What the European Innovation Act really needs to deliver

Over 300 organizations responded to the consultation, highlighting key measures to support startups and research—here’s what they want

Over 300 responses were received to the call for evidence launched by the European Commission on the forthcoming European Innovation Act (EIA), a flagship initiative under the EU Startup and Scaleup Strategy. This proposed regulation, whose adoption is planned for the first quarter of 2026, aims to remove barriers to innovation. It also aims to improve the commercialization of research, and enhance access to finance, talent, and infrastructure across Europe. The overarching objective of the Act is to create a more innovation-friendly regulatory, policy, and investment environment that enables startups and scaleups to develop their products, grow within the Single Market, and compete globally.

The other side of innovation

That a vibrant ecosystem of innovative companies is essential for European competitiveness is no surprise. Nor are the many challenges that innovation faces: from administrative burdens to difficulties in securing funding, attracting talent, accessing infrastructure, and entering markets. Responses from across Europe demonstrated broad consensus on the need for a regulatory framework. A framework that supports startups and scaleups while reinforcing Europe’s position in the global innovation landscape.

Among the contributors, Science Europe, representing over 40 major research funding and performing organizations, emphasized the need for coherent, proportionate, and innovation-friendly regulatory frameworks that reflect the realities of research institutions. Their response stressed that early-stage academic ventures often face administrative and legal obstacles that slow down the transition from research to market. Science Europe therefore called for better alignment and harmonization of national and EU-level rules. That matters especially in areas such as intellectual property management, cross-border collaboration, and state-aid regulations.

It also advocated for regulatory flexibility, starting with regulatory sandboxes, to avoid excessive constraints on research-driven innovation. From a talent perspective, Science Europe highlighted that «instead of brain drain, brain circulation should be the goal», ensuring that mobility benefits Europe as a whole. The organization further urged that provisions on talent attraction in the Innovation Act be closely coordinated with the European Research Area (ERA) policy framework to ensure coherence and complementarity.

Finally, Science Europe outlined six key areas for improvement. They are: stronger national investment, healthier research cultures, better incentives for talent retention, enhanced institutional support and expertise, broader networking and collaboration opportunities, and greater diversity and inclusiveness. Overall, its feedback reflected a nuanced view that research-based innovation requires both legal clarity and operational flexibility.

A global competitiveness perspective from ITIF

A contrasting yet complementary view came from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a US-based think tank specializing in technology and innovation policy. ITIF assessed the European Innovation Act through a global competitiveness lens. They argue that Europe must strengthen its innovation capacity to compete with the United States and China. In particular, ITIF recommends that the European Commission use the innovation principle as the guideline for EU digital regulation. They also asks to establish an Office of Innovation Review to serve as an “innovation advocate” within the EU, and create a “28th Regime”.

ITIF too emphasized the need to boost the commercialization capacity of European universities. Additionally, the foundation called for implementing a “Bayh-Dole Act–like” framework for university IP ownership from public R&D funding. Regarding finance, the think tank suggested deepening pools of risk capital, in part by permitting pension funds to invest in venture capital, and called for accelerating the increase of the continent’s R&D intensity to at least 3 percent.

Building an integrated Pan-European innovation infrastructure

The perspective of Impact Europe, a pan-European innovation network supporting startup and scaleup ecosystems, emphasized the need for a truly integrated innovation infrastructure. The organization presented a clear call to action. For European startups to scale successfully, they need access to three key pillars. Tangible Infrastructure: seamless, cross-border access to vital resources like pilot lines, testbeds, and demonstration facilities. Plus, targeted funding: a coordinated financial ecosystem that provides innovation financing and impact-oriented investment. Third: supportive regulation. Agile and forward-looking regulatory frameworks that enable innovation rather than hinder it.

Impact Europe highlighted that the European Innovation Act should go beyond mere financial support. It should facilitate cross-border infrastructure coordination, reduce administrative burdens, and enable mission-driven innovation. «The European Innovation Act», they wrote, «should create space for impact investors to co-invest with EU instruments and fuel the growth of impact-driven startups and enterprises». «This means – they added – growing the impact investor pipeline and ensuring that capital aligned with public interest outcomes is part of the EU’s innovation financing architecture».

The academic perspective: universities as innovation incubators

The role of academic institutions as incubators of startups and engines of technology transfer is also central to the reflection of the European University Association (EUA). The EUA represents over 900 universities across 48 European countries. Their response highlighted the need for streamlined intellectual property management. It also called for simplified compliance processes for university spin-offs and stronger incentives for collaboration with industry. At the same time, it emphasized the importance of safeguarding academic freedom and research integrity. «A better approach», they emphasized, «would measure progress along the journey, including talent development, innovation sabbaticals, technology readiness level advancements, job creation, collaboration agreements, and contacts made».

Similarly, The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities, which brings together 19 leading research institutions, shared EUA’s concerns and perspectives. The Guild questioned the European Commission’s decision to separate research and innovation into two distinct legislative acts — the European Research Area Act and the European Innovation Act. It argued that the latter must also address the barriers preventing universities from generating lasting socioeconomic impact. It called for enhanced university-industry collaboration, fewer regulatory obstacles for academic spin-offs, and more accessible funding mechanisms at both European and national levels. The Guild further pointed to the incomplete Single Market as a critical obstacle to the growth of innovative companies in Europe. It urged the Commission to address national rules that fragment the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people within the Union.

EARTO’s blueprint for deep-tech and regulatory sandboxes

Another significant contribution came from EARTO, the European Association of Research and Technology Organizations, which represents over 350 RTOs across Europe. EARTO emphasized the strategic importance of research and technology infrastructures in supporting deep-tech startups. It also advocated for targeted investments in both capital and operational resources. Their response called for the integration of RTOs into startup hubs. It also urged the promotion of pre-commercial procurement and the creation of risk-tolerant funding mechanisms.

EARTO also recommended introducing clear exemptions for research and development activities, including prototyping, from overly restrictive regulations. It further called for establishing harmonized EU guidelines for export control to ensure consistency across member states. They further suggested clarifying that obligations under the Cyber Resilience Act and the Product Liability Directive should not apply to non-commercial prototypes or research tools.
This exemption should apply at least within defined timeframes. They also advocated for the establishment of regulatory sandboxes to enable safe and legally compliant testing of innovative technologies. Such sandboxes, they stressed, should be structured environments involving competent authorities, not shortcuts to market approval.

EARTO Innovation Awards Ceremony 2025, held in conjunction with the celebration of EARTO’s 25th Anniversary at the BELvue Museumin Brussels, 14 October 2025.

Shared priorities emerge

Across the many submissions to the European Innovation Act consultation, clear priorities have emerged. Stakeholders are calling for simpler, harmonized, and proportionate regulations that don’t slow the path from research to market. Equally urgent is the need for accessible innovation infrastructure—from pilot facilities to shared labs and demonstration centers—that can underpin commercialization. There is broad agreement, too, on the importance of risk-tolerant, long-term funding. This recognizes that high-tech ventures often face lengthy development cycles and substantial risk. Universities and research organizations repeatedly surface as essential hubs, providing talent, intellectual property, and technical expertise. And all contributors stress the need for cross-border coordination to facilitate the flow of talent, knowledge, and capital across the Single Market.

Despite their different perspectives — academic, infrastructural, policy-oriented, or focused on competitiveness — contributors converge on a shared goal.
The European Innovation Act must build an ecosystem that lowers barriers, sparks innovation, and empowers startups and scaleups to compete globally. Three strategic priorities stand out. The first is improving access to funding and infrastructure. The second is cutting administrative and regulatory burdens. And the third is fully integrating universities and research organizations into the innovation ecosystem. Achieving these goals will require not just new legislation. It will also require a keen understanding of the operational realities faced by startups, research institutions, and growing enterprises.

In the end, the European Innovation Act represents a major opportunity to unlock Europe’s innovation potential. By aligning regulation, infrastructure, talent, and investment, it can help Europe maintain its position as a global leader in innovation and entrepreneurship. Success, contributors agree, will depend on regulatory simplicity, infrastructure accessibility, coherent policies, and targeted incentives.
These are the very factors that can turn Europe into fertile ground for the next generation of high-growth, globally competitive innovators.