Overview© European Investment Bank, 11/ European Investment Bank, 11/2017 ... UK. Austria....

European UnionOverview

EIB INVESTMENT SURVEY

© European Investment Bank, 11/2017 print: QH-04-17-931-EN-C ISBN 978-92-861-3463-0 doi:10.2867/378822digital: QH-04-17-931-EN-N ISBN 978-92-861-3464-7 doi:10.2867/258144

www.ipsos-mori.com/

Document Name Here | Month 2017 | Version 1 | Public | Internal Use Only | Confidential | Strictly Confidential (DELETE CLASSIFICATION) 2

EIB Group Survey on Investment and Investment Finance: EU overview © European Investment Bank (EIB), 2017. All rights reserved. About the EIB Investment Survey (EIBIS) The EIB Group Survey on Investment and Investment Finance is a unique, EU-wide, annual survey of some 12 300 firms. It collects data on firm characteristics and performance, past investment activities and future plans, sources of finance, financing issues and other challenges that businesses face. Using a stratified sampling methodology, EIBIS is representative across all 28 member States of the EU, as well as for firm size classes (micro to large) and 4 main sectors. It is designed to build a panel of observations to support time series analysis, observations that can also be linked to firm balance sheet and profit and loss data. EIBIS has been developed and is managed by the Economics Department of the EIB, with support to development and implementation by Ipsos MORI. For more information see: http://www.eib.org/eibis. About this publication This EU-wide report is an overview of a series covering each of the 28 EU Member States. These are intended to provide an accessible snapshot of the data. For the purpose of these publications, data is weighted by value-added to better reflect the contribution of different firms to economic output. Contact: [email protected]. About the Economics Department of the EIB The mission of the EIB Economics Department is to provide economic analyses and studies to support the Bank in its operations and in the definition of its positioning, strategy and policy. The Department, a team of 40 economists, is headed by Debora Revoltella, Director of Economics. Main contributors to this publication Philipp-Bastian Brutscher, EIB. Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the EIB. About Ipsos Public Affairs Ipsos Public Affairs works closely with national governments, local public services and the not-for-profit sector, as well as international and supranational organizations. Its c.200 research staff in London and Brussels focus on public service and policy issues. Each has expertise in a particular part of the public sector, ensuring we have a detailed understanding of specific sectors and policy challenges. This, combined with our methodological and communications expertise, helps ensure that our research makes a difference for decision makers and communities.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/ipsosconnect

EIB Group Survey on Investment and Investment Finance 2016 Country overview: XXX

The annual EIB Group Survey on Investment and Investment Finance (EIBIS) is an EU-wide survey of some 12 300 firms that gathers information on investment activities by both SMEs and larger corporates, their financing requirements and the difficulties they face.

As the EU bank, the EIB Group responds to the need to accelerate investment to strengthen job creation and long-term competitiveness and sustainability across all 28 EU Member States.

EIBIS helps the EIB to contribute to a policy response that properly addresses the needs of businesses, promoting investment.

This EU overview presents findings based on telephone interviews with around 12 300 firms across the European Union in 2017 (carried out between April and August).

Key results

EIBIS 2017 – EU OVERVIEW

European Union

EIB Group Survey on Investment and Investment Finance 2017: EU overview

Macroeconomic context: Aggregate investment is strengthening, driven primarily by the corporate sector. However, investment spending remains below pre-crisis levels with the household sector and investments in ‘dwellings’ and ‘other buildings and structures’ lagging.

Investment outlook: More firms increased than decreased their investment activity in the last financial year. Expectations for the coming financial year improved compared with the previous wave.

Investment activity: 84% of firms invested in the last financial year. 38% of firms’ investment went into intangible assets. Three out of ten firms developed new products, processes or services in the last financial year.

Perceived investment gap: 15% of firms reported investing too little in the last three years. This is consistent with the previous wave. The share of machinery and equipment that firms consider state-of-the-art and the share of commercial building stock that is said to satisfy high or highest energy efficiency standards, have remained unchanged (45% and 39% respectively).

Investment barriers: Lack of staff with the right skills and uncertainty over the future remain the main barriers for businesses across the EU. Business and labour market regulations remain significant constraints.

External finance: Seven per cent of firms are finance constrained. This is the proportion of firms dissatisfied with the amount of finance obtained, sought finance but did not receive it, did not seek finance because they thought borrowing costs were too high or they would be turned down. Access to finance is worse in some countries and for some firms.

Firm performance: Firm productivity varies substantially across EU countries. Denmark and Sweden have the highest proportion of firms falling into the top productivity quintile (42% and 38% respectively).

1


96% 91% 91% 91% 90% 88% 88% 87% 86% 86% 85% 84% 84% 83% 83% 82% 80% 79% 79% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 68% 67% 63% 62%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Finl

and

Den

mar

k

Luxe

mbo

urg

Slov

enia

Swed

en

Belg

ium

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Net

herla

nds

UK

Aust

ria

Fran

ce

Croa

tia

Mal

ta

Ger

man

y

Irela

nd

Italy

Spai

n

Cypr

us

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Slov

akia

Hun

gary

Esto

nia

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Rom

ania

Bulg

aria

Gre

ece

84% 84% 88% 78% 78%

85% 78%

90%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU 2

016

EU 2

017

Man

ufac

turin

g

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

INVESTMENT DYNAMICS

INVESTMENT ACTIVITY IN LAST FINANCIAL YEAR

Share of firms investing (%)* Investment intensity of investing firms (EUR per employee)

*The blue bars indicate the proportion of firms who have invested in the last financial year. A firm is considered to have invested if it spent more than EUR 500 per employee on investment activities. Investment intensity is the median investment per employee of investing firms. Investment intensity is reported in 2015 values (using the Eurostat GFCF deflator).

Overall 84% of firms across the EU invested in the last financial year which is in line with the proportion investing the previous year. A higher proportion of larger businesses invested (90%) compared with SMEs (78%).

The median intensity of investment (investment per employee) was notably higher in the infrastructure sector.

