analysis of the results achieved by cip eco- innovation ... · analysis of results achieved by cip...

Executive Agency for Small & Medium Enterprises (EASME)

Analysis of the results achieved by CIP Eco-innovation market replication projects (EACI/ECO/2013/001)

Final Report

Annex A2 – Global project report

29th January 2016

This page is intentionally blank

Analysis of results achieved by CIP Eco-innovation market replication projects FINAL REPORT – ANNEX X

i

Analysis of results achieved by CIP Eco-innovation market replication projects (EACI/ECO/2013/001)

Final Report

Annex A2 – Global project report

A report submitted by ICF

in association with VITO

Máté Péter Vincze

ICF Consulting Services Limited 146 Rue Royale B-1000 Brussels

T +32 (0) 2 275 01 00 F +32 (0) 2 275 01 09 [email protected]

www.icfi.com


ii

Document Control

Document Title Analysis of the results achieved by CIP Eco-innovation market replication projects (EACI/ECO/2013/001) Final Report Annex A2 – Global project report

Date 29th January 2016

This report is the copyright of the European Commission and has been prepared by ICF Consulting

Services Ltd under contract to the European Commission. The contents of this report may not be

reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any other organisation or person without the specific

prior written permission of the European Commission.

ICF has used reasonable skill and care in checking the accuracy and completeness of information

supplied by the client or third parties in the course of this project under which the report was produced.

ICF is however unable to warrant either the accuracy or completeness of such information supplied by

the client or third parties, nor that it is fit for any purpose. ICF does not accept responsibility for any

legal, commercial or other consequences that may arise directly or indirectly as a result of the use by

ICF of inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by the client or third parties in the course of this

project or its inclusion in this project or its inclusion in this report.


iii

Contents

1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1

2 Project portfolio ...................................................................................................2 Key figures ............................................................................................................................... 2 2.1

Terminated and other unsuccessful projects ........................................................................... 5 2.2

3 Participants profiles ..............................................................................................6 Key characteristics of participants ........................................................................................... 6 3.1

Innovation background ............................................................................................................. 8 3.2

4 Innovation outcomes .......................................................................................... 12

5 Economic benefits .............................................................................................. 14 Commercialisation .................................................................................................................. 14 5.1

Investment leverage ............................................................................................................... 14 5.2

Revenue from sales ............................................................................................................... 15 5.3

Gross Value Added ................................................................................................................ 16 5.4

Job generation ....................................................................................................................... 16 5.5

6 Environmental benefits ...................................................................................... 17

Analysis of results achieved by CIP Eco-innovation market replication projects FINAL REPORT ANNEX A2 – Global report

1

1 Introduction

This Annex summarises key findings from the assessment of CIP eco-innovation projects

from the 2008-2011 calls globally - broken down by the call.

The analytical work concerning all 185

projects funded under the four annual calls

2008-2011, undertaken for this Annex is

fully analogous to the statistical

assessments contained in the Main Report,

and uses the same project-level data

analysed there, with corrections for

‘optimism bias’ and imputed values for

projects where revenue or jobs data were

missing.

The Annex gives an introduction to the full

project portfolio and then briefly present the

composition of the eco-innovation projects

along various dimensions and the

participants behind them. Then it

summarises key innovation outcomes and

the estimated economic benefits (primarily

investment leverage, revenues and jobs).

Finally, they present the expected

environmental benefits by priority area,

taken from the estimates made by VITO for a subset of 133 projects with a full life-cycle

perspective.

Figure 3.4 Breakdown of all projects funded in 2008-2011

Source: EASME monitoring database


2

2 Project portfolio

Key figures 2.1

In total 185 projects received funding in the first four rounds of annual calls between 2008

and 2011. The use of the initiative increased during this period, with the number of project

proposals submitted more than doubling in two years from the launch of the initiative, and

remaining at these high levels in 2011-2012.

