Tekes | Tekes Review

Pekka Pesonen Tekes [email protected]

Tekes – Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation

November 2011 ISSN 1797-7339 ISBN 978-952-457-536-2

Better results, more value – A framework for analysing the societal impact of Research and Innovation

Tel. +358 10 191 480 Fax +358 9 694 9196 Kyllikinportti 2, P.O. Box 69 FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: [email protected] www.tekes.fi

Tekes Review 288/2011

288|2011

Further information

Better results, more value A framework for analysing the societal impact of Research and Innovation Päivi Luoma, Tuomas Raivio, Paula Tommila, Johan Lunabba, Kimmo Halme, Kimmo Viljamaa and Henri Lahtinen

10

Päivi Luoma, Tuomas Raivio, Paula Tommila, Johan Lunabba, Kimmo Halme, Kimmo Viljamaa and Henri Lahtinen

Better results, more value A framework for analysing the societal impact of Research and Innovation

Tekes Review 288/2011 Helsinki 2011 3

Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation Tekes is the main public funding organisation for research and development (R&D) in Finland. Tekes funds industrial projects as well as projects in research organisations, and especially promotes innovative, risk-intensive projects. Tekes offers partners from abroad a gateway to the key technology players in Finland. Tekes programmes – Tekes´ choices for the greatest impact of R&D funding Tekes uses programmes to allocate its financing, networking and expert services to areas that are important for business and society. Programmes are launched in areas of application and technology that are in line with the focus areas in Tekes’ strategy. Tekes programmes have been contributing to changes in the Finnish innovation environment for twenty years.

Copyright Tekes 2011. All rights reserved. This publication includes materials protected under copyright law, the copyright for which is held by Tekes or a third party. The materials appearing in publications may not be used for commercial purposes. The contents of publications are the opinion of the writers and do not represent the official position of Tekes. Tekes bears no responsibility for any possible damages arising from their use. The original source must be mentioned when quoting from the materials.

ISSN 1797-7339 ISBN 978-952-457-536-2 Cover image: Kalleheikki Kannisto Page layout: DTPage Oy Printers: Libris Oy, Helsinki 2011

4

Contents

Foreword..........................................................................................................................................................................6 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................8 2 Impacts of research and innovation........................................................................................9 2.1 2.2 2.3

Assessing the impacts of research and innovation.............................................................9 Summary of the international benchmarking.....................................................................12 Framework for defining impacts and indicators of research and innovation........................................................................................................................................18

3 Economy and economic renewal............................................................................................. 21 3.1 Phenomena...............................................................................................................................................21 3.2 Indicators.....................................................................................................................................................23

4 Environment.................................................................................................................................................. 25 4.1 Phenomena...............................................................................................................................................25 4.2 Indicators.....................................................................................................................................................27

5 Well-being........................................................................................................................................................ 30 5.1 Phenomena...............................................................................................................................................30 5.2 Indicators.....................................................................................................................................................32

6 Skills and Culture...................................................................................................................................... 34 6.1 Phenomena...............................................................................................................................................34 6.2 Indicators.....................................................................................................................................................36

7. Concluding remarks............................................................................................................................... 40 Annexes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

International benchmarking...........................................................................................................41 Implementation plan (in Finnish)................................................................................................93 List of phenomena and indicators in Finnish.......................................................................96 Outline of the process.........................................................................................................................98 Members of the Steering Group and the Project Group............................................ 100 International experts and participants of the workshops......................................... 101 International experts......................................................................................................................... 101 Participants of the workshops..................................................................................................... 101 Detailed tables of indicators........................................................................................................ 103

Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................................... 118 References................................................................................................................................................................ 119 Tekes Reviews in English........................................................................................................................... 121

5

Foreword

The interest in assessing the impact of research and innovation has been continuously increasing due to the need to understand the role of innovation in the competitiveness and renewal of economies. The research has been motivated by the need to find evidence on the impacts of the public spending on research, development and innovation (RDI), as well as to link research and innovation policy measures with broader objectives in the society. This exercise is based on fifteen years’ work with the impact model by Tekes, the Academy of Finland and the Research and Innovation Council. In the model, impact chains from RDI inputs to societal impacts in four impact areas are described with a unified framework. These impact areas cover the main societal challenges and opportunities that can be seen as societal objectives in Finland. These impact areas are as follows: •• Economy and economic renewal. This impact area addresses the economic impacts of research and innovation. •• Environment. The impact area addresses the impacts of research and innovation in the face of environmental challenges such as climate change and resource depletion. •• Well-being. This impact area consists of the impacts of research and innovation on the objective and subjective factors of well-being, such as health and quality of life, working life, and the living environment. •• Skills and Culture. The impact area includes the impacts of research and innovation activities on the accumulation of knowledge, skills, expert networks, culture and creativity. In this work, the phenomena related to the impact chains as well as the indicators describing the state of the phenomena in a quantitative way have been identified. To back up the process, a short international benchmark study has been carried out. Similar approaches were sought internationally and compared with the exercise at hand. The main conclusion of the international benchmarking is that there are very few indicator activities that genuinely link socio-economic impact factors to research and innovation and that there are even less activities linking socio-economic impact in specific areas to RDI activity. However, international benchmarking of the indicators would make us better understand the causes and results of innovation activities and in making existing and forthcoming efforts comparable international cooperation is needed.

6

The identification process has been carried out by a series of idea and consensus seeking workshops with a very broad basis of participants; international expert work, consultant work, project group work and steering group work. Besides Tekes and the Academy of Finland, the Research and Innovation Council and Statistics Finland have also participated in the steering group and the project group. The process work has been carried out by Gaia Consulting Ltd and Ramboll Management Consulting Ltd. The steering group expresses its warmest gratitude to the consultants for their well-planned and thorough work, and also to a large number of experts from various organizations for their indepth and interactive contribution. The aim of the work has been to find the key indicators for assessing the societal impacts, outputs, activities and inputs of research and innovation in Finland. This knowledge should not only enable the continuous development and international benchmarking of the Finnish innovation system but it should improve communication on the goals and impacts of innovation policy. Despite the challenges of the work the search of impact indicators is important. Indicators help us determine how we measure impact. Impact measurement clarifies strategic goals and creates transparency in operating environment and financing. The report at hand is a description of the results of one phase of the work. Several exercises have been implemented before this one, and further phases and exercises are still needed. The process continues and the set of indicators should adapt to the forthcoming changes in societal priorities and goals. Raine Hermans, Tekes Markku Mattila, Academy of Finland Riitta Mustonen, Academy of Finland Veli-Pekka Saarnivaara, Tekes Leena Storgårds, Statistics Finland Leena Treuthardt, Academy of Finland Ilkka Turunen, Research and Innovation Council Heikki Uusi-Honko, Tekes

7

1 Introduction Assessing the impacts of research and innovation is important for determining their contribution to the societal challenges and public objectives, such as economic growth, environment, and well-being. By shedding light on the impacts and their interactions we justify the strategic choices and investments made in research and innovation. At the same time we enhance the awareness on and the accountability of public expenditure on research and innovation activities, as well as work toward increased effectiveness of public incentives and measures. In Finland, assessing the impacts of research and innovation has a long tradition. Public research funding agencies Tekes1 and the Academy of Finland have been an instrumental part of the development. They are international forerunners in identifying and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of their activities, and methodologies for evaluating the impacts have been continuously developed. However, a comprehensive framework for assessing the impact of research and innovation on everyday life in society has been miss-

1 2

8

ing – such that it overarches the impacts of basic research to applied research, development work and innovation activities, and that would sufficiently take into account the key challenges of the Finnish society. The aim of the work has been to find the key indicators for assessing the societal impacts, outputs, activities and inputs of research and innovation in Finland. This knowledge should not only enable the continuous development and international benchmarking of the Finnish innovation system but to improve the communication on the goals and impacts of innovation policy. The work has been based on the impact model developed earlier by Tekes and Academy of Finland. In the model, impact chains from RDI2 inputs to societal impacts in four impact areas are described with a unified framework. In this work, the phenomena related to the impact chains as well as the indicators describing the state of the phenomena in a quantitative way have been identified. To back up the process, a short international benchmark study has been carried out. In this work, sim-

ilar approaches were sought internationally and compared with the exercise at hand. The identification process has been carried out by a series of idea and consensus seeking workshops with a very broad basis of participants; international expert work, consultant work, project group work and steering group work. Besides Tekes and Academy of Finland, also Research and Innovation Council (TIN) and Statistics Finland participated in the steering group and the project group. The process work has been carried out by Gaia Consulting Ltd and Ramboll Management Consulting Ltd. The report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the framework for impacts and indicators of the research and innovation. Chapters 3 through 6 describe the phenomena and indicators of the impacts of research and innovation on four different impact areas. The annexes include the international benchmarking, the implementation plan, the outline of the process, the members of the Steering Group and Project Group, and the international experts.

Tekes, National Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation RDI = Research, development, and innovation, in this report often used as a synonym to research and innovation. A broad definition of research and innovation is used in this study covering related activities from basic research, applied research, and development to piloting and demonstration of innovations.

2 Impacts of research and innovation A traditional task of research and innovation is to create the preconditions for economic growth and renewal both on microeconomic and macroeconomic level3. Public research and development (R&D) spending has been shown to have evident impacts on the R&D intensity of the companies and their innovation capital as well as renewal and productivity of the companies4. However research and innovation have also various different environmental, cultural, and societal impacts. These impacts have been studied in fewer details than the economic ones. However, great societal challenges get more and more focus both in innovation policies and in the strategies of innovationintensive companies. Many of the impacts are aimed and expected, but unwanted and unexpected impacts also occur. The scope, content and timeline of the impacts vary a lot. The interest in assessing the impact of research and innovation has been continuously increasing due to the need to understand the role of innovation in the competitiveness and renewal of the economies. In addition, the research has been motivated by the need to legiti-

mate public spending on R&D; evidence on the impacts based on systematic research and relevant indicators have been asked for5. Another driver is the increasing need to link research and innovation policy measures with the broader objectives in the society. This is directly evident in the EU level where research and innovating policy development is tightly linked to the socio-economic objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, broader societal impact of public research and innovation funding and especially the so called societal grand challenges6. Much less attention has been laid on the role of research and innovation in other areas of the society. When assessing the impacts of research and innovation it is important to understand the actors that form the research and innovation system. According to OECD (1997) innovation and technical progress are “the result of a complex set of relationships among actors producing, distributing and applying various kinds of knowledge”. The key actors that carry out these functions are primarily private enterprises, universities and public research institutes and the people within them. There are also

various linkages between these actors, such as collaborative research, personnel exchange and various other forms of knowledge transfer. From the perspective of the impact indicator framework the actors have an important role. Much of the information measuring RDI is organization specific i.e. data collected on the operations and performance of individual organizations such as universities and firms. What is important from the impact assessment perspective are the knowledge flows between various actors from knowledge providers through knowledge users to final beneficiaries. A broad definition of research and innovation is used in this study covering all research and innovation related activities from basic research, applied research, and development to piloting and demonstration of innovations.

2.1 Assessing the impacts of research and innovation On many occasions, the effectiveness of research and innovation is framed by using the so-called input-activity-output model7. This model is far from satisfactory, however, when the social and

3

See, e.g., Hyvärinen (2010) regarding innovation policies. See, e.g., Riipinen et al. (2010a): Ebersberger (2005); Ali-Yrkkö (2004) 5 E.g. VTV (2008). T&k-arviointitoiminta [R&D assessment work, in Finnish] http://www.vtv.fi/files/133/1572008_T_K_Arviointitoiminta_NETTI.pdf 6 Optimizing the research and innovation policy mix (2011) 7 The Innovation Union Scoreboard uses the division Enablers – firm activities – Outputs. 4

9

economic impacts of R&D activities are observed at the level of the national economy. Long-term effects of impacts require a long time span even in the case of business-oriented R&D, not to mention basic research. As a consequence of the long time span, many factors that are evolving and changing in nature have an effect on the impacts achieved8. Furthermore, a large number of impacts of science, technology and innovation are implicit in nature and they cannot be traced back to single inputs or activities. Based on the international benchmarking of indicators on the impacts of research and innovation, no framework could be found that directly responds to the needs of this exercise. Instead, the international benchmarking, described in section 2.2, provided plenty of information on various sets of thematic indicator as well as on generic non-thematic research and innovation policy impact assessment frameworks. The general conclusion from the international benchmarking study was that there are a multitude of research and innovation policy indicator frameworks and indicator development projects existing around the world. At the same time many thematic indicator exercises in the thematic fields of welfare, environment, culture and the economy are being conducted. However, the research and innovation indicators and the thematic or sector indicators (except the economy) rarely interact with each other in the same indicator framework, especially when policy impacts are measured. 8

It is also worth noting that a short term impact assessment framework may not reflect the policy goals in a longer perspective. The impact assessment framework is always based on the objectives and preferences set during the time when the framework is introduced. Although there is typically an objective to make frameworks as future-proof as possible, in practice there is always a need to revise the framework based on the latest knowledge. It should also be noted that the selected impact areas represent the longer term objectives of the society as a whole and this way are considered as more sustainable than shorter term policy objectives, plans, or strategies. The causality chain from research & development & innovation (RDI) inputs to societal impacts is not a closed one. In practice, not all RDI measures contribute toward a particular impact, which makes it challenging to distinguish the causality of various paths from inputs to impacts. The chain from research to innovation and finally to so-

cioeconomic benefits and other impact areas is not linear but involves several feedback loops that provide new inputs to the process at various stages. For an example, see Figure 1. Although innovation results in impacts that are relevant for the society, it is not only the innovation that changes the world. Impacts result from several drivers, and the impact of innovation policies, for example, are a result of the interaction of several policies and other factors9. Important framework conditions include endogenous factors such as the structure and historical development trajectory of the innovation system, regulation as well as exogenous factors such as the economic situation. When assessing the role of research and innovation policies it should be noted that the policies consist of numerous direct and indirect measures that may have an impact on each phenomenon under consideration. Figure 2 below describes taxonomy of different RDI measures that can be identified as having a policy impact in various impact areas.

Figure 1. Chain link model RDI impact (Martin 2007; Kline and Rosenberg, 1986)

Research

Technological development

Innovation

Socio-econ. benefit

For example, in the US Innovation Vital Signs project another factor: “context” was added alongside input, process and outcome factors to bring in issues, such as the macroeconomic policy, infrastructure and mindset, to the analysis. (http://www.usinnovation.org/files/Innovation_ Indicators807.pdf ) 9 Hjelt, Luoma et al (2011)

10

Demand Subsidies and Tax incentives Articulation of private demand Awareness and Training Catalytic Procurement R&D procurement Public procurement of innovative goods Use of regulations & standards to set innovation targets Technology platforms to coordinate development Cluster policies Supply chain policies Support for clubs Foresight to build common visions Co-location in incubarator, Science parks etc Contact databases Brokerage events Advisory services International technology watch Patent databases Benchmarking Tailored cources for firms Entrepreneur ship training Subsidised secondments Industrial research studentship Support for recruitment of scientists University funding Laboratory funding Cillaborative grants Strategic programmes for industry Support for contract research Equipment sharing Corporation tax reductions for volume or increment in R&D Reductions in employers payroll tax and social contributions Personal tax incentives for R&D workers Public venture capital funds Mixed or subsidised private venture funds Loss underwriting and guarantees Tax incentives

Grants for R&D Collaborative grants Reimbursable loans Prices to spend on R&D

Support of private demand Public Procurement Networking measures Information & brokerage support Support for training & mobility Support for public sector recearch Fiscal measures

Finance

Equity support

Grants for industrial R&D

Services

Systemic policies

Regulation

Demand-side Measures Supply-side Measures

Figure 2. Taxonomy of RDI policy measures (Source: Edler & Georghiou 2007)

Another important dimension that needs to be addressed is the increasingly global character of RDI activities. An increasing share of RDI is sourced from abroad and at the same time the results of the domestic RDI activities flow abroad. The companies in many industry sectors are tightly linked in global valuechains where the effects of RDI can be transferred to other countries easily. In the multinational corporations it is even more difficult to define the effects of RDI activity since it is next to impossible to get information on the internal knowledge flows. Public RDI is also increasingly international and the amount of international research networks, joint projects and international research funding is rising. RDI flows can be traced to a certain degree but a significant part of them are simply invisible to impact assessments. In the same way some phenomena may exceed national boundaries or have a significant global dimension. Examples of these are the general economic development and some environmental factors such as climate change. The key challenges in assessing the impacts of research and innovation can be summarized as follows10: •• Causality: the relationships between research and innovation inputs, activities, outputs, and impacts are often unclear or nonlinear. •• Attribution: it is difficult or even impossible to separate the impact of research and innovation from other inputs and activities. •• Internationality: the impacts of research and innovation are international by nature – activities and value chains are global, and both positive and negative spillovers exist. 10

Bilbao-Osorio, 2008

11

•• Time scale: the impacts are realized both in the short and long-term. •• Breakdown of impacts to particular socio-economic target: how to define e.g. impact on public welfare or culture. Not all of these challenges can be overcome when designing an indicator framework. Nevertheless, these issues need to be studied and assessed. For example, the causality problem needs the assessment of relationships between various indicators in the same impact chain e.g. what is the correlation between the cause and the effect (or input – activity – output) indicators, what is the time criterion (input preceding output) and invariance (the effectmodel relatively stable against changes over time as well as structural changes). The attribution problem is challenging especially in terms of impact since in many cases the role of research and innovation policy activities can be quite small and indirect e.g. in having an impact on welfare as a whole. Internationality relates to the internationalization of research and innovation processes across the space globally where the impacts do not necessarily take place in the same country where activities are located. On the other hand some phenomena, such as climate change, are global by nature and that makes it more difficult to frame the impacts. The time-frame problem highlights the problem of establishing when the impact actually take place. Without specific longitudinal studies it is often difficult to assess the exact impact of various measures even if the impact chain can be defined. The minimum condition to overcome this problem is 12

to look at impacts within a reasonable time frame after the results (outputs) have been realized. Finally, although there are some measures that are specifically targeted towards a specific sector, many research and innovation policy measures provide outputs that extend to several different impact areas. This can be partially overcome by using more specific sub-categories under each general impact area, in which case the impact chains can be modelled and framed more precisely.

2.2 Summary of the international benchmarking The main conclusion of the international benchmarking is that there are very few indicator activities that genuinely link socio-economic impact factors with research and innovation and that there are even less activities linking socio-economic impact in specific areas to R&D activity. However, this is not to say that there are not any such indicators developed and used internationally. The benchmarking study shows that numerous projects and frameworks exist that try to capture the socio-economic development and various issues related to these developments. At the same time there is a very developed group of indicator frameworks related to research and innovation. The challenge, however is to develop a link between the specific thematic areas (environment, economy, welfare and skills and culture), and research and innovation activities. This challenge becomes even more significant, when internationally comparable indicators are sought for. Many international indicator frameworks have to make compromises in terms of selected indicators to be

able to find internationally comparable data. This means that there are very few detailed indicators available that could show, for instance, the contribution of research and innovation to a particular socio-economic impact. The study shows that one very popular area of impact indicators is the various international indices. The strength of indices lies in three basic elements. Firstly, the indices are typically composite indicators that cover a broad impact area by using several sub-indicators as a base. Secondly, the indices are often international by nature, allowing a relatively wide coverage of countries and easy comparison. Thirdly, the indices are very good at presenting a particular problem in a simple way, which is useful when introducing key themes or challenges to decision-makers and people in general. At the same time indices are problematic since they hide the actual data and individual indicators and often lack a clear conceptual and theoretical framework. Moreover, composite indicators are not typically suitable for using time series or for studying causal relationships. For that reason these indices are not useful as such in the Finnish impact indicator framework since instead of single composite indicators there is a dire need for more detailed indicators that can be linked to inputs, activities and outputs of research and innovation activities. The general conclusion based on international benchmarking is that the approach to link research and innovation with various socio-economic and environmental issues is quite novel. In practice this provides several challenges for the work to develop a sound and reliable indicator framework. The main contribu-

tion of the international benchmarking has been to identify the key topics (or phenomena) and the best indicators related to the themes. A significant part of the phenomena selected for the Finnish impact framework are based on or influenced by the themes identified in the international indicator projects. However, to link the thematic rele-

vance with activities related to research and innovation has required specific work from the research team assisted by Finnish and international experts that have participated in the projects. Moreover, because of the still existing gap between indicators measuring various socio-economic phenomena and indicators measuring development in

research and innovation, a lot of work has been done to further develop actual indicators that would be used in the indicator framework to measure the actual link between the “two worlds”. The summary of international indicator projects and their contribution to the Finnish impact assessment framework is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Summary of international benchmarking and contribution to the impact assessment of research and innovation

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

Innovation Union Scoreboard by EU

The Scoreboard measures the innovativeness of the EU Member States annually based on statistical comparison by utilizing several indicators related to innovation.

The Innovation Union Scoreboard introduces a sound framework for measuring research and innovation inputs, activities and outputs. It introduces new comparable indicators useful especially for the measurement of Skills and culture.

Innovation Vital Signs Project

Relevant, high quality and timely innovation indicators, which will enhance public understanding of the various roles government entities, can play in fostering innovation and of policy choices used for ensuring that the US remains attractive environment for innovation in the world.

The project provides new indicators useful for measuring especially impacts in Economy and economic renewal as well as Skills and culture.

Latest work carried out by OECD

New innovation indicators based on OECD works.

The OECD work provides information on the latest discussion on research and innovation indicators as well as few new indicators for measuring general innovation activity.

NESTA work on measuring innovation

The National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts (NESTA) in the UK has done a lot of development work in order to assess and measure innovation activities, outputs and to some extent impact in many areas. NESTA has had many ongoing initiatives like innovation index.

Provides a sound framework for assessing inputs for innovation. The classification is useful for identifying subcategories for the indicator framework, although there is not any division to various impact areas.

Innovation Indicator for Germany

Innovative capacity of the industrialised nations. The account is used for comparing the Federal Republic of Germany with 16 other countries.

A huge amount of indicators related especially to research, innovation and education that have been studied as a source for indicators in the frameworks. Mainly applicable to the themes Economy and economic renewal and Skills and culture. Much of the data is comparative across countries.

The Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU and U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness

Assessing the global innovation-based competitiveness of 36 countries and four regions.

Indicator providing comparative indicators. However, most of the indicators already introduced in other projects. Mainly applicable to the themes Economy and economic renewal and Skills and culture.

Research and innovation

13

...Table 1. continues

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

Impact assessment framework development Canada

General impact assessment framework development by Statistic Canada and the other is the Science and Technology (S&T) performance framework development carried out in order to measure the impact of Federal S&T investments.

The impact assessment framework in Canada has several similarities with the framework presented in this publication. Its focal point is the continuum from input through activities and output to impacts on different level. As opposed to the Finnish model, the Canadian model has not highlighted a few chosen areas of impact, but contains several thematic dimensions. Additionally impact has been divided into indirect and direct impacts. The framework has been used as a benchmark by the research team when constructing the Finnish framework.

Legatum prosperity index

The Legatum Prosperity Index is based on two questions: what is prosperity and how is it achieved? The index begins with the assumption that prosperity relates to both money and the quality of life. The more proper definition includes also wealth and wellbeing. All in all the Prosperity Index™ evaluates 110 countries, which cover over 90 percent of the world’s population.

The index is based on 89 different variables, each of which has a demonstrated effect on economic growth or on personal wellbeing. The indicators and categories in the index are useful for selecting indicators for the Finnish framework although many of them are quite general. Useful specifically for Economy and economic renewal as well as Well being indicator sets.

Europe 2020 Strategy by EU

Five objectives to be reached by 2020 (indicators in brackets)11: Employment, R&D / innovation, Climate change / energy, Education, Poverty / social exclusion

A few good examples of useful internationally (EU) comparable indicators to consider as impact indicators especially for environment and education. Links to EU 2020 strategy.

Sustainable Development Indicators by Eurostat

Eurostat has created the Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs) to monitor the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS).

Good framework used by the EU. Themes and indicators in the framework are useful for selecting important phenomena and related indicators.

Globalisation indicators by Eurostat

The 25 indicators have been grouped in 5 categories aimed at measuring several aspects of globalisation.

An indicator framework that provides a few useful comparable indicators to measure the international dimension of several impact areas but especially those related to knowledge and economy.

Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress12

The project makes several suggestions for developing better indicators for economic performance and wellbeing, although it does not offer a definite list of readily available indicators. Recommendations were made in terms of measuring economic performance and its connections to wellbeing.

The lessons from the project are extremely useful assessing various phenomena especially related to the welfare impacts in the indicator framework as well as to assess individual indicators, although it did not itself provide any new indicators.

Beyond GDP

Includes Human Development Index (HDI), Ecological Footprint (EF), and Genuine Savings (Adjusted Net Savings).

The framework has provided a new set of indexes and related dimensions to consider but is not directly useful since the indicators and indexes are described in more detail elsewhere.

Sustainable society

11 12

14

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/europe_2020_indicators/headline_indicators Report of the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress CMEPSP, September, 14, 2009

...Table 1. continues

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

Measures of Australia’s progress

Measures of Australia’s Progress were developed to assess whether life was getting better in Australia.

The framework has been especially useful to determine various phenomena in the framework for welfare, environment and the economy.

UNDP Human Development Index

The Human Development Index (HDI13) is the best known indicator used for measuring the state of society by non-financial terms. HDI covers most countries in the world.

The index itself s not particularly relevant for the indicator framework but the individual 30 indicators have been studied in order to define key phenomena. Since may indicators also cover less-developed countries these are not very useful for the Finnish context.

The European Social Survey

The European Social Survey (the ESS) is a biennial multi-country survey covering over 30 nations.

The survey provides data especially on welfare topics but also those related to Skills and culture. These have been used to define key phenomena although individual indicators have not been used.

Genuine Progress Indicator, GPI

Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is based on the ISEW index. It can be used for depicting the sustainability of the economy, and especially for long-term trends of development. The results are also easy to compare with different, generally used economic indicators such as GDP and ISEW.

The indicator provides useful variables that have been considered when selecting key phenomena for the indicator framework.

The New National Welfare Index, NWI

The new National Welfare Index (NWI) is a monetary quantity, i.e. all included variables are provided in monetary form although some of the variables still lack a reliable year-by-year data base.

The indicator provides useful variables that have been considered when selecting key phenomena for the indicator framework.

Sustainable Society Index, SSI

The SSI is an index covering a broad range of topics and a wide coverage of 151 countries on national level. Recently the SSI has also been implemented on regional level, and the aim is to develop the index to cover the local level as well.

The usefulness of the index has been to benchmark the phenomena for impacts elected in the Finnish framework since the SSI framework includes economic, environmental and wellbeing as thematic areas. However these could not be used directly since SSI lack direct links to R&D.

Environmental Performance Index, EPI

In 2010 EPI ranked 163 countries based on 25 performance indicators, which have been tracked across ten policy categories covering both environmental public health and ecosystem vitality.

Provides information on comparable environmental indicators. No direct link to research and innovation.

Ecological Footprint, EF

The ecological footprint is a notion developed for measuring human demand on the Earth's ecosystems by comparing human demand with Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste.

Provides information on comparable environmental indicators especially linked to resources and their use. No direct link to research and innovation.

Environment

13

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/

15

...Table 1. continues

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

Happy Planet Index, HPI

The HPI is measure has been created to demonstrate the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered around the world.

Provides useful information on links between environment and welfare phenomena. No direct link to research and innovation.

Climate Change Performance Index, CCPI

Index developed to developed to show the strengths and weaknesses in the development of national and international climate policies

Provides useful information on comparable environmental indicators. No direct link to research and innovation.

The Living Planet Index, LPI

The Living Planet Index is an indicator that reflects changes in the health of the planet’s ecosystems by tracking population trends of over 8,000 vertebrate species.

Provides useful information on comparable environmental indicators. No direct link to research and innovation.

Ecosystem Wellbeing Index, EWI

The Ecosystem Wellbeing Index is the lower of two scores – one includes resource use and the other excludes the use of resources.

Provides useful information on comparable environmental indicators especially linked to resources and their use. No direct link to research and innovation.

United Nations Environmental Indicators

A group of environmental indicators linked to economic issues, social/demographic issues, air/ climate, land/soil, water, other natural resources, waste, human settlements, and natural disasters.

Provides useful information on environmental indicators but also indicators linked to economy. Useful defining key phenomena linked to environmental impacts. No direct link to research and innovation.

The European Environment Agency, EEA

The EEA produces European, pan-European and regional integrated environmental data and indicator sets, assessments and thematic analyses. Currently there are 32 member countries associated with the EEA.

A huge amount of environmental data and indicator sets, assessments and thematic analyses that help to define the key phenomena linked to environmental impact. No direct link to research and innovation.

Economy and economic renewal WEF Global Competitiveness Report

The Centre for Global Competitiveness and Performance of the World Economic Forum14 produces reports and conducts activities through which impediments to growth are identified.

Useful generic index that is widely used around the world. Individual indicators useful for defining indicators related to the Economy and economic renewal.

IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook

The World Competitiveness Scoreboard presents the 2010 overall rankings for the 58 economies covered by the WCY.

Useful generic index that is widely used around the world. Individual indicators useful for defining indicators related to the Economy and economic renewal.

Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, ISEW

The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW15) was developed to measure sustainable economic welfare. ISEW has also been considered as a replacement for the gross domestic product.

Useful generic index that is widely used around the world. Individual indicators useful for defining indicators related to the Economy and economic renewal as well as welfare.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)

Research related to entrepreneurship with 10 countries and by 2011 had researched in 80 economies all over the world.

Specific indicators linked to the Economy and economic renewal. Entrepreneurship often linked indirectly with innovation.

14 15

16

http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness http://www.ivm.vu.nl/en/Images/AT5_tcm53-161576.pdf

...Table 1. continues

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

Global Entrepreneurship Index, GEINDEX

The experts at the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor have also developed Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEINDEX) to capture the contextual feature of entrepreneurship across countries.

Specific indicators linked to the Economy and economic renewal. Entrepreneurship often linked indirectly with innovation.

European Human Capital Index

European Human Capital Index has been created to measure the development of human capital.

The index provides interesting indicators linking economy with knowledge and education. Some have been considered in the Finnish framework.

Active Citizenship in Europe

The European Union framework for indicators to measure human skills in everyday life and practical involvement in democratic processes.

The indicator set has been studies to define the phenomena of citizenship linked to Skills and culture impacts in the framework.

Hong Kong Creativity Index

A set of indicators developed to measure creativity, structural/institutional capital, human capital, social capital, and cultural capital.

The indicator set has been studies to define the phenomena of creativity as part of the Skills and culture impacts in the framework.

Pisa Survey

OECD project that assesses if the students near the end of compulsory education have acquired some of the knowledge and skills essential for full participation in society.

The study has been directly used as a source for the indicator framework.

OECD work on measuring adult skills

OECD project to provide information provide some information on adult skills knowledge and skills essential for full participation in society.

The study has been directly used as a source for the recommendations of future indicators in the indicator framework.

INSEAD Skills

Indicator framework developed by the INSEAD business school to assess skills is essential to sustained economic growth.

The study has been used to define how to link skills with the key phenomena in the field of Skills and culture.

Urban Institute - Cultural Vitality Indicators

A set of indicators aimed at measuring the creation, dissemination, validation, and support for arts and culture as a dimension of everyday community life and conditions.

The indicator set has been studies to define the phenomena of culture as part of the Skills and culture impacts in the framework. Individual indicators problematic to link with research and education.

Cultural indicators for New Zealand 2009

A set of culture development indicators that aim is to monitor trends in the contribution of cultural activity to New Zealand society and its economy.

The indicator set has been studies to define the phenomena of culture as part of the Skills and culture impacts in the framework. Individual indicators problematic to link with research and education.

European Creativity Index, ECI

A statistical framework for illustrating and measuring the interplay of various factors that contributes to the growth of creativity in the European Union.

The indicator set has been studies to define the phenomena of creativity as part of the Skills and culture impacts in the framework.

Skills and culture

17

...Table 1. continues

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

Happy Life Years, HLY

An index developed at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands to measure the Quality-of-life in nations.

The general framework provides interesting approach to measure welfare. The individual indicators are problematic and are difficult to link with research and innovation.

National Accounts of Well-being, NAW

An indicator framework with an aim to provide a new way of assessing societal progress, a cross-cutting and more informative approach to policy-making, and better engagement between national governments and the public.

Very useful indicator set for defining various phenomena linked with welfare impacts. Individual indicators not linked with research and innovation.

Gross National Happiness, GNH

An index developed as an indicator that measures quality of life or social progress in more holistic and psychological terms than the gross domestic product (GDP).

Indicator set for defining various phenomena linked with welfare impacts how they are linked e.g. with environment and education. Individual indicators not linked with research and innovation.

Canadian Index of Wellbeing, CWI

The Canadian Index of Wellbeing has been designed to measure wellbeing that goes beyond narrow economic measures (such as GDP or employment).

Indicator set for defining various phenomena linked with welfare impacts how they are linked e.g. with Skills and culture. Individual indicators not linked with research and innovation

Quality of Life Index

The quality-of-life index of the Economist Intelligence Unit is based on a methodology linking the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys to the objective determinants of quality of life across countries.

Indicator set for defining various phenomena linked with welfare impacts how they are linked e.g. with environment and education. Individual indicators not linked with research and innovation.

