Ref. Ares(2017)1216894 - 08/03/2017
Ideas for a European
Innovation
Council
Overview of Responses
to the Call for Ideas
Research and
Innovation
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate B – Open Innovation and Open Science
Unit B.1 — Open Innovation
Contact: Petra Sarapatkova
Koen de Pater
E-mail: xxxxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Ideas for a
European Innovation Council
Overview of Responses to the Call for Ideas
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
2016
Open Innovation
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which
might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the European Commission.
More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
Print
ISBN 978-92-79-59928-6
doi:10.2777/06091
KI-02-16-637-EN-C
PDF
ISBN 978-92-79-59750-3
doi:10.2777/068191
KI-02-16-637-EN-N
© European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Cover page : © denisismagilov, #90712119, 2016. Source: Fotolia.com
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 5
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 6
2. RESPONDENTS' PROFILE .................................................................. 6
3. THE ROLE OF DISRUPTIVE MARKET CREATING INNOVATION IN
EUROPE'S ECONOMY ....................................................................... 8
4. GAPS AND SHORTCOMINGS IN CURRENT EU SUPPORT ........................ 9
5. MAIN FUNCTIONS OF AN EIC .......................................................... 11
6. OTHER POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF AN EIC ......................................... 15
7. CONCERNS ................................................................................... 15
8. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 16
ANNEX 1: LIST OF PUBLISHED POSITION PAPERS ................................... 17
ANNEX 2: POSSIBLE OTHER FUNCTIONS OF AN EIC ................................ 19
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The European Commission ran a call for ideas between 16th February and 29th April 2016
to gather stakeholders' views on disruptive, market-creating innovation, on gaps in the
current innovation support landscape and on the potential remit of a European Innovation
Council (EIC). A total of 1022 replies and 183 supporting documents and position papers
were received.
40% of the respondents were affiliated with research organisations, 35% with businesses
(predominantly SMEs but also several large companies), 11% with public bodies
(innovation agencies, regional representations and governmental departments), 4% with
representative organisations, 2% were financiers and 2% were private citizens.
Respondents came from over 46 countries, with the majority from southern and western
EU Member States. There was at least one contribution from each of the 28 Member
States.
Over 80% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a lack of disruptive market
creating innovation is an obstacle to growth and job creation in Europe. There was no
significant difference between stakeholder groups. Approximately 18% disagreed or
strongly disagreed.
Over 75% agreed or strongly agreed that there are gaps in current EU support for
innovation, 20% strongly disagreed or disagreed. Typically respondents argued that it
remains difficult for SMEs to take advantage of the support offered due to the complexity
and length of the application process.
Respondents were asked which issues a potential EIC could address. 'Filling in gaps' had
the highest count, closely followed by 'simplification of access' and 'strategic advice'.
A large number of respondents argued that there is a need for further simplification of
application rules, reduction of administrative requirements and improvement in the
navigation among the various support options. A number of respondents argued that call
themes should not be pre-defined.
In order to fill the gaps in EU support, many stakeholders called for dedicated calls for
disruptive technologies and improved access to risk financing. A suggestion to establish an
'EU-wide venture capital fund' was mentioned several times, as well as the idea of
combining grants and loans. Respondents also argued for the need to strengthen links
between national and EU programmes.
The opinions on what kind of strategic advice should be provided by the EIC were varied. A
common view across all stakeholder categories was that a potential EIC could provide
strategic advice to the EU and national governments in order to create an EU-wide
innovation-friendly ecosystem.
Frequent suggestions for other services an EIC could provide included: regulatory reform,
mentoring and coaching, incubation of new ideas, formulation of a long-term innovation
strategy, brokerage and networking, introduction of new financing instruments, promotion
of an innovation culture including risk-taking, promotion of inclusion and diversity,
marketing of EU innovation and international outreach and enhancing cooperation between
the research and private sector community.
The European Commission will take this input into account in its upcoming policy
development. First reforms could be implemented in the Horizon 2020 Work Programmes
for 2018-2020, in order to maximise the impact of the innovation activities funded in this
period. Other elements will be considered in the preparation of the next Framework
Programme.
6
1. INTRODUCTION
A call for ideas was launched to gather stakeholders' views on disruptive, market-
creating innovation, on gaps in the current innovation support landscape and on the
potential remit of a possible European Innovation Council (EIC). The consultation
ran between 16th February and 29th April 2016. A total of 1022 replies and 183
supporting documents and position papers were received.
The discussions on a possible EIC are still at an early stage and the legal nature,
structure, membership, competences and functions have not yet been defined. Any
references to its "remit" only reflect the answers given by stakeholders who
participated in this consultation exercise and will not necessarily translate into any
specific policy actions taken by the European Commission.
2. RESPONDENTS' PROFILE
The vast majority of the stakeholders who took part in the online survey come from
the business and the research sectors – together these two stakeholder groups
account for 75% of the total. 40% of the respondents represent, or are affiliated
with, research organisations (i.e. universities, research institutes, foundations and
thinks-tanks), 35% with businesses (predominantly SMEs but also several large
companies), 11% with public bodies (innovation agencies, regional representations
and governmental departments), 4% with representative organisations gathering
either business or research stakeholders and 2% were financiers. Approximately
2% of respondents were private citizens.
