R&D Spending in the Energy Sector and Achieving the Goal of Climate Neutrality

Abstract

Research and development (R&D) spending in the energy sector, which is aimed at exploring ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, among other things, plays a vital role in achieving the goal of climate neutrality. The purpose of this paper is to assess the environmental performance of R&D spending in the energy sector of selected EU member states from 2011–2017/2019, and to compare the results. Taxonomic research with the zero unitarization method was used, which enabled a synthetic assessment of EU countries according to the environmental performance of the total spending in the energy sector and an analysis of the changes in performance for six categories of spending in this area. The assessment of changes in the environmental performance of individual categories of R&D spending over time using the applied method was an added value compared with the assessment methods previously used in this area. The study found that there were significant differences in the level of environmental efficiency of R&D expenditures in the energy sector between countries, changes in environmental efficiency in most of the countries studied were not satisfactory, the most environmentally efficient expenditures were on renewable energy, other power and storage, hydro and fuel cell technologies, and the least on fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The results reflected both the member states’ progress towards climate neutrality and the discussion on the environmental performance of the means and directions of actions aimed at this.

1. Introduction

Energy is the basis of all economic activity and thus the basis for the economic development of countries. According to economists, the increase in countries’ energy demand is a sign of economic development [1,2], hence the constant strive to increase its production. Most energy is obtained from conventional fossil resources, and the dependence of world economies on fossil resources is considered the most important cause of global warming [3,4]. The negative consequences of climate change make it necessary to take measures to limit its further progress. Therefore, there is a need to search for solutions to reduce this dependency, particularly in energy production based on conventional sources [5,6,7].

The Kyoto Protocol [8] and the Montreal Protocol [9] list harmful greenhouse gases of anthropogenic origin, with carbon dioxide (CO₂) indicated as the most dangerous [10,11,12,13]. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires a global energy restructuring to enable the sustainable production of energy. Innovation and technology development in the energy sector is undoubtedly crucial for the sustainable conversion of energy [14,15], in particular for:

• The development of renewable, efficient, and alternative energy sources [16,17];
• Less and more efficient use of fossil resources as an energy source [18];
• The emergence of new, competitive energy sources [19];
• Electricity production in nuclear power plants as an alternative to fossil energy sources [20,21];
• The development of energy storage technologies as an essential element in combating energy poverty, facilitating both clean energy production and access to electricity in less developed regions [22].

Nordhaus notes that neither adaptation nor geoengineering provide a satisfactory solution to the problem of global warming. The only correct long-term solution is to reduce the accumulation of greenhouse gases to achieve climate neutrality. The effectiveness of climate projects in this respect requires not only the broad participation of all countries, but also a mutual concern for the reduction of costs incurred. An effective climate program cannot have overly diversified mitigation costs across sectors and countries. Achieving the goal requires coordinated international cooperation and the effectiveness of actions taken. The imperative of international cooperation means that countries should combine joint efforts. However, practice indicates how difficult it is to develop international standards to suit everyone [23]. In this context, it was undoubtedly an international achievement to accept the commitment at COP 21, which stated that the transformation of economies towards climate neutrality by 2050 is the common global goal [24].

The European Union (EU) has long been fully committed to implementing international climate and energy agreements, including the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals. To date, it has been a leader in fulfilling these obligations [25]. The EU member states undertake various actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Research and development (R&D) expenses in the energy sector, including limiting greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO₂, are significant. Thus, the purpose of the paper is to assess the environmental performance of R&D spending in the energy sector of selected EU member states from 2011–2017/2019, and to compare the results. The double-entry of the final time limit is related to the assumption that R&D expenditures do not produce environmental effects (change in CO₂ emissions) until two years after they are incurred. The study includes only 16 countries for which complete data were available for the variables used. Additionally, the paper attempts to answer four research questions:

• Was the R&D spending environmentally performant?
• How did the environmental performance change over time?
• Are there significant differences between countries regarding the environmental performance of R&D spending?
• How do the studied EU countries differ in terms of environmental performance?

Assessment of the environmental performance of R&D spending in the energy sector is rare in the subject literature. For this paper, taxonomic research with the zero unitarization method was used. It enabled both a synthetic assessment of EU countries according to the environmental performance of the total R&D spending in the energy sector and the analysis of changes in this efficiency for six categories of expenses (energy efficiency, fossil energy, renewable, hydro, nuclear, and, other power and storage technologies R&D). A similar assessment was made by Koçak et al. [26] using the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method for selected OECD countries, but only for the total R&D spending in the energy sector. Other researchers dealt with the economic efficiency of investment outlays in this area or the effectiveness of individual technologies. The assessment of changes in the environmental performance of individual categories of R&D spending over time with the method used is an added value (of a cognitive nature) compared with the previously used assessment methods in this area. There is also an added value, but of an applicable nature, in obtaining information on the environmental performance of the six categories of R&D spending in the energy sector. They should help in making decisions about the choice of further methods and directions of actions leading to climate neutrality at various levels of management.

The remaining part of the paper is organized as follows. First there is a synthetic presentation of the EU’s commitment to achieving climate neutrality based on the Community regulations, followed by a literature review. Then there is a description of the research methodology, and a presentation of the results of two stages of the research in the 16 EU countries. In the first stage, the environmental performance of the total R&D spending in the energy sector and its changes over time are assessed using a synthetic measure. The synthetic measure index (SMI) indicates the environmental performance of the total R&D spending in the energy sector of the countries in the context of achieving climate neutrality. It does not show, however, the environmental performance of individual categories of R&D spending in the energy sector. Therefore, in the second stage of the research, separate measures are estimated to reflect this. This makes it possible to identify differences in the environmental performance of the surveyed countries and determine which types of R&D spending influence it in a negative/positive way. The results reflect the discussion on environmental performance of the member states’ progress towards climate neutrality and the directions of actions aimed at this. The paper ends with a summary containing conclusions from the analysis, answers to the questions posed, and recommendations/suggestions for further research directions.

2. Documents and Literature Review

2.1. Document Review

When examining the issues related to climate neutrality, attention should be paid to four terms that appear in the literature, i.e., climate neutral, carbon neutral, net zero emission, and zero carbon. Climate neutral is defined broadly and in relation to various entities. In the first case, it means “living in a way that produces no net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” [27]. The second meaning, as defined by the United Nations (UN), is “the whole set of policies used to estimate the known greenhouse gas emissions, measures to reduce them, and the purchase of carbon dioxide emission reduction units to ‘neutralize’ those emissions, that contribute to achieving the highest possible standards” [28].

