Skip to main content

Structures and Strategies of Chinese Companies in Key Enabling and Advanced Manufacturing Technologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation in the Asia Pacific

Abstract

While at the EU-level there are many programmes and efforts to increase the interaction and collaboration with China, policies have also been set up and (partially) implemented to keep Europe’s competitive edge over China, but also other competitors. A number of technological fields are nominated by the European Commission as an important input or precondition for Europe’s future competitiveness, among them the so called Key Enabling Technologies (KETs). This chapter examines where Chinese companies stand in terms of national and international competitiveness in these Key Enabling Technologies. A more general question is whether Europe is not taking a realistic view of its current and future position with regard to the KETs. Our empirical analysis shows that Europe’s current position in AMT seems to be good—mainly due to a high performance of Germany, but also France and the UK—while it is rather poor in KETs. Concerning the potential threat from Chinese companies, it seems that they are shortening the gap. Recently, the vast majority of patent applications, both in KETs and in AMT, at SIPO stem from Chinese applicants. The answer to the question “How does China perform?” is quite clear at the moment. It does not yet perform very well on the international stage, but the national market for technologies is mostly dominated by Chinese inventors/companies. The answer to the second research question whether Europe is daydreaming about its current and especially its future positioning in KETs and AMT is: “Most probably yes”. The good news for Europe is that it still holds strong positions in Societal Grand Challenges, which will contribute even more to jobs and growth in Europe than KETs and AMT alone. The idea that KETs and AMT not only provide direct input to this goal of growth, but also indirectly help to keep the competitive edge in the Grand Challenges, is a reasonable one.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The seventh challenge is called “Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies”, but is not analysed in this chapter as its technological foundations are rather limited so it cannot be analysed with the tools and approach applied here.

  2. 2.

    The R&D Scoreboard was provided by Commission Services in response to the Commission’s Research Investment Action Plan. See: “Investing in research: an action plan for Europe”, COM (2003) 266, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0226en02.pdf.

  3. 3.

    The R&D Scoreboard covers all R&D financed by a company’s internal funds, regardless of where the R&D is performed. BERD, on the other hand, are all R&D activities that are performed by the business sector within a country, regardless of the sources of funds. The Scoreboard uses data from audited financial accounts and reports, whereas BERD is survey based.

  4. 4.

    The registered office is the company address notified to the official company registry. It is normally the place where a company’s books are kept.

  5. 5.

    According to the latest figures reported by Eurostat, i.e. BERD financed by the business enterprise sector in 2009 compared with R&D figures in the 2010 Scoreboard.

  6. 6.

    See, for example, www.china-investiert/zoomlion; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/zoomlion; en.zoomlion.com.

  7. 7.

    The overlap of IPC classes between KETs and AMT is rather limited, but the fact that one patent on average has about 2.5 different IPC classes (4-digit level) leads to an overlap of patents. Chongoing Changan is obviously patenting many inventions that fit both definitions, so the enabling idea of AMT for KETs seems to be justified in this case.

References

  • Du Plessis, M., Van Looy, B., Song, X., & Magerman, T. (2009). Data production methods for harmonized patent indicators: Assignee sector allocation. EUROSTAT Working Paper and Studies, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2013). Innovation Union. A pocket guide on a Europe 2020 Initiative. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2010). Transnational patents and international markets. Scientometrics, 82, 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frietsch, R., & Schüller, M. (2010). Asia’s catching-up: Scientific and technological competitiveness. In R. Frietsch & M. Schüller (Eds.), Competing for global innovation leadership: Innovation systems and policies in the USA, Europe and Asia (pp. 119–142). Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gkotsis, P. (2015). The capability of the EU R&D Scoreboard companies to develop advanced manufacturing technologies—An assessment based on patent analysis (JRC Technical Report, Report EUR 27176 EN, European Commission). In J.R.C.I.f.P.T.S.J.R.C. (Ed.), Seville: IPTS.

    Google Scholar 

  • IDEA Consult, ZEW, NIW, TNO, CEA, Ecorys Fraunhofer ISI. (2015). Key enabling technologies (First annual report: European Commission, DG Growth).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS Database. Research Evaluation, 17, 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magerman, T., Grouwels, J., Song, X., & Van Loo, B. (2009). Data production methods for harmonized patent indicators: Patentee name harmonization. EUROSTAT Working Paper and Studies, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhäusler, P., Frietsch, R., Bethke, N., & Mund, C. (2015). Assessing companies capability to develop advanced manufacturing technologies in selected industrial sectors (Report to IPTS in the AMCAP project). Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2016). Main science and technology indicators. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm.

  • Peeters, B., Song, X., Callaert, J., Grouwels, J., & Van Looy, B. (2009). Harmonizing harmonized patentee names: An exploratory assessment of top patentees. EUROSTAT Working Paper and Studies, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R., Cincera, M., Frietsch, R., Rammer, C., Schubert, T., Pelle, A., et al. (2015). The impact of horizon 2020 on innovation in Europe. Intereconomics, 50, 4–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rainer Frietsch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Frietsch, R., Neuhäusler, P. (2018). Structures and Strategies of Chinese Companies in Key Enabling and Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. In: Clarke, T., Lee, K. (eds) Innovation in the Asia Pacific. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5895-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics