Seven out of 10 of them have a website. -The percentage of companies with 10 or more employees using mobile broadband rises four points,
6. 7%higher than in 2012.98.3%of Spanish companies with 10 or more employees had an Internet connection in the first quarter 2014.
Moreover, the use of computers has expanded to almost the entirety of these companies (99.2%).%)In turn, 87.3%had a Local area network (LAN) installed,
and 61.9%had a Wireless Local area network 95.3%of companies were set up with mobile phones. On the other hand 75.8%of companies with Internet access had a website.
In those with 250 or more employees, this percentage reached 95.7%.%Percentage over the total number of companies with 10 or more employees Number of employees TOTAL 10 to 49 50 to 249 250 or more%of companies with-Computers 99.2 99.1 99.5 99.8-Local area network
87.3 85.9 95.0 97.7-Wireless Local area network 61.9 59.5 74.2 81.1-Internet connection 98.3 98.2 99.1 99.8-Mobile telephony 95.3 94.8 97.8 99.4
-Other technologies (for example GPS, TPV, etc. 38.0 37.5 39.5 47.0%of companies with an Internet connection and website (1) 75.8 73.4 87.5 95.7%of companies that provide their employees with portable devices that allow a mobile connection to the Internet for business
purposes (1) 54.6 50.1 77.2 90.3 (1) Percentage over the total number of companies with an Internet connection Use of ICT infrastructures by company size First Quarter 2014
2 54.6%of companies issued their employees with portable devices, enabling connection to the internet for company use. 36.4%of these were laptop computers,
and 49%were smartphones or PDA phones. Employment and ICT training 25.1%of companies hired ICT experts and 11.1%hired new experts in 2013.
In turn, 22.9%of companies invested in ICT training in 2013. For companies with 250 or more employees, this figure reached 59.8%,that is, six points over that of the last year.
Evolution of ICT use in companies with more than 10 employees ICT use in companies with more than 10 employees had an uneven behaviour between the first quarter 2013 and the same period of 2014.
an increase of nearly four points in the use of mobile broadband and in the possession of a website can be observed.
Internet connection and Website (1) Mobile telephone broadband connection (1) Use of the Internet to interact with the Public Administration (1) Fixed broadband connection (1)( 1) Percentage over the total number
of companies with an Internet connection 2013 2014 3 Types of Internet connection 99.9%of companies with 10
or more employees with an Internet connection accessed it via a broadband solution (fixed or mobile).
The technologies used the most were access via DSL solutions (90.4%)and 3g or 4g mobile phones (74.2%).
%)Companies with an Internet connection by type of that connection Percentage out of the total number of companies having 10
or more employees and an Internet connection First Quarter 2014 Number of empoyees TOTAL 10 to 49 50 to 249 250 or more Broadband (fixed or mobile) 99.9 99.8 100.0 100.0 Fixed
78.3 76.1 89.8 95.3-By means of 3g or 4g modem 55.0 51.1 73.7 88.6-By means of Mobile 3g or 4g 74.2 71.7 86.4 92.4
Other mobile connections (GPRS, EDGE, etc. 23.7 21.0 35.8 50.6 Website availability and use The main services offered by companies with 10
or more employees via their website were company introduction (90.5%),privacy policy statement or certification related to website security (65.2%)and access to catalogues and price lists (52.8%).
%)Services available on the website Percentage over the total number of companies with 10 or more employees and an Internet connection First Quarter 2014 Company introduction 90.5 Privacy policy statement or certification
related to website security 65.2 Access to product catalogues or price lists 52.8 Links or references to the social media profiles of the company 34.7 Possibility of electronic submission of complaint forms 26.4 Posting vacancies
or receiving online job applications 21.1 Ordering or booking online 16.9 Online order tracking 11.1 Website customisation for regular users 8. 4 Possibility of customers customising or designing
products 7. 38 4 Seven out of 10 companies used digital signatures in some communication with external agents.
In the year 2013,91. 1%of companies interacted with the Public Administrations via the Internet.
The main objectives were obtaining information from the websites of the Public Administrations (80%%downloading of forms (78.2),
%)Use of social media by companies with 10 or more employees 36.9%of companies used any social media due to work issues.
Among them, 92.4%used social networks (Facebook, Linkedin, Tuenti, Google+,Viadeo, Yammer...40.9%used company blogs or microblogs (Twitter, Presently, Blogger, Typepad etc.
and 39.6%did so with websites that share multimedia content (Youtube, Flickr, Picassa, Slideshare, Instagram...
The social media least used were based Wiki tools for sharing knowledge (website whose pages may be edited by multiple volunteers via a web browser),
representing 12.9%.%The main uses of social media were aimed towards marketing, advertising and image management (72.1%)and as a user information channel (56.8%).
%)Out of the total number of companies, 87.3%stated that social media was useful, to a higher or lesser extent, for the development of their business.
Use of Cloud computing solutions by companies with 10 or more employees At the beginning of 2014 15%of companies used Cloud computing solutions.
Those used the most were information storage (69), %e-mail service (61.4) %and company database server (54.7%).53.4%of the companies that used Cloud computing did so by paying any service existing in servers of shared services suppliers.
The main reasons that limited the companies using this service were the uncertainty about laws (32.3),
%the risk of corporate security holes (31%)and the high price of Could Computing services (27.8%).
%)The companies that did not use this service stated that they did not do so since their knowledge of this type of technology was advanced not very (46.5)
%and/or it was not necessary for developing their business (45.9%).5 ICT use by Autonomous Community Companies with 10 or more employees
*Conversely, those companies in the Autonomous Cities of Ceuta and Melilla and those companies in the Autonomous Communities of Extremadura and Castilla-La Mancha had the lowest percentages of use of information technologies.(*
Internet connection, Interaction with the Public Administrations, Mobile broadband, Website, Use of Social media and Cloud computing. First quarter 2014 Internet connection Interaction with the Public Administration (1) Mobile Broadband
Connection (1) Internet connection and Website (1) Use of Social media (1) Cloud computing (1) TOTAL 98.3 91.1 78.3 75.8 36.9 15.0 Andalucía 97.6 94.4
) Percentage over the total number of companies with an Internet connection Use of ICT by Autonomous Community and Autonomous City in which the company is headquartered 6 Use of Internet, Website and Mobile broadband by Autonomous Community
Cataluña Asturias, Principado de Mobile broadband Internet and website 7 E-commerce Sales via e-commerce by companies with 10 or more employees 17.8%of companies with 10 or more employees carried out
as compared with 14.0%from the previous year. 12.2%of companies carried out sales via electronic commerce on a website.