The terms climate neutral and net zero emission can be considered synonymous. However, carbon neutral means maintaining a balance between carbon emissions and carbon absorption from the atmosphere by carbon dioxide absorbers [29]. A group of Chinese researchers, using two terms—carbon neutral and net zero carbon—explained that they refer to “the description of the state of an entity (such as company, service, product or event) in which the carbon dioxide emissions caused by it have been directly or indirectly compensated by carbon saving measures such as replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, tree planting, energy saving and reducing carbon dioxide emissions” [30].

The European Union actively participates at the international level and initiates its own actions at the Community level to mobilize and support member states in making their economies low carbon. A list of selected initiatives with their main goals is presented in

Table 1. EU initiatives to achieve low carbon emissions.

Initiative	Main Goals
Strategy Europe 2020 (2010)	- Reduce CO2 emissions by at least 20% compared with 1990 levels or, if conditions allow, even by 30%, - Increase the share of renewable energy sources (RES) in the total energy consumption to 20%, - Increase the efficiency of energy use by 20%.
Strategy Energy 2020 (2010)	- Achieve energy efficiency in Europe; - Create an integrated, truly pan-European energy market; - Empower consumers and achieve the highest level of security and confidence; - Strengthen European leadership in terms of energy technology and innovation; - Strengthen the external dimension of the EU energy market.
Clean Energy for all Europeans “Winter Package” (2015–2016)	- Increase energy efficiency; - Build a single internal energy market, decarbonization; - Increase energy safety; - Increase the innovation and competitiveness of the European energy sector; - Integrate energy and climate policies more closely, enabling the achievement of climate goals through energy policy measures; - Reduce CO2 emissions by 40% by 2030 and by 60% by 2050; - Increase the share of renewable energy sources by at least 32%, including the heating and cooling sector by 1.3 pp. annually; - Increase competition in the energy market, thus limiting the increase in energy prices for consumers in the EU.
European Green Deal (2019)	- Transform the EU into a fair and prosperous society; - Link policies to combat climate change; - Protect and restore biological diversity; - Eliminate pollution; - Transition to a circular economy; - Reduce emissions.
Long-term low-carbon development strategy (2019)	- Net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
European Council, 10–11 December 2020	- The European Council endorsed an EU binding target to reduce the EU’s net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 by at least 55% compared with the 1990 level and to achieve climate neutrality by 2050.
The ‘Fit for 55’ package (2021)	- Increase investments in zero-emission sources, i.e., wind farms, photovoltaic plants, biomethane and green hydrogen (amendment to the directive on renewable energy sources); - Increase energy efficiency (amendment to the Energy Efficiency Directive); - Reduce emissions in all sectors of the economy (including amending the regulation that sets CO2 emission standards for passenger cars and commercial vehicles, revising the Effort Sharing Regulation).

Source: own study based on EU documents.

.

During the research period, the Europe 2020 Strategy was the most important document guiding the EU’s climate and energy measures. It emphasizes the need to reduce pressure on the environment, not only through more efficient use of resources, but also through the implementation of the “3 × 20” climate and energy objective [31].

Another significant document is the Energy 2020 Strategy [32]. It highlights five key areas/priorities along with necessary actions. Within priority five (strengthening the external dimension of the EU energy market), action number three has been included—promoting the global role of the EU in the future of low carbon energy.

Meanwhile, the Clean Energy Package clearly indicates the directions and methods of transformation—with RES and energy efficiency being the priorities. This, in turn, was reflected in the EU’s economy, regional policy, and funding [33,34,35,36]. The package was an important step towards a low-carbon economy [37]. However, a review of the targets during Climate Diplomacy Week showed that the steps taken so far have been insufficient [38]. In response to the package, the European Commission presented a new European Green Deal (EGD) with more ambitious targets for reducing CO₂ emissions to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 [39,40]. The European Parliament endorsed the EU’s goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in its resolution of 14 March 2019 on climate change [29]. According to the Report of the International Energy Agency (IEA), the EGD has the potential to accelerate investments and the necessary technological progress for long-term decarbonization [41].

More than 75% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions come from energy production and use [42]. Decarbonizing of the energy system is, therefore, key to delivering the EU’s long-term strategy for climate neutrality. The Commission has set the following headline targets in this regard [43,44]:

• Building interconnected energy systems and better-integrated networks that support renewable energy sources;
• Promoting innovative technologies and modern infrastructure;
• Increasing energy efficiency and promoting eco-design;
• Decarbonization in the gas sector and promoting smart integration of all sectors;
• Empowering consumers and helping EU countries combat energy poverty;
• Promoting EU energy standards and technologies on the world stage;
• Using the full potential of Europe’s offshore wind energy.

According to the European Commission, the EU has achieved— has even exceeded —the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change [38]. It is worth noting that the total excess of annual emission limits over the period 2013–2018 (as a percentage of base year 2005 emissions) for EU 27 was 40% [45]. Comparing the data for 2011 and 2017, the largest changes in greenhouse gas emissions were recorded in Finland, Greece, UK and Italy.

The EU is still working on changing its climate, energy, and transport legislation. Hence, the “Fit for 55” package was adopted in 2021. It is a set of proposals to review and update the EU legislation that makes it possible to achieve the emissions reduction target by at least 55% [46].

The European Union’s current actions in the field of climate neutrality involve three dimensions: social, economic, and environmental. The aim is to ensure the competitiveness of the economies of the member states while taking care of the natural environment. As achieving climate neutrality is associated with reducing air pollution, the EU has adopted three legal mechanisms to achieve this: defining air quality standards for ambient concentrations of air pollutants, setting national limits on total pollutant emissions, and designing source-specific legislation. The important EU directives are:

• The Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) Directive 2008/50/EC [47]—it defines the air quality standards in the form of limits/target values for exposure to air pollutants. It provides the member states with air quality monitoring and assessment, helping to maintain good air quality and improving it where it is not, and ensuring that air quality information is made public;
• The National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive 2016/2284/EU [48]—it defines the national obligations of the member states and the EU to reduce emissions of five significant air pollutants to reduce the health and environmental impact attributable to cross-border pollution;
• Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions (IED) [49]—it aims to achieve a high level of protection of human health and the environment as a whole by reducing harmful industrial emissions throughout the EU, in particular, by better application of the best available techniques (BAT).
• Directive 2015/2193/EU on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from Medium Combustion Plants (MCP Directive)—it lays down rules for the control of emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and dust into the air from medium energy combustion plants, thus reducing emissions to the air and the potential risks to human health and the environment that result from such emissions. It also defines the principles of monitoring carbon monoxide (CO₂) emissions [50].

