eu cluster development strategy

European Cluster Observatory

European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard

Pilot Version

September 2013

Enterprise and Industry

The views expressed in this report, as well as the information included in it, do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission and in no way commit the institution.

Extension of the European Cluster Observatory, Promoting better policies to develop world-class clusters in Europe Contract N° 71/PP/ENT/CIP/11/N04C031

European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard Pilot Version

Authors: Laurent Probst, Erica Monfardini, Laurent Frideres, and Nuray Unlu Bohn, PwC Luxembourg.

Coordination: Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, Directorate D – “SMEs and Entrepreneurship”, Unit D5 – “SMEs: Clusters & Emerging Industries

Coordination: Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, Directorate D – “SMEs and Entrepreneurship”, Unit D5 – “SMEs: Clusters & Emerging Industries”.

European Union, July 2012.

This work is part of a service contract for the Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General of the European Commission. This report is financed under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) which aims to encourage the competitiveness of European enterprises.

Executive summary

European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version

PwC 3

Executive summary

The European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard Pilot Version applies the scoreboard methodology for measuring

regional strength in emerging industries developed under the European Cluster Observatory to three emerging

industries in the fields of creative industries, eco industries and mobile services. The pilot scoreboard is composed of

three key elements: the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions), firm strength, and

effective business support services (part of cluster management excellence). Empirical results for the scoreboard were

compiled through a questionnaire survey with 741 respondents (of which 568 are from firms) across 10 identified

regional hotspots, namely: Berlin, Catalonia (Barcelona), North Holland (Amsterdam) and Inner London for creative

industries; the Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen), Lombardy (Milan) and Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur

(Marseille) for eco industries; and Attiki (Athens), South Finland (Helsinki) and Vienna for mobile services.

According to the survey results, the three most important factors boosting the regional strength of emerging

industries are the market knowledge and innovation capacity of firms, their human capital, and their entrepreneurial

nature. As far as the regional business environment is concerned, financial and knowledge factors are viewed most

important. Business support services are, overall, less important compared to the regional business environment and

the strength of firms. Of the different business support services assessed, support for finding external collaboration

partners, support for access to finance and support for internationalisation are rated highest.

Significant weaknesses in the regional business environments can be observed across the 10 regions. Most notable is

the lack of available financing. Stakeholders in all regions rated financing as insufficient. Lombardy, Catalonia and

Attiki (Athens) rank lowest for this factor. Regulatory and policy as well as support framework conditions also score

overwhelmingly negatively. Only the Capital Region of Denmark and South Finland have slightly positive scores for

these two factors. The outlook on the market is also negative overall. North Holland, Inner London, Berlin, South

Finland and Vienna score slightly positively for this factor but all of the southern European regions surveyed have a

negative outlook on their markets.

The three factors deemed most important for the strength of firms – market knowledge and innovation capacity,

human capital and entrepreneurship – are also rated highest in terms of their availability. There is, however, a

significant gap between importance and availability for these and for the other factors. Internationalisation and

access to finance score the lowest amongst the factors measuring the strength of firms. The northern European

regions score better in terms of firm strength compared to the southern regions included in the survey.

Effective business support services are lacking across all the regions included in the survey with most stakeholders

stating that there is insufficient availability of effective services in their region. The two factors where firm strength

was rated lowest are also those where corresponding business support services are widely unavailable: support for

access to finance and support for internationalisation. The two regions with the most significant gaps for this element

are Catalonia and Attiki (Athens).

This pilot scoreboard is part of a number of reports prepared in the framework of the extension of the European

Cluster Observatory. The methodology applied by this scoreboard to measure regional strength in emerging

industries is described in more detail in a separate methodology report. The definitions of emerging industries are

detailed in the methodology report for the classification of the most active, significant and relevant new emerging

industrial sectors. Emerging industries can be defined as the establishment of an entirely new industrial value chain,

or the radical reconfiguration of an existing one, driven by a disruptive idea (or convergence of ideas), leading to

turning these ideas/opportunities into new products/services with higher added value. The scoreboard results are

complemented by three case studies on industry-specific framework conditions for the development of world-class

clusters in creative industries, eco industries and mobile services. The methodology for the case studies is described

in a separate report on the identification and benchmarking of ideal framework conditions. Furthermore, a policy

roadmap prepared by the European Forum for Clusters in Emerging Industries (EFCEI) introduces

recommendations for actions for new linkages to promote the development of emerging industries through clusters in

Europe. All reports – together with further maps by country, industry and indicators – can be found at

http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/index.html#!view=aboutobservatory;url=/about-observatory/emerging-

industries/ and http://www.emergingindustries.eu/.

Table of Contents


PwC 4

Table of contents

1. Introduction 7

1.1. Analytical framework 7

1.2. Methodology 8

1.3. Evidence base 8

1.4. Respondent profiles 9

1.4.1. Firms 9

1.4.2. Policy makers, government agencies and regional development agencies 11

1.4.3. Cluster management organisations 12

1.4.4. Business support organisations 14

1.4.5. Investors 15

1.4.6. Research, academia or technology transfer organisations 18

1.5. Analytical structure of the pilot scoreboard 19

2. Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries 20

2.1. The importance of the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions) 20

2.2. The importance of the strength of firms 22

2.3. The importance of the availability of business support services 24

2.4. Summary of findings 26

3. Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions) 27

3.1. Comparing emerging industries: the strength of regional business environments 28

3.1.1. Creative industries: regional business environment scores by region 30

3.1.2. Eco industries: regional business environment scores by region 31

3.1.3. Mobile services: regional business environment scores by region 32

3.2. Comparing the strength of regional business environments: regional rankings by factor 33


4. Indicators of firm strength 37

4.1. Comparing emerging industries: firm strength in the different regions 38

4.1.1. Creative industries: firm strength scores by region 40

4.1.2. Eco industries: firm strength scores by region 41

4.1.3. Mobile services: firm strength scores by region 42

4.2. Comparing firm strength: regional rankings by factor 43


5. Effective business support services 46

Table of Contents


PwC 5

5.1. Comparing emerging industries: the availability of effective business support services 47

5.1.1. Creative industries: availability of effective business support services scores by region 49

5.1.2. Eco industries: availabilty of effective business support services scores by region 50

5.1.3. Mobile services: availabilty of effective business support services scores by region 51

5.2. Comparing the availability of effective business support services: regional rankings by type of service 52


6. Firm performance (output indicators) 56

6.1. Comparing emerging industries: firm performance 57

6.1.1. Creative industries: firm performance scores by region 58

6.1.2. Eco industries: firm performance scores by region 59

6.1.3. Mobile services: firm performance scores by region 60

6.2. Comparing firm performance indicators: scores by region 61

6.3. Comparing cluster firms with non-cluster firms 64


7. Aggregate scores and indicators 69

7.1. Regional rankings for the different elements measuring regional strength in emerging industries 70

7.1.1. Rankings based on availability scores 70

7.1.2. Rankings based on composite indicators measuring both importance and availability 72

7.2. Scores measuring regional strength of emerging industries 74

7.2.1. Importance scores for different factors by region 74

7.2.2. Availability scores for different factors by region 75

7.2.3. Composite indicators assessing importance and availability of different factors by region 76

7.3. Comparing composite indicator scores and firm performance 77

8. Conclusions 79

Appendix A. - Scorecard for creative industries in Berlin 80

A.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 80

A.2. Composite indicators 81

Appendix B. - Scorecard for creative industries in Catalonia (Barcelona) 82

B.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 82

B.2. Composite indicators 83

Appendix C. - Scorecard for creative industries in North Holland (Amsterdam) 84

C.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 84

C.2. Composite indicators 85

Appendix D. - Scorecard for creative industries in Inner London 86

Table of Contents


PwC 6

D.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 86

D.2. Composite indicators 87

Appendix E. - Scorecard for eco industries in the Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen) 88

E.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 88

E.2. Composite indicators 89

Appendix F. - Scorecard for eco industries in Lombardy (Milan) 90

F.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 90

F.2. Composite indicators 91

Appendix G. - Scorecard for eco industries in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille) 92

G.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 92

G.2. Composite indicators 93

Appendix H. - Scorecard for mobile services in Attiki (Athens) 94

H.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 94

H.2. Composite indicators 95

Appendix I. - Scorecard for mobile services in South Finland (Helsinki) 96

I.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 96

I.2. Composite indicators 97

Appendix J. - Scorecard for mobile services in Vienna 98

J.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 98

J.2. Composite indicators 99

Introduction


PwC 7

1. Introduction

1.1. Analytical framework

The objective of the pilot version of the European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard is to measure regional strength

in emerging industries in order to assess and identify in what way clusters can provide support for the

development of emerging industries. This pilot scoreboard focuses on a selection of hotspots, i.e. regions which

are in an advanced stage of development for a given emerging industry. In order to obtain results that are

comparable across industries, the scoreboard focuses on general indicators that apply to all emerging

industries, with no particular focus on a specific emerging industry.

The scoreboard indicators measure three key elements of regional strength in emerging industries (Figure 1):

regional business environment (framework conditions), firm strength, and business support services (part of

cluster management excellence). Effective business support services when provided by a cluster management

organisation are one aspect of cluster management excellence but it should be noted that there are additional

benchmarking indicators for cluster management excellence that are not included in the scoreboard1. The three

key elements will be assessed along seven different dimensions: finance, industrial, market, cultural (including

human capital and entrepreneurship), knowledge, regulatory & policy, support, and output & performance.

Figure 1: Typology of indicators to measure regional strength in emerging industries

KEY ELEMENTS

Regional business environment (framework

conditions) Firm strength

Business support services (part of cluster management

excellence)

DIM

EN

SIO

NS

Finance Financial framework conditions Access to funding Supporting access to finance

Industrial Industrial framework conditions

National and international partnerships

Internationalisation

Supporting internal networking

Supporting partnership initialisation with external

partners

Supporting internationalisation

Market Market framework conditions

Cultural Cultural framework conditions Human capital

Entrepreneurship

Supporting talent search and retention

Supporting entrepreneurship

Knowledge Knowledge framework conditions Market knowledge and innovation

capacity

Supporting research, development and innovation

(RDI)

Regulatory & policy

Regulatory and policy framework conditions

Support Support framework conditions

Output & performance Profitability and productivity

The indicators are focused primarily on enablers or inputs for regional strength. Output is measured at the firm

level in terms of profitability and productivity. Output at the regional or emerging industry level is assessed by

aggregating firm-level output data at the level of a given region or emerging industry. Business support services

1 See http://www.cluster-analysis.org/ for further details.

Introduction


PwC 8

are measured in terms of the availability of excellent services at the regional level and, in the case of clusters, in

terms of the quality of services provided by the cluster management organisation to the cluster participants.

1.2. Methodology

The methodology for the European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard (ECES) is detailed in depth in the scoreboard

methodology report2. A survey-based approach was proposed in the methodology report in order to collect very

specific, targeted and timely data on the key indicators and critical success factors for measuring the strength of

regions in each emerging industry. The stakeholder groups targeted by the survey include firms, policy makers,

cluster management organisations, business support organisations, investors and academia.

The questionnaire survey for the scoreboard included five main sections: (a) a profile or the respondent and

organisation, (b) factors boosting the strength of emerging industries, (c) characteristics of the regional

business environment, (d) indicators of firm strength, (e) effective business support services, and (f) firm

performance indicators. The specific questions asked for each set of indicators are listed at the start of the

relevant chapter analysing the results.

1.3. Evidence base

The pilot survey for the ECES was conducted between February and April 2013. Based on the recommendations

of experts at the third meeting of the European Forum for Clusters in Emerging Industries (EFCEI) in

November 2012, the number of hotspots surveyed for the pilot scoreboard was reduced to 10 in order to

increase the number of respondents per hotspots and thus reliability and representativeness of the survey

results. To increase reliability, the survey was also restricted to three of the seven identified emerging

industries, namely: creative industries, eco industries and mobile services.

Potential respondents were approached by email and asked to fill in an online questionnaire made available in

five languages: English, German, French, Italian and Spanish. Two reminders were sent to follow up on the

initial invitation. The response rate varied between different regions and stakeholder groups. Overall it reached

around 10 percent of the targeted population. The final number of respondents significantly exceeds the

estimated 350-450 responses proposed in the scoreboard methodology (Table 1).

