Startup conversations often fixate on how much money a company has raised. New academic research on Swedish technology firms points to a different question: which outside capabilities a young company can tap to actually build, deliver and sell its product.
The study, reported by Securities.io, followed a cohort of very small Swedish tech companies and compared their early sales growth with the partnerships and financing they reported. Its clearest finding concerns production subcontractors, while results on funding sources were more mixed and come with important caveats.
Inside the Study of 241 Swedish Startups
The paper, titled "Growth in new technology-based firms: early partnerships and financial capital," was written by Hans Löfsten and published in the journal Management Decision in 2026. It examined 241 independent Swedish technology-based companies that were all founded in 2013.
These were micro-sized businesses, averaging fewer than two employees in 2014. The research tracked the cohort from 2014 to 2016, comparing sales growth against reported partnerships with suppliers, subcontractors, distributors, local authorities, and universities or research institutes, as well as any outside financing.
Importantly, the study focused on ongoing relationships rather than one-off transactions. A single purchase from a vendor is very different from a sustained arrangement with a partner who understands the product and can expand capacity as orders grow.
Subcontractors Showed the Strongest Link to Growth
Among all the partnership types examined, production subcontractors had the clearest positive association with early sales growth. The practical implication is that a young company does not necessarily need to build every capability itself.
Outsourcing a manufacturing step, testing process or software component can let a small team serve more customers without committing to fixed costs before demand is proven. Founders can then concentrate on product development and sales, and decide later whether to bring that capability in-house.
University Ties Helped Only Funded Firms
Partnerships with universities and research institutes were positively associated with growth, but only among companies that had secured external funding. Such relationships can give startups access to labs, specialist equipment, testing and talent they could not afford on their own, and may lend credibility with customers and investors.
A research link pays off commercially only when it solves a real customer or production problem, such as validating that a prototype performs outside a controlled setting. Founders still need a path from that evidence to a repeatable product and revenue.
What the Funding Results Do and Do Not Show
Across the full sample, firms that reported external funding showed a positive association with sales growth. Within the funded subgroup, however, results varied by source. Crowdfunding was positively associated with growth in one model but lost statistical significance once more controls were added.
Funding from family and friends showed a negative association across the subgroup models, while bank loans, risk capital and public funding showed no statistically significant relationship. These findings should not be read as cause and effect, since companies choose funding sources for different reasons. A founder in a difficult market, for example, may turn to family simply because other options are limited.
The financing analysis also rests on a small base: 40 firms reported external funding, and 35 were included in the regression models. That is far too few to rank funding channels for tech startups in general, and the study's authors describe the source-specific results as exploratory.
Limits of the Research
The survey recorded only whether a partnership or funding source existed, not its quality, terms, timing or duration. Because the analysis is observational, it cannot prove that partnerships produced growth; better-run companies may simply have been more capable of forming useful relationships.
The broader point still aligns with other ecosystem research. The OECD's 2026 financing scoreboard highlights venture capital's relevance for startups whose intangible assets are hard to use as collateral, while the European Investment Bank has studied the financing gap firms face once they move past the earliest stage.
Lessons for Founders and Investors
For founders, the most durable takeaway is to identify specific capability bottlenecks before choosing partners or capital. Whether the gap is a testing facility, a manufacturing partner, regulatory expertise or a first distribution channel, naming it clarifies whether a subcontractor, university, investor, grant or crowdfunding campaign is the right fit.
For investors, the research suggests looking beyond the size of a funding round to what that capital unlocks, including customer adoption, repeatable delivery and partnerships that expand capacity. The study offers no formula for picking winners, but it underlines that early growth often depends on combining money with the right people, infrastructure and market access.
Source: Securities.io
