FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCORE BOARD

2020

WWW.BUSINESSFRANCE.FR

FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS Scoreboard

2020 4 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Franck RIESTER Bruno LEMAIRE Editorial P. 06 -- 10

Introduction Christophe LECOURTIER Pascal CAGNI Foreword P. 08 --

CRITERIA ATTRACTIVENESS CHAPTER 02 P. 35 -- P. 13 -- indicators Outcome Chapter 01 2.9. ENERGYANDGREEN GROWTH 106 2.8. QUALITYOFLIFE94 2.7. COSTOFLABORANDTAXATION80 2.6. FINANCIALENVIRONMENT72 2.5.  2.4. INFRASTRUCTURES56 2.3. RESEARCHANDINNOVATION48 2.2. EDUCATIONANDHUMANCAPITAL42 2.1. MARKETSIZEANDSTRENGTH36 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT64 ADMINISTRATIVE AND 1.4. FOREIGNSKILLS28 1.3.  1.2.  1.1.  ECONOMY SUBSIDIARIES TOTHEFRENCH CONTRIBUTION OFFOREIGN STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES18 FOREIGN DIRECTINVESTMENT14

24

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

5 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 6 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD AND ECONOMIC ATTRACTIVENESSAND MINISTER DELEGATE FORFOREIGN TRADE FRANCK RIESTER EDITORIAL Scoreboard 2020

Attractiveness FINANCE AND THE RECOVERY AND THE FINANCE MINISTER FOR THE ECONOMY, BRUNO LEMAIRE France accelerating our ecological transition and accelerating ourecologicaltransitionand create theeconomyandjobsoftomorrow:by huge investmentsineverythingthatwill The “RelaunchFrance”planprovidesfor to anunprecedentedlevel. contributed toraisingFrenchattractiveness which beganin2017andhasalready tracking themodernizationofoureconomy, a long-terminvestmentplanaimedatfast- is not just aneconomicsupportplan;itis which wasfinancedbyEuropeanfunding.It € lockdown, anambitiousrecoverypackageworth was adaptedandextendedduringthesecond In additiontothisemergencyplan,which years. through theeffortsmadeoverlastthree and topreservetheeconomicgainsacquired our businessesfacinganunprecedentedshock plan, unparalleledinitsscope,toprotect Back inMarch,weimplementedanemergency cost competitivenessandentrepreneurship. economic factors,suchasinfrastructure, improving itspositiononvariouscrucial economy inEuropeandthatitisstill that Francehasbecomethemostattractive Covid-19 pandemic.Wearedelightedtoread of attractivenessjustbeforethestart France, highlightsourcountry’srecordlevels Scoreboard, publishedeveryyearbyBusiness This neweditionoftheFranceAttractiveness 100 billion was announced, almost half of 100 billionwasannounced,almosthalfof even more than yesterday, Choose France! even morethanyesterday,ChooseFrance! believe inFranceandcreatejobshere.Today, investors awareofthis,thosewhocontinueto in 2019.Weareworkingtomakeinternational the levelsofeconomicactivitythatwehad back quicklyandtosee,bytheendof2022, have allthenecessarykeystrengthstobounce These very encouragingresultsconfirm that we computing andwastetreatment. biotechnology, renewableenergies,quantum existing sectors,buttocreatenewones:in objective isnotsimplytostrengthencertain set upindustrialactivitiesinFrance.The program, it isnoweasier than ever before to action andthe“turnkey”industrialsites acceleration andsimplificationofpublic 1, 2021.Finally,thankstotheActon by companies, andbyreducingproductiontaxes of micro-enterprises, SMEsand mid-size competitiveness bystrengtheningtheequity This planwillimproveourindustrial sustainable transport. industries, responsibleagricultureand technologies ofthefuture,healthcare of thefuture:hydrogen,greenenergies, in industrialsectorsandtechnologies training. Theplanstimulatesinvestment by redoublingoureffortsregardingvocational by stimulatingtechnologicalinnovationand developing low-carbonindustrialproduction, the digitaltransitionofoureconomy,by € 10 billion on a lasting basis as of January 10 billiononalastingbasisasofJanuary BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

7 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 8 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PASCAL CAGNI BUSINESS FRANCE, AMBASSADOR FOR

CEO OFBUSINESSFRANCE CHRISTOPHE LECOURTIER successful because itisdriven by three thatthe confirms French economy is theScoreboard This eleventh editionof and theUnitedKingdom. universities, aftertheUnitedStates in the latest Shanghai ranking of research, andfeatures inthetop20 as well asfor highereducationand telecommunications infrastructure, leading countriesfor transport and theworld’s and services; itisoneof goods and thefifthlargest exporter of the world’s seventh largest economy outinrecentcarried years. France is the reforms and the effectiveness of France’s structuralstrengths of These re the same. Germany, where the rate remained which saw only a5%increase, and competitors, theUnitedKingdom, year, incontrastwith itstwo main all these investments, up 17%on last projects. Itattractednearly 20%of in first place for industrialandR&D investments inEurope andremained host country for job-creating foreign 2019, France became the leading rise inFrench attractiveness. In the 2020 indeedconfirms exceptional The France Attractiveness Scoreboard was breaking records. very momentwhen itsattractiveness suffered aglobal healthcrisisatthe triumph. Asluckwould have it, France various ordeals following aparticular Fortune, who subjectedheroes to The Romans feared thegoddess sults reflect the robustness FOREWORD The re times theEU-28average. 10,752 net creations, an increase four businesses grewby more than4%,or active manufacturing, thenumber of average intheEuropean Union. In than 6%,compared with2%on in2018,orby231,513 firms more enterprise creation increased by entrepreneurial resurgence. Firstly, its sustainable growth. key strengths, which are conducive to Thir Germany andtheUnitedKingdom. the European Union,especially in while they increased on average in unit laborcostsactually fell in2019, moderate, while inmanufacturing, themost cost growth remains oneof 2018. Inthemarket sector, hourly labor has improved themostinFrance since zone countries, costcompetitiveness competitive. Amongthelarge euro Seco now inpolepositionEurope. entrepreneurial spirit,withFrance have allhelpedtoboostFrance’s with strong politicalwillpower, a lower corporate taxrate, together in socialsecuritycontributions, and European Union. In 2019, less than 10% European Union.In2019, lessthan10% renewable energy inthe producer of and ourcountry isthesecondleading are amongthelowest onthecontinent Greenhouse emissionsinFrance gas environmental credentials. ndly, d y ly, oa fred tape, reductions moval of France isundergoing an France boastsstrong France is increasingly Net favors thebrave. Roman poetVirgil –indeed,fortune “Audaces fortuna juvat”, wrote the and the“Relaunch France” Plan. spirit, as seen from this Scoreboard, is boththeFrench entrepreneurial which there isasolution, testamentof history. Thereason for thisisbecause on numerous occasionsthroughout have to overcome managed adversity meant anendtoluck.TheFrench buther departuredeparted, hasnot The goddess Fortune haslongsince technologies. infrastructure, energy andgreen transport well asthedevelopment of transition,assites, theagricultural industrial the decarbonization of energy-efficient building renovations, and companies, andexport financialaid; enterprises, SMEsandmid-size micro- of the digital upgrading companies’ equitycapital, of production taxes, thestrengthening competitive, thefuture; in theprofessions of trainingprograms development of criticalindustrialsectors andthe of financial assistance for the relocation investment in future technologies, areas: seeks toreinforce thesethree key The which itaimstoachieve by 2050. well ontheway tocarbonneutrality, production. France is based means of French electricitycamefrom carbon- of CHRISTOPHE LECOURTIER PASCALCAGNI AND environmental, withsupport for “Relaunch France” plan entrepreneurial, with huge with the reduction in

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

9 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

Economic attractiveness can be defined The countries compared with France in as the capacity to attract new business this report are: and mobile factors of production (capital, skilled labor, etc.) to a EUROPEAN: specific destination. This capacity is - Austria - Italy related to a wide range of macroeconomic - Belgium - Netherlands criteria. - Finland - Poland - France - Spain By compiling a vast array of economic data, but without resorting to - Germany - Sweden aggregate indicators, our aim is to - Ireland - United Kingdom provide an objective view of France’s attractiveness as an investment NON-EUROPEAN: location. - Japan - United States We identified nine key indicators of attractiveness (via 120 criteria) These countries play a major role in affecting where multinational firms international investment and have similar decide to set up, including market skill sets and/or substantial economic size, education and human capital, relations with France. Poland was chosen research and innovation, transport as an example of a country from central and communication infrastructure, and Eastern Europe having comparatively administrative and regulatory recently joined the European Union. environments, capital and employment The relative performances of these 14 costs (including taxation, which plays countries are also compared with the EU a significant role), as well as quality average, while for some key indicators a of life and green growth. comparison is made with other countries from around the world. Main results

France is a country largely open to - The creation of businesses in output) has enabled France to have foreign investment. In a competitive France is strong and dynamic. competitive electricity, with a low international context, France is The stabilization of the research tax carbon content, and to ensure the regularly ranked among the leaders in credit, the transformation of the country’s energy independence. the world for welcoming foreign direct competitiveness and employment investment. tax credit (CICE) into reduced social The France Economic Scoreboard, security contributions in January In 2019, France was for the first which today marks its 11th edition, 2019, the propositions of the time ranked as the leading recipient enables people to compare France and National Committee for Industry, of foreign investment in Europe, the Action Plan for Business Growth its main rivals on an objective basis. attracting 19% of all job-creating and Transformation Plan and the Consequently, it forms a precious investment projects. These results lowering of corporate tax rates tool in the long term for defining and are an indication of the solidity of to 25% by 2022 have all helped to France’s key strengths and their carrying out government policy in improve the business environment. relative resistance to economic and support of attractiveness. Strengthened by the commitment political fluctuations, both internal and pro-active approach of the The Scoreboard seeks to demonstrate and external. government, businesses remain that investment attractiveness We can see that the attractiveness confident and entrepreneurial spirit cannot be measured using a single of France is a major economic issue can be spread. The net creation of indicator, and must instead be for growth and employment in the businesses in France is strong and country. It relies on the size and much higher than in Germany and assessed holistically by considering medium-term strength of its market, the United Kingdom. all the components that make an its productivity, its well-qualified - A pro-active approach from economy attractive. It pinpoints a workforce, and the density and the French government for a number of areas in which France must effectiveness of its communication low-carbon economy. In the regain ground in today’s competitive and transport infrastructure. European Union, France stands out environment, and underlines the These good results are also the fruit for the original nature of its energy purpose of current reforms. of tangible measures taken to boost mix. The predominance of nuclear attractiveness nationwide: energy (three-quarters of total 12 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD ATTRACTIVENESS Contribution offoreign subsidiariestotheFrench economy Strategic activities Foreign skills Foreign direct investment INDICATORS OUTCOME CHAPTER 01 FRANCE 18 14 28 24

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

13 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 14 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD in 2019,followed by Singapore (US$92billion). foreign investment remained thetoprecipients of (US$246 billion)andChina(US$141 -2%over oneyear). TheUnitedStates decrease of recorded aslightdecline (US$685billion,or or +5%year-on-year) while emerging countries to developed countriesincreased (US$800billion, around US$1,500billionper year. FDIinflows flows were stable between 2018and2019,at According toUNCTAD, incomingglobal FDI 2018 (UNCTAD figures). Germany, a stable level compared with Kingdom, the Netherlands, Ireland and the European Union, after the United for inward FDI stock and fifth within France is ranked 10th in the world an amount similartothatof2018. € with FDI inflows in 2019 amounting to attractive and open to foreign capital, In this global context, France remains investment in2019. again thelargestrecipientsofforeign and China (US$141 billion) were once The United States(US$246billion) an (FDI) flows stabilized in 2019, at Global foreigndirectinvestment 30 billion (Banque de France data), amount close to US$1,500 billion. FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT Chap I_1Chap 1.1 US$ BILLION UNCTAD. levels compared with2018,according todatafrom Ireland, theUnitedKingdom andGermany, withstable and thefifthlargest inEurope, aftertheNetherlands, FDI in2019, to have attractedthelargest volume of earlier (+US$6billion).France isthusthe12thcountry (US$32 billion),following asignificantincrease a year to €30billion,anamountclose tothatin2018 In 2019,FDIinflows to France amounted Source: UNCTAD, 2020 FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INFLOWS (1995-2019) -100 800 400 US$ billion Graph 1.Foreign direct investment inflows (1990-2019) 3,000 600 900 200 2,000 250 2,000 100 2,400

US$ billion Graph 5. Inward FDIstock Leading recipients (top 20) 300 500 2,500 Luxembourg Belgium Netherlands Italy Spain Other 200 Current US$billion Leading 20 recipients Graph Foreign 2. direct investment inflows (2019) € billion Graph Foreign 4. investment direct inflows inFrance Stocks andflows, US$ billion Graph 3. Investment inflows inleading countries EU 700 -20 100 1,000 US$ billion Graph Breakdown 6. of inward FDIstock inFrance by ultimate investor (2018) country 1,500 1,600 100 150 1,200 80 40 60 20 50 Emerging economies 800 400 500 0

United States 0 0 United States FIG. 1 0 0 2006

United Kingdom 7,432 2000 China 1990

2007 Singapore Hong Kong 9,466 2001 1991 Netherlands 1992 2002 2008 1993 China Netherlands 2003 Ireland 1994 1995 2004 2009 Brazil 1996 Singapore Hong Kong 30 19 27 42 Switzerland 2005 United Kingdom 1997 2010

Transition economies 1998 123 2006 71 1999 Ireland 2007 2011 2000 India Canada 2001 2008 Canada 2002 Germany 2012

79 2009 Germany

2003 France 2010 Australia 2004 2013 2005 Spain 2011 France 2006 141 82 81 Australia 2014 2012 Mexico 2007 2008 2013 Brazil 2015

Russia Developed countries 2009 Mexico 2014 2010 Italy 2011

Belgium 2016 2015 Cyprus 2012 Russia 2016 Indonesia 2013 2017 United Kingdom 2014

United States 2017 Sweden Italy 2015 Switzerland

Cyprus 2018 2018 2016 Germany Israel 2017 2019 Vietnam India 2018 2019 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 2019 Chap I_1Chap Chap I_1Chap -100 Source: UNCTAD, 2020 US$ BILLION IN LEADINGEUCOUNTRIES FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INFLOWS Source: UNCTAD, 2020 CURRENT US$BILLION LEADING 20RECIPIENTS FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INFLOWS (2019) 1 800 -100 400 US$ billion Graph 1.Foreign direct investment inflows (1990-2019) 3,000 600 900 200 2,000 250 2,000 100 2,400 US$ billion Graph 5. Inward FDIstock Leading recipients (top 20) 800 300 500 2,500 Luxembourg Belgium Netherlands Italy Spain Other 200 400 US$ billion Graph 1.Foreign direct investment inflows (1990-2019) 3,000 600 900 200 Current US$billion Leading 20 recipients Graph Foreign 2. direct investment inflows (2019) € billion Graph Foreign 4. investment direct inflows inFrance Stocks andflows, US$ billion Graph 3. Investment inflows inleading countries EU 2,000 700 250 -20 100 2,000 100 1,000 US$ billion Graph Breakdown 6. of inward FDIstock inFrance by ultimate investor (2018) country 2,400 US$ billion Graph 5. Inward FDIstock Leading recipients (top 20) 300 500 2,500 Luxembourg Belgium Netherlands Italy Spain Other 200 1,500 1,600 Current US$billion Leading 20 recipients Graph Foreign 2. direct investment inflows (2019) € billion Graph Foreign 4. investment direct inflows inFrance Stocks andflows, US$ billion Graph 3. Investment inflows inleading countries EU 100 700 -20 150 100 1,000 US$ billion Graph Breakdown 6. of inward FDIstock inFrance by ultimate investor (2018) country 1,200 1,500 1,600 100 Thismethodology highlights thecountry from which theinvestment was madedirectly. out. datahasbeencarried Noreprocessing of 150 80 1,200 40 60 80 20 40 60 50 20 50 800 400 500 800 400 500 0

United States 0 0 0

United States 0 0 FIG. 3 FIG. 2 United States 0 United States 0 0 0 2006 France 2006

United Kingdom 7,432

United Kingdom 7,432 2000 2000 China China 1990 1990 2007 2007 Singapore

9,466 Singapore 9,466 2001 1991 Hong Kong Hong Kong 2001 1991 Netherlands Netherlands 1992 1992 2002 2002 2008 2008 1993 1993

China China 2003 Germany Netherlands Netherlands 2003 Ireland Ireland 1994 1994 1995 2009 1995 2004 2004 2009 Brazil Brazil 1996 Singapore Singapore Hong Kong 1996

30 Hong Kong 19 27 42 30 19 27 42 2005 Switzerland Switzerland 2005 United Kingdom 1997 1997

2010 United Kingdom 2010 1998

123 1998 123 2006 2006 71 71 1999 1999 Ireland Ireland 2011

2011 2007 2007 2000 2000 Italy India India Canada Canada 2001 2001 2008 2008 Canada Canada 2002 2012 2002 Germany Germany 2012

79 Germany 79 2009 2009 Germany 2003 2003 France France Australia 2004 2004 2010 Australia 2010 2013 2013 Spain 2005 2005 Spain Spain 2011 2011 France France 2006 2006

141 141 82 82 81 2014 81 Australia Australia 2014 2007 2012 2012 Mexico Mexico 2007 2008 2008 Brazil Brazil 2013 2013 2015 2015 Russia Russia 2009 2009 Mexico Mexico 2014 2014 2010 2010 Italy Italy 2011 2011 2016

Belgium 2016 Belgium 2015 2015 Cyprus Cyprus 2012 2012 Indonesia Russia Russia 2016 2016 Indonesia 2013 2013 2017 2017 United Kingdom United Kingdom 2014 2014

United States 2017 Sweden

United States 2017 Sweden Italy Italy 2015 2015 Switzerland Switzerland 2018 Cyprus Cyprus 2018 2018 2016 2016 Germany 2018 Germany Israel

Israel I_1Chap 2017 2017 2019 2019 Vietnam Vietnam India India 2018

2019 2018 2019 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 2019 2019 economies (BanquedeFrance data), Taking intoconsiderationFrance’s neighboring Source: BanquedeFrance € BILLION STOCKSFLOWS AND FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INFLOWS INFRANCE in 2018. -€4billion territory, +€1billion,afteradecline of otherforeign operationsreturned topositive of compared with€7billionin2018,while thebalance 2018. Reinvested amountedto€4billion, earnings equity, €25billion,compared with€29billionin FDI inflows into France in2019mainly comprised French market, driedupsignificantly in2019. countries traditionally serving asaccesstothe €19.3 billionin2018),which are volatile inthese Luxembourg (€0.2billionin2019,compared with 2019, compared with€13.4billionin2018)and flows from theNetherlands (€2.1billionin (€4.4 billion)andSpain(€3billion).Investment the UnitedStates(€5.5billion),Switzerland in 2019were theUnitedKingdom(€7.3billion), FDIflows toinvest in France of countries interms -100 800 400 US$ billion Graph 1.Foreign direct investment inflows (1990-2019) 3,000 600 900 200 2,000 250 2,000 100 2,400 US$ billion Graph 5. Inward FDIstock Leading recipients (top 20) 300 500 2,500 Luxembourg Belgium Netherlands Italy Spain Other 200 Current US$billion Leading 20 recipients Graph Foreign 2. direct investment inflows (2019) € billion Graph Foreign 4. investment direct inflows inFrance Stocks andflows, US$ billion Graph 3. Investment inflows inleading countries EU 700 -20 100 1,000 US$ billion Graph Breakdown 6. of inward FDIstock inFrance by ultimate investor (2018) country 1,500 1,600 100 150 1,200 80 40 60 20 50 Manufacturingindustry Financeandinsurance 800 400 500 0

United States 0 0 FIG. 4 United States 0 0 FDI flows in France 2006

United Kingdom 7,432 2000 China 1990

2007 Singapore Hong Kong 9,466 2001 1991 Netherlands 1992 2002 2008 1993 China Netherlands 2003 Ireland 1994 1995 2004 2009 Brazil 1996 Singapore Hong Kong 30 19 27 42 2005 1997

Switzerland United Kingdom 2010 1998 123

Real estate 2006 71 1999 Ireland Otherservices 2007 2011 2000 India Canada 2001 2008 Canada 2002 Germany 2012 79 2009 Germany 2003

France 2010 Australia 2004 2013 2005 Spain 2011 France 2006 141 82 81 Australia 2014 Miscellaneous 2012 Mexico 2007 2008 Brazil 2013 2015 Russia 2009 1

Mexico 2014 theleading 2010 Italy 2011

Belgium 2016 2015 Cyprus 2012 Russia 2016 Indonesia 2013 2017 United Kingdom 2014

United States 2017 Sweden Italy 2015 Switzerland

Cyprus 2018 2018 2016 Germany Israel 2017 2019 Vietnam India 2018 2019 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 2019 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

15 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap I_1Chap

16 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 2  -100 US$ BILLION LEADING RECIPIENTS(TOP 20) INWARD FDISTOCK with stable levels compared with2018. Kingdom, theNetherlands, Ireland andGermany, FDI stock,andisfifthinEurope, aftertheUnited inward is ranked tenthintheworld of interms estimates. According toUNCTAD data,France (€717 billion),according toBanquedeFrance €773 billionin2019,up8%compared with2018 Incoming investment stockinFrance amountedto ettmn ftheseinvestments according tothe restatement of (€103 billion)andSwitzerland (€92billion).After Netherlands (€104billion),theUnitedKingdom came mainly from Luxembourg (€152billion), the origin FDI stocksenteringFrance by country of Source: UNCTAD, 2020 800 400 US$ billion Graph 1.Foreign direct investment inflows (1990-2019) 3,000 600 900 200 2,000 250 2,000 100 2,400 US$ billion Graph 5. Inward FDIstock Leading recipients (top 20) 300 500 2,500 Luxembourg Belgium Netherlands Italy Spain Other 200 Current US$billion Leading 20 recipients Graph Foreign 2. direct investment inflows (2019) € billion Graph Foreign 4. investment direct inflows inFrance Stocks andflows, US$ billion Graph 3. Investment inflows inleading countries EU 700 -20 100 1,000 US$ billion Graph Breakdown 6. of inward FDIstock inFrance by ultimate investor (2018) country 1,500 1,600 100 150 1,200 80 40 60 20 fan investment. of The so-called“ultimate investor” control andthus theultimateholder measure usedby theBanquedeFrance enables us toidentifythechain of 50 800 2018 400 500 0

United States 0 0

United States FIG. 5 0 0 2006

United Kingdom 7,432 2000 China 1990 2007

2019 Singapore Hong Kong 9,466 2001 1991 Netherlands 1992 2002 2008 1993 China Netherlands 2003 Ireland 1994 1995 2004 2009 Brazil 1996 Singapore Hong Kong

30 19 27 42 Switzerland 2005 United Kingdom 1997 2010 1998 123 2006 71 1999 Ireland 2007 2011 2000 India Canada 2001 2008 Canada 2002 Germany 2012 79 2009 Germany 2003 France 2010 Australia 2004 2013 2005 Spain 2011 France 2006 141 82 81 Australia 2014 2012 Mexico 2007 2008 Brazil 2013 2015 Russia 2009 Mexico 2014 2010 Italy 2011

Belgium 2016 2015 Cyprus 2012 Russia 2016 Indonesia 2013 2017 United Kingdom 2014

United States 2017 Sweden Italy 2015 Switzerland

Cyprus 2018 2018 2016 Germany Israel 2017 I_1Chap 2019 Vietnam India 2018 2019 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 2019 investor” methodology), theinvestors’ parent company (“ultimate location of according totheBanquedeFrance. thetotalincomingstock), (€137 billion,or18%of industry), andinfinancial insuranceactivities the chemical industry and5%inthepharmaceutical which 7%in thetotal,of (€234 billion,or30%of is mainly concentrated inthemanufacturing industry businesssector, inward investment of In terms stock Source: BanquedeFrance US$ BILLION INVESTOR COUNTRY (2018) BREAKDOWN OFINWARD FDISTOCK INFRANCEBY ULTIMATE of one another . of one (€79 billion), withthelastthree allinclose range the UnitedKingdom(€81billion)andGermany in France, followed by Switzerland (€82billion), (€141 billion in2018)isby theleadinginvestor far -100 800 400 US$ billion Graph 1.Foreign direct investment inflows (1990-2019) 3,000 600 900 200 2,000 250 2,000 100 2,400 US$ billion Graph 5. Inward FDIstock Leading recipients (top 20) 300 500 2,500 Luxembourg Belgium Netherlands Italy Spain Other 200 Current US$billion Leading 20 recipients Graph Foreign 2. direct investment inflows (2019) € billion Graph Foreign 4. investment direct inflows inFrance Stocks andflows, US$ billion Graph 3. Investment inflows inleading countries EU 700 -20 100 1,000 US$ billion Graph Breakdown 6. of inward FDIstock inFrance by ultimate investor (2018) country 1,500 1,600 100 150 1,200 80 40 60 20 50 800 400 500 0

United States 0 0 FIG. 6 United States 0 0 2006

United Kingdom 7,432 2000 China 1990

2007 Singapore Hong Kong 9,466 2001 1991 Netherlands 1992 2002 2008 1993 China Netherlands 2003 Ireland 1994 1995 2004 2009 Brazil 1996 Singapore Hong Kong 30 19 27 42 Switzerland 2005 United Kingdom 1997 2010 1998 123 2006 71 1999 Ireland 2007 2011 2000 India 2001 Canada 2008

2 Canada

theUnitedStates 2002 Germany 2012 79 2009 Germany 2003 France 2010 Australia 2004 2013 2005 Spain 2011 France 2006 141 82 81 Australia 2014 2012 Mexico 2007 2008 Brazil 2013 2015 Russia 2009 Mexico 2014 2010 Italy 2011

Belgium 2016 2015 Cyprus 2012 Russia 2016 Indonesia 2013 2017 United Kingdom 2014

United States 2017 Sweden Italy 2015 Switzerland

Cyprus 2018 2018 2016 Germany Israel 2017 2019 Vietnam India 2018 2019 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 2019 - -  - balance ofpayments: financial accountofthehostcountry’s as foreigndirectinvestmentinthe between thetwoentitiesarerecorded Thereafter, allfinancialtransactions failing this,10%ofitssharecapital. as thedirectinvestmentcompany)or, the company(whichisthenreferredto owns 10%ormoreofthevotingrightsin individual orcompany(theinvestor) is deemedtobeestablishedwhenan relationship investment A direct data collectionprocedures. statistical organizations,inherentto between dataprovidedbydifferent However, somedifferencescanbeseen the IMF’sBalanceofPaymentsmanual. recommendations inthe6theditionof level, theseorganizationsdrawonthe national governments.Atamethodological central banks,statisticsagenciesand by UNCTAD(andtheIMFforstocks)from investment flowsandstocksarecollected Global statisticsonforeigndirect INVESTMENT FLOWS DEFINITION OFFOREIGNDIRECT company duringthatyear. any dividendsdistributed totheparent the courseofafinancial year,less transferred totheparent companyover companies’ operatingincomethatis the proportionofdirectinvestment Reinvested earningsthatrepresent Real-estate investments. and bankcapital. loan consolidations,subordinateddebt earning assets,balancingsubsidies, through theacquisitionofsharesor creations, businessacquisitions sense oftheterm,includingbusiness Share capitaloperationsinthestrict

- R&D created). study intermsofjobs,valueadded,and strives tofollowthisapproach(impact Business FranceAnnualReporttherefore the differentinvestmentprojects.The so astotakeintoaccountthenatureof micro approach,orbystudyingfirms, more a with stocks and flows FDI of it isparamounttocompletetheanalysis Due tothesemethodologicallimitations, - - DATA RELIABILITY “other investments.” correspondents thatarerecordedunder between residentbanksandtheirforeign commercial loansanddeposits companies, withtheexceptionof loan transactionsbetweenaffiliated and long-termdeposits,advances Other transactions,includingshort- the rankingsofdifferentcountries. substantial modifications to trends and of recordingflows,mayleadto next, duetothetechnicaldifficulties sharp revisionsfromoneyeartothe frequently subjecttorevision.Very FDI flowsarehighlyvolatileand aggregate level. interpreted inanymeaningfulwayat intra-group loans–whichcannotbe (included in“sharecapital”)and investments, real-estateinvestments equity stakeacquisitions,productive transactions –businesscreations, FDI flowscompriseawidevarietyof METHODOLOGY BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

17 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 18 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD R&D projectsbyforeign businesses. leading Europeancountryforsettingup innovation. What’s more, France was the as acompetitivecountryintermsof In 2019, France demonstrated itself growth potential of the French economy. investment attractivenessandthe contribute verystronglytoFrance’s that create the most jobs, but they These activitiesarenotinvestments recognized as strategic. projects likethesedeservetobe technology transfers.Investment the economy through knowledge and has adominoeffectontherestof headquarters ofmultinationalgroups The presenceofR&Dcentersand attractiveness oftheFrencheconomy. industry iscruciallyimportanttothe for the past fifteen years. As such, investment inindustrialactivities been ranked first in Europe for foreign At a sector-based level, France has for the first time in 2019. country forforeigninvestmentinEurope Survey, France was the leading host According totheEYFranceAttractiveness ACTIVITIES STRATEGIC Chap I_2 Chap 1.2 fluctuations, or whether internal external . and thecountry’s resistance tocyclical andpolitical France’s structuraladvantages to thestrength of and stable numbers inGermany. Theseresults testify 2018, incontrasttoa5%risetheUnitedKingdom investment projects inFrance increased by 17%in foreign investment projects in2019.Thenumber of alljob-creating France welcomed 18.8%of investment inEurope for thefirsttimein2019. foreign France wastheleadinghostcountryof According totheEYFrance Attractiveness Survey, Source: EY, 2020 THE UNITEDKINGDOM(2009-2019) IN FRANCE, GERMANY AND CHANGING NUMBEROFFOREIGNINVESTMENTS 30 30 1,500 20 20 20 20 20 20 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 8. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph 7. firminvestment by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph investment firm by Multinational decisions 6. operations (2019) 1,200 35 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 5. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firm investment by Multinational 4. decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment 3. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) France, United the before and Kingdom of Germany (2009-19) impact crisis the the Graph 1.Comparison of of number changing the foreign investments announced in 2 2 2 2 2 25 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 15

0 0 0 0 0 0 600 900 300 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 United Kingdom United Kingdom 5 United Kingdom

FIG.7 0

Germany France France France 2009

Germany France France Germany France France 2010 United Kingdom Netherlands Germany Germany Poland Poland United Kingdom

United Kingdom United Kingdom 2011 Netherlands Germany Spain Spain

Netherlands 2012 Ireland Spain Spain Spain Poland Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands 2013 Ireland Ireland Austria

2014 Poland Austria Germany Italy Italy Italy Spain

Poland Belgium Belgium 2015 Italy Austria Switzerland Belgium Italy Finland Belgium Poland 2016

Belgium Finland Ireland Ireland Ireland Sweden 2017

Sweden Sweden Belgium Finland Austria

Italy 2018

Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland 2019 TOP 10HOST COUNTRIES INEUROPEFORFOREIGNINVESTMENT PROJECTS (2019) Source: EY, 2020 Rank 4 8 5 1 2 FIG.8 Ireland France Spain Belgium United Kingdom +55% +17% +5% 2018-2019 -4% -7% 3% 7.6% 6 17.4% Netherlands +11% 18.8% % of FDI projects 2019 4.2% 4% 15.1% 7 3 10 9 Poland Germany 3.1% Russia Turkey -26% 0% -33% -9% 2.7% 3% BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

19 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap I_2 Chap

20 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD in secondposition. Europe, compared with 16%for France, which was allsuch investments in in 2019,receiving 22%of leading country attractingcorporate headquarters The UnitedKingdomremained however by the far (82%), andaccesstostateaidfor R&D(81%). collaborationwith university research teams of economicclusters (85%),thepossibilities network of R&Dpersonnel (86%),its abroad), thequalityof executivesand othercompany activities (for 86%of markets respondents isbasedontheproximity of of R&D, France’s attractiveness of In terms intheeyes countries. attractiveness compared withotherEuropean innovation andR&Dare majorassetsinFrance’s Public/Business theKantar France survey,of foreign executivesFor surveyed 69%of aspart hostinginnovative investments. of position interms Attractiveness Survey confirmed France’s leading R&D projects recorded inEurope. TheEYFrance allforeign activities inEurope, attracting16%of R&D In 2019,France was theleadingrecipient of Source: BusinessFrance Europe Observatory, 2020 EUROPEAN MARKET SHARE(%) MULTINATIONAL FIRMINVESTMENT DECISIONSBY SECTOR (2019) 30 30 1,500 20 20 20 20 20 20 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 8. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph 7. firminvestment by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph investment firm by Multinational decisions 6. operations (2019) 1,200 35 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 5. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment by Multinational 4. decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment 3. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) France, United the before and Kingdom of Germany (2009-19) impact crisis the the Graph 1.Comparison of of number changing the foreign investments announced in 2 2 2 2 2 25 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 900 300 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 United Kingdom United Kingdom Headquarters United Kingdom FIG.9 Germany 0 France France 2009

Germany France France Germany France France 2010 United Kingdom Netherlands Germany Germany Poland Poland R&D, engineering

United Kingdom United Kingdom 2011 Netherlands Germany Spain Spain

Netherlands 2012 Ireland Spain Spain Spain Poland Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands 2013 Ireland Ireland Austria Poland Austria 2014 Italy Italy Italy Spain

Poland Belgium Belgium 2015 Italy Austria Switzerland Belgium Italy Finland Belgium Poland 2016

Belgium Finland Ireland Ireland Ireland Sweden 2017

Sweden Sweden Belgium Finland Austria

Italy 2018

Austria Austria Sweden

Sweden Sweden Finland I_2 Chap 2019

industrial investment inEurope. France wastheleadinghostcountryin2019for solid expertise androbust transport infrastructure, majorcontractors, strong company base, anetwork of Thanks toitsmany key strengths, which include its industry. the investment, innovation of andthemodernization resources in2020,2021 and 2022tosupport of plan, andthegovernment willdraw onawealth the“Relaunch France” industry isakey part of of oursupplies.Thedevelopment and thesecurityof theeconomy base contributestotheresilience of Having astrong, diversified andcompetitive industrial supplies from foreign countriesinessentialsectors. toomuch on dependence and thevulnerabilityof excessively production fragmented chains, of fragility attractiveness. TheCovid-19 crisishasshown the of GDPinFrance butitiskey interms around 10%of The manufacturing industry only represents Source: BusinessFrance Europe Observatory, 2020 EUROPEAN MARKET SHARE(%) MULTINATIONAL FIRMINVESTMENT DECISIONSBY SECTOR (2019) 30 30 1,500 20 20 20 20 20 20 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 8. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph 7. firm investment by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph investment firm by Multinational decisions 6. operations (2019) 1,200 35 European market share (%) Graph firminvestment 3. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) France, United the before and Kingdom of Germany (2009-19) impact crisis the the Graph 1.Comparison of of number changing the foreign investments announced in European market share (%) Graph investment firm 5. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment by Multinational 4. decisions operations (2019) 2 2 2 2 2 25 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 900 Logistics 300 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

United Kingdom United Kingdom FIG.10 United Kingdom Germany 0 France France 2009

Germany France France Germany France France 2010 United Kingdom Production/Manufacturing Netherlands Germany Germany Poland Poland

United Kingdom United Kingdom 2011 Netherlands Germany Spain Spain

Netherlands 2012 Ireland Spain Spain Spain Poland Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands 2013 Ireland Ireland Austria Poland Austria 2014 Italy Italy Italy Spain

Poland Belgium Belgium 2015 Italy Austria Switzerland Belgium Italy Finland Belgium Poland 2016

Belgium Finland Ireland Ireland Ireland Sweden 2017

Sweden Sweden Belgium Finland Austria

Italy 2018

Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland 2019

fforeign investments inEurope. of mechanical equipmentsector, where itreceives 32% in Europe for investments inthemachinery and From asector-based perspective, France istheleader sectors. (8%), andtheconstruction/buildingmaterials(8%) food (11%),chemicals andplastics(11%),automotive machinery andmechanical equipment(14%),agri- production investments are concentrated inthe of leading foreign investors inFrance inthisarea. Half Switzerland, withtheUnitedStatesbeing Belgium, Italy, Japan, theUnitedKingdomand sector originatesfrom theUnitedStates, Germany, Two-thirds foreign investment inthemanufacturing of thantheexpansionsfaster (+15%). newproduction sites(+35%)grew establishment of created. new factories Itshouldbenotedthatthe there were 287expansions toindustrialsitesand50 sites, while 13%were newopenings.Thus, in2019, production activities were expansions topre-existing investments inmanufacturing 76%of A totalof hourly wages. Italy. Thesedifferences reflectgaps inthe dynamics of with 3.8%inGermany, 2.0%inSpainand2.4% year, compared with2.8%onaverage intheeuro zone, in Germany, andithasincreased by only 1.7%inone 2019,some€4lower than €38.70 inthethird quarter of France’s mainEuropean partner countries;itstoodat laborisgrowing much lessquickly thanin cost of Germany). Inthemanufacturing industry, thehourly compared with+7.1%intheeuro zoneand+11.4%in in France thanintheeuro zonesince2012(+5.4%, laborinthemarket sectorhasbeenmore moderate of explained by thattheincrease thefact inthehourly cost French industry ispartly The attractiveness of Chap I_2 Chap EUROPEAN MARKET SHARE(%) MULTINATIONAL FIRMINVESTMENT DECISIONSBY SECTOR (2019) investment projects inEurope in2019. foreign biotechnologies sector,attracting16%of investment and inthepharmaceuticals France isapreferred destinationfor foreign Source: BusinessFrance Europe Observatory, 2020 30 30 1,500 20 20 20 20 20 20 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 8. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph 7. firm investment by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph investment firm by Multinational decisions 6. operations (2019) 1,200 35 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 5. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment by Multinational 4. decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment 3. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) France, United the before and Kingdom of Germany (2009-19) impact crisis the the Graph 1.Comparison of of number changing the foreign investments announced in 2 2 2 2 2 25 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 900 300 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 United Kingdom United Kingdom Automotive United Kingdom FIG.11 Germany 0 France France 2009

Germany France France Germany France France 2010 United Kingdom Netherlands Germany Germany

Machinery &equipment Poland Poland

United Kingdom United Kingdom 2011 Netherlands Germany Spain Spain

Netherlands 2012 Ireland Spain Spain Spain Poland Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands 2013 Ireland Ireland Austria Poland Austria 2014 Italy Italy Italy Spain

Poland Belgium Belgium 2015 Italy Austria Switzerland Belgium Italy Finland Belgium Poland 2016

Belgium Finland Ireland Ireland Ireland Sweden 2017

Sweden Sweden Belgium Finland Austria

Italy 2018

Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland 2019

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

21 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap I_2 Chap Chap I_2 Chap

22 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Source: BusinessFrance Europe Observatory, 2020 EUROPEAN MARKET SHARE(%) MULTINATIONAL FIRMINVESTMENT DECISIONSBY SECTOR (2019) the UnitedKingdom. the foreign investments in In 2019,France hosted13%of Source: BusinessFrance Europe Observatory, 2020 EUROPEAN MARKET SHARE(%) MULTINATIONAL FIRMINVESTMENT DECISIONSBY SECTOR (2019) 30 30 1,500 20 20 20 20 20 20 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 8. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph 7. firminvestment by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph investment firm by Multinational decisions 6. operations (2019) 1,200 30 35 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 5. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment by Multinational 4. decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment 3. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) France, United the before and Kingdom of Germany (2009-19) impact crisis the the Graph 1.Comparison of of number changing the foreign investments announced in 2 2 2 2 2 30 1,500 20 20 20 20 20 20 25 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 8. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph 7. firminvestment by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph investment firm by Multinational decisions 6. operations (2019) 1,200 10 10 10 10 10 10 35 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 5. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment by Multinational 4. decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment 3. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) France, United the before and Kingdom of Germany (2009-19) impact crisis the the Graph 1.Comparison of of number changing the foreign investments announced in 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 25 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 1 1 1 1 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 600 900 300 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 United Kingdom Software &ITservices United Kingdom Chemicals United Kingdom

United Kingdom United Kingdom FIG.13 FIG.12 United Kingdom 0 Germany Germany 0 France software andITservicessector,asimilarlevel to France France France 2009 2009

Germany Germany France France France France Germany Germany France France France France 2010 2010 United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands

Pharmaceuticals Netherlands Germany Germany Germany Germany Poland Poland Poland Poland

United Kingdom 2011 United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 2011 Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Spain Spain Spain Spain 2012 Netherlands Netherlands 2012 Ireland Ireland Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Poland Poland Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands 2013 Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands 2013 Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Austria 2014 Poland Poland Austria Austria 2014 Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Spain Spain 2015 Poland Poland Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium 2015 Italy Italy Austria Austria Switzerland Switzerland Belgium Belgium Italy Italy

Belgium 2016 Finland Finland Belgium Poland Poland 2016

Belgium Belgium Finland Ireland Ireland Finland Ireland Ireland Sweden Sweden Ireland Ireland 2017 2017

Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium Finland Finland Austria Austria 2018 Italy Italy 2018

Austria Austria Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland Finland I_2 Chap 2019 2019

rnfrsm fitsteamsandoperationstoParis. transfer someof in 80newroles; andGoldmanSachs’s decisionto to create anewtradingcenterinParis, resulting 50 jobs; Morgan Stanley’s USfinancialfirm decision company Chubb from London toParis, creating theUSinsurance theheadquarters of relocation of Among themostimportant projects in2019was the in investment projects inthefinancialsector. France, leadingin2019tothere beinga48%growth the sectorhave announcedtheirdecisiontosetup in the financialservicessector. Many key players in first amongthehostcountries for investments in Finally, thankstoBrexit, France isnow ranked 150 jobs. 2019, creating to setupinParis inthefirst quarter of The European BankingAuthority alsoquitLondon Source: BusinessFrance Europe Observatory, 2020 EUROPEAN MARKET SHARE(%) MULTINATIONAL FIRMINVESTMENT DECISIONSBY SECTOR (2019) 30 30 1,500 20 20 20 20 20 20 European market share (%) Graph investment firm 8. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph 7. firminvestment by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph investment firm by Multinational decisions 6. operations (2019) 1,200 35 European market share (%) Graph firminvestment 3. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) France, United the before and Kingdom of Germany (2009-19) impact crisis the the Graph 1.Comparison of of number changing the foreign investments announced in European market share (%) Graph investment firm 5. by Multinational decisions operations (2019) European market share (%) Graph firminvestment by Multinational 4. decisions operations (2019) 2 2 2 2 2 25 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 900 300 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Consulting United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom FIG.14 Germany 0 France France 2009

Germany France France Germany France France 2010 United Kingdom Netherlands

Financialservices Germany Germany Poland Poland

United Kingdom United Kingdom 2011 Netherlands Germany Spain Spain

Netherlands 2012 Ireland Spain Spain Spain Poland Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands 2013 Ireland Ireland Austria Poland Austria 2014 Italy Italy Italy Spain

Poland Belgium Belgium 2015 Italy Austria Switzerland Belgium Italy Finland Belgium Poland 2016

Belgium Finland Ireland Ireland Ireland Sweden 2017

Sweden Sweden Belgium Finland Austria

Italy 2018

Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland 2019

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

23 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 24 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD France’s economy. openness andattractivenessof businesses isfurtherproofofthe the market capitalization of French The shareheldbynon-residentsin to measuretheseeffects. made by group headquarters, enables us in FrancebyINSEEbasedonresponses Statistics) European survey, conducted The IFATS (Inward Foreign Affiliates expenditure inFrance. the creationofvalueaddedandR&D such as employment, contribution to French economy through various channels, in Franceplayanimportantrolethe The subsidiariesofforeignbusinesses OF FOREIGNSUBSIDIARIES TO THEFRENCHECONOMY CONTRIBUTION Chap I_3 Chap 1.3 Source: IFATS, Eurostat NUMBER OFFOREIGNSUBSIDIARIES(2017) jobsinFrance. for more than8%of (3.7 million)andGermany (3.6 million),accounting placing itthird inEurope aftertheUnitedKingdom in revenues each) andemployed 2.2million people, and theUnitedKingdom,witharound €1.5billion €768 millionin2017(third inEurope, afterGermany Kingdom. Thesesubsidiariesgenerated revenues of subsidiaries afterGermany, Romania andtheUnited being thefourth European hostcountry for foreign from theINSEEsubsidiary survey, withFrance 17,000 in2017,according tothelatestdataavailable foreign subsidiariesinFrance stoodat The number of 10 14 1,800 16 1,000 40 300 1,400 60 4.0 40,000 0.0 200 1,600 % Graph Non-resident 6. equity inCAC holdings 40 companies € billion Graph 5. Value by added foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph expenditure R&D 4. by out carried foreign subsidiaries Million Graph 3. Employment generated by foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph Revenues 2. generated by foreign subsidiaries Graph of 1.Number foreign subsidiaries 12 30 50 0.5 1,200 30,000 20 3.0 2.0 20,000 250 100 3.5 2.5 35,000 25,000 10 1.0 10,000 150 0 8 1.5 15,000 4 6 2 0

800 400 50 600 5,000 200 0

United Kingdom FIG.15

Germany 0 1999 Germany 0 Germany Germany 2000 United Kingdom Germany 2001 France United Kingdom United Kingdom

2002

2003 France France Austria 2004 France France

2005 Poland Ireland Netherlands 2006 Italy Italy 2007 Spain Netherlands Italy Netherlands 2008 Italy 2009 Spain Italy 2010 Spain Spain

2011 Netherlands Spain Netherlands

2012 Poland Austria

2013 Finland Poland Austria Norway 2014 Austria

2015 Sweden Poland Norway 2016 Norway Poland

2017 Belgium 2018 Norway Finland Finland Finland

2019 Chap I_3 Chap Chap I_3 Chap MILLION EMPLOYMENT GENERATED BY FOREIGNSUBSIDIARIES Source: IFATS, Eurostat € BILLION REVENUES GENERATED BY FOREIGNSUBSIDIARIES Source: IFATS, Eurostat 10 10 14 14 1,800 1,800 16 16 1,000 1,000 40 40 300 300 1,400 1,400 60 60 4.0 4.0 40,000 40,000 0.0 0.0 200 200 1,600 1,600 % Graph Non-resident 6. equity inCAC holdings 40 companies % Graph Non-resident 6. equity inCAC holdings 40 companies € billion Graph 5. Value by added foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph 5. Value by added foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph expenditure R&D 4. by out carried foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph expenditure R&D 4. by out carried foreign subsidiaries Million Graph 3. Employment generated by foreign subsidiaries Million Graph 3. Employment generated by foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph Revenues 2. generated by foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph Revenues 2. generated by foreign subsidiaries Graph of 1.Number foreign subsidiaries Graph of 1.Number foreign subsidiaries 12 12 30 50 30 50 0.5 0.5 1,200 1,200 30,000 30,000 20 20 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 20,000 20,000 250 250 100 100 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 35,000 35,000 25,000 25,000 10 10 1.0 1.0 10,000 10,000 150 150 0 0 8 8 1.5 1.5 15,000 15,000 4 4 6 6 2 2 0 0 800 800 400 400 50 50 600 600 5,000 5,000 200 200 0 0

United Kingdom United Kingdom FIG.17 FIG.16 0 Germany Germany 0 0 1999 1999 Germany Germany 0 Germany Germany Germany Germany 2000 2000 United Kingdom United Kingdom Germany Germany 2001 2001 France France United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom

2002 2002

2003 2003 France France France France Austria Austria 2004 2004 France France France France

2005 2005 Poland Poland Ireland Ireland Netherlands Netherlands 2006 2006 Italy Italy Italy Italy 2007 2007 Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands Italy Italy Netherlands Netherlands 2008 2008 Italy Italy 2009 2009 Spain Spain Italy Italy 2010 2010 Spain Spain Spain Spain

2011 2011 Netherlands Netherlands Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands

2012 2012 Poland Poland Austria Austria

2013 2013 Finland Finland Poland Poland Austria Austria Norway Norway 2014 2014 Austria Austria

2015 2015 Sweden Sweden Poland Poland Norway Norway 2016 2016 Norway Norway Poland Poland

2017 2017 Belgium Belgium

2018 2018 Norway Norway Finland Finland Finland Finland Finland Finland I_3 Chap

2019 2019 European countriesafterGermany (€14.3billion). amount recorded by Eurostat in2017among in France over theyear. Thisisthesecondhighest thetotalR&Dexpenditure in 2017,ornearly 25%of spent internally by thesesubsidiarieswas €5.9billion the country. R&Dexpenditure Thetotalamountof a significantcontributiontoR&D expenditure across foreign businessesinFrance make The subsidiariesof Source: IFATS, Eurostat € BILLION R&D EXPENDITURECARRIED OUT BY FOREIGNSUBSIDIARIES 10 14 1,800 16 1,000 40 300 1,400 60 4.0 40,000 0.0 200 1,600 % Graph Non-resident 6. equity in CAC holdings 40 companies € billion Graph 5. Value by added foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph expenditure R&D 4. by out carried foreign subsidiaries Million Graph 3. Employment generated by foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph Revenues 2. generated by foreign subsidiaries Graph of 1.Number foreign subsidiaries 12 30 50 0.5 1,200 30,000 20 3.0 2.0 20,000 250 100 3.5 2.5 35,000 25,000 10 1.0 10,000 150 0 8 1.5 15,000 4 6 2 0 800 400 50 600 5,000 200 FIG.18 0 United Kingdom

Germany 0 1999 Germany 0 Germany Germany 2000 United Kingdom Germany 2001 France United Kingdom United Kingdom

2002

2003 France France Austria 2004 France France

2005 Poland Ireland Netherlands 2006 Italy Italy 2007 Spain Netherlands Italy Netherlands 2008 Italy 2009 Spain Italy 2010 Spain Spain

2011 Netherlands Spain Netherlands

2012 Poland Austria

2013 Finland Poland Austria Norway 2014 Austria

2015 Sweden Poland Norway 2016 Norway Poland

2017 Belgium 2018 Norway Finland Finland Finland

2019 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

25 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap I_3 Chap

26 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD € BILLION VALUE ADDED BY FOREIGNSUBSIDIARIES financial services). and theUnitedKingdom(€242million,excluding was third inEurope, afterGermany (€264million) and was €102billion in services, where France United KingdomandIreland (both€88billion), fourth inEurope, afterGermany (€196billion),the manufacturing industry, where France was ranked foreign subsidiarieswas €65billioninthe of value addedcreated, thecontribution of In terms marketplace. theParis who holdashare inthecapitalizationof foreign shareholders economy isthenumber of theFrench Further testamenttotheattractiveness of Source: Eurostat, 2020 10 14 1,800 16 1,000 40 300 1,400 60 4.0 40,000 0.0 200 1,600 € billion Graph Revenues 2. generated by foreign subsidiaries Graph of 1.Number foreign subsidiaries % Graph Non-resident 6. equity inCAC holdings 40 companies € billion Graph 5. Value by added foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph expenditure R&D 4. by out carried foreign subsidiaries Million Graph 3. Employment generated by foreign subsidiaries 12 30 50 0.5 1,200 30,000 20 3.0 2.0 20,000 250 100 3.5 2.5 35,000 25,000 10 1.0 10,000 150 0 8 1.5 15,000 4 6 2 Manufacturingindustry 0 800 400 50 600 5,000 200 FIG.19

