Europaudvalget 2025
KOM (2025) 0189
Offentligt
3012098_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 30.4.2025
SWD(2025) 110 final
PART 2/21
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EVALUATION
Interim Evaluation of the Horizon Europe Framework Programme for Research and
Innovation (2021 - 2024)
Accompanying the document
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council
Horizon Europe: Research and Innovation at the heart of competitiveness
{COM(2025) 189 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
List of Annexes:
Annex 1 Procedural information ..................................................................................................... 2
Annex 2 Methodology and analytical methods used ...................................................................... 3
Annex 3 Evaluation matrix ........................................................................................................... 33
Annex 4 Efficiency - underlying analysis and additional detail ................................................... 43
Annex 5 Stakeholder consultation .............................................................................................. 107
Annex 6 Description of synergies, by programme ..................................................................... 204
Annex 7 European Partnerships: Leverage analysis ................................................................... 211
Annex 8 Additional data on state-of-play, including for the European Partnerships and EU
Missions ...................................................................................................................................... 231
Annex 9 Activities conducted to increase citizen and user engagement .................................... 272
Annex 10 Horizon Europe response to emergencies .................................................................. 274
1
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0003.png
Annex 1 Procedural information
The interim evaluation of the Horizon Europe programme (Decide reference: PLAN/2022/785)
has been developed under the lead of DG RTD, under the guidance of the interservice steering
group (ISSG) composed of 29 DGs (AGRI, BUDG, CLIMA, CNECT, COMM, COMP, DEFIS,
EAC, ECFIN, ECHO, EMPL, ENER, ENV, GROW, HOME, HR, IAS, INTPA, JRC, MARE,
MOVE, NEAR, OLAF, OP, REGIO, SANTE, SG, SJ, TRADE) and 5 Executive Agencies
(CINEA, EISMEA, ERCEA, HADEA, REA), established in April 2022.
Preparatory activities started in April 2022 when the ISSG met to discuss the expectations of
participating services, the draft call for evidence, the draft consultation strategy and the working
methods of the ISSG. Following this ISSG the call for evidence was then published in July 2022
for four weeks and received 54 individual replies (presented in Annex 5). The ISSG met again in
October 2022 to discuss the feedback received on the call for evidence and the draft questionnaire
for stakeholder consultation.
The stakeholders’ consultation was launched on 1 December 2022 and closed on 19 February
2023, having gathered 1663 replies for questions on Horizon Europe. This was followed by an
online public event which was held on 29 June 2023 to complement the public consultation process
on key themes that emerged prominently in the survey results namely: proposal preparation and
project implementation in Horizon Europe, the balance between low and high TRLs across
Horizon Europe as well as the Horizon Europe’s novelties.
After the
ex post
evaluation of Horizon 2020 was completed and published in January 2024
1
, the
ISSG met that June to discuss the planning of the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe. In October
2024, the ISSG members provided comments on the first draft of the SWD. After addressing these
comments and finalising the individual partnership evaluation reports, the full package of
documents was shared with the ISSG for final comments in December 2024-January 2025. The
Horizon Europe Executive Committee was consulted at the same time.
The final inter-service consultation took place between 12 and 25 March 2025.
1
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/support-policy-making/shaping-eu-research-and-innovation-
policy/evaluation-impact-assessment-and-monitoring/horizon-2020_en
2
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0004.png
Annex 2 Methodology and analytical methods used
The interim evaluation of Horizon Europe was coordinated by the Common Programme Analysis
& Regulatory Reform Unit of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Research & Innovation,
with the support of: (i) a working group (the ‘MEAVE’ - Impact Monitoring, Evaluation and
Analysis Virtual Entity) gathering together the R&I family DGs and Executive Agencies; (ii) and
an interservice steering group comprising relevant Commission DGs. The interim evaluation of
Horizon Europe started in 2023 and builds on: (i) a large amount of quantitative and qualitative
evidence collected through a variety of methods described below; and (ii) a thorough evaluation
analysis, applying triangulation of evidence from different sources, ensuring an objective and
robust assessment.
Main data sources
The scope of the Horizon Europe interim evaluation covers 15 148 signed projects that closed as
of 6 January 2025. Section 3 of the SWD provides data on how the situation evolved during the
evaluation period since Horizon Europe was launched in April 2021 until 6 January 2025. Section
4 of the SWD provides the evaluation findings based on triangulation of evidence predating
January 2025 (most external evaluation studies were carried out during 2023-2024, with
programme data extracted in June/July 2023).
The analysis was based on the following data sources:
•
The main source of data for the evaluation is the Common Research Data Warehouse
(CORDA) Portal. The portal gathers data collected through different Commission tools,
including policy monitoring at work programme level, data collected at proposal stage,
grand agreement preparation and through continuous project reporting.
Beyond CORDA, additional data were used. This was also to have comprehensive data on
the whole framework programme, in particular for the EIC, different partnerships and
missions (such as the EIC Impact Report
2
, Biennial monitoring report
3
on partnerships in
Horizon Europe, External assessment reports
4
of the EU Missions, the Commission
Communication
5
and Staff Working Document
6
on the assessment of EU Missions two
years on, a report
7
of the expert group on monitoring of EU Missions, and an assessment
8
of JRC by a panel of independent experts).
•
EISMEA, Scaling Deep Tech in Europe – the European Innovation Council Impact Report 2025,
https://eic.ec.europa.eu/document/download/7b947b36-66cb-4471-a2d0-158d5ae6770f_en?filename=EIC-Impact-
Report-2025.pdf
3
European Commission,
Performance of European partnerships – Biennial monitoring report 2024 on partnerships in
Horizon Europe,
Publications Office of the European Union, 2024
4
Janssen, M. and Schiele, J.,
Mission A Soil Deal for Europe assessment report,
Angelis, J. and Boski, I.,
Cancer
Mission assessment report,
Kaufmann, P. et al.,
Mission Climate-neutral and smart cities assessment report,
Griniece,
E. and Rantcheva, A.,
Mission Restore our Ocean and Waters assessment report,
Nauwelaers, C. and Phillips, C.,
Mission Adaptation to Climate Change assessment report,
Publications Office of the European Union, 2023
5
COM(2023) 457
6
SWD(2023) 260
7
Karo, E., Barajas, A., Sarvaranta, L., Antoniou, L. et al.,
Commission Expert Group to support the monitoring of EU
missions – Final report, Publications Office of the European Union,
2024
8
European Commission,
Interim evaluation of the activities of the Joint Research Centre under Horizon Europe and
Euratom 2021-2025 – Final report of the evaluation panel,
Publications Office of the European Union, 2023
2
3
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0005.png
•
•
•
•
Evidence and analysis conducted in the ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020
9
and the
Commission Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon Europe.
10
External datasets such as Scopus
11
, Orbis
12
, PATSTAT
13
, Crunchbase, Dealroom,
Technote, MAG/OpenAlex, PlumX, Overton, NamSor, and Unpaywall.
Monitoring reports
14
of Horizon Europe and statistical data mainly from the Commission’s
internal IT Tools (Horizon Dashboard), as well as Eurostat/OECD data and Horizon
Europe Performance Statement.
15
Extensive quantitative and qualitative analyses on specific aspects and objectives of
Horizon Europe, conducted through five external evaluation studies (with multiple reports
each) by independent evaluation experts, selected using a transparent process and overseen
by relevant Commission services.
Five studies covered the different impact areas of the programme:
1. Evaluation study on
Excellent science in the European framework programmes for research and
innovation
– interim evaluation support study, 2024,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2295765
2.
Horizon Europe and the Green Transition
– Interim evaluation support study, Publications Office
of the European Union, 2024,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/67934
3. Evaluation support study on
Horizon Europe’s contribution to a resilient Europe,
Publications
Office of the European Union, 2024,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/797281
4.
Horizon Europe and the digital & industrial transition
– Interim evaluation support study,
Publications Office of the European Union, 2024,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/845650
5. Evaluation study of the
European framework programmes for research and innovation for an
innovative Europe
– support study for the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe, Publications Office
of the European Union, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132
6.
Synthesis study
summarizing the findings on
programme coherence and synergies
from these five
impact area studies, while providing updated e-grants data analysis: Publications Office of the
European Union, 2025,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/5616419
The above-mentioned five studies included individual reports on the evaluation of institutionalised
partnerships:
1.
Clean Aviation
JU:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/403632
2.
Circular Bio-Based Europe
JU:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/636121
3.
Clean Hydrogen
JU:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/577004
4.
Europe’s Rail
JU:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/3737899
5.
The Global Health EDCTP3
JU:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/555121
(and its predecessor, the
second European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme (EDCTP2):
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/017474)
6. Interim evaluation of the
innovative health initiative (IHI)
and final evaluation of the
innovative
medicines initiative (IMI2):
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/918737
7.
The Single European Sky
JU:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/7895247
8.
EIT Urban Mobility:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/9939305
9.
EIT Climate-KIC:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/1601692
9
SWD (2024) 29
European Commission,
Align Act Accelerate – Research, technology and innovation to boost European
competitiveness,
Publications Office of the European Union, 2024.
11
https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic#basic
12
https://login.bvdinfo.com/R1/Orbis
13
https://www.epo.org/en/searching-for-patents/business/patstat
14
SME participation in Horizon Europe
(2024),
Country participation in the EU R&I FPs
(2024),
Fostering gender
equality
(2025),
EU Missions
(forthcoming 2025)
15
Horizon Europe Performance Statement, retrieved 07/10/24 from
Horizon Europe - Performance - European
Commission (europa.eu)
10
4
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0006.png
10.
EIT Food:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/3661526
11.
EIT InnoEnergy:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/5626827
12.
EIT Health:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/049770
13.
EIT KIC Manufacturing,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/58516
14.
EIT KIC Raw materials,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/85259
15.
EIT KIC Digital,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/431739
16.
Key Digital technologies (Chips)
JU,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/71518
17.
Smart networks and services
JU,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/17621
18.
The European Metrology Programme,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/39988
19.
Euro HPC,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/561873
In addition, there were shorter individual evaluation reports on 20 co-programmed and co-funded
partnerships which do not have a legal obligation for evaluation:
1. European Partnership on
Transforming Health and Care Systems
(THCS)
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/140226
2.
ERA for Health,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/053085
3. European Partnership on the
Assessment of Risks from Chemicals
(PARC)
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/001851
4.
Artificial Intelligence, Data and Robotics,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/057832
5.
Made in Europe,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/334596
6.
Photonics Europe,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/711691
7.
Process4planet,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/324548
8.
European partnership for batteries
(BATT4EU),
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/1965736
9.
Clean steel partnership,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2978548
10.
Towards zero-emission road transport
(2ZERO),
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2828415
11. People-centric Sustainable Built Environment (Built4People),
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/6054686
12.
Zero-emission waterborne transport,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2538595
13.
Connected Cooperative Automated Mobility
(CCAM),
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2675321
14.
Water4all:
Water security for the planet,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/0349316
15.
Clean Energy Transition,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2130749
16.
Driving urban transitions to a sustainable future
(DUT),
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/7146788
17.
European Biodiversity Partnership
(Biodiversa+),
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/9001288
18. A climate neutral, sustainable and productive
Blue Economy,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/1846443
19.
Eurostars-3,
Part of the co-funded European partnership “Innovative SMEs”,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/308203
20. European
Open Science Cloud
(EOSC) Association,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/7356844
•
•
Data from other EU institutions, such as the Council Conclusions
16
on the Ex-post
Evaluation of Horizon 2020, relevant Court of Auditors’ reports, and reports/evaluations
of the European Economic and Social Committee.
17
Input from the public consultation
18
on the Horizon Europe interim evaluation. This
consultation received input from 1 663 respondents and 136 position papers.
16
17
The ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020 and future outlook
- Council conclusions, 23 May 2024
European Economic and Social Committee exploratory opinion:
results and experiences of efforts to close the
innovation gap in the EU in the light of Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe;
European Economic and Social Committee
recommendations:
interim evaluation of Horizon 2020.
18
Horizon Europe – interim evaluation (europa.eu)
5
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0007.png
Detailed descriptions of the models and methods used in the different information sources
mentioned above are available in each respective external study and internal analysis report. Below
is a short overview.
Main methods used
1. Macroeconomic modelling
Measuring the full impact of R&I, i.e. capturing indirect effects on top of direct ones, is an intricate
question, compounded by the often relatively long-time lags between policy initiatives and
observed actual impacts. The European Commission uses complementary modelling platforms for
both the ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of research and innovation policies. In this annex,
macroeconomic modelling is used to quantify the economic impact of Horizon Europe in terms of
GDP gain and job creation in the EU. While there is consensus that R&I is an important factor in
increasing productivity, quantifying the impact of R&I policies at macroeconomic level requires
modelling tools that accurately capture how R&I translates into economic gains.
There are several models available to assess the dynamic transmission channels of R&I, each with
specific features. This interim evaluation uses results produced by three macroeconomic models:
NEMESIS, RHOMOLO and FIDELIO. This is an interim assessment in the sense that the input
data on the Horizon Europe investments are preliminary and do not yet reflect the actual
disbursements during the programming period. However, the results should not be regarded as a
way to exactly track and monitor the actual macroeconomic impact of the Horizon Europe
interventions. This is because they rely on assumptions both on the modelling setup and on the
simulation strategy adopted to simulate the investments’ impact (i.e. the economic channels
activated by them). NEMESIS and RHOMOLO models are publicly available in the European
Commission's modelling inventory and knowledge management system (MIDAS)
19
, which
includes, among other things, details on model structure and approach, model inputs and outputs,
and spatial-temporal resolution and extent. MIDAS is managed by the Commission’s Joint
research Centre (JRC).
Results from NEMESIS were produced by a team of external experts, while RHOMOLO and
FIDELIO results were produced by European Commission departments (the Joint Research
Centre). The strength of these models lies in their distinct features. NEMESIS is considered one
of the richest models covering different types of innovation and their spillovers in the economy.
RHOMOLO is the most suitable model to address the geographical concentration of innovative
activities and analyse regional impacts of R&I, as it models regional economies. FIDELIO tracks
the indirect and induced effects across all agents, countries, and detailed industrial sectors of the
economy and is therefore the most effective model to analyse sectoral impacts.
1.1. NEMESIS
Presentation of the model
NEMESIS was developed by a European consortium
20
in 2000 to analyse the macro-sectoral
impacts of EU policies, based on R&D investments and related knowledge spillovers. The model
19
20
https://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/policy-model-inventory/
Lab. ERASME / Ecole Centrale Paris (now SEURECO), Federal Planning Bureau of Belgium, E3M3 lab. / ICCS
/NTUA and Chambre d’Industrie et de Commerce de Paris.
6
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0008.png
became a reference tool for assessing EU and national R&I policies, and since 2004 has been used
by the European Commission for several analyses. These include the assessments of: (i) the Lisbon
Strategy target of 3% of EU GDP to be invested in R&D
21
; (ii) the RTD national action plan related
to the Barcelona Objective
22
; and (iii) the impact of European R&I programmes (ex-ante
assessment of the 7th Framework Programme
23
, of Horizon 2020
24
, and of Horizon Europe
25
).
Structure of the model
NEMESIS is a macro-econometric model comprising detailed sectoral models for every EU
country. The representation of technical progress in NEMESIS is derived from the new growth
theories, where innovations result from the investment in R&D by private firms and R&D
undertaken by the public sector. In its latest version, used for the ex-ante evaluation of the Horizon
Europe programme in 2018
26
and for the ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020 in 2023
27
,
innovations still arise from private and public investments in R&D, but also from investments in
two other complementary innovation inputs: ICT and Other Intangibles (including training and
software). This improves the accuracy of assessing R&I policies by considering the most up-to-
date theoretical and empirical findings of economic literature.
28
In that respect, NEMESIS is
considered
29
the wealthiest model in terms of innovation types and policy elasticities compared to
other standard macroeconomic models for R&D and innovation policies. Consequently, policy
makers can design options for specific innovation types or channels using this model more easily.
Brécard, D., Fougeyrollas, A., Le Mouël, P., Lemiale, L. and P. Zagamé (2006), ‘Macro-economic
consequences
of European Research Policy: Prospects of the NEMESIS model in the year 2030’,
Research Policy,
No 35(7), pp.
910-924.
22
Chevallier, C., Fougeyrollas, A., Le Mouël, P., and P. Zagamé (2006), ‘A
time to sow, a time to reap for the
European Countries: A macro-econometric glance at the RTD National Action Plans’,
Revue de l’OFCE,
2006/5 (No
97 bis), pp. 235-257.
23
Delanghe, H. and U. Muldur (2007), ‘Ex-ante
impact assessment of research programmes: The experience of the
European Union’s 7th Framework Programme’,
Science and Public Policy, No 34(3), pp. 169-183.
24
European Commission (2013),
The Grand Challenge – The design and societal impact of Horizon 2020,
Directorate-
General for Research and Innovation.
25
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, (2018),
A new horizon for Europe: impact
assessment of the 9th EU framework programme for research and innovation,
Publications Office.
26
European Commission, Boitier, B., Le-Mouël, P., Zagamé, P., Ricci, A.,
Support for assessment of socio-economic
and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I programme – The case of Horizon Europe,
Publications Office
of the European Union, 2018; J. Ravet, B. Boitier, M. Grancagnolo, P. Le Mouël, L. Stirbat, and P. Zagamé,
The
Shape of the Things to Come: Ex-ante Assessment of the Economic Impact of Horizon Europe.
Journal for Research
and Technology Policy Evaluation, Vol. 47, pp. 96-10, 2019
27
European Commission, Naujokaitytė, R., Stančiauskas, V., Cakić, M., Dėlkutė, R. et al.,
Evaluation study of the
European framework programmes for research and innovation for an innovative Europe – Annexes – Phase 1,
Denham, S.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2023
28
Le Mouël.
Macroeconomic evaluation of EU R&I Policies: Ways and Means.
Economics and Finance. PhD thesis,
Université Côte d'Azur, 2019; U. Akcigit, C. Benedetti-Fasil, G. Impullitti, O. Licandro, and M. Sanchez-Martinez.
Macroeconomic Modelling of Innovation Policy.
Palgrave Macmillan, 2022
29
Joint Research Centre: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Di Comite, F. and Kancs, d.,
Macro-
economic models for R&D and innovation policies,
Publications Office, 2015
21
7
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0009.png
Box 1: The innovation mechanisms in NEMESIS
Schematically, the innovation mechanisms at the level of a firm (or a sector) can be described
as follows:
➢
Firms determine their investments in the three innovation inputs (private R&D, ICT and
OI) depending on their relative costs and degree of complementarity.
➢
Firms’ investment effort increases their knowledge (stock variable) and the knowledge
of other firms and sectors nationally or internationally through the knowledge spillover
matrices (knowledge transfers). For each innovation input, the knowledge stock is
modelled as a weighted sum of the stock of assets, R&D, ICT or OI, belonging to all
sectors and countries. The coefficients of the matrices used to build these stocks are
calibrated based on patent citations between sectors and countries. These matrices
combine the citations between patents allocated by technology classes and country with
the OECD concordance table to allocate these citations
between sectors
30
. For R&D,
the knowledge stock is also influenced by the public investments undertaken by the
public sector.
➢
The growth of the knowledge stocks will generate innovations at a rate that is a positive
function of the knowledge absorption capacity of the firm (measured by its investment
intensity in each innovation input).
➢
Innovations take two forms: product and process. Product innovations increase the
intrinsic quality of the product the firm sells, whereas process innovations improve the
production process without changing the product quality (pure TFP effect).
➢
Product innovations directly positively impact internal and external demands;
innovations reduce production costs and, in the context of a competitive market, lower
their market price and increase demand.
➢
These dynamics at the firm or sectoral level are brought together, at the macro level, by
the input-output tables of the model, and the combination of the sectoral
interdependencies (“bottom-up”) with the “top-down” macro-economic forces impulses,
finally, the medium- and long-term dynamics of the model.
Key assumptions for the interim evaluation
There are three critical assumptions for the evaluation methodology:
1.
The programme's financing:
Does the evaluated Framework Programme rely on
financing, or does the Framework Programme money come from “nowhere?”
2.
The direct crowding-in effect of the Framework Programme:
How much 1 EUR of
Framework Programme will increase (decrease), i.e. crowd-in(-out), the R&I investments
in the public and private organisations that receive this 1 EUR FP subsidy? Notably,
besides this “direct” crowding-in effect of the Framework Programme on the R&D
investments made by its beneficiaries, there is an “indirect” crowding-in effect, which
refers to the additional R&D investments made by a research entity, financed by the
30
D.K.N. Johnson.
The OECD Technology Concordance (OTC): Patents by Industry of Manufacture and Sector of
Use.
OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2002.
8
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0010.png
Framework Programme or not, as a response to the modification of the overall economic
activity that provokes the Framework Programme (and not as the direct result of the EC
financial support, as with the direct crowding-in effect). The total crowding-in is, therefore,
the sum of the direct and indirect crowding-in;
3.
The economic performance or European Added Value (EAV) of the Framework
Programme:
How much the performance of the R&I investments provoked by the
Framework Programme, in terms of R&I outcomes, is superior to those of the R&I supports
from other sources of funding, and especially national ones. The assumptions are
summarised in
Table 1
for the three cases (‘Low’, ‘Medium’ and ‘High’). As in the ex-
ante evaluation of Horizon Europe
31
, it is assumed that the Horizon 2020 programme was
financed by an equivalent reduction of public investment at the EU level. The degree of
reduction in public investment in each Member State is proportional to their historical
contribution to the EU budget. Depending on the success of each Member State to benefit
from the Framework Programme and their relative contribution to the EU budget, there are
net contributors and net beneficiaries.
Table 1: Key assumptions of the NEMESIS model
CASE
Financing
Direct
Crowding-in EAV
effect
Basic research: EUR 0
Appl. res.: +EUR 0.0
+0%
Average: +EUR 0.0
Basic research: EUR 0
Appl. res.: +EUR 0.15
+15%
Average: +EUR 0.0975
Basic research: EUR 0
Appl. res.: +EUR 0.35
+20%
Average: +EUR 0.2275
Low
An equivalent
decrease in public
investments
Medium
High
The three cases - for sensitivity (‘Low’, ‘Medium’, and ‘High’) - assume that there is no direct
crowding-in and no direct crowding-out effect of the Framework Programme on basic research,
the same assumption as in the ex-post evaluation of FP7
32
and the survey of the dedicated literature
realised for the ex-ante assessment of Horizon Europe.
33
At the same time, the (direct) crowding-
in effect of the Framework Programme on applied research and the EAV of the Framework
Programme vary according to case. The ‘Low’ case uses conservative assumptions, no direct
crowding-in effect of the Framework Programme for applied research, and no EAV compared to
31
European Commission, Boitier, B., Le-Mouël, P., Zagamé, P., Ricci, A.,
Support for assessment of socio-economic
and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I programme – The case of Horizon Europe,
Publications Office
of the European Union, 2018; J. Ravet, B. Boitier, M. Grancagnolo, P. Le Mouël, L. Stirbat, and P. Zagamé,
The
Shape of the Things to Come: Ex-ante Assessment of the Economic Impact of Horizon Europe.
Journal for Research
and Technology Policy Evaluation, 2019, Vol. 47, pp. 96-10
32
European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,
Assessment of the Union added value
and the economic impact of the EU Framework Programmes – Final report,
Publications Office, 2017
33
European Commission, Boitier, B., Le-Mouël, P., Zagamé, P., Ricci, A.,
Support for assessment of socio-economic
and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I programme – The case of Horizon Europe,
Publications Office
of the European Union, 2018
9
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0011.png
national funding, delivering a low bound for evaluating the impacts. This ‘Low’ case uses similar
assumptions to the ex-ante evaluation of Horizon Europe done by DG ECFIN with the QUEST III
model.
34
For the ‘Medium’ case, the direct crowding-in effect of the Framework Programme on
applied research is 0.15 EUR, following the median value from the literature review realised for
the ex-ante assessment of Horizon Europe.
