2018 EU|BIC IMPACT AND ACTIVITY REPORT An analysis of the structure, services and impact achieved by EBN’s certified organisations during 2017 1
Facts, figures and analysis of the data from the annual surveys of the EU|BIC Network reflecting activities from 2017. STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEY: Respondents: 112 (2017) Method: on-line self-evaluation questionnaire plus subsequent validation by the EBN Quality Team Source: EBN Quality System (www.ebn.eu) EBN, Brussels - Belgium 2018. Reproduction is authorised provided that the reference is acknowledged. www.ebn.eu Environmental production. This publication is printed according to high environmental standards. Produced by EBN Edited by: Clarelisa Camilleri, David Tee and Javier Echarri Design and Layout by: Arctik Special thanks to: Didier Guennoc & Philippe Defreyn (Archant Solutions) Images: www.pixabay.com and EBN
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
4
DEFINITIONS 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7
Economic impact Activity
7 8
INTRODUCTION 10
EBN and the EU|BICs How should I read this report? Enhancing the reading of the 2018 report with the EBN Benchmark for respondents
10 11 11
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
12
ECONOMIC IMPACT
14
Impact on company creation Impact on tech and non-tech industries Impact on job creation
14 22 23
ACTIVITY ANALYSIS
24
Output 24 Financial resources 28 Human resources 31 External resources 34 Communications strategy 38 Incubation business line 39
CONCLUSION 41
3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS DG Regio: The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy EBN:
European Business and Innovation Centre Network
EU:
European Union
EU|BIC:
European Business and Innovation Centre
FIBIA:
Fostering Inclusive Business Incubation and Acceleration
FTE:
Full-Time Equivalent
ICT:
Informations and Communications Technology
4
DEFINITIONS EU|BICs: are local/regional economic development tools aimed at developing entrepreneurial innovation. Depending on the characteristics of the territory and of the existing actors, EU|BICs may place the emphasis on fostering the creation of new innovative enterprises and/or developing innovation in existing enterprises. EU|BICs must work in a specific catchment area, be acknowledged by public authorities who are relevant within the framework of their mission, be either public or private but preferably public/private, work in coordination with other support organisations, have an allocated budget, have a clear positioning, strategy and action plan aimed at creating new jobs through the creation of innovative companies or promoting existing companies, have identified premises (a EU|BIC may be hosted by a bigger organisation) and have an identified group of staff (with the appropriate skills and experience required for the deployment of the EU|BIC mission) numbering at least three people employed on a full-time basis. EU|BICs must support regional/local authorities in designing and implementing local development programmes aimed at creating new innovative SMEs and/or promoting existing SMEs. EU|BICs’ missions are to accelerate the generation of new, innovative enterprises, to provide integrated incubation support to startups and spin-offs, to stimulate and mentor innovation projects in developing SMEs, and to raise awareness of entrepreneurship, innovation and internationalisation at regional and local community level. Access to funding: refers to the services provided by business support organisations to help their clients secure capital to develop their own ventures/innovations. Development Agencies: organisations that have the goal of developing and supporting economic growth within a specified city, region or state by providing the necessary resources and assistance. Usually, they will provide support and assistance to startups seeking to expand their business in the given state, region or local economy. Enquiries: refers to the number of people that physically contact an EU|BIC to gain information on how to access
5
their services and launch a business idea. Entry strategy: a process or method of filtering and selecting entrepreneurs that have applied to join incubator or business support programmes. Exit strategy: a process or method to ensure businesses move on to their own premises once they have reached a level of sustainability or no longer require the support of the EU|BIC. Innovation Centre: organisations set up to provide help and support programmes for companies/entrepreneurs, enabling the latter to develop innovative ideas or innovate when it comes to existing products, services or processes. Innovation centres typically include the latest technologies and tools for employees to experiment with or discuss their ideas and explore how they might become more efficient. Space is also usually provided for people to come together and enable design thinking for innovation via workshops or training courses. Open Innovation: business activities which encourage an exchange among established companies and startups, allowing companies to acquire outside sources of innovation to improve product lines and shorten the time required to bring products to market, and for the startups to access distribution channels, funding, resources or opportunities within the sector and industry to develop the concept faster and more easily. Potential entrepreneurs: individuals who have an idea which they would like to turn into a sustainable business. Proof of business services: includes services such as business modelling, business planning, financial stimulation and forecasting. Proof of concept: the innovation is applicable and the idea can be turned into a reality. Proof of innovation: the innovation is producible Science / Technology Park: business support and technology transfer initiative that encourages and supports the start-up and incubation of innovation-led, high-growth, knowledge-based businesses. An environment that allows larger and international businesses to develop specific and close interactions with centres of knowledge creation for their mutual benefit. Science Technology parks usually have formal and operational links with universities, higher education institutes and research organisations. Startup: a company in its first three years of activity. SME: an already-consolidated company, not coming from the incubation deal-flow, seeking growth services from the EU|BIC.The following EU definitions apply: Size Employees Turnover Balance Sheet Medium
<250
<€50m
<€43m
Small
<50
<€10m
<€10m
Under-represented entrepreneurs: any entrepreneur facing higher barriers at the time of starting a business.
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the annual survey conducted by the European Business and Innovation Centre Network (EBN) on its 134 quality-certified members that are labelled European Business and Innovation Centres (EU|BIC). The EU|BICs comprise several categories of members, which are predominantly Development Agencies, Innovation/Entrepreneurship Centres and Science/Technology Parks. The survey was conducted during the first semester of 2018 and the data collected refers to activities that took place in 2017. The survey has several objectives: • to ensure that the EU|BIC Quality Criteria are met and maintained by all the members of the network • to benchmark the impact of EU|BICs among themselves, and the impact on the economy • to gain insights into the EU|BICs’ activity during 2017 • to detect trends in the innovation ecosystem.
Economic impact IMPACT ON COMPANY CREATION In 2017, EU|BICs received around 28,500 enquiries from potential entrepreneurs. Of this total, approximately 8,300 were selected by the EU|BICs to enter their support programmes. This resulted in a support rate of close to 30%. Innovation Centres received 39% of these enquiries, while the Development Agencies’ share reached 31%. These two types of EU|BICs were the most active when it came to attracting enquiries from potential entrepreneurs compared to other EU|BICs. A total of 15 Development Agencies answered the survey, compared with 52 Innova-
7
tion Centres. Other respondents were 18 Science / Technology Parks, 7 University/Business Schools, 7 incubators and the remaining 13 respondents classified themselves according to other categories, such as Chamber of Commerce/Industry, Research Centres, etc. Taken as a whole, these 45 entities were the recipients of 30% of the total number of enquiries received. Entrepreneurs seeking support from EU|BICs are mainly individuals, totalling some 49% of the supported businesses, whereas 17% of them stemmed from academic and industrial spin-offs. Moreover, the typical profile of these individuals is male, 31-50 years of age. During the initial stage of their projects, entrepreneurs were mainly supported via proof of business services (offered by 87% of the EU|BICs) as well as access to funding services (offered by more than 80% of the respondents).
IMPACT ON COMPANY GROWTH In 2017, EU|BICs actively supported 24,000 companies. Innovation Centres’ larger share of activity is once more apparent, as they supported around 40% of the total number of supported companies. Development Agencies supported just under 30% of the total number of companies. Of these 24,000 companies, around 6,750 were given support to access various funding streams. A total of close to €560m was raised for these entities. 46% of this amount was raised for companies in their start-up phase, 26% for companies in their scale-up/growth phase and 15% for mature SMEs or large companies. Out of the 24,000 companies supported, 57% were tech companies, active mostly in materials and electronics (22.5%), and ICT and communications (18.6%).
