News

Inside Innovation at Nordic Universities: What 5 Months of Interviews Revealed

Scandinavian countries have long stood out for their commitment to high-caliber research and collaborative approaches to problem-solving. Yet when it comes to turning university discoveries into real-world applications, each nation has its own story, shaped by local laws, cultural norms, and practical setups. This article is based on the research our colleague Claudia Lita has been busy with over the past 5 months during her internship at ScoutinScience. She conducted in-depth interviews with technology transfer and innovation professionals across Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, capturing their authentic, firsthand perspectives on how these countries handle technology transfer and entrepreneurship. Across these discussions, interviewees repeatedly highlighted common bottlenecks: 73% pointed to legal and regulatory constraints as a major barrier, 82% emphasized limitations in funding and risk capital access, and 64% noted challenges in academic culture, incentives, and disclosure practices that slow the flow from research to market. You'll see common threads, like bridging the gap from lab to market and making the most of public funding, but also clear differences, especially around who owns intellectual property and how universities engage with business. We'll break it down country by country, touching on legal basics, organizational models, core focuses, funding, scouting methods, industry links, tools, key challenges, and what's on the horizon, to give a straightforward comparison.

1. Denmark

The European university setup started out centered on teaching and research alone. Gradually, folks realized universities could play a bigger part in boosting society and the economy through innovation, sparking the creation of Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs). But the laws overseeing universities haven't kept pace with this shift. In Denmark, public universities stick to strict legal guidelines. These rules spell out that their job is to teach and do research, but they stay quiet on getting involved in business or commercialization. That means universities often can't legally put money into companies, grab equity in spin-offs, or let startups run on campus grounds. In some cases, the law is so ambiguous that different legal experts interpret it in different ways. Even as the public and policymakers push for more innovation from universities, many don't grasp the regulatory hurdles in the way. It's not about lacking drive or skills in the universities themselves, the real snag is that the law holds them back from moving more freely. That said, things are changing: reforms are in motion, with more policy focus on innovation, laws under review, and the government rolling out a fresh strategy on entrepreneurship and innovation that stresses easing regulations to get public research out to market faster. The whole setup is shifting, with universities pulling things together centrally, embracing fresh goals, and making headway.

1.1. Efficient centralized models supporting cohesion

Under the current rules, Danish universities have come up with smart, workable ways forward. Many run centralized TTOs offering consistent services university-wide, instead of scattering them by department or faculty. This keeps IP handling, invention checks, ties to industry and investors, and support for researcher and student entrepreneurship all in sync. Going central brings real perks: pooling know-how from legal pros and business builders, better overall planning, no internal fights over resources, and a seamless blend of research commercialization with student startups. It makes for a tighter, smoother innovation process. Some places rely on internal legal teams and university-owned subsidiaries for dealing with IP, patents, licensing, and student ventures. On a national scale, partnerships, like linking researchers up with seasoned outside entrepreneurs, let institutions tap into common resources without reinventing the wheel, bolstering the ecosystem. These steps highlight Denmark's hands-on attitude: centralizing for better results, reviewing laws as they go, laying out national strategies for entrepreneurship, and loosening rules where it counts to open up market access for public research.

1.2 Realistic bottlenecks and areas for continued progress

People we spoke with were candid about the hurdles, pointing to legal and regulatory snags as the biggest one. Other linked issues include:

• Funding for strategic investment: Innovation budgets reliably cover operations and staff, with proof-of-concept grants and training programs available, but they offer limited room for larger-scale commercialization steps.
• Incentives and academic culture: Researcher evaluations center on publications and research grants; formal inclusion of innovation in assessment and funding (similar to the UK's "third mission") would help scale activities. Commercialization is now part of university strategies, though cultural shifts take time.
• Administrative complexity: Strict public-sector procurement, reporting, and audit rules ensure accountability but add layers to decisions.
• Industry matchmaking: Differences in timescales and priorities (short-term business needs vs. long-term academic focus) can complicate collaboration, though partnerships remain active.
• Risk capital and talent dynamics: Access to later-stage venture capital and serial entrepreneurs can be limited, contributing to some talent moving abroad (e.g., to the U.S. for more dynamic ecosystems). European capital regulations sometimes direct institutional funds overseas. Additional considerations include greater recognition of social sciences and humanities impact and better support for postdocs as potential spin-out founders.

