Podcast 2026

Guest: Thor Richard Isaksen, CEO of 6AM

From Innovation Norway: CEO Håkon Haugli and

Host: Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann

Host: Innovation and the creation of new, forward-thinking companies thrive when many stakeholders contribute different expertise and support in different ways. 6AM is part of this ecosystem. Based in Trondheim, the company creates opportunities for the businesses of tomorrow. Thor Richard Isaksen leads the company and is our guest.
We at Innovation Norway are part of the same ecosystem. As usual, we are represented by Håkon Haugli and me, Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann.

Welcome to Innopodden!

Isaksen: Thank you very much.

Host: 6AM describes itself as an accelerator, and you are its CEO. Give us a brief overview of how you work.

Isaksen: We work with first-time founders. 6AM aims to encourage more people to start a business and make it easier to take the leap into entrepreneurship. Everything we offer is designed to help first-time founders, particularly those from universities and university colleges, make the move into the startup world. We run a fairly intensive six-month accelerator programme. We also have an investment company called Gnist, which enables us to help them with their first funding round. Our third company, StartupTrondheim, focuses on developing the ecosystem. It is a strategic tool for the City of Trondheim to create new arenas for founders. It is all about what founders need, right? We have established Norway's first accelerator for gaming companies. We have organised delegations and have been the largest Norwegian delegation at Slush for five consecutive years. StartupTRD takes founders to New York, London, Copenhagen and San Francisco. Together, we offer a strong package for founders in Trondheim. And what is exciting now is that our latest cohort starts on Monday. It is our largest cohort ever. Application numbers have risen every year, and for the first time, we now have more applicants from Oslo than from Trondheim.

Haugli: Can you tell us a little about your background? How did you end up here? It’s not your final destination, of course, but how did you come to join 6AM?

Isaksen: I hope it’s not the final stop! I was an entrepreneur. Before that, I worked for a company called Sedge. I joined just before its initial public offering and had the opportunity to list a Norwegian company on the New York Stock Exchange together with founder Tom Arnøy. It was great fun.

Haugli: With the bell ringing and everything at …

Isaksen: No, we didn't get to ring the bell. There was a separate queue to ring it, but we were allowed to be there. It was great fun. This was in the early days of AI, right? We started working with a language model that could be used to generate content. We actually started out in politics, doing sentiment analysis. Trump was president, so we created a map, took all the Twitter data from the State of the Union address and analysed it in real time, state by state. When he spoke about gun policy, for example, you could see which states turned red on the map because they disagreed, and which turned green because they agreed with his message.
But it was a small market, so we pivoted to football. We signed a deal with TV 2 and worked on its Premier League broadcasts, providing AI-generated content. It was great fun. Then one day, all of a sudden, it was no longer viable because there was very little money to be made in that sector, and we went bankrupt. We decided to wind up the company, and I called all the investors to tell them their money was gone. Sorry. That's a tough round of calls to make. Some took it well, while others didn't. But then one of them offered me a job, and that's how I ended up at 6AM. He was the chair of 6AM. He said, ‘So, yes, that's a shame, but I've got something in the works here.’

Host: So you have some highly relevant experience, from starting a company and helping to turn one around, to winding one up?

Haugli: And a very personal relationship with risk, I imagine?

Isaksen: Yes, definitely. My partner has also been a tech entrepreneur, so there has been a certain level of understanding at home about that journey. But it does take its toll. I don't think many people realise that it … doesn't just affect you personally, but everyone around you: your children, your partner. You have a mortgage, parents and friends. They all come on that journey with you, whether you want them to or not. You don't bear 100 per cent of the risk alone, and that's something you become aware of when you go through a process like this. We try to make entrepreneurs aware of that. You need to show some humility about what you're asking of everyone around you when you embark on such a journey.

Haugli: Some people believe that in Norway, we have far less tolerance – or perhaps understanding is a better word – for the fact that some ventures inevitably fail. In other countries, having failed once is almost celebrated, because you can pick yourself up and bring more experience to your next attempt. In Norway, there is a strong stigma attached to failure or not succeeding. What do you think about that? Do you agree?

Isaksen: I’m constantly surprised that people think that way, because I don’t see it that way myself. When we went bankrupt, I wrote a long opinion piece in Shifter about what it feels like to go bankrupt. What it feels like to have that first meeting with the administrator, or to call the investors. So much goes through your mind. It’s a painful process. Then there are those who go through it, wake up a week later and think, ‘Let’s try again.’ I couldn’t have done that, but those people do exist. Even so, a surprising number of people still see it as taboo and shameful. We see companies that really ought to be wound up saying, ‘No, we sold the company; there was a transaction at the end,’ so they can go around saying they made an exit.

Host: But why do you think that is?

Isaksen: I think it is partly cultural. But things are changing, and we are moving in the right direction. I feel that having been through the startup journey once or twice before puts you in a stronger position in the eyes of investors.

Haugli: Absolutely. I think investors recognise that too.

Isaksen: I think so too.

Haugli: And 6AM has been a huge success. You didn't mention it yourself, but you've been named Norway's best incubator. And you're now in your seventh year. What do you think have been the keys to your success?

Isaksen: We have always seen the community as what we offer. We do not sell expertise, and we do not have advisors. We offer a community where founders can find all the resources they need. That shapes the way we think. It is less about economics and more about sociology, in the sense that we try to bring together all the people needed to create a dynamic, supportive community, which we then make available through 6AM. We are not the only ones involved. Many organisations across the ecosystem help build it. This also frees us somewhat from the constraints of billing by the hour and allows us to work more effectively. We do not count the hours we spend with founders. Some need many hours, while others need only a few. We then try to connect them with the people who have the right expertise at any given time. In effect, we try to take ourselves out of the equation. This may sound a little meta, but …

Haugli: Well … I think that makes perfect sense. But you must have a very extensive network, with a wide range of expertise and experience ...

Isaksen: Yes, we rely heavily on our network.

Haugli: So, is all of Trondheim involved in this?

Isaksen: Not just the whole of Trondheim

Haugli: All of Norway.

Isaksen: It covers the whole of Norway. We have people we trust, so trust is an important factor, isn't it? We don't bring anyone on board unless we know they're good at what they do. We have a responsibility to the founders we introduce them to, and they must earn that trust before we bring them into the fold. I believe we deliver well on this part of our customer promise: maintaining a very high level of trust with our founders. Even after completing the accelerator programme, founders keep coming back. They remain part of the family for many, many years after finishing the programme with us.

Host: Just so we and the listeners understand: When you talk about bringing people in, do you mean a physical space where they work?

Isaksen: No, it isn't. Our entrepreneurs are based in many different co-working spaces, and we take a fairly flexible approach to the incubator model. We can help reduce the rent, providing a physical workspace for those who need it. But we cannot compete with private co-working spaces for premises. That would be completely misguided. It is not our role as a publicly funded service provider. We must take great care to complement the private services available rather than compete with them.

Haugli: I had the pleasure of visiting you and meeting some truly impressive startups. We should talk a little about your customers – or perhaps even our shared customers. They span an enormous range, from clothing and knitting technology to roof insulation and, of course, a great many things we might call digital solutions. What are your thoughts on that? Are there advantages or disadvantages to such a broad range, or are you completely agnostic about what the entrepreneurs are working on?

Isaksen: We are 100 per cent agnostic, and I believe the entire business support system should be agnostic too. The principle of industry neutrality is important. Not because it is ethically right, but because major companies can emerge in the spaces between established industries, where you might not expect them... After all, no politician decided that Sweden should invest in music streaming technology.

Haugli: No, or AutoStore, which is an example I often use. No politician would have come up with the idea of Rubik’s Cube-inspired warehouse solutions. This is a crucial point, and is this something you put into practice too?

Isaksen: Absolutely, and I think it is important that we don't... I might even go so far as to say that when businesses come to us with a strong focus on a specific industry, and there are industry clusters and other incubators that are much better placed to help them than we are, we try to refer them there. They are of course welcome to join our community, but we are not necessarily the best provider of incubation services for them.

Haugli: But they may come to you first, and then you can help them move forward.

Isaksen: Yes. And most incubators have a particular focus. Ours is the stage we work with. We’re essentially for first-time founders.

Haugli: Yes.

Advertisement from Innovation Norway: Sorry, I know this is a podcast, not a sales meeting, but I just have to say one thing. My name is Tina, and I work for Innovation Norway in Germany. We help Norwegian companies find the right partners in new markets. Fewer missteps, more progress. Book a meeting with us at innovasjonnorge.no/kontakt.

Host: Speaking of both the different stages and the wider system, where would you place 6AM in relation to Innovation Norway, Håkon?

Haugli: Let me start by saying that 6AM is many things. It is also part of the incubator programme that we at Innovation Norway have recently taken over from Siva. Siva has run this highly successful programme for many years. Incubation is a process that takes a company from one stage to the next. This sets it apart from, for example, the cluster programme, which is a mechanism for collaboration, and innovation hubs, which are a regional policy tool for bringing together stakeholders in a specific geographical area. Incubation is therefore an internationally recognised methodology. But although it is a methodology, it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Working with different companies requires a high degree of tailoring, and I think that is important in understanding what an organisation such as 6AM does. I would say that our role at Innovation Norway is twofold. Firstly, we enable organisations such as 6AM and other incubators to do their job. Secondly, we act as a partner to the companies for which we share responsibility, through our loan and grant schemes, occasionally financial guarantee schemes, and collaboration with organisations such as banks. We are working towards a shared goal, and we place great importance on the decentralised infrastructure – or innovation ecosystem – in which 6AM is a leading player in its field.

Isaksen: That was kind of you to say.

Haugli: And those aren't my words. You have actually been named just that...!

Host: But what do they have that we don't?

Haugli: They offer proximity, don't they? We are not a system where entrepreneurs can walk through a door, meet and talk to other entrepreneurs, or gain access to professional business partners. Nor do we connect them with investors, as 6AM does, for example. We give startups some of the tools they need to begin that journey, but then they need … and at a very early stage. Sometimes it happens in the opposite order: a student walks through the door at 6AM and realises, ‘Yes, this is something I want to pursue’, and then applies to Innovation Norway for a market clarification grant. So we work together, and I would say there is a fairly clear division of roles. We have no ambition to be an incubator. And it is quite clear that the funding and competence-building services we offer differ from those available elsewhere in the innovation ecosystem. But I must add one thing: I am very keen for us to maintain diversity among these organisations. It is important that they are not all alike.

Isaksen: It’s interesting you should say that. When I joined 6AM and became familiar with this system, I was surprised by the policy directives we received. My impression was that everyone was expected to offer the same services everywhere. That incubators were supposed to be like Circle K petrol stations, with the same hot dogs, the same chocolates and the same promotions wherever you were in the country. From a resource management perspective, that’s a very poor approach. I feel we’ve started to move away from that and recognise the importance of specialising. We are one national ecosystem, not lots of small regional ecosystems. That’s a major step in the right direction.

Haugli: Yes, I’m glad you mentioned that. I believe there are three key drivers moving us in the right direction. The first is that we need a national division of responsibilities. Norway is too small a country to have almost identical structures everywhere. Instead, we need to find effective ways to share responsibilities.
Second, people are different. Both the entrepreneur who walks through your door and the expertise available around you will vary from place to place. Not everyone needs the same support, not everyone is equally well suited to working together, and you do not all have the same expertise.

The third is that the business landscape and the wider ecosystem also play a role. And it is not just about the business landscape. Here in Trøndelag, we have NTNU, which is a major driver of innovation. Elsewhere, it may be the maritime industry driving innovation, so incubators clearly need to be able to accommodate these differences. Of course, some things can be standardised, such as processes, and we deliberately ensure that joining one incubator is not much more expensive than joining another. And why is the public sector involved? Because it helps reduce risk.
It is a fascinating topic, but let me turn to you, as I have been talking for quite a while. You have been a user, business partner and customer of our part of the business support system. What are your thoughts on the future? Are there any changes we should make?

Isaksen: I feel that even though … We should be very pleased that an incubator programme exists, and those who worked hard to establish it have done a great job. But I do feel there is an underlying frustration among the incubators about how it is run, and that frustration may have grown, particularly over the past year.

Haugli: Yes, tell us a little more about that – what is it about?

Isaksen: It is about predictability, and about several objectives being bundled together in the same programme. Those of us working with early-stage technology companies, primarily SaaS companies, are assessed on industrial spin-offs, while those working with industry are assessed on how many venture-backed companies they have. We work at an early stage and cannot be measured by the number of jobs created in the same way as those working at a later stage. Everything is rolled into a single model that determines how much support you may receive. So there is no way for anyone to... The programme is not designed to enable individual participants in the system to succeed, and that creates a great deal of frustration. I think this has forced many incubators to spread themselves very widely and very thinly over a long period. I believe the incubator sector in Norway is in considerable need of reform, and I welcome discussions about how we can make it more efficient. I do not think the answer is always a bigger ecosystem. I think the future could bring a more dynamic, flexible ecosystem that makes greater use of regional strengths. And I will probably make myself a little unpopular by saying this, but I also think that shifting indirect support measures to large industrial clusters that already generate billions in revenue is a poor allocation of resources. Because the potential outside the large, established clusters is probably... You can probably achieve more by introducing indirect support measures where there is little support, rather than where business is already booming.
I am thinking particularly of the student populations at Norway's universities and university colleges, who are a largely untapped resource for entrepreneurship. Together with Innovation Norway, we have worked on the student innovation project. Take NTNU: there are somewhere between 15 and 20 voluntary student organisations working on innovation and entrepreneurship. How incredible is that? Not one of them receives a single krone in state aid. I am not saying they should, either. I am simply saying that strong, dynamic communities can grow outside the large, concentrated industrial areas.

Haugli: If I may add something about student entrepreneurship, there is a... If you think about the companies that are now the largest in the world, they were actually started by students in a garage, often after dropping out of university. We should not encourage people to do that, but it says something about the potential that comes from being close to academic communities, having a strong understanding of technology and everything that comes with being young, if I can put it that way. It creates potential. We see this in our STUD-ENT scheme, which you mentioned. We are very pleased with it, and according to our advisors, the quality of the companies is higher than what we generally see among startups. That is interesting, because these are people with no business experience. The average entrepreneur in Norway, at least a few years ago, was a 46-year-old man with industry experience, and a great deal of value has been created by entrepreneurs like that. These are a different type of entrepreneur with different needs, and it is important to understand that.

Isaksen: I completely agree. It is quite interesting when startup culture comes up. Looking at Norway’s three largest cities, Oslo’s startup community emerged relatively early, but it largely grew out of the financial sector, which has shaped the culture, making it somewhat masculine and hard-edged. In Bergen, the startup community has largely grown out of the industrial sector, so its approach to startups is perhaps a little more mature, experienced, technical and industrial. But in Trondheim, the startup community has, for all practical purposes, grown out of the student population. That makes the startup culture here quite different from that of the other cities …

Host: Yes. Describe it – what is it like?

Isaksen: They are younger people with more energy. They have a higher tolerance for risk because they do not have a mortgage, car loan or family. And they have a strong capacity for working intensely late into the night, right? This creates a real buzz in Trondheim’s innovation community. We need to nurture that. And I believe … you can create that same vibe in all the major university and college cities if you provide the right conditions for student innovation. We want to be a catalyst for this, and we want to do it together with Innovation Norway.

Haugli: This is really interesting, and as you say that, it strikes me: imagine if we could draw on the best of these three cultures. Student entrepreneurship gives us the youthful energy and fast pace that you embody and that we see here. Combine that with greater or better access to venture capital, as they have in Oslo. Then there are the initial links to industry, the first customers and the needs that industry must address, which may be more prevalent in Western Norway. We have strong foundations nationally, but we need to connect them. That is the work you do, isn't it? Bringing these pieces together so that the same entrepreneur can gain exposure to different types of needs and resources.

Isaksen: Yes. And it is important that the various incubators and regional programmes do not create a kind of ‘lock-in’ around their own ...

Haugli: That brings us back to the point, doesn't it? If everything is done the same way everywhere, you won't be able to capture the unique value.

Isaksen: Exactly. And you also need good national meeting places, not just for entrepreneurs and investors, but for the ecosystem as well. Today's conference, Innovation Norway's networking event, is a good example of this. It is remarkable that there has never really been a dedicated conference or meeting place for the country's ecosystem.

Haugli: No, it is actually historic. We bring together incubators, innovation hubs and clusters, as well as the TTOs at universities, the Norwegian Catapult scheme and what are known as EDIHs, or European Digital Innovation Hubs. We can group all of these under the heading of collaboration instruments, but they are very different.

Isaksen: But one group is missing here: private-sector organisations that do not receive public funding. Then there are the volunteers and all those who work in the public sector without necessarily being paid for it or doing it as part of their job, but who still play an important role – the passionate individuals driving innovation communities across the country. They should be included too. Otherwise, it is a bit like going to a family reunion with a third of the family missing.

Haugli: Yes … They’re the ones who got divorced … No, but this is absolutely something we need to take with us going forward. There are clearly some key drivers – and, not least, business partners who are not in this room. Private coworking spaces, as you have already mentioned, are one example. Investor communities are certainly relevant, but this could also include county authorities, intermunicipal mechanisms and so on. What I am taking away from today’s conference, at least, is a shared understanding that ‘we’ – the wider ‘we’ – are an ecosystem. That is worth noting, because I would venture to say that there is also a certain amount of finger-pointing within that ecosystem about who is actually doing the important work. That may be relevant, but it does not really move us forward.

Isaksen: No. And when we talk about the concept of an ecosystem, it is a rather cold, technical way of understanding how this works: the allocation of resources, who does what and where. But then there is the community, the human element, everything with a pulse. The values on which the community is founded are incredibly important: its values, ways of working together and relationships. If these are in place, you get strong dynamics nationally and effective resource allocation, right? Even within an ecosystem, small pockets of protectionism can emerge, where people look after their own entrepreneurs and so on. Openness is a very important value for startup communities. Everyone who wants to join and be part of them must have the opportunity to do so. Entrepreneurs must be able to move freely between providers without this becoming a problem and, as we discussed, the different regions must be able to offer their particular expertise and experience. We need to move beyond having a national ecosystem and build a national innovation community.

Haugli: I also like the word ‘community’. It reminds us that this is about people, right? But if we look at Norway … Yes, perhaps there’s something you’re eager to add, Kjetil?

Host: No, but I think we should probably start wrapping up fairly soon.

Haugli: Start wrapping up, yes. But it is so tempting to ask you about the challenges Norway faces. You have an incredibly interesting vantage point. You see what is happening in the startup community, while also working with other organisations whose activities may or may not resemble your own. If you could ask one thing of Norway, what would it be?

Isaksen: There is no getting away from the fact that, at this conference, we have spent a great deal of time discussing how we can organise ourselves better, create more synergies, and address ecosystems, roles and all the rest of it. That is all very good, but I think it only moves the needle slightly. The major changes ahead must come through political action. If the right policies are put in place so that our entrepreneurs can operate on broadly the same terms as those in Sweden and Finland, for example, we will take on the task and go through the pain of reforming the business support system. That is absolutely fine. But when that political action is lacking, I have to admit that I sometimes struggle to stay motivated, because no matter how well we do our job, it does not move the needle far enough. So certain political changes need to be made, and that is probably what I want most.
I also think it is very important to remember that we, as part of the business support system, do not exist for our own sake. We exist for entrepreneurs. If we cannot justify our existence by making life easier for entrepreneurs, perhaps we should not exist at all. I believe that almost everyone in the business support system should ask themselves: Are we really doing enough? Because I believe reform is needed. I have said it many times now, but …

Host: Yes, but that is a useful reminder. I was going to ask a question that you often ask, Håkon: Why are you called 6AM?

Isaksen: Oh yes. We're early-stage, right – 6AM. And our accelerator programme lasts six months. That's how it started.

Host: Oh, so it’s not just about being up early in the morning?

Isaksen: No, we’re not exactly early risers ... I come from the IT industry, where we certainly don’t get up early. I remember that at Sedge, the rule was that you had to be at work before one o’clock. So a lot of the developers liked to come in at one and then work late into the evening. They had their own sleep schedule, and that’s perfectly fine. So no, we’re not exactly early risers.

Host: But you’ve been here now, and thank you for that, Thor Richard Isaksen from 6AM. Thank you for a thought-provoking conversation. And thank you, Håkon Haugli. My name is Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, and this is Innopodden. Until next time!

Guest: Ishita Barua

From Innovation Norway: CEO Håkon Haugli and

Host: Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann

Host: Ishita Barua is a doctor, entrepreneur and associate professor of artificial intelligence at the University of Agder. She holds a PhD in AI in medicine and has been a visiting researcher at Harvard Medical School. Abelia has named her one of Norway’s 50 leading women in tech, and she heads Engram, a company that combines artificial intelligence with medical expertise. We hope she can share some real intelligence with us – Håkon Haugli and me, Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann.

Welcome to Innopodden!

Baruia: Thank you so very much!

Host: You recently published the book ‘Techbros – and How Europe Can Learn to Love Innovation’. For those who are not familiar with it, give us a brief insight into what it is about.

Barua: Quite simply, it is about the innovation gap we have in Europe. We are falling behind, and I think that is old news by now. The Americans and the Chinese are driving the technological race, at least when it comes to artificial intelligence and language models. Where do these technologies come from? Mainly the US and China, while we are not involved at all. The book explores the background to this, why it is so important for Europe to catch up, and what opportunities we have to do so. In the introduction, I describe an episode that had a profound impact on me. It happened during the pandemic, when I was at Harvard in Boston. Boston has an incredible innovation ecosystem. They have solved many of the structural challenges associated with innovation, and by that I mean the ecosystem. Research institutions are within walking distance of the people building companies, the technology community, the medical community and many of the organisations providing business support. They are all very close to one another; in parts of the city, everything is concentrated within a very small radius. It is similar to what we are trying to achieve at Oslo Science Park in Norway. But I think we underestimate the importance of being physically close to these people and the synergies created by an ecosystem. During the pandemic, I was in Boston to collect data for my doctoral research. I was living nearby, and on one of my walks from campus to the area where all these institutions are located, I looked up at the tall buildings and thought: My goodness, what an environment! Being around people who make you feel like the least intelligent person in the room is incredibly inspiring, and that is what Harvard and Boston do to you. You feel like the least intelligent person there, and it is a tremendous learning experience. I would encourage everyone to seek out environments like that, because by the time you leave, you feel a little less ignorant. You have learnt from some of the best. I had been thinking about how we collected sensitive data – in this case, patients’ personal data – and felt that I was doing it in a very old-fashioned way, using pen and paper. During the pandemic, there were even restrictions to prevent infection and so on. So I had an idea: Could I create an app? This was in 2020–2021, before vibe coding, so I could not simply build it with a few keystrokes. I had the idea, but I needed someone to discuss it with, so I spoke to my research supervisor at Harvard. He was an American with a medical background and a professor, with no real entrepreneurial mindset at all. But when I explained the idea, he responded in a very American way: ‘Brilliant.’ He immediately told me what I needed to do and who I needed to speak to. One of them was Farber, a research institute that is among the world’s leading cancer centres. They have a tall building right next to Harvard Medical School. He said that once I had spoken to them, I would probably be able to secure a grant to get started on an MVP of my idea. Then I could cross the road and speak to some of the tech bros over there, who could build it for me. Once I had the grant, everything would be in place. What he did was activate this entire machinery through his own network, suggesting people I could speak to. It was only a small idea for an app, but his response set those plans alight. He got things moving, which shows how important it is for an idea to be met with enthusiasm. Even though he was not an entrepreneur, his instinctive response was: I will put her in touch with the best people to make this happen. By contrast, when I shared the idea with research colleagues back home in Norway during a video call, the response was very different. There was not much enthusiasm. It was more along the lines of: ‘Yes, but first you need to write a research protocol for this.’ But that was completely the wrong format. They did not quite understand the idea. Perhaps that was partly my fault because I pitched it badly, but it also comes down to the incentives that shape how you think. Should you think commercially? Should you treat it as research? Or should you think of it as research that can become something commercial? That mindset is not really there. I became aware of this cultural difference and of how differently ideas are received at such an early stage. There are major differences between Europe and the US, to put it more broadly, and I do not think my experience was unique. Later, part of this idea found its way into my first startup, Live Health. We asked whether we could create something that would make health data more accessible to patients, hospitals and doctors, and make it easier to share information. So something did come of it. But the point is that it highlights a problem: How do we respond to the earliest seed of innovation, when it is still only an idea? That response has a major impact on how things develop later.

