Flexicurity And Its Effects On Legal Regulations Throughout Europe

One of Europe’s major weaknesses lies in its inferiority in terms of transforming the results of technological research and skills into innovations and competitive advantages (European Commission, 1995, p. 8). Technology transfer is a key aspect of economic development and research administration. These concerns are shared equally between academia and industry on both sides of the Atlantic. As technology is developed at a greater rate, concerns about the technology transfer will heighten. This article focuses on technology transfer in Ireland, particularly in the SME (Small and Medium size Enterprises, under 250 employees) sector. As the main Lisbon Objective has not been met in Europe (“Europe is to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion”), the authors suggest a better model of technology transfer applicable not only to Ireland and Europe, but with possibilities for the United States. Demonstrating the international dimensions of technology transfer, the article also provides an American perspective, demonstrating commonality of interest yet subtle differences. Research Management Review, Volume 15, Number 1 Winter/Spring 2006 2 THE EUROPEAN UNION’S STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE FOR INNOVATION Since the publication of the European Commission’s Green Paper on Innovation, there has been general acknowledgment of the need to address the European Paradox, as outlined in Figure 1, in which EU scientific performance, as measured by number of scientific publications, was deemed superior to the that of the U.S. and Japan but technical performance, as measured by patents, was deemed inferior. Half a decade later, the European Council of Ministers proudly stated in Lisbon that they had reached a clearly identifiable measurable strategic objective. By this decade’s end, Europe is “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” (Fontaine, 2000, p. 5). Note: DAE=Developing Asian Economies; BERD=Business Enterprise Expenditure on R&D Figure 1: First European Report on Science & Technology Indicators (European Commission, 1994) For the past five years, very influential and powerful European Commission mechanisms, supported by national policies and directives, have driven wave after wave of initiatives, pushing research and enterprise with the aim of overtaking Europe’s main trading partners in terms of effectively commercializing new knowledge. The European Commission’s Enterprise and Industry Directorate has closely measured Europe’s activity in this area, with its latest release in January 2005 of information on EU member country performance as compared to that of the other main trading blocks (European Commission, 2005a). Figure 2, in summarizing recent performance, shows that European performance has not been as good as might be expected. The recent review by The World Economic Forum concludes: “the EU as a whole receives lower scores than the US in seven out of eight Lisbon dimensions” (Blanke & Lopez-Carlos, 2004, p. 14). This has led to open acknowledgment by the highest levels of the Commission that the gap is actually widening. Jose Manuel Barroso, the EU President, bluntly states, “the EU is falling behind on its Lisbon objective of making Europe the most competitive economy in the world” (Barroso, 2005). Propensity of the EU, U.S., Japan and the DAE to produce results a. Scientific performance (number of publications b. Technological performance (number of per million ecus, at 1987 U.S. prices, non-BERD) patents per million ecus, at 1987 U.S. prices, BERD)

In March 2000, the heads of the European Union countries proclaimed the aim of making Europe the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustaining economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” by 2010. To achieve this overall goal, a set of economic and social reforms called the “Lisbon Strategy” or the “Lisbon Agenda” to be undertaken was defined. Several objectives, grouped in five dimensions (employment, innovation and research, structural economic reforms, social cohesion, environment) were set up. It was agreed upon that the European Commission should annually prepare progress reports in order to evaluate the progress the Member States have made in achieving the Lisbon goals. In its mid-term review in 2005, the European Commission concluded that the implementation of reforms in line with the Lisbon Strategy had in many areas been too slow. In particular, the growth performance of the past five years had been disappointing, particularly as compared to other regions of the world economy such as the US and certain Asian economies. Therefore, the Lisbon Strategy was revised, focussing on growth and the creation of employment (European Commission, 2005 and 2006).KeywordsTotal Factor ProductivityEuro AreaTotal Factor Productivity GrowthLabour Market RegulationLabour Market InstitutionThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