1.3 Ongoing reforms and forward momentum

Denmark's push into commercialization is fairly new but gaining ground steadily. Outside impact now shows up in university plans, laws are getting a fresh look, government approaches stress deregulation to help public research hit the market, and scouting efforts are dipping into digital tools for sharper spotting of potential. Calls from interviewees leaned toward focused tweaks: weaving innovation into official reviews, updating governance, tweaking risk-capital rules to keep investment at home, and aligning policies. These are seen as high-return moves that don't cost much, mainly needing political buy-in. Europe, Denmark included, has a solid starting point with top-notch education and trained researchers; tackling these hurdles would build on that edge. In short, Denmark's university innovation scene runs strong, with standout research, streamlined central setups, country-wide teamwork, and high EU standings. The core bottlenecks, mostly linked to laws that haven't caught up, are well spotted and getting attention through reforms. This sets Denmark up nicely to lean into its advantages and turn top-tier research into bigger economic and social wins.

2. Sweden

The defining feature of Sweden's innovation system is the professor’s privilege (also called the teacher's exemption). Unlike most countries and other Scandinavian nations, Swedish law grants ownership of intellectual property (IP) generated through academic research to the individual researcher, not to the university. This has major implications: universities cannot commercialize research results directly, operate traditional Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), invest in patenting or licensing university-owned IP, or take equity in spin-offs in the same way as university-owned models. Instead, commercialization support is provided through a clear set of actors that “know who does what”: university innovation offices, university holding companies, business incubators, and science parks. These entities help the researcher, who owns the rights, establish start-ups, access incubators, obtain early-stage funding, and navigate company formation. Innovation offices act as facilitators, guiding and advising the individual researcher rather than representing the university as IP owner. Holding companies offer practical assistance with patents, funding, and business setup. This adapted system brings both opportunities and challenges, but Sweden has built a working model around it. The professor’s privilege makes Sweden fundamentally different from other Scandinavian countries and can complicate international collaborations, as foreign partners often expect universities to own and negotiate IP. This places extra responsibility on individual researchers, who may lack negotiation experience, and requires extensive explanation and support from innovation offices.

2.1 Facilitative support: Innovation Offices and researcher Initiative

Innovation offices serve as central support hubs for researchers, faculty, staff, and students. They provide advisory services, workshops, lectures, breakfast meetings, bootcamps, and outreach activities to help people understand pathways to impact, valorisation, IP, and commercialization. Scouting and identification of commercial or societal potential are largely researcher-driven: researchers approach the office through drop-in sessions or events when they are interested. The office then evaluates ideas, advises, and supports, but final decisions always remain with the researcher because they own the rights. There is no systematic screening of publications, automated filters, or proactive identification of promising opportunities from research outputs. Everything starts with the researcher’s own initiative and interest. Offices do not push or force commercialization; the approach is based on dialogue, inspiration, and informed choice. Researchers’ preferences are respected, and support is framed as a service to help them explore options rather than a mechanism to impose commercial goals. Faculty cultures differ: some generate a high inflow of ideas, while others prioritize academic excellence and publications over application, which naturally affects the pipeline

2.2 Industry matchmaking and ecosystem coordination

Matchmaking with industry is highly organic, network-driven, and dependent on personal relationships, experience, and ongoing dialogue. There are no formalised or automated matchmaking systems in place. Offices guide researchers and value business advisors who bring their own networks. They collaborate with holding companies and incubators to expand reach, as time limits how much staff can be “out there.” While the system allows flexible, tailored partnerships, the lack of robust CRM systems makes it difficult to maintain a clear overview of contacts, interactions, and opportunities. External matchmaking organizations are sometimes used to complement internal efforts. Overall, coordination among the core actors (innovation offices, holding companies, incubators, science parks) is good, with formal meetings several times a year plus many informal ones. Cooperation is the norm under a “Sweden Inc.” mindset, even if some competition exists.

