Reassessing National Innovation Performance through an Entropy CORASO Framework: Evidence from the European Innovation Scoreboard

Andrea Mastilo

doi:10.65069/smart2120266

Authors

Andrea Mastilo University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom Author https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2982-7658

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65069/smart2120266

Keywords:

National innovation performance, European Innovation Scoreboard, Entropy, CORASO, European Union, United Kingdom

Abstract

This study proposes an alternative and objectively grounded assessment of the innovation performance of European Union countries and the United Kingdom by applying a hybrid Entropy CORASO framework to data from the European Innovation Scoreboard 2025. Unlike the official EIS approach, which assigns equal importance to all innovation dimensions, the proposed framework determines criteria weights based on data variability. The Entropy method is used to estimate the relative importance of twelve innovation dimensions, while the CORASO method is applied to generate the final country ranking. The results indicate that the criteria weights are relatively balanced, although Resource and Labour Productivity, Innovators and Attractive Research Systems exhibit the highest discriminatory power. The ranking confirms the leading positions of Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, while notable changes are observed among middle ranked countries, particularly Belgium, Italy, Malta and the United Kingdom. The sensitivity analysis further demonstrates that changes in the priority of individual innovation dimensions can substantially affect the final ranking, confirming the multidimensional and methodologically sensitive nature of innovation performance assessment. The findings offer a policy relevant complement to the official EIS ranking and provide a more refined basis for identifying country specific strengths, weaknesses and priorities for improving national innovation systems.

References

[1] Belanova, K. (2024). The impact of the innovative performance of the country on its economic development. Journal of Innovative Business and Management, 15(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.32015/JIBM.2023.15.2.8

[2] Kučera, J., & Fiľa, M. (2022). R&D expenditure, innovation performance and economic development of the EU countries. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 9(3), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2022.9.3(14)

[3] Demirel, O., & Yıldırım, N. (2025). SDG-orientation of sustainable digital entrepreneurship research. Economics - Innovative and Economic Research Journal, 13(4), 95-129. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2025-0087

[4] Obeidat, A. M., Khaddam, A. A., Alzghoul, A., Al Afeshat, M. T. M., & Al Ghizzawi, M. (2026). How Business Intelligence Shapes Service Innovation: Knowledge Sharing as a Mediator and Culture as a Moderator in The Jordanian Context. Economics - Innovative and Economic Research Journal, 14(1), 391-411. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2026-0019

[5] Hunady, J., Demeova, E., & Chylakova, V. (2025). The Role of Digital Skills and Digitalisation in Enhancing Labour Productivity in the EU. Collection of papers new economy, 3, 33-45. https://doi.org/10.61432/CPNE0301033h

[6] Hollanders, H. (2023). A critical assessment of the European Innovation Scoreboard. In Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement (pp. 391-412). Edward Elgar Publishing.

[7] Ravanos, P., Smallenbroek, O., & Bello, M. (2025). JRC Statistical Audit of the European Innovation Scoreboard 2025. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/9950694

[8] Dworak, E. (2024). The innovativeness of the economies of European Union candidate countries: An assessment of their innovation gap in relation to the EU average. Comparative Economic Research, 27(3), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.18778/1508-2008.27.19

[9] Csugány, J., & Tánczos, T. (2025). Changes in the innovation performance of the Visegrad countries during their EU membership. Balkans Journal of Emerging Trends in Social Sciences, 8(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.31410/balkans.jetss.2025.8.1.1-16

[10] Bielińska-Dusza, E., & Hamerska, M. (2021). Methodology for calculating the European Innovation Scoreboard: Proposition for modification. Sustainability, 13(4), 2199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042199

[11] Nawrocki, T. L., & Jonek-Kowalska, I. (2025). Innovativeness of the European economies in the context of the modified European Innovation Scoreboard. Equilibrium, 20(3), 999–1034. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.3063

[12] Pavithra, J. C., & Sundari, V. M. (2025). Economic transformation in the digital age: The nexus between learning and innovation. Economics - Innovative and Economic Research Journal, 13(3), 167-193. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2025-0061

[13] Corrente, S., Garcia-Bernabeu, A., Greco, S., & Makkonen, T. (2023). Robust measurement of innovation performances in Europe with a hierarchy of interacting composite indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 32, 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2021.1910815

[14] Sotirelis, P., Grigoroudis, E., & Doumpos, M. (2023). Revising the European innovation scoreboard: A multiple criteria decision analysis approach. In Operational Research in the Era of Digital Transformation and Business Analytics (pp. 67–75). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24294-6_7

[15] Baki, R. (2024). Comparison of innovation performances of BRICS countries through CRITIC and GRA methods. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 23(4), 1561–1570. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.1368192

[16] Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2024). Disparities of Central and Eastern European countries of European Union in innovation potential: A multi-criteria assessment. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 10(2), 100282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100282

[17] Puška, A., Nedeljković, M., Božanić, D., Štilić, A., & Muhsen, Y. R. (2024). Evaluation of agricultural drones based on the COmpromise Ranking from Alternative SOlutions methodology. Engineering Review, 44(4), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.30765/er.2653

[18] Kuzior, A., Pidorycheva, I., Liashenko, V., Shevtsova, H., & Shvets, N. (2022). Assessment of national innovation ecosystems of the EU countries and Ukraine in the interests of their sustainable development. Sustainability, 14(14), 8487. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148487

[19] Ostraszewska, Z., & Tylec, A. (2024). Analysis of Poland’s innovation profile based on the decomposition of the Summary Innovation Index. Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, 25(1), 609–618. https://doi.org/10.34190/eckm.25.1.2387

[20] Zajko, M. (2023). Possibilities of improvement of innovation performance of Slovakia. INTED2023 Proceedings, 8440-8451. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2023.2330

[21] Banga, K., & Gaile-Sarkane, E. (2025). Methods for measuring open innovation’s impact on innovation ecosystems in the context of the European Innovation Scoreboard. Businesses, 5(3), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/businesses5030029

[22] Göktaş, F. (2024). A hybrid MADM approach based on simple additive weighting and TOPSIS: An application on comparison of innovation performances of the EU countries. Gazi University Journal of Science Part A: Engineering and Innovation, 11(3), 419–430. https://doi.org/10.54287/gujsa.1474940

[23] Marković, M. (2022). Ranking of EU countries according to innovation potential. Annals of Spiru Haret University Economic Series, 22(3), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.26458/2232

[24] Barbero, J., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., & Zofío, J. L. (2021). Is more always better? On the relevance of decreasing returns to scale on innovation. Technovation, 107, 102314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102314

[25] Cabinova, V., Burgerova, J., & Gallo, P. (2024). Evaluating innovation efficiency in EU countries: The DEA approach. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 15(4), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2024.4-02

[26] Andrijauskiene, M., Ioannidis, D., Dumciuviene, D., Dimara, A., Bezas, N., Papaioannou, A., & Krinidis, S. (2023). European Union innovation efficiency assessment based on data envelopment analysis. Economies, 11(6), 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11060163

[27] Özekenci, E. K., Topcuoglu Onat, K., & Pamucar, D. (2026). A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of objective weighting methods in multi-criterion decision-making. Management Science Advances, 3(1), 246–265. https://doi.org/10.31181/msa31202645

[28] Sarkar, A., & Goswami, S. S. (2026). A review of the application of MCDM methods in business analytics. Applied Decision Analytics, 2(1), 150-180. https://doi.org/10.66972/ada21202614

[29] Ravichandran, K. S., Karthik, M., & Sundararajan, D. (2026). Identifying suitable location for electric vehicles charging by using Fermatean fuzzy-based personalized decision model. Applied Research Advances, 2(1), 83-100. https://doi.org/10.65069/ara2120269

[30] Tešić, D., Božanić, D., Pamučar, D., Miljković, B., & Puška, A. (2025). MCDM model for the selection of network planning techniques in the army for the purposes of performing engineering works when overcoming water obstacles. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 5(1), 70-86. https://doi.org/10.31181/jdaic10006062025t

[31] Barić, F. (2026). The selection of packaging in the function of product brand development. Smart Multi-Criteria Analytics and Reasoning Technologies, 2(1), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.65069/smart2120264

[32] Živković, M., Stojanović, I., & Aleksić, A. (2025). Enhancing operational planning at the tactical level: Application of the fuzzy DIBR II TOPSIS model for selecting a maneuver form in offensive urban operations. Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, 5(1), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.31181/jdaic10031122025z

[33] Tešić, D., Delibašić, B., Božanić, D., Lojić, R., Pamučar, D., & Eisingerné Balassa, B. (2023). Application of the FUCOM-FUZZY MAIRCA model in human resource management. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 20(3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.12700/APH.20.3.2023.3.14