Retiring Baby Boomers Can Turn Workers into Owners: Securing American Business Ownership through Employee Ownership

The economic vitality and competitiveness of America’s economy is in jeopardy. The Silver Tsunami of retiring business owners puts half of small businesses at risk: 2.9 million companies are owned by someone at or near retirement age, of which 375,000 are manufacturing, trade, and distribution businesses critical to our supply chains. Add to this that 40 percent of U.S. corporate stock is owned by foreign investors, which funnels these companies’ profits out of our country, weakening our ability to reinvest in our own competitiveness. If the steps to expand the availability of employee ownership were to address even just 10% of the Silver Tsunami companies over 10 employees, this would preserve an estimated 57K small businesses and 2.6M jobs, affecting communities across the U.S. Six hundred billion dollars in economic activity by American-owned firms would be preserved, ensuring that these firms’ profits continue to flow into American pockets.

Broad-based employee ownership (EO) is a powerful solution that preserves local American business ownership, protects our supply chains and the resiliency of American manufacturing, creates quality jobs, and grows the household balance sheets of American workers and their families. Expanding access to financing for EO is crucial at this juncture, given the looming economic threats of the Silver Tsunami and foreign business ownership.

Two important opportunities expand capital access to finance sales of businesses into EO, building on over 50 years of federal support for EO and over 65 years of supporting the flow of small business private capital to where it is not in adequate supply: first, the Employee Equity Investment Act (EEIA), and second, addressing barriers in the SBA 7(a) loan guarantee program.

Three trends create tremendous urgency to leverage employee ownership small business acquisition: (1) the Silver Tsunami, representing $6.5T in GDP and one in five private sector workers nationwide, (2) fewer than 30 percent of businesses are being taken over by family members, and (3) only one in five businesses put up for sale is able to find a buyer. 

Without preserving Silver Tsunami businesses, the current 40 percent share of foreign ownership will only grow. Supporting U.S. private investors in the mergers and acquisitions (M&A) space to proactively pitch EO to business owners, and come with readily available financing, enables EO to compete with other acquisition offers, including foreign firms.  

In communities all across the U.S., from urban to suburban to rural (where arguably the need to find buyers and the impact of job losses can be most acute), EO is needed to preserve these businesses and their jobs in our communities, maintain U.S. stock ownership, preserve manufacturing production capacity and competitive know how, and create the potential for the next generation of business owners to create economic opportunity for themselves and their families.

Challenge and Opportunity

Broad-based employee ownership (EO) of American small businesses is one of the most promising opportunities to preserve American ownership and small business resiliency and vitality, and help address our country’s enormous wealth gap. EO creates the opportunity to have a stake in the game, and to understand what it means to be a part owner of a business for today’s small business workforces. 

However, the growth of EO, and its ability to preserve American ownership of small businesses in our local economies, is severely hampered by access to financing.   

Most EO transactions (which are market rate sales) require the business owner to first learn about EO, then to not only initiate the transaction (typically hiring a consultant to structure the deal for them), but also to finance as much as 50 percent or more of the sale. This contrasts to how the M&A market traditionally works: buyers who provide the financing are the ones who initiate the transaction with business owners. This difference is a core reason why EO hasn’t grown as quickly as it could, given all of the backing provided through federal tax breaks dating back to 1974.

More than one form of EO is needed to address the urgent Silver Tsunami and related challenges, including Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) which are only a fit for companies of about 40 employees and above, and worker-owned cooperatives and Employee Ownership Trusts (EOTs), which are a fit for companies of about 10 employees and above (below 10 is a challenge for any EO transition). Of small businesses with greater than 10 employees, those with 10-19 employees make up 51% of the total; those with 20-49 employees make up 33%. In other words, the vast majority of companies with over 10 employees (the minimum size threshold for EO transitions) are below the 40+ employee threshold required for an ESOP. This underscores the importance of ensuring financing access for worker coops and EOTs that can support transitions of companies in the 10-40 employee range.

Without action, we are at risk of losing the small businesses and jobs that are in need of buyers as a result of the Silver Tsunami.

via Project Equity

Across the entire small business economy, 2.9M businesses that provide 32.1M jobs are estimated to be at risk, representing $1.3T in payroll and $6.5T in business revenue. Honing in on only manufacturing, wholesale trade and transportation & warehousing businesses, there are an estimated 375,000 businesses at risk that provide 5.5M jobs combined, representing $279.2B of payroll and $2.3T of business revenue.

