EU Cluster Development Strategy
-
Upload
eoin-killian-costello -
Category
Documents
-
view
27 -
download
0
description
Transcript of EU Cluster Development Strategy
European Cluster Observatory
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard
Pilot Version
September 2013
Enterprise and Industry
The views expressed in this report, as well as the information included in it, do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission and in no way commit the institution.
Extension of the European Cluster Observatory, Promoting better policies to develop world-class clusters in Europe Contract N° 71/PP/ENT/CIP/11/N04C031
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard Pilot Version
Authors: Laurent Probst, Erica Monfardini, Laurent Frideres, and Nuray Unlu Bohn, PwC Luxembourg.
Coordination: Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, Directorate D – “SMEs and Entrepreneurship”, Unit D5 – “SMEs: Clusters & Emerging Industries
Coordination: Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, Directorate D – “SMEs and Entrepreneurship”, Unit D5 – “SMEs: Clusters & Emerging Industries”.
European Union, July 2012.
This work is part of a service contract for the Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General of the European Commission. This report is financed under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) which aims to encourage the competitiveness of European enterprises.
Executive summary
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 3
Executive summary
The European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard Pilot Version applies the scoreboard methodology for measuring
regional strength in emerging industries developed under the European Cluster Observatory to three emerging
industries in the fields of creative industries, eco industries and mobile services. The pilot scoreboard is composed of
three key elements: the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions), firm strength, and
effective business support services (part of cluster management excellence). Empirical results for the scoreboard were
compiled through a questionnaire survey with 741 respondents (of which 568 are from firms) across 10 identified
regional hotspots, namely: Berlin, Catalonia (Barcelona), North Holland (Amsterdam) and Inner London for creative
industries; the Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen), Lombardy (Milan) and Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur
(Marseille) for eco industries; and Attiki (Athens), South Finland (Helsinki) and Vienna for mobile services.
According to the survey results, the three most important factors boosting the regional strength of emerging
industries are the market knowledge and innovation capacity of firms, their human capital, and their entrepreneurial
nature. As far as the regional business environment is concerned, financial and knowledge factors are viewed most
important. Business support services are, overall, less important compared to the regional business environment and
the strength of firms. Of the different business support services assessed, support for finding external collaboration
partners, support for access to finance and support for internationalisation are rated highest.
Significant weaknesses in the regional business environments can be observed across the 10 regions. Most notable is
the lack of available financing. Stakeholders in all regions rated financing as insufficient. Lombardy, Catalonia and
Attiki (Athens) rank lowest for this factor. Regulatory and policy as well as support framework conditions also score
overwhelmingly negatively. Only the Capital Region of Denmark and South Finland have slightly positive scores for
these two factors. The outlook on the market is also negative overall. North Holland, Inner London, Berlin, South
Finland and Vienna score slightly positively for this factor but all of the southern European regions surveyed have a
negative outlook on their markets.
The three factors deemed most important for the strength of firms – market knowledge and innovation capacity,
human capital and entrepreneurship – are also rated highest in terms of their availability. There is, however, a
significant gap between importance and availability for these and for the other factors. Internationalisation and
access to finance score the lowest amongst the factors measuring the strength of firms. The northern European
regions score better in terms of firm strength compared to the southern regions included in the survey.
Effective business support services are lacking across all the regions included in the survey with most stakeholders
stating that there is insufficient availability of effective services in their region. The two factors where firm strength
was rated lowest are also those where corresponding business support services are widely unavailable: support for
access to finance and support for internationalisation. The two regions with the most significant gaps for this element
are Catalonia and Attiki (Athens).
This pilot scoreboard is part of a number of reports prepared in the framework of the extension of the European
Cluster Observatory. The methodology applied by this scoreboard to measure regional strength in emerging
industries is described in more detail in a separate methodology report. The definitions of emerging industries are
detailed in the methodology report for the classification of the most active, significant and relevant new emerging
industrial sectors. Emerging industries can be defined as the establishment of an entirely new industrial value chain,
or the radical reconfiguration of an existing one, driven by a disruptive idea (or convergence of ideas), leading to
turning these ideas/opportunities into new products/services with higher added value. The scoreboard results are
complemented by three case studies on industry-specific framework conditions for the development of world-class
clusters in creative industries, eco industries and mobile services. The methodology for the case studies is described
in a separate report on the identification and benchmarking of ideal framework conditions. Furthermore, a policy
roadmap prepared by the European Forum for Clusters in Emerging Industries (EFCEI) introduces
recommendations for actions for new linkages to promote the development of emerging industries through clusters in
Europe. All reports – together with further maps by country, industry and indicators – can be found at
http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/index.html#!view=aboutobservatory;url=/about-observatory/emerging-
industries/ and http://www.emergingindustries.eu/.
Table of Contents
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 4
Table of contents
1. Introduction 7
1.1. Analytical framework 7
1.2. Methodology 8
1.3. Evidence base 8
1.4. Respondent profiles 9
1.4.1. Firms 9
1.4.2. Policy makers, government agencies and regional development agencies 11
1.4.3. Cluster management organisations 12
1.4.4. Business support organisations 14
1.4.5. Investors 15
1.4.6. Research, academia or technology transfer organisations 18
1.5. Analytical structure of the pilot scoreboard 19
2. Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries 20
2.1. The importance of the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions) 20
2.2. The importance of the strength of firms 22
2.3. The importance of the availability of business support services 24
2.4. Summary of findings 26
3. Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions) 27
3.1. Comparing emerging industries: the strength of regional business environments 28
3.1.1. Creative industries: regional business environment scores by region 30
3.1.2. Eco industries: regional business environment scores by region 31
3.1.3. Mobile services: regional business environment scores by region 32
3.2. Comparing the strength of regional business environments: regional rankings by factor 33
3.3. Summary of findings 36
4. Indicators of firm strength 37
4.1. Comparing emerging industries: firm strength in the different regions 38
4.1.1. Creative industries: firm strength scores by region 40
4.1.2. Eco industries: firm strength scores by region 41
4.1.3. Mobile services: firm strength scores by region 42
4.2. Comparing firm strength: regional rankings by factor 43
4.3. Summary of findings 45
5. Effective business support services 46
Table of Contents
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 5
5.1. Comparing emerging industries: the availability of effective business support services 47
5.1.1. Creative industries: availability of effective business support services scores by region 49
5.1.2. Eco industries: availabilty of effective business support services scores by region 50
5.1.3. Mobile services: availabilty of effective business support services scores by region 51
5.2. Comparing the availability of effective business support services: regional rankings by type of service 52
5.3. Summary of findings 55
6. Firm performance (output indicators) 56
6.1. Comparing emerging industries: firm performance 57
6.1.1. Creative industries: firm performance scores by region 58
6.1.2. Eco industries: firm performance scores by region 59
6.1.3. Mobile services: firm performance scores by region 60
6.2. Comparing firm performance indicators: scores by region 61
6.3. Comparing cluster firms with non-cluster firms 64
6.4. Summary of findings 68
7. Aggregate scores and indicators 69
7.1. Regional rankings for the different elements measuring regional strength in emerging industries 70
7.1.1. Rankings based on availability scores 70
7.1.2. Rankings based on composite indicators measuring both importance and availability 72
7.2. Scores measuring regional strength of emerging industries 74
7.2.1. Importance scores for different factors by region 74
7.2.2. Availability scores for different factors by region 75
7.2.3. Composite indicators assessing importance and availability of different factors by region 76
7.3. Comparing composite indicator scores and firm performance 77
8. Conclusions 79
Appendix A. - Scorecard for creative industries in Berlin 80
A.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 80
A.2. Composite indicators 81
Appendix B. - Scorecard for creative industries in Catalonia (Barcelona) 82
B.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 82
B.2. Composite indicators 83
Appendix C. - Scorecard for creative industries in North Holland (Amsterdam) 84
C.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 84
C.2. Composite indicators 85
Appendix D. - Scorecard for creative industries in Inner London 86
Table of Contents
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 6
D.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 86
D.2. Composite indicators 87
Appendix E. - Scorecard for eco industries in the Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen) 88
E.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 88
E.2. Composite indicators 89
Appendix F. - Scorecard for eco industries in Lombardy (Milan) 90
F.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 90
F.2. Composite indicators 91
Appendix G. - Scorecard for eco industries in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille) 92
G.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 92
G.2. Composite indicators 93
Appendix H. - Scorecard for mobile services in Attiki (Athens) 94
H.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 94
H.2. Composite indicators 95
Appendix I. - Scorecard for mobile services in South Finland (Helsinki) 96
I.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 96
I.2. Composite indicators 97
Appendix J. - Scorecard for mobile services in Vienna 98
J.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries 98
J.2. Composite indicators 99
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 7
1. Introduction
1.1. Analytical framework
The objective of the pilot version of the European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard is to measure regional strength
in emerging industries in order to assess and identify in what way clusters can provide support for the
development of emerging industries. This pilot scoreboard focuses on a selection of hotspots, i.e. regions which
are in an advanced stage of development for a given emerging industry. In order to obtain results that are
comparable across industries, the scoreboard focuses on general indicators that apply to all emerging
industries, with no particular focus on a specific emerging industry.
The scoreboard indicators measure three key elements of regional strength in emerging industries (Figure 1):
regional business environment (framework conditions), firm strength, and business support services (part of
cluster management excellence). Effective business support services when provided by a cluster management
organisation are one aspect of cluster management excellence but it should be noted that there are additional
benchmarking indicators for cluster management excellence that are not included in the scoreboard1. The three
key elements will be assessed along seven different dimensions: finance, industrial, market, cultural (including
human capital and entrepreneurship), knowledge, regulatory & policy, support, and output & performance.
Figure 1: Typology of indicators to measure regional strength in emerging industries
KEY ELEMENTS
Regional business environment (framework
conditions) Firm strength
Business support services (part of cluster management
excellence)
DIM
EN
SIO
NS
Finance Financial framework conditions Access to funding Supporting access to finance
Industrial Industrial framework conditions
National and international partnerships
Internationalisation
Supporting internal networking
Supporting partnership initialisation with external
partners
Supporting internationalisation
Market Market framework conditions
Cultural Cultural framework conditions Human capital
Entrepreneurship
Supporting talent search and retention
Supporting entrepreneurship
Knowledge Knowledge framework conditions Market knowledge and innovation
capacity
Supporting research, development and innovation
(RDI)
Regulatory & policy
Regulatory and policy framework conditions
Support Support framework conditions
Output & performance Profitability and productivity
The indicators are focused primarily on enablers or inputs for regional strength. Output is measured at the firm
level in terms of profitability and productivity. Output at the regional or emerging industry level is assessed by
aggregating firm-level output data at the level of a given region or emerging industry. Business support services
1 See http://www.cluster-analysis.org/ for further details.
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 8
are measured in terms of the availability of excellent services at the regional level and, in the case of clusters, in
terms of the quality of services provided by the cluster management organisation to the cluster participants.
1.2. Methodology
The methodology for the European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard (ECES) is detailed in depth in the scoreboard
methodology report2. A survey-based approach was proposed in the methodology report in order to collect very
specific, targeted and timely data on the key indicators and critical success factors for measuring the strength of
regions in each emerging industry. The stakeholder groups targeted by the survey include firms, policy makers,
cluster management organisations, business support organisations, investors and academia.
The questionnaire survey for the scoreboard included five main sections: (a) a profile or the respondent and
organisation, (b) factors boosting the strength of emerging industries, (c) characteristics of the regional
business environment, (d) indicators of firm strength, (e) effective business support services, and (f) firm
performance indicators. The specific questions asked for each set of indicators are listed at the start of the
relevant chapter analysing the results.
1.3. Evidence base
The pilot survey for the ECES was conducted between February and April 2013. Based on the recommendations
of experts at the third meeting of the European Forum for Clusters in Emerging Industries (EFCEI) in
November 2012, the number of hotspots surveyed for the pilot scoreboard was reduced to 10 in order to
increase the number of respondents per hotspots and thus reliability and representativeness of the survey
results. To increase reliability, the survey was also restricted to three of the seven identified emerging
industries, namely: creative industries, eco industries and mobile services.
Potential respondents were approached by email and asked to fill in an online questionnaire made available in
five languages: English, German, French, Italian and Spanish. Two reminders were sent to follow up on the
initial invitation. The response rate varied between different regions and stakeholder groups. Overall it reached
around 10 percent of the targeted population. The final number of respondents significantly exceeds the
estimated 350-450 responses proposed in the scoreboard methodology (Table 1).
2 Available at: http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/index.html#!view=documents;mode=one;sort=name;uid=e1d0c407-b9cd-4d44-a6fb-20da7f4e820e;id=
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 9
Table 1: Number of respondents per region and stakeholder group
Region Firms Policy CMOs
Business support
Investors Academia Total
Cre
ati
ve
ind
ust
ries
Berlin 67 2 1 7 4 6 87
Catalonia (Barcelona) 60 4 1 2 1 4 72
North Holland (Amsterdam)
28 1 2 12 6 5 54
Inner London 48 3 5 3 3 62
Eco
in
du
stri
es
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
34 3 2 6 2 4 51
Lombardy (Milan) 55 3 3 6 3 4 74
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
31 2 1 1 2 37
Mo
bil
e se
rvic
es Attiki (Athens) 85 2 2 3 2 12 106
South Finland (Helsinki) 103 4 5 6 5 1 124
Vienna 57 5 3 3 1 5 74
Total 568 29 19 51 28 46 741
1.4. Respondent profiles
1.4.1. Firms
The vast majority of firm respondents represent small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and nearly three
quarters SMEs with fewer than 50 employees (Figure 2). Seven percent of respondents are from start-ups (0-2
years) and 15% from young firms (3-5 years) – see Figure 3. The majority of surveyed firms have been
established for more than 10 years. Family and/or privately owned or initiated businesses make up nearly three
quarters of responses (Figure 4). Start-ups established from another firm make up 12% of respondents. Most
surveyed firms are in a more advanced phase of business development with 36% developed within the national
market, 12% within the European market and 27% internationally recognised (Figure 5).
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 10
Figure 2: Firm size
Figure 3: Length of establishment of the firm
Figure 4: Source of establishment of firms
Figure 5: Business phase of firms
39%
35%
19%
7%
<10 10-49 50-249 250 <
7%
15%
21%
20%
37%
0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years6 - 10 years 10 - 15 years> 15 years
73%
2%
12%
2%5%
2% 4%
Family and/or privately owned/initiated businessStart-up formed at an incubatorStart-up formed from another companySpin-off from a university/research institutePublic-private entityA public entityOther
5%
18%
36%12%
27%
2%
Start-up/spin-offUnder developmentDeveloped within the national marketDeveloped within the European marketInternationally recognisedOther
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 11
1.4.2. Policy makers, government agencies and regional development agencies
Amongst the policy maker, government agency or regional development agency respondents about half are
involved in policy making and/or implementation at the regional and national levels, two in five at the
EU/supranational level and one in four at the local level (Figure 6). Two thirds of the policy stakeholders
reported that there are interim evaluations in place in their region (Figure 7). The figure is at about half for ex-
post and ex-ante evaluations.
Figure 6: Level(s) of involvement in policy making and/or implementation
Figure 7: Evaluation processes in place in the region
The participation of different regional stakeholders is part of the policy making process for 78% of respondents
(Figure 8). The level of regional autonomy and the speed at which the policy process can support market access
and the global competitiveness of SMEs is a less common characteristic at 35%. It is worth highlighting that
only half of the respondents considered the policy making process in their region to be flexible enough to adapt
to the changing needs of emerging industries.
Figure 8: Characteristics of the policy making process that respondents are involved in
The vast majority of respondents reported that there are comprehensive or partial policy in place for cluster
development, internationalisation, access to finance, innovation for goods and services, entrepreneurship,
26%
39%
52%
52%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Local level
EU/supranational level
National level
Regional level
Percentage of respondents involved in policy making at each level
52%
52%
65%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ex-ante evaluations
Ex-post evaluations
Interim evaluations
Percentage of respondents indicating that their region has the given
evaluation processes in place
35%
35%
52%
57%
78%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sufficiently quick to support market access and the global competitiveness of SMEs
Relatively autonomous at the regional level, allowing for the adaptation of policies to market needs
Flexible enough to adapt according to the changing needs of emerging industry sectors/customers
Based on the results of customer/market analysis and needs (demand driven)
Includes the participation of different regional stakeholders (academia, investors, industry etc)
Percentage of respondents indicating that the policy making process in their region displays the following characteristics
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 12
market access and human capital development (Figure 9). The most comprehensive policies are for cluster
development and internationalisation.
Figure 9: Policies currently in place in the region
1.4.3. Cluster management organisations
The cluster management organisations (CMOs) surveyed have all been established for at least 3 years (Figure
10). Most of the clusters are assessed as being in the developing phase and about one quarter as mature (Figure
11). Self-financing (e.g. membership fees, services provided, own financial resources) is the most common form
of financing (Figure 12). Public financing accounts for around a quarter of surveyed CMOs.
Figure 10: Length of establishment of the CMO
Figure 11: Life cycle of the cluster
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Human capital development
Market access
Entrepreneurship
Innovation for goods and services
Access to finance
Internationalisation
Cluster development
Percentage of respondents indicating that there are currently policies in place their region for the following
Yes, comprehensive. Yes, partial No, none.
29%
53%
18%
3 - 5 years ago 6 - 10 years ago
> 15 years ago
71%
23%
6%
Developing Mature World-class
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 13
Figure 12: Financing structure of the CMO
The governance characteristics for around two thirds of surveyed CMOs include the involvement of
stakeholders in the identification of cluster strategies and performance monitoring based on key performance
indicators (Figure 13). Only a small percentage has a scientific advisory committee and representatives of other
clusters on the board.
Figure 13: Governance characteristics of the surveyed CMOs
Lack of support for financing is the most significant challenge identified by the CMOs (Figure 14). Additional
challenges that were identified are to secure the long-term involvement of both public and private partners and
to ensure sufficient staffing levels.
41%
12%12%6%
29%
Self-financingPublic Financing – RegionalPublic Financing – NationalPrivate Financing (excluding membership fees)Other
18%
18%
29%
47%
59%
59%
65%
71%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Representatives from other regional/national clusters on the board for boosting collaboration
Presence of a Scientific Advisory Committee composed representatives from academia
Representatives of investors on the board
Presence of an Advisory Committee composed of industry representatives
Representatives of regional authorities and policy makers on the board
Feedback from the board and advisory committees is integrated into the cluster strategy
Performance monitoring is based on objectives and key performance indicators
Involvement of stakeholders in the identification of cluster strategies
Percentage of respondents indicating that the following governance characteristics apply to their organisation
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 14
Figure 14: Major challenges identified by the surveyed CMOs
1.4.4. Business support organisations
The business support organisations surveyed include business incubators, accelerators, coworking spaces,
techno parks, business networks, business associations and other business support organisations. The majority
of the surveyed organisations have fewer than 10 employees and almost 9 in 10 have fewer than 50 employees
(Figure 15). Around half of the organisations have been established for more than 10 years (Figure 16). Self-
financing accounts for 52% of the financing structures of the organisations and 27% receive public financing at
the regional or national levels (Figure 17).
Figure 15: Organisation size
Figure 16: Length of establishment of the organisation
12%
18%
18%
35%
47%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Lack of private funding for the development of the organisation and stragegy implementation
Difficulties in collaborating with other clusters (nationally and/or internationally)
Lack of involvement of cluster stakeholders in strategy development and implementation
Difficulties in assessing cluster performance (due to e.g. a lack of commonly agreed methods)
Lack of regional/national/supra-national support for financing and development of the organisation
Percentage of respondents indicating that their organisation is facing the following major challenges
55%34%
2%9%
<10 10-49 50-249 250 <
4%
18%
28%
14%
36%
0 - 2 years 3 - 5 years6 - 10 years 10 - 15 years> 15 years
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 15
Figure 17: Financing structure of the organisation
1.4.5. Investors
Just over half of the surveyed investors are from venture capital firms with smaller shares of business angels,
commercial banks and investment/development agencies (Figure 18). The majority of surveyed investors are
investing in the creative industries (Figure 19). One third is investing in mobile services and one quarter in eco
industries. Other industries targeted include traditional manufacturing and fast-moving consumer goods
(FMCG).
Figure 18: Investor profiles
Figure 19: Share of surveyed investors currently investing in each emerging industry
Prior experience investing in a particular industry is the most important prerequisite for investors (Figure 20).
High returns on investment are also important. The level of risk for a particular industry is not determinant
factor for the surveyed investors. The potential for high growth and growth in sales was amongst other reasons
cited.
52%
16%
11%
19%
2%
Self-financingPublic Financing – RegionalPublic Financing – NationalPrivate Financing (excluding membership fees)Other
56%
15%
11%
7%
11%
Venture capital firmBusiness angelCommercial bank
Regional Investment/Development Agency
Other
46%
8%
21%
25%
25%
33%
42%
58%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Others
Maritime industries
Personalised medicine
Eco industries
Experience industries
Mobile services
Mobility industries
Creative industries
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 16
Figure 20: Reasons for investing in particular industries
The preferred stages for investment are the initial growth stage as well as the internationalisation and
commercialisation stages of innovative products and services (Figure 21). The research, development and
innovation and pilot test stages are less popular.
Figure 21: Preferred stage(s) of the company life cycle for investment
The single most critical factor when investing in a company, identified by all of the surveyed investors, is the
quality of the entrepreneur and top management (Figure 22). The market knowledge of the entrepreneur and
top management is also seen as critical by two thirds of respondents. The uniqueness of the technology or
business concept is seen as critical by half. Less critical are the involvement of a company in a cluster and
supportive regional and national policies.
13%
4%
8%
54%
79%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Others
Low levels of risk for a particular industry
Attendance at investors' awareness …
High returns on investment
Due to previous experiences in these industries
Percentage of respondents indicating that they are investing in particular industries for the following reasons
8%
8%
17%
21%
25%
25%
46%
50%
50%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Pilot testing of innovative products/processing/services
Research, Development and Innovation
Incubation
Manufacturing of innovative products
Marketing of innovative products/services
Commercialisation of innovative products/services
Initial growth stage
Internationalisation of innovative products/services
Percentage of respondents indicating a preference for investing in the following stages of the company life cycle
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 17
Figure 22: Most critical factors when investing in a company
The most important skills and qualities sought for in an entrepreneur are leadership and vision as well as
market knowledge (Figure 23). A global vision for internationalisation, communication and collaboration skills,
and a successful track record in a related business area are also important. Less sought after are a successful
track record in a business of similar maturity and financial skills.
Figure 23: Skills and qualities sought for in an entrepreneur
4%
4%
8%
21%
21%
33%
50%
63%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Supportive regional and national policies
Involvement in a cluster
Maturity of the company
Reputation of the company
Solidity of the intellectual property
Uniqueness of the technology or business concept
Market knowledge of the entrepreneur / top management
Quality of the entrepreneur / top management
Percentage of respondents indicating that the following factors are the most critical when investing in a company
21%
25%
33%
42%
46%
54%
54%
67%
71%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Financial skills (fund raising, fund management, etc)
Successful track record in a business of similar maturity
Analytical skills
Management skills
Successful track record in a related business area
Communication and collaborative skills
Global vision for internationalisation
Market knowledge (market access, market needs, etc)
Leadership and vision
Percentage of respondents indicating that the following skills and qualities are what they are most looking for in an entrepreneur
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 18
1.4.6. Research, academia or technology transfer organisations
Around two thirds of the respondents for academia stakeholders are currently working for a university and one
fifth for a research centre or institute (Figure 24). Other educational institutions make up 6% of respondents
and technology transfer organisations 4%.
Figure 24: Institutional representation
In terms of collaboration activities, joint RDI with other institutions is rated highest in terms of intensity by the
respondents, followed by joint projects and joint publications (Figure 25). Joint ventures with industry are less
significant in terms of intensity.
Figure 25: Intensity of different types of collaboration activities (average scores)
The research agendas of the respondents are mostly, although not completely, aligned with different
development targets and focus areas, with average alignment scores above three on a five point scale (Figure
26). The scores are higher for global, EU and national targets compared to objectives at the cluster level and
regional economic development priorities.
63%21%
6%
4% 6%
UniversityResearch Centre/InstituteEducational InstitutionTechnology Transfer Organisation (TTO)Other
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Joint ventures with industry
Joint publications with other institutions
Joint projects (e.g. FP7 projects)
Joint RDI with universities, research institutions or industry
very highvery low
Introduction
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 19
Figure 26: Extent to which research agendas are aligned with different targets, focus areas, objectives and priorities (average scores)
1.5. Analytical structure of the pilot scoreboard
Chapter 2 presents the results for the importance of different factors for boosting the strength of emerging
industries. These factors relate to the three key elements covered by the scoreboard: the strength of the regional
business environment, the strength of firms, and the importance of the availability of business support services.
Results are presented for each element for all emerging industries combined, as separate scores for the three
emerging industries, and for firm and non-firm respondents.
Chapter 3 investigates the strength of regional business environments in terms of the availability of different
underpinning components. Availability is assessed for the three different emerging industries and as perceived
by firm and no-firm stakeholders. Results are presented in the form of spider charts reporting the scores for all
factors by region and as ranked bar charts for comparing the strength of different framework conditions across
regions. Chapters 4 and 5 provide the same assessment on the availability of different factors as chapter 3 but
focused on the two other elements focused on indicators of firm strength and effective business support
services.
Chapter 6 deals with the output indicators for firm performance. The latter is measured as growth in
employment, annual revenues, output, profits, and the number of innovative products and services. Results are
presented using stacked bar charts showing the percentage of firms having experienced a decrease, no change
or increases (slight, moderate or significant) for the five performance indicators over the three year period prior
to the survey. Firm performance is compared for the different indicators by region and for the same indicators
between regions. This chapter also includes a comparative analysis of the performance of firms participating in
a cluster initiative with the performance of firms not participating in a cluster initiative.