35
Economic performance, +0.15% for the EAV, has
also been used by NEMESIS as a central assumption since the ex-ante impact assessment of
Horizon 2020
36
and based on the evaluation of past FPs. In the ‘High’ case, the value of EUR 0.35
for the direct crowding-in effect of the Framework Programme on applied research is implemented
as for the ex-post evaluation of the Horizon 2020 programme. This value was recently supported
by the Phase II results from the OECD Microberd+ project
37
, which found an average marginal
additional effect of direct support to private R&D in OECD at +EUR 0.48, with a 90% confidence
interval: [+EUR 0.30 - +EUR 0.66]. Retaining the (conservative) lower value of the confidence
interval and adding +EUR0.05 from the literature
38
on the additional crowding-in effect of EC
direct R&D supports compared to national R&D supports, ends therefore on this +EUR 0.35 value.
For the EAV, we assumed +20% that comes out of the microanalysis done for the ex-post
evaluation of FP7.
39
It can indicate that the +15% used in the past may be too conservative. An
EAV of +20% compared with national funding was based notably on the following findings:
➢
For FP7 comparing SJR (Scientific Journal Ranking), it comes out that the publications
produced in Framework Programme projects were published in higher impact journals than
non-FP publications published by the same authors who participated in EU-funded projects
from 2007 to 2015. It represents a higher scientific impact of about +21%.
➢
According to the analysis of FP7 survey data, the EU FPs' research teams were around 40%
more likely to be granted patents or produce patent applications and 25% of funded research
units produced at least one IPR output in 2015 compared to 18% for non-funded units.
➢
For FP7, the patent analysis shows that the patents produced in the FPs were of higher quality
and likely commercial value than similar patents made elsewhere. One of the most often used
indicators for a patent’s value is the number of citations it received from other patents, and
the analysis found that FP7 patents were cited significantly more from the control sample
(randomly selected non-FP sample) with a higher score of about +70%.
34
J. Ravet, B. Boitier, M. Grancagnolo, P. Le Mouël, L. Stirbat, and P. Zagamé,
The Shape of the Things to Come:
Ex-ante Assessment of the Economic Impact of Horizon Europe.
Journal for Research and Technology Policy
Evaluation, 2019, Vol. 47, pp. 96-10
35
European Commission, Boitier, B., Le-Mouël, P., Zagamé, P., Ricci, A.,
Support for assessment of socio-economic
and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I programme – The case of Horizon Europe,
Publications Office
of the European Union, 2018
36
European Commission (2013),
The Grand Challenge – The design and societal impact of Horizon 2020,
Directorate-
General for Research and Innovation.
37
OECD.
The impact of R&D tax incentives: Results from the OECD microBeRD+ project.
OECD science,
technology and industry policy papers. October 2023. N° 159.
38
European Commission, Boitier, B., Le-Mouël, P., Zagamé, P., Ricci, A.,
Support for assessment of socio-economic
and environmental impacts (SEEI) of European R&I programme – The case of Horizon Europe,
Publications Office
of the European Union, 2018
39
European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,
Assessment of the Union added value
and the economic impact of the EU Framework Programmes – Final report,
Publications Office, 2017
10
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0012.png
➢
FP7 patents cited non-patent literature +11% more often than non-FP patents, suggesting that
FP patents are likely to be of higher technological value and more likely to be based on cutting-
edge scientific knowledge.
Finally,
Table 2
reports the assumptions underlying the precise outline of the framework
programme budget, its annual layout, and the distribution of the Commission contribution between
basic and applied research, Member States and the different economic activities.
Table 2: Horizon Europe budget and its repartition
HE budget (EC
contribution, in
constant million €
2020)
Reduced by 7.6%
in constant terms
compared to what
was assumed in
2020, due to
inflationary crisis
Average
duration of HE
projects (in
years)
3
Repartition
between basic
and applied
research
Basic: 38%
Applied: 62%
Geographical
allocation of funds
Sectoral
allocation of
funds
Based on
CORDA data
and Orbis for
private
companies
Based on eCorda
The data used for NEMESIS go up to 10 June 2023, with 9,457 projects signed for EUR 24,732
billion of EC contribution. Out of a total budget of 24.732 billion of EC contribution, only 22,841
billion was retained in the study. This was done by subtracting the part of the EC contribution that
benefits countries outside the EU-28. In the model, EC funding is implemented in constant euros.
Consequently, the Horizon Europe budget decreases from EUR 22.8 billion to only EUR 17.8
billion when converted from current euros to constant euros of 2020. In addition, the current
inflationary crisis has an important impact on the Horizon Europe budget measured in euro
constant 2020. Consequently, the budget implemented in NEMESIS was reduced by 7.6% in
constant terms compared to what was assumed when the Horizon Europe budget was adopted in
December 2020. The average duration of the financed project was estimated to be about three
years. The split between basic and applied research was 38% for basic and 62% for applied. This
distribution was determined by assuming that the EC contribution benefiting public bodies and
higher education institutions finances basic research, with the remaining portion allocated to
applied research. The geographical allocation of the funds was based on eCORDA. Finally, the
Horizon Europe budget was introduced at a sectoral level in NEMESIS by considering that the
basic research is performed by the public sector and the applied one by the private sector, with a
sectoral repartition based on CORDA data and Orbis for private companies.
Results
This section provides an overview of the results of the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe,
covering Horizon Europe financing engaged from January 2021 to June 2023 and for Horizon
Europe only, i.e. isolated from FP7 and Horizon 2020. The results are displayed for the ‘Medium’
case, where the assumptions retained for the direct crowding-in effect and the EAV of Horizon
Europe have medium values. The results indicate that Horizon Europe produces positive effects
on GDP.
Figure 1
displays the results from the simulation across three main phases:
Investment,
11
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0013.png
Innovation and Obsolescence.
40
The GDP gains, although limited during the
investment
phase, are
about +0.02 of GDP percentage points (GDP ppt) on average between 2021 and 2025. During
these first years, the programme's positive effects on GDP come mainly from its crowding-in on
the R&D investments by Framework Programme’s beneficiaries. The programme is financed by
an equivalent cut in public investments in Member States, but the crowding-in effect induces a net
positive impact on investment at the macroeconomic level. Compared to other forms of
investments, the high and direct content in the labour of R&D investments also raises households’
income and final consumption, where the main GDP gains originate during this first phase. There
are, in return, inflationary pressures that deteriorate the external balance during the first four years
of simulation. Still, the situation begins to ameliorate in 2024, with the arrival of the first
innovations
that the programme has financed. The GDP gains increase reaching a maximum
annual average of about +0.085 ppt in 2031 up to 2033, and an average of about +0.067 ppt in
2026-2033. Finally, after 2033, the reduction in R&D investments induced by Horizon Europe
after 2025, along with the gradual
obsolescence
of the new knowledge and innovations it has
contributed to create, gradually offsets the GDP gains. The external balance (and investment)
remains positively impacted by the programme from 2033 to 2050. Nevertheless, final
consumption emerges as the primary contributor to GDP gains, with a growing relative
contribution during this obsolescence phase.
Figure 1: The impact of Horizon Europe on EU GDP and its components
Source:
Innovative Europe Annex, NEMESIS simulation, p. 430
Positive effects are observed also on the employment level. As reported in
Figure 2,
the
Investment
phase is characterised by a significant increase in the number of persons employed in the research
sector, with the creation of up to 60,000 jobs in research by 2023-2024. There is, in return, a fall
in highly qualified employment in production activities. Doctors, engineers, and technicians
employed by research entities are scarce in the labour market of highly qualified workers. Thus,
the rise in qualified workers wages reduces the overall demand for this category of workers.
Similarly, but to a much lower extent, low-qualified employment declines slightly. This crowding-
40
For simplicity, the three phases follow each other chronologically in the figures, but in reality they overlap.
12
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0014.png
out effect of research employment on production employment means that total employment
increases only very slightly in this first phase. During the
Innovation
period, Horizon Europe
funding and investment in research goes down and research employment stabilises by about
+1,650 between 2026 and 2033, compared to the reference scenario. Research employment does
not crowd out any more research employment, and the market deployment of the provoked
innovations leads to large job creation in every economic sector. On average, in 2026-2033, the
gain in total employment is about +28,000, with +1,650 for research employment and +6,440 and
+20,181 for high and low-qualified jobs, respectively. During the
Obsolescence
phase, similarly
to GDP, the employment gains decrease gradually from +64,000 in 2034, at their maximum, to
+13,000 in 2050.
Figure 2: The impact of Horizon Europe on employment
Source:
Innovative Europe Annex, NEMESIS simulation, p. 431
In addition to ‘medium’ case of Horizon Europe only, effects on GDP and employment were also
simulated using NEMESIS model for the case where Horizon Europe – covering financial
engagement from January 2021 to June 2023 – is considered altogether with the two past FPs (FP7
and Horizon 2020) and compared with ‘low’ and ‘high’ case.
41
Limitations of the model
While NEMESIS’ strengths justify its relevance when measuring the impact of R&I policies, the
model’s specific features also imply a number of limitations to be considered when interpreting
the results. First, the model relies on the empirical observation of relationships and allows for
flexibility in behavioural functions, which may generate inconsistencies between the most recent
European Commission, Naujokaitytė, R., Cakić, M., Didžiulytė, M., Zharkalliu-Roussou, K. et al.,
Annexes for the
evaluation study of the European framework programmes for research and innovation for innovative Europe – Phase
2 – Supporting the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe,
Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, p. 429 –
462.
41
13
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0015.png
developments in macroeconomic theory. Furthermore, it uses adaptive expectations rather than
forward-looking ones. NEMESIS also does not link the use of human capital with investments in
the educational system.
1.2. RHOMOLO
Presentation of the model
RHOMOLO
42
is the macroeconomic model of the European Commission focusing on EU regions.
It has been developed and maintained by the Joint Research Centre, in cooperation with the
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy. It is used for policy impact assessment and
provides sector-, region- and time-specific simulations on investments and reforms covering a
wide array of policies. RHOMOLO is built on a micro-founded general equilibrium approach and
is used to provide a breakdown of results by region and sector.
Structure of the model
RHOMOLO is a spatial dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model with new
economic geography features.
43
The version of the model used for this evaluation covers 276
NUTS 2 regions of the EU and the UK. Each region contains ten economic sectors operating under
monopolistic competition (with the exception of agriculture and public services, which operate
under perfect competition). Regional goods are produced by combining labour and capital with
domestic and imported intermediate inputs. Public capital enters the production function as an
unpaid factor.
Final goods are consumed by households, government and investors. Each region is inhabited by
a representative household, which supplies labour of three skill types, consumes and saves part of
its income. The government collects taxes, purchases public consumption goods, invests in the
economy and transfers resources to the various agents in the economy. Goods and services can
either be sold within the domestic economy or exported to other regions. Trade between regions
is associated with a set of bilateral regional transport costs.
44
The RHOMOLO model incorporates
imperfect competition in the labour market and allows for unemployment. Wage formation is
assumed to follow a wage curve specification
45
, which implies that lower unemployment increases
workers’ bargaining power and thus real wages.
The RHOMOLO model includes two types of capital: sector-specific private capital and public
capital. The latter is accumulated by the government through public investment, and it is
considered an unpaid factor of production freely available to firms in all sectors within each
Christou, T., Crucitti, F., García Rodríguez, A., Lazarou, N.J., and Salotti, S. (2023), ‘The RHOMOLO ex-post
impact assessment of the 2014-2020 European research and innovation funding programme (Horizon 2020)’, JRC
Working Papers on Territorial Modelling and Analysis, No. 01/2024, European Commission, Seville, JRC133690.
43
Lecca, P., Barbero, J., Christensen, M.A., Conte, A., Di Comite, F., Diaz-Lanchas, J., Diukanova, O., Mandras, G.,
Persyn, D., and Sakkas, S. (2018). RHOMOLO V3: A spatial modelling framework. JRC Technical Reports
JRC111861, EUR 29229 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
44
Persyn, D., Díaz-Lanchas, J., and Barbero, J. (2022).
Estimating distance and road transport costs between and
within European Union regions.
Transport Policy 124, 33-42.
45
Blanchflower, D.G., and Oswald, A.J. (1995).
An introduction to the wage curve.
Journal of Economic Perspectives
9(3), 153-167.
42
14
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0016.png
region.
46
Public capital is subject to congestion
47
, so its efficiency declines as production increases,
and the elasticity of output to public capital is set to 0.08.
48
Sector-specific private capital is
accumulated by private investors. The investment-capital ratio is a function of the rate of return on
capital and the user cost of capital, allowing the capital stock to reach its desired level smoothly
over time.
Box 2: How RHOMOLO models innovation
➢
R&D expenditure is modelled as private investment. Therefore, R&I expenditure generates
demand for capital goods. In addition, R&I expenditure leads to the accumulation of an
intangible knowledge capital stock, which has a positive effect on total factor productivity
(TFP).
➢
Public spending to support R&I is introduced into the model as a reduction in the user cost
of capital, which in turn generates an increase in private investment.
➢
The impact of R&I spending on TFP through the accumulated stock of knowledge capital
is captured by a set of regional elasticities, ranging between 0.01 and 0.04, that are
positively related to regional research and development (R&D) intensity.
➢
The intuition is that firms in regions that already spend a lot on R&D signal their pre-
existing capacity to generate value from innovation activities. The range of R&D
elasticities is between 0.01 and 0.04, which is in line with the existing literature
49
on this
topic.
➢
Expectations are assumed to be myopic and the model is solved sequentially, with stocks
being updated at the start of each period. For this particular exercise, capital mobility within
the EU was assumed, but no labour mobility.
Key assumptions for the interim evaluation
The RHOMOLO analysis covered the investments made under Horizon Europe programme
between 2021 and 2024. The data related to these investments was based on the CORDA database,
in monetary terms by NUTS 2 region and by year, and include only projects signed before 1 July
2024. The key assumptions retained for the simulation of the results are summarised in Table 3.
46
Barro, R.J. (1990).
Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth.
Journal of Political Economy
98(5), S103-S125; Baxter, M., and King, R.G. (1993).
Fiscal policy in general equilibrium.
American Economic
Review 83(3), 315-334.
47
Fisher, W.H., and Turnovsky, S.J. (1998).
Public investment, congestion, and private capital accumulation.
The
Economic Journal 108(447), 399-413.
48
in line with the findings by Bom, P. R., and Ligthart, J. E., (2014).
What have we learned from three decades of
research on the productivity of public capital?
Journal of Economic Surveys 28(5), 889-916, and the modelling choices
made by Pfeiffer, P., Varga, J., and in ‘t Veld, J., (2021).
Quantifying spillovers of Next Generation EU investment.
European Economy Discussion Papers no. 144, July.
49
Männasoo, K., Hein, H., and Ruubel, R. (2018).
The contributions of human capital, R&D spending and
convergence to total factor productivity growth.
Regional Studies 52(12), 1598-1611.
15
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0017.png
Table 3: Key assumptions for the RHOMOLO model
Key assumptions
Budget size and allocation
Support to basic vs applied
research
Regional spillovers
Direct leverage effect
Economic performance
The total amount of funding examined is €33,890,389,958
It is assumed that 30% of the funding are allocated to basic research
and 70% to applied research
Regional spillovers in the model are related mainly to trade flows
and interregional capital mobility.
European applied research funds crowd in additional private
investment (+15%)
The output elasticity of public capital accumulated thanks to Horizon
Europe (EU funding) is 15% higher than the standard elasticity
(national funding). The same is true for the Total Factor Productivity
elasticity of private investment funded by Horizon Europe.
Lump sum
To account for the added value of the EU-level instruments, a 15%
increase was applied to the output elasticity of the additional public
capital accumulated thanks to the Horizon Europe funds and to the
TFP elasticity of private investment.
Financing
EU Added Value
Firstly, it is assumed that 30% of the funding are allocated to basic research and 70% to applied
research. The funds allocated to public bodies and higher education institutions are considered as
basic research and the rest as applied research (a similar split had also been used in the ex-post
evaluation of Horizon 2020).
In RHOMOLO, basic research funding is simulated via an increase in public investment, which
leads to a temporary increase in the public capital stock of the regions (which depreciates at a rate
of 5% per year). Due to the role of public capital in the production function, in addition to the
demand-side effect of increased (public) investment, this increases the productivity of firms.
It is assumed that the applied research funds reduce the user cost of capital, leading to an increase
in private investment. This is a demand-side effect that also leads to a temporary increase in the
private capital stock (which depreciates at an annual rate of 15%). Based on the NEMESIS
assumption regarding leverage, the change in the user cost of capital is calibrated so that the
European applied research funds crowd in additional private investment (+15%). It is also assumed
that this R&I investment leads to an increase in TFP, subject to an annual depreciation rate of 5%
and with an elasticity that depends on the R&D intensity.
Based on the evidence
50
and to be consistent with the NEMESIS analysis, the output elasticity of
the additional public capital accumulated thanks to the Horizon Europe funds was increased by
15%, and the TFP elasticity of private investment was also increased by 15% to account for the
added value of EU-level investments that lead to economies of scale and scope and increased
cooperation between institutions.
Finally, it is assumed that the policy is financed by lump-sum transfers. In order to mimic the
financing of the EU budget, regional contributions are proportional to the GDP weight of each
50
Mitra, A., Canton, E., Ravet, J., and Steeman, J.T. (2024).
The added value of European investments in research
and innovation.
Publications Office of the European Union, 2024
16
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0018.png
region in the EU GDP. In other words, a region does not necessarily have to finance the policy
with a contribution equal to the amount of Horizon Europe earmarked for the region itself, but
instead the contribution depends on the share of EU GDP generated in the region.
Results
The impact on GDP increases steadily over the implementation period, peaking at +0.10% in 2024.
It then gradually declines as the simulated monetary injection ends, the increased private and
public capital stocks depreciate and the temporary increase in TFP fades. In 2050, the residual
effects of the policy are relatively small, as GDP is 0.03% above its initial level. The policy
injection also leads to improvements in employment, whose impact peaks at +0.05% in 2023,
amounting to about 94,600 persons (the total number of persons employed in the EU in the
reference year of the model (2020) is 190 million).
Figure 3: Horizon Europe (2021-2024) impact over time on selected macroeconomic variables
(EU27)
0,200
0,150
0,100
0,050
0,000
-0,050
-0,100
-0,150
Exports
Imports
Employment
Household consumption
Prices
GDP
Source:
JRC - RHOMOLO simulations.
The other variables presented in Figure 3 show that the Horizon Europe injections lead to an initial
deterioration in the EU's trade balance with the rest of the world, as imports increase and exports
decrease in the early years of the simulation. This is due to the initial increase in demand caused
by the policy injection and the subsequent increase in prices (measured here by the changes in the
GDP deflator). Competitiveness then improves, leading to a fall in the price level, with a positive
impact on exports and hence on the trade balance.
Figure 4 presents the territorial distribution of the GDP impact of Horizon Europe investment,
expressed as percentage deviations from the baseline (i.e. a hypothetical scenario without Horizon
Europe) in 2024, 2030, 2034 and 2050. The impact on GDP in 2024 is stronger in the regions
targeted by the Horizon Europe policy. For example, the macroeconomic impact of the policy is
relatively high in the Scandinavian regions, Central Europe and the Iberian Peninsula. Moreover,
in most countries the capital regions benefit more than the other regions, which is particularly
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
17
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0019.png
evident in countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and
Romania.
Over time, in countries such as Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Poland, the effects gradually
spill over to regions receiving relatively less Horizon Europe funding (2021-2024). However, this
does not seem to be the case in all EU countries, as the effects remain mostly concentrated in the
richest regions, which are also the capital regions in Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. This last
finding is not entirely surprising: investments in the capital regions show little spillover to the
peripheral regions, because the trade flows of the richest regions are mostly with regions abroad
and therefore investments there do not stimulate production in the neighbouring regions of the
same country.
51
Overall, the magnitude of the impact decreases across the board, due to the temporary nature of
the investments and the assumed depreciation rates of the temporarily increased private and public
capital stocks, as well as the decay rate of the TFP improvements.
Figure 4: Territorial distribution of the GDP impact of the Horizon Europe funds (2021-2024) in
2024-2050
2024
2030
51
Barbero, J., et al. (2024).
A spatial macroeconomic analysis of the equity-efficiency trade-off of the European
cohesion policy.
Spatial Economic Analysis 19(3), 394-410.
18
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0020.png
2034
2050
Source:
JRC - RHOMOLO simulations.
Limitations of the model
The results presented above assume that all funds allocated through Horizon Europe are used
efficiently and activate the economic channels used in the model to simulate their impact. Also,
the timing assumption is that the funds start affecting the economy as soon as the projects are
signed, but it is realistic to expect delays in terms of deployment of the money with respect to the
date of project signature. The distinction between basic and applied research can be considered as
a strong assumption, in particular due to its homogeneity across EU regions. Finally, the results
are inevitably affected by the parameterisation of the shocks used to simulate the impact of the
policy (including the elasticity used to govern the changes in TFP brought about by the Horizon
Europe investments or the output elasticity of public capital). The uncertainty of results is limited
by using values that are consistent with the existing literature on the subject.
1.3. FIDELIO
11Presentation of the model
FIDELIO is a macroeconomic model developed by the Joint research Centre of the European
Commission to analyse at industrial level how investment grants stimulate growth in the EU
economy. The model simulates the impact of R&I funding by incorporating R&D expenditures as
secondary activities within a wide range of industries (64), and disentangles the Gross
Expenditures in R&D (GERD), by institutional sectors (BERD, GOVERD, HERD), by NACE
industry and country-wise economic effects. With its granularity in terms of economic sectors and
its ability to capture sectoral spillover and dependency effects, it provides valuable insights for
policy impact assessment.
Structure of the model
FIDELIO is a Multi-sector Dynamic General Equilibrium economic model, designed for policy
impact assessment, providing industrial-, country-, and time-specific simulations. The model
19
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0021.png
compares counterfactual and baseline equilibriums to assess interaction effects between economic
agents.
As an Input-Output model, FIDELIO is able to capture all sectoral spillover and dependency
effects of any policy under analysis due to its granularity in terms of economic sectors and regions.
In fact, FIDELIO describes 64 economic sectors, and is a multi-regional model, describing agents’
choices in 41 countries (27 + 1 EU countries and 13 non-EU countries). The model also captures
how a policy can change trade balances, relative prices and comparative advantage in the
international trade arena.
To produce, firms use four production factors: capital, labour, energy intermediates, and non-
energy intermediates or materials. From the production processes, firms pay the cost of the other
factors of production (labour and capital) to households and to the government. Goods and services
can either be sold within the domestic economy or exported to other regions. Households receive
their income through wages, a share of the gross operating surplus, property income and the
governmental and non-governmental transfers. Household income, net of taxes and social security
contributions, is used to consume or to save.
The Government raises its revenue from five main sources: operating surplus that goes to the
government, production taxes, taxes less subsidies on products, social security contributions and
taxes on household income. This revenue is then used to finance the government interest, the
government capital formation, the government transfers to the households, and the government
consumption that is another component of the total demand. The budget balance is calculated as
the difference between government revenues and expenses, and it determines the variation in
public debt.
Box 3: Modelling of R&I activities in FIDELIO
➢
FIDELIO is an Input-Output model that includes some of the most important properties of
endogenous growth theory (innovation and knowledge spillovers) to simulate the potential
effect of R&D subsidies on economic growth. In this sense, two types of economic effects
are expected.
➢
The first effect refers to the rippling effect throughout the economy brought about by
spending on R&I. This is called the Keynesian multiplier effect and occurs with spending
on any type of product. The allocation of inputs to the R&D process are reflected in
enlarged levels of future output of economic sectors from one period to another. That is,
incremental changes in direct input coefficients, productivity growth and changes of R&D
capital-output intensities.
➢
The second effect is the increase in productivity due to technical progress and only occurs
through spending on R&D. This is called the return on R&D. This is part of the dynamics
of the model introduced in a second stage, in which the sectoral interlinkages are modelled
on the values that are assumed to be exogenous at the beginning of the next period(s).
Current decisions regarding R&D expenditures shape future production functions and
investment decision, thus, additional value added by country and sector is included in the
investment trajectory as a future expenditure in R&D. Consequently, R&D funds, which
are considered exogenous to the short-run decision process, can be fed into the system and
long-term effects of parameter changes can be studied.
