On Thursday 26 March 2026, key stakeholders from across government, industry, academia and investment attended a roundtable at the House of Lords, hosted by The Lord Ranger of Northwood, to discuss the findings of a new report commissioned by Pioneer Group and The Crown Estate, and authored by Henham Strategy.

The report, Beyond the Capital Gap: How do we develop an operational blueprint to capitalise on UK science, identifies the practical steps required to fortify the UK’s commercialisation infrastructure, including venture building support, specialist real estate, and critical skills.

The roundtable discussion came at a moment of growing cross-party recognition that capital alone is not enough to turn the UK’s worldclass research base into scalable commercial success.

The following report is a summary of the main themes discussed at the roundtable. Pioneer Group and The Crown Estate will be drawing on these themes to seek further input from government, industry and academia to help shape an operational blueprint for strengthening the UK’s commercialisation capacity.

Roundtable Discussion Report: Key Themes

The main themes discussed in the roundtable focused on systemic barriers and enabling conditions for UK start-ups and scale-ups (particularly science-based ventures).

In Brief

• Venture building support was seen as most effective when it is specialist, consistent over time, and closely integrated with expertise, capital, and infrastructure.

• Participants highlighted a structural mismatch between the capital required to build science ventures and the typical UK funding pattern (which typically includes small funds, small cheques, and frequent rounds). This slows progress and weakens international competitiveness.

• Access to experienced leadership and operational talent (including executives who have scaled companies before) was repeatedly raised as a binding constraint, compounded by the fundraising burden and perceived UK risk/reward balance.

• Real estate and physical infrastructure (specifically lab space, specialist fit-outs, and shared equipment) were positioned as core commercialisation infrastructure, not optional add-ons. This is particularly true outside the Golden Triangle.

• Regional ecosystem development was framed as a co-ordination problem, specifically: clustering, visibility of pipeline/demand, and alignment between universities, investors, property, and local strategic authorities.

• The Government should focus on creating stable, long‑term incentives (such as predictable tax policies) and helping organisations work together, rather than building under‑used assets.

Key Themes

1) Venture Building: Specialist, Integrated and Sustained Support

Venture building was defined as “the disciplined, repeatable process of turning strong research into investor-backable, scalable businesses.” Discussion emphasised that, while support models vary (incubators, accelerators, venture building, VC-operating support, entrepreneurs-in-residence), outcomes typically improve when programmes are:

• Supported by specialist investors and advisers, by sector and stage. For instance, deep tech/medtech/biotech and regulatory pathways require different playbooks than generalist programmes.
• Integrated with relevant assets, such as clinical or industrial partners, specialist facilities, and embedded experts close to founders.
• Consistent over time, so that venture creation is not sporadic or geographically uneven.
• Designed around operational execution, from product development and manufacturing/supply chain planning to regulatory strategy and commercialisation.

A recurring subtheme was the long-term‑ sustainability of accelerators and support organisations. Participants noted that many programmes depend on short-term‑, patchwork funding, which leads to staff instability and undermines strategic continuity.

2) Capital: Scale, Speed and the Structure of UK Early-Stage Funding

Capital availability and capital structure were central to the discussion. Participants argued that science ventures often require larger, longer-duration financing than typical UK early-stage patterns provide. The following points recurred:

• Fund sizes and cheque sizes are often too small, leading to under-capitalised companies and repeated small rounds.
• “Drip-fed” funding slows execution and forces management teams onto a continuous fundraising treadmill, reducing time available to generate the data/packages needed for value inflection.
• Small rounds can create downstream fragility, limiting investors’ ability to provide follow-on funding, and weakening the company’s position with later stage or global investors.

• Limited UK institutional capital, compared with other countries, was seen as constraining the ability to build larger domestic funds and provide patient capital.
• Scale-up financing remains a major bottleneck, with concerns about the thinning pool of investors willing to support Series A and beyond in certain categories.

Several comments framed this as an ecosystem “escalator” problem; without mechanisms to help ventures move from incubation to meaningful scale (and to connect them to larger pools of capital), the system risks producing many small companies that cannot become enduring, globally competitive businesses.