Chapter 7 presents aggregate importance and availability scores and composite indicators for the different
elements and factors boosting the strength of emerging industries. It provides regional rankings based on
availability scores and based on composite indicators (measuring both importance and availability) for the
three key elements of the scoreboard. This chapter also includes tables listing all the importance scores,
availability scores, and composite indicator scores for the different elements and factors by region. The final
section focuses on comparing the indicator scores for regional business environments and business support
services with firm performance scores.
The appendices consist in two-page scorecards for each of the 10 hotspots. The scorecards regroup the key
charts measuring the strength in emerging industries for each regional hotspot on the first page and provide a
brief summary and recommendations. The second page of each scorecard graphically presents the scores for the
composite indicators, summarising the strength of each regional hotspot for the three key elements as well as
overall for the three elements combined.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Priority areas identified in the regional economic development strategy
The strategic vision and objectives of your regional cluster(s)
National development priorities and targets
Research focus areas identified at the EU level
Global societal, environmental and/or energy targets
completelynot at all
Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 20
2. Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries
This chapter investigates the importance of different factors for boosting the strength of emerging industries
including: (i) the strength of regional business environments (framework conditions), (ii) the strength of firms,
and (iii) the availability of business support services. All the graphs in this chapter measure importance on a
scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least important and 5 is the most important.
2.1. The importance of the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
The importance of different dimensions of strength of regional business environments or framework conditions
was assessed with the following question:
How would you rate the importance of the following factors for the strength of your regional
business environment? Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the following factors on a
scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least important and 5 is the most important.
Financial – presence of actors providing funds to support firms, the availability of funds meeting the specific funding needs of your industry, the ease with which funds can be accessed
Industrial – critical mass of other companies in your industry and related industries, well established support structure like incubators and accelerators, communications and transport infrastructure
Market – a critical mass of consumers, a consumer driven market, ease of exchanging goods and services, the level of collaboration and competition, ease of establishing and running a business
Cultural - a set of shared attitudes, values, goals and practices in the region, an entrepreneurial culture, a strong regional labour force with qualified workers for a range of skills
Knowledge – higher education and research institutions in industry specific fields, technology transfer organisations and shared technology platforms, sector specific courses or training
Regulatory and policy – presence of a favourable regulatory environment, alignment of different policies to support the growth of specific industries, public consultations in the policy making process
Support – presence of measures to boost the growth of specific industries through training, business and legal advice, supporting knowledge transfer, access to finance, internationalisation, etc.
Financial and knowledge factors are deemed most important for the strength of regional business environments
(Figure 27). The scores for all dimensions are above 3, indicating that overall, they are seen as important.
Support is rated as least important.
Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 21
Figure 27: Importance of different factors for the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions): all emerging industries
There are some variations between the three emerging industries in terms of how stakeholders view the
importance of different factors for the strength of the regional business environment (Figure 28). For the
creative industries, the cultural factors rank highest overall, followed by market and financial factors.
Regulatory and policy factors are seen as less important for the creative industries. For the eco industries, on
the other hand, regulatory and policy ranks higher as the second most important factor after financial.
Figure 28: Importance of different factors for the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions): scores by emerging industry
A comparison of the ratings assigned by firm and non-firm respondents shows that non-firm respondents rated
all seven factors as more important compared to firm respondents (Figure 29). The most significant differences
can be observed for the industrial, regulatory and policy and support factors.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Support
Industrial
Regulatory and policy
Cultural
Market
Knowledge
Financial
most importantleast important most importantleast important
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Financial
Industrial
Market
Cultural
Knowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
Creative industries Eco industries Mobile services
most importantleast important
Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 22
Figure 29: Importance of different factors for the strength of the regional business environment (framework conditions): scores for firm and non-firm respondents
2.2. The importance of the strength of firms
The importance of different dimensions of the strength of firms was assessed with the following question:
How would you rate the importance of the following factors for the successful growth and
sustainable development of your firm? Respondents were asked to rank the importance of the
following factors on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least important and 5 is the most important.
Access to funding
National and international partnerships
Internationalisation (exports to and/or presence in other countries)
Human capital (employees with experience and expertise)
Entrepreneurship
Market knowledge and innovation capacity
Market knowledge and innovation capacity, human capital and entrepreneurship all received average scores
above 4, indicating that these three factors are very important for the strength of firms (Figure 30). Access to
funding, partnerships and internationalisation ranked lower with most respondents rating their importance for
firm strength at around 3.6.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Financial
Industrial
Market
Cultural
Knowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
Firms Non-firm respondents
most importantleast important
Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 23
Figure 30: Importance of different factors for firm strength: all emerging industries
Overall, the ratings for the importance of firm strength factors are quite consistent (Figure 31). Access to
funding and internationalisation are more important for the eco industries compared to mobile services and the
creative industries. Partnerships are more important for mobile services compared to the other two emerging
industries. There is little difference in the way in which different emerging industry stakeholders rated market
knowledge and innovation capacity.
Figure 31: Importance of different factors for firm strength: scores by emerging industry
Market knowledge and innovation capacity are rated somewhat higher by firms compared to non-firm
respondents (Figure 32). The importance of human capital and entrepreneurship was rated similarly. A notable
difference can be observed for access to funding, which non-firm respondents rated significantly higher
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Internationalisation
Partnerships
Access to funding
Entrepreneurship
Human Capital
Market knowledge and innovation capacity
most importantleast important
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Access to funding
Partnerships
Internationalisation
Human Capital
Entrepreneurship
Market knowledge and innovation capacity
Creative industries Eco industries Mobile services
most importantleast important
Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 24
compared to firm respondents. Internationalisation and partnerships are also seen as more important by non-
firm stakeholders.
Figure 32: Importance of different factors for firm strength: scores for firm and non-firm respondents
2.3. The importance of the availability of business support services
The importance of different dimensions of the strength of firms was assessed with the following question:
How would you rate the importance of the following business support services being
available in your region? Respondents were asked to rank the importance of the following factors on a
scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least important and 5 is the most important.
Support for access to funding
Support for information exchanges and matchmaking amongst firms in the region
Support for collaborative R&D and/or technology transfer
Support for human resource development
Support for entrepreneurship development
Support for networking and finding external cooperation partners
Support for internationalisation
Business support services are seen as important overall as all types of services rank above 3. Support for
external networking, access to finance and internationalisation are the business support services that are rated
as most important for all emerging industries (Figure 33). Support for internal networking and support for HR
development are viewed as less important.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Access to funding
Partnerships
Internationalisation
Human Capital
Entrepreneurship
Market knowledge and innovation capacity
Firms Non-firm respondents
most importantleast important
Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 25
Figure 33: Importance of the availability of different business support services for all emerging industries
There are some differences in the importance attached to different types of business support services by
stakeholders from different emerging industries (Figure 34). Business support services appear to be most
important for the eco industries, for which stakeholders rated all except one type of service higher than the
other emerging industries. These services are least important for the creative industries. The differences are
most significant for support for collaborative RDI and for support for access to finance, which are more
important for the eco industries compared to the other two emerging industries.
Figure 34: Importance of business support services: scores by emerging industry
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Supporting HR development
Supporting internal networking
Supporting collaborative RDI
Supporting entrepreneurship
Supporting internationalisation
Supporting access to finance
Supporting external networking
most importantleast important
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal networking
Supporting external networking
Supporting internationalisation
Supporting HR development
Supporting entrepreneurship
Supporting collaborative RDI
Creative industries Eco industries Mobile services
most importantleast important
Factors boosting the strength of emerging industries
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 26
Non-firm respondents rated all types of business support services as more important compared to firm
respondents (Figure 35). The biggest differences are for supporting access to finance and supporting
collaborative RDI.
Figure 35: Importance of business support services: scores for firm and non-firm respondents
2.4. Summary of findings
The importance of three different elements for boosting the strength of emerging industries was assessed for
the pilot scoreboard: the strength of the regional business environment, the strength of firms and the
availability of business support services. All the factors rated for the different elements received average scores
above 3 on a scale of 1 to 5, indicating that they are seen as important for the strength of emerging industries.
Overall, the importance of factors for the strength of firms was rated highest for market knowledge and
innovation capacity, human capital and entrepreneurship, all of which received average scores above 4.
Financial and knowledge factors are most important for the strength of the regional business environment. The
importance of business support services was rated lowest overall. Support for external networking and for
internationalisation as well as support for access to finance were rated highest amongst the different types of
business support services.
There is a degree of consistency in the way in which different emerging industries rate the importance of
different elements and factors although some notable differences can be observed. One noteworthy difference in
rating is for regulatory and policy, which is significantly more important for eco industries. Business support
services are also more important overall for the eco industries compared to the two other emerging industries.
With only a couple of exceptions, non-firm respondents rated the importance of the different factors higher
compared to firm respondents, with the most significant difference being observed for business support
services.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal networking
Supporting external networking
Supporting internationalisation
Supporting HR development
Supporting entrepreneurship
Supporting collaborative RDI
Firms Non-firm respondents
most importantleast important
Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 27
3. Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
This chapter investigates the availability of different factors that underpin the strength of regional business
environments (framework conditions). All the graphs in this chapter measure availability on a scale of 1 to 5.
Values below 3 indicate that stakeholders disagreed that a given factor was available within the region and
values above 3 indicate that it was available.
Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements related to the different
dimensions of strength of regional business environments. The questions were as follows:
For all the statements on this page, please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 is
‘strongly agree’.
Financial characteristics
◦ In your region, there are sufficient funds available to companies. ◦ In your region, funding can be accessed in good time and with ease. ◦ In your region, there are effective support systems for accessing different types of funding
(business plan development support, signposting of funding opportunities, etc.).
Industrial characteristics
◦ Your region has a critical mass of companies in our sector or related sectors. ◦ Your region has well established technology parks, co-working spaces, incubators and/or
accelerators to boost the development of the industrial base. ◦ Your region has a good infrastructure (communication, energy, transport, etc.).
Market characteristics
◦ In your region, it is straightforward and not too costly to establish and run a business. ◦ In your region, there is a critical mass of customers and demand in your industry and the market
is consumer-driven. ◦ In your region, facilities are available for pre-commercial testing.
Cultural characteristics
◦ Your region has a qualified labour force and workers are available for a range of skills (managerial, commercial, research, engineering, ICT).
◦ Your region provides incentives for boosting entrepreneurship and attracting and retaining talents (financial resources, support programmes, etc.).
◦ Your region has an entrepreneurial culture.
Knowledge characteristics
◦ In your region, there are universities and/or research institutions undertaking research, development and innovation activities related to your industry.
◦ In your region, there are established technology transfer organisations, design centres and similar organisations.
◦ In your region, there are institutions providing relevant industry-specific training and coaching (including vocational training).
Regulatory and policy characteristics
◦ Your region has a favourable regulatory environment. ◦ Your region has policies that favour the emergence and transformation of industries and that are
aligned with national and European policies. ◦ Your region undertakes public and industrial consultations as part of the policy making process.
Support characteristics
Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 28
◦ In your region, a sufficiently wide range of measures is available to support the development and internationalisation of companies.
◦ In your region, a regional innovation and/or development agency with an established track record is assisting firms effectively in fundraising and business development.
◦ In your region, adequate industry specific support measures have been put in place. ◦ In your region, support is available for entrepreneurs in the crucial phases of the business
lifecycle.
3.1. Comparing emerging industries: the strength of regional business environments
Financial, support and regulatory and policy factors rank lowest in terms of availability for all three emerging
industries (Figure 36). The ratings for these three factors as well as for the market factor are unfavourable with
score below 3. Industrial, knowledge and cultural factors are rated favourably although with relatively low score
overall.
Figure 36: Availability of different factors for the strength of regional business environments (framework conditions) by emerging industry
Firm respondents rated the strength of regional business environments lower for all dimensions compared to
non-firm respondents (Figure 37). The margin between the views of these different stakeholders is particularly
wide for the knowledge and support dimensions.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Financial
Industrial
Market
Cultural
Knowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
Creative industries Eco industries Mobile services
agreedisagree
Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 29
Figure 37: Availability of different factors for the strength of regional business environments (framework conditions) according to firm and non-firm respondents
The following spider charts present the results for the availability scores of the regional business environment
for all factors by regions grouped into the three emerging industries for which they were identified as a hotspot.
The charts for Catalonia (Barcelona) and Attiki (Atthens) show that their business environments are viewed as
the least homogenous regional business environments with some factors such as financial and regulatory and
policy factors representing particular weaknesses compared to other factors that are viewed stronger.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Financial
Industrial
Market
Cultural
Knowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
Firms Non-firm respondents
agreedisagree
Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 30
3.1.1. Creative industries: regional business environment scores by region
Figure 38: Berlin
Figure 39: Catalonia (Barcelona)
Figure 40: North Holland (Amsterdam)
Figure 41: Inner London
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 31
3.1.2. Eco industries: regional business environment scores by region
Figure 42: Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Figure 43: Lombardy (Milan)
Figure 44: Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 32
3.1.3. Mobile services: regional business environment scores by region
Figure 45: Attiki (Athens)
Figure 46: South Finland (Helsinki)
Figure 47: Vienna
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 33
3.2. Comparing the strength of regional business environments: regional rankings by factor
The following graphs rank the regional scores for the different dimensions of strength in regional business
environments. The Capital Region of Denmark achieves the highest score for four of the framework conditions
(industrial, cultural, regulatory and policy and support). South Finland is in the top three for all except the
cultural framework conditions. Attiki ranks consistently in the bottom two and Catalonia in the bottom three.