Host: From your book, we understand that you are – as you have already touched on – more interested than most in artificial intelligence. The Economist recently published an article claiming that investment in artificial intelligence is the largest investment wave we have ever seen. Why are companies and investors investing such vast sums in this technology now?

Barua: There is clearly an expectation that this will deliver an unprecedented boost in productivity. So the investment is seen as small compared with the returns it will generate. That is really what drives it – and this applies to all investments; you do not invest because you expect to make a loss. There is a clear expectation that this technology, this innovation, will surpass every other innovation. People often say that artificial intelligence means we can stop making discoveries, because this is the last major discovery we will make, and these machines can then start making discoveries for us. I think that premise is completely wrong. We are a long way from simply handing everything over to machines and letting them think for us. Much of the direction is still set by us as human domain experts, defining where this development should go. But I think the market learnt from the internet and, in a sense, from the early days of artificial intelligence. If we look back, what happened in the 1990s was that when the internet truly arrived and became commercially available to everyone, including households, the ‘Magnificent Seven’ emerged – the seven companies that remain today's leading technology companies and that succeeded in creating the strongest internet business models. They also happen to be the companies doing the most AI development. These include Google, or Alphabet, its parent company, Amazon and Microsoft. They are the major companies everyone knows. When these seven succeeded, they effectively cracked the code: the internet was coming regardless, and they built business models around it. But there were no European companies among them. We missed the major wave of the 1990s and beyond, and that is part of the reason we have ended up in our current predicament, unable to drive innovation and certainly not a leading continent in AI. It is also worth noting that this is not really about a lack of talent or of the people shaping its development – AI researchers. Take Demis Hassabis. What happened to him? He is a British neuroscientist whose ultimate goal is to create artificial general intelligence – that is the problem he wants to solve. On the way, he draws on game theory and video game development, which have fascinated him since childhood, and he was also a chess prodigy. So he has many of the qualities needed to achieve it. Here is a brilliant researcher – from the UK, importantly – who developed what I often call the world's most important AI model ever, AlphaFold. He founded the company that developed AlphaFold in London, and until recently it still had its headquarters there. When he set out to raise capital, his fellow researchers initially told him: ‘Forget it. It is far too risky. You cannot raise that kind of money.’ Research environments typically deal in much smaller sums. The proposal was essentially: ‘You can have investment tickets of £50,000,’ which was absurdly little given his ambitions. So he had to go to the US, where he found investors such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel of Palantir – people we often associate with more controversial views, shall we say. But they backed him. They saw the potential in the European researcher standing before them. It is worth noting that, at the time, he had an idea for solving a biological problem: what does protein folding look like? In other words, what is the three-dimensional structure of proteins? This matters because it helps solve the problem of how to target receptors in the body to develop cancer drugs, treatments for Alzheimer's and anything else whose target involves proteins. Our bodies contain many kilograms of protein, and all living things consist of proteins, so that is the point you need to target. Elon Musk probably thought: ‘Someone this clever will succeed whether I put him to work at Tesla or simply bring him in and support his startup.’ I am sure that was part of his thinking. So he and Peter Thiel invested, becoming early-stage investors in the company Demis Hassabis was building – a company that was fundamentally European. In the next funding round, Google also became interested, through Larry Page, who was leading Google at the time. Larry Page is almost a mythical figure – if you work in this field, you have heard of him. So his interest was actually somewhat surprising, because he already had a competing company called Google Brain. It was pursuing exactly the same goal: solving the world's major problems and achieving artificial general intelligence. To get there, you need to understand how the brain works so that you can imitate it. The human brain can solve many different kinds of tasks; we are not narrow models capable of doing only one thing or another, as artificial intelligence can often seem to be. Google was therefore already working on the problem, so it may effectively have acquired a potential competitor – a typical Silicon Valley approach, making numerous acquisitions and eliminating competition that way. But in this case, the idea was: ‘No, we can pursue both in parallel. We have Google Brain and DeepMind, and we can see which one reaches the goal, or whether they discover different things.’ Another factor that probably made Demis Hassabis see Google as a much better fit was that DeepMind was allowed to remain in London. The team could continue working from its existing office rather than moving to the US, so control appeared to remain in Europe. But once Google acquired the company, it became Google DeepMind. Its name and ownership structure changed. Then, in 2024, they won the Nobel Prize for AlphaFold. By then, however, it was under American ownership. So although it was based in London, it was an American victory.

And perhaps our greatest failing is that we do not believe in our own people. It is one thing that we cannot really compete with American and Chinese tech companies, but it starts with investing in our own talent and creating the conditions they need to build companies here at home. When we force them to leave, we cannot then complain that they... I mean, American success stories are clearly European stories too. We simply overlooked our own talent and failed to prioritise it. So they have to look elsewhere, which means we are quite literally forcing them out. I do not think this is a unique story, but it may be the clearest example of how we missed out on something of immense value. We missed out on the Nobel Prize, one of the world's largest companies and the fruits of that work, because many believe that some of the most important medical breakthroughs of the future will come through the AlphaFold algorithm. So, in a sense, we have lost out on that too.

Haugli: Yes, really interesting! Thank you. Your book is called ‘Techbros’. Could you tell us a little about why you chose that title?

Barua: It is meant to be provocative. The alternative could have been ‘The Innovation Gap’, which I personally would never have bought because I would have assumed it was a textbook, and I would not have wanted to read it. So there was some discussion about that. I know people have very negative associations with tech bros, but if you go back a little, tech bros were simply those nerds – tech nerds – sitting in their garages in Silicon Valley, writing code. There was nothing more to it than that. Today, many women also call themselves tech bros. There is, for example, an incubator for female tech entrepreneurs that calls itself Tech Bros, so they have already claimed the name. It is therefore gender-neutral, but in its original sense, the term simply refers to tech entrepreneurs. I also try to distinguish between that and what we associate with the negative connotations: the megalomaniacal, extremely wealthy tech oligarchs. So there is a separate term for the kind of tech bro we dislike. But we have yet to see European tech bros with such a bad reputation. Who would they be? First of all, we hardly have any tech bros in Europe – at least not at the same level, and they are not as well known. So why do we associate them only with negative outcomes? It comes from Elon Musk, Sam Altman and that crowd, who are behind many of the controversies. But it is not a European phenomenon. Part of the reason I believe we need to reclaim the term is that you should be proud to be a tech entrepreneur. You have a key role in building the European – how should I put it – digital sovereignty that we need. Right now, for example, we are entirely dependent on American and Chinese AI models, built mainly by American and Chinese tech bros. So we need to create European versions of these – tech entrepreneurs, tech bros, call them what you will – without getting tech oligarchs as part of the package. I believe we can do that because politics in Europe is different. You can say a lot about democracy in the US, but as things stand now under President Trump, I do not think it is a coincidence that democracy is under pressure while tech oligarchs there have gained so much power. That concentration of power among a small number of people is unique to them. It is not something we really have in Europe, so we cannot fear the consequences of having tech entrepreneurs before we have even nurtured them. That is really the point.

Host: You’ve just given us two very good examples of the exact problem you describe, and the subtitle of your book is ‘– and how Europe can learn to love innovation’. Give us some ideas for solutions.

Barua: I think that if I’m going to discuss these proposed solutions, I also need to tell a few stories to provide some context. One thing the Americans do very, very, very well is innovation, and much of their innovation comes from publicly funded projects known as DARPA projects. Defense Advanced … I can’t remember the whole thing ... let’s see, it’s quite a mouthful … but it stands for these institutions, anyway (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, editor’s note: https://www.darpa.mil/) – research institutions under their Department of Defense, which has now, incidentally, changed its name to the Department of War. But these DARPA units, which conduct publicly funded research, get involved early, take extremely high risks and support initiatives that often go on to become commercial successes. People tend to think that in the US, private capital comes in early and takes extremely high risks. That can … there are many examples. But the state does too. The state also provides funding and invests in Elon Musk’s companies. SpaceX has received a great deal of public funding, and yes, it has done well since then, but very often it is these DARPA projects that eventually lead to major commercial successes, with private businesses coming in after the state has taken the initial step. Put simply, the DARPA model involves the state setting up small teams, and the whole point is to innovate in a highly agile way. You need to be agile and work in a small team. These are experts and teams working over a few years, and they are given strong incentives. They are well paid for their work, but if a project … if it becomes clear that it isn’t viable, it is terminated. They have the authority to end research projects when they see that they are not working. This avoids the endless pilots and ‘pilotitis’ we often see here at home. One example of this: I also need to cover the history of DARPA, because this wasn’t an idea they simply mulled over for years. What happened was the Sputnik shock of 1957, when the US was completely outmanoeuvred and caught entirely off guard by the Soviet Union putting a satellite into orbit around the Earth. They then realised that they could never allow this to happen again – another nation beating them in the race for technology and innovation. They couldn’t accept that, so they established DARPA the following year, with the aim of tackling all their bold ambitions – such as reaching the Moon – which they achieved through NASA and support from DARPA. They have achieved a great deal else too, and very few people know that many of the things and innovations we use in everyday life – or during a pandemic – originated with DARPA. The mRNA vaccine and the Moderna vaccine received support through DARPA. Those Boston Dynamics robot dogs did too. And even less well known, I was going to say – though it should be better known – is that the internet also had its beginnings at DARPA. Back then it was called ARPANET, without the D. What else? GPS …

Haugli: Yes, we all carry around – in our inside pockets – technology that was publicly funded, or commercialised by private companies, but the research itself was publicly funded. Just think of touchscreens; Siri came from this ... This is a hugely important point. Yet Europe, and perhaps Norway in particular, seems to be moving in almost the opposite direction. What are your thoughts on that?

Barua: Yes. I think it is a shame, and I believe we need to … need to hold politicians accountable here. Because this model – where the state steps in early and takes enormous risks, and then the private sector can come in and turn it into an even greater commercial success – and particularly the relationship, the collaboration between academia and the private sector, and how it could be much closer and stronger, precisely so that we can reap those rewards. Politicians and decision-makers need to understand their role in this. Why are we talking exclusively about electricity subsidies ahead of the general election – or the exit tax? It is the wrong focus.
So they must accept responsibility for the fact that we have not managed to turn that debate around. Political capital is being made out of the wrong issues – or rather, I think these are very narrow ways into what is really the innovation debate. People do not dare mention Draghi because they think the public will not understand the Draghi report. We just need to explain it simply: you know what? We in Europe are really struggling right now. Income growth in the US is on a completely different trajectory. Even though a great deal may be going wrong in the US economy, overall it is still doing very well because it has this tech sector. The Draghi report explains that the tech sector provides a buffer and accounts for much of the difference between Europe – the EU, that is – and the US. We need to understand that, yes, it is the tech sector that makes the difference. So the next step must be: how do we build a tech sector in Europe? That is what this knowledge should lead to, but we have not seen anything like the decisive action needed to achieve it. And I have to place some of the blame on politicians, who have failed to turn this into a topic of public debate and put it on the agenda. It has not even been discussed on Debatten! Not at all! Why do they not understand that people need to grasp this if they are to understand what our future holds? Instead, we are lulled by explanations about electricity subsidies and all of that. We have those discussions, but we are not having the discussions about the future that more people should be part of. Because everything is connected. It starts with the fact that we in Europe are now entering a period in which we simply have fewer choices. Many of these tech companies are so powerful that you can almost regard them as sovereign states, because they own much of our infrastructure. They have access to the cables that the internet depends on … and so much more … I could give countless examples … To stop things from getting completely out of hand, politicians simply have to take responsibility for getting people interested in the important conversations too, rather than being misled into thinking that people only care about electricity right now. So turn it around. Put it into a broader context.

Host: In the Norwegian debate, much of the government's spending on initiatives where the outcome is uncertain is described as wasteful, isn't it?

Barua: Yes, and I think that is a great shame, because one of the fundamental ideas behind innovation is a phenomenon known as serendipity. You do not know where the returns will come from. That means you also have to diversify your investments, so I think the government comes in for far too much criticism for getting involved and for the fact that many of the companies it invests in do not succeed. But that is simply the name of the game; it is the price you pay. A great many will fail, perhaps nine out of ten, and then one will do so incredibly well that it effectively pays for the other investments that did not deliver a return. That is what people need to understand about innovation: it involves taking extremely high risks. And you are going to fail. One of DARPA's core principles is, as one of its former directors, Arun Majumdar, put it: if you have a large number of projects and none of them fail, you have not been ambitious enough. You have not taken enough risk; you are doing something wrong. So you are going to fail. That is essentially the blueprint here. The government therefore comes in for far too much criticism. It has also done a fairly solid job of allocating research funding, in terms of the percentage of gross domestic product spent on R&D. In Norway, we have set a target of three per cent: three per cent of GDP should go towards R&D. That has been our goal since 2005. We have never managed to achieve it, but the government is quite close to meeting its share. Of that three per cent, the private sector is meant to contribute two percentage points and the government one. The government is doing quite well, at around 0.95 per cent. We are nearly there, whereas the private sector is not delivering. So this is a wake-up call for private businesses, which do not understand why they need to help shoulder this burden. People also fail to understand that we have the internet, GPS and all these other technologies because DARPA – government-funded research – got involved at an early stage. So it is also wrong simply to disparage government support. As with serendipity, you do not know where the returns will come from, so you have to spread your investments, and the government may be best placed to get involved early. People may disagree with that, but let us at least agree that we need to have the debate. I know that people on different sides of the political divide will disagree about how involved the government should be. I believe there is clear evidence that the government has done a great deal of good. The problem is getting private capital involved. It either does not come in at all or contributes too little. We can ask whether that is because there are not enough incentives. Are the tax incentives too limited? Do investors get too little in return? That may well be the case, but the fact remains that everyone has to contribute.

Audio from Innovation Norway: Hi, just a quick tip, then I’ll be on my way. My name is Urmas Lepik, and I’m an advisor at Innovation Norway in Copenhagen. We have people on the ground who know the market, the key players and the rules of the game. This helps you prioritise and strengthen your negotiating position when expanding internationally. Arrange a meeting with us at innovasjonnorge.no/kontakt.

Haugli: I recently had the pleasure of hearing you speak at a networking event for clusters, incubators, innovation hubs and others, and you made a very good point: we have the blueprint. You referred to Draghi and said that the blueprint has been delivered, but we have not implemented it or put the measures into action. You also gave a figure – I think only around 12 per cent of the measures had been implemented. That is very worrying. Europe has a problem. It is a recognised problem, and we have also received recommendations on how to solve it, yet nothing is happening. Why do you think that is?

Barua: I’ve thought about that a lot. In the book, I call it Doctor Draghi’s diagnosis. And if you don’t follow up a diagnosis with treatment, there may be various reasons for that, if we look at it from a medical perspective. Either you disagree with the diagnosis, or you decide not to follow the recommended advice. You choose your own path …

Haugli: … like alternative medicine?

Barua: … exactly. You don't want to follow national guidelines; you want to do your own thing. Or perhaps you're simply incompetent and unable to follow up.

Haugli: Yes, that's a very good analogy.

Barua: That was how I saw it. What are we actually doing? We have the diagnosis. That means … and there is a treatment for this, so why aren't you taking action? I think that, unlike the US and China, Europe is a continent made up of many countries, and we don't agree among ourselves on how urgent and critical the situation is. So we don't fully accept his diagnosis. We say we do, but we don't really. Because if we did, the conclusion would be obvious. It's like being a doctor who thinks, well, perhaps alternative medicine, or who simply wants to run more tests, wait a little and keep their nerve – which can often be a good approach in a doctor-patient relationship. But I believe that here in Europe, we need to … we need to decide: do we disagree with what Draghi is saying? Many subsequent reports have essentially said the same thing. If so, we need to provide evidence explaining why we disagree. Some people argue that the productivity growth I mentioned earlier – that is, incomes have roughly doubled over the same period – means there are major differences between the US and Europe. Some believe that is wrong, and we can certainly discuss it, but then what we're really saying is that we don't believe Draghi, and we should be open about that. But those who agree – and many say they do – aren't following through! Implementing just 11–12 per cent after a year, when you have the prescription, is utterly incomprehensible. It amounts to neglecting treatment. And what are the consequences? We simply fall further and further behind, the gap grows wider and wider, and our room for manoeuvre – our window of opportunity – gets smaller. What people need to understand is that this … this has direct consequences for European values. We are being challenged because we no longer have the same freedom to choose. We don't develop the technology ourselves; we regulate it. We regulate other people's technology. That's fine, but we need to make sure we do several things at once. We can regulate and set rules for how we want things to work in Europe, and we may not want Meta glasses and that sort of thing, for example, but do we have anything of our own? Are we building anything? The day the Americans, or the US president – whether Trump or someone else – decide they want to switch off language models for us is not beyond the realms of possibility. That's what they did with Fable when it arrived. And then we realise that, to put it simply, we're fucked. We have no alternatives in Europe that can compete with that, so what have we done in the meantime? I think it will be extremely painful in the short term. There is no getting around the fact that we will feel the impact directly. It will be painful, whether that means changing suppliers or effectively living in the Stone Age without these things. It will hurt. But in the longer term, if we at least had alternatives – not just one, but several – to what these technology providers offer, we would be better equipped. So we need to start that process now. As I said, I don't think people accept that Dr Draghi has made the correct diagnosis, or they don't trust his treatment. Alternatively, we simply can't agree that we all need to move in step now, because that in itself is difficult – all the countries in the EU and across Europe more broadly.

Haugli: You also gave an example in the brilliant presentation you gave about some Swedish entrepreneurs who were – who are – perhaps the closest thing we have to tech bros, at least in the Nordics, and who used their public voice by writing an opinion piece. And there are two points to this – you can explain it yourself, of course, but I was certainly inspired by it. First, they embrace European values. They say privacy is important, so we do not want digital development to come at the expense of privacy. But we do want a – what do we call it – level playing field. And the final point is a direct appeal to policymakers: how can we ensure there is not such a wide gap in areas such as access to capital, access to expertise, opportunities for collaboration and so on? There is a great deal that can be done.

Barua: It is, and the EU is working on it. The EU has launched an initiative to align and simplify the legislation. They have realised that the legislation is too complex, as the Draghi report pointed out, and that we face challenges that the Chinese and Americans do not have to deal with, such as complex regulations, cumbersome bureaucracy and unwieldy systems. The Digital Omnibus is an initiative to simplify the AI Act and GDPR, and make these laws and guidelines easier to understand, apply and enforce. And then, as you just mentioned, there are these entrepreneurs from Silicon Valhalla – Sweden, Stockholm ...

Haugli: That's an amusing term, by the way. Silicon Valhalla.

Barua: It is. It’s absolutely brilliant. I want us to trademark it and make it Norwegian before the Swedes realise what we’ve done, and block them – so it should be something that, well – especially after the World Cup and Haaland and all that … just trademark it, make it Norwegian – Silicon Valhalla. Anyway, many voices from Silicon Valhalla are saying that we need to make it easier to comply with European rules. European values are all well and good, but don’t make things so difficult for us.
They’re not dismissing the GDPR; they understand that it’s important, but it doesn’t need to be applied differently from – how shall I put it – one municipality to another and one country to another when, in their case at least, they’re all in the EU. The whole point is to reduce fragmentation and friction, and that hasn’t happened. The EU hasn’t really delivered on its fundamental principle of the free movement of services and goods. It hasn’t achieved that, and this is one of the barriers. So when several of these leading Swedish tech founders write an opinion piece in Sifted – the Financial Times-owned publication – they set out what they need. They need the EU to move faster and take much stronger action, because they’re not happy with the first Digital Omnibus proposal. They’re completely open about what they need and what they want to protect. That stands in stark contrast to how American tech founders operate. Over there, Jensen Huang calls President Trump – and I’m not making this up; it actually happened – and says that two states can’t have different AI regulations, so deregulate both of them; in other words, don’t have any AI regulation. This actually happened, and it led to what’s known as an executive order on ‘woke AI’, as well as the broader deregulation of AI, with the aim of keeping regulation in the US to an absolute minimum because the stated priority is to win the AI race. So he issues lots of executive orders, bypassing the usual channels. That’s what I mean when I say that, yes, it’s a democracy, but a great deal is happening there that is undemocratic, in the hope that they’ll win this tech race. And that’s how those tech bros, those tech oligarchs in the US, operate: they call the president and simply tell him how they want things done. They don’t write opinion pieces or involve the public. They don’t even go through the usual channels, such as the Senate. It just happens through executive orders, including the one on ‘woke AI’. But this is part of the problem we don’t fully understand: in Europe, we actually have it pretty good with these tech founders. They’re open enough to discuss what they want to achieve publicly – in opinion pieces – and appeal to public officials and other stakeholders. That’s admirable. I’d like to see less scepticism towards tech founders and fewer assumptions that they simply want to become wealthy, power-hungry princes. I don’t see that tendency here in Europe. It may well emerge as they accumulate more power and money. I’m not saying it will never happen, but we can’t fear that outcome so much that we miss out on these founders, who are, after all, meant to build leading global companies from Europe.

Haugli: So … stifle today’s innovation because we’re afraid of this frightening image of those oligarchs standing behind Trump at his inauguration. But that’s dangerous, and this whole tech bro issue is an incredibly interesting topic. We need more tech bros of both – or rather, all genders ...

Barua: We need more tech entrepreneurs, so if that is what it takes for people to understand … what I mean is that the sector makes such a significant difference that we need to invest in building it up in Europe.

Haugli: And because it matters for our future value creation and welfare. It affects every one of us. And it must happen within a framework of values that Europe cares about and... but what you are saying, which I really like, is that this is possible. It can be done, but we certainly have work to do to shift up a gear and build momentum.

Host: We will have to wrap up this conversation soon, even though there is so much more we could discuss. But Ishita, if you could change one thing about Norway's innovation policy tomorrow to strengthen competitiveness, what would it be?

Barua: That is an incredibly difficult question, because there are so many things. I would really like to see a Norwegian version of DARPA. Perhaps we could call it NARPA? I want politicians to accept that startups and entrepreneurs can fail, and that taking enormous risks and having enormous ambitions is allowed. I think we are doing a great deal right, but our ambitions are not high enough. We still seem to think it is fine that the Americans are so far ahead of us. We are so comfortable. Could we stop focusing on how comfortable we are and think more about what it will take to keep it that way? We need to realise that now is the time to get hungry. We need to be hungry enough to build companies and develop expertise here at home. And there is one thing I simply cannot understand: we have the financial muscle. I do not understand why we fail to recognise that we have something many other countries envy, whether that is the Government Pension Fund Global or simply the financial strength to support initiatives like these. We have that strength, so we need to decide that this matters enough, because we do not like the alternative: a future in which we depend entirely on American and Chinese technology. We do not want that future, so we need to act now. If we can put money behind some of these initiatives – and we have more than enough of it – I believe it could make a real difference. I do not like saying that, because it sounds as though money solves everything. But in this case, it could solve a great deal. We need to understand the urgency. In a sense, it is already too late, but we can still try. I also think we are well placed to succeed. Our population is highly digitally skilled, and if there is one lesson we can learn from the rise of the internet in the 1990s, it is that success does not necessarily belong only to those who invent the technology. It also belongs to those who adopt it and build business models around it. If we take that lesson on board, we can look at all the tools now becoming available to us, including new technologies such as artificial intelligence, where new models are constantly emerging. Why not make these tools more widely available and explore how we can innovate on top of the technology? We need to work out how to realise the benefits of technology that we may not have developed ourselves, while ensuring that we remain part of what comes next.

Host: I’m not sure there was a particularly simple change to innovation policy in there, but you’re nodding, Håkon?

Haugli: Yes, I think this DARPA idea is brilliant! And what you say about risk is so obviously true. There are also some sobering points here. We – the richest country in the world – have made ourselves too poor to invest in innovation. As a society, we really need to consider how wise that is in the long term. And it is not because we lack the money. We have simply chosen to prioritise other things. So that was my heartfelt concern towards the end there. It was a fascinating conversation. I would encourage all our listeners to read the book. We have it here on the table in front of us now, because it is important: it is about the world we will all be living in going forward. And we need more tech bros.

Host: And it’s not a textbook, …

Barua: That's exactly what it isn't!

Host: … but it is a book that is easy for everyone to read and highly engaging, so we can certainly recommend it. Thank you for joining us, Ishita Barua, and thank you, Håkon Haugli. My name is Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, and we’ll be back with another episode of Innopodden.

Guest: Eirik Hovstein, VP Defence and Security at Maritime Robotics

From Innovation Norway: Håkon Haugli, CEO, and

Host: Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann.

Host: Maritime Robotics in Vanvikan, just outside Trondheim, builds some of the most advanced maritime drones available. Defence organisations, particularly abroad, have taken notice, and 80 to 90 per cent of its production is now exported from Norway. Eirik Hovstein was the second employee to join the company, which his brother Vegard founded in 2005. Hovstein is Vice President, Defence and Security, and to be on the safe side, he has joined Håkon Haugli and me, Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, on Innopodden.

You joined Maritime Robotics just over 20 years ago, when the company was still a brand-new startup. Give us a brief overview of the company’s journey and how you have built it over the years.

Hovstein: Yes, I think we were all entrepreneurs, in a way. We were mostly focused on turning up and having fun at work. Developing new things. We were all very engineering-minded; it was always develop, develop, develop. That was the main thing. But as time goes by, you grow older, start a family and buy a home. You have a mortgage to pay, and then it is not quite so easy to turn up at work and go … two months without pay and things like that – as we sometimes did in the early days. But … then we realised that we actually had to build a business. So we developed more of a commercial mindset and stopped focusing solely on research and development. We began looking at how we could sell services and products and develop the company in a more sustainable direction. Of course, life in the company involved doing a bit of everything. You had to be a salesperson and an engineer, and you had to take care of … well, follow-up and whatever else needed doing. So our working days were varied, covering everything from software and programming to design, electrical work and wiring. You name it. In those first few years, we really were jacks of all trades.

Host: But you've come a long way since then?

Hovstein: We’ve come a great deal further now, and what has happened over the past five years is quite incredible. It’s the sort of thing that makes you pinch yourself every morning when you wake up and wonder, ‘Can this really be true?’ One of my daughters came by my office yesterday to pick up a dog. She arrived right in the middle of lunch and said, ‘You could have told me there were so many people working here …’ So now, all of a sudden, more than 100 people sit down for lunch here every day. It’s wonderful to see, I must say.

Haugli: So, where did the idea itself come from?

Hovstein: Well, when we started Maritime Robotics, we were about as far from maritime as you could get, because we worked with aerial drones, so we were originally called Peregrine Dynamics. Peregrine means peregrine falcon, and Vegard had … came from … had worked for a company in Kongsberg that was developing aerial drones at the time – this was in the early 2000s, you know? – and then he brought that business with him and sold consultancy services related to operating and testing aerial drones. So he travelled around a bit, both in Norway and down in the Emirates, helping other companies with his expertise in aerial drones.

Haugli: That was early?

Hovstein: Yes, well – defence was always ahead of the curve, but now it was all about civilian applications. The oil and gas industry was going to use this technology for exploration – for example, we flew up to Finnmark to look for diamond deposits, or rather a type of rock called kimberlite. So I have some good maps of Finnmark if you bring a pickaxe and shovel. Then we realised that Norway may not be a major aviation nation, but we are a major maritime nation. So we had to shift our focus, and in 2006 we secured a contract with the Research Council of Norway. That was a turning point for us, allowing us to conduct research into what was then called unmanned surface vehicles. It was a three-year project that we began working on. That was when I came into the picture, having just completed my electrical engineering degree at what is now NTNU, but was called HiST at the time, and then we got started.

Haugli: This is what innovation jargon calls pivoting. It almost goes without saying, but it is interesting to start with one thing and then shift focus and do something else. Some believe the only way to create growth is to pivot either your distribution or your product.

Hovstein: Yes, and as I said, there was no money in doing nothing but research and development, so – this may be the wrong choice of words, but I say we engaged in a bit of prostitution – selling our services and expertise to other companies. But our first real breakthrough came when the Gjermundshaug brothers, who were clearing the Hjerkinn firing range, called us and said, ‘Look, we’re operating remote-controlled dump trucks at Hjerkinn.’ They were loading up soil and moving it back. All the embankments and other structures built on the firing range had to be removed so that the area could be restored as a nature reserve – back to its roots. There could be unexploded ordnance in the soil they excavated, so they couldn’t have anyone on board the dump truck that moved the material back and forth. Instead, they controlled it remotely from a sort of cabin using joysticks. It didn’t work particularly well, and the truck would often veer off the road and things like that. So we came in with a GPS guidance system and mounted it on top. That was really the first time … and the great thing about that project was that if the dump truck didn’t start running at half past six in the morning, the phone on my bedside table would start buzzing and jumping around. Then I had to get in the car, drive to Hjerkinn and help them fix it. And we’re talking about 2009, 2010 or 2011 here, right? So, of course, there was no … there was no Starlink, no 4G, none of today’s high-bandwidth connectivity. You couldn’t just log in from your PC. We had to do quite a bit of driving, and many of the challenges involved direct radio communication, for example.

Host: And you have brought all of this experience with you to where you are today, producing marine drones in several models and sizes. The smallest, called The Otter, is around two – or exactly two – metres long, while the largest is nine metres long. Tell us a little more about what they actually look like, how they are operated and what they are used for.

Hovstein: Yes, and again, it’s like this ... when we started out, and sailed an unmanned vessel around Munkholmen, just off Trondheim, for the first time, we thought the world was at our feet, right? Everyone would want something like this! But then you face the reality: what use is a boat sailing around on its own if it doesn’t create value for the customer? That’s the key, isn’t it? All innovation has to create value for someone, whether by becoming part of a larger system, delivering a service or offering a service in a new way. And the real turning point came when Norbit, another Trondheim-based company, launched a new multibeam echo sounder. This is getting quite technical, but it’s an advanced echo sounder that doesn’t just send out a single ping and measure a single depth. Instead, it sends out a fan-shaped beam, allowing you to map a much wider area with far greater accuracy and at high resolution while sailing. Suddenly, that created value for the customer by providing depth data, for example. We then added our technology, which allowed it to operate for hours, almost like a robotic lawnmower, without anyone having to go out on the water with it. By combining two innovations into one and bringing them to market together, we had suddenly created new value. Although we began working very early on with Mariner, our six-metre vessel produced by Helgeland Plast in Mo i Rana, which was our workhorse – we had taken it all over the world, airfreighted it to Australia, used it for seismic surveys and carried out more traditional and logistical tasks – Otter then arrived at a different price point. It is only two metres long and somewhat easier to mass-produce. Combining it with the echo sounder created value, so it became our bread and butter. That was important in helping us generate revenue and get systems out into the market. Otter is our smallest vessel: a two-metre-long, fully electric catamaran. It now has a bigger sibling called Otter X. It is 4.5 metres long, also has a catamaran hull, can carry a larger and heavier payload, and can operate beyond the harbour wall rather than mainly inside it. Then we have Mariner and Mariner X, which probably look the most like conventional vessels, with traditional hulls. They are six and nine metres long and are made from polyethylene, a very robust and durable plastic. We can see that now that we have sent several vessels to Antarctica, where we are working with Aker Krill to make its fishing operations more sustainable and cleaner. The plastic is extremely strong and withstands the conditions there well. We also need to consider that in the Arctic and in my field of defence and security. We need systems that can cope with our conditions. We are currently learning a great deal from Ukraine, but the Norwegian coast, particularly in the north, has a different climate and different weather conditions. That is a niche where we have also been able to apply our industrial experience.

Haugli: Could you tell us a little about the business model here – do you sell this equipment, or do you sell a service and own these vessels yourselves? How does it work?

Hovstein: Yes, we’ve discussed that at length. What should we be? We’ve ultimately settled on a model where we sell the systems – in other words, we sell a solution. And we’re happy to work with our customers and help them get started. Many people say, ‘Yes, but there’s more money in providing services.’ That may be true, but we had to decide whether selling to customers while also providing services would make us a competitor to our own customers. So we had to find the right model. And, of course, operating as a service provider is very capital-intensive. You have to build a large number of vessels and expect to recoup the cost over several years. Once they’re paid off, there may be good money to be made. But we haven’t been in a position to do that – things are a little different today – so we’ve settled on a model where we’re essentially a product supplier. I should also mention that, in addition to our turnkey solutions – where we build the entire marine drone, including sensors, integration and everything else – we also supply our standalone autonomy system, comprising hardware and software that enables remote vessel operation, to third-party vessels and shipyards. For example, Deep Ocean recently achieved something remarkable in Haugesund, where they built a 24-metre intervention vessel that can easily be deployed on the Norwegian continental shelf and carries an ROV that can be launched and recovered. This doesn’t replace the 110- and 150-metre offshore vessels operating out there, but it certainly provides a useful supplement, doesn’t it? Those vessels use significantly more fuel and require a large crew on board to operate them. So if you look at CAPEX – the investment – this vessel may cost only 15–20 per cent as much to build as the large ships. And when it comes to OPEX, the costs are even lower, both in terms of fuel consumption and the number of personnel required on board.

Host: And that’s a very exciting example of how we use this type of vessel. But could you give us a few more examples of how your customers in particular use your vessels?

Hovstein: Yes, defence and security, and that has been … that has really been the major turning point for Maritime Robotics. Back in 2023, perhaps 20–30 per cent of our revenue came from defence and security. Now it is the other way round, with 70–80 per cent coming from defence and security. One area where we now provide a great deal of support to the defence industry – and something we are very proud of – is minehunting and tackling underwater threats in the Black Sea off Ukraine. We got involved early on. Our first vessels were in place in 2023, and we are very proud to support Ukraine by locating objects that drift into the area or are deployed there by other means. In 2025, we detected more than 70 different underwater objects using our technology. I should add that it involves a combination of technologies: we supply the vessel, while other companies provide the sensors. These might be Kongsberg Gruppen, Teledyne or Norbit, for example. Many companies supply different types of sensors that we use for minehunting.

Host: But then it is only a matter of – or ‘only’ – finding these objects, not neutralising or removing them?

Hovstein: That's right. So that's the next step. And this is particularly interesting now because we have … we have three mottos, as I say, at Maritime Robotics: Innovate, Enable and Deliver – those are our values. But I also have three of my own: collaboration, collaboration, collaboration. Because what I see is that we've been a small player. To move forward, we need to draw on others … I've already mentioned some of the things we use, such as sensors and similar technology. We need to combine them. But the future, particularly in defence and security, lies in what are known as multi-domain operations. In other words, you need to operate on land, in the air, at sea and below the surface. We've also found strong partners in the Trondheim technology community, and we work very closely with Eelume and Blue Eye Robotics, among others, both well-known players in underwater robotics. Our vessels can go out and locate objects, and if the water is deep and it's difficult to see exactly what they are, we can deploy an underwater vehicle from our vessel. It can dive down and collect higher-resolution data. If we determine that the object needs to be neutralised, we send down Blue Eye drones to place a charge on it so that it can be destroyed.

Haugli: Could you … yes, because this is really interesting: Trondheimsfjord is a testbed for autonomous operations. It’s very exciting, and … could you tell us a little about how you work with the other organisations here – the cluster, if I can call it that – and what it has meant for you?

Hovstein: Yes, I think it has been absolutely crucial. Obviously, there are many players here, but as long as we stick to the mantra that we collaborate when we can and compete when we must, that is entirely healthy. A degree of competition is good for market dynamics and everything else. It keeps us on our toes and pushes us to reach the next level. But because we are so good at collaborating, we can also ask why we should compete so much. Instead, we find a way to divide the work between us: you take your piece of the pie, I take mine, and together we reach the next level. As I said, we have been international from day one, so we are not trying to win a Norwegian, Trøndelag or Trondheim championship. We are aiming to win the world championship. To do that, we need to combine the best technology from every supplier into one large, integrated solution. I genuinely believe that. At least, from my experience of supporting much of what is happening in Ukraine, we can see that none of the companies operating there today started out as large companies. They were small garage-based businesses that have now grown into giants in that field. So if you bring together small, highly specialised technology companies and combine their expertise successfully, I am certain you will get not only what may be the most technologically advanced solutions, but also the most cost-effective ones. These are not huge, unwieldy systems developed through ten years of research in one major research project. Instead, each individual company has built up ten years of research while also running a business and proving that it is sustainable. This means you can bring everything together into one integrated solution. So I think it has been absolutely crucial that we—and I should say that Maritime Robotics, if I may boast a little—have been a driving force. We have genuinely been at the forefront of establishing both Ocean Autonomy Cluster and what began as Base Ørland, then became MIDSEC and is now NORDSEC. We have been involved throughout, helping to drive these clusters, serving on the steering committee and playing an active role. Many people ask me, ‘Should I join?’ And I tell them, ‘You can join as many clusters as you like, but if you are not an active member, you will get nothing out of it.’ It is not simply a matter of paying a membership fee and receiving something in return. You have to make active use of your membership. My mantra when joining new clusters is always that, whether it is the membership fee or any other contribution we make, we should multiply that investment and get more out of our collaboration or involvement in the cluster than we put into it.

A message from Innovation Norway: Sorry, I know this is a podcast, not a sales meeting, but I just have to say one thing: My name is Christophe, and I work for Innovation Norway in France. We help Norwegian companies find the right partners to enter the market. Fewer missteps, more progress. Book a meeting with us at innovasjonnorge.no/kontakt

Haugli: Just tell us a little about the company. So, you went from being two brothers and a friend, is that right? And you went for a few months without pay and so on, and now you have 100 employees eating lunch together …

Hovstein: Yes, 150, actually!

Haugli: 150, in fact. That really is an exceptional growth story. Tell us a little about some of the key turning points for you. When did you realise this was going to be a real success?

Hovstein: Oh, I've thought that many times, actually. First of all, I don't think any of us has ever really been motivated by money, and we still aren't. That's not what it's about. Building a company and seeing 150 people sitting down to lunch – those are the things that give me goosebumps. I have friends now who can afford to put up a new garage or extend their homes, and we're helping to create jobs and contribute in that way. That's what motivates me. And, of course, there's also an engineering and technology drive behind it: we're constantly pushing the boundaries. We're doing things today that no one else in the world is doing. So that gives us a tremendous boost as well. But if we're talking about key turning points, there was a lot of trial and error, and we've tried many different things. We've operated in the air, on water and on land. We've used eleven-cubic-metre helium balloons fitted with camera systems for oil-spill response. We've done a great many different things, so it's been quite a journey. Then, in 2022–23, we decided to put the aerial domain to one side and focus solely on the maritime domain. That was probably a turning point for us, because it allowed us to really move forward. In 2020, we had around 25 employees, so most of our growth has come since then. We hired 47 people in 2005 – no, 2025, I mean. So the really significant growth has happened recently. And, of course, something changed in February 2022, when Russia chose to attack Ukraine and we saw how a nation without a navy could nevertheless maintain control of its territorial waters. Then things really took off, and it has since become the world's first drone war, with extensive drone activity in the air, at sea and on land – across every domain – driving the war forward. So I don't think we can say, ‘This happened, and then we went in that direction.’ I did feel that something special happened then, but... No, I don't think it was any one particular event. At the same time, if you removed any one event, things might have looked completely different. I compare it to supplying Trondheim's entire population with water from Jonsvatnet. It isn't one particular major junction outside Trondheim that makes the water flow to Lade or somewhere else. It's the combination of all the connections and all the branches in the pipes that keeps everything moving. We've probably also spread ourselves very widely, so part of our focus now is learning to say no and not pursuing every opportunity.

Host: But that certainly makes you a successful company. What do you think has been the biggest challenge along the way as you’ve built the company?

Hovstein: Well, perhaps – without really having thought about it that much – that is partly why we brought in investment capital now: to have access to capital. Capital, whether you like it or not, is crucial if you want to make larger investments. It allows us to sharpen our focus and grow into a bigger player, and we can see that this has been absolutely essential. We have gone from being a small garage company that seized opportunities as they arose and hovered just above break-even or around zero, to spending significantly more on developing new products that will be launched either this year or in the years ahead. That requires a different level of capital commitment. So that has been part of our development. Håkon and I have discussed this many times before, but I think the grants that Innovation Norway offers to help companies get started are excellent. But we lack the support system needed to take a product from prototype to industrialisation. That is a very capital-intensive stage, and the difficult part is making the transition to a commercial, operational, recurring business, as we say in Nynorsk.

Host: But you've recently raised NOK 310 million in fresh capital, which is no small sum. Has it been difficult to secure the funding?

Hovstein: Well, we ... in 2024, I think we raised NOK 130 million, and that was based on a five-year plan, so it wasn't that we urgently needed the new funding. It wasn't because we'd used up the money, but because we could see that our growth trajectory could become steeper. The growth and the five-year plan we'd mapped out were no longer ambitious enough. We had to be bolder – we have even greater opportunities ahead of us. And there's a saying that when you have the opportunity, you should probably raise the money. We have many good friends who offer advice from time to time, and we started exploring the possibility. We realised that the time was right to bring in some larger partners who had previously helped scale companies from our size into multibillion-krone businesses. We thought it would be valuable to have them on board at this stage. So yes, people congratulate you on raising NOK 310 million and think everything will be easy now. It won't. The pressure goes up three notches – one for every NOK 100 million. This is clearly a whole new reality for us, and we really need to step up our game. It reminds me of a neighbour who said, 'Remember, lads, you've been promoted to the top division now, so don't forget to enjoy yourselves too.' We're still having a fantastic time at work, and we intend to keep it that way, but things are becoming more serious because the sums involved are so much larger, and the investments and strategic choices we have to make are much bigger.

Host: This question is really for both of you, but first to you, Håkon: Maritime Robotics has received around NOK 28 million in funding from Innovation Norway, of which NOK 3 million is a loan. Why should we support a company like this?

Haugli: Because it creates the kind of growth we see here. I mean, they are from a … if we look at it from a socio-economic perspective, then they … the support we have provided has generated value that is worth far, far more. We also have to ask ourselves: was our support instrumental? Could this have happened without it? If the answer is yes, then providing that support is not the right thing to do.

Host: We’ll hear more about that later.

Haugli: Yes, but if the answer is no – it would not have happened anyway – then it is a very good investment for Norway. That is the very foundation of our schemes. The support must be instrumental in making the project happen. We ask companies whether it would have been carried out at the same pace, on the same scale, or at all without the support. I think this is important to understand. Why do we do this? As an organisation, we at Innovation Norway support many companies that do not succeed. And that is precisely the point: we take a portfolio approach. One company – Maritime Robotics, for example – creates value many, many times greater than the support we have provided. This means we can also support – take a chance on – four other companies that may not succeed. But at the outset, it is impossible to say which companies will succeed and which will not. That is why this is important for Norway, particularly as we transition. The Norwegian economy must undergo a transition, and we need many new companies. We have some natural advantages to build on, and the maritime sector is an excellent example. We also need technology companies and centres of expertise to take this forward. So I stand firmly behind the support we have given Maritime Robotics, as well as the companies we have backed that have not succeeded. It is important to remember that too.

Host: Exactly. Eirik, has the support from Innovation Norway been crucial?

Hovstein: Yes, it has been absolutely crucial. That is perfectly clear, and I could not agree more with what Håkon said. That is exactly why. So, as I was preparing for today, I thought I should do a quick calculation. Looking back from 2020 to today, Maritime Robotics has paid NOK 200 million back to Norway through taxes, employers’ National Insurance contributions and the like. Investing those NOK 28 million was a very good investment for Norway, and NOK 3 million of that was a loan, which we have repaid – hopefully to you – so it has been a phenomenal investment. Yes, that makes it a good investment, but it is also a good investment because of what Håkon said: we must be willing to get it wrong. You must be the ones who are prepared to take a chance, because if, as Håkon says, we knew that something would succeed and deliver sky-high growth, you would go to an investor, wouldn’t you? Innovation Norway should take the risk on ventures where we can say, ‘OK, this is a good idea.’ I am not saying you should hand out money indiscriminately – not at all. There is a proper process to go through, but based on the information available today, this could have potential. Whether it will succeed is uncertain. It is difficult to know, but that risk capital is absolutely crucial, because we certainly do not have enough of it in Norway. Nor, as I said, do we have enough risk capital to support the next stage of industrialisation. But there is no doubt that Innovation Norway has helped us through direct funding instruments and support, as well as through cluster funding and other programmes.

Haugli: Well, it is very kind of you to say that. And yes, I completely agree with you that the phase you have perhaps been in recently – or are still in – the growth phase, is a real challenge for Norway. We see many strong startups ... or first of all, we see a large number of startups, and they are good too. There is a whole wave of technology companies emerging now. At the moment, we are naturally seeing a wave of AI-based companies, and they are of a high quality. What happens is ... many of them grow to a certain level, perhaps ten or 20 employees, and then growth levels off or they go under. And Norway is not alone in this. It is a European phenomenon. Draghi writes in his report that, if I remember correctly, 40 per cent of all European startups relocate to the US at some point because that is where they can access venture capital ...

Hovstein: … a completely different risk profile …

Haugli: … a completely different willingness and capacity to take on risk. So this is something we need to address across Norway’s business ecosystem. No one can solve this alone, but we must improve Norwegian companies’ access to risk capital. This is also why Norway does not perform better in international comparisons of innovation capacity. It comes down to access to risk capital, and you are absolutely right – having world-class expertise, or even customers willing to pay, is not enough if no one is prepared to take the risk required for the company’s next stage of development.

Hovstein: Exactly, and then … because – I don't want to get too political about all this – but it doesn't help to pursue policies that lead those with the greatest financial resources in Norway to move abroad and relocate to Switzerland. So, without reading anything more into it.

Host: We won't delve too deeply into politics, but what is the next – shall we say – big step for Maritime Robotics?

Hovstein: Well, we have … you touched on … we have always ... as I say: when I get up in the morning, I feel more optimistic about the future than perhaps ever before. We have … I think we … yesterday was one of those really good days. I think we secured eight boat sales – suddenly, the orders just come pouring in, and yes, that is very, very encouraging. We are seeing great success, including in the US, where things are suddenly beginning to grow quite considerably. We are doing well across many different projects in the defence sector, and for us, it is – again, not necessarily what you see in the bottom line or the top line that matters most – but being able to use our state-of-the-art technology to help keep our fellow citizens and other allies safe every day. We can deliver systems that monitor, protect and ensure our waters are safe to navigate, and that Norway's assets along the coast – including oil, gas, fisheries and more – are safe and secure. So that is what comes next. We will be introducing new types of maritime drones, and I am certain that, before long, we will see new partnerships emerge that will make Norway sit up and take notice and think, ‘This is something we believe in.’ So, we have moved into a new league, and we are finding new partners who are very exciting to work with. That is what I am looking forward to: more collaboration.

Haugli: And along the way, you create hundreds of jobs, giving people exciting challenges and the opportunity to support themselves, while sustaining thriving local communities and contributing to a more diverse Norwegian business sector.

Hovstein: Yes, and that is perhaps the greatest joy of all. In connection with our fundraising round, we also gave employees the opportunity to invest. We can see that well over 70 per cent – almost 80 per cent – have chosen to take part, which shows that they intend to continue their journey with Maritime Robotics. They enjoy their workplace. They find their day-to-day work interesting, exciting and worthwhile, and that has always been my mantra. After all, most days are working days, so we need to spend them doing something we enjoy.

Host: Yes, that fits very well – we also do something we enjoy. We have to wrap up now. Thank you for joining us, Eirik Hovstein from Maritime Robotics, and thank you, Håkon Haugli. My name is Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, and we’ll be back with another episode of Innopodden.

Guest: Olav Chen, Head of Allocation and Global Fixed Income at Storebrand

From Innovation Norway: Håkon Haugli, CEO, and
Host: Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann

Host: Hardly a day goes by without Olav Chen analysing some more or less comprehensible phenomenon in finance, property, shares or markets for us. The Storebrand veteran seems to be everywhere, including here at Arendalsuka, and has an opinion on most things. We hope to hear his views on innovation, access to capital for scaleups and collaboration between public and private sector organisations – and much more. Håkon Haugli and I, Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, have taken Olav Chen aside during a break in the action here in Arendal.

Welcome to Innopodden, live from Arendalsuka.

Chen: Thank you, thank you!

Host: You joined Storebrand as a corporate trainee 25 years ago and have stayed there ever since. You now hold the title Head of Allocation and Global Fixed Income, or ‘leder for allokering og globale renter’, as it is apparently called in Norwegian. Could you start by telling us a little about what the role involves?

Chen: Yes. Allocation means distributing or allocating savings or investments across what we call asset classes. An asset class can be equities – a type of investment – or bonds, in other words fixed-income investments. It can also be property, but our focus is on equities and fixed income. Take Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, for example, which has 70 per cent in equities and 30 per cent in fixed-income investments. What perhaps makes my job a little more exciting is that I can vary the proportion invested in equities much more widely. Using the sovereign wealth fund’s 70 per cent again as an example, I can increase the allocation to 90 per cent equities if I am very positive about the outlook for the global economy, or reduce it to 50 per cent if I believe a downturn is imminent and equities are set to fall. That is what I spend a great deal of time on, and virtually everything comes into play. I also head the team responsible for global bonds – those who invest in US government bonds and US corporate bonds, lending money to Apple, for example. So that is also part of my remit. Overall, I am responsible for around NOK 300 billion across Norwegian and Swedish mandates.

Haugli: That's a lot of money!

Host: That is a lot of money, yes!

Chen: That is quite a lot of money. In fact, I would guess – I cannot remember exactly how much Storebrand has – but it is probably around 20–30 per cent of the capital Storebrand has invested.

Haugli: And right now, what do you think … What proportion is invested in equities, and what are your thoughts on the global market at the moment?

Chen: Good question. If you look at it on a scale of 70 to 90 – or 50, for that matter – we are probably at around 78. So we would describe ourselves as moderately optimistic. We are not concerned about an immediate correction or downturn, because if we were, we would probably be below 70. That said, our investment horizon is actually quite short. For many, it is very short; we used to say three to six months, but with Trump, we now say one to six months because we need to adjust and keep track of everything he says and does. So we have shortened it – for the first time in my 25-year career, we have adjusted our horizon slightly so that we can respond to news about Donald Trump.

Host: But you said that you essentially look at everything? Even so, could you give us some indication of what you focus on most?

Chen: We are very much what we call macro-oriented. So we … we track all the macroeconomic data released by the various statistical agencies around the world. We have been fairly advanced in – I would not call it AI – processing data, and we also follow the economic cycle. But increasingly over the past ten years, we have had to adapt to more thematic factors, such as Trump. And, since the financial crisis, to central banks and how they act. But we monitor the global economy, unemployment, GDP growth, inflation and interest-rate policy – everything plays a part. So, put very simply: as long as the economy is doing well, we are – call it overweight in equities – whereas if we see risks to economic growth, we are a little more cautious. There is a great deal of talk now about AI investment, which has clearly contributed to gains in the stock markets. And this year, events such as the invasion of Iran and movements in the oil price have made it particularly important for us to be active. What really made the year for us was buying shares. We lost a lot of money in March – perhaps several hundred million, maybe even billions, given the size of our portfolio. But we held our nerve and bought shares at the end of March, benefiting from the gains in April and May. We then reduced our exposure slightly and took some profits, as I would put it, in early summer, because this has been our best year since the pandemic. In fact, the pandemic year was the best of my 25-year career, so … this year has been the second best.

Haugli: Could we talk a little about AI? Some of the world’s largest companies are AI-driven and have seen tremendous growth, and there have also been new stock market listings. Some people believe this is hype and that investors have gone in too heavily. What’s your view?

Chen: That’s a very good question. It’s probably the question I’ve been asked most often over the past few months and quarters, including at Arendalsuka. We’re not immediately concerned about it, but I do think it’s a race, of course. It’s also – call it – winner takes all, so not everyone will make money. Some will scale up and make money, but we don’t yet know which ones. So, in many ways, with index management, all fund managers have an index or buy list they need to follow. We can be overweight or underweight in SpaceX or …

Haugli: … Anthropic …

Chen: Anthropic … Anthropic is expected to go public this autumn. But then there’s Microsoft or Apple, right – the Magnificent Seven, all of which are investing in AI. We can’t stay out of it entirely, so we always have a benchmark index. I was actually more concerned six to nine months ago, when valuations – which many people focus on – were even higher. That said, they have delivered returns or earnings much sooner than expected. Google has now reported earnings for two quarters. The investment is already paying off in cloud storage and so on. I tend to focus on the macro picture rather than individual companies, but they are so large that I keep an eye on them, and they are making money. As long as they are making money, they can, in a sense, justify their high valuations. But in the long run, I think some will lose money. I don’t know who. And as an economist, the big question is whether all the investments being made now – billions – will lead to greater productivity or more innovation. Or … I don’t know how you use AI, but at Storebrand, too, we’re not fumbling in the dark, but we are still exploring what to adopt and where to use AI. Eventually, though, the bill for tokens and services will come due. Management will then ask: how much more productive are we, how much more innovative are we, and how much better are our products, really? We’re not there yet, but I think that question will arise at some point.

Haugli: This is a really interesting issue. We speak to many companies every day, and our own experience is that, for now, the costs of AI outweigh the productivity gains. I think that is quite common. Our approach – and I think many others take the same approach – has been to let a thousand flowers bloom, with a great deal of bottom-up AI development. We give people access to different software and see what emerges. But we have realised that this is not enough. We also need some top-down AI projects – more traditional IT projects where productivity measurement is built in from the outset. For example, it is not enough to leave it to a random employee – and I do not mean that disparagingly. If you consider a chatbot that will represent Innovation Norway externally, for instance, that is actually a strategic project for the organisation. So … but when do you think we will get there? Or will we ever reach the point where we realise the benefits …?

Chen: I think it is already well under way. For example, I know that Storebrand has doubled its budget for the cost of tokens. Tokens are essentially what you pay to use AI – you could call them units of cognitive or processing capacity – so we are already seeing this in practice. I have a very quantitatively minded employee who programmes, or used to programme, but now he uses AI to write code. And that uses tokens. So management is already asking: Where are we seeing the impact? Should we be reducing headcount? Or are we producing better products? I think we will see the answer fairly soon, within the next 12 months. I do not know what it is like for you, but in our industry something changed with Claude from Anthropic. Before that, there was a lot of talk about LLMs, and it all felt rather vague. But now we are increasingly seeing portfolio managers use them, and it is clearly making them more efficient. Take me, for example: I do not have time to read every analysis and report, even though I need to. So we now send the analyses to a database and use AI to summarise them. But it is far too early to say whether that has made us better at taking positions, as we call it, or generating higher returns. It may have made us faster, and the quality has improved. But I also think it is very difficult to measure.

Host: Yes, and that was my question: how will you measure it? Can you do that?

Chen: We … it’s incredibly difficult, isn’t it? One thing is that it may make my working day a little easier and more structured, but it hasn’t necessarily made the decisions themselves that different. That’s difficult to measure, isn’t it? I think … but at some point, I think it will come, as you ... I also think – from what I’ve heard, senior management is already asking when we’ll see the returns on our investments. But for now, as you say, it’s ‘full steam ahead’. Like everyone else, we’re worried that if we don’t invest, we might fall behind. We’re doubling the budget now, but that’s a sign that the economy is doing well. So I imagine that if there were an economic downturn, priorities could shift quickly: Do you really need that many tokens or those AI models?

Haugli: It’s interesting – when the internet arrived ... it was also very difficult to see the productivity gains in the statistics, yet we have all experienced for ourselves that it has made us more productive. We can do our banking from home in the middle of the night instead of having to visit a branch during opening hours, and so on. So it’s partly about measurement and how you measure things. Some things can be measured …

Chen: You can see it … I mean, just take checking in this summer, right? They’ve clearly reduced the number of … or the staff who handle check-in for you, at least with Norwegian. You scan your own suitcase and do all that sort of thing yourself.

Haugli: We call this role innovation, to introduce a term. It’s when you take over what a bank employee used to do and do it yourself. Or when you scan your own luggage. These are new roles that I believe AI will completely transform.

Chen: But I think ... I actually still think flying is too cheap, but removing those costs has probably helped ... and kept airfares low, you see – because, in my view, airfares haven't risen that much, despite petrol – or sorry, oil prices – being high, and we've managed to keep them at a reasonable level.

Haugli: Something we touched on briefly before we started recording was Europe versus the US and China, and AI could be one way into that discussion. But how concerned are you on Europe’s behalf?

Chen: I am quite concerned. I was in China in May, just after the summit between Trump and Xi. My impression was that it had been a good meeting, with pragmatic cooperation in a sense, but also a balance of terror around rare earth elements and related issues. There was clearly a strong focus on AI in China, but in a slightly different way. In the US, there is a great deal of focus on the Magnificent Seven, isn't there? Microsoft, Anthropic, software, Claude and all those things. In China, however, AI has been integrated and adopted to a much greater extent in electric vehicles, robots and, say, vacuum cleaners and similar products – practical applications such as drones. So there will probably be some differences, but there is clearly a great deal of focus and investment. My concern for Europe is that, while much of what I have discussed relates to AI, geopolitics continues to dominate the agenda. The landscape has changed, not only between Ukraine, Russia and China, but also in terms of the US as a security guarantor. Europe now has to step up and foot a much larger share of the bill – which is exactly what Trump wants Europe to do. But that means taking money from somewhere else – as every economist knows – at least if you want to balance the books. Otherwise, you overspend and end up in a debt trap. There is little doubt that Europe's money is going towards defence and related infrastructure. In some places, AI will not receive the same level of priority. Unfortunately, that concerns me. And we all probably have the Draghi report at the back of our minds: everyone has heard of it, but no one has read the entire report, have they? Perhaps it is a bit like Bech Holte: everyone has heard of Bech Holte's book, but no one has read it – or at least I haven't read it either. The point is that everyone recognises the bureaucracy and lack of innovation in Europe. And I think Norway will inevitably be part of that sphere. ReArm Europe – or rearmament, as I call it – will cost money and take time. So unfortunately, I am concerned about innovation and increased productivity, and about the Draghi report's warning that the focus remains on building up what we might call defence.

Haugli: Yes, and when it comes to Norway, we may be even further behind – at the back of the bus, so to speak. We face exactly the same challenges as Europe, and perhaps even more. In addition – I don't know how you see it – we are also excluded from some of the initiatives Europe is now pursuing, and we are feeling the effects of not being part of the customs union, for example. When we work with exports, this is a major concern because protectionist measures are now being introduced. Tariffs are only one part of it – there is Buy American, Buy European, subsidies, and requirements in specific technology areas governing exactly where products must be manufactured, and so on. Taken together, we seem to be moving in a completely different trade policy direction from before. Norway is part of the single market. This means that trade with EU countries is regulated, but trade between Norway and other countries is not. What do you think? I'm not trying to draw you into a debate about EU membership, but it does give us pause for thought.

Chen: Yes, I’m surprised that this debate hasn’t gained more traction, if you see what I mean. Even here in Arendal, no one has... But that has also been part of the backdrop here. Things are going well in Norway – Norway is a wealthy country, right? We’ve just seen the sovereign wealth fund deliver its best-ever results. People don’t have what I call a sense of urgency, at least not in Norway. Yes, there is a lot of concern about the geopolitical situation, but I think we’ve grown too comfortable. I would also say there is a lack of politicians who are more... let’s call them visionary, who think further ahead. Because I think anyone who looks at the bigger picture can see that Europe needs to come together sooner rather than later, right? And Norway is part of that sphere, so we can’t back every horse. That’s what Norway has tried to do and, how should I put it... has benefited from: remaining outside while still enjoying the benefits of the EEA. But I think... I wouldn’t necessarily say I’m pro-EU. But if you look at the bigger picture, I find it strange that this debate isn’t higher on the agenda. I mean, here at Arendalsuka, why hasn’t anyone taken up the challenge? We’re criticised for it being a bit of a talking shop, and perhaps it is, when politicians don’t dare or don’t want to address this. The only person I’ve heard – without wanting to put words in his mouth – is Barth Eide, who has more or less implied this very point between the lines. But politicians don’t want to touch it, do they? Whether they’re cowards or not, perhaps that’s for you to decide – though I don’t know whether you’re allowed to...

Haugli: No, we don't have a position on that …

Chen: I can pretty much speak freely about what I think, but I do find it strange that the EU debate is not higher on the agenda. I don't know whether that's because people don't understand it, but they wouldn't have to adopt the euro either. The EU and the euro are actually two very different things, although people may conflate them, you know, and it becomes ... it has become politically contentious too. And adopting the euro would mean that interest rates would be the same as in the eurozone. But that isn't a prerequisite for joining the EU either, so … the fact that there isn't more discussion about the EU is very strange.

Haugli: Well, we do not have a position on Norwegian EU membership, just to be absolutely clear, but what we can share is what businesses are telling us. And right now, yes, they are concerned. So we are back where we started, in a way, but things are happening now … Different industries and businesses face very different challenges. What is happening in the US is one thing, but that is prompting countermeasures from the EU. We have probably only seen the beginning. This makes it crucial for Norway to be included. For example, when the Buy European initiative is introduced, it is important that Norway is considered European. For certain niche sectors, this is particularly important. At the same time, the EU is highly dependent on Norway for energy, minerals and advanced technology, so I believe there is a willingness to find solutions. But we have to recognise that we are not at the top of the EU's agenda.

Chen: No, no, I know, and I think … I’m slightly concerned that it’s a bit of a bury-your-head-in-the-sand mentality. That people hope it will pass, that they’ll be somewhat forgotten, or something like that. And that was really the case during the trade war too, wasn’t it? … Now, suddenly, the justification is, what do you call it, labour … what is it … forced labour? That’s the argument now. It’s quite incredible. It went from looking at different countries’ trade balances, right? But now forced labour is the argument for those tariffs. The arguments just keep changing, because it’s being – what do you call it – struck down by the US Supreme Court. So it’s the same thing, just with a different justification.

Haugli: Yes, it’s like, ‘the answer is, the answer is more tariffs; now we need to find a justification.’

Chen: And what we are also seeing in the trade war is that Trump is a transactional man who respects power. China has essentially chosen the right strategy: meeting force with force. Europe, on the other hand, has got it wrong, wagging its tail and simply getting the whip in return … and I mean that seriously. It has pursued completely the wrong strategy. At the same time, though, it must be said that Europe has also been dealt a poor hand. Trump has mixed all the cards together, because we know that we depend on the US from a security policy perspective – in other words, through NATO – but he mixes everything together, doesn't he? So Europe has been dealt a poor hand, but at the same time it has simply wagged its tail at Trump. Norway has followed the same strategy, more or less just hoping that it will all blow over or pass.

Haugli: Just to go back briefly to something you said. You mentioned Martin Bech Holte’s book, ‘The Country That Became Too Rich’, which you haven’t read – and, actually, neither have I. But from what I gathered from the public debate, he argues that Norway’s oil wealth means we are not taking the necessary steps, and that low productivity is perhaps at the heart of the issue. What do you think – have we become too rich?

Chen: I think we have … it’s … I don’t think it’s an either-or question. I think it’s a matter of degree. Put bluntly, I think his point is partly about what we call Dutch disease. If a country discovers a natural resource, it can end up spending the money badly, leading to inflation and lower productivity or a slower pace of innovation, and so on. I think … I mean, we can see signs of that, and I think it’s a great shame that the debate has become so polarised. He has been – call it challenged or criticised, or whatever the word is – caught out on a number of technical errors. And that’s a shame too. I’ve said this – I think I’ve said it before – but it’s also a shame that both sides are simply digging in. He really should have taken on board the criticism from the research community, about being more selective … I wouldn’t say selective … I haven’t read the book; I’ve only heard accounts from people I consider respected economists. They’ve identified factual errors, selectively chosen periods and things like that. If he had engaged with those points a little more, I think it would have helped keep the debate going. There’s now another book – again, one I haven’t read – by Øystein Olsen and … who is it he wrote it with? I can’t remember, but it’s a response. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to read all those books and everything else. But I think it’s good that we keep the debate alive and prevent it from becoming so polarised. Because, on the one hand, I also agree that they go a little too far and talk Norway down too much. I mean … take Svein Gjedrem, for example. He’s involved with … South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, I think, or something like that. We spend a lot on public healthcare, but I also think that, statistically, we rank quite highly in terms of people recovering from cancer, right? Diagnostic imaging, right? All of that – those things cost money – but again, it comes down to measurement: how do you measure both AI and how the money is spent? But some things can actually be measured. Life expectancy in Norway is – I think – high and has risen, and the number of people surviving cancer is … well, that’s probably the result of the good equipment we have. At the same time, clearly … I have a mother with dementia. Dealing with the public sector is also incredibly difficult, right? The local district, the case officers there … you know, it’s … I’ve used another example where people working in the care sector have been praised for producing attractive PowerPoint presentations. But they shouldn’t be making PowerPoint presentations! They should be providing a service, right? Whether that’s for schools, nurseries or my parents. There are too many middle managers. So I think – without having … all the facts in place – I’m prepared to say that, based purely on my experience of the public sector. And that’s what we struggle with in Norway, which I also think … I call it the petty-king mentality. There are far too many petty kings. And we’re here in the cradle of democracy – I was about to say, Arendalsuka, democracy – but there is also a cost to being too democratic, in the sense that every petty king has to be heard in a consultation or whenever you’re trying to get something done. I think Norway needs to address that, and I also believe it’s a symptom of having too much money. We don’t need to put our house in order, right? And we can see the result of that. So yes, there are signs of it.
I think parts of the – so to speak – Bech Holte camp have painted an overly bleak picture of Norway. I believe we’re seeing degrees of Dutch disease, and I think it’s a great shame that the debate has become so polarised. This is a very important discussion. What I’ve said is that – I’m a social economist, not a business economist; I’m a social economist – many of those who strongly support Martin Bech Holte are business economists. They think only in terms of maximising profit. I look at society as a whole. What we don’t like is wasting money; economists don’t like money being wasted. That’s the point. But in a way, although it isn’t rational, it’s acceptable that we have a great many people on disability benefits, because the money has to trickle down … I mean, the money should benefit everyone in some way. But as an economist, the thing I hate most is seeing people waste money, right? But I was on a completely different podcast with Jenny Huse, and she talked about universal basic income. That’s another thing worth discussing …

Haugli: Yes, universal basic income …

Chen: … something akin to universal basic income, but we actually have a kind of universal basic income in Norway. It is essentially what people on disability benefits receive, isn't it? Or through Nav. That's what it is. A sort of ... if I put it in – podcast listeners can't see this – quotation marks, but I would argue that it is a form of universal basic income. But what people really hate is waste. And then there is the fact that – I am a little biased here – Storebrand provides disability pensions. As you said, I started as a corporate trainee. My first placement actually involved looking at the proportion of people claiming disability benefits among those who take out private disability insurance, and it is worrying. The trend among young people in particular is very concerning, with more and more younger people becoming permanently unable to work. Once you have been given that label, you receive a disability pension for the rest of your life, and I think … that has a direct impact on our productivity as a nation and all those things. And labour is our most important resource. Forget the Government Pension Fund! You know, oil ... I can't remember now, but there was a time when you could say, OK, the fund is equivalent to ... everyone could stop working for a year, but now it is probably five years, in terms of how much you would draw from the fund. But work is about much more than that too, isn't it? I don't think it is good to simply be unable to work and do nothing; you also need a sense of purpose in your day. I think it is important to get young people into work and help them find purpose in their jobs, if you see what I mean.

Haugli: Good for – yes, good for the individual, but also very important for society.

Chen: Yes, absolutely.

Haugli: When we ask businesses what the biggest obstacle to their growth and development is, they say access to people or labour, and expertise. Norway is heading towards a very challenging situation, with fewer and fewer people in work relative to the needs of society. So it is important that as many people as possible participate.
And yes, can I just say … you will have your turn ... I just need to briefly address the issue of waste, because … Innovation Norway is sometimes accused of wasting money. I just have to say that we do not. But we do take risks. And that means we also invest in projects that do not succeed, because we are meant to support many, many startups. And, as you know, these major Norwegian export industries are largely the result of public-private partnerships, including publicly funded education. Research and innovation were crucial to the development of Norway’s oil industry, aquaculture industry and space industry – the list goes on. But the point is … making those initial investments is not a waste! It is simply very difficult to know how things will turn out, isn’t it? You can measure the impact on an individual company, but at industry level it is very challenging. Should Norway develop a hydrogen industry, for example? Is that a good bet for Norway? But … it is important to tell the listeners, perhaps more than you, Olav, that we are very conscious of this, that we measure the impact, and that we want to ...

Chen: Yes, yes, it’s just a general point, you know …

Haugli: Yes, but it gave me an opportunity to say it, which is important. But perhaps I’ll return to innovation, because then …

Chen: Just – what I was going to say is that it is important to invest in what we know. Demography is perhaps one of the most exact sciences, and we know that an ageing population is on the way. So we know that we will need more people working in elderly care, right? To look after you and me – all of us – in the future. And politicians should also direct more capacity and resources towards this, because it is perhaps a no-brainer: we know it is coming.

Haugli: And innovation is needed there too. Like you, I also had a mother who developed dementia and lived in a care home, where she was looked after by wonderful people. But my goodness, their work was hard. I mean, the only way to contact them was by phone. If you wanted to visit, you had to call, and someone had to answer that phone. There was no system for recording anything; everything was done manually, with slips of paper passed from one member of staff to another. I was shocked by how cumbersome their working methods were and how much time they spent on tasks that had nothing to do with providing care. So I think the sector is more than ready for a major push on innovation, and the only way we can meet the needs of an ageing population is through a combination of technology and, well …

Chen: Absolutely – a combination of technology, yes ...

Host: This podcast is turning into a kind of miniature Arendalsuka, because we’re talking about everything under the sun! But we’re running out of time, so Olav, if you could give us just one suggestion for how we can make Norway an even more innovative country, what would you focus on?

Chen: Good question. The classic answer is good education and good research, really. Because there is a connection there – finding the right people, in a way … but also being curious ... Innovation and productivity go hand in hand … that is where real value creation happens, right? It is what we call the holy grail in economics. If you can increase productivity, you do not need to keep adding resources. As you say, if you find good solutions that combine technology and robotics, you may be able to ease a nurse’s workload considerably, right? That is the holy grail in that ecosystem, and it is a win-win. It improves my mother’s quality of life, improves working conditions for those who care for her, and can reduce costs, right? That is the level we are at. So innovation and productivity are what economists are looking for, and there is a great deal of research on this, but it also depends on access to good educational institutions. And that brings us back to – I think it was the Union of Education Norway – and we have tried pouring a lot of money into education too. But unfortunately, the results have not materialised. So I … I am really talking about topics from Arendalsuka now, without … Why have the results not materialised? I do not know. But the same applies to productivity and innovation. It is not just about pouring money into it; it is about … call it the hunger to create, right? Entrepreneurs, right? You need that at Innovation Norway. You are trying to find those entrepreneurs, aren’t you?

Haugli: Absolutely!

Chen: … and and things. So I … I don't really have a good answer to – solution for – that.

Host: I think you've already given us some very valuable input …

Haugli: … and when it comes to productivity … well, there is no other way to increase productivity than through innovation – by using technology, adopting different working methods and so on. And that is a very important connection that I believe very few people understand, if I may be so bold. I think many people should … and it is precisely about … finding smarter ways to carry out tasks, including in the public sector. And clearly, as you mentioned, when we are making major investments in defence and, for that matter, healthcare, it is also vital that we consider education, research and innovation as part of that at the same time.

Host: You’ll have the floor one last time ...

Chen: But take … choose, you know, not that we need to … but I think Norway has fallen behind, you know, in what you might call the STEM subjects. Because I think a lot depends on that – not the softer subjects – and I don't mean to disparage other fields again – but you have to make an effort to … I studied mathematics, physics and chemistry, you know? You need that basic knowledge, and we simply have to keep building on it. Because that's where you can, in a way, do something, become technologists. You know, NTNU or somewhere like that. Again, this will probably be a controversial statement, but rather than – let's call them the softer subjects – politicians need to take a much firmer hand here, you know? In terms of where study places are available and providing incentives to choose the demanding subjects over what you might call the softer ones.

Host: Time flies when you talk to people with a lot to say. Thank you so much for joining us, Olav Chen from Storebrand, and thank you, Håkon Haugli. My name is Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, and we’ll be back with another episode of Innopodden.

Guest: Ketil Olsen, CEO of Andøya Space
From Innovation Norway: CEO Håkon Haugli and
Programme Manager Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann

Host: He has a 40-year military career behind him and now heads Andøya Space. Ketil Olsen embodies dual-use in practice. But why should Norway be a spacefaring nation? Can we compete with larger countries that have far more resources? And can launching things into space become a profitable business? Håkon Haugli and I, Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, look to the wider universe together with Ketil Olsen, live from Arendal, where this year’s Arendalsuka is well under way.

Welcome to Innopodden, Ketil Olsen.

Olsen: Thank you very much – and thank you for inviting me. We’re always ready to talk about something that means almost more to us than anything else in the world. I really appreciate it.