0 United Kingdom

Germany 0 1999 Germany 0 Germany Germany 2000 United Kingdom Germany 2001 France United Kingdom United Kingdom

2002

2003 France France Austria 2004 France France

2005 Poland Ireland Netherlands 2006 Services (excluding financialactivities) Italy Italy 2007 Spain Netherlands Italy Netherlands 2008 Italy 2009 Spain Italy 2010 Spain Spain

2011 Netherlands Spain Netherlands

2012 Poland Austria

2013 Finland Poland Austria Norway 2014 Austria

2015 Sweden Poland Norway 2016 Norway Poland

2017 Belgium 2018 Norway Finland Finland Finland I_3 Chap

2019 Source: BanquedeFrance % NON-RESIDENT EQUITY HOLDINGSINCAC 40COMPANIES United Kingdom. with 34%from theUnitedStatesand6%from the resident investors were from theeuro zone, compared non- 43%of made uptheremaining 9%.Atotalof theshare capital), which (participations over 10%of investments (91%)andindividual direct investments holdings intheCAC 40were splitbetween portfolio in 2013(47.8%2013).Non-resident equity 2019, or€686billion,afterhaving reached apeak on theCAC 40amountedto40.8%attheendof non-resident equityholdingsinFrench companies According totheBanquedeFrance, theshare of 10 14 1,800 16 1,000 40 300 1,400 60 4.0 40,000 0.0 200 1,600 % Graph Non-resident 6. equity inCAC holdings 40 companies € billion Graph 5. Value by added foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph expenditure R&D 4. by out carried foreign subsidiaries Million Graph 3. Employment generated by foreign subsidiaries € billion Graph Revenues 2. generated by foreign subsidiaries Graph of 1.Number foreign subsidiaries 12 30 50 0.5 1,200 30,000 20 3.0 2.0 20,000 250 100 3.5 2.5 35,000 25,000 10 1.0 10,000 150 0 8 1.5 15,000 4 6 2 0 800 400 50 600 5,000 200 FIG.20 0 United Kingdom

Germany 0 1999 Germany 0 Germany Germany 2000 United Kingdom Germany 2001 France United Kingdom United Kingdom

2002

2003 France France Austria 2004 France France

2005 Poland Ireland Netherlands 2006 Italy Italy 2007 Spain Netherlands Italy Netherlands 2008 Italy 2009 Spain Italy 2010 Spain Spain

2011 Netherlands Spain Netherlands

2012 Poland Austria

2013 Finland Poland Austria Norway 2014 Austria

2015 Sweden Poland Norway 2016 Norway Poland

2017 Belgium 2018 Norway Finland Finland Finland

2019 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

27 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 28 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD highly qualified foreign workers. attract andfacilitatethe receptionof been putinplacerecent yearsto In addition, several mechanisms have year since2010. around 30% research teams, the CNRS has recruited ensure thisinternationalmixofFrench representing 38% programs linked to research, strongly inhigh-leveltraining ecosystem. Foreign students figure positive impactonthehighereducation of theFrencheconomyhashada The stronginternationaldevelopment second leadingnon-Anglophonenation. Germany and Australia, and was the the United States, the United Kingdom, popular destination in the world after in 2018, France was the fifth most students enrolledintertiaryeducation With nearly 260,000 international and attractiveness. a country’sinternationalreputation talent enhancesasmuchitdetermines The abilitytotrainforeign-born of foreign researchers each offoreignresearcherseach of all PhD students. To ofallPhDstudents.To FOREIGN SKILLS 1.4 non-Anglophone nation. studentsanditisthesecondleading international France isranked fifthinthe world for welcoming 2019, 4.3%more thanin2018. students inFrance was expected toreach 358,000in foreign According toCampusFrance, thenumber of welcoming nearly 260,000students. destinations for thesestudents, witheach country Germany andFrance are themainEuropean students every year. AftertheUnitedKingdom, also EUmembers welcome 1.7millioninternational many students.The23OECDcountriesthatare The European Unionisapreferred destinationfor compared with4.3%amongOECDcountries. increased rate:6.2%peryear atafaster onaverage, undertaking studies inOECDpartner countrieshas foreign students students, butthe number of foreign orinternational receive alarge majorityof year between 1998and2018.TheOECDcountries mobile studentsincreased by 4.8%onaverage per foreign orinternationally in 2005.Thenumber of abroad amountedto5.6million,twiceasmany as studentsintertiary education In 2018,thenumber of

BUSINESS FRANCE

SCORE BOARD

FIG.21 Chap I_4 NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS BY HOST COUNTRY Graph 1. Number of international students By host country top TOP 20 20 (2019) (2019)

700 987 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Japan Spain France Canada Austria Poland Ireland Belgium Sweden Finland AustraliaGermany DenmarkHungary Portugal

Netherlands Switzerland United States New Zealand United Kingdom

Source: OECD, Education at a Glance, 2020

Graph 2. Distribution of international and foreign students by region of origin (2018) %

100 90 80 70 60 “Welcome50 to France” 40 30 plan20 10 0 In November 2018, the Prime Minister the visa policy, an increase in French as particular student’s qualifications and Italy Japan Spain Ireland France Finland Poland Austria Sweden Belgium presented the nationalGermany strategy to a Foreign Language (FFL) courses and their family’s income. Total OECD Total EU23 Netherlands United States attract internationalUnited Kingdom students to the introduction of programs taught in Lastly, the plan sought to improve and France. English. standardize the living conditions for TheGraph 3.objective Proportion of internationalwas to increase students in higherthe educationThe strategy(2019) also provided for an international students by creating a number of new international students increase in tuition fees, with the quality accreditation and to triple the 45 in40 France through a simplification of amount payable dependent on a number of scholarships available. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Japan Spain France Austria Ireland Poland Belgium Sweden Finland Germany

Netherlands United States United Kingdom 30 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD (22%), followed by Europe (17%). foreign studentsinFrance leading source region of European countries(39%).Asiawas thesecond thosestudying inGermany were from other most of France were from Africancountries(50%),while studentsatinstitutionsin international of Half sought-after destinationsby students. international tables league in international are amongthemost teaching establishments achieve highpositions attract foreign studentstoFrance. Countrieswhere tertiary educationsystemare key advantages to theFrench culture andtheexcellent reputation of theFrench language, FrenchThe reputation of students. on thedestinationchoices madeby international Education Area) allhave asignificantinfluence (suchpolitical agreements astheEuropean Higher languages, historic ties, proximity, geographic and Similarities between countries, including shared students from Africa(Cf. Fig. 22). all continentsandinparticular alarge proportion of should benotedthatFrance welcomes studentsfrom theglobal workforce). Itcountries (oraround 5%of mobile studentsinOECDmemberandpartner internationally thenumber of France hosts6%of Chap I_4Chap % Graph of Distribution 2. international andforeign students by region of (2018) origin top 20 (2019) Graph of 1.Number international students Byhost country % REGION OFORIGIN(2018) DISTRIBUTION OFINTERNATIONAL AND FOREIGNSTUDENTS BY Kingdom and10%inGermany. in France, compared with18%intheUnited allstudentsenrolled intertiary education for 9%of In 2018,internationally mobilestudentsaccounted class level, sizeatdegree but22%atPhDlevel. of theclass sizeonshort cycle courses and5% 3% of internationally mobilestudentsaccountedfor only education. higher levels of Students are more mobileat internationally Source: OECD, EducationataGlance, 2020 40 400 600 30 300 500 100 20 200 45 700 Graph of 3. Proportion international students (2019) education inhigher 35 25 10 100 15 80 40 60 90 50 30 0 20 70 North America Asia 5 10 0 0 Netherlands FIG.22 United States United Kingdom Japan 987 United States

Belgium Europe Australia United Kingdom Total OECD United Kingdom Germany

France Africa France Oceania Ireland Canada Sweden Finland NetherlandsJapan

LatinAmérica&Caribbean Germany

Austria Unknown Austria

Ireland Italy Spain Total EU23 United States In tertiary education, Poland Switzerland Sweden Belgium Finland New Zealand France

Poland Denmark Japan Netherlands Hungary

Spain Sweden Austria Germany Portugal Spain Finland Poland Belgium Ireland Chap I_4Chap % Graph of Distribution 2. international andforeign students by region of (2018) origin top 20 (2019) Graph of 1.Number international students Byhost country programs: studentsfollowinginternational advanced research France standsoutfor itsvery highproportion of Source: OECD, Education ataGlance, 2020 EDUCATION (2019) PROPORTION OFINTERNATIONAL STUDENTS INHIGHER teachers from allover the world. publish specificpositions for foreigners andinvite CNRS, many French research centers regularly foreign researchers each year since2010.Like the teams, theCNRS hasrecruited around 30%of FrenchTo research ensure mixof thisinternational PhD-level studentsare from foreign countries. overseas. Conversely, inGermany, only 12%of 1 40 400 600 30 300 500 100 20 200 45 700 Graph of 3. Proportion international students (2019) education inhigher 35 25 10 100 Advanced research equivalent program=degree toaPhD. 15 80 40 60 90 50 30 0 20 70 PhD 5 10 0 0 Netherlands FIG.23 United States United Kingdom Japan 987 United States

Tertiary education Belgium Australia United Kingdom Total OECD Germany United Kingdom 1 3%o itsPhDstudentsare from 38%of France France Ireland Canada Sweden Finland NetherlandsJapan Germany Austria Austria

Ireland Italy Spain Total EU23 United States Poland Switzerland Sweden Belgium Finland New Zealand France

Poland Denmark Japan Netherlands Hungary

Spain Sweden Austria Germany Portugal Spain Finland Poland Belgium Ireland Lebanon, Iran,Morocco andJapan. China, Brazil,India,Algeria, Tunisia, UnitedStates, thefollowing countries: 70% were issuedtonationalsof long-stay visas(durationgreaterthanthree months), and 66%for stays going beyond thistimeframe.For lessthanorequaltothree months 34% were for stays of European UnionortheEuropean EconomicArea: the issued toresearchers who were notnationalsof In France, around 7,150scientificvisasin2019 were highly skilledworkers. the arrival of (+12%), withthedatarelating predominantly to Luxembourg (+29%),Japan (+17%)andFrance the UnitedKingdom(+42%),Finland(+29%), countries recorded double-digit increases, including the of countries for which dataisavailable). Half countries recorded asharpincrease (+13%in inOECD labor migration In 2019,permanent

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

31 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 32 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD o h upsso research, studies, for thepurposes of May 11,2016 Directive 2016/801of It alsoworked toimplementtheEU foreigners inFrance. rights of March 7,2016safeguarding the of the Act decrees for the application of numerous etc.) withthepublication of residence for permits foreign talent, multi-year residence new permits, (creation of to economicmigration the provisions relating inparticular 2017 withtheimplementationof in 2016, the country continued in foreigners in France the rights of thelaw safeguarding After areform of 1 foreign talent Legislation on Diplômeéquivalent audoctorat. 2016, tofour years. can Thispermit residence first created permit, in the “Talent Passport” the durationof andasylumextendedimmigration 10,2018on September The Actof onlinevisaapplications. to facilitate Visas portal went live in October 2017 investors, was launched. The France- businesses, startups andforeign scheme, aimedatattractinginnovative In 2017,the“French Tech Visa” pairs. programs involving studentsandau training, volunteering andexchange

as for aupairs. business creation card, etc.), as well researchers (jobsearch card or students and certain categories of temporary residence for permits The 2018 Act established new requests. processing of the organization of areas for improvement concerning December 17,2019,which presents email was senttotheprefectures on reunification procedure. Adetailed having togo through thefamily family (spouse and children) without the now beissuedtomembers of finforming investors about the of This service created in2017ischarge specificskills). of (intra-group mobilityandrecruitment setup plan and develop their activity employees toFrance to completetheir investors sendthenecessary foreign named the“Welcome Office”,tohelp mobilityservice,an international Business France hasdeveloped job-creating foreign investment, itsmissiontoattract As part of to highereducationestablishments France” label,which willbeawarded France hascreated the“Welcome to system. With thisinmind,Campus ourhighereducation attractiveness of developmentinternational andthe studentsiskeyinternational tothe thecare offered to The qualityof Welcome toFrance label The “WelcometoFrance” settle inFrance. the necessary tosuccessfully steps completing anonlinecourse tolearn com, which offers the possibility of a website, www.welcometofrance. The information isorganized around foreign talentandtheirfamilies. of daily thearrival life) andfacilitating social protection, other aspects of work personal permit, taxation, to F procedures outtocome tobecarried measuring, describingandpromoting for institutions, serving as a tool for anoverall qualityapproach is part of The “Welcome toFrance” certification shown students. tointernational thewelcome to improve the quality of wishing tomake visible theirefforts rance (visa/residence permit/ - - - there were: little over three years inexistence, October 1,2020,andaftera As of receive. when itcomestothewelcome they becoming increasingly demanding students, international who are of institutions, totarget anaudience of for thecommunication andpromotion students. It is usedto international their systemsandservices dedicated team for help. contacted thededicatedsupport 4,114 people and/or businesses generated. 56,731 tailor-made pathways visits permonthonaverage in2019. welcometofrance.com, with50,000 1,385,212 visitors towww. BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

33 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 34 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD ATTRACTIVENESS Infrastructures Research andinnovation Education andhumancapital Energy andgreen growth Quality oflife Cost oflaborandtaxation Financial environment Administrative andregulatory environment Market sizeandstrength CRITERIA ATTRACTIVENESS CHAPTER 02 FRANCE 48 42 36 106 94 80 72 64 56

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

35 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 36 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD France in recent years and their resilience France inrecentyearsandtheirresilience businesses, the strength of investment in that isamongstthehighestinEurope.For population growth and a fertility rate about its future, thanks to its strong France has every reason to be confident it apotentialhubforEuropeandAfrica. multimodal transportinfrastructuremakes France’s central location and high quality, Kingdom. China, Japan, Germany, India and the United largest economy after the United States, In 2019, France was the world’s seventh deciding where to locate. decisive criteria for multinational firms notably byGDP)anditsstrengthareoften The size of a country’s market (measured 1 World EconomicOutlook,October2020, IMF AND STRENGTH MARKET SIZE 2.1 US$24,530 billionfor North America. to beUS$21,620billionin2019,compared with second largest market: EU-28GDP wasestimated Moreover, theEuropean Unionwastheworld’s (US$2,831 billion)(cf. Fig. 1). India (US$2,869billion)andtheUnitedKingdom (US$5,080 billion),Germany (US$3,862 billion), (US$21,433 billion),China(US$14,732 billion), Japan economy (US$2,716billion),aftertheUnitedStates In 2019,France wastheworld’s seventh largest signs of a return to growth. French government, are both encouraging and therecoveryplanpresentedby particular thankstothesupportmeasures in the face of the economic crisis, in

1 AMERICA NORTH AMERICA CENTRAL CURRENT GDP, US$BILLION CURRENT GDP, US$BILLION DISTRIBUTION OFGLOBAL WEALTH (2019) Source: IMF, World EconomicOutlookDatabase, October2020 FIG.24 5,000 23,273 3,500 AMERICA SOUTH 19,900 2,300 AMERICA NORTH AMERICA CENTRAL 760 CURRENT GDP, US$BILLION 15,800 EUROPE 320 5,000 23,273 AMERICA NORTH AFRICA NORTH AMERICA CENTRAL SUB-SAHARAN 3,500 AMERICA AFRICA SOUTH CURRENT GDP, US$BILLION 19,900 TURKEY 5,000 23,273 2,300 MIDDLE EAST 3,500 760 AMERICA SOUTH CURRENT GDP, US$BILLION RUSSIA EUROPE 15,800 CENTRAL EUROPE 320 ASIA 3,860 19,900 2,300 AFRICA NORTH SUB-SAHARAN INDIA AFRICA SOUTH-EAST 760 GREATER CHINA 2,715 ASIA 15,800 TURKEY EUROPE 320 MIDDLE AFRICA NORTH 900 EAST SUB-SAHARAN AUSTRALIA +OCEANIA CURRENT GDP, US$BILLION AFRICA RUSSIA EUROPE CENTRAL SOUTH KOREA ASIA 100 3,860 TURKEY INDIA JAPAN MIDDLE SOUTH-EAST EAST GREATER CHINA 2,715 ASIA CURRENT GDP, US$BILLION RUSSIA EUROPE CENTRAL ASIA 3,860 900 AUSTRALIA +OCEANIA INDIA SOUTH-EAST SOUTH KOREA GREATER 100 CHINA 2,715 ASIA JAPAN 900 AUSTRALIA +OCEANIA SOUTH KOREA 100 JAPAN BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

37 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_1Chap

38 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD taken tocontainit. andthemeasures theepidemic theresurgence of of 2020 asaresult will however slow down attheendof rebound inFrench activity. French economicactivity in placeby thegovernment andthepotentialfor a themeasures put This shows theeffectiveness of epidemic. was however much lessaffected by thecoronavirus activity fell asmuch inFrance asinGermany, which 2020, 2019andthethird quarter of Between theendof in thefirst (-5.9%) andsecond(-13.7%)quarters. theyear (+18.2%),following losses third quarterof In 2020,there wasasolidrebound inactivity inthe in global demand. in exports remaining strong, despitetheslowdown inexportand gains performance. Thishasresulted household consumptionsoaring, solidinvestment (+1.5%) despitetheglobal slowdown, with French continued growth tobebuoyant in2019 % COMPOUND ANNUAL RATE OFREAL GDPGROWTH calculations from dataseriesinlocalcurrencies atconstantprices Source: IMF, World EconomicOutlookDatabase, October2020;Business France 0.8 0.4 0.6 2.0 0.2 10 10 14 Children per woman,Children groups allage per Graph 5. TFertility rate (2018) 10 10 100 14 14 16 120 1.8 Index France =100 France with In comparison Graph Access 4. to EU-28 markets (2019) % Graph 3. Compound annualrate of real GDPgrowth Graph 2. % of global FDIoutflow stock 10 leading economies world Graph 8. Market share of FDIoutflows (2019) % of global exports Market share of 15leading economies Graph 7. exports (2019) Services % of global exports Graph exports -Market (2019) Goods 6. share of 15 leading economies 200 12 1.0 1.4 12 12 1.6 1.2 110 180 100 140 160 80 40 0 8 60 90 0 8 4 4 6 0 0 8 8 120 6 9 4 4 50 6 6 5 3 2 70 2 7 2 2 80 1 40 60 2017 0 United States 20 FIG. 25 United States 0 Ireland China France United Kingdom United States Belgium Janv. 2018 22 Sweden Poland Févr. 2018 Netherlands 2018 Mars 2018 Netherlands United States Germany Germany Avril 2018 Ireland Mai 2018 Netherlands United States Juin 2018

2019 France France pas trouvé Spain Juill. 2018 China United Kingdom Août 2018 Germany Netherlands United Kingdom China Japan Sept. 2018 Netherlands Oct. 2018 United Kingdom France Belgium Nov. 2018 Austria Déc. 2018 South Korea Netherlands Janv. 2019 Ireland Japan France Févr. 2019 Hong Kong Austria Germany United Kingdom Mars 2019 India Avril 2019 Hong Kong Singapore Mai 2019 Austria Ireland Italy Juin 2019 United Kingdom Belgium Juill. 2019 Germany Japan Poland Poland Août 2019 Sweden Sept. 2019 Oct. 2019 Spain Mexico Finland Sweden Nov. 2019 Canada Finland Déc. 2019 Canada Italy Japan Janv. 2020 Switzerland Italy Févr. 2020 Belgium Japan France Italy Mars 2020 Avril 2020 Belgium Spain Germany Russia Spain Mai 2020 Switzerland Luxembourg Juin 2020 Singapore EU-28 Finland Juill. 2020 Italy Août 2020 Sept. 2020 emerge stronger from thiscrisis. in the short-andallow andmedium-term France to France” Plan(seebox) willhelpsupport activity introduce short-time working. The“Relaunch by theStateandpossibilityfor businessesto loansguaranteed ahuge systemof establishment of certain taxclaims madeby businesses, the of contributions andtaxes, quicker reimbursement These include payment for deferrals socialsecurity businesses. measures insupport of deploying asetof recovery iscontained,notably oncetheepidemic by theCovid-19 crisisandallow for amarked impact of on thenecessary resources thenegative tomitigate economicpolicies.Thegovernment hasdrawn goal of Protecting businesses, jobsandskillsistheprimary - French people. between generations, regions, andall employment andguaranteesolidarity and and thuspreserve employment; conditions todevelop theiractivities give businessesthemostfavorable economy; to amore carbon-free andsustainable this plan–tosupport thetransition environment aimof –thestrategic focuses on three main areas: the and worth €100billionover two years, program, launched by thegovernment This unprecedented recovery France” 3,2020. planonSeptember consultation, presented the“Relaunch Prime Minister, following extensive to actively support employment, the economic activity withintwo years and In order toregain thepre-crisis level of “Relaunch France”plan considerations –withgenerated recovery without any environmental emissions,comparedgas witha in adirect reduction ingreenhouse thesemeasures will result Some of soil artificializationfight against transitionandthe the agricultural biodiversity,measures infavor of green energies and technologies, and infrastructure andmobility, aswell as green industrial sites, development of for buildings, decarbonizationof energy renovation measuresof will bebasedontheimplementation transition inallitsdimensions.It €30 billiontofinancetheecological the recovery planwill draw on Environment: Thefirst part of cohesion to competitiveness to to support youth .

- - It will aim to safeguard jobs and as socialandregional cohesion. skills, aswell and development of will bededicatedtothepreservation the plan,amountingto€36billion, Cohesion: Thethird componentof key markets).development of future (financial aid for innovation, the investment inthetechnologies of crisis. Theplanalsoenvisages ahuge that have been weakened by the with aviable model medium-term by banking networks tobusinesses €20 billioninparticipatory loans upto guarantee for of thegranting businesses inFrance; andtheState that seek to bolster the capital of label, topromote investment vehicles the“Relaunch France” creation of companies intwo majorways: the enterprises, SMEs and mid-size micro- and for boosting the capital of taxes (€20 billion over two years), and lasting reduction in production includes measures for asignificant In thisregard, therecovery plan and European economicpower. sectors, andthusconsolidateFrench critical support for therelocation of sensitive products, inthe form of supply for France’s most autonomy of base ininnovative sectors, gain develop theindustrialproductive competitiveness, inparticular to €34 billiontostrengthen businesses’ therecovery planwillallocate of Competitiveness: theprojects. lifetime of onso CO tonnes of savings estimatedat57million 2 throughout the The second part

more prosperous model. competitive, more innovative and France’s economy towardsof amore by acceleratingthetransformations for growth for thenext decade, and investments; butalsoby preparing and by rolling out ambitious public households, the purchasing power of from 2021, in particular by supporting bygrowth 1.5percentage points thesemeasures willincrease All of authorities). urban centers, support for local businessesin revitalization of des Territoires recovery plan, cohesion (digitalinclusion, Banque experiencing poverty) andregional households the purchasing power of strengthen bothsocial(support for Moreover, therecovery planwill healthcare investment measures. theSégur implementation of plan for healthcare, with the It willalsofeature ahuge investment and toboostvocational training. person, onesolution”initiative, the “one young the deployment of young people, through particular of order togenerate recruitment, in accompanied by atrainingplan,in short-time workinglong-term skills through thedeployment of

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

39 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_1Chap

40 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 0.8 0.4 0.6 2.0 0.2 10 10 14 Children per woman,Children groups allage per Graph 5. TFertility rate (2018) 10 10 100 14 14 CEPII Working Paper 2011-25;BusinessFrance calculations Zignago, S. (2011),NotesonCEPII’s distancesmeasures: theGeoDistDatabase, Source: IMF, World EconomicOutlookDatabase, October2020;Mayer, T. & INDEX FRANCE=100 IN COMPARISON WITH FRANCE ACCESS TO EU-28MARKETS(2019) easy accesstootherEuropean markets. where domesticdemandishighandwhere itcanenjoy foreign businesswillbemindedtosetupinFrance, Germany andtheUnitedKingdom.Consequently, a criterion, France was ranked third in2019,aheadof According tothis“accessEU-28markets” thebilateraldistance. inverse of allthecountriesweighted by the theGDPsof sum of acountry canbeestimatedasthe market potentialof market potential.Within theEuropean Union, itsdomesticmarket meanthatithashigh of size Europe andthe France’s locationattheheartof 16 120 1.8 % Graph 3. Compound annualrate of real GDPgrowth Graph 2. % of global exports Graph exports -Market (2019) Goods 6. share of 15leading economies Index France =100 France with In comparison Graph Access 4. to EU-28 markets (2019) % of global FDIoutflow stock 10 leading economies world Graph 8. Market share of FDIoutflows (2019) % of global exports Market share of 15leading economies Graph 7. exports (2019) Services 200 12 1.0 1.4 12 12 1.6 1.2 110 180 100 140 160 80 40 0 8 60 90 0 8 4 4 6 0 0 8 8 120 6 9 4 4 50 6 6 5 3 2 70 2 7 2 2 80 1 40 60 0 United States 20 0 United States FIG. 26 Ireland China France United Kingdom United States Belgium Janv. 2018 22 Sweden Poland Févr. 2018 Netherlands Mars 2018 Netherlands United States Germany Germany Avril 2018 Ireland Mai 2018 Netherlands United States Juin 2018

France France pas trouvé Spain Juill. 2018 China United Kingdom Août 2018 Germany Netherlands United Kingdom China Japan Sept. 2018 Netherlands Oct. 2018 United Kingdom France Belgium Nov. 2018 Austria Déc. 2018 South Korea Netherlands Janv. 2019 Ireland Japan France Févr. 2019 Hong Kong Austria Germany United Kingdom Mars 2019 India Avril 2019 Hong Kong Singapore Mai 2019 Austria Ireland Italy Juin 2019 United Kingdom Belgium Juill. 2019 Germany Japan Poland Poland Août 2019 Sweden Sept. 2019 Oct. 2019 Spain Mexico Finland Sweden Nov. 2019 Canada Finland Déc. 2019 Canada Italy Japan Janv. 2020 Switzerland Italy Févr. 2020 Belgium Japan France Italy Mars 2020 Avril 2020 Belgium Spain Germany Russia Spain Mai 2020 Switzerland Luxembourg Juin 2020 Singapore II_1Chap EU-28 Finland Juill. 2020 Italy Août 2020 Sept. 2020 Source: Eurostat (EU-28)andWorld Bank(UnitedStatesandJapan), 2019 WOMAN,PER CHILDREN ALLGROUPS AGE FERTILITY RATE (2018) two children perwoman (1.9)in2018. and has France alsoenjoys profile, avibrantdemographic 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.2 2.0 10 10 14 Children per woman,Children groups allage per Graph 5. TFertility rate (2018) 10 10 100 14 14 16 120 1.8 % Graph 3. Compound annualrate of real GDPgrowth Graph 2. % of global FDIoutflow stock 10 leading economies world Graph 8. Market share of FDIoutflows (2019) % of global exports Market share of 15leading economies Graph 7. exports (2019) Services % of global exports Graph exports -Market (2019) Goods 6. share of 15leading economies Index France =100 France with In comparison Graph Access 4. to EU-28 markets (2019) 200 12 1.0 1.4 12 12 1.6 1.2 110 180 100 140 160 80 40 0 8 60 90 0 8 4 4 6 0 0 8 8 120 6 9 4 4 50 6 6 5 3 2 70 2 7 2 2 80 1 40 60 0 United States 20 FIG. 27 United States 0 Ireland China France United Kingdom United States Belgium Janv. 2018 METHODOLOGY: 22 Sweden Poland Févr. 2018 Netherlands Netherlands Mars 2018 Europe’s highestfertilitywithnearly rate, United States Germany Germany Avril 2018

Ireland them. weighted bythedistancebetween the GDPofitsneighboringcountries potential isdefinedasthesumof EU-28 markets.Acountry’strade This indicatoriscalculatedfor into consideration. takes acountry’sexternaldemand the conceptoftradepotentialand concept thanGDP.Itissimilarto variable isbasedonabroader The accesstoexternalmarkets ACCESS TOEXTERNALMARKETS Mai 2018 Netherlands United States Juin 2018

France France pas trouvé Spain Juill. 2018 China United Kingdom Août 2018 Germany Netherlands United Kingdom China Japan Sept. 2018 Netherlands Oct. 2018 United Kingdom France Belgium Nov. 2018 Austria Déc. 2018 South Korea Netherlands Janv. 2019 Ireland Japan France Févr. 2019 Hong Kong Austria Germany United Kingdom Mars 2019 India Avril 2019 Hong Kong Singapore Mai 2019 Austria Ireland Italy Juin 2019 United Kingdom Belgium Juill. 2019 Germany Japan Poland Poland Août 2019 Sweden Sept. 2019 Oct. 2019 Spain Mexico Finland Sweden Nov. 2019 Canada Finland Déc. 2019 Canada Italy Japan Janv. 2020 Switzerland Italy Févr. 2020 Belgium Japan France Italy Mars 2020 Avril 2020 Belgium Spain Germany Russia Spain Mai 2020 Switzerland Luxembourg Juin 2020 Singapore EU-28 Finland Juill. 2020 Italy Août 2020 Sept. 2020 Chap II_1Chap the Netherlands (3.7%)andJapan (3.7%). the United States (8.7%), Germany (7.9%), and third inEurope, afterChina(13.2%), revenues, France wasranked sixthintheworld global goodsexport sales In 2019,with3%of into 2019. revenuestrade observed since2012continued of world France’s share The flatteningoutof European nationsare duetoseefalls. it tostabilizeitspopulation,whereas mostothermajor emphasize thatFrance’s highfertility ratewillenable Forecasts lookingaheadto2080(excluding migration) the UnitedKingdom(6.8%)andGermany (5.5%). exports. TheUnitedStates(14%)was top, followed by 4.7%,equivalent toUS$287billionin market share of services,witha leading economy for exports of France maintaineditspositionastheworld’s fourth Source: WTO, 2020;BusinessFrance calculations % OFGLOBAL EXPORTS MARKET SHAREOF15LEADINGECONOMIES GOODS EXPORTS (2019) 0.8 0.4 0.6 2.0 0.2 10 10 14 Children per woman,Children groups allage per Graph 5. TFertility rate (2018) 10 10 100 14 14 16 120 1.8 % of global exports Graph exports -Market (2019) Goods 6. share of 15leading economies Index France =100 France with In comparison Graph Access 4. to EU-28 markets (2019) % Graph 3. Compound annualrate of real GDPgrowth Graph 2. % of global FDIoutflow stock 10 leading economies world Graph 8. Market share of FDIoutflows (2019) % of global exports Market share of 15leading economies Graph 7. exports (2019) Services 200 12 1.0 1.4 12 12 1.6 1.2 110 180 100 140 160 80 40 0 8 60 90 0 8 4 4 6 0 0 8 8 120 6 9 4 4 50 6 6 5 3 2 70 2 7 2 2 80 1 40 60 0 United States 20 FIG. 28 United States 0 Ireland China France United Kingdom United States Belgium Janv. 2018 22 Sweden Poland Févr. 2018 Netherlands Mars 2018 Netherlands United States Germany Germany Avril 2018 Ireland Mai 2018 Netherlands United States Juin 2018

France France pas trouvé Spain Juill. 2018 China United Kingdom Août 2018 Germany Netherlands United Kingdom China Japan Sept. 2018 Netherlands Oct. 2018 United Kingdom France Belgium Nov. 2018 Austria Déc. 2018 South Korea Netherlands Janv. 2019 Ireland Japan France Févr. 2019 Hong Kong Austria Germany United Kingdom Mars 2019 India Avril 2019 Hong Kong Singapore Mai 2019 Austria Ireland Italy Juin 2019 United Kingdom Belgium Juill. 2019 Germany Japan Poland Poland Août 2019 Sweden Sept. 2019 Oct. 2019 Spain Mexico Finland Sweden Nov. 2019 Canada Finland Déc. 2019 Canada Italy Japan Janv. 2020 Switzerland Italy Févr. 2020 Belgium Japan France Italy Mars 2020 Avril 2020 Belgium Spain Germany Russia Spain Mai 2020 Switzerland Luxembourg Juin 2020 II_1Chap II_1Chap Singapore EU-28 Finland Juill. 2020 Italy Août 2020 Sept. 2020 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 2.0 0.2 2.0 0.2 % OFGLOBAL EXPORTS MARKET SHAREOF15LEADINGECONOMIES SERVICES EXPORTS (2019) Source: UNCTAD database, 2020 % OFGLOBAL FDIOUTFLOW STOCK 10 LEADING WORLD ECONOMIES MARKET SHAREOFFDIOUTFLOWS (2019) (5%) andCanada(4.8%). (5.6%), Japan (5.3%),HongKong (5.2%),Germany Netherlands (7%),China(6%),theUnitedKingdom global stocks), aftertheUnitedStates(22%), foreign direct investment (FDI)stocks (4.4%of outward was theeighthlargest of economy interms world’s leadinginvestor countries. In2019,France the France fully embracesglobalization andisoneof Source: WTO, 2020;BusinessFrance calculations 10 10 10 10 14 14 Children per woman,Children groups allage per Graph 5. TFertility rate (2018) woman,Children groups allage per Graph 5. TFertility rate (2018) 10 10 10 10 100 100 14 14 14 14 16 16 120 120 1.8 1.8 Graph 2. % of global exports Market share of 15leading economies % of global exports Graph 7. exports (2019) Services Graph exports -Market (2019) Goods 6. share of 15leading economies % of global exports Graph exports -Market (2019) Goods 6. share of 15leading economies Index France =100 France with In comparison Graph Access 4. to EU-28 markets (2019) Index France =100 % France with In comparison Graph 3. Compound annualrate of real GDPgrowth Graph Access 4. to EU-28 markets (2019) % Graph 3. Compound annualrate of real GDPgrowth Graph 2. % of global FDIoutflow stock 10 leading economies world Graph 8. Market share of FDIoutflows (2019) % of global FDIoutflow stock 10 leading economies world % of global exports Graph 8. Market share of FDIoutflows (2019) Market share of 15leading economies Graph 7. exports (2019) Services 200 200 12 12 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 12 12 12 12 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 110 110 180 180 100 100 140 140 160 160 80 80 40 40 0 0 8 8 60 90 60 90 0 0 8 8 4 4 4 4 6 6 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 120 120 6 9 6 9 4 4 4 4 50 50 6 6 6 6 5 5 3 3 2 2 70 70 2 2 7 7 2 2 2 2 80 80 1 1 40 40 60 60 0 0 20 United States United States 20 0 0 FIG. 29 United States UnitedFIG. 30 States Ireland Ireland China China France France United Kingdom UnitedUnited Kingdom States United States Belgium Belgium Janv. 2018 Janv. 2018 22 22 Sweden Sweden Poland PolandFévr. 2018 Févr. 2018 Netherlands Netherlands Mars 2018 Mars 2018 Netherlands Netherlands United States United States Germany GermanyGermany Germany Avril 2018 Avril 2018 Ireland Ireland Mai 2018 Mai 2018 Netherlands Netherlands United States United States Juin 2018 Juin 2018 pas trouvé France France France France pas trouvé Spain SpainJuill. 2018 Juill. 2018 China China United Kingdom United Kingdom Août 2018 Août 2018 Germany NetherlandsGermany Netherlands United Kingdom United KingdomChina ChinaJapan Japan Sept. 2018 Sept. 2018 Netherlands Netherlands Oct. 2018 Oct. 2018 United Kingdom United Kingdom France France Belgium Belgium Nov. 2018 Nov. 2018 Austria AustriaDéc. 2018 Déc. 2018 South Korea South Korea Netherlands Netherlands Janv. 2019 Janv. 2019 Ireland Ireland Japan Japan France FranceFévr. 2019 Févr. 2019 Hong Kong Hong Kong Austria Austria Germany Germany United Kingdom United KingdomMars 2019 Mars 2019 India India Avril 2019 Avril 2019 Hong Kong Hong Kong Singapore Singapore Mai 2019 Mai 2019 Austria Austria Ireland Ireland Italy Italy Juin 2019 Juin 2019 United Kingdom United Kingdom Belgium BelgiumJuill. 2019 Juill. 2019 Germany GermanyJapan Japan Poland Poland Poland Poland Août 2019 Août 2019 Sweden SwedenSept. 2019 Sept. 2019 Oct. 2019 Oct. 2019 Spain SpainMexico Mexico Finland Finland Sweden Sweden Nov. 2019 Nov. 2019 Canada Canada Finland FinlandDéc. 2019 Déc. 2019 Canada Canada Italy Italy Japan Japan Janv. 2020 Janv. 2020 Switzerland Switzerland Italy Italy Févr. 2020 Févr. 2020 Belgium Belgium Japan Japan France France Italy Italy Mars 2020 Mars 2020 Avril 2020 Avril 2020 Belgium Belgium Spain GermanySpain Germany Russia Russia Spain Spain Mai 2020 Mai 2020 Switzerland SwitzerlandLuxembourg Luxembourg Juin 2020 Juin 2020 Singapore Singapore EU-28 EU-28 Finland Finland Juill. 2020 Juill. 2020 Italy ItalyAoût 2020 Août 2020 Sept. 2020 Sept. 2020 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

41 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 42 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD OECD countriesin2019. highest productivitypercapitaamong highest in the world, with the ninth productivity inFranceisoneofthe workforce and a stronger economy. Labor This resultsinamoreproductive mobility. but alsotofacilitateretrainingand especially for the less qualified, future. Vocational training is essential, attitudes tobuildthesocietyof a broad range of knowledge, skills and provision enablesstudentstoacquire attractiveness. Tertiaryeducation country’s competitivenessandinvestment research areallkeydriversofa Training, tertiary education and consolidate its scientific skills base. to maintainitscompetitiveadvantageand tertiary educationandlifelonglearning and continues to invest in education, France has a highly qualified workforce AND HUMANCAPITAL EDUCATION Chap II_2 Chap 2.2 United Kingdom 480 440 460 500 40 40 540 60 60 fGDPinvested intertiary education. of GDPin2017,with1.5% equated to5.2%of education: economic power, France invests heavily in Keen toconsolidateitspositionasaglobal future productivity. aneconomy’syounger determines generation Investment for ineducationandtraining the Source: OECD, Education ataGlance, 2019 * Datafor 2016 % OFGDP TOTAL EXPENDITURE*ONEDUCATION (2017) 10 18 20 420 100 Classement parordreClassement décroissant score du moyen Graph élèves des Niveau 4. 15ans(2018) de performance de 14 30 50 30 50 0 16 -1 -1 20 20 4 6 200,000 520 % of economically active 25- to% of 64-year-olds 25- economically active graduates Persons employed and/or education technology inscience and tertiary Graph 7. Humanresources (2019) technology and inscience % of pupils ranked by level In descending order of mean score Graph literacy 5. of Scientific students 15-year-old (2018) % of to 18- 24-year-olds Graph 3. Early leavers from andtraining education % of category age Graph Enrolment 2. rate (2018) % of GDP Graph 1.Total expenditure* (2017) oneducation % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 10. Trends productivity inlabor employee* per àPPAEn US$ l’économie de -Ensemble Graph 9. horaire Productivité dutravail* (2019) forcePer labor thousand Graph 8. (2018) personnel R&D % of category age Graph Tertiary 6. graduates education (2019) % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 11.Trends productivity* labor inhourly 70 70 25 12 5 0 0 10 3 2 4 4 7 10 10 100,000 5 5 15 3 3 2 2 1 150,000 0 8 80 4 40 6 60 90 125,000 1 1 175,000 30 50 United States 2 0 20 70 0 0 5 10 50,000 75,000 Allvl feducation Alllevels of 0 Netherlands

United Kingdom Poland FIG. 31 Poland Finland Sweden Japan Germany Spain Ireland Belgium Sweden

Finland Japan Austria Poland Ireland France Japan Spain United States Ireland Ireland Austria Italy Ireland Finland Ireland United States Finland Italy France United States United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 Japan Belgium Poland Belgium Netherlands Sweden Belgium United States expenditure oneducationinFrance Sweden 10 Belgium United States Ireland Germany Sweden Austria Ireland Sweden Netherlands United Kingdom France Netherlands 20 Belgium Spain France France Germany France Austria Netherlands Tertiary education Sweden Sweden United Kingdom Sweden 30 Finland Belgium France Belgium Ireland Netherlands Germany Netherlands France Sweden 40 Austria Spain Belgium France France Finland United Kingdom Belgium Germany Netherlands Italy Austria

Austria 50 Italy Germany Austria Japan* Ireland* Netherlands Spain Belgium Germany Finland

Italy Italy 60 United States United Kingdom Italy United Kingdom Poland Austria Poland Japan pas trouvé Japan Sweden Netherlands Poland Germany Finland 70 France Spain Spain Spain Spain Poland Poland Germany Germany Spain Austria 80 Austria Finland Japan Poland United States* Ireland Netherlands Germany Finland Poland Italy Italy Finland 90 Italy United States a EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Spain Japan

EU-28 Italy 100 Chap II_2 Chap United Kingdom 480 440 460 Source: OECD, Education ataGlance, 2020 * Datafor 2015for the15-to19-year-old group % OF AGE CATEGORY ENROLMENT RATE (2018) the2020school year. start of or employment. Thissystemwas introduced atthe in asituationwhere they are notineducation,training 18, sothatnopupilsare left education andtrainingof recently introduced aminimum agefor leaving 16 andnow from asyoung asthree. Thegovernment schooling being compulsory inFrance uptotheageof The lower ratefor 15-to19-year-olds isaresult of while the15-to19-year-old category managed87%. categories achieved a100%enrollment ratein2018, 2018. The3-to4-year-old and5-to14-year-old age schooling inFrance were veryLevels highin of and educationalachievement. in statisticsonschooling, participationineducation, for thegovernment. France’s commitmentisreflected Increasing humancapitalandeducationare priorities 500 40 40 540 60 60 10 18 20 420 100 Classement parordreClassement décroissant score du moyen Graph élèves des Niveau 4. 15ans (2018) de performance de 14 30 50 30 50 0 16 -1 -1 20 20 4 6 200,000 520 % of economically active 25- to% of 64-year-olds 25- economically active graduates Persons employed and/or education technology inscience and tertiary Graph 7. Humanresources (2019) technology and inscience % of category age Graph Tertiary 6. graduates education (2019) % of pupils ranked by level In descending order of mean score Graph literacy 5. of Scientific students 15-year-old (2018) % of to 18- 24-year-olds Graph 3. Early leavers from andtraining education % of category age Graph Enrolment 2. rate (2018) % of GDP Graph 1.Total expenditure* (2017) oneducation % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 11.Trends productivity* labor inhourly % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 10. Trends productivity inlabor employee* per àPPAEn US$ l’économie de -Ensemble Graph 9. horaire Productivité dutravail* (2019) forcePer labor thousand Graph 8. (2018) personnel R&D 70 70 25 12 5 0 0 10 3 2 4 4 7 10 10 100,000 5 5 15 3 3 2 2 1 150,000 0 8 80 4 40 6 60 90 125,000 1 1 175,000 30 50 United States 2 0 20 70 0 0 5 10 50,000 75,000 3-4years 0 Netherlands

FIG. 32 United Kingdom Poland Poland Finland Sweden Japan Germany Spain Ireland Belgium Sweden

Finland Japan Austria Poland Ireland France Japan Spain United States Ireland Ireland Austria Italy Ireland Finland Ireland United States Finland Italy France United States United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 Japan Belgium Poland 5-14years Belgium Netherlands Sweden Belgium United States Sweden 10 Germany Belgium Sweden United States Ireland Ireland Austria United Kingdom France Sweden Netherlands Netherlands 20 Belgium Spain France France France Germany Austria Netherlands 15-19years Sweden Sweden United Kingdom Sweden 30 Finland Belgium France Belgium Ireland Netherlands Germany Netherlands France Sweden 40 Austria Spain Belgium France France Finland United Kingdom Belgium Germany Netherlands Italy Austria

Austria 50 Italy Germany Austria Japan* Ireland* Netherlands Spain Belgium Germany Finland

Italy Italy 60 United States United Kingdom Italy United Kingdom Poland Austria Poland Japan pas trouvé Japan Sweden Netherlands Poland Germany Finland 70 France Spain Spain Spain Spain Poland Poland Germany Germany Spain Austria 80 Austria Finland Japan Poland United States* Ireland Netherlands Germany Finland Poland Italy Italy Finland 90 Italy United States a

EU-28 II_2 Chap EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Spain Japan

EU-28 Italy 100

United Kingdom 480 440 460 % OF18- TO 24-YEAR-OLDS EARLY LEAVERS FROMEDUCATION AND TRAINING and below theEU-28average (10.3%). Germany (10.3%)andtheUnitedKingdom(10.9%), percentage to8.2%in2019,lower hadfallen thanin 11%until2012,this France. Having beeninexcess of earlyeducation andtraining isfallingsharply in young peopledropping outof The percentage of United Kingdom(9.7%). (4.2%), andlower thanGermany (10%)andthe (5.9%), buthigherthanItaly (2.8%)andSpain This isasimilarlevel to Austria (6.3%)andIreland students achieved thetwo highestlevels in 2018. As regards 15 scientificliteracy, year-old 6.5%of Austria. with theaverage, similartotheUnitedStatesand old students(PISAsurvey) putsFrance inline 15-year- of theperformance An assessmentof Source: Eurostat, 2020 500 40 40 540 60 60 10 18 20 420 100 Classement parordreClassement décroissant score du moyen Graph élèves des Niveau 4. 15 ans(2018) de performance de 14 30 50 30 50 0 16 -1 -1 20 20 4 6 200,000 520 % of economically active 25- to% of 64-year-olds 25- economically active graduates Persons employed and/or education technology inscience and tertiary Graph 7. Humanresources (2019) technology and inscience % of pupils ranked by level In descending order of mean score Graph literacy 5. of Scientific students 15-year-old (2018) % of to 18- 24-year-olds Graph 3. Early leavers from andtraining education % of category age Graph Enrolment 2. rate (2018) % of GDP Graph 1.Total expenditure* (2017) oneducation Per thousand labor forcePer labor thousand Graph 8. (2018) personnel R&D % of category age Graph Tertiary 6. graduates education (2019) % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 11.Trends productivity* labor inhourly % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 10. Trends productivity inlabor employee* per àPPAEn US$ l’économie de -Ensemble Graph 9. horaire Productivité dutravail* (2019) 70 70 25 12 5 0 0 10 3 2 4 4 7 10 10 100,000 5 5 15 3 3 2 2 1 150,000 0 8 80 4 40 6 60 90 125,000 1 1 175,000 30 50 United States 2 0 20 70 0 0 5 10 50,000 75,000 2019 0 Netherlands

FIG. 33 United Kingdom Poland Poland Finland Sweden Japan Germany Spain Ireland Belgium Sweden

Finland Japan Austria Poland Ireland France Japan Spain United States Ireland Ireland Austria Italy Ireland Finland Ireland United States Finland 2013 Italy France United States United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 Japan Belgium Poland Belgium Netherlands Sweden Belgium United States Sweden 10 Germany Belgium Sweden United States Ireland Ireland Austria United Kingdom France Sweden Netherlands Netherlands 20 Belgium Spain France France Germany France Austria Netherlands Sweden Sweden United Kingdom Sweden 30 Finland Belgium France Belgium Ireland Netherlands Germany Netherlands France Sweden 40 Austria Spain Belgium France France Finland United Kingdom Belgium Germany Netherlands Italy Austria

Austria 50 Italy Germany Austria Japan* Ireland* Netherlands Spain Belgium Germany Finland

Italy Italy 60 United States United Kingdom Italy United Kingdom Poland Austria Poland Japan pas trouvé Japan Sweden Netherlands Poland Germany Finland 70 France Spain Spain Spain Spain Poland Poland Germany Germany Spain Austria 80 Austria Finland Japan Poland United States* Ireland Netherlands Germany Finland Poland Italy Italy Finland 90 Italy United States a EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Spain Japan

EU-28 Italy 100 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

43 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_2 Chap

44 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD % OFPUPILSRANKEDBY LEVEL IN DESCENDINGORDEROFMEANSCORE SCIENTIFIC LITERACY OF15-YEAR-OLD STUDENTS (2018) and Finland(41.8%). and higherthaninGermany (33.3%),Italy (27.7%) the UnitedKingdom(51.8%)andIreland (55.4%), (47.3%) andinSweden (48.4%),butlower thanin qualification in2019,similartothelevel inBelgium people inthisagecategory atertiary gained education is particularly highly qualified in 48.1%of France: Consequently, democratized laterinFrance, which hassincecaughtup. difference is duetoaccesstertiary educationbeing (47.2%), buthigherthaninGermany (30%).This the UnitedStates(48.4%)andKingdom had tertiaryeducationqualifications,lower thanin 25-to64-year-olds inFrance In 2019,37.9%of Source: OECD2019,PISAresults 2018(Volume I) United Kingdom 480 440 460 500 40 40 540 60 60 10 18 20 420 100 Classement parordreClassement décroissant score du moyen Graph élèves des Niveau 4. 15ans(2018) de performance de 14 30 50 30 50 0 16 -1 -1 20 20 4 6 200,000 520 % of economically active 25- to% of 64-year-olds 25- economically active graduates Persons employed and/or education technology inscience and tertiary Graph 7. Humanresources (2019) technology and inscience % of category age Graph Enrolment 2. rate (2018) % of GDP Graph 1.Total expenditure* (2017) oneducation Per thousand labor forcePer labor thousand Graph 8. (2018) personnel R&D % of category age Graph Tertiary 6. graduates education (2019) % of pupils ranked by level In descending order of mean score Graph literacy 5. of Scientific students 15-year-old (2018) % of to 18- 24-year-olds Graph 3. Early leavers from andtraining education % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 11.Trends productivity* labor inhourly % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 10. Trends productivity inlabor employee* per àPPAEn US$ l’économie de -Ensemble Graph 9. horaire Productivité dutravail* (2019) 70 70 25 12 5 0 0 10 3 2 4 4 7 10 10 100,000 5 5 15 3 3 2 2 1 150,000 0 8 80 4 40 6 60 90 125,000 1 1 175,000 30 50 United States 2 0 20 70 0 0 5 10 50,000 Level 4

Finland Japan Austria Poland Ireland France Japan Spain United States Ireland Ireland Austria Italy Ireland Finland Ireland United States Finland Italy France United States United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 0

United Kingdom Level 5 Japan Belgium Level 1 Poland Belgium Netherlands Sweden Belgium United States Sweden 10 Belgium United States Ireland Germany Sweden Ireland 25-to34-year-olds the populationof Austria United Kingdom France Sweden Netherlands Level 6 Netherlands 20 Level 2 Belgium Spain France France Germany France Austria Netherlands Sweden Sweden United Kingdom Sweden 30 Finland Belgium France Belgium Ireland Netherlands Germany Netherlands France Sweden Level 3 40 Austria Spain Belgium France France Finland United Kingdom Belgium Germany Netherlands Italy Austria

Austria 50 Italy Germany Austria Japan* Ireland* Netherlands Spain Belgium Germany Finland