2 Available at: http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/index.html#!view=documents;mode=one;sort=name;uid=e1d0c407-b9cd-4d44-a6fb-20da7f4e820e;id=

Introduction


PwC 9

Table 1: Number of respondents per region and stakeholder group

Region Firms Policy CMOs

Business support

Investors Academia Total

Cre

ati

ve

ind

ust

ries

Berlin 67 2 1 7 4 6 87

Catalonia (Barcelona) 60 4 1 2 1 4 72

North Holland (Amsterdam)

28 1 2 12 6 5 54

Inner London 48 3 5 3 3 62

Eco

in

du

stri

es

Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)

34 3 2 6 2 4 51

Lombardy (Milan) 55 3 3 6 3 4 74

Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)

31 2 1 1 2 37

Mo

bil

e se

rvic

es Attiki (Athens) 85 2 2 3 2 12 106

South Finland (Helsinki) 103 4 5 6 5 1 124

Vienna 57 5 3 3 1 5 74

Total 568 29 19 51 28 46 741

1.4. Respondent profiles

1.4.1. Firms

The vast majority of firm respondents represent small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and nearly three

quarters SMEs with fewer than 50 employees (Figure 2). Seven percent of respondents are from start-ups (0-2

years) and 15% from young firms (3-5 years) – see Figure 3. The majority of surveyed firms have been

established for more than 10 years. Family and/or privately owned or initiated businesses make up nearly three

quarters of responses (Figure 4). Start-ups established from another firm make up 12% of respondents. Most

surveyed firms are in a more advanced phase of business development with 36% developed within the national

market, 12% within the European market and 27% internationally recognised (Figure 5).

Introduction


PwC 10

Figure 2: Firm size

Figure 3: Length of establishment of the firm

Figure 4: Source of establishment of firms

Figure 5: Business phase of firms

39%

35%

19%

7%

<10 10-49 50-249 250 <

7%

15%

21%

20%

37%

0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years6 - 10 years 10 - 15 years> 15 years

73%

2%

12%

2%5%

2% 4%

Family and/or privately owned/initiated businessStart-up formed at an incubatorStart-up formed from another companySpin-off from a university/research institutePublic-private entityA public entityOther

5%

18%

36%12%

27%

2%

Start-up/spin-offUnder developmentDeveloped within the national marketDeveloped within the European marketInternationally recognisedOther

Introduction


PwC 11

1.4.2. Policy makers, government agencies and regional development agencies

Amongst the policy maker, government agency or regional development agency respondents about half are

involved in policy making and/or implementation at the regional and national levels, two in five at the

EU/supranational level and one in four at the local level (Figure 6). Two thirds of the policy stakeholders

reported that there are interim evaluations in place in their region (Figure 7). The figure is at about half for ex-

post and ex-ante evaluations.

Figure 6: Level(s) of involvement in policy making and/or implementation

Figure 7: Evaluation processes in place in the region

The participation of different regional stakeholders is part of the policy making process for 78% of respondents

(Figure 8). The level of regional autonomy and the speed at which the policy process can support market access

and the global competitiveness of SMEs is a less common characteristic at 35%. It is worth highlighting that

only half of the respondents considered the policy making process in their region to be flexible enough to adapt

to the changing needs of emerging industries.

Figure 8: Characteristics of the policy making process that respondents are involved in

The vast majority of respondents reported that there are comprehensive or partial policy in place for cluster

development, internationalisation, access to finance, innovation for goods and services, entrepreneurship,

26%

39%

52%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Local level

EU/supranational level

National level

Regional level

Percentage of respondents involved in policy making at each level

52%

52%

65%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ex-ante evaluations

Ex-post evaluations

Interim evaluations

Percentage of respondents indicating that their region has the given

evaluation processes in place

35%

35%

52%

57%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sufficiently quick to support market access and the global competitiveness of SMEs

Relatively autonomous at the regional level, allowing for the adaptation of policies to market needs

Flexible enough to adapt according to the changing needs of emerging industry sectors/customers

Based on the results of customer/market analysis and needs (demand driven)

Includes the participation of different regional stakeholders (academia, investors, industry etc)

Percentage of respondents indicating that the policy making process in their region displays the following characteristics

Introduction


PwC 12

market access and human capital development (Figure 9). The most comprehensive policies are for cluster

development and internationalisation.

Figure 9: Policies currently in place in the region

1.4.3. Cluster management organisations

The cluster management organisations (CMOs) surveyed have all been established for at least 3 years (Figure

10). Most of the clusters are assessed as being in the developing phase and about one quarter as mature (Figure

11). Self-financing (e.g. membership fees, services provided, own financial resources) is the most common form

of financing (Figure 12). Public financing accounts for around a quarter of surveyed CMOs.

Figure 10: Length of establishment of the CMO

Figure 11: Life cycle of the cluster

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Human capital development

Market access

Entrepreneurship

Innovation for goods and services

Access to finance


Cluster development

Percentage of respondents indicating that there are currently policies in place their region for the following

Yes, comprehensive. Yes, partial No, none.

29%

53%

18%

3 - 5 years ago 6 - 10 years ago

> 15 years ago

71%

23%

6%

Developing Mature World-class

Introduction


PwC 13

Figure 12: Financing structure of the CMO

The governance characteristics for around two thirds of surveyed CMOs include the involvement of

stakeholders in the identification of cluster strategies and performance monitoring based on key performance

indicators (Figure 13). Only a small percentage has a scientific advisory committee and representatives of other

clusters on the board.

Figure 13: Governance characteristics of the surveyed CMOs

Lack of support for financing is the most significant challenge identified by the CMOs (Figure 14). Additional

challenges that were identified are to secure the long-term involvement of both public and private partners and

to ensure sufficient staffing levels.

41%

12%12%6%

29%

Self-financingPublic Financing – RegionalPublic Financing – NationalPrivate Financing (excluding membership fees)Other

18%

18%

29%

47%

59%

59%

65%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Representatives from other regional/national clusters on the board for boosting collaboration

Presence of a Scientific Advisory Committee composed representatives from academia

Representatives of investors on the board

Presence of an Advisory Committee composed of industry representatives

Representatives of regional authorities and policy makers on the board

Feedback from the board and advisory committees is integrated into the cluster strategy

Performance monitoring is based on objectives and key performance indicators

Involvement of stakeholders in the identification of cluster strategies

Percentage of respondents indicating that the following governance characteristics apply to their organisation

Introduction


PwC 14

Figure 14: Major challenges identified by the surveyed CMOs

1.4.4. Business support organisations

The business support organisations surveyed include business incubators, accelerators, coworking spaces,

techno parks, business networks, business associations and other business support organisations. The majority

of the surveyed organisations have fewer than 10 employees and almost 9 in 10 have fewer than 50 employees

(Figure 15). Around half of the organisations have been established for more than 10 years (Figure 16). Self-

financing accounts for 52% of the financing structures of the organisations and 27% receive public financing at

the regional or national levels (Figure 17).

Figure 15: Organisation size

Figure 16: Length of establishment of the organisation

12%

18%

18%

35%

47%

53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Lack of private funding for the development of the organisation and stragegy implementation

Difficulties in collaborating with other clusters (nationally and/or internationally)

Lack of involvement of cluster stakeholders in strategy development and implementation

Difficulties in assessing cluster performance (due to e.g. a lack of commonly agreed methods)

Lack of regional/national/supra-national support for financing and development of the organisation

Percentage of respondents indicating that their organisation is facing the following major challenges

55%34%

2%9%

<10 10-49 50-249 250 <

4%

18%

28%

14%

36%

0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years6 - 10 years 10 - 15 years> 15 years

Introduction


PwC 15

Figure 17: Financing structure of the organisation

1.4.5. Investors

Just over half of the surveyed investors are from venture capital firms with smaller shares of business angels,

commercial banks and investment/development agencies (Figure 18). The majority of surveyed investors are

investing in the creative industries (Figure 19). One third is investing in mobile services and one quarter in eco

industries. Other industries targeted include traditional manufacturing and fast-moving consumer goods

(FMCG).

Figure 18: Investor profiles

Figure 19: Share of surveyed investors currently investing in each emerging industry

Prior experience investing in a particular industry is the most important prerequisite for investors (Figure 20).

High returns on investment are also important. The level of risk for a particular industry is not determinant

factor for the surveyed investors. The potential for high growth and growth in sales was amongst other reasons

cited.

52%

16%

11%

19%

2%

Self-financingPublic Financing – RegionalPublic Financing – NationalPrivate Financing (excluding membership fees)Other

56%

15%

11%

7%

11%

Venture capital firmBusiness angelCommercial bank

Regional Investment/Development Agency

Other

46%

8%

21%

25%

25%

33%

42%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Others

Maritime industries

Personalised medicine

Eco industries

Experience industries

Mobile services

Mobility industries

Creative industries

Introduction


PwC 16

Figure 20: Reasons for investing in particular industries

The preferred stages for investment are the initial growth stage as well as the internationalisation and

commercialisation stages of innovative products and services (Figure 21). The research, development and

innovation and pilot test stages are less popular.

Figure 21: Preferred stage(s) of the company life cycle for investment

The single most critical factor when investing in a company, identified by all of the surveyed investors, is the

quality of the entrepreneur and top management (Figure 22). The market knowledge of the entrepreneur and

top management is also seen as critical by two thirds of respondents. The uniqueness of the technology or

business concept is seen as critical by half. Less critical are the involvement of a company in a cluster and

supportive regional and national policies.

13%

4%

8%

54%

79%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Others

Low levels of risk for a particular industry

Attendance at investors' awareness …

High returns on investment

Due to previous experiences in these industries

Percentage of respondents indicating that they are investing in particular industries for the following reasons

8%

8%

17%

21%

25%

25%

46%

50%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Pilot testing of innovative products/processing/services

Research, Development and Innovation

Incubation

Manufacturing of innovative products

Marketing of innovative products/services

Commercialisation of innovative products/services

Initial growth stage

Internationalisation of innovative products/services

Percentage of respondents indicating a preference for investing in the following stages of the company life cycle

Introduction


PwC 17

Figure 22: Most critical factors when investing in a company

The most important skills and qualities sought for in an entrepreneur are leadership and vision as well as

market knowledge (Figure 23). A global vision for internationalisation, communication and collaboration skills,

and a successful track record in a related business area are also important. Less sought after are a successful

track record in a business of similar maturity and financial skills.

Figure 23: Skills and qualities sought for in an entrepreneur

4%

4%

8%

21%

21%

33%

50%

63%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Supportive regional and national policies

Involvement in a cluster

Maturity of the company

Reputation of the company

Solidity of the intellectual property

Uniqueness of the technology or business concept

Market knowledge of the entrepreneur / top management

Quality of the entrepreneur / top management

Percentage of respondents indicating that the following factors are the most critical when investing in a company

21%

25%

33%

42%

46%

54%

54%

67%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Financial skills (fund raising, fund management, etc)

Successful track record in a business of similar maturity

Analytical skills

Management skills

Successful track record in a related business area

Communication and collaborative skills

Global vision for internationalisation

Market knowledge (market access, market needs, etc)

Leadership and vision

Percentage of respondents indicating that the following skills and qualities are what they are most looking for in an entrepreneur

Introduction


PwC 18

1.4.6. Research, academia or technology transfer organisations

Around two thirds of the respondents for academia stakeholders are currently working for a university and one

fifth for a research centre or institute (Figure 24). Other educational institutions make up 6% of respondents

and technology transfer organisations 4%.

Figure 24: Institutional representation

In terms of collaboration activities, joint RDI with other institutions is rated highest in terms of intensity by the

respondents, followed by joint projects and joint publications (Figure 25). Joint ventures with industry are less

significant in terms of intensity.

Figure 25: Intensity of different types of collaboration activities (average scores)

The research agendas of the respondents are mostly, although not completely, aligned with different

development targets and focus areas, with average alignment scores above three on a five point scale (Figure

26). The scores are higher for global, EU and national targets compared to objectives at the cluster level and

regional economic development priorities.

63%21%

6%

4% 6%

UniversityResearch Centre/InstituteEducational InstitutionTechnology Transfer Organisation (TTO)Other

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Joint ventures with industry

Joint publications with other institutions

Joint projects (e.g. FP7 projects)

Joint RDI with universities, research institutions or industry

very highvery low

Introduction


PwC 19

Figure 26: Extent to which research agendas are aligned with different targets, focus areas, objectives and priorities (average scores)

1.5. Analytical structure of the pilot scoreboard

Chapter 2 presents the results for the importance of different factors for boosting the strength of emerging

industries. These factors relate to the three key elements covered by the scoreboard: the strength of the regional

business environment, the strength of firms, and the importance of the availability of business support services.

Results are presented for each element for all emerging industries combined, as separate scores for the three

emerging industries, and for firm and non-firm respondents.

Chapter 3 investigates the strength of regional business environments in terms of the availability of different

underpinning components. Availability is assessed for the three different emerging industries and as perceived

by firm and no-firm stakeholders. Results are presented in the form of spider charts reporting the scores for all

factors by region and as ranked bar charts for comparing the strength of different framework conditions across

regions. Chapters 4 and 5 provide the same assessment on the availability of different factors as chapter 3 but

focused on the two other elements focused on indicators of firm strength and effective business support

services.

Chapter 6 deals with the output indicators for firm performance. The latter is measured as growth in

employment, annual revenues, output, profits, and the number of innovative products and services. Results are

presented using stacked bar charts showing the percentage of firms having experienced a decrease, no change

or increases (slight, moderate or significant) for the five performance indicators over the three year period prior

to the survey. Firm performance is compared for the different indicators by region and for the same indicators

between regions. This chapter also includes a comparative analysis of the performance of firms participating in

a cluster initiative with the performance of firms not participating in a cluster initiative.

Chapter 7 presents aggregate importance and availability scores and composite indicators for the different

elements and factors boosting the strength of emerging industries. It provides regional rankings based on

availability scores and based on composite indicators (measuring both importance and availability) for the

three key elements of the scoreboard. This chapter also includes tables listing all the importance scores,

availability scores, and composite indicator scores for the different elements and factors by region. The final

section focuses on comparing the indicator scores for regional business environments and business support

services with firm performance scores.

The appendices consist in two-page scorecards for each of the 10 hotspots. The scorecards regroup the key

charts measuring the strength in emerging industries for each regional hotspot on the first page and provide a

brief summary and recommendations. The second page of each scorecard graphically presents the scores for the

composite indicators, summarising the strength of each regional hotspot for the three key elements as well as

overall for the three elements combined.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Priority areas identified in the regional economic development strategy

The strategic vision and objectives of your regional cluster(s)

National development priorities and targets

Research focus areas identified at the EU level

Global societal, environmental and/or energy targets

completelynot at all

Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries


PwC 20

2. Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries

This chapter investigates the importance of different factors for boosting the strength of emerging industries

including: (i) the strength of regional business environments (framework conditions), (ii) the strength of firms,

and (iii) the availability of business support services. All the graphs in this chapter measure importance on a

scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least important and 5 is the most important.

2.1. The importance of the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions)

The importance of different dimensions of strength of regional business environments or framework conditions

was assessed with the following question:

How would you rate the importance of the following factors for the strength of your regional

business environment? Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the following factors on a


Financial – presence of actors providing funds to support firms, the availability of funds meeting the specific funding needs of your industry, the ease with which funds can be accessed

Industrial – critical mass of other companies in your industry and related industries, well established support structure like incubators and accelerators, communications and transport infrastructure

Market – a critical mass of consumers, a consumer driven market, ease of exchanging goods and services, the level of collaboration and competition, ease of establishing and running a business

Cultural - a set of shared attitudes, values, goals and practices in the region, an entrepreneurial culture, a strong regional labour force with qualified workers for a range of skills

Knowledge – higher education and research institutions in industry specific fields, technology transfer organisations and shared technology platforms, sector specific courses or training

Regulatory and policy – presence of a favourable regulatory environment, alignment of different policies to support the growth of specific industries, public consultations in the policy making process

Support – presence of measures to boost the growth of specific industries through training, business and legal advice, supporting knowledge transfer, access to finance, internationalisation, etc.

Financial and knowledge factors are deemed most important for the strength of regional business environments

(Figure 27). The scores for all dimensions are above 3, indicating that overall, they are seen as important.

Support is rated as least important.



PwC 21

Figure 27: Importance of different factors for the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions): all emerging industries

There are some variations between the three emerging industries in terms of how stakeholders view the

importance of different factors for the strength of the regional business environment (Figure 28). For the

creative industries, the cultural factors rank highest overall, followed by market and financial factors.

Regulatory and policy factors are seen as less important for the creative industries. For the eco industries, on

the other hand, regulatory and policy ranks higher as the second most important factor after financial.

Figure 28: Importance of different factors for the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions): scores by emerging industry

A comparison of the ratings assigned by firm and non-firm respondents shows that non-firm respondents rated

all seven factors as more important compared to firm respondents (Figure 29). The most significant differences

can be observed for the industrial, regulatory and policy and support factors.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Support

Industrial

Regulatory and policy

Cultural

Market

Knowledge

Financial

most importantleast important most importantleast important

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Financial

Industrial

Market

Cultural

Knowledge


Support

Creative industries Eco industries Mobile services

most importantleast important



PwC 22

Figure 29: Importance of different factors for the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions): scores for firm and non-firm respondents

2.2. The importance of the strength of firms

The importance of different dimensions of the strength of firms was assessed with the following question:

How would you rate the importance of the following factors for the successful growth and

sustainable development of your firm? Respondents were asked to rank the importance of the

following factors on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least important and 5 is the most important.

Access to funding

National and international partnerships

Internationalisation (exports to and/or presence in other countries)

Human capital (employees with experience and expertise)

Entrepreneurship

Market knowledge and innovation capacity

Market knowledge and innovation capacity, human capital and entrepreneurship all received average scores

above 4, indicating that these three factors are very important for the strength of firms (Figure 30). Access to

funding, partnerships and internationalisation ranked lower with most respondents rating their importance for

firm strength at around 3.6.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Financial

Industrial

Market

Cultural

Knowledge


Support

Firms Non-firm respondents




PwC 23

Figure 30: Importance of different factors for firm strength: all emerging industries

Overall, the ratings for the importance of firm strength factors are quite consistent (Figure 31). Access to

funding and internationalisation are more important for the eco industries compared to mobile services and the

creative industries. Partnerships are more important for mobile services compared to the other two emerging

industries. There is little difference in the way in which different emerging industry stakeholders rated market

knowledge and innovation capacity.

Figure 31: Importance of different factors for firm strength: scores by emerging industry

Market knowledge and innovation capacity are rated somewhat higher by firms compared to non-firm

respondents (Figure 32). The importance of human capital and entrepreneurship was rated similarly. A notable

difference can be observed for access to funding, which non-firm respondents rated significantly higher

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


Partnerships

Access to funding

Entrepreneurship

Human Capital



1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Access to funding

Partnerships


Human Capital

Entrepreneurship






PwC 24

compared to firm respondents. Internationalisation and partnerships are also seen as more important by non-

firm stakeholders.

Figure 32: Importance of different factors for firm strength: scores for firm and non-firm respondents

2.3. The importance of the availability of business support services

The importance of different dimensions of the strength of firms was assessed with the following question:

How would you rate the importance of the following business support services being

available in your region? Respondents were asked to rank the importance of the following factors on a


Support for access to funding

Support for information exchanges and matchmaking amongst firms in the region

Support for collaborative R&D and/or technology transfer

Support for human resource development

Support for entrepreneurship development

Support for networking and finding external cooperation partners

Support for internationalisation

Business support services are seen as important overall as all types of services rank above 3. Support for

external networking, access to finance and internationalisation are the business support services that are rated

as most important for all emerging industries (Figure 33). Support for internal networking and support for HR

development are viewed as less important.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Access to funding

Partnerships


Human Capital

Entrepreneurship






PwC 25

Figure 33: Importance of the availability of different business support services for all emerging industries

There are some differences in the importance attached to different types of business support services by

stakeholders from different emerging industries (Figure 34). Business support services appear to be most

important for the eco industries, for which stakeholders rated all except one type of service higher than the

other emerging industries. These services are least important for the creative industries. The differences are

most significant for support for collaborative RDI and for support for access to finance, which are more

important for the eco industries compared to the other two emerging industries.

Figure 34: Importance of business support services: scores by emerging industry

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Supporting HR development


Supporting collaborative RDI



Supporting access to finance

Supporting external networking


1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5












PwC 26

Non-firm respondents rated all types of business support services as more important compared to firm

respondents (Figure 35). The biggest differences are for supporting access to finance and supporting

collaborative RDI.

Figure 35: Importance of business support services: scores for firm and non-firm respondents

2.4. Summary of findings

The importance of three different elements for boosting the strength of emerging industries was assessed for

the pilot scoreboard: the strength of the regional business environment, the strength of firms and the

availability of business support services. All the factors rated for the different elements received average scores

above 3 on a scale of 1 to 5, indicating that they are seen as important for the strength of emerging industries.

Overall, the importance of factors for the strength of firms was rated highest for market knowledge and

innovation capacity, human capital and entrepreneurship, all of which received average scores above 4.

Financial and knowledge factors are most important for the strength of the regional business environment. The

importance of business support services was rated lowest overall. Support for external networking and for

internationalisation as well as support for access to finance were rated highest amongst the different types of

business support services.

There is a degree of consistency in the way in which different emerging industries rate the importance of

different elements and factors although some notable differences can be observed. One noteworthy difference in

rating is for regulatory and policy, which is significantly more important for eco industries. Business support

services are also more important overall for the eco industries compared to the two other emerging industries.

With only a couple of exceptions, non-firm respondents rated the importance of the different factors higher

compared to firm respondents, with the most significant difference being observed for business support

services.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5










Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)


PwC 27

3. Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)

This chapter investigates the availability of different factors that underpin the strength of regional business

environments (framework conditions). All the graphs in this chapter measure availability on a scale of 1 to 5.

Values below 3 indicate that stakeholders disagreed that a given factor was available within the region and

values above 3 indicate that it was available.

Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements related to the different

dimensions of strength of regional business environments. The questions were as follows:

For all the statements on this page, please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 is

‘strongly agree’.

Financial characteristics

◦ In your region, there are sufficient funds available to companies. ◦ In your region, funding can be accessed in good time and with ease. ◦ In your region, there are effective support systems for accessing different types of funding

(business plan development support, signposting of funding opportunities, etc.).

Industrial characteristics

◦ Your region has a critical mass of companies in our sector or related sectors. ◦ Your region has well established technology parks, co-working spaces, incubators and/or

accelerators to boost the development of the industrial base. ◦ Your region has a good infrastructure (communication, energy, transport, etc.).

Market characteristics

◦ In your region, it is straightforward and not too costly to establish and run a business. ◦ In your region, there is a critical mass of customers and demand in your industry and the market

is consumer-driven. ◦ In your region, facilities are available for pre-commercial testing.

Cultural characteristics

◦ Your region has a qualified labour force and workers are available for a range of skills (managerial, commercial, research, engineering, ICT).

◦ Your region provides incentives for boosting entrepreneurship and attracting and retaining talents (financial resources, support programmes, etc.).

◦ Your region has an entrepreneurial culture.

Knowledge characteristics

◦ In your region, there are universities and/or research institutions undertaking research, development and innovation activities related to your industry.

◦ In your region, there are established technology transfer organisations, design centres and similar organisations.

◦ In your region, there are institutions providing relevant industry-specific training and coaching (including vocational training).

Regulatory and policy characteristics

◦ Your region has a favourable regulatory environment. ◦ Your region has policies that favour the emergence and transformation of industries and that are

aligned with national and European policies. ◦ Your region undertakes public and industrial consultations as part of the policy making process.

Support characteristics



PwC 28

◦ In your region, a sufficiently wide range of measures is available to support the development and internationalisation of companies.