The COVID-19 crisis has shown the importance of a stable energy system with appropriate business continuity plans, testing the resilience of critical energy infrastructure. In addition, it has drawn attention to the susceptibility to shortages in the supply of strategic components and technologies, as well as the importance of maintaining strategic supply chains. The COVID-19 pandemic has made it necessary to consider the context of reconstruction in the field of energy and climate. Communication EU COM (2020) 564 [43] outlines how funds under the EU’s recovery and resilience package can be used to support investments and reforms identified in national plans, in particular, by investing in energy efficiency (implementing the principle of “energy efficiency first” with regard to planning energy policy and making investment decisions in the entire economy), renovating buildings, using renewable energy (the Renewable Energy Finance Facility [50]), sustainable mobility, modernizing electricity grids, and stimulating innovation in key technological areas such as renewable hydrogen and batteries.

In the above-mentioned communication, the European Commission points out that the final national energy and climate plans do not pay enough attention to research and innovation needs to be able to achieve climate and energy targets. In reality, some countries have reduced spending on R&D and innovation in clean energy technologies. In general, no significant decisions have been made about how to proceed in this area, nor have targets been set that will be funded in the future. A new strategic approach to clean energy research and competitiveness is needed to rebuild the European economy, accelerate innovation, and bring new technologies and innovations to the market for climate neutrality. The EU, national research, innovation policies, national industrial strategies and their financing, need to be better aligned with climate/energy goals. They should be implemented through national energy and climate plans.

There are several instruments to help implement climate neutrality projects that can be complemented by private funding mechanisms. The available EU instruments include the Connecting Europe Facility [51], the Cohesion Policy Funds (including additional funding through REACT-EU) [52], the Just Transition Mechanism, Invest EU [53], the Reconstruction and Resilience Facility [54], the Innovation Fund, the Modernization Fund [55], the Horizon Europe program [56], the Technical Support Facility along with the capacity building and market absorption measures under the LIFE program [57], the EU Renewable Energy Finance Facility [58], the Just Transition Fund [59], and the European Investment Bank.

2.2. Literature Review

The EU’s numerous initiatives for climate neutrality have translated into a wide selection of articles and scientific papers. The authors empirically assess the progress in implementing the strategies by analyzing:

• The extent to which the goals of the EU 2020 strategy had been achieved [60,61,62];
• The implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy goals in selected countries (e.g., [63]), a group of countries against the background of the EU (e.g., [64]), or the entire EU [65];
• The macroeconomic effects of the Europe 2020 strategy [66,67];
• Smart rural development [68];
• Institutional tools in the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy [69];
• Climate/energy goals [70,71,72,73,74,75,76];
• The applied solutions, using qualitative methods [24,25], panel methods [49], one-dimensional and multidimensional indicators specially designed for this purpose [60,61,62,69,77,78] or performance/efficiency measures, e.g., DEA [79,80].

Many authors have analyzed the energy sector in terms of achieving climate neutrality by increasing energy efficiency [81], including the use of RES [82,83], properly designed regulations, or a coherent system based on energy justice/democracy [84]. The main benefits of increasing energy efficiency include energy savings, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced air pollution, and reduced negative health and ecosystem effects, reduced pressure on resources, the creation of new jobs, energy price stability, and increased energy security [85].

As the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [86] is already underway, which includes transforming current energy structure of countries [22] and reducing CO₂ emissions, there are studies which deal with the following issues:

• The relationship between implementing the SDGs and progress in the field of RES development [87];
• Evaluating research and development projects in terms of increasing energy efficiency in Taiwan using the DEA method [88];
• Evaluating the effectiveness of investments in wind energy, photovoltaics, and fuel cells in Korea using the DEA method [89];
• Evaluating the effectiveness of R&D activities of 38 new energy companies in China [90];
• Assessing energy efficiency and CO₂ emissions in 29 Chinese provinces using the DEA method [91];
• Assessing the effectiveness of CO₂ reduction as a result of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and developing energy storage technologies in 12 European countries [92];
• The relationship between energy efficiency, energy structure, urbanization, R&D, and energy consumption in 30 provinces of China using the DEA method [93];
• Estimating the environmental performance of energy innovations in the least developed and developing regions using the DEA method [94];
• Different potential for the development of green energy in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the amount of expenditure allocated to the development of the ICT sector, which supports the integration of energy systems based on RES, with other ones [95].

Implementing the SDGs in the context of climate neutrality requires changes in the national energy sectors so that they are less of a burden to the natural environment. Therefore, innovative technological solutions are necessary. As mentioned, there are many instruments to obtain funding in the EU. However, implementing technological solutions requires extensive research and testing regarding their effectiveness and degree of environmental impact, among others. Therefore, it is necessary to spend on R&D, defined as “systematically conducted creative work, undertaken to increase knowledge, including knowledge about man, culture and society, as well as to find new applications for this knowledge” [96]. It may include basic, industrial, and developmental research. There are also papers that deal with the amount of R&D spending against a comparative background of the EU member states [97], the research and development activities carried out by enterprises [98], the level of R&D spending in large corporations [99,100], the role of the state in supporting enterprises in research and development [101], the selection of support tools [102], and the impact of public spending on R&D on economic growth and employment [103].

Based on Eurostat data, the share of government budget allocations for R&D in total general government expenditure (share government budget allocations for R&D in total general government expenditure (GBARD)) [104] in the euro area (19 countries) was 1.49% in 2011, 1.41% in 2013, 1.41% in 2017, 1.49% in 2019. Therefore, the percentage changes in this indicator were not very impressive. Accordingly, in each of the mentioned years, the following countries had the highest percentage share of R&D expenditures in total general government expenditures: 2011—Estonia (estimated 2.02%), 2013—Estonia (estimated 2.12%), 2017—Germany (2.09%), 2019—Germany (2.17%). It is worth noting the relatively high percentage of expenditure in Estonia, which did not fall below 1.5% in subsequent years. In turn, the lowest percentages were recorded respectively: 2011—Latvia (0.36%), 2013—Latvia (0.37%), 2017—Malta (0.54%), 2019—Romania (0.53%). Among countries from Central and Eastern Europe, low values in 2019 were also recorded in Bulgaria and Lithuania, whereas from Western and Southern Europe they were also recorded in Malta, Cyprus and Ireland. The differences between the highest and lowest values of the indicator of the percentage share of R&D expenditure in total general government expenditure of the surveyed countries were very large [104]. According to R&D statistics, including the size of state budgets for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) in the energy sector by expenditure category [105], in 2019, the highest total R&D budgets (2019 in million USD and PPP) in fossil fuels were recorded (according to the collected data) in France, UK and Germany, and the lowest in the Slovak Republic, Hungary and Denmark. Considering the total R&D budget in nuclear energy, in the same year, the highest positions were taken by France, UK and Germany, and the lowest by Denmark and Ireland. In contrast, the highest total R&D budgets in renewables were in Germany, France and the UK, and the lowest in Hungary; in hydrogen and fuel cells the highest R&D budget positions were in Germany, France and the UK, and the lowest in the Slovak Republic, Ireland and Sweden. The highest R&D budgets for energy efficiency were in the UK, Germany and France, the lowest in the Slovak Republic and Estonia. The discrepancies between the highest and lowest amounts spent on each R&D expenditure category are very large. Namely, the respective/least expenditure amounts for fossil fuels are 35,022 and 0 (2019 USD million and PPP); for nuclear, 1,000,408 and 0; for renewables, 333,202 and 0.014; hydrogen and fuel cells, 61,412 and 0.003; and for energy efficiency, 303,737 and 4.907. The above figures clearly show that the groups with the highest and lowest R&D budgets (fossil fuels, nuclear energy, renewables, hydrogen and fuel cells, and energy efficiency) still include the same countries. This means that some countries are still under-spending on R&D in the area studied [106]. In 2020, between OECD countries, the United States and Japan had the highest R&D spending in the energy sector in terms of purchasing power parity, followed by France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, South Korea, Italy, and Norway. Public RD&D spending on developing low-carbon technologies has risen among the IEA countries to USD 21.7 trillion. By contrast, spending on non-low-emission technologies has decreased since 2013, amounting to USD 837 million in 2020 [107].

Despite numerous attempts to assess the impact of energy innovation on reducing CO₂ emissions [22,91,92,108,109,110], extended to include the impact of aggregate inputs on the environment [17] and the environmental performance of disaggregated expenses on research and development in the field of fossil, clean, and alternative fuel technologies [111], there are still no clear conclusions. Hence, this paper assesses both the environmental performance of total R&D spending in the energy sector of the selected EU member states and individual categories.

3. Materials and Methods

The evaluation of research and development (R&D) spending in the energy sector was based on a taxonomic linear ordering method, which was based on the construction of a synthetic measure of the studied phenomenon [112].

The zero-unitarization method (also called the min–max method) used in this paper is one method of normalizing diagnostic features [113,114,115]. Diagnostic variables transformed by this method assume values in the range (0, 1). This, in turn, allows for multi-criteria evaluation of the phenomenon under study by the construction of the synthetic measure using normalized variables.

This method was chosen on the basis of its simplicity and relatively high efficiency in organizing and benchmarking objects. The additional advantage of this method is its widespread use [25,61,115].

The analysis was based on normalization with a constant reference point for every year of the analysis, which gave the possibility of dynamic analysis, and enabled comparison of the values of the synthetic index for the analysed years.

The constant reference point gives the range of normalised variables described by Equation (1) [61]:

$$R\left(X_{jt}\right)=\underset{it}{\max }{x}_{ijt}-\underset{it}{\min }ijt$$

(1)

At the first stage of the study procedure, the indicators were initially selected. Following Koçak [26], seven diagnostic variables were selected for the analysis of the achievement of the goal of climate neutrality (

Table 2. Definition of variables.

Designation of Variable	Name of Variable	Unit of Measure	Character of Variable
$x_{1t}$	Energy efficiency R&D	million USD (2019 prices and PPP))	stimulant
$x_{2t}$	Fossil fuels R&D	million USD (2019 prices and PPP))	stimulant
$x_{3t}$	Renewable energy sources R&D	million USD (2019 prices and PPP))	stimulant
$x_{4t}$	Nuclear energy R&D	million USD (2019 prices and PPP))	stimulant
$x_{5t}$	Hydrogen and fuel cells R&D	million USD (2019 prices and PPP))	stimulant
$x_{6t}$	Other power and storage technologies R&D	million USD (2019 prices and PPP))	stimulant
$x_{7t}$	CO2	tons	de-stimulant

).

The reference years 2011–2019 were chosen due to the availability of data on the OECD database. As “inputs”, six different indicators of 16 EU countries were chosen between 2011 and 2017, defining the level of research and development (R&D) spending in the energy sector. As “output”, the CO₂ emission was used for the years 2013–2019. The reason for this approach (time lag between input and output data) was that the effects of energy R&D expenditures appear after a certain period [26,116]. The descriptive statistics of variables are shown in

Table A1. Descriptive statistics of variables.