Well being

2.3 Framework for defining impacts and indicators of research and innovation The framework for assessing the impacts of research and innovation used in this study consists of four impact areas for research and innovation. These impact areas cover the main societal challenges and opportunities that can be seen as societal objectives in Finland. The selection of these impact areas is based on the previous work carried jointly by Tekes and the Academy of Finland. These impact areas are as follows: •• Economy and economic renewal. This impact area addresses the eco18

nomic impacts of research and innovation. •• Environment. The impact area addresses the impacts of research and innovative in the face of environmental challenges such as climate change and resource depletion. •• Well-being. This impact area consists of impacts of research and innovation on the objective and subjective factors of well-being, such as health and quality of life, working life, and the living environment. •• Skills and culture. The impact area includes the impacts of research and innovation activities on the accumulation of knowledge, skills, expert networks, culture and creativity.

It could be proposed to use well-being as an umbrella including economic, environmental, societal (and cultural) aspects under it, thus all these aspects are driving towards or against well-being as the ultimate objective. However, in this framework the definition of well-being is limited to health and quality of life, working life, and the living environment. The four pre-defined impact areas are partially overlapping and much interconnected. Skills and culture serve as inputs on other impact areas, and wellbeing is highly linked to economy and economic renewal, for example. This emphasizes the complexity of the impacts, and the need to continuously develop the framework further to under-

Figure 3. The impact areas of research and innovation

Impacts Economy and economic renewal

Environment

Well-being

Knowledge, education and culture

Outputs Activities Inputs

stand the interconnections between different parts of the framework. In addition to the impacts, the inputs, activities, and outputs of research and innovation constitute the main elements of the framework (Figure 3). Through inputs and activities research and innovation result in outputs and impacts. To better understand these different elements of the impact chains, relevant sub-phenomena for inputs, activities, outputs, and impacts have been identified. The impact at each impact area is seen to consist of phenomena on four levels as follows: •• Inputs level contain the phenomena describing e.g. material & immaterial capital and investments, and existing knowledge •• Activities level contain phenomena related to research & innovation activities, education, networking and new ways to act •• Outputs level refer to phenomena emerging from activities: innova-

tions, new enterprises, business areas & services, enterprise growth, productivity, and dissemination and usage of new knowledge •• Impacts level contains phenomena that describe and dissect the impact area at hand. Although solid and closed causal chains between various phenomena are almost impossible to identify, it is nevertheless possible to identify chains of activities at various stages from input factors to impacts that have at least a partial continuum i.e. instead of direct full causal linkage, we have aimed to identify chains where each phenomenon has a at least a significant contribution to the phenomenon at the next level of the chain. Finally, a set of indicators has been linked to these phenomena, in order to assess the impact of research and innovation. The indicators are intended to describe the state of the phenomena and hence the whole impact chain from inputs to each specific impact area.

In the framework, the following attributes are identified to the selected indicators: •• impact area (economy and economic renewal, environment, well-being, or skills and culture) •• classification to input, activity, output, or impact indicator •• short description of the link to the phenomenon •• short description of the link to research and innovation •• ownership and information collection •• international comparability •• alternative indicators •• ownership and information collection of alternative indicators •• relevant organizations for further development. The ultimate aim for selecting the indicators has been to form the best possible collection of indicators that describes the impacts of research and innovation in a balanced and understandable way. Such a collection should include a set of indicators that fulfil at least the following criteria: •• Clear connection to research and innovation •• Clear connection to the phenomenon and impact area it represents •• Clear policy connection •• Transparency •• Intuitive and easily understandable •• Internationally comparable •• Easy and regular updating, based on regular statistics gathering •• Statistically reliable •• Good temporal and geographical coverage •• Clear message on the direction and distance to the target state •• Based on solid theories. 19

Nevertheless, there are several practical limitations to this. For example, the amount of relevant phenomena and indicators needs to be limited to an approachable number. On the other hand, the exercise partly deals with rather new ideas and areas, for which common definitions for phenomena and indicators are not readily available. Therefore, the selection cannot be limited on existing available or measurable entities – also the relevance and quality related to the phenomena and impacts under consideration must be taken into account. Unfortunately, creating novel approach angles often incurs extra work. This framework represents a novel approach to impact assessment. In addition to searching impact chains from specific inputs to general impacts the framework lets one also to act vice versa: besides the sources of impact, the aim is to search the specific forms of im-

20

pact that have a clear effect on the predefined impact areas. In the work reported here, both relevant phenomena and relevant indicators have been selected through a broad based consensus seeking exercise. In this process a key requirement has been that the phenomena and indicators as clearly as possible indicate the link to research and innovation. In addition, the phenomena and indicators should link to the societal impacts, that is benefits for individuals, communities and the Finnish society and economy as a whole that are derived from the inputs and activities on research and innovation. Novel issues seldom come for free. Contrasting the framework against Chapter 2.1 shows that the framework is clearly a simplification of complex actions and interactions. The framework also covers areas where RDI related phenomena and indicators have not been studied in detail, which predicts extra re-

search efforts. Nevertheless, the framework is tempting in its simplicity and understandability and offers a practical framework for describing and estimating the impact mechanisms of research and innovation activities in the society. Internationally Finland should be benchmarked especially against other RDI intensive, small, and competitive (WEF) countries. Not all of the criteria all always met, but Denmark (for example) fulfils all of these criteria (in addition to other Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, and Ireland). Other interesting countries include the EU member states, South-Korea, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). On the impact areas Finland should be benchmarked against the best countries in the world. In the work reported here, both relevant phenomena and relevant indicators have been selected in a broad based consensus seeking exercise.

3 Economy and economic renewal The impact area for the economy and economic renewal observes the effects that research and innovation activities have, or should have, on the development and regeneration of the economy and the opportunities and challenges arising from this, such as the economic downturn. This is perhaps the most common and the furthest elaborated impact area of research and innovation activities, which also provides a good basis for international comparison.

3.1 Phenomena During the preparatory work done by Tekes and the Academy of Finland, a comprehensive set of phenomena and indicators had already been identified to describe the central effects of research and innovation activities for the economy and economic renewal. As a result of this project, the following phenomena were finally selected and raised amongst them, as having particular significance for the Finnish econo-

my and its regeneration. The full set of selected phenomena is presented below in Figure 4. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE IMPACT

As a result of the expert workshop and its following elaboration, the following phenomena emerged as having particular significance for the economy and economic renewal impact area: national prosperity, productivity of the economy, job creation, high growth enter-

Figure 4. Hierarchy of phenomena related to the economy and economic renewal

Impacts

Outputs

Activities

Inputs

National prosperity

Productivity of the economy

Job creation

Strengthening of intangible assest

High growth enterprices

Foreign Direct Investments

Position in global value networks

Continuous improvement of competitiveness

Collaboration, networks and knowledge flows

Capability to innovate

Investments in R&D&I

Human resources for R&D&I

General conditions and incentives for R&D&I

21

prises and foreign direct investments. The contents of these are described in more detail below. One of the ultimate aims of research and innovation is to contribute to the national prosperity. This is seen to reflect the overall wellbeing of the nation and be the end-result of many other impact factors. The national prosperity is most commonly measured by the development of Gross Domestic Product, GDP per capita. Although there tends to be a strong correlation between RDI investments and GDP development at the national level, the GDP has also been argued to be too generic indicator to have a clear linkage to research and innovation activities. Perhaps the most central indicator of the competitiveness and development of the economy is productivity development (of the economy) and within it, from the viewpoint of the impact of research and innovation activities, especially the productivity of work in both the private and the public sectors. The relatively large public sector in Finland has a great significance (both direct and indirect) for the regeneration of the economy and society. The regeneration of the public sector is described by its productivity development and the effectiveness of the measures implemented by it (in relation to the objectives and responsibilities established). A particular emphasis has been drawn on the renewal component of the productivity, for which a specific indicator was suggested to be design. Creation of new jobs, particularly within the knowledge-intensive sectors, as well as sustaining the existing employment in Finland, has been raised as one of the key performance indica22

tors in the latest strategy of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy. In line with the strategy, the new job creation was included in the set of impact indicators. High growth (innovative) enterprises are the generators of new business areas, jobs and economic return. Although small in absolute numbers, their direct and indirect economic impact is significant in modern knowledge societies. The number or share of high growth enterprises from the total enterprise sector is considered a good indicator of the dynamism and renewal of economy. Activities in the fields of science, research and innovation, like their objectives, are global in nature, and, as a general rule, improve the competitiveness of Finland as well as its positioning on the global scale. This development can be observed for example through the distribution of value added or, finally, through the attractiveness of the quality of life and living conditions in Finland. The productivity of research and innovation activities may also increase competitiveness investments, for example as foreign direct investments in Finland. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE OUTCOMES

Indicators describing the direct outcomes of scientific research are typically the number of degrees, the number of scientific publications and citations. The outcomes of scientific research can be observed both as overall strengthening of competence potential and as competencies associated specifically with the economy and regeneration (e.g. business competence). Indicators and viewpoints associated with the outcomes of scientific research have

been reviewed regularly for example in the State and Standard of Finnish Science reports by the Academy of Finland. The quantity, value and share of new products and services (Community Innovation Survey, CIS indicators), patents and, more commonly, the development of innovative business (added value, export) are typically used as indicators of the direct products of innovation activities. Commonly-used indicators of the strengthening of intangible assets include increase in the quantity of patents, licences and brands (e.g. registered trademarks), but the management of both R&D and innovation activities may also involve other types of development of intangible assets that can be highly significant but more difficult to measure. An important but difficult to assess product consists of the operations and positioning of Finnish companies in the global value networks. Associated indicators of networking have been developed on the EU level (CIS). Internationalization of innovation activities and positioning in global value networks are described by export of high technology (services), even though the volume of operations of Finnish companies abroad may emerge as a more significant indicator. Finland’s positioning and volume of participation in EU framework programmes is a useful indicator on the level of products, but establishing a comparative indicator for impact is difficult. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE ACTIVITY

Research, development and innovation activities equal constant building of competitiveness. For economy and its

renewal, R&D and innovation activities are particularly significant when they are directed to the needs of citizens, society and economic life and opportunities arising from them (cf. demandand user-driven R&D and innovation activities). Regeneration is often aimed to improve competitiveness. Structural regeneration and the termination of businesses may reflect in the emergence of new companies and branches of industry. Flexibility and readiness for change on the level of both organisations and individuals constitute associated competitiveness factors. Collaboration networks and open innovation models represent broadbased cooperation beyond traditional boundaries and efficient utilisation of knowledge, which, in turn, indicates the exploitation of new and more efficient operating models in development work. Also other broad-based networking (clustering) of R&D and innovation activities may indicate competitiveness. Strong clusters form competitive advantages and attract additional investments in innovation activities. Research and innovation activities are one route to international cooperation and operating as part of global value networks. They strengthen awareness of contemporary activities and areas and levels of expertise elsewhere and thus also provide better opportunities for determining our own position in the international context and defining our own value. Networking also involves a qualitative dimension. One objective of networking is often creating an alliance with partners with a set of skills that is stronger or complements your own with the aim of strengthen-

ing the quality of your own operations and sharing risks and expenses. The capacity and readiness of companies and individuals to engage in innovation activities is strongly connected with competence: the quality, versatility and purposefulness of basic research and education, technological know-how and development and the volume and dynamics of R&D and innovation activities in general. A central element in this is the capacity and opportunities to make use of existing knowledge and competencies, such as the solutions of the information society. This capacity for innovation and the necessary practical competencies are built largely in working life, which highlights the significance of lifelong learning and development (so-called meta skills). Multidisciplinary education and training and competence provide better opportunities to develop both oneself and one's work environment and for flexible employment in new tasks. One indicator for this could be, for example, rate of participation in lifelong learning. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE INPUTS

Central inputs in the area can be seen to include the following: direct public and private investments in R&D and innovation activities and indirect investments in creating the right conditions for these (e.g. investments in higher education, material and immaterial infrastructure, utilisation and networking of competence, including indirect incentives for innovation, such as tax relief ). It can be said that investments in R&D and innovation activities are the part of

the effectiveness chain where the development of indicators is the most advanced and the most widely known. Because of this, we have chosen to focus particular attention on certain more recent viewpoints. Research and innovation are labour intensive and skills-dependent phenomena and the availability of skilled labour for research and innovation forms an important condition for further knowledge investments and growth. In the realm of work and employment, investments in R&D and innovation affect the capacity of workforce as well as competence in the management of research and innovation activities and networking. The indicators may include educational investments, different types of indicators for readiness to change and qualitative indicators. Related inputs are directed to the promotion of entrepreneurship and invention, increasing people’s mobility and regeneration and encouraging risk-taking. A growing attention has been given to the role and good functioning of innovation systems and environments. These, amongst the generic conditions for research and innovation (such as well-functioning legal framework, availability of business support services, open markets, etc) form the basis for the effectiveness of any research and innovation investments.

3.2 Indicators The table 2 below presents the final proposal of phenomena and the related indicators in the impact area of economy and economic renewal.

23

Table 2. Phenomena and indicators of research and innovation on economy and economic renewal Economy and Phenomenon economic renewal Impacts National prosperity

Overall productivity of the economy

Preliminary indicators Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

GDP per capita

Widely used and comparable overall indicator of the national prosperity development. Widely used indicator. TFP readily available.

One of the ultimate aims of R&D&I activities

Total Factor Productivity TFP

Productivity renewal indicator

High growth (innovative) Number and share of HGEs of enterprises all registered companies

Renewal rate of enterprises

Outputs

Net increase of jobs

Foreign Direct Investments

Share of Foreign Direct Investments per GDP

Strengthening of intangible assets

Share of new innovative products and services from business turnover. Volume and share of intangible investments Exports of knowledgeintensive sectors

Reflects the part of intangible invest- ments that is directly linked to innovation. Direct indicator of the phenomenon.

Development of turnover in knowledge intensive sectors (or alternatively in KI jobs) Share of public and private organisations having collaborated in innovation projects Development of patenting, registered trademarks and designs (EPO / USPTO / TRIAD)

Reflects the share of competitive sectors Reflects the development of in economy. competitiveness.

Share of R&D&I expenditure in business turnover Government direct & indirect support to business R&D Foreign direct investments in Finnish R&D&I Availability of highly educated workforce GDP share of VC investments at different growth stages

Continuous improvement of competitiveness Collaboration, networks and knowledge flows Capability to innovate

Inputs

Investments in R&D&I

Human resources for R&D&I General conditions and incentives for R&D&I

24

New market entries (start-ups) versus exits (bankruptcies, etc) Renewal of economy is directly reflected   in the creation of new jobs in all sectors and in particularly within knowledgeintensive sectos. Should be observed in relation to the decrease/sustainability of the existing jobs. Direct indicator of the phenomenon. Reflects the competitiveness, attractiveness and investmentreadiness of the country.

Job creation

Position in global value-networks Activities

To be composed an indicator that describes the component of market entry, exit & BW part of TFP Direct indicator of the phenomenon.

Important composite indicator for the development and the increased competitiveness. An indicator reflecting the role of new market entries (innovations) in the economy. Reflects the share of companies that are highly competitive and create jobs in the economy, often through innovation. Describes the dynamism of markets.

Reflects the global competitiveness of knowledge sectors

Reflects the part of intangible investments that is directly linked to innovation. Reflects the investments into innovation capabilities. Reflects the global competitiveness of knowledge sectors

Cross-sectoral innovation cooperation between private, public and academic

Reflects the nature, volume and intensity of R&D&I collaboration.

Reflects the creation of intellectual properties in innovation.

Reflects the creation of intellectual properties of innovation.

Reflects the business sector part of the phenomenon Reflects the public sector support and incentives for R&D&I Reflects the global attractiveness and competitiveness of R&D&I Reflects the volume of resource-base for R&D&I Reflects the availability of VC funding and general market conditions for innovation

Direct indicator of R&D&I Incentive and direct indicator of R&D&I Reflects the global attractiveness and competitiveness of R&D&I Reflects the volume of resourcebase for R&D&I Reflects the availability of VC funding and general market conditions for innovation

4 Environment The area of environment covers the impacts that research and innovation have or should have on the environment such as climate change, sustainable consumption of natural resources, energy consumption, biodiversity and the well being of the ecosystem among others.

4.1 Phenomena Environmental issues often have a global character. Climate change and sustainable consumption of natural resources, for example, are global phenomena that can be affected from all regions of the world, including Finland through development and exporting environment technology and in many other ways. During this project, Finland’s global responsibility in solving

16

environmental challenges has been discussed several times. However, for practical reasons the indicators selected for measuring innovation and research in the environmental sector focus on issues and activities taking place within the Finnish borders. The global responsibilities of Finland in resolving the international environmental problems largely become fulfilled through international commitments. Energy is seen as one remarkable part of this impact area. It does not only have an impact on the state of environment, climate change, and use of natural resources, but drives economic activities and well-being as well. In this work the use of energy arises through energy efficiency when considering the outputs of research and innovation16.

Many of the causality chains from the inputs of research and innovation to the impacts on the environment are at least partly known based on the knowledge on natural sciences and technologies. Such is the case for example in assessing the impact of biofuels on climate change. The increased use can be traced back to technological innovations and calculated as greenhouse gas reductions. However, in this case as well as in several other cases the operational environment is often playing a significant role in increasing interest in innovating and using innovations. In the following, the phenomena that were seen relevant in evaluating the impacts of research and innovation on the environment by the stakeholders are presented. The phenomena are also presented in Figure 5.

More on energy efficiency indicators in Motiva, 2010, Energiatehokkuusindikaattorit [In Finnish]

25

Figure 5. The phenomena relevant in evaluating the impacts of research and innovation on the environment

Impacts

State of the Finnish environment

Climate change

Biodiversity

Sustainable consumption of natural resources

Outputs

New information and knowledge related to environment

Environmentally positive innovations

Green business

Consumers’ attitudes and behavior

Activities

Inputs

R&D&I activities directed towards environment

R&D&I investments in sectors vital to environment

PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE IMPACTS

State of the Finnish environment includes the quality of air, water, and soil, as well as chemicalisation and noise. Research and innovation have a central role in the state of environment through e.g. environmentally positive technical solutions. Climate change is often seen as the most dangerous environmental problem globally. The more greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are led to the atmosphere, the quicker the climate changes and the more vital are the effects of climate change. Innovation and research activities can contribute to both mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

26

Cooperation within environment related value networks and strengthening of skill flows

Skills and human resources

Biodiversity describes the degree of variation of life forms. Biodiversity is a measure of the health of ecosystems. Biodiversity can be described as totality of genes, species, and ecosystems of a region. A reduction in the number of species affects not only the natural and environmental balance, but also the well-being of humans through changes in ecosystems and the loss of important species. New innovations can slow down the reduction on species and can support recovery of the ecosystem. Consumption of natural resources becomes more and more important issue when the global pressure on renewable and nonrenewable resource consumption increases. It affects the opportunities and challenges at all

Operational environment supporting the aims

scales. Finnish characteristics in natural resources emphasize the importance of wood, water and mineral resources. Innovations related to the consumption of natural resources vary from energy and resource efficiency to innovative solutions in resource utilization. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE OUTPUTS

New information and knowledge related to environment and utilization of them in innovation and research. More and more environmental information covering the whole life cycle of products and services is needed to support decision making in the society, private sector and at individual level. Discussion is widening from the origin of raw materials and production process-

es to cover the whole life cycle of products including the stages after disposal. These outputs can also be seen as inputs in other input-output-chains. Environmentally positive innovations, including technologies, services, products, processes and standards of activities, are well known and desired outputs of research and innovation. Major impact can be reached through systemic environmentally positive changes, and their importance in public discussion increases continuously. As an example, digitalization of the society can reduce the need for travelling as well as the significance of distances. Through the development of the ICT sector, new platforms for innovation and research activities can also be created. Green business has a role in the process where inputs of innovation and research become outputs. In the private sector the environmentally benign development can be reflected through efficiency in natural resource consumption, growing business in the environmental sector or as environment technology exports. In the public sector increasing environmental awareness can be seen, for example, in the environmental friendly public procurements or in the development of environmental legislation. Consumers' attitudes and behavior have influence on the utilization of new information and therefore also on the creation of the outputs. Attitudes and behavior can also contradict each other. In the best scenarios consuming behavior changes towards growing de-

mand of services that can reduce natural resource consumption. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE ACTIVITIES

Environment linked RDI activities in the private sector, universities and research centers are the core of innovation and research activities. Piloting and demonstration are part of this picture, although it’s difficult to find existing indicators for these activities. It’s also worthwhile to consider open source innovation which is powered by the active users and customers in open networks and other platforms. Open source innovation supports more controlled and centralized innovation activities while controlled innovation systems can also contribute to open innovation. Cooperation within the environment related value networks and strengthening of knowledge-flows lay solid ground for innovative activities. Cooperation is needed between private sector and research institutes as well as internationally when new solutions for environmental challenges are sought. Diverse cooperation networks enable versatile funding channels as well as create new ideas. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE INPUTS

RDI investments in sectors vital to environment have a critical role in enabling innovation and research activities. The amount of funding indicates the possibilities of innovation and research, and it can be used to measure the amount of those activities.

Knowledge and human resources are essential for innovation and research, and experts are needed at all levels of the activities. Education leading to the environmental sector or to sectors related to it also produces new experts for environmental innovation and research. Education in other sectors can also contribute to creating innovations in the environmental field because intersectoral cooperation is often the starting point for new innovations. Supportive operational environment can contribute greatly to the success of innovation and research. Rules, guidelines and incentives can be used to support innovation and research activities in the desired sector. On the other hand, legislative changes on the operating environment create needs for new innovations. Resources can be guided towards innovation and research activities with help from political actions while the same tools can be used for creating new demand and to accelerate existing changes in different procedures. Demand and user driven innovation has been a strong focus on the innovation policies recently.

4.2 Indicators Table 3 below presents the phenomena and the indicators of research and innovation on the environment selected by the stakeholders of the exercise.

27

Table 3. Phenomena and indicators of research and innovation on the environment Phenomenon Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Impacts

State of the Finnish environment

Water systems ecological state

Reflects the state of environment locally and nationally. Ecological state of water systems describes biological, physical and chemical quality of natural waters, and is as such one essential indicator of the state of the environment.

Research and innovation can have a central role, among other impacting factors, through e.g. environmontally positive technical solutions.

Climate change

Green house gas emissions in Finland

Greenhouse gases cause climate change. Measuring the emissions (and carbon sinks) gives a picture of the country's influence on climate change. However, it is to be noted that a great share of green house gas emissions and sinks produced undirectly by Finland occure elsewhere in the world.

Through technological, systemic, and other type of innovations R&D&I activities have a crucial role in combating climate chante and it is a crucial part of the international and national goals and commitments.

Biodiversity

Endangeredness of Finnish species

Endangeredness of Finnish species is a measure of the health of ecosystems and their biodiversity.

So far the role of research and innovation has not been very special.

Sustainable consumption of natural resources

Share of renewable energy in energy production

One relevant indicator on the sustainable consumption of natural resources. All EU Member States are committed to increase the share.

Research and innovation have a central role through e.g. technological innovations such as new products and combustion techniques.

New information and knowledge related to environment

Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited publications worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country

Describes the quality of the research publications in the various fields of well-being and thus the value of new knowledge.

High-quality publications are a relevant output of R&D&I activities.

Use of information in political decision making

Describes how new information and knowledge is taken into use in the society through political decisions. Indicator development is needed.

New information and knowledge is the output of R&D&I activities and should be used in policy making.

Environmentally bening innovations

International patents/ forwarded references of patents in the environmental sector

Describes the creation and protection of innovations. Better indicators for describing the environmentally bening innovations should be developed, including indicators for more systematic changes as well.

Mainly result of research and innovation.

Green business

Revenue of companies in energy and environment sector

Indicates the volume of companies operating in the green business sector. However, the indicator does not cover green business operated by companies not specified in environmental sector but it includes also non-renewable energy production.

Describes the amount of companies active in environmental innovations and research.

Private sector energy efficiency

Important in describing the impact of business on environment and whether innovations are used in decreasing the energy consumption.

Indicates how new energy efficient innovations are adopted in private sector.

Household energy efficiency

Development of energy consumption per houshold indicates consumers' willingness to invest in energy efficient and environment benign technology.

Describes how consumers utilise new energy efficient innovations.

Outputs

Consumers' attitudes and behavior

28

Preliminary indicators

Environment

...Table 3. continues Preliminary indicators

Environment

Phenomenon Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Activities

R&D&I activities directed towards environment (quality, challenges, extent)

Companies with innovation operations in the energy and environmental sectors

Vicariously describes the size and extent of environmental activities within the private sector.

In the core of research and innovation.

Amount of environmental R&D&I activities in research centres

Describes the amount and extent of environmental R&D&I activities in research centres but not on quality. Further indicator development is needed.

In the core of research and innovation.

Cooperation within environment related value networks and strengthening of skill flows

Cooperation between private sector, universities and research centers in environment sector

Cooperative activities such as shared studies Describes the partnerships important and projects between companies, universities for the development and introduction of and/or research centers tells about the strength environmental innovations. of value networks.

R&D&I investments on environment

Private R&D&I expenditure on environment

Indicates the amount of the R&D&I expenses used in the environment related activities in the private sector.

R&D&I funding enables research and innovation.

Public R&D expenditure on environment

Indicates the amount of the R&D&I expenses used in the environment related activities in the public sector.

R&D&I funding enables research and innovation.

Venture capital directed towards environment

Indicates one important aspects of the investments in introducing preconditions for innovations and their use.

Enables utilisation of the results of research and innovation activities especially in the growing international business environment.

Skills and human resources

No relevant indicator so far

Need to describe the quality and extent of human resources f.e. by its multidisciplinary nature. Needs indicator development.

Important precondition for research and innovation.

Operational environment supporting environmentally benign actions

No relevant indicator so far

Through legislation and economic conditions Strong linkage to the impacts of R&D&I. the operational environment effects the results of research and innovation remarkably. For that reason, demand and user driven innovation has been a strong focus on the innovation policiy recently.

Inputs

29

5 Well-being The area of well-being covers the impacts that research and innovation have or should have on the health and quality of life, well-being at work, and healthy and safe living environment as well as the opportunities and challenges arising from these.

5.1 Phenomena Well-being is multidimensional and overlaps other impact areas. Based on academic research and number of concrete initiatives developed around the world following simultaneous dimensions of well-being have been identified: material living standards (income, consumption, and wealth), health, education, personal activities including work, political voice and governance, social connections and relationships, environment (present and future conditions), and insecurity of economic as well as physical nature17. The assessment of current well-being and the assessment of sustainability, whether this can last over time, can be distinguished. Equity can be seen as one important aspect as well. In addition, both objective and

17

subjective dimensions of well-being are important. The basic needs essential for people's well-being may be universal, but the experience of well-being is highly individual. Quality of life depends on people’s objective conditions and capabilities. Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about people’s quality of life. Moreover, the social context has both direct and indirect effects on well-being. For example, persons or groups with high social capital often have a higher level of well-being than those with low social capital18. The examination of the various aspects of the impact chains of research and innovations is, in part, made even more difficult by the subjective and sometimes politically charged starting point of well-being. Insufficient descriptions of desired states in simple quantitative or qualitative terms create particular challenges in evaluating the impact of research and innovation. There is an overall aim of improving the health and well-being of the population, but quantitative goals, in particular, are undefined. Depending on the discipline, the focus is

either on the population or individual level. The theories vary from utilitarian to the new understanding of happiness19 making the identification of widely accepted indicators difficult. However, the main point in all the discussion on measuring well-being point out the need to shift the emphasis from measuring economic production to measuring the well-being of people. More weight should be given to the distribution of income, consumption, and wealth. Income measures should be broaden to non-market activities. In the framework of this study, several of the social aspects of well-being are included in the impact area of skills and culture. Well-being also has a strong link to the economy and economic renewal through the aspect of working life and to the environment through the aspect of the living environment. The identification of the phenomena and indicators for research and innovation on this impact area has been extremely difficult, and much further development is needed to understand the role of research and innovation in well-

Stiglitz et al 2009 E.g. Hyyppä, 2005. Kertyykö sosiaalisestapääomasta kansanterveyttä? (Does social capital generate public health?) http://yp.stakes.fi/NR/ rdonlyres/A998EF8D-778F-4F6F-9126-94A3740F0129/0/404hyyppa.pdf 19 Saari, J.(toim.), 2011, Hyvinvointi, Suomalaisen yhteiskunnan perusta, Gaudeamus 18

30

Figure 6. The phenomena relevant in evaluating the impacts of research and innovation on the well-being

Impacts

Outputs

Well-being in working life

Healthy and safe living environment

New knowledge and competence associated with well-being

Innovations and systemic changes supporting wellbeing

High-quality and innovative well-being services

Quality and extended of R&D&I activities directed towards well-being

Activities

Inputs

Health and quality of life

R&D&I investments on well-being

being. Being aware of the challenges and overlapping with other impact areas the following phenomena and indicators have been chosen by the stakeholders to gain understanding on the impacts of research and innovation on well-being. The phenomena are described in figure 6. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE IMPACTS

Health and quality of life covers the physical and mental health and quality of life of Finnish people in all age groups (children, young people, adults, and senior citizens). Well-being in working life describes the content and significance of working life, the level of satisfaction with work and equal treatment – a central aspect in the lives of adult Finns on

Interorganisational collaboration and partnerships related to well-being in various networks and strenghtening of flows of know-how

Knowledge and human resources

the level of both the individual and society. In a broader sense, the area also covers the well-being of children and adults studying in schools and educational institutions. Healthy and safe living environment covers both the physical and psychological living environment affecting well-being. Aspects such as social divisions, regional disparities, as well as some dimensions of the state of the environment belong to this phenomena. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE OUTPUTS

New knowledge and competence associated with well-being refers to products of research and innovation activity that function as investments in other impact chains. New knowledge

Other financial inputs and operational environment that supports well-being

on well-being covers the different life stages of a person from childhood to old age and provides support in the making of decisions associated with well-being on the level of both the society and individual. It also includes new knowledge and competencies associated with the surroundings. Innovations and systemic changes supporting well-being constitute central products of research and innovation. The term innovation is used here to refer to all innovations promoting health and well-being covering organizational and social innovations as well as different products and services promoting well-being. Good and innovative practices in work life are included as well. High-quality and innovative wellbeing services describe the nature of

31

public and private services in taking advantage of the different type of innovations and using them for developing the services to meet the needs. The well-being services can also be provided by the third sector. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE ACTIVITIES

Quality and extent of RDI activities directed towards well-being includes the RDI activities in universities, research institutions, and private companies which form the core of research and innovation activities. Piloting and demonstrations can be included in the activities. Inter-organisational collaboration related to well-being in value networks and the strengthening of flows of knowledge creates one foundation for innovative activities. Collaboration between private companies and research institutions as well as between different countries is necessary when new solutions are being sought for is-

sues related to well-being. In addition to generating new ideas, multiple and varied collaboration networks also enable diversity in funding channels. Partnerships between private companies and the universities and research institutions of the public sector particularly in the area of well-being are an important part of research and innovation activities and significant particularly in terms of the adoption of innovations. PHENOMENA DESCRIBING THE INPUTS

RDI investments in well-being, both private and public, have a critical role in enabling innovation and research activities. The amount of funding provides information about the opportunities for innovation and research activities, and it can also be used to measure the volume of activity. Knowledge and human resources are also essential for innovation and research, and experts are needed at all levels of the activities. Education lead-

ing to well-being also produces new experts for innovation and research. Multidisciplinary cooperation is often the starting point for new innovations. Supportive operational environment can contribute greatly to the success of innovation and research. Rules, guidelines and incentives can be used to support innovation and research activities in the desired sector. Resources can be guided towards innovation and research activities with help from political actions while the same tools can be used for creating new demand and to accelerate existing changes in different procedures. Regulations have an especially important role.

5.2 Indicators Table 4 below presents the final proposal of phenomena and the related indicators in the impact area of well-being as selected by the stakeholders of the exercise on the basis of the idea workshops.

Table 4. Phenomena and indicators of the impacts of the research and innovation on well-being Wellbeing

Phenomenon

Impacts

Preliminary indicators Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Health and quality of life

Life expectancy

Seen as a relevant indicator for health and quality of life if only one indicator should be chosen. However, discussion is ongoing on whether the activity and capability of elderly people would be a better indicator.

Innovations f.e. in healt care can expand the expected living years, but other factors such as way of living and other policy measures are likely to have much more impact.

Well being in working life

Share of 25 to 64-year-olds very or fairly satisfied with their current job

Survey-based indicator on the general satisfaction of working life. However, has the limitations of a survey.

Several R&D&I initiatives on well-being in working life. However, several other factors are likely to have much more impact.

Noice or the amount of fine particles could be possible indicators.

 

Healthy and safe No indicator living environment selected yet

32

...Table 4. continues Preliminary indicators

Wellbeing

Phenomenon

Outputs

New knowledge and competence associated with well-being

Scientific publications Describes the quality of the research among the top 10% publications in the various fields of well-being most cited publications and thus the value of new knowledge . worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country

Publications are a relevant output of R&D&I activities.

Innovations and systemic changes supporting well-being

New products, processes, services and social innovations

The use of these innovations either by public, private or voluntary organizations or private people has positive (or negative) impacts on the different aspects of well-being. Especially indicators for describing systemic and organizational changes are needed. Needs further development.

R&D&I driven innovations and systemic changes contribute to the improvements in well being

High-quality and innovative well being services

Productivity of the social and health services of municipalities and federations of municipalities

This is an indicator of the value of the social and health services that can be provided with the resources in use, thus the higher the productivity, the more efficiently the resources are used. However, this indicator should be linked to indicators on the quality of social and health services. More insight could be gained by using indicators on private actors. Needs better indicator.

Productivity development may result from or require the adoption of innovations. Innovations, particularly systemic innovations, may have significant impacts on the costs of health care, but their share in the changes may be difficult to identify.

Quality and extent of R&D&I activities directed towards well-being

Share of public organisations involved in health and wellbeing related R&D&I activities

Vicariously describes the extent of well being related R&D&I activities. Needs indicator development.

Contributes through new knowledge and innovations to the social and well-being impacts.

Interorganisational collaboration related to wellbeing in value networks and the strengthening of flows of know-how

Mobility of researchers in the fields of health and well-being

The mobility of researchers describes the amount of collaboration and flows of know-how and the networking of Finnish researchers across organisational boundaries in Finland and abroad as well as the networking of foreign researchers in Finland. Better indicator needed for describing the phenomenon.

Seen as one important characteristic of productive R&D&I.

R&D&I investments Private and public on well being R&D expenditure on well-being, health care and working life

Describes well the R&D&I investments on well-being.

Enables research and innovation activities and provides information about their volume on public and private sector.

Knowledge and human resources

No indicator at present

Need to describe the quality and extent of human resources f.e. by its multidisciplinary nature. Needs indicator development.

Important precondition for research and development.

Supportive operational environment

Health and social care costs

Describes the volume of the sector in the society. However, no conclusions can be made on whether developments are positive or negative without combining the indicator with other indicators describing f.e. the quality of the outputs. Needs better indicator.

The results of R&D&I activities can f.e. contribute to the efficiency of health and social care and thus reduce overall expenditure. R&D&I can provide new knowledge on well being that can contribute to the development of policy measures. Policy measures are not only outputs but also inputs for R&D&I activities by creating or hindering the conditions for development, introduction, and use of innovations.

Activities

Inputs

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

33

6 Skills and Culture 6.1 Phenomena The skills and culture impact area covers the effects that can be expected from research and innovation activities with view to opportunities associated with knowledge, competence, education and culture and the challenges posed for these areas by changes in society. The thematic area is particularly challenging regarding the defining of the phenomena due to the multidimensionality of the themes – skills and culture – and the resulting range of possibilities in their definition.

Knowledge and education can be seen as the basic element behind a functioning society and economy. As a result, the knowledge and education related to form the essence of science, technology and innovation capabilities and other similar factors that create the basic conditions for the realization of other impacts. Matters falling within this category which are sometimes also referred to as research and development, the immediate effects of the amount of information increased, skilled labour, method of knowledge, expert networks, technological prob-

lem-solving ability, etc. So the key question from the impact assessment perspective is: how has the education and research system been able to perform in its basic tasks, and how is it able to create the required skills base for the successful development of Finnish society. The original impact area focused on knowledge and learning perspective has since been expanded to cover a more comprehensive culture and civilization-related view. Education can be seen as a broader societal objective. Education can be defined in many dif-

Figure 7. The phenomena relevant in evaluating the impacts of research and innovation on the skills and culture

Impacts

Outputs

34

Competences and opportunities for lifelong learning

Quality and efficiency of education and higher education

Education and active citizenship

Knowledge as a resource for the economy and society

Openness, diversity and networks

Citizen participation

Active and diverse cultural life

Active and vital cultural life

Internationalisation and openness in research activities

Activities

Scientific research and education

Disseminating research information to citizens and the use of society

Research and innovation activities related to culture

The international networks of research and co-operation

Inputs

Investments in competences and human resources

Investments in general education and adult education

Investments in the cultural sector

Investments in international cooperation and networking

ferent ways – at the individual level or at the societal level. In this framework education is defined as an “activity concept” as the ability of the individual to function successfully in a society. Culture is also defined as a broadbased concept, where culture and art is seen as basic building blocks in continuously renewing the national innovation base. The key concept here is a human development. This perspective may contain different dimensions such as cultural rights and equality but from the research and innovation perspective the most important dimension linked with culture is creativity, a concept that has many dimensions itself. Following phenomena (Figure 7) are seen relevant in evaluating the impacts of research and innovation on the skills and culture. PHENOMENA AND INDICATORS DESCRIBING IMPACTS

The central content of the competence and learning theme consists of the resources for science, technology and innovation activity and other corresponding factors that create basic conditions for the realisation of the other effects. Central dimensions consist of learning, quality of competence, high-level competence, broad range of competence and learning opportunities. Active and diverse cultural life as a phenomenon covers the production of culture, the use of cultural services, appreciation of culture and the diversity of cultural life. Education and active citizenship describes the utilisation and understanding of knowledge and competence both in the daily lives of people and in the actions of individuals as active and responsible members of civ-

il society. The various dimensions of the phenomenon cover aspects such as lifelong learning, participation in society, voluntary work and, from the viewpoint of the individual, both trust in and healthy criticism of societal institutions. Openness, diversity and networks describes the significance of diversity, tolerance, interaction, international cooperation and mobility as well as the combining of different types of competence as a resource for knowledge, internalization of knowledge and culture. It describes the vitality and capacity for regeneration of Finnish education, science and cultural life as well as their attractiveness from the global perspective. PHENOMENA AND INDICATORS DESCRIBING OUTPUTS

The following phenomena are proposed to describe the outputs (or outcomes or results) of education, research and innovation activities: quality and efficiency of the educational system, quality and efficiency of higher education and research, utilisation of knowledge as a resource of the economy and society, citizens’ active participation in society, active and vital cultural life and the level of internationalization in science and technology. Quality and efficiency of the educational system providing general education is among the central outputs of the functioning of the educational system, particularly from the viewpoint of RDI and innovation activities. In terms of the efficiency of education, central subdimensions include the capacity of the educational system to produce different skills but also competencies relevant for the needs of society.

The quality and efficiency of higher education and research Quality of higher education and research is a central phenomenon particularly from the viewpoint of the outputs of scientific research activity. In particular, the new knowledge and competencies provided by higher education and their dissemination and utilisation is a significant phenomenon describing outputs and also functions as an investment in other impact chains. Because from the viewpoint of outputs, research activity is largely concentrated on publications, the number of citations to scientific publications can be employed as a way to measure quality. The utilisation of knowledge as a resource for the economy and society is one of the most central outputs derived by society from skills and culture. Despite its shortcomings, patenting is one of the most central indicators of knowledge utilisation. Increasingly, other factors associated with non-technological innovations, such as trademarks and other intangible assets, have emerged as indicators alongside patenting. At the same time, it is good to remember that the majority of indicators associated with this dimension from the viewpoint of entrepreneurial activity are better placed under the section Economy and Regeneration. Active and vital cultural life can be seen as the most central output associated with culture. Even though RDI and innovation activities contribute to the vitality of cultural life only to a certain extent, a distinct between them and a lively cultural life and cultural sector can still be detected. Participation in society or active citizenship can be seen as one aspect of utilising knowledge and understanding 35

as well as societal skills in daily life. On the one hand, the activity of citizens in the acquisition and utilisation of knowledge speaks indirectly of the impact of research on people's lives. At the same time, active participation in society also provides information regarding values associated with education. The level of internationalisation in science and technology describes the relationship of RDI and innovation activities to openness and diversity in society and the economy. The viewpoint highlights international cooperation particularly from the viewpoint of technological and financial outputs. PHENOMENA AND INDICATORS DESCRIBING ACTIVITIES

The following phenomena are proposed to describe activities: scientific research and higher education, dissemination and social utilisation of research information, research and development activities in the cultural sector and international mobility and cooperation in the field of research. Scientific research and education are central factors associated with learning and competence from the viewpoint of RDI and innovation activities. Higher education is a central activity in generating resources for RDI and innovation activities, whereas research activity produces new knowledge and new technologies for RDI and innovation activities. Disseminating research information for citizens and the use of society are central phenomena in describ-

36

ing the education of citizens from the viewpoint of action. This dimension describes the activities of operators that engage in research and development activities towards the aim of social and educational utilisation of knowledge. Research and development activities in the cultural sector partly describe the emphasis placed on culture by the RDI and innovation system. Finland has a fairly strong higher education system in the field of art. International mobility and cooperation is a significant dimension related to the openness of RDI and innovation activities and associated networking. Even though a growing proportion of international cooperation does not require physical mobility or prolonged stays abroad, the frequency of working and studying abroad still describes the open and international nature of RDI and innovation activities. PHENOMENA AND INDICATORS DESCRIBING INPUTS

The following phenomena are proposed to describe inputs: resources for research, investments in general education and adult education, investments in the cultural sector and investments in internationality and networking. Investments in competence and human resources are another traditional investment factor closely associated with knowledge and competence. Funding for research and innovation is traditionally one of the most central investment factors describing

RDI and innovation activities. As concerns the skills and culture theme, this refers to investments in the public and higher education sector in particular. The amount of funding provides information about the opportunities for innovation and research activities, and it can be used to measure the volume of activity. Investments in general education and adult education partly describe investments made by society and individuals in lifelong learning, education and broad-based development of understanding of a more general level. Investments in the cultural sector describe RDI and innovation investments associated with culture. As many RDI and innovation investments associated with culture can be difficult to identify, we propose that indicators describing the phenomena concentrate on research activity and personnel resources in higher education. Investments in international cooperation and networking. Investments in international cooperation and networking describe the goal of openness and diversity in RDI and innovation activities. Investments in networking can be difficult to gauge, but they can be observed indirectly through various indirect investments.

6.2 Indicators The table 5 below presents the final proposal of phenomena and the related indicators in the impact area of skills and culture.

Table 5. Phenomena and indicators of the impact of research and innovation on skills and culture Knowledge, Education

Phenomenon

Impacts

Outputs

Preliminary indicators Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Competences and opportunities for life-long learning

Education level of population

The functionality of the educational system and human capital

Provides a general view on the quality of human resources

Education and active citizenship

Interest in science, research and technology

The education level of citizens through action

Active and open research and innovation activity contributes to a general interest of science and technology, which on the other hand facilitates the use of new knowledge and new innovations

Active and diverse cultural life

Value added in the cultural sector

The economic significance of the cultural sector

The role of cultural activities has become more important in the economy as a result is also a specific area of innovation activities, especially service innovation.

Openness, diversity and networks

Share of foreign nationals in the human resources of science and technology

Attractiveness and openness of Finland in terms of foreign intellectual capital

The indicator is a proxy of the international attractiveness of the Finnish research system

The quality and efficiency of the educational system

OECD international student assessment - PISA

Indicator for general education that enables international comparisons

The indicator is proxy of the general quality of output of the educational system

The quality and efficiency of higher education and research

Scientific publications within 10% of the most cited publications worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country

The volume of high-quality research

The indicator is a proxy for the efficiency of the research system as highly cited publications are assumed to be of higher quality.

Knowledge as a resource for the economy and society

Patent applications by institutes of higher education and public R&D-institutes

The ability of the higher education and public research system to produce research results with commercial potential

The indicator is a proxy for the production of innovations from the public sector

Citizen participation

Participation of population aged 18+ in lifelong learning

The lifelong learning is a key indicator for the development of citizenship, social cohesion, employment and for individual fulfillment.

Life long learning is a key indicator measuring the capabilities

Active and vital cultural life

No indicator selected at present

 

 

Internationalisation and openness in research activities

No indicator selected at present

 

 

37

...Table 5. continues Knowledge, Education

Phenomenon

Activities

Inputs

38

Preliminary indicators Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Scientific research and education

Share of doctors of the Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST)

Measures the utilisation of scientific training on the job market

The indicator is a proxy of the level of the researcher training the education system produces

Disseminating research information to citizens and the use of society

No indicator selected at present

 

 

Research and innovation activities related to culture

No indicator selected at present

 

 

International mobility and cooperation in research

Researcher mobility (inwards and outwards)

The indicator is a proxy of one dimension of international networks and scientific collaboration

Measures the level of internationalisation of R&D activities

Investments in competences and human resources

Investments in R&D activities in the public sector and in the higher education sector

A multidimensional indicator that describes the structure of investments in public research activity (private sector investments are listed under the theme Economy and Regeneration)

The indicator is a proxy of public sector devotion to invest in the knowledge-based economy

Investments in competences and human resources

Research personnel's share of workforce

The indicator is a proxy of human resources investments towards knowledge economy

Human capital directed to research activity

Investments in general education and adult education

Costs from adult education

Investments in life-long learning

The indicator is proxy of investments in life long learning investments in R&D capacity

Investments in the culture related to research and innovation

The Government R&D funding based on societal objective: culture

The indicator is proxy for public investments in the development of culture

Measures the level of R&D&I investments in the development of culture

Investments in international cooperation and networking

The share R&D expenditure from abroad in the Higher Education and Government sectors

The indicator is one proxy of the internationalisation of the public research from resources perspective

The indicator is a proxy of the international level of scientific research

7 Concluding remarks This report and the indicators for research and innovation are the result of a continuously developed and intensive process. The need for better and more comprehensive set of impact indicators for research and innovation has been raised by the Research and Innovation Council of Finland and its practical preparation work assigned to Tekes and the Academy of Finland. This has led into a series of studies and a systematic internal preparation amongst the funding agencies to come up with a framework that would make the national research and innovation investments more visible and measurable and their impacts more understandable and transparent to all. Moreover, such a framework should allow for the policy makers and planners to quickly assess the Finnish research and innovation development against the main international trends and key benchmark nations. During the last years, several organizations and their experts have contributed to the development of the indicators. This has clearly showed the need for discussion between research and innovation and the related societal development and challenges. More knowledge needs to be gained on an-

20

alyzing the impacts of research and innovation on well-being and the society. The work in this exercise has focused merely on finding the best quantitative indicators of the selected phenomena. The set of indicators provides a rather comprehensive image on these, but at the same time it is important to recognize the limits of this approach. Qualitative assessments and indicators are often needed to complement the quantitative approach, particularly when the focus phenomena are new, evolving, too complex or their proper assessment requires deeper understanding due to their specific nature. This is typical in the new fields of innovation and business development.20 In the end, selecting the appropriate impact phenomena and related indicators is closely related to how policy objectives are interpreted. Unifying the impact goals of the research and innovation activities alone requires substantial compromises. In the international benchmarking carried out it was found that no support from other countries was available as no such frameworks have even been tried elsewhere. The report at hand is a description of the results of one phase of the work. Several exercises have been im-

plemented before this one, and further phases and exercises are still needed. Despite the challenges of the work the search of impact indicators is important. Indicators help us determine how we measure impact. Impact measurement clarifies strategic goals and creates transparency in operating environment and financing. Naturally indicators also steer activities – by setting them we steer the research and innovation system towards desired goals. One specific goal of this work has been to find the most relevant phenomena related to each chain of impact. In this respect the work has succeeded well. The phenomena contain the information what should be measured. The indicator selection and development describe how the phenomena should be measured. The latter question is a research question whereas the former question also contains a political aspect. In the beginning of the exercise several criteria were set for the indicator and phenomenon selection. The selections were to be as clear as possible, they were supposed to have a clear contact to research and innovation, they were supposed to be internationally comparable etc. Nevertheless, dur-

See for example the NESTA innovation index, in which one element focuses on the hidden innovation and sectoral nature of innovation patterns. Annex 1: International benchmarking, page 20.

39

ing the course of work it turned out that these criteria could not always be followed rigorously. Some of the indicators offered good comparability whereas some indicators fit the Finnish context well. Only few indicators fulfilled all the criteria. Comparisons between the four different impact areas revealed that there are some common characteristics or perspectives of the impact phenomena that need to be considered, particularly when setting target values to indicators. These were: •• Accumulation factor: how much emphasis is put on the current level of standing, what has been achieved and built over the past years or decades •• Improvement and development factor: as compared to relation to peers or selected benchmarks

40

•• Systemic factor: how much emphasis is given to the existence and functioning of the research and innovation system (or ecosystem) as a whole, instead of its elements alone. •• Global factor: how much emphasis is given to Finnish position and impact in global valuechains, EU frameworks or in addressing global challenges, as compared to our success and impact within the country. •• Relevance factor: how well is the current research and innovation activity tuned for, prepared or adaptive to address the societal challenges, such as ageing of population, economic recession, etc. There is a growing trend internationally to tune all public research and innovation investments more towards this direction.

At the end of this report we have presented a proposal on how to apply the framework in the future. The next steps of the process pay attention on further defining the proposed indicators, on planning how the data should be collected and the indicators published in practice. This task is a multistakeholder project. The process continues. The set of indicators is far from optimal, and needs continuous update on the basis of newest knowledge. The set of indicators should adapt to the changes in societal priorities and goals. International benchmarking of the indicators would make us better understand the causes and results of innovation activities. In making existing and forthcoming efforts comparable international cooperation is needed.

Annex 1

Annex 1. International benchmarking

Contents 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 43 2 Research and innovation.................................................................................................................. 45 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Innovation Union Scoreboard by EU.........................................................................................45 Innovation Vital Signs Project.........................................................................................................47 Latest work carried out by OECD.................................................................................................48 NESTA work on measuring innovation.....................................................................................49 Innovation Indicator for Germany...............................................................................................49 The Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU and U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness.....................................................................................................................................50 Impact assessment framework development Canada...................................................51 Legatum prosperity index................................................................................................................54

3 Sustainable Society................................................................................................................................ 55 3.1 Europe 2020 Strategy by EU............................................................................................................55 3.2 Sustainable Development Indicators by Eurostat.............................................................56 3.3 Globalisation indicators by Eurostat...........................................................................................56 3.4 Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress..................................58 3.5 Beyond GDP..............................................................................................................................................59 3.6 Measures of Australia’s progress (ABS)......................................................................................59 3.7 UNDP Human Development Index............................................................................................60 3.8 The European Social Survey............................................................................................................61 3.9 Genuine Progress Indicator, GPI....................................................................................................61 3.10 The New National Welfare Index, NWI......................................................................................61 3.11 Sustainable Society Index, SSI........................................................................................................62

4 Environment.................................................................................................................................................. 64 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8

Environmental Performance Index, EPI....................................................................................64 Ecological Footprint, EF......................................................................................................................64 Happy Planet Index, HPI.....................................................................................................................65 Climate Change Performance Index, CCPI.............................................................................66 The Living Planet Index (LPI)...........................................................................................................66 Economic Wellbeing Index (EWI).................................................................................................67 United Nations Environmental Indicators..............................................................................68 The European Environment Agency (EEA).............................................................................70

5 Economy and renewal......................................................................................................................... 72 5.1 WEF Global Competitiveness Report,.......................................................................................72 5.2 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook.....................................................................................72 5.3 Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, ISEW.....................................................................73

41

Annex 1

5.4 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM).................................................................................73 5.5 Global Entrepreneurship Index, GEINDEX..............................................................................74 5.6 European Human Capital Index....................................................................................................74

6 Knowledge, education and culture....................................................................................... 75 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8

Active Citizenship in Europe...........................................................................................................75 Hong Kong Creativity Index............................................................................................................75 OECD Pisa Survey...................................................................................................................................78 OECD work on measuring adult skills PIAAC........................................................................79 INSEAD Skills..............................................................................................................................................79 Urban Institute – Cultural Vitality Indicators..........................................................................80 Cultural indicators for New Zealand 2009..............................................................................81 European Creativity Index (ECI).....................................................................................................82

7 Well being......................................................................................................................................................... 84 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

Happy Life Years, HLY...........................................................................................................................84 National Accounts of Well-being, NAW....................................................................................84 Gross National Happiness, GNH....................................................................................................85 Canadian Index of Wellbeing, CWI..............................................................................................85 Quality of Life Index..............................................................................................................................86

8 Summary – Contribution to the Finnish impact assessment framework........................................................................................................................................................ 87

42

This international benchmarking is part of the development of key indicators for the impacts of research and innovation (R&D) in Finland. It aims at identifying various practices on measuring the impact of research and innovation internationally, and thus contributes to the further development of the indicators on research and innovation. It updates the information on international developments included in the report published in 2008 (Lemola et al., 2008). Instead of broader frameworks which were studied in the previous project this international benchmarking focuses on finding operational indicators and indexes. The focus of the study is on four key impact areas which have been identified important in the Finnish context for assessing the impacts of research and innovation. These areas are: •• Environment •• Economy and renewal •• Knowledge, education, and culture •• Well being There is also a wide consensus that Finland has moved towards a knowledge based society where the role of research and innovation has become more important in producing economic growth and welfare. Internationally, determining the contribution of research and innovation activities has been seen important in order to understand the way in which research and innovation actually contribute to socio-economic objectives. In Finland there has also been a need to develop the measurement sys-

Annex 1

1 Introduction tem in order to understand the role of various policies to general welfare (e.g. Valtioneuvoston kanslia, 2011). The key question is how to focus and legitimate the investments on research and innovation and what the society gets in return. Economic downturn has put pressure on decreasing public R&D spending. In Finland the relative share of public funding for research and innovation has remained relatively high despite the budget cuts. In the future more evidence is likely to be requested to justify the investments. Research and innovation activities themselves have also become more complex and multi-dimensional in a way how various inputs and activities contribute to innovation activity and finally to socio-economic impacts. There is a need to have a systematic look at indicator development and especially to understand the linkages. Many internationally well-known indicator reports (e.g. OECD, 2007; 2008; FOR A 2009; EC, 2011) on research and innovation share an exclusive focus on the indicators concerning input and output factors. Long time-series of input and output data, such as indicators on financial and labour force inputs of R&D, are readily available thanks to the long-lasting efforts of the OECD and the U.S. National Science Foundation. On many occasions, the effectiveness of research and innovation is framed by using the so-called inputactivity-output model. This model is far from satisfactory, however, when the social and economic impacts of R&D

activities are assessed at the level of the national economy. Fulfilment of impacts requires a long time span even in the case of business-oriented R&D, not to mention basic research. As a consequence of the long time span, many factors that are evolving and changing in nature have an effect on the impacts achieved. Furthermore, a large number of impacts of research and innovation are implicit in nature and they cannot be traced back to single inputs or activities. It is not unusual for indicator reports that the selection criteria and interrelationships of indicators are not explicitly addressed. The choice of indicators is often based on convention or availability of suitable data, which leaves underlying assumptions implicit and without justification. Impacts can be different in nature, scope, and timing. Godin & Doré (2006) identifies 11 different impacts on how science (and technology) interacts with the society. These are: •• Science impacts – effects on the subsequent progress of knowledge. They affect the formation and development of disciplines as well as training and can also affect the development of research itself, generating interdisciplinary and international projects. •• Technology impacts – product, process and service innovations as well as technical know-how partly result from research activities. There are few indicators for properly assessing this dimension, other than patents, at least until work based on innova-

43

Annex 1

tion surveys (e.g. the Community Innovation Survey – CIS) results in more profound analysis of outputs and impacts. •• Economy impacts – impact on an organisation’s budgetary situation, operating costs, revenues, profits, the sale price of products; on the sources of finance, investments and production activities; and on the development of new markets. At the aggregate level, they can also refer to economic returns, either through growth or increased productivity, of a given geographical unit. It is probably the best-known dimension. •• Culture impacts – impacts related to what people often call public understanding of science, but, above all, to four types of knowledge: know-what, know-why, know-how and knowwho. In other words, these are the impacts on an individual’s knowledge and understanding of ideas and reality, as well as intellectual and practical skills, attitudes, interests, values and beliefs. •• Society impacts – effects on the welfare, behaviour, practices and activities of people and groups, including their well-being and quality of life. It also concerns customs and habits: consumption, work, sexuality, sports, and food. Research can contribute to changing society’s views and ‘modernise’ ways of doing ‘business’.

44

•• Policy impacts – influence on policy makers and policies act. It can provide evidence that influences policy decisions and can enhance citizens’ participation in scientific and technological decisions. •• Organisation impacts – the effects on the activities of institutions and organisations: planning, organisation of work, administration, human resources, etc. •• Health impacts – impacts on public health, e.g. life expectancy, prevention of illnesses, and the healthcare system. •• Environment impacts – impacts concerning management of the environment, notably natural resources and environmental pollution, as well as the impacts of research on climate and meteorology. •• Symbolic impacts – gains in areas such as credibility due to undertaking R&D or linked to universities or research institutions that offer gains in terms of potential clients, etc. •• Training impacts – impacts of research on curricula, pedagogical tools, qualifications, entry into the workforce, etc. (OECD, 2008; Godin & Doré, 2006) Most of the interest in indicator and data development has been devoted to the first three dimensions of knowledge, technology and the economy. At

least two major reasons for this can be distinguished. Firstly, research and innovation activities have been typically linked with economic activity. Secondly, the direct impact on knowledge, technological development and the economy are easier to capture and measure than some other dimensions where the impact is often more diffuse and less tangible by nature. This poses challenges also to the Finnish work of developing an indicator framework that also includes non-economic impacts. Nevertheless, in recent years researchers as well as governments have increased their interest to the non-economic impacts of especially public R&D (OECD, 2008). Probably the most interest has been in the attempts to link the R&D investments with well-being (Sharpe and Smith, 2005). The broad definition of well-being typically used in these exercises covers also the impact on environment and culture. The following chapter represent various international indicator projects and frameworks with a broad categorisation to six different themes, four of which are the impact areas of the framework used in this study. Many of the frameworks are linked to several themes so the classification should be considered as indicative of the key emphasis of each indicator project.

In this section updated information on key indicator projects and activities are described. The aim is to concentrate on the latest indicator work carried out by the key international and national bodies responsible for STI indicator work and development.

2.1 Innovation Union Scoreboard by EU The Scoreboard measures the innovativeness of the EU Member States annually based on statistical comparison by utilizing several indicators related to innovation. Three main types of indicators (enablers, firm activities, and outputs) and eight innovation dimensions are distinguished, covering a total of 25 different indicators. The indicators are: •• Enablers (human resources, finance and support, open, excellent and attractive research systems) –– New doctorate graduates (ISCED 6) per 1000 population aged 25–34* –– Percentage population aged 30– 34 having completed tertiary education* –– Percentage youth aged 20–24 having attained at least upper secondary level education –– International scientific copublications per million population* –– Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited publications worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country* –– Non-EU doctorate students as % of all doctorate students*

Annex 1

2 Research and innovation –– Public R&D expenditures as % of GDP –– Venture capital (early stage, expansion and replacement) as % of GDP •• Firm Activities (firm investments, linkages & entrepreneurship, intellectual assets) –– Business R&D expenditures as % of GDP –– Non-R&D innovation expenditures as % of turnover –– SMEs innovating in-house as % of SMEs –– Innovative SMEs collaborating with others as % of SMEs –– Public-private co-publications per million population –– PCT patent applications per billion GDP (in PPS€)* –– PCT patent applications in societal challenges per billion GDP (in PPS€) (climate change mitigation; health)* –– Community trademarks per billion GDP (in PPS€)* –– Community designs per billion GDP (in PPS€)*

•• Outputs (innovators, economic effects) –– SMEs introducing product or process innovations as % of SMEs –– SMEs introducing marketing or organizational innovations as % of SMEs –– High-growth innovative enterprises* –– Employment in knowledgeintensive activities (manufacturing and services) as % of workforce –– Medium and high-tech product exports as % of total product exports –– Knowledge-intensive services exports as % of total services exports –– Sales of new to market and new to firm innovations as % of turnover* –– Licence and patent revenues from abroad as % of GDP*

Background on Innovation Union Scorecard

The European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) has been created as a part of the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy of the European Union. EIS was piloted in 2000 and it has been developed and updated several times by including new thematic issues (e.g. design, innovativeness, and service innovation). At first there were only 15 EU Member States accompanied by Japan and the USA whereas in 2008 the general innovativeness of 37 countries was ranked by using the SII. In the 2003 comparison 16 indicators were utilized, and in 2007 the figure had risen to 25.1                       >>

1

Hollanders: European Innovation Scoreboard: Evolution and Lessons Learnt. 2009

45

Annex 1

The latest revision was followed by the adoption of the Innovation Union Communication2. The new Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) builds on a decade of experience and has been adapted to monitor the implementation of the Europe 2020 Innovation Union flagship by assessing the innovation performance of the EU27 Member States and the relative strengths and weaknesses of their research and innovation systems. Additional countries outside the EU include Croatia, Serbia, Turkey, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.3 In order to integrate the IUS as a monitoring tool of the Innovation Union a number of adaptations were required to the list of indicators used in the EIS 2009. 25 new indicators replaced the 29 indicators used in the EIS 2009 to better capture the performance of national research and innovation systems considered as a whole.4 The data used in the Innovation Union Scoreboard is based on most recent statistics from Eurostat and other internationally recognized sources as available at the time of analysis. If possible, international sources have

been utilized to improve comparability between countries. The most recent in this context stands for actual performance in 2007 (in four indicators), 2008 (10 indicators) and 2009 (10 indicators). Data related to venture capital had the lowest data availability in the database (69% across all Countries). Each year the composite innovation score is formed based on a method where the SII is calculated as the average of the normalised values of the 25 indicators with equal weights for each of these indicators. Based on the results, the European countries are divided into four groups: innovation leaders, innovation followers, moderate innovators and modest innovators (see the picture below). The innovation performance of the leaders is 20% or more above that of the EU27; the performance of followers is less than 20% above but more than 10% below that of the EU27; the moderate innovators perform less than 10% below but more than 50% below that of the EU27; whereas the performance of the modest innovators remain below 50%.5

Figure 1. IUS index example.

0,800 0,700 0,600 0,500 0,400 0,300 0,200 0,100 0 LV BG LT RO SK PL HU MT GR ES CZ IT PT EE SI CY EU FR LU IE NL AT BE UK DE FI DK SE Modest innovators

2

Moderate innovators

Innovation followers

Innovation leaders

See http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-communication_en.pdf EC DG Enterprise & Industry. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/facts-figures-analysis/innovation-scoreboard/index_en.htm 4 Hollanders & Tarantola: Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010 –Methodology report. Draft Report January 2011. 5 See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/facts-figures-analysis/innovation-scoreboard/index_en.htm 3

46

The indicators in the Innovation Vital Signs project have been divided into four factors (input, process, outcome and context). The input factors include research and development, talent, capital and networks. Process takes notice of management, product development, efficiency and process factor issues. Outcome consists of two factors – output and impact. Context factors include macroeconomic, policy, infrastructure, and mindset. A more thorough list of the proposed candidates for innovation indicators is below. In addition to the indicators, a list of references and sources for the various data items were presented for discussion and analysis in order to summarize some of the key current issues in compiling data sources such as these. The process also included discussion of the latest efforts to improve and/or refine these measures. The findings of the project indicate that frameworks differ widely and there is no consensus. The indicators are also heavily dominated by input factors. The connection of inputs to outputs and impact on overall economic performance is weak. Additionally some indicators (e.g. knowledge, networks related indicators as well as indicators measuring conditions for innovation) do not seem to exist. A more positive realization is that innovation indicators are evolving. The 1950s and 60s saw the establishment of the first generation of input indicators, second generation paved the way for output indicators in the 1970s and 80s, the third generation focused on innovation indicators in the 1990s, and the current generation of the 21st century highlights process indicators.

•• Input factors –– Research and development •• R&D expenditures •• Patents •• Scientific publications –– Talent •• Expenditure on tertiary education •• Tertiary Education in Science and Technology •• R&D personnel •• Verbal and Math Proficiency •• Population completing secondary education •• Participation in life-long learning –– Capital •• Gross Capital Formation •• (ICT) Investment in Equipment and Software •• Angel Investment (Business Angels) •• Venture Capital •• SBIR Funding •• Initial Public Offering (IPO) •• Stock Market Value •• R&D Tax Incentives –– Networks •• Computers and Broadband Deployment •• Technology Alliances •• Federal Cooperative Research and Development Agreements and Technology Transfer •• University Spin-Outs •• Innovative SMEs co-operating with others •• Process Factors –– Management –– Product Development •• Enterprise Innovation Processes •• Speed in launching a New Product –– Efficiency

–– Process Factors •• SMEs innovating in-house (% of SMEs) •• Innovation Expenditures by enterprises •• SMEs who introduced an organizational innovation •• Outcome Factors –– Output •• New Products and Services Introduced •• Outcomes of Enterprise Innovation Activity •• Sales of new-to-market products •• Sales of new-to-firm products •• New community trademarks •• New community designs –– Impact •• Employment in high-tech manufacturing •• Employment in high-tech services •• Trade in highly R&D-intensive industries and high technology industries •• High tech exports •• Technology trade •• Productivity •• Enterprise Birth and Death Rates •• High Tech Jobs Gained and Lost •• Context Factors –– Macroeconomic •• GDP per capita and Standard of living •• GDP (Gross Domestic Product) •• Inflation –– Policy •• Public Policies –– Infrastructure •• Infrastructure –– Mindset •• Public Attitudes and Sources of S&T Information •• Wish to Own One’s Business •• Value Placed on Creativity.

Annex 1

2.2 Innovation Vital Signs Project

47

Annex 1

Background of the Innovation Vital Signs Project

In the USA the innovation indicators have often focused on measurable data sets, which have been readily collected by governmental and private entities. The US innovation ecosystem is a complex series of interrelated phenomena and its’ innovation capacity does not only derive from R&D spending, patent production and science & engineering degrees6. The “Innovation Vital Signs project” was established against this background. The project was managed by ASTRA (Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America) for the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Technology Administration during 2006–2007 and it was aimed at searching for innovation indicators for tomorrow. Another aim was to provide added perspective on the nature of the information that was collected for these indicators, as well as to offer an in-depth perspective on the uses of these indicators might be put to. The key objective was to identify relevant, high quality and timely innovation indicators, which will enhance public understanding of the various roles government entities can play in fostering innovation and of policy choices used for ensuring that the US remains attractive environment for innovation in the world.

2.3 Latest work carried out by OECD In the 2008 report OECD work on STI indicators was reviewed. The review concentrated on the existing STI indicator benchmark used in the studies such as Science, Technology and Industry Outlook (latest 2010) and more extensive Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard (latest 2009). Besides these frameworks a set of new indicators have been under development and testing7. In the following list a few of those new indicators are briefly described. Most of them oar still one off testing exercises time-series are still not available. Some examples of new indicators are listed below. Investing In intangible assets. Innovation results from a range of com6

plementary assets that go beyond R&D, such as software, human capital and new organisational structures. Investment in these intangible assets is rising and overtaking investment in physical capital (machinery and equipment) for example in Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States (OECD, 2010). As a result an indicator “Investment in fixed and intangible assets as a share of GDP” has been developed. The indicator is a good additional input measure, although it does not differentiate fields. Trademarks. New indicators based on trademarks point to a wealth of incremental and marketing innovations in addition to technological innovations. Many countries have nowadays a large services sector and as a result they tend to engage more in trademark pro-

tection than patents, which is a traditional indicator to measure R&D output in manufacturing (especially in the high-tech industries). Trademarks can be seen also as an indirect way to assess creativity in the service sector. Collaboration. New firm-level analysis reveals that firms that collaborate on innovation spend more on innovation than those that do not (OECD, 2010). This suggests that collaboration is likely to be undertaken to extend the scope of a project or to complement competencies in the private sector more than to save on costs. It is important to notice that collaboration is used in innovation processes also in the firms that do not perform a lot of formal R&D. It can be concluded that policies that stimulate collaboration and networking have an impact on a wide spectrum of innovative firms (and also the public sector). Indicators are for example: •• Firms with national/international collaboration on innovation, 2004–06 •• Collaboration on innovation, 2004–06 For the impact indicator project, collaboration can be seen as one dimension measuring the activities in the knowledge, education and culture area i.e. networks and knowledge exchange. Another important recent document related to measuring innovation is the publication “Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective8” (2011). The publication contains a wide set of indicators from several sub-areas related to innova-

See http://www.usinnovation.org/files/BoegeInnovationBestiaryIVS102109.pdf The work carried out is presented more thoroughly in the publication “Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective”. 8 http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3746,en_41462537_41454856_44979734_1_1_1_1,00.html 7

48

2.4 NESTA work on measuring innovation The National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts (NESTA) in the UK has done a lot of development work in order to assess and measure innovation activities, outputs and to some extent impact in many areas. NESTA has had many initiatives; a few relevant ones are presented below. Innovation Index. The overall aim of the Innovation Index is to offer a significantly better basis for government policy that affects innovation. The pilot Index does this in the following ways: 1. Its most important component is a measure of the amount of investment in innovation in the UK economy, and the effect that this has on economic growth and productivity. 2. Its second component is a tool to understand innovation at the firm level that captures hidden innovation and reflects the different ways that innovation occurs in different sectors. 3. Its third component is a set of metrics that can be tracked to assess how favourable a climate the UK is for innovation. In the Innovation Index, investments in innovation were divided into seven categories: 1. R&D 2. Design

9 10

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Organisational improvement Training & skills development Software development Market research & advertising Other (Copyright development and mineral exploration)

The innovation index focuses much on economic performance and inputs but nevertheless involves some interesting indicators for the indicator framework in Finland. NESTA has also worked in collaboration with BIS to develop some innovation performance indicators. The NESTA pilot work has shown that the UK invests more heavily in innovation than R&D measures would suggest. According to the pilot study, R&D represents only 11 per cent of the investment in innovation measured by the Index. The findings also show that innovation may be responsible for the lion’s share of the UK’s productivity growth from 1990-2007. Moreover, a separate index has been under development for the public sector. Creative industries. NESTA has also studies the development of the so called creative industries and the “culture of innovation”. This study may also provide some additional indicator data for connecting culture with R&D and the economy. Finally, NESTA has embraced the concepts of total innovation and innovation by absorption by aiming to develop tools to identify and measure innovative activity that the formal R&D does not fully capture.

2.5 Innovation Indicator for Germany

Annex 1

tion. It also introduces innovation indicators related to health, climate change and other environmental challenges.

The German Innovation Indicator utilises analyses, statistics and surveys to evaluate the areas that influence the innovative capacity of a country. These areas are companies, innovation policy, innovation climate, and education system. Hard indicators (e.g. spending on research and development and the number of patent applications) as well as “soft” factors (for surveys among managers and citizens) consisting of altogether 180 different items of data are used for comparing innovative capacity. Statistics from the OECD and Eurostat play a role alongside with surveys (e.g. manager survey performed by the World Economic Forum, the EU Commission’s Eurobarometer, and the World Values Survey). Additionally DIW uses its own indicators related to making marketable products from inventions.9 Each country achieves scores that illustrate the competitive differences among the 17 countries. The most successful country in a particular discipline of innovation receives seven points in the category concerned whereas the least successful country is awarded with one point. The countries in between receive scores in relation to the first and last country. All the sets of data are calculated in different units of measure, e.g. expenditure on education is expressed in dollars, and employment figures in percentage. This approach aims at providing a more complex picture reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of the countries analysed.10

Innovation Indicator for Germany 2009. Summary. Deutsche Telecom Stiftung. Innovation Indicator for Germany. http://www.innovationsindikator.de/der-innovationsindikator/english-summary/

49

Annex 1

Figure 2. Innovation indicator for Germany example.

Innovative Capacity ofLeading the Leading Industrialised Innovative Capacity of the Industrialised Nations. Nations. Place 1

Score

2

Switzerland

3

Sweden

4

Finland

5

Denmark

6

6.93 6.76 6.28 6.14

Canada

5.24

7

Japan

5.22

8

Netherland

5.03

9

Germany

5.01

10

UK

11

Korea

12

France

13

Austria

4.15

14

Belgium

4.14

15

Island

16

Spain

17

Italy

Background of the German innovation indicator

Since 2005 the German Institute for Economic Research (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung – DIW) has been annually providing an account of the innovative capacity of the industrialised nations. The account is used for comparing the Federal Republic of Germany with 16 other countries in North America (USA and Canada), Europe (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK) and Asia (Japan and South-Korea).

50

7.00

US

4.78 4.47 4.25

3.77 1.70 1.00

2.6 The Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU and U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness The original framework used 16 indicators from six categories (human capital, innovation capacity, entrepreneurship, IT infrastructure, economic policy, and economic performance) were utilized in the process of assessing the competitiveness of the regions. Data dated back to 2007. In the second edition the set of indicators has also been improved to better capture the components of innovation-based global com-

petitiveness. The new indicators are academic publications, new firms, e-government, effective corporate tax rate, and real GDP per worker. The second edition also includes comparisons between individual U.S. states against individual EU nations, producing quite a different picture. The overall result was, however, that both the US and EU nations continue to lose ground in terms of global innovation advantage.

Category

Indicator

Human capital

Higher education attainment in the population ages 35–44 years

Innovation capacity

Number of science and technology researchers per 1,000 employed Business investment in research and development (R&D)

Entrepreneurship Information technology (IT) infrastructure Economic policy Economic performance

Statistics Canada

Government investment in R&D Number and quality of academic publications Venture capital investment New firms E-government Broadband telecommunications Corporate investment in IT Effective marginal corporate tax rates Ease of doing business Trade balance Foreign direct investment inflows Real GDP per working-age adult GDP per hour worked (productivity)

Background

In 2009 the first edition of the Atlantic Century was published by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, assessing the global innovative-based competitiveness of 36 countries and four regions. The regions were the European Union -15 region, the EU-10 region, the EU-25 region and the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement region. More recent data was used in the second edition of the Atlantic Century. Several new countries were also added to the comparison in order to better represent both a diverse set of regions and stages in the development of an innovation economy. These were Argentina, Chile, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, and Turkey. Luxembourg was excluded due to data difficulties.

Canada and the other is the S&T performance framework development carried out in order to measure the impact of Federal S&T investments.

Annex 1

Table 1. The indicators by category of the Atlantic Century II report.

2.7 Impact assessment framework development Canada In Canada the STI impact framework development has been basically carried out in two different areas. The first area is the general impact assessment framework development by Statistic

The starting point towards understanding impacts in the context of STI indicators an established framework, which on one hand guides statistical work and identifies measurement gaps and on the other hand provides a better understanding of how various indicators are connected. Statistics Canada has developed a statistical information system for science and technology comprised of a set of actors, activities, linkages, outcomes, and impacts. Indicators used for describing the actors and activities are especially important in the early stages of measurement, because they answer to questions of who, what, where, how and why of STI activities. Interest related to linkages grows following the evolution of policy needs. At the final phases of the measurement emphasis is given to outcomes and impacts of STI.

Figure 3. Statistics Canada STI impact framework.

Actors

Activities

Outputs

Generate (What, Where, Why?)

Immediate

(Who?)

Outcomes Intermediate

STI knowledge

Linkages Transmit (How?)

USE (What results?)

IMPACTS Impacts of STI activities on the economy, society, environment, etc. Effect of STI policy, strategy and regulatory environments on STI activities Socio-economic factors affecting STI activities

51

Annex 1

Impact of Federal Research

investments (of Canada) was requested to be made in greater detail. A horizontal development project ”Improving the Measurement, Reporting and Assessment of Federally Performed Science and Technology” had been launched earlier and its results have been tested also in practice on various fields of administration. The resulting impact as-

In 2007 the Canadian Science and Technology Strategy stated that the Government needed to increase the argumentation of research and innovation policy by improving the ability of Federal Government to measure and report the impacts of science and technology input. Additionally the measurement of R&D

Figure 4. The impact assessment framework of Canada. Federal Government

Inputs

Canadians Outputs

S&T and Related Activities

Intermediate Outcomes

Final Outcomes

Impacts

Figure 5. Activities of Federal Government and various indicators.

sessment framework is part of the implementation plan of the Science and Technology Strategy. The impact assessment framework developed in Canada has several similarities with the framework that has been under development in Finland. Its focal point is the continuum from input through activities and output to impacts on different level. As opposed to the Finnish model, the Canadian model has not highlighted a few chosen areas of impact. Instead it contains several dimensions. Additionally impact has been divided into indirect and direct impacts. The Canadian framework is described in figure 4. The fifth figure demonstrates the different dimensions of public sector research and innovation policy in more detail and lists objectives for impact assessment highlighted in Canada.

Federal Government Inputs

Outputs

Activities

Knowledge & Technology

R&D Data Development PPR Evaluations

S&T

Canadians Intermediate Outcomes Examples ●

Data* Evaluations

●

●

Innovations

●

●

● ●

PPR Development PPR Administration

Policies, Programs & Regulations Government Services

Notes: PPR = Policy, Program and Regulatory RSA = Related Scientific Activities * Data, knowledge, and technology can be inputs to policy, program and regulatory ecaluation, development, and adsministration, as well as to R&D

52

Examples

Consensus Standards

RSA

Other Government Functions

Final Outcomes

● ●

Safety Employment Health Higher Incomes Clean Environment Security Competitiveness

Canada has implemented a vast public sector reporting in terms of input. Statistic Canada collects data from by surveys the Federal organizations, which either fund or practice research and development activities. This is not enough in the long-term. However, the Canadian models aims at developing reporting, planning, and evaluation processes in the long run allowing a consistent command of chain effects from inputs to impacts. This requires development and standardizing of data collection methods. The experiences of the National Research Council (NRC) are to be utilized as material for the framework. Science and Technology Socio-Economic

Impact Measurement Framework has been developed by NRC to monitor the socio-economic impacts of its projects and other R&D initiatives. The framework consists of 15 different impact dimensions and 14 industries. In some of the industries (e.g. environment) the utilization of the framework has been developed further. Use of the Canadian model is more complicated, because the work related to the impact assessment framework is still on-going and is lacking for instance a list of indicators. Instead of indicator framework, the model seems to rely on a group of impact assessment data, which are meant to be combined.

Annex 1

Utilization of the model has been based on access to data. Most of the information concerning the factors in the early stages of the continuum is available as part of the normal reporting procedures of organizations (e.g. funding, human resources, activities, results etc.). Correspondingly the closer the final stages of the assessment are the more demanding data mining becomes, thus requiring data collection through separate evaluation. The model is based on the assumption that both reporting and assessment activity can be integrated as a part of the whole impact assessment in order to be able to proportion the input with the final output (impact).

Table 2. Summary S&T performance framework of Canada.

HOW? Resources

WHO? Reach

Inputs, activities, outputs

Clients/users/co-deliverers/ beneficiaries

WHY? Results Direct outcomes

Ultimate impacts

Advancement of Knowledge Strategic & fundamental research

Scientific/academic community. Universities, government laboratories

Development of new knowledge in strategic areas.

Strong research base in universities and government laboratories.

Innovation with Firms Economic growth applied R&D, innovation, technology transfer & commercialisation support

Firms, associations.

Enhanced innovative capability. New, improved products, processes, services.

Increased competitiveness. Effective positioning of Canadian firms and research in the world.

Innovation Systems Support Government, policy, regulation, S&T data

Public, private sector, policy makers, regulators, and advisors.

Use of S&T indicators in industry, government policy and decision making. Supportive S&T infrastructure. Market-place confidence.

Improved public security, safety, and well-being. Effective and recognised system of innovation.

Management Co-ordination, entrepreneurial practices

Portfolio management. Lingages with partners.

Effective leadership, and performance management. Improved service/programme co-ordination and delivery.

Maximise efficiency and effectiveness. More entrepreneurial government organisations.

53

Annex 1

2.8 Legatum prosperity index The Legatum Prosperity Index is based on two questions. These are: what is prosperity and how is it achieved? The index begins with the assumption that prosperity relates to both money and the quality of life. The more proper definition includes also wealth and wellbeing. All in all the Prosperity Index™ evaluates 110 countries, which cover over 90 percent of the world’s population. The index is based on 89 different variables, each of which has a demonstrated effect on economic growth or on personal wellbeing. The variables are divided into eight sub-indexes, representing a fundamental aspect

of prosperity: 11 1. Economy – Stable and growing economies increase per capita income and promote the overall wellbeing of its citizens. 2. Entrepreneurship & Opportunity (E&O) – A strong entrepreneurial climate in which citizens can pursue new ideas and opportunities for improving their lives leads to higher levels of income and wellbeing. 3. Governance – Well-governed societies enjoy national economic growth and citizen wellbeing. 4. Education – Education is a building block for prosperous societies. 5. Health – A strong healthcare infrastructure in which citizens are able to enjoy good physical and mental

Figure 6. World rankings according to the Legatum prosperity index.

11

54

http://www.prosperity.com/summary.aspx

health leads to higher levels of income and wellbeing. 6. Safety & Security – Societies plagued by threats to national security and personal safety cannot foster growth in average levels of income or wellbeing. 7. Personal Freedom – When citizens enjoy their rights to expression, belief, organisation, and personal autonomy in a society welcoming of diversity, their country enjoys higher levels of income and social wellbeing. 8. Social Capital – Social networks and the cohesion that a society experiences when people trust one another have a direct effect on the prosperity of a country

3.1 Europe 2020 Strategy by EU EU’s Europe 2020 growth strategy aims at making Europe a smart, sustainable, and inclusive economy. On a more concrete level the strategy consists of five objectives to be reached by 2020.12 The set EU-wide objectives for 2020 are as follows (indicators in brackets)13: •• Employment: –– 75% of the 20–64 year-olds to be employed (employment rate by gender, age group 20–64) •• R&D / innovation –– 3% of the EU's GDP (public and private combined) to be invested in R&D/innovation (Gross domestic expenditure on R&D) •• Climate change / energy –– greenhouse gas emissions 20% (or even 30%, if the conditions are right) lower than 1990 (greenhouse gas emissions, base year 1990)

Annex 1

3 Sustainable Society –– 20% of energy from renewables (share of renewables in gross final energy consumption) –– 20% increase in energy efficiency (energy intensity of the economy [proxy indicator for Energy savings, which is under development]) •• Education –– reducing school drop-out rates below 10% (early leavers from education and training by gender)

–– at least 40% of 30-34–year-olds completing third level education (tertiary educational attainment by gender, age group 30-34) •• Poverty / social exclusion –– at least 20 million fewer people in or at risk of poverty and social exclusion (persons living in households with very low work intensity, persons at risk of poverty after social transfers, severely materially deprived persons).

Background on Europe 2020

Europe 2020 is a growth strategy of the EU aimed at making Europe a smart and sustainable and inclusive economy. Through the three mutually reinforcing priorities the EU and the Member States are expected to deliver high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. On a more concrete level the strategy consists of five objectives to be reached by 2020. The goals focus on employment, innovation, education, social inclusion and climate/energy, and each Member State is expected to adopt its own national targets in each of these areas.14 The Europe 2020 strategy includes both EU-wide and national targets set to measure progress in meeting the objectives. Five headline targets cover the entire EU. This set of EU-level targets is translated into national targets in each EU country, reflecting different situations and Based on the strategy, each member state sets its own national targets. Finland’s goal is to raise the employment rate of 20–64 year-olds to 78 per cent, maintain the ratio of R&D funding at a minimum of 4 per cent of GDP, to reach the climate and energy targets of the EU (Finland’s national targets exceed those set at the EU level), raise the proportion of people with tertiary level education to 42 per cent and keep the proportion of early school leavers below 8 per cent and to decrease the number of people living at risk of poverty and social exclusion.15

12

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/europe_2020_indicators/headline_indicators 14 http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm 15 http://www.vm.fi/vm/fi/04_julkaisut_ja_asiakirjat/01_julkaisut/02_taloudelliset_katsaukset/20101118Euroop/name.jsp 13

55

Annex 1

3.2 Sustainable Development Indicators by Eurostat Eurostat has created the Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs) to monitor the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS). Table 3. The themes and headline indicators of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy.16

Theme Socio-economic development Sustainable consumption and production Social inclusion Demographic changes Public health Climate change and energy

Sustainable transport Natural resources

Global partnership Good governance

Headline indicator Growth rate of real GDP per capita Resource productivity Population at-risk-of-poverty or exclusion Employment rate of older workers Healthy life years and life expectancy at birth, by gender Greenhouse gas emissions Share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption Energy consumption of transport relative to GDP Common bird index Fish catches taken from stocks outside safe biological limits: Status of fish stocks managed by the EU in the North-East Atlantic Official development assistance as share of gross national income No headline indicator

3.3 Globalisation indicators by Eurostat Eurostat has created an indicator set to assess the impact of globalisation. The 25 indicators have been grouped in 5 categories aimed at measuring several aspects of globalisation. They are also intended to show the EU’s relations with the rest of the world (extra-EU breakdown of data), and wherever possible the situation within the EU (intraEU breakdown of data) to allow grasping both the extent of internal EU integration and the extent of its globalisation. See the table below for indicators per category and unit.19

Background on Sustainable Develoment Indicators

Eurostat has also created the Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs) to monitor the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS). The EU SDS – renewed in 2006 – represents a coherent approach to EU’s long-standing commitment to meet the challenges of sustainable development and how the challenge is tackled more effectively. The overall aim of the EU SDS is to achieve continuous improvement of the quality of life and well-being on earth for present and future generations. In order to follow the progress, the SDS required the Commission to develop detailed indicators with regard to each particular challenge.17

16

The first set of indicators was adopted in 2005 to monitor the EU SDS in a report to be published by Eurostat every two years. The set was reviewed in 2007 in order to adjust to the SDS. The indicators data covers the EU and its Member States, as well as the Candidate Countries (Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey) and EFTA (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland) where possible. Of a group of more than 100 indicators, eleven have been identified as headline indicators, which are intended to assess whether the European Union has achieved progress towards sustainable development in terms of the objectives and targets defined in the strategy.18

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/sdi/indicators http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/sdi/indicators 18 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/sdi/context 19 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/globalisation/indicators 17

56

Indicators per category

Unit

Persons Non-nationals among residents

% of population

Non-nationals in the labour force

% of total labour force

Nights spent by non-EU residents inside the EU

Nights per 1000 population

Number of tourism nights spent abroad by residents

Nights per 1000 population

International air transport of passengers

per 1000 population

Technology High tech exports

% of total exports

High tech imports

% of total imports

Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD)

% of GDP

Goods and services Exports of goods

% of GDP

Imports of goods

% of GDP

Exports of services

% of GDP

Imports of services

% of GDP

Intra-EU trade in goods

% of total external trade in goods

Energy dependency

% of net imports in gross inland consumption

Growth of maritime transport

Growth on previous year

Growth of air freight transport

Growth on previous year

Global responsibility CO2 emissions per inhabitant in the EU and in developing countries

Tons

Official Development Assistance

% of gross national income

Annex 1

Table 4. The globalisation indicators of Eurostat by category and unit

Background on Eurostat Globalisation indicators

Eurostat interprets globalisation as increasing interdependence and interlinkages between nations, the increasing mobility of people, the growing flow of products, ideas and raw materials thus involving social, cultural and environmental elements and going beyond the issue of economic integration. Globalisation creates both possibilities and challenges, which are also addresses in the Europe 2020 strategy, adopted by the European Council in June 2010. Quantifying the several dimensions of globalization is challenging, but proper statistical measures make the phenomenon easier to understand. The EU globalisation indicators utilise data which already exist in Eurostat, and casts it in the light of globalisation and allows it to be seen from a new angle. The 25 indicators do not yet cover all aspects of globalisation, and hence the Globalisation Indicator set is intended to evolve in the future (e.g. Eurostat is currently working on a programme to modernise business and trade statistics and is running a project to study how to best quantify non-economic elements of globalisation).20

Business and capital Inward Foreign direct Investment

% of GDP

Outward foreign direct investment

% of GDP

Market Integration - Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) intensity

Average value of inward and outward FDI flows divided by GDP (in percent)

Outsourced employment

Number of persons employed in foreign affiliates

20

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/globalisation/background

57

Annex 1

3.4 Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress21 One of the key starting points in the work has been to distinguish between an assessment of current well-being and an assessment of sustainability, whether this can last over time. In the work, the Commission organized itself into three working groups, focusing respectively on: Classical GDP issues, Quality of life and Sustainability. For measuring well-being, the report concluded that at least the following dimensions should be considered: •• Material living standards (income, consumption and wealth); •• Health; •• Education; •• Personal activities including work •• Political voice and governance; •• Social connections and relationships; •• Environment (present and future conditions); •• Insecurity, of an economic as well as a physical nature. As opposed to GDP, Quality of life – as a concept – includes the full range of factors that influences what we value in living, going beyond the material aspects. Additional conceptual approaches to measuring quality of life have been utilised in the work of the Commission. These pay attention to e.g. subjective well-being, as well as the notions of capabilities and fair allocations. Sustainability on the other hand, deals not on-

21

58

ly with the question of measuring the present, but also with predicting the future. One of the key starting points in the work has been to distinguish between an assessment of current wellbeing and an assessment of sustainability, whether this can last over time. In the work, the Commission organized itself into three working groups, focusing respectively on: Classical GDP issues, Quality of life and Sustainability. From the focus of the Finnish project the first is connected to the Economy and Renewal theme, the second to Welfare theme and the third to all themes although somewhat more to the Environment theme. The project makes several suggestions for developing better indicators for economic

performance and wellbeing, although it does not offer a definite list of readily available indicators. Amongst others, the following recommendations were made in terms of measuring economic performance and its connections to wellbeing: •• Focus income and consumption rather than production as an indicator of well-being •• Emphasis to the household perspective •• Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth •• Give more prominence to the distribution of income, consumption and wealth •• Broaden income measures to nonmarket activities

Backgound of the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress

In February 2008, the President of the French Republic, Nicholas Sarkozy, unsatisfied with the present state of statistical information about the economy and the society, asked a group of experts led by Joseph Stiglitz to create a Commission, subsequently called “The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress” (CMEPSP). The starting point was the fact that for a long time it has been known that GDP is an inadequate metric to gauge wellbeing over time particularly in its economic, environmental, and social dimensions, some aspects of which are often referred to as sustainability. An important distinction was that GDP measures market production instead of economic well-being. Combining the two easily leads to misleading indicators and wrong policy decisions. On the surface, the monetary valuation of goods and services allows adding up quantities of a different nature. However, the economy is more complicated. Prices may not exist for some goods and services. And society’s underlying valuations is different from market prices (.e.g. environmental damage caused by production or consumption activities).

Report of the commission on the measurement of economic performance et social progress. CMEPSP, September, 14, 2009

Beyond GDP utilized the following three indicators in its approaches: Human Development Index (HDI), Ecological Footprint (EF), and Genuine Savings (Adjusted Net Savings). In the fact sheet section the development and implementation of the key indicators and measures are described by their developers. For more than 20 different indices the need for the indicator, its findings and uses, and future possibilities for its further development are explained.22 In 2009 the Commission released a policy paper (communication) titled

GDP and beyond: Measuring progress in a changing world. The communication presents an EU roadmap with five key actions to be undertaken now and in the near term to support the Commission’s aims to develop indicators relevant to the challenges of today. The actions are the following: complementing GDP with environmental and social indicators, near real-time information for decision-making, more accurate reporting on distribution and inequalities, developing a European Sustainable Development Scoreboard, and extending National Accounts to environmental and social issues.23

Background

The name of the indicator – beyond GDP – also describes its background. GDP is an economic indicator and is therefore ill-suited for measuring well-being. Indicators that are as clear and appealing as GDP but more inclusive of other dimensions of progress – in particular environmental and social aspects are needed. Beyond GDP is a result of continuous development and ongoing work on indicators to assess social, economic, and environmental progress. In 2007 a conference was organized by the European Commission, European Parliament, Club of Rome, OECD and WWF to clarify which indices are most appropriate to measure progress, and how these can best be integrated into the decision-making process and taken up by public debate. Followed by the conference the European Commission released the Communication “GDP and beyond: Measuring progress in a changing world” outlining an EU roadmap with five key actions to improve indicators of progress in ways that meet citizens’ concerns and make the most of new technical and political developments.24

22 23 24 25 26 27

3.6 Measures of Australia’s progress (ABS)

Annex 1

3.5 Beyond GDP

The ABS measures a country's progress by setting out a suite of social, economic and environmental indicators.25 The 2010 edition presented a number of changes that improve the usefulness of the information for the Australian community (e.g. the publication is now entirely electronic and provides a dashboard display using ‘traffic lights’, illustrated in the picture below). Thus, at one glance, it is possible to see whether progress or regress has been made in each key area compared with 10 years ago.26 MAP has been designed to illustrate change and it rests on statistical evidence to measure Australia’s progress. The statistical measures are grouped under three broad themes – society, the economy and the environment. Several dimensions (e.g. health and work within the social domain, national income within the economic domain, and biodiversity within the environmental domain) are addressed within the themes. The dimensions include a range of progress indicators, which indicate the extent of progress within that dimension. See the picture below for an illustration of the domains and their dimensions. The full list of dimensions and indicators is to be found from the MAP website.27

http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/factsheets.html http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/EUroadmap.html http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/ http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~Preface%20(2.1) Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010. Measures of Australia’s Progress. Is life in Australia getting better? See http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~-Appendix%20A%20(9.1)

59

Annex 1

Figure 7. The dimensions of Measuring Australia’s Performance (MAP)

Background

The dimension of progress – at glance Society

Economy

Environment

✔

✔

National income National wealth ✔ Household economic wellbeing ~ Housing ~ Productivity

✘

Health Education and training

✔

✔

Work Crime Family, community and social cohesion Democracy, governance and citizenship

✔

✘

Biodiversity Land Inland waters Oceans and estuaries Atmosphere Waste

has generally been made in this headline ✔ Progress indicator compared with ten years ago The headline has generally regressed ✘ compared withindicator ten years ago

~

There has been no significant movement in this headline indicator compared with ten years ago There is either no headline indicator for this area of progress or no time series

The OECD has also utilised MAP while establishing a Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies and has since hosted three major international dialogues and debates on measuring societal progress. Figure 8. The OECD interpretation of MAP – Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies

Economy

Society

Environment

Headline dimensions ● ● ● ● ● ●

Health Education and training Work Family, community and social cohesion Crime Democracy, governance and citizenship

●

National income National wealth Household economic wellbeing Housing

●

Productivity

● ● ●

● ●

28

60

Culture an leisure Communication Transport

● ● ● ●

Supplementary dimensions ●

●

● ●

Inflation Competitiveness and openness

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/

●

Biodiversity Land Inland waters Oceans and estuaries Atmosphere Waste

In 2002, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) contributed to measuring whether life was getting better in Australia by releasing the first issue of Measures of Australia's Progress (MAP), which was then called Measuring Australia's Progress. The Bulletin included a set of indicators which provided insights on how life is improving, and at what rate.

3.7 UNDP Human Development Index The Human Development Index (HDI28) is the best known indicator used for measuring the state of society by nonfinancial terms. HDI has been developed by UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) especially to monitor the progress taking place in the developing countries. The first Human Development Index was published in 1990 by the United Nations, followed by updated on an annual basis. HDI represented a new way of measuring development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index. The creation of a single statistic, which was to serve as a frame of reference for both social and economic development, was the actual breakthrough allowing international comparisons focusing especially on education and health. In the index a minimum and a maximum is set for each dimension (level of education, life expectancy

3.8 The European Social Survey The European Social Survey (the ESS) is a biennial multi-country survey covering over 30 nations. The first round was fielded in 2002/2003 and the fourth round in 2008/2009.The project is funded jointly by the European Commission, the European Science Foundation and academic funding bodies in each participating country, and is designed and carried out to exceptionally high standards. The project is directed by the the Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University, London. The survey provides data especially on welfare topics but also those related to education and culture. Among the key topics are: Media; social trust; political interest and participation; socio-political orientations; social exclusion; national, ethnic and religious allegiances; attitudes towards and experiences of ageism; attitudes to welfare provision and service delivery; demographics and socio economics.

3.9 Genuine Progress Indicator, GPI

3.10 The New National Welfare Index, NWI

Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is based on the ISEW index created by Daly and Cobb. Development of the index, of which first version was presented in 1995, was the responsibility of Redefining Progress –organisation. The World Resource Institute currently develops and maintains the index. According to its name, GPI aims at measuring the genuine progress taking place in a country. It can be used for depicting the sustainability of the economy, and especially for long-term trends of development. The results are also easy to compare with different, generally used economic indicators such as GDP and ISEW. Calculating GPI follows to a great extend the principles of ISEW. The focal point is weighted private consumption balanced by various economic values related to wellbeing. GPI depicts environmental issues in a diverse way and also pays attention to societal issues thoroughly. The indicators utilised to measure include e.g. weighted private consumption, value of domestic labour and parenting, value of higher education, value of voluntary work, crimes, lost leisure time, etc..

The new National Welfare Index (NWI) is a monetary quantity, i.e. all included variables are provided in monetary form although some of the variables still lack a reliable year-by-year data base. All in all the NWI includes 21 variables in its basic variant, and 19 or 23 variables respectively in its modified variants.

Annex 1

at birth, wealth, and GDP adjusted for purchasing power), and then it is shown where each country stands in relation to these dimensions, expressed as a value between 0 and 1, where one represent the highest level of development. HDI covers most countries in the world. Highest ranked nations are the Western European and North American countries.

Table 5. NWI variables

Variables (Basic variant) Index of income distribution Weighted consumption expenses Value of housework Value of voluntary work Public expenditure on health care and education Consumer durable goods Costs / Benefits Travelling between home and workplace Costs of traffic accidents Costs of crime Costs of alcohol and drug abuse Compensatory social expenses due to environmental impact Damage from water pollution Damage from soil pollution Damage from air pollution Damage from noise Loss and profit from changes in wetland areas Damage from the loss of agricultural areas Replacement costs due to the exploitation of non renewable resources Damage from CO2 emissions

Value + + + + +/+/-

-

61

Annex 1

Background

The New National Welfare Index is yet another index being born as critique to GDP. The index has been created by two German researchers – Diefenbacher and Zieschank – during a project called Measuring Welfare in Germany – Proposal for a New National Welfare Index in 2007–2009. The two researchers argue that an aggregated index composed by many partial indicators is required in order to be able to discuss the deficits of national product calculation. Two former models or indexes - Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) and the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) form a reliable basis for different country case studies, but they could still be improved and expanded. Hence ISEW and GPI calculations were used as the first starting point.29 The NWI builds on the basic quantity “private consumption, which is based on the assumption that private consumption (weighted with income distribution) creates a positive utility and therefore contributes to welfare. Second step is to include value creation through housework and voluntary work. Social and environmental factors are also represented. The final two indicators in the basic form of NWI are the net change in the value of fixed assets and the net change in capital accounts. Some of the values are based on easily accessible primary data from official statistics, in other cases there are only assessments. Hence reliability of data varies considerably.30

3.11 Sustainable Society Index, SSI The Sustainable Society Foundation – SSF – has been established in 2006 as a private initiative by Geurt van de Kerk and Arthur Manuel, aiming at stimulating and assisting societies in their development towards sustainability. The main objective however is to further develop the Sustainable Society Index – SSI – and to publish and dissem-

29

inate the results every two years. The SSI is a wide index, covering a total of 151 countries on national level. Recently the SSI has also been implemented on regional level, and the aim is to develop the index to cover the local level as well.31 The Sustainable society index comprises four levels including 24 indicators, 8 categories, 3 wellbeing dimensions, and an overall index SSI. The first two editions, published in 2006 and

Diefenbacher & Zieschank 2010. Beyond GDP – Measuring Welfare in a Sustainable Economy http://www.bene-muenchen.de/download/NWI_BenE_4th_RCE_meetg_01122010_v2.pdf 31 http://www.ssfindex.com/about/ 32 http://www.ssfindex.com/ssi/calculation-methodology/ 30

62

2008 were based on a framework of 22 indicators. During the 2010 update the structure of the SSI was thoroughly evaluated resulting in a new framework, which is more balanced and transparent than the previous one. Every indicator weights the same for the aggregation into categories due to lack of a scientific basis for the attribution of different weights. This also applies to the three wellbeing dimensions. Because the three dimensions are unequal (two comprising three categories and one comprising two categories), the overall index SSI has been calculated directly as the unweighted average of the 24 indicators.32 SSI is a very interesting index from the Finnish perspective since it essentially includes human welfare, environment and economy in the indicator framework. Although the structure of the index differs from the Finnish approach, it gives valuable information on various sub-categories that can be considered to be included in the impact indicator framework.