Plan of Action

Two important opportunities will expand capital access to finance sales of businesses into EO and solve the supply-demand imbalance created in the small business merger and acquisition marketplace with too many businesses needing buyers and being at risk of closing down due to the Silver Tsunami.

First, passing new legislation, the Employee Equity Investment Act (EEIA), would establish a zero-subsidy credit facility at the Small Business Administration, enabling Congress to preserve the legacy of local businesses and create quality jobs with retirement security by helping businesses transition to employee ownership. By supporting private investment funds, referred to as Employee Equity Investment Companies (EEICs), Congress can support the private market to finance the sale of privately-held small- and medium-sized businesses from business owners to their employees through credit enhancement capabilities at zero subsidy cost to the taxpayer.

EEICs are private investment companies licensed by the Small Business Administration that can be eligible for low-cost, government-backed capital to either create or grow employee-owned businesses. In the case of new EO transitions, the legislation intends to “crowd in” private institutional capital sources to reduce the need for sellers to self-finance a sale to employees. Fees paid into the program by the licensed funds enable it to operate at a zero-subsidy cost to the federal government. 

The Employee Equity Investment Act (EEIA) helps private investors that specialize in EO to compete in the mergers & acquisition (M&A) space.

Second, addressing barriers to EO lending in the SBA 7(a) loan guarantee program by passing legislation that removes the personal guarantee requirement for worker coops and EOTs would help level the playing field, enabling companies transitioning to EO to qualify for this loan guarantee without requiring a single employee-owner to personally guarantee the loan on behalf of the entire owner group of 10, 50 or 500 employees. 

Importantly, our manufacturing supply chain depends on a network of tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers across the entire value chain, a mix of very large and very small companies (over 75% of manufacturing suppliers have 20 or fewer employees). The entire sector faces an increasingly fragile supply chain and growing workforce shortages, while also being faced with the Silver Tsunami risk. Ensuring that EO transitions can help us preserve the full range of suppliers, distributors and other key businesses will depend on having capital that can finance companies of all sizes. The SBA 7(a) program can guarantee loans of up to $5M, on the smaller end of the small business company size. 

Even though the SBA took steps in 2023 to make loans to ESOPs easier than under prior rules, the biggest addressable market for EO loans that fit within the SBA’s 7(a) loan size range are for worker coops and EOTs (because ESOPs are only a fit for companies with about 40 employees or fewer, given higher regulatory costs). Worker coops and EOTs are currently not able to utilize this SBA product. 

The legislative action needed is to require the SBA to remove the requirement for a personal guarantee under the SBA 7(a) loan guarantee program for acquisitions financing for worker cooperatives and Employee Ownership Trusts. The Capital for Cooperatives Act (introduced to both the House and the Senate most recently in May 2021) provides a strong starting point for the legislative changes needed. There is precedent for this change; the Paycheck Protection Program loans and SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) were made during the pandemic to cooperatives without requiring personal guarantees as well as the aforementioned May 2023 rule change allowing majority ESOPs to borrow without personal guarantee.

There is not any expected additional cost to this program outside of some small updates to policies and public communication about the changes. 

Addressing barriers to EO lending in the SBA 7(a) loan guarantee program would open up bank financing to the full addressable market of EO transactions.

The Silver Tsunami of retiring business owners puts half of all employer-businesses urgently at risk if these business owners can’t find buyers, as the last of the baby boomers turns 65 in 2030. Maintaining American small business ownership, with 40% of stock of American companies already owned by foreign stockholders, is also critical. EO preserves domestic productive capacity as an alternative to acquisition by foreign firms, including China, and other strategic competitors, which bolsters supply chain resiliency and U.S. strategic competitiveness. Manufacturing is a strong fit for EO, as it is consistently in the top two sectors for newly formed employee-owned companies, making up 20-25% of all new ESOPs. 

Enabling private investors in the M&A space to proactively pitch EO to business owners, and come with readily available financing will help address these urgent needs, preserving small business assets in our communities, while simultaneously creating a new generation of American business owners.

This action-ready policy memo is part of Day One 2025 — our effort to bring forward bold policy ideas, grounded in science and evidence, that can tackle the country’s biggest challenges and bring us closer to the prosperous, equitable and safe future that we all hope for whoever takes office in 2025 and beyond.

Frequently Asked Questions
How many employee-owned companies are there in the U.S. today?

There are an estimated 7,500+ EO companies in the U.S. today, with nearly 40,000 employee-owners and assets well above $2T. Most are ESOPs (about 6,500), plus about 1,000 worker cooperatives, and under 100 EOTs.

How much of the Silver Tsunami risk could these supports for employee ownership financing potentially address?

For every 1% of Silver Tsunami companies with more than 10 employees that is able to transition to EO based on these recommendations, an estimated 5.7K firms, $60.7B in sales, 260K jobs, and 12.3B in payroll would be preserved.

How much support has Congress and the federal government provided for employee ownership and small business access to capital in the past?

Congress and the federal government have demonstrated their support of small business and the EO form of small business in many ways, which this proposed two-pronged legislation builds on, for example:



  • Creation of the SBIC program in the SBA in 1958 designed to stimulate the small business segment of the U.S. economy by supplementing “the flow of private equity capital and long-term loan funds which small-business concerns need for the sound financing of their business operations and for their growth, expansion, and modernization, and which are not available in adequate supply [emphasis added]”

  • Passage of multiple pieces of federal legislation providing tax benefits to EO companies dating back to 1974

  • Passage of the Main Street Employee Ownership Act in 2018, which was passed with the intention of removing barriers to SBA loans or guarantees for EO transitions, including to allow ESOPs and worker coops to qualify for loans under the SBA’s 7(a) program. The law stipulated that the SBA “may” make the changes the law provided, but the regulations SBA initially issued made things harder, not easier. Over the next few years, Representatives Dean Phillips (D-MN) and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), both on the House Small Business Committee, led an effort to get the SBA to make the most recent changes that benefitted ESOPs but not the other forms of EO.

  • Release of the first Job Quality Toolkit by the Commerce Department in July 2021, which explicitly includes EO as one of the job quality strategies

  • Passage of the WORK Act (Worker Ownership, Readiness, and Knowledge) in 2023 (incorporated as Section 346 of the SECURE 2.0 Act), which directs the Department of Labor (DOL) to create an Employee Ownership Initiative within the department to coordinate and fund state employee ownership outreach programs and also requires the DOL to set new standards for ESOP appraisals. The program was to be funded at $4 million in fiscal year 2025 (which starts in October 2024), gradually increasing to $16 million by fiscal year 2029, but it has yet to be appropriated.

I’ve never heard about EO transitions using a worker coop or an Employee Ownership Trust. How widespread is this?

EO transitions using worker cooperatives have been happening for decades. Over the past ten years, this practice has grown significantly. There is a 30-member network of practitioners that actively support small business transitions utilizing worker coops and EOTs called Workers to Owners. Employee Ownership Trusts are newer in the U.S. (though they are the standard EO form in Europe, with decades of strong track record) and are a rapidly growing form of EO with a growing set of practitioners.

Why does there need to be a specialized program to capitalize EO funds?

Given the supply ~ demand imbalance of retiring business owners created by the Silver Tsunami (lots of businesses need buyers), as well as the outsized positive benefits of EO, prioritizing this form of business ownership is critical to preserving these business assets in our local and national economies. Capital to finance the transactions is central to ensuring EO’s ability to play this important role.

What is the scale of the SBA’s 7(a) loan program?

The SBA 7(a) loan program has been and continues to be, critical to opening up bank (and some CDFI) financing for small businesses writ large by guaranteeing loans up to $5M. In FY23, the SBA guaranteed more than 57,300 7(a) loans worth $27.5 billion.

What are the SBA’s 7(a) loan program’s general rules for personal guarantees?

The SBA 7(a) loan program’s current rules require that all owners with 20% or more ownership of a business provide a personal guarantee for the loan, but absent anyone owning 20%, at least one individual must provide the personal guarantee. The previously mentioned May 2023 rule changes updated this for majority ESOPs.

What would the SBA use in place of the personal guarantee?

Just as with the ESOP form of EO, the SBA would be able to consider documented proof of an EO borrower’s ability to repay the loan based on equity, cash flow, and profitability to determine lending criteria.

But isn’t it risky to lend without a personal guarantee?

Research into employee ownership demonstrates that EO companies have faster growth, higher profits, and that they outlast their competitors in business cycle downturns. There is precedent for offering loans without a personal guarantee. First, during COVID, the SBA extended both EIDL (Economic Injury Disaster Loans) and PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) loans to cooperatives without requiring a personal guarantee. Second, the SBA’s May 2023 rule changes allow majority ESOPs to borrow without personal guarantee.

Why is the largest addressable market for the SBA 7(a) loan within EO transitions for worker coops and EOTs?

The overlap of the EO transaction value with the $5M ceiling for the 7(a) loan guarantee has the largest overlap with transaction values that are suitable for worker coops and EOTs. This is because ESOPs are not viable below about $750K-$1M transaction value due to higher regulatory-related costs, but the other forms of EO are viable down to about 10 or so employees.