Table 2.1 Overview of CIP eco-innovation annual call results (2008-2011)

Criteria 2008 2009 2010 2011

No. of proposals submitted 134 202 287 280

No. of proposals funded 44 46 46 48

Success rate 32.8% 22.8% 16.0% 16.8%

Total funds committed (€m) 27.5 30.7 36.7 32.1

Average funding per project (€k) 626 668 798 684

Source: EASME analysis of calls, EASME project monitoring data

At the time of the analysis of project data

in this study, 31 projects were still open:

30 from the 2011 call and 1 from the 2010

call.

The ‘greening business’ priority are by

some margin the most common type of

projects, accounting for 56 projects

between 2008 and 2011, which

represents 30% of the total portfolio

(Figure 3.4). It is closely followed by the

recycling priority area totalling 54 projects

(29%). Projects under the ‘food and

drinks’ priority area account for 17.3%

while building and construction projects

as well as water-related projects

represent only 12.4% and 10.8%,

respectively.

Of the four original priority areas of the

initiative for the period between 2008 and

2011 (‘water’ has been added later as priority area), ‘recycling’ projects were the most

common in the first year (accounting for 41% of the projects in 2008), with ‘green business’

taking over the lead in 2009. In 2010, there were again more projects related to ‘recycling’

than in any other priority area, but this was reversed in 2011 when ‘green business’ became

the predominant priority area for projects.

Figure 3.5 Number of open projects in

September 2015, by call



3

Project coordinators for the four annual calls between 2008 and 2011, came from a total of

25 EU Member States and 3 non-EU members (Croatia, Israel and Turkey) – see Figure 3.5.

As observed already from the beginning of the initiative, the projects are rather unevenly

distributed geographically: 41 projects were coordinated from Spain while only 4 in Greece

and Ireland.

The breakdown of projects per call to which the project proposal was submitted varies shows

an exceptional dominance of Italy in the earliest (2008) call, with projects coordinated from

Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom catching up from 2009 onwards

(see Figure 3.7 below). Interestingly, projects from countries not heavily represented in the

initiative (for instance, Finland, Estonia, Hungary, Turkey) tended to be selected in the early

two calls. The projects chosen for EC funding under the 2010 and 2011 calls came

disproportionately from a smaller number of Western European countries - Spain, Germany,

Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK.

Figure 3.6 Breakdown of all projects funded in 2008-2011, by country of coordinator


Figure 3.7 Number of eco-innovation projects hosted in 2008-2011 (location of project coordinator), broken down by call


4

Size of pies proportional to the number of projects

Source: ICF based on EASME monitoring database

In terms of the self-assessed novelty of the innovation, the CIP eco-initiative has been

characterised by a constantly increasing share of more ambitious ‘radical’ innovations over

the years, growing from only 2 projects under the 2008 call to 12 in the 2011 call. The

proportion of incremental innovations remained more or less stable at 20-30% of all projects.

Surprisingly, the very visible increase in radical innovations was not coupled with any

significant change in the composition of projects by their impact existing supply chains: the

share of projects calculating with sustaining, significantly modifying or disrupting existing

supply chain relations all remained more or less stable over the years.

Source: ICF survey of project coordinators, analysis of project documentation

Figure 3.8 Breakdown of projects by call and novelty of innovation

Figure 3.9 Breakdown of projects by call and impact on supply chain


5

Terminated and other unsuccessful projects 2.2

From the 23 failed projects, two thirds come from the first two years’ calls (2008 and 2009)

and only one third from 2010 and 2011 calls; the main explanation is that the newer projects

typically started in the year after the call had been published and most of them took the

maximum allowable 3 years, so not enough time passed to demonstrate success or concede

failure. Overall, unsuccessful projects represent about an eighth (12.4%) of the total of

projects funded in 2008-2011, which is certainly not too high, considering the risk profile of

innovation projects and the ambitious innovation results required by the calls.

Among terminated projects, the main reasons listed in EASME’s records were negative

change in the economic environment (i.e. sudden change of market conditions and

withdrawal of potential clients), technical difficulties (i.e. failure of testing phase), and

problems stemming from inadequate cooperation between consortium members.

A complementary quality analysis of projects

can be undertaken for purposes of triangulation

on the basis of EASME’s latest available

classification of the progress of the CIP eco-

innovation projects (including projects already

closed) into three brackets, which may be

referred to as ‘Good’, ‘Medium’ or ‘Concern’.

