation in

other funded programs DAMVADs cooperation database is included.

Before correction of outliers

Treatment group

Control group

950

After correction of outliers

Treatment group

Control group

Source: DAMVAD 2011

756

The group of non-participants (which in addition to having similar

characteristics as participants also participated in other funded

programs than EUREKA) have participated in either Innovation

Consortium or EU’s framework programs. After correction of outliers

68 percent of the selected businesses participated in Innovation

Consortium while 32 percent participated in EU’s framework

programs.

Funding for Danish participation was withdrawn in 2001 and as result

the participation period is constraint to the period between 1985 and

2001. This imposes a challenge regarding the availability of data since

the majority of participation found place relatively early in relation to

the presence of data. The presence of microdata at Statistics Denmark

and the amount of information increases over time meaning that

information at the firm level generally speaking is limited at the

beginning of the nineties.

To solve this challenge we conduct the impact assessment using the

VAT statistics which contains microdata at the firm level for 1990 and

Data

It would have been preferable to conduct the analysis using several

additional covariates such as information on the employees’ educational

level and information on the companies’ engagement in research,

development, and innovation activities.

For further information on the selection of participations refer to the

description of the methodology at Statistics Denmark’s homepage.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

The corporation database covers all large programs in relation to

research and innovation funds in Denmark. All together the database

consists of more than 1,600 projects including 5,000 Danish project

participants, with approximately 1,200 unique participants. The

database covers the period 1995 to 2010.

Figure A.2: Merging of different data sources

VAT statistics

1990-2008

Account statistics

1990-2008

Participants’

identification

number and year

of participation

Unique database

covering companies’

characteristics and

performance

DAMVADs

cooperation

database

Research, delevopment, and

innovation statistics

1991 - 2003

Source: DAMVAD 2011

The figure above presents the combination of different data sources

which when put together establish a unique database for conducting

an impact assessment of the Danish participation in EUREKA.

Companies’ identification number is used to combine data at the firm

level from the different sources.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Appendix 2: Interview methodology

The purpose of this appendix is to provide an overview of the

qualitative sources for the study. This section thus covers how the

respondents were selected, how the interviews were performed and

how data was treated.

As this study covers the impact of two different EUREKA programs;

Individual EUREKA Projects and Eurostars, respondents were identified

from these two programs. It was attempted to reach two groups of the

same size comprising approximately 10 respondents from each

program.

The selection of respondents from the population of participants in

individual EUREKA projects was based on specific program

specifications. The main objective in selecting respondents was

identifying projects that were completed in the year 2008 or later in

order to get the experiences from recent participation. As the Danish

participation in individual EUREKA projects has decreased significantly,

the total population comprised of eight projects. From these eight

projects, seven were interviewed in relation to the study. The

characteristics on the seven project participants are specified in the

table below.

Population of participants in individual EUREKA projects

Organization name

DBI plastics a/s

Barsmark a/s

IPU - Institute for product

development

DTU - Department of manufacturing

engineering and management (IPL)

RISOE- Department of materials

research

Sonion Roskilde a/s

DELTA

Organization type

SME

University

Governm./Nat.

Admin.

Large company

Research

Institute/GTS

Project

start

02-Jan-

2002

01-Sep-

2005

01-Oct-

2006

01-Oct-

2006

01-Oct-

2006

01-Oct-

2006

02-Jun-

2008

Project

end

02-Apr-

2008

01-Apr-

2008

01-Oct-

2009

01-Oct-

2009

01-Oct-

2009

01-Oct-

2009

02-Jan-

2010

Selection of respondents

The selection of respondents from Eurostars was based on providing a

versatile sample of the Danish participants in Eurostars programs.

None of the Eurostars projects have been completed yet and thus this

did not serve as a criterion. Instead the selection has emphasised on

getting a sample comprising Danish Research Institutes/GTS as well as

SMEs with international experience from participation in international

programs and also with a record of growth.

The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation has

provided DAMVAD with a gross list of participants comprising ten

participants. Out of these ten participants, nine were interviewed. The

participants are presented in the table below.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Population of participants in Eurostars projects

Organization name

Bioneer

Technological Institute

DELTA

Technological Institute

MSVision

Zealand Pharma

GomSpace Aps

IPU

Noliac

Organization type

Research institute/GTS

SME

were also reflected in the interview guide and comprised the

following:



Characteristics on the specific project

Motivation to engage in the project

The value deriving from participating in a project

Potentials for improvements

Treatment of interview data

Transcripts were prepared from each interview consisting of the main

arguments and reflections from the interviews.

