WP5 Recommendations and
observatory
D5.3 Observatory report
Final version – 9 February 2018
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 645244. This document does reflect the authors view only. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information the document contains.
D5.3 Observatory report
Work package WP5 Recommendations and observatory
Lead author Liliya Pullmann (FRAUNHOFER)
Contributing author(s) Daniel Bachlechner (FRAUNHOFER)
Due date M36 (January 2018)
Date 9 February 2018
Version 1.0
Type Report
Dissemination level Public
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
III
Document history
Version Date Author(s) Notes
0.1 19 September 2017 Liliya Pullmann (FRAUNHOFER) First draft of the document structure
0.2 8 January 2018 Liliya Pullmann (FRAUNHOFER) Addition of content to all sections
1.0 9 February 2018 Daniel Bachlechner (FRAUNHOFER)
Final check
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
IV
EuDEco in a nutshell
EuDEco assists European science and industry in understanding and exploiting the potentials of data reuse
in the context of big and open data. The aim is to establish a self-sustaining data market and thereby
increase the competitiveness of Europe. To be able to extract the benefits of data reuse, it is crucial to
understand the underlying economic, societal, legal and technological framework conditions and
challenges to build useful applications and services. Despite the amount of activities in this domain, an
effort is missing to develop use cases and business models that are economically viable, legally certain
and take societal needs and concerns into account. EuDEco will accomplish this by leveraging the
engagement of other projects conducting pilots on data reuse as well as by the engagement of external
experts and stakeholders. EuDEco moves beyond the classic approaches by applying the approach of
complex adaptive systems to model the data economy in order to identify value networks, use cases and
business models for data reuse. In the course of the project, we further develop and refine the data
economy model in several steps by case studies on previous pilots on data reuse, by in-depth analysis
from legal, socio-economic and technological points of view, and by extensive tests of use cases and
business models with other projects. Therefore, it will analyse framework conditions relevant and
challenges related to data reuse and the emergence of a self-sustaining data market. Finally, EuDEco will
deliver a model of the data economy including viable use cases and business models as well as suggestions
and recommendations addressing the main legal, contractual, societal and technological concerns and
challenges such as contractual framework or data protection. Above that, EuDEco will develop an
observatory for policy makers enabling them to track the development of the data economy.
Disclaimer
© – 2018 – IVSZ, ROOTER, LEIDEN, ASCORA, FRAUNHOFER. All rights reserved. Licensed to the European
Union (EU) under conditions.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
V
Table of contents
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................1
1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................2
1.1 Purpose and scope ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Structure of the document ............................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Relationships to other deliverables ............................................................................................... 4
2 Towards an observatory of the data economy .............................................................................5
2.1 Limitations and barriers ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.1 Index methodology ................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Data constraints ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.2.3 Descriptive statistics ................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Categories and indicators ............................................................................................................. 8
3 The observatory ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Business sector activities ............................................................................................................. 15
3.1.1 Enterprises using and analysing data ...................................................................................... 15
3.1.2 Productivity of data-related sectors ....................................................................................... 17
3.1.3 Investment in ICT services ...................................................................................................... 18
3.1.4 Share of data companies......................................................................................................... 19
3.1.5 Trade in data-related services ................................................................................................. 20
3.1.6 Index on business sector activities .......................................................................................... 21
3.2 Business environment ................................................................................................................. 26
3.2.1 Chance for getting credit ........................................................................................................ 26
3.2.2 Government support to business R&D ................................................................................... 30
3.2.3 Policy and governance framework.......................................................................................... 31
3.2.4 Index on business environment .............................................................................................. 35
3.3 Innovation potential .................................................................................................................... 43
3.3.1 Scientific publications ............................................................................................................. 43
3.3.2 R&D investments in data-related activities ............................................................................ 44
3.3.3 Researchers in data-related fields .......................................................................................... 45
3.3.4 Talent pool potential ............................................................................................................... 46
3.3.5 Index on innovation potential ................................................................................................. 50
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
VI
3.4 Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 54
3.4.1 Broadband infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 54
3.4.2 Adoption of IPv6 ..................................................................................................................... 56
3.4.3 Index on infrastructural conditions ......................................................................................... 59
3.5 Technology diffusion ................................................................................................................... 63
3.5.1 RFID technologies.................................................................................................................... 63
3.5.2 Cloud computing ..................................................................................................................... 64
3.5.3 CRM software solutions .......................................................................................................... 65
3.5.4 Machine-to-Machine subscriptions ........................................................................................ 66
3.5.5 Index on the diffusion of data-related technologies .............................................................. 67
3.6 Security status ............................................................................................................................. 72
3.6.1 Global Cyber Security Index 2017 ........................................................................................... 72
3.6.2 Addressing security risks by enterprises ................................................................................. 73
3.6.3 Secure Internet servers ........................................................................................................... 74
3.6.4 Index on security-related aspects ........................................................................................... 77
3.7 Privacy protection ....................................................................................................................... 82
3.7.1 Enterprises addressing privacy-related risks .......................................................................... 82
3.7.2 Awareness of privacy-related risks among individuals ........................................................... 83
3.7.3 Privacy Control Index .............................................................................................................. 84
3.7.4 Privacy protection index ......................................................................................................... 86
3.8 Societal participation .................................................................................................................. 89
3.8.1 E-government participation .................................................................................................... 89
3.8.2 Participation in social or professional networks ..................................................................... 91
3.8.3 Data-driven purchasing decisions ........................................................................................... 91
3.8.4 Sharing economy ..................................................................................................................... 93
3.8.5 Index on society's participations in data-related activities .................................................... 94
3.9 Data openness ........................................................................................................................... 101
3.9.1 Open data readiness ............................................................................................................. 101
3.9.2 Open data portal maturity .................................................................................................... 102
3.9.3 Index on data openness ........................................................................................................ 104
4 Discussion of findings ............................................................................................................. 108
4.1 High potential countries ............................................................................................................ 111
4.2 Countries with average capacities ............................................................................................ 111
4.3 Below average performing countries ........................................................................................ 112
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
VII
5 Conclusions and outlook ......................................................................................................... 113
6 List of references .................................................................................................................... 115
List of tables
Table 1 Overview of key categories and indicators .................................................................................... 14
Table 2 Business sector activities – indices ................................................................................................. 25
Table 3 Business sector activities – descriptive statistics ........................................................................... 25
Table 4 Business environment – indices 1 .................................................................................................. 40
Table 5 Business environment – indices 2 .................................................................................................. 41
Table 6 Business environment – descriptive statistics ............................................................................... 42
Table 7 Innovation potential – indices ........................................................................................................ 53
Table 8 Innovation potential – descriptive statistics .................................................................................. 53
Table 9 Infrastructure – indices .................................................................................................................. 62
Table 10 Infrastructure – descriptive statistics ........................................................................................... 63
Table 11 Technology diffusion – indices ..................................................................................................... 70
Table 12 Technology diffusion – descriptive statistics................................................................................ 71
Table 13 Security status – indices ............................................................................................................... 81
Table 14 Security status – descriptive statistics ......................................................................................... 81
Table 15 Privacy protection – indices ......................................................................................................... 88
Table 16 Privacy protection – descriptive statistics .................................................................................... 89
Table 17 Societal participation – indices .................................................................................................... 99
Table 18 Societal participation – descriptive statistics ............................................................................. 100
Table 19 Data openness – indices ............................................................................................................. 107
Table 20 Data openness – descriptive statistics ....................................................................................... 107
List of figures
Figure 1 Enterprises analysing big data, 2016 (by size of enterprises) ....................................................... 16
Figure 2 Domains of data for data analysis performed by enterprises, 2016 ............................................ 17
Figure 3 Value added at factor cost per full-time employee in J62 and J 631 ............................................ 18
Figure 4 Investment rate in ICT services ..................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5 Estimates of the share of data companies .................................................................................... 20
Figure 6 RCA in countries' world trade in data processing and other computer services, 2015 ................ 21
Figure 7 Index on business sector activities, 2015/2016 ............................................................................ 23
Figure 8 Legal rights strength and credit information depth, 2016 ............................................................ 27
Figure 9 Domestic credit to private sector as percentage of GDP, 2015 .................................................... 28
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
VIII
Figure 10: Venture capital investments as a percentage of GDP, 2016 (or the latest available year) ....... 29
Figure 11 Venture capital investments as percentage of GDP, 2015 ......................................................... 30
Figure 12 Total government support for business R&D, as percentage of GDP, 2015 (or the latest
available year) ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 13 Government Effectiveness Index, 2016 ...................................................................................... 33
Figure 14 Regulatory Quality Index ............................................................................................................. 34
Figure 15 Control of Corruption Index ........................................................................................................ 35
Figure 16 Index on business environment, 2016 ........................................................................................ 38
Figure 17 Scientific publications in data science related fields .................................................................. 44
Figure 18 Business enterprise R&D expenditure in J62 and J63 (Euro per inhabitant in purchasing power
standard (PPS), constant 2005 prices) ................................................................................................ 45
Figure 19 Share of researchers in J62 and J63 in total business sector researchers .................................. 46
Figure 20 Percentage of enterprises in ICT service sector that had hard-to-fill vacancies for jobs requiring
ICT specialist skills ............................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 21 Full time employees (average annual growth between 2008 and 2015) ................................... 49
Figure 22 Share of graduates in natural sciences, mathematics and statistics, ICT and engineering, 2015
............................................................................................................................................................ 50
Figure 23 Index on innovation capacity of the data economy, 2015-2017 ................................................ 52
Figure 24 Percentage of households' with the Internet fixed or mobile broadband connection .............. 55
Figure 25 Percentage of fibre connections in total broadband subscriptions, December 2016 ................ 56
Figure 26 Country adoption of IPv6 according to Google's metrics, 2016 ................................................. 57
Figure 27 Maximum contracted download speed of the fastest fixed Internet connection in 2017 ......... 58
Figure 28 Akamai's measured average speed, Q1 2016 ............................................................................. 59
Figure 29 Index on infrastructural conditions, 2016/2017 ......................................................................... 61
Figure 30 Percentage of enterprises using RFID ......................................................................................... 64
Figure 31 Share of enterprises buying cloud computer services ................................................................ 65
Figure 32 Percentage of enterprises using CRM ......................................................................................... 66
Figure 33 M2M cards, per 100 inhabitants, 2016 ....................................................................................... 67
Figure 34 Index on diffusion of data related technologies, 2016/2017 ..................................................... 69
Figure 35 Global Cybersecurity Index, 2017 ............................................................................................... 73
Figure 36 Percentage of enterprises whose ICT security policy addressed security risks, 2015 ................ 75
Figure 37 Percentage of enterprises whose ICT security policy was defined or reviewed within the last 12
months, 2015 ...................................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 38 Secure Internet servers per 1 million inhabitants ...................................................................... 77
Figure 39 Index on security related aspects ............................................................................................... 79
Figure 40 Percentage of businesses with formal policy to manage ICT privacy risks, 2015 ....................... 83
Figure 41 Individuals who manage access to their personal information on the Internet, 2016 .............. 84
Figure 42 Privacy control index ................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 43 Privacy protection index, 2015/2016 .......................................................................................... 87
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
IX
Figure 44 Percentage of individuals interacting with public authorities via Internet ................................ 90
Figure 45 Percentage of individuals taking part in on-line consultations or voting ................................... 91
Figure 46 Percentage of individuals participating in social and professional networks, 2017 ................... 92
Figure 47 Percentage of individuals finding information about goods and services on the Internet prior to
their purchase ..................................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 48 Participation in sharing economy, 2017 ..................................................................................... 94
Figure 49 Index on social participation in data related activities ............................................................... 97
Figure 50 Open data readiness ................................................................................................................. 102
Figure 51 Open data portal maturity ........................................................................................................ 104
Figure 52 Data Openness Index, 2017 ...................................................................................................... 106
Figure 53 Distribution of average index scores ........................................................................................ 108
Figure 54 Scores of European countries ................................................................................................... 110
List of abbreviations
CRM Customer relationship management
CSI Cyber Security Index
ICT Information and communication technology
IoT Internet of Things
ITU International Telecommunication Union
M2M Machine-to-Machine
R&D Research and development
RCA Revealed comparative advantage
RFID Radio frequency identification
WGI Worldwide Governance Indicators
WTO World Trade Organization
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
1
Executive summary
The observatory provides a measurement concept to describe the current status of the data economy in
Europe using indices based on selective subsets of individual indicators, which describe different
important aspects and underlying framework conditions of the data economy. It aims to capture
developments and achievements of countries in the previously specified dimensions relevant for the data
economy that directly affect the capacity to participate in and build up a competitive data economy.
Furthermore, the observatory strives to contribute to the understanding of whether and to which extent
important framework conditions necessary to reap benefits from the data economy are in place in
different European countries. Finally, it helps to identify current trends and to reveal individual strengths
as well as weaknesses of countries that need to be overcome to be able to unleash the full potential of
the data economy.
The results of the analysis reveal a lot of dispersion across countries indicating their varying capabilities
and potentials to use the business opportunities big data offers. Considerable variation was identified
between countries with regard to the data-driven business sector activities indicating that at present,
European countries reap to very differing degrees economic impact from data-based activities. Big-data-
related technologies as well as the underlying infrastructure were found to be very unevenly distributed
across European countries. Furthermore, the analysis provides evidence that in most countries targeted
efforts are needed to allocate more resources in the research and skill capacities to enable a successful,
innovation-driven development of the data economy and to be able to sustain in international
competition. Apart from that, there are significant cyber security gaps within Europe. Big discrepancies
across countries were also found in the context of data openness. Finally, the level to which individuals
participate in and benefit from data-related activities was found to differ considerably across Europe.
Overall, significant divides over the majority of indicators have been identified between individual groups
of countries. The gap is particularly large between best performing countries and those countries that are
grouped in the low tail of distribution. As big-data-related technologies are rapidly evolving, there is a
considerable risk for these countries to be left behind in terms of their participation and contribution to
a knowledge-intensive data economy. Therefore, there is an urgent need for targeted measures in poorly
performing countries to foster their innovative capability, support business sector activities and the use
of advanced technologies.
To monitor the evolution of the data economy over time and to see whether the trends are persistent,
further studies will be necessary. Apart from that, there is a substantial need for further research to
investigate backgrounds and causes of the observed trends and uneven developments more closely. This
will be necessary to more reliably identify policy options, which are well suited to respond to the key
challenges European countries are facing.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
2
1 Introduction
Data economy is an emerging and rapidly evolving field. A sound measurement of the data economy that
allows an evidence based assessment of a broad range of relevant framework conditions and capabilities,
on which the data economy largely depends, is critical to realize the full potential of the data economy in
the European countries and to ensure its successful development. Moreover, consistent and empirically
based information is necessary to inform relevant policy decisions at national and European levels to help
policy makers in evaluating the efficiency of their policy measures.
So far, there is only very little solid knowledge available about the data economy and its development. To
the best of our knowledge, there is hardly any evidence-based assessment of its social and economic
impact, neither in Europe nor in other parts of the world. The observatory aims to counteract this situation
providing a valuable and empirically based foundation for future attempts to make developments in the
data economy visible.
The development of the observatory builds upon the EuDEco model of the European data economy. Based
on the model and a review of related literature, key dimensions and indicators describing them have been
identified that cover different aspects. From a legal perspective, a broad range of private and public laws
and regulations need to be taken into account. However, the qualitative character of many relevant
aspects represents a major challenge to a quantitative, indicator-based analysis. Further important goal
is to assess to which extend security measures are taken at country level to prevent security related risks.
From a technological perspective, the focus lies on the technologies available to participants in the data
economy as well as on the fundamental technical infrastructure on which data economy relies. From a
socio-economic perspective, aspects such as the business environment, research and innovation efforts
in data related fields, policy framework conditions, data openness, the availability of capital and skilled
labour as well as the size and efficiency of the data market need to be considered.
The concept to measure the development of the European data economy developed by EuDEco differs
from the usual observatory methodologies, which use traditional surveying methods to collect data
through, for instance, online surveys or interviews. By contrast, the EuDEco method uses for the
assessment of the data economy available indicators from official statistics that provide representative
data. This allows an access to reliable data for future monitoring of the data economy in different
countries, but it also provides an opportunity to extend and further develop the observatory in the future.
With respect to the methodological development of the observatory concerning the data analysis and the
calculation of indices, established methodological procedures have been followed.
A combination of the observatory with tools such as the Knowledge Base that provides access to and
allows a debate on key resources is considered promising. It will increase the community's awareness of
the foundation that has been laid by EuDEco and make developments in the data economy visible. This is
a prerequisite to join forces in the future and build on existing achievements. During the course of the
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
3
project, it has become evident that there is quite some interest in tools, which help understand the
development, and to some extent also the functioning, of the data economy.
A lot of work is still needed to be done in order to establish an empirical link between data related
activities and their economic and social impact. Notwithstanding some constraints, the observatory
provides useful, evidence based information for economic decisions, planning and policy measures, which
may be highly relevant for policy makers and academics but also business representatives that could
exploit the results or build their own observation activities on them.
1.1 Purpose and scope
The general purpose of D5.3 is to provide a conceptual framework for the description and measurement
of the data economy. In particular, the aim is to benchmark and analyse the development as well as the
underlying framework conditions of the data economy in Europe and to identify relevant trends as well
as the extent of existing dispersions among the European countries.
A further goal of this study is to help identify fields and regions in the European Union where more
concentrated measures are needed to create the necessary framework conditions for the data economy
and to promote its progression. Moreover, it provides an important base for a more qualitative
investigation of the backgrounds of good practices and success stories of those countries, which perform
best, that could be transferred to the less successfully performing countries.
For this, important determinants and framework conditions affecting countries' capacity to participate in
the data economy as well as key indicators measuring central aspects of the data economy and its future
potentials were identified. Countries have been assessed according to the following central dimensions
(categories) for which data are analysed and compiled:
business sector activities
business environment
innovation potential of the data economy
infrastructural conditions
diffusion of big-data-related technologies
social participation in data-related activities
security-related aspects
privacy control
data openness
For an overall assessment of countries' positioning in different categories that are relevant for the data
economy and also to enable comparisons between countries, composed indices comprising different
individual indicators that describe selected categories were calculated. However, the goal of this study is
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
4
also to provide a more refined analysis, which goes beyond the aggregate indicators to display the
developments within a specific category and to better understand individual dynamics behind the
aggregate numbers of indices. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of individual indicators was included in the
study to deliver a more detailed information on individual achievements and performances of countries
in specific areas.
Since the European economies and their businesses are increasingly exposed to the vigorous international
competition, international comparisons within individual categories were striven for whenever the data
situation made it possible. The study also seeks to show and analyse the evolvements over time, however,
at this point of time, it is feasible only to a limited extent as many representative indicators reflecting
important aspects of the data economy have been collected and made available only since recently.
1.2 Structure of the document
The document is structured as follows:
Section 1 provides an overview of the deliverable’s purpose and scope, its structure, and its
relationships to other deliverables;
Section 2 describes limitations and barriers, and the methodology, and provides an overview of
the categories and indicators;
Section 3 presents the observatory by going into details with respect to the categories and
indicators;
Section 4 discusses the results of measuring the European data economy based on the
observatory; and
Section 5 concludes the deliverable and provides an outlook on promising future activities.
1.3 Relationships to other deliverables
D5.3 builds primarily on D4.1, which, among other things, describes the final model of the European data
economy. Concerning the observatory, environmental factors are the most relevant aspects covered by
the model. Therefore, there is also a strong relationship between D1.2 and D5.3. The understanding of
the European data economy in general and framework conditions in particular guided the selection of the
observatory's determinants and indicators. Since there is a separate deliverable on the observatory, which
is completed at the end of the project, the observatory is not addressed in D5.2, which serves as a final
report of the project covering the other key results.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
5
2 Towards an observatory of the data economy
This section introduces the measurement concept.
2.1 Limitations and barriers
There is a number of different fundamental challenges, which create obstacles for a comparative cross-
country analysis. At present, the availability of representative data and metrics, which would allow a
measurement of the data economy, as well as of common taxonomies making the indicators comparable
across countries is rather limited. Besides, the observation of some data economy relevant developments
over time are impossible, since many indicators are not available for time series. Another general
challenge is the adequate quantification of some important qualitative aspects, which play a critical role
for data related activities, such as privacy and security issues.
The whole complexity of data economy relevant developments and framework conditions makes it
difficult to adequately capture them by a number of quantitative indicators. Consequently, many
significant indicators have to be omitted due to the lack of their availability or difficulty to measure.
The current data on the data economy are not complete both in terms of time and country coverage. Due
to the data coverage constraints, analysis of data and the subsequent calculation of indices is only possible
for a short period of time (mostly one or two points of time). For this reason, the composite index can be
calculated only for one period of time using data of the latest available year.
Calculated indices are limited in coverage to the European countries (mainly EU28 countries plus Norway,
Switzerland and Iceland) because only for these countries a reasonable coverage of data is provided by
official statistics, mostly Eurostat. Apart from Eurostat, data used in this study are sourced from different
international organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank, the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as from Elsevier (Scopus) and representative
studies.
Since it is not possible to fully reflect the broad range of aspects that describe the identified categories,
which are relevant for the development of the data economy, the calculated indices are based on selective
subsets of available indicators, which relate to some important aspects of the data economy as well as its
underlying framework conditions. The present measurement concept aims to estimate the performance
of countries and to uncover relevant development trends on the basis of selected indicators. It attempts
to provide a realistic basis for the evaluation of the status quo of each country in one specific category
and to indicate development trends within it. To monitor the evolution over time and to see whether the
trends are persistent, follow-on studies will be necessary.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
6
2.2 Methodology
This section outlines the index methodology as well as data constraints and descriptive statistics.
2.2.1 Index methodology
The identified categories of the data economy represent complex and multidimensional systems and
therefore cannot be captured by a single indicator. They comprise a number of different indicators, each
one of them reflecting only some individual aspects of a certain phenomenon.
To get a more comprehensive information on capabilities of countries in one specific field, different
characteristics in one thematic area can be combined to a composed indicators, which are also referred
to as indices. This way, a synthetic indicator to measure capabilities in one specific field with a clear
interpretation content is formed. An index can be particularly useful in identifying data related
development trends and gaps within a group of countries and assessing the progress of individual
countries over time. It allows for benchmarking the performance of selected countries in one specific field
against a set of other countries.
The first step on the way to the indices is to define the categories or dimensions, which are highly relevant
for the uptake and development of the data economy and to identify indicators, which describe these
dimensions. To be aggregated, the indicators must be normalized, to set off their different scales and
measures. To normalize the data, the following formula was used:
Ȳ𝑖, 𝑗 = 𝑌𝑖,𝑗−min{𝑌𝑖,𝑗}
max{𝑌𝑖,𝑗}−min{𝑌𝑖,𝑗} ,
where 𝑌𝑖, 𝑗 is the value for country i and specific indicator j (e. g. percentage of enterprises analysing data)
before normalising and Ȳ𝑖, 𝑗 after normalising.
This general procedure leads to standardized indicators ranging from 0 to 1. The next step is the
aggregation of individual indicators to indices using weights. For the sake of simplicity and transparency,
a linear approach is preferred. We also use equal weightings assuming that all components of one
category play a comparable role for this category. The choice of equal weights avoids the problem of
defining the weights in a somewhat arbitrary way. This approach is widely used in relevant studies1. This
leads to the following formula of index I for country i, where J is the total number of individual indicators:
𝐼𝑖 =1
𝐽∑Ȳ𝑖, 𝑗
𝐽
𝑗=1
1 See, for example, Archibugi and Coco (2004) and Acatech, BDI, Fraunhofer ISI, and ZEW (2017)
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
7
The competitive position of each country within the selected group of countries was identified using
ranking.
2.2.2 Data constraints
One important methodological issue is the treatment of omitted data. Since representative data is not
available for all countries under consideration, final indices have to be adjusted for the number of
observations available for each country and weighted according to this number. Due to constraints of the
availability of reliable data and the lack of the data on a year-to-year basis, the majority of indicators relate
only to up to three years between 2012 and 2017. Therefore, direct comparisons over time are often not
possible. The average index is calculated only for the current period since data for many relevant
indicators, which the final indices comprise of, are provided by official statistics not earlier than 2015.
2.2.3 Descriptive statistics
For each indicator descriptive statistics are performed to describe the characteristics of data using
measures of central tendency (e.g., mean, median) and dispersion (e.g., standard deviation, variance,
variance coefficient, quartiles, minimum, maximum). The descriptive statistics are performed to get a
better understanding of the variables and their significance for index calculation. In particular, the
distribution of the variables needs to be analysed to see how dispersed the variables are and how this
dispersion evolves over time. The exploration of the dispersion of the variables and its evolvement over
time is focused on to identify uneven developments, as well as convergence or divergence trends within
the given time spans in the group of countries concerned.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
8
2.3 Categories and indicators
Table 1 provides an overview of the categories and indicators selected.