Understandably, projects last categorised by

EASME as giving ‘concern’ (many of which are

of course already closed, maybe cancelled

early) are more concentrated in the earlier

calls, as a certain degree of project maturity

was necessary to discover problems with the

consortium or to prove that the

commercialisation effort are very unlikely to

lead to any market success.

Figure 3.10 Breakdown of projects by EASME’s latest available classification of progress (2008-2011 calls



6

3 Participants profiles

Key characteristics of participants 3.1

Between 2008 and 2011, the 187 projects launched under the four eco-innovation calls of

the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme involved a total of 663 participants, of which

31 were appearing in two, and only 10 in more than two projects. The total number of

participant slots – i.e. with duplications – was 723.1 This indicates that the initiative was not

monopolised by a small circle of applicants (most participants with multiple contracts were

technological institutes supplying supportive innovation services), which is consistent with

the initiative’s aim to help companies in a crucial phase before establishing a new

sustainable business/activity, and not to provide continuous funding to permanent clients.

Project participants in projects funded under the 2008-2011 calls, by number of Table 3.1occurrences and role

Occurrence as project participant

Number of participants

Occurrence

Total As coordinator As partner

Once 621 621 468 153

Twice 31 62 50 12

Three times 5 15 8 7

Four times 2 8 5 3

Five times 1 5 2 3

Six times 2 12 6 6

TOTAL 662 723 539 184

Source: EASME administrative data

The highest share of beneficiaries as well

as EU funding allocated to beneficiaries

over the 2008-2011 period (see Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2 below) belong to Spain, Italy,

Germany, the UK, Netherlands and France.

While Germany, Italy and France are

among the largest countries in the EU and

thus they would be expected to have a high

share of beneficiaries, Spain and the

Netherlands seem to have a bigger weight

than expected, being over-represented

among beneficiaries.

There was somewhat surprisingly little

involvement of Sweden and Finland –

included among ‘other’ in the two figures

below – despite being eco-conscious

leading innovating countries.

1 All figures refer to the original composition of the consortia. For a small number of projects, partners were

dropped, replaced, or new partners added. 2 Covers individual beneficiaries who might be participating in more than one project.

Figure 3.11 Breakdown of beneficiaries2

participating in eco-innovation projects, by country (2008-2011)



7

As some projects may have a lot of

beneficiaries which all have only a small

input individually, taking account of

geographical patterns by participant may be

somewhat biased. A relatively useful proxy

measure to gauge the ‘significance’ of

participants’ inputs is the amount of EU

funding they receive. The breakdown of the

total EU funding committed to CIP eco-

innovation projects from the 2008-2011

calls is overall very similar to the

breakdown by participant, but smaller

differences exist. Notably, the share of the

two ‘frontrunners’ Spain and Italy in funding

is in total larger than the proportion of

participants coming from these countries.

Netherlands also enjoys a relatively large

share from the eco-innovation funding

compared to the number of beneficiaries

participating, whilst the opposite holds for

France.

The results of the online survey filled in by project coordinators reveals more detailed

information on who they are, as summarised in the two figures below. The overwhelming

majority of project coordinators surveyed (70% of them) are well established businesses,

being in operation over 11 years. At the time of applying for CIP funding, 43% of survey

respondents had been in operation between 11 and 25 years at the moment of their grant

application and another 27% had been in operation for over 25 years. Seven organisations

(5%) had been in operation for less than 2 years.

The vast majority (77%) of project coordinators responding to the survey were private

companies. Out of the non-private coordinators, only 6% were academic or research

institutes and even fewer were industry interest groups, chambers of commerce or publicly

Figure 3.12 Breakdown of EU funding allocated to beneficiaries (€ m), by country (2008-2011)


Figure 3.13 Length of time in operation for project coordinators applying for grants in 2008-2011

Source: ICF survey (N = 143)

Figure 3.14 Type of organisation of project coordinators receiving EU funding in 2008-2011



8

owned companies, accounting for 3% each of the share of total project coordinators

respondents. Other 3% of the consortium leaders categorised themselves as ‘other’; these

include Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs), privately funded research

institutes as well as public-private partnerships or other hybrid organisational forms.

