The EU remains a scientific power but is losing ground when research must be turned into technologies and companies

The European Union continues to be one of the world’s leading producers of scientific research, but it is finding it harder to turn this capacity into strategic technologies, companies that scale up and economic productivity, according to the 2026 edition of the Commission’s report on the EU’s performance in science, research and innovation. The document identifies insufficient investment, the fragmentation of national systems, difficulties in financing innovation and global competition as the main obstacles.

In brief, the EU ranks second worldwide in scientific output, and 57% of its publications involve some form of international collaboration. The Commission says Europe is less successful at turning research results into strategic technologies, market leadership and productivity gains. The report identifies particular problems in financing and scaling up innovation in areas such as artificial intelligence, advanced semiconductors and cloud computing. The Commission communication estimates that an additional EUR 560 billion in investment would be needed to meet the objective of raising research and development spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. The Commission is separately preparing a European Research Area Act and has proposed a European Innovation Act, instruments at different legislative stages that should not be confused with the report’s conclusions.

The report Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU 2026 starts from a contrast that is appearing increasingly often in European competitiveness policy. Europe has universities, research centres and scientific communities capable of producing large volumes of high-quality knowledge, but a smaller share of this capacity is being turned into companies, commercial technologies and market positions comparable to those of the main global competitors.

The Commission places the Union second worldwide in terms of scientific output. The European system also has a high international dimension, with 57% of scientific publications involving collaboration with international partners. The report considers the quality of European research to remain high.

The problem emerges later in the chain between discovery and economic application. The Commission says Europe is less effective at turning its scientific advantage into strategic technologies, market leadership and productivity growth. This gap is one of the report’s central themes and connects research policy with the broader debate on European competitiveness.

The first obstacle identified is the level of investment. The EU has long pursued the goal of raising investment in research and development to 3% of gross domestic product. According to the communication presenting the SRIP 2026 report, reaching this level by 2030 would require an estimated additional EUR 560 billion in investment.

The communication does not explain the methodology behind this estimate sufficiently to determine from it alone how the amount should be distributed over time or between public and private funding. For this reason, the figure should not be presented as an annual requirement, nor mechanically divided among the years remaining until 2030 without consulting the methodology of the full report.

The second obstacle is fragmentation. Research and innovation activities are distributed among states, regions, universities, research infrastructures and different sources of funding. The Commission considers that this structure sometimes reduces the impact of investment and limits Europe’s ability to concentrate sufficient resources in technological fields where global competitors operate on a larger scale.

Fragmentation does not mean that the diversity of national systems is itself a problem. The issue identified by the Commission is the difficulty of coordinating priorities, investments and infrastructure when a technology requires a scale that a single national or regional programme cannot support effectively.

Another problem is the development of companies after the initial innovation phase. The report points to bottlenecks in access to finance, the exploitation of knowledge and the implementation of technologies. These can prevent scientific results from being turned into products and services and can limit the ability of innovative European companies to grow without moving part of their activity or funding to other markets.

The Commission highlights artificial intelligence, advanced semiconductors and cloud computing among the areas where this problem is of strategic importance. Europe needs fundamental research, infrastructure, funding and the capacity to introduce technologies into the economy at the same time in order to turn scientific performance into a competitive advantage.

Competition for researchers and specialists is part of the same problem. The report links Europe’s technological position to its ability to attract and retain researchers, innovators and entrepreneurs. The Choose Europe initiative is cited by the Commission among the instruments intended to strengthen the attractiveness of the European ecosystem.

The report’s conclusions are connected with several initiatives that the Commission is preparing or has already proposed, but these must be legally distinguished. The European Research Area Act is presented as an instrument under preparation that would strengthen the coordination of research and innovation priorities between the European and national levels, improve investment planning and reduce barriers to the movement of knowledge and talent.

The European Innovation Act addresses another part of the problem. The Commission links it to innovative companies’ access to public procurement and the use of intellectual property to facilitate financing. The SRIP report provides arguments and data for these policies, but the publication of the report does not mean that these acts have been adopted.

The Commission also identifies the future EU budget for the 2028–2034 period as one of the instruments through which the investment gap could be reduced. The European executive supports a stronger budget for research and innovation and the mobilisation of a larger volume of private and institutional capital.

One example mentioned is the Scaleup Europe Fund, intended to facilitate access to capital for European technology companies in the development phase. According to the Commission’s communication, the fund had already announced seven investments in European technology companies when the report was published.

SRIP 2026 does not examine research exclusively through the lens of industrial competitiveness. The Commission also links investment in research and innovation to environmental objectives, resilience, strategic autonomy and maintaining the European social model. The central idea is that productivity and technological capacity must be strengthened without separating innovation policy from the other European objectives.

The full report is the main biennial publication of the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation for assessing the European research and innovation system. The 2026 edition is structured into chapters devoted to investment, the European science system, technologies and global challenges, financing innovative companies, the geography of research and innovation, artificial intelligence, productivity and access to finance.

The communication made available for this news report summarises the report’s main conclusions, but does not contain the full methodology for the indicators, the data series or any national analyses. For this reason, detailed comparisons concerning Romania or a breakdown of the EUR 560 billion estimate require consultation of the full report and the datasets published alongside it.