“AI Agenda Austria”: Catalysts for society, the economy and the state

The Artificial Intelligence working group has published strategic impulses for handling artificial intelligence in a policy brief. The paper “AI Agenda Austria – Impulses for Society, the Economy and the State” – written by Horst Bischof, Thomas Henzinger, Georg Kopetz, Andreas Kugi, Helga Nowotny and Johanna Pirker – is also intended as input for the new AI strategy planned by the federal government.

“We must quickly answer the question of what position Austria should aspire to in this race.”
Johanna Pirker

“The technological and economic leading positions of the coming decades are being allocated right now. We must quickly answer the question of what position Austria should aspire to in this race, and how we can secure our – and also Europe’s – sovereignty in the long term,” says Johanna Pirker, head of the working group. In the view of the working group, the global social and economic transformation triggered by artificial intelligence – and the speed at which it is taking place – is still being underestimated. “We therefore encourage the federal government to take on an active, visionary role in shaping this transformation with greater determination and greater speed.”

New AI strategy is a positive and important signal

“We see it as an important signal that the federal government is taking up our recommendation and intends to develop an adaptable, future-proof strategy.”
Thomas Henzinger

The policy brief comes at a time when the federal government has agreed to develop a new AI strategy to replace the current strategy from 2021. “Together with the AI Advisory Board, we already recommended in 2024 that the existing AI strategy be revised in light of increasingly rapid developments. We see it as a positive and important signal that the federal government is now taking up this recommendation and intends to develop an adaptable, future-proof strategy that does justice to the dynamism and significance of AI,” explains Thomas Henzinger, chair of the Council.

The working group also regards the anchoring of artificial intelligence as a key technology in Austria’s industrial strategy, the integration of AI in teaching, and the government’s AI conclave as steps in the right direction.

Henzinger: “Seize the opportunity for Austria in the right way”

In terms of content, the policy brief outlines three central impulses that illustrate the breadth of the measures and objectives: an AI-literate society through AI competence at all levels of education, a European economy that is productive, technologically strong and sovereign thanks to AI – for instance through the establishment of research and development departments of global AI companies – and an AI-driven renewal of public administration in order to transform it into an exemplary pioneer.

Austria should also position itself internationally as a “Trusted AI Jurisdiction” – that is, as a location with a mature, binding regulatory framework and certification apparatus that ensures artificial intelligence systems are developed and deployed in a lawful, ethical and technically robust manner. “Ultimately, what will be decisive is not the quality of the strategy alone, but the ability to translate it swiftly into research, innovation, economic value creation and social benefit. We still have the opportunity to position Austria as an AI-literate and AI-affine country in the international race – let us seize it properly and quickly,” Henzinger urges.

EU Inc. – a chance for Austria’s innovation system

The members of the Science to Business working group, which focuses on the transfer of knowledge into commercial exploitation, call on the federal government in an open letter to champion an effective EU Inc. in the EU negotiations, not least in the interests of Austria as a location for innovation. The Union-wide legal form, known as a 28th regime, addresses, among other things, the scaling of innovative companies – a key weakness of the Austrian innovation system as well. Yet the drafts reveal that two core elements of the European Commission’s proposal are at stake in the negotiations: the central European business register and standardised employee share ownership.

Austria’s status quo: scaling as a weak point in the innovation system

Austria has a strong research base, but its economic potential is inadequately converted into scalable business models. Aside from deficits at other points in knowledge transfer, there are three critical weaknesses in the innovation system in particular that hold back the successful exploitation of research results: the absence of large anchor customers, weak private follow-on financing, and poor framework conditions for scaling.

The STI Monitor underpins this diagnosis: in the area of start-ups, Austria reaches only 52% of the level of the innovation leaders. The venture capital ratio – with a one-off outlier in 2021 – has remained at the same level for years, at around 0.03% of GDP – far from the RTI Strategy 2030 target of 0.1%. And the value of unicorns relative to GDP, at 1.36% domestically (declining), not only falls significantly behind the innovation leaders’ 3.19%, but even behind the EU27 at 2.38%. Young and fast-growing companies paint a similar picture.

The European dimension: Letta, Draghi and the tech diaspora

Austria is not alone in this: in his 2024 report, Enrico Letta diagnosed that the convergence of national legal systems is too slow to realise economies of scale – per capita income in the US has risen by almost 60% since 1993, while Europe’s has grown by less than 30%. Also in 2024, Mario Draghi quantified the innovation gap: not a single EU company with a market capitalisation of over 100 billion euros was founded in the past fifty years; almost 30% of European unicorns have relocated their headquarters abroad. As a measure, his report proposed a Union-wide legal form with a single digital identity valid across the EU, as a 28th regime.

It is not only scalable and scaling-minded companies that are moving away; European talent is also leaving Europe: according to Dealroom’s European Diaspora Index, founders who grew up in Europe have built more than 400 unicorns worth around 1.8 trillion dollars outside the continent. The problem is clearly not a lack of entrepreneurial talent, but an ecosystem that makes founding and scaling in Europe harder rather than easier.

Two deletions, two core elements

To reverse this outflow of talent, knowledge and entrepreneurship, the Draghi report had already called for a new legal form. The EU Inc. is intended to deliver this – but for this measure to be effective, all five elements contained in the Commission’s proposal are essential from the perspective of the FORWIT working group: a central European business register, standardised employee share ownership, free choice of registered office, access for all companies, and the applicability of local employment and tax law.

It is precisely the first two elements that are at stake in the negotiations. The central register, as a unified digital interface to Europe’s governments, is the infrastructural core of a genuinely pan-European, effective EU Inc. – without such a register, 27 national systems would emerge that the economy does not need. It reduces costs, increases cross-border transparency, and allows an infrastructure to be developed once rather than 27 times for Europe. Standardised stock options, in turn, given the demand for talent, are a competitive factor that Austria and Europe should not forgo.

Scaling – the third deficit

The federal government is already addressing two of the transfer deficits mentioned – the lack of anchor customers and the shortage of risk and growth capital – through strategic public procurement and the establishment of an umbrella fund. An effective EU Inc. would tackle the third in a powerful way: if Austria, together with Europe, succeeds in creating an effective EU Inc., the problem of scaling innovative companies at this location would additionally be addressed with real force. For the members of the FORWIT working group, the EU Inc. is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Austria and Europe.

In its letter, the working group offered the federal government its support in deepening and accompanying the Austrian position in Brussels.

Knowledge transfer into commercialisation: The core problem of the RTI System

A panel discussion marking the publication of the STI Monitor 2026 on 26 May 2026 examined Austria’s innovation capacity in international comparison. Moderated by Martin Wagner, Alexandra Mazak-Huemer, Theresia Vogel and Georg Kopetz discussed Austria’s ability to produce and utilise knowledge.

At the time of the discussion, Austria ranked 8th in the European Innovation Scoreboard (in the Strong Innovators group) and, through its RTI Strategy, aims to become an Innovation Leader by 2030. While the country performs well in R&D investment, scientific quality, and cooperation structures between science, business, and the public sector, it shows clear deficits in transferring knowledge into marketable innovations.

Mazak-Huemer: Austria’s knowledge production and utilisation in international comparison

Alexandra Mazak-Huemer (Deputy Managing Director of FORWIT and Project Leader of the STI Monitor) provided the analysis as the basis for the discussion and painted a nuanced picture:

Austria’s strengths lie in high R&D investment (3.34% of GDP, approximately €17.6 billion), a solid industrial base, and high scientific quality with strong cooperation structures. At the same time, she highlighted structural weaknesses: higher education expenditure per student (US$23,000, PPP-adjusted) is significantly lower than that of the Innovation Leaders (around US$26,000) – front-runners such as Switzerland invest US$32,000 (latest available OECD data). Austria also lags behind in STEM graduates, unless graduates from higher vocational technical schools (HTLs) are included – though these often enter the workforce directly rather than pursuing further study.