2.3 Practical structures and investment support

Some universities have established separate investment arms (controlled by the university) that provide early-stage funding to promising spin-offs, particularly in deep technology. These arms invest in a select number of companies each year, often co-investing with a large network of venture capital firms, corporate investors, and angels. They focus on areas where funding gaps are greatest, preferring collaboration over competition. Innovation offices are partly funded by government initiatives that required every Swedish university to establish such an office. Additional funding comes from university administration, project grants, and corporate sponsorships for specific activities. To drive culture and provide leadership with clear indicators, Swedish universities have started a national impact-tracking effort. All universities now participate, reporting employment from spin-outs, tax revenues, and other outcomes.

2.4 Realistic bottlenecks and areas for progress

Interviewees openly discussed challenges:

• Many researchers remain focused on basic research and publications and may not be interested in commercialization.
• The professor’s privilege creates trade-offs: universities have fewer direct financial incentives to push commercialization, and international partners can find the system complex.
• Matchmaking is ad hoc and case-by-case; building a tighter, structured industry interface takes time.
• Scaling deep-tech companies is difficult across Europe, requiring large patient investments and experienced leaders who understand scientific and regulatory complexity, resources that are harder to find.
• Risk capital and venture funding are limited outside major hubs, creating regional disparities.
• Regulations (Swedish and also EU) are heavy, especially in medtech and life sciences, where entering the European market is not harmonized and can be hard.
• Work permit delays for non-EU researchers who want to stay and start companies, and complicated IP clauses in research contracts. Despite strong national rhetoric on innovation, Europe (including Sweden) still needs both more budget and better organization and processes. Change is underway but slow.

2.5 Strengths and forward direction

The professor’s privilege allows faster and less constrained spin-outs compared to more bureaucratic systems. Innovation is embedded in university life, with strong coordination among actors and a focus on societal value rather than direct IP monetization. The ecosystem benefits from open, collaborative communities and a clear division of roles that supports researchers effectively. In summary, Sweden’s university innovation ecosystem is distinctive, researcher-centered, and supported by a well-coordinated network of innovation offices, holding companies, incubators, and science parks. The professor’s privilege provides autonomy and speed but brings trade-offs in incentives, international alignment, and systematization. With practical structures, ongoing impact tracking, and a strong collaborative culture, Sweden is well positioned to address its bottlenecks and continue enabling meaningful commercialization and societal impact from university research.

3. Norway

Norway's university-driven innovation ecosystem is characterized by a well-organized, institution-led approach to technology transfer, with dedicated offices effectively supporting the commercialization of research results. This section describes the typical structure of these offices, their mission, funding mechanisms, processes for scouting and deal flow, industry matchmaking, use of tools, and the primary areas for further development, including how Norway differs from Sweden.

3.1 Structure and ownership

These offices frequently operate as limited companies, with ownership shared between major institutions such as universities and research institutes. They function independently while maintaining boards that include representation from owners and key partners. Collaboration is a strong feature, particularly with other research institutes on shared campuses that are interlinked through common research topics (such as food, animals, bioeconomy, and nature). A shared office model generates clear synergies across the campus ecosystem, enabling coordinated efforts in related fields.

3.2 Ownership legislation

Norway differs significantly from Sweden in its IP ownership legislation. Around 2020, Norwegian law shifted from a model where researchers owned research outcomes to one where institutions/universities own the results. This change has strengthened the role of dedicated offices, which are responsible for protecting both institutional and researcher interests and managing negotiations for utilization. There are approximately 11 such offices in Norway, each serving different universities and research institutes. Some are larger in scale, while others function more broadly as “innovation companies” that integrate services such as incubators, clusters, scale-up programs, and investment funds. Ownership structures vary: some include external commercial owners, while others (particularly the largest university-linked ones) are university-owned.