	Min.	Max.	Mean	Std. Deviation
2011
Energy efficiency R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	343.83	115.79	96.43
Fossil fuels R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	162.39	36.41	54.22
Renewable energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	10.66	378.37	104.62	100.28
Nuclear energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	897.71	101.76	222.44
Hydrogen and fuel cells. R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	73.42	16.02	20.95
Other power and storage R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	155.29	36.34	39.64
CO2—2013 (tons)	21,848.04	941,570.30	245,307.80	254,170.10
2012
Energy efficiency R&D (million USD and PPP)	1.22	292.84	109.23	83.64
Fossil fuels R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.10	153.46	31.00	45.49
Renewable energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.36	365.82	91.94	94.84
Nuclear energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.40	1010.11	114.14	245.49
Hydrogen and fuel cells. R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	51.26	12.00	14.81
Other power and storage R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	160.57	32.34	36.22
CO2—2014 (tons)	210,56.80	902,388.70	234,659.20	242,053.80
2013
Energy efficiency R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.09	273.99	88.61	82.29
Fossils fuels R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	168.36	35.99	54.94
Renewable energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	1.47	384.09	95.34	99.50
Nuclear energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.33	1003.45	114.18	245.08
Hydrogen and fuel cells. R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	52.50	12.14	16.28
Other power and storage R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	130.46	34.79	34.98
CO2—2015 (tons)	18,109.74	906,320.10	236,495.20	242,562.70
2014
Energy efficiency R&D (million USD and PPP)	3.23	283.78	85.35	77.78
Fossil fuels R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	149.50	34.54	52.54
Renewable energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	1.96	370.89	89.11	94.79
Nuclear energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	917.16	101.62	225.07
Hydrogen and fuel cells. R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	53.80	11.70	15.13
Other power and storage R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.05	253.12	45.00	59.70
CO2—2016 (tons)	19,640.42	909,052.50	235,300.00	240,841.00
2015
Energy efficiency R&D (million USD and PPP)	1.15	286.37	79.69	83.14
Fossil fuels R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	134.95	30.14	42.23
Renewable energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	2.44	380.68	88.82	99.23
Nuclear energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	886.66	107.26	219.77
Hydrogen and fuel cells. R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	44.00	9.91	13.24
Other power and storage R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.90	154.62	43.16	41.55
CO2—2017 (tons)	209,23.49	894,296.30	235,391.90	238,567.20
2016
Energy efficiency R&D (million USD and PPP)	1.95	261.05	78.96	74.88
Fossil fuels R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	131.94	24.57	37.18
Renewable energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	6.47	348.40	83.78	91.71
Nuclear energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	809.45	101.21	201.51
Hydrogen and fuel cells. R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	41.46	7.76	11.27
Other power and storage R&D (million USD and PPP)	1.95	156.12	37.42	39.42
CO2—2018 (tons)	19,974.14	858,368.70	230,101.40	230,492.20
2017
Energy efficiency R&D (million USD and PPP)	2.22	314.82	94.81	90.86
Fossil fuels R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	133.30	22.82	36.27
Renewable energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.70	414.37	78.21	101.25
Nuclear energy R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	871.37	107.09	217.06
Hydrogen and fuel cells R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.00	41.92	8.45	11.87
Other power and storage R&D (million USD and PPP)	0.23	191.06	38.85	49.25
CO2—2019 (tons)	146,99.12	809,798.50	220,928.30	219,724.60

in Appendix A.

Among the selected variables, six ($x_{1t},x_{2t},x_{3t},x_{4t},x_{5t},x_{6t}$) were considered as larger-the-better (stimulants) characteristics having a positive influence on the measure, whereas one ($x_{7t}$) was regarded as smaller-the-better (de-stimulant) reducing the synthetic measure of the fulfillment the goal of climate neutrality.

To bring the variables to comparability, they were normalized by means of the min–max normalization [114,115]:

$$z_{ijt}=\frac{x_{ijt}-\underset{it}{\min }\left\{x_{ijt}\right\}}{\underset{it}{\max }\left\{x_{ijt}\right\}-\underset{it}{\min }\left\{x_{ijt}\right\}}$$

(2)

$$\left(i=1,2,\dots ,n\right);\left(j=1,2,\dots ,m\right);\left(t=1,2,\dots ,l\right);z_{ij}\in \left[0,1\right]$$

$$z_{ijt}=\frac{\underset{it}{\max }\left\{x_{ijt}\right\}-x_{ijt}}{\underset{it}{\max }\left\{x_{ijt}\right\}-\underset{it}{\min }\left\{x_{ijt}\right\}}$$

(3)

$$\left(i=1,2,\dots ,n\right);\left(j=1,2,\dots ,m\right);\left(t=1,2,\dots ,l\right);z_{ij}\in \left[0,1\right]$$

where: $z_{ijt}$ is the normalized value of the j-th variable in the i-th country on year t, and $x_{ijt}$ is the initial value of the j-th variable in the i-th country on year t.

The stimulants were normalized with Formula (2) and the de-stimulant with Formula (3).

Diagnostic features normalized in the abovementioned way take the value from the interval (0; 1). The closer the value to unity, the better the situation in terms of the investigated feature, and the closer the value to zero, the worse the situation.

Assessment of the variable that characterizes the objects—a synthetic measure index $SM{I}_{it}$—was obtained with Formula (4):

$$SM{I}_{it}=\frac{1}{m}{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{j=1}^m{z}_{ijt}$$

(4)

$$\left(i=1,2,\dots ,n\right);\left(j=1,2,\dots ,m\right);\left(t=1,2,\dots ,l\right);z_{ij}\in \left[0,1\right];SM{I}_i\in \left[0,1\right]$$

The procedure chosen in this paper allowed a multidimensional comparative analysis. Additionally, this procedure made it possible to divide the set of countries into four groups:

• Group I—($SM{I}_{it}\ge \overline{SM{I}_{it}}+S\left(SM{I}_{it}\right))$—very high SMI level
• Group II—($\overline{SM{I}_{it}}\le SM{I}_{it}<\overline{SM{I}_{it}}+S\left(SM{I}_{it}\right))$—high SMI level
• Group III—($\overline{SM{I}_{it}}-S\left(SM{I}_{it}\right)\le SM{I}_{it}<\overline{SM{I}_{it}})$—average SMI level
• Group IV—($SM{I}_{it}<\overline{SM{I}_{it}}-S\left(SM{I}_{it}\right))$—low SMI level

where:

• $\overline{SM{I}_{it}}$ is the arithmetic mean of a synthetic measures index $SM{I}_{it}$
• $S\left(SM{I}_{it}\right)$ is the standard deviation of a synthetic measure index $SM{I}_{it}$.

Using the procedures described above, the main research analysis was divided into two parts. In the first part, the overall evaluation using one synthetic measure with one reference point for all analyzed years was made. This allowed changes in the environmental efficiency of R&D spending in the energy sector to be observed over the studied years.

Then, to explore which categories of R&D spending in the energy sectors were the most environmentally performant, in the second stage of the research, separate synthetic indicators were estimated for six categories of spending: energy efficiency, fossil fuels, renewable energy sources, nuclear energy, hydrogen and fuel cells, and other power and storage technologies. This approach not only allowed the efficiency of R&D spending in the energy to be measured through the MSI in a particular category of spending, but also allowed the changes over time of this indicator to be examined.

4. Results

In the first stage, the environmental performance of the total R&D spending in the energy sector and its changes over time was assessed using a synthetic measure. The synthetic measure index (SMI) indicates the environmental performance of the total R&D spending in the energy sector of the countries to achieve climate neutrality. Changes in the SMI in the analyzed period are presented in

Table A2. Result of a multivariate analysis of the environmental effectiveness of R&D spending in the energy sector from 2011 until 2017/2019.