Italy Italy 60 United States United Kingdom Italy United Kingdom Poland Austria Poland Japan pas trouvé Japan Sweden Netherlands Poland Germany Finland 70 France Spain Spain Spain Spain Poland Poland Germany Germany Spain Austria 80 Austria Finland Japan Poland United States* Ireland Netherlands Germany Finland Poland Italy Italy Finland 90 Italy United States a

EU-28 II_2 Chap EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Spain Japan

EU-28 Italy 100 % OF AGE CATEGORY TERTIARY EDUCATION GRADUATES (2019) igo 5.% u ha fGermany (50.3%). Kingdom (59.1%)butaheadof theworking population,aftertheUnited of and technology accountfor asignificantproportion thecountrieswhere human resources insciences of working populationin2019(53.4%).France isone the In France, HRSTaccountedfor over half qualifications. technological occupations requiring advanced theygraduates, include peopleinscientificand based economies.Asidefrom tertiary education (HRST) Human resources inscienceandtechnology Source: OECD, EducationataGlance, 2020 United Kingdom 480 440 460 500 40 40 540 60 60 10 18 20 420 100 Classement parordreClassement décroissant score du moyen Graph élèves des Niveau 4. 15ans(2018) de performance de 14 30 50 30 50 0 16 -1 -1 20 20 4 6 200,000 520 % of economically active 25- to% of 64-year-olds 25- economically active graduates Persons employed and/or education technology inscience and tertiary Graph 7. Humanresources (2019) technology and inscience % of GDP Graph 1.Total expenditure* (2017) oneducation % of category age Graph Tertiary 6. graduates education (2019) % of pupils ranked by level In descending order of mean score Graph literacy 5. of Scientific students 15-year-old (2018) % of to 18- 24-year-olds Graph 3. Early leavers from andtraining education % of category age Graph Enrolment 2. rate (2018) % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 11.Trends productivity* labor inhourly % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 10. Trends productivity inlabor employee* per àPPAEn US$ l’économie de -Ensemble Graph 9. horaire Productivité dutravail* (2019) forcePer labor thousand Graph 8. (2018) personnel R&D 70 70 25 12 5 0 0 10 3 2 4 4 7 10 10 100,000 5 5 15 3 3 2 2 1 150,000 0 8 80 4 40 6 60 90 125,000 1 1 175,000 30 50 United States 2 0 20 70 0 0 5 10 50,000 25-34year-olds 75,000 0 Netherlands FIG. 35 United Kingdom Poland Poland Finland Sweden Japan Germany Spain Ireland Belgium Sweden

Finland Japan Austria Poland Ireland France Japan Spain United States Ireland Ireland Austria Italy Ireland Finland Ireland United States Finland Italy France United States United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 r n f h e rvr fknowledge- thekey drivers of are oneof Japan Belgium Poland Belgium Netherlands Sweden Belgium United States Sweden 10 Belgium United States Ireland Germany Sweden Ireland 25-64year-olds Austria United Kingdom France Sweden Netherlands Netherlands 20 Belgium Spain France France Germany France Austria Netherlands Sweden Sweden United Kingdom Sweden 30 Finland Belgium France Belgium Ireland Netherlands Germany Netherlands France Sweden 40 Austria Spain Belgium France France Finland United Kingdom Belgium Germany Netherlands Italy Austria

Austria 50 Italy Germany Austria Japan* Ireland* Netherlands Spain Belgium Germany Finland

Italy Italy 60 United States United Kingdom Italy United Kingdom Poland Austria Poland Japan pas trouvé Japan Sweden Netherlands Poland Germany Finland 70 France Spain Spain Spain Spain Poland Poland Germany Germany Spain Austria 80 Austria Finland Japan Poland United States* Ireland Netherlands Germany Finland Poland Italy Italy Finland 90 Italy United States a EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Spain Japan

EU-28 Italy 100 Chap II_2 Chap ihart f19.5%. with arateof adults (25-64years) undertaking vocational training, above theEuropean average of (10.8%)interms retraining. According toEurostat data,France is an additional€3billiontopreserve skillsandpromote the“Relaunch France” plan,itisinvestingAs part of unemployedterm through theSkillsInvestment Plan. training for low-skilled young peopleandthe long- 2022 tostrengthen themeans topromote accessto France isalsoinvesting €15billionbetween 2018and €8,000 for theleastqualified. €5,000,andwith€800uptoaceilingof ceiling of annually with€500for full-timeemployees uptoa to offer apersonal trainingaccount,which iscredited theonly countriesin theworld such, France isoneof freedom tochoose theirprofessional future. As individuals, notably through theActfor the committed tostrengthening theskillsof vocational training, France is of In terms United Kingdom(9.1)andtheStates(8.9). a similarlevel toGermany (10),andbetterthanthe theworking populationin2018, 1,000 members of researchers, with10.3researchers per of France isalsowell placedfor numbers Source: Eurostat, 2020 % OFECONOMICALLY ACTIVE 25- TO 64-YEAR-OLDS HUMAN RESOURCESINSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2019) United Kingdom 480 440 460 500 40 40 540 60 60 10 18 20 420 100 Classement parordreClassement décroissant score du moyen Graph élèves des Niveau 4. 15ans(2018) de performance de 14 30 50 30 50 0 16 -1 -1 20 20 4 6 200,000 520 % of economically active 25- to% of 64-year-olds 25- economically active graduates Persons employed and/or education technology inscience and tertiary Graph 7. Humanresources (2019) technology and inscience % of GDP Graph 1.Total expenditure* (2017) oneducation Per thousand labor forcePer labor thousand Graph 8. (2018) personnel R&D % of category age Graph Tertiary 6. graduates education (2019) % of pupils ranked by level In descending order of mean score Graph literacy 5. of Scientific students 15-year-old (2018) % of to 18- 24-year-olds Graph 3. Early leavers from andtraining education % of category age Graph Enrolment 2. rate (2018) % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 11.Trends productivity* labor inhourly % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 10. Trends productivity inlabor employee* per àPPAEn US$ l’économie de -Ensemble Graph 9. horaire Productivité dutravail* (2019) 70 70 25 12 5 0 0 10 3 2 4 4 7 10 10 100,000 5 5 15 3 3 2 2 1 150,000 0 8 80 4 40 6 60 90 125,000 1 1 175,000 30 50 United States 2 0 20 70 0 0 5 2013 10 50,000 75,000 0 Netherlands FIG. 36 United Kingdom Poland Poland Finland Sweden Japan Germany Spain Ireland Belgium Sweden

Finland Japan Austria Poland Ireland France Japan Spain United States

Ireland Italy Ireland Ireland Austria Ireland 2019 Finland United States Finland Italy France United States United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 Japan Belgium Poland Belgium Netherlands Sweden Belgium United States Sweden 10 Germany Belgium Sweden United States Ireland Ireland Austria United Kingdom France Sweden Netherlands Netherlands 20 Belgium Spain France France Germany France Austria Netherlands Sweden Sweden United Kingdom Sweden 30 Finland Belgium France Belgium Ireland Netherlands Germany Netherlands France Sweden 40 Austria Spain Belgium France France Finland United Kingdom Belgium Germany Netherlands Italy Austria

Austria 50 Italy Germany Austria Japan* Ireland* Netherlands Spain Belgium Germany Finland

Italy Italy 60 United States United Kingdom Italy United Kingdom Poland Austria Poland Japan pas trouvé Japan Sweden Netherlands Poland Germany Finland 70 France Spain Spain Spain Spain Poland Poland Germany Germany Spain Austria 80 Austria Finland Japan Poland United States* Ireland Netherlands Germany Finland Poland Italy Italy Finland 90 Italy United States a

Chap II_2 Chap Chap II_2 Chap EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Spain Japan

EU-28 Italy 100 United Kingdom 480 440 460 Source: OECD(MSTI),2019 PER THOUSAND LABORFORCE R&D PERSONNEL (2018) Source: Eurostat % AND TRAINING BY 25- TO 64-YEAR-OLDS PARTICIPATION RATE INEDUCATION a * Datafor 2017 500 40 40 540 60 60 40 10 18 20 420 100 Classement parordreClassement décroissant score du moyen Graph élèves des Niveau 4. 15ans(2018) de performance de Ensemble de l'économie de Ensemble travail, du Productivité àPPA enUSD employé) paractifs (PIB rateParticipation training and ineducation to by 64-year-olds 25- 14 30 50 30 50 0 200,000 100,000 16 30 -1 -1 20 20 4 6 200,000 20 520 % of economically active 25- to% of 64-year-olds 25- economically active graduates Persons employed and/or education technology inscience and tertiary Graph 7. Humanresources (2019) technology and inscience % of pupils ranked by level In descending order of mean score Graph literacy 5. of Scientific students 15-year-old (2018) % of to 18- 24-year-olds Graph 3. Early leavers from andtraining education % of category age Graph Enrolment 2. rate (2018) % of GDP Graph 1.Total expenditure* (2017) oneducation Per thousand labor forcePer labor thousand Graph 8. (2018) personnel R&D % of category age Graph Tertiary 6. graduates education (2019) % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 11.Trends productivity* labor inhourly % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 10. Trends productivity inlabor employee* per àPPAEn US$ l’économie de -Ensemble Graph 9. horaire Productivité dutravail* (2019) 70 70 25 12 5 0 0 10 3 150,000 2 35 4 4 7 25 10 10 100,000 10 5 5 125,000 15 3 3 2 2 175,000 1 150,000 15 0 8 80 4 40 6 60 90 125,000 Dt nyaalbefrtenme fresearchers Dataonly available for thenumberof 1 1 175,000 30 50 United States 2 0 20 50,000 70 0 0 0 5 10 50,000 75,000 5 75,000 Researchers 0 Netherlands FIG. 37 FIG. 38 United Kingdom Poland Poland Finland Sweden Sweden Japan Germany Spain Ireland Belgium Sweden

Finland Japan Austria Poland Ireland France Japan Spain United States Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Italy Ireland Finland Ireland United States Finland United States Finland Italy France United States United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 Japan Belgium Poland Belgium France Netherlands

Sweden Belgium Belgium Technicians andsupport personnel United States Sweden 10 Netherlands Germany Belgium Sweden United States Ireland Ireland Austria Austria United Kingdom France Sweden Netherlands United Kingdom Netherlands 20 Belgium Spain France France France Germany France Austria Netherlands Sweden Sweden Sweden United Kingdom Sweden 30 Finland Belgium France Belgium Austria Ireland Netherlands Netherlands Germany Netherlands France Sweden Belgium 40 Austria Spain Ireland France France Finland Finland United Kingdom Belgium Germany Netherlands Italy Austria

Austria 50 Germany Italy Germany Austria Spain Japan* Ireland* Netherlands Spain Belgium Germany Finland

Italy Belgium Italy 60 United States United Kingdom Italy United KingdomItaly United Kingdom Poland Austria Poland Japan pas trouvé Japan Sweden Netherlands Germany Poland Germany Finland 70 France Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Poland Poland Germany Germany Italy Spain Austria 80 Austria Finland Japan Poland Japan United States* Netherlands Ireland Finland pas trouvé Poland Germany Poland Italy Italy Poland Finland 90 Italy United States a EU average EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Spain Japan

EU-28 Italy 100 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

45 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_2 Chap

46 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD United Kingdom 480 440 460 500 40 40 540 60 60 and taxation”section). France by 0.4%and0.6%,respectively (see“Costs per employee andhourly labor productivity grewin crisis years (2007to2008).In2019,productivity productivity declined togrow only +1%duringthe +1.5% and+2%peryear inthe1990s, hourly developed countries. Aftergrowing atbetween slowedhas gradually inFrance, asithasinmany inhourlySince the1990s,growth productivity requirement for productivity growth. more innewtechnologies, which are anessential well-educated active population,businessescaninvest a sample) in2019.Thankstothecapacityadaptof productivity peremployee intheworld (fifthinour productivity, withtheninth-highesthourlyof theworld’s highestlevelsFrance hasoneof Thanks tothishighly qualified workforce, TOTAL ECONOMY -US$ AT PPP LABOR PRODUCTIVITY PEREMPLOYEE* (2019) Source: OECD, November 2020;BusinessFrance calculations * GDPperperson employed 10 18 20 420 100 Classement parordreClassement décroissant score du moyen Graph élèves des Niveau 4. 15ans(2018) de performance de 14 30 50 30 50 0 16 -1 -1 20 20 4 6 200,000 520 % of economically active 25- to% of 64-year-olds 25- economically active graduates Persons employed and/or education technology inscience and tertiary Graph 7. Humanresources (2019) technology and inscience % of GDP Graph 1.Total expenditure* (2017) oneducation % of pupils ranked by level In descending order of mean score Graph literacy 5. of Scientific students 15-year-old (2018) % of to 18- 24-year-olds Graph 3. Early leavers from andtraining education % of category age Graph Enrolment 2. rate (2018) % Compound annual rate of growth – Total economy Graph 11. Trends productivity* labor in hourly % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 10. Trends productivity inlabor employee* per àPPAEn US$ l’économie de -Ensemble Graph 9. horaire Productivité dutravail* (2019) forcePer labor thousand Graph 8. (2018) personnel R&D % of category age Graph Tertiary 6. graduates education (2019) 70 70 25 12 5 0 0 10 3 2 4 4 7 10 10 100,000 5 5 15 3 3 2 2 1 150,000 0 8 80 4 40 6 60 90 125,000 1 1 175,000 30 50 United States 2 0 20 70 0 0 5 10 50,000 75,000 2014 0 Netherlands United Kingdom Poland FIG. 39 Poland Finland Sweden Japan Germany Spain Ireland Belgium Sweden

Finland Japan Austria Poland Ireland France Japan Spain United States Ireland Ireland Austria Italy Ireland Finland Ireland 2019 United States Finland Italy France United States United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 Japan Belgium Poland Belgium Netherlands Sweden Belgium United States Sweden 10 Germany Belgium Sweden United States Ireland Ireland Austria United Kingdom France Sweden Netherlands Netherlands 20 Belgium Spain France France Germany France Austria Netherlands Sweden Sweden United Kingdom Sweden 30 Finland Belgium France Belgium Ireland Netherlands Germany Netherlands France Sweden 40 Austria Spain Belgium France France Finland United Kingdom Belgium Germany Netherlands Italy Austria

Austria 50 Italy Germany Austria Japan* Ireland* Netherlands Spain Belgium Germany Finland

Italy Italy 60 United States United Kingdom Italy United Kingdom Poland Austria Poland Japan pas trouvé Japan Sweden Netherlands

Poland Germany Finland 70 France Spain Spain Spain Spain Poland Poland Germany Germany Spain Austria 80 Austria Finland Japan Poland United States* Ireland Netherlands Germany Finland Poland Italy Italy Finland 90 Italy United States a

Chap II_2 Chap

EU-28 II_2 Chap EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Spain Japan

EU-28 Italy 100 United Kingdom 480 440 460 500 40 40 540 60 60 United Kingdom 480 10 18 440 20 420 100 Classement parordreClassement décroissant score du moyen Graph élèves des Niveau 4. 15ans(2018) de performance de 460 14 30 50 30 50 0 16 % COMPOUND ANNUAL RATE OFGROWTH– TOTAL ECONOMY TRENDS INLABORPRODUCTIVITY PEREMPLOYEE* Source: OECD, November 2020;BusinessFrance calculations * GDPperhourworked % COMPOUND ANNUAL RATE OFGROWTH– TOTAL ECONOMY TRENDS INHOURLY LABORPRODUCTIVITY* Source: OECD, November 2020;BusinessFrance calculations * GDPperperson employed -1 -1 20 20 4 500 40 40 6 540 200,000 520 60 60 % of economically active 25- to% of 64-year-olds 25- economically active graduates Persons employed and/or education technology inscience and tertiary Graph 7. Humanresources (2019) technology and inscience % of pupils ranked by level In descending order of mean score Graph literacy 5. of Scientific students 15-year-old (2018) % of to 18- 24-year-olds Graph 3. Early leavers from andtraining education % of category age Graph Enrolment 2. rate (2018) % of GDP Graph 1.Total expenditure* (2017) oneducation % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 10. Trends productivity inlabor employee* per àPPAEn US$ l’économie de -Ensemble Graph 9. horaire Productivité dutravail* (2019) forcePer labor thousand Graph 8. (2018) personnel R&D % of category age Graph Tertiary 6. graduates education (2019) % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 11.Trends productivity* labor inhourly 70 70 25 10 18 20 420 12 100 Classement parordreClassement décroissant score du moyen Graph élèves des Niveau 4. 15ans(2018) de performance de 5 0 0 14 10 3 30 50 30 50 0 16 2 4 4 -1 -1 20 20 4 7 10 10 6 200,000 520 100,000 % of economically active 25- to% of 64-year-olds 25- economically active graduates Persons employed and/or education technology inscience and tertiary Graph 7. Humanresources (2019) technology and inscience % of pupils ranked by level In descending order of mean score Graph literacy 5. of Scientific students 15-year-old (2018) % of to 18- 24-year-olds Graph 3. Early leavers from andtraining education % of category age Graph Enrolment 2. rate (2018) % of GDP Graph 1.Total expenditure* (2017) oneducation % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 10. Trends productivity inlabor employee* per àPPAEn US$ l’économie de -Ensemble Graph 9. horaire Productivité dutravail* (2019) forcePer labor thousand Graph 8. (2018) personnel R&D % of category age Graph Tertiary 6. graduates education (2019) % Compound annualrate of growth –Total economy Graph 11.Trends productivity* labor inhourly 70 70 25 12 5 5 15 3 3 5 0 0 10 3 2 2 2 4 4 7 1 150,000 10 10 100,000 0 8 80 4 5 5 15 3 3 40 6 2 2 60 90 125,000 1 1 1 150,000 175,000 0 8 30 50 United States 2 80 4 0 20 40 6 60 90 125,000 70 1 1 0 0 175,000 30 50 United States 2 5 0 20 10 50,000 70 0 0 5 10 50,000 75,000 75,000 2001-2009 2001-2009 0 Netherlands 0 Netherlands United Kingdom FIG. 40 Poland FIG. 41 United Kingdom Poland Poland Finland Finland Sweden Sweden Poland Germany Japan Japan Germany Spain Spain Ireland Ireland Belgium Sweden Belgium Sweden

Finland Japan Austria

Finland Japan Poland Austria Ireland Poland Ireland France France Japan Spain Japan Spain United States United States Ireland Italy Ireland Ireland Austria Italy Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Finland Ireland Ireland United States Finland Finland Finland Italy France France United States United States United States United Kingdom United Kingdom United KingdomItaly United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 0

Japan Japan Belgium Belgium Poland Poland Belgium Belgium 2010-2018 2010-2018 Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Belgium Belgium United States United States

Sweden 10 Sweden Sweden 10 Belgium United States Germany Germany Belgium Sweden Sweden United States Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom France Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands France 20 Netherlands Netherlands 20 Belgium Belgium Spain Spain France France France France Germany Germany France France Austria Austria Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden United Kingdom 30 United Kingdom 30 Finland 2019 Finland 2019 Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium France France Belgium Belgium Netherlands Ireland Ireland Netherlands Germany Germany Netherlands Netherlands France France Sweden Sweden 40 Belgium 40 Austria Austria Spain Spain Belgium France France France France Finland Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Belgium Belgium Germany Germany Netherlands Netherlands Italy Italy Austria Austria

Austria 50 Austria 50 Italy Italy Germany Germany Austria Austria Belgium Japan* Japan* Ireland* Ireland* Netherlands Netherlands Spain Spain Belgium Germany Germany Finland Finland

Italy 60 United States Italy United Kingdom Italy Italy 60 United States United Kingdom Italy United KingdomItaly Austria United Kingdom Poland Poland Austria Poland Poland

pas trouvé Japan Japan pas trouvé Japan Japan Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands Poland Poland 70 Germany Germany Finland Finland 70 France France Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Poland Poland Poland Poland Germany Germany

Spain 80 Germany Germany Spain Austria Austria 80 Austria Austria Finland Finland Japan Japan Poland Poland United States* United States* Ireland Ireland Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Finland Finland Poland Poland Italy Italy Italy

90 Italy Finland Finland 90 Italy Italy United States United States a a

EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Japan EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Spain Spain Japan EU-28 EU-28 Italy 100 EU-28 Italy 100 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

47 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 48 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD fresearch anddevelopment andinnovation. of acountry’s efforts intheareas a key indicatorof Gross domesticexpenditure onR&D(GERD)is registrations ofindustrialdesigns. as fortrademarkapplicationsand sample for patents filed, as well expenditure, and fourth in our ranking sixth in the world for R&D technological innovation activity, France shows good performances in intensive investmentprojects. mobile technology and/or knowledge- key factorsinattractinginternational ultimately valuecreation.Theyarealso operations are yielding growth and Dynamic researchandinnovation and competitiveness intheeconomy. new technology is supporting growth innovation andthedisseminationof Productivity gainsachievedthrough between developed economies. high techisatthecruxofcompetition Investing in knowledge, innovation and and SouthKorea (US$90 billion). Japan (US$166billion), Germany (US$134billion) States (US$549billion),China(US$420 sample. The world’s leadingcountriesare theUnited placing itsixthintheworld andfourth inour In 2018, France spentUS$66billiononGERD, AND INNOVATION RESEARCH

Chap II_3 Chap 2.3 400 600 -20 in France in2018,rankingitfourth inoursample. expenditure (BERD)amountedtoUS$45billion among theEU-28).Businessenterprise R&D expenditure onR&Din2018(70%average domestic thetotalgross accounted for 68%of In France, contributionsfrom businesses Businesses play adecisive role infinancing R&D. Source: OECD, 2019 * Datafor 2017 US$ BILLION AT CURRENT PRICES AND PPP 15 LEADINGECONOMIES GROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITUREONR&D(2018) 0.5 100 300 500 300 -10 1,000,000 Number Number Number 3.0 2.0 200 200 % of GDP Graph 5. Intensity of operations R&D (GERD/GDP) Graph 10. et pays par industriels dessins Modèles d'origine enregistrées demandes des Ensemble endirect et système viale Madrid de Graph 9. Marques commerciales pays par d'origine déposées Priority year, of residence country inventor’s Graph 8. Patent procedure PCT viathe applications –% All sectors Graph 6et 7. Innovation strategies by size business (2016) 40,000 60,000 100,000 -15 Real compound annualrate of growth Graph Trends 4. expenditure R&D enterprise inbusiness Real compound annual rate of growth Graph 3. Trends in gross domestic expenditure on R&D US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP Graph expenditure R&D enterprise Business 2. (2018) (BERD) US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP 15 leading economies Graph 1.Gross domestic expenditure (2018) onR&D 3.5 2.5 30,000 50,000 250 -10 20,000 150,000 100 100 1.0 20 -15 1.5 125,000 150 10,000 10 20 80 40 60 90 -5 25 15 30 50 10 20 50,000 70 -5 800,000 15 400,000 600,000 25,000 10 50 75,000 0 200,000 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

United States FIG. 42 Sweden Netherlands United States United States Belgium Poland

United States 0 422 0 United States

Netherlands 23 0 28 Japan Finland Poland Japan China Germany Japan Germany 26 United Kingdom Austria Austria Germany Germany Spain Japan France Germany Germany Germany Spain France Italy France Italy United Kingdom United States United Kingdom South Korea Italy Austria Austria Italy United KingdomJapan France Netherlands Netherlands Finland France EU-28 EU-28 United Kingdom Spain United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy Poland Sweden Belgium Japan Sweden Netherlands Spain Germany Germany Russia Italy France Netherlands France United States Spain Netherlands Poland Finland Netherlands Taiwan United Kingdom Japan Sweden Sweden Ireland Spain Italy Finland Japan Austria Austria Austria Austria Sweden United States Canada Finland Belgium Belgium Italy Belgium Belgium Number per million inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number Number per million inhabitants million per Number Spain Italy Belgium Finland Finland 2,9 Spain France Poland 532,722 Ireland Turkey 45,923 Belgium France Ireland Ireland 3,549,362 Spain Ireland Finland Australia* Poland 537,812 Sweden Netherlands EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland Sweden EU-28 Ireland Ireland 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 Ireland

EU-28 308 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 0 60 120 180 240 300 360

Germany

Belgium

Austria

Finland

Italy

France

Ireland

Sweden

Netherlands

Spain United Kingdom

Poland

EU-28 Chap II_3 Chap Chap II_3 Chap 400 600 % REAL COMPOUND ANNUAL RATE OFGROWTH TRENDS INGROSSDOMESTIC EXPENDITUREONR&D in 2018, while BERDalsorose 5.1%. by 1.5%. AmongtheEU-28,GERDwas up4.4% business enterprise R&Dexpenditure alsorose buoyant efforts inresearch andinnovation activities businesses’ rose by 1.3%in2018,while inasignof Gross domesticexpenditure onR&DinFrance Source: OECD, 2019 US$ BILLION AT CURRENT PRICES AND PPP BUSINESS ENTERPRISER&DEXPENDITURE(BERD)(2018) Source: OECD, 2019;BusinessFrance calculations -20 0.5 100 300 500 300 -10 1,000,000 Number Number Number 3.0 2.0 200 200 Graph 10. et pays par industriels dessins Modèles d'origine enregistrées demandes des Ensemble endirect et système viale Madrid de Graph 9. Marques commerciales pays par d'origine déposées Priority year, of residence country inventor’s Graph 8. Patent procedure PCT viathe applications –% All sectors Graph 6et 7. Innovation strategies by size business (2016) % of GDP Graph 5. Intensity of operations R&D (GERD/GDP) 40,000 60,000 100,000 400 -15 US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP 15 leading economies Graph 1.Gross domestic expenditure (2018) onR&D Real compound annualrate of growth Graph Trends 4. expenditure R&D enterprise inbusiness Real compound annualrate of growth Graph 3. Trends ingross domestic expenditure onR&D US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP Graph expenditure R&D enterprise Business 2. (2018) (BERD) 3.5 600 2.5 30,000 50,000 -20 250 -10 0.5 100 300 500 20,000 300 -10 1,000,000 Number Number Number 3.0 150,000 100 100 1.0 2.0 200 200 All sectors –% All sectors Graph 6et 7. Innovation strategies by size business (2016) % of GDP Graph 5. Intensity of operations R&D (GERD/GDP) Graph 10. et pays par industriels dessins Modèles d'origine enregistrées demandes des Ensemble endirect et système viale Madrid de Graph 9. Marques commerciales pays par d'origine déposées Priority year, of residence country inventor’s Graph 8. Patent procedure PCT viathe applications 20 40,000 60,000 -15 100,000 -15 Real compound annualrate of growth Graph Trends 4. expenditure R&D enterprise inbusiness Real compound annualrate of growth Graph 3. Trends ingross domestic expenditure onR&D US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP Graph expenditure R&D enterprise Business 2. (2018) (BERD) US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP 15 leading economies Graph 1.Gross domestic expenditure (2018) onR&D 3.5 1.5 2.5 30,000 50,000 125,000 150 250 10,000 -10 20,000 150,000 100 100 1.0 10 20 20 80 -15 40 1.5 60 90 -5 125,000 150 25 15 10,000 30 50 10 10 20 20 80 50,000 70 40 -5 60 90 -5 800,000 15 25 15 400,000 30 50 600,000 10 25,000 10 50 20 75,000 50,000 70 0 -5 200,000 800,000 15 0 400,000 600,000 25,000 10 50 5 75,000 0 0 200,000 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 FIG. 44 FIG. 43 0 United States United States United States 0 Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands United States United States United States Belgium Belgium Poland Poland United States 0 0 United States 422 422 0 0 United States United States 23

Netherlands 23 0

28 Netherlands 0 28 Japan Japan Poland Finland Finland Poland Japan China China Germany Germany Japan Japan Japan 26 Germany Germany 26 United Kingdom United Kingdom Austria Austria Austria Austria Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Spain Spain Japan Japan France France Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Spain Spain France France United States Italy Italy France France Italy Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom United States United Kingdom United Kingdom South Korea South Korea Italy Italy Austria Austria Austria Austria Italy Italy United KingdomJapan United KingdomJapan France France Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Finland Finland EU-28 EU-28 France France EU-28 EU-28 United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Spain United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy Italy Poland Poland Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium Japan Japan Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Russia Russia Spain Spain France Germany Germany Netherlands Italy Italy France Netherlands France France United States United States Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands Taiwan Poland Poland Finland Finland Netherlands Netherlands Taiwan Japan Ireland United Kingdom United Kingdom Japan Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Ireland Italy Spain Spain Finland Japan Italy Finland Japan Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Sweden United States Austria Austria Austria Sweden United States Canada Canada Finland Finland Belgium Belgium Belgium Italy Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Italy Number per million inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number Number per million inhabitants million per Number Belgium Number per million inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number Spain Spain Italy Belgium Belgium 2,9 Italy

2,9 France Finland Finland Finland Finland Spain Spain France Poland Poland 532,722 532,722 Ireland Turkey Turkey 45,923 Ireland 45,923 Belgium Belgium France France Ireland 3,549,362 Spain Ireland Ireland Ireland 3,549,362 Spain Ireland Ireland Finland Australia* Australia* Poland Finland 537,812 Poland 537,812 EU-28 Sweden Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland Poland Poland Sweden EU-28 Ireland Ireland EU-28 II_3 Chap Ireland Ireland 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 Ireland

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 Ireland 308

EU-28 308 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 EU-28 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 400 600 -20 0.5 100 300 500 300 -10 1,000,000 Number Number Number 3.0 2.0 200 200 Graph 10. et pays par industriels dessins Modèles d'origine enregistrées demandes des Ensemble endirect et système viale Madrid de Graph 9. Marques commerciales pays par d'origine déposées Priority year, of residence country inventor’s Graph 8. Patent procedure PCT viathe applications –% All sectors Graph 6et 7. Innovation strategies by size business (2016) % of GDP Graph 5. Intensity of operations R&D (GERD/GDP) 40,000 60,000 100,000 -15 Real compound annualrate of growth Graph Trends 4. expenditure R&D enterprise inbusiness Real compound annualrate of growth Graph 3. Trends ingross domestic expenditure onR&D US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP Graph expenditure R&D enterprise Business 2. (2018) (BERD) US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP 15 leading economies Graph 1.Gross domestic expenditure (2018) onR&D 3.5 2.5 30,000 50,000 250 -10 20,000 150,000 100 100 1.0 20 -15 1.5 % REAL COMPOUND ANNUAL RATE OFGROWTH TRENDS INBUSINESSENTERPRISER&DEXPENDITURE and theUnitedStates(2.8%). (1.4%) andSpain(1.2%),butafterGermany (3.1%) theUnitedKingdom(1.7%),Italy ranked aheadof slightly highertheEU-28average (2.0%).France is GDPinFrance, on R&Daccountedfor 2.2%of growth. domesticexpenditure In2018,gross of slightly inFrance since2015,afterseveral years R&D intensity(GERD/GDPratio)hasdecreased Source: OECD, 2019;BusinessFrance calculations 125,000 150 10,000 10 20 80 40 60 90 -5 25 15 30 50 10 20 50,000 70 -5 800,000 15 400,000 600,000 25,000 10 50 75,000 0 200,000 0 5 0 5 0 2014-2016 0 United States United States 0 Sweden Netherlands FIG. 45 United States Belgium Poland

United States Germany 0 Germany 422 0 United States

Netherlands 23 0 28 Japan Finland Poland Japan China Germany Belgium Belgium Japan Germany 26 United Kingdom Austria Austria Germany Germany Spain Japan France Germany Austria Austria Germany 2016-2018 Germany Spain France United States Italy France Italy United Kingdom Austria United Kingdom South Korea Finland ItalyFinland Austria Italy United KingdomJapan France Netherlands Netherlands Finland France EU-28 EU-28 United Kingdom Italy SpainItaly United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy 2018 Poland Sweden Belgium France Japan Sweden NetherlandsFrance Spain Germany Germany Russia Italy France Netherlands France United States Spain Ireland Ireland Netherlands Poland Finland Netherlands Taiwan Japan Ireland United Kingdom Sweden Sweden SwedenSweden Spain Italy Finland Japan Austria Austria Netherlands Netherlands Austria Austria Sweden United States Canada Finland Belgium Belgium Italy Belgium Belgium Number per million inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number Number per million inhabitants million per Number Spain Italy Belgium Finland Spain FinlandSpain 2,9 Spain France Poland United Kingdom 532,722 Ireland Turkey United Kingdom 45,923 Belgium France Ireland Ireland 3,549,362 Spain Ireland Finland Australia* Poland 537,812 Sweden Netherlands EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland Sweden Poland Poland EU-28 Ireland Ireland 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 Ireland

EU-28 308 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

49 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Germany

Belgium

Austria

Finland

Italy

France

Ireland

Sweden

Netherlands

Spain United Kingdom

Poland

EU-28 Chap II_3 Chap

50 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 400 600 -20 % OFGDP INTENSITY OFR&DOPERATIONS (GERD/GDP) by French businesses. R&Defforts Austria, which shows theextent of country intheOECDfor R&Dintensity after the economy, France becomesthesecondleading industrialstructure on theeffect of we neutralize rankings, such asGermany andJapan. However, if the medium-high technology thantheleaders of theFrench economy,of which islessgeared towards operations reflects above allthesector-based structure R&D France intheintensityof The positionof Source: OECD, 2019 0.5 100 300 500 300 -10 1,000,000 Number Number Number 3.0 2.0 200 200 % of GDP Graph 5. Intensity of operations R&D (GERD/GDP) Graph 10. et pays par industriels dessins Modèles d'origine enregistrées demandes des Ensemble en direct et système viale Madrid de Graph 9. Marques commerciales pays par d'origine déposées Priority year, of residence country inventor’s Graph 8. Patent procedure PCT viathe applications –% All sectors Graph 6et 7. Innovation strategies by size business (2016) 40,000 60,000 100,000 -15 Real compound annualrate of growth Graph Trends 4. expenditure R&D enterprise inbusiness Real compound annualrate of growth Graph 3. Trends ingross domestic expenditure onR&D US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP Graph expenditure R&D enterprise Business 2. (2018) (BERD) US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP 15 leading economies Graph 1.Gross domestic expenditure (2018) onR&D 3.5 2.5 30,000 50,000 250 -10 20,000 150,000 100 100 1.0 20 -15 1.5 125,000 150 10,000 10 20 80 40 60 90 -5 25 15 30 50 10 20 50,000 70 -5 800,000 15 400,000 600,000 25,000 10 50 75,000 0 200,000 0 5 0 2013 5 0 0 0 FIG. 46 United States Sweden Netherlands United States United States Belgium Poland

United States 0 422 0 United States

Netherlands 23 0 28 Japan Poland Finland 2018 Japan China Germany Japan Germany 26 United Kingdom Austria Austria Germany Germany Spain Japan France Germany Germany Germany Spain France Italy France Italy United Kingdom United States United Kingdom South Korea Italy Austria Austria Italy United KingdomJapan France Netherlands Netherlands Finland France EU-28 EU-28 United Kingdom Spain United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy Poland Sweden Belgium Japan Sweden Netherlands Spain Germany Germany Russia Italy France Netherlands France United States Spain Netherlands Poland Finland Netherlands Taiwan United Kingdom Japan Sweden Sweden Ireland Spain Italy Finland Japan Austria Austria Austria Austria Sweden United States Canada Finland Belgium Belgium Italy Belgium Belgium Number per million inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number Spain Italy Belgium Finland Finland 2,9 Spain France Poland 532,722 Ireland Turkey 45,923 Belgium France Ireland Ireland 3,549,362 Spain Ireland Finland Australia* Poland 537,812 Sweden Netherlands EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland Sweden EU-28 Ireland Chap II_3 Chap Ireland 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 Ireland

EU-28 308 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 % OF VALUE ADDED ININDUSTRY (2015) INTENSITY OFBERD ADJUSTED FORINDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE corporates reporting innovations in2016. mid-sizecompanies andlarge of SMEs and 81.9%of thesample, with56.4% is ranked inthemiddleof 250 employees) inallthesamplecountries.France companies andlarge corporates (withmore than a lower capacityfor innovation thanmid-size SMEs (withbetween 10and249employees) have Source: OECD, Science, Technology andIndustryScoreboard 2017 Intensity of BERDadjusted for structure industrial (2015) 4.0 0 0 3 2 3 2 1.0 1.5 . . . BERD . . . 0 0 0 5 5 5 Austria (2013) FIG. 47 Germany France (2013) Belgium

BERDadjustedfor industrialstructure Belgium (2013

Austria United States (2014)

Finland Sweden (2013)

Italy Netherlands (2014)Japan France United Kingdom (2014) Ireland

Sweden Germany Netherlands Italy (2014)

Ireland (2013) Spain United Kingdom of BERD in theOECD in BERD of

Spain intensity Average Poland (2014) Poland

EU-28 Chap II_3 Chap Source: Eurostat. BusinessFrance calculations ALL SECTORS –% INNOVATION STRATEGIES BY BUSINESSSIZE(2016) which isweaker inFrance thatinleadingcountries BERDinGDP,it iscompared withtheshare of This figure appears allthemore important when human capital). supportintheOECD(cf. II.Educationand level of GDPinFrance, thesecond-highest is 0.41%of taxincentives), and indirectly of (intheform subsidies) expenditure, bothdirectly of (intheform Government supportfor businessenterpriseR&D 400 600 -20 0.5 100 300 500 300 -10 1,000,000 Number Number Number 3.0 2.0 200 200 Graph 10. et pays par industriels dessins Modèles d'origine enregistrées demandes des Ensemble endirect et système viale Madrid de Graph 9. Marques commerciales pays par d'origine déposées Priority year, of residence country inventor’s Graph 8. Patent procedure PCT viathe applications –% All sectors Graph 6et 7. Innovation strategies by size business (2016) % of GDP Graph 5. Intensity of operations R&D (GERD/GDP) 40,000 60,000 100,000 -15 Real compound annualrate of growth Graph Trends 4. expenditure R&D enterprise inbusiness Real compound annualrate of growth Graph 3. Trends ingross domestic expenditure onR&D US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP Graph expenditure R&D enterprise Business 2. (2018) (BERD) US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP 15 leading economies Graph 1.Gross domestic expenditure (2018) onR&D 3.5 2.5 30,000 50,000 250 -10 20,000 150,000 100 100 1.0 20 -15 1.5 125,000 150 10,000 10 20 80 40 60 90 -5 25 15 30 50 10 20 50,000 70 -5 800,000 15 400,000 600,000 25,000 10 50 75,000 0 200,000 Technological andnon-technological innovations Non-technological innovations only (marketing ororganizational) Technological innovations only (products orprocesses) 0 5 0 5 0 FIG. 48 0 Netherlands United States United States 0

SME Sweden United States Belgium Poland

United States 0 422 0 United States

Netherlands 23 0 28 s Japan Finland Poland Japan China Germany Japan Germany 26 United Kingdom Austria Austria Germany Germany Spain Japan France Germany Germany Germany Spain France Italy France Italy United Kingdom United States United Kingdom South Korea Italy Austria Austria Italy United KingdomJapan France Netherlands Netherlands Finland France EU-28 EU-28 United Kingdom Spain United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy Poland Sweden Belgium Japan Sweden Netherlands Spain Germany Germany Russia Italy France Netherlands France United States Spain Netherlands Poland Finland Netherlands Taiwan United Kingdom Japan Sweden Sweden Ireland Spain Italy Finland Japan Austria Austria Austria Austria Sweden United States Canada Finland Belgium Belgium Italy Belgium Belgium Number per million inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number Spain Italy Belgium Finland Finland 2,9 Spain France Poland 532,722 Ireland Turkey 45,923 Belgium France Ireland Ireland 3,549,362 Spain Ireland Finland Australia* Poland 537,812 Sweden Netherlands EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland Sweden EU-28 Ireland Ireland 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 Ireland

EU-28 308 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 innovation inFrance”). others (seeinset“Government measures topromote government’s Major Investment Plan,among theFrench from Bpifrance, andthemeasures of (jeune entreprise innovante –JEI)status, support tax credit, butalso“innovative newcompany” tools, notably theresearch using alarge panelof last fifteen years toprovide innovation firm support, orientation taken by successive governments inthe such asGermany. ThisFrench positionreflects the Germany MID-SIZE COMPANIES ANDLARGE CORPORATES

Belgium

Austria

Finland

Italy

France

Ireland

Sweden

Netherlands

Spain United Kingdom

Poland

EU-28 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

51 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 52 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD establishments. in research withinhighereducation creation by any individuals involved was brought business intoencourage the “newuniversity company” status total spendingtoR&D. Inparallel, their old anddevote atleast15%of to SMEsthatare lessthaneightyears employer socialsecuritycontributions) and complete exemption from certain tax,corporate taxandcapitalgains (such aspartial exemption from relief taxandsocialsecurity a variety of status, ( The “innovative new company” newproducts. pilot versions of prototype or towards thedesignof the expenses inquestionmust go tax credit (20%rateupto€400,000): claimed back through theinnovation innovation spendingby SMEs was extended in2013toencompass Eligibility for theresearch taxcredit expenditure above thisthreshold. of expenses upto€100millionand5% R&D tax credit amountsto30%of any sizeandfrom any sector.of The research thatisopentocompanies tax-incentive scheme to support France’s research tax credit is a promote innovationinFrance Government measuresto 1 fexcellence. of Program. Thesechallenges offer public subsidiesandreimbursable advances allowing innovative businesswithin these areas tocarry outprojects For example, itincludes theWorldwide Innovation Challenge, theNational financed by fundsfromInvestment thesecondandthird wave of jeune entreprise –JEI) innovante introduced in2004,offers intended tostimulate France’s most “La French Tech” isamajorinitiative one-stop shopfor businesses. state aidfor innovation andasa path. Itactsasanoperatorfor most startups throughout thedevelopment loans andequitycapital)for SMEs and reimbursable advances, guarantees, solutions invarious forms (subsidies, financial offering awidevariety of isapublicBpifrance investment bank innovation. for highereducation, research and etc.) aswell asstructuralfunding innovation therapies, bioproduction of (cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, priority investments in defined sectors intervention: and strategic modes of effect in2021.Itwillcombinetwo billion over five years, willcomeinto Investment worth Program, €20 theNational A fourth part of far awayfar orwhere there ishighrisk). problems where thehorizonistoo market deficiencies(such asfinance proposing intervention aimingtofix government tosupport projects by has beensetupby theFrench introduced in 2010, 2014 and 2017, which were the three first parts of The NationalInvestment Program, 1

Multicap Growth Fund). (NationalStartupsegments Fund, French venture capitalmarket incertain operated by Bpifrancetostrengthen the collaborative research, andseveral funds as theinnovation contest,support for Program” focusing oninnovation, such the“NationalInvestment phase of thethird state. Ittakes onthework of with innovation, andbuildingadigital society, anchoring competitiveness ecological transition,buildingaskilled France accelerating mustthe face: 2022 inresponse tofour majorchallenges €57 billion,isbeingrolled outin2017- plan d’investissement –GPI),worth The MajorInvestment Plan(Grand - - Investment Program”. by theFrench government’s “National and digitalcompanies.Itisfinanced theirstartups support thegrowth of vibrant regional ecosystemsand talent, entrepreneurs and investors. support labsandattract foreign fab attractiveness: €15 million to investment International and succeedinternationally. to helpdigitalcompaniesgrow faster invested inprivate-sector initiatives Accelerator programs: €200million plan aimedattech-savvy startups. uncertainty –andincludes tech adeep competitionand high levelsface of only substantialinvestments butalso technology requiring not examples of and energy storage, which are all artificial intelligence, nanoelectronics breakthrough technologies –including per year. Thefundaimstopromote in 2018andwillenjoy €250million Innovation (FII)was given €10billion The Fund for Industry and sector research andbusiness. knowledge transfers between public- has been placed on technology and Investment emphasis Program, theNational successive stagesof clusters in2005andseveral innovation With thecreation of Moreover, according toWIPO, and education(15%)businessservices (12.9%). research andtechnology sectors (19.8%),leisure In France, trademarks are mainly registered in (429,847). (748,482), theUnitedKingdom(438,578)andItaly came top(1,024,384)andwas followed by Germany inhabitants, placingit infifthplace.TheUnitedStates 399,465 trademarks, or5,967trademarks permillion marketing innovations. In2018,France registered Trademark applicationsare usedtomeasure (4,133). the UnitedKingdom(5,636)andNetherlands Japan (49,705)andGermany (19,747),butaheadof fourth inoursampleaftertheUnitedStates(56,188), 118 applicationspermillioninhabitants, placingit In 2018,France filed7,919PCTapplications,or patentprocedure.international filed underthePCT(Patent Cooperation Treaty) patentapplications particularly thenumber of intechnologicalperformance innovation, Patent indicatorsreveal alotabout acountry’s Italy (68,214)andtheUnitedKingdom(55,706). (132,117) andGermany (125,067),butwas aheadof inhabitants. France was ranked aftertheUnitedStates registered by French nationals,or1,034permillion In 2018, 69,223 modelsandindustrialdesignswere are a third usefulintellectual property indicator. modelsandindustrialdesigns Registrations of Novartis. business the Madridsystem)afterpharmaceutical world for filingtrademarks in2018(according to L’Oréal wasthesecondleadingcompany inthe 2 Intellectualproperty: Facts andfigures 2019 from WIPOMagazine 2

French brand BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

53 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_3 Chap Chap II_3 Chap

54 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD calculations Source: WIPOstatisticsdatabase, 2019;OECD, 2019;BusinessFrance TOTALDIRECT APPLICATIONS ANDAPPLICATIONSSYSTEM VIAMADRID THE TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS BY SOURCECOUNTRY calculations Source: WIPOstatisticsdatabase, 2019;OECD, 2019;BusinessFrance PRIORITY YEAR, INVENTOR’S COUNTRY OFRESIDENCE PATENT APPLICATIONS VIAPCT PROCEDURE THE 400 600 -20 0.5 100 300 500 300 -10 1,000,000 Number Number Number 3.0 2.0 200 200 Ensemble des demandes enregistrées demandes des Ensemble endirect et système viale Madrid de Graph 9. Marques commerciales pays par d'origine déposées Priority year, of residence country inventor’s Graph 8. Patent procedure PCT viathe applications –% All sectors Graph 6et 7. Innovation strategies by size business (2016) % of GDP Graph 5. Intensity of operations R&D (GERD/GDP) Graph 10. et pays par industriels dessins Modèles d'origine 40,000 60,000 100,000 -15 400 Real compound annualrate of growth Graph 3. Trends ingross domestic expenditure onR&D US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP Graph expenditure R&D enterprise Business 2. (2018) (BERD) US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP 15 leading economies Graph 1.Gross domestic expenditure (2018) onR&D Real compound annualrate of growth Graph Trends 4. expenditure R&D enterprise inbusiness 3.5 600 2.5 30,000 50,000 -20 250 -10 0.5 100 20,000 300 500 300 -10 1,000,000 Number Number Number 3.0 150,000 100 100 1.0 2.0 200 200 % of GDP Graph 5. Intensity of operations R&D (GERD/GDP) Graph 10. et pays par industriels dessins Modèles d'origine enregistrées demandes des Ensemble endirect et système viale Madrid de Graph 9. Marques commerciales pays par d'origine déposées Priority year, of residence country inventor’s Graph 8. Patent procedure PCT viathe applications –% All sectors Graph 6et 7. Innovation strategies by size business (2016) 20 40,000 -15 60,000 100,000 -15 US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP 15 leading economies Graph 1.Gross domestic expenditure (2018) onR&D Real compound annualrate of growth Graph Trends 4. expenditure R&D enterprise inbusiness Real compound annualrate of growth Graph 3. Trends ingross domestic expenditure onR&D US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP Graph expenditure R&D enterprise Business 2. (2018) (BERD) 3.5 1.5 2.5 125,000 30,000 50,000 150 250 10,000 -10 20,000 150,000 100 100 10 20 1.0 20 80 -15 40 60 90 1.5 -5 125,000 150 25 15 10,000 30 50 10 10 20 20 80 50,000 70 40 -5 60 90 -5 800,000 15 25 15 400,000 600,000 30 50 10 25,000 10 50 20 75,000 50,000 0 70 -5 200,000 800,000 2013 2013 15 0 400,000 600,000 25,000 10 50 5 75,000 0 0 200,000 0 5 5 0 0 5 FIG. 50 FIG. 49 0 0 0 0 United States United States 0 United States Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands United States United States United States Belgium Belgium Poland Poland United States 0 0 United States 422 422 0 0 United States United States 23

Netherlands 23 0

Netherlands28 0 28 Japan Japan

2018 2018 Poland Finland Finland Poland Japan China China Germany Germany Japan Japan Germany Japan 26 Germany 26 United Kingdom United Kingdom Austria Austria Austria Austria Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Spain Spain Japan Japan France France Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany

2018(Numberpermillioninhabitants) 2018(Numberpermillioninhabitants) Spain Spain France France United States Italy Italy France France Italy Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom United States United Kingdom United Kingdom South Korea South Korea Italy Italy Austria Austria Austria Austria Italy Italy United KingdomJapan United KingdomJapan France France Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Finland Finland EU-28 EU-28 France France EU-28 EU-28 United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Spain United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy Italy Poland Poland Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium Japan Japan Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Russia Russia Spain Spain France Germany Germany Netherlands Italy Italy France Netherlands France France United States United States Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands Taiwan Poland Poland Finland Finland Netherlands Netherlands Taiwan Japan Ireland United Kingdom United Kingdom Japan Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Ireland Italy Spain Spain Finland Japan Italy Finland Japan Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Sweden United States Austria Austria Austria Sweden United States Canada Canada Finland Finland Belgium Belgium Belgium Italy Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Italy Number per million inhabitants million per Number Belgium inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number Number per million inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number Spain Spain Italy Belgium Belgium 2,9 Italy

2,9 France Finland Finland Finland Finland Spain Spain France Poland Poland

532,722 532,722 Ireland Turkey Turkey 45,923 Ireland 45,923 Belgium Belgium France France Ireland 3,549,362 Spain Ireland Ireland Ireland 3,549,362 Spain Ireland Ireland Finland Australia* Australia* Poland Finland 537,812 Poland 537,812 Sweden EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 Sweden Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands EU-28 Poland Poland Poland Poland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 Ireland Ireland Ireland II_3 Chap 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 Ireland

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 Ireland 308

EU-28 308 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 EU-28 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 400 600 -20 0.5 100 300 500 300 -10 1,000,000 Number Number Number 3.0 2.0 200 200 TOTAL DIRECT APPLICATIONS + APPLICATIONS VIA THE HAGUE SYSTEM MODELS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNSBY SOURCECOUNTRY calculations Source: WIPOstatisticsdatabase, 2019;OECD, 2019;BusinessFrance Graph 10. et pays par industriels dessins Modèles d'origine enregistrées demandes des Ensemble endirect et système viale Madrid de Graph 9. Marques commerciales pays par d'origine déposées Priority year, of residence country inventor’s Graph 8. Patent procedure PCT viathe applications –% All sectors Graph 6et 7. Innovation strategies by size business (2016) % of GDP Graph 5. Intensity of operations R&D (GERD/GDP) 40,000 60,000 100,000 -15 Real compound annualrate of growth Graph Trends 4. expenditure R&D enterprise inbusiness Real compound annualrate of growth Graph 3. Trends ingross domestic expenditure onR&D US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP Graph expenditure R&D enterprise Business 2. (2018) (BERD) US$ billion atcurrent prices andPPP 15 leading economies Graph 1.Gross domestic expenditure (2018) onR&D 3.5 2.5 30,000 50,000 250 -10 20,000 150,000 100 100 1.0 20 -15 1.5 125,000 150 10,000 10 20 80 40 60 90 -5 25 15 30 50 10 20 50,000 70 -5 800,000 15 400,000 600,000 25,000 10 50 75,000 0 200,000 0 5 0 2013 5 0 0 0 FIG. 51 United States United States Germany Sweden Netherlands Germany United States Belgium Poland