30.3%of the total electronic commerce sales. 68.2%of the sales by e-commerce were to companies (Business to business, B2b).
The percentage of sales to final consumers (Business to consumer, B2c) was 29.9%.%Lastly, sales to the Public Administrations (Business to Government, B2g) represented 2. 0%.Purchases via e-commerce by companies with 10
as compared with 20.3%the previous year. 26.9%of companies carried out purchases via electronic commerce on a website.
and sales made via ecommerce by companies with 10 or more employees (2008-2013) Millions of euros 163,739 156,607 174,022 183,396 182,947 195,405 160,319 168,864 167,935 187,596 183,110
%of the total sales ICT use in companies with fewer than 10 employees 72.3%of companies with fewer than 10 employees had computers,
and 24.4%had a Local area network (LAN) installed, according to the data from the first quarter 2014.67.7%of micro-companies had Internet access,
and 99%of them used some broadband access solution. Regarding communications, 76.5%of companies with fewer than 10 employees used mobile phones, compared to the 74.6%of the previous year,
and 21.7%used other technologies (GPS, POS terminal, etc.).10 28.7%of companies with Internet access had a website.
One year prior, this percentage was 29.3%.%ICT infrastructures in companies with less than 10 employees Percentage over the total number of companies with less than 10 employees First Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2014%companies having:
-Computers 71.6 72.3-Local area network 24.0 24.4-Wireless Local area network 16.4 17.6-Internet connection 65.7 67.7-Broadband (fixed or mobile) Internet connection (1) 98.5 99.0
21.4 21.7%companies having Internet connection and website/webpage (1) 29.3 28.7 (1) Percentage over the total number of companies with less than 10 employees and an Internet connection Evolution of ICT use in companies with fewer than 10 employees
ICT use also had an uneven behaviour in companies with fewer than 10 employees between the first quarter 2013 and the same period of 2014.
from 56.8%to 66.4%.29.3%56.8%61.4%94.2%28.7%66.4%66.2%92.8%0 25 50 75 100 Internet connection and website (1) Mobile broadband
connection (1) Interaction with the Public Administration by the Internet (1) Fixed broadband connection 1)( 1) Percentage over the total number of companies with an Internet connection 2013 2014 11
The Survey has been conducted by the National Statistics Institute (INE), in cooperation with the National Foundation Centre of Reference for the Application of Information and Communication Technologies based on Open sources (CENATIC.
Telephone numbers: 91 583 93 63/94 08 Fax: 91 583 90 87-gprensa@ine. es Information Area:
Telephone number: 91 583 91 00 Fax: 91 583 91 58 www. ine. es/infoine/?/L=1
Quantitative Methods Inquires 105 SURVEY REGARDING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE IN ROMANIAN INNOVATIVE SMES FROM IT SECTOR1 Eduard Gabriel CEPTUREANU Phd, Assistant professor, Bucharest University of Economic Studies
, Romania E-mail: eduard ceptureanu@yahoo. com Abstract: Unfortunately, few changes predominantly generate positive effects involving major effort
and costs are often not far short of expectations. Why efforts to implement the changes result in failure
we use a survey database that was collected by Romanian National Trade Registration Office-main legal entity with function of keeping the register of trade.
and also large companies and was implemented by means of computer-assisted telephone interviewing. Data collection was done over a 2 month period during September-October 2014.
To reliably identify trends only respondents with long tenure and representing enterprises that systematically innovate
-organizational-or marketing-related innovation as defined by the Oslo manual (a set of integral guidelines for the collection of innovation data,
54.9%of companies NACE code principal-6201 (Activities to develop custom software (softwareoriented client), 20.9%CAEN 6202 (consultancy activities information technology),
9. 9%-NACE code 6209 (Other information technology service activities), 10,9%-NACE 6311 (data processing, hosting and related activities), 1,
2%-NACE 6312 (activities of web portals) and 6391 and 1%mainly operate on CAEN code 6399 and 6391 (Other information service activities).
Figure 5. Sample structure by NACE code Source: own research 2. 2. Information about the change processes in investigated companies Table 1. Survey variables Variables (partial approach) Findings Correlation between change
Digital Agenda Targets Progress report Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2015 1 Digitisation has been changing not just our economy
which is affecting all sectors of the economy and society the digital economy. These changes are happening at a scale
Digitisation has been good for Europe. Between 2001 and 2011 digitisation accounted for 30%of GDP growth in the EU. However, in other countries,
the contribution of ICT to growth was much higher. In recent years, it has become clear that one reason for the relative mediocre performance
Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2015 2 3 Total NGA coverage has reached now 68%in a gain of 6 points in the last year and of 39 points over the last five years.
At the end of 2014, Cable Docsis 3. 0 had the largest NGA coverage at 43, %followed by VDSL (38%)and FTTP (19%).
%Most of the upgrades in European cable networks already took place by 2011, while VDSL coverage doubled in the last three years.
There was a remarkable progress also in FTTP growing from 10%in 2011 to 19%in 2014.
rural coverage is only 25, %coming mainly from VDSL. Next Generation Access: the cities are covered mostly Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2015 0%20%40%60%80%100%20102011201220132014next Generation Access (NGA) broadband coverage in the EU, 2010-2014 Source:
IHS, VVA and Point Topic 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ELITFRPLHRSKCZEUROBGIEESFISENOSIHUCYDEEEATUKPTLVISDKLULTNLBEMTTOTALRURALNEXT Generation Access (FTTP, VDSL
and Docsis 3. 0 cable) coverage, 2014 Source: IHS and VVA Roaming: the effects of legislation Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2015 4 0, 000,050, 100,150, 200,250, 300,350, 400,450, 5020072008200920102011201220132014average roaming price per minute for calls madeaverage price per minuteprice
Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2015 5 Regular Internet use in the EU has increased by 14 percentage points since the launch of the Digital Agenda,
Conversely, the share of the population which has used never the Internet has declined by 12 points to reach 18,
which regular Internet use has reached now 60%,up from 41%five years ago. Here too, the target has been reached.
