The European Innovation Council (EIC) Summit gathered bright minds, ambitious startups, and key players shaping Europe’s technological future in Brussels. While there, I attended a particularly insightful workshop titled “Seeding Success: Strategies for Early Stage Investment.” Understanding how groundbreaking ideas navigate the challenging path from lab to market is crucial for anyone involved in Europe’s deep tech scene. This session, featuring speakers from the EIC Board, research institutions, and venture development, offered a direct look at this very issue.
My time at the summit also included valuable conversations with Hedi Karray, EIC Programme Manager specializing in artificial intelligence, and Joosep Kõljalg, the founder and CEO of an Estonian AI startup currently facing these realities.
I want to share the key insights and observations from these interactions. We’ll explore the unique potential and the real obstacles for European innovators, discuss the vital importance of early market focus, examine the essential role of infrastructure in de-risking deep tech ventures, hear a founder’s firsthand experience, and gain a clearer understanding of the EIC’s strategy, particularly in the rapidly evolving field of AI.
Consider this a guided tour of my main takeaways on what truly supports success within Europe’s innovation ecosystem.
‘The European Paradox’
The workshop started with a thought-provoking observation from Lars Frølund, a lecturer at MIT and an EIC Board Member. He pointed out a fundamental challenge in Europe: it’s not a lack of great ideas that holds us back. Instead, he suggested that Europe needs a “fundamental new way to appreciate” these ideas and effectively guide them through the funding process.
Frølund didn’t mince words. He called for the need to “simplify, deregulate, [and] do things differently” when it comes to supporting innovation. His analogy of a “wake-up call without a snooze button” from across the Atlantic underscored a sense of urgency. He argued that a significant shift in how we value and nurture our innovative potential is essential to truly compete globally.
This resonated with the broader discussions around European innovation. We often hear about Europe’s wealth of research and ingenuity, yet translating these into successful, scalable businesses can be challenging. Frølund’s perspective highlighted that the issue might lie not in the initial spark of an idea, but in the systems and mindsets that either foster or hinder its growth. He emphasized that those responsible for “appreciating and giving out grants” are key to this change.
What struck me was the directness of his message. It wasn’t about tweaking existing systems but a call for a more fundamental re-evaluation of how Europe identifies, supports, and propels its breakthrough ideas forward.
Looking through a commercialization lens: The difference between technology and innovation
Building on the need for a new approach to appreciating ideas, Olivier Rousseaux, Director of Venture Development at imec, contributed to the discussion with a very practical perspective. He emphasized that while breakthrough technologies are crucial, understanding their real-world application and market relevance from the beginning is often overlooked, and it’s a significant hurdle for early-stage ventures seeking investment.
Rousseaux pointed out the importance of innovators constantly asking themselves three key questions: “Why what you do matters, where it matters, and how it matters?” He argued that having a clear answer to these isn’t just about attracting investors; it should fundamentally guide the research and development process itself. Without this market lens, there’s a real risk of ending up with a technically brilliant invention with limited real-world use or a difficult path to commercialization.
The workshop moderator strongly supported this point, Maria Victoria Hernandez Valcarcel, who offered a clear distinction: “Technology, per se, is not a business. It becomes a real business when you convert this technology into innovation.” This simple statement really hit home. It highlighted that the scientific brilliance of a deep tech idea needs to be coupled with a clear understanding of the problem it solves and a viable market for that solution, rather than falling in love with the idea or the technology itself.
Rousseaux’s message was a clear call to action for researchers and innovators: don’t just focus on the “what” of your technology, but equally, if not more importantly, on the “why” and the “for whom.” Keeping the end market in mind from day one is not just about securing funding; it’s about ensuring the innovation has a meaningful impact and a sustainable future.
De-risking the deep tech journey
The conversation then shifted to the significant challenge of de-risking deep tech ventures, particularly as they move from early-stage research (TRL 3) towards more mature development (TRL 5). Olivier Rousseaux highlighted how institutions like imec play a crucial role here. Their industry-relevant research infrastructure, including advanced clean rooms with commercial-grade tools, allows startups to demonstrate early on that their disruptive ideas can actually be manufactured at a reasonable cost and at the right scale. This “lab to fab” validation is a major step in convincing investors and proving real-world viability.