United States 0 422 0 United States

Netherlands 23 0 28 Belgium Belgium Japan Poland 2018 Finland Japan China Germany Japan Germany 26 United Kingdom Austria Austria Germany Germany Spain Japan France Austria Austria Germany Germany Germany

2018(Numberpermillioninhabitants) Spain France Italy France Italy Finland United Kingdom United States United Kingdom South Korea Finland Italy Austria Austria Italy United KingdomJapan France Netherlands Netherlands Italy Finland France Italy EU-28 EU-28 United Kingdom Spain United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy Poland France France Sweden Belgium Japan Sweden Netherlands Spain Germany Germany Russia Ireland Ireland Italy France Netherlands France United States Spain Netherlands Poland Finland Netherlands Taiwan Sweden Sweden United Kingdom Japan Sweden Sweden Ireland Netherlands Netherlands Spain Italy Finland Japan Austria Austria Austria Austria Sweden United States Canada Finland Belgium Belgium Italy Belgium Belgium Number per million inhabitants million per Number inhabitants million per Number Spain inhabitants million per Number Spain Spain Italy Belgium Finland United Kingdom United KingdomFinland 2,9 Spain France Poland 532,722 Ireland Turkey 45,923 Belgium France Ireland Ireland 3,549,362 Spain Ireland Finland Australia* Poland 537,812 Poland Sweden Netherlands EU-28 Poland EU-28 Poland Poland Sweden EU-28 Ireland

Ireland 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 Ireland EU-28 EU-28 308 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 0 60 120 180 240 300 360

Germany

Belgium

Austria

Finland

Italy

France

Ireland

Sweden

Netherlands

Spain United Kingdom

Poland

EU-28 property isdefined, and TrademarkOffice):“Asintellectual According tothe INPI(FrenchPatent it improvesinternationalcomparability. Another advantageofthisprocedureisthat cooperation onintellectualproperty. the PCT at theheartofinternational states haveratifiedthetreaty,placing countries”. SinceMarch2017,152member an inventioninaverylargenumberof can simultaneouslyseekprotectionfor application underthePCT,“applicants By filingoneinternationalpatent procedure. the Office). Apatentmayalsobefiledunder of anapplicationtotheEuropeanPatent Member States,forexample,inthecase or foramuchwiderarea(EuropeanUnion applications maybeforasinglecountry and inaspecifiedterritory.Patent for alimitedperiod(normally20years) right ofusetothepatentedinvention, which confersonitsholderanexclusive A patentintellectual isan property title OF INNOVATIONACTIVITY INDUSTRIAL DESIGNSASINDICATORS PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, MODELS AND its competitors’productsorservices. products orservicesofacompanyfrom ‘sign’ usedtoaccuratelydistinguishthe Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Patent CooperationTreaty(PCT) is a a trademarkis products areintroducedonthemarket. advantages ontheinnovationswhennew marketing andservices)imparts products,in is new(innovations something that asign as isused It of intellectualpropertyprotection. exclusive rightsofuseintheform Filing atrademarkgivestheholder filing asingleinternationalapplication. work inseveralcountriesatatimeby models enablesownerstoprotecttheir registration ofindustrialdesignsand The HagueSystemfortheinternational model, orasaworkofart. copyright asanon-registereddesignor or model, itmay also beprotectedby legislation andthetypeofdesign protected bylaw.Dependingonnational models must be registered so as tobe most countries,industrialdesignsor enhances itscommercialpotential.In It addstoaproduct’smarketvalueand object’s ornamentaloraestheticaspects. An industrialdesignormodelconveysan national orregionaltrademarkoffice. application directlywiththeirown countries atoncebyfilingasingle have theirtrademarkprotectedinseveral The MadridSystemenablestheownerto METHODOLOGY BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

55 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 56 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD among the countriesinsample. broadband internetpenetrationrate network. France has the highest fixed infrastructure andanextensivebroadband gain from first-class communication Businesses operatinginFrancealso for the movementofgoodsandpeople. manufacturing activities, as well as for thegeographicaldistributionof attractiveness isakeyadvantage East. Thiscomponentinitsinvestment especially Europe, Africa and the Middle connections with the rest of the world, providing fast, cost-effective high-quality transport infrastructure, As an investment location, France boasts attractiveness ofacountry. business competitivenessandthe infrastructures isakeyfactorfor green growth). The quality of these and energy(cf.2.9–Energy are transport, telecommunications sectors relating to the network economy to economicactivity.Themoststrategic Network infrastructures are essential INFRASTRUCTURES Chap II_4Chap 2.4 (2.5% in2019). the UnitedKingdom(2.8%in2019)andGermany higher thanintheUnitedStates(3.2%2018), GDPin2019), stateinvestment (3.6%of levels of maintain high-level infrastructure. France hashigh French public bodiesinvest heavily todevelop and Transport infrastructure United States(0.5%)andGermany (0.7%). decline inrecent years. Thislevel ishigherthaninthe France’s GDPandhaveequivalent beenin to0.8%of Investments intransport infrastructure in2018were Source: OECD, 2020; BusinessFrance calculations * Datafor 2018 % OFGDP GROSS FIXEDCAPITAL FORMATION INPUBLICSERVICES 0 100 400,000 4 80 400,000 200 40 600,000 100,000 2,000 60 300,000 5 Total million tonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km million inhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport 3 200,000 2 300,000 500,000 2,500 0.8 30 50 200,000 0.0 20 0.4 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 inthe 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 180 100 120,000 70 0.6 350,000 140 1,000 250,000 160 100,000 0.2 1 1,500 100,000 10 120 80 150,000 40 40 60 90 60 80,000 1.0 1.4 40,000 60,000 30 50 30 50 20 20 1.2 70 70 80 20,000 40 60 10 10 0 20 50,000 2014

Frankfurt am Main 500 0 0 London Heathrow Rail network density

FIG. 52 United Kingdom 0 Sweden 1,800 0 1,000 1,400 1,600 Paris-Charles de Gaulle 1,200 800 400 600 Belgium France Paris-Charles de Gaulle 200 0 0 0

0 Japan*

Netherlands Germany Germany 0 Poland Germany Netherlands Amsterdam Schiphol Netherlands United Kingdom London Heathrow 2019 United Kingdom

Poland Finland Germany Amsterdam Schiphol Frankfurt am Main Poland Poland France Austria 50 United Kingdom Italy Finland Japan* Finland Madrid Adolfo France Belgium Spain United States Leipzig Halle Suárez Barajas United Kingdom France Spain 100 France Belgium United Kingdom France Italy Netherlands France United Kingdom Istanbul Sweden United States* Sweden Liège Barcelona El Prat Netherlands Japan Sweden Germany 150 Belgium Luxembourg Motorway networkdensity

United Kingdom France

Spain United States Finland France Germany Cologne Bonn Austria Austria

Finland Austria Netherlands Munich Italy United Kingdom Sweden London Gatwick Germany 200 Milan Malpensa Ireland Spain Netherlands Poland Sweden Italy Rome Fiumicino Ireland Finland Belgium Austria Belgium Germany Sweden 250 MadridBrussels Adolfo Finland Austria Japan Suárez Barajas Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen United States Germany Antalya Sweden Belgium Sweden Ireland Spain

Ireland 300 Ireland Munich Finland Poland Belgium Poland East Midlands Finland Spain Spain Italy ** Dublin Netherlands Italy Poland 350 Italy Italy Austria Paris-Orly Austria Italy* Zurich Vienna International Spain EU-28 Ireland Belgium** Spain Poland Ireland Ireland 400 EU-28 Vienna

Germany Poland *

Poland Germany

France Spain

Italy France United Kingdom Austria United Kingdom

Italy Netherlands Sweden

Sweden Spain

Belgium Finland

Belgium Finland ** Netherlands Austria

Ireland Ireland Chap II_4Chap Chap II_4Chap 0 ie/,0 ie)o navigable waterways. miles/3,100 miles)of 30,000 km (18,000miles)and5,000 km (2,700 nautical of motorways, nearly aswell asarailnetwork of network, withmore than11,000km(7,000 miles) France hasanextremely densedomestictransport Source: OECD, 2019 ** Datafor 2017 * Latestyear available: 2016 GROSS INVESTMENT AS A %OFGDP INVESTMENT ININLAND TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 100 400,000 4 80 400,000 200 40 600,000 100,000 2,000 60 300,000 5 Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport Total million tonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km millioninhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic 3 Source: Eurostat, 2020 TOTAL LOAD, MILLION TONNE-KM FREIGHTROAD TRANSPORT 200,000 2 300,000 500,000 2,500 0.8 30 50 200,000 0.0 20 0.4 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 inthe 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 0 180 100 100 120,000 70 400,000 0.6 350,000 4 140 1,000 80 250,000 160 400,000 200 40 600,000 100,000 100,000 0.2 1 2,000 60 1,500 300,000 100,000 5 % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km millioninhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland 3 10 200,000 2 300,000 500,000 120 2,500 0.8 30 50 80 200,000 0.0 20 150,000 40 40 0.4 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 inthe 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 180 60 90 60 100 120,000 70 0.6 350,000 80,000 1.0 140 1,000 1.4 250,000 160 40,000 60,000 100,000 0.2 30 50 30 50 1 1,500 20 20 100,000 10 1.2 70 70 120 80 80 20,000 150,000 40 40 40 60 90 60 60 80,000 1.0 1.4 10 10 40,000 60,000 30 50 30 50 0 20 20 20 1.2 70 70 50,000 80 20,000 40 60 10 10 0 2013 20

Frankfurt am Main 500 50,000 0 0 London Heathrow International Rail network density

Frankfurt am Main 500 0 0 London Heathrow 0 Rail network density FIG. 53 0 United KingdomUnited Kingdom FIG. 55 SwedenSweden 1,800 0 1,000 1,400 1,600 1,200 1,800 0 1,000 1,400 1,600 Paris-Charles de Gaulle 1,200 800 400 600

Paris-Charles de Gaulle 200 800 400 600 Belgium Belgium FranceFrance Paris-CharlesParis-Charles de Gaulle de Gaulle 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Japan*

0 Japan*

Germany Germany 0

Netherlands Germany 0 Poland Netherlands Netherlands Germany UnitedUnited Kingdom Kingdom Poland GermanyGermany Netherlands AmsterdamAmsterdam Schiphol Schiphol NetherlandsNetherlands 2014 LondonLondon Heathrow Heathrow 2018 United Kingdom United Kingdom

Poland Finland Poland Finland Germany Amsterdam Schiphol Germany Amsterdam Schiphol FrankfurtFrankfurt am Main am Main PolandPoland PolandPoland

France 50

France 50 Austria Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom ItalyItaly FinlandFinland Japan*Japan* National Finland Finland MadridMadrid Adolfo Adolfo FranceFrance BelgiumBelgium SpainSpain United StatesUnited States LeipzigLeipzig Halle Halle SuárezSuárez Barajas Barajas UnitedUnited Kingdom Kingdom FranceFrance

Spain 100 Spain 100 FranceFrance BelgiumBelgium Italy UnitedUnited Kingdom Kingdom FranceFrance Italy NetherlandsNetherlands France France UnitedUnited Kingdom Kingdom IstanbulIstanbul SwedenSweden UnitedUnited States* States* Netherlands SwedenSweden LiègeLiège BarcelonaBarcelona El Prat El Prat Netherlands Germany Japan Japan SwedenSweden Germany 150 150 Belgium Belgium Motorway networkdensity LuxembourgLuxembourg Motorway networkdensity France United KingdomUnited Kingdom France

Finland Spain Spain United UnitedStates States Finland FranceFrance GermanyGermany CologneCologne Bonn Bonn AustriaAustria AustriaAustria Austria Finland Finland Austria NetherlandsNetherlands MunichMunich ItalyItaly UnitedUnited Kingdom Kingdom Sweden Sweden 200 LondonLondon Gatwick Gatwick Germany 200 Germany Ireland Milan MilanMalpensa Malpensa Ireland Spain Spain NetherlandsNetherlands PolandPoland SwedenSweden ItalyItaly RomeRome Fiumicino Fiumicino Ireland Ireland FinlandFinland BelgiumBelgium Austria BelgiumBelgium

250 Austria GermanyGermany Brussels SwedenSweden 250 MadridMadridBrussels Adolfo Adolfo FinlandFinland Austria Austria Japan Japan SuárezSuárez Barajas Barajas IstanbulIstanbul Sabiha Sabiha Gökçen Gökçen UnitedUnited States States GermanyGermany AntalyaAntalya SwedenSweden Ireland BelgiumBelgium Sweden Sweden Ireland SpainSpain 300 IrelandIreland 300 IrelandIreland MunichMunich FinlandFinland Belgium Poland Poland Belgium Finland Spain Spain Poland Poland East MidlandsEast Midlands Finland Spain Spain Italy Italy **** DublinDublin Netherlands ItalyItaly Netherlands 350 PolandPoland 350 Italy Italy AustriaAustria Paris-Orly AustriaAustria Italy*Italy* Italy Italy ViennaParis-Orly International Spain ZurichZurich Vienna International Spain

EU-28 Ireland Belgium**Belgium** II_4Chap Spain Spain EU-28 PolandPoland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland 400 EU-28 400 EU-28 ViennaVienna 0 KM PERMILLIONINHABITANTS LAND TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE DENSITY (2018*) after Poland, Germany andSpain. fourth amongtheEuropean countriesinthesample, 179,604 milliontonne-kmin2019,France was ranked road freight isconsiderable. With The volume of active inthisarea. transport using thevolumes by transported each meansof Transport capacityiscalculated infrastructure Source: Eurostat, 2019;BusinessFrance calculations * 2018orthemostrecent year 100 400,000 4 80 400,000 200 40 600,000 100,000 2,000 60 300,000 5 Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km millioninhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) 3 200,000 2 300,000 500,000 2,500 0.8 30 50 200,000 0.0 20 0.4 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 inthe 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 180 100 120,000 70 0.6 350,000 140 1,000 250,000 160 100,000 0.2 1 1,500 100,000 10 120 80 150,000 40 40 60 90 60 80,000 1.0 1.4 40,000 60,000 30 50 30 50 20 20 1.2 70 70 80 20,000 40 60 10 10 0 20 50,000

Frankfurt am Main 500 0 0 London Heathrow Rail network density 0 United Kingdom Germany FIG. 54 Sweden 1,800 0 1,000 1,400 1,600 Paris-Charles de Gaulle Germany 1,200 800 400 600 Poland 2019 Belgium France Paris-Charles de Gaulle Poland 200 0 0 0 * * 0 Japan*

Netherlands Germany Germany 0 Poland Germany Netherlands Amsterdam Schiphol Netherlands Germany United Kingdom London Heathrow PolandPoland Germany United Kingdom

Poland Finland Germany Amsterdam Schiphol Poland Poland

Frankfurt am Main (road, rail,sea,air).France isstillvery

France 50 Austria France United Kingdom ItalyFrance SpainSpain Finland Japan* Finland Madrid Adolfo France Belgium Spain United States Leipzig Halle Suárez Barajas United Kingdom France France Spain Italy France 100 France Belgium Italy

Italy Netherlands United Kingdom UnitedUnited Kingdom Kingdom France France United Kingdom Istanbul Austria Sweden United States* Sweden Liège Barcelona El Prat Austria Netherlands Japan Sweden Germany 150 United Kingdom Belgium Luxembourg Motorway networkdensity United Kingdom United Kingdom France Spain United States Finland France Germany Cologne Bonn Italy Austria Italy Austria

Finland Austria Netherlands Munich Netherlands Italy United Kingdom Sweden London Gatwick Germany Netherlands 200 Milan Malpensa Sweden Ireland Spain Sweden Netherlands Poland Sweden Italy Rome Fiumicino Ireland Finland Belgium Sweden Austria Belgium Germany Sweden Sweden 250 MadridBrussels Adolfo Spain Finland Austria Spain Japan Suárez Barajas Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen United States Germany Antalya Sweden Belgium Finland Belgium Belgium Sweden Ireland Finland Spain

Ireland 300 Ireland Munich FinlandBelgium Poland Belgium Belgium Finland

Finland Spain Spain Poland East Midlands ** Finland Italy ** ** Dublin Netherlands Netherlands Italy NetherlandsPoland Austria 350 Italy Italy Austria Paris-Orly Austria Austria Italy* Zurich Vienna International Spain EU-28 Ireland Belgium** Spain Poland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland 400 EU-28 Vienna Ireland Ireland BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

57 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Germany Poland *

Poland Germany

France Spain

Italy France United Kingdom Austria United Kingdom

Italy Netherlands Sweden

Sweden Spain

Belgium Finland

Belgium Finland ** Netherlands Austria

Ireland Ireland Chap II_4Chap

58 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 33,000 milliontonne-kmtransported in2019,France Rail freight isalsoextensive inFrance. With nearly Source: Eurostat, 2020 * Datafor 2018**Latestyear available 2011 TOTAL LOAD, MILLION TONNE-KM RAILFREIGHT TRANSPORT 0 100 400,000 4 80 Source: astate-owned group, intheform of are now placedinto a single unified state-controlled entities(EPICs) and efficient. Thethree current makingitmore consistent the aimof reorganized onJanuary 1,2020,with company SNCFwas completely France’s nationalstate-owned railway the network tocompetition. current systemandtheopeningupof the of themodernization consisting of set outanew pactinFrance, rail June 28,2018 The RailReform Actof in France Rail reform 400,000 200 40 600,000 100,000 2,000 60 300,000 5 Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km millioninhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic 3 200,000 2 300,000 500,000 2,500 0.8 30 50 200,000 0.0 20 0.4 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 inthe 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 180 100 120,000 70 0.6 350,000 140 1,000 250,000 160 100,000 0.2 1 1,500 100,000 10 120 80 150,000 40 40 60 90 60 80,000 1.0 1.4 40,000 60,000 30 50 30 50 20 20 1.2 70 70 80 20,000 40 60 10 10 0 20 50,000 International

Frankfurt am Main 500 0 0 London Heathrow Rail network density 0 United Kingdom FIG. 56 Sweden 1,800 0 1,000 1,400 1,600 Paris-Charles de Gaulle 1,200 800 400 600 Belgium France Paris-Charles de Gaulle 200 0 0 0

0 Japan*

Netherlands Germany Germany 0 United Kingdom Poland Netherlands www.gouvernement.fr/action/sncf-pour-un-nouveau-pacte-ferroviaire Netherlands

Germany Amsterdam Schiphol 2014 London Heathrow United Kingdom

Poland Finland Germany Amsterdam Schiphol Frankfurt am Main Poland Poland France Austria 50 United Kingdom Italy Finland Japan* Finland Madrid Adolfo National France Belgium Spain United States Leipzig Halle Suárez Barajas United Kingdom France Spain 100 France Belgium United Kingdom France Italy Netherlands France United Kingdom Istanbul Sweden United States* Sweden Liège Barcelona El Prat Netherlands Germany

Japan Sweden 150 Belgium Luxembourg Motorway networkdensity

United Kingdom France

Spain United States Finland France Germany Cologne Bonn Austria Austria

Finland Austria Netherlands Munich Italy United Kingdom Sweden London Gatwick Germany 200 Milan Malpensa Ireland Spain Netherlands Poland Sweden Italy Rome Fiumicino Ireland Finland Belgium Austria Belgium Germany Sweden 250 MadridBrussels Adolfo Finland Austria Japan Suárez Barajas Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen United States Germany Antalya Sweden Belgium Sweden Ireland Spain

Ireland 300 2023, valid for upto10years); and contracts to SNCFuntilDecember region, which cancontinue toaward trains (thepacetobedecidedby each December 2019for TERregional the TGV high-speedservices; from confirmed: From December2020 for network uptocompetition hasbeen the The timetable for theopeningof is alsobeinghandledby asingle entity. railway stations The management of remain wholly owned by thestate. corporation, whose capital will Ireland Munich Finland Poland Belgium Poland East Midlands Finland Spain Spain Italy ** Dublin Netherlands Italy Poland 350 Italy Italy Austria Paris-Orly Austria Italy* Zurich Vienna International Spain EU-28 Ireland Belgium** Spain Poland Ireland Ireland 400 EU-28 Vienna the sample, afterGermany andPoland. was ranked third amongtheEuropean countriesin Germany Poland 2019 *

Poland Germany

France Spain

Italy France disabled, etc.)willbemaintained. fares (people from large families, continue tooperate; and discounted their pay and benefits; services will being transferred elsewhere, willkeep theirjobs employees, intheevent of competition comeswithassurances: the network to The opening up of lines. Transiliens andÎledeFrance RER between 2023and2039for the United Kingdom Austria United Kingdom

Italy Netherlands Sweden

Sweden Spain

Belgium Finland

Belgium Finland ** Netherlands Austria

Ireland Ireland uln c,i saqeto fgiving Outline Act, it is aquestion of priorities set out in the Transport various uses.Firstly, inlinewiththe trains in their increase the supply of therailnetwork inorder to quality of The mainaimistoimprove theoverall towards meetingthisobjective. to make asignificantcontribution h aneitr fCO the mainemitters of The transport sector, which isoneof aims to be carbon neutral by 2050. against climatethe fight change and France isresolutely committedto the railsectoranditsattractiveness. It istherefore important to improve carbon andenvironmental footprint. reducing thetransport sector’s and for goods, asit contributes to to road transport, bothfor passengers Rail travel isanefficientalternative “Relaunch France”plan sector aspartofthe strategy fortherail Setting upasupport 2 , willhave oohrsial oeo transport no othersuitable modeof them tourbanareas, especially when populated regions andbetterlink to increase railtravel inlessdensely the feeder railway lines across France together withthedifferent regions, in reinvesting, It is also a question of theenvironment. of aim istoensure continued protection this technology). Animportant part of digital (including theuseof various developments intechnology crossings) by takingintoaccount delays) andsafety (especially atlevel incidents and subsequent number of improve regularity (i.e.limitthe transport network. The aim is to is themostwidely usednational to regenerate what and modernize the SNCFrailcompany themeans

and 2022. with allwork between beginning 2020 France” planamounts to €4.7billion, the“Relauncheffort aspart of The State’s additional investment conditions. possible undertherighteconomic logistics hubs and ports as closely as freight, in order toserve businesses, to better support the transport of Lastly, therail network must evolve network. to reintroduce night trains across the for peoplewithreduced mobility, and station facilities, particularly access the aimisalsotospeedupwork on regional balance.Furthermore, regions andfinding opening-up of exists. The real issues here are the

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

59 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_4Chap

60 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD GROSS WEIGHT,GROSS THOUSANDTONNES FREIGHTMARITIME TRANSPORT among theEuropean countriesinthesample. more than300milliontonnes, rankingFrance fifth freight handledby French mainlandports totaled (the Atlantic, theIndian,andPacific). In2018, Channel/North Sea)andenjoys accesstothree oceans andtheEnglishAtlantic, theMediterranean, is flanked by Europe’s three large coastlines(the ports, andmore than500decentralizedports, it maritime transport. With 66commercial maritime advantages in France alsoboastsanumber of Heathrow, while Paris Orly wasranked 14th. ranked afterLondon secondby passengerscarried airports intheEU-28:Paris-Charles deGaullewas Paris’ airports were ranked inthetop15 two of 100,000 passenger movements peryear. In2018, France has59airports thateach record more than supplemented by excellent airport infrastructure. These landandmaritimetransport networks are Source: Eurostat, 2019 0 100 400,000 4 80 400,000 200 40 600,000 100,000 2,000 60 300,000 5 Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km millioninhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport 3 200,000 2 300,000 500,000 2,500 0.8 30 50 200,000 0.0 20 0.4 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 inthe 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 180 100 120,000 70 0.6 350,000 140 1,000 250,000 160 100,000 0.2 1 1,500 100,000 10 120 80 150,000 40 40 60 90 60 80,000 1.0 1.4 40,000 60,000 30 50 30 50 20 20 1.2 70 70 80 20,000 40 60 10 10 0 20 50,000 2013

Frankfurt am Main 500 0 0 London Heathrow Rail network density FIG. 57 United Kingdom 0 Sweden 1,800 0 1,000 1,400 1,600 Paris-Charles de Gaulle 1,200 800 400 600 Belgium France Paris-Charles de Gaulle 200 0 0 0

0 Japan*

Netherlands Germany Germany 0 Poland Germany Netherlands Amsterdam Schiphol Netherlands United Kingdom London Heathrow 2018 United Kingdom

Poland Finland Germany Amsterdam Schiphol Frankfurt am Main Poland Poland France Austria 50 United Kingdom Italy Finland Japan* Finland Madrid Adolfo France Belgium Spain United States Leipzig Halle Suárez Barajas United Kingdom France Spain 100 France Belgium United Kingdom France Italy Netherlands France United Kingdom Istanbul Sweden United States* Sweden Liège Barcelona El Prat Netherlands Japan Sweden Germany 150 Belgium Luxembourg Motorway networkdensity

United Kingdom France

Spain United States Finland France Germany Cologne Bonn Austria

Austria

Finland Austria Netherlands Munich Italy United Kingdom Sweden London Gatwick Germany 200 Milan Malpensa Ireland Spain Netherlands Poland Sweden Italy Rome Fiumicino Ireland Finland Belgium Austria Belgium Germany Sweden 250 MadridBrussels Adolfo Finland Austria Japan Suárez Barajas Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen United States Germany Antalya Sweden Belgium Sweden Ireland Spain

Ireland 300 Ireland Munich Finland Poland Belgium Poland East Midlands Finland Spain Spain Italy ** Dublin Netherlands Italy Poland 350 Italy Italy Austria Paris-Orly Austria Italy* Zurich Vienna International Spain Chap II_4Chap Chap II_4Chap EU-28 Ireland Belgium** Spain Poland Ireland Ireland 400 EU-28 Vienna MILLION PASSENGERS CARRIED 15 LEADING AIRPORTS IN THE EU-28(2019) Source: Eurostat THOUSAND TONNES OFCARGO AND MAIL 15 LEADING AIRPORTS IN THE EU-28(2019) Heathrow. 2019, was ranked secondamongEU-28 airportsin cargoConcerning transport, Paris-Charles deGaulle Source: Eurostat, 2020 0 100 400,000 4 80 0 400,000 100 200 40 600,000 100,000 400,000 4 2,000 60 80 300,000 400,000 5 Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km millioninhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) 3 200 40 600,000 100,000 200,000 2 2,000 60 300,000 500,000 2,500 0.8 30 50 300,000 5 200,000 Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km millioninhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) 3 0.0 20 200,000 2 0.4 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 inthe 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 300,000 500,000 180 2,500 100 0.8 30 50 120,000 70 0.6 200,000 350,000 140 1,000 0.0 20 250,000 0.4 160 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 in the 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 180 100 120,000 70 100,000 0.2 0.6 350,000 1 140 1,000 250,000 1,500 160 100,000 10 100,000 0.2 1 120 1,500 80 100,000 10 150,000 40 40 120 60 90 60 80 80,000 1.0 150,000 1.4 40 40 40,000 60 90 60 60,000 30 50 30 50 80,000 1.0 1.4 20 20 40,000 1.2 60,000 30 50 30 50 70 70 20 20 80 20,000 1.2 40 70 70 60 80 20,000 40 10 10 60 0 10 10 20 0 50,000 20 50,000 International International

Frankfurt am Main 500

Frankfurt am Main 500 0 0 London Heathrow 0 0 London Heathrow Rail network density Rail network density 0 0 FIG. 58 United Kingdom United Kingdom FIG. 59 Sweden Sweden 1,800 1,800 0 1,000 1,400 0 1,600 1,000 1,400 1,600 1,200 Paris-Charles de Gaulle 1,200 800

Paris-Charles de Gaulle 400 800 600 400 600 200 Belgium Belgium France France Paris-Charles de Gaulle Paris-Charles de Gaulle Germany 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poland 0 0 Japan* Japan* 0 Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Germany Germany 0 Poland Poland

fe rnfr ipr u ha fLondon after Frankfurt airport butaheadof * United Kingdom Germany Germany Netherlands Netherlands Amsterdam Schiphol Amsterdam Schiphol Netherlands Netherlands United Kingdom London Heathrow London Heathrow Germany United Kingdom Poland United Kingdom Poland Poland Finland Finland Germany Germany Amsterdam Schiphol Amsterdam Schiphol Frankfurt am Main Frankfurt am Main Poland Poland Poland Poland 50 France France Austria Austria 50 United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy Italy Finland Finland Japan* Japan* National National France Spain Finland Finland Madrid Adolfo Madrid Adolfo France France Belgium Belgium Spain Spain United States United States Leipzig Halle Leipzig Halle Suárez Barajas Suárez Barajas United Kingdom United Kingdom France France 100 Spain Spain 100 France France Belgium Belgium France Italy ItalyUnited Kingdom United Kingdom France France Italy Netherlands Netherlands France France United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Istanbul Istanbul Sweden Sweden United States* United States* Netherlands Sweden Sweden Liège Liège Barcelona El Prat Barcelona El Prat Netherlands Germany Japan Japan Austria Sweden Sweden Germany 150 150 Belgium Belgium Motorway networkdensity Luxembourg Luxembourg Motorway networkdensity United Kingdom France United Kingdom France Finland Spain Spain United States United States Finland United Kingdom France France Germany Germany Cologne Bonn Cologne Bonn Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Finland Finland Austria Netherlands Netherlands Munich Munich Italy Italy Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom Sweden Sweden 200 London Gatwick London Gatwick Germany 200 Germany Ireland Milan Malpensa Milan Malpensa Netherlands Ireland Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands Poland Poland Sweden Sweden Sweden Italy Italy Rome Fiumicino Rome Fiumicino Ireland Ireland Finland Finland Belgium Belgium Austria Belgium Belgium

250 Austria Germany Germany Brussels Sweden Sweden 250 MadridBrussels Adolfo Madrid Adolfo Finland Finland Austria Austria Sweden Japan Japan Suárez Barajas Suárez Barajas Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen Spain United States United States Germany Germany Antalya Antalya Sweden Sweden Ireland Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Ireland Spain Spain 300 Ireland Ireland Belgium 300 Finland Ireland Ireland Munich Munich Finland Finland Belgium Poland Poland Belgium Finland Spain Spain Finland Spain Poland Poland East Midlands East Midlands Belgium Spain Italy Italy **Finland ** Dublin Dublin Netherlands Italy Italy Netherlands 350 ** Poland Poland 350 Austria Italy Italy Italy Austria Austria Paris-Orly Paris-Orly Austria Italy* Italy* Italy Vienna International Vienna International Netherlands Spain Spain Zurich Zurich Austria EU-28 Ireland Belgium** Belgium** Spain Spain EU-28 Poland Poland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland 400 400 EU-28 EU-28 Vienna Vienna Ireland Ireland

Germany Germany Poland Poland * * Germany Poland Poland Germany

France France Spain Spain

France Italy Italy France United Kingdom United Kingdom Austria Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom

Italy Italy Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Sweden

Sweden Sweden Spain Spain

Belgium Belgium Finland Finland

Belgium Belgium Finland Finland ** ** Netherlands Netherlands Austria Austria

Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Chap II_4Chap 0 100 400,000 4 80 400,000 200 40 600,000 100,000 2,000 60 300,000 5 Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km millioninhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) 3 200,000 2 300,000 500,000 Source: OECD, Broadband Statistics, 2020 SUBSCRIBERS PER100INHABITANTS (DECEMBER 2019) BROADBAND PENETRATION RATE 100 inhabitantsinFrance. broadband connections, with93.7subscribers per The disparitieswere more pronounced for wireless the United States(34.7). Germany (42.2),theUnitedKingdom(40),and per 100inhabitants.Thisrateishigherthanin the countriesinsample, with44.1subscribers the highestfixed broadband penetrationrateamong acountry’s connectivity.indicator of France had The isagood broadband rate penetration Telecommunications infrastructure 2,500 0.8 30 50 200,000 0.0 20 0.4 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 inthe 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6 deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 180 100 120,000 70 0.6 350,000 140 1,000 250,000 160 100,000 0.2 1 1,500 100,000 10 120 80 150,000 40 40 60 90 60 80,000 1.0 1.4 40,000 60,000 30 50 30 50 20 20 1.2 70 70 80 20,000 40 60 10 10 0 20 50,000

Frankfurt am Main 500 0 0 London Heathrow Wireless broadband Rail network density 0

United Kingdom FIG. 60 Sweden 1,800 0 1,000 1,400 1,600 Paris-Charles de Gaulle 1,200 800 400 600 Belgium France Paris-Charles de Gaulle 200 0 0 0

0 Japan*

Netherlands Germany Germany 0 Poland Germany Netherlands Amsterdam Schiphol Netherlands United Kingdom London Heathrow United Kingdom

Poland Finland Germany Amsterdam Schiphol Frankfurt am Main Poland Poland France Austria 50 United Kingdom Italy Finland Japan* Finland Madrid Adolfo France Belgium Spain United States Leipzig Halle Suárez Barajas United Kingdom France Spain 100 France Belgium

United Kingdom Italy Netherlands Fixed broadband France France United Kingdom Istanbul Sweden United States* Sweden Liège Barcelona El Prat Netherlands Japan Sweden Germany 150 Belgium Luxembourg Motorway networkdensity

United Kingdom France

Spain United States Finland France Germany Cologne Bonn Austria Austria

Finland Austria Netherlands Munich Italy United Kingdom Sweden London Gatwick Germany 200 Milan Malpensa Ireland Spain Netherlands Poland Sweden Italy Rome Fiumicino Ireland Finland Belgium Austria Belgium Germany Sweden 250 MadridBrussels Adolfo Finland Austria Japan Suárez Barajas Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen United States Germany Antalya Sweden Belgium Sweden Ireland Spain

Ireland 300 Ireland Munich Finland Poland Belgium Poland East Midlands Finland Spain Spain Italy ** Dublin Netherlands Italy Poland 350 Italy Italy Austria Paris-Orly Austria Italy* Zurich Vienna International Spain EU-28 Ireland Belgium** Spain Poland Ireland Ireland 400 EU-28 Vienna

average (92%)andGermany (90%). all subscriptions inFrance, higher thantheEU-28 than orequalto10Mbpsamounted97%of In 2019,fixed broadbandgreater subscriptions Germany Poland country by 2025. fiberopticbroadbandout ultra-fast across the rolling thegoal of France hasjustsetitself 2016(51.2%). met by theendof thepopulationby 2017was reaching 50%of government. target Theintermediate of operators, local authorities and central with theburden beingshared between private €20 billion,program willreceive investment of Launched inspring 2013,thedecade-long totheentire country by30 Mbits/s) 2022. high-speed broadband than (greater national investment strategy to bring Plan ( The High-SpeedBroadband France Plan France Broadband High-Speed Source: www.gouvernement.fr/action/le-plan-france-tres-haut-debit *

Poland Germany

France Spain France Très HautDébit)

Italy France United Kingdom Austria United Kingdom

Italy Netherlands

Sweden

Sweden Spain

Belgium Finland

Belgium Finland

is a ** Netherlands Austria

Ireland Ireland BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

61 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_4Chap

62 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD % (JUNE 2019) SHARE OFFIXEDBROADBAND SUBSCRIPTIONS ≥10MBPS France third amongthesamplecountries. ratio was 2019,which 56%in September places technology. According toCisco, itsIPv6deployment France ismakinggood progress rolling outIPv6 Source: European CommissionDigitalScoreboard, 2020 0 100 400,000 4 80 400,000 200 40 600,000 100,000 2,000 60 300,000 5 % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km millioninhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport 3 200,000 2 300,000 500,000 2,500 0.8 30 50 200,000 0.0 20 0.4 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 inthe 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 180 100 120,000 70 0.6 350,000 140 1,000 250,000 160 100,000 0.2 1 1,500 100,000 10 120 80 150,000 40 40 60 90 60 80,000 1.0 1.4 40,000 60,000 30 50 30 50 20 20 1.2 70 70 80 20,000 40 60 10 10 0 20 50,000

Frankfurt am Main 500 0 0 London Heathrow Rail network density 0 United Kingdom FIG. 61 Sweden 1,800 0 1,000 1,400 1,600 Paris-Charles de Gaulle 1,200 800 400 600 Belgium France Paris-Charles de Gaulle 200 0 0 0

0 Japan* the infrastructure readiescountries aheadof operate intandem.Running IPv6-enabled the twowill systems identification period, duetolastseveralyears, to beused.Duringthecurrenttransition has enabledsomefourbillionaddresses The latterremainsinwidespreaduseand set toreplacetheprevioussystem,IPv4. for internet-connecteddevices,andis IPv6 isthelatestidentificationprotocol IPV6 Netherlands Germany Germany 0 Poland Germany Netherlands Amsterdam Schiphol Netherlands United Kingdom London Heathrow United Kingdom

Poland Finland

upcoming exhaustionofIPv4 addresses. Germany Amsterdam Schiphol Frankfurt am Main Poland Poland France Austria 50 United Kingdom Italy Finland Japan* Finland Madrid Adolfo France Belgium Spain United States Leipzig Halle Suárez Barajas United Kingdom France Spain 100 France Belgium United Kingdom France Italy Netherlands France United Kingdom Istanbul Sweden United States* Sweden Liège Barcelona El Prat Netherlands Japan Sweden Germany 150 Belgium Luxembourg Motorway networkdensity

United Kingdom France

Spain United States Finland Deployment France Germany Cologne Bonn Austria Austria

Finland Austria Netherlands Munich Italy United Kingdom Sweden London Gatwick Germany 200 Milan Malpensa Ireland Spain Netherlands Poland Sweden Italy Rome Fiumicino Ireland Finland Belgium Austria Belgium Germany Sweden 250 MadridBrussels Adolfo Finland Austria Suárez Barajas United States Germany Japan Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen Sweden Antalya Ratio = Belgium Sweden Ireland Spain

Ireland 300 Ireland Munich Finland Poland Belgium Poland East Midlands Finland Spain Spain Italy ** Dublin Netherlands Italy Poland 350 % Italy Italy Austria Paris-Orly Austria Italy* Zurich Vienna International Spain Chap II_4Chap Transit EU-28 Ireland Belgium** Spain Poland Ireland Ireland 400 EU-28 Vienna AS +3x% calculated usingthefollowing formula: traffic, contentandend users,andis of function isa ratio This 100. to ranges from0(IPv6notdeployed) the deploymentofprotocol,which Cisco hasdevisedaratiotomonitor to undergoanumberofmodifications. and theirinternetserviceproviderneed the websitestheyvisit,theirserver users tobe abletouseIPv6, For end 0 100 400,000 4 80 400,000 200 40 600,000 100,000 2,000 60 300,000 5 % of GDP Graph 1.Gross fixed services capital formation inpublic Gross weight, thousand tonnesGross thousand weight, Graph freight Maritime 6. transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph 5. Rail freight transport Total milliontonne-km load, Graph Road 4. freight transport Km millioninhabitants per Graph infrastructure 3. transport Land density (2018*) Gross investment a%of as GDP Graph Investment 2. infrastructure transport ininland 3 200,000 2 300,000 500,000 2,500 0.8 30 50 200,000 0.0 20 0.4 Million passengers carried Graph 7. EU-28 inthe 15leading airports (2019) Graph (September 2020) 11.IPv6deployment* % Graph 10. Share of fixed 2019) broadband subscriptions (June Mbps ≥10 inhabitants 100 per Subscribers Graph 9. Broadband penetration rate 2019) (December Thousand tonnes of cargo mail and Graph EU-28 inthe 8. 15leading airports (2019) 180 100 120,000 70 0.6 350,000 140 1,000 250,000 160 100,000 0.2 1 1,500 100,000 10 % (SEPTEMBER 2020) IPV6 DEPLOYMENT* Source: Cisco, 2020 IPv6prefixes,into accountthepercentage traffic, of users. contentandinternet IPv6technology taking * Ratio calculatedby Ciscotomeasure of thedeployment 120 80 150,000 40 40 60 90 60 80,000 1.0 1.4 40,000 60,000 30 50 30 50 20 20 1.2 70 70 80 20,000 40 60 10 10 0 20 50,000

Frankfurt am Main 500 0 0 London Heathrow Rail network density 0 METHODOLOGY United Kingdom Sweden FIG. 62 1,800 0 1,000 1,400 1,600 Paris-Charles de Gaulle 1,200 800 400 600 Belgium France Paris-Charles de Gaulle Germany 200

Poland0 0 0

0 Japan*

Netherlands * Germany Germany 0 United Kingdom Poland 4 Germany Netherlands Amsterdam Schiphol Netherlands London Heathrow Germany

Poland United Kingdom

Poland Finland Germany Amsterdam Schiphol Frankfurt am Main Poland Poland content x% France Austria 50 United Kingdom Finland France Italy Spain Japan* Finland Madrid Adolfo France Belgium Spain United States Leipzig Halle Suárez Barajas United Kingdom France Spain 100 France Belgium France ItalyUnited Kingdom France Italy Netherlands France United Kingdom United Kingdom Istanbul Sweden United States* Sweden Liège Barcelona El Prat Austria Netherlands Japan Sweden Germany 150 Belgium Luxembourg Motorway networkdensity

United Kingdom France Spain United States United Kingdom Finland France Germany user Cologne Bonn Austria Austria

Finland Italy Austria Netherlands Munich Italy United Kingdom Sweden London Gatwick Germany 200 Milan Malpensa Netherlands Ireland Spain Netherlands Poland Sweden Sweden Italy Rome Fiumicino Ireland Finland Belgium Austria Belgium Germany Sweden 250 MadridBrussels Adolfo FinlandSweden Austria Spain Japan Suárez Barajas Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen United States Germany Antalya Sweden Belgium Sweden Ireland SpainBelgium

Ireland Finland 300 Ireland Munich Finland Belgium Poland Belgium Poland East Midlands Finland Spain Spain Italy Finland** Dublin ** Netherlands Italy Netherlands Poland 350 Italy Italy Austria Paris-Orly Austria Italy* Zurich Vienna International Austria Spain EU-28 Ireland Belgium** Spain Poland Ireland Ireland 400 EU-28 Vienna Ireland Ireland

Germany Poland *

Poland Germany

France Spain

Italy France United Kingdom Austria United Kingdom

Italy Netherlands Sweden

Sweden Spain

Belgium Finland

Belgium Finland ** Netherlands Austria

Ireland Ireland Transactions salehasbeensigned. areas =surface for which aleaseorcontract of INDICATORS FORLEADINGEUROPEANOFFICEPROPERTY MARKETS Toulouse andMarseille). four otherFrench citiesare table intheleague (Lyon, Lille, transactionnumbers in2019,while European of citiesinterms allmajor dynamic inEurope: Paris (center)was aheadof The French themost businessreal-estate market isoneof Business offices Source: BNPParibas Real Estate, European OfficeMarket 2020 Luxembourg Brussels Lille Lyon Milan Hamburg Vienna Marseille Rome Bucharest Budapest Barcelona Warsaw Madrid Frankfurt Birmingham Munich Berlin London (center) Stockholm Lisbon Paris (center) Amsterdam Prague Dublin FIG. 63 2,064,363 1, 016,000 1,147,084 488,087 583,000 635,000 260,606 220,000 284,063 770,000 309,847 165,900 514,680 361,980 400,169 724,700 441,838 138,586 512,000 282,387 264,106 188,527 329,519 272,619 617,133 2019 Transactions (sq.m.) 2,206,488 1,400,461 270,000 678,000 340,504 563,000 359,480 975,000 389,530 206,428 657,000 354,569 831,000 172,529 331,910 247,882 385,787 180,750 533,595 124,634 377,798 292,019 361,423 277,691 2018 70,155 Q4 2019Q4 8.0 % 8.0 4.9 % 4.9 10.5 % 12.8 % 4.7 % 4.7 % 4.8 % 6.8 % 6.8 8.4 % 8.4 9.8 % 9.8 6.5 % 6.5 6.2 % 6.2 2.4 % 2.4 4.7 % 5.6 % 5.6 3.6 % 3.6 7.8 % 7.8 6.7 % 6.7 5.5 % 5.5 5.5 % 5.5 5.7 % 5.7 4.1 % 1.5 % 1.5 5.1 % 5.1 7.1 % 7.1 Vacancy rate (%) Q4 2018Q4 10.6 % 10.6 12.4 % 8.7 % 8.7 5.5 % 5.5 5.5 % 5.5 5.3 % 5.3 8.8 % 8.8 8.6 % 8.6 6.4 % 6.4 8.3 % 8.3 4.5 % 4.5 5.8 % 5.8 5.0 % 5.0 9.6 % 9.6 4.7 % 5.5 % 5.5 7.9 % 7.9 2.3 % 2.3 7.4 % 7.4 3.7 % 3.7 7.3 % 7.3 7.2 % 7.2 6.1 % 6.1 1.7 % 5.1 % 5.1 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

63 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 64 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 1 economy fornetenterprisecreation. industry. FranceistheleadingEuropean economy as a whole, or in manufacturing reflect this environment, whether in the Buoyant levelsofenterprisecreation a construction permit. trading across borders, and obtaining enforcing contracts, starting a business, number of important categories, including France hasseenverygoodscoresina economies forbusinessenvironments. ranking positionamongthemajor Business report, France holds a middle- According totheWorldBank’sDoing individuals’ projectsmoreeasily. now support private key players and services, the French government can its modern and efficient e-government that arestillongoing.Thanksto in recent years, following major reforms environment hasbecomemuchmoremodern France’s administrativeandregulatory Pleasenotethatthe Doing Business2021iscurrently suspended. AND REGULATORY ADMINISTRATIVE ENVIRONMENT 2.5 (ninth amongoursamplecountries). 2020 edition,France isranked 32ndintheworld that appearsintheDoingBusinessreport. Inthe business in190economiesevery year inanalysis doing The World Bankevaluates theeaseof protecting minorityinvestors. France alsoachieves good results of interms and their cost). procedures, timethey take indays, on thenumber of capita income),andgettingelectricity(index based per paid-in capitalrequirement asapercentage of time they take indays, theircost,andtheminimum business theclaim), startinga the costasapercentage of procedures, timethey take indays, and number of borders, enforcing (index contracts basedon the France’s are bestperformances across intrading high-qualitypublic services. provision of all thebenefits received, for example through the country’s attractiveness, toconsider asitfails insofar a times. Itdoesnotprovide anaccuratepicture of The report mainly examines costsandtransaction enforcing contracts, and resolving insolvency. investors, paying taxes, tradingacross borders, property, getting credit, protecting minority construction permits,getting electricity, registering in 10categories:starting abusiness, dealingwith regulations The rankingisbasedonanalysis of

idxbsdo h ubro procedures, (index basedonthenumber of

1

Chap II_5 Chap Chap II_5 Chap 80 Source: World Bank,DoingBusiness2020 GLOBAL RANKINGS EASE OFSTARTING A BUSINESS(2020) Source: World Bank,DoingBusiness20 GLOBAL RANKINGS EASE OFENFORCINGCONTRACTS (2020) 180 180 100 100 40 60 90 140 140 10 160 160 200 14 80 -4,000 180 180 100 100 30 50 -6,000 40 Global rankings Graph 1.Ease of enforcing contracts (2020) Global rankings Graph Ease 2. (2020) of abusiness starting Total economy Graph Net 6. growth (2018) enterprises inactive % Graph rate 5. start-up Enterprise (2018) Pour emplois 1000 Graph Nombre 4. jours de travail de annuels grèves de cause perdus pour (2018) % Graph internet 3. the using Individuals (2019) to interact authorities public with 60 90 140 140 20 10 160 160 120 120 10,000 200 14 70 200,000 -4,000 250 12 -100,000 30 50 Manufacturing sector Manufacturing Graph 7. Net growth (2018) enterprises inactive -6,000 -2,000 Global rankings Graph 1.Ease of enforcing contracts (2020) Global rankings Graph Ease 2. (2020) of abusiness starting Total economy Graph Net 6. growth (2018) enterprises inactive % Graph rate 5. start-up Enterprise (2018) Pour emplois 1000 Graph Nombre 4. jours de travail de annuels grèves de cause perdus pour (2018) % Graph internet 3. the using Individuals (2019) to interact authorities public with 100 20 120 120 10,000 12,000 70 200,000 250 12 10 -100,000 250,000 Manufacturing sector Manufacturing Graph 7. Net growth (2018) enterprises inactive -2,000 100 100,000 150 12,000 80 80 10 250,000 -50,000 40 40 0 8 100,000 60 60 150 150,000 4 6 80 80 8,000 -50,000 40 40 0 8 60 60 4,000 20 20 150,000 6,000 4 6 2 8,000 4,000 20 20 2,000 6,000 2 0 50 2,000 0 50 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 FIG. 65 FIG. 64 United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 0 Finland Finland Austria Austria

0 Austria*

0 Austria* France France United States United States Germany Germany France France Sweden Sweden Ireland Ireland Netherlands Netherlands Poland Poland Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands France France Sweden Sweden United Kingdom United Kingdom France France United States Ireland* Ireland* United States Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Netherlands Finland Poland Poland France France Netherlands** Netherlands** Spain Spain France France Spain Spain Austria Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom Belgium* Belgium* Spain United Kingdom United Kingdom Ireland* Ireland* Spain Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Ireland* Ireland* Finland Finland Belgium* Belgium* Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Ireland Ireland Spain Spain United States United States Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Finland Finland Finland Finland Germany Germany Italy** Italy** Sweden Sweden Finland Finland Spain Spain Japan Japan Italy Italy Belgium Belgium Germany* Germany* France France Germany* Germany* United Kingdom Poland Poland Spain Spain United Kingdom Italy Italy Germany* Germany* Spain Spain Belgium Belgium Austria Austria Japan Japan Austria Austria Finland*** Finland*** Poland Poland Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Italy Italy Italy Italy Belgium* Belgium* Japan Italy Italy Poland Poland Poland Poland Japan Austria Austria Ireland Ireland Sweden Sweden pas trouvé Ireland pas trouvé EU-28 EU-28 Ireland Poland Poland Italy Italy -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% authorities. administrations andlocal digital transformation of to €1.5billionwillbeallocatedacceleratingthe Finally, the“Relaunch France” plan,up aspart of economic activity andsimplifypeople’s lives. this movement withnewmeasures thatfacilitate reading onOctober28,2020,aimstostrengthen Public Action(ASAP),which passeditsfinal Meanwhile, theBilltoAccelerateandSimplify Committee for Public Transformation (CITP). reforms have beenannouncedby theInterministerial organizational andhumanresources management public sectorin2019.Furthermore, structural, the expand thismovement, such asthereform of several laws have madeitpossible tocontinue and thePresident’s five-year term, Since thestart of security contributionsstatement. asingle social 2015), andtheintroduction in2016of and EqualEconomicOpportunity Act(August (December 2014),theGrowth, EconomicActivity law through theCorporate Simplification Act since 2012,whose recommendations have become wide-ranging administrative simplificationprogram reforms inrecent years ina andhasbeenengaged of The French government outanumber hascarried is anotherstrength. e-government (electronic ordigitalgovernment) each region. Assuch, thedevelopment of of attractiveness andtheeconomicdevelopment playsadministration anessentialrole inFrance’s public andeffectivenessThe modernity of BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