Indicator Data source Unit Time period Definition
Business sector activities
Enterprises using and analysing data
Eurostat Percentage 2016 Enterprises analysing big data from any data source. Percentage of all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more)
Productivity of data-related sectors
Eurostat Value added at factor cost per full-time employee, in €
2010-2015 Value added at factor cost per full-time employee of sectors (according to NACE Rev. 2): J62 - Computer programming, consultancy and related activities and J631 - Data processing, hosting and related activities; web portals
Investment in ICT services
Eurostat Percentage of the value added at factors cost
2010-2015 Share of investment in value added at factors cost
Share of data companies
European Data Market Monitoring Tool, IDC 2016
Percentage 2013-2016 Estimates of the share of data companies in the total companies of J and M sectors (NACE Rev. 2)
Revealed comparative advantage (RCA) for trade in data-related services
Own calculations based on data from the WTO
Ratio 2012-2015 Ratio between the country's exports and imports in data related and other computer services divided by the ratio between the country's exports and imports in commercial services
Business environment
Government support to business R&D
OECD, Measuring Tax Support for R&D and Innovation
Percentage of GDP
2015 Total government support for business R&D
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
9
Government effectiveness
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), World Bank
Estimate scores between -2,5 and 2,5
2014-2016 Reflects perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government's commitment to such policies. It ranges from approximately -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong) governance performance.
Regulatory quality Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), World Bank
Estimate scores between -2,5 and 2,5
2014-2016 Reflects perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development. It ranges from approximately -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong) regulatory quality.
Control of corruption Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), World Bank
Estimate scores between -2,5 and 2,5
2014-2016 Reflects perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as "capture" of the state by elites and private interests. It ranges from approximately -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong) control of corruption.
Domestic credit to private sector
World Development Indicators, World Bank
Percentage of GDP
2014-2016 Financial resources provided to the private sector by financial corporations, such as through loans, purchases of nonequity securities, and trade credits and other accounts receivable, that establish a claim for repayment.
Venture capital investments
OECD, Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2017
Percentage of GDP
2016 Financing that private investors provide to start-up companies and small enterprises in form of private equity capital
Depth of credit information index
World Bank, Doing Business project
Scores between 0 and 8
2014-2016 It measures rules affecting the scope, accessibility, and quality of credit information available through public or private credit registries. The index ranges from 0 to 8, with higher values indicating the availability of more credit information, from either a public registry or a private bureau, to facilitate lending decisions.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
10
Strength of legal rights index
World Bank, Doing Business project
Scores between 0 and 12
2014-2016 It measures the degree to which collateral and bankruptcy laws protect the rights of borrowers and lenders and thus facilitate lending. The index ranges from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating that these laws are better designed to expand access to credit.
Innovation potential
Scientific publications
Scopus Number of publications per 1 Mio. inhabitants
2010-2017 Outcome of the database searches at country level using search words "data science", or "big data", or "data analytics", or "data mining
R&D investments in data-related activities
Eurostat Euro per inhabitant in purchasing power standard (PPS), constant 2005 prices
2012-2015 Business enterprise R&D expenditure (BERD) of sectors (according to NACE Rev. 2): J62 - Computer programming, consultancy and related activities and J63 - Data processing, hosting and related activities; web portals and other other information service activities
R&D personnel in data-related activities
Eurostat Percentage of total R&D personnel
2012-2014 R&D personnel in sectors (according to NACE Rev. 2): J62 - Computer programming, consultancy and related activities and J63 - Data processing, hosting and related activities; web portals and other information service activities as percentage of total business sector R&D researchers
Talent pool Eurostat, OECD Percentage of graduates
2015 Share of graduates in natural sciences, mathematics, statistics, engineering and information and communication technologies in all tertiary education graduates (ISCED2011 levels 5 to 8)
Infrastructure
Households with broadband access
Eurostat Percentage of all households
2007-2017 Household with broadband Internet connection (fixed or mobile) as percentage of all households
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
11
Speed of Internet connection
Eurostat Percentage of all enterprises
2014-2017 The maximum contracted download speed of the fastest fixed internet connection per speed tiers: less than 2 Mb/s; at least 2 but less than 10 Mb/s; at least 10 but less than 30 Mb/s; at least 30 but less than 100 Mb/s; at least 100 Mb/s
Fibre connections OECD, Broadband Statistics
Percentage in total broadband subscriptions
December, 2016
Percentage of fibre connections in total broadband among countries reporting fibre subscribers
Country adoption of IPv6
Google (2016), “Per-country IPv6 adoption” in: OECD, Digital Economy Outlook 2017
Percentage 2016 Country adoption of Internet Protocol version 6 according to Google's metrics
Technology diffusion
Enterprises using radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies
Eurostat Percentage of all enterprises
2014-2017 Enterprises using Radio Frequency identification (RFID) technologies as percentage of all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more)
Cloud computing Eurostat Percentage 2014-2017 All enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more) that buy cloud computing services used over the internet
M2M OECD M2M cards per 100 inhabitants
December, 2016
Machine to Machine (M2M) embedded mobile cellular subscriptions
CRM solutions Eurostat Percentage 2014-2017 Enterprises using software solutions like Customer Relationship Management (CRM) (all enterprises without financial sector)
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
12
Security status
Global Cyber Security Index 2017
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
Index 2014-2017 Composite index combining 25 indicators into one benchmark measure to monitor and compare the level of ITU Member States cybersecurity commitment with regard to the five pillars: legal, technical, organizational, capacity building, cooperation
Enterprises addressing security risks
Eurostat Percentage 2010, 2015 Enterprises whose ICT security policy addressed the risks of destruction or corruption of data, disclosure of confidential data and unavailability of ICT services due to an attack or an accident as percentage of all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more)
Enterprises with updated security policy
Eurostat Percentage 2015 Enterprises whose ICT security policy was defined or most recently reviewed within the last 12 months as percentage of all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more)
Secure Internet servers
World Development Indicators, World Bank
Servers per 1 million inhabitants
2010-2016 Servers using encryption technology in Internet transactions
Privacy protection
Awareness of privacy-related risks among individuals
Eurostat Percentage 2016 Individuals who managed access to their personal information on the Internet by reading privacy policy statements before providing personal information, or by restricting access to their geographical location, or by limiting access to their profile or content on social networking sites, or by not allowing the use of personal information for advertising purposes, or by checking that the website where they needed to provide personal information was secure (e.g. https sites, safety logo or certificate), or by asking websites or search engines to access the information hold about them to be updated or deleted as percentage of all individuals
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
13
Enterprises addressing privacy-related risks
Eurostat Percentage 2010, 2015 Enterprises whose ICT security policy addressed the risks of disclosure of confidential data due to intrusion, pharming, phishing attacks or by accident as percentage of all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more)
Privacy Control Index
Quantifying Key Characteristics of 71 Data Protection Law (Nieuwesteeg, 2017)
Index 2015 Codes of the key six characteristics 71 Data Protection Laws (DPLs): data collection requirements; the data breach notification requirement; the presence of a data protection authority; the requirement of a data protection officer; the level of monetary sanctions; and the presence of criminal sanctions
Societal participation
Interaction with public authorities via Internet
Eurostat Percentage of individuals
2010-2017 Percentage of all individuals who interacts with public authorities via Internet
Participation in social or professional networks
Eurostat Percentage of individuals
2013-2017 Percentage of all individuals who participate in social (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) or professional networks (e.g., LinkedIn, Xing) creating user profile, posting messages or other contributions
Data-driven purchasing decisions
Eurostat Percentage of all individuals
2010-2017 Percentage of all individuals using Internet data on goods and services for the purchase decision
Percentage of individuals taking part in on-line consultations or voting
Eurostat Percentage of individuals
2011-2017 Percentage of individuals taking part in on-line consultations or voting to define civic or political issues (e.g. urban planning, signing a petition)
Participation in sharing economy
Eurostat Weighted average
2017 Weighted average of individuals used any website or app to arrange an accommodation or/and transport from another individual
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
14
Data openness
Open Data Readiness
European Data Portal
Scores between 0 and 1090
2015-2017 Assesses to what extent countries have an Open Data policy in place, licensing norms and the extent of national coordination regarding guidelines and setting common approaches. In addition, the transposition of the revised PSI Directive is taken into account. Besides the presence of an Open Data policy, the use made of the Open Data available and the estimated political, social and economic impact of Open Data are assessed.
Portal Maturity European Data Portal
Scores between 0 and 250
2015-2017 Assesses the usability of the portal regarding the availability of functionalities, the overall re-usability of data such as machine readability and accessibility of data sets, for example, as well as the spread of data across domains.
Table 1 Overview of key categories and indicators
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
15
3 The observatory
This section describes the categories and indicators in detail.
3.1 Business sector activities
Business sector performance plays the most significant role for the economic development of a country.
Business activities of private enterprises are the most important motor for innovations boosting
productivity growth, raising competitiveness of a country's economy and increasing people's standard of
living.
Data driven activities of companies have great potential to boost innovation and economic growth. In this
section, we use the available empirical evidence to analyse the data driven activities of the business sector
across European countries.
3.1.1 Enterprises using and analysing data
Enterprises increasingly recognise the value of big data for their business activities. Many enterprises
perform big data analyses to gain decision-relevant insights from data to optimize their internal processes
and to exploit them for new business opportunities. On average, 10% of all enterprises in the EU28
countries performed data analysis in 2016 (Figure 1). Among all EU countries, Netherlands, Malta and
Belgium have the highest shares of companies engaged in big data related activities. However, there are
large discrepancies in the extent to which large, medium and small enterprises use big data. As of 2016,
big data analysis are mainly performed by large enterprises: the proportion of large companies analysing
data is on average two to three times larger than those of small enterprises. In some countries, like Cyprus,
Bulgaria, Denmark, Slovenia, Italy and Sweden, this gap is even larger. The lowest overall percentage of
enterprises performing big data analysis are registered in Germany, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Cyprus.
The main domains of data, which enterprises use for their data analysis are data from enterprises' smart
devices or sensors, data from geolocation of portable devices and social media data. However, data from
other sources are also increasingly used by the European enterprises (Figure 2).
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
16
Figure 1 Enterprises analysing big data, 2016 (by size of enterprises)2
Note: Data relate to all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more).
2 Figure based on data from Eurostat, Digital Economy and Society Database.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Per
cen
tage
of
ente
rpri
ses
All enterprises Small enterprises (10-49 persons employed)
Medium enterprises (50-249 persons employed) Large enterprises (250 persons employed or more)
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
17
Figure 2 Domains of data for data analysis performed by enterprises, 20163
Note: Data relate to all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more).
3.1.2 Productivity of data-related sectors
Productivity is one of the key components of economic growth – higher income growth can only be
achieved when there are increases in productivity. Rising productivity in industrial sectors contributes to
the competitiveness and better economic performance of these sectors. Growing productivity is thus
imperative for the economic success and prosperity of the business sector.
Knowledge intensive activities like data related activities exhibit higher productivity rates. Calculations
reveal that in Europe, productivity in data related sectors J62 (Computer programming, consultancy and
related activities) and J631 (Data processing, hosting and related activities; web portals) is on average 40%
higher than the overall economic productivity. Moreover, the exploitation of data entails additional
productivity and efficiency gains in different fields of the economy and life spheres.
In a European comparison, the highest productivity levels in data related sectors J62 and J631 are achieved
by Ireland followed by Belgium, United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland and Sweden (Figure 3). The highest
annual average growth rates in 2010-2015 were found for Finland (7.3%), Cyprus (6.8%), Ireland (6.6%),
the United Kingdom (5.4%) and Sweden (5.2%). Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Estonia exhibit also quite
high productivity growth rates during 2010-2015 of 7.2%, 6%, 5.5% and 4.8% respectively, albeit starting
3 Figure based on data from Eurostat, Digital Economy and Society Database.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Per
cen
tage
of
ente
rpri
ses
Analyse own big data from enterprise's smart devices or sensors
Analyse big data from geolocation of portable devices
Analyse big data generated from social media
Analyse big data from other sources
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
18
from a very low base. However, there are large disparities concerning the development of productivity
within the EU. Countries such as Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria and Romania display productivity levels in data
related sectors that equal less than 20% of the EU-wide highest level of productivity reached by Ireland.
Figure 3 Value added at factor cost per full-time employee in J62 and J 6314
Note: J62 – Computer programming, consultancy and related activities; J631 – Data processing, hosting
and related activities; web portals. For Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia data of the apparent labour
productivity (gross value added per person employed) are used.
3.1.3 Investment in ICT services
To use new business opportunities, which arise from big data, high investments are expected to be made
in software, ICT and data related activities. Increasing investments in software and databases contribute
decisively to the growing data intensity of the economy (OECD, 2015). Since direct data on investments in
software and databases are not available, it was considered important to include instead an indicator,
which measures the overall investment rate of each country in ICT services. This indicator reveals that
many European countries allocate a lot of financial resources in ICT services. Between 2010 and 2015, the
largest increase in investments – by about 160% – showed Ireland (Figure 4). High increases of investment
rates are also observed for Finland (60%), Italy (30%), Denmark (28%), Norway (20%) and Slovenia (16%).
4 Figure based on data from Eurostat, own calculations.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Irel
and
Bel
giu
m
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Den
mar
k
Fin
lan
d
Swed
en
Au
stri
a
Ge
rman
y
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Ital
y
Fran
ce
Mal
ta
Cyp
rus
Spai
n
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Slo
vaki
a
Po
lan
d
Esto
nia
Slo
ven
ia
Po
rtu
gal
Gre
ece
Cro
atia
Hu
nga
ry
Lith
uan
ia
Latv
ia
Bu
lgar
ia
Ro
man
ia
2010 2015
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
19
However, many countries exhibit a drop in investments in ICT services during 2010-2015.
Figure 4 Investment rate in ICT services5
3.1.4 Share of data companies
The data economy landscape encompasses various groups of actors including data holders, data
distributors, data users and solution providers, interacting with each other in an interdepending and
complementary way. A growing number of market actors recognize the intrinsic value of data and
incorporate data into their business models. So far, no official statistics contain data that allows the
measurement of the data market in each country. IDC provided an estimate for the share of the total data
companies in the ICT and professional services industries6. According to this estimate (Figure 5), Ireland,
United Kingdom with shares of above 20% rank first in terms of the share of companies with a data focus,
whereas a large group of Central and Eastern European countries including Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Slovenia, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia and the Czech Republic has an estimated relatively
low percentage of data companies of approx. 5% each.
5 Figure based on data from Eurostat. 6 Details on the methodology are described by IDC and OpenEvidence (2017).
0
10
20
30
40
50
2010 2015
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
20
Figure 5 Estimates of the share of data companies7
3.1.5 Trade in data-related services
Along with the share of data companies, size of revenues generating by them as well as the sectoral
comparative advantage in trade with data related services are good indicators to assess the dynamics and
evolvement of the data market in each country. Increasing revenues and a relative trade specialisation in
data related services of the countries reflect business growth and competitiveness of the data markets in
these countries. Calculations based on the trade data from the WTO, identified a comparative advantage
in trade with data related services in a group of countries comprising Austria, Belgium, Germany, South
Korea, and Sweden (Figure 6). As the result of a global fragmentation of the value chains, some data
related activities have been outsourced to lower-cost locations, including countries in Central and Eastern
Europe, which high scores of revealed comparative advantage (RCA) for Bulgaria, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania and Croatia indicate.
Ireland stands out particularly with a RCA score of 80, indicating a strong domination of exports in data
related services in the overall commercial services of the country. In international comparison, Israel also
shows high levels of trade specialisation in data related services.
7 Figure based on data from IDC, EU Data Landscape.
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%Ir
elan
d
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Ital
y
Au
stri
a
Ge
rman
y
Gre
ece
Den
mar
k
Swed
en
Cyp
rus
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Mal
ta
Fin
lan
d
Bel
giu
m
Po
rtu
gal
Fran
ce
Spai
n
Po
lan
d
Cro
atia
Bu
lgar
ia
Hu
nga
ry
Slo
ven
ia
Ro
man
ia
Latv
ia
Esto
nia
Lith
uan
ia
Slo
vaki
a
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
2013 2016
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
21
Figure 6 RCA in countries' world trade in data processing and other computer services, 20158
Note: Data are deflated using GDP deflator. RCAs were determined by putting the world imports and
exports of countries' data related and other computer services in relation to the import and export of
commercial services according to the formula:
RCA = (𝑋𝑚𝑛/𝑀𝑚𝑛)
(𝑋𝑛/𝑀𝑛) ,
where 𝑋𝑚𝑛 and 𝑀𝑚𝑛 are exports and imports of country n in data processing and other computer
services, and 𝑋𝑛 and 𝑀𝑛 are exports and imports of country n in commercial services. If RCA > 1, the
country in question has a comparative advantage in trade of data processing and other computer services.
3.1.6 Index on business sector activities
The composite index on business sector activities across European countries based on selected categories
is calculated to reflect the level of engagement of individual European countries in data related activities
as well as their capacity to exploit business opportunities that big data are offering. The assessment of
each country performance is based on five indicators: share of enterprises analysing big data, labour
productivity of each country in data related sectors, overall investments rate in ICT services, share of
8 Figure based on WTO, Statistics: Trade in commercial services. Own calculations.
AU AT BE
BG
HR
CZ
DKEE
FR
GE
GRHKGHU
IL
IT
JP
KR LV LT
LU
NL
NO
PL
PT
RO
SKSl
SE
USA
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
22
companies with big data focus and the trade specialization of each country in data related services
measured as RCA.
Due to the data coverage constraints, indices can be calculated only for the time period for which data in
all categories are available. Data coverage concerning labour productivity, investment rate, specialization
and the estimates of the share of data companies, relates to 2013-2015, so that their subindices can be
calculated for both 2013 and 2015 to allow comparisons over time. Data to measure the share of
enterprises analysing data are only available for the year 2016. The average index comprising of all five
indicators was calculated using data of the latest available year.
A look at index scores (Table 2), which measure the performance of countries in the data related business
activities and their descriptive statistics reveals a lot of disparities among countries. A relatively high
variance has the distribution of the specialization indicator measuring the extent to which countries
specialize in exports of data related services9. There are also significant disparities within the selected
group of the European countries in terms of investment rates in ICT services, where coefficient of variation
of the index score distribution was higher in 2015 around the smaller mean in comparison to 2012 (Table
3). The smaller mean is largely the result of the considerable decline in investment rates in many countries
in 2015 compared to 2012. The wide variation of performance can also be observed across countries in
terms of labour productivity. The least dispersion display indicators measuring the share of enterprises,
which are engaged in analysing big data.
Calculated average index scores reveal that Ireland reaches the highest ranks in all categories followed by
Malta, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium that achieve the highest scores in the majority
of selected categories (Figure 7). Finland, Sweden and Denmark belong to further best performing
countries. Their high average index scores imply that these European countries are better prepared to
compete successfully in the emerging data economy and to exploit its business opportunities. However,
there is a significant polarization between countries grouped in the upper quartile indicating considerable
differences between countries. It is primarily due to the outstanding performance of Ireland that
outperforms its European peers by far in the selected fields of data related business sector activities. At
the same time, there is a large group of closely bunched countries at the bottom end of distribution
suggesting a large divide between best and worst performing European countries. To this country group
belong Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Latvia and Croatia. Latvia and Croatia
occupy the last places reflecting that in terms of their performance in the selected categories they appear
to be falling behind even further.
9 The RCA score of 80 for Ireland was capped to 3 to set off its outlier effect on the indices of other countries.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
23
Figure 7 Index on business sector activities, 2015/201610
10 Based on own calculations.
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
CroatiaLatvia
SlovakiaHungarySlovenia
Czech RepublicPolandEstonia
LithuaniaCyprus
BulgariaSpain
RomaniaFrance
GermanyGreece
ItalyAustria
LuxembourgPortugal
DenmarkSwedenFinland
BelgiumNetherlands
United KingdomMalta
Ireland
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
24
Country
Enterprises analysing big data, fraction of enterprises
Productivity of data related sectors (value added at factor cost per full-time employee)
Investment in ICT services (investment per value added at factors cost)
Share of data companies of total J and M sectors
RCA for trade in data related services
Average index
2016 2012 2015 2012 2015 2013 2016 2012 2015 2015/2016
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Ireland
1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1
1.00 1 1.00 1
Malta 1.00 1
0.42 13
0.44 11 0.41 12
0.61 2
United Kingdom 0.75 4 0.78 3 0.69 3 0.15 18 0.06 21 0.83 2 0.90 2
0.60 3
Netherlands 1.00 2 0.63 8 0.53 9
0.55 7 0.63 3
0.17 17 0.58 4
Belgium 0.88 3 0.96 2 0.74 2 0.32 13
0.41 13 0.37 14 0.38 11 0.31 9 0.57 5
Finland 0.75 4
0.61 5 0.03 25 0.30 8 0.39 14 0.40 13
0.51 6
Sweden 0.44 16 0.65 7 0.60 6 0.10 21 0.03 22 0.49 9 0.49 9 1.00 1 0.77 2 0.47 7
Denmark 0.56 9 0.77 4 0.62 4 0.20 15 0.19 12 0.59 3 0.50 8 0.14 17 0.17 15 0.41 8
Portugal 0.63 6 0.16 18 0.09 21 0.65 5 0.84 2 0.36 15 0.37 15 0.18 16 0.03 21 0.39 9
Luxembourg 0.63 6 0.56 11 0.46 10 0.65 5 0.39 6 0.46 10 0.41 11 0.25 13 0.03 20 0.38 10
Austria
0.67 6 0.57 7 0.14 19 0.10 18 0.58 4 0.56 5 0.45 6 0.28 11 0.38 11
Italy 0.38 17 0.57 10 0.45 11 0.04 23 0.23 9 0.57 5 0.57 4 0.11 19 0.17 16 0.36 12
Germany 0.19 23 0.73 5 0.54 8 0.00 26 0.01 23 0.54 8 0.54 6 0.49 4 0.38 8 0.33 13
France 0.50 11 0.58 9 0.45 12 0.18 16 0.10 18 0.34 16 0.32 16 0.20 14 0.18 14 0.31 14
Greece 0.50 11 0.23 16 0.09 22 0.57 7
0.57 6 0.50 7 0.20 15 0.13 18 0.30 15
Romania 0.50 11 0.00 26 0.00 28 0.68 3 0.43 5 0.04 26 0.02 23 0.87 3 0.42 5 0.28 16
Spain 0.31 20 0.33 13 0.24 15 0.06 22 0.20 11 0.28 17 0.30 17
0.26 17
Bulgaria 0.25 21 0.02 25 0.01 27 0.43 11 0.45 3 0.04 24 0.03 20 0.96 2 0.56 3 0.26 18
Cyprus 0.00 25 0.39 12 0.39 14 0.77 2 0.17 14 0.42 12 0.45 10
0.25 19
Lithuania 0.56 9 0.04 24 0.04 25 0.41 12 0.15 16 0.05 22 0.01 26 0.42 8 0.41 6 0.24 20
Estonia 0.63 6 0.11 21 0.10 19 0.68 3 0.10 18 0.04 25 0.02 25 0.44 7 0.24 12 0.22 21
Poland 0.19 23 0.18 17 0.13 18 0.18 16 0.19 13 0.27 18 0.26 18 0.30 12 0.30 10 0.21 22
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
25
Czech Republic 0.38 17 0.25 15 0.16 16 0.13 20 0.00 24 0.03 27 0.00 28 0.45 5 0.51 4 0.21 23
Slovenia 0.50 11 0.14 19 0.10 20 0.47 10 0.34 7 0.06 20 0.02 22 0.14 18 0.09 19 0.21 24
Hungary 0.25 21 0.10 22 0.07 24 0.52 8 0.45 4 0.04 23 0.03 21 0.40 10 0.23 13 0.20 25
Slovakia 0.50 11 0.28 14 0.16 17 0.04 24 0.12 17 0.00 28 0.01 27
0.20 26
Latvia
0.07 23 0.02 26 0.50 9 0.16 15 0.05 21 0.02 24 0.41 9 0.40 7 0.15 27
Croatia 0.38 17 0.13 20 0.07 23 0.28 14 0.21 10 0.07 19 0.04 19 0.00 20 0.00 22 0.14 28
Table 2 Business sector activities – indices
Statistical measure
Enterprises analysing big data, fraction of enterprises
Productivity of data related sectors (value added at factor cost per full-time employee)
Investment in ICT services (investment per value added at factors cost)
Share of data companies of total J and M sectors
RCA for trade in data related services
Average index
2016 2012 2015 2012 2015 2013 2016 2012 2015 2015/2016
Quartile coefficient of dispersion 0.56 1.74 1.52 1.55 1.46 1.32 1.29 0.69 1.00 0.77
Upper quartile 0.63 0.65 0.56 0.59 0.38 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.42 0.45
Lower quartile 0.34 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.18 0.16 0.21
Median 0.50 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.19 0.38 0.37 0.39 0.26 0.31
Coefficient of variation 0.48 0.76 0.81 0.77 0.92 0.78 0.83 0.69 0.77 0.51
Standard deviation 0.24 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.18
Variance 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.03
Mean 0.51 0.40 0.33 0.35 0.26 0.34 0.33 0.39 0.31 0.36
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14
Maximum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Table 3 Business sector activities – descriptive statistics
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
26
3.2 Business environment
The importance of the ICT sector as one of the main drivers of innovations, productivity and economic
growth is widely recognized by policy decision makers. Policy decisions influence to a considerable extend
business activities.