Host: Yes, it’s great to have you with us. As I mentioned, we’re here at Arendalsuka. What brings you here? What do you hope to achieve by being here?

Olsen: We have … I’ve been here before, when I was in the military, but Andøya Space has grown tremendously in recent years. We haven’t actually chosen to prioritise being here. Then last year, we came to the realisation that this couldn’t continue. Everyone is at Arendalsuka, and the space industry needs to be here too. Last year, there was one space event at Andøya … no, sorry, in … Arendal, on one day. This year, there are seven space events, so you can see how interest is growing. Wherever space is being discussed, Andøya Space should be there. We are one of the key companies representing what Norway’s business sector can deliver. We provide innovation, technology, services, support and everything else needed for Norway’s space industry to thrive. So it’s only natural for us to be here.

Host: I suppose your reason for being here is much the same, Håkon: wherever innovation is being discussed – as it is here – that's where you need to be?

Haugli: Being able to have the kind of conversation we’re having now is extremely valuable. You meet lots of people here who would otherwise be difficult – or at least very challenging – to arrange a meeting with, so we’re very pleased about that. And yes, part of our mission is to be present and to find … to take part in the forums where our work is being discussed. But Ketil, could you tell us a little more about Andøya Space and what kind of organisation it is?

Olsen: In August 1962 – in fact, just a few days from now – it will be 64 years since we launched the first rocket into space from Andøya, and from Norway. That was just five years after Sputnik, the world’s first satellite, was launched. We started out with scientific rockets through a collaboration between NASA, the Danish Meteorological Institute and the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. They were looking for a place where they could study the Northern Lights from within, and Andøya is perfect for that. And that is Andøya’s great strength: location, location, location. When you are looking for a flat or somewhere to live, location matters. The same applies to access to space. Andøya was perfect for scientific rockets back then, and today it is perfect for launching satellites into polar orbits.

Host: But – with all due respect – it is rather remote, isn't it?

Olsen: Yes and no. It’s ... The location is actually very important because it gives us access to a vast ocean area. There are fewer people, and relatively little air, land and sea traffic. We have a large area, which means that when we launch rockets, we don’t come into conflict with other nations. Andøya has excellent logistics. We have an airport with a 2,500-metre runway. We have deep-water quays, and now we also have a spaceport. Taken together – our 60 years of experience on Andøya and our location in one of the most stable democratic regions in the world – this makes Andøya ideal for this.

Haugli: It really is a very special place. I've been to Andøya a couple of times, and it's the only part of Norway that wasn't covered by ice during the last Ice Age. It's a small outcrop jutting out, so it's very well positioned in relation to space. And there has been oil or coal there, hasn't there? I believe there's a small coalfield on Andøya, and the Norwegian Armed Forces have been there for many years. Could you tell those who haven't been there a little about how to get there? What does it look like – what kind of place is Andøya, really?

Olsen: You arrive in a small municipality – a ROBEK municipality, in fact – so it is not exactly the wealthiest place. Its heyday came with the Armed Forces in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The population peaked at around 8,060; today, it is about 4,500. There have been major defence cuts, and the municipality is struggling somewhat to build the ecosystem we and others need. Several organisations are operating on Andøya, and their activities will grow over time, but there are challenges around housing and zoning: how can we make it an attractive place to live and encourage people to stay? Andøya is therefore going through a major transition and needs considerable support and assistance to move forward. I believe we have a role to play in providing that support and helping to attract workers to the island.

Haugli: Yes, because this is a very important topic: how the space industry and Andøya create value and jobs. It may not be immediately obvious. You might think that launching a rocket into space is primarily a cost. But it is so much more than that. Could you tell us a little about how this works … what kinds of businesses does the space industry generate? In other words, what types of industries benefit from the data collected?

Olsen: It is not a cost! It is actually a competitive arena. It is an investment – for businesses, this means putting technology, services and infrastructure in place, which in turn generate export revenue. It strengthens Norway's security and drives innovation. Bringing all this together on Andøya and creating an ecosystem around what we and others are doing will help us build even more. We need rockets, satellites and facilities for testing them. We need education – which we also provide through our own Andøya Space Education programme – so there are many elements involved, including the defence aspect, which is very important. The Norwegian Armed Forces established a presence there around five or six years before us, and we have coexisted with them ever since. There is a natural connection: the dual-use concept you briefly mentioned helps lay the foundations for further development and growth on Andøya. But we also need bright minds. We need more innovation, and bringing everyone together on Andøya in an incubator or a similar setting that can help build this expertise for Norway, both nationally and internationally, is extremely important. We now have people of 18 nationalities on Andøya and 250 employees, and we are recruiting another 60, 70 or 80 people this year. I hope the board will allow me to do the same next year. We need to attract young people and people with good ideas, but someone must help create the right conditions for us to succeed. This is where the government comes in, because this is a major undertaking for Norway. But it will deliver a return on investment in the future.

Haugli: Yes, this brings us to what we are working on together – Innovation Norway, Andøya Space and, indeed, the ecosystem around us – which involves several things.
But what is on your wish list? What do you need most of all?
– And while you think about that, I can say a little about what we have done. We have worked to attract international companies to Andøya, including a German company that has established itself there. We have also worked with entrepreneurs specialising in space data. We have been doing that for many years in other places too. And I think we work closely and effectively together on the broader regional policy challenge you have touched on. For example, we have provided support to other businesses on Andøya, and the municipality has also taken part in our restructuring programme for municipalities. That is what we have had on the menu so far. But beyond what we do at Innovation Norway, what would your top three wishes from Norway be?

Olsen: I want Innovation Norway to continue its good work. You have helped us bring businesses and activity to the island, but we simply need more because we need greater activity. That will bring life back to homes and attract people to the area. Secondly, we need to secure funding for Andøya Spaceport and its existing infrastructure so that we can expand. None of us, including Norway, will benefit financially from having just one launch pad, so we need one or two more. We must expand the activity taking place there today.
We are licensed for 30 launches. Isar carried out one last year. We need to achieve more in the years ahead, while also securing investments in competence building – specifically in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This will help us recruit the people we need in the future. We need this competence building because applications for STEM degree programmes are declining across Norway. Yet these skills are essential to the future of the space industry. We therefore need to create the right conditions by funding basic research and the fundamental infrastructure at Andøya. If we are to attract other investors to Andøya, we also need predictability. Andøya Space has a turnover of NOK 500 million, but we do not have the financial capacity to do this alone, so the government must create the right conditions. It can do so through this type of investment. This will give others confidence that Andøya is a safe and reliable place to invest, enabling us to build an entire ecosystem around the activity taking place there.

Host: You mentioned – or briefly touched on – the German company Isar, which is a very important partner for you. I’d like to hear a little more about the launches themselves. So far, there has been one rocket launch. The rocket flew for around 30 seconds. Then, when they were due to launch the next one, it was postponed time and again. Is that normal in your line of work?

Olsen: Sit back and enjoy what is happening, because this is a familiar development process.
SpaceX reached space on its fourth attempt. Isar has launched once. Last year, there were 300 launches from the US and seven from Europe. Of those seven European launches, only one took place on the European mainland. That was at Andøya Space. So what Isar has done there is continue to break down barriers. It is important to us that people understand that. We are just as keen and just as committed to seeing this succeed – and Isar will succeed. The company has outstanding expertise – German engineers, after all – and everything that goes with that. The next launch is just around the corner. We are very eager, and so is Isar. We believe we can make it happen in September, as soon as possible, and then we will see whether they succeed, but there are no guarantees. It is normal to try again and again. We are bringing together 100,000 components for the first time and launching them into space, where they will face immense stresses. There is no guarantee of success, but we believe and hope they will succeed. They are at the forefront in Europe, and so are we. This will be our sixth launch attempt, so we are used to it now. We know how to do this. No one has done it before in Europe, so we are breaking new ground in Norway. We are pioneers in what we do.

Host: But delays and things like that don't worry you too much?

Olsen: No, I don't, but I'm just as impatient. We have to succeed now, and we're going to make it happen. I'm just as positive every time. I'm just as enthusiastic. It's going to work out.

Haugli: Are you just standing there watching?

Olsen: Yes, if I'm in the country, I do.

Haugli: Yes. How exciting … I mean, you have such a fascinating background. We can talk a little about that, but just out of curiosity: have you always been interested in space?

Olsen: No. I haven't!

Haugli: No?

Olsen: No, for me, it’s like this … I’ve spent 40 years in the Norwegian Armed Forces. I’ve served in the Royal Norwegian Navy, worked extensively in other parts of the Armed Forces and spent ten years at NATO. So I suppose that background sparked my interest in technology. I’m interested in … I’m always a little short of time, a little impatient. Then you turn 60 and the Armed Forces say, ‘Thanks and goodbye.’ At least, that was how it worked back then, so I had to leave – and realised I still had far too much energy. I needed to find something to do. Then I received a job offer from Andøya Space and thought, ‘Blimey … we’re going to make history on Andøya. What’s all this about? I have to be part of it.’ So I headed north and have since watched and helped build the spaceport. But we also do many other things at Andøya Space – scientific rockets, space technology education and, not least, defence testing. There’s a great deal going on that I find incredibly exciting. It’s a broad field of work. When I joined in 2020, we had 100 employees. We’ll soon pass 230, then 250, and perhaps reach 300 within a year or so. So there are clearly enormous challenges in everything happening there – it’s incredibly exciting.

Haugli: Great fun!

Host: Space exploration, Håkon – it involves innovation in every tiny detail. What are your thoughts on this initiative and its significance for Norway?

Haugli: It is very important for Norway to make some... to take some bigger steps, and if there is one thing that concerns me, it is how short-term our thinking can be about this kind of thing. Typically, if something does not go exactly to plan, people get nervous and bring it to a halt. If we in Norway do not do this, someone else will. And just to say a few words about the innovation potential we see, which may be useful: I have learnt a little about what is referred to as upstream and downstream. Upstream innovation covers all the technology needed to actually get into space, and there is a great deal of it. It overlaps with aviation and other advanced technologies. Then you have downstream innovation, which is about the data retrieved from satellites. This data has enormous potential for innovation.

Olsen: That’s where the money is …

Haugli: … that is what matters most. And what … and there you have, you know, both small startups and major players. And this is actually an area where Norway is at the forefront through KSAT, Kongsberg Satellite Services, which has satellites … or satellite ground stations, both in Svalbard and Northern Norway. So this is something we know how to do in Norway, and where … the potential … and it is all connected, you know? These rockets have to be launched to put the satellite into orbit, which in turn makes it possible to download data. And there needs to be an ecosystem around this that enables entrepreneurs to use that data and create value from it. It is very important that people understand this whole picture, and that political decision-makers understand it. Otherwise, the right steps will not be taken, and … if you pull out one part of this value chain, you risk the entire structure or ecosystem no longer working. So I am also very keen to say, on behalf of Innovation Norway, that we are very pleased with what is happening at Andøya and have been committed to staying closely involved. Our Nordland office in particular – shout-out to them – has maintained a close dialogue with Nordland County Council and is actively involved, and of course we will continue to be.

Olsen: We have a great deal of good technology in Norway. We have talented people. We are innovative, but I am focused on scalability. And that is precisely why we need Innovation Norway. We need to work together. We need to look at Norway, the Nordic region and, indeed, Europe. This is about Europe’s future security. That is what we are working towards. Being able to manage this ourselves gives Norway security, while also generating revenue, because, as I said at the outset, this is a competitive arena. Ensuring that the government helps support its development and provides that security also enables us to attract people and expertise. So, Håkon, I believe this is closely linked to what you are saying.

Haugli: Yes, absolutely, and I think it is also worth mentioning that all our major export industries today are the result of public-private partnerships. We tend to forget that. Oil did not find its own way out of the North Sea; it took major public investment in education, research and innovation to develop what was needed, as well as international cooperation. The same applies to all our other major export industries. The recipe is essentially the same now, which brings us back to the need for stamina, openness to the world, a commercial focus, a connected ecosystem and cross-sector collaboration. So we think this is very … it is exciting that you mention the incubator. Could you say a little more about that? I am jumping around a bit here, but it is a tool we could consider. How can we make it happen?

Olsen: What we have done is establish Newspace North, a company that aims to attract ideas and people with shared interests and bring them together in one environment. It has had a somewhat long and difficult birth, but that is how it goes. These things take time to set up, and Isar keeps being pushed back as well, so it all takes time. We co-own the company with Siva, Andøy Municipality and Nordland County Council, so the foundations are in place for us to bring others in and connect them through a shared development process. There, they can meet like-minded people with good ideas and ultimately create an entire ecosystem together.

Haugli: So, if a young – how should I put it? – space entrepreneur is listening, is this something they can take advantage of today?

Olsen: It is. The key is to get involved ... Feel free to get in touch with me afterwards, or find me on LinkedIn, and I’ll help steer you in the right direction. But some of us are getting older, so we need new geeks coming through the ranks. We need to bring them in and give them the opportunity to develop.

Haugli: Yes, this is a national responsibility – to ensure a steady supply of nerds!

Olsen: Yes, it is!

Host: Space nerds. You touched briefly on safety and security. Tell us a little about how you see the work you do contributing to emergency preparedness.

Olsen: Modern society has become completely dependent on satellites. We have moved our infrastructure – our invisible infrastructure – into space. If the satellites were to fail – and I do not think they would all fail at once – we would be in the dark within 24 to 48 hours. There would be no electricity or water, and our clocks would no longer be synchronised. You would not be able to use your bank card for anything, so modern society would quickly collapse without satellites. By having launch capabilities in Norway that we own and can maintain, Norway holds a trump card in Europe. Together, we now have control over how to replace these services through the rapid launch of satellites in the future, meeting the needs of our society. This is about total preparedness. It is preparedness in the broadest sense. At the same time, we also conduct weapons testing and facilitate training for allied military exercises in Norway. This helps build preparedness and a better understanding of Norway and the challenges in the High North. One of Norway's key roles is to serve as the eyes and ears of the north. We need to understand what is happening up there, so preparedness is a major part of all this.

Haugli: This was one of the topics we covered in this year’s Innovation Speech, which you took part in. Could you give us a very brief summary of what you said?

Olsen: Yes, I covered a lot in a short space of time. But these were some of the points I made, and I think it comes back, to some extent, to collaboration. We are concerned that things may be moving a little slowly in the EU, ESA and all these large, cumbersome organisations. Germany has recognised this and said, ‘We are allocating EUR 35 billion between now and 2030 to support defence-related space activities.’ Everyone else in Europe sees this and rushes to Germany, saying they want to be part of it. What does Germany do? It turns to Norway and comes to Andøya. Merz, Støre, two trade and industry ministers and two defence ministers – they all come to Andøya to see our launch capacity. Because it is a bottleneck, and will remain so for decades to come, worldwide.

Host: Do you have no competitors today?

Olsen: Yes, we do. We have competitors, but also partners. I think it is important for Europe to create interoperability if we are to be self-reliant. We have Esrange in Sweden, which is currently being developed. Then there is SaxaVord in Shetland, UK, which is also under development. I think the three of us are at the forefront, with us slightly ahead because we have already carried out a launch.

Host: So, you have a slight head start on your competitors?

Olsen: We do, but the first-mover advantage won’t last long. That’s why I – well – I’m talking to Cecilie Myrseth, I’m talking to Tore O. Sandvik, and I’m talking to politicians. We need to act … the time is now! We need to get moving, because we have a unique opportunity to lead the way. And if you’re the very first, then at least you have a truly unique opportunity. Perhaps one day we’ll send people into space from Norway?

Haugli: At least judging by the number of space-related activities in Arendal, we have to say things are moving in the right direction. A sevenfold increase – a sharp rise in interest in space in general. Do you feel that people understand enough, or … what should everyone know?

Olsen: That is why I travel around, almost like … prostituting myself, so to speak, travelling around and talking about space and the opportunities it will offer in the future. Because it is so important that people understand its significance. It will give people confidence in why space matters to us. At the same time, it will generate interest. That is how we encourage more people to come to Andøya and join the space sector across Norway. You mentioned KSAT, Space Norway, Kongsberg and Eidel – we have many excellent companies in Norway, but our efforts are too fragmented. Where is the Team Norway mindset? Who is driving us forward in the same direction? We need shared goals – and Norway still has some work to do there.

Host: But you work with all the companies you just mentioned, don't you?

Olsen: We do, but I think there is scope for us to do even more together.

Haugli: We’ll have to bring this in for a landing soon, but it’s been great talking to you about this. Looking ahead and making an educated guess, how might we picture Andøya Space in, say, ten years’ time? What do you think? What will it look like if we manage to pull it off – if we succeed?

Olsen: And it’s not if we succeed, Håkon, it’s when we succeed. Because we will – we’ve got this …

Haugli: I like that.

Olsen: Ten years is a long way off. If you look back ten years, the world was very different. We now have more launch opportunities at Andøya. We are developing a service that provides space launch as a service, meaning we can offer … we operate all the spaceports in Europe, and we are able to … we are building significant launch capacity to send people into space. If we establish this in Norway, no one else in Europe will have that capability. We will be the first, and we will be the only one – I am absolutely convinced of that. I believe all these future opportunities will make Andøya Space part of a major space industry ecosystem, which has effectively become Norway's new oil. That is what it has the potential to become. The industry is predicted to generate USD 1.8 trillion in revenue by 2035. We intend to secure our share of that.

Host: And Innovation Norway is on board, Håkon?

Haugli: Yes, this is a truly inspiring picture. The only thing I’m missing is the opportunity to be launched into space. Personally.

Olsen: I discussed it with my son, and he said, ‘Now we’re going to Mars together, Dad.’ ‘No, we’re not,’ I said. ‘You’re going, and I’ll look after us down here on Earth.’

Haugli: No, but seriously, this is clearly a very important mission for many people, including us at Innovation Norway. There are several ways we can contribute, and we too depend on working well with others in every respect. So it is a very inspiring prospect.

Host: And with that, we’ll wrap up – still looking towards outer space. Thank you for joining us, Ketil Olsen, and thank you, Håkon Haugli. My name is Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, and we’ll be back with another episode of Innopodden.

Guest: Bjørn Eirik Olsen, Mister Sushi

From Innovation Norway: CEO Håkon Haugli and

Host: Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann

Host: He is known as Mister Sushi and is the man behind the whole world seeing salmon – Norwegian salmon – as the key ingredient in sushi. How did that happen? What did it take, and what lessons can we draw from it now, as Norwegian businesses visit Japan 30 or 40 years later? Bjørn Eirik Olsen joins Håkon Haugli and me, Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, on Innopodden.

Welcome to Innopodden, Bjørn Eirik Olsen.

Olsen: Thank you very much, it’s a pleasure to be here.

Host: Norwegian salmon is the world's most popular fish, at least according to the Norwegian Seafood Council. It is also the most widely used fish in sushi worldwide, and that did not happen by chance. It is the result of hard, focused work by many people, especially you – Mr Sushi himself. It all began in 1985, or perhaps even earlier for you. Tell us how you persuaded the Japanese to choose Norwegian salmon for sushi.

Olsen: I’m not sure how far back I should go, but for me, my interest in Japan began in 1969, when I was 14 and saw Akira Kurosawa’s film ‘Seven Samurai’ on television in Hammerfest. I was deeply fascinated and decided that I had to visit that country and learn the martial arts I had seen the sword masters practising. From then on, I absorbed everything I could about Japan, its culture and martial arts. I went to London and trained full-time for a year, and then I was fortunate enough that my class at the Norwegian College of Fishery Science in Tromsø chose Japan as the destination for a study trip in 1981. I travelled there with Leif Inge Karlsen, who later became a salmon farming entrepreneur. We were in the same class, and in 1981 we sat at the same table in Tokyo and ate sashimi for the first time. He later became my most important partner in introducing salmon sushi. It’s a long story, but at the same time there was a Minister of Fisheries named Thor Listau, also from Finnmark – or an adopted Finnmarker – who had moved from Svolvær to Kirkenes. He became a politician and Member of Parliament, and travelled to Japan with the Standing Committee on Shipping and Fisheries as early as 1974. He was deeply fascinated by what he saw. Back home, people generally wanted meatballs on the table, while Japan was overflowing with colourful fish. At the time, Norwegian fisheries were heavily subsidised, whereas prices in Japan were high. He thought Norway had a great deal to learn. A few years later, in 1981, he became Minister of Fisheries when Willoch formed his government. Then, in 1985, he realised his great ambition of inviting a large Norwegian delegation of 18 men and one woman to Japan. They were all converted. That was where it began.

Haugli: What happened next?

Olsen: Buoyed by rice wine and hot air after an enjoyable trip, they decided that we needed to launch a major initiative – a large-scale Norwegian collective effort. In Tokyo, the trip had been organised by Hiroyoshi Niwa, the Norwegian Trade Council's representative, who had also organised the visit by the Standing Committee on Maritime and Fisheries Affairs eleven years earlier. Listau was very pleased with how everything had been arranged, so he thought: here is someone who can help us achieve something significant in Japan. It was then more or less decided that we would set up a project involving the entire Norwegian fishing industry. We would involve the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Fisheries, as well as what was then the Ministry of Trade – this was just before it became part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Norwegian Trade Council – now Innovation Norway – would act as coordinator and secretariat, researchers would be brought in, and everyone would be involved. And they succeeded. The model was for the industry to provide half of the investment, while the Ministry of Fisheries – or the authorities – would contribute up to 50 per cent. The aim was to invest NOK 60–100 million in marketing over three years – a substantial amount when we started in 1986.

Haugli: Yes, in one country?

Olsen: In one industry in one country. Looking back, I’ve studied this a little since then. I can’t find any comparable examples in Norway, either in fisheries or in other industries – and you won’t find anything comparable in other countries either. So there are no … well, no known examples – there may be something hidden away; goodness knows what kangaroo meat has done to promote itself in some country or other! – but we’re not aware of anything similar ever having been done. Remember, the Royal Family was represented, as were the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Trade. There were three fisheries ministers and Gro Harlem Brundtland, state secretaries, overseas offices here and overseas offices there, and every part of the Norwegian fishing industry. Bringing together a team like that was quite unique, and we secured the single most important success factor from the outset: the senior executives of every Japanese fisheries organisation came on board – wholesalers, fishers, producers, importers, everyone, all the top executives. We’re talking about presidents and managing directors. They all joined the friendship group for Project Japan and said that this was the right way to approach the Japanese market. And, of course, that gave us a position no one else could take from us, as long as we conducted ourselves properly.

Host: But how did you do it? The Japanese market is completely different from the Norwegian market to work with, for example.

Olsen: Yes, you couldn't find a more different business culture. Starting with the language – it belongs to a language family that is completely different from ours, and they have... I mean, Japan is a country, with a language and a people, that is very poetic and emotionally driven. That can be difficult for us to see, because when a foreigner comes to Japan, you are either accepted into the group, in which case you see the real Japan, or you are considered an outsider – as most people are – and then you don't see the real Japan. What you see can seem rather cool and unwelcoming, you know. But if you understand the customs and etiquette, are introduced in the right way and, ideally, speak the language and understand the rules of the game, you are accepted into the group. Then you experience a different Japan. So that was... And I had lived in Japan for many years, studied Japan and Japanese culture, and spoke the language. I also had Hirayoshi Niva, and he was the key to making contact with this friendship group because he had worked with them before. He was descended from samurai, and he played this important role – you know – as a kind of intermediary between... At the time, hardly any Japanese people spoke English. Only one person in the friendship group did: the head of the import association, because he had lived abroad. But no one else. All the signs were in Japanese. I mean, it was... Even university English lecturers couldn't speak English. They could write it, but they couldn't speak it. So Japan was a relatively closed country at the time, in the early 1980s. Back then, just over two million foreigners visited Japan each year. Now the figure is 43 million. So the picture has... While many Japanese people travelled to Europe – a great many, I mean, the planes were full of Japanese passengers back then – now they are full of non-Japanese passengers. So the situation has changed dramatically. At that time, Japan was a very exotic, unfamiliar country.

Haugli: But for the generation that will hopefully be listening to this podcast, sushi and salmon are obviously a perfect match. We’ve eaten it throughout our adult lives. But that wasn’t always the case. It was new – something new for Japanese sushi chefs. So, to ask a very basic question: Why didn’t they use their own salmon? Or don’t they have salmon? Or what was the reason...?

Olsen: First of all, sushi is actually a very flexible way of eating. You can put any kind of fish on top, and the Japanese do, but not just any fish – because several ocean currents flow towards Japan, some cold and some warm. The cold currents also bring seals and some seagulls that carry something called anisakiasis, a parasite or worm that gets into the salmon flesh. Fish found in the southern currents, such as sea bream, yellowtail and all those species – tuna – do not have it. So the Japanese had a clearly defined culture or tradition of eating raw fish only from the right areas. Every Japanese person had learnt that. It was dangerous – at the time, it was genuinely dangerous to ingest this parasite. So when we came along to introduce Norwegian salmon, we were not starting with a blank slate. We faced a wall of resistance. This simply was not acceptable. If we had brought them a new species of fish they had never heard of, they might at least have given it a sniff, so to speak. And it is quite funny to say ‘given it a sniff’, because they said it did not smell right – that it smelled like river fish. So, basically, everything about it was wrong.

Host: So how did you manage to convince them?

Olsen: Well, first of all, you had to be able to document that it was free from parasitic worms, so that was the first thing. That helped, but it wasn't enough. We also documented that it was much fattier – because at the time, Japan was, and perhaps still is, the world's largest consumer of Pacific salmon. For centuries, they had eaten Pacific salmon caught off Hokkaido, and they were now also importing large quantities from Alaska. And it was... you know, if you have a Japanese breakfast, it will often include a piece of grilled salmon. They used it in soup, they used it for all sorts of things, and they smoked it and... but they didn't eat it raw. And it was delicious. It was dried a little, salted a little, you see. You ate it in a completely different way. That was salmon. And the Japanese word for salmon is shake. If you looked it up in a dictionary, Atlantic salmon was called tai hei yō shake and Pacific salmon was tai sei yō shake. (1) So salmon already had a name in Japan, and that name was shake. When we came along and wanted to differentiate it and say that this was something else, we couldn't call it shake.

Haugli: No, because it was associated with something else.

Olsen: That's right, yes. You have to start with a different name, so that was my suggestion. Japanese is quite interesting because you can Japanise words. Hamburgers become 'hambaga', right? And coffee becomes 'kahi'. For imported goods that had no Japanese names, they use phonetic characters called katakana to create a name. But that isn't common for products that already have Japanese names, so we had to break with convention. We had to introduce a new brand for a product that already had a name. So we took the word 'salmon' and Japanised it as 'samon', giving us 'norue samon'. And because we had built such a strong foundation of trust and such good networks among the wholesalers at Tsukiji, we managed to establish that Norwegian salmon was 'norue samon', not 'shake'. That was perhaps the most important strategic move at the outset. If we hadn't done it, I think we would have had major problems distinguishing the two. Once you've mixed them together, it's like making pancake batter: it's very difficult to take the egg back out once you've mixed it into the milk and flour. So it was a strategic move, and we made it early on. Project Japan provided the necessary platform. No individual company could have achieved it alone.

Haugli: And at some point, you also travel to Tokyo as a representative of the Norwegian Trade Council, or perhaps the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and continue the project. Tell us a little about that.

Olsen: Project Japan ended at the close of 1989. Bjarne Mørk-Eidem had already begun toying with the idea that we needed a permanent representative. Eventually, it was decided that the embassy would have a fisheries attaché from the beginning of 1991. I applied and got the job. My role was to follow up on Project Japan. Mackerel and salmon were the two key species, alongside everything else, and I had a head start because I already had the entire network of contacts. The position was jointly funded by the Ministry of Fisheries, the Marketing Council for Farmed Salmon and the Norwegian Trade Council. Technically, I was employed by the Trade Council, but I had a completely independent role under the ambassador. My most important task was to continue that work, particularly as the drive to promote salmon for sushi and sashimi had largely been my initiative.

But when I arrived in 1991, two things happened: there was a crisis in both supply and demand at the same time. If there was one thing that characterised Project Japan, it was crisis. When we started in 1985, there was a political crisis, an economic crisis and a resource crisis in the capelin stock. And when I arrived in Japan, the Japanese economy collapsed. It had grown throughout the 1980s, as everyone knew. Property prices in Tokyo were staggering: a small plot of land in the Imperial Palace grounds was worth as much as the whole of California. They were borrowing against thin air, and the yen appreciated, causing exports to stagnate. Investment then flowed into assets with no real substance, which people simply bought and sold. It all broke down around the beginning of 1990. The central bank raised interest rates, and the entire system collapsed. The Tokyo Stock Exchange fell by 60 per cent in two years. At the time, Japan accounted for 14 per cent of global GDP; now it accounts for less than four. That gives you some idea of how far the economy fell.

What happened was that a company executive's expense account could be larger than their salary. These were the people going out to eat expensive sushi. At the time, sushi was costly. It was a luxury food, and families did not go out to eat it as much as they do now. Then the expense accounts disappeared. People's bonuses vanished. Sushi bars began going bankrupt. So the outlook for the sushi initiative was bleak.

At the same time, another area had grown too quickly in Norway: salmon farming. The volumes had been tiny – 30,000 tonnes in 1985 – but by 1990 they had reached 150,000 tonnes. The market could not absorb it, and prices plummeted. The Norwegian aquaculture industry's response was to freeze 40,000 tonnes, thinking this would stabilise prices. But when the global market saw that this stockpile existed, prices fell even faster. Fiskeoppdretternes Salgslag then went bankrupt, and in 1991 Oddrun Pettersen sacked its management live on Dagsrevyen, in what was perhaps the most dramatic television moment in Norwegian business history. It was a dramatic time. There were 800 tiny, family-owned fish-farming companies. Each company had only a very small licence, apart from two with slightly larger licences, Mowi and one other. Of those 800 companies, 400 went bankrupt. Overnight.

Until then, aquaculture had been regarded as a rural industry that needed protection, and this was explicit government policy. It was intended to support smallholders and fishers in every little coastal community. But the authorities began to panic: everything was about to collapse. They had to allow banks and external capital into the industry, and they had to allow licences to be sold, so that those whose heads were below water could sell to those whose heads were just above it. Once the exemptions had been granted, there was no going back, and the industry surged in a completely different direction. Today, there are only around 150 fish farmers, producing more than ten times as much as the 800 did back then. That gives you some idea of what has happened.

So there I was in Tokyo, facing a crisis in demand and a crisis in supply. But I had some hope. We had begun to see that young people were open to eating raw salmon because they did not have the same ingrained habits – young housewives and young people generally. The older and more experienced people were, the more negative they tended to be, because that was how they had been socialised. But a crisis can also create openings for something new, and that is what happened here.

There was a paradox. On the one hand, sales of bluefin tuna were falling. Purchasing power had risen, and people wanted more premium fish, but they did not want salmon. I had been working closely with some major companies, particularly Mitsubishi, and had persuaded Mitsubishi to support the idea. They were the only ones who embraced it. The only ones. But they were also the world's largest trading house, so we had them on board, and they wanted to connect with Norwegian fish farmers.

That was not easy, because this was in the middle of the crisis, and Mitsubishi wanted a large salmon weighing ten kilos. We had discussed this. My idea was to imitate tuna; that was what we had to do. They wanted a ten-kilo salmon. I sent my reports to Norway and asked for fish farmers willing to make a long-term commitment. I contacted my old friend Leif Inge Karlsen at Hydrotech by fax, as we did in those days, and he said he had ten-kilo fish. He had been researching them for a long time, using large pens 40 times the size of the old ones, with plenty of room for large salmon to grow.

Mitsubishi loved the idea. I introduced Leif Inge, and he came over with two large salmon in his luggage – in his hand luggage, I was about to say. He stayed overnight at a hotel, the salmon began to thaw, and he went to the wrong building. When we were due to meet, he was sitting there with a thawing box of fish, but he finally arrived. We got him to the right place and opened up the salmon on the table. The people from Mitsubishi were wide-eyed with excitement, partly because they saw that it could enter the smoked-fish market as a substitute for king salmon. They said, ‘Of course we'll continue working on the raw-fish idea, but then we need a red salmon.’ Leif Inge said, ‘We can do that, but perhaps trout would be better?’

This led to a partnership with Mitsubishi that lasted more than 12 years, during which Hydrotech developed trout specifically for Mitsubishi. They even had to breed out the dark stripe along the side because Mitsubishi did not want it. They developed special packaging, special fish pens and special chilling systems to achieve the required quality. They developed a dedicated handling process for moving the fish from the pen to the processing plant, reducing damage to the flesh. All these advances were developed through collaboration between Mitsubishi and a Norwegian company.

At the time, information flowed quite freely. Other fish farmers, including those outside Norway, adopted these changes almost immediately. The collaboration on sushi therefore raised standards across the entire Norwegian aquaculture industry. In reality, the quality had not been good enough before. The flesh was damaged, the fish were knocked and battered, they were too warm when slaughtered, the process took too long, and there was too little ice in the boxes. The collaboration raised standards to a level that made large-scale industrialisation possible. And then something interesting happened in Japan.

Advertisement from Innovation Norway: Bonjour! Just a quick tip, then I’ll be on my way. My name is Christophe, and I’m an advisor at Innovation Norway in France. We have people on the ground who know the market, the key players and the rules. We help you set priorities and strengthen your negotiating position as you grow internationally. Book a meeting with us at innovasjonnorge.no/kontakt.

Olsen: So, just to give you the short version, the Norwegian salmon industry wanted to sell this entire stock of frozen salmon to Japan because they did not want it going to Europe or the US. There were already punitive tariffs in the US, and the EU was threatening the same. ‘Send it to Japan,’ they said. And there I was, saying, ‘No, we don’t want it.’ We would destroy everything we had tried to build in terms of the brand, and we had promised through Project Japan that we would not enter the traditional market. We would leave it alone. Otherwise, we would lose face, and I might as well go home. So I got Ambassador Terje Johannessen and NIVA on board, called the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and said, ‘Stop. We don’t want it. You’ll have to come up with an alternative.’ NIVA knew the president of a large airline, Nichirei. We met with them and managed to secure a contract for 6,000 tonnes. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Fisheries then agreed not to send any more salmon from the frozen stock to Japan. In return, Nichirei would sell it as sushi and sashimi under the Norway Salmon brand. That gave us two major partners: Mitsubishi and Nichirei. The two best partners you could imagine were now ready with Norwegian salmon. And then the crisis in Japan struck at exactly the same time. To cut costs, some sushi bars began introducing conveyor-belt sushi. And something interesting happened: sushi actually became cheaper. Families with children thought the little train was great fun. Who did we want as our new customers? People with open minds. And who was sitting around those conveyor belts? Children and young people. From the very beginning, they picked up those shiny orange pieces as they passed by. So, in a very short time, salmon became the most popular fish for sushi and sashimi among under-15s. And it has now been the most popular across the entire population for the past 14 years. The children from back then are adults now, and they still like it. So the crisis worked out incredibly well for us: we were in the right place at the right time with the right product. When we started, I thought it would take a generation, and it probably would have done. Even one generation is quite fast when you are trying to change the way 120 million people think. But because of the crisis, and through a combination of luck, timing and what we were doing, we were there with Norwegian salmon on the conveyor belt just when the sushi chefs, who were very conservative, became receptive because they were getting desperate. They were open to trying something new. Once they had taken the major step of switching to conveyor belts, which they had actually opposed because it created distance between them and their customers, they thought, ‘All right, we’ll try salmon too.’ And when they saw that people wanted it, and they had a knife at their throats – quite literally, a sushi knife – they did not use that knife to stop the salmon. They used it to slice it.

Haugli: But there’s one thing: I think you’re being a little modest, all things considered. Yes, you were in the right place at the right time – and, of course, certain circumstances made it possible. But you also made some very good strategic choices, as you’ve touched on, didn’t you? For example, deciding not to use Japan as a dumping ground for frozen salmon, because that would undermine the brand you had been trying to build. And there was also this holistic approach to what you were trying to achieve in the market – an approach you championed throughout Project Japan, which is an absolutely fascinating story! Just think about it … you managed to bring together all the stakeholders in Norway. And, crucially, a Japanese counterpart willing to engage in dialogue. So there was a whole series of very good decisions that meant that when those circumstances arose – both the crisis and the arrival of conveyor-belt sushi – you were in a position to seize the opportunity.
And now you’re writing a book. I simply have to recommend that every listener to this podcast gets a copy, because this really is an extraordinary story – and one that, I would argue, is still largely unknown in Norway. Until now, at least.

Olsen: Well, people don't really have much of a sense of scale when you say 10,000 tonnes or 100,000 tonnes. But around 30 per cent of Norwegian salmon is used for sushi and sashimi today. That's 500,000 tonnes. If you make salmon nigiri – the kind you buy in shops, typically from Lerøy – there's one gram of fish per centimetre. So if you imagine lining up all the nigiri made with the Norwegian salmon used for sushi and sashimi in a single year, how long would that line be?

Host: Wow, that would be long.

Haugli: I suppose it’s a few times the distance to the moon …

Olsen: That is seven times to the moon, or 67 times around the Earth. Today, there are between 150,000 and 200,000 sushi bars worldwide. In 1985, there were only a few hundred. Today, a million people around the world work preparing sushi. It is a major industry, and no other Norwegian product has this level of visibility. The challenge today is that if the industry wants Norwegians to become ambassadors and tell the person next to them, whether in Paris or anywhere else, that the salmon is Norwegian, the aquaculture industry must live up to its image – and it needs more than an image; it needs solid foundations. This must be something we can stand behind as a nation and as an industry. Whether you are the Crown Prince, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Fisheries or the CEO of Innovation Norway, you want to be able to stand behind the products on the market. And we still have some way to go. The Japanese sushi tradition is part of Washoku, or Japanese cuisine, which is recognised by UNESCO as intangible cultural heritage because it is founded on natural, sustainable principles. If we want to be part of that, we must live up to and support the principles underpinning the cuisine we now profit from. Otherwise, we are cutting off the branch we are sitting on. We also risk harming others, and sushi's global position is not set in stone. With social media and everything else, things change quickly. Trends come and go, don't they? If we want sushi to become an enduring and even bigger trend, we really need to work for it, put the industry on a sound footing and take pride in what we do.

Haugli: Yes, I think this is so important. Based on your knowledge and experience, what would you say are the top two, perhaps three, challenges facing the aquaculture industry? This is largely about sustainability. What do you think the industry – or rather, we – need to address to maintain our position and remain a credible supplier of a sustainable product?

Olsen: When it comes to environmental sustainability, the obvious issues are escapes, moorings and pollution. We can do something about them. There is so much capital in the industry that it should be possible to devote more resources to solving these problems. That much is clear. I know that the Ministry of Fisheries is currently working on a new aquaculture white paper, and I hope it will introduce stricter requirements. I also think that holding licences should come with certain expectations, including continuing to meet those requirements. If you do not, you should not be allowed to retain those licences. So that is the environmental side. On the market side, there is still a great deal to be done in terms of differentiation. Salmon has overtaken tuna in popularity, but just look at the price of tuna. A new record was set for tuna at the Toyosu Market in January this year. Or yes, I believe it was January this year, when a large tuna weighing just over 200 kilos was sold at the fish market for an average price of NOK 132,000 per kilo. 132,000.

Host: Yes, it’s completely beyond our comprehension!

Olsen: That is because a culture has developed around tuna, where people have learnt to distinguish between what is very good and what is very poor over several hundred years – or a couple of hundred years. That has not happened with salmon. But there is clearly potential for it. Someone with a certain amount of influence and scale would need to work with others and commit to differentiating and promoting an exceptionally good salmon. It would have to be aimed at the Japanese market, because that is where it needs to be done. It would then spread to the rest of the world, right? And it would need to meet certain criteria, though I will not go into what those should be now. But by working with Japanese partners, you could define what that salmon should be like and how it should look. That would require a costly investment. But Hydrotech made that kind of investment when it partnered with Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi had a five-year plan. There were six-month and one-year contracts, and you received complaints if you did not do as they said. You had to be willing to invest, and if we did that, we could command completely different prices. It might not reach 130,000, but it illustrates the point … And in Japan, you have Kobe beef – Wagyu, that is – and pufferfish. They have a tradition of being willing to pay. Just look at fruit and melons: they pay staggering prices if people know that something carries status, meets the standard and is extraordinary. Then they are willing to pay for it.

Host: It won't be long now before we travel to Japan with a delegation from Norwegian industry. The delegation includes companies working in seafood, defence, artificial intelligence and many other fields. Given your experience of working in Japan, what do you think we should take with us? What can we learn from the story of introducing salmon to sushi?

Olsen: Well, the Japanese ... they do not like risk. They value agreements and long-term relationships. They also expect you to prove that you are trustworthy. Words alone are not enough. Over time, you have to demonstrate the right attitude, integrity and commitment. That is the most important thing. And although Norwegians and Japanese people are very different – very different – we also share some similarities. Compared with many other industrialised nations, we Norwegians are actually relatively humble. We have the Law of Jante. It has negative connotations in every country, but in Japan it is seen as positive. The Japanese have a saying: ‘The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.’ In other words, you should be somewhat reserved. In Japan, it pays not to boast too much about what you have achieved, but to present it in a measured way. And when Japanese people lean back and fall completely silent, that is a good sign. It means they are listening. If they close their eyes, that is even better. It does not mean they are asleep; it means they are listening very carefully. So there is that humility. We should also highlight – not exploit, because these are genuine facts – the many similarities between Norway and Japan: our size, geography, four seasons, winter sports and the fact that mountains cover 70 per cent of both countries. We are both maritime and shipping nations, situated on opposite sides of what we might call the Eurasian-Russian continent, each facing a different ocean. So we have many things in common. The Japanese also have a very romantic view of nature. We Norwegians are not quite like that; we are more focused on facts and practical matters, while they are more focused on relationships and emotions. So it is about conveying that we share a certain underlying kinship, and that we Norwegians are calm, humble and willing to listen. If we can add a layer of genuine professionalism to that – learning from the Swedes, Germans and others – we will have a good combination.

Haugli: Those are very good reminders. One thing that strikes me is that we sell what are potentially the world's most exclusive raw materials by the tonne, rather than in high-priced individual portions. That says something about our commercial mindset, and we have a lot to learn from others here. But it can be done. We can do it. And the other side, or the flip side, of what you are saying – which I think is a very important reminder – is that we must deliver consistent quality. When stories emerge – and the Norwegian Trade Council is now part of Innovation Norway, so we pick up signals from international markets – such as a documentary in France about salmon that had died before slaughter being exported, it is utterly devastating for the market. There is very little tolerance for that sort of thing. I also think about Japan, the similarities between us, and these two arms – Norway as one and Japan as the other – embracing the world. Both are well-functioning democracies that believe in regulated global trade, for example, and that matters greatly now.
And as we are probably nearing the end of the podcast, I want to thank you for the work you have done. The work we do at Innovation Norway today stands on your shoulders. Your former colleagues, in a sense, and everyone working with exports at Innovation Norway today feel immense pride and gratitude for the work you and Project Japan did. We are all looking forward to reading your book. It is also a reminder to those around us of the value that this business support system actually creates, despite sometimes being portrayed as a waste of public money or as … The work you did single-handedly has created billions of kroner in value for Norway and supported jobs all along the Norwegian coast. It has not been without its challenges. We still have work to do, but what a remarkable contribution it has been to Norway. Thank you so much!

Olsen: My pleasure.

Host: Thank you, Bjørn Eirik Olsen, Mr Sushi, for joining us on Innopodden, and thank you to Håkon Haugli. Until next time.

(1) Olsen may have mixed up the Japanese names here.

Guest: Christian Clemet Tetzschner, founder and CEO of Hyyr

From Innovation Norway: CEO Håkon Haugli and

Host: Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann

This summary was created by Copilot and quality-assured by the programme manager.

In this episode, Christian Clemet Tetzschner, founder and CEO of Hyyr, explains how the company uses technology and artificial intelligence to make public procurement simpler and more efficient. Hyyr has developed a platform that helps public-sector buyers plan and run tenders in compliance with regulations, while reducing the time required and the risk of errors.

Tetzschner explains that the idea came after several years working as a consultant, when he saw how time-consuming and complex tender processes could be. He points out that public procurement is a difficult market for startups to enter, as many tenders require references, financial resources and delivery capacity, which young companies often lack. He believes this is a significant barrier to innovation in the public sector.

Håkon Haugli believes the main challenge lies not in the legislation, but in culture, willingness to take risks and overly strict requirements from buyers. He emphasises that public procurement can be a powerful tool for innovation and the green transition, highlighting Norway’s investment in electric ferries as a successful example.

Tetzschner explains that Hyyr uses artificial intelligence to quality-assure requirements and documents in tender processes, but not to evaluate bids. The aim is to help users get things right, rather than leave important decisions to algorithms.

Both agree that public procurement offers enormous potential. With total annual procurement of around NOK 835 billion, smarter procurement can help deliver better services, drive innovation and create more opportunities for startups.

Towards the end of the conversation, Tetzschner explains that Hyyr is experiencing strong growth. After winning its first tenders, the company quickly gained a foothold in the market and is now expanding its organisation. At the same time, he emphasises that the main focus remains on helping public sector organisations create better, more efficient tenders.

Guest: Kjetil Trædal Thorsen, Snøhetta.

From Innovation Norway: CEO Håkon Haugli and

Host Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann.

Host: First, they designed the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Egypt. Since then, they have been behind projects including the memorial pavilion at Ground Zero in New York, the Norwegian National Opera and Ballet, an underwater restaurant and the world’s largest reading room at the library in Beijing. They have shaped landscapes and designed shelves, lamps and chairs. Snøhetta is an international brand and one of the world’s leading architecture practices. The company’s more than 250 employees work from offices in seven countries, and we meet them at their headquarters in a shed on Akershusstranda in Oslo. Kjetil Trædal Thorsen is an architect, professor, honorary doctor and founder of the company. He has invited Håkon Haugli and me, Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, from Innopodden to visit.

Welcome to Innopodden, Kjetil Trødal Thorsen ... or perhaps we should thank you for inviting us? We are now sitting in Snøhetta's offices at Akershusstranda …

Haugli: ‘What a fantastic space! Could you tell us a little about the design?’

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, absolutely. This is an old storage shed that belonged to the Port Authority. It’s right on the quayside at Vippetangen, which is a well-known place in Oslo. But the most important thing was working with the Port Authority to get them to say … ‘but you can’t have offices here,’ right? Because they had only ever seen it filled with large machinery and …

Host: Yes, they’ve seen it as a shed.

Trædal Thorsen: ‘A shed, yes. And it is a shed. It’s Shed 39. But nothing beats a good shed! It’s really all about the location, of course – and we’ve done relatively little to it, keeping the refurbishment quite limited. The concrete columns still have markings painted on them by the dockworkers back in the day, and everything is quite raw and rugged. But it’s the location here, the view across the Oslofjord and due south … and the feeling that you’re right in the centre of Oslo, yet at the same time you’re below Akershus and outside Akershus. So there’s a sense of distance, even though it only takes five minutes …’

Host: And you're close to the sea?

Trædal Thorsen: Very close to the sea. The sea is important, of course. The Oslo Fjord is a major urban space in Oslo, isn't it? From where we are now, it looks like a lake surrounded by land. You can't see straight out to sea, so it feels very intimate. And there's a lot of activity on the Oslo Fjord, so to us, it's an urban space.

Host: It’s a wonderful location, and when you step inside, you can feel that the space is full of life. There’s a lot going on here, isn’t there?

Haugli: … And creativity, I would say. There are lots of plants, and you can immediately see that people here are ... working on exciting things, because there are models of different things made from different materials, and …

Trædal Thorsen: It’s this wonderful blend of chaos and order, isn’t it? You work in a creative profession where … it’s almost like working in a newsroom. You’re always up against a deadline, and things move very quickly. Then we have the workshops out the back, where you can work with wood. We have large CNC machines, 3D printing, laser cutting and everything that allows you to ... You can hold things in your hands; they’re not just on a computer screen. But the energy in this space is palpable, without it becoming a sweatshop. We pay close attention to working hours, how people are treated and their wellbeing, and we do a great many things together. There’s a very collaborative approach to everything, and that makes Snøhetta a little different from many others, doesn’t it? It isn’t led by the so-called architectural genius. You know? It’s very much about showing trust, involving every employee and giving them responsibility. Responsibility builds trust. And it also helps each person develop their abilities. A physical space like this should help make that clear, shouldn’t it? It should show that this is what we want. So when you create an office environment, it should communicate what you think – before you’ve even thought it. In a way, it needs to embody what you want the people who work there to do.

Haugli: There’s something about the openness here – when we arrived a few minutes ago, there was an international delegation visiting, including potential clients, and there are lots of children’s drawings on the wall because you’re welcoming 400 schoolchildren over the course of a few days. So this open ... open space really reflects how open this place is … and the wide range of things you do.