A typical bank- or CDFI- financed EO transaction is a senior loan of 50-70% and a seller note of 30-50%. With a $5M ceiling for the 7(a) loan guarantee, this would cap the EO transaction value for 7(a) loans at $10M (a 50% seller note of $5M alongside a $5M bank loan). If a sale price is 4-6x EBITDA (a measure of annual profit) at this transaction value, this would cap the eligible company EBITDA at $1.7-$2.5M, which captures only the lowest company size thresholds that could be viable for the ESOP form.

Why is the SBA 7(a) loan especially important in the context of preserving supply chain resiliency?

Supply chain fragility and widespread labor shortages are the two greatest challenges facing American manufacturing operators today, with 75% of manufacturers citing attracting and retaining talent as their primary business challenge, and 65% citing supply chain disruptions as their next greatest challenge. Many don’t realize that the manufacturing sector is built like a block tower, with the Tier 1 (largest) suppliers to manufacturers at the top, Tier 2 suppliers at the next level down, and the widest foundational layer made up of Tier 3 suppliers. For example, a typical auto manufacturer will rely on 18,000 suppliers across its entire value chain, over 98% of which are small or medium sized businesses. In fact, 75% of manufacturing businesses have fewer than 20 employees. It is critical that we preserve American businesses across the entire value chain, and opening up financing for EO for companies of all sizes is absolutely critical.

How important is the manufacturing sector to the overall American economy?

The manufacturing sector generates 12% of U.S. GDP (gross domestic product), and if we count the value of the sector’s purchasing, the number goes to nearly one quarter of GDP. The sector also employs nearly one in ten American workers (over 14 million). Manufacturing plays a vital role in both our national security and in public health. Finally, the sector has long been a source of quality jobs and a cornerstone of middle class employment.

Why didn’t the SBA in its May 2023 ruling expand this option for worker coops and Employee Ownership Trusts?

Though we aren’t certain the reasoning, it is most likely because ESOPs have the largest lobbying presence. Given the broad support by the federal government of ESOPs through a myriad of tax benefits designed to encourage companies to transition to ESOPs, it is the biggest form of EO, enabling its lobbying presence. As discussed, their size threshold (based on the costs to comply with the regulatory requirements) put ESOPs out of reach for companies with below $750K – $1M EBITDA (a measure of annual profit), which leaves a large swath of America’s small businesses not supported by the SBA 7(a) loan guarantee when they are transacting an employee ownership succession plan.

Why can’t the SBA just make a rule change for its 7(a) loan guarantee program?

Likely, the lack of lobbying presence by parties representing the non-ESOP forms of employee ownership has resulted in the rule change not applying to the other forms of broad-based employee ownership. However, the data (as outlined above) clearly shows that worker cooperatives and EOTs are needed to address the full breadth of Silver Tsunami EO need, given the size overlap of loans that fit the size guidelines of the 7(a) loan guarantee and the fit with the form of EO. As such, legislators that are focused on American business resiliency and competitiveness are in the good positions to direct the SBA to mirror the ESOP personal loan guarantee treatment for worker cooperatives and EOTs.

Strategies to Accelerate and Expand Access to the U.S. Innovation Economy

In 2020, we outlined a vision for how the incoming presidential administration could strengthen the nation’s innovation ecosystem, encouraging the development and commercialization of science and technology (S&T) based ventures. This vision entailed closing critical gaps from lab to market, with an emphasis on building a broadly inclusive pipeline of entrepreneurial talent while simultaneously providing key support in venture development. 

During the intervening years, we have seen extraordinary progress, in good part due to ambitious legislation. Today, we propose innovative ways that the federal government can successfully build on this progress and make the most of new programs. With targeted policy interventions, we can efficiently and effectively support the U.S. innovation economy through the translation of breakthrough scientific research from the lab to the market. The action steps we propose are predicated on three core principles: inclusion, relevance, and sustainability. Accelerating our innovation economy and expanding access to it can make our nation more globally competitive, increase economic development, address climate change, and improve health outcomes. A strong innovation economy benefits everyone. 

Challenge

Our Day One 2020 memo began by pitching the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship: “Advances in scientific and technological innovations—and, critically, the ability to efficiently transform breakthroughs into scalable businesses—have contributed enormously to American economic leadership over the past century.” Now, it is widely recognized that innovation and entrepreneurship are key to both global economic leadership and addressing the challenges of changing climate. The question is no longer whether we must innovate but rather how effectively we can stimulate and expand a national innovation economy. 

