Attitudes of European Entrepreneurs Towards Eco-Innovation Analytical Report

page 1
This survey was requested by Directorate-General Environment and coordinated by

Directorate-General Communication
This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations
and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.
F
l
a
s
h

E
u
r
o
b
a
r
o
m
e
t
e
r

3
1
5

T
h
e

G
a
l
l
u
p

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

Flash Eurobarometer
Attitudes of European
entrepreneurs towards
eco-innovation

Analytical report

Fieldwork: January 2011
Publication: March 2011

European
Commission

Flash EB Series #315

eco-innovation

Survey conducted by The Gallup Organization,
Hungary upon the request of
Directorate-General Environment

Coordinated by Directorate-General
Communication

This document does not represent the point of
view of the European Commission.
The interpretations and opinions contained in it
are solely those of the authors.

THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION

Flash EB N
o
315 Attitudes towards eco-innovation Analytical report
page 3
Table of contents

Table of contents................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Main findings ........................................................................................................................................ 5
1. Companies material costs ............................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Material costs as a percentage of total costs ............................................................................. 7
1.2 Changes in companies material costs.......................................................................................... 9
1.3 Expected changes in material costs ............................................................................................ 11
1.4 Where do companies materials originate from?........................................................................ 12
1.5 Changes implemented to reduce material costs.......................................................................... 14
2. Eco-innovative activities ................................................................................................................ 20
2.1 Share of innovation investments related to eco-innovation........................................................ 20
2.2 Eco-innovations introduced in the past two years ...................................................................... 22
2.3 Relevance of innovations in terms of resource efficiency.......................................................... 25
3. Barriers to an accelerated uptake of eco-innovation................................................................... 27
4. Drivers for an accelerated uptake of eco-innovation................................................................... 40
I. Annex tables .................................................................................................................................... 54
II. Survey details............................................................................................................................... 156
III. Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................. 158

Analytical report Flash EB N
o
315 Attitudes towards eco-innovation

page 4
Introduction

The objective of the Flash Eurobarometer survey FL315 Attitudes of European entrepreneurs
towards eco-innovation was to investigate the behaviour, attitudes and expectations of entrepreneurs
towards the development and uptake of eco-innovation as a response to rising prices of resources and
resource scarcity.

Eco-innovation is the introduction of any new or significantly improved product (good or service),
process, organisational change or marketing solution that reduces the use of natural resources
(including materials, energy, water and land) and decreases the release of harmful substances across
the whole life-cycle.
1

In this Flash Eurobarometer survey (N
o
315), a total of 5,222 managers of SMEs (small and medium-
sized companies) in the 27 EU Member States were interviewed by telephone between 24 January and
1 February 2011. A sample of SMEs was randomly selected in each country within certain activity
sectors (NACE Rev 2.0):

A: Agriculture, forestry and fishing
C: Manufacturing
E: Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
F: Construction
I 56: Food and beverage service activities

The targeted number of interviews varied dependent on the size of the country. In most countries, the
targeted sample size was 200. However, in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, the sample size
was increased to 250, while in Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta, the sample size was reduced to 50.

In this report, results are discussed in terms of the EU average, followed by a discussion of the results
at an individual country level. Differences in entrepreneurs behaviour and attitudes will also be
studied in terms of the following company characteristics:

- Company size: small (10-49 employees), medium (50-249 employees)
- Annual turnover: up to 2 million, 2-10 million, 10-50 million, more than 50 million
- Change in turnover over the past two years: increased, decreased, remained unchanged
- Sector of activity: agriculture, industry, construction, water supply and waste management, food
service activities.

More details about these company characteristics can be found in annex tables 1a through 7b.

1
Source: Eco-Innovation Observatory, Methodological Report 2010
Flash EB N
o
page 5
Main findings

The survey covered small and medium-sized companies in a number of sectors (agricultural,
construction, manufacturing, water supply and waste management, and food services).
Findings related to cost of materials
Almost a quarter of managers said that 50% or more of their companys total costs consisted
of the cost of materials. About 3 in 10 respondents said that these material costs represented
between 30% and 49% of their companys gross production value.
Companies with a high annual turnover were more likely to be material-intensive; for
example, a third of companies with an annual turnover of more than 50 million reported that
50% or more of their total production value was represented by material costs.
Three-quarters of businesses had experienced an increase in material costs in the past five
years; 26% of respondents said material costs for their company had increased dramatically
and 49% said there had been a moderate increase in such costs.
In Germany, Poland, Malta and the UK, more than 80% of respondents answered that material
costs for their company had increased moderately or dramatically in the past five years.
Respondents in the water supply and waste management, and agriculture sectors were more
likely than their counterparts in other sectors to say that material costs had moderately or
dramatically increased for their company in the past five years.
Almost 9 in 10 interviewees said they foresaw price increases for materials in the coming 5
to 10 years; similar figures were seen in almost all countries and in all types of companies.
Over three-quarters of respondents answered that many of the materials they used came
from (or originated from) their own country, while half as many respondents said that they
came from other EU countries. For all types of companies, many of the materials were sourced
domestically.
In order to reduce material costs, 56% of companies had purchased more efficient
technologies in the past five years, while 53% had developed more efficient technologies in-
house during that time frame. A similar proportion (52%) mentioned recycling practices.
Across all countries, some of the largest proportions of respondents mentioned having
introduced material-efficient technologies in the past five years (i.e. they purchased such
technologies and/or developed them in-house).
Almost 9 in 10 companies had introduced at least one change in the past five years in order to
reduce material costs; at the individual country level, this proportion ranged from 76% in
Sweden to 98% in Greece.
Eco-innovative activities
Just over a third of companies reported that less than 10% of their innovation investments in
the past five years were related to eco-innovation and a quarter estimated that this share was
between 10% and 29%.
In just six countries, more than a fifth of respondents estimated that 30% of their innovation
investments were eco-related: Sweden (21%), Greece (22%), Austria (23%), Cyprus and
Luxembourg (both 24%) and Poland (30%).
Companies that had made the largest share of eco-innovation investments were more likely to
be found in the water supply and waste management, and agriculture sectors.
Roughly 3 in 10 companies in the EU had introduced a new or significantly improved eco-
innovative production process or method in the past two years, while roughly a quarter had
introduced a new or significantly improved eco-innovative organisational method. A similar
proportion (25%) had introduced a new or significantly improved eco-innovative product or
service on the market.
o

page 6
Medium-sized companies, companies with an annual turnover between 10 and 50 million
and those that had grown in terms of turnover in the past two years were more likely to have
introduced these types of eco-innovation.
Among companies that had introduced at least one type of eco-innovation in the past two
years, the largest number (42%) said that such eco-innovation had led to a reduction in
material use of between 5% and 19% per unit of output, while roughly a third estimated that
the reduction in material use had been less than 5% per unit of output.
Barriers to an accelerated uptake of eco-innovation
Fourteen potential barriers were presented to interviewees and they were asked, for each one,
whether they considered these to be a serious barrier or not to a faster uptake of eco-
innovation in their company.
For each of the potential barriers related to financing and funds, a majority of respondents
thought that it was a very or somewhat serious barrier to an accelerated development and
uptake of eco-innovation. For example, insufficient access to existing subsidies and fiscal
incentives was considered a barrier by 6 in 10 respondents (30% very serious and 30%
somewhat serious responses).
Two-thirds of managers said that the uncertain demand from the market was a barrier to a
faster uptake of eco-innovation in their company (34% very serious and 33% somewhat
serious responses).
For most of the barriers listed in the survey, respondents in small companies (in terms of
workforce or annual turnover) were more likely than those in medium-size companies to
describe the barrier presented to them as being very serious or somewhat serious.
In terms of main activities, companies in the agriculture sector were the most likely to describe
various obstacles as being very serious or somewhat serious, while those in the water supply and
waste management, and food services sectors were frequently less likely to do so.
Drivers for an accelerated uptake of eco-innovation
Managers were also presented with 14 potential drivers and were asked, for each, whether they
considered these to be important or not for a faster uptake of eco-innovation in their company.
For 10 of the 14 drivers listed, more than 70% of respondents said that it was a very or
somewhat important driver of eco-innovation uptake and development in their company. A
larger variation was seen in the proportion of very important responses.
One in two respondents considered current high energy prices to be a very important driver to
accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development in their company and a similar proportion
(52%) said the same about the expected future increases in energy prices.
Although 45% of respondents also thought that current high material prices were a very
important driver of eco-innovation uptake in their company, the proportion saying the same
about limited access to materials was considerably lower at 30%.
Of the 14 drivers listed in the survey, current and future high energy prices were mentioned
most frequently as being very important drivers of accelerated eco-innovation uptake in
respondents companies.

Flash EB N
o
page 7
1. Companies material costs

1.1 Material costs as a percentage of total costs

Almost a quarter (24%) of managers said that 50% or more of their companys total costs (gross
production value) consisted of material costs i.e. all costs for materials used to manufacture a
product or perform a service. About 3 in 10 (31%) respondents said that material costs represented
between 30% and 49% of their companys gross production value, while a quarter estimated that
between 10% and 29% of total costs were accounted for by material costs. Finally, roughly a tenth
(9%) of respondents said that the cost of materials represented less than 10% of all costs.

Cost of materials as a percentage of companies
total costs
24
31
25
9
0
10
50% or more
Between 30% and 49%
Between 10% and 29%
Less than 10%
Not applicable
DK/NA
Q1. What percentage of your company's total cost - i.e. gross
production value - is material cost?
Base: all companies, % EU27

Country variations

In Poland, almost half (47%) of the companies surveyed stated that material costs represented 50% or
more of their total production value. In three other countries, more than 4 in 10 respondents gave a
similar response: Romania (44%), Bulgaria and Latvia (both 42%). In these four countries, a fifth or
more of the companies reported that between 30% and 49% of total costs were costs of materials
(from 21% in Bulgaria to 33% in Latvia).

In France, Luxembourg, Belgium and Spain, less than half of respondents answered that 30% or more
of their companys total costs consisted of material costs. For example, in Luxembourg, more than
a third (36%) of respondents said that material costs represented between 30% and 49% of their
companys gross production value, while just 7% estimated that these costs represented 50% or more
of the total. For French companies, the corresponding figures were 26% and 12%, respectively. In
France, about a fifth (21%) of respondents answered that less than 10% of their companys total costs
were material costs; in most other countries, however, less than 10% of respondents gave a similar
response.

In some countries, a considerable proportion of respondents found it difficult to estimate what
percentage of their companys total costs consisted of material costs. The proportions of such dont
know responses were the highest in the UK and Belgium (both 21%).

o

page 8

47
44
42 42
38
36 36
34
30
28 28 27 27 26
25 24 23
21 21 21 21 20 20 18 18 16
12
7
26
27
21
33
32 35 35
33
34
26 27
24 26
38
37
31
31
23
32
36
34 36
25
34
50
38
26 36
15
13
17
13
15
17 18
20
20
20
23
25
24
24
26
25
23
24
22
32
25
29
29
29
21
35
32
44
6
5 11
5
5
8
3 4
6
14 9 13
6
6 5
9
12
10
5
10
8
12
12
7
4
6
21
9
5
11
8 8
9
4
8 8 10 11
14
12
19
6 7
10 11
21 21
2
12
2
14
11
7
4
9
4
0
20
40
60
80
100

P
L
R
O
B
G

L
V

H
U

S
I

L
T

M
T

S
K

P
T

E
E

E
L

C
Y

C
Z

S
E
E
U
2
7

I
E

B
E

U
K

D
K

I
T

F
I

E
S

N
L

A
T

D
E

F
R

L
U
50% or more Between 30% and 49% Between 10% and 29% Less than 10% Not applicable DK/NA
Q1. What percentage of your company's total cost - i.e. gross production value - is material cost?
Base: all companies, % by country
Cost of materials as a percentage of a companies total costs

Company characteristics

Roughly a quarter (23%-27%) of agricultural, construction and manufacturing companies reported that
50% or more of their total production value was due to material costs; this proportion was lower in the
water supply and waste management, and food services sectors (14% and 10%, respectively). A
similar picture emerged when looking at the proportions saying that the percentage of material costs
was between 30% and 49% (from 13% in water supply and waste management to 33% in
construction).

The food services sector had the largest proportion of respondents answering that material costs
represented between 10% and 29% of their companys gross production value (39% vs. 24% in the
construction and manufacture sectors). In the water supply and waste management sector, respondents
were most likely to say that that the share of these sorts of costs was less than 10% (29% vs. 8%-10%
in all other sectors).

Companies with a high annual turnover were more likely to be material-intensive. For example, 33%
of companies with an annual turnover of more than 50 million reported that 50% or more of their
total production value was represented by material costs; the corresponding figure for companies with
an annual turnover of less than 2 million was 22%. Six in 10 respondents in the latter type of
company said that material costs represented between 10% and 49% of their companys gross
production value, compared to only half as many respondents in the former type of company (32%).

For more details, see annex table 8b.

Flash EB N
o
page 9
1.2 Changes in companies material costs

Three-quarters of businesses had experienced an increase in material costs in the past five years; 26%
of respondents said material costs for their company had increased dramatically and 49% said there
had been a moderate increase in such costs.

About one in seven (15%) managers answered that their companys material costs had remained
unchanged in the past five years and almost a tenth (8%) said that such costs had decreased in that
time frame.

How companies material costs have evolved
over 5 years
26
49
15
8
02
Increased dramatically
Increased moderately
Remained unchanged
Decreased
Not applicable
DK/NA
Q2. Have material costs for your company increased or
decreased in the past 5 years?

Country variations

In Germany, Poland, Malta and the UK, more than 80% of respondents answered that material costs
for their company had increased moderately or dramatically in the past five years (between 85% and
88%). The proportion of businesses that had experienced material cost increases was also higher than
50% in almost all other EU Member States; the only exception was the Czech Republic where 49% of
respondents said that their company had seen an increase in material costs in the past five years.

Focusing solely on companies that had experienced a dramatic increase in material costs in the past
five years, it was noted that the proportions of such companies were highest in Malta (50%) and the
UK (46%). In about half of the EU Member States, however, less than a quarter of respondents
answered that material costs for their company had increased dramatically in the past five years.

Respondents in the Czech Republic were the most likely to answer that their companys material costs
had remained unchanged in the past five years (34%); in Denmark, Estonia, Bulgaria, Finland,
Slovakia and Sweden, a fifth or more of respondents gave a similar response (21%-28%). Finally,
in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Denmark, somewhat more than a fifth of interviewees reported that material
costs for their company had decreased in the past five years (21%-23%).

o

page 10

46
50
24
29
18
27
32
29
22
26
19
30
26
33
9
17
23
27 28 27
19
13
30
28
20
11 11
6
42
37
61
56
62
52
47
47
54
49
54
44
47
39
58
50
43
38 37
38
45
50
29
31
35
42 42
43
4 8 11
11
10
15
13
17
13 15 16
10
15
12
23
17 16 18 17
17 17
28
15
22
25
21 23
34
3
2
2 4
7
3
5
6
8
8 8
16
10
9
8
15
15
14 16
13
17
5
22
12 15
23 21
16
0
20
40
60
80
100

U
K

M
T

P
L

D
E

L
U

A
T

B
E

F
R

N
L
E
U
2
7

I
T

I
E

P
T

H
U

F
I
R
O

S
I

E
S

C
Y

L
V

E
L

S
E

L
T

E
E

S
K

D
K
B
G

C
Z
Increased dramatically Increased moderately Remained unchanged Decreased Not applicable DK/NA
Q2. Have material costs for your company increased or decreased in the past 5 years?
How companies material costs have evolved over 5 years


Material-intensive companies were more likely to have experienced an increase in material costs in the
past five years. For example, 65% of companies with less than 10% of material costs (as a percentage
of total costs) had seen a moderate or dramatic increase in the cost of materials in the past five
years, this proportion increased to 78% for companies with material costs of more than 50% of their
total costs. Furthermore, 22% of the former type of company, compared to 13% of the latter type, had
not seen any changes in material costs in that time frame.

Smaller companies in terms of annual turnover were also more likely to report that material costs
had remained unchanged in the past five years: 16% of companies with an annual turnover of less than
10 million, compared to 8% of those with an annual turnover of more than 50 million.

More than 8 in 10 (83%) respondents in companies that had grown in terms of turnover in the past two
years answered that their companys material costs had moderately or dramatically increased in the
past five years; the corresponding figure for companies that had seen their turnover decrease was 69%.
Conversely, 14% of the latter type of respondent, compared to 5% of the former type, said that
material costs for their company had decreased in the past five years.

Respondents in the water supply and waste management, and agriculture sectors were more likely than
their counterparts in other sectors to say that material costs had moderately or dramatically increased
for their company in the past five years (80% vs. 68% in the food services sector and 74%-76% in the
construction and manufacturing sector).


Flash EB N
o
page 11
1.3 Expected changes in material costs

As noted above, 75% of businesses in the EU had seen an increase in their costs of materials in the
past five years; the proportion expecting price increases for materials in the coming 5 to 10 years was
even higher: almost 9 in 10 (87%) interviewees said they expected such increases.

A tenth of respondents did not think that material costs would increase in the coming 5 to 10 years: 8%
expected that such costs would remain the same and 1% expected a decrease in material costs.

Expectations about how companies material costs
will evolve (5 10 years)
87
8
1
0
4
Yes, material costs will increase
No, material costs will remain
approximately the same
No, material costs will decrease
Not applicable
DK/NA
Q3. Do you expect price increases for materials in the coming 5 to 10 years?

Country variations

Across almost all countries, more than 8 in 10 entrepreneurs answered that prices for materials would
increase in the coming 5 to 10 years (from 82% in Spain and Romania to 97% in Luxembourg and
Germany). Moreover, across all countries, less than 5% of respondents expected a decrease in material
prices in that time frame.

Entrepreneurs in the Czech Republic were the least likely to think that prices of materials would
increase in the coming 5 to 10 years (73%); almost a quarter (23%) of respondents in that country
thought that material prices would remain approximately the same in the coming 5 to 10 years. In four
other countries, more than a tenth of interviewees shared the latter view: Belgium (11%), Spain (14%),
Italy and Portugal (both 15%).

97 97
95 94 93 92 92 92 92 92 91
89 88 87 86 86 85 84 84 84 83 82 82
80 80 79 79
73
2 3
1 4 4
3 2 3 4 6 5
6 5 8 9
5
9
7 7
11
5
9
14
9
15
15
10
23
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1 2
1
2 2
2
3
2
1
2
2
1
4 1 4
6
3 2 2 3 4 5
4 3
10
5
8 8
4
11
6
3
10
3
7
9
2
0
20
40
60
80
100

D
E

L
U

U
K

A
T

D
K

H
U

M
T

N
L

F
R

F
I

S
E

I
E
B
G
E
U
2
7

S
I

L
T

P
L

E
E

E
L

B
E

C
Y
R
O

E
S

L
V

P
T

I
T

S
K

C
Z
Costs will increase Costs will remain the same Costs will decrease DK/NA
Expectations about how companies material costs will evolve (5 10 years)

o

page 12

Across all types of companies, the proportion of managers who answered that prices of materials
would increase in the coming 5 to 10 years was close to 90%; this proportion varied between 86% for
managers of companies that had experienced a decrease in annual turnover in the past two years and
93% for managers in the water supply and waste management sector.


1.4 Where do companies materials originate from?

A majority (78%) of respondents answered that many of the materials they used came from (or
originated from) their own country, while half as many respondents (43%) said that they came from
other EU countries. Other (non-EU) European countries were mentioned by 9% of respondents.

A tenth of interviewees mentioned Asia as the region where many of their materials originated from;
other continents were each mentioned by less than 5% of respondents (for example, 4% named North
America and 2% mentioned Africa).

Origin of most of the materials that companies use
78
43
10
9
4
3
2
1
1
Own country
Other EU countries
Asia
Other European countries (non-EU)
North America
South America
Africa
Australia and Oceania
DK/NA
Q4. From what regions do most of the materials you use come/originate from?

Country variations

The proportion of companies that said they often used materials from their own country ranged
from a quarter of companies in Malta (26%) to more than 8 in 10 companies in the Czech Republic,
Germany, Poland and Spain (81%-90%). About a quarter of Italian companies (26%) and 3 in 10
Spanish companies (30%) were frequently using materials that came from other EU countries; in
smaller EU countries, this proportion was considerably higher: for example, 81% in Luxembourg and
82% in Malta.

In about two-thirds of the EU Member States, the largest share of companies frequently used materials
that came from (or originated from) their own country, while the second largest share of companies
often used materials from other EU countries. For example, somewhat more than 8 in 10 respondents
in Romania and the Czech Republic (79%-81%) said that many materials used in their company came
from their own country, while more than 4 in 10 respondents mentioned other EU countries (47% and
45%, respectively).

In nine EU Member States, companies that often used materials from other EU countries outnumbered
those that regularly used materials from their own country. For example, 82% of entrepreneurs in
Malta said that many materials they used came from other EU countries, while 26% of entrepreneurs
Flash EB N
o
page 13
mentioned their own country. A similar picture emerged in Luxembourg, Slovenia, Estonia, Cyprus,
Greece, Denmark, Ireland and Lithuania.

90
86 86
81
79 79 78 78 77 77 77
72 72 71
68 67
65
63 62 62
57
55 55 54
53
50
43
26
0
20
40
60
80
100

E
S

P
L

D
E

C
Z
R
O

U
K
E
U
2
7

F
R

F
I

P
T

I
T

H
U

A
T

S
E

S
K
B
G

B
E

N
L

L
V

E
E

S
I

L
U

I
E

E
L

C
Y

D
K

L
T

M
T
Companies own country

82 81
74
69 68 68
63
61 61
58
55
53 53
51
50 49 49 49
48 47
45
44 44 43 43
41
30
26
0
20
40
60
80
100

M
T

L
U

S
I

E
E

C
Y

E
L

S
K

D
K

I
E

L
V

A
T

L
T

D
E
B
G

U
K

S
E

P
T

F
I

N
L
R
O

C
Z

B
E

H
U
E
U
2
7

F
R

P
L

E
S

I
T
Other EU countries

Other (non-EU) European countries were most frequently mentioned by respondents in Bulgaria and
Estonia (22% and 26%, respectively). Asia was selected as the region where many of their companys
materials came from by roughly a sixth of respondents in Denmark, Greece, Bulgaria and Germany
(17%-19%). All other continents were mentioned by less than 10% of respondents across almost all
Member States.

For more details, see annex table 11a.


Across all types of companies, the largest proportion of respondents said that their company often used
materials that came from (or originated from) their own country, while the second largest share said
they regularly used materials from other EU countries. For example, 87% of agricultural companies
frequently used materials that originated from their own country, while 42% used materials from other
EU countries.

Larger companies (in terms of workforce or annual turnover, but nevertheless, medium-sized), those
that had seen an increase in turnover in the past two years, material-intensive companies and those in
the manufacturing sector were more likely than other types of companies to often use materials from
other European countries or from other continents. For example, 52% of respondents in medium-sized
companies mentioned other EU countries, compared to 42% of respondents in small companies.
Similarly, other (non-EU) European countries were mentioned by 12% of respondents in the
o

page 14
manufacturing sector, compared to 4%-5% of respondents in other activity sectors. Finally, while 22%
of respondents in companies with an annual turnover of more than 50 million answered that many of
their materials came from Asia, this proportion was 9% for companies with an annual turnover of less
than 2 million.


1.5 Changes implemented to reduce material costs

In order to reduce material costs, 56% of companies had purchased more efficient technologies in the
past five years, while 53% had developed more efficient technologies in-house during that time frame.
A similar proportion (52%) mentioned recycling practices as a strategy that they had used to reduce
material costs and 46% referred to an improvement of material flow in the supply chain.

In the five years prior to the survey, almost 4 in 10 (38%) companies had replaced expensive materials
by cheaper alternatives in order to reduce material costs and 3 in 10 companies had outsourced
production or service activities. Finally, 27% of businesses had chosen to change their business model
in order to reduce material costs.

Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years
56
53
52
46
38
30
27
36
40
40
44
53
61
63
6
7
8
8
8
8
9
Purchasing more efficient technologies
Developing more efficient technologies in-house
Recycling
Improving the material flow in the supply chain
Substituting expensive materials by cheaper ones
Outsourcing production or service activities
Changing the business model
Mentioned Not mentioned Not applicable DK/NA
Q5. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years?

Country variations

Almost 9 in 10 (86%) companies in the EU had introduced at least one change in the past five years in
order to reduce material costs; at the individual country level, this proportion ranged from 76% in
Sweden to 98% in Greece.

Furthermore, at the EU level, companies had introduced, on average, three of the changes listed in the
survey. Greece and Ireland had the highest average scores (4.2 and 4.4, respectively), while the Czech
Republic and Hungary had the lowest scores (2.2 and 2.3, respectively).

Flash EB N
o
page 15

98 97 97 97 96
94 94 94 94 93
92 92 91
90 89 88
87 86
85 84 83
81
80
79 78 78 77 76
0
20
40
60
80
100

E
L

I
E

S
I

U
K

P
L

C
Y

F
I

M
T
R
O

L
U

E
S
B
G

L
V

E
E

D
E

P
T

L
T
E
U
2
7

B
E

S
K

H
U

D
K

N
L

F
R

A
T

C
Z

I
T

S
E
Companies that have implemented at least one change to reduce material costs

4.4
4.2
4.0 3.9
3.8 3.8
3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
3.4 3.4 3.3
3.3
3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9
2.7
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3
2.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

I
E

E
L

U
K

C
Y

P
L
R
O

S
I

L
U

P
T

M
T

F
I

L
V

E
S

E
E
B
G
E
U
2
7

B
E

S
K

D
E

L
T

D
K

S
E

I
T

A
T

N
L

F
R

H
U

C
Z
Average number of implemented changes

Across all countries, some of the largest proportions of respondents mentioned having introduced
material-efficient technologies in the past five years (i.e. they purchased such technologies and/or
developed them in-house).

In the UK, Romania, Cyprus and Ireland, more than 7 in 10 companies had purchased more material-
efficient technologies in the past five years (73%-77%); in Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, Hungary
and France, on the other hand, less than half of companies had done the same (43%-49%).

77 77
74 73
70
69
66
62
61 60 59
58 58 58 57
56 56 55 55 54 54
51
50 49
47
46
44 43
0
20
40
60
80
100

I
E

C
Y
R
O

U
K

E
L

S
I

E
E

P
T

L
V

D
K

P
L

D
E

L
U

B
E

L
T
E
U
2
7
B
G

E
S

M
T

S
K

C
Z

F
I

I
T

F
R

H
U

S
E

N
L

A
T
Base: all companies, % of 'Mentioned' shown by country
Purchasing more efficient technologies

o

page 16
Companies in Austria and the Netherlands were also among the least likely to have developed more
material-efficient technologies in-house in the past five years (33% and 35%, respectively);
companies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia were even less likely to have introduced such changes
(21% and 30%, respectively).

In the UK, Cyprus and Ireland, roughly 7 in 10 companies had developed more efficient technologies
in-house in order to reduce material costs (69%-71%); respondents in Greece and Poland, however,
were the most likely to have done so (73% and 75%, respectively).

75
73
71 70
69
66
62 62
60
59
56 55 55 54 53 53 53
51
50
49
47
45
44
40
35
33
30
21
0
20
40
60
80
100

P
L

E
L

I
E

C
Y

U
K
R
O

L
U

L
V

E
E

P
T

M
T

D
E
B
G

E
S

S
I
E
U
2
7

L
T

D
K

I
T

F
I

H
U

B
E

S
E

F
R

N
L

A
T

S
K

C
Z
Developing more efficient technologies in-house

A large variation was seen in the proportion of companies that had recycled in the past five years in
order to reduce material costs; these proportions ranged from 22% in Hungary to 82% in Ireland and
the UK. Greece, Finland and Spain were close to the UK and Ireland with roughly 8 in 10 companies
that mentioned recycling as a strategy to reduce material costs (78%-81%).

82 82
81
79 78
68
67
61 61
59
55
53
52
50 50
48 48 48 47
43
35 35 34
32
30
29
24
22
0
20
40
60
80
100

U
K

I
E

E
S

F
I

E
L

L
U

M
T

C
Y

P
T

B
E

P
L

S
E
E
U
2
7

F
R

S
K
R
O

N
L

S
I

D
E

A
T

L
V

I
T

E
E

C
Z

D
K
B
G

L
T

H
U
Recycling

Flash EB N
o
page 17
While just 27% of companies in France reported having improved the material flow in the supply
chain in the past five years, this proportion increased to 70%-71% in Ireland and Romania. In a further
seven countries, more than 6 in 10 companies gave a similar response (from 61% in Greece to 68% in
Slovenia).

71
70
68
66 66 65
64 64
61
58
52 52
49 48 48 47 46 46 46 46
42 42
40 40 39
35 34
27
0
20
40
60
80
100
R
O

I
E

S
I

C
Y

P
L
B
G

F
I

M
T

E
L

U
K

E
S

L
V

S
K

D
E

P
T

A
T

H
U
E
U
2
7

D
K

E
E

L
T

L
U

B
E

C
Z

S
E

N
L

I
T

F
R
Improving the material flow in the supply chain

The individual country results for the proportion of companies that had reduced material costs by
replacing expensive materials by cheaper ones showed less variation; this proportion ranged from
roughly 30% in the Netherlands, Malta and France to about half of the companies in Latvia, Greece
and Slovenia (49%-50%) and a slim majority in Ireland (55%).

55
50 50 49
47 46 46
45 44 44 43 43
41
39 38 38 38
36 36 36
34 34
32 32 32
31 30 29
0
20
40
60
80
100

I
E

S
I

E
L

L
V

P
L

U
K

L
U
R
O
B
G

L
T

B
E

P
T

E
E

E
S

C
Y

H
U
E
U
2
7

F
I

D
K

D
E

S
E

I
T

C
Z

A
T

S
K

F
R

M
T

N
L
Substituting expensive materials by cheaper ones

o

page 18
Outsourcing production or service activities in order to reduce materials costs was mentioned by a
slim majority of entrepreneurs in Slovakia, Latvia and Estonia (51%-54%). In the Czech Republic,
Hungary and France, however, less than a fifth of entrepreneurs had implemented such a change in the
past five years (15%-18%).

54
52 51
45
44
42
39 39 39
36 36 36 35 35
33
30 30 30 30
28 28 27
26
24 23
18
15 15
0
20
40
60
80
100

E
E

L
V

S
K

F
I

P
T

L
T

L
U
R
O

E
S

P
L

C
Y

E
L

U
K

I
E

M
T

B
E

S
I
E
U
2
7
B
G

A
T

D
E

I
T

D
K

S
E

N
L

F
R

H
U

C
Z
Outsourcing production or service activities

Finally, in about half of the countries surveyed, less than a third of companies had changed their
business model in an attempt to reduce material costs (from 15% in Sweden to 32% Slovakia and
Lithuania). Ireland was the only country were more than half of companies had implemented such a
change in the past five years (56%).

56
48 48
44
43 42
41
36
35 34 34 33
32 32
28 27 27 26
24 23 22 22 22 22
20
18
16 15
0
20
40
60
80
100

I
E

E
L
B
G

C
Y

M
T

P
L

S
I

L
U
R
O

P
T

E
E

U
K

L
T

S
K

L
V

N
L
E
U
2
7

B
E

D
K

F
R

I
T

D
E

C
Z

F
I

A
T

E
S

H
U

S
E
Changing the business model


Medium-sized companies were more likely than small ones to have introduced changes as listed in
the survey to reduce material costs. For example, 69% of medium-sized companies had purchased
more material-efficient technologies in the past five years, while 63% had developed more efficient
technologies in-house during that time frame; the corresponding proportions for small companies were
54% and 51%, respectively.

Companies with a high annual turnover and those that had recently grown in terms of turnover were
also more likely to have introduced changes to reduce material costs. For example, 44% of companies
with an annual turnover of less than 2 million reported having improved the material flow in the
supply chain in the past five years, whereas two-thirds (67%) of companies with an annual turnover of
more than 50 million had done this.

Flash EB N
o
page 19
The higher a companys material costs (as a percentage of total costs), the more likely it was to have
implemented changes to reduce that amount. For example, about a third (32%) of companies with
material costs of more than 50% had changed their business model in the past five years, compared to
only half as many companies with material costs accounting for less than 10% of the total (17%).

It was noted in section 1.1 that companies in the water supply and waste management sector were less
likely to report that material costs represented 30% or more of their total production value; as such,
they were also less likely to have attempted to reduce material costs. Agricultural companies, on the
other hand, were the most likely to have introduced the material cost-saving changes listed in the
survey. For example, 45% of agriculture companies had replaced expensive materials by cheaper
alternatives, compared to 28% of companies in the water supply and waste management sector.

For more details, see annex tables 12b through 18b.

o

page 20
2. Eco-innovative activities

2.1 Share of innovation investments related to eco-innovation

A majority of companies included in this survey had made innovation investments in the past five
years. Respondents were asked what share of innovation investments during that time frame had been
related to eco-innovations i.e. implementing new or substantially improved solutions resulting in
more efficient use of materials, energy and water.

Just over a third of companies (35%) reported that less than 10% of their innovation investments in the
past five years were related to eco-innovation and a quarter estimated that this share was between 10%
and 29%.

Relatively few (6%) managers answered that more than 50% of the innovation investments made by
their company in the past five years were related to eco-innovation; almost twice as many respondents
(10%) said that the share related to eco-innovation was between 30% and 49%.

Share of eco-innovation-related investments in
last 5 years
6
10
25
35
18
6
More than 50%
Between 30% and 49%
Between 10% and 29%
Less than 10%
None/no innovative activities
DK/NA
Q6. Over the last 5 years, what share of innovation investments in your
company were related to eco-innovation, i.e. implementing new or
substantially improved solutions resulting in more efficient use in
material, energy and water?

Country variations

As for the individual country results, many companies in all countries had made eco-innovation
investments in the past five years; however, a minority reported that the share of innovation
investments related to eco-innovation was 30% or more. In just six countries, more than a fifth of
respondents estimated that they had reached this level: Sweden (21%), Greece (22%), Austria (23%),
Cyprus and Luxembourg (both 24%) and Poland (30%).

In almost all countries, the largest proportion of respondents answered that less than 10% of their
companys innovation investments were related to eco-innovation; respondents in Finland, Denmark
and the Czech Republic were the most likely to select this response (43%-44%).

In France, Hungary and Latvia, more than 30% of managers said that their company had not made any
eco-innovative investments (or had not made any innovation investments at all) in the past five years
(31%, 32% and 35%, respectively).

Flash EB N
o
page 21

2
14
7
9
12 11
9
3
6 5 6 6
3
6 6
12
8
4
9
7 7
4 5
7 7
4
5
3
22
16
12
15
11
11
9
12
14
12 8
10
11 8
11
9
9
2
7
6
11
10 8 6
9
9 7
6
44
34
34
28 28
28
27
28
22
26
28 25 26 27
24
19
23
34
22
25
19
22
23
22
17
18
17
15
26
23
39
19
31
26
32
33
38
41
32 35 34 34
30
28
36
44 43
37
37 40
32
32
30
44
35
41
6
10
3
24
14
22 20
18
16
14
22 18
16
12 22
20
21
12 15
13 18
21
29
28
32
19
35
31
0
3
5 5 4 3 4
7
4 2
4
6
9
13
8
12
4
5 3
11
8
4 4
7 6 7
1
0
20
40
60
80
100

L
U

P
L

I
E

C
Y

A
T

E
L

S
I

I
T

E
S

D
E
B
G
E
U
2
7

S
K

U
K
R
O

S
E

E
E

C
Z

F
I

B
E

N
L

P
T

L
T

M
T

H
U

D
K

L
V

F
R
More than 50% Between 30% and 49% Between 10% and 29%
Less than 10% None/no innovative activities DK/NA
Q6. Over the last 5 years, what share of innovation investments in your company were related to eco-innovation, i.e.
implementing new or substantially improved solutions resulting in more efficient use in material, energy and water?
Share of eco-innovation-related investments in last 5 years


Companies in the water supply and waste management sector were not only less likely to have
implemented changes to reduce material costs (see section 1.4), they were also the least likely to have
made innovation investments in the past five years (26% none/no innovative activities vs. 13% in the
agricultural sector and 18%-19% in the remaining activity sectors). Other companies that were less likely
to have made innovation investments were the smaller ones (in terms of workforce or turnover), the ones
that had experienced a decrease in turnover in the past two years and those with low material costs.

Companies that had made the largest share of eco-innovation investments were more likely to be
found in the agricultural sector but also in the water supply and waste management sector. In these
two sectors, about a fifth of entrepreneurs estimated that at least 30% of their innovation investments
of the past five years were related to eco-innovation (19%-21%), compared to less than a sixth of
entrepreneurs in the other activity sectors (15%-16%). In other words, although water supply and
waste management companies were among the least likely to have made innovation investments in the
past five years, those that had made such investments were very likely to have made a large share of
eco-innovation-related investments.

Other examples of managers who were more likely to have estimated that more than 30% of the
innovation investments made by their company in the past five years were related to eco-innovation
were those in companies with an annual turnover of more than 10 million (20%-22% vs. 15% in
companies with an annual turnover of less than 2 million) and those in companies that had
experienced an increase in turnover in the past two years (20% vs. 14% in companies that had seen
their turnover decrease).


o

page 22
2.2 Eco-innovations introduced in the past two years

Roughly 3 in 10 (29%) companies in the EU had introduced a new or significantly improved eco-
innovative production process or method in the past two years, while roughly a quarter (24%) had
introduced a new or significantly improved eco-innovative organisational method. A similar
proportion (25%) had introduced a new or significantly improved eco-innovative product or service on
the market.

Introduction of various eco-innovations in past 2 years
29
25
24
A new or significantly improved eco-innovative
production process or method
product or service to the market
organisational method
D5. During the past 24 months have you introduced the following eco-innovation?
Base: all companies, % of 'Yes' shown, EU27

Country variations

More than 4 in 10 (45%) companies in the EU reported having introduced at least one eco-innovation
in the past two years. Companies in Poland were the most likely to have introduced a new or
significantly improved eco-innovative product or service, production process or organisational method
in the past two years (63%); companies in Hungary were the least likely to have done so (27%).

63
52
50 49
48 48 48 47 47 46 46 46 45 45
43 43 42 41 41 41 41 41 40
38 38 38
34
27
0
20
40
60
80
100

P
L

M
T

E
L

L
U

N
L

A
T

E
S

C
Y

D
E

I
E

D
K

S
I

P
T
E
U
2
7

L
V

S
E

I
T
R
O

C
Z

F
R

S
K

U
K

F
I

E
E

B
E
B
G

L
T

H
U
Companies that introduced at least one eco-innovationin the past 2 years

Flash EB N
o
page 23
In Poland, 42% of respondents answered that their company had introduced a new or significantly
improved eco-innovative production method or process in the past two years; in another eight
countries, roughly a third of respondents said that their company had done this (from 32% in Ireland,
Romania and the Netherlands to 35% in Luxembourg and Malta). In Hungary, on the other hand, just
15% of companies had introduced a new eco-innovative production process or method.