◦ In your region, a regional innovation and/or development agency with an established track record is assisting firms effectively in fundraising and business development.

◦ In your region, adequate industry specific support measures have been put in place. ◦ In your region, support is available for entrepreneurs in the crucial phases of the business

lifecycle.

3.1. Comparing emerging industries: the strength of regional business environments

Financial, support and regulatory and policy factors rank lowest in terms of availability for all three emerging

industries (Figure 36). The ratings for these three factors as well as for the market factor are unfavourable with

score below 3. Industrial, knowledge and cultural factors are rated favourably although with relatively low score

overall.

Figure 36: Availability of different factors for the strength of regional business environments (framework conditions) by emerging industry

Firm respondents rated the strength of regional business environments lower for all dimensions compared to

non-firm respondents (Figure 37). The margin between the views of these different stakeholders is particularly

wide for the knowledge and support dimensions.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Financial

Industrial

Market

Cultural

Knowledge


Support


agreedisagree



PwC 29

Figure 37: Availability of different factors for the strength of regional business environments (framework conditions) according to firm and non-firm respondents

The following spider charts present the results for the availability scores of the regional business environment

for all factors by regions grouped into the three emerging industries for which they were identified as a hotspot.

The charts for Catalonia (Barcelona) and Attiki (Atthens) show that their business environments are viewed as

the least homogenous regional business environments with some factors such as financial and regulatory and

policy factors representing particular weaknesses compared to other factors that are viewed stronger.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Financial

Industrial

Market

Cultural

Knowledge


Support


agreedisagree



PwC 30

3.1.1. Creative industries: regional business environment scores by region

Figure 38: Berlin

Figure 39: Catalonia (Barcelona)

Figure 40: North Holland (Amsterdam)

Figure 41: Inner London

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support



PwC 31

3.1.2. Eco industries: regional business environment scores by region

Figure 42: Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)

Figure 43: Lombardy (Milan)

Figure 44: Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support



PwC 32

3.1.3. Mobile services: regional business environment scores by region

Figure 45: Attiki (Athens)

Figure 46: South Finland (Helsinki)

Figure 47: Vienna

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support



PwC 33

3.2. Comparing the strength of regional business environments: regional rankings by factor

The following graphs rank the regional scores for the different dimensions of strength in regional business

environments. The Capital Region of Denmark achieves the highest score for four of the framework conditions

(industrial, cultural, regulatory and policy and support). South Finland is in the top three for all except the

cultural framework conditions. Attiki ranks consistently in the bottom two and Catalonia in the bottom three.

Figure 48: Financial framework conditions

Figure 49: Industrial framework conditions

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Catalonia (Barcelona)

Attiki (Athens)

Lombardy (Milan)

Average (all regions)



Berlin

Inner London

South Finland (Helsinki)


Vienna

agreedisagree agreedisagree

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Attiki (Athens)



Lombardy (Milan)


Vienna

Berlin

Inner London




agreedisagree



PwC 34

Figure 50: Market framework conditions

Figure 51: Cultural framework conditions

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Attiki (Athens)



Lombardy (Milan)



Berlin

Vienna



Inner London

agreedisagree

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


Attiki (Athens)


Vienna




Inner London

Berlin

Lombardy (Milan)


agreedisagree



PwC 35

Figure 52: Knowledge framework conditions

Figure 53: Regulatory and policy framework conditions

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Attiki (Athens)



Inner London



Lombardy (Milan)

Vienna



Berlin

agreedisagree

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


Attiki (Athens)


Lombardy (Milan)


Vienna

Berlin

Inner London




agreedisagree



PwC 36

Figure 54: Support framework conditions


Knowledge, industrial and cultural factors are rated as slight strengths in the regional business environments

surveyed for the pilot scoreboard. Regulatory and policy, support, market and financial factors are rated as

weaknesses with average scores below 3.

Industrial factors are rated stronger for the creative industries and for the market factor there is a particular

weakness for the eco industries. Aside from these two aspects for the creative and eco industries, the strength of

the regional business environment is rated fairly similarly by stakeholders across all three emerging industries.

Non-firm respondents rate the strength of regional business environments consistently higher than firm

respondents. The difference is particularly marked for knowledge, support, and regulatory and policy factors.

There are significant differences in the strength of regional business environments across the 10 regions

surveyed. No region ranks favourably for all factors. Financial framework conditions are the weakest, scoring

unfavourable in all regions and very low for Catalonia and Attiki. Support framework conditions and regulatory

and policy framework conditions are also unfavourable in all but two regions (the Capital Region of Denmark

and South Finland). The highest scores are obtained for industrial and knowledge framework conditions.

There is a particularly notable difference in market framework conditions between the northern and southern

regions. Attiki, Catalonia, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur and Lombardy have weak market scores below the

average for all regions. Inner London, North Holland, South Finland, Vienna and Berlin on the other hand have

positive, although only slightly positive, market scores.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Attiki (Athens)




Lombardy (Milan)

Berlin

Inner London


Vienna



agreedisagree

Indicators of firm strength


PwC 37

4. Indicators of firm strength

This chapter investigates the availability of different factors that underpin the strength of firms. All the graphs

in this chapter measure availability on a scale of 1 to 5. Values below 3 indicate that stakeholders disagreed that

a given factor was available within the region and values above 3 indicate that it was available.

Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements related to the different

dimensions of firm strength. Respondents rated the extent to which a given characteristic applies to their firm

(or firms in their region). The questions were as follows:

For all the statements on this page, please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 is

‘strongly agree’.

Access to funding

◦ Your firm reinvests a significant share of its revenues into its activities. ◦ Your firm has sufficient access to public funding. ◦ Your firm has sufficient access to private funding. ◦ Your firm is able to raise funds in an acceptable time frame.

National and international contracts

◦ Your firm has established contracts with other firms or institutions in the region or within the cluster.

◦ Your firm has contracts with companies in different sectors. ◦ Your firm has contracts with companies based in other countries.


◦ Your firm has been successful in attracting foreign investment. ◦ Your firm has been successful in exporting its products and/or services to several foreign

countries. ◦ Your firm is benefitting from having established operations in several other countries.

Human Capital

◦ Your firm has been able to attract and retain talents. ◦ Your firm takes advantage of the experience and expertise of its employees. ◦ Your firm offers attractive wages adapted to the local cost of living.

Entrepreneurship

◦ Your firm’s leadership team has a strong track record in raising funds. ◦ Your firm’s leadership team includes one or several serial entrepreneurs. ◦ Your firm’s leadership regularly reviews and adapts its strategic plans based on changing

customer needs.


◦ Your firm identifies and seizes market opportunities and manages new market entries effectively. ◦ Your firm is effective at transforming ideas and innovations into products and services. ◦ Your firm invests into the development of new products and services addressing global markets.



PwC 38

4.1. Comparing emerging industries: firm strength in the different regions

The main firm strengths identified are human capital and market knowledge and innovation capacity (Figure

55). Entrepreneurship and national and international agreements are also rated somewhat favourably.

Internationalisation, which was rated as the least important of the factors for firm strength, also ranks lowest in

terms of availability with an unfavourable rating for all three emerging industries. Access to funding is judged

neither as strength nor as a weakness of firms. Overall, the scores between different industries are quite similar.

National and international agreements and internationalisation rank more favourable for mobile services and

the eco industries respectively.

Figure 55: Availability of different factors for the strength of firms by emerging industry

Firm respondents assess the strengths of firms more favourably overall compared to non-firm respondents

(Figure 56). The difference is most significant for human capital and it is also notable for entrepreneurship and

market knowledge and innovation capacity. For internationalisation, firms identified this as a weakness

whereas other stakeholders saw this factor as a slight strength for firms in their region.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Access to funding

National and international agreements


Human Capital

Entrepreneurship



agreedisagree



PwC 39

Figure 56: Availability of different factors for the strength of firms according to firm and non-firm respondents

The following spider charts present the results for the firm strength for all factors by regions grouped into the

three emerging industries for which they were identified as a hotspot. The charts show that, overall, the

assessment of firm strengths is rather positive across all regions, while access to finance and

internationalisation show in general as the least positive factors.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Access to funding

National and international agreements


Human Capital

Entrepreneurship



agreedisagree



PwC 40

4.1.1. Creative industries: firm strength scores by region

Figure 57: Berlin




1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding

National and inter-national

agreements

Internatio-nalisation

Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity



PwC 41

4.1.2. Eco industries: firm strength scores by region




1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity



PwC 42

4.1.3. Mobile services: firm strength scores by region



Figure 66: Vienna

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity



PwC 43

4.2. Comparing firm strength: regional rankings by factor

The following graphs rank the regional scores for the different dimensions of firm strength. Inner London

scores best across all dimensions ranking top for national and international agreements, human capital and

entrepreneurship and second for internationalisation and market knowledge and innovation capacity. The

Capital Region of Denmark and Vienna are the two other regions occupying the top of the rankings. Provence-

Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Catalonia and Lombardy score the lowest for at least one factor. These three regions,

however, also score in the top four on some of the rankings: Lombardy for access to funding,

internationalisation and market knowledge and innovation capacity; Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur and Catalonia

for entrepreneurship.

Figure 67: Access to funding

Figure 68: National and international agreements

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00


Attiki (Athens)




Berlin

Inner London



Lombardy (Milan)

Vienna


1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00



Berlin

Lombardy (Milan)

Vienna



Attiki (Athens)



Inner London

agreedisagree agreedisagree agreedisagree agreedisagree



PwC 44

Figure 69: Internationalisation

Figure 70: Human capital

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00


Berlin



Vienna


Attiki (Athens)


Lombardy (Milan)

Inner London



1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00



Lombardy (Milan)


Attiki (Athens)


Vienna

Berlin



Inner London




PwC 45

Figure 71: Entrepreneurship

Figure 72: Market knowledge and innovation capacity


Human capital, market knowledge and innovation capacity, entrepreneurship and national and international

agreements are rated favourably for firm strength, although the scores are only slightly favourable.

Internationalisation is rated as a weakness with average scores below 3 for all three emerging industries. Access

to funding is rated neither as a strength nor as a weakness overall.

The differences in scores between regions are less marked for firm strength compared to the scores for the

strength of the regional business environment. The differences are strongest for national and international

agreements as well as for internationalisation.

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Lombardy (Milan)




Attiki (Athens)


Berlin



Vienna

Inner London


1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00






Attiki (Athens)

Vienna

Lombardy (Milan)

Berlin

Inner London



Effective business support services


PwC 46

5. Effective business support services

This chapter investigates the availability of effective business support services in a given industry and region.

These are any organised efforts to enhance the competitiveness of the regional economy involving private

business, public bodies and/or academic institutions within a regional and sectoral system. Firms that indicated

that they are participating in a cluster initiative were asked to rate the services provided by the cluster

organisation managing the cluster. All other respondents were asked to rate business support services available

to companies in their industry and region.

Effective business support services are one aspect of cluster management excellence. The scoreboard indicators

for business support services thus measure include a

All the graphs in this chapter measure availability on a scale of 1 to 5. Values below 3 indicate that stakeholders

disagreed that an effective business support service was available within the region and values above 3 indicate

that it was available. The availability of services was assessed with the following question:

Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 is ‘strongly agree’. There are effective

business support services available in the region for [or ‘The cluster organisation provides an effective

service for’ for firms participating in a cluster organisation’]:

The acquisition of third party funding (e.g. public funding)

Information, matchmaking and exchange of experience among cluster participants (internal networking)

Matchmaking and networking with external cooperation partners and/or the promotion of the cluster location

The internationalisation of cluster participants

The development of human resources (e.g. training and education, recruitment)

The development of entrepreneurship

Collaborative technology development or technology transfer or R&D (without third party funding)



PwC 47

5.1. Comparing emerging industries: the availability of effective business support services

Business support services in general are assessed as rather ineffective for all emerging industries with ratings

mostly below 3 (Figure 73). The only favourable scores are for supporting internal networking and supporting

external networking for eco industries and, by a fraction, support for HR development for mobile services.

Overall, business support services in the creative industries are least effective. Supporting access to finance and

supporting internationalisation rate the lowest.