	2011			2012			2013			2014			2015			2016			2017
Detail	SMI	No.		SMI	No.		SMI	No.		SMI	No.		SMI	No.		SMI	No.		SMI	No.
Austria	0.215	10		0.238	11		0.249	8		0.255	6		0.243	7		0.252	5	→	0.244	5
Belgium	0.202	13		0.25	8		0.224	11		0.216	10		0.209	12		0.208	11		0.205	10
Denmark	0.282	7		0.288	5		0.257	7		0.283	5	→	0.267	5		0.221	8	→	0.214	8
Estonia	0.153	15		0.145	16		0.221	12		0.194	11		0.218	10		0.235	6		0.164	12
Finland	0.265	8		0.279	6	→	0.277	6		0.255	7		0.265	6		0.232	7	→	0.216	7
France	0.755	1	→	0.755	1	→	0.749	1	→	0.741	1	→	0.765	1	→	0.699	1		0.618	2
Germany	0.469	3	→	0.472	3		0.596	2		0.526	3		0.595	2	→	0.619	2		0.653	1
Hungary	0.231	9	→	0.245	9		0.137	15		0.138	16		0.140	15	→	0.143	15		0.213	9
Ireland	0.145	16		0.16	15		0.148	14		0.147	15		0.165	14		0.142	16		0.142	14
Italy	0.58	2	→	0.575	2		0.563	3		0.531	2		0.562	3	→	0.465	3		0.434	4
The Netherlands	0.207	11		0.241	10		0.242	9		0.193	12		0.240	8		0.212	10		0.218	6
Poland	0.332	6		0.27	7		0.299	5		0.227	8		0.215	11		0.149	13	→	0.142	13
Slovak Republic	0.16	14	→	0.16	14		0.158	13		0.152	14		0.139	16		0.146	14		0.139	15
Spain	0.337	5		0.235	12		0.133	16		0.179	13		0.220	9		0.17	12		0.123	16
Sweden	0.205	12		0.218	13		0.233	10		0.225	9		0.205	13		0.22	9		0.200	11
UK	0.352	4	→	0.334	4	→	0.424	4	→	0.363	4	→	0.355	4	→	0.463	4		0.471	3

(Appendix B) and Figure 1.

The synthetic measure reflects the changes that occurred over the six years, both in terms of the environmental performance of the energy sector’s total R&D spending in the individual countries and their position in the ranking. From 2011–2017, the value of the SMI varied in the individual countries in a heterogeneous way—positively or negatively, and no country had a clear trend of changes. In 2011, the highest SMI values were recorded in the following order: FR, IT, and DE. However, FR maintained the highest value and first position in the ranking until 2016. Its high environmental performance index was associated with high R&D spending on nuclear and renewable energy. The remaining countries had much lower values. On one hand, it demonstrated large discrepancies in the environmental performance of the technological solutions used and, on the other hand, the insufficient R&D spending in the energy sector. The lowest SMI values in 2011 were for SK (14th place in the ranking), EE (15th), and IE (16).

In 2017, the SMI of all surveyed countries was different than in 2011, as were their ranked positions. DE had the highest SMI and took first place in the ranking. It was the result of, among other factors, an enormous commitment and expense on RES, which contributed to a significant reduction in CO₂ emissions. Second place was taken by FR, with a reduced SMI, followed by the UK, whose SMI increased due to a significant commitment to increasing energy efficiency. IT ranked fourth, with an index close to that of the UK. The SMIs of the remaining countries were much lower, indicating significant differences in the environmental performance of R&D spending.

The lowest SMI values in 2017 were ES (16th place), SK (15th place, down by one position), and IE (14th place, two places higher, but with a lower SM value). PL took 13th place, but with the same SM value as IE. After seven years, nine countries (DE, UK, AT, NL, FI, BE, SE, EE, and IE) were ranked higher. The biggest change was made by NL (going from 11th to sixth place), although its SMI did not increase much. A higher ranking indicates that R&D spending in the energy sector was environmentally performant—it resulted in a reduction of CO₂ emissions. HU was the only country that remained unchanged (ninth), although it was ranked lower in 2013–2016. This could be a consequence of reduced spending on RES development. In 2017, six countries were ranked lower than in 2011: FR, IT, DK, PL, SK, and ES. The largest decreases were observed in ES (from fifth to 16th place) and PL (from sixth to 13th). In the case of ES, it was partly the result of their ongoing economic crisis, which resulted in a lack of funds for R&D. In PL, it was a consequence of establishing an unfavorable fuel mix and reduced expenditures on RES development.

An additional confirmation of changes over time in the environmental performance of R&D spending in the energy sector is illustrated by the average level of the synthetic measure in Figure 2. In 2017, DE had the highest level, thus setting a benchmark. FR was the closest to the benchmark due to significant expenses on nuclear energy and activities to increase energy efficiency. The UK and IT were slightly behind FR, while the remaining 12 countries surveyed were further from the benchmark. ES, SK, PL, and IE were the furthest, with the lowest SMI values. For PL and SK, this resulted from the reduced spending on renewable energy due to an unfavorable change in regulations in this area and defending the national energy mix, which favors conventional energy. Meanwhile, in IE, the result of not decarbonizing difficult sectors (e.g., fossil fuels, dairy farming, and road transport) put emissions per capita in third place among all the member states. IE declared relatively recently that it wanted to become a “world leader in climate action”, but so far, there has been a discrepancy between the declared intention and the reality [117].

In general, there were significant differences in the environmental performance of R&D spending between countries, as illustrated by the SMI and the distance from the benchmark. The changes in environmental performance in most of the surveyed countries were not satisfactory, showing that there are difficulties in transitioning into a low-carbon economy. However, it is worth investigating which categories of R&D spending in the energy sectors were the most environmentally performant. This will allow the indication of which types of R&D spending have a negative/positive impact and will provide a clue as to what kind of spending is best. Hence, in the second stage of the research, separate measures were estimated for six categories of spending: energy efficiency, fossil fuels, renewable energy sources, nuclear energy, hydrogen and fuel cells technologies, and other power and storage technologies (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8).