At least six in ten firms invested in each country. More than nine out of ten firms in Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg and Slovenia say they invested.

INVESTMENT ACTIVITY IN LAST FINANCIAL YEAR BY COUNTRY

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses)


2

Share of firms investing (%) Investment intensity of investing firms (EUR per employee)

Inve

stm

ent i

nten

sity

In

vest

men

t int

ensi

ty

Shar

e of

firm

s

Shar

e of

firm

s


INVESTMENT DYNAMICS

EXPECTED VS REALISED INVESTMENT IN LAST FINANCIAL YEAR

Base: All firms

3

This chart compares firms' expectations for investment in 2016 with their realised investment for the same year.

Overall, firms exceeded expectations for 2016; with construction firms the most likely to exceed expectations.

Across almost all EU countries, firms performed better than expected in terms of investment activities. Firms in Malta exceeded expectations most notably.

Base: All firms

EXPECTED VS REALISED INVESTMENT IN LAST FINANCIAL YEAR

AustriaBelgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Rep

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

SpainSweden

UK

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

-15% -5% 5% 15% 25%

Firm

s tha

t inc

reas

ed /

decr

ease

d in

vest

men

t in

2016

(Net

bal

ance

)

Firms expecting in 2016 to increase / decrease investment in 2016 (Net balance)

Firm

s tha

t inc

reas

ed /

decr

ease

d in

vest

men

t in

2016

(Net

bal

ance

)

Firms expecting in 2016 to increase / decrease investment in 2016 (Net balance)

Manf

LargeSME

Cons

InfServ

EU 2017

-15%

-5%

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

-15% 5% 25% 45%


INVESTMENT DYNAMICS

INVESTMENT CYCLE

4

INVESTMENT CYCLE BY COUNTRY

INVESTMENT CYCLE

INVESTMENT CYCLE BY COUNTRY

INVESTMENT CYCLE

4

Base: All firms

Share of firms investing shows the percentage of firms with investment per employee greater than EUR 500.

For 2017, firms remain positive. EU firms tend to fall into either the ‘low investment; expanding’ or ‘high investment; expanding’ quadrant of the investment cycle.

Ireland and Romania are the only two countries with a contracting investment outlook. While in the case of Ireland this can be interpreted as a normalisation after a better than expected investment performance in 2016, in Romania, the weak investment outlook reflects a weakening overall economic situation.

Base: All firms

Share of firms investing shows the percentage of firms with investment per employee greater than EUR 500. The y-axis line crosses x-axis on the EU average for 2016.

The y-axis line crosses x-axis on the EU average for 2016.

Firm

s exp

ectin

g to

incr

ease

/dec

reas

e in

vest

men

t in

2017

(net

bal

ance

%)

Low investment expanding

Low investment contracting

High investment contracting

High investment expanding

EU 2016

EU 2017

Manufacturing

LargeSME

Cons

Infrastructure

Services

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

70% 80% 90% 100%

Firm

s exp

ectin

g to

incr

ease

/dec

reas

e in

vest

men

t in

2017

(net

bal

ance

%)

Low investment expanding

Low investment contracting

High investment contracting

High investment expandingAustria

BelgiumBulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Rep

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

PolandPortugal

Romania

SlovakiaSlovenia

Spain SwedenUK

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Share of firms investing

Share of firms investing


INVESTMENT DYNAMICS

EVOLUTION OF INVESTMENT EXPECTATIONS

Base: All firms

Manufacturing Construction Services Infrastructure SME Large

02468

101214161820

2015

2016

2017

Sector/size class expectations

EU

Realised change (%)

Expected change (%)

+

5

For the past two years, firms’ investment activities have been on an expansionary course.

For 2017, firms expect a slight deceleration in investment activities vis-à-vis realised investment in 2016. Firms are, however, more optimistic about 2017 than they were about 2016 in the previous wave.

EU

‘Realised change’ is the share of firms who invested more minus those who invested less; ‘Expected change’ is the share of firms who expect(ed) to invest more minus those who expect(ed) to invest less.

Net

bal

ance


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU 2

016

EU 2

017

Man

ufac

turin

g

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

No investment planned New products/servicesReplacement Capacity expansion


FUTURE INVESTMENT PRIORITIES

Q. Looking ahead to the next 3 years, which is your investment priority (a) replacing capacity (including existing buildings, machinery, equipment, IT) (b) expanding capacity for existing products/services (c) developing or introducing new products, processes, services?

Looking to the next 3 years, investment in replacement of buildings and equipment is the most commonly cited priority even though the proportion of firms mentioning it has dropped from 40% to 34% since the last wave.

Investment in capacity expansion and new products, processes and services increased slightly.

Across EU countries, Estonia (44%), Croatia (42%), and Slovenia (41%) record the highest shares of firms that name capacity expansion as their principal investment priority going forward.

6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Esto

nia

Croa

tia

Slov

enia

Czec

h Re

p

Hun

gary

Bulg

aria

Slov

akia

Swed

en

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Spai

n

Irela

nd

Net

herla

nds

Ger

man

y

UK

Mal

ta

Rom

ania

Aust

ria

Italy

Den

mar

k

Finl

and

Belg

ium

Cypr

us

Pola

nd

Luxe

mbo

urg

Port

ugal

Fran

ce

Gre

ece

No investment planned New products/services Replacement Capacity expansion


FUTURE INVESTMENT PRIORITIES BY COUNTRY

INVESTMENT DYNAMICS

Shar

e of

firm

s Sh

are

of fi

rms


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Luxe

mbo

urg

Net

herla

nds

UK

Den

mar

k

Swed

en

Gre

ece

Irela

nd

Italy

Belg

ium

Cypr

us

Fran

ce

Finl

and

Aust

ria

Mal

ta

Ger

man

y

Slov

akia

Spai

n

Port

ugal

Esto

nia

Latv

ia

Pola

nd

Lith

uani

a

Rom

ania

Slov

enia

Czec

h Re

p

Bulg

aria

Croa

tia

Hun

gary

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU 2

016

EU 2

017

Man

ufac

turin

g

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

Organisation/businessprocessesTraining ofemployees

Software, data,IT, website

R&D

Machinery andequipment

Land, businessbuildings andinfrastructure

INVESTMENT AREAS

INVESTMENT FOCUS

Q. In the last financial year, how much did your business invest in each of the following with the intention of maintaining or increasing your company’s future earnings?

