Draft Report of the Expert Group on International STI Cooperation to ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Universities and PROs <strong>of</strong>ten are a source <strong>of</strong> breakthrough science and innovation. The role <strong>of</strong> universities and PROs in collaborative research is well described in <strong>the</strong> Responsible Partnering Handbook developed by EIRMA, PROTON and EUA. The Responsible Partnering framework provides ten, experience-based lessons to support successful collaborative research. These lessons or guidelines can be summarized as follows: • foster strong institutions • align interests <strong>of</strong> collaborating partners • treat collaboration strategically • organize for lasting collaborations • provide <strong>the</strong> right pr<strong>of</strong>essional skills • establish a clear intent for <strong>the</strong> collaborative work • use standard practices and communicate regularly • achieve effective management <strong>of</strong> intellectual property • provide relevant training • view innovation as a trans-disciplinary activity Over <strong>the</strong> last ten years, those ten principles have become <strong>the</strong> cornerstone <strong>of</strong> collaborative frameworks deployed across Europe by universities and PRO's alike. They serve as a useful basis for a policy to support <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> strategic alliences between research performing institutions outside Europe. The Commission should ensure greater awareness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se guidelines. MS and <strong>the</strong> EU have been relatively successful in promoting STI cooperation between universities and PROs. However, <strong>the</strong> success <strong>of</strong> R&D cooperation between firms is hard to judge a priori. Despite large investments to promote intra-EU R&D cooperation, in new technologies, firms continue to show a preference to engage in alliances with US and Japanese firms ra<strong>the</strong>r than EU firms (Narula 1999). In o<strong>the</strong>r words firms will not always benefit from cooperation activities sanctioned or supported by EU instruments, and indeed, <strong>the</strong>y may have a higher risk factor than promoting intra-EU collaboration. However, international R&D cooperation is not an alternative to intra-EU cooperation. It is an essential complement to it, and has been for <strong>the</strong> last 25 years. Research has shown that EU-subsidised R&D cooperation leads to an increase in non-EU cooperative activity. Horizontal and vertical dimensions It is important to distinguish between horizontal R&D cooperation and vertical R&D cooperation. Each has different primary motivations: Horizontal cooperation takes place among enterprises operating in <strong>the</strong> same industry, engaged in roughly <strong>the</strong> same kinds and types <strong>of</strong> value adding activity. The opportunities for economies <strong>of</strong> scale and scope are here maximized, but also provide <strong>the</strong> possibilities for conflict and leakage <strong>of</strong> intellectual property from one partner to <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. The cooperation between two biotechnology enterprises or between a human biotechnology enterprise and a pharmaceutical manufacturer would be considered a horizontal alliance. These are strategic 38
in nature, and in general occur between large firms and organisations that are leaders in <strong>the</strong>ir field. They are commonly used to establish standards, and may <strong>of</strong>ten be seen by regulators as anticompetitive, as <strong>the</strong>y involve some degree <strong>of</strong> collusion. They are also commonly preferred in research (ra<strong>the</strong>r than development). Vertical cooperation occurs among enterprises operating in related industries along <strong>the</strong> same value chain, where one partner produces inputs for <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. The latter may be a larger enterprise assembling or sub-assembling products from parts and components acquired from different suppliers, including SMEs. It may also be a small systems integrator close to markets and obtaining equipment from larger suppliers. Vertical collaborations are less problematic, as <strong>the</strong> partners possess complementary but not competing capabilities and opportunities. Their primary (but not <strong>the</strong> only) motivation is towards reducing costs. Vertical alliances are especially important within global production networks and global value chains, and are especially common for development (as opposed to research). Both