Poslovno vođstvo o razvoju ljudskog kapitala
EREF 09, Nova Gorica
Naši predstavnici učestvovali su na konferenciji u Novoj Gorici na temu razvoja ljudskog kapitala i migracija. Obe teme su ključne za naš rad, i bili smo veoma zadovoljni organizacijom i radom konferencije. Učestvovali smo u definisanju zaključaka i teme za narednu EREF konferenciju 2010.
8-9 June, Nova Gorica, Slovenia
Developing Human Capital and Managing Migration for more Competitive European Regions
The Forum brought together over 200 representatives from 28 countries covering economic, research, innovation and education spheres, as well as local and regional actors from EU regions and countries, including regions from South-Eastern Europe.
Prior to the Forum, four EREF Workshops were held across Europe as well as in Canada – in Ankara, Graz, Ottawa and Gorizia. Participants discussed draft–Recommendations from the following domains:
Role of Hosting Institutions in Researcher Exchange Programmes – co-organised by TURBO & TUBITAK
E-learning in Small Medium-sized Enterprises – co-organised by ICS
Brain Migration, Knowledge Spillovers and the Ethics of Public Private Partnerships – co-organised by the University of Ottawa, the University of Saskatchewan, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Linking Brains and Business in Diaspora – co-organised by ISIG, University of Trieste
As Secretariat of EREF, SBRA has compiled for the four workshops the following documents:
Analytical Compendia (500 documents reviewed, quotes selected from 121 document)
draft-Recommendations (70 recommendations; 35 concerning EU/international institutions, 55 national/regional authorities, and 51 individuals/stakeholders)
Preparations for the next event, EREF-2010 have already begun, with the proposed title “Competencies and Values for Sustainable and Knowledge-based Competitiveness: A New Agenda for European Regions”. The Forum will be held in Nova Gorica on 7-8 June 2010.
EREF-2009 Preparatory Workshop Recommendations
Role of Hosting Institutions in Researcher Exchange Programmes, Ankara, 12 February 2009
|Text of Recommendation||EU||Country/
|1||While EU, national/regional bodies have to create suitable conditions, institutes and universities should treat exchange and other non-national researchers as integral part of their normal, proactive recruiting policy for mobile researchers. It should be a target to have at all times some 10 % of total research staff belonging to non-resident citizens (EU currently only 5.7%). In order to achieve this proportion, special conditions should be introduced. In this context JRCs enlargement and integration action plan should be taken into account as a best practice.||X||X||X|
|2||At the level of individual researcher it should be a target to spend at least 10% of the career in a different country or sector. Such career pattern should be considered by employing organizations as an added value in considering employment.||X|
|3||Each European RTD organization should develop its own researcher mobility strategy – outlining the scope of needs to bring in external researchers, as well as allowing its own researchers to spend some time in other relevant academic or business RTD facilities.||X|
|4||In order to stop European brain drain RTD organizations, with support of relevant authorities and stakeholders should create conditions which will reduce or eliminate main causes for researchers emigration. (working conditions, equipment, salary, entrepreneurship combined with inventions, career perspectives)||X||X|
|5||Mobile researchers have a multiple role: besides doing the assigned job, they are the ambassadors of their institution and country in the new environment. They should be fully aware of their important role in transferring knowledge and experience between their own and the hosting institution, and to explore in detail the potential for collaboration between the two. During their stay abroad they have to develop solid networks which will continue to serve the two institutions for a long time after their return to the home country.||X|
|6||Countries and regions having recently suffered heavy brain drain and destruction deserve special attention and support (measures of positive discrimination) to be able to participate more actively in ERA and in European research mobility||X||X||X|
|7||“The Fifth Freedom” is a logical dimension of the European integration process, it greatly facilitates the creation of knowledge society, and it brings benefits at macro as well as the micro level. It also represents a basic right of professionals generating and transferring knowledge within the European Knowledge Market. Legislators, other decision makers and research funders at all levels should actively develop conditions needed for the full implementation of the Fifth Freedom.||X||X||X|
|8||In order to foster free movement of knowledge via researchers’ mobility, mutual learning platforms among national level R&D HRM groups should be established, acting as Joint discussion platform of legislators, other stakeholders and research funders (including host institutions: universities, enterprises, research organizations, public institutions etc).||X||X||X|
|9||Brain circulation – a strategically important instrument for strengthening ERA and knowledge-based competitiveness – should figure more prominently among real priorities at all levels, from knowledge sector organizations, to regional and national authorities, as well as in EU institutions||X||X||X|
|10||The entire European legal system, as well as strong tradition inhibits RTD staff to migrate between academia, business and government. Such a system of job inflexibility works against creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship; and prevents full exploitation of talents, knowledge and initiative. Overcoming these historical limitations is in everybody’s interest, and should be systematically and actively encouraged. Specific challenges of women researchers, young and elderly researchers should be more properly addressed in order to prevent age and gender discrimination.||X||X||X|
