Arthur Jordão, Executive Director of ESNA in an Interview with Observador
Arthur Jordão, Executive Director of ESNA in an Interview with Observador spoke about the upcoming projects and the future of the alliance.
The interview touched on the achievements of the last four years and the organisation’s transition to a European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC).
Since its launch in 2021, ESNA has brought together 22 active Member States to advance regulatory standards, improve policy coordination and strengthen data-driven decision-making for Europe’s startup ecosystem.
A key milestone in 2026 is the launch of ESNA’s new Data Platform, a groundbreaking tool of its kind in Europe to provide centralised insights and aggregated data for policymakers.
Interview with Observador- English Translation
The Europe Startup Nations Alliance still awaits Government action to change status and secure headquarters in Portugal. “It has to happen quickly”
ESNA must change its status in order not to lose the investment made so far. The change depends on the Government and has not yet moved forward. Interrupting operations could have a “huge impact”, says Executive Director Arthur Jordão.
In 2021, the creation of an European Alliance for entrepreneurship, the Europe Startup Nations Alliance (ESNA) was announced with great enthusiasm. It was an effort to bring together Member States of the European Union to work on public policies to help European startups flourish. In November 2021, when the Web Summit in Lisbon returned to an in-person format after the Covid-19 interruption, Pedro Siza Vieira, then Minister of Economy, announced that the organisation’s headquarters would be established in Portugal, specifically at the Pavilhão de Portugal, in Parque das Nações.
Almost four years after that announcement, news emerged that Portugal risked losing the organisation’s headquarters, which brings together 28 countries (26 EU countries, Iceland and Ukraine, although only 22 are “active” members). In an interview with Observador, at the offices in Parque das Nações, Executive Director Arthur Jordão explains that ESNA needs to evolve from its current status as a private-law association to a “new legal nature”, “100% European”: the EDIC [European Digital Infrastructure Consortium]. An application that must be submitted by the Ministry of the Economy, “but which has not yet been submitted”, notes the head of ESNA.
Time is running short, as the bulk of ESNA’s funding comes from the Recovery and Resilience Plan (PRR), and is therefore only secured until the summer. Arthur Jordão admits there is a sense of “uncertainty” among ESNA members about the organisation’s future and stresses that “there is a need for an investment of political capital”. If the Ministry of Economy does not accelerate the process, there could be “a huge impact on the investment made so far”.
It was reported in December that Portugal is at risk of losing the headquarters of the Europe Startup Nations Alliance (ESNA). Meanwhile, the Minister of Economy was called to the Parliament to speak about the matter and vehemently denied that this was a possibility. The Minister said it was “fantastical alarmism”. Is it “alarmism” or does this risk exist?
We welcomed the vehemence with which it was stated that Portugal does not want to drop the application, which has still not been submitted, and I think that is really the great alarm. It was said that there was not really a deadline to submit [the application]. From an administrative standpoint, that is true, because this is an administrative process, unlike, for example, a European agency, which is a competitive process. ESNA is merely an administrative process.
What happens is that, from an administrative standpoint, there is indeed no deadline, but from an operational standpoint those deadlines are running out.
What does that mean? ESNA’s funding, the bulk of it, is secured until June this year, which coincides with the Recovery and Resilience Plan (PRR). And the expectation that has been created so far is that there will be continuity afterwards, because all the work that has been carried out, all the investment made, the know-how that is being created and the value it adds for countries mean that this organisation should endure in order to continue providing support. And that transition involves the new legal nature, which is the EDIC [European Digital Infrastructure Consortium].
In other words, this is not about creating something from scratch again and starting from zero, it is about ensuring operations. And that is the risk at stake here, and there may be some impact if this transition is not secured as quickly as possible.
The monitoring of the transition is in this Government’s programme. The Minister of Economy said that they are waiting for the best “political and diplomatic opportunity”. Given that we are working within a relatively short timeframe, the PRR ends in the summer, what do you understand by the best political and diplomatic opportunity in this context?
In a transparent and honest way: I have no idea what that means. As Executive Director of an organisation, I am representing the countries that are part of this organisation, in this case 22, five of which sit on the Presidency Board and elected me and the other members of the executive team, we are looking at this with concern in the sense that the organisation’s continuity depends precisely on this step, or at least that is the expectation that was created. We currently have a second funding stream from the European Commission, in which one of the objectives is precisely to ensure the organisation’s transition to an EDIC.