types <strong>of</strong> STI cooperation depend upon having complementary assets with which to barter. International R&D strategies <strong>of</strong> MNEs In <strong>the</strong> current process <strong>of</strong> globalization, <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> MNEs needs to be well understood. As is more thoroughly discussed in a dedicated paper for <strong>the</strong> EG 13 some crude facts emerge as guides to policy: a) The main conclusion <strong>of</strong> early work was that <strong>the</strong> world’s largest R&D spending firms tend to locate a vast proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir innovative activities at home, close to <strong>the</strong> location <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir headquarters b) However, <strong>the</strong> increasing levels <strong>of</strong> knowledge creation <strong>of</strong> EU firms from foreign locations may result in a 'hollowing out' <strong>of</strong> national R&D. This is regarded as indicative <strong>of</strong> a weakening <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> national innovation system and an erosion <strong>of</strong> technological competitiveness. c) The quantitative growth in international R&D has been accompanied by a qualitative restructuring <strong>of</strong> international R&D towards networks <strong>of</strong> corporate-wide centres <strong>of</strong> excellence where MNEs are moving away from a ‘centralised hub’ to a multi-hub ‘integrated network’. d) There are three distinguishing features <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> drive towards increasing internationalization <strong>of</strong> R&D and technology creation: a. The first is <strong>the</strong> increasing level <strong>of</strong> green-field investments undertaken by large R&D spending companies; b. The second is <strong>the</strong> fact that such investments are now undertaken in an increasing number <strong>of</strong> countries, including fast developing economies such as India and China; c. The third feature highlighted is that such investments <strong>of</strong>ten go beyond local adaptation <strong>of</strong> nationally produced technology. 13 See Vandana Ujjual: Advances in <strong>the</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> International R&D Strategies <strong>of</strong> MNEs. Unpublished paper, SPRU, Brighton, UK. 39
Page 1 and 2: International Cooperation in Scienc
Page 3 and 4: EUROPEAN COMMISSION International C
Page 5 and 6: Table of contents
Page 7 and 8: Composition of <st
Page 9 and 10: List of abbreviati
Page 11 and 12: Executive summary Changes in <stron
Page 13 and 14: Research and innovation infrastruct
Page 15 and 16: allow strategic partnerships with a
Page 17 and 18: 5. Variable geometry should be expl
Page 19 and 20: ERA was discussed as part o
Page 21 and 22: • Enable EU and MS to tackle glob
Page 23 and 24: innovation policy needs to anticipa
Page 25 and 26: • Developing economies with stron
Page 27 and 28: • The general opening principle a
Page 29 and 30: third countries, while the<
Page 31 and 32: and Member States of</stron
Page 33 and 34: intrinsic objectives of</st
Page 35 and 36: Fig. 2: Measures and instruments fo
Page 37 and 38: and lead to a significantly more at
Page 39: Fig. 4 Long and medium term priorit
Page 43 and 44: egulations and values that make up
Page 45 and 46: Towards a strategic approach A stra
Page 47 and 48: Exploit variable geometry Objective
Page 49 and 50: third countries, typically with <st
Page 51 and 52: c) with a strong jointly accessible
Page 53 and 54: e) funded by the E
Page 55 and 56: The need for an evidence- and analy
Page 57 and 58: 1) Understanding the</stron
Page 59 and 60: Scientific collaboration: (priority
Page 61 and 62: • International acquisition <stro
Page 63 and 64: • a collaboration of</str
Page 65 and 66: • Information on national priorit
Page 67 and 68: Conclusions and key policy recommen
Page 69 and 70: educational level of</stron
Page 71 and 72: Kaiser L., Ganea P., Gibson J., and
Page 73 and 74: Annex 1: Mandate of</strong
Page 75 and 76: Consideration should include: - def
Page 77 and 78: Annex 2: Dimensions of</str
Page 79 and 80: Annex 3: Trends, Drivers and Impact
Page 81 and 82: however, is not so far justified by
Page 83 and 84: companies from different countries
Page 85 and 86: competitors are located in
Page 87 and 88: This engineering pattern is, howeve
Page 89 and 90: Researcher mobility schemes operati
Page 91:
SME are usually constricted due to
Page 95 and 96:
How to obtain EU publications Free
show all

Draft Report of the Expert Group on International STI Cooperation to ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?