In research funding (71% private financing, above the EU average) and public funding (0.94% of GDP, 2nd place), there are positives and negatives: while public funding is strong, the input-output ratio is off – Austria invests heavily but generates too few market-effective innovations.

Mazak-Huemer’s analysis of knowledge utilisation was particularly critical: Austria suffers from weak transfer performance, especially in new-to-market and new-to-firm innovations. SMEs’ innovation revenue is significantly below that of comparable countries, and there are deficits in patents (triadic patents, high-value patents) – the gap to the Innovation Leaders is closing only because they are getting worse, not because Austria is improving.

Following this, Mazak-Huemer identified the issue as less a single funding gap and more the limitations of a linear, input- and project-oriented funding logic. While research, early-stage cooperation, and technological advancement receive relatively good support, the subsequent steps towards utilisation, market entry, first customers, private follow-up financing, and international scaling are not sufficiently well-organised. This is particularly problematic for start-ups, young companies, and SMEs, meaning that funding must be more closely linked to clear market pathways, risk-tolerant growth capital, industrial anchor customers, innovation-oriented demand, and regulatory sandbox environments. Austria’s strengths in system integration, industrial competence, and technological upgrading remain an important starting point; however, they are not sufficient on their own if new technology fields, business models, and knowledge-intensive services are not more quickly transformed into scalable value creation.

Kopetz: Enabling scaling, activating private capital, and promoting risk-taking

Georg Kopetz (Board Member and TTTech Executive) shaped the discussion with clear demands for more speed and entrepreneurial courage. He criticised Austria’s innovation system for being too slow and investing too little in scaling companies. He cited Israel and South Korea as counter-examples: Israel relies on a vibrant start-up and venture capital culture with rapid company formation and IPOs, while South Korea achieves global market leadership through targeted top-down strategies in key technologies such as semiconductors and AI.

Kopetz emphasised that Austria must learn from both approaches without copying them one-to-one. It is particularly important, he said, to mobilise private investment in deep-tech companies and create frameworks that attract international investors. He warned against relying too heavily on public funding and instead called for a stronger link between private financing and public support.

A key concern for Kopetz was scaling Austrian companies into global players. He pointed to Austria’s dependence on German industrial partners, which had acted as a ‘locomotive’ for Austrian SMEs – a model that, in light of current global shifts, is no longer sufficient. Instead, he argued, Austria needs new ‘locomotives’: large, scalable companies that can pull SMEs along and keep value creation in the country. As concrete measures, he proposed establishing an umbrella fund that pools private and public funds to finance deep-tech start-ups and create jobs. He also emphasised the strategic importance of space, semiconductors, and photonics, as well as the need to invest in dual-use technologies to secure sustainable value creation.

Kopetz’s conclusion was unequivocal: Austria must strengthen the private sector to ensure the long-term financial viability of its social market economy. Only through greater entrepreneurial initiative, risk-taking investment, and a culture that embraces innovation as an opportunity can the country secure its competitiveness.

Vogel: Focusing on excellence, international visibility, and leveraging Austria’s reputation as an environmental pioneer

Theresia Vogel (Deputy Chair and Transformation Expert) directed the focus towards the international visibility and excellence of Austrian higher education institutions. She emphasised that excellence in research and teaching is the decisive ‘currency’ for global attractiveness – just as in elite sport, only a podium finish counts. Austrian higher education institutions must position themselves more strongly in international rankings to attract top talent and generate value.

Vogel criticised Austria for too often being satisfied with a position ‘above mid-table’ rather than pushing into the top tier. Another key issue for Vogel was the neglect of global market developments in energy and environmental technologies. She warned against an overly ideological approach to the climate debate and instead called for pragmatic solutions that leverage economic opportunities. As an environmental pioneer, Austria has a strong starting position that it must expand through innovation in environmental and energy technologies.