After the PRR?
Exactly. It is not only the expectation of the Member States, but also of the European Commission itself, which views this transition to a new 100% European legal nature favorably. One of the objectives of that funding is, on the assumption that this transition will take place, to support that transition.
In 2025, particularly in the first half of the year, up until the Government elections, there was effective political investment on the part of the Executive to make a proposal on how this would be done, what the governance model would be, what the subsequent funding would look like. In other words, we will move to a model in which all countries contribute, we are talking about State budgets from the various countries. These are lengthy processes, so this has to happen.
The expectation was created, several countries committed themselves, both in terms of State budgets and political commitment, to move forward and everything is waiting. Therefore, if we are truly to continue operating, this must happen quickly, otherwise something will have to change for that continuity to exist as well.
Is the file with the Ministry of Economy?
Normally our interlocutor is the Ministry of Economy.
Would you say you have a close relationship? Do you speak regularly with the Ministry, with the Secretary of State for Economy? Is there regular monitoring of the activity?
There has been regular monitoring and some conversations with them, as would be natural. I think it is not so much the regularity that concerns me, it is more the effectiveness of things.
Do you think the Ministry of Economy should be doing more in this process?
We know very well the effort required to bring together all those Member States, the Commission itself, around a concrete mission and a concrete objective, which is this platform for sharing knowledge and all the work we are developing at ESNA. I can also admit that there may be many things I am not aware of that are being done. But from what I have seen, there is indeed a need for an investment of political capital, and of understanding, so that things reach a successful conclusion.
However much merit there is in the project and in what is being done by the countries, it must be understood that a lack of communication and of investment of the political capital I was referring to if that does not exist and there is no demonstration of it to the Member States we cannot expect everyone to sit back waiting to see when Portugal decides to submit [the application]. “Let’s all rush now, because Portugal has finally decided.” That is what needs to be understood.
Is there concern among Member States? How are they following this situation? Have you been contacted by the different participants? What is the mood?
There is doubt which hangs in the air. We have countries that committed politically and budgetarily to the continuity of ESNA via EDIC, which are looking with some uncertainty at the lack of response from those leading this process at political level regarding what will happen and when it will happen.
Which, apparently, was clarified in Parliament, that it will move forward, but the “when” cannot be ad aeternum. It must happen, once again, because we already exist, there is an organisation, everything is running and an interruption would have a huge impact on the investment that has been made so far, both in terms of people and in terms of the tools that have been developed and that require continuity.
“All this investment and this intangibility that has been created is essentially put at risk.”
If there were an interruption, what would that mean for ESNA?
This interruption would mean that we have a set of tools, such as a platform of macro-aggregated data, which is a very useful statistical tool for those developing public policy, which is on its upward trajectory both in terms of maturity and usefulness for this cycle and, suddenly, it simply ceases to exist. Or it becomes interrupted or inaccessible.
The same applies to another platform that has been developed around attracting opportunities or demonstrating, in order to give visibility in a harmonised way to the opportunities that exist in Europe, whether in terms of investment, talent attraction, startup creation or relocation to Europe. That was an objective of the French presidency, of the last French presidency of the EU in 2022, which was left for this [presidency] to develop. It has been done, it will also stop, it will be interrupted.
The entire team that was built from 2023 until now and that developed three standards reports, developed a set of recommendations and top leadership guidance for the European Commission and for the countries, always from a public policy perspective. A legacy has been created here that would be interrupted. And no one will, obviously, wait to see what is decided while sitting at home without receiving their salary. All this investment and this intangibility that has been created is essentially put at risk.
That heritage and the capital that ESNA has been building could be lost if there is no transition?
At the limit, that could happen, because the hardest part has been done - developing the ideas, taking them off paper, putting them into real practice. The so-called blueprint has been created and can be replicated. What ESNA’s continuity ensures is not so much from a legal or technical standpoint, let’s call it that, but rather from the standpoint of political alignment.
Otherwise, everyone creates their own and the whole mission and rationale behind the creation of this organisation is lost. And that is what matters here, not clinging so much to what we might call the asset itself, but to what has been generated in terms of political discussion and what has been agreed and coordinated within that logic.
And given this scenario of uncertainty in Portugal in this process, has there already been interest from other Member States in taking the headquarters?
