USA dethrone China and ranks first in the list of the most competitive industrialized countries by 2021. Portugal maintains 35th position.

Study based on an interview to more than 500 CEOs and directors of industrial production companies worldwide. Portugal maintains its position in the competitiveness ranking and the forecast is to hold that position in the next five years. Talent, cost competitiveness and workforce productivity are the three main factors driving competitiveness in the industry.

To see in detail the study follow the link:
https://www2.deloitte.com/pt/pt/pages/manufacturing/articles/global-manufacturing-competitiveness-index1.html

Innovation clusters are places with dense webs of interconnected tecnhology companies, customers, and suppliers. Improving a cluster´s chance of flourishing are factors such as liberal immigration laws or venture capital financing. In the map below we rate five of the largest regional tecnhology clusters as well as three newer, governement – supported efforts to fuel innovation in Russia, france and the United Kingdon.

Clusters and innovation districts are key sources of productivity growth in an economy. Productivity, the most important determinant of the growth in living standards in the long run, has experienced a significant slowdown globally in recent years. Clusters and districts have the potential to combat this slowdown. They are loci of innovation and rapid economic growth and can lead to increased collaboration between firms and universities.

Increased collaboration between firms, particularly small firms, and universities is important for the diffusion of knowledge in an economy. Knowledge diffusion is a key part of the solution to slow productivity growth. Clusters and innovation districts, which promote collaboration between firms and universities by providing firms with access to research labs and human talent, are then a potential part of the productivity solution.

There is broad agreement that clusters contribute to productivity and economic performance, but there are different schematics or frameworks used to analyze and describe them.

Based on these frameworks, listed below is a set of success factors to describe the characteristics that successful clusters and districts exhibit. Not all the success factors are present in every cluster, but enough must be present to allow the positive dynamics of a successful cluster to develop. The success factors are as follows:

1. Core Competency. There must be an economic rationale for the clusters—something that it is good at so that it can develop competitive strength .
2. People. There are three elements to the people requirements for a successful cluster: strong leadership, highly qualified researchers, and a skilled workforce.
3. Culture. There are two elements to the culture needed to develop a cluster. First a business and research culture that supports the sharing of ideas. And second, a lifestyle that attracts talented people to the cluster.
4. Business Capabilities. Successful start-up tech companies in a cluster must not only have good, innovative ideas, they must also acquire the business skills needed to develop the companies.
5. Sophisticated Demand. Innovative products and services must find a market. Ideally this market should come from within the cluster (a hospital center that provides demand for medical and biotech products, for example). Otherwise, the companies in the cluster must find a way to access such a market nationally or globally.
6. Access to Funding. Start-up companies require financial support. Funding is also needed for the infrastructure of the clusters, offices, labs, and so on.
7. Infrastructure Provision. Physical assets and public amenities such as airports, highways, housing, and building stock are the foundation of a cluster. Zoning rules must allow or encourage the development of start-up companies and labs.
8. Regulatory Environment. Cumbersome permitting processes can slow or stop the development of a cluster.

The best way to draw out policy lessons is to review the development of clusters in practice. The case studies identify and describe how the success factors described above apply to each of them. The case studies were chosen to highlight some of the most prominent clusters in the United States. They also illustrate that the success factors can be applied to clusters of all sizes (from Seaport Innovation District to Silicon Valley) and types (from polymers to pharmaceuticals).

https://www.clustermapping.us/about

A) Austin, Texas (Urban Cluster)

https://www.capitalcityinnovation.org/

Austin is home to the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin), is near Texas A&M University in College Station and several two-year colleges and training institutes, and is the location of the state government of Texas. Austin has developed a strong tech cluster and is known for its high quality of life and distinct cultural branding. Austin’s GDP was $135 billion in 2016.

• Core Competency. Austin developed a tech cluster by building on its research university and consortia infrastructure and by the early presence of tech companies.
• Infrastructure Provision. The city is well connected to the state and the rest of the country through freeways and air transport. Zoning restrictions in Texas are liberal, and there is land available for expansion. As the cluster has succeeded, this has pushed up land prices, but they remain much lower than in California.
• People. Strong Leadership. Early in Austin’s cluster development, UT Austin led a group that included business leaders and the state and local government to attract the first private, high-technology consortium, the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC). It later attracted SEMATECH, the national research consortium of semiconductor manufacturers. These consortiums played an integral part in increasing the research capabilities of the cluster.
• People. Highly Qualified Researchers. Prior to attracting the research consortia, the university and state government presence attracted important companies to the area. IBM, Texas Instruments, and Motorola created a nucleus of high technology companies in the location early on. In addition, Michael Dell started Dell Computer in his UT Austin dormitory.
  
  UT Austin made the city a desirable destination for technology companies and research consortia and, in turn, the presence of technology companies and research consortia made UT Austin more attractive to faculty and students. There was a feedback effect.
• People. A Skilled Workforce. The culture and the universities in Austin attracted and supplied the skilled workforce for the cluster. As the tech cluster developed, it attracted talent from Silicon Valley and around the country to augment its own talent base.
• Culture. Idea Sharing. The two consortia helped foster a cooperative, idea sharing culture.16 Capital Factory, an accelerator with co-working spaces, regularly holds networking events and meet-ups for entrepreneurs.
• Culture. People Amenities. The culture and lifestyle in Austin is world-renowned—it has developed a reputation as a low-cost, trendy, music, and cultural center with a high quality of life.17 The local government promotes and supports the culture in the city. The South by Southwest conference (SXSW) and festivals18 held in Austin attract start-ups and investors and help the city brand itself as an innovative tech and music town.
• Aptidão para os negócios. Juntamente com a Capital Factory mencionada acima, existem vários programas de incubadoras que ajudam no desenvolvimento de start-ups em Austin.
• Business Capabilities. Along with Capital Factory mentioned above, there are multiple incubator programs to aid in developing start-ups in Austin.
• Access to Funding. Austin initially did not have the base of angel investors or venture capitalists that is available in Silicon Valley. The early development of the cluster relied on financial support from the state (including through the universities), the federal government, and the contributions of the companies participating in the consortia. As the cluster developed, angel and venture funds set up operations in Austin.
• Regulatory Environment. Texas is a business friendly state where regulatory barriers are minimal.
• Summary: The Austin cluster emerged from a base of technical know-how in electronics as the result of deliberate efforts by the University of Texas and the state and local governments, funding from the federal government, a definitive culture, a business friendly regulatory environment, and help from the presence of established tech companies dating from the 1960s.

B) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Urban Cluster)

https://pittsburghpa.gov/innovation-performance/index.html

Pittsburgh was known as the “steel city” because of its iron and steel industry, however employment in the steel industry collapsed in the 1980s. It has since developed technology clusters around biotech, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Today, Pittsburgh is a symbol of renaissance following industrial decline. Pittsburgh’s GDP was $138 billion in 2016.

• Core Competency. The research capabilities of the University of Pittsburgh (UPitt) and Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) provided the foundations of the technology clusters.
• Infrastructure Provision. In the very early stages of the cluster, the city government along with local business and foundations, collaborated with the Allegheny Conference, which spearheaded an initiative to revitalize the downtown. The cluster also benefited from the construction of a state-of-the-art airport. As part of the plan for cluster development, local leaders made sure that zoning rules made land available.
  People: Strong Leadership. Then-Governor Dick Thornburgh laid out the key plan to recovery in 1982: The Ben Franklin Partnership Challenge Grant Program for Technological Innovation.
• People. Highly Qualified Researchers. Some pieces of an innovation ecosystem already existed within universities and existing federal research programs. The state program was therefore able to build on a pre-existing nucleus of technology strength.
  One of the keys to the recovery of Pittsburgh was that it was able to participate in the largest segment of the US economy, namely healthcare. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is a top-tier hospital and research institution and is the largest single employer in the county.25 Another existing strength was Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), a highly regarded institution that developed expertise in computer science and artificial intelligence. These institutions allowed Pittsburgh to develop two technology clusters: one around biotech and pharmaceuticals and the other around information technology.
• People. A Skilled Workforce. From the legacy of workers in the steel and consumer electronics industries, there was a skilled workforce available in Pittsburgh, although the skills were not easily transferable to the new clusters. Part of the Thornburgh plan was to develop community colleges and other facilities, which provided training in health and computer sciences.
• Culture. People Amenities. Pittsburgh has a strong cultural tradition dating back to the days of steel wealth and an even stronger sports tradition with leading teams in most major US sports. In addition, the city offers low cost of living. Business Capabilities. State government established regional technology centers to seed-fund new research, start-ups, workforce training efforts, and technology incubators.
• Sophisticated Demand. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center serves as a customer for sophisticated products and services, specifically around biotech and pharmaceuticals, and provides the facilities and expertise needed to response to the increased demand for medical research, particularly from federally funded opportunities through the Department of Human and Health Services (HHS).
• Access to Funding Federal funding was important to the health research institutions and Carnegie Mellon. The medical research centers have received substantial resources from the federal government and CMU has been the recipient of sizable federal research funding for its computer science, robotics, and artificial intelligence research. This, in turn, has attracted many of the leading tech companies to locate facilities in the area. In addition, the Thornburgh plan made venture capital investments in emerging companies using a mixture of public and foundation funding.
• Regulatory Environment. The Technology Centers provide mentoring to start-ups to help in dealing with regulatory barriers. While Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania are not as easy on regulatory and zoning requirements as Austin and Texas, they are making a tremendous effort to address regulatory barriers to economic growth.
• Summary. Pittsburgh’s success has been due in large part to the Thornburgh plan, positions in fast-growing sectors, a strong existing educational and research base, large amounts of federal and state funding, high quality culture, and low cost of living.

C) Research Triangle Park (Regional Cluster)

https://www.rtp.org/

The Research Triangle occupies 7,000 acres in North Carolina, includes the cities/town of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, and is outlined by three educational institutions: Duke University, University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill (UNC), and North Carolina State (NC State). The Park was created to increase research in the region’s universities and attract companies involved in research and development. The two most prominent clusters in the park are biotech and pharmaceuticals and information technology. Research Triangle Park’s GDP was $124 billion in 2016.

• Core Competency. Research Triangle Park was built on the strong research capabilities of the three universities. The medical centers at Duke and UNC have become premier health institutions.
• Infrastructure Provision. The Park benefited from new highways and an international airport. The Park is going through redevelopment, and there will soon be a Park Center.30 The Park is spread out and land is readily available for development.
• People. Strong Leadership. Local political and business leaders in North Carolina recognized that an economy based on low-wage manufacturing and agricultural jobs was not sustainable. To reverse the trend of “brain drain,” in which graduates were leaving the state for opportunities elsewhere, they developed a new path to prosperity. The then-Governor of North Carolina commissioned a concept report on the idea of a research park to attract companies to the land in between the state’s research universities. The Park was a private effort built upon the state’s existing research infrastructure and strengths. The entrepreneurial leadership and vision of Archibald Davis, an entrepreneur from Wachovia Bank and Trust, was crucial in developing the Park, growing the Park, and maintaining the Park’s position as a national research leader.
• People. Highly Qualified Researchers. The three research universities were at the core of the development of the Park. They provided the research infrastructure and personnel. Their research activities complemented the other research institutions in the park and together they formed strong informal groups that communicated and shared knowledge.
• People. A Skilled Workforce. The universities and institutions in the park attracted and supplied skilled workers.
• Culture. Idea Sharing. The research universities provided the basis for collaboration, with seminars and joint projects. This close collaboration led to an influx of federal research dollars. The basic research from these research universities and research institutions led to spillover effects and the spinning out of corporate entities, which led to further economic growth. Knowledge sharing and cooperation between institutions was crucial.
• Culture. People Amenities. Research Triangle Park has a low cost of living and high quality of life.
• Sophisticated Demand. The Duke and UNC medical centers serve as a customer for sophisticated products and services. Federal agencies such as the Department for Human and Health Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) create the demand for research from the universities and other institutions in the park.
• Access to Funding. The three universities in the Triangle have received a disproportionate amount of federal R&D funding compared to other national universities.32 In addition, federal government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Health Science Center brought contracts worth millions of dollars to the Park. This influx of federal dollars played a significant role in the development and success of the cluster.
• Summary: The Research Triangle Park’s success was due in large part to many of the same factors that led to success in Pittsburgh: world-class research universities, high levels of federal and state funding, positions in fast-growing sectors, forward-thinking and strong leadership, low costs of living, and a high quality of life.

D) Akron, Ohio (Urban Cluster)

https://www.akronohio.gov/cms/targeted_industries/index.html

Akron, Ohio is a former industrial powerhouse and was deemed the “Rubber Capital of the World” for its tire and rubber industry. The industry moved manufacturing plants out of the city, and Akron entered a steep downturn in the 1980s and early 1990s. Akron has since made an economic turnaround and has become a global leader in the polymer industry, earning the title “Polymer Valley.” Akron’s GDP was $37 billion in 2016.

• Core Competency. Akron capitalized on its previous expertise and switched from supplying tire makers to developing synthetic materials and products.
• People. Strong Leadership. Two leaders were critical in transforming Akron’s economy: former mayor Don Plusquellic and former president of the University of Akron, Luis Proenza. Don Plusquellic served as mayor of Akron from 1987 to 2015. Many in the region identified his continuity of leadership as an important reason for Akron’s successful economic development. Pluesquellic’s two highest priorities were economic development and education.
  The University of Akron played a central role in jumpstarting the re-development of Akron. Proenza joined the University in 1999 and developed “The Akron Model: The University as an Engine for Economic Growth.” The Akron Model stated that the University of Akron was going to take significant responsibility for growing the region economically and was dedicated to serving the community.
• People. Highly Skilled Researchers. Already a leader in polymer science, the University of Akron and Kent State University (located near Akron) trained scientists and engineers in the industry. In addition, the big tire companies left their research labs in the area after their manufacturing operations left the region so there already existed a research infrastructure ready to be tapped for new opportunities.
• People. Skilled Workforce. After the big tire companies left, there still existed a workforce in the area with technical skills in the rubber and steel industries.
• Culture. Idea Sharing. Integral to the Akron Model was public and private collaborations and knowledge sharing. In order to facilitate the connection between research and commerce, Proenza created the University of Akron Research Foundation (UARF), an independent research foundation to allow university professors to benefit financially from their research. The university made it an explicit goal to connect with businesses.
• Business Capabilities. The city of Akron created the Akron Global Business Accelerator, which is home to a technology business incubator and offers on-site support, facilities, and programs for tech start-ups and early-stage companies.
• Sophisticated Demand. The demand for Polymer products comes anywhere from the plastics industry, to the automotive and transportation industry, to the medical industry. The demand came from outside the city primarily.
• Access to Funding. The state government played a role in furthering Akron’s economic development by launching Ohio’s Third Frontier project in 2002. This project, renewed in 2010, is a $2.1 billion initiative that provides funding to Ohio tech companies and helps connect companies to universities and nonprofit research institutions
• Summary: Akron accomplished its turnaround through a research university invested in engaging with business and the community, innovative and sustained leadership, an existing skilled workforce, a competitive advantage in the polymer industry, and a proactive local and state government.

E) Seaport Innovation District - Boston, Massachusetts

http://www.innovationdistrict.org/

The Seaport Innovation District was a planned initiative—an officially designated and branded area. Seaport is a “re-imagined urban area” that has transit access, historic building stock, and is close to downtown Boston. Unlike in many of the other case studies we looked at, there is no anchor university or research firm in the district. Instead, the city is the main actor.

• Infrastructure Provision. The Big Dig highway project revitalized the Seaport District by connecting it to downtown. Funding was also provided for infrastructure improvements to the Waterfront and surrounding area.
• People. Strong Leadership. Redeveloping 1,000 acres on the South Boston Waterfront, former Mayor Thomas Menino drove the creation and development of Boston’s Innovation District. Serving as mayor of Boston from 1993 to 2014, Menino capitalized on an increasingly active waterfront to create a dense cluster of work buildings, dining and entertainment options, and physical spaces where entrepreneurs could converge.
  In the early stages of the cluster, he worked with a local real estate agent to convince MassChallenge, a start-up accelerator with over 110 companies and 200 mentors at the time, to come to Seaport. The city government and Mayor Menino also worked to bring Vertex Pharmaceuticals, a global biotechnology drug developer, to the District. This brought significant activity to the area.
• People. A Skilled Workforce. Babson College (a strong business-oriented university with a focus on entrepreneurship) opened an outpost in Seaport. The university serves to attract and train talent. Greater Boston is also home to some of the world’s best universities (including Harvard and MIT, among many others) and is a large source of talent.
• Culture. Idea Sharing. Seaport is home to District Hall, the world’s first freestanding public innovation building. It is a place for entrepreneurs to gather, work, and attend events dedicated to networking and learning
• Business Capabilities. The start-up accelerator MassChallenge is a mainstay in the District. It served an important role in attracting and supporting start-ups in the early development of the cluster. The District’s location also provides a wealth of other business capabilities due to its connection to the rest of Boston.
• Access to Funding. Seaport is connected to downtown Boston and to Cambridge by highway and public transport. Boston receives the second most venture capital investments behind Silicon Valley.

One of the core principles for the Innovation District is to move far beyond environmental standards by aggressively testing and implementing cutting-edge green/clean technology into the District's built environment.

• Alongside a major utility company, sustainable leaders in the area have been planning to test district-scale approaches to sustainable energy infrastructure
• The District is also actively promoting the testing of clean energy products and services, such as solar arrays, in and on existing buildings.
• The City has begun to examine the feasibility of business community owned large-scale solar.
• The effort to create housing for workers within the Innovation District is in and of itself sustainable as it would drastically decrease vehicle miles travelled for all of those employees.
• City proponents of the area have long discussed implementing a Beta Block to test transformative City Services (mobile applications) as well as infrastructure advancements (permeable pavement and LED street lights).
• A strong clean technology cluster has been migrating to the area and has become close partners on shaping this concept for the District, including the Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy Systems. Their new location in the Innovation District will become a living lab for testing new clean technologies and they will share their findings and practices globally.

In addition, many of the companies located in the Innovation District are developing green technologies that could eventually be implemented to increase the district's sustainability. A few examples include:

• Oasys Water: Developing water desalination technologies
• FastCAP Systems: Developing high-power, high-energy and low-cost energy storage devices for the automotive and grid storage industries
• SatCon: Develops power conversion solutions and provides system design services for utility-scale renewable energy plants
• Next Step Living: A residential energy efficiency company, providing home energy diagnostics and improvements.

This digital model shows the projected redevelopment of the Innovation District.


• Summary: The Seaport District of Boston transformed into a hub of business and innovation mostly through strong leadership by local government.

F) Silicon Valley (Regional Cluster) – San Francisco Bay, California

https://svichub.com

Silicon Valley is the premier tech cluster in the world. It is home to some of the world’s largest technology companies including Apple and Google and is renowned as a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship. Silicon Valley’s GDP was $722 billion in 2016.

