EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA

Progress Report 2018

Country Profile DENMARK

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate A — Policy Development and Coordination Unit A2 — Research and Innovation Strategy

Contact: Arie Van Der Zwan E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

European Commission B-1049 Brussels

EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you)

LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019.

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-99765-5 doi:10.2777/022506 KI-02-19-109-EN-N

© European Union, 2019. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Country profile: Denmark

COUNTRY SNAPSHOT

Indicator Performance Progress since ERA monitoring 2016

Reference Lead/Gap Reference Lead/Gap Trend Name Score Cluster EU-28 CAGR EU-28 year (Δ %) Period (Δ % pt) (2007-18)

Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (AREI) 2016 78.6 1 75 45.0 2013-16 7.1% 3.9 3.2% GBARD as share of GDP 2016 0.92% 1 45 0.64% 2014-16 -4.0% -1.6 -2.4%

Priority 1 Priority EIS Summary Innovation Index (SII) 2017 0.668 1 32 0.504 2015-17 -1.2% -3.1 1.9% A - GBARD to transnatl coop (EUR/researcher) 2016 2 501 3 -33 3 739 2014-16 -7.1% -11.0 3.9% A - Collab papers w/ERA per 1 000 researchers 2016 117 2 66 71 2014-16 7.5% 4.2 3.3% A - Public-to-public partnerships (EUR/researcher) 2016 1 222 2 119 558 2014-16 -7.3% -8.0 0.7% B - Roadmap for ESFRI projects National roadmap implemented in 2015, ESFRI projects identified, investment needs identified

Priority 2 Priority B - Participation in ESFRI Projects and Landmarks (combined) 2018 35% 2 0 35% 2016-18 0.8% -14.2 15.0% B - Participation in developing ESFRI Projects 2018 22% 2 -24 29% 2016-18 8.0% -10.6 18.6% B - Participation in operational ESFRI Landmarks 2018 41% 2 9 37% 2016-18 -4.9% -16.2 11.3% EURAXESS job ads per 1 000 researchers 2016 21.6 3 -49 42.1 2014-16 13.3% 18.3 -5.0% Open, transparent, merit-based hiring process 2016 68% 2 4 65% 2012-16 7.0% -0.5 7.5%

Priority 3 Priority Share of doctoral students from EU countries 2016 17.1% 1 139 7.1% 2013-16 5.6% 1.8 3.9% Share of women among Grade A in HES 2016 21% 3 -12 24% 2014-16 6.9% 5.9 1.0% Gender dimension in research content 2014-17(R) 1.10 2 5 1.05 2011-14 to 2014-17(R) 0.7% -1.8 2.5%

Priority 4 Priority Share of female PhD graduates 2016 48% 3 1 48% 2013-16 2.4% 2.0 0.4% A - Firms coop with univ, gov, res inst 2014 16.3% 2 9 15.0% Not computed A - Firms coop with univ 2014Not computed 2012-14 1.9% 1.2 0.7% A - Firms coop with gov, res inst 2014Not computed 2012-14 -21.2% -25.3 4.0% A - Share of public R&D funded privately 2015 4.3% 3 -39 7.0% 2013-15 6.7% 7.9 -1.2% A - Public-private collab papers per capita 2017 162.8 1 298 40.9 2014-17 1.3% 0.9 0.4%

Priority 5 Priority B - Share of papers in Open Access (Total) 2016 51.5% 2 4 49.3% Not computed B - Share of papers in Open Access (Gold) 2016 46.4% 2 9 42.7% Not computed B - Share of papers in Open Access (Green) 2016 23.3% 2 -9 25.6% Not computed B - Share life science papers with OA dataset(s) 2017 2.8% 2 10 2.6% 2013-17 0.2% -2.4 2.6% Collab papers w/non-ERA per 1 000 researchers 2016 81 1 48 54 2014-16 8.5% 4.1 4.4% Share of doctoral students from outside EU 2016 16.6% 2 20 13.9% 2013-16 3.4% -0.4 3.8% Share med & high tech product export 2017 48% 2 -15 57% 2015-17 0.2% -0.3 0.4% Priority 6 Priority Share Knowledge intensive service export 2016 72% 2 4 69% 2014-16 -3.9% -4.5 0.6% Note: (:) = missing data, more notes and flags can be found in the “Annex: Methodological notes”. (R) = rolling averages (e.g. average scores across 2007–2010, 2008–2011… 2014–2017) have been used to measure performance and growth due to pronounced short-term fluctuations. Refer to the “Annex: Guide to reading the quantitative results tables (country snapshots)” for guidance in interpreting the data presented above. Further information on the presented indicators is available in the 2018 ERA Monitoring Handbook.