65 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 66 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD (51%), Germany (21%)andtheEU-28average (38%). theUnitedKingdom authorities in2019,aheadof citizens submittedcompletedforms topublic EU-28 average (55%).Moreover, French 64% of the (63%) andGermany (59%),andwas aheadof theUnitedKingdom France was ranked aheadof with public authorities(versus only 48%in2008). individuals inFrance tointeract usedtheinternet public services have beendigitized.In2019,75%of and public authoritiesreveals towhich thedegree onlineinteractionsbetween individuals The rateof secure. employees andemployers more making working relations between empowering its stakeholders; and economic andsocialdialogue by simplifying andconsolidating safeguarding collective bargaining; The reform isbasedonthree elements: enhancing social dialogue to introducemeasures to issuedecrees enabling thegovernment Act ofSeptember15,2017, fewer than50personnel, ordirectly representative in companies with directly with anelectedemployee negotiating measures (possibility of and SMEsthrough specific development inmicro-enterprises collective bargaining, facilitatingits The decrees placeanemphasison Chap II_5 Chap 80 % AUTHORITIES (2019) INDIVIDUALS USING THE INTERNET TO INTERACT WITH PUBLIC Source: Eurostat, 2020 180 180 100 100 40 60 90 140 140 10 160 160 200 14 -4,000 30 50 -6,000 Global rankings Graph Ease 2. (2020) of abusiness starting Global rankings Graph 1.Ease of enforcing contracts (2020) Total economy Graph Net 6. growth (2018) enterprises inactive % Graph rate 5. start-up Enterprise (2018) Pour emplois 1000 Graph Nombre 4. jours de travail de annuels grèves de cause perdus pour (2018) % Graph internet 3. the using Individuals (2019) to interact authorities public with 20 120 120 10,000 70 200,000 250 12 -100,000 Manufacturing sector Manufacturing Graph 7. Net growth (2018) enterprises inactive -2,000 100 12,000 10 250,000 100,000 150 80 80 -50,000 40 40 0 8 60 60 150,000 4 6 8,000 4,000 20 20 6,000 2 2,000 0 50 50,000 Submittingcompletedforms (last12months) Interactionwithpublic authorities(last12months) 0 0 0 United Kingdom UnitedFIG. 66 Kingdom

0 Finland Austria

0 Austria*

France United States Germany France Sweden Ireland Netherlands Poland Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands France United Kingdom France Sweden Ireland* United States United Kingdom Netherlands Finland Poland France industry-wide agreements). enterprises andSMEsincluded in specific provisions for micro- a standardized form for dismissals; clear, digitizedemployment laws; fewer than20personnel; accessto with employees in companies with Netherlands** Spain France Spain Austria United Kingdom Belgium* United Kingdom Ireland* Spain Sweden Germany Ireland* Finland Belgium* Belgium Sweden Ireland Spain United States

Austria Sweden Finland Finland Germany Italy** Sweden Finland Spain Japan Italy Belgium Germany* France Germany* Poland Spain United Kingdom Italy Germany* Spain Belgium Austria Japan Austria Finland*** Poland Netherlands Germany Italy Italy Belgium* Italy Poland Poland Japan Austria Ireland Sweden

pas trouvé EU-28 Ireland Poland Italy -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 2 with theseadjustments, theemployer an employee refuses to comply If effectiveness and competitiveness. to ensure theiroperational to working time,pay, andmobility make any necessaryadjustments now to seekamajorityagreement market conditions, companies can In order toquickly adapttochanging actively involved inthetradeunion. progress intheircareers while being skills assessmentstoenable themto access tovocational trainingand social dialogue now have further the tradeunion,thoseinvolved in To enhance their participation in for uptothree years. can alsobedefined by thecompanies consultations) content, andlevel of for collective bargaining (frequency, with atleast11employees. Theagenda économique –CSE),for allcompanies Economic Committee ( a single structure, theSocialand merging and rendered more by operational hasbeensimplified Social dialogue Dce f etme 5 07o h eeauto fstatutory severance pay. 25,2017onthere-evaluation September of Decree of representative bodiesinto Comité social et

Moreover, appeals hasbeenreduced tooneyear. whilelitigation, theperiod allowed for potential thecostsof concerning provide greater securityandvisibility unfair dismissalare now cappedto Employment tribunaldamagesfor contracts. contracts, andproject-based fixed-term contracts, temporary also specifytheregulations governing equality intheworkplace. They can in particular withregard togender the guaranteesthatapply tothem, employees aswell as conditions of can now definethehiringand working assigned new powers. Thebranches sectors, different industry specificities of To reflect more accurately the employer. personal trainingaccount from the 100hours totheir a contributionof cause. Theemployee willthenreceive grounds, for butwill beatermination not constitutedismissaloneconomic can now resort todismissal.Thiswill their branches have been statutory compensationfor dismissal hasbeenincreased by 25%. work-life balance. flexible manner, promoting abetter possible totelework inasecure and digital technologies, itwillnow be working methods arising from new In order totake intoaccountnew preservation plansanddismissals. thus avoiding the need to resort to job collective company-wide agreement, redundancies tobedefinedthrough a common framework for voluntary been introduced, have agreements termination Finally, procedures fairer and more transparent. thereby makingredeployment redeployment offers hasbeensimplified, national level. Thepresentation of dismissals willnow bedefinedat foreconomic grounds collective to foreign investors. Recognized and enhanceFrance’s attractiveness it easier to restructure companies Several measures also aimtomake collective contract allowing a 2 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

67 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 68 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 3 In 2018,theenterprise startup rate environment. administrativeto itsmore modern andregulatory Enterprise creation isbuoyant inFrance, thanks head counts. conductingstaff thresholds for SMEsandmethodsof abusiness, aswell asthesimplificationof closure of relating tothecreation, modificationandpermanent one-stop-shop systemtodealwiththeformalities businessesby settingupanelectronic and growth of includes thecreation asection aimedatfacilitating and Transformation, known asthePACTE Act, environment. TheActionPlanfor BusinessGrowth improving, securingandsimplifying thebusiness theeconomy hasinvolved competitiveness of The government’s tostrengthen the strategy (6.8% and3.4%,respectively). industry). Germany performed lesswell inthisarea economy asawhole and9.9%inthe manufacturing enterprise creation rates(13.5%inthe of terms oursamplein The UnitedKingdomcametopof above 7%since2009. this ratewas 8%, withtheratehaving remained remained above 9%since2008.Inmanufacturing, French economy was 10.9%,withtheratehaving Ti stenme f uiescetosdrn h eeec eid()dvddb h ubro businesses int. businesscreations duringthereference period (t)divided by thenumber of Thisisthenumber of 3 across thewhole infcnl ihrta hto theEU-28(1.1%). significantly higherthanthatof 10,752 netenterprise creations. Thisgrowth ratewas active enterprises grewby 4.1%in2018,equivalent to In themanufacturingsector, thetotalnumber of by 2%. growth figure 2018 for theEU-28asa whole only rose 231,513across theentire economy.of Theaverage grew strongly by 6.2%in2018,withanetincrease active enterprisesinFrance The totalnumber of the administrative burden onbusinesses. us justonce”initiative alsocontributestoreducing the“tell normative inflation.Theimplementationof European directives help totackle transposition of the against compensation ruleandthefight over- adouble for businesses, while the introduction of (Essoc) hassimplifiedthe regulatory environment enabling theStatetohelpatrustedcompany limit value destructioninrestructuring. The Act cross-class enforcement, which helps of integration Bankruptcy law hasalsobeenenhancedby the Chap II_5 Chap Chap II_5 Chap 80 180 180 100 100 40 60 90 140 140 10 Source: Eurostat, 2019 * Growth andnetcreation for 2017 TOTAL ECONOMY NET GROWTHIN ACTIVE ENTERPRISES(2018) Source: Eurostat, 2019 * Datafor 2017 % ENTERPRISE START-UP RATE (2018) 80 160 160 180 180 200 100 100 14 40 -4,000 60 90 140 140 30 50 10 -6,000 160 160 Global rankings Graph Ease 2. (2020) of abusiness starting Global rankings Graph 1.Ease of enforcing contracts (2020) Total economy Graph Net 6. growth (2018) enterprises inactive % Graph rate 5. start-up Enterprise (2018) Pour emplois 1000 Graph Nombre 4. jours de travail de annuels grèves de cause perdus pour (2018) % Graph internet 3. the using Individuals (2019) to interact authorities public with 200 20 14 -4,000 120 120 10,000 30 50 70 -6,000 200,000 250 Global rankings Graph 1.Ease of enforcing contracts (2020) Global rankings Graph Ease 2. (2020) of abusiness starting Total economy Graph Net 6. growth (2018) enterprises inactive % Graph rate 5. start-up Enterprise (2018) Pour emplois 1000 Graph Nombre 4. jours de travail de annuels grèves de cause perdus pour (2018) % Graph internet 3. the using Individuals (2019) to interact authorities public with 12 -100,000 20 Manufacturing sector Manufacturing Graph 7. Net growth (2018) enterprises inactive -2,000 100 120 120 10,000 70 200,000 250 12 -100,000 12,000 Manufacturing sector Manufacturing Graph 7. Net growth (2018) enterprises inactive -2,000 100 10 250,000 12,000 100,000 150 10 250,000 80 80 100,000 150 -50,000 40 40 0 8 60 60 80 80 150,000 4 6 -50,000 40 40 0 8 60 60 8,000 150,000 4 4,000 20 20 6 6,000 2 8,000 4,000 20 20 6,000 2 2,000 0 2,000 50 0 50 50,000 50,000 Netentreprise creation (2018) Manufacturingindustry 0 0 0 0 0 0 FIG. 67 FIG. 68 United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom 0 0 Finland Finland Austria Austria

0 Austria*

0 Austria*

France France United States United States Germany Germany France France Sweden Sweden Ireland Ireland Netherlands Netherlands Poland Poland Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands France France Sweden Sweden United Kingdom United Kingdom France France United States Ireland* Ireland* United States Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Netherlands Finland Poland Poland France France Netherlands** Netherlands** Spain Spain France France Spain Spain Austria Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom Belgium* Belgium* Spain Spain United Kingdom United Kingdom Ireland* Ireland* Total economy Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Ireland* Ireland* Finland Finland Belgium* Belgium* Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden

Growth 2018(%)(rightaxis) Ireland Ireland Spain Spain United States United States Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Finland Finland Finland Finland Germany Germany Italy** Italy** Sweden Sweden Finland Finland Spain Spain Japan Japan Italy Italy Belgium Belgium Germany* Germany* France France Germany* Germany* United Kingdom Poland Poland Spain Spain United Kingdom Italy Italy Germany* Germany* Spain Spain Belgium Belgium Austria Austria Japan Japan Austria Austria Finland*** Finland*** Poland Poland Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Italy Italy Italy Italy Belgium* Belgium* Japan Italy Italy Poland Poland Poland Poland Japan Austria Austria Ireland Ireland

Sweden Sweden II_5 Chap pas trouvé Ireland pas trouvé EU-28 EU-28 Ireland Poland Poland Italy Italy 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% -4% -2% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 80 180 180 100 100 40 60 90 140 140 10 160 160 200 14 -4,000 30 50 -6,000 Global rankings Graph Ease 2. (2020) of abusiness starting Global rankings Graph 1.Ease of enforcing contracts (2020) Total economy Graph Net 6. growth (2018) enterprises inactive % Graph rate 5. start-up Enterprise (2018) Pour emplois 1000 Graph Nombre 4. jours de travail de annuels grèves de cause perdus pour (2018) % Graph internet 3. the using Individuals (2019) to interact authorities public with 20 120 120 10,000 70 200,000 250 12 -100,000 Manufacturing sector Manufacturing Graph 7. Net growth (2018) enterprises inactive -2,000 100 12,000 10 250,000 MANUFACTURING SECTOR NET GROWTHIN ACTIVE ENTERPRISES(2018) Source: Eurostat, 2019 * Growth andnetcreation for 2017 100,000 150 80 80 -50,000 40 40 0 8 60 60 150,000 4 6 8,000 4,000 20 20 6,000 2 2,000 0 50 50,000 0 0 Netentreprise creation (2018) United Kingdom 0 United Kingdom FIG. 69

0 Finland Austria

0 Austria*

France United States Germany France Sweden Ireland Netherlands Poland Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands France United Kingdom France Sweden Ireland* United States United Kingdom Netherlands Finland Poland France Netherlands** Spain France Spain Austria United Kingdom Belgium* United Kingdom Ireland* Spain Sweden Germany Ireland* Finland Belgium* Belgium Sweden

Growth 2018(%)(rightaxis) Ireland Spain United States Austria Sweden Finland Finland Germany Italy** Sweden Finland Spain Japan Italy Belgium Germany* France Germany* Poland Spain United Kingdom Italy Germany* Spain Belgium Austria Japan Austria Finland*** Poland Netherlands Germany Italy Italy Belgium* Italy Poland Poland Japan Austria Ireland Sweden

pas trouvé EU-28 Ireland Poland Italy -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

69 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 70 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Source:  look todojustthat.Employees willbe the Civil Codewill a modificationof society, andplaced inthecenterof financing. Businessesalsoneedtobe to transmission,passingby their theirdevelopment, from creation of businessesatevery stage to growth of government istoalleviate obstacles thislaw for the The ambitionof their role insociety. operations, how they are funded and companies’day-to-dayto modernize 2019. ThePACTE isanactthataims the law was promulgated onMay 22, by parliament onApril 11,2019and (PACTE) wasdefinitively adopted Growth and Transformation The ActionPlan for Business (PACTE) Growth andTransformation Action PlanforBusiness Source:  theirdealingswiththeFrench all of right toerror for bonafideusers in main principles;firstly, itcreates a This text isstructured around two users, boostingthelatter’s confidence. between the administration and its 10, 2018,seekstosimplifyrelations Trust, passedon August a Society of The ActEnabling theState toServe to ServeaSocietyofTrust The ActEnablingtheState www.economie.gouv.fr/plan-entreprises-pacte www.modernisation.gouv.fr/home/loi-essoc-faire-le-pari-dune-relation-apaisee-entre-les-usagers-et-leurs-administrations - - - - - follows: thislaw are as The mainaimsof better associatedwithresults. measures intendedtosimplify The law alsocontainsaseriesof their honestintentions. longer up to the user to demonstrate andno that theuseractedinbadfaith, on the administration to demonstrate isreversed: theonus is proof burden of an the obligation, afirst breach of of administration. Thus, in the event ntrso deadlinesfor andcosts. of in terms To facilitatejudicialliquidation, at lesscost. To set up a company 100% online society. To rethink businesses’placein mandatory profit-sharing. contribution onvoluntary and by eliminating thecorporate with fewer than250employees incentive agreements To facilitate value-sharing applicable toSMEs. To simplifythethresholds for businesses

- - - -  - resorting tolitigation. their difficultiesamicably and avoid million employers to quickly settle nationwide, thereby enabling itstwo its success, hasnow been rolled out de France/Paris region, andfollowing social security collection office in the Ile mediation was pilotedattheURSSAF allows for experiments. For example, administrative procedures andalso companies. To national protect strategic single regional windows. initiatives To supportSMEs’export professional lives. products pension savings portability of To simplifyandensure the To facilitatebusinesstransfers. sectors. links between thepublic andprivate to thebusinessworld by renewing To bringpublic research closer

hog h raino through the creation of throughout citizens’

great nationaldebate: itwillbring commitments made following the It indicatesconcrete for steps several ambitions totransform public action. 2020, reflects the government’s into finalreading onOctober28, Public Action,which was taken The BilltoAccelerateandSimplify Simplify PublicAction (ASAP) The BilltoAccelerateand Source:  August 6,2019aimsto“builda of The ActtoTransform Public Service Service Act toTransformPublic Source:  - thistext are: The mainobjectives of operating closer toeach region.” with more efficient public services it more agile, openandattractive, 21st century public service, making public agents. guarantees of dialogue inrespect of To promote more social strategic www.fonction-publique.gouv.fr/loi-de-transformation-de-la-fonction-publique www.vie-publique.fr/loi/273138-projet-de-loi-acceleration-et-simplification-de-laction-publique-asap

-  It aimstodothefollowing: procedures for individuals. and simplify the administrative businesses the development of citizens closer together, facilitate the French administrationand - - - administrative commissions. advisoryAbolish orregroup private sector. agents in public service and the professional transitionsfor public To promote mobilityandsupport and more efficient. make public actionmore reactive To develop managerial levers to public agents. frameworkmanagement of transparence andequityinthe To simplifyandguarantee

-  -  to 35hours per week. working(FPE), and harmonizing time the and C) of for jobs (categories permanent A, B contract,recruitingterm by contract bodies, creating a“project” fixed- included merging thesocialdialogue The flagship measures adopted - employment across France’s regions. in order toboostoperationsand applicable toindustrialfacilities Simplify certain procedures healthcare. culture, economy and fields of administrative decisionsinthe individualDecentralize public service. To upprofessional step equalityin Fonction Publique d’État

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

71 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 72 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD sectors, is particularly strong. new businesses in innovative technology plays afundamentalpartincreating its venture capital industry, which recognized private equity players, and In banks, insurance and asset managers. by strong financial intermediation: The Paris market is largely characterized within the financial services sector. of France’sinvestmentattractiveness businesses, constitute a major component the largenumberofcorporateissuersto along with French financial expertise and Paris’ success as a financial center, in theEuropeanmarket. belongs to the Euroclear group, a leader depository bank Euroclear France, which the clearinghouseLCHSAandFrench market infrastructures, with Euronext, France has efficient market and post- addition, France has internationally ENVIRONMENT FINANCIAL 2.6 to deal with the Covid-19 crisis. loansguaranteedby theState) implementation of public supportmechanisms (inparticular the of 2020.This reflects thesuccess the third quarterof business accesstocredit wasatavery highlevel in According todatafrom theBanquedeFrance, companies suchasBlackRock. etc.), as well as asset management Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, global banks (HSBC, JP Morgan, Goldman qualified staff from some of the largest the relocationofoperationsandhighly city’s La Défense business district, to the EuropeanBankingAuthorityin the Brexitfront.Fromarrivalof attractiveness for financial services on The Paris marketplace has confirmed its

TO BUSINESSESSURVEY Source:  cash loans for SMEs stood at 90%, accessto of therate Furthermore, (67% inQ3,2019). with thelevel seenbefore thecrisis loans), amarked increase compared thedesired obtained allormostof businesseshaving Q3, 2020(share of enterprises amountedto88%in Access to cash loans by micro- FCGA). ( CenterFederationManagement with the French Accredited Business enterprises, through apartnership latest survey, as did 2,500 micro- mid-size companiestookpart inthe approximately 4,000SMEsand500 about theiraccesstobankfinance; companies every three months The BanquedeFrance surveys QUARTERLY CORPORATE Fédération descentres degestion – agréés Third quarter2020, Banque deFrance, Accesstocredit for businesses, third quarter 2020 Banque deFrance BANK LENDING not featured inthissurvey. financing them additionalsources of private securitiesmarket, which offers companies alsohave accesstothe loans are considered here; mid-size 95% ayear ago. However, only bank loans reached 92%, compared with companies requesting new cash mid-size Finally, thetake-up of rate 88% inQ3,2019). micro-enterprises, compared with of stable level over oneyear, and86% SMEs, i.e.a seen lastyear (96%of loans are atlevels similartothose accesstoinvestment of The rates Q3, 2019). increase onlastyear’s figures (87%in since 2012(94%inQ2,2020),andan close tothehighestlevel reached

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

73 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_6Chap

74 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 0.08 0.00 0.04 Source: BanquedeFrance, 2020;BusinessFrance calculations INDEX =100INDECEMBER2007 EURO ZONE (2009-2020) CHANGE INLENDING TO NON-FINANCIAL COMPANIES IN THE alow interest rateenvironment. to the persistence of favorable conditionsonthebondmarket, thanks Moreover, financingbenefits corporate from very in corporate lending. in France, experiencedoreven stagnation, a decline, Germany, whose credit growth remains weaker than other maineconomiesintheeuro zone, apart from have beenrisingsharply since2014.Conversely, the the sovereign debt and crisisintheeuro zone businesses inFrance: loansheldupwell during bank credit for thegood confirm availability of datafrom theBanquedeFranceLong-term (Excluding France) 0.06 20 20 20,000 130 150 2,000 US$ billion Graph 5. Market capitalization of 10leading stock the exchanges 4,000,000 Loans over million €1 Graph Interest 2. rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) Index 2007 inDecember =100 (2009-20) Graph inlendingto non-financial 1.Change companies Euro inthe zone % of total assets by management under largest 500 the investment funds Country of of domiciliation investment funds Graph Share 6. of assets (2019) management under % of GDP Graph Venture 4. capital investment (2019) Loans million €1 upto including and Graph 3. Interest rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) 6,000,000 170 0.02 25,000 0% 0% 2,500 4% 4% 10 18 10 18 6% 6% 10,000 5,000,000 Total assets 2019 (€billion) –December Graph 9. European groups banking Total assets billion) (US$ –Top managed being 25 Graph 8. World rankings of asset companies management (2018) % of allnet assets by managed inEurope funds domiciled of domicile By country Graph 7. Market share inEuropean investment funds 3,000,000 14 14 2,000,000 0.10 16 16 110 1,000 0.14 0.12 5% 5% 3% 3% 15,000 2% 2% 1,500 12 12 90 1,000,000 50 1% 1% 70 0 0 8 8 4 4 6 6 5,000 2 2 500 FIG. 70

0 United States United Kingdom

France Jan-2009 0 51.73% Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Ireland NYSE Euronext HSBC VanguardBlackRock Group 0 United Kingdom June 2009 June 2009 July-2009 State Street Global Oct-2009 Oct-2009 BNP Paribas Germany Jan-2010 Fidelity Investments France Feb-2010 Feb-2010 June 2010 June 2010 Crédit Agricole July-2010 France NASDAQ Netherlands Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Bank of NewAllianz York MellonGroup Japan Exchange Group Jan-2011

J.P. Morgan Chase France Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Germany Banco Santander United Kingdom Germany June 2011 June 2011 July-2011 Sweden Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Jan-2012 Société Générale Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Shanghai Stock June 2012 June 2012 CapitalAmundi Group Netherlands Japan July-2012 Belgium Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Goldman Sachs Group Netherlands Hong KongExchange Exchanges Jan-2013 AXA Group Feb-2013 Feb-2013 Prudential Financial June 2013 June 2013 July-2013 Barclays Finland Italy Sweden and Clearing Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Jan-2014 Legal & DeutscheGeneral Group Bank Italy Ireland June 2014 June 2014 July-2014 BPCE NYSE Euronext Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Deutsche Bank Italy Spain Jan-2015 Northern Trust Asset Mgmt Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Lloyds Banking Group Germany Spain Euro zone June 2015 June 2015 July-2015 BNP Paribas Sweden UBS Spain Oct-2015 Oct-2015 Jan-2016 Wellington Mgmt Shenzhen StockLSE Exchange Group Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Belgium Spain June 2016 June 2016 Intesa Sanpaolo Austria July-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Natixis InvestmentWells ManagersFargo Jan-2017 Austria Feb-2017 Feb-2017 T. Rowe Price Ireland* Belgium June 2017 June 2017 July-2017 ING Group BSE India Limited Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Austria* Jan-2018 National Stock Exchange Italy Feb-2018 Feb-2018 UBS Group AegonNuveen Group Finland June 2018 June 2018 July-2018 Morgan Stanley Finland* Poland Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Jan-2019 of India Limited Feb-2019 Feb-2019 HSBC Holdings Chap II_6Chap Unicredit Poland Poland* June 2019 June 2019 July-2019 II_6Chap EU-15 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Jan-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 June 2020 June 2020 July-2020 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.06 20 20 20,000 130 150 2,000 0.08 0.00 US$ billion Graph 5. Market capitalization of 10leading stock the exchanges 0.04 4,000,000 Loans over million €1 Graph Interest 2. rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) Index 2007 inDecember =100 (2009-20) Graph inlendingto non-financial 1.Change companies Euro inthe zone % of total assets by management under largest 500 the investment funds Country of of domiciliation investment funds Graph Share 6. of assets (2019) management under % of GDP Graph Venture 4. capital investment (2019) Loans million €1 upto including and Graph 3. Interest rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) 0.06 6,000,000 170 0.02 25,000 20 20 0% 0% 20,000 2,500 130 150 LOANS OVER €1MILLION (2009-2020) INTEREST RATES FORLOANS TO NON-FINANCIAL COMPANIES Source: European Central Bank,2020 LOANS UP TO AND INCLUDING €1MILLION (2009-2020) INTEREST RATES FORLOANS TO NON-FINANCIAL COMPANIES Source: European Central Bank,2020 4% 4% 2,000 US$ billion Graph 5. Market capitalization of 10leading stock the exchanges 10 18 10 18 6% 6% 10,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 Total assets 2019 (€billion) –December Graph 9. European groups banking Total assets billion) (US$ –Top managed being 25 Graph 8. World rankings of asset companies management (2018) % of allnet assets by managed inEurope funds domiciled of domicile By country Graph 7. Market share inEuropean investment funds 3,000,000 14 14 2,000,000 Loans over million €1 Graph Interest 2. rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) Index 2007 inDecember =100 (2009-20) Graph inlendingto non-financial 1.Change companies Euro inthe zone % of total assets by management under largest 500 the investment funds Country of of domiciliation investment funds Graph Share 6. of assets (2019) management under % of GDP Graph Venture 4. capital investment (2019) Loans million €1 upto including and Graph 3. Interest rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) 6,000,000 170 0.02 25,000 0.10 16 16 110 1,000 0% 0% 2,500 0.14 0.12 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 4% 10 18 10 18 15,000 2% 2% 6% 6% 10,000 5,000,000 Total assets 2019 (€billion) –December Graph 9. European groups banking Total assets billion) (US$ –Top managed being 25 Graph 8. World rankings of asset companies management (2018) % of allnet assets by managed inEurope funds domiciled of domicile By country Graph 7. Market share inEuropean investment funds 3,000,000 1,500 14 14 2,000,000 0.10 16 16 12 12 110 1,000 0.14 90 0.12 5% 5% 3% 3% 1,000,000 15,000 2% 2% 1,500 12 12 50 1% 1% 90 1,000,000 70 50 1% 1% 0 0 8 8 4 4 70 6 6 0 0 5,000 8 8 4 4 2 2 6 6 5,000 2 2 500 500 FIG. 71 FIG. 72

0 United States United Kingdom 0 United States

United Kingdom Jan-2009 0 51.73% Jan-2009 France France 0 51.73% Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Ireland Ireland NYSE Euronext NYSE Euronext 0

0 June 2009 June 2009 HSBC HSBC VanguardBlackRock Group VanguardBlackRock Group United Kingdom United Kingdom June 2009 June 2009 July-2009 July-2009 State Street Global State Street Global Oct-2009 Oct-2009 Oct-2009 Oct-2009 BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Fidelity Investments Germany Germany Feb-2010 Feb-2010 Jan-2010 Jan-2010 Fidelity Investments France France Feb-2010 Feb-2010 June 2010 June 2010 June 2010 June 2010 July-2010 July-2010 Crédit Agricole Crédit Agricole Netherlands France France NASDAQ NASDAQ Netherlands Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Allianz Group Bank of NewAllianz York MellonGroup Bank ofJ.P. New Morgan York Mellon Chase France Japan Exchange Group Japan Exchange Group Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Jan-2011 Jan-2011 J.P. Morgan Chase France Germany Germany Banco Santander Banco Santander United Kingdom United Kingdom Germany Germany June 2011 June 2011 June 2011 June 2011 July-2011 July-2011 Sweden Sweden Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Jan-2012 Jan-2012 Société Générale Société Générale Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Shanghai Stock Shanghai Stock June 2012 June 2012 Amundi Japan Japan June 2012 June 2012 July-2012 July-2012 CapitalAmundi Group Capital Group Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Netherlands Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Goldman Sachs Group Goldman Sachs Group Netherlands Hong KongExchange Exchanges Hong KongExchange Exchanges Jan-2013 Jan-2013 AXA Group AXA Group Feb-2013 Feb-2013 Feb-2013 Feb-2013

Prudential Financial Prudential Financial June 2013 June 2013 June 2013 June 2013 July-2013 July-2013 Barclays Barclays Finland Finland Italy Italy Sweden Sweden Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Oct-2013 and Clearing and Clearing Jan-2014 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Jan-2014 Legal & DeutscheGeneral Group Bank Legal & DeutscheGeneral Group Bank Italy Italy June 2014 June 2014 June 2014 June 2014 July-2014 BPCE NYSE Euronext Ireland Ireland July-2014 BPCE NYSE Euronext Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Deutsche Bank Deutsche Bank Italy Italy Spain Spain Jan-2015 Jan-2015 Northern Trust Asset Mgmt Northern Trust Asset Mgmt Germany Germany Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Lloyds Banking Group Lloyds Banking Group Spain Spain June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 July-2015 July-2015 BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Sweden Sweden UBS UBS Spain Spain Oct-2015 Oct-2015 Oct-2015 Oct-2015 LSE Group Jan-2016 Jan-2016 Wellington Mgmt Wellington Mgmt Shenzhen StockLSE Exchange Group Shenzhen Stock Exchange Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Belgium Spain Spain Belgium June 2016 June 2016 June 2016 June 2016 July-2016 Intesa Sanpaolo Intesa Sanpaolo Austria Austria July-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Natixis InvestmentWells ManagersFargo Natixis InvestmentWells ManagersFargo Jan-2017 Jan-2017 Ireland* Austria Austria Euro zone Feb-2017 Feb-2017 Feb-2017 Euro zone Feb-2017 T. Rowe Price T. Rowe Price Ireland* Belgium Belgium June 2017 June 2017 June 2017 June 2017 July-2017 July-2017 ING Group ING Group BSE India Limited BSE India Limited Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Austria* Austria* Jan-2018 Jan-2018 National Stock Exchange National Stock Exchange Italy Italy Feb-2018 Feb-2018 Feb-2018 Feb-2018 UBS Group UBS Group AegonNuveen Group AegonNuveen Group Finland Finland June 2018 June 2018 June 2018 June 2018 July-2018 July-2018 Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Finland* Finland* Poland Poland Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Jan-2019 Jan-2019 of India Limited of India Limited Feb-2019 Feb-2019 Feb-2019 Feb-2019 HSBC Holdings HSBC Holdings Poland Unicredit Unicredit Poland Poland* Poland* June 2019 June 2019 June 2019 June 2019 July-2019 July-2019 EU-15 EU-15 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Jan-2020 Jan-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 June 2020 June 2020 June 2020 June 2020 July-2020 July-2020 Chap II_6Chap y2%cmae ihteedo 2018. by 26%compared withtheendof 2019,Euronext’s capitalizationincreased the endof intheworldoperator by market capitalization.At the merger withBorsa Italiana,isthesixthlargest Brussels, LisbonandMilaninduecourse, following together themarketplaces inParis, Amsterdam, financialmarkets,Concerning Euronext, bringing Venture CapitalAssociationEVCA); DatabasedonIndustryStatistics Source: European Private EquityActivity, 2019,Invest Europe (ex-European % OFGDP VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT (2019) sample, including Germany (0.05%). the Kingdom (0.12%),butmore thanintherest of GDPin2019,alittlelessthantheUnited of venture capitalinvestment amountedto0.10% ranked secondamongthecountriesinoursample: Venture capitalisakey strength for France, 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.06 20 20 20,000 130 150 2,000 US$ billion Graph 5. Market capitalization of 10leading stock the exchanges 4,000,000 Loans over million €1 Graph Interest 2. rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) Index 2007 inDecember =100 (2009-20) Graph inlendingto non-financial 1.Change companies Euro inthe zone % of total assets by management under largest 500 the investment funds Country of of domiciliation investment funds Graph Share 6. of assets (2019) management under % of GDP Graph Venture 4. capital investment (2019) Loans million €1 upto including and Graph 3. Interest rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) 6,000,000 170 0.02 25,000 0% 0% 2,500 4% 4% 10 18 10 18 6% 6% 10,000 5,000,000 Total assets 2019 (€billion) –December Graph 9. European groups banking Total assets billion) (US$ –Top managed being 25 Graph 8. World rankings of asset companies management (2018) % of allnet assets by managed inEurope funds domiciled of domicile By country Graph 7. Market share inEuropean investment funds 3,000,000 14 14 2,000,000 0.10 16 16 110 1,000 0.14 0.12 5% 5% 3% 3% 15,000 2% 2% 1,500 12 12 90 1,000,000 50 1% 1% 70 0 0 8 8 4 4 6 6 5,000 2 2 500 FIG. 73

0 United States United Kingdom Jan-2009 0 51.73% Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Ireland NYSE Euronext HSBC VanguardBlackRock Group 0 United Kingdom June 2009 June 2009 July-2009 State Street Global Oct-2009 Oct-2009 BNP Paribas Germany Jan-2010 Fidelity Investments France Feb-2010 Feb-2010 June 2010 June 2010 July-2010 Crédit Agricole NASDAQ Netherlands Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Allianz Group France Bank ofJ.P. New Morgan York Mellon Chase France Japan Exchange Group Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Jan-2011 Banco Santander United Kingdom Germany June 2011 June 2011 July-2011 Sweden Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Jan-2012 Société Générale Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Shanghai Stock June 2012 June 2012 CapitalAmundi Group Netherlands Japan July-2012 Belgium Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Goldman Sachs Group Netherlands Hong KongExchange Exchanges Jan-2013 AXA Group Feb-2013 Feb-2013 June 2013 June 2013 Barclays Prudential Financial Finland July-2013 Sweden and Clearing Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Jan-2014 Legal & DeutscheGeneral Group Bank Italy Ireland June 2014 June 2014 July-2014 BPCE NYSE Euronext Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Deutsche Bank Italy Spain Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Jan-2015 Lloyds Banking Group Northern Trust Asset Mgmt Germany June 2015 June 2015 July-2015 BNP Paribas Sweden UBS Spain Oct-2015 Oct-2015 Jan-2016 Wellington Mgmt Shenzhen StockLSE Exchange Group Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Belgium Spain June 2016 June 2016 Intesa Sanpaolo Austria July-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Natixis InvestmentWells ManagersFargo Jan-2017 Austria Feb-2017 Feb-2017 T. Rowe Price Ireland* Belgium June 2017 June 2017 July-2017 ING Group BSE India Limited Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Austria* Jan-2018 National Stock Exchange Italy Feb-2018 Feb-2018 UBS Group AegonNuveen Group Finland June 2018 June 2018 July-2018 Morgan Stanley Finland* Poland Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Jan-2019 of India Limited Feb-2019 Feb-2019 HSBC Holdings Unicredit Poland Poland* June 2019 June 2019 July-2019 II_6Chap EU-15 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Jan-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 June 2020 June 2020 July-2020 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.06 20 20 20,000 130 150 US$ BILLION EXCHANGES MARKET CAPITALIZATION OF THE 10LEADINGSTOCK third amongcountriesinthesample). 11%(ranked and Germany), withamarket share of domiciled inEurope (afterLuxembourg, Ireland 2019 for netassetsmanaged by investment funds Moreover, France was ranked fourth inEurope in (7.6%). the UnitedStates(51.7%)andKingdom in theworld, andisranked third intheworld, after assets managedby the500largest investment funds the totalof Watson, France concentrates7.3%of for assetmanagement.According toWillis Towers theleadingcountriesinEurope France isoneof funding sources for itseconomy anditskey players. sector willensure thestrength anddiversity of An economy withadeveloped assetmanagement the economy,growth benefitingboth andinnovation. Asset managementplays amajorrole infinancing Source: World Exchanges Federation (WFE),2020 of 2,000 US$ billion Graph 5. Market capitalization of 10leading stock the exchanges 4,000,000 Loans over million €1 Graph Interest 2. rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) Index 2007 inDecember =100 (2009-20) Graph inlendingto non-financial 1.Change companies Euro inthe zone % of total assets by management under largest 500 the investment funds Country of of domiciliation investment funds Graph Share 6. of assets (2019) management under % of GDP Graph Venture 4. capital investment (2019) Loans million €1 upto including and Graph 3. Interest rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) 6,000,000 170 0.02 25,000 0% 0% 2,500 4% 4% 10 18 10 18 6% 6% 10,000 5,000,000 Total assets 2019 (€billion) –December Graph 9. European groups banking Total assets billion) (US$ –Top managed being 25 Graph 8. World rankings of asset companies management (2018) % of allnet assets by managed inEurope funds domiciled of domicile By country Graph 7. Market share inEuropean investment funds 3,000,000 14 14 2,000,000 0.10 16 16 110 1,000 0.14 0.12 5% 5% 3% 3% 15,000 2% 2% 1,500 12 12 90 1,000,000 50 1% 1% 70 0 0 8 8 4 4 6 6 5,000 2 2 500 Dec.2017 FIG. 74

0 United States United Kingdom Jan-2009 0 51.73% Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Ireland NYSE Euronext HSBC VanguardBlackRock Group 0 United Kingdom June 2009 June 2009 July-2009 State Street Global Oct-2009 Oct-2009 BNP Paribas Germany Jan-2010 Fidelity Investments France Feb-2010 Feb-2010 June 2010 June 2010 July-2010 Crédit Agricole NASDAQ Netherlands Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Allianz Group France Dec.2018 Bank ofJ.P. New Morgan York Mellon Chase France Japan Exchange Group Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Jan-2011 Banco Santander United Kingdom Germany June 2011 June 2011 July-2011 Sweden Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Jan-2012 Société Générale Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Shanghai Stock June 2012 June 2012 CapitalAmundi Group Netherlands Japan July-2012 Belgium Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Goldman Sachs Group Netherlands Hong KongExchange Exchanges Jan-2013 AXA Group Dec.2019 Feb-2013 Feb-2013 June 2013 June 2013 Barclays Prudential Financial Finland July-2013 Sweden and Clearing Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Jan-2014 Legal & DeutscheGeneral Group Bank Italy Ireland June 2014 June 2014 July-2014 BPCE NYSE Euronext Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Deutsche Bank Italy Spain Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Jan-2015 Lloyds Banking Group Northern Trust Asset Mgmt Germany June 2015 June 2015 July-2015 BNP Paribas Sweden UBS Spain Oct-2015 Oct-2015 Jan-2016 Wellington Mgmt Shenzhen StockLSE Exchange Group Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Belgium Spain June 2016 June 2016 Intesa Sanpaolo Austria July-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Natixis InvestmentWells ManagersFargo Jan-2017 Austria Feb-2017 Feb-2017 T. Rowe Price Ireland* Belgium June 2017 June 2017 July-2017 ING Group BSE India Limited Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Austria* Jan-2018 National Stock Exchange Italy Feb-2018 Feb-2018 UBS Group AegonNuveen Group Finland June 2018 June 2018 July-2018 Morgan Stanley Finland* Poland Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Jan-2019 of India Limited Feb-2019 Feb-2019 HSBC Holdings Unicredit Poland Poland* June 2019 June 2019 July-2019 EU-15 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Jan-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 June 2020 June 2020 July-2020 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

75 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 76 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Europe the10largest players in France ishometofour of within thesameinstitution,hasproven itsworth. jobs banking, of awiderange bringingtogether universal theFrenchFurthermore, modelof investment. on innovative topics, such associally responsible “specialty shops”,whose investment thesiscenters the top10.Inadditiontotheseare thedozens of and NatixisGlobal-OstrumAM),including two in global top25(AXAGroup, Amundi, BNPParibas In 2018,France hadfour assetmanagersinthe Générale andBPCE),including two inthetopthree. 1 According toTop GlobalBanks2018,S&PMarket Intelligence 1 (BNPParibas, CréditAgricole, Société Chap II_6Chap Chap II_6Chap % OF ALL NET ASSETS MANAGED BY FUNDSDOMICILEDINEUROPE BY COUNTRY OFDOMICILE FUNDS % OF TOTAL ASSETS UNDERMANAGEMENT BY THE 500LARGEST INVESTMENT COUNTRY OFDOMICILIATION OFINVESTMENT FUNDS SHARE OF ASSETS UNDERMANAGEMENT (2019) Source: European FundandAssetManagement Association(EFAMA), 2020 MARKET SHAREINEUROPEANINVESTMENT FUNDS Source: The World’s 500Largest AssetManagers, Willis Towers Watson, 2020 * Lessthan0.1%,exact dataunavailable 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.04 20 20 20,000 130 150 0.06 20 20 2,000 20,000 US$ billion Graph 5. Market capitalization of 10leading stock the exchanges 130 150 4,000,000 2,000 US$ billion Graph 5. Market capitalization of 10leading stock the exchanges Index 2007 inDecember =100 (2009-20) Graph inlendingto non-financial 1.Change companies Euro inthe zone Loans over million €1 Graph Interest 2. rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) % of total assets by management under largest 500 the investment funds Country of of domiciliation investment funds Graph Share 6. of assets (2019) management under % of GDP Graph Venture 4. capital investment (2019) Loans million €1 upto including and Graph 3. Interest rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) 6,000,000 170 0.02 25,000 4,000,000 0% 0% 2,500 Index 2007 inDecember =100 (2009-20) Graph inlendingto non-financial 1.Change companies Euro inthe zone Loans over million €1 Graph Interest 2. rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) % of total assets by management under largest 500 the investment funds Country of of domiciliation investment funds Graph Share 6. of assets (2019) management under % of GDP Graph Venture 4. capital investment (2019) Loans million €1 upto including and Graph 3. Interest rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) 6,000,000 170 0.02 25,000 4% 4% 0% 0% 2,500 10 18 10 18 6% 6% 10,000 5,000,000 4% 4% Total assets 2019 (€ billion) –December Graph 9. European groups banking Total assets billion) (US$ –Top managed being 25 Graph 8. World rankings of asset companies management (2018) % of allnet assets by managed inEurope funds domiciled of domicile By country Graph 7. Market share inEuropean investment funds 3,000,000 14 14 2,000,000 10 18 10 18 6% 6% 10,000 0.10 16 16 5,000,000 110 1,000 Total assets 2019 (€billion) –December Graph 9. European groups banking Total assets billion) (US$ –Top managed being 25 Graph 8. World rankings of asset companies management (2018) % of allnet assets by managed inEurope funds domiciled of domicile By country Graph 7. Market share inEuropean investment funds 3,000,000 14 14 2,000,000 0.14 0.10 0.12 16 16 5% 5% 110 3% 3% 1,000 15,000 2% 2% 0.14 0.12 5% 5% 3% 3% 1,500 15,000 2% 2% 12 12 1,500 90 12 12 1,000,000 90 1,000,000 50 1% 1% 50 1% 1% 70 70 0 0 8 8 4 4 0 0 8 8 6 6 4 4 6 6 5,000 5,000 2 2 2 2 Dec.2017 500 500 FIG. 75 FIG. 76

0 United States 0 United States United Kingdom United Kingdom Jan-2009 Jan-2009 0 51.73% 0 51.73% Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Ireland Ireland NYSE Euronext NYSE Euronext 0 HSBC HSBC VanguardBlackRock Group VanguardBlackRock Group 0 United Kingdom United Kingdom June 2009 June 2009 June 2009 June 2009 July-2009 July-2009 State Street Global State Street Global Oct-2009 Oct-2009 Oct-2009 Oct-2009 BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Fidelity Investments Germany Germany Feb-2010 Feb-2010 Feb-2010 Feb-2010 Jan-2010 Jan-2010 Fidelity Investments France France June 2010 June 2010 June 2010 June 2010 July-2010 July-2010 Crédit Agricole Crédit Agricole Netherlands Netherlands Oct-2010 Dec.2018 NASDAQ NASDAQ Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Allianz Group Allianz Group France France Bank ofJ.P. New Morgan York Mellon Chase Bank ofJ.P. New Morgan York Mellon Chase France France Japan Exchange Group Japan Exchange Group Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Jan-2011 Jan-2011 Banco Santander Banco Santander United Kingdom United Kingdom Germany Germany June 2011 June 2011 June 2011 June 2011 July-2011 July-2011 Sweden Sweden Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Jan-2012 Jan-2012 Société Générale Société Générale Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Shanghai Stock Shanghai Stock June 2012 June 2012 June 2012 June 2012 CapitalAmundi Group CapitalAmundi Group Netherlands Netherlands Japan Japan July-2012 July-2012 Belgium Belgium Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Goldman Sachs Group Goldman Sachs Group Netherlands Netherlands

Dec.2019 Hong KongExchange Exchanges Hong KongExchange Exchanges Jan-2013 Jan-2013 AXA Group AXA Group Feb-2013 Feb-2013 Feb-2013 Feb-2013 June 2013 June 2013 June 2013 June 2013 Barclays Barclays Prudential Financial Prudential Financial Finland Finland July-2013 July-2013 Sweden Sweden and Clearing and Clearing Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Jan-2014 Jan-2014 Legal & DeutscheGeneral Group Bank Legal & DeutscheGeneral Group Bank Italy Italy Ireland Ireland June 2014 June 2014 June 2014 June 2014 July-2014 July-2014 BPCE BPCE NYSE Euronext NYSE Euronext Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Deutsche Bank Deutsche Bank Italy Italy Spain Spain Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Jan-2015 Jan-2015 Lloyds Banking Group Lloyds Banking Group Northern Trust Asset Mgmt Northern Trust Asset Mgmt Germany Germany June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 July-2015 July-2015 BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Sweden Sweden UBS UBS Spain Spain Oct-2015 Oct-2015 Oct-2015 Oct-2015 LSE Group Jan-2016 Jan-2016 Wellington Mgmt Wellington Mgmt Shenzhen Stock Exchange Shenzhen StockLSE Exchange Group Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Belgium Belgium Spain Spain June 2016 June 2016 June 2016 June 2016 Intesa Sanpaolo Intesa Sanpaolo Austria Austria July-2016 July-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Natixis InvestmentWells ManagersFargo Natixis InvestmentWells ManagersFargo Jan-2017 Jan-2017 Austria Austria Feb-2017 Feb-2017 Feb-2017 Feb-2017 T. Rowe Price T. Rowe Price Ireland* Ireland* Belgium Belgium June 2017 June 2017 June 2017 June 2017 July-2017 July-2017 ING Group ING Group BSE India Limited BSE India Limited Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Austria* Austria* Jan-2018 Jan-2018

National Stock Exchange National Stock Exchange Italy Italy Feb-2018 Feb-2018 Feb-2018 Feb-2018 UBS Group UBS Group AegonNuveen Group AegonNuveen Group Finland Finland June 2018 June 2018 June 2018 June 2018 July-2018 July-2018 Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Finland* Finland* Poland Poland Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Jan-2019 Jan-2019 of India Limited of India Limited Feb-2019 Feb-2019 Feb-2019 Feb-2019 HSBC Holdings HSBC Holdings Unicredit Unicredit Poland Poland Poland* Poland* June 2019 June 2019 June 2019 June 2019 July-2019 July-2019 EU-15 EU-15 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Jan-2020 Jan-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 June 2020 June 2020 June 2020 June 2020 July-2020 July-2020 Chap II_6Chap Chap II_6Chap 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.06 20 20 20,000 0.04 130 150 0.06 2,000 20 20 US$ billion Graph 5. Market capitalization of 10leading stock the exchanges 20,000 130 150 4,000,000 2,000 Loans over million €1 Graph Interest 2. rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) Index 2007 inDecember =100 (2009-20) Graph inlendingto non-financial 1.Change companies Euro inthe zone % of total assets by management under largest 500 the investment funds Country of of domiciliation investment funds Graph Share 6. of assets (2019) management under % of GDP Graph Venture 4. capital investment (2019) Loans million €1 upto including and Graph 3. Interest rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) 6,000,000 170 0.02 US$ billion Graph 5. Market capitalization of 10leading stock the exchanges 25,000 0% 0% 2,500 4,000,000 Source: Top GlobalBanks, S&PGlobalMarket Intelligence, 2020 TOTAL ASSETS (€BILLION)–DECEMBER2019 EUROPEAN BANKINGGROUPS Source: The World’s 500Largest AssetManagers, Willis Towers Watson, 2019 TOTAL ASSETS BEINGMANAGED (US$BILLION)– TOP 25 (2018) WORLD RANKINGSOF ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANIES Loans over million €1 Graph Interest 2. rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) Index 2007 inDecember =100 (2009-20) Graph inlendingto non-financial 1.Change companies Euro inthe zone % of total assets by management under largest 500 the investment funds Country of of domiciliation investment funds Graph Share 6. of assets (2019) management under % of GDP Graph Venture 4. capital investment (2019) Loans million €1 upto including and Graph 3. Interest rates for to loans non-financial companies (2009-20) 6,000,000 170 0.02 4% 4% 25,000 10 18 10 18 0% 0% 6% 6% 2,500 10,000 5,000,000 Total assets 2019 (€billion) –December Graph 9. European groups banking Total assets billion) (US$ –Top managed being 25 Graph 8. World rankings of asset companies management (2018) % of allnet assets by managed inEurope funds domiciled of domicile By country Graph 7. Market share inEuropean investment funds 3,000,000 14 14 2,000,000 4% 4% 0.10 10 18 10 18 16 16 110 6% 6% 1,000 10,000 5,000,000 Total assets 2019 (€billion) –December Graph 9. European groups banking Total assets billion) (US$ –Top managed being 25 Graph 8. World rankings of asset companies management (2018) % of allnet assets by managed inEurope funds domiciled of domicile By country Graph 7. Market share inEuropean investment funds 3,000,000 0.14 14 14 2,000,000 0.12 5% 5% 3% 3% 0.10 16 16 110 1,000 15,000 2% 2% 0.14 1,500 0.12 5% 5% 3% 3% 15,000 12 12 2% 2% 1,500 90 12 12 1,000,000 90 1,000,000 50 1% 1% 50 1% 1% 70 70 0 0 8 8 4 4 0 0 8 8 6 6 4 4 6 6 5,000 5,000 2 2 2 2 500 500 FIG. 77 FIG. 78

