Eco-innovation
The eco-innovation and environmental performance of the EU 27 countries
By eco-innovation the use of natural resources is reduced and the release of harmful substances across the whole life-cycle decreased. The eco-innovation term has broadened from a traditional understanding of innovating where the main target was to reduce the environmental impacts towards innovating in order to minimise the use of natural resources in the design, production, use, re-use and recycling of products and materials. Technological innovation alone is not sufficient to enable the transition of Europe into a sustainable economy; there is a need for systemic innovations. The understanding of eco-innovation has thus broadened to include a focus on resource and energy efficiency taking into account a full life-cycle perspective.
Is important to understand the efficient use of material resources, such as fossil fuels, minerals, metals, and biomass because its human use (and over-use) is linked to the most prominent environmental problems today, as the climate change, furthermore Europe’s dependence on materials imported from abroad is increasing, and reducing resource use offers a significant business opportunity to reduce costs. According to the recent Eurobarometer survey, 75% of businesses in manufacturing, construction, agriculture, water and food services reported an increase in the cost of materials in the past 5 years.
The survey of the eco-innovation performance of the EU 27 countries was performed against the data available in two surveys of European businesses as the Community Innovation Survey (CIS, 2008) and the Eurobarometer, 2011 survey. The CIS reveals that innovation to reduce energy is more pronounced than innovation to reduce materials in almost all European sectors. The Eurobarometer reveals that process eco-innovation was the most popular type of eco-innovation for companies in the agricultural, water and manufacturing sectors. Companies in the construction sector were more likely to have brought a new product or service to the market, whereas companies in food services tended to implement higher amounts of organisational innovation.
In determining the eco-innovation performance of the countries (eco-innovation index) the following criteria was used:
1.eco-innovation inputs:
- total level of financial support for eco-innovation (as % of GDP),
- total R&D personnel and researchers in eco-innovation sectors (% of total employment),
- total value of green early stage investments,
2. eco-innovation activities:
- share of firms participating in eco-innovation,
- share of firms implementing eco-innovation-related management systems,
3. eco-innovation outputs: eco-innovation patents,
4. environmental outcomes
- material productivity (GDP/Total Material Consumption),
- water productivity (GDP/water consumption),
- energy productivity(GDP/gross inland energy consumption),
- GHG emissions intensity (CO2e/GDP),
5. socio-economic outcomes:
- employment in eco-innovation industries,
- size of eco-innovation markets,
- exports of eco-innovation products,
Ranking the EU 27 countries according to their eco-innovation and environmental performance
Country |
Eco-innovation index |
Material productivity |
Energy productivity |
Water productivity |
CO2 emission |
Finland |
1 |
26 |
26 |
18 |
24 |
Denmark |
2 |
24 |
17 |
12 |
19 |
Germany |
3 |
10 |
19 |
14 |
17 |
Austria |
4 |
20 |
18 |
16 |
15 |
Sweden |
5 |
18 |
25 |
17 |
3 |
Belgium |
6 |
13 |
24 |
21 |
20 |
Holland |
7 |
2 |
23 |
10 |
21 |
United Kingdom |
8 |
4 |
14 |
11 |
16 |
Ireland |
9 |
27 |
16 |
- |
25 |
Spain |
10 |
16 |
11 |
23 |
11 |
Italy |
11 |
6 |
10 |
27 |
10 |
France |
12 |
7 |
20 |
19 |
8 |
Luxembourg |
13 |
8 |
27 |
- |
27 |
Slovenia |
14 |
25 |
15 |
- |
13 |
Czech Republic |
15 |
15 |
21 |
15 |
23 |
Portugal |
16 |
19 |
4 |
24 |
7 |
Hungary |
17 |
3 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
Malta |
18 |
1 |
3 |
22 |
4 |
Cyprus |
19 |
22 |
13 |
25 |
22 |
Latvia |
20 |
21 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
Bulgaria |
21 |
14 |
6 |
13 |
12 |
Estonia |
22 |
23 |
22 |
- |
26 |
Greece |
23 |
11 |
9 |
26 |
18 |
Poland |
24 |
12 |
5 |
8 |
14 |
Romania |
25 |
17 |
1 |
20 |
2 |
Slovakia |
26 |
5 |
12 |
- |
9 |
Lithuania |
27 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
6 |
As can be observed the high ranking eco-innovation index countries has a slight environmental performance, therefore no model EU country can be chosen. Hungary environmental performance can be considered as good, but the eco-innovation performance is medium.