1

Country profile: Denmark

COUNTRY NARRATIVE

Summary The Danish research system displayed its best performances on Priority 1 (More effective national research systems). The three scores calculated here put the country well above the ERA average (Cluster 1) and the EU-28 benchmarks for all indicators. Denmark has been slowly losing some of its lead on other EU-28 countries for two of these three indicators, however.

In a second set of Priorities, Denmark’s performances were mostly above (Cluster 2) ERA average, with one indicator well above (Cluster 1) the ERA average. Three priorities fit this description for Denmark: Priority 2b (Make optimal use of public investments in research infrastructures); Priority 5b (Open access); Priority 6 (International collaboration). In Priority 2b, Denmark has lost ground to the Member States overall since the last ERA monitoring exercise, whereas in Priority 5b and Priority 6, Denmark’s trajectories in recent years have been more closely in line with trends at the EU-28 level.

In the remaining four priorities, Denmark had at least one score that was just below the ERA average (Cluster 3), but also scores above or well above the ERA average. These included Priority 2a (Transnational cooperation); Priority 3 (An open labour market for researchers); Priority 4 (Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research); and Priority 5a (Knowledge transfer). While Denmark showed progress on a number of indicators, there were also some specific spots where trajectories were less encouraging, which will be discussed in the individual priority sections below.

Denmark had no performances that would have positioned among countries with scores well below ERA average (Cluster 4).

To the extent that data was available, below the country profile also analyses progress with the implementation of the ERA National Action Plan. The overall assessment of Denmark’s implementation of its NAP is positive. It achieved progress under most of the priorities but some of the proposed actions and objectives lacked concrete indicators and timelines. The most substantial progress was achieved under sub priority 2a. Denmark took numerous actions to maintain its high level of participation in Horizon 2020. These actions include the establishment of a Strategic Reference Group, mapping the Danish participation in H2020, publishing report ‘Evaluations and evaluators in Horizon 2020’ and continuously providing support and advice on H2020. Another important development happened under Priority 1. RESEARCH 2025 catalogue was published by the Ministry of Higher Education and Science. It will guide the country’s strategic investments from the perspective of the private sectors, knowledge institutions and governmental bodies. Denmark has also taken some actions to further the objective set under sub priority 5b that include publishing of a new National Strategy for Open and monitoring the progress of open access. Opening of Sino-Danish Centre for Education and Research in Beijing, adoption of the Arctic and Cluster 2.0. strategies have marked the Danish progress under Priority 6.

1. More effective national research systems

On Priority 1 (More effective national research systems), Denmark displayed its best performances. The three scores calculated here put the country well above the ERA average (Cluster 1) and the EU-28 benchmarks. This was particularly true for the headline indicator, the Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (AREI). Here, the country’s score was almost 79, compared to 45 for the Member States overall.

The country’s performance on the headline indicator has also increased at a yearly rate higher than that of the EU-28 trend, extending Denmark’s lead. Between 2013 and 2016, Denmark’s CAGR on this indicator was 7.1 %, compared to a trend of 3.2 % for the EU-28. Denmark has been slowly losing some of its lead on other EU-28 countries for the two complementary indicators (GBARD as a share of GDP, and the Summary Innovation Index), however.

Denmark is a high performer with a strong research system, which produces high quality scientific outputs (Christensen J.L., Christensen, P., Knudsen, 2017). However, its performance could be further improved in terms of innovations. In 2014, Innovation Fund Denmark (IFD) was established with the aim to make R&D funding more efficient and effective while focusing on challenge-driven research and innovation. It is a result of a merger between the Danish National

2

Country profile: Denmark

Advanced Technology Foundation, the Danish Council for Strategic Research, and parts of the Danish Council for Technology and Innovation. It is expected that the reduction of research funding organisations will result in a simpler and more flexible system, which is better equipped to facilitate innovations and improve research outputs. In 2018, the Innovation Fund was evaluated.