Framework conditions and the overall business environment for innovations and investments in new
technologies, including innovative data driven activities are of great importance for the business sector
development. Policy rules and measures provide important incentives to business agents to put their
innovative products and new business models into reality and to establish businesses. A favourable
business environment is a basic precondition for a successful and dynamic business sector development
of a country.
A particular role play policies targeted at the support of start-ups and early business development since
they are engines of innovation and growth of an economy. Thus, it was regarded essential to integrate in
the analysis an assessment of general policy framework and regulatory conditions, which have important
impacts on business and innovation activities. It should help to inform how national policies create
framework conditions to foster businesses.
3.2.1 Chance for getting credit
Access to finance is one of the most crucial aspect for growth and innovations. Particularly at the early
stages of development, enterprises rely on secure financing opportunities. Start-ups and small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often face difficulties accessing finance because of the inherent
riskiness and serious weaknesses of financing conditions as well as information asymmetries with regard
to both lenders and borrowers.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
27
3.2.1.1 Regulatory environment
Figure 8 Legal rights strength and credit information depth, 201611
Note: Strength of legal rights index (0=weak to 12=strong); Depth of credit information index (0=low to
8=high).
To estimate the regulatory environment of the financing opportunities, two indicators of the World Bank,
Doing Business were used. One important element of the business environment of a country is the
strength of legal rights index, which measures the degree to which collateral and bankruptcy laws protect
the rights of borrowers and lenders and thus facilitate lending12. The index ranges from 0 for the weakest
legal rights to 12 for the strongest legal basis in terms of the protection of the rights of the borrowers and
lenders. The second index focuses on the information asymmetries preventing lenders from getting
necessary information for their lending decisions measuring rules, which influence the scope, accessibility,
and quality of credit information available through public or private credit registries. The index ranges
from 0 to 8, with higher values indicating less information asymmetries in the debt market and the
availability of more credit information, from either a public registry or a private bureau, thus facilitating
lending decisions13. These two indices work best together and should therefore be considered
simultaneously, since they are equally important for chances to get credits.
11 Figure based on World Bank, Doing Business project. 12 World Bank, Doing Business 13 World Bank, Doing Business
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Au
stra
lia
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Hu
nga
ry
Ro
man
ia
Bu
lgar
ia
Can
ada
Latv
ia
Den
mar
k
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Esto
nia
Fin
lan
d
Irel
and
Po
lan
d
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Ge
rman
y
Isra
el
Lith
uan
ia
Swed
en
Swit
zerl
and
Au
stri
a
Cro
atia
Icel
and
Ko
rea,
Re
p.
No
rway
Spai
n
Bel
giu
m
Ch
ina
Fran
ce
Jap
an
Gre
ece
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Slo
ven
ia
Ital
y
Mal
ta
Po
rtu
gal
Legal rights strength Credit information depth
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
28
Data suggest that a number of countries including Australia, United States, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria,
Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Poland, United Kingdom, Germany and Lithuania (Figure 8)
provide favourable framework conditions for getting credits in terms of protection of the borrowers' and
lenders' rights as well as addressing the credit market information asymmetries.
3.2.1.2 Domestic credit to private sector
Figure 9 Domestic credit to private sector as percentage of GDP, 201514
The Indicator Domestic credit to private sector provided by the World Bank measures the level of financial
resources made available to the private sector by financial institutions like banks, monetary authorities
and other financial corporations, such as leasing companies, insurance corporations, pension funds,
through loans, purchases of nonequity securities etc. The higher levels of domestic credits indicate greater
opportunities of the private sector to get access to finance resources, thus offering higher potential for
investments of businesses in growth and innovations. Data demonstrate (Figure 9) that United States,
Japan, Switzerland, Denmark, Korea and China have the highest ratio of domestic credit to the private
sector, whereas a large group of the EU countries exhibits much lower levels of financial resources
provided to the private sector by financial institutions.
14 Figure based on World Bank Indicators.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Cyp
rus
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Jap
an
Swit
zerl
and
Den
mar
k
Ch
ina
Ko
rea,
Re
p.
No
rway
Au
stra
lia
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Swed
en
Po
rtu
gal
Spai
n
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Gre
ece
Fin
lan
d
Fran
ce
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Mal
ta
Icel
and
Ital
y
Au
stri
a
Ge
rman
y
Esto
nia
Isra
el
Cro
atia
Bel
giu
m
Bu
lgar
ia
Irel
and
Po
lan
d
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Slo
ven
ia
Latv
ia
Lith
uan
ia
Hu
nga
ry
Ro
man
ia
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
29
3.2.1.3 Venture capital
Venture capital as a form of equity financing plays a very important role in the financing of young
technology driven companies. Especially in the early seed stage and start-up stage of their activities, young
innovative companies, which are often characterized by a high entrepreneurial risk, need financial
resources in order to implement their innovative ideas and successfully launch their products onto the
market. Venture capital is particularly important for supporting innovative small and medium-sized
enterprises, which often have limited access to financial resources. Figure 11 shows that for many EU
countries, access to venture capital for the strategically important early development stage for financing
new businesses remains problematic. Moreover, most EU countries display in international comparison
extremely low levels of venture capital investments for early and later stage ventures constituting less
than 0.05% of GDP (Figure 10). Hence, in the most European countries the access to venture capital for
smaller young businesses with growth potential in their early stages of development, like data driven
companies, is not adequate.
Figure 10: Venture capital investments as a percentage of GDP, 2016 (or the latest available year)15
15 Figure based on OECD, Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2017.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
Isra
el
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Can
ada
Irel
and
Fin
lan
d
Swed
en
Swit
zerl
and
Fran
ce
Spai
n
Latv
ia
Esto
nia
Den
mar
k
Ge
rman
y
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Bel
giu
m
No
rway
Hu
nga
ry
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Jap
an
Au
stri
a
Au
stra
lia
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic
Po
rtu
gal
Slo
ven
ia
Ital
y
Po
lan
d
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Gre
ece
Seed/start-up/early stage Later stage venture
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
30
Figure 11 Venture capital investments as percentage of GDP, 201516
3.2.2 Government support to business R&D
Government support to businesses that encourages them to invest in new technologies fostering
innovation and growth is one of the further important aspects contributing to a favourable business
environment in countries. Since investments in research and development are often associated with a
high risk and since investors do not consider positive effects of their innovation on the economy as a
whole and ignore social benefits from their innovations, business investments in R&D remain mostly
below the optimum level for the economy. This also concerns the data driven innovations, which are
expected to boost productivity growth and contribute to the well-being of the society. Therefore,
additional mechanisms are needed to encourage higher investment in R&D.
Data on the total government support for business R&D indicate that in international comparison, many
European countries including France, Belgium, Ireland, Hungary, Austria and United Kingdom offer
relatively high levels of support for business R&D (Figure 12). This would imply a stronger stimulating
effect on the business research and innovation activities in these countries. By contrast, in Poland,
Lithuania, Slovak Republic and Latvia, the total government support for business R&D is insignificant
suggesting that the stimulation of the business R&D is not among the priorities of these countries'
governments.
16 Figure based on Eurostat.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Total Seed, start-up and later stage
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
31
Figure 12 Total government support for business R&D, as percentage of GDP, 2015 (or the latest available year)17
3.2.3 Policy and governance framework
Evidence about important aspects shaping the overall business environment and the economic
development of a country in general, provide Worldwide Governance Indicators published by the World
Bank Institute, which capture different dimensions of policy and governance framework conditions. Their
relevance for the economic success of countries is widely recognized in the scientific literature18.
For this analysis, only those indicators were chosen, which have direct impact on the economic activities
of the private sector: Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, and Control of Corruption. They are
composite indicators reflecting estimates of governance performance ranging from -2.5 (for weak) to 2.5
(for strong governance performance). Details on the methodology and the underlying data sources are
discussed in the Worldwide Governance methodology paper (Kaufmann, Kraay, & Mastruzzi, 2010).
3.2.3.1 Government effectiveness
Government effectiveness index reflects "perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the
civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation
and implementation, and the credibility of the government's commitment to such policies."19 Data
17 Figure based on OECD, Measuring Tax Support for R&D and Innovation, http://www.oecd.org/sti/rd-tax-stats.htm. 18 For example, the seminal work of North (1990). 19 https://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/worldwide-governance-indicators
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Fran
ce
Bel
giu
m
Ko
rea,
Re
p.
Irel
and
Hu
nga
ry
Au
stri
a
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Au
stra
lia
No
rway
Slo
ven
ia
Can
ada
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Icel
and
Po
rtu
gal
Jap
an
Den
mar
k
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Swed
en
Ch
ina
Spai
n
Bra
zil
Isra
el
Ital
y
Gre
ece
Turk
ey
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Fin
lan
d
Ge
rman
y
Sou
th A
fric
a
Esto
nia
Mex
ico
Po
lan
d
Lith
uan
ia
Swit
zerl
and
Ch
ile
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic
Latv
ia
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
32
provide evidence (Figure 13) that within the selected set of countries, government quality is high in
Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Sweden, Germany, Luxembourg,
United Kingdom and Australia. In contrast, Italy, Croatia, Hungary, China, Bulgaria, Greece and, in
particular, Romania display a relatively low level of the government effectiveness.
3.2.3.2 Regulatory quality
The regulatory quality Index reflects "perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and
implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development"20. Data
indicate that among all selected counties Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Germany,
United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada stand out through their very good regulatory quality (Figure 14). This
would imply that compared to the others, this group of countries has the most favourable regulatory
framework conditions for the activities of the private sector. Italy, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania,
Croatia, Greece, and China are the countries with the lowest overall regulatory quality, indicating less
favorable regulatory conditions for business operations of the private enterprises.
3.2.3.3 Control of corruption
The Control of Corruption Index "reflects perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for
private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as "capture" of the state by elites
and private interests"21. Corruption has very adverse effects on the economic development through
distorted conditions of competition and economic decisions, legal uncertainty and increased costs. It is
therefore a serious barrier for investments in new technologies and innovations. Data provided by the
World Bank Institute show that among observed countries Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway,
Luxembourg, Switzerland, Iceland, Canada and the Netherlands stand out in terms of low levels of
corruption, whereas Slovak Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, and, particularly, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria,
China still face serious problems with corruption (Figure 15).
20 https://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/worldwide-governance-indicators 21 https://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/worldwide-governance-indicators
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
33
Figure 13 Government Effectiveness Index, 201622
Note: Index ranges from -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong)
22 Figure based on World Bank Governance Indicators.
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Swit
zerl
and
Den
mar
kN
orw
ay
Fin
lan
dN
eth
erl
and
s
Jap
an
Can
ada
Swed
en
Ge
rman
yLu
xem
bo
urg
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Au
stra
liaA
ust
ria
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Icel
and
Fran
ceIs
rae
l
Irel
and
Bel
giu
m
Po
rtu
gal
Slo
ven
ia
Spai
n
Esto
nia
Lith
uan
ia
Ko
rea,
Re
p.
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Latv
ia
Cyp
rus
Mal
ta
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
licP
ola
nd
Ital
yC
roat
ia
Hu
nga
ryC
hin
a
Bu
lgar
iaG
reec
e
Ro
man
ia
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
34
Figure 14 Regulatory Quality Index23
Note: Index ranges from -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong).
23 Figure based on World Bank Governance Indicators.
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Swit
zerl
and
Au
stra
lia
Swed
enFi
nla
nd
Ge
rman
y
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
mIr
elan
d
Can
ada
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Esto
nia
No
rway
Den
mar
k
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Au
stri
a
Jap
anB
elgi
um
Isra
el
Icel
and
Mal
taLi
thu
ania
Ko
rea,
Re
p.
Latv
iaFr
ance
Cyp
rus
Spai
n
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Po
lan
dSl
ova
k R
epu
blic
Po
rtu
gal
Ital
y
Bu
lgar
iaSl
ove
nia
Hu
nga
ryR
om
ania
Cro
atia
Gre
ece
Ch
ina
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
35
Figure 15 Control of Corruption Index24
Note: Index ranges from -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong).
3.2.4 Index on business environment
An enabling business environment is a necessary prerequisite to ensure successful business sector
development and innovation in the data economy. The index that measures business environment across
countries encompass the following key indicators: legal rights strength, credit information depth, level of
domestic credit to private sector, venture capital investments, total government support for business R&D
government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and control of corruption.
With the exception of venture capital investments and total government support for business R&D, for
which reliable data are available for only one point of time, data coverage for the other indicators permits
the measurement of countries' performance between 2014 and 2016.
In terms of legal rights strength reflecting the degree to which collateral and bankruptcy laws protect the
rights of borrowers and lenders, Romania, Hungary, Latvia, Bulgaria and Denmark rank as the best
performing countries, while Portugal and Italy display the lowest rankings among all observed European
countries (Table 4, Table 5).
24 Figure based on World Bank Governance Indicators.
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Fin
lan
d
Den
mar
kSw
eden
No
rway
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Swit
zerl
and
Icel
and
Can
ada
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Ge
rman
y
Au
stra
liaIr
elan
d
Bel
giu
mA
ust
ria
Jap
anFr
ance
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Esto
nia
Isra
el
Po
rtu
gal
Cyp
rus
Slo
ven
iaP
ola
nd
Mal
taLi
thu
ania
Spai
n
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Latv
ia
Ko
rea,
Re
p.
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic
Cro
atia
Hu
nga
ry
Ital
yR
om
ania
Gre
ece
Bu
lgar
ia
Ch
ina
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
36
As for the credit information depth index, which measures information asymmetries in the debt market,
best scores achieve in 2016 United Kingdom, Lithuania, Latvia, Germany and Poland followed by a large
group of countries with second best scores.
Qualitative characteristics of policy and governance framework conditions, such as government
effectiveness, regulatory quality and control of corruption play an important role for the economic success
of private enterprises and a favourable business environment. In terms of government effectiveness,
countries' performance varies widely across Europe. Noteworthy is the excellent performance of
Denmark, Norway, Finland, Netherlands and Sweden that are among best performing countries in both
periods of observation. Compared to 2014, there is some improvement of the government effectiveness
and less dispersion within the selected group of countries in 2016, as the descriptive statistics indicate.
Many countries with lower government effectiveness scores in 2014 display larger improvements in 2016,
moving faster ahead compared to the rest of the countries. The most significant improvements achieved
Bulgaria, although starting from a very low base. As a result, even though Bulgaria could reduce the score
gap considerably, it moved up by only one place in the ranking list in 2016. Significant improvements of
government effectiveness occurred also in Italy, which gained 3 ranking positions, Portugal climbing from
the 19th up to the 14th rank, while Slovenia and Italy gained three positions each in 2016. However, the
less variation in performance across countries in 2016 is not only due to moving faster ahead of a number
of countries, but also because of slowdown or drawbacks in performance of some countries. The most
notable losses in performance experienced Cyprus, losing 6 positions and Ireland moving from the 9th in
2014 to 12th rank in 2016.
With respect to the regulatory quality indicator, measuring the overall regulatory framework conditions
for the activities of the business sector, the Netherlands ranks first, followed at some distance by Sweden,
Finland and Germany, whereas Croatia and Greece remain the worst performing countries during both
periods. Although there is an overall improvement in performance as well as decline in variation between
countries in 2016, the polarization within the group of countries is still considerable. The most meaningful
improvements are registered in Croatia (by 170%), which started from a very low base and still has a long
way to go to improve its relative position in Europe. Considerable growth display Bulgaria (by 80%) moving
three ranks up and Spain (by 74%) improving its relative positioning by four ranks. On the other hand,
there is a country group that experienced some drawbacks in their relative positioning. To these countries
belong Ireland, Poland, Latvia, United Kingdom, Hungary, Finland and Denmark.
A somewhat different picture emerges when comparing the development of the control of corruption
across countries. On the whole, there was hardly any meaningful improvement of the control of
corruption within the selected group of countries. Due to the stagnation and setbacks in the fight against
corruption in many European countries, there is an increasing variation and polarization between
countries, as the coefficient of variation and of quartile dispersion indicate. The most notable drawbacks
are revealed in Hungary (-40%), Cyprus (-24%), Croatia (-22%), Spain (-20%) and Greece (-11%). Romania
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
37
and the Czech Republic show the highest rate of improvement - by 22% and 11% respectively, whereas
Iceland, United Kingdom, Poland, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Slovenia and Latvia display some
minor improvements in terms of control of corruption. In 2016, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway
remain the countries with the lowest level of corruption, whereas Italy, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria retain
their last positions.
Cyprus, Denmark, Norway, United Kingdom and Sweden belong to the countries with the highest level of
financial resources provided to the private sector by financial institutions suggesting that businesses in
these countries have better opportunities of getting access to finance resources (Table 4, Table 5). In
contrast, in Slovenia, Hungary, Romania and Lithuania, the level of credits provided to the business sector
is relatively low. In the aftermath of financial crisis, the budget consolidation efforts led to declining
lending rates in many countries resulting in a sharp drop of domestic credits to the private sectors. The
decreasing levels of domestic credits in many countries is the reason for the less dispersion among
countries in 2016 (Table 6).
Among all countries, for which data on the venture capital investments are available, Ireland ranks first,
followed more further behind by Finland, Sweden, France and Spain. However, the data demonstrates
considerable dispersion within the group of the European countries, which measures of spread indicate.
For example, the index value of the best performing country - Ireland - is 35 points higher than those of
the second best performing country - Finland.
The coverage of data on the further key indicator used to measure the business environment in the
European countries is also incomplete. In terms of total government support for business R&D, France,
Belgium, Ireland and Hungary perform best among all European countries, for which data are available,
whereas Poland, Lithuania, Slovak Republic and Latvia occupy last places. This indicator and the calculated
index thereof is also marked by a wide variation across countries.
Since a business-friendly environment for starting up and developing new businesses in the data economy
is essential, the index based on these eight individual indicators aims to give an indication of the countries'
overall business environment having particularly in mind young technology based businesses that often
face considerable barriers. The index reveals that in Ireland, Cyprus, the United Kingdom and Denmark
businesses seem to encounter the most favourable business environment (Figure 16). According to the
calculations, a large group of other European countries including Finland, Norway, France, Sweden,
Iceland, Germany, Austria, Hungary, the Netherlands and Belgium provides a good basis for starting and
developing businesses.
On the whole, there is less dispersion in the average performance among countries indicating that all
European countries make efforts to create a more benign business environment. However, compared to
well performing countries, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Croatia, Slovak Republic and,
in particular, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Italy and Greece seem to suffer from some weaknesses, which may
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
38
constitute a barrier for new dynamic knowledge based businesses like data driven businesses. However,
this index does not allow a definitive conclusion about the overall business environment in the observed
countries, since many other aspects that shape the business environment of a country could not be
captured by it.
Figure 16 Index on business environment, 201625
25 Figure based on own calculations.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
GreeceItaly
LuxembourgSlovenia
Slovak RepublicCroatia
PortugalPoland
LithuaniaCzech Republic
BulgariaSpainLatvia
EstoniaRomaniaBelgium
NetherlandsHungary
AustriaGermany
IcelandSweden
FranceNorwayFinland
DenmarkUnited Kingdom
CyprusIreland
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
39
Country Legal rights strength Credit information depth Domestic credit to private sector Venture capital investments Average index
2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014/2016 2016
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Ireland 0.63 6 0.63 6 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.23 16 0.17 25 1.00 1 0.72 1
Cyprus 0.63 6 0.63 6 0.50 27 0.63 23 1.00 1 1.00 1
0.68 2
United Kingdom 0.63 6 0.63 6 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.49 3 0.57 4 0.38 10 0.67 3
Denmark 0.75 5 0.75 5 0.75 16 0.75 17 0.65 2 0.73 2 0.40 8 0.65 4
Finland 0.63 6 0.63 6 0.75 16 0.75 17 0.28 12 0.38 12 0.65 2 0.59 5
Norway 0.38 17 0.38 17 0.75 16 0.75 17 0.45 7 0.61 3 0.36 12 0.59 6
France 0.25 22 0.25 22 0.75 16 0.75 17 0.29 11 0.39 11 0.47 4 0.58 7
Sweden 0.50 14 0.50 14 0.63 23 0.63 23 0.46 4 0.54 5 0.52 3 0.58 8
Iceland 0.38 17 0.38 17 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.30 10 0.34 13
0.56 9
Germany 0.50 14 0.50 14 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.22 17 0.30 16 0.39 9 0.54 10
Austria 0.38 17 0.38 17 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.26 15 0.34 14 0.19 15 0.54 11
Hungary 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.63 23 0.63 23 0.06 27 0.10 27 0.36 13 0.53 12
Netherlands 0.13 24 0.13 24 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.40 8 0.45 8 0.34 14 0.53 13
Belgium 0.25 22 0.25 22 0.63 23 0.63 23 0.12 21 0.24 19 0.36 11 0.53 14
Romania 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.00 29 0.07 28
0.51 15
Estonia 0.63 6 0.63 6 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.17 19 0.28 17 0.40 7 0.50 16
Latvia 0.88 3 0.88 3 0.75 16 1.00 1 0.09 24 0.25 18 0.41 6 0.50 17
Spain 0.38 17 0.38 17 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.45 5 0.46 7 0.47 5 0.49 18
Bulgaria 0.88 3 0.88 3 0.63 23 0.63 23 0.13 20 0.19 23
0.46 19
Czech Republic 0.63 6 0.63 6 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.09 26 0.18 24 0.03 21 0.42 20
Lithuania 0.50 14 0.50 14 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.04 28 0.00 29
0.41 21
Poland 0.63 6 0.63 6 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.10 23 0.19 22 0.07 20 0.40 22
Portugal 0.00 28 0.00 28 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.45 6 0.46 6 0.11 17 0.39 23
Croatia 0.38 17 0.38 17 0.75 16 0.75 17 0.17 18 0.23 20
0.39 24
Slovak Republic 0.63 6 0.63 6 0.75 16 0.75 17 0.09 25 0.21 21 0.16 16 0.36 25
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
40
Slovenia 0.13 24 0.13 24 0.50 27 0.50 28 0.11 22 0.16 26 0.10 18 0.30 26
Luxembourg 0.13 24 0.13 24 0.00 29 0.00 29 0.27 13 0.40 10 0.02 22 0.29 27
Italy 0.00 28 0.00 28 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.26 14 0.34 15 0.07 19 0.29 28
Greece 0.13 27 0.13 27 0.88 5 0.88 6 0.39 9 0.44 9 0.00 23 0.29 29
Table 4 Business environment – indices 1
Country Total government support for business R&D
Government effectiveness Regulatory quality Control of corruption Average index
2015 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014-2016
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Ireland 0.90 3 0.80 9 0.74 12 0.92 5 0.87 6 0.74 10 0.73 10 0.72 1
Cyprus
0.58 15 0.56 21 0.49 16 0.49 17 0.53 15 0.40 16 0.68 2
United Kingdom 0.61 6 0.82 8 0.87 8 0.96 2 0.88 5 0.80 9 0.84 8 0.67 3
Denmark 0.35 12 0.91 3 1.00 1 0.87 7 0.78 10 1.00 1 0.98 2 0.65 4
Finland 0.17 18 1.00 1 0.98 3 1.00 1 0.91 3 0.97 3 1.00 1 0.59 5
Norway 0.48 7 0.92 2 1.00 2 0.85 9 0.85 9 0.99 2 0.97 4 0.59 6
France 1.00 1 0.71 12 0.77 11 0.48 17 0.50 16 0.63 13 0.62 13 0.58 7
Sweden 0.33 14 0.90 5 0.95 5 0.95 3 0.93 2 0.96 4 0.97 3 0.58 8
Iceland 0.43 9 0.75 11 0.77 10 0.57 12 0.62 13 0.83 8 0.88 6 0.56 9
Germany 0.17 18 0.87 6 0.93 6 0.88 6 0.91 4 0.84 7 0.81 9 0.54 10
Austria 0.72 5 0.79 10 0.82 9 0.75 11 0.71 11 0.69 12 0.70 12 0.54 11
Hungary 0.90 3 0.28 25 0.30 26 0.27 21 0.25 26 0.16 24 0.10 25 0.53 12
Netherlands 0.43 9 0.91 4 0.98 4 0.93 4 1.00 1 0.90 6 0.86 7 0.53 13
Belgium 0.97 2 0.70 13 0.73 13 0.53 15 0.65 12 0.73 11 0.72 11 0.53 14
Romania
0.00 29 0.00 29 0.16 26 0.24 27 0.05 27 0.07 27 0.51 15
Estonia 0.15 20 0.52 17 0.63 17 0.87 8 0.85 8 0.62 14 0.56 14 0.50 16
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
41
Latvia 0.00 24 0.49 21 0.57 20 0.54 14 0.51 15 0.27 21 0.27 22 0.50 17
Spain 0.30 15 0.59 14 0.63 16 0.27 22 0.47 18 0.35 19 0.28 20 0.49 18
Bulgaria
0.05 28 0.22 27 0.15 27 0.28 24 0.00 29 0.00 29 0.46 19
Czech Republic 0.35 12 0.52 16 0.60 19 0.44 19 0.46 19 0.25 22 0.27 21 0.42 20
Lithuania 0.07 22 0.50 20 0.61 18 0.56 13 0.54 14 0.32 20 0.34 19 0.41 21
Poland 0.12 21 0.42 23 0.42 23 0.47 18 0.44 20 0.35 18 0.37 18 0.40 22
Portugal 0.40 10 0.50 19 0.68 14 0.27 23 0.38 22 0.48 16 0.46 15 0.39 23
Croatia
0.36 24 0.32 25 0.04 28 0.11 28 0.19 23 0.15 24 0.39 24
Slovak Republic 0.04 23 0.45 22 0.52 22 0.36 20 0.41 21 0.16 25 0.16 23 0.36 25
Slovenia 0.48 7 0.51 18 0.63 15 0.21 24 0.27 25 0.39 17 0.39 17 0.30 26
Luxembourg
0.83 7 0.91 7 0.84 10 0.86 7 0.93 5 0.92 5 0.29 27
Italy 0.20 16 0.20 27 0.34 24 0.20 25 0.31 23 0.09 26 0.08 26 0.29 28
Greece 0.20 16 0.21 26 0.19 28 0.00 29 0.00 29 0.05 28 0.04 28 0.29 29
Table 5 Business environment – indices 2
Statistical measure Legal rights strength
Credit information depth
Domestic credit to private sector
Venture capital as share of GDP
Total government support for business R&D as share of GDP
Government effectiveness
Regulatory quality
Control of corruption
Average index
2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014/2016 2012-2015 2014 2016 2014 2016 2014 2016 2016
Quartile coefficient of dispersion
0.75 0.75 0.21 0.21 1.23 0.78 0.87 1.16 0.68 0.67 1.12 1.00 1.16 1.38 0.36
Upper quartile 0.63 0.63 0.88 0.88 0.42 0.46 0.41 0.58 0.82 0.89 0.87 0.85 0.83 0.85 0.58
Lower quartile 0.25 0.25 0.69 0.69 0.10 0.19 0.10 0.17 0.43 0.47 0.27 0.34 0.22 0.21 0.40
Median 0.50 0.50 0.88 0.88 0.26 0.34 0.36 0.35 0.58 0.63 0.53 0.51 0.53 0.46 0.51
Coefficient of variation 0.58 0.58 0.26 0.25 0.76 0.60 0.74 0.73 0.46 0.41 0.56 0.48 0.62 0.64 0.24
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
42
Standard deviation 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.27 0.33 0.33 0.12
Variance 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.01
Mean 0.48 0.48 0.77 0.78 0.28 0.35 0.32 0.41 0.59 0.64 0.55 0.57 0.53 0.52 0.49
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29
Maximum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72
Table 6 Business environment – descriptive statistics
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
43
3.3 Innovation potential
Innovations play the pivotal role for a successful development of an economy and improvement of the
living standards of the society. Data driven innovations can help promote innovation processes, improve
productivity and people's well-being. However, innovation opportunities, which data are offering cannot
be fully realized when countries fail to build up a critical mass of innovation capacities necessary to adapt
and invent new technologies and techniques.