20
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0022.png
➢
The modelling approach is sequential since, at the beginning of each period (first stage),
the industries have to decide on their current period R&D inputs on the basis of their
previous output levels and the prevailing production functions in their R&D sector. The
complete set of these short-run equations yields current output, R&D, employment and final
demand levels (static input-output model in each period).
Table 4: Key assumptions for the interim evaluation
FIDELIO
Key assumptions
Budget size and allocation
The total amount of funding examined is €33,884,503,833
Support to basic vs applied
It is assumed that 30% of the funding is dedicated to basic research,
research
specifically in the NACE M72 category from the BERD sector, 30%
to the HERD sector, 3% to the GOVERD sector, and the remaining
37% is allocated to applied research, covering the remaining BERD
sector categories.
Regional spillovers
Country spillovers are primarily linked to trade flows at the industry
level.
Direct leverage effect
European applied research funds crowd in additional private
investment (+17%)
Economic performance
It is assumed that BERD, HERD, and GOVERD sectors display
varying degrees of Value-Added elasticities due to the industries'
distinct contributions to the economy. The average value at the
European level for Business R&D performance, focused on
nurturing innovation and productivity within industries, exhibits a
3.5% elasticity to the economy. On the other hand, Public R&D
performance demonstrates a higher responsiveness. HERD,
emphasizing human capital development and knowledge generation,
boasts a 6.1% elasticity, while GOVERD, which funds basic
research, exhibits a 3.6% elasticity.
Financing
Lump sum
EU Added Value
EU R&I investment in not modelled as generating an increased
sectoral performance compared to national or regional R&I
investment.
In FIDELIO modelling, both basic and applied research are funded. For basic research in the
BERD sector, the sectoral R&D activities are embodied in the coproduction of product “CPA-M72
- Scientific research and development services” on the supply side. The coproduction of product
M72 increases according to the allocation of Horizon Europe funding by country and by sector.
In terms of the effect of innovation, all three types of expenditure (BERD, HERD, and
GOVERD)
52
contribute to fostering innovation. BERD drives innovation within the private sector,
52
Gross Expenditures in R&D encompasses the total expenditure on R&D across all sectors of the economy, including
higher education, business enterprises, and government. HERD refers specifically to R&D spending by higher
education institutions, such as universities and colleges. BERD pertains to R&D expenditures made by private
businesses and companies, while GOVERD refers to the R&D investments made by government entities or public
sector organizations.
21
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
HERD supports the development of innovative ideas and human capital in higher education
institutions, and GOVERD ensures the funding of long-term, basic research, and strategic R&D
priorities. Together, these expenditures create a synergistic effect that promotes technological
advancements, economic growth, and societal well-being.
Results
The impact analysis of Horizon Europe using the FIDELIO model demonstrates a positive effect
on the European economy, particularly in the manufacturing sector. In particular, simulations
results indicate that investments in R&D contribute to consistent GDP growth throughout the
policy implementation period, with the GDP being 0.08% higher than the 2020 baseline scenario
in 2023. The GDP multiplier increases over time, as the impact on GDP remains positive
throughout the simulation period, while the policy shocks are confined to the initial four years. As
the policy implementation nears its conclusion, the multiplier gradually approaches 1 and
eventually surpasses 1.6 by the end of the programming period in 2027. The supply-side effects of
the policy contribute to its continued rise, leading the multiplier to exceed 4.7 in 2050.
The impact of Horizon Europe funds on the EU can be broken down by institutional sector (HERD,
BERD, GERD) and by industry (NACE codes). In 2023, within the EU, 68.5% of the impact is
directed towards BERD, followed by 28.1% towards HERD, while the impact on GOVERD is
relatively small (3.5%). Following the Sankey diagram in Figure 5, the disaggregation of the
impact on BERD by industry can be visualized. The impact on the manufacturing sector (C) stands
out, with the top benefiting sectors being machinery and equipment (C28), computer, electronic,
and optical products (C26), motor vehicles, trailers, and semi-trailers (C29), and fabricated metal
products (C25). The positive effects on innovations gains, in the BERD sector investments
contribute to substantial GDP gains following the conclusion of the four-year intervention period.
22
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0024.png
Figure 5: Horizon Europe impact on EU, by institutional sector and industry.
Source: FIDELIO simulations, JRC.
Limitations of the model
Similarly to the RHOMOLO model, the results presented above assume that all funds allocated
through Horizon Europe are used efficiently and activate the economic channels used in the model
23
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0025.png
to simulate their impact. Also, the timing assumption is that the funds start affecting the economy
as soon as the projects are signed, but it is realistic to expect delays in terms of deployment of the
money with respect to the date of project signature. The results are also affected by the assumed
sectoral value-added elasticities (for BERD, HERD and GOVERD) which are the key parameters
in the simulation of the impact of sectoral R&D performance on the economy. The uncertainty of
results is limited by using values that are consistent with the existing literature on the subject.
Analysis of monitoring data
Monitoring flashes
53
on Horizon Europe, presenting internal analysis on specific topics of interest,
were also used to feed into the evaluation report.
2. Documentary review / desk research
Extensive desk research was conducted to ensure background information, as well as to provide
evidence that was then triangulated with other sources of information to draft the answers to the
evaluation questions. Documents reviewed included legal texts, strategic documents, previous
evaluations and policy analyses.
3. Analysis of unstructured data
The following types of unstructured analyses were carried out: text mining to detect patterns and
trends relating to sustainability practices in MSCA research
54
, to analyse how different parts of
Horizon Europe contributed to SDGs and to new or fast-growing research and innovation topics.
55
Limitations of SDG analysis
Direct comparison of EU contributions to SDGs in Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 was not
possible for the following reasons: 1) Horizon 2020 analysis was based on closed projects, 2) the
early stage of the Horizon Europe programme, 3) Horizon 2020 analysis was based on publications
data, and in Horizon Europe on the proposal text (description of action).
4. Interviews
The primary purpose of the interviews was to collect evidence from the different actors concerned
by the framework programme. This would give an objective assessment of what has happened by
taking into account the different points of view. This method was used in particular in case studies
and international benchmarks. Interviews were also conducted to confirm and complement the
data collection, with a view to drafting the findings and conclusions. Some 1 049 interviews were
conducted (including some with the same actors on different topics), gathering the perspectives of
Commission staff, Member States, associated countries, and a large range of stakeholders
(universities, companies, umbrella organisations, etc.).
5. Targeted survey
53
SME participation in Horizon Europe
(2024),
Country participation in the EU R&I FPs
(2024),
Fostering gender
equality
(2025),
EU Missions
(2025).
54
Excellent Science evaluation study, 2024,
Annex 2.3,
p. 309, 333
55
Innovative Europe evaluation study, 2024,
Annex 6,
pp. 397-417, Resilient Europe study,
Annex 3,
p. 205-208.
24
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0026.png
A targeted evaluation survey
56
was designed by independent contractors to collect data for the
interim evaluation of the programme. The survey was conducted between May and July 2023 and
covered beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants in Horizon Europe. The surveys gathered
evidence on the needs and motivation for engaging with Horizon Europe, perceptions of expected
project outcomes and impacts, and obstacles encountered during the application and project
implementation.
The survey of Horizon Europe’s
beneficiaries
included six different questionnaires:
1. MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships beneficiary researchers;
2. ERC beneficiary Principal Investigators (PIs);
3. Beneficiary organisations under collaborative actions, including:
a. Pillar I: MSCA (Doctoral Networks; Staff Exchanges; and COFUND), Research
Infrastructures.
b. Pillar II: Global Challenges & European Industrial Competitiveness (Clusters 1-6).
c. Pillar III: beneficiaries of European Innovation ecosystems;
d. Horizontal actions: WIDERA.
4. European Innovation Council (EIC): Pathfinder and Transition grants;
5. EIC Accelerator grants.
The survey of Horizon Europe’s
unsuccessful applicants
included three questionnaires:
1. MSCA Postdoctoral fellowships and ERC;
2. Horizon Europe’s collaborative actions, including:
a. Pillar I: MSCA (Doctoral Networks; Staff Exchanges; and COFUND), Research
Infrastructures.
b. Pillar II: Global Challenges & European Industrial Competitiveness (Clusters 1-6) grants.
c. Pillar III: European Innovation Ecosystems grants and EIC Pathfinder and Transition
grants.
d. Horizontal actions: WIDERA.
3. EIC Accelerator grants.
The survey invitations were sent to all the Horizon Europe beneficiaries and unsuccessful
applicants under the relevant programme parts. This strategy allowed collecting survey answers
from the maximum number of respondents. Before sending the survey invitations, several steps
were taken to clean and prepare the eCORDA contact data. This involved removing ineligible or
irrelevant applications, filtering out irrelevant calls, program parts, and contact types, and
Catalano G., Consiglio, G., Delponte L., Monaco, F. and Santoro, C.
Survey Visualisation Report – Feedback of
Horizon Europe Beneficiaries and Unsuccessful Applicants: Supporting the interim Evaluation of Horizon Europe.
Publications Office of the European Union, 2025,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2180607
56
25
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0027.png
eliminating duplicate contacts to ensure each individual received only one survey invite per
project. Contacts who had previously requested not to be contacted were also removed, along with
invalid email addresses. After these steps, the final contact list included 111,095 unique
individuals, comprising 28,843 successful applicants and 82,252 unsuccessful applicants.
Figure 6
presents the survey response rates by program component. Both the total number of
completed responses and the percentages indicating representativeness within each group are
illustrated. The total number of respondents among programme beneficiaries is 5 414, while the
number of unsuccessful applicants who responded to the survey is 10 290.
Figure 6: Survey response rate across Horizon Europe programme parts
Source:
Survey Visualisation Report - Feedback of Horizon Europe Beneficiaries and Unsuccessful Applicants.
26
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
To ensure that there were no underrepresented groups among the different programme parts
covered in the survey, the distribution of survey responses by type of organisation was also
assessed. The analysis showed that there were no underrepresented groups, and the response pool
reflected the structure of Horizon Europe's applicant population (Figure
7).
27
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0029.png
Figure 7: Survey response rate by categories of stakeholders
Source:
Survey Visualisation Report: Feedback of Horizon Europe Beneficiaries and Unsuccessful Applicants.
6. Network analysis
Network analysis was performed in Digital Europe, Excellent Science, Innovative Europe and
Resilient Europe evaluation support studies and involved analysis of connectedness of Horizon
Europe programme parts, networks and cross-collaborations within WIDERA. It also included
analysis of geographic dimension, and continuity of researchers across the FP.
7. Patent analysis
This analysis
57
served to investigate if the FP is attracting patenting companies. The analysis
involved extracting metadata from eCorda (June 2023) on Horizon Europe beneficiaries and
applicants and identifying matches between them and PATSTAT
58
applicants. Out of 4,759 unique
Horizon Europe private-for-profit beneficiaries, 1,556 (33%) were identified in PATSTAT. For
non-funded applicants, the shares of identified companies in PATSTAT were similar, with the
Horizon Europe share at 30%.
57
58
Innovative Europe evaluation study, 2024,
Annex 6,
pp. 417-419
https://www.epo.org/en/searching-for-patents/business/patstat
28
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0030.png
The analysis of both Horizon Europe beneficiary companies and non-funded applicants matched
to PATSTAT looked at the following key metrics:
•
•
number of companies matched to PATSTAT by the Horizon Europe pillar;
patent value metrics based on: (a) number of patents; (b) number of triadic patents, i.e.
patents registered with the European, US and Japanese patent offices; (c) number of high-
value patents, i.e. patents that can yield substantial economic gains and may be used to
protect one's own products or to create licensing income; and (d) average number of patents
per company.
8. Bibliometric analysis
The KIP monitoring framework recommends that scientific outputs such as journal publications
or citations towards these publications be evaluated at least two years after the supported projects
have been completed. On this basis, as of fall 2023, it was not appropriate, nor is even the necessary
data available, to conduct a (even partial or initial) bibliometrics evaluation exercise of Horizon
Europe journal-publication-mediated scientific outputs. Instead, a so-called calibre analysis was
performed in two evaluation studies
59
, which measured enabling factors of Horizon Europe
effectiveness, on the prior scientific achievements of researchers involved in projects selected for
Horizon Europe funding. In both evaluation studies, Cluster 4, Cluster 5 and Cluster 6 researchers’
prior publications (from 2017 to 2021) were retrieved from Scopus to establish their track records
on dimensions such as academic-private co-publication, cross-disciplinarity, or scientific
excellence (proxied through citation impact), among others. It was hypothesized that Horizon
Europe funding competitions should select, for example, researchers with past experience in
conducting cross-disciplinary research, as a mechanism to increase the likelihood that societal
impacts will be realized from supported projects. In the
Green transition
evaluation study, three
altmetric indicators were used:
•
citation from online policy-related documents
•
Wikipedia mentions
•
trade and journalistic news outlets mentions
The indicators used in the
Digital and Industrial transition
evaluation study were:
•
Share of international co-publications
•
Share of open access publications
•
Share of highly cited publications at the 10% level
•
Citation distribution index and citation distribution chart
•
Interdisciplinary integration
•
Multidisciplinary integration
•
Publication-level average of authorships held by women
•
Share of publications that are academic–private co-publications
•
Percentage shares of publications associated with policy-related outcomes
•
Percentage shares of publications associated with journalistic mentions or Facebook and
Twitter attention.
59
Green Transition evaluation study, 2024,
Appendix E,
p. 201-207; Digital and Industrial Transition evaluation
study, 2024,
Annex VI,
p. 579-622
29
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0031.png
9. Benchmarks
Benchmarking activities provided evidence to inform evaluation questions and identified lessons
learnt from best practices worldwide supporting research and innovation. In addition, they put in
perspective the framework programme’s performance in the area covered by the study. As a
minimum, the benchmarks were based on desk research, project monitoring and publication data,
and interviews with stakeholders and beneficiaries. The following benchmark was used in the staff
working document:
Table 5: Benchmarks
International benchmark
Evidence from the benchmark study
60
demonstrated that Horizon Europe showed
similar approaches towards the COVID-19 response to the NIH. The responses are
particularly similar in ensuring open data access and data sharing in the field of
infectious diseases, infectious disease surveillance on different levels, the development
of vaccines and therapeutics to prevent and treat COVID-19, as well as emerging
infectious diseases and dedicating further research efforts to understand the emerging
coronavirus variants. To this end, Horizon Europe also demonstrates flexibility in
coping with changing circumstances in the world, such as COVID-19, as the FP
continues its funding efforts and directs initiatives towards COVID-19 and coronavirus
research, including the preparations for the emerging variants.
Comparison with:
US medical research
agency National
institutes of Health
(NIH)
10. Case studies
Overall, 76 case studies were conducted, covering the specific policy objectives, cross-cutting
issues, and specific aspects of Horizon Europe such as institutionalised, co-programmed and co-
funded partnerships. The impact area evaluation studies had 15 case studies each (except for
Innovative Europe evaluation study that had 16).
11. Policy workshops
Some 6 policy workshops were conducted to support this evaluation. The workshops were
implemented in the context of the independent external studies. They were used to consolidate and
increase the robustness of the findings and conclusions arising from the data collection conducted
through other methods, addressing evidence gaps whenever needed.
12. Public consultation
The public consultation on the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe was part of a larger joint
consultation exercise looking at the past present and future of the R&I framework programmes (ex
post evaluation Horizon 2020, interim evaluation Horizon Europe and the 2025-2027 strategic
plan). In full compliance with the Better Regulation requirements, the online questionnaire was
published, among other places, on the Have your Say portal
61
, also offering the possibility to
submit position papers. It ran from 1 December 2022 until 23 February 2023.
60
61
Resilient Europe evaluation study,
Annex 5,
p.21
Horizon Europe – interim evaluation (europa.eu)
30
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0032.png
For the section on Horizon Europe, 1 663 responses were submitted along with 136 position
papers. The factual summary report and position papers have been published on Have your Say
portal. To analyse the responses received through the public consultation,
quantitative analysis
was conducted by means of descriptive statistics, differentiating and comparing responses of
different groups of respondents. Correct representation and interpretation of results are
fundamental to drawing coherent conclusions which is why the number of respondents has been
shown along with percentages. Linkages between answers and respondents’ characteristics such
as participation in the programme, country affiliation and type of respondent (e.g. Member State
and business organisation representatives, researchers). When evident, correlations between
answers given in closed questions have been explored. The summary statistics were bundled in
.xml format which allowed for swift cross-comparison among the various dimensions covered in
the public consultation survey.
Key messages were extracted from
qualitative
contributions, primarily position papers and open
questions present in the public consultation survey. Same holds true for the analysis of the feedback
contributions received for the call for evidence. Contributions were clustered by topics and specific
aspects raised in both position papers and open questions by means of using Excel, presenting
findings in a contribution matrix.
Although there was some coordination between some of the respondents (e.g., those participating
in the same network, cluster, or country), as testified by the uploading of the same position paper
by multiple respondents, the analysis of the consultation results does not indicate any campaign
affecting the overall results.
62
13. Multivariate regression analysis
A multivariate regression analysis was run to identify the factors that influence the efficiency of
project application and administration processes for Horizon Europe Pilar II’s applicants and
beneficiaries. It was based on a combination of data from eCORDA (extracted in June 2023, 151
199 applicants under Pillar II) and from the targeted survey.
The dependent variables were based on the survey data and expressed as follows. For the efficiency
of application costs: a proposal effort composite, the number of person-days dedicated to proposal
preparation, and the perceived proportionality of the proposal effort. For the efficiency of
administration process: the perceived proportionality of the granting procedure effort, the
perceived proportionality of the project reporting requirements, and the share of project resources
dedicated to administrative tasks. The dependent variables were tested independently against a
range of independent variables (size of consortium, budget, previous FP experience, role in the
consortium, type of organisation, use of NCP, reliance on external support, separation of
management tasks from research activities), combined with control variables (cluster, country).
The analysis used OLS regression and logit regression models depending on the nature of the
dependent variable. In addition, a bootstrap method was applied to validate the results of the
multiple regression models by assessing the stability and reliability of the estimated coefficients
(5000 bootstrap replications).
62
Overall, 24 campaigns were identified (coordinated responses to the survey by more than one respondent and up to
9). The campaigns include responses by 88 respondents, representing 5% of all responses.
31
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0033.png
14. Overall limitations of the Horizon Europe interim evaluation
Methodological and data limitations were identified (listed below). Thanks to thorough checks
ensuring that data is robust, these limitations did not affect the overall reliability of the analysis
and the findings. Nevertheless, the evaluation faced the following challenges and limitations:
•
Limitations in the analysis are due to the
sizable share of projects that were still ongoing at
the time of preparing this evaluation:
only 983 (6.5%) of the 15 148 signed projects have
been closed as of 6 January 2025 (projects suspended and terminated are not included). This
affects the mid- and long-term impact indicators, as the large majority of projects will not
have reached their impact at this early stage.
Moreover, a considerable share of monitoring and impact indicators – among which the Key
Impact Pathways, are based on data collected through periodic reporting by Horizon Europe
beneficiaries. As such, the indicators incur a lag in calculation. On 6 January 2025 – the cutoff
date for most monitoring data presented in this evaluation, only 3 443 projects had submitted
periodic reports. This amounts to 21% of the signed grants by that date.
A more general limitation regarding monitoring and impact indicators stems from the use of
self-reported information by project beneficiaries. This induces sources of possible error and
bias, which the Commission mitigates through triangulation and validation of data explicitly
included in calculation methods for all indicators, and in particular the Key Impact Pathways.
However, in some cases, it can be assumed that some indicators are largely underestimated
due to underreported data – such as IPR applications, scientific publications, etc. Moreover,
confidentiality of some IPR applications can further reduce their visibility in the
Commission’s monitoring systems, thus further underreporting results and impact of the
programme.
Only partial data available to the evaluation on the financial support to
third parties
(“cascading grants”)
in Horizon Europe. These grants are not managed through standard
Commission IT tools: basic information about participants is submitted in periodic reports by
the “first-level” beneficiaries arranging the calls, but only with a significant delay. For
European partnerships using a cascading model, such as EIT KICs and co-funded
partnerships, integration in Commission monitoring systems takes place with a considerable
time delay and did not happen at all until 2024. This is a serious data limitation, as the
Commission does not know who is the end-receiver of parts of FP budget is (up to EUR 300
million in Horizon Europe Cluster 4 only). This considerably limited and possibly distorted
some of the analysis, especially on the distribution of the funding over participants (type incl.
SMEs, geography, newcomers, etc.).
63
Lump sum
projects do not submit financial costs in reporting periods, including personnel
costs as FTE. This means that data for some Key Impact Pathway (KIP) indicators that rely
on cost declarations will never be available for these projects if no changes are made to the
methodology (for the KIP 8 short-term indicator on Number of FTE jobs created, as well as
•
•
•
•
Table 9 on “Monitoring and evaluation system - issues encountered” in the evaluation study on
Digital and Industrial
Transition,
2024.
63
32
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0034.png
•
•
•
•
the KIP 8 medium-term indicator on FTE jobs following the project funded).
64
For KIP 9
short-term indicator (“Amount of public and private investment mobilised with the initial
investment for the programme”), which is the difference between total costs and EU
contribution - the value available in CORDA is an ex-ante estimation based on co-funding
rates defined at the level of each call. The actual value of beneficiary costs will never be
reported. This is important for assessing whether the project leverages more funding than it is
contractually required to, e.g. for joint undertakings (some of their grants use lump sums).
Lagged availability, gaps and inconsistencies in the data on indirectly managed actions, which
includes some European Partnerships. Different partnership analyses (i.e. in the partnerships’
annual reports, the Biennial Monitoring Report and Corda) have different sources, thus
causing inconsistencies even if the formula they use is aligned.
Policy officers who prepare the text of the calls for proposals are requested to flag the calls if
they believe they are relevant for certain predefined priorities, e.g. AI. These flags do not take
into account what happens in the project during implementation. For this reason, they cannot
be used reliably for analysis, as they only signal
potential
synergies, not actual synergies.
For Cluster 4, Destination 5 Space, the analysis was limited to the topics implemented by
HaDEA. It did not include the topics and actions delegated to the European Space Agency
(ESA) and to the EU Space Programme Agency (EUSPA), which represent about half the
budget.
While the evaluation strives to use public data sources, some data on the EIT KICs and EU
Missions was not published in a timely way to support the evaluation so internal Commission
monitoring is cited as the data source.
64
For the short-term KIP indicator, only an ex-ante estimate of the number of employees in lump sum grants is
available, from “Part A” of the grant agreement. Analysis is still in progress on the medium-term indicator.
33
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0035.png
Annex 3 Evaluation matrix
1. Effectiveness
Evaluation questions
1.1.
To what extent
was Horizon Europe
successful?
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
Horizon Europe has
advanced scientific
excellence
(scientific
impacts)
Indicators and where available – targets
KIP 1:
Creating high-quality new knowledge
Number of publications in peer-reviewed journals
Number of awards and prizes won
% of peer reviewed scientific publications reported under the
KIP 1
that come from the European Research Council (ERC)
grantees
KIP 2:
Strengthening human capital in R&I
Number of researchers benefitting from upskilling activities
Number of researchers benefitting from mobility activities
KIP 3:
Fostering diffusion of knowledge and Open Science
Number of open Access publications produced
Number of open Access datasets produced
Number of open Access software applications produced
Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) of Joint Research
Centre’s (JRC) publications indexed by Scopus
Proportion of JRC’s publications indexed by Scopus in the top
1% and the top 10% of the most-cited journals ranked
according to the SCImago Journal Rank
Horizon Europe has
increased the R&I
contribution to
addressing global
challenges
(societal
impacts)
KIP 4:
Addressing EU policy priorities and global challenges
through R&I.
% of Horizon Europe projects focused on SDGs
Amount of own funds mobilised by beneficiaries to address
SDGs
Number of publications linked to SDGs
KIP 5:
Delivering benefits and impact via R&I missions.
