Europaudvalget 2024
KOM (2024) 0436
Offentligt
2915138_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 3.10.2024
SWD(2024) 470 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EVALUATION
Accompanying the document
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
TO THE COUNCIL
Final Evaluation of Eurostars-2
{COM(2024) 436 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0002.png
Glossary
Term or acronym
SMEs
ESE
NFB
TFEU
Meaning or definition
Small- and medium-sized enterprises
EUREKA secretariat
National Funding Body
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
1
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0003.png
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Eurostars-2 programme was a public-public partnership funded under the Horizon 2020
Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (R&I) covering the 2014-2020 period.
Eurostars-2 aimed at supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) performing
research and development (R&D) activities through international cooperation. It was the
second iteration of a programme that started in 2008.
1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation
Eurostars-2 is jointly undertaken by 33 Eurostars-2 Participating States and Partner countries
and the European Union (EU) based on Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU) (ex-Art. 169 TEC). The participation of the EU was formally acted
through the Decision No 553/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15
May 2014 on the participation of the Union in a Research and Development Programme
jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at supporting R&D performing SMEs
1
("Eurostars-2 Decision"). The decision entered into force on 27 June 2014.
The European Union supports financially the Eurostars-2 Programme, with maximum EUR
287 million for the period 2014-2020, coming from the Horizon 2020 budget allocated to
"Innovation in SMEs" (Industrial Leadership pillar).
According to Article 15 of the Eurostars-2 Decision, the European Commission had to
conduct a final evaluation of Eurostars-2 by 31
st
of December 2022.
This Staff Working Document accompanies the Commission Report on the final evaluation of
the Eurostars-2 programme, covering the period between the inception of Eurostars-2 in 2014
until March 2022.
2
It builds on the interim evaluation of Eurostars-2 performed in 2017
3
, a
call for evidence launched in 2022, and available monitoring data. The performance of
Eurostars-2 was also covered as part of the external ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020
4
.
The interim evaluation of Eurostars-2 performed in 2017 informed the impact assessment of
its successor initiative “European Partnership on Innovative SMEs” supported under Horizon
Europe. It highlighted that the major benefits of Eurostars rest in the niche features of the
programme, such as its bottom up approach, its strong trans-national focus, the division of
work between the central structure and the decentralised structures of national funding bodies.
It also supports beneficiaries to introduce new products within two years of projects’
1
Decision No 553/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the participation
of the Union in a Research and Development Programme jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at
supporting research and development performing small and medium-sized enterprises Text with EEA relevance
(europa.eu).
2
Although there are no further calls under the programme, projects supported by the programme and related top-
up payments will continue until 2025.
3
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Shaton, M., Pando, E., Vicini, I. et
al.,
Interim evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme,
Publications Office,
2017,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/357102
4
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,
Eurostars-2 final evaluation –
Evaluation study of the European Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation for an innovative
Europe,
Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/333838
2
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0004.png
completion and allows SMEs to obtain funds without any prior experience in transnational
R&I collaboration.
On the other hand, the interim evaluation pointed out that, due to the decentralised structure,
times to grant have shown a high level of heterogeneity and the lack of synchronisation of
procedures often hampered the smooth implementation of the programme. The low number of
active participating States and the uneven concentration
5
of beneficiaries in them limited the
impact of the programme. A certain level of uncertainty had manifested in terms of getting
funding for selected projects when the contribution of participating States had been exhausted
by other projects.
1.2 Methodology
The final evaluation of Eurostars-2 builds on the findings of a supporting evaluation study
(ISBN 978-92-68-01803-3), conducted by external contractors, which is part of the Research
and Innovation Framework Programme Impact Monitoring, Analysis and Evaluation strategy
for the period 2019-2024 covering the overall ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020 and the
interim evaluation of Horizon Europe, including partnerships. More particular the Eurostars-2
final evaluation is covered under the Evaluation study of the European Framework
Programmes for Research and Innovation for an Innovative Europe. This study includes two
case studies, using data collected through surveys and approximately 30 interviews with
programme participants and a wider variety of stakeholders (including beneficiaries, national
funding bodies, the Eureka Secretariat and Commission services).
This is complemented with statistical information about the Eurostars-2 programme provided
by the Eureka Secretariat. The call for evidence published in September 2022 gathered replies
from 62 entities from nine different countries and largely confirmed the conclusions that were
drawn from the interviews conducted with stakeholders.
Due to a lack of more detailed information and data on final project results and impacts of
Eurostars-2 projects, mainly insights from interviews and desk research are integrated into
this final evaluation giving only limited information on the actual results and impacts.
Although the Eureka Secretariat has changed its monitoring system in response to the Interim
Evaluation (2017), which noted the insufficient accuracy and lack of up-to-date information in
the Eureka Secretariat database, it was not yet possible to assess at the time of the final
evaluation (2022) if the new monitoring has improved data timeliness and availability, in
particular due to the ongoing changes in the IT system of the Eureka Secretariat.
Monitoring data provided (by 25 August 2022) include:
- List of contact details for some National Funding Bodies
- Data on the number of applications for each cut-off
- Data on the countries of origin of the applicants
5
9 participating countries concentrate more than half of all participating R&D SMEs: Germany, The
Netherlands, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway.
3
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
- Data on the number of funded projects for each cut-off
- Data on the total projects budget for each cut-off
- Data on the consortium composition for the 2014-2020 funding period
- List of contact details for 10 Eurostars-2 beneficiaries
- List of all approved Eurostars-2 projects
- Data on the committed budget for each Participating State and Partner country
for each cut-off & the committed EU contribution
-
List of Eurostars-2 projects with their evaluation status
- Data on the time-to-contract per country for cut-off 1-15
- Excel list with answers from the final reports of all projects from cut-off 1-5
- Annual Reports of the Eurostars-2 programme from 2014-2021 1
- Excel list with answers from the Market Impact Reports from 2019
- Excel list with answers from the final reports from 2020
Since around half of the Eurostars-2 projects were still running at the time of the evaluation
(August 2022), insights from final reports are mainly projected from cut-offs 1-5, that are
completed. Another important source for the information collected on the Eurostars-2
programme has been the stakeholder interviews. The interviews followed a semi-structured
approach and were conducted via videoconferences. The interviews with representatives of
the European Commission, the Eureka Secretariat and the National Funding Bodies allowed
the project team to learn more about the administrative functioning of Eurostars-2. By
speaking with programme beneficiaries such as SMEs, experiences on the actual outputs and
results of the programme were collected.
More information on the methodology and process to carry out this evaluation is available in
Annex II.
2.
2.1
WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION?
Description of the intervention and its objectives
The rationale behind Eurostars-2 is that SMEs need access to market, finance, skills and
knowledge in order to thrive and compete globally. They often lack in-house capabilities and
capacity to achieve the innovative breakthroughs that are needed for their scale up and
integration into global value chains. Collaboration between enterprises and with public
research-performing organisations are key for faster knowledge diffusion and exploitation.
Whilst many national programmes and instruments exist to facilitate participation of SMEs in
R&I projects, most do not explicitly support or focus on international R&I collaboration.
Under the Eurostars-2 programme, 33 participating countries, four additional non-EU partner
countries and the EU, focused on the development of synergies of their R&I programmes and
on improved cooperation between national and regional R&I programmes for the benefit of
R&D-performing SMEs.
‘Eurostars-2’ aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy, its flagship initiative ‘Innovation Union’
and the Commission Communication of 17 July 2012 entitled ‘A Reinforced European
Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth’, aimed to supporting R&D performing
4
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0006.png
SMEs by co-financing their market oriented research projects in any field. As such, and in
combination with the activities under the ‘Leadership in Enabling and Industrial
Technologies’ objective set out in Horizon 2020, it aimed to contribute to the goals of the
Industrial Leadership part of that programme to speed-up development of the technologies
and innovations that were to underpin tomorrow’s businesses and help innovative European
SMEs to grow into world-leading companies.
