Ireland's Innovation Index · 2024
RDI investment remained strong; cost and administration remained the brake.
Seventy-four per cent of respondents had increased research, development and innovation (RDI) spend and 77% expected further growth. Budget pressure, planning time and the administration involved in accessing support remained substantial constraints.
Who responded
Respondent profile.
Ownership
62% Irish-owned, 17% US-owned subsidiaries and 12% other foreign- owned subsidiaries; the balance was spin-outs or other.
Largest sectors
Medical and health 20%, software/ICT 18%, and engineering/technology 18%.
RDI teams
54% had 1–10 people directly engaged in RDI and 26% had 11–50.
Finding 1 · Investment
Past investment and future expectations both remained positive.
Seventy-four per cent reported increased RDI spend over the previous three years. Seventy-seven per cent expected it to increase over the next three.
View the data table
| Category | Value |
|---|---|
| Past three years · increased | 74% |
| Next three years · expect increase | 77% |
Separate retrospective and forward-looking questions. Exact valid bases are not published. Source — 2024 report, p.14
Finding 2 · Priorities
New development led; AI entered the strategic agenda.
New product, process or service development was the leading priority. Forty-five per cent selected AI or disruptive technology—an indicator of priority, not a measure of adoption.
View the data table
| Category | Value |
|---|---|
| New product/process/service | 73% |
| Improve existing products/services | 61% |
| AI / disruptive technology | 45% |
Multi-select question; priority should not be described as adoption. Source — 2024 report, pp.10 and 32
Finding 3 · Delivery barriers
Cost and the time needed to administer innovation dominated.
Sixty per cent selected limited budget or perceived high cost. Almost half selected the time required to plan and administer innovation activity.
View the data table
| Category | Value |
|---|---|
| Limited budget / high cost | 60% |
| Time to plan and administer | 48% |
Multi-select question; exact valid base not published. Source — 2024 report, p.12
Finding 4 · Access to support
Administrative work was itself a barrier to accessing support.
Forty-one per cent cited administration around grant drawdown or an R&D Tax Credit claim, and 40% cited the grant application process. The burden was reported more often by Irish-owned claimants than multinational claimants.
View the data table
| Category | Value |
|---|---|
| Drawdown / RDTC claim administration | 41% |
| Grant application process | 40% |
| No perceived barrier | 11% |
Multi-select question. A separate analysis found 58% of Irish-owned RDTC claimants cited administration versus 31% of multinational claimants. Source — 2024 report, pp.16 and 36
Finding 5 · Reported effect
Companies associated support with additional activity and jobs.
Respondents most often said supports allowed more R&D and supported employment. These results capture respondent attribution rather than an independent causal estimate.
View the data table
| Category | Value |
|---|---|
| Allowed more R&D | 65% |
| Supported more employment | 52% |
| Encouraged internal investment | 42% |
Multi-select question; wording reflects respondent attribution. Source — 2024 report, p.17
Finding 6 · International position
Support competitiveness was mixed; tax-credit reliance was high.
Among the relevant multinational subgroup, 51% rated Irish supports equally or more favourably than other locations, while 36% were unsure. Half said no more than 10% of their Irish R&D would remain without the credit.
View the data table
| Category | Value |
|---|---|
| Supports equal or favourable | 51% |
| No more than 10% of R&D without RDTC | 50% |
| No more than half without RDTC | 83% |
Multinational subgroup; question-level valid base is not published. Source — 2024 report, p.18
Finding 7 · Green innovation
Support for a higher green-technology rate remained strong.
Seventy-eight per cent said a 50% green-technology credit would increase investment. The result measures stated response to a hypothetical incentive.
View the data table
| Category | Value |
|---|---|
| Yes | 78% |
| Unsure | 19% |
| No | 3% |
Exact valid base not published. Source — 2024 report, pp.18–19
What IRDG and KPMG asked for
The 2024 recommendations, as published.
Reproduced as published. Source — 2024 report, p.38. This page preserves the findings and recommendations as published in 2024. The report also contains a separate survey of 100 AI workshop participants; its results are not combined with the main 496-response survey.
Raise national R&D investment
Raise government R&D expenditure to 0.8% of gross national income (GNI) and target combined gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) of 2.5% of GNI within three years.
Recommendation 1Increase the R&D Tax Credit rate
Increase the rate to 35%.
Recommendation 2Create a specialist Revenue unit
Establish a centralised unit for R&D Tax Credit claims.
Recommendation 3Accelerate compliant refunds
Automatically refund cash-credit instalments below a suggested €300,000 threshold, while preserving audit rights.
Recommendation 4Increase the outsourcing allowance
Set allowable third-party outsourcing at the greater of 25% of non- outsourced R&D expenditure or €250,000.
Recommendation 5Strengthen green incentives
Introduce a 50% green-technology R&D rate and improve the awareness, accessibility and value of related grants.
Recommendation 6Clarify qualifying-purpose wording
Amend the then section 766 wording to use ‘for the purposes of R&D activities’.
Recommendation 7Recognise emerging technologies
Expand qualifying fields to consider AI, machine learning, blockchain and other emerging technologies.
Recommendation 8IRDG's reading of it
What the 2024 evidence meant.
The 2024 evidence strengthened the case that innovation ambition was not the central problem. The friction lay in the resources and administrative capacity needed to turn that ambition into funded work. This is IRDG interpretation, shown separately from the survey findings above.
Data notes and corrections
What this edition does and does not establish.
Published so that anyone reusing these figures knows their limits. Where the report contradicts itself, the contradiction is recorded rather than resolved silently.
Note 1
The annual survey is repeat cross-sectional, not a panel or nationally representative sample.
Note 2
The separate 100-company AI-for-New-Product-Development workshop survey has a different population and method. Its reported 20% improvement figure lacks a published valid base and is not used as a headline here.
Note 3
The international-comparison prose says 14% equal while the chart and executive summary say 13%; this page uses 13% and reports the combined equal-or-favourable result as 51%.
Note 4
Most question-level valid bases are unpublished. Multi-select questions can exceed 100%.
Citation
IRDG and KPMG (2024), Ireland’s Innovation Index 2024, Dublin: Industry Research & Development Group.
The publication
Read the 2024 report in full.
Everything on this page is drawn from the published report — 496 responses, 434 completed, fieldwork 5 March to 2 April 2024. The PDF carries the full charts, the question wording and the methodology note.
Ireland's Innovation Index is produced by IRDG with KPMG. This is the second edition.
Data, corrections and media
Spotted something wrong, or need the underlying data?
If a figure here does not match your copy of the report, tell us and we will check it and publish a correction. We also take media and data-reuse requests through the same route.