Missions’ progress towards their goal
Main data sources
CORDA dashboard frozen on 1 December 2024
Replies to stakeholders’ consultation
Programme Performance Statement, June 2024
Survey of Horizon Europe ERC beneficiaries
Excellent Science evaluation study (links in Annex 2)
CORDA dashboard frozen on 1 December 2024
Excellent Science evaluation study (links in Annex 2)
Replies to stakeholders’ consultation
Resilient Europe evaluation study (links in Annex 2)
A bibliometric study of JRC’s publications indexed by
Scopus between 2018 and 2022
JRC assessment by a panel of independent experts (links in
Annex 2)
Innovative Europe evaluation study, Annex 6.3 (links in
Annex 2)
Horizon Europe Work Programme
Resilient Europe evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
Biennial Monitoring Report (BMR)
2024 on Partnerships
in Horizon Europe
Replies to stakeholders’ consultation
Commission Expert Group supporting the monitoring of
EU Missions (link in Annex 2)
34
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0036.png
Evaluation questions
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
Indicators and where available – targets
% of public consultation respondents who responded that “EU
Missions contributed “somewhat” or “to a great extent” to
strengthening the impact of European research and innovation
% of public consultation respondents who are (very) satisfied
with the EU missions’ progress towards objectives so far
KIP 6:
Strengthening the uptake of R&I in society
% of projects with EU citizens or end-users contribution
Main data sources
External assessment reports of the EU Missions (links in
Annex 2)
Replies to stakeholders’ consultation
Commission Expert Group supporting the monitoring of
EU Missions (link in Annex 2)
External assessment reports of the EU Missions (links in
Annex 2)
Biennial Monitoring Report (BMR)
2024 on Partnerships
in Horizon Europe, survey results
Partnerships’ individual evaluation reports (links in Annex
2)
Digital & Industrial Transition evaluation study, Annex I
(link in Annex 2)
Resilient Europe evaluation study- Annexes-case study 15
Replies to stakeholders’ consultation
Partnership-specific evaluation criteria
International positioning and visibility:
number of
partnerships with allocated budgets for collaborations with
partners outside the EU
Transparency and openness:
number of new organisations
involved in the partnerships, number of countries partnerships
were extended to beyond European borders, Participating
members from widening countries, number of partnerships
with SMEs members
Phasing-out preparedness:
number of partnerships with a
phasing-out plan, number of partnerships with measures to
improve their financial sustainability and reduce reliance on
public funding
% of public consultation respondents who either “agreed” or
“strongly agreed” that the rationalisation of European
Partnerships led to delivering more solutions for the benefits
of society, the environment, and the economy
Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH):
% of Horizon Europe projects that took into account SSH
Number of dedicated calls for proposals for SSH related
topics
Extent to which SSH were incorporated into HE Clusters
% of public consultation respondents who reported that SSH
should be further elaborated for the Strategic Plan 2025-2027
Horizon Europe monitoring data
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2023).
Synopsis report: Looking into the R&I future priorities
2025-2027,
p.37
Digital & Industrial Transition evaluation study (link in
Annex 2)
Green transition evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
35
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0037.png
Evaluation questions
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
Indicators and where available – targets
Promotion of Gender Equality
Amount of Horizon Europe funding directly linked with
gender equality-advancing efforts
% of women expert evaluators
% of women in Horizon 2020/Europe advisory groups and
expert groups
% of women project coordinators in FP projects
% of women researchers in FP projects
% of public consultation respondents who agreed or strongly
agreed that strengthened gender equality provisions bear
potential to promote gender equality across R&I organisations
and activities
International cooperation
Associated countries vs Other third countries:
•
•
% of participations in collaborative projects
% of EU contribution to non-EU participants
Main data sources
Horizon Europe Performance Statement, retrieved
07/10/24 from
Horizon Europe - Performance - European
Commission (europa.eu)
Fostering gender equality: Key Figures from Horizon
Europe (link in Annex 2).Replies
to stakeholders’
consultation
Digital & Industrial Transition evaluation study (link in
Annex 2)
•
% of collaborations that countries are part of
% of public consultation respondents who agreed that
participating in Horizon Europe “improved cooperation with
partners from other countries - within the EU and beyond”
Horizon Europe has
fostered innovation-
based growth, created
jobs and leveraged
investments in R&I
(economic impacts)
KIP 7:
Generating innovation-based growth
Number of IPR outputs, including patent applications,
trademarks, and utility designs
Number of innovative products, processes, or methods
produced and reported by the projects
KIP 8:
Creating more and better jobs
Number of jobs in Full Time Equivalent (FTE) created or
maintained with the support of Horizon Europe
Total employment creation resulting from Horizon Europe
Country Participation in R&I Framework programmes
(link in Annex 2)
Excellent Science evaluation study, annex on international
cooperation (link in Annex 2)
CORDA dashboard frozen on 1 July 2024
Replies to stakeholders’ consultation
5 evaluation studies (links in Annex 2)
ERC Proof of Concept List of PIs funded CORDA
dashboard frozen on 1 December 2024
Macro modelling analysis. Models: RHOMOLO,
FIDELIO (by Joint Research Centre), NEMESIS (in the
Innovative Europe study 2024, p. 60)
36
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0038.png
Evaluation questions
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
Indicators and where available – targets
KIP 9:
Leveraging investments in R&I
% of Horizon Europe contribution to GDP in the EU-27:
average annual GDP gain
European Innovation Council (EIC)
Number of start-ups and SMEs supported by the EIC
Accelerator
European Innovation Ecosystems (EIE)
Number of beneficiaries
% of women researchers involved in EIE funded projects
Number of identified Regional Innovation Valleys (RIVs)
European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)
Number of people who graduated from the EIT-labelled
master and doctoral programmes
Number of start-ups were created by students from EIT
programmes
Number of start-ups as a result of EIT innovation projects
Number of start-ups that received support from EIT KICs
Number of innovative products or services were put on the
market by the EIT KICs
Participants in (non-degree) education and training
Main data sources
Macro modelling analysis. Models: RHOMOLO,
FIDELIO (by Joint Research Centre), NEMESIS (in the
Innovative Europe study 2024, p. 60)
Innovative Europe evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
CORDA dashboard frozen on 1 December 2024
EISMEA,
Scaling Deep Tech in Europe – the European
Innovation Council Impact Report 2025
CORDA data extracted on 26 September 2024
Innovative Europe study (link in Annex 2)
Innovative Europe evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
EIT internal monitoring
Horizon Europe has
widened participation
and strengthened the
European Research
Area
Widening MS:
•
% of participation in collaborative projects
•
% of EU contribution
•
Applications success rate
•
% of public consultation respondents who agreed or
strongly agreed that Horizon Europe is on track to
strengthen and increase the impact and attractiveness of
the European Research Area
Country Participation in R&I Framework programmes
(link in Annex 2)
CORDA dashboard frozen on 1 December 2024
Replies to stakeholders’ consultation
37
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0039.png
Evaluation questions
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
Exploitation and
dissemination
measures have made it
possible to reach these
outcomes and impacts
Indicators and where available – targets
Number of visitors on Horizon Results Platform
Number of beneficiaries and organisations that profited from
the Horizon Results Booster
% of beneficiaries who agreed to a very large or large extent
that EC platforms and measures have positive impacts on
facilitating the uptake of projects’ research findings
% of public consultation respondents who deemed
Commission-related exploitation services helpful in view of
dissemination, exploitation and access to research and
innovation results
Main data sources
Digital and Industrial Transition evaluation study, section
6.2.4
Green Transition evaluation study, section 14.4.2
The beneficiaries’ survey results (targeted evaluation
survey, May-July 2023)
Replies to stakeholders’ consultation
2. Efficiency
Questions
2.1 To what extent do the
costs of applicants and
administrative costs of
beneficiaries (including
reporting cost) introduce
inefficiencies into the
framework programme?
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
Costs of applicants
are
proportionate to the
chances of securing
funding and size of
grants
Indicators
Magnitude of applicant’s cost [person-days, EUR]
% of Horizon Europe applicants who received (internal and
external) support to prepare their proposals
Median value of the consultancy fee, EUR
Perception of proportionality of unsuccessful and successful
applicants
% of respondents who ‘rather agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that
proposal preparation and submission in Horizon Europe is
simpler than those in Horizon 2020 (OPC)
Magnitude of administrative expenditure of beneficiaries
[person-days, EUR]
Qualitative feedback on inefficiencies by beneficiaries
Main data sources
Targeted survey responses of Horizon Europe
beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants, May-July,
2023
Replies to public stakeholders’ consultation
Responses to open questions to targeted survey of
Horizon Europe beneficiaries and unsuccessful
applicants, May-July, 2023
Responses to open questions to 2 targeted surveys of
Horizon Europe lump sum grants beneficiaries and
unsuccessful applicants, autumn 2023 and summer 2024.
Administrative costs
incurred by
beneficiaries
to fulfil
grant agreement
obligations are efficient
38
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0040.png
Questions
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
EU administration was
efficient
Indicators
Time-to-inform
Time-to-sign
Time-to-grant
Time-to-pay
Administrative expenditure ratio of Horizon Europe
Committed and spent
operational expenditure
[EUR] of
Horizon Europe
Committed/spent
administrative expenditure
of the EU
public sector of Horizon Europe [EUR]
Costs of applicants
to Horizon Europe [person-days, EUR]
(benefits =
Wider-economic impact
of Horizon Europe)
Comparison of expected macroeconomic impact relative to
incurred total cost to society
% of public consultation respondents who ‘agreed’ or
‘strongly agreed’ that the rationalisation of European
Partnerships had
•
•
allowed additional public and private investments in
research and innovation to be leveraged
Main data sources
implementation data on administrative expenditure
(ABAC, CORDA, DG BUDG)
2.2 How efficient has the
performance of the
Horizon Europe been
against
administrative
targets?
2.3 How do expected
benefits compare to the
costs Horizon Europe gave
rise to?
Horizon Europe
delivered
value for
money
-
-
-
Macroeconomic impacts: modelling Rhomolo,
Nemesis
Surveys of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and
unsuccessful applicants, May-July, 2023
Financial implementation data (European
Commission)
2.4 How efficient has been
the performance of
Horizon Europe’s
simplification
measures?
European Partnership
landscape was
rationalised
Replies to public stakeholders’ consultation
Digital and Industrial Transition evaluation study
Green Transition evaluation study
Surveys of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and
unsuccessful applicants, May-July, 2023
led to delivering more solutions for the benefits of
society, the environment, and the economy
Qualitative feedback on perceived change by stakeholders
European Partnership
administrative costs are
efficient
Lump sum funding
delivered simplification
benefits
-
-
Administrative cost ratio, including benchmarking.
Comparison between administrative cost intensity and
direct leverage factor
Partnerships’ individual evaluation reports (links in
Annex 2)
Two targeted surveys of lump-sum grant applicants and
beneficiaries, and matched actual cost grant applicants
and beneficiaries (autumn 2023, summer 2024)
Assessment
of lump sum funding in Horizon 2020 and
Horizon Europe, September 2024
CORDA data
Reduction of financial reporting burden experienced by lump
sum grant beneficiaries [person-days; EUR]
change in proposal preparation costs for lump sum grant
applicants (relative to actual cost grants) [person-days]
qualitative feedback from applicants and beneficiaries of lump
sum grants
39
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0041.png
Questions
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
Indicators
Main data sources
Surveys of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and
unsuccessful applicants, May-July, 2023
Horizon Europe has
potential for further
simplification,
with
respect to application,
proposal evaluation and
grant implementation
processes
-Total expected financial reporting reduction for lump sum
grant beneficiaries [EUR]
- Potential of the “Personnel unit costs” measure to reduce
financial reporting cost of actual cost grant. [qualitative]
- potential for simplification in implementation processes
raised by applicants and beneficiaries
Two targeted surveys of lump-sum grant applicants and
beneficiaries, and matched actual cost grant applicants
and beneficiaries (autumn 2023, summer 2024)
Surveys of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and
unsuccessful applicants, May-July, 2023
5 evaluation studies (links in Annex 2)
3. Coherence
Questions
3.1.
How coherent has
the R&I Framework
Programme been between
its programme parts and
with other EU
programmes serving
similar objectives and with
national, regional and
international initiatives?
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
implementation of
Horizon Europe was
consistent
between
programme parts
Indicators
% of beneficiaries that plan joint activities
Number of collaborations planned with Pillar III
Number of beneficiaries transiting from EIT and ERC to the
EIC measures
Balance between lower and higher TRLs
Main data sources
Targeted survey
Innovative Europe evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
EIC Work Programme 2023
Innovative Europe evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
Horizon Dashboard, as of 20 September 2024
Digital and Industrial Transition evaluation study (link in
Annex 2)
Green Transition evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
Resilient Europe evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
5 evaluation studies (links in Annex 2)
EISMEA internal monitoring data
CINEA internal monitoring data
Survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and unsuccessful
applicants, May-July, 2023
Horizon Dashboard data, as of 6 January 2025
Horizon Europe has
worked in synergy
with
other relevant EU
programmes
Degree to synergies with other EU programmes listed in
Annex IV of the regulation establishing Horizon Europe have
been implemented
% of Horizon Europe beneficiaries that have sought additional
funding for their research projects from other EU programmes
Number of unsuccessful project proposals awarded a Seal of
Excellence
40
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0042.png
Questions
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
Indicators
Main data sources
EISMEA monitoring data
DG RTD monitoring data
DG EAC monitoring data
% of joint European Partnership calls for research and / or
innovation proposals (together with other Partnerships)
Horizon Europe has
worked in synergy
with
national programmes
Number of beneficiaries transitioning from national support
measures to the EIC
% of unsuccessful applicants responding that the Seal of
Excellence was helpful for obtaining alternative funding
Number of national and/or regional Seal of Excellence
support schemes set up in the Member States
Partnerships Biennial Monitoring Report (link in Annex
2)
EIC Work Programme 2023
Innovative Europe evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
Survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and unsuccessful
applicants, May-July, 2023
Excellent Science evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
4. EU added value
Questions
4.1.
What was value
resulting from the FP that
is additional to the value
that could result from
interventions which would
be carried out at regional
or national level?
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
Horizon Europe
leveraged additional
resources for R&I
Indicators
Leverage factor of partnerships
Main data sources
Partnerships Biennial Monitoring Report (link in Annex
2)
CORDA dashboard, data as of 31/12/2023
eGrants dashboard, data as of 31/12/2023
Annual Activity Reports of partnerships
European Court of Auditors 2022 Annual report on EU
Joint Undertakings
Figures provided by individual partnerships
Excellent Science evaluation study, Appendix F (link in
Annex 2)
Excellent Science evaluation study, case study 6 (link in
Annex 2)
research and
innovation activities
would not have been
possible without
Horizon Europe
% of respondents who found that Horizon Europe funding
provides funding for research topics or fields not covered in
national or regional R&I funding programmes
Existence of grants equivalent to Horizon Europe in Widening
countries
41
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0043.png
Questions
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
funding (i.e. through
other national or
regional support)
International
cooperation in R&I
strengthened Europe’s
competitiveness and
partnerships
Indicators
Existence of national programmes equivalent to Horizon
Europe in the field of security research (Cluster 3)
Combined annual financial contribution of the Associated
Countries
Main data sources
Resilient Europe evaluation study
DG RTD internal calculations
5. Relevance
Questions
5.1.
How relevant has
the support to innovation
by the Framework
Programme (FP),
including partnerships,
been given the
stakeholders’ needs and
considering the scientific,
technological and/or
socio-economic problems
and issues identified at the
time of its design and over
time?
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
The FP (including
partnerships)
responded to the
needs
of beneficiaries
The FP strengthened
Europe’s
competitiveness
Indicators
% of respondents who were satisfied with blended finance in
Horizon Europe
Support for coverage of low TRLs
EU research and development expenditure relative to GDP
% of private R&D investment
Number of companies with the status of unicorns
Innovation index indicator
Extent to which Horizon Europe responded to unforeseen and
emergency circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic
and Russian invasion of Ukraine
% of respondents who “strongly agreed” or “rather agreed” that
Horizon Europe gives more flexibility to respond to changing
socio-economic needs compared to national and/or regional
research funding
Extent to which co-creation approach improved the coherence
of Horizon Europe’s programme.
% of respondents who found that co-creation process with the
relevant Commission services contributed either somewhat or
Main data sources
Replies to stakeholders’ consultation
Horizon Europe monitoring data
DG RTD, SRIP
The FP demonstrated
that it was
flexible
in
responding to
emergencies and
changing priorities
5 impact area evaluation studies (links in Annex 2)
Targeted evaluation
beneficiaries
survey
of
Horizon
Europe
New programme
governance
Digital and Industrial Transition evaluation study (link in
Annex 2)
Green Transition evaluation study (link in Annex 2)
42
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0044.png
Questions
Judgement criteria:
extent to which…
Indicators
to a great extent to strengthening the impact of European
research and innovation
Main data sources
Strategic Plan
Replies to stakeholders’ consultation
Corda system
Monitoring and
reporting
EU Missions’ design
and governance
Extent to which the monitoring and reporting requirements
outlined in the regulation establishing Horizon Europe are
being met
Extent to which the Missions’ design is “bold and
inspirational”, with “wide, scientific, technological, societal,
economic, environmental or policy relevance and impact”’ as
foreseen by the regulation establishing Horizon Europe
Average % of partnership funding allocated to the strategic
priorities
The Commission Communication on the assessment of
EU Missions two years on (link in Annex 2)
Missions’ implementation plans
Partnerships Biennial Monitoring Report (links in Annex
2)
Digital and Industrial Transition evaluation study (link in
Annex 2)
Directionality of
European Partnerships
43
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0045.png
Annex 4 Efficiency - underlying analysis and additional detail
This annex contains the underlying analysis and additional detail summarised in section 4.2
(efficiency) of the main evaluation report.
4.1 Costs of Horizon Europe’s affected stakeholder groups
4.1.1 Beneficiaries’ administrative costs
Beneficiaries
incur
administrative costs
to fulfil specific obligations, set out in their grant
agreement that would otherwise not have been incurred to manage the project. While beneficiaries
are compensated for all administrative costs through grant payments, any avoidable part of this
effort negatively affects the programme’s overall efficiency.
i) Qualitative evidence on beneficiaries’ administrative costs
While
around half of the beneficiaries agree to some extent that project reporting requires
reasonable effort and costs,
for most these are
just about reasonable (i.e at the border to
unreasonable).
In response to the statement ‘Project
reporting requirements require reasonable
effort and costs’,
(Figure 8), 40% of Horizon Europe beneficiaries ‘rather agree’ (2455
respondents) and 22% (1378) ‘neither agree nor disagree’. Explicit disagreement with the
statement (14%, 855) but also strong agreement (12%, 727) are less frequent.
Beneficiaries’ feedback in response to the open question of the targeted survey (see also Annex
4.5.2) illustrate their concerns. Twenty-one beneficiaries stated their administrative burden was
far too high and negatively affected the work on their project. Topics that were raised as
problematic by other respondents included, for instance: the number and formatting of required
deliverables, a lack of sufficient user-friendly and tailored information on how to implement the
own grant, and the cumbersome nature of updates emailed by the web portal.
Figure 8: Beneficiaries – extent of effort of project reporting (“reasonable”)
Source:
Based on 6208 responses to question of targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants.
Beneficiaries have not experienced any substantial change in the effort involved in project
management and implementation compared to Horizon 2020.
41% of Horizon Europe
beneficiaries (1350 respondents) ‘neither agree nor disagree’ that processes have become simpler
44
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0046.png
and 23% (760) ‘rather agree’. Explicit disagreement (9%, 304), but also strong agreement (5%,
150) that processes have become simpler are less frequent (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Beneficiaries - project management and implementation compared to Horizon 2020
Source:
Based on 3286 responses to question of targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants.
ii) Quantitative evidence on beneficiaries’ administrative costs
To better understand the size of the required administrative effort, the evaluation gathered
quantitative evidence on beneficiaries’ administrative costs relative to the total project costs
from
5 161 Horizon Europe beneficiaries responding to the targeted survey question.
Respondents were asked “What
is the percentage share of your Horizon Europe project budget
that is spent on administrative tasks (e.g. project reporting, project financial management, and
similar)?”
and could choose from cost the ranges: Less than 1%, 1-3%, 4-5%, 6-10%, 11-15%,
16-20%, More than 20%.
The survey data does not make it possible to assess the administrative
burden
of Horizon Europe
in a strict sense: It is
not possible to determine which share of the cost covers administrative
tasks (e.g. reporting obligations) that are additional to those that would have been associated
with the running of the projects in any case.
Responses suggest that for the different programme parts, with a few exceptions, the median and
the most frequent responses indicate that
6% to 10% of the project budget are allocated to
administrative tasks.
Depending on programme part, this response was chosen by 23% to 38%
of respondents. In contrast,
EIC Accelerator
respondents most frequently indicated costs of 4-5%
(29% of responses),
Research Infrastructures
respondents 11-15% (29% of responses), and the
median response for
WIDERA
was higher and fell into the 11%-15% bracket.
The median cost range of 6%-10% also applies when only considering consortium-run projects.
While the
median coordinator of a consortium,
when assessed separately,
reported a higher
range of 11% to 15%,
although even here the most frequently indicated administrative cost
(mode) fell into the range of 6%-10% of the project budget.
45
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0047.png
Looking at the shares of respondents, who indicated
very high administrative costs
of
‘more than 20%’ of the project budget by type of organisation,
Research funding
organisations/agencies (16%
chose ‘more than 20%’, 15 responses),
Civil society/NGOs
(12%,
34) and
Universities/Higher Education institutions
(11%, 196) are in the lead. For most of the
other types of organisations (SMEs, Public research centre, Private research centre, Start-Ups,
Large Enterprises, External experts) 7% of respondents reported this very high administrative costs
bracket.
65
Figure 10: Targeted survey responses to question: “In your estimation, what is the percentage share
of your Horizon Europe project budget that is spent on administrative tasks (e.g. project reporting,
project financial management, and similar)?”
Source:
targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants, as reported in Evaluation Support
study on Excellence Science, annex 7, Median value indicated by thicker line
66
Complemented by respondents, whose organisations fell under “Other” (11%, 46) and “Not in survey” (5%, 61).
One respondent who were
Incubator
and
Spin-Off
respectively selected the highest cost bracket.
66
Due to a clerical error, Excellence Science Annex 7, p.271 quotes an incorrect survey question in the figure.
65
46
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0048.png
Table 6: Administrative costs of Horizon Europe beneficiaries by programme part.
Source:
Responses to targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants.
A regression analysis of the factors that increase administrative costs of beneficiaries
67
shows that
for Pillar II, the
thematic cluster
plays a role. In particular, the share of
resources dedicated to
administrative tasks tends to be lower in the thematic clusters 3, 4 and 5,
while the reporting
process is perceived as
less proportionate in clusters 1 and 2.
This could reflect slight differences
in project reporting requirements and management practices between clusters and associated
managing entities. On the other hand,
no significant differences in (perceived) administrative
costs is observed for coordinators, for participants with previous FP experience or for
participants who outsource the project management tasks
to a third party or department.
No
differences are found either when focusing on administrative costs by consortium size.
As
shown in Table 7 below, beneficiaries spend around 6% to 10% of its project costs in
administrative tasks, with median and mode values showing similar results in all categories.
67
Methodology described in Annex 2, section 15. See also: Interim evaluation support study: working paper: analysis
of factors affecting applicants’ and beneficiaries’ costs of project application and administration processes in Horizon
Europe’s Pillar II (doi/10.2777/412609).
47
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0049.png
Table 7: Administrative costs by consortium size
Administrative costs
Sample
by consortium size
Beneficiaries´
administrative costs
[% of project costs]
(median by number)
6-10%
6-10%
6-10%
6-10%
Beneficiaries´
administrative costs
[% of project costs]
(mode)
6-10%
6-10%
6-10%
6-10%
Mono beneficiaries
2-14 participants
15-30 participants
31+ participants
564
2243
1931
423
Source:
Responses to targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries.
Estimate of total administrative cost of beneficiaries
In total,
all projects signed under Horizon Europe so far,
over their entire project lifetime, are
expecting to spend
between EUR 4.7 billion and EUR 6.5 billion in administrative costs.