The Eurostars-2 programme built on the experience of its predecessor, the Eurostars-1
programme implemented between 2008 and 2013. The objective of Eurostars-1 was to
support transnational market-oriented research and innovation projects initiated and driven by
R&D-performing SMEs in order to improve their competitive position. Findings from the
final evaluation of the Eurostars-1 programme
6
showed that the financial support successfully
helped Eurostars-1 beneficiaries to develop new or improved products and services with
which they could improve their competitive position and that 88% of the analysed Eurostars-1
projects developed their planned innovations.
Similar to Eurostars-1, Eurostars-2 had no specific scientific or technological focus but
supported cross-border R&I collaboration among SMEs, large firms, research organisations
and universities with a strong focus on internationalisation through R&D-driven projects with
up to four consortium members. As part of the improvements from the previous Eurostars-1
programme, Eurostars-2 aimed to head towards shorter time-to-grant, stronger integration,
and lean, transparent, and more efficient administration to the ultimate benefit of research and
development performing SMEs.
Following the previous practice under Eurostars-1, the Eureka Secretariat was designated as
the implementation structure for Eurostars-2. The Eureka Secretariat has been created as the
operational office of Eureka, an intergovernmental initiative established in 1985 with the
objective of promoting cooperation in industrial research.
7
The
overall objectives
of the Eurostars-2 programme were mainly to provide financial
support to SMEs to:
•
•
•
•
Support transnational market-oriented research projects initiated and driven by
R&D- performing SMEs
Encourage the development of new products, processes, and services by SMEs
Promote technological and business development
Boost the internationalisation of SMEs
To achieve these set goals, the programme's activities took a bottom-up approach; the project
partners were free to generate innovation in any technological areas and address any (civil)
market areas. The regular calls were bottom-up and easily accessible. One central feature of
the Eurostars-2 programme was the mix of a centralized and decentralized application and
evaluation approach. Whilst the evaluation of applications was performed by the Eureka
6
7
COM(2015)479 - Final evaluation of the Eurostars Joint Programme (2008-2013)
Home - Eureka (eurekanetwork.org)
5
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
Secretariat, the funding and its monitoring for each beneficiary were implemented by the
National Funding Bodies (NFBs).
The financial support of the Eurostars-2 programme aimed at leading to the following
outputs
(short-term):
•
Development of international partnerships between SMEs and other stakeholders
to work on R&D-driven projects to commercialise new products, processes, and
services within two years after project completion.
Extended international networks of stakeholders within the European and
international innovation ecosystems.
In the medium-term, the following results should be facilitated:
Improved SME innovation performance.
Development of new market-ready products/services.
Leverage of EU structural (ESIF - European structural and investment funds),
national, regional funds and private investment.
•
•
•
•
•
In the longer term, the Eurostars-2 programme aims to contribute to the following
impacts:
•
•
•
Industrial leadership of EU and associated countries.
Improved business environment of supported SMEs;
Acceleration of European product, process, and service innovation.
The following Figure summarises the intervention logic of the Eurostars-2 programme.
6
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0008.png
Figure 1 Intervention logic of Eurostars-2
7
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2.2
Point(s) of comparison
Overall, building on the lessons from the Eurostars-1 programme, Eurostars-2 targeted to
demonstrate clear progress towards further alignment and synchronisation of the national
research and innovation programmes as a truly joint programme featuring stronger scientific,
management and financial synchronisation. Stronger scientific integration had to be achieved
through the common definition and implementation of activities and should ensure the
excellence and the high impact of the projects selected. Management integration aimed to
ensure further improvement of operational excellence and accountability for the programme.
Stronger financial integration was to be based on overall and yearly adequate financial
contribution by the States participating in Eurostars-2 and a high degree of national
synchronisation. This was to be achieved through a progressive harmonisation of national
funding rules.
General objective
To tackle the room for improvement identified above, the following general objective for
Eurostars-2 has been set:
•
Stimulate economic growth and job creation by enhancing the competitiveness of
R&D performing SMEs through transnational R&D collaboration.
Specific objectives
To achieve the general objective above, two specific objectives have been set.
1.
2.
SO1. Promotion of transnational research activities for R&D performing SMEs
'close to the market'
SO2. Contributing to the completion of the ERA and increasing the accessibility,
efficiency, and effectiveness of public funding for R&D performing SMEs in
Europe by aligning, harmonising and synchronising the national funding
mechanisms
Operational objectives
To reach the specific objectives above, the following operational objectives have been
identified.
1.
OO1.Scientific integration of national programmes: Ensure excellence and impact
of the projects selected through international (EUREKA wide) competition and the
application of a single evaluation and selection process.
OO2.Management integration of national programmes: Further improve
operational excellence and accountability for the programme by reducing the time
to contract while maintaining an optimal frequency of calls per year.
OO3.Financial integration of national programmes: Harmonisation of national
funding rules and application of a binding ranking list.
OO4. Facilitate the participation of R&D performing SMEs without previous
experience in transnational R&D activities.
2.
3.
4.
8
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0010.png
3.
HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION
PERIOD?
3. 1 Current state of play
Based on the framework of its predecessor programme, the Eurostars-2 programme was
implemented as jointly undertaken between EUREKA and the EU in the 2014-2020 funding
period by 33 Eurostars-2 participating states and four partner countries. Besides the
participation of all EU Member States and COSME
8
countries such as the countries from the
European Free Trade Association - EFTA (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland), other countries
outside of the European continent such as Canada, the Republic of Korea, and South Africa
have been partnering countries in the Eurostars-2 programme.
Between 2014 and 2021, 15 joint calls (cut-offs at least twice per year) took place, and 5891
projects were submitted in total. The number of funded projects in the period from January
2014 to December 2020 amounted to 1546. The Figure 2 below provides for an overview of
the number of approved projects for the Eurostars-2 programme between 2014-2020 for each
cut-off. While the number of applications differed significantly for each cut-off, the average
number of approved projects per cut-off was 103 projects. The countries with the highest
number of applications were Germany (2602 applications), the Netherlands (1766
applications) and Denmark (1542 applications). The countries with the lowest number of
applications were Greece (eight applications), Malta (14 applications) and South Africa (40
applications). The average success rate defined as the percentage of applicants actually
receiving funding of Eurostars-2, was 27%. The average project duration was 30 months and
project consortia mostly consisted of an average of two to three organisations.
Figure 2 - Number of approved projects for the Eurostars-2 programme between 2014 - 2020
Source: PPMI/Idea Consult/Prognos (2022), based on data delivered by Eureka Secretariat.
8
https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/smes/cosme_en
9
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0011.png
When looking at the implementation status of approved projects, projects from the cut-offs 2-
9 which started between 2014 and 2018 are mostly terminated while most of the projects from
the cut-offs 10-15 which started between 2018 and 2021 were still ongoing. As of August
2022, 601 Eurostar-2 projects were still running (39%) and 800 projects were completed
(52%). The remaining 9% of the Eurostars-2 projects have been either withdrawn or are on
hold because of ethical conflicts. According to the Annual Eurostars-2 report (2021),
withdrawals are mainly due to bankruptcy issues, feasibility issues as well as project changes.
Main project changes in 2021 were related to prolongation requests (62%).
With regards to the budget committed in the 2014-2020 period, the Eurostars-2 programme
had a total committed public budget of EUR 1.14 billion distributed over the Annual Work
Plans during that period. While the EU committed EUR 287 million (33.3%) to the financing
of the projects, the remaining EUR 856 million (66.6%) has been committed by the Eurostar
participating countries themselves through national funding resources. The average project
costs have been around EUR 1.4 million, out of which a maximum of 50% was funded
through Eurostars-2.