She particularly emphasised the need to develop climate-resilient infrastructure and technologies for climate adaptation – an area where Austria already has expertise but uses it too little. Compounding this is the fact that R&D spending on environment and climate has recently declined significantly – with implications for Austria’s reputation as an environmental pioneer and in a globally growing market.

Vogel also advocated for a more long-term, adaptable RTI strategy. She called for gradually supplementing existing industries with new, future-oriented fields such as quantum technologies, and for strengthening the culture of innovation among the population. Her appeal: Austria must take pride in its innovations and actively communicate them to spark enthusiasm for research and technology.

Conclusion

In her concluding remarks, Alexandra Mazak-Huemer summed up the central challenge: Austria must transition from a primarily incremental innovation model to a transformative, agile, and scalable RTI model that seamlessly integrates research, transfer, financing, demand, regulation, and international market access.

While Kopetz identified the lack of scaling and private financing as a key obstacle and highlighted the data and structural deficits in knowledge utilisation, Vogel emphasised the need for excellence, international visibility, and a long-term, globally oriented strategy. All three underscored that Austria can only achieve its ambitious goals through a combination of entrepreneurial courage, targeted funding, clear vision, and strengthened knowledge transfer.

Note: The content and conclusions of the panel discussion were incorporated into a working paper on the Austrian Innovation Paradox.

Studying in Austria: Recommendations for reform

It has long been evident that many students in Austria do not complete their degrees within the standard duration. To address this, the FORWIT working group on Studying in Austria, established at the end of 2024, has thoroughly examined the framework conditions for higher education to determine how efficient study at Austrian institutions can be enabled. The findings and conclusions are now presented in a recommendation to the federal government.

“Our analyses indicate an urgent need for action in two closely interconnected problem areas: first, the unsatisfactory number of graduates combined with low social mobility; and second, inefficiencies in the study process, such as long study durations or high dropout rates—particularly in the university sector,” explains Thomas Henzinger, Chair of FORWIT. “This not only affects individual educational trajectories but also weakens the country’s capacity for innovation, labour market flexibility, social cohesion, and democratic resilience.”

The Council’s recommendation comprises ten actionable options addressing critical aspects such as study choice, planning reliability, commitment, and affordability, while also concerning the higher education system as a whole.

The right study choice: Early orientation and widening participation

“The right study choice must be supported as early as possible in school.”
Jörg Flecker

Mandatory educational and career orientation from lower secondary level (Sekundarstufe I) should continuously support young people in developing their interests and competencies. A virtual toolbox for advisors and online self-assessments can reduce information gaps and improve study choice. “The right study choice must be supported as early as possible in school, or at the latest during the study entry and orientation phase,” says Jörg Flecker, a member of the working group.

To widen participation in higher education, FORWIT recommends reforming study eligibility requirements. In addition to the Matura (A-level equivalent) as the primary access route, alternative pathways should be created for high-potential individuals with non-grammar school backgrounds. During the study entry phase, a cross-disciplinary onboarding process should provide clear information on performance requirements, alternative study options, and career prospects. A particular focus should be on improving gender equality, especially in STEM subjects, through targeted support measures such as mentoring and cohort-based learning.

Planning reliability: A modern organisation for commitment and success

A modern study organisation—featuring evidence-based curricula, transparent study progression recommendations, and more intensive support—should shorten study durations and reduce dropout rates. Flexible study models, such as part-time study, can facilitate higher education access for individuals with diverse educational backgrounds while increasing commitment for both students and universities.

A reform of study law and examination regulations should make study progression reliably plannable. Crucially, commitment should be fostered primarily through positive incentives and supportive structures. Promoting learning cohorts can help counteract the anonymity of mass higher education. “The goal must be to make completing a bachelor’s degree within the standard duration the norm for as many students as possible,” emphasises Henzinger.

Affordability: Increasing equity, reducing structural barriers

The affordability of completing a bachelor’s degree within the standard duration must be guaranteed for all students who pursue their studies purposefully, without the need for extensive part-time work.

“The investments are offset by increased efficiency in the higher education system and positive economic and societal effects.”
Jörg Flecker.

A socially balanced study grant should relieve students from low-income households and reduce structural barriers. To expand eligibility, income thresholds for study grants should be adjusted. A state-guaranteed student loan for those just above the grant threshold, along with completion scholarships, can reduce the need for employment that delays studies. “The necessary investments are offset by increased efficiency in the higher education system and positive economic and societal effects,” notes Flecker.

Development of the Higher Education System: Strategic Expansion and Internationalisation

“The strategic development of the higher education system requires coordinated collaboration among all higher education sectors.”
Thomas Henzinger

The increase in graduate numbers should be accompanied by an expansion of university of applied sciences (Fachhochschulen) capacities, while preserving the distinction between universities and Fachhochschulen through clearly defined profiles. The expansion of study places must be evidence-based and aligned with societal transformation processes. “The strategic development of the higher education system requires coordinated collaboration among all higher education sectors. Political guidelines and systemic requirements must be aligned,” says Henzinger.

Internationalisation is a central lever for competitiveness. A forward-looking strategy should support the targeted recruitment, integration, and long-term retention of international talent in the Austrian labour market. Tiered tuition fees could include a retention incentive, with repayments tied to graduates remaining in Austria’s job market.

Study Conditions in the Context of the Higher Education Strategy 2040

“We urge the federal government to incorporate this recommendation directly into the Higher Education Strategy 2040 process.”
Thomas Henzinger

“The recommendation now submitted to the federal government contains the results and conclusions of extensive research, analysis, and international comparisons,” explains Henzinger. The timing—coinciding with the development of the Higher Education Strategy 2040—is, in his view, a fortunate alignment. “To effectively utilise our findings, we urge the federal government to incorporate this recommendation directly into the Higher Education Strategy 2040 process.”

Against the backdrop of current discussions on the future of Austrian higher education, the recommendation provides a complementary and essential perspective on the framework conditions for study and teaching.

Austria should advocate for a stronger Horizon Europe

The Negotiation Box presented by the Cypriot Council Presidency on 11 June 2026 marks the start of crucial budget negotiations for the EU’s next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028–2034. It contains a proposal to reduce the budget of the Horizon Europe research framework programme from the European Commission’s draft of €175 billion to just under €168 billion, sending a worrying signal—particularly at a time when Europe is facing significant geopolitical, technological and economic pressure.

The Cypriot Presidency’s proposal includes a 4% cut to Horizon Europe compared to the Commission’s overall proposal. In contrast, the agriculture sector would be spared from cuts, and cohesion funds would even be increased. Helga Nowotny, Chair of the FORWIT Working Group on European Research Policy, sees a contradiction here: “We face the strategic challenge of strengthening our technological sovereignty, competitiveness and resilience in the face of geopolitical tensions and an overall volatile situation. It takes courage—and the necessary financial resources—to stay on this path.”

The commitment to a strong research framework programme—for which the Draghi report proposed a budget of €200 billion and the Heitor report even €220 billion—must continue to be taken into account in the budget negotiations now beginning. Horizon Europe is a vital complement to national research funding. “The desire for as frugal an EU budget as possible,” Nowotny continues, “should not result in cuts to the very area that has such significant positive impacts for Austria through financial returns, networking and knowledge building.”

This week, EU Member States—including Austria—are voicing their positions on the Cypriot proposal. Plans—following an initial exchange on 16 June 2026—call for a discussion at the European Council on 18-19 June 2026. FORWIT calls on the Austrian Federal Government to advocate in the upcoming negotiations for a strong 10th Research Framework Programme with a budget of at least €200 billion, as experts have long demanded and FORWIT has recommended. Finally, Helga Nowotny reiterates: “Despite Austria’s current savings and budget restrictions, in the ongoing budget negotiations in Brussels, it is essential to keep open as far as possible the lifeline of EU research funding that is so vital for Austria.”

Budgets are only part of the equation: What kind of higher education does Austria need?

The widely reported budget cuts for Austria’s 23 public universities during the 2028–2030 performance agreement period have sparked public outcry. The debate, however, has focused solely on a battle over resource allocation—unintentionally underscoring the urgent need for a long-term higher education strategy. Otherwise, the critical question risks being overlooked: What kind of universities does Austria need?

Funding is only part of the equation: Enhancing the performance of higher education

“Funding is only part of the equation; what also matters is how precisely public funds are deployed.”
Thomas Henzinger

Austria boasts strong scientific research and trains highly skilled professionals. A federal government cannot afford to deprioritise research and science. As FORWIT Chair Thomas Henzinger emphasises, universities make a vital contribution to democratic understanding, social cohesion, prosperity, and national competitiveness. “Funding is only part of the equation; what also matters is how precisely public funds are deployed. As our recent analysis shows, Austria’s higher education system is not as effective as those in comparable countries. Simply maintaining current budget levels will do little to change this.”

Structural deficits: Study regulations, fragmentation, budget distribution, and career paths

Austria’s higher education system exhibits several peculiarities that serve no clear purpose and disadvantage everyone. These include:

  • Study regulations at universities that, uniquely in international comparison, lack binding commitments, negatively affecting both social equity and graduation rates.
  • A funding logic that not only cross-subsidises other policy areas (e.g., the healthcare system) but also assumes that state-provided budgets should be distributed in fixed proportions to institutions, regardless of performance.
  • Fragmentation, where competition between higher education sectors is emphasised over their shared responsibility to the republic.
  • An incentive system that funds international students at taxpayers’ expense, only to subsequently exclude them from the domestic labour market.
  • Career structures for researchers that entrench precarity and hierarchies, rather than rewarding scientific achievements in the global competition.

“Business as usual” is not an option: A future-proof higher education strategy is urgently needed

“Nothing would be more dangerous than allowing higher education to fall into neglect through political inaction, as seen elsewhere.”
Theresia Vogel

“The federal government has set itself a sensible goal: to prepare Austria’s entire higher education system to meet current and future challenges. Nothing would be more dangerous than allowing higher education to fall into neglect through political inaction, as seen elsewhere,” warns Deputy Chair Theresia Vogel. The planned higher education strategy must therefore remain a top priority. A “business as usual” approach, as some advocate, will not address the immense demographic, technological, and geopolitical challenges ahead.

The FORWIT analysis outlines clear courses of action. Particularly in times of financial constraint, FORWIT cautions against discussing university budgets without simultaneously advancing fundamental systemic reform. The higher education system encompasses more than just public universities. The Republic—especially the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMWF) and the representatives of all affected institutions—bears the responsibility of implementing a forward-looking higher education strategy that enhances the overall performance of Austrian universities in teaching, research, and knowledge transfer.

FORWIT publishes analysis of the higher education system

With their analysis, FORWIT provides an essential foundation for the Federal Government’s Higher Education Strategy 2040 and offers impulses for its development. It shows that Austria’s higher education institutions possess considerable strengths, yet at the same time face profound challenges that will be decisive for their future performance.

Overall, the analysis reflects a system characterised by a strongly segmented structure in organisational, financial and governance terms. According to FORWIT, this weakens permeability, hinders the development of clear strategic profiles, and complicates the further development of individual institutions.

Teaching, research, knowledge transfer: strengths and weaknesses

In teaching, the analysis presents mixed results: while higher education overall prepares students well for the labour market, social selectivity and dropout rates remain high, exceeding 30 per cent in some subjects at public universities. In research, there are instances of excellence in basic research, yet Austria still lags behind leading comparator countries overall. The transfer of knowledge into economic and societal impact is also identified as an area with particular need for improvement.

