Slovenia is too slow to reduce its innovation gap

Slovenia is reducing its innovation gap at a slower pace compared to other European Union member states. According to the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) 2026, Slovenia ranks 17th among 27 EU countries, maintaining its position within the group of moderate innovators. It scores 87.2 percent of the average innovation success rate of the EU. Since 2019, Slovenia has improved by 7.4 percentage points, although this progress lags behind the overall EU advancement. Vesna Nahtigal, general director of the Slovenian Economic Development Board (GZS), emphasized that the greatest risk lies not just in the 17th position but in the fact that other countries are improving their innovative capabilities faster. “This difference is visible today on the scoreboard, but tomorrow it will affect productivity, investments, added value, and competitiveness of our economy,” she warned. A closer look reveals a notable gap. Slovenia excels in exporting medium- and high-tech products, business investment in research and development is near the European average, and collaboration between the business sector and the research sector is strong. However, it significantly lags behind in broader innovation investments, knowledge-intensive services, and financing for growth of innovative enterprises. Žiga Lampe, deputy director of GZS for strategic development and internationalization, pointed out that the largest gap is not in generating knowledge but in converting it into economic value. “Our biggest gap is not in creating knowledge. It arises in transforming it into economic value,” he stated. The GZS evaluated Slovenia’s position not only based on the EIS but also on recommendations from the OECD, the Report on Development of the United Nations' Human Development Index (UMAR), and the World Competitiveness Ranking (IMD). While EIS highlights that Slovenia is reducing its innovation gap slowly, OECD notes fragmentation in the system and insufficiently connected development instruments and responsibilities. UMAR emphasizes that future economic growth will increasingly depend on productivity and the transition from performers to creators of new value. IMD points to lower business and government efficiency affecting the environment for investment and development. Development position is determined not only by starting point but also by the speed of change. This is well illustrated by the example of Lithuania: Slovenia and Lithuania are almost equal on the innovation scoreboard, yet Lithuania has advanced by 19.7 percentage points since 2019, while Slovenia has advanced by 7.4. Lampe explained, “This is a shift from funding innovative activities to creating innovative growth.” GZS stresses that the success of innovation policy should primarily be measured by actual economic effects: how many solutions enter industrial use, reach the first customer, and go to market, how much private investment is triggered by public funds, and how much new revenue, exports, and productivity result from this. The development system must build on what already works. GZS warns that companies cannot adapt to individual calls for proposals. They need a sufficiently predictable path from research and development through testing and demonstration to production and market. If the next appropriate instrument is not available in time, a company can lose its development start, partners, investment, or market opportunity. An example of current efforts is the Strategic Development and Innovation Partnership Program (SRIPs). The current cycle of their funding ends at the end of September, and a different structure is planned for the next period. GZS emphasizes that changes should mean upgrading existing development networks, knowledge, and partnerships, not rebuilding them from scratch. GZS advocates for a comprehensive system of financing that supports companies throughout different development phases, from idea and prototype to industrialization, first customer, and further growth. This would replace the current approach of numerous disconnected calls for proposals with a more integrated model aligned with European financial instruments. Such a system would enable businesses to continue development without waiting for the next call, instead knowing in advance which instruments could accompany them in the next phase. With the formation of a new European financial architecture, including the upcoming multi-year financial framework of the EU, the European Fund for Competitiveness, and a new framework program for research and innovation, the connection between research, enterprise development, and industrialization will become even tighter. Slovenia will have to compete for European funds with other countries. Therefore, it will not be enough to have calls for proposals and administrative capacity to draw money. It will need projects that are sufficiently quality-driven to attract both European and private capital. GZS also highlights the need for a stable domestic financial base for innovations. This would reduce dependence on individual European or cohesion periods, stimulate more private investments, and help Slovenia better access European funds. Sometimes, innovation-oriented enterprises require more than just another grant. They need someone willing to buy the new solution first. Industrial partners, test environments, and early adopters play a crucial role here. The state can also help in certain cases with innovative public procurement, thus creating the first market for new solutions.