Environmantal Wellbeing Economic Wellbeing

Sustainable Society

Human Wellbeing

Basic Needs

1. Sufficient Food 2. Sufficient to Drink 3. Safe Sanitation

Personal Development

4. Healthy Life 5. Education Oppurtunities 6. Gender Equality

Well-balanced Society

7. Good Governance 8. Income Distribution 9. Population Growth

Healthy Environment

10. Air Quality (Humans) 11. Air Quality (Nature) 12. Surface Water Quality

Climate & Energy

13. Renewable Energy 14. Emission Greenhouse Gases 15. Energy Consumption

Natural Resources

16. Renewable Water Resources 17. Forest Area 18. Biodiversity

Preparation for the future

Economy

Annex 1

Table 6. SSI framework

19. Material Consumption 20. Organic Farming 21. Genuine Saving 22. Gross Domestic Product 23. Employment 24. Public Debt

63

Annex 1

4 Environment 4.1 Environmental Performance Index, EPI The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) is the successor of Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), which has an index published by the Universities of Yale and Columbia in 2005. In 2010 EPI ranked 163 countries based on 25 performance indicators, which have been tracked across ten policy categories covering both environmental public health and ecosystem vitality33. These indicators provide information at a national government scale of how close

countries are to established environmental policy goals. EPI is a composite indicator consisting of several indicators forming a figure ranging from zero to hundred. ESI was based on 21 indicators, which were divided into five categories. The weighted sum of these formed the final value of the index. EPI follows the same logic, but in addition to pollution, resource utilization and the state of ecosystems and natural resources pays attention to the governmental actions aimed at supporting sustainable development.

Table 7. EPI framework

Ecosystem vitality

Environmental health

Climate change (25 %)

Environmental burden of disease (25)

Agriculture (4 %)

Air pollution (12,5 %)

Fisheries (4%)

Water (12,5 %)

Forestry (4%), Biodiversity and habitat (4%) Water (4 %) Air pollution (4 %)

Background

The development of ESI began with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set by the United Nations accompanied by European Commission, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission and the World Economic Forum. In 2008 an updated version of ESI was published, and it was called EPI – the environmental performance index. The main aim of EPI is to represent a nation’s ability to protect the nature reserves and the environment now and also in the future. EPI focuses especially on political actions to decrease the burdening of the environment.

33 34

64

http://epi.yale.edu/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

4.2 Ecological Footprint, EF The ecological footprint is a notion developed for measuring human demand on the Earth's ecosystems by comparing human demand with Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. The ecological footprint can be used to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. E.g. in 2006, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths – in other words, mankind was using ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them.34 Similar evaluation is calculated every year, although there is a three year lag due to the time it takes for the UN to collect and publish all the underlying statistics. The methods of measurement vary even though the notion of ecological footprint is widely used. The model is moving towards more comparable and consistent results based on emerging calculation standards.

The HPI is a measure that has been created to demonstrate the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered around the world. HPI has been the first index to combine environmental impact with well-being to measure the environmental efficiency with which country by country, people live long and happy lives. However,

the Index does not reveal the ‘happiest’ country in the world, but it can demonstrate the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens.35 The HPI is based on basic issues of the economy: what is put in (resources) and what comes out (human lives of different length and happiness) resulting in global index of the 143 na-

tions. The index is built on three indicators: life expectancy, life satisfaction and ecological footprint. New, improved data reveals that no country achieves an overall ‘high’ score on the Index, and no country does well on all three indicators. HPI has also been compiled for European countries in 2007. It is based on the carbon footprints, and provides a picture of the relative carbon efficiency of European nations.

Annex 1

4.3 Happy Planet Index, HPI

Figure 9. The overall scores from the 2nd global compilation of the Happy Planet Index, colour coded by country (source: http://www.happyplanetindex.org/explore/global/index.html)

35

http://www.happyplanetindex.org/learn/

65

Annex 1

4.4 Climate Change Performance Index, CCPI

gether the three partial indicators give a differentiated picture of the evaluated countries' climate change performance.

The CCPI presents a comparison of the 57 countries with the highest CO2 emission. Together these 57 countries are responsible for more than 90 % of annual worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. The climate change performance of these nations is evaluated according to uniform criteria and the results are ranked. Twelve different indicators are utilized to measure the climate change performance. These indicators can be classified in three categories according to emissions trend, emissions level and climate policy. One by one and to-

Background

The rationale behind the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) is that the peak of emissions must come no later than 2015. Accordingly emissions from industrialized nations need to fall by 25 to 40 percent by 2020 and, by some countries, 80 to 95 percent by 2050. Hence CCPI has been developed to show the strengths and weaknesses in the development of national and international climate policies. The methodology of the CCPI’s ranking follows the OECD guideline for creating performance indicators. Since the first publication it has been modified moderately several times.

Figure 10. Components of the CCPI. (source: Climate Change Performance Index Background and Methodology)

Figure 1: Components of the CCPI

Emission of Trends by sector

Electricity

Energy Renewables

50% International Aviation

Transport

Road Transport Private Households Manufacturing and Construction

Residential Industry

CLIMATE CHANGE PERFORMANCE

index

Target-Performance comparision of the per capita emission since 1990

CO2 per Primary Energy Unit Primary Energy Unit per GDP

Emission Level

30%

Primary Energy Unit per Capita National Climate Policy

Climate Policy International Climate Policy

66

See the following picture for an overview of the indicators and the weight of the categories in the overall score.

20%

4.5 The Living Planet Index (LPI) The Living Planet Index is an indicator that reflects changes in the health of the planet’s ecosystems by tracking population trends of over 8,000 vertebrate species. It also offers insights into which habitats or ecosystems have species that are declining most rapidly. Similar to a stock market the index tracks the value of a set of shares over time as a sum of its daily change and then calculates the average annual rate of change for species populations from 1970 to 2007. The global Living Planet Index is the aggregate of two indices (the temperate LPI and the tropical LPI), which are given equal weight. The former consists of terrestrial and freshwater species’ populations (from Palearctic and Nearctic realms) and marine species’ populations (from north or south of the tropics). The latter includes terrestrial and freshwater species’ pop-

4.6 Economic Wellbeing Index (EWI) The Ecosystem Wellbeing Index (EWI) is the lower of two scores – one includes resource use and the other excludes the use of resources. The best possible score is 100, the worst being 0. The EWI synthesizes 51 indicators of the state of the environment and it consists of the following indices: land, water, species and genes, and resource use, or the average of the indices of land, water, species and genes, and air, which-

ever is lower. According to EWI good ecosystem is a state where the ecosystem maintains its diversity and quality, in which the country is able to support humans and other life forms, including its capacity to change and provide opportunities for adaptability, as it becomes necessary. Measures by the index there are no countries with good EWI state in the world. Instead countries with a poor or bad EWI cover almost half (48.8%) of the planet’s land and inland water surface. See below for an illustration.38

Annex 1

ulations from Afrotropical, Indo-Pacific and Neotropical realms as well as marine species’ populations from the zone between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.36 Year 2007 is the latest year for which there is sufficient amount of available data. Currently the Living Planet Database contains over 6,000 population trends for more than 1,400 species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. The database is maintained by the Zoological Society of London.37

Figure 11. The wellbeing of nations measured by the Ecosystem Wellbeing Index

36

Living Planet Report 2010. Biodiversity, biocapacity and development. Living Planet index. See http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/living_planet_report_graphics/lpi_ interactive/ 38 Prescott-Allen. 2001. The Wellbeing of Nations. A Country-by-Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment 37

67

Annex 1

4.7 United Nations Environmental Indicators The United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) has developed a group of environmental indicators jointly with several developed and developing countries and international organizations participating in the Inter-governmental Working Group on the Advancement of Environment Statistics. In 1995 the Working Group approved the list of environmental and related socioeconomic indicators. They are divided into following clusters: economic issues, social/demo-

graphic issues, air/climate, land/soil, water, other natural resources, waste, human settlements, and natural disasters. The nine clusters are categorised according to the FDES information categories.39 Indicators40 bolded in the list were intended for short-term compilation directly from national statistical services or from other international organizations or specialized agencies. The database also provides snapshots by countries, consisting of a selection of national environment statistics, which have been complemented by key economic and social indicators. See the figure below for an example (Finland). 41

Table 8. The FDES categories and indicators

FDES Information categories Agenda 21 Issues (clusters)

A. Socioeconomic activities, events

B. Impacts and effects

C. Responses to impacts

D. Inventories, stocks, background conditions

Economic issues

Real GDP per capita growth rate

EDP/EVA per capita

Environmental protection expenditure as % of GDP

Produced capital stock

Production and consumption patterns

Capital accumulation (environmentally adjusted)

Investment share in GDP Social/ demographic issues

Population growth rate Population density Urban/rural migration rate Calorie supply per capita

39

% of urban population exposed to concentrations of SO2, particulates, ozone, CO and Pb Infant mortality rate Incidence of environmentally related diseases

Environmental taxes and subsidies as % of government revenue Population living in absolute poverty Adult literacy rate Combined primary and secondary school enrollment ratio Life expectancy at birth

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/indicators.htm To see all indicators, see http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/indicators.htm 41 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/envpdf/Country_Snapshots_Sep%202009/Finland.pdf 40

68

The UNSD Environmental Indicators distribute global environment statistics based on ten indicator themes, which have been compiled from a range of data sources. Of each theme indicator tables, charts and maps as well as links to other international sources are provided. The selection has been based on the current demands for international environmental statistics and the availability of internationally comparable data. Statistics on water and waste are based on official statistics supplied by national statistical offices and/or ministries of environment, complemented with comparable statistics from OECD and Eurostat, and water resources data from FAO Aquastat. Other international sources were utilised to compile statistics on other themes. The indicators are described below: •• Air and Climate –– Air Pollution •• Consumption of ozonedepleting substances •• NOx emissions •• SO2 emissions •• Links to other international data sources •• Additional indicators and selected time series –– Climate Change •• Climatological disasters (see Natural Disasters) •• Participation in climate change agreements •• Links to other international data sources

Environment Statistics Country Snapshot: Finland Air and climate Emissions of:

SO2 (1000t) SO2 per capita (kg) NOx (1000t) NOx per capita (kg) CO2 (million tonnes) CO2 per capita (tonnes) GHG (million tonnes CO2 eq.) GHG per capita (tonnes CO2 eq.) Ozone depleting CFCs (ODP tonnes) GHG from energy (%)

Year

84.0 16.0 193.0 37.0 68.0 13.0 80.0 15.0

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

… 82.0

2006

Biodiversity Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas protected (%) Number of threatened species Fish catch (tonnes) Change in fish catch from previous year (%)

8.0 2008 21 2008 149,450 2006 13.0

2006

Economy GDP growth rate from previous year (%) GDP per capita ($US) % Value added agriculture, hunting, forestry, fishing % Value added mining, manufacturing, utilities % Value added, other

6 2006 46,371 2007

Population (1000) Population growth rate from previous year (%)

3

2007

Waste

26 71

2007 2007

26,607 2006 5,052

2006

222

2006

14.0

2006

Land and agriculture Total area (sq km) Agricultural land (sq km) Arable land (% of agric. land) Permanent crops (% of agric. land)

Permanent pasture and meadows (% of agric. land) Change in agricultural land area since 1990 (%) Forest area (sq km) Change in forest area since 1990 (%)

1.0

2007

.4.0 225,100

2007 2007

1.0

2007

5,304

2008

0.0

2008

Population

Energy Energy consumption (1000t oil eq.) Energy consumption per capita (kg oil eq.) Energy intensity (kg oil eq.) per $1,000 (PPP) GDP Renewable electricity production (%)

Note: The boundaries, the names shown, and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the united Nations.

338,419 22,950 90.0 0.0

Population served by municipial waste collection (%) 100 2007 Municipal waste collected (1000t) 2,675 2007 Hazardous waste generated (tonnes) 2,710,946 2007 Water and sanitation Long-term average renewable freshwater resources (mio 3/yr) Urban population with access to improved drinking water source (%) Rural population with access to improved drinking water source (%) Urban population with access to improved sanitation (%) Rural population with access to improved sanitation (%)

110,000

N/A

100

2006

100

2006

100

2006

100

2006

–– Greenhouse Gases •• CO2 emissions •• Greenhouse gas emissions •• Greenhouse gas emissions by sector (absolute values) •• Greenhouse gas emissions by sector (percentage) •• CH4 and N2O emissions •• Links to other international data sources •• Additional indicators and selected time series –– Biodiversity •• Marine and terrestrial protected areas •• Marine protected areas (see Marine and Coastal Areas) •• Terrestrial protected areas (see Land and Agriculture) •• Links to other international data sources •• Additional indicators and selected time series –– Energy and Minerals •• Contribution of mining to value added •• Energy use and renewable electricity production •• Links to other international data sources •• Additional indicators and selected time series –– Forests •• Forest area •• Links to other international data sources •• Additional indicators and selected time series –– Governance •• Participation in selected international environmental agreements

Annex 1

Figure 12. A snapshot example

69

Annex 1

–– Inland Water Resources •• Water resources (long term annual average) •• Water supply industry (latest year) •• Waste water •• Links to other international data sources •• Additional indicators and selected time series –– Land and Agriculture •• Agricultural land •• Terrestrial protected areas •• Use of fertilizers per unit of agricultural land area •• Links to other international data sources •• Additional indicators and selected time series –– Marine and Coastal Areas •• Marine protected areas •• Proportion of population in coastal zones (LECZ) •• Links to other international data sources •• Additional indicators and selected time series –– Natural Disasters •• Climatological disasters •• Geophysical disasters •• Hydrological disasters •• Meteorological disasters •• Links to other international data sources –– Waste •• Hazardous waste generation •• Municipal waste collection •• Municipal waste treatment •• Links to other international data sources •• Additional indicators and selected time series 42 43

70

Background

More than 25 years ago, in 1984, United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) developed and published a Framework for the Development of Environment Statistics (FDES) to set out the scope of environment statistics by relating the components of the environment to information categories. The categories recognise that environmental problems are the result of human activities and natural events reflect a sequence of action, impact, and reaction. Hence relevant information must refer to social and economic activities and natural events, their effects on the environment, and the responses to these effects by the society. Alongside the FDES two reports have been published with the headline of Concepts and Methods of Environment Statistics focusing on human settlements on one hand and on the natural environment on the other. The reports include detailed sets of statistical variables within the FDES providing a starting point for the identification of appropriate statistical series. Since then they have been utilised by many countries for organizing environmental and related socio-economic information. 42 Later UNSD released a Glossary of Environment Statistics, which consist approximately 1200 environmental terms. The Glossary is a reference tool for terms and definitions relevant to environmental data production and use. The UNSD continues to develop the Environment Statistics Database with the aim of improving the coverage and data quality in order to provide the basis for regular dissemination of environment statistics.

4.8 The European Environment Agency (EEA) The EEA – an agency of the European Union – provides European, pan-European, and regionally integrated environmental data and indicator sets, assessments and thematic analyses. A range of environmental data is being collected across Europe in order to provide reliable and accessible information. A shared environmental information system (SEIS) has been created to maximise the use of this information

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/history.htm http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-system

and to interconnect existing databases. SEIS has been designed to improve the availability and quality of information, to streamline data handling, to modernise environmental reporting, and to foster the development of information services and web-based applications. SEIS includes datasets covering 92 topics, 3548 different maps and graphs, 43 environmental interactive maps, 275 indicators and fact sheets as well as information of data providers and partners. See below an example picture of a map illustrating forest connectivity in the EU. 43

Annex 1

Figure 13. The shared environmental information system (SEIS)

Background

EEA provides information on the environment for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy. EES’s goal is to aid the Community and member countries make informed decisions about improving the environment, integrating environmental considerations into economic policies and moving towards sustainability. Currently there are 32 member countries associated with the EEA.44

44

http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/who

71

Annex 1

5 Economy and renewal The economy and renewal is an impact area that is based on classical and well developed indicators. In general the international benchmarking shows that most of the indicator sets that are used in various countries are based on the commonly agreed indicators that can be found e.g. from OECD and EU statistics. Below, a few projects are represented that try to summarise economic performance.

5.1 WEF Global Competitiveness Report The Centre for Global Competitiveness and Performance of the World Economic Forum45 produces reports and conducts activities through which impediments to growth are identified. The Global Competitiveness Report also includes the competitiveness ranking, which is based on the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). GCI has been developed for the World Economic Forum by Sala-i-Martin and it was first introduced in 2004. The index is based on 12 pillars of competitiveness, aimed at providing a comprehensive picture of the competitiveness landscape in countries around the world, and at all stages of development. The pillars are: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication, and innovation.

45

72

The rankings of the index are calculated from both publicly available data and the Executive Opinion Survey, which is a comprehensive annual survey conducted by the World Economic Forum together with its network of Partner Institutes (research institutes and business organizations) in the countries covered by the study. For instance in 2010, more than 13,500 business leaders were polled in 139 economies (countries). The objective of the survey is to capture a broad range of factors affecting an economy’s business climate.

The report contains an extensive data section with a detailed profile for each of the 139 economies featured in the study, providing a comprehensive summary of the overall position in the rankings, as well as data tables with global rankings for over 110 indicators.

5.2 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook The World Competitiveness Scoreboard presents the 2010 overall rankings for the 58 economies covered by the WCY. The economies are ranked from the most to

Figure 14. Structure of the World Competitiveness Yearbook (source: http://www.imd. org/research/publications/wcy/Factors_and_criteria.cfm)

Factors Economic performance

Sub-factors • Domestic economy • International trade • International investment • Employment • Prices >>Download criteria details (PDF, 32 kB)

Government efficiency

• • • • •

Business efficiency

• • • • •

Infrastructure

• • • • •

Public finance Fiscal policy Institutional framework Business legislation Societal framework

>>Download criteria details (PDF, 29 kB)

Productivity Labor market Finance Management practices Attitudes and values

>>Download criteria details (PDF,28 kB)

http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness

Basic infrastructure Technological infrastructure Scientific infrastructure Health and environment Education

5.3 Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, ISEW The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) 46 is calculated in a following way: conventional national income accounts are adjusted by public non-defence expenditures (+), capital formation (+), services from domestic labour (+), private defensive expenditures (-), costs of environmental degradation (-), and depreciation of natural capital (-). The calculation is partly based on a reclassification of expenditures and partly on the valuation of income distribution and environmental damages. ISEW has been compiled for the US (1950–1986), the UK (1994), Germany (1994), the Netherlands (1995), Austria (1995), for the state of British Columbine in Canada and Sweden (1996), Chile (1999) and latest for Finland in 200147. ISEW was later on developed further into Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). ISEW was developed by Daly and Cobb in the end of 1980s to measure sustainable economic welfare. ISEW has also been considered as a replacement for the gross domestic product. The idea of the index is to combine societal, environmental and economical sustainability and also to pay atten-

tion to benefits and losses. The starting point of ISEW was to use the pre−tax income distribution in the US to develop an index of “distributional inequality” with which aggregate personal income in the accounting year is weighted. This is balanced by factors increasing and decreasing well-being. In ISEW attention is explicitly paid for costs caused by environmental damage and natural resource depletion as well as distribution of income. ISEW distinguishes between water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, loss of wetlands, loss of farmland, and long−term environmental damage. Brent Bleys has developed a simplified version of the ISEW, called the simplified ISEW (SISEW). He has also applied the index to a number of European countries by utilizing the framework of ISEW and paying attention only to the quantitatively most important factors. Bleys has suggested that the quantitatively least significant issues would be disregarded due to the fact that creating ISEW requires enormous amount of information. For instance in the case of Belgium, Bleys constructed the SISEW by using only 11 elements instead of the 20 in the original index. Choosing only the most significant indicators of ISEW enables the index to be used more because less data is required. Gathering information related to leisure time and societal issues has been especially challenging. By 2007 SISEW has been measured for Australia, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the UK.48

5.4 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)

Annex 1

the least competitive. The criteria used to compute the rankings are grouped into 4 main factors divided into 20 sub-factors. The main factors and sub-factors are demonstrated in Figure 14.

The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM49) is a not-for-profit academic research consortium. During GEM’s establishment, traditional analyses of economic growth and competitiveness tended to neglect the role played by new and small firms in national economies. Thus the goal of GEM is to make high quality information on global entrepreneurial activity available to wide audiences. In 1999 GEM began conducting research related to entrepreneurship with 10 countries and by 2011 had researched in 80 economies all over the world. The 2010 edition was based on a survey of 175,000 people in 59 economies representing over 52% of the world’s population and 84% of the world’s GDP. The economies reviewed in the Global Report are divided into three levels: factor-driven, efficiencydriven, and innovation- driven, based on the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Competitiveness Report. In addition, economies are also grouped into six geographic regions: Sub-Saharan Africa; the Middle East and North Africa, (MENA) / South Asia; Latin America and the Caribbean; Eastern Europe; Asia/Pacific; the United States and Western Europe.50

46

http://www.ivm.vu.nl/en/Images/AT5_tcm53-161576.pdf Statistic Finland: http://www.stat.fi/tup/tietoaika/tilaajat/ta_02_02_ekotehokkuus_isew.html 48 Hoffren, Lemmetyinen & Pitkä 2010. Esiselvitys hyvinvointi-indikaattoreista. Sitran selvityksiä 32. 49 http://www.gemconsortium.org/ 50 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2010 Global Report. http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1302178170580/GEM%20GLOBAL%20 REPORT%202010rev.pdf 47

73

Annex 1

5.5 Global Entrepreneurship Index, GEINDEX

5.6 European Human Capital Index

The experts at the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor have also developed Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEINDEX) to capture the contextual feature of entrepreneurship across countries. GEINDEX is a tool that allows measuring the quality and quantity of the business formation process in 65 of the most important countries in the world. GEINDEX focuses on entrepreneurial attitudes, entrepreneurial activity, and entrepreneurial aspirations by integrating 31 variables (17 from GEM, and 14 from other data sources) into 14 pillars, three sub-indexes and a “super-index”.51

European Human Capital Index has been created to measure the development of human capital by the Lisbon Council. It is a human capital accounting model using time-based measurements to quantify economically relevant human capital. The methodology rests on five different types of learning with economic value: learning from parents; compulsory education; tertiary education received; adult informal and non-formal learning; and learning by doing on the job. Additional characteristics are consistency across type,

51

74

time and country, allowance for depreciation, and accounting for input costs. Methodological challenges still exist in applying the model. The European Human Capital Index focuses on the ability of European Union countries (13) to develop and deploy their human capital by identifying and defining four types of human capital and analysing the way they collectively contribute to the wealth of European citizens: Human Capital Endowment, Human Capital Utilisation, Human Capital Productivity, and Demography and Employment.

Acs and Szerb: The Global entrepreneurship Index (GEINDEX). http://policy-cepp.gmu.edu/GEINDEX/GEINDEX_first_proofs.pdf

6.1 Active Citizenship in Europe The European Union has actively embraced the concept of Active Citizenship as a way to develop and measure human skills in everyday life and practical involvement in democratic processes. The EU Commission sees that “at turning a Europe of Knowledge into reality importantly includes promoting a broader idea of citizenship, which can strengthen the meaning and the experience of belonging to a shared social and cultural community”52. Citizenship with a European dimension is anchored in the shared creation of a voluntary community of peoples, of different cultures and of different traditions – the creation of a democratic society which has learned to embrace diversity sincerely as a positive opportunity, a society of openness and solidarity for each and every one of us.

There have also been studies and projects for developing indicators to develop active citizenship. One of the efforts was summarised in 2006 report “Measuring Active Citizenship in Europe”53. The report describes a broad set of indicators related to political life, civil society, community life and values. These can all see key dimensions to a working society and to general welfare and progress. The broad categories for indicators of active citizenship are: •• Experiences and Inputs: (processes of learning active citizenship) •• Personal Outcomes: (markers of active citizenship) •• Community Outcomes: (markers of active citizenship) The list of proposed indicators is too numerous to be included here but can be found e.g. from the report Working towards indicators for Active Citizenship54.

Annex 1

6 Knowledge, education and culture 6.2 Hong Kong Creativity Index The Study on Hong Kong Creativity Index was commissioned by the Home Affairs Bureau of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HAB) in 2004. The index was expected to assess and monitor Hong Kong’s competitiveness in the creative age over time as well as for the purpose of comparing its creative vitality with its neighboring regions and major Asian cities. The Hong Kong Creativity Index (HKCI) has been built on the five Cs: manifestations of creativity, structural/institutional capital, human capital, social capital, and cultural capital. The four forms of capital are mutually reinforcing and they are also multifaceted and dynamic determinants of the growth of creativity. The HKCI comprises an overall ranking and five composite indices corresponding to the 5Cs, which are equally weighted. 55, 56. The indicators used in the index are presented on page 76.

52

http://ec.europa.eu/education/archive/citizen/citiz_en.html CRELL Research Paper 4 54 Report of from the Active Citizenship for Democracy conference. September 20-21, 2006. JRC Ispra 55 A study on Hong Kong Creativity Index. Interim Report 2004. 56 A study on Hong Kong Creativity Index. Interim Report 2004. 53

75

Annex 1

The indicators used in the creativity index

OUTCOMES OF CREATIVITY

Infrastructural conditions of ICT

Economic contribution of creativity

5. Percentage of establishments using personal computers

1. Value added of creative industries as percentage of GDP

6. Percentage of establishments with internet connection

2. Number of persons engaged in creative industries as percentage of total employment

7. Percentage of establishments with web page / web site

3. Share of cultural goods relative to total export trade in goods

9. Percentage of households with internet connection

4. Share of cultural goods relative to total import trade in goods

10. Mobile phone subscribers per population

5. Percentage of business receipts from selling goods, services or information through electronic means (as an indicator measuring innovative activity of e-commerce)

Robustness of social and cultural infrastructure

Inventive activity of economic sector 6. The ability of local enterprises to sell branded products in international market (Global Competitiveness Report) 7. The ability of local enterprises to acquire new technologies (Global Competitiveness Report) 8. Total number of patent applications per capita 9. Percentage of patent applications originated from local applicants relative to gross number of patent applications Other outcomes of creative activity 10. Daily circulation of newspaper per capita 11. Total number of book and periodical titles newly registered per capita 12. Total number of music titles composed per capita 13. Total number of lyrics written per capita 14. Total number of films produced per capita 15. Total number of film shows presented by government cultural services per capita 16. Total number of performances (performing arts) by government cultural services per capita 17. Gloss floor area of new buildings per capita STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL CAPITAL Independence of the legal system 1. Enumerated data about independence of the legal system (Global Competitiveness Report)

11. Total number of Non-government Organizations (NGOs) per capita 12. Registered public library users per capita 13. Number of books in public libraries per capita 14. Total number of seats in all government cultural services’ performance venues per capita 15. Number of declared monuments per city 16. Number of museums per city Availability of community facilities 17. Number of community halls and community centres per capita 18. Total number of civic centres per capita Financial infrastructure 19. Number of listed companies per capita 20. Capitalisation of stock market per GDP 21. Venture capital under the place’s management per GDP Robustness of entrepreneurship 22. Share of Small-and-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to total number of establishments 23. Percentile scoring in Labour Productivity Index (whole economy) HUMAN CAPITAL R&D Expenditure & Educational Expenditure 1. R&D expenditure (business sector) as percentage of GDP 2. R&D expenditure (higher education) as percentage of GDP 3. R&D expenditure (public) as percentage of GDP 4. Public expenditure in education as percentage of GDP

Corruption perceptions

Population of knowledge workers

2. Percentile scoring in Corruption Perception Index (Transparency International (TI), Corruption Index)

5. Share of population aged 15 and above with educational attainment at tertiary level (non-degree)

Freedom of expression

6. Share of population aged 15 and above with educational attainment at tertiary level (degree)

3. Percentile scoring on freedom of press 4. Percentile scoring on freedom of speech

76

8. Percentage of households using personal computers

7. Number of R&D personnel as percentage of total working population

CULTURAL CAPITAL

8. Total number of visitor arrivals per population

Cultural expenditure

9. Total number of resident departures per population

1. Expenditure on “the arts & culture” as percentage of total public expenditure

10. Estimated number of emigrant per population 11. Number of working visas per working population SOCIAL CAPITAL Development of social capital

2. Household expenses on designated cultural goods & services as percentage of total household expenses Network quality: norms & values Attitude towards arts, cultural and creative activities

1. Amount of approved charitable donations allowed under Salaries Tax as percentage of GDP

3. Value placed on creative activity

2. Amount of approved charitable donations allowed under Profits Tax as percentage of GDP

5. Value placed on arts and cultural activities

3. Expenditure on “social welfare” as percentage of total public expenditure

4. Value placed on school-aged children’s creative activity 6. Value placed on school-aged children’s art and cultural activities

Network quality: norms & values from World Value Survey

7. Community leader to be a strong advocate for advancing the arts and culture of the place

4. Indicators on generalized trust (World Value Survey)

Environmental factors for cultural and creative activities

5. Indicators on institutional trust (World Value Survey)

8. Evaluation on milieu that encourages creative activities

6. Indicators on reciprocity (World Value Survey)

9. Evaluation of milieu that encourages cultural participation

7. Indicators on sense of efficacy (on control) (World Value Survey)

10. Value placed on the morality to buy pirated or counterfeit goods

8. Indicators on cooperation (World Value Survey)

Network quality: cultural participation

9. Indicators on attitude towards diversity (World Value Survey)

11. Number of library books borrowed per year per population

10. Indicators on acceptance of diversity (World Value Survey)

12. Royalty fees paid to copyright fees collecting agents (excluding revenue from overseas) per population

11. Indicators on attitude towards human rights (World Value Survey) 12. Attitude towards rights and wrongs of foreign immigrants (World Value Survey) 13. Attitude towards foreigners’ life style (World Value Survey) 14. Indicators on modern versus traditional values (World Value Survey) 15. Indicators on self-expression versus survival (World Value Survey) Network quality: social participation from World Value Survey 16. Interest in public affairs (World Value Survey) 17. Participation in social organization (World Value Survey) 18. Social contact with acquaintance (World Value Survey)

Annex 1

Transience/mobility of human capital

13. Average hours per week spent on internet for personal use as percentage of 168 hours 14. Number of visits to government cultural services’ museums per population 15. Number of attendance to performances by government cultural services per population 16. Number of attendance to film and video shows presented by government cultural services per population

The Hong Kong Creativity Index has also been used as one of the key sources in work towards creating creativity indicators in Europe57.

19. Social contact with community (World Value Survey) 20. Indicators on sense of efficacy (on what you did) (World Value Survey) 21. Total number of volunteers per capita

57

A recent EC studies related to the issue can be found from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc2082_en.htm

77

Annex 1

6.3 OECD Pisa Survey The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) of the OECD is an internationally standardized assessment that has been jointly developed by participating economies and administered to15-year-olds in schools. The first assessment was conducted in 2000 and three other have taken place since then (in 2003, 2006 and 2009). The next evaluation will be published in 2012, so the assessments are

conducted in every three years, and the tests are typically administered to between 4,500 and 10,000 students in each country.58 The number of countries involved in the assessment has altered slightly over the years. 43 countries participated in the first assessment in 2000 followed by 41 nations in 2003. Fifty-seven countries participated in the third assessment, a significant increase. The latest assessment in 2009 evaluated 65 countries, the broadest coverage so far.

Statistically significantly above the OECD average Not statistically significantly different from the OECD average Statistically significantly below the OECD average

Figure 15. The top 15 countries in the PISA 2009 assessment. (source: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf )

OECD average Shanghai-China Korea Finland Hong Kong-China Singapore Canada New Zealand Japan Australia Netherlands Belgium Norway Estonia Switzerland Poland Iceland United States Lichtenstein Sweden Germany Ireland

58

78

Pencil- and- paper tests are taken by all students, with assessments lasting two hours for each student. For the PISA 2009 assessment, an option of an assessment of the reading of electronic texts was also provided for some participating countries/economies. Test items consist of a mixture of multiple-choice items and questions requiring students to construct their own responses. These items are organized in groups based on a passage setting out a real-life situation.