|11||Researcher mobility can be divided into the following 3 categories: (a) short term exchanges based on European/International programmes; (b) employment of non-national researchers; and (c) intersectoral mobility (between academia, business and administration). Besides some general conditions, each category of mobility requires some measures to be well coordinated at and among the EU, national and regional levels. In this respect OMC-Net Calls for Proposals targeting the challenges which arise from the different categories of researchers’ mobility should be encouraged.||X||X||X|
|12||The mobility programmes Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus and Grundwick should be exploited fully to achieve best possible results in brain circulation in Europe.||X||X||X|
|13||DG Research and DG Education should organize joint meetings with the participation of national delegations, on the issues of better coordination of programs targeting the mobility of researchers.||X||X|
|14||The European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for their Recruitment (C&C) has so far been accepted by about 800 institutions in 23 EU countries. National and regional research authorities and research associations should enhance the understanding and the promotion of the principles of C&C and encourage more RTD institutions to accept these important documents.||X||X|
|15||EURAXESS Network – previously The European Researcher’s Mobility Portal (RMP) established in 2003 with 31 national mobility portals – and the EURAXESS Service Centers with about 200 service centres in 32 countries – are very valuable instruments to remove the barriers to the mobility of researchers and to attract research talent to Europe. This initiative should be promoted at all levels by EC and national bodies.||X||X||X|
|16||The implementation of the policies and transposition of relevant EU legislation for removing the challenges regarding work permit procedures, pension rights, visa procedures, transportability of grants and social security should be given higher priority and enforced accordingly.||X||X|
|17||While building the ERA the global perspective of RTD should not be diminished: Europe should strive more ambitiously to maintain/achieve world leadership in key scientific and technological domains. In this framework the EURAXESS Links initiatives in US, Japan, and China should be promoted and actively used by national and regional authorities, stakeholders and EU.||X||X|
|18||The new Marie-Curie International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES) of FP7 serves the similar purpose in the context of European Neighbourhood policy countries and third countries having an S&T agreement with EU. Research entities should make their efforts to use this facility in the best possible way. Moreover, there should be cooperation between People Specific Programme and INCO Area.||X||X|
|19||The EC Communication of May 2008 on “Better Careers and More Mobility: A European Partnership for Researchers” is a good policy platform requiring full involvement of relevant authorities and stakeholders in developing good national action plans in line with the “jubljana ERA Process”.||X||X|
|20||European networks, technology platforms, competence centres, project consortia, and similar associations of RTD entities create favorable conditions for various types of researcher mobility. They should be encouraged to actively support it, and their business and academic partners, as well as funding institutions should also support their contribution towards greater researcher mobility in Europe.||X||X||X|
|21||The recently established European Institute for Innovation and Technology should play an important role in encouraging researcher mobility, particularly in supporting European clusters in advanced S&T areas, where Europe has achieved or has the potential to achieve world leadership.||X||X|
|22||Hosting institutions have three main challenges in attracting research talent: research infrastructure, remuneration and benefits. In order to overcome infrastructural obstacles, DG Regio, Enlargement and Research should organize joint meetings with the participation of national delegates.Cooperation of DGs and member states should support and transpose solutions proposed by the Commission.||X|
|23||Research organizations from both public and private sector should encourage their research staff to communicate as intensively as possible with peers and their colleagues around Europe and beyond to benchmark their own achievements and enjoy the benefits of virtual mobility.||X||X|
|24||EC should support potential hosting institutions in Europe via specific calls for proposals for the exchange of best practices, and collection of experiences .||X|
|25||EC should make publications on the best practices of hosting institutions in order to enhance institutions’ capacity to attract talented researchers.||X|
|26||EC should elaborate the methodology for measuring the effects and impact of research policies, research strategies and corresponding instruments targeting to attract talented researchers to European hosting institutions.||X|
|27||ERA should be used not only for achieving balanced brain circulation, but should also target brain gain by making Europe an attractive destination for world researchers.||X||X||X|
E-learning for Small and Medium Enterprises, Graz, 24 April 2009
|Text of Recommendation||EU||Country/
|1||Knowledge-based competitiveness can be achieved only in societies embracing creativity, knowledge and innovation culture within which lifelong learning is accepted as a leading principle of companies and individuals (benefiting from e-learning experiences at early age). In this context – and to the extent of having absorbed information and communication technologies – e-learning is accepted by everyone, including SMEs, as a new mode of learning and a useful instrument of competence building.
Achieving Lisbon Agenda’s knowledge society targets requires policy makers at all levels to create a truly holistic and consistent support environment and effective incentives to encourage individuals and companies to translate and operationalise values and policies of knowledge society into priorities in their everyday activities.
|2||Learning should be integrated in knowledge management, knowledge sharing and change management, and e-learning introduced as part of a larger blend that includes the informal as well as the formal learning.||X||X||X|
|3||Human capital development and competence building hardly receives needed attention in SMEs, however it is crucial to the same extent if not even more than for large companies (with HR departments and systematic training activities) to realise that HR development represents the key to innovative capacity of the company.
In order to be able to benefit fully from e-learning SMEs should develop (possibly using also external expertise), adopt and consistently implement their HR strategies in which skills and knowledge needs have been properly assessed in the context of company’s business strategy. Being sufficiently flexible to reflect constant changes on the market the company’s HR strategy and its implementation instruments should motivate all employees to plan their education and training, including e-learning activities. HR development is to be treated as part of company’s overall strategy (product development, market positioning, innovation). Training expenses should be considered an investment and not a mere cost.
SME managers would benefit from specialist training on HR management, including the potential benefits and limitations of e-learning.
|4||In most parts of society, including SMEs, e-learning is still relatively unknown. Therefore authorities at all levels, and e-learning providers in particular, should intensify awareness building and promotional activities, emphasising practical advantages and benefits of e-learning. Online information systems about e-learning, such as elearningeuropa.info and European Training Village (CEDEFOP) should be more systematically promoted specially by national and regional authorities and SME associations.||X||X||X|
|5||The content of e-learning, if translated, is not strongly “national” (except in administrative or fiscal matters) but is “single market” sized. Therefore a “one stop shop” or single window, presented as an SME dedicated portal would be the most appropriate vehicle to increase awareness and disseminate information on e-learning possibilities to all internet connected SMEs.||X||X|
|6||The European Commission should support and encourage language learning for SMEs, and better promote the existing portals, such as: alte.org; portalelingue.europa.eu; besides ICT skills, mastering foreign languages – particularly English – gives learners access to broader selection of suitable e-learning programmes.||X||X||X|
Role of national, regional and local actors should be strengthened particularly in:
|8||The professional e-learning providers should develop and offer innovative and interactive, needs-specific solutions to SMEs. They should customise their products at a reasonable cost, and accept that their learning offer is part of a larger mix, including blended learning (combining e-learning with face-to-face teaching). In order to exploit the full potential of e-learning, course contents should be adapted accordingly and focused on the learner.||X|
|9||Large companies could be encouraged to “coach” SMEs (following successful examples in aeronautics and defence). They could encourage the creation of bundles of SMEs and provide them with flexible resources in their environment. This function can be performed also by chambers, clusters, support agencies, and other business associations.||X|
|10||National and regional authorities should provide the physical and tutorial access for e-learning in SMEs, stimulate awareness and organise or finance the implementation through the provision of “e-learning points”. These points – possibly organised as PPP -could be similar to business centres, where individuals benefit from common infrastructure and services (training programmes, online tests and certifications).||X|
|11||National and European wide support should refer primarily to policy framework and support, through a one-stop-shop portal (no FaceBook like portal, no content – only basic info, links and “good practice examples” with some web 2.0 features like Instant Messaging, User generated content, Micro learning, mobile learning, communities etc.) . Regarding contents evaluation: more systematic rating / feedback-system from users would be necessary.||X||X|
|12||Open Knowledge Communities, facilitating the use of common infrastructure, the development of common content but also of common interests and strategies, should be encouraged and supported.||X||X||X|
|13||Perhaps even more than with classical education, quality assurance presents an important issue for learners, but a system of accreditation at the global level does not seem to be feasible. The best guarantee for quality of e-learning programmes is certification of teachers involved, including mentors.||X||X|