The committed national budget by participating states and partner countries for all 15 cut-offs
in the 2014-2020 funding period shows strong variances. The committed grant amounts by the
33 Participating countries and the four Eurostars-2 partner countries differed significantly for
each country. While the highest grant amounts have been committed by Germany (EUR 112
million), the Netherlands (EUR 102 million) and France (EUR 74 million), no grants have
been committed by Greece. The committed budget per participating state and partner country
shows that five countries (Germany, Netherlands, France, Sweden, and Norway) committed
almost half of the total committed national budget showing that the intensity of financial
commitment by participating country is differing significantly.
Figure 3 - Committed national budget by participating states and partner countries* for cut-off
1-15 in EUR million
Source: PPMI/Idea Consult/Prognos (2022), based on data delivered by Eureka Secretariat. Switzerland, South
Korea, Canada and South Africa were Eurostars-2 partner countries in the 2014-2020 funding period.
10
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0012.png
With regards to the committed budget of the Eurostars-2 programme, the total committed
amount for the cut-offs 1-15 was EUR 1.074 billion composed of EUR 891.33 million of
official funding committed for the cut-offs 1-15 through the official declaration of
commitments by the participating countries and partner countries. Out of this amount, EUR
6.94 million was committed as alternative funding (loan). The committed budget of the
partner countries consisting of Switzerland, South Korea, Canada and South Africa was
around EUR 84.12 million. The total expected EU contribution for the cut-offs 1-15 was
around EUR 281 million.
4.
4.1.
EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART)
To what extent was the intervention successful and why?
Effectiveness and efficiency
The main beneficiaries of the Eurostars-2 programme were R&D-performing SMEs (66%)
9
,
30% of which had no prior experience in international collaboration before having
participated in the Eurostars-2 programme. By supporting transnational consortia, the
Eurostars-2 programme aimed at increasing the number of cross-regional research activities
and partnerships of SMEs with other organisations such as other SMEs or research
organisations. The most common transnational collaborations were e.g., for the cut-offs 11
and 12 between project partners from Germany-Switzerland (9% of projects), Germany-
Netherlands (9% of projects) and Switzerland-Netherlands (8% of projects).
The transnational partnerships followed a bottom-up approach meaning that no specific
thematic nor technological focus was required under the Eurostars-2 programme. Different
technological areas were thus addressed in the 2014-2020 funding period. In terms of
thematic focus, a strong focus of the Eurostars-2 projects has been on biological sciences and
technologies (35%), followed by electronics, IT and telecoms technologies (22%). In terms of
markets, while around 38% of the projects focused on the medical and health-related market,
other different markets were addressed by the Eurostars-2 programme such as industrial
products/manufacturing, computer-related markets and biotechnology markets.
Eurostars-2 as a partnership aims to add value by being open to new beneficiaries as a niche
programme that was also, or even in particular, interesting for SMEs with no previous
experience in securing public funding. By attracting around 50% of newcomers to the
Horizon programme, the Eurostars-2 programme achieved to attract inexperienced SMEs and
other organisations to participate in an EU-wide funding programme. Moreover, findings
from the Market Impact Reports from 2020 show that 30% of SMEs had no prior experience
in international collaboration before having participated in the Eurostars-2 programme.
However, based on findings from interviews with NFBs and beneficiaries, the openness of
partnerships as well as the flexibility of introducing amendments to the project depends
significantly on national rules and differs therefore by each NFB.
9
With the rest of the funding going to other stakeholders, such as research and technology organisations.
11
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
The partnerships’ budget leverage factor, in mobilising additional resources, on top of
contribution from partners could not be fully established since the NFBs do not follow up on
completed projects in that respect. However, findings from the interviews with beneficiaries
suggest that the successful implementation of a Eurostars-2 project is perceived as a quality
label by private investors.
A lesson learned regarding partnership-specific criteria concerns the divergence in national
rules and on how to increase transparency to Eurostars-2 applicants. The uniqueness of
Eurostars-2 rests on the funding of transnational collaborative projects led by R&D
performing / innovative SMEs. However, consortium members for a given project face
different rules for application depending on their country of origin. In addition, funding is
allocated based not only on the position on the ranking list but also according to the
availability of national funding. There is scope for further convergence of the rules and for
better explanations to applicants of the link between the availability of national funding and
the provision of grants.
Findings from the final reports of completed Eurostars-2 projects of the cut-off 1-5 indicate
that 94% of beneficiaries of completed Eurostars-2 projects perceived the programme as
effective and only 6% saw potential for improvement. Interviews with beneficiaries indicate
that the Eurostars-2 funding was relevant to taking the first steps to further elaborate their
innovation which would have been difficult for smaller enterprises without the public funding
support. Findings from the interviews suggest that the elements of cross-regional cooperation
between different organisations combined with the bottom-up approach are one of the central
drivers of the Eurostars-2 programme giving interested organisations the flexibility to find
adequate collaboration partners outside of their country. The initiated knowledge transfer
between partnerships worked out very well in many cases. In addition, some SMEs explained
that the Eurostars-2 support was perceived as a de-risking factor and success label for private
investors making the projects more attractive for private investments.
Coherence
According to the interim evaluation of the Eurostars-2 programme (2017), the programme
was one of several funding programmes aiming at boosting growth, jobs and innovation in
Europe implemented by the EU. By having been implemented under Article 185 TFEU, the
programme is considered a niche programme that addresses SME needs which are not
covered by national or regional funding programmes. By strengthening the transnational
cooperation between the Member States, the Eurostars-2 programme supported the
establishment of the European Research Area on two levels. On the one hand, NFBs
cooperated with the Eureka Secretariat while putting into place cross-regional funding
schemes which would not be possible in this broad scope by national funding programmes.
On the other hand, based on the limited information available, it appears that SMEs
successfully transferred their knowledge across borders within Europe and even in some cases
worldwide, contributing to support research excellence and leadership of industry
stakeholders in Europe.
12
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
Overall, Eurostars-2 supported synergies in terms of cross-border learning between NFBs and
SMEs. There are strong indications that the EU co-funding was an incentive for NFBs to take
part in the Eurostars-2 programme and improve their own national funding processes.
While NFBs and the Eureka Secretariat endeavoured to further align national and European
funding rules, NFBs reported that there were still delays in the projects’ start as the time-to-
contract differs from each participating state and partner country. According to the interim
evaluation (2017), the Eurostars-2 programme belongs with the EIC Accelerator (former SME
Instrument) to the most known funding instruments of Horizon 2020. Findings from the 15
interviews show that NFBs and beneficiaries also perceive a high level of coherence and
sustainability among partnerships. This is also confirmed in the final reports of cut-offs 1-5.
Communication and coherence within the partnerships are perceived by interviewed
beneficiaries as good.
Moreover, several interviewed SMEs indicated that the Eurostars-2 programme has been a
good starting point to develop a product, process, or service through public funding support as
the success rate (27%) has been relatively high compared to the EIC Accelerator. Several
interviewed beneficiaries have been successful in a second step in receiving funding from the
EIC Accelerator and see synergies between both programmes.
4.2.
How did the EU intervention make a difference?
The Eurostars-2 programme was an Article 185 initiative consisting of national funding
efforts that have been topped up by funding contributions of the EU. From the perspective of
interviewed beneficiaries, this mixed centralised and decentralised approach is unique and
perceived as an EU added value. The Eurostars-2 programme is regarded as a well-established
support programme for SMEs in the European Research Area allowing different types of
organisations to collaborate with international partners while having the well-known local
NFBs as a national contact institution. For many SMEs, this programme offers the possibility
to go international for the first time and to learn more about other EU markets. The Eurostars-
2 programme is thus not only offering the opportunity to strengthen the relationship with the
consortium partners but to discover and reach out to new markets and contacts. Especially
companies that do not have high resources have the possibility through the programme to
collaborate with other companies and develop new intellectual properties and leverage skills
that they do not have in their home countries.
Another important feature of the programme is the open innovation and bottom-up approach
giving SMEs with different sectoral backgrounds the possibility to apply for funding. The
Eurostars-2 programme has been perceived by beneficiaries as an important support
instrument to strengthen the European Research Area and beyond. As national and regional
support programmes do often not allow cross-border cooperation, the Eurostars-2 programme
seems to have been in the 2014-2020 funding period a successful niche programme for SMEs
and other organisations wishing to engage in transnational collaboration.
13
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
Compared to other funding programmes, the Eurostars-2 programme offered extended
possibilities to initiate a cooperative learning process with successful international partners
with competencies that would have been not available on the regional or national level.
Moreover, interviewed beneficiaries emphasize that the granting amount offered at the EU
level is generally higher than at the national or regional level. Therefore, allowing them for
comparatively more activities performed through the Eurostars-2 programme.
With regards to the project results, one central objective of the Eurostars-2 programme was to
support organisations to develop market-ready products, services, and processes. The limited
number of Market Impact Reports from 2020 suggest that most commercialised results were
products (53%), followed by services (28%) and processes (19%).
Interviews with beneficiaries suggest that the Eurostars-2 programme was overall successful
in its activities to support R&D performing SMEs to develop new processes, products or
services. Beneficiaries were capable to develop patents and prototypes that led to the growth
of the company and other beneficiaries received private investments after the project's
completion to further develop their project.
With regards to the rating of the overall technological achievements of beneficiaries of the
cut-offs 1-5, 89% of the beneficiaries either ranked their technological achievement as good
or even excellent. Reasons indicated in the final reports on why some technological
achievements were not satisfying were e.g., changes in the regulatory environment requiring a
technical change and a different approach to market entry or technological problems that
could not be solved during the project implementation. Project results were mainly
commercialised in Europe, followed by North America and Asia.
Findings from the final reports of the cut-offs 1-5 show that 75% of the Eurostars-2
beneficiaries were satisfied with the outcome of their project and 86% stated that they planned
to continue the collaboration of their partnership after the end of their funding. Overall, based
on preliminary results, the number of full-time equivalents that resulted from Eurostars-2
partnerships after the completion of the projects reached the overall programme objective of
1500 FTEs.
According to interviews performed with SMEs, the Eurostars-2 projects seem to have
contributed to the EU policy priorities such as the twin transition (green and digital transition)
as well to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Data from final reports provided by
the Eureka Secretariat show that 29% of beneficiaries confirmed that their project contributed
to one or more of the objectives of the SDGs.
4.3.
Is the intervention still relevant?
By targeting R&D performing SMEs, the Eurostars-2 programme aimed at boosting
innovation, growth, and competitiveness of the EU innovation ecosystem through applied
research and development. The financial support of the Eurostars-2 programme contributed to
the bottom-up and market-oriented development of new, innovative products, processes, and
services.
14
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
The nearly constantly increasing number of applications to the 15 cut-offs is a good indicator
showing that the programmes’ objectives and support schemes were and are still relevant for
the main target group, namely interested R&D-driven SMEs and other SMEs. While the
average success rate of Eurostars-2 applicants for all 15 cut-offs (final submission dates for
the calls) of the calls was 27% of proposals awarded, the success rate has been significantly
lower during the last four cut-offs with success rates between 19-25% showing that more and
more SMEs and other organisations have applied for Eurostars-2 funding support in the 2014-
2020 funding period. Compared to the Eurostars-1 programme (26%), the success rate
remained similar. The 7 interviews with National Funding Bodies pointed to the existing
need and demand for financial support for R&D-driven companies.
5.
5.1.
WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED?
Conclusions
Due to a lack of more detailed information and data on final project results and impacts of
Eurostars-2 projects, mainly insights from interviews and desk research are integrated into
this final evaluation giving only limited information on the actual results and impacts.
Target group and scope of the programme
The evaluation faced certain limitations. Between 2014-2020, 15 Eurostars-2 calls took place
and around 1546 Eurostars-2 projects were selected. However, the final evaluation only
shows a limited picture of the results and impact of completed Eurostars-2 projects. As
Eurostars-2 projects have an implementation duration of 36 months and many projects were
extended due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, only 52% of all Eurostars-2 projects
were completed by August 2022, at the time of completion of the external evaluation study. In
addition, the methodology and questions asked in the final reports (FIR) were changed after
cut-off 5 to further harmonise report templates for all EUREKA programmes. However, based
on interviews with 6 beneficiaries, 7 NFBs and 1 EU official and the feedback following the
‘call for evidence’, the Eurostars-2 programme is regarded as a relevant support programme
for SMEs to develop new and innovative products, processes, and services. While a strong
focus of the funded projects has been on biological science and technologies (35%) and
electronics, IT, and telecoms technologies (22%), the technological openness and the bottom-
up approach are perceived by interviewees as one of the major benefits of the Eurostars-2
programme. According to interviewed SMEs, the geographical openness, and the possibility
to collaborate with partner organisations from a broad range of the 33 participating countries
is one of the EU added values of the Eurostars-2 programme compared to regional or national
funding programmes which often have also lower funding rates. The increasing number of
applications throughout the 15 cut-offs indicates the existing relevance of the programme for
the target groups. For some interviewed stakeholders, the Eurostars-2 programme is an
attractive but fewer known niche programme giving SMEs unexperienced in going
international for the first time the chance to collaborate with international partners.
15
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
Governance and management
Overall, findings from the final evaluation indicate that the governance structure of Eurostars-
2 by the Eureka Secretariat together with the NFBs is adequate. According to interviewees,
the governance structure is complex but adapted to the needs of the Eurostars-2 programme
and cost-efficient. The Eureka Secretariat confirms that the governance model has been re-
established in terms of risk management policies for the organisations.
According to available information, the Eurostars-2 programme seems to have had a positive
impact. As around half of the projects were still running at the time of the evaluation, and the
monitoring and reporting system did not allow for a proper tracking of results, it is
not
possible to draw detailed conclusions on final project results and their impact.
The external evaluation points to the role of the Eureka Secretariat which is broadly
confirmed to be relevant for the successful implementation of the programme because of its
broad, international network and expert database with broad knowledge in different
technological fields. The Eureka Secretariat did, however, by the time of the evaluation, not
provide more detailed monitoring and reporting information on project results allowing to
fully assess the effects of the programme nor the efficiency of its implementation.
Interviews with NFBs show that application and participation rates differ in the different
participating states and partner countries. As outlined in more depth in the case study on
participation this is largely explained by the design of the programme, which means that the
budget allocated at the national level is a strong determinant of the number of projects funded
with beneficiaries from a given country. The countries that provide the strongest input have
the most participants.
The centralised evaluation process of applications is generally confirmed to be well
structured, however it is also sometimes criticised for being non-transparent to applicants.
Complicated application processes lead to sub-business of external firms helping with the
application process and writing the actual project application according to interviewees. In
addition, beneficiaries emphasised that the lack of user-friendliness of the Eureka Secretariat
website was perceived in some cases as a challenge for applicants to understand specific
national eligibility criteria applied in the context of an EU level funding programme.
Results and impacts of Eurostars-2 projects
Due to IT and database issues in the Eureka secretariat at the time of the study the study team
faced a lack of information and data on project results and impacts of Eurostars-2 projects.
Only insights from interviews and desk research are integrated into the final evaluation giving
only selective and limited insights into the actual results and impacts. With regards to the
project implementation and results, interviews with beneficiaries indicate that Eurostars-2
projects seem to be successful to develop new processes, products or services. To follow up
on the achievements and success of the projects, the final report and market impact reports are
requested periodically for three years from the Eurostars-2 projects by the Eureka Secretariat.