IMPACT ON JOB CREATION Companies supported by EU|BICs created close to 14,200 jobs in 2017, with 45% of them requiring middle-level skills compared to 17% of them requiring entry-level ones.
Activity OUTPUT On average, EU|BICs dealt with 28 enquiries per one full-time equivalent (FTE) member of support staff. Each FTE also supported an average of 21 established businesses. Of this total, 7 companies were looking for funding. The amount successfully raised per support staff member reached €0.5m in 2017. It should be noted that these average values are skewed upwards by relatively large entities also demonstrating relatively strong productivity by their support staff.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES The average income of the EU|BICs in 2017 was €1.8m. The sources of income came predominantly from public sources (EU and non-EU), with an average share close to 65%. On average, private funding represented 35% of the income generated during the exercise. These average figures have remained broadly the same for many years.
8
Average expenses also reached â&#x201A;Ź1.8m, resulting in an average margin of close to zero per cent for all EU|BICs. Expenses were mainly attributed to human resources (50%), whereas the budget for external consultants represented roughly 11.5% of the total expenses. Funding to entrepreneurs accounted for 4.2% of the total expenses. Other cost items amounted, on average, to 35.4% of all expenses.
HUMAN RESOURCES The average EU|BIC employed 17 full-time employees, although the median value stood at 11 persons, showing the impact on the average value of some exceptionally large entities. Of these 17 individuals, an average of 11 were mainly dedicated to business coaching and training staff in the supported businesses. Back office functions were covered by 6 persons, with around half dedicated to administration and event logistics. The average cost per FTE was estimated at â&#x201A;Ź46,000.
EXTERNAL RESOURCES To implement their strategies, almost 75% of the EU|BICs entered into formal partnerships with universities and 60% of them with Chambers of Commerce/Industry. They managed to secure 32% of the accessed funds via venture capital streams, the single largest source of funding. Despite this, venture capital funds financed only a very small number of very promising companies (less than 4% of all financed companies). The largest group of supported companies that secured external funding did so via public schemes (EU and non-EU, for 51% of the financed entities).
9
INTRODUCTION EBN and the EU|BICs The European Business and Innovation Centre Network (EBN) is the leading non-profit, pan-European, association of business support organisations. EBN is a network of over 130 quality-certified Business and Innovation Centres (EU|BICs) and has approximately 70 associate members which support the development and growth of innovative entrepreneurs, startups, scale-ups, and SMEs. EBN’s members cover over 40 countries in Europe and beyond (Turkey, Canada, USA, Egypt and China, inter alia). Over the last two decades, EBN has become a reference point in Europe on innovation, incubation, entrepreneurship, SMEs, and regional economic development. As the official representative association for the EU|BICs, EBN’s task is to promote the development of EU|BICs within and beyond the European Union. EBN’s activities include quality certification, project and programme management and capacity building for innovative entrepreneurs, including scale-up and internationalisation services, institutional representation, the development of new tools and methodologies for members, access to sectorial knowledge and best practice, provision of technical assistance and information, communication and networking. EU|BICs and EBN were created by the European Commission in the 1980’s with the goal of addressing the economic and social hardships generated by the fall of an economic model based on the leverage effect of large companies, and as a tool to drive local economic development. The aim was, and remains, to stimulate the growth of new enterprises by providing technical support to innovative startups, spin-offs, SMEs and entrepreneurs. EBN encourages an innovative spirit through its unique ‘EBN Quality System’, which exists to award and manage the European Commission-developed label “EU|BIC”, as a recognised certification of quality for business support structures. It offers its members a full range of services including certification, networking, training, representation, events and access to projects.
10
EBN members have evolved greatly since their initial inception in line with the speed at which innovations are progressing, and today, many types of organisation can qualify as EU|BICs. Depending on the characteristics of the territories in which they are located, they can take on different shapes or sizes, such as incubators, accelerators, innovation or entrepreneurship centres, research centres, universities and development agencies or chambers of commerce. What remains at the core of their DNA is the common focus on fostering the creation of innovative enterprises and/or developing innovation within existing ones, with the ultimate goal of contributing to local/ regional economic development and growth.
How should I read this report? This report consists of three different sections. We would recommend that readers start with the first section, which provides a succinct description of the background and methodology of this annual exercise conducted by EBN to collect information on the EU|BICs. Readers interested in the EU|BIC impact measurement on the economy will find information on company creation, company growth, exposure to specific industries and job creation in the second section. Readers wishing to gain insights into the key aspects of the business model of EU|BICs will find in the third section several activity analysis indicators on how EU|BICs operate in terms of output, financial resources, human resources, external resources, communication strategy and a specific focus on the incubation business line.
Enhancing the reading of the 2018 report with the EBN Benchmark for respondents Each survey respondent received its individual EBN Benchmarking Report to help it position its own organisation in comparison with industry peers. These individual reports â&#x20AC;&#x201C; while securing the confidentiality of received data â&#x20AC;&#x201C; complement both sections two and three of the current report by allowing the respondent to quantify the impact of its strategies and measure the relative performance of its operations.
11
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY The EBN self-assessment questionnaire is the tool used by EBN to ensure that EU|BICs uphold the quality standards set by the EU|BIC Quality Criteria. It is also used to monitor their progress and impact. At the beginning of 2018, EBN changed the structure, platform and several questions of the survey to better capture the nature of the evolving EU|BICs and ensure the data analysis and subsequent Impact Reports provided a realistic representation of the current impact and trends among business support organisations in the network and across Europe. Once the new survey was ready, EBN sent questionnaires to its EU|BIC members during the first quarter of 2018 to collect quantitative and qualitative data linked to their EU|BIC activity and impact on the economy. With a response rate of 84%, 112 of the EU|BICs submitted their yearly self-assessment questionnaire in 2018. The data presented in the 2018 EBN Impact and Activity Report cover the reporting period 2017 unless otherwise specified. Each respondent indicated which of the 12 sub-categories presented in Table 1 it corresponds to. The 52 organisations belonging to the Innovation Centre category represent 46% of the respondents. Science / Technology Parks are the second largest group with 18 entities (16% of all respondents), followed by 15 Development Agencies (13% of the respondents). When deemed necessary, the report may present results for all EU|BICs with a specific breakdown for the three largest categories in terms of members. These categories are the Innovation Centres, the Science/Technology Parks and Development Agencies. Others categories consisting of smaller numbers of members are not singled out, in order to protect the confidentiality of data provided by the respondents.
12
Table 1: Breakdown of the EU|BIC respondents across categories Categories of EU|BICs
Number of respondents
Share (%)
Accelerator
1
0.9
Chamber of Commerce / Industry
3
2.7
Cluster
1
0.9
Development Agency
15
13.4
Entrepreneurship Centre
2
1.8
Government Organisation
3
2.7
Incubator
7
6.3
Innovation Agency
1
0.9
Innovation Centre
52
46.4
Research Centre
2
1.8
Science / Technology Park
18
16.1
University / Business School
7
6.3
112
100.0
Total
13
ECONOMIC IMPACT Impact on company creation FROM ENQUIRIES TO SUPPORT In 2017, EU|BICs received around 28,500 enquiries from potential entrepreneurs leading to around 8,300 of them receiving business support services (see table 2). The Innovation Centres represent the main share of the total number of enquiries received (39% - see Figure 1), followed by the Development Agencies (31%). This order is reversed when looking at the number of individuals receiving business support: the Development Agenciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; share totalled 50%, whereas the Innovation Centres supported 33% of potential entrepreneurs (see Figure 1). Science / Technology Parks received almost 7% of the total number of enquiries received and made up a little under 5% of the supported entrepreneurs.