Since 2020, the global and U.S. economies have gone through massive change and uncertainty.  The Global Innovation Index (GII) 2023 described the challenges involved in its yearly analysis of monitoring global innovation trends amid uncertainty brought on by a sluggish economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, elevated interest rates, and geopolitical tensions. Innovation indicators like scientific publications, research and development (R&D), venture capital (VC) investments, and the number of patents rose to historic levels, but the value of VC investment declined by close to 40%. As a counterweight to this extensive uncertainty, the GII 2023 described the future of S&T innovation and progress as “the promise of Digital Age and Deep Science innovation waves and technological progress.” 

In the face of the pressures of global competitiveness, societal needs, and climate change, the clear way forward is to continue to innovate based on scientific and technical advancements. Meeting the challenges of our moment in history requires a comprehensive and multifaceted effort led by the federal government with many public and private partners.

Grow global competitiveness

Around the world, countries are realizing that investing in innovation is the most efficient way to transform their economies. In 2022, the U.S. had the largest R&D budget internationally, with spending growing by 5.6%, but China’s investment in R&D grew by 9.8%. For the U.S. to remain a global economic leader, we must continue to invest in innovation infrastructure, including the basic research and science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education that underpins our leadership, while we grow our investments in translational innovation. This includes reframing how existing resources are used as well as allocating new spending. It will require a systems change orientation and long-term commitments. 

Increase economic development

Supporting and growing an innovation economy is one of our best tools for economic development. From place-based innovation programs to investment in emerging research institutions (ERIs) and Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) to training S&T innovators to become entrepreneurs in I-Corps™, these initiatives stimulate local economies, create high-quality jobs, and reinvigorate regions of the country left behind for too long. 

Address climate change

In 2023, for the first time, global warming exceeded 1.5°C for an entire year. It is likely that all 12 months of 2024 will also exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures. Nationally and internationally, we are experiencing the effects of climate change; climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience solutions are urgently needed and will bring outsized economic and social impact.

Improve U.S. health outcomes

The COVID-19 pandemic was devastating, particularly impacting underserved and underrepresented populations, but it spurred unprecedented medical innovation and commercialization of new diagnostics, vaccines, and treatments. We must build on this momentum by applying what we’ve learned about rapid innovation to continue to improve U.S. health outcomes and to ensure that our nation’s health care needs across regions and demographics are addressed. 

Make innovation more inclusive

Representational disparities persist across racial/ethnic and gender lines in both access to and participation in innovation and entrepreneurship. This is a massive loss for our innovation economy. The business case for broader inclusion and diversity is growing even stronger, with compelling data tracking the relationship between leadership diversity and company performance. Inclusive innovation is more effective innovation: a multitude of perspectives and lived experiences are required to fully understand complex problems and create truly useful solutions. To reap the full benefits of innovation and entrepreneurship, we must increase access and pathways for all. 

Opportunity

With the new presidential administration in 2025, the federal government has a renewed opportunity to prioritize policies that will generate and activate a wave of powerful, inclusive innovation and entrepreneurship. Implementing such policies and funding the initiatives that result is crucial if we as a nation are to successfully address urgent problems such as the climate crisis and escalating health disparities. 

Our proposed action steps are predicated on three core principles: inclusion, relevance, and sustainability. 

Inclusion

One of this nation’s greatest and most unique strengths is our heterogeneity. We must leverage our diversity to meet the complexity of the substantial social and economic challenges that we face today. The multiplicity of our people, communities, identities, geographies, and lived experiences gives the U.S. an edge in the global innovation economy: When we bring all of these perspectives to the table, we better understand the challenges that we face, and we are better equipped to innovate to meet them. If we are to harness the fullness of our nation’s capacity for imagination, ingenuity, and creative problem-solving, entrepreneurship pathways must be inclusive, equitable, and accessible to all. Moreover, all innovators must learn to embrace complexity, think expansively and critically, and welcome perspectives beyond their own frame of reference. Collaboration and mutually beneficial partnerships are at the heart of inclusive innovation. 

Relevance

Innovators and entrepreneurs have the greatest likelihood of success—and the greatest potential for impact—when their work is purpose-driven, nimble, responsive to consumer needs, and adaptable to different applications and settings.  Research suggests that “breakthrough innovation” occurs when different actors bring complementary and independent skills to co-create interesting solutions to existing problems. Place-based innovation is one strategy to make certain that technology development is grounded in regional concerns and aspirations, leading to better outcomes for all concerned. 