Figure 1: What is your main field of activity? (total: 1022)
183 respondents uploaded a document in the survey or submitted a standalone
position paper. 47% of these documents came from the research community
(individual universities, research institutes and their groups), 15% from businesses,
14% from public national and EU bodies, 9% from representative organisations, 3%
from public and private finance stakeholders and 11% from respondents who
registered as 'other' or 'individual'.
7
8
These contributions are published at:
3. THE ROLE OF DISRUPTIVE MARKET CREATING INNOVATION IN
https://ec.europa.eu/research/eic/index.cfm?pg=your-ideas, with the exception of
EUROPE'S ECONOMY
documents which were duplicates or deemed not to bear any relevance to the
questions asked.
3.1. Vast majority of respondents believe that disruptive innovation is
important for growth and job creation…
Over 80% of the respondents either agreed or
"Europe must get over its
fear of disruption, fear of
strongly agreed that a lack of disruptive market
failure, avoidance of
creating innovation is an obstacle to growth and
entrepreneurial risk-taking.
job creation in Europe. There is no significant
It needs to support a lot
difference between stakeholder groups on this
more experiments…"
particular issue – the research community
appeared to be similarly concerned about this
SME, Netherlands
issue as the business community.
More than 35% of the respondents provided
"There are great
additional comments to substantiate their answer. A
innovative companies that
large number of those stakeholders who agreed that
have started up, but now
the lack of disruptive innovation is an issue have
need to scale up to
alluded to a 'risk-averse' culture in Europe and to
actually be able to make a
weak links between academia and the private sector.
(disruptive) difference.
Figure 2: Submitted documents by stakeholder category (total: 183)
Not just startups, but also
The latter comment was particularly prominent
The geographical coverage was diverse1, with respondents coming from over 46
the scale-ups need to be
among research stakeholders. Respondents
supported."
countries and at least one respondent from each EU Member State. The top 10
frequently commented that there is a wealth of good
countries account for 74% of the respondents. Contributors were more likely to
ideas, skilled workforce and many hopeful start-ups
Financier, France
come from western and southern Europe than from eastern Europe.
but companies struggle to scale up.
3.2. … but many argue that it is not the whole story.
A minority of respondents,
"We should, however, move cautiously and not
compare or prefer disruptive innovation to
approximately 18%,
incremental innovation. The latter can be a
disagreed or strongly
powerful source of differentiation for a business.
disagreed with the notion
In Europe, many traditional industries still hold
that a lack of disruptive
large reservoirs of incremental innovation."
innovation in Europe is an
obstacle to job creation and
Business association, Belgium
economic growth.
Those who disagreed often
argued in the comments section that other barriers are more important for
economic growth and job creation – for instance, austerity, the economic crisis,
lack of collaboration, lack of bold
"There is a lot of talk of disruptive innovation
leadership, language barriers or
but very little follow through. There needs to
inadequate policy. A number of
be consideration how disruptive innovation
Figure 3: Respondents to the EIC call for ideas per country (top 10 countries only)
stakeholders pointed out that
can be encouraged and supported by the
support for incremental
European Commission through financial
incentives, risk sharing and other available
innovation (improving existing
technologies and business
mechanisms."
1 Information about the respondent's country of origin was not requested in the call for ideas. It was estimated on the
models) is equally important.
Public sector, UK
basis of email extensions and addresses of organisations.
Several respondents made the
8
3. THE ROLE OF DISRUPTIVE MARKET CREATING INNOVATION IN
EUROPE'S ECONOMY
3.1. Vast majority of respondents believe that disruptive innovation is
important for growth and job creation…
Over 80% of the respondents either agreed or
"Europe must get over its
fear of disruption, fear of
strongly agreed that a lack of disruptive market
failure, avoidance of
creating innovation is an obstacle to growth and
entrepreneurial risk-taking.
job creation in Europe. There is no significant
It needs to support a lot
difference between stakeholder groups on this
more experiments…"
particular issue – the research community
appeared to be similarly concerned about this
SME, Netherlands
issue as the business community.
More than 35% of the respondents provided
"There are great
additional comments to substantiate their answer. A
innovative companies that
large number of those stakeholders who agreed that
have started up, but now
the lack of disruptive innovation is an issue have
need to scale up to
alluded to a 'risk-averse' culture in Europe and to
actually be able to make a
weak links between academia and the private sector.
(disruptive) difference.
Not just startups, but also
The latter comment was particularly prominent
the scale-ups need to be
among research stakeholders. Respondents
supported."
frequently commented that there is a wealth of good
ideas, skilled workforce and many hopeful start-ups
Financier, France
but companies struggle to scale up.
3.2. … but many argue that it is not the whole story.
A minority of respondents,
"We should, however, move cautiously and not
compare or prefer disruptive innovation to
approximately 18%,
incremental innovation. The latter can be a
disagreed or strongly
powerful source of differentiation for a business.
disagreed with the notion
In Europe, many traditional industries still hold
that a lack of disruptive
large reservoirs of incremental innovation."
innovation in Europe is an
obstacle to job creation and
Business association, Belgium
economic growth.
Those who disagreed often
argued in the comments section that other barriers are more important for
economic growth and job creation – for instance, austerity, the economic crisis,
lack of collaboration, lack of bold
"There is a lot of talk of disruptive innovation
leadership, language barriers or
but very little follow through. There needs to
inadequate policy. A number of
be consideration how disruptive innovation
stakeholders pointed out that
can be encouraged and supported by the
support for incremental
European Commission through financial
innovation (improving existing
incentives, risk sharing and other available
technologies and business
mechanisms."
models) is equally important.
Public sector, UK
Several respondents made the
9
point that certain innovative
"Innovation as a solution to create jobs is
products and services can, in fact,
not obvious at all. Basically innovation is
have a negative impact on job
dedicated to make our life better and
creation even if they do generate
therefore creates growth (and wealth) but
economic value. A few respondents
creating jobs is another more complicated
topic strongly depending on the competition
argued that the focus on innovation
context. Innovation can also destroy jobs by
is too narrow, and that innovation is
replacing persons by robots for instance."
not the only source of economic
growth and jobs. A small number of
Research organisation, Italy
respondents said there should be
more focus on sustainability.
Figure 4: Do you agree that a lack of disruptive, market-creating innovation is an obstacle
to job creation and economic growth in Europe?
4. GAPS AND SHORTCOMINGS IN CURRENT EU SUPPORT
Over 75% of all stakeholders who took part in the survey strongly agreed or agreed
that there are gaps in current EU support for innovation, 20% strongly disagreed or
disagreed and 5% said they do not know. The views were, again, relatively
consistent across all stakeholder groups.
10
Figure 5: Do you agree that there are gaps in current EU support (e.g. Horizon 2020,
European Structural and Investment Funds) for disruptive, market-creating innovation and
for scaling up of new businesses?
When asked to elaborate on their
"I don't see the H2020 support for the third
response, several stakeholders
phase which can be extremely critical - the
made general statements about
scale up and market development once the
the need to bridge the 'valleys of
idea became a product (it might be that my
information is not sufficient). Supporting this
death' in the research and
phase might be also a zero-cost operation
innovation process. A few
providing loan to companies for the scale up
stakeholders pointed to a lack of
rather than funding."
venture capital to fuel the
growth of scale-ups, gaps in
Business, Hungary
geographical coverage or in
particular sectors and fields
(drug discovery, biomedical sciences, multidisciplinary disciplines, innovation
infrastructures). A few respondents stated that the main gap is in the budgetary
resources available, which makes success rates,
particularly for the SME and the FET Open
"EU money is much too
instruments, very low. Limited availability of
slow to get and needs too
smaller grants for small companies was also
much experience for
mentioned several times.
applying to be any help to
disruptive breakthroughs."
However, most of the comments pointed to
perceived deficiencies in the current EU level
Public sector, Finland
support rather than to actual gaps.
" Horizon 2020 seems too fixated on
Typically respondents argued that it
scientific excellence. Would a
remains difficult for SMEs to take
Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn have gotten
advantage of the support offered due
Horizon 2020 support? Would Ryanair,
now among the largest European
to the complexity and length of the
airlines?
application process. Despite recent
improvements, respondents across all
Private sector, UK
stakeholder categories continue to
call for further simplification and
11
12
acceleration of the application process, and improvements in the evaluation
process.
740
679
Respondents also called for more freedom
"Share examples and best
600
and flexibility. Thematic calls were often
practices better; promote
perceived as too restrictive and leading to
openness, foster bottom-up,
missed business opportunities; many
citizen-oriented and -driven
activities. Support only
respondents explicitly advocated 'bottom-
newcomers, not those who've
up' open calls. A number of respondents
been funded for years already."
called for more flexible eligibility criteria that
would allow individuals or single
Public body, Belgium
organisations to apply, arguing that EU-
153
added value should be sought at the
programme rather than at the project level. Horizon 2020 was also perceived to be
overly focused on academic excellence by a few stakeholders. Suggestions for
30
improvements in the evaluation procedures included, for instance, appointing
accomplished innovators as evaluators. Another suggestion that was mentioned
Fil in gaps
Simplify access
Strategic advice
Other
Don't know
was that all innovation support should be more joined up and awarded in a phased
Figure 6: What issues could a potential EIC address?
manner, with easy access to initial funding but further funding granted only if
promising results were achieved.
Looking further at the combinations respondents preferred, 43% indicated that the
EIC should have all three functions, 17% that it should simplify access and fill gaps,
A few respondents argued that Horizon 2020 is too heavily geared towards larger,
11% that it should fill gaps and 7% indicated that it should only provide advice.
more mature companies and established universities and research organisations.
There are no significant differences among stakeholder groups in their views on this
Several respondents noted that innovation instruments under Horizon 2020 do not
issue.
sufficiently reflect the specificities of the innovation process, for instance that
academic excellence is not essential. An overall lack of coordination and overlaps
5.1 How to simplify access
between individual innovation instruments were also a frequently voiced criticisms.