On the overall reading scale

Access and retrieve

Integrate and interpret

Reflect and evaluate

Continuous texts

Noncontinuous texts

493 556 539 536 533 526 524 521 520 515 508 506 503 501 501 500 500 500 499 497 497 496

495 549 542 532 530 526 517 521 530 513 519 513 512 503 505 500 507 492 508 505 501 498

493 558 541 538 530 525 522 517 520 513 504 504 502 500 502 503 503 495 498 494 501 494

494 557 542 536 540 529 535 531 521 523 510 505 505 503 497 498 496 512 498 502 491 502

494 564 538 535 538 522 524 518 520 513 506 504 505 497 498 502 501 500 495 499 496 497

493 539 542 535 522 539 527 532 518 524 514 511 498 512 505 496 499 503 506 498 497 496

On the reading subscales

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235907_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

On the mathematics scale

On the science scale

496 600 546 541 555 562 527 519 529 514 526 515 498 512 534 495 507 487 536 494 513 487

501 575 538 554 549 542 529 532 539 527 522 507 500 528 517 508 496 502 520 495 520 508

Besides measuring skills among the young people for understanding active citizenship and civic education it is important to be able to measure the skills among adults. OECD has worked on these matters especially in terms of literature and reading. OECD has completed two international assessments of adult literacy which have already taken place in the OECD region – the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) and the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL) and has also started a Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). The first two already completed surveys already provide some information on adult skills. However, in the future development of the indicator framework in Finland the PIAAC study59 should be especially taken into account. The PIAAC survey will be carried out by interviewing adults aged 1665 years in their homes – 5 000 in each participating country, assessing their literacy and numeracy skills and their ability to solve problems in technology-rich environments, collecting a broad range of information from the adults taking the survey, including how their skills are used at work and in other contexts such as the home and the community. When PIAAC data becomes available in 2013, researchers and policy makers will have access to an unprecedented amount of information regarding basic cognitive skills, skills use and individuals’ background characteristics 59 60

and outcomes extending over the period 1993 to 2011.

6.5 INSEAD Skills Skills are essential to sustained economic growth. Therefore INSEAD developed the eLab Skills pyramid aimed at helping government and business leaders identify and address their national skills weaknesses in 2008. The skills pyramid consists of three types of skills (or tiers), which are literacy and basic skills, occupational skills and global knowledge economy skills. The pyramid has been derived from INSEAD research on Network Readiness Index and Global In-

formation Technology Report, conducted in collaboration with the World Economic Forum. The initial focus of the research has been on Europe. At the core of the research has been an attempt to benchmark a country's supply of skills critical for competitiveness and innovation, which has been based on a selection of data related to education, R&D spending, and the overall ecosystem of innovation and knowledge management. The Skills pyramid ranks 55 countries. In 2010 the INSEAD eLab Skills Report (IeSR) had a special focus on Asia, and the Skills Pyramid has been updated with the most recent data available.60

Annex 1

6.4 OECD work on measuring adult skills PIAAC

Figure 16. Total scores, grades and ranks of the 2010 INSEAD eLab Skills Pyramid (source: The 2010 INSEAD eLab Skills Report)

www.oecd.org/piaac http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/centres/elab/research/economic_tigers.cfm

79

Annex 1

6.6 Urban Institute – Cultural Vitality Indicators Cultural Vitality Indicators are aimed at measuring the creation, dissemination, validation, and support for arts and culture as a dimension of everyday com-

munity life and conditions. Cultural Vitality is measured by tracking the presence of opportunities for cultural participation, cultural participation itself, and support for cultural activities. These three culture-related phenomena include other aspects illustrated in the table below.

Table 9. The indicators of Cultural Vitality (source: http://www.urban.org/projects/culturalvitality-indicators/)

Presence of Opportunities for Cultural Participation Nonprofit, public, and commercial arts-related organizations (with a particular focus on size and function within the cultural and broader community context) Retail arts venues – bookstores, music stores, film theatres, craft and art supply stores Non-arts venues with arts and cultural programming – parks; libraries; ethnic associations, societies, and centers Festivals and parades Arts focused media outlets (print and electronic, including web-based venues) Art schools Participation Amateur art-making Collective/community art-making Arts education K-12 Arts after-school programs Audience participation Purchase of artistic goods (materials for making art as well as art products Discourse about arts and culture in the media Support Public expenditures in support of the arts in all sectors (nonprofit, public, and commercial) Foundation expenditures in support of the arts (nonprofit, public, and commercial) Volunteering and personal giving to the arts Presence of artists (professional artists as well as people who are tradition bearers but may not make money from their arts practice) Integration of arts and culture into other policy areas (e.g., community development, education, parks and recreation, etc.)

61

80

http://www.urban.org/projects/cultural-vitality-indicators/

Background

The indicators have been defined by the Urban Institute's Arts and Culture Indicators in Communities Project (ACIP) because a good and healthy place to live also includes opportunities for the arts, culture and creative expression. This aspect is often neglected in policy discussions focusing on ways to improve the quality of life in communities. Cultural Vitality and tools for how to measure it have been created to address this problem. Cultural Vitality provides an opportunity to create a more accurate picture of a community and also helps to understand the impact of arts and cultural activity on communities.61 In its’ recent work ACIP goes outside the traditional arts/culture box (extending the usual non-profit lens to include commercial and informal sectors) in searching for measures of cultural vitality by involving investigation of national data sources (covering public, commercial, and non-profit sectors and including parks, education, and library data) as well as more locally generated data (state, regional, county, city, community).

The Cultural Indicators of New Zealand are built around a set of 24 indicators (the first edition relied only on 13 indicators), and their aim is to monitor trends in the contribution of cultural activity to New Zealand society and

its economy. The indicators have been arranged within a framework of five themes reflecting development goals for cultural activity in New Zealand. The themes are engagement, cultural identity, diversity, social cohesion, and economic development. The indicators are illustrated in the table below.

Table 10. Cultural Indicators for New Zealand 2009 (source: Ministry for Culture & Heritage)

Engagement Cultural employment Employment in creative occupations

Annex 1

6.7 Cultural indicators for New Zealand 2009

Background

The cultural indicators of New Zealand (2009) have been designed to measure the high-level outcomes identified for the sector, and the extent to which the cultural sector is moving towards, or away from. The indicators demonstrate either the improvement or deterioration in the well-being of the cultural sector. The first report was published in 2006, and since then a number of new indicators, and many of the indicators have been added.62

Median incomes from creative occupations Cultural experiences Barriers to cultural experiences Household spending on cultural items Heritage protection Access to arts, culture and heritage activities and events Cultural identity Speakers of te reo Māori Local Content on television Māori TV ratings The importance of culture to national identity New Zealand events Diversity Cultural grants to minority ethnic groups Attendance at and participation in ethnic cultural activities Minority culture activities Social Cohesion Unpopulated Social Cohesion indicators Economic Development Income of the cultural industries Value-added contributed by the creative industries The creative industries’ proportion of total industry value

62

http://www.mch.govt.nz/research-publications/researching-nz-culture/cultural-indicators/cultural-indicators-new-zealand-20-0

81

Annex 1

6.8 European Creativity Index (ECI) The European Creativity Index (ECI) is a statistical framework for illustrating and measuring the interplay of various

factors that contribute to the growth of creativity in the European Union. Similar to other indicators, ECI measures the performance of a phenomenon using a set of indicators which highlight some of the key features of

that phenomenon. The six dimensions of the European Creativity Index consist of the following indicators, and have been obtained from the following data sources:

Table 11. Indicators of the European Creativity Index (source: Measuring Creativity, Conference proceedings, 2009)

The Dimensions and indicators

Data sources

Human Capital Number of hours dedicated to arts and culture in primary and secondary education

‘Key data on education in Europe in 2005’, by Education and Culture DG, Eurydice and Eurostat, available on Eurydice website: www.eurydice.org/

Number of art schools per million population

European Leagues of Institutes of the Arts (Elia) website: http://www.elia-artschools.org/

Tertiary students by field of education related to culture

Eurostat’s, ‘Cultural statistics’, available on: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu

Cultural employment in total employment

‘Cultural statistics in Europe’, Edition 2007, Eurostat

Openness and diversity Percentage of population that express tolerant attitudes toward minorities

EUMC and SORA

Share of population interested in arts and culture in other European countries

‘European cultural values’, 2007, Eurobarometer 278 requested by Education and Culture DG

Market shares of non-national European film

The European Audiovisual Observatory: http://www.obs.coe.int/

Level of Media Pluralism in European Member States

Current Study on Media Pluralism Indicators carried out on behalf of Information Society and Media DG

Share of non-nationals in cultural employment

Eurobarometer 278

Cultural environment Average annual cultural expenditure per household

Eurostat’s ‘Cultural statistics’ available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

Percentage of persons participating in cultural activities at least once in 12 months

Eurostat’s ‘Cultural statistics’ available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

Number of public theatres per capita

Data available from relevant national ministry

Number of public museums per capita

Data available from relevant national ministry

Number of public concert halls

Data available from relevant national ministry

Number of cinema screens by country

The European Audiovisual Observatory: http://www.obs.coe.int/

Technology

82

Broadband penetration rate

Eurostat’s ‘ Sciences and technology ’: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

Percentage of households who have personal computers and video game consoles at home

‘Cultural statistics in Europe’, Edition 2007, Eurostat

Annex 1

...Table 11. continues

Regulatory incentives to create Tax break for artists or people who work in the creative sector VAT rates on books, press, sound recordings, video, film receipts, freelance authors, visual artists Tax incentives concerning donations and sponsoring Direct public expenditure on culture Level of state funding to cinema Level of state funding to public TV Level of rights collected by authors in music per capita

‘Etude sur les crédits d’impôt culturels à l’étranger’, May 2008, KEA European Affairs Creative Europe, ERICarts Report presented by the Network of European Foundations for Innovative Cooperation, 2002 ‘Etude sur les crédits d’impôt culturels à l’étranger’, May 2008, KEA European Affairs ‘The Economy of Culture’, 2006, KEA, MKW, Turun Kauppakorkeakoulu The European Audiovisual Observatoroy, ‘KORDA’: http://korda.obs.coe.int/web/search_aide.php The European Audiovisual Observatory: http://www.obs.coe.int/ Available from the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers: http://www.cisac.org

Outcomes of creativity Values added of creative industries as % of GDP Turnover in music industries per capita Turnover in book industries per capita Turnover in cinema industries per capita Number of feature films produced per year and per capita Number of recordings released per capita Number of books published per year and capita Number of design applications per million population

‘The Economy of Culture’, 2006, KEA, MKW, Turun Kauppakorkeakoulu IFPI website: http://www.ifpi.org/ Eurostats, ‘Cultural statistics’, available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ The European Audiovisual Observatory: http://www.obs.coe.int/ European Audiovisual Observatory, Yearbook 2007 on ‘Film and home video’ IFPI website: http://www.ifpi.org/ Unesco, Institute for Statistics, ‘Culture and Communication’: http://www.uis.unesco.org OHIM/Eurostat

Background

ECI has been inspired by existing indexes focusing on creativity, innovation and economic performance. The difference compared with other indicators is that ECI introduces elements that are more specifically related to arts and culture. Focusing on the cultural dimension of creativity requires taking into consideration a number of factors (e.g. education in art schools, cultural employment, cultural offering, cultural participation, technology penetration, regulatory and financial support to creation, economic contribution of creative industries) usually lacking in other indexes. These indicators have been grouped into six pillars of creativity, illustrated in Figure 17.

Figure 17. The six pillars of creativity of the ECI (source: http://www.keanet.eu/report/ measuringcreativity.pdf ) Human capital Technology Openness and diversity Creative outputs

Social environment

Institutional environment

83

Annex 1

7 Well-being Welfare indicators and indicator sets differ from other impact areas in the sense that welfare is defined in very different ways and different levels in various indicators and indexes. In quite many cases welfare is considered as the general umbrella of various socio-economic objectives and not as separate subcategory. As a result many of the welfare indexes and indicator frameworks include other socio-economic targets and environmental targets and in that way may give valuable information on how to construct a general impact assessment framework.

7.1 Happy Life Years, HLY The index of ‘Happy Life Years’ has been developed at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands to measure the Quality-of-life in nations. The index combines average appreciation of life with average length of life, thus

producing slightly unexpected results (Costa Rica being the first with 66.7 and Zimbabwe the last with only 12.5 happy life years). The ranking of nations is published periodically on the World Database of Happiness. The latest ranking listed 148 nations covering more than 95% of the world’s population.63 Ruut Veenhoven from the University of Rotterdam argues that happiness can easily be measured by using single direct questions such as Taking all together, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you currently with your life as a whole (on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 represents dissatisfied and 10 satisfied)? Another dimension of the index, longevity, can be estimated on the basis of longevity of people who have passed away (i.e. life expectancy). The Happy Life value is calculated by using the following formula: Happy-Life-Years = Life-expectancy at birth x 0-1 happiness. More detailed description of the formula is to be found

from Veenhoven, R. Happy life-expectancy. A comprehensive measure of qualityof-life in nations (published in Social Indicators Research, 1996, vol. 39, pp. 1-58).64

7.2 National Accounts of Well-being, NAW The NAW framework has been created to capture more than life satisfaction, personal and social dimensions as well as feelings, functioning and psychological resources. The well-being indicators and data come from the first working model for National Accounts of Well-being and they can be used by governments to measure the well-being of their citizens. The model was devised using data from the cross-national European Social Survey (in 2006/2007), which included a detailed module of 50 well-being questions, designed by the University of Cambridge, NEF and other partners.

Figure 18. The indicators of well-being in NAW

Personal well-being

Emotional well-being

Positive feeling

63 64

84

Satisfying life

Absence of negative fiilings

Vitality

Self-esteem

Social well-being

Resilience and self-esteem

Optimism

Resilience

http://www.eur.nl/english/news/detail_news/article/14971/ http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/trendnat/hly.htm

Positive functioning

Competence

Supportive relationships

Autonomy

Well-being at work

Trust and belonging

Engagement

Meaning and purpose

NEF (the New Economics Foundation) was founded in 1986 as a registered charity. It was established by the leaders of The Other Economic Summit (TOES). NEF argues that national accounting indicators (such as Gross Domestic Product) only reveal a narrow view of human welfare. Hence more meaningful measures were needed to capture the richness of people’s lived experience. The National Accounts of Well-being (NAW) was built on this basis to provide a new way of assessing societal progress, a cross-cutting and more informative approach to policy-making, and Better engagement between national governments and the public.65

7.3 Gross National Happiness, GNH Gross national happiness or "GNH" has been developed as an indicator that measures quality of life or social progress in more holistic and psychological terms than the gross domestic product (GDP). 66. Due to its nature, GNH is somewhat difficult to define with mathematical precision. Yet

there are quantifiable elements that contribute to GNH, thus being subject to quantitative measurement. Low rates of infant mortality, for instance, correlate positively with subjective expressions of well-being or happiness within a country. GNH is based on four pillars: the promotion of sustainable development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment, and establishment of

good governance. The concept of GNH can be applied to any country due to the level of generality. The Centre for Bhutan Studies has further defined these four pillars with greater specificity and has compiled eight general contributors to happiness. These are physical, mental and spiritual health; time-balance; social and community vitality; cultural vitality; education; living standards; good governance; and ecological vitality. Notwithstanding its Buddhist origins, GNH is solidly based upon the empirical research literature of happiness, positive psychology and wellbeing.

Annex 1

Background

7.4 Canadian Index of Wellbeing, CWI The Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW) has been designed to measure wellbeing that goes beyond narrow econom-

Figure 19. An illustration of CIW trends of Individual Domains and Composite vs GDP 1994–2008

65 66

http://www.nationalaccountsofwellbeing.org/learn/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

85

Annex 1

ic measures (such as GDP). It is expected to provide insights into the overall quality of life of Canadians, and especially standard of living, health, the quality of environment, education and skill levels, the way time is used, the vitality of communities, participation in the democratic process, and the state of leisure and culture. These aspects are interrelated (e.g. how changes in income and education are linked to changes in health). The CIW information is aimed at policy shapers, decision makers, media, community organizations and the citizens. Currently CIW provides seven detailed research reports on different, but interconnected, categories of wellbeing: Living Standards, Healthy Populations, Community Vitality, Democratic Engagement, Time Use, Leisure and Culture and Education.67

67 68

86

7.5 Quality of Life Index The quality-of-life index of the Economist Intelligence Unit is based on a methodology linking the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys to the objective determinants of quality of life across countries. The index dates back to 2005, when it was calculated and it included data from 111 countries and territories. Many countries/territories, including most of the Least Devel-

oped Countries, are omitted from this ranking due to insufficient data to produce a viable rank. The European microstate countries were also excluded, which would presumably rank highly if included. As said, the qualitative data for life-satisfaction is gathered through surveys, which utilize nine quality of life factors to determine a nation's score. These factors are listed in the table below including the data sources for the indicators.68

Table 12. Quality of Life Index framework

Factor/indicator

Data source

Health: Life expectancy at birth (in years)

US Census Bureau

Family life: Divorce rate (per 1,000 population), converted into index of 1 (lowest divorce rates) to 5 (highest)

UN; Euromonitor

Community life: Variable taking value 1 if country has either high rate of church attendance or trade-union membership; zero otherwise

World Values Survey

Material well being: GDP per person, at PPP in $

Economist Intelligence Unit

Political stability and security: Political stability and security ratings

Economist Intelligence Unit

Climate and geography: Latitude, to distinguish between warmer and colder climates

CIA World Factbook

Job security: Unemployment rate (%.)

Economist Intelligence Unit

Political freedom: Average of indexes of political and civil liberties. Scale of 1 (completely free) to 7 (unfree)

Freedom House

Gender equality: Measured using ratio of average male and female earnings

UNDP Human Development Report

http://www.ciw.ca/en/TheCanadianIndexOfWellbeing.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

The main conclusion of the benchmarking is that there are very few indicator activities that genuinely link socio-economic impact factors with research and innovation and that there are even less activities linking socioeconomic impact in specific areas to R&D activity. However, this is not to say that there are not any socio-economic impact indicators developed and used internationally. The benchmarking study shows that numerous projects and frameworks exist that try to capture the socio-economic development and various issues related to these developments. At the same time there is a very developed group of indicator frameworks related to research and innovation. The challenge, however is to develop a link between the specific thematic areas (environment, economy, welfare and knowledge, education and culture), and research and innovation activities. This challenge becomes even more significant, when internationally comparable indicators are sought for. Many international indicator frameworks have to make compromises in terms of selected indicators to be able to find internationally comparable data. This means that there are very few detailed indicators available that could show, for instance, the contribution of research and innovation to a particular socio-economic impact.

The study shows that one very popular area of impact indicators is the various international indices. The strength of indices lies in three basic elements. Firstly, the indices are typically composite indicators that cover a broad impact area by using several sub-indicators as a base. Secondly, the indices are often international by nature, allowing a relatively wide coverage of countries and easy comparison. Thirdly, the indices are very good in presenting a particular problem in a simple way and in this way to introduce key themes or challenges to the decision makers and people in general. At the same time indices are problematic since they hide the actual data and individual indicators. For that reason these indices are not useful as such in the Finnish impact indicator framework since instead of single composite indicators there is a dire need for more detailed indicators that can be linked to inputs, activities and outputs of research and innovation activities. The general conclusion based on international benchmarking is that the approach to link research and innovation with various socio-economic and environmental issues is quite novel. In practice this provides several challenges for the work to develop a sound and reliable indicator framework. The main contribution of the internation-

Annex 1

8 Summary – Contribution to the Finnish impact assessment framework al benchmarking has been to identify the key topics (or phenomena) and the best indicators related to themes. A significant part of the phenomena selected for the Finnish impact framework are based on or influenced by the themes identified in the international indicator projects. However, to link the thematic relevance with activities related research and innovation has required specific work from the research team assisted by Finnish and international experts that have participated in the projects. Moreover, because of the still existing gap between indicators measuring various socio-economic phenomena and indicators measuring development in research and innovation, a lot of work has been done to further develop actual indicators that would be used in the indicator framework to measure the actual link between the “two worlds”. The summary of individual indicator projects and their contribution to the work on the Finnish impact assessment framework is summarised in Table 13.

87

Annex 1

Table 13. The summary of individual indicator projects and their contribution to the work on the Finnish impact assessment framework.

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

Innovation Union Scoreboard by EU

The Scoreboard measures the innovativeness of the EU Member States annually based on statistical comparison by utilizing several indicators related to innovation.

The Innovation Union Scoreboard introduces a sound framework for measuring research and innovation inputs, activities and outputs. It introduces new comparable indicators useful especially for the measurement of Skills and culture.

Innovation Vital Signs Project

Relevant, high quality and timely innovation indicators, which will enhance public understanding of the various roles government entities, can play in fostering innovation and of policy choices used for ensuring that the US remains attractive environment for innovation in the world.

The project provides new indicators useful for measuring especially impacts in Economy and economic renewal as well as Skills and culture.

Latest work carried out by OECD

New innovation indicators based on OECD works.

The OECD work provides information on the latest discussion on research and innovation indicators as well as few new indicators for measuring general innovation activity.

NESTA work on measuring innovation

The National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts (NESTA) in the UK has done a lot of development work in order to assess and measure innovation activities, outputs and to some extent impact in many areas. NESTA has had many ongoing initiatives like innovation index.

Provides a sound framework for assessing inputs for innovation. The classification is useful for identifying subcategories for the indicator framework, although there is not any division to various impact areas.

Innovation Indicator for Germany

Innovative capacity of the industrialised nations. The account is used for comparing the Federal Republic of Germany with 16 other countries.

A huge amount of indicators related especially to research, innovation and education that have been studied as a source for indicators in the frameworks. Mainly applicable to the themes Economy and economic renewal and Skills and culture. Much of the data is comparative across countries.

The Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU and U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness

Assessing the global innovation-based competitiveness of 36 countries and four regions.

Indicator providing comparative indicators. However, most of the indicators already introduced in other projects. Mainly applicable to the themes Economy and economic renewal and Skills and culture.

Impact assessment framework development Canada

General impact assessment framework development by Statistic Canada and the other is the Science and Technology (S&T) performance framework development carried out in order to measure the impact of Federal S&T investments.

The impact assessment framework in Canada has several similarities with the framework presented in this publication. Its focal point is the continuum from input through activities and output to impacts on different level. As opposed to the Finnish model, the Canadian model has not highlighted a few chosen areas of impact, but contains several thematic dimensions. Additionally impact has been divided into indirect and direct impacts. The framework has been used as a benchmark by the research team when constructing the Finnish framework.

Research and innovation

88

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

Legatum prosperity index

The Legatum Prosperity Index is based on two questions: what is prosperity and how is it achieved? The index begins with the assumption that prosperity relates to both money and the quality of life. The more proper definition includes also wealth and wellbeing. All in all the Prosperity Index™ evaluates 110 countries, which cover over 90 percent of the world’s population.

The index is based on 89 different variables, each of which has a demonstrated effect on economic growth or on personal wellbeing. The indicators and categories in the index are useful for selecting indicators for the Finnish framework although many of them are quite general. Useful specifically for Economy and economic renewal as well as Well being indicator sets.

Europe 2020 Strategy by EU

Five objectives to be reached by 2020 (indicators in brackets)69: Employment, R&D / innovation, Climate change / energy, Education, Poverty / social exclusion

A few good examples of useful internationally (EU) comparable indicators to consider as impact indicators especially for environment and education. Links to EU 2020 strategy.

Sustainable Development Indicators by Eurostat

Eurostat has created the Sus-tainable Development Indicators (SDIs) to monitor the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS).

Good framework used by the EU. Themes and indicators in the framework are useful for selecting important phenomena and related indicators.

Globalisation indicators by Eurostat

The 25 indicators have been grouped in 5 categories aimed at measuring several aspects of globalisation.

An indicator framework that provides a few useful comparable indicators to measure the international dimension of several impact areas but especially those related to knowledge and economy.

Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress70

The project makes several suggestions for developing better indicators for economic performance and wellbeing, although it does not offer a definite list of readily available indicators. Recommendations were made in terms of measuring economic performance and its connections to wellbeing.

The lessons from the project are extremely useful assessing various phenomena especially related to the welfare impacts in the indicator framework as well as to assess individual indicators, although it did not itself provide any new indicators.

Beyond GDP

Includes Human Development Index (HDI), Ecological Footprint (EF), and Genuine Savings (Adjusted Net Savings).

The framework has provided a new set of indexes and related dimensions to consider but is not directly useful since the indicators and indexes are described in more detail elsewhere.

Measures of Australia’s progress

Measures of Australia’s Pro-gress were developed to assess whether life was getting better in Australia.

The framework has been especially useful to determine various phenomena in the framework for welfare, environment and the economy.

UNDP Human Development Index

The Human Development Index (HDI71) is the best known indicator used for measuring the state of society by non-financial terms. HDI covers most countries in the world.

The index itself s not particularly relevant for the indicator framework but the individual 30 indicators have been studied in order to define key phenomena. Since may indicators also cover less-developed countries these are not very useful for the Finnish context.

The European Social Survey

The European Social Survey (the ESS) is a biennial multi-country survey covering over 30 nations.

The survey provides data especially on welfare topics but also those related to Skills and culture. These have been used to define key phenomena although individual indicators have not been used.

Annex 1

...Table 13. continues

Sustainable society

69

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/europe_2020_indicators/headline_indicators Report of the commission on the measurement of economic performance et social progress. CMEPSP, September, 14, 2009 71 http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/ 70

89

Annex 1

...Table 13. continues

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

Genuine Progress Indicator, GPI

Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is based on the ISEW index. It can be used for depicting the sustainability of the economy, and especially for long-term trends of development. The results are also easy to compare with different, generally used economic indicators such as GDP and ISEW.

The indicator provides useful variables that have been considered when selecting key phenomena for the indicator framework.

The New National Welfare Index, NWI

The new National Welfare Index (NWI) is a monetary quantity, i.e. all included variables are provided in monetary form although some of the variables still lack a reliable year-by-year data base.

The indicator provides useful variables that have been considered when selecting key phenomena for the indicator framework.

Sustainable Society Index, SSI

The SSI is an index covering a broad range of topics and a wide coverage of 151 countries on national level. Recently the SSI has also been implemented on regional level, and the aim is to develop the index to cover the local level as well.

The usefulness of the index has been to benchmark the phenomena for impacts elected in the Finnish framework since the SSI framework includes economic, environmental and wellbeing as thematic areas. However these could not be used directly since SSI lack direct links to R&D.

Environmental Performance Index, EPI

In 2010 EPI ranked 163 countries based on 25 performance indicators, which have been tracked across ten policy categories covering both environmental public health and eco-system vitality.

Provides information on comparable environmental indicators. No direct link to research and innovation.

Ecological Footprint, EF

The ecological footprint is a notion developed for measuring human demand on the Earth's ecosystems by compar-ing human demand with Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste.

Provides information on comparable environmental indicators especially linked to resources and their use. No direct link to research and innovation.

Happy Planet Index, HPI

The HPI is measure has been created to demonstrate the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered around the world.

Provides useful information on links between environment and welfare phenomena. No direct link to research and innovation.

Climate Change Performance Index, CCPI

Index developed to developed to show the strengths and weaknesses in the development of national and international climate policies

Provides useful information on comparable environmental indicators. No direct link to research and innovation.

The Living Planet Index, LPI

The Living Planet Index is an indicator that reflects changes in the health of the planet’s ecosystems by tracking population trends of over 8,000 vertebrate species.

Provides useful information on comparable environmental indicators. No direct link to research and innovation.

Ecosystem Wellbeing Index, EWI

The Ecosystem Wellbeing Index is the lower of two scores – one includes resource use and the other excludes the use of resources.

Provides useful information on comparable environmental indicators especially linked to resources and their use. No direct link to research and innovation.

Environment

90

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

United Nations Environmental Indicators

A group of environmental indicators linked to economic issues, social/demographic issues, air/ climate, land/soil, water, other natural resources, waste, human settlements, and natural disasters.

Provides useful information on environmental indicators but also indicators linked to economy. Useful defining key phenomena linked to environmental impacts. No direct link to research and innovation.

The European Environment Agency, EEA

The EEA produces European, pan-European and regional integrated environmental data and indicator sets, assessments and thematic analyses. Currently there are 32 member countries associated with the EEA.

A huge amount of environmental data and indicator sets, assessments and thematic analyses that help to define the key phenomena linked to environmental impact. No direct link to research and innovation.

Annex 1

...Table 13. continues

Economy and economic renewal WEF Global Competitiveness Report

The Centre for Global Competitiveness and Performance of the World Economic Forum72 produces reports and conducts activities through which impediments to growth are identified.

Useful generic index that is widely used around the world. Individual indicators useful for defining indicators related to the Economy and economic renewal.

IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook

The World Competitiveness Scoreboard presents the 2010 overall rankings for the 58 economies covered by the WCY.

Useful generic index that is widely used around the world. Individual indicators useful for defining indicators related to the Economy and economic renewal.

Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, ISEW

The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW73) was developed to measure sustainable economic welfare. ISEW has also been considered as a replacement for the gross domestic product.

Useful generic index that is widely used around the world. Individual indicators useful for defining indicators related to the Economy and economic renewal as well as welfare.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)

Research related to entrepreneurship with 10 countries and by 2011 had researched in 80 economies all over the world.

Specific indicators linked to the Economy and economic renewal. Entrepreneurship often linked indirectly with innovation.

Global Entrepreneurship Index, GEINDEX

The experts at the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor have also developed Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEINDEX) to capture the contextual feature of entrepreneurship across countries.

Specific indicators linked to the Economy and economic renewal. Entrepreneurship often linked indirectly with innovation.

European Human Capital Index

European Human Capital Index has been created to measure the development of human capital.

The index provides interesting indicators linking economy with knowledge and education. Some have been considered in the Finnish framework.

Active Citizenship in Europe

The European Union framework for indicators to measure human skills in everyday life and practical involvement in democratic processes.

The indicator set has been studies to define the phenomena of citizenship linked to Skills and culture impacts in the framework.

Hong Kong Creativity Index

A set of indicators developed to measure creativity, structural/institutional capital, human capital, social capital, and cultural capital.

The indicator set has been studies to define the phenomena of creativity as part of the Skills and culture impacts in the framework.

Skills and culture

72 73

http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness http://www.ivm.vu.nl/en/Images/AT5_tcm53-161576.pdf

91

Annex 1

...Table 13. continues

Indicator set

Content

Value for developing indicators for the impact of research and innovation

Pisa Survey

OECD project that assesses if the students near the end of compulsory education have acquired some of the knowledge and skills essential for full participation in society.

The study has been directly used as a source for the indicator framework.

OECD work on measuring adult skills

OECD project to provide information provide some information on adult skills knowledge and skills essential for full participation in society.

The study has been directly used as a source for the recommendations of future indicators in the indicator framework.

INSEAD Skills

Indicator framework developed by the INSEAD business school to assess skills is essential to sustained economic growth.

The study has been used to define how to link skills with the key phenomena in the field of Skills and culture.

Urban Institute - Cultural Vitality Indicators

A set of indicators aimed at measuring the creation, dissemination, validation, and support for arts and culture as a dimension of everyday community life and conditions.

The indicator set has been studies to define the phenomena of culture as part of the Skills and culture impacts in the framework. Individual indicators problematic to link with research and education.

Cultural indicators for New Zealand 2009

A set of culture development indicators that aim is to monitor trends in the contribution of cultural activity to New Zealand society and its economy.

The indicator set has been studies to define the phenomena of culture as part of the Skills and culture impacts in the framework. Individual indicators problematic to link with research and education.

European Creativity Index, ECI

A statistical framework for illustrating and measuring the interplay of various factors that contributes to the growth of creativity in the European Union.

The indicator set has been studies to define the phenomena of creativity as part of the Skills and culture impacts in the framework.

Happy Life Years, HLY

An index developed at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands to measure the Quality-of-life in nations.

The general framework provides interesting approach to measure welfare. The individual indicators are problematic and are difficult to link with research and innovation.

National Accounts of Well-being, NAW

An indicator framework with an aim to provide a new way of assessing societal progress, a cross-cutting and more informative approach to policy-making, and better engagement between national governments and the public.

Very useful indicator set for defining various phenomena linked with welfare impacts. Individual indicators not linked with research and innovation.

Gross National Happiness, GNH

An index developed as an indicator that measures quality of life or social progress in more holistic and psychological terms than the gross domestic product (GDP).

Indicator set for defining various phenomena linked with welfare impacts how they are linked e.g. with environment and education. Individual indicators not linked with research and innovation.

Canadian Index of Wellbeing, CWI

The Canadian Index of Wellbeing has been designed to measure wellbeing that goes beyond narrow economic measures (such as GDP or employment).

Indicator set for defining various phenomena linked with welfare impacts how they are linked e.g. with Skills and culture. Individual indicators not linked with research and innovation

Quality of Life Index

The quality-of-life index of the Economist Intelligence Unit is based on a methodology linking the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys to the objective determinants of quality of life across countries.

Indicator set for defining various phenomena linked with welfare impacts how they are linked e.g. with environment and education. Individual indicators not linked with research and innovation.