42
35 35 34 34 33
32 32 32
30 29 29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26 25 25 25 24 23 23 22
20
15
0
20
40
60
80
100

P
L

M
T

L
U

P
T

E
S

E
L

N
L
R
O

I
E

S
E

L
V
E
U
2
7

I
T

D
K

U
K

A
T

S
I

D
E

F
I

E
E
B
G

B
E

S
K

F
R

C
Y

C
Z

L
T

H
U
Base: all companies, % of 'Yes' shown by country
Introduction of a new or significantly improved eco-innovative production
process or method in the past 2 years

Hungarian companies were also among the least likely to have introduced a new or significantly
improved eco-innovative organisational method in the past two years (12%). Companies in Finland,
however, were the least likely to have introduced such a new organisational method (7%), while those
in Poland and Luxembourg were once again the most likely to have introduced this type of
innovation (both 35%).

35 35
31 31 30
28 28 28
25
24 24 24 23
21 21 21 20 20 20 19 19
18 17 17
15
13
12
7
0
20
40
60
80
100

L
U

P
L

E
S

M
T

P
T

I
E

N
L
R
O

E
L

F
R
B
G
E
U
2
7

S
K

D
E

L
V

B
E

I
T

A
T

E
E

C
Z

S
I

U
K

S
E

C
Y

L
T

D
K

H
U

F
I
Introduction of a new or significantly improved eco-innovative organisational
method in the past 2 years

o

page 24
The proportion of companies that had brought a new or significantly improved eco-innovative
product or service to the market in the past two years ranged from somewhat more than a tenth (12%-
14%) in Hungary and Estonia to 4 in 10 companies in Cyprus. In Portugal, Malta, Italy and
Luxembourg, roughly 30% of companies had introduced a new or significantly improved eco-
innovative product or service (29%-31%); in a majority of the Member States, however, this
proportion remained below a quarter.

40
31 31 30
29 28 28 27 26 26 25 25 25 25 24 24 23 22 22 21 20 20 19 19 19 18
14
12
0
20
40
60
80
100

C
Y

L
U

I
T

M
T

P
T

E
L
R
O

A
T

P
L

L
V

D
E

I
E
E
U
2
7

U
K

S
I

F
R

L
T

E
S

N
L

C
Z

B
E

S
K

S
E

F
I

D
K
B
G

E
E

H
U
Introduction of a new or significantly improved eco-innovative product or service
to the market in the past 2 years


In accordance with results discussed in the previous section, medium-sized companies, companies
with an annual turnover between 10 and 50 million and those that had grown in terms of turnover in
the past two years were more likely to have introduced the types of eco-innovation listed in the survey.
For example, 32% of medium-sized companies had introduced a new or significantly improved eco-
innovative organisational method in the past two years and 41% said the same for a new or
significantly improved production method or process; the corresponding figures for small companies
were 22% and 26%, respectively.

Entrepreneurs who said that material costs represented less than 10% of their total costs, on the other
hand, were less likely to say that they had introduced different types of eco-innovation. For example,
21% said they had introduced a new or significantly improved product or service on the market in the
past 24 months, compared to 25%-26% among companies with higher shares of material costs.

Companies in the agriculture and food services sectors were more likely to have introduced a new or
significantly improved eco-innovative organisational method in the past two years (31%-32% vs.
18%-22% in other sectors of activity). Furthermore, agricultural companies were more likely than
those in other activity sectors to have introduced a new or significantly improved eco-innovative
production process (40% vs. 23% in construction and 29%-31% in the remaining activity sectors),
while companies in the food services sector were somewhat more likely to have developed a new or
significantly improved eco-innovative product or service (27% vs. 23%-25%).


Flash EB N
o
page 25
2.3 Relevance of innovations in terms of resource efficiency

Among companies that had introduced at least one type of eco-innovation in the past two years, the
largest number (42%) said that such eco-innovation had led to a reduction in material use of between
5% and 19% per unit of output, while roughly a third (34%) of respondents estimated that the
reduction in material use had been less than 5% per unit of output.

Smaller shares of respondents answered that their companys eco-innovations of the past 24 months
had reduced material use by at least 20% per output unit. A tenth said that this reduction had been
between 20% and 39%, while less than 1 in 20 respondents answered that their material use per unit of
output had decreased by at least 40% (2% for each of the between 40% and 60% and more than
60% responses). A tenth of respondents did not or would not answer this question.

Relevance of eco-innovation companies have introduced in terms of
resource efficiency in the past 2 years
22
10
42
34
10
More than 60% reduction of material use per unit of output
Between 40% to 60% reduction of material use per unit of output
Less then 5% reduction of material use per unit of output
DK/NA
Q0. How would you describe the relevance of innovation you have introduced in the past 24 months in
terms of resource efficiency?
Base: companies that introduced an eco-innovation, % EU27

Country variations

The question about relevance of innovations in terms of resource efficiency was only presented to
companies that had introduced at least one type of eco-innovation in the past two years; as a result, the
sample size per country was less than 100 in most countries and caution should be exercised when
interpreting the results at an individual country level.

In the Czech Republic, roughly a tenth (9%) of managers answered that the reduction in material use
due to eco-innovations that their company had introduced in the past 24 months was between 20% and
39% per unit of output and somewhat more than a tenth (12%) answered that their material use per
unit of output had decreased by at least 40%. In Luxembourg and Portugal, somewhat more than a
fifth (21%-23%) of managers reported a decrease in material use of at least 20% per output unit.

A majority of respondents in three countries, and a relative majority in 16 countries, said that recent
eco-innovations in their company had led to a reduction in material use of between 5% and 19% per
unit of output (from 31% in Cyprus to 57% in Ireland). In the remaining countries, however, the
largest share of respondents thought that the reduction in material use had been less than 5% per unit
of output; respondents in Denmark were the most likely to select this response (48%).

In many countries, a considerable proportion of respondents found it difficult to estimate the relevance
of eco-innovations in terms of resource efficiency; the proportions of dont know answers were
highest in Sweden and Cyprus (24% and 28%, respectively).

o

page 26

6 7
5 4 4 5
3
2
3
8
4
1
4 2
5
0 1
12
4
1 1
4 4 4 3 3
0 0
11 11
18
11
15
16
12 11
17
12
14
19
10 15
3
16
4
9
15
5
7
14
8 7
17
8
9
6
57
52
44
52
46
43
49
50
41 40
41 38
42
40
48
39
49
32
34
45 41
31
33
35
24
32
34
29
26
21
28
24
31 31
24
35
24
30
28 31 34
30
29 29
39 42
35
46
39
24
43
31
48
43 42
45
1
10
4
9
4 5
12
2
15
10
13 12
10
14 15 16
7
5
12
4
13
28
12
24
9
13 14
20
0
20
40
60
80
100

I
E
R
O

P
T

E
S

S
I

L
U

E
L

P
L

B
E

F
R

L
V

U
K
E
U
2
7

A
T

S
K
B
G

D
E

C
Z

E
E

F
I

L
T

C
Y

N
L

S
E

D
K

I
T

H
U

M
T
More than 40% reduction of material use Between 20% to 39% reduction
Between 5% to 19% reduction Less then 5% reduction
DK/NA
Q0. How would you describe the relevance of innovation you have introduced in the past 24 months in terms of
resource efficiency?
Base: companies that introduced an eco-innovation, % by country
Relevance of eco-innovation companies have introduced in terms of resource
efficiency (past 2 years)


Across all types of companies, a minority of respondents answered that their companys eco-
innovations in the past two years had reduced material use by at least 40% per unit of output;
furthermore, more than a quarter of respondents across all types of companies answered that the
reduction in material use had been less than 5% per unit of output (between 26% and 40%).

Companies with an annual turnover of between 10 and 50 million stood out with 18% of managers
who answered that their material use had decreased by between 20% and 39% per unit of output; the
corresponding proportion for companies with an annual turnover of more than 50 million was 14%,
but this proportion decreased to 8% among companies with an annual turnover of between 2 million
and 10 million.


Flash EB N
o
page 27
3. Barriers to an accelerated uptake of eco-innovation

This chapter analyses SMEs views about barriers to an accelerated development and uptake of eco-
innovation. In order to do this, 14 potential barriers were presented to interviewees and they were
asked, for each one, whether they considered these to be a serious barrier or not to a faster uptake of
eco-innovation in their company.

For each of the potential barriers related to financing and funds, a majority of respondents thought that
it was a very or somewhat serious barrier to an accelerated development and uptake of eco-innovation.
More than a third (36%) of managers said that a lack of funds within their enterprise was a very
serious barrier and roughly a quarter (27%) said that this was a somewhat serious barrier; the
corresponding figures for a lack of external financing were 31% and 26%, respectively.

Insufficient access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives was considered a barrier by 6 in 10
respondents (30% very serious and 30% somewhat serious responses). Furthermore, 64% of
interviewees said that an uncertain return on investment or too long a payback period for eco-
innovations stopped them from introducing such innovations (32% said this was a very serious barrier
and 32% a somewhat serious barrier).

Two-thirds of managers said that the uncertain demand from the market was a barrier to a faster
uptake of eco-innovation in their company (34% very serious and 33% somewhat serious
responses), but they were considerably less likely to say that they could not find suitable business
partners to develop eco-innovations (16% said this was a very serious barrier and 25% a somewhat
serious barrier).

Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation uptake and development
34
32
36
30
25
31
26
22
23
21
17
16
16
13
33
32
27
30
32
26
29
29
28
29
27
27
25
21
14
14
17
17
19
19
21
20
22
23
25
26
26
24
11
11
14
12
13
15
15
16
20
17
18
19
22
19
6
8
5
8
7
8
6
9
6
8
9
9
9
20
Uncertain demand from the market
Uncertain return on investment or too long a payback period
for eco-innovation
Lack of funds within the enterprise
Insufficient access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives
Existing regulations and structures not providing incentives to
eco-innovate
Lack of external financing
Reducing energy use is not an innovation priority
Technical and technological lock-ins (e.g. old technical
infrastructures)
Lack of qualified personnel and technological capabilities
within the enterprise
Market dominated by established enterprises
Reducing material use is not an innovation priority
Limited access to external information and knowledge,
including a lack of well-developed technology support services
Lack of suitable business partners
Lack of collaboration with research institutes and universities
Very serious Somewhat serious Not serious Not at all serious Not applicable DK/NA
Q7. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake and
development for a company. Please tell me for each of them if you consider them a very serious,
somewhat serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company?

A majority of respondents also said that existing regulations and structures did not provide
incentives to eco-innovate; 25% said this was a very serious barrier and 32% a somewhat serious
barrier. Respondents were, however, somewhat less likely to identify technical and technological
lock-ins (22% very serious and 29% somewhat serious responses) or a market dominated by
o

page 28
established companies (21% very serious and 29% somewhat serious responses) as barriers to a
faster uptake of eco-innovation in their company.

A lack of qualified personnel and technological capabilities within their enterprise was
considered a very serious barrier by 23% of respondents, while 28% said this was a somewhat serious
barrier. A smaller number of respondents thought that limited access to external information and
knowledge, including a lack of well-developed technology support services, was a barrier to
introducing eco-innovations in their company (16% very serious and 27% somewhat serious
responses). The corresponding figures for a lack of collaboration with research institutes and
universities were 13% and 21%, respectively (note: 20% of respondents said that this barrier was not
relevant for their company).

Finally, a slim majority answered that the fact that reducing their use of energy was not an
innovation priority was a barrier (26% said this was a very serious barrier and 29% a somewhat
serious barrier) and less than half of respondents said the same about a reduction in their use of
materials not being a priority (17% very serious and 27% somewhat serious responses).

Country variations

Somewhat more than 8 in 10 (83%) respondents in Greece said that a lack of funds within their
enterprise was a very or somewhat serious barrier to an accelerated development and uptake of eco-
innovation; this view was shared by 80% of interviewees in Cyprus and Spain. Respondents in these
three countries were also the most likely in the EU to say that such a lack of funds was a very serious
obstacle (between 58% and 68%).

In Sweden and Denmark, on the other hand, less than 4 in 10 managers were limited, in their
initiatives to eco-innovate, by a lack of internal funds (30% and 36%, respectively, of very
serious/somewhat serious responses). Furthermore, respondents in Sweden were also the most likely
to say that a lack of funds within their company was not at all a serious barrier (43%); the proportion
of such responses was also high in Finland (23%), Denmark and Estonia (both 28%).

61
68
58
50
40 40
50 51
54
37 38
31
36
40
37
44
37
30
36
24
28
24
22
18
15
23
11 12
22
12
22
26
35 34
23 21
18
34 33
38
32
29
31
23
27
33
27
35
25
25
26
26
29
20
25
18
7
12
6
12
17
17
8
8 8
15 16
27
11
13
18
10
20
19
17
18
12
26
17
21
32
19
30
22
8 7
10
9
7
6
17
13
9
3
11
2
19 13
10
20
10
15
14 18
28
20
16
21
23
14
28
43
1 1
3
4
1
1 3
4 11
4
2 1 2
4 4
2
5
3
5 4
5
5
13
9
1
23
6 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
L
E
S
C
Y
B
G
S
I
L
T
M
T
R
O
H
U
S
K
P
L
C
Z
L
U
I
T
I
E
L
V
P
T
F
R
E
U
2
7
A
T
E
E
D
E
U
K
B
E
F
I
N
L
D
K
S
E
development for a company. Please tell me for each of them if you consider them a very serious, somewhat serious,
not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company?
Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation uptake and development for companies
Lack of funds within the enterprise

Flash EB N
o
page 29
A similar picture (to the one described above) appeared when looking at the results for a lack of
external financing. The proportion of respondents who thought that this was a very or somewhat
serious barrier to an accelerated development and uptake of eco-innovation in their company ranged
from 29% in Sweden and Denmark to 89% in Greece. Similarly, the proportion of very serious
responses ranged from less than a tenth in Sweden and Finland (8%-9%) to more than 6 in 10 in Spain
and Greece (61%-64%).

Sweden stood out with 41% of managers who said that a lack of external financing was not at all a
serious barrier to introducing and developing eco-innovations in their company. In Denmark, Finland
and Estonia, more than a quarter of respondents shared this view (28%-31%).

64
61
45
34
37
39
33 33
49
33
49
25
43
20
35
31 31
38
28
21
23
25
20
16
9
20
13
8
25
18
26
35 29
27
32 31
14
30
14
37
16
38
23
26 25
17
25
30
20 18
22
25
28
15
16
21
4
11
17
9
17
13
20
16
9
18
7
24
11
15
12
19
15
9
26
41
21 20
14
28
32
24
34
20
6
8
8
13
11
14
10
2
7
6
8
11
10
18
13
15
16
25
12
5
14
21
31
20
28
13
28
41
2
2
3
9 4 5
5
11
9
6
19
1
20
9
11
8 11
11 7
2
17
12
12
9
2
26
9
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
L
E
S
B
G
L
U
I
E
I
T
P
L
L
T
C
Y
S
K
H
U
S
I
M
T
F
R
R
O
E
U
2
7
P
T
L
V
A
T
C
Z
U
K
B
E
E
E
D
E
F
I
N
L
D
K
S
E
Lack of external financing

In the five countries at the right-hand side of the next chart, roughly 4 in 10 managers answered that
insufficient access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives was a very or somewhat serious barrier
to a faster uptake of eco-innovations in their company. Furthermore in these countries, the proportion
of very serious responses varied between 8% in Finland and 14% in the UK.

In Greece and Cyprus, however, twice as many interviewees thought that such insufficient access to
subsidies and fiscal incentives was a barrier to eco-innovation (82%-83% of very serious and
somewhat serious responses). In Cyprus, 71% of managers even said that this barrier was very
serious. In a further five countries, a majority of respondents gave a similar response: 52% in Spain,
53% in Bulgaria, 55% in Romania and 56% in Greece and Malta.

o

page 30
71
56
52
56
53
38
32
55
45
36
24
26
38
31 30 30
40
22
18
25
27 26
28
12
8
13 14
11
12
26
25
19
22
34
40
17
23
31
42
38
26
34
32
30
20
36
38
28 24 23 19
32
35
27 26
28
4
8
14
2
12
15 15
7
7 8
14
19
14
16
10
17
10
19
21
17 21
13 16
42
25
24
19
17
2
9 6
7
7
8 8
6
10
4
13
12
7
11
11
12
18
15
13
13
15
26
11
6
27
19
13
26
7
1
2
13
4
4 4
9
11
13
6
4
8
6
14
8
11
8
8
11
12 8
23
4 2
8
17
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
C
Y
E
L
E
S
M
T
B
G
A
T
S
I
R
O
H
U
L
T
F
R
P
L
S
K
I
T
P
T
E
U
2
7
L
V
L
U
I
E
B
E
D
E
E
E
N
L
C
Z
F
I
D
K
U
K
S
E
Insufficient access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives

The individual country results for uncertainty about investment return and the payback periods
for eco-innovations once more showed that entrepreneurs in Sweden were the least concerned
about financial barriers: somewhat less than half (48%) of managers in this country considered this
type of uncertainty to be a very serious or somewhat serious barrier. Belgium was close to Sweden
with 50% of very serious and somewhat serious responses.

In Greece, on the other hand, the share of managers who felt limited in their eco-innovative initiatives
by their uncertain return on investment and payback periods that were too long was again somewhat
higher than 80% (45% very serious and 37% somewhat serious responses). The proportions of
respondents who considered this to be a very serious barrier, however, were highest in Malta (62%)
and Hungary (57%).

45
53
62
47
37 37
43
32
57
41
23 24
27
34
31 32
18
39
34
32 32 31 31
22
35
19
22
18
37
27
14
29
38 36
29
38
14
29
45 44
41
32
34 32
46
24
28
30 29
29 29
37
21
34 28
30
8
9
8 9
13
11
8
16
5
15
23
18
15
8
21
14
13
9
16
20
15
9
20 19
10
12 18
16
6
6
6
6
9
2
5
12
3
5
2
10
11
6
6
11 14
7
10
11
11
15
14
13
22
10
15 22
2
3
8 6
3
6
5
2
18
7
3
3
4
10
6
8
7
19
5
7
10
10
5
6
11
17
12 6
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
L
E
S
M
T
B
G
P
L
S
K
C
Y
L
U
H
U
A
T
C
Z
F
I
I
E
L
T
S
I
E
U
2
7
F
R
N
L
R
O
P
T
D
E
E
E
I
T
D
K
L
V
U
K
B
E
S
E
Uncertain return on investment or too long a payback period for eco-innovation

Flash EB N
o
page 31
Similar to the uncertainty about investment returns and payback periods for eco-innovations, across all
countries, roughly one in two or more respondents answered that an uncertain demand from the
market was a very serious or somewhat serious barrier (from 49% in Sweden to 83% in Spain).

Focusing on the more extreme response options, it was noted that a majority of respondents in
Hungary, Cyprus, Malta and Spain said that an uncertain demand from the market was a very serious
barrier (55%-62%); this proportion decreased to less than a quarter in Sweden, France, Finland,
Denmark, the UK, Luxembourg and Slovenia (16%-24%). The proportions of not at all serious
responses were highest in Estonia (22%), Sweden (24%) and Latvia (29%); but remained below 10%
in about half of the countries surveyed.

62
46
55 55
46
35
32
55
35 36
45
37
23
34
22 21
32
24
27 26
28
22
27
30
23
28 28
16
21
33
24 24
31
41
40
16
36 35
26
32
44
33
44
45
32
39
36
37 33
38
31 28
33
25 23
33
10
9
7
5 9 11
16
3
15
11
10 14
11 14
21
14 16
25
29
16
10
18
16 18
15 19
12
19
6
8
10
8
8
10
6
12
8
5
14 10
20
11
10
14
5
9
5
13
22
13
16
16
10
10
29
24
2
1
4
5
4
2
4
11
5
6
3 7
2
6
1
6
4
2
1
7
6
9
5
7
13
16
5
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
S
E
L
M
T
C
Y
B
G
P
L
I
E
H
U
I
T
S
K
R
O
P
T
L
U
E
U
2
7
F
I
F
R
L
T
S
I
C
Z
A
T
E
E
D
K
B
E
D
E
U
K
N
L
L
V
S
E
Uncertain demand from the market

More than 8 in 10 entrepreneurs in Greece thought that existing regulations and structures did not
provide incentives to eco-innovate; 54% said the regulations were a very serious barrier and 29%
thought that this barrier was somewhat serious. Cyprus and Bulgaria were close to Greece with 45%-
46% of very serious responses and 26%-29% of somewhat serious responses.

In Sweden, on the other hand, just 35% of entrepreneurs answered that existing regulations and
structures were a serious barrier to eco-innovation. Other countries at the lower end of the distribution
were Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands with 40%-43% of respondents who gave a similar answer.

More than 4 in 10 respondents in Sweden and Denmark said that existing regulations and structures
were not a serious or not at all a serious barrier to a faster uptake of eco-innovation in their company
(41%-44%); this proportion was lower in the UK and the Netherlands (35% and 26%, respectively). In
the latter countries, a considerable proportion of respondents thought that this barrier was not relevant
or did not know what to answer.

o

page 32
54
45
46
26
29
22
35
41
28
20
38
43
38
25
22
29
15
25
35
19 20
18
19
26
22
17
13
10
29
29 26
43
39
45
32
25
37
44
27
20
23
35
37
30
42
32
22
38
34
32 30
22
21
24
27
25
4
12
7
15
14
7
21
7
19
22
13
13
8
18
21
17
33
19
10
18
21
30
17
11
15 21
29
17
9
4
7
9
12
23
7
12
8
8
3
11
9
12
17
14
4
13
19
19
5
13
15
22
11
14
15
24
3
3
6
5
3
3
4
6
4
3
9
9
16
9
1
6
2
7
11
6
7
5
11
10
25 15
9
8
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
L
B
G
C
Y
P
L
A
T
L
U
E
S
R
O
I
E
S
I
L
T
M
T
H
U
P
T
F
I
I
T
C
Z
E
U
2
7
L
V
F
R
S
K
D
E
B
E
E
E
N
L
U
K
D
K
S
E
Existing regulations and structures not providing incentives to eco-innovate

The individual country results for a lack of suitable business partners showed a large variation
across Member States; the proportion of respondents who considered this to be a very serious or
somewhat serious barrier ranged from less than a quarter in Denmark and Malta (21%-24%) to
roughly two-thirds in Luxembourg (68%) and three-quarters in Greece and Cyprus (75%-76%).

In half of the countries surveyed, more than a fifth of respondents answered that a lack of suitable
business partners was not at all a serious barrier; managers in Estonia, Sweden and Latvia were the
most likely to select this response (36%-42%). There were, however, also some countries where a
considerable proportion of respondents said that this question about business partners was not relevant
to their companys situation: 24% in the UK, 31% in the Netherlands and 44% in Malta.

44
32
36
28
22
20
18
22
17
11
26 26
21
12
16
21
11
17
10
6
17
14
13
10
7
9
14
6
32
43
32
32
35
36
36 30
33
37
22
20
24
29
25
17
27
19
25
28
16
18
18
19
21 18
10
15
8 11
14
24
17
30
28
28
25
21 19
12
25
30
26
24
17
13
35 39
30
55
36
20
24
23
7
40
8
12
15
8
15
10
7
15
19
22 24
24
19
23
22 32
36
42
18
25
18
11
25
21
39
16
24
27
4
2
4
6 11
3
4
5
5 8 6
17
9
5
9
6
8 7 10
1
17
1
8
24
4
31
44
8
0
20
40
60
80
100
C
Y
E
L
L
U
L
T
P
T
S
I
S
K
B
G
A
T
F
R
R
O
H
U
I
T
P
L
E
U
2
7
E
S
E
E
L
V
I
E
F
I
B
E
C
Z
D
E
U
K
S
E
N
L
M
T
D
K
Lack of suitable business partners

Flash EB N
o
page 33
Although managers in Hungary were each time among the most likely to answer that the financial
barriers listed in the survey caused very serious concerns, they were less likely than their counterparts
in other EU countries to worry about a lack of qualified personnel and technological capabilities
within their company: 32% said this was a very serious or somewhat serious barrier to a faster uptake
of eco-innovation in their company. Denmark was close to Hungary with 34% of respondents
answering in the same way, but this proportion increased to 80% in Luxembourg.

Managers in Luxembourg were also the most likely to say that a lack of qualified personnel and
technological capabilities within their company was a very serious barrier (44%), while managers in
Hungary together with those in Estonia and Latvia were the most likely to answer that it was not at
all a serious barrier (33%-34%).

44
37
31
27
40
33
35
18
37
31
34
31
24 23
19
18
22
34
20
17
30
9
23
12
18 18
7
17
36
32
33
36
21
28
25
42
22
27 22
22
27 28
30
32
27
13
28
29
16
36
20
31
23 21
27
15
12
7
26
17
15
22 23
18 19
25
16 21
24
22
28 28
23
16
14
25
11
32
24
30
16
51
35
17
6
16
6
17
13
13 12
18
19
6
22
19 20
20
12
18
20
31
34
22
34
22
15
23
22
8
25
33
2
4
4 2
9
3 4 4 2
8
3
6 5
6
4
5
7
6 5
3 9
1
18
4
16
1
7
17
0
20
40
60
80
100
L
U
C
Y
S
I
E
L
B
E
A
T
B
G
F
R
E
S
L
T
R
O
P
T
D
E
E
U
2
7
S
K
I
E
I
T
M
T
E
E
S
E
L
V
F
I
N
L
P
L
U
K
C
Z
D
K
H
U
Lack of qualified personnel and technological capabilities within the enterprise

Hungary was also found at the lower end of the country ranking when respondents were asked about a
limited access to external information and knowledge, including a lack of well-developed
technology support services: 33% said this was a very serious or somewhat serious barrier. In
Denmark and Finland, less than 3 in 10 respondents answered in the same way (26% and 28%,
respectively).

In Greece, however, roughly 7 in 10 (71%) respondents considered limited access to external
information and knowledge to be a very serious or somewhat serious obstacle to the introduction of
eco-innovation initiatives in their company; other countries where a majority of respondents shared
this view were Austria (55%), Luxembourg (56%), Spain (58%) and Cyprus (60%). Nonetheless,
Greece, Spain and Cyprus were the only countries where more than 3 in 10 respondents said that this
was a very serious barrier (31%, 35% and 39%, respectively).

o

page 34
31
39
35
21
15
17
19 20
22
12
14 15
12
24
16 16
10
19
8
14
17
8
12
19
8
15
5 4
40
21
23
34
41
32
30 29 26
35 33 31
33
21
27 27
32
20
29
21
16
26
22
14
23
15
23
22
11
12
21
24
17
30
23
19
24
28
31
31 34
20
32
26 30
17 23
31
12
24
19 20
57
24
40
37
16
8
17
14
20
17
18
19
17
19
16
9
8
21
19
19
18
23
30
24
45
16
37
22
9
13
23
27
1
14
3
6 7
2
7 13
9
6
4
7 6 9
3
9
7
18
3
9 9
18
8
24
2
29
3
8
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
L
C
Y
E
S
A
T
L
U
S
I
I
T
P
T
B
E
F
R
I
E
L
T
S
K
R
O
B
G
E
U
2
7
P
L
M
T
S
E
D
E
L
V
U
K
E
E
H
U
C
Z
N
L
F
I
D
K
Limited access to external information and knowledge, including a lack of well-developed
technology support services

Across most countries, respondents were less likely to think that a lack of collaboration with
research institutes and universities was a barrier to eco-innovation in their company; for example,
the proportion of very serious and somewhat serious responses remained below a third in about
half of the countries (from 15% in the Czech Republic to 28% in Poland).

It should also be noted that, in almost all countries, a large proportion of respondents said that this
question was not relevant to their own company; the proportion of non-applicable responses ranged
from 3% in Greece to 52% in Malta and Hungary.

35
28
24
15
32
28
18 17 17
23
18
12
6
9
13 13
7
10
19
7 6
14
6
12
10
6 6 7
30
26
25
33
14
18
27
25 24
18
22
23
28
26
21 20
21 17
8
19
19
11
18 9
11
14
13
8
15
16
25 28
19
13
25
28
18
16
24 34
22
25
24
17
29
17
6
22
36
9
28
8
21
32
28
44
16
15
16 11
19
19
16
19
17
20
14
8
23
10
19
21
27
36
12
18
28
35
20
19
15
28
29
22
3
13
8
11
9 19
12
10
22
19
18
13
18
27
20
24
14
19
52
26
9
30
25
52
41
18
17
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
L
E
S
B
G
S
I
C
Y
L
U
A
T
I
E
P
T
R
O
I
T
S
K
F
R
L
T
E
U
2
7
B
E
P
L
E
E
M
T
U
K
F
I
L
V
D
E
H
U
N
L
D
K
S
E
C
Z
Lack of collaboration with research institutes and universities

Flash EB N
o
page 35
Luxembourg and Cyprus stood out from the pack with more than three-quarters (76%-79%) of
entrepreneurs who said that the market was dominated by established companies and that this was a
very serious or somewhat serious barrier to the development of eco-innovations in their company.

In Cyprus, 45% of respondents identified this as a very serious barrier, but this proportion was lower
in Luxembourg at 33%. Spanish respondents were almost as likely as those in Cyprus to select this
answer (41%); in France, however, the corresponding figure was just 8%.

Sweden, Denmark and the UK were close to France with slightly more than a tenth (11%-12%) of
respondents who said that they were very seriously hindered because the market was dominated by
established businesses. Nonetheless, respondents in Estonia and Latvia were the most likely to answer
that this was not at all a serious barrier (36%-38%).

45
33
41
29 30
26
28
21
26
23
16
24
19
26
23
21
12
26
33
15
19
12
20
18
8
14
11 12
34
43
24
35 34
36 33
38
33
36
42
31
35
28
29
29
38
21
13
29
23
30
20
21
29
22
23 22
9
5
20 20
18
16 19
24
19
23
26
18
23
22
20 23
30
14 15
46
14
20
23
11
29
25 27
32
4
13
13
13
14
14 13
12
7
8
9
14
12 16
19 17
17
19
27
7
36
13 13 38
23
30
28
24
6
4
2 3 3
6 7
4
6
6
3
8
7
8 7
8
1
16
12
2
6
14
22
9
10
4
6
7
0
20
40
60
80
100
C
Y
L
U
E
S
B
G
E
L
A
T
P
T
P
L
S
K
L
T
S
I
B
E
I
E
D
E
I
T
E
U
2
7
F
I
H
U
M
T
C
Z
E
E
U
K
N
L
L
V
F
R
R
O
S
E
D
K
Market dominated by established enterprises

Respondents in Cyprus and Luxembourg were also among the most likely to identify technical and
technological lock-ins (e.g. an old technological infrastructure) as a very serious or somewhat serious
barrier to the development of eco-innovations in their company (68%-75%). In a further five countries,
this proportion was also higher than 6 in 10 (from 62% in Poland to 72% in Greece).

In four countries, less than 40% of respondents agreed that technical and technological lock-ins were a
very serious or somewhat serious barrier to eco-innovation: 26% in Denmark, 30% in Sweden, 35% in
the Netherlands and 37% in the UK.

Entrepreneurs in Sweden and Denmark were also the most likely to say that such lock-ins were not a
serious or not at all a serious barrier (57% and 60%, respectively). In the Netherlands and the UK,
however, only half as many respondents shared this view (29%-30%); in these countries, a
considerable proportion of respondents thought that this barrier was not relevant or did not know how
to answer.

o

page 36
34 34
38 38
42
29
23
41
21
31
14
21
27
23 22
16 16
13 12
28
22 23
19
15
12
17
11
5
41
38 30
28
22
35
39
19
37
27
43
36
30
29
29
34
33
36
36
19
24 22
26
28
25
18
19
21
11
11
7
21
15
18
15
8
25
15
28
19
18
21
20 19
25
32
24
12
22
20
15
26
19
18
19
33
8
17
4
6
15
9
16
12
13
15
6
11
11
18
16
22
5
14
15
30
17 24
29
18
11
11
38
27
3
0
12
5
4
8
6
16
2
8
6
8
14
7
9
7
9
2
8
7
10
11
7 11
17
30
4 7
0
20
40
60
80
100
L
U
E
L
C
Y
B
G
E
S
L
T
P
L
H
U
S
I
R
O
C
Z
A
T
P
T
I
T
E
U
2
7
F
R
S
K
F
I
I
E
L
V
B
E
M
T
E
E
D
E
U
K
N
L
S
E
D
K
Technical and technological lock-ins (e.g. old technical infrastructures)

In four Member States, at least 7 in 10 respondents answered that the fact that reducing energy use
was not an innovation priority was a very serious or somewhat serious barrier to eco-innovation:
78% in Cyprus, 72% in Ireland and 70% in Spain and Lithuania. In 10 countries, less than half of
respondents thought that reducing energy use was not an innovation priority, with respondents in
Sweden leading the way in this view (25% of very serious and somewhat serious responses).

Respondents in Sweden were also by far the most likely to say that a low priority to reduce energy
use was not at all a serious barrier to eco-innovation (38%); in Finland, France, Denmark, Estonia and
Latvia, between 25% and 28% of respondents gave a similar answer.

49
34
43
31
40 39
29
34
39 40
29
33
16
34
29
26 26
29
22
25
12
8
14
17
11
15 14
10
29
38
27
39
27
27
36
29
22 20
29
25
41
22
26
29
27
24
26 21
32
35
28 25
30
25
24
15
4 17
16
13
9
18
15
16
15
10
25
19 20
12
25
21
18
22
26
13
31
26
45
11
30
15
30
21
3
8 11
5 21
6
14
12
7
18
5
19
13
14
13
15
13
18
15
28
16
25
7
13
25
27
26
38
8
3 2
8
2
8
4
5
14
10
5
4
5
8
6
6
11
6
5 10
7
5 3
23
3
14
4
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
C
Y
I
E
E
S
L
T
E
L
P
T
A
T
R
O
N
L
M
T
S
K
L
U
P
L
B
E
I
T
E
U
2
7
U
K
D
E
B
G
L
V
S
I
F
R
C
Z
H
U
F
I
E
E
D
K
S
E
Reducing energy use is not an innovation priority

Flash EB N
o
page 37
A similar picture emerged when looking at the results for the proportion of respondents who doubted
whether reducing material use was an innovation priority. The proportion of respondents who thought
that the fact that reducing material use was not an innovation priority was a very or somewhat
serious barrier ranged from 22% in Sweden to 69% in Cyprus. Moreover, the proportion of
respondents who thought that this was not at all a serious barrier was as low as 5% in the Czech
Republic and as high as 36% in Sweden.

42
25 24
31
15
19
14
28
15
20 21
17 17
15
29
11
23
16
19
15
13
21
18
15
6
9
12
7
27
34
33
26
41
36
39
23
35
30 29
31
27
30
15
33
21
27
24
26
26
17
17
19
27 22
19
15
11
18
13
23
19
25
22
19
26 26 25
18 25
17
14
29
20 21
31
47
31
18
15 16
32
19
27
23
12 16
22
17
7
13
15
11
6
16
13
20
18
16
18
16
16
19
17
5
20
17
15
35
29
27
29
36
5
4
3
3
11
5
8
17
7
7
8
7
9
14 16
6
12
9
7 4
7
25
28
10
6
20
10
7
0
20
40
60
80
100
C
Y
L
U
E
L
E
S
L
T
I
E
P
L
P
T
S
K
I
T
A
T
R
O
E
U
2
7
U
K
M
T
S
I
B
E
B
G
D
E
C
Z
F
I
N
L
H
U
L
V
F
R
E
E
D
K
S
E
Reducing material use is not an innovation priority

The table on the next page shows for each country the barriers to an accelerated development and
uptake of eco-innovation that respondents were the most likely to identify as serious ones (i.e. the sum
of very serious and somewhat serious responses).

Of the 14 barriers listed in the survey, three could be identified as being mentioned most frequently as
a very serious or somewhat serious barrier to an accelerated uptake of eco-innovation in respondents
companies: (1) uncertain demand from the market, (2) lack of funds within the enterprise and (3) an
uncertain return on investment or too long a payback period for eco-innovations.

In 20 Member States, some of the largest proportions of respondents said that an uncertain demand
from the market was a barrier to a faster uptake of eco-innovation. For example, 82% of respondents
in Spain said that this was a very serious or somewhat serious barrier for their company (first position).
The barriers in second and third position both described as very serious or somewhat serious by 80%
of Spanish respondents were a lack of funds within the company and uncertainty about
investment returns and payback periods. Each of the latter barriers appeared in the top three
barriers, receiving the highest proportions of serious responses in a majority of the Member States.

o

page 38

Barriers to an accelerated eco-innovation uptake and development
(sum of very serious and somewhat serious responses)
BE % BG % CZ %
Lack of qualified personal 61

Uncertain demand from the
market
76

Lack of funds within the
enterprise
69
market
59

Uncertain return on
investment
76

Uncertain return on
investment
68
Reducing energy use is not an
innovation priority
56

enterprise
75

market
63
DK % DE % EE %
market
60

Uncertain return on
investment
61

market
61
Uncertain return on
investment
59

market
58

Uncertain return on
investment
59
Existing regulations not
providing incentives
41

Market dominated by
established enterprises
53

enterprise
53
EL % ES % FR %
Lack of external financing 89

market
82

market
66
enterprise
84

enterprise
80

Insufficient access to
existing subsidies
66
83

Uncertain return on
investment
80

Uncertain return on
investment
64
IE % IT % CY %
market
72

market
71

existing subsidies
83
Reducing energy use is not an
innovation priority
72

enterprise
68

enterprise
80
enterprise
67

Lack of external financing 66

Reducing energy use is not
an innovation priority
79
LV % LT % LU %
enterprise
67

enterprise
74

Lack of qualified personnel 80
Insufficient access to existing
subsidies
60

70

Market dominated by
established enterprises
76
57

existing subsidies
67

Technical and technological
lock-ins in economy
75
HU % MT % NL %
enterprise
71

market
79

Uncertain return on
investment
63
market
71

existing subsidies
76

61
Uncertain return on
investment
70

Uncertain return on
investment
76

market
53
AT % PL % PT %
subsidies
73

market
76

market
69
Uncertain return on
investment
70

Uncertain return on
investment
75

66
69

enterprise
71

enterprise
64
RO % SI % SK %
enterprise
71

enterprise
75

Uncertain return on
investment
74
subsidies
71

existing subsidies
72

enterprise
71
market
71

Uncertain return on
investment
65

market
71
FI % SE % UK %
Uncertain return on
investment
68

Uncertain return on
investment
49

market
55
market
66

market
49

53
60

Lack of qualified personnel 47

Uncertain return on
investment
52
Flash EB N
o
page 39

For most of the barriers listed in the survey, respondents in small companies (in terms of workforce or
annual turnover) were more likely than those in the larger (medium-size) companies to describe the
barrier presented to them as being very or somewhat serious. For example, 32% of managers of
medium-sized companies, as opposed to 42% of managers in small ones, answered that a lack of
suitable business partners was a very serious or somewhat serious barrier to eco-innovation. Similarly,
while 34% of respondents in companies with an annual turnover of more than 50 million thought that
limited access to external knowledge and a lack of well-developed technology support services were
very serious or somewhat serious barriers to an accelerated uptake of eco-innovation in their company,
this proportion increased to 45% among respondents in companies with an annual turnover of less than
2 million.

