Sweden has the science, but are we creating the right conditions to scale?

In the European Innovation Scoreboard 2026, Sweden ranks as the EU’s leading innovation country. We have world-class research, strong universities, successful life science companies and an impressive concentration of expertise. I see this very clearly in the Stockholm-Uppsala region, Capital of Life, where universities, hospitals, research infrastructure, established industry and startups are all part of the same ecosystem.

We clearly know how to create research and innovation. But I keep coming back to another question: Are we equally good at turning that innovation into companies that can scale?

What happens after the innovation?

Earlier this summer, I coauthored an opinion piece in Dagens industri about the challenge of scaling Swedish life science companies. Since then, I have kept coming back to the same question: what actually creates the conditions for companies to grow?

Through my work, I have had the opportunity to engage with very different life science ecosystems in the UK, the US and Asia. One thing has become increasingly clear to me. There is no single factor behind a successful ecosystem. Capital matters, of course. But capital alone is not enough. World-class research is not enough either.

What I see in strong ecosystems is something broader. Experienced entrepreneurs, industry, healthcare, investors and international networks are all close to the companies and contribute at different stages of their journey. That has made me question whether Sweden’s biggest challenge really is creating more innovation. Perhaps the harder part is what happens after innovation is created.

When success creates new success

Denmark is an interesting example. It is easy to look at Novo Nordisk and focus on the company itself. But what interests me just as much is what has grown around Denmark’s strong life science industry. Through organisations such as the Novo Nordisk Foundation and BioInnovation Institute, capital, experience, and expertise are reinvested in research, innovation, and the next generation of companies.

I find that cycle particularly interesting. Success helps create the conditions for new success. When I look at Sweden, I see many of the same ingredients. We have strong universities, successful companies, experienced people from industry, investors and entrepreneurs.

So perhaps the question is not whether we have the resources. The question is whether we are good enough at making them reinforce one another.

The difficult part often begins after the first innovation

I see this very clearly in my own work with life science startups. A company can have fantastic science or a very promising technology. That is exciting, but it is also only the beginning. Very quickly, new questions appear. How should the next development step be financed? What expertise needs to come in? Which partners and markets matter? How should the clinical, regulatory and commercial strategies fit together? I also believe evidence needs to be part of that discussion much earlier than it often is.

Healthcare providers, regulatory authorities, investors and future partners will all look at the evidence from different perspectives. What looks like a scientific or regulatory question today can easily become a financing or commercial problem tomorrow.

The more I work with companies facing these questions, the less I believe there is one single solution to Sweden’s scaling challenge. The pieces need to work together. It is not just about more capital. It is not just about internationalisation, expertise or better collaboration with healthcare either. For me, the real challenge is how we connect all of these things.

Growing globally from Sweden

For a small country like Sweden, I think the international perspective has to be part of the equation from the beginning. Our life science companies are global almost from day one. The investors, partners, expertise and future customers they need may be in Europe, the US or Asia. But when I talk about internationalisation, I do not mean that our most promising companies should leave Sweden. Quite the opposite. I would like to see Swedish companies gain access to the best capital, expertise, partners and markets in the world and use those resources to grow globally from Sweden.

Sweden does not lack research, innovation, expertise or ambition. We already have many of the ingredients. What I have come to believe, especially over the past year, is that the next step is connecting them better: research, capital, experience, healthcare, industry, and international markets. And perhaps the true measure of a successful life science ecosystem is not simply how many innovations or companies we create.

For me, an equally important question is whether today’s successes help create tomorrow’s.