This
corresponds to between 9% and over 12% of the total project cost so far. To estimate this total
administrative cost of beneficiaries, the evaluation used monitoring data of the project costs,
aggregated at the level of programme part. It then aggregated the survey responses at the level of
programme parts and used the shares of respondents selecting each cost range as a weight, to be
applied to the lower and upper bound (percentages) of each range, to then multiply them with the
project cost total of the relevant programme part. Adding up over all cost segments generated the
total range. As the answer ‘more than 20%’ does not express an upper limit, it was necessary to
make an assumption. The estimate assumes that no beneficiary would engage in a project that
allocated more than a quarter of the project costs to administrative tasks leads to an upper bound
estimate of EUR 6.5 billion.
The Horizon Europe estimate of the total administrative cost is orders of magnitudes higher
than that estimate of the Horizon 2020 final evaluation,
which ranged between
EUR 135 million to EUR 215 million over the entire framework programme. However, the
differences between the two estimates are likely driven by the change in the survey question
design and the improvement in data quality, rather than actual underlying changes in
beneficiaries’ administrative costs.
The Horizon 2020 estimate had used a median time cost of 4.5 - 7 person-days per month of project
duration at programme level from the (not representative)
public consultation responses.
The
uncertainty around the Horizon 2020 estimates was very high.
The attribution to the
framework programme requirements was similarly unclear at the time. The format of the previous
question was not repeated in this evaluation, as it had been difficult to answer. The new question
format may be easier to answer but, however, it is also much less granular (e.g. 0.1% of total
project cost is equivalent to EUR 44 million) and may contribute to higher estimates.
48
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0050.png
4.1.2 Cost of applicants
Successful and unsuccessful applicants,
the largest stakeholder group of Horizon Europe, incur
application costs
when preparing and submitting their proposals. Application costs are one of the
framework programme’s costs on EU Society and influence its value-for-money. They are partially
unavoidable as quality proposals require effort up front to then allow for the most promising
projects to be identified, which in turn maximises the chances of generating higher benefits for
society. At the same time, they have the potential to introduce inefficiencies into the programme.
As the total number of applicants is very high and the vast share of applicants is unsuccessful,
a small avoidable burden in the application process has the potential to introduce a sizeable
inefficiency into the programme.
The evaluation’s targeted survey of the population of applicants and beneficiaries collected a
qualitative and quantitative evidence base from 17 254 respondents,
68
of which
64% (11 028)
were
unsuccessful applicants
and
36% (6 226) successful applicants.
4.1.2.1 Costs of applicants – qualitative evidence
For 42% of respondents, the ‘overall effort to prepare a proposal was acceptable’
to a ‘large
extent’ (32%, 5 443 respondents) or a ‘very large extent’ 10% (1733), while 32% were less
supportive of the statement (‘moderate extent’) and
around a quarter of applicants effectively
did not find the required effort acceptable,
of which 7% (1 264) ‘not at all’ and 17% (2990) ‘to
a small extent’.
Applicants have not experienced any substantial change in the effort involved in proposal
preparation and submission compared to Horizon 2020,
with 43% of Horizon Europe
applicants (4143 respondents) neither agreeing nor disagreeing that proposal preparation and
submission have become simpler. The share of respondents who experienced some simplification
(31%) is larger than the share who disagree (18%) that application processes have become simpler
(Figure 11). This corresponds with the feedback that had been received in the public consultation
69
(Annex 5, Figure 74), in which 74% (1037) of respondents observed a “similar” application
burden, while 17% (246) reported a “greater” burden.
Figure 11: Applicants – proposal preparation and submission compared to Horizon 2020
Source:
Based on 9 668 responses to question of targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants.
68
69
Excluding 121 responses of ‘cannot say’.
Annex 5 Fig. 46 (%ages “cannot say” removed); Evaluation study on Innovative Europe, Annex 10.3.2.5, p.615.
49
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0051.png
Proportionality of the application costs
The targeted survey of the evaluation collected detailed feedback on questions about the
proportionality of applicant costs, which makes it possible to a assess proportionality relatively,
against different points of comparison
70
.
Relative to the complexity of the proposed projects, almost two in three applicants find the
overall effort proportionate
71
and few (13%) find it disproportionate
72
. (Figure 12, chart 3)
Over half of the applicants
(58%
73
) see the application effort as
proportionate to the number
of consortium partners involved,
with again few (12%
74
) finding it disproportionate. (Figure 12,
chart 4).
Considering the size of the grant, around half of the applicants find their application cost to
be proportionate
75
, while only
one in six applicants
(17%) effectively disagree
76
that the total
time and resources needed are in proportion with the financial support. (Figure 12, chart 2)
The pattern of the applicants’ responses changes considerably, when the chances of success
(securing Horizon Europe funding) are taken into account
(Figure 12 chart 5). In this context,
only a third of applicants
(34%
77
) still rate their application effort as
proportionate,
whereas
about as many (40%
78
) rate their application effort as no longer as proportionate.
Feedback from applicants to the
survey’s open question
confirms and illustrates this finding.
Around one quarter of the contributions
79
on the topic of application (45 out 189
80
, 24%)
raise
strong concerns that the total amount of effort spent on proposals is disproportionate to the
chances of success.
The responses were sent by from applicants from a wide range of Horizon
Europe programme parts.
81
For instance, two respondents report i) difficulties to motivate
employees to spend time looking for consortia and participating in proposals due to the
disproportionate effort and ii) their decision to not apply anymore to the programme. (Cluster 4
82
)
Taken together, the qualitative evidence on a lack of
proportionate application cost in light of
the chances of success supports a strong finding, in particular given the increased success
rates and budget of Horizon Europe.
Some respondents to the survey’s open question suggest measures to lower the effort involved in
applications. For instance, at least 20 separate contributions, most of them from
ERC applicants,
The assessment treats and agreement “to small extent” as an expression of a disagreement to some extent, to account for potential
bias introduced by the asymmetric answers.
71
45% ‘to a large’ (7 801 respondents) and 15% ‘to a very large’ (2 596 respondents)
72
10% ‘to a small extent’ (1 747 respondents) and 3% ‘not at all’ (536 respondents)
73
44% ‘to a large’ (5 337 respondents) and 12% ‘to a very large’ (1 495 respondents)
74
10% ‘to a small extent’ (1 180 respondents) or 2% ‘not at all’ (299 respondents).
75
40% ‘to a very large extent’ (6 885 respondents) and 13% ‘to a large extent’ (2 200 respondents).
76
12% ‘to a small extent’ (2 094 respondents) and 5% ‘not at all’ (778 respondents).
77
24% ‘to a large extent’ (4 051 respondents) and 10% ‘to a very large extent’ (1759 respondents).
78
21% ‘to a small extent’ (3 652 respondents) and 18%‘not at all’ (3 109 respondents),
79
The application phase is the topic that received most specific and informative responses to the targeted survey’s open question,
of which most discuss potential for further simplification and are reported in Annex 4.5.3.
80
4849 responses to open questions, of which 189 reported in evaluation as particularly informative/sufficiently specific. Topics:
application process (84), proposal template (42), web portals, guidance (35), use of consultants (37). See annex 4.5
81
MSCA PF: 2 MSCA DN:7, ERC: 6, INFRA: 1, C1: 4, CL2: 1, CL3: 1; CL4: 7, CL5: 8, CL6: 2, EIC Accelerator: 2, EIC
Pathfinder: 2, WIDERA: 1, Mission: 1.
70
82
Examples from (one unsuccessful and one successful) Cluster 4 applicants.
50
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0052.png
suggest that the use of
two-stages application process
- where the second part must only be
submitted if the first part is successful- should be applied (more widely) to reducing.
Figure 12: Proposal preparation effort
Source:
Targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants. (2023)
The assessment counts agreement “to
small extent” as an expression of a disagreement to some extent, to account for potential bias introduced by the asymmetric answers.
A further breakdown of the
responses by programme part
(Figure 13) reveals relevant variation.
In particular,
EIC and ERC applicants flag with most clearly that their application costs are
not proportionate to the chances of securing funding.
The most concerning responses came
from the
EIC Accelerator,
where just over half (52%)
83
of the responding applicants pointed at
disproportionate application costs in chances of success, of which a particularly high share (29%)
were very negative responses. A similarly strong signal comes from
EIC Pathfinder
applicants
(45%429 respondents, of which 23% very strongly negative).
Some of this may be linked to the
EIC’s former application platform
with integrated AI (no
longer in use). Five detailed responses from EIC applicants to the survey’s open question pointed
to the platform adding to the applicants’ burden. One EIC Accelerator applicants reported: ‘This
was an awful experience in which we had to waste the consultant support to understand the web
platform, instead of focusing on business or other more important aspects.’
(See also Annex 4.5.3
on the potential for further simplification (application phase).
The concern about strongly disproportionate costs in light of success were further shared by
ERC
applicants (around 50%, 845 respondents, of which 25% strongly negative), and
EIC Transition
applicants (42%, 31 respondents). In the other programme parts, disproportionate application costs
in chances of success were flagged by relatively large shares of applicants of
Cluster 2
(42%, 495
83
i.e. either agreed ‘to a small extent’ (23%; 106 respondents) or ‘not at all’ (29%; 134 respondents
)
51
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0053.png
respondents) and
Cluster 3
(42%, 198 respondents). Discontent among applicants on this topic
correlates with proposal success rates, as programme parts showing the lowest success rates are
exactly those showing the greatest discontent, namely Cluster 3 (13%), Cluster 2 (14%), EIC
(14%) and ERC (14%).
84
Figure 13: Proportionality of applicant costs relative to chances of success - by programme part
Source:
Targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants. (2023) The assessment counts an agreement
“to small extent” as an expression of a disagreement to some extent, to account for potential bias introduced by the
asymmetric answers.
4.1.2.2 Costs of applicants – quantitative evidence and total cost estimation
To obtain robust evidence on costs of applicants the targeted survey asked respondents to
report
their organisation’s incurred application time costs under Horizon Europe.
The relevant
question asked: ‘In
your estimation, how many person-days did your organisation spend in
preparing your Horizon Europe proposal?’
Respondents were offered the following options to
answer: ‘Less than 5 person-days’; ‘6 to 15 person-days’; ‘16 to 25 person-days’; ‘26 to 35 person-
days’; ‘36 to 45 person-days’; ‘46 to 55 person-days’; ‘56 to 65 person-days’; ‘More than 65
person-days’. The question had been chosen as it was considered as easy as possible for
84
Proposals frozen dashboard as of 2 January 2025.
52
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0054.png
respondents to estimate. The answer options (bins) were based on evidence from the Horizon 2020
public consultation, which had used a similar question.
In contrast to earlier evaluation evidence on the costs of applicants, such as those from the public
consultation and studies with narrower focus used in the Horizon 2020 final evaluation, the
survey
responses of this evaluation’s targeted survey covered all applicants, all programme parts
and were matched with data from the monitoring database (CORDA),
which allowed the
evaluation to understand, for instance, to which programme part the respondents had applied,
whether they had met the quality threshold, had been funded, as well as other characteristic of their
proposed project (e.g. duration, grant size, consortium size).
For the first time it is thus possible
to quantify the costs associated with the preparation of proposals under the R&I framework
programme in a robust way.
In the remainder of the section the findings are presented.
Proposal preparation costs of consortia (multi-beneficiary grants) combine the costs of
coordinators, shouldering most of the effort, and those of contributing partners. Overall, the
median consortium coordinator spends
between
36 to 45 person-days,
with a mode of
above
65 person-days.
The effort of
contributing consortium partners
is typically lower, with
16 to
25 person-days
per proposal (median and mode). The finding holds across most characteristics,
but not for
consortia of > 30 partners,
where
contributing partners
spend on average less with
6 - 15 person-days per proposal
(median and mode).
85
Table 8: Application Cost: distribution of responses of coordinators and partners
Mono-beneficiaries
- The median proposal preparation effort of
Pillar I and Pillar III
mono-
beneficiaries was comparable to that of coordinators with
36 and 45 person-day.
While mono-
beneficiaries do not have to coordinate partners during the proposal preparation phase, they are
85
Resilient Europe evaluation study, Annex 1.32 p.45
53
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0055.png
nevertheless required to fulfil most of the same steps as coordinators. The finding is relevant, as
some mono-beneficiaries are
worse affected by the same level of cost due to constrained
resources.
For instance, this can be assumed to be the case of applicants to
MSCA PF,
who share
the same median (and mode) cost range. However, mono-beneficiaries are not homogenous, and
costs differ between actions (table below) For the
EIC Accelerator,
it is important to note that
proposals apply for substantial grants and equity budgets, through pitching decks and full business
plans, which can be used for investment commercialisation purposes beyond the EIC. This is also
reflected in the comparatively high share (30%) of EIC Accelerator applicants, particularly
successful EIC Accelerator applicants (40%), who reported very high application
costs of over 65
person days,
which is also the most commonly reported cost for this action.
Table 9:
Application costs of Pillar I and Pillar III mono - beneficiaries
*
MSCA COFUND application cost was bimodal for ‘56 to 65 person-days’ and ‘More than 65 person-
days’. Source: Responses to targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants.
54
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0056.png
Consortium coordinator time costs vary by type of funding instrument.
86
While their median
time cost for RIA, IA, PCP and COFUND actions is 46 to 55 person-days, those preparing CSA
and MSCA(COFUND/DN/SE) proposals typically spend slightly less time, with 36 to 45 person-
days, and even less on EIC
87
proposals, which take coordinators typically 26 to 35 person-days to
prepare. The step down in costs is plausible, as the highest cost is associated with the group of
instruments with the higher grant values (RIA, IA, etc;) suggesting that the higher expected return
in case of success makes it worthwhile to spend more effort up front.
Proposals for longer projects take coordinators also longer to prepare.
Projects lasting up to
two years see coordinators typically investing 26 to 35 person-days in proposals, whereas those of
two to four years typically take 36 to 45 person days. Coordinators of long projects, proposed to
last four years or longer, typically incur even higher time costs of 46 to 55 person-days. For all but
the shortest projects up to two years, coordinators most frequently chose the response of “more
than 65 person-days”. The share of respondents choosing this mode also increases with project
duration, suggesting that a substantial share of longer projects may require proposal preparation
times from coordinators of well above 65 days.
88
Coordinators that prepared ultimately funded proposals typically spent more time than
those of unsuccessful proposals.
89
The difference is particularly pronounced for projects with a
duration of
at least three years.
This could be interpreted as an encouraging result, and a hint that
the effort coordinators put into preparing their proposal matters, and that the proposal evaluation
process rewards the effort. However, at the same time success is also correlated with the
involvement of external contractors assisting with the proposal preparation, which in turn was also
found to correlate with longer proposal preparation times.
Applicants who made use of, or were, consultancies took on average more time (about 10
person-days more for median respondents)
to prepare a proposal, compared to the Horizon
Europe average.
This difference was not observed for coordinators who were themselves
consultants,
and who reported the same typical time costs as other coordinators.
Contributing
consortium partners, who were themselves consultants, reported (about 10 person-days)
lower than average application time costs.
The observed differences may be due to other
characteristics of the type of projects for which consultancies are brought onboard, or be influenced
by a combination of experience and coordination costs.
A regression
analysis of the factors driving the application effort
90
shows that
consortium
coordinators, as well as applicants with previous experience in the framework programme
spend significantly more time (in terms of person-days) on the application process.
Coordinators typically lead the proposal, including aspects such as of establishing the consortium
and determining the budget for each partner, which increases their application costs. Underlying
86
Categories follow in parts those used in the Horizon 2020 Interim evaluation European Commission, Directorate-
General for Research and Innovation, Interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 – Commission staff working document,
Publications Office, 2017, Annex 1, p. 71 (doi/10.2777/220768)
87
EIC Pathfinder and EIC Transitions. Based on 1916 responses over the three groups.
88
Resilient Europe evaluation study, Annex 1.3.2, Figure16.
89
Excellent Science evaluation study, section 4.1.2.
90
Methodology described in Annex 2, section 15. See also: Interim evaluation support study: working paper - analysis
of factors affecting applicants’ and beneficiaries’ costs of project application and administration processes in Horizon
Europe’s Pillar II (doi/10.2777/412609).
55
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0057.png
reasons for higher application costs of organisations with previous framework programme
experience are less clear. It might reflect an increased involvement in the proposal phase, as
consortia tend to rely strongly on participants with more experience to develop the proposal. An
alternative and complementary factor could be that experienced applicants invest more time in the
proposal, as their first-hand experience with the programme has led them to have better
information on the level of competition for funding. Finally, another measure of the application
effort – the perception of the effort by the applicant, including the perception of the feasibility and
the clarity of the call – is significantly influenced by the size of the consortium.
A higher number
of consortium partners leads to a higher proposal effort for the coordinator,
which is an
expectable and intuitive result considering coordination costs.
Consortium
size was more strongly correlated with a higher effort of proposal preparation
for coordinators than grant size and project duration.
91,92
Coordinators of consortia with only
one partner
typically spend
26 to 35 person-days,
consortia with
2-14 partners
see coordinators
typically investing
36 to 45 person-days
in proposals, while those of
15-30 partners
typically
take
46 to 55 person days. Above 30 partners
coordinators typically spend
56 to 65 person days
(median), with a higher mode suggesting a
large share
of coordinators
93
taking
well above 65
person-days.
Survey responses suggest that the required effort increases in steps, by
about ten
person-days for every additional 15 partners.
Estimation of the total application cost of Horizon Europe
The availability of detailed data on application efforts via the survey allows for a more robust
quantification and monetisation of application costs at programme level. It is estimated that
the
total cost of proposal preparation of all applications
94
to Horizon Europe so far ranges
between EUR 1.9 billion and EUR 2.8 billion.
Divided by the total number of proposals
submitted so far, this implies an average cost of proposal preparation in the range of EUR 21 000
to EUR 32 000. A previous estimate in the final evaluation of Horizon 2020 had arrived at an
average proposal preparation cost of EUR 18 000 to EUR 37 000 for applicants. The difference
between the two estimates is driven by a change in data source, with the newer estimate being the
more robust one.
The estimate analysed the number of days dedicated to the application process and differentiated
applicants based on their role and the size of their consortium. More specifically, applicants are
grouped into five ‘sizes’, from mono-beneficiary applications, very small consortia with one
additional partner, consortia with 2 to 14 partners, consortia with 15 to 30 partners, and consortia
with over 30 partners. In addition, applicants from consortia are separated according to their role
into coordinator or partner. Using these two stratification factors supports the robustness of the
quantification exercise, as the analysis presented above points at their strong influence (consortium
size and the role of the applicant as coordinator) on a proposal’s preparation time. The estimated
Resilient Europe evaluation study, Annex 1.3.2, Figure17, page 44 – 45.
Further, the size also dominated when looking at the variation in effort of proposal preparation in combination with
grant size and project duration. Consortium size, grant size and project duration are strongly correlated, and the
evaluation did not attempt to isolate the effect of consortium size on time costs.
93
44% of responding coordinators from consortia with above 30 partners chose the answer “56 to 65 person-days”,
however, this share is only based on a total of 15 respondents.
94
EIC Accelerator applications were excluded due to insufficient availability and quality of the data.
91
92
56
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0058.png
total application cost is then calculated by multiplying the number of days of each stratum (median
response) - successively the lower and higher bound of the bracket - by the corresponding number
of applicants to Horizon Europe so far, and then by the standard labour cost for administrative
burden.
95
The above estimate represents the total cost of Horizon Europe’s applicants up to now and does
not cover all seven years. When scaled up to the entire framework programme period, using to
relative sizes of the currently committed operational expenditure up to 2024 and the total
operational expenditure available for Horizon Europe until 2027, the total application cost of
Horizon Europe (2020-2027) is expected to range between
EUR 3.0 billion and EUR 4.4 billion,
or EUR 34 000 to EUR 50 000 per EUR 1 committed million operational expenditure.
In comparison, the
Horizon 2020
final evaluation estimated that the total application cost
amounted to EUR 5.61 billion to EUR 11.25 billion over its entire programme period, which is
EUR 79 000 to EUR 158 000 per EUR 1 million of operational expenditure.
However, the
confidence around Horizon 2020 estimate is very low due to its weak evidence base
96
, which
means that
the difference between the Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe total application
cost values is primarily the result of the improvement in data quality and the more granular
estimation approach.
It is not possible to draw any conclusions on underlying change in the costs
of applicants.
95
Better Regulation tool #59 (One-In-One-Out calculator) Tariffs in EUR/hour. Eurostat Structure of earnings survey,
Labour Force Survey data for Non-Wage Labour Costs. Calculations assume 8-hour working day.
96
The Horizon 2020 estimate should be treated as a rough figure illustrating the order of magnitude of the total costs
of proposals. See also discussion in,
Final Evaluation of Horizon 2020 (2024),
Annex 4, page 51.
57
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0059.png
Figure 14: Comparison of estimates of total costs of applicants (Horizon Europe and Horizon
2020)
Source:
Internal analysis, Horizon Europe estimate based on survey to beneficiaries and applicants conducted May-
June 2023 and CORDA data (6.1.2025). Horizon 2020 estimate: Horizon 2020 final evaluation (COM(2024) 49 final).
4.1.2.3 Applicants use of support for proposal preparation
Well over half of
Horizon Europe applicants received support to prepare their proposals
(possibly also with project implementation and dissemination) from a range of sources:
•
51%
(3688 respondents) indicated they received help from a
dedicated department
in their
organisation.
•
29%
(2141) indicated that they had
not received any support
•
19%
(1397) received support from a
National Contact Point (NCP);
and
•
17%
(1252) commissioned support from a
consultancy firm/expert
(inside or outside the
consortium).
Across the programme, different patterns in the uptake of support emerge:
Comparatively
high shares of applicants for
Pillar 3 (46%),
in particular for the
EIC Accelerator (67%),
and to
some extent also for Pillar 2 Cluster 1 (28%; Pillar 2 average: 24%) made use of
consultancies.
Pillar 2 Cluster 3 stands out, in that a comparatively high share of respondents
(46%;
Pilar 2:
average 29%)
did not use any sources of support
to prepare their application, presumably due to
the sensitivity of the safety-related information in the applications
97
. Those applying for
97
The remaining responses support this as only 31% of Cluster 3 respondents received application help from an
internal department (Pillar 2: 38%, HE 50.5%), and a very low share (13%; Pilar 2: 24%, HE: 17%) used external
consultancies.
58
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0060.png
Innovation Actions
most frequently use external consultancies, with a range of shares between
24% and 36%.
98
There is considerable overlap between the users of consultancy services and those of NCPs.
Above a quarter (27%)
of all responding Horizon Europe applicants, who used consultancies or
were consultancies themselves, also made use of the help offered by NCPs. Reversely,
26%
of
NCPs-using applicants also employed/included consultancy services. In both cases the share is 8
or more percentage points higher than for Horizon Europe applicants in general.
The use of
application support and the success of the application are correlated
for users of National
Contact Points, as well as consultancies. However, the evaluation did not isolate the effect of
receiving support (e.g. from consultancies) on the likelihood of success and the link is presumably
driven by factors that influence both sides (e.g. financial resources).
The overwhelming majority (74% to 80%
99
) of Horizon Europe proposals reaching the
quality threshold had been written without the involvement of external consultancies.
27%
of quality proposals and 25% of proposals below the quality threshold were written with the help
of consultancies. Also in these cases, a causal link may not exist.
The evaluation collected evidence on
fees paid to consultancies that assisted with proposal
preparation.
The fees can be understood as a partial monetisation of application costs.
Successful
applicants
reported on average a higher median
consultancy fee
(EUR
10 000)
than
unsuccessful
applicants (EUR 6 500).
100
The difference could be driven by success premium charged in case
of the proposal is funded. 50 respondents to open questions shed light on the practices of hiring
external consultancies and paying success fees. Some respondents stated that they paid a flat fee
upfront and their agreement foresaw that a second fee would be paid if the proposal was successful.
Information on the additional fee ranged from
3% to 7% of the project budget
and for fixed fees
between
EUR 2 000 to EUR 5 000.
The
median values of the consultancy fee
101
for proposals
prepared with the support of an
external consultancy were
EUR 7 500
for consortia,
EUR 2 000
for
mono-beneficiaries
and
EUR
12 000
for
EIC Accelerator
proposals.