In the following, some critical factors will be analysed that are linked to innovation capacities of countries
in the data economy.
3.3.1 Scientific publications
Scientific publications and studies reflect the codified knowledge in one specific area, contributing to the
knowledge creation and knowledge diffusion in this area. Scientific publications can be used for
international comparisons of knowledge creation and scientific research output.
For the analysis, the largest international database that provides abstracts and citations of peer reviewed
scientific literature - Scope - was used to analyse scientific publications in data related fields.26 In Scopus,
the document search is performed to find search terms in the title, abstract or key words. The searches
were carried out using key words "data science", "big data", "data analytics" and "data mining". To focus
on the scientific advance of the data science in the relevant science fields, the searches were restricted to
the key domains: computer science, decision sciences, engineering, mathematics, medicine, physics and
astronomy, and multidisciplinary.
Worldwide, the number of scientific publications in data science related fields increased manifold since
2010 (Figure 31). China ranks first in terms of the overall number of scientific publications in data science
related fields, followed at some distance by the United States and India. High levels of data science
publications are also recorded for Germany, Australia, Italy, South Korea, Japan, France and Spain.
By 2017, scientific publications have increased in many countries by a multiple over the 2010 level. In a
number of countries, like China, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Italy, Netherlands,
Greece, Singapore, Portugal, Switzerland and some others, the scientific publication output rose almost
threefold or more between 2010 and 2017. The highest rise in data science publication intensity was
achieved by India, recording six times more publications in 2017 than in 2010. A considerable growth was
also found for South Korea, where scientific publications grew by a factor of 4.2, Sweden - by a factor of
26 However, some limitations must be taken into account when analyzing data on scientific publication based on the Scopus database that exclude languages other than English. Although the majority of scientific publications is nowadays published in English, one should be nevertheless aware of some English language bias.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
44
5, Austria - by a factor of 4.5 and Norway - by a factor of 5. The growth trend for the data science related
publications is likely to continue in future, given the growing significance of big data.
Figure 17 Scientific publications in data science related fields27
3.3.2 R&D investments in data-related activities
Innovations require a lot of investments in R&D. Investments in R&D are widely used to measure the
efforts devoted to research activities aimed to develop new technologies and to promote innovations.
Since the direct data on data economy related R&D investments are not available, business R&D
investments in sectors J63 (data processing, hosting and related activities; web portals and other
information service activities) and J62 (computer programming, consultancy and related activities) are
chosen as proxies to reflects trends of business sector investments in the data related research and
innovation.
Data reveal that in Europe companies with the overall highest level of investments in R&D in J63 and J62
are located in Iceland and Ireland (Figure 33). A relatively high investments display Norway, Finland,
Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, Estonia, Belgium and Czech Republic indicating their considerable R&D
efforts in these fields. The majority of the European countries showed an upward trend in R&D
27 Figure is based on Scopus.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
45
investments, however in some countries including Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Romania, Croatia and Cyprus
there was a decline in the R&D intensity in 2015. A large group of countries exhibits between quite
moderate (Italy, Portugal, Spain, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania) and very low
(Latvia, Romania, Luxembourg, Croatia, Cyprus) levels of R&D investment, which results in a significant
variation across the selected set of European countries.
Figure 18 Business enterprise R&D expenditure in J62 and J63 (Euro per inhabitant in purchasing power standard (PPS), constant 2005 prices)28
Note: J63 (NACE Rev. 2): Data processing, hosting and related activities; web portals and other information
service activities; J62 (NACE Rev. 2): Computer programming, consultancy and related activities.
3.3.3 Researchers in data-related fields
A high proportion of experts with key qualifications indicates a significant potential to generate
innovations and to implement them efficiently. It is widely recognized that a targeted combination of
specific knowledge, skills and experience of R&D personnel promotes the innovation process (see, for
example, Lundvall (1995, pp. 23–44)).
Innovative capabilities in the data economy are strongly associated with human skills. Data science related
skills are vital for the adoption and continuous development of innovative technologies and methods for
the data economy, which makes these specific skills a key enabler of the data driven economy. Therefore,
28 Figure based on Eurostat, own calculations.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Icel
and
Irel
and
No
rway
Fin
lan
d
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Den
mar
k
Au
stri
a
Esto
nia
Bel
giu
m
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Ge
rman
y
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Mal
ta
Fran
ce
Slo
ven
ia
Ital
y
Po
rtu
gal
Spai
n
Hu
nga
ry
Slo
vaki
a
Po
lan
d
Bu
lgar
ia
Gre
ece
Lith
uan
ia
Latv
ia
Ro
man
ia
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Cro
atia
Cyp
rus
2012 2015
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
46
the indicator that refers to the share of R&D personnel in the fields of economic activities, which are
strongly related to the data related activities, was included in the analysis. Statistic data on the share of
researchers in J63 (data processing, hosting and related activities; web portals and other information
service activities) and J62 (computer programming, consultancy and related activities) in the total business
sector researchers reveals that Malta, Iceland, Ireland, Poland, Estonia, Czech Republic and Lithuania have
the highest proportion of researchers within these business activities (Figure 20). The most significant
increases in the share of researchers between 2012 and 2015 were observed in the Czech Republic (98%),
Latvia (165%), Italy (79%), Lithuania (53%), Finland (28%), Slovenia (24%) and Netherlands (21%).
However, the percentage of researchers fell in many European countries in 2015 in comparison to the
year 2012. The greatest relative reduction experienced Romania (by 60%), Croatia (by 53%), Hungary (by
43%), Croatia (by 53%), Portugal (by 30%), Germany (by 25%), and Estonia (by 24%).
Figure 19 Share of researchers in J62 and J63 in total business sector researchers
Note: J62 - Computer programming, consultancy and related activities, J63 - Data processing, hosting and
related activities; web portals and other information service activities.
3.3.4 Talent pool potential
There is wide evidence for the shortage of skilled personnel representing a major barrier to the successful
development of the data economy (OECD, 2015). Due to the lack of the official data on the supply and
demand of the data scientists, it is difficult to measure the skill gap in the current data economy. However,
calculations based on data provided by Eurostat show an unprecedented employment growth in the data
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Mal
ta
Icel
and
Irel
and
Po
lan
d
Esto
nia
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Lith
uan
ia
Gre
ece
No
rway
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Slo
vaki
a
Po
rtu
gal
Latv
ia
Fin
lan
d
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Bu
lgar
ia
Spai
n
Hu
nga
ry
Cyp
rus
Bel
giu
m
Fran
ce
Den
mar
k
Au
stri
a
Ital
y
Slo
ven
ia
Cro
atia
Ro
man
ia
Ge
rman
y
Luxe
mb
ou
rg2012 2015
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
47
related sectors in the most European countries between 2008 and 2015 (Figure 42) indicating a
continuous high demand of skilled workers in these sectors. Data from Eurostat also reveals that the
majority of enterprises in ICT service sector - that also encompasses those with the data focus - have at
the same time considerable difficulties to fill their job vacancies requiring ICT specialist skills (Figure 38).
Over the last 5 years, this trend has increased markedly in many of the EU countries indicating a rising skill
mismatch in ICT.
The increasing demand for skilled and talented data specialists and the need to foster the development
of higher level skills and advanced competences require concentrated and targeted efforts on the part of
both the governments and business sector. Some companies take measures to cope with the
consequences of the shortage of skilled professionals and a talent retention problem. For example,
ArcelorMittal Spain, the world's largest steel company, that uses big data technologies to increase and
improve services provided to companies, is developing and implementing a series of strategies to
counteract the skill shortage problems. These include incentive programs by hired profile in order to
exploit the network of the employees’ contacts and a junior programme developed in collaboration with
the Government of the Principality of Asturias, which aims to attract and retain talent in megatrends. The
company also supports its employees' access to elite universities such as Stanford, MIT or Michigan State
University to ensure that the acquired knowledge is transferred and used in the company.
To reflect the talent pool potential for the data economy, it is useful to look at indicators measuring the
share of graduates in natural sciences, mathematics, statistics, information and communication
technologies and engineering, since the majority of skilled human resources for the data related activities
originates from these science fields. The data provides an evidence that in international comparison in
particular India, followed by Malta, South Korea, Finland, Greece, Mexico, Romania, United Kingdom and
Ireland have high proportions of graduates in fields that are relevant for the development of the data
related skills (Figure 22). By contrast, country group with low levels of tertiary graduates in natural
sciences, mathematics, statistics, ICT and engineering hold less potential to develop talent pools for the
data economy.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
48
Figure 20 Percentage of enterprises in ICT service sector that had hard-to-fill vacancies for jobs requiring ICT specialist skills29
Note: The ICT service sector covers according to NACE Rev. 2 Section J (58-63) — Information and
Communication. Data relate to enterprises with 10 persons employed or more, which tried to recruit
personnel for jobs requiring ICT specialist skills.
29 Figure based on Eurostat.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Mal
ta
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Au
stri
a
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Den
mar
k
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Cro
atia
Fin
lan
d
Ge
rman
y
Slo
ven
ia
Esto
nia
Bel
giu
m
Hu
nga
ry
Swed
en
Irel
and
Slo
vaki
a
Latv
ia
EU 2
8
Bu
lgar
ia
Gre
ece
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Lith
uan
ia
Fran
ce
Cyp
rus
Ital
y
Ro
man
ia
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
gal
No
rway
Icel
and
Spai
n
2012 2017
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
49
Figure 21 Full time employees (average annual growth between 2008 and 2015)30
Note: Data processing, hosting and related activities; web portals (J631, NACE Rev. 2): for Belgium and
Switzerland, data relate to the period 2009-2015. For Poland, data are available only for 2011-2015.
Computer programming, consultancy and related activities (J62, NACE Rev. 2): For Luxembourg, data are
available for 2012-2015, for Poland - 2011-2015; for Switzerland - 2009-2015.
30 Figure based on Eurostat, own calculations.
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Cyp
rus
Latv
ia
Lith
uan
ia
Slo
vaki
a
Esto
nia
Swit
zerl
and
Ge
rman
y
Gre
ece
Bu
lgar
ia
Po
rtu
gal
Bel
giu
m
Cro
atia
Den
mar
k
Ro
man
ia
Swed
en
Po
lan
d
No
rway
Hu
nga
ry
Au
stri
a
Fin
lan
d
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Spai
n
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Ital
y
Fran
ce
Mal
ta
Irel
and
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Data processing, hosting and related activities, web portals
Computer programming, consultancy and related activities
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
50
Figure 22 Share of graduates in natural sciences, mathematics and statistics, ICT and engineering, 201531
Note: Data relate to the total tertiary education (ISCED2011 levels 5 to 8). ISCED 5: Short-cycle tertiary education; ISCED6: Bachelor’s or equivalent level; ISCED 7: Master’s or equivalent level; ISCED 8: Doctoral or equivalent level.
3.3.5 Index on innovation potential
The composed index on the innovation potential aims to capture the performance and achievements of
countries in the following areas: publications in relevant science fields to reflect the advance of the data
science, business enterprise R&D expenditures in data related business activities, researchers' intensity in
data related business activities. The share of graduates in graduates in natural sciences, mathematics,
statistics, information and communication technologies and engineering is used to indicate the talent pool
potential for the data economy in each country.
Due to the limited data availability of the selected indicators, indices were calculated only for one period
of time in all categories except for scientific publications, where data are available on a year-to-year basis.
Scientific publications are one important source of knowledge creation and knowledge flow. In terms of
the intensity of scientific publications (number of publications per one million inhabitants) Luxembourg
manifests the highest level of publications per 1 million inhabitants, followed by the second and third best
31 Figure based on OECD Statistics, Eurostat, own calculations.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Ind
iaM
alta
Ge
rman
yK
ore
aFi
nla
nd
Gre
ece
Mex
ico
Ro
man
iaU
nit
ed K
ingd
om
Irel
and
Cro
atia
Spai
nP
ort
uga
lEs
ton
iaSw
eden
Ru
ssia
Fran
ceA
ust
ria
Swit
zerl
and
Slo
ven
iaH
un
gary
Isra
el
Bu
lgar
iaLi
thu
ania
Ital
yN
orw
ayLa
tvia
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
licP
ola
nd
Au
stra
liaD
enm
ark
Turk
ey
Cyp
rus
Bel
giu
mN
eth
erl
and
sLu
xem
bo
urg
Ch
ile
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
51
performers - Finland and Ireland (Table 6). However, the distance between the best and second-best
performers of 51 index points is quite significant, as indicated by the coefficient of quartile dispersion
(Table 7).
A polarized distribution within the selected group of countries is also shown for the business enterprise
R&D expenditure in fields, which are linked to data activities. The difference between the best performing
country (Ireland) and the second best performing country (Finland) is quite significant, whereas a large
group of countries are more tightly bunched towards the low tail of the distribution.
There is also a wide variation across European countries for the level of researchers in data related
business activities. However, the index distribution for the share of graduates in natural sciences,
mathematics, statistics and information and communication technologies is less uneven varying from 23%
in Malta, Finland and Greece to 11% in Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
It is quite clear that it is hardly possible to assess the overall innovation potential of countries in the data
economy based on these four indicators. , Nevertheless, the index provides empirical evidence on the
achievements and development trends of countries in some key areas that play an important role for the
building up of the innovative capacity in the data economy. The average index consisting of four previously
specified indicators suggests that within the group of European countries in particular Sweden, Finland
and Malta have a considerable capacity in these categories. An overall good performance is also found for
Greece, Estonia, United Kingdom, Portugal, Austria and Germany. However, these measures do not
account for differences in quality of the research and education systems that may vary significantly from
country to country.
Unfortunately, a number of further important aspects of the data related innovative capacities could not
be covered due to the lack of the reliable data reflecting them or difficulties to quantify and measure
them. Moreover, many important innovations that contribute to the advance of data science are based
on open source innovations that are difficult to record for measurements and therefore cannot be
accounted for in such analysis.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
52
Figure 23 Index on innovation capacity of the data economy, 2015-201732
Country Scientific publications per 1 Mio. inhabitants
Business enterprise R&D expenditure in J62 and J63
Share of researchers in J62 and J63 in total business sector researchers
Share of graduates in natural sciences, mathematics, statistics, ICT and engineering
Average index
2014 2017 2015 2015 2015 2015-2017
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Ireland 0.48 2 0.47 3 1.00 1 0.51 2 0.82 1 0.70 1
Malta 0.02 26 0.14 20 0.27 11 1.00 1 1.00 3 0.60 2
Finland 0.42 3 0.49 2 0.56 2 0.30 12 0.98 12 0.58 3
Sweden 0.17 15 0.36 7
0.75 4 0.56 4
Greece 0.35 5 0.46 4 0.05 20 0.38 7 0.96 11 0.46 5
Estonia 0.15 16 0.21 15 0.36 6 0.45 4 0.76 6 0.44 6
United Kingdom 0.21 11 0.32 9 0.29 10 0.28 13 0.86 10 0.44 7
32 Figure based on own calculations.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
CyprusLatvia
BelgiumBulgariaHungary
ItalySlovakia
LithuaniaCroatia
DenmarkRomania
NetherlandsPoland
SloveniaFrance
LuxembourgCzech Republic
SpainGermany
AustriaPortugal
United KingdomEstoniaGreece
SwedenFinland
MaltaIreland
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
53
Portugal 0.28 7 0.40 5 0.12 15 0.34 10 0.78 14 0.41 8
Austria 0.34 6 0.38 6 0.37 5 0.18 21 0.68 2 0.40 9
Germany 0.20 12 0.20 16 0.30 9 0.08 26 1.00 9 0.39 10
Spain 0.17 14 0.24 13 0.12 16 0.25 15 0.78 21 0.35 11
Czech Republic 0.15 17 0.20 17 0.33 8 0.45 5 0.39 28 0.34 12
Luxembourg 1.00 1 1.00 1
0.00 27 0.00 13 0.33 13
France 0.12 20 0.18 18 0.22 12 0.20 19 0.70 15 0.33 14
Slovenia 0.36 4 0.26 11 0.21 13 0.17 23 0.60 23 0.31 15
Poland 0.07 22 0.11 21
0.46 3 0.31 27 0.29 16
Netherlands 0.25 10 0.34 8 0.41 3 0.36 8 0.07 5 0.29 17
Romania 0.05 24 0.09 24 0.01 23 0.14 25 0.89 24 0.28 18
Denmark 0.27 8 0.27 10 0.40 4 0.18 20 0.25 8 0.28 19
Croatia 0.14 18 0.11 22 0.00 24 0.15 24 0.81 18 0.27 20
Lithuania 0.10 21 0.06 26 0.04 21 0.44 6 0.52 22 0.26 21
Slovakia
0.09 18 0.35 9 0.36 19 0.26 22
Italy 0.14 19 0.23 14 0.13 14 0.17 22 0.50 16 0.26 23
Hungary 0.05 25 0.10 23 0.09 17 0.24 16 0.59 17 0.26 24
Bulgaria 0.00 27 0.08 25 0.06 19 0.26 14 0.54 26 0.23 25
Belgium 0.26 9 0.25 12 0.35 7 0.23 18 0.10 20 0.23 26
Latvia 0.06 23 0.17 19 0.01 22 0.31 11 0.43 25 0.23 27
Cyprus 0.18 13 0.00 27 0.00 24 0.24 17 0.22 28 0.11 28
Table 7 Innovation potential – indices
Statistical measure Scientific publications per 1 Mio. inhabitants
Business enterprise R&D expenditure in J62 and J63
Share of researchers in J62 and J63 in total business sector researchers
Share of graduates in natural sciences, mathematics, statistics, ICT and engineering
Average index
2014 2017 2015 2015 2015 2015-2017
Quartile coefficient of dispersion 1.04 1.09 1.43 0.73 0.71 0.52
Upper quartile 0.28 0.36 0.35 0.38 0.82 0.43
Lower quartile 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.18 0.36 0.26
Median 0.17 0.23 0.21 0.26 0.64 0.32
Coefficient of variation 0.88 0.74 0.95 0.61 0.49 0.37
Standard deviation 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.18 0.29 0.13
Variance 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.02
Mean 0.22 0.26 0.23 0.30 0.59 0.35
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11
Maximum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70
Table 8 Innovation potential – descriptive statistics
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
54
3.4 Infrastructure
3.4.1 Broadband infrastructure
High speed broadband, which is the basic underlying infrastructure for the rapid exchange and free
dissemination of data, has to be reliable if machine-to-machine communication will be used for critical
tasks like traffic coordination. Along with the high speed fixed broadband Internet connections, mobile
broadband infrastructure is playing an increasingly important role for the data economy, since mobile
devices are often used for collecting and disseminating of data.
In the last 10 years, the situation with the broadband connectivity improved significantly. On average, in
2017, 85% of households have access to the broadband Internet, compared to 42% in 2007 (Figure 44).
Some European countries, including the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Iceland have broadband
connectivity rates that are close to 100%. High penetration levels of broadband connections manifest
households in Norway, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Denmark and Germany. However, there are
still many regions within the EU, which lack the broadband access. This concerns in particular many
Eastern European countries, as well as Portugal and Greece.
Many of the upcoming technologies, like Cloud Computing, Internet of Things, and Industry 4.0, are
dependent on internet connections which are reliable, fast and high-capacity. One of the most important
infrastructure technology, which is currently capable to meet these permanently increasing requirements
for the next decades, are fibre connections. However, the expansion of fibre connections requires large
scale investments in the fibre infrastructure, so it remains a central challenge in many countries, like
Greece, Belgium, Ireland, Austria, Germany, and Italy. In these countries the share of fibre connections in
the total broadband connections is still extreme low (Figure 24), due to a well-established copper based
telecommunication infrastructure. In contrast, Japan with 75%, Korea - 74%, Latvia - 63% and Sweden -
55% have the highest penetration rate of fibre in total broadband connections.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
55
Figure 24 Percentage of households' with the Internet fixed or mobile broadband connection33
Due to increasing demand for data transmission in real time, data economy requires fast Internet
connections. For the continuously growing number of Internet capable devices, there is a pressing need
of sufficient data transfer capacities. The type of the broadband technology determines the range of speed
at which data can be transmitted. The faster the Internet connection speed is, the faster data can be up-
and downloaded. Along with the download speeds, which are advertised by Internet access providers,
upload speeds are also an important issue for the data economy. Download speeds are usually much
faster than upload speeds, however for the uploading of large volumes of data adequate upload speed
standards will be needed.
Data on measured download speed reveals that Internet access speed varies significantly across countries.
Although speed requirements have been rapidly increasing in recent years, the average measured speed
in the most countries was still less than 15 megabits per second in the first quarter of 2016. Among all
observed countries, South Korea is leading in terms of average Internet speed, followed by Norway and
Sweden (Figure 28). Switzerland, Latvia, Japan, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark are
further countries with above-average Internet speed, which reflects the efforts of these countries in the
promotion of high speed Internet by investing in fibre or upgraded broadband connections.
33 Figure based on Eurostat, Digital Economy and Society Database.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Icel
and
No
rway
Fin
lan
d
Swed
en
Un
it. K
ingd
om
Den
mar
k
Ge
rman
y
Irel
and
Au
stri
a
Esto
nia
EU2
8
Mal
ta
Bel
giu
m
Cze
ch R
epu
b.