14
Figure 1: EU|BIC categoriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; shares in total number of enquiries supported in 2017
Enquiries Enquiries received received
23% 23%
Enquiries Enquiries resulting resulting in in support support
12% 5%5% 12% 31% 31%
7%7%
33% 33%
39% 39%
Development Development Agency Agency
Innovation Innovation Centre Centre
50% 50%
Development Development Agency Agency
Science / technology ParkPark Other Science / technology Other
Innovation Innovation Centre Centre
Science / technology Other Science / technology ParkPark Other
Source: EBN
Table 2: Breakdown of enquiries received vs. those resulting in support to become startups across EU|BIC categories (2017 data) Categories of EU|BICs
Enquiries received (number)
Share (in %)
Enquiries resulting in support (number)
Share (in %)
Development Agency
8.856
31,2
4.185
50,4
Innovation Centre
11.167
39,3
2.717
32,7
Science / Technology Park
1.949
6,9
396
4,8
Other
6.443
22,7
1.000
12,1
Total
28.415
100,0
8.298
100,0
Source: EBN
The highest share among the total number of entrepreneurs supported by the Development Agencies is explained by a higher support rate (see figure 2). The support rate for all EU|BICs is estimated at 29%. Government Agencies bring this value up to 47%, while Innovation Centres claim to support just 24% of the enquiries received, compared to 20% by the Science / Technology Parks.
15
Figure 2: Support rate (enquiries received resulting in support by the EU|BIC to become startups divided by the total number of enquiries received) split across EU|BIC categories (2017 data)
Support rate (%)
50,00
47,3
45,00 40,00 35,00
29,2
30,00
24,3
25,00 20,00
20,3
15,5
15,00 10,00 5,00 Development Agency
Innovation Centre
Science / Technology Park
Others
All EU | BICs
Source: EBN
When looking at the breakdown of the supported businesses, it appears that 82% of the cases were people embarked on the adventure either individually (49%), as a team (27%) or as a family (6%) (see Figure 3). The remainder is split across academic and industrial spin-offs, with respective weightings estimated at 11% and 7%. Figure 3: Breakdown of the supported businesses by the EU|BICs by source (in % - 2017 data)
Individual
27%
Family
49%
Academic spinoff
11% 7%
Industrial spinoff Team (other than above)
6%
Source: EBN
The majority of these entrepreneurs were aged between 31 and 50 years old. This age group represented 57% of all the supported entrepreneurs in 2017 (see table 4). Individuals aged under 31 years old made up 28% of the supported total. Individuals above 50 years old were allotted to the less- represented age group, with a weighting measured at 15%.
16
Table 3: Breakdown of the entrepreneurs supported by the EU|BICs by age group (2017 data) Age Groups
Share (in %)
Less or equal to 30 years old
28,2
31 to 50 years old
57,0
More than 50 years old
14,8
Total
100,0
In terms of gender representation, only one quarter of the supported entrepreneurs were women (see Figure 4). Figure 4: Breakdown of the entrepreneurs supported by the EU|BICs by gender (in % of total number â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2017 data)
26%
Male
74%
Female
Source: EBN
Under-represented Entrepreneurs As part of the FIBIA (Fostering Inclusive Business Incubation and Acceleration) programme, an initiative supported by the JPMorgan Chase Foundation and delivered by EBN to empower business support organisations to become more inclusive and diverse, a set of questions were added to the EBN survey. These enquiries served to gather data on the level of accessibility to the services provided by EBN members and the level of diversity among the entrepreneurs supported. Out of the 112 survey respondents, 48% of the EBN members claimed to provide services to under-represented entrepreneurs. Of these, young people, women, and the unemployed were the groups that received the most support, with total shares per number of people helped by this group of EU|BICs of 76%, 39% and 17% respectively.
SERVICES TO SUPPORTED ENTREPRENEURS To support entrepreneurs in the early phases of their venture creation process, 87% of the EU|BICs provide proof of business services (see Table 5 below), 81% offer access to funding services, 70% proof of concept services, 63% proof of innovation services and 60% of the EU|BICs also offer team assessment services.
17
Table 5: Selection services provided by EU|BICs (in % of total number of respondents â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2017 data) Selection services
Number of EU|BICs offering these services
Share (in %)
Access to funding
91
81,3
Proof of business
97
86,6
Proof of concept
78
69,6
Proof of innovation
71
63,4
Team assessment
67
59,8
No selection services provided
3
2,7
Total
407
Source: EBN
IMPACT ON COMPANY GROWTH In 2017, EU|BICs supported close to 24,000 companies (see Figure 5 and Table 6). Innovation centres supported around 9,000 of these companies, representing 38% of the total figure. They were followed by Development Agencies, whose share of the total number of supported companies reached almost 27% with 6,362 units. Science / Technology Parks dedicated their efforts to more than 3,100 companies, representing roughly 13% of the total sum. Figure 5: Number of companies supported by EU|BICs
23.805
25 000,0
Number
20 000,0 15 000,0 10 000,0
6.362
9.091 3.120
5 000,0
5.232
Development Agency
Innovation Centre
Science / Technology Park
Others
All EU | BICs
Source: EBN
18
Table 6: Breakdown of companies supported by EU|BIC categories (2017 data) Categories of EU|BICs
Companies supported (number)
Share (in %)
Development Agency
6.362
26,7
Innovation Centre
9.091
38,2
Science / Technology Park
3.120
13,1
Other
5.232
22,0
23.805
100,0
All EU|BICs Source: EBN
ACCESS TO FINANCE AND STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF SUPPORTED COMPANIES Almost 30% of these 23,805 supported companies received help to access funding streams. Among the 6,700 companies that were supported by the EU|BICs to gain access to finance, 33% of these were in the start-up phase. More than 24% were in the pre-seed or seed stages. 16% were in the scale-up or growth phase and, finally, more than 26% of these were mature SMEs or large companies. Table 7: Stages of development of companies supported by EU|BICs to access finance (2017 data) Stages of development
Number
Share (in %)
Pre-seed
715
10,6
Seed
918
13,6
Startup
2.258
33,4
Scaleup/growth
1.073
15,9
Mature SMEs or large companies
1.793
26,5
Total
6.757
100,0
Source: EBN
The total amount funds that the EU|BICs helped their entrepreneurs raise in 2017 totalled close to €558m. This amount was allocated across the following stages of development: (see Figure 6). • 46% to startups • 26% to scale-up/growth companies • 15% to mature SMEs or large companies • 13% to seed stage; and • 0.6% to pre-seed stage
19
Figure 6: Breakdown of funds raised according to different company stages of development (in % of total amount raised – 2017 data)
0,6
12,7 Pre-seed
14,6
46,1
Seed Startup Scaleup/growth
25,9
Mature SMEs or large companies
Source: EBN
SERVICES PROVIDED BY EU|BICS TO SUPPORTED COMPANIES IN THE START-UP AND SCALE-UP/GROWTH STAGES OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT First, companies in their start-up phase benefit from services dedicated to helping them access funding (more than 90% of the EU|BICs offer these services – see Table 8). Second, 80% of the EU|BICs help their companies with special support schemes dedicated to gaining access to markets. In combination with these services, close to 75% of the EU|BICs help the startups with marketing. Services dedicated to team development are offered by 65% of the EU|BICs. Support for incorporation is provided by less than 50% of the EU|BICs. Table 8: Startup services provided by EU|BICs (in % of total number of respondents – 2017 data) Selection services
Number of EU|BICs offering these services
Share (in %)
Access to markets
90
80,4
Access to funding
102
91,1
Marketing
82
73,2
Support for incorporation
54
48,2
Team development
73
65,2
No Startup services provided
4
3,6
Total
405
Source: EBN
20
After the start-up stage, companies in the scale-up/growth phase are supported by 78% of the EU|BICs to access funding (see Table 9). A little more than 70% of the EU|BICs provide support to access new markets. Close to 63% of the EU|BICs also provide access to Open Innovation programmes and 56% help companies in developing their team. Table 9: Scaling-up services provided by EU|BICs (in % of total number of respondents â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2017 data) Selection services
Number of EU|BICs offering these services
Share (in %)
Access to markets
79
70,5
Access to funding
87
77,7
Access to Open Innovation programmes
70
62,5
Clustering
52
46,4
Innovation diagnostic
51
45,5
Team development
63
56,3
No scaling services provided
7
6,3
Total
409
Source: EBN
SURVIVAL RATES OF SUPPORTED COMPANIES In terms of companies not failing, the figure 7 shows the survival rates of companies whilst they are being actively supported by the EU|BICs and three years after they have exited their support programmes. All EU|BICs considered as a whole suffer from an average survival rate close to 94% of the companies actively supported by them. This rate decreases to slightly less than 89% for the companies within three years after having left their support programmes. These rates are similar to the ones observed for both the Development Agency and the Innovation Centre categories. The Science/Technology Park category tends to have slightly higher rates (measured respectively at 95.8% and 89.4%).