Respondents in companies that had experienced a decrease in turnover in the past two years were each
time more likely to answer that the financial barriers listed in the survey stopped them from
introducing eco-innovations. For example, 71% of these respondents said that a lack of funds within
their enterprise was a very serious or somewhat serious barrier to eco-innovation and 64% said the
same about a lack of external funds; the corresponding figures for respondents in companies that had
seen an increase in turnover were 55% and 49%, respectively.

In terms of main activities, companies in the agriculture sector were the most likely to describe various
obstacles as being very serious or somewhat serious, while those in the water supply and waste
management, and the food services sectors were frequently less likely to do so. For example, 54% of
managers in agricultural businesses said that a lack of qualified personnel and technological
capabilities was a serious obstacle for eco-innovation developments, compared to 44% of managers in
the water supply and waste management sector. Similarly, 60% of the former group of managers
identified technical and technological lock-ins as a barrier to a faster uptake of eco-innovation in their
company, compared to 46% of managers in food services companies.

Material-intensive companies and less material-intensive companies also differed in their views about
barriers to eco-innovation, but no clear pattern emerged when these differences were analysed. The
largest difference was seen in the proportion of respondents who said that uncertainty about the return
on investment and a long payback period for eco-innovations were serious barriers; 58% of
respondents in companies with material costs accounting for less than 10% of the total said this was a
very serious or somewhat serious barrier, compared to 66%-68% in more material-intensive
companies.

Finally, for each of the barriers listed in the survey, respondents in companies that had introduced at
least one eco-innovation in the past two years were more likely to describe this barrier as being very
serious or somewhat serious. For example, 72% of managers in eco-innovative companies said that an
uncertain demand from the market was a barrier to a faster uptake of eco-innovation in their company;
the corresponding proportion in companies that had not introduced any eco-innovations in the past two
years was 63%.

For more details, see annex table 22b through 35b.
o

page 40
4. Drivers for an accelerated uptake of eco-innovation

This chapter analyses managers views about drivers that could accelerate the development and uptake
of eco-innovation in their company. Interviewees were presented with 14 potential drivers and were
asked, for each one, whether they considered these to be important or not for a faster uptake of eco-
innovation in their company.

For 10 of the 14 drivers listed in the survey, more than 70% of respondents said that it was a very or
somewhat important driver of eco-innovation uptake and development in their company. A larger
variation, however, was seen in the proportion of very important responses for each of the 14
potential drivers.

One in two respondents considered current high energy prices to be a very important driver to
accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development in their company and a similar proportion (52%)
said the same about the expected future increases in energy prices. Although 45% of respondents
also thought that current high material prices were a very important driver of eco-innovation uptake
in their company, the proportion saying the same about limited access to materials was considerably
lower at 30%. Somewhat more than a third (35%) of interviewees said that the expected future
material scarcity was a very important driver of eco-innovation.

Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development
52
50
45
45
42
40
37
36
35
34
33
30
30
19
30
29
31
31
34
32
37
32
29
40
38
31
41
30
9
11
11
11
12
14
14
15
16
14
14
19
15
21
5
5
7
8
6
7
7
8
10
6
8
12
7
14
2
3
5
4
4
5
4
8
7
4
4
6
4
14
Expected future increases in energy prices
Current high energy prices (as an incentive to innovative, to
use less energy and decrease the cost)
Current high material prices (as an incentive to innovate to use
less material and decrease the cost)
Good business partners
Secure or increase existing market share
Access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives
Technological and management capabilities within the
enterprise
Increased market demand for green products
Expected future material scarcity (as an incentive to develop
innovative, less material-intensive substitutes)
Good access to external information and knowledge, including
technology support services
Expected future regulations imposing new standards
Limited access to materials
Existing regulations, including standards
Collaboration with research institutes, agencies and
universities
Very important Somewhat important Not important Not at all important Not applicable DK/NA
Q8. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
company. Please tell me for each of them if you consider them a very important, somewhat important, not
important or not at all important driver in case of your company?

Securing or increasing their companys existing market share was mentioned as a very important
driver of eco-innovation developments by 42% of respondents and access to existing subsidies and
fiscal incentives was described as being very important by 40% of entrepreneurs. Existing
regulations and standards and expected future regulations and new standards were considered
very important eco-innovation drivers by, respectively, 30% and 33% of respondents.

Almost 4 in 10 (37%) managers said that technological and management capabilities within their
enterprise were a very important driver of eco-innovations and roughly a third (34%) answered in the
Flash EB N
o
page 41
same way when asked about the importance of good access to external information and knowledge,
including technology support services.

It was noted in the previous chapter that roughly a sixth (16%) of respondents believed that a lack of
suitable business partners was a very serious barrier to eco-innovation; however, three times as many
respondents (45%) said that having good business partners could be a very important driver of
accelerated eco-innovation development.

Similarly, it was noted before that roughly a third (34%) of respondents thought that uncertain demand
from the market was a very serious barrier to eco-innovation; at the same time, a similar proportion
(36%) identified an increasing market demand for green products as a very important driver.

Finally, respondents were the least likely to answer that collaboration with research institutes,
agencies and universities was a very important driver of eco-innovation initiatives in their company
(19%); this is in accordance with the finding that respondents were also the least likely to think that a
lack of such cooperation could be a very serious barrier to eco-innovation uptake in their company.

Country variations

Across most countries, more than three-quarters of interviewees said that current high energy prices
were a very or somewhat important driver of an accelerated eco-innovation uptake and development in
their company. Furthermore, in three countries, more than 9 in 10 respondents said that current energy
prices were very or somewhat important: Lithuania (93%), Cyprus and Greece (both 94%).

The proportion of entrepreneurs who said that current high energy prices were a very important driver,
however, showed more variation across Member States. More than 8 in 10 entrepreneurs in Malta
(84%), and roughly three-quarters of those in Spain and Cyprus (76%-77%), said that this driver was
very important to stimulate eco-innovation; in France and the Czech Republic, on the other hand, less
than 4 in 10 respondents selected the same response (37% and 30%, respectively).

84
77 76
72
70 70 70
66
63
60
58 58 58
56 56
54 53
50 50
45 43 43 43
41 40 40
37
30
6
17
13 21 24
19
17
22
24
27
27
18
28
23
32
26
36
29
25
40
35
28
38
33
36
28
41
31
2
2
8
3 1
3
3
6
4
6
6
5
6
8
7
11
6
11
6
8
8
11
9
17
15
17
11
35
8 1
2
0 2
2
5
4
5
3
3
3
6
5
3
5
2
5
10
8
5
9
8 6 4
3
6
3
0
0
1
2 2
1
5
3
3 1 4
12
0
3
0 3 2
3
8
1
5
3
2 2 3
9
4
1
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
T
C
Y
E
S
L
T
E
L
R
O
P
T
B
E
L
V
B
G
A
T
H
U
L
U
S
K
S
I
D
E
I
E
E
U
2
7
E
E
F
I
U
K
S
E
P
L
I
T
D
K
N
L
F
R
C
Z
Q8. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a company. Please
tell me for each of them if you consider them a very important, somewhat important, not important or not at all
important driver in case of your company?
Current high energy prices

o

page 42
A similar picture emerged when looking at the individual country results for the expected increases in
energy prices. In all countries, except for the Czech Republic, more than 70% of respondents said that
the expected increases in energy prices were a very or somewhat important driver to introduce eco-
innovations. Furthermore, in about half of the Member States, not more than a tenth of respondents
doubted whether this was an important driver of eco-innovation i.e. they said that expected increases
in energy prices were not important or not at all important.

The Czech Republic once more stood out from the pack with somewhat more than 4 in 10
managers who answered that expected increases in energy prices were not an important driver of eco-
innovation. Nonetheless, although 40% of Czech respondents said that this driver was not important,
just 2% said it was not at all important.

85
78
76 75 75
73
68
66 66
62 62 61 60 60 59 58
55 54 53 52 51
47 46
43 42
40
30 29
8
8
19
14
10
19
25
24 25
23
28
23
29 30
12
29
25
32
36
30
37
36
25
40
32
35
25
48
2
4
2
7
7
4
3
3
6
4
5
5
3
4
5
7
7
5
3
9
3
9
16
8
14
10
40
10
6
3
4
3
3
2 0
2
1
7
3
6
4
4
9
5
4
7
3 5
9
6
2
5
8
7
2
8
0
3
0
1
5
1
2
0
1
3
2
4
4 0
10
1
3
1
2 2 1
8
3 2
4
1
4
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
T
C
Y
E
L
E
S
P
T
L
T
I
E
R
O
B
G
L
V
A
T
E
E
B
E
S
I
H
U
D
E
S
K
P
L
U
K
E
U
2
7
L
U
F
I
N
L
D
K
I
T
S
E
C
Z
F
R
Expected future increases in energy prices

A majority of respondents across all countries also agreed that the current high material prices were
an important driver of eco-innovation in their company (from 59% in the Czech Republic to 91% in
Greece). Nonetheless, in most countries, the proportion thinking that high material prices were a driver
of eco-innovation was lower than the proportion saying the same about high energy prices.

The proportion of very important responses ranged from less than a third in the Czech Republic,
Sweden and Denmark (30%-32%) to more than double that number in Portugal, Spain, Romania,
Malta and Cyprus (67%-76%).

Flash EB N
o
page 43
76
73
69
67 67
64
60 59
57 56
51
48 48 48 47 47 47
45 44
42
39 38 37
35
33 32 32
30
12
10 18
18 19
27
28
28
18
25
29
23
36
16
25
34
33
31
27
38
37
28 32 37 41
38
32
29
2
2
2 8
4
2
6
4
8
7
5
11
10
5
16
10
6 11
6
8
13
16
17
17
9 15
17
35
1
9
3
6
5
4 1
4
10
5 13
6
2
7
6
3
4
7
8
9
8
4
7
7
12
9
7
4
4
6
2
2
5 3
3 2
6
5
3
5
1
22
5 5
8
5
14
2
3
11
8 3 5 5
5
1
0
20
40
60
80
100
C
Y
M
T
R
O
E
S
P
T
E
L
L
T
B
G
L
V
B
E
L
U
S
K
S
I
H
U
A
T
I
E
U
K
E
U
2
7
E
E
P
L
I
T
N
L
D
E
F
I
F
R
D
K
S
E
C
Z
Current high material prices

Although in 21 Member States, more than 7 in 10 managers agreed that current high material prices
could drive eco-innovation uptake in their companies, there were only six Member States where more
than 7 in 10 respondents said that limited access to materials was a very or somewhat important
driver of eco-innovation uptake (from 72% in Spain to 77% in Romania and Greece).

In Portugal, a slim majority (53%) of respondents thought that a limited access to materials was a very
important driver of eco-innovative initiatives in their company; in Malta and Spain, almost one in two
respondents gave a similar response (48%-49%).

Respondents in the Czech Republic were once again the most likely to say that this driver was not
important (60% not important and 6% not at all important responses); however, respondents in
Latvia were the most likely to say that limited access to materials was not at all important as a driver
of eco-innovation (33%).

53
49 48
46
44 43
37
34 33
31 31 30
29 29 28 28 27 27 26 26
24 23
21 21
19 18 17
11
22
23
11
31
28
34
38
34
26
34
29 31
38
31
16
25
24 25 25
30 35
30
45
36
26
25
13
28
10 16
15
8
15
9
14
26
21
14
20
19
16
22
15
19
13
21
14
23
27
23
15
22
28
25
60
32
8
9
17
5
4
12
6
5
14
9
14 12
11
13
33
16
13
17
24
7
8
11
9 16
16
8
6
20
6
2
10
5
7
2
3
0
5
8
5
6
5
2 6
7
19
6
8
9
4
9
7
4
8
21
2
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
P
T
E
S
M
T
R
O
L
U
E
L
I
E
S
I
D
E
U
K
B
G
E
U
2
7
A
T
I
T
L
V
C
Y
H
U
S
E
E
E
S
K
L
T
B
E
F
R
P
L
D
K
N
L
C
Z
F
I
Limited access to materials

o

page 44
Only in one country Greece did more than 8 in 10 (83%) respondents say that the expected future
material scarcity was a very or somewhat important driver of eco-innovation development in their
company. A slim majority (54%) of Greek respondents said that this driver was very important; similar
figures were observed in Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal and Malta (51%-56% of very important
responses).

In two countries Denmark and the Czech Republic a majority of entrepreneurs believed that future
material scarcity was not important or not at all important as a driver of eco-innovation in their
company (53% and 59%, respectively). In the Czech Republic, just 7% of managers selected the very
important response; this proportion was 10 percentage points higher in Denmark (17%). Respondents
in Latvia were once again the most likely to say that this potential driver of eco-innovation was not
at all important (27%).

56 54 54
51 51 50
46 46
40 40 39
36 36 35 34 33 32 32
30
28 27
26 25 25 25
18
16 16
13
22
29
25
29
29
28
21
25 27
21 29
37
29
23
34
39
26 31
22
25
24
22
27
37
24
23
35
8
10
6
11
12
5 14
8
16
15
15
19
11
16
19
24
12
26
12
13 8
21
9
24
19
36
52
23
10
6
8
6
4
4
8
13
12
7
12
10
6
10
8
6
13
6
9 27
18
15
9
9
14
17
7
18
12
7
2
5
4
4
1
8
4
8 13
5
6
7
15
1 4
5
11
6
15
4
27
8
4 5
2
4
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
T
P
T
E
L
A
T
L
U
R
O
E
S
C
Y
B
G
B
E
D
E
I
T
I
E
E
U
2
7
N
L
S
I
F
R
L
T
U
K
L
V
E
E
S
E
H
U
S
K
P
L
D
K
C
Z
F
I
Expected future material scarcity

In all Member States (except Malta), at least 60% of respondents answered that good business
partners were very or somewhat important drivers of accelerated eco-innovation development and
uptake. In 10 Member States, more than 60% of respondents even said that having good business
partners was very important (from 61% in Latvia and Portugal to 79% in Luxembourg).

In Malta, just 36% of managers said that good business partners were important drivers of eco-
innovation. As for the question about barriers to eco-innovation, almost half (46%) of Maltese
respondents did not consider this question about business partners to be relevant.

Flash EB N
o
page 45

79
73 73
69 69 68
66
62 61 61
58
56 55
50 48
45 44 43 42
39 38
37
35 34 34 33
27
24
15
17 18 24
16
20
11
30
21 24
27
36
26
27
41
31
35
39
43
32 32
27
25
30
35
47
9
49
0
4
2
5
6
7
5
2
7 3
7
4
9
11
9
11
8
11
10
26
17
15
19
11
17
10
3
11
5 3
1
1
4
3
4
5
4
11
5
2
3 5
1
8
6
4
4 1
5
3
16
11
11
6
11
11
0 1
1
1
2
2
12
1
6
1
2 1
2
5
0
4
3
2
0 1
5
16
5
11
2 4
46
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
L
U
A
T
R
O
B
G
C
Y
D
E
H
U
E
L
P
T
L
V
E
E
L
T
S
K
B
E
S
I
E
U
2
7
S
E
P
L
F
I
C
Z
I
E
N
L
E
S
U
K
I
T
D
K
M
T
F
R
Good business partners

The proportion of respondents who said that technological and management capabilities within
their company were a very or somewhat important driver of eco-innovation development varied
between 58%-59% in the Czech Republic and the Netherlands and 93% in Luxembourg. Similarly, the
proportion of very important responses ranged from less than a quarter in France and the UK (22%-
24%) to more than 6 in 10 in Romania, Luxembourg and Malta (63%-66%).

The largest proportion of not important and not at all important responses was observed in the
Czech Republic (37%); this proportion was between 24% and 29% in Denmark, Estonia, Italy,
Slovakia and France.

66
64
63
57 56 56
51
50 48 47
45 45 44
42
39 39 38 38 37
36
31
28 28 28 28 27
24
22
6
29
25
31
22
29
31 34
30
38
38
43
30
29
43
35
32
35
37
44
33
30
48
51
43
32 39 43
7
2
2 2
2
9
9
9
14
11
9
4
13
9
7
14
8
19
14
12
22
35
11
15
18
19
13
17
10
3
2
6
8
2
3
4
4
3
5 8
6
16
2 6
15
6
7
5
4
2
9
5
6
4
10
12
11
2
2
5
10
2
4
2 3
0 3 0
5
3
2
1
3
0
4
2
3
3 4
1
3
17 8
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
T
L
U
R
O
C
Y
H
U
B
G
P
T
A
T
E
S
S
I
D
E
E
L
B
E
E
E
L
T
S
E
L
V
I
T
E
U
2
7
I
E
S
K
C
Z
P
L
F
I
D
K
N
L
U
K
F
R
Technological and management capabilities within the enterprise

o

page 46
Entrepreneurs in the Czech Republic and the Netherlands were also the least likely to believe that
good access to external knowledge and technology support services could be important to stimulate
eco-innovation uptake in their company (56% and 58%, respectively). Roughly a third (32%) of
respondents in the Netherlands said that this factor was very important, this proportion decreased to
23% in the Czech Republic; a figure similar to the one observed in France and Denmark (both 20%).

Respondents in Austria, Romania, Greece and Slovenia were the most likely to answer that good
access to external knowledge and technology support services was a very important or somewhat
important driver of eco-innovation in their company (between 85% and 87%).

Almost 4 in 10 (37%) managers in Slovenia and about half of those in Austria and Greece (49%-52%)
said that this eco-innovation driver was very important; in Romania, however, this proportion was
higher at 59%. In two other countries, roughly 6 in 10 respondents said that access to external
knowledge and technology support services was very important: Hungary (61%) and Malta (59%).

61
59 59
52 52 52 51
49
43 43
41
38 38 38 37 37
35 34 33 32 32 31
25 25 24 23
20 20
17
19
27
31
36
21
32 36
33
37
43
34
30
45
50
32
39 40
40
26
40
38
42
51
45
33
44
55
5 6
2
10
5
8
5
6
13
10
9
7
20
10
7
15
16
14 14
20
10 15
19
15
20
38
21
11
4
3
4
4
6
12
7
4
5 3
4
16
3
4
4
6
7
6
8
3
8
10
4
5 10
4
10
8
12 11 3
2
0
5
4 3
4 6
3
4
4
2
1
6
1
4
4
16
7
6
3
3
1 1
5 5
0
20
40
60
80
100
H
U
M
T
R
O
B
G
E
L
C
Y
L
U
A
T
E
S
P
T
I
E
L
V
S
K
L
T
S
I
B
E
I
T
E
U
2
7
D
E
N
L
U
K
E
E
S
E
P
L
F
I
C
Z
D
K
F
R
Good access to external information and knowledge, including technology support services

Roughly 9 in 10 (91%) entrepreneurs in Greece said that access to existing subsidies and fiscal
incentives was a very or somewhat important driver of eco-innovation development; about two-thirds
(68%) of respondents in this country thought that such access was very important. Respondents in
Hungary and Malta, however, were even more likely to answer that access to existing subsidies and
fiscal incentives was very important to accelerate eco-innovation development in their company (72%
and 81%, respectively).

Denmark was the only country where less than half (47%) of respondents considered access to existing
subsidies and fiscal incentives to be important as an eco-innovation driver; the same proportion said
that this type of access was not important or not at all important for their company.

Flash EB N
o
page 47
81
72
68
64
61 61
59
56
52 51
48 46 46 45 44 43 43
40 40 39
32 31 30
28
25 24 24
15
5
12
23
24
19
26
22
26
28
21
37
32
27 29 30 32
30
32 34
32
27
35
42
34 42
36
33
32
9
2
5
4
6
9
6 4
11
7
6
11
13
9
17
7
13
14
15
14
18
19
11
29
17
17
16
30
3
2
3
4
6
3
2
9
4
11
4
1
3
11
6
7
5 7
8
7
5
10 13
4
12
12
8
17
2
12
0
2
4
2
4
4
3
8
3
5
5
5
1
10 5
5
2
5
14
5
4
3 4
2
11
4
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
T
H
U
E
L
B
G
C
Y
E
S
R
O
L
U
A
T
L
V
S
I
L
T
S
K
E
E
I
T
P
T
B
E
E
U
2
7
P
L
I
E
N
L
D
E
F
R
C
Z
F
I
S
E
U
K
D
K
Access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives

There was also only one country Sweden where less than half (46%) of respondents answered that
existing regulations and standards were important drivers of eco-innovation. In Slovenia,
Luxembourg and Malta, on the other hand, more than 80% of respondents said that existing
regulations and standards were very or somewhat important drivers of eco-innovation in their company
(82%-85%).

Malta stood out with 68% of very important responses; in all other countries, between 13% and 50%
of respondents thought that existing regulations and standards were very important to accelerate eco-
innovation development in their company.

68
50 50 50
49
43
41 40
37 36 35 35 35 33
32
30 30 30 30
26 25 25 24 24 23
21 20
13
17
30
24
34
31
24
37 39 43
38
45 44 47
37 41
41 40
28
39 46
33 36
41
49
45
53
42
33
0 9
12
7
8
6
9
12
12
14
12
6
13
18
8
15
10
17
21 15
20 17
23
17
25
7
18
21
12
5
6
6
4
8
6
2
4
7
4
5
2
7
7
7
13
19
9
7
7 8
7
2
4
11
14
14
3
3
0
3
2
15
3 3
2
1
3
1
0 3
7
4 3
3
1
3
6
12
4
4
1
6
4
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
T
B
G
C
Y
L
U
R
O
H
U
B
E
L
T
I
E
E
S
P
T
E
L
S
I
I
T
U
K
E
U
2
7
E
E
L
V
F
I
P
L
S
K
N
L
D
E
A
T
C
Z
F
R
D
K
S
E
Existing regulations, including standards

o

page 48
Entrepreneurs in Sweden were also the least likely to consider that expected future regulations,
imposing new standards, was a driver of eco-innovation in their company (19% very important and
33% somewhat important responses). About a third (34%) of Swedes answered that this factor was
not important or not at all important as an eco-innovation driver; a figure similar to the one observed
in Germany (33%).

Looking at the sum of very important and somewhat important responses, the highest numbers
were observed in Greece and Luxembourg (both 93%). A focus on the very important responses,
however, showed that respondents in Malta were again the most likely to select this response (63%). In
Greece and Luxembourg, a slim majority of respondents said that expected future regulations were
very important to stimulate eco-innovation development in their company (53% and 57%,
respectively).

63
57
53
48 48 48 46
43 43 42 40 40
38
34 33 33
31 31 31 31 30 30 29 28 27
25 24
19
14
36
40
36
33
26
38
42
37
36
23
39
29
35 38
32
31
43
35
44
39
47
33
44 47
46 48
33
4
3 2
7
7
11
7
10
11
8
5
9
9 6
14
22
15
13
13
6 17
15
20
13
12
14
22
22
11
3
3
5
3
6
2
2
4
6
9
5
12
11
8
8
6
7
5
7
7
6
13
9 9
8
4
12
3
1
0
3
2
2
2
0
1
4
12
2
4
7
4
2
14
4
5
5
3
1
5 4 4
3
1
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
M
T
L
U
E
L
B
G
R
O
C
Y
L
T
S
I
E
S
B
E
H
U
I
E
L
V
E
E
E
U
2
7
I
T
N
L
P
L
S
K
U
K
D
K
F
I
D
E
P
T
F
R
A
T
C
Z
S
E
Expected future regulations imposing new standards

The proportion of respondents who said that securing or increasing their companys market share
was very or somewhat important as a driver of eco-innovation ranged from 62% in the Czech Republic to
90%-91% in Lithuania, Greece and Romania. Respondents in the Czech Republic together with those
in France were also the least likely to say that this driver was a very important one (24%-26%), while
respondents in Romania together with those in Malta were the most likely to say so (65%-66%).

Flash EB N
o
page 49
66
65
60 60 60 60 58
55 54
52 51
49 48 48 47 47 46
45
42 42
40 39 38 37 37
35
26
24
25
15
31
25
30
17
30
31
28 32
23
32 31
38
24
29 30 32
34
42
34
34 34 37
35
47
36
42
2
3
5
8
5
6
4
6
9
9
7
9 11
9
10
8
11
9
12
10
17
16
13 9 14
7
32
20
1
5
1
4
1
5
5
3
2
3
9
6 3
4
5
10
6
4
6
6
6
7
5
7
5
6
4
8
1 12
1 3
1
9
3
2
4
2
6
2
2
0
12
4
6
5
4
0
1 3
5 6
2
3
1
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
R
O
M
T
E
L
P
T
L
T
H
U
L
U
C
Y
B
G
I
E
E
E
E
S
A
T
S
I
N
L
L
V
D
E
S
K
E
U
2
7
F
I
I
T
D
K
B
E
U
K
S
E
P
L
C
Z
F
R
Secure or increase existing market share

The proportion of respondents who identified an increasing market demand for green products as a
very important driver of eco-innovation ranged from 22% in the Czech Republic to 67% in Greece.
Malta was close to Greece with 62% of very important responses. Finland, France, the UK, the
Netherlands and Estonia joined the Czech Republic at the lower end of the distribution in these
countries, between 25% and 28% of interviewees said that the increasing market demand for green
products was a very important driver of eco-innovation developments in their company.

In the Czech Republic, one in two respondents said that an increasing demand for green products was
not important or not at all important as an eco-innovation driver; in all other countries, however, less
than a third of respondents gave a similar response (from 5% in Greece to 32% in Latvia).

67
62
51
49
46 46 46 45
42 42 41 41 40 39
36 36
34 33 33 33 33 33
28 27 27 26 25
22
24
12
25
25
43
35
30
23 32
28
25
10
34
31
21
32
41
32
22
45
35
38
29
25
42
40 44
23
3
10 5
14
4
8
10
8
10
11
10
6
10
16
12
15
14
15
22
10
17
17
10 18
14
16
17
44
2
6
1
8
6
6
7
5
6
10
5
11
3
8
20
8
4
9
6
7
9
6
14 7
7
11
10
6
4
10
9
2
1
3 7
12
5
7
17
30
8
5
10 8
4
11
8
1 5 6
16
20
8
6
5
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
L
M
T
R
O
E
S
L
U
A
T
B
E
C
Y
S
E
B
G
P
T
H
U
L
T
I
T
L
V
E
U
2
7
I
E
D
E
S
K
S
I
D
K
P
L
E
E
N
L
U
K
F
R
F
I
C
Z
Increased market demand for green products

o

page 50
The proportions of respondents who said that the question about collaboration with research
institutes, agencies and universities was not relevant in the context of their own company were
once again (see previous chapter) the highest in Hungary and Malta (45% and 53%, respectively).
However, in several other countries, a considerable proportion said that this question was not
applicable; for example, 22% in the UK, 23% in the Netherlands and 25% in Latvia.

Respondents in Greece were the most likely to answer that collaboration with research institutes,
agencies and universities was an important driver of eco-innovation initiatives in their company (40%
very important and 40% somewhat important responses); it was noted in the previous chapter that
Greek respondents were also the most likely to think that a lack of such cooperation was a serious
barrier to eco-innovation uptake in their company.

40
38
32 32 31
29 28
26 25
22 21 21 21
19 19 18 18 18 17 16 15 15 13 13 13 13
10
7
40
18
27
35
23
34
28
29
25
41
25
40
28 30
22
40
30
34
22
9
17
31
32
40
26
16
30 37
11
9
17
19
15
11
16
20
21
19
9
23
28
21
26
22
16
18
19
9
8
23
27
27
24
51
31
18
8
18
14
11
11
9
9
10
10
11
17
9
8
14
8
13
19
10
16
7
13
16
17
12
18
11
19
19
2
16
9
3
16
10
19
12
14
6
25
4
10
14
23
6
15
17
22
53
45
14
8
5
13
8 8
18
0
20
40
60
80
100
E
L
L
U
E
S
B
G
C
Y
R
O
P
T
I
T
B
E
A
T
L
V
S
I
S
K
E
U
2
7
N
L
I
E
E
E
L
T
U
K
M
T
H
U
D
E
P
L
F
I
S
E
C
Z
D
K
F
R
Collaboration with research institutes, agencies and universities

The table on the next page shows for each country the drivers for accelerated eco-innovation
development and uptake that respondents most frequently identified as being very important ones.

Of the 14 drivers listed in the survey, current and future high energy prices were mentioned most
frequently as being very important drivers of accelerated eco-innovation uptake in respondents
companies. In 19 Member States, both the current and expected future high energy prices were
mentioned by some of the largest proportions of respondents. In a further six Member States, either
current or future high energy prices appeared in the top three drivers that received the highest
proportions of very important responses.

The table also shows that there was considerable variation across the Member States in the proportions
of entrepreneurs that identified each of the potential drivers as being very important for eco-innovation
uptake and development. For example, in the Czech Republic and France, the proportion of very
important responses for each of the 14 potential drivers remained below 40%. In Malta, on the other
hand, at least 80% of respondents described the highest ranked drivers as being very important.

Flash EB N
o
page 51

Drivers for an accelerated eco-innovation uptake and development
(proportion of very important responses)
BE % BG % CZ %
Current high energy prices 66 Good business partners 69 Good business partners 39
Expected future increases in
energy prices
60

energy prices
66

energy prices
30
Current high material price 56

Access to existing subsidies
and fiscal incentives
64

DK % DE % EE %
energy prices
43

Good business partners 68

energy prices
61
Current high energy prices 40

energy prices
58

Secure or increase existing
market share
39


market share
51
EL % ES % FR %
energy prices
76



energy prices
75

68


Expected future material
scarcity
32
IE % IT % CY %
energy prices
68

44

energy prices
78

energy prices
42

market share
52


LV % LT % LU %

energy prices
73

energy prices
62


Technological and
management capabilities
64


market share
58
HU % MT % NL %
72

energy prices
85

market share
47


energy prices
46
Good access to external
information and knowledge
61

81

AT % PL % PT %

energy prices
54

energy prices
75
energy prices
62


Current high energy prices 58 Current high energy prices 43 Current high material price 67
RO % SI % SK %

energy prices
60



energy prices
55
Current high material price 69 Good business partners 48 Good business partners 55
FI % SE % UK %
energy prices
47


energy prices
53
Current high energy prices 45 Current high energy prices 43 Current high material price 47

Increasing market demand
for green products
42


o

page 52
Socio-demographic considerations

Looking at the proportions of respondents that described each eco-innovation driver as being very
important, there were mostly small differences between the small and medium-sized companies. There
were, however, a few exceptions; for example, managers of small companies were more likely than
their counterparts in medium-sized companies to say that access to existing subsidies and fiscal
incentives was a very important driver of eco-innovations in their company (41% vs. 36%).

Managers of companies with an annual turnover of less than 2 million were more likely to describe
current and future high energy prices as being very important drivers of eco-innovation in their
company. For example, 55% of these managers said that expected future high energy prices were a
very important driver for the acceleration of eco-innovation uptake in their company, compared to
42% in companies with an annual turnover of more than 50 million.

Respondents in companies with an annual turnover of less than 2 million were also more likely to say
that good business partners and access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives were very important
drivers of eco-innovation in their company; securing ones market share and expected future
regulations and new standards were more frequently said to be very important to accelerated eco-
innovation uptake in companies with an annual turnover of more than 50 million.

For most eco-innovation drivers, respondents who said that their companys turnover had remained
unchanged in the past two years were the least likely to say that these were very important. For
example, among these respondents, 45% said that the current high energy prices were a very important
driver to accelerate eco-innovation uptake in their company; the corresponding figures for respondents
who reported an increase, or rather a decrease, in their companys annual turnover were 52% and
54%, respectively.

As could be expected, respondents in material-intensive companies were more likely to say that the
current high material prices and limited access to materials were very important eco-innovation drivers;
they were, however, also more likely to describe the current and future high energy prices as being very
important drivers of eco-innovation in their company. For example, 45% of respondents in companies
with material costs accounting for less than 10% of the total said that expected future high energy costs
were a very important driver for a faster uptake of eco-innovation in their company, this proportion
increased to 56% in companies with material costs accounting for more than 50% of the total.

Companies in the various activity sectors also differed in their views about drivers of eco-innovation;
however, no clear pattern emerged when these differences were analysed. Once more, some of the
largest differences were seen in the proportions of respondents who said that current high material
prices and limited access to materials were very important eco-innovation drivers. Respondents in the
water supply and waste management sector were the least likely to say that access to materials and
material prices were very important (16% and 36%, respectively); respondents in agricultural
companies were most concerned about high material prices (52% vs. 45% in the remaining activity
sectors), while those in the manufacture and food services sectors were more concerned than their
counterparts about access to materials (32%-33% vs. 24%-29% in the remaining sectors).

Finally, respondents in companies that had introduced at least one eco-innovation in the past two years
were not only more likely to describe various eco-innovation barriers as being very serious or
somewhat serious ones, they were also more likely to think that each of the potential eco-innovation
drivers listed in the survey were very important. For example, 44% of managers in eco-innovative
companies said that the increasing market demand for green products was a very important driver for a
faster uptake of eco-innovation in their company; the corresponding proportion in companies that had
not introduced any eco-innovations in the past two years was 29%.

For more details, see annex tables 36b through 49b.

Flash EB Series #315

eco-innovation

Annex
tables and
survey
details

THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION

Annex Flash EB N
o

page 54
I. Annex tables

Table 1a. Company size in terms of number of employees by country............................................. 58
Table 1b. Company size in terms of number of employees - by segments........................................... 59
Table 2a. Company size in terms of turnover by country.................................................................. 60
Table 2b. Company size in terms of turnover - by segments................................................................ 61
Table 3a. Evolution of companies annual turnover by country........................................................ 62
Table 3b. Evolution of companies annual turnover - by segments...................................................... 63
Table 4a. Companies main activity by country................................................................................ 64
Table 4b. Companies main activity - by segments .............................................................................. 65
Table 5a. Companies main activity: sub-categories - part1 by country........................................... 66
Table 5b. Companies main activity: sub-categories - part1 - by segments......................................... 67
Table 6a. Companies main activity: sub-categories part2 by country .......................................... 68
Table 6b. Companies main activity: sub-categories part2 - by segments ........................................ 69
Table 7a. Companies main activity: sub-categories part3 by country .......................................... 70
Table 7b. Companies main activity: sub-categories part3 - by segments ........................................ 71
Table 8a. Cost of materials as a percentage of a companies total costs by country ......................... 72
Table 8b. Cost of materials as a percentage of a companies total costs - by segments ....................... 73
Table 9a. How companies material costs have evolved over 5 years by country ............................ 74
Table 9b. How companies material costs have evolved over 5 years - by segments .......................... 75
Table 10a. Expectations about how companies material costs will evolve (5 10 years) by
country ................................................................................................................................. 76
Table 10b. Expectations about how companies material costs will evolve (5 10 years) - by
segments ............................................................................................................................... 77
Table 11a. Origin of most of the materials that companies use by country....................................... 78
Table 11b. Origin of most of the materials that companies use - by segments..................................... 79
Table 12a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Changing business
model by country............................................................................................................... 80
Table 12b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Changing business
model - by segments ............................................................................................................. 81
Table 13a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Improving the
material flow in the supply chain by country .................................................................... 82
Table 13b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Improving the
material flow in the supply chain - by segments .................................................................. 83
Table 14a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Substituting expensive
materials for a cheaper ones by country............................................................................ 84
Table 14b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Substituting
expensive materials for a cheaper ones - by segments ......................................................... 85
Table 15a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Purchasing more
efficient technologies by country ...................................................................................... 86
Table 15b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Purchasing more
efficient technologies - by segments..................................................................................... 87
Flash EB N
o
315 Attitudes towards eco-innovation Annex
page 55
Table 16a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Developing more
efficient technologies in-house by country........................................................................ 88
Table 16b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Developing more
efficient technologies in-house - by segments...................................................................... 89
Table 17a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Outsourcing
production or service activities by country ....................................................................... 90
Table 17b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Outsourcing
production or service activities - by segments...................................................................... 91
Table 18a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Recycling by
country ................................................................................................................................. 92
Table 18b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Recycling - by
segments ............................................................................................................................... 93
Table 19a. Share of eco-innovation-related investments in last 5 years by country.......................... 94
Table 19b. Share of eco-innovation-related investments in last 5 years - by segments........................ 95
Table 20a. Introduction of various eco-innovations in past 2 years by country ................................ 96
Table 20b. Introduction of various eco-innovations in past 2 years - by segments .............................. 97
Table 21a. Relevance of eco-innovation companies have introduced in terms of resource
efficiency in the past 2 years by country........................................................................... 98
Table 21b. Relevance of eco-innovation companies have introduced in terms of resource
efficiency in the past 2 years - by segments ......................................................................... 99
Table 22a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of funds within enterprise by country .... 100
Table 22b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of funds within enterprise - by segments .. 101
Table 23a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of external financing by country ............ 102
Table 23b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of external financing - by segments .......... 103
Table 24a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Uncertain return on investment or too long
payback period for eco-innovation by country................................................................ 104
Table 24b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Uncertain return on investment or too long
payback period for eco-innovation - by segments.............................................................. 105
Table 25a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of qualified personnel and technological
capabilities within the enterprise by country................................................................... 106
Table 25b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of qualified personnel and technological
capabilities within the enterprise - by segments ................................................................. 107
Table 26a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Limited access to external information and
knowledge, including lack of well developed technology support services by
country ............................................................................................................................... 108
Table 26b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Limited access to external information and
knowledge, including lack of well developed technology support services - by
segments ............................................................................................................................. 109
Table 27a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of suitable business partners by
country ............................................................................................................................... 110
Table 27b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of suitable business partners - by
segments ............................................................................................................................. 111
Table 28a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of collaboration with research institutes
and universities by country.............................................................................................. 112
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 56
Table 28b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of collaboration with research institutes
and universities - by segments............................................................................................ 113
Table 29a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Uncertain demand from the market by
country ............................................................................................................................... 114
Table 29b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Uncertain demand from the market - by
segments ............................................................................................................................. 115
Table 30a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Reducing material use is not a innovation
priority by country........................................................................................................... 116
Table 30b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Reducing material use is not a innovation
priority - by segments ......................................................................................................... 117
Table 31a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Reducing energy use is not a innovation
priority by country........................................................................................................... 118
Table 31b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Reducing energy use is not a innovation
priority - by segments ......................................................................................................... 119
Table 32a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Technical and technological lock-ins in
economy by country ........................................................................................................ 120
Table 32b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Technical and technological lock-ins in
economy - by segments ...................................................................................................... 121
Table 33a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Market dominated by established enterprises
by country........................................................................................................................ 122
Table 33b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Market dominated by established enterprises
- by segments...................................................................................................................... 123
Table 34a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Existing regulations and structures not
providing incentives to eco-innovate by country ............................................................ 124
Table 34b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Existing regulations and structures not
providing incentives to eco-innovate - by segments........................................................... 125
Table 35a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Insufficient access to existing subsidies and
fiscal incentives by country............................................................................................. 126
Table 35b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Insufficient access to existing subsidies and
fiscal incentives - by segments ........................................................................................... 127
Table 36a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Technological and management
capabilities within the enterprise by country................................................................... 128
Table 36b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Technological and management
capabilities within the enterprise - by segments ................................................................. 129
Table 37a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Secure or increase existing market
share by country .............................................................................................................. 130
Table 37b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Secure or increase existing market
share - by segments............................................................................................................. 131
Table 38a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Current high material price by
country ............................................................................................................................... 132
Table 38b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Current high material price - by
segments ............................................................................................................................. 133
Table 39a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Limited access to materials by
country ............................................................................................................................... 134
Table 39b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Limited access to materials - by
segments ............................................................................................................................. 135
Flash EB N
o
page 57
Table 40a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future material scarcity by
country ............................................................................................................................... 136
Table 40b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future material scarcity - by
segments ............................................................................................................................. 137
Table 41a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Collaboration with research institutes,
agencies and universities by country............................................................................... 138
Table 41b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Collaboration with research institutes,
agencies and universities - by segments ............................................................................. 139
Table 42a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Good access to external information
and knowledge by country .............................................................................................. 140
Table 42b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Good access to external information
and knowledge - by segments............................................................................................. 141
Table 43a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Good business partners by country ....... 142
Table 43b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Good business partners - by segments ..... 143
Table 44a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Current high energy price by country ... 144
Table 44b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Current high energy price - by
segments ............................................................................................................................. 145
Table 45a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future increases in energy
price by country............................................................................................................... 146
Table 45b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future increases in energy
price - by segments ............................................................................................................. 147
Table 46a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Existing regulations, including
standards by country........................................................................................................ 148
Table 46b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Existing regulations, including
standards - by segments...................................................................................................... 149
Table 47a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future regulations imposing
new standards by country ................................................................................................ 150
Table 47b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future regulations imposing
new standards - by segments .............................................................................................. 151
Table 48a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Access to existing subsidies and fiscal
incentives by country....................................................................................................... 152
Table 48b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Access to existing subsidies and fiscal
incentives - by segments..................................................................................................... 153
Table 49a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Increasing market demand for green
products by country......................................................................................................... 154
Table 49b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Increasing market demand for green
products - by segments ....................................................................................................... 155

Annex Flash EB N
o

page 58
Table 1a. Company size in terms of number of employees by country
QUESTION: D1. How many employees do you have in your company?