Even though Denmark slightly decreased its investment in public research in 2016 and expects to cut them by 2% in each of the next three following years, it is expected to remain above 1% of GDP (European Commission, 2017b). The cuts in public investments are partly mitigated by private foundations that contribute significant amounts to public research, which was around €1.3bn (Christensen J.L., Christensen, P., Knudsen, 2017). This was corroborated by the interview data. However, one interviewee highlighted that investments made by private foundations are mainly concentrated in a few research fields such as bio-medical and health sciences.

Other Danish investments are based on the strategic approach, which is laid out in the RESEARCH 2025 catalogue published in 2017. The catalogue provides a list of priority fields for research that have the most potential in the eyes of different stakeholders such as ministries, research performing organisations and the private sector. Furthermore, RESEARCH 2025 incorporates European dimension.

Denmark does not have a separate smart specialisation strategy, but it is rather defined in several strategies. These strategies are government’s growth plans and regional growth and development strategies (Christensen J.L., Christensen, P., Knudsen, 2018). Even though Danish R&I policies are in line with smart specialisation, there is still a room for further harmonisation between national and regional levels. Regions are not required to coordinate their actions and strategies with each other, which sometimes lead to duplications of effort. At the same time, regional priorities are not necessarily well-aligned with national priorities and the level of alignment varies across regions (Christensen J.L., Christensen, P., Knudsen, 2018).

The main achievement regarding Priority 1 in the Danish NAP is the publishing of RESEARCH2025 catalogue in July 2018 by the Ministry of Higher Education and Science. It contains a list of highly promising fields of research for strategic investments from the perspective of the private sector, ministries, and knowledge institutions. In the following years, RESEARCH2025 will guide strategic investments in research. Its purpose is to ensure that investments are based on solid knowledge about the research needs of society and the new opportunities that research creates (Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education, 2018b). There is no sufficient data to establish whether other actions in Priority 1 were completed.

2. Optimal transnational co-operation and competition

a. Transnational cooperation

Denmark’s scores on the two complementary indicators for this priority, the propensity to co- author collaborative papers with other ERA researchers and level of investments in public-to- public partnerships, were well above EU-28 benchmarks. On the second indicator, particularly, the country’s score was more than double that of the Member States taken together, at 1 222 € per researcher compared to 558 €. Performance on the headline indicator (GBARD allocated to transnational cooperation), however, was weaker, with a score well below EU-28 benchmark, positioning the country in Cluster 3.

Denmark has slightly increased its lead on the EU-28 on the number collaborative papers with other ERA researchers, with a yearly average growth 4.2 percentage points higher than the EU-28 trend. It’s lead on investments in public-to-public partnerships has been decreasing, however, with yearly decreases of 7.3 % between 2014 and 2016 that compared to relatively stable scores for the EU-28 over the same period. Finally, the country’s gap to the EU-28 for its score on the headline indicator has grown larger between 2014 and 2016. Yearly average decreases close to 7 % compared to growth of about 4 % for the EU-28.

Substantial progress was achieved under the Danish NAP in sub priority 2a. The NAP aimed to maintain Denmark’s high level of participation in Horizon 2020. First, The Ministry of Higher Education and Science established a ‘Strategic Reference Group’ in 2016 with representatives from ministries, higher education institutions and industry. Second, the Ministry of Higher

3

Country profile: Denmark

Education and Science is mapping the Danish participation in Horizon 2020 (European Commission, 2018b). Third, report ‘Evaluations and evaluators in Horizon 2020’ was published in 2018 with a goal to report on questions that applicants ask themselves when writing proposals for Horizon 2020. Fourth, EuroCenter, the Research and Education Board and the EU-DK Support Network offer advice on Horizon 2020. The network will help to strengthen the knowledge level of Horizon 2020 among the administrative staff of public research institutions. Finally, EUopSTART scheme is ongoing, which aims to intensify the participation of Danish companies and knowledge institutions in European research and innovation.

The Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education published an action plan for Danish participation in the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation in November 2018. The action plan contains two initiatives aimed at strengthening national coordination on participation in EU public-public partnerships: first, a closer cooperation between the IFD’s Strategic Advisory Board and the Agency’s Strategic Reference Group for Horizon 2020; second, the Agency aims to establish a streamlined process for including reference groups in efforts related to Danish participation in public-public partnerships.

b. Make optimal use of public investments in research infrastructures

Denmark’s level of participation in ESFRI initiatives placed it in Cluster 2 and exactly in line with the EU-28 benchmark for the combined indicator (which considers participation both in Projects and in Landmarks). It scored notably below the EU-28 benchmark for its rate of participation in developing Projects but above the EU-28 for Landmarks. These scores placed Denmark within Cluster 2 on both indicators.

In 2016, Denmark was participating in 19 % of then-current developing Projects, and 45 % of operational Landmarks. By 2018, these rates of participation had evolved to 22 % and 41 %, respectively (noting that Landmark participation did not decrease in absolute numbers, but rather that as more Landmarks come online a relative participation rate can decrease). On the combined indicator, Denmark appeared to have experienced neither growth nor decline, therefore losing ground to the Member States taken together (who logged an increase of 15 % annually since the last ERA monitoring exercise).

Note that large countries are generally advantaged on this priority since the indicators are not normalised to account for differences in the size of countries.

In 2015, the Ministry of Higher Education and Science updated a roadmap for research infrastructures. The roadmap consists of a catalogue of 22 proposals for new research infrastructures and guidelines to direct the work of the ministry in the upcoming years. The investments for research infrastructures will be guided by the catalogue of proposals. The document is linked with ESFRI and one of the assessment criteria for a proposal is whether, where relevant, there is a possibility to cooperate with international research infrastructures.

National investments are being carefully considered in order to prevent duplication of efforts on the institutional and local levels (Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, 2016a). For this reason, investments are considered to be beneficial when research infrastructures operate within open and inclusive interinstitutional groups. Interview data suggests that in general, there is a high level of cooperation between organisations.

One achievement regarding the Danish NAP on sub priority 2b was initiating a dialogue with the Advanced Technology Group with a focus on their role in research infrastructures. Danish government is co-financing seven private, certified Advanced Technology Groups. Their primary objective is to stimulate primarily SMEs to become more competitive and innovative. Furthermore, a number of Danish businesses have won contracts to supply services and/or products (highly scientific and technological deliverable as well as more conventional deliverables) to Big Science facilities as part of the facilities’ construction, operation, maintenance or upgrade, often in partnership with Danish research institutes or advanced Technology Groups (Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, 2016a).

3. An open labour market for researchers

Denmark performed very strongly on its share of doctoral students from other EU countries. Its share was 17.1 %, more than twice the EU-28 score of 7.1 % and positioning the country in

4

Country profile: Denmark

Cluster 1. The country fared less well on the headline indicator, the number of EURAXESS academic job ads. A score of 22 such ads per 1 000 researchers was just over half the level recorded for the EU-28 at 42 ads.

Denmark has seen its gap to the EU-28 benchmark on EURAXESS use grow smaller, however. Between 2014 and 2016, yearly average increases in scores have been at a level of 13%, while the EU-28 has seen yearly average decreases of 5 % in score. Denmark’s yearly increases on the two complementary indicators roughly followed the EU-28 trends.

The Danish NAP highlighted that the EURAXESS job portal is used to a much lesser extent when compared to the European average. The main action taken was the establishment of EURAXESS Steering Committee where the Ministry, universities and other actors can discuss the barriers for Danish organisations when using the portal (Danish Agency for Science, technology and Innovation, 2016).

While the use of EURAXESS is low, Danish universities are obliged to publicly advertise any vacant positions. Moreover, positions at associate professor and professor levels have to be advertised internationally (Danish Agency for Science, technology and Innovation, 2016b). In the recent years, universities have dedicated a lot of attention in human resources to attracting foreign researchers by establishing special support services. Danish universities also support the Charter & Code and their recruitment practices are generally open, transparent and merit-based.

Other achievements in relation to Priority 3 include a 2017 report on the Quality and Relevance of the Danish PhD Programme, a report on barriers to increased inter-sectoral mobility presented by The Danish Council for Research and innovation Policy in 2017 and three events during 2016 on the impact of internationalization on the quality of research in the Danish research milieu.

4. Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research

This Priority is where the Danish research system displayed its weakest performances, though it is noteworthy that even so Denmark’s scores in Priority 4 are by no means among the lowest observed across the ERA. For both the gender dimension in research content and the share of female PhD graduates, the country’s scores were comparable to the EU-28 scores. These performances placed the country in Clusters 2 and 3, respectively. On the headline indicator, Denmark also placed in Cluster 3, with women accounting for a 21 % share among Grade A roles in the higher education system. That same score was also below the EU-28 benchmark (24 %).

The gap in score to the EU-28 benchmark on the headline indicator has grown smaller between 2014 and 2016. Denmark saw yearly increases in scores on that indicator, with an average of almost 7 %, above the EU-28 trend of 1 %. Weak increases on the two complementary indicators were within two percentage points of the EU-28 trends.

Denmark has achieved some progress under its NAP in Priority 4. Before Danish NAP was published, most Danish universities have already drafted management strategies for increasing equality while some have also integrated gender equality into general diversity strategies. A number of universities have also appointed gender equality or diversity committees (Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, 2016b). Furthermore, some universities have signed three-year development contracts with the Ministry of Higher Education and Science where concrete goals for increasing the share of women in academic positions or the share of female applicants for professor positions are set. Research funding organisations also play a role in promoting gender equality while paying attention to gender differences and ensuring that application requirements do not, even unintentionally, give preferential treatment to male applicants. Funding practices are also constantly monitored so that female and male applicants have the same opportunities and conditions when they apply for and are granted research funding (Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, 2016b).

5. Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge including via digital ERA

a. Knowledge transfer

What is probably Denmark’s most noteworthy performance was achieved for a complementary indicator in this Priority, the number of public-private collaborative papers per capita. A

5

Country profile: Denmark relativized count of 163 such papers was about four times higher than the EU-28 benchmark of 41 papers. This score positioned Denmark in Cluster 1. In contrast, the country’s share of public R&D funded privately (4.3 %) was well below EU-28 score (7.0 %), positioning the country in Cluster 3.

For short-term changes in scores, two findings represented noteworthy deviations from EU-28 trends. Denmark was reducing its gap to the EU-28 on the share of public R&D funded privately indicator, with yearly average increases of 6.7 % well above the EU-28 downward trend of 1.2 %. On the share of firms cooperating with governmental, public or private research institutes, Denmark decreased at a yearly average of more than 20 %, a marked loss of ground to the other Member States for whom the trend has been of moderate yearly increase (at an average level of 4.0 % between 2012 and 2014).

A report from the Ministry of Higher Education and Science showed that the number of businesses that engaged in collaborative activities decreased in 2014 and 2015 after a period of 2010-2014 that has seen regular increases (Christensen J.L., Christensen, P., Knudsen, 2017). Despite this negative development, Danish RPOs are redesigning their technology transfer offices based on a more collaborative and interactive model. Some organisations invest in shared facilities to facilitate closer cooperation and create a space for researchers and businesses to come together. Another driving force behind this was the renegotiated (in 2016) university performance contracts for 2015-2017 that included further performance targets on knowledge transfer activities (European Commission, 2017b).

European Semester Country Specific Recommendations of 2016 have also identified shortcoming in this area and suggested Denmark to incentivise collaborative activities between businesses and universities. The government has taken several actions to improve the situation under sub priority 5a. One of the major changes was the reorganisation of the Ministry of Higher Education and Science in 2017. Another expected development is an initiative by Universities Denmark to create guidelines advising universities in how to legally engage in strategic partnerships with businesses where public money is involved (European Commission, 2017b). Furthermore, the Innovation Fund Denmark is continuously supporting partnerships and investments.

b. Open access

Denmark had scores on OA indicators that positioned the country in Cluster 2. On the headline indicator and two out of three complementary indicators, these scores were slightly above EU-28 levels. For example, 46 % of Danish scientific papers released in 2016 were published under a Gold OA license, compared to 43 % for the Member States overall. On Green OA papers, the country’s score was slightly below EU-28 benchmark; it is interesting to see that Denmark should trail the EU-28 in uptake of Green OA, as the national research funders in Denmark support a Green-first strategy towards OA (data not shown).

Between 2013 and 2017, Denmark has lost a small portion of its lead on the EU-28 in the share of life science papers with OA datasets. The country’s yearly average increases of 0.2 % were below the EU-28 trend of 2.6 % growth.