3) Talent: Experienced Leadership, Operating Capability and Retention

Talent was discussed across the full lifecycle: early technical staff, translational engineers, and, most prominently, C-suite leaders and operators with prior scale-up experience. Participants highlighted a perceived shortage of “repeat scalers” – those who have successfully scaled a company and are able to do it again – and operating executives willing to join UK ventures. This is likely driven by:

• Fundraising burden and uncertainty. Senior leaders reluctant to spend prolonged periods raising capital rather than progressing the science.
• Perceived risk/reward mismatch including issues with compensation, equity structures, and the overall expected payoff compared with other markets.
• Mobility/attraction frictions, for example immigration/visa considerations and broader competitiveness factors.
• The UK has an insufficient critical mass of large, successful UK-headquartered science companies, reducing the pool of experienced leaders and teams who can “get the band back together” to build new ventures.

There was also a strong link made between fund capacity and talent outcomes: larger funds (and investors with operating experience) were viewed as better positioned to recruit, support and retain the teams needed to execute growth plans.

4) Real Estate and Physical Infrastructure: Commercialisation Fundamentals

Physical infrastructure was presented as a first-order constraint for science ventures. Discussion moved beyond “space” to the availability of fit-for-purpose, flexible environments and shared capabilities (specialist equipment, data infrastructure, regulated suites, bioprocessing capacity). Key points included:

• Timing mismatch. It can take years to bring capacity online; investment decisions therefore require visibility and long-term conviction.
• Regional viability gap. Outside the Golden Triangle, the challenge is not only buildings and land, but the bespoke fit-out and equipment that can undermine project economics.
• Integrated models. Models that link real estate investors, venture investors and universities were described as promising, because they combine long-term horizons with a clearer view of pipeline/demand.
• “White elephant” risk. Infrastructure is not enough on its own; without operating capability, resource funding and industrial know-how, it can become under-used.

5) Regional Ecosystems: Clustering, Concentration and Place-Based Strategy

Participants repeatedly returned to the need for concentration and co-ordination – not only “more activity” across the UK, but more intentional clustering to generate network effects. Themes included:

• Critical mass and cluster effects: Dispersing a small number of well-funded companies across too many locations weakens shared learning, investor attention and local talent pools.
• Defined innovation hubs: A preference for clearly bounded districts where companies, labs, investors and services can co‑locate and build density.
• Golden Triangle gravity: Seen as both an advantage and a challenge, as securing overseas investment and specialist space is often harder outside this area.
• “Town” factors: Housing affordability, transport and local amenities play a significant role in attracting and retaining talent, especially as companies scale beyond established centres.

6) Coordination and Visibility: Mapping, Data and Pipeline Planning

A practical issue raised was the limited ability, in many places, to map assets and plan demand across a region, including research strengths, the pipeline of new companies, infrastructure needs, available facilities and local investor presence. Participants suggested that better shared data could:

• Support investable business cases for specialist infrastructure (for example, cleanrooms, shared equipment) by aggregating forward demand.
• Align venture building, venture finance and real estate timelines, so space and capital arrive when companies need them.
• Improve discoverability for national bodies, investors and corporates looking to engage with regional clusters.

7) Government and Policy: Incentives, Stability and Long-Term Commitment

Government was discussed as playing an important enabling role, but with an emphasis on creating the conditions for success rather than attempting to directly engineer outcomes. The discussion covered:

• Incentives to support scaling, including tax and market measures that encourage long-term, growth-focused investment.
• Mobilising institutional capital, with the Pensions Reform Bill noted as a potential vehicle to expand domestic fund sizes and capital.
• Policy stability and certainty, particularly around regimes such as R&D tax credits, to match long venture timelines.

• Devolution and local leadership: a view that place-based strategies may require empowered local/combined authorities with the skills and knowledge to co-ordinate land, infrastructure, and economic development.
• Avoiding a “build it and they will come” mindset: infrastructure investment needs to be paired with operating capability, talent and sustained demand.

Call for Action

The roundtable discussion provided a start-point for the debate about how the UK can strengthen its commercialisation strategy for UK science. Now is the moment to design the solution together. Pioneer Group and The Crown Estate are actively seeking input from across the commercialisation landscape to help steer a more coherent and ambitious national approach.

To share your perspective, responses can be submitted to beyondthecapitalgap@henhamstrategy.co.uk.