I will not comment on that matter. These are matters being discussed in the private forum of the association. At this moment, what is on the table is a possible submission of an EDIC proposal by the Portuguese Government, to which some Member States have already declared their political and budgetary support so that it develops in that direction.
Have you, for example, approached Lisbon City Council to see whether it could play any role in this process? Does the City Council have a position on this?
As far as I know, no. Now, knowing the Mayor, who was a former Commissioner for this area [Carlos Moedas was European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science between 2014 and 2019] and who usually has a narrative strongly focused on innovation issues, such as the European Capital of Innovation, the Unicorn Factory, it seems to me that this fits perfectly within the city’s narrative and positioning.
Likewise, when ESNA was designed and conceived, it was also thought of exactly in that sense, more from a country logic. In terms of positioning the country within a vibrant ecosystem, it is being developed in an area that attracts one of the most significant events on the entrepreneurship agenda. All that positioning is also an alignment of interesting factors for the city itself. But in a very direct way, I have not yet spoken with Mayor Carlos Moedas about this.
Losing ESNA’s headquarters could mean “some reputational crisis”
Could there be direct consequences for the Portuguese ecosystem, in terms of international projection as well, if this process does not move forward?
I believe so. It could generate some reputational crisis, albeit, obviously, on its own scale. In the sense that Portugal, somewhat unfortunately at least from the European Commission’s perspective, invested in a project for the benefit of all Member States and of the Commission itself, to solve a problem and a lack of coordination and research from the standpoint of scientific development work in this area and, suddenly, drops the ball, as the saying goes, and does not have the capacity to continue all the investment that was made and that was delivering results.
From time to time this analogy comes up in conversations with various types of stakeholders: if we look at ESNA from a startup perspective, the investment Portugal made was a seed investment, let’s call it that, and a proof of concept. The proof of concept has been done. There is a market, as they say, the product works, it is useful, it delivers results, and now we are moving to a new investment round. And the new investment round is all the other Member States.
But if the initial investor does not continue, and another investor sees that it is delivering results but is not moving forward within the right timelines… It is strange. Time to market is also very important. It is important to send the right signals, not of weakness - on the contrary, we must send signals of fear of missing out (FOMO) to other investors. “I need to be in this.” It is an analogy we sometimes use to reflect on the issue. We have already moved past the phase of “what is this ESNA”, whether it will work or not. The results are there, everything is set up now it is just about growing and giving more strength and substance, increasingly more substance, to the organisation.
What would ESNA be as a unicorn?
An OECD for startups in Europe, that would be it. To give an idea, Portugal, according to the data I researched, pays around three million euros per year to be part of the OECD, plus diplomatic and staffing costs and so on. Now think on a European scale, what it would be like for countries to contribute according to a percentage of GDP, and to have here a body wrapped up in this dynamic of the startup sector, which is part of a broader economy.
How much would your budget increase with this transition to EDIC, is there any idea?
The idea is to remain around the same size. Nowadays Artificial Intelligence (AI) allows organisations of our size to gain greater scale, in terms of delivery capacity and what we are able to execute, without necessarily increasing staff or resources, in this case the budget. And that is precisely the path we want to take in the short to medium term, to continue all the work we have been developing.
And from the PRR funds, have you executed everything?
Portugal committed 7.5 million euros at the end of 2021. The European Commission made two additional investments in ESNA, each of one million. So, we are talking about 9.5 million committed to ESNA. Of those 9.5 million, 5.5 million have been executed, of which 1.2 million came from the European Commission. So, we are talking, broadly speaking, about 4.3 million that were executed from the PRR and, incidentally, 1.5 million euros went to taxes. So, out of 5.5 million, which also includes European Commission money, 1.5 million went to taxes. It was a good deal, in quotation marks.
And it is unlikely that by June this year it will be possible to execute everything that remains.
Exactly.
Portugal sits on ESNA’s Presidency Board. Does that give any veto power or influence if there is pressure from Member States to move forward with this process and, eventually, transfer the headquarters?
Perhaps it is important here to frame what the Presidency Board is. There are five countries that take on, on a rotating basis, this non-executive Presidency Board, rotating every two years and following the same sequence as the current presidency of the European Commission. So, at the moment, on the Presidency Board we have Cyprus, which currently holds the presidency, then Ireland, which will have it in the second semester, then Lithuania and Greece. And Portugal has a permanent seat on this Presidency Board since the headquarters are here.