However, these reports have certain limitations as some organisations participating in the
16
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
Eurostars-2 programme do not have any market impact (e.g., universities) and beneficiaries
stop replying after having received their final payment. Overall, interviews with beneficiaries
and feedback from various SMEs in the Call for Evidence show that SMEs have been
successful in developing new patents and prototypes and received private investments after
the project completion. In this context, Eurostars-2 projects are perceived as quality labels by
private investors.
5.2 Lessons Learned
Overall, the Eurostars-2 programme has been successful in boosting innovations developed by
international project consortia with a focus on SMEs. Based on the recommendations given in
the interim evaluation (2017) and progress and improvements made since 2017, the following
lessons can be drawn.
Monitoring and data collection for the partnership
Due to a lack of more detailed information and data on final project results and impacts of
Eurostars-2 projects, mainly insights from interviews and desk research are integrated into
this final evaluation giving only limited information on the actual results and impacts.
Although the Eureka Secretariat has changed its monitoring system in response to the Interim
Evaluation (2017), which noted the insufficient accuracy and lack of up-to-date information in
the Eureka Secretariat database, it was not yet possible to assess at the time of the final
evaluation (2022) if the new monitoring has improved data timeliness and availability, in
particular due to the ongoing changes in the IT system of the Eureka Secretariat.
Nevertheless, changes in IT systems, staff replacement and clearer guidance in the project
agreement are expected to lead to an improved situation in the successor programme of
Eurostars-2, which is subject to reporting obligations related to co-funded partnerships under
Horizon Europe, with an increased focus on impact.
Uncertainty to get funding for selected projects when the contribution of participating
states has been exhausted by other projects
This was a key weakness identified in the interim evaluation. Due to the lack of information
and data noted above this aspect was not fully examined in this final evaluation. However,
since the selection process for the partnership did not change in the interim period, it is likely
that the issue persisted throughout Eurostars-2.
Divergence in national rules and transparency to applicants
Consortium members for a given project face different rules for application depending on
their country of origin. In addition, funding is allocated based, not only on the position on the
ranking list, but also according to availability of national funding. The link between
availability of national funding and provision of grants is not always clearly explained to
applicants.
Synergies between the Eurostar programme with other EU funding instruments
The Eurostars-2 programme has been perceived as an interesting funding programme for
SMEs applying for the first time for EU funding apart from their national or regional funding
17
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
programmes, with potential to further strengthen its synergies with other EU funding
programmes (e.g., EIC Accelerator).
Geographic diversity of participation
The findings indicate that five out of the 33 participating states and four partner countries
contribute around 49% of the total committed national budget of the Eurostars-2 programme.
Due to the design of the programme there is a strong correlation between budget allocation
and participation at national level.
Visibility of the Eurostars-2 programme in some participating states:
While some participating countries offer different types of support services and promotional
activities that increase the visibility of the Eurostars-2 programme on the national level, other
NFBs do not have the financial and human resources to promote the programme on the
national level. The lack of certain minimum level of promotional activities to be performed at
the national level results in an uneven visibility of the Eurostars-2 programme in all
participating states. The lack of more centralised communication activities and better
coordinated communications and social media activities by Eureka Secretariat also leads to a
suboptimal visibility of the programme.
Time-to-contract
The time-to-contract is the time between the cut-off date and the date of signature of the grant
agreement. In the bilateral agreements between the NFBs and the Eureka Secretariat, the
involved parties agreed to keep the time-to-contract within seven months meaning that the
Eureka Secretariat would communicate funding results to the applicants of selected Eurostars-
2 projects and their respective NFBs within four months and that NFBs would finalise the
grant agreement within three months after the communication of the funding results by the
Eureka Secretariat. Statistics show that the average time-to-contract decreased from cut-off 1
with an average time-to-contract of 9,7 months to 6,6 months for the cut-off 14. However,
divergences of national rules in the different participating states and partner countries appear
to be a barrier to the operational performance of the Eurostars-2 programme and further
synchronisation of national rules is a key factor for improvement. The adaptions of the time-
to-contract in the 2021-2027 funding period are perceived by interviewed beneficiaries and
the SME’s that supplied feedback in the call for evidence as an important step.
Absorption of designated budget
The design of the programme, where national funding is topped up with the European
Commission contribution is unique. Committed national funding was distributed as shown in
the figure below and subsequently topped up with the Commission portion.
18
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0020.png
Figure 4 - Committed national funding in Eurostars-2 per country, EUR million
Source: PPMI/Idea Consult/Prognos (2022), based on data delivered by ESE. Switzerland, South Korea, Canada
and South Africa as Eurostars-2 partner countries in the 2014-2020 funding period.
A comparison of the committed funding with the actual funding provided is only possible to a
limited extent. This is because at the time of the report only the first six cut-offs had been
closed. For all other cut-offs, the Eureka Secretariat still receives information on expenditures
from NFBs, so a final comparison of the pre-committed budget to the actual funding provided
is not possible. Nevertheless, from the data of the closed first six cut-offs, there is a
considerable discrepancy between the pre-committed budget and the actual funding provided.
The reasons for this discrepancy are manifold and were answered in different ways in the
interviews. Besides others, one reason relates to the design of the programme. The fact that
the ranking list is created independently means that it does not exactly match the NFBs'
commitments, so not all funds are allocated. In addition, NFBs confirm that it is difficult for
countries to set a fixed amount for Eurostars-2 in advance, as these are checked (and possibly
re-allocated) in the national budget right before the cut-off. So if the funding is needed
elsewhere, it may well be that less budget is available for Eurostars-2 than originally
committed. Hence, partly because of the matching needs between the national budgets, calls
and available EC budget the programme failed to absorb the full budget dedicated to it. As
compared to other instruments, such as the EIC Accelerator where absorption ratios are
around 100%, Eurostars-2 lacked tools and instruments to enhance flexibility of call
management to ensure full budget absorption of the programme. Still, towards the end-phase
of the programme the European Commission facilitated the creation of an extra call during the
Covid outbreak, which ensured continuity of the programme. The extra call was funded using
the substantial underspend over the lifetime of the programme. A total of EUR 16.6 million
EU funding was dedicated to the 15th call, meaning that the total current EU underspending
for the lifetime of the programme was reduced to EUR 31.4 million, which however were not
lost but could be used in other parts of Horizon 2020.
19
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0021.png
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Lead DG
The European Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) for Research and Innovation is the
lead DG for this evaluation (PLAN/2022/1345).
Organisation and timing
The Commission published a ‘call for evidence’ on the final evaluation of the ‘Eurostars-2
programme (EU partnership on innovative SMEs)’ on 23 September 2022 that was open for
feedback until 21 October 2022.
Three partnerships based on Article 185 TFEU (the Active and Assisted Living Research and
Development Programme (AAL2), Eurostars-2 and the Partnership for Research and
Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA)) have evaluations coming up by the end of
2022. In this context, DG Research and Innovation set up one inter-service group (ISG) to
oversee the three evaluations.
The ISG was established on 4 July 2022 involving representatives from the Secretariat-
General, DG for Research and Innovation, DG for Communications Networks, Content and
Technology, DG for Agriculture and Rural Development, DG for Informatics, DG for Budget,
DG for Competition, DG for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, DG for Environment, DG
for Migration and Home Affairs, DG for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG for Structural
Reform Support, the Joint Research Centre and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-
sized Enterprises. The ISG contributed to the evaluation and ensured that it met the necessary
standards for approval of the final report. Two meetings were held.
Evidence, sources, and quality
This evaluation report drew on the following sources of evidence:
•
Beck et al. (2019): Eurostars. The international programme for Research Intensive
SMEs.
A
joint
Swiss
Danish
Impact
Study.
Available
under:
https://innovationsfonden.dk/sites/default/files/2019-12/eurostars-a-joint-swiss-danish-
impact-study_0.pdf
.
•
ERA-LEARN (2020): Annual Report on Public-Public Partnerships 2020. Available
under:
https://www.era-learn.eu/news-events/news/era-learn-annual-report-on-public-public-
partnerships-2020
.
•
ERA-LEARN (2020): Workshop report. “Supporting the preparation of future
European Partnerships" Brussels, 9-10 March 2020. Available under:
https://www.era-
learn.eu/documents/era-learn-ws-report-supporting-the-preparation-of-future-european-
partnerships.pdf/view
.
20
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0022.png
•
European Commission (2014) Final evaluation of the Eurostars Joint Programme.
Available
under:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323644226_Final_Evaluation_of_the_Eurostars_Joi
nt_Programme_Expert_group.
•
European Commission (2017): Interim Evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Joint
Programme.
Available
under:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/e6bbaa13-b867-11e7-ac8e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
•
European Commission (2017): Impact assessment of EUREKA network projects and
cluster
projects.
Available
under:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319162491_Impact_Assessment_of_EUREKA_Net
work_Projects_and_Cluster_Projects.
•
European Commission (2017): Commission staff working document on in-depth
interim evaluation of Horizon 2020. Available under:
https://op.europa.eu/de/publication-
detail/-/publication/33dc9472-d8c9-11e8-afb3-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
•
European Commission (2017): Meta-evaluation of Article 185 initiatives – report of
the
expert
group.
Available
under:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/3966c4a7-b47c-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
•
European Commission (2019): European Partnerships under Horizon Europe: results
of the structured consultation of Member States. Available under:
https://www.era-
learn.eu/news-events/news/european-partnerships-under-horizon-europe-results-of-the-
structured-consultation-of-member-states-1.
•
European Commission (2021). Study on the effectiveness of public innovation support
for SMEs in Europe. Available under:
https://op.europa.eu/de/publication-detail/-
/publication/d031aa03-9295-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
•
EUREKA (2018): Eurostars-Guidelines for project progress reports 2018-2020.
Available under:
https://www.eurekanetwork.org/programmes/eurostars/guidelines.
•
EUREKA (2019): Eurostars – Eligibility guidelines for applications. Available under:
https://www.eurekanetwork.org/programmes/eurostars/guidelines.
•
EUREKA
(2019):
Annual
report.
https://issuu.com/eurekaassociation/docs/annual_report_2019.
Available
under:
•
EUREKA (2020): Eurostars - Submitting your Project Progress Report and Final
Report
online.
Available
under:
https://www.eurekanetwork.org/dA/9b6b673323/Guidelines+for+the+online+submission+of+
PPRs+and+FiRs+(Nov+2020).pdf?language_id=1.
•
•
EUREKA (2014): Annual Report 2014. Eurostars-2.
EUREKA (2015): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2.
21
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0023.png
•
•
•
•
•
•
EUREKA (2016): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2.
EUREKA (2017): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2.
EUREKA (2018): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2.
EUREKA (2019): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2.
EUREKA (2020): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2.
EUREKA (2021): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2.
External expertise
Expert advice has been widely used to prepare the Commission Staff Working Document. It
mainly includes the Study report on the final evaluation of Eurostars-2, commissioned by the
European Commission. The contractor is PPMI and more specifically Prognos. The study,
Eurostars-2 final evaluation – Evaluation study of the European Framework Programmes for
Research and Innovation for an innovative Europe,
Publications Office of the European
Union, 2023,
has been published in 2023 by Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
22
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED
Study design
Prognos, as part of a consortium led by PPMI, carried out a support study to provide input for
this evaluation. The study was delivered over a period of nine months in 2022.
Limitations and reliability of data
The feedback to the ‘call for evidence’ was extensive and largely confirmed satisfaction with
the programme and the key findings of the study.
The study report on the final evaluation of Eurostars-2 was largely conducted by using desk
research and the analyses of administrative data and stakeholder interviews. With the
exception of the interviews, it did not collect any new data but relied in its analyses on the
data that had already been collected and presented elsewhere.
The evaluation builds on a broad set of qualitative and quantitative data such as desk research,
stakeholder interviews, an intervention logic, and secondary data such as reports and earlier
evaluations. The EUREKA secretariat provided secondary data in the form of Annual Reports
and monitoring data of the Eurostars-2 programme. In addition, the evaluation is enriched by
findings from two case studies on the Eurostars-2 programme performed as part of the wider
study on the support to the innovation of the EU Research & Innovation Framework
programme (‘Framework Programme’).
The evaluation faces certain limitations. Between 2014-2020, 15 Eurostars-2 calls took place
and 1546 Eurostars-2 projects were selected. However, the final evaluation only shows a
limited picture of the results and impact of completed Eurostars-2 projects. As Eurostars-2
projects have an implementation duration of 36 months and many projects were extended due
to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, only 52% of all Eurostars-2 projects were
completed by the 24th of August. In addition, the methodology and questions asked in the
final reports (FIR) were changed after cut-off no. 5 to further harmonise report templates for
all EUREKA programmes. Several questions were therefore not available anymore in the FIR
from cut-off no. 6 onwards. In addition, the market impact of Eurostars-2 projects is followed
up through two market impact reports (MIR) which are requested from beneficiaries after the
end of the project completion. MIRs from 2019 and 2020 have been available for the final
evaluation.
As interviews were meant to primarily cover the content of the case studies, but also
contribute to the final evaluation, the list of questions covering two case studies and the
evaluation was extensive. This meant that not all questions could be given the same priority
during the interviews and questions were selected that were most pertinent to interviewees.
Methodology, sources of information and data analysis
The methodology for the support study was based on:
•
Desk-based research;
23
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0025.png
•
•
•
•
Interviews;
Case studies;
Analysis of funding and administrative data;
Other quantitative methods.
The final Eurostars-2 evaluation follows a mixed-method approach by combining quantitative
and qualitative data collection and analysis methods. The desk research was a starting point to
get the first insights on the Eurostars-2 joint programme. In addition, information was
enriched by expert interviews with relevant stakeholders. Monitoring data provide an
additional source of evidence on the actual results and impact of the Eurostars-2 programme.
Moreover, findings from the interim evaluation and the Eurostars-2 case studies, which are
also part of the study on the support to the innovation of the EU Research & Innovation
Framework programme (‘Framework Programme’), were giving additional insights.
The evaluation is based on 12 evaluation questions linked to the EU evaluation criteria. The
following Table gives an overview of the six evaluation criteria of this evaluation.
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RELEVANT QUESTIONS
Evaluation
criteria
Relevance
Judgement criteria
This refers to the assessment of the relationship between the needs of society /target
groups – and the objectives of the initiative.
Coherence
Coherence covers the assessment of the initiative compared to other EU initiatives and
policies and if possible, to relevant national and regional policies. internal coherence is
considered as coherence with the evaluated cluster support initiatives. external
coherence is considered as coherence with national/regional support and other EU-
level programmes.
Efficiency
This part assesses the relationship between the resources used (i.e., inputs) and the
outputs achieved.
Effectiveness The effectiveness criterion assesses how successful the different initiatives have been
in terms of achieving or making progress towards the set objectives.
EU
added Assessment of whether the achievements of the initiative could have been achieved
value
without EU intervention (by national actions by the member states) and why action on
the EU level is required.
Partnership
The partnership criterion deals with all questions related to the partnership of entities
within the frame of the Eurostars-2 programme such as private funding and openness
of partnerships
Desk research
The desk research provided a first, comprehensive overview of the Eurostars-2 programme
and allowed to learn more about the developments of the Eurostars-2 programme since the
2007-2013 funding period and the interim findings and recommendations of the interim
evaluation (2017).
Critical assessment of work carried out by external contractor
The work carried out by the contractors is of good quality. The Commission services agree
with the conclusions presented as this address the key issues arising from the evaluation.
24
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0026.png
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON
ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION)
Evaluation Matrix
Criterion
Guiding questions
Evidence-based answers
Evaluation criteria defined by the Better Regulation Guidelines
Relevance
The analysis confirms that the Eurostars-2
programme was successful in reaching its main
target group consisting of R&D-performing
SMEs and other SMEs. Out of the total number
of 12.968 participants who were and are part of
consortia applying for Eurostars-2 funding in
15 Cut-offs, 68% of all participants involved
were either R&D-performing SMEs or other
SMEs. For the participating SMEs it is still
relevant to also involve other beneficiaries such
as universities and other research-performing
organisations to benefit from research findings
and to further develop their products, processes
or services.
Within the funding period of 2014-2020, the
Eurostars-2 programme had to face the
consequences of the outbreak of the COVID-19
pandemic which started in the beginning of
2020. While 12 out of 15 calls had already
taken place at that moment and most of the
Eurostars-2 projects had already started their
activities (77.2%), the pandemic had mostly an
impact
on
the
cross-border
project
implementation. With regards to the impact of
the general work processes such as on-spot
evaluation processes, IEP (Independent
Evaluation Panel) sessions, and meetings of the
Eurostar Ethics Panel, new collaborative ways
were put into practice to continue activities
normally. Call management processes were
flexible and adapted to the circumstances of the
COVID-19 pandemic and internal as well as
external physical meetings such as promotional
events changed to online meetings. Constantly
increasing numbers of submitted project
applications during the cut-offs 13-15 and the
highest number of approved projects with a
total of 123 projects show that the COVID-19
pandemic did not influence the relevance
market needs of R&D-performing SMEs
targeted by the Eurostars-2 programme.
How well do the different actions By having been implemented under Article 185
25
To what extent have the objectives
of the partnership been, and are
still relevant vis-à-vis of the needs
and problems addressed by the
Framework Programme? How
flexible has the partnership been?
Coherence
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0027.png
work together, internally (i.e., to
the partnership, with other
partnerships and with other
Framework
Programme
activities), and with other EU
interventions/policies
(complementarities,
synergies,
overlaps)? Is Eurostars-2 more
effective in achieving synergies,
compared to other modalities of
the programme?
Efficiency
What is the relationship between
the resources used by the
partnership and the changes it is
generating? How did processes
cater for flexibility needs in
implementation?
How
cost-
effective has Eurostars-2 been?
How proportionate were the costs
of application and participation
borne by different stakeholder
groups, taking into account the
associated benefits?
TFEU, the programme combines national and
EU rules and is considered a niche programme
that addresses SME needs which are not
covered by national or regional funding
programmes.
By
strengthening
the
transnational cooperation between the Member
States, the Eurostars-2 programme focused on
the establishment of the European Research
Area on two levels. On the one hand, NFBs
cooperated with the ESE while putting into
place a cross-regional funding schemes which
would not be possible in this broad scope by
national funding programmes. On the other
hand, SMEs successfully transferred their
knowledge across borders within Europe and
even in some cases worldwide. The high
satisfaction rate collected throughout the
interviews in the study indicates that the
Eurostars-2 programme was a successful
programme within Horizon 2020 to further
support research excellence and leadership of
industry stakeholders in Europe.
Overall, Article 185 TFEU supported synergies
in terms of cross-border learning between
NFBs and SMEs. There are strong indications
that the EU top-up contribution is an incentive
for NFBs to take part in the Eurostars-2
programme.
Eurostars-2 programme has been a good
starting point to develop a product, process, or
service through public funding support as the
success rate has been relatively high compared
to the EIC Accelerator. Several interviewed
beneficiaries have been successful in a second
step in receiving funding from the EIC
Accelerator and see synergies between both
programmes.
Insights shared by beneficiaries and NFBs
confirm that the Eurostars-2 programme is
overall perceived as efficient in terms of its
implementation processes to achieve its main
objective. The mix of national and European
funding is seen as efficient and funding
amounts were high enough for successful
project implementations. The Eurostars-2
programme is perceived as straightforward
when it comes to the application and evaluation
process compared to other central EU funding
programmes. Information events organised by
national funding bodies (e.g. in Denmark or
26
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0028.png
Effectiveness
What is the progress made
towards the objectives of the
partnership and those of the
Framework programme, including
27
Sweden) are perceived as helpful guidance in
the simultaneous dual-application process on
the European and national levels. The
Eurostars-2 programme is perceived by those
SMEs as a good starting point for start-ups and
SMEs to get familiar with EU funding rules
and processes, especially for interested SMEs
that have not applied beforehand for EU
funding
programmes.
The
centralised
evaluation process of applications is generally
confirmed to be well structured and transparent
for applicants.
Nevertheless, findings from the interim
evaluation (2017) and insight from interviews
with NFBs show that the mix of centralized and
decentralized implementation structures is also
leading to different funding rules and rates that
apply in the different participating states. Even
though the participating states are constantly
trying to align their national rules as reported
by interviewed NFBs, differing numbers of
applications
and
participants
in
the
participating states show that the full potential
of the Eurostars-2 programme is not exploited
in all participating states. In this context, the
case study on varying participation rates of
Eurostars-2 participating states confirms that
the main reason for the lower number of
applications in some participating states is due
to different programme budgets and the lack of
visibility of the Eurostars-2 programme. Also,
findings from interviews with NFBs show that
different supportive and promotional activities
that are performed by some NFBs can be a
central factor to boost application and
participation rates. For instance, the Swedish,
Dutch and German NFBs explained during the
interviews that they have implemented several
successful promotional activities such as
dedicated websites or dedicated informative
events for interested SMEs. However,
promotional activities, like participation rates,
are closely linked to budget amounts by the
participating states which differed in the 2014-
2020 funding from EUR one million (South
Africa) to EUR 112 million (Germany).
The main beneficiaries of the Eurostars-2
programme were R&D-performing SMEs
(66%). By supporting transnational consortia,
the Eurostars-2 programme aimed at increasing
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0029.png
the contribution to EU priorities
and Sustainable Development
Goals?
Were adequate systems put in
place to produce and share lessons
learnt from implementation and
results achieved, for policy
making and between Framework
Programme interventions? To
what extent does the programme
communication/valorisation
strategy
allow
identifying,
capitalising upon and (possibly)
transferring
good
practices/results?
Includes also the partnership-
specific question of how the
partnership has helped foster the
international positioning and
visibility of the European R&I
system, and an assessment of the
level of international cooperation
at partnership and project level
the number of cross-regional research activities
and partnerships of SMEs with other
organisations such as other SMEs or research
organisations.
The transnational partnerships followed a
bottom-up approach meaning that no thematic
and technological focus was required under the
Eurostars-2
programme.
Different
technological areas were addressed through the
Eurostars-2 programme in the 2014-2020
funding period. In terms of thematic focuses of
the Eurostars-2 projects, a strong focus has
been on biological sciences and technologies
(35%), followed by electronics, IT and
telecoms technologies (22%). While around
38% of the projects focused on the medical and
health-related market, other different markets
were addressed by the Eurostars-2 programme
such as industrial products/manufacturing,
computer-related markets and biotechnology
markets.
Findings from the final reports of completed
Eurostars-2 projects of the cut-off nos. 1-5
show 94% of beneficiaries of completed
Eurostars-2 projects perceived the programme
as effective and only 6% saw the potential for
improvement. Interviews with beneficiaries
confirm that the Eurostars-2 funding was
relevant to taking the first steps to further
elaborate their innovation which would have
been difficult for smaller enterprises without
the public funding support.
Key benefits of participation in the Eurostars-2
programme mentioned in the final impact
reports of the cut-offs nos. 1-5 were mainly the
possibility for SMEs to collaborate with
academia (28%) as well as the increased
visibility and reputation (25%).