Figure 73: Availability of effective business support services by emerging industry

Firm respondents consistently rated the availability of effective business support services lower compared to

other stakeholders (Figure 74). The difference is most marked for supporting collaborative RDI, supporting

internationaliastion and supporting access to finance. Further, amongst firms, the different services are all

rated as ineffective whereas other stakeholders viewed at least some of the services somewhat positively.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5









agreedisagree



PwC 48

Figure 74: Availability of effective business support services according to firm and non-firm respondents

The following spider charts present the results for the availability of effective business support for all factors by

regions grouped into the three emerging industries for which they were identified as a hotspot. The charts for

Catalonia (Barcelona) and Attiki (Atthens) show that the business support services that are available in their

regions are viewed more critically across the bord than in the other regions.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5









agreedisagree



PwC 49

5.1.1. Creative industries: availability of effective business support services scores by region

Figure 75: Berlin




1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking

Supporting international

-isation

Supporting HR

development

Supporting entrepre-neurship

Supporting collaborative

RDI

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI



PwC 50

5.1.2. Eco industries: availabilty of effective business support services scores by region




1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI



PwC 51

5.1.3. Mobile services: availabilty of effective business support services scores by region



Figure 84: Vienna

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI



PwC 52

5.2. Comparing the availability of effective business support services: regional rankings by type of service

The following graphs rank the regional scores for availability of effective business support services. The Capital

Region of Denmark, Lombardy and South Finland rank most favourably for business support services. Their

scores are nevertheless on average borderline unfavourable for all the services. The regions having the weakest

business support services are Attiki and Catalonia. Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur has the lowest score for support

for entrepreneurship development even though it ranks in the top three for entrepreneurship as a factor in firm

strength.

Figure 85: Supporting access to finance

Figure 86: Support for information exchanges and matchmaking amongst firms in the region

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


Attiki (Athens)


Inner London




Vienna

Lombardy (Milan)

Berlin



1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


Attiki (Athens)

Inner London



Vienna

Berlin




Lombardy (Milan)




PwC 53

Figure 87: Support for networking and finding external cooperation partners

Figure 88: Support for internationalisation

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Attiki (Athens)


Inner London

Berlin




Vienna



Lombardy (Milan)


1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Attiki (Athens)


Berlin

Inner London


Vienna




Lombardy (Milan)





PwC 54

Figure 89: Support for human resource development

Figure 90: Support for entrepreneurship development

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5



Attiki (Athens)

Berlin


Lombardy (Milan)

Vienna


Inner London




1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


Attiki (Athens)



Vienna

Inner London

Berlin

Lombardy (Milan)







PwC 55

Figure 91: Support for collaborative R&D and/or technology transfer


The general assessment is that there is a lack of effective business support services in all the regions surveyed.

There are differences in the effectiveness of business support services across the three emerging industries. The

ratings for the eco industries are higher overall although they remain unfavourable for most services. Effective

business support services are most lacking in the creative industries.

There is a significant difference in the perceived effectiveness of available business support services between

firm and non-firm respondents. Firms assessed all business support services as being weaker compared to non-

firm stakeholders. The biggest difference between these stakeholder groups is for supporting collaborative RDI,

supporting internationalistion and supporting access to finance.

There are differences in the availability ratings across the regions for nearly all the services that were assessed.

Support for access to finance is weak for all regions but Attiki and Catalonia have particularly low availability

scores for this type of service. These two regions also rank below the average for all regions for all services and,

along with Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, they have consistent unfavourable ratings for all services. Southern

Finland and the Capital Region of Denmark have marginally favourable ratings for five of the seven types of

services but even in these two regions the services are assessed as lacking significantly in effectiveness.

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


Attiki (Athens)

Inner London

Berlin




Vienna

Lombardy (Milan)




Firm performance (output indicators)


PwC 56

6. Firm performance (output indicators)

This chapter focuses on output indicators rating the performance of firms in terms of change in employment,

change in annual revenues, change in output, change in profits, and change in the number of new products

and/or services introduced. Change for these indicators is assessed over the 3 year period prior to the survey,

i.e. the first quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of 2013. The graphs in this chapter measure performance on a

five point scale, where (1) is decreased, (2) is stayed the same, (3) is increased slightly (<5% annually), (4) is

increased moderately (5-10% annually), and (5) is increased significantly (>10% annually).

The firm performance questions were only put to stakeholders representing firms. Using the above-mentioned

five point scale, respondents were asked the following:

Over the past 3 years, the number of employees of the firm has:

Over the past 3 years, annual revenues of the firm have:

Over the past 3 years, the output (manufacturing and/or services) of the firm has:

Over the past 3 years, profits of the firm have:

Over the past 3 years, the number of new products and services introduced by the firm has:

These firm performance scores, by virtue of being derived from a survey, only present a snapshot of the

performance of firms for the selected emerging industry in each region. The number of responses also varies by

region but there was a high willingness of firms to share this information with over 80 percent of respondents

providing the output data for their firms.



PwC 57

6.1. Comparing emerging industries: firm performance

The surveyed firms in the creative industries experienced the least growth in terms of employment, annual

revenues, output and profits (Figure 92, Figure 93, Figure 94 and Figure 95). The eco industries performed best

overall for these performance indicators. Around half of the firms in the three emerging industries increased the

number of their employees between 2010 and 2013. Annual revenues increased for 60% of firms in the eco

industries and for mobile services and for 50% of firms in the creative industries. Firm performance was worst

in terms of profits, with at least one in five firms seeing a decline in their profits and one in three in the creative

industries.

Output in terms of the number of new products and services on the other hand increased for firms in all

emerging industries (Figure 96). The creative industries have the highest share of innovative firms with more

than 80% of firms increasing their innovation output. Around a quarter of firms increased their innovation

output significantly.

Figure 92: Change in the number of employees of firms by emerging industry, 2010-2013

Figure 93: Change in annual revenues of firms by emerging industry, 2010-2013

Figure 94: Change in the output of firms by emerging industry, 2010-2013

Figure 95: Change in profits of firms by emerging industry, 2010-2013

Figure 96: Change in the number of new products and services introduced by firms by emerging industry, 2010-2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Creative industries

Eco industries

Mobile services

(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same

(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually

(5) Increased by >10% annually

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Creative industries

Eco industries

Mobile services




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Creative industries

Eco industries

Mobile services




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Creative industries

Eco industries

Mobile services




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Creative industries

Eco industries

Mobile services


(3) Increased slightly (4) Increased moderately

(5) Increased significantly



PwC 58

6.1.1. Creative industries: firm performance scores by region

Figure 97: Berlin

N = 47


N = 51


N = 21


N = 38

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation






PwC 59

6.1.2. Eco industries: firm performance scores by region


N = 29


N = 49


N = 23

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation






PwC 60

6.1.3. Mobile services: firm performance scores by region


N = 71


N = 82

Figure 106: Vienna

N = 46

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation






PwC 61

6.2. Comparing firm performance indicators: scores by region

The following graphs rank the regional scores for availability for firm performance based on the percentage of

firms that reported an increase in output for the given indicator (i.e covering answers 3, 4 and 5 represented by

the orange and both green colours). This combined percentage figure of firms reporting an increase is also

indicated at the end each figure for every region. No regional hotspot performs consistently strongly for all

indicators. Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur ranks top for growth in employment but only average on revenues,

output and profits. The Capital Region of Denmark ranks top for growth in annual revenues but only average

for growth in employment. Berlin is in the top three for growth in employment and in the bottom three for

revenues, output and profits. Catalonia, Attiki and Lombardy are in the bottom four for employment, revenue,

output and profit growth.

There is a clear divide in terms of innovation performance between the different emerging industries. The three

regions surveyed for eco industries have the lowest firm innovation performance scores. The top three slots for

innovation performance are taken by creative industries hotspots.

Figure 107: Change in the number of employees of firms by region, 2010-2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur …

Inner London

Berlin

Vienna


Capital Region of Denmark …


Lombardy (Milan)

Attiki (Athens)





60,9%

60.5%

55.3%

53.5%

50.0%

48.3%

48.3%

44.9%

42.3%

23.5%

Increase (%)



PwC 62

Figure 108: Change in annual revenues of firms by region, 2010-2013

Figure 109: Change in the output of firms by region, 2010-2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Vienna



Inner London

Lombardy (Milan)

Berlin

Attiki (Athens)


(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually(5) Increased by >10% annually

Increase (%)

75.9%

68.3%

65.9%

61.9%

60.9%

60.5%

49.0%

47.8%

42.9%

30.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




Vienna


Inner London

Attiki (Athens)

Lombardy (Milan)

Berlin





Increase (%)

71.4%

69.0%

67.5%

67.4%

63.6%

63.2%

52.2%

47.9%

45.7%

45.1%



PwC 63

Figure 110: Change in profits of firms by region, 2010-2013

Figure 111: Change in the number of new products and services introduced by firms by region, 2010-2013

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Inner London


Vienna




Attiki (Athens)

Lombardy (Milan)

Berlin


(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually(5) Increased by >10% annually

Increase (%)

65.8%

62.1%

60.0%

52.4%

52.4%

50.0%

38.6%

37.5%

37.0%

17.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Inner London

Berlin

Attiki (Athens)

Vienna



Lombardy (Milan)



(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same(3) Increased slightly (4) Increased moderately(5) Increased significantly

Increase (%)

85.7%

84%

83.0%

82.9%

76.1%

74.5%

74.5%

71.4%

69.6%

67.9%



PwC 64

6.3. Comparing cluster firms with non-cluster firms

Amongst the firms responding to the questionnaire survey around one in five indicated that they participate in

a cluster initiative managed by a cluster management organisation (116 firms in total). The number and share of

surveyed firms participating in a cluster initiative does, however, vary significantly by region (Figure 112 and

Figure 113). Lombardy and Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur have participation rates of close to 50% and 65%

respectively amongst the surveyed firms. For both Catalonia and Inner London only a single firm participated

in a cluster initiative.

Figure 112: Number of surveyed firms participating in a cluster initiative by region

Figure 113: Share of surveyed firms participating in a cluster initiative by region

A comparison of the performance of firms participating in a cluster initiative with that of firms not participating

in a cluster initiative was performed but based on the different sampling rates the results need to be interpreted

with caution. The analysis also includes different emerging industries with different characteristics and

different regions with different strengths and differences in firm performance.

The results show that amongst the surveyed firms, firms participating in cluster initiatives outperform firms not

participating in cluster initiatives. A higher share of the firms participating in cluster initiatives significantly

increased the number of their employees (Figure 114), their annual revenues (Figure 115), their output (Figure

116), their profits (Figure 117), and the number of new products and/or services introduced (Figure 118) and a

smaller share saw in decrease for these same output indicators.

The results are perhaps not surprising considering previous findings on the innovative performance of firms in

clusters3 but they should nevertheless only be seen as indicative of a possible link to be investigated further. In

order to further explore and validate these findings, the response and sampling rates would need to be

significantly increased. The empirical evidence gathered in a larger dataset would also need to balance

responses and response rates between cluster and non-cluster firms at both the regional level and at industry

level.

3 See for example: “2006 Innobarometer on cluster’s role in facilitating innovation in Europe”, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_187_en.pdf

10

1

5

1

6

35

14

11

15

18

0 10 20 30 40

Berlin



Inner London


Lombardy (Milan)


Attiki (Athens)


Vienna

Firms participating in a cluster initiative

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All regions

Berlin



Inner London

Capital Region of Denmark …

Lombardy (Milan)

Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur …

Attiki (Athens)


Vienna

Firms participating in a cluster initiative

Firms not participating in a cluster initative



PwC 65

Figure 114: Change in the number of employees for cluster and non-cluster firms, 2010-2013

Figure 115: Change in annual revenues for cluster and non-cluster firms, 2010-2013

21.6%

34.1%

11.4%

14.8%

18.2%

16.2%

25.3%

12.1%

13.1%

33.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Decreased

Stayed the same

Increased by <5% annually

Increased by 5-10% annually

Increased by >10% annually

Firms participating in a cluster initiative Firms not participating in a cluster initative

23.0%

23.9%

10.5%

13.9%

28.1%

17.2%

21.2%

10.1%

18.2%

32.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Decreased

Stayed the same







PwC 66

Figure 116: Change in output for cluster and non-cluster firms, 2010-2013

Figure 117: Change in profits for cluster and non-cluster firms, 2010-2013

16.8%

26.7%

14.8%

14.2%

25.9%

11.1%

23.2%

14.1%

19.2%

31.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Decreased

Stayed the same





27.3%

28.7%

9.9%

14.8%

19.6%

22.2%

26.3%

10.1%

17.2%

21.2%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Decreased

Stayed the same







PwC 67

Figure 118: Change in the number of new products and services introduced for cluster and non-cluster firms, 2010-2013

The overall assessment of firms participating in cluster initiatives is favourable towards these initiatives (Figure

119). Participants are, on average, inclined towards recommending participation in the cluster initiative to other

firms. Cluster organisations are also seen as provided added value to the development of the regional industrial

base. Firms participating in cluster initiatives, however, neither agree nor disagree on whether they have

benefitted significantly from the services of the cluster organisation.