This group of five has the responsibility of supervising the executive team, choosing it, approving the Advisory Board, approving the Activity Plan and the Budget. But anything concerning matters such as the ones you were referring to must be decided by two-thirds in the general assembly. In other words, Portugal does not have veto power over any type of matter.
“If we are better than we were four years ago? Without a doubt”
When ESNA emerged, Europe was quite far behind the United States, and not only, in the startup ecosystem. What assessment do you make of these four years?
Have we solved all the problems we diagnosed four years ago (laughs)? No, we are still far from that. But are we better than we were four years ago? Without a doubt. The ministerial declaration that was signed at the time identified a political commitment from all countries regarding this difficulty, this joint need to overcome it and reach better levels, which led us to carry out this work. We conduct an annual observation of what countries are doing in terms of regulatory infrastructure for better operating conditions for startups.
And what we observe is that there is indeed progress. At this moment we have around 70% of the standards achieved, with countries issuing new measures, whether from a regulatory standpoint or in terms of projects or programmes that support the ecosystem as a whole. Concrete examples: several countries are implementing stock option regimes, which is very important. In terms of financing support, whether direct or indirect, we see there is also a strong dynamic. From the standpoint of talent attraction, they are increasingly resorting to visas to attract the necessary talent to be part of this ecosystem. In that sense, there is awareness on the part of the countries, there is relative implementation. One of the next steps is to look at impact, which is one of the things that most matters in this discussion, whether we are having the necessary impact.
A second thing is to look at ESNA as a platform for political discussion. The original declaration said: “we are committed to these eight public policy areas, we have a problem in terms of data, we do not really know what our universe is and there is no comparability, and we need an organisation to help us do this, not only from the standpoint of observation and monitoring and support in implementation, but also to be the center of knowledge”. If we look at ESNA as a shared brain, this data platform is the memory.
What happens next? The French presidency says the following: we must do something based on ESNA’s standards regarding talent and especially access to financing in later stages. Therefore, from the standpoint of attracting talent, we need a European showcase for opportunities, one that is truly harmonised and easy to consume in order to attract more people. And second, in these later stages, we will create the European Tech Champions Initiative, which is now being managed by the European Investment Fund.
Sometime later, and before the last European elections, under the Spanish presidency, 20 countries on ESNA’s political discussion platform said the following: the next college of commissioners should have a commissioner for startups, there is one. The next European Commission, which runs until 2029, should develop a strategy for startups and scaleups. Very well. And, incidentally, that political declaration also said that ESNA should evolve into an EDIC.
What does this mean? There is knowledge and awareness on the part of political actors in governments and the various stakeholders that we need to change. We need to be more agile. We talk about bureaucracy, increasingly removing red tape.
“At this moment we have around 70% of the standards achieved, with countries issuing new measures, whether from a regulatory standpoint or in terms of projects or programmes that genuinely support the ecosystem as a whole.”
Does bureaucracy continue to be a major obstacle to company growth?
Without a doubt. I will take the opportunity to introduce one of the pieces of work we have been developing. Based on that strategy, which the European Commission has since published, the work we developed here with our advisory board was to say: let us contribute to this new strategy. And how? Let us carry out a retrospective of the last 20 years in Europe, what exists in terms of political acts, of strategies that impact this ecosystem, and lay the foundations for the verticals that this strategy, which will soon be presented, should incorporate.
Bureaucracy, without a doubt. Regulatory barriers; access to financing; talent; entrepreneurial culture, which is something very intangible but has a huge impact in this dimension; and intellectual property and tech transfer offices.
Are those all the reasons that lead companies to pack their bags and go to the United States?
That as well. And then, based on that, we deepened the subject and presented a diagnosis of the area and made practical proposals, not only for Member States but also for the Commission itself to reflect on the matter. The matter is being discussed, and I think that nowadays the challenge is much more from the standpoint of execution.
On this issue of red tape, we talk a lot about the “28th regime”, which has been much talked about at European level [a European initiative that aims to support innovative companies through the harmonisation of rules]. And here I think the key is really to execute. We have to execute, we have to put things on the ground quickly so that things start to happen. Smart regulation is also very much that: what is working, who is not adhering so well to this? And it is essentially speed that prevails here, which is very difficult to achieve at political level, but which is essential for us to change the paradigm.
What has been your main achievement at the head of ESNA?
From the standpoint of the terms of reference: what was proposed? The creation of an organisation. It is here, the governing bodies are here, we have 22 members. It is important to set up an annual observation exercise, which are the standards, we are already on the third [report]. We have countries that use this as a key to develop their own national strategies.
I will give three quick examples. Olaf Scholz’s government set up its strategy for the startup area, which had 10 very important verticals - eight of them were the [ESNA] standards. That means it was extremely important for Germany to join and be part of ESNA.
The Czech government set up working groups with various ecosystem actors to develop a set of policies by listening to those actors - and the groups were the ESNA standards. Work was carried out together with ESNA so that, in the Czech parliament, there was a solid business case to approve the stock option regime.
Slovenia built its entire startup strategy based on the standards. From the standpoint of the work, of what was envisaged and what then went to the ground, we see the results here. We have the service line, which is a consultancy and advisory service, in which members, based on the results, ask us to carry out benchmarks, to present alternative paths, other solutions. We have the data platform, which is going to be launched, it has already been shared with members in a private forum, they are already using it, but it will now become public - that is delivered.
The dynamisation of the ecosystem itself, our Advisory Board. We are collaborating with commissioners’ cabinets, providing full access to information. All this materialisation of ESNA as a transversal actor that operates this platform of understanding, learning and knowledge development… that was exactly what was intended. Now, for the future, we want to create more footprints, have more impact, be more unavoidable. But for that we need a set of political capital and stabilisation of the project to continue progressing.
There are already many assets developed. We talk about four years, but in May 2023 I was alone. It was from that moment that we began building the team and it was only in November that we had the first inflow from the Portuguese PRR. Until then a small structure had been secured with funding from the European Commission. It was in November 2023 that we really started to grow and execute all this.
What were you doing before ESNA?
I was an adviser to André de Aragão Azevedo in Digital Transition. Before that I was in consultancy, at Sonae, I have always been in the private sector. I was part of that first digital transition cabinet of the country. At the time when we held the European presidency, we carried out this work together with the European Commission and the strategy was “we really have to host this in Portugal”. Because if it were an agency, it would go somewhere else. We learned that the criteria for agencies are not about merit, they are about who does not have one, where they are not located. We already have two [the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and the European Union Drugs Agency]. Therefore, if ESNA were set up as an agency it would not be here.
In a year’s time, what would you like to be presenting here?
My mandate ends at the end of this year, so in a year’s time I would like to look back and ensure that ESNA really continued. That it has a path to progress towards this vision I am presenting. Whether I am here or someone else is not the most important thing. What matters is that the organisation remains headquartered [in Portugal] and operating in a natural way and without concerns, whether financial sustainability or others, so as to respond to the challenges that are important, that impact the ecosystem and that are useful for policymakers. That is what matters.
Portugal has shown “growing progress” in ESNA’s
ESNA publishes annual reports on the evolution of the standards, which are the basis of its work. How has Portugal evolved in meeting the criteria?
I think Portugal has been following the trajectory we have observed at European level, which is one of evolution and improvement in several domains. The evolution in Portugal has been growing, from 2023 to 2025. The digital first [criterion] is very much linked to public administration services in their relationship with companies, which has evolved considerably. On the issue of stock options: we have a regime that is taxed at the moment the capital gain is realised.
Looking at the stock options criterion. Portugal has a startup law and abroad it is widely promoted on the basis of having been one of the first [EU countries] to have that startup law and also different taxation for stock options. Has Portugal managed to capitalise on that logic of having been among the first?
I do not have data to prove that. The perception is that, but at ESNA we try to avoid working with perceptions, we much prefer working with real data. At this moment I do not have data proving that ecosystem growth occurred because there was a law before the others. But it is a fundamental aspect, from a political communication perspective, without a doubt.
Portugal already had a score of 100% on stock options in the previous year, correct?
Yes, but this is a very important aspect. We have started to transform this annual observation exercise into something with more of an impact dimension. Once again this year, we have to reach this political circle and say that we need to evolve, namely to evolve standard 6, on access to financing. We have indicators such as countries’ ability to convert support from recovery and resilience instruments into startups - that will end, so it makes no sense for us to continue measuring something that is going to end. It was conceived at the time, in 2021, when Next Generation EU was being created.