“As in many other areas of society, our higher education system is at a turning point. If we are to seize the opportunities of 2040, we must now shape the framework conditions so that our institutions can develop their quality, openness and potential in a more dynamic and effective way,” says FORWIT Chair Thomas Henzinger.

From the perspective of Vice-Chair Theresia Vogel, decisive reforms are also required. “It is clear that this is not about incremental adjustments, but about the strategic development of the system as a whole. Future-proof study conditions, attractive academic careers, and a stronger focus on impact are key levers,” Vogel explains.

Impulses for working groups

Based on its findings, FORWIT provides the working groups—an essential component in developing the future strategy for Austria’s higher education system—with a range of ideas for consideration. These include, for example, harmonising study regulations and student place management, as well as establishing part-time study and lifelong learning elements in law. Other proposals concern new academic career paths, reform of performance evaluation, profile-based and results-oriented funding, and simpler governance and decision-making structures.

International sounding board

“The key question is: what kind of higher education institutions will Austria need in 2040? The answer must lie in a bold reform agenda that considers excellence, accessibility and societal relevance together, rather than uncritically perpetuating existing structures,” Henzinger emphasises.

This assessment is shared by the international sounding board. In a letter to Federal Minister Holzleitner, the four distinguished experts outline their perspectives and proposals for an effective and forward-looking development of the higher education system—including reflections on the high number of institutions, their lack of distinct profiles, and the framework conditions for study, teaching and research.

With this analysis, FORWIT supports the development of the Higher Education Strategy 2040. What matters is that the identified challenges are understood as an opportunity for forward-looking development.

FORWIT welcomes Uwe Cantner as a new member

The Council for Sciences, Technology, and Innovation (FORWIT) is pleased to welcome Univ.-Prof. Dr Uwe Cantner as a new member. The renowned innovation economist and former Chair of the German Federal Government’s Expert Commission on Research and Innovation (EFI) brings extensive experience at the intersection of science, policy, and business.

Cantner is regarded as one of Europe’s leading experts on innovation and technology policy. His academic work and long-standing advisory activities have shaped discussions on building high-performing and competitive innovation systems across Europe for many years.

Uwe Cantner looks forward to his new role: “I am excited to contribute my experience in academia and policy advice to the Austrian context. FORWIT is a strong platform for bringing together sound analysis and strategic thinking – precisely what is needed to shape forward-looking innovation policy.”

“With Uwe Cantner, our Council gains an internationally recognised figure,” emphasises Thomas Henzinger, Chair of FORWIT. “His expertise in analysing and designing innovation systems will be of great value to our work – particularly with regard to advancing an evidence-based innovation policy in Austria. I look forward to our collaboration.” At the same time, the Council strengthens its international network and its mission to provide strategic impetus for an innovation-driven Austria.

With the appointment of Uwe Cantner, Federal Minister Peter Hanke underscores FORWIT’s role as an independent, science-based advisory body to the Austrian Federal Government. “With his extensive experience in high-level advisory committees and his academic and policy-relevant expertise – especially in transformative innovation policy, productivity, technological change, and governance under uncertainty – Uwe Cantner will be a valuable addition to the Council,” Hanke stated in a press release.

About Uwe Cantner

Univ.-Prof. Dr Uwe Cantner is Professor of Economics at Friedrich Schiller University Jena. From 2019 to 2023, he served as Chair of the Expert Commission on Research and Innovation (EFI), advising the German Federal Government on research and innovation policy. His research focuses on innovation economics, technological change, and the dynamics of innovation systems. In addition to his academic work, Cantner is actively involved in various international bodies promoting knowledge-based innovation policy.

New FORWIT chair team

With effect from 1 April 2026, Council member Theresia Vogel will assume the role of Deputy Chair of the Council for Sciences, Technology and Innovation (FORWIT). She succeeds Sylvia Schwaag Serger, who is leaving the body after more than two years at FORWIT and, before that, eight years in its predecessor organisation, the Council for Research and Technology Development (RFTE). DI Theresia Vogel has many years of experience in Austria’s research and innovation landscape, including as former Managing Director of the Climate and Energy Fund.