Total N % 10-49 % 50-249
EU27
5222 83 17
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 84.8 15.2

Bulgaria
204 78.3 21.7

Czech Rep.
200 79.2 20.8

Denmark
201 85.9 14.1

Germany
250 80.3 19.7

Estonia
200 82.2 17.8

Greece
201 88.8 11.2

Spain
250 88.1 11.9

France
250 76.6 23.4

Ireland
200 78.4 21.6

Italy
251 90 10

Cyprus
50 86.7 13.3

Latvia
202 79.4 20.6

Lithuania
202 76.3 23.7

Luxembourg
51 88.4 11.6

Hungary
202 83.9 16.1

Malta
50 80.8 19.2

Netherlands
200 82.6 17.4

Austria
200 83.1 16.9

Poland
200 83.5 16.5

Portugal
201 87.1 12.9

Romania
200 81.3 18.7

Slovenia
200 80.5 19.5

Slovakia
200 85 15

Finland
205 84.9 15.1

Sweden
200 83.8 16.2

United Kingdom
251 79.2 20.8
Flash EB N
o
page 59
Table 1b. Company size in terms of number of employees - by segments
QUESTION: D1. How many employees do you have in your company?

Total N % 10-49 % 50-249

EU27 5222 83 17
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 100 0
50+ employees 885 0 100
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 78.1 21.9
Construction 1526 87.2 12.8
Water supply; sewerage; waste
management and remediation activities
106 88.4 11.6
Manufacture 2843 80.2 19.8
Food services 543 87.4 12.6
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 97.3 2.7
2-10 million euro 1587 77.8 22.2
10-50 million euro 449 33 67
50 million euro and over 94 33.5 66.5
ANNUAL TURNOVER OVER THE
PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 78.3 21.7
Remained unchanged 1518 84.2 15.8
Decreased 2110 85.6 14.4
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 87 13
Between 10% and 29% 1326 83.1 16.9
Between 30% and 49% 1628 83.6 16.4
50% or more 1236 81.4 18.6
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 78.6 21.4
No 2891 86.7 13.3
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 60

Table 2a. Company size in terms of turnover by country
QUESTION: D2. What is the annual turnover of your company?

Total N
% Up to 2
million
euro
% 2-10
million
euro
% 10-50
million
euro
% 50
million euro
and over % DK/NA
EU27
5222 48.1 30.4 8.6 1.8 11.1
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 26.9 33.5 12.5 3.4 23.7

Bulgaria
204 80.8 9.7 1.5 0 8.1

Czech Rep.
200 70.4 20.9 6.1 0.4 2.2

Denmark
201 27.5 45.1 15.1 3.8 8.5

Germany
250 43.8 39.5 10.5 3 3.2

Estonia
200 62.8 24.6 5.3 0.5 6.9

Greece
201 27.2 55.2 11.6 0.3 5.7

Spain
250 65.4 16.2 5.3 0.7 12.3

France
250 38.6 40.5 14.1 2.3 4.5

Ireland
200 42.9 32.6 12.3 2.7 9.6

Italy
251 41.5 26.1 5.9 0.5 25.9

Cyprus
50 46.8 24.5 12.8 0 15.8

Latvia
202 78.8 15.1 3.2 0.2 2.7

Lithuania
202 81.8 14.3 0.7 0 3.2

Luxembourg
51 22.1 43.2 9.1 4.1 21.5

Hungary
202 70.2 21.3 3.9 1.6 3

Malta
50 60.3 20.4 6.1 0 13.2

Netherlands
200 31.1 40.8 10.3 1.7 16.1

Austria
200 41.5 37.4 11.5 1.1 8.5

Poland
200 58.6 31.3 4.1 0.4 5.5

Portugal
201 67.8 20.9 4.5 1.2 5.6

Romania
200 45.6 17.2 8.4 12.3 16.5

Slovenia
200 59.3 27.2 8.3 0 5.1

Slovakia
200 43 30.8 9.3 1.7 15.2

Finland
205 34.8 52.8 10.8 1.2 0.4

Sweden
200 35 45.4 17.1 2.5 0

United Kingdom
251 39 28.8 11.3 1.4 19.4
Flash EB N
o
page 61
Table 2b. Company size in terms of turnover - by segments
QUESTION: D2. What is the annual turnover of your company?

Total N
% Up to
2 million
euro
% 2-10
million
euro
% 10-50
million
euro
% 50
million
euro and
over
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 48.1 30.4 8.6 1.8 11.1
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 56.3 28.5 3.4 0.7 11.1
50+ employees 885 7.8 39.8 34 7.1 11.4
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 51.3 32 7.8 2.4 6.4
Construction 1526 50 32.3 6.1 1.8 9.9
management and remediation
activities
106 43.1 34.2 11.5 2.2 9
Manufacture 2843 43.9 31.6 11 1.9 11.5
Food services 543 64.2 17.1 2.6 0.9 15.1
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 100 0 0 0 0
2-10 million euro 1587 0 100 0 0 0
10-50 million euro 449 0 0 100 0 0
50 million euro and over 94 0 0 0 100 0
ANNUAL TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 38.6 37.9 11.5 2.8 9.2
Remained unchanged 1518 49.2 30.9 7 1.7 11.3
Decreased 2110 55.8 25.4 7.9 1.2 9.7
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 55.2 26.9 7.5 2.4 7.9
Between 10% and 29% 1326 52.8 29.1 6.4 0.9 10.8
Between 30% and 49% 1628 50.1 33.7 8.2 1.1 6.9
50% or more 1236 43.8 30.7 12.5 2.5 10.5
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 44.5 32.9 10.6 1.9 10.1
No 2891 51 28.4 7 1.7 11.9
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 62

Table 3a. Evolution of companies annual turnover by country
QUESTION: D3. Has your company's annual turnover decreased, remained unchanged or increased over the past
two years?

Total N % Increased
% Remained
unchanged % Decreased % DK/NA
EU27
5222 28 29.1 40.4 2.5
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 35 31.1 28.3 5.6

Bulgaria
204 20.4 23 55.3 1.3

Czech Rep.
200 16.2 36.6 46.9 0.3

Denmark
201 27.3 17.4 55.3 0

Germany
250 39.5 37 21.8 1.7

Estonia
200 41 26.3 31.2 1.6

Greece
201 29.1 14 53.2 3.7

Spain
250 11.5 18.1 70 0.4

France
250 34.5 33.1 31.6 0.7

Ireland
200 25 16.4 55.7 2.9

Italy
251 14.6 32.3 48.5 4.5

Cyprus
50 7.4 28.6 64 0

Latvia
202 29.8 20.3 48.1 1.7

Lithuania
202 18.9 8.5 69.4 3.1

Luxembourg
51 23.5 44.4 26.8 5.3

Hungary
202 21.7 32.4 45.7 0.1

Malta
50 23.2 20.5 55.2 1.1

Netherlands
200 35.4 27.7 32.9 4

Austria
200 36.5 31.2 31.3 1

Poland
200 34.2 30.6 31.6 3.5

Portugal
201 33.5 28 37.4 1.1

Romania
200 24.4 22 51.8 1.9

Slovenia
200 21.6 22.5 55.6 0.3

Slovakia
200 17.7 27.4 51.8 3.1

Finland
205 40.7 28.3 28.8 2.3

Sweden
200 52.7 22.6 24.2 0.5

United Kingdom
251 32.8 24.1 36.2 6.9
Flash EB N
o
page 63
Table 3b. Evolution of companies annual turnover - by segments
QUESTION: D3. Has your company's annual turnover decreased, remained unchanged or increased over the past
two years?

Total N % Increased
% Remained
unchanged % Decreased % DK/NA

EU27 5222 28 29.1 40.4 2.5
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 26.4 29.5 41.7 2.5
50+ employees 885 35.8 27.2 34.2 2.8
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 32.1 35.3 30.4 2.2
Construction 1526 25.9 31.5 41.4 1.2
activities
106 34.9 43.1 19.5 2.5
Manufacture 2843 28.6 26.2 41.9 3.3
Food services 543 27.9 32 37.8 2.4
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 22.4 29.7 46.8 1
2-10 million euro 1587 34.9 29.6 33.8 1.7
10-50 million euro 449 37.5 23.6 37 1.9
50 million euro and over 94 43.4 26.7 27.4 2.5
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 100 0 0 0
Remained unchanged 1518 0 100 0 0
Decreased 2110 0 0 100 0
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 29.7 30 38.7 1.7
Between 10% and 29% 1326 30.8 28.3 39.7 1.2
Between 30% and 49% 1628 26.2 32.1 39.7 1.9
50% or more 1236 27.7 26.2 44.2 1.9
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 33.1 27.6 36.9 2.3
No 2891 23.8 30.3 43.2 2.7
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 64

Table 4a. Companies main activity by country
QUESTION: D4. What is the main activity of your company?

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

f
i
s
h
i
n
g

%

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

%

W
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y
;

s
e
w
e
r
a
g
e
;

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

%

F
o
o
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

EU27
5222 3.9 29.2 2 54.4 10.4
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 3.8 36.7 4.2 44.3 11.1

Bulgaria
204 12.8 18.3 0 63.2 5.7

Czech Rep.
200 11.6 23.1 2.8 51 11.4

Denmark
201 5.2 39 1.6 46.2 8

Germany
250 2.3 28.7 2 60.1 6.9

Estonia
200 10.1 30 2.3 47.9 9.7

Greece
201 2.1 15.7 0.7 67.5 14

Spain
250 2.8 39.4 1.6 45.9 10.4

France
250 2.7 32.4 3.6 38.4 23

Ireland
200 3.7 24.8 2.3 42.9 26.2

Italy
251 1.2 20 1.3 73.2 4.2

Cyprus
50 4.1 33.2 1.4 36.1 25.3

Latvia
202 8.7 24.5 2.6 56.4 7.8

Lithuania
202 8.1 33.6 2.2 44.2 11.8

Luxembourg
51 1.6 62.5 0.9 22.9 12.1

Hungary
202 9.2 29.2 2.4 50.5 8.7

Malta
50 3.3 21.4 4.4 48.2 22.6

Netherlands
200 8.2 33.7 1.6 42.6 14

Austria
200 4.2 37.5 0.5 47.1 10.6

Poland
200 5.7 28 3.6 56.7 6.1

Portugal
201 1.1 34.6 1 52.3 11

Romania
200 7.1 30.3 1.9 52.7 8

Slovenia
200 2.1 35.4 2.6 50.8 9.1

Slovakia
200 13.2 30.6 2 52.7 1.5

Finland
205 4.5 34.3 1.8 51.3 8.1

Sweden
200 2 35.9 2.5 49.1 10.6

United Kingdom
251 3.5 27 0.6 56.2 12.6
Flash EB N
o
page 65
Table 4b. Companies main activity - by segments
QUESTION: D4. What is the main activity of your company?

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

f
i
s
h
i
n
g

%

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

%

W
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y
;

s
e
w
e
r
a
g
e
;

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

%

F
o
o
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

EU27 5222 3.9 29.2 2 54.4 10.4
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 3.7 30.7 2.2 52.5 10.9
50+ employees 885 5.1 22.1 1.4 63.7 7.7
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 100 0 0 0 0
Construction 1526 0 100 0 0 0
activities
106 0 0 100 0 0
Manufacture 2843 0 0 0 100 0
Food services 543 0 0 0 0 100
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 4.2 30.4 1.8 49.7 13.9
2-10 million euro 1587 4.1 31 2.3 56.7 5.9
10-50 million euro 449 3.6 20.7 2.7 69.9 3.2
50 million euro and over 94 5.2 29 2.4 58 5.2
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 4.5 27 2.5 55.6 10.3
Remained unchanged 1518 4.8 31.7 3 49.1 11.4
Decreased 2110 3 29.9 1 56.4 9.7
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 3.8 31.5 6.3 47.1 11.3
Between 10% and 29% 1326 4.3 27.1 1.5 51 16.1
Between 30% and 49% 1628 3.9 31.3 0.9 56.5 7.5
50% or more 1236 3.7 29.1 1.2 61.8 4.3
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 4.8 26.6 1.9 55.7 11
No 2891 3.2 31.3 2.1 53.4 9.9
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 66

Table 5a. Companies main activity: sub-categories - part1 by country
QUESTION: D4a. What is the sub category of your company?

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,

h
u
n
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

F
i
s
h
i
n
g
,

f
i
s
h

f
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y

a
n
d

l
o
g
g
i
n
g

%

F
i
s
h
i
n
g

a
n
d

a
q
u
a
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

%

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s

%

C
i
v
i
l

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

%

S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
e
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

W
a
t
e
r

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

s
u
p
p
l
y

%

S
e
w
e
r
a
g
e

%

R
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

%

W
a
s
t
e

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
;

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

EU27
5222 2.7 0.2 0.5 0.2 11.3 3.8 12.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 2.2 0 0.6 0 9 3.7 18.1 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.5

Bulgaria
204 9.6 0 3.2 0 7 4.7 6.3 0 0 0 0

Czech Rep.
200 10.3 0.3 1 0 7 5.5 10.7 0 0 0 1.1

Denmark
201 1.7 1.7 0 0 10.1 3 19.1 0.2 0.6 0 0.4

Germany
250 1.1 0 0.8 0 11 4 13.2 1 0.5 0 0.5

Estonia
200 6.7 0.7 1.9 0 12.9 3.1 5.5 1.2 0.9 0.2 0

Greece
201 0.8 0.6 0 0.3 0.4 0.4 14.1 0.5 0 0.3 0

Spain
250 2.4 0.2 0 0.2 16.3 3.6 19.1 0 0.5 0.5 0.5

France
250 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 18.8 0.9 9.9 0 0.9 0.9 0.9

Ireland
200 2.9 0.3 0 0.3 6.4 4 10.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8

Italy
251 1.2 0 0 0 8.2 1.8 9.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4

Cyprus
50 4.1 0 0 0 12.9 1.6 14 0 0 0 1.4

Latvia
202 4.8 1.1 2.5 0.2 7.2 6.1 10.5 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.3

Lithuania
202 3.5 1 1.6 0.3 3.4 9.4 16.1 1.5 0 0 0.8

Luxembourg
51 1.6 0 0 0 29.2 9.3 17.2 0 0 0.2 0.5

Hungary
202 8.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 8 5.1 14.6 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.6

Malta
50 3.3 0 0 0 6.6 0 11.5 4.4 0 0 0

Netherlands
200 4.8 0.6 0.3 0.3 7.3 6.3 18.3 0 0 0 1.3

Austria
200 1.5 0 1 0 17.5 1.4 15.3 0.1 0.2 0 0.2

Poland
200 4.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 8.3 8.8 10.8 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.4

Portugal
201 0.9 0.2 0 0 14.9 1.9 15.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4

Romania
200 2.5 0 2.5 1.3 3.8 13.8 10.7 0 0.7 0 0.7

Slovenia
200 1.3 0 0.3 0 6.7 1.6 18.4 0.4 1 0.4 0.4

Slovakia
200 11.1 0 1.2 0 8.2 7.9 12.5 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.7

Finland
205 2.2 0 2.3 0 17 3.5 12 0.2 0.4 0 1

Sweden
200 1.5 0 0.3 0 10.1 4.6 11.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.3

United Kingdom
251 2.6 0.4 0 0.5 12.1 1.3 10.2 0 0 0.2 0.2
Flash EB N
o
page 67
Table 5b. Companies main activity: sub-categories - part1 - by segments
QUESTION: D4a. What is the sub category of your company?

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,

h
u
n
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

F
i
s
h
i
n
g
,

f
i
s
h

f
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y

a
n
d

l
o
g
g
i
n
g

%

F
i
s
h
i
n
g

a
n
d

a
q
u
a
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

%

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s

%

C
i
v
i
l

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

%

S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
e
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

W
a
t
e
r

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

s
u
p
p
l
y

%

S
e
w
e
r
a
g
e

%

R
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

%

W
a
s
t
e

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
;

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

EU27 5222 2.7 0.2 0.5 0.2 11.3 3.8 12.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5
COMPANY SIZE

1049 employees 4337 2.6 0.2 0.5 0.1 12.3 3.6 13 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5
50+ employees 885 3.1 0.3 0.6 0.6 6.6 4.5 9.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.5
ACTIVITY

Agriculture and fishing 205 69.2 5.9 12.1 4.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Construction 1526 0 0 0 0 38.8 13 42.1 0 0 0 0

Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
remediation activities
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23.3 20.3 16.9 26.2
Manufacture 2843 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Food services 543 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TURNOVER

Up to 2 million euro 2511 2.9 0.2 0.5 0.2 11.8 3.6 13.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.7
2-10 million euro 1587 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 12.9 5.1 11.3 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.2
10-50 million euro 449 2 0.2 1.1 0 6.6 2.1 9.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6

50 million euro and
over
94 2 0 2.4 0 2.2 9.3 13 0 0.3 0 1
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 3 0.3 1 0.2 9.3 3.3 12.3 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.7
Remained unchanged 1518 3.5 0.3 0.4 0 13.2 4.3 12.5 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.7
Decreased 2110 2 0.1 0.2 0.3 12 3.9 12.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4
MATERIAL COST

Less than 10% 485 2.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 13.3 4.2 12.4 1.3 2.7 1.5 0.8
Between 10% and 29% 1326 2.9 0.2 0.7 0.2 9 3.2 13 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.4
Between 30% and 49% 1628 2.8 0.2 0.5 0.1 13 3.7 12.8 0.1 0 0.2 0.2
50% or more 1236 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 11.2 4.5 11.9 0.4 0.1 0 0.5
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 3.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 9.7 3.5 11.9 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4
No 2891 2.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 12.7 4 12.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.7
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 68

Table 6a. Companies main activity: sub-categories part2 by country
QUESTION: D4a. What is the sub-category of your company?

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

f
o
o
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

o
r

b
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
o
b
a
c
c
o

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

p
a
p
e
r

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
e
x
t
i
l
e
s
,

w
e
a
r
i
n
g

a
p
p
a
r
e
l
,

l
e
a
t
h
e
r

a
n
d

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

f
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

c
o
k
e

a
n
d

r
e
f
i
n
e
d

p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s

a
n
d

c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

b
a
s
i
c

p
h
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

a
n
d

p
h
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l

p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

r
u
b
b
e
r

a
n
d

p
l
a
s
t
i
c

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

n
o
n
-
m
e
t
a
l
l
i
c

m
i
n
e
r
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

b
a
s
i
c

m
e
t
a
l
s

o
r

f
a
b
r
i
c
a
t
e
d

m
e
t
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

(
e
x
c
e
p
t

m
a
c
h
i
n
e
r
y

a
n
d

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
)

EU27
5222 5.1 0.2 2 5.1 3.9 0.2 1.6 0.5 4.2 11
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 7.6 0.4 3 4.6 2.5 0 0.9 2 1.8 6.4
Bulgaria
204 12.7 1 2.7 12 6.5 0 1.6 0.5 6.5 7.6
Czech Rep.
200 5.4 0 0 2.9 3.9 0 2.4 0 5.9 11.2
Denmark
201 2.5 0.5 1.8 1.8 2 0 0.8 0.5 5.5 9.1
Germany
250 5.3 0.4 1.6 0.8 4.1 0.4 0.8 0.4 6.1 14.4
Estonia
200 3.3 0 1.9 3.8 8.9 0 0.5 0.5 0.9 9.4
Greece
201 15 0 7.7 7.7 2.2 0 7.5 0.5 10.1 4.4
Spain
250 2 0.4 0.8 7.7 3.9 0 2.7 0.4 1.9 13.3
France
250 4.3 0 1.5 2.1 3.3 0.2 1.7 0.8 2.7 7.7
Ireland
200 3.1 0 8.2 1.9 2.8 0 0.4 3 5.5 3.5
Italy
251 4.5 0 2.2 9.6 4.7 0 1.8 0.4 5.8 15.6
Cyprus
50 0 0 2.7 0 8.1 0 0 0 0 5.4
Latvia
202 5.1 0 4.4 6.9 10.7 1.9 1.2 1.2 2.5 5
Lithuania
202 5.6 0 1.2 8.4 5.6 0 0 0.4 1.2 3.6

Luxembourg
51 4.3 0 1.7 1.7 1.7 0 0.9 0 0 4.3
Hungary
202 5.2 0.3 2.6 7.6 2.3 0 4.2 1.1 3 7
Malta
50 3.3 0 6.6 0 6.6 0 0 4.4 5.5 9.9
Netherlands
200 5.9 0 3.6 0.6 1.6 0 2.4 0 3.7 6.6
Austria
200 6.2 0 1.4 1.6 9.1 0 1.4 0 1.6 7.7
Poland
200 8.6 0 0 1.8 4.1 0.6 2.5 0 6.9 15.6
Portugal
201 7.1 0 2.1 12.8 7.1 0.5 0 0.4 3 7.6

Romania
200 12.5 1.9 0.9 10.2 2.9 0 0.4 1.7 1.4 5.5
Slovenia
200 2.1 0 2.1 3.1 5.7 0 1.1 0.5 3.8 12.2
Slovakia
200 0.9 0 1.9 4.1 3 0.6 2.2 0 2 5.9
Finland
205 5.8 0 1.4 1.7 1.8 0 0.9 0 2.2 17
Sweden
200 2.6 0 4.1 1.6 0.8 0.5 1.6 0.5 4.9 6.8
United Kingdom
251 1.4 0 4.4 6.5 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.4 8
Flash EB N
o
page 69
Table 6b. Companies main activity: sub-categories part2 - by segments

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

f
o
o
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

o
r

b
e
v
e
r
a
g
e
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
o
b
a
c
c
o

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

p
a
p
e
r

a
n
d

p
a
p
e
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
e
x
t
i
l
e
s
,

w
e
a
r
i
n
g

a
p
p
a
r
e
l
,

l
e
a
t
h
e
r

a
n
d

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

f
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

c
o
k
e

a
n
d

r
e
f
i
n
e
d

p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s

a
n
d

c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

b
a
s
i
c

p
h
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

a
n
d

p
h
a
r
m
a
c
e
u
t
i
c
a
l

p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

r
u
b
b
e
r

a
n
d

p
l
a
s
t
i
c

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

n
o
n
-
m
e
t
a
l
l
i
c

m
i
n
e
r
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

b
a
s
i
c

m
e
t
a
l
s

o
r

f
a
b
r
i
c
a
t
e
d

m
e
t
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

(
e
x
c
e
p
t

m
a
c
h
i
n
e
r
y

a
n
d

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
)

EU27 5222 5.1 0.2 2 5.1 3.9 0.2 1.6 0.5 4.2 11
COMPANY SIZE

1049 employees 4337 4.7 0.2 1.7 5.1 4 0.2 1.4 0.5 3.9 10.7
50+ employees 885 6.7 0.2 3.2 5.5 3.6 0.3 2.9 0.6 6 12.7
ACTIVITY

Agriculture and fishing 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Construction 1526 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manufacture 2843 9.3 0.3 3.6 9.4 7.2 0.4 3 0.9 7.8 20.2
Food services 543 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TURNOVER

Up to 2 million euro 2511 4.8 0.2 1.2 5.5 4.4 0.1 1 0.4 3.6 10.1
2-10 million euro 1587 4.1 0.2 2.4 3.9 3.3 0.4 2 0.7 3.8 12.3
10-50 million euro 449 7.7 0 4.9 3.9 2.6 0 4.1 0.6 6.6 13.2

50 million euro and
over
94 6.5 0.5 4.4 3.6 0 0 7.6 0.2 3.7 10.5
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 6.3 0.2 2.1 5.1 3.1 0.1 1.5 1.1 5.2 8.3
Remained unchanged 1518 5.5 0.3 1.3 4.2 3.6 0.5 2.3 0.5 3.2 9.1
Decreased 2110 3.5 0.1 2.5 6.1 4.7 0.1 1.4 0.1 4 13.8
MATERIAL COST

Less than 10% 485 3.1 0.1 0.6 8.5 2 0.8 1 0.7 1.9 7.3
Between 10% and 29% 1326 5.9 0.2 1.6 4.5 3.7 0.3 1.8 1 2.7 11.6
Between 30% and 49% 1628 3.6 0.2 2.8 4 5.2 0 1.4 0.4 5.8 11.5
50% or more 1236 7.6 0.3 2.3 5 3.9 0.3 2 0.3 4.9 12.9
ECO-INNOVATION

Yes 2331 5.1 0.2 1.9 4.1 3.4 0.3 2.7 0.5 5.1 10.8
No 2891 5 0.2 2 6 4.3 0.2 0.8 0.5 3.6 11.2
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 70

Table 7a. Companies main activity: sub-categories part3 by country

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

m
a
c
h
i
n
e
r
y

a
n
d

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
,

e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

o
p
t
i
c
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

P
r
i
n
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

m
e
d
i
a

%

R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s

a
n
d

m
o
b
i
l
e

f
o
o
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

E
v
e
n
t

c
a
t
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

f
o
o
d

s
e
v
i
c
e
s

%

B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
e
r
v
i
n
g

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

O
t
h
e
r

%

D
K
/
N
A

EU27
5222 7.5 0.8 2.6 1 1.9 6.3 2.7 0.9 9.4 0.2
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 3.9 0.9 1.8 1.6 0 5.1 3.3 0 18.4 0

Bulgaria
204 4.8 0.5 3.3 1.6 0 3.1 0 2.1 2 0.5

Czech Rep.
200 5.3 1.5 3.9 0.5 0.5 0 1.9 3.8 15.1 0

Denmark
201 10.2 1.3 2.5 1.3 1.3 5.5 0 2.5 13.8 0.1

Germany
250 13.5 0.8 2.9 0.8 2.4 5 0.9 0.9 6.2 0

Estonia
200 2.3 0.9 2.8 1.4 0.9 6.5 2.4 0.8 19.6 0

Greece
201 1.6 1.1 1.4 0.8 3.3 1.7 7.8 3.3 6.3 0

Spain
250 3.5 0.4 1.5 0.4 3.1 7.5 2.9 0 4.3 0

France
250 3.9 1.3 2.6 1.7 1.3 13.9 9.1 0 7 0

Ireland
200 3.5 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.4 15 1.9 1.8 20.4 0

Italy
251 11.8 0.4 4.3 0.9 1.7 2.3 1.2 0.8 10.3 0

Cyprus
50 2.7 0 0 0 0 11.7 9 2 24.4 0

Latvia
202 1.9 0 0.6 0 1.9 3.4 4.3 0 14.2 0

Lithuania
202 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.4 2 6.7 1.7 0 20.6 1.2

Luxembourg
51 1.7 0 1.7 0 0 9.4 0 0 14.6 0

Hungary
202 6.7 1.4 2.3 0.8 3.4 5.4 3.3 0 4.2 0.3

Malta
50 1.1 0 0 3.3 2.2 13.6 6.8 2.3 8.8 0

Netherlands
200 8.7 0.6 0.4 1 2.1 10.6 1.8 1.6 6.9 2.7

Austria
200 4.8 0.5 3.3 1.9 3.5 9.3 0 0.6 8.5 1.2

Poland
200 7.4 2.2 1.9 1.2 2.2 5.3 0.8 0 1.2 0.6

Portugal
201 2 0.5 2.2 0.8 0 4.5 2.8 3.7 8.8 0

Romania
200 0.5 0 1.5 0 0 2.4 3.7 0.6 17.6 0.4

Slovenia
200 5.5 1.4 1.5 0.9 0.9 6.3 1.4 0 20.5 0.5

Slovakia
200 15.6 1.1 3.3 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 13.7 0

Finland
205 6.6 0.8 3.1 0.9 0.8 8.1 0 0 10.3 0

Sweden
200 11.8 0.8 2.8 0.5 0.5 5.8 3.3 0 21 0.3

United Kingdom
251 7.1 0.5 2.4 1.1 2.8 7.6 1.4 2.3 20.4 0
Flash EB N
o
page 71
Table 7b. Companies main activity: sub-categories part3 - by segments

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

m
a
c
h
i
n
e
r
y

a
n
d

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

%

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
,

e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
n
d

o
p
t
i
c
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

%

P
r
i
n
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

m
e
d
i
a

%

R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s

a
n
d

m
o
b
i
l
e

f
o
o
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

E
v
e
n
t

c
a
t
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

f
o
o
d

s
e
v
i
c
e
s

%

B
e
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
e
r
v
i
n
g

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

O
t
h
e
r

%

D
K
/
N
A

EU27 5222 7.5 0.8 2.6 1 1.9 6.3 2.7 0.9 9.4 0.2
COMPANY SIZE

1049 employees 4337 7.1 0.7 2.6 0.9 1.9 6.5 2.9 0.9 9.8 0.2
50+ employees 885 9.5 1.5 2.9 1.2 1.9 5.3 1.7 0.6 7.5 0.2
ACTIVITY

Agriculture and fishing 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.4 0.5
Construction 1526 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.1

Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.3 1
Manufacture 2843 13.8 1.5 4.8 1.8 3.4 0 0 0 12.2 0.2
Food services 543 0 0 0 0 0 60.7 26 8.5 4.8 0.1
TURNOVER

Up to 2 million euro 2511 5.9 0.7 2.3 0.7 2.1 9 3.3 1 9.1 0.2
2-10 million euro 1587 10.6 1.1 2.5 1.4 1.3 3.7 1.6 0.4 8.8 0.1
10-50 million euro 449 12.4 0.3 4 0.2 2.3 0.1 2.5 0.1 11.5 0.2

50 million euro and
over
94 3 3.2 5.7 3.4 0 0.4 0 3.6 12.6 0.9
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 7.8 0.7 3.5 1.5 2.4 6.8 2.4 0.8 9.3 0.1
Remained unchanged 1518 7 0.4 2.6 0.9 1.4 6.7 3.4 0.9 9.6 0.1
Decreased 2110 7.8 1.2 2.1 0.7 1.9 5.8 2.6 0.8 8.8 0.4
MATERIAL COST

Less than 10% 485 5.3 1 2 2.1 2.8 7.3 3.1 0.8 9.2 0.5
Between 10% and 29% 1326 7.1 0.2 3.4 0.9 1.5 10 4.7 0.5 7.4 0.2
Between 30% and 49% 1628 10.4 1.1 1.7 0.8 1.5 3.9 2 1.4 8.5 0.2
50% or more 1236 6.8 1.4 3.2 0.9 2.3 1.7 1.3 0.7 10.3 0.1
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 8.4 0.7 2.5 1.1 1.9 7.7 2 0.9 9.5 0.1
No 2891 6.8 0.9 2.7 0.9 1.9 5.2 3.3 0.9 9.4 0.3
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 72

Table 8a. Cost of materials as a percentage of a companies total costs by country
QUESTION: Q1. What percentage of your company's total cost - i.e. gross production value - is material cost?
Material cost is the cost of all materials used to manufacture a product or perform a service.

Total N
% Less
than 10%
%
Between
10% and
29%
%
Between
30% and
49%
% 50% or
more
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 9.3 25.4 31.2 23.7 0.3 10.2
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 9.8 24.3 22.6 21.2 1 21

Bulgaria
204 11.2 16.8 20.8 42.3 0.5 8.3

Czech Rep.
200 5.5 23.7 38.2 26.1 0 6.4

Denmark
201 9.6 31.7 36 20.8 0 1.8

Germany
250 6.2 35.4 37.7 16.4 0 4.4

Estonia
200 9.2 22.5 26.7 27.7 0 14

Greece
201 12.7 24.5 23.8 26.8 0 12.3

Spain
250 11.8 28.8 25.1 19.6 0.4 14.3

France
250 21.4 31.8 25.5 12.1 0 9.1

Ireland
200 12.1 22.7 30.6 23.2 0 11.4

Italy
251 7.6 25.3 33.9 20.5 0.4 12.2

Cyprus
50 5.8 23.5 25.5 26.6 0 18.6

Latvia
202 4.6 13.2 32.5 41.5 0.6 7.7

Lithuania
202 2.9 17.6 34.9 35.8 1.2 7.5

Luxembourg
51 9 44.1 36.2 7.2 0 3.6

Hungary
202 4.8 15 31.9 37.8 1.5 9

Malta
50 4.4 19.9 33.3 34.1 0 8.3

Netherlands
200 7 28.5 34.3 18.2 1.1 10.8

Austria
200 3.7 21.1 50.4 17.9 0 6.8

Poland
200 6.4 14.5 26.2 47.4 0.6 4.9

Portugal
201 14.4 20.1 26.3 27.8 0.7 10.7

Romania
200 4.8 12.8 26.9 43.8 0.5 11.2

Slovenia
200 7.9 16.9 35.3 36.1 0 3.8

Slovakia
200 6 20 33.5 30.3 0.6 9.6

Finland
205 12.4 28.8 36 20 0.5 2.4

Sweden
200 4.9 26.4 37.1 24.6 0 7.2

United
Kingdom
251 4.7 21.5 31.6 21.1 0 21.1
Flash EB N
o
page 73
Table 8b. Cost of materials as a percentage of a companies total costs - by segments
QUESTION: Q1. What percentage of your company's total cost - i.e. gross production value - is material cost?

Total N
% Less
than
10%
%
Between
10% and
29%
%
Between
30% and
49%
% 50%
or more
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 9.3 25.4 31.2 23.7 0.3 10.2
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 9.7 25.4 31.4 23.2 0.3 9.9
50+ employees 885 7.1 25.4 30.1 26 0.2 11.2
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 9.1 28 30.6 22.5 0 9.9
Construction 1526 10 23.5 33.4 23.6 0.2 9.3
Water supply; sewerage;
waste management and
106 28.9 18.5 13.2 13.5 0 26
Manufacture 2843 8 23.8 32.4 26.9 0.5 8.4
Food services 543 10.1 39.3 22.4 9.7 0 18.5
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 10.7 27.9 32.5 21.6 0.5 6.9
2-10 million euro 1587 8.2 24.3 34.6 23.9 0 9
10-50 million euro 449 8.1 18.9 29.6 34.5 0.1 8.7
50 million euro and over 94 12.5 12.9 19.5 33 0 22.2
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 9.9 27.9 29.2 23.5 0.4 9.1
Remained unchanged 1518 9.6 24.8 34.4 21.3 0.1 9.8
Decreased 2110 8.9 24.9 30.6 25.9 0.3 9.4
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 100 0 0 0 0 0
Between 10% and 29% 1326 0 100 0 0 0 0
Between 30% and 49% 1628 0 0 100 0 0 0
50% or more 1236 0 0 0 100 0 0
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 7.8 26.5 31.3 25.5 0 8.8
No 2891 10.5 24.5 31 22.2 0.6 11.2
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 74

Table 9a. How companies material costs have evolved over 5 years by country
QUESTION: Q2. Have material costs for your company increased or decreased in the past 5 years?

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

d
r
a
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

%

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
y

%

R
e
m
a
i
n
e
d

u
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d

%

D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

%

N
o
t

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e

%

D
K
/
N
A

EU27
5222 25.7 48.9 14.9 7.9 0.3 2.3
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 32.1 47.1 12.8 4.5 1 2.5

Bulgaria
204 11.4 41.5 22.6 21.1 0.5 2.9

Czech Rep.
200 5.8 42.7 34.4 15.5 0 1.8

Denmark
201 10.9 42 21.4 22.7 0 2.9

Germany
250 28.6 55.5 10.8 3.8 0 1.3

Estonia
200 27.9 30.5 22 11.7 0 7.9

Greece
201 18.6 45.4 17.1 16.6 0 2.3

Spain
250 27.3 38.2 17.5 14.4 0.4 2.1

France
250 28.6 47.2 17 5.8 0 1.4

Ireland
200 29.8 43.6 9.6 15.7 0 1.4

Italy
251 19.3 54.2 15.7 8.1 0.4 2.2

Cyprus
50 28.4 37.1 17.1 15.9 0 1.6

Latvia
202 27 37.9 16.6 12.9 0.6 5.1

Lithuania
202 30.2 28.6 14.8 22 1.2 3.2

Luxembourg
51 18.4 62.2 10.1 6.7 0 2.6

Hungary
202 33.4 38.6 11.7 9.3 1.5 5.5

Malta
50 49.9 36.9 7.7 2.3 0 3.3

Netherlands
200 21.7 53.6 12.9 7.6 1.1 3.2

Austria
200 27.4 52.4 15.3 2.7 0 2.3

Poland
200 24.1 60.9 11.4 1.7 0.6 1.4

Portugal
201 26 47 14.9 10 0.7 1.4

Romania
200 16.6 49.5 16.6 14.9 0.5 1.9

Slovenia
200 23.3 42.7 15.7 14.8 0 3.4

Slovakia
200 19.5 35.1 24.7 14.7 0.6 5.4

Finland
205 9.4 58.4 22.8 7.8 0.5 1.2

Sweden
200 13.3 50 27.7 5.4 0 3.5

United Kingdom
251 45.7 42.4 4.2 3 0 4.7
Flash EB N
o
page 75
Table 9b. How companies material costs have evolved over 5 years - by segments
QUESTION: Q2. Have material costs for your company increased or decreased in the past 5 years?