Sustainability 

Multiple layers of sustainability should be integrated into the innovation and entrepreneurship landscape. First and most salient is supporting the development of innovative technologies that respond to the climate crisis and bolster national resilience. Second is encouraging innovators to incorporate sustainable materials and processes in all stages of research and development so that products benefit the planet and risks to the environment are mitigated through the manufacturing process, whether or not climate change is the focus of the technology. Third, it is vital to prioritize helping ventures develop sustainable business models that will result in long-term viability in the marketplace. Fourth, working with innovators to incorporate the potential impact of climate change into their business planning and projections ensures they are equipped to adapt to changing needs. All of these layers contribute to sustaining America’s social well-being and economic prosperity, ensuring that technological breakthroughs are accessible to all.

Proposed Action

Recommendation 1. Supply and prepare talent.

Continuing to grow the nation’s pipeline of S&T innovators and entrepreneurs is essential. Specifically, creating accessible entrepreneurial pathways in STEM will ensure equitable participation. Incentivizing individuals to become innovators-entrepreneurs, especially those from underrepresented groups, will strengthen national competitiveness by leveraging new, untapped potential across innovation ecosystems.

Expand the I-Corps model

By bringing together experienced industry mentors, commercial experts, research talent, and promising technologies, I-Corps teaches scientific innovators how to evaluate whether their innovation can be commercialized and how to take the first practical steps of bringing their product to market. Ten new I-Corps Hubs, launched in 2022, have expanded the network of engaged universities and collaborators, an important step toward growing an inclusive innovation ecosystem across the U.S. 

Interest in I-Corps far outpaces current capacity, and increasing access will create more expansive pathways for underrepresented entrepreneurs. New federal initiatives to support place-based innovation and to grow investment at ERIs and MSIs will be more successful if they also include lab-to-market training programs such as I-Corps. Federal entities should institute policies and programs that increase awareness about and access to sequenced venture support opportunities for S&T innovators. These opportunities should include intentional “de-risking” strategies through training, advising, and mentoring.

Specifically, we recommend expanding I-Corps capacity so that all interested participants can be accommodated. We should also strive to increase access to I-Corps so that programs reach diverse students and researchers. This is essential given the U.S. culture of entrepreneurship that remains insufficiently inclusive of women, people of color, and those from low-income backgrounds, as well as international students and researchers, who often face barriers such as visa issues or a lack of institutional support needed to remain in the U.S. to develop their innovations. Finally, we should expand the scope of what I-Corps offers, so that programs provide follow-on support, funding, and access to mentor and investor networks even beyond the conclusion of initial entrepreneurial training. 

I-Corps has already expanded beyond the National Science Foundation (NSF) to I-Corps at National Institutes of Health (NIH), to empower biomedical entrepreneurs, and Energy I-Corps, established by the Department of Energy (DOE) to accelerate the deployment of energy technologies. We see the opportunity to grow I-Corps further by building on this existing infrastructure and creating cohorts funded by additional science agencies so that more basic research is translated into commercially viable businesses. 

Close opportunity gaps by supporting emerging research institutions (ERIs) and Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs)

ERIs and MSIs provide pathways to S&T innovation and entrepreneurship, especially for individuals from underrepresented groups. In particular, a VentureWell-commissioned report identified that “MSIs are centers of research that address the unique challenges and opportunities faced by BIPOC communities. The research that takes place at MSIs offers solutions that benefit a broad and diverse audience; it contributes to a deeper understanding of societal issues and drives innovation that addresses these issues.”

The recent codification of ERIs in the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act pulls this category into focus. Defining this group, which comprises thousands of higher education institutions,  was the first step in addressing the inequitable distribution of federal research funding. That imbalance has perpetuated regional disparities and impacted students from underrepresented groups, low-income students, and rural students in particular. Further investment in ERIs will result in more STEM-trained students, who can become innovators and entrepreneurs with training and engagement. Additional support that could be provided to ERIs includes increased research funding, access to capital/investment, capacity building (faculty development, student support services), industry partnerships, access to networks, data collection/benchmarking, and implementing effective translation policies, incentives, and curricula. 

Supporting these institutions—many of which are located in underserved rural or urban communities that experience underinvestment—provides an anchor for sustained talent development and economic growth. 

Recommendation 2. Support place-based innovation.

Place-based innovation not only spurs innovation but also builds resilience in vulnerable communities, enhancing both U.S. economic and national security. Communities that are underserved and underinvested in present vulnerabilities that hostile actors outside of the U.S. can exploit. Place-based innovation builds resilience: innovation creates high-quality jobs and brings energy and hope to communities that have been left behind, leveraging the unique strengths, ecosystems, assets, and needs of specific regions to drive economic growth and address local challenges.  

Evaluate and learn from transformative new investments

There have been historic levels of government investment in place-based innovation, funding the NSF’s Regional Innovation Engines awards and two U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA) programs: the Build Back Better Regional Challenge and Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs awards. The next steps are to refine, improve, and evaluate these initiatives as we move forward. 

Unify the evaluation framework, paired with local solutions

Currently, evaluating the effectiveness and outcomes of place-based initiatives is challenging, as benchmarks and metrics can vary by region. We propose a unified framework paired with solutions locally identified by and tailored to the specific needs of the regional innovation ecosystem. A functioning ecosystem cannot be simply overlaid upon a community but must be built by and for that community. The success of these initiatives requires active evaluation and incorporation of these learnings into effective solutions, as well as deep strategic collaboration at the local level, with support and time built into processes.   

Recommendation 3. Increase access to financing and capital.

Funding is the lifeblood of innovation. S&T innovation requires more investment and more time to bring to market than other types of ventures, and early-stage investments in S&T startups are often perceived as risky by those who seek a financial return. Bringing large quantities of early-stage S&T innovations to the point in the commercialization process where substantial private capital takes an interest requires nondilutive and patient government support. The return on investment that the federal government seeks is measured in companies successfully launched, jobs created, and useful technologies brought to market.

Disparities in access to capital by companies owned by women and underrepresented minority founders are well documented. The federal government has an interest in funding innovators and entrepreneurs from many backgrounds: they bring deep and varied knowledge and a multitude of perspectives to their innovations and to their ventures. This results in improved solutions and better products at a cheaper price for consumers. Increasing access to financing and capital is essential to our national economic well-being and to our efforts to build climate resilience. 

Expand SBIR/STTR access and commercial impact

The SBIR and STTR programs spur innovation, bolster U.S. economic competitiveness, and strengthen the small business sector, but barriers persist. In a recent third-party assessment of the SBIR/STTR program at NIH, the second largest administrator of SBIR/STTR funds, the committee found outreach from the SBIR/STTR programs to underserved groups is not coordinated, and there has been little improvement in the share of applications from or awards to these groups in the past 20 years. Further, NIH follows the same processes used for awarding R01 research grants, using the same review criteria and typically the same reviewers, omitting important commercialization considerations. 

To expand access and increase the commercialization potential of the SBIR/STTR program, funding agencies should foster partnerships with a broader group of organizations, conduct targeted outreach to potential applicants, offer additional application assistance to potential applicants, work with partners to develop mentorship and entrepreneur training programs, and increase the percentage of private-sector reviewers with entrepreneurial experience. Successful example programs of SBIR/STTR support programs include the NSF Beat-The-Odds Boot Camp, Michigan’s Emerging Technologies Fund, and the SBIR/STTR Innovation Summit. 

Provide entrepreneurship education and training

Initiatives like NSF Engines, Tech Hubs, Build-Back-Better Regional Challenge, the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) Capital Challenge, and the Small Business Administration (SBA) Growth Accelerator Fund expansion will all achieve more substantial results with supplemental training for participants in how to develop and launch a technology-based business. As an example of the potential impact, more than 2,500 teams have participated in I-Corps since the program’s inception in 2012. More than half of these teams, nearly 1,400, have launched startups that have cumulatively raised $3.16 billion in subsequent funding, creating over 11,000 jobs. Now is an opportune moment to widely apply similarly effective approaches. 

Launch a local investment education initiative

Angel investors are typically providing the first private funding available to S&T innovators and entrepreneurs. These very early-stage funders give innovators access to needed capital, networks, and advice to get their ventures off the ground. We recommend that the federal government expand the definition of an accredited investor and incentivize regionally focused initiatives to educate policymakers and other regional stakeholders about best practices to foster more diverse and inclusive angel investment networks. With the right approach and support, there is the potential to engage thousands more high-net-worth individuals in early-stage investing, contributing their expertise and networks as well as their wealth.

Encourage investment in climate solutions

Extreme climate-change-attributed weather events such as floods, hurricanes, drought, wildfire, and heat waves cost the global economy an average of $143 billion annually. S&T innovations have the potential to help address the impacts of climate change at every level:

Given the global scope of the problem and the shared resources of affected communities, the federal government can be a leader in prioritizing, collaborating, and investing in solutions to direct and encourage S&T innovation for climate solutions. There is no question whether climate adaptation technologies will be needed, but we must ensure that these solutions are technologies that create economic opportunity in the U.S. We encourage the expansion and regular appropriations of funding for successful climate programs across federal agencies, including the DoE Office of Technology Transitions’ Energy Program for Innovation Clusters, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Ocean-Based Climate Resilience Accelerators program, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Climate Hubs. 

