Creatives Are in Europe’s Strategies. Now Comes the Hard Part.

iStockphoto

Cultural and creative industries are finally visible in national strategies across Europe. But recognition is not the same as action. A new ekip white paper by Elisa Kraatari, working as policy analyst in ekip, shows a policy landscape full of ambition, but still divided between cultural, economic, industrial and innovation agendas – making it harder for creative actors to enter cross-sectoral innovation programs.

Visibility is only the beginning

Across Europe, cultural and creative industries (CCI) are moving from the margins into mainstream policy language on growth, innovation, digitalisation, skills and regional development. The shift is important. Creativity is no longer framed only as either art, heritage or entertainment, but as a diverse resource that supports favourable transformations in society.

Yet the white paper also shows why visibility at the level of policy language is not enough. Across Europe, CCI are addressed through separate policy domains – cultural policy, economic and industrial policy, innovation policy, education, regional development and digital transition. Each comes with their own objectives, instruments and institutional logics. The result is a landscape rich in ambition, but difficult to connect.

“National strategies reflect genuine will to develop CCI sector and show real progress, but as a whole they also reveal how disjointed the policy landscape still is,” says Elisa Kraatari. “CCI are increasingly recognised, but often in parallel policy worlds. Cultural policy, industrial policy and innovation policy do not always speak the same language, and that makes cross-sectoral inclusion harder.”

Many routes, no single model

The white paper looks at national and subnational developments in Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Scotland. What emerges is not one European model for CCI policy, but several routes to similar goals: how to make creativity work as part of innovation systems and dynamic social development.

Finland is consolidating its approach through a national growth strategy for the creative economy. Italy has taken a legal route, defining cultural and creative enterprises through the 2023 Made in Italy law. France connects CCI policy to investment and acceleration schemes through the investment programme France 2030. The Netherlands places creative methods inside mission-driven innovation, using design and creative practice to address wider societal challenges.

The gap is coordination

“The question is no longer whether cultural and creative industries are mentioned in policy. They are,” says Elisa Kraatari. “The harder question is whether they are actually included in programs, partnerships and innovation initiatives where cross-sectoral development is at stake.”

This is where the wavering position of CCI becomes visible. CCI sit between cultural policy, industrial policy, innovation policy, education, regional development and digital transformation. Each field speaks their own language and applies their accustomed repertoire of instruments and measures of success – and finally, has differing values and objectives. Creative actors are expected to be innovative, entrepreneurial, cooperative, independent, socially relevant, and culturally rooted – but support systems are hardly prepared to recognise such hybrid roles.

“This ambivalence hampers how creative actors and their work is perceived,” Elisa Kraatari notes. “If CCI are seen only through one policy lens at a time, their contribution to innovation, place-based development and societal transformation becomes much harder to mobilize.”

When strategies lose their engine

National strategies often use strong language about creativity, innovation and transformation. But the white paper points to a recurring policy–practice gap: what is defined as an important goal in a strategy is not always matched by action plans, funding or delivery structures, or falls under political priorities and policymaking processes.

Slovakia shows what can happen when a strategy loses its engine. Its Culture and Creative Industries Strategy 2030 was approved as a long-term framework, but the implementation mechanism was later removed. Sweden shows another tension: its 2024 strategy strengthens the sector’s position in business policy, while placing less emphasis on how CCI can drive sustainability-oriented innovation and social transformation.

“A strategy can create direction, but it does not implement itself,” says Elisa Kraatari. “Without clear mechanisms, resources and institutional ownership, even strong policy language risks losing momentum.”

From sectors to ecosystems

ekip’s answer is to shift focus from policy sectors to ecosystems. Ecosystem thinking and open innovation offer ways to connect actors, agendas and resources across established boundaries. Instead of treating CCI only as producers of cultural goods and services, they position creative actors as elemental contributors to innovation processes – through methods, competences, networks and the ability to work with uncertainty but also with meaning and public value.

“Ecosystem thinking is promising because it shifts the question from sector support to collaboration capacity,” says Elisa Kraatari. “But while conceptually abstract, also its practical application is still uneven. In many places, the ecosystem parlance is vivid but actual intermediary and supporting elements are lacking.”

That makes cities crucial. National strategies set direction, but local ecosystems are where collaboration is tested. In ekip’s work with cities such as Lund, Rotterdam, Košice, Bratislava, Saint- Etienne, Tallinn, and Tampere, national ambition meets local experimentation – and local experimentation reveals what policy still needs to make real difference.

What Europe can learn

“There is no single model to copy,” says Elisa Kraatari. “A strategy can give direction without coordination. A legal register can create recognition without innovation capacity. Investment can mobilize resources without changing institutional logics. The lesson is more practical: CCI need policies that genuinely bridge culture, innovation and industry.”

“Now that the CCI are recognized in national policy documents the question is whether policy
structures are ready to work with the creatives,” Elisa Kraatari concludes.