4.2 Time-to targets (TTG, TTI, TTS, TTP)
In addition to the time-to-grant target (TTG), which represents the maximum allowable time for
the evaluation and grant award process together, further targets set out expectations for the
proposal evaluation phase
(TTI / time-to-inform), the
grant agreement preparation phase
(TTS / time-to-sign) and the
time-to-pay (TTP)
is expressed as the
time to pre-finance
(target:
30 days)
102
. Horizon Europe has so far achieved an acceptable average time for
TTI
of
130 days
98
Estimation in Resilient Europe study, Annex 1.3.3, p.63 CORDA data matched with survey evidence on median
costs reported for three applicant groups: consortia, mono-beneficiary, and EIC Accelerator.
99
Evaluation study on Resilient Europe, Annex 1.3.3p.58. (targeted survey responses, matched with CORDA).
100
Result also holds for the mean.
101
Reported by 658 survey respondents to the question, “What was the total amount that your organisation paid to the
consultancy firm/expert for the above services in project application/proposal writing?”
102
Payments are disbursed to beneficiaries in several instalments: pre-financing, interim payment(s), and final
payment, with pre-financing paid within 30 days of the agreement’s entry into force, and interim and final payments
made within 90 days of the respective report submissions.
59
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0061.png
(target: 153 days, H2020: 112 days) and an average
TTS
of
95 days
(slightly above the target of
92 days; H2020: 76 days). As with Horizon 2020, this suggests that the grant agreement
preparation phase remains the more challenging period of the two phases of the time-to-grant
period. The achieved average
TTP
for prefinancing is 11 days, with 88% payments made on time,
against a target of 30 days
103
. This highlights a certain level of efficiency in providing beneficiaries
with the necessary cash flow at project start.
Table 10: Achieved average Time-to-Inform, Time-to-Sign, Time-to-Grant and Time-to-Pay
HE TTI
Target
[average days]
Horizon Europe
Pillar I (excl. ERC)
Pillar I ERC
Pillar I MSCA
149
68
239 (71%)
Pillar II
Pillar III (excl. EIC)
Pillar III (EIC) -see explanation below
Widening and ERA
108
148
141
128
125
86
93
90
244 (87%)
240 (77%)
238 (67%)
230 (88%)
130
104
147
95
70
240 (77%)
239 (72%)
(See table
below)
153 days
HE TTS
92 days
HE TTG
245days
HE TTP
30 days
(prefinanced)
11 (88%)
Sources: TTG, TTI, TTS, TTP Operational reporting, Time-to-Grant dashboard, 06.01.2025
The Horizon Europe monitoring system does not collect information on actual times-to-grant of
grants the
EIT KICs
award under cascade funding to beneficiaries. The timing is only measured
for the initial grants made to the KICs, which are processed by the EU Public Sector. The 17 KIC
grants achieved the following averages: TTI of 69 days, TTS of 128 days and overall TTG of 197
days (82%). The achieved times-to-grant of cascading calls launched under the EIT KICs are not
reported in the central database (CORDA). TTG values reported by EIT KICs can be found in the
respective annexes 21 to 28.
103
At the time of writing, the Time to Pay indicator based on the payments on target 90 days is not available in part
due to ongoing transition between ABAC and SUMMA.
104
Excluding ERC
60
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0062.png
Figure 15: Horizon Europe average Time-to-Grant by organisational entity
300
77%
250
240
100%
185
100%
233
72%
241
88%
245
245
77%
91%
234
240
92%
50%
245
65%
237
78%
209
96%
89%
18%
258
244
93%
75%
241
85%
94%
239
120%
231
99%
218
100%
201
80%
200
150
100%
100
91
140
60%
40%
50
20%
0
HE excl.
ERC
CAJU
CBE
CHIPS
CINEA
CLEANH2 CNECT
EAC
ECCC
EDCTP3
EISMEA
EIT
EU-RAIL EUROHPC HADEA
IHI
REA
RTD
SESAR
SNS
0%
Average TTG
Source:
Operational reporting, Time-to-Grant dashboard, ERC excluded; as of 1 December 2024.
It must be kept in mind that the average periods reported above rise and fall throughout
implementation. This is particularly true in the first few years where fluctuations tend to be higher.
(see table below) The more limited the total number of grants the stronger the response to delays
of any specific call. Values also capture set up or adaptation costs that will later average out once
the adaptation phase has ended. The current time-to averages may therefore still provide limited
information on performance trends of Horizon Europe as a whole.
Figure 16: Comparison of Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020, FP7 - Time-to-Grant of first 4 years
Source:
Monitoring dashboard data of FP7, Horizon 20202 and Horizon Europe. Average TTG values (blue bars) and
number of signed R&I support grants of FPs pooled, ERC excluded as of 2 January 2025
61
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0063.png
The
European Research Council
is exempt
105
from the eight-month time limit for finalising
evaluations and grant decisions (TTG) as its evaluation process focuses on excellence and requires
more time to ensure a rigorous peer-review process.
106
Instead, separate annual TTG targets,
tailored to each ERC funding instrument, are annually defined in the ERC Work Programme.
These thresholds account for the complexity and stages of evaluation specific to each instrument.
The ERC reports its compliance with these thresholds in its Annual Activity Report (AAR).
Table 11: Average Time to Grant European Research Council by instrument for 2022-23
107
Instrument
2022
2023
(completion rate
108
100%)
Targets
Results
Starting Grants (StG)
450
387.8
Consolidator
Grants 441
404.4
(CoG)
Advanced Grants (AdG) 460
411.2
Synergy Grants (SyG)
503
468.5
Proof of Concept (PoC)
220
195
(completion rate < 100%)
Targets
Results
424
356.9
429
312.4
N/A
511
220
N/A
391.9
(1) 157
The evaluation looked into
international benchmarks
for administrative time performance
measures, relevant to the context of processing proposals of funding programs for innovation
funding, in particular for the EIC Accelerator, however, found that a comparison was difficult, due
to the unique characteristics of the programme parts.
Qualitative feedback from Horizon Europe applicants on time-to targets
The targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries finds that beneficiaries are overall satisfied
with the time-to targets of the programme. Concerning TTI, 68% of all Horizon Europe
respondents indicated to be satisfied to a (very) large with the timeliness of the funding decisions.
Lowest satisfaction is observed for EIC Accelerator and EIE, although satisfaction rates for both
programmes are still at 58% and applicants are thus still overall positive.
105
106
Article 31(3) of the Horizon Europe Regulation (EU) 2021/695.
Commission Decision approving the Annual Work Programme 2024 of the European Research Council Executive
Agency. C(2024) 4524 final, Brussels, 3 July 2024. ANNEX.
107
European Research Council Executive Agency. Annual Activity Report 2023
108
Completion rate refers to the processing of the call evaluation.
62
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0064.png
Figure 17: Horizon Europe applicant satisfaction of the proposal evaluation phase
Source:
Targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants.
Horizon Europe beneficiaries are also positive about the TTS of the programme, with 67%
agreeing that the time the process takes up to the signature of the grant agreement is adequate. For
the EIC Accelerator programme however opinions are divided, with 44% agreeing and 45%
disagreeing that the time the process takes up to the signature of the grant agreement is adequate.
For all other programmes parts beneficiaries overall indicate to be satisfied.
63
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0065.png
Figure 18: Horizon Europe applicant satisfaction of the grant agreement preparation phase
Source:
Targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants.
Seven respondents to the survey provided open-ended feedback on the evaluation and grant award
process. These responses came from across Pillars I and II beneficiaries and were rather critical
and contained suggestions for improvement. One Cluster 4 beneficiary suggests reducing time
between convention of the evaluation panels (late January) and communication of the decision
(middle of March). The same applicant mentions that, given that his proposal was submitted in
November and the start date of the grant was October of the following year, the TTG is too long,
as “the
context and even the technologies can change a lot in such a timeframe”.
An ERC COG
and Cluster 6 beneficiary mention that the grant agreement preparation phase is actually too short
and troublesome. An MSCA PF beneficiary on the other hand mentions the grant agreement
preparation phase to be too long, causing a 2-month delay in employment.
4.3 Value-for-money of Horizon Europe
This annex provides additional information on the calculation of the benefit cost ratio. Table 12
below shows the costs and benefit values used in the calculation. The evaluation calculates a
benefit cost ratio over
25 years (2021-2045).
This period was chosen to allow time for the
emergence of wider benefits of R&I investments.
Total Benefits:
The expected GDP impact is used as the closest available proxy of the overall
welfare benefits for EU society. The calculation uses two macro-economic forecasts from mid-
2023 (Nemesis) and mid-2024 (Rhomolo). As model inputs, the Nemesis model used monitoring
data on grants signed before mid- 2023, whereas the Rhomolo model took account of grants signed
up to mid-2024. In both case, forecasts of the cumulative GDP impact of Horizon Europe over 25
64
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0066.png
years, from 2021 until 2045, were used. The estimates are adjusted for inflation, to be comparable
with the expenditure of the respective years.
Total Costs:
The EU Public Sector’s committed operational and administrative expenditure, as
well as the estimated cost of all (successful and unsuccessful) Horizon Europe applicants up to
now (see Annex 4.1.2) are included in the total costs. Two sets of expenditure values have been
used to match the respective data cut-off points of the two model. The same estimate of the total
cost of applicants is added in both case. While the estimate of applicant costs is more robust than
before (e.g in the Horizon 2020 final evaluation) it is still much more uncertain than the public
expenditure data.
Table 12: Benefit Cost Ratio calculation
Costs of Horizon Europe
(1)
Operational Expenditure of EU Public Sector
For Nemesis, expenditure committed by
06/2023:
For Rhomolo, expenditure committed by
06/2024:
(2)
Administrative Expenditure of EU Public Sector
For Nemesis, expenditure committed by
06/2023:
For Rhomolo, expenditure committed by
06/2024:
(3)
Cost of applicants
(Note: estimated on basis of survey responses and
monitoring data, see Annex 4.1.2.1 for detail; used both
for Nemesis and Rhomolo)
Total Cost
Compared with Nemesis output (assessment mid-2023):
Compared with Rhomolo output (assessment mid-2024):
EUR 35.346 billion
EUR 46.137 billion
EUR 2.383 billion
EUR 2.942 billion
low
EUR 1.92 billion
low
EUR 39.645 billion
EUR 50.995 billion
high
EUR 2.82 billion
high
EUR 40.545 billion
EUR 51.895 billion
Benefits of Horizon Europe
(1)
Total Benefits of Horizon Europe (25 years)
(Note: GDP impact 2021-2045, as proxy to welfare
impact; Price base = year of assessment)
Nemesis (assessment in mid-2023):
Rhomolo (assessment in mid-2024):
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) – 25 years
(2021-2045)
NEMESIS
RHOMOLO
NEMESIS -
EUR 248.823 billion
RHOMOLO -
EUR 239.163 billion
low
6.1
4.6
high
6.3
4.7
The results suggest that the
benefit cost ratio (BCR) of Horizon Europe is 5 to 6, for a 25-year
period,
which means that
one euro of costs to society associated with the programme
65
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0067.png
(programme costs and costs to applicants) is expected to bring about at least five euros of
benefits for EU citizens (measured through GDP impact) in the period up to 2045.
Figure 19: Costs and benefits at interim stage
4.4 Performance of simplification measures of Horizon Europe
4.4.1 Partnerships’ administrative costs and rationalisation of partnership landscape
To shed light on the relative order of magnitude of the
costs of institutionalised partnerships,
particularly their administrative costs (or running costs), the evaluation brought together
operational data of Joint Undertakings (JUs), Article 185 partnerships and EIT-Knowledge and
Innovation Communities (KICs) covering the last 10 years (2014-2023). This data, while available
for close to all partnerships,
109
is typically not aggregated as the level of total cost bringing together
all sources that contribute to operational and administrative costs. It is also typically presented for
shorter time spans (most commonly annually), during which costs are strongly affected by the
setting up or winding down of the partnership.
The 10-year period was chosen to have data on
a sufficiently long time span, which averages out particularities of single years and even
single partnerships, with the aim to introduce some transparency into the cost structure of
partnership types.
Due to the time period, the data thus covers
activities under three framework programmes.
It
stems from 20 JUs/Art.185 partnerships, which have been aggregated into 10 thematic groups and
from 8 KICs. The JUs/Art185 partnerships have been thematically grouped together with their
predecessors of previous framework programme in the following way: Innovative Health Initiative
+ Innovative Medicine, Clean Aviation + Clean Sky 2, Circular Bio-based Europe + Bio-based
Industries, Clean Hydrogen + Fuel Cells and Hydrogen, Global Health (EDCTP3) + EDCTP2,
109
EuroHPC has been excluded as costs could not be verified.
66
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0068.png
EMPIR + EPM, Chips + Key Digital Technologies + ECSEL, Smart Networks and Services,
Europe’s Rail + Shift2Rail Single European Sky ATM + SESAR. KIC Health, KIC
Manufacturing, KIC Raw Materials, KIC Digital, KIC Urban Mobility, KIC Climate, KIC Food,
KIC InnoEnergy.
Operational costs of institutionalised partnerships
Table 13: Operational costs of institutionalised partnerships
Type of
partnership
Total Operational Costs
[EUR /year]
including EU contributions; validated IKOP; financial contributions to operational activities by JU
partners; eligible project costs funded by non-JU members to project activities; and contributions
from Member States and international organisations to project activities. (Data: 2014-2023)
average annual cost
(pooled)
110
JUs/Art.185
EIT KICs
223 300 000
66 900 000
median of average
annual cost
111
190 300 000
65 300 000
range of average annual cost
(lowest -highest)
112
28 300 000 - 651 300 000
34 300 000 - 83 600 000
The operational cost of JUs/Art185 partnerships varies substantially,
by an order of magnitude
between the partnerships, with a range of
EUR 28.3 million to EUR 651.3 million annually on
average.
For EIT KICs, the
average operational costs are lower
than those of the JUs and also
lie closer together, from
on average EUR 34.3 million to EUR 83.6 million annually.
The lower
operational cost may be explained by the type of activities of the EIT KICs and the differing
objectives as compared to JUs activities and their objectives, with a substantial share of its
activities reflected in administrative expenditure, as illustrated below.
Administrative costs/ running costs of institutionalised partnerships
Table 14: Administrative costs (Running Costs) of institutionalised partnerships
Type of
partnership
Total Administrative Costs (Running Costs)
[EUR /year]
including contributions from the EU and from sources other than the EU. (Data: 2014-2023)
113
average annual cost
(pooled)
JUs/Art.185
EIT KICs
5 200 000
8 800 000
median of average
annual costs
4 300 000
7 900 000
range of average annual costs
(lowest -highest)
1 300 000 - 9 700 000
5 700 000 – 11 700 000
110
Average annual cost pools the 88 (JU/Art185) and 52 (KICs) verifiable annual operational cost values of
partnerships, from 10 JU/Art 185 thematical groups and 8 EIT KICs respectively; rounded to nearest 100 000.
111
The median of the averages (i.e. median of the average annual costs calculated by partnerships/partnership-groups
taking into account their years of activity). Rounded to nearest 100 000.
112
The lowest and highest average annual costs across partnerships/partnership-groups (taking into account their years
of activity). Rounded to nearest 100 000.
113
The pooled average annual cost, median of the averages, and lowest to highest average annual costs in this table
are calculated in parallel to those of the operational cost table. Values rounded to nearest 100 000.
67
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0069.png
The data suggests that, over the 10-year period
JUs spent on average 3.7%
(median 2.9%)
of
their overall expenditure on running costs.
Pooling all administrative cost data of all JUs for the
period of 2014-2023, the annual administrative cost (averaged over all years for which data was
reported
114
) was around
EUR 5.2 million,
with the annual average cost of individual partnerships
ranging between EUR 1.3 million and EUR 9.7 million.
KICs have higher running costs
due to key features of their operational set up. KICs are pan-
European networks with
numerous offices across Europe (‘co-location centres’).
While the
related overheads are spent on what could be considered an operational activity and underpin the
KICs potential, they also render KICs more administrative cost intensive.
The shares of the KICs’ running costs as a share of its overall costs (running costs + operational
costs) are higher throughout, with no substantial differences observed between waves.
KICs spent
around 12%
(average 11.9%, mode 12.2%)
of their overall costs on running costs.
Pooling the
administrative cost data of all KICs for the period of 2014-2023, the
annual administrative cost
(averaged over all years for which data was reported
115
) was around
EUR 8.8 million,
with the
annual average cost of individual KICs ranging between EUR 5.7 million and EUR 11.7 million.
Table 15: Administrative costs (Running Costs) compared to overall expenditure
Type of
partnership
Total Administrative Costs (Running Cost) as share of overall cost
(Total Running Cost + Total Operational Cost)
(Data: 2014-2023)
116
pooled
administrative cost
share
average
of partnerships’
administrative cost
shares
3.7%
11.9%
median
of partnerships’
administrative cost
shares
2.9%
12.2%
range (lowest -
highest) of
administrative cost
shares
0.6%
117
- 9.6%
9.6% – 14.4%
118
JUs/Art.185
EIT KICs
2.3%
11.6%
Due to their operational arrangement,
running costs of KICs and JUs cannot be directly
compared.
A comparison of the running costs of the
KICs’ headquarters
(HQ) with other
partnerships would have been informative, however, KICs are free to take different approaches
towards cost reporting and the data required for such a split is not available for all KICs.
Cost data available for 5 KICs for the years 2021 and 2022 (Table 16) illustrates the
effect of the
network of offices (CLC) across Europe on administrative costs
and suggests that considering
running costs of headquarters on their own lowers the
administrative cost share by about 30%
percent on average.
Applied to the costs recorded for the period 2014-2023, this lowers the
average KIC’s administrative cost share to around 8%
(instead of around 12%).
114
115
Number of partnership-years for which data was reported at least for administrative or for operational costs.
Number of partnership-years for which data was reported at least for administrative or for operational costs.
116
Based on same data as tables 1 and 2.
117
Minimum value stems from Smart Networks and Services (SNS) Partnership, which has just been set up.
Administrative expenditure data on its predecessor 5G PPP is not available as the partnership was centrally managed
by the European Commission. Excluding SNS results in a range of 0.8%-9.6%, median of 3.0% and average of 4.0%.
118
Split by waves, ranges are: 1
st
wave: 12.3% (both), 2
nd
wave: 9.6%-12.2%, 3
rd
wave:11.2%, 4
th
wave:12.1%-14.4%.
68
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0070.png
Table 16: Administrative costs (5 KICs; 2021 & 2022) comparing to HQ and HQ+ CLC offices
European partnership
KIC Manufacturing
KIC Raw Materials
KIC Digital
KIC Urban Mobility
KIC Food
HE Average for HQ+CLC
7,57%
6,64%
8,58%
12,58%
9,01%
HE Average for HQ only
4,92%
3,74%
4,95%
9,26%
7,58%
*
for the other three KICs (EIT Climate-KIC, EIT InnoEnergy, EIT Health), administrative costs for co-location centres cannot be
identified.
Benchmark and targets
There are no directly applicable performance benchmarks, targets, or explicit expressions
of expectations around the partnerships’ share of total administrative cost.
Some indirect
benchmarks do exist, such as the 5% administrative expenditure benchmark of the framework
programme as a whole. Art 185 bodies/JUs on average clearly stay below 5 %, which is only
exceeded by 2 of the 10 partnership-groups individually during the period of 2013-2024, as well
as by the EIT KICs’ average (and individual) annual running costs. However, the 5%
administrative expenditure level was never meant to apply to partnerships (individually or as a
whole) and is not directly suited for a programme-level evaluation.
A second type of target for Horizon Europe’s institutional partnerships is set out in legislation
119
in the form of the
maximum amounts the partnerships are allowed to spend on
“administrative costs”
out of their
EU contributions.
In practice, running costs are also paid
from contributions other than the EU. Within the legal limits
120
it is a strategic decision of each
partnership to what extent to use EU contributions for operational or administrative expenditure,
therefore the actually achieved share itself is not informative about a partnership’s operational
efficiency.
These legal, currently applicable
administrative expenditure ceilings for EU contributions
can
be expressed as a percentage of the total EU contribution (see table below), even though these
percentages are subject to change. For instance, the additional UK financial contributions from
2024 onwards will indirectly reduce the administrative cost share expressed in this way.
The evaluation observes that the currently imposed administrative expenditure ceilings on
the different JUs are surprisingly varied, when expressed as a percentage and range from
1.5% to 7.5%.
If these limits had been set using a standardised approach, the
relative magnitude of the
partnerships’ administrative cost ceilings
could be interpreted as an indirect expectation on
achievable
relative
administrative efficiency. However, the evaluation could not establish that this
119
Single Basic Act
Council Regulation 2021/2085
establishing the Joint Undertakings under Horizon Europe,
Art.10.1 (The
Union financial contribution to the joint undertakings, (…), shall cover administrative and operational
costs up to the maximum amounts specified in Part Two, provided that that amount is at least matched by the
contribution of members other than the Union or their constituent or affiliated entities.);
Chips JU establishing
Decision 2021/2084; as well as in legislation for EPM Art. 185 Partnership and EIT KICs..
120
Council Regulation 2021/2085 Art.28 4(a) Partners are expected to match the administrative costs funded through
EU contributions. For some partnerships derogations are in place. Calculated ceilings exclude UK financial
contributions, which will reduce the administrative cost share.
69
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0071.png
was the case. Some values seem to reflect
previous ceilings of Horizon 2020 predecessors
121
,
others are likely the
indirect effect of an increase in EU contributions
122
, others again may be
the
outcome of negotiations
or and indirect expression of the expected ability of the partnership
to obtain funds from sources other than from EU contributions.
Table 17: Administrative expenditure ceilings of Joint Undertakings /Art 185 partnerships
Administrative expenditure ceiling of
Horizon Europe JUs
expressed as
share of the JU’s total EU contribution
5%
123
1.5%
124
2.1%
2.3%
2.4%
2.5%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
7.5%
EPM (EURAMET)
Chips JU
Smart Networks & Services
Clean Aviation
Circular Bio-Based Europe
IHI
Clean Hydrogen
Europe’s Rail
SESAR
GH-EDCTP 3
In its Guidelines to KICs for their 2022 Business Plans, EIT has set out structured administrative
cost ceilings that reflect each KIC’s maturity in a given year given its launch date (wave). As of
2023, the
applicable administrative cost ceiling
of the
KIC
in scope of the evaluation is
currently 12%.
Table 18: Administrative expenditure ceilings of EIT KICs (waves 1 to 4)
EIT KIC
Administrative expenditure ceiling of Horizon Europe EIT KICs
expressed as share of the KIC’s total EU contribution
First wave KICS
EIT Digital, EIT InnoEnergy,
EIT Climate-KIC
EIT Health,
EIT Raw Materials
EIT Food
EIT Manufacturing
EIT Urban Mobility
Second wave KICS
(launched in 2014)
Third wave KICS
(launched in 2016)
Fourth wave KICS
(launched in 2018)
18% in 2016
15 % in 2017
12 % in 2018 and onwards
18% in 2017
15% in 2018
12% in 2019 and onwards
18% in 2019
15% in 2020
12% in 2021 and onwards
18% in 2021
15% in 2022
12% in 2023 and onwards
For instance, under Horizon 2020, EDCTP2 (Art.185) was allowed up to 6% of the Union’s financial contribution
to cover administrative costs. (Decision No 556/2014/EU, Art 2.3.) EDCTP3 now has a ceiling of a similar size.
122
E.g. Chips JU
123
Running costs (paid for personnel, opening of calls, continuous monitoring of projects, etc) are not to be funded
through EU contributions (Member State funding only), as per establishing Decision 2021/2084.
124
Regulation 2021/2085, Art. 128 modified the EU contributions (EUR 4 175 million, of which EUR 2725 from
Horizon Europe) and administrative cost ceiling (EUR 62 287 000).
121
70
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0072.png
4.4.2 Lump sum funding – removal of beneficiaries’ financial reporting requirements
Lump sum funding,
as a simplification measure, has the aim to
reduce a grant beneficiary’s
reporting costs,
and thus administrative costs, and to lower the elevated rates of
financial errors
of R&I funding.
It also has the wider objective to shift the focus back onto a project’s performance
and content, away from financial controls, for grant beneficiaries and public administration alike.