Recommendation 4. Shift to a systems change orientation.

To truly stimulate a national innovation economy, we need long-term commitments in policy, practice, and regulations. Leadership and coordination from the executive branch of the federal government are essential to continue the positive actions already begun by the Biden-Harris Administration.  

These initiatives include: 

Policy

Signature initiatives like the CHIPS and Science Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the National Quantum Initiative Act are already threatened by looming appropriations shortfalls. We need to fully fund existing legislation, with a focus on innovative and translational R&D. According to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, if the U.S. increased federal R&D spending to 1% of GDP by 2030, the nation could support 3.4 million jobs and add $301 billion in labor income, $478 billion in economic value, and $81 billion in tax revenue. Beyond funding, we propose supporting innovative policies to bolster U.S. innovation capacity at the local and national levels. This includes providing R&D tax credits to spur research collaboration between industry and universities and labs, providing federal matching funds for state and regional technology transfer and commercialization efforts, and revising the tax code to support innovation by research-intensive, pre-revenue companies.

Practice

The University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, commonly known as the Bayh-Dole Act, allows recipients of federal research funding to retain rights to inventions conceived or developed with that funding. The academic tech transfer system created by the Bayh-Dole Act (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 200-212) generated nearly $1.3 trillion in economic output, supported over 4.2 million jobs, and launched over 11,000 startups. We should preserve the Bayh-Dole Act as a means to promote commercialization and prohibit the consideration of specific factors, such as price, in march-in determinations. 

In addition to the continual practice and implementation of successful laws such as Bayh-Dole, we must repurpose resources to support innovation and the high-value jobs that result from S&T innovation. We believe the new administration should allocate a share of federal funding to promote technology transfer and commercialization and better incentivize commercialization activities at federal labs and research institutes. This could include new programs such as mentoring programs for researcher entrepreneurs and student entrepreneurship training programs. Incentives include evaluating the economic impact of lab-developed technology by measuring commercialization outcomes in the annual Performance Evaluation and Management Plans of federal labs, establishing stronger university entrepreneurship reporting requirements to track and reward universities that create new businesses and startups, and incentivizing universities to focus more on commercialization activities as part of promotion and tenure of faculty, 

Regulations

A common cause of lab-to-market failure is the inability to secure regulatory approval, particularly for novel technologies in nascent industries. Regulation can limit potentially innovative paths, increase innovation costs, and create a compliance burden on businesses that stifle innovation. Regulation can also spur innovation by enabling the management of risk. In 1976 the Cambridge (Massachusetts) City Council became the first jurisdiction to regulate recombinant DNA, issuing the first genetic engineering license and creating the first biotech company. Now Boston/Cambridge is the world’s largest biotech hub: home to over 1,000 biotech companies, 21% of all VC biotech investments, and 15% of the U.S. drug development pipeline.

To advance innovation, we propose two specific regulatory actions:

Conclusion

To maintain its global leadership role, the United States must invest in the individuals, institutions, and ecosystems critical to a thriving, inclusive innovation economy. This includes mobilizing access, inclusion, and talent through novel entrepreneurship training programs; investing, incentivizing, and building the capacity of our research institutions; and enabling innovation pathways by increasing access to capital, networks, and resources.

Fortunately, there are  several important pieces of legislation recommitting the U.S. leadership to bold S&T goals, although much of the necessary resources are yet to be committed to those efforts. As a society, we benefit when federally supported innovation efforts tackle big problems that are beyond the scope of single ventures; notably, the many challenges arising from climate change. A stronger, more inclusive innovation economy benefits the users of S&T-based innovations, individual innovators, and the nation as a whole.

When we intentionally create pathways to innovation and entrepreneurship for underrepresented individuals, we build on our strengths. In the United States, our strength has always been our people, who bring problem-solving abilities from a multitude of perspectives and settings. We must unleash their entrepreneurial power and become, even more, a country of innovators.. 

Earlier memo contributors Heath Naquin and Shaheen Mamawala (2020) were not involved with this 2024 memo.

This action-ready policy memo is part of Day One 2025 — our effort to bring forward bold policy ideas, grounded in science and evidence, that can tackle the country’s biggest challenges and bring us closer to the prosperous, equitable and safe future that we all hope for whoever takes office in 2025 and beyond.