3.3 Core mission and focus

These offices concentrate on commercial innovation and exploitation. Their main pathways involve licensing agreements to existing industry and supporting spin-offs/startups in cases where no established company is prepared to advance the technology. They act as a key mechanism to complete the research-to-market chain, advancing results beyond publications or internal reports toward market-ready products. The focus remains strictly on commercialization rather than social innovation.

3.4 Funding model

Funding is primarily provided through the Norwegian Research Council, especially via early-stage commercialization programs, with public funding matched by owners/partners under established frameworks (referred to as FORNY / FORNEW, meaning “renew”). Funding is delivered in stages, beginning with support for early development and researcher time, and progressing to more substantial amounts for market validation, partnerships, business model development, and commercialization strategy. Additional sources can include EU funding and Norwegian corporate or philanthropic contributions, depending on the technology and level of interest. Licensing revenue follows a three-way split: one-third to the inventor(s), one-third to the originating department, and one-third to the office to support its ongoing operations.

3.5 Scouting, deal flow, and invention disclosures

Deal flow is actively built through outreach and culture-building efforts rather than systematic scanning of publications. Activities include workshops, lectures, regular meetings with deans, “impact workshops,” and encouraging researchers to frame their work around real-world problems. Researchers are legally required to disclose potentially patentable inventions via a DOFI (invention disclosure document) to the institutional owner; the office receives and processes these disclosures. The process typically flows as: outreach → researcher awareness → invention disclosures → evaluation (considering market interest, patentability/protectability, and commercialization feasibility) → funding applications → commercialization. There is no current system for automatically scanning publications to identify high-potential opportunities, but pipelines are effectively generated through researcher engagement following workshops, combined with guidance to align research with market-relevant problem framing. A recognized challenge is that universities often produce many solutions without fully verified market need, the offices play a valuable role in bridging this gap. Some offices have recently gained an overview of all research activity, opening possibilities for adding enhanced scanning capabilities in the future.

3.6 Industry matchmaking

Business developers within the office manage matchmaking with industry. The internal teams bring strong scientific competence (many holding PhDs in fields like IT, biophysics, molecular biology, and engineering) alongside legal and economics expertise. External consultants are brought in when time is limited or specialized knowledge is required, but the majority of work is handled internally.

3.7 Use of AI and tools

These offices are highly active in applying AI across various processes, including market research, funding applications, patent evaluations, and general workflow support throughout the commercialization stages. AI adoption continues to grow across Norway’s network of these offices, with diverse approaches: some acquire specialized “tailored” AI tools, while others develop internal workflows using tools like ChatGPT for Teams with customized prompting. Offices collaborate closely, share experiences, and conduct internal AI workshops. This active embrace of digital tools aligns with Norway’s high-cost economy and longstanding tradition of automation and digitization.

3.8 Areas for further development

Legislation is not considered a major barrier in Norway; the emphasis remains on opportunities rather than limitations. The most significant area for improvement is access to investment capital, particularly venture capital and follow-on financing. Challenges can arise when technology arrives at the office before it is fully mature, or when additional capital is required after successful early development to reach the market. There is a view that Norway, despite its wealth and large sovereign fund, could benefit from greater strategic reinvestment into start-ups and future industries to better prepare for a post oil-and-gas economy.

3.9 Strategic outlook

Norway's university innovation ecosystem benefits from institution-owned IP (following the 2020 shift), a network of dedicated offices with varied structures, and robust public funding support for early-stage commercialization. The system effectively promotes outreach-driven deal flow, leverages internal expertise for matchmaking, actively incorporates AI tools, and uses revenue-sharing incentives. While it successfully advances research toward market outcomes, increasing access to investment capital for scaling and follow-on stages represents a key opportunity for even stronger performance.

4. Finland

Finland's university-driven innovation ecosystem is in a dynamic transition phase, blending its historical strengths in state-supported, trust-based collaboration with an emerging, more market-driven and transactional model. This section describes the ecosystem context, collaboration patterns, structured innovation processes at universities, scouting and commercialization approaches, funding mechanisms, tools in use, and the main areas for continued development.

