Portugal and Denmark: What the PCID Report Reveals About Research and Innovation
Portugal has built a substantial scientific base over recent decades. Yet transforming that scientific capacity into innovation, economic value and broader societal impact remains a different challenge.
This is the central question explored in the PCID Comparative Report, developed by SPOT Nordic within the Portugal–Denmark: Science, Innovation and Diplomacy (PCID) Programme, with the support of the Direção-Geral dos Assuntos Consulares e Comunidades Portuguesas (DGACCP) of the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The report provides an evidence-based comparison of the Portuguese and Danish research and innovation systems, combining international quantitative indicators, institutional and programme documentation, and interviews with practitioners and policymakers from both countries.
Portugal and Denmark operate within the same broader European research and innovation framework, including Horizon Europe and the European Research Area. However, they achieve significantly different innovation outcomes.
The comparison therefore asks a central question: why does Denmark convert research and knowledge into innovation outcomes more consistently, despite Portugal having developed substantial scientific capacity?
The findings suggest that there is no single explanation. Instead, the difference emerges from the interaction between funding, institutions, research careers, private-sector involvement, technology transfer and the continuity of support available throughout the research-to-market journey.
The innovation gap is larger than the research capacity gap
One of the report’s most important findings is that the difference between Portugal and Denmark becomes considerably greater when moving from research capacity to innovation outcomes.
Portugal has developed significant scientific capacity. However, Denmark’s advantage becomes more pronounced further downstream, particularly in areas such as patenting, public-private co-publications and knowledge-intensive services exports.
This distinction is important because it shifts the discussion away from research production alone.
The challenge is not simply how to produce more knowledge, but how effectively research systems connect that knowledge with companies, investment, technology development and markets.
Similar mechanisms, different ways of making them work
The comparison also shows that the two countries are not separated simply by the existence or absence of innovation-support mechanisms.
Both Portugal and Denmark have institutional mechanisms supporting research, knowledge transfer and commercialisation.
The difference lies more strongly in how these mechanisms are organised, resourced, coordinated and maintained over time.
This is one of the broader conclusions of the report: institutional architecture matters, but so does the way institutions interact in practice.
Research careers connect differently to the wider economy
Another significant difference concerns what happens to scientific talent beyond academia.
Denmark combines an employment-based doctoral model with stronger absorption of researchers by the business sector. Portugal, by comparison, continues to face greater challenges in research career progression and in creating destinations for highly qualified scientific human capital outside academia.
The comparison therefore highlights the importance not only of training researchers, but also of creating an ecosystem capable of absorbing their skills across universities, research organisations, companies and other sectors.
Funding is not only about how much is invested
The report also identifies a structural difference in the architecture of research and innovation funding.
Denmark combines higher R&D investment with a more diversified mix of public, business, European and private-foundation funding.
Portugal, despite substantial public support for research and business R&D, remains more dependent on national public and European resources.
Particularly significant is the role played by Denmark’s large industrial foundations.
Their scale and links to major companies provide an additional source of long-term research and innovation funding for which the report identifies no direct equivalent in the Portuguese system.
The research-to-market journey needs continuity
A further finding concerns what happens between scientific discovery and successful market adoption.
Both countries have mechanisms covering much of the research-to-market journey. However, the evidence gathered for the report points to greater discontinuities in Portugal between research, early commercial development, market entry and subsequent growth.
This suggests that creating individual programmes or support instruments is not enough on its own.
What appears particularly important is the continuity between different stages of the innovation journey, and the ability of researchers, entrepreneurs and companies to move from one stage to another without repeatedly encountering gaps in support.
Predictability and institutional trust matter
Not all of the differences identified by the report can be captured through funding figures or innovation indicators.
Interviews conducted for the study repeatedly highlighted the role of administrative predictability and institutional trust.
Differences in administrative burden, decision-making and implementation can influence how effectively organisations and researchers are able to use funding programmes and support structures, even when comparable formal mechanisms exist.
The finding reinforces a broader message running through the comparison: how a system operates can be as important as the structures that formally exist within it.
Not every comparison points in the same direction
The report does not present Denmark as a model to be directly replicated by Portugal.
Nor does the evidence show a uniform Danish advantage across every dimension.
Portugal performs comparatively strongly in some areas related to SME collaboration and the commercial introduction of innovation, while Denmark’s advantage is particularly pronounced in research-intensive, technological and knowledge-intensive activities.
The comparison therefore reveals different innovation profiles, rather than a simple distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful system.
This is also why the report does not identify a single policy or institution capable of explaining the innovation gap. Instead, the evidence points towards the interaction of multiple structural and institutional factors.
From comparative evidence to Portugal–Denmark cooperation
Understanding these differences is only one part of the PCID Programme.
The report was developed to provide an evidence base for identifying concrete opportunities for bilateral cooperationbetween Portugal and Denmark.
The analysis highlights areas including researcher and doctoral mobility, technology transfer and licensing, foundation-to-foundation engagement, and health and life sciences as particularly relevant opportunities for strengthening existing connections between the two ecosystems.
Rather than treating the Portugal–Denmark relationship as underdeveloped, these areas are intended to help deepen and rebalance an already substantial scientific relationship, while creating stronger connections between research, innovation, institutions and industry.
The PCID Comparative Report is the first of three connected outputs of the Programme, alongside a policy brief translating the evidence into targeted recommendations and an institutional dialogue between Portuguese and Danish stakeholders.
Together, they reflect the broader purpose of PCID: moving from comparative evidence towards more structured cooperation between Portugal and Denmark in research, innovation and science diplomacy.
📖 Read the full PCID Comparative Report:
Comments