The proportion of SME participants among the beneficiaries has been high already under the

first call (61%), and has further increased (to 67-68%) for the next three calls. The four-year

average was 66%. After de-duplicating the sample in order to only calculate with single

organisations rather than occurrences or ‘slots’ in projects as coordinator or project partner,

the share of SMEs increases even further, to about 68%. This indicates that SMEs are

slightly less likely to request funding again from the eco-innovation initiative.

Project participants in eco-innovation projects funded (2008-2011 calls), by SME Table 3.2categorisation

Call Total beneficiaries of which: SMEs SME proportion (%)

2008 186 114 61.3

2009 190 127 66.8

2010 178 121 68.0

2011 169 115 68.0

TOTAL 723 477 66.0

TOTAL (de-duplicated) 662 449 67.8

Source: EASME administrative data

Innovation background 3.2

The surveyed project coordinators of

CIP-funded eco-innovation projects –

and probably many of the additional

project partners, for which such

information was unfortunately not

available - exhibit a business culture

focused considerably on innovation

activities. The responding project

coordinators were about evenly split

in terms of their strategic focus

between being mainly user of

innovation (e.g. manufacturers),

supplier of innovation services

(research institutes, specialist

consultancies), or innovation

facilitators and others. Interestingly,

the weight of the two larger categories

- innovation users and innovation

service suppliers – increased

significantly in the latest two calls as

compared to 2008 and 2009, when

facilitators played a decisively large

role.

Innovation activities are typically important – or fundamental – parts of the operations of

project coordinators. In-house research and development has traditionally been important for

almost all of them (91% of respondents), and the large majority of them has a strong focus

on introducing new products/services. Project coordinators are also experienced in public

Figure 3.15 Main organisational focus of project coordinators (2008-2011 calls) in relation to innovation (%)

Source: ICF survey


9

funding applications. 68% of coordinators have applied to national R&D programmes while

23% had applied to the EU’s R&D framework programme (FP6 or FP7) and 18% had applied

to the EU’s LIFE Environmental programme.

Figure 3.16 Traditional importance of innovation for the business model of project coordinators

Source: ICF survey

A large number of innovations had been initially developed with the funding of other EU

funding initiatives. National R&D programmes are however the most common: 66% of

coordinators have applied to national R&D programmes, and 29% to a regional programme.

Project coordinators are however also reasonably experienced in applying for EU funding:

27% had applied to the EU’s R&D framework programme (FP6 or FP7), 19% had applied to

the EU’s LIFE Environmental programme, and 7% to the Eureka Eurostars programme for

SMEs.

Figure 3.17 Experience in public funding applications

Source: ICF survey


10

65% of project coordinators were the initial and primary developer of the innovation. A large

number of innovations had been initially developed with the funding of other EU funding

initiatives. Consortiums are often built up to include main collaborations in the supply chain

and a more technical/academic partner who is responsible for project management and

reporting, technical assistance and assessments (required for the environmental

performance assessment and for eventual Eco-labelling applications). The project developer

is in many cases is a private RTO who in collaboration with a client developed a certain

process or product and wants to further develop the innovation in collaboration with other

international actors in the supply chain.

Also from the survey, 42% of projects are SME-academic collaborations. Most project

coordinators operate in the manufacturing sector (37%) followed by a companies offering

environmental services (34%) and who are involved in scientific and technical activities

(25%).

Most consortia are led by private companies even though academic and research institutes

as well as industry associations and chambers of commerce still play a significant role in

many of the innovation projects funded under the CIP eco-innovation grant scheme.

A breakdown of survey respondents by consortium type shows four distinct groups: 42% of

the consortia could be described as a ‘SME-academic collaborations’, comprising SMEs and

research institutes. Consortia of SMEs were also common and accounted for 38% of the

sample. Of the remaining 21%, 14% were large businesses and 7% were individual SMEs.