Firms not participating in a cluster initiative also tended to agree, although not particularly strongly, that

additional efforts to enhance a cluster in their region would add value to the development of the regional

industrial base.

Figure 119: Overall assessment of cluster initiatives

5.4%

19.9%

25.3%

21.6%

27.6%

2.0%

13.1%

30.3%

23.2%

32.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

Decreased

Stayed the same

Increased slightly

Increased moderately

Increased significantly


1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Firms not participating in a cluster: Additional organised efforts to enhance the competitiveness of a

cluster in your region would add value to the development of the regional industral base.

My firm has benefitted significantly from the services of the cluster organisation.

Your cluster organisation is providing added value to the development of the regional industrial base.

I would recommend participation in the cluster initiative to other firms.

strongly agreestrongly disagree



PwC 68


There are differences in firm performance between the three emerging industries for the employment, annual

revenues, output and profits indicators although these differences are less pronounced than the differences in

firm performance between regions. Firms in the eco industries performed best overall in terms of increases in

employment, annual revenues, output and profits. Firms in the creative industries showed the highest

innovation performance.

There are significant differences in the performance of firms between the different regions with no region

ranking consistently near the top for the different performance indicators. Inner London and the Capital Region

of Denmark performed best overall being ranked three times in the top three regions based on the percentage of

firms having increased their output. Catalonia and Lombardy had the lowest performance scores overall being

ranked in the bottom three for four of the five indicators.

There is a regional divide in terms of innovation performance related to the different emerging industries. The

three regions surveyed for eco industries have the lowest firm innovation performance scores. The top three

slots for innovation performance are taken by creative industries hotspots.

The analysis conducted to compare the performance of firms participating in cluster initiatives with the

performance of firms not participating in cluster initiatives suggests that the former outperform the latter on all

output indicators. These results should, however, be interpreted with caution given the different sampling rates,

different levels of participation in cluster initiatives and different characteristics of the surveyed regions.

Aggregate scores and indicators


PwC 69

7. Aggregate scores and indicators

This chapter presents aggregate importance and availability scores and composite indicators for the different

elements and factors boosting the strength of emerging industries. The scores and indicators in this chapter are

assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 indicate that the factor in question is less

important, unavailable or unfavourable and scores above 50 indicating that the factor in question is seen

as more important, available or favourable.

The importance scores are based on the results from the questions on the importance of different factors for

boosting the strength in emerging industries displayed in chapter 2. The importance scores were obtained by

transforming the importance rating variables for the different factors from a scale of 1 to 5 to a scale of 0 to 100.

The availability scores are based on the results from the questions on the availability of different factors that

underpin the strength of regional business environments (framework conditions) listed at the beginning of

chapter 3, the results from the questions on the availability of different factors that underpin the strength of

firms listed at the start of chapter 4, and the results from the questions on the availability of effective business

support services listed in the introduction of chapter 5. The availability scores were obtained by transforming

the availability rating variables for the different factors from a scale of 1 to 5 to a scale of 0 to 100.

The composite indicators aggregate the importance and availability scores in a single composite score. They

are calculated by multiplying the relative importance of each factor by its availability. In other words, the

relative importance scores are used to add a weighting to the availability scores in order to create a composite

indicator measuring both importance and availability.



PwC 70

7.1. Regional rankings for the different elements measuring regional strength in emerging industries

7.1.1. Rankings based on availability scores

The following graphs rank the aggregate scores for the availability of the three elements boosting the strength of

emerging industries at regional level: the regional business environment (Figure 120), firm strength (Figure

121), and business support services (Figure 122). A ranking of the average availability score for all three

elements is shown in Figure 123. The scores are assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 indicate

that availability for the element in question is unfavourable and scores above 50 indicate that it is favourable.

Figure 120: Availability score for regional business environment (framework conditions) by region

Figure 121: Availability score for firm strength by region

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Attiki (Athens)



Lombardy (Milan)


Inner London


Berlin

Vienna



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Berlin


Attiki (Athens)



Lombardy (Milan)

Vienna


Inner London



PwC 71

Figure 122: Availability score for business support services by region

Figure 123: Availability score for all three elements (average) by region

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Attiki (Athens)


Inner London


Berlin

Vienna


Lombardy (Milan)



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Attiki (Athens)




Berlin

Lombardy (Milan)


Vienna

Inner London





PwC 72

7.1.2. Rankings based on composite indicators measuring both importance and availability

The following composite indicators take into account both importance and availability of the different

elements boosting the strength of emerging industries. The following graphs rank the composite indicator

scores for the three elements boosting the strength of emerging industries at regional level: the regional

business environment (Figure 124), firm strength (Figure 125), and business support services (Figure 126). A

ranking of the composite indicator score for all three elements is shown in Figure 127. The composite indicator

scores are assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 are unfavourable in terms of importance and

availability and scores above 50 are favourable.

Figure 124: Composite indicator for regional business environment (framework conditions) by region

Figure 125: Composite indicator for firm strength by region

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Attiki (Athens)



Lombardy (Milan)


Inner London

Berlin




Vienna

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Vienna


Lombardy (Milan)

Attiki (Athens)



Berlin


Inner London



PwC 73

Figure 126: Composite indicator for business support services by region

Figure 127: Composite indicator for all elements by region

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Attiki (Athens)


Berlin

Inner London




Vienna



Lombardy (Milan)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Attiki (Athens)




Lombardy (Milan)


Berlin

Vienna

Inner London





PwC 74

7.2. Scores measuring regional strength of emerging industries

The three tables in this section report the importance scores (Table 2), the availability scores (Table 3) and the

composite indicator scores (Table 4) for the different factors measuring strength in emerging industries by

region. Although a composite indicator score is provide for the overall regional strength in emerging industries,

the results for the individual composite indicators for the three key elements and for its individual factors

should be foremost reviewed in order to identify areas that hold back the performance of the overall eco-system.

7.2.1. Importance scores for different factors by region

The scores in Table 2 are assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 indicate that stakeholders

assessed the factor as less important and scores above 50 as more important.

Table 2: Importance scores for different factors measuring strength in emerging industries

Be

rli

n

Ca

talo

nia

(B

ar

ce

lon

a)

No

rth

Ho

lla

nd

(A

mste

rd

am

)

Inn

er

Lo

nd

on

Ca

pit

al

Re

gio

n o

f D

en

ma

rk

(C

op

en

ha

ge

n)

Lo

mb

ar

dy

(M

ila

n)

Pr

ov

en

ce

-Alp

es

-C

ôte

d’A

zu

r

(Ma

rs

eil

le)

Att

iki

(Ath

en

s)

So

uth

Fin

lan

d

(He

lsin

ki)

Vie

nn

a

Av

er

ag

e (

all

r

eg

ion

s)

Regional business environment (Framework conditions)

Financial 61.34 68.66 69.44 62.93 77.94 70.89 70.27 81.55 67.54 64.86 69.63

Industrial 56.98 56.43 65.74 57.33 60.29 61.99 61.11 61.88 61.49 54.10 59.76

Market 59.01 68.66 72.22 78.02 67.16 65.28 56.08 69.42 61.49 68.38 66.30

Cultural 70.29 65.36 77.36 71.98 63.24 78.77 53.38 63.24 63.10 54.35 66.20

Knowledge 65.12 63.73 71.76 57.76 79.41 73.61 63.51 67.40 75.00 70.96 69.23

Regulatory and policy 41.86 59.86 61.57 55.60 72.55 77.08 68.06 69.12 60.28 48.91 60.86

Support 51.16 64.08 56.48 51.29 57.84 64.04 59.72 65.20 56.85 59.78 58.81

Aggregate score 57.97 63.83 67.80 62.13 68.35 70.24 61.73 68.26 63.68 60.19 64.40

Firm strength

Access to funding 60.42 70.77 68.06 65.42 65.82 77.74 72.79 80.94 62.70 58.93 68.26

Partnerships 65.48 59.29 68.52 61.02 71.00 74.66 58.57 77.75 69.88 65.14 68.14

Internationalisation 50.00 67.50 66.67 66.67 75.00 75.68 62.14 76.00 67.34 55.43 66.42

Human Capital 77.35 82.75 80.56 83.33 83.00 86.99 80.00 80.94 82.66 72.86 81.09

Entrepreneurship 82.74 79.93 80.56 74.17 76.00 85.76 83.57 77.75 77.03 76.79 79.21


87.06 83.21 82.41 80.42 82.50 84.93 81.43 84.90 83.94 78.21 83.29

Aggregate score 70.51 73.91 74.46 71.84 75.55 80.96 73.08 79.71 73.93 67.89 74.40

Business support services


52.03 72.92 59.91 55.42 61.27 72.26 70.83 69.85 58.06 56.43 62.52


44.77 65.49 52.36 47.84 54.90 65.41 64.58 58.09 54.64 54.29 55.87


53.49 69.44 61.32 60.78 62.25 69.18 60.42 66.34 66.53 62.86 63.71


45.00 71.53 63.68 63.56 61.00 73.63 61.49 69.12 64.92 55.71 63.17


45.06 63.54 53.77 48.31 55.88 71.53 50.69 59.31 55.04 53.21 55.97


50.00 71.13 58.02 55.93 65.50 68.84 56.94 57.43 60.08 54.64 59.71


42.73 70.49 55.66 43.64 60.78 68.84 64.19 59.56 56.45 50.00 56.89

Aggregate score 47.58 69.22 57.82 53.64 60.23 69.95 61.31 62.81 59.39 55.31 59.69



PwC 75

7.2.2. Availability scores for different factors by region

The scores in Table 3 assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 indicate that availability for the

factor in question is unfavourable and scores above 50 indicate that it is favourable.

Table 3: Availability scores for different factors measuring strength in emerging industries

Be

rli

n

Ca

talo

nia

(B

ar

ce

lon

a)

No

rth

Ho

lla

nd

(A

mste

rd

am

)

Inn

er

Lo

nd

on

Ca

pit

al

Re

gio

n o

f D

en

ma

rk

(C

op

en

ha

ge

n)

Lo

mb

ar

dy

(M

ila

n)

Pr

ov

en

ce

-Alp

es

-C

ôte

d’A

zu

r

(Ma

rs

eil

le)

Att

iki

(Ath

en

s)

So

uth

Fin

lan

d

(He

lsin

ki)

Vie

nn

a

Av

er

ag

e (

all

r

eg

ion

s)


Financial 41.55 13.36 36.78 42.11 41.50 35.24 45.59 14.29 44.38 50.32 35.34

Industrial 66.37 55.21 68.80 66.67 69.05 58.74 48.99 40.38 67.43 61.86 59.93

Market 53.04 32.17 56.67 57.29 48.61 36.52 32.35 28.57 53.61 53.14 44.89

Cultural 61.67 52.57 59.35 60.57 62.93 62.32 40.63 41.49 60.01 55.73 55.85

Knowledge 69.72 56.13 61.96 56.62 69.22 63.14 51.23 35.48 67.32 67.19 59.44


Support 42.39 27.70 45.92 43.12 52.13 41.43 38.26 23.29 51.67 47.88 41.01

Aggregate score 54.66 37.69 54.13 53.64 57.33 48.06 41.48 30.23 57.41 54.79 48.60

Firm strength


Partnerships 50.81 45.63 58.91 68.67 68.48 54.53 45.71 59.04 65.09 56.92 58.00


Human Capital 68.68 66.81 63.37 70.92 70.74 63.65 62.12 67.11 70.09 68.22 67.53



67.97 56.48 62.21 68.03 68.24 65.75 56.31 63.83 60.67 64.31 63.37

Aggregate score 55.33 50.63 55.60 63.34 61.97 57.35 51.23 55.62 57.28 58.58 56.71



45.42 21.19 42.86 39.36 43.89 44.53 40.83 28.06 45.43 44.09 39.18


50.83 32.33 54.76 44.27 56.67 60.94 48.33 35.56 53.33 49.56 48.21


44.83 34.65 48.21 44.57 56.11 56.25 45.69 33.89 52.64 50.44 46.45


37.50 30.17 46.88 40.76 50.56 50.39 42.24 28.89 47.33 41.07 41.04


49.14 36.86 53.66 53.72 57.22 49.60 40.83 42.13 57.21 52.19 49.49


46.12 38.56 50.63 45.21 51.11 46.77 33.33 33.89 50.96 45.09 44.29


43.10 32.89 45.12 42.55 50.00 47.66 43.33 35.00 54.09 46.43 44.26

Aggregate score 45.28 32.38 48.87 44.35 52.22 50.88 42.09 33.92 51.57 46.98 44.70

.