Base: All firms who have invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

Of the six investment areas asked about, most investment in the EU is in machinery and equipment (47%), followed by buildings and infrastructure (15%) and software, data, IT and website activities (13%). Intangible assets represent 38% of firms’ investment.

The pattern is consistent with the findings in the previous wave.

Investment activities vary by sector and size of business. Service sector firms invest a much lower share in machinery and equipment (37%), compared with construction (51%), manufacturing (51%) and infrastructure (50%) firms.


Q. In the last financial year, how much did your business invest in each of the following with the intention of maintaining or increasing your company’s future earnings?

7

INVESTMENT AREAS BY COUNTRY

Land, business building and infrastructure

Software, data, IT, website

Machinery and equipment

Training of employees

R&D

Organisation / business processes

Aver

age

inve

stm

ent s

hare

Aver

age

inve

stm

ent s

hare


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU 2

016

EU 2

017

Man

ufac

turin

g

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

Capacity expansion ReplacementNew products/services Other

INVESTMENT FOCUS

Q. What proportion of total investment was for (a) replacing capacity (including existing buildings, machinery, equipment, IT) (b) expanding capacity for existing products/services (c) developing or introducing new products, processes, services?

PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN LAST FINANCIAL YEAR


Half of all investment is driven by the replacement of buildings and equipment (50%), although the proportion fell from 53% in the previous wave. Capacity expansion is the next largest driver of investment (27%) and has grown since the previous wave (25%).

The proportion of firms’ investment that is allocated to capacity expansion activities is highest in Estonia (44%), followed by Ireland, Romania, Lithuania and Croatia (all 36%).

8

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Esto

nia

Irela

nd

Rom

ania

Lith

uani

a

Croa

tia

Latv

ia

Slov

akia

Czec

h Re

p

Bulg

aria

Hun

gary

Swed

en UK

Den

mar

k

Slov

enia

Cypr

us

Net

herla

nds

Gre

ece

Belg

ium

Spai

n

Italy

Port

ugal

Finl

and

Ger

man

y

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Pola

nd

Aust

ria

Fran

ce

Capacity expansion Replacement New products/services Other


PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN LAST FINANCIAL YEAR BY COUNTRY

Aver

age

inve

stm

ent s

hare

Av

erag

e in

vest

men

t sha

re


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Finl

and

Italy

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Net

herla

nds

Mal

ta

Den

mar

k

Cypr

us

Slov

akia

Belg

ium

Croa

tia

Irela

nd UK

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Hun

gary

Rom

ania

Swed

en

Fran

ce

Spai

n

Ger

man

y

Aust

ria

Bulg

aria

Slov

enia

Gre

ece

Esto

nia

No innovation New to the firm / country New to the world

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EU 2016

EU 2017

Manufacturing

Construction

Services

Infrastructure

SME

Large

No Innovation New to the firm/ country New to the world

INNOVATION ACTIVITY

Share of firms

INNOVATION ACTIVITY BY COUNTRY

INVESTMENT FOCUS

Among all firms, over three in ten developed or introduced new products, processes or services as part of their investment activities in the last financial year. This includes 8% who report undertaking innovations that were new to the global market.

Construction firms were less likely to have innovated. Manufacturing firms were the most likely to have introduced new products, processes or services with over four in ten having done so in the last year.

Firms in Finland show the highest levels of innovation with 62% having innovated in the previous year. Almost 20% of firms in Finland report undertaking innovations that were new to the global market.

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses) Q. What proportion of total investment was for developing or introducing new products, processes, services? Q. Were the products, processes or services new to the company, new to the country, new to the global market?

9


Shar

e of

firm

s


% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

EU

Manufacturing

Construction

Services

Infrastructure

SME

Large

2017

INVESTMENT ABROAD

INVESTMENT FOCUS

Among firms that invested in the last financial year, 14% had invested in another country. This is up slightly from the previous wave (12%).

Manufacturing firms were most likely to have invested abroad (19%) and the proportion doing this increased from 17% in the previous wave. Construction firms (7%) and SMEs (6%) were least likely to have invested in another country.

Firms in Denmark (27%) were again most likely to invest abroad, consistent with the previous wave. Firms in the Netherlands (24%), Belgium (22%), Austria and Finland (both 21%) were the next most likely to do so.

2016

Q. In the last financial year, has your company invested in another country? Base: All firms who invested in the last financial year

10

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Den

mar

k

Net

herla

nds

Belg

ium

Aust

ria

Finl

and

Swed

en

Ger

man

y

Luxe

mbo

urg

Spai

n

Italy UK

Fran

ce

Irela

nd

Cypr

us

Czec

h Re

p

Gre

ece

Lith

uani

a

Port

ugal

Slov

enia

Pola

nd

Slov

akia

Croa

tia

Mal

ta

Esto

nia

Hun

gary

Latv

ia

Bulg

aria

Rom

ania

Investment abroad 2016

INVESTMENT ABROAD BY COUNTRY

Base: All firms who invested in the last financial year

Share of firms invested abroad

Shar

e of

firm

s in

vest

ed a

broa

d


Base: All firms (excluding ‘Company didn’t exist three years ago’ responses)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Lith

uani

a

Hun

gary

Cypr

us

Pola

nd

Croa

tia

Slov

enia

Bulg

aria

Irela

nd

Latv

ia

Esto

nia

Spai

n

Gre

ece

Port

ugal

Den

mar

k

Belg

ium

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Swed

en

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Rom

ania

Luxe

mbo

urg

Aust

ria

Finl

and

Net

herla

nds

Slov

akia UK

Italy

Mal

ta

Invested too much About the right amount Invested too little Don’t know/refused

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EU 2016

EU 2017

Manufacturing

Construction

Services

Infrastructure

SME

Large

Invested too much About the right amountInvested too little Don't Know/refused

PERCEIVED INVESTMENT GAP

INVESTMENT NEEDS

Almost four in five firms (79%) believe their investment over the last three years to have been about the right amount, which is consistent with the previous wave.