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

d
r
a
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

%

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
y

%

R
e
m
a
i
n
e
d

u
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d

%

D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

%

N
o
t

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e

%

D
K
/
N
A

EU27 5222 25.7 48.9 14.9 7.9 0.3 2.3
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 26 48.2 15.5 7.7 0.3 2.2
50+ employees 885 23.8 52 12 9.2 0.2 2.7
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 29.2 50.8 11.1 6.9 0 2
Construction 1526 21.1 52.5 16.6 7.4 0.2 2.2
activities
106 20.1 59.8 12.7 5 0 2.3
Manufacture 2843 28.5 47.1 13.5 8.3 0.5 2.1
Food services 543 23.5 44.9 19.3 8.6 0 3.7
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 27 46.7 15.6 8.2 0.5 2
2-10 million euro 1587 24.7 51.6 15.6 6.8 0 1.2
10-50 million euro 449 24.5 54.5 10 9.1 0.1 1.8
50 million euro and over 94 24.9 52.7 8.2 9.6 0 4.6
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 28.3 54.4 10.4 4.6 0.4 1.8
Decreased 2110 26.3 43 14.2 14.2 0.3 2.1
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 22.7 42.2 21.7 11.3 0 2
Between 10% and 29% 1326 21.6 54.4 15.1 8 0 0.9
Between 30% and 49% 1628 25.7 50.8 15.1 7.2 0 1.2
50% or more 1236 33.3 44.7 13 7.7 0 1.3
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 27.5 51 12.4 7 0 2
No 2891 24.2 47.1 16.9 8.7 0.6 2.5
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 76

Table 10a. Expectations about how companies material costs will evolve (5 10
years) by country
QUESTION: Q3. Do you expect price increases for materials in the coming 5 to 10 years?

Total N
% Yes,
material
costs will
increase
% No, material
costs will
remain
approximately
the same
% No,
material
costs will
decrease
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 87.4 7.9 0.9 0 3.8
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 83.5 10.5 2.4 0 3.7

Bulgaria
204 88.2 5.4 1.3 0 5.2

Czech Rep.
200 73.3 23.4 1.3 0 2

Denmark
201 92.7 4.2 2 0 1.1

Germany
250 97.4 2.2 0 0 0.4

Estonia
200 84 6.6 1.9 0 7.5

Greece
201 83.6 6.9 1.7 0 7.9

Spain
250 82.2 13.5 1.6 0 2.7

France
250 92.1 3.9 1.7 0 2.3

Ireland
200 88.7 5.9 1.8 0 3.6

Italy
251 78.9 14.6 0 0 6.5

Cyprus
50 83.3 5.4 0 0 11.2

Latvia
202 80.1 9.1 1.2 0 9.5

Lithuania
202 85.6 4.8 0 0 9.6

Luxembourg
51 96.6 3.4 0 0 0

Hungary
202 92.3 2.5 0.8 0 4.4

Malta
50 92.3 2.2 0 0 5.5

Netherlands
200 92.2 3.4 1 0 3.4

Austria
200 94 4.2 1.3 0 0.4

Poland
200 84.9 8.9 0.8 0 5.4

Portugal
201 79.7 15 2.3 0 3.1

Romania
200 82.4 8.7 3.4 0 5.5

Slovenia
200 86.4 9.3 1.5 0 2.8

Slovakia
200 78.9 9.5 2.4 0 9.2

Finland
205 92.1 5.5 0.8 0 1.6

Sweden
200 90.9 5.3 1.3 0 2.5

United Kingdom
251 94.5 1.2 0 0 4.3
Flash EB N
o
page 77
Table 10b. Expectations about how companies material costs will evolve (5 10
years) - by segments
QUESTION: Q3. Do you expect price increases for materials in the coming 5 to 10 years?

Total N
% Yes,
material
costs
will
increase
% No,
material costs
will remain
approximately
the same
% No,
material
costs
will
decrease
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 87.4 7.9 0.9 0 3.8
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 87.3 8.2 0.9 0 3.6
50+ employees 885 88 6.5 1 0 4.6
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 90.4 6.3 0.8 0 2.5
Construction 1526 86.6 9.3 1.4 0 2.7
activities
106 93.3 2.9 0.5 0 3.3
Manufacture 2843 86.5 7.9 0.8 0 4.7
Food services 543 92 5.4 0.3 0 2.2
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 88 7.9 0.8 0 3.3
2-10 million euro 1587 89.9 5.8 0.8 0 3.5
10-50 million euro 449 90.2 6.9 1.3 0 1.6
50 million euro and over 94 88.3 1.2 3.3 0 7.2
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 90.3 6.5 0.7 0 2.5
Remained unchanged 1518 88.1 7.9 0.6 0 3.4
Decreased 2110 85.9 8.8 1.3 0 4
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 85.7 9.8 2 0 2.5
Between 10% and 29% 1326 89.4 7 0.4 0 3.2
Between 30% and 49% 1628 89.1 8.3 0.8 0 1.9
50% or more 1236 86.6 8.5 1 0 3.9
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 89.7 6.7 1 0 2.6
No 2891 85.6 8.8 0.9 0 4.7
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 78

Table 11a. Origin of most of the materials that companies use by country
QUESTION: Q4. From what regions do most of the materials you use come/originate from?
% of Mentioned shown

T
o
t
a
l

N

O
w
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
y

O
t
h
e
r

E
U

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

O
t
h
e
r

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

(
n
o
n
-
E
U
)

A
s
i
a

A
f
r
i
c
a

N
o
r
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a

S
o
u
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a

A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

a
n
d

O
c
e
a
n
i
a

D
K
/
N
A

EU27
5222 77.8 43.3 8.5 10 1.9 3.8 3.1 1.1 1.2
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 65.2 43.7 11.2 9.2 2.8 4.4 3.4 0.4 0

Bulgaria
204 66.9 51.1 22.4 18.7 1.5 0.9 0.5 1.6 0.4

Czech Rep.
200 81.4 45 5.8 2.9 0.5 1.9 3.3 0.5 0.3

Denmark
201 50.2 61.3 18 16.9 3.2 6.9 5 0.8 2.3

Germany
250 85.6 52.5 13.8 19.3 2 5.6 6.2 0.9 1.3

Estonia
200 62 68.8 26.6 11.3 0.5 1.4 0 0 0.5

Greece
201 54 67.9 11 17.1 2.2 2.8 1.7 0.8 2.7

Spain
250 89.6 30 5 9.8 3.1 3.2 3.8 1.1 0

France
250 77.5 43.1 2 5.9 1.8 3.6 2.2 0.2 0.7

Ireland
200 54.7 60.8 12.8 13.5 2 11.7 5.8 2.3 1.4

Italy
251 76.7 25.5 4.6 3.9 0.4 1.7 1.6 0 1

Cyprus
50 52.9 68 16.1 15.3 2.7 8.6 6.3 0 0

Latvia
202 62.1 58.3 14.5 10.2 1.9 0.7 0 0.6 0

Lithuania
202 43.1 53.4 18.5 9.6 2 1.6 1.6 1.5 3.5

Luxembourg
51 55.3 81.1 17.2 5.2 2.6 0.2 0 0 0

Hungary
202 72.3 43.5 4.2 4.1 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

Malta
50 25.9 81.8 8.8 3.3 0 2.2 0 0 0

Netherlands
200 63.1 47.5 10.4 13 2.4 7.8 4.1 1.6 1.9

Austria
200 71.9 54.7 8.6 9.9 3.9 3.1 3.8 1.6 1.7

Poland
200 85.7 41.1 7.4 8.2 2 3.3 0.8 0.8 1.2

Portugal
201 77.1 48.9 6.4 8.2 3.5 4 5.6 0.5 0

Romania
200 78.6 46.7 9.2 6.8 0.5 1.5 0.5 0 1.2

Slovenia
200 57.4 73.9 11.6 13.1 1.2 5.3 3.6 1.4 1.3

Slovakia
200 67.7 63.3 12.7 8 1.4 3.5 1.7 1.6 2.8

Finland
205 77.2 48.8 10.9 9.9 0.5 2.2 1.3 0.5 1.2

Sweden
200 71.3 49 10.2 13.9 2.8 4.9 3.5 2 4.8

United Kingdom
251 78.5 49.9 14.6 16.3 2.8 7.7 5 5.6 3.6
Flash EB N
o
page 79
Table 11b. Origin of most of the materials that companies use - by segments
QUESTION: Q4. From what regions do most of the materials you use come/originate from?
% of Mentioned shown

T
o
t
a
l

N

O
w
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
y

O
t
h
e
r

E
U

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

O
t
h
e
r

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

(
n
o
n
-
E
U
)

A
s
i
a

A
f
r
i
c
a

N
o
r
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a

S
o
u
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a

A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

a
n
d

O
c
e
a
n
i
a

D
K
/
N
A

EU27 5222 77.8 43.3 8.5 10 1.9 3.8 3.1 1.1 1.2
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 78.5 41.5 7.9 9.5 1.7 3.7 2.9 0.9 1.2
50+ employees 885 74.7 51.9 11.4 12.8 2.5 4.6 3.9 1.8 1.2
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 86.6 42.2 3.9 3.1 1.9 6.4 3.3 1.1 1.2
Construction 1526 84 35.4 4.3 5.9 1 2.2 1.9 0.2 1.4
106 91.6 29.2 4 2.1 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.2
Manufacture 2843 71 48.9 11.7 13.8 2 4.8 3.1 1.3 1.2
Food services 543 90 39.6 5.4 6.3 3.5 2.9 6.7 2.3 1.1
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 82.1 40 7.2 9.1 1.8 3.8 3.2 0.8 0.7
2-10 million euro 1587 74.2 46.1 9.2 10.5 1.5 3.9 2.4 1 1.1
10-50 million euro 449 70.5 60.2 12.3 15.4 2.7 5.2 3.7 1.5 1
50 million euro and over 94 74.9 56 12.8 22.4 2.5 5.2 7.5 2.5 2.7
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 75.7 48.3 9.1 12.9 2.2 5.1 3.8 1 1.7
Remained unchanged 1518 80.8 41.3 6.4 8.8 1.8 3.1 2.9 1.6 0.8
Decreased 2110 77 42.3 9.6 9.1 1.6 3.3 2.9 0.7 0.9
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 74.4 42.2 3.9 8.1 1 1.9 1.2 0.5 2
Between 10% and 29% 1326 81.5 41.8 7.4 10.5 1.5 5 3.5 1.1 1.1
Between 30% and 49% 1628 77 45.4 9.1 10.3 2.9 3.7 3.9 1.2 0.7
50% or more 1236 75.2 47.1 11.5 10.8 1.7 4.1 2.5 1.2 0.2
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 78 49.2 10 12 2.2 4.4 4.1 1.4 0.6
No 2891 77.7 38.5 7.2 8.4 1.6 3.4 2.3 0.8 1.7
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 80

Table 12a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Changing
business model by country
QUESTION: Q5_a. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Changing
business model

Total N % Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 26.6 62.6 8.7 2.1
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 25.8 64.3 7.9 2

Bulgaria
204 48.1 41.4 9.7 0.8

Czech Rep.
200 21.8 75.2 1.6 1.4

Denmark
201 24.2 66.8 7.9 1.1

Germany
250 22 65 11.2 1.7

Estonia
200 33.6 30.2 32.9 3.3

Greece
201 48.1 49.2 0.9 1.7

Spain
250 18 78 4 0

France
250 23.2 75.9 0.9 0

Ireland
200 55.6 39.6 3.5 1.4

Italy
251 22.3 66.7 9.7 1.3

Cyprus
50 44.2 43.7 12.1 0

Latvia
202 27.7 63.7 8 0.6

Lithuania
202 31.6 39.8 25.4 3.1

Luxembourg
51 36.4 50.7 12.9 0

Hungary
202 15.6 60.5 21.1 2.8

Malta
50 42.7 42 13.2 2.2

Netherlands
200 26.8 37.6 29.8 5.8

Austria
200 20.4 63.3 12.5 3.8

Poland
200 41.9 52.1 3.2 2.7

Portugal
201 33.9 52.7 11.7 1.7

Romania
200 34.8 56.5 5 3.7

Slovenia
200 40.6 55.2 4.1 0

Slovakia
200 31.6 46.5 15.4 6.5

Finland
205 21.7 75.6 2.7 0

Sweden
200 14.8 69.7 10.2 5.4

United Kingdom
251 33.3 47.7 12.7 6.3
Flash EB N
o
page 81
Table 12b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Changing
business model - by segments
QUESTION: Q5_a. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Changing
business model

Total N
%
Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA

EU27 5222 26.6 62.6 8.7 2.1
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 25.6 63.5 9 1.9
50+ employees 885 31.5 58.4 7 3.2
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 21.9 65.9 9.6 2.5
106 31.2 60.9 7.2 0.7
Manufacture 2843 27.9 61.5 8.7 1.9
Food services 543 29.1 62.1 6.4 2.3
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 23.6 66.3 8.5 1.5
2-10 million euro 1587 28.7 62.1 7.6 1.5
10-50 million euro 449 37.9 54 6.7 1.4
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 29.5 58.8 9.6 2.1
Remained unchanged 1518 23.2 66.7 8.4 1.7
Decreased 2110 27.3 63.2 8 1.5
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 17 73.2 9 0.7
Between 10% and 29% 1326 25.6 65.2 6.5 2.7
Between 30% and 49% 1628 25.3 65.4 8.4 0.9
50% or more 1236 31.8 57.8 9.1 1.2
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 38 52.6 8 1.4
No 2891 17.4 70.7 9.3 2.6
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 82

Table 13a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Improving
the material flow in the supply chain by country
QUESTION: Q5_b. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Improving the
material flow in the supply chain

Total N % Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 46.1 43.5 8.2 2.2
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 40.1 44.5 11.9 3.5

Bulgaria
204 65.3 28 4.6 2.1

Czech Rep.
200 39.5 59.8 0.7 0

Denmark
201 45.8 43.7 8.5 1.9

Germany
250 47.6 40.3 10.4 1.7

Estonia
200 45.8 20.8 26 7.5

Greece
201 61.3 31.2 3.2 4.2

Spain
250 51.8 43.3 5 0

France
250 26.5 69.8 2.3 1.4

Ireland
200 69.6 24.8 3.5 2

Italy
251 34.3 53.1 11.6 1

Cyprus
50 66.2 30.7 1.6 1.6

Latvia
202 51.5 42 5.8 0.8

Lithuania
202 42.1 29 18.4 10.5

Luxembourg
51 41.7 44.4 13.8 0

Hungary
202 46.2 35.1 14.9 3.7

Malta
50 63.7 30.3 6.1 0

Netherlands
200 35.3 34.1 23.1 7.5

Austria
200 47 39.7 11.2 2.2

Poland
200 66.1 30.3 2.1 1.6

Portugal
201 47.6 37.6 14 0.8

Romania
200 70.9 21.6 5.2 2.3

Slovenia
200 67.8 28.3 3.1 0.8

Slovakia
200 48.5 30.9 15.7 5

Finland
205 64.2 32.4 2 1.3

Sweden
200 39.2 43.9 11.1 5.8

United Kingdom
251 57.6 27.9 8 6.5
Flash EB N
o
page 83
Table 13b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Improving
the material flow in the supply chain - by segments
QUESTION: Q5_b. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Improving the
material flow in the supply chain

Total N
%
Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA

EU27 5222 46.1 43.5 8.2 2.2
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 44.1 44.8 8.9 2.2
50+ employees 885 56.1 36.9 4.7 2.3
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 45.5 44.7 8 1.8
106 42.9 47.7 5.6 3.8
Manufacture 2843 46.6 42.9 8.4 2
Food services 543 44 44.4 7.3 4.3
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 43.8 46.6 8 1.6
2-10 million euro 1587 48.7 42.3 7.3 1.6
10-50 million euro 449 53.7 38.9 5.3 2
50 million euro and over 94 66.9 28.2 4 0.9
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 52.5 38 7.5 2
Decreased 2110 46.3 43.9 8 1.7
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 30.1 57.8 11.3 0.8
Between 10% and 29% 1326 42.5 47.6 7.5 2.3
Between 30% and 49% 1628 47.7 44.5 6.6 1.2
50% or more 1236 54.5 36.6 6.7 2.2
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 59.7 31.9 6.5 1.8
No 2891 35.1 52.8 9.5 2.6
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 84

Table 14a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Substituting
expensive materials for a cheaper ones by country
QUESTION: Q5_c. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Substituting
expensive materials for a cheaper ones

Total N % Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 37.8 52.5 8.2 1.5
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 42.6 46.3 10.7 0.4

Bulgaria
204 43.8 47.6 5.8 2.8

Czech Rep.
200 32.3 62.4 3.9 1.4

Denmark
201 36 58.5 5 0.5

Germany
250 36 54.6 8.6 0.9

Estonia
200 41.2 28.3 26.2 4.2

Greece
201 49.7 48.1 1.9 0.3

Spain
250 38.8 57.3 3.5 0.4

France
250 30.8 67.8 0.5 0.9

Ireland
200 54.8 41.9 2.9 0.4

Italy
251 33.5 52.7 12.8 1

Cyprus
50 38.2 57.1 4.7 0

Latvia
202 49 41 9.2 0.7

Lithuania
202 43.5 35.6 18.6 2.3

Luxembourg
51 46.2 43.5 10.3 0

Hungary
202 38 44.2 14.6 3.2

Malta
50 30 61.2 6.6 2.2

Netherlands
200 29 38.7 26.3 6.1

Austria
200 32.3 50.4 13.7 3.6

Poland
200 47.3 46.3 5.5 0.9

Portugal
201 42.6 45 11.7 0.8

Romania
200 44.7 44.5 9.3 1.4

Slovenia
200 49.9 45 4.8 0.3

Slovakia
200 32.1 46.1 15.9 5.9

Finland
205 36.4 58.8 4.3 0.5

Sweden
200 34.2 51.5 10.9 3.4

United Kingdom
251 46.4 44.3 6.5 2.9
Flash EB N
o
page 85
Table 14b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years:
Substituting expensive materials for a cheaper ones - by segments
QUESTION: Q5_c. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Substituting
expensive materials for a cheaper ones

Total N
%
Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA

EU27 5222 37.8 52.5 8.2 1.5
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 37.4 53 8.3 1.2
50+ employees 885 39.9 49.8 7.7 2.7
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 44.6 44.4 9.9 1
Construction 1526 37.7 52.7 8.2 1.3
106 28 65.3 6 0.7
Manufacture 2843 37.9 51.8 8.7 1.6
Food services 543 37.4 55.8 5.1 1.7
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 37.5 53.6 7.9 1
2-10 million euro 1587 37.4 54.1 7.9 0.6
10-50 million euro 449 44 48.3 5.7 2
50 million euro and over 94 48.5 43 6 2.5
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 38.9 51.7 7.7 1.7
Remained unchanged 1518 35.7 55.6 7.6 1
Decreased 2110 38.7 51.6 8.7 1.1
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 33.3 57.2 8.7 0.8
Between 10% and 29% 1326 40.4 51.9 6.3 1.4
Between 30% and 49% 1628 36.6 54 8 1.4
50% or more 1236 40.1 50.1 9.1 0.7
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 43.7 47.6 7.5 1.2
No 2891 33.2 56.4 8.7 1.7
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 86

Table 15a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Purchasing
more efficient technologies by country
QUESTION: Q5_d. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Purchasing
more efficient technologies

Total N % Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 56.2 36.4 6.3 1.2
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 57.6 34.3 7.2 0.9

Bulgaria
204 55.9 39.3 4.8 0

Czech Rep.
200 53.6 44.8 1.6 0

Denmark
201 60.2 34.3 4.5 1.1

Germany
250 58.1 30.8 10.2 0.9

Estonia
200 65.6 19 11.4 4

Greece
201 70 27.7 2.3 0

Spain
250 55.2 41 3.5 0.4

France
250 49.3 50.1 0.6 0

Ireland
200 77.3 19.2 1.8 1.7

Italy
251 49.9 41.9 6.8 1.4

Cyprus
50 76.6 19.9 3.5 0

Latvia
202 60.5 34.5 5.1 0

Lithuania
202 57.4 23.6 15.9 3.1

Luxembourg
51 57.9 36.1 6 0

Hungary
202 47.2 33.7 15.9 3.1

Malta
50 54.7 36 9.3 0

Netherlands
200 44.2 29.8 18.9 7.2

Austria
200 43.2 43.6 10.4 2.7

Poland
200 59.2 35.7 5 0

Portugal
201 62.2 30 7.1 0.8

Romania
200 73.5 20.8 4.1 1.6

Slovenia
200 68.6 27.8 2.7 0.9

Slovakia
200 54.2 29.8 10.1 5.9

Finland
205 51 47 2 0

Sweden
200 46.1 39.1 10.6 4.2

United Kingdom
251 72.8 21.6 4.5 1.1
Flash EB N
o
page 87
Table 15b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Purchasing
more efficient technologies - by segments
QUESTION: Q5_d. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Purchasing
more efficient technologies

Total N
%
Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA

EU27 5222 56.2 36.4 6.3 1.2
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 53.5 38.6 6.8 1.1
50+ employees 885 69.2 25.7 3.6 1.5
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 56.2 35.7 6.9 1.3
106 48.2 49.2 1.9 0.7
Manufacture 2843 56.9 35.9 6.2 0.9
Food services 543 48.8 42.9 5.9 2.4
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 57.2 36 6 0.8
10-50 million euro 449 67.3 28.7 3 1.1
50 million euro and over 94 71 21.6 7.4 0
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 64.7 29.1 5.5 0.7
Decreased 2110 51.1 40.8 6.9 1.2
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 50.7 42.3 6.4 0.6
Between 10% and 29% 1326 56.6 38 4.4 1
Between 30% and 49% 1628 54.5 37.9 6.6 1
50% or more 1236 60.7 33.1 5.7 0.5
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 70.7 24.8 3.6 0.8
No 2891 44.4 45.7 8.4 1.5
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 88

Table 16a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Developing
more efficient technologies in-house by country
QUESTION: Q5_e. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Developing
more efficient technologies in-house

Total N % Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 52.8 39.6 6.6 1.1
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 45 45.9 8.3 0.9

Bulgaria
204 55 40.3 3.8 0.9

Czech Rep.
200 21 75.9 2.2 0.9

Denmark
201 51.1 43 5.4 0.5

Germany
250 55 32.3 11.8 0.9

Estonia
200 59.9 24 10.4 5.7

Greece
201 73 24.5 1.3 1.2

Spain
250 54.1 42 3.5 0.4

France
250 40.4 59.2 0.5 0

Ireland
200 70.7 26.6 2.3 0.4

Italy
251 49.7 43.5 6.3 0.6

Cyprus
50 70.2 23.2 6.6 0

Latvia
202 62.1 30.7 6.6 0.6

Lithuania
202 52.5 28.2 17.1 2.2

Luxembourg
51 62.4 31.7 6 0

Hungary
202 47.4 37.5 12.6 2.5

Malta
50 55.9 42.5 0 1.6

Netherlands
200 34.9 33.5 25 6.7

Austria
200 33 53.9 10.4 2.7

Poland
200 74.5 21 4.2 0.3

Portugal
201 58.8 33.6 7.5 0.1

Romania
200 65.9 30.5 2.1 1.5

Slovenia
200 53.4 41.8 4.7 0

Slovakia
200 30.3 50.5 13.4 5.8

Finland
205 48.5 47.4 2.8 1.3

Sweden
200 43.9 40.3 10.4 5.4

United Kingdom
251 68.9 24.4 5.5 1.2
Flash EB N
o
page 89
Table 16b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Developing
more efficient technologies in-house - by segments
QUESTION: Q5_e. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Developing
more efficient technologies in-house

Total N
%
Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA

EU27 5222 52.8 39.6 6.6 1.1
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 50.6 41.1 7.2 1
50+ employees 885 63.1 32.3 3.3 1.4
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 56.8 35 7.5 0.8
Construction 1526 45.6 45.3 8 1.1
106 45.2 51.8 2.3 0.8
Manufacture 2843 58.1 35.5 5.5 0.9
Food services 543 45.1 44.3 8.6 2.1
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 50.9 40.7 7.5 0.8
10-50 million euro 449 62 33.6 3 1.4
50 million euro and over 94 60.8 31.5 7.8 0
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 58.5 34.6 5.9 1
Decreased 2110 51.5 41 6.7 0.8
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 43 50 6.4 0.6
Between 10% and 29% 1326 53.5 39.9 5.8 0.9
Between 30% and 49% 1628 53.1 39.1 7.2 0.6
50% or more 1236 58.3 35.7 5.3 0.7
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 69.2 25.9 4.2 0.7
No 2891 39.5 50.6 8.4 1.4
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 90

Table 17a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Outsourcing
production or service activities by country
QUESTION: Q5_f. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Outsourcing
production or service activities

Total N % Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 29.9 60.9 7.6 1.6
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 30.4 56.3 12 1.4

Bulgaria
204 29.5 65 4 1.5

Czech Rep.
200 14.7 79.9 4.1 1.4

Denmark
201 26 69 3.5 1.5

Germany
250 27.6 61.9 9.6 0.9

Estonia
200 53.9 27.3 15.3 3.5

Greece
201 35.5 64.5 0 0

Spain
250 38.7 56.3 4.6 0.4

France
250 18 79.4 2.3 0.2

Ireland
200 34.5 62 2.1 1.3

Italy
251 27.1 61.3 10.1 1.5

Cyprus
50 35.7 53 9.7 1.6

Latvia
202 51.8 38.8 7.4 2.1

Lithuania
202 41.5 35.2 14.9 8.3

Luxembourg
51 39.4 45 15.6 0

Hungary
202 15.4 64.8 17.4 2.5

Malta
50 32.5 62.6 4.9 0

Netherlands
200 22.8 41.8 28.1 7.3

Austria
200 28.1 55.8 12.3 3.8

Poland
200 36.1 61.4 0.9 1.6

Portugal
201 43.6 47.9 8.4 0.1

Romania
200 38.8 48.8 8.5 3.9

Slovenia
200 30 66.2 3.4 0.5

Slovakia
200 50.9 36 8.6 4.5

Finland
205 44.8 54 1.2 0

Sweden
200 23.5 58.9 11.6 5.9

United Kingdom
251 34.7 56.8 6.6 1.9
Flash EB N
o
page 91
Table 17b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years:
Outsourcing production or service activities - by segments
QUESTION: Q5_f. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Outsourcing
production or service activities

Total N
%
Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA

EU27 5222 29.9 60.9 7.6 1.6
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 29.4 60.8 8.1 1.7
50+ employees 885 32 61.4 5.1 1.5
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 31.8 58.7 7.6 1.8
106 28.3 63.4 7.1 1.2
Manufacture 2843 31 60.3 7.3 1.4
Food services 543 18.4 70.8 8.1 2.7
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 30 62.1 7 1
10-50 million euro 449 35.8 57.6 5.7 0.9
50 million euro and over 94 52 40.2 6.6 1.3
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 31.9 59.9 7.1 1.2
Remained unchanged 1518 27 63.3 8.2 1.5
Decreased 2110 30.9 60.4 7.3 1.4
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 20 69.6 9.6 0.9
Between 10% and 29% 1326 28.7 62.5 7.5 1.3
Between 30% and 49% 1628 29.2 63.3 6.3 1.3
50% or more 1236 36.2 55.9 6.6 1.3
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 37.2 54.6 6.8 1.4
No 2891 23.9 66.1 8.2 1.8
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 92

Table 18a. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Recycling
by country
QUESTION: Q5_g. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Recycling

Total N % Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 52 39.5 7.6 0.9
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 58.7 33 8.3 0

Bulgaria
204 29 62 9 0

Czech Rep.
200 32.3 64.4 2.3 1

Denmark
201 30.4 61.8 7.3 0.5

Germany
250 47 41.9 10.6 0.4

Estonia
200 34.2 43.8 18.9 3.1

Greece
201 78.2 19.4 2.4 0

Spain
250 80.5 18 1.2 0.4

France
250 50.2 49.5 0.2 0

Ireland
200 82 15.9 2.1 0

Italy
251 34.5 52.9 11.4 1.2

Cyprus
50 61.3 21.4 17.3 0

Latvia
202 34.7 49.9 14.7 0.6

Lithuania
202 24.2 45.3 28.4 2.2

Luxembourg
51 68 27.7 4.3 0

Hungary
202 22.2 49.9 25.4 2.5

Malta
50 66.9 21.6 11.5 0

Netherlands
200 47.7 29.8 17.7 4.8

Austria
200 43.4 44.8 9.1 2.7

Poland
200 55.4 41.2 3 0.4

Portugal
201 60.8 27.3 11.8 0.1

Romania
200 48.4 35.1 14.6 1.9

Slovenia
200 47.6 45.7 6.2 0.5

Slovakia
200 50.1 32.8 11.9 5.2

Finland
205 79.2 19.6 0.7 0.5

Sweden
200 53.2 32.2 9 5.6

United Kingdom
251 82.1 15.6 2.2 0
Flash EB N
o
page 93
Table 18b. Changes implemented to reduce material costs in past 5 years: Recycling -
by segments
QUESTION: Q5_g. Have you implemented any changes to reduce material costs in the past 5 years? - Recycling

Total N
%
Mentioned
% Not
mentioned
% Not
applicable % DK/NA

EU27 5222 52 39.5 7.6 0.9
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 50.7 40.5 7.9 0.9
50+ employees 885 58.5 34.9 5.7 1
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 51.7 38.9 8.6 0.9
106 34 59.3 6.4 0.3
Manufacture 2843 52.3 39.3 7.5 0.8
Food services 543 58.6 35.1 4.8 1.5
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 52.8 39.9 6.6 0.7
10-50 million euro 449 61.4 33.1 4.7 0.8
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 53.6 38.3 7.4 0.7
Remained unchanged 1518 47.5 44 7.7 0.8
Decreased 2110 53.7 38 7.5 0.9
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 52.9 40.9 5.8 0.4
Between 10% and 29% 1326 53.7 40 5.3 1
Between 30% and 49% 1628 50 41.9 7.4 0.7
50% or more 1236 52.4 38.2 9 0.5
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 63.6 29.5 6.1 0.8
No 2891 42.6 47.6 8.8 1
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 94

Table 19a. Share of eco-innovation-related investments in last 5 years by country
QUESTION: Q6. Over the last 5 years, what share of innovation investments in your company were related to eco-
innovation, i.e. implementing new or substantially improved solutions resulting in more efficient use in material,
energy and water?

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

M
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

5
0
%

%

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
0
%

a
n
d

4
9
%

%

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

1
0
%

a
n
d

2
9
%

%

L
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

1
0
%

%

N
o
n
e

%

N
o

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

D
K
/
N
A

EU27
5222 5.8 10.4 24.5 35.4 16.1 2.3 5.5
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 7.2 6.2 25.2 37.2 11 2.4 10.8

Bulgaria
204 6.2 7.8 28.2 31.8 15.2 6.9 3.9

Czech Rep.
200 3.6 1.8 33.6 44 12 0 5.1

Denmark
201 3.8 9.2 17.8 43.5 16.6 2.4 6.7

Germany
250 4.8 11.5 26 41.3 13.4 0.8 2.2

Estonia
200 7.9 8.8 23.1 36.2 13.6 6.9 3.6

Greece
201 11.3 10.5 27.5 25.9 15 6.7 3

Spain
250 6.3 14.4 21.6 38.1 15.3 0.8 3.5

France
250 2.8 6.2 15 41.2 27.5 3.3 3.9

Ireland
200 6.8 11.7 34.2 38.8 3 0.4 5.1

Italy
251 2.9 11.6 27.9 32.5 16.8 1.1 7.3

Cyprus
50 9.3 14.5 28 18.8 18.2 6.2 5

Latvia
202 5.4 7.4 16.5 35.2 31 3.5 1

Lithuania
202 4.9 7.5 22.7 32.2 17.3 11.4 4

Luxembourg
51 1.7 21.8 44.4 26.1 3.4 2.6 0

Hungary
202 6.5 9 16.8 29.9 25.9 6.2 5.7

Malta
50 6.6 5.6 21.6 32 27.6 0 6.7

Netherlands
200 7.3 10.7 18.8 36.9 14.8 3.5 7.8

Austria
200 11.8 11.3 28.2 30.9 10.7 3.3 3.8

Poland
200 14.4 16 33.8 22.7 9.2 0.9 3.1

Portugal
201 4 9.5 22.2 40 14.2 6.5 3.5

Romania
200 6.3 10.6 23.5 29.8 16.7 5.1 7.9

Slovenia
200 8.5 8.6 26.5 32.3 17.2 2.5 4.3

Slovakia
200 3.4 11.3 26 34.3 12.9 2.6 9.4

Finland
205 9.1 7.3 22.4 43 11.5 3.2 3.4

Sweden
200 11.8 9 19.3 27.9 15.1 5.3 11.7

United Kingdom
251 5.5 8.2 26.9 33.9 11.1 1.1 13.4
Flash EB N
o
page 95
Table 19b. Share of eco-innovation-related investments in last 5 years - by segments
QUESTION: Q6. Over the last 5 years, what share of innovation investments in your company were related to eco-
innovation, i.e. implementing new or substantially improved solutions resulting in more efficient use in material,
energy and water?

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

M
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

5
0
%

%

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

3
0
%

a
n
d

4
9
%

%

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

1
0
%

a
n
d

2
9
%

%

L
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

1
0
%

%

N
o
n
e

%

N
o

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

%

D
K
/
N
A

EU27 5222 5.8 10.4 24.5 35.4 16.1 2.3 5.5
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 5.7 10.2 24.1 35.3 16.9 2.6 5.1
50+ employees 885 6.2 11.3 26.4 35.5 12.1 1 7.5
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 10.5 8.7 35.3 29.1 12.2 0.8 3.3
Construction 1526 4.6 10.8 25 35.8 16.4 2.9 4.5
activities
106 10 10.6 20.7 27.7 19.5 6.1 5.3
Manufacture 2843 6.4 9.9 23.9 36.2 15.9 2.1 5.6
Food services 543 3.4 12.2 22.8 33.8 16.6 1.9 9.2
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 5.4 9.5 25 35.9 17.7 2.7 3.7
2-10 million euro 1587 6.8 9.6 23 38.3 15.5 1.8 5
10-50 million euro 449 6.9 15.5 29.3 36.1 7.9 1 3.2
50 million euro and over 94 1.2 18.3 19.4 31.8 17.8 1.9 9.6
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 7.5 12.1 25.6 34.7 12.9 2.2 5
Remained unchanged 1518 6 10.2 23.9 36.1 17.1 2.2 4.5
Decreased 2110 4.6 9.5 24.5 36.4 18.2 2.2 4.5
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 5.9 6.8 14.3 43.5 26.3 2 1.2
Between 10% and 29% 1326 5.4 11.7 28.1 38.9 12.8 1.1 1.9
Between 30% and 49% 1628 5.9 11.4 25.2 36 18 1.9 1.8
50% or more 1236 7.2 10.8 26.7 35.4 13.7 1.5 4.6
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 10.1 15.6 34.2 29.8 5.1 0.5 4.7
No 2891 2.4 6.2 16.6 39.9 24.9 3.8 6.2
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 96

Table 20a. Introduction of various eco-innovations in past 2 years by country
QUESTION: D5. During the past 24 months have you introduced the following eco-innovation
% of Yes shown

Total N
A new or significantly
improved eco-
innovative product or
service to the market
improved eco-
innovative production
process or method
improved eco-
innovative
organisational
method
EU27
5222 24.8 28.8 23.5
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 20 24.6 20.6

Bulgaria
204 18.4 24.8 23.8

Czech Rep.
200 20.7 22 19.1

Denmark
201 19.1 28.4 13.4

Germany
250 24.9 26 21.2

Estonia
200 13.9 24.9 19.7

Greece
201 27.9 33.4 25.3

Spain
250 22.1 33.7 31.2

France
250 23.5 23.4 24.1

Ireland
200 24.9 31.5 28.4

Italy
251 30.5 28.8 20.2

Cyprus
50 39.5 22.7 17

Latvia
202 25.7 28.9 20.8

Lithuania
202 22.6 20.2 14.8

Luxembourg
51 30.8 34.5 35.4

Hungary
202 12 15.4 11.9

Malta
50 29.8 34.9 30.5

Netherlands
200 21.6 31.8 27.6

Austria
200 27.3 27.3 20.2

Poland
200 26.3 42.2 35.4

Portugal
201 28.6 34.4 30.1

Romania
200 27.6 31.6 27.5

Slovenia
200 24 26.7 19

Slovakia
200 19.9 24.3 22.6

Finland
205 19.2 25.9 7

Sweden
200 19.4 29.8 17.4

United Kingdom
251 24.7 28.3 17.6
Flash EB N
o
page 97
Table 20b. Introduction of various eco-innovations in past 2 years - by segments
QUESTION: D5. During the past 24 months have you introduced the following eco-innovation
% of Yes shown

Total N
A new or
significantly
improved eco-
innovative product
or service to the
market
A new or
significantly
improved eco-
innovative
production
process or method
A new or
significantly
improved eco-
innovative
organisational
method

EU27 5222 24.8 28.8 23.5
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 24 26.4 21.6
50+ employees 885 28.6 40.5 32.4
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 23.2 39.8 31.2
Construction 1526 25.3 23 21.7
106 22.7 28.7 18.3
Manufacture 2843 24.1 30.8 22.4
Food services 543 27.4 30.4 32.4
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 24.3 25.4 21.4
2-10 million euro 1587 25.1 31.8 23.8
10-50 million euro 449 27.8 39.2 32
50 million euro and over 94 24.7 31.7 30.5
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 30 35.3 29.4
Remained unchanged 1518 24.4 25.3 20.8
Decreased 2110 21.5 26.8 21.3
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 20.5 23.1 19.9
Between 10% and 29% 1326 26.1 29.3 26.2
Between 30% and 49% 1628 25 29.3 23.9
50% or more 1236 26.4 31.1 22.4
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 55.4 64.5 52.6
No 2891 0 0 0
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 98

Table 21a. Relevance of eco-innovation companies have introduced in terms of
resource efficiency in the past 2 years by country
QUESTION: Q0. How would you describe the relevance of innovation you have introduced in the past 24 months in
Base: companies that introduced at least one eco-innovation

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

L
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

5
%

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

u
s
e

p
e
r

u
n
i
t

o
u
t
p
u
t

%

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

5
%

t
o

1
9
%

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

u
s
e

p
e
r

u
n
i
t

o
u
t
p
u
t

%

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

2
0
%

t
o

3
9
%

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

u
s
e

p
e
r

u
n
i
t

o
u
t
p
u
t

%

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

4
0
%

t
o

6
0
%

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

u
s
e

p
e
r

u
n
i
t

o
u
t
p
u
t

%

M
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

6
0
%

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

u
s
e

p
e
r

u
n
i
t

o
u
t
p
u
t

%

D
K
/
N
A

EU27
2331 34.2 42.4 10.4 1.8 1.7 9.5
COUNTRY

Belgium
76 23.6 41.1 16.8 0 3.4 15.1

Bulgaria
77 28.9 39 15.9 0 0 16.2

Czech Rep.
82 41.5 32.3 9.2 10.5 1.1 5.4

Denmark
93 47.8 23.6 16.5 1.1 2.2 8.8

Germany
118 38.9 49 3.5 1.4 0 7.2

Estonia
76 35.2 33.8 14.7 3.1 1 12.2

Greece
100 24 49.2 11.7 3.4 0 11.7

Spain
119 24 51.9 11.3 2.4 1.2 9.2

France
103 30.3 39.8 12.4 2.8 4.9 9.9

Ireland
93 25.5 56.8 10.7 3.7 2.5 0.9

Italy
106 43.2 32 8 1.3 2 13.4

Cyprus
24 23.8 30.5 13.7 4.1 0 27.9

Latvia
87 28 41.4 13.7 2.9 1.4 12.6

Lithuania
68 39 40.8 6.5 1.2 0 12.5

Luxembourg
25 30.6 42.7 16.4 5.4 0 4.9

Hungary
54 42.4 34.4 8.9 0 0 14.2

Malta
26 45 28.8 6.3 0 0 20

Netherlands
96 42.8 32.8 8.3 1.7 2.7 11.9

Austria
96 30.1 39.5 14.6 0.8 1.2 13.7

Poland
125 34.9 50.1 11.1 0 1.8 2.1

Portugal
91 28.4 43.9 18.2 1.8 3.3 4.4

Romania
83 20.6 52.3 10.6 4.3 2.5 9.6

Slovenia
92 31.2 45.5 15.2 4.1 0 4

Slovakia
82 29.4 47.6 2.7 0 5 15.3

Finland
81 46.2 44.8 4.6 0 0.9 3.5

Sweden
86 31 34.5 7.4 3.5 0 23.6

United Kingdom
102 30.7 38 18.9 0.8 0 11.7
Flash EB N
o
page 99
Table 21b. Relevance of eco-innovation companies have introduced in terms of
resource efficiency in the past 2 years - by segments
QUESTION: Q0. How would you describe the relevance of innovation you have introduced in the past 24 months in
Base: companies that introduced at least one eco-innovation

T
o
t
a
l

N

%

L
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

5
%

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

u
s
e

p
e
r

u
n
i
t

o
u
t
p
u
t

%

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

5
%

t
o

1
9
%

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

u
s
e

p
e
r

u
n
i
t

o
u
t
p
u
t

%

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

2
0
%

t
o

3
9
%

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

u
s
e

p
e
r

u
n
i
t

o
u
t
p
u
t

%

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

4
0
%

t
o

6
0
%

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

u
s
e

p
e
r

u
n
i
t

o
u
t
p
u
t

%

M
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

6
0
%

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

u
s
e

p
e
r

u
n
i
t

o
u
t
p
u
t

%

D
K
/
N
A

EU27 2331 34.2 42.4 10.4 1.8 1.7 9.5
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 1832 33.5 43.4 10.5 1.7 1.8 9
50+ employees 499 36.4 38.6 10.1 2 1.6 11.4
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 112 28.6 46.5 11.6 3.9 0.9 8.5
Construction 620 33.9 42 11.4 2 1.4 9.3
43 25.6 39.4 4.6 9 1.3 20.1
Manufacture 1298 35.5 41.6 10.3 1.2 1.8 9.6
Food services 257 31.8 45.9 8.7 2 3.1 8.5
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 767 40.4 43.1 8.4 1.3 0.4 6.3
10-50 million euro 247 30.1 35.6 17.6 3.3 1.6 11.8
50 million euro and over 44 33.6 37.1 14.4 0 2 12.9
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 772 31.6 43.6 11.7 1 1.5 10.6
Decreased 861 33 44.7 8.3 2.2 1.7 10.1
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 183 38.6 45.8 6.9 2.1 2 4.7
Between 10% and 29% 618 34.8 45.5 9.6 1.1 0.6 8.4
Between 30% and 49% 731 33.4 44.2 11.9 1.9 1.2 7.3
50% or more 594 32.5 42.2 11.5 2.1 3.9 7.8
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 34.2 42.4 10.4 1.8 1.7 9.5
No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 100

Table 22a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of funds within enterprise
by country
QUESTION: Q7_a. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
and development for a company. Please tell me for each of them if you consider them a very serious, somewhat
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Lack of funds within enterprise

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 14.2 17.2 26.5 35.8 4.9 1.5
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 20.8 20.5 26.3 17.7 9.1 5.6

Bulgaria
204 8.9 11.8 25.6 49.8 3.9 0

Czech Rep.
200 2.4 27 38 30.7 1 1

Denmark
201 27.6 29.6 24.5 11.4 5.9 1

Germany
250 20.3 25.6 24.5 24.3 4.9 0.4

Estonia
200 28.4 11.8 24.5 28.1 4.8 2.4

Greece
201 8 7.3 22.1 61.4 1.2 0

Spain
250 6.7 11.8 12.4 67.6 0.9 0.6

France
250 15.4 18.5 33.3 30.1 2.6 0

Ireland
200 9.9 17.8 30.5 36.6 3.7 1.5

Italy
251 13.1 13.1 28.6 39.6 4.4 1.2

Cyprus
50 10.1 5.8 21.7 58 2.9 1.6

Latvia
202 20 9.9 23.4 43.5 2.4 0.7

Lithuania
202 6.1 16.9 34.4 39.8 1.2 1.6

Luxembourg
51 18.6 10.5 32.2 36.1 1.7 0.9

Hungary
202 8.7 8 17.8 53.5 10.8 1.3

Malta
50 16.5 7.7 22.5 49.9 3.3 0

Netherlands
200 13.5 18.6 20.1 22.9 23.2 1.7

Austria
200 17.7 18.4 34.9 23.7 4.3 1

Poland
200 11.4 16 32.5 38.1 1.5 0.5

Portugal
201 10.4 19.8 26.9 36.8 5.4 0.6

Romania
200 13 7.7 20.9 50.5 3.6 4.3

Slovenia
200 7.3 16.6 34.9 40.3 0.5 0.5

Slovakia
200 2.5 15.1 34 37.1 4.3 6.9

Finland
205 23.1 32 28.8 15 0.7 0.5

Sweden
200 43.3 21.8 18.1 12.2 0.8 3.9

United Kingdom
251 15.6 17.4 25.5 22.4 13.1 6
Flash EB N
o
page 101
Table 22b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of funds within enterprise -
by segments
QUESTION: Q7_a. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Lack of funds within enterprise

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 14.2 17.2 26.5 35.8 4.9 1.5
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 13.9 15.7 26.3 37.8 4.9 1.5
50+ employees 885 15.6 24.5 27.3 26.2 4.8 1.6
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 13.1 17.2 29.1 34.4 4.8 1.5
106 19 21.8 26.8 29.1 3.2 0.1
Manufacture 2843 15.4 17.5 24.6 36.1 4.7 1.5
Food services 543 11.9 15.3 27.5 37.8 5.9 1.5
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 12.3 13.7 26 43.4 3.8 0.7
2-10 million euro 1587 15.8 21.1 26.9 29.8 5.1 1.2
10-50 million euro 449 19.3 26.8 24.6 22.8 5.9 0.6
50 million euro and over 94 11.2 25.8 30.8 22.9 4.4 4.9
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 16.3 22.4 27.8 27 5.6 0.9
Decreased 2110 11.2 11.7 24.6 46.3 5.2 1
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 18.6 14.6 31.4 28.4 6.5 0.4
Between 10% and 29% 1326 13.8 17.4 27.7 36.9 3.3 0.9
Between 30% and 49% 1628 13.8 16.5 26.5 38.1 4.6 0.5
50% or more 1236 14.4 19 24.6 37.1 4 1
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 13.5 17.6 28.7 36.6 2.8 0.8
No 2891 14.7 16.9 24.7 35.2 6.5 2
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 102

Table 23a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of external financing by
country
QUESTION: Q7_b. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Lack of external financing

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 14.6 18.5 25.9 30.8 8.4 1.8
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 20.6 19.8 18.3 24.9 11.9 4.5

Bulgaria
204 7.5 17 25.9 45.3 3.1 1.1

Czech Rep.
200 5.4 41.2 29.5 20.5 1.9 1.5

Denmark
201 27.5 33.6 16 13.1 8.9 0.9

Germany
250 20.4 28.3 24.7 16.2 9.2 1.2

Estonia
200 30.8 14.2 22.1 19.6 11.6 1.7

Greece
201 5.8 4 24.7 63.9 1.5 0

Spain
250 8 10.8 17.5 60.8 2.1 0.8

France
250 17.5 15.3 38.1 20.4 8.5 0.2

Ireland
200 11.2 16.7 29.1 36.6 4 2.3

Italy
251 14.3 13.4 26.5 39.2 5.4 1.2

Cyprus
50 7.2 8.5 14.3 49.4 9.1 11.4

Latvia
202 25.1 8.9 17.1 37.9 10.5 0.5

Lithuania
202 2.3 15.6 31.3 33 10.5 7.2

Luxembourg
51 13.2 8.6 34.7 34.2 9.3 0

Hungary
202 8.2 6.7 14 48.8 19.2 3.2

Malta
50 9.9 11.1 16.4 42.6 19.9 0

Netherlands
200 12.7 23.7 15.4 20.1 25.7 2.5

Austria
200 12.1 25.8 25.2 27.5 7.4 2.1

Poland
200 9.5 20 32.1 32.8 5.2 0.3

Portugal
201 16.1 15.3 25.3 31.1 11 1.2

Romania
200 12.8 12.4 23.3 34.5 10.6 6.4

Slovenia
200 10.5 24.2 37.4 25.1 1.1 1.7

Slovakia
200 5.6 18.1 29.8 33.1 6.3 7.1

Finland
205 27.5 32.3 28.2 9.3 1.7 1

Sweden
200 41.2 19.7 21.3 7.7 5.6 4.5

United Kingdom
251 14 20.5 20.3 23.3 17.2 4.7
Flash EB N
o
page 103
Table 23b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of external financing - by
segments
QUESTION: Q7_b. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Lack of external financing

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 14.6 18.5 25.9 30.8 8.4 1.8
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 14.1 17.7 26.2 31.9 8.3 1.8
50+ employees 885 17.1 22 24.4 25.5 9.1 1.9
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 10.2 22.2 29.5 30 7.6 0.5
Construction 1526 12.6 18.4 28.2 31.3 7.9 1.6
106 23.3 15.6 33.2 23.5 3.5 0.8
Manufacture 2843 16.1 19 24.1 31.2 7.7 1.9
Food services 543 12.3 15.2 26.1 28.5 15.1 2.8
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 17.1 21.1 24.9 25.6 9.9 1.4
10-50 million euro 449 19.4 24.5 23.7 24.6 6.4 1.4
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 18.6 22.5 24.9 23.9 8.3 1.7
Decreased 2110 12 14.3 26 38.4 7.7 1.6
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 17.9 12.9 31.9 28.9 7.8 0.7
Between 10% and 29% 1326 16.5 18.8 27.7 30.2 5.8 1.1
Between 30% and 49% 1628 14 20.2 25.2 31.5 8 1.1
50% or more 1236 13.9 19.3 23.7 32.8 8.9 1.5
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 14.8 18.1 25.8 33.7 6.3 1.2
No 2891 14.5 18.7 26 28.4 10.1 2.3
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 104

Table 24a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Uncertain return on investment or
too long payback period for eco-innovation by country
QUESTION: Q7_c. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Uncertain return on investment or too long
payback period for eco-innovation

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 10.5 14.3 32.4 31.7 7.6 3.4
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 14.6 18 28.4 21.5 12.1 5.4

Bulgaria
204 5.9 8.9 28.9 46.7 6 3.6

Czech Rep.
200 1.8 23.1 44.6 23.2 3.3 4.1

Denmark
201 12.5 19.4 36.8 21.8 5.9 3.7

Germany
250 11.2 15 29 31.9 9.6 3.3

Estonia
200 14.9 8.6 28.6 30.7 10.4 6.9

Greece
201 5.5 7.9 37.1 45.3 2.4 1.6

Spain
250 6.4 8.6 26.7 52.8 2.9 2.7

France
250 14.4 13.3 45.9 17.8 6.9 1.8

Ireland
200 11.2 14.5 40.5 26.6 4.1 3.1

Italy
251 13.7 19.7 28.5 30.5 5 2.7

Cyprus
50 4.7 7.8 28.5 43.4 4.7 11

Latvia
202 21.8 9.9 20.5 34.9 10.5 2.4

Lithuania
202 5.7 7.9 32.1 33.6 10.4 10.3

Luxembourg
51 12.2 15.8 37.9 32.4 1.7 0

Hungary
202 3.1 4.5 13.7 56.5 18.3 3.8

Malta
50 5.5 7.8 13.8 61.9 7.7 3.3

Netherlands
200 6.5 9.2 23.9 38.6 19.1 2.8

Austria
200 5.1 14.6 29 40.6 6.5 4.1

Poland
200 9 13.3 38 36.5 3.2 0

Portugal
201 11 20.3 29.5 31.8 6.8 0.6

Romania
200 10.4 15.9 28 33.7 5.2 7

Slovenia
200 6.4 20.7 33.8 31.4 6.2 1.4

Slovakia
200 2 10.7 36.3 37.2 5.8 7.9

Finland
205 10.1 18.1 43.7 23.8 2.6 1.7

Sweden
200 21.6 15.8 30.3 18.4 5.9 8

United Kingdom
251 9.7 12.2 33.8 18.5 17.4 8.4
Flash EB N
o
page 105
Table 24b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Uncertain return on investment or
too long payback period for eco-innovation - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_c. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Uncertain return on investment or too long
payback period for eco-innovation

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 10.5 14.3 32.4 31.7 7.6 3.4
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 10.3 14.1 31.8 32.4 7.8 3.5
50+ employees 885 11.4 15 35.4 28.4 6.5 3.3
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 10 13.1 30.6 33.7 8.8 3.8
106 13.3 20.3 31.9 26.9 6.9 0.7
Manufacture 2843 10.8 15.5 32.7 30.8 7.1 3.1
Food services 543 11.6 10.9 35.2 29.3 7.7 5.3
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 12.4 16.1 31.4 29.9 7.1 3.1
10-50 million euro 449 7.5 15.7 40.2 27.5 6.2 2.8
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 10.1 14.9 36.4 27.7 7.2 3.7
Decreased 2110 9.6 14.2 29.5 36.8 7.3 2.5
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 17.3 15.2 29.4 28.2 8.9 1.1
Between 10% and 29% 1326 12.2 12.8 36.5 31.1 5.4 2.1
Between 30% and 49% 1628 9.6 14.8 32 33.5 7.5 2.6
50% or more 1236 9.1 15.2 30.5 36.8 6.1 2.2
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 10 14.3 34.1 35 4.3 2.2
No 2891 10.9 14.3 31.1 29.1 10.3 4.4
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 106

Table 25a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of qualified personnel and
technological capabilities within the enterprise by country
QUESTION: Q7_d. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Lack of qualified personnel and
technological capabilities within the enterprise

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 19.5 22.4 27.6 23 6.3 1.1
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 12.7 15.1 21.2 39.6 9.2 2.2

Bulgaria
204 12 22.5 25.4 35.3 4.2 0.5

Czech Rep.
200 8.1 50.9 21.3 17.8 0.9 1

Denmark
201 24.5 34.7 26.8 7.4 6.5 0

Germany
250 20.3 23.7 26.7 24.1 5.2 0

Estonia
200 33.5 13.9 27.9 19.5 4.7 0.5

Greece
201 17.1 17.3 36.1 27.4 1.7 0.4

Spain
250 19.4 19.2 21.9 37 2.1 0.4

France
250 17.6 18.3 41.6 18.2 4.3 0

Ireland
200 17.5 28 31.5 17.6 4.6 0.8

Italy
251 20.2 23.1 26.8 22.1 7.1 0.8

Cyprus
50 16.3 7.2 31.6 37.1 3.5 4.3

Latvia
202 33.5 11.2 16.2 30 8.5 0.5

Lithuania
202 6.3 24.9 27.4 31.3 7.5 2.7

Luxembourg
51 5.7 12.2 36.4 44 1.7 0

Hungary
202 33.1 16.8 14.5 16.8 17.3 1.5

Malta
50 30.9 16 13.2 34.4 5.5 0

Netherlands
200 14.7 23.5 19.6 23.3 17.5 1.5

Austria
200 13.4 22 28.2 32.6 3.3 0.5

Poland
200 23.3 29.5 31.3 11.5 4 0.5

Portugal
201 19.4 21.4 21.7 31.4 6 0.1

Romania
200 22.3 15.7 21.7 33.9 3.2 3.3

Slovenia
200 6.4 25.9 32.9 31 3.7 0

Slovakia
200 12.2 28 30.4 19.4 4.3 5.6

Finland
205 21.6 31.6 35.7 9.3 0.5 1.3

Sweden
200 21.9 25.4 29.4 17.3 2.5 3.5

United Kingdom
251 21.6 16.3 23.3 17.5 16.1 5.2
Flash EB N
o
page 107
Table 25b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of qualified personnel and
technological capabilities within the enterprise - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_d. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Lack of qualified personnel and
technological capabilities within the enterprise

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 19.5 22.4 27.6 23 6.3 1.1
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 19.3 22.8 27 23.3 6.4 1.2
50+ employees 885 20.8 20.7 30.3 21.6 5.8 0.7
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 14 22.8 31.1 23.2 8.8 0.1
Construction 1526 18.5 22.6 29.3 22.8 5.7 1.1
106 12.8 41.9 31.4 12.7 0.4 0.9
Manufacture 2843 20.6 22.6 26.8 22.7 6.3 1.1
Food services 543 20.2 17.1 24.8 27.5 8.4 2.1
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 18.7 22.8 28.7 22.8 6 0.9
10-50 million euro 449 21.6 22.3 34.6 14.9 6.3 0.4
50 million euro and over 94 26.6 26.7 18.6 22 3.4 2.7
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 18.8 23 27.3 23.7 6.4 0.8
Remained unchanged 1518 21.7 23 27.6 21.5 4.9 1.4
Decreased 2110 18.5 22 27.5 24.1 7.1 0.7
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 17.2 23.3 32.2 19.2 7.6 0.3
Between 10% and 29% 1326 19.9 20.9 28.6 24.8 5.2 0.7
Between 30% and 49% 1628 18.6 22.5 27.9 24 6.5 0.6
50% or more 1236 21.6 25 27.2 21.4 4.3 0.5
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 20.4 21.4 27.9 25.5 4.1 0.7
No 2891 18.9 23.2 27.2 21 8.1 1.5
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 108

Table 26a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Limited access to external
information and knowledge, including lack of well-developed technology support
services by country
QUESTION: Q7_e. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Limited access to external information and
knowledge, including lack of well-developed technology support services

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 18.9 26.4 26.9 16.3 8.6 2.9
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 16.9 23.6 25.5 21.9 8.9 3.2

Bulgaria
204 18.8 31.5 27.4 16.3 2.8 3.2

Czech Rep.
200 8.8 57 23 8 1.8 1.5

Denmark
201 26.7 36.6 22.1 3.7 7.7 3.4

Germany
250 24.3 31 21.4 13.5 9 0.8

Estonia
200 37 18.5 21.6 11.6 8.3 3.1

Greece
201 15.8 10.6 40.3 31.4 0.9 1.1

Spain
250 17.2 21.3 22.7 35.2 3.2 0.4

France
250 19.3 27.5 34.9 12.1 5.5 0.6

Ireland
200 16.3 30.5 32.8 13.7 4.2 2.4

Italy
251 17.6 23.2 29.6 19.1 7 3.5

Cyprus
50 7.8 12.4 20.6 38.8 14 6.3

Latvia
202 45 11.7 16.2 17.4 8.6 1.1

Lithuania
202 8.7 31 30.6 14.9 6.8 8.1

Luxembourg
51 19.9 16.5 40.5 14.5 6.9 1.7

Hungary
202 21.9 19.6 13.7 18.9 23.8 2.2

Malta
50 23.2 17.1 19.9 18.7 17.8 3.3

Netherlands
200 13.1 24.2 14.6 14.9 28.8 4.3

Austria
200 13.5 23.5 34 21.3 6.1 1.6

Poland
200 18.3 30.3 31.9 10 6.6 2.9

Portugal
201 19.1 19.2 28.5 20.1 12.5 0.6

Romania
200 21.1 19.5 20.7 23.6 9.2 5.8

Slovenia
200 17.1 30.3 32.2 16.7 2 1.7

Slovakia
200 8.1 33.6 32.8 11.6 6.3 7.6

Finland
205 23 40 22.6 5.1 2.6 6.8

Sweden
200 30.3 22.5 28.6 8 3.3 7.2

United Kingdom
251 15.7 24.1 25.9 7.6 17.8 8.9
Flash EB N
o
page 109
Table 26b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Limited access to external
information and knowledge, including lack of well-developed technology support
services - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_e. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Limited access to external information and
knowledge, including lack of well-developed technology support services

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 18.9 26.4 26.9 16.3 8.6 2.9
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 18.5 25.4 26.7 17.3 9 3.1
50+ employees 885 21.1 31.1 28 11.7 6.5 1.7
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 14 31.6 31.4 14.4 7.6 1
Construction 1526 20.2 24.8 28.1 15.6 9.2 2.1
106 16.8 37.2 27.2 13.3 2.7 3
Manufacture 2843 19.4 27.9 25.3 16.3 7.9 3.2
Food services 543 15 19.2 30 20 11.9 3.8
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 20.3 28 24.9 16.3 8 2.5
10-50 million euro 449 21.8 32.5 28.9 9.5 5.7 1.6
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 19.6 27.5 28.7 13.9 7.9 2.4
Remained unchanged 1518 20.1 25.7 28 16.3 7.3 2.5
Decreased 2110 17.6 26.4 25.1 18.6 9.4 2.9
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 19.4 28.6 24.4 15.5 11.2 0.9
Between 10% and 29% 1326 20.7 23.7 30.8 16.8 6 2
Between 30% and 49% 1628 18.9 28.5 24.7 17.2 8.4 2.4
50% or more 1236 19.6 25.9 28.2 17.4 6.9 2
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 20.6 26.2 26.9 18.9 5.6 1.9
No 2891 17.6 26.6 26.9 14.3 11 3.7
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 110

Table 27a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of suitable business partners
by country
QUESTION: Q7_f. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Lack of suitable business partners

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 22 25.8 24.7 16 9.4 2.2
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 17.6 29.6 16.1 16.5 16.6 3.6

Bulgaria
204 15.1 28.1 30.1 21.5 4.6 0.5

Czech Rep.
200 10.5 54.8 17.9 14.1 1 1.8

Denmark
201 26.7 39.8 15.2 6.1 8 4.2

Germany
250 24.8 35.6 18.4 12.6 8.1 0.4

Estonia
200 35.8 17.2 26.5 10.6 8.1 1.7

Greece
201 11.8 11.2 43.2 32 1.9 0

Spain
250 32.1 23.5 16.9 21.3 5.8 0.4

France
250 22.3 20.5 37.1 11 7.7 1.3

Ireland
200 18 34.8 24.6 10.2 10.4 1.9

Italy
251 18.9 24.7 23.5 21.3 8.9 2.7

Cyprus
50 7.8 8 31.8 44.3 3.9 4.3

Latvia
202 42.1 12.6 18.8 16.7 6.6 3.2

Lithuania
202 7.5 23.6 31.8 27.9 5.8 3.5

Luxembourg
51 14.6 13.9 32.4 35.6 3.6 0

Hungary
202 23.8 12 19.5 25.9 16.7 2

Malta
50 23.7 7.2 9.9 14.3 43.7 1.1

Netherlands
200 16.1 23.2 18.4 9 30.9 2.4

Austria
200 18.6 24.7 32.5 17.1 4.8 2.3

Poland
200 22.7 29.8 29.1 12.3 4.6 1.5

Portugal
201 14.6 16.7 35.4 22.2 10.5 0.6

Romania
200 23.8 19.3 22.4 25.7 5.6 3.3

Slovenia
200 10 30 35.6 20 3.4 1

Slovakia
200 6.5 28.2 36.4 18.4 4.1 6.3

Finland
205 25.2 38.7 27.5 5.9 1.4 1.2

Sweden
200 38.7 23.9 21 7.1 3.6 5.6

United Kingdom
251 20.5 20 18.9 9.7 23.9 7
Flash EB N
o
page 111
Table 27b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of suitable business partners -
by segments
QUESTION: Q7_f. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Lack of suitable business partners

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 22 25.8 24.7 16 9.4 2.2
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 21.3 24.7 25.2 17.2 9.2 2.2
50+ employees 885 25.1 30.8 21.9 10.1 10.2 1.9
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 22.3 24.5 27 14.7 10 1.6
106 18.7 28.9 32.7 12.2 4.6 2.9
Manufacture 2843 22.1 26.4 24 17.1 8.1 2.3
Food services 543 22.6 21.6 19.7 16.5 15.9 3.7
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 23.3 29.8 23.7 11.5 9.9 1.9
10-50 million euro 449 27.1 23.2 25.4 15.2 7.3 1.8
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 22.1 27.2 24.3 15.7 9 1.8
Remained unchanged 1518 22 26.1 26.5 13.6 8.9 2.9
Decreased 2110 21.9 24.6 23.8 18.4 9.9 1.5
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 24.9 26.8 26.9 13.7 7 0.7
Between 10% and 29% 1326 22.4 25.2 26.7 16.5 7.2 1.9
Between 30% and 49% 1628 19.5 28 24.2 17.2 9.9 1.2
50% or more 1236 25.1 25.8 24 16.8 6.4 1.7
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 22.9 25.7 24.6 18.4 6.9 1.6
No 2891 21.2 25.8 24.8 14.1 11.4 2.7
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 112

Table 28a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of collaboration with research
institutes and universities by country
QUESTION: Q7_g. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Lack of collaboration with research
institutes and universities

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 19.3 23.6 21.1 12.8 20.1 3.2
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 21.3 17.2 19.9 12.7 24 4.9

Bulgaria
204 15.7 24.8 24.6 24 8.4 2.5

Czech Rep.
200 22.1 44 7.9 6.8 16.4 2.9

Denmark
201 28.2 31.8 13.9 6.1 18.2 1.9

Germany
250 20.3 28.4 18.4 6.3 24.6 1.9

Estonia
200 36.2 16.5 16.9 9.9 18.9 1.6

Greece
201 16.3 14.8 29.8 34.5 3.1 1.5

Spain
250 15.2 16 25.9 28.1 13.1 1.8

France
250 22.8 22.4 28.4 6.3 18.4 1.6

Ireland
200 19.2 27.5 24.5 17.3 10 1.5

Italy
251 14.3 24.4 21.8 17.5 17.9 4.1

Cyprus
50 18.9 18.9 13.7 32.4 9.1 7

Latvia
202 35.3 8.6 10.6 14.2 29.6 1.7

Lithuania
202 10.3 25.4 25.7 8.6 27 3

Luxembourg
51 19.4 12.9 17.8 28.1 19.1 2.6

Hungary
202 19.1 7.7 8.5 11.6 51.6 1.6

Malta
50 12.2 5.5 7.7 18.6 52 3.9

Netherlands
200 15.1 21 10.6 9.5 41.4 2.4

Austria
200 15.7 24.7 26.9 17.9 12.1 2.6

Poland
200 26.5 29.2 21 7.2 13.6 2.5

Portugal
201 17.3 17.9 24.3 17.2 22.3 0.9

Romania
200 19.5 15.5 17.5 23 19.2 5.4

Slovenia
200 11.3 28.1 32.5 14.7 10.6 2.9

Slovakia
200 8.4 34.2 22.8 11.9 13.4 9.2

Finland
205 28.3 35.6 19.2 6.1 9.2 1.7

Sweden
200 29.4 27.5 13.2 5.7 16.9 7.3

United Kingdom
251 18 22 19 7 25.6 8.4
Flash EB N
o
page 113
Table 28b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Lack of collaboration with research
institutes and universities - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_g. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Lack of collaboration with research
institutes and universities

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 19.3 23.6 21.1 12.8 20.1 3.2
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 19.2 23.1 19.4 13.5 21.3 3.4
50+ employees 885 19.4 26.1 29.2 9.1 13.9 2.3
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 19.3 24.7 18.9 13.4 20.2 3.6
106 12.9 31.7 16.8 20.5 15.7 2.4
Manufacture 2843 20.3 23.7 21.7 12.2 18.8 3.3
Food services 543 17.3 15.9 25 9.7 29.7 2.3
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 20.8 25.3 22.5 11.4 17.7 2.2
10-50 million euro 449 20.9 26.4 26.8 11.3 11.8 2.8
50 million euro and over 94 22.7 31.2 20 6.3 14.4 5.5
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 19 26 21.9 9.8 20.1 3.2
Decreased 2110 18.8 22.7 19.6 15.6 20.3 3
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 22.4 23.2 19.3 14 20.2 1
Between 10% and 29% 1326 19.3 24.4 22.6 12.2 18.9 2.5
Between 30% and 49% 1628 19.9 25.2 19.7 11.9 20 3.3
50% or more 1236 19.6 24.5 21.2 15.8 17.2 1.7
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 18.9 23.5 23.9 14.8 16 2.9
No 2891 19.5 23.8 18.8 11.1 23.4 3.5
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 114

Table 29a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Uncertain demand from the
market by country
QUESTION: Q7_h. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Uncertain demand from the market

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 11.2 14.4 33.1 33.5 5.8 2
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 15.5 16.1 31.3 27.2 5.3 4.6

Bulgaria
204 7.9 8.9 30.7 45.7 4.3 2.4

Czech Rep.
200 5.1 29.2 36.1 27.2 0.5 1.9

Denmark
201 12.9 18.3 37.9 21.9 8.5 0.5

Germany
250 15.8 18.4 27.9 29.6 7.4 0.9

Estonia
200 21.5 10.3 33.1 28.3 6.2 0.6

Greece
201 8.4 8.6 33.1 46.4 1.1 2.4

Spain
250 5.5 10.3 20.5 61.6 1.7 0.4

France
250 14.1 14 45 20.7 5.6 0.7

Ireland
200 6.2 15.6 39.6 32.4 3.8 2.4

Italy
251 8 14.8 35.7 35.4 5.1 1

Cyprus
50 7.8 4.7 23.6 54.5 4.7 4.8

Latvia
202 28.7 12.2 23.2 28.2 5 2.8

Lithuania
202 5.3 16.4 31.7 32.2 3.5 11

Luxembourg
51 19.6 11.3 44.4 23.1 1.7 0

Hungary
202 12.4 3.2 16.3 55 11.2 1.9

Malta
50 9.9 7.2 24.3 54.8 3.8 0

Netherlands
200 10.2 18.5 24.6 28 16.2 2.5

Austria
200 12.8 15.9 36.6 26 6.5 2.2

Poland
200 10.3 10.7 41.4 34.8 1.7 1.1

Portugal
201 10 14.1 31.8 36.7 6.8 0.6

Romania
200 13.5 9.8 25.8 44.9 2.8 3.3

Slovenia
200 9.4 24.7 39.4 24.3 1.7 0.5

Slovakia
200 4.6 11.2 35.1 35.8 5.8 7.6

Finland
205 9.8 21.4 44.4 21.9 0.5 2.2

Sweden
200 23.6 19.1 32.6 16.1 3.4 5.3

United Kingdom
251 10.3 14.5 32.6 22.5 12.7 7.4
Flash EB N
o
page 115
Table 29b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Uncertain demand from the
market - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_h. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Uncertain demand from the market

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 11.2 14.4 33.1 33.5 5.8 2
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 10.6 14.2 32.7 34.9 5.9 1.8
50+ employees 885 14.2 15.5 35.3 26.8 5.3 2.9
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 11.1 13.7 35.4 33.6 4.6 1.6
106 13.7 23.5 21.6 35.4 4 1.9
Manufacture 2843 11.3 14.4 31.8 34.6 5.7 2.1
Food services 543 11.7 15.1 33.6 27.8 9.5 2.4
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 11.6 15.5 34.5 31.6 5.6 1.2
10-50 million euro 449 11 20 34.1 29.1 4.4 1.4
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 15.1 16.4 34.2 26.9 6.1 1.4
Decreased 2110 8.5 12.9 29.6 41.8 5.3 2
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 9.8 17.5 28.5 34.9 8.8 0.4
Between 10% and 29% 1326 13.7 14.5 34.7 30.7 4.6 1.8
Between 30% and 49% 1628 11.2 15.4 32.9 33.1 5.5 1.8
50% or more 1236 9.8 13.6 34.3 36.8 4.4 1
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 10 13.2 36.1 35.5 3.8 1.4
No 2891 12.1 15.4 30.7 31.9 7.4 2.5
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 116

Table 30a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Reducing material use is not an
innovation priority by country
QUESTION: Q7_i. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Reducing material use is not an innovation
priority

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 18.1 25 27.4 17.4 8.7 3.4
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 15.9 19.6 21.2 22.6 12 8.6

Bulgaria
204 19 20.9 27.2 15.9 8.8 8.2

Czech Rep.
200 4.6 47.3 26.4 14.7 3.7 3.3

Denmark
201 29.1 27.4 19.4 11.6 9.5 3

Germany
250 17.4 30.7 23.9 18.6 7.4 2.1

Estonia
200 26.6 18.9 22.3 8.9 20.1 3.3

Greece
201 21.7 13.2 32.6 24.2 3.1 5.2

Spain
250 16.6 23 25.6 30.5 3.1 1.2

France
250 28.6 31.9 26.8 6 6.1 0.6

Ireland
200 12.9 24.8 36.3 18.7 4.9 2.3

Italy
251 15.8 26 29.6 20.4 6.7 1.5

Cyprus
50 12 11.1 26.8 41.6 5.1 3.5

Latvia
202 34.9 16.1 19.3 15.2 9.5 5

Lithuania
202 6.5 18.5 40.9 14.7 11.1 8.3

Luxembourg
51 16.4 17.7 33.8 25.2 4.3 2.6

Hungary
202 14.5 14.6 17 17.9 27.6 8.5

Malta
50 18.1 13.8 14.9 29.4 16.1 7.7

Netherlands
200 17 18.1 16.9 20.8 24.5 2.6

Austria
200 13.3 25 29.1 20.8 8.4 3.3

Poland
200 15.1 21.9 38.7 13.8 7.5 2.9

Portugal
201 11.1 18.6 22.7 28.2 17 2.4

Romania
200 19.6 18.2 31.2 16.6 7.4 6.9

Slovenia
200 16 29.1 33.1 11.2 6 4.7

Slovakia
200 6.4 25.7 34.7 15.4 7.2 10.6

Finland
205 20 31 25.8 12.5 7.1 3.7

Sweden
200 36.3 22.9 15.3 7.4 6.7 11.3

United Kingdom
251 16.4 17 29.9 14.9 13.5 8.2
Flash EB N
o
page 117
Table 30b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Reducing material use is not an
innovation priority - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_i. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Reducing material use is not an innovation
priority

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 18.1 25 27.4 17.4 8.7 3.4
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 17.2 25.2 27.5 17.7 9 3.3
50+ employees 885 22.3 24.1 27 16.1 6.7 3.8
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 16.2 25.4 30.9 14.2 9.8 3.5
106 20.9 26.2 26.2 17.4 5.3 4
Manufacture 2843 18.8 25 26 19.4 7.5 3.3
Food services 543 21.5 22.2 25 15.8 12.2 3.3
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 21.4 26.4 25.8 15.3 8.7 2.5
10-50 million euro 449 21.3 24.5 27 19.2 6.1 2
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 18.3 25.9 28.4 17.1 7.6 2.7
Decreased 2110 16.2 23.4 28.2 19.3 9.5 3.4
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 20.1 26.1 26.8 15.2 11.1 0.8
Between 10% and 29% 1326 20.2 27 30.5 13.9 5.9 2.6
Between 30% and 49% 1628 16.7 23.7 29.5 19.6 8.1 2.3
50% or more 1236 16.7 27.5 25.1 20.3 7.1 3.3
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 18 24.4 29 20.7 5.6 2.3
No 2891 18.1 25.5 26.2 14.8 11.1 4.2
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 118

Table 31a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Reducing energy use is not an
innovation priority by country
QUESTION: Q7_j. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Reducing energy use is not an innovation
priority

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 15.2 21.3 28.7 25.5 6.4 2.9
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 14.1 11.7 22.1 34 7.8 10.2

Bulgaria
204 14.9 26 25.6 22.1 4.7 6.6

Czech Rep.
200 7.2 44.6 28.4 14.2 3.3 2.2

Denmark
201 26.2 30 23.5 14 4.1 2.2

Germany
250 18.2 22.1 23.8 28.7 6.4 0.7

Estonia
200 26.6 14.6 25.2 14.5 13.7 5.3

Greece
201 20.9 8.8 27.1 39.8 1.7 1.7

Spain
250 10.5 16.4 27.3 43.1 2.1 0.6

France
250 24.6 25.7 35.2 8.3 4.6 1.6

Ireland
200 8.3 16.5 38.2 33.5 2.5 1

Italy
251 12.8 24.9 26.3 29 6 1

Cyprus
50 3.3 3.5 29.4 49.4 8.2 6.2

Latvia
202 28.1 12.5 20.7 25 10.4 3.3

Lithuania
202 5.2 13.4 38.7 31.2 7.9 3.6

Luxembourg
51 19.1 18.7 24.5 33.4 4.3 0

Hungary
202 13.2 11.4 25 16.5 22.9 11

Malta
50 18.2 9.9 20.3 39.5 9.9 2.2

Netherlands
200 6.6 15.4 21.9 39.3 13.9 3

Austria
200 14 14.8 35.8 28.8 3.7 3

Poland
200 12.7 20.1 41.1 15.7 5.2 5.2

Portugal
201 5.8 18.3 27.3 38.8 8.2 1.7

Romania
200 11.5 16 28.8 34.1 4.5 5.1

Slovenia
200 16.3 31 32.1 11.8 6.9 1.9

Slovakia
200 5.1 24.5 28.6 29.3 4.9 7.6

Finland
205 25.1 30.1 29.5 11.2 2.7 1.3

Sweden
200 38.2 21.1 15.1 10.4 6 9.2

United Kingdom
251 13.2 17.7 27.1 25.5 10.6 6
Flash EB N
o
page 119
Table 31b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Reducing energy use is not an
innovation priority - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_j. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Reducing energy use is not an innovation
priority

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 15.2 21.3 28.7 25.5 6.4 2.9
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 14.4 21.5 28.6 25.9 6.5 3
50+ employees 885 19.1 20.3 29.1 23.6 5.5 2.3
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 11.1 24.5 23.6 30.5 8 2.4
Construction 1526 15 21.7 30.3 23.1 7.1 2.8
106 8.7 24.3 39.8 20.7 1.2 5.3
Manufacture 2843 16.3 21.6 26.4 26.6 6.2 3
Food services 543 13 16.9 35.9 25.8 5.8 2.6
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 18.3 24.2 25.2 24 5.4 2.8
10-50 million euro 449 21.5 20.5 25 26.4 4.3 2.3
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 15.4 21.8 28.1 25.7 5.1 3.9
Remained unchanged 1518 14.6 24.1 30.9 22.3 6 2.1
Decreased 2110 15.9 19.2 28 27.5 7.2 2.3
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 15.2 22.3 29.6 23.1 8.3 1.5
Between 10% and 29% 1326 15 23.2 30.8 24.3 4.8 1.8
Between 30% and 49% 1628 16.1 21.9 26.8 27.3 5.4 2.4
50% or more 1236 16.9 21.2 27.4 26.4 5.6 2.4
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 14.7 20.2 28.1 31.3 3.8 2
No 2891 15.7 22.2 29.2 20.9 8.4 3.6
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 120

Table 32a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Technical and technological lock-
ins in economy by country
QUESTION: Q7_k. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Technical and technological lock-ins in
economy (e.g. old technical infrastructures)

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 16.3 19.7 29.1 21.9 9.1 4
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 17.3 21.8 23.6 22.3 10.4 4.6

Bulgaria
204 6 20.8 27.5 37.5 5.2 2.9

Czech Rep.
200 6.3 27.5 43 14.3 5.6 3.3

Denmark
201 26.8 33.1 20.9 4.7 6.7 7.9

Germany
250 17.8 26.2 27.9 14.6 10.6 2.9

Estonia
200 28.7 15.3 25.5 18.9 7.4 4.1

Greece
201 16.7 10.7 37.7 34.1 0.3 0.5

Spain
250 15.3 15.2 22.4 42 4 1.2

France
250 21.9 19.1 34.4 16.2 6.8 1.6

Ireland
200 14.7 23.8 35.5 11.8 7.7 6.5

Italy
251 17.5 20.8 28.6 23.3 7.4 2.3

Cyprus
50 3.9 7 30.4 38 11.7 9

Latvia
202 29.8 12.1 19 27.9 6.6 4.6

Lithuania
202 8.6 18.3 34.9 28.9 7.5 1.9

Luxembourg
51 8.4 10.5 40.5 34.4 2.6 3.6

Hungary
202 12.3 8.4 19.3 40.5 15.6 3.9

Malta
50 23.9 19.9 21.5 23.2 10.5 1.1

Netherlands
200 10.6 17.9 17.9 16.6 29.6 7.4

Austria
200 10.7 19.1 36.1 20.7 7.5 5.9

Poland
200 16.2 15.2 38.6 22.9 6 1.2

Portugal
201 10.8 18 29.6 26.8 13.6 1.2

Romania
200 14.6 14.6 26.9 30.5 8.2 5.3

Slovenia
200 13 25.4 36.7 20.8 2 2.1

Slovakia
200 5.2 24.7 32.6 16.2 9.3 12

Finland
205 13.5 32.1 35.8 12.7 1.6 4.3

Sweden
200 38 19 18.7 11.4 4.4 8.5

United Kingdom
251 11.2 19.2 24.9 11.8 17.2 15.6
Flash EB N
o
page 121
Table 32b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Technical and technological lock-
ins in economy - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_k. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Technical and technological lock-ins in
economy (e.g. old technical infrastructures)

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 16.3 19.7 29.1 21.9 9.1 4
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 16.7 19.1 28.6 21.8 9.7 4.2
50+ employees 885 14.1 22.6 31.6 22.7 6 3.1
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 15.5 19.9 29 21.1 10.1 4.4
106 18.5 23.2 35.6 20 2.5 0.2
Manufacture 2843 16.5 20.5 29.4 22.4 7.5 3.7
Food services 543 18.4 14.5 25.1 20.5 15.9 5.5
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 16.9 22 27.2 21 9.6 3.3
10-50 million euro 449 16.7 21.2 33.1 21.4 4.9 2.7
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 16 21.2 29.8 18.8 10 4.2
Decreased 2110 16.3 19.5 28.1 25.2 8.3 2.7
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 15.6 20.4 30.1 18.7 12.8 2.4
Between 10% and 29% 1326 18.1 20.8 30.4 20.4 7 3.4
Between 30% and 49% 1628 16.2 19.8 30.4 22.7 8.4 2.6
50% or more 1236 15.2 22.2 27.3 25.2 7.5 2.6
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 14.7 21 31 24.3 6.1 2.8
No 2891 17.5 18.6 27.6 20 11.5 4.9
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 122

Table 33a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Market dominated by established
enterprises by country
QUESTION: Q7_l. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Market dominated by established
enterprises

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 16.9 22.6 28.9 21.4 7.5 2.7
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 14.3 18.2 31 23.5 7.8 5.3

Bulgaria
204 12.5 20.2 34.7 28.9 3.1 0.5

Czech Rep.
200 6.9 45.8 28.6 15.2 1.5 1.9

Denmark
201 23.7 32.1 21.5 12.3 6.9 3.5

Germany
250 15.7 21.6 27.5 25.9 7.6 1.6

Estonia
200 36.1 14 22.9 19.2 5.5 2.3

Greece
201 14.2 18.2 33.8 29.8 2.8 1.1

Spain
250 13.4 20.2 23.6 40.5 1.5 0.8

France
250 22.7 28.7 29 8.3 10.4 0.9

Ireland
200 11.7 23.3 35.2 18.8 7.4 3.5

Italy
251 19.3 19.7 29.1 23 6.7 2.2

Cyprus
50 3.9 9.3 33.7 44.7 5.6 2.7

Latvia
202 37.7 11.4 20.8 18.3 8.8 2.9

Lithuania
202 8.1 22.9 35.7 23 6.3 3.9

Luxembourg
51 13.1 5.2 43.4 33 3.6 1.7

Hungary
202 19.2 13.5 20.8 26.3 16.3 3.9

Malta
50 27 14.9 13.2 33.3 11.5 0

Netherlands
200 12.6 23.2 19.6 20.1 22.4 2.1

Austria
200 13.9 16.2 35.9 26.1 6.1 1.7

Poland
200 11.8 24.4 38.4 21.3 3.5 0.6

Portugal
201 13 19 32.5 27.7 7.2 0.6

Romania
200 30.4 24.6 21.8 14 3.8 5.4

Slovenia
200 9.4 26 42 16.2 3 3.4

Slovakia
200 6.8 18.9 33.2 25.6 5.8 9.6

Finland
205 17.1 29.9 37.7 12.3 0.5 2.4

Sweden
200 27.5 26.7 23 11.2 5.6 6

United Kingdom
251 13.4 20.2 30.1 11.9 14.1 10.2
Flash EB N
o
page 123
Table 33b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Market dominated by established
enterprises - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_l. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Market dominated by established
enterprises

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 16.9 22.6 28.9 21.4 7.5 2.7
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 16.7 21.3 29.7 22.4 7.4 2.6
50+ employees 885 17.8 28.9 25.3 16.8 8.1 3.1
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 15.1 24 29.9 22.1 6.9 2.1
106 17.6 25.5 32.6 21.2 3.1 0
Manufacture 2843 18 21.4 29.3 21.9 6.3 3.2
Food services 543 18.9 21.8 23.7 16.3 16.2 3
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 15.9 21.4 29.7 24 6.9 2.1
2-10 million euro 1587 18.3 23.6 27.1 21 7.9 2.1
10-50 million euro 449 21.7 28.4 26.1 16.6 5.3 1.8
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 18 24.1 27.3 20.6 6.6 3.4
Decreased 2110 14.9 21.6 28.8 24.1 8.3 2.3
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 12.3 26.7 28.6 21.1 10.1 1.1
Between 10% and 29% 1326 19.1 21.9 29.5 20.5 6.6 2.5
Between 30% and 49% 1628 17 24 29.4 21.3 6.3 2
50% or more 1236 16.1 23 29.3 24.1 6 1.6
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 17.1 22.5 29 24.1 5.1 2.2
No 2891 16.7 22.7 28.8 19.3 9.4 3.1
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 124

Table 34a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Existing regulations and structures
not providing incentives to eco-innovate by country
QUESTION: Q7_m. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Existing regulations and structures not
providing incentives to eco-innovate

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 12.6 19.2 32.1 25 7.1 4
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 14.8 16.7 29.6 19.3 10.9 8.7

Bulgaria
204 4.1 12.2 29.1 44.8 3.4 6.5

Czech Rep.
200 4.4 33.4 42.3 15.4 1.8 2.7

Denmark
201 14.9 29 27.4 13.3 9.1 6.2

Germany
250 12.9 30.2 32.3 17.7 5.2 1.7

Estonia
200 22.4 11.3 22.2 26.1 9.8 8.2

Greece
201 9 4.1 29 53.7 3.3 0.9

Spain
250 6.5 21.1 31.7 35 3.7 2

France
250 18.5 17.5 37.7 19 5.7 1.6

Ireland
200 7.8 18.9 37.3 27.5 3.8 4.7

Italy
251 14 17.3 30 29 6.3 3.3

Cyprus
50 7 6.7 25.5 46.3 6.2 8.3

Latvia
202 18.9 9.6 22.2 34.7 11.1 3.5

Lithuania
202 3.2 13 26.8 37.5 8.5 11

Luxembourg
51 23.4 6.9 45.3 21.7 2.6 0

Hungary
202 9.3 7.9 22.6 37.9 16.1 6.2

Malta
50 10.5 12.7 20.4 42.7 9.3 4.4

Netherlands
200 11.3 15.2 21.2 21.9 25.3 5.1

Austria
200 11.8 13.5 39.3 29.3 2.9 3.3

Poland
200 9.4 15.3 42.8 26.4 4.5 1.6

Portugal
201 12.2 18 35.2 24.5 9.2 0.9

Romania
200 12.2 7.4 25 40.8 6.1 8.6

Slovenia
200 7.9 21.8 44.4 20 3 2.9

Slovakia
200 5.4 21.1 33.7 20 6.5 13.3

Finland
205 17.3 20.5 37.3 22.3 1.1 1.4

Sweden
200 24.4 16.6 25 10 7.8 16.3

United Kingdom
251 14 20.8 24 16.8 14.6 9.7
Flash EB N
o
page 125
Table 34b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Existing regulations and structures
not providing incentives to eco-innovate - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_m. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Existing regulations and structures not
providing incentives to eco-innovate

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 12.6 19.2 32.1 25 7.1 4
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 11.8 17.8 32.8 25.9 7.4 4.3
50+ employees 885 16.2 25.7 28.9 20.9 5.7 2.6
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 8.9 19 34.4 25.6 8.1 3.9
106 14.7 19 28.2 28.6 7.6 1.9
Manufacture 2843 14.3 19.8 31 24.9 6.2 3.8
Food services 543 15.2 16.6 32.9 20.4 9 5.8
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 10.8 17.4 35 25.8 7 3.9
2-10 million euro 1587 14.6 21.4 28.6 26.1 6.1 3.2
10-50 million euro 449 15.8 20.7 31.5 24.4 5 2.6
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 13 19.7 35.2 22.4 6.9 2.8
Decreased 2110 10.9 18.2 30.1 29.4 7.7 3.8
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 12.3 20.1 36.6 19.6 8.3 3.1
Between 10% and 29% 1326 13.9 19.2 35 23.2 5 3.6
Between 30% and 49% 1628 12.6 21.3 31.9 24.8 7.2 2.3
50% or more 1236 12.1 16.8 29.8 31.9 5.3 4
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 12.7 18.5 34 27.7 4.3 2.9
No 2891 12.5 19.7 30.6 22.9 9.4 4.8
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 126

Table 35a. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Insufficient access to existing
subsidies and fiscal incentives by country
QUESTION: Q7_n. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Insufficient access to existing subsidies and
fiscal incentives

Total N
% Not at
all serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA
EU27
5222 11.7 16.5 30.1 30.1 8.2 3.3
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 12.5 17.3 28.3 24.8 11.3 5.8

Bulgaria
204 7.3 11.7 22.2 52.9 3.9 2.1

Czech Rep.
200 6.1 42.4 32.3 12.3 4.2 2.7

Denmark
201 18.9 23.8 27.1 13.3 8.3 8.7

Germany
250 15.1 21.3 23.6 26.9 11.5 1.7

Estonia
200 25.7 12.8 23.1 26.4 8.4 3.5

Greece
201 8.5 8 26.1 55.8 1.2 0.4

Spain
250 5.9 13.7 25.2 51.7 2.3 1.2

France
250 13.2 13.6 41.9 23.6 5.6 2

Ireland
200 12.6 20.8 37.5 17.8 8 3.4

Italy
251 11.3 16.1 33.5 30.6 6.1 2.4

Cyprus
50 2 4.3 11.9 71 7.4 3.5

Latvia
202 17.8 10.3 19.6 40.2 11.3 0.8

Lithuania
202 3.5 7.5 31.4 36 13.1 8.6

Luxembourg
51 15.1 19.4 36.4 21.5 7.7 0

Hungary
202 10.3 6.9 22.7 44.8 11.3 3.9

Malta
50 6.6 2.2 19.4 56.4 13.2 2.2

Netherlands
200 10.5 15.8 19.3 28.4 22.6 3.4

Austria
200 7.9 15 34.2 38.4 3.9 0.6

Poland
200 11.8 19.4 38.2 26.2 3.8 0.6

Portugal
201 11.1 10.1 32.3 30.1 14.2 2.2

Romania
200 6.4 7.1 16.6 54.8 9.2 5.9

Slovenia
200 7.8 15.2 40.1 32 4.2 0.7

Slovakia
200 6.7 13.7 25.8 38.4 8.3 7.1

Finland
205 27.3 24.9 34.6 8.2 1.7 3.3

Sweden
200 26.4 16.8 28 11.2 6.4 11.2

United Kingdom
251 12.5 19 25.6 14.1 16.8 12
Flash EB N
o
page 127
Table 35b. Barriers to accelerated eco-innovation: Insufficient access to existing
subsidies and fiscal incentives - by segments
QUESTION: Q7_n. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation uptake
serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company? - Insufficient access to existing subsidies and
fiscal incentives

Total N
% Not at
all
serious
% Not
serious
%
Somewhat
serious
% Very
serious
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 11.7 16.5 30.1 30.1 8.2 3.3
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 11.2 15.9 29.6 31.5 8.5 3.4
50+ employees 885 14.2 19.9 32.5 23.6 7 2.7
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 9.3 17.2 31.4 30.5 8.6 2.9
106 14.4 19.6 43.3 19.7 1.1 1.9
Manufacture 2843 13.2 17.7 27.8 30.3 7.8 3.3
Food services 543 12.2 8.9 33.5 28.7 11.3 5.5
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 14 18.3 28.8 27.9 7.8 3.2
10-50 million euro 449 13.5 23.9 31.9 23.6 6 1
ANNUAL TURNOVER
OVER THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 13.6 18.4 29.5 27.2 7.6 3.7
Remained unchanged 1518 11.9 16.6 32.1 27 8.6 3.8
Decreased 2110 10.4 15.3 29.1 35 8.1 2.1
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 17 15.3 31.4 25.5 9.3 1.5
Between 10% and 29% 1326 12.5 16.9 32.8 28.4 6.7 2.8
Between 30% and 49% 1628 11.6 17.7 28.9 30.6 9 2.3
50% or more 1236 11.6 17.5 27 35.1 5.9 2.9
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 11.6 16.1 30.8 34.1 5.1 2.3
No 2891 11.8 16.9 29.5 26.9 10.7 4.2
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 128

Table 36a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Technological and
management capabilities within the enterprise by country
QUESTION: Q8_a. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
company. Please tell me for each of them if you consider them a very important, somewhat important, not important
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Technological and management capabilities within the
enterprise

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 6.7 13.8 36.5 37.4 3.7 2
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 6.1 12.7 30.2 43.9 5.4 1.7

Bulgaria
204 2.4 9 29.2 56.2 1.8 1.4

Czech Rep.
200 2.4 35.1 30.4 28 2.9 1.3

Denmark
201 5.6 18 42.5 27.7 2.8 3.4

Germany
250 4.6 9.2 38.3 45.4 2.5 0

Estonia
200 15.8 8.6 29.3 41.7 3.2 1.4

Greece
201 7.6 4.1 42.7 45.1 0 0.5

Spain
250 4.1 14.1 29.6 48.2 2.8 1.2

France
250 12.4 16.9 43.4 21.6 5.3 0.5

Ireland
200 4.7 12.3 44 35.8 2.3 1

Italy
251 6.1 19.3 34.6 37.5 0.4 2.1

Cyprus
50 6 1.6 30.6 57.2 4.7 0

Latvia
202 15.1 8.4 32.4 37.7 3.1 3.2

Lithuania
202 2.2 7 43.4 39.4 1.6 6.4

Luxembourg
51 3.2 1.7 29.2 64.3 1.7 0

Hungary
202 8.3 2.4 21.6 56.4 9.9 1.4

Malta
50 10.4 7.1 5.6 65.8 11.1 0

Netherlands
200 3.7 18.9 31.9 26.5 16.6 2.4

Austria
200 4.4 9.3 33.8 49.5 1.9 1.1

Poland
200 8.9 11.2 47.8 28 3.5 0.6

Portugal
201 3.2 9.4 31 51.1 4 1.2

Romania
200 2.4 2.4 25 62.6 1.9 5.7

Slovenia
200 3.3 11 37.7 47 0 1

Slovakia
200 3.5 22.1 33.3 30.7 3.4 7.1

Finland
205 4.8 15 51.4 27.9 0.9 0

Sweden
200 5.9 14.1 35.1 38.8 0.9 5.3

United
Kingdom
251 9.9 12.7 38.9 23.7 7.6 7.2
Flash EB N
o
page 129
Table 36b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Technological and
management capabilities within the enterprise - by segments
QUESTION: Q8_a. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Technological and management capabilities within the
enterprise

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 6.7 13.8 36.5 37.4 3.7 2
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 6.7 13.8 36.5 37.2 3.8 2.1
50+ employees 885 6.5 13.5 36.8 38.3 3.4 1.5
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 6 13.5 39.4 35.1 3.9 2.1
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 3.9 23.1 34.6 37.2 0.9 0.2
Manufacture 2843 7.5 13.9 35.4 38.3 2.8 2
Food services 543 5.5 11.4 36.3 36.3 8.4 2
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 7 12.7 34.6 40.4 3.6 1.7
2-10 million euro 1587 7.2 15.6 39.4 33.9 3.1 0.8
10-50 million euro 449 6.2 13.7 37.8 36.7 2.7 3
50 million euro and
over
94 1.3 13.7 38.3 39.7 2.6 4.3
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 5.6 12.2 38.5 39 3.2 1.5
Decreased 2110 7.8 14.3 33.1 38.5 4 2.2
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 8.9 17.7 31.7 35.7 5.1 0.9
Between 10% and 29% 1326 6.1 13.1 38.6 37.5 3.4 1.3
Between 30% and 49% 1628 6.6 14.2 34.9 40.4 2.3 1.6
50% or more 1236 7.2 12.9 39.6 35.8 2.6 2
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 4.8 12.1 36 43.8 1.7 1.5
No 2891 8.2 15.1 36.9 32.2 5.3 2.4
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 130

Table 37a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Secure or increase existing
market share by country
QUESTION: Q8_b. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Secure or increase existing market share

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 5.7 12.3 34.1 41.7 3.7 2.4
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 4.9 13.3 33.6 38.4 4.6 5.1

Bulgaria
204 1.9 9.3 28 54.2 3.6 3

Czech Rep.
200 3.8 32.4 35.5 25.6 0.9 1.8

Denmark
201 7.4 15.6 33.9 38.9 3.1 1

Germany
250 6.2 11.4 29.9 46.1 5.6 0.8

Estonia
200 8.9 7.1 23.4 50.9 6.2 3.6

Greece
201 1.1 5.2 30.8 60.4 0.8 1.6

Spain
250 5.8 9.4 32.2 48.5 1.7 2.4

France
250 7.9 19.5 42.3 23.8 5.6 0.9

Ireland
200 3.1 9.2 31.9 51.8 2.3 1.7

Italy
251 6.4 16.9 33.8 39.7 0.9 2.4

Cyprus
50 3.3 6.2 31.2 54.6 2 2.7

Latvia
202 10.3 7.7 28.9 46.6 3.6 2.8

Lithuania
202 1.1 5.1 30.4 59.6 1.3 2.7

Luxembourg
51 4.5 4.3 30.2 58.4 2.6 0

Hungary
202 4.7 5.6 16.6 59.5 8.5 5.1

Malta
50 4.9 3.3 14.9 64.6 12.2 0

Netherlands
200 5 9.9 24.3 46.8 12.2 1.9

Austria
200 3.2 11.1 31.4 48.3 2.2 3.7

Poland
200 5.9 6.7 47.4 35.1 3.1 1.9

Portugal
201 3.6 7.7 25.4 60 3.2 0.1

Romania
200 1 1.7 24.7 66.3 1.2 5

Slovenia
200 3.8 8.6 38 47.9 0.3 1.4

Slovakia
200 4.2 8.5 31.9 44.5 4.5 6.5

Finland
205 6.2 10 41.5 41.7 0 0.6

Sweden
200 4.5 14.3 34.9 36.6 1.8 8

United
Kingdom
251 6.7 8.7 37.2 37.1 5.9 4.3
Flash EB N
o
page 131
Table 37b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Secure or increase existing
market share - by segments
QUESTION: Q8_b. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Secure or increase existing market share

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 5.7 12.3 34.1 41.7 3.7 2.4
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 5.6 12.3 34.3 41.4 4 2.4
50+ employees 885 6.5 12.1 33.3 43.4 2.5 2.2
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 5.4 14.4 34.6 38.6 4 3.1
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 5.2 22.3 35.3 30.9 5.2 1.1
Manufacture 2843 6.4 10.7 33.6 44.1 2.9 2.3
Food services 543 4.8 12.9 35.4 38.5 7.2 1.3
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 6.7 11.8 34 42.1 3.4 2.1
10-50 million euro 449 5.5 9.3 38.2 43.6 1.7 1.8
50 million euro and
over
94 6.1 17.1 13.9 56.1 3.2 3.7
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 4.4 12.8 35.4 42.2 3.4 1.8
Decreased 2110 7.1 11.3 31.6 43.8 3.9 2.3
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 6.7 16.3 34.5 33.9 7.4 1.3
Between 10% and 29% 1326 6.2 14 34.5 39.2 3.7 2.5
Between 30% and 49% 1628 5.9 12.8 33.8 43.2 3 1.2
50% or more 1236 5 9.8 35.2 46.2 2 1.9
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 4 9.6 34.3 48.8 1.8 1.6
No 2891 7.2 14.4 34 36.1 5.3 3
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 132

Table 38a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Current high material price
by country
QUESTION: Q8_c. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Current high material prices (as an incentive to innovate, to
use less material and decrease the cost)

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 7 10.8 31 44.8 5 1.5
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 4.8 6.9 24.9 56.2 4.7 2.4

Bulgaria
204 3.9 3.5 27.8 59 2.2 3.5

Czech Rep.
200 3.8 35.2 29.1 29.7 1 1.3

Denmark
201 8.8 15.4 37.6 32.4 5.3 0.5

Germany
250 7.2 16.7 31.6 36.9 7.5 0

Estonia
200 8.1 6 26.5 44.3 13.6 1.4

Greece
201 3.6 1.9 26.5 64.4 2.5 1.1

Spain
250 5.5 7.5 17.7 67.2 1.7 0.4

France
250 12.1 8.5 40.5 32.7 5 1.1

Ireland
200 2.9 9.5 34.2 46.7 4.6 2.1

Italy
251 7.6 12.9 37 38.9 2.6 1.1

Cyprus
50 1.4 2 11.5 76.3 3.5 5.4

Latvia
202 10.4 7.5 18.3 56.8 6.1 0.9

Lithuania
202 0.8 5.9 27.5 60.3 2.6 3

Luxembourg
51 12.8 5.3 28.8 50.5 2.6 0

Hungary
202 6.9 5.3 15.6 47.5 22 2.7

Malta
50 8.8 2.2 10.4 72.5 6.1 0

Netherlands
200 4.4 16.4 27.8 38.2 10.5 2.8

Austria
200 5.7 15.6 25.2 47.1 4.8 1.6

Poland
200 8.5 8.4 38.4 42.4 2.3 0

Portugal
201 5.2 4.3 18.6 66.5 5.4 0.1

Romania
200 3.2 2.3 17.9 69.4 2.4 4.9

Slovenia
200 2.4 9.7 36 48 1.4 2.4

Slovakia
200 6.1 11 23.1 48.1 5.1 6.6

Finland
205 6.5 16.7 36.6 34.7 2.5 2.9

Sweden
200 7.4 16.8 31.7 32.2 5.4 6.5

United
Kingdom
251 3.8 5.5 32.5 46.6 8.3 3.3
Flash EB N
o
page 133
Table 38b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Current high material price -
by segments
QUESTION: Q8_c. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Current high material prices (as an incentive to innovate, to
use less material and decrease the cost)

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 7 10.8 31 44.8 5 1.5
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 6.4 11.4 30.7 44.7 5.3 1.5
50+ employees 885 9.9 7.9 32 45.2 3.7 1.4
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 6.9 11.5 30 44.6 5.3 1.6
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 4.5 13.3 44.9 36 1.3 0.1
Manufacture 2843 6.9 10.8 31.2 44.5 5 1.5
Food services 543 9.1 9.2 30 45.4 5.3 1.1
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 9.3 13.3 30.2 41 4.7 1.5
10-50 million euro 449 6.5 7.9 32.6 47 4.1 1.8
50 million euro and
over
94 7.2 2.2 50.3 38.7 0.7 1
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 8.2 10.5 32 43.4 4.8 1.1
Decreased 2110 6.5 9.3 28.2 50 4.5 1.5
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 8.7 8.8 34 40 8.4 0.2
Between 10% and 29% 1326 7.1 12.7 33.3 42.5 2.8 1.7
Between 30% and 49% 1628 6.6 12.1 28.2 46.7 5.2 1.2
50% or more 1236 7.1 9.2 30.9 48.2 3.8 0.6
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 6.2 9.1 30.3 50.8 2.8 0.8
No 2891 7.6 12.1 31.5 39.9 6.8 2
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 134

Table 39a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Limited access to materials
by country
QUESTION: Q8_d. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Limited access to materials

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 11.5 19.4 30.7 30.4 5.7 2.3
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 11 22.6 30.2 23.2 9.3 3.6

Bulgaria
204 13.8 19.8 28.6 31.3 4.6 1.8

Czech Rep.
200 6.1 60.4 13.4 16.8 1.5 1.8

Denmark
201 15.5 28.2 25.8 19.4 7.5 3.6

Germany
250 13.9 20.6 26.2 33.3 5 1

Estonia
200 24.3 14.2 25.3 26.4 8.4 1.4

Greece
201 12 8.9 33.6 42.9 1.9 0.7

Spain
250 8.6 16.2 22.7 49.2 2.1 1.2

France
250 9.3 15.4 45.4 21.4 7.2 1.3

Ireland
200 5.6 14.4 38.1 37.1 3.3 1.5

Italy
251 13.2 21.7 30.6 28.6 2.4 3.5

Cyprus
50 16 19 24.6 28 7 5.4

Latvia
202 32.5 15 16.2 28.3 6.3 1.6

Lithuania
202 7.5 26.6 35 23.6 3.7 3.6

Luxembourg
51 4.1 15.1 28.3 43.9 6.9 1.7

Hungary
202 12.9 13.4 24.1 26.8 19.3 3.6

Malta
50 16.7 14.9 10.5 48 10 0

Netherlands
200 8.3 24.7 24.8 18 20.9 3.4

Austria
200 11.3 16.4 37.7 28.7 4.7 1.1

Poland
200 16 22.2 36.1 21 4.1 0.6

Portugal
201 8.2 10.4 22.1 52.6 6.2 0.6

Romania
200 4.8 7.9 30.5 46.2 4.5 6

Slovenia
200 5 26.3 33.8 33.6 0.3 1

Slovakia
200 6.6 22.9 29.5 25.6 8.6 6.8

Finland
205 19.9 32 28.3 11.3 2.6 5.9

Sweden
200 16.8 21.3 24.6 26.8 5.6 4.9

United
Kingdom
251 9 13.7 34 31.4 8.4 3.5
Flash EB N
o
page 135
Table 39b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Limited access to materials -
by segments
QUESTION: Q8_d. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Limited access to materials

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 11.5 19.4 30.7 30.4 5.7 2.3
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 11.6 19.4 30.8 30.2 5.8 2.3
50+ employees 885 11 19.7 30.6 31.3 5.1 2.3
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 11.7 20 30.9 28.7 5.9 2.8
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 12.9 33 35 16.1 2.7 0.3
Manufacture 2843 12.1 19.5 29 31.9 5.2 2.2
Food services 543 7 13.3 38 32.5 7.4 1.8
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 11.5 19 30.4 31.5 5.9 1.7
2-10 million euro 1587 13.4 20.8 31.1 27.8 5.1 1.7
10-50 million euro 449 9 16.9 30 35.6 5.2 3.3
50 million euro and
over
94 2.1 25.2 35.2 25.5 8.2 3.8
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 10 18.3 32.3 31.4 5.8 2.1
Decreased 2110 13.6 17.5 28.8 32 5.9 2.2
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 14.9 23 30.2 23 8.3 0.5
Between 10% and 29% 1326 13.7 18 33.4 29.2 4 1.7
Between 30% and 49% 1628 10.3 19.6 31.5 31.3 5.5 1.8
50% or more 1236 9.8 21.2 29.1 33.7 3.8 2.4
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 11.2 17.2 31.4 34.5 4.2 1.6
No 2891 11.7 21.3 30.2 27.1 6.9 2.9
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 136

Table 40a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future material
scarcity by country
QUESTION: Q8_e. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Expected future material scarcity (as an incentive to develop
innovative, less material-intensive substitutes)

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 10.3 16 28.9 35.3 6.9 2.6
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 7.2 15.4 27.2 39.8 8.1 2.3

Bulgaria
204 12.4 16 25.3 40.3 3.5 2.4

Czech Rep.
200 6.8 52.1 22.7 16.1 1.5 0.8

Denmark
201 17.3 35.8 23.6 17.7 5.1 0.5

Germany
250 11.5 15.1 20.9 39.2 12.6 0.8

Estonia
200 17.9 7.6 25.2 27.2 15.1 7

Greece
201 8.1 5.7 29.1 53.5 2.4 1.2

Spain
250 8.4 14.1 28.2 46.3 0.9 2.1

France
250 12.5 12 38.6 32 4.4 0.5

Ireland
200 5.6 11.3 37.3 35.5 6.4 3.8

Italy
251 9.5 18.7 29.2 35.8 5.1 1.7

Cyprus
50 12.6 7.8 21.4 46.1 7.8 4.3

Latvia
202 26.9 13 22.2 27.9 6 3.9

Lithuania
202 5.9 25.7 26.1 31.8 4.6 5.9

Luxembourg
51 4.1 11.5 29.4 50.9 4.1 0

Hungary
202 9.2 8.9 21.9 25.2 27.4 7.4

Malta
50 10.4 8.4 13.3 55.7 12.2 0

Netherlands
200 7.6 18.9 23 34.2 14.5 1.9

Austria
200 6.1 10.8 25.2 51 5.3 1.6

Poland
200 14.2 18.8 37.2 24.5 4.3 1

Portugal
201 5.7 9.5 21.9 54.4 6.8 1.6

Romania
200 4.1 4.7 28.8 50.3 3.5 8.6

Slovenia
200 5.9 23.9 33.8 32.8 0.9 2.6

Slovakia
200 8.5 24.1 26.8 24.7 8 8

Finland
205 18.4 23.2 35.4 15.6 3.8 3.6

Sweden
200 14.6 21 23.9 25.5 3.9 11.1

United
Kingdom
251 9 11.5 31.3 29.7 11.2 7.4
Flash EB N
o
page 137
Table 40b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future material
scarcity - by segments
QUESTION: Q8_e. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Expected future material scarcity (as an incentive to develop
innovative, less-material intensive substitutes)

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 10.3 16 28.9 35.3 6.9 2.6
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 10.3 15.7 29.6 34.4 7.3 2.7
50+ employees 885 9.9 17.2 25.4 39.9 5.3 2.2
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 7.7 20.1 28.7 33 8.2 2.4
Construction 1526 10 16.7 30.9 33.8 5.7 3
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 13.3 24.3 28.5 29.9 1 3
Manufacture 2843 10.5 16 26.7 37.1 7.3 2.4
Food services 543 10.3 10.8 34.3 32.5 9 3.2
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 10.9 18.4 27.4 34.7 7.3 1.4
10-50 million euro 449 9.7 9.5 29.9 41.5 6.2 3.2
50 million euro and
over
94 4.3 15.7 29 44.4 2.5 4
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 9.2 16.4 27.2 37.8 7.3 2.1
Decreased 2110 11 14.8 28 36.4 6.9 2.9
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 13.7 14.7 28.4 34.9 7.8 0.5
Between 10% and 29% 1326 11.9 15 32 34.3 4.8 2.1
Between 30% and 49% 1628 8 18.1 27.6 35.5 8.1 2.6
50% or more 1236 10.9 16.1 29.5 36.2 5.3 2
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 9 14.8 29.9 39.8 4.5 2
No 2891 11.3 17 28 31.7 8.9 3.2
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 138

Table 41a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Collaboration with research
institutes, agencies and universities by country
QUESTION: Q8_f. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Collaboration with research institutes, agencies and
universities

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 13.9 20.8 29.6 19.2 14.2 2.3
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 10.3 21.1 25.4 24.8 13.7 4.8

Bulgaria
204 10.9 19.1 34.6 31.6 2.8 1

Czech Rep.
200 10.8 50.8 16.2 12.7 8.4 1.1

Denmark
201 18.7 31 30.1 10.4 8.3 1.4

Germany
250 16.2 23.1 31.3 14.6 14.3 0.4

Estonia
200 18.7 15.9 29.6 17.9 14.7 3.2

Greece
201 7.8 10.7 39.7 40.3 1.5 0

Spain
250 14.3 17.2 26.7 31.7 9.2 0.8

France
250 18.7 18 36.9 7.3 18 1.1

Ireland
200 12.9 21.7 39.7 18.3 5.6 1.9

Italy
251 10 20.2 28.6 26 11.9 3.3

Cyprus
50 10.9 14.6 22.5 30.7 15.8 5.4

Latvia
202 17.1 9.3 25.4 21.3 24.5 2.3

Lithuania
202 10.1 17.8 33.8 17.7 17.2 3.5

Luxembourg
51 18 9.4 18.2 38.2 16.3 0

Hungary
202 13.2 8.1 17 15.2 44.6 1.9

Malta
50 6.6 8.8 8.8 16.4 53.3 6.1

Netherlands
200 8.2 26.3 21.5 18.5 22.5 2.9

Austria
200 10.6 18.5 40.8 21.8 6.1 2.2

Poland
200 17 27.2 32.2 13.3 7.9 2.3

Portugal
201 9.1 15.6 27.6 28.1 18.6 1

Romania
200 8.7 11.2 34 28.5 10.4 7.2

Slovenia
200 8.9 23 40.1 20.8 4.3 2.9

Slovakia
200 7.6 27.6 27.6 20.7 10.2 6.3

Finland
205 12 27.4 39.6 13.2 4.6 3.2

Sweden
200 17.8 24.3 26 13.1 12.8 6

United
Kingdom
251 16.1 18.6 22.4 16.8 21.7 4.3
Flash EB N
o
page 139
Table 41b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Collaboration with research
institutes, agencies and universities - by segments
QUESTION: Q8_f. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Collaboration with research institutes, agencies and
universities

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 13.9 20.8 29.6 19.2 14.2 2.3
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 14.5 20.5 27.8 19.3 15.5 2.4
50+ employees 885 10.8 22.5 38.2 18.6 7.9 2
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 14.9 21.8 27.1 19.1 14.7 2.3
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 6.1 31.9 36.5 13.5 11.8 0.2
Manufacture 2843 13.7 21.7 29.7 19.9 12.4 2.6
Food services 543 15.3 13.1 32.4 13.4 24.2 1.6
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 13.5 22.4 31.7 18.3 12.6 1.6
10-50 million euro 449 12.2 24 38 16 6.4 3.4
50 million euro and
over
94 11.6 20.8 33.6 22.1 7.7 4.2
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 13.3 21 32.7 17.8 13.1 2.1
Decreased 2110 14.6 20.7 26.2 22.4 13.4 2.6
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 18.7 21.9 25 17.4 16.8 0.3
Between 10% and 29% 1326 14.2 22.2 29 18.8 14.1 1.8
Between 30% and 49% 1628 12.9 21.3 30.5 20.4 12.8 2.1
50% or more 1236 13.5 21.4 31.9 20.4 10.5 2.2
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 13.2 18.9 32.9 22.9 10.5 1.7
No 2891 14.4 22.4 26.9 16.2 17.3 2.8
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 140

Table 42a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Good access to external
information and knowledge by country
QUESTION: Q8_g. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Good access to external information and knowledge,
including technology support services

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 6.3 13.6 40 34.1 4.2 1.9
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 6 15.2 32.4 36.8 5.5 4.2

Bulgaria
204 4 9.7 31.4 51.9 1.5 1.6

Czech Rep.
200 4.3 38.3 32.5 23.1 0.5 1.3

Denmark
201 9.7 20.5 43.8 19.7 5 1.4

Germany
250 8.2 14.4 40.3 32.8 4.3 0

Estonia
200 9.5 14.5 37.7 31.2 5.6 1.6

Greece
201 6.2 5.2 35.8 51.7 0 1.1

Spain
250 5 13 33.4 42.7 3.6 2.3

France
250 7.5 11.4 55.4 19.7 4.9 1.1

Ireland
200 3.7 9.1 43.4 40.7 2.5 0.8

Italy
251 6.8 16.3 38.8 35.1 1.3 1.7

Cyprus
50 12.2 8.2 20.6 51.6 4.7 2.7

Latvia
202 15.7 7.2 33.7 38.3 3.7 1.4

Lithuania
202 3.5 9.7 45.3 37.6 1.6 2.3

Luxembourg
51 6.9 4.5 31.7 50.9 4.3 1.7

Hungary
202 3.8 5 16.6 60.7 11.7 2.3

Malta
50 3.3 6 18.6 58.8 11.1 2.2

Netherlands
200 3.2 19.9 26.4 32.4 15.7 2.4

Austria
200 4.4 6.3 36 48.5 3.2 1.6

Poland
200 5.3 15 50.5 24.7 3.4 1.1

Portugal
201 3.4 9.9 37.3 42.7 6 0.8

Romania
200 3.6 1.7 27.3 58.8 3.1 5.5

Slovenia
200 3.5 7.2 49.8 37.1 0.5 1.9

Slovakia
200 3.1 19.5 29.5 38.1 4 5.8

Finland
205 10.2 20 44.8 23.5 1.1 0.5

Sweden
200 4.3 19.3 42.4 25.2 2.5 6.4

United
Kingdom
251 8.2 9.7 39.5 31.7 7.1 3.7
Flash EB N
o
page 141
Table 42b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Good access to external
information and knowledge - by segments
QUESTION: Q8_g. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Good access to external information and knowledge,
including technology support services

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 6.3 13.6 40 34.1 4.2 1.9
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 6.4 13.4 39.3 34.6 4.4 1.9
50+ employees 885 5.7 14.5 43.1 31.8 3.3 1.6
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 5.2 14.5 38.9 34.9 4.3 2.3
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 7.6 12 55.5 24.4 0.4 0.1
Manufacture 2843 7.5 14.6 37.9 34.4 3.8 1.7
Food services 543 3.8 6 49.8 30.8 7.6 2
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 7.5 17 38.9 30.9 4 1.7
10-50 million euro 449 5 11.9 44.9 31.5 3.5 3.2
50 million euro and
over
94 0.9 7 45.1 40.7 4.2 2.1
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 4.8 13.8 42.7 33.2 4 1.5
Decreased 2110 8.1 13.2 35 37.3 4.5 2
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 6.3 15.7 43.3 29.7 4.5 0.4
Between 10% and 29% 1326 6.6 13.3 41.3 32.3 4.2 2.3
Between 30% and 49% 1628 7.3 14.5 38 35.8 3.1 1.3
50% or more 1236 5.6 13.1 41.2 36.7 2.2 1.2
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 4.7 12.5 40.2 39.6 2 1.1
No 2891 7.5 14.4 39.8 29.7 6.1 2.5
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 142