The interview transcripts were treated anonymously. Accordingly,

there has been no direct use of quotes or other specific presentation

of an individual participant as part of the final reporting.

Respondents were contacted by telephone to inform them about

the Impact study on Danish participation in EUREKA and to ask them if

they would participate in an interview concerning their participation

in Individual EUREKA Projects and Eurostars projects, respectively.

Before the interviews were conducted, an interview guide was send to

the respondents in order for them to familiarise themselves with the

themes and specific questions comprised in the interview.

The interviews were conducted as semi structured interviews allowing

for the interview to progress along a defined structure, but with the

possibility to pursue interesting leads that may arise during the

interview.

Approach

Conduct of interviews

For practical reasons, the interviews were predominately conducted as

phone interviews, and lasted approximately one hour.

The interviews with participants in individual EUREKA projects and

Eurostars projects were structured around the same topics that are

central to determine the participation in the programs. These themes

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

PUBLICATIONS IN THE THE SERIES OF INNOVATION: ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 2009 - 2010

01/2009

02/2009

03/2009

04/2009

05/2009

06/2009

07/2009

08/2009

09/2009

10/2009

11/2009

12/2009

13/2009

14/2009

15/2009

16/2009

17/2009

18/2009

19/2009

Effektmåling af innovationsmiljøernes støtte til danske iværksættere

Rammer for innovativ IKT-anvendelse – erfaringerfra Den Regionale IKTsatsning

22/2009

Analyse af forsknings- og udviklingssamarbejde mellem virksomheder og videninstitutioner

International Evaluation of the Danish GTS-system – A step beyond

Proof of concept-finansiering til offentlige forskningsinstitutioner –Midtvejsevaluering

Mapping of the Danish knowledge system with focus on the role and function of the GTS-net

International Comparison of Five Institute Systems

Review of science and technology foresight studies and comparison with GTS2015

Analyse af små og mellemstore virksomheders internationale FoU-samarbejde

Ikt-anvendelse og innovationsresultater i små og mellemstore virksomheder

Virksomhedernes alternative strategier til fremme af privat forskning, udvikling og innovation

Rådet for Teknologi og Innovation måler sin indsats inden for metrologi i perioden 2007-2009

Kommercialisering af forskningsresultater - Statistik 2008

Erhvervslivets forskning, udvikling og innovation i Danmark 2009 – Den økonomiske krises betydning

Finanskrisens påvirkning på IT-startups

Universiteternes Iværksætterbarometer 2009

Kortlægning af iværksætter- og entreprenør–skabsfag ved de 8 danske universiteter – 2009

The Gazelle Growth Programme – Mid Term Evaluation

Nye former for samarbejde om privat forskning, udvikling og innovation - midtvejsevaluering af

åbne midler

Innovationsagenter - Nye veje til innovation i små og mellemstore virksomheder.

Erfaringer fra midtvejsevaluering af pilotprojektet Regionale Innovationsagenter

01/2010

02/2010

03/2010

04/2010

05/2010

06/2010

07/2010

08/2010

09/2010

10/2010

12/2010

Produktivitetseffekter af erhvervslivets forsk¬ning, udvikling og innovation

Erhvervslivets forskning, udvikling og innovation i Danmark 2010

An Analysis of Firm Growth Effects of the Danish Innovation Consortium Scheme

Effektmåling af videnpilotordningens betydning for små og mellemstore virksomheder

InnovationDanmark 2009 - resultater og evalueringsstrategi

Kommercialisering af forskningsresultater - Statistik 2009

Performanceregnskab for Videnskabsministeriets GTS-net 2010

Innovationsnetværk Danmark - Performanceregnskab 2010

Performanceregnskab for Videnskabsministeriets Innovationsmiljøer 2010

Universiteternes Iværksætterbaromenter 2010

Brugerundersøgelse af GTS-institutterne 2010

23/2009

24/2009

25/2009

Dansk innovationspolitik 2009 – Den økonomiske krises betydning for fremme af erhvervslivets forskning,

udvikling og innovation

Serviceinnovation og innovationsfremmesystemet

Performanceregnskab for Videnskabsministeriets innovationsnetværk 2009

Performanceregnskab for innovationsmiljøerne 2009

21/2009

Forskning, udvikling og innovation i små og mellemstore virksomheder - erfaringer fra

midtvejsevaluering af videnkuponer

20/2009

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

2011

01/2011

Analysis of Danish innovation policy - The Industrial PhD Programme and the Innovation