Spai
n
Hu
nga
ry
Slo
ven
ia
Fran
ce
Ital
y
Cyp
rus
Slo
vaki
a
Po
lan
d
Cro
atia
Latv
ia
Po
rtu
gal
Lith
uan
ia
Ro
man
ia
Gre
ece
Bu
lgar
ia
2007 2017
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
56
Although the number of enterprises using contracted download speed of at least 100 megabits per second
has continuously increased in the European countries in recent years, the share of such enterprises
remains relatively low (Figure 27).
Figure 25 Percentage of fibre connections in total broadband subscriptions, December 201634
3.4.2 Adoption of IPv6
All internet capable devices, computers as well as smartphones and devices capable of machine-to-
machine communication, need to have a unique IP address for their communication. The former standard,
IPv4, was able to distinguish between 2³² different addresses. Although this allows more than 3 billion
devices to connect, a further proliferation of the Internet of Things requires by far more IP address
capacities. To interconnect the Internet of Things devices, each of us may use in the near future, the
34 Figure based on OECD, Broadband statistics.
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Greece
Israel
Belgium
Ireland
Austria
Germany
Italy
Chile
France
Poland
Canada
United States
Netherlands
Mexico
Czech Republic
Turkey
Hungary
Switzerland
Australia
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Denmark
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Finland
Portugal
Iceland
Spain
Estonia
Norway
Sweden
Latvia
Korea
Japan
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
57
adoption of a new standard IPv6 is necessary. According to Google's metrics (Figure 26), Belgium ranked
first in terms of adoption rate of IPv6 in 2016, followed by the United States, Switzerland, Greece and
Germany. As of 2016, a large group of European countries displays a quite low level of the IPv6-enabled
networks.
Figure 26 Country adoption of IPv6 according to Google's metrics, 201635
35 Figure based on OECD, Digital Economy Outlook 2017.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Bel
giu
m
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Swit
zerl
and
Gre
ece
Ger
man
y
Po
rtu
gal
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Un
. Kin
gdo
m
Esto
nia
Jap
an
Fran
ce
Fin
lan
d
Can
ada
No
rway
Cze
ch R
ep.
Net
her
lan
ds
Irel
and
Au
stra
lia
Au
stri
a
Hu
nga
ry
Swed
en
Turk
ey
New
Zea
l.
Po
lan
d
Slo
ven
ia
Ko
rea
Isra
el
Den
mar
k
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Slo
vak
Rep
.
Icel
and
Spai
n
Mex
ico
Ch
ile
Per
cen
tage
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
58
Figure 27 Maximum contracted download speed of the fastest fixed Internet connection in 201736
Note: Data relate to all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more).
36 Figure based on Eurostat, Digital Economy and Society Database.
0
20
40
60
80
100Sl
ove
nia
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Den
mar
k
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Fran
ce
Lith
uan
ia
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Bel
giu
m
Spai
n
Cyp
rus
Po
rtu
gal
Esto
nia
Irel
and
Mal
ta
Ital
y
Fin
lan
d
Ge
rman
y
Cro
atia
Swed
en
Euro
pe
an U
nio
n
Latv
ia
Slo
vaki
a
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Hu
nga
ry
Gre
ece
No
rway
Po
lan
d
Au
stri
a
Ro
man
ia
Bu
lgar
ia
Per
cen
tage
of
bu
sin
esse
s
> 2Mb/s 2 - 10 Mb/s 10 - 30 Mb/s 30 - 100 Mb/s at least 100 Mb/s
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
59
Figure 28 Akamai's measured average speed, Q1 201637
3.4.3 Index on infrastructural conditions
The ICT sector in general and the data economy in particular build on infrastructure technologies. The
index that measures infrastructural conditions of the European countries focus on the following
fundamental building blocks: a total broadband connectivity of households, share of fibre connections in
total broadband subscriptions, download speed of Internet connections in enterprises, and countries'
adoption of IPv6.
Due to the limited data availability, only two of four individual indices (download speed of enterprises and
share of households with fixed or mobile broadband internet connection) can be calculated for two
periods of time: 2014 and 2017. Data on the two other indicators are available only for 2016 and therefore
do not permit comparisons over time.
37 Figure based on OECD, Digital Economy Outlook 2017.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MexicoTurkey
ChileGreece
ItalyAustralia
FranceIceland
New ZealandLuxembourg
EstoniaPoland
PortugalSpain
AustriaIsrael
HungarySlovak Republic
GermanyOECD average
CanadaIreland
SloveniaUnited Kingdom
BelgiumUnited States
DenmarkFinland
Czech RepublicNetherlands
JapanLatvia
SwitzerlandSwedenNorway
Korea
Megabits per second
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
60
In terms of the supply of households with fixed or mobile connectivity, there is a relatively low level of
dispersion across Europe (Table 9). The share of households with fixed or mobile connectivity increased
across all European countries. Many countries that originally displayed a below average proportion of
households with fixed or mobile broadband internet connections were moving faster ahead, so that
average of the original indicators improved while the variation declined in 2017 compared to 2014 as
indicated by measures of dispersion.
The data analysis for the download speed of enterprises is based on the weighted sum of the speed in
tiers where the download speed of at least 100 Mb/s is given the highest weight while the lowest speed
of less than 2 Mb/s is given the smallest weight correspondingly. The descriptive statistics reveal that
although the average download speed of enterprises in 2017 increased, a significantly higher coefficients
of variation and of quartile dispersion suggest that the download speed of enterprises across the selected
set of European countries became much more varied (Table 10).
Data on the share of fibre connections as well as of the adoption rate of the IPv6 display a very large
dispersion across countries, as reflected by the coefficients of quartile dispersion and of variance (Table
10).
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
61
Figure 29 Index on infrastructural conditions, 2016/201738
The average index based on these four individual indicators gives a good indication of the countries'
overall level of the necessary infrastructural environment on which the data economy relies. It helps to
assess whether the infrastructural conditions at country level are adequate for the establishment and
sustainable development of the data economy. As the best performing countries rank Sweden,
Luxembourg, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland and Belgium (Figure 29). They predominantly take first
places in all categories covered by the index. An above average performance in terms of creating
necessary infrastructural conditions for the uptake and development of the data economy demonstrate
Estonia, Norway, Iceland, Portugal and United Kingdom. However, in a group of European countries
including Greece, Romania, Croatia, Poland, Italy and Bulgaria the infrastructural conditions remain a key
bottleneck. These countries are grouped in the lower tail of distribution in almost all categories covered
by the index.
38 Figure based on own calculations.
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
BulgariaItaly
PolandGreece
RomaniaCroatiaAustriaFrance
SlovakiaHungary
CyprusIreland
Czech RepublicSlovenia
SpainLatvia
GermanyLithuania
United KingdomNorwayIceland
PortugalEstonia
BelgiumFinland
NetherlandsDenmark
LuxembourgSweden
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
62
Country Download speed of enterprises
Households with broadband internet connection
Fibre share of broadband connections
IPv6 usage Average index
2014 2017 2014 2017 2016 2016 2016-2017
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Sweden 0.69 5 0.73 4 0.82 7 0.84 5 0.88 2 0.07 17 0.63 1
Luxembourg 0.64 7 0.59 7 0.97 2 0.97 2 0.32 11 0.45 4 0.58 2
Denmark 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.76 9 0.81 8 0.41 10 0.02 19 0.56 3
Netherlands 0.83 2 0.81 2 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.23 14 0.14 13 0.54 4
Finland 0.74 3 0.60 6 0.87 4 0.84 5 0.49 8 0.24 9 0.54 5
Belgium 0.71 4 0.57 8 0.66 10 0.55 13 0.00 21 1.00 1 0.53 6
Estonia 0.54 11 0.47 10 0.66 10 0.65 12 0.57 4 0.33 6 0.50 7
Portugal 0.55 10 0.75 3 0.18 27 0.29 23 0.51 7 0.43 5 0.50 8
Iceland 0.97 2 0.94 3 0.53 6 0.01 21 0.49 9
Norway 0.47 13 0.28 15 0.84 5 0.87 4 0.61 3 0.15 12 0.48 10
United Kingdom 0.26 20 0.22 18 0.84 5 0.84 5 0.32 7 0.46 11
Lithuania 0.66 6 0.63 5 0.24 25 0.26 26 0.44 12
Germany 0.36 16 0.34 13 0.82 7 0.81 8 0.03 18 0.55 3 0.43 13
Latvia 0.56 9 0.25 16 0.45 18 0.29 23 1.00 1 0.00 22 0.38 14
Spain 0.45 14 0.44 12 0.45 18 0.52 14 0.56 5 0.00 23 0.38 15
Slovenia 0.57 8 0.45 11 0.50 17 0.48 16 0.45 9 0.05 18 0.36 16
Czech Republic 0.40 15 0.32 14 0.53 15 0.52 14 0.27 13 0.22 10 0.33 17
Ireland 0.49 12 0.48 9 0.63 12 0.68 10 0.01 20 0.16 11 0.33 18
Cyprus 0.08 27 0.20 19 0.34 23 0.39 18 0.29 19
Hungary 0.25 21 0.23 17 0.45 18 0.48 16 0.29 12 0.10 15 0.28 20
Slovakia 0.15 23 0.10 24 0.53 15 0.39 18 0.24 21
France 0.28 19 0.15 21 0.55 14 0.39 18 0.12 16 0.27 8 0.23 22
Austria 0.31 17 0.09 25 0.61 13 0.68 10 0.02 19 0.10 14 0.22 23
Croatia 0.00 28 0.14 23 0.32 24 0.29 23 0.21 24
Romania 0.30 18 0.19 20 0.05 28 0.23 27 0.21 25
Greece 0.13 25 0.00 28 0.24 25 0.13 28 0.00 22 0.57 2 0.18 26
Poland 0.10 26 0.06 26 0.39 21 0.35 22 0.13 15 0.07 16 0.15 27
Italy 0.13 24 0.06 26 0.39 21 0.39 18 0.04 17 0.01 20 0.12 28
Bulgaria 0.18 22 0.15 21 0.00 29 0.00 29 0.08 29
Table 9 Infrastructure – indices
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
63
Statistical measure Download speed of enterprises
Households with broadband internet connection
Fibre share of broadband
IPv6 usage Average index
2014 2017 2014 2017 2016 2016 2016-2017
Quartile coefficient of dispersion 0.99 1.41 0.85 0.97 1.63 1.88 0.72
Upper quartile 0.62 0.58 0.82 0.82 0.53 0.33 0.50
Lower quartile 0.20 0.15 0.37 0.32 0.04 0.05 0.23
Median 0.43 0.30 0.53 0.52 0.30 0.15 0.38
Coefficient of variation 0.59 0.70 0.49 0.49 0.83 1.04 0.41
Standard deviation 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.24 0.15
Variance 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.02
Mean 0.42 0.37 0.55 0.55 0.34 0.23 0.37
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08
Maximum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63
Table 10 Infrastructure – descriptive statistics
3.5 Technology diffusion
3.5.1 RFID technologies
Radio Frequency Identification Technologies (RFID) is a technology to automatically identify and track tags
attached to different devices. There is a wide variety of applications of RFID technology in the digitized
world. One example is the identification and tracking of different objects. By means of RFID technology,
huge amounts of data can be generated, which when having been analysed, can be turned into value (e.g.,
the process of inventory of shops or storehouses can be dramatically speeded up).
In recent years, the number of products and technologies, which contain incorporated RFID tags has been
growing rapidly. Companies increasingly make use of RFID technologies and of collected data in order to,
for instance, monitor and optimise their internal processes, or to identify and analyse problems.
However, looking across all EU countries, the proliferation of RFID technologies still remains well below
under its potential. In Europe, only a small fraction of businesses has adopted them. Although in most
European countries the adoption of RFID technologies has grown in the last three years, on average, less
than 15% of all enterprises in the EU used RFID technologies in 2017 (Figure 30). In some countries, like
the Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Greece, Hungary and Romania, the adoption rates are particularly
low. Within the EU, Finland (23%) and Belgium (21%) have the highest proportion of enterprises using
RFID. In contrast, in 2013 about 42% of enterprises in South Korea have reported using RFID.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
64
Figure 30 Percentage of enterprises using RFID39
Note: Data relate to all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more). Data for
Korea refer to 2013. As of January 2018, data for 2017 for Korea and Iceland are not available.
3.5.2 Cloud computing
Cloud computing also plays a significant role as a key enabling technology for the data economy. Storage,
management and computation intensive analysis of huge amounts of data require substantial investments
in state-of-the-art hard- and software presenting a considerable challenge in particular to small and
medium businesses due to their budgetary restrictions. By providing the necessary infrastructure for data
storage, data management and data processing, cloud computing can decisively contribute to the uptake
and successful development of the data economy. On the basis of an IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service)
platform, which provides software for the storage and processing of data, companies can even generate
their own big data products. Hence, cloud computing services are critical to enable small businesses to
implement their big data projects at reasonable costs. Moreover, cloud computing helps to increase the
efficiency of data related operations to a large extend, since the required ICT resources can always be
made available quickly and in exactly the right quantity and scale. Thus, cloud computing is both the driver
and enabling technology for the data economy. However, significant aspects limiting the adoption of cloud
39 Figure based on Eurostat, Digital Economy and Society Database; OECD Statistics: ICT Access and Usage by Businesses.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Ko
rea
Fin
lan
d
Au
stri
a
Bel
giu
m
Bu
lgar
ia
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Mal
ta
Ge
rman
y
Po
rtu
gal
Slo
ven
ia
Cro
atia
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Slo
vaki
a
Den
mar
k
Spai
n
Ital
y
Lith
uan
ia
EU2
8
Swed
en
Icel
and
Esto
nia
Cyp
rus
Latv
ia
Ro
man
ia
No
rway
Fran
ce
Hu
nga
ry
Cze
ch R
ep.
Irel
and
Po
lan
d
UK
Gre
ece
2014 2017
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
65
computing by businesses still exist, like low capacities to change of many businesses, privacy and security
issues, lack of appropriate standards (OECD, 2015).
In Europe, the diffusion of cloud computing has risen significantly in recent years. Among all countries
observed (Figure 31), Finland has the highest share of enterprises using cloud computer services, followed
by Sweden and Denmark. In the EU28 as a whole, about 20% of all enterprises without financial sector
with at least 10 employees in 2016 used cloud computing. In some countries, including Greece, Latvia,
Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, the diffusion of cloud computing is still low. In Italy, the proportion of
enterprises using cloud computer services even dropped by 45% in 2016, compared to 2014.
Figure 31 Share of enterprises buying cloud computer services40
Note: Data relate to all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more). As of January
2018, data for 2017 for Sweden, Finland, Ireland, UK, Netherlands, Estonia, Malta, Italy, Luxembourg,
France, Germany are not available.
3.5.3 CRM software solutions
Customer Relationship Software (CRM) solutions are used for the management of customers', clients',
suppliers', and partners' data as well as for the processing and evaluation of this data. Companies
increasingly integrate CRM software solutions to use the data on their customers more effectively and to
optimise their internal processes, making data driven decisions. During the period from 2010 to 2017, a
40 Figure base on Eurostat, Digital Economy and Society Database.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fin
lan
d
Swed
en
Den
mar
k
No
rway
Irel
and
Ne
the
rlan
ds
UK
Bel
giu
m
Mal
ta
Esto
nia
Cro
atia
Ital
y
Slo
ven
ia
EU2
8
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Cze
ch R
ep.
Spai
n
Po
rtu
gal
Slo
vaki
a
Fran
ce
Lith
uan
ia
Au
stri
a
Ge
rman
y
Cyp
rus
Hu
nga
ry
Gre
ece
Latv
ia
Po
lan
d
Bu
lgar
ia
Ro
man
ia
2016 2014 2017
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
66
steady increase in the adoption of CRM software solutions can be observed in most European countries.
Countries with high proportion of enterprises using CRM solutions are Germany, Netherlands, Belgium,
Austria, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Finland (Figure 32).
Figure 32 Percentage of enterprises using CRM41
Note: Data relate to all enterprises, without financial sector (10 persons employed or more).
3.5.4 Machine-to-Machine subscriptions
In the time, when the Internet of Things (IoT) is growing rapidly, machine-to-machine (M2M)
communication plays an important role and is one of its fundamental applications. Embedded sensors in
IoT devices generate continuously data, which can be shared in real time between devices (e.g., cars) to
interact more cooperatively. Besides this decentralised usage, a centralised collection (e.g., for traffic
management) may produce huge amounts of data for further processing and analyses.
More and more companies are combining their M2M applications with big data analytics to optimise their
internal processes. Sensors are increasingly being used in transportation and many other domains like
agriculture, manufacturing, health and energy sector that are currently becoming important fields of
application for the Internet of Things.
41 Figure based on Eurostat, Digital Economy and Society Database.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Ge
rman
y
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Bel
giu
m
Au
stri
a
Cyp
rus
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Fin
lan
d
Spai
n
Den
mar
k
Swed
en
No
rway
EU2
8
Irel
and
Lith
uan
ia UK
Ital
y
Fran
ce
Mal
ta
Slo
ven
ia
Esto
nia
Po
rtu
gal
Slo
vaki
a
Po
lan
d
Gre
ece
Cro
atia
Bu
lgar
ia
Cze
ch R
ep.
Latv
ia
Icel
and
Hu
nga
ry
Ro
man
ia
2017 2010 2014
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
67
Since 2012, the number of M2M subscriptions increased by more than 130% in the OECD countries (OECD,
2017). Among the observed countries (Figure 33), Sweden has the highest penetration of M2M cards
(number of SIM cards embedded in machines). Other European countries including Norway, Netherlands,
Finland, Italy, Belgium, Estonia and France demonstrate in international comparison high levels of
diffusion of M2M application technology, reflecting the uptake of the Internet of Things in these countries.
Figure 33 M2M cards, per 100 inhabitants, 201642
3.5.5 Index on the diffusion of data-related technologies
The composite index on diffusion of data related technologies is calculated to indicate to which extent the
European countries assimilate and make use of core technologies that are important enablers and drivers
of the data driven economy. The assessment of each country's performance is based on four indicators:
share of enterprises using cloud computing services, share of enterprises using software solutions like
CRM, share of enterprises using radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies, and the number of
machine-to-machine cards per 100 inhabitants.
Due to the data availability, only three of four subindices (share of enterprises using cloud computing
services, share of enterprises using CRM, share of enterprises using RFID) can be calculated for two
periods of time: 2014 and 2016 or 2017. In terms of using cloud computing services, there is a slight
decrease of variation in the index distribution in 2016, compared to 2014 (Table 12). However, the
42 Figure based on OECD, Broadband Statistics.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Swed
en
Ne
w Z
eal
and
No
rway
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Fin
lan
d
Ital
y
Bel
giu
m
Den
mar
k
Esto
nia
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Fran
ce
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Irel
and
Jap
an UK
Slo
vak
Rep
.
Ko
rea
Spai
n
Can
ada
Au
stri
a
Cze
ch R
ep.
Po
rtu
gal
Icel
and
Swit
zerl
and
Po
lan
d
Turk
ey
Slo
ven
ia
Ch
ile
Gre
ece
Mex
ico
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
68
polarisation between countries with the highest index and group of countries with the lowest index is still
large (Table 11). Overall, there was no improving index scores within countries in 2016, which slightly
smaller mean displays (Table 12). Italy lost 9 positions in the ranking compared to 2014.
Less dispersion and hardly any changes in variation across countries in 2017 are observed in using CRM.
Still, even in the best performing countries less than 50 % of the companies are using these software tools.
RFID technologies are distributed more unevenly across the European countries with even more variance
in 2017 than in 2014, as indicated by the coefficients of dispersion (Table 12). The performance of several
countries declined over time, whereas other countries improved their performance in 2017, compared to
2014. But on the whole, there was only a minor increase in diffusion of the RFID technologies across
European countries.
A great dispersion around a small mean displays the distribution of the penetration with machine to
machine cards. Moreover, the analysis of quartiles shows that only 5 countries lie significantly above the
average penetration share, therefore indicating a wide variation in performance between countries with
the high scores (Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands) and the group of countries at the low end of
distribution with extremely low scores (Poland, Slovenia and Greece).
On the whole, the diffusion of data related technologies has not been widespread within the selected
group of countries so far.
With regard to the average index on the diffusion of the data related technologies based on the selected
indicators, Finland and Sweden stand out as best performers (Figure 34). Further countries that use data
related technologies heavily are the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. On the other hand, a group of
countries including the Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia, Greece, Iceland, Hungary and Romania leverage
these technologies at an extremely low level.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
69
Figure 34 Index on diffusion of data related technologies, 2016/201743
43 Figure based on own calculations.
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
RomaniaHungary
GreeceIceland
LatviaPoland
Czech RepublicPortugal
FranceEstonia
BulgariaSlovenia
CroatiaUnited Kingdom
LithuaniaItaly
SpainIreland
SlovakiaDenmark
NorwayLuxembourg
AustriaCyprus
GermanyBelgium
NetherlandsSwedenFinland
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
70
Country Enterprises using cloud computing services
Enterprises using CRM systems
Enterprises using RFID technology
Machine-to-machine cards per 100 inhabitants
Average index
2014 2016 2014 2017 2014 2017 2016 2016-2017
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Finland 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.94 4 0.76 6 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.23 4 0.75 1
Sweden 0.74 4 0.82 2 0.84 5 0.64 10 0.29 16 0.31 14 1.00 1 0.69 2
Netherlands 0.50 7 0.56 6 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.47 9 0.69 4 0.25 3 0.62 3
Belgium 0.35 11 0.42 8 0.77 6 0.88 3 0.76 3 0.88 2 0.18 6 0.59 4
Germany 0.13 22 0.18 21 0.97 3 1.00 1 0.59 6 0.56 8
0.58 5
Cyprus 0.11 23 0.16 22 0.58 11 0.85 5 0.24 18 0.44 11
0.48 6
Austria 0.15 20 0.20 18 1.00 1 0.88 3 0.82 2 0.75 3 0.07 14 0.47 7
Luxembourg 0.17 17 0.24 13 0.74 7 0.76 6 0.65 5 0.69 4 0.15 10 0.46 8
Norway 0.52 6 0.66 4 0.74 7 0.64 10 0.24 18 0.19 19 0.25 2 0.43 9
Denmark 0.72 5 0.70 3 0.71 9 0.67 9 0.41 12 0.13 21 0.18 7 0.42 10
Slovakia 0.30 12 0.22 14 0.23 22 0.30 18 0.47 9 0.69 4
0.40 11
Ireland 0.50 7 0.58 5 0.58 11 0.58 12 0.12 25 0.25 16 0.14 11 0.39 12
Spain 0.20 16 0.22 14 0.71 9 0.70 8 0.41 12 0.50 9 0.08 13 0.38 13
Italy 0.76 3 0.30 11 0.55 13 0.52 15 0.41 12 0.38 13 0.21 5 0.35 14
Lithuania 0.17 17 0.20 18 0.45 14 0.58 12 0.41 12 0.19 19
0.32 15
United Kingdom 0.41 9 0.56 6 0.29 18 0.55 14 0.12 25 0.06 24 0.11 12 0.32 16
Croatia 0.37 10 0.32 9 0.13 26 0.18 22 0.47 9 0.44 11
0.31 17
Slovenia 0.22 13 0.30 11 0.35 17 0.33 17 0.53 8 0.50 9 0.01 19 0.29 18
Bulgaria 0.07 24 0.00 27 0.26 20 0.15 24 0.76 3 0.69 4
0.28 19
Estonia 0.22 13 0.32 9 0.26 20 0.30 18 0.24 18 0.31 14 0.18 8 0.28 20
France 0.15 20 0.20 18 0.39 15 0.42 16 0.18 23 0.25 16 0.18 9 0.26 21
Portugal 0.17 17 0.22 14 0.39 15 0.30 18 0.59 6 0.25 16 0.06 16 0.21 22
Czech Republic 0.22 13 0.22 14 0.16 24 0.15 24 0.12 25 0.06 24 0.07 15 0.13 23
Poland 0.02 27 0.02 25 0.29 18 0.27 21 0.12 25 0.13 21 0.05 18 0.12 24
Latvia 0.02 27 0.02 25 0.00 29 0.09 26 0.24 18 0.13 21
0.08 25
Iceland 0.83 2
0.19 23 0.09 26 0.29 16
0.06 17 0.07 26
Greece 0.07 24 0.04 24 0.13 26 0.18 22 0.00 29 0.00 26 0.00 20 0.06 27
Hungary 0.07 24 0.10 23 0.06 28 0.00 28 0.18 23 0.00 26
0.03 28
Romania 0.00 29 0.00 27 0.16 24 0.00 28 0.24 18 0.00 26
0.00 29
Table 11 Technology diffusion – indices
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
71
Statistical measure
Enterprises using cloud computing services
Enterprises using CRM systems
Enterprises using RFID technology
Machine-to-machine cards per 100 inhabitants
Average index
2014 2016 2014 2017 2014 2017 2016 2016-2017
Quartile coefficient of dispersion 1.75 1.64 1.38 1.06 0.86 1.70 0.97 0.94
Upper quartile 0.50 0.53 0.74 0.73 0.56 0.66 0.20 0.47
Lower quartile 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.21 0.13 0.06 0.17
Median 0.22 0.22 0.39 0.52 0.41 0.31 0.15 0.32
Coefficient of variation 0.85 0.81 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.75 1.18 0.58
Standard deviation 0.27 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.24 0.28 0.20 0.20
Variance 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.04
Mean 0.32 0.31 0.48 0.47 0.39 0.37 0.17 0.34
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75
Table 12 Technology diffusion – descriptive statistics
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
72
3.6 Security status
Ensuring adequate security controls and being able to effectively deal with existing threats to security
belong to the most critical aspects of the data economy. The issues of privacy and security require to be
effectively addressed to ensure the overall acceptance of data reuse and to establish trust in the data
economy.