Well-being

92

Indikaattorien jatkuvan seurannan toteuttaminen

Kuva 1. Toteutuksen tasot Indikaattorit

Tämä osa työstä sisältää ehdotuksen tutkimus- ja innovaatiotoiminnan vaikuttavuutta kuvaavien indikaattorien jatkuvan seurannan toteuttamiseksi. Tutkimus- ja innovaatiotoiminnan indikaattorit voivat olla myös osa muuta indikaattorityötä, jolloin seuraavassa esitetty ehdotus on käytettävissä soveltuvin osin. Tehdyssä työssä on onnistuneesti tunnistettu tutkimus- ja innovaatiotoiminnan eri vaikutusalueilla ja vaikutusketjuissa keskeiset ilmiöt. Osalle ilmiöistä on myös tunnistettu näitä ilmiöitä kuvaavia ja jo olemassa olevia indikaattoreita. Koska alkuperäisen tehtävänannon mukaisesti työssä on etsitty myös uusia tapoja kuvata asioita, ei kaikkiin haluttuihin ilmiöihin ole toistaiseksi löydetty kuvaavia indikaattoreita. Myös näiden indikaattoreiden jatkotyöstö kuvataan tässä toteutussuunnitelmassa. Toteutuksessa on useita tasoja (kuva 1). Visuaalinen taso määrittelee mm. graafisen ilmeen ja indikaattorien visualisoinnin. Toiminnallinen taso määrittelee esim. sen, voiko indikaattorin takana olevaan tietoon päästä. Tekninen taso määrittelee käytettävän alus-

Visuaalinen taso

Toiminnallinen taso Tekninen taso Määrittelytaso

Datataso

H a l l i n n o l l i n e n t a s o

Data (saatavuus)

tan ja liitynnät sekä ylläpidon teknisen toteutuksen. Määrittelytaso pitää sisällään indikaattorien tarkan ja yksiselitteisen määrittelyn, ja datataso määrittelee, mistä data saadaan, kuka sitä ylläpitää ja miten. Hallinnollinen taso kattaa kaikki nämä osat määritellen, kuka tekee ja millä valtuuksilla ja rahoituksella. Tässä esitettävän toteutussuunnitelman osat (kuva 2) ovat: A. Indikaattoreiden tarkentaminen ja puuttuvien indikaattoreiden määrittely

Annex 2

Annex 2. Implementation plan (in Finnish)

B. Kohderyhmien, käyttäjätarpeiden ja julkaisukanavien määrittely C. Toteuttajan valitseminen sekä sisällöntuotannosta ja työn rahoitusmallista sopiminen D. Tekninen toteutus ja käyttöliittymäsuunnittelu A. Indikaattoreiden tarkentaminen ja puuttuvien indikaattoreiden määrittely

Osa hankkeen tuloksena tuotetuista ja hankkeen ohjausryhmän valitsemista indikaattoreista on sellaisia, jotka on valmiiksi määritelty ja joiden arvon laskemiseen tarvittavan datan arvioidaan olevan olemassa yksinkertaisesti saatavassa muodossa. Nämä indikaattorit on kuvailtu hankkeen loppuraportissa sellaisella tasolla, jonka arvioidaan riittävän julkaisemisen ja teknisen toteutuksen suunnitteluun. Osa hankkeessa ehdotetuista indikaattoreista on kuitenkin sellaisia, joita ei ole olemassa tai joihin tarvittavan datan saatavuudesta ei ole täyttä varmuutta. Näiden indikaattoreiden osalta joudutaan tekemään asiantuntijatyötä sopivien vaihtoehtoisten paremmin määriteltyjen ja olemassa olevien indikaattoreiden tunnistamiseksi tai käy­ pien indikaattoreiden kehittämiseksi.

Kuva 2. Toteutussuunnitelman osat

Indikaattorien tarkentaminen ja puuttuvien indikaattorien määrittely

Kohderyhmien, käyttäjätarpeiden ja julkaisukanavien määrittely

Toteuttajan valitseminen sekä sisällöntuotannosta ja työn rahoitusmallista sopiminen

Tekninen toteutus ja käyttöliittymäsuunnittelu

93

Annex 2

Relevantteja organisaatioita indikaatto­ rien kehitystyössä ovat mm.: •• Valtioneuvoston kanslia •• Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö •• Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö •• Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö •• Ympäristöministeriö •• Tilastokeskus •• Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus •• Suomen Pankki •• Tullihallitus •• ETLA •• VTT •• Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos •• Suomen ympäristökeskus •• Suomen pääomasijoittajien yhdistys •• Tutkimus- ja innovaationeuvosto •• Suomen Akatemia ja Tekes Työ voitaneen tehdä osin virkatyönä, ja hankkeen tahot sopinevat työnjaosta vaikuttavuusalueittain, ilmiöittäin tai indikaattoreittain. Osin erityisesti indikaattorikehityksen osalta tulee harkita työpanoksen hankkimista tutkimustahoilta pienimuotoisten tutkimusprojektien muodossa. Erityisesti tämä koskee kyvykkyydet ja kulttuuri -aihealuetta, joilla soveltuvia indikaattoreita tunnistettiin vähän. Hankkeen indikaattoriyhteenvedossa on ehdotettu puuttuvien indikaattoreiden kehittämiseen spesifisti soveltuvia asiantuntijatahoja. Indikaattorien kehityksessä tulee jatkossakin hyödyntää Tekesin ja Suomen Akatemian sekä muiden tahojen tekemää työtä tutkimus- ja innovaatiotoiminnan vaikuttavuusketjujen tunnistamiseksi ja niiden arvioimiseksi. Tutkimus- ja innovaatiotoiminnan vaikuttavuudesta ja vaikutusketjuista talouteen ja uudistumiseen on jo käytössä paljon suomalaista ja kansainvälistä tutkimustietoa. Myös ympäristövaikuttavuusalueen tekniset ja luonnontieteelliset vaikutusketjut tunne94

taan kohtalaisen hyvin. Kyvykkyyksien ja kulttuurin sekä hyvinvoinnin osalta tutkimus- ja innovaatiotoiminnan vaikuttavuusketjuista tarvitaan paljon lisää tietoa. Uuden tiedon pohjalta indikaattorikokoelman ilmiöitä ja indikaattoreita voidaan kehittää entistä kuvaavimmiksi ja tarkoituksenmukaisemmiksi. Indikaattorien tarkentamisen on syytä edetä vaiheittain siten, että ensi vaiheessa kuvataan indikaattorit ja niiden toteutusmahdollisuudet sellaisella tasolla, jolla toteuttamisen onnistumisesta (indikaattorin kuvausvoima ja soveltuvuus, datan saatavuus, indikaattorin vertailtavuus) voidaan vakuuttua ja toteuttamisesta pystytään antamaan realistinen kuva niin että siitä voidaan sopia. Mahdollisesti tarvittavat yksityiskohtaiset reseptityyppiset määrittelyt on syytä suorittaa teknisen toteutuksen yhteydessä indikaattoriseurannan toteuttavan tahon kanssa myöhemmässä vaiheessa. B. Kohderyhmien, käyttäjätarpeiden ja julkaisukanavien määrittely

Tavoitteena on indikaattoritiedon julkaiseminen soveltuvassa muodossa. Julkaisemisen lähtökohtana tulee olla indikaattoritiedon käyttötarkoituksen, tulevien käyttäjäryhmien ja käyttäjätarpeiden kuvaaminen. Alustavasti voidaan tunnistaa seuraavat käyttäjäryhmät (suluissa ajatellut käyttötarkoitukset): •• Poliittiset päätöksentekijät ja TKI-rahoittajat (innovaatiojärjestelmän toimivuuden arviointi, TKI-rahoituksen vaikuttavuuden arviointi ja rajoituksen kohdentaminen, kansainvälinen vertailu, vaikuttavuuden demonstrointi) •• Tutkijat (kansainvälinen vertailu, innovaatiotutkimuksen tutkimuskohteiden määrittely)

•• Indikaattorikehittäjät (kansainvälinen vertailu, indikaattorien kehittämistarpeen arviointi) •• Yksittäiset kansalaiset (yleissivistävä tieto) •• Kansainväliset organisaatiot (kansainvälinen vertailu, esimerkit indikaattorien kehittämiseen) Käyttäjäryhmien tarpeet ohjaavat tulosten julkaisutapaa, johon liittyen tulee päättää mm. seuraavista asioista: •• Mikä osa tuloksista halutaan julkaista täysin ja mikä pitää kontrolloidun yleisön tiedossa •• Mikä on tulosten julkaisukanava •• Tulosten julkaisu- tai päivittämisrytmi: Rytmissä määräävänä tekijänä on todennäköisesti indikaattoritiedon päivitystahti, joka on tyypillisesti noin vuosi. Julkaisukanavasta riippuen tulokset voidaan päivittää niiden muuttuessa hiljaisesti tai muutokset kootaan sovitussa rytmissä ja viedään kootusti julkaisukanavaan. •• Tulosten julkaisutapa: Keskittämällä julkaiseminen (kanavasta riippumatta) esimerkiksi säännollisesti tapahtuvaan keskitettyyn päivittämiseen saadaan julkaisemistapahtumalle medianäkyvyyttä ja päivitys tavoittaa todennäköisesti suuremman kohderyhmän kuin mitä esimerkiksi indikaattorisivuston hiljainen jatkuva päivittäminen tuottaisi. Toisaalta hiljainen jatkuva päivittäminen takaa paremmin ajantasaisen tiedon. Yksi julkaisuvaihtoehdoista on säännöllisin väliajoin tehtävä julkaisu. Esimerkiksi arvostettu Index of Massachusetts Innovation Economy julkaistaan vuosittain elektronisena julkaisuna, jossa on indikaattoritiedon lisäksi paljon toimitettua materiaalia ja taustakuvauksia.

C. Toteuttajan valitseminen sekä sisällöntuotannosta ja työn rahoitusmallista sopiminen

Indikaattorien julkaisun toteuttamiseksi on valittava toteuttaja sekä sovittava sisällöntuotannosta ja rahoitusmallista. Toteuttajan valitsemista ohjaavat useat tekijät, joista keskeisimmiksi on tässä arvioitu: •• Ymmärrys kokonaisuudesta: riittävä ymmärrys indikaattorijärjestelmästä antaa toteuttajalle mahdollisuuden osallistua suunnitteluun, mikä helpottaa toteuttamista ja sen aikana löytyvien esteiden ja mahdollisten muutosten käsittelyä. •• Riittävä tekninen osaaminen toteutukseen ja ylläpitoon: vaikka yksinkertaisimmillaan indikaattorit voidaan esittää pelkkänä staattisena sisältönä, jatkokehityksen kannalta on oleellista että toteuttajalla on riittävä tekninen kyky ja ymmärrys erilaisista toteutuksista. Näin esimerkiksi tekni-

set määrittelyt voidaan jättää ensisijaisesti toteuttajan vastuulle. •• Pääsy dataan: toteuttamista yksinkertaistaa huomattavasti, jos toteuttaja on sama taho joka kerää ja ylläpitää mahdollisimman ison osa datasta jo tällä hetkellä ja jolla on kyky ja valmius hankkia puuttuva data tehokkaasti käyttöönsä. •• Riittävät verkostot tai laajapohjainen osaaminen: toteuttamisessa tarvitaan laajaa kirjoa osaamista teknisestä ja tilastototeutuksesta aina visuaalisen ja toiminnallisen yleisilmeen laadintaan. Laajapohjainen oma tai verkosto-osaaminen sekä kokemus lähtien valitun julkaisukanavan suunnittelusta ja tekniikasta ja päätyen visuaalisen yleisilmeen suunnitteluun ovat tärkeitä ominaisuuksia. Sisällöntuotannon osalta on sovittava, kuka vastaa indikaattorien julkaisusta sisällöllisesti. Indikaattoreiden julkaiseminen vaatii indikaattoreihin liittyvän tiedon lisäksi muuta sisällöntuotantoa, jossa kerrotaan mm. indikaattoreiden taustasta ja ominaisuuksista sekä yleisesti indikaattoritiedon hyödyntämisestä. Alustavasti nähdään, että itse indikaattoritiedon lisäksi esimerkiksi seuraavat elementit ovat kiinnostavia: •• Esipuheenomainen kuvaus tehdystä työstä •• Yleiskatsaus indikaattoreihin •• Indikaattorikohtaiset esittelyt •• Indikaattoriaiheiset katsaukset ja analyysit •• Esimerkkejä indikaattoreiden käytöstä. Hankkeen loppuraportti sisältänee alustavan version suurelle osalle tästä materiaalista, mutta on sovittava materiaalien täydentämisen ja ylläpidon vastuista.

Työn rahoittamismallista voidaan sopia esimerkiksi toteuttajan valitsemisen yhteydessä. Hankkeen investointikustannuksia ohjaavat työn suunniteltu laajuus sekä mahdolliset toteuttajan virkavelvollisuudet. Hankkeen muuttuvia kustannuksia ohjaavat valittu julkaisukanava ja siihen liittyvä työmäärä, työn suunniteltu laajuus ja tätä kautta ylläpidon tarve sekä mahdolliset datan lisenssimaksut. Myöhemmässä vaiheessa joudutaan päättämään erikseen myös investointiluonteisista menoista kuten palvelun päivittämisestä ja toiminnallisuuksien lisäämisestä. Ohjaavia ajatuksia rahoittamisesta sopimiselle ovat luonnollisesti hankkeen omistajuus, indikaattoreiden ajateltu käyttötarkoitus sekä toteutuksesta saatavan hyödyn jakautuminen.

Annex 2

Julkaisuponnistus on suurehko, mutta näkyvyys ja sisällöt todennäköisesti kiinnostavampia ja motivoivampia kuin pelkkä indikaattoritiedon päivittäminen. Toinen vaihtoehto on Internetportaali. Esimerkiksi Suomen tieteen ja tilan tietopalvelu research.fi sisältää indikaattoritietoa, toimitettua materiaalia ja linkkejä taustamateriaaleihin. Portaali voidaan pitää julkaisua helpommin ajantasaisensa, mutta ajantasaistaminen on jatkuva prosessi. Kolmas vaihtoehto on pelkkä indikaattorisivusto. Esimerkiksi findikaattori.fi -sivusto sisältää pääosin indikaattoritietoa ja vähemmän muuta materiaalia. Sivusto keskittyy portaalia enemmän itse indikaattoreihin, mutta ero on häilyvä.

D. Tekninen toteutus ja käyttöliittymäsuunnittelu

Toteutussuunnitelman eräs osa on tekninen toteutussuunnitelma ja mahdollisesti tarvittava käyttöliittymäsuunnittelu. Nämä suunnitelmat voidaan laatia yhteistyössä teknisen toteuttajan kanssa. TOTEUTUKSEN ORGANISOINTI Indikaattorien viimeistely julkaistavaksi indikaattorikokoelmaksi on luonteeltaan monen toimijan projekti, jolle on syytä asettaa ohjausryhmä. Luonnolliset hankkeen osallistujat ovat ainakin Tekes, Suomen Akatemia, Tilastokeskus ja TIN. Alustavasti ohjausryhmän tehtävänä on ohjata hankkeen sisällöllistä etenemistä, hyväksyä tulokset sekä tehdä hankkeen työnjako-, hankinta- ja rahoituspäätökset. Tarpeen mukaan voidaan nimittää myös erillinen projektiryhmä vastaamaan esim. mahdollisesta virkamiestyönä tehtävästä työstä ja sen koordinoinnista. 95

Annex 3

Annex 3. List of phenomena and indicators in Finnish

Talous ja uudistuminen •• Vauraus: BKT per capita •• Talouden kokonaistuottavuus: kokonaistuottavuus (TFP) ja kehitettävä uudistumisindikaattori •• (Innovatiiviset) kasvuyritykset: kasvuyritysten määrä ja uusien yritysten määrän nettolisäys •• Uudet työpaikat: työpaikkojen nettolisäys •• Ulkomaiset suorat sijoitukset: ulkomaisten sijoitusten määrä (FDI) •• Aineettoman pääoman vahvistuminen: uusien tuotteiden ja palvelujen osuus yritysten liikevaihdosta; aineettomien investointien määrä ja osuus •• Asema kansainvälisissä arvoverkostoissa: osaamisintensiivisten alojen vienti •• Kilpailukyvyn jatkuva parantaminen: osaamisintensiivisten alojen liikevaihdon kehitys •• Yhteistyö, verkostot ja osaamisvirrat: julkisten ja yksityisten organisaatioiden osallistuminen innovaatioyhteistyöhön •• Innovaatiokyvykkyys: patentoinnin ja tavaramerkkien määrän kehitys •• T&k&i-investoinnit: t&k&i-investointien osuus yritysten liikevaihdosta; julkinen suora ja epäsuora tuki yritysten t&k&i-toimintaan; ulkomaiset investoinnit t&k&itoimintaan Suomessa •• T&k&i-toiminnan henkiset resurssit: koulutetun työvoiman saatavuus •• T&k&i-toiminnan puitteet ja kannusteet: eri vaiheiden pääomarahoituksen suhde BKT:hen.

Ympäristö •• Suomen ympäristön tila: vesistöjen ekologinen tila •• Ilmastonmuutos: Suomen kasvihuonepäästöt •• Luonnon monimuotoisuus: Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus •• Luonnonvarojen kestävä käyttö: uusiutuvan energian osuus energiantuotannosta

96

•• Ympäristöön liittyvä uusi tieto ja osaaminen: sellaisten suomalaisten tieteellisten julkaisujen suhteellinen osuus, jotka kuuluvat eniten viitattuun kymmenykseen maailman julkaisuista; tiedon hyödyntäminen poliittisessa päätöksenteossa •• Ympäristömyötäiset innovaatiot: ympäristöalan kansainväliset patentit/patenttien eteenpäin viittaukset •• Yritysten vihreä liiketoiminta: energia- ja ympäristöalan yritysten liikevaihto; yksityisen sektorin energiatehokkuus •• Kuluttajien asenteet ja käyttäytyminen: kotitalouksien energiatehokkuus •• Ympäristöön suuntautunut t&k&i-toiminta (laatu, haastavuus, laajuus): innovaatiotoimintaa ympäristöja energiasektorilla harjoittavat yritykset; ympäristöalan t&k&i-toiminnan määrä tutkimuslaitoksissa •• Ympäristöön liittyvä yhteistyö arvoverkostoissa ja osaamisvirtojen vahvistuminen: yritysten, yliopistojen ja tutkimuslaitosten välinen yhteistyö ympäristöalalla •• Ympäristöön suuntautunut t&k&i-rahoitus: yksityisen sektorin t&k&i-menot; julkisen sektorin t&k&i- menot; ympäristöön suuntautunut pääomarahoitus •• Osaaminen ja inhimilliset resurssit: ei vielä relevanttia indikaattoria •• Ympäristömyötäisiä toimia tukeva toimintaympäristö: ei vielä relevanttia indikaattoria.

Hyvinvointi •• Terveys ja elämänlaatu: eliniänodote •• Työhyvinvointi ja työelämä: nykyiseen työhönsä tyytyväisten tai erityisen tyytyväisten osuus 25-64-vuotiaista työläisistä •• Terveellinen ja turvallinen elinympäristö: ei indikaattoria toistaiseksi •• Hyvinvointiin liittyvä uusi tieto ja osaaminen: kansainväliset viittaukset hyvinvoinnin tutkimuksen alojen julkaisuihin

Kyvykkyydet ja kulttuuri •• Osaaminen ja edellytykset elinikäiseen oppimiseen: väestön koulutustaso •• Sivistys ja aktiivinen kansalaisuus: kansalaisten kiinnostus tieteeseen, tutkimukseen ja teknologiaan •• Avoimuus, monimuotoisuus ja verkostot: kulttuurialojen arvonlisäys •• Aktiivinen ja monipuolinen kulttuurielämä: ulkomaisten tutkijoiden osuus •• Yleissivistävän koulutusjärjestelmän laatu ja tehokkuus: OECD PISA

•• Korkeakoulutuksen ja tutkimuksen laatu ja tehokkuus: suhteellinen viittausindeksi/top 1% tai 10% viitatut julkaisut •• Tiedon hyödyntäminen talouden ja yhteiskunnan voimavarana: korkeakouluissa ja tutkiimuslaitoksissa syntyvät patentit •• Kansalaisten osallistuminen: yli 18-vuotiaiden osallistuminen elinikäisen oppimiseen •• Aktiivinen ja monipuolinen kulttuurielämä: ei valittua indikaattoria •• Sivistys ja aktiivinen kansalaisuus: ei valittua indikaattoria •• Tieteellinen tutkimus ja koulutus: tohtoreiden osuus t&ktyövoimasta •• Tutkimustiedon välittäminen kansalaisille ja yhteiskunnalliseen käyttöön: ei valittua indikaattoria •• Kulttuurialojen tutkimus- ja kehitystoiminta: ei valittua indikaattoria •• tutkimuksen kansainvälinen liikkuvuus ja yhteistyö: tutkijaliikkuvuus ulkomaille/ulkomailta •• Panostukset osaamiseen ja inhimilliset voimavarat: julkisen sektorin ja korkeakoulusektorin t&k-toimintaan suuntautuneet menot •• Panostukset yleissivistävään ja aikuiskoulutukseen: tutkimushenkilöstön osuus työvoimasta •• Panostukset osaamiseen ja inhimilliset voimavarat: aikuiskoulutusmenot •• Panostukset kulttuurialoihin: valtion t&k-rahoitus yhteiskunnallisen tavoitteen mukaan: kulttuuri •• Panostukset kansainvälisyyteen ja verkostoitumiseen: ulkomaisen rahoituksen osuus t&k-panoksista julkisella ja korkeakoulusektorilla.

Annex 3

•• Hyvinvointia tukevat innovaatiot ja systeemiset muutokset: uudet tuotteet, prosessit, palvelut ja sosiaaliset innovaatiot •• Laadukkaat ja innovatiiviset hyvinvointipalvelut: tuottavuuskehitys kuntien ja kuntayhtymien sosiaali- ja terveyspalveluissa •• Hyvinvointiin suuntautuneen t&k&i-toiminnan laajuus, laatu ja haastavuus: innovaatiotoimintaa julkisella sektorilla harjoittaneiden organisaatioiden osuus; työelämän kehittymisen indikaattorit •• Hyvinvointiin liittyvä yhteistyö arvoverkostoissa ja osaamisvirtojen vahvistuminen: tutkijoiden liikkuvuus terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin alueella •• T&k&i-investoinnit hyvinvoinnin kannalta olennaisille alueille: hyvinvoinnin, terveydenhoidon ja työelämän kehittämisen julkiset ja yksityiset t&k&i-toiminnan menot •• Osaaminen ja inhimilliset voimavarat: ei indikaattoria toistaiseksi •• Hyvinvoinnin edistämistä tukeva toimintaympäristö: terveys- ja sosiaalihuoltomenot.

97

Annex 4

Annex 4. Outline of the process

The need for indicators on the impacts of research and innovation was pointed out by a position paper published by Research and Innovation Council in 20071. This was followed by a study made for Tekes and Academy of Finland, and proposing an impact framework of research and innovation. After the study, a joint working group of Tekes and Academy of Finland continued the development and created an approach based on relevant phenomena where objectives and indicators within each sector of the impact framework are examined. During the project, numerous indicators for measuring the fulfilment of the objectives were studied. However, final selection of indicators was left to be done. Gaia Consulting Oy together with Ramboll Management Consulting Oy implemented a project offering expert and facilitation services for finalizing and implementing the previous indicator selection work. The project was done for Tekes and Academy of Finland,

and it was implemented between February and September 2011. The central part of the project was built around four workshops that utilized the Finnish expertise in the four impact areas: 1) Environment, 2) Economy and renewal, 3) Well-being and 4) Skills and culture. This report is based on the results of this process. Although the main objective of the project was to select the relevant indicators from the existing pool of indicators, also identification of new indicators for innovation and research activities as well as development of existing phenomena and indicators was included in the process. The members of the steering group are listed in Annex 5. In addition to the steering group, the project had a specific project group that participated in the workshops and shared its expertise for the consultants’ use during the project process. The members of the project group are listed in Annex 5.

The process that resulted in the indicators presented in this report included following stages: 1. International benchmarking 2. Workshops on impact areas 3. Selection of phenomena and indicators 4. Implementation plan In all the stages relevant knowledge and competence of the steering group, the project group, and other experts as well as the expertise of the project team was fully used.

International benchmarking The process was started up by international benchmarking focusing on the most relevant and recent international impact assessments and indicator selections related to research and innovation activities. Four international experts provided their expertise for the study. The benchmarking report is attached as Annex 1 to this report, and

Figure 1. Outline of the process

International benchmarking

1

98

Workshops on impact areas

Selection of phenomena and indicators

Implementation plan

Saatavissa: http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Tiede/tutkimus-_ja_innovaationeuvosto/TTN/erillisraportit/liitteet/ vaikuttavuuden_arvioinnin_ja_ennakoinnin_kehittaminen_kannanotto.pdf.

Workshops on impact areas In May 2011 four workshops, one for each impact area, were organized in Helsinki, Finland. Experts from relevant Finnish stakeholders as well as indicator experts were invited to join the workshops (see the participants of workshops in Annex 6). Four preliminary reports, each focusing on one impact area, were produced based on the findings of the previous work, other expertise, and the international benchmarking and used as background in the workshops. Each report included a framework for phenomena and indicators to be examined more closely in the workshops. In the workshops the phenomena and indicators related to the research

and innovation impact framework were defined and focused but no final selection of indicators could be made. After each workshop a new version of the research and innovation impact framework and their indicators was created and presented as reports which were then commented by the workshop participants, the project group, and the steering group.

Selection of indicators After the four workshops an inter-sectoral workshop was conducted to compare the phenomena and indicators of each impact area and to do the final selection of indicators. The fifth workshop was organized in August 2011. Participants included an expanded steering group (the steering group, Ari Mikkelä, Tekes, Pekka Pesonen, Tekes, and Mika Maliranta, ETLA). Combined with the

expertise of the project team it resulted in the set of indicators presented in this report.

Annex 4

the international experts are listed in Annex 6.

Implementation plan An implementation plan was made as expertise work by the project team to give guidance on how to realize the indicators in an up-to-date and readilyavailable service. The project was managed by Gaia Consulting Oy. Two of the impact areas (environment and well-being) were the responsibility of Gaia Consulting Oy and two (economy and economic renewal as well as skills and culture) the responsibility of Ramboll Management Consulting Oy. The international benchmarking was carried out by Ramboll Management Consulting Oy and the implementation plan by Gaia Consulting Oy.

99

Annex 5

Annex 5. Members of the Steering Group and the Project Group

Steering Group Raine Hermans (chair), Tekes Markku Mattila, Academy of Finland Riitta Mustonen, Academy of Finland Veli-Pekka Saarnivaara, Tekes Leena Storgårds, Statistics Finland Leena Treuthardt, Academy of Finland Ilkka Turunen, Research and Innovation Council Heikki Uusi-Honko, Tekes

Project Group Anne Heinänen, Academy of Finland Annamaija Lehvo, Academy of Finland Silja Leinonen, Tekes Ari Leppälahti, Statistics Finland Ari Mikkelä, Tekes Christopher Palmberg, Tekes Pekka Pesonen, Tekes Esko Virtanen, Tekes

100

Annex 6

Annex 6. International experts and participants in the workshops

International experts Economy and renewal: Senior Researcher Hugo Hollanders, UNU-MERIT, the Netherlands Environment: Fellow Markku Lehtonen, University of Sussexin, UK Well-being: Professor Runo Axelsson, Nordic School of Public Health, Sweden Skills and culture: Senior Researcher René Wintjes, UNU-MERIT, the Netherlands

Participants in the workshops Economy and economic renewal

Environment

Aku Alanen, Statistics Finland

Paavo-Petri Ahonen, Academy of Finland

Jaana Halonen, Kuntaliitto

Jyrki Aakkula, MTT

Rainen Hermans, Tekes

Raine Hermans, Tekes

Kai Husso, TIN

Pasi Iivonen, YM

Jari Hyvärinen, ETLA

Arja Kallio, Academy of Finland

Sakari Immonen, TEM

Saila Karvinen, Suomen Akatemia

Timo Kekkonen, EK

Marja Kokkonen, MMM

Kaisa Lähteenmäki-Smith, RMC

Seija Koppinen, VTT

Veera Laiho, PTT

Timo Kolu, Academy of Finland

Olavi Lehtoranta, VTT

Jouni Lind, EK

Raili Mäkitalo, VM

Jari Lyytimäki, SYKE

Petri Malinen, Suomen yrittäjät

Ari Mikkelä, Tekes

Anssi Mälkki, SA

Jussi Nikula, WWF

Ari Mikkelä, Tekes

Cristopher Palmberg, Tekes

Tuomo Nikulainen, ETLA

Mikko Rask, Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus

Pekka Pellinen, TEK

Tuomo Suortti, Tekes

Juha Suuronen, Tekes

Simo Vahvilainen, Tilastokeskus

Esko Virtanen, Tekes

Jari Varjo, Metla

Mikko Ylikangas, SA

101

Annex 6

Well-being

Skills and culture

Mikael Fogelholm, Academy of Finland

Timo Ala-Vähälä, University of Jyväskylä

Eeva Hamunen, Statiscs Finland

Tomi Halonen, OKM

Saara Hassinen, SalWe Oy

Juha Hedman, University of Turku

Merja Hiltunen, Tekes

Pirjo Hiidenmaa, Academy of Finland

Ilmo Keskimäki, THL

Raija Katila, TEM

Martti Kulvik, ETLA

Erkki Kaukonen, University of Tampere

Vesa Kämäräinen, NHG

Leif Laaksonen, CSC

Anna-Maija Lehto, Statiscs Finland

Annamaija Lehvo, Academy of Finland

Annika Lindblom, YM

Ari Mikkelä, Tekes

Ari Mikkelä, Tekes

Mika Nieminen, VTT

Kiti Müller, THL

Ilkka Niiniluoto, University of Helsinki

Anu Raijas, Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus

Tarja Nikula, University of Jyväskylä

Risto Roine, HUS

Pekka Pesonen, Tekes

Ulla Rosenström, VNK

Hannele Seitsonen, OKM

Leena Treuthardt, Academy of Finland

Krister Talvinen, Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto

Pekka Ylöstalo, TEM

Leena Treuthardt, Academy of Finland Mika Tuononen, Statistics Finland Janica Ylikarjula, EK

102

Annex 7. Detailed tables of indicators Economy and economic renewal Green indicators are ready to be taken into use. Red indicators need further development or data collection Economy and economic renewal

Phenomenon  

Impacts          

Preliminary indicators

Alternative indicators

Further development

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Ownership and information collection

International comparability

Alternative indicators

Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

National prosperity

GDP per capita

Widely used and comparable overall indicator of the national prosperity development.

Statistics Finland, OECD

Very good. Standard classification

Standard of living, WEF global competitiveness, UN Human Development Index, ISEW

UNDP, WEF

ETLA, Statistics Finland

Overall productivity of the economy

Total Factor Productivity TFP

Widely used indicator. TFP readily available.

OECD

Very good. Standard classification

Technology trade

Eurostat, OECD

ETLA, Statistics Finland

Productivity renewal indicator

To be composed an indicator that describes specifically and better the 'creative disruption' component of productivity growth, with a possible focus on market entries and exits, as well as the sectoral transfer of productivity factors

Statistics Finland, ETLA, OECD

 

New market entries (start-ups) versus exits (bankruptcies, etc)

ETLA, Statistics Finland

ETLA

Number and share of HGEs of all registered companies

Direct indicator of the phenomenon.

Statistics Finland

International statistics being developed

Gross capital formation, Angel Investments, volume of Venture Capital, GEM indicators, IUS

Eurostat, IUS, GEM

ETLA, Statistics Finland, National Board of Patents and Registration in Finland (PRH)

Renewal rate of enterprises

New market entries (start-ups) versus exits (bankruptcies, etc)

EIS/IUS

Good. Standard classification

New high tech jobs gained and lost, GEINDEX

Eurostat, Global ETLA, Statistics Entrepreneurship Finland Monitor

Net increase of jobs

Renewal of economy is directly reflected in the creation of new jobs in all sectors and in particularly within the knowledge-intensive sectors. Should be observed in relation to the decrease/sustainability of the existing jobs.

Employment statistics collected by the Statistics Finland and the Ministry of Employment and the Economy

Good at overall level (employment indicators)

Employment rates in knowledge intensive sectors. Relative growth of new jobs.

Statistics Finland, Ministry of Employment and the Economy

High growth (innovative) enterprises

Job creation

Statistics Finland, Ministry of Employment and the Economy, ETLA

103

Annex 7

Annex 7 104 Economy and economic renewal

Phenomenon  

 

Outputs

Activities

Preliminary indicators Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Ownership and information collection

Foreign Direct Investments

Share of Inward Foreign Direct Investments per GDP

Direct indicator of the phenomenon.

Strengthening of intangible assets

Share of new innovative products and services from business turnover.

Alternative indicators International comparability

Further development

Alternative indicators

Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

Bank of Finland, Very good. UNDP Standard classification

Share of foreign investments in R&D expenditure. Foreign Direct Investment Intensity (average of inward/ outward per GDP).

Statistics Finland, Eurostat

ETLA, Statistics Finland, Bank of Finland Tullihallitus

Reflects the part of intangible investments that is directly linked to innovation.

CIS, OECD

Very good. Standard classification

Sales of new to market and new to firm innovations

IUS

ETLA, VTT

Volume and share of intangible investments

Direct indicator of the phenomenon.

Pilot study UK/ OECD

Good.

Non-R&D innovation expenditure

IUS

ETLA, VTT

Position in global valuenetworks

Exports of knowledgeintensive sectors

Reflects the global competitiveness of knowledge sectors

EIS/IUS, Statistics Finland

Very good. Standard classification

Medium and high-tech products exports as % of total product exports. Knowledge intensive services exports as % of total services exports.

IUS

ETLA, VTT, Statistics Finland

Continuous improvement of competitiveness

Development of turnover in knowledge intensive sectors (or alternatively in KI jobs)

Reflects the share of competitive sectors in economy.

Statistics Finland

Good.