Respondents were also asked to comment
Very frequent were comments about
"Simplify rules and regulations,
on how such functions could be
the entire landscape of EU innovation
"There could always be fewer gaps. But I
simplify documentation/paperwork.
implemented. With regards to
If we have to spend more time on
support being too difficult to
think the main problem is accessing and
simplification of access to support, many
paperwork than on
navigate. Several respondents
knowing about the help that already
respondents argued, in general terms, that
exists."
projects/business then something
explicitly stated that more important
support mechanisms must be adapted to
is wrong with rules. USA or Asia
than the gaps in the funding offer is
University, UK
don't have those obstacles that is
the fast-moving market place. The
the difficulty of finding the right
why they have Amazon, Google,
majority of respondents stated that there
products.
Facebook, Alibaba etc. and Europe
is a need for further simplification of
doesn't."
application rules and administrative
requirements, and acceleration of the time
Entrepreneur, Croatia
to grant. Some argued that single
5. MAIN FUNCTIONS OF A POTENTIAL EUROPEAN INNOVATION COUNCIL
applicants should be eligible that the
Respondents were asked which issues a potential EIC could address in order to
European value need not lie in each
".. apply a more private sector
inform future discussions about the about its possible structure. Five options were
individual project, but in the programme
approach to the way in which ideas
given: 'bring together and simplify access to current EU innovation support', 'fill in
as a whole. Several respondents pointed
are accessed, assessed, and
gaps in current EU innovation support', 'provide strategic advice to improve the
out that the overall offer of instruments it
evaluated. To achieve this means
the Council should seek to attract
innovation environment', 'other' and 'do not know'. Respondents could select all
too complex and disjointed and that
more talent from the private sector
that apply and also provide additional comments.
some instruments should be merged to
avoid overlap. In this context the
that has experience with structuring
and channelling such support."
'Filling in gaps' had the highest count, closely followed by 'simplification of access'
instruments that respondents referred to
and 'strategic advice'.
included the SME instrument, Fast Track
Business association, UK
to Innovation, FET Open, inducement
12
740
679
600
153
30
Fil in gaps
Simplify access
Strategic advice
Other
Don't know
Figure 6: What issues could a potential EIC address?
Looking further at the combinations respondents preferred, 43% indicated that the
EIC should have all three functions, 17% that it should simplify access and fill gaps,
11% that it should fill gaps and 7% indicated that it should only provide advice.
There are no significant differences among stakeholder groups in their views on this
issue.
5.1 How to simplify access
Respondents were also asked to comment
"Simplify rules and regulations,
on how such functions could be
simplify documentation/paperwork.
implemented. With regards to
If we have to spend more time on
simplification of access to support, many
paperwork than on
respondents argued, in general terms, that
projects/business then something
support mechanisms must be adapted to
is wrong with rules. USA or Asia
don't have those obstacles that is
the fast-moving market place. The
why they have Amazon, Google,
majority of respondents stated that there
Facebook, Alibaba etc. and Europe
is a need for further simplification of
doesn't."
application rules and administrative
requirements, and acceleration of the time
Entrepreneur, Croatia
to grant. Some argued that single
applicants should be eligible that the
European value need not lie in each
".. apply a more private sector
individual project, but in the programme
approach to the way in which ideas
as a whole. Several respondents pointed
are accessed, assessed, and
out that the overall offer of instruments it
evaluated. To achieve this means
too complex and disjointed and that
the Council should seek to attract
some instruments should be merged to
more talent from the private sector
avoid overlap. In this context the
that has experience with structuring
and channelling such support."
instruments that respondents referred to
included the SME instrument, Fast Track
Business association, UK
to Innovation, FET Open, inducement
13
14
prizes, innovation procurement, EIT activities, ERC Proof of Concept, as well as
from grants to loans and venture capital".
Eurostars and the InnovFin financial schemes.
"Having worked both on DARPA-
A few stakeholders suggested that funded
funded projects in the US, and EU-
companies that were successful should be
A large number of respondents
funded projects in Belgium, I can
eligible for follow-up funding.
attest that the former are much
suggested that improvements are
"By bringing together the information
more conducive to real innovation
particularly needed in the way
on current instruments supporting
and risk-taking. Some
A number of respondents argued that to fill
information about the support available
innovation under a single platform, in
first instance. Then to critically screen
suggestions: more freedom up-
gaps, existing instruments should be
is communicated and that the user
the success of the current instruments
front, funding based on track
amended in some way. The SME
interface must be substantially
in promoting disruptive innovation."
record, competitive evaluations."
instrument was mentioned in several
improved to enable innovators to
respondents' replies. It was noted that the
Business, Belgium
navigate to the most appropriate option
Research institute, Romania
fact that the European Investment Fund
quickly and efficiently. Many suggested
operates through intermediaries, is
that there should be a single point of access, where information is presented in
problematic in some countries, where the commercial banking sector is weaker or
'entrepreneurs' language' and visitors are sent directly to the appropriate
more risk averse. Other suggestions were that funding should be allocated to
instrument based on their needs and/or profile. A number of stakeholders called for
individuals and that it should not be restricted by thematic calls. Other suggestions
more hands-on assistance including a helpdesk, webinars etc.
for filling in gaps included: enabling citizen-driven innovation, greater focus on non-
technological innovation, provision of data and monitoring, interviews as a means
Several respondents argued that in order to simplify access, innovation support
of evaluating projects, small grants for a larger number of players, dedicated
programmes should not have pre-defined themes and that applicants should be
support for SMEs to guide them through the application process, one-stop-shop or
solely judged on the quality of their proposals. Permanently open calls with rolling
single point of access to information, best-practice exchange, mentoring, training
deadlines were suggested by a number of respondents.
and management support.
