Most OECD countries use incubators to help new companies get started. In June 2026, the OECD published a review of how incubation works today and how governments support it. The report covers services such as coaching, training and financing, and includes case studies from several countries, six of them European.
A widespread policy tool
As of early 2025, 31 OECD countries had an active national policy for incubation. The European case studies in the report cover Estonia, France, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
The OECD sums up its analysis in three messages to governments.
From office space to meeting point
The first message is that the incubator’s role is broadening. In the past, the main task was often to provide space and services to start-ups. Many leading incubators now also act as hubs, connecting their companies with people, contacts and resources across the local ecosystem.
According to the OECD, these networks have become a core part of what incubators offer start-ups. They also work in the other direction, helping investors and other actors to find promising companies.
The OECD suggests that governments can support this shift by directing funding to incubators that are well connected locally, encouraging networks and partnerships between them, and offering quality labels that strengthen their credibility.
Support tailored to each company
The second message is that incubation works better when it is adapted to each company. The OECD describes the incubator’s central task as providing support that matches the company’s changing needs. Entrepreneurs are short of time, and support that does not fit can put them off altogether.
Examples include one-to-one coaching, specialised programmes, smaller and more targeted training and help with finding the right contacts. The OECD also notes that coaching, one of the most important parts of incubation, is often provided in too small amounts or at too low a standard. Good practice includes coaching that sets milestones and follows up continuously on progress.
Raising standards
The third message concerns the role of government. Public money has been crucial in building up the number of incubators in recent years, but the OECD argues that the focus should now shift to raising their quality. The most direct way is through the criteria and conditions attached to funding. Most countries could also do more through networks, training and guidelines for incubator staff. One proposal is to link funding to agreed goals and results, followed up systematically.
Three European approaches
The European case studies show how differently this can be done.
Sweden is presented as a leading example of a centralised model. Over many years, the national incubator programme has funded, steered and strengthened the country’s incubators, combining funding with close monitoring of how they work and perform, while leaving them independent in their operations. To be admitted to the programme, incubators must be able to document well-defined working processes with data.
The United Kingdom has chosen a more decentralised approach, with support coming from a mix of regional and national programmes rather than one central system. This has made it possible to tailor support to different sectors and regions and to test new ideas through pilot programmes. Incubators that receive public funding must share data, which according to the OECD has contributed to better results and to the spread of good practice.
In Portugal, the national incubator network collects data on its members’ activities. The OECD describes this as an important source of knowledge about how the country’s incubation system performs.
Effects that show up later
The report also discusses how incubators’ results should be followed up. Some effects only appear after a company has left the incubator. Job growth, for example, often comes some time later, so judging incubators only by jobs created while the company is in the programme can be misleading.
Getting enough incubators to report data is a key challenge, according to the OECD. Reporting requirements that are too demanding can put incubators off, especially smaller ones, and companies may be unwilling to share some information.
At the same time, consistent and reliable data on incubators and their companies would help close persistent knowledge gaps about which forms of support work best. The OECD recommends that evaluations always include three core measures: growth in employment, growth in sales and company survival.
Same goals, different routes
The OECD’s overall message is that incubators are moving from offering space and services towards acting as meeting points that connect start-ups with their surroundings. Governments can support that shift, encourage tailored support and use funding conditions to raise quality. The European examples show that there are several ways to get there, from Sweden’s centralised programme to the United Kingdom’s mix of regional and national schemes, with data playing a part in all of them.