Frequent Internet usage, i e. connecting at least daily, has risen by 17%(as opposed to 15%at least weekly for regular Internet usage),
indicating a trend among regular users to more frequent use. Internet use: a success story Source:
Eurostat 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LUDKNLSEFIUKBEDEEEFRATSKIECZEU28HULVESMTLTSIHRCYPLPTITELBGROREGULAR Internet users (at least once a week) in%2009increase by 2014 Digital Agenda Scoreboard
2015 6 Online shopping has made continuous progress, up more than 14 percentage points to 50%of citizens. advancing in a close parallel with Internet use.
The target of 50%by 2015 has thus been achieved. There is no clear connection on member state level between level achieved and further progress, with only The netherlands,
At the other end, Slovakia is the only country to increase by more than 20 percentage points. ecommerce by citizens:
but display also higher growth. 0102030405060708090robgitelltptcyhrhulvplsiesczmtskeeeu28ieatbefrfidenllusedkuk nline shopping by citizens(%of individuals) year 2009increase by 2014source:
The rise of the use of egovernment services has been driven mostly by the increase of regular Internet users,
while the share of Internet users who use egovernment services has edged up by only 3 percentage points,
%This contrasts with other services such as online shopping, where the rise of the share of Internet users from 54%to 63%has been a major driver for the overall increase.
energy use egovernment completed forms Targets possibly achieved in 2015 Non-usage (probable) Overall egovernment (possible) Too early to tell NGA coverage 100 Mbps take-up R&d in ICT
Targets likely to be missed SMES selling online Cross-border ecommerce Roaming Sufficient progress Insufficient progress
WP2 analysed available data to better understand the growth, impact and potential for social innovation in Europe.
which will require much more broad-scale data. WP3: Removing barriers to social innovation. The development and growth of social innovation is impeded by factors such as limited access to finances, poorly developed networks and intermediaries and limited skills and support structures.
Data and monitoring. Most of the future research questions we identified would benefit greatly from advanced databases containing information on social innovation, social needs, the social economy and its innovative potential, other environments of social innovation, relevant
actors and networks, technological innovations, etc. Civil society and the social economy as incubators. Our hypothesis that civil society provides a particularly fertile ground for the generation
and tap into existing data sources on national technological innovation systems. Social movements, power and politics.
however, to distinguish between innovations that have a social impact (such as new technologies or social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter) and social innovations.
many have highlighted that at the core of social innovations is this intention to create something better.
and employs up to 10%of the total workforce in Germany. 47 In other countries (as is the case in Greece) there is no data to be found on employment in the social economy.
Thus we are still lacking more comprehensive and comparable data on the sector. The Third Sector Impact project that started early in 2014 will help to make this data available. 48 Nonetheless, the extent to
which social economy organisations are in fact innovators depends on numerous variables, e g. the size of the social economy and also on the welfare regime.
scope and impact of social innovation and adds complications to producing reliable data. Concerning metrics for social innovation
We should therefore try to harness relevant knowledge in the field and tap into existing data sources on national technological innovation systems.
It has become clear that survey-based data related to social innovation are necessary. Considering the importance of entrepreneurial activities as push-factors for social innovation, we need empirical survey data on organisations that are socially innovative
in order to better understand how social innovation emerges and how well it develops in societies. Figure 1:
and data sources on national technological innovation systems and make attempts to identify patterns in these systems. 3. Empirical testing of the proposed indicator system.
Information systems Management 31 (3), S. 200 224. Knowing what works at the micro level As social innovation is an area of increasing interest
and contexts and could lead to more homogeneous data about social innovation and opportunities for social innovations in future.
, crowdsourcing), problem solving (e g.,, codesign), and taking and influencing decisions (e g.,participatory budgeting. Our research further identified four important dimensions of citizen engagement with reference to social innovation. 22 SOCIAL INNOVATION THEORY AND RESEARCH Bringing specific knowledge First,
consultancy and so on) and as such supporting the adoption of the core‘content'of the innovation. After this initial period, their role is likely to shift
their role is to allow the core innovation to fit into a new context. But sometimes adaptations change the nature of the original innovation,
and advocacy New flows of information (open data) Developing the knowledge base INTERMEDIARIES Social innovation networks Centres for information and evidence Hubs for diffusion and adoption Platforms for open
data/exchange of ideas Providing programmes/interventions Networking opportunities/events Information and brokerage support Knowledge transfer programmes Learning forums and insight legal advice, marketing services, fis cal and accounting services, HR advice
With the rapid growth of cheap, ubiquitous and powerful tools like the internet, the world-wide-web, social media and mobile devices, new ways of carrying out social innovation have become possible.
and the configuration of online communities and their relationships with offline communities. It also enables new network effects at a scale not possible without digital technology
For example, standard ICT, including web portals, mobile apps and social media, which are widely and inexpensively available, is being used in the TEM initiative in Greece55 to support a local currency for the exchange of goods and services within groups with high unemployment and low income.
for example by civil organisations or the public sector who use data to better target pockets of social need
For example, the Streetbank initiative in the UK57 uses the internet and mobile apps for identifying someone's needs (e g.,
which are data-and analytics-heavy, and where high speed and global reach are important through reductions in transaction costs and increases in process efficiency.
Many cases also develop interdependent and complementary onand offline knowledge communities, and are able to nurture social capital both virtually
Data and monitoring It is clear that we require more and better data on social innovation, social needs, the social economy and its innovative potential, other environments of social innovation, relevant actors and networks, technological
Most of the future research questions we identified would benefit greatly from advanced databases containing information on these and other variables.
and nuanced databases would yield. Currently, different approaches to create such databases are on their way:
The research centre CRISES81 in Canada builds a relational database on social innovations; the SI-Drive project82 will produce a database of around 1000 global social innovations;
and the ICSEM project83 based in Belgium is in the process of building a database on different types of social enterprises all over the world.
These efforts are not coordinated at the moment. It will be a task for future research to develop a standard structure that allows such data to be combined
and compared. Civil society and the social economy as incubators Our hypothesis that civil society provides a particularly fertile ground for the generation
the connection between social economy organizations and social innovation requires more data for sound analyses.