0 United States 0 United States United Kingdom United Kingdom Jan-2009 Jan-2009 0 51.73% 0 51.73% Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Feb-2009 Ireland Ireland NYSE Euronext NYSE Euronext 0 HSBC HSBC VanguardBlackRock Group VanguardBlackRock Group 0 United Kingdom United Kingdom June 2009 June 2009 June 2009 June 2009 July-2009 July-2009 State Street Global State Street Global Oct-2009 Oct-2009 Oct-2009 Oct-2009 BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Fidelity Investments Germany Germany Feb-2010 Feb-2010 Feb-2010 Feb-2010 Jan-2010 Jan-2010 Fidelity Investments France France June 2010 June 2010 June 2010 June 2010 July-2010 July-2010 Crédit Agricole Crédit Agricole NASDAQ NASDAQ Netherlands Netherlands Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Oct-2010 Allianz Group Allianz Group France France Bank ofJ.P. New Morgan York Mellon Chase Bank ofJ.P. New Morgan York Mellon Chase France France Japan Exchange Group Japan Exchange Group Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Feb-2011 Jan-2011 Jan-2011 Banco Santander Banco Santander United Kingdom United Kingdom Germany Germany June 2011 June 2011 June 2011 June 2011 July-2011 July-2011 Sweden Sweden Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2011 Jan-2012 Jan-2012 Société Générale Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Feb-2012 Société Générale Shanghai Stock Japan Japan Shanghai Stock June 2012 June 2012 June 2012 June 2012 July-2012 July-2012 CapitalAmundi Group CapitalAmundi Group Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Netherlands Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Oct-2012 Goldman Sachs Group Goldman Sachs Group Netherlands Hong KongExchange Exchanges Hong KongExchange Exchanges Jan-2013 Jan-2013 AXA Group AXA Group Feb-2013 Feb-2013 Feb-2013 Feb-2013 June 2013 June 2013 June 2013 June 2013 Barclays Barclays Prudential Financial Prudential Financial Finland Finland July-2013 July-2013 Sweden Sweden and Clearing and Clearing Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Oct-2013 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Feb-2014 Jan-2014 Jan-2014 Legal & DeutscheGeneral Group Bank Legal & DeutscheGeneral Group Bank Italy Italy Ireland Ireland June 2014 June 2014 June 2014 June 2014 July-2014 July-2014 BPCE BPCE NYSE Euronext NYSE Euronext Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Oct-2014 Deutsche Bank Deutsche Bank Italy Italy Spain Spain Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Feb-2015 Jan-2015 Jan-2015 Lloyds Banking Group Lloyds Banking Group Northern Trust Asset Mgmt Northern Trust Asset Mgmt Germany Germany June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 June 2015 July-2015 July-2015 BNP Paribas BNP Paribas Sweden Sweden UBS UBS Spain Spain Oct-2015 Oct-2015 Oct-2015 Oct-2015 LSE Group Jan-2016 Jan-2016 Wellington Mgmt Wellington Mgmt Shenzhen Stock Exchange Shenzhen StockLSE Exchange Group Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Feb-2016 Belgium Spain Spain Belgium June 2016 June 2016 June 2016 June 2016 July-2016 Intesa Sanpaolo Intesa Sanpaolo Austria Austria July-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Oct-2016 Natixis InvestmentWells ManagersFargo Natixis InvestmentWells ManagersFargo Jan-2017 Jan-2017 Austria Austria Feb-2017 Feb-2017 Feb-2017 Feb-2017 T. Rowe Price T. Rowe Price Ireland* Ireland* Belgium Belgium June 2017 June 2017 June 2017 June 2017 July-2017 July-2017 ING Group ING Group BSE India Limited BSE India Limited Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Oct-2017 Austria* Austria* Jan-2018 Jan-2018 National Stock Exchange National Stock Exchange Italy Italy Feb-2018 Feb-2018 Feb-2018 Feb-2018 UBS Group UBS Group AegonNuveen Group AegonNuveen Group Finland Finland June 2018 June 2018 June 2018 June 2018 July-2018 July-2018 Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Finland* Finland* Poland Poland Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Oct-2018 Jan-2019 Jan-2019 of India Limited of India Limited Feb-2019 Feb-2019 Feb-2019 Feb-2019 HSBC Holdings HSBC Holdings Unicredit Unicredit Poland Poland Poland* Poland* June 2019 June 2019 June 2019 June 2019 July-2019 July-2019 EU-15 EU-15 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Oct-2019 Jan-2020 Jan-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 Feb-2020 June 2020 June 2020 June 2020 June 2020 July-2020 July-2020 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

77 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 78 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD - particular: France, and investment in SMEs in support venture capitalinvestment in passed inrecent years and to facilitate Several legislative measures have been lending tobusinesses venture capitaland measures facilitating Recent lawsandgovernment Finance Act),upto€50,000ayear 2021 shouldbevoted for by the2021 2021–theextension to the endof made between August 10,2020and invested (25%for investments theamounts equivalent to18%of provides for areduction inincometax subject to certain conditions, the law investment in non-listed SMEs: following equity income tax relief “Madelin” incentive, which offers was revised in 2018, extended the Government BudgetAct,which The 2015AmendedFrench - - individuals limitedto€2,000,no and equity investors), loans from existing operators (lenders of participatif – CIP) for two types status (conseil eninvestissement crowdfunding investment advisor a included the introduction of crowdfunding. Themainmeasures frameworka simplifiedlegal for The 2014Crowdfunding Actdefined cap ontaxexemptions. breaks alsocounttowards theoverall (or €24,000for acouple).Thesetax invest nomore than€12,000ayear (FIP orFCPI),asingle person can proximity orinnovation mutual fund investment ismadeinanSMEviaa year for acouple);however, the if for asingle person (or€100,000a

- -  strengthen the contribution of strengthen thecontributionof euro-croissance fundinorder to the2019, seekstomodernize (PACTE) Act,promulgated in Growth andTransformation T upto20%intheSME. stake of asset limits, by acquiringanequity over five years, subjecttocertain their investments astax write off invested ininnovative SMEs, to SMEs, orinmutual fundsmostly companies investing in innovative Investment Amendmentsenabled The 2016 the investors. regulatory disclosures concerning threshold for equity investments, and he

Action Plan for Business Corporate Venture Corporate investment funds(FCPR). for investment inventure capital (FPCI), aswell astheopportunities professional private equityfunds eligible for life insurance, including funds has also increased the list of theseinvestments by insurers. It of which willpromote thedevelopment venture capitalfunds, or shares of life insurancecontracts insecurities reform thepayment facilitates of investment possibilities. The the economy andtooffer broader life insurancetowards financing towards companies’ equity while make itpossible todirect them for retirement savings will deposits In addition,investment management

investment fundsparticipating inthe a “Relaunch” to label, granted crisis, hasledtothecreation of consequences linked tothehealth up inresponse totheeconomic the Be bond ormonetary instruments. insurance companies)or funds of (funds in euros and euro-growth invested inguaranteedvehicles invested in equities, then gradually a longway off, savings are heavily time horizon.When retirement is account theinvestor’s investment takinginto management consistsof saver. Asareminder, investment ensuring ahigherreturn for the y “Relaunch France” plan,drawn ond these legislative changes, private equityfunds. French businessesmadeby eligible investments in up to€1billionof guarantee capacity, so astoguarantee significantly strengthen Bpifrance’s “Relaunch France” plan alsoaims to towards private equityvehicles. The equity investment, particularly for savings tobedirected towards companies. This label should allow in particular SMEs and mid-size French businesses, recapitalization of BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

79 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 80 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD comparison. minimum wage levels in an international display averysubduedcost oflaborat Together, they allow France today to at the level of the minimum wage. 2019 by further lowering of contributions contributions, supplemented on October 1, into apermanentreductionofemployer tax credit (CICE) on January 1, 2019 of thecompetitivenessandemployment pronounced thankstothetransformation The fall in labor costs was more the Responsibility andSolidarityPact. and employment taxcredit(CICE) introduction ofthecompetitiveness notably in industry, thanks to the been firmly under control since 2012, 2009 and growth in unit labor costs has improved itscostcompetitivenesssince Furthermore, France has significantly in oursample). levels (ninth in OECD countries and fifth world’s highest per employee productivity nevertheless correspondtooneofthe than the average across our sample, Labor costs in France, while higher taxation regime. on thecostoflaborandprevailing economic activityarelargelydependent The growth and profitability of an COST OFLABOR AND TAXATION 2.7 in industry. for laborcostsintheeconomy asawhole andninth Within oursample, France was ranked in11thplace staying higherthantheEuropean average (€28.20). in France (€39.20)thaninGermany (€41.20),while In industry, hourly laborcostswere lessexpensive in Germany and€28.20intheEU-28. reached €36.60inFrance, compared with€35.60 sample: relatively higherthanintheothercountriesour (see below), labor costsinFrance in2019were In conjunctionwithstrong labor productivity in international competition. paramountimportance indicators over timeisof which isthecaseinFrance. Changes inthese Higher laborcostscanleadtogreaterproductivity, an economy’s productive capacity. including labor productivity, which makes up factors, asetof investment. This costispartof an economy’s attractiveness for international of thedeterminants Labor costsare oneof Labor costs the research taxcredit. and developmentexpenditurethanksto most France offers businesses the world’s system of public services. Lastly, contributions, which fund the country’s high levelofcompulsorysocialsecurity France is noteworthy for its relatively

beneficial tax treatment for research on anationalaverage, hourly laborcosts

Chap II_7Chap Chap II_7Chap Chap II_7Chap -2 0 -2 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 100 80 0 0.45 0 20 40 40 40 40 0 0 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) Tota economy 60 90 60 45 30 80 0 4 20 40 40 40 40 Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) 60 90 60 0 35 4 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6- 7.Trends in cost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly 20 20 20 20 0 10 3 35 45 4 United Kingdom 2 3 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 2 100 4 6 70 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 35 10 35 7 105 5 3 15 25 25 120 2 1 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 115 120 1 15 15 115 1 125 15 15 85 110 1 0 . 125 . 85 110 0 . . 80 . . . 5 115 . 90 United States 80 . . . 5 115 90 . United States . . . 0 0 0 0 85 . . . 95 . . 0 0 0 0 85 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 95 5 5 . .5 .5 . .5 40 United States 00 . 05 30 . 5 5 United States

20 United States 0 05 0 0 0 0 30 . 35

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 25 10 35 Source: Eurostat, 2020; historicaldatarevised by Eurostat € – TOTAL ECONOMY HOURLY LABORCOSTS measures. relief for low-wage earners, who benefitfrom thesetax employer contributionrates, butthisisnotthecase thehighest for medianwages, France hasoneof These measures putFrance inanunusual position: at theminimum wage level. labor, inparticular significant reductions inthecostof contributions, have resultedfurther in lowering of contributions, supplemented onOctober1,2019by employer reduction(CICE) intoapermanent of thecompetitiveness andemployment taxcredit of Pact (PRS),andthenin2019thetransformation earners. In2015,theResponsibility andSolidarity in France inrecent years, particularly for low-wage in employer contributionshave up beenstepped lowest standards. by international Reductions employer contributionsinFrance isamongthe With regard totheminimum of wage,therate -2 25 0 5 5 10 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 5 United Kingdom 15 0 5

100 United States 0.45 0 15 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 United States 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de 60 90 60 4 Netherlands € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 Netherlands 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 South Korea South 5 3 15 Netherlands 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 South Korea South Netherlands 120 1 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . Tableau afaire design in dans . 80 Tableau afaire design in dans . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 2016 5 5 United States 05 30 .

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 10 5 5

15 United States FIG. 79 Ireland Netherlands Ireland Ireland Ireland South Korea South Netherlands France Poland France Poland Germany Germany Tableau afaire design in dans Germany Germany Ireland Ireland Belgium Belgium

France Sweden 103

France Sweden 103 Belgium Belgium United Kingdom United Kingdom Finland

Ireland Finland Ireland Austria

Austria France Poland

Poland Canada Ireland Poland Canada Ireland Germany Japan* France Japan* France Germany France France Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103

Spain 2005 Belgium United States United Kingdom Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain China Brazil Japan Finland Spain Austria Poland Canada India Ireland Italy India Belgium Italy Japan* Belgium France 2011 Q2 2011 Q2 Italy Italy France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Poland Japan Spain Belgium Poland Ireland Belgium Ireland India Italy 2011 Q2 Belgium Spain Italy Spain Italy Poland Italy United States United States Belgium Ireland 2019

United Kingdom 0

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom 0 Italy United Kingdom 2006 United States Spain United Kingdom

United Kingdom 0 0 United Kingdom Poland Japan 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 Japan* 2012 Q2 10 10 Poland Japan Italy United Kingdom Italy Japan* United Kingdom 2012 Q2 2007 2007 10 10 10 Italy Sweden Sweden Germany Ireland United Kingdom 2007 Germany Ireland 20 First phase 20 First phase 10 Sweden Germany Austria Ireland Finland Finland Austria Finland Finland CICE CICE 20 First phase 2008 2008 Italy Austria United States Finland 2013 Q2 Finland United States Italy 2013 Q2 CICE Austria 30 Austria 30 Poland 2008 Poland

Italy 20 United States 20 2013 Q2 Austria 30 France Poland Spain Belgium France Spain Belgium Sweden 20 Netherlands Sweden Netherlands Netherlands phase Second Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 2009 Ireland

France 40 40 * Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands *

Netherlands phase Second CICE 2009 CICE * Ireland * 40 * 2014 Q2 2014 Q2

30 Poland 30 Poland Ireland Spain CICE * Ireland Spain 50 50 2010 2010

2014 Q2 Responsibility Responsibility Ireland Spain Spain 30 Poland Spain Finland Spain Spain Finland 50 2010 France France First phase First phase Spain Spain Germany Responsibility Spain Finland Spain Germany Pact Pact 60 60 Finland France Finland Netherlands Spain Netherlands First phase

Germany 40 40 2011 2011

Pact Italy 60 Italy 2015 Q2 Sweden Germany 2015 Q2 Sweden Germany Finland Netherlands Austria Finland Netherlands Austria 40 Finland Netherlands 2011 Responsibility Italy Netherlands 2015 Q2 Responsibility Sweden Germany Netherlands 70 70 Austria Second phase Second Finland Netherlands phase Second Austria Netherlands Austria Responsibility

70 2012 2012 72 72 Second phase Second Pact Austria Pact Germany United Kingdom Germany United Kingdom 50 Finland 80 Sweden

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden 2012 Austria Austria Austria 72 United Kingdom Pact 2016 Q2 Germany United Kingdom 2016 Q2 United Kingdom

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria Italy 2016 Q2 2013 United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013

Japan 90 90 Third phase Japan Belgium Austria Italy 2013 Third phase Sweden Belgium Austria Sweden 90 Poland

Poland 60 60 CICE CICE Belgium Austria Austria Third phase Austria 100 100 Sweden Poland Sweden Sweden Sweden 60 2014 Sweden 2014 Austria CICE 2017 Q2 2017 Q2 Netherlands

100 Netherlands researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Sweden researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Sweden 2014 Netherlands France Netherlands France 2017 Q2 Netherlands Italy Italy researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Netherlands 110 110 France Finland Finland 70

70 Italy Italy 2015 Italy Poland Ireland 2015 110 Poland Ireland Finland 70

Italy ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) creit orrants creit orrants 2015 Spain Spain

Poland Ireland 120 120 Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) Netherlands creit orrants Netherlands Sweden Spain Sweden 120 France Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany 2016 France 2016 80 Germany Sweden 80 Spain Germany

Spain 130 130 2016 United Kingdom France Japan United Kingdom Japan Spain Germany 80 130 Belgium United Kingdom Japan Belgium Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 GermanyBelgium France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium 140 140 Germany France* Japan Belgium Belgium 2017 Belgium Poland Japan Belgium Poland

2019 Q2 90 90 140 Japan Belgium Poland 90 150 150 France 2018 France 2018 Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-28 Finland EU-28 Belgium EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 150 EU-23** France 2018 EU-28 EU-23** EU-28 Finland Belgium EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 2020 Q2

EU-28 100 100 160 160 EU-23** EU-28 2020 Q2 2019 2019 100 160 2019 € –INDUSTRY HOURLY LABORCOSTS Source: OECD, for theexperts group onthestatutorynationalminimumwage % AND MEDIAN SALARY LEVELS(2018) RATE OFEMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS AT MINIMUM WAGE Source: Eurostat, 2020;historicaldatarevised by Eurostat 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 40 105 nustry 40 120 40 -4 105 30 nustry 120 40 10 20 -4 45 30 30 20 10 125 20 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 45 30 110 -2 35 -3 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 25 35 110 -2 10 25 35 -3 80 25 10 35 10 115 25 90 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 15 95 -1 15 85 0 8 95 4 6 9 0 8 4

6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 1 5 5 Rt femployer contributionsonaminimum wage Rateof 2016 1 aeo employer contributionsonamedian salary Rate of 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 40 105 nustry 120 40 -4 30 10 20 FIG. 80 FIG. 81 45 30 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 110 -2 35 -3 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 95 0 8 4 6 9 France (2019) 5 France (2019) 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 France (2019) 1 Finland Poland Finland Poland Finland Poland 2005 2005 United Kingdom 2005 United Kingdom

United Kingdom France 2019 Spain France Spain France 2006 Spain United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom France (2018) Poland France (2018) Poland 2007 France (2018) Poland 2007 2007 Belgium Belgium 2008 Italy United States Belgium 2008 United States Italy United States 2008 Italy 2009 Ireland 2009 Ireland Spain Ireland Spain 2009 Spain Ireland 2010 Sweden Ireland Finland 2010 Sweden Finland Ireland 2010 Sweden Finland Netherlands Netherlands 2011 2011 Austria Austria Netherlands 2011 Italy Austria Italy Italy 2012 Netherlands 2012 Netherlands Netherlands Australia 2012 Austria Australia Austria Australia Austria 2013 2013 2013 Ireland France Ireland France Poland Ireland 2014 PolandFrance 2014 2014 Netherlands Poland Netherlands Sweden Sweden Netherlands Sweden 2015 2015 Germany Germany 2015 United Kingdom United Kingdom Germany United Kingdom Germany Germany 2016 Germany 2016 2016 Belgium Spain 2017 Germany Spain Belgium 2017 Germany Spain 2017 Germany Belgium

Belgium 2018 Belgium EU-28 2018 EU-28 Belgium 2018 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 2019 2019 2019 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

81 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_7Chap

82 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD in competingcountries, hasimproved compared relative change inunitlabor costsinFrance and France’ improve its competitiveness since2013. This restraint inlabor costshasenabled France to Source: OECD, 2020 * GDPperhourworked US$ AT PPP– TOTAL ECONOMY HOURLY LABORPRODUCTIVITY* (2019) in oursample. €54.30 for theEU-28.France isthusranked seventh Germany, €58.30for theUnitedKingdom,and In 2019, itwas €67.50,compared with€66.40for Hourly labor productivity ishighinFrance. -2 0 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) 60 90 60 4 Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 120 1 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . . 80 . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 2014 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 5 5 United States 05 30 .

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 10 5 5

15 United States FIG. 82 Netherlands South Korea South Netherlands Ireland Tableau afaire design in dans France Ireland Poland Germany Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103 Belgium United Kingdom Finland Austria Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2011 Q2 Belgium Italy

Belgium Poland Ireland 2019 Italy s cost-competitiveness, measured asthe United States Spain

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 10 Italy United Kingdom 2007

10 Sweden Germany Ireland 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland CICE 2008 Italy United States 2013 Q2 Austria 30 Poland 20 France Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 40 *

CICE * 2014 Q2 Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 2010

Responsibility Finland Spain Spain France Spain Germany First phase Pact 60 Finland Netherlands Italy 40 2015 Q2 2011 Sweden Germany Finland Netherlands Austria

Netherlands Responsibility 70 Second phase Second Austria 2012 72 United Kingdom Pact Germany

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria 2016 Q2 United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013 90 Belgium Austria Third phase Poland Sweden 60 Austria CICE 100 Sweden Sweden 2014 2017 Q2 Netherlands researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Netherlands France Italy

110 Finland Italy 70 Poland Ireland 2015 d’impôt recherche (CIR) ni subventions creit orrants Spain 120 Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany Sweden 2016 France

Spain Germany 80 130 United Kingdom Japan Belgium Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium 140 Japan Belgium Poland 90

150 France 2018 Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-23** EU-28 EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 100 160 2019 limited. continued toincrease, althoughthepaceremains Conversely, productivity in France andSpain in Germany andpoliticaluncertainties inItaly. themanufacturing sector with thedifficultiesof in Germany andItaly, particularly inconnection For theirpart, productivity trends differ; itfell been particularly strong inrecent times. and especially thaninGermany, where growth has labor costsincreased lessinFrance thaninSpain, labor costsandproductivity. Over thisperiod,unit These c and Italy (+1.2%),while itfell inGermany (-0.6%). in France (+5.6%),more sothaninSpain(+2.3%) zone, costcompetitiveness hasincreased themost theeuro since 2018,amongthelarge countriesof was stillbenefiting from thisupward trend. Indeed, in Q3,2019).Intherecent pre-crisis period,France 2013(+2.7% and+4.8%,respectively,the endof and costcompetitiveness have alsoincreased since Compared withitsOECDpartners, France’s price advances madesince2000. their profit margins, following thesignificant thanks tothework by export businesses torebuild Price-competitiveness remains stable (+0.4%) onwards (seebox). labor costreduction measures introduced from 2014 (+3.2% until2019),helpedinparticular by the 2013 theeuro zonesincetheendof with therest of 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 40 105 nustry 120 40 -4 30 10 20 45 30 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 110 -2 35 -3 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 95 0 8 4 6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 France (2019) 1 Finland Poland 2005 United Kingdom France hanges are linked tovariations inbothunit Spain 2006 United Kingdom

France (2018) Poland 2007

Belgium United States 2008 Italy

Ireland 2009 Spain

Ireland 2010 Sweden Finland

Netherlands 2011 Austria Italy 2012 Netherlands Australia Austria 2013 Ireland France Poland 2014 Netherlands Sweden 2015 Germany United Kingdom Germany 2016

Spain 2017 Germany Belgium

Belgium 2018 EU-28 EU-28 2019 Chap II_7Chap Source: OECD, 2020 100 =Q1, 2000;LAST POINTS:Q4, 2019 EURO ZONE: UNIT LABORCOSTS 2000T1 =100 Zone euro lacompétitivité de :évolution coût 2000T1 =100 Zone euro :coûts unitaires salariaux 100 100 140 130 150 120 110 110 80 90 90 70 2000 2000 FIG. 83 France, including CICE France 2002 2002

Germany 2004 2004 2006 2006

Italy 2008 2008 2010 2010

Spain 2012 2012

Euro zone pas trouvé 2014 2014 pas trouvé 2016 2016 Chap II_7Chap 2018 2018 EURO ZONE: TRENDS INCOST COMPETITIVENESS Source: OECD, 2020 100 =Q1, 2000;LAST POINTS:Q4, 2019 2000T1 =100 Zone euro lacompétitivité de :évolution coût 2000T1 =100 Zone euro :coûts unitaires salariaux 100 100 140 130 150 120 110 110 80 90 90 70 2000 2000 FIG. 84

France 2002 2002

Germany 2004 2004 2006 2006

Italy 2008 2008 2010 2010

Spain 2012 2012 pas trouvé 2014 2014 pas trouvé

2016 2016 2018 2018 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

83 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 84 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD unit laborcostsdecrease. more quicklythanworkers’compensation, costs tofall.Ifproductivityincreases an increaseinwhichcausesunitlabor unit laborcoststorise,andproductivity, compensation, anincreaseinwhichcauses workers’ both in by fluctuations Changesunit inlabor costs are determined per unitofvalueaddedproduced. labor costsareameasureof labor weightedbyproductivity.Unit labor costscorrespondtothecostof costs betweendifferentcountries. Cost competitivenesscomparesunitlabor COMPETITIVENESS INDICATORS UNIT LABORCOSTSAND French goodsorservices. foreign goods or services andthatof as theratiobetweenexportpricesfor Export pricecompetitivenessisdefined to internationaltrade. the mostandsectorsthatarelessopen whole, coveringbothsectorsthatexport The costsaremeasuredintheeconomyasa competing economiesandthoseinFrance. relationship betweenunitlaborcostsin Cost competitivenessisdefinedasthe Unit Unit competitor countryinthismarket. French exports)andtheshareheldby market toFrance(proportionoftotal that isbasedontheimportanceof countries areaggregatedusingaweighting In the euroarea. targeted way,ourmaincompetitorswithin the OECD,andonotherhand,inamore on theonehandourmaincompetitorsin Two setsofcompetingcountriesareused, lower prices. their marginsbeforetranslatingitinto of lowercosts,businessescanrebuild company profitmargins.Takingadvantage competitiveness liesinthechanges in costcompetitivenessandprice currency, thedifferencebetweenchanges effect oftheexchangerate.Besides currency, whichthereforeincludesthe foreign pricesexpressedinacommon when Frenchpricesrisemoreslowlythan French pricecompetitivenessimproves METHODOLOGY these two cases, data from competing these twocases,datafromcompeting BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

85 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_7Chap

86 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 2.5 times the statutory minimum contributions by a 6% reduction in social security credit wasabolished andreplaced competitiveness andemployment tax With effect from January 1,2019,the before back to 6% in 2018. falling rising to6%in2014and7%2017, the statutory nationalminimum wage, grosssalaries upto2.5times at 4%of The taxcredit was initially calculated corporatedeductible incometax. against January 2013, is a deferrable tax credit Act No. IIIfor 2012andeffective from introduced by Supplementary Budget pour lacompétitivitéetl’emploi–CICE), employment taxcredit The competitiveness and responsibility pact and employmenttaxcredit Labor costs:Competitiveness Source: Eurostat, 2020; BusinessFrance calculations BASE 100=Q4, 2012 (INDUSTRY, CONSTRUCTION, SERVICES) LABOR COST INDEX 1 comparison, unitlaborcostsinindustry 1.5%in2019.By unit labor costsof recorded in asmallprogression In manufacturing industry, France -2 0 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) 60 90 60 4 Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 Provision included inthe2015SocialSecurity FundingAct. 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 120 1 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . . 80 . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 5 5 United States 05 30 .

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 10 5 5

15 United States FIG. 85 Netherlands South Korea South Netherlands Tableau afaire design in dans Ireland Ireland France France Poland Germany Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103 Belgium United Kingdom Finland Austria Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2011 Q2 Belgium Italy Belgium Poland Ireland Italy United States Spain

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 10 United Kingdom Italy

Euro zone(19countries) 2007

10 Sweden Germany Ireland 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland CICE 2008 United States 2013 Q2 Italy

for salariesbelow Austria 30 Poland 20 France Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 40 *

CICE * 2014 Q2 Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 2010

Responsibility Finland Spain (crédit d’impôt Spain France Spain Germany First phase Pact 60 Finland Netherlands Italy 40 2015 Q2 2011 Sweden Germany Finland Netherlands Austria

Netherlands Responsibility 70 Second phase Second Austria 2012 72 United Kingdom Pact Germany

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria 2016 Q2 United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013 90 Belgium Austria Third phase Poland Sweden 60 Austria CICE 100 Sweden Sweden 2017 Q2 2014

Netherlands researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Netherlands France Italy 110

Finland 1.6 and3.5timesthestatutory national April 2016 targeting salaries between by a second tranche from followed the statutory nationalminimum wage, targeting low salariesbelow 1.6times was introduced inJanuary 2015 labor component,aninitialtranche on businesses.Underthecostof laborandthetaxburden the costof measures aimedatreducing range of pact, The responsibility and solidarity October 1,2019. statutory minimum wage starting on a further four-point reduction at the transformation was accompaniedby work for the less well paid, this of wage. To emphasizethelower cost 70

Italy the EU-28. UnitedKingdomand3.3% in in the grew by 6.4% inGermany, 5.4% Poland Ireland 2015 ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) creit orrants Spain 120 Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany Sweden 2016 France

Spain Germany 80 130 United Kingdom Japan Belgium introduced in 2015, Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium 140 Japan Belgium Poland 90

150 France 2018 Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-23** EU-28 EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 100 160 2019 Source: Eurostat € MANUFACTURING SECTOR (EXCLUDING CONSTRUCTION) HOURLY LABORCOSTS (19 countries) Italy Spain France Germany Euro zone Euro zone 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 40 105 FIG. 86 nustry 120 40 -4 30 10 20 45 30 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 110 -2 35 -3 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 95 0 8 4 6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 1

France (2019) 1 includes a Finland Poland 2005 United Kingdom

France Spain 2006 United Kingdom 2004 24.3 30.3 29.5 22.3 17.9 France (2018) Poland 2007

Belgium 2008

euro zone. 2008compared with14.4%for the France, zone asawhole, cominginat9.8% below the average increase for the euro increase inlaborcostsFrance was 2020, the and the second quarter of 2012 Between thefourth quarter of tax credit andtheresponsibility pact. competitiveness and employment the thanks totheintroduction of since 2013 relative to the euro zone, costs has slowed significantly The rise in French hourly labor from 2015. employed social security contributions pact also included a reduction in self- the minimum wage. Thiscomponentof Italy 26.9 20.8 24.2 United States 32.5 33.1

Ireland 2009 Spain 2012

30.5 2010 36.4

Ireland 23.0 Finland 35.2 27.2 Sweden

Netherlands 2011 Austria Italy 2016 36.8 38.4 Netherlands 31.9 23.2

27.5 2012 Australia Austria 2013 Ireland France 2017 32.6 39.5 23.3 37.3 Poland 27.5 2014 Netherlands Sweden 2015 Germany United Kingdom Germany 2018 28.0 40.2 33.2 38.3 23.5 2016

Spain 2017 Germany Belgium 2019 28.8 23.9 34.1 41.2 39.1 Belgium 2018 EU-28 EU-28 2019 Chap II_7Chap -2 0 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de 60 90 60 4 Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 120 1 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . . 80 . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 5 5 United States 05 30 .

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 10 5 5

15 United States Netherlands South Korea South Netherlands Ireland Tableau afaire design in dans France Ireland Poland Germany Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103 Belgium United Kingdom Finland Austria Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2011 Q2 Belgium Italy Belgium Poland Ireland Italy United States Spain

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 10 Italy United Kingdom 2007

10 Sweden Germany Ireland 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland CICE 2008 Italy United States 2013 Q2 Austria 30 Poland 20 France Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 40 *

CICE * 2014 Q2 Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 2010

Responsibility Finland Spain Spain France Spain Germany First phase Pact 60 Finland Netherlands Italy 40 2015 Q2 2011 Sweden Germany Finland Netherlands Austria

Netherlands Responsibility 70 Second phase Second Austria 2012 72 United Kingdom Pact Germany

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria 2016 Q2 United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013 90 Belgium Austria Third phase Poland Sweden 60 Austria CICE 100 Sweden Sweden 2014 2017 Q2 Netherlands researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Netherlands France Italy

110 Finland Italy 70 Poland Ireland 2015 ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) creit orrants Spain 120 Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany Sweden 2016 France

Spain Germany 80 130 United Kingdom Japan Belgium Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium 140 Japan Belgium Poland 90

150 France 2018 Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-23** EU-28 EU-28 II_7Chap 2020 Q2 EU-28 100 160 2019 -2 0 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 100 45 30 80 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) 60 90 60 4 Source: OECD, 2020 MANUFACTURING COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTHRATE (2019) BREAKDOWN OF TRENDS INUNIT LABORCOSTS 40 Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly 0 35 105 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 nustry 25 5.0 4 0 8 120 40 0 0 20 20 20 20 INDICES (BASE100=2015) TRENDS INCOST COMPETITIVENESS (2005-2019) Source: OECD, 2020;BusinessFrance calculations * Datafor 2018**Datafor 2017 10 3 -4 45 4 2 3 30 2 100 6 70 10 20 45 30 35 35 20 125 5 3 15 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 25 25 2 110 1. 10 10 -2 10 10 35 7 105 -3 25 120 35 1 10 25 80 115 10 115 90 15 15 1 125 15 85 -1 110 15 85 0 . . 95 . 80 0 8 . . 5 115 4 90 United States 6 9 . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 5 3 2 0 95 7 0 . .5 .5 . .5

40 00 . 5 5 United States 5 05 30 . 5 1

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 10 Rmnrto flaborforce perhourworked Remuneration of GDPperhourworked, constantprices 5 5

15 United States Unit laborcosts Netherlands South Korea South Netherlands FIG. 87 FIG. 88

France (2019) Tableau afaire design in dans Ireland France Finland Ireland Poland Poland Germany France Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103 Belgium United Kingdom Finland Austria Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France

France 2005

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2011 Q2 Belgium UnitedItaly Kingdom Belgium Poland Ireland France Spain Italy United States Spain 2006 United Kingdom

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 Poland 10 France (2018) Italy United Kingdom 2007 2007 Germany

10 Sweden Germany Ireland 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland Belgium United States CICE 2008 2008 Italy Italy United States 2013 Q2 Austria 30 Poland France 20 Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Ireland Netherlands phase Second 2009 2009 Ireland 40 * Spain

CICE * 2014 Q2 Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 Ireland 2010 2010 Finland

Spain Responsibility Spain Sweden Finland

Italy France Spain Germany First phase Pact 60 Netherlands Finland Netherlands 2011 Italy 40 2015 Q2 2011 Sweden Germany Austria Finland Netherlands Austria

Netherlands Responsibility Italy 70 Second phase Second Austria 2012 2012 Netherlands 72 Pact

United Kingdom Germany

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria Austria Australia 2016 Q2 Spain United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013 2013 90 Belgium Austria Third phase Poland Sweden France 60

CICE Ireland Austria 100 Poland Sweden Sweden 2014 2014 2017 Q2 Netherlands researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit France Netherlands Netherlands Italy Sweden 110 Finland Euro zone(19countries) Italy 70 2015 2015 Germany Poland Ireland United Kingdom ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) creit orrants Spain 120 Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany Germany Sweden 2016 2016 France

Spain Germany 80 130 United Kingdom Japan Spain Belgium Germany Belgium Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 2017 Belgium 140 Japan Belgium Poland 90 Belgium 150 France 2018 2018 EU-28 Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-23** EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 100 160 2019 2019 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 40 105 nustry 120 40 -4 30 10 20 45 30 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 110 -2 35 -3 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 95 0 8 4 6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 1

France (2019) Euro zone(19countries) Japan Finland Poland 2005 United Kingdom France Spain 2006 United Kingdom

France (2018) United States** Poland 2007

Belgium United States 2008 Italy

Ireland 2009 Spain

Ireland 2010 Sweden Finland

Netherlands United Kingdom 2011 Austria Italy 2012 Netherlands Australia Austria 2013 Ireland France Poland 2014 Netherlands Sweden

2015 Germany United Kingdom Germany 2016

Spain 2017 Germany Belgium

Belgium 2018 EU-28 EU-28 2019 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

87 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_7Chap

88 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD -2 0 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) 60 90 60 4 Source: OECD, 2019 * Datafor 2017 % OFGDP TAX RECEIPTS life andIX.Energy andgreen growth). Quality of assessing thesereceipts (seeIV. Infrastructure, VIII. benefits, culture,factored etc.–shouldbe in when telecommunications), healthcare, education,welfare these taxes –infrastructure (transport, energy, However, benefitsfunded by thewiderange of Germany and33.5%inthe UnitedKingdom. Revenue Statistics, compared with38.2%in France in2018,according totheOECDpublication GDPin Tax receipts amountedto46.1%of life). on Quality of model thatthey helptofinance(see chapter 2.8 reflecting thegenerous French public services security contributionsincompulsorydeductions, social countries for thesignificantburden of The French taxsystemstandsapartfrom other Taxation Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 120 1 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . . 80 . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 5 5 United States 05 30 .

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 10 5 2013 5

15 United States Netherlands South Korea South Netherlands FIG. 89 Ireland Tableau afaire design in dans France Ireland Poland Germany Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103 Belgium United Kingdom Finland Austria Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2011 Q2 Belgium Italy Belgium Poland Ireland Italy 2018 United States Spain

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 10 Italy United Kingdom 2007

10 Sweden Germany Ireland 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland CICE 2008 Italy United States 2013 Q2 Austria 30 Poland 20 France Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 40 *

CICE * 2014 Q2 Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 2010

Responsibility Finland Spain Spain France Spain Germany First phase Pact 60 Finland Netherlands Italy 40 2015 Q2 2011 Sweden Germany Finland Netherlands Austria

Netherlands Responsibility 70 Second phase Second Austria 2012 72 United Kingdom Pact Germany

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria 2016 Q2 United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013 90 Belgium Austria Third phase Poland Sweden 60 Austria CICE 100 Sweden Sweden 2014 2017 Q2 Netherlands researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Netherlands France Italy

110 Finland Italy 70 Poland Ireland 2015 ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) creit orrants Spain 120 Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany Sweden 2016 France

Spain Germany 80 130 United Kingdom Japan Belgium Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium 140 Japan Belgium Poland 90 Chap II_7Chap 150 France 2018 Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-23** EU-28 EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 100 160 2019 -2 0 46.5%, versus 40.5%intheeuro zone. deductions inFrance changed littlein2018,reaching totalreceipts in2018.Compulsory 25.1% of impositioninthesamplecountries: lowest of rates (for individuals andcompanies),France offersthe gains incometax,profits andcapital of In terms revenue in2018. French tax thesources of share (34.9%)of security contributionsrepresented thelargest taxreceipts, social thestructure of of In terms Source: OECD, 2019 * Datafor 2017 % OF TOTAL RECEIPTS STRUCTURE OF TAX RECEIPTS (2018) 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate tax receipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) 60 90 60 4 Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 120 1 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . . 80 . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 5 5 United States Othertaxes Taxes ongoods andservices Taxes onproperty Taxe onpayroll andworkforce Socialsecuritycontributions Taxes onincome, profitgains andcapital 05 30 . 20

40 United States 0 0 0 0 0 105 nustry 35 120 40 25 -4 30 10 10 20 5 5 45 30 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 15

United States 110 -2 35 -3 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 Netherlands FIG. 90 15 -1 15 85 95 0 8 South Korea South 4 Netherlands 6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 1 France (2019) Ireland Tableau afaire design in dans France Ireland Poland Germany Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden

Poland 103 Belgium United Kingdom Finland Finland Austria Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2005 2011 Q2 Belgium Italy Poland Ireland United Kingdom Belgium Italy Spain France Spain United States

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 10 Italy France (2018) United Kingdom Poland 2007

10 2007 Sweden Germany Ireland 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland CICE Belgium 2008 Italy United States 2008 2013 Q2 Italy Austria United States 30 Poland 20 France Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 40 * 2009 Ireland

CICE Spain * 2014 Q2 Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 2010

Responsibility Finland Ireland Spain 2010 Sweden Spain Finland France Spain Germany First phase Pact 60 Finland Netherlands Netherlands Italy 40 2015 Q2 2011 Sweden Germany Finland Netherlands 2011 Austria Austria

Netherlands Responsibility 70 Second phase Second Italy Austria 2012 72 United Kingdom 2012 Pact Netherlands Germany

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria Australia 2016 Q2 Austria United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013 90 2013 Belgium Austria Third phase Poland Sweden 60 Austria CICE France 100 Sweden Sweden Ireland 2014 Poland 2014 2017 Q2 Netherlands researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Netherlands France Netherlands Italy 110 Finland Sweden Italy 70 2015 Poland Ireland 2015 ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) Germany creit orrants Spain 120 United Kingdom Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany Sweden 2016 Germany France

Spain Germany 80 2016 130 United Kingdom Japan Belgium Spain Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium Belgium 140 Germany Japan Belgium 2017 Poland 90

150 France 2018 Belgium Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-23** 2018 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 EU-28 100 160 2019 2019 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 40 105 nustry 120 40 -4 30 10 20 45 30 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 110 -2 35 -3 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 95 0 8 4 6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 France (2019) 1 Finland Poland 2005 United Kingdom France Spain 2006 United Kingdom

France (2018) Poland 2007

Belgium United States 2008 Italy

Ireland 2009 Spain

Ireland 2010 Sweden Finland

Netherlands 2011 Austria Italy 2012 Netherlands Australia Austria 2013 Ireland France Poland 2014 Netherlands Sweden 2015 Germany United Kingdom Germany 2016

Spain 2017 Germany Belgium

Belgium 2018 EU-28 EU-28 2019 Chap II_7Chap burdens, justlower thanItaly, FinlandandSweden. thehighesttax earnings, France imposedoneof average couple withtwo children at100%of average in2018.For earnings married aone-earner on asingle person withoutchildren 100%of earning and Italy imposedahighertaxburden thanFrance Source: OECD, 2020 ** 23countriesbelongingtoboththeEU-28andOECD contributions, lesssocialprotectionlabor costs. total benefits, asapercentage of incometaxplusemployee andemployer socialsecurity Above, itisequaltothesumof employers andemployees’ take-home pay (aftertaxes andsocialsecuritydeductions). * The ‘taxwedge’ isequaltothedifference onlabor between gross costsfor labor % OFLABORCOSTS AVERAGE(2019) TAXWEDGE* labor, taxationof Concerning -2 0 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de 60 90 60 4 € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 120 1 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . . 80 . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 Snl esnwtotcide t10 faverage earnings Single person withoutchildren at100%of 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 5 5 United States 05 30 .

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 10 5 5 15

United States average earnings couplewithtwo married One-earner children at100%of FIG. 91 Netherlands South Korea South Netherlands Ireland Tableau afaire design in dans France Ireland Poland Germany Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103 Belgium United Kingdom Finland Austria Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2011 Q2 Belgium Italy Belgium Poland Ireland Italy United States Spain

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 10 Italy United Kingdom 2007

10 Sweden Germany Ireland 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland CICE 2008 Italy United States 2013 Q2 Austria 30 Poland 20 France Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 40 *

CICE * 2014 Q2 Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 2010

Responsibility Finland Spain Spain France Spain Germany First phase Pact 60 Finland Netherlands Italy 40 2015 Q2 2011 Sweden Germany Finland Netherlands Austria

Netherlands Responsibility 70 Second phase Second Austria 2012 72 Pact Germany

United Kingdom Germany, Belgium

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria 2016 Q2 United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013 90 Belgium Austria Third phase Poland Sweden 60 Austria CICE 100 Sweden Sweden 2014 2017 Q2 Netherlands researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Netherlands France Italy

110 Finland Italy 70 Poland Ireland 2015 ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) creit orrants Spain 120 Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany Sweden 2016 France

Spain Germany 80 130 United Kingdom Japan Belgium Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium 140 Japan Belgium Poland 90 Chap II_7Chap

150 France 2018 Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-23** EU-28 EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 100 160 2019 -2 0 Source: Eurostat, Taxation Trends intheEuropean Union,2020 * Including theexceptional contributionfor very large businessesin2013-2015 sample, afterGermany, BelgiumandItaly. which would take France tofourth placeinour to lowering to25%in2022, taxrate thecorporate In addition,theFrench government hascommitted from 2013-2015. exceptional contributionfor very large companies Indeed, thisindicatornotably tookintoaccountthe inrecentreduced taxrates years. itscorporate However, theFrench government hassignificantly tax stillplaceFrance inahighposition2020. corporate The statutory highestmarginal ratesof % INCLUDING EXCEPTIONAL SURCHARGES HIGHEST MARGINAL RATE OFCORPORATE TAX 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de 60 90 60 4 Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 120 1 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . . 80 . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 5 5 United States 05 30 .

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 10 5 5

15 United States 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 40 Netherlands 2020 105 nustry 120 40 FIG. 92 -4 30 10 20 45 30 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du South Korea South Netherlands 110 -2 35 -3 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 95 Tableau afaire design in dans 0 8 4 6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 Ireland 1 France Ireland Poland Germany France (2019) Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103 Belgium United Kingdom

Finland Poland Austria Finland Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2011 Q2 Belgium Italy 2005 Belgium 2015 Poland Ireland United Kingdom Italy United States Spain

United Kingdom 0 France Spain

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom United Kingdom Poland Japan 2006 Japan* 2012 Q2 10 United Kingdom Italy France (2018) 2007 Poland 10 Sweden Germany Ireland 2007 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland CICE 2008 Italy United States 2013 Q2 Belgium Austria 30 Poland 2008 Italy

United States 20 France Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 40 * 2009 Ireland CICE * 2014 Q2 Spain Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 2010

Responsibility Finland Ireland Spain 2010 Spain France Finland Spain Germany First phase Sweden Pact 60 Finland Netherlands Italy 40 2015 Q2 2011 Sweden Germany Netherlands Finland Netherlands 2011 Austria

Netherlands Responsibility Austria 70 Second phase Second Austria 2012 Italy 72 United Kingdom Pact Netherlands Germany

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden 2012 Austria 2016 Q2 United Kingdom Australia Austria Japan Italy 2013 90

Third phase 2013 Belgium Austria Poland Sweden 60 Austria CICE 100 Sweden Sweden 2014 Ireland France 2017 Q2 Netherlands researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit 2014 Netherlands Poland France Italy

110 Netherlands Finland Sweden Italy 70 Poland Ireland 2015

ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) 2015 creit orrants Spain Germany 120 Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 United Kingdom Germany Sweden 2016 Germany France

Spain Germany 80 130 2016 United Kingdom Japan Belgium Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium 140 Belgium Spain Japan Belgium 2017 Germany Poland 90

150 France 2018 Belgium Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-23** 2018 EU-28 EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 EU-28

100 EU-28 160 2019 2019 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

89 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 40 105 nustry 120 40 -4 30 10 20 45 30 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 110 -2 35 -3 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 95 0 8 4 6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 France (2019) 1 Finland Poland 2005 United Kingdom France Spain 2006 United Kingdom

France (2018) Poland 2007

Belgium United States 2008 Italy

Ireland 2009 Spain

Ireland 2010 Sweden Finland

Netherlands 2011 Austria Italy 2012 Netherlands Australia Austria 2013 Ireland France Poland 2014 Netherlands Sweden 2015 Germany United Kingdom Germany 2016

Spain 2017 Germany Belgium

Belgium 2018 EU-28 EU-28 2019 Chap II_7Chap

90 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD -2 0 Source: OECD, 2019 % OFGDP CORPORATE TAXRECEIPTS profits 28% according totheamountof 15%and France: they receive reduced of taxrates specialtreatment for SMEsin This isaresult of theUnitedKingdom(2.9%). below thatof similar tothelevel seeninGermany andPoland, and GDPinFrance, receipts represented only 2.1%of related tocorporate tax tax.In2018,corporate be putintoperspective when consideringrevenues The statutory highestmarginal ratesalsoneedto 3 2 to €38,120,andfrom €38,120to€500,000). by waivers andexemptions. tax onlarge groups, butanarrow base, reduced corporate is renowned for having ahighrateof at 33.33%,andnot28%. fulfilling thiscriteria)(service-public.fr). 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) 60 90 60 4 Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 120 1 Itshouldbenotedthat even excluding SMEs, in2018only beneficiariesabove €500,000are taxed (excluding socialsecuritycontribution onprofits) Pre-tax revenues lower entirely than€7.63millionandcapital gains distributedandheldonatleast75%by private individuals (orby acompany 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . . 80 . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 5 5 United States

05 30 .

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 10 5 5

15 United States 2013 Netherlands FIG. 93 South Korea South Netherlands Ireland Tableau afaire design in dans France Ireland Poland Germany Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103 Belgium United Kingdom Finland Austria Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2011 Q2 Belgium Italy

Belgium 2018 Poland Ireland Italy United States Spain

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 10 Italy United Kingdom 2007

10 Sweden Germany Ireland 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland CICE 2008 Italy United States 2013 Q2 Austria 30 Poland 20 France Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 40 *

CICE * 2014 Q2 Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 2010

Responsibility Finland Spain Spain France Spain Germany First phase Pact 60 Finland Netherlands Italy 40 2015 Q2 2011 Sweden Germany Finland Netherlands Austria

Netherlands Responsibility 70 Second phase Second Austria 2012 72 United Kingdom Pact Germany

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria 2016 Q2 United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013 90 Belgium Austria Third phase Poland Sweden 60 Austria CICE 100 Sweden Sweden 2014 2017 Q2 Netherlands researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Netherlands France Italy

110 Finland Italy 70 Poland Ireland 2015 ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) creit orrants Spain 120 Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany 2 Sweden France (from €0 2016

Spain Germany 80 130 United Kingdom 3 Japan France Belgium Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium 140 Japan Belgium Poland 90 Chap II_7Chap 150 France 2018 Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-23** EU-28 EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 100 160 2019 o04%o GDPin2017. to 0.41% of tax incentives, contributinganamountequivalent businessenterprise R&Dexpenditure andR&D of among OECDmembers for government funding generous R&Dtaxtreatment, leadingtheway 2008, France hasoffered businessesthemost Since reforming itsresearch taxcredit in Source: OECD, 2018 * Datafor 2016 % OFGDP EXPENDITURE AND R&D TAX INCENTIVES(2017) GOVERNMENT FUNDINGOFBUSINESSENTERPRISER&D -2 0 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de 60 90 60 4 € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 120 1 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . . 80 . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 R&Dtaxincentives 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 5 5 United States 05 30 .

20 United States 100 0 0 0 0 0 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 35 25 40 10 105 5 5 nustry 120 40 -4 15 30 oenetfnigo BERD Government fundingof United States 10 20 45 30 FIG. 94 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 110 -2 35 -3 Netherlands 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 South Korea South Netherlands 95 0 8 4 6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 Tableau afaire design in dans 5 5 France (2019) Ireland 1 France Ireland Poland Germany Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103 Belgium United Kingdom Finland Poland Finland Austria Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2005 2011 Q2 Belgium Italy Poland Ireland United Kingdom Belgium Italy Spain France Spain United States

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 10 Italy France (2018) United Kingdom Poland 2007

10 Sweden Germany Ireland 2007 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland CICE Belgium 2008 Italy United States 2008 2013 Q2 Italy Austria United States 30 Poland 20 France Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 40 * 2009 Ireland CICE Spain * 2014 Q2 Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 2010

Responsibility Finland Ireland Spain 2010 Sweden Spain Finland France Spain Germany First phase Pact 60 Finland Netherlands

40 2011 Netherlands Italy 2011 2015 Q2 Sweden Germany Austria Finland Netherlands Austria Netherlands Responsibility 70 Second phase Second Austria Italy 2012 72 United Kingdom 2012 Pact Netherlands Germany

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria Australia 2016 Q2 Austria United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013 90 2013 Belgium Austria Third phase Poland Sweden 60 Austria CICE France 100 Sweden Sweden Ireland 2014 2014 2017 Q2 Netherlands Poland researc ta te itout 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Netherlands France Netherlands Italy 110 Finland Sweden Italy 70 2015 Poland Ireland 2015 ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) Germany creit orrants Spain 120 Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 United Kingdom Germany Sweden 2016 Germany France

Spain Germany 80 2016 130 United Kingdom Japan Belgium Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium Belgium

Spain 140 Japan Belgium 2017 Germany Poland 90

150 2018 Belgium France Belgium Finland EU-28 EU-23** 2018 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 100 160 2019 2019 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 40 105 nustry 120 40 -4 30 10 20 45 30 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 110 -2 35 -3 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 95 0 8 4 6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 France (2019) 1 Finland Poland 2005 United Kingdom France Spain 2006 United Kingdom

France (2018) Poland 2007

Belgium United States 2008 Italy

Ireland 2009 Spain

Ireland 2010 Sweden Finland

Netherlands 2011 Austria Italy 2012 Netherlands Australia Austria 2013 Ireland France Poland 2014 Netherlands Sweden 2015 Germany United Kingdom Germany 2016

Spain 2017 Germany Belgium

Belgium 2018 EU-28 EU-28 2019 Chap II_7Chap -2 0 40 100 =Cost100 inFrance, research the without taxcredit orgrants Graph 14.Average cost of employing aresearcher after incentives (2018) % of GDP incentives (2017) Graph 13.Government funding of expenditure enterprise R&D business tax R&D and % of GDP Graph 12.Corporate taxreceipts exceptionalIncluding surcharges Graph 11.Highest marginal rate of corporate tax 0 United Kingdom 0 100 0.45 0 0 0 Tota economy 45 30 80 0 20 40 40 40 40 -1 (industry, services) construction, cost CICE1.Labor ENCADRE index % of costs labor Graph 10.Average taxwedge* (2019) % of total receipts Graph 9.Structure of taxreceipts (2018) % of GDP Graph .Tax 8 receipts En euros construction) -Industrie (sauf CICE2 .CoûtENCADRE horaire lamain-d'œuvre de 60 90 60 4 year (ANRT, 2016). reportedly results in1,300hires inbusinessesevery National Research andTechnology Association(ANRT), 2019 aresearcher –French thecostof Source: comparisonof International INCENTIVES (2018) AVERAGE COST OFEMPLOYING A RESEARCHER AFTER post-doctoral research personnel ( juniorfinal-year doctoraland the employment of theresearch taxcredit incentivizing component of in France by 28%in2018.Meanwhile, the employing aresearcher reducedgrants thecostof suggest thattheresearch taxcredit andassociated Based onthecompaniesexamined, theseestimates Association (ANRT). to theFrench NationalResearch andTechnology Germany, Australia, CanadaandJapan,according than intheUnitedStates,Kingdom, employing aresearcher islower inFrance cost of Thanks totheresearch taxcredit, theaverage Indices (Base 100 =2015) 100 Indices (Base Graph 6-7.Trends incost competitiveness (2005-2019) Taux croissance de annuelmoyen l'économie de -Ensemble Graph l'évolution de 4.Décomposition CSU(2019) des US$ atPPP–Total economy Graph productivity* labor (2019) 3.Hourly € Graph costs labor 1-2 . Hourly 0 35 United Kingdom 30 50 30 50 50 30 30 25 5.0 4 0 8 0 0 20 20 20 20 10 3 45 4 2 3 2 100 6 70 35 35 5 3 15 25 25 2 1. 10 10 10 10 7 105 120 1 115 15 15 1 125 85 110 0 . . . 80 . . 5 115 90 United States . . . . . 0 0 0 0 85 95 . .5 .5 . .5 40 00 . 5 5 United States 05 30 .