Figure 48: Financial framework conditions
Figure 49: Industrial framework conditions
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Attiki (Athens)
Lombardy (Milan)
Average (all regions)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Berlin
Inner London
South Finland (Helsinki)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Vienna
agreedisagree agreedisagree
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Attiki (Athens)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Lombardy (Milan)
Average (all regions)
Vienna
Berlin
Inner London
South Finland (Helsinki)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
agreedisagree
Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 34
Figure 50: Market framework conditions
Figure 51: Cultural framework conditions
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Lombardy (Milan)
Average (all regions)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Berlin
Vienna
South Finland (Helsinki)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Inner London
agreedisagree
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Vienna
Average (all regions)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Inner London
Berlin
Lombardy (Milan)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
agreedisagree
Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 35
Figure 52: Knowledge framework conditions
Figure 53: Regulatory and policy framework conditions
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Attiki (Athens)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Inner London
Average (all regions)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Lombardy (Milan)
Vienna
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Berlin
agreedisagree
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Attiki (Athens)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Lombardy (Milan)
Average (all regions)
Vienna
Berlin
Inner London
North Holland (Amsterdam)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
agreedisagree
Characteristics of the regional business environment (framework conditions)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 36
Figure 54: Support framework conditions
3.3. Summary of findings
Knowledge, industrial and cultural factors are rated as slight strengths in the regional business environments
surveyed for the pilot scoreboard. Regulatory and policy, support, market and financial factors are rated as
weaknesses with average scores below 3.
Industrial factors are rated stronger for the creative industries and for the market factor there is a particular
weakness for the eco industries. Aside from these two aspects for the creative and eco industries, the strength of
the regional business environment is rated fairly similarly by stakeholders across all three emerging industries.
Non-firm respondents rate the strength of regional business environments consistently higher than firm
respondents. The difference is particularly marked for knowledge, support, and regulatory and policy factors.
There are significant differences in the strength of regional business environments across the 10 regions
surveyed. No region ranks favourably for all factors. Financial framework conditions are the weakest, scoring
unfavourable in all regions and very low for Catalonia and Attiki. Support framework conditions and regulatory
and policy framework conditions are also unfavourable in all but two regions (the Capital Region of Denmark
and South Finland). The highest scores are obtained for industrial and knowledge framework conditions.
There is a particularly notable difference in market framework conditions between the northern and southern
regions. Attiki, Catalonia, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur and Lombardy have weak market scores below the
average for all regions. Inner London, North Holland, South Finland, Vienna and Berlin on the other hand have
positive, although only slightly positive, market scores.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Average (all regions)
Lombardy (Milan)
Berlin
Inner London
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Vienna
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
agreedisagree
Indicators of firm strength
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 37
4. Indicators of firm strength
This chapter investigates the availability of different factors that underpin the strength of firms. All the graphs
in this chapter measure availability on a scale of 1 to 5. Values below 3 indicate that stakeholders disagreed that
a given factor was available within the region and values above 3 indicate that it was available.
Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements related to the different
dimensions of firm strength. Respondents rated the extent to which a given characteristic applies to their firm
(or firms in their region). The questions were as follows:
For all the statements on this page, please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 is
‘strongly agree’.
Access to funding
◦ Your firm reinvests a significant share of its revenues into its activities. ◦ Your firm has sufficient access to public funding. ◦ Your firm has sufficient access to private funding. ◦ Your firm is able to raise funds in an acceptable time frame.
National and international contracts
◦ Your firm has established contracts with other firms or institutions in the region or within the cluster.
◦ Your firm has contracts with companies in different sectors. ◦ Your firm has contracts with companies based in other countries.
Internationalisation
◦ Your firm has been successful in attracting foreign investment. ◦ Your firm has been successful in exporting its products and/or services to several foreign
countries. ◦ Your firm is benefitting from having established operations in several other countries.
Human Capital
◦ Your firm has been able to attract and retain talents. ◦ Your firm takes advantage of the experience and expertise of its employees. ◦ Your firm offers attractive wages adapted to the local cost of living.
Entrepreneurship
◦ Your firm’s leadership team has a strong track record in raising funds. ◦ Your firm’s leadership team includes one or several serial entrepreneurs. ◦ Your firm’s leadership regularly reviews and adapts its strategic plans based on changing
customer needs.
Market knowledge and innovation capacity
◦ Your firm identifies and seizes market opportunities and manages new market entries effectively. ◦ Your firm is effective at transforming ideas and innovations into products and services. ◦ Your firm invests into the development of new products and services addressing global markets.
Indicators of firm strength
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 38
4.1. Comparing emerging industries: firm strength in the different regions
The main firm strengths identified are human capital and market knowledge and innovation capacity (Figure
55). Entrepreneurship and national and international agreements are also rated somewhat favourably.
Internationalisation, which was rated as the least important of the factors for firm strength, also ranks lowest in
terms of availability with an unfavourable rating for all three emerging industries. Access to funding is judged
neither as strength nor as a weakness of firms. Overall, the scores between different industries are quite similar.
National and international agreements and internationalisation rank more favourable for mobile services and
the eco industries respectively.
Figure 55: Availability of different factors for the strength of firms by emerging industry
Firm respondents assess the strengths of firms more favourably overall compared to non-firm respondents
(Figure 56). The difference is most significant for human capital and it is also notable for entrepreneurship and
market knowledge and innovation capacity. For internationalisation, firms identified this as a weakness
whereas other stakeholders saw this factor as a slight strength for firms in their region.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Access to funding
National and international agreements
Internationalisation
Human Capital
Entrepreneurship
Market knowledge and innovation capacity
Creative industries Eco industries Mobile services
agreedisagree
Indicators of firm strength
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 39
Figure 56: Availability of different factors for the strength of firms according to firm and non-firm respondents
The following spider charts present the results for the firm strength for all factors by regions grouped into the
three emerging industries for which they were identified as a hotspot. The charts show that, overall, the
assessment of firm strengths is rather positive across all regions, while access to finance and
internationalisation show in general as the least positive factors.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Access to funding
National and international agreements
Internationalisation
Human Capital
Entrepreneurship
Market knowledge and innovation capacity
Firms Non-firm respondents
agreedisagree
Indicators of firm strength
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 40
4.1.1. Creative industries: firm strength scores by region
Figure 57: Berlin
Figure 58: Catalonia (Barcelona)
Figure 59: North Holland (Amsterdam)
Figure 60: Inner London
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
Indicators of firm strength
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 41
4.1.2. Eco industries: firm strength scores by region
Figure 61: Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Figure 62: Lombardy (Milan)
Figure 63: Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
Indicators of firm strength
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 42
4.1.3. Mobile services: firm strength scores by region
Figure 64: Attiki (Athens)
Figure 65: South Finland (Helsinki)
Figure 66: Vienna
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
Indicators of firm strength
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 43
4.2. Comparing firm strength: regional rankings by factor
The following graphs rank the regional scores for the different dimensions of firm strength. Inner London
scores best across all dimensions ranking top for national and international agreements, human capital and
entrepreneurship and second for internationalisation and market knowledge and innovation capacity. The
Capital Region of Denmark and Vienna are the two other regions occupying the top of the rankings. Provence-
Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Catalonia and Lombardy score the lowest for at least one factor. These three regions,
however, also score in the top four on some of the rankings: Lombardy for access to funding,
internationalisation and market knowledge and innovation capacity; Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur and Catalonia
for entrepreneurship.
Figure 67: Access to funding
Figure 68: National and international agreements
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Attiki (Athens)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Average (all regions)
Berlin
Inner London
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Lombardy (Milan)
Vienna
agreedisagree agreedisagree
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Berlin
Lombardy (Milan)
Vienna
Average (all regions)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Attiki (Athens)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Inner London
agreedisagree agreedisagree agreedisagree agreedisagree
Indicators of firm strength
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 44
Figure 69: Internationalisation
Figure 70: Human capital
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Berlin
Catalonia (Barcelona)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Vienna
Average (all regions)
Attiki (Athens)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Lombardy (Milan)
Inner London
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
agreedisagree agreedisagree
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Lombardy (Milan)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Attiki (Athens)
Average (all regions)
Vienna
Berlin
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Inner London
agreedisagree agreedisagree
Indicators of firm strength
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 45
Figure 71: Entrepreneurship
Figure 72: Market knowledge and innovation capacity
4.3. Summary of findings
Human capital, market knowledge and innovation capacity, entrepreneurship and national and international
agreements are rated favourably for firm strength, although the scores are only slightly favourable.
Internationalisation is rated as a weakness with average scores below 3 for all three emerging industries. Access
to funding is rated neither as a strength nor as a weakness overall.
The differences in scores between regions are less marked for firm strength compared to the scores for the
strength of the regional business environment. The differences are strongest for national and international
agreements as well as for internationalisation.
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Lombardy (Milan)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Attiki (Athens)
Average (all regions)
Berlin
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Vienna
Inner London
agreedisagree agreedisagree
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
South Finland (Helsinki)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Average (all regions)
Attiki (Athens)
Vienna
Lombardy (Milan)
Berlin
Inner London
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
agreedisagree agreedisagree
Effective business support services
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 46
5. Effective business support services
This chapter investigates the availability of effective business support services in a given industry and region.
These are any organised efforts to enhance the competitiveness of the regional economy involving private
business, public bodies and/or academic institutions within a regional and sectoral system. Firms that indicated
that they are participating in a cluster initiative were asked to rate the services provided by the cluster
organisation managing the cluster. All other respondents were asked to rate business support services available
to companies in their industry and region.
Effective business support services are one aspect of cluster management excellence. The scoreboard indicators
for business support services thus measure include a
All the graphs in this chapter measure availability on a scale of 1 to 5. Values below 3 indicate that stakeholders
disagreed that an effective business support service was available within the region and values above 3 indicate
that it was available. The availability of services was assessed with the following question:
Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 is ‘strongly agree’. There are effective
business support services available in the region for [or ‘The cluster organisation provides an effective
service for’ for firms participating in a cluster organisation’]:
The acquisition of third party funding (e.g. public funding)
Information, matchmaking and exchange of experience among cluster participants (internal networking)
Matchmaking and networking with external cooperation partners and/or the promotion of the cluster location
The internationalisation of cluster participants
The development of human resources (e.g. training and education, recruitment)
The development of entrepreneurship
Collaborative technology development or technology transfer or R&D (without third party funding)
Effective business support services
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 47
5.1. Comparing emerging industries: the availability of effective business support services
Business support services in general are assessed as rather ineffective for all emerging industries with ratings
mostly below 3 (Figure 73). The only favourable scores are for supporting internal networking and supporting
external networking for eco industries and, by a fraction, support for HR development for mobile services.
Overall, business support services in the creative industries are least effective. Supporting access to finance and
supporting internationalisation rate the lowest.
Figure 73: Availability of effective business support services by emerging industry
Firm respondents consistently rated the availability of effective business support services lower compared to
other stakeholders (Figure 74). The difference is most marked for supporting collaborative RDI, supporting
internationaliastion and supporting access to finance. Further, amongst firms, the different services are all
rated as ineffective whereas other stakeholders viewed at least some of the services somewhat positively.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal networking
Supporting external networking
Supporting internationalisation
Supporting HR development
Supporting entrepreneurship
Supporting collaborative RDI
Creative industries Eco industries Mobile services
agreedisagree
Effective business support services
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 48
Figure 74: Availability of effective business support services according to firm and non-firm respondents
The following spider charts present the results for the availability of effective business support for all factors by
regions grouped into the three emerging industries for which they were identified as a hotspot. The charts for
Catalonia (Barcelona) and Attiki (Atthens) show that the business support services that are available in their
regions are viewed more critically across the bord than in the other regions.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal networking
Supporting external networking
Supporting internationalisation
Supporting HR development
Supporting entrepreneurship
Supporting collaborative RDI
Firms Non-firm respondents
agreedisagree
Effective business support services
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 49
5.1.1. Creative industries: availability of effective business support services scores by region
Figure 75: Berlin
Figure 76: Catalonia (Barcelona)
Figure 77: North Holland (Amsterdam)
Figure 78: Inner London
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
Effective business support services
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 50
5.1.2. Eco industries: availabilty of effective business support services scores by region
Figure 79: Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Figure 80: Lombardy (Milan)
Figure 81: Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
Effective business support services
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 51
5.1.3. Mobile services: availabilty of effective business support services scores by region
Figure 82: Attiki (Athens)
Figure 83: South Finland (Helsinki)
Figure 84: Vienna
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
Effective business support services
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 52
5.2. Comparing the availability of effective business support services: regional rankings by type of service
The following graphs rank the regional scores for availability of effective business support services. The Capital
Region of Denmark, Lombardy and South Finland rank most favourably for business support services. Their
scores are nevertheless on average borderline unfavourable for all the services. The regions having the weakest
business support services are Attiki and Catalonia. Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur has the lowest score for support
for entrepreneurship development even though it ranks in the top three for entrepreneurship as a factor in firm
strength.
Figure 85: Supporting access to finance
Figure 86: Support for information exchanges and matchmaking amongst firms in the region
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Attiki (Athens)
Average (all regions)
Inner London
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Vienna
Lombardy (Milan)
Berlin
South Finland (Helsinki)
agreedisagree agreedisagree
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Attiki (Athens)
Inner London
Average (all regions)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Vienna
Berlin
South Finland (Helsinki)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Lombardy (Milan)
agreedisagree agreedisagree
Effective business support services
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 53
Figure 87: Support for networking and finding external cooperation partners
Figure 88: Support for internationalisation
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Inner London
Berlin
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Average (all regions)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Vienna
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Lombardy (Milan)
agreedisagree agreedisagree
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Berlin
Inner London
Average (all regions)
Vienna
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Lombardy (Milan)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
agreedisagree agreedisagree
Effective business support services
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 54
Figure 89: Support for human resource development
Figure 90: Support for entrepreneurship development
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Attiki (Athens)
Berlin
Average (all regions)
Lombardy (Milan)
Vienna
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Inner London
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
agreedisagree agreedisagree
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Average (all regions)
Vienna
Inner London
Berlin
Lombardy (Milan)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
agreedisagree agreedisagree
Effective business support services
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 55
Figure 91: Support for collaborative R&D and/or technology transfer
5.3. Summary of findings
The general assessment is that there is a lack of effective business support services in all the regions surveyed.
There are differences in the effectiveness of business support services across the three emerging industries. The
ratings for the eco industries are higher overall although they remain unfavourable for most services. Effective
business support services are most lacking in the creative industries.
There is a significant difference in the perceived effectiveness of available business support services between
firm and non-firm respondents. Firms assessed all business support services as being weaker compared to non-
firm stakeholders. The biggest difference between these stakeholder groups is for supporting collaborative RDI,
supporting internationalistion and supporting access to finance.
There are differences in the availability ratings across the regions for nearly all the services that were assessed.
Support for access to finance is weak for all regions but Attiki and Catalonia have particularly low availability
scores for this type of service. These two regions also rank below the average for all regions for all services and,
along with Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, they have consistent unfavourable ratings for all services. Southern
Finland and the Capital Region of Denmark have marginally favourable ratings for five of the seven types of
services but even in these two regions the services are assessed as lacking significantly in effectiveness.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Attiki (Athens)
Inner London
Berlin
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Average (all regions)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Vienna
Lombardy (Milan)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
South Finland (Helsinki)
agreedisagree agreedisagree
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 56
6. Firm performance (output indicators)
This chapter focuses on output indicators rating the performance of firms in terms of change in employment,
change in annual revenues, change in output, change in profits, and change in the number of new products
and/or services introduced. Change for these indicators is assessed over the 3 year period prior to the survey,
i.e. the first quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of 2013. The graphs in this chapter measure performance on a
five point scale, where (1) is decreased, (2) is stayed the same, (3) is increased slightly (<5% annually), (4) is
increased moderately (5-10% annually), and (5) is increased significantly (>10% annually).
The firm performance questions were only put to stakeholders representing firms. Using the above-mentioned
five point scale, respondents were asked the following:
Over the past 3 years, the number of employees of the firm has:
Over the past 3 years, annual revenues of the firm have:
Over the past 3 years, the output (manufacturing and/or services) of the firm has:
Over the past 3 years, profits of the firm have:
Over the past 3 years, the number of new products and services introduced by the firm has:
These firm performance scores, by virtue of being derived from a survey, only present a snapshot of the
performance of firms for the selected emerging industry in each region. The number of responses also varies by
region but there was a high willingness of firms to share this information with over 80 percent of respondents
providing the output data for their firms.
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 57
6.1. Comparing emerging industries: firm performance
The surveyed firms in the creative industries experienced the least growth in terms of employment, annual
revenues, output and profits (Figure 92, Figure 93, Figure 94 and Figure 95). The eco industries performed best
overall for these performance indicators. Around half of the firms in the three emerging industries increased the
number of their employees between 2010 and 2013. Annual revenues increased for 60% of firms in the eco
industries and for mobile services and for 50% of firms in the creative industries. Firm performance was worst
in terms of profits, with at least one in five firms seeing a decline in their profits and one in three in the creative
industries.
Output in terms of the number of new products and services on the other hand increased for firms in all
emerging industries (Figure 96). The creative industries have the highest share of innovative firms with more
than 80% of firms increasing their innovation output. Around a quarter of firms increased their innovation
output significantly.
Figure 92: Change in the number of employees of firms by emerging industry, 2010-2013
Figure 93: Change in annual revenues of firms by emerging industry, 2010-2013
Figure 94: Change in the output of firms by emerging industry, 2010-2013
Figure 95: Change in profits of firms by emerging industry, 2010-2013
Figure 96: Change in the number of new products and services introduced by firms by emerging industry, 2010-2013
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Creative industries
Eco industries
Mobile services
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Creative industries
Eco industries
Mobile services
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Creative industries
Eco industries
Mobile services
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Creative industries
Eco industries
Mobile services
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Creative industries
Eco industries
Mobile services
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased slightly (4) Increased moderately
(5) Increased significantly
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 58
6.1.1. Creative industries: firm performance scores by region
Figure 97: Berlin
N = 47
Figure 98: Catalonia (Barcelona)
N = 51
Figure 99: North Holland (Amsterdam)
N = 21
Figure 100: Inner London
N = 38
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 59
6.1.2. Eco industries: firm performance scores by region
Figure 101: Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
N = 29
Figure 102: Lombardy (Milan)
N = 49
Figure 103: Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur
N = 23
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 60
6.1.3. Mobile services: firm performance scores by region
Figure 104: Attiki (Athens)
N = 71
Figure 105: South Finland (Helsinki)
N = 82
Figure 106: Vienna
N = 46
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 61
6.2. Comparing firm performance indicators: scores by region
The following graphs rank the regional scores for availability for firm performance based on the percentage of
firms that reported an increase in output for the given indicator (i.e covering answers 3, 4 and 5 represented by
the orange and both green colours). This combined percentage figure of firms reporting an increase is also
indicated at the end each figure for every region. No regional hotspot performs consistently strongly for all
indicators. Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur ranks top for growth in employment but only average on revenues,
output and profits. The Capital Region of Denmark ranks top for growth in annual revenues but only average
for growth in employment. Berlin is in the top three for growth in employment and in the bottom three for
revenues, output and profits. Catalonia, Attiki and Lombardy are in the bottom four for employment, revenue,
output and profit growth.
There is a clear divide in terms of innovation performance between the different emerging industries. The three
regions surveyed for eco industries have the lowest firm innovation performance scores. The top three slots for
innovation performance are taken by creative industries hotspots.
Figure 107: Change in the number of employees of firms by region, 2010-2013
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur …
Inner London
Berlin
Vienna
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark …
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Lombardy (Milan)
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
60,9%
60.5%
55.3%
53.5%
50.0%
48.3%
48.3%
44.9%
42.3%
23.5%
Increase (%)
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 62
Figure 108: Change in annual revenues of firms by region, 2010-2013
Figure 109: Change in the output of firms by region, 2010-2013
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Vienna
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Inner London
Lombardy (Milan)
Berlin
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually(5) Increased by >10% annually
Increase (%)
75.9%
68.3%
65.9%
61.9%
60.9%
60.5%
49.0%
47.8%
42.9%
30.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Vienna
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Inner London
Attiki (Athens)
Lombardy (Milan)
Berlin
Catalonia (Barcelona)
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Increase (%)
71.4%
69.0%
67.5%
67.4%
63.6%
63.2%
52.2%
47.9%
45.7%
45.1%
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 63
Figure 110: Change in profits of firms by region, 2010-2013
Figure 111: Change in the number of new products and services introduced by firms by region, 2010-2013
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Inner London
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Vienna
South Finland (Helsinki)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Attiki (Athens)
Lombardy (Milan)
Berlin
Catalonia (Barcelona)
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually(5) Increased by >10% annually
Increase (%)
65.8%
62.1%
60.0%
52.4%
52.4%
50.0%
38.6%
37.5%
37.0%
17.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Inner London
Berlin
Attiki (Athens)
Vienna
Catalonia (Barcelona)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Lombardy (Milan)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same(3) Increased slightly (4) Increased moderately(5) Increased significantly
Increase (%)
85.7%
84%
83.0%
82.9%
76.1%
74.5%
74.5%
71.4%
69.6%
67.9%
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 64
6.3. Comparing cluster firms with non-cluster firms
Amongst the firms responding to the questionnaire survey around one in five indicated that they participate in
a cluster initiative managed by a cluster management organisation (116 firms in total). The number and share of
surveyed firms participating in a cluster initiative does, however, vary significantly by region (Figure 112 and
Figure 113). Lombardy and Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur have participation rates of close to 50% and 65%
respectively amongst the surveyed firms. For both Catalonia and Inner London only a single firm participated
in a cluster initiative.
Figure 112: Number of surveyed firms participating in a cluster initiative by region
Figure 113: Share of surveyed firms participating in a cluster initiative by region
A comparison of the performance of firms participating in a cluster initiative with that of firms not participating
in a cluster initiative was performed but based on the different sampling rates the results need to be interpreted
with caution. The analysis also includes different emerging industries with different characteristics and
different regions with different strengths and differences in firm performance.
The results show that amongst the surveyed firms, firms participating in cluster initiatives outperform firms not
participating in cluster initiatives. A higher share of the firms participating in cluster initiatives significantly
increased the number of their employees (Figure 114), their annual revenues (Figure 115), their output (Figure
116), their profits (Figure 117), and the number of new products and/or services introduced (Figure 118) and a
smaller share saw in decrease for these same output indicators.
The results are perhaps not surprising considering previous findings on the innovative performance of firms in
clusters3 but they should nevertheless only be seen as indicative of a possible link to be investigated further. In
order to further explore and validate these findings, the response and sampling rates would need to be
significantly increased. The empirical evidence gathered in a larger dataset would also need to balance
responses and response rates between cluster and non-cluster firms at both the regional level and at industry
level.
3 See for example: “2006 Innobarometer on cluster’s role in facilitating innovation in Europe”, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_187_en.pdf
10
1
5
1
6
35
14
11
15
18
0 10 20 30 40
Berlin
Catalonia (Barcelona)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Inner London
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Lombardy (Milan)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Attiki (Athens)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Vienna
Firms participating in a cluster initiative
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
All regions
Berlin
Catalonia (Barcelona)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Inner London
Capital Region of Denmark …
Lombardy (Milan)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur …
Attiki (Athens)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Vienna
Firms participating in a cluster initiative
Firms not participating in a cluster initative
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 65
Figure 114: Change in the number of employees for cluster and non-cluster firms, 2010-2013
Figure 115: Change in annual revenues for cluster and non-cluster firms, 2010-2013
21.6%
34.1%
11.4%
14.8%
18.2%
16.2%
25.3%
12.1%
13.1%
33.3%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
Decreased
Stayed the same
Increased by <5% annually
Increased by 5-10% annually
Increased by >10% annually
Firms participating in a cluster initiative Firms not participating in a cluster initative
23.0%
23.9%
10.5%
13.9%
28.1%
17.2%
21.2%
10.1%
18.2%
32.3%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
Decreased
Stayed the same
Increased by <5% annually
Increased by 5-10% annually
Increased by >10% annually
Firms participating in a cluster initiative Firms not participating in a cluster initative
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 66
Figure 116: Change in output for cluster and non-cluster firms, 2010-2013
Figure 117: Change in profits for cluster and non-cluster firms, 2010-2013
16.8%
26.7%
14.8%
14.2%
25.9%
11.1%
23.2%
14.1%
19.2%
31.3%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
Decreased
Stayed the same
Increased by <5% annually
Increased by 5-10% annually
Increased by >10% annually
Firms participating in a cluster initiative Firms not participating in a cluster initative
27.3%
28.7%
9.9%
14.8%
19.6%
22.2%
26.3%
10.1%
17.2%
21.2%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
Decreased
Stayed the same
Increased by <5% annually
Increased by 5-10% annually
Increased by >10% annually
Firms participating in a cluster initiative Firms not participating in a cluster initative
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 67
Figure 118: Change in the number of new products and services introduced for cluster and non-cluster firms, 2010-2013
The overall assessment of firms participating in cluster initiatives is favourable towards these initiatives (Figure
119). Participants are, on average, inclined towards recommending participation in the cluster initiative to other
firms. Cluster organisations are also seen as provided added value to the development of the regional industrial
base. Firms participating in cluster initiatives, however, neither agree nor disagree on whether they have
benefitted significantly from the services of the cluster organisation.
Firms not participating in a cluster initiative also tended to agree, although not particularly strongly, that
additional efforts to enhance a cluster in their region would add value to the development of the regional
industrial base.
Figure 119: Overall assessment of cluster initiatives
5.4%
19.9%
25.3%
21.6%
27.6%
2.0%
13.1%
30.3%
23.2%
32.3%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
Decreased
Stayed the same
Increased slightly
Increased moderately
Increased significantly
Firms participating in a cluster initiative Firms not participating in a cluster initative
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Firms not participating in a cluster: Additional organised efforts to enhance the competitiveness of a
cluster in your region would add value to the development of the regional industral base.
My firm has benefitted significantly from the services of the cluster organisation.
Your cluster organisation is providing added value to the development of the regional industrial base.
I would recommend participation in the cluster initiative to other firms.
strongly agreestrongly disagree
Firm performance (output indicators)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 68
6.4. Summary of findings
There are differences in firm performance between the three emerging industries for the employment, annual
revenues, output and profits indicators although these differences are less pronounced than the differences in
firm performance between regions. Firms in the eco industries performed best overall in terms of increases in
employment, annual revenues, output and profits. Firms in the creative industries showed the highest
innovation performance.
There are significant differences in the performance of firms between the different regions with no region
ranking consistently near the top for the different performance indicators. Inner London and the Capital Region
of Denmark performed best overall being ranked three times in the top three regions based on the percentage of
firms having increased their output. Catalonia and Lombardy had the lowest performance scores overall being
ranked in the bottom three for four of the five indicators.
There is a regional divide in terms of innovation performance related to the different emerging industries. The
three regions surveyed for eco industries have the lowest firm innovation performance scores. The top three
slots for innovation performance are taken by creative industries hotspots.
The analysis conducted to compare the performance of firms participating in cluster initiatives with the
performance of firms not participating in cluster initiatives suggests that the former outperform the latter on all
output indicators. These results should, however, be interpreted with caution given the different sampling rates,
different levels of participation in cluster initiatives and different characteristics of the surveyed regions.
Aggregate scores and indicators
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 69
7. Aggregate scores and indicators
This chapter presents aggregate importance and availability scores and composite indicators for the different
elements and factors boosting the strength of emerging industries. The scores and indicators in this chapter are
assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 indicate that the factor in question is less
important, unavailable or unfavourable and scores above 50 indicating that the factor in question is seen
as more important, available or favourable.
The importance scores are based on the results from the questions on the importance of different factors for
boosting the strength in emerging industries displayed in chapter 2. The importance scores were obtained by
transforming the importance rating variables for the different factors from a scale of 1 to 5 to a scale of 0 to 100.
The availability scores are based on the results from the questions on the availability of different factors that
underpin the strength of regional business environments (framework conditions) listed at the beginning of
chapter 3, the results from the questions on the availability of different factors that underpin the strength of
firms listed at the start of chapter 4, and the results from the questions on the availability of effective business
support services listed in the introduction of chapter 5. The availability scores were obtained by transforming
the availability rating variables for the different factors from a scale of 1 to 5 to a scale of 0 to 100.
The composite indicators aggregate the importance and availability scores in a single composite score. They
are calculated by multiplying the relative importance of each factor by its availability. In other words, the
relative importance scores are used to add a weighting to the availability scores in order to create a composite
indicator measuring both importance and availability.
Aggregate scores and indicators
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 70
7.1. Regional rankings for the different elements measuring regional strength in emerging industries
7.1.1. Rankings based on availability scores
The following graphs rank the aggregate scores for the availability of the three elements boosting the strength of
emerging industries at regional level: the regional business environment (Figure 120), firm strength (Figure
121), and business support services (Figure 122). A ranking of the average availability score for all three
elements is shown in Figure 123. The scores are assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 indicate
that availability for the element in question is unfavourable and scores above 50 indicate that it is favourable.
Figure 120: Availability score for regional business environment (framework conditions) by region
Figure 121: Availability score for firm strength by region
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Lombardy (Milan)
Average (all regions)
Inner London
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Berlin
Vienna
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
South Finland (Helsinki)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Berlin
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Attiki (Athens)
Average (all regions)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Lombardy (Milan)
Vienna
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Inner London
Aggregate scores and indicators
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 71
Figure 122: Availability score for business support services by region
Figure 123: Availability score for all three elements (average) by region
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Attiki (Athens)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Inner London
Average (all regions)
Berlin
Vienna
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Lombardy (Milan)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Average (all regions)
Berlin
Lombardy (Milan)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Vienna
Inner London
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Aggregate scores and indicators
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 72
7.1.2. Rankings based on composite indicators measuring both importance and availability
The following composite indicators take into account both importance and availability of the different
elements boosting the strength of emerging industries. The following graphs rank the composite indicator
scores for the three elements boosting the strength of emerging industries at regional level: the regional
business environment (Figure 124), firm strength (Figure 125), and business support services (Figure 126). A
ranking of the composite indicator score for all three elements is shown in Figure 127. The composite indicator
scores are assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 are unfavourable in terms of importance and
availability and scores above 50 are favourable.
Figure 124: Composite indicator for regional business environment (framework conditions) by region
Figure 125: Composite indicator for firm strength by region
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Lombardy (Milan)
Average (all regions)
Inner London
Berlin
North Holland (Amsterdam)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Vienna
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Vienna
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Lombardy (Milan)
Attiki (Athens)
Average (all regions)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Berlin
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Inner London
Aggregate scores and indicators
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 73
Figure 126: Composite indicator for business support services by region
Figure 127: Composite indicator for all elements by region
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Berlin
Inner London
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Average (all regions)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Vienna
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
South Finland (Helsinki)
Lombardy (Milan)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Attiki (Athens)
Catalonia (Barcelona)
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
Average (all regions)
Lombardy (Milan)
North Holland (Amsterdam)
Berlin
Vienna
Inner London
South Finland (Helsinki)
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
Aggregate scores and indicators
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 74
7.2. Scores measuring regional strength of emerging industries
The three tables in this section report the importance scores (Table 2), the availability scores (Table 3) and the
composite indicator scores (Table 4) for the different factors measuring strength in emerging industries by
region. Although a composite indicator score is provide for the overall regional strength in emerging industries,
the results for the individual composite indicators for the three key elements and for its individual factors
should be foremost reviewed in order to identify areas that hold back the performance of the overall eco-system.
7.2.1. Importance scores for different factors by region
The scores in Table 2 are assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 indicate that stakeholders
assessed the factor as less important and scores above 50 as more important.
Table 2: Importance scores for different factors measuring strength in emerging industries
Be
rli
n
Ca
talo
nia
(B
ar
ce
lon
a)
No
rth
Ho
lla
nd
(A
mste
rd
am
)
Inn
er
Lo
nd
on
Ca
pit
al
Re
gio
n o
f D
en
ma
rk
(C
op
en
ha
ge
n)
Lo
mb
ar
dy
(M
ila
n)
Pr
ov
en
ce
-Alp
es
-C
ôte
d’A
zu
r
(Ma
rs
eil
le)
Att
iki
(Ath
en
s)
So
uth
Fin
lan
d
(He
lsin
ki)
Vie
nn
a
Av
er
ag
e (
all
r
eg
ion
s)
Regional business environment (Framework conditions)
Financial 61.34 68.66 69.44 62.93 77.94 70.89 70.27 81.55 67.54 64.86 69.63
Industrial 56.98 56.43 65.74 57.33 60.29 61.99 61.11 61.88 61.49 54.10 59.76
Market 59.01 68.66 72.22 78.02 67.16 65.28 56.08 69.42 61.49 68.38 66.30
Cultural 70.29 65.36 77.36 71.98 63.24 78.77 53.38 63.24 63.10 54.35 66.20
Knowledge 65.12 63.73 71.76 57.76 79.41 73.61 63.51 67.40 75.00 70.96 69.23
Regulatory and policy 41.86 59.86 61.57 55.60 72.55 77.08 68.06 69.12 60.28 48.91 60.86
Support 51.16 64.08 56.48 51.29 57.84 64.04 59.72 65.20 56.85 59.78 58.81
Aggregate score 57.97 63.83 67.80 62.13 68.35 70.24 61.73 68.26 63.68 60.19 64.40
Firm strength
Access to funding 60.42 70.77 68.06 65.42 65.82 77.74 72.79 80.94 62.70 58.93 68.26
Partnerships 65.48 59.29 68.52 61.02 71.00 74.66 58.57 77.75 69.88 65.14 68.14
Internationalisation 50.00 67.50 66.67 66.67 75.00 75.68 62.14 76.00 67.34 55.43 66.42
Human Capital 77.35 82.75 80.56 83.33 83.00 86.99 80.00 80.94 82.66 72.86 81.09
Entrepreneurship 82.74 79.93 80.56 74.17 76.00 85.76 83.57 77.75 77.03 76.79 79.21
Market knowledge and innovation capacity
87.06 83.21 82.41 80.42 82.50 84.93 81.43 84.90 83.94 78.21 83.29
Aggregate score 70.51 73.91 74.46 71.84 75.55 80.96 73.08 79.71 73.93 67.89 74.40
Business support services
Supporting access to finance
52.03 72.92 59.91 55.42 61.27 72.26 70.83 69.85 58.06 56.43 62.52
Supporting internal networking
44.77 65.49 52.36 47.84 54.90 65.41 64.58 58.09 54.64 54.29 55.87
Supporting external networking
53.49 69.44 61.32 60.78 62.25 69.18 60.42 66.34 66.53 62.86 63.71
Supporting internationalisation
45.00 71.53 63.68 63.56 61.00 73.63 61.49 69.12 64.92 55.71 63.17
Supporting HR development
45.06 63.54 53.77 48.31 55.88 71.53 50.69 59.31 55.04 53.21 55.97
Supporting entrepreneurship
50.00 71.13 58.02 55.93 65.50 68.84 56.94 57.43 60.08 54.64 59.71
Supporting collaborative RDI
42.73 70.49 55.66 43.64 60.78 68.84 64.19 59.56 56.45 50.00 56.89
Aggregate score 47.58 69.22 57.82 53.64 60.23 69.95 61.31 62.81 59.39 55.31 59.69
Aggregate scores and indicators
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 75
7.2.2. Availability scores for different factors by region
The scores in Table 3 assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 indicate that availability for the
factor in question is unfavourable and scores above 50 indicate that it is favourable.
Table 3: Availability scores for different factors measuring strength in emerging industries
Be
rli
n
Ca
talo
nia
(B
ar
ce
lon
a)
No
rth
Ho
lla
nd
(A
mste
rd
am
)
Inn
er
Lo
nd
on
Ca
pit
al
Re
gio
n o
f D
en
ma
rk
(C
op
en
ha
ge
n)
Lo
mb
ar
dy
(M
ila
n)
Pr
ov
en
ce
-Alp
es
-C
ôte
d’A
zu
r
(Ma
rs
eil
le)
Att
iki
(Ath
en
s)
So
uth
Fin
lan
d
(He
lsin
ki)
Vie
nn
a
Av
er
ag
e (
all
r
eg
ion
s)
Regional business environment (Framework conditions)
Financial 41.55 13.36 36.78 42.11 41.50 35.24 45.59 14.29 44.38 50.32 35.34
Industrial 66.37 55.21 68.80 66.67 69.05 58.74 48.99 40.38 67.43 61.86 59.93
Market 53.04 32.17 56.67 57.29 48.61 36.52 32.35 28.57 53.61 53.14 44.89
Cultural 61.67 52.57 59.35 60.57 62.93 62.32 40.63 41.49 60.01 55.73 55.85
Knowledge 69.72 56.13 61.96 56.62 69.22 63.14 51.23 35.48 67.32 67.19 59.44
Regulatory and policy 47.92 26.72 49.46 49.09 57.92 39.00 33.33 28.13 57.46 47.40 43.75
Support 42.39 27.70 45.92 43.12 52.13 41.43 38.26 23.29 51.67 47.88 41.01
Aggregate score 54.66 37.69 54.13 53.64 57.33 48.06 41.48 30.23 57.41 54.79 48.60
Firm strength
Access to funding 51.17 38.08 45.20 52.57 52.58 52.93 48.05 42.82 52.69 57.89 49.40
Partnerships 50.81 45.63 58.91 68.67 68.48 54.53 45.71 59.04 65.09 56.92 58.00
Internationalisation 36.42 38.29 50.58 56.25 57.61 54.71 36.11 45.88 40.42 43.82 45.52
Human Capital 68.68 66.81 63.37 70.92 70.74 63.65 62.12 67.11 70.09 68.22 67.53
Entrepreneurship 56.90 58.47 53.29 63.61 54.17 52.53 59.09 55.02 54.72 60.31 56.45
Market knowledge and innovation capacity
67.97 56.48 62.21 68.03 68.24 65.75 56.31 63.83 60.67 64.31 63.37
Aggregate score 55.33 50.63 55.60 63.34 61.97 57.35 51.23 55.62 57.28 58.58 56.71
Business support services
Supporting access to finance
45.42 21.19 42.86 39.36 43.89 44.53 40.83 28.06 45.43 44.09 39.18
Supporting internal networking
50.83 32.33 54.76 44.27 56.67 60.94 48.33 35.56 53.33 49.56 48.21
Supporting external networking
44.83 34.65 48.21 44.57 56.11 56.25 45.69 33.89 52.64 50.44 46.45
Supporting internationalisation
37.50 30.17 46.88 40.76 50.56 50.39 42.24 28.89 47.33 41.07 41.04
Supporting HR development
49.14 36.86 53.66 53.72 57.22 49.60 40.83 42.13 57.21 52.19 49.49
Supporting entrepreneurship
46.12 38.56 50.63 45.21 51.11 46.77 33.33 33.89 50.96 45.09 44.29
Supporting collaborative RDI
43.10 32.89 45.12 42.55 50.00 47.66 43.33 35.00 54.09 46.43 44.26
Aggregate score 45.28 32.38 48.87 44.35 52.22 50.88 42.09 33.92 51.57 46.98 44.70
.
Aggregate scores and indicators
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 76
7.2.3. Composite indicators assessing importance and availability of different factors by region
The composite indicator scores in Table 4 are assessed on a scale of 0 to 100, where scores below 50 are
unfavourable in terms of importance and availability and scores above 50 are favourable.
Table 4: Composite indicator scores for factors measuring strength in emerging industries
Be
rli
n
Ca
talo
nia
(B
ar
ce
lon
a)
No
rth
Ho
lla
nd
(A
mste
rd
am
)
Inn
er
Lo
nd
on
Ca
pit
al
Re
gio
n o
f D
en
ma
rk
(C
op
en
ha
ge
n)
Lo
mb
ar
dy
(M
ila
n)
Pr
ov
en
ce
-Alp
es
-C
ôte
d’A
zu
r
(Ma
rs
eil
le)
Att
iki
(Ath
en
s)
So
uth
Fin
lan
d
(He
lsin
ki)
Vie
nn
a
Av
er
ag
e (
all
r
eg
ion
s)
Regional business environment (Framework conditions)
Financial 43.97 14.37 37.67 42.66 47.33 35.57 51.89 17.07 47.07 54.22 38.21
Industrial 65.24 48.81 66.71 61.51 60.91 51.84 48.50 36.61 65.11 55.60 55.61
Market 53.99 34.61 60.37 71.94 47.76 33.94 29.39 29.06 51.77 60.37 46.22
Cultural 74.78 53.83 67.72 70.17 58.22 69.89 35.13 38.44 59.47 50.32 57.42
Knowledge 78.32 56.04 65.58 52.64 80.42 66.17 52.70 35.04 79.29 79.20 63.90
Regulatory and policy 34.60 25.06 44.92 43.93 61.48 42.81 36.75 28.48 54.39 38.51 41.34
Support 37.42 27.81 38.26 35.60 44.11 37.78 37.01 22.24 46.13 47.56 37.45
Aggregate score 55.47 37.22 54.46 54.06 57.18 48.28 41.62 29.56 57.61 55.11 48.59
Firm strength
Access to funding 43.85 36.47 41.32 47.88 45.81 50.82 47.86 43.48 44.69 50.25 45.33
Partnerships 47.18 36.60 54.21 58.32 64.35 50.29 36.63 57.59 61.53 54.61 53.12
Internationalisation 25.83 34.97 45.29 52.20 57.19 51.15 30.70 43.74 36.82 35.78 40.64
Human Capital 75.35 74.79 68.56 82.26 77.71 68.38 68.00 68.15 78.38 73.21 73.60
Entrepreneurship 66.77 63.23 57.66 65.67 54.49 55.64 67.57 53.66 57.02 68.21 60.10
Market knowledge and innovation capacity
83.92 63.59 68.85 76.15 74.52 68.97 62.74 67.98 68.90 74.08 70.94
Aggregate score 57.15 51.61 55.98 63.75 62.34 57.54 52.25 55.77 57.89 59.36 57.29
Business support services
Supporting access to finance
49.67 22.32 44.41 40.67 44.65 46.00 47.18 31.20 44.42 44.99 41.03
Supporting internal networking
47.83 30.59 49.59 39.49 51.66 56.98 50.92 32.88 49.07 48.65 45.12
Supporting external networking
50.39 34.76 51.14 50.49 58.00 55.63 45.03 35.79 58.98 57.33 49.58
Supporting internationalisation
35.46 31.18 51.63 48.30 51.20 53.04 42.37 31.79 51.74 41.37 43.44
Supporting HR development
46.53 33.84 49.91 48.38 53.09 50.71 33.76 39.79 53.02 50.22 46.41
Supporting entrepreneurship
48.46 39.62 50.80 47.15 55.58 46.03 30.96 30.98 51.55 44.55 44.30
Supporting collaborative RDI
38.71 33.50 43.44 34.62 50.46 46.89 45.37 33.19 51.41 41.97 42.18
Aggregate score 45.29 32.26 48.70 44.16 52.09 50.75 42.23 33.66 51.46 47.01 44.58
Composite indicators
Regional Business Environment
54.79 34.44 55.36 53.71 57.43 46.01 39.31 28.72 55.86 57.67 47.29
Firm Strength 68.66 55.29 62.50 73.23 69.22 63.20 58.41 63.27 65.17 61.31 64.42
Business Support Services
36.72 32.37 42.22 37.88 46.11 48.16 39.60 30.09 46.54 43.28 40.22
Composite indicator for regional strength in emerging industries
53.39 40.70 53.36 54.94 57.59 52.45 45.77 40.69 55.86 54.09 50.64
Aggregate scores and indicators
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 77
7.3. Comparing composite indicator scores and firm performance
The following graphs compare the composite indicator scores for regional business environment and for
business support services for the 10 regions to the performance of firms in these regions. The performance
scores for these graphs correspond to the percentage of firms in each region reporting an increase for the
relevant indicator (as reported in the figures in section 6.2). The scores for the change in firm revenues, output,
number of employees and profits thus refer to the combined percentage of firms reporting an increase.
There appears to be some correlation between the composite indicator scores for regional business environment
and the performance of firms in terms of change in annual revenues and change in output for the surveyed
regions (Figure 128). The two regions with the lowest regional business environment scores, Catalonia and
Attiki, also have lower firm performance. Regions with higher composite indicator scores also score higher in
terms of firm performance. The most significant outlier in Figure 128 is Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, which in
spite of a lower composite indicator score for regional business environment has firms performing rather well
in terms of the percentage of firms reporting increases in annual revenues and output.
Figure 128: Composite indicator scores for regional business environment compared to change in annual revenues and change in output
Berlin54.8
Catalonia (Barcelona)34.4
North Holland (Amsterdam)
55.4
Inner London53.7
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
57.4
Lombardy (Milan)46.0
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
39.3
Attiki (Athens)28.7
South Finland (Helsinki)55.9
Vienna57.7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Per
cen
tag
e o
f fi
rms
rep
ort
ing
an
in
crea
se i
n o
utp
ut
Percentage of firms reporting an increase in annual revenues
Creative industries Eco industries Mobile services
Aggregate scores and indicators
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 78
There is less of a correlation between the composite indicator scores for business support services and firm
performance in terms of growth in employment and growth in profits (Figure 129). The two regions with the
lowest composite indicator scores for business support services, Catalonia and Attiki, however do again score
lowest for firm performance. The region with the highest composite indicator score, the Capital Region of
Denmark, scores well for growth in profits but less well for growth in employment. The three regions with the
highest percentages of firms reporting growth in employment, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Inner London and
Berlin all have unfavourable composite indicator scores for business support services. On the other hand,
Lombardy has a favourable composite indicator score but ranks in the bottom three in terms of the two firm
performance scores.
Figure 129: Composite indicator scores for business support services compared to change in employment and change in profits
Berlin45.3
Catalonia (Barcelona)32.4
North Holland (Amsterdam)
48.9
Inner London44.3
Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
52.2
Lombardy (Milan)50.9
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
42.1
Attiki (Athens)33.9
South Finland (Helsinki)51.6
Vienna47.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Per
cen
tag
e o
fir
ms
rep
ort
ing
an
in
crea
se i
n p
rofi
ts
Percentage of firms reporting an increase in number of employees
Creative industries Eco industries Mobile services
Conclusions
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 79
8. Conclusions
The European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard has been designed as a tool to measure and assess the strengths
and weaknesses of regional business environments, firms, and business support services. As this pilot version of
the scoreboard has shown, the proposed survey-based methodology can be applied effectively in practice in
order to obtain specific, relevant and timely information on the current state of regional business ecosystems. It
offers comprehensive, concrete and actionable evidence that can be used to design policy tools to address
specific weaknesses and needs that have been identified at the level of firms, regions or industries.
The majority of respondents surveyed for the scoreboard were entrepreneurs but other key stakeholders were
also included. It was essential to gather the views and inputs and capture the perceptions of all stakeholders in
order to provide a balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the different ecosystems. The
outputs of the scoreboard, likewise, provide relevant insights for all the contributing stakeholders including
entrepreneurs, policy makers, cluster management organisations, investors and academics. The uptake and
response rate for the scoreboard questionnaire exceeded expectations and showed that there is both a need for
and a strong interest in the type of assessment and analysis that it provides.
In order to better understand the industry-specific framework conditions relevant for the development of
world-class cluster in emerging industries, further work has been carried to complement the analysis and
results of the European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard. Three case study reports have been prepared for the
emerging industries that were also selected for the analysis of the European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard,
namely creative industries, eco industries and mobile services industries4.
4 The case studies will be available for download at: http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/index.html#!view=aboutobservatory;url=/about-observatory/emerging-industries/
Scorecard for creative industries in Berlin
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 80
Appendix A. - Scorecard for creative industries in Berlin
A.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance
Summary and recommendations
Knowledge characteristics, entrepreneurial culture and a critical mass of companies in related sectors are noted as strong points of the regional business environment for creative industries in Berlin. Market knowledge and human capital are considered important individual firm strengths. Business support services are the weakest element of the ecosystem. Firms scored very well overall in terms of their innovation performance but this is not matched by a similar performance for the other indicators, with growth in profits being particularly sluggish.
The results of the scoreboard survey for the Berlin cluster are positive overall. Future policy efforts would be best geared towards the improvement of current business support mechanisms, with a particular emphasis on promoting the internationalisation of SMEs.
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Scorecard for creative industries in Berlin
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 81
A.2. Composite indicators
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)
How to read these graphs
These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
6.3
9.3
7.7
10.7
11.2
4.9
5.3
15.1
14.0
14.5
17.3
16.0
10.3
12.6
(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market
(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy
(7) Support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
55.5
7.3
7.9
4.3
12.6
11.1
14.0
14.3
15.5
11.8
18.3
19.6
20.6
(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships
(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital
(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
57.2
7.1
6.8
7.2
5.1
6.6
6.9
5.5
15.6
13.4
16.1
13.5
13.5
15.0
12.8
(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
45.3
18.3
22.9
12.2
32.9
40.0
27.0
(1) Regional Business Environment
(2) Firm Strength
(3) Business Support Services
(1)
(2)
(3)
53.4
Scorecard for creative industries in Catalonia (Barcelona)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 82
Appendix B. - Scorecard for creative industries in Catalonia (Barcelona)
B.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance
Summary and recommendations
The regional business environment in Catalonia is weak overall and inhomogeneous with the financial situation being particularly poor. The market, regulatory and policy and support dimensions are also rated very unfavourably. Catalonia performs best for the firm strength component although internationalisation and access to financing are weak points. Business support services are the weakest element with insufficient availability for all types of services. The performance of firms was in general viewed as negative, with a large percentage of respondents indicating poor business performance. Profits and annual revenues fared worst with over half of the surveyed firms reporting a decrease for those indicators over the previous three years.
There are a number of fundamental weaknesses in the regional ecosystem for the creative industries in Catalonia. Access to finance, in particular, is a significant issue that needs to be addressed. The weakest elements are business support services where more effective services are required across the board.
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Scorecard for creative industries in Catalonia (Barcelona)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 83
B.2. Composite indicators
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)
How to read these graphs
These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
2.1
7.0
4.9
7.7
8.0
3.6
4.0
15.4
12.6
15.4
14.6
14.3
13.4
14.3
(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market
(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy
(7) Support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
37.2
6.1
6.1
5.8
12.5
10.5
10.6
16.0
13.4
15.2
18.7
18.0
18.8
(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships
(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital
(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
51.6
3.2
4.4
5.0
4.54.8
5.7
4.8
15.0
13.5
14.3
14.8
13.1
14.7
14.5
(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
32.3
11.5
18.4
10.8
30.8
35.7
33.4
(1) Regional Business Environment
(2) Firm Strength
(3) Business Support Services
(1)
(2)
(3)
40.7
Scorecard for creative industries in North Holland (Amsterdam)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 84
Appendix C. - Scorecard for creative industries in North Holland (Amsterdam)
C.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance
Summary and recommendations
The industrial environment is well rated suggesting that there is a critical mass and strength of companies and related industries with a pretty well shaped regional environment. The financial situation within the region was however considered not sufficient to meet the needs of the industrial sector. Firms in the creative industries have been performing well with regards to output and innovation although the smaller share of firms experiencing increases in annual revenues and profits suggests that margins are being squeezed. Policy targets for the region should seek to encourage the influx of potential funding bodies into the region. The composite indicator suggests that support services to companies e.g. provided by cluster organisations could be improved, especially as far as support to access to finance and internationalisation are concerned.
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Scorecard for creative industries in North Holland (Amsterdam)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 85
C.2. Composite indicators
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)
How to read these graphs
These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
5.4
9.5
8.6
9.7
9.4
6.4
5.5
14.6
13.9
15.2
16.3
15.1
13.0
11.9
(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market
(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy
(7) Support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
54.5
6.9
9.0
7.5
11.4
9.6
11.5
15.2
15.3
14.9
18.0
18.0
18.4
(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships
(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital
(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
56.0
6.3
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.1
7.3
6.2
14.8
12.9
15.2
15.7
13.3
14.3
13.8
(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI
(1)(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
48.7
18.5
20.8
14.1
33.9
37.2
28.9
(1) Regional Business Environment
(2) Firm Strength
(3) Business Support Services
(1)
(2)
(3)
53.4
Scorecard for creative industries in Inner London
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 86
Appendix D. - Scorecard for creative industries in Inner London
D.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance
Summary and recommendations
Respondents indicated that there is a strong industrial basis in the region with a critical mass of firms operating in the creative sector. Strength of the firms is perceived to be more than satisfactory, despite the slight weakness of business services provided to companies. The funding aspect and the internationalisation support appear to be the point of major attention to be developed within the firms of the region. These aspects are also visible from the composite indicator scoring, and, along with the access to talents, should be supported by the organisations providing services to the companies.
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Scorecard for creative industries in Inner London
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 87
D.2. Composite indicators
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)
How to read these graphs
These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
6.1
8.8
10.3
10.0
7.5
6.3
5.1
14.5
13.2
17.9
16.6
13.3
12.8
11.8
(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market
(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy
(7) Support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
54.1
8.0
9.7
8.7
13.7
10.9
12.7
15.2
14.2
15.5
19.3
17.2
18.7
(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships
(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital
(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
63.7
5.8
5.6
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.7
4.9
14.8
12.7
16.2
16.9
12.9
14.9
11.6
(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
44.2
17.9
24.4
12.6
33.1
38.3
28.6
(1) Regional Business Environment
(2) Firm Strength
(3) Business Support Services
(1)
(2)
(3)
54.9
Scorecard for eco industries in the Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 88
Appendix E. - Scorecard for eco industries in the Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
E.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance
Summary and recommendations
Responses to the survey suggest that the financial situation is poorly viewed in the Copenhagen region. The regional ecosystem is overall perceived to be good especially in terms of critical mass of companies, access to research and entrepreneurial culture. Firms look like being well armed and ready to go international, and Copenhagen is one of the few regions where nearly all firm strength factors are more than satisfactory. Business support services are considered to be overall satisfactory. An encouraging statistic is that few firms performed poorly, and that impact of the crisis on the profit was perceived only on a limited number of firms.
The recommendation for future policy for this region would be to continue help drive market demand for eco industries.
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Scorecard for eco industries in the Capital Region of Denmark (Copenhagen)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 89
E.2. Composite indicators
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)
How to read these graphs
These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
6.8
8.7
6.8
8.3
11.5
8.8
6.3
16.3
12.6
14.0
13.2
16.6
15.2
12.1
(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market
(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy
(7) Support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
57.2
7.6
10.7
9.5
13.0
9.1
12.4
14.5
15.7
16.5
18.3
16.8
18.2
(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships
(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital
(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation
(1)(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
62.3
6.4
7.4
8.3
7.3
7.6
7.9
7.2
14.5
13.0
14.8
14.5
13.3
15.5
14.4
(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
52.1
19.1
23.1
15.4
33.5
37.0
29.5
(1) Regional Business Environment
(2) Firm Strength
(3) Business Support Services
(1)
(2)
(3)
57.6
Scorecard for eco industries in Lombardy (Milan)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 90
Appendix F. - Scorecard for eco industries in Lombardy (Milan)
F.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance
Summary and recommendations
The survey suggests that there is a good access to research and technologies for eco industries in the region, a critical-mass of firms, as well as a good local business culture and skilled workers. Yet, respondents indicated that the financial situation is critical, and that the regulations and policies along with the regional support systems still need to meet the demand of the respondents. Access to market is perceived to be a point of further development. These relatively low rankings for some aspects of the regional environment might be explained by the difficulty a large number of companies in the eco-tech field had to generate profit during this period of financial downturn. The policy recommendations based on the results of this survey would be that future policies and regulations should aim at easing firms access to funding, and at developing the access of the region to the eco-tech market, which by definition is heavily regulated, and characterised by an important global potential. Given the decrease in profits that some of the firms have experienced, a clear identification and prioritisation of most promising technologies and markets would be important.
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Scorecard for eco industries in Lombardy (Milan)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 91
F.2. Composite indicators
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)
How to read these graphs
These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
5.1
7.4
4.8
10.0
9.5
6.1
5.4
14.4
12.6
13.3
16.0
15.0
15.7
13.0
(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market
(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy
(7) Support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
48.3
8.5
8.4
8.5
11.4
9.3
11.5
16.0
15.4
15.6
17.9
17.7
17.5
(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships
(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital
(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation
(1)
(2)
(3)(4)
(5)
(6)
57.5
6.6
8.1
7.9
7.6
7.2
6.6
6.7
14.8
13.4
14.1
15.0
14.6
14.1
14.1
(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
50.8
15.3
21.1
16.1
31.8
36.6
31.6
(1) Regional Business Environment
(2) Firm Strength
(3) Business Support Services
(1)
(2)
(3)
52.5
Scorecard for eco industries in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 92
Appendix G. - Scorecard for eco industries in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
G.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance
Summary and recommendations
The regional business environment and support services are rated unfavourably for eco industries in the region. Particular weaknesses are market, regulatory and policy factors, and support measures. The scores for firm strength are more positive. Human capital and entrepreneurship are seen as strengths although internationalisation is one notable weakness for firms. Firms in the region are performing quite well overall with over three in five firms having increased their employment, revenues and output over the last 3 years.
Given the weakness of the regional market for eco industries and the low score for internationalisation of firms, a good starting point for supporting firms more effectively in the region would be to introduce further measures to assist firms in the region to access national and international markets.
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Scorecard for eco industries in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (Marseille)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 93
G.2. Composite indicators
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)
How to read these graphs
These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
7.4
6.9
4.2
5.07.5
5.2
5.3
16.3
14.1
13.0
12.4
14.7
15.7
13.8
(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market
(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy
(7) Support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
41.6
8.0
6.1
5.1
11.3
11.3
10.5
16.6
13.4
14.2
18.2
19.1
18.6
(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships
(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital
(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
52.3
6.7
7.3
6.4
6.1
4.8
4.4
6.5
16.5
15.0
14.1
14.3
11.8
13.3
15.0
(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
42.2
13.1
19.5
13.2
31.5
37.3
31.3
(1) Regional Business Environment
(2) Firm Strength
(3) Business Support Services
(1)
(2)
(3)
45.8
Scorecard for mobile services in Attiki (Athens)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 94
Appendix H. - Scorecard for mobile services in Attiki (Athens)
H.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance
Summary and recommendations
The regional business environment for mobile services in Attiki is very weak for all of the relevant factors and particularly for access to finance and in terms of support measures. In contrast, firm strength is favourable overall with human capital and market knowledge and innovation capacity being rated strongly. There is also a significant lack of all types of business support services. Firm performance is weak as over a third of firms saw their revenues and profits decline over the past three years.
The strength of firms and their innovation output suggests that there is significant potential in the mobile services industry in the Attika region. Access to funding is their weakest point which is clearly reflected in the very low rating assigned to the availability of finance in the region. If access to finance could be improved and better supported for accessing international markets be provided, firms could potentially harness more of their potential and improve their overall performance.
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Scorecard for mobile services in Attiki (Athens)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 95
H.2. Composite indicators
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)
How to read these graphs
These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
2.4
5.2
4.2
5.5
5.0
4.1
3.2
17.1
13.0
14.5
13.2
14.1
14.5
13.6
(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market
(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy
(7) Support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
29.6
7.2
9.6
7.3
11.4
8.9
11.3
16.9
16.3
15.916.9
16.3
17.8
(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships
(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital
(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation
(1)
(2)
(3)(4)
(1)
(2)
(3)(4)
(5)
(6)
55.8
4.5
4.7
5.1
4.5
5.7
4.4
4.7
15.9
13.2
15.1
15.7
13.5
13.1
13.5
(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
33.7
9.6
21.1
10.0
32.4
37.8
29.8
(1) Regional Business Environment
(2) Firm Strength
(3) Business Support Services
(1)
(2)
(3)
40.7
Scorecard for mobile services in South Finland (Helsinki)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 96
Appendix I. - Scorecard for mobile services in South Finland (Helsinki)
I.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance
Summary and recommendations
South Finland has a relatively strong regional business environment for mobile services with a critical mass of companies and an established knowledge base. Access to finance is rated somewhat unfavourably at the regional level although as a measure of firm strength it has a slight positive ranking. Human capital and market knowledge and strong points for firms whereas internationalisation is the weakest. Business support services are rated marginally favourably but there is no indication that there are particularly effective services available to firms. Firms in South Finland have been performing well in terms of growth in revenues and output. Growth in employment and profits has been less pronounced.
The business environment for mobile services and the strength of firms in South Finland have favourable ratings overall. The performance of the ecosystem and firms could be further improved by facilitating access to finance and the internationalisation of firms.
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Scorecard for mobile services in South Finland (Helsinki)
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 97
I.2. Composite indicators
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)
How to read these graphs
These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
6.7
9.3
7.4
8.5
11.3
7.8
6.6
15.2
13.8
13.8
14.2
16.8
13.5
12.8
(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market
(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy
(7) Support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
57.6
7.4
10.3
6.1
13.1
9.5
11.5
14.1
15.8
15.2
18.6
17.4
18.9
(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships
(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital
(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
57.9
6.3
7.0
8.4
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.3
14.0
13.1
16.0
15.6
13.2
14.5
13.6
(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
51.5
18.6
21.7
15.5
32.3
37.5
30.1
(1) Regional Business Environment
(2) Firm Strength
(3) Business Support Services
(1)
(2)
(3)
55.9
Scorecard for mobile services in Vienna
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 98
Appendix J. - Scorecard for mobile services in Vienna
J.1. Dimensions of strength in emerging industries
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Firm performance
Summary and recommendations
The regional business environment in Vienna for mobile services is favourable with particular strengths being the knowledge base and the presence of other firms in the same and related industries. The scores for the regulatory and policy and for the support factors are marginally unfavourable. Firm strengths include human capital and entrepreneurship. Vienna has the highest score for access to funding as a measure of firm strength amongst all the regions included in the pilot scoreboard. For internationalisation on the other hand it ranks below the average. Business support services are the weakest element overall. Support for internationalisation has the lowest availability rating amongst all the services. Firms in Vienna have been performing reasonably well in terms of output, particularly in terms of the growth of annual revenues.
Business support services are the weakest of the three elements for mobile services in Vienna and should be strengthened. In particular, providing more effective business support services for internationalisation could increase the level of internationalisation of firms and further increase their strength.
1
2
3
4
5Financial
Industrial
Market
CulturalKnowledge
Regulatory and policy
Support
1
2
3
4
5
Access to funding
National and inter-national
agreements
Internatio-nalisation
Human Capital
Entrepre-neurship
Market knowledge
and innovation
capacity
1
2
3
4
5
Supporting access to finance
Supporting internal
networking
Supporting external
networking
Supporting international
-isation
Supporting HR
development
Supporting entrepre-neurship
Supporting collaborative
RDI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Number of employees
Annual revenues
Output
Profits
Innovation
(1) Decreased (2) Stayed the same
(3) Increased by <5% annually (4) Increased by 5-10% annually
(5) Increased by >10% annually
Scorecard for mobile services in Vienna
European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard - Pilot Version
PwC 99
J.2. Composite indicators
(1) Regional business environment (2) Firm strength
(3) Business support services (4) Regional strength in emerging industries: overall score for all three elements (1, 2 & 3)
How to read these graphs
These composite indicators measure the importance and availability of different elements of regional strength in emerging industries. The inner ring of each graph shows the composite indicator scores for the different dimensions or elements. These scores add up to the total score in the middle of each graph. The outer ring indicates the maximum possible scores for each element or dimension based on its relative importance, as assessed by stakeholders of the region. The aggregate scores for all regions surveyed for the pilot scoreboard are shown on the right: (1) Regional business environment, (2) Firm strength, (3) Business support services, (4) Regional strength in emerging industries (overall score).
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
7.7
7.9
8.6
7.2
11.3
5.5
6.8
15.4
12.8
16.2
12.9
16.8
11.6
14.2
(1) Financial (2) Industrial (3) Market
(4) Cultural (5) Knowledge (6) Regulatory and policy
(7) Support
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
55.1
8.4
9.1
6.0
12.2
11.4
12.3
14.5
16.0
13.6
17.9
18.8
19.2
(1) Access to funding (2) Partnerships
(3) Internationalisation (4) Human Capital
(5) Entrepreneurship (6) Market knowledge & innovation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
59.4
6.4
6.9
8.2
5.9
7.2
6.4
6.0
14.6
14.0
16.2
14.4
13.7
14.1
12.9
(1) Supporting access to finance (2) Supporting internal networking(3) Supporting external networking (4) Supporting internationalisation(5) Supporting HR development (6) Supporting entrepreneurship(7) Supporting collaborative RDI
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
47.0
19.2
20.4
14.4
34.9
34.4
30.7
(1) Regional Business Environment
(2) Firm Strength
(3) Business Support Services
(1)
(2)
(3)
54.1