All of this requires much more empirical data, in particular data separately considering socially innovative organisations. 38 SOCIAL INNOVATION THEORY
AND RESEARCH Effective collaborations It is evident that the nature of social innovations requires various actors to collaborate to make them successful (e g. for reasons of resource acquisition and allocation, for raising legitimacy, for reducing barriers or for spreading).
and tap into existing data sources on national technological innovation systems. Social movements, power and politics What can we learn from the literature on social movements?
To find out more see tepsie. eu. Useful links Social Innovation Exchange the global network of social innovators www. socialinnovationexchange. org Siresearch. eu a platform which brings together all EU funded research
www. internationalmonitoring. com/fileadmin/Downloads/Trendstudien/IMO%20 Trendstudie howaldt englisch final%20ds. pdf 23. Nicholls A, Murdock A. 2012.
www. internationalmonitoring. com/fileadmin/Downloads/Trendstudien/IMO%20trendstudie howaldt englisch final%20 ds. pdf 40. Lindhult, Eric (2008:
www. internationalmonitoring. com/fileadmin/Downloads/Trendstudien/IMO%20 Trendstudie howaldt englisch final%20ds. pdfa 42. Nicholls & A Murdock, Social Innovation:
Palgrave Macmillan. 63. www. emes. net/site/wp-content/uploads/EMESWP-12-03 defourny-Nyssens. pdf 64.
Data have been collected by Bureau Van dijk Electronic Publishing Gmbh under supervision by Mark Schwerzel, Petra Steiner, Annelies Lenaerts and Roberto Herrero Lorenzo.
Comments and inputs can be sent by email to: JRC-IPTS-IRI@ec. europa. eu More information on Industrial Research and Innovation (IRMA) is available at:
+34 954488318, Fax:++34 954488300 IPTS e-mail: jrc-ipts-secretariat@ec. europa. eu IPTS website:
http://ipts. jrc. ec. europa. eu, JRC website: http://www. jrc. ec. europa. eu; the DGRTD website:
http://ec. europa. eu/invest-in-research/index en. htm Legal Notice Neither the European commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use
which might be made of this publication. Our goal is to ensure that the data are accurate.
However, the data should not be relied on as a substitute for your own research or independent advice.
We accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any loss or damage caused to any person as result of any error,
omission or misleading statement in the data or due to using the data or relying on the data.
If errors are brought to our attention we will try to correct them. EUR 26221 EN ISBN 978-92-79-33743-7 (print) 978-92-79-33742-0 (pdf) ISSN 1018-5593 (print
Scoreboard 5 Summary The 2013"EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard"(the Scoreboard) contains economic and financial data for the world's top 2000 companies ranked by their investments in research and development (R&d.
The Scoreboard data are drawn from the latest available companies'accounts, i e. usually the fiscal year 2012 or 2012/131.
More salient facts observed from the analysis of 2012 and historic company data since 2003 include:
Figure S1 below shows the longerterm R&d trends for a subset of Scoreboard companies with available data for the past nine years.
For 1496 out of the top world 2000 companies in the Scoreboard with data for the whole period.
figures S2-S4 below show the longer-term R&d trends for subsets of Scoreboard companies with available data for the past nine years.
For 334 out of the top EU 527 companies in the Scoreboard with data for the whole period.
For 547 out of the top US 658 companies in the Scoreboard with data for the whole period.
For 324 out of the top Japanese 353 companies in the Scoreboard with data for the whole period.
%Western digital, the US (49.0%;%Apple, the US (39.2%;%Volkswagen, Germany (32.1%;%Qualcomm, the US (30.7%),Huawei, China (30.3%),Google, the US (27.7%).
%)Some of these companies have increased R&d partly as a result of acquisitions. The top 50 companies of the Scoreboard are mainly from Automobiles & Parts, 12 (13 in 2004), ICT industries, 14 (13 in 2004) and Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, 15 (11 in 2004.
Google (Internet), Oracle (Software), Qualcomm (Telecom equipment), Apple computer Hardware) and Broadcom (semiconductors. The performance of EU companies compared to US companies in the ICT sectors varies by subsector...
Despite lagging behind the US in the volume of R&d investments and in the number of companies, EU-based Scoreboard companies in the Software and Computer Services sector show very strong performance:
This contrasts with negative figures in the Technology Hardware & Equipment sector for EU companies(-2. 3%in R&d and-9. 3%in sales;
For 350 EU and 566 US out of the top world 2000 companies in the Scoreboard with data for the whole period.
IT Hardware, Automobiles & Parts, and Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology. Figure S6. Relative size of EU R&d in Pharma and Biotech compared to US Source:
The relative size has been calculated as the ratio of sector R&d expenditures in EU over US considering the 136 companies with R&d data for the whole period. 12 The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Investment
Inflows of FDIS in R&d by main world regions 2003-2012 Data: FT fdi Markets database.
Source: The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard European commission, JRC/DG RTD. The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard 13 Introduction In 2013, we continued implementing changes in the EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard (the Scoreboard) 2 aiming to enhance its capacity to monitor
increasing the geographic and time coverage and the number of companies. The target is to cover fast-growing medium-sized companies, particularly those in key sectors such as health and the ICT-related industries.
while maintaining an EU focus by complementing this coverage with the inclusion of the top 1000 R&d investing companies based in the EU4.
so that the companies'economic and financial data can be analysed over a longer period of time. For the second year, data are now being collected by Bureau Van dijk Electronic Publishing Gmbh,
following basically the same approach and methodology applied since the first Scoreboard edition in 2004.
Please see the main methodological limitations summarised in Box 1 and detailed methodological notes in Annex 2. The capacity of data collection is being improved by gathering information about the ownership structure of the Scoreboard parent companies
Companies'behaviour and performance can be analysed over longer time periods using our history database that contains information on the top R&d companies since 2003.
An analysis of the main indicators of the company data aggregated by world regions is included together with the performance of companies over the period 2004-2012.
Finally, chapter 6 presents an analysis based on data about foreign direct investments (FDIS) made by the Scoreboard companies.
and the listing of companies ranked by their level of R&d investment is provided in Annex 3. The complete data set is freely accessible online at:
http://iri. jrc. ec. europa. eu/scoreboard13. html In the next edition, this website will allow user-friendly and interactive access to the individual company data
Software & Computer Services 37; Automobiles & Parts 36; Technology Hardware & Equipment 29; Chemicals 24;
Banks 23; Health care Equipment & Services 20; Aerospace & Defence 18. The top 5 sectors account for 43.8%of the 527.1473 companies based in non-EU countries Companies by country US 658;
The 10 most numerous sectors Technology Hardware & Equipment 264; Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 156; Software & Computer Services 151;
Electronic & Electrical Equipment 139; Industrial Engineering 116; Chemicals 94; Automobiles & Parts 90; Health care Equipment & Services 63;
The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard 17 Box 1. Methodological caveats Users of Scoreboard data should take into account the methodological limitations summarised here,
when comparing data from different currency areas. The Scoreboard data are expressed nominal and in Euros with all foreign currencies converted at the exchange rate of the year-end closing date (31.12.2012).
The variation in the exchange rates from the previous year directly affects the ranking of companies,
When analysing data aggregated by country or sector, be aware that in many cases, the aggregate indicator depends on the figures of a few firms.
Every Scoreboard comprises data of several financial years allowing analysis of trends for the same sample of companies.
It comprises an analysis of the company data aggregated by main world region for the period 2004-2012.
The 2000 Scoreboard companies invested €538. 8 billion in R&d, 6. 2%more than in 2011,6 Due to data availability some companies may be missed
which data are fully available. Source: The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard. European commission, JRC/DG RTD.
The US is by far the strongest region in the group of high R&d intensity sectors including pharmaceuticals, health, software,
and technology hardware whereas the EU and Japan are stronger in medium R&d intensity sectors like the automotive sector (see chapter 4). Figure 1. 1 R&d investment by the top 2000
These figures are based on our history database comprising R&d and economic indicators over the whole 2004-2012 period for 1017 companies (EU 248, US 358 and Japan 241.
for 388 EU out of the 2000 companies with R&d and net sales data for the whole period Source:
for 547 US out of the 2000 companies with R&d and net sales data for the whole period Source:
The R&d data are broken down into groups of industrial sectors with characteristic R&d intensities (see definition in Box 1. 1). The following points can be observed regarding the overall R&d changes in the period 2004-2012
for 324 Japanese out of the 2000 companies with R&d and net sales data for the whole period Source:
Technology hardware & equipment; Software & computer services and Aerospace & defence. Medium-high R&d intensity sectors (between 2%and 5%)include e g.
Electronics & electrical equipment; Automobiles & parts; Industrial engineering & machinery; Chemicals; Personal goods; Household goods;
Fixed line telecommunications. Low R&d intensity sectors (less than 1%)include e g. Oil & gas producers;
It is important to remember that data reported by the Scoreboard companies do not inform about the actual geographic distribution of the number of employees.
and Japanese companies and those from the Rest of the World that reported employment data for the whole period 2004-12.
In 2nd position is Samsung Electronics from South korea with Microsoft from the US 3rd. The other companies in the top-ten include four from the US, two from Switzerland and one from Japan.
%Western digital, US (49.0%;%Gilead Sciences, US (46.4%).%)Those showing the largest decrease in R&d are Renesas, Japan(-24.9%;
%Nokia, Finland(-15.1%;%Pfizer, US(-14.0%).%)Among the top 100 group, 30 companies have doubled at least their net sales
Microsoft (€7. 9bn), Intel (€7. 7bn), Merck US (€6. 0bn), Johnson & johnson (€5. 8bn) and Pfizer (€5. 7bn.
%Western digital, US (49.0%;%Apple, US (39.2%;%Qualcomm, US (30.7%),Huawei, China (30.3%),Google, US (27.7%).
%)Other companies among the top 100 group have shown double-digit growth in both R&d and net sales, e g.
Gilead Sciences and EBAY from the US; SAP from Germany; Novo Nordisk from Denmark; Samsung Electronics from South korea.
Nokia, Finland and Vale, Brazil. The R&d intensity of companies in the top 100 (6. 4%)has increased slightly due to a higher rate of increase for R&d (6. 2%)than for net sales (5. 7%).The EU companies in the top
14353.2 SYNTHES INC. SHAREHOLDERS 14/06/2012 Acq. 100%GOOGLE 9758.0 MOTOROLA MOBILITY SHAREHOLDERS 22/05/2012 Acq. 100%NESTLÉ SA 9125.7
PFIZER INC.'S INFANT NUTRITION PFIZER INC. 30/11/2012 Acq. 100%MICROSOFT 6164 2 SKYPE GLOBAL SARL SILVER LAKE PARTNERS 13/10
/2012 Acq. from 49.9%to 100%CISCO SYSTEMS 4070.5 NDS GROUP LTD NEWS CORPORATION 31/07/2012 Acq. 100%GENERAL ELECTRIC 3234.6 AVIO SPA'S AVIATION BCV
%NOKIA 1700.0 NOKIA SIEMENS SIEMENS 07/08/2013 Acq. from 50%to 100%IBM 1559.0 SOFTLAYER GLOBAL INNOVATION 08/07/2013 Acq. 100%ORACLE
TELCORDIA WARBURG PINCUS LLC 12/01/2012 Acq. 100%GOOGLE 777.0 WAZE INC. KLEINER PERKINS 11/06/2013 Acq. 100%DAIMLER 767.0
BEIJING FOTON DAIMLER 18/02/2012 Joint venture 100%SONY 535.5 SO-NET ENTERTAINMENT 20/09/2012 Acq. from 57.974%to 95.609%HUAWEI 398.4 HUAWEI SYMANTEC
SYMANTEC 30/03/2012 Acq. from 51%to 100%IBM 275.9 ALGORITHMICS INC. FITCH INC. 21/10/2011 Acq. 100%AMGEN 251.6 KAI PHARMACEUTICALS THOMAS
'S DEVELOPMENT CSR PLC 04/10/2012 Acq. 100%VOLKSWAGEN 139.5 MAN SE 05/06/2012 Acq. from 73.76%to 75.03%INTEL 105 8 CRAY
Zephir database by Bureau Van dijk. 34 The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Scoreboard Long-term performance of top R&d companies This section analyses the behaviour of the top companies over the last 10
years based on our history database containing company data for the period 2002-2012. Results of companies showing outstanding R&d and economic results are underlined.
In the non-EU group, eight companies left the top 50 (Fujitsu, Matsushita Electric, NEC, Motorola, Nortel Networks, Wyeth, Delphi,
Sun microsystems) and ten companies joined the top 50 (Abbott, Amgen, Apple, Denso, Google, Huawei, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm and Takeda pharmaceuticals).
They include Google, up more than 200 (now 13th), Panasonic, up 128 (now 19th), Qualcomm, up 87 (now 37th), Huawei, up more than 200 (now 31st), Oracle, up 40 (now 29th.
or more places but remained within the top 50 include Siemens (now 17th), IBM (now 21st), Ford motor (now 23rd), Ericsson (now 28th), NTT (now 49th), Hewlett-packard (now 44th),
and Nokia (now 22nd). Best performers among the top 100 Among the top 100 group, 14 companies have increased simultaneously R&d
NTT Japan 49. ALCATEL-LUCENT, France 48. PEUGEOT (PSA), France 47. AMGEN, USA 46. APPLE, USA 45.
HEWLETT-PACKARD, USA 44. CANON, Japan 43. TOSHIBA, Japan 42. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, Germany 41. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL, Japan 40.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB, USA 39. DENSO, Japan 38. QUALCOMM, USA 37. HITACHI, Japan 36. BAYER, Germany 35.
HUAWEI, China 30. EADS, The netherlands 29. ORACLE, USA 28. ERICSSON, Sweden 27. BMW, Germany 26.
NOKIA Finland 21. IBM, USA 20. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, UK 19. PANASONIC, Japan 18. CISCO SYSTEMS, USA 17.
SIEMENS, Germany 16. HONDA MOTOR, Japan 15. SANOFI-AVENTIS, France 14. ROBERT BOSCH, Germany 13. GOOGLE, USA 12.
GENERAL MOTORS, USA 11. DAIMLER, Germany 10. PFIZER, USA 9. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, USA 8. MERCK US, USA 7. NOVARTIS, Switzerland 6. ROCHE, Switzerland 5. TOYOTA MOTOR, Japan 4. INTEL
, USA 3. MICROSOFT, USA 2. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, South korea 1. VOLKSWAGEN, Germany R&d investment (Euro million) USA EU Japan South korea Switzerland
China Source: The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard. European commission, JRC/DG RTD. 36 The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Scoreboard Rank in 2012 Company Rank change 2004-2012 1 VOLKSWAGEN up 7
2 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS up 31 3 MICROSOFT up 10 4 INTEL up 10 5 TOYOTA MOTOR dow n 1 6 ROCHE up 11 7 NOVARTIS
up 13 8 MERCK US up 21 9 JOHNSON & JOHNSON up 3 10 PFIZER dow n 8 11 DAIMLER dow n 8 12 GENERAL MOTORS
dow n 6 13 GOOGLE up>200 14 ROBERT BOSCH up 12 15 SANOFI up 40 16 HONDA MOTOR nil 17 SIEMENS dow n
13 18 CISCO SYSTEMS up 13 19 PANASONIC up 128 20 GLAXOSMITHKLINE dow n 9 21 IBM dow n 12 22 NOKIA dow
30 EADS up 5 31 HUAWEI up>200 32 GENERAL ELECTRIC up 5 33 ASTRAZENECA dow n 8 34 FIAT up 10 35 ABBOT LABORATORIES
41 TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL up 31 42 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM up 20 43 TOSHIBA dow n 13 44 CANON dow n 5 45 HEWLETT-PACKARD dow
n 22 46 APPLE up 109 47 AMGEN up 9 48 PEUGEOT (PSA) dow n 10 49 ALCATEL-LUCENT dow n 32 50
NTT dow n 29 Table 2. 2 R&d ranking of the top 50 companies in the 2004 and 2013 Scoreboards.
*rank Company Country Sector R&d in 2012 (€ m 1 GOOGLE USA Internet 4997.0 2 ORACLE USA Software 3675.9 3 QUALCOMM USA
Telecommunications Equipment 2967.3 4 APPLE USA Computer hardware 2562.5 5 BROADCOM USA Semiconductors 1756.9 6 PETROCHINA China Oil & Gas Producers 1741.6
7 TATA MOTORS India Automobiles & Parts 1496.0 8 EBAY USA General Retailers 1408.2 9 GILEAD SCIENCES USA Biotechnology 1333.9 10
Taiwan Electronic equipment 1191.6 12 WESTERN DIGITAL USA Computer hardware 1191.5 13 ZTE China Telecommunications Equipment 1170.5 14 VALE Brazil Mining 1120.2*These companies
%namely Software & Computer Services (11.7%),Automobiles & Parts (8. 9%)and Technology Hardware & Equipment (8. 8%).The top R&d investing sector, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology achieved a more modest
Companies based in the EU had the highest R&d growth in Automobile & Parts (14.4%),Software & Computer Services (14.2%)and the Industrial Engineering (12.3%)sectors.
%Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology (17.5%)and Technology Hardware & Equipment (10.2%).%)The main R&d shares of those based in the US specialise in high R&d-intensive sectors, namely Technology Hardware & Equipment (25.2%),Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology (22.1%)and Software & Computer Services (18.2%).
%)These three high R&d-intensity sectors account for 65.5%of US R&d, 30%for the EU and 26%for Japan.
Out of 40 industrial sectors, the top three Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology, Technology Hardware & Equipment and Automobiles & Parts account for 50.2%of the total R&d investment by the Scoreboard companies;
%It is followed by the Technology Hardware & Equipment sector with a share of 16.4%(similar to last year's 16.6%)and the Automobile & Parts sector with 15.7%,slightly higher than the 15.0%of last year.
%and Technology Hardware & Equipment (10.2%);%In the US, Technology Hardware & Equipment (25.2%),Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology (22.1%)and Automobiles & Parts (6. 6%;
%In Japan, Automobiles & Parts (26.4%),Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology (10.8%)and Technology Hardware & Equipment (7. 3%).The contribution to the total Scoreboard R&d by EU companies is 53.0%to Aerospace
& Defence, 46.1%to Automobiles & Parts and 39.5%to the Industrial Engineering sectors; the US contributes 74.4%to Software and Computer Services, 63.8%to Health care Equipment & Services and 54.0%to Technology Hardware & Equipment and;
Japan contributes 34.5%to Chemicals, 33.3%to the Electronic & Electric Equipment sector and 31.8%to Automobiles & Parts.
Worldwide, the Software & Computer Services sector shows the highest one-year growth rate (11.8), %followed by Industrial Engineering (9. 8%),Automobiles & Parts (8. 9%)and Technology Hardware & Equipment (8. 8%)sectors.