4.1 Ecosystem context and transition

Finland operates as a relatively small, connected national ecosystem (with a population of around 5.5 million), where most relevant actors know each other and there are fewer universities and overall players compared to larger countries. This creates a single, integrated national innovation landscape rather than multiple separate regional ones. The ecosystem is still “finding its feet,” roughly 10–15 years into development, with another 5–10 years potentially needed to reach full maturity. A key ongoing challenge is retention, keeping companies and talent within Europe rather than seeing them move abroad, particularly to the U.S. Historically, innovation relied heavily on state support and trust-based cooperation (including pro bono work and favor exchanges). As the ecosystem grows, it is shifting toward a more transactional, market-driven approach, influenced by models seen in places like the U.S., where scale and paid services increasingly shape trust and collaboration.

4.2 Collaboration among universities, R&D Centers, and innovation actors

Collaboration is strong within research activities, but cross-city innovation cooperation among research universities is less common. Practical geography (requiring travel between cities) plays a role, and IP-related issues can also complicate inter-university innovation efforts. In some regions, the higher-education landscape is dense with multiple institutions nearby, though many are universities of applied sciences rather than research universities, which influences the nature and focus of local collaboration. Overall, the ecosystem emphasizes national-level coordination, with actors like Business Finland playing a central role in funding and connecting research to commercialization.

4.3 Innovation structures and processes at universities

Universities typically maintain dedicated TTOs or innovation units that handle invention disclosures, IP management, and technology transfer. Separate or complementary teams often focus on entrepreneurship support, ecosystem building, and connecting researchers to external networks, funding, and business development. A common pipeline starts with externally funded research projects (often supported by Finland’s Research Council, EU Horizon programs, or private foundations). When a project yields a potential invention, it enters the formal innovation process through invention disclosure. Innovation advisors (often assigned to specific schools or departments) engage regularly with researchers, attend faculty meetings, and guide next steps, such as further research, applied programs, industrial partnerships, or commercialization preparation. Business Finland’s Research-to-Business grants are a key national scheme for maturing early-stage technologies, with universities actively participating and receiving significant funding shares. These projects (typically 18–24 months) involve recruiting business developers with commercial experience to join research teams, helping develop business cases, understand investor expectations, and prepare for funding pitches. Once ready, formal technology-transfer negotiations occur, often handled by specialized spin-off asset management teams. Approved spin-outs enter incubation support (up to several years), with the full journey from disclosure to independent startup potentially taking several years. The process integrates research, innovation, and entrepreneurship, with clear hand-offs across stages.

4.4 Funding model

Funding for innovation teams combines core university/public funding for some salaries with project-based sources, including EU Regional Development Fund, ESA programs, Horizon projects, international collaborations, and alliance initiatives. Commercialization efforts heavily rely on Business Finland’s Research-to-Business funding. Budget cycles are flexible, with annual planning and rolling forecasts (reviewed multiple times per year).

4.5 Scouting, deal flow, and invention disclosures

Invention disclosure is legally required in theory, but enforcement and culture vary across universities. In practice, many researchers do not disclose inventions, either because they do not recognize qualifying opportunities or due to weak disclosure culture, leading to limited pipelines in some cases (e.g., low annual disclosure numbers). When disclosures occur, the approach is people-driven: confirm researcher interest in commercialization, connect them with business developers (often external) via networks, and support applications for Research-to-Business funding to explore paths like licensing, selling, or spin-outs, including market validation. Identification relies mainly on human-driven methods: innovation advisors act as connectors, engaging departments, maintaining one-to-one discussions, and raising awareness to help researchers and doctoral students recognize commercial or societal value earlier. Programs like inventor initiatives aim to activate doctoral students and integrate innovation thinking into PhD education. No widespread AI-based scanning of research papers or outputs is currently in use for proactive scouting, though universities have considered and are evaluating such tools as part of digital-transformation efforts. The goal in some institutions is to significantly increase disclosure numbers over the coming years through better engagement, training, and potential digital support.

4.6 Industry matchmaking

Industry matchmaking is often embedded in Research-to-Business journeys, relying on business developer networks, innovation team connections (especially in regional clusters like energy), and tools like PitchBook for landscape mapping.

4.7 Use of AI and tools

Tools like PitchBook are commonly used to map competitors, comparable companies globally, market signals, investment trends, and assess how cutting-edge a technology may be. Conferences and direct exposure to VCs/investors also help track priorities and trends. For patentability and prior-art checks, processes often involve budgeting within funded projects, seeking IP committee or TTO support, or hiring patent lawyers for assessments. Some tools have been tested and discontinued if adoption or fit proved low. Previous attempts at structured invention disclosure portals (secure, automated workflows) faced challenges due to weak disclosure culture among researchers and issues with vendor customization and support, leading to limited use despite initial investment.

4.8 Areas for development

The interviews highlighted several clear areas for continued progress:

• Disclosure culture and pipeline volume: The primary bottleneck is low invention disclosure rates among researchers, which limits the flow of IP-protected ideas into commercialization. Many researchers do not disclose, either because they do not recognize qualifying inventions or due to weak cultural norms around disclosure. This results in untapped potential from ongoing research and relatively low annual disclosure numbers in some universities.
• Team formation and alignment: At the commercialization stage, building strong startup teams is challenging. Researchers often have deep technical expertise but limited entrepreneurial experience, while business developers come from different backgrounds. Finding common language, aligning ambitions, communication styles, and working speeds is frequently the reason cases do not advance to startups. When teams do not gel, success often depends on exceptionally strong technology or IP to attract corporate interest, which is rare at early stages.
• Resource scaling and staffing: As ambitions grow (e.g., doubling disclosures and significantly increasing spin-outs), current staffing levels may struggle to maintain quality and handle higher volumes. Additional long-term funding and resources will be needed to hire more staff and adopt supportive tools.
• Funding dynamics for impact activities: Innovation teams sometimes assist departments with impact sections in grant applications, but the departments retain the budget. Later, departments may ask the innovation team to deliver those activities without dedicated resources, creating structural frustration. Efforts are underway to secure funding tied directly to impact work.
• Cross-border IP friction: Differences in IP ownership models (university-owned in Finland vs. researcher-owned in Sweden) can create complications in structuring collaborations and commercialization across borders. Despite these, universities are actively addressing them through expanded engagement programs, training, pre-accelerators/incubators/accelerators, and digital transformation initiatives. They are already achieving meaningful successes at their scale and “punching above their weight” in many areas.

4.9 Strategic outlook

Finland’s university innovation ecosystem benefits from strong national funding mechanisms like Business Finland, integrated pipelines from research to incubation, and a collaborative national structure. The ongoing shift toward a more market-driven model, combined with targeted efforts to boost disclosure culture, team alignment, digital tools, and retention, positions the ecosystem for continued maturation and stronger translation of research into commercial and societal impact.

5. Conclusion

In short, these Scandinavian ecosystems are evolving. With continued focus on removing structural hurdles and nurturing entrepreneurial mindsets, the region is well positioned to convert its research excellence into even greater economic and societal impact. The foundation is strong, the direction is clear, and the potential is immense.

This article would not have been possible without the generosity and openness of the many professionals who shared their time, experiences, and candid perspectives during the interviews. Their insights form the entire foundation of this work. A heartfelt thank-you to: Riccardo Notarangelo (University of Vaasa), Malin Graffner Nordberg (Uppsala University), Mads Bang (Aalborg University), Richard Cowburn (Karolinska Institute), Thomas Schmidt (University of Southern Denmark) and other participants. Your willingness to explain complex realities, point out both strengths and genuine pain points, and offer realistic views on reform and progress made this comparative overview possible. We learned a tremendous amount about the Scandinavian university innovation landscape and now have a much clearer picture of how these ecosystems actually function on the ground. We truly appreciate and deeply recognize the outstanding work you and your universities are doing. Your dedication, creativity, and persistence in bridging research with real-world impact are exactly what keep Scandinavia at the very top of global innovation rankings. Thank you sincerely for helping our colleague Claudia throughout this research journey and for the inspiring conversations that made this article come to life.