In March 2000, the Lisbon European Council agreed upon a new strategic goal for the European Union: to become the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.” One decade and the sobering experience of a global economic crisis later, the European Commission's new 2020 Strategy sets out a vision of Europe's social market economy for the 21st century that “shows how the EU can emerge stronger from the economic crisis and how it can be turned into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy delivering high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion.” If somewhat more modest in its targets, Europe 2020 reiterates the guiding ambition to enhance the EU's economic performance in the internal and global market that already dominated the Lisbon strategy. The lesson learned from Europe's “lost decade” is that the EU needs to replace the “slow and largely uncoordinated pace of reforms” with a “sustainable recovery” in order to regain its competitiveness, boost its productivity, and put it on “an upward path of prosperity.” This is, then, the EU's first “Lisbon” agenda that heavily relies on the internal market and that depicts social inclusion and political stability as conditioned upon further European economic integration. The recipe to defy what has grown from a “merely” economic crisis into a social and political crisis of the Union and its Member States is a combination of “smart,” “sustainable,” and “inclusive” growth.

Recent policy discourses in Europe strongly emphasise the need to build what is called an ‘inclusive information society’. With the current widespread diffusion and use of ICTs in all domains of everyday life, ICTs are increasingly considered a fundamental and necessary resource for every European citizen, the socio-economic effects of which will resonate across the continent. The strategic goal for Europe in 2010 – worded forcefully by the European Council in its Lisbon strategy – is: ‘… to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ (European Council, 2000). While access to ICTs is considered crucial for participation in and enhancing the qualities of that society, there is, at the same time, an accompanying nervousness that it might sow the seeds for a new exclusion, a digital divide quite distanced from the dream of an all inclusive society.

Since the beginnings of 1957, the European Union has always been aimed at promoting the development and cohesion of the Member States. Competitiveness as well as sustainable development have therefore long been focal points among strategic goals of the European Union. These goals were therefore documented in some strategies, namely European Single Market programme, the Lisbon Strategy and the Europe 2020. The Lisbon Strategy was aimed at turning the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion by 2010. However, it was obvious that the Lisbon goals have not been achieved and a new strategy, Europe 2020, was hence initiated. Many Lithuanian and foreign authors analyzed (Tamosiuniene et al., 2007; Daugeliene, 2008; Grybaite, Tvaronaviciene, 2008; Melnikas, 2008; Tvaronaviciene et al., 2008; Martinkus et al., 2009; Kirch, 2010; Balezentis et al., 2010) the situation of Lithuania and other Baltic states in a global economic system during the processes of globalization and European Union (EU) integration. However, the need for the evaluation of the Lisbon Strategy's outcomes and proposal of guidelines for ongoing strategy Europe 2020 is still topical. Hence this study focuses on the improvement of the open method of co­ordination and thus the implementation of strategy Europe 2020 by integrating quantitative methods with respect to the experience gained during the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. This study is aimed at proposing a framework for a strategic management model dedicated to successful implementation of the new strategy Europe 2020. This article is organized in four sections according to the following tasks defined in order to achieve the aim: 1) to overview main the strategies dedicated to promoting competitiveness of the European Union, namely the Lisbon Strategy and strategy Europe 2020; 2) to assess efforts of the EU Member States in seeking Lisbon goals applying multi-criteria evaluation method MULTIMOORA; 3) to evaluate reliability of selected structural indicators applying multiple correspondence analysis; and 4) to summarize the proposed guidelines for the new strategy Europe 2020 according to the results of this study and other works. The novelty of this study lies in the fact that it introduces the application of multi-criteria decision making methods in EU policy making procedures. Multi-criteria evaluation method MULTIMOORA as well as multiple correspondence analysis were the most important methods of the research. Analysis of EU Member States performance in the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy resulted in describing three groups of states and structural indicators: high performance group, medium performance group, and low performance group. Moreover, indicators of youth education attainment level, business investment and employment rate of older workers, are not highly correlated with economic performance of certain Member States and therefore can be regulated uniformly at the European level. These findings can be considered as the premises for successful EU-level targets translation into those for certain groups of countries. The synthesis of proposals for target-setting and transformation methodology resulted in framework for strategic management model dedicated to successful implementation of strategy Europe 2020. The model should encompass: 1) selection of targets for the EU, certain groups of states and separate Member States; 2) mutual learning enabling to transfer the best practice among member States; 3) development of appropriate structural indicators, equally identifying all dimensions of sustainable development; 4) benchmarking (selectonovation) principles applied for an effective distribution of EU support among Member States. Multi-criteria methods (e. g. MULTIMOORA) can be successfully applied in such benchmarking.http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.3.517

The Lisbon Strategy was launched in 2000 with a view to achieving the ten-year goal for the Union to ‘become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ (European Council, 2000: par.5). This ambition was justified by the enthusiasm at the time for the booming high-tech market and a good EU economic performance. The resulting strategy was a wide-ranging programme combining policies in different domains (economic, social and environmental), to be adopted and implemented at different governance levels (European, national, regional) through a variety of policy tools (legislation, policy coordination, budgetary credits) (European Central Bank, 2005a). In breadth, scope and method the strategy does not compare to any programme of action launched by the EU in the past, like the single market project or the Maastricht process, which had a clearer focus and ‘harder’ tools at their disposal.

Major steps are currently being taken to make Europe an attractive destination for foreign students willing to increase their competencies and skills. They include the creation of a comparable structure of study courses; the mutual recognition of diplomas; the assessment of academic institutions and programs based on common quality standards; the granting of financial incentives for geographical mobility of students and staff; and, more recently, the adoption of a strategic marketing approach. Significant efforts are in fact aimed to create a clear European “identity” in higher education, by improving the availability and accessibility of information on studying in Europe and by enhancing the attractiveness, profile, visibility and image of European higher education worldwide. Coherently with the Lisbon Strategy – whose aim was to make the European Union «the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion» by 2010 – a great emphasis has been given to the promotion of the European Union as an educational destination and a centre of excellence at world level. In particular, within the Erasmus Mundus Programme1 several projects have been financed with the aim of promoting and rising awareness of the European higher education sector. Furthermore, within the Erasmus Mundus Global Promotion Project (GPP), a European brand – “Study in Europe” – has been built upon perceived strengths and with the aim to overcome negative perceptions; a web portal has

IntroductionUntil recently, the question of economy's competitiveness was covered by the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs, the primary target of which was, that the European Union should become until 2010 the most competitive and most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth in which there will be more and better jobs and greater social cohesion (Ministry of Finance SR, 2005). In 2010 the Lisbon Strategy was successed by a new strategy developed by the European Commission and called Europe 2020. As in the Lisbon Strategy, also in Europe 2020, the European Commission identified key targets the fulfilment of which, until the year 2020, will contribute to the desired growth and progress in individual Member States, as well as in the European Union overall. The Strategy includes the five following targets (European Commission, 2010):* Employment - 75% of the 20-64 year-olds should be employed;* RD* Climate change/energy - this objective includes three sub-objectives: greenhouse gas emissions should be 20% (or even 30%, if the conditions are right) lower than in 1990; 20% of energy should be from renewable; energy efficiency should increase by about 20%;* Education - this objective includes two sub-objectives expressed by two indicators, namely the rate of early school leavers and population with tertiary education. The first indicator concerns the reduction of early leaving education rate and training of population aged 18 to 24 years below 10%. The second indicator expresses the increase of the population aged 30-34 years who have completed tertiary education for the minimum of 40% in this age group;* Poverty/social exclusion - in the European Union there should be at least 20 million fewer people in or at risk of poverty and social exclusion.The fourth target concerning education isin the focus of our analysis here. Every year, 6 million young Europeans leave school with at best lower secondary education. This currently represents 14% of the 18-24-year-olds, which in turn fuels high levels of youth unemployment (European Commission, 2014b). This is why the European Commission is trying to reduce the number of early school leavers and increase the number of people with tertiary education. The southern countries of the European Union belong according to the most actual Eurostat data among the countries with the highest rate of youth unemployment.In this paper we will analyse the current state of achieving the established targets with the emphasis on the southern countries of the European Union and explore by using regression analysis the estimated development of the related indicators untill 2020.1. Theoretical FrameworkThe Europe 2020 presents an ambitious and comprehensive strategy to guide the EU out of the economic crisis, to ensure macroeconomic stability and to put in place an ambitious structural reform agenda. An essential part of this strategy is the introduction of reforms with a medium - term to long - term horizon that focus on promoting the sustainability of public finances, enhancing potential growth and realising the 2020 objectives (Hobza & Mourre, 2010).Relevance of defined objectives is criticized and their interconnectedness is being discussed. Feasibility of achieving the objectives is a basic issue for the successful fulfillment of the objectives. This issue is solved by Colak and Ege (2013), but also by Leschke, Theodoropoulou, Watt (2012). Roth and Thum (2010) pointed out that the objectives in the area of education are very ambitious and almost impossible to fulfill in a given time horizont.Despite numerous critics, the Europe 2020 was adopted and implemented at the national level. Attention and efforts should therefore focus on fulfillment the objectives at the national level.It is important that European policy-makers understand that the quantity and quality of education will play a key role in maintaining European competitiveness. …