20 United States 0 0 0 0 0 35 25 10 5 5

15 United States Netherlands South Korea South Netherlands FIG. 95 Ireland Tableau afaire design in dans France Ireland Poland Germany Germany Ireland Belgium

France Sweden 103 Belgium United Kingdom Finland Austria Poland Canada Ireland Japan* France France

Spain United States 2005 China Brazil Japan Spain India Italy 2011 Q2 Belgium Italy Belgium Poland Ireland Italy United States Spain

United Kingdom 0

0 United Kingdom 2006 United Kingdom Poland Japan Japan* 2012 Q2 10 Italy United Kingdom 2007

10 Sweden Germany Ireland 20 Austria Finland First phase Finland CICE 2008 Italy United States 2013 Q2 Austria 30 Poland 20 France Sweden Spain Belgium Netherlands Netherlands phase Second 2009 Ireland 40 *

CICE * 2014 Q2 Ireland Spain 30 Poland 50 2010

Responsibility Finland Spain Spain France Spain Germany First phase Pact 60 Finland Netherlands Italy 40 2015 Q2 2011 Sweden Germany Finland Netherlands Austria

Netherlands Responsibility 70 Second phase Second Austria 2012 72 United Kingdom Pact Germany

50 Finland 80 Austria Sweden Austria 2016 Q2 United Kingdom Japan Italy 2013 90 Belgium Austria Third phase Poland Sweden 60 CICE jeunes docteurs jeunes Austria 100 Sweden Sweden 2014 2017 Q2 Netherlands 100 =Coût France100 ost inrance, sanscrédit Netherlands France Italy

110 Finland Italy 70 Poland Ireland 2015 ni subventions d’impôt recherche (CIR) itout te researc ta te itout creit orrants Spain 120 Netherlands Germany Italy 2018 Q2 Germany Sweden 2016 France

Spain Germany 80 130 United Kingdom Japan Belgium Germany France* 2019 Q2 2017 Belgium 140 Japan Belgium Poland 90

150 France 2018 Finland Belgium EU-28 EU-28 ) EU-23** EU-28 2020 Q2 EU-28 100 160 2019 100 Taux croissance de annuelmoyen manufacturière –Industrie Graph l'évolution de 5.Décomposition CSU(2019) des 40 105 nustry 120 40 -4 30 10 20 45 30 20 125 En % (2018) médian Graph 15.Taux cotisations de employeurs auniveau dusalaire minimumet salaire du 110 -2 35 -3 25 35 10 25 80 10 115 90 15 -1 15 85 95 0 8 4 6 9 5 3 2 0 7 0 5 5 France (2019) 1 Finland Poland 2005 United Kingdom France Spain 2006 United Kingdom

France (2018) Poland 2007

Belgium United States 2008 Italy

Ireland 2009 Spain

Ireland 2010 Sweden Finland

Netherlands 2011 Austria Italy 2012 Netherlands Australia Austria 2013 Ireland France Poland 2014 Netherlands Sweden 2015 Germany United Kingdom Germany 2016

Spain 2017 Germany Belgium

Belgium 2018 EU-28 EU-28 2019 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

91 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 92 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD businesses, particularly in our competitiveness of taxes which weigh onthe reduction inproduction A significantandlasting in the“Relaunch France” plan businesses’ competitiveness Measures toimprove - its administration. generous incentive andsimplifying credit, itintoavery transforming for 2008enhancedtheresearch tax The French Government BudgetAct size orbusinesssector, are eligible. their located in France, regardless of All businesses with R&D operations operations. companies toexpand theirR&D flagship taxmeasure toencourage d’impôt recherche –CIR)isFrance’s The research taxcredit (crédit in OECDcountries effective R&Dtaxincentive tax creditmakesitthemost Reform ofFrance’sresearch the “increase-based” component, spending (aftertheabolitionof totalR&D solely onthebasisof The research taxcredit iscalculated “Relaunch France” plan. the set tofeature aspartof on average in theEU)is 2018, compared with 1.6% GDPin industry (3.2%of - spending by SMEs. tax credit toencompassinnovation extended eligibility for theresearch In 2013,theinnovation tax credit - - the European Uniondefinition) January 1,2013,SMEs(asper For expenditure incurred after billion in2007to€6.82019. awarded tocompaniesrose from €1.8 research taxcredit The amountof this threshold. up to€100million,and5%above eligible R&Dexpenditure 30% of The research taxcredit rateissetat spending). theincrease inacompany’s R&D of previously onthebasis determined

France’s regions. companies, which create jobsacross investment inourSMEsandmid-size businesses andtofacilitate growth and ourindustrial competitiveness of Aim: To specifically target the declaration ismade. months before theresearch taxcredit but must be submitted at least six once R&Doperationshave begun procedure (rescrit) canbeinitiated tacit approval: an advance ruling It hasalsobeenmadeeasiertoobtain - year (400,000x20%). a company canreceive is€80,000per Accordingly, themaximum taxcredit is capped at €400,000 annually. Eligible innovation expenditure 20%. innovation taxcredit of pilot equipmentare eligible for an create newproducts orinstall projects to design prototypes, spending oninnovation tofund 1- French productive capacity. mid-size companiesseekingtomodernize micro-enterprises, SMEs,of and Aim: To restore theinvestment capacity equity loans. using private savings and companiesbyand mid-size micro-enterprises, SMEs, of Strengthen thebalancesheet 3- 2- 1- period 2021-2022): per year, or €20 billion over the based onthree measures (€10billion The reduction inproduction taxes is for SMEsandmid-sizecompanies. towards financing, long-term useful everyone todirect theirsavings theeconomy,recovery allowing of relevant fundsfor asustainable label. This will select the most will receive a“Relaunch France” to financial investments which A public may be guarantee granted would bereduced from 3%to2%. depending onvalueadded,which – Local economic contribution billion inCFE. -€1.8 billion in TFPB and -€1.5 86,000establishments:operating to around 32,000businesses establishments, applicable property taxesfor industrial – property contribution (CFE) properties (TFPB)andcorporate Property taxes oncompleted (-€7.3 billion). businesses liable for thistax – Business value-added contribution euto yhl for all reduction by half oeigo the cap rate lowering of euto yhl o the of reduction by half

1-  benefit from €11billion by 2022. investment infuture technologies and will Program aimstosupport significant Aim: The fourth NationalInvestment the future Invest inthetechnologies of the regional authorities. across France inconjunctionwith industrialprojects development of and €400 million to promote the 5G), industry andindustrialusesof inputs for industry, electronics, food sectorsstrategic (healthcare, critical and promote relocation infive €600 milliontosupport investment investments by industrialbusinesses: will provide €1billiontosupport The “Relaunch France” plan and technological independence. Franceallow to maintain its economic Aim: To support investments thatwill in France’s regions Develop industrialproduction 3-  2-  fthefuture: digitaltechnologies, of industrial sectorsortechnologies Fund specialinvestments inafew France’s regional authorities. to theinvestment fundssetupby financing andtheStatewilladd will stepupitscorporate At thesametime,Bpifrance and similartoquasi-equityfinance. loans, which willbesubordinated equityloans, i.e.long-term to grant The bankingnetworks willbeable companies.SMEs, andmid-size loans for micro-enterprises, for €20billioninequity granted willalsobeA Stateguarantee

buildings, jobsfor young people, etc. including renovation thethermal of benefit from important measures, businesses willtherefore directly reductions inproduction taxes. These revitalize downtown businesses, and real estate to and SMEs, creation of micro-enterprises digitization of measures, such asenergy renovation, will thusdirectly benefitfrom certain recovery. Micro-enterprises andSMEs them having asustainable economic oureconomy on willdepend of businesses’ revenues, therevival allFrench account for one-third of Since micro-enterprises andSMEs SMEs especially micro-enterprises and from the“Relaunch France” plan, All French peopleshouldbenefit 3- 2-  funds. companies through investment financing market for innovative thebusiness and growth of equity, tosupport thestructuring willalsointerveneProgram in The fourth NationalInvestment researchers andentrepreneurs. France thebestplaceinEurope for innovation ecosystems,tomake higher education,research and predictable fundingfor structural long-lastingandGuarantee and creative industries. digital education,aswell ascultural tomorrow,and mobility, citiesof sovereignty, sustainable transport responsible andfood agriculture industries, low-carbon energies, medical research andhealthcare BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

93 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 94 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD fSpain(81.5),theUnitedKingdom(78.3)and of 81.8years, ahead boasted life expectancy atbirth of is amongthehighestinworld. In2018,France According toOECDdata,life expectancy inFrance life. qualityof the primary of determinants Health andaccesstohealthcare are among time. to healthcare, leisure time and personal the world’s leading countries for access standards. ThismeansFranceisoneof while supporting household living notably in education and healthcare, range of free, high-quality services, In France, the public system offers a through expenditure, is also telling. culture, etc.), which can be measured healthcare, housing, transportation, public services provided (education, of culturalactivities.Thelevel safety ofpeopleandtheavailability expectancy, access to healthcare, of life to be understood, such as life A few key indicators enable quality themselves. are deciding where to establish life is a decisive factor when businesses attract such people, local quality of investors that their projects will workers or convincing international by attractinghighlymobileskilled helps makeaneconomyattractive.Whether Quality oflifeisonethethingsthat 1 mandatory private insuranceexpenditure. States, theNetherlands andSwitzerland inparticular), expenditure thatisconsidered tobe“public” for France contains arelatively smallshare of We should notethattheOECDcombinestogether public expenditure andmandatory expenditure. With respect toothercountries(theUnited QUALITY OFLIFE 2.8 34 ftotalhealthcare spending. 83.4% of GDP,France equatedto9.3%of accountingfor sector: in2018,public healthcare expenditure in financialcommitment by thepublic the highlevel of expenses for healthservices inFrance isexplained by individual out-of-pocketThis very moderatelevel of health services, which are particularly low inFrance. be measured by private out-of-pocket expenses for hospitalization for example. Accesstohealthcare can and financialconsequencesarisingfrom delayed medical professionals, withsignificanthealth-related that ishard toaccesscandelay decisionstoconsult are financially supported by theauthorities.Asystem of the extent towhich France’s nationalhealthtargets Access tothehealthcare systemisagood indicator healthcare amongthecountriesinoursample. In 2018,France wasranked secondfor accessto the sixth-best inoursample). healthy life expectancy inEurope (63.9years, the world. In2018,France enjoyed thesixth-best and living conditionsdeteriorateinmany regions of issues of autonomy cometothefore, anddependence important asthe average lifespan lengthens, Healthy life expectancy becomeseven more any countryis the second-longest inoursample. of age 60for women (28.2years) andmen(23.5years) United States(81.3).InFrance, life expectancy at fresidence. of to benefitfrom healthcare services neartotheirplace healthcare, enabling thegreatest number coverage of adopted in2019by France improves theregional thehealthcare system transformation strategyof distance between healthcare professionals. The Another dimensiontoaccessibilityisthegeographic

1 Chap II_8 Chap Chap II_8 Chap 0 0 0 0 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 ousin 0.40 0 IN YEARS HEALTHY LIFEEXPECTANCY (2018) Source: OECD, 2019 ** Datafor 2016 * Datafor 2017 IN YEARS LIFE EXPECTANCY (2018) Source: Eurostat; World HealthOrganization, 2019 0 0 0 100 0.30 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 80 80 4 0.00 0 0.20 0 6 ousin 0.40 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with to equal average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 15,000 180 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 0 1.4 10 18 0 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 100 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 0.30 1 6 1 160 5 80 80 1,200 14 1.6 3 4 0 1 8 35,000 0 16 0.20 1 2 6 30 50 30 50 30 30 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with to equal average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 25,000 1,000 15,000 1 4 180 30,000 90 60 90 60 100 100 20 20 10 1.0 20 20 1,400 1.4 10 18 20,000 1 In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 12 1 6 0 1 70 70 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 120 1 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 10 25,000 1,000 1 4 30,000 20 20 35 20 20 1,400 25 25 20,000 1 12 0 70 70 120 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 10 35 80 25 25 1 40 1 1 10 10 10 10 . 60 80 80 0 8 . 0 8 40 80 40 4 4 60 60 90 4 6 . 40 6 . 60 20 80 80 . . 0 8 . 0 30 50 8 40 40 4 4 2 60 60 90 4 6 . 20 20 2 6 2 800 20 70 . 400 . . 30 50 600 0 2 8 20 20 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 2 2 800 4 6 . 70 6 10 400 . . 600 200 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 5,000 5 5 5 5 2 4 6 2 . . 2 6 2 10 . 200 05 Atbirth Atbirth 5,000 5 5 5 5 2 2 . . 2 2 05 35 25 . 10 0 35 25 0 0 15 10 0 0 0 15 Finland* Finland* United States United States FIG. 97 FIG. 96 0 0 Sweden Sweden Japan* Japan*

Japan Belgium 0 Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland Finland Finland France France Italy Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom Poland Poland Italy Italy France France Poland Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Germany Germany United Kingdom France Belgium Belgium Germany Germany Finland Finland France France France France France Ireland Ireland Spain Spain Spain Spain Japan Japan France France

Austria Austria At65years old Women, 60years old France France Austria Austria Finland Austria Austria Poland Poland Spain Spain France France Belgium Belgium Finland Belgium Belgium France France Italy Italy Italy Italy Netherlands Japan Japan Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Sweden Austria Austria Germany Germany Poland Poland Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands France France Italy Italy Ireland Ireland Japan Japan * * Spain Spain Germany Germany Spain Italy Italy Sweden Sweden France France Belgium Belgium Spain Sweden Sweden Austria Austria Belgium Belgium Austria Austria Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Spain Spain Ireland Ireland Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Belgium Belgium Netherlands Netherlands Austria Austria Poland Poland United Kingdom United Kingdom Germany Germany Germany Germany Sweden Sweden Germany Italy Italy France France Germany Austria Austria Ireland Ireland * * Netherlands Netherlands * * France Germany Germany France Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Finland Finland Ireland* Ireland* Germany Germany Belgium Belgium France France Austria Austria Poland Poland Italy Italy Sweden Sweden United States United States Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Netherlands Netherlands Men,60years old Sweden Sweden Spain Spain France France Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium Sweden Belgium Belgium Finland Spain Spain Spain Spain Sweden Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands * * Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Ireland Ireland Germany Finland Finland Germany Germany Japan* Japan* United States United States Germany Austria Italy Germany Poland Poland Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United KingdomItaly United Kingdom Italy Italy * * United Kingdom United Kingdom Poland Poland Spain Spain Poland Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Italy Italy Poland Spain Spain Belgium Italy Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom Japan Japan Finland Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Ireland Ireland United Kingdom United Kingdom Sweden Sweden Italy Ireland Ireland Japan* Japan* Finland Finland Japan Japan Italy Ireland Ireland Austria Austria Netherlands Netherlands United States United States Ireland Ireland Italy Italy Sweden Sweden United States United States Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Japan* Japan* Spain Spain Ireland Austria Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom Ireland Spain Spain United Kingdom Poland Poland Italy Italy Belgium Belgium United States United Kingdom Japan Japan United States Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom ** ** Finland Poland* Finland Finland Finland Finland Finland Poland* Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Germany United States United States Japan Japan Finland Austria Austria United States United States * * United States United States United States United States United States United States United States

United States II_8 Chap Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland Ireland Ireland Poland Poland Austria Austria II_8 Chap Poland Poland EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland * * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0 0 0 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 ousin 0.40 0 0 PRIVATE OUT-OF-POCKET PAYMENTS PERCAPITA (US$PPP) ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE (2018) Source: OECD, 2019 % OFGDP HEALTH SPENDING(2018) Source: OECD, 2019 0 0 100 0.30 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 80 80 4 0.00 0 0.20 0 6 ousin 0.40 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with equalto average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 15,000 180 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 0 1.4 10 18 0 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 100 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 0.30 1 6 1 160 5 80 80 1,200 14 1.6 3 4 0 1 8 35,000 0 16 0.20 1 2 6 30 50 30 50 30 30 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with equalto average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 25,000 1,000 15,000 1 4 180 30,000 60 90 60 90 100 100 20 20 10 1.0 20 20 1,400 1.4 10 18 20,000 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 12 1 6 0 1 70 70 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 120 1 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 10 25,000 1,000 1 4 30,000 20 20 35 20 20 1,400 25 25 20,000 1 12 0 70 70 120 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 10 35 80 25 25 1 40 1 1 10 10 10 10 . 60 80 80 0 8 . 0 8 40 80 40 4 4 60 60 90 4 6 . 40 6 . 60 20 80 80 . . 0 8 . 0 30 50 8 40 40 4 4 2 60 60 90 4 6 . 20 20 2 6 2 800 20 70 . 400 . . 30 50 600 0 2 8 20 20 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 2 2 800 4 6 . 70 6 10 400 . . 600 200 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 5,000 5 5 5 5 2 4 6 2 . . 2 6 10 2 . 200 05 5,000 5 5 5 5 Total expenditure onhealth 2 2 . . 2 2 05 35 25 . 10 0 0.0 35 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor rorams anactie 25 0 0 0.5 15 10 0 2.0 0.0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor anactie rorams 0 0 2.5 0.5 15 2.0 1.0 2.5 FIG. 98 FIG. 99 1.5 1.0 1.5 Finland* Finland* United States United States 0 0 Sweden Sweden Japan* Japan*

Japan Belgium 0 Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland Finland* Finland* Finland Finland France France Italy Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom Poland Poland Italy Italy France France Poland Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Germany Germany United Kingdom Finland Finland France France France Belgium Belgium Germany Germany Spain Spain France France France Japan Japan Ireland Ireland Spain Spain France France France France Austria Austria France France Austria Austria Finland Austria Austria Poland Poland Spain Spain France France Belgium Belgium Finland Belgium Belgium France France Italy Italy Italy Italy Netherlands Japan Japan Spain Spain Netherlands NetherlandsBelgium NetherlandsBelgium Sweden Sweden Austria Austria Germany Germany Poland Poland Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands France France Italy Italy Ireland Ireland Japan Japan * * Spain Spain Germany Germany Spain Italy Italy Sweden Sweden France France Belgium Belgium Spain Sweden Sweden Austria Austria Belgium Belgium Spain Spain Austria Austria Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Spain Spain Ireland Ireland Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Belgium Belgium Netherlands Netherlands Austria Austria Poland Poland United Kingdom United Kingdom Germany Germany Germany Germany Sweden Sweden Germany Italy Italy France France Austria Austria Germany Austria Austria Ireland Ireland Netherlands * * * * Netherlands France France Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Netherlands Netherlands Public expenditure onhealth Belgium Belgium Finland Finland Ireland* Ireland* Germany Germany Belgium Belgium France France Austria Austria Poland Poland Italy Italy Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium United States United States Italy Italy Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Sweden Spain Spain France France Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium Sweden Belgium Belgium Finland Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands Spain Spain Sweden Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands * * Finland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Germany Germany United States Finland * Finland * Germany Germany Japan* Japan* United States Germany Germany Austria Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy Italy Italy Italy Poland Poland United Kingdom United GermanyKingdom Germany United Kingdom United Kingdom * * United Kingdom United Kingdom Poland Poland Spain Spain Poland Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Italy Italy Poland Spain Spain Belgium Italy Italy * * United Kingdom United Kingdom Japan Japan Finland Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Ireland Ireland United Kingdom United Kingdom Sweden Sweden Italy Ireland Ireland Japan*Ireland Japan*Ireland Finland Finland Japan Japan Italy Ireland Ireland Austria Austria Netherlands Netherlands United States United States Ireland Ireland Italy Italy Sweden Sweden United States United States Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Japan* Japan* Spain Spain Ireland Austria Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom Ireland Sweden Sweden Spain Spain United Kingdom Poland Poland Italy Italy Belgium Belgium United States United Kingdom Japan Japan United States Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom ** ** Finland Poland* United Kingdom United Kingdom Finland Finland Finland Finland Finland Poland* Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Germany United States United States Japan Japan Finland Austria Austria United States United States United States United States * * United States United States United States United States United States United States Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 Poland * Poland * Ireland Ireland Poland Poland Austria Austria Poland Poland EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland * Poland Poland * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

95 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 0.0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor rorams anactie 0.5 2.0 0.0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor anactie rorams 2.5 0.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 Finland* Finland*

France France

Belgium Belgium

Spain Spain

Austria Austria

Italy Italy Netherlands Netherlands

* * Germany Germany

* *

Ireland Ireland

Sweden Sweden United Kingdom United Kingdom

* *

Poland Poland 96 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 2 vrg fUS$11,231. average of to US$12,080perstudent,higherthantheOECD funded. Domesticexpenditure oneducationcame thisamount publicly education), with84%of GDP wasdedicatedtoeducation(including higher French education issubstantial:in2017,5.2%of Meanwhile, France’s public sectorcommitmentto Kingdom (24%). theUnitedStates (14%)andtheUnited but aheadof household incomeinFrance, behindGermany (1%) net three years oldusingchildcare cameto11%of with average andtwo earnings children agedtwo and acouple expenditure for ahouseholdconsistingof Childcare isaffordable inFrance. In2019, net three years. compulsory from theageof year, teaching (inschool orathome)hasbeenmade the2019school that inFrance, from thestart of behind theNetherlands (59.3%).Itshouldbenoted France, puttingthecountry secondinourranking, were registered for formal pre-school childcare in children uptotwo years old Meanwhile, 56.3%of United States(66.1%),according toOECD data. Germany (94.6%)and the Kingdom andaheadof primary educationinFrance, inlinewiththeUnited three- tofive-year-olds were in In 2017,100%of human capital). commitment tothefuture (cf. 2.2Educationand An effective educationsystemsignalsadetermined life acountryoffers. thequalityof another facetof Education andcollective childcare provision are student. high school studentandUS$16,327for auniversity for asecondary school student,US$10,888for a US$9,090 for aprimary school student,US$10,527 for anaverage studentinOECDcountries, itwas US$16,952 for auniversity student.Bycomparison, student, US$14,747for ahigh school student and school student,US$11,252for asecondary school This suminFrance was US$8,319for aprimary OECD, PPP. EducationataGlance, 2020.Amountsexpressed inUS$converted onthebasisof 2 Chap II_8 Chap Chap II_8 Chap 0 0 0 0 0 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 0 ousin 0.40 or primary school pre-school % OF THE TOTAL OFEACH AGE CATEGORY SCHOOL AND PRE-SCHOOL FORCHILDREN AGED 0-5(2017) Source: OECD, 2020 % OFNET HOUSEHOLDINCOME FOR A COUPLE WITH TWO CHILDREN WITH AN INCOME EQUAL TO THE AVERAGE WAGE NET CHILDCARE COST FORPARENTS USINGCHILDCARE (2019) Source: OECD, 2018 * Datafor 2011(dernière annéedisponible pourlesÉtats-Unis) € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 0 0 ousin 0.40 100 0.30 80 80 4 0 0 0.20 0 6 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection on social 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with equalto average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 100 40 40 0.30 120 0 15,000 180 80 80 60 90 60 90 100 100 4 10 1.0 0 0.20 1.4 6 10 18 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with equalto average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 40 40 10,000 120 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 0 1 6 15,000 180 1 160 60 90 60 90 100 100 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 10 1.0 1.4 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 10 18 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 1 6 25,000 1,000 1 160 1 4 5 1,200 30,000 14 1.6 3 20 20 20 20 1,400 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 20,000 12 25,000 1,000 0 1 4 30,000 70 70 20 20 120 20 20 1 1,400 20,000 12 10 0 70 70 120 1 35 25 25 10 1 35 1 1 10 10 10 10 25 25 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 80 40 . 80 60 80 80 0 8 40 . . 0 8 60 40 40 4 4 80 80 60 60 90 4 6 . 0 8 . 0 6 8 40 40 4 4 20 60 60 90 4 6 . . . 6 30 50 20 2 20 . 20 . 2 30 50 2 800 2 70 20 20 400 . 2 2 800 600 0 8 70 400 0 0 0 0 8 0 . 4 600 4 0 6 8 . 0 6 0 0 10 0 8 0 . 4 200 4 6 . 6 10 . 5,000 200 5 5 5 5 2 2 FIG. 100 FIG. 101 . 2 2 5,000 5 5 5 5 2 2 . 05 2 2 Pooto % fchildren aged3-5enrolled inpre-primary education Proportion (%)of children aged0-2enrolled informal childcare and Proportion (%)of 05 . . 35 25 10 35 0 25 10 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 Finland* Finland* United States United States 0 0 Sweden Sweden Japan* Japan*

Japan Belgium 0 Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland Finland Finland France France Italy Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom Poland Poland Italy Italy France France Poland Poland Germany Germany Germany Germany United Kingdom United Kingdom France Belgium Belgium Germany Germany Finland Finland France France France France France Ireland Ireland Spain Spain Spain Spain Japan Japan France France Austria Austria France France Austria Austria Austria Austria Poland Poland Spain Spain France France Belgium Belgium Finland Finland Belgium Belgium France France Italy Italy Italy Italy Japan Japan Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Sweden Austria Austria Germany Germany Poland Poland Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Netherlands Netherlands France France Italy Italy Ireland Ireland Japan Japan * * Spain Spain Germany Germany Italy Italy Sweden Sweden France France Belgium Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Sweden Austria Austria Belgium Belgium Austria Austria Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Spain Spain Ireland Ireland Netherlands Netherlands Germany Germany Belgium Belgium Netherlands Netherlands Austria Austria Poland Poland United Kingdom United Kingdom Germany Germany Germany Germany Sweden Sweden Germany Italy Italy France France Germany Austria Austria Ireland Ireland * * Netherlands Netherlands * * France Germany Germany France Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Finland Finland Ireland* Ireland* Germany Germany Belgium Belgium France France Austria Austria Poland Poland Italy Italy Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium United States United States Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Sweden Spain Spain France France Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Spain Spain Spain Spain Sweden Sweden Finland Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands * * Finland Finland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Germany Germany Finland Finland Germany Germany Japan* Japan* United States United States Austria Germany Germany Poland Poland Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United KingdomItaly United KingdomItaly Italy Italy * * United Kingdom Poland Poland Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands United Kingdom Italy Italy Poland Poland Spain Spain Belgium Belgium Italy Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom Japan Japan Finland Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Ireland Ireland United Kingdom United Kingdom Sweden Sweden Italy Ireland Ireland Japan* Japan* Finland Finland Japan Japan Italy Ireland Ireland Austria Austria Netherlands Netherlands United States United States Ireland Ireland Italy Italy Sweden Sweden United States United States Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Japan* Japan* Spain Spain Ireland Ireland Austria Austria Poland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Spain United Kingdom United Kingdom Poland Italy Italy Belgium Belgium United States Japan Japan United States Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom ** ** Finland Finland Poland* Poland* Finland Finland Finland Finland Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Germany United States United States Japan Japan Finland Austria Austria United States United States United States United States * * United States United States United States United States United States United States Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland Ireland Ireland Poland Poland Austria Austria Poland Poland EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland * * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor an actie rorams 0.0 0.5 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor rorams an actie 2.0 0.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 Finland* Finland*

France France

Belgium Belgium

Spain Spain

Austria Austria

Italy Italy Netherlands Netherlands

* * Germany Germany

* *

Ireland Ireland

Sweden Sweden United Kingdom United Kingdom

* *

Poland Poland Chap II_8 Chap 0 0 0 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 ousin 0.40 0 0 100 0.30 80 80 4 0 0.20 6 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with to equal average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 15,000 180 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 1.4 10 18 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 1 6 1 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 25,000 1,000 1 4 30,000 20 20 20 20 1,400 20,000 12 0 70 70 120 1 10 35 25 25 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 80 40 . 60 80 80 0 8 . 0 8 40 40 4 4 60 60 90 4 6 . 6 20 . . 30 50 2 20 20 2 2 800 70 400 . 600 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 4 6 . 6 10 . 200 5,000 5 5 5 5 2 2 . 2 2 05 . 35 25 10 0 3 to mothers and fathers. paid maternity, andparental paternity leave available available toacountry’s residents istheamountof support Another indicatorreflects thelevel of second). GDP;ranked and unemployment benefits(1.9%of GDP;ranked third), support for housing(0.7%of pensions, in2015 France fared particularly well on protection over andabove healthandoldage social Looking atthevarious different branches of the UnitedKingdomand18.7%inStates. in 2018,compared with25.1%inGermany, 20.6%in GDPinFrance social protection equatedto31.2%of According toOECDestimates, public spendingon of social protection available toFrench residents. other OECDcountries,reflecting thehighlevel unemployment –ishigherinFrance thaninall social exclusion, oldage, sickness, healthcare, and for disability, andchildren, families housing, Spending onsocialprotection –covering benefits leave, housingaid,unemployment benefits,etc. family forms: allowances, paid takes avarietyof The socialprotection acountry offersitsresidents United States(nofederal paidleave). Germany (66.7),theUnited Kingdom(41)andthe (putting thecountry third inoursample),aheadof fathers, such leave totaled70weeks inFrance in2018 0 0 15

The2021French government socialsecuritybudget 28days. billprovides for an extension leave topaternity of Finland* United States 0 Sweden Japan* Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland France Italy United Kingdom Poland Italy France Poland Germany Germany United Kingdom Belgium Germany Finland France France France Ireland Spain Spain Japan France Austria France Austria Austria Poland Spain France Belgium Finland Belgium France Italy Italy Japan Spain Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Austria Germany Poland Sweden Sweden Netherlands France Italy Ireland Japan * Spain Germany Italy Sweden France Belgium Spain Sweden Austria Belgium Austria Austria Sweden Spain Ireland Netherlands Germany Belgium Netherlands Austria Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Sweden Italy France Germany Austria Ireland * * Netherlands France Netherlands Germany Finland Germany Netherlands Belgium Austria Ireland* Italy 3 Belgium France Poland Combiningmothers and Sweden Belgium United States Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Spain France Sweden Belgium Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Netherlands * Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Finland Germany Japan* United States Germany Poland Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom United KingdomItaly Italy * Poland Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Italy Poland Spain Belgium Italy United Kingdom Japan Finland United Kingdom Ireland United Kingdom Sweden Ireland Japan* Finland Japan Italy Ireland Austria Netherlands United States Ireland Italy Sweden United States Belgium Sweden Japan* Spain Ireland Austria United Kingdom Spain United Kingdom Poland Italy Belgium United States Netherlands Japan ** Netherlands United Kingdom Finland Finland Finland Poland* Ireland Germany United States Japan Finland Austria United States * United States United States United States United States Ireland EU-28 Poland Ireland Poland Austria Poland EU-28 Poland II_8 Chap * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0 0.0 % OFGDP(ESTIMATE) PUBLIC SPENDINGONSOCIAL PROTECTION (2018) Source: Eurostat, 2019 * Datafor 2017 % OFGDP UNEMPLOYMENT AND ACTIVE LABORMARKET POLICIES PUBLIC SPENDINGONSOCIAL PROTECTION (2018) Source: OECD, 2019 * Datafor 2015 0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor anactie rorams € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.5 0.00 0 ousin 0.40 2.0 0 0 100 0.30 80 80 2.5 4 0 0.20 6 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with equalto average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 15,000 180 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 1.4 10 18 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 1.0 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 1 6 1 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 25,000 1,000 1 4 1.5 30,000 20 20 20 20 1,400 20,000 12 0 70 70 120 1 10 35 25 25 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 80 40 . 60 80 80 0 8 . 0 8 40 40 4 4 60 60 90 4 6 . 6 20 . . 30 50 2 20 20 2 2 800 70 400 . 600 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 4 6 . 6 10 FIG. 102 FIG. 103 . 200 5,000 5 5 5 5 2 2 . 2 2 05 . 35 25 10 0 0 0 15 Finland* United States

Finland* 0 Sweden Japan* Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland France Italy United Kingdom Poland Italy France Poland Germany Germany United Kingdom Belgium Germany Finland France France France France Ireland Spain Spain Japan France Austria France Austria Austria Poland Spain France Belgium Belgium Finland Belgium France Italy Italy Japan Spain Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Austria Germany Poland Sweden Sweden Netherlands France Italy Ireland Japan * Spain Germany Spain Italy Sweden France Belgium Spain Sweden Austria Belgium Austria Austria Sweden Spain Ireland Netherlands Germany Belgium Netherlands Austria Austria Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Sweden Italy France Germany Austria Ireland Netherlands * * Germany France Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Finland Ireland* Germany Belgium France Austria Poland Italy Italy Sweden Belgium United States Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Netherlands Spain France Sweden Belgium Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Netherlands * * Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Finland Germany Japan* United States Germany Germany Poland Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom United KingdomItaly Italy * United Kingdom Poland Spain * Poland Netherlands Belgium Italy Japan Spain Finland United KingdomItaly United Kingdom Ireland Ireland United Kingdom Sweden Ireland Japan* Finland Japan Italy Ireland Austria Netherlands United States Ireland Italy Sweden United States Belgium Sweden Japan* Sweden United Kingdom Spain Ireland Austria Poland Belgium Spain United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy United States Netherlands Japan ** Netherlands United Kingdom Finland Finland Finland Poland* Ireland Germany United States Japan Finland Austria United States * United States United States United States * United States Ireland EU-28 Poland Ireland Poland Austria Poland Poland EU-28 Poland * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

97 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 0.0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor anactie rorams 0.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 Finland*

France

Belgium

Spain

Austria

Italy Netherlands

* Germany

*

Ireland

Sweden United Kingdom

*

Poland Chap II_8 Chap

98 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 0 0 0 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 ousin 0.40 mothers andfathers FOR FATHERS AND MOTHERS –IN WEEKS PAID MATERNITY, PATERNITY AND PARENTAL LEAVE (2018) GDP. 1.4%of spending theequivalent of the secondlargest contributorin2018,afterFinland, life. France was citizensto qualityof commitment of leisure andworship thesteadfast confirms Finally, public spendingonculture, thelevel of United States(14hours 26minutes). the UnitedKingdom(14hours 55minutes) andthe Germany (15hours 37minutes), came outaheadof the country secondinoursampleafterItaly. France than 16hours aday onleisure andthemselves, putting life. In2018,French peoplespentmore quality of Leisure andculture are inherent componentsof Source: OECD, 2019 0 0 100 0.30 80 80 4 0 0.20 6 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with to equal average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 15,000 180 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 1.4 10 18 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 1 6 1 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 25,000 1,000 1 4 30,000 20 20 20 20 1,400 20,000 12 0 70 70 120 1 10 35 25 25 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 80 40 . 60 80 80 0 8 . 0 8 40 40 4 4 60 60 90 4 6 . 6 20 . . 30 50 2 20 20 2 2 800 70 400 . 600 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 4 6 . 6 10 . 200 5,000 FIG. 104 5 5 5 5 2 2 . 2 2 Cmie egho paidmaternity, andparental paternity leave Combinedlengthof for andparental paidpaternity leave for fathers Lengthof andparental paidmaternity leave for mothers Lengthof 05 . 35 25 10 0 0 0 15 Finland* United States 0 Sweden Japan* Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland France Italy United Kingdom Poland Italy France Poland Germany Germany United Kingdom Belgium Germany Finland France France France Ireland Spain Spain Japan France Austria France Austria Austria Poland Spain France Belgium Finland Belgium France Italy Italy Japan Spain Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Austria Germany Poland Sweden Sweden Netherlands France Italy Ireland Japan * Spain Germany Italy Sweden France Belgium Spain Sweden Austria Belgium Austria Austria Sweden Spain Ireland Netherlands Germany Belgium Netherlands Austria Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Sweden Italy France Germany Austria Ireland Netherlands * * Germany France Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Finland Ireland* Germany Belgium France Austria Poland Italy Sweden Belgium United States Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Spain France Sweden Belgium Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Netherlands * Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Finland Germany Japan* United States Germany Poland Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom United KingdomItaly Italy * Poland Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Italy Poland Spain Belgium Italy United Kingdom Japan Finland United Kingdom Ireland United Kingdom Sweden Ireland Japan* Finland Japan Italy Ireland Austria Netherlands United States Ireland Italy Sweden United States Belgium Sweden Japan* Spain Ireland Austria United Kingdom Spain United Kingdom Poland Italy Belgium United States Netherlands Japan ** Netherlands United Kingdom Finland Finland Finland Poland* Ireland Germany United States Japan Finland Austria United States * United States United States United States United States Ireland EU-28 Poland Ireland Poland Austria II_8 Chap Poland EU-28 Poland * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0 0 HOURS PERDAY TIME DEVOTED TO LEISURE AND PERSONAL CARE (2017-2018) Source: OECD, BetterLife Index –2017and2018 * Datafor 2017only € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 ousin 0.40 0 0 100 0.30 80 80 4 0 0.20 6 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with equalto average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 15,000 180 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 1.4 10 18 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 1 6 1 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 25,000 1,000 1 4 30,000 20 20 20 20 1,400 20,000 12 0 70 70 120 1 10 35 25 25 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 80 40 . 60 80 80 0 8 . 0 8 40 40 4 4 60 60 90 4 6 . 6 20 . . 30 50 2 20 20 2 2 800 70 400 . 600 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 4 6 . 6 10 . 200 FIG. 105 5,000 5 5 5 5 2 2 . 2 2 2017 05 . 35 25 10 0 0.0 0 0 15 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor anactie rorams 0.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 Finland* United States 0 Sweden Japan* Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland* Finland France Italy United Kingdom Poland Italy France Poland Germany Germany United Kingdom Belgium Germany Finland 2018 France Spain France France Japan Ireland Spain France France Austria France Austria Austria Poland Spain France Belgium Finland Belgium France Italy Italy Japan Spain Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Sweden Austria Germany Poland Sweden Sweden Netherlands France Italy Ireland Japan * Spain Germany Italy Sweden France Belgium Spain Sweden Austria Belgium Spain Austria Austria Sweden Spain Ireland Netherlands Germany Belgium Netherlands Austria Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Sweden Italy France Austria Germany Austria Ireland Netherlands * * Germany France Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Finland Ireland* Germany Belgium France Austria Poland Italy Sweden Belgium United States Italy Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Spain France Sweden Belgium Belgium Spain Netherlands Spain Sweden Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Netherlands * Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Finland * Germany Japan* United States Germany Austria Italy Italy Poland United Kingdom United KingdomGermany United Kingdom * Poland Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Italy Poland Spain Belgium Italy * United Kingdom Japan Finland United Kingdom Ireland United Kingdom Sweden Ireland Japan* Finland Japan Italy Ireland Ireland Austria Netherlands United States Ireland Italy Sweden United States Belgium Sweden Japan* Spain Ireland Austria United Kingdom Sweden Spain United Kingdom Poland Italy Belgium United States Netherlands Japan ** United Kingdom Netherlands United Kingdom Finland Finland Finland Poland* Ireland Germany United States Japan Finland Austria United States * United States United States United States United States Ireland EU-28 Poland * Ireland Poland Austria Poland EU-28 Poland Poland * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor rorams anactie 0.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 Finland*

France

Belgium

Spain

Austria

Italy Netherlands

* Germany

*

Ireland

Sweden United Kingdom

*

Poland the UnitedKingdom(4.3)andStates(6.2). puts France (3.4)atabetterlevel thanGermany (3.7), income interdecile ratio(P90/P10,cf. methodology) in theUnitedKingdomandStates).The be 0.52inFrance (versus 0.50inGermany and0.51 transfers anddirect debits, theGinicoefficient would can besubstantially reduced: before monetary inlivingsecurity regimes means thatgaps standards The redistribution operatedby thetaxandsocial in linewithGermany (0.29). Kingdom (0.36)andtheUnitedStates(0.39),was after redistribution, abetterlevel thantheUnited (cf. methodology hereafter), averaged 0.29in2017 Gini coefficient, which measures such inequalities income inequalitypromotes living together. France’s life, asalow insofar level of effect onqualityof Inequality inliving standards alsohasasubstantial (US$25,155). theUnitedKingdom (US$30,333), butaheadof came inatUS$26,158(current PPP),afterGermany In 2018,France’s average adjustedgrossincome income andassets, socialsecuritycontributions, etc.). benefit, etc.)anddeductingdirect taxes (taxes on allowance, retirement pensions, unemployment mainly socialtransfers incash(socialminima,family deductions (earnings,property income, etc.),adding calculated by takinggrosshouseholdincomebefore without having toborrow oreatintoitsassets, is themaximum amountahouseholdcanspend of adjusted income. Thisindicator, which isameasure net In 2019,French householdshadahighlevel of living. penalizing residents’ incomeorstandard of is mainly fundedthrough public spending, without life. Thisliving environment full, highqualityof activities,cultural France offersitsinhabitants protection, aneffective educationsystemand Thanks toeasyaccesshealthcare, social Chap II_8 Chap Germany are lower. in France, while pricesinPoland, Spain,Italy and United KingdomandtheNetherlands are higherthan indicator, pricesinIreland, theUnitedStates, the levels relative toabaselinecountry. According to the services, itcanbeusedtoobtain comparative price goods and Based onarepresentative basket of comparative pricelevels inmembercountries. of Lastly, theOECDcalculatesamonthly indicator Source: OECD, 2019 % OFGDP (2018) PUBLIC SPENDINGONCULTURE, LEISURE AND WORSHIP 0 0 0 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 ousin 0.40 0 0 100 0.30 80 80 4 0 0.20 6 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with equalto average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 15,000 180 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 1.4 10 18 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 1 6 1 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 25,000 1,000 1 4 30,000 20 20 20 20 1,400 20,000 12 0 70 70 120 1 10 35 25 25 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 80 40 . 60 80 80 0 8 . 0 8 40 40 4 4 60 60 90 4 6 . 6 20 . . 30 50 2 FIG. 106 20 20 2 2 800 70 400 . 600 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 4 6 . 6 10 . 200 5,000 5 5 5 5 2 2 . 2 2 05 . 35 25 10 0 0 0 15 Finland* United States 0 Sweden Japan* Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland France Italy United Kingdom Poland Italy France Poland Germany Germany United Kingdom Belgium Germany Finland France France France Ireland Spain Spain Japan France Austria France Austria Austria Poland Spain France Belgium Finland Belgium France Italy Italy Japan Spain Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Austria Germany Poland Sweden Sweden Netherlands France Italy Ireland Japan * Spain Germany Italy Sweden France Belgium Spain Sweden Austria Belgium Austria Austria Sweden Spain Ireland Netherlands Germany Belgium Netherlands Austria Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Sweden Italy France Germany Austria Ireland Netherlands * * Germany France Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Finland Ireland* Germany Belgium France Austria Poland Italy Sweden Belgium United States Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Spain France Sweden Belgium Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Netherlands * Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Finland Germany Japan* United States Germany Poland Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom United KingdomItaly Italy * Poland Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Italy Poland Spain Belgium Italy United Kingdom Japan Finland United Kingdom Ireland United Kingdom Sweden Ireland Japan* Finland Japan Italy Ireland Austria Netherlands United States Ireland Italy Sweden United States Belgium Sweden Japan* Spain Ireland Austria United Kingdom Spain United Kingdom Poland Italy Belgium United States Netherlands Japan ** Netherlands United Kingdom Finland Finland Finland Poland* Ireland Germany United States Japan Finland Austria United States * United States United States United States United States Ireland EU-28 Poland Ireland Poland Austria Poland EU-28 Poland * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

99 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 0.0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor rorams anactie 0.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 Finland*

France

Belgium

Spain

Austria

Italy Netherlands

* Germany

*

Ireland

Sweden United Kingdom

*

Poland Chap II_8 Chap Chap II_8 Chap

100 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 0 0 0 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 ousin 0.40 0 0 100 0.30 80 80 4 0 PURCHASING POWERSTANDARD GROSS ADJUSTED HOUSEHOLDDISPOSABLEINCOME (2018-2019) Source: OECD, 2018 * Datafor 2016 INCOME INEQUALITY (2017) Source: Eurostat, 2020 * Datafor 2018 0 0.20 6 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with equalto average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 15,000 180 0 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 1.4 10 18 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 0 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 1 6 1 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 0.00 30 50 30 50 30 30 0 25,000 1,000 ousin 0.40 1 4 30,000 20 20 20 20 1,400 0 20,000 12 0 0 70 70 100 0.30 120 1 80 80 4 0 10 0.20 6 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with to equal average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 35 15,000 180 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 25 25 1 1.4 10 18 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 1 6 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 25,000 1,000 1 4 30,000 20 20 80 20 20 1,400 20,000 12 40 0 70 70 . 120 60 1 80 80 0 8 10 . 0 8 40 35 40 4 4 60 60 90 4 6 . 25 25 1 6 1 1 10 10 10 10 20 . . 30 50 2 80 20 20 2 2 800 40 . 70 60 400 80 80 . 0 8 600 . 0 8 0 8 40 40 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 0 60 60 90 4 6 . 4

6 4 6 . 20 6 10 . . . 200 30 50 2 20 20 5,000 5 5 2 5 5 2 2 2 800 . 2 2 70 400 . 600 05 0 8 FIG. 108 FIG. 107 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 4 6 . . 6 10 . 2018 Ginicoefficient(leftaxis) 200 35 5,000 25 5 5 5 5 2 2 10 . 2 2 0 Interdecile ratio (P90/P10)(rightaxis) 05 0 0 15 . 35 25 10 0 0 0 15 Finland* United States United States

Finland* 0 0 Sweden Sweden Japan*

Japan Belgium 0 Italy Japan* Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland France France Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom Poland Poland Finland Italy Italy Finland France France Poland United Kingdom Poland Germany Germany Germany Germany United Kingdom France Belgium Germany Finland 2019 France Belgium Germany Spain Finland France France France France Japan Ireland Ireland Spain Spain Spain Japan France France Austria Austria France France Austria Austria Austria Finland Austria Poland Poland Spain Spain France France Belgium Belgium Finland Belgium Belgium France France Italy Italy Italy Italy Netherlands Japan Japan Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Sweden Austria Netherlands Austria Germany Germany Poland Poland Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Netherlands France France Italy Italy Ireland Ireland Japan Japan * * Spain Spain Germany Germany Spain Spain Italy Italy Sweden Sweden France France Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Austria Austria Austria Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Austria Austria Austria Spain Netherlands Spain Ireland Ireland Netherlands Netherlands Austria Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Belgium Belgium Netherlands Germany Austria Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Germany Sweden Sweden Germany Ireland Italy Italy France France Germany Austria Austria Ireland Netherlands * * * Netherlands * France France Netherlands Germany Germany Finland Germany Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Finland Austria Ireland* Ireland* Italy Germany Belgium Belgium France France Austria Poland Poland Italy Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium United States United States Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Sweden Spain Spain France France Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium Sweden Belgium Belgium Finland United Kingdom Spain Spain Spain Spain Sweden Finland United Kingdom Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Spain Netherlands Netherlands * * Finland Ireland Ireland Germany United States Ireland Ireland Germany Finland Finland Germany Germany Japan* Japan* United States Germany Austria Italy Germany Poland Poland Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United KingdomItaly United Kingdom Italy Italy * * United Kingdom Poland Poland Spain Spain Poland Netherlands Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium Italy Italy Poland Japan Spain Spain Finland Belgium Italy Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom Japan Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Ireland Ireland United Kingdom United Kingdom Sweden Sweden Ireland Japan Japan Italy Italy Ireland Japan* Japan* Ireland Ireland Austria Austria Finland Finland Ireland Netherlands Netherlands United States United States Ireland Italy Italy United States Sweden Sweden United States Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Japan* Japan* Spain Spain Ireland Austria Austria Poland United Kingdom United Kingdom Ireland Spain Spain United Kingdom Poland Italy Italy Belgium Belgium United States United Kingdom Japan Japan United States Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom ** ** Finland Finland Poland* Finland Finland Finland Finland Poland* Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Germany United States United States Japan Japan Finland Austria Austria United States United States * * United States United States United States United States United States United States United States Ireland United States Ireland EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland Ireland Ireland Poland Poland Austria Austria Poland Poland EU-28 EU-28 Poland Poland * * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor anactie rorams 0.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 1.0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor rorams anactie 0.5 2.0 1.5 2.5 1.0 1.5 Finland* Finland* METHODOLOGY:

France France income goestoasinglehousehold. complete inequality,whereallthe standards, and1indicating where everyonehasthesameliving zero indicatingperfectequality, with country. Itrangesfromzeroto1, standards inequalitywithina measure thedegreeofoverallliving to isused coefficient The Gini DISTRIBUTION INEQUALITY MEASURING LIVINGSTANDARDS distribution. distribution. more unequalthelivingstandards higher theincomedecileratio, income atthe10thpercentile. to thelevelof the 90thpercentile the leveloflivingstandardsat P10), calculatedastheratioof is the Another indicatorofinequality standards. reduction ininequalityofliving coefficient indicatesanoverall inequality. AdropintheGini coefficient, thegreater The higher(closerto1)theGini