Among the companies based in the EU, the Automobiles & Parts sector shows the highest one-year growth rate (14.4),
%followed by the Software & Computer Services (14.2%)and Industrial Engineering (12.3%)sectors. Sectors showing the lowest one-year R&d growth are Banks (for which only the EU companies report R&d,-6. 8%),Fixed Line Telecom(-4. 6%
and Technology Hardware & Equipment(-2. 3%).The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard 41 Among the companies based in the US,
the Technology Hardware & Equipment sector shows the highest one-year growth rate (14.8%)followed by Software
& Computer Services (12.6%)and Industrial Engineering (9. 4%).Sectors showing the lowest one-year R&d growth are Food Producers(-12.4%)and Leisure Goods(-4. 6%).For Japanese companies,
the highest one-year growth rate is shown by Automobiles & Parts (6. 4%)and Health care Equipment & Services (4. 9%).The poorest performance was shown by General Industrials(-9. 7%)and Electronic & Electrical Equipment(-6. 9%).Apart
& Biotechnology Technology Hardware & Automobiles & Parts Software & Computer Services Electronic & Electrical Equipment Industrial Engineering Chemicals Aerospace & Defence General Industrials Leisure Goods
Health care Equipment & Services Oil & Gas Producers Fixed Line Telecommunications Banks Food Producers R&d investment 2012 (€ bn) EU USA Japan
%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Japan US EU Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology Technology Hardware & Equipment Automobiles & Parts Software
& Computer Services Electronic & Electrical Equipment Industrial Engineering Chemicals Aerospace & Defense General Industrials Leisure Goods Other Source:
Japan-353 R&d change(%)1 year 3 years 1 Software & Computer Services 11.8 14.2 10.0 12.6 10.4-4. 7-8. 4
12.6-2. 6 5 1 6. 4 5. 3 4 Technology Hardware & Equipment 8. 8-2. 3 1. 4 14.8
. 0 1. 6 13 Fixed Line Telecommunications 0. 6-4. 6-6. 1 7. 5 9. 3 0. 5-1. 1
in particular the Technology Hardware & Equipment (8. 8%vs. 1. 9%)and the Industrial Engineering sector (9. 8%vs. 3. 5%).The opposite happened for the Electronic & Electric Equipment
%Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology, IT sectors (Software & Computer Services and Technology Hardware & Equipment) and Leisure Goods. The sector with the lowest R&d intensity is Oil & Gas Producers (0. 3
the R&d intensity of EU companies is larger than that of the US and Japan in 6 sectors (Software & Computer Services, Technology Hardware & Equipment, Industrial Engineering,
intensity,%1 Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 14.4 13.9 15.8 13.2 2 Software & Computer Services 9. 9 12.6 11.5 4. 8 3 Technology
Hardware & Equipment 7. 9 14.5 8. 8 6. 1 4 Leisure Goods 6. 3 3. 3 5. 3 6. 7
Banks 2. 0 1. 8 13 Fixed Line Telecommunications 1. 7 1. 5 1. 1 2. 5 14 Food Producers
%followed by Software & Computer Services (7. 4%),Food Producers (7. 3%)and Aerospace & Defence (6. 4%).Regarding the automotive sales,
%)The sector showing the lowest one-year sales growth is Technology Hardware & Equipment(-9. 3%).Among the largest sectors in the EU,
the highest profitability is shown in Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology (19.0%)and Software & Computer Services (18.2%).
%)The EU companies'negative profitability of the Technology Hardware & Equipment sector(-1. 1%)is mostly due to large losses incurred by Nokia, STMICROELECTRONICS and Alcatel-lucent.
the Software & Computer Services sector shows the highest one-year growth rate for sales (6. 9%)followed by Technology Hardware
%and Oil & Gas Producers(-3. 0%).The US-based companies have the highest profitability in Software & Computer Services (23.9%)and Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology (21.7%).
*1 Automobiles & Parts 8. 8 11.3 5. 2 0. 0-3. 2 11.9 5. 6 2 Software & Computer Services 7
4. 4 10 Technology Hardware & Equipment 1. 9-9. 3-1. 1 6. 8 14.9-1. 2 6. 6 11
. 9 6. 4 4. 7 11.6-0. 2 4. 2 13 Fixed Line Telecommunications 0. 5-1. 1 8. 7
Technology Hardware & Equipment and Software & Computer Services, account for almost 90%of the total R&d investment of the US's high R&d intensity group.
Nokia accounting for nearly 74%of Finland's R&d in the Scoreboard. The analysis of 10-year trends of R&d and economic results for companies based in Germany,
Software & Computer Services 113: UK 47, France 21, Germany 19 Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 112: UK 30, France 18 Industrial Engineering 112:
Germany 20, UK 11, France 6 Technology Hardware & Equipment 46: UK 11, Germany 7, Sweden 7 50 The 2013 EU Industrial
of EU 1000 (number of firms) Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 59 (23%)52 (21%)Software & Computer Services 37 (14%)74 (30%)Technology Hardware & Equipment
More than 55%of these companies in the sectors of Electronic and Electrical Equipment, Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnologies and Software & Computer services have a higher R&d intensity than the average of the 527 EU companies.
The share of companies with a higher R&d intensity than that of the top European companies exceeds 40%in the sectors of Industrial Engineering and Technology Hardware & Equipment.
All the Swedish companies operating in the Technology Hardware and Equipment sector show higher performances, as compared to the upper reach average.
Swedish and UK companies in the Software and Computer Services sector show high performances as more than 80%display a higher R&d intensity than the upper reach average.
Similar cases occur in Finland where Nokia's R&d investment accounts for almost 74%of the total R&d by Finnish companies and in Ireland with Seagate The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard
These figures are based on our history database comprising R&d and economic indicators over the whole 2004-2012 period from the EU 1000 dataset, including 135 from Germany, 81 from France and 122 from the UK.
for 135 German out of the EU1000 companies with data for the whole period*Profitability expressed as companies'profits as percentage of net sales Source:
for 81 French out of the EU1000 companies with data for the whole period*Profitability expressed as companies'profits as percentage of net sales Source:
for 122 UK out of the EU1000 companies with data for the whole period.**Profitability expressed as companies'profits as percentage of net sales Source:
12%in 2004 (data from Evaluatepharma's 2013 report). But before discussing the details and the companies involved we need to describe the main features of the business environment in
Technological innovations range from biotech drugs or software-driven MRI scanners and radiotherapy systems to micromechanical devices like drug-eluting stents and robotic-assisted surgery.
Company Country Table 5. 4 shows key data for Gilead Sciences Celgene, Life Technologies, Illumina, United Therapeutics, Alkermes, Emergent Biosolutions, Viropharma, BTG, Acorda Therapeutics, Genus, Genomic Health, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and Luminex.
The data is taken mainly from the companies'own websites. The first is Abcam, a biotech
which illustrates the use of marketing collaborations used to expand its internet sales. It is a £122m sales Cambridge company that supplies antibodies and proteins to therapeutic and other biotech researchers all over the world through its innovative website
which offers 122,000 products. It develops and makes only one third of its products with the other two-thirds sourced through collaborations.
It provides comprehensive technical data sheets and quality control for these products which are marketed all through its website.
Its growth has been mainly organic but with related acquisitions. Abcam had a September 2013 cash pile of over £38m with no debt.
Matching the first 1500 Scoreboard companies13 with data on greenfield FDIS14, the objective is to show how the top world R&d spenders are locating
FDIS in R&d are concentrated mainly in the three sectors of Technology Hardware and Equipment Automobiles & Parts and Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology. 12 A turnkey contract is a business arrangement in
the developer is hired to finish the entire project without owner input. 13 Sample corresponding to the 2012 EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard edition. 14 Greenfield investment data is derived from the 2013 fdi
Markets database (a service from the Financial times Limited 2013), which accounts for more than 110,000 greenfield investment projects around the world for the period 2003-2011.
2035 42 Logistics, Distribution & Transport. 1270 83 Business Services 1229 31 Headquarters 1086 29 Maintenance & Services 559 8 ICT & Internet
http://epp. eurostat. ec. europa. eu/statistics explained/index. php/Foreign direct investment statistics. 70 The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Scoreboard The two top investing countries
Table 6. 4 displays in more detail the destination of the 856 FDI projects in R&d made by the EU Scoreboard companies during the period 2003-2012.
which data is available for the period 2003-2012. Figure 6. 7 reports the number of projects by type of FDI (R&d versus manufacturing and other types of FDIS16) and R&d intensity (high, medium-high, medium-low,
sales & marketing, retail, logistics, distribution & transportation, business services, headquarters activities, maintenance & services, ICT & internet infrastructures, education & training, extraction, customer contact
The data for the Scoreboard are taken from companies'publicly available audited accounts. As in more than 99%of cases these accounts do not include information on the place where R&d is performed actually
therefore, fundamentally different20 from that of statistical offices or the OECD when preparing Business enterprise Expenditure on R&d (BERD) data,
The Scoreboard data are primarily of interest to those concerned with benchmarking company commitments and performance (e g. companies, investors and policymakers),
while BERD data are used primarily by economists, governments and international organisations interested in the R&d performance of territorial units defined by political boundaries.
which provides reliable up-to-date information on R&d investment and other economic and financial data, with a unique EU-focus.
The data in the Scoreboard are published as a four-year time-series to allow further trend analyses to be carried out, for instance,
The sources of data also differ: the Scoreboard collects data from audited financial accounts and reports whereas BERD typically takes a stratified sample,
covering all large companies and a representative sample of smaller companies. Additional differences concern the definition of R&d intensity (BERD uses the percentage of R&d in value added,
The 2013 EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard 77 Annex 2-Methodological notes The data for the ranking of the 2013 EU Industrial R&d Scoreboard (the Scoreboard) have been collected from companies
Bvd data for the years prior to 2012 have been checked with the corresponding data of the previous Scoreboards adjusted for the corresponding exchange rates of the annual reports.
Main characteristics of the data The data correspond to companies'latest published accounts, intended to be their 2012 fiscal year accounts,
Therefore, the current set represents a heterogeneous set of timed data. In order to maximise completeness and avoid double counting,
ii) different companies'information systems for measuring the costs associated with R&d processes; iii) different countries'fiscal treatment of costs.
The data used for the Scoreboard are different from data provided by statistical offices e g.
BERD data. The Scoreboard refers to all R&d financed by a particular company from its own funds,
Further, the Scoreboard collects data from audited financial accounts and reports. BERD typically takes a stratified sample,
For companies outside the Euro area, all currency amounts have been translated at the Euro exchange rates ruling at 31 december 2012 as shown in Table A3. 1. The exchange rate conversion also applies to the historical data.
The original domestic currency data can be derived simply by reversing the translations at the rates above.
and is Table A3. 1. Euro exchange rates applied to Scoreboard data of companies based in different currency areas (as of 31 dec 2012).
which data exist for both R&d and net sales in the specified year. The calculation of R&d intensity in the Scoreboard is different from than in official statistics, e g.
only if data exist for both the current and previous year. At the aggregate level, 1yr growth is calculated only by aggregating those companies for
which data exist for both the current and previous year. 6. Three-year growth is the compound annual growth over the previous three years,
only if data exist for the current and base years. At the aggregate level, 3yr growth is calculated only by aggregating those companies for
which data exist for the current and base years. 7. Capital expenditure (Capex) is used expenditure by a company to acquire
1 4 16 Fixed Line Telecommunications 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 Food
2 4 Media 5 7 1 1 14 Mining 1 4 2 7 Mobile Telecommunications 1 1 1 3 6
4 2 18 29 1 1 4 5 3 1 11 1 111 Real estate Investment & Services 1 1 2 Software
& Computer Services 2 19 2 2 5 21 45 1 4 2 1 7 111 Support Services 10 2 19
1 2 4 38 Technology Hardware & Equip. 2 2 7 1 1 2 6 11 1 1 5 7 46 Tobacco
2013 EU Industrial R&d Investment Scoreboard 85 Annex 4-Access to the full dataset The 2013 Scoreboard comprises two data samples:
The following links provide access to the two Scoreboard data samples containing the main economic and financial indicators and main statistics over the past four years.
The Scoreboard contains economic and financial data for the world's top 2000 companies ranked by their investments in research and development (R&d.
The Scoreboard data are drawn from the latest available companies'accounts, i e. usually the fiscal year 2012 or 2012/13.
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011