21
Figure 7: Average survival rates of businesses supported by EU|BICs (2017 data)
98,00 96,00
in (%)
94,00
94,2
93,6
95,8
93,8
92,00 90,00 88,00
88,1
88,3
89,4
88,7
86,00 84,00 Development Agency
Innovation Centre
Science / Technology Park
All EU | BICs
% of businesses having survived in 2017 while being supported by an EU|BICs % of businesses having survived within 3 years afted end of the support by an EU|BICs
Source: EBN
Impact on tech and non-tech industries Of 23,805 companies supported in 2017, 13,520 of these had a tech component within their product or service. i.e. 57% of the total. When looking at the percentage of tech and non tech companies in specific industries, we can observe that: • Materials and electronics was the first industry in terms of the number of supported companies – both taken as a whole or when focusing only on tech companies (respective shares are 20 and 22.5%) • ICT and communications is the second most active industry for both the total number of companies and the tech companies only (respective shares are 14 and 18.6%) • Services for business, industry and citizens rank third with a 12% share of the total number of supported companies and 9% share of tech companies.
22
Figure 8: Breakdown of the total number of businesses and tech businesses supported across industries (2017 data) Materials & electronics ICT & communication Services for business, industry & citizens Creative industries Sport, tourism & entertainment Health & pharmaceuticals Agriculture & forestry Environment & energy Software engineering Tranport & mobility Civil engineering Other -
5,00
10,00
Share in % of total tech companies
15,00
20,00
25,00
Share in % of total companies
Source: EBN
Impact on job creation In 2017, around 14,200 jobs were created by 5,400 of the supported companies by the EU|BICs surveyed (see Table 11). Innovation Centres were behind more than 5,900 of these created jobs. Development agencies contributed to creating close to 3,900, whereas Science / Technology Parks were the source of almost 1,200. In terms of the quality of these jobs, respondents stated that 45% of them required middle level skills and only 17% entry-level skills. Table 11: Breakdown of the total number of jobs created in the corresponding number of companies and tech businesses supported across industries (2017 data) Categories of EU|BICs
Number of jobs created
Number of companies that created these jobs
Development Agency
3.877
1.648
Innovation Centre
5.945
2.156
Science / Technology Park
1.188
437
Other
3.188
1.165
Total
14.198
5.406
Source: EBN
23
ACTIVITY ANALYSIS Output Table 12 presents the main output indicators for four categories of EU|BICs. These four categories are: • All EU|BICs taken as a whole • Development Agencies • Innovation Centres • Science / Technology Parks The main output indicators for the year 2017 are the average and median values of the following items: • The total number of enquiries received • The enquiries received divided by the number of full-time employees (FTE) • The total number of supported businesses • The number of supported businesses divided by the number of FTE • The total number of supported businesses that successfully accessed capital • The number of businesses that accessed capital divided by the number of FTE • The amount raised for the aforementioned companies • Sum of capital raised divided by the number of FTE
24
The main findings are as follows: • The total number of enquiries received On average, each EU|BIC dealt with approximately 261 enquiries from potential entrepreneurs in 2017. The median value was estimated at 90. he higher average compared to the median relates to the heterogeneity of sizes across the organisations, T notably among Developments Agencies, for which the values were measured at 590 (average enquiries) and 33 (median enquiries). • The enquiries received divided by the number of FTE The difference in size mentioned above was not the only explanation supporting the spread average vs. median values. The average and median values expressed in terms of number of support staff or full time equivalent were also significantly different. The average number of enquiries received per FTE for all EU|BICs was more than two times higher than the median number (almost 28 compared to 12). The ability to attract and analyse received enquiries by support staff members was significantly higher for certain players than for others. A comparison of these values across categories of EU|BICs indicates that the most efficient players to generate and analyse enquiries were the Development Agencies. Records indicate that each staff member dealt with approximately 35 (the highest value compared to other EU|BICs) and a low median value of 6.3, which was the lowest across the rest of EU|BICs. • The total number of businesses supported As previously, the average and median values of supported businesses differed significantly across all EU|BICs (218 compared with 81). This difference relates to the size but also to the operational efficiency of members (as explained below). • Businesses supported divided by number of FTE When comparing average values for this ratio, the Development Agencies outperformed their peers (one FTE supported almost 30 companies compared to 21 supported by the EU|BIC average as a whole). This is also true for the median value (18 compared with 12). • The total number of businesses supported that accessed capital streams As for the number of enquiries and supported businesses, the Development Agencies supported a much higher average number of companies through this service in 2017 (an average value of 124, more than double the value observed for all EU|BICs). Here again, size and efficiency played a significant role in explaining identified spreads of average vs. median values. • Business supported that accessed capital divided by the number of FTE It is striking that the median values observed across all EU|BIC categories for this ratio comprised between 2.0 and 2.4. This would appear to suggest that it is more difficult to increase efficiency in this area. However, when comparing within categories the spread between average and median values, one can see that some Innovation Centres significantly outperformed some of their peers in this area (average value of 9.3 compared to a median set at 2.4 – the largest spread observed across categories). When comparing this average value across EU|BIC categories – as opposed to within categories – the Innovation Centres were also the most efficient, as they were second to none (Development Agencies ranked second with an average value of 4.7).
25
• The amount raised for the companies receiving access to finance With a rough average of €12m raised in 2017 by the Development Agencies for their supported startups and SMEs, these players significantly outperformed the other categories (€3m and €2.6m for the Innovation Centres and the Science / Technology Parks). This higher relative average output was also observed for the median values (€2.3m compared to €1.1m and €700k for the Science / Technology Parks and the Innovation Centres). • Sum of capital raised divided by FTEs Innovation Centres managed to raise, on average, €514k per support staff, which was the highest amount after the Development Agencies (€540k). However, when comparing median values, it appears that Development Agencies scored better than their counterparts with €236k. Comparatively, all other categories were below €112k. Table 12: Output – All indicators 2017 data Entity categories
Indicators
Average value
Median value
All EU|BICs
Enquiries received (Number)
260,7
90,0
Enquiries/support staff number (#/FTE)
27,8
12,0
Businesses supported (Number)
218,4
81,0
Businesses supported/support staff number (#/FTE)
21,2
12,3
Businesses supported with access to finance (Number)
60,3
18,0
Businesses supported/support staff number (#/FTE)
6,6
2,2
4.978.418,0
870.392,0
544.880,0
110.441,0
Enquiries received (Number)
590,4
33,0
Enquiries/support staff number (#/FTE)
34,8
6,3
Businesses supported (Number)
424,1
123,0
Businesses supported/support staff number (#/FTE)
29,6
17,8
Businesses supported with access to finance (Number)
124,0
15,0
4,7
2,1
11.823.835,0
2.365.000,0
539.482,0
236.500,0
Amount raised (€) Amount raised/support staff number (€/FTE) Development Agency
Businesses supported/support staff number (#/FTE) Amount raised (€) Amount raised/support staff number (€/FTE)
26
Innovation Centre Enquiries received (Number)
223,3
146,0
Enquiries/support staff number (#/FTE)
34,2
20,4
Businesses supported (Number)
181,8
94,0
Businesses supported/support staff number (#/FTE)
21,7
15,6
Businesses supported with access to finance (Number)
67,9
20,0
Businesses supported/support staff number (#/FTE)
9,3
2,4
2.973.849,0
699.500,0
513.978,0
92.635,0
Enquiries received (Number)
108,3
57,0
Enquiries/support staff number (#/FTE)
13,9
11,1
Businesses supported (Number)
173,3
51,0
Businesses supported/support staff number (#/FTE)
14,7
13,1
Businesses supported with access to finance (Number)
27,7
21,0
Businesses supported/support staff number (#/FTE)
4,2
2,0
2.638.099,0
1.115.000,0
343.965,0
111.778,0
Amount raised (€) Amount raised/support staff number (€/FTE) Science/ Technology Park
Amount raised (€) Amount raised/support staff number (€/FTE) Source: EBN
27
Financial resources In line with the previous sections, Table 13 presents main financial indicators for the four categories of EU|BICs; namely, EU|BICs taken as a whole, Development Agencies, Innovation Centres and Science / Technology Parks. The main financial indicators for the year 2017 are the average and median values of the following items: • Annual income • Sources of income expressed in percentage. These sources are classified in three categories: EU funding, other public sources and private sources. • Annual expenses • Breakdown of expenses in percentage across the following items: payroll, external consultants, funding to entrepreneurs and other • The margin ratio calculated as income minus expenses divided by income The main findings include: • Annual income The average annual income in 2017 for all EU|BICs was calculated at €1.8m. The median value stood at €950K, around half this amount. This spread stems from the difference in sizes across EU|BICs. On average, the largest budgets were to be found among Development Agencies, with an amount estimated at €2.7m. The median value for these players was measured at €995K. Innovation Centres had the smaller average budget at €1.3m. Science / Technology Parks benefited from a somewhat higher average budget at €1.5m. These two last categories of EU|BICs showed similar median income at around €1.0m.
28
• Sources of income On average, all EU|BICs benefited from a larger share of non-EU public sources (47% of their income). The second largest source of income was from private sources (share of 34%). The remainder came from EU funding (almost 19%). The median values preserve this ranking, but the EU funding’s share significantly decreased to 8%. This demonstrates a rather heterogeneous capacity among players to secure funding from the EU. The Science / Technology Parks are the best at securing income from the EU, with average and median values respectively measured at 20% and 15.5%. The Development Agencies are the weakest in this respect, with average and median values set at 15% and 2%. However, this might be explained by their relatively strong dependence on other public sources, with average and median weights both calculated at around 60%. The Development Agencies also attract a significantly lower share of their income from private sources. The average and median shares were measured at 26% and 6% for this category. On average, Innovation Centres and Science / Technology Parks managed to secure around 35% of their income from private sources, with median values of around 20-25%. • Expenses Average annual expenses for all EU|BICs were calculated at €1.8m and the median value at around €930k. Development Agencies had the highest average expenses (€2.8m) and the Innovation Centres the lowest at €1.3m. As for the median income level, median expenses across categories of EU|BICs were quite similar at around €1m. • Breakdown of expenses Across all categories, average and median weights of destinations of resources were similar, with the exception of funding to entrepreneurs. Payroll made up the lion’s share of expenses (around 50%). External consultants accounted for around 10% of the expenses. The funding to entrepreneurs played a minor role, with average value at around 5% and median value at 0%. The expenses made in other items represented around 35% of all expenses. • Margin The average margin was close to zero for all EU|BICs, which is in line with the not-for-profit calling of most of them. These values were negative for Development Agencies and Innovation Centres but by a very little margin (-3.6% and -2.7% respectively). This is not alarming given that most of these organisations overcome the deficit with the support of the budget for the following year. Median values painted a different picture, emerging as break-even or positive (+1.7% for Innovation Centres). A minority of loss-making entities drives the average margins above into negative territory, as 75% of all respondents are break-even of profit making.