The objective of the Danish NAP under sub priority 5b is to ensure that by 2022 and onwards, all citizens have unhindered digital access to all Danish peer-reviewed research articles produced at Danish research institutions. Denmark developed a number of actions to contribute to the achievement of this objective. First, a National Strategy for Open Access was published in June 2014. Second, the Ministry of Higher Education and Science, through the National Open Access Indicator, monitors the progress of Open Access in Denmark. Data on Open Access Indicator is available online.1 Third, it is expected that the National Steering Committee for Open Access will regularly discuss the status of Open Access in Denmark and, when necessary, initiate motivating actions to increase the share of freely accessible research articles. Despite many achievements under this sub priority, Denmark has to invest more effort in order to be able to achieve their ambitious goal. Hence, in June 2018, a new version of the strategy was published by the Minister of Higher Education and Science. There were two concrete reasons for that: first, the target seemed to be too ambitious. The Open Access monitor showed only a small progress in Open

1 http://oaindikator.dk/en.

6

Country profile: Denmark

Access from 2017 to 2018; second, in the previous strategy there was a lack of division of responsibility among the relevant stakeholders. In the new strategy the deadline of the 100%- target has been extended from 2022 to 2025 and the division of responsibilities among the different stakeholders has been clarified.

6. International cooperation

Denmark performed well on this priority’s indicators, especially the headline indicator: the propensity to publish papers collaboratively with researchers outside the ERA. Denmark’s relativized count of papers in 2016 was 81, compared to a score of 54 for the EU-28. This score placed Denmark in Cluster 1. Scores on the complementary indicators placed the country in Cluster 2, with both moderate leads and gaps to the EU-28 benchmark.

The country’s lead to the EU-28 on propensity to publish with non-ERA researchers has grown in recent years, with yearly average increases of 8.5 %, 4.1 percentage points above the EU-28 trend. The other noteworthy trend in score changes came for the country’s share of service exports that were knowledge intensive. Here, the country’s already small lead to the EU-28 benchmark was almost disappearing, with yearly average decreases of almost 4% in scores, whereas the Member States taken together had seen stables scores on this indicator.

Denmark dedicates its efforts to strengthen international cooperation. Despite having a strong and well-developed research system, for a small country like Denmark it is important to attract and maintain the necessary knowledge base and build the capacity in certain research fields. International cooperation activities allow the country to build sustainable and valuable partnerships and attract international talent in these fields.

International cooperation is high on the national agenda. The Ministry of Higher Education and Science have signed bilateral agreements and Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with countries such as Brazil, Japan, South Korea, the USA, India and China. Most of them were already signed in the previous reporting period. A more recent MOU was signed with Vietnam in 2017. Another important tool used by the Danish government to improve cooperation with priority countries is Innovation Centres in China, South Korea, the US, India Israel and Brazil. They help facilitate access for Danish businesses and research institutions to foreign markets and knowledge bases – with varying, individual focus areas for each country.

Interview data suggests that RPOs are increasing their HR efforts in order to attract more researchers from abroad. Denmark is also successful in Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions, which strongly supports the recruitment of foreign researchers in Denmark while also stimulating outgoing mobility.

There is evidence that Denmark has made progress in enhancing international cooperation activities under Priority 6 in the Danish NAP. One of the actions proposed was to expand the cluster cooperation. In 2016, Denmark adopted an updated strategy for Danish R&I clusters, “Cluster Strategy 2.0. - Strategy for Denmark’s Cluster and Network Initiatives 2016-2018”, which includes internationalisation as a priority area. Another accomplishment was the presentation of an Arctic strategy, which is expected to strengthen Denmark's efforts within Arctic research, education and innovation. Additionally, the Ministry of Higher Education and Science and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark followed up on the evaluation of the innovation centres conducted in 2015. As of 2018, a total number of seven (no change in number) ICDKs exists. Finally, the official opening of Sino-Danish Centre for Education and Research has taken place in Beijing in September 2017.

References Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (2016a) Danish Roadmap for Research Infrastructures 2015. Retrieved from: https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2016/danish-roadmap-for- research-infrastructures-2015 Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (2016b) Danish Roadmap for the European research Area 2016-2020. Retrieved from: https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2016/danish-roadmap-for-the-european-research-area-2016- 2020 Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education (2018) Research 2025: Summary. Retrieved from: https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2018/filer/research2025_pixie.pdf

7

Country profile: Denmark

EIGE (2016). Integrating gender equality into academia and research organisations: Analytical paper, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

European Commission (2017a) European Innovation Scoreboard and Country profiles, Denmark. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/30675

European Commission (2017b) Commission Staff Working Document. Country Report Denmark 2017. 2017 European Semester. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2017- european-semester-country-reports_en

European Commission (2018a) Commission Staff Working Document. Country Report Denmark 2018. 2018 European Semester. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2018- european-semester-country-reports_en

European Commission (2018b) MLE on Alignment and Interoperability of National Research Programmes, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Knudsen, M.P; Christensen, J.L.; Christensen, P, RIO Country Report 2016: Denmark, EUR 28522 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-66726-8, doi: 10.2760/073047, JRC106034.

Knudsen, M.P., Christensen, J.L., Christensen, P., RIO Country Report 2017: Denmark, EUR 29187 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79- 81276-7, doi:10.2760/54161, JRC111331.

OECD (2016) “Denmark”, in OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-en

OECD (2017) OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017 and Country Highlights. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard.htm

Science Europe (2017) Practical Guide to Improving Gender Equality in Research Organisations, Science Europe.

8

Country profile: Denmark ANNEX: METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Indicator Flag Data availability Exception to Exception to Break in Definition Potential Name Estimated Provisional Confidential ref. year ref. period time series differs outlier

Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (AREI) Available GBARD as share of GDP Available 2015-16

Priority 1 Priority EIS Summary Innovation Index (SII) Available A - GBARD to transnatl coop (EUR/researcher) Available 2007 2014, 2016 2015-16 A - Collab papers w/ERA per 1 000 researchers Available 2007 2016 2015 A - Public-to-public partnerships (EUR/researcher) Available 2016 2015 B - Roadmap for ESFRI projects

Priority 2 Priority B - Participation in ESFRI projects and landmarks (combined) Available B - Participation in developing ESFRI projects Available B - Participation in operational ESFRI landmarks Available EURAXESS job ads per 1 000 researchers Available 2016 2015 Open, transparent, merit-based hiring process Available

Priority 3 Priority Share of doctoral students from EU countries Available Share of women among Grade A in HES Available Gender dimension in research content Available

Priority 4 Priority Share of female PhD graduates Available A - Firms coop with univ, gov, res inst Available A - Firms coop with univ Available A - Firms coop with gov, res inst Available 2012 A - Share of public R&D funded privately Available 2007 2015 A - Public-private collab papers per capita Available

Priority 5 Priority B - Share of papers in Open Access (Total) Available B - Share of papers in Open Access (Gold) Available B - Share of papers in Open Access (Green) Available B - Share life science papers with OA dataset(s) Available Collab papers w/non-ERA per 1 000 researchers Available 2007 2016 2015 Share of doctoral students from outside EU Available Share med & high tech product export Available Priority 6 Priority Share Knowledge intensive service export Available

9

Country profile: Denmark

ANNEX: GUIDE TO READING THE QUANTITATIVE RESULTS TABLES (COUNTRY SNAPSHOTS)

Each profile table shows the given country’s performance score and growth for all indicators used in this study. Given that specific targets were not established for each of the 24 ERA Monitoring Mechanism (EMM) indicators for each country, it is impossible to report on a country’s level of compliance in achieving the ERA priorities, or the ERA policies/actions, that each of these indicators intends to measure.2 Instead, the level of performance in the country snapshots is compared to the EU-28 (lead/gap analysis) and ERA averages (performance clusters). These references might represent unrealistic targets for some countries, especially the smaller ones. However, care was taken to use normalised indicators (except for Priority 2b), usually by incorporating the size of a country’s population or economy in the denominator of an indicator. Additionally, the EU-28 and ERA averages might in some cases be lower than the level of performance which would be optimal towards achieving the ERA; for instance, gender equality might not have been reached in all relevant aspects at the EU- and/or ERA-wide level. That said, the main goal of these comparative analyses is to help situate countries relative to the core of the EU and ERA, so as to inform decisions on the most appropriate targets and on how to achieve them. Growth since the last monitoring exercise is also compared to the EU-28 (lead/gap analysis) to inform individual countries on the extent to which their gap with the EU-28 level of performance is closing or widening to better assess the extent to which new actions are required to achieve their respective targets.

