Success in biopharma has become a key indicator in the global race for innovation and industrial competitiveness, alongside areas such as artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing. It’s also an industry in flux: cost pressures and competition are increasing, barriers to entry into biotech are lowering with the combination of biotech, digital and AI technologies.
The report: “A comparative analysis of biopharmaceutical strategies in 10 countries” looks at countries, across four continents, to identify the most useful patterns and best practices that are driving the biopharmaceutical growth.
“Not all measures can simply be translated into a European context. The EU can learn from them while playing to its unique strengths, scientific excellence and high-quality research centres,” the report says. The report also suggests that closer cooperation between the EU and its European neighbours, notably Switzerland and the UK, as significant centres for biopharmaceutical innovation, will further amplify its impact.
The report looks at six metrics across the ten countries, these being: R&D intensity; public-private collaboration; clinical trials uptake; regulatory frameworks efficiency and agility; venture capital financing dynamics; and translational ecosystem and startup generation.
The European countries making the list of ten are Denmark, France, Switzerland and the UK. The other six countries considered in the EPIA report are, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, and the US.
China is described as "combining large R&D scale with speed in clinical trials, rapid clinical trials and biomanufacturing expansion, aiming for self-sufficiency" while the US is described as "Leading, deep and mature biotech ecosystem, blending capital, research depth and commercialisation capacity, though facing strategic coordination gap."
While all the countries rank highly in R&D intensity it is notable that China’s R&D is driven by “large scale state-funding.” The UK also ranks highly on “government R&D funding” but has a declining global share of private R&D. Meanwhile the US’ R&D intensity is “very high with both public and private leadership.”
R&D intensity in Saudi Arabia is growing rapidly from a low base, according to the report, while Singapore’s is “high for its size [of the economy].” France’s high R&D intensity is backed by the public sector, but moderate in the private; and Denmark’s R&D intensity is considered “very high for the size of its economy.” Japan is also high on its R&D intensity and there are “structured clear efforts to strengthen public private cooperation,” the report says. Switzerland’s strong R&D intensity is also supported by “strong cluster driven public-private cooperation,” the report notes.
South Korea is highlighted as the ‘standout country’ when it comes to R&D intensity and translating spending into tangible industrial advantage. The report says South Korea ranks second in the world for R&D intensity at around 4.9-5% of its GDP) and combines strong corporate investment with significant state-led strategic funding. "The government uses R&D budgets to drive targeted industrial transformation, including in biopharma and advanced manufacturing, often through long-term technology roadmaps.”
Commenting on the overall pharmaceutical R&D intensity the report warns that the EU is falling behind. “In pharmaceuticals, the gap between Europe and other global leaders is stark: EU pharmaceutical R&D spending grew on average 4.4% per year between 2010 and 2022, from €27.8 billion to €46.2 billion. Over the same period, R&D spending growth in the US was 5.5% and in China 20.7%, highlighting a significant competitiveness gap in innovation capacity,” the report says.
The report notes that: “EU nember states have underestimated the impact that different drivers of investment in other countries are having on Europe’s own attractiveness as a region.” The report notes the “lack of sense of urgency for improving Europe’s clinical trials ecosystem, considering the rapid rise of China in this field over the past few years, combined with underinvestment in the structural issues that are eroding its biopharma ecosystem and are at risk of eroding it further."
Stressing the importance of China’s presence in biopharma the report adds: “Competition from China and its growing strengths in several key segments of the biopharma value chain reflects today’s importance of speed and cost effectiveness to address the lagging [EU] R&D productivity.”
The report asserts that better cooperation among Europe’s member states would go someway to address the region’s weaker position, compared with its global competitors. “Europe’s strength is the single market. Europe’s lower competitiveness versus the US and increasingly China is partly due to the lack of all member states pulling in the same direction with a strong political will to invest in the required resources,” the report says.
While welcoming the EU Life Science Strategy and its support for cross-border cluster cooperation, the report says that: “Recent global developments, notably US tariffs on pharmaceuticals and the introduction of most-favoured-nation pricing in the US will impact the dynamics of accelerating global competition, investment flows and global launch initiatives. These developments further reinforce the need for building Europe’s geopolitical resilience on biopharmaceuticals, derisking supply chains, safeguarding incentives and reinforcing Europe’s ability to leverage its strengths in the biopharmaceutical supply chains.”
Further reading
- Life Sciences leadership: The UK and the EU set out plans for sector growth and investment
- Life sciences: Why execs are cautiously optimistic about 2026
- Life sciences and pharma priorities in 2025: M&A, AI and China
Visit Blog