Manufacturing firms are marginally more likely to believe they have invested too little (18%) compared with other sectors.

Over a quarter of firms in Lithuania (31%), Hungary (29%) and Cyprus (28%) believe they have invested too little in the last three years.

Conversely, close to nine in ten firms in Italy (87%), Malta and Finland (both 86%) believe their investment was about the right amount.

Base: All firms (excluding ‘Company didn’t exist three years ago’ responses) Q. Looking back at your investment over the last 3 years, was it too much, too little, or about the right amount?

11

Share of firms

PERCEIVED INVESTMENT GAP BY COUNTRY

Shar

e of

firm

s


%

20%

40%

60%

80%

EU

Man

ufac

turin

g

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

At or above capacity

SHARE OF FIRMS AT OR ABOVE FULL CAPACITY

Base: All firms (data not shown for those operating somewhat or substantially below full capacity)

INVESTMENT NEEDS

12

Around half of EU firms (53%) report operating at or above full capacity in the last financial year, in line with the previous wave.

Infrastructure firms were most likely to be at or above capacity with six in ten (62%) reporting this. Manufacturing firms (44%) were least likely to report operating at or above capacity. The figures were consistent with the previous wave across all sectors.

Firms in Malta were most likely to be at or above capacity, with 79% saying this. The equivalent proportion was lowest in Latvia (37%).

SHARE OF FIRMS AT OR ABOVE FULL CAPACITY BY COUNTRY

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mal

ta

Esto

nia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Ger

man

y

Czec

h Re

p

Aust

ria

Den

mar

k

Port

ugal

Rom

ania

Slov

enia

Croa

tia

Bulg

aria

Irela

nd

Gre

ece

Spai

n

Swed

en UK

Belg

ium

Hun

gary

Lith

uani

a

Pola

nd

Italy

Net

herla

nds

Cypr

us

Fran

ce

Finl

and

Slov

akia

Latv

iaAt or above capacity

Base: All firms (data not shown for those operating somewhat or substantially below full capacity)

Full capacity is the maximum capacity attainable under normal conditions e.g., company’s general practices regarding the utilization of machines and equipment, overtime, work shifts, holidays etc. Q. In the last financial year, was your company operating above or at maximum capacity attainable under normal circumstances?

2016

2016

Shar

e of

firm

s

Shar

e of

firm

s


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Aust

ria

Ger

man

y

Hun

gary

Luxe

mbo

urg

Italy

Spai

n

Finl

and

Slov

enia

Irela

nd

Swed

en

Net

herla

nds

Latv

ia

Mal

ta

Esto

nia

Lith

uani

a

Belg

ium

Croa

tia

Den

mar

k

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Port

ugal

Rom

ania UK

Slov

akia

Fran

ce

Pola

nd

Bulg

aria

Share of state of the art machinery 2016

%

20%

40%

60%

80%

EU

Man

ufac

turin

g

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

Share of state of the art machinery 2016

PERCEIVED SHARE OF STATE OF THE ART MACHINERY

INVESTMENT NEEDS

13

The average share of machinery and equipment that is perceived to be state-of-the-art across EU firms is 45%. This share is in line with the previous wave. Across sector this share remains broadly consistent at just above four in ten.

Firms in Austria (63%) and Germany (61%) report a higher share of state of the art machinery. The reported share for Bulgaria is notably lower (24%), as is the share for Poland (26%).

PERCEIVED SHARE OF STATE OF THE ART MACHINERY BY COUNTRY

Base: All firms

Base: All firms

Q. What proportion, if any, of your machinery and equipment, including ICT, would you say is state-of-the-art?

Data not shown for Greece and Cyprus as these countries were outliers at the higher end of the scale ‒potentially due to different interpretation of the question.

Aver

age

shar

e

Aver

age

shar

e


%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU

Man

ufac

turin

g

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

High energy efficiency standards 2016

PERCEIVED SHARE OF BUILDING STOCK MEETING HIGH ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

INVESTMENT NEEDS

14

Firms report, on average, that 39% of their building stock satisfies high energy efficiency standards. This is consistent with the previous wave. Construction firms report a lower share relative to other sectors and this share has fallen from the previous wave.

The reported share varies substantially across individual countries. Austria (52%), Germany (also 52%) and Spain (50%) report the highest share of building stock that satisfies high efficiency standards.

Firms in Lithuania have the lowest share compared with other countries (at 16%), with France next lowest (25%).

PERCEIVED SHARE OF BUILDING STOCK MEETING HIGH ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS BY COUNTRY

Base: All firms

Base: All firms

Q. What proportion, if any, of your commercial building stock satisfies high or highest energy efficiency standards?

Data not shown for Greece and Cyprus as these countries were outliers at the higher end of the scale ‒potentially due to different interpretation of the question.

Aver

age

shar

e

Aver

age

shar

e

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Aust

ria

Ger

man

y

Spai

n

Hun

gary

Irela

nd

Croa

tia

Slov

enia

Mal

ta

Port

ugal

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Den

mar

k

Net

herla

nds

Belg

ium

Slov

akia

Bulg

aria UK

Esto

nia

Latv

ia

Czec

h Re

p

Rom

ania

Swed

en

Pola

nd

Finl

and

Fran

ce

Lith

uani

aHigh energy efficiency standards 2016


PERCEIVED PUBLIC INVESTMENT PRIORITIES Eight areas of public investment were read out to respondents who were asked which one they thought should be the priority over the next 3 years.

Professional training/higher education (24%) and transport infrastructure (23%) were the two most commonly selected priorities, followed by ICT infrastructure (12%). Both energy supply and hospitals/care were selected by 8% of firms. All other areas were selected by 5% or fewer respondents.