3.6.1 Global Cyber Security Index 2017
With continuous increases of data exchange via cyberspace, the threat of cyber attacks and the disruption
of network systems is also increasing. Cyber attacks lead to severe damages to individuals, businesses and
public authorities. Therefore, in many countries, cybersecurity has gained a particular strategic
importance in recent years.
To provide insights into the cyber security capacities of countries, the Cyber Security Index (CSI)
elaborated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which is based on country-level survey
results, was included in the analysis. It is a composite index that measures the status of the ITU member
states' cybersecurity commitment with regard to five different dimensions44:
Legal: existence of legal institutions and legislations dealing with cybersecurity as well as cybercrime and insuring practices to address cybersecurity threats.
Technical: availability of technical institutions and frameworks dealing with cybersecurity-related threats.
Organizational: existence of policy coordination institutions and strategies for cybersecurity development at governmental level.
Capacity Building: availability of technical and human resources to fight cybercrime and to raise awareness about cybersecurity. This includes research and development, education and training programmes, certified professionals and public sector agencies fostering capacity building etc.
Cooperation: existence of national collaborative efforts, participation in international partnerships, cooperative frameworks and information sharing networks with the aim of combating cybersecurity intrusions.
The index scores reveal that the USA, Estonia, Australia, France and Canada belong to the countries with
the strongest commitment to cybersecurity in the world. High rankings were also achieved by a group of
European countries including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and
Spain (Figure 35). High index scores of these countries suggest that on the whole, they implement more
measures to address cyber security threats. Compared to that, European countries such Hungary,
Portugal, Lithuania, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Iceland, Slovakia and Slovenia appear to have various
weaknesses with respect to their overall cybersecurity capacities implying that at present they are not
44 Global Cybersecurity Index 2017, ITU 2017, full report available at: https://www.itu.int/pub/D-STR-GCI.01-2017.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
73
particularly well prepared to respond adequately to cyber security attacks or to prevent them. However,
the index does not provide information on the effectiveness of these measures.
Figure 35 Global Cybersecurity Index, 201745
3.6.2 Addressing security risks by enterprises
Companies are increasingly becoming the target of cyber attacks. In the data economy, any data exchange
offers additional potential for cybercrime.
Every company is potentially threatened by cyber attacks and must implement company-specific
measures to effectively address and prevent attacks. A look at the data from Eurostat reveals that as of
2015, on average, only a small fraction of enterprises in Europe have ICT security policies capable of
addressing risks of destruction or corruption of data, disclosure of confidential data and unavailability of
ICT services due to an attack (Figure 36). Small businesses in Europe display a major security vulnerability.
The gap between large and small enterprises is particularly large in Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Malta,
France, Ireland and Norway.
It is expected that the frequency of reviews and updates of the ICT security policy by enterprises improves
their readiness to respond to newly arising security risks. In Europe, less than 25% of all enterprises
reported that they have defined or reviewed their ICT security policy within the last 12 months in 2015
(Figure 37). The highest share of such enterprises are located in Ireland (30%), Croatia (29%), Portugal
45 Figure based on GSI, elaborated by ITU.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
USA
Esto
nia
Au
stra
lia
Fran
ce
Can
ada
No
rway
Jap
an
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Ko
rea
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Fin
lan
d
Swed
en
Swit
zerl
and
Spai
n
Latv
ia
Ind
ia
Ge
rman
y
Irel
and
Bel
giu
m
Au
stri
a
Ital
y
Ch
ina
Po
lan
d
Den
mar
k
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Cro
atia
Ro
man
ia
Bu
lgar
ia
Hu
nga
ry
Po
rtu
gal
Lith
uan
ia
Cyp
rus
Gre
ece
Mal
ta
Icel
and
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
74
(29%), Italy (27%), Slovenia (27%), Malta (26%) and Sweden (26%). A particularly small percentage of
enterprises that recently defined or reviewed their ICT policy was reported in Greece and Estonia (8%
each), and Poland and Hungary (6% each).
3.6.3 Secure Internet servers
For the protection of confidential data and the prevention of misuse, secure Internet technologies are of
utmost importance. The number of secure Internet servers in a country indicates the extent by which
encrypted transactions over the Internet can be conducted. Data from the World Bank reveal that the
share of secure Internet servers using encryption technology increased significantly in many countries
since 2010 (Figure 38). To the countries with the highest prevalence of secure Internet servers belong
Iceland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Korea, Norway, Malta, Finland and Sweden.
On the whole, in many European countries, the density of secure servers is among the highest ones in the
world. Between 2010 and 2016, the most marked rises were achieved in the Czech Republic (by 321%),
Poland (261%), France (187%), Slovenia (153%) and Latvia (134%). Many other European countries
showed a dynamic growth during this timeframe. However, there are still huge disparities within the EU
between the group of countries with the highest prevalence and those with the lowest prevalence of
secure Internet servers using encryption technology. Many European countries including Latvia, Spain,
Hungary, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, Lithuania, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania were starting from a very low
base and still have a long way to go.
Significant increases were also registered in China, although starting from an extremely low level in 2010.
Within the selected set of countries, China remains the country with the lowest density of secure Internet
technology.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
75
Figure 36 Percentage of enterprises whose ICT security policy addressed security risks, 201546
Note: The ICT risks relate to the risks of destruction or corruption of data, disclosure of confidential data
and unavailability of ICT services due to an attack or an accident. Data relate to all enterprises without
financial sector (10 persons employed or more).
46 Figure based on data from Eurostat.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
EU 2
8
Bel
giu
m
Bu
lgar
ia
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Den
mar
k
Ge
rman
y
Esto
nia
Irel
and
Gre
ece
Spai
n
Fran
ce
Cro
atia
Ital
y
Cyp
rus
Latv
ia
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Hu
nga
ry
Mal
ta
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Au
stri
a
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
gal
Ro
man
ia
Slo
ven
ia
Slo
vaki
a
Fin
lan
d
Swed
en
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
No
rway
All enterprises Large enterprises (250 persons employed or more)
Medium enterprises (50-249 persons employed) Small enterprises (10-49 persons employed)
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
76
Figure 37 Percentage of enterprises whose ICT security policy was defined or reviewed within the last 12 months, 201547
Note: Data relate to all enterprises without financial sector (10 persons employed or more).
47 Figure based on data from Eurostat.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Irel
and
Cro
atia
Po
rtu
gal
Ital
y
Slo
ven
ia
Mal
ta
Swed
en
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Den
mar
k
Slo
vaki
a
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Fin
lan
d
Spai
n
Bel
giu
m
No
rway
EU 2
8
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Au
stri
a
Ge
rman
y
Ro
man
ia
Cyp
rus
Fran
ce
Bu
lgar
ia
Latv
ia
Esto
nia
Gre
ece
Hu
nga
ry
Po
lan
d
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
77
Figure 38 Secure Internet servers per 1 million inhabitants48
3.6.4 Index on security-related aspects
It is very difficult to make a comprehensive quantitative estimation of the cyber security situation in
different countries due to the poor availability of data on the one hand and the complex nature of it on
the other. Nevertheless, the following measurement concept intends to provide insights into some
important aspects of cyber security in European countries. The index focuses particularly on the capacities
of countries to respond on the potential security risks.
The composite index is based on the following indicators: ITU's global CSI, measuring the level of the cyber
security commitment of countries, the share of enterprises that addressed data-related security risks49,
the density of secure Internet servers in each country and the share of enterprises that recently defined
or reviewed their ICT security policy. For the first three indicators, subindices can be calculated for two
different time points, thus allowing time comparisons during a given time period. The final average index
is calculated using each indicator data for the latest available year.
48 Figure based on World Bank Development Indicators.
49 Risks are associated with the risks of destruction or corruption of data, disclosure of confidential data
and unavailability of ICT services due to an attack or an accident.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Icel
and
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Ko
rea
No
rway
Mal
ta
Fin
lan
d
Swed
en
Den
mar
k
Ge
rman
y
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Au
stri
a
Au
stra
lia
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Can
ada
Esto
nia
Jap
an
Bel
giu
m
Irel
and
Fran
ce
Slo
ven
ia
Po
lan
d
Cyp
rus
Latv
ia
Spai
n
Hu
nga
ry
Po
rtu
gal
Ital
y
Cro
atia
Lith
uan
ia
Gre
ece
Bu
lgar
ia
Ro
man
ia
Ch
ina
2010 2016
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
78
In terms of European countries' commitment to cyber security, considerable improvements in the
performance of countries can be observed in 2017 compared to 2014, as demonstrated by the increase
of the average scores from 0.51 in 2014 to 0.61 in 2017. The lower measures of spread (variance,
coefficient of variation, standard deviation, coefficient of quartile dispersion) of the input data indicate
the declining variation of performance across countries (Table 14). This suggests that on the whole, cyber
security issues are given higher priority in the majority of countries. To the most committed countries
within the selected group belong Estonia, France, Norway, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Finland,
Sweden and Spain. In 2017, the most significant improvements achieved Ireland gaining 17 ranks, France
- 12, Belgium - 8, Spain -5. At the same time, some countries lost their relative positioning because other
countries moved faster towards higher cyber security standards. The strongest drops experienced
Slovakia losing 18 ranks, Hungary - 15, Austria - 8, and Germany - 7. The relatively low scores of Cyprus,
Greece, Malta, Iceland, Slovakia and Slovenia suggest that these countries still have a lot of space for
improvements with respect to cyber security.
With respect to the share of enterprises with ICT security policy addressing security risks, there are
significant disparities within European countries. The descriptive statistics reveal an overall increase in the
percentage of enterprises and more equal distribution across countries in 2015, compared to 2010.
Ireland ranks first in 2015, followed by Malta, Croatia, Sweden, Portugal, Denmark, Finland, the United
Kingdom and Slovakia. Malta, Ireland, Croatia and Portugal achieved the most significant improvements
in their ranking in 2015. However, the share of the best performing country of 35% and of the worst
performing countries (Hungary and Poland) of 8% demonstrate a considerable polarization within the
selected group of countries.
The number of secure Internet servers is increasing steadily over time. In comparison to 2016, the
variation across countries decreased markedly (Table descriptive statistics) indicating some conversion
processes within the group of European countries. However, the distribution is still very polarized, which
high scores of coefficients of variation and of quartile dispersion confirm. Iceland, the Netherlands and
Luxembourg were ranked in 2016 as the best performing countries, followed by Norway, Malta, Finland,
Sweden and Denmark. Quite a large number of European countries is tightly bunched in the lower section
of distribution.
Considerable dispersion is observed between the countries with the highest scores in terms of the shares
of enterprises that recently defined or reviewed their ICT security policy and those with the lowest. A large
number of countries are positioned in the upper tail of distribution, whereas Estonia, Greece, Hungary
and Poland are lagging far behind. The best performing countries are Ireland, Croatia and Portugal.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
79
Figure 39 Index on security related aspects50
The average index based on four individual indicators provides insights into the positioning of countries
with regard to some aspects of their capacity to respond to cyber security threats. As the best performing
countries rank Sweden, Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland and the United Kingdom (Figure 39). They are
followed by a group of countries including Norway, Denmark, Malta and Luxembourg. On the whole, there
is less dispersion between groups of countries that reach above average index scores indicating that in
these countries the ICT security policy is becoming increasingly important. However, in the lower tail of
distribution the variation is more pronounced leading to considerable differences between the best
performing and worst performing countries. In particular, Greece and Hungary lag significantly behind
within the group of selected European countries. Their index scores and those of Latvia, Bulgaria, Poland
and Lithuania suggest that there is a considerable need for action to improve the ICT security standards
in these countries to be better prepared to security risks in the data economy.
50 Figure based on own calculations.
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
HungaryGreece
LithuaniaPoland
BulgariaLatvia
CyprusRomania
EstoniaSlovakiaSlovenia
FranceItaly
AustriaSpain
BelgiumPortugal
GermanyCzech Republic
IcelandLuxembourg
CroatiaMalta
DenmarkNorway
United KingdomFinland
NetherlandsIreland
Sweden
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
80
Country ITU's Global Cyber Security Index
Enterprises whose ICT security policy addressed security risks
Enterprises whose ICT security policy was defined or reviewed within the last 12 months
Secure Internet servers (per 1 million inhabitants)
Average index
2014 2017 2010 2015 2015 2010 2016 2015-2017
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Sweden 0.84 8 0.78 7 0.77 4 0.81 4 0.83 6 0.49 8 0.54 7 0.74 1
Netherlands 0.89 5 0.83 5 0.45 16 0.44 15 0.58 16 0.90 2 0.91 2 0.69 3
Norway 1.00 1 0.88 3 0.87 2 0.48 14 0.63 14 0.65 4 0.64 4 0.66 6
Denmark 0.74 12 0.54 16 0.84 3 0.67 6 0.79 8 0.74 3 0.50 8 0.63 7
Finland 0.79 10 0.79 6 0.74 6 0.67 6 0.75 12 0.48 9 0.54 6 0.69 4
United Kingdom 0.95 2 0.87 4 0.58 10 0.67 6 0.79 8 0.54 6 0.42 11 0.69 5
Luxembourg 0.53 18 0.51 18 0.61 9 0.41 20 0.58 16 0.55 5 0.82 3 0.58 10
Malta 0.32 24 0.11 27 0.55 12 0.85 2 0.83 6 0.54 7 0.58 5 0.59 8
Germany 0.95 2 0.67 10 0.48 13 0.44 15 0.54 19 0.33 11 0.49 9 0.54 13
Iceland 0.05 27 0.08 28 0.48 13
1.00 1 1.00 1 0.54 11
Ireland 0.05 27 0.66 11 0.58 10 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.38 10 0.23 15 0.72 2
Austria 0.89 5 0.59 13 0.48 13 0.44 15 0.58 16 0.33 12 0.45 10 0.52 17
Spain 0.74 12 0.75 8 0.68 7 0.56 10 0.71 13 0.08 19 0.09 21 0.52 16
Slovakia 0.79 10 0.04 29 1.00 1 0.67 6 0.79 8 0.03 27 0.07 24 0.39 21
Belgium 0.47 20 0.65 12 0.45 16 0.56 10 0.63 14 0.18 14 0.29 14 0.53 15
Croatia 0.42 23 0.49 19 0.19 25 0.85 2 0.96 2 0.05 24 0.06 26 0.59 9
Czech Republic 0.58 17 0.53 17 0.23 22 0.44 15 0.79 8 0.11 16 0.40 12 0.54 12
France 0.74 12 0.95 2 0.35 20 0.41 20 0.33 22 0.10 18 0.23 16 0.48 19
Italy 0.68 15 0.56 14 0.39 19 0.52 13 0.88 4 0.05 26 0.06 25 0.50 18
Estonia 0.95 2 1.00 1 0.10 27 0.11 25 0.08 25 0.16 15 0.32 13 0.38 22
Cyprus 0.21 25 0.29 25 0.68 7 0.44 15 0.42 21 0.32 13 0.20 19 0.34 24
Portugal 0.21 25 0.33 23 0.23 22 0.78 5 0.96 2 0.05 23 0.07 23 0.53 14
Latvia 0.84 8 0.69 9 0.23 22 0.11 25 0.21 24 0.06 22 0.09 20 0.27 25
Slovenia 0.00 30 0.00 30 0.26 21 0.56 10 0.88 4 0.11 17 0.20 17 0.41 20
Romania 0.53 18 0.48 20 0.06 29 0.37 22 0.50 20 0.00 30 0.00 30 0.34 23
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
81
Lithuania 0.47 20 0.32 24 0.42 18
0.06 21 0.04 27 0.18 28
Hungary 0.89 5 0.38 22 0.10 27 0.00 27 0.00 27 0.05 25 0.08 22 0.12 30
Poland 0.63 16 0.55 15 0.13 26 0.00 27 0.00 27 0.07 20 0.20 18 0.19 27
Greece 0.05 27 0.26 26 0.77 4 0.19 23 0.08 25 0.03 28 0.03 28 0.14 29
Bulgaria 0.47 20 0.47 21 0.00 30 0.15 24 0.29 23 0.01 29 0.00 29 0.23 26
Table 13 Security status – indices
Statistical measure ITU's Global Cyber Security Index
Enterprises whose ICT security policy addressed security risks
Enterprises whose ICT security policy was defined or reviewed within the last 12 months
Secure Internet servers (per 1 million inhabitants)
Average index
2014 2017 2010 2015 2015 2010 2016 2015-17
Quartile coefficient of dispersion 0.70 0.78 0.97 0.62 0.75 3.34 1.90 0.50
Upper quartile 0.86 0.75 0.68 0.67 0.82 0.50 0.51 0.60
Lower quartile 0.39 0.33 0.23 0.38 0.35 0.05 0.07 0.34
Median 0.66 0.55 0.47 0.46 0.63 0.14 0.23 0.53
Coefficient of variation 0.52 0.50 0.58 0.53 0.51 0.99 0.87 0.38
Standard deviation 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.18
Variance 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.03
Mean 0.59 0.54 0.46 0.49 0.59 0.28 0.32 0.48
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12
Maximum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74
Table 14 Security status – descriptive statistics
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
82
3.7 Privacy protection
Along with challenges related to security issues, privacy and the protection of personal data is another
critical challenge, which has to be addressed adequately to establish trust in the data economy. The
privacy challenge associated with the loss of control over confidential information and the concomitant
risk of invasion of privacy or its potential misuse remains a major concern not only for individuals but also
for enterprises, institutions and governmental bodies. Privacy and security issues often overlap, since
privacy concerns are also related to possible security breaches. They therefore should be considered in
conjunction with each other.
In this section, light is indented to be shed on important measurable aspects of privacy protection.
3.7.1 Enterprises addressing privacy-related risks
Each enterprise is potentially exposed to the risk of the disclosure of its confidential and sensible data.
The capability of enterprises to protect their own and their customers' and partners' data will contribute
decisively to their competitive advantage in the data economy.
A growing awareness of privacy related risks results in the implementation of measures aimed at
preventing intrusion and protecting privacy by an increasing share of enterprises. However, there are big
discrepancies between different countries on the one hand, and by business size, on the other.
Data from Eurostat and OECD (Figure 40) reveal that within the country group, for which data are
available, the proportion of businesses with formal policy51 to effectively manage the ICT privacy risks
varies considerably. The highest proportion of enterprises capable of coping with privacy related risks is
registered for South Korea, followed by New Zealand, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and Portugal. The lowest
percentage of enterprises having a formal policy to manage ICT privacy risks were reported in Greece,
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary and Poland. The average share in Hungary and Poland (9% each)
accounts for only 20% of the corresponding share in South Korea (44%). Furthermore, when broken down
by size of businesses, data provide a clear evidence of significant gaps between large and small companies
suggesting that the propensity of enterprises to implement policy measures for handling privacy related
risks depends very much on the size of enterprises. Among all European countries, the most significant
gap between the proportion of large and small enterprises capable of addressing privacy related risks are
observed in the United Kingdom (by 50 percentage points (p.p.)), France (by 47 p.p.), Ireland and Norway
(45 p.p.). The least discrepancies are reported in Slovenia (26 p.p.) and Greece (21 p.p.).
51 The ICT security policy relates to activities and measures of enterprises that addressed the risks of disclosure of confidential data due to intrusion, pharming, phishing attacks or by accident
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
83
Figure 40 Percentage of businesses with formal policy to manage ICT privacy risks, 201552
Note: Data relate to all enterprises without financial sector. For South Korea, data are available for 2014,
for New Zealand data relate to 2016.
3.7.2 Awareness of privacy-related risks among individuals
The ability of individuals to control and manage their personal data is strongly associated with the level
of awareness of privacy-related risk that may arise from the disclosure of personal data. Moreover,
specific skills need to be developed that enable individuals to effectively apply privacy control practices
when using the Internet.
The indicator reflecting the proportion of individuals in different European countries that manage access
to their personal information on the Internet by doing at least one of a set of selected activities53 reveals
a somewhat differentiated picture. According to data, the residents in the Western European and
especially in the Nordic countries tend to be more aware of privacy-related risks, which results in taking
more measures to protect personal data on the Internet (Figure 41). This awareness seems to be much
52 Figure based on Eurostat, OECD statistics. 53 Activities that the indicator describes include: reading privacy policy statements before providing personal information, restricting access to their geographical location, limiting access to their profile or content on social networking sites, not allowing the use of personal information for advertising purposes, checking that the website where they needed to provide personal information was secure (e.g., https sites, safety logo or certificate), asking websites or search engines to access the information hold about them to be updated or deleted.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Ko
rea
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Irel
and
Mal
ta
Swed
en
Po
rtu
gal
Slo
vaki
a
Cro
atia
Ital
y
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Fin
lan
d
Den
mar
k
Spai
n
Slo
ven
ia
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
EU 2
8
Bel
giu
m
No
rway
Cyp
rus
Ge
rman
y
Au
stri
a
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Fran
ce
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Ro
man
ia
Gre
ece
Bu
lgar
ia
Esto
nia
Latv
ia
Hu
nga
ry
Po
lan
d
All enterprises (10 persons employed or more) Small enterprises (10-49 persons employed)
Medium enterprises (50-249 persons employed) Large enterprises (250 persons employed or more)
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
84
less pronounced in the Eastern and Southern European countries, where the proportion of individuals
that undertake such activities is much lower. This requires additional mechanisms to promote privacy
protection awareness and the level of empowerment among individuals through targeted education and
training programmes.
Figure 41 Individuals who manage access to their personal information on the Internet, 201654
3.7.3 Privacy Control Index
The Privacy Control Index, which was elaborated by Nieuwesteeg (2017) from the Rotterdam Institute of
Law and Economics, gives a good idea about the extent to which regulatory framework provides
mechanisms for privacy control in each country.
The index is based on six basic characteristics of the data protection laws for different countries, which
have been quantified for the purpose of statistical analysis. These characteristics concern:
Data collection requirements: focus on different requirement levels ranging from no requirements at all to the information duty of individuals that their data are collected and the obligation to obtain consent from individuals prior to using their data. The latter represents the highest level of control with respect to data collection requirements.
Data breach notification requirements: reflects the existence of the obligation to notify data breaches to affected customers and supervisory authority.
Data protection authority: asks the question about existence of the data protection authority that enforces compliance with the Data Protection Law.
54 Figure based on Eurostat.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
No
rway
Den
mar
k
Fin
lan
d
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Ge
rman
y
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Au
stri
a
Slo
vaki
a
Latv
ia
Bel
giu
m
Fran
ce
Esto
nia
Hu
nga
ry
Spai
n
Mal
ta
Po
rtu
gal
Cro
atia
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Slo
ven
ia
Irel
and
Lith
uan
ia
Cyp
rus
Gre
ece
Ital
y
Po
lan
d
Bu
lgar
ia
Ro
man
ia
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
85
Data protection officer: indicates whether national law provides an appointment of data protection officers for every organization to ensure compliance.
Monetary sanctions: reflects the maximum monetary sanction that can be imposed for privacy breaches. Sanctions of above one million Euro are given the highest scores.
Criminal penalties: describes whether possibilities to impose criminal penalties for non-compliance are in place.
The index is scored according to the presence of all these underlying characteristics. The analysis reveals
that Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, Italy and Poland are countries with the highest level of legal privacy
control mechanisms, whereas Japan, Australia, Hungary, Romania, the Netherlands, Switzerland and
China are among the countries with the lowest standards of privacy control provided at the regulatory
level.
Figure 42 Privacy control index55
However, the index does not allow an assessment of the effectiveness of enforcement of the privacy
control regulations in the countries. A further iteration of the index will be necessary to reflect the impact
of the EU General Data Protection Regulation, which comes into force in May 2018.
55 Figure based on Nieuwesteeg (2017).
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Sou
th K
ore
a
Ge
rman
y
Ital
y
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
No
rway
Isra
el
Mal
ta
Sin
gap
ore
Cyp
rus
Po
lan
d
Irel
and
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic
Bel
giu
m
Au
stri
a
Bu
lgar
ia
Gre
ece
Po
rtu
gal
Lith
uan
ia
Den
mar
k
Fin
lan
d
Icel
and
Swed
en
Icel
and
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Fran
ce
Spai
n
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Jap
an
Au
stra
lia
Hu
nga
ry
Ro
man
ia
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Swit
zerl
and
Ch
ina
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
86
3.7.4 Privacy protection index
The average index is based on three indicators that reflect important privacy-related aspects.
Due to the limited time coverage of the data, only the subindex on the share of businesses having a formal
policy to manage ICT privacy risks can be calculated for two time periods: 2010 and 2015. The descriptive
statistics of the indicator as well as of the subindex thereof show an overall improvement in the relative
performance of countries in 2015, compared to 2010 (Table 15). The measures of spread display a clear
decrease of variation between countries indicating stronger efforts of some countries with originally lower
scores to improve their privacy policy and a drop in shares in some countries with originally high scores
(Greece, Norway, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Denmark). In 2015, the most marked improvements in their
relative positioning exhibit Ireland, Portugal, Croatia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic.
As for the indicator used to reflect awareness of privacy-related risks of individuals when using the
Internet as well as basic skills to manage them, among all European countries for which data are available,
the percentage of individuals that manages their personal information is highest in Luxembourg, Norway,
Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Germany and United Kingdom. These countries are grouped in the upper
quartile of the subindex scores (Table 16). The country group including Lithuania, Cyprus, Greece, Italy,
Poland, Bulgaria and Romania captures positions in the lower tail of distribution indicating an overall lower
level of online privacy control among individuals to prevent privacy abuses.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
87
Figure 43 Privacy protection index, 2015/201656
The privacy control index based on six underlying characteristics of the data protection law at country
level shows significant disparities among European countries, as indicated by the coefficient of variation
and of quartile dispersion. There is a wide variation in performance between countries with highest
ranking (Germany, Norway and Luxembourg) and those with lowest rank (Hungary, Romania and the
Netherlands).
The average index based on the three indicators with a focus on privacy control mechanisms described
above is used as a proxy to indicate the level of some important privacy-protection-related issues in the
European countries. Due to data availability constraints, other relevant aspects of privacy could not be
captured by the index. However, with respect to these three privacy-control-related issues, Norway,
Luxembourg, Germany and Malta are in the top positions, whereas Hungary, Bulgaria, Iceland and
Romania are placed at the bottom of the list of selected European countries (Figure 43). A relatively good
performance is also found in Slovakia, Ireland, Finland, Italy, Denmark, Portugal and the United Kingdom.
56 Figure based on own calculations.
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
RomaniaIceland
BulgariaHungary
LithuaniaGreecePolandEstonia
LatviaCzech Republic
NetherlandsSlovenia
FranceSpain
CyprusAustria
BelgiumSwedenCroatia
United KingdomPortugal
DenmarkItaly
FinlandIreland
SlovakiaMalta
GermanyLuxembourg
Norway
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
88
The Netherlands' poor positioning is attributable to its worst performance with regard to the index
assessing the regulatory level of privacy control, which is provided by the national data protection law.
On the whole, the privacy protection index is a less dispersed indicator.
Country
Awareness of privacy- related risks among individuals
Enterprises addressing privacy-related risks
Privacy Control Index
Average index
2016 2010 2015 2016 2015/2016
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Norway 0.92 2 1.00 1 0.57 14 0.94 3 0.61 1
Luxembourg 1.00 1 0.64 9 0.43 20 0.94 4 0.59 2
Germany 0.77 6 0.55 13 0.50 17 1.00 1 0.57 3
Malta 0.52 16 0.64 11 0.97 3 0.79 5 0.57 4
Slovakia 0.65 9 0.91 3 0.87 5 0.63 9 0.54 5
Ireland 0.32 21 0.61 12 1.00 1 0.66 8 0.49 6
Finland 0.89 4 0.79 6 0.70 9 0.35 18 0.49 7
Italy 0.23 25 0.55 14 0.77 8 0.94 2 0.48 8
Denmark 0.91 3 0.82 4 0.67 10 0.35 19 0.48 9
Portugal 0.52 17 0.27 22 0.93 4 0.42 12 0.47 10
United Kingdom 0.77 7 0.64 10 0.77 7 0.29 20 0.46 11
Croatia 0.50 18 0.24 23 0.83 6 0.44 12
Sweden 0.94 2 0.97 2 0.35 17 0.44 13
Belgium 0.62 11 0.48 18 0.57 15 0.57 10 0.44 14
Austria 0.70 8 0.52 17 0.50 18 0.51 11 0.43 15
Cyprus 0.24 23 0.73 7 0.53 16 0.77 6 0.39 16
Spain 0.56 15 0.70 8 0.67 11 0.29 21 0.38 17
France 0.62 12 0.39 19 0.43 21 0.29 23 0.34 18
Slovenia 0.33 20 0.24 24 0.63 12 0.32 19
Netherlands 0.82 5 0.52 16 0.47 19 0.00 26 0.32 20
Czech Republic 0.39 19 0.30 21 0.60 13 0.29 22 0.32 21
Latvia 0.65 10 0.21 25 0.17 25 0.27 22
Estonia 0.61 13 0.12 26 0.17 26 0.26 23
Poland 0.17 26 0.12 27 0.00 27 0.77 7 0.23 24
Greece 0.24 24 0.82 5 0.23 23 0.42 13 0.22 25
Lithuania 0.26 22 0.39 20 0.36 15 0.21 26
Hungary 0.58 14 0.09 28 0.00 28 0.14 25 0.18 27
Bulgaria 0.09 27 0.00 30 0.20 24 0.42 14 0.18 28
Iceland 0.52 15 0.35 16 0.18 29
Romania 0.00 28 0.06 29 0.40 22 0.14 24 0.14 30
Table 15 Privacy protection – indices
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
89
Statistical measure
Awareness of privacy- related risks among individuals
Enterprises addressing privacy-related risks
Privacy Control Index
Average index
2016 2010 2015 2016 2015/2016
Quartile coefficient of dispersion 0.85 0.90 0.63 1.13 0.57
Upper quartile 0.75 0.70 0.77 0.77 0.48
Lower quartile 0.27 0.24 0.41 0.29 0.25
Median 0.57 0.52 0.57 0.42 0.41
Coefficient of variation 0.50 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.36
Standard deviation 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.14
Variance 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.02
Mean 0.53 0.49 0.55 0.50 0.38
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14
Maximum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61
Table 16 Privacy protection – descriptive statistics
3.8 Societal participation
3.8.1 E-government participation
E-government services offer manifold advantages from which citizens can directly benefit: they make
administrative actions faster and more cost efficient, ensure greater efficiency and transparency of public
services, contribute to accountability and help prevent corruption.
E-government is particularly significant in the context of the data economy, because the participation in
e-government leads to the generation of huge amounts of data. Moreover, it enables public access to
open data, which can be equally re-used by citizens, civic or other non-profit organisations and businesses.
At the same time, government bodies are active users of data, increasingly relying on both public and
private data in order to improve the efficiency of public services and to be able to make an evidence-
based policy.
In many European countries, the majority of residents use e-government services. Nordic countries
display the highest percentage of residents interacting with public authorities via the Internet (Figure 44).
A sharp increase in using e-government services between 2010 and 2017 was found in Greece, where it
grew almost threefold, and in Lithuania and the Czech Republic, where the share of individuals using
digital administration doubled in 2017, compared to 2010. However, the differences between some
European countries are still significant. A particular low percentage of individuals using e-government
services were reported for Croatia, Poland, Italy, Bulgaria and, above all, Romania. This situation can be
related to different developments, like persistent challenges in the digitalization of public services and
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
90
making them available online, poor digital skills as well as a low real income of broad population groups
(particularly in Bulgaria and Romania) diminishing people's access to and use of digital technologies.
Data activities in form of on-line consultations or e-voting enable citizens' participation in policy making,
contribute significantly to the democratization of political processes and promote political opinion
making. Data from Eurostat57 reveal that in a group of European countries comprising Iceland, Malta,
Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Germany and, above all, Luxembourg this kind of
participation in political processes is particularly high in European comparison (Figure 45). By contrast, in
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Cyprus it remains far below the European
average. Moreover, the Netherlands and Latvia exhibit a marked downward trend in the participation of
their residents in online consultation or voting between 2011 and 2017. Also in Estonia, Austria, Iceland,
Greece, Slovenia and the Czech Republic the share has declined.
Figure 44 Percentage of individuals interacting with public authorities via Internet58
57 Data relate to the share of individuals that take part in on-line consultations or voting to define civic or political issues (e.g. urban planning, signing a petition etc.). 58 Figure based on Eurostat.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Den
mar
k
Icel
and
Swed
en
No
rway
Fin
lan
d
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Esto
nia
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Latv
ia
Fran
ce
Au
stri
a
Bel
giu
m
Irel
and
Ge
rman
y
Spai
n
Slo
ven
ia
EU 2
8
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Lith
uan
ia
Gre
ece
Hu
nga
ry
Slo
vaki
a
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Po
rtu
gal
Mal
ta
Cyp
rus
Cro
atia
Po
lan
d
Ital
y
Bu
lgar
ia
Ro
man
ia
2010 2017
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
91
Figure 45 Percentage of individuals taking part in on-line consultations or voting59
3.8.2 Participation in social or professional networks
Social and professional networks are one of the most important data sources enabling day-to-day
generation and free flow of vast amounts of data. They also provide a platform for the data exchange
between social network members. Data generated by social media holds a particularly large potential,
because they can be used to better understand and predict people's needs, requirements, desires and
behaviours.
The participation in social and professional networks increased considerably in the last 10 years across all
European countries. At present, the vast majority of individuals in most European countries participate in
social networks like Facebook and Twitter. The data show little variation between individual countries
(Figure 46). However, in Nordic countries, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Malta, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands and Hungary, the social networks seem to be more popular than in the rest of Europe.
However, the situation is different with respect to professional networks, which are more widespread in
Northern and Western Europe than in Southern and Eastern Europe.
3.8.3 Data-driven purchasing decisions
Digitization and data have fundamentally changed the purchasing behaviour of individuals. An increasing
number of consumers are relying on data available on the Internet to optimise their purchasing decisions.
59 Figure based on Eurostat.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Icel
and
Mal
ta
Den
mar
k
Swed
en
Fin
lan
d
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Ge
rman
y
Spai
n
Po
rtu
gal
EU 2
8
Lith
uan
ia
Ne
the
rlan
ds
No
rway
Esto
nia
Fran
ce
Cro
atia
Au
stri
a
Ital
y
Bel
giu
m
Latv
ia
Irel
and
Gre
ece
Po
lan
d
Slo
ven
ia
Bu
lgar
ia
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Hu
nga
ry
Ro
man
ia
Slo
vaki
a
Cyp
rus
2011 2017
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
92
The data that are most frequently used prior to purchasing a good or service relate to price information,
customer ratings, brands, functionality of a product etc.
A glance at statistical data confirms that the broad majority of individuals in the European countries
consults data on products and services available on the Internet to be able to make better informed
purchasing decisions. Between 2010 and 2017, the share of such individuals constantly increased in most
countries (Figure 47). The highest level is recorded in Iceland accounting for 90% of all individuals, closely
followed by the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Norway and Luxembourg. Between 2010 and
2017, the overall increases were more pronounced in countries with initially lower levels of individuals
making data-driven purchasing decisions, which led to more homogeneity among countries in 2017.
However, Bulgaria, Italy and Romania constitute an exception of this overall development. In Romania,
the share of individuals making data-driven purchasing decisions is only 35% of the share in the
Netherlands.
Figure 46 Percentage of individuals participating in social and professional networks, 201760
60 Figure based on data from Eurostat.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Icel
and
No
rway
Den
mar
k
Bel
giu
m
Swed
en
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Mal
ta
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Fin
lan
d
Hu
nga
ry
Cyp
rus
Esto
nia
Latv
ia
Irel
and
Slo
vaki
a
Spai
n
Po
rtu
gal
EU 2
8
Lith
uan
ia
Swit
zerl
and
Ro
man
ia
Ge
rman
y
Au
stri
a
Bu
lgar
ia
Gre
ece
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Po
lan
d
Cro
atia
Slo
ven
ia
Fran
ce
Ital
yParticipating in social networks (e. g. Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
Participating in professional networks (LinkedIn, Xing, etc.)
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
93
Figure 47 Percentage of individuals finding information about goods and services on the Internet prior to their purchase61
3.8.4 Sharing economy
Big data are an enabler and an important driver of the sharing economy, which makes the utilisation and
use of resources more efficient and cost-effective. Big data and big data algorithms make sure that that
individual demand and supply is brought together so that the participants get exactly what they require.
A considerable percentage of individuals already benefits from the sharing economy in accommodation
and transport. According to data, participating in the sharing economy in these two areas is most
widespread in the United Kingdom, followed at some distance by Luxembourg, Ireland, Malta, the
Netherlands, Belgium and Germany (Figure 48). Among the countries of Central and Eastern European,
Slovakia and Estonia are the countries where people are most involved in sharing economy activities. By
contrast, in a number of European countries including Portugal, Romania, Cyprus and, in particular, the
Czech Republic, the participation in the sharing economy is relatively weak.
61 Figure based on Eurostat.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Icel
and
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Fin
lan
d
Swed
en
Ge
rman
y
No
rway
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Den
mar
k
Esto
nia
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Bel
giu
m
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Irel
and
Mal
ta
Slo
ven
ia
Fran
ce
EU 2
8
Hu
nga
ry
Spai
n
Au
stri
a
Lith
uan
ia
Cyp
rus
Po
rtu
gal
Cro
atia
Po
lan
d
Slo
vaki
a
Gre
ece
Latv
ia
Bu
lgar
ia
Ital
y
Ro
man
ia
2010 2017
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
94
Figure 48 Participation in sharing economy, 201762
3.8.5 Index on society's participations in data-related activities
Society is the main participator and contributor to the data economy. Big data enables better decision
making of individuals, cost and resource savings through data-based sharing activities and it improves
transparency and efficiency of public services. There are many other important data-based social benefits
e.g. in the health sphere, security and safety control, education, energy consumption that could not be
considered for the index due to the lack of data for their measurement.
The index on social participation in data-related activities focus on selected fields for which metrics at
country level are available. The index consists of the following indicators: e-government participation,
political decision making of individuals, data-driven purchasing decisions, participation in social and
professional networks, and sharing economy activities of individuals. For the e-government participation,
participation in social networks as well as data driven purchasing decisions, data are available for 2014
and 2017, whereas the indicator for sharing economy activities refers to 2017. For participation in
professional networks and political decision making, time comparisons are possible for 2013 and 2017.
E-government participation becomes increasingly important across Europe, which higher average scores
in 2017 reflect. On the whole, the participation of individuals in the e-government was less varied in 2017
(Table 17). Significant improvements in the relative positioning show Estonia, climbing from the 16th up
62 Figure based on Eurostat.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Irel
and
Mal
ta
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Bel
giu
m
Ge
rman
y
Spai
n
EU 2
8
Ital
y
Icel
and
Fran
ce
Slo
vaki
a
Swed
en
Esto
nia
Po
lan
d
Hu
nga
ry
No
rway
Den
mar
k
Latv
ia
Lith
uan
ia
Fin
lan
d
Bu
lgar
ia
Au
stri
a
Cro
atia
Po
rtu
gal
Ro
man
ia
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Individuals using a website or app to arrange an accommodation from another individual
Individuals using a website or app to arrange a transport service from another individual
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
95
to the 7th rank and Ireland gaining 5 positions in 2017, whereas Slovakia lost considerably, reaching the
20th rank in 2017 compared to the 10th rank in 2014.
A considerable polarization within the group of selected European countries is observed in terms of the
political decision making of individuals measured by the percentage of individuals taking part in on-line
consultations or voting to define civic or political issues (e.g., urban planning, signing a petition). Regarding
2017, the subindex scores demonstrate even wider variation between countries around a smaller mean,
as indicated by the coefficients of variation and of quartile dispersion (Table 18). There is particularly large
variation in the upper quartile of the subindex score distribution. A large number of countries is closely
bunched below the median showing much less disparities between individual countries.
Social media becomes consistently more important for individuals, as indicated by statistical data. The
share of individuals participating in social media increased significantly in all countries by 2017. Among all
observed countries, Iceland's first position remains unchanged in 2017. The most meaningful increases
are registered in Romania gaining 10 positions (from the 30th rank in 2014 to the 20th rank in 2017) and
Belgium gaining 8 positions reaching the 4th rank in 2017. Overall, the variation across countries declines,
as signaling by the coefficient of variation and of quartile dispersion. However, a relatively large dispersion
is observed between the three best performing countries. Also the participation of individuals in
professional networks like LinkedIn and Xing increases continuously in most European countries. Most
significant growth of individuals using professional networks between 2013 and 2017 display Cyprus
gaining 8 positions and Lithuania, gaining 5 positions compared to 2013, whereas the Czech Republic lost
considerably. The overall dispersion within the selected group of European countries decreased notably
indicating growing conversion between countries (Table 18). However, the score variation between the
best positioned countries (the Netherlands and Denmark) and a large group of countries closely bunched
at the low end of distribution is still large.
Meanwhile, a growing number of consumers all over Europe relies on data on the Internet to better inform
their purchasing decisions. The overall share of individuals consulting the Internet prior to purchasing a
product or service increased, whereas the variation decreases over time, as confirmed by the coefficients
of variation and quartile dispersion. However, there is still a considerable polarization between the group
of countries with highest scores and the group of countries with the lowest scores including Bulgaria, Italy
and Romania.
The subindex on the data-driven sharing economy was calculated as an equally weighted average of the
share of individuals who used any website or app to arrange an accommodation from another individual
as well as the share of individuals who arranged a transport service this way. The extent to which
individuals participate in these two fields of the sharing economy varies widely from country to country.
There is a great distance between the country that ranks first – the United Kingdom – and the second best
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
96
country Ireland. The level of participation of the majority of European countries in the sharing economy
is still well below its potential resulting in a low mean score of 0.32.
The average index based on these six individual indicators aims at giving an indication of the social
participation in data-related activities in the European countries. It helps to assess to which extent
individuals in different countries are engaged in or rely on data-driven activities in their everyday lives
(Figure 49). A look at the average index scores reveals a considerable variation between countries. Among
all countries observed, Iceland ranks first in terms of social participation in the data economy followed by
Luxembourg, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Norway suggesting a particular
important role of data in the everyday lives of residents of those countries. However, as indicated by the
descriptive statistics, there is a lot of variation across European countries. Even in the low 25% of
distribution, countries at the very low end (Romania and Bulgaria) and the upper end of the distribution
(Slovenia, Greece and Poland) vary widely in their relative positioning.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
97
Figure 49 Index on social participation in data related activities63
63 Figure based on own claculations.
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
RomaniaBulgaria
ItalyCroatia
Czech RepublicPolandGreece
SloveniaCyprus
SlovakiaLithuaniaPortugal
LatviaAustria
HungaryFrance
SpainGermany
IrelandBelgium
MaltaEstoniaFinlandNorwaySweden
United KingdomNetherlands
DenmarkLuxembourg
Iceland
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
98
Country Percentage of individuals making data based purchasing decisions
Percentage of individuals interacting with public authorities via Internet
Participation in social networks
Participation in professional networks
Percentage of individuals taking part in on-line consultations or voting (e.g., urban planning, signing a petition)
Partici-pation in sharing economy
Average index
2014 2017 2014 2017 2014 2017 2013 2017 2013 2017 2017 2016/2017
Index Rank Index R. Index R. Index R. Index R. Index R. Index R. Index R. Index R. Index R. Index R. Index R.
Iceland 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.95 2 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.41 8 0.38 11 1.00 1 0.80 2 0.55 4 0.78 1
Luxem-bourg
0.87 7 0.88 7 0.76 7 0.83 8 0.51 5 0.54 8 0.64 5 0.66 3 0.48 4 1.00 1 0.43 7 0.72 2
Denmark 0.91 6 0.83 8 0.99 2 1.00 1 0.64 3 0.70 3 0.77 2 0.88 2 0.39 5 0.40 4 0.25 17 0.67 3
Nether-lands
0.93 4 0.98 2 0.87 6 0.88 6 0.49 8 0.52 9 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.22 14 0.23 11 0.36 10 0.66 4
United Kingdom
0.80 9 0.76 9 0.55 15 0.50 17 0.51 5 0.61 5 0.59 6 0.63 5 0.26 12 0.37 6 1.00 1 0.64 5
Sweden 0.94 3 0.91 4 0.95 4 0.94 3 0.62 4 0.61 5 0.64 4 0.66 3 0.52 3 0.40 4 0.34 12 0.64 6
Norway 0.98 2 0.90 5 0.96 3 0.94 3 0.74 2 0.87 2 0.68 3 0.53 6 0.35 8 0.23 11 0.32 13 0.63 7
Finland 0.93 5 0.93 3 0.93 5 0.93 5 0.43 9 0.50 10 0.36 10 0.53 6 0.74 2 0.37 6 0.22 21 0.58 8
Estonia 0.76 10 0.76 10 0.55 15 0.86 7 0.32 13 0.37 13 0.50 7 0.41 8 0.17 17 0.20 14 0.58 3 0.53 9
Malta 0.52 19 0.67 14 0.40 24 0.45 24 0.36 10 0.59 7 0.23 15 0.38 11 0.30 11 0.50 3 0.50 5 0.51 10
Belgium 0.67 11 0.74 11 0.60 11 0.58 12 0.34 12 0.63 4 0.27 13 0.41 8 0.09 21 0.10 19 0.37 9 0.47 11
Ireland 0.61 15 0.67 13 0.55 17 0.58 12 0.30 15 0.35 15 0.36 11 0.38 11 0.04 23 0.07 21 0.61 2 0.44 12
Germany 0.81 8 0.90 6 0.57 13 0.55 14 0.13 21 0.17 21 0.27 14 0.28 17 0.39 5 0.33 8 0.31 14 0.42 13
Spain 0.57 16 0.55 18 0.52 18 0.54 15 0.32 13 0.30 17 0.32 12 0.38 11 0.35 8 0.30 9 0.39 8 0.41 14
France 0.63 12 0.62 16 0.72 8 0.74 10 0.06 27 0.00 29 0.23 17 0.22 19 0.35 8 0.17 15 0.44 6 0.36 15
Hungary 0.57 16 0.59 17 0.52 18 0.48 19 0.51 7 0.48 11 0.18 18 0.31 15 0.04 23 0.03 25 0.22 20 0.35 16
Austria 0.63 12 0.55 18 0.65 9 0.66 11 0.17 20 0.17 21 0.41 9 0.41 8 0.39 5 0.17 15 0.13 24 0.35 17
Latvia 0.33 24 0.45 26 0.59 12 0.75 9 0.36 10 0.37 13 0.05 23 0.13 24 0.09 21 0.10 19 0.24 18 0.34 18
Portugal 0.39 23 0.50 22 0.41 21 0.46 22 0.23 18 0.28 18 0.23 16 0.31 15 0.22 14 0.30 9 0.09 26 0.33 19
Lithuania 0.56 18 0.53 20 0.41 21 0.49 18 0.23 18 0.24 19 0.00 28 0.19 22 0.17 17 0.23 11 0.24 18 0.32 20
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
99
Slovakia 0.46 22 0.47 24 0.63 10 0.48 19 0.30 15 0.35 15 0.00 27 0.06 27 0.04 23 0.03 25 0.36 11 0.29 21
Cyprus 0.50 20 0.52 21 0.41 21 0.41 25 0.30 15 0.43 12 0.00 26 0.22 19 0.04 23 0.00 30 0.05 28 0.27 22
Slovenia 0.50 20 0.66 15 0.57 13 0.51 16 0.13 21 0.04 28 0.05 25 0.16 23 0.26 12 0.07 21 0.12 25 0.26 23
Greece 0.31 25 0.45 26 0.47 20 0.48 19 0.11 23 0.15 23 0.05 24 0.09 26 0.13 20 0.07 21
0.25 24
Poland 0.28 26 0.47 24 0.23 27 0.28 27 0.02 28 0.11 25 0.14 22 0.25 18 0.00 29 0.07 21 0.31 15 0.25 25
Czech Republic
0.63 12 0.72 12 0.36 25 0.46 22 0.09 24 0.11 25 0.18 19 0.06 27 0.04 23 0.03 25 0.02 29 0.24 26
Croatia 0.17 27 0.48 23 0.29 26 0.29 26 0.09 24 0.09 27 0.18 20 0.13 24 0.22 14 0.17 15 0.19 22 0.22 27
Italy 0.00 30 0.12 29 0.17 28 0.20 28 0.00 29 0.00 29 0.18 21 0.22 19 0.17 17 0.13 18 0.30 16 0.16 28
Bulgaria 0.11 28 0.14 28 0.15 29 0.15 29 0.09 24 0.15 23 0.00 30 0.00 30 0.04 23 0.03 25 0.14 23 0.10 29
Romania 0.02 29 0.00 30 0.00 30 0.00 30 0.00 30 0.20 20 0.00 29 0.06 27 0.00 29 0.03 25 0.09 26 0.06 30
Table 17 Societal participation – indices
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
100
Statistical measure
Percentage of individuals making data based purchasing decisions
Percentage of individuals interacting with public authorities via Internet
Participation in social networks
Participation in professional networks
Percentage of individuals taking part in on-line consultations or voting (e.g., urban planning, signing a petition)
Participation in sharing economy
Average index
2014 2017 2014 2017 2014 2017 2013 2017 2013 2017 2017 2016/2017
Quartile coefficient of dispersion 0.77 0.57 0.59 0.71 1.32 1.16 1.70 0.93 1.45 1.65 0.80 0.94
Upper quartile 0.83 0.84 0.73 0.83 0.49 0.55 0.43 0.44 0.36 0.34 0.41 0.59
Lower quartile 0.38 0.48 0.41 0.46 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.07 0.17 0.26
Median 0.59 0.64 0.55 0.53 0.30 0.35 0.23 0.31 0.22 0.17 0.31 0.36
Coefficient of variation 0.49 0.40 0.46 0.44 0.75 0.69 0.87 0.70 0.89 0.97 0.64 0.46
Standard deviation 0.28 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.19
Variance 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04
Mean 0.58 0.62 0.56 0.58 0.31 0.36 0.30 0.34 0.25 0.23 0.32 0.41
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06
Maximum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78
Table 18 Societal participation – descriptive statistics
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
101
3.9 Data openness
Open data – i.e. data made available for free use by third parties – is key for the data economy. It holds a
huge economic potential as an important source of new innovative products and services developed by
start-ups and other companies. However, open data has an enormous value not only for businesses. It
can be equally used by civil society, science and the public administration providing valuable knowledge
and insights.