Belgium Belgium

Spain Spain income decileratio(P90/ Austria Austria

Italy Italy Netherlands Netherlands

* * Germany Germany

* *

Ireland Ireland

Sweden Sweden United Kingdom United Kingdom

*

The The *

Poland Poland

Chap II_8 Chap 0 0 0 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 ousin 0.40 0 0 100 0.30 Source: OECD, 2020 € PPP, FRANCE=100 COMPARATIVE PRICELEVELS(AUGUST 2020) OECD area, where theaverage rateis3.7. thelowest rates inthe 100,000 inhabitants, oneof data available, thehomiciderateinFrance is0.5per in oursample2018.According tothelatest OECD any country thelowest homicideratesof had oneof safest countriesinoursample.For example, France the being, safety France isparamount. isoneof For acountry’s inhabitants toenjoy genuine well- 80 80 4 0 0.20 6 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with equalto average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 15,000 180 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 1.4 10 18 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 1 6 1 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 25,000 1,000 1 4 30,000 20 20 20 20 1,400 20,000 12 0 70 70 120 1 10 35 25 25 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 80 40 . 60 80 80 0 8 . 0 8 40 40 4 4 60 60 90 4 6 . 6 20 . . 30 50 2 20 20 2 2 800 70 400 . 600 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 4 6 . 6 10 . 200 5,000 5 5 5 5 2 2 . 2 2 FIG. 109 05 . 35 25 10 0 0 0 15 Finland* United States 0 Sweden Japan* Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland France Italy United Kingdom Poland Italy France Poland Germany Germany United Kingdom Belgium Germany Finland France France France Ireland Spain Spain Japan France Austria France Austria Austria Poland Spain France Belgium Finland Belgium France Italy Italy Japan Spain Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Austria Germany Poland Sweden Sweden Netherlands France Italy Ireland Japan * Spain Germany Italy Sweden France Belgium Spain Sweden Austria Belgium Austria Austria Sweden Spain Ireland Netherlands Germany Belgium Netherlands Austria Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Sweden Italy France Germany Austria Ireland Netherlands * * Germany France Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Finland Ireland* Germany Belgium France Austria Poland Italy Sweden Belgium United States Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Spain France Sweden Belgium Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Netherlands * Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Finland Germany Japan* United States Germany Poland Austria United Kingdom United Kingdom United KingdomItaly Italy * Poland Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Italy Poland Spain Belgium Italy United Kingdom Japan Finland United Kingdom Ireland United Kingdom Sweden Ireland Japan* Finland Japan Italy Ireland Austria Netherlands United States Ireland Italy Sweden United States Belgium Sweden Japan* Spain Ireland Austria United Kingdom Spain United Kingdom Poland Italy Belgium United States Netherlands Japan ** Netherlands United Kingdom Finland Finland Finland Poland* Ireland Germany United States Japan Finland Austria United States * United States United States United States United States Ireland EU-28 Poland Ireland Poland Austria II_8 Chap Poland EU-28 Poland * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0 0 € PPP, France =100 Graph 15.Comparative price levels (August 2020) Graph 14.Income inequality (2017) Purchasing power standard Graph 13.Gross income adjusted (2018-19) disposable household % of GDP Graph onculture, spending leisure 12.Public andworship (2018) day Hours per Graph 11.Time devoted to leisure care personal and (2017-18) 0.00 0 ousin 0.40 Source: OECD, BetterLife Index, 2017and2018 RATIO PER100,000INHABITANTS HOMICIDE RATE 0 0 100 0.30 80 80 4 0 0.20 6 For fathers mothers and –inweeks Graph .Paid 10 maternity, paternity andparental leave (2018) %of GDP Graph protection onsocial 8-9 spending (2018) .Public % of GDP(estimate) protectionGraph onsocial spending (2018) 7.Public % of net income household For two acouple with children anincome with equalto average the wage Graph 6.Net childcare cost for parents usingchildcare (2019) % of total the of category age each for children pre-school and 0-5 aged Graph (2017) 5.School 40 40 120 0 15,000 180 60 90 60 90 100 100 10 1.0 1.4 10 18 1 % of GDP Graph (2018) 4.Health spending Private out-of-pocket payments capita PPP) (US$ per Graph to 3.Access healthcare (2018) In years Graph (2018) 2.Healthy life expectancy In years Graph (2018) expectancy 1.Life 140 10,000 Ratio 100,000 per inhabitants Graph rate 16.Homicide 1 6 1 160 5 1,200 14 1.6 3 1 8 35,000 0 16 1 2 30 50 30 50 30 30 25,000 1,000 1 4 30,000 20 20 20 20 1,400 20,000 12 0 70 70 120 1 10 35 25 25 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 80 40 . 60 80 80 0 8 . 0 8 40 40 4 4 60 60 90 4 6 . 6 20 . . 30 50 2 20 20 2 2 800 70 400 . 600 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 4 6 . 6 10 . 200 5,000 5 5 5 5 2 2 FIG. 110 . 2 2 05 2017 . 35 0.0 25 10 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor rorams anactie 0 0.5 2.0 0 0 15 2.5 1.0 1.5 Finland* United States 0 Sweden Japan* Japan Belgium 0 Finland Finland Finland* France Italy United Kingdom Poland Italy France Poland Germany Germany United Kingdom Belgium Germany 2018 Finland France Spain France France Japan Ireland Spain France France Austria France Austria Austria Poland Spain France Belgium Finland Belgium France Italy Italy Japan Spain Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Sweden Austria Germany Poland Sweden Sweden Netherlands France Italy Ireland Japan * Spain Germany Italy Sweden France Belgium Spain Sweden Austria Belgium Austria Spain Austria Sweden Spain Ireland Netherlands Germany Belgium Netherlands Austria Poland United Kingdom Germany Germany Sweden Italy France Austria Germany Austria Ireland Netherlands * * Germany France Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Finland Ireland* Germany Belgium France Austria Poland Italy Sweden Belgium United States Italy Netherlands Netherlands Sweden Spain France Sweden Belgium Belgium Spain Netherlands Spain Sweden Finland United Kingdom United Kingdom Spain Netherlands * Finland Ireland Ireland Germany Finland * Germany Japan* United States Germany Austria Italy Italy Poland United Kingdom United Kingdom United KingdomGermany * Poland Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Italy Poland Spain Belgium Italy * United Kingdom Japan Finland United Kingdom Ireland United Kingdom Sweden Ireland Japan* Ireland Finland Japan Italy Ireland Austria Netherlands United States Ireland Italy Sweden United States Belgium Sweden Japan* Spain Ireland Austria United Kingdom Spain Sweden United Kingdom Poland Italy Belgium United States Netherlands Japan ** NetherlandsUnited Kingdom United Kingdom Finland Finland Finland Poland* Ireland Germany United States Japan Finland Austria United States * United States United States United States United States Ireland EU-28 Poland * Ireland Poland Austria Poland EU-28 Poland Poland * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

101 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 0.0 nemoyment an actie aor maretnemoyment aor rorams anactie 0.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 Finland*

France

Belgium

Spain

Austria

Italy Netherlands

* Germany

*

Ireland

Sweden United Kingdom

*

Poland 102 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD everyday life (including the right to and education,conditionsof onhealth life depends quality of judgments, there is consensus that inevitably largely depends onvalue these aspects Although the full list of perception andnaturalenvironment. dimensions, including subjective as income, butalsonon-financial only upon financial resources, such Present well-being iscontingent not well-being andsustainable well-being. made was between assessingpresent thedistinctionsreport One of gross domesticproduct (GDP). long-criticized benchmark indicator, the and correct theshortcomings of economicgrowth the measurement of France onpossible avenues toimprove reported back tothe President of Nobel prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz In 2009,acommissionchaired by perceive them. realities andtheway thatcitizens socio-economic measurement of disparities exist between thestatistical progress in society. However, assessing policiesseekingtoensure when itcomestodesigningand Statistical indicators are important and socialprogress economic performance on themeasurementof Report bytheCommission numerous wellbeing indicators in France obtainsgood results against preferences. own weight inaccordance withuser balance –which canallbegiven their life safety satisfaction, andwork-life environment, governance, health, income, jobs, community, education, The index has 11 dimensions: housing, GDP-based statisticalframework. outsidetheconventionalstepping life by compare itsown qualityof enables each country tomeasure and This isanewinteractive index that Life” initiative. lives” andlaunched the“Your Better the theme“Betterpoliciesfor better its 50thanniversary, theOECDchose In thiscontext, and in recognition of statistics. being more importance ineconomic well- to give themeasurement of indicators establishing aseriesof The commissionalsorecommended personal andfinancial security. environment, thatdefine andfactors process, people’s socialandnatural participation in the political decent employment andhousing), - - - Among theleadingvariables are: work-life balanceand safety. health, civic social links, engagement, incomeandwealth, housing, areas of France isabove theaverage for the comparison withmostothercountries.

high inFrance. citizenswere participation of of belongingandthedegree feeling of thepublic sphere, the of In terms 86 years, 79years against for men. Life expectancy with women was higher thantheOECDaverage. 82 years, more thantwo years at birth inFrance isapproximately health,life expectancy of In terms percentage points. 13 average within theOECDof gap This difference is less big than the 70% for the20%least wealthy. the 20% most wealthy, against isestimatedat78%forturnout 68%.InFrance, voteraverage of elections, higher than the OECD during themostrecent presidential political process –was 75% citizens’ participation in the Voter –ameasure turnout of lies in people and their abilities, not a country’s development measure of thatattention the ideal to the fact The index was created tobring well-being. broader definitionof The HDIreflects adesire for a levels andeconomicgrowth rates. development measures like income as an alternative to conventional Index (HDI),which was introduced published theHuman Development Human Development Report has Every year since1990,theUNDP care back at the heart of the system; thesystem; care backattheheart of themes: puttingpatientsandquality of financial strain,witha focus onthree key growing flexibility amid system’s lackof aimstoremedyThe strategy theexisting 2019. adopted by parliament on July 16, 2018 by theFrench government and 2022”, wasunveiled onSeptember 18, healthcare system,dubbed “MaSanté France’s to transform The strategy index UNDP humandevelopment the healthcaresystem a strategytotransform and “SégurdelaSanté”: “Ma Santé2022” knowledge (education) and a decent long healthy life (health),accessto humandevelopment: a aspects of achievements inthree fundamental index thatgauges acounty’s average The HDIisasummary composite development. human such disparatelevels of gross nationalincomecanproduce countries with the same per capita decisions by studying how two be usedtoevaluate domesticpolicy simply economicgrowth. Itcanalso - are asfollows: Key measures included in this reform healthcare professionals. rethinking trainingandcareer pathsfor social care andhospitalmedicine); and up non-hospital medicine, medico- responding tolocalcare needs (by joining pathologies pathologies chronic for hospitaltreatment of Putting inplacefixed-pricefunding from 2019,including the

cr f0.880). score of and Italy (28thplace, withanHDI 0.891) place, withanHDIscore of Spain(26th 0.922), butaheadof (14th place, withanHDIscore of 0.936), andtheUnitedKingdom (fifth place, withanHDIscore of 24th intheworld, afterGermany development. France was ranked human with avery highlevel of 0.901, placingitamongcountries In 2017, France’s index score was living (income). standard of - between healthcare professionals. localcoordination 2022 andtofacilitate intended tocover thewhole country by desantéorCPTS ), territoriales (Communautés professionnelles healthcare communities Creating 1,000 local professional pathologies from 2020. This fundingwillbeextended toother diabetes and chronic kidney failure. treatment for hospital component of

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

103 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 104 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD fmedicalstudiescurricula of - Reforming thesecondstage - Source: French Ministry for SolidarityandHealth ------between healthcare careers. studentsandcreate gateways range of to open them up to a more diverse medicalstudiescurricula stage of system and overhauling the first the numerus claususScrapping running hospitals.running Increasing doctors’involvement in personnel. healthcare services care andmanaging the healthserviceinorganizing Restoring the“collective” role of hospital practitioners. the competitive examination for statusandscrapping practitioner” Creating asingle “hospital activities witheffect from 2020. result in new standards for certain care costs.Thisphasedreform will of local level, scale basedonagraduated activities healthcare authorization of Reforming governing therules hospitals. 500-600designated with atarget of hospital services, local provision of designation from 2020toensure Introducing a“localhospital” doctors tofocus ondelivering care. freeing upmedicaltimeandallowing financial support, withtheaimof practitioners, including conditional working medical withindependent Developing medicalassistants organized at regional and

examinations nationalrankingand scrapping against healthcare inequalities. against development inhealthcare, andthefight buildings, digital renovation of investment in particular in the thermal healthcare across France’s regions, improvement intheorganization of trainedparamedics, the number of careers, anincrease in of upgrading the through commitmentsinfavor of French healthcare system,inparticular outlining anambitiousstrategy for the being presentedagreement in July 2020, The “Ségurdelasanté”ledtoan - - - - pillars: de lasanté”,was structured around four The consultation,known asthe“Ségur more resilient andmore innovative. crisis andmake thehealthcare system to draw conclusions from theCovid-19 players inthehealthcare sectorinorder outaconsultationwithkeycarried In May 2020,theFrench government career goals. based onstudents’skills, abilityand tackle healthcare inequalities. regions, tobetterserve patientsand healthcare sectoracross France’s key playersFederation inthe of healthcare teams. daily life of andthe organizations Simplification of care. of financing policy promoting thequality anew investment and Definition of careers for care workers. of upgrading professions and Transformation of and adopting an approach and adoptinganapproach -  -  commitments: number of implementation involves meeting a birth. Its combat inequalities of century welfare state”thatcan 13, 2018,aimsto“builda21st the French President onSeptember and combatingpoverty, unveiled by for preventingThe nationalstrategy and reductionstrategy Poverty prevention breakfasts in underprivileged school including the provision of a balanced diet, through measures to ensure every child has access to fundamental rights. Onegoal is children’sGuaranteeing years specialists. education planaimedat600,000early accompanied by acontinuing and language learning. It will be pre-kindergarten child development educational guidelineswillpromote new areas. In addition, the rollout of newchildcare placesinpriority of created toencourage thecreation areas: regional bonuses have been particular emphasisonvulnerable care for young children. There is a improve the educationalqualityof encourage socialdiversity and a framework for socialization, onward. is to offer all children opportunity from early childhood Strengthening equalityof -  -  -  long-term unemploymentlong-term zone” be extended, including the“Zero various successfulexperiments will economic activity. Furthermore, well assupport provided tostart Councils,and Departmental as global support from PôleEmploi individuals will receive stronger work. service tohelpjobseekers find A public employment support complementary healthprograms. fully eligible for social security and optical, dentalandaudiologicalfields healthcare in the a basket full of healthinequalitiesby making against The “100%santé”reform fights more incentivizing toemployment. accessible, more equitably and Making social rights more will thusberaisedto18. a child canleave full-timeeducation system. Theminimum atwhich age theeducation dropping out of of people and support those at risk education andtrainingfor young The goal istoinvest significantly in pathway for every young person. educational Insuring aguaranteed affordable pricesfor school meals. more areas andtheintroduction of The most vulnerable

at very low rent levels, etc.). socialhousing doubling thenumber of in emergency accommodationplaces, as preventing unpaid rents (increase accommodation conditions, aswell and ensuringsuitable housingand thecity,in priorityareas etc.); of skilledjobs doubling thenumber of system through economicactivity, theintegration work (strengthening of intosocietyandfind people tointegrate poverty behindby helpingunemployed housing, etc.); helping them to leave welfare benefits, the non-take-up of daily support (financialaid, reducing incomes andproviding themwith peopleinpoverty oronlow power of priorities: supporting thepurchasing poverty. Itwillbebasedonthree main strategy for preventing and combating actionstostrengthen the new range of The government isalsointroducing “Relaunch France” plan. the measures which form part of poverty reduction of than €6 billion than €1.5billion,alongwithmore during theCovid-19 crisisworth more also taken measures tofightpoverty this strategy, the government has In additiontothe€8billionsupport program. BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

105 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD 106 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD opportunities, especially in green energy. Green growth also bears economic and job time. and competitivelypricedelectricityover economy continuousaccesstoverystable France succeedsinguaranteeingits With high-quality energy infrastructures, key elementsofeconomicattractiveness. priced sourcesofreliableenergyareall as well as the capacity to secure well- and the production of renewable energy, innovative sectors of energy efficiency the economy. Placingcompaniesin for energysuppliestosectorsof environment raises new challenges The world mobilizing to protect the 1 fenergy for thetertiary sector(49%). of energy consumption inthissector),theresidential sector(33%) andthemajorform was theleadingenergy form consumedinindustry (38%of I 07 codn oteSsanbeDvlpetDvso ftheMinistry for In2017,according theEcologicalTransition totheSustainable Development Division (Energy of Key Figures, 2019),electricity GREEN GROWTH ENERGY AND 2.9 businesses operating inFrance,businesses operating areElectricity rates especially attractive for reliable energythatis competitive inthelongrun. on itscapacitytoensure accesstosources of acountrydepends partially The attractiveness of Competitive electricity prices and thenationalgrid. electricitygeneration mix andcareful managementof most competitive inEurope duetoFrance’s energy consfrnal he-ureso totaloutput. accounts for nearly three-quarters of Electricity production from nuclear energy inFrance and toinsure thecountry’s energy independence. competitive electricity, withalow carboncontent, nuclear energy hasenabled France tohaveof itsenergy mix.The predominance original nature of In theEuropean Union,France standsoutfor the rates inFrance isalsolow.

1 Tevraiiyo electricity Thevariability of

and are amongthe Chap II_9 Chap Chap II_9 Chap United Kingdom United Kingdom 0.0 0 0.0 0.4 0 10 0.6 United Kingdom 40 United Kingdom % Share of EU-28 total energyGraph generation from Primary 4. renewable sources 0.5 14 0.25 Graph 10. Employment renewable inthe energies (2018) sector 20 60 0.5 0.3 300,000 40,000 35,000 0.2 0 200,000 25,000 % Graph Electricity 6. generation breakdown (2019) € million Graph 5. Revenues renewable inthe energies (2018) sector % (EU-28) Graph 3. Share of renewable energies ingross energy final consumption Standard deviation of (%) rates VAT inc. Non-residential customers, by level of consumption Graph Variability 2. of electricity rates 2016 (H2, 2019) –H2, Rate VAT inc. (€/kWh) Non-residential consumers, by level of consumption Graph 1.Electricity rates 2019) (H2, Thousand tonnes greenhouse emissions* gas /GDPmillionatPPP Graph 8. intensity Carbon Per inhabitants thousand tonnes (thousand of CO2) Graph 9. Greenhouse emissions* gas 30 50 0.10 0.0 0 12 20 2 Source: Eurostat, 2020;BusinessFrance calculations STANDARD DEVIATION (%)OFRATES INC. VAT NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, BY LEVEL OFCONSUMPTION VARIABILITY OFELECTRICITY RATES (H2, 2016–H2, 2019) Source: Eurostat, 2020 RATE INC. VAT (€/KWH) NON-RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS, BY LEVEL OFCONSUMPTION ELECTRICITY RATES (H2, 2019) 0.0 30,000 0.4 0 10 10 18 20,000 250,000 0.6 0 40 % Share of EU-28 total energyGraph generation from Primary 4. renewable sources 0.5 14 14 0.25 1.0 Graph 10. Employment renewable inthe energies (2018) sector 20 60 0.5 100,000 0.3 16 300,000 15,000 40,000 35,000 0.2 0 200,000 25,000 % Graph Electricity 6. generation breakdown (2019) € million Graph 5. Revenues renewable inthe energies (2018) sector % (EU-28) Graph 3. Share of renewable energies ingross energy final consumption Standard deviation of (%) rates VAT inc. Non-residential customers, by level of consumption Graph Variability 2. of electricity rates 2016 (H2, 2019) –H2, Rate VAT inc. (€/kWh) Non-residential consumers, by level of consumption Graph 1.Electricity rates 2019) (H2, Per inhabitants thousand tonnes (thousand of CO2) Graph 9. Greenhouse emissions* gas Thousand tonnes greenhouse emissions* gas /GDPmillionatPPP Graph 8. intensity Carbon 1.5 10 0.1 30 50 0.10 12 20 12 10,000 30,000 150,000 10 18 20,000 0 8 250,000 0 14 1.0 4 100,000 16 6 15,000 1.5 10 0.1 12 2 10,000 United States United States % Graph 7. Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2019) 150,000 . 0 8 4 0 8 6 Eurostat, January 2020. 4 . 6 . 0 2 United States United States % Graph 7. Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2019) 50,000 . 2 0 8 4 00 . 5,000 6 . 0 . 50,000 2 20 05 00 5,000 FIG. 112 FIG. 111 . 70,000MWh -150,000MWh 20MWh -500MWh 70,000MWh -150,000MWh 20MWh -500MWh 20 05 Netherlands Netherlands 15 Netherlands Netherlands 15 Sweden Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Sweden Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany

0 Germany Belgium Belgium Sweden 0 Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland Finland Sweden 0 Austria Austria Finland Finland Poland Poland Ireland Ireland 0 Austria Austria Poland Poland France France Ireland Ireland France France EU-23 EU-23 EU-23 EU-23 Japan Japan Spain Spain Japan Japan Spain Spain Germany Germany Italy Italy Italy Germany Germany Italy France France Ireland Ireland France France Finland Finland France France France 0 0 France 0 0

France Netherlands Spain Spain France Netherlands Spain Spain France France Austria Austria Finland Finland

United Kingdom 10 10 Italy United Kingdom 10 10 Italy Netherlands France France Spain Spain Netherlands 2.6

Austria 2.6 United Kingdom United Kingdom Austria Finland Finland Spain Italy Italy

United Kingdom 20 20 Spain United Kingdom 20 20 Italy Italy Italy 2,000MWh -20,000MWh Belgium 2,000MWh -20,000MWh Belgium Italy United Kingdom United Kingdom Sweden Sweden Spain Spain Spain Spain 30 30 Italy Italy 30 30 United Kingdom United Kingdom

Austria Austria France Sweden Sweden Italy Italy France Poland Poland Poland Poland 40 40 40 40 Sweden Sweden Belgium Belgium Germany Germany Belgium Spain Belgium Sweden Spain Spain Spain Sweden Finland Finland

50 50 Austria Belgium 50 50 Austria Netherlands Netherlands Ireland Ireland Belgium Poland Poland Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Finland Finland 60 60

Finland 60 60 Finland Finland Finland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Austria Netherlands Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Netherlands Poland Poland Germany Germany 70 70 Finland Finland 70 70 Italy Netherlands Netherlands Italy Germany Poland Poland Belgium Belgium Germany Germany Belgium Belgium Poland Poland Germany 80 80 Italy 80 80 Italy United Kingdom Netherlands Netherlands United Kingdom Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Poland Ireland Ireland Poland Poland Poland 90 90 90 90 1,512,900 1,512,900 Chap II_9 Chap

Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 100 100 100 100 United Kingdom United Kingdom 0.0 0 0.0 0.4 0 10 0.6 40 % Share of EU-28 total energyGraph generation from Primary 4. renewable sources 0.5 14 0.25 Graph 10. Employment renewable inthe energies (2018) sector 20 60 0.5 0.3 300,000 United Kingdom(11%). similar toGermany (16.5%)andhigher thaninthe finalenergyconsumptionin2018, gross 16.6% of in 2018).InFrance, renewable energy accountedfor grossfinalenergy consumption(54.6% proportion of renewable energy accountingfor avery high Sweden standsoutfrom othercountries, with or more thandouble itslevel in2004(8.5%). finalenergy consumptionin2018, gross for 18% of Renewable energy inEU-28countriesaccounts Largely carbon-free French energy Source: Eurostat, 2019 % CONSUMPTION (EU-28) SHARE OFRENEWABLE ENERGIESINGROSSFINAL ENERGY 40,000 35,000 0.2 0 200,000 25,000 Standard deviation of (%) rates VAT inc. Non-residential customers, by level of consumption Graph Variability 2. of electricity rates 2016 (H2, 2019) –H2, Rate VAT inc. (€/kWh) Non-residential consumers, by level of consumption Graph 1.Electricity rates 2019) (H2, % Graph Electricity 6. generation breakdown (2019) € million Graph 5. Revenues renewable inthe energies (2018) sector % (EU-28) Graph 3. Share of renewable energies ingross energy final consumption Per inhabitants thousand tonnes (thousand of CO2) Graph 9. Greenhouse emissions* gas Thousand tonnes greenhouse emissions* gas /GDPmillionatPPP Graph 8. intensity Carbon 30 50 0.10 12 20 30,000 10 18 20,000 250,000 0 14 1.0 100,000 16 15,000 1.5 10 0.1 12 10,000 150,000 0 8 4 6 2 United States United States % Graph 7. Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2019) . 0 8 4 . 6 . 0 50,000 2 00 5,000 . 20 FIG. 113 05 2013 Netherlands Netherlands 15 Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Germany Germany 0 Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland Finland 0 Austria Austria Poland Poland Ireland Ireland France France EU-23 EU-23 Japan Japan Spain Spain Germany Italy Germany Italy

France Ireland 2018 France Finland France France 0 0

Spain France Netherlands Spain France Austria Finland 10 United Kingdom 10 Italy France Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Austria 2.6 Finland Spain Italy 20 United Kingdom 20 Italy Belgium Italy United Kingdom Sweden Spain Spain 30 Italy 30 United Kingdom

Austria Sweden Italy France Poland Poland 40 40 Sweden Belgium Germany Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland 50 50 Austria Netherlands Ireland Belgium Poland Austria Austria Austria Finland 60 Finland Finland 60 Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Poland Germany 70 Finland 70 Netherlands Italy Poland Belgium Germany Belgium Poland Germany 80 80 Italy United Kingdom

Netherlands Netherlands 2 Belgium Belgium Ireland Poland Poland 90 90 1,512,900

Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 100 100 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

107 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_9 Chap

108 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD United Kingdom United Kingdom % SHARE OFEU-28 TOTAL PRIMARY ENERGY GENERATION FROMRENEWABLE SOURCES thetotal. which accountedfor 18.4% of EU-28 total.Thetopcontributorwas Germany, the with itsoutputrepresenting nearly 12%of of energy derived from renewable sources in 2018, France wasEurope’s second-largest generator in 2030 (seeinset). energy produced from renewable sources to32% bringingtheshare of atarget of Union setitself In itsGlobalClimateActionAgenda, theEuropean (41.5%) andnuclear energy (28.7%). 2018 wasfrom renewable sources, afterfossil fuels inEU-28countries primary energygeneration energyproduction, nearly 28%of of In terms Source: Eurostat, 2019; BusinessFrance calculations 0.0 0 0.0 0.4 0 10 0.6 40 % Share of EU-28 total energyGraph generation from Primary 4. renewable sources 0.5 14 0.25 Graph 10. Employment renewable inthe energies (2018) sector 20 60 0.5 0.3 300,000 40,000 35,000 0.2 0 200,000 25,000 % Graph Electricity 6. generation breakdown (2019) € million Graph 5. Revenues renewable inthe energies (2018) sector % (EU-28) Graph 3. Share of renewable energies ingross energy final consumption Standard deviation of (%) rates VAT inc. Non-residential customers, by level of consumption Graph Variability 2. of electricity rates 2016 (H2, 2019) –H2, Rate VAT inc. (€/kWh) Non-residential consumers, by level of consumption Graph 1.Electricity rates 2019) (H2, Per inhabitants thousand tonnes (thousand of CO2) Graph 9. Greenhouse emissions* gas Thousand tonnes greenhouse emissions* gas /GDPmillionatPPP Graph 8. intensity Carbon 30 50 0.10 12 20 30,000 10 18 20,000 250,000 0 14 1.0 100,000 16 15,000 1.5 10 0.1 12 10,000 150,000 0 8 4 6 2 United States United States % Graph 7. Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2019) . 0 8 4 . 6 . 0 50,000 2 FIG. 114 00 5,000 2013 . 20 05 Netherlands Netherlands 15 Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Germany Germany 0 Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland Finland 0 Austria Austria Poland Poland Ireland Ireland France France EU-23 EU-23 Japan Japan Spain Spain Germany Italy Germany Italy

France Ireland 2018 France Finland France France 0 0

Spain France Netherlands Spain France Austria Finland

United Kingdom 10 10 Italy France Spain Netherlands 2.6 United Kingdom Austria Finland Spain Italy

United Kingdom 20 20 Italy Belgium Italy United Kingdom Sweden Spain Spain Italy 30 30 United Kingdom

Austria Sweden Italy France Poland Poland 40 40 Sweden Belgium Germany Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland 50 50 Austria Netherlands Ireland Belgium Poland Austria Austria Austria Finland 60 Finland Finland 60 Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Poland Germany 70 Finland 70 Netherlands Italy Poland Belgium Germany Belgium Poland Germany 80 80 Italy United Kingdom Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Ireland Poland Poland 90 90 1,512,900

Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 100 100 - in France through four majorareas: targets for energy andclimate policies The text setsthescope, ambitionsand and theParis Agreement. theclimate emergency requirements of carbon neutralityin2050tomeetthe achieving it establishes theaimof policies. Comprising69articles, targets for French energy andclimate Energy-Climate Actsetsambitious Adopted on November 8, 2019, the Agreement (COP21) The ParisClimate temperature increase to1.5°C.” and pursuing efforts tolimitthe temperature towell below […] 2 °C the increase intheglobal average the average temperature rise:“holding aimstolimit2015. Thisagreement in Parisagreement in December to signauniversal, binding legally to theCOP21negotiationscommitted climate change, the195StateParties Faced withthechallenges posedby Energy-Climate Act 3 Thisannual amountwill beincreased from have 2025.Negotiations onthenewagreements notyet begun. eeomn frenewable energies. development of fuel consumption and accelerating the fuels through a40%reduction infossil Reducing onfossil ourdependence renewable energies. of fossil fuelsand thedevelopment The progressive abandonmentof

- fpublic andprivate sectorfunding of make available US$100 billionayear committed inCopenhagen2009to Furthermore, developed states jointly differentiated responsibility.of flexibly take intoaccountthisprinciple bydetermined each statesoasto to combat global warming are freely National contributionstotheeffort responsibility states have shared butdifferentiated recognizesThe Agreement that consultative body, which will for the Climate, an independent the Actcreates theHighCouncil on ClimateChange” for inspiration, Drawing ontheBritish“Committee evaluating climate change policy. for piloting, governing and newtools The establishment of change. against climate major issueinthefight energy leaks,renovation thermal is a and commercial buildings.To prevent vegetablization for newwarehouses renewable energy production or panels andany otherprocess for solarphotovoltaic the installationof electricity production from coal, of By 2022,itplansfor theshutdown for global warming.

- prevention actions. developing countries’climate change with effect from 2020tohelpfinance (COP24) inDecember2018. Convention onClimateChange to theUnitedNationsFramework the Parties at the24thConference of wereimplementation rules adopted entered intoforce in2016andits The Paris ClimateAgreement on nuclear fuel. prices andtoreduce ourdependence energy allow for abettercontrol of the sector electricity are and gas to theregulation of The mainaimsof certificates. obligation for energy saving of and minimum/maximum levels fossil fuels, the abandonmentof energy, energy consumption, main energy targets for renewable set forth every five years will set the From 2023, a Programming Act implemented toachieve itsambitions. policy and theeffectiveness of evaluate France’s climate strategy 3

BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

109 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_9 Chap

110 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD United Kingdom United Kingdom the Netherlands (77.5%)andPoland (83.5%). the UnitedStates(62.1%),Japan (72.7%), fossil originin2019),Germany (46.2%), was of electricity production Kingdom (where 45%of onfossildependent fuels, such asintheUnited the majoreconomiesinoursampleremains highly develop renewable energy, electricitygeneration by Although significantefforts have beenmadeto to little emissions. greenhousegas energy thatgiveswhich rise isareliable source of totalelectricityproduction in2019, around 70%of nuclear energy,France isduetothepredominance of based fuelsin2019.Thisdistinctive feature of France’s electricitywasproduced from carbon- generation initsenergy mix.Lessthan10%of thermal electricity duetothevery smallshare of France, like Sweden, produces very carbon-free energy mix,more orlessdependentonfossil fuels. each country’s highlights thespecificnature of by electricitygeneration country The structure of Source: Energy International Agency, 2020;BusinessFrance calculations % ELECTRICITY GENERATION BREAKDOWN(2019) 0.0 0 0.0 0.4 0 10 0.6 40 % Share of EU-28 total energyGraph generation from Primary 4. renewable sources 0.5 14 0.25 Graph 10. Employment renewable inthe energies (2018) sector 20 60 0.5 0.3 300,000 40,000 35,000 0.2 0 200,000 25,000 % Graph Electricity 6. generation breakdown (2019) € million Graph 5. Revenues renewable inthe energies (2018) sector % (EU-28) Graph 3. Share of renewable energies ingross energy final consumption Standard deviation of (%) rates VAT inc. Non-residential customers, by level of consumption Graph Variability 2. of electricity rates 2016 (H2, 2019) –H2, Rate VAT inc. (€/kWh) Non-residential consumers, by level of consumption Graph 1.Electricity rates 2019) (H2, Thousand tonnes greenhouse emissions* gas /GDPmillionatPPP Graph 8. intensity Carbon Per inhabitants thousand tonnes (thousand of CO2) Graph 9. Greenhouse emissions* gas 30 50 0.10 12 20 30,000 10 18 20,000 250,000 0 14 1.0 100,000 16 15,000 1.5 10 0.1 12 10,000 150,000 0 8 4 6 2 United States United States % Graph 7. Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2019) . 0 8 4 . 6 . 0 50,000 2 FIG. 115 00 5,000 Renewables Conventional (fossil thermal fuel) . 20 05 Netherlands Netherlands 15 Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Germany Germany 0 Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland Finland 0 Austria Austria Poland Poland Ireland Ireland France France EU-23 EU-23 Japan Japan Spain Spain Germany Italy Germany Italy France Ireland France Finland France France 0 0

Spain France Netherlands Spain France Austria Finland Other

United Kingdom 10 10 Italy France Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Austria 2.6 Finland Spain Italy

United Kingdom 20 20 Italy Belgium Italy United Kingdom Sweden Spain Spain Italy 30 30 United Kingdom Austria Sweden Italy France Poland Poland

40 40 Sweden Belgium Germany Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Nuclear Finland

50 50 Austria Netherlands Ireland Belgium Poland Austria Austria Austria Finland Finland Finland 60 60 Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Poland Germany

Finland 70 70 Netherlands Italy Poland Belgium Germany Belgium Poland Germany

80 80 Italy United Kingdom Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Ireland Poland Poland 90 90 1,512,900 Chap II_9 Chap

Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 100 100 % RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION BREAKDOWN(2019) solarphotovoltaic andwindpower.production of in France isgrowing, resulting from thegrowth in in Austria, Sweden andItaly. Renewable energy remains themostdistributedrenewable energy, as France issimilartoItaly. Hydroelectricity inFrance renewable electricityproduction in The structure of Source: Energy International Agency, 2020;BusinessFrance calculations United Kingdom United Kingdom 0.0 0 0.0 0.4 0 10 0.6 40 % Share of EU-28 total energyGraph generation from Primary 4. renewable sources 0.5 14 0.25 Graph 10. Employment renewable inthe energies (2018) sector 20 60 0.5 0.3 300,000 40,000 35,000 0.2 0 200,000 25,000 Standard deviation of (%) rates VAT inc. Non-residential customers, by level of consumption Graph Variability 2. of electricity rates 2016 (H2, 2019) –H2, Rate VAT inc. (€/kWh) Non-residential consumers, by level of consumption Graph 1.Electricity rates 2019) (H2, % Graph Electricity 6. generation breakdown (2019) € million Graph 5. Revenues renewable inthe energies (2018) sector % (EU-28) Graph 3. Share of renewable energies ingross energy final consumption Per inhabitants thousand tonnes (thousand of CO2) Graph 9. Greenhouse emissions* gas Thousand tonnes greenhouse emissions* gas /GDPmillionatPPP Graph 8. intensity Carbon 30 50 0.10 12 20 30,000 10 18 20,000 250,000 0 14 1.0 100,000 16 15,000 1.5 10 0.1 12 10,000 150,000 0 8 4 6 2 United States United States % Graph 7. Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2019) . 0 8 4 . 6 . FIG. 116 0 50,000 2 Geothermal Hydraulic 00 5,000 . 20 05 Netherlands Netherlands 15 Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Germany Germany 0 Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland Finland 0 Austria Austria Poland Poland Ireland Ireland France France EU-23 EU-23 Japan Japan Spain Spain Germany Italy Germany Italy France Ireland France Finland France France 0 0

France Netherlands

Spain Wind Spain France Austria Finland Otherrenewable 10 United Kingdom 10 Italy France Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Austria 2.6 Finland Spain Italy 20 United Kingdom 20 Renewable fuel Italy Belgium Italy United Kingdom Sweden Spain Spain 30 Italy 30 United Kingdom

Austria Sweden Italy France Poland Poland 40 40 Sweden Belgium Germany Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland 50 Belgium 50 Austria Netherlands Ireland Solar Poland Austria Austria Austria Finland 60 Finland Finland 60 Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Poland Germany 70 Finland 70 Netherlands Italy Poland Belgium Germany Belgium Poland Germany 80 80 Italy United Kingdom Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Ireland Poland Poland 90 90 1,512,900

Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 100 100 Chap II_9 Chap United Kingdom United Kingdom 0.0 0 in CO * Greenhouse gases: CO GDP MILLION AT PPP THOUSAND TONNES GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS* CARBON INTENSITY CO amount of Environmental qualitycanbemeasured by the growth. green sustainable decisive role inthedevelopment of theeconomy plays ingeneral, a process, andof thegeneration The environmental qualityof Source: Eurostat, 2019; BusinessFrance calculations equivalent. fuels. energy mix,which favors nuclear energy over fossil its intensity ispartly explained by thenature of European economies.France’s very low carbon indicator suggests relatively low levels for themain GDP.consumption, expressed inunitsof This emissionsarisingfrom greenhousegas energy of relative toitssize.Carbonintensityisameasure 0.0 0.4 0 10 0.6 40 % Share of EU-28 total energyGraph generation from Primary 4. renewable sources 0.5 14 0.25 Graph 10. Employment renewable inthe energies (2018) sector 20 60 0.5 0.3 300,000 40,000 35,000 0.2 0 200,000 25,000 % Graph Electricity 6. generation breakdown (2019) € million Graph 5. Revenues renewable inthe energies (2018) sector % (EU-28) Graph 3. Share of renewable energies ingross energy final consumption Standard deviation of (%) rates VAT inc. Non-residential customers, by level of consumption Graph Variability 2. of electricity rates 2016 (H2, 2019) –H2, Rate VAT inc. (€/kWh) Non-residential consumers, by level of consumption Graph 1.Electricity rates 2019) (H2, Thousand tonnes greenhouse emissions* gas /GDPmillionatPPP Graph 8. intensity Carbon Per inhabitants thousand tonnes (thousand of CO2) Graph 9. Greenhouse emissions* gas 30 50 0.10 12 20 30,000 10 18 20,000 250,000 0 14 1.0 100,000 16 15,000 1.5 10 0.1 12 10,000 150,000 0 8 4 6 2 United States United States % Graph 7. Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2019) . 0 8 4 . 6 . 0 50,000 2 00 5,000 FIG. 117 . 2013 20 05 Netherlands Netherlands 15 Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Germany Germany 0 Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden 2 Finland Finland 0 Austria Austria Poland Poland Ireland Ireland equivalent, PFCinCO France France EU-23 EU-23 Japan Japan Spain Spain Germany Italy Germany Italy

France 2018 Ireland France Finland France France 0 0

Spain France Netherlands Spain France Austria Finland

United Kingdom 10 10 Italy France Netherlands

2 Spain Austria 2.6 emissionsgenerated by aneconomy United Kingdom 2 Finland , N Italy Spain

United Kingdom 20 20 2

O inCO Italy Italy Spain Spain Belgium 2 United Kingdom Sweden equivalent, SF Italy 30 30 United Kingdom Austria Sweden Italy France Poland 2 Poland equivalent, CH

40 40 Sweden Belgium Germany Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland

50 50 Austria 6 Netherlands Ireland inCO Belgium Poland Austria Austria Austria Finland Finland 60 60 4 Finland Ireland Ireland

2 Ireland inCO Austria equivalent, NF Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Poland Germany

Finland 70 70

2 Italy

equivalent, HFC Netherlands Poland Belgium Germany Belgium Poland Germany

80 80 Italy Netherlands United Kingdom Netherlands Belgium 3 Belgium Ireland inCO Poland Poland 90 90 1,512,900 Chap II_9 Chap

Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 2 EU-28 EU-28 100 100 United Kingdom United Kingdom 0.0 0 0.0 0.4 0 in CO PER THOUSAND INHABITANTS (THOUSAND TONNES OFCO GREENHOUSE GASEMISSIONS* eager topositionthemselves inthesefields. sectors for thefuture are foreign attracting investors energy sector. The mostadvanced countriesinthese opportunities andjobs,particularly inthegreen economic Green isalsoasource growth of * Greenhouse gases: CO European Union. the inhabitants) putitabove theaverage of country’s emissions(perthousand gas greenhouse Similarly for France’s carbonintensity, the Source: Eurostat, 2019;BusinessFrance calculations equivalent. 10 0.6 40 % Share of EU-28 total energyGraph generation from Primary 4. renewable sources 0.5 14 0.25 Graph 10. Employment renewable inthe energies (2018) sector 20 60 0.5 0.3 300,000 40,000 35,000 0.2 0 200,000 25,000 % Graph Electricity 6. generation breakdown (2019) € million Graph 5. Revenues renewable inthe energies (2018) sector % (EU-28) Graph 3. Share of renewable energies ingross energy final consumption Standard deviation of (%) rates VAT inc. Non-residential customers, by level of consumption Graph Variability 2. of electricity rates 2016 (H2, 2019) –H2, Rate VAT inc. (€/kWh) Non-residential consumers, by level of consumption Graph 1.Electricity rates 2019) (H2, Thousand tonnes greenhouse emissions* gas /GDPmillionatPPP Graph 8. intensity Carbon Per inhabitants thousand tonnes (thousand of CO2) Graph 9. Greenhouse emissions* gas 30 50 0.10 12 20 30,000 10 18 20,000 250,000 0 14 1.0 100,000 16 15,000 1.5 10 0.1 12 10,000 150,000 0 8 4 6 2 United States United States % Graph 7. Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2019) . 0 8 4 . 6 . 0 50,000 2 00 5,000 FIG. 118 . 20 05 2013 Netherlands Netherlands 15 Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Germany Germany 0 Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden 2 Finland Finland 0 Austria Austria Poland Poland Ireland Ireland equivalent, PFCinCO France France EU-23 EU-23 Japan Japan Spain Spain Germany Italy Germany Italy

France 2018 Ireland France Finland France France 0 0

Spain France Netherlands Spain France Austria Finland

United Kingdom 10 10 Italy France Spain Netherlands Austria 2.6 United Kingdom 2 Finland , N Spain Italy

United Kingdom 20 20 2

O inCO Italy Italy Spain Spain Belgium 2 United Kingdom Sweden equivalent, SF Italy 30 30 United Kingdom Austria Sweden Italy France Poland 2

Poland equivalent, CH

40 40 Sweden Belgium Germany Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland

50 50 Austria 6 Netherlands Ireland inCO Belgium Poland Austria Austria Austria Finland Finland 60 60 4 Finland Ireland Ireland

2 Ireland inCO Austria equivalent, NF Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Poland Germany 2 ) Finland 70 70

2 Italy

equivalent, HFC Netherlands Poland Belgium Germany Belgium Poland Germany

80 80 Italy Netherlands United Kingdom Netherlands Belgium 3 Belgium Ireland inCO Poland Poland 90 90 1,512,900

Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 2 EU-28

EU-28 100 100 BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

111 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Chap II_9 Chap

112 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD United Kingdom United Kingdom respective working populations). their 131,400 and121,400jobs(0.4%0.5%of (0.7%). TheUnitedKingdomandItaly counted population), followed by Spain,with167,100jobs was Germany, itsworking with 263,700jobs(0.7%of working population).Thetopcountry inthisarea its sector in2018,with151,600jobs(0.5%of third-largest employer intherenewable energy According toEurObserv’ER, France wasEurope’s renewable energies inEurope,Source: methodology), The stateof 2019 (new EurObserv’ER M€ REVENUES IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGIESSECTOR (2018) 0.0 0 0.0 0.4 0 10 0.6 40 % Share of EU-28 total energyGraph generation from Primary 4. renewable sources 0.5 14 0.25 Graph 10. Employment renewable inthe energies (2018) sector 20 60 0.5 0.3 300,000 40,000 35,000 0.2 0 200,000 25,000 % Graph Electricity 6. generation breakdown (2019) € million Graph 5. Revenues renewable inthe energies (2018) sector % (EU-28) Graph 3. Share of renewable energies ingross energy final consumption Standard deviation of (%) rates VAT inc. Non-residential customers, by level of consumption Graph Variability 2. of electricity rates 2016 (H2, 2019) –H2, Rate VAT inc. (€/kWh) Non-residential consumers, by level of consumption Graph 1.Electricity rates 2019) (H2, Per inhabitants thousand tonnes (thousand of CO2) Graph 9. Greenhouse emissions* gas Thousand tonnes greenhouse emissions* gas /GDPmillionatPPP Graph 8. intensity Carbon 30 50 0.10 12 20 30,000 10 18 20,000 250,000 0 14 1.0 100,000 16 15,000 1.5 10 0.1 12 10,000 150,000 0 8 4 6 2 United States United States % Graph 7. Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2019) . 0 8 4 . 6 . 0 50,000 2 FIG. 119 00 5,000 . 20 05 Netherlands Netherlands 15 Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Germany Germany 0 Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland Finland 0 Austria Austria Poland Poland Ireland Ireland France France EU-23 EU-23 Japan Japan Spain Spain Germany Italy Germany Italy France Ireland France Finland France France 0 0

Spain France Netherlands Spain France Austria Finland 10 United Kingdom 10 Italy France Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Austria 2.6 Finland Spain Italy 20 United Kingdom 20 Italy Belgium Italy United Kingdom Sweden Spain Spain 30 Italy 30 United Kingdom Austria Sweden Italy France Poland Poland

40 40 Sweden Belgium Germany Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland

50 50 Austria Netherlands Ireland Belgium Poland Austria Austria Austria Finland Finland Finland 60 60 Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Poland Germany

Finland 70 70 Netherlands Italy Poland Belgium Germany Belgium Poland Germany

80 80 Italy Netherlands United Kingdom Netherlands Belgium

Belgium Ireland Poland Poland 90 90 1,512,900 Chap II_9 Chap

Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 100 100 United Kingdom United Kingdom 0.0 0 0.0 0.4 0 EMPLOYMENT IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGIESSECTOR (2018) ore uOsr’R(e ehdlg) h tt frenewable energies inEurope,Source: methodology), The stateof 2019 (new EurObserv’ER 10 0.6 40 % Share of EU-28 total energyGraph generation from Primary 4. renewable sources 0.5 14 0.25 Graph 10. Employment renewable inthe energies (2018) sector 20 60 0.5 0.3 300,000 40,000 35,000 0.2 0 200,000 25,000 % Graph Electricity 6. generation breakdown (2019) € million Graph 5. Revenues renewable inthe energies (2018) sector % (EU-28) Graph 3. Share of renewable energies ingross energy final consumption Standard deviation of (%) rates VAT inc. Non-residential customers, by level of consumption Graph Variability 2. of electricity rates 2016 (H2, 2019) –H2, Rate VAT inc. (€/kWh) Non-residential consumers, by level of consumption Graph 1.Electricity rates 2019) (H2, Per inhabitants thousand tonnes (thousand of CO2) Graph 9. Greenhouse emissions* gas Thousand tonnes greenhouse emissions* gas /GDPmillionatPPP Graph 8. intensity Carbon 30 50 0.10 12 20 30,000 10 18 20,000 250,000 0 14 1.0 100,000 16 15,000 1.5 10 0.1 12 10,000 150,000 0 8 4 6 2 United States United States % Graph 7. Renewable electricity generation breakdown (2019) . 0 8 4 . 6 . 0 50,000 2 00 5,000 FIG. 120 . 20 05 Netherlands Netherlands 15 Sweden Sweden Germany Germany Germany Germany 0 Belgium Belgium Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Finland Finland 0 Austria Austria Poland Poland Ireland Ireland France France EU-23 EU-23 Japan Japan Spain Spain Germany Italy Germany Italy France Ireland France Finland France France 0 0

Spain France Netherlands Spain France Austria Finland

United Kingdom 10 10 Italy France Spain Netherlands United Kingdom Austria 2.6 Finland Spain Italy

United Kingdom 20 20 Italy Belgium Italy United Kingdom Sweden Spain Spain Italy 30 30 United Kingdom Austria Sweden Italy France Poland Poland

40 40 Sweden Belgium Germany Belgium Spain Spain Sweden Finland

50 50 Austria Netherlands Ireland Belgium Poland Austria Austria Austria Finland Finland Finland 60 60 Ireland Ireland Ireland Austria Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom Netherlands Poland Germany

Finland 70 70 Netherlands Italy Poland Belgium Germany Belgium Poland Germany

80 80 Italy United Kingdom Netherlands Netherlands Belgium Belgium Ireland Poland Poland 90 90 1,512,900

Ireland Ireland EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 EU-28 100 100 etteabto fmakingFrance meet theambitionof the“Relaunch France” planmust of Everything setupintheframework for togreeninvestments. agriculture) buildings andhousing, plus€1.2 billion €7.5 billion for renovation thethermal of billionfor industry-energy, €9 €30 billion (€11 billion for transport, target,transition astrategic devoting France” planismakingecological Backed by €100billion,the“Relaunch Government ClimatePlan - - strategy are asfollows: thisnational The mainfocuses of office. year of term thepresident’s five- over thecourse of and implementthe Paris Agreement up theenergy andclimate transition Plan, callingonallministriestospeed unveiled theGovernment Climate andInclusiveEcological Transition On July 6,2017,theMinisterfor the the “RelaunchFrance”plan Ecology attheheartof Source: French peopleby developing To improve day-to-day life for French society. environmental law and mobilizing irreversible by advancing To make theParis Agreement www.gouvernement.fr/action/plan-climat - thevehicle fleets. - Therenewal of - -  growthfair through: 2050. It will promote sustainable and Europe, meetingcarbonneutrality by the leading carbon-free economy in - - sector. theagricultural Transformation of free. Aid for industry tobecomecarbon- buildings. renovationThe thermal of circular economy. consumption and strengthening the insecurity, promoting responsible clean mobility, eradicatingenergy of green finance. greenfinance. of research andmakingParis thecapital forward-thinking solutionsthrough economygreen by designing Making France the number one use fossil fuelsby 2040. vehicles that eliminating thesaleof carbon neutralityby 2050and increasing carbonprices, achieving halting fossil fuelextraction, producing carbon-free electricity, bycommit tocarbonneutrality To bedonewithfossil fuelsand

natural resources, emitslessCO growth,fair with growth that uses sustainable and make thechoice of This planreflects France’s desire to green technology. and innovation for thedevelopment of France” plan also supports research protects biodiversity. The“Relaunch - - change. developing countriescombatclimate to climate actionandhelping non-government bodiescommitted mobilization international Strengthening that contributetodeforestation. products putting astoptoimports of change and its consequences and climate change, adaptingtoclimate tocombatmobilizing agriculture by ecosystems andagriculture the potential of Harnessing

by supporting 2 and BOARD SCORE FRANCE BUSINESS

113 / BUSINESS FRANCE FRANCE ATTRACTIVENESS SCOREBOARD Publication Director Christophe Lecourtier, CEO

Chief Editor Sylvie Montout

Contributors Habib Karamoko

Departments of the French Treasury Directorate Coordinated by the Foreign Trade and Country Risk Office

Translation David Williams Peter Stewart

Editorial coordination Guillaume du Rivau, Publishing Project Manager

Design and layout HOPSCOTCH December 2020

BUSINE SS FR A N C E IS T HE N AT I O N A L AG E N C Y S U PP O R T IN G T HE IN T E R N AT I ON A L DE V E LOPME N T OF T HE FR E NCH ECONOM Y, responsible for fostering export growth by French businesses, as well as promoting and facilitating international investment in France. It promotes France’s companies, business image and nationwide attractiveness as an investment location, and also runs the VIE international internship program. Business France has 1,500 personnel, both in France and in 58 countries throughout the world, who work with a network of partners. Since January 2019, as part of the reform of the state support system for exports, Business France has given private partners responsibility for supporting French SMEs and mid-size companies in the following markets: Belgium, Hungary, Morocco, Norway, the Philippines and Singapore. For further information, please visit: www.businessfrance.fr @businessfrance

BUSINE SS FR A N C E 77, boulevard Saint-Jacques 75680 Paris Cedex 14 Tel: +33 1 40 73 30 00

In partnership with The French Treasury Directorate The French Ministry for the Economy and Finance The French Treasury Directorate serves government ministers, making proposals and carrying out economic policy under their authority from a domestic, European and international standpoint. It has 1,400 employees, of whom nearly half are based abroad. Economic departments abroad support the international strategies of French businesses, help boost France’s economic attractiveness, promote ongoing reforms and the government’s economic policy.

www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr