Belgium’s biotech sector is often seen as proof that Europe can turn scientific strength into global success. But even in one of Europe’s most advanced ecosystems, scaling required access to capital beyond national markets.

In a sector where success depends on sufficient, even abundant capital, Europe still lacks the depth, integration and speed required to finance growth at scale. As the EU advances its Biotech Act alongside efforts to deepen capital markets, the focus is shifting. The issue is no longer innovation, but whether Europe has the financial firepower to match it.

Euractiv spoke with stock exchange operator Euronext Brussels CEO Benoît van den Hove about what Belgium’s experience reveals, and what Europe still needs to fix.

NV: What’s the main challenge of Belgium’s biotech companies?

BVH: One of the main issues we try to solve in Belgium and Europe today is the financing of our companies. Whether it is a tech company, a traditional company or a life science company, the question is the same: how do we finance growth?

If we rely on financing coming from other continents, such as the US or China, then the risk is that part of the knowledge, the expertise and the value will move there. And this is not only a Belgian issue. It is a European issue. Across countries and sectors, we lack deep and integrated pools of capital to finance growth.

NV: Biotech group ‘Argenx’ is often cited as a Belgian success story. What can we learn from them?

BVH: It illustrates what is needed for a successful biotech. You need good science, strong teams, and sufficient, even abundant, capital. At Argenx, they managed to combine these three elements. They have top science and very strong profiles across the organisation.

When you have strong people, you can achieve much more. But that is only possible when you have enough capital.

NV: How was Argenx financed, and what does that reveal about the system?

BVH: At the beginning, Argenx structured itself under Dutch law to attract venture capital, because such funding was not available in Belgium at the time. At its IPO in 2014, it raised €40 million over about 18 months. That funding came from Belgian retail investors, who have traditionally been very supportive of biotech IPOs, as well as Belgian institutional investors and US investors.

If you look at institutional investors in European listed companies today, around 40 to 45% of them come from the US. So even when companies are listed in Europe, they operate within a global investor base.

NV: There is a perception that European biotech companies are moving to the US. Is that accurate?

BVH: No, that perception is not correct. If you look at the data, around 96% of European companies are listed in Europe. Less than 4% list elsewhere, mainly in the US. So there is no massive shift of companies moving to the US.

NV: If 96% of European companies are listed in Europe, what’s then the issue?

BVH: The issue is not where companies list, but access to capital. Even when companies stay in Europe, they rely heavily on European and non-European investors. And for biotech companies in particular, what matters is not just the IPO, but the ability to raise capital continuously over time to support growth.

NV: How does Europe compare to the US after listing?

BVH: If you look at the average performance one year after IPO, it is negative in the US and positive in Europe. This is important because biotech companies need to raise additional capital regularly. If performance is positive, investors are more likely to reinvest. So the challenge is the depth of capital available afterwards.

NV: What explains that structural gap in capital?

BVH: The difference is largely linked to how capital is mobilised. In the US, pension systems are largely privately funded, which creates large pools of capital that are invested over the long term. That is why you have players like Blackrock managing very large assets. In Europe, pension systems are mostly state-based, which limits the amount of capital flowing into markets.

NV: Can countries like Belgium address this alone?

BVH: No. This needs to be addressed at the European level. Scale cannot be achieved nationally. It requires integrated capital markets at the European level, with deeper pools of capital and a more integrated structure. That also means accepting that some competencies move from national to European level.

NV: The EU is pushing the Savings and Investment Union. Does this respond to the problem?

BVH: Yes. What was previously called the Capital Markets Union is now the Savings and Investment Union, and it has become a key priority.

For many years, it was not seen as urgent. But with geopolitical developments, there is now a clear understanding that Europe needs to solve its challenges itself. Reports such as those by Draghi, Letta and Ninisto all highlight the need to deepen and integrate capital markets in Europe.

NV: What still stands in the way of that integration?

BVH: Fragmentation remains a major obstacle. For example, Euronext operates across eight exchanges in Europe and is supervised by eight regulators. That creates complexity and slows down decision-making. In the US, there is a single regulator, the SEC.

We believe that financial market infrastructure should be supervised at the European level by ESMA. This is part of ongoing discussions at the EU, including within the Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP) published by the EU Commission last December.

At Euronext, we have already built a single trading platform across multiple countries, representing around 26% of trading in Europe. So integration is possible, but it needs to go further.

NV: Is Europe moving fast enough?

BVH: Speed is essential. Europe tends to move slowly because it tries to align stakeholders, but we do need to move faster than we currently do. The fact that the Commission wants to accelerate these reforms is reassuring.

NV: What is your message for policymakers and companies?

BVH: For policymakers, the key is to embrace scale and European integration. For companies, it is to be ambitious and attract the best talent and investors. There are initiatives to create larger European funds, and these will be important. With better-integrated capital markets in Europe, companies will have access to deeper pools of capital.

[VA, BM]