Beneficiaries of standard (actual cost) grants have to prepare and submit detailed financial reports
(in addition to other reporting requirements) each reporting period to unlock grant payments. In
contrast,
lump sum grant beneficiaries are paid a previously agreed fixed sum (lump sum)
for each delivered work package. Financial reporting requirements, which make up a
substantial share of a beneficiary’s reporting burden
125
, fall away.
In addition to the grants’ beneficiaries, lump sum funding also has
effects on other stakeholder
groups
involved in the programme:
•
Public administrators
no longer have to check financial reporting (simplification benefit,
administrative cost of EU public sector) but have to adapt grant management practices to
the shift of focus on the performance of the content (adjustment costs).
Applicants
for lump sum grants have to prepare and submit an additional budget table
(application costs),
evaluators of the proposals
have to assess the additional budget table
(administrative cost of EU public sector).
•
Under Horizon Europe, the use of lump sum grants has been gradually expanded, building on the
previous, generally positive assessment of lump sum funding for R&I projects under Horizon
2020.
126,127
The use of lump sum grant in Horizon Europe
As of 1 January 2025, a total of 1 582 lump sum grants have been signed under and Horizon
Europe, for a total value of EUR 3.03 billion.
These belong to two types of grants.
706 ERC Proof of Concept
lump sum grants have been signed over a total value of
EUR 106 million,
each with one reporting period and a grant value of EUR 150 000. PoC grants
have exclusively used lump sum funding since its pilot in 2018 under Horizon 2020. Although
simplification benefits from PoC lump sum grants are strictly speaking not additional under
Horizon Europe, they are included in the quantitative estimate of the total simplification effect
from lump sum funding in this evaluation.
876 lump sum grants (excl. ERC PoCs)
have been signed, with an average of 9 consortium
members, a median of 2 reporting periods (1 to 4 periods), and over a total value of
EUR 2.93 billion.
A detailed description of the state-of-play of lump sum funding, covering the entire lifecycle of
grants as of early 2024 can be found in the new assessment on lump sum published in September
2024.
128
Implementation data suggest that the signed lump sum grants closely match the
The evaluation has no evidence on what share of the beneficiary’s overall reporting cost is spent on financial
reporting. One assumption is 25%, as a plausible value. This value is yet to be tested and not used in the assessment.
126
Assessment of the Lump Sum Pilot (2018-2020),
October 2021.
127
See also Section 4.2.3 and Annex 4 of the
Final Evaluation of Horizon 2020
(2023)
128
Assessment of lump sum funding in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe,
September 2024
125
71
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0073.png
characteristics of Horizon Europe grants in general in terms of applying organisations,
129
average
funding per participant,
130
participation rates of SMEs and newcomers
131
, as well as the average
number of amendments to grant agreements.
132
Benefits of lump sum funding
Qualitative feedback on benefits
The 2024 internal assessment finds that lump sum funding continues to be
generally popular
with
its users (see Figure 20), who, across all programme parts,
perceived an overall reduction in
administrative burden
(65%, 1880 respondents), and an
improved focus on project content
(70%, 2024). Lump sum funding is not seen as interfering with the proper functioning of R&I
projects.
133
Figure 20: Overall satisfaction with lump sum funding
Source:
Based on 2892 responses of lump sum applicants/beneficiaries to targeted lump sum survey (Sept.-Oct. 2023).
When considering consortium and project size,
lump sum grants are particularly welcomed by
beneficiaries of grants of up to EUR 10 million, and those with a consortium size up to 20
participants.
134
At the same time, survey results did not suggest that larger grants are unsuited for
lump sum funding or were associated with a substantially higher risk.
135
Of the 116 responding
129
130
Ibid. figure 3, page 12.
Ibid. figure 8, page 18.
131
Ibid. figure 10, page 20.
132
Ibid. figure 12, page 23.
133
Ibid., page 5.
134
Ibid., page 6.
135
Ibid., page 6.
72
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0074.png
beneficiaries of lump sum grants
above EUR 10 million,
70% (81) agreed or strongly agreed that
lump sum grants reduced administrative burden.
136
Survey responses provided no indication that that lump sum funding could be unsuitable for any
given
area of R&I.
Beneficiaries’ responses on administrative burden savings from lump sum
grants are relatively homogenous across programme part, with
MSCA
and
EIE
respondents
showing particularly strong support. (Figure 21).
Figure 21: Lump sum participants’ perception of administrative burden reduction
Source:
2407 responses (excl. 10% “Cannot Say”) to survey of lump sum applicants / beneficiaries (Sept.-Oct. 2023)
The evaluation’s targeted survey of Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants collected similar
evidence, also in summer 2023 and from lump sum beneficiaries. The survey unsurprisingly
confirms the general support for the rationale of lump sum grants, with high levels of strong
agreement on the main benefits of lump sum funding.
Out of 98 responding lump sum beneficiaries, 74 (76%) agree to a large or very large extent with
the statement that lump sum funding reduces the
administrative burden
for participants and 60%
agree at least to a large extent that lump sum grants
simplify reporting and limits the risk of
errors.
While 62% agree (at least to a large extent) that lump sum funding
simplifies the project
work plan and the division into work packages,
beneficiaries’ views are much less uniform,
with a larger share who disagree (16% ‘not at all’ and ’to a small extent’). Views on the extent to
which lump sum funding helps with consortium building are even more divergent, with only 35%
perceiving the benefit at least a to a large extent but 18% not in support (Figure 22).
136
Ibid. figure 25, page 37.
73
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0075.png
Figure 22: Perception of lump sum benefits by lump sum beneficiaries in Horizon Europe
Source:
Survey to Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants (May-June 2023), 98 responses from lump sum
beneficiaries.
The
private sector
in particular supports the main rationale for benefits from a reduced
administrative burden thanks to lump sum grants (see Annex 5, Figure 51) - 65% of responding
companies and business associations agree that the use of lump sum reduces the burden on
beneficiaries. At the same, the support for existing accounting practices of participants in the
context of lump sum funding is judged as comparatively weaker. (see Annex 5, Figure 65)
Quantitative assessment of lump sum benefits
Evidence from applicants and beneficiaries makes it possible, for the first time, to shed light on
the
magnitude of simplification benefits from lump sum funding from removing financial
reporting requirements.
It suggests that the
typical financial reporting cost saving of lump
sum grant beneficiaries amounts to between 6 to 8 person-days per reporting period and
consortium member.
The underlying
evidence
stems from
2 short surveys
(both ran 30 July and 9 September 2024),
which
focused on lump sum funding and financial reporting costs.
They invited beneficiaries
of lump sum grants under Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, as well as beneficiaries of actual
cost grants across Horizon Europe, who, by July 2024, had already reported at least once on their
projects.
137
The overall response rates were 21% (300 lump sum grant respondents) and 19% (1533
actual cost grants respondents), respectively.
(1) A question on time savings in the first targeted survey asked 1451 beneficiaries of lump sum
grants of Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe (excl. ERC PoC). In response,
210 lump sum grant
beneficiaries
with
past experience of actual cost grants
reported a median financial reporting
137
The survey addressed to lump sum grant beneficiaries reused the list of beneficiaries of the related earlier targeted
survey on lump sum funding from September - October 2023 as a starting point.
74
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0076.png
cost saving of
8 person-days per reporting period and consortium member.
20 lump sum
beneficiaries indicated they had experienced no savings,
138
the remainder reported savings
between 0.1 and 150 person-days per consortium member per reporting period.
139
(2) To test and validate the lump sum beneficiaries’ responses, a parallel, second survey
approached 8082 beneficiaries (project financial signatories) of actual cost grants across Horizon
Europe (excluding ERC), who had at least once submitted periodic reporting by July 2024. A
survey question asked
actual cost grant beneficiaries
to estimate their
incurred financial
reporting costs under Horizon Europe.
As financial reporting falls away under lump sum
funding, the responses provide an
indirect estimate of savings that could have been achieved
had these grants been lump sum grants. The
1 529 responses
suggest a slightly lower, but fairly
similar, median financial reporting cost of
6 person-days per reporting period and consortium
member,
with a mode of 5 person-days and a range of 0.1 to 116 person-days, after excluding
outliers.
140
When limiting the survey sample further to respondents, whose answers to more
specific sub-questions on reporting burden are internally consistent with their indicated total
financial reporting cost, the second survey also returns a median benefit of 8 person-days per
reporting period and consortium member. However, this approach does not account for the fact
that some of the more specific questions may have been more difficult to answer
141
and it would
exclude 35% of the respondents, which is why it has not been chosen as the central approach.
Figure 23: Distribution of responses - Actual Cost Grant beneficiaries: financial reporting costs
Source: 1529 responses, Horizon Europe actual cost grant beneficiaries, who had reported; X-axis shows the financial
reporting costs in the unit of “person-days per reporting period and partner”. Y-axis shows the number of responses
received that fell into each specific bracket of person-days. E.g. “(1, 6]“ = from above 1 to including 6 person-days.
138
139
1 response reported a related cost increase from coordination efforts to ensure performance across the consortium.
Excluding 4 outliers (2%, 300 - 870). It is assumed that respondents may have reported the total cost saving for all
consortium members together, all reporting periods together, or even both. Reduces median by 0.5 person-days.
140
Excluding 23 outliers (1.5%; > 2 SD). Same reasoning as for lump sum survey.
141
Many answers to the subsequent, more specific questions either repeat the response to the general one or return
extreme values. This suggests that respondents may have had difficulties to answer the more specific questions, but it
does not automatically devalue their response to the more general question on the overall financial reporting costs.
75
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0077.png
The evaluation used implementation data on lump sum grants (excluding ERC PoCs) signed until
1 January 2025, specifically the respective participants and reporting periods, to calculate the
grants’ time savings. This assessment suggests an estimated
median saving of financial reporting
costs per grant for lump sum grant beneficiaries of between 96 and 128 person-days.
This
median saving stems from a grant of just under EUR 2 million, a consortium of 8 participants and
2 reporting periods, which is reassuringly close to the median consortium size of 9 participants
and median of 2 reporting periods that characterise non-POC lump sum grants signed so far.
However, lump sum funding is going to be progressively rolled out in the remaining years of
Horizon Europe and the composition of lump sum grants will change. As the share of lump sum
grants with higher grant values is expected to rise, the typical time saving a (Type II) lump sum
grant can achieve over its project lifetime is expected to increase in parallel. The final evaluation
of Horizon Europe will be in a position to test this expectation.
At interim evaluation stage, only considering grants that have been signed up to 1 January 2025,
additional lump sum funding under Horizon Europe (excl. ERC PoCs) is estimated to have
secured time savings of between around 129 000 and 172 000 person-days (financial
reporting burden reduction) over their entire project lifetime.
ERC Proof of Concept (Type I.) lump sum grant
beneficiaries were not among the respondents
of the surveys and some characteristics of PoC grants (mono-beneficiary, 1 reporting period,
uniform grant value of EUR 150 000) substantially differ from those of the typical lump sum grants
introduced under Horizon Europe. However, PoC grants do not differ substantially from the other
lump sum grants in terms of the grant value per reporting period and participant (i.e. mono-
beneficiary or consortium member).
142
Under the
assumption
that the estimated time cost savings
per reporting period and consortium member are therefore equally applicable to PoC grants, the
estimated typical lump sum benefit of a PoC grant is
6 to 8 person days.
PoC lump sum grants
signed so far under Horizon Europe are thus estimated to realise savings of between
4200 to 5600
person-days
in reporting burden reduction over the entire project lifecycle. For the interim
evaluation of Horizon Europe, ERC Proof of Concept lump sum grants do not lead to additional
simplification savings, as
ERC PoCs have been exclusively using lump sum funding since the
last years of Horizon 2020 and are thus part of the evaluation’s baseline.
However, PoCs have
not been evaluated before and are assessed to complete the overall effect of lump sum funding as
a simplification measure.
Monetisation
To
monetise the time savings,
the evaluation applies a
R&I sector-specific cost of labour
derived from a
median personnel cost
value from past grant applications. The sectoral value better
reflects the opportunity cost of the lump sum project team’s time
than the EU average tariff
associated with administrative costs (Better Regulation tool #59) otherwise used in the evaluation
for monetisation. The median personnel cost, also in use in the ‘lump sum dashboard’, currently
stands at EUR 5 500 per person-month and is updated at intervals. It includes wage costs, non-
wage costs and overheads, reflects the geography of Europe’s R&I sector and the mix of
professional profiles of team members in R&I projects. The evaluation assumes that the
142
The median normalised grant value by consortium member and reporting period of non POC lump sum grants
signed until 1 Jan 2025 is around EUR135 000.
76
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0078.png
composition of profiles is adequate for financial reporting activities that aggregate information
from across the entire project team.
Applying the sector-specific labour cost, the time saving of a
typical lump sum grant
(excl.
POCs) corresponds to a simplification benefit of around
EUR 33 200 and EUR 44 200 per grant,
equivalent to around
1.4% to 1.8% of the grant value,
or
12% to 27% of the beneficiaries’
administrative costs.
143
Time savings for each of the ERC PC lump sum grants is estimated to
correspond to around EUR 1 800 to EUR 2 500, 1.2% to 1.6% of the grant value, or 12% to 20%
of the beneficiaries’ median administrative cost.
144
The
lump sum grants (non-PoC and ERC PoC) signed so far
are therefore estimated to
experience savings of between around
133 000 and 177 300 person-days
in reporting burden
reduction
over
their
entire
project
lifetime.
This
is
equivalent
to
EUR 40.8 million – EUR 54.4 million, or
1.3% - 1.8%
of the total grant value.
The time saving
thus is expected to eliminate 12% to 26% of the beneficiaries’ administrative costs.
In addition to the time saved on financial reporting, some lump sum grant beneficiaries also
no
longer have to submit a certificate on the financial statements (CFS)
for EU contributions
above EUR 430 000.
Survey responses (634 responses)
145
suggest that a
CFS typically costs EUR 4 500.
146
Lump sum
grants are estimated to so far have saved beneficiaries around
EUR 9.0 million
147
on CFS in total
in addition, equivalent to around
0.3% of the total grant value.
In summary, at interim evaluation stage, only considering the lump sum grants (including
ERC PoCs) that have been signed to date, lump sum funding is estimated to already have
secured a reporting burden reduction for beneficiaries of between EUR 49.8 million and
EUR 63.4 million over their projects’ lifetime, combining administrative cost savings and
avoided CFS certificates. This is equivalent to between 1.6% and 2.1% of the grant value, or
a saving of 14% to 30% of the beneficiaries’ administrative costs.
The use of lump sum funding under Horizon Europe is scheduled to broaden and pick up speed in
the coming years. The future potential under Horizon Europe is discussed in annex 4.5.1.
Adjustment process of lump sum grant beneficiaries to realise benefits
Survey respondents shed light on the adjustment process of lump sum grant beneficiaries to the
removal of financial reporting requirements. The overwhelming majority
148
of the lump sum grant
respondents had discontinued at least “some of” the tasks that were no longer required, with over
143
144
based on evidence presented in as per Annex 4.1.1, using the range of 6%-10% of project costs.
of EUR 9000 to EUR 15 000 (project cost and grant value are identical for PoCs).
145
Excluding zero values and cannot say.
146
(mode) EUR 5000. 20% (125) of respondents within range of EUR 4500 to EUR 5000.
147
Based on 2001; (01.01.2025) consortium members involved in the lump sum grants above EUR 430 000 signed so
far, who would have had to submit a CFS certificates under the actual cost grant. Around 22% of the lump sum grants
signed to far had CFS requirements.
148
Based on 267 of 300 (89%) of lump sum grant respondents to the corresponding survey question, of which 11%
(33) discontinued all of the financial management and financial reporting tasks that are no longer required under lump
sum grants, 37% (111) continue “some of” the tasks, and 32 % (97) “most of” the tasks. 20% (59) still carry out “all
of” the financial management and financial reporting tasks that are no longer required. Some respondents explained
the underlying reasons for retaining the tasks.
77
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
half abandoning “most” or “all of” the non-required tasks. About a tenth indicated they had not
changed their practices at all, which is also reflected in zero savings reported above. Underlying
reasons to continue (some of) the practices include internal requirements or the fact that an
organisation’s practice is dominated by their more numerous actual cost grants.
From the perspective of the assessment, the removal of financial reporting requirements already
constitutes a reduction of beneficiaries’ administrative costs (imposed by the framework
programme) as such, independent of the actual changes to beneficiaries’ financial management
practices. This is because beneficiaries are free to organise themselves in the most efficient way,
even if they choose not to (fully) adapt their financial practices, particularly in the short-term.
The
framework programme should ensure that no conflicting requirements are imposed on
lump sum beneficiaries by other areas of the framework programme,
in order not to hinder
the simplification effects to take effect. One respondent to the survey’s open question pointed out
that their
membership obligations as part of a Joint Undertaking
prevented them from realising
the savings from a removal of financial reporting obligations. Their organisation still had to
provide audits of the total costs (EC grant and IKOP) as assurances and checks to the Financial
Signatory, who were still required to sign off their financial submission on the Funding &Tenders
portal. Based on the information provided in the comment, the evaluation was not able to firmly
establish whether the obligations could reasonably have been expected to disappear under lump
sums funding. However, the comment highlights the
risk of clashing requirements
in some areas
of the framework programme, which can stand in the way of an effective implementation on lump
sum funding and will need to be monitored and addressed.
The uncertainty around the internal adjustment processes to the changed requirements has the
potential to delay adaptation.
Beneficiaries may therefore benefit from an exchange of
experience on how to tweak internal practices to maximise savings.
Costs and side-effects of lump sum funding
The simplification measure introduces additional requirements for i)
applicants
and ii)
proposal
evaluators.
It also changes the iii) processes of the programme’s
implementing bodies
(EU public
sector administration). In addition to the topic of application costs, stakeholder feedback, has
raised concerns about iv)
potential side-effects on the financial risk of beneficiaries and on
amendments to grant agreements.
78
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0080.png
i) Lump sum applicants’ costs - quantitative and qualitative evidence
All Horizon Europe applicants, regardless of funding model, must base their proposals on detailed
budget estimates, which they are also required to keep on file.
149
Applicants to lump sum calls
have to submit an additional budget table together with their proposal, as supporting
information on their proposed lump sum.
This requirement does not exist for ERC PoC lump
sum grants, where the sum is predetermined. Aggregating the budget information for the table is
not an additional task but included in the baseline cost of applicants. What changes for lump sum
proposals is that
applicants must enter and submit their figures into a specific template,
currently in the form of an excel spreadsheet, instead of keeping the information at hand in
a format of their choice under actual cost grants.
Any additional time spent by applicants on
reformatting the information is categorised as an administrative cost of the simplification measure,
while any experienced nuisance in handling the document counted as ‘hassle cost’.
150
The size of
any additional cost to applicants strongly depends on the user friendliness and lay-out of the
template itself. The cost may be reduced over time through adaptation and optimisation of the IT
tools and template.
Survey responses of lump sum beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants
151
(excluding ERC
PoC)
suggest that, at least so far, for most applicants the additional application costs do not
raise any concerns or are even negligible.
The median response indicates that lump sum
beneficiaries spend 16 to 25 person-days preparing their proposal
152
, less than applicants to other
types of grants where the median is 26 to 35 person-days. The difference is particularly visible
among European Innovation Ecosystems (EIE) participants, which is in line with the findings from
the targeted survey on the beneficiaries’ perception of a net-administrative burden reduction
induced by lump-sum (see figure in section 4.4.2), which is the highest for EIE beneficiaries (and
MSCA), and slightly lower among Pillar 2 participants. However, respondent numbers were low,
due to the early date of the survey. As there is no reason why lump sum funding should lower the
cost of applicants,
the observed below-average costs are likely driven by the composition
of
the still low number of
lump sum grants that had been signed at the time of the survey.
Table 19: Targeted survey of interim evaluation - Lump sum beneficiaries application costs.
Source:
internal analysis, based on 17 336 responses to a targeted survey of Horizon Europe applicants (May-July
2023).
Qualitative evidence collected from lump sum beneficiaries confirm that the cost increase for
applicants has been limited. The survey to Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants shows that
Get prepared - Online Manual - Funding Tenders Opportunities,
“The budgeted costs should be based on a detailed
and accurate estimation of your estimated project costs (…) Keep your estimates on file - you may be required to
produce them later on.”
150
European Commission, Better Regulation Toolbox (2021), Tool 56. Sec 2. Categories of Costs and Benefits. While
they exist, hassle costs are typically not quantified in evaluations to keep the assessment proportionate.
151
The evaluation’s comprehensive targeted survey, summer 2023.
152
‘In your estimation, how many person-days did your organisation spend in preparing your Horizon Europe
proposal?’
149
79
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0081.png
the largest group of respondents among lump sum beneficiaries (45%) do not perceive at all an
increase in the time needed for proposal writing (compared to a standard proposal), as shown in
the figure below. In comparison, 17% agree to a large or very large extent that lump sum funding
does increase the proposal writing time.
Figure 24: Perception of lump sum application costs by lump sum beneficiaries in Horizon Europe
Source:
Survey to Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants, conducted in May-June 2023, 98 responses from lump
sum beneficiaries
The targeted survey to lump sum beneficiaries (Sept. -Oct. 2023) also shows satisfaction from the
participants in regard to the application process, with more than half satisfied or very satisfied with
respectively the choice of partners and assembling of the consortium (76%), the structure of the
work plan and division into work package (65%), and the user-friendliness of the detailed budget
table (57%). In the follow-up survey of 2024, 3 respondents report in their open answers that while
lump-sum grants require a slight extra effort at the proposal stage (compared to a standard
proposal), it is compensated by the reduced administrative burden overall, or corresponds to the
budget planning effort in standard grants.
Figure 25: Satisfaction of lump sum beneficiaries and applicants with the application process
Source:
Targeted survey to lump sum beneficiaries and applications, conducted in September-October 2023, 2982
answers from lump sum beneficiaries and applicants
153
.
153
European Commission 2024. Assessment of Lump Sum Funding in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe.
80
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0082.png
In the
position papers
submitted as part of the open consultation on Horizon Europe mid-term
evaluation, several stakeholders covered the topic of application costs of lump sum funding. At
least 14 position papers (out of 216 position papers submitted) raised concerns of a
shifting
workload from the project implementation stage to the proposal stage,
issued by a series of
European (and one national) networks of research centres, four universities or universities
associations, one RTO, one national research agency and one national research centre, and one
large company.
While the currently available evidence on lump sum application costs provides no cause for
concern and no indication of average additional costs borne by lump sum beneficiaries, costs may
change in the future and should be monitored as a potential source of side-effects.
ii) EU Public Sector – Proposal evaluation costs
Evaluators
of proposals for lump sum grants have to assess an
additional detailed budget table,
on which the lump sum calculations are based and which is submitted with the proposal.
The evaluators are external professionals with scientific and technical expertise in the specific field
of the call or call topic. The implementation of lump sum funding uses the
assumption that
evaluators have acquired all necessary skills for the assessment of the additional lump sum
budget in the context of their regular professional experience.
At the time of the interim
evaluation, insufficient evidence is available to test this assumption,
154
which is relevant to ensure
a fair and high-quality evaluation of lump sum proposals.
Evaluators draw on
specific guidance,
in particular on guidance on
benchmark itemised costs
(maintained on the basis of past R&I framework programme project data).
155
Evaluators are remunerated for the additional task of assessing the budget table. The
additional
compensated workload per evaluator of a lump sum grant proposal is equivalent to 2 ‘points’
of complexity
per lump sum grant.
In addition,
more experts are involved
in the evaluations of each lump sum proposal. Instructions
foresee the involvement of
at least 3 experts per lump sum proposal.
In practice, the numbers
vary, with some Executive Agencies involving
4 to 5 experts
per lump sum proposal, which may
indicate an adjustment process during which services gather experience. The exact number of
evaluators involved is decided by the implementing body on a case-by-case basis.
The evaluation
could not establish the total number of additional evaluators involved in lump sum proposal
evaluations under Horizon Europe,
relative to how many would have been involved if the
154
Based on the distribution of roles, e.g. in academic institutions, not all who are qualified in terms of their scientific
and technical expertise may also have sufficient experience in putting together budgets for projects. The assumption,
however, only requires that those experts, who are chosen as evaluators using the key words such as ‘project
management’, ‘financial and budgetary analysis’, and ‘cost estimation analysis’, are sufficiently skilled to assess the
lump sum budget information with the help of the specific guidance and benchmark data, such as the Horizon
dashboard for lump sum evaluations.