Lars Frølund then added a compelling perspective on leveraging existing resources within Europe. He argued that a significant opportunity lies in better connecting EIC beneficiaries with the vast amount of research infrastructure already present in universities and research institutions across the continent.
Frølund used the example of the DIANA (Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic) program, which provides access to numerous advanced experimentation sites for its participants; and he followed with a direct question: why couldn’t Europe implement a similar system where EIC grant recipients automatically gain access to relevant research infrastructure across different member states? He described this as a “low-hanging fruit” that could significantly reduce the risks associated with deep tech development. Instead of individual member states “sub-optimizing” by trying to build everything themselves, a more collaborative approach would leverage Europe’s collective strengths. He suggested that if a project receives a Pathfinder grant in, say, quantum computing, they should also have straightforward access to facilities like the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen.
This idea of shared infrastructure suggests a way to overcome a key bottleneck for deep tech startups – the often high cost and difficulty of accessing specialized equipment and facilities needed for prototyping and early-stage scaling. By making existing European infrastructure more readily available to EIC-backed projects, the path from promising research to tangible innovation could be significantly smoother and less risky.
The European founders’ reality
The workshop took on a new dimension when Gonzalo Sanchez Arriaga, co-founder of PERSEI SPACE, shared his personal journey as an EIC beneficiary. His account provided an invaluable, ground-level perspective on the realities of building a deep tech venture in Europe. Coming from academia as a professor, Gonzalo described a long and persistent effort, submitting numerous proposals over several years before a breakthrough with the FET Open Grant (now Pathfinder) for their innovative electrodynamic propulsion technology.
He emphasized the pivotal role that EIC funding, particularly the Pathfinder and the subsequent Transition grant, played in providing crucial “stability” – both financial and in terms of human resources – during the intensive and often lengthy development process of their deep tech. This stability was essential for building a team with the diverse expertise needed to move their technology forward.
“Technology, per se, is not a business. It becomes a real business when you convert this technology into innovation“
– Maria Victoria Hernandez Valcarcel
Gonzalo was candid about the immense challenges beyond just the core research. He spoke of the “nightmare in terms of hours of work” dealing with many non-research aspects of starting a company. He highlighted the significant time and energy drain of fundraising, describing it as a “full-time job” in itself – a reality that many researchers-turned-founders often underestimate.
His experience underscored the dual burden faced by deep tech founders: pushing the boundaries of science and technology while simultaneously building a viable business from the ground up. The EIC’s support, in his case, provided a vital lifeline, allowing them to focus on both their ambitious technical goals (like preparing a flight-ready device for orbit) and the complex task of converting research into a market-ready innovation.
Hearing from Gonzalo brought a human element to the earlier discussions about funding and infrastructure. It highlighted that behind every groundbreaking idea and every grant awarded are dedicated individuals making significant sacrifices and navigating a complex landscape to bring their visions to life. His story showed the importance of financial support and programs like the Transition Grant that provide sustained resources to bridge the gap between research and commercialization.
Stability, sacrifice, and seeking support
Gonzalo’s firsthand account of the intense demands of building a deep tech company aligns with what I heard at my subsequent conversation with Joosep Kõljalg, the founder and CEO of Askel AI, an Estonian startup focused on simplifying AI agentic automation. Although working in the rapidly evolving field of AI rather than space technology, Joosep echoed the sentiment of needing support and navigating a complex ecosystem.
Joosep mentioned his interest in the EIC pre-accelerator program, highlighting the appeal of non-dilutive grant funding – a crucial point also underscored by Gonzalo’s experience with the Pathfinder and Transition grants. For early-stage startups like Askel AI, these grants can provide vital runway without diluting equity, allowing them more time to focus on development and market validation.
However, our conversation also touched upon the challenges of the European regulatory landscape. Joosep raised concerns about upcoming regulations like the CRA (Cyber Resilience Act) in 2027, expressing a worry common among European startups that it could become a “GDPR 2.0” – creating significant compliance burdens that might hinder their ability to compete, especially against startups in regions with less stringent early-stage regulations.