The profile table is divided in two parts: performance and growth. For performance, the reference year for each indicator is noted. If the reported year for a given country and indicator is different from the reference year, the performance score in the snapshot is highlighted using a grey font in italics. The specific year which is reported appears in the column “exception to ref. year” of the appendix table at the end of the country profile. The appendix table also lists the years for which a flag is applied to the data. The performance section of the snapshot table also provides the EU-28 scores across indicators upon which the country lead/gap, in percent difference to the EU-28 score, is computed. Furthermore, the performance clusters from the main report have also been presented here; recall that countries more than one standard deviation above the unweighted ERA average (i.e. average across member states and associated countries for which data is available for each indicator) are in Cluster 1, the strongest cluster; those at or above the unweighted ERA average but within one standard deviation are in Cluster 2; those below the unweighted average but within one standard deviation are in Cluster 3; those more than one standard deviation below the ERA unweighted average are in Cluster 4, the weakest cluster.

For growth, the reference period used in computing the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is also presented where data availability permits, alongside the actual CAGR. Again, exceptions to the reference period are highlighted by using a grey font in italics to display the actual CAGRs of the corresponding country and EU-28. Information on the specific years used in these cases are again available in the appendix tables. The lead/gap analysis for growth shows the percentage point difference between the country’s CAGR and the CAGR of the EU–28 average. The CAGR measures growth relative to the latest available year in the 2016 ERA Progress Report. Since there were retrospective corrections to the scores of countries on some indicators, growth was computed based on the updated time series. Trend lines over the longest available period for a given indicator are provided to inform on longer-term patterns of progress towards realising the ERA. Empty lines in the trend indicate either that data was missing for that year, or that the country’s score was zero. For one indicator where short-term fluctuations were particularly pronounced, rolling averages (e.g. average scores across 2007–2010, 2008–2011… 2014–2017) have been used to measure performance and growth. In such cases, the CAGR measures the year-by-year percent change in the rolling average of an indicator between the starting and ending periods (e.g. between 2011–2014 and 2014–2017). These cases are highlighted by the addition of the superscript (R) to the reference year (performance) and period (growth) of the concerned indicators.

The lead/gap analyses, both for performance and for growth, have been colour-coded to help visually elucidate patterns in the findings. The colour scheme for the country profiles ranges from dark blue (weakest scores) to dark orange (strongest scores), as was applied in the main report.

2 A more in-depth assessment of progress of implementation of ERA policies was rather achieved in the text of country profiles (not the snapshot tables) accounting for quantitative (where available) and qualitative (especially) elements in relation to the objectives, baselines, targets, timelines and milestones established by individual countries in their National Action Plans (NAP).

10

Country profile: Denmark

There is however, a key difference to note. In the main report, the colouring compared the results of different countries along a single indicator, in these country profile tables the colouring compares the results of one country along several indicators, to highlight its relative strengths and weaknesses. More specifically, in each profile, blue always indicates that a country is below the EU–28 average, and orange always indicates that it is above, but the shade of blue and orange (dark or light) is relative to the country’s own performance across indicators, rather than relative to the performance of other countries.

Indicators in bold are the Headline indicators that were selected as being the most relevant in monitoring progress in achieving the ERA by the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC). Within each priority, the Headline is followed by the two complementary EMM indicators identified by ERAC. Lack of data is identified by using a symbol (:) within the table cells.

11

Country profile: Denmark

12

How to obtain EU publications

Free publications: • one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

KI - 02 -

19 - 109 - EN - N

The 2018 ERA Progress Report assesses the current state of the European Research Area (ERA) and the progress made on ERA implementation in 2016-2018. It is the second time in a row that progress has been measured at country level using the ERA monitoring mechanism.

Based on the overall evolution of the headline indicators, progress on ERA implementation continues, albeit at a slower pace than before. This trend calls for a renewed commitment to (i) further strengthening shared efforts at all levels; (ii) reforming national research and innovation systems; and (iii) realising a well- functioning ERA. The Commission has anticipated this need by proposing a number of programmes for the next financing period 2021-2027: these include regional funds, a European reform delivery tool, and the EU’s next research and innovation framework programme — Horizon Europe, which includes a dedicated pillar to help strengthen the ERA.

Research & Innovation policy

ISBN 978-92-79-99765-5 doi:10.2777/022506