Table 43a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Good business partners by
country
QUESTION: Q8_h. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Good business partners

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 7.5 11.4 30.9 44.7 4.1 1.4
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 5.2 11.3 27.3 49.5 5.1 1.6

Bulgaria
204 0.8 4.8 23.5 69.3 0.5 1

Czech Rep.
200 1.4 26.1 32.4 38.7 0.5 0.8

Denmark
201 6.1 9.8 46.9 32.6 3.6 0.9

Germany
250 3.4 6.6 19.6 68.4 2.1 0

Estonia
200 4.6 7.3 26.7 57.7 2.2 1.4

Greece
201 5 2.3 29.9 61.6 1.1 0

Spain
250 16.2 18.9 24.6 34.5 5 0.8

France
250 10.6 11 49.4 23.6 4.5 0.9

Ireland
200 5.3 17.2 32 38.2 5.2 2.1

Italy
251 10.7 17.1 35.1 33.5 2 1.5

Cyprus
50 4.1 6.2 16.2 69.3 1.6 2.7

Latvia
202 11 2.9 23.9 60.8 1.2 0.3

Lithuania
202 1.6 3.7 35.7 55.9 1.3 1.7

Luxembourg
51 4.6 0 14.6 79.2 0 1.7

Hungary
202 4.4 4.7 11.1 66.2 11.7 1.9

Malta
50 11 3.3 9.3 26.6 46 3.8

Netherlands
200 2.6 14.5 27.4 36.5 15.5 3.5

Austria
200 3.2 3.9 17.4 73.4 0.5 1.6

Poland
200 4.4 10.8 39 43.2 1.7 0.8

Portugal
201 3.6 7.2 21.4 61.3 6.4 0.1

Romania
200 1.2 1.8 17.6 72.9 0.8 5.7

Slovenia
200 0.5 8.9 40.5 48.1 0 1.9

Slovakia
200 3.3 8.7 26 54.5 1.7 5.8

Finland
205 4.3 10 43 42.2 0 0.5

Sweden
200 5.6 7.6 34.9 44.4 2.6 4.9

United
Kingdom
251 11 11.4 30.1 33.8 11.3 2.4
Flash EB N
o
page 143
Table 43b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Good business partners - by
segments
QUESTION: Q8_h. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Good business partners

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 7.5 11.4 30.9 44.7 4.1 1.4
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 7.1 11.1 30.3 45.7 4.3 1.5
50+ employees 885 9.3 13.2 33.7 39.5 3 1.2
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 5.5 11.2 29 49.2 4 1.1
Construction 1526 6.7 10.9 33.9 43.7 3.1 1.7
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 4.1 17.7 34.8 41.5 1.7 0.2
Manufacture 2843 7.5 12.2 28.6 46.5 3.9 1.3
Food services 543 11.1 7.5 34.8 36.7 8.5 1.4
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 7.9 10.8 27.7 48.1 4.5 1
2-10 million euro 1587 8.3 12.6 32.7 41.9 3.5 1
10-50 million euro 449 5.4 10.9 36.2 43.3 1.9 2.2
50 million euro and
over
94 0.6 17 38.8 38.4 1.2 3.9
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 6.3 10.6 31.1 47.6 3.2 1.2
Decreased 2110 9 11.7 27.2 45.9 4.6 1.6
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 12 14.4 33.8 34.7 4.9 0.2
Between 10% and 29% 1326 7.6 11.8 32.2 42.9 4 1.5
Between 30% and 49% 1628 6.4 10.3 29.2 49.7 3.6 0.8
50% or more 1236 7.1 11.3 31 46.8 2.4 1.4
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 6.9 10.1 30.8 49.2 2.2 0.9
No 2891 7.9 12.5 31 41 5.7 1.8
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 144

Table 44a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Current high energy price
by country
QUESTION: Q8_i. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Current high energy prices (as an incentive to innovative, to

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 5.1 10.7 29.3 50.4 3.2 1.3
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 3.5 5.7 21.5 65.7 2.5 1

Bulgaria
204 3.2 5.8 27.1 60.1 1.3 2.3

Czech Rep.
200 2.8 34.7 31 29.7 1 0.8

Denmark
201 4.2 15.1 36.3 40.2 3.2 1

Germany
250 5.4 10.7 26.4 54.1 3.4 0

Estonia
200 9.7 6.3 25.3 50 8.3 0.5

Greece
201 1.9 1.1 24 70.2 2.3 0.5

Spain
250 1.7 7.8 13.1 76.4 0.6 0.4

France
250 6.4 11.1 40.9 37.3 3.9 0.5

Ireland
200 2.2 5.9 35.5 53.2 2.3 1

Italy
251 6.4 17 32.8 40.7 2 1.1

Cyprus
50 1.4 2 16.9 77.1 0 2.7

Latvia
202 5.2 3.5 23.8 62.5 3.4 1.6

Lithuania
202 0.4 3.3 21.4 71.9 1.9 1.1

Luxembourg
51 5.9 6 27.5 58 0 2.6

Hungary
202 3.4 4.8 18.4 58.1 12.4 2.8

Malta
50 7.7 2.2 6 84.1 0 0

Netherlands
200 3.3 16.9 28.3 39.8 9.3 2.4

Austria
200 3.2 6.1 27.4 58.3 4 1

Poland
200 8.1 8.5 38.1 42.6 2.2 0.6

Portugal
201 4.6 2.5 17 70.1 5.3 0.6

Romania
200 2.3 2.6 18.8 70.2 0.9 5.2

Slovenia
200 2.7 7.3 32.1 56 0 1.9

Slovakia
200 4.5 7.7 22.9 56.2 3.2 5.3

Finland
205 7.5 7.9 39.5 44.6 0.5 0

Sweden
200 9.2 11.2 28 43 2.9 5.7

United
Kingdom
251 4.8 8.3 34.9 43.2 5.4 3.4
Flash EB N
o
page 145
Table 44b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Current high energy price -
by segments
QUESTION: Q8_i. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Current high energy prices (as an incentive to innovative, to

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 5.1 10.7 29.3 50.4 3.2 1.3
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 5.4 10.5 28.7 50.6 3.4 1.4
50+ employees 885 3.4 11.7 32.2 49.5 2.3 1
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 4.6 10.5 31.3 48.1 3.9 1.6
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 3.6 6.6 44.7 44.7 0.3 0.1
Manufacture 2843 6.1 12 28.1 49.5 3 1.3
Food services 543 2.1 5.7 27.7 59.6 3.8 1.1
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 6.3 13.3 29.7 46.7 3.2 0.8
10-50 million euro 449 3 10.5 34.7 47.7 1.7 2.4
50 million euro and
over
94 5.2 10.7 37.1 44.2 0.5 2.2
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 4.3 9.3 30.7 51.7 3 1
Decreased 2110 6 9.7 25.3 54.2 3.6 1.3
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 7.8 10.1 31.5 45.4 5.2 0
Between 10% and 29% 1326 5 11.6 30.5 49.7 2.2 1.1
Between 30% and 49% 1628 4.3 11.8 27 52.5 3.3 1.2
50% or more 1236 5.3 9.8 30.8 51.6 1.5 1
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 3.2 8.7 28.4 57.1 1.9 0.7
No 2891 6.6 12.2 30.1 45 4.3 1.8
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 146

Table 45a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future increases in
energy price by country
QUESTION: Q8_j. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Expected future increases in energy prices

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 5.3 8.8 29.6 52.3 2.4 1.6
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 3.8 3.1 28.6 60.4 3.5 0.5

Bulgaria
204 1.4 6 24.7 66 1 0.8

Czech Rep.
200 2.2 40.4 25.4 30.2 0.9 0.8

Denmark
201 5.2 7.8 39.7 43.1 3.1 1.1

Germany
250 5 6.9 28.5 58.4 0.9 0.4

Estonia
200 5.8 4.5 22.8 60.8 4.2 1.9

Greece
201 3.5 1.8 18.6 75.9 0.2 0

Spain
250 2.9 6.5 13.9 74.9 0.6 1.2

France
250 7.5 10.1 47.7 28.9 4.1 1.6

Ireland
200 0 3.3 25.2 68.2 1.5 1.8

Italy
251 8.2 14.3 31.5 42.3 2.1 1.6

Cyprus
50 3.3 4.3 8 77.5 2.7 4.3

Latvia
202 6.6 3.5 22.7 62.3 3.3 1.6

Lithuania
202 2.4 4.3 18.5 72.7 0.8 1.2

Luxembourg
51 8.7 3.4 36.7 51.2 0 0

Hungary
202 9.1 4.5 12 58.6 10.4 5.4

Malta
50 5.5 2.2 7.7 84.6 0 0

Netherlands
200 2.4 15.6 24.9 46.4 8.3 2.4

Austria
200 2.5 4.5 28.1 61.8 2.2 1

Poland
200 7 5.4 32.4 54.1 1.1 0

Portugal
201 3 6.7 10.2 74.9 5.2 0.1

Romania
200 1.7 3 23.5 66.1 0 5.7

Slovenia
200 3.8 4.3 30.1 59.8 0 1.9

Slovakia
200 4.2 7.1 24.9 55.4 2.8 5.5

Finland
205 6 8.8 36 46.6 0.6 2

Sweden
200 7.1 10.2 34.6 39.9 3.8 4.4

United
Kingdom
251 3.3 3 35.7 53.4 2.2 2.4
Flash EB N
o
page 147
Table 45b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future increases in
energy price - by segments
QUESTION: Q8_j. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Expected future increases in energy prices

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 5.3 8.8 29.6 52.3 2.4 1.6
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 5.5 8.9 28.9 52.6 2.5 1.7
50+ employees 885 4.6 8.2 32.8 51.2 2.1 1.1
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 4.8 7.3 22.9 61.2 2.8 1
Construction 1526 5.5 9.9 30.9 49.4 2.7 1.6
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 0.9 9 37 52.8 0.2 0.1
Manufacture 2843 6.1 9 29.2 52.2 2.2 1.4
Food services 543 2 5.4 28.7 58.1 2.8 2.9
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 5.4 9.8 31.6 49.6 2 1.6
10-50 million euro 449 4.7 7.8 33.7 50.6 1.7 1.6
50 million euro and
over
94 3.1 5.8 45.7 41.8 0.4 3.1
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 3.9 6.7 31 55.6 1.7 1.1
Decreased 2110 6.3 8.8 24.9 55.7 2.8 1.5
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 9 8.4 31.2 45.3 5.6 0.5
Between 10% and 29% 1326 5.3 9.5 30.4 51.1 1.4 2.1
Between 30% and 49% 1628 5.7 8.6 29.5 53.4 1.6 1.3
50% or more 1236 4.1 8.4 29.2 55.9 1.8 0.6
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 4.1 6.8 27.9 59.5 1 0.8
No 2891 6.3 10.5 30.9 46.6 3.5 2.3
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 148

Table 46a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Existing regulations,
including standards by country
QUESTION: Q8_l. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Existing regulations, including standards

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 7.3 14.6 41 29.8 4.2 3.1
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 6 8.7 36.9 41.1 3.4 4

Bulgaria
204 4.5 8.8 30.3 50.3 2.6 3.5

Czech Rep.
200 4.3 25.3 45.1 23.1 1 1.3

Denmark
201 13.7 17.7 41.5 19.6 3.7 3.8

Germany
250 6.9 22.8 41.1 24.2 4.2 0.8

Estonia
200 13 9.9 40.3 29.8 3.3 3.8

Greece
201 5 6.2 44.1 35.3 1.3 8

Spain
250 7.1 14.3 37.7 36.1 1.3 3.5

France
250 11.4 6.6 53.4 21.1 5.8 1.6

Ireland
200 3.7 11.7 43.3 37.3 1.7 2.3

Italy
251 6.5 18.3 37.4 33.2 2.7 1.9

Cyprus
50 5.9 12 24 50 0 8.1

Latvia
202 19 17.4 27.9 29.8 3 2.9

Lithuania
202 1.9 12 38.7 40.1 3.1 4.2

Luxembourg
51 6.2 7.1 34.1 50 2.6 0

Hungary
202 8.2 6.4 24.1 42.7 15.4 3.2

Malta
50 11.6 0 17.1 68 3.3 0

Netherlands
200 7.5 17.4 35.9 24.7 11.8 2.8

Austria
200 1.7 16.6 49.3 24 4.3 4.1

Poland
200 7.2 14.8 46.3 25.7 2.8 3.2

Portugal
201 3.8 11.8 44.8 35.4 3.2 1

Romania
200 3.9 7.5 30.7 48.5 1.9 7.5

Slovenia
200 2.3 12.5 47.1 34.5 0 3.6

Slovakia
200 6.9 19.9 33.2 25.4 6.4 8.3

Finland
205 8.9 21.3 39.3 29.6 0.9 0

Sweden
200 13.6 21.2 33.1 13.2 5.2 13.7

United
Kingdom
251 6.5 8.1 40.9 31.5 6.7 6.3
Flash EB N
o
page 149
Table 46b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Existing regulations,
including standards - by segments
QUESTION: Q8_l. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Existing regulations, including standards

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 7.3 14.6 41 29.8 4.2 3.1
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 7.1 14.8 40.6 30.3 4.1 3.1
50+ employees 885 8.2 13.2 43.3 27.4 4.9 3.1
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 6.6 14.7 42.8 29 3.9 2.9
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 16.5 19.8 31.6 31.6 0 0.5
Manufacture 2843 7.3 15.3 39.8 30.2 4.3 3.2
Food services 543 7.7 9.1 44.7 29.1 5.9 3.4
TURNOVER
Up to 2 million euro 2511 7.6 14.7 40 31.2 4 2.6
2-10 million euro 1587 8 15.4 42.8 27 4.6 2.1
10-50 million euro 449 6.6 13.8 41.3 30.6 3 4.7
50 million euro and
over
94 4 16 42.6 31.2 1.9 4.3
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 7.8 12.4 43.4 30.2 3.2 3
Remained unchanged 1518 6.5 16.2 42.8 26.9 4.5 3
Decreased 2110 7.9 14.6 38.4 32 4.1 2.9
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 7.4 11.8 45.8 28.9 4.8 1.3
Between 10% and 29% 1326 8.3 13.6 45.6 26.5 3.2 2.8
Between 30% and 49% 1628 7.6 17.2 39.6 30.2 3.5 2
50% or more 1236 5.8 16.3 37.2 32.9 4.1 3.7
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 6.2 13 41.9 34.1 2.7 2.2
No 2891 8.2 15.8 40.4 26.3 5.4 3.9
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 150

Table 47a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future regulations
imposing new standards by country
QUESTION: Q8_m. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Expected future regulations imposing new standards

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 7.7 14.2 38 32.6 3.9 3.7
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 6.1 8 35.8 41.5 4.1 4.5

Bulgaria
204 4.5 6.7 35.9 48.4 2.5 2

Czech Rep.
200 3.6 21.5 47.8 23.6 1 2.6

Denmark
201 6.8 17.1 38.8 30 3.4 3.9

Germany
250 12.5 19.5 32.8 29.2 5 0.9

Estonia
200 11.2 5.9 34.8 34 6.5 7.7

Greece
201 2.7 1.7 40.2 53.1 0 2.4

Spain
250 4.4 11.3 36.6 42.6 0.9 4

France
250 8.6 11.5 47.3 26.5 3.9 2.1

Ireland
200 5.4 9 38.5 40.2 1.9 5

Italy
251 8.3 22.1 32 32.5 2.1 3.1

Cyprus
50 6 10.5 26.1 47.6 2 7.9

Latvia
202 11.7 9.1 29.2 38.4 4.2 7.5

Lithuania
202 2.2 7.4 38 46.1 1.6 4.7

Luxembourg
51 2.9 3.1 35.8 57.3 0.9 0

Hungary
202 8.8 5 23 40.3 11.8 11

Malta
50 11 4.4 13.8 63.1 3.3 4.4

Netherlands
200 6.4 15 30.7 30.9 14.1 2.9

Austria
200 7.6 14 46 24.9 2.9 4.6

Poland
200 6.7 13.1 43.1 30.9 3.6 2.5

Portugal
201 8.7 13.1 44.2 27.7 4.1 2.2

Romania
200 2.9 7.3 33 48 2.2 6.7

Slovenia
200 2.4 9.8 41.6 43 0 3.2

Slovakia
200 5.1 12.7 34.5 30.9 5.1 11.7

Finland
205 5.9 15.3 46.7 29.8 1.4 0.9

Sweden
200 11.7 21.5 33.4 19.2 5.8 8.4

United
Kingdom
251 6.5 6.2 43.9 30.6 5.2 7.6
Flash EB N
o
page 151
Table 47b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Expected future regulations
imposing new standards - by segments
QUESTION: Q8_m. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Expected future regulations imposing new standards

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 7.7 14.2 38 32.6 3.9 3.7
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 7.9 14.5 37 32.8 3.9 3.9
50+ employees 885 6.6 12.7 42.7 31.8 3.4 2.8
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 6.1 13.3 38.6 35 3.6 3.4
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 6.2 15.2 44.9 30.5 0 3.3
Manufacture 2843 9.3 15.5 36.8 30.8 3.8 3.8
Food services 543 5.5 9.7 41.3 33.9 6 3.5
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 9.1 14.8 37.6 31.5 3.6 3.5
10-50 million euro 449 8.2 10.4 44.2 30.8 3.3 3.1
50 million euro and
over
94 2.1 19.8 30.4 42.3 1.4 4.1
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 7.6 12.6 39.8 32.4 3.6 3.9
Remained unchanged 1518 7.3 15.2 39.4 31.3 4 2.7
Decreased 2110 8.4 14.1 35.6 34.3 3.8 3.7
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 7.9 11.4 42.8 30.6 5.8 1.6
Between 10% and 29% 1326 8.2 15.5 38.4 31.8 3 3.2
Between 30% and 49% 1628 8.7 16.4 36.3 32.8 3.3 2.5
50% or more 1236 6.6 12.8 39 34.9 3.1 3.5
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 7.2 12.6 37.8 36.6 2.7 3
No 2891 8.1 15.4 38.1 29.4 4.8 4.2
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 152

Table 48a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Access to existing subsidies
and fiscal incentives by country
QUESTION: Q8_n. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 7.4 13.9 31.8 40.2 4.6 2.1
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 5.2 13.1 30.4 42.9 5.2 3.3

Bulgaria
204 3.6 3.6 24.4 64.4 2.4 1.6

Czech Rep.
200 4.2 29.1 34.1 27.8 3.1 1.7

Denmark
201 16.6 29.5 32.1 14.8 4.3 2.7

Germany
250 10.1 18.9 34.7 30.9 5 0.4

Estonia
200 11.1 8.9 29.3 44.5 5.3 0.9

Greece
201 3.4 4.6 23.3 67.7 0.4 0.5

Spain
250 2.5 8.6 25.5 60.5 2.1 0.8

France
250 12.9 10.9 42 30.4 3.6 0.2

Ireland
200 7.4 14.4 32.2 39.1 5.1 1.7

Italy
251 6.1 16.9 30.3 43.8 1.2 1.7

Cyprus
50 5.9 5.5 18.8 61.3 4.3 4.3

Latvia
202 11 7.3 21.3 50.9 8.1 1.4

Lithuania
202 0.8 11.2 31.6 46.3 5.4 4.7

Luxembourg
51 8.9 4.3 26.3 56.1 4.3 0

Hungary
202 2.2 1.8 11.6 71.7 11.7 1.1

Malta
50 3.3 8.8 4.9 80.8 2.2 0

Netherlands
200 4.8 18.4 27.3 31.7 14 3.8

Austria
200 4 10.6 28.4 52.2 2.7 2.2

Poland
200 8.4 15.1 34.2 39.7 2.4 0.3

Portugal
201 6.8 6.8 31.6 43.4 9.8 1.5

Romania
200 1.8 5.5 22.2 59 4.2 7.3

Slovenia
200 4.4 5.8 36.6 47.6 2.6 3

Slovakia
200 3.3 13 27.1 45.7 5.2 5.6

Finland
205 12 16.6 41.8 24.6 3.5 1.6

Sweden
200 12.4 17.1 36.4 24.1 2.4 7.6

United
Kingdom
251 8.2 16.2 33.4 23.5 11.1 7.7
Flash EB N
o
page 153
Table 48b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Access to existing subsidies
and fiscal incentives - by segments
QUESTION: Q8_n. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 7.4 13.9 31.8 40.2 4.6 2.1
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 7.3 13.5 31.1 41.1 4.9 2
50+ employees 885 8.1 15.5 35.4 35.7 2.9 2.5
ACTIVITY
Construction 1526 7.2 12.5 31.5 42.1 4.8 2
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 4.1 21.1 36.1 37.6 0.6 0.6
Manufacture 2843 7.4 15.4 32 38.6 4.3 2.3
Food services 543 10.5 9.5 30.6 40.7 6.6 2.1
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 8.6 14 33.6 38.1 3.8 1.9
10-50 million euro 449 6.1 20.9 38.1 30.1 3.9 0.9
50 million euro and
over
94 6.7 18.2 36 33.9 3.9 1.3
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 7.6 14.6 33.9 37.3 4.3 2.4
Decreased 2110 7.3 12 30.1 44.6 4.4 1.7
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 9.4 14.2 33.7 36.4 5.7 0.7
Between 10% and 29% 1326 8.9 14.2 32.9 38.8 3.3 1.9
Between 30% and 49% 1628 6.4 15.2 30.4 41.8 4.6 1.6
50% or more 1236 7.4 12.8 32.6 43 2.9 1.3
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 6.6 13.3 30.9 45.6 2.4 1.2
No 2891 8.1 14.4 32.6 35.8 6.3 2.8
Annex Flash EB N
o

page 154

Table 49a. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Increasing market demand
for green products by country
QUESTION: Q8_o. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Increasing market demand for green products

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27
5222 7.8 14.7 31.9 35.8 7.8 2
COUNTRY

Belgium
201 7 9.8 30.1 45.5 6.6 1

Bulgaria
204 9.5 10.8 28 41.5 7.2 2.9

Czech Rep.
200 6.4 44 22.9 21.5 3.4 1.8

Denmark
201 8.8 17.2 35.1 32.6 4.6 1.6

Germany
250 8.8 14.6 31.7 33.3 11.2 0.4

Estonia
200 13.6 10.3 29 27.9 15.5 3.6

Greece
201 2 2.6 24.2 67.3 3.8 0

Spain
250 8.4 14.3 24.5 48.9 2.4 1.5

France
250 10.8 15.7 40.4 26.1 6.1 0.9

Ireland
200 3.9 14.1 41.3 34.3 3.7 2.7

Italy
251 7.7 15.8 30.5 39.3 4.9 1.7

Cyprus
50 5.3 7.7 23.4 45.1 11.6 7

Latvia
202 19.9 11.7 21.4 36.2 9.5 1.3

Lithuania
202 3.1 10.3 34 39.7 7.8 5.1

Luxembourg
51 5.8 4.3 42.8 46.1 0.9 0

Hungary
202 10.5 6.4 10 41.1 29.8 2.3

Malta
50 5.5 10 12.2 62.3 9.9 0

Netherlands
200 7.1 18.1 25.4 26.9 19.6 3

Austria
200 6 7.5 35.1 46 3.2 2.2

Poland
200 6.2 16.5 38.1 32.5 5.5 1.2

Portugal
201 5.3 10.4 24.9 41.4 16.8 1.2

Romania
200 0.9 5.1 25.2 51.3 9.1 8.4

Slovenia
200 6.7 10.3 44.9 33 1.2 3.8

Slovakia
200 6 21.9 21.5 33.3 8.4 8.9

Finland
205 9.8 16.8 43.6 25.1 4.7 0

Sweden
200 5.8 10.1 31.7 41.7 4.8 5.9

United
Kingdom
251 6.6 13.6 41.9 26.7 8 3.3
Flash EB N
o
page 155
Table 49b. Drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation: Increasing market demand
for green products - by segments
QUESTION: Q8_o. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
or not at all important driver in case of your company? - Increasing market demand for green products

Total N
% Not at
all
important
% Not
important
%
Somewhat
important
% Very
important
% Not
applicable
%
DK/NA

EU27 5222 7.8 14.7 31.9 35.8 7.8 2
COMPANY SIZE
1049 employees 4337 7.5 14.7 31.2 36.4 8 2.2
50+ employees 885 8.9 15.2 35.2 32.9 6.6 1.2
ACTIVITY
Agriculture and fishing 205 2.9 11.8 31.1 47.2 6 0.9
Construction 1526 7.4 14.1 34.6 34.5 7.5 1.9
Water supply;
sewerage; waste
management and
106 15.5 27.4 29.2 25.5 2.2 0.2
Manufacture 2843 8.6 15.2 29.7 35.8 8.6 2.2
Food services 543 4.8 12.8 36.8 37.1 6.3 2.1
TURNOVER
2-10 million euro 1587 8.7 16.9 32 32.4 8.2 1.9
10-50 million euro 449 7.7 12.3 43.5 28 7 1.6
50 million euro and
over
94 4.7 16.2 28.3 45.2 2.4 3.1
ANNUAL
TURNOVER OVER
THE PAST 2 YRS

Increased 1461 6.8 13.8 35.8 35.6 6.5 1.6
Decreased 2110 8.8 14 27.4 38.3 9.2 2.2
MATERIAL COST
Less than 10% 485 9.8 17.2 32.1 30.6 10.2 0.1
Between 10% and 29% 1326 8.1 15.4 33 34.9 6.9 1.8
Between 30% and 49% 1628 8.1 14.5 32.3 35.9 7.4 1.8
50% or more 1236 6.2 14.9 32.7 38.8 5.8 1.6
ECO-INNOVATION
Yes 2331 5.9 11 32.7 44.3 4.7 1.4
No 2891 9.3 17.8 31.2 29 10.3 2.5

Annex Flash EB N
o

page 156
II. Survey details

This Flash Eurobarometer survey Attitudes of European Entrepreneurs towards eco-innovation (N
o

315) was conducted on behalf of the DG Environment of the European Commission, Unit F3 -
Communication. The objective of the survey was to investigate the behaviour, attitudes and
expectations of entrepreneurs towards the development and uptake of eco-innovation as a response to
rising prices of resources and resource scarcity.

The interviews in most countries were conducted between the 24
th
January

and 1
st
February 2011, by
partner institutes of The Gallup Organization Hungary:

Belgium BE Gallup Europe (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Czech Republic CZ Focus Agency (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Denmark DK Norstat Denmark (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Germany DE IFAK (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Estonia EE Saar Poll (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Greece EL Metroanalysis (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Spain ES Gallup Spain (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
France FR Efficience3 (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Ireland IE Gallup UK (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Italy IT Demoskopea (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Cyprus CY CYMAR (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Latvia LV Latvian Facts (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Lithuania LT Baltic Survey (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Luxembourg LU Gallup Europe (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Hungary HU Gallup Hungary (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Malta MT MISCO (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Netherlands NL MSR (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Austria AT Spectra (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Poland PL Gallup Poland (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Portugal PT Consulmark (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Slovenia SI Cati d.o.o. (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Slovakia SK Focus Agency (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Finland FI Norstat Finland Oy (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Sweden SE Norstat Sweden (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
United Kingdom UK Gallup UK (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Bulgaria BG Vitosha Research (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)
Romania RO Gallup Romania (Interviews : 24/01/2011 01/02/2011)

Representativeness of the results

The target group for this Flash Eurobarometer was defined as companies small (10-49 employees) and
medium (50-249 employees) and operating in the 27 Member States of the European Union. Target
activities of the survey were the sectors of Agriculture, Manufacturing, Water supply and waste
management, Construction and Food services.

The lists of companies qualified to be interviewed were developed by Dun and Bradstreet. Where the
D&B database had a poor coverage (especially in the New Member States), the sample lists were
developed by national institutes using local statistical data sources. The survey sample was selected
randomly.

Weighting

During data processing, each cell in the cross distribution of sectors and employee size groups in the
sample was weighted according to its actual, empirically verified known weight within the survey
Flash EB N
o
page 157
region. Thus, the total results are representative of the total universe examined both for country-level
as well as global (e.g. EU-27) estimations. Country weights for global estimations were developed on
the basis of the size of the universe in each country.

The person interviewed in each company was manager /director or the person responsible for strategic
planning and decision making.

The interviewers checked the identity of this person as well as the accuracy of the enterprise sampling
characteristics, as delivered by sample list, namely: the number of employees and the activity of the
company.

Sizes of the samples

The targeted number of interviews varied dependent on the size of the country. In most countries, the
targeted sample size was 200. However, in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, the sample size
was increased to 250, while in Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta, the sample size was reduced to 50.

Total
interviews
conducted
Total
interviews
conducted
Belgium 201 Malta 50
Czech Republic 200 Netherlands 200
Denmark 201 Austria 200
Germany 250 Poland 200
Estonia 200 Portugal 201
Greece 201 Slovenia 200
Spain 250 Slovakia 200
France 250 Finland 205
Ireland 200 Sweden 200
Italy 251 UK 251
Cyprus 50 Bulgaria 204
Latvia 202 Romania 200
Lithuania 202
Luxembourg 51
Hungary 202 TOTAL 5,222

Questionnaires

The questionnaire prepared for this survey contained two parts: the company information and the
question regarding the main questionnaire.

The institutes listed above translated the questionnaire to their respective national language(s) using a
centralized process of back-translation procedure, involving two initial local translations, independent
back-translation and central verification of the localised questionnaires.

Annex Flash EB N
o

page 158
III. Questionnaire

Attitudes of European entrepreneurs towards eco-innovation

D1. How many employees do you have in your company?
[READ OUT ONLY ONE ANSWER]
- Less than 10..................................................[THANK AND TERMINATE]
- 10-49............................................................................................................. 1
- 50-249........................................................................................................... 2
- 250 or more...................................................[THANK AND TERMINATE]
- [DK/NA].......................................................[THANK AND TERMINATE]

D4. What is the main activity of your company?
[READ OUT THE MAIN CATEGORIES, THAN CONTINUE WITH THE SUB-CATEGORIES]
Agriculture and fishing
Agriculture, hunting and related service activities........................................ 11
Fishing, fish farming and related service activities....................................... 12
Forestry and logging ..................................................................................... 13
Fishing and aquaculture ................................................................................ 14
Construction
Construction of buildings.............................................................................. 15
Civil engineering........................................................................................... 16
Specialised construction activities ................................................................ 17
Water supply; sewerage; waste management and remediation activities
Water collection, treatment and supply......................................................... 18
Sewerage....................................................................................................... 19
Remediation activities and other waste management services ..................... 20
Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery....... 21
Manufacture
Manufacture of food/ tobacco products
Manufacture of food products or beverages ................................................. 22
Manufacture of tobacco products.................................................................. 23
Manufacture of paper and paper products..................................................... 24
Manufacture of textiles, wearing apparel, leather and related products........ 25
Manufacture of furniture............................................................................... 26
Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products .................................. 27
Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products........................................ 28
Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and
pharmaceutical preparations ......................................................................... 29
Manufacture of rubber and plastic products or other non-metallic
mineral products............................................................................................ 30
Manufacture of basic metals or fabricated metal products (except
machinery and equipment)............................................................................ 31
Manufacture of machinery and equipment
Manufacture of machinery and equipment .................................................. 32
Manufacture of transport equipment ............................................................ 33
Manufacture of electrical equipment ........................................................... 34
Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products........................... 35
Printing and reproduction of recorded media ............................................... 36
Food services
Restaurants and mobile food service activities ........................................... 37
Event catering and other food services ....................................................... 38
Beverage serving activities ...................................................................... 39

Flash EB N
o
page 159
D2. What is the annual turnover of your company?
- up to 2 million............................................................................................. 1
- 2-10 million ................................................................................................ 2
- 10-50 million .............................................................................................. 3
- 50 million and over..................................................................................... 4
- [DK/NA]....................................................................................................... 9

D3. Has your companys annual turnover decreased, remained unchanged or increased over the
past two years?
- Increased....................................................................................................... 1
- Remained unchanged.................................................................................... 2
- Decreased ..................................................................................................... 3
- [DK/NA]....................................................................................................... 9

Definition of eco-innovation: Eco-innovation is the introduction of any new or significantly
improved product (good or service), process, organisational change or marketing solution that
reduces the use of natural resources (including materials, energy, water and land) and decreases
the release of harmful substances across the whole life-cycle.

[ASK ALL]
Q1. What percentage of your companys total cost - i.e. gross production value - is material cost?
- Less than 10%............................................................................................... 1
- Between 10% and 29%................................................................................. 2
- Between 30% and 49%................................................................................. 3
- 50% or more ................................................................................................. 4
- [Not applicable] ............................................................................................ 8
- [DK/NA]....................................................................................................... 9

[ASK ALL]
Q2. Have material costs for your company increased or decreased in the past 5 years?
- Increased dramatically.................................................................................. 1
- Increased moderately.................................................................................... 2
- Remained unchanged.................................................................................... 3
- Decreased ..................................................................................................... 4
- [Not applicable] ............................................................................................ 8
- [DK/NA]....................................................................................................... 9

[ASK ALL]
- Yes, material costs will increase................................................................... 1
- No, material costs will remain approximately the same............................... 2
- No, material costs will decrease ................................................................... 3
- [Not applicable] ............................................................................................ 8
- [DK/NA]....................................................................................................... 9

Annex Flash EB N
o

page 160
[ASK ALL]
Q4. From what regions do most of the materials you use come / originate from?
[READ OUT MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE]
- Own country ................................................................................................. 1
- Other EU countries ....................................................................................... 2
- Other European countries (non-EU)............................................................. 3
- Asia............................................................................................................... 4
- Africa............................................................................................................ 5
- North America .............................................................................................. 6
- South America .............................................................................................. 7
- Australia and Oceania................................................................................... 8
- [DK/NA]....................................................................................................... 9

[ASK ALL]
[ROTATE - READ OUT- ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
- Mentioned ...............................................1
- Not mentioned.........................................2
- [Not applicable].......................................8
- [DK/NA] .................................................9

a. Changing business model................................................................... 1 2 8 9
b. Improving the material flow in the supply chain ............................... 1 2 8 9
c. Substituting expensive materials for a cheaper ones.......................... 1 2 8 9
d. Purchasing more efficient technologies ............................................. 1 2 8 9
e. Developing more efficient technologies in-house.............................. 1 2 8 9
f. Outsourcing production or service activities ...................................... 1 2 8 9
g. Recycling ........................................................................................... 1 2 8 9

[ASK ALL]
Q6. Over the last 5 years, what share of innovation investments in your company were related to
eco-innovation, i.e. implementing new or substantially improved solutions resulting in more
efficient use in material, energy and water?
- More than 50%............................................................................................. 1
- Between 30% and 49%................................................................................. 2
- Between 10% and 29%................................................................................. 3
- Less than 10%............................................................................................... 4
- None ............................................................................................................. 5
- [No innovative activities] ............................................................................. 8
- [DK/NA]....................................................................................................... 9

D5. During the past 24 months have you introduced the following eco-innovation
[READ OUT ONE ANSWER PER LINE]
- Yes ..........................................................1
- No............................................................2
- [DK/NA] .................................................9
a. a new or significantly improved eco-innovative product or service to the market..... 1 2 9
b. a new or significantly improved eco-innovative production process or method........ 1 2 9
c. a new or significantly improved eco-innovative organisational innovation............... 1 2 9

Flash EB N
o
page 161
[ASK IF THE ANSWER IS YES TO ANY OF THE ITEMS IN D5.]
Q0. How would you describe the relevance of innovation you have introduced in the past 24
months in terms of resource efficiency?
Less than 5% reduction of material use per unit output................................... 1
Between 5% to 19% reduction of material use per unit output....................... 2
Between 20% to 39% reduction of material use per unit output...................... 3
Between 40% to 60% reduction of material use per unit output...................... 4
More than 60% reduction of material use per unit output .............................. 5
[DK/NA] .......................................................................................................... 9

[ASK ALL]
Q7. I will list you some barriers that could represent an obstacle to accelerated eco-innovation
uptake and development for a company. Please tell me for each of them if you consider them a
very serious, somewhat serious, not serious or not at all serious barrier in case of your company?
- Very serious ...........................................4
- Somewhat serious ...................................3
- Not serious ..............................................2
- Not at all serious .....................................1
- [Not applicable].......................................8
- [DK/NA] .................................................9

a. Lack of funds within enterprise.......................................................................................... 1 2 9
b. Lack of external financing.................................................................................................. 1 2 9
c. Uncertain return on investment or too long payback period for eco-innovation................ 1 2 9
d. Lack of qualified personnel and technological capabilities within the enterprise.............. 1 2 9
e. Limited access to external information and knowledge, including lack of well-developed
technology support services............................................................................................. 1 2 9
f. Lack of suitable business partners ...................................................................................... 1 2 9
g. Lack of collaboration with research institutes and universities.......................................... 1 2 9
h. Uncertain demand from the market.................................................................................... 1 2 9
i. Reducing material use is not an innovation priority............................................................ 1 2 9
j. Reducing energy use is not an innovation priority.............................................................. 1 2 9
k. Technical and technological lock-ins in economy
(e.g. old technical infrastructures) ................................................................................ 1 2 9
l. Market dominated by established enterprises ..................................................................... 1 2 9
m. Existing regulations and structures not providing incentives to eco-innovate .................. 1 2 9
n. Insufficient access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives ........................................... 1 2 9

Annex Flash EB N
o

page 162
[ASK ALL]
Q8. I will list you some drivers that could accelerate eco-innovation uptake and development for a
company. Please tell me for each of them if you consider them a very important, somewhat important, not
important or not at all important driver in case of your company?

- Very important.............................................. 4
- Somewhat important ..................................... 3
- Not important................................................ 2
- Not at all important ....................................... 1
- [Not applicable] ............................................ 8
- [DK/NA] ....................................................... 9

a. Technological and management capabilities within the enterprise ........................................ 1 2 9
b. Secure or increase existing market share ................................................................................ 1 2 9
c. Current high material prices (as an incentive to innovate, to use less material and
decrease the cost) ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 9
d. Limited access to materials..................................................................................................... 1 2 9
e. Expected future material scarcity (as an incentive to develop innovative, less material-intensive
substitutes)............................................................................................................................. 1 2 9
f. Collaboration with research institutes, agencies and universities............................................ 1 2 9
g. Good access to external information and knowledge, including technology
support services.......................................................................................................................... 1 2 9
h. Good business partners ........................................................................................................... 1 2 9
i. Current high energy prices (as an incentive to innovative, to use less energy
and decrease the cost) ................................................................................................................ 1 2 9
j. Expected future increases in energy prices .............................................................................. 1 2 9
l. Existing regulations, including standards ............................................................................... 1 2 9
m. Expected future regulations imposing new standards............................................................ 1 2 9
n. Access to existing subsidies and fiscal incentives .................................................................. 1 2 9
o. Increasing market demand for green products ........................................................................ 1 2 9

Attitudes of European Entrepreneurs Towards Eco-Innovation Analytical Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attitudes of European Entrepreneurs Towards Eco-Innovation Analytical Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attitudes of European Entrepreneurs Towards Eco-Innovation Analytical Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

page 1

This survey was requested by Directorate-General Environment and coordinated by

You might also like