PwC 76

7.2.3. Composite indicators assessing importance and availability of different factors by region

The composite indicator scores in Table 4 are assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 are

unfavourable in terms of importance and availability and scores above 50 are favourable.

Table 4: Composite indicator scores for factors measuring strength in emerging industries

Be

rli

n

Ca

talo

nia

(B

ar

ce

lon

a)

No

rth

Ho

lla

nd

(A

mste

rd

am

)

Inn

er

Lo

nd

on

Ca

pit

al

Re

gio

n o

f D

en

ma

rk

(C

op

en

ha

ge

n)

Lo

mb

ar

dy

(M

ila

n)

Pr

ov

en

ce

-Alp

es

-C

ôte

d’A

zu

r

(Ma

rs

eil

le)

Att

iki

(Ath

en

s)

So

uth

Fin

lan

d

(He

lsin

ki)

Vie

nn

a

Av

er

ag

e (

all

r

eg

ion

s)


Financial 43.97 14.37 37.67 42.66 47.33 35.57 51.89 17.07 47.07 54.22 38.21

Industrial 65.24 48.81 66.71 61.51 60.91 51.84 48.50 36.61 65.11 55.60 55.61

Market 53.99 34.61 60.37 71.94 47.76 33.94 29.39 29.06 51.77 60.37 46.22

Cultural 74.78 53.83 67.72 70.17 58.22 69.89 35.13 38.44 59.47 50.32 57.42

Knowledge 78.32 56.04 65.58 52.64 80.42 66.17 52.70 35.04 79.29 79.20 63.90


Support 37.42 27.81 38.26 35.60 44.11 37.78 37.01 22.24 46.13 47.56 37.45

Aggregate score 55.47 37.22 54.46 54.06 57.18 48.28 41.62 29.56 57.61 55.11 48.59

Firm strength


Partnerships 47.18 36.60 54.21 58.32 64.35 50.29 36.63 57.59 61.53 54.61 53.12


Human Capital 75.35 74.79 68.56 82.26 77.71 68.38 68.00 68.15 78.38 73.21 73.60



83.92 63.59 68.85 76.15 74.52 68.97 62.74 67.98 68.90 74.08 70.94

Aggregate score 57.15 51.61 55.98 63.75 62.34 57.54 52.25 55.77 57.89 59.36 57.29



49.67 22.32 44.41 40.67 44.65 46.00 47.18 31.20 44.42 44.99 41.03


47.83 30.59 49.59 39.49 51.66 56.98 50.92 32.88 49.07 48.65 45.12


50.39 34.76 51.14 50.49 58.00 55.63 45.03 35.79 58.98 57.33 49.58


35.46 31.18 51.63 48.30 51.20 53.04 42.37 31.79 51.74 41.37 43.44


46.53 33.84 49.91 48.38 53.09 50.71 33.76 39.79 53.02 50.22 46.41


48.46 39.62 50.80 47.15 55.58 46.03 30.96 30.98 51.55 44.55 44.30


38.71 33.50 43.44 34.62 50.46 46.89 45.37 33.19 51.41 41.97 42.18

Aggregate score 45.29 32.26 48.70 44.16 52.09 50.75 42.23 33.66 51.46 47.01 44.58

Composite indicators

Regional Business Environment

54.79 34.44 55.36 53.71 57.43 46.01 39.31 28.72 55.86 57.67 47.29

Firm Strength 68.66 55.29 62.50 73.23 69.22 63.20 58.41 63.27 65.17 61.31 64.42

Business Support Services

36.72 32.37 42.22 37.88 46.11 48.16 39.60 30.09 46.54 43.28 40.22

Composite indicator for regional strength in emerging industries

53.39 40.70 53.36 54.94 57.59 52.45 45.77 40.69 55.86 54.09 50.64



PwC 77

7.3. Comparing composite indicator scores and firm performance

The following graphs compare the composite indicator scores for regional business environment and for

business support services for the 10 regions to the performance of firms in these regions. The performance

scores for these graphs correspond to the percentage of firms in each region reporting an increase for the

relevant indicator (as reported in the figures in section 6.2). The scores for the change in firm revenues, output,

number of employees and profits thus refer to the combined percentage of firms reporting an increase.

There appears to be some correlation between the composite indicator scores for regional business environment

and the performance of firms in terms of change in annual revenues and change in output for the surveyed

regions (Figure 128). The two regions with the lowest regional business environment scores, Catalonia and

Attiki, also have lower firm performance. Regions with higher composite indicator scores also score higher in

terms of firm performance. The most significant outlier in Figure 128 is Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, which in

spite of a lower composite indicator score for regional business environment has firms performing rather well

in terms of the percentage of firms reporting increases in annual revenues and output.

Figure 128: Composite indicator scores for regional business environment compared to change in annual revenues and change in output

Berlin54.8

Catalonia (Barcelona)34.4


55.4

Inner London53.7


57.4

Lombardy (Milan)46.0


39.3

Attiki (Athens)28.7

South Finland (Helsinki)55.9

Vienna57.7

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Per

cen

tag

e o

f fi

rms

rep

ort

ing

an

in

crea

se i

n o

utp

ut

Percentage of firms reporting an increase in annual revenues




PwC 78

There is less of a correlation between the composite indicator scores for business support services and firm

performance in terms of growth in employment and growth in profits (Figure 129). The two regions with the

lowest composite indicator scores for business support services, Catalonia and Attiki, however do again score

lowest for firm performance. The region with the highest composite indicator score, the Capital Region of

Denmark, scores well for growth in profits but less well for growth in employment. The three regions with the

highest percentages of firms reporting growth in employment, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Inner London and

Berlin all have unfavourable composite indicator scores for business support services. On the other hand,

Lombardy has a favourable composite indicator score but ranks in the bottom three in terms of the two firm

performance scores.

Figure 129: Composite indicator scores for business support services compared to change in employment and change in profits

Berlin45.3

Catalonia (Barcelona)32.4


48.9

Inner London44.3


52.2

Lombardy (Milan)50.9


42.1

Attiki (Athens)33.9

South Finland (Helsinki)51.6

Vienna47.0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Per

cen

tag

e o

fir

ms

rep

ort

ing

an

in

crea

se i

n p

rofi

ts

Percentage of firms reporting an increase in number of employees


Conclusions


PwC 79

8. Conclusions

The European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard has been designed as a tool to measure and assess the strengths

and weaknesses of regional business environments, firms, and business support services. As this pilot version of

the scoreboard has shown, the proposed survey-based methodology can be applied effectively in practice in

order to obtain specific, relevant and timely information on the current state of regional business ecosystems. It

offers comprehensive, concrete and actionable evidence that can be used to design policy tools to address

specific weaknesses and needs that have been identified at the level of firms, regions or industries.

The majority of respondents surveyed for the scoreboard were entrepreneurs but other key stakeholders were

also included. It was essential to gather the views and inputs and capture the perceptions of all stakeholders in

order to provide a balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the different ecosystems. The

outputs of the scoreboard, likewise, provide relevant insights for all the contributing stakeholders including

entrepreneurs, policy makers, cluster management organisations, investors and academics. The uptake and

response rate for the scoreboard questionnaire exceeded expectations and showed that there is both a need for

and a strong interest in the type of assessment and analysis that it provides.

In order to better understand the industry-specific framework conditions relevant for the development of

world-class cluster in emerging industries, further work has been carried to complement the analysis and

results of the European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard. Three case study reports have been prepared for the

emerging industries that were also selected for the analysis of the European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard,

namely creative industries, eco industries and mobile services industries4.

4 The case studies will be available for download at: http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/index.html#!view=aboutobservatory;url=/about-observatory/emerging-industries/

Scorecard for creative industries in Berlin


PwC 80

Appendix A. - Scorecard for creative industries in Berlin

A.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries

(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength

(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance

Summary and recommendations

Knowledge characteristics, entrepreneurial culture and a critical mass of companies in related sectors are noted as strong points of the regional business environment for creative industries in Berlin. Market knowledge and human capital are considered important individual firm strengths. Business support services are the weakest element of the ecosystem. Firms scored very well overall in terms of their innovation performance but this is not matched by a similar performance for the other indicators, with growth in profits being particularly sluggish.

The results of the scoreboard survey for the Berlin cluster are positive overall. Future policy efforts would be best geared towards the improvement of current business support mechanisms, with a particular emphasis on promoting the internationalisation of SMEs.

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




Scorecard for creative industries in Berlin


PwC 81

A.2. Composite indicators


(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)

How to read these graphs

These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

6.3

9.3

7.7

10.7

11.2

4.9

5.3

15.1

14.0

14.5

17.3

16.0

10.3

12.6

(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market

(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy

(7) Support

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

55.5

7.3

7.9

4.3

12.6

11.1

14.0

14.3

15.5

11.8

18.3

19.6

20.6

(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships

(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital

(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

57.2

7.1

6.8

7.2

5.1

6.6

6.9

5.5

15.6

13.4

16.1

13.5

13.5

15.0

12.8

(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

45.3

18.3

22.9

12.2

32.9

40.0

27.0

(1) Regional Business Environment

(2) Firm Strength

(3) Business Support Services

(1)

(2)

(3)

53.4

Scorecard for creative industries in Catalonia (Barcelona)


PwC 82

Appendix B. - Scorecard for creative industries in Catalonia (Barcelona)

B.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries




The regional business environment in Catalonia is weak overall and inhomogeneous with the financial situation being particularly poor. The market, regulatory and policy and support dimensions are also rated very unfavourably. Catalonia performs best for the firm strength component although internationalisation and access to financing are weak points. Business support services are the weakest element with insufficient availability for all types of services. The performance of firms was in general viewed as negative, with a large percentage of respondents indicating poor business performance. Profits and annual revenues fared worst with over half of the surveyed firms reporting a decrease for those indicators over the previous three years.

There are a number of fundamental weaknesses in the regional ecosystem for the creative industries in Catalonia. Access to finance, in particular, is a significant issue that needs to be addressed. The weakest elements are business support services where more effective services are required across the board.