Moreover, the findings from the conducted
interviews indicate that the elements of cross-
regional cooperation between different
organisations combined with the bottom-up
approach were regarded as one of the central
drivers of the Eurostars-2 programme giving
interested organisations the flexibility to find
adequate partners outside of their country to
collaborate. The initiated knowledge transfer
between partnerships worked out very well in
many cases. In addition, some SMEs explained
that the Eurostars-2 support was perceived as a
28
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0030.png
EU
value
added
What is the value resulting from
the partnership that is additional
to the value that could result from
interventions carried out at
regional or national level or with
other forms of implementation?
de-risking factor and success label for private
investors making the projects more attractive
for private investments.
The Eurostars-2 programme is perceived by
beneficiaries as an important support
instrument to strengthen the European
Research Area and beyond. As national and
regional support programmes do often not
allow cross-border cooperation, the Eurostars-2
programme has been the 2014-2020 funding
period a successful niche programme for SMEs
and other organisations wishing to engage in
transnational collaboration.
Compared to other funding programmes, the
Eurostars-2 programme offered the possibility
to initiate a cooperative learning process with
successful
international
partners
with
competencies that would have been not
available on the regional or national level.
Moreover, interviewed beneficiaries emphasize
that the granting amount offered at the EU level
is generally higher than at the national or
regional level. Therefore, more activities could
be performed through the Eurostars-2
programme.
The successful implementation of a Eurostars-2
project is perceived as a quality label by private
investors. Evidence suggests that investors
perceive the previous public funding support as
a de-risking factor and a proof of quality
making the project more attractive for private
investments. Eurostars-2 funding helped
companies to develop patents and attract
further private investments.
To further boost successful Eurostars projects,
the Eureka Secretariat InnoVest Programme
was introduced in 2017. The new programme
was set up in cooperation with European
Business Angels Network (EBAN), the
European Business and Innovation Centre
Network (EBN) and Tech Tour. Its objectives
have been to facilitate the matching of
investment-ready companies with investors and
to increase the investment awareness of SMEs
having participated in the Eureka Secretariat
projects. The programme has only been open to
SMEs coming from the Eureka Secretariat
national authorities financing the programme.
Additional partnership-specific criteria
Additionality
How much additional private
and/or public R&I investments on
EU priorities have been mobilised
thanks to the partnership, under
the partnership and on top of
contribution of partners, both at
national and European level? How
do partnerships facilitate the
creation and expansion of R&I
networks that bring together
relevant and competent actors
from
across
Europe,
thus
contributing to the realisation of
the ERA?
To what extent has Eurostars-2
created conditions for the
competitiveness of the Union's
industry, aimed at a better
exploitation of the industrial
potential of policies of innovation,
research
and
technological
development
(H2020),
in
particular with regards to ICT
based products and services for
29
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0031.png
active and healthy ageing?
Transparency
How open is the partnership to
& openness
new participants (incl. procedures
/ mechanisms to involve new
members at partnership and
project level, as well as gradually
engage a broader set of
stakeholders across Europe)? How
transparent are the processes for
consulting
all
relevant
stakeholders
and
constituent
entities in the identification of
priorities? How accessible is the
partnership to SMEs?
NFBs and beneficiaries perceived Eurostars-2
as a niche programme that was also interesting
for SMEs with no previous experience in
securing public funding. By attracting around
50% of newcomers to Horizon 2020
programme, the Eurostars-2 programme
achieved to attract inexperienced SMEs and
other organisations to participate in an EU-
wide funding programme. Moreover, findings
from the Market Impact Reports from 2020
show that 30% of SMEs had no prior
experience in international collaboration before
having participated in the Eurostars-2
programme.
Based on findings from interviews with NFBs
and beneficiaries, the openness of partnerships
as well as the flexibility of introducing
amendments
to
the
project
depends
significantly on national rules and differs
therefore by each NFB.
30
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0032.png
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS
Due to lacking information and data on project results and impacts of Eurostars-2 projects,
only insights from interviews and desk research are integrated into the final evaluation giving
only selective and limited insights into the actual results and impacts. With regards to the
project implementation and results, interviews with beneficiaries show that the Eurostars-2
programme indicates that Eurostars-2 projects seem to be successful to develop new
processes, products or services. To follow up on the achievements and success of the projects,
the final report and market impact reports are requested periodically for three years from the
Eurostars-2 projects by the ESE. However, these reports have certain limitations as some
organisations participating in the Eurostars-2 programme do not have any market impact (e.g.,
universities) and beneficiaries stop replying after having received their final payment. Overall,
interviews with beneficiaries show that SMEs have been successful in developing new
patents, and prototypes and received private investments after the project completion. In this
context, Eurostars-2 projects are perceived as quality labels by private investors.
Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation
Citizens/Consumers
Quantitative
Comment
Businesses
Quantitative
Administrations
Comment
Comment Quantitative
Costs on research programme level
Administrative
recurrent
4%
Average
percentage of
total annual
Programme
budget
Support Actions
Research projects
recurrent
recurrent
N/A
96%
Average % of
top-up
payments
from allocated
budget.
Benefits
Direct benefits
Indirect benefits
Better quality of life
Strengthening
industrial
base
Europe
the
in
Increase efficiency and
sustainability of support
and care systems
31
 kom (2024) 0436 - Ingen titel
2915138_0033.png
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT
Overview of consultation activities
An important source for the information collected on the Eurostars-2 programme has been the
conduction of stakeholder interviews. The interviews followed a semi-structured approach
and were conducted via videoconferences. The interviews with representatives of the
European Commission, the ESE and the National Funding Bodies allowed the project team to
learn more about the administrative functioning of the Eurostars-2. By speaking with
beneficiaries of the programme such as SMEs, experiences on the actual outputs and results of
the programme were collected. Overall, 15 interviews have been conducted with beneficiaries
of different cut-offs in the Eurostars-2 programme coming from different participating states,
contact persons of National funding bodies and the ESE secretariat. An overview of the
performed interviews and the interview guide is attached in the following table.
Stakeholders consulted
The following table provides an overview of the stakeholders consulted.
TYPE
OF ROLE IN THE EUROSTARS- COUNTRY DATE OF THE
STAKEHOLDER
2 PROGRAMME
INTERVIEW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
EU official
EUREKA secretariat
Lead partner
National investment bank
Innovation agency
Innovation agency
National ministry
Innovation agency
Innovation agency
SME
SME
SME
SME
SME
SME
DG RTD
EUREKA
National funding body
National funding body
National funding body
National funding body
National funding body
National funding body
National funding body
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Belgium
Belgium
Germany
France
Netherlands
Sweden
Italy
Ireland
Croatia
Denmark
Denmark
Netherlands
Sweden
Spain
Austria
May, 18 2022
June, 13 2022
April, 29 2022
April, 27 2022
May, 10 2022
May, 23 2022
April, 27 2022
April, 26 2022
April, 27 2022
May, 9 2022
June, 10 2022
May, 13 2022
May, 9 2022
May, 17 2022
June, 1 2022
The call for evidence was open for feedback between 23 September 2022 and 21 October
2022. Feedback received is extensive, largely positive and in confirmation of the key findings
of the study. The feedback did therefore not lead to extra research for the study, nor to
changes in key findings. The feedback was submitted from 62 entities from 9 different
countries and represented both academic spinoffs as well as startups and regular companies.
Mostly mentioned were the programme’s facilitation for engaging into international
partnerships, financing of R&D that would have not been done otherwise and development of
new products and services to the market. Overall, there was a high level of satisfaction with
the management of the programme and the relatively easiness of participating. It is worth
mentioning that in several comments it was pointed out that the ES-2 program. was the first
engagement in international cooperation and funding. Finally, it was mentioned that the
international partnership and cooperation developed in the ES-2 programme tended to outlive
the project duration and became of a more permanent nature.
32