He emphasized that while the intent behind regulations like GDPR is positive, the implementation can sometimes create hurdles that disproportionately affect smaller, resource-constrained startups. His concern was balancing necessary protections and fostering an environment where European innovation can thrive without being stifled by excessive early-stage compliance requirements.
Joosep’s perspective from a younger AI startup provided a valuable contrast to Gonzalo’s journey with a deep tech hardware company. While the technologies and timelines differ, the underlying needs for financial stability, access to resources, and a supportive regulatory environment were clear common threads. Both conversations highlighted the critical role the EIC can play in providing funding, guidance, and support in navigating the broader European innovation landscape.
Funding the future
My conversation with Hedi Karray, EIC Programme Manager for Artificial Intelligence, EISMEA, provided a valuable overview of the EIC’s strategic approach to funding innovation, specifically focusing on Artificial Intelligence. He clearly outlined the EIC’s three main funding programs: Pathfinder, Transition, and Accelerator, emphasizing that the key differentiator between them is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the project.
For startups like Askel AI, the Accelerator program is the most relevant, targeting ventures with more mature technologies (TRL 6 or higher) already tested and validated in real-world environments. Hedi explained that the Accelerator is open-track and encourages applications from all sectors, including AI and specific challenges. Notably, in the previous work program, there was a challenge to “human-centric generative AI.” For the current year, the focus is on “generative AI for Europe,” addressing applications across various sectors, including culture, media, and the arts. This highlights the EIC’s proactive approach in targeting specific areas of strategic importance within AI.
Hedi also clarified the role of the Pathfinder program, which supports very early-stage (low TRL), high-risk, high-gain research projects typically driven by consortia of at least three partners from different European countries. The Transition program, he explained, bridges the gap between Pathfinder/ERC (European Research Council) findings and the Accelerator, helping to scale up promising results from these earlier-stage projects.
A key takeaway from our discussion was the EIC’s ambition in the AI space. Hedi emphasized that they are looking for the “next generation of AI” – innovations beyond current trends. This includes new architectures, models, training, and data handling methods. The EIC focuses on incremental improvements and truly disruptive AI technologies that can position Europe at the forefront of this rapidly evolving field. He illustrated this by stating that current “foundation models” are no longer considered a breakthrough; the EIC is looking for what comes next.
Furthermore, Hedi addressed the often-debated EU AI Act. He clarified that it’s not a regulation of AI itself, but rather a regulation of the risks associated with AI, primarily targeting general-purpose AI and risky applications. According to Hedi, many EIC-funded AI startups find that the AI Act doesn’t directly apply to them as they are often focused on specific applications and not deemed “general-purpose” or “high-risk.” Her explanation emphasized that the AI Act aims to foster responsible innovation, ensuring transparency, proper documentation, and respect for human rights in developing and deploying AI systems, while encouraging AI development outside Europe to align with European values.
Finally, Hedi outlined the EIC’s comprehensive approach to supporting AI innovation across the entire “stack” – from the underlying infrastructure (like new AI chips and cloud technologies) to core AI algorithms and architectures, and finally to AI applications across diverse sectors like healthcare, food, and construction. This holistic view underscores the EIC’s commitment to fostering a thriving and responsible AI ecosystem in Europe.
Nurturing a deep tech ecosystem needs more than Euros
The insights from the EIC Summit workshop and my subsequent conversations paint a clear picture. While financial grants are a vital seed for Europe’s deep tech ambitions, they are far from the only nutrient required for sustained growth and impactful innovation. The “Seeding Success” workshop illuminated the critical need for a fundamental shift in how Europe appreciates and supports its groundbreaking ideas, beyond simply providing funds to foster a more streamlined and accessible ecosystem.
Long story short, nurturing a thriving deep tech ecosystem in Europe requires a holistic and collaborative effort. It demands financial investment and a fundamental appreciation for innovation, a focus on market relevance, the strategic leveraging of existing infrastructure, sustained support for founders navigating multifaceted challenges, and a forward-thinking regulatory landscape. Only by cultivating these interconnected elements can Europe truly unlock the vast potential of its deep tech roots and ensure that groundbreaking ideas blossom into global successes, far beyond the initial promise of a grant.
