The UK's creative industries are a national economic strength. Since the turn of the decade, employment, exports and output growth has easily outstripped that in the rest of the economy. Yet, behind this rapid growth lies structural challenges and business uncertainties. And while there has also been rapid growth in academic research on the creative industries, major gaps remain in the evidence base. The PEC will seek to address these and bring about a step change in the quality and quantity of evidence used to inform decision-making with respect to the creative industries. We propose to organise the PEC's work activities in five overlapping workstrands, each led by an expert UK research centre, and coordinated through a Management Board, chaired by Nesta. We indicate our current thinking on priorities below, however in the first year of the PEC's operation we will consult extensively with industry and policymakers on research questions and beyond that keep the PEC's research agenda relevant and inclusive through ongoing engagement and a mixture of commissioning research activities. In workstrand 1 Creative Clusters, led by the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University, we want to map and visualise the UK's creative clusters by mining official, open and online data sources, and plugging data gaps using a survey instrument based on that used in the AHRC-funded Brighton Fuse and Creative Fuse North East studies. We will investigate local spillovers between creative and other industries, and conduct foresight activities that will engage industry and policymakers on future opportunities and challenges. In workstrand 2 Skills, Talent and Diversity, led by The Work Foundation, we will track the evolving employment needs of the creative industries. The supply of talent to the creative industries has failed to keep pace with demand - a challenge exacerbated by a lack of diversity. Further, technological, consumer and global trends are driving a shift in production methods and commercial models, creating the need for 'fused' creative, digital and entrepreneurial skills. The PEC will explore how industry, policymakers and educators should respond. In workstrand3 Intellectual Property, Business Models, Access to Finance and Content Regulation, led by CREATe at Glasgow University, we want to develop digital and open data tools that consolidate the evidence on the effects of IP rights on creative production and consumption, changes in business models, and the emerging data economy. We will undertake research on the challenges for the production, distribution and international exploitation of UK AV content in the context of evolving technologies, globalisation and Brexit. We will also research barriers to finance in the creative industries and how policies should address these. In workstrand4 Arts, Culture and Public Service Broadcasting, led by the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University, we want to focus on the opportunities and risks for value creation in creative industries arising from public investment in cultural institutions and public service broadcasters. A priority will be to analyse the challenges arising from the use of digital technologies in the arts, entertainment and news (including platform expansion, data analytics and personalisation, and experimentation), and what policymakers, regulators and funders can do to support the creation of value. In workstrand 5 Creative Industries and International Competitiveness, led by Newcastle University Business School, we will deliver a better understanding of the UK's creative industries in the international economy, including how FDI, immigration and trade influences the spatial distribution of the creative industries. We also propose to improve our understanding of the consequences of Brexit for the creative industries and to inform international trade and investment policies to promote their interests going forward.

Equality, diversity, and inclusion (relating to concerns such as age, disability, marital status/civil partnership, maternity/pregnancy, race, religion/belief, sex, sexual orientation, and transgender status; henceforward EDI) are moving up on the agenda of organisations. Even so, inequality, discrimination, and unfair treatment still exist in the workplace (Greene & Kirton, 2010). This poses a particular challenge to public sector organisations which must now, as a result of new legislation, have 'due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations' (Equality Act 2010). This is also relevant to organisations in the private sector which in recent years have become more concerned with embedding EDI in the workplace, be it in the hope of harnessing EDI for organisational effectiveness and innovation or simply to avoid costs and damaged reputation resulting from lost discrimination lawsuits (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Factors impeding the successful implementation of EDI initiatives in the workplace are manifold. Research suggests that progress has been slow because there is little critical reflection about what drives these initiatives, overlooking that the key actors, such as employers, equality bodies, unions, and disadvantaged demographic groups, often have different standpoints and influence in shaping the agenda on EDI at work (Greene & Kirton, 2010; Noon, 2007; Özbilgin & Tatli, 2011). Other research points to inclusive findings across studies assessing the effectiveness of EDI initiatives (Avery & McKay, 2010; Guillaume et al., 2013; King et al., 2010, van Knippenberg et al., 2013). Moreover, there is evidence that what works in one context (e.g., country, industry, organisational type) and at a particular level (e.g., individual, team, and organisation) might not in another (Joshi et al., 2011). Adopting a mixed-method approach and scrutinising a novel multi-level framework which integrates knowledge drawn from Work and Organisational Psychologists, Organisational Behaviour, Human Resource Management, and other social sciences and humanities in innovative ways (Guillaume et al., 2014), the seminar series will give voice to the key actors in the field of EDI at work and offer a platform for critical exploration of their standpoints and rigorous investigation into the conditions of and reasons for success and failure of EDI initiatives in the workplace at different levels of analysis and across a range of settings. In line with this framework and the extant literature on EDI at work (King et al., 2012; Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Shen et al., 2009; Özbilgin & Tatli, 2011; Otaye, 2013; Shore et al., 2011), the seminar series will critically reflect about the drivers of EDI initiatives at work, such as the legal, moral, and business case and their implications for embedding EDI at work (Seminar 1). There will also be a rigorous investigation into the role of organisational strategy, policies, climate, culture (Seminar 2), EDI practices, such as selection, assessment, pay, promotion, and training (Seminar 3), and leadership (Seminar 4) in embedding EDI in the workplace. Moreover, methods to evaluate the impact of these initiatives will be critically explored (Seminar 5). Future trends and challenges as well as ways forward to address these will also be identified by instigating a dialogue with and between the key actors in the field of EDI at work during an 'unconference', an innovative format where the participants set the agenda (Seminar 6), and a panel discussion with 'Question Time' (Seminar 7). We intend to disseminate the results of the seminar series in high impact publications, facilitate the development of early career researchers, apply for further national and European funding, and build a network of EDI specialists that exchanges and co-produces impactful knowledge and solutions in the field of EDI at work.

There is irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing. There also is strong evidence that this is largely a result of human activity, driven by our insatiable consumption of resources, growing populations, unsustainable migration patterns and rapid overdevelopment in cities that are resulting in heavy ecosystem services losses. Humankind's solutions to these problems do not always work, as many rely upon quantities of resources that simply do not exist or that could not support the rate of change that we are facing, behaviour changes that sit uneasily with our current consumption patterns and quality of life aspirations, and government policies that emphasise long-term sustainable gain but potential short-term economic loss for businesses and local people. A radical revisioning of the problem is needed, not only to reverse current trends, but also to contribute positively to the sustainability and wellbeing of the planet, now and in the future. This proposal is that radical new vision, adopting a 'whole of government' focus to the changes needed in the ways that societies live, work, play and consume, balancing social aspirations against the necessary changes, and using CO2 emissions as a proxy measurement for the harm being done to the planet and the resources (particularly energy) that we use. Through the development of a city analysis methodology; engineering design criteria for quality of life and wellbeing; engineering design criteria for low carbon pathways and; radical engineering approaches, strategies and visioning-all generated in a multidisciplinary context-we aim to deliver a range of engineering solutions that are effective in sustaining civilised life, in an affordable and socially acceptable style. Our vision is to transform the engineering of cities to deliver societal and planetary wellbeing within the context of low carbon living and resource security. We seek to prove that an alternative future with drastically reduced CO2 emissions is achievable in a socially acceptable manner, and to develop realistic and radical engineering solutions to achieve it. Certain techno-fixes for a low-carbon society have been known for some time (e.g., installing low energy appliances in homes), but are not always deemed successful, in part because they have not been deemed socially acceptable. Current aspirations for material consumption are driven by social factors and reinforced by social norms, yet recent research shows that meeting these aspirations often does not enhance wellbeing. Thus, the challenge the research community faces is to co-evolve the techno-fixes with people's aspirations, incorporating radical engineering strategies within the financial, policy/regulation and technical contexts, to re-define an alternative future. A roadmap is required to chart the path from here to there, identify potential tipping points and determine how to integrate radical engineering strategies into norms. However, this roadmap can only be considered once that alternative future has been established, and a 'back-casting' exercise carried out, to explore where the major barriers to change lie and where interventions are needed. Our ambition is to create an holistic, integrated, truly multidisciplinary city analysis methodology that uniquely combines engineered solutions and quality-of-life indicators, accounts for social aspirations, is founded on an evidence base of trials of radical interventions in cities, and delivers the radical engineering solutions necessary to achieve our vision. We seek to achieve this ambition by using a variety of innovative and traditional approaches and methods to undertake five research challenges, which are outlined in detail in five technical annexes.