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, well, we are very active in The Cultural Schoolbag, and we are also working with the Sparebank Foundation to expand the Craftsmanship Initiative, as well as working with smaller schools through our foundation. But is there really anything to hide? What would we hide? Perhaps if we were in the final stages of a competition and our competitors came by to see what we had done. But that is not where we are. Everything we do is transparent in a way, and it is available either online or elsewhere. We show everything we do, all the time, so there is no reason for us to shut ourselves away – and we do not.

Haugli: We ... we believe that every Norwegian has some connection to Snøhetta, and I think that is probably true. But perhaps they do not have a fully up-to-date picture of what you do – the foundation, for example, is a fairly recent development. Could you tell us a little about ... well, about the journey from the company’s founding to where you are today, and what has been important along the way?

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, well, I can start. There are, of course, many important stages over the course of a long life. But one of the things that struck us very early on when we founded Snøhetta was that we needed to create a collective, and it had to be as multidisciplinary as possible, right? So Snøhetta became a kind of symbol at the centre of it all: a mountain you can climb from several sides. You can think of multidisciplinarity in much the same way – you climb the mountain from different sides. You experience the mountain differently, even though it is the same mountain, …

Haugli: 'Great analogy!'

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, and it is all somewhat interconnected. From the very beginning, we combined landscape and architecture, primarily because we felt that, particularly in Norway at the time, before we began entering competitions abroad, budgets always covered buildings but never landscaping. If there was a little money left at the end of a project, you might get to plant a tree or some grass, lay a kerbstone or something like that. And we... we felt that this was an extremely poor holistic approach to the environments we inhabit. So we brought architecture and landscape together and incorporated the architectural budget into the landscaping element. This meant that we always considered the project's total budget, both indoors and outdoors. Naturally, this broadened our perspective on what architecture and landscape mean, with architecture influencing landscape and landscape influencing architecture. We could never have designed a building like the Oslo Opera House without working with landscape architects over such a long period. We then expanded this interdisciplinary collaboration to include interiors, art, design, products, relationships and urbanism, developing an understanding of what we used to call the ‘whole orange’: no segments were missing; it encompassed the full range of creative disciplines. And then there is the influence of having perhaps 45 nationalities represented, many of them here at the office, who both shape and are shaped by the projects through their different cultural backgrounds, all kinds of lifestyle preferences and how these are accommodated... If you are vegetarian, you are free to live that way; if you follow a paleo diet, you are free to do that too. It is about bringing a breadth of perspectives to the projects.

Host: Were you the only ones working that way?

Trædal Thorsen: At the time, no, there weren't many others. Working across disciplines in this way has since almost become the norm. I think the benefits of developing a broader professional understanding and a holistic perspective, if you like, are clear in almost every organisation. That is precisely because there is no absolute truth, nor is anything entirely untrue, in a sense. It comes down to perception and mindset. When you are given a task, it can of course be solved in a million different ways, but you have to narrow them down using knowledge and intuition. You need to create the right conditions for people to flourish, so they can bring both their professional expertise and who they are as individuals to the table.

Host: And you've built the company to where it is today, with at least 250 employees across something like seven different locations?

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, and this was important to us. First of all, our first major success came abroad. We did not win anything in Norway. We only came second or third, or received honourable mentions and things like that. So we thought, ‘OK, let’s enter the competition for the Library of Alexandria.’ After we won, it took twelve years to complete the building. So you need to take a long-term view. When we started, we had a 30-year perspective: ten years to establish ourselves, ten years to consolidate and ten years to reap the rewards. We did not quite manage it in 30 years, but we did get there in around 33 or 34 years. We then had to expand because we were winning projects elsewhere in the world, outside Norway and the Nordic region. For a long time, we had a hit-and-run strategy: win a project, set up a temporary office and then pull out. It took us almost twelve years to fully realise that a long-term presence in the markets where we operated was becoming absolutely essential. So we established an office in New York when we won the Ground Zero project, and another in Innsbruck because much of the Alpine region was our market – and I had been a professor at the university in Innsbruck for many years. We knew many talented people there, so it made sense to continue. We then moved on to Melbourne, Adelaide, Paris, Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Our studios remain highly multidisciplinary, so in a sense, we move forward together. Ultimately, it became absolutely essential to build a shared sense of trust among people working on their projects across different locations and time zones around the world. I travel more than 200 days a year, but that is not what ultimately delivers results. The results come from the people working on the projects wherever they are. That means you have to build an internal culture that safeguards your core values. You must never lose sight of what you are trying to achieve, but you also have to give people freedom. We are not a typical style-driven practice. We work contextually, as it is called, taking our cue from the conditions where each project is located. As a result, our projects look different, which makes us harder to classify stylistically than many others.

Host: We’ll have to come back to that, but I just want to ask you: It’s now around 37 years since you founded the company, and when you look back at all your projects – and I think we can all agree that you’ve helped deliver a great many remarkable projects – what makes you proudest?

Trædal Thorsen: Well, there’s no doubt that, at the start of my career, the Bibliotheca Alexandrina and the Oslo Opera House were real milestones. It was like driving a stake into the ground, you know? In a way, they established projects that represent what we stand for and clearly express it, while perhaps also being innovative enough to change how people understand that type of architecture. I believe the Oslo Opera House has changed the world’s understanding of what an opera house can be. But it’s difficult to go around feeling proud of things as well … I mean … that’s not really how I think. What matters most to me, almost all the time, is the projects we’re working on right now. And with those … you know, through imagined visions of a possible future, we’re constantly trying to picture what future memories might look like, if that makes sense. Things that haven’t happened yet. You try to imagine what patterns of response and memory might look like before the project has been built. And that’s an incredibly interesting exercise to undertake with many people, because everyone carries memories in different ways. So the pride we take in what we do … it comes more from how people use the projects. We often say that architecture is the world’s best social tool, because it can either shut you out or invite you in. And what makes us proudest is seeing how the architecture is used in the places where it stands.

Haugli: I walk past the Oslo Opera House almost every day on my way to and from work, and it is … one example of what you are saying is how the building is used. It is a meeting place – there are people on the roof around the clock. I have walked past and seen a seal lying there by the water’s edge, and there are always activities taking place around the building that have nothing to do with opera, with people doing other things. When you start a process like that, do you … envisage that kind of use? Is that … part of the process, or does some of it also happen by chance, sort of ‘because of …’

Trædal Thorsen: No, that is an interesting question, isn't it? Because in creative processes, you are very often working towards what is known as a lightbulb moment, when everything falls into place after all the preceding conversations, sketches, diagrams and references, right? And then you start collecting a range of disparate images that are not necessarily about design and expression, but about function. What do you want to achieve? What might the diagram look like? What if … if you want to open an opera house up to a wider audience, and you know that many people are reluctant to enter the foyer, what could replace it? This is what eventually came to be known as the ‘third space’: neither inside nor outside, part of the building yet not part of it. These grey areas, these elements of architecture and design. So, typically, we would put together an early-stage team of choreographers, composers, librettists, dancers, architects and interior architects. And those who were not architects were very keen to start giving it form straight away, while those of us who were architects wanted to hold back. It was the same when we produced our first book with Kjartan Fløgstad, and he wrote ‘Hus som vil meg hysa’. Kjartan always wanted to be an architect, and I wanted to be a writer. What this kind of broad collaboration does is establish narratives about where you want people to be and what you want them to experience while they are there. That is when the idea of proximity to objects comes into play. If you can walk on something, are you not closer to it than if you can only walk beneath it? If you can sit on a chair, are you not closer to the chair than when you can only look at it? Is that not the case when you can feel and touch things? These ideas then become drivers, and you have to find a way to translate them into design and model-making. You have to test them. What if people could walk on the roof of an opera house? What would that achieve? Most likely, it would give people a lasting sense of ownership of the building, which might in turn bring new visitors into the foyer and the auditorium. These are hypotheses, of course. But we strongly believed that hypothesis was correct, and it has proved to be so. You can see it in what people wear to a première, in the make-up of the audience and in their ages. So … being inclusive works, and it also works in terms of what you want to communicate. That lightbulb moment is a jumble of things that suddenly find their almost spiritual place somewhere in the space.

Host: You have extensive dialogue with users and different groups before you begin the work. Do you have a similar dialogue with them afterwards?

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, we carry out a great deal of what are known as post-occupancy studies. We are interested in the architecture, of course, but its impact is more important than the architecture itself. So we need to measure that impact. We need to ask: did the Opera House attract more visitors? What about Times Square? Did the shops on either side of Times Square, along Broadway and down the diagonal, see an increase in sales? Yes, they did. Did the air become cleaner? Was there less crime? How did people's perceptions change? Are New Yorkers returning to Times Square, which had been overrun by tourists? Yes, they are. By measuring the results after five, ten, fifteen and twenty years, we can see the impact of architecture and design as a social tool, and what it really means for each person's experience of the place they are in.

Haugli: Yes, this idea of place is interesting here. The Opera House is one thing as a building, but it also forms part of a wider context. I may be stretching the point a little, but that building and Snøhetta’s work have, in a way, changed Oslo. We are a different city. It has transformed the surrounding area, but it has also given us a completely different sense of pride. Through our work in tourism, we see that Oslo now attracts a very different kind of visitor. Oslo ranks very highly for ‘coolness’ and modern urban life, and that has not happened by itself. So what I am really asking is: how wide a circle do you draw when measuring the impact? It is one thing to measure the number of people who enter the Opera House or the Library of Alexandria, but what impact does it have on the surrounding area?

Trædal Thorsen: Well, it is extremely difficult to measure indirect economic impact. Some figures are available, while others are hypothetical. But you can see increased activity, and that can be measured. It is also difficult to attribute it to one thing or another. In Oslo, for example, you might say: ‘Yes, we now have the Deichman Library, the Munch Museum and the National Museum.’ Suddenly, it is the overall picture, with various factors beginning to drive that activity. Many consultancy firms around the world, whether they are called PwC or whatever, know that there is an economic impact at the other end. But putting precise figures on it is very difficult.

Haugli: But there is plenty of evidence from urban development showing that cultural buildings like these can turn things around. The best-known example is probably the Guggenheim in Bilbao, which was a deliberate choice to reverse a downward spiral. You could think of Oslo in a similar way – although we weren't in a downward spiral – because it undoubtedly changed the city. And that brings me to something we've discussed with you before: the status of the creative industries, or how well their value is understood. So, what do you think about Norway – how well do we understand their value? This is a leading question …

Trædal Thorsen: But that’s perfectly fine, and we’ve discussed it before, haven’t we? And then there’s the question running through my mind right now: how honest should I be?

Host: You can be completely honest here.

Haugli: Yes, it'll stay between us.

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, I probably can – this is just between us! I have long believed that our primary industries – oil, gas, fisheries and fishing, and all forms of... shipping, management of the marine industries and so on – are important, because our entire prosperity is, in a sense, built on them. But when you become so comfortable with the fact that they generate all your revenue anyway, everything else takes a back seat because you are so content with those particular industries, and you know the money will keep pouring in regardless. So you do not really need to do anything else, and I believe that is a serious mistake. In the long term, I believe it is a serious mistake not to invest much more in knowledge-based and creative industries, because our level of education in Norway is ideally suited to long-term development, isn't it? We do not have any large technology companies, and we have almost no truly large creative companies. In music, literature and the cultural sector more broadly, we have a number of very important individual success stories, but we lack breadth and the ecosystems around them. As for us, when we spearhead the promotion of Norwegian architecture abroad, the whole aim is to create an ecosystem that can take this forward and make it broader and bigger, so that it represents Norway's knowledge-based and creative industries. In my view, too little has been invested in this.

Host: So, what kind of investment would you like to see?

Trædal Thorsen: Billions, right. A truly comprehensive, wholehearted investment in education, research in the knowledge industries and how we manage it. If we continue as we are now, handing out five kroner here and ten kroner there, we will lose out. In the long term, we will lose ground in positioning ourselves in areas where these industries will become increasingly important, not least for our export industries.

Haugli: This is a very important reminder that Snøhetta is something as rare as a company that succeeds in areas where Norway has no obvious natural advantages, although perhaps we do have some cultural advantages. But leaving that aside, much of the value creation we see in Norway involves natural resources being transformed into value through various technologies. Snøhetta, on the other hand, competes entirely on the open market with... a similar company could have been established anywhere in the world. Yet there is also something very Norwegian about Snøhetta. And the values you mentioned earlier also reflect Norway. Even the name Snøhetta itself – the mountain – is an example of that. Could you say a little more about it? How Norwegian do you consider yourselves to be? And perhaps this is not the most important or central point here, but how similar are those values across, for example, your office in China and your offices in Europe?

Trædal Thorsen: No, I mean, everyone takes pride in being part of a shared Nordic and Norwegian social democratic tradition. I think that is deeply rooted. It has to do with education and schooling, equity, the distribution of wealth, the tax system and the provision of services that a welfare state should offer its citizens at all times, right? So there are some fundamental values that serve as ideals for many people. And we are small enough to be able to manage it, so really, we should simply be content – but we cannot be.

Haugli: No, that’s a bit risky too.

Trædal Thorsen: Very dangerous, right, but when it comes to dealing with it, there is … the set of values that Gro Harlem Brundtland, among others, represented when she wrote the report Our Common Future, or Vår felles framtid, and which formed the basis for the definition of sustainability that eventually became the UN Sustainable Development Goals in their entirety, but which, put simply, is really about social, environmental and economic sustainability. OK, that is relatively easy to describe. You know what it is about, but then you have to define what you actually mean within those concepts. This provided a kind of foundation for the development of Norwegian society after the war, and for the political decisions made to secure that income, distribute the benefits and create ripple effects for local industry. And all along the west coast, there are lots of small, innovative companies that have emerged in the wake of this development. They are good, but they remain small, right? It is a case of, well, once you have 100 employees, that is enough. You are satisfied. We need some companies with even greater international clout – financially and in terms of innovation – that can attract the brightest minds. If we do not have that here in Norway, well, this is part of the bigger picture and the long-term complexity of building the society we want. The foundation is perfect, right? It … everyone looks to the Nordic countries and Norway. Everyone wants what we have. No one quite knows what it is or why things are this way. But in a sense, we do know, because we have watched it develop. Even though it can sometimes be difficult to put into words, everyone wants this ideal state, this nirvana or utopia that we now live in. Everyone wants it, so it is a good starting point for spreading the word, if you like, through projects around the world.

Haugli: Yes. You’ve shown us a couple of photos from key moments, and I thought our listeners might like to hear a little about them, because I think they say so much about how you approach the development of the company and its culture. One shows you all going on a trip to Snøhetta – the mountain – and hiking to the summit together. For people from other parts of the world, that must be a powerful team-building experience as well as an extraordinary encounter with nature, and it says a great deal about Norway. The other photo I was thinking of is from when you were young and starting the company. One of you – I can’t remember whether it’s you or one of your colleagues – is holding up Our Common Future, the sustainability report, as if to say, ‘This is our roadmap.’ They’re wonderful images that convey, with remarkable impact, the kind of company you are and want to be. You don’t need to comment on this, but for those listening, I just wanted to explain what Snøhetta is. Snøhetta is so much more than ... and ... the reason Snøhetta is commercially successful is that you have built a strong culture over time. There are lessons there that I think many companies underestimate when we look at growing businesses. What correlates most strongly with growth? What factor drives it? It is, in fact, the ambition to grow – having a strategic vision to go out into the world and succeed. Some companies – too many – are content with where they are.

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, you have to take risks. And taking risks is part of the joy, because it is incredibly exciting to find out whether something will work. The best feeling in life is when you achieve something – that sense of accomplishment. When we teach our people to hike up Snøhetta, it reflects a Nordic understanding of our relationship with the landscape: hiking together, helping each other across the river and making sure we wait for the person at the back, so that everything does not fall apart if someone ... wanders off and gets a little lost. Then you put all your energy into finding them and bringing them back into the group. That is one of the things we believe is important. My grandfather always used to say: when you are walking through rough terrain, you need to look down so you do not stumble; you need to look ahead so you know where you are going; and you need to look up so you can dream a little and appreciate how good life feels in that moment. And every now and then, you need to turn around and look back at where you came from, so you know you have covered some distance. These are really very simple principles for life, based on a basic insight into walking. I believe the human body, our relationship with our surroundings and our relationships with one another are all closely connected. Everything rests on a psychosocial environment. There is no getting around that, and you have to build it at home first, don't you? All good things begin at home. It is very difficult for us to represent something elsewhere if we have not put it into practice at home. So the most important project for us has always been the Snøhetta project. Not all our clients like it, but we do, because it enables us to deliver our best work for them.

Host: Can one of your offices elsewhere in the world carry out a project from start to finish without you or anyone from the head office here being involved?

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, they can. But for the largest and most important projects, we put together teams of people from different offices who take part in what we call pin-ups, where you critique the project presented by that office. You then offer feedback, whether critical or encouraging. So it is not a completely independent, Wild West situation; we maintain oversight of the projects. We know which direction we want to take, and I am often involved in the early stages of projects around the world, working on concept development and building a shared understanding, precisely to ensure that the core values remain intact throughout the project. This can result in many different forms of expression and choices of materials. It can take many forms, but... in that sense, we are aligned on our core values, though not necessarily on aesthetics.

Haugli: I realise we may be running a little short on time, but could you say a few words about the foundation you’ve established? That’s something new, isn’t it?

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, it’s completely new. We actually registered it this year, but I’d say we’ve been working on it for almost ten years. It takes some internal funding to carve out a non-commercial part of a company. The foundation now owns ten per cent of Snøhetta’s shares as non-voting B shares. We’re also funding it through cash donations, support from other foundations and applications we submit. But its primary focus is the next generation. We believe that the issues we’re discussing now, and what Norway has done so far, need to be addressed earlier in education. That’s one aspect. The other is that the foundation is continuing some research projects we’ve already started, covering everything from materiality to psychological impact. We also work across some of the major institutions internationally to maintain our relationships with them. At the Library of Alexandria, for example, we’re holding a major seminar on rethinking and rebuilding, with a particular focus on conflict, together with the Kreisky Foundation in Vienna and others, including a major Italian institute. We’re also working with partners in Mumbai, looking at education there and how to spread a basic understanding so that you don’t just educate technocrats, so to speak, but people who can think for themselves. Most people can, can’t they? They just need to be given the opportunity, and we create those opportunities through workshops, facilitation and practical support. We also work with younger pupils in Oslo, including classes in Gamlebyen. We recently ran a woodworking project where they built boats that were launched from the roof of the Oslo Opera House. That helps them understand: what is a boat? What is displacement? You don’t need to sit in a physics classroom reading the formula for displacement in water. You need to see it. You need to feel it. You need to know whether it floats or not. These are fundamental things that are really about life itself. The foundation takes this seriously and works specifically on these programmes. Martin Gran is the CEO of the new foundation, and we have established a board. At the end of the month, we’re going to the US for a small fundraising campaign. Many people are interested in what we’re doing because public art is also part of our work, alongside the environment and sustainability. Sustainability across these three themes forms the foundation. So Martin is building on much of the ethos Snøhetta has had from the very beginning, but we’re now taking it into the non-commercial sphere and pursuing it on a non-commercial basis.

Host: It’s fascinating to hear just how much you’re involved in. But as we come to the end, I’d like to ask: If you had to choose one project you’re working on now, which one excites you the most?

Trædal Thorsen: Well, perhaps I should highlight two projects? One is more about converting existing buildings. Much of what we in the West need to consider going forward is how to use all this space and building volume that is no longer suited to its original purpose. This is, of course, closely linked to sustainability – converting and restoring buildings. We are now just about to complete Oxy in Brussels, a building from the 1960s where we have examined every aspect of sustainability and converted it into a modern building fit for today.

Host: Powerhouse in Sandvika is another example of that, isn't it?

Trædal Thorsen: Powerhouse in Sandvika is exactly that kind of example. You retain the existing architecture, but transform it into an exceptionally environmentally friendly machine. I think all these things are interconnected, so we are committed to making it work. And of course, major cultural institutions are still being developed around the world. Over the course of this year, we will open the new opera houses in Busan, South Korea, and Shanghai. Shanghai is the largest performing arts centre we have designed, and our largest opera house, covering 145,000 square metres.

Haugli: And how many people can it accommodate?

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, there are five auditoriums, so we can accommodate more than 5,000 people in different configurations across the various spaces at the same time. But we are also exploring whether cultural differences mean that walking on the roof of a building is perceived differently in China than in the Nordic countries. It will be incredibly exciting to see, and I would say it is a very expansive, beautiful project. It draws heavily on Chinese tradition, with Chinese theatre and opera forming part of the programme, while also reaching out to the wider world. We will see how these elements come together. I am really looking forward to the opening. But we are also working on lots of smaller things, you know. We are opening a small restaurant in Hong Kong called Tiny. It has three tables, and it is … it is wonderful to do things like that. Or it might be some furniture we currently have in production, or a carpet collection for Ege Carpets, for which we have developed a new digital weaving technology that is now being put into production. We have small projects for clients whom I consider important, but they are not … they are not thousands of square metres – they are very small. But they are highly refined projects, and we also have the large ones. We are one of the few practices in the world that can actually handle very small and very large projects at the same time.

Haugli: Are you going to create a ‘Snøhetta’s guide to the world’ handbook for people travelling around the world?

Trædal Thorsen: Yes, well, we're currently working on a monograph that will be published at the end of the year. But then, for the 40th anniversary, Collected Works will be released. It will include all the works, with many volumes that can be combined into one huge book, and it will be really impressive. There are thousands of them.

Haugli: I’m sure many of those listening have been to New York, for example, and seen Snøhetta’s mark on the city. I certainly have, and it makes me very, very proud to be Norwegian and, in a way, part of the Snøhetta family. And your work has a real impact on the city. You mentioned Times Square, the 9/11 Memorial and what you have done there. That is just one example, and it is wonderful. Part of our mission is to promote and build the Norway brand, and Snøhetta, as an outstanding company, gives us tremendous support in doing so.

Trædal Thorsen: It has taken some time, hasn't it? When I gave a presentation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 20 years ago, they thought the projects were all right. But the question they asked afterwards was, 'Yes, but how much revenue do you generate internationally?' Yesterday, Elin gave a similar presentation to the Ministry's alumni group, and they said, 'OK, you are now opening doors for us.'

Haugli: Exactly, so it’s the other way round.

Trædal Thorsen: A completely different way of thinking, so I’m very glad that we’re moving forwards, not backwards.

Haugli: That is something to be pleased about, and I hope things improve, including the focus on the creative industries. It is a challenge you are putting to many people, but also to us, and we will take note of it ...

Trædal Thorsen: Of course, its value is considerably greater than we can ever measure, but even where it is measurable, I can see that it has an impact.

Host: We’ll take that forward, Håkon. And many thanks to you, Kjetil Trædal Thorsen from Snøhetta, for having us – and for the delicious waffles. Thank you, Håkon Haugli. My name is Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, and we’ll be back with another episode of Innopodden.

Guests: Anita Hegge and Petter Berge, founders and CEO of Hvild

From Innovation Norway: Håkon Haugli, CEO, and

Host Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann.

Host: Women generally live longer than men, and their sickness absence rate is 50 per cent higher. So it is strange that various types of health insurance primarily cover … men's needs. Hvild is doing something about this. Two men in the studio are joined by Anita Hegge and Petter Berge. This is Innopodden, with Håkon Haugli and me, Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann.

Host: Welcome to Innopodden, Anita Hegge and Petter Berge.

Hegge: Thank you very much!

Host: We’re delighted to have you here. You run Hvild, which offers three things: advisory, a digital platform and women’s health insurance. We’d like to hear more about all three, but let’s start by describing the problem. Sick leave is one aspect, as I mentioned in my introduction, but from the way you describe it, this is about so much more – tell us more!

Hegge: I suppose I can start at the beginning. I spent many years working in banking and finance, as well as in the fitness industry, primarily in change management and business development. During the last few years of my career, my health was quite poor. My confidence was at rock bottom, and I had lots of symptoms that made it really difficult to cope at work. But we want to be at work, don't we? It took several years before I understood what was actually happening. I met a gynaecologist who told me that these were symptoms of the menopause, which I had been thrown into after chemotherapy. I had been living with it for many years, but no one had told me

That was the consequence, and the result was that when I was at work, I used ... all my energy, but perhaps I wasn't really reaching my full potential? And when I started feeling better, I thought, you know what? Women shouldn't have to feel like that at work. Employers shouldn't have women struggling so much. And you mentioned sickness absence. I think there are many unreported cases because we don't know or understand enough about women's health, so that was the starting point for establishing Hvild. And what I quickly realised was that expertise and knowledge about women's health is one thing, but from my experience of change management – changing an industry and transforming major projects within a company – that is really what women's health is about. It's about seizing an opportunity and recognising the potential to improve things. It's about seeing the opportunity to make a real difference in the workplace and across society. It creates enormous value. So that's part of the reason we started Hvild. We began with advisory services. We thought we needed to help organisations address women's health. And that proved to be the right approach, because it was a completely new way of thinking. The digital platform came later, providing employers with a tool to truly scale up the change. And to scale up our business as well, insurance entered the picture. That was also when Petter became involved – he's brilliant in that area. Health insurance policies are designed for 75-kilo men who do physical work, while women's health is barely covered by private health insurance, so there was a fantastic business opportunity there too.

Berge: Assuming it was possible to insure it – which no one had done before. There was no menopause insurance anywhere in the world. So Anita, who is also my wife, brought me in – unpaid – to turn this into an insurance product. It was a fairly specific brief, and an interesting experience. After 40 years in finance – including heading DNB's asset management business and serving as CEO of SEB Enskilda Banken – I went from being used to the number-one role to being the plus-one. It was an incredibly valuable experience, and one I would recommend to anyone who gets the opportunity. It gives you entirely new perspectives. It is also quite liberating to be able to say – and simply point to her if something is not working systematically – 'I just work here.' That was our starting point. We then set out to create health insurance. We had a technical idea of how to do it and developed it to a fairly advanced stage. We are both quite bold, so we persuaded one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, a French company called SCOR, to say, 'Yes, we are willing to cover that risk. We do not fully understand it, and we would not normally do this at all because there is not enough information for us to underwrite a policy. But we have reached the strategic conclusion that, for the past 100 years, we have treated women very poorly and provided them with services that were nowhere near good enough. We have decided to stop doing that, and we need a pilot project. Norway is limited in size, so there is a limit to how badly it can go. Even though we do not have all the figures, let us just get started.' We thought, 'Fantastic.' We approached every Nordic health insurer, and they were completely uninterested. So it was back to the drawing board, and we said, 'OK, then we will do it ourselves.' I once promised myself that I would never start another insurance company, because it is quite a unique undertaking. I had to forget that promise. So we started again, but this time we are doing it differently, using a modern approach called an MGA model. We do everything an insurance company can do except carry the risk on our own books. In other words, we are an insurance company without our own balance sheet. We are allowed to use someone else's balance sheet, so we underwrite insurance on someone else's account and at their risk. That is a significant authorisation to receive, so it needs to come from someone who knows you very well and is convinced that you know what you are doing. That was how we got started. With our French friends at SCOR still on board, we set it up ourselves and received excellent support from the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway. You do not often hear people praise them, but we did. We received our licence within a few weeks and were allowed to take the product to market. We got the sense that there are now quite a few women in the Authority's senior management too. It felt as though some of them might have spoken to each other and said something along the lines of, 'It is about time.' So they supported us, and we received a cross-border licence that allows us to provide cover throughout the EU from our Norwegian base. That is what we are now working to do. Our ambition is to scale up from here and, if not take on the whole world, at least reach large parts of Europe before we are done.

Host: And are you still the only ones doing this?

Berge: We are still the only ones doing this, and in a way, that has now been confirmed. We were recently in Las Vegas for an event called ITC Vegas, the world's largest conference for what is known as insurtech – the use of digital tools and techniques to create insurance solutions. It is a huge event with 10,000 attendees. Anything involving 10,000 people in Las Vegas is bound to feel a little nightmarish, but there you go. We had been tipped off beforehand that we ought to attend because a new list of the world's 50 most promising startups in this field was going to be announced. We knew we had been nominated because we had been interviewed a couple of times, but still. We also knew that the initial pool consisted of around four million companies, so the chances of making it all the way were not exactly ... let's just say we did not celebrate in advance. But then someone suggested that it might be a good idea to get ourselves over there. And we made the top 50. We were selected as one of the 50 startups in the world with the greatest potential to transform the insurance industry over the next three to five years. And it was repeated everywhere that we still offered the world's only menopause insurance.

Host: Congratulations! It’s incredibly exciting to hear about!

Hegge: Thank you so much! I'm very proud of it.

Host: And Håkon, you believe that insurtech, which we're discussing here – it's not a term I'm very familiar with – is actually an area where Norwegian companies should have a good chance of succeeding?

Haugli: Yes, I do. And it is also really exciting to hear how far you have come and what you are doing. It is striking how few insurtech companies we have in Norway. First of all, it is worth remembering that insurance is a huge global industry and a major industry in Norway. Norwegians also have strong digital skills. We are at the forefront of using what we call financial services, as well as other services – including public services – digitally, and I would say we are curious about new things. Norway is often used as a launch market, and there are two reasons for that. One is that Norwegians have high purchasing power, while the other is that we adapt quickly. Electronics, for example, tend to be adopted early in Norway. But in this context, I believe this means the conditions are right for startups such as Hvild. It is also fantastic to hear that you are winning and receiving this recognition. I think it may be difficult for a Norwegian audience to appreciate just how significant it is, because it is like winning an Oscar in a tech industry that is enormous globally. There are also related fields, such as fintech. Banking services, for example – although it could involve other things too – are closely related. Then there is the focus on women. I think there is something distinctly Norwegian about it, stretching all the way back to Gro Harlem Brundtland. This focus on health and women feels very Scandinavian, very Nordic. The world now looks to the Nordic region with admiration because we have an equal society – or at least we have come further than many other countries – and we genuinely care about equality. As I understand it – and I would like to ask you about this – employers are the ones buying your services, is that right? That adds another dimension: being a good employer, the Nordic model and cooperation in the workplace, and, not least, looking after every employee regardless of gender or other factors.

Hegge: There are several ways employers can begin addressing women’s health. For some, the starting point is sickness absence figures, which reveal the paradox that women have much higher rates of sickness absence than men. This applies both after women return from maternity leave, when their sickness absence increases by 50 per cent over the following two years, and to older women as they approach the menopause. That is one perspective. Another is employee benefits, where employers may find that their current offering is not entirely fit for purpose. Then there is your profile, right? Are you sustainable? Are you a sustainable employer? Are you a women’s-health-friendly employer? Are you able to recruit enough women into leadership roles? Do you comply with all the relevant regulations? These begin with the Sustainable Development Goals, and include the Working Environment Act, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act, and the duty to take action and report. All of this relates to women’s health; we simply have not explored it in enough depth. So there are many possible approaches. We have worked with around 40 large organisations, as they tend to be the first to address this. And we see a wide range of approaches. Some say, ‘OK, we held a presentation on International Women’s Day, so tick, we’ve addressed women’s health.’ But that is not really how it works. You need to build knowledge and competence. Then you need to ask: how can we incorporate this into our tools? How should we approach strategy? What measures should we take? That is when you truly begin to see the impact and an increase in value creation from addressing women’s health.

Host: And what measures are we actually talking about?

Hegge: Well, it’s a bit like asking how long a piece of string is, isn’t it? In an organisation like yours, which is knowledge-based, certain measures may be appropriate. For example, someone may need more time to focus for a period, because suitable deadlines and workloads can vary at different stages of a woman’s life. In a large customer service centre, other measures may be more appropriate. If you come to work one day having had no sleep because you have young children, or because you are going through the menopause, you might not be put on the front line when you know there will be a lot of angry callers that day. Perhaps you could work on the chat instead. It’s about being aware of how we can make the best use of the capacity we have that day, without medicalising women or treating them like porcelain dolls. We simply need to recognise the differences and consider how we can achieve the best outcome for both the woman and the organisation’s value creation. So it can vary.

Haugli: Yes, because this is a topic that – when it comes to health in general, but perhaps women’s health in particular – is still somewhat taboo. I assume part of your advisory work involves helping employers understand how to talk about it. Could you give us a brief insight into the kind of advice you offer? If I were to discuss this with our organisation, what are the dos and don’ts?

Hegge: That’s a very good question, and I’m a strong advocate of taking a fact-based approach. There are differences between men and women. We haven’t talked much about that because our working life is gender-neutral, and this is still reflected in the language we use. So I strongly believe we should start with competence building. That could involve presentations or training for managers. What exactly is women’s health? What are the definitions, how does it affect us, how should we take it into account, and what language should we use? My advice is to share fact-based information on your intranet, use our digital platform, arrange presentations or choose whatever works for you – but develop a shared language around it. Then it no longer feels so daunting or stigmatised. I think that’s the most important place to start: sharing clear, fact-based, evidence-based information with everyone.

Haugli: Yes – good tip!

Berge: We take a very practical approach to this: how do you handle that conversation? We started by thinking about a 32-year-old male economist in his first management role who suddenly has to talk to a woman old enough to be his mother about whether she might be going through the menopause. We thought that must be the very definition of an awkward situation for both parties, so we spent a lot of time exploring it and coming up with useful advice and tips. We then presented it to a large bank with many male managers of that age. And they gave us a real dressing-down! They completely rejected that assumption. It might have been an issue for us older people, but not for them at all. They talked about this all the time. All we could say was, ‘OK, fantastic, then we don’t need to spend time on it.’ But something is changing here. We also see that in knowledge-based businesses, particularly those competing fiercely for talent, such as the tech industry, these issues are important recruitment tools. Being able to offer the best terms to the brightest women is a major advantage. And much of this is actually coming from the US. We have had a couple of interesting experiences in Norway with Norwegian subsidiaries of international tech companies, where someone at head office decided it was time to look at how they support their female employees outside the US. If you are a tech company based on the California coast, there is a good chance you offer excellent employee benefits for women. They may receive support for egg freezing, IVF treatment and all sorts of other things. In a way, this forms part of the story these companies tell their shareholders about why they can attract the best people. Then someone presumably thought, ‘Perhaps we should check whether this is actually the case in all the other places where we operate.’ When they looked at Europe, they saw that it was nothing like that. We were nowhere near. That set powerful forces in motion. Suddenly, someone said, ‘We’re making promises to our shareholders that we aren’t keeping. You foolish Europeans simply have to do something about this.’ That is when organisations like ours come into their own. Suddenly, we start receiving calls from people saying, ‘I’ve been told by San Francisco that we aren’t competitive in this area. We need to do something about it, preferably yesterday.’ We welcome that kind of interest, but it is also an indication that something is changing, because the competition for talent is so intense. Competition for the most highly qualified people is fierce, and failing to retain women is simply tragic. In the legal profession, most newly recruited trainee solicitors are women. But something happens as they become more senior. Firms have spent a great deal of money developing them and their talents, and giving them opportunities to work with experienced lawyers, partners and senior female lawyers. Then, when they reach the point where they should be ready to step up, many women – perhaps even the majority – say, ‘No, thank you. I no longer have the confidence.’ And very often, this is linked to entering early menopause and everything that entails – the timing often coincides. If the managing partner at that law firm has never heard of the menopause, he has a problem. They are left completely baffled: ‘We’ve invested so much time and money in them, and now they don’t want to progress?’

Host: Do you recommend that companies develop a women's health strategy? What should such a strategy include?

Hegge: What I see – or what we see among Norwegian employers – is that it depends somewhat on their demographics and where they need to start. If you have a lot of younger women, you might focus more specifically on menstrual health and fertility. If you have a more mature workforce – as many employers do – you might start with a menopause strategy. For us, our women’s health strategy is about enabling women to continue developing their potential, regardless of their stage of life. You can link this to your life-stage policy as part of your people and HR strategies. Women’s health is therefore often considered in the context of everything else you already have in place, while making it clear that realising women’s potential, regardless of their stage of life, is part of the strategy.

Haugli: I find this incredibly exciting to hear about. It makes me think, you know … we … well – how do we think about women? You have touched on this too, because we are used to … when we look at a business case, we often ask: Who are you solving a problem for? And does it have the potential to scale? We need to remind ourselves of something that should be obvious, but I think is worth saying: we are talking about half, perhaps more than half, of the population. In the workplace, one of several factors is that we tend to assume everyone is the same, and that men and women have exactly the same needs. That is one aspect. Another is that women are still somewhat under-represented in the workplace. At Innovation Norway, we recently reached the point where we have more female than male employees. It is almost exactly fifty-fifty, but I think we are now at 51–49 – or is it 52? It is simply a reminder that this is the case in many workplaces, particularly perhaps in knowledge-based organisations. That means we need to think differently about it. Your idea also has other dimensions: in a way, it addresses both financial and many other challenges at organisational level, but also at societal level. For us as a society – and you have touched on this indirectly – there are clearly significant costs associated with sickness absence. Some people also leave work because remaining in employment becomes too difficult, and the costs of that are enormous. So if we can make use of the tools you offer, it will benefit individuals’ quality of life, organisations – in terms of costs, recruitment and more – and society as a whole. There is every reason to applaud this and express our enthusiasm. I hope everyone listening to this podcast visits Hvild – with a ‘d’ – dot … is it ‘no’? – and takes a look.

Host: Yes, we’ve talked a little about your advisory services and the insurance side of things. We also need to discuss the digital platform. Its stated aims are quite ambitious: to increase motivation and loyalty – including among men. It will help attract, retain and develop expertise and talent, reduce the costs associated with staff turnover, recruitment and training new employees and, not least, reduce sickness absence. It’s fantastic that a ...

Hegge: … In all modesty!

Host: … all of this can be done through the digital platform. Tell us a little more about it and how businesses use it too!

Hegge: I can do that. I just need to take a slight detour. On our platform, we have something called the partner guide, which covers things like how to support your partner through the menopause, for example, or if they experience cyclical health issues. Usage of that page peaks at three in the morning. You might laugh at that, but it is actually very sad, because so many people struggle when they have symptoms but do not understand what is happening. They may start becoming irritable with their partner, and life begins to feel a little difficult. So that is part of what the platform offers. But the platform is very much about knowledge of women's health and what we can do to improve our working environment. You mentioned the wider impact on society, and we know that one in five women do not apply for promotion at the company where they work because they have lost their confidence. As I mentioned, you can feel very small. Nineteen per cent choose to work part-time. But the figures show that if you understand women's health, know how it affects you and can seek help, you are more likely to apply for a leadership role and choose to work full-time rather than part-time. This is based both on a survey we conducted and on figures from the UK. There is also the leadership perspective. When I deliver leadership training, the comment I hear most often comes when I can see the penny drop. They look at me and say, ‘You know, if I had known this earlier, I would have been a better leader.’ That reflects some of our own experience, but the figures show the same thing, particularly in the UK and also in Australia, where they have worked on this over time. They demonstrate what knowledge and competence can achieve. That is why we are bold when we talk about the digital platform. It also includes a wide range of practical tools for risk assessments and other purposes – very practical tools that show you how to include this in an employee appraisal, how to approach the conversation as a manager, and so on.

Berge: We have also set it up so that it can be used as a course, which is one of the advantages of doing this digitally. You just adjust a few settings, and suddenly you have a course with Q&A, results and everything else. We also use it for certification. If an organisation wants employees to develop specialist expertise in women’s health, they can use the platform for that too, so it is a very flexible tool. You can use it as it is by subscribing to the platform and making it available to all employees. That is one model. Insurance customers get it as part of their package; it is included in their insurance. Or you can use it as inspiration, and we are completely open to that too, because much of the content is also freely available online. You can find quite a lot simply by visiting our regular website, and we are entirely comfortable with that. We also use it as inspiration for large organisations, particularly very large organisations that prefer to have their own digital solutions. We offer them the option of using our platform as a source of inspiration, and perhaps as a source of information too, which they can then package however they like. But it is a bold statement, and we completely agree. Still, you have to be ambitious.

Haugli: Just to return to the insurance issue for a moment. Norway has some large insurance companies. Why has no one done this before? And why is there so little interest in it now?

Berge: There are probably two sides to it, and one is that it has always been this way. This is not a uniquely Norwegian phenomenon; it is the same all over the world. We have not found good women’s health insurance anywhere. That probably stems from the idea that health insurance is for a man who does a lot of manual work and weighs just under 80 kilos. That is who it was designed for. Then, particularly in Norway and Sweden, some additional services have been introduced which, as we rather flippantly put it, help senior management stay fit for the Birkebeiner race. There is a lot of physiotherapy and similar services, which are excellent, but they cost a great deal. And they may not be a particularly good investment for the company. But everything has revolved around that, and then women suddenly enter the picture with completely different needs from those addressed by health insurance. Women rarely have serious prostate problems themselves, for example, but they often face challenges related to the menopause and cyclical conditions, and these are largely excluded from cover. There is probably a financial calculation behind this: we, the insurance company, are terrified of extending cover too far for female-specific conditions, because we might suddenly be left with the bill for IVF treatment, which is incredibly expensive. We are not willing to take that risk, so it is easier to shut that door and pretend the problem does not exist. That is more or less how it is. Part of the issue is that this old way of thinking still persists. Definitely part of it. Some of it is prejudice, and some of it may be straightforward financial considerations, also linked to the fact that health insurance is not a profitable product for insurers. They generally lose money on it, so making it even more expensive by expanding the cover is not a particularly welcome proposition. As a startup focused on disrupting things, we say: then we simply have to do it differently. It is not about doing the same thing better; you have to rethink it completely. What does a company paying for health insurance actually need? It needs as few people as possible to become ill, and those who do become ill to return to work healthy and well as soon as possible. Physiotherapy comes some way down the list, and the Birkebeiner race comes much further down the list than those priorities.

Haugli: We had a brief chat before this podcast conversation, and you showed us a very interesting graphic illustrating how men’s and women’s health journeys differ throughout their lives. Could you give us a quick glimpse of what it shows?

Hegge: Yes, exactly. It starts from the fact that we women win the lottery when it comes to longevity, because we live longer than men. But where things are a little more difficult for us is that we spend 25 per cent more of our lives in poor health. When I mention that figure, it is easy to assume that this happens towards the end of life. But that is not the case. There is a significant difference between men and women, and the figure illustrates how men tend to remain fairly healthy throughout their lives, before their health declines towards the end.

Haugli: Yes, it looked like it drops sharply from around the age of 50.

Hegge: Not that early, though, but... And then there are women, where the signs of ill health begin, in a way, when we have our first period. And then there are cyclical health issues throughout our lives. There is pregnancy and infertility, unless you are lucky enough to simply stay healthy, and then the menopause comes back like a boomerang for quite a few of us. So there is a very big difference compared with...

Haugli: … But the reward comes at the end, because it showed that you get around 20 good years right at the end of your life.

Hegge: Yes, but I think we can do better than that because we can take preventive action. There are treatments available that can help women feel well. We can change this illustration …

Haugli: Absolutely. This is not an argument for women to live in poor health, but there was such a stark contrast between the later stages of men's and women's lives.

Hegge: Yes, it is. And that illustration has actually attracted a great deal of attention around the world. In a way, it visualises something that many people know but struggle to fully grasp.

Haugli: No, because it’s – you understand it intuitively when you show it, but I’ve never thought about it that way.

Berge: It was picked up by a prominent international figure, a female influencer who is also behind a unicorn in women’s health. She saw the chart at a seminar Anita held here in Oslo earlier this year and was so enthusiastic that she went back to her hotel room, posted it on social media and recreated the chart. She said, ‘This is the smartest thing I’ve ever seen,’ and then it really took off. The chart has now travelled around the world five or six times. It will probably reach a million views, which … for those of us who aren’t part of the usual influencer world, is an absolutely staggering number. We’re happy if 300 people take a look, and now it’s appearing in all sorts of contexts. The UK’s National Health Service, the NHS, uses it in its strategic discussions. The Singaporean authorities use it in their assessments, as do the Hong Kong Medical Society and universities – you name it. So many people use it that we introduced a general permission to reproduce it, provided they credit us as the source, and we’ve made the entire data source open source so that anyone can use it. So it has … it has made a big difference for us, and we’re delighted that it’s being used so widely, because it highlights exactly what you’re saying: this is different from what people assume. We’ve also said that if you look at the chart, you’ll see many dark areas representing the periods when women experience ill health. If those periods could be reduced to the same level as men’s ill health, the overall impact for Norway would be like suddenly discovering a city the size of Drammen where everyone was in full-time employment – we would gain 35,000 full-time equivalent jobs on a plate. Not because everyone’s health had improved, but simply because women’s health was no worse than men’s. That is the potential impact on the national economy, not to mention the impact on each individual woman – obviously.

Host: It is incredibly exciting to talk about women’s health, and time flies when the conversation is this engaging. Before we wrap up, I would like to hear a little more about how you plan to develop Hvild. You started in 2023, and Innovation Norway has played a role in your journey. Earlier this year, you were highly critical of how the business support system had treated you, including us. That is a good thing! We value people who speak up when something is wrong. So, before we discuss where you plan to take the company next – you have now come quite a bit further and received more support from Innovation Norway – what can we learn from working with you as a company?

Hegge: No, I think it’s like any other startup that takes a while to get going – it comes down to communication. You know, talking to each other and being a little clearer. Perhaps we should have asked different questions? Perhaps we should have asked more often? So I think it’s communication, communication, communication. That’s what it comes down to. We’ve now had a very, very good process with you, and as I said earlier, that’s not because you haven’t challenged us. But it has been a very, very constructive and positive process, and that has been important to us, not only in terms of the resources, but also the seal of approval it gives you. So it’s been a great process. I think the lesson is simply to keep learning and remain open to new ideas and different ways of doing things – to be open to the radical innovations that emerge, and to listen and be curious about them. That could be one takeaway.

Host: Håkon, this is something you touched on earlier in the podcast – that it is not always easy for us to keep fully up to date with everything that is happening?

Haugli: Well, we are very grateful for the feedback we received, both then and now, and I want to emphasise that we are continually committed to learning and improving. I think it was ... well … communication is incredibly important, and … sometimes things move quickly, and sometimes we as an organisation do not have enough information to fully understand what is in front of us. And I think that, in your case, both of those things happened at the same time. We … what, what is this startup – what is it really about? So I am very pleased that we have got things back on track, and it is important for me to say, both to you and to everyone else who may be listening, that it is through feedback, including critical feedback, that we can develop as an organisation and improve both what we offer and how we work. No one should ever feel that such feedback is not welcome or permitted. And I am very glad that you gave us the opportunity to make adjustments and return to a positive and constructive dialogue, because that is important. It is exciting to see what lies ahead for you, and if there is anything we can contribute in the future, we would be very happy to do so.

Host: So, you now have a licence to provide insurance services worldwide, but which market will you enter first?

Berge: Yes. Like most Norwegians, we will probably go to Sweden first, and everything fits there. Everything is essentially the same, so we can do in Sweden what we do in Norway, which puts it very high on our list. We have a map, which we showed Håkon this morning, and it has a great many flags on it, and … but one thing matters a great deal to us: there are very few Norwegian companies in our field, the insurtech field – combining technology and insurance. There are many so-called unicorns in this field worldwide. In fact, fintech and insurtech account for one of the largest groups of unicorns. Just a few days ago, British company Revolut received a valuation that makes it … means it is worth twice as much as DNB, and it is also a bank, except that it has not operated as one. And DNB has been around for 100 years. So that says something about the potential for leverage, but our ambition is to do this from Norway, because it has become a point of pride for us. After we made that list and received all that attention in the US – and when you are among 10,000 Americans, 1,000 of whom are venture capitalists – you naturally receive a great many calls from potential investors. One of the first things foreign investors tend to tell us is, ‘Yes, this is incredibly exciting, but you need to start somewhere other than Norway.’ And that … is often linked to perceptions created by the media: foreigners who know something about Norway or the Nordic region have the impression that it is much harder to get things done here than elsewhere. We completely disagree, and in a sense we proved it by making that list, which does not include many other Nordic companies either. So we say we are going to do this for Norway. It has become a point of pride.

Host: That's good to hear, and on that note, we'll bring this episode to a close.

Haugli: I just want to wish you the very best of luck, or ‘tvi-tvi’, break a leg …

Hegge and Berge: Thanks a million!

Haugli: … going forward, and thank you for joining us on the podcast. We look forward to following your journey and are really rooting for you to become the first insurtech from the Nordics.

Host: Thank you, Anita Hegge and Petter Berge from Hvild, and thank you to Håkon Haugli. My name is Kjetil Svorkmo Bergmann, and we’ll be back with another episode of Innopodden.