UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT
Figure 9.4: BERD as a share of GDP in the EU, 2005 and 2013 (%)
Other economies are given for comparison
3.5
2005
2013
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Korea, Rep.
Japan
USA
Germany
China
France
EU–15
EU–28
UK
Canada
Italy
Spain
Poland
Source: OECD’s Main Science and Technology Indicators, July 2015
employ one-fifth of its research staff in the UK and complete
AstraZeneca’s planned £ 300 million hub in Cambridge,
Pfizer was forced to admit that research spending would be
cut in the combined company. Ultimately, AstraZeneca›s
board rejected Pfizer’s offer, concluding that it was
motivated by a desire for cost savings and tax minimization
in the USA rather than the optimization of drug delivery
(Roland, 2015).
The sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation by the
EU in 2014 may also have repercussions for EU companies
installed in the Russian Federation. Large European
multinationals such as Alstom, Ericsson, Nokia, Siemens and
SAP have all set up R&D centres in technoparks like Sistema-
Sarov, or are participating in the flagship Skolkovo research
facility (see Box 13.1).
Only a handful of innovation leaders
The EU’s innovation performance has been monitored since
2001 by the annual European Innovation Scoreboard, which
was restyled and renamed the Innovation Union Scoreboard
in 2010. The latest Innovation Union Scoreboard uses a
measurement framework distinguishing between three
main types of indicators (enablers, firm activities and output)
and eight innovation dimensions, capturing in total 25
indicators (European Commission, 2015a). Overall innovation
performance is measured by the Summary Innovation Index
on a scale from 0 (the worst-performing country) to 1 (the
best-performing country). On the basis of this index, EU
regions can be divided into four different groups: innovation
leaders, with an innovation performance well above the EU
average, innovation followers, with an innovation performance
close to the EU average, moderate innovators slightly below
the EU average and modest innovators well below the EU
average (Figure 9.6).
The innovation performance of most member states improved
between 2007 and 2014, notable exceptions being Cyprus,
Romania and Spain. Of note is that growth has been positive
but very modest for Finland, Greece and Luxembourg. Over
time, the innovative performance of countries is converging.
However, the innovation performance did weaken for
as many as 13 member states between 2013 and 2014,
particularly for Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Romania and Spain
but also for the more innovative countries of Austria, Belgium,
Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden. The declining share
of enterprises active in innovation, coupled with the drop
in public–private co-publications and lower venture capital
investment, all signal a possible (delayed) repercussion of the
economic crisis on businesses.
238