The pattern is not unique to Australia…
The long-standing Australian innovation narrative is made up of familiar themes. We acknowledge world class research capability, point to gaps in translation and impact, and believe others do it better. We reach for overseas comparisons in economies where both innovation outperforms on some pre-determined relative metric, and where investment is greater in comparative terms. The takeaways are predictable; we need more investment, more support, often led loudest by the largest beneficiaries.
What becomes interesting is when you look to the overseas ecosystems not to evaluate their performance, but to investigate their narratives. What do those who we emulate or admire look for in terms of support?
A recent document published in the UK by the Russell Group in July 2026 provides an interesting insight. The “Innovation Nation: driving place-based growth through university partnerships” report makes the case for the UK’s 20-plus research intensive universities as the primary drivers of regional economic growth.
What others say
The Russell Group makes a series of strong and confident statements about Universities’ role in industry: Universities turn ideas into jobs, University-industry partnerships drive commercial outcomes across the UK, Skills programs bridge the talent gap that constrains business growth, and University anchored infrastructure creates conditions of regional regeneration and sustained commercial capability.
Each statement is substantiated by named examples. Atom Valley is a hi-tech manufacturing and research cluster anchored by the University of Manchester’s embedded partnership with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The Very Light Rail concept in Dudley developed by the Warwick Manufacturing Group at the University of Warwick led to a £32 million National Innovation Centre, attracting further investment from the West Midlands Combined Authority. The South West Institute of Technology led by the University of Exeter works with employers to build regional skills escalators. The Glasgow Riverside Innovation District involved the University of Glasgow in partnership with the local council and Scottish Enterprise.
Who they reference
These examples are their evidence that universities translate research into commercial outcomes. What is particularly interesting is who are the “industry partners”.
Coventry City Council, Babcock, the Met Office, the West Midlands Combined Authority, Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow City Council. Every industry partner is either a government body, a public authority, or a regulated industry contractor (i.e, defence). This is remarkably similar to the problem we explored in our discussion on the definition of industry, but for Australia it is markedly worse. The UK has retained a significant number of large publicly owned institutions; NHS, Network Rail, the Met Office. This enables government bodies to become more effective industry partners in University collaboration.
In contrast, the systematic privatisation of comparable assets in Australia removed that layer from our economy almost entirely, with the majority of ownership going offshore. With Australia’s industrial manufacturing base at 5.4 percent, we have neither the publicly owned partners nor the private industrial depth to capitalise on public funded research in the same way.
The pattern repeats
This is not to criticise the intent of the document, there is no doubt universities are important in the translation of research. What it does do however is highlight a structural pattern that is worth exploring a little further.
Research-intensive universities everywhere face the same pressure; they must demonstrate industry relevance to secure and maintain public funding. But their institutional identity, career structures, and their funding models depend on the research mission succeeding, much more than the commercial translation outcomes. The consequence is a set of claims made with complete sincerity that are near impossible to measure; we turn ideas into jobs, we translate knowledge into skills for the economy, etc.
The metrics in the Russell Group document mirror those in the Australian conversation: innovation precincts, skills escalators, national innovation centres, regional partnerships. Activity is reported like they are outcomes, commercial impact is not measured. The companies who would carry outcomes from concept to customer in a competitive market are absent from both the metrics and the named examples.
Who is at the table determines what gets designed. When institutions making the policy case for research-led commercial translation are the same ones that are benefiting from the funding programs, the conflict of interest is not intentional but structural. In this instance, the Russell Group captures around 70 per cent of UK Government research funding. This is directly comparable to Australia’s Group of Eight, who attract 71 per cent of government research funding.
Compounding factors
There is a more profound problem for us here in Australia. In the UK manufacturing is in decline, but it still represents over 8 per cent of the economy. The academic-led UK Catapult Model was designed to support this industrial base in transition. The £2.5 billion investment has achieved around 40 per cent industry revenue. Fraunhofer was designed with commercial discipline rather than research relevance from inception, and achieves 70 per cent.
In Australia the economic contribution of manufacturing is well below the UK at 5.4 per cent of GDP. When we import a model calibrated to halt decline of a sector in one country, and apply it in an economy where the decline has already happened, the market is unable to support the outcomes.
We cannot afford to adopt international models designed by institutions facing the same problems, for economic conditions that do not reflect our own, not to mention whose performance is not meeting its objectives.
A different starting point
We need to consider carefully our own specific circumstance. Testing our policy settings against international models designed by the institutions that benefit from them, in economic structures that do not resemble our own has proven to be ineffective. The Russell Group example demonstrates this is not unique to Australia. Research-intensive institutions making the case for research-led commercial translation is a universal problem. Recognising this is a global pattern does not itself create a solution, but it does clarify a different approach is required.
We need to focus on a model built for the commercial layer within our local economy. We need a design aligned to our unique economic structure, and calibrated for our local companies that policy makers consistently overlook. Then, and only then, will we have a realistic chance of turning local research into sovereign capability.