In 2017, UK, FI, HU, SE, and AT were closest to the benchmark in terms of the average level of the environmental performance of energy efficiency R&D. DE, the UK, and EE had the highest growth in the period. The positive achievements of the four remaining countries (DK, SE, NL, SK) were small. In the case of DK and SE, this could have resulted from reduced spending, as they were close to achieving the Europe 2020 energy efficiency goal and were able to allocate funds to finance other types of energy. This causality was also pointed out by Kryk and Guzowska [25]. On the other hand, spending in SK and NL was too small to ensure adequate performance. In the remaining nine countries (AT, BE, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, PL and ES), a reduction in the average level of the environmental performance of energy efficiency R&D was recorded. PL, IT, and ES were the most distant from the benchmark. In the case of PL and ES, it was related to previous high achievements in this area and abandonment of spending on this area of R&D. Meanwhile, the ruling party changed in Poland, who changed the energy mix model and increased budget spending on social benefits, significantly reducing the funds for activities aimed at climate neutrality. In IT, the ongoing difficult economic situation after the last global financial and economic crisis of 2008–2012 resulted in a lack of funds for appropriate climate/energy measures. The average level of the environmental performance of energy efficiency R&D decreased the most in HU, FR and PL in seven years. In HU and FR, this can only be explained by previous achievements in this area.

In general, the achievements of countries measured by the average level of the environmental performance of the energy efficiency R&D in the analyzed period were different. Most countries reduced spending on this type of R&D, which is disadvantageous from the point of view of climate neutrality.

In 2017, environmental performance measured by the average level of fossil fuels R&D was distinctive. In the seven years, only DE achieved significant positive results in this category, which was related to a high financial commitment to reducing the emission capacity of conventional energy, the high use of imported natural gas, which has lower emissions than solid fossil fuels, and the development of renewable energy sources. Despite its great achievements, DE’s average level of fossil fuels R&D was lower than IT’s, which recorded a decrease. Thus, IT was the benchmark. The most distant from the benchmark were PL, IT and ES. The energy sectors in ES and PL are largely based on conventional fuels, which affects their environmental performance. Meanwhile, the UK limited spending on research in this area, hence the lack of results. IE, HU, SK, SE, AT, BE, and DK also did not have any achievements, having also reduced spending. Such conduct means that they are shifting away from high-emission fossil energy sources, which is in line with the goals of a zero-carbon economy.

In 2017, FI, SK, SE, HU and IE were the closest to the benchmark, although in five countries (FR, PL, FI, IT, EE), the achievements in this area decreased. The largest decrease was recorded in FR and PL, and the smallest in EE. In the case of EE, it was associated with a significant reduction in the emission capacity of the economy thanks to the measures taken to achieve the goals of the Climate/Energy Strategy Europe 2020 [31].

Overall, most countries have had no track record in this regard. However, the limited R&D spending on fossil fuels indirectly shows a shift towards energy sources that are less environmentally harmful. One can only hope that the energy transformation initiated by the EU will bring the expected results.

Spending on renewable energy sources R&D was the most performant in terms of the environment in the entire period studied, which is illustrated by how much the radar chart is filled in. In 2017, DE had the highest level of achievement in this category of spending. Thus, in the analysis, it became the benchmark for the other countries. Its enormous commitment to researching new technologies in the field of alternative energy sources contributed not only to the development of this energy segment in Germany, but also to the dissemination of innovative solutions in other countries. FI, EE, SE, and NL were the closest to the benchmark. It should be noted that the first three countries had already achieved the goal of the Europe 2020 Strategy in terms of an appropriate level of RES in their energy consumption structure; therefore, their spending on this type of energy did not bring any spectacular effects [42]. However, it is to be expected that the NL will continue to increase research spending in this area, especially as it was characterized by a negative trend in energy consumption. ES and PL were the furthest from the benchmark. As already mentioned, they implement an unfavorable energy mix, resulting in low environmental performance.

In 2017, there were positive changes in this area compared with 2011 in the UK, DE, HU, and NL. However, the greatest achievements were seen in the UK and DE. In the remaining 12 countries, the environmental performance of renewable energy R&D spending decreased, which is not positive.

R&D spending on nuclear energy was present in all the countries surveyed, but real environmental performance was achieved only by those with nuclear power plants³ (there are no nuclear power plants in 14 EU countries: DK, EE, IE, GR, HR, IT, CY, LT, LV, LU, MT, AT, PT and PL). The highest average environmental performance of this spending was achieved by FR, which is the largest producer of nuclear energy in the EU (52% of the total production). Thus, in the analysis, it became the benchmark for the other countries. In 2017, FI, BE, EE, SK, DK, and SE were the closest to the benchmark. Among these countries, EE and DK do not yet have nuclear power plants. Thus, in their case, the index concerns the hypothetical environmental performance. The most distant from the benchmark were DE (which produces 9.8% of nuclear energy in the EU and is withdrawing from its production), ES (7.6% of total production), and PL (no nuclear power plants). In the seven years, the UK and DE achieved the highest environmental performance of spending on nuclear energy R&D. It was much less in FI and IT. In the other countries, the level of achievement remained virtually constant. The lack of change is related to the constantly discussed issue of nuclear power plant safety. However, it can be assumed that in the face of the need to achieve the goal of climate neutrality in 2050, the EU countries that do not have them will be more serious about starting to use them.

In 2017, DK, FR, and AT were the closest to the benchmark, with the highest average environmental performance of R&D spending in the field of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. DE and PL were the furthest from the benchmark, with less emphasis on hydropower. In DE, it was related to the focus on wind energy and photovoltaics, and in Poland, it was related to the country’s energy policy. Over the seven years, both NL and AT had both positive and the most significant achievements in this area. Six countries (IE, HU, DE, FI, EE, BE) did not record any changes, which may be due to the limited possibilities for developing hydropower. In other countries, the changes were negative. The lack of results in the field of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies in SE, EE, and FI may be related to existing ways of obtained energy being used to the maximum, or to climate change, which results in less snowfall, thereby reducing the meltwater resources that supply hydroelectric plants.

In summary, there are no favorable conditions for the development of hydropower in most of the surveyed countries; therefore, R&D spending in this area does not bring satisfactory results.