“I would like to thank the Council assembly for its trust and I look forward to close cooperation in the Chair. Shaping a future-oriented research and innovation system requires joint effort – scientifically grounded, internationally connected and with an eye to social impact,” said Theresia Vogel.

In her parting remarks, Sylvia Schwaag Serger stressed: “Working with FORWIT, and before that with the RFTE, was an extraordinarily enriching experience for me. It has always been important to me to bring international perspectives and insights into Austrian research and innovation policy. I wish the Council every continued success in carrying out this important task.”

Thomas Henzinger, Chair of FORWIT, paid tribute to Schwaag Serger’s contribution and welcomed Vogel to the Chair team: “With Sylvia Schwaag Serger, we are losing a distinguished expert in international research policy and innovation systems, whose contribution to Austrian STI policy has been, and remains, of great value. On behalf of the entire Council assembly and the staff of the Secretariat, I would like to thank her for her commitment and wish her all the best. At the same time, I am looking forward to working with Theresia Vogel in the Chair team. FORWIT has already benefited from her experience as a strategist who combines innovation, technology and sustainability.”

About Theresia Vogel

DI Theresia Vogel is an independent expert and led the Climate and Energy Fund from 2010 to 2022. Before that, she worked as Head of Department at the FFG, as well as at the University of Applied Sciences Wiener Neustadt and TU Wien. Her current focus areas are innovation-driven, climate-compatible industrial transformation, and the sustainable design and climate change adaptation of urban spaces. She has been a member of the FORWIT Council assembly since November 2023. In 2025, she became a board member of the Forschungsstiftung Energiepark.

About Sylvia Schwaag Serger

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Sylvia Schwaag Serger is a professor at the Department of Economic History and the Centre for Innovation Research at Lund University. Since October 2024, she has been President of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA). The internationally renowned expert on innovation and transformation policy holds various roles for the Swedish Government, the European Commission and the OECD. From 2015 to 2023, she was a member, Deputy Chair and, most recently, Chair of the Council for Research and Technology Development (RFTE); since then, and until 31 March 2026, she has been Deputy Chair of its successor organisation, FORWIT.

FORWIT welcomes the adoption and objectives of the RTI Pact 2027-29

The Council for Research, Science, Innovation and Technology Development (FORWIT) welcomes the adoption of the RTI Pact for the years 2027 to 2029. The fact that it was possible to increase the funding for the Pact, despite Austria’s challenging budgetary situation, is particularly gratifying, said FORWIT Chair Thomas Henzinger. “The Council has always advocated not cutting but rather investing wisely and with foresight, especially in those areas that guarantee prosperity, security and competitiveness. We therefore expressly welcome the Federal Government’s demonstrated commitment to research, technology and innovation as key drivers of our country’s future success.”

However, FORWIT also repeatedly stresses the importance of effectively addressing the widening gap between high input and noticeably declining output. The Council’s annual STI Monitor shows that the efficiency of deployed resources has been steadily decreasing. “We regard it as an important signal that the Federal Government explicitly acknowledges this issue in the new RTI Pact and intends to reverse the trend of declining efficiency and impact. This particularly concerns, among other things, the major shortcomings in transferring research results into marketable, successful products—and thus into value creation,” explained Vice-Chair Sylvia Schwaag Serger.

Only a few weeks ago, FORWIT published an analysis identifying weaknesses in knowledge transfer within Austria’s RTI system. “These deficits can be tackled by not treating the RTI Pact in isolation, but by meaningfully and effectively linking it systemically with other strategies and measures. We therefore see it as a positive step that the forthcoming Pact is being conceived in conjunction with the industrial strategy—not least to help reduce these shortcomings,” said Schwaag Serger.