Half of the consortia headed by Italian or Spanish undertakings were SME-academic

collaborations, i.e. collaborations between SMEs and academic and research centres. In

contrast, such networks have a lesser weight among the projects from the Netherlands and

in the United Kingdom, where SME-academic consortia or consortia between SMEs are

more common. In these two latter countries over 80% of the project consortia members are

private companies (see Figure 3.18).

Figure 3.18 Types of consortia by country of the project coordinator

Source: EASME monitoring data, ICF survey.

"Other" includes France, Austria, Denmark, Slovenia, Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Israel,

Croatia, Cyprus, Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey (less than 8 projects each)


11

Prior cooperation between project partners

was the rule – in 65% of the projects all or

some of the partners have already been

working together (77% among projects with

at least two cooperating partners).

But a sizeable number of projects, close to

20%, generated cooperation between

companies, private innovation service

providers, academia or industrial

organisations in pursuit of eco-innovation

that did not exist before – an additional

benefit of the eco-innovation initiative.

These patterns did not change significantly

between calls - the figures 2012 only seem

to be outliers because of the very small

sample size for this year.

Figure 3.19 Prior cooperation of project partners

Source: ICF survey (n=118)


12

4 Innovation outcomes

The targeted end users of the innovations –

often including the original project

consortium – are mostly businesses. A total

of 87% of the projects indicated that

businesses are among their targeted

customers – they are typically the only or

the overwhelmingly most important

customer type. Another 31% of projects

wants to sell to the public sector, and 21%

to private households (consumers).

The main reason for business clients using

the innovation is either Corporate Social

Responsibility, the perspective of gaining

competitive advantage (through more

efficient processes, for instance) or

compliance with regulations. The typical

business customer of the companies introducing innovations are SMEs, who account for

59% of their customer base.

Clients are mainly active in the manufacturing sector (28%) and the environmental services

(17%) (see Error! Reference source not found.). The main economic benefit of the

innovation for business customers are cost savings (72%), reduced energy consumption

(56%), increased sales of goods or services (45%) and reduced cost of compliance (45%).

Of the 54 respondents answering to this question in the main survey, 37% of projects have

prepared a business plan with a remaining 54% currently developing a business plan while

another 7% are still planning to develop a business plan. 34% claims to have fully

implemented their original business plan while 37% have only partially implemented it and

16% have rewritten their business plan (e.g. to reflect a change in strategy). 6% have

abandoned the commercialisation (sales) plans for their innovation.

Figure 3.21 Profile of typical business customer (by number of projects)

The innovation was already put to use for 80% of the responding projects (97 out of 121) –

either within the project consortium or outside, e.g. through selling or licensing the

Intellectual Property (IP). The corresponding proportion of projects under 2011 call was

lower, only 72%, partly probably reflecting that less time has passed since the project

initiation.

The direct gains for consortium members undertaking the innovation project often stems

from using the outcomes of the innovation in their own company (e.g. cutting costs or

increasing revenues), or selling the Intellectual Property to other companies (see also

chapter 5.1).

Figure 3.20 Targeted end users of the innovation (%)

Source: ICF survey (n=129)


13

Some organisations may even disseminate the results at no cost. For the latter group, the

economic benefits they envisage may be winning new clients or simply being compensated

for their work.

Out of those projects that were already successful in putting their innovation to use, past or

planned utilisation within the own company or project partners – but also the sale of the IP -

is dominant, with remarkable differences across calls: own use or project partners’ use is

much less prevalent in the first two-three calls than amongst more recent successful

projects.

Unsurprisingly, projects under the early calls were much more likely to have already

experienced commercial benefits than newer ones: the typical time needed for the eco-

innovation projects from contract signature to actually produce such outcomes is relatively

long. It should be noted that among those who gave a positive response to this question,

many have only received expressions of interest from potential clients.


14

5 Economic benefits

Commercialisation 5.1

The typical commercial benefit of the

innovation for participants in the eco-

innovation projects comes from using it in

their own (mostly business) organisation:

60% of project coordinators thought this

would be/or already is an economic benefit

they derive from the innovation project. It is

a little less relevant for early projects – this

could be a maturation effect, as some

projects discover over time that they would

not be able to use the results in-house in

the end (although originally planned).

