Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework of measures for strengthening Europe’s innovation ecosystem
Date: 2025-11-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU research policy

FACTUAL SUMMARY REPORT: PUBLIC 
CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSAL 
FOR AN EUROPEAN INNOVATION ACT – 
DG RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 

21 November 2025 

 
 
 
 
Contents 

1 

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2 

2  Results of the public consultation ........................................................................... 2 

2.1  Who responded to the consultation? ....................................................................... 2 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

Regulatory framework ............................................................................................. 4 

Access to finance ................................................................................................... 9 

Talent ................................................................................................................... 13 

Access to public and private procurement markets ................................................ 16 

Access to research and technology infrastructure .................................................. 20 

Commercialisation of research results .................................................................. 23 

3  Methodology ........................................................................................................ 27 

1 

 
 
1  Introduction  

The European Innovation Act (EIA) is expected to improve the horizontal framework conditions in 
the EU to accelerate the commercialisation, uptake and diffusion of innovations. It will be one of 
the key initiatives for closing the innovation gap between the EU and its global competitors. 

This report provides a detailed analysis of public consultation activities conducted in the context 
of the impact assessment, from 8 July 2025 to 3 October 2025 or 13 weeks. The following types of 
consultation took place: 

•  Call for evidence: A total of 336 responses were received, including193 position papers.  
•  Public consultation in context of the Call for Evidence through an online questionnaire that 
covered  six  main  topics:  regulatory  framework,  access  to  finance,  talent,  procurement, 
access to research and technology infrastructure, commercialisation of research results. 
The  survey  consisted  mainly  of  closed  questions,  with  several  open-ended  questions 
allowing respondents to elaborate on their views. They were also encouraged to upload 
documents and further evidence that supported their opinion. A total of 202 contributions 
were received.  

Contributions received in the context of the public consultation published on the ‘Have Your Say’ 
portal do not represent the official position of the Commission or its services and thus do not bind 
the Commission, nor do they constitute a representative sample of the EU population. 

2  Results of the public consultation 

2.1  Who responded to the consultation? 

The public consultation received 202 responses representing diverse groups of stakeholders. 54 
out  of  the  202  replies  to  the  public  consultation  included  additional  uploaded  files,  including 
documents  to  support  the  answers  and  position  papers.  Another  336  respondents  also 
contributed their views but preferred to express them via position papers that were not submitted 
via the public consultation, but via the call for evidence that ran simultaneously with the public 
consultation.  

Most  replies  to  the  public  consultation  were  received  by  companies  and  businesses  (27%  -  55 
replies),  followed  by  business  associations  (23%  -  47  replies)  and  academic  and  research 
institutions  (16%  -  33  replies).  Other  respondents  included  EU  citizens  (8%  -  17  replies),  non-
governmental organisations (8% - 17 replies), public authorities (4% - 8 replies), trade unions (2% 
- 4 replies), non-EU citizens (1% - 3 replies) and a category ‘other’ (9% -18 replies).  

Most of the companies and businesses that participated in the consultation are micro businesses 
(1 to 9 employees) – 33% or 18 participants out of 55, followed by large companies with over 250 
employees (29% or 16 responses out of 55), small companies with 20% (11 responses out of 55) 
and medium companies (18% or 10 responses out of 55).  

The distribution of all organisations by size shows that 32% (59 out of 182) are large organisations, 
25% (45 out of 182) are  micro organisations  and  the small and  medium organisations  are 21% 
each (39 out of 182 each).  

2 

 
The  public  authorities  that  participated  in  the  consultations  are  from  Spain  (3  out  of  8,  38%), 
Sweden  (2  out  of  8,  25%)  and  one  participant  from  Estonia,  the  Netherlands  and  Slovakia. 
Furthermore, 4 replies (50%) are from regional authorities, 3 (38%) from national authorities and 
one (13%) from local authorities.  

Figure 1 OPC participants by type 

9%

2%

4%

16%

8%

1%

8%

Academic/research institution

Business association

Company/business

EU citizen

Non-EU citizen

23%

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

27%

Public authority

Trade union

Other

The distribution of respondents by country shows that most of the participants are from Belgium 
(15% - 31 replies), Germany (15% - 30 replies), France (10% - 20 replies), Italy (10% - 20 replies) and 
the  Netherlands  (8%  -  17  replies).  Countries  with  only  one  respondent  are  Bulgaria,  Estonia, 
Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, North Macedonia, Norway, United States.  

Figure 2 Geographical distribution of OPC participants by country 

31

30

20
20

17

16

14

Belgium
Germany
France
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Finland
Sweden
Austria
Denmark
Portugal
Ireland
Slovenia
Czechia
Lithuania
Poland
Switzerland
United Kingdom

8

5
5
5

4
4

3
3
3

2
2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

One response from Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, North Macedonia, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, 
United States 

Overall,  the  participants  in  the  consultation  have  experience  with  its  topics,  particularly  with 
designing or implementing innovation policies or programmes, with managing or using research 

3 

 
 
 
infrastructures  or  technology  infrastructures,  with  providing  access  to  finance  or  assisting 
companies  in  accessing  finance,  with  public  or  private  procurement,  with  commercialisation  of 
publicly funded research and innovation and with IPR rights.  

Figure 3 Experience of OPC participants with the topics in the consultation, all respondents 

With designing or implementing innovation policies or programmes?
(N=189)

With providing access to finance or assisting companies in accessing
finance? (N=187)

As a supplier of innovative solutions with applying for private and/or public
procurement. (N=167)

As a buyer with organising private and/or public procurement. (N=165)

73

Other type(s) of experience with private and/or public procurement (e.g. I
have helped suppliers or buyers to engage in such procurement). (N=168)

With managing or using research infrastructures or technology
infrastructures? (N=186)

With commercialisation of publicly funded research and innovation?
(N=186)

Do you own any of the following IPR rights: Patent, Copyright, Trade Secret,
Designs, Trademarks, Geographical Indications? (N=185)

152

124

90

96

136

122

33

4

54

9

77

92

72

40

54

10

10

8

96

81

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes No Don't know

2.2  Regulatory framework 

2.2.1  Definitions of start-up, scale-up and innovative company 

EU Member States apply different definitions of ‘start-up', ‘scale-up’ or ‘innovative company’. 
For 38% of the respondents the current application of the national definitions in their countries is 
beneficial, for 37% it is problematic and 33% report that they have experienced problems because 
different  countries  in  which  they  operate  are  using  different  definitions.  For  companies,  54% 
report  that  the  definitions  applied  in  their  country  are  beneficial,  and  40%  that  they  are 
problematic.  

Establishing EU-level definitions for ‘innovative company’, ‘start-up’ and ‘scale-up’ are expected to 
contribute mainly to simpler, clearer and better targeted national and EU support mechanisms for 
the community of innovative companies, start-ups and scale-ups. 

4 

 
 
Figure 4 Expected benefits from establishing EU-level definitions for ‘innovative company’, ‘start-up’ and ‘scale-up’, all 
respondents 

To what extent do you agree that the establishment of EU-level definitions for ‘innovative 
company’, ‘start-up’ and ‘scale-up’ could bring the following benefits

Simpler, clearer and better targeted national and EU support
mechanisms for the community of innovative companies, start-ups and
scale-ups  (N=184)

Improved legal certainty on the status of the company across the EU and
its associated rights and obligations (N=183)

Better options for lowering the administrative and regulatory burden on
start-ups, scale-ups and innovative companies (N=180)

Easier access to finance (N=182)

Easier to operate my business in more than one country in the EU (N=181)

Enhanced collaborations leading to a richer innovation-driven ecosystem
(N=184)

81

78

72

67

61

58

76

16

2
1

8

70

17

3
3

12

67

21

6

6

8

64

29

7

5

10

61

68

32

4
2

21

37

6

4

11

Easier access to research and technology infrastructures (N=184)

52

72

40

5

4

11

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

For  companies,  the  most  relevant  benefits  of  establishing  EU-level  definitions  are  the 
following: 81% agree that EU-level definitions will improve national and EU support mechanisms 
and 75% agree that EU-level definitions will improve the legal certainty of company status in the 
EU. Academic and research institutions share similar views, but they also pointed out that unified 
definitions  can  enhance  collaboration  and  enrich  the  innovation-driven  ecosystem  (82%  agree) 
and can improve access to research and technology infrastructures (79% agree). 

Respondents believe that the definitions should not be based on rigid criteria such as age of 
the  company,  revenues,  headcount.  This  approach  risks  excluding  companies  in  sectors  that 
require longer innovation development cycles, high initial capital investments, delayed revenues, 
and apply different business models (B2B vs B2C), and fails to accommodate modern and digital-
era  innovations.  The  definitions  should  be  simple,  transparent,  sector-neutral  and  flexible  to 
remain  relevant  as  markets  evolve.  They  should  consider  factors  such  as  innovation  intensity, 
share  of  turnover  from  new  products,  growth  trajectory,  technological  maturity,  regulatory 
complexity,  capital  requirements,  collaboration  with  research  centres  and  universities  and  the 
existence of certification mechanisms.  

Respondents  believe  that  EU-wide  definitions  create  simplifications  in  areas  such  as 
incorporation  rules,  State  aid  and  procurement  rules,  access  to  EU-level  funding,  tax  burden, 
access  to  financing,  IP  protection,  simplified  regulatory  reporting,  employment  and  talent 
retention.  

2.2.2  Innovation Stress Test 

An innovation stress test could provide a checklist of questions to help legislators assess the 
potential impact of upcoming legislation on innovation when it is under preparation. It could 
help  ensure  that  new  rules  do  not  place  disproportionate  restrictions  on  innovation  and  that, 
where possible, they actively stimulate innovation.  

5 

 
 
74%  of  company  respondents  and  56%  of  academic  respondents  highlight  that  they  are  still 
hindered by legislation in developing and testing innovative solutions and/or easily placing them 
on the market. 94% of all types of respondents agree that legislators need to more carefully assess 
the potential impacts that legislation can have on innovation. There is thus broad stakeholder 
support for introducing an innovation stress test.  

Figure 5 Impact of legislation on innovation 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 

There is currently legislation in place in the EU that hinders my organisation in developing and  
testing  innovative solutions and/or easily placing them on the market.

All participants (N=182)

69

49

29

21

32

Company/business (N=54)

25

15

13

1

Academic/research institution (N=27)

0%

Strongly agree

6

10%

Agree

9

6

6

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Legislators need to more carefully assess the potential impact that legislation can have on 
innovation, both when they prepare new legislation and when they revise existing legislation.

All participants (N=180)

Company/business (N=51)

Academic/research institution (N=27)

126

34

18

43

16

6

5

1

6

1

2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

All types of stakeholders agree that the following tools should be used more widely to design 
legislation in a more innovation-friendly way: introducing a fast-track procedure for obtaining 
regulatory advice (88%) and for obtaining permits for innovative technologies that are strategic for 
safeguarding  EU  economic  security  (92%  agree),  introduce  provisions  for  regulatory  sandboxes 
(81% agree) and a regulatory ladder (70%) in their legislation.  

6 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6 Areas to be considered when assessing the potential impact of legislation on innovation, all respondents 

To what extent do you agree that, when assessing the potential impact of legislation on innovation 
legislators should consider if it makes sense to...

introduce a fast-track procedure for obtaining permits for innovative
technologies that are strategic for safeguarding EU economic security
(N=182)

introduce a fast-track procedure for companies to obtain regulatory advice
(N=182)

make provisions for regulatory sandboxes in their legislation (N=180)

introduce a regulatory ladder that increases regulatory requirements in line
with the increasing size of companies and/or their impact on the market, to
check if the regulatory burden can be relieved on innovative start-ups
(N=182)

126

41

7

2

6

94

87

67

10

2
2

7

58

22

1
1

11

53

74

15

15

12

13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Respondents also made specific implementation suggestions for the stress test: stakeholders 
request  that  they  are  consulted  on  the  potential  impacts  of  legislation  on  innovation,  that  the 
innovation  stress  test  would  be  mandatory  for  both  EU  and  national  regulators,  that  it  would 
assess the potential impacts on all types of stakeholders in the innovation ecosystem (not only on 
companies, but also on universities, investors, customers etc.) and on all stages of the R&I cycle 
(not only on R&D, respondents emphasise that the stress test should also ensure the legislation 
does not block real-world testing and market entry of innovations). The test should also assess the 
impacts  on  speed  of  innovation,  on  innovation  incentives  and  support,  on  legal  and  financial 
uncertainty  and  risk,  on  access  to  skilled  workers,  on  international  competitiveness  of  EU 
companies. Respondents highlight that also that the stress test should ensure that legislation in 
EU is at least as ambitious on fostering innovation as in the US and Asia. 

2.2.3  Regulatory sandboxes 

Respondents  identify  several  benefits  of  regulatory  sandboxes:  faster  time-to-market,  early 
structured dialogue with regulators and identification of regulatory risks, easier compliance, safer 
real-world testing, timely adaptation of the product and increased attractiveness for investors.  

Respondents  also  identify  several  problems  with  the  current  fragmentated  landscape  of 
different national regulatory sandbox systems: innovators report barriers in accessing regulatory 
sandboxes  in  other  countries,  lack  of  EU  wide  definitions  and  legal  framework  for  regulatory 
sandboxes and lack of cross-border/EU level recognition of results is hindering the scaling up of 
companies and makes setting up cross-border regulatory sandboxes too complex, and also results 
in  slow  and  inconsistent  feedback  from  different  authorities,  time  consuming  process,  limited 
safeguards for confidential information, and difficult access for smaller companies due to limited 
resources .  

7 

 
 
Figure 7 Facilitation of wider implementation of regulatory sandboxes, all respondents 

In your opinion, how important is it to address the following aspects to facilitate the wider 
implementation of regulatory sandboxes?

There is a need for a better common understanding across Europe on
regulatory sandbox implementation to foster their wider implementation
(N=179)

There should be regulatory sandboxes for newly emerging technologies
(N=179)

There should be more possibilities for cross-border EU-level sandboxes
(N=176)

There is a need for tailored initiatives to facilitate the participation of SMEs,
start-ups or scale-ups in regulatory sandboxes (e.g. awareness campaigns,
guidance) (N=178)

An EU-level definition of ‘regulatory sandbox’ would help to achieve a better 
common understanding across Europe (N=180)

Regulatory sandboxes should enable all types of companies from across
Europe to test their innovations efficiently  (N=177)

There should be regulatory sandboxes for existing technologies that are
evolving (N=179)

There should be more possibilities for regulatory sandboxes at national level
(N=177)

103

95

91

89

89

83

59

57

51

66

16

9

8

2

8

66

10

9

55

54

67

88

80

18

2

14

24

3

10

13

1
3

10

19

4

9

16

7

5

12

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Respondents  have  a  clear  view  on  what  are  the  most  important  aspects  to  be  addressed  to 
facilitate the wider implementation of regulatory sandboxes: All types of respondents share the 
view  that  establishing  EU-wide  legal  definition  (79%  agree)  and  key  mechanisms  that  achieve  a 
commonly  shared  understanding  on  how  to  implement  regulatory  sandboxes  (86%)  would  be 
beneficial to foster their wider implementation across the EU. 85% of respondents also stress the 
importance of ensuring that companies from all across Europe can access regulatory sandboxes 
to  test  their  innovations.  There  is  very  strong  support  for  creating  more  cross-border  EU-level 
regulatory  sandboxes  (89%)  and  national-level  regulatory  sandboxes  (77%).  Respondents  also 
believe  that  there  should  be  regulatory  sandboxes  both  for  newly  emerging  technologies  (90% 
agree) and for existing technologies that are evolving (82% agree). There is also strong support on 
establishing  tailored  initiatives  to  facilitate  the  participation  of  SMEs,  start-ups  or  scale-ups  in 
regulatory sandboxes (81% agree).   

2.2.4  Better coordination of innovation policies and programmes 

Most participants agree (86%) that the innovation programmes and investments between the 
EU national authorities and among the different countries should be better aligned and that the 
current situation of insufficient coordination makes investment in innovation less effective (82%). 
Respondents  also  highlight  specific  bottlenecks  arising  from  operative  and  administrative 
misalignment  such  as  differences  in  criteria,  reporting  requirements  and  timelines  of  various 
programmes,  which  result  in  duplication  of  efforts,  fragmented  instruments,  underexploited 
synergies, and overlapping calls.  

8 

 
 
Figure 8 Coordination of innovation policies and programmes, all respondents 

To what extent do you agree with the following statement?

There is a need for better alignment of innovation programmes and
investments between the EU national authorities as well as among
the different countries themselves (N=182)

The insufficient coordination of innovation policies* between the EU
and the national authorities as well as among the different countries
themselves makes investments in innovation less effective (N=181)

95

85

62

12

4

9

64

15

6

11

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

The majority of respondents (61%) believe that the coordination between innovation policies 
and programmes can be improved if the European Innovation Council Forum is turned into an 
official innovation forum at EU level with proper coordination mandate. 

Figure 9 Answers to question: To what extent do you agree that the following approach is well-suited to improving 
coordination between innovation policies and programmes? Turning the existing European Innovation Council Forum 
into an official innovation forum at EU level – which would be composed of national high-level representatives 
responsible for innovation policy and programmes and the Commission – with a mandate to coordinate innovation 
policies, programmes and investments between the EU and national authorities, as well as among the different 
counties themselves.  

All participants (N=179)

41

68

30

7

4

29

Company/business (N=53)

16

19

7

3

2

6

Academic/research institution (N=28)

1

16

5

1

1

4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

2.3  Access to finance 

2.3.1  Raising public and private investments in innovation 

investment 

Respondents  strongly  believe  that  the  main  needs  for  bringing  innovations  to  the  market  are 
strengthened  public 
the 
commercialisation,  uptake  and  wide  diffusion  of  innovative  solutions  (91%)  to  close  the 
international  innovation  gap  (93%)  and  to raise private investments in  innovation  (82%)  so that 
total public and private investments can be raised also for strategic technologies that need large 
up front coordinated investments (91%).  

innovation  activities 

support 

that 

in 

9 

 
 
 
Figure 10 Main needs associated with lack of access to sufficient financing for bringing innovations to the market 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 

To bring R&D successfully to the market, it is important to increase not only public investment 
in R&D but also simultaneously public investments in innovation.

All participants (N=180)

Company/business (N=52)

Academic/research institution (N=28)

109

17

36

54

8

5

13

10

9

2

4

1

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Raising investments in strategic technologies is particularly needed, due to their economic 
importance and high up-front costs and risks

All participants (N=180)

Company/business (N=53)

112

41

51

9

3

1

4

8

3

1

Academic/research institution (N=27)

13

10

2

1

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Public investment in innovation needs to be strengthened in order to close the innovation gap 
with other parts of the world. 

All participants (N=180)

Company/business (N=53)

Academic/research institution (N=27)

104

33

16

63

17

10

7

3

3

1

2

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Raising public investment in innovation would have a positive effect on raising private 
investment in innovation.

All participants (N=181)

Company/business (N=52)

93

32

Academic/research institution (N=28)

10

8

55

21

4

2

6

13

7

5

1

1

2

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

The main barriers that survey participants faced when attempting to raise sufficient investment 
in bringing innovation to the market are associated with temporal mismatch between the interest 
of  investors  that  demand  quick  returns  and  the  innovation  lifecycle  that  calls  for  long  time-to-
market; lack of blended models where public (EU/national) funds are used to reduce the risk for 
private investors; underdeveloped and fragmented capital markets and exit options for investors, 
risk aversion of public and private procurers.  

The following proposed measures gained strong support from all types of survey participants: 
cooperate with the private sector to raise the level of public and private innovation investments 
(91%  agree),  move  to  more  agile  government  structures  to  combine  national,  EU  and  private 
financing  to  open  innovation  investment  (89%  agree);  develop  specific  innovation  investment 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
pathways to accelerate time to reach the market for strategic technologies (87% agree); develop 
an EU roadmap (83% agree) and national action plans (77% agree) to raise innovation investments 
and benchmark the investments levels in the EU against other parts of the world (83% agree); and 
ensure that there is an appropriate balance between supply and demand driven innovation (73% 
agree). 

Figure 11 Measures to facilitate access to financing, all respondents 

Move to more agile governance structures to combine national, EU and
private financing for opening these innovation investment pathways.
(N=178)

Cooperate/align with the private sector to raise the level of public and
private innovation investment in the EU. (N=179)

Develop specific innovation investment pathways to accelerate time it
takes for strategic technologies to reach the market. (N=180)

Develop an EU action plan or roadmap to raise the level of innovation
investment across the EU. (N=180)

Develop national action plans or roadmaps, in conjunction with the EU, for
raising innovation investment in Member States. (N=181)

Monitor the level of innovation investment in the EU, and benchmark this
against investments in other parts of the world. (N=180)

112

47

7

1
2

9

101

99

73

71

70

62

10

3
1
2

58

12

2
2

7

76

17

7

2

5

68

23

10

5

4

79

18

5

1

7

Ensure that there is an appropriate balance between supply- and demand-
driven innovation, in public innovation investment. (N=179)

56

74

28

6

1

14

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Other measures suggested by the survey participants encompass various forms of tax stimuli, 
completing  the  Capital  Market  Union,  establishing  a  pan-European  fund-of-funds  or  EU  co-
investment fund to crowd in private capital, simplification and acceleration of the public funding, 
using public procurement to provide not only large but also smaller innovative companies with 
first paying customers, initiatives to facilitate visibility and match-making between investors and 
companies.  

2.3.2  IPR-backed financing 

Respondents believe that the key barriers that prevent start-ups and scale-ups from obtaining 
IPR-backed  financing  are  lack  of  experience  with  IPR  valuations  among  banks  and  institutional 
investors (58% agree) and start-ups and scale-ups (57% agree) as well as the prudent attitude of 
investors  (55%  agree).  Other  key  barriers  are  valuation  uncertainty  due  to  lack  of  trustworthy, 
widely  accepted  standard  practices  for  IPR  valuation  (50%  agree),  high  valuation  and  litigation 
costs  (47%).  Other  arguments  are  that  there  are  regulatory  barriers  that  hamper  wider 
implementation of IPR backed financing in the EU (39% agree), that there is a lack of secondary 
IPR markets (37% agree) and that it is not common practice among start-ups/scale-ups in the EU 
to make IPRs visible in their annual accounts or financial reporting (35%). 

11 

 
 
Figure 12 Key barriers preventing start-ups and scale-ups from obtaining IPR-backed financing, all respondents 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 
Key barriers preventing start-ups and scale-ups from obtaining IPR-backed financing in the EU are:

Lack of experience with IPR valuation among banks and/or institutional
investors in the EU. (N=170)

The prudent attitude of banks and institutional investors to engage in IPR-
backed financing. (N=168)

The costs of IPR valuation for start-ups and scale-ups in the EU. (N=167)

Lack of trustworthy, widely accepted standard practices for valuing IPRs.
(N=168)

Lack of experience with IPR valuation among start-ups/scale-ups in the
EU. (N=169)

Lack of secondary markets with sufficient critical mass and liquidity for
resale of IP rights by lenders. (N=169)

It is not common practice among start-ups/scale-ups in the EU to make
IPRs visible in their annual accounts/financial reports. (N=169)

There are regulatory barriers that hamper wider implementation of IPR-
backed financing in the EU. (N=168)

53

45

13

5

1

52

19

1
3

53

52

41

40

38

35

33

39

46

19

7

2

60

21

6

4

61

13

6

3

29

31

4

4

53

51

68

69

68

20

16

39

49

31

6

4

25

7

3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Respondents think that the most important measures for fostering the IPR-backed financing 
in the EU would be establishing an EU-wide accepted IPR valuation methodology (64% agree) and 
providing an IPR-valuation tool to simplify the valuation process (60% agree). Also important are 
providing  guidance  and  training  for  start-ups  on  IPR  valuation  and  reporting  (63%  agree)  and 
providing  financial  support  for  IPR  valuation  to  start-ups  and  scale-ups  (62%  agree),  which  is 
considered clearly more useful than setting a maximum price for IPR valuation (34% agree). About 
half of the respondents think that it is important to create also a pool of qualified professionals 
(51%  agree)  and  to  create  both  better  guidance  (54%)  and  clearer  rules  (48%)  for  banks  and 
institutional investors on IPR backed financing. One third of respondents (33%) agree that if an IPR 
marketplace with sufficient critical mass and liquidity is established, it should be established by 
private actors with the support of public institutions.  

12 

 
 
Figure 13 Important measures for wider implementation of IPR-backed financing, all respondents 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 
The following measures are important for the wider implementation of IPR-backed financing in the EU:

Provide financial support, at reduced rates, to start-ups/scale-ups for IPR
valuation . (N=167)

Create a trustworthy EU wide accepted methodology, for IPR valuation and
provide templates and guidance on how to apply it. (N=169)

Provide more guidance and training for start-ups on IPR valuation and on
reporting on IPRs in annual accounts. (N=170)

Provide an IPR-valuation tool to simplify the IPR-valuation processes. (N=166)

Foster the creation of a pool of qualified professionals, building an expert
network of IPR valuators, creating a centralised IPR valuation assessment
centre. (N=168)

Create EU guidance and training for banks/institutional investors on how to
implement start-up/scale-up-friendly IPR valuation in line with the principles
of sound financial management. (N=169)

Establish or appoint an institution or facility to take on part of the risk in
individual IPR-financing instruments e.g. by providing public financial
guarantees for individual loans. (N=167)

48

42

37

36

35

35

34

55

14

2

6

42

66

15

5
0

41

70

15

2

4

42

63

18

1

9

39

50

28

3

7

45

57

21

3

5

48

47

25

6

2

53

Introduce clearer rules for banks and institutional investors in the area of IPR-
backed financing. (N=164)

29

50

24

2

4

55

Introduce a specific reporting category for IPR in annual accounting/financial
reports across the EU and raise awareness among start-ups/scale-ups of how
important this is in terms of attracting financing (N=168)

26

40

28

12

9

Create an IPR marketplace with sufficient critical mass and liquidity (EU wide,
and possibly connected to others around the world). (N=167)

24

48

29

8

6

53

52

Establish a maximum price for IPR valuation in the EU for start-ups/scale-ups
(depending on the type of IPR). (N=168)

23

34

33

12

17

49

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2.4  Talent 

All respondents agree that the main challenges that innovative companies in the EU are facing in 
attracting  and  retaining  talent  are  difficulties  in  offering  globally  competitive  benefits  and 
remuneration  (60%  agree).  For  companies  specifically,  the  main  challenge  is  the  lack  of 
harmonised  conditions  for  employee  stock  option  schemes  across  Member  States  (51%  agree) 
and the lack of mutual recognition of employee stock option schemes across EU Member States 
(44% agree). 

Other  challenges  with  the  employee  stock  option  schemes  shared  by  survey  participants  are 
complicated procedures for establishing such schemes and their relatively rigid model, difficulties 
when  the  employee  is  relocating  to  another  country  as  well  as  the  temporal  mismatch  of  the 
duration of such schemes with innovations with longer development lifecycle. Challenges outside 
the  stock  option  schemes  include  limited  support  for  family  allocation,  as  well  as  shortage  of 
experienced business professionals. 

13 

 
 
Figure 14 Main challenges for talent attraction and retention 

To what extent do you agree that the following challenges are preventing innovative 
companies in the EU from attracting and retaining talent? 

The difficulties to offer globally competitive benefits and remuneration, including employee 
ownership schemes (such as employee stock options)

All participants (N=177)

Company/business (N=51)

55

13

Academic/research institution (N=27)

5

51

25

7

0

39

11

7

12

7

6

0

9

1

0

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

The lack of harmonised conditions  for employee stock option schemes across EU Member 
States (for example, in terms of taxation and employee and company eligibility)

All participants (N=175)

Company/business (N=51)

Academic/research institution (N=26)

55

16

7

39

10

4

2

29

4

1

47

14

1

1

9

0
0

13

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

The lack of mutual recognition of employee stock option schemes across EU Member States

All participants (N=172)

Company/business (N=50)

Academic/research institution (N=27)

44

12

7

41

10

3

4

0

32

15

1

0

13

51

12

4

0
0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Possible solutions to tackle the challenges that gained highest support are: alignment of the 
tax  regimes  in  regards  to  the  point  and  type  of  taxation  for  the  employee  stock  options  (63% 
agree),  developing  a  harmonised  framework  with  common  standards  on  the  scope  of  national 
employee  stock  option  regimes  (63%  agree),  and  ensuring  mutual  recognition  of  the  schemes 
between Member States (58% agree). Academic and research institutions demonstrated relatively 
low support for all suggested measures (except for alignment of the tax  regimes where support 
was 58%) mainly because of high share of no opinion answers. 53% of all respondents also wants 
a common EU valuation mechanism to determine the value of employee stock options and 46% 
of all respondents desires a safety net that protects employees against unforeseen events.  

Other measures proposed by the survey participants are longer exercise windows, tax incentives 
for long-term retention of options, awareness campaigns, guidance and practical support for SMEs 
and employees, fast track visa processing and family allocation support.  

14 

 
 
 
 
Figure 15 Measures for attracting and retaining talent in innovative companies 

To what extent do you agree that the following solutions would be positive steps towards 
tackling the challenges identified? 

Develop a harmonised framework with common standards on the scope of national employee 
stock option regimes (for example, covering taxation, employee and company eligibility, and 
shareholder and dividend rights)

All participants (N=172)

Company/business (N=50)

52

13

56

21

12

3

1

48

4

1

11

Academic/research institution (N=26)

5

9

1

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Develop a safety net that protects employees in the case of unforeseen events (e.g. where the 
employee is made redundant because the company goes out of business, or where employees 
are asked to move to another EU country due to company restructuring)

All participants (N=171)

Company/business (N=50)

Academic/research institution (N=26)

23

7

3

56

18

8

28

8

10

46

10

1

4

2

3

10

10

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Align tax regimes across the Member as regards the point and type of taxation for employee 
stock options

All participants (N=173)

Company/business (N=51)

Academic/research institution (N=26)

65

22

9

44

13

14

6

2

2

45

11

6

1

1

9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Adopt a common EU valuation mechanism to determine the value of the employee stock option

All participants (N=172)

32

Company/business (N=51)

Academic/research institution (N=26)

11

6

59

16

6

24

8

6

2

49

3

1

12

2

1

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Ensure the mutual recognition of employee stock option schemes between Member States

All participants (N=172)

52

Company/business (N=51)

Academic/research institution (N=26)

13

6

47

19

22

2

49

6

1

12

6

1

1

12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.5  Access to public and private procurement markets 

2.5.1  Access to the private procurement market 

When  it  comes  to  the  private  procurement  market,  the  main  problems  that  need  to  be 
addressed  according  to  all  survey  participants  are:  the  lack  of  a  level  playing  field  so  that 
innovative EU suppliers can compete with non-EU suppliers (74% agree), EU companies are facing 
supply chain dependencies especially for products that rely on strategic technologies that are key 
to safeguarding EU resilience and technological sovereignty (71% agree) and private buyers are 
too risk averse to buy from small innovative companies (69% agree). Companies agree with these 
problems of the private procurement market. In addition, 75% of companies believe that there are 
legal  barriers  or  a  lack  of  regulatory  incentives  or  simplifications  that  hold  back  private  buyers 
from  buying  in  a  more  innovation-friendly  way.  For  academic  and  research  institutions,  the 
most important issues are associated with the risk aversion of private buyers (65% agree) and a 
general difficulty to find private buyers for innovative solutions (62% agree).  

Figure 16 Needs related to the private procurement market, all respondents 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the private procurement market 
in the EU?

There is a need to ensure a level playing field so that innovative EU
suppliers can compete with non-EU suppliers on the private procurement
market. (N=175)

EU companies are facing supply chain dependencies, including the risk of
over-reliance on non-EU products, especially concerning products that
rely on strategic technologies that are key to safeguarding EU resilience
and EU technological sovereignty(N=173)

Private buyers in the EU are still too risk-averse to buy solutions from
smaller innovative companies. (N=174)

There are legal barriers or a lack of regulatory incentives or simplifications
that hold back private buyers from buying in a more innovation-friendly
way and/or to increase their resilience. (N=170)

It is difficult for innovative companies to find private buyers in the EU for
their innovative solutions.  (N=173)

66

62

60

49

44

63

22

4

2

18

60

27

1

23

60

25

7

2

20

66

23

3

2

27

72

25

11

21

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0%

10% 20%

30% 40% 50%

60% 70%

80% 90% 100%

Possible  next  steps  to  encourage  private  procurement  of  innovative  solutions  include 
requiring private buyers that receive public funding to procure solutions to adopt procurement 
practices  that  promote  innovation  and  support  the  participation  of  start-ups  and  innovative 
companies (72% agree). Other measures include requiring private buyers that own/operate critical 
infrastructure to procure in a way that safeguards the resilience of the supply chains (68% agree) 
and  requiring  these  buyers  to  adopt  procurement  practices  that  enable  access  to  innovative 
solutions and facilitate participation by startups (66% agree). The ranking order of the measures 
is the same for both companies and academic and research institutions.  

55% of companies highlight that private buyers can  face challenges  in  the EU to  commercialise 
innovations from universities due to conflicts in the IPR policies of universities and customers. 38% 
of  companies  highlight  that  there  are  also  problems  due  the  misalignment  between  the  IPR 
policies of their suppliers and those of their customers. This indicates a need to ensure better 
alignment of IPR policies along value chains. 

16 

 
 
Figure 17 Challenges faced by private buyers in commercialisation of innovations  

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 

Private buyers in the EU face challenges in commercializing innovations from their supply chain 
due to misalignments between the IPR policies of their suppliers and those of their customers

All participants (N=173)

Company/business (N=52)

23

8

42

12

38

5

2

63

14

3

1

14

Academic/research institution (N=26)

2

7

6

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Private buyers in the EU are hampered in commercialising innovations from universities due to 
conflicts between the IPR policies of universities and that the IPR policies of their customers

All participants (N=172)

Company/business (N=51)

32

9

52

19

32

10

1

45

10

2

1

Academic/research institution (N=26)

4

7

5

4

10

6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Other suggested measures  included:  tax deductions, risk-sharing mechanisms  or co-financing 
schemes for companies investing in innovative suppliers could accelerate uptake. Pre-commercial 
procurement should also be more accessible to private buyers, not just public buyers. 

2.5.2  Access to the public procurement market 

Support  among  all  types  of  respondents  is  high  for  several  measures  to  address  the  barriers 
faced by innovative companies in the public procurement market. Most respondents agree that 
contracts  should  be  awarded  based  not  only  on  lowest  price,  but  also  on  other  criteria  when 
buying R&D and/or innovative solutions by all public buyers (82% agree) and in particular also by 
public buyers that own/operate critical infrastructures (80%). 72% of respondents also thinks that 
public  buyers  that  own/operate  critical  infrastructures  should  be  encouraged  to  buy  in  a  more 
innovation-friendly way. Three quarters of respondents (74%) believe it is important to create a 
set of EU innovation procurement criteria that provide legal certainty on how public buyers can 
take into account factors other than price and to remove legal barriers that prevent public buyers 
from different EU countries to procure R&D and/or  innovative solutions collaboratively.  65%  of 
respondents  want  clear  legal  provisions  on  how  public  buyers  can  reinforce  EU  technological 
sovereignty in innovation procurements. 

67% of respondents also think that a simpler way to implement multi sourcing is needed. 70% of 
respondents  also  highlight  that  companies  sometimes  miss  business  opportunities  because 
announcements  for  upcoming  market  consultations  are  calls  for  tenders  for  innovation 
procurements are not published and they demand more transparency. 59% of respondents thinks 
there is a need for more innovation-friendly IPR conditions allowing companies to retain their IPR 
rights. 57% of respondents also wants the EU to provide more legal clarity on how to apply value 
engineering in public procurement. 59% of respondents think it is important to provide a template 
subcontracting agreement to better protect the rights of subcontractors in public procurements. 

71%  of  companies  expressed  also  significant  support  for  three  other  measures:  wider  use  of 
functional  or  performance-based  specifications  for  public  procurements  that  buy  R&D  and/or 

17 

 
 
 
innovation  solutions,  making  payment  methods  used  in  public  procurements  of  R&D  and/or 
innovative  solutions  more  suitable  for  start-ups  and  scale-ups,  and  preventing  unjust 
disqualification  of  bidders  in  procurements  based  on  financial,  professional  or  administrative 
selection grounds.  

Other  suggested  measures  included:  provide  a  standardised  fast-track  procedures  for  pre-
commercial  procurement  allowing  public  buyers  to  procure  R&D  and  first  innovative  solutions 
outside traditional EU public procurement directives, promote cross-sectorial calls for tenders for 
innovation procurements, enforce proportionality tests on financial and administrative selection 
conditions, timeframes to submit and evaluate offers should be of the same duration. 

18 

 
Figure 18 Measures to address the barriers faced by innovative companies in such public procurement, all 
respondents 

In public procurements for buying R&D and/or innovative solutions,
contracts should be awarded based not only on lowest price, but
also on other criteria. (N=175)

Public buyers that own/operate critical infrastructure should award
public contracts for R&D and/or innovative solutions that rely on
strategic technologies not only based on the lowest price (N=171)

For this type of procurements, it would be helpful to create a set of
EU innovation procurement criteria that provide legal certainty on
how public buyers can take into account factors other than price
(N=174)

Payment methods used in public procurements that buy R&D and/or
innovative solutions should be made more suitable for start-ups and
scale-ups (N=172)

Legal hurdles that make it difficult for public buyers from different EU
countries to procure R&D and/or innovative solutions collaboratively
should be removed (N=172)

Suppliers sometimes miss important business opportunities
because announcements for OMC and public procurement are not
always transparently publicised (N=175)

Public procurements that buy R&D and/or innovation solutions
should make wider use of functional or performance-based
specifications (N=175)

Public buyers should carry out OMC before public procurements, so
that buyers are well informed about the most recent developments
and innovations (N=175)

Unjust disqualification of bidders in procurements for R&D and/or
innovative solutions should be prevented (N=174)

Public buyers that own/operate critical infrastructure should take
special care to procure in a more innovation-friendly way (N=170)

To make it easier for new players to enter the market, public buyers
should have a simpler way to implement multiple sourcing in
procurements for R&D and/or innovative solutions. (N=173)

Clear legal provisions should be provided for how public buyers can
reinforce EU technological sovereignty in procurements that buy
R&D and/or innovative solutions (N=171)

If the IPR conditions used in public procurement are not to deter
suppliers from protecting and commercialising their innovations,
public buyers should buy only those IPR rights that they really need
(N=173)

The EU should provide legal clarity on how value engineering can be
used in public procurements that buy R&D and/or innovative
solutions (N=174)

A template subcontracting agreement should be created that
protects the rights of subcontractors in public procurements that buy
R&D and/or innovative solutions (N=171)

97

83

47

7

1
2

21

53

11

1

23

69

68

67

67

66

61

59

56

54

52

47

46

42

60

18

4

23

53

16

1

34

60

18

2

25

56

58

24

2
1

25

22

1
1

27

55

29

5

1

24

64

66

18

2

31

19

3

26

62

23

1

33

60

29

5

1

24

55

24

1
1

45

53

59

33

1
1

40

22

1

47

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2.5.3  Supporting innovation procurement through R&I policies 

87% of all respondents agree that R&I policies and programmes should provide better support 
and incentives for innovation procurement, for example through financial support for public 
and private procurers to implement lighthouse projects including on strategic technologies. 80% 

19 

 
 
of respondents agree that innovation procurement should be better anchored into R&I policies 
(through  R&I  policies  for  specific  sectors  and  strategic  technologies,  and  by  monitoring  the 
contribution of innovation procurement investment to total R&I investments). 74% of respondents 
agree  that  an  EU  roadmap  or  action  plan  should  be  created  to  reinforce  public  and  private 
innovation procurement investment across the EU with a view to making Europe competitive with 
other major economies in this field. 71% of respondents believe that EU Member States should 
draw  up  national  action  plans/roadmaps  for  innovation  procurement  with  clear  goals  and 
timeline.  73%  of respondents  also highlight that  creating a  clear  EU definition for innovation 
procurement in line with definitions already used in R&I policies would be a useful measure. 83% 
of respondents are of the opinion that also EU institutions and EU agencies should make their 
own public procurements more innovation friendly.  

The replies of all types of respondents for the questions in this section were aligned. 

Figure 19 Measures for improving strategic planning and anchoring of innovation procurement in R&I policies, all 
respondents 

R&I policies and programmes should provide better support and
incentives for innovation procurement (N=169)

The EU should make procurement of EU institutions and EU
agencies more innovation-friendly, so as to enable the monitoring of
innovation procurement investment (N=168)

An EU roadmap or action plan should be created to reinforce public
and private innovation procurement investment across the EU
(N=168)

Innovation procurement should be better anchored into R&I policies
(N=169)

It would be useful to create a clear EU definition for innovation
procurement in line with definitions already used in R&I policies
(N=169)

National roadmaps or action plans for innovation procurement
should be drawn up , with clear goals, a timeline and monitoring of
progress (N=167)

74

70

63

62

56

56

73

6

2

14

70

13

1

14

62

27

3
2

11

73

13

4

17

68

62

23

4

3

15

28

2
3

16

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2.6  Access to research and technology infrastructure 

The  most  significant  challenges  survey  participants  faced  when  accessing  research  and 
technology (R&T) infrastructure were complex administrative procedures (56%), high access costs 
(54%), and lack of information regarding available infrastructure and the services offered (49%). 
Other hurdles mentioned by respondents are limited availability of facilities (44%), fragmented IPR 
frameworks  and  confidential  concerns  in  agreements  with  R&T  infrastructures  (38%)  and  legal 
barriers to access R&T infrastructures in other EU countries (32%). 

For companies, of the main challenges are high access costs, complex administrative procedures, 
and availability of facilities and lack of information. For academic and research institutions, it is 
mainly the access costs and the availability of facilities.  

20 

 
 
Figure 20 Challenges when accessing research and technology infrastructure 

What are the most significant challenges your organisation has faced when accessing research 
and technology infrastructure in the EU?

Complex administrative procedures

High access costs

Lack of information regarding available infrastructure and the services
offered

Limited availability of facilities

Fragmented IPR management frameworks and confidentiality concerns

Legal barriers in terms of access to research and technology infrastructure
in other EU countries.

7

12

18

18

15

8

10

8

5

0

12

10

26

29

61

58

53

48

41

35

20

30

40

50

60

70

All participants (N=108)

Company/business (N=44)

Academic/research institution (N=19)

While  accessing  a  R&T  infrastructure  is  an  important  part  for  the  R&D  operations  of  60%  of 
respondents, the conditions for accessing R&T infrastructure are often too complex and unclear 
(48%  agree).  54%  of  companies  also  agree  that  they  do  not  usually  have  sufficient  financial 
resources to access the necessary R&T infrastructure.  

39% of all respondents highlights that the R&T infrastructures that they are familiar with are not 
open  enough  to  small  innovative  companies  or  not  prepared  to  work  with  them.  68%  of 
respondents are of the opinion that innovative companies should  be given discounted  rates to 
access  R&T  infrastructures.  23%  of  respondents  highlight  that  they  are  not  sufficiently  open  to 
public sector organisations (e.g. to public buyers that want to test solutions) or prepared to work 
with them. 

31% of respondents are not aware of the services that R&T infrastructures can offer to scale up 
their  business  and  only  20% of  respondents think that R&T  infrastructures offer  sufficient non-
technological services. Only 24% of respondents think that R&T infrastructures are aware of the 
needs of companies and  tailor  their standard experimentation services to the specific needs of 
industrial users. However, only 18% of respondents believe that they do not  have the expertise 
and  experience  themselves  to  work  with  R&T  infrastructures.  29%  of  respondents  suffer  from 
legal, cultural or language barriers to access R&T infrastructures. 

Only 22% of respondents think that services and facilities of R&T infrastructures that they know 
really match their expectations, and 30% of respondents thinks that the models for working with 
R&T infrastructures are not suited to their needs. 

21 

 
 
Figure 21 Relevance of access to R&T infrastructure, all respondents 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the relevance of access to 
research and technology infrastructure for your organisation

Accessing a research or technology infrastructure is an important part of
the R&D operations of my organisation. (N=163)

51

47

15

6

The conditions for accessing research and technology infrastructure are
often complex and unclear. (N=162)

30

48

27

9

3

I do not usually have sufficient financial resources in my organisation to
access the necessary research and technology infrastructure. (N=160)

The research and technology infrastructures that I am familiar with are
NOT sufficiently open to small innovative companies or prepared to work
with them. (N=160)

25

24

30

33

11

3

38

19

18

6

The models for working with research and technology infrastructure are
not suited to the needs of my organisation.  (N=159)

19

28

36

17

2

44

45

58

55

57

Legal, cultural or language barriers deter me from using research and
technology infrastructure available in another EU country. (N=160)

Research and technology infrastructures that I am familiar with are NOT
sufficiently open to public sector organisations (e.g. to public buyers that
want to test solutions) or prepared to work with them. (N=160)

14

32

32

17

12

53

14

23

41

16

4

62

I am not sufficiently aware of the services of research and technology
infrastructure that could help me scale-up my innovations. (N=161)

13

37

28

8

54

The services and facilities of the research or technology infrastructures
that I know match my expectations compared to how they promote
themselves. (N=159)
Research and technology infrastructures offer sufficient non-
technological services other than experimentation (such as consultation
on experimental design and business-acceleration services). (N=160)
Infrastructure staff are generally aware of the needs of companies such as
mine and sufficiently tailor their standard experimental services to the
specific needs of industrial users.  (N=159)

I do not have sufficient expertise and experience in my organisation to
collaborate effectively with research and technology infrastructure.
(N=160)

9

9

9

21

51

10

25

11

2

23

41

22

3

60

62

29

39

20

6

56

20

25

38

17

51

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

The  most  popular  measures  for  addressing  the  barriers  to  accessing  R&T  infrastructure  are 
simplification  by  providing  an  EU  blueprint  for  collaboration  agreements  with  these 
infrastructures that clarifies specific contractual provisions such as IPR management and liability 
(78%),  establishing  dedicated  access  schemes  for  start-ups  and  scale-ups  for  using  R&T 
infrastructure (77%) and greater alignment of conditions governing access to R&T infrastructure 
across  Europe  (74%).  Also,  many  agree  that  public  financing  for  R&T  infrastructure  should  be 
subject to their openness to users across the EU (72%), that access schemes should include both 
technological and non-technological services (71%) and that the EU should have in place dedicated 
schemes for public buyers to access R&T infrastructures, in order to test solutions in the context 
of innovation procurement (57%). 

22 

 
 
Figure 22 Measures addressing the barriers to accessing research and technology infrastructure, all respondents 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the possible way forward?

The EU should aim for greater alignment of conditions governing access to
research and technology infrastructure across Europe. (N=164)

Industry access to R&T infrastructures should be simplified* (N=166)

The EU should have in place dedicated access schemes for start-ups and
scale-ups for using research and technology infrastructure. (N=167)

Access schemes should include both technological and non-
technological services.  (N=167)

Innovative companies should be given discounted access to research and
technology infrastructure. (N=168)

Public financing for research and technology infrastructure should be
subject to their openness to users across the EU. (N=166)

The EU should have in place dedicated schemes for public buyers to
access research and technology infrastructures, in order to test solutions
in the context of innovation procurement. (N=166)

66

65

65

56

56

51

55

21

4

18

64

63

62

59

68

11

3

3

20

15

2
2

20

22

1

26

24

9

1

19

21

3

23

42

53

28

6

2

35

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

*Full answer is: Industry access to research and technology infrastructures should be simplified, for example by proposing an EU 
blueprint for collaboration agreements with these infrastructures that clarifies specific contractual provisions such as IPR 
management and liability. 

There  are  some  differences  between  the  answers  of  companies  and  academic  and  research 
institutions.  For  companies,  most  relevant  measures  would  be  related  to  industry  access  to 
infrastructure (80% agree), with linking public financing of infrastructure with open access to users 
across EU (78%), and with establishing dedicated access schemes (76%). 73% of companies also 
agree that innovative companies should be given discounted access to infrastructure.  

Academic  and  research  institutions  value  most  dedicated  access  schemes  (78%),  greater 
alignment of access conditions (77%),  and simplified industry access (70%). 70% also agree that 
access schemes should include both technological and non-technological services. 

in  a  comprehensive  way 

Other  measures,  proposed  by  the  survey  participants,  include  establishing  a  web  portal  that 
presents 
information  on  available  research  and  technology 
infrastructure,  access  conditions  and  costs  for  using  them  (a  ‘one-stop-shop’  approach), 
simplification of State Aid rules for research infrastructure access as well as dedicated EU funding 
for supporting access to infrastructure for startups, scaleups and SMEs.  

2.7  Commercialisation of research results 

The commercialisation of publicly funded research and innovation faces several challenges such 
as:  barriers  to  research  and  innovation  collaboration  between  industry,  academia  and  public 
sector organisations (83% agree), insufficiently developed standardisation policies in universities 
and RTOs (59% agree), and IPR policies in universities and RTOs that are not geared to fostering 
the commercialisation of academic research results (63% agree).  

23 

 
 
Figure 23 Commercialisation of publicly funded research and innovation challenges 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 

IPR policies in European universities and RTOs are not sufficiently geared to fostering the 
commercialisation of academic research results

All participants (N=174)

Company/business (N=52)

50

14

59

17

15

13

5

5

6

32

10

Academic/research institution (N=29)

3

9

5

6

3

3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Standardisation policies in European universities and RTOs are not sufficiently developed to 
fostering the commercialisation of academic research results

All participants (N=174)

31

Company/business (N=52)

Academic/research institution (N=29)

8

4

71

21

7

6

19

7

3

6

1

1

6

43

15

1

5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

There are still barriers to research and innovation collaboration between industry, academia 
and public sector organisations

All participants (N=174)

72

72

11

4

1

14

Company/business (N=52)

Academic/research institution (N=29)

17

9

21

16

7

2

5

1

1

2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Considering the commercialisation of academic research results, 81% of survey participants 
believe  that  Member  States  should  adopt  strategies  that  promote  the  commercialisation  of 
publicly funded research results generated in universities and RTOs, including intellectual asset 
management, spin-off creation, and go-to-market strategies. This measure is supported by 75% of 
the companies and by 86% of the academic and research institutions.  

For IPR policies, the measures that collected highest support are requiring European universities 
and  RTOs  to  have  an  IPR  policy  in  place  that  clearly  outlines  how  they  handle  the  protection, 
licensing and transfer of intellectual assets (77% agree),  reinforcing capacity building for staff in 
universities and RTOs (75% agree) and designing financial and non-financial incentives and reward 
mechanisms to motivate researchers and universities/RTOs to pursue robust IPR protection and 
to enable them to benefit from successful commercialisation of academic IPRs (74% agree). These 
measures are supported by both companies and academic and research institutions.  

Other supported measures include: establishing a Europe-wide platform where researchers and 
universities and RTOs can list their IPR assets (69% agree), universities and RTOs should pursue 
adequate protection and commercialisation of academic research results from publicly financed 
research by setting up their own transfer offices or joint transfer offices (68%) and IPR transfer 
and  licensing  processes  should  mitigate  liquidity  issues  for  start-ups/spinoffs,  while  allowing 
universities  and  researchers  to  benefit  from  the  economic  success  of  the commercialisation  of 
academic research results (66%).  

24 

 
 
 
 
Figure 24 Measures to overcome IPR-related barriers that hamper the commercialisation of academic research 
results, all respondents 

European universities and RTOs should have an IPR policy in place that
clearly outlines how they handle not only the protection, but also licensing
and transfer of intellectual assets (N=171)

Incentives and reward mechanisms should be put in place to motivate
researchers and universities/RTOs to pursue robust IPR protection (N=170)

Capacity building for staff in universities and RTOs should be strengthened
to ensure that their TTOs operate at high quality standards and facilitate
the cross-border exploitation of knowledge. (N=170)

For all their publicly financed research, European universities and RTOs
should pursue adequate protection and commercialisation of academic
research results (N=169)

A Europe-wide platform should be available to researchers and
universities and RTOs where they can list their IPR assets (N=172)

IPR transfer and licensing processes should mitigate liquidity issues for
start-ups/spinoffs, while allowing universities and researchers to benefit
from the economic success of the commercialisation of academic
research results (N=168)

67

64

62

52

48

47

64

11

1
1

27

62

66

15

1
1

27

10

2
2

28

63

71

19

4

1

30

19

4

5

25

64

19

3

2

33

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

For  overcoming  the  barriers  relating  to  standardisation  and  certification,  the  measures  that 
received  most  support  are:  shortening  the  procedures  for  standardisation,  certification  and 
permitting of strategic technologies (71% agree), providing training, advisory and support services 
to researchers to improve understanding and support their participation in the standardisation 
and certification processes (68% agree), and incentivising researchers to carry out standardisation 
and certification activities (65% agree).  

Other supported measures are: universities and RTOs to pursue adequate standardisation and 
certification activities in cooperation with the transfer offices, including identifying standardisation 
and certification objectives from the early research stages (61%), start-ups and scale-ups should 
pay reduced prices for certification and permitting processes (58%) and European universities and 
RTOs to adopt a standardisation policy that is closely linked to their research and innovation and 
IPR policies (58%).  

25 

 
 
Figure 25 Measures to overcome barriers relating to standardisation and certification, all respondents 

Processes for standardisation, certification and permitting of strategic
technologies should be shortened (fast-track procedure) (N=167)

It should become the norm in the EU that start-ups and scale-ups pay
reduced prices for certification and permitting processes (N=165)

Training, advisory and support services should be put in place to help
researchers understand how standardisation and certification works and
to support them in taking part in standardisation and certification
processes  (N=170)

Incentives should be provided to encourage researchers to carry out
standardisation and certification activities (N=169)

European universities and RTOs should pursue adequate standardisation
and certification activities in cooperation with their transfer offices,
including identifying standardisation and certification objectives from the
early research stages (N=168)

European universities and RTOs should adopt a standardisation policy,
closely linked to their R&I and IPR policies, that clearly outlines how they
will pursue standardisation and certification (N=169)

67

64

52

51

40

35

52

21

4

23

32

63

38

2
2

27

25

1
1

28

59

22

5

1

31

62

25

4

2

35

63

28

4

2

37

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

For companies, fast-track procedures for standardisation, certification and permitting is the most 
important measure (70% agree). Other very relevant measure is for start-ups and scale-ups to pay 
reduced prices for certification and permitting processes (65% agree). For academic and research 
institutions  the  most  relevant  measures  are  the  provision  of  training,  advisory  and  support 
services to researchers (79% agree) and incentivising researchers to carry out standardisation and 
certification activities (76% agree).  

Collaboration  between  industry,  academia,  other  public  sector  organisations  and  buyers 
can  be  difficult  when  they  work  under  incompatible  IPR  policies:  74%  of  the  consultation 
participants  agree  with  this  view.  Another  76%  agree  that  IPR  policies  should  be  better  aligned 
across different forms of public financing for research and innovation  to get innovations out of 
the lab into the market. A number of respondents recommend the EU to adopt a Bayh-Dole-type 
IPR regime in the EU to address these issues, leaving IPR ownership by default with the innovator 
that is going to commercialise the solution in all the different public financing instruments. 

Figure 26 Collaboration between industry, academia and public sector: problems and measures 

To what extent do you agree with the following statement? 

Collaboration between industry, academia, other public sector organisations and buyers can be difficult when 
they work under incompatible IPR policies (e.g. if there is a conflict between a university’s IPR licensing 
requirements for a spinoff conflict an

All participants (N=173)

Company/business (N=51)

57

19

71

18

17

4

24

10

1

3

Academic/research institution (N=29)

2

18

1

2

6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

26 

 
 
 
To get innovations out of the lab into the market, IPR policies should be better aligned across different forms of 
public financing for research and innovation, so that innovators are not blocked from commercialising their IPR 
when using different types o

All participants (N=170)

Company/business (N=51)

59

15

Academic/research institution (N=28)

6

70

23

15

17

2

22

9

3

3

1

4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

3  Methodology 

This section outlines the approach used to analyse the public consultation responses and position 
papers received.  

The  analysis  of  the  closed  consultation  questions  reports  statistics  on  aggregated  and 
disaggregated stakeholder views and explored variations by stakeholder type. This report focuses 
on the most relevant divergences and trends. 

The  Commission’s  eTranslation  tool  was  used  for  non-English  contributions.  Following 
categorisation, the study analysed responses to identify stakeholder perspectives.  

As the consultation relied  on self-selected  respondents who were not required  to comment on 
every issue area, the qualitative analysis is not statistically representative. Instead, it complements 
the  quantitative  results  by  illustrating  stakeholder  perspectives  through  specific  examples  and 
identifying recurring themes across position papers and open-text responses.  

All other responses received were considered in the analysis.  

27