In 2017, AT, DE, the UK, DK, SE, HU, and FI were the closest to the benchmark in terms of environmental performance measured by R&D spending on other power and storage. These countries are significantly involved in searching for new technological solutions in the energy sector that are less harmful to the environment. The furthest from the benchmark were ES and PL, which, as already mentioned, limited spending on activities to reducing the emissions of the energy sector. After seven years, DE and the UK had the greatest achievements in this regard. Apart from them, positive changes were recorded by FR, AT, HU, and SE, although SE’s achievements were the lowest. Six countries noted negative changes—ES, SK, PL, NL, IT, FI, and DK. Meanwhile, IE, EE, and BE did not achieve any effects. Despite the relatively smaller, positive changes in this category of R&D expenditure in the energy sector, the achievements in this area are relatively high compared with the average level of the environmental performance of the hydrogen and fuel cell technologies R&D, the nuclear energy R&D, or the fossil fuels R&D. It can therefore be said that the spending is profitable.

In summary, the assessment shows that the least environmentally performant area was the R&D spending on hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, nuclear energy, and fossil fuels. The most performant was the spending on renewable energy and other power and storage, while energy efficiency was moderately performant.

5. Conclusions

The analysis of the synthetic measure in 2011–2017/2019 confirmed significant differences in the environmental performance of R&D spending in the energy sector between the countries. During the considered period, the value of the SMI varied in the individual countries in a heterogeneous way—positively or negatively. There was no country with a clear trend of changes in this regard at that time. In 2017, the SMI of each country was different than in 2011, as were their ranked positions. After seven years, nine countries (DE, UK, AT, NL, FI, BE, SE, EE, IE) were ranked higher. One country did not change its position (HU), and six (FR, IT, DK, PL, SK, ES) fell to lower positions. This meant that, depending on the country, there was a reduction in spending on activities aimed at climate neutrality, which resulted from achieving the goals set in a given period or implementing an undesirable energy mix.

Changes in environmental performance, as illustrated by the SMI and the distance from the benchmark, were not satisfactory in most of the surveyed countries. This shows that there are difficulties in transitioning to a low-carbon economy. In 2017, DE, FR, the UK, and IT were the closest to the benchmark determined by the SMI, while ES, SK, PL, and IE were the most distant. The further away a country is from the benchmark, the more it should intensify its activities to limit pollutant emissions in the energy sector.

In 2017, in the case of the average environmental performance of the energy efficiency R&D, the UK, FI, HU, SE, and AT were closest to the benchmark, while PL, IT, and ES were the most distant. The countries’ performance in this spending category varied. In the seven years, DE, the UK, EE, DK, SE, NL, and SK saw an increase in this index, while it decreased in the other nine countries (AT, BE, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, PL, ES). Most countries have reduced the amount they spend, which is disadvantageous from the point of view of climate neutrality.

In the case of environmental performance measured by the average level of fossil fuels R&D, IT, FI, SK, SE, HU, and IE were closest to the benchmark, while DE, ES, PL, and the UK were the most distant. After seven years, only DE had achieved significant positive results. Most countries have no track record in this regard. However, reducing R&D spending on fossil fuels indirectly shows a change in the approach to zero emissions.

Spending on renewable energy R&D was the most environmentally performant in the entire period under study. In 2017, DE, FI, EE, SE, and NL were the closest to the benchmark, while ES and PL were the most distant. In the seven years, positive changes in this area occurred in the UK, DE, HU, and NL. In 12 countries, the environmental performance of renewable energy R&D spending decreased for various reasons, which is not favorable from the point of view of climate neutrality. It is advisable to increase this category of expenditure in the energy sector.

The R&D spending on nuclear energy was present in all the countries surveyed, but the actual environmental performance was achieved only by those with nuclear power plants (FR, FI, BE, SK, SE, DE, ES). To date, the remaining countries have only shown the hypothetical environmental performance of this category of spending. It can only be assumed that in the face of the need to achieve the goal of climate neutrality in 2050, the EU countries that are further away from it will begin to seriously consider opening nuclear power plants.

In 2017, regarding the average environmental performance of the hydrogen and fuel cell technologies R&D, DK, FR, and AT were closest to the benchmark, while DE and PL were most distant. After seven years, NL and AT had positive achievements. Six countries (IE, HU, DE, FI, EE and BE) recorded no changes, while in eight countries, the changes were negative. In most of the surveyed countries, there are no favorable conditions to develop hydropower; therefore, R&D spending in this area did not bring satisfactory results.

In 2017, AT, DE, the UK, DK, SE, HU, and FI were the closest to the environmental performance benchmark in terms of R&D spending of other power and storage, while ES and PL were the most distant. After seven years, DE, the UK, FR, AT, HU, and SE had positive changes. Negative changes were recorded by six countries—ES, SK, PL, NL, IT, FI, and DK, and there were no changes in IE EE, BE. In terms of environmental performance, this spending category was second only to renewable energy R&D. Therefore, it is worth increasing.

In context of the above, it is possible to rank the researched categories of R&D spending according to environmental performance, from the most to the least performant: renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, other power and storage, hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, fossil fuels, and nuclear energy.

Therefore, the first three types of R&D spending, in addition to fossil fuels, should be increased. This was confirmed at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow (2021), where countries made a commitment to move away from coal-fired power generation, announced their intention to end funding for foreign fossil fuels-based energy projects and instead invest in green energy. This represents a milestone in the global effort to combat climate change [118]. There have also been increasingly favorable thoughts about increasing spending on nuclear energy, which has been forced by rising energy prices for months. However, it is known that decisions on the construction of nuclear power plants are also conditioned by public consent. Meanwhile, in most countries, there has been no social consent for this type of investment.

Moreover, the analysis carried out allowed the following specific recommendations to be formulated:

-

Energy efficiency R&D expenditures should be increased, especially in AT, BE, FI, IE, IT, PL, ES, SK, NL, as their performance in this respect was unsatisfactory;

-

Renewable energy R&D spending should be increased in all EU countries. At the same time, the financial efforts of FI, EE, and SE, that have achieved the climate/energy targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy, do not have to be as high as in countries that have not achieved them;

-

Expenditures on hydro and fuel cell technologies R&D should be increased by all countries (except DK, FR), if they have appropriate conditions for this.

To summarize, the research shows not only which categories of spending are the most environmentally performant (and worthwhile), but also how much work awaits all EU countries to achieve energy neutrality in 2050. It requires considerable effort from individual countries, especially those far from the benchmarks, and appropriate management. It is difficult for EU decision-makers to influence national energy mixes with limited competencies. Hence, the EU is increasingly turning to soft management methods with novel “harder” elements [119] or harder soft management in the short term [120].

This paper presents only one option to assess the environmental performance of R&D spending in the energy sector. However, it would be interesting to examine the results using other methods or considering various tools the EU can use to influence member states.