Ranking the EU 15 countries according to the CO2 emission
Country |
Eco-innovation index |
Material productivity |
Energy productivity |
Water productivity |
CO2 emission |
Sweden |
5 |
18 |
25 |
17 |
3 |
Portugal |
16 |
19 |
4 |
24 |
7 |
France |
12 |
7 |
20 |
19 |
8 |
Italy |
11 |
6 |
10 |
27 |
10 |
Spain |
10 |
16 |
11 |
23 |
11 |
Austria |
4 |
20 |
18 |
16 |
15 |
United Kingdom |
8 |
4 |
14 |
11 |
16 |
Germany |
3 |
10 |
19 |
14 |
17 |
Greece |
23 |
11 |
9 |
26 |
18 |
Denmark |
2 |
24 |
17 |
12 |
19 |
Belgium |
6 |
13 |
24 |
21 |
20 |
Holland |
7 |
2 |
23 |
10 |
21 |
Finland |
1 |
26 |
26 |
18 |
24 |
Ireland |
9 |
27 |
16 |
- |
25 |
Luxembourg |
13 |
8 |
27 |
- |
27 |
Ranking the EU 12 countries according to the CO2 emission
Country |
Eco-innovation index |
Material productivity |
Energy productivity |
Water productivity |
CO2 emission |
Malta |
18 |
1 |
3 |
22 |
4 |
Hungary |
17 |
3 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
Slovakia |
26 |
5 |
12 |
- |
9 |
Latvia |
27 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
6 |
Poland |
24 |
12 |
5 |
8 |
14 |
Bulgaria |
21 |
14 |
6 |
13 |
12 |
Czech Republic |
15 |
15 |
21 |
15 |
23 |
Romania |
25 |
17 |
1 |
20 |
2 |
Lithuania |
20 |
21 |
2 |
6 |
1 |
Cyprus |
19 |
22 |
13 |
25 |
22 |
Estonia |
22 |
23 |
22 |
- |
26 |
Slovenia |
14 |
25 |
15 |
- |
13 |
According to the 2011 Eurobarometer survey on eco-innovation around 45% of companies have introduced a product, process or organisational eco-innovation in the last two years. Around 4% of eco-innovators declared that the change they have introduced even led to a more than 40% reduction of material use per unit output.
Eco-innovation drivers
The most important drivers of eco-innovation according to the Eurobarometer,2011 survey are the current and expected high prices of energy. Every second company that introduced an eco-innovation ranked current (52%) and expected energy prices (50%) as “very important”. High material prices are nearly as significant with 45% of companies indicating high material prices as a very important driver.
The eco- innovation driving forces (percent of the companies who considered the driving forces „very important”)
|
EU 27 |
EU15 |
EU12 |
Hungary |
Economic factors |
|
|
|
|
- expected future increases in energy price |
52 |
51 |
56 |
59 |
- current high energy price |
50 |
50 |
52 |
58 |
- current high material price |
45 |
44 |
49 |
48 |
- secure or increase existing market share |
42 |
41 |
46 |
60 |
- increasing market demand for green products |
35 |
36 |
36 |
41 |
Technological capital |
|
|
|
|
- technological and management capabilities within the enterprise |
37 |
37 |
40 |
56 |
Natural capital |
|
|
|
|
- expected future material scarcity |
35 |
37 |
29 |
25 |
- limited access to material |
30 |
32 |
27 |
24 |
Socio-cultural factors |
|
|
|
|
- good business partners |
45 |
42 |
54 |
66 |
- good access to external knowledge, incl. technology support services |
34 |
34 |
38 |
61 |
- collaboration with research institutes, agencies and universities |
19 |
20 |
19 |
15 |
Regulatory and policy framework |
|
|
|
|
- access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentive |
40 |
38 |
48 |
72 |
- excepted future regulations imposing new standards |
36 |
32 |
33 |
40 |
- existing regulations including standards |
30 |
29 |
34 |
43 |
Comparing Hungary position with the EU 27, EU 15 and EU 12 average can be seen that the fields marked with greenl has a higher ranking then the average.