• Core Competency. Silicon Valley housed several of the pioneers of the semiconductor revolution, as well as access to faculty and research at Stanford and Berkeley.
• Infrastructure Provision. In the cluster’s early days, the organizations tried to work harmoniously with local authorities to make sure the infrastructure and educational needs of the community were being met. In addition, zoning was liberal allowing for rapid expansion.
• People. Strong Leadership. The origin of Silicon Valley traces back to Frederick Terman, Stanford University’s provost and dean of engineering, who encouraged graduate students to start their own companies. Terman created the Stanford Industrial Park, leasing land owned by Stanford for start-up companies. Another key figure was William Shockley, the creator of the transistor (while at Bell Labs), who moved to Mountain View in 1956.
• People. Highly Qualified Researchers. The early development of Silicon Valley depended on the talent pool assembled at Stanford and UC Berkeley together with the private sector companies. Immigration also played an important role in bringing researchers and high-skilled workers to the area.
• People. Skilled Labor Force. Entrepreneurs moved to Silicon Valley because it was the place to raise money to build technology companies. Stanford and UC Berkeley provided skilled workers. In her book, AnnaLee Saxenian emphasizes that the educational institutions in Silicon Valley supported the needs of the technology cluster for skilled.
• Workers. As it developed, the Valley attracted talent from Asian immigrants who contributed to many of the start-ups.
• Culture. Idea Sharing. Saxenian also emphasizes the benefits of the culture in Silicon Valley over the culture of Boston’s Technology Corrider (Route 128), which was arguably the largest tech hub up until it was eclipsed by Silicon Valley in the 1980s. Saxenian’s diagnosis focuses on the existence of a more freewheeling, networked-based economic system in California, more open labor markets, a lot of informal communications, a culture of cooperation rather than secrecy, and much more flexibility. She argues that these were crucial in Silicon Valley’s success.
  In Silicon Valley today large companies, such as Apple, innovate within the company and are strict about secrecy. However, small companies proliferate and participate in accelerator programs that encourage the sharing of ideas.
• Culture. People Amenities. Silicon Valley as a location has natural advantages. The weather and natural resources make it an attractive place to live. San Francisco and the surrounding area have an assortment of restaurants, sports teams, and cultural activities. As the cluster has grown, this has pushed up the Bay Area’s cost of living, proving to be a drag on the cluster’s continued expansion, and diverted some growth to cheaper alternatives such as Austin, Texas.
• Business Capabilities. Silicon Valley is well known for its incubators and accelerator programs and has developed a large venture capital industry.
• Sophisticated Demand. The Department of Defense, as one of the Silicon Valley’s largest customers, was an important factor in the success of the Valley, creating demand for its electronic products. Also important, in 1952 IBM opened its California Research Lab in San Jose.
• Access to Funding. As the emphasis of firms in the Valley shifted from defense goods to private sector goods and services, the source of funding also shifted. Silicon Valley evolved into the leading place for finding new ideas and places to invest, thus becoming the premier global location for angel investors and venture capitalists.
• Regulatory Environment. Initially, there was a freewheeling environment in the Valley and easy access to land. Over time, stronger regulations, including environmental rules, were imposed—as well as higher taxes—but the intrinsic dynamism in the cluster has allowed the area to sustain its growth and prosperity. State and local governments also realize that the success of the state’s economy depends in large part on the success of the Valley.
• Summary: In the 1950s, high technology companies in the United States developed in the post-war period due to a great deal of Department of Defense funding, followed by the growth of demand from the private sector. A culture of collaboration and idea-sharing played a large role in Silicon Valley overtaking Boston’s Technology Corridor (Route 128) for the lead in high-tech. Excellent research institutions, federal and state government funding, federal laws promoting high-skilled immigration, university and private sector leadership, and coordination between government, university, and private sector actors also played a role.

Clusters are groups of specialised enterprises – often SMEs – and other related supporting actors that cooperate closely together in a particular location. In working together SMEs can be more innovative, create more jobs and register more international trademarks and patents than they would alone.
Clusters operate together in regional markets. 38% of European jobs are based in such regional strongholds and SME participation in clusters leads to more innovation and growth. There are about 2000 statistical clusters in Europe, of which 150 are considered to be world-class in terms of employment, size, focus and specialisation.
According to the European Cluster Excellence Scoreboard, for a number of selected emerging industries and regions in the period 2010-2013, 33.3 % of firms in clusters showed employment growth superior to 10%, as opposed to only 18.2% of firms outside clusters.
High quality cluster management is a key element of successful world-class clusters. Strong management is crucial for cluster organisations for providing professional services to cluster firms, for assisting companies to access global markets successfully, and for raising the innovation capacity and competitiveness of cluster firms. To create more world-class clusters across the EU by strengthening cluster excellence, the Commission launched in 2009 the European Cluster Excellence Initiative - ECEI.
The "Cluster Management Excellence Label GOLD - Proven for Cluster Excellence" of the European Cluster Excellence Initiative acknowledges cluster organisations that demonstrate highly sophisticated cluster management and that are committed to further improve their organisational structures and routines for the benefit of an even higher performance.
In order to qualify for the "Cluster Management Excellence Label GOLD" cluster management organisations need to meet certain "levels of excellence" in terms of structure of the cluster, governance, financing, strategy and services and recognition Regarding markets selected – FRANCE, POLAND, GERMANY, the clusters that achieved gold label are listed in following tables:

GERMANY

Name	Comparative portfolio	www
Allianz Faserbasierte Werkstoffe Baden-Württemberg e. V.	New materials and chemistry	http://www.afbw.eu
automotive BW	Transportation and mobility	http://www.automotive-bw.de
BioLAGO e. V. – life science network	Health and medical science	https://www.biolago.org/
BioM Biotech Cluster Development GmbH	Biotechnology	http://www.bio-m.org/
BioRN Network e. V.	Biotechnology	http://www.biorn.org/home
Carbon Composites e. V.	Production and engineering	http://www.carbon-composites.eu/
Chemie-Cluster Bayern GmbH	New materials and chemistry	http://www.chemiecluster-bayern.de/
Cluster Elektromobilität Süd-West	Transportation and mobility	http://www.emobil-sw.de/en
CyberForum e. V.	ICT	http://www.cyberforum.de/
HAMBURG AVIATION - Luftfahrtcluster Metropolregion Hamburg e. V.	Aviation and space	http://www.hamburg-aviation.de
it’s OWL Clustermanagement GmbH	Production and engineering	http://www.its-owl.de
Kunststoffinstitut für die mittelständische Wirtschaft NRW GmbH	New materials and chemistry	http://www.kunststoff-institut.de
Life Science Nord	Health and medical science	http://www.lifesciencenord.de
Logistik-Initiative Hamburg e.V.	Transportation and mobility	http://www.hamburg-logistik.net/
microTEC Südwest e. V.	Micro, nano and optical technologies	http://www.microtec-suedwest.de/
Photonics BW e. V.	Micro, nano and optical technologies	http://www.photonicsbw.de/
Silicon Saxony e. V.	ICT	http://www.silicon-saxony.de/home.html
Software-Cluster Koordinierungsstelle	ICT	http://www.software-cluster.com/de/
Technology Mountains e. V.	Health and medical science, ICT, Micro, nano and optical technologies, New materials and chemistry, Production and engineering	http://www.technologymountains.de
VDC Fellbach	ICT	http://www.vdc-fellbach.de/

By clicking in Comparative Portfolio, you will acceed to a list of other clusters in Europe that operate with similar scope.

FRANCE

Name	Comparative portfolio	www
Aerospace Valley	Aviation and space	http://www.aerospace-valley.com/
AGRI SUD-OUEST INNOVATION	Food industry	http://www.agrisudouest.com
Alsace BioValley	Health and medical science	http://www.alsace-biovalley.com
Axelera	New materials and chemistry	http://www.axelera.org
Cap Digital	Creative industries	http://www.capdigital.com/
CARA – European Cluster for Mobility Solutions	Transportation and mobility	https://cara.eu/
Cluster Montagne	Sports, Leisure and Tourism	http://www.cluster-montagne.com
HYDREOS	Energy and environment	https://www.hydreos.fr/
ID4Car	Transportation and mobility	http://www.id4car.org
LYONBIOPOLE	Health and medical science	http://www.lyonbiopole.com
Minalogic	Micro, nano and optical technologies	http://www.minalogic.com/
Pôle de compétitivité Optitec	Micro, nano and optical technologies	http://www.pole-optitec.com
Pôle de compétitivité Plasturgie (PLASTIPOLIS)	New materials and chemistry	http://www.plastipolis.fr/
Pôle EMC2	Production and engineering	http://www.pole-emc2.fr
Pôle Fibres-Energivie	Construction	http://www.fibres-energivie.eu
Pôle Mov‘eo	Transportation and mobility	http://www.pole-moveo.org
Pole SCS	ICT	http://www.pole-scs.org/
Pôle Véhicule du Futur	Transportation and mobility	http://www.vehiculedufutur.com/
Systematic	ICT	http://www.systematic-paris-region.org/
Techtera - Pôle de compétitivité des textiles et matériaux souples	Textile industries	http://www.techtera.org
TENERRDIS	Energy and environment	http://www.tenerrdis.fr
VEGEPOLYS	Food industry	http://www.vegepolys.eu/
ViaMéca	Production and engineering	http://www.viameca.fr
VITAGORA	Food industry	http://www.vitagora.com

POLAND

Name	Comparative portfolio	www
Silesian Aviation Cluster	Aviation and space	http://www.aerosilesia.eu
BTM Cluster Mazovia	Biotechnology	http://btm-mazowsze.pl
Bydgoszcz Industrial Cluster	Production and engineering	http://www.klaster.bydgoszcz.pl
Mazovia Cluster ICT	ICT	http://www.klasterict.pl/
Mazovian Chemical Cluster	New materials and chemistry	http://klasterchemiczny.com/eng
Metal Processing Cluster (MPC)	Production and engineering	http://www.metalklaster.pl

METALLWORKING

is an alliance of European or International metal trade associations active in the building sector. It represents the interests of the metal industry towards European institutions and relevant stakeholders as far as the sustainability and recyclability credentials of metals in buildings are concerned.
The alliance was established in 2012 and became an ASBL in March 2013 under Belgian law.

METAIS FOR BUILDINGS provides information and contacts from other relevant International entities to the sector. We recommend a periodic visit to the site, as well as consultation with other entities that are part of their international network.

http://www.metalsforbuildings.eu/

Founded in 1981, it represents the European aluminum industry, from alumina and primary production to the manufacture of semi-finished and end-use products, to recycling. This sector currently employs around 255,000 people in Europe. Provides online industry activity report, most current year 2018. See the activity report at the following link: https://www.european-aluminium.eu/activity-report-2018-2019/introduction/

https://www.european-aluminium.eu/

The European Aluminum Building Group speaks on behalf of the leading companies that develop and produce aluminum building systems and flat aluminum building products.

See the Success Stories at the following link: https://www.european-aluminium.eu/about-aluminium/stories-of-innovation/

TEXTILE

The textile and clothing sector is an important part of the European manufacturing industry, playing a crucial role in the economy and social well-being in many regions of Europe. According to data from 2013, there were 185 000 companies in the industry employing 1.7 million people and generating a turnover of EUR 166 billion. The sector accounts for a 3% share of value added and a 6% share of employment in total manufacturing in Europe. The sector in the EU is based around small businesses. Companies with less than 50 employees account for more than 90% of the workforce and produce almost 60% of the value added.
The biggest producers in the industry are the five most populous EU countries: Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain. Together, they account for about three quarters of EU production. Southern countries such as Italy, Greece, and Portugal; some of the new EU countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland; and, to a lesser extent, Spain and France, contribute more to total clothing production. On the other hand, northern countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, and Sweden contribute more to textile production, notably technical textiles.
With regards to external trade performance, about 20% of EU production is sold outside the EU despite limited access to many non-EU markets.
The fashion and high-end industries represent European cultural heritage and expertise. With 5 million people directly employed in the fashion value chain and over 1 million people employed in the high-end industries, these activities provide an important contribution to the EU economy.
The fashion and high-end industries are one of the most vibrant and creative sectors in Europe. They are present in the everyday life of millions of people and act as ambassadors of European values, such as culture, creativity, innovation, and craftsmanship. These industries form complex and interlinked value chains from the design and manufacturing of fashion goods (such as textiles, clothing, footwear, leather, fur products, jewellery, and accessories) and high-end goods, to their distribution and retail.
Despite the economic crisis, many European companies in the sector have managed to defend their position in the global market. This is mainly due to a move towards innovative, high added-value products and services, niche markets, and new business models. The high-end sector grew faster than the rest of the European economy during the crisis, recording double digit growth in 2010 and 2011. High-end industries alone employ over 1 million people, export over 60% of their production outside Europe, and account for 10% of all EU exports.
For more information follow the link: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/fashion_en

Fibre2Fashion Pvt. Ltd is a market driven B2B portal that marked its existence in the year 2000 and since then, has consistently been growing leaps and bounds. Our rich experience, commitment, accountability and innovations have helped to foster the business of small, medium and large companies and enterprises associated with us. With digital presence in more than 190 countries we have been able to carve a niche for ourselves in the industry.
With 1800+ products listed under 13 different categories, we have successfully been able to serve all the segments of the textile, apparel and fashion industry. Besides providing effective business solutions, we also offer textile based information through our informative articles, news, market analytical reports on fibre and feedstock and various print features too. With global recognition and technical expertise, we have been able to render clear visibility to our clients’ products and have helped them to reach the right target customers.
https://www.fibre2fashion.com/knowledge/

An exclusive platform, Technical Textiles enables its clients to make informed decisions by providing them with in-depth analysis of the market and their competitors through news, latest updates and well-researched articles. We further identify the challenges in our client’s brand building strategy and help them reach and engage their target audience in the best possible manner.
Link: https://www.technicaltextile.net/articles/

AGROINDUSTRY

https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/food-and-agriculture-benchmark/ The World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) seeks to generate a movement around increasing the private sector’s impact towards a sustainable future for all. In 2015, the United Nations developed 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to help guide us. The WBA is now working to incentivise and accelerate companies’ efforts towards achieving these goals.
The benchmarks will aim to empower all stakeholders, from consumers and investors to employees and business leaders, with key data and insights to encourage sustainable business practices across all sectors. The benchmarks’ methodologies will also be free to use and continually improved through an ongoing and open multi-stakeholder dialogue.
Links: https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/food-and-agriculture-benchmark/
https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/WBA-Food-and-Agriculture-Benchmark-scoping.pdf

PHARMACEUTICAL

According with McKinsey, total investment of all types (Venture Capital (VC), initial public offerings, follow-on public offerings) in European biotechs more than doubled during 2012–2018, when €11.9 billion ($13 billion) in investment was recorded, compared with €5.1 billion ($5.6 billion) in 2005–2011. VC activity more than tripled from period to period, reaching $2.3 billion, “thanks to the emergence of bigger, stronger European VC funds”.
Between 2012–18, the U.S. originated about three times as many patent registrations for new medicines as Europe did, while China originated about nine times as many as Europe.
Patents and VC financing are among the five criteria used by GEN to rank countries in its annual A-Lists of top European biopharma clusters:

• Patents - Based on the number of “biotechnology” and “pharmaceutical” patents granted to, plus biotech and pharma patent applications made by, countries in Europe, as furnished by the publicly available European Patent Office database of granted patents per field of technology and per country of residence during 2018.
• Venture Capital (VC) funding - Combines figures compiled by Invest Europe with figures furnished by some of the countries themselves, either on their own websites, in publicly available reports, in public announcements, or as responses to email queries from GEN.
• Public research funding - Figures taken from the publicly available European Union Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) website of grants issued through the current Horizon 2020 research funding program (2014–2020).
• Number of biotech companies - Combines figures furnished by representatives of the countries themselves, either on their own websites, in publicly available reports or public announcements, in news reports, or as responses to email queries from GEN. Where known, figures reflect companies with an “exclusive” or “pure” focus on biotech.
• Jobs - Based on various sources from industry groups, regional life sciences campuses, public and/or private economic development groups, and press articles when written by or directly attributed to an industry source. Where possible, medical device or “medical technology” job numbers normally included in “life sciences” employment numbers were excluded, leaving job numbers more closely focused on biotech and pharma.

This year’s European cluster ranking includes all countries that appeared on GEN’s 2018 A-List of top 10 European biopharma clusters, but with several significant changes, including a new number-four nation and much of the bottom half of the list. Two countries just missed making this year’s list despite top-10 rankings in selected areas: Ireland placed 10th in VC (€69.369 million [$76.2 million], according to Invest Europe), while Austria’s 10th-place ranking came in public financing (2,193 grants).
Top-10 rankings in venture capital: Ireland ranked seventh (€80.15 million [$92.1 million]), and Austria, eighth (€69.061 million [$79.4 million]), both according to Invest Europe (formerly known as EVCA; European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association).

Three officials—Minister of Enterprise Ibrahim Baylan, Minister for Higher Education and Research Matilda Ernkrans, and Minister for Health and Social Affairs Lena Hallengren—raised hopes within Sweden’s life sciences industry in June by publishing a commentary in Dagens Medicin advocating a strategy that would raise the country’s profile worldwide. Sweden took the first such step last year by creating a government Office of Life Sciences tasked with developing such a strategy. In November 2018, the nation published a status report or Life Sciences Road Map urging Sweden to focus beyond drug development, into digital healthcare and health data, precision medicine, and “tomorrow’s health and social care.”
While the strategy is still in the works, Sweden’s government delivered some good news to the industry in the 2020 budget bill submitted September 18—it plans a further cut in fees for employers that carry out R&D in order to stimulate innovation, though details have yet to be presented. The strategy is intended to build upon assets that range from academia (Karolinska Institute and Lund, Uppsala, and Göteborg Universities) to industry (and from giants like AstraZeneca and Pfizer-acquired Pharmacia to smaller biotechs).
Sweden ranks sixth in number of companies (566, according to the Swedish Life Sciences Database, whose partners include industry group Sweden Bio and SWELife—the government-funded life-sciences strategic innovation program. The country is also sixth in jobs (40,000, according to Sweden’s R&D funding agency Vinnova), but ninth in public research funding (2,380 grants), 10th in patents (93 granted and 173 applications in 2018), and 11th in VC (€38.267 million [about $41.9 million], according to Invest Europe.

Bagsværd-based Novo Nordisk made history September 20 when the FDA approved the company’s Rybelsus® (semaglutide) for type 2 diabetes in adults—the first U.S.-approved oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. Five months earlier, Novo Nordisk signaled its intent to manufacture that and other next-generation diabetes treatments in Denmark by announcing a DKK 650 million ($95 million) expansion of its half-century-old production site in Kalundborg. The expanded site is set to begin production in 2020.
Novo wasn’t the only Danish biotech succeeding with the FDA. On September 24, the agency authorized Copenhagen-based Bavarian Nordic’s smallpox and monkeypox treatment Ynneos™. Another home-grown biotech, Copenhagen-based Genmab, raised approximately $546.5 million in net proceeds in July through a U.S. initial public offering of American Depositary Shares on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. And in September, Medicon Valley Alliance, which oversees a mini-cluster linking the Greater Copenhagen region of eastern Denmark to southern Sweden, lost its chairman Søren Bregenholt, PhD, after he was appointed CEO of U.K.-based Macrophage Pharma.
Denmark’s number of biopharma companies (536, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or MFA told GEN) place the country fifth. Denmark is sixth in patents (156 granted and 465 applications in 2018), but eighth in jobs (30,869, according to the MFA), ninth in VC (€72.705 million [$79.5 million], according to Invest Europe), and 11th in research funding (1,999 grants).

One of Belgium’s best-known drug developers, Mechelen-based Galapagos, showed this summer that European biopharmas are just as capable of scoring big-money collaboration deals as their counterparts in the U.S. or Asia. Gilead Sciences on July 14 said it will invest $5.1 billion to nearly double its minority stake in Galapagos from approximately 12.3% to at least 22%—and possibly about 30%—through a 10-year global R&D collaboration in which Gilead will expand its role in the companies’ arthritis candidate filgotinib and co-develop the rest of Galapagos’ pipeline.
Galapagos is an industry anchor within Belgium’s Flanders region, where Mont-Saint-Guilbert-based Promethera Biosciences in May dosed its first patient in a Phase IIa trial of its HepaStem, which according to the company is the world’s first liver stem cell therapy candidate for late-stage NASH. In the Wallonia region, Gosselies-based CDMO MaSTherCell said in March it will triple its European capacity by building a new manufacturing site for late-stage and commercially-approved gene therapies. The facility is set to open in 2021. Wallonia’s bioindustry group BioWin is even reaching out beyond Belgium, inking a cross-membership agreement with French counterpart Medicen Paris Region.
Belgium scores highest in jobs, ranking fifth (46,500, based on the 26,500 Wallonia jobs and 20,000 Flanders jobs cited by regional groups), with EFPIA counting 35,711 pharmaceutical jobs. The country is seventh in public research finding (3,401 grants) and VC (€129.366 million [$141.5 million], according to Invest Europe), but ranks lower in patents (eighth with 138 granted and 315 applications in 2018), and number of companies (10th with 308 according to Biotechgate, presumably including the 157 tallied in Wallonia by BioWin).

While Italy’s politics remain turbulent, reflected in the August resignation of Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, the nation’s biopharma industry shows signs of smoother sailing, reflected in its rising two positions in this A-List compared with 2018. Italy places fifth in research funding (5,434 grants) and venture capital, where it has leaped from 11th last year to fifth (€157 million [about $172 million], Italy’s ENEA, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development told GEN). Italy ranks lower in patents (seventh with 177 granted and 256 applications in 2018), number of companies (ninth with 319 according to ENEA), and jobs (10th with 8,599, according to ENEA).
On September 11, Milan-based Genenta Science Thermo raised €13.2 million ($14.4 million) in a private financing to fund a pair of ongoing Phase I/II trials for its cancer stem cell therapy Temferon. One trial will assess patients with solid tumor glioblastoma multiforme; the other, patents with multiple myeloma. The financing brings Genenta’s total capital raised to €30.2 million ($33 million). Among companies growing in Italy is Thermo Fisher Scientific, which in March revealed plans to expand sites in Monza and Ferentino, Italy, as well as Greenville, NC, as part of a $150 million Pharma Services investment designed to add capacity for sterile liquid and lyophilized product development and commercial manufacturing.

Lausanne-based ADC Therapeutics, the developer of antibody drug conjugates targeting major cancers, withdrew a planned IPO on the New York Stock Exchange on October 2, but not before disclosing plans to raise up to approximately $205.9 million in net proceeds. Another home-grown biotech, Basel-based Roivant Sciences—owner of 20 companies or “vants”—in September sold five of those companies to Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma for $3 billion upfront. The megadeal gave Sumitomo Dainippon a more-than-10% stake in Roivant, and an alliance overseeing more than 25 clinical programs and multiple potential product launches through 2022.
Yet the biggest headlines from Swiss biopharmas have come from a pharma giant. Basel-based Novartis’ AveXis gene therapy subsidiary in May won FDA approval for Zolgensma® (onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi), a treatment for pediatric spinal muscular atrophy. Soon after, Novartis generated controversy by pricing the gene therapy at a list price of $2.1 million, though it added that it was working with insurers to develop patient access programs.
Switzerland scores highest in patents (third with 341 granted and 925 applications in 2018), and next-highest in venture capital (fourth with CHF 252.6 million [$254.9 million] according to the 2019 Swiss Venture Capital Report by Startupticker.ch with SECA [Swiss Private Equity & Corporate Finance Association]). However, the nation ranked eighth in research funding (2,544 grants), ninth in jobs (14,319, according to Swiss Biotech Association), and 11th in number of companies (249, also according to Swiss Biotech Association).

The Netherlands has actively positioned itself to gain from the U.K.’s pain over Brexit. In August, the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency (NFIA) announced that 98 companies were worried enough about the U.K.’s future to move to the Netherlands. “Health and life sciences” are among the industries that U.K. companies are most attracted to in Holland. No doubt those companies are being drawn by closer proximity to the European Medicines Agency, which in March moved its offices to Amsterdam from London.
Among biotechs recently making news in the Netherlands is U.S.-based Fujifilm Irvine Scientific, a leading developer and manufacturer of cell culture media, which in July announced plans to open a European hub in Tilburg; the cGMP manufacturing facility will be the company’s third worldwide. Most recently on October 2, Lonza said its GMP facility in Geleen will oversee clinical manufacturing of Paris-based Cellectis’ allogeneic UCART product candidates targeting hematological malignancies.
The Netherlands’s rankings show consistency, ranging between fifth in patents (185 granted and 593 applications in 2018), and seventh in jobs (“over 34,000,” according to NFIA’s website) and number of companies (512, according to NFIA, which cites Holland BIO’s Dutch Life Science Database). In between, the country places sixth in grants (4,264) and venture capital (€134.479 million [$147.1 million], according to NVP, the country’s private equity and venture capital association).

The Spanish Association of Biotech Companies, ASEBIO, reported some record-breaking numbers from its Investor Day event held September 25–26: Sixty investors from nine countries attended the event, providing more than 500 partnering opportunities for the 280 participating companies. ASEBIO is hoping that activity translates into more financings: Spain ranked eighth in VC last year with nearly €95 million (about $104 million)—though the amount of VC investment by overseas firms has nearly doubled from €40 million (nearly $44 million) in 2016 to €74 million ($81 million) last year.
Beyond venture capital, Spain ranks ninth in patents (95 granted and 299 applications in 2018). The nation ranks much higher at fourth in both number of companies (713) and jobs with a combined 67,716 (42,687 pharma jobs according to EFPIA, and 25,029 biotech jobs according to ASEBIO). Yet Spain’s brightest spot is public funding, where it reached third with 6,154 grants.
Another strength of Spain is diagnostics development: In May, a respiratory diagnostic panel originally developed by Barcelona-based STAT-Dx won FDA approval, more than a year after STAT-Dx was acquired by Qiagen for up to $191 million. Spain can also expect to see more biomanufacturing since Grifols revealed plans in May to build new manufacturing facilities in Murcia (products for the U.S. market) and Llica de Vall, Barcelona province (addition to plant in Parets), part of a €1.4 billion [$1.5 billion] companywide investment through 2022.

President Emmanuel Macron committed France to becoming a “start-up nation” when he took office in 2017. Macron announced plans for a €5 billion (about $5.5 billion) development fund designed to support early-stage digital health and other tech companies. The fund could help France achieve another ambitious goal articulated last year by Macron—becoming a global leader in AI by spending €1.5 billion ($1.6 billion). Macron also seeks to reduce red tape for early-stage companies.
Two home-grown companies reported successes in April. Paris-based Cellectis in April won FDA approval for its IND to begin a Phase I trial of UCARTCS1, the first allogeneic CAR-T therapy for multiple myeloma to enter clinical development. Lyon-based Calixar licensed its native membrane protein stabilization technology to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
France advanced last year to second in VC (€594 million [$649.8 million], France-Biotech told GEN) while staying second in patents (416 granted and 866 applications in 2018). The nation dipped to fourth in research funding (5,581 grants), but is third in number of companies (720, according to France Biotech) and jobs (98,694 pharma jobs according to pharma industry group LEEM [Les Enterprises du Medicament], down 92 from a year ago, and about 20,000 biotech jobs, according to France Biotech.

“Germany is Europe’s great untapped player in biotech,” Richard Mason, MD, co-founder of the Foundation Institute for 21st Century Medicine, recently told Pharmaceutical Market Europe. Mason headed XO1 until its 2015 acquisition by Johnson & Johnson—which later tapped him to head J&J Innovation’s London Innovation Centre. “While Germany has produced far fewer biotech companies than you would expect, it’s definitely the place to watch.”
Impostos e burocracia podem de fato ter impedido a criação de startups, como afirma Mason. Mas o Ministério Federal de Educação e Pesquisa (BMBF) incentiva a tradução de pesquisas em novas empresas por meio do GO-Bio, lançado em 2005. Empresas maiores de origem doméstica tiveram sucesso: a BioNTech planeia arrecadar até US $ 267,8 milhões em receitas líquidas através de um um IPO lançado no American Depositary Shares - NASDAQ Global Select market. Em 24 de setembro, a Evotec, com sede em Hamburgo, lançou uma parceria com a Takeda Pharmaceutical para desenvolver pelo menos cinco candidatos a medicamentos, com a Evotec a receber uma taxa inicial não revelada, até US $ 170 milhões por programa, e royalties diferenciados.
Germany maintains its number-one rankings in patents (605 granted and 1,360 applications in 2018) and jobs (130,902 pharma jobs according to the German Association for the Pharmaceutical Industry [BPI], and 27,445 biotech jobs according to BIO Deutschland). The federal republic placed second in research funding (6971 grants), second in companies (1,232) and rose one position to third in VC (€369 million [$403.7 million], according to BIO Deutschland).

UK’s government has committed £434 million ($533.3 million) toward shipping and storage to prevent shortages of medicines and medical products upon a pullout from the EU. The U.K. BioIndustry Association (BIA) has stepped up its Brexit webinar briefings from monthly to weekly.
In May, the BIA and the Medicines Discovery Catapult showed strong growth potential where drug discovery is concerned, in a report that found the segment could support an additional 33,000 jobs and 50 early clinical stage companies by 2025. It helps that the U.K. leads Europe in biopharma VC (£1.113 billion [about $1.4 billion], according to the BIA.
The U.K. is also top-ranked in public funding (7,981 Horizon 2020 grants) and number of companies (2,153 biopharmas, according to Bioscience and Health Technology Statistics 2018). The U.K. is second in biopharma jobs (about 121,000, including biopharma service and supply jobs), but fourth in patents (276 granted and 549 applications in 2018).

CONSTRUCTION

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/observatory_en

In 2012, the Commission published a Communication Strategy for the sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and its enterprises. The document is a part of the Europe 2020 initiative. It focuses on the promotion of favourable market conditions for sustainable growth in the construction sector. Five areas are addressed:

• Financing and digitalisation: especially for energy efficient investments in the renovation of buildings and for research and innovation in a smart, sustainable, and inclusive environment;
• Skills and qualifications: workforce and management training for job creation through up-skilling and apprenticeships to meet demands for new competencies;
• Resource efficiency: focusing on low emission construction, recycling and valorisation of construction, and demolition waste;
• Regulatory framework: emphasis on reducing the administrative burden for enterprises, and particularly SMEs;
• International competition: encouraging the uptake of Eurocodes and promoting the spread of new financial tools and contractual arrangements in non-EU countries.

The European Commission provides support tools to help manufacturers identify key legislation, regulations and standards in the construction sector. This webpage introduces the key online tools and studies on construction published in the EU.
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/support-tools-studies_en


The European construction sector observatory (ECSO) is an initiative under COSME. It regularly analyses and carries out comparative assessments on the construction sector in all 28 EU countries – aiming to keep European policymakers and stakeholders up to date on market conditions and policy developments.
What are ECSO's objectives?

• to monitor market conditions and trends, as well as national/regional strategies and progress towards the 5 priorities of construction 2020
• to encourage knowledge sharing and the replication of good practice
• to raise awareness on policy measures and initiatives impacting the construction value chain

ECSO profiles the construction industry in the 28 EU countries, and produces detailed country fact sheets (CFS) for each country. Each CFS provides an analysis of key figures, macro-economic indicators, economic drivers, issues and barriers, innovation, the national/regional policy and regulatory framework, and the current status and national strategy to meet construction 2020 objectives.
To view and download ECSO findings, please click on: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/observatory_en

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is the leading association for the construction industry. AGC represents more than 26,000 firms, including over 6,500 of America’s leading general contractors, and over 9,000 specialty-contracting firms. More than 10,500 service providers and suppliers are also associated with AGC, all through a nationwide network of chapters.
AGC develops several data about the sector performance and trends. Follow the link: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/observatory_en