The transition from an industrial towards a post-industrial society involved a shift in global labour markets, from national economies mainly based on the manufacturing sector towards ‘global knowledge economies’, as I showed in Chapter 2. In this context, human capital is considered vital, and a fierce competition exists between countries and world regions to attract and keep the best and brightest in their labour markets.1 With this background of a ‘global competition for talent’, promoting human movement across borders has been repeatedly underlined by the European Commission. The promotion of intra-European mobility was, for example, an essential part of the Lisbon Strategy ‘to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ (European Parliament 2000), and is also of key importance in Europe’s new growth strategy, ‘Europe 2020’. Moreover, as I also argued in Chapter 2, higher education plays a fundamental role in European economic growth strategies. In the Prague communiqué (2001: 1), the European Ministers in charge of Higher Education stated, for example, that the creation of a European Higher Education Area ‘is a condition for enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of higher education institutions in Europe’.

From the very beginning, the Eurozone was conceived as a new brand of economic governance institutions: a single currency, with a single, independent central bank conducting monetary policy according to a simple — and almost single — objective of price stability; and decentralized fiscal policies, in the hands of national governments of member states, with simple fiscal rules — the Stability and Growth Pact — and a minimal , rather informal, coordination institution : the Eurogroup. Alongside the objective of monetary stability, the ambition was to foster further economic integration, convergence in living standards amongst member states and sustained growth. Indeed, the "Lisbon strategy" adopted by the European Council in March 2000, a little more than one year after the launching of European Monetary Union, bravely stated that the objective was to make the EU "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion" by 2010. The successor strategy, adopted in 2010 — "Europe 2020" — posted similar, yet less precise objectives of "smart and inclusive growth." In the minds of its founding fathers, the Eurozone was to be the spearhead of this leap forward in economic and social performance; launched with 11 of the then 15 member states, it would act as a shield from the rest of the world instability and disturbances and would eventually become so successful as to attract all EU member states, including those (Denmark and the UK) that had willingly opted out from the beginning, and those (Central and Eastern European Countries) that would join the EU a few years later.