Consortium Scheme

Økonomiske effekter af erhvervslivets forskningssamarbejde med offentlige videninstitutioner

Erhvervslivets forskning, udvikling og innovation i 2011

Evaluering af GTS-instituttet DHI

Evaluering af GTS-instituttet Bioneer

Evaluering af GTS-instituttet FORCE Technology

Erhvervslivets Outsourcing af FoU

Innovation Network Denmark - Performance accounts 2011

Performanceregnskab for Videnskabsministeriets Innovationsmiljøer 2011

GTS performanceregnskab

Kommercialisering af forskningsresultater

– Statistik 2010 (Public Research Commercialisation Survey – Denmark 2010)

Evaluering af GTS-instituttet DELTA

Evaluering af GTS-instituttet DBI

Evaluering af GTS-instituttet Teknologisk Institut

Impact Study of Eureka Projects

24 ways to cluster excellence – successful case stories from clusters in Germany,

Poland and the Nordic countries.

Nordic-German-Polish Cluster Policy Benchmarking

Impact Study: The Innovation Network Programme

Universiteternes Iværksætterbarometer 2011

Access to Research and Technical Information in Denmark

INTERNATIONALT SAMARBEJDE BETALER SIG FOR

DANSKE VIRKSOMHEDER

Denne analyse viser, at virksomheder, der har deltaget i EUREKA-projekter, oplever

en stor eksportfremgang, fordobler omsætningen og både forøger beskæftigelsen og

arbejdsproduktiviteten i forhold til andre virksomheder.

02/2011

03/2011

04/2011

05/2011

06/2011

07/2011

08/2011

09/2011

10/2011

11/2011

”Jeg er meget glad for, at denne analyse leverer bevis for, at det kan betale sig for danske

virksomheder at finde udenlandske samarbejdspartnere. Det er mit håb, at endnu flere

virksomheder vil begive sig ud på et udenlandsk eventyr, for internationale samarbejder styrker

væksten og medvirker til at bringe både den enkelte virksomhed og det danske samfund hurtigere

ud af krisen”, siger videnskabsminister Charlotte Sahl-Madsen.

I analysen sammenlignes økonomien i virksomheder, der har deltaget i EUREKA-projekter med to

grupper af tilsvarende virksomheder, der enten slet ikke har deltaget i samarbejdsprojekter eller

har deltaget i andre samarbejdsprojekter.

Analysen viser, at:

• EUREKA-projektdeltagere tre år efter deltagelsen i EUREKA-projekter har øget deres

eksportrate med 13 procentpoint i forhold til de to kontrolgrupper.

• EUREKA-deltagere øgede vækstraten for beskæftigelse med mindst 4-5 procentpoint.

Beskæftigelseseffekten er tydelig allerede fra det første år efter projektet er afsluttet og er

stigende i de efterfølgende år i forhold til begge kontrolgrupper.

• EUREKA-deltagere fordoblede deres omsætning sammenlignet med virksomheder, der ikke

har deltaget i nationale og internationale forsknings- og innovationsprogrammer.

• EUREKA-deltagere øgede vækstraten i arbejdsproduktivitet med 11-12 procentpoint i forhold til

lignende virksomheder, der ikke har deltaget i samarbejdsprojekter.

12/2011

13/2011

14/2011

15/2011

16/2011

”Både store og mindre virksomheders konkurrenceevne styrkes markant, når de samarbejder

internationalt. Det viser, at det er vigtigt at satse på forskellige innovationsprogrammer, så vi

appellerer til alle slags virksomheder”, siger Charlotte Sahl-Madsen.

OM DANSK DELTAGELSE I EUREKA

Danmark var blandt stifterne af EUREKA i 1985. Frem til år 2000 havde Danmark et specifikt

EUREKA-tilskudsprogram. Siden 2001 har danske ansøgere i stedet kunne benytte sig af andre

tilskudsprogrammer til EUREKA-projekter. I perioden 1985-2010 har danske virksomheder

deltaget i 185 EUREKA-projekter, heraf fem i såkaldte Cluster-projekter. I 2008 startede et nyt

EUREKA-program, Eurostars. Siden da er der givet tilskud til dansk deltagelse i 33 Eurostars-

projekter

17/2011

18/2011

19/2011

20/2011