The production and selling of an innovative

product or licencing a process was the

source of benefit for 36% of project

coordinators (much more pronounced for

later calls); and selling or licencing the

intellectual property was a benefit for about

the same proportion of coordinators.

Simple reimbursement for contributions to

the project is the only source of commercial

benefit for some participants – interestingly

not only for partners (such as laboratories

testing new products, specialist consultancies, facility installers), but somewhat surprisingly

also for some project coordinators.3 These coordinators tended to be public entities, or in

case they were private company their main focus was on supplying specialist innovation-

related services or were seeing themselves as innovation facilitators.

Investment leverage 5.2

In total, €127 million EU funding has been committed to an initial 137 eco-innovation projects

(i.e. before early contract terminations or cancellations) under the 2008-2011 calls. This

funding is, as in all similar programmes, just one part of the actual investment in the

innovation project. This public co-financing is coupled with two types of additional monies,

which were committed to the projects by the consortia:

■ applicants’ own resources committed to the project and included in the budget. This

value was obtained by deducting the EC contribution from the overall project budget;

■ additional induced investments made – or commercialisation activities to be made during

later-stage – both additional monies, that do not form part of the project budget. This

value was estimated and supplied by project coordinators in the online survey.

Compared to the predecessor study, with data collection in 2012, a much larger part of these

figures is based on factual data. A small number of projects did not give updated figures,

here old data was multiplied with the previously established generic adjustment factor of 0.9,

and the value was statistically imputed for the rest of projects to obtain a grossed-up figure

for the initiative.

3 Note however that depending on the sub-question, 5 to 7 coordinators indicated they expect simple

reimbursement (i.e. no other benefit) and some other commercial benefit. Filtering out these responses from those expecting only simple reimbursement would decrease the corresponding percentages by 3-4 points.

Figure 3.22 Origin of expected/experienced commercial benefit from the innovation for coordinators (%)

Source; ICF survey (n=143)


15

New data coming in from the 2015 survey, as compared to available information from the

previous study in 2012, led to a dramatic increase in our estimate for non-budgeted

investments and leverage factor. For the same group of 2008-2010 projects for which only

23.4 million euro additional (non-budgeted) investment was estimated (a total leverage factor

of 131%), the current updated estimate is 273.8 million. Adding the new projects from the

2011 call, this value increases to 319.8 million, corresponding to a leverage factor of 357%.

This is much higher than the 131% estimated in the predecessor study in 2012. The main

explanation for this increase is most likely that relatively few project coordinators were willing

to give an estimate back in 2012, being early in the commercialisation process, and reported

only the small additional investments already incurred (sometimes zero values).

The breakdown of data along different dimensions indicates that projects in the Food and

Drinks priority area had a higher investment leverage - although caution is warranted when

drawing conclusions from the data due to the small sample size and the heterogeneity of

projects. Similarly, projects implementing product innovation and targeting only incremental

improvements exhibited a higher leverage potential than other types of innovations.

Table 5.1 Own resources and investment leverage by call (successfully closed and ongoing projects), M euros

2008 2009 2010 2011 TOTAL

EC contribution 27.5 30.7 34.0 34.9 127.1

Budgeted own resources 28.4 33.9 34.7 36.6 133.6

Additional investment

(not budgeted)

112.1 124.1 37.6 46.0 319.8

Total own resources 140.5 158.0 72.3 82.6 453.4

Leverage

(Total / EC contribution)

510% 514% 213% 237% 357%

The table covers all projects for which financial information was available (including early terminations)

Source: EASME monitoring database, ICF survey

Revenue from sales 5.3

The CIP eco-innovation grant supports

mature innovation projects that can be

turned into successful business, which

usually involves – if the objective is not

only internal cost-saving - new sales

generated by the product, process or

service being developed. The

assessment of factual data and the

study’s estimates for the 2008-2011

project portfolio show that the 185

projects investigated have on average a

reasonably good revenue generation

potential, even though earlier estimates

from the predecessor study had to be

revised downwards.