Employment in knowledge-intensive activities (manufacturing and services) as % of workforce

Eurostat, CIS /IUS

ETLA, Statistics Finland

Collaboration, networks and knowledge flows

Share of public and private organisations having collabo- rated in innovation projects

Cross-sectoral innovation cooperation between private, public and academic

OECD, Statistics Finland, Eurostat

Very good. Standard classification in CIS

Innovative SMEs collaborating with others

IUS

ETLA, VTT, Statistics Finland, Tekes & Academy of Finland

Capability to innovate

Development of patenting, registered trademarks and designs (EPO / USPTO / TRIAD)

Reflects the creation of intellectual properties in innovation.

Statistics Finland, OECD, EPO, USPTO

Very good. Standard classification

Patent application per billion GDP, Patent applications in societal challenges, Community Trademarks, Community designs

Eurostat, CIS /IUS

National Board of Patents and Registration in Finland (PRH), VTT, Statistics Finland

Economy and economic renewal

Phenomenon

Inputs  

Investments in RDI

Preliminary indicators

Alternative indicators

Further development

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Ownership and information collection

International comparability

Alternative indicators

Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

Share of RDI expenditure in business turnover

Reflects the business sector part of the phenomenon

Statistics Finland, OECD, EIS/ IUS

Very good. Standard classification

Business R&D as % of GDP

OECD/ IUS

ETLA, Statistics Finland, RIC

Government direct and indirect support to business R&D

Reflects the public sector support and incentives for RDI

OECD / MSTI

Good.

Public R&D expenditure as % GDP

IUS, OECD

Statistics Finland, RIC, Tekes

Foreign direct investments in Finnish RDI

Reflects the global attractiveness and competitiveness of RDI

Statistics Finland

Very good. Standard classification

Licence and patent revenues from abroad as % of GDP

IUS

Bank of Finland, ETLA, Statistics Finland

Human resources for RDI

Availability of highly educated workforce

Reflects the volume of resource-base for RDI

Statistics Finland

Very good. Standard classification

Employment in knowledge-intensive activities

IUS

Ministry of Education & Culture, Higher Education Council, Statistics Finland

General conditions and incentives for RDI

GDP share of VC investments at different growth stages

Reflects the availability of VC funding and general market conditions for innovation

OECD STI Very good. Scoreboard, IUS Standard indicator classification

VC at early stages

IUS

ETLA, VTT, Statistics Finland, FVCA, Bank of Finland

105

Annex 7

Annex 7 106 Environment Environment

Impacts      

Preliminary indicators

Phenomenon

Alternative indicators

Further development

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Ownership and information collection

International comparability

Alternative indicators

Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

State of the Finnish environment

Water systems ecological state

Reflects the state of environment locally and nationally. Ecological state of water systems describes biological, physical and chemical quality of natural waters, and is as such one essential indicator of the state of the environment.

Research and innovation can have a central role, among other impacting factors, through e.g. environmontally positive technical solutions.

Finnish Environment Institute (Suomen ympäristön mittarit 2011)

EU classification of the ecological and chemical state of surface waters

Emissions to air, Unused waste

Finnish Environment Institute (Suomen ympäristön mittarit 2011), Statistics of Finland

Prime Minister's Office, Ministry of Environment, Finnish Environment Institute

Climate change

Green house gas emissions in Finland

Greenhouse gases cause climate change. Measuring the emissions (and carbon sinks) gives a picture of the country's influence on climate change. However, it is to be noted that a great share of green house gas emissions and sinks produced undirectly by Finland occure elsewhere in the world.

Through technological, systemic, and other type of innovations R&D&I activities have a crucial role in combating climate chante and it is a crucial part of the international and national goals and commitments.

Statistics Finland, Finnish Environment Institute (Suomen ympäristön mittarit 2011)

International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC)

Carbon sinks, Share of renewables in energy production and fuels, Energy efficiency

Finnish Environment Institute, Finnish Forest Research Institute

See above

Biodiversity

Endangered- ness of Finnish species

Endangeredness of Finnish species is a measure of the health of ecosystems and their biodiversity.

So far the role of research and innovation has not been very special.

Finnish Environment Institute (Suomen ympäristön mittarit 2011)

UN Environmental Indicators (Number of threatened species)

Extent of key species, Extent of conservation areas

UN Convention on Biological diversity

See above

Sustainable consumption of natural resources

Share of renewable energy in energy production

One relevant indicator on the sustainable consumption of natural resources. All EU Member States are committed to increase the share.

Research and innovation have a central role through e.g. technological innovations such as new products and combustion techniques.

Statistics Finland, Finnish Energy Industries, Finnish Environment Institute (Suomen ympäristön mittarit 2011)

EU/Eurostat Sustainable development indicators (Share of renewable energy) and UN Environmental Indicators (Renewable electricity production)

Use of natural resources, Ecological footprint, Material flows, Dependency on imported energy

Finnish See above Environment Institute (Envimat), World Wildlife Fund, Ministry of Employment and the Economy

Environment

Outputs

Preliminary indicators

Phenomenon

Alternative indicators

Further development

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Ownership and information collection

International comparability

Alternative indicators

Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

New information and knowledge related to environment

Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited publications worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country

Describes the quality of the research publications in the various fields of well-being and thus the value of new knowledge.

High-quality publications are a relevant output of R&D&I activities.

Web of Science or Scopus

Web of Science or Scopus

 

 

Ministry of Education and Culture, Academy of Finland

 

Use of information in political decision making

Describes how new information and knowledge is taken into use in the society through political decisions. Indicator development is needed.

New information   and knowledge is the output of R&D&I activities and should be used in policy making.

 

 

 

Ministry of Environment , Academy of Finland

Environmentally bening innovations

International patents/ forwarded references of patents in the environmental sector

Describes the creation and protection of innovations. Better indicators for describing the environmentally bening innovations should be developed, including indicators for more systematic changes as well.

Mainly result of research and innovation.

OECD Patents database / European Patent Office Database

OECD Patents database/ European Patent Office Database

Indicators describing systemic changes like share of services, immaterial consumption in the society, or distance to services

Statistics Finland (National accounts), Customs of Finland

Ministry of Environment, Statistics Finland, Tekes

Green business

Revenue of companies in energy and environment sector

Indicates the volume of companies operating in the green business sector. However, the indicator does not cover green business operated by companies not specified in environmental sector but it includes also non-renewable energy production.

Describes the amount of companies active in environmental innovations and research.

Statistics Finland (Environ- mental goods and services sector)

Eurostat

 

 

Statistics of Finland

107

Annex 7

Annex 7 108 Environment

Activities

Preliminary indicators

Phenomenon

Alternative indicators

Further development

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Ownership and information collection

International comparability

Alternative indicators

Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

 

Private sector energy efficiency

Important in describing the impact of business on environment and whether innovations are used in decreasing the energy consumption.

Indicates how new energy efficient innovations are adopted in private sector.

Statistics Finland, Ministry of Labour and the Economy

Eurostat, EU Intelligent Energy Europe, International Energy Agency

Public sector energy efficiency

 

Ministry of Labour and the Economy

Consumers' attitudes and behavior

Household energy efficiency

Development of energy consumption per houshold indicates consumers' willingness to invest in energy efficient and environment benign technology.

Describes how consumers utilise new energy efficient innovations.

See above

See above

Barometres on consumer attitudes and bahaviour

Statistics Finland, National Consumer Research Centre

Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Labour and the Economy, Statistics of Finland

R&D&I activities directed towards environment (quality, challenges, extent)

Companies with innovation operations in the energy and environmental sectors

Vicariously describes the size and extent of environmental activities within the private sector.

In the core of research and innovation.

Statistics Finland 2008 (Pilot study on innovations)

Not known

 

 

Statistics Finland

 

Amount of environmental R&D&I activities in research centres

Describes the amount and extent of environmental R&D&I activities in research centres but not on quality. Further indicator development is needed.

In the core of research and innovation.

Statistics Finland

Not known

 

 

Statistics Finland

Cooperation within environment related value networks and strengthening of skill flows

Cooperation between private sector, universities and research centers in environment sector

Cooperative activities such as shared studies and projects between companies, universities and/or research centers tells about the strength of value networks.

Describes the partnerships important for the development and introduction of environmental innovations.

 

 

Mobility of researchers

State and standard of Finnish Science

Academy of Finland, Tekes

Environment

Preliminary indicators

Phenomenon Indicator

Inputs  

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Alternative indicators Ownership and information collection

International comparability

Further development

Alternative indicators

Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

R&D&I investments on environment

Private R&D&I Indicates the amount of the R&D&I funding expenditure on R&D&I expenses used in the enables research and environment environment related activities innovation. in the private sector.

Statistics Not known Finland (sewage and waste management)

 

 

Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Ministry of the Environment, Statistics Finland, Tekes

 

Public R&D Indicates the amount of the R&D&I funding expenditure on R&D&I expenses used in the enables research and environment environment related activities innovation. in the public sector.

Statistics Finland, Ministry of Finance

OECD R&D Statistics (Share of public R&D budget devoted to (sustainable) energy and environment), IEA Scoreboard (Renewable energy in R&D budget, value and share)

 

 

Statistics Finland

 

Venture capital directed towards environment

Indicates one important aspects of the investments in introducing preconditions for innovations and their use.

Enables utilisation of the results of research and innovation activities especially in the growing international business environment.

Finnish Venture Capital Association

 

 

 

Finnish Venture Capital Association

Skills and human resources

No relevant indicator so far

Need to describe the quality and extent of human resources f.e. by its multidisciplinary nature. Needs indicator development.

Important precondition   for research and innovation.

 

Number of completed degrees on environment

Ministry of Culture and Education, Statistics Finland

Academy of Finland

Operational environment supporting environmentally benign actions

No relevant indicator so far

Through legislation and economic conditions the operational environment effects the results of research and innovation remarkably. For that reason, demand and user driven innovation has been a strong focus on the innovation policiy recently.

Strong linkage to the impacts of R&D&I.

 

 

 

Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Employment and the Economy

 

109

Annex 7

Annex 7 110 Well-being Wellbeing  

Phenomenon  

Impacts    

Outputs

Preliminary indicators

Alternative indicators

Further development

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Ownership and information collection

International Alternative indicators Ownership comparability and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

Health and quality of life

Life expectancy

Seen as a relevant indicator for health and quality of life if only one indicator should be chosen. However, discussion is ongoing on whether the activity and capability of elderly people would be a better indicator.

Innovations f.e. in healt care can expand the expected living years, but other factors such as way of living and other policy measures are likely to have much more impact.

National Institute for Health and Welfare (Sotkanet)

UNDP Human Development Index, OECD Measuring Progress, OECD Indicators of subjective well-being, European social Survey Indicators

Sickness index, Fitness and conditions per age, Activeness and wellbeing of the elderly, Household adjusted disposable income, Share of youngsters within age group 17-24, Human development index outside the education system, Share of population who are very or fairly satisfied with their physical, mental and social well-being

Prime Minister's Office, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Statistics of Finland

Well-being in working life

Share of 25 to 64-year-olds very or fairly satisfied with their current job

Survey-based indicator on the general satisfaction of working life. However, has the limitations of a survey.

Several R&D&I initiatives on wellbeing in working life. However, several other factors are likely to have much more impact.

National Institute for Health and Welfare (Sotkanet)

 

  Barometer on wellbeing at work, Indicators on employment and unemployment

See above

Healthy and safe living environment

No indicator selected yet

Noice or the amount of fine particles could be possible indicators.

 

Finnish Environment Institute

 

 

 

See above

New knowledge and competence associated with wellbeing

Scientific publications among the top 10% most cited publications worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country

Describes the quality of the research publications in the various fields of well-being and thus the value of new knowledge .

Publications are a relevant output of R&D&I activities.

Web of Science or Scopus

Web of Science   or Scopus

 

Ministry of Education and Culture, Academy of Finland

Statistics Finland, National Institure for Health and Welfare (Sotkanet)

Wellbeing  

Preliminary indicators

Phenomenon  

Alternative indicators

Further development

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Ownership and information collection

International Alternative indicators Ownership comparability and information collection alternative indicators

Innovations and systemic changes supporting well-being

New products, processes, services and social innovations

The use of these innovations either by public, private or voluntary organizations or private people has positive (or negative) impacts on the different aspects of wellbeing. Especially indicators for describing systemic and organizational changes are needed. Needs further development.

R&D&I driven innovations and systemic changes contribute to the improvements in well-being

 

 

Cost of health and social Ministry care, Quality of health of Social and social care, Patents Affairs and Wellbeing, National Institure for Health and Welfare

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, (Prime Minister's Office), National Institute for Health and Welfare, Tekes, Statistics of Finland

High-quality and innovative well-being services

Productivity of the social and health services of municipalities and federations of municipalities

This is an indicator of the value of the social and health services that can be provided with the resources in use, thus the higher the productivity, the more efficiently the resources are used. However, this indicator should be linked to indicators on the quality of social and health services. More insight could be gained by using indicators on private actors. Needs better indicator.

Productivity development may result from or require the adoption of innovations. Innovations, particularly systemic innovations, may have significant impacts on the costs of health care, but their share in the changes may be difficult to identify.

Statistics Finland

 

Turnover on new private business in the health and well-being sector, Quality of the social and health services, Cost of health and social care, Value of well-being services outsourced in municipalities, Performance of social and health services

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, (Prime Minister's Office), National Institute for Health and Welfare, Statistics of Finland

Ministry of Social Affairs and Wellbeing, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Statistics of Finland

Relevant organisations for indicator development

111

Annex 7

Annex 7 112 Wellbeing  

Phenomenon  

Activities  

Inputs

Preliminary indicators Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Quality and extent of R&D&I activities directed towards well-being

Share of public organisations involved in health and wellbeing related R&D&I activities

Vicariously describes the extent of well-being related R&D&I activities. Needs indicator development.

Interorganisational collaboration related to wellbeing in value networks and the strengthening of flows of know-how

Mobility of researchers in the fields of health and well-being

R&D&I investments on well-being

Private and public R&D expenditure on well-being, health care and working life

Alternative indicators Ownership and information collection

Further development

International Alternative indicators Ownership comparability and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

Contributes Statistics through new Finland (Pilot knowledge and study) innovations to the social and wellbeing impacts.

 

Number of private companies involved in innovation activities in the health and wellbeing sector, Indicators describing the quality and extent of activities (no indicator at present)

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Statistics of Finland

The mobility of researchers describes the amount of collaboration and flows of know-how and the networking of Finnish researchers across organisational boundaries in Finland and abroad as well as the networking of foreign researchers in Finland. Better indicator needed for describing the phenomenon.

Seen as one important characteristic of productive R&D&I.

 

Cooperation between   public and private organisations, Turnover or amount of companies that do innovation activities on well-being

National Institute for Health and Welfare, Academy of Finland, Tekes

Describes well the R&D&I investments on well-being.

Enables research Statistics   and innovation Finland (on activities public inputs) and provides information about their volume on public and private sector.

 

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, National Institure for Health and Welfare, Statistics of Finland, Academy of Finland

State and Standard of Finnish Science (Kota database)

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Statistics of Finland

 

Wellbeing  

Preliminary indicators

Phenomenon  

Alternative indicators

Further development

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Ownership and information collection

International Alternative indicators Ownership comparability and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

Knowledge and human resources

No indicator at present

Need to describe the quality and extent of human resources f.e. by its multidisciplinary nature. Needs indicator development.

Important precondition for research and development.

 

 

Number of completed degrees on well-being

Ministry of Education and Culture, Statistcs Finland

Ministry of Education and Culture, Academy of Finland

Supportive operational environment

Health and social care costs

Describes the volume of the sector in the society. However, no conclusions can be made on whether developments are positive or negative without combining the indicator with other indicators describing f.e. the quality of the outputs. Needs better indicator.

The results of R&D&I activities can f.e. contribute to the efficiency of health and social care and thus reduce overall expenditure. R&D&I can provide new knowledge on well-being that can contribute to the development of policy measures. Policy measures are not only outputs but also inputs for R&D&I activities by creating or hindering the conditions for development, introduction, and use of innovations.

Statistics Finland

 

Share of health and social care costs in GDP

 

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, National Institure for Health and Welfare, Statistics of Finland

113

Annex 7

Annex 7 114 Skills and Culture Preliminary indicators

Skills and Phenomenon Culture  

Impacts      

Alternative indicators

Further development

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Ownership and information collection

International comparability

Alternative indicators

Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

Competences and opportunities for life-long learning

Education level of population

The functionality of the educational system and human capital

Provides a general view on the quality of human resources

Statistics Finland, Eurostat

Eurostat (share of highly educated workforce)

Percentage of the adult population aged 25 to 64 participating in education and training

Eurostat

 

Education and active citizenship

Interest in science, research and technology

The education level of citizens through action

Active and open research and innovation activity contributes to a general interest of science and technology, which on the other hand facilitates the use of new knowledge and new innovations

Finnish Science Barometer

 

Informed about issues in everyday life

Eurobarometer

 

Active and diverse cultural life

Value added in the cultural sector

The economic significance of the cultural sector

The role of cultural activities has become more important in the economy as a result is also a specific area of innovation activities, especially service innovation.

Statistics Finland, cultural pilot

 

Indicator describing the economic significance of the cultural sector

Statistics Ministry of Finland, Culture Education and statistics pilot Culture

Openness, diversity and networks

Share of foreign nationals in the human resources of science and technology

Attractiveness and openness of Finland in terms of foreign intellectual capital

The indicator is a proxy of the international attractiveness of the Finnish research system

Statistics Finland

Eurostat: Annual Share of foreign non data on HRST EU nationals in the by nationality human resources of science and technology

Eurostat

 

Preliminary indicators

Skills and Phenomenon Culture  

Outputs    

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

The quality and efficiency of the educational system

OECD international student assessment PISA

Indicator for general education that enables international comparisons

The quality and efficiency of higher education and research

Scientific publications within 10% of the most cited publications worldwide as % of total scientific publications of the country

Knowledge as a resource for the economy and society

Alternative indicators Ownership and information collection

Further development

International comparability

Alternative indicators

Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Relevant organisations for indicator development

The indicator is OECD proxy of the general quality of output of the educational system

OECD

1) Match between competent workforce and jobs available; 2) Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)

1) Statistics Finland; 2) Ministry of Education and Culture

Ministry of Education and Culture

The volume of highquality research

The indicator is a proxy for the efficiency of the research system as highly cited publications are assumed to be of higher quality

Eurostat (Web of Science / Scopus)

Eurostat

New doctoral graduates

Ministry of Education and Culture

Ministry of Education and Culture and the Academy of Finland (bibliometrics)

Patent applications by institutes of higher education and public R&D-institutes

The ability of the higher education and public research system to produce research results with commercial potential

The indicator is a proxy for the production of innovations from the public sector

Institutes of higher education, Tekes reports on public research projects

 

1) Spinout companies from universities and R&D-institutes; 2) Use of the internet for online studies and cultural purposes

1) Universities, R&D-institutes; 2) Statistics Finland, Time use survey

Ministry of Education and Culture

Citizen participation

Participation of population aged 18+ in lifelong learning

The lifelong learning is a key indicator for the development of citizenship, social cohesion, employment and for individual fulfilment.

Lifelong learning is a key indicator measuring the capabilities

Eurostat

Eurostat

Participation in voluntary activities

Statistics Finland, Time Use Survey

Statistics Finland

Active and vital cultural life

No indicator selected at present

 

 

 

 

Primary activity of higher education graduates from the field of culture one year from graduation

Statistics Finland

Ministry of Education and Culture

115

Annex 7

Annex 7 116 Preliminary indicators

Skills and Phenomenon Culture  

Alternative indicators

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Ownership and information collection

International comparability

Alternative indicators

Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Further development Relevant organisations for indicator development

 

Internationalisation and openness in research activities

No indicator selected at present

 

 

 

 

International scientific Eurostat co-publications per (Innovation million population Union Scoreboard), based on Web of Science / Scopus

Academy of Finland / Tekes

Activities

Scientific research and education

Share of doctors of the Human Resources in Science and Technology (HRST)

Measures the utilisation of scientific training on the job market

The indicator is a proxy of the level of the researcher training the education system produces

Statistics Finland

Eurostat

Scientific publications Ministry of Education and Culture

 

Disseminating research information to citizens and the use of society

No indicator selected at present

 

 

 

 

1) Participation in open university courses and public science events; 2) Scientific co-publications (universities, PRIs and the private sector)

1) Higher Education Institutes; 2) Eurostat

Ministry of Education and Culture

Research and innovation activities related to culture

No indicator selected at present

 

 

 

 

The share of R&D personnel in Social Sciences and Humanities in the government and higher education sectors

Higher Education Institutes

Ministry of Education and Culture

International mobility and cooperation in research

Researcher The indicator is mobility (inwards a proxy of one and outwards) dimension of international networks and scientific collaboration

Measures the level of internationalisation of R&D activities

Ministry of Education and Culture

OECD: Share of foreign doctoral students; EUROSTAT Student mobility (ISCED 5-6)

Share of Degree Programs/graduates of foreign language

Institutes of higher education, Ministry of Education and Culture

Ministry of Education and Culture

Preliminary indicators

Skills and Phenomenon Culture  

Inputs  

Alternative indicators Ownership and information collection alternative indicators

Further development

Indicator

Linkage to phenomenon

Linkage to R&D&I

Ownership and information collection

International comparability

Alternative indicators

Investments in competences and human resources

Investments in R&D activities in the public sector and in the higher education sector

A multidimensional indicator that describes the structure of investments in public research activity (private sector investments are listed under the theme Economy and Regeneration)

The indicator is a proxy of public sector devotion to invest in the knowledge-based economy

Statistics Finland

Eurostat

Research and Statistics development funding Finland in the state budget

 

Investments in competences and human resources

Research The indicator Human capital personnel's share is a proxy of directed to research of workforce human resources activity investments towards knowledge economy

Statistics Finland

Eurostat

 

 

 

Relevant organisations for indicator development

Investments Costs from adult education in general education and adult education

Investments in life-long learning

The indicator is proxy of investments in life long learning investments in R&D capacity

Statistics Finland

 

Expected hours over OECD the working life in all non-formal education and in job-related non-formal education

Ministry of Education and Culture

Investments in the culture related to research and innovation

The Government R&D funding based on societal objective: culture

The indicator is proxy for public investments in the development of culture

Measures the level of R&D&I investments in the development of culture

Statistics Finland

Eurostat

 

 

Ministry of Education and culture, Academy of Finland

Investments in international cooperation and networking

The share R&D expenditure from abroad in the Higher Education and Government sectors

The indicator is one proxy of the internationalisation of the public research from resources perspective

The indicator is Statistics a proxy of the Finland international level of scientific research

Eurostat

Investments in international R&D collaboration

Tekes, Academy of Finland

Tekes, Academy of Finland

117

Annex 7

Abbreviations

118

EU

European Union – Euroopan unioni

GPI

Genuine Progress Indicator

ICT

Information communication technology

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

RDI

research & development & innovation

TKI

tutkimus & kehitys & innovaatiot

TIN

Research and Innovation Council – Tutkimus- ja innovaationeuvosto

References

Ali-Yrkkö, J. Impact of public R&D financing on private R&D – does financial constraint matter? Helsinki, ETLA, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, 2004 Bilbao-Osorio B. (2008) Assessing the socio-economic impacts of public R&D. A review on the state of the art, and current work at the OECD. Working Party on Technology and Innovation Policy (TIP). Workshop on assessing the socio-economic impacts of public R&D investment. 11 June 2008. Cozzens, S. (2007), “Maximizing Social Impacts through Science and Technology: Carson’s Quadrant”, Presentation at the “Impacts of Science”, 10-11 May, Vienna. Delanghe, H. and Teirlinck, P. (2009), Optimising the Policy Mix by the Development of a Common Methodology for the Assessment of (Socio-)Economic Impacts of RTDI Public Funding (CIA4OPM), OECD, DSTI/STP/TIP(2009)18, pp. 67 Ebersberger, B. (2008), The Impact of Public R&D Funding. Espoo 2005. VTT Publications 588 EC (2011). European Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010. The Innovation Union's performance scoreboard for Research and Innovation. Edler, J. & Georghiou, L. (2007) Public procurement and innovation – Resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy 36. 949-963. European Commission (2003), Raising EU R&D Intensity Improving the Effectiveness of the Mix of Public Support Mechanisms for Private Sector Research and Development, HLEG Report, Brussels. FORA (2009). Nordic Innovation Monitor 2009. Copenhagen: FORA. Godin, B. and C. Doré (2006), “Measuring the Impacts of Science: beyond the Economic Dimension”, Working Paper, mimeo. Hjelt, M., Luoma, P., Pesola, A., Saario, M., Kämäräinen, V., Maksimainen, A. ja Vesa, J. (2011), Selvitys Tekesin toiminnan vaikutuksista yhteiskunnan ja ympäristön hyvinvointiin. Gaia Consulting Oy & Nordic Healthcare Group Oy. Hjelt, M., T. Pursula, I. Vehviläinen, S. Ahvenharju, H. Hietala, V. Kämäräinen (2010), Edelläkävijämarkkinat ja innovaatiotoiminta, TEM julkaisuja, Innovaatio 54/2010.

Hofer, R. and Dinges, M. (2008) R&D – R&D Policy Interactions. The “Policy Mix” project Thematic Report. Hyvärinen, J. (2010), New Economic Perspectives of Innovation Market, Tekes Review 279/2010 Hyyppä, (2005), Kertyykö sosiaalisestapääomasta kansanterveyttä? Saatavissa [Online]: http://yp.stakes. fi/NR/rdonlyres/A998EF8D-778F-4F6F-912694A3740F0129/0/404hyyppa.pdf Hyytinen et al. (toim.) (2008), Monta tietä vaikuttavuuteen – Näkökulmia tutkimusorganisaatioiden tulosohjaukseen ja vaikuttavuuden arviointiin kolmella hallinnonalalla, Valtiovarainministeriön julkaisuja 29/2008 Kline, S. and rosenberg, N. (1986), An Overview of Innovation. In R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (Eds), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Washington DC: National Academy Press. pp 275-305. Lemola, T., J. Lehenkari, E. Kaukonen ja J. Timonen (2008), Vaikuttavuuskehikko ja indikaattorit. Suomen Akatemian julkaisuja 6/2008. Lovio, R. (2009), Näkökulmia innovaatiotoiminnan ja politiikan muutoksiin 2000-luvulla, Teoksessa Ahola ja Rautiainen (toim.) Kasvuparadigman muutos – innovaatiotoiminnan uudet trendit, Tekesin katsaus 250/2009. Martin, B.R. (2007), Assessing the Impact of Basic Research on Society and the Economy. A presentation at the FWF-ESF International Conference on ‘Science Impact: Rethinking the Impact of Basic Research on Society and the Economy’, Vienna, 11 May 2007 Motiva (2010), Energiatehokkuusindikaattorit 11/2010 National Science Board (2010), Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Saatavissa [Online]: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/ Nauwelaers C. and P. Boekholt, B. Mostert, P. Cunningham, K. Guy, R. Hofer, C. Rammer (2009) Policy Mixes for R&D in Europe. UNU-MERIT, April 2009. A study commissioned by the European Commission – Directorate-General for Research.

119

NESTA (2009), The Innovation Index. Measuring the UK’s investment in innovation and its effect. Index report: November 2009

Riipinen, T., M. Valtakari, M. Rajahonka, P. Ilmakunnas, L. Väänänen (2010b), Katsaus Tekesin toiminnan vaikutuksista tuottavuuteen ja elinkeinoelämän uusiutumiseen.

OECD (1997). National Innovation Systems, Paris.

Saari, J. (toim.) (2011), Hyvinvointi, Suomalaisen yhteiskunnan perusta, Gaudeamus

OECD (2007), Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators in a Changing World. Responding to Policy Needs, a selection of papers presented at the OECD Blue Sky II Forum in September 2006, OECD, Paris OECD (2008), Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2008 OECD (2009), Dynamics of Demand-led Innovation Policies, Scoping Paper. DSTP/IND/STP (2009) OECD (2010a), The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow, OECD, Paris OECD (2010b), Measuring Innovation – A New Perspective, OECD, Paris OECD (2010d), Research & Development Database 2010, Saatavissa [Online]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/835870280132 Optimizing the research and innovation policy mix: The practice and challenges of impact assessment in Europe (2011), Findings from FP7 OMC-net project 234501. Riipinen, T., P. Ilmakunnas, M. Vaihekoski, L. Väänänen ja M. Valtakari (2010a), Aineeton pääoma ja tuotto-odotukset, Tekesin katsaus 270/2010.

120

Sharpe, A. and Smith J. (2005), “Measuring the Impacts of Research on Well-being: A Survey of In-dicators of Wellbeing”, Centre for the Study of Living Standards – Centre d’étude des niveaux de vie, Ottawa, Canada. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. & Fitoussi, J-P. (2009), Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Saatavissa [Online]: http://www.stiglitzsen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf TEM (2010a), Kysyntä- ja käyttäjälähtöisen innovaatiopolitiikan toimenpideohjelma, Osa I ja Osa II, Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö, helmikuu 2010. Tilastokeskus (2010), Measurement of innovation in the public sector; pilot survey. Valtioneuvosto (2008), Valtioneuvoston innovaatiopoliittinen selonteko eduskunnalle. Valtioneuvoston kanslia (2011), Bkt ja kestävä hyvinvointi. Yksi luku ei riitä suomalaisen yhteiskun-nan tilan kuvaamiseen. Valtioneuvoston kanslian raporttisarja 12/2011. VTV (2008), T&k-arviointitoiminta. Valtiontalouden tarkastusviraston toiminnantarkastuskertomukset 157/2008

Tekes Reviews in English

288/2011

Better results, more value – A framework for analysing the societal impact of Research and Innovation. Päivi Luoma, Tuomas Raivio, Paula Tommila, Johan Lunabba, Kimmo Halme, Kimmo Viljamaa and Henri Lahtinen. 120 p.

284/2011

BioRefine Yearbook 2011. Tuula Mäkinen, Eija Alakangas and Marjo Kauppi (eds.) 207 p.

282/2011

Towards green growth? The position of Finland in environmental technologies. Raimo Lovio, Tuomo Nikulainen, Christopher Palmberg, Jenny Rinkinen, Armi Temmes and Kimmo Viljamaa. 59 p.

280/2011

Network governance and the Finnish Strategic Centres for Science, Technology and Innovation. Kaisa Lähteenmäki-Smith, Petri Uusikylä, Katri Haila, Antti Eronen and Pekka Kettunen. 57 p.

279/2010

New Economic Perspectives of Innovation Market. Jari Hyvärinen. 78 p.

278/2010

Safety and Security Business Opportunities in World Bank projects. Annamari Paimela-Wheler and Maija Arellano. 40 p.

276/2010

BioRefine Yearbook 2010. Tuula Mäkinen, Eija Alakangas and Marjo Kauppi (eds.) 188 p.

275/2010

ROADMAP for Communication Technologies, Services and Business Models 2010, 2015 and Beyond. Pekka Ruuska, Jukka Mäkelä, Marko Jurvansuu, Jyrki Huusko and Petteri Mannersalo. 47 p.

274/2010

Business Dynamics and Scenarios of Change. Petri Ahokangas, Miikka Blomster, Lauri Haapanen, Matti Leppäniemi, Vesa Puhakka, Veikko Seppänen, Juhani Warsta. 65 p.

272/2010

The Future of Service Business Innovation. 75 p.

267/2010

Silicon Valley Journey – Experiences of Finnish IT Startups from Dot-Com Boom to 2010. Raija Rapo & Marita Seulamo-Vargas. 176 p.

264/2009

BioRefine Programme 2007–2012. Yearbook 2009.

263/2009

Drive for Future Software Leverage – The Role, Importance, and Future Challenges of Software Competences in Finland. Mikael von Hertzen, Jyrki Laine, Sami Kangasharju, Juhani Timonen and Maarit Santala. 93 p.

259/2009

Technology Transfer of Research Results Protected by Intellectual Property: Finland and China. Rainer Oesch. 28 p.

254/2009

Evaluation of Bioprocessing Expertise in Finland. Colja Laane. 22 p.

242/2009

Foresight for Our Future Society – Cooperative project between NISTEP (Japan) and Tekes (Finland). Eija Ahola and Mikko Syrjänen. 59 p.

241/2008

FinNano Programme – Intermediate Evaluation. Pekka Koponen, Juho-Kusti Kajander and Matti Kuusisto. 20 p.

239/2008

BioRefine Programme 2007–2012. Yearbook 2008. Eija Alakangas & Tuula Mäkinen, eds. 130 p.

236/2008

Major challenges for the governance of national research and innovation policies in small European countries. Mari Hjelt, Pim den Hertog, Robbin te Velde, Mikko Syrjänen and PaavoPetri Ahonen. 65 p.

Subscriptions: www.tekes.fi/english/publications

121

Tekes | Tekes Review

Pekka Pesonen Tekes [email protected]

Tekes – Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation

November 2011 ISSN 1797-7339 ISBN 978-952-457-536-2

Better results, more value – A framework for analysing the societal impact of Research and Innovation

Tel. +358 10 191 480 Fax +358 9 694 9196 Kyllikinportti 2, P.O. Box 69 FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: [email protected] www.tekes.fi

Tekes Review 288/2011

288|2011

Further information

Better results, more value A framework for analysing the societal impact of Research and Innovation Päivi Luoma, Tuomas Raivio, Paula Tommila, Johan Lunabba, Kimmo Halme, Kimmo Viljamaa and Henri Lahtinen