Due to the relevance of open data for the data economy, it was considered important to include its
measurements in the Observatory report. For the assessment of the level of data openness of European
countries, the results of the recent study from the European Data Portal64 on the Open data maturity were
used. The data openness of the European countries is assessed according to the two key dimensions: Open
Data Readiness and Open Data Portal Maturity.
3.9.1 Open data readiness
Open data readiness assessment is based on the examination of the following indicators65:
Open data policies: describes to which extent countries have a dedicated open data policy in place, signaling a stronger commitment of countries towards an open data society.
Use of open data: examines to which extent open data from national open data portals are used and re-used, or seen as important.
Impact of open data: measures political, social and economic impact of open data.
64 Open Data Maturity in Europe in 2017: Open Data for the European Data Economy. European Data Portal, last update: November 2017, full report available at: https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/ edp_landscaping_insight_report_n3_2017.pdf 65 The detailed description of methodology is discussed in: Open Data Maturity in Europe in 2017: Open Data for the European Data Economy. European Data Portal, last update: November 2017.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
102
Figure 50 Open data readiness66
The scores of the Open Data Readiness index measured as weighted average of the three indicators
described above, reveal that most European countries are putting a lot of efforts to improve their open
data readiness. In all three relevant fields, a lot of progress can be registered in many countries since 2015,
leading to significant increases of the Open Data Readiness scores in 2017. Many European countries
developed and implemented effective open data policies leading to increasing use and re-use of open
data. The data also provides a clear evidence for the increasing political, social and economic impact of
open data.
The most significant improvements in open data readiness were achieved by Luxembourg, Latvia, Ireland,
Slovenia and the Czech Republic (Figure 50). In 2017, Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, France and Finland
are the best performers approaching the level of the highest possible open data readiness. However, the
performance varies widely across countries. Data suggest that greater efforts are still required to improve
open data readiness providing better opportunities for the development of data-related activities in many
European countries, particularly in Hungary, Switzerland, Portugal, Malta and Iceland.
3.9.2 Open data portal maturity
Portal maturity assesses the maturity of national open data portals in the European countries focusing on
the level of sophistication of the current infrastructure. Thereby, special attention is paid to the user
66 Figure based on European Data Portal.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Irel
and
Spai
n
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Fran
ce
Fin
lan
d
Slo
ven
ia
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Ital
y
No
rway
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Cyp
rus
Slo
vaki
a
Bu
lgar
ia
Ro
man
ia
Gre
ece
Au
stri
a
Cro
atia
Latv
ia
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Ge
rman
y
Bel
giu
m
Swed
en
Po
lan
d
Den
mar
k
Lith
uan
ia
Esto
nia
Hu
nga
ry
Swit
zerl
and
Po
rtu
gal
Mal
ta
Icel
and
2015 2017
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
103
friendliness of open data portals with respect to both data publishers and data re-users. The portal
maturity assessment is based on the examination of the following indicators:
Usability of the portal: describes the extent to which the access to and download of datasets are available. The indicator also reflects the possibility for users to upload their own datasets and to provide feedback on existing datasets.
Re-usability of data: estimates to which extent published data can easily be re-used, which is highly dependent on the quality of data and its metadata. It focuses on the level of the machine-readability of datasets and technical requirements related to the format in which the data is made available or the structure of it.
Spread of data: describes the variety of categories, which datasets published on the national open data portals cover.
Data on portal maturity show that considerable progress has been made in terms of the usability of portals
and the re-usability of data as well as the variety of domains open data cover. The most significant
performance improvements manifest in Luxembourg, Latvia, Romania, Ireland, Estonia and Croatia
(Figure 51). The large leap forward of Luxembourg is attributable to launching a user-friendly open data
portal in 2016. Similarly, Latvia's significant improvement is due to the establishment of the national open
data portal in 2017. However, shortcomings still exist with regard to user-friendliness of many national
portals in Europe that hamper open data re-use. For example, many portals are still missing some
important features facilitating the access to and the re-use of data67. According to data of the European
Data Portal, the most serious weaknesses in terms of open data portal maturity exhibit Greece, Denmark,
Lithuania, Iceland and, particularly, Hungary and Malta.
67 Open Data Maturity in Europe in 2017: Open Data for the European Data Economy. European Data Portal, last update: November 2017.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
104
Figure 51 Open data portal maturity68
3.9.3 Index on data openness
European countries made significant progress to increase data openness since 2015, as displayed by
indicators on open data readiness and open data portal maturity. The average index based on these two
indicators reflects the overall data openness of the European countries. The measurements have been
conducted for three consecutive years (2015-2017), allowing for direct time comparisons.
With regard to open data readiness, the selected group of countries shows collectively visible
improvements in 2017 compared to 2015, as indicated by the higher mean and median scores (Table 20).
Although the variation across countries decreases, significant discrepancies still exist. Ireland ranks first in
2017 having improved its relative positioning considerably compared to the 19th rank in 2015 (Table 19).
Spain, the Netherlands, France and Finland also belong to the top performing countries in 2017. The most
significant improvements in open data readiness is registered in Luxembourg that jumped from the 28th
to the 7th rank, Slovenia gaining 17 positions (from 23rd to 6th), Norway moving from the 20th up to the 9th
rank, the Czech Republic and Italy gaining 8 positions each and Cyprus improving by 7 positions until 2017.
At the same time, a number of countries experienced significant drops in performance. These are
Hungary, losing 17 positions, Portugal and Poland, losing 16 ranks each, Austria, dropping from the 4th
rank in 2015 to the 16th rank in 2017, and Germany and Denmark loosing 9 positions each. Hungary,
68 Figure based on European Data Portal.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Spai
n
Irel
and
Ge
rman
y
Ro
man
ia
Fin
lan
d
Cro
atia
Fran
ce
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Au
stri
a
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Ital
y
No
rway
Slo
vaki
a
Bel
giu
m
Swed
en
Esto
nia
Bu
lgar
ia
Po
rtu
gal
Slo
ven
ia
Latv
ia
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Po
lan
d
Cyp
rus
Swit
zerl
and
Gre
ece
Den
mar
k
Lith
uan
ia
Icel
and
Hu
nga
ry
Mal
ta
2015 2017
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
105
Switzerland, Portugal, Malta and Iceland are grouped at the very low end of the distribution falling far
behind well performing countries.
Considerable progress has been made by most European countries in terms of open data portal maturity
achieving much higher scores in 2017. Lower measures of spread indicate lower variation and polarization
across the selected set of countries reflecting some convergence processes within it. Luxembourg was the
best performing country in 2017, having jumped from the 28th rank in 2015. The second place is shared
by Spain, Ireland, Germany and Romania followed by Finland and Croatia. A group of countries including
Romania, Ireland, Croatia, Latvia and Estonia improved their performance distinctly compared to 2015.
Lithuania increased its score more than sixfold, albeit from a very low base. Switzerland and Denmark, on
the other hand, plummeted by 21 and 20 places each. Significant performance drops are identified for
Greece (by 12 places), Italy (by 10), the United Kingdom (by 8), Bulgaria (by 6), Austria (by 5) and Hungary
(by 4). Many countries were losing their position because a number of others was moving ahead faster.
Malta retains its last rank in 2017, whereas Hungary occupies the second last and Iceland – at some
distance – the third last place.
The data openness index, calculated as the weighted average of the two subindices discussed above,
displays that although a lot of progress has been made, there are still large discrepancies in the level of
data openness between European countries. Different groups of countries can be identified that reached
different degrees of open data maturity. Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, France and Finland have an
advanced open data ecosystem with respect to the open data policy, framework conditions for the use
and re-use of data as well as the sophistication of the open data portal. The large group of countries
comprising Luxembourg, Slovenia, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Croatia,
Bulgaria and Cyprus exhibits an above-average performance in terms of data openness, however some
barriers still exist. This group of countries is closely followed by Germany, Latvia, Belgium, the Czech
Republic, Sweden and Poland. Further away from the European average are Estonia, Denmark and
Lithuania followed by the group of countries including Switzerland, Hungary, Portugal, Malta and, in
particular, Iceland that close the ranking list. The data reveal that these countries are in their early
development stage of data openness and still encounter various shortcomings in both dimensions.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
106
Figure 52 Data Openness Index, 201769
Country Open data readiness Open data portal maturity Average index
2015 2017 2015 2017 2015 2017
Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank
Ireland 0.53 19 1.00 1 0.53 16 0.95 2 0.53 19 1.00 1
Spain 1.00 1 0.96 2 1.00 1 0.95 2 1.00 1 0.97 2
Finland 0.86 3 0.91 5 0.80 8 0.92 6 0.85 3 0.91 5
France 0.97 2 0.93 4 0.73 10 0.87 8 0.94 2 0.92 4
Luxembourg 0.21 28 0.80 7 0.00 28 1.00 1 0.18 28 0.83 6
Netherlands 0.73 8 0.95 3 0.77 9 0.85 9 0.74 7 0.94 3
Romania 0.57 14 0.71 13 0.40 21 0.95 2 0.54 17 0.75 11
Croatia 0.58 12 0.68 17 0.53 16 0.90 7 0.57 14 0.71 14
United Kingdom 0.83 5 0.76 10 0.93 3 0.82 11 0.85 4 0.76 10
Italy 0.54 16 0.78 8 0.95 2 0.79 12 0.60 13 0.78 8
69 Figure based on own calculations based on Open Data Maturity Index published by European Data Portal.
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
IcelandMalta
PortugalHungary
SwitzerlandLithuaniaDenmark
EstoniaPoland
SwedenCzech Republic
BelgiumLatvia
GermanyGreeceCyprus
BulgariaCroatiaAustria
SlovakiaRomania
United KingdomNorway
ItalySlovenia
LuxembourgFinlandFrance
NetherlandsSpain
Ireland
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
107
Norway 0.51 20 0.78 9 0.73 10 0.79 12 0.54 18 0.77 9
Austria 0.84 4 0.70 16 0.83 5 0.85 9 0.84 5 0.72 13
Slovenia 0.39 23 0.83 6 0.53 16 0.69 20 0.41 24 0.80 7
Germany 0.59 11 0.57 20 0.83 5 0.95 2 0.63 10 0.62 18
Slovakia 0.54 16 0.72 12 0.73 10 0.79 12 0.57 15 0.73 12
Bulgaria 0.68 9 0.71 13 0.73 10 0.72 18 0.69 9 0.70 15
Belgium 0.38 24 0.57 20 0.61 15 0.79 12 0.41 23 0.59 20
Cyprus 0.54 16 0.74 11 0.33 23 0.54 24 0.51 21 0.70 16
Sweden 0.48 21 0.53 22 0.53 16 0.74 16 0.49 22 0.55 22
Latvia 0.15 29 0.60 18 0.00 28 0.67 21 0.13 29 0.60 19
Czech Republic 0.27 27 0.60 19 0.33 23 0.64 22 0.28 27 0.59 21
Greece 0.79 6 0.70 15 0.72 14 0.46 26 0.78 6 0.65 17
Estonia 0.36 25 0.42 26 0.33 23 0.74 16 0.36 25 0.45 24
Poland 0.74 7 0.51 23 0.46 20 0.62 23 0.70 8 0.50 23
Portugal 0.57 13 0.25 29 0.37 22 0.72 18 0.55 16 0.29 29
Denmark 0.56 15 0.48 24 0.82 7 0.44 27 0.60 12 0.45 25
Lithuania 0.34 26 0.45 25 0.07 27 0.44 27 0.30 26 0.42 26
Switzerland 0.45 22 0.36 28 0.87 4 0.49 25 0.51 20 0.35 27
Hungary 0.67 10 0.37 27 0.27 26 0.18 30 0.61 11 0.30 28
Iceland 0.00 30 0.00 31 0.00 28 0.31 29 0.00 30 0.00 31
Malta 0.00 30 0.23 30 0.00 28 0.00 31 0.00 30 0.15 30
Table 19 Data openness – indices
Statistical measure Open data readiness
Open data portal maturity
Average index
2015 2017 2015 2017 2015 2017
Quartile coefficient of dispersion 0.65 0.43 0.88 0.45 0.52 0.47
Upper quartile 0.73 0.78 0.80 0.87 0.70 0.78
Lower quartile 0.38 0.48 0.33 0.54 0.41 0.45
Median 0.54 0.70 0.53 0.74 0.55 0.70
Coefficient of variation 0.46 0.37 0.56 0.34 0.46 0.38
Standard deviation 0.25 0.23 0.30 0.24 0.25 0.24
Variance 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06
Mean 0.54 0.63 0.54 0.70 0.54 0.63
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Table 20 Data openness – descriptive statistics
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
108
4 Discussion of findings
D5.3 provides a measurement concept for the data economy using nine composed indices reflecting key
categories, which are of great significance for the development of the data economy. Beyond that, it also
includes an in-depth analysis of individual indicators to uncover and better understand specific dynamics
behind the indices.
Moreover, this work attempts to benchmark European countries on their capacities and chances to
participate in the data economy and to build up ecosystems relevant for the data economy. It aims to
contribute to the understanding of whether and to which extent important framework conditions
necessary to unleash the potential of the data economy and to reap benefits from it are in place in
different European countries. It also helps to identify currents trends and developments that directly
affect the countries' capacities to build up the data economy and reveal individual strengths and
weaknesses of countries.
A total of 41 individual indicators distributed among 9 central categories were used to describe the
development of the data economy and to assess the profiles of individual countries.
Figure 53 Distribution of average index scores
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
109
The results of the analysis indicate a considerable heterogeneity among countries implying that policies
should take into consideration the specific characteristics of each country to be able to provide more
tailored policy measures.
A large dispersion was identified between countries with regard to the data-driven business sector
activities indicating that at present, European countries reap to a very varying degree economic impact
from data-based activities (Figure 53). Big-data-related technologies as well as the underlying
infrastructure are also very unevenly distributed across European countries. Furthermore, the analysis
provides evidence that in most countries targeted efforts are needed to allocate more resources in the
research and skill capacities of the data economy to be able to improve its innovative potential and to
sustain in the international competition. Apart from that, there are significant cyber security gaps within
Europe. The variation in the capacities of countries to respond to cyber security threats is particularly high
in the lower two quartiles of the distribution indicating an increasing divide between individual groups of
European countries. Big discrepancies across countries were also found regarding data openness, as
reflected by the uneven distribution of index scores underneath their median score. Finally, the level to
which individuals participate in and benefit from data-related activities was found to differ considerably
across Europe.
Due to the importance of the aspects underlying the development of the data economy, it is essential to
investigate backgrounds and causes of the observed trends and uneven developments more closely in
future studies to be able to better identify policy priorities, which are best suited to respond to countries
needs and challenges.
Based on the average score results of composite indices, European countries can be classified into three
broad categories: high potential countries, countries with average capacities and below average
performing countries (Figure 54).
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
110
Figure 54 Scores of European countries
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Business sector activities Cyber security Diffusion of big-data-related technologies
Infrastructural conditions Innovation potential Privacy protection
Social participation in data related activities Business environment Data openness
Mean
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
111
4.1 High potential countries
This group comprises all countries whose average index score values are greater than or equal to 0.5, thus
lying well above the European average score of 0.43. To this group of countries belong Ireland, Finland,
Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany, Denmark and
Malta.
Among the selected set of countries, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands achieve the
highest average scores over all categories. To the best performing countries also belong Malta ranking in
six of the nine categories among the top five countries as well as the United Kingdom and Luxembourg,
each ranking among the top five countries in a total of four categories.
On the whole, countries of this group show a considerable potential in many central areas that affect the
development of the data economy, suggesting that they are better prepared to use opportunities big data
presents and to successfully sustain the international competition. They commit considerable resources
to research and innovation and concentrate a bulk of the data-economy-related knowledge creation.
Moreover, this country group makes considerable efforts to create a business-friendly environment and
takes more measures to ensure a better security and privacy control. Besides, many of these countries
are increasingly employing big-data-related technologies.
However, the results also reveal some areas of weaknesses in a number of countries. For example, there
are some evident shortcomings in the Netherlands in terms of innovation potential as well as privacy
control aspects. Apart from the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark and Spain are further
countries underperforming in data-economy-related innovation capacities. In the United Kingdom,
technologies related to big data remain relatively poorly diffused. Germany has to strengthen the capacity
of its business sector to better exploit opportunities that big data is offering, whereas Malta still has a lot
of room for improvement with respect to data openness.
Among the selected group of countries, Ireland represents a special case worth mentioning. In recent years, Ireland attracted a lot of investments in ICT services including data-related activities. The high concentration of both multinational and Irish companies has created a highly competitive environment that fosters innovations and provides good opportunities for the development of the data economy as indicated by the indices on business activities and innovation potential. Moreover, Ireland's data-driven companies take advantage of a very favourable business environment, as reflected by the highest possible ranking achieved by Ireland in this category. However, Ireland encounters challenges with regard to infrastructural conditions and the diffusion of big data technologies.
4.2 Countries with average capacities
This country group includes countries whose average index scores largely scatter around the mean value of 0.43 in all explored categories ranging between 0.46 and 0.38. This group of countries comprises Spain, Austria, France, Portugal, Estonia, Iceland, Slovakia and Cyprus. Spain, Austria and France are the best
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
112
performing countries within this country group, whereas Slovakia and Cyprus are at the borderline between the second and third group of countries. On the one hand, some of these countries are performing very well in selected categories, for instance, Spain and France achieve top rankings in terms of data openness, and Cyprus stands out regarding the business environment. On the other hand, some countries demonstrate considerable polarisation in terms of their performance in individual categories. This is particularly true for Iceland that ranks fairly poor in the diffusion of big data technologies, data openness and privacy protection issues, performing at the same time very well regarding the social participation in data-related activities, cyber security aspects and business environment conditions. Austria and France perform poorly in terms of the infrastructural environment necessary for the establishment and sustainable development of the data economy and Cyprus displays a relatively low level of innovation potential in data-related activities. On the whole, countries making up the middle group have a good basis for establishing a competitive data economy. However, to be able to achieve this, continuous efforts to further build up necessary capacities and targeted measures aimed at overcoming existing barriers will be necessary.
4.3 Below average performing countries
This country group encompass Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Bulgaria, Greece, Poland and Hungary. Their average index scores range between 0.37 for Croatia and
Italy and 0.25 for Hungary. While the performance of Croatia and Italy over all categories is much closer
to the European average, the low section of distribution is more polarised. This is particularly true for
Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Poland and Hungary, which perform well below the European average, and
are grouped at the very low end of the index score distribution. However, with the exception of Hungary
and Latvia, all countries display a relatively good performance in data openness.
On the whole, this group of countries exhibits a relatively low level of engagement in data-related
activities of the business sector as well as limited capacities to exploit business opportunities big data is
offering. They also lag considerably behind in terms of innovative capability. Companies in many of these
countries - particularly Slovenia, Italy and Greece - face challenges regarding the business environment,
which constitutes an additional barrier to the development of a dynamic and innovative data economy.
In the Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia, Greece, Hungary and Romania, the leverage of big-data-related
technologies remains at a very low level. Some of the countries lack adequate infrastructural conditions.
They are particularly poor in Italy and Bulgaria. Furthermore, most countries encounter shortcomings in
terms of cyber security and privacy control mechanisms.
The results of this work indicate that many of these countries have a long way to go to establish a favourable ecosystem for the data-driven economy. Moreover, there is a considerable risk to be left behind in terms of participating in a knowledge-intensive data economy and contributing to its innovative potential in case they do not succeed in investing more in new technologies and building up their innovative capacities.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
113
5 Conclusions and outlook
This work provides a measurement concept to describe the current status of the data economy in Europe.
It aims to capture developments and achievements of countries in the central aspects that directly affect
their capacity to participate and to build up a competitive data economy. Measurement across different
categories carefully chosen on the basis of the previous project works was considered important to give
an extensive profile of countries. These categories are: business sector activities, business environment,
innovation potential of the data economy, infrastructural conditions, diffusion of big-data-related
technologies, security related aspects, privacy protection, social participation in data related activities and
data openness. Countries have been assessed according to their performance in these key categories
using composed indices. The results of the analysis allow a mapping of countries as well as classification
according to their characteristics in the key dimensions.
The analysis detected individual strengths of countries that contribute to their capacities to build up a
robust data driven economy as well as weaknesses that need to be overcome to be able to unleash the
full potential of the data economy and to reap its benefits. It shows existing gaps, which are particularly
wide between best performing countries and those grouped at the low end of the index score distribution.
The results of the analysis reveal a lot of dispersion across countries indicating their varying capabilities
and potentials to use business opportunities big data offers, generate innovations, adapt technologies
and techniques relevant for the data economy as well as to respond to security and privacy threats. To
the areas with the largest variation across countries belong business sector activities, the degree of data
openness, capacity to respond to security threats, diffusion of big-data-related technologies and society's
participation in the data related activities. Significant divides over the majority of indicators have been
identified between individual groups of countries. The gap is particularly large between scores of best
performing countries and those at the low end of the distribution. As big data related technologies are
rapidly involving, there is a considerable risk for countries exhibiting a well below average performance in
the selected dimensions to be left behind. Therefore, there is a urgent need for targeted measures in
these countries to foster their innovative capability, support business sector activities and the use of
advanced technologies.
The authors of this report are aware that important aspects underlying the development of the data
economy are more complex and cannot be captured adequately by a limited number of relevant
indicators. Moreover, the lack or incompleteness of reliable data make it difficult to fully reflect them. In
spite of limitations, this work nevertheless provides some valuable contributions. It reports data on
central dimensions of the data economy based on a careful scrutiny of indicators available in the official
data sources. It provides evidence based insights into the key dimensions of the data economy and gives
a realistic picture of the capabilities of individual European countries. The results can be very useful for
business stakeholders and academics alike to study the determinants of the data economy at the country
level and to help test assumptions discussed in the media as well as the relevant literature. Even more
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
114
importantly, the study can serve as an empirical basis for policy makers to help them better understand
implications of the current developments of the data economy in the European countries and to inform
policy decisions. Furthermore, the analysis provides an important starting point for a more in-depth
exploration of the potentials of countries in different data economy relevant fields and a more close
investigation of the identified trends and uneven developments as well as of their causes and
backgrounds.
Further measurements in future will be necessary to observe the evolvement of the data economy in
Europe and to see whether the uneven developments increase or decrease over time. However, a
comprehensive analysis with a more targeted focus on data related activities in different countries
requires the overcoming of the present data constraints and the limited availability of common metrics
that would make international comparisons possible. We also hope that such data economy measurement
attempts would provide an additional incentive for the collection and making available data enabling a
more targeted and exhaustive assessments.
D5.3 Observatory report
Public Report – Version 1.0 – 9 February 2018
115
6 List of references
Acatech, BDI, Fraunhofer ISI, & ZEW. (2017). Innovationsindikator 2017. Retrieved from
http://www.innovationsindikator.de/2017/
Archibugi, D., & Coco, A. (2004). A New Indicator of Technological Capabilities for Developed and
Developing Countries. World Development, 32(4), 629–654. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.10.008
IDC & OpenEvidence. (2017). European data market – SMART 2013/0063: Final report. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=44400
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: A Summary of
Methodology, Data and Analytical Issues (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430).
Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (1995). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and
interactive learning. London, New York (N.Y.): Pinter.
Nieuwesteeg, B. (2017). Quantifying Key Characteristics of 71 Data Protection Laws. Journal of
Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 7(3), 182–203.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Political economy of
institutions and decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OECD. (2015). Data-driven innovation: Big data for growth and well-being. Paris.
OECD. (2017). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: The Digital Transformation.
Paris.