29
Table 13: Financial indicators – All indicators 2017 data Entity categories
Indicators
Average value
Median value
All EU|BICs
Income (€)
1.852.201,0
948.142,0
EU
18,6
8,0
Other public sources
47,3
50,0
Private sources
34,1
25,0
1.841.790,0
932.899,0
Payroll
48,9
50,0
External consultants
11,5
8,5
Funding to entrepreneurs
4,2
0,0
Other
35,4
33,0
Margin (%(2))
0,6
0,9
2.716.505,0
995.639,0
EU
15,2
2,0
Other public sources
58,4
60,0
Private sources
26,4
6,0
2.814.496,0
1.000.000,0
Payroll
48,8
49,0
External consultants
10,7
10,0
Funding to entrepreneurs
4,7
0,0
Other
35,8
34,0
Margin (%(2))
-3,6
0,0
1.278.327,0
1.019.450,0
EU
19,4
10,0
Other public sources
45,2
50,0
Private sources
35,4
25,0
1.312.397,0
1.008.203,0
Payroll
50,7
50,0
External consultants
12,5
10,0
Funding to entrepreneurs
3,0
0,0
Other
33,8
32,0
Margin (%(2))
-2,7
1,7
From (share in % (1)):
Expenses(€) Items (share in % (1)):
Development Agency
Income (€) From (share in % (1)):
Expenses(€) Items (share in % (1)):
Innovation Centre
Income (€) From (share in % (1)):
Expenses(€) Items (share in % (1)):
30
Science/technology Park Income (€)
1.501.200,0
1.012.594,0
EU
19,8
15,5
Other public sources
46,3
53,5
Private sources
33,9
21,5
1.510.413,0
1.075.420,0
Payroll
46,7
40,5
External consultants
13,1
9,0
Funding to entrepreneurs
3,6
0,0
Other
36,7
36,5
Margin (%(2))
-0,6
0,6
From (share in % (1)):
Expenses(€) Items (share in % (1)):
(1): Sums of median values can be different from 100% (2): Defined as (Income – Expenses)/Income
Source: EBN
Human resources As previously, Table 14 presents main human resources indicators for four categories of EU|BICs. These are: all EU|BICs taken as a whole, Development Agencies, Innovation Centres and Science / Technology Parks. The main human resources indicators for the year 2017 are the average and median values of the following items: • Total number of support staff members and their breakdown across main functions (all expressed in FTE) • Total number of back office staff members and their breakdown across main functions (all expressed in FTE) • Management ratios (support/back office staff and payroll/total staff)
The main findings are as follows: • Total number of support staff members and their breakdown across main functions (all expressed in FTE) The difference in size across all EU|BICs can also be measured by the spread between the average number of FTE and the median FTE (11.1 against 7.0). Development Agencies had the largest average number of support staff expressed in FTE (18.8). Innovation Centres and Science / Technology Parks had average values of 9.5 and 9.8 respectively. The median values stood at around 7 for Development Agencies and Innovation Centres. Science / Technology Park’s median value amounted to a mere 5.2. Across all categories of EU|BICs presented in Table 14, their support staff consist first of business coaches and training staff (4 to 9 FTE on average and median values at 3 FTE). Project management then requires 2.2 to
31
3.3 FTE on average (median values 1 to 1.6 FTE). Incubator management required on average around 1.5 FTE (median values at 1 FTE). • Total number of back office staff members and their breakdown across main functions (all expressed in FTE) Back office staff members measured an average of 5.9 FTE for all EU| BICs (median values of around 4 FTE). Team structures were consistent across all EU|BIC categories (see Table 14) with Administration/Event logistics requiring on average around 3 FTE (median value 2 FTE). General management was allocated a relatively similar average number of FTE across categories close to 1.5 FTE (median value 1 FTE). And, on average, one person was allocated to Communications, both confirmed by the average and the median.
MANAGEMENT RATIOS (SUPPORT/BACK OFFICE STAFF AND PAYROLL/TOTAL STAFF) When looking at all the EU|BICs taken as a whole, there were, on average, 2 FTE working as support staff for every single FTE in the back office (the median value is also 2). Across categories of EU|BICs, the Development Agencies showed the higher ratio (average value 3 and median value 2.5). Science / Technology Parks had the lowest ratio (1.4 as average and median values). When it comes to the average cost for all staff members (support and back office included), the average values for all EU|BICs is measured at €45,701 annually for one FTE. The median value is close to the average one (almost €42,000). There are significant differences across categories of players. Development Agencies’ payroll costs per FTE were on average close to €64,000 (median value was €64,562). Innovation Centres’ average costs were estimated at around €42,000 and the median costs were slightly lower than €41,000. Table 14: Human resources – All indicators 2017 data Entity categories All EU|BICs
Indicators Support staff (in FTE) Per function: Business coaches and training staff Incubator management Project management Others Back office staff (in FTE) Per function: General management Communication Administration/Event logistics Ratios Support/back office staff (FTE) Payroll/total staff (€/FTE)
Average value 11,1
Median value 7,0
4,9 1,5 2,4 2,0 5,9
3,0 1,0 1,2 0,0 4,0
1,5 1,3 3,1
1,0 1,0 2,0
1,9 45.701,0
2,0 41.880,0
32
Development Agency
Innovation Centre
Science/Technology Park
Support staff (in FTE) Per function: Business coaches and training staff Incubator management Project management Others Back office staff (in FTE) Per function: General management Communication Administration/Event logistics Ratios Support/back office staff (FTE) Payroll/total staff (€/FTE) Support staff (in FTE) Per function: Business coaches and training staff Incubator management Project management Others Back office staff (in FTE) Per function: General management Communication Administration/Event logistics Ratios Support/back office staff (FTE) Payroll/total staff (€/FTE) Support staff (in FTE) Per function: Business coaches and training staff Incubator management Project management Others Back office staff (in FTE) Per function: General management Communication Administration/Event logistics Ratios Support/back office staff (FTE) Payroll/total staff (€/FTE)
18,8
7,0
9,3 1,6 3,3 4,6 6,2
3,5 1,0 1,0 4,0
1,7 1,0 3,5
1,0 0,5 1,0
3,0 63.790,0 9,5
2,5 64.562,0 7,3
4,2 1,4 2,2 1,8 5,2
3,0 1,0 1,6 0,2 3,8
1,4 1,1 2,7
1,0 1,0 2,0
1,8 42.162,0 9,8
2,2 40.727,0 5,2
3,1 2,0 2,3 2,4 7,1
2,2 1,0 1,2 0,0 4,5
1,6 1,6 3,9
1,0 1,0 2,1
1,4 44.797,0
1,4 49.300,0
Source: EBN
33
External resources STRATEGIC ALLIANCES EU|BICs relied on a network of strategic alliances to implement their strategies. The most common were with universities. 109 respondents referred to them as partners (see table 15). Approximately 82% of respondents established formal partnerships with universities, while around 18% operated on a non-formal partnership basis. The second most common partners were local/regional/development/innovation agencies (105 of the respondents referred to them as partner entities). They also tended to prefer formal partnerships with these agencies (75% of the responses) rather than non-formal partnerships (25% of the responses). Chambers of Commerce / Industry ranked third as most-preferred partners, but here, the share of formal partnership was just above 64%. At the other end of the scale, only 38 respondents stated that they had a partnership with NGOs and for more than 68% of them it was a non-formal one. EBN members traditionally belong to a slightly greater ‘public’ innovation ecosystem. Their initial creation was incentivised by public authorities to stimulate the regional economies in which they are embedded (as seen by their formal ties with regional/local development agencies). As we move towards a more interconnected society, competitive advantage not only depends on what organisations can achieve but also on the partnerships they enjoy. Alliances have thus become a critical element for business strategy. EBN’s strives to enable its members to access a wide range of partners to increase the value of activities taken forward as a network of innovation professionals.