|14||Being commercially less interesting to e-learning providers than large companies, SMEs do not receive suitable offers for e-learning services. A solution could be found in active participation of providers in parenthoods between SMEs and large companies or/and regional bodies that approach SMEs in a more comprehensive way, in which learning needs are linked to business needs, familiarity with the training market and funding possibilities, etc. E-learning providers could also operate as part of a larger franchised network.||X|
|15||SMEs should systematically use the work environment and its e-tools and e-resources as a source for informal learning, by recognising its importance during job evaluation and eventual resulting promotion. They should customise the e-resources and associated services to fit better the formal and informal training, as well as knowledge sharing and management. SMEs should also monitor and evaluate more systematically all learning processes in the company including benchmarking.||X|
|16||E-learning providers should help SME owners to better understand how learning can help their organisations and where e-learning is the most appropriate solution for competency-based training; provide access to practical management information on e-learning, the required investments and the expected return; provide an easy access to free e-learning content by installing a one-stop shop for learning, and setting up networks and communities to reduce its cost; work closely with SMEs, in their own culture and language, offer them coaching services for the definition of their e-learning needs and the solutions available.||X|
|17||If better e-learning solutions are to be found specific groups of SMEs with similar skills needed have to be identified. This is necessary as it is too expensive to develop single solutions for individual categories of SMEs. E-learning solutions in modular systems could then be easily adopted to different needs of groups of SMEs and could be upgraded or downsized according to the immediate learning needs of the individual company.||X|
|18||More emphasis should be placed on the establishment of staff exchange plans for coaching/tutoring work forces, transnational curriculum development and pan-European thematic networks based on international eLearning and eUniversity models providing proof of concepts and best practice guidelines. Content and curricula localisation efforts should be fostered together with the international migration and certification of online learning credits (eCredits).||X||X||X|
|19||Vast majority of teachers need specific ICT-skills with a strong focus on pedagogical implications to be able to use ICT more optimally in e-learning situations. Specific ICT training for teachers is required to equip them for quality e-teaching.||X|
|20||The EU and its Member States must invest more in educating and training all citizens to use ICT (ICT literacy or basic skills for life plus specific/professional ICT training). Training actions could be backed up by the Lifelong Learning Programme and its implementation into Lifelong Learning Strategies by the Member States.||X||X|
Brain Migration, Knowledge Spillovers, and the Ethics of Public-Private Partnerships, Ottawa, 7 May 2009
|Text of Recommendation||EU||Country/
|1||International migrations have a long history, but since the 1990s receive more systematic attention by various international bodies, policy makers and other actors: from UNO, IOM, ILO, OECD, EU, G20, to national/regional governments, agencies and specialized NGOs.
However, even countries/regions with clear strategies and consistent – though mostly immigration – policies very often and probably for wrong reasons treat these issues as particularly delicate, semi-confidential, thereby failing to meet contemporary transparency standards. This has a negative impact on public perception of immigration. Although we now understand the migration phenomenon better than ever, more should be done for adequate and more complete statistics on migration flows and their publication.
|2||Some, mostly right-wing politicians – guided by short term electoral gains from populist ideologies and political demagogy – contribute to unfavourable public perception of immigration in many developed countries, making it more difficult (however, even more important) for the governments and responsible political parties to present these issues publicly in a balanced and objective way. Full mobilisation of developed countries’ economic potential requires substantial immigration flows to compensate for their demographic gap experienced already for decades. Although most migrations occur among OECD countries, the developing world remains a major source of future migrants. Actually, immigration represents a conditio sine qua non for further economic growth of developed countries. Normally, economic emigration is experienced only by countries which are comparatively less developed than the countries of reception.