In March 2000, the Lisbon European Council set the goal of becoming by 2010 “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion”. This was called the Lisbon Strategy. The project of creating a European Research Area (ERA) was endorsed as a central element of the Lisbon Strategy to achieve this goal. However, EU still invests too little in R & D. In 2003, top 500 private R & D spenders in EU decreased their R & D investment by 2.0%. Top 500 private R & D spenders outside EU increased their R & D investment by 3.9%. Overall R D US: 2.59%; S. Korea: 2.91%; Japan: 3.12%. ERA is implemented through so-called Framework Programmes (FP). FP7 is proposed on the basis of a doubling of funds and the duration is 7 years (2007-13). FP7 will fund R& D projects of immediate industrial relevance & needs of industry. Projects will include both public research institutions and private companies (PPP). FOUR MAJOR COMPONENTS OF EUROPEAN RESEARCH IN FP7: I. Cooperation: COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH COMPONENT Support transnational cooperation in 9 themes: 1. Health 2. Food, agriculture and biotechnology 3. Information and communication technologies 4. Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies 5. Energy 6. Environment and Climate Change 7. Transport and Aeronautics 8. Socio-economic sciences and the humanities 9. Space and Security Research

“The Union has today set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” was proudly declared at the March 2000 European Council summit in Lisbon, when the Heads of State and Government agreed on a common strategy for sustainable growth, the so-called Lisbon strategy. Although work has been done to stimulate economic reforms within the EU ever since the summit, the results so far have been meagre. The EU is therefore currently discussing a renewed Lisbon strategy and the necessity of “putting the work in a higher gear”.

INTRODUCTION At the Lisbon European summit in 2000, the Union set itself an ambitious goal for the next decade: ‘to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’. With a view to realise this socio-economic agenda, ‘a [new] open method of coordination’ (OMC) was introduced ‘as the means of spreading best practice and achieving greater convergence towards the main EU goals’. The Lisbon strategy built upon previous coordination processes in the economic (Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, 1992) and employment (European Employment Strategy, 1997) fields so that the OMC was new only to the extent that it provided a new legitimising discourse around which past and novel practices could crystallise. Since then, the OMC has become ‘the central tool of EU social policymaking in the new millennium’, for, the social inclusion process , established in 2000 with a view ‘to make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty’, would later be complemented by a pensions process (2001) and a health care and long-term care process (2004). As from 2006, the three processes were streamlined into a single social OMC with the following elements: – Common objectives were endorsed by the European Council in March 2006, with both overarching and specific objectives for each strand of the social OMC; – Common indicators were also agreed by the Social Protection Committee (SPC) with a view to measure Member States’ progress towards the common objectives; – Every three years, Member States would translate common objectives into National Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion , with a common section presenting their overall strategic approach and three thematic plans covering, respectively, social inclusion, pensions, and healthcare and longterm care; – The strategies would then be sent to the Commission with a view to monitor progress in a Joint Social Protection and Social Inclusion Report to be drafted every year for Council/Commission adoption prior to each Spring European Council; – The different elements of the social OMC were supported by Progress , a programme which financed the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the fields of employment and social affairs for the period 2007–2013.

In July 2001 the European Commission issued a Green Paper entitled Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. The paper was elaborated by the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs. It focused on companies’ responsibilities in the social field. The term ‘corporate social responsibility (CSR) emerged from discourses and statements delivered by companies reflecting upon, even praising, their own functioning. The European Union's concern with the topic is rooted in the expressed conviction that CSR can be a positive contribution to the strategic goal set in Lisbon ‘to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ (European Commission 2001: 4). This article seeks to examine the Green Paper's ‘new speech’ from the conceptual angle of collective labour law. It assesses the legal nature of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as well as its implications, in particular for human and fundamental workers’ rights, and for the trade union movement. It also addresses the question of whether CSR amounts to a new understanding of the freedom of enterprise.

In March 2000, European Union (EU) heads of states and governments agreed on making the EU ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’. To achieve this goal, an overall strategy should be applied, aimed at preparing the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society by better policies for the information society and research and development (R&D), as well as by stepping up the process of structural reform for competitiveness and innovation and by completing the internal market; modernizing the European social model, investing in people and combating social exclusion; and sustaining the healthy economic outlook and favourable growth prospects by applying an appropriate macro-economic policy mix.