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




Scorecard for creative industries in Catalonia (Barcelona)


PwC 83

B.2. Composite indicators





(1) (2)

(3) (4)

2.1

7.0

4.9

7.7

8.0

3.6

4.0

15.4

12.6

15.4

14.6

14.3

13.4

14.3



(7) Support

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

37.2

6.1

6.1

5.8

12.5

10.5

10.6

16.0

13.4

15.2

18.7

18.0

18.8




(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

51.6

3.2

4.4

5.0

4.54.8

5.7

4.8

15.0

13.5

14.3

14.8

13.1

14.7

14.5


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

32.3

11.5

18.4

10.8

30.8

35.7

33.4


(2) Firm Strength


(1)

(2)

(3)

40.7

Scorecard for creative industries in North Holland (Amsterdam)


PwC 84

Appendix C. - Scorecard for creative industries in North Holland (Amsterdam)

C.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries




The industrial environment is well rated suggesting that there is a critical mass and strength of companies and related industries with a pretty well shaped regional environment. The financial situation within the region was however considered not sufficient to meet the needs of the industrial sector. Firms in the creative industries have been performing well with regards to output and innovation although the smaller share of firms experiencing increases in annual revenues and profits suggests that margins are being squeezed. Policy targets for the region should seek to encourage the influx of potential funding bodies into the region. The composite indicator suggests that support services to companies e.g. provided by cluster organisations could be improved, especially as far as support to access to finance and internationalisation are concerned.

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




Scorecard for creative industries in North Holland (Amsterdam)


PwC 85

C.2. Composite indicators





(1) (2)

(3) (4)

5.4

9.5

8.6

9.7

9.4

6.4

5.5

14.6

13.9

15.2

16.3

15.1

13.0

11.9



(7) Support

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

54.5

6.9

9.0

7.5

11.4

9.6

11.5

15.2

15.3

14.9

18.0

18.0

18.4




(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

56.0

6.3

7.1

7.3

7.4

7.1

7.3

6.2

14.8

12.9

15.2

15.7

13.3

14.3

13.8


(1)(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

48.7

18.5

20.8

14.1

33.9

37.2

28.9


(2) Firm Strength


(1)

(2)

(3)

53.4

Scorecard for creative industries in Inner London


PwC 86

Appendix D. - Scorecard for creative industries in Inner London

D.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries




Respondents indicated that there is a strong industrial basis in the region with a critical mass of firms operating in the creative sector. Strength of the firms is perceived to be more than satisfactory, despite the slight weakness of business services provided to companies. The funding aspect and the internationalisation support appear to be the point of major attention to be developed within the firms of the region. These aspects are also visible from the composite indicator scoring, and, along with the access to talents, should be supported by the organisations providing services to the companies.

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




Scorecard for creative industries in Inner London


PwC 87

D.2. Composite indicators





(1) (2)

(3) (4)

6.1

8.8

10.3

10.0

7.5

6.3

5.1

14.5

13.2

17.9

16.6

13.3

12.8

11.8



(7) Support

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

54.1

8.0

9.7

8.7

13.7

10.9

12.7

15.2

14.2

15.5

19.3

17.2

18.7




(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

63.7

5.8

5.6

7.2

6.9

6.9

6.7

4.9

14.8

12.7

16.2

16.9

12.9

14.9

11.6


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

44.2

17.9

24.4

12.6

33.1

38.3

28.6


(2) Firm Strength


(1)

(2)

(3)

54.9

Scorecard for eco industries in the Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)


PwC 88

Appendix E. - Scorecard for eco industries in the Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)

E.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries




Responses to the survey suggest that the financial situation is poorly viewed in the Copenhagen region. The regional ecosystem is overall perceived to be good especially in terms of critical mass of companies, access to research and entrepreneurial culture. Firms look like being well armed and ready to go international, and Copenhagen is one of the few regions where nearly all firm strength factors are more than satisfactory. Business support services are considered to be overall satisfactory. An encouraging statistic is that few firms performed poorly, and that impact of the crisis on the profit was perceived only on a limited number of firms.

The recommendation for future policy for this region would be to continue help drive market demand for eco industries.

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




Scorecard for eco industries in the Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)


PwC 89

E.2. Composite indicators





(1) (2)

(3) (4)

6.8

8.7

6.8

8.3

11.5

8.8

6.3

16.3

12.6

14.0

13.2

16.6

15.2

12.1



(7) Support

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

57.2

7.6

10.7

9.5

13.0

9.1

12.4

14.5

15.7

16.5

18.3

16.8

18.2




(1)(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

62.3

6.4

7.4

8.3

7.3

7.6

7.9

7.2

14.5

13.0

14.8

14.5

13.3

15.5

14.4


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

52.1

19.1

23.1

15.4

33.5

37.0

29.5


(2) Firm Strength


(1)

(2)

(3)

57.6

Scorecard for eco industries in Lombardy (Milan)


PwC 90

Appendix F. - Scorecard for eco industries in Lombardy (Milan)

F.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries




The survey suggests that there is a good access to research and technologies for eco industries in the region, a critical-mass of firms, as well as a good local business culture and skilled workers. Yet, respondents indicated that the financial situation is critical, and that the regulations and policies along with the regional support systems still need to meet the demand of the respondents. Access to market is perceived to be a point of further development. These relatively low rankings for some aspects of the regional environment might be explained by the difficulty a large number of companies in the eco-tech field had to generate profit during this period of financial downturn. The policy recommendations based on the results of this survey would be that future policies and regulations should aim at easing firms access to funding, and at developing the access of the region to the eco-tech market, which by definition is heavily regulated, and characterised by an important global potential. Given the decrease in profits that some of the firms have experienced, a clear identification and prioritisation of most promising technologies and markets would be important.

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




Scorecard for eco industries in Lombardy (Milan)


PwC 91

F.2. Composite indicators





(1) (2)

(3) (4)

5.1

7.4

4.8

10.0

9.5

6.1

5.4

14.4

12.6

13.3

16.0

15.0

15.7

13.0



(7) Support

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

48.3

8.5

8.4

8.5

11.4

9.3

11.5

16.0

15.4

15.6

17.9

17.7

17.5




(1)

(2)

(3)(4)

(5)

(6)

57.5

6.6

8.1

7.9

7.6

7.2

6.6

6.7

14.8

13.4

14.1

15.0

14.6

14.1

14.1


(1)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

50.8

15.3

21.1

16.1

31.8

36.6

31.6


(2) Firm Strength


(1)

(2)

(3)

52.5

Scorecard for eco industries in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)


PwC 92

Appendix G. - Scorecard for eco industries in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)

G.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries




The regional business environment and support services are rated unfavourably for eco industries in the region. Particular weaknesses are market, regulatory and policy factors, and support measures. The scores for firm strength are more positive. Human capital and entrepreneurship are seen as strengths although internationalisation is one notable weakness for firms. Firms in the region are performing quite well overall with over three in five firms having increased their employment, revenues and output over the last 3 years.

Given the weakness of the regional market for eco industries and the low score for internationalisation of firms, a good starting point for supporting firms more effectively in the region would be to introduce further measures to assist firms in the region to access national and international markets.

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




Scorecard for eco industries in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)


PwC 93

G.2. Composite indicators





(1) (2)

(3) (4)

7.4

6.9

4.2

5.07.5

5.2

5.3

16.3

14.1

13.0

12.4

14.7

15.7

13.8



(7) Support

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

41.6

8.0

6.1

5.1

11.3

11.3

10.5

16.6

13.4

14.2

18.2

19.1

18.6




(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

52.3

6.7

7.3

6.4

6.1

4.8

4.4

6.5

16.5

15.0

14.1

14.3

11.8

13.3

15.0


(1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

42.2

13.1

19.5

13.2

31.5

37.3

31.3


(2) Firm Strength


(1)

(2)

(3)

45.8

Scorecard for mobile services in Attiki (Athens)


PwC 94

Appendix H. - Scorecard for mobile services in Attiki (Athens)

H.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries




The regional business environment for mobile services in Attiki is very weak for all of the relevant factors and particularly for access to finance and in terms of support measures. In contrast, firm strength is favourable overall with human capital and market knowledge and innovation capacity being rated strongly. There is also a significant lack of all types of business support services. Firm performance is weak as over a third of firms saw their revenues and profits decline over the past three years.

The strength of firms and their innovation output suggests that there is significant potential in the mobile services industry in the Attika region. Access to funding is their weakest point which is clearly reflected in the very low rating assigned to the availability of finance in the region. If access to finance could be improved and better supported for accessing international markets be provided, firms could potentially harness more of their potential and improve their overall performance.

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




Scorecard for mobile services in Attiki (Athens)


PwC 95

H.2. Composite indicators





(1) (2)

(3) (4)

2.4

5.2

4.2

5.5

5.0

4.1

3.2

17.1

13.0

14.5

13.2

14.1

14.5

13.6



(7) Support

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

29.6

7.2

9.6

7.3

11.4

8.9

11.3

16.9

16.3

15.916.9

16.3

17.8




(1)

(2)

(3)(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)(4)

(5)

(6)

55.8

4.5

4.7

5.1

4.5

5.7

4.4

4.7

15.9

13.2

15.1

15.7

13.5

13.1

13.5


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

33.7

9.6

21.1

10.0

32.4

37.8

29.8


(2) Firm Strength


(1)

(2)

(3)

40.7

Scorecard for mobile services in South Finland (Helsinki)


PwC 96

Appendix I. - Scorecard for mobile services in South Finland (Helsinki)

I.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries




South Finland has a relatively strong regional business environment for mobile services with a critical mass of companies and an established knowledge base. Access to finance is rated somewhat unfavourably at the regional level although as a measure of firm strength it has a slight positive ranking. Human capital and market knowledge and strong points for firms whereas internationalisation is the weakest. Business support services are rated marginally favourably but there is no indication that there are particularly effective services available to firms. Firms in South Finland have been performing well in terms of growth in revenues and output. Growth in employment and profits has been less pronounced.

The business environment for mobile services and the strength of firms in South Finland have favourable ratings overall. The performance of the ecosystem and firms could be further improved by facilitating access to finance and the internationalisation of firms.

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




Scorecard for mobile services in South Finland (Helsinki)


PwC 97

I.2. Composite indicators





(1) (2)

(3) (4)

6.7

9.3

7.4

8.5

11.3

7.8

6.6

15.2

13.8

13.8

14.2

16.8

13.5

12.8



(7) Support

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

57.6

7.4

10.3

6.1

13.1

9.5

11.5

14.1

15.8

15.2

18.6

17.4

18.9




(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

57.9

6.3

7.0

8.4

7.4

7.6

7.4

7.3

14.0

13.1

16.0

15.6

13.2

14.5

13.6


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

51.5

18.6

21.7

15.5

32.3

37.5

30.1


(2) Firm Strength


(1)

(2)

(3)

55.9

Scorecard for mobile services in Vienna


PwC 98

Appendix J. - Scorecard for mobile services in Vienna

J.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries




The regional business environment in Vienna for mobile services is favourable with particular strengths being the knowledge base and the presence of other firms in the same and related industries. The scores for the regulatory and policy and for the support factors are marginally unfavourable. Firm strengths include human capital and entrepreneurship. Vienna has the highest score for access to funding as a measure of firm strength amongst all the regions included in the pilot scoreboard. For internationalisation on the other hand it ranks below the average. Business support services are the weakest element overall. Support for internationalisation has the lowest availability rating amongst all the services. Firms in Vienna have been performing reasonably well in terms of output, particularly in terms of the growth of annual revenues.

Business support services are the weakest of the three elements for mobile services in Vienna and should be strengthened. In particular, providing more effective business support services for internationalisation could increase the level of internationalisation of firms and further increase their strength.

1

2

3

4

5Financial

Industrial

Market

CulturalKnowledge


Support

1

2

3

4

5

Access to funding


agreements


Human Capital

Entrepre-neurship

Market knowledge

and innovation

capacity

1

2

3

4

5


Supporting internal

networking

Supporting external

networking


-isation

Supporting HR

development



RDI

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Number of employees

Annual revenues

Output

Profits

Innovation




Scorecard for mobile services in Vienna


PwC 99

J.2. Composite indicators





(1) (2)

(3) (4)

7.7

7.9

8.6

7.2

11.3

5.5

6.8

15.4

12.8

16.2

12.9

16.8

11.6

14.2



(7) Support

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

55.1

8.4

9.1

6.0

12.2

11.4

12.3

14.5

16.0

13.6

17.9

18.8

19.2




(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

59.4

6.4

6.9

8.2

5.9

7.2

6.4

6.0

14.6

14.0

16.2

14.4

13.7

14.1

12.9


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

47.0

19.2

20.4

14.4

34.9

34.4

30.7


(2) Firm Strength


(1)

(2)

(3)

54.1

eu cluster development strategy

Documents