Relative to other sectors, infrastructure firms were more likely to see transport infrastructure as a priority (32%) whereas manufacturing firms were more likely to select professional training (33%).

Q. From your business’ perspective, if you had to prioritise one area of public investment for the next 3 years, which one would it be? Base: All firms

INVESTMENT NEEDS

15

PERCEIVED PUBLIC INVESTMENT PRIORITIES BY COUNTRY

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Luxe

mbo

urg

Pola

nd

Gre

ece

Italy

Belg

ium

Mal

ta

Net

herla

nds

Esto

nia

Rom

ania

Swed

en

Den

mar

k

UK

Finl

and

Hun

gary

Port

ugal

Croa

tia

Irela

nd

Czec

h Re

p

Fran

ce

Slov

akia

Latv

ia

Ger

man

y

Bulg

aria

Aust

ria

Cypr

us

Lith

uani

a

Childcare/schools Professional training/HE Hospitals/care

Social housing Transport infrastructure Public transport

ICT infrastructure Energy supply/distribution None/DK/Refused

Base: All firms

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EU

Manufacturing

Construction

Services

Infrastructure

SME

Large

Childcare/schools Professional training/HE

Hospitals/care Social housing

Transport infrastructure Public transport

ICT infrastructure Energy supply/distribution

None/DK/Refused

Share of firms

Shar

e of

firm

s


DRIVERS AND CONSTRAINTS

SHORT TERM INFLUENCES ON INVESTMENT

*Net balance is the share of firms expecting improvement minus the share of firms expecting a deterioration.

Base: All firms Q. Do you think that each of the following will improve, stay the same, or get worse over the next 12 months?

16

SHORT TERM INFLUENCES BY SECTOR AND SIZE (NET BALANCE)

Internal finance

Business prospects

External finance

Economic climate

Political / regulatory climate

Manufacturing

Construction

Services

Infrastructure

SME

Large -16%

21%

28%

14%

24%

-13%

-15%

-9%

-10%

22%

22%

26%

22%

36% 14%

24% 28% 14% 23%

29% 14% 23%

14% 23%

21%

-19% 23% 33% 14% 24%

Across all sizes and sector more firms are negative than positive about changes in the political and regulatory climate over the next year.

In contrast, firms are generally positive about their business prospects.

Construction firms are most likely to feel positive toward their business prospects (net improvement +36%). Service sector firms are least likely to feel positively about their business prospects (+22%). Views are broadly consistent across firm size.

Base: All firms Green bubbles denote a positive net difference between businesses expecting an improvement in the factor minus businesses expecting it to get worse. Red bubbles denote a negative net difference between these two groups.

For the next 12 months, firms are concerned about changes in the political and regulatory climate.

They remain largely positive about changes in business outlook, the overall economic climate and access to finance.

-40%-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Political and regulatoryclimate

Overall economic climate

Business prospects in thesector

Availability of external finance

Avaliability of internal finance

2017 negative net balance* 2017 positive net balance

Net balance*


0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Demand for products or services

Availability of skilled staff

Energy costs

Access to digital infrastructure

Labour market regulations

Business regulations

Adequate transport infrastructure

Availability of finance

Uncertainty about the future

EU 2017 BARRIERS TO INVESTMENT

Over seven in ten firms see the availability of skilled staff (72%) and uncertainty about the future (71%) to be the main barriers to investment.

Business regulations (63%) and labour market regulations (62%) are the next most commonly cited barriers.

Across sectors the importance of barriers varies. Energy costs are perceived to be a barrier for 62% of manufacturing firms, but this applies to a far lesser extent for construction firms (48%).

Almost all factors became more important over the last year.

Base: All firms (data not shown for those who said not an obstacle at all/don’t know/refused) Q. Thinking about your investment activities in [country name], to what extent is each of the following an obstacle? Is a major obstacle, a minor obstacle or not an obstacle at all?

DRIVERS AND CONSTRAINTS

17

BARRIERS TO INVESTMENT BY SECTOR AND SIZE

Manufacturing

Construction

Services

Infrastructure

SME

Large 47%

72%

52%

44%

63%

46%

45%

44%

46%

69%

69%

75%

55%

48% 39%

73% 56% 44% 62%

56% 42% 63%

42% 62%

62%

50% 77% 62% 43% 63%

63%

63%

64%

63%

65%

63%

46%

41%

45%

44%

40%

42%

42%

46%

46%

42%

43%

45%

72%

69%

69%

71%

71%

72%

Demand for products / services

Availability of skilled staff

Energy costs

Digital infra-structure

Labour regulations

Business regulations

Transport infra-structure

Availability of finance Uncertainty

Base: All firms (data not shown for those who said not an obstacle at all/don’t know/refused)

EU 2016

Share of firms


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fran

ce

Italy

Belg

ium

Spai

n

Luxe

mbo

urg

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Port

ugal

Ger

man

y

Croa

tia UK

Bulg

aria

Mal

ta

Pola

nd

Slov

akia

Rom

ania

Net

herla

nds

Finl

and

Lith

uani

a

Den

mar

k

Aust

ria

Irela

nd

Hun

gary

Esto

nia

Swed

en

Latv

ia

Slov

enia

Cypr

us

Gre

ece

External Internal Intra-group

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU 2

016

EU 2

017

Man

ufac

turin

g

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

External Internal Intra-group

Aver

age

finan

ce s

hare

SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FINANCE

SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FINANCE BY COUNTRY

Across the EU, firms finance the majority of their investment (62%) via internal financing.

Infrastructure firms use the highest proportion of external finance (41%), among sectors.

Firms in France, Italy and Belgium use the highest shares of external finance (making up 51%, 44% and 43% respectively of their total investment).

On the contrary, the share of finance accounted for by internal funds is highest in Greece, Cyprus and Slovenia (81%, 79% and 78% respectively).

Base: All firms who invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/refused responses) Q. What proportion of your investment was financed by each of the following?

Base: All firms who invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

INVESTMENT FINANCE

18

Aver

age

finan

ce s

hare


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mal

ta

Cypr

us

Fran

ce

Luxe

mbo

urg

Slov

enia

Gre

ece

Belg

ium

Ger

man

y

Spai

n

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Aust

ria

Croa

tia

Italy

Rom

ania

Port

ugal

Swed

en

Bulg

aria

Slov

akia

Esto

nia

Net

herla

nds

Finl

and

Irela

nd UK

Den

mar

k

Pola

nd

Lith

uani

a

Latv

ia

Hun

gary

Bank loan Other bank finance Bonds Equity Leasing Factoring Non-institutional loans* Grants Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU

201

6

EU

201

7

Man

ufac

turin

g

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

Other

Grants

Non-institutional loans*

Factoring

Leasing

Equity

Bonds

Other bank finance

Bank loan

TYPE OF EXTERNAL FINANCE USED FOR INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES

TYPE OF EXTERNAL FINANCE USED FOR INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES BY COUNTRY

Bank loans account for the highest share of external finance (56%), followed by leasing (21%). This is largely consistent with the previous wave.

Bank loans comprise a higher share of external finance for manufacturing (60%) and services (62%) firms than for other sectors. Conversely, the share of external finance accounted for by leasing is highest in construction (27%) and infrastructure (26%).

Malta (83%) and Cyprus (81%) show the largest shares of bank loans in their external financing mix across EU countries.

Base: All firms who used external finance in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/refused responses) Q. What proportion of your investment was financed by each of the following? *Loans from family, friends or business partners

Base: All firms who used external finance in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

INVESTMENT FINANCE

19

Aver

age

shar

e of

ext

erna

l fin

ance

Aver

age

shar

e of

ext

erna

l fin

ance


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Irela

nd UK

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Finl

and

Hun

gary

Den

mar

k

Ger

man

y

Swed

en

Net

herla

nds

Slov

enia

Aust

ria

Bulg

aria

Gre

ece

Latv

ia

Pola

nd

Spai

n

Port

ugal

Belg

ium

Cypr

us

Czec

h Re

p

Italy

Croa

tia

Lith

uani

a

Rom

ania

Fran

ce

Slov

akia

Esto

nia

2017

SHARE OF FIRMS HAPPY TO RELY EXCLUSIVELY ON INTERNAL SOURCES TO FINANCE INVESTMENT

Across EU firms, 16% report that their main reason for not applying for external finance was because they were happy to use internal funds / did not have a need for it.

SMEs are notably more likely to be happy to rely on internal finance than large businesses (19% compared with 12%).

Around three in ten firms in Ireland (31%) report being happy to use internal finance, the highest proportion among all countries. Firms in Estonia are least likely to report this (6%).

Base: All firms Q. What was your main reason for not applying for external finance for your investment activities? Was happy to use internal finance/didn’t need the finance (Unprompted)

INVESTMENT FINANCE

20

Base: All firms

% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

EU

Manufacturing

Construction

Services

Infrastructure

SME

Large

2017 2016

SHARE OF FIRMS HAPPY TO RELY EXCLUSIVELY ON INTERNAL SOURCES TO FINANCE INVESTMENT BY COUNTRY

2016

Share of firms happy to rely on internal finance

Shar

e of

firm

s ha

ppy

to re

ly o

n in

tern

al fi

nanc

e


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Slov

enia

Hun

gary

Pola

nd

Croa

tia

Mal

ta

Luxe

mbo

urg

Finl

and

Bulg

aria

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Esto

nia

Rom

ania

Belg

ium

Net

herla

nds

Spai

n

Den

mar

k

UK

Lith

uani

a

Port

ugal

Swed

en

Italy

Aust

ria

Ger

man

y

Irela

nd

Slov

akia

Fran

ce

Latv

ia

Gre

ece

Cypr

us

Profitable Highly profitable

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU 2

016

EU 2

017

Man

ufac

turin

g

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

Profitable Highly profitable

SHARE OF PROFITABLE FIRMS BY COUNTRY

Across the EU nearly eight in ten businesses (79%) reported having generated a profit in the last financial year. Infrastructure firms are more likely to be profitable relative to other sectors.

The highest shares of profitable firms were reported in Slovenia (90%) and Hungary, Poland and Croatia (all 87%). Malta (41%) and the UK (32%) had the highest shares of highly profitable firms, while firms in Cyprus were least likely to report a profit.

SHARE OF PROFITABLE FIRMS

Q. Taking into account all sources of income in the last financial year, did your company generate a profit or loss before tax, or did you break even? Highly profitable is defined as profits/turnover bigger than 10%

Base: All firms

INVESTMENT FINANCE

21

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses).

Shar

e of

pro

fitab

le fi

rms

Shar

e of

pro

fitab

le fi

rms


DISSATISFACTION BY SECTOR AND SIZE

DISSATISFACTION WITH EXTERNAL FINANCE RECEIVED

A small share of EU firms that used external finance are dissatisfied with the amount, cost, maturity collateral or type of finance received.

EU firms are most dissatisfied with the associated collateral (8%) and cost (6%) of securing external finance.

In general, the share of firms expressing dissatisfaction with the finance they received declined from the previous year.

0% 10% 20% 30%

Amount obtained

Cost

Length of time

Collateral

Type of finance

EU 2017 dissatisfied EU 2016 dissatisfied

SMEs are more likely than larger firms to be dissatisfied with the collateral required to secure external finance (10% versus 5%). Similarly, SMEs (8%) are twice as likely as large firms to be dissatisfied with the cost of external finance.

Construction firms generally showed higher levels of dissatisfaction compared to other firms, particularly with cost (10%) and collateral (10%).

Base: All firms who used external finance in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/refused responses)

Base: All firms who used external finance in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/refused responses) Q. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with ….?

SATISFACTION WITH FINANCE

Q. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with ….?

22

Share of dissatisfied firms

Type of finance

Length of time CollateralCost

Amount obtained

Manufacturing

Construction

Services

Infrastructure

SME

Large 3%

8%

3%

7%

4%

4%

3%

3%

5%

6%

7%

10%

3%

2% 10%

4% 3% 5% 2%

10% 3%

8% 2%

2%

4% 6% 3% 8% 1%

3%


SHARE OF FINANCE CONSTRAINED FIRMS

SHARE OF FINANCE CONSTRAINED FIRMS BY COUNTRY

Seven per cent of firms in the EU can be considered external finance constrained. This figure is in line with the proportion from the previous wave.

Firms in Greece were notably more likely to be constrained (18%) than other countries.

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses) Finance constrained firms include: those dissatisfied with the amount of finance obtained (received less), firms that sought external finance but did not receive it (rejected) and those who did not seek external finance because they thought borrowing costs would be too high (too expensive) or they would be turned down (discouraged)


23


*Financing constraints for 2016 among non-investing firms estimated

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Large

SME

Infrastructure

Services

Construction

Manufacturing

EU 2017

EU 2016

Rejected Received less Too expensive Discouraged

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Gre

ece

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Croa

tia

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Italy

Bulg

aria

Irela

nd

Hun

gary

Slov

enia

Net

herla

nds

Finl

and

Esto

nia

Czec

h Re

p

Aust

ria

Spai

n

Cypr

us

Den

mar

k

Slov

akia

Belg

ium UK

Mal

ta

Rom

ania

Fran

ce

Luxe

mbo

urg

Ger

man

y

Swed

en

Rejected Received less Too expensive Discouraged

Share of finance constrained firms

Shar

e of

fina

nce

cons

trai

ned

firm

s


Share of firms that are external finance constrained

Firm

s hap

py to

rely

exc

lusi

vely

on

inte

rnal

fund

s

AustriaBelgiumBulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus Czech Rep

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

GermanyGreece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

LuxembourgMalta

NetherlandsPoland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

SloveniaSpain

Sweden

UK

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Firm

s hap

py to

rely

exc

lusi

vely

on

inte

rnal

fund

s

Share of firms that are external finance constrained

EU 2016 EU 2017

Manuf

Large

SME

Cons

Infra

Services

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

0% 5% 10% 15%

Across the EU, more firms were happy to rely on internal finance (16%) than were financially constrained (7%).

Large businesses are both less likely to be happy relying on internal finance (12%) and less likely to be external finance constrained (6%), compared with SMEs (19% and 7% respectively).

Data derived from the financial constraint indicator and firms indicating main reason for not applying for external finance was ‘happy to use internal finance/didn’t need finance’

FINANCING CROSS


24

FINANCING CROSS BY COUNTRY

Data derived from the financial constraint indicator and firms indicating main reason for not applying for external finance was ‘happy to use internal finance/didn’t need finance’

The x and y-axis lines cross on the EU average for 2016.

The x and y-axis lines cross on the EU average for 2016.

Base: All firms

Base: All firms


PROFILE OF FIRMS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU 2

016

EU 2

017

Micro

Small

Medium

Large

In the weighted size distribution, half of firms (50%) are large firms with 250+ employees. One in five firms are medium sized (21%) and a similar proportion are small firms (20%). Just under one in ten firms are micro (9%).

The size distribution is most skewed towards large firms in the UK (58%) and Hungary (56%).

CONTRIBUTION TO VALUE ADDED BY SIZE

CONTRIBUTION TO VALUE ADDED BY COUNTRY

Base: All firms The charts reflects the relative contribution to value-added by firms belonging to a particular size class in the population of firms considered. That is, all firms with 5 or more employees active in the sectors covered by the survey. Micro: 5-9 employees; Small: 10-49; Medium: 50-249; Large: 250+.

25

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UK

Hun

gary

Ger

man

y

Pola

nd

Fran

ce

Rom

ania

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Swed

en

Slov

akia

Croa

tia

Finl

and

Aust

ria

Den

mar

k

Belg

ium

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Net

herla

nds

Bulg

aria

Italy

Port

ugal

Luxe

mbo

urg

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Cypr

us

Gre

ece

Esto

nia

Mal

ta

Irela

nd

Micro Small Medium Large

Base: All firms

Shar

e of

firm

s Sh

are

of fi

rms


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hun

gary

Czec

h Re

p

Ger

man

y

Slov

enia

Italy

Pola

nd

Aust

ria

Slov

akia

Irela

nd

Finl

and

Rom

ania

Den

mar

k

Swed

en

Belg

ium

Esto

nia

Bulg

aria

Croa

tia

Fran

ce

Port

ugal

Spai

n

Gre

ece

Lith

uani

a

Net

herla

nds

Mal

ta UK

Latv

ia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Cypr

us

Manufacturing Construction Services Infrastructure

Shar

e of

firm

s

PROFILE OF FIRMS

In the weighted sector distribution, manufacturing firms account for more than one third of value-added (36%). Firms in the infrastructure sector and services sector account for 28% and 27% respectively. Construction firms contribute 9%.

Manufacturing firms account for nearly half of value added in Hungary (49%), Czech Republic (47%), and Germany (45%).

CONTRIBUTION TO VALUE ADDED BY SECTOR

Base: All firms The charts reflects the relative contribution to value-added by firms belonging to a particular sector in the population of firms considered.

26

Base: All firms

FIRM SECTOR DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTRY

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU 2

016

EU 2

017

ManufacturingConstructionServicesInfrastructure

Shar

e of

firm

s


0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

21% orover fewer

Up to 20%fewer

No change Up to 20%more

21% orover more

EU 2016 EU 2017

PROFILE OF FIRMS

Shar

e of

firm

s Percent change in employment in last 3 years

Across the EU, more companies are expanding than contracting in employment terms. This represents an increase in proportion of firms who are expanding compared to the previous wave.

EMPLOYMENT DYNAMICS IN LAST THREE YEARS

CROSS COUNTRY PRODUCTIVITY COMPARISON

Base: All firms (excluding don’t know, refused and missing responses) Q. Thinking about the number of people employed by your company, by how much has it changed in the last 3 years?

27

Share of firms by productivity class (Total Factor Productivity). Productivity classes are defines on the basis of the entire EU sample.

0102030405060708090

100

EUD

enm

ark

Swed

enN

ethe

rland

sFi

nlan

dAu

stria

Luxe

mbo

urg

Belg

ium

Ger

man

yCy

prus

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mFr

ance

Irela

nd Italy

Mal

taSp

ain

Gre

ece

Slov

enia

Croa

tiaPo

rtuga

lEs

toni

aLa

tvia

Lith

uani

aCz

ech

Repu

blic

Slov

akia

Pola

ndH

unga

ryRo

man

iaBu

lgar

ia(wei

ghte

d) s

hare

of f

irms

Bottom EU Quintile 2nd EU Quintile 3rd EU Quintile 4th EU Quintile Top EU Quintile


MACROECONOMIC INVESTMENT CONTEXT

28

The graph shows the evolution of total Gross Fixed Capital Formation. (in real terms); against the series ‘pre-crisis trend. The data has been index to equal 100 in 2008. Source: Eurostat.

Investment Dynamics over time

Investment Dynamics by Asset Class

The graph shows the evolution of total Gross Fixed Capital Formation. (in real terms); by institutional sector. The data has been indexed to equal 100 in 2008. Source: Eurostat.

Investment Dynamics by Institutional Sector

The graph shows the evolution of total Gross Fixed Capital Formation. (in real terms); by asset class. The data has been indexed to equal 100 in 2008. Source: Eurostat.

In 2016, aggregate investment has been strengthening, driven by the corporate sector. However, it remains below the pre-crisis level.

The household sector and investments in ‘dwellings’ and ‘other buildings and structures’ continue to lag compared to 2008 investment levels.

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Corporations Financial Institutions Government Households

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

GFCF Pre-Crisis Trend (1996-2004)

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Dwellings Other buildings and structures

IPP Machinery and equipment

Other Total


EIB 2017 – COUNTRY TECHNICAL DETAILS

GLOSSARY

The final data are based on a sample, rather than the entire population of firms in the EU, so the percentage results are subject to sampling tolerances. These vary with the size of the sample and the percentage figure concerned.

SAMPLING TOLERANCES APPLICABLE TO PERCENTAGES AT OR NEAR THESE LEVELS

EU 2017 EU 2016 Manufacturing Construction Services Infrastructure SME Large EU 2017 vs EU

2016

(12338) (12483) (3547) (2649) (3086) (2989) (10346) (1993) (12338 vs 12483)

10% or 90% 1.0% 1.0% 1.7% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 0.9% 1.7% 1.4%

30% or 70% 1.5% 1.5% 2.6% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 1.3% 2.6% 2.1%

50% 1.6% 1.6% 2.9% 3.1% 3.0% 3.1% 1.5% 2.9% 2.3%

Investment A firm is considered to have invested if it spent more than EUR 500 per employee on investment activities with the intention of maintaining or increasing the company’s future earnings.

Investment cycle

Based on the expected investment in current financial year compared to last one, and the proportion of firms with a share of investment greater than EUR 500 per employee.

Productivity Total factor productivity is a measure of how efficiently a firm is converting inputs (capital and labor) into output (value-added). It is estimated by means of an industry-by-industry regression analysis (with country dummies).

Manufacturing sector Based on the NACE classification of economic activities, firms in group C (manufacturing).

Construction sector Based on the NACE classification of economic activities, firms in group F (construction).

Services sector Based on the NACE classification of economic activities, firms in group G (wholesale and retail trade) and group I (accommodation and food services activities).

Infrastructure sector Based on the NACE classification of economic activities, firms in groups D and E (utilities), group H (transportation and storage) and group J (information and communication).

SME Firms with between 5 and 249 employees.

Large firms Firms with at least 250 employees.

29


EIB 2017 – COUNTRY TECHNICAL DETAILS

Base definition and page reference EU 2

016

EU 2

017

Man

ufac

turi

ng

Cons

truc

tion

Serv

ices

Infr

astr

uctu

re

SME

Larg

e

All firms, p. 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 25, 26.

12,483 12,338 3547 2649 3086 2989 10345 1993

All firms (excluding don’t know/refused responses), p. 6, 28

12,159 12,020 3461 2591 3000 2902 10,088 1932

All firms who have invested in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/refused responses), p. 7

10,881 10,889 3196 2300 2655 2677 9019 1870

All firms (excluding ‘Company didn’t exist three years ago’ responses), p. 11 12,453 12,306 3541 2640 3077 2981 10,315 1991

Base: All firms (data not shown for those operating somewhat or substantially below full capacity), p.12

12,483 12,338 3547 2649 3086 2989 10345 1993

Base: All firms (data not shown for those who said not an obstacle at all/don’t know/refused), p. 17

12,483 12,338 3547 2649 3086 2989 10345 1993

All firms who used external finance in the last financial year (excluding don’t know/refused responses), p. 19

9093 9131 2556 2037 2218 2273 7813 1318

All firms (excluding don’t know, refused and missing responses), p. 27 12,162 11,513 3306 2469 2881 2794 9702 1811

BASE SIZES

30



twitter.com/EIB

facebook.com/EuropeanInvestmentBank

youtube.com/EIBtheEUbank

Economics DepartmentU [email protected]/economics

Information Desk3 +352 4379-220005 +352 4379-62000U [email protected]

European Investment Bank98-100, boulevard Konrad AdenauerL-2950 Luxembourg3 +352 4379-15 +352 437704www.eib.org

EIB INVESTMENT SURVEY

© European Investment Bank, 11/2017 print: QH-04-17-931-EN-C ISBN 978-92-861-3463-0 doi:10.2867/378822digital: QH-04-17-931-EN-N ISBN 978-92-861-3464-7 doi:10.2867/258144

Overview© European Investment Bank, 11/ European Investment Bank, 11/2017 ... UK. Austria....

Documents

Transcript of Overview© European Investment Bank, 11/ European Investment Bank, 11/2017 ... UK. Austria....