5.2 How to fill in gaps
In this section respondents also frequently argued for the need to strengthen links
across all relevant bodies: between national and EU programmes, between the
In order to fill the gaps, many
industry and academia and between national innovation centres and
"[Provide] personalized grants for
stakeholders called for dedicated calls or
infrastructures, and between innovative SMEs. Some argued that an EIC should
R&D regarding disruptive
earmarked budget for disruptive
innovations or respective grants for
support innovation or company incubation in universities and other research
innovation and improved access to risk
single organizations (cf. ERC-
infrastructures. A number of respondents warned against establishing an initiative
financing for scale-ups. A suggestion to
grants).
that would try to address everything and instead recommended narrowing the
establish an 'EU-wide venture capital
scope.
Research institute, Germany
fund' was mentioned several times. Some
suggested that the European Research
5.3 What kind of strategic advice
Council should cover projects with lower
Technology Readiness Levels (1-3) and the European Investment Bank and
The opinions on what kind of strategic
European Investment Fund the higher levels (7 and higher), with the EIC focusing
advice should be provided by a possible
"EIC could have a policy
on projects in between. Several contributors called for inducement prizes that can
EIC were varied. The majority view
development and advising role by
formulating a Disruptive Innovation
attract outside innovators and public procurement of innovative solutions.
across all stakeholder categories was
Action Plan. EIC could give a new
that an EIC could provide strategic
definition of innovation for Europe, a
Several contributors offered ideas for new
advice to the EU and national
new vision on where Europe expects
instruments such as crowd-funding platforms
"I think many startups are
governments in order to create an EU-
to be in the next 20-30 years …"
where public and private funding are matched,
not aware of the support
wide innovation-friendly regulatory
special support for cross-border risk-capital
the EU provides. Just
Research sector, Czech Republic
investment, 'soft' loans', 'personalised grants',
getting the word out there
"[Policy-makers and innovators] still
framework. Others argued that the
grants convertible to loans or grants with royalty,
would bring huge value to
do not understand one another well;
many startups."
advice function should have a wider
grants convertible to equity or an 'accelerator'
they speak different languages and
scope and also be targeted at regional
programme. A significant number of stakeholders
inhabit different universe. The
Private company,
European Innovation Council could
and local authorities or even financial
across all stakeholder categories emphasised that
Netherlands
serve as translation."
institutions, industry clusters, young
the offer of support should be more joined up,
entrepreneurs, start-up incubators and
allowing for companies to find suitable support as they progress through the
Business, Netherlands
trade unions.
innovation cycle. In the words of one respondent, there should be "a seamless path
14
from grants to loans and venture capital".
"Having worked both on DARPA-
A few stakeholders suggested that funded
funded projects in the US, and EU-
companies that were successful should be
funded projects in Belgium, I can
eligible for follow-up funding.
attest that the former are much
more conducive to real innovation
and risk-taking. Some
A number of respondents argued that to fill
suggestions: more freedom up-
gaps, existing instruments should be
front, funding based on track
amended in some way. The SME
record, competitive evaluations."
instrument was mentioned in several
respondents' replies. It was noted that the
Business, Belgium
fact that the European Investment Fund
operates through intermediaries, is
problematic in some countries, where the commercial banking sector is weaker or
more risk averse. Other suggestions were that funding should be allocated to
individuals and that it should not be restricted by thematic calls. Other suggestions
for filling in gaps included: enabling citizen-driven innovation, greater focus on non-
technological innovation, provision of data and monitoring, interviews as a means
of evaluating projects, small grants for a larger number of players, dedicated
support for SMEs to guide them through the application process, one-stop-shop or
single point of access to information, best-practice exchange, mentoring, training
and management support.
In this section respondents also frequently argued for the need to strengthen links
across all relevant bodies: between national and EU programmes, between the
industry and academia and between national innovation centres and
infrastructures, and between innovative SMEs. Some argued that an EIC should
support innovation or company incubation in universities and other research
infrastructures. A number of respondents warned against establishing an initiative
that would try to address everything and instead recommended narrowing the
scope.
5.3 What kind of strategic advice
The opinions on what kind of strategic
advice should be provided by a possible
"EIC could have a policy
EIC were varied. The majority view
development and advising role by
formulating a Disruptive Innovation
across all stakeholder categories was
Action Plan. EIC could give a new
that an EIC could provide strategic
definition of innovation for Europe, a
advice to the EU and national
new vision on where Europe expects
governments in order to create an EU-
to be in the next 20-30 years …"
wide innovation-friendly regulatory
Research sector, Czech Republic
"[Policy-makers and innovators] still
framework. Others argued that the
do not understand one another well;
advice function should have a wider
they speak different languages and
scope and also be targeted at regional
inhabit different universe. The
European Innovation Council could
and local authorities or even financial
serve as translation."
institutions, industry clusters, young
entrepreneurs, start-up incubators and
Business, Netherlands
trade unions.
15
16
A common view was that an EIC could, in fact,
respondents highlighted that incremental innovation is just as important as radical
have a dual focus – governments and institutions
"The EIC could help to
innovation and therefore that the EIC should not only focus on the latter.
on the one hand and innovators on the other.
identify “best practices” in
Some argued that the strategic role of an EIC
start-up and up-scale funding
/ support in the EU and
should also involve the formulation of a long-
promote or help
term innovation strategy for the EU, build
coordinate/multiply these
8. CONCLUSIONS
alliances between relevant institutions and
best practice approaches."
The majority of respondents to the call for ideas across all stakeholder categories
become the 'voice of innovators' in the EU,
were concerned about the lack of disruptive, market creating innovation in Europe.
advocating for innovation and its importance for
Business, Germany
Overall, the respondents were positive about the European Innovation Council idea
economic growth and highlighting best practices.
although some voiced concerns, especially regarding the possibility of increased
A smaller number of respondents argued that this function should focus on
complexity and less resources being available for basic research. Respondents
distributing the funding available, and making sure that proposals for disruptive,
called for a European Innovation Council that would bring together the various
market creating innovation are prioritised.
elements of EU innovation support, provide clear signposting and make the entire
process of applying for funding administratively leaner and more agile. Respondents
also emphasised the need for strategic advice, for example to improve regulation,
policy frameworks and practices, and to serve as the voice of innovators in Europe.
6. OTHER POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF A EUROPEAN INNOVATION COUNCIL
Many suggested that a potential European Innovation Council could go beyond the
suggested three main functions and also support other services for innovators such
Suggestions for other services a potential EIC could provide included: advice on
as brokerage, networking and mentoring.
regulatory reform, mentoring and coaching, incubation of new ideas, formulation of
a long-term innovation strategy, brokerage and networking, introduction of new
The European Commission will use this input in its upcoming policy development
financing instruments, promotion of an innovation culture including risk-taking,
work on innovation. The dialogue with stakeholders will continue in order to obtain
promotion of inclusion and diversity,
deeper insight into some of the issues raised. Collectively, all these inputs will also
Networking. Create co-working spaces.
marketing of EU innovation and
be used to take forward improvements within the second half of the existing
Create a web/network for innovation
international outreach and enhancing
Horizon 2020 programme in order to further simplify and maximise the impact of
and publication of ideas. Simplify the
cooperation between the research and
the programme. Other elements will be considered in the preparation of the next
demand of patents.
private sector community. A summary
Framework Programme.
table of truncated suggestions grouped
Business, Italy
by category of stakeholder and theme
is included in Annex 2.
7. POTENTIAL CONCERNS
Overall the EIC idea was widely supported by respondents across all stakeholder
groups. In addition, a number of concerns were raised, notably the possibility that
an EIC could add another layer of complexity and bureaucracy to the funding
application process. Many national innovation funding agencies stressed that the
EIC should not overlap with but complement their work. Several organisations
argued that EIC should not be a new 'brick
"Any future European Innovation
and mortar' institution. A second common
Council should work closely with
concern related to the EIC budget, in
current national innovation
particular research organisations and
agencies to avoid duplicating
research representative bodies argued that
existing activities by focusing on
EU-wide socio-economic
the EIC should not be funded with
challenge."
resources allocated to research, in
particular the budgets earmarked in the
Business, UK
Excellent Science and Societal Challenges
pillars under Horizon 2020. Lastly, several
16
respondents highlighted that incremental innovation is just as important as radical
innovation and therefore that the EIC should not only focus on the latter.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The majority of respondents to the call for ideas across all stakeholder categories
were concerned about the lack of disruptive, market creating innovation in Europe.
Overall, the respondents were positive about the European Innovation Council idea
although some voiced concerns, especially regarding the possibility of increased
complexity and less resources being available for basic research. Respondents
called for a European Innovation Council that would bring together the various
elements of EU innovation support, provide clear signposting and make the entire
process of applying for funding administratively leaner and more agile. Respondents
also emphasised the need for strategic advice, for example to improve regulation,
policy frameworks and practices, and to serve as the voice of innovators in Europe.
Many suggested that a potential European Innovation Council could go beyond the
suggested three main functions and also support other services for innovators such
as brokerage, networking and mentoring.
The European Commission will use this input in its upcoming policy development
work on innovation. The dialogue with stakeholders will continue in order to obtain
deeper insight into some of the issues raised. Collectively, all these inputs will also
be used to take forward improvements within the second half of the existing
Horizon 2020 programme in order to further simplify and maximise the impact of
the programme. Other elements will be considered in the preparation of the next
Framework Programme.
17
18
ANNEX 1: LIST OF PUBLISHED POSITION PAPERS
I3s - Institute for Research and
VDMA - German Industrial
Innovation in Health, Porto
Association
Aalborg University
East of England Europe and
Ibec - Irish Business Organisation
Vinnova - the Swedish
Aalto University
International Panel
Innovate UK
Governmental Agency for
Aarhus University
EBE - European Biopharmaceutical
Innovation Norway
Innovation Systems
ACARE - Advisory Council for
Enterprises
Ireland Dept of Jobs Enterprise
VRWI - Flemish Council for
Aviation Research and Innovation
ECIU - European Consortium of
and Innovation
Science and Innovation
in Europe
Innovative Universities
Irish Research Council
Wetsus - European Centre of
ACI - French Association of
eFIP - European Forum for
KEPA - Business and Cultural
Excellence for Sustainable Water
Innovation Consultancies
Innovation Policies
Development Centre, Greece
Technology
AFPC - French Competitiveness
EFPIA - European Federation of
KTH - Royal Institute of
White Rose Brussels - Leeds,
Clusters Alliance
Pharmaceutical Industries and
Technology, Sweden
Sheffield and York Universities
AHSNS - Academic Health Science
Associations
KTN - the Knowledge Transfer
Networks
EI - Enterprise Ireland
Network UK
AIRTO - Association of Innovation,
EIB
LDS Venture Capital
Research and Technology
EIDD - Design for All
Leibniz
Organisations, UK
EIROforum
LERU - League of European
Aix-Marseille University
EIT
Research Universities
Alliance for Biomedical Research in
EIT KIC InnoEnergy
Manuel Heitor - Minister for
Europe
ENoLL - European Network of
Science, Technology and Higher
APRE, Italy
Living Labs
Education, Government of
Association of European
EPS - European Physical Society
Portugal
Renewable Energy Research
EREA - European Research
Mov’Eo - Mobility and Automotive
Centres
Establishments in Aeronautics
R&D Competitiveness Cluster
ASTER - Innovation Agency of
ERRIN - European Regions
Nesta
Emilia-Romagna
Research and Innovation Network
Norwegian University of Science
ATTRACT - Innovation Consortium
ESTEP - European Technology
and Technology
Bayer
Platform for Steel
NSAI - Innovation Management
BDI - Federation of German
Estonia - Ministry of Education and
Standard Committee of Ireland
Industries
Research, Ministry of Economic
Patents Factory Poland
Bpifrance (EN)
Affairs and Communications,
Philips
Bpifrance (FR)
Estonian Research Council
RCN - Research Council Norway
Bruno Kessler Foundation, Trento
ETH Zurich
RCUK - Research Councils UK
Business Angels Europe
EU-Life - Research Centres
Science Europe
Business Europe
EUA - European University
Sciencebusiness
Catalan Government
Association
Silicon Europe
CDTI - Center for Industrial and
EUCAR
Sisvel Technology
Technological Development, Spain
Eupportunity Consultancy
Sonae - Portugese Retail Company
Cefic - European Chemical
EUREKA
Sothic Bioscience Ltd
Industry Council
Euroalliages - European
Swiss Innovation Promotion
CEN and CENELEC
Association of Ferro-Alloys and
Agency and the State Secretariat
CERCA - Research Centres
Silicon Producers
for Education, Research and
Catalonia
Eurocadres - the Council of
Innovation
CESAER, Eurotech, Cluster, IDEA,
European Professional and
Technology Agency of the Czech
Nordic Five, 50 Universities
Managerial Staff
Republic
CNR - National Research Council
FFG - Austrian Research
Tekes - Finnish Innovation Agency
of Italy
Promotion Agency
Tyndall Institute Ireland
Coventry University
Five Finnish Universities
UAS4EUROPE - Universities of
Design Council UK
Flemish Department of Economy,
Applied Sciences 4 Europe
DLR - German Aeronautics and
Science & Innovation and Partners
UK Royal Academy of Engineering
Space Research Centre
Formas - Swedish Research
ULB - Université Libre de Bruxelles
Druid Collective - Initiative of the
Council for Sustainable
Università Cattolica del Sacro
Global Young Leaders
Development
Cuore
EARTO - European Association of
Fraunhofer
University of Copenhagen
Research and Technology
Fraunhofer - Presentation
University of Strathclyde
Organisations
Giuri Research Group, Italy
Vanguard Initiative
Helmholtz Association
18
I3s - Institute for Research and
VDMA - German Industrial
Innovation in Health, Porto
Association
Ibec - Irish Business Organisation
Vinnova - the Swedish
Innovate UK
Governmental Agency for
Innovation Norway
Innovation Systems
Ireland Dept of Jobs Enterprise
VRWI - Flemish Council for
and Innovation
Science and Innovation
Irish Research Council
Wetsus - European Centre of
KEPA - Business and Cultural
Excellence for Sustainable Water
Development Centre, Greece
Technology
KTH - Royal Institute of
White Rose Brussels - Leeds,
Technology, Sweden
Sheffield and York Universities
KTN - the Knowledge Transfer
Network UK
LDS Venture Capital
Leibniz
LERU - League of European
Research Universities
Manuel Heitor - Minister for
Science, Technology and Higher
Education, Government of
Portugal
Mov’Eo - Mobility and Automotive
R&D Competitiveness Cluster
Nesta
Norwegian University of Science
and Technology
NSAI - Innovation Management
Standard Committee of Ireland
Patents Factory Poland
Philips
RCN - Research Council Norway
RCUK - Research Councils UK
Science Europe
Sciencebusiness
Silicon Europe
Sisvel Technology
Sonae - Portugese Retail Company
Sothic Bioscience Ltd
Swiss Innovation Promotion
Agency and the State Secretariat
for Education, Research and
Innovation
Technology Agency of the Czech
Republic
Tekes - Finnish Innovation Agency
Tyndall Institute Ireland
UAS4EUROPE - Universities of
Applied Sciences 4 Europe
UK Royal Academy of Engineering
ULB - Université Libre de Bruxelles
Università Cattolica del Sacro
Cuore
University of Copenhagen
University of Strathclyde
Vanguard Initiative
19
20
ANNEX 2: POSSIBLE OTHER FUNCTIONS OF AN EIC – SUMMARY OF
education, vision/strategy, global
SUGGESTIONS GROUPED BY STAKEHOLDER CATEGORY AND THEME
outreach, support outcome-driven
research, reward excellence and impact on
Stakeholder
Number of
Themes
Suggestions (frequency in brackets)
market, foster innovation in education,
group
contributions
encourage holistic approach to innovation
Private sector 55
Regulation
Remove regulatory barriers/harmonise law
Funding and
More support for small companies and
(6x), simplify patenting, simplify EU tax
funding
projects, more investment, support
(including
law, tax breaks for SMEs
reform
international consortia, strategic
financiers and
planning/definition of calls, get rid of calls,
trade
coordination and integration of existing
associations)
entities and instruments, integrate
Networking
Networking/brokerage
innovation policy and funding, divert
and
events/matchmaking/co-working spaces
funding towards high potential ventures
mentoring
(9x), mentoring (2x), assist business
development
Miscellaneous Act as a link between the Commission, EIB
and ECB, central innovation hub, bridge
between national funding programmes,
create innovation hub/parks across
Europe, support hotspots, innovation
helpdesk, advise on innovation centres
across European Commission
Public sector
11
Regulation
Policy reform (2x)
Approach and Promote user/citizen/employee innovation
culture
(3x), vision/strategy, promote creativity,
Funding
Venture capital
take into account differences among
countries, a less risk-averse funding
Miscellaneous Security issues, cultivating talent,
approach/enable funding without track
retraining of workforce, multi-actor
record (2x), foster innovation culture,
innovation projects, link innovation hubs,
encourage diversity, focus on 'valley of
bring together good examples, one-stop-
death', focus on 'man on the moon'
shop
projects, focus on high-risk ventures,
invest in 'crazy' ideas
Other
12
Funding and
Make grant mechanism more flexibile,
Funding and
More funding (3x), better venture capital
funding
align all existing instruments and monitor
funding
strategy (2x), incentives for banks to take
reform
their performance
reform
on more risk (2x), improve evaluation
(4x), in-person presentations/pitching
(2x), remove thematic restrictions for
funding (2x), reform existing initiatives,
innovative funding, promote and monitor
crowdfunding and alternative finance
Miscellaneous Promotion of innovation in education from
a young age, pan-European incubator,
better impact monitoring to convince
taxpayers, appoint EU advisors for
international companies, avoid premature
Culture and
Promote diversity and inclusion, promote
evaluation
approach
EU innovation internationally
Research
52
Regulation
Regulatory reform (6x), champion the
Miscellaneous Permanently open doors to hear new
sector
innovation principle, IP law reform
ideas, reduce exodus of young
researchers, work closely with the ERC,
foster demand-driven innovation,
Approach and Safeguard sustainability, gender equality,
understand innovation in all EU member
culture
diversity and fairness (3x), foster a risk-
states
taking culture (3x), foster quality and
entrepreneurial spirit in education and
Total replies
136
research (2x), support social innovation
(2x), promote creativity including in
19
20
20
education, vision/strategy, global
outreach, support outcome-driven
research, reward excellence and impact on
market, foster innovation in education,
encourage holistic approach to innovation
Funding and
More support for small companies and
funding
projects, more investment, support
reform
international consortia, strategic
planning/definition of calls, get rid of calls,
coordination and integration of existing
entities and instruments, integrate
innovation policy and funding, divert
funding towards high potential ventures
Miscellaneous Act as a link between the Commission, EIB
and ECB, central innovation hub, bridge
between national funding programmes,
create innovation hub/parks across
Europe, support hotspots, innovation
helpdesk, advise on innovation centres
across European Commission
Public sector
11
Regulation
Policy reform (2x)
Funding
Venture capital
Miscellaneous Security issues, cultivating talent,
retraining of workforce, multi-actor
innovation projects, link innovation hubs,
bring together good examples, one-stop-
shop
Other
12
Funding and
Make grant mechanism more flexibile,
funding
align all existing instruments and monitor
reform
their performance
Culture and
Promote diversity and inclusion, promote
approach
EU innovation internationally
Miscellaneous Permanently open doors to hear new
ideas, reduce exodus of young
researchers, work closely with the ERC,
foster demand-driven innovation,
understand innovation in all EU member
states
Total replies
136
20
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps:
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
The European Commission ran a call for ideas between
16 February and 29 April 2016 to gather stakeholders’
views on disruptive, market-creating innovation, on gaps
in the current innovation support landscape and on the
potential remit of a European Innovation Council (EIC).
A total of 1022 replies and 183 supporting documents and
position papers were received. This report summarises the
outcomes of the consultation exercise.
Research and Innovation policy