Additional annual revenue generated by

the innovation projects – as a

consequence of the commercialisation of

the innovation – has reached, or is

estimated to reach about €140 million at

the end of the projects (a moving data

between 2012 and 2015, depending on the call when a project was selected), and over €500

Figure 3.23 Estimated additional business revenue per project (EUR ‘000)



16

million two years after. This corresponds to a grand average of €750,000 for each of the 185

projects at project end, and €2.7 million two years after (including projects which did not plan

to sell the outcomes of the innovation anyway).

The estimates obtained for the two key reference periods are presented in Figure 3.23Error!

Reference source not found.. According to this data projects under the 2010 calls are

producing the highest business revenues.

Gross Value Added 5.4

The project portfolio’s combined annual GVA contribution is estimated to be approximately

€56 million at project closure and ca. €219 million two years after closure. These calculations

take into account the ‘optimism bias’ corrections applied to the projected revenue figures. If

the GVA generated remains constant after the second year upon project closure for another

additional three years, as assumed for revenues, the combined value creation for the five-

year period counted from the end of projects will be just over €1 billion.

After adjusting for deadweight, market displacement and complementarity and multiplier

effects the net additional economic contribution two years after project end is estimated to be

some €260 million and the cumulative increase in GVA over the life of the projects and the

following two years is over €400m. This sum is approximately three times the programme

cost, even without taking into account continuing future contributions to GVA.

Job generation 5.5

The combined employment generation of

the eco-innovation project portfolio (in

new full-time equivalent jobs, FTE) is

estimated to have reached, or reach

shortly around 550 at the end of projects,

and almost 1500 two years after. The

current estimates correspond to an

average per-project value of three FTE

jobs at the end of projects, which is due

to increase to 8 FTE upon two years

(counting in supply chain effects, this

increases to 9).

The relatively moderate progression in

the FTE jobs for projects for the early

2008 and 2009 calls (as compared to the

more confident projections for the 2010

and 2011 calls) might indicate an

additional ‘maturity impact’, with projects

already being tested on the market and

finding that the number of jobs they can

create, on average, is lower than they

originally planned – in fact some of the most mature projects have been unfortunately wound

down as they were not as successful as expected.

Figure 3.24 Estimated additional employment per project (full-time equivalents)



17

6 Environmental benefits

The table below summarizes the resulting environmental Key Performance Indicators (KPI).

Most KPI refer to tangible savings or reductions of materials, water, waste, emissions and

energy, achieved by the eco-innovation initiatives, in a full life cycle perspective. The

monetized savings indicator, however, allows to integrate the different types of

environmental impacts that arise as a consequence of the tangible savings, called inventory

savings, into a single score. The monetized savings indicator is the sum of all costs that will

have to be borne by society as a whole in order to avoid or repair damages to the

environment and human health. This approach offers the advantages to make value

judgments and assumptions explicit and avoid arbitrary weighting.

This way, the monetized savings indicator delivers a suitable proxy for the overall

environmental effect of an eco-innovation project.

Environmental Key Performance Indicators Table 6.1

Environmental indicator Projects analysed (133)

Grossed up to all projects (189)

End of project

2 years after

End of project

2 years after

Greenhouse gas emission

reductions (Ton CO2 eq.) 432,078 3,913,961 527,634 5,104,009

Water savings (m³) 4,306,952 187,868,772 5,691,413 198,384,331

Energy savings (Ton oil eq.) 164,632 1,673,470 214,417 2,175,683

Waste savings: Hazardous waste

(Ton) 24,681 29,377 24,705 29,503

Waste savings: Non-hazardous

waste (Ton) 224,284 938,610 252,856 1,155,735

Waste savings: Radioactive waste

(Ton) 12 122 14 155

Renewable materials savings (Ton) 57,745 156,742 59,597 176,558

Non-renewable materials savings

(Ton) 153,826 1,696,541 198,027 2,222,096

Monetized savings (‘000 €4) 76,895 917,271 93,670 1,192,041

Source: VITO analysis

4 2011 euro value

analysis of the results achieved by cip eco- innovation ... · analysis of results achieved by cip...

Documents