Investments in research and development have increased for decades, and Danish companies now spend more on innovation than firms in most other countries. On paper, we should be in a golden age of discovery.
Yet major breakthroughs – the ones that cure diseases, create new industries or radically improve productivity – are becoming rarer. And artificial intelligence may well worsen the trend rather than reverse it.
This is not only a research and development issue. It is a leadership challenge. The decisions leaders make about incentives, time horizons, risk appetite and the use of AI increasingly determine whether innovation systems lead to genuine breakthroughs or simply produce more of the same. The popular “fail fast” approach may not be as effective as it seems.
We invest more but discover lessAcross industries, we see a consistent decline in novelty. Companies generate more patents than ever, but the share that is genuinely new or disruptive continues to fall.
In the pharmaceutical industry, the costs and effort required to develop a new drug have risen sharply in spite of strong scientific tools and access to unprecedented amounts of data.
As knowledge accumulates, innovation naturally becomes more complex, but we also risk innovating more without innovating better.
The explanation is not how much companies spend on research and development but how they make decisions about innovation.
A good example comes from my research on how firms respond to short-term financial pressure. We found that pressure to improve short-term performance affects the types of innovation projects companies choose to pursue.
In a study of European firms subject to mandatory quarterly reporting, I found that innovative companies did not cut their R&D budgets – some even increased them as capital became cheaper.
But the nature of their innovation shifted. They moved towards safer, more incremental projects and focused on technologies they already knew. They avoided new or riskier areas. Exploration declined even as overall R&D increased.
If corporate innovation is stalling, leaders cannot remain passive. More funding alone will not solve the problem. What matters is rethinking the habits, decision processes and incentives that determine whether good ideas are allowed to grow – or disappear.