We want to evolve in that direction. One of the headings we want to introduce, for example, in stock options, is the tax percentage. What is the specific tax? That is also something that should be incorporated into a measure of this nature. Why is it 100%? Because it has a stock option regime, it is taxed at the moment the capital gain is realised and there are non-voting rights in the commercial companies code. Now we must add a set of other dimensions that affirm the impact this has on the ecosystem so that it becomes increasingly robust and a public policy tool, which is what we are developing.
Even with programmes such as the Tech Visa and other options of that kind, there are foreign entrepreneurs who come to Portugal and raise concerns about visa delays. Does Portugal risk losing competitiveness if it does not address that issue?
I would say yes. It is a very important factor. The maturity of the ecosystem’s own development means that we need to have the right talent. And to attract it we need programmes and visas that respond to the needs in seeking that talent. That is a competitive factor, without a doubt, whether internally at European level or also from a more global exposure standpoint. I think that is extremely important, without a doubt.
Your work is also to listen to the voices of the European startup ecosystem. In Portugal there is a startup law, but those in the sector stress that it is time to review it. Is that the message that reaches you?
That is true for Portugal and for any other country. Why? The startup ecosystem itself is so dynamic, the needs of this type of company are so volatile and rapid, that the relationship and the way of strategising from the standpoint of those in political decision-making positions also has to keep pace. When ESNA was created, the issue of artificial intelligence was just beginning to be discussed. And suddenly we started to see headlines such as ‘Google laid off thousands of workers’, Meta as well, Amazon…
Yes, it coincided with a wave of layoffs.
And it seemed alarming. But they were simply making the shift towards new skill needs in the field of artificial intelligence. Not because they were facing business difficulties. The need for speed, for adaptation in these businesses, also must be accompanied by startup laws and other regulations and legislation that impact companies’ activity. It is as simple as that. That always has to happen. And that need, that sense that there is work still to be done, must always remain in the minds of those developing public policy.
And if the Web Summit leaves Portugal after 2028? “We lose an annual showcase, perhaps another will come”
What is the importance of having an event such as the Web Summit in Portugal for the Portuguese landscape?
Positioning. I think it is the positioning of the whole country — everything counts. If Portugal wants to be a startup nation, to be identified as a preferred destination for those who want to develop their business ideas, to develop them not only from the initial idea but also to stabilise and grow here, all those factors count.
Whether or not it is easier to attract talent here, whether growth in stock options exists… In other words, the so-called regulatory infrastructure. Regulatory infrastructure sounds heavy, perhaps with a connotation not always perceived positively, but regulatory infrastructure is extremely important, just as road infrastructure or the internet network is. All of this contributes to a country’s positioning, how it presents itself to the world and responds to the objective of being seen favourably in the startup area. Having an event such as the Web Summit is something that has put Portugal on the map for some time and continues to do so.
The contract with Portugal has a term [the current contract foresees Lisbon hosting the event until 2028]. We have already started to see some news about the possibility of the Web Summit leaving Lisbon and heading elsewhere, such as Poland. If that happens, do we lose our place on the map?
With some difficulty I have to answer: I do not think so. Even if that happens, it is not as if, with the Web Summit leaving, Portugal also leaves the map. I do not think that is the case.
But we lose an annual showcase.
We lose an annual showcase, perhaps another will come, I do not know. But you would have to ask the Government whether they are negotiating with the Web Summit or with another [entity] to replace it.
Such as? What would be a similar event for Portuguese entrepreneurship?
I think Portugal actually sent a good signal by trying to develop its own event, without resorting to something from outside, which is the conference they have been holding in Porto.
SIM, the Startups & Investment Matching.
I think it is very interesting. Obviously, it does not have the dimension of a Web Summit. But I can tell you that someone must be thinking about a plan, because perhaps losing a Web Summit could mean having other resources, other kinds of ideas to maintain the ecosystem. The recipe does not always have to be the same. I have no idea, but this is almost at a personal level, I have no idea what is being discussed.
Would we be here if it were not for the Web Summit?
The only impact the Web Summit had on the creation of ESNA was giving us the main stage to hold the inauguration. There was no negotiation or discussion of any kind, it was simply a marriage of opportunities. For them it was interesting, obviously, to have this political class inaugurating a project of this scale at European level, and it was that alignment of interests, I would say.