Due to its sensitivities the migration debate would benefit from more factual data on cost/benefit of migration in order to help all involved perceiving migration as an integral part of development policy (with implications for education, employment, taxation, social security and medical services), and reduce the possibilities of counter productive political abuses at the national, regional and local level.
|3||Government, political parties, trade unions and specialized NGOs in host countries should initiate, support and undertake more systematic awareness building about the nature and benefits of migration – including proper introduction of this topic into the curricula for primary and secondary schools – through which perception of migrants should be developed in a more positive multicultural context, recognizing them as contributors to economic growth and welfare, more innovation and international business links.||X||X|
|4||Since the 1960s flows of migration are consistently growing in all parts of the world, most intensely among advanced economies, members of OECD. Due to lack of long term policy instruments on both sides in sending countries, as well as in recipient countries, and very limited influence of multilateral and regional/international regulations, migration flows are often not responding optimally to the actual labour market needs and possibilities in various parts of the world, creating new structural problems instead of solving existing and emerging ones. Strategies based on demographic projections and labour market needs in recipient countries/regions, as well as matching estimates of relative labour surpluses in sending countries/regions, should be translated into effective emigration/immigration policies.||X||X|
|5||Migration of highly skilled personnel has become an increasingly important segment of migration flows (representing even 20% among migrants in the developed countries). In times of globalisation, intense international technology transfers, globalisation of education, innovation, investment and trade, migration of highly skilled personnel is to be regarded as a sign of increased mobility of human capital and “Fifth Freedom” (EU). In order to secure a balanced, globally sustainable brain circulation, countries and regions should make better efforts for their education systems to prepare young people to deal with challenges in their own country, welcoming visiting foreign experts and encouraging migrants to return and being welcome and appreciated for the new knowledge, contacts and ideas, benefiting their country of origin.||X|
|6||During centuries Europe has been sending its human capital to various parts of the world and in spite of some reverse flows, it remains affected by strong brain drain, which contributes to its weakened global competitive position. In order to improve its knowledge-based competitiveness it needs to embrace and develop a culture of innovation and knowledge society, including a well balanced brain circulation.
In order to be more successful in global competition for talent Europe has to become more attractive to international highly skilled personnel and researchers, and develop for them competitive conditions (entry regime, job access, tax treatment, social security, mobility inside EU, and conditions of repatriation). The introduction of the EU’s Blue Card (inspired by the success of the Green Card) is the step in the right direction but does not go far enough, particularly since it does not give access to the entire EU labour market.
This cannot happen without a higher degree of harmonization of immigration policies and regimes at EU level. Good practice in certain measures and policies, e.g. point systems, within EU member states, as well as from most successful immigration countries, such as Canada, US, and Australia – should be shared, adjusted and implemented effectively.
|7||Migration from poor to rich countries in present volumes contributes to harmful brain drain of the former and creates unsustainable global imbalances. Percentage of highly skilled migrants leaving developing countries is rising with their level of education: about 5% with secondary education, about 10% with tertiary education, and even 30-50% of researchers and engineers. Though this pattern cannot be attributed only to immigration policy of recipient countries – systematic favouring and sometimes encouraging highly educated migrants from these countries undoubtedly contributes to developing countries’ brain drain. It is in the strategic interest of rich countries to help prevent the imbalanced international migrations by certain measures leading to sustainable brain circulation (with measures such as: allowing only temporary work visas, providing tax incentives for returning migrants, obliging students to return to their home country / presently in US about 25% take residence/, and others). Such responsible approach would secure a more optimal use of the available human resources of developing countries, support their development and contribute to sustainable global development.||X||X|
|8||Remittances alone (according to World Bank about 80 bn.USD in 2002) cannot compensate the loss of human capital suffered by poorer countries. However, the developed countries do not accept even the modest proposal to compensate sending countries education expenses by 5-10% of the first year earnings of respective migrants.
A global Code should be negotiated to secure a just and fair compensation system, and provide assistance to developing countries in investing those resources into adequate reforms of education, taxation and employment policies, since brain circulation can be achieved only if both sides of migration flows undertake necessary measures and implement them effectively.
|9||It is necessary to establish and maintain a closer link between migration policies and development policies through adequate measures of development assistance.
An example of such an instrument is the idea of an “education fund”, through which companies wanting to recruit skilled workers to fill particular skills profiles should be asked to pay a “recruitment tax”. The money thus collected could be reinvested in the education of young professionals in developing countries. Such a fund could be created on a regional level (e.g. EU) or on an international level (UN).
Linking Brains & Business in Diaspora, Gorizia, 7 June 2009
|Text of Recommendation||EU||Country/
|1||Shown by numerous studies – including those of IBRD, OECD, IMO and ILO – authorities and NGOs in emigration countries are trying to establish or strengthen well organised communication systems with their migrants, particularly with successful business people and influential intellectuals. Many of these efforts remain modestly successful and fall short of targeted objectives. Government policies and their implementation mechanisms remain highly diversified and little is known about the success stories. Many politicians perceive migrants’ readiness to cooperate with their country of origin primarily due to their “patriotic sentiment”. Productive contacts will depend on possibilities for migrants to maximise their interests through interaction with the old country, which has to create conditions under which benefits of both sides will be served equally. This communication and cooperation among equal partners should be interest driven (positioned in the interest framework).||X||X|
General objectives of policies directed at migrants abroad should be the following:
Governments of countries of origin should promote greater diaspora involvement in;
|4||Business community can be an important bridge between the country of origin and the new country, as its members maintain personal links on both sides and actively participate in friendship clubs, business associations, chambers, etc. Expatriate businessmen can be important investors – bringing funds, innovative technologies and opening new markets to their old country, but their origin should not be “penalised” by inferior treatment compared to other foreign investors.||X||X|
|5||Remittances often represent an important source of finance for countries of migrants origin and respective authorities should create conditions to facilitate easy and simple transfers of funds. Authorities and financial institutions should develop effective incentives to increase inflow of remittances into countries of origin, such as bonds for expatriates, tax breaks, special savings accounts and reduced transaction costs, etc.||X||X|
|6||The modern global knowledge society is characterised by a multitude of knowledge networks operating at regional, national and international levels with migrant intellectuals being part of these networks. Information technology, including broadband internet provides unprecedented communication possibilities including easier and richer interaction with knowledge networks, colleagues and peers in their countries of origin. This facilitated the creation of a number of migrant knowledge networks connecting diaspora from various parts of the world originating from the same country or region. These e-networks deserve stronger support by respective authorities and have proven to be effective tools of professional communication benefiting countries of emigration.||X||X|
|7||Migrant associations play an important role in maintaining migrants interested in their country of origin, they should receive more support, including finance, without political interference, and their communication with institutions in the country of origin should not be burdened with party politics. Origin country should develop and maintain a database with all contact data of significant migrants organisations and community leaders.||X||X|
|8||Countries of origin should encourage the formation of diaspora networks by helping highly skilled migrants stay in touch among themselves and the home country, and by creating individual and corporate incentives for their re-engagement with the domestic economy. Domestic economy will become more interesting to potential investors if education programmes will answer the actual needs of the local market.||X||X|
|9||Economic links and collaboration among skilled personnel between countries of emigration and immigration could be supported also by engaging advisors/consultants from the latter in the former countries’ development projects.||X||X|
|10||An important mechanism of involving migrant academics in universities of countries of origin could be so-called “migrant faculties” involving visiting professors from diaspora who could complement local faculty members. Exchange of academics in this context should receive dedicated support also through European mobility programmes.||X||X||X|
|11||Mass media in countries of emigration should report more systematically on distinguished migrants and their active organisations – contributing thereby to better awareness and recognition of migrants’ accomplishments and facilitating various forms of cooperation.||X||X|
|12||Countries with large diaspora should establish appropriate government departments with necessary status and financial resources to be able to more systematically support programmes and activities connecting members of diaspora and their associations to the respective countries of origin. For this purpose relevant government bodies should develop and maintain an updated database with contact data of migrant organisations and community leaders.||X|
|13||Following its strategic objective to enhance European knowledge-based competitiveness, the European Union should strive to harmonise Member States diaspora policies and support their effective implementation by adopting quality and measurable targets.||X||X|
|14||In order to support better communication and productive collaboration with their diaspora, as well as to encourage return of some of its members, countries of origin should create a comprehensive and reliable information system about the conditions for reintegration (online and printed diaspora handbook).||X|