34
Table 15: Number of EU|BICs declaring having formal or informal partnerships with the following entities Formal partnership (Number)
Informal partnership (Number)
Total number
Formal partnership (%)
Informal partnership (%)
Total (%)
Accelerators
44
43
87
50,6
49,4
100,0
Banks
55
42
97
56,7
43,3
100,0
33
58
91
36,3
63,7
100,0
39
43
82
47,6
52,4
100,0
59
38
97
60,8
39,2
100,0
67
37
104
64,4
35,6
100,0
37
43
80
46,3
53,8
100,0
14
36
50
28,0
72,0
100,0
22
39
61
36,1
63,9
100,0
61
36
97
62,9
37,1
100,0
32
27
59
54,2
45,8
100,0
53
29
82
64,6
35,4
100,0
39
43
82
47,6
52,4
100,0
NGOs
12
26
38
31,6
68,4
100,0
R&D Institutions
54
35
89
60,7
39,3
100,0
27
38
65
41,5
58,5
100,0
79
26
105
75,2
24,8
100,0
52
39
91
57,1
42,9
100,0
31
42
73
42,5
57,5
100,0
Tech Transfer Office
41
39
80
51,3
48,8
100,0
Technology Centres
43
39
82
52,4
47,6
100,0
Universities
89
20
109
81,7
18,3
100,0
Venture Capital funds
26
52
78
33,3
66,7
100,0
Other
10
5
15
66,7
33,3
100,0
Entities
Business Angel Networks Business Schools Business Support Organisations Chambers of Commerce / Industry Coworking Spaces Crowdfunding Schemes Export Agencies Innovation Centres International Corporations International Organisations Large Companies
Rapid Prototyping Centres Regional / Local / development / Innovation Agencies Science/Technology Parks Seed funds
Source: EBN
35
THIRD-PARTY INVESTORS Figure 9 and table 16 reveal that venture capital funds were the largest provider of capital to finance- supported companies (32% of the total amount raised in 2017). The second source of funding was the EU through its various programmes (a share close to 25%). Other sources of public funding ranked third, totalling 23% of the amount raised. When looking at the number of companies financed rather than the amount raised, the picture is different. According to this metric, the first partners were other public funding schemes (almost 32% of the companies), followed by EU funding for 19% of the companies. Venture capital funds financed a mere 4% of all companies financed. Figure 9: Investors financing supported companies by EU|BICs EU | BICs own funds Venture Capital EU funding Other public funding
Share (in %)
Business Angels
Share (in %)
Banks Friends, Fools, Family Crowdfunding -
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
35,00
Source: EBN
Table 16: Investors financing supported companies by EU|BICs Number of companies financed
Share (in %)
Amount provided (€m)
Share (in %)
Crowdfunding
50
0,8
5,7
1,0
Friends, Fools and Family
624
9,4
7,4
1,3
Banks
955
14,4
29,6
5,3
Business Angels
304
4,6
55,0
9,9
Other public funding
2 109
31,7
127,5
22,9
EU funding
1 284
19,3
137,2
24,6
240
3,6
177,0
31,7
EU|BIC own funds
1 091
16,4
18,2
3,3
Total
6 657
100,0
557,6
100,0
Investors
Venture Capital
Source: EBN
36
EXTERNAL CONSULTANTS On average, all EU|BICs used 0.4 FTE external consultants in 2017. The largest users on average were the Innovation Centres (0.48 FTE). Development Agencies and Science / Technology Parks used external consultants in a very similar fashion on average, hiring them for a 0.36/0.37 FTE. However, it should be noted that the medians for all categories were lower than the average values, indicating that some players used this external resource more than others. Table17: Average and median number of consultants per categories of EU|BIC (in FTE - 250 business days) Categories of EU|BICs
Average number of FTE
Median number of FTE
Development Agency
0,36
0,24
Innovation Centre
0,48
0,16
Science / Technology Park
0,37
0,18
Other
0,26
0,00
All EU|BICs
0,40
0,16
Source: EBN
EU|BICs called on external consultants firstly for legal expertise. Around 80% of the respondents hired them for their competences in intellectual property, slightly less than 60% for their legal and procedural support at company creation or for other legal services (see figure 10). Design and product development ranked only fourth, ICT development fifth, followed by internationalisation skills. Figure 10: Core expertise of external consultants hired by EU|BICs (% of respondents)
Legal/procedural support at company creation Design and product development Internationalisation Mentoring Technology/innovation assessment Commercialisation EU and Donor Funding Other Source: EBN
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
in (%)
37
Communications strategy EVENTS AND MEDIA During 2017, EU|BICs organised 3,229 awareness-raising events. More than 126,000 people attended those events, representing an average of 39 participants per event (see table 18). Table 18: Awareness-Raising events organised by EU|BICs (2017 data) Number of Awareness-Raising events
3Â 229
Number of participants to the events
126Â 180
Average Number participants per event
39
Source: EBN
Other media channels used include websites (used by 93% of the respondents), followed by networking events (implemented by 92% of the respondents). Social media marketing was also used by 80% of the respondents, ahead of more traditional channels such as newsletters and presentations, partnerships and referrals (see figure 11). Figure 11: Public Relations by EU|BICs (2017 data)
92,9
Website
92,0
Networking
81,3
Social media marketing
75,0
Newsletters/presentations
72,3
Partnership/referrals -
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00 100,00
Share of respondents in % Source: EBN
38
SATISFACTION MEASUREMENT Almost 75% of the EU|BICs track and monitor their entrepreneur’s satisfaction while providing them with business support services (see Table 19). 45% of them also measured this after the support period was completed. Table 19: Entrepreneurs’ satisfaction monitoring by EU|BIC (2017 data - in % of respondents) EU|BIC monitoring
EU|BIC NOT monitoring
Total
While entrepreneurs were receiving support
74,0
26,0
100,0
After entrepreneurs stopped receiving support
45,0
55,0
100,0
Source: EBN
Incubation business line In 2017, 85% of the EU|BICs provided incubation services to the entrepreneurs they support. Their hosting capacities were on average for 250 persons, in 3 buildings representing 5,938 square meters (see Table 20). Table 20: Capacity by EU|BIC providing Physical Incubation Space (2017 data) Average People-hosting capacity
250
Size in square meters
5 938
Number of buildings
3
Source: EBN
The occupancy rate was, on average, 80%. This corresponded to an average number of 42 tenant businesses in the incubator. These tenants remained in the incubator for a period lasting, on average, 34 months (see table 21). EU|BICs implemented an entry strategy for 87% of them and for 55% of them an exit strategy.
39
Table 21: Occupancy by EU|BIC providing Physical Incubation Space (2017 data) Average number Number of tenant businesses in the incubator
42
Tenants having entered the incubator
11
Tenants having exited the incubator
10
Average incubation time (in months)
34
Source: EBN
Beyond flexible co-working spaces offered by 73% of the respondents, businesses in the incubator could also benefit from rapid prototyping centres in 33% of the cases and end-user testing capacities in 20.5% of the EU|BICs. Access to wet lab facilities were offered by 17% of the respondents. Table 22: Facilities provided by EU|BICs (2017 data) Facilities by EU|BICsÂť
ÂŤNumber of times mentioned Share (in % of respodnents)
Access to wet lab
19
17,0
End-user testing
23
20,5
Flexible coworking space
82
73,2
Rapid prototyping centre
37
33,0
No facilities provided
13
11,6
Total
174
Source: EBN
40
CONCLUSION In 2017, the 112 EU|BICs who responded to the annual survey conducted by EBN received 28,500 enquiries. Out of these, 8,300 were selected to receive business support services. These entities were added to a portfolio of supported businesses that represented 24,000+ companies. 6,750 companies managed to secure funding for their activities thanks to the support of EU|BICs. The total amount raised for these entities represented approximately â&#x201A;Ź558m. Almost 60% of the supported companies were tech companies, mostly active in materials and electronics, ICT and communications. In terms of impact on job creation, supported companies created around 14,000 jobs in 2017. These results were achieved by EU|BICs relying on an average annual income of â&#x201A;Ź1.8m for an average team consisting of 17 persons. On average, these entities were just break-even during the exercise. Altogether, it appeared that there were heterogeneous situations across EU|BICs depending on whether they were Development Agencies, Innovation Centres, Science / Technology Parks or other. Moreover, these differences of situation were also observed within each category, with entities being larger and more efficiently-run than some of their closest peers.