“The only impact the Web Summit had on the creation of ESNA was giving us the main stage for the inauguration. There was no negotiation or discussion of any kind, it was simply a marriage of opportunities.”
Regarding the projects you have for this year. Earlier you mentioned a data platform -what does it consist of?
It is something we will launch publicly in two weeks’ time. Anyone developing public policy, especially in the field of economics, needs credible data sources: the national statistics office, the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD, and so on.
In startups that did not exist; policy-making in this area was being done by feel, based on perceptions. Regardless of the existence of private data sources that shed some light and are very important - they are not independent. What this declaration says is that we need a data platform that is harmonised, comparable, credible and that helps us navigate. And here is the result.
It is a platform with macro-aggregated data, we do not go down to a granular level. But for those developing public policy that is not really the key indicator; the key indicators are macro-aggregated ones. We have an overall European view, but it can be filtered by all countries — and not only European countries, but also worldwide, by geopolitical groups.
It includes various indicators, whether number of startups, number of employees, revenue, valuation, investments. It is also possible to segment between centaurs [companies generating more than 100 million dollars in revenue] and unicorns [companies valued at more than one billion], categories that are aligned with the new European Commission strategy. That is what they want to measure, and we are already aligned in that regard.
In the area of investments, we then have a series of layers, whether private or public: what type of investment, whether equity, grant, and so on. The logic of comparability and comparison, for example with macroeconomic data, if we want to compare with GDP or GDP per capita.
This information did not exist. Everything was being done based on perceptions or private data. This is something we have been alerting and drawing attention to at European level and with the Commission. Many of the strategies and programmes that are developed, when you look at the sources, besides being private, what is the methodology behind them? It was a black box, no one really knew.
When we started developing this, I remember speaking with the Spanish government and asking, ‘do you know how many startups you have in your ecosystem?’ ‘Ah, I have 15,000.’ ‘Oh really? Very well. Dealroom says you have 20,000, Crunchbase says you have 8,000 and another source here says you have 12,000. So which is it?’ We did not even know what universe we were working with — this resolves that.
Do you gather data from various sources?
We gather data from various sources. What is the added value? Independence and comparability. We then have our taxonomy report. In other words, everything from a methodological standpoint, scientific rigour, how it is done.
Our position on this is that we do not have the best definition in the world - that will never exist, because there will never be 100% agreement on how a company of this nature should be defined. But we want one that allows us to work, because by the maxim of management, what cannot be measured cannot be managed. And that was what was happening at public policy level.
And can this be used by governments, by investors, by startups themselves, by academia?
Without a doubt. If I were an investor, Dealroom and Crunchbase platforms would solve almost everything. We are complementary for investors and those two are complementary for developing public policy. Because we are responding to governments and those who develop public policy.
This will evolve in terms of robustness towards various sources. We have those two plus the World Bank; we will evolve to incorporate various sources within countries. We will never stop needing those two. Why? An indicator such as company valuation does not exist in the tax authorities. That detail will always be necessary.
Have you already drawn any unexpected conclusions from this data?
This year we will start producing the Intel Reports. Which is exactly extracting those conclusions and perhaps unmasking or demystifying some perceptions we had. And producing the outlook for countries, the evolution of startups and drawing a set of insights that are extremely important.
You will launch the platform and then start producing the reports
Already this year we will start launching these reports that extract the data.
Will registration be required for the platform?
For the homepage no, but for the other two [services] yes, which has also served as an incentive to the perception of the added value of being part of the organisation.
If each of the countries wanted to do everything that is being done here - because it is necessary, if I am developing public policy from the Czech Republic, I need to know what other countries are doing - it would never be as efficient as doing it together and it would cost ten times more than on ESNA’s platform.
The value is more than evident, it is more than understood and that is why continuity is important.
We also have the best practices manual. A catalogue, an atlas of various public policies. We have more than 38 countries in the world represented, in various categories. It is an extremely useful tool of lessons learned at global level, which we also offer to those developing public policy.
And will all these projects, the country reports, continue? Does the work go on despite this uncertainty or not?
We shall see. If we reach June and things are not secured in some way, there will be repercussions for all this work. It will cease to be available, because there will no longer be people to produce the reports.
©2026 Observador. All rights reserved.