41
LIST OF EU|BIC THAT SUBMITTED THEIR YEARLY SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE IN 2018 Country
EU|BIC
Austria Science Park Graz Belgium BEP Namur Belgium CEI Louvain Belgium Cide-Socran Belgium Entreprendre.Wapi Belgium IDELUX Innovation Belgium imec Belgium La Maison de l’Entreprise Brazil Raiar Incubator in PUCRS Science and Technology Park - Tecnopuc Bulgaria Ruse Chamber of Commerce and Industry Canada Ag-Bio Centre Canada Centech Canada Centre d’aide aux entreprises Haute-Montérégie Canada DEL - Economic Development of the Agglomeration de Longueil Canada IDE Trois-Rivières Cyprus CyRIC - Cyprus Research & Innovation Centre Ltd Czech Republic BIC Ostrava s.r.o. Czech Republic BIC Plzen Czech Republic Innovation Support Centre - VSB – Technical University of Ostrava Czech Republic JIC - South Moravian Innovation Centre Egypt GESR- Misr El Kheir Egypt Technology Innovation & Entrepreneurship Center - TIEC Finland Wirma Business services France ACCET - Val d’Oise Technopole France AGROPOLE France Angers Technopole France Atlanpole France BIC CRESCENDO France BIC de Montpellier France BIC INNOVUP France BIC Plein Sud Entreprises France BORDEAUX TECHNOWEST France Business Pôle - Sophia Antipolis France CACEM Technopole Martinique France Castres-Mazamet Technopole France CEEI Créativ France CEEI-CHARTRES (The Place) France CEEI NCA France DEV’UP Centre-Val de Loire France ESTIA Entreprendre France INNOVACT France Laval Mayenne Technopole France LE GRAND NARBONNE France Matikem France SYNERGIE SA France Technopole de l’Aube France Technopole Quimper-Cornouaille France THESAME France Toulon Var Technologies Germany gate - Garchinger Technologie- und Gründerzentrum Hungary Budapest Enterprise Agency Ireland CorkBIC Ireland Dublin Business Innovation Ireland South East Business & Innovation Centre Ireland WestBIC
Website www.sciencepark.at www.bep.be www.ceilln.be www.cide-socran.be www.entreprendrewapi.be www.idelux.be www.imec.be www.lme.be www.pucrs.br/tecnopuc www.rcci.bg www.agbiocentre.com www.centech.co www.caehm.com www.delagglo.cafr www.idetr.com www.cyric.eu www.bicova.cz www.bic.cz www.cpi.vsb.cz www.jic.cz www.gesr.net www.tiec.gov.eg www.wirma.fi www.accet.asso.fr www.agropole.com www.angerstechnopole.com https:www.atlanpole.com www.crescendo-tarbes.com www.montpellier3m.fr www.innovup.com www.pleinsudentreprises.com www.technowest.com www.casa-infos.agglo-casa.fr www.technopolemartinique.org www.castres-mazamet-technopole.com www.ceei-creativ.asso.fr www.ceei-chartres.com www.ceeinca.org www.devup-centrevaldeloire.fr www.estia.fr www.innovact.com https:www.laval-technopole.fr entreprendre.legrandnarbonne.com www.matikem.com www.synergie-ceei.com www.technopole-aube.fr www.tech-quimper.fr www.thesame-innovation.com www.tvt.fr www.gategarching.com www.bvk.hu www.corkbic.com dublinbic.ie www.sebic.ie www.westbic.ie
42
Italy BIC INCUBATORI FVG S.R.L. www.incubatori.fvg.it Italy Consorzio Arca www.consorzioarca.it Italy FILSE Spa www.filse.it Italy Fondazione IDIS - Città della Scienza www.campanianewsteel.it Italy INNOVA BIC SRL www.innovabic.it Italy Lazio Innova S.p.A. www.lazioinnova.it Italy PUGLIA SVILUPPO SPA www.pugliasviluppo.euen Italy Tecnopolis Science and Technology Park www.tecnopolispst.it Italy Trentino Sviluppo www.trentinosviluppo.it Lebanon Berytech www.berytech.org Netherlands Business Development Friesland www.bdfriesland.nl Netherlands Stichting StartLife Holding www.start-life.nl Poland Krakow Technology Park www.sse.krakow.pl Poland Poznan Science and Technology Park www.ppnt.poznan.pl Portugal DNA Cascais www.dnacascais.pt Portugal Instituto Pedro Nunes www.ipn.pt Portugal Nonagon - Parque de Ciência e Tecnologia de S. Miguel www.nonagon.pt Portugal Sines Tecnopolo www.sinestecnopolo.org Portugal Startup Madeira startupmadeira.eu Portugal TAGUSVALLEY www.tagusvalley.pt Russian Federation Innovative and Production Technopark «Idea» www.tpidea.ru Slovakia Novitech a.s. www.izones.euBIC Slovenia Inkubator d.o.o. Sezana www.inkubator.si Spain Barcelona Activa www.barcelonactiva.es Spain BEAZ - BIC Bizkaia beaz.bizkaia.eus Spain BIC Araba www.bicaraba.eus Spain BIC Bizkaia Ezkerraldea www.bicezkerraldea.eus Spain Bic Euronova, S.A. www.bic.es Spain BIC GIPUZKOA BERRILAN S.A. www.bicgipuzkoa.eus Spain BIC Granada www.bicgranada.org Spain BIC Canarias - Instituto Tecnológico de Canarias www.itccanarias.orgweb Spain CEEI Bahía de Cádiz www.ceeicadiz.com Spain CEEI Asturias - BIC Asturias www.ceei.es Spain CEEI CARTAGENA www.ceeic.com Spain CEEI Castellón www.ceei-castellon.com Spain CEEI Elche www.ceei-elche.com Spain CEEI Talavera de la Reina www.ceeitvr.com Spain CEEI VALENCIA www.ceei-valencia.com Spain CEEIARAGON www.ceeiaragon.es Spain CEEI Burgos www.ceeiburgos.es Spain CEEIM www.ceeim.es Spain CEEI Lleida www.ceeilleida.com Spain Fundació Bit www.fundaciobit.org Spain CEEI Albacete www.ceeialbacete.com Spain Fundación Centro Europeo de Empresas e Innovación de Guadalajara www.ceeiguadalajara.es Spain Fundación Centro Europeo de Empresas e Innovación de Ciudad Real www.ceeicr.es Spain Fundación para el Conocimiento madri+d www.madrimasd.orgemprendedores Sweden Ideon Innovation www.ideoninnovation.se Switzerland CimArk www.cimark.ch Taiwan Chaoyang University / Taiwan ITRI Incubation Center www.itri.org.tw/eng/econtent/business/business05.aspx United Kingdom CUE Ltd www.coventry.ac.uk/business/coventry-university-group/coventry-university-enterprises-limited United Kingdom North East BIC www.ne-bic.co.uk/ United Kingdom St John’s Innovation Centre www.stjohns.co.uk United Kingdom Staffordshire & Black Country Business Innovation Centre Ltd www.thebic.co.uk United Kingdom University of Greenwich www.innovationcentremedway.co.uk United Kingdom University of Warwick Science Park www.warwicksciencepark.co.uk
43
European Business and Innovation Centre Network ‒ EBN Av. de Tervueren, 168 Bte 25 B-1150 Brussels +32 2 772 95 74 info@ebn.eu ‒ www.ebn.eu
44