155
See detail on Horizon dashboard for lump sum evaluations in footnote above (monetisation of lump sum benefits).
Benchmark level costs act only as guidance. Proposals with costs that exceed these levels can also be funded, where
they are justified. Responses to the evaluation’s targeted survey open questions revealed a lack of awareness of this
possibility.
81
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
proposals had been for actual cost grants. The total cost of evaluators is an additional
administrative cost of the EU Public sector.
iii) EU Public Sector – administrative costs of Horizon Europe Implementing Bodies
The use of lump sum funding requires an adaptation of internal administrative processes in
implementing bodies, such as Executive Agencies and Joint Undertakings. The changes alter
Public Sector
administrative costs
and generate
adjustment costs
in the short run.
Financial
reporting documents no longer have to be processed,
which generates cost savings from
simplification. At the same time, a greater emphasis is placed on the content of the supported
projects,
some workflows have to be adjusted, and staff have to become familiar with changes
to the implementation practices.
In autumn 2023, the management of six
European implementation bodies
(five Executive
Agencies and one Joint Undertaking) were asked for (qualitative)
feedback on their experience
with lump sum funding
so far.
Their feedback was collected at a relatively early stage when services still had
limited experience
with the funding model
under Horizon Europe. This may explain, why
not many EU Services
had yet formed clear views on the measure’s net-effect on public resource.
In response to the
statement, ‘The cumulative effort [of the service] for managing lump sum projects, over the entire
project lifecycle, is lower than for actual cost projects.’, three services indicated they ‘neither
agreed nor disagreed’, two services ‘agreed’ and one ‘disagreed’.
Overall, the feedback suggested that the pace of introduction was not seen as disruptive,
lump sum funding was generally welcomed, and some concerns around implementation
existed.
Four of the six EU services ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement that ‘lump
sum funding was introduced at a pace that allowed their organisation and staff to adapt without
disruption’, while two gave a neutral response. Four EU services ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that
the introduction of lump sum funding in Horizon Europe is welcomed by the service, while one
service ‘disagreed’, and one gave a neutral response. Three of the six EU services were ‘satisfied’
with how lump sum funding is implemented, two were ‘dissatisfied’, with again one neutral
response.
The EU Services also submitted concrete
suggestions
for the implementation of lump sum
funding, which
centred on the adjustment phase.
These included, for instance, to further clarify
guidance and templates, and to review the IT workflows and tools with the specificities of lump
sum funding in mind.
The introduction of lump sum funding is accompanied by a
responsive organisational setup
that
has the potential to
minimise adjustment costs
and
reduce implementation costs.
The
suggestions on implementation were discussed in the context of the
lump sum practitioners’
group,
where all Executive Agencies and Joint Undertakings are represented. In early 2024, as a
follow-up, the internal lump sum guidance for EU staff and the external guidance for applicants
and beneficiaries were updated to provide additional information on how to design and describe
the work packages. In addition, the Excel file template for the lump sum budget table was updated
to clarify instructions and improve its compatibility with the IT environment for the submission of
proposals. The group accompanies the further introduction of lump sum funding and continues to
act as a forum for the exchange on best practices and lessons learned from managing lump sum
topics and grants, and to discuss potential improvements.
82
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0084.png
iv) Stakeholder concerns on unintended side-effects of lump sum funding
In addition to concerns around application costs, stakeholders also raised concerns on
higher
financial risks and uncertainty
for lump sum beneficiaries compared to standard grants. Based
on the open answers to the targeted survey to lump sum beneficiaries conducted in summer 2024,
lump sum funding is perceived by five respondents (out of 301) as increasing the risk of incurring
a reduction of budget due to partners’ underperformance, or as creating costs to prevent such
situation to happen. Position papers received in the context of the public consultation for the mid-
term evaluation of Horizon Europe raise similar concerns: at least 8 large beneficiary organisations
(including three (national) research centres or network of research centres, and five universities or
networks of universities, and one large enterprise) are worried about the financial risk of lump sum
funding in large consortia, where the liability is shared with many partners, and potential negative
consequences on collaboration and mitigation costs. It should be noted that these concerns relate
to the use of lump sum funding for large and complex (non-linear) projects, while the use of lump
sum funding for small-scale projects, and for Coordination and support actions (CSA), is
supported.
Horizon Europe implementation data does not support these concerns.
The rate of grant
reduction in closed lump sum grants so far
156
has stayed under 1%, irrespective of the budget size
of the grant. This is an indication that beneficiaries’ actual, realised risk of not completing a lump
sum project remains low. Lump sum funding does not change the joint responsibility of consortia
to deliver on the project milestones, and the pre-financing and payments are handled in the same
way in lump sum and actual costs grants
157
.
In addition, the survey to Horizon Europe applicants and beneficiaries shows that among lump
sum beneficiaries, 45% report that lump sum funding does not increase at all the financial risks for
participants, compared to 16% who agree to a large or very large extent that it does. The targeted
survey to lump sum beneficiaries (2023) find similar results, with a large majority of respondents
agreeing that the schedule of payments is adequate for the cash flow, and that the financial risk
does not increase in lump sum projects (see figures below).
Figure 26: Perception of lump sum financial risk by lump sum beneficiaries in Horizon Europe
Source:
Survey to Horizon Europe beneficiaries and applicants, conducted in May-June 2023, 98 responses from lump
sum beneficiaries
156
157
Commission internal assessment, based on implementation data (CORDA)
European Commission 2024. Assessment of Lump Sum Funding in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe.
83
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0085.png
Figure 27: Opinion of lump sum beneficiaries on cash flow and financial risk
Source:
Targeted survey to lump sum beneficiaries, conducted in September-October 2023, (cash flow n =1022; risk
n= 1020 ; ‘cannot say’/’not applicable’ excluded)answers from lump sum beneficiaries
158
Another concern raised in position papers (and by one respondent of the targeted survey to lump
sum beneficiaries) is that the
multiplication of work packages
in lump sum grants leads to
artificial work plans with isolated responsibilities and heavy amendments. This was mentioned in
the position papers of two networks of research centres and RTOs, one national research centre,
one RTO, and two universities. However, the targeted survey to lump sum beneficiaries shows
that the majority of lump sum beneficiaries (65%) are satisfied or very satisfied with the structure
of the work plan and its division into work packages (see Figure 27 in the section above). No
significant difference was observed between the two funding models in terms of the
number of
amendments.
At the same time, controls have been effective and lead to some reductions at
evaluation and payment stage, which is reassuring with regard to safeguarding public finances.
Finally, some beneficiaries of lump sum still need to comply with more traditional cost-based rules
under their national financing and/or as participant to other Horizon projects. According to the
answers to the targeted survey’s open question to lump sum beneficiaries (2024),
working under
different funding schemes appears to create confusion and extra administrative burden
for
some beneficiaries (2 respondents, out of 301), or at least to limit the benefits of lump sum grants
for others (8 respondents out of 301). In one position paper (written by a network of research
centres) and three open answers, beneficiaries suggest leaving the choice to applicants on whether
to apply lump sums or not.
In view of these concerns, the costs and benefits of lump sum grants will continue to be assessed,
including in the Horizon Europe final evaluation.
While lump sum funding is a key part of the
simplification of the Framework Programme, it will not be generalised blindly, but be used
when it is the most appropriate tool, based on thorough monitoring and assessment.
158
European Commission 2024. Assessment of Lump Sum Funding in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. Page 32.
84
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
Monitoring of Horizon Europe
Lump sum funding has an effect on the way some monitoring indicators of the framework
programme can be collected. Please see Annex 2 point 15 for details.
4.4.3 Blind Evaluation of Proposals Pilot
All two-stage calls in the Horizon Work Programme 2023-24 (with the exception of one call in
Widening) participated in the pilot (16 calls) and all of its 2100 proposals were evaluated in a
‘blind’ fashion. For these calls, an additional ‘admissibility
criterion’
was introduced, stating that
applicants submitting a proposal must not
disclose their organisation names, acronyms, logos
nor names of personnel
in the technical description (part B) of their first-stage application
template. The second-stage application was not part of the blind evaluation pilot and evaluated as
usual.
For the blind evaluation to be effective, expert evaluators must not know the consortium structure
nor the applicant(s) involved.
Applicants received additional guidance,
as part of the application
template’s part B, on how to anonymise the template, including practical examples.
Before the blind evaluation could be carried out by
evaluation experts,
all part B’s of the
submitted proposals had to be checked, not only for direct identification, but also indirect
identification of the participants (e.g. through links to web pages or through references to their role
and previous experience). This work was carried out by the
call coordinators
in Executive
Agencies.
Outcome of pilot
The pilot’s main aim was to test whether a
blind evaluation of proposals was feasible within the
legal framework and the operational context of the R&I framework programme,
which was
confirmed by the successful implementation of the two-stage calls. The pilot also collected
comprehensive feedback from internal and external stakeholders
involved and
monitored the
distribution of the geographical coverage of participants and of the gender of project
coordinators.
The feedback collected through an online questionnaire from
applicants, evaluation experts and
NCPs
was predominantly positive, particularly that from NCPs of widening and third countries.
Evaluators
signalled that the guidance they had been given was clear and that they experienced
only an insignificant increase in workload as consequence of the measure.
Call coordinators
raised concerns about the additional effort to perform ‘admissibility checks’ of
the proposals, with feedback ranging from strong disapproval to moderate agreement.
Comprehensive checks of whether an indirect identification was possible were particularly time
consuming.
Looking at the
geographical coverage
of the proposals, it was observed that for all calls (blind
and non-blind evaluations) the overall share of participants from widening countries was lower in
the retained proposals than in the evaluated ones. While in non-blind evaluations the share between
85
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0087.png
submitted and retained proposals decreased by 9.4%
159
(from 19.1% to 17.3%), a smaller decrease
was observed in the blind evaluation, by 3.3% (from 21.2% to 20.5%).
The pilot also monitored the
gender of project coordinators
(contact persons). For non-blind
evaluations the share of female coordinators increased by 4.7 percentage points from evaluated to
retained proposals, while it remained stable under the blind evaluation.
The observed differences in characteristics between blind and non-blind evaluations may be
caused by factors other than the use of blind evaluations. Although the connection is plausible, it
is not the only possible explanation
160
.
The analysis of the pilot will be completed once the evaluation of the second stage proposals of all
participating calls is finalised, which will allow for further insights in the funding decisions of calls
that have been evaluated blindly.
4.4.4 Reformed Ethics Appraisal Process– reducing the burden for applicants and beneficiaries
The Ethics Appraisal Process of the framework programme was reformed under Horizon Europe.
The simplification aims to limit the workload of ethics-related requirements of participants by
focusing it on projects involving serious and/or complex questions of ethics. The overall level of
compliance with fundamental ethics principles in Horizon Europe research projects is to be upheld.
Ethical research conduct entails the application of fundamental ethical principles to scientific
research. Since Horizon 2020, projects have been required to undergo an ethics assessment as part
of the Ethics Appraisal Scheme. The process includes a self-assessment at proposal stage, followed
by an ethics review procedure, and ethics checks, reviews, and audits during implementation. The
purpose of this procedure is to uphold ethics and integrity in research and innovation, which are
seen as a prerequisite for achieving excellence.
161
The step of ethics screening aims to identify proposals involving serious or complex ethics issues.
If any such serious and/or complex issues are identified, the proposal is subject to a full ethics
assessment, as a result of which ethics requirements are likely to be defined. Conversely, if a
proposal does not appear to include serious or complex elements as regards ethics, it is cleared
unconditionally.
In a shift towards a trust- and risk-based approach,
162
the new process relies as much as possible
on the national frameworks for oversight of research, to avoid unnecessary burden for both
beneficiaries and agencies. This is in line with Article 19,
163
which states that actions carried out
159
A group of non-blind and predominantly first-stage evaluations was put together for comparison. As the blind
evaluation had been applied to all but one two-stage calls in the Work Programme (WP) 2023-24, the control group
was constructed from other, similar calls of WP2021-22 and WP 2023-24. To increase the chances that the relevant
characteristics were as similar as possible, the cluster and area of research were given priority in the matching, over
the number of stages of the calls (some single stage calls were included). Research area and cluster are assumed to
have the stronger effect on the change in characteristics of applicants and evaluation experts.
160
The pilot’s design (non-random allocation of treatment, design of control group) means that observed effects may
be due to correlation.
161
COM(2021) 407 final. Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe.
162
Evaluation support study on Horizon Europe’s contribution to a Resilient Europe, page 124.
163
Regulation (EU) 2021/695.
86
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0088.png
under the Programme must comply with ethical principles and relevant Union, national and
international law, as well as relevant Charters.
164
The new approach to the ethics appraisal process contains new elements (listed below) that have
the aim to streamline and clarify the application and implementation process, reducing the
administrative burden for the parties involved, whilst preserving high ethics and integrity
standards.
•
Guidance documents include references to the European Code of Conduct for Research
Integrity.
165
Similarly, references have also been introduced in the Model Grant Agreement.
Applicants must formally declare that their activities are compliant with the Code.
The Guide for proposal submission and evaluation provides guidance for (potential) applicants
is more extensive compared to the 2015 version, and it includes, among other things, a
reference document on the consistent use of GDPR in the processing of personal data for
research purposes.
The ethics self-assessment is now included in part A of the proposal as a form generated by
the IT system. Supporting documents can be provided in part B only if the application contains
considerable issues or risks. This is a major change compared to Horizon 2020, where this
type of supporting information had to be provided regardless of the nature of the proposal.
The screening process in Horizon Europe adopts a clearer approach to identifying projects
with serious and/or complex issues, therefore limiting unnecessary administrative burden for
applicants and agencies.
Applicants are required to confirm at application stage that their research has an exclusive
focus on civil applications, or that it meets relevant legal requirements if it falls under the
‘dual use’ domain. Research that could have implications for security is no longer covered
under the Ethics Appraisal Scheme (instead, it is examined as part of a specific security
review). Guidance has been developed to this extent.
166
•
•
•
•
Beneficiaries, responding to the
targeted survey,
are overall satisfied with the new ethics self-
assessment: 37% (239 respondents) reported that their experience with the ethics self-assessment
was positive ‘to a large extent’ and without issues, 27% (173) said it was positive ‘to a moderate
extent’, since they had encountered minor challenges, and 3% (20) having a rather negative or
negative experience (with some issues or significant issues).
167
Additionally, ethics and integrity
were considered important topics by Public Consultation respondents: more than half (54%, 1 037)
164
European Commission (2024). Evaluation study of the European framework programmes for research and
innovation for an innovative Europe – Report phase 2 (support study for the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe),
page 660. Available at:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6aeb2414-64e8-11ef-a8ba-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
165
All European Academies (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity Revised Edition 2023.
Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/european-
code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity_horizon_en.pdf.
166
For example: European Commission (2021). How to handle security-sensitive projects. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/how-to-handle-security-
sensitive-projects_en.pdf
.
167
Evaluation support study on Digital & Industrial, page 531.
87
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0089.png
indicated that ethics and integrity should be ‘essential’ or ‘high priority’ themes to be elaborated
further in the Strategic Plan 2025-2027, with 26% (497) considering them a ‘medium’ priority.
168
In the targeted survey’s
open question,
169
some successful applicants’ comments pointed to the
fact that the ethics process is still resource-intensive (although it is not always clear whether this
refers to the application phase, implementation phase, or both). For instance, a beneficiary noted
that clinical trials are already subject to external ethics committees, and therefore appointed an
ethics advisor may be redundant; another noted how ethics and gender planning could be integrated
into a single document. More generally, other beneficiaries deemed the workload for ethics
requirements throughout the implementation phase excessive.
4.4.5 ‘Feedback to Policy’ - targeting EU public sector transaction costs
The delegation of the R&I framework programme implementation to executive agencies (and other
implementation bodies) introduced an organisational separation into the EU Public Services
working on the programme. This brought with it the risk of increased transaction costs when
sharing information. In response, the
‘Feedback to Policy’ mechanism was introduced as an
internal efficiency measure to manage transaction costs and facilitate the flow of information
within the EU services.
Feedback to Policy (F2P) within the Horizon Europe framework programme is a key tool to ensure
that information stemming from R&I Research Projects is available for the programme cycle and
policy development, this is, that the insights gained from research are effectively used in activities
such as the preparation of work programmes, the creation and revision of new legislation and
directives.
Based on internal information, the evaluation found that F2P can be a very effective channel for
cooperation, particularly where the involved parties have had some
time to gather experience
with the mechanism.
The process is at different levels of maturity, depending on the
implementation history of each programme part. Challenges of the F2P mechanism include the
need for clearer communication between and consistent implementation across Commission
services and agencies,
as well as the need to balance information needs originating from
operational and from strategic objectives.
One specific hindering factor in the functioning of F2P is the
mismatch in the timing of the policy
cycle and the research framework,
particularly where information is used in legislative contexts.
A potential helping factor could be a more
user-friendly IT and data tools,
including the
application of AI for data retrieval.
A more streamlined, strategic, and collaborative F2P process lowers the transaction costs of
leveraging research findings, which improves the implementation of the framework programme as
a whole, enables evidence-based policymaking, and increases the strategic impact of research
initiatives.
168
169
European Commission (2024). Synopsis Report - Looking into the R&I future priorities 2025-2027, page 37.
Surveys of applicants carried out as part of the supporting studies.
88
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0090.png
4.5 Potential for further simplification
This section contains additional background on an approximate
ex-ante assessment of the effects
of lump sum funding
in the remainder of the programme.
It also brings together
responses to the open question of the evaluation’s main targeted survey
of applicants and beneficiaries
had relevant remarks on several topics. Responses have been
thoroughly screened to focus on the most concrete and specific contributions, out of the large
number received. Although the numbers are small in absolute terms, they do not have to be large
or representative to count as a source of evidence in their own right. Contributions are collected in
this Annex as a record of evidence for programme development.
4.5.1 Implementation phase - Lump Sum funding potential under Horizon Europe
Lump sum funding has additional simplification potential beyond what has been achieved so far.
As Horizon Europe’s primary measure to reduce beneficiaries’ administrative burden, it is
expected to contribute substantial savings in the remaining years of framework programme. Its use
is scheduled to broaden and pick up speed, on a trajectory to cover
half of the annual call budget
by 2027.
The evaluation uses current assumptions on this trajectory of: A total of EUR 2.7 billion
of the Work Programme (WP) 2024
170
to be spent on lump sum calls; and further lump sum call
budgets of EUR 4 640 million (40% assumed share in WP 2025), EUR 4 455 million (45% in WP
2026), EUR 5 000 million (50% in WP 2027).
The evaluation’s estimate of achieved lump sum benefits so far (see annex 4.4.2) can be translated
into a relationship between expected benefits to total grant value, of around EUR 16 700 to
EUR 21 300 savings per EUR 1 million grant value.
Combining this relationship with the expected call budget of lump sum calls, suggests that
simplification from lump sum funding in the remaining years of Horizon Europe is expected
to generate and additional EUR 276 million to EUR 351 million in reporting burden
reduction.
This estimate is not robust and should be read as an order-of magnitude figure. The estimate
assumes a constant average ratio of lump sum benefits to grant value. It is sensitive to several
assumptions on a) future roll out of lump sum funding under Horizon Europe, b) future uptake of
lump sum call topics by applicants, c) the characteristics of the lump sum grants that will be signed,
as well as the uncertainties around d) the survey evidence on reporting cost savings. In particular,
the lump sum grants signed so far may not be representative of those that will be signed under
Horizon Europe overall. The proportion of very small grants will likely decrease. This will change
the composition of time savings and the share of grant participants who save on expenses for CFS
certificates.
The final evaluation of Horizon Europe will be in a position to assess the achieved
simplification ex-post.
4.5.2 Implementation phase - Beneficiaries’ feedback and suggestions
The following section collects relevant contributions from targeted survey responses to the open
questions under the structured questions on cost. Out of the vast total number of responses, a
number of respondents reported on their experience with the grant implementation process,
170
Parts of the lump sum call budget for the work programme 2024 will be spent in 2025.
89
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0091.png
touching on issues relevant to questions of administrative burden. This smaller number of
respondents has been selected for relevance to the topic.
21 contributions state that the
administrative burden is far too high
(e.g. ‘exceedingly
high’)
to
the detriment of the scientific output of the project
171
. For instance, five respondents complain
about unclear and/or incomplete information on questions of grant implementation, which led them
to loose time on administrative tasks to the detriment of the project itself.
172
(‘It
is very difficult to
know what I should do from the homepage. The manual is not helpful because it is a general
manual and not optimized to the [call]’.
MSCA)
•
A
concrete suggestion
was submitted that an
EU training session or recorded webinar
would be highly beneficial to on-board new grantees, as much time is lost to understanding
the grant (at the same time as the beneficiary is supposed to be working, moving countries
and institutions, etc.).
Other contributions gave feedback that the
number of deliverables
that have to be submitted is
too high overall.
173
•
A Cluster 5 beneficiary
suggests
that deliverables, such as
data management plan, ethics
and gender planning should be integrated in one document.
Alternatively, a template
could be used for these topics to reduce the project manager’s time spent on this activity
that ‘tends to be a long document which is mostly "copy paste".’
Project manager rate calculation / single rate
should be simplified for
SMEs
as financial
accounting is otherwise too burdensome.
•
A Cluster 5 beneficiary states that, from FP7 to Horizon 2020 and now to Horizon Europe, the
administration
burden has increased.
In their view, it was now more difficult for new entrants
and relatively small institutes to compete, not because of a lack of innovation skills or research
capabilities, but because of a lack of experience with the proposal and grant agreement preparation
and implementing such a project.
A Cluster 2 applicant perceives that a
separate ethics work package for every task
in the project
is “ridiculous”. A MSCA PF beneficiary states that, instead of researching and incorporating new
skills, they spent ‘almost
all of the two years’
doing paperwork linked to ‘CDP,
DMP, ethics,
ongoing report, open access, etc.’.
•
•
Two ERC Consolidator Grant beneficiaries ask for the requirement to fill out timesheets to
be removed.
A Cluster 5 applicant suggests for coordinators to have a
helpdesk or a help-line for the
administrative procedures
(‘like
updated action calendar, reporting actions, event
organisation guidelines, etc’).
Further contributions on the topic of
Internet interfaces / web portals
are reported in Annex
4.5.3.
171
172
Applicants from CL6 (5), followed by ERC (4), MSCA (4), CL5 (3), CL1 (3), and CL4 (2).
MSCA PF (2), MSCA SE (1) and ERC STG (1)
173
Specifically raised by 5 respondents from CL4, CL 5 and CL 6.
90
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0092.png
4.5.3 Application phase - Applicants’ feedback and suggestions
Responses to the open question of the evaluation’s main targeted survey of applicants and
beneficiaries
had relevant remarks on several topics that point at issues in the application process.
This topic area attracted most comments.
Proposal template
40 respondents pointed out issues with the proposal template. 22 of these highlighted an
imbalance
between the maximum permitted length of the proposal and the amount of information
requested in the application.
9 respondents commented that the number of pages in the template
is too low compared to the amount of information requested in the application
174
. Respondents
mention that
the lack of space compromises the scientific quality of the proposal,
and that the
page limit is “counterproductive to expose complex disruptive projects”. One Cluster 6 respondent
in particular applauds reducing the number of pages from 70 to 45, but ‘finds it strange that the
same amount of questions and information is then asked’. 4 respondents state that the proposal
template is too long
175
. Two contributions referred to
other funding agencies that required
shorter proposals for similar support
(CZI mentioned by INFRA applicant; Danish funding
system mentioned by MSCA DN applicant).
Respondents suggested
concrete improvements to the proposal templates:
•
The tables in the
proposal template
take up too much space, forcing
repetition of
information in text and tables,
that fonts are not correct in several sections and suggests
reducing
size of headings in some tables to
allow more space in the scientific
explanations. (EIC Pathfinder respondent)
The three
separate tables in the application template should be joined into a single
table with 3 columns
and be
available in word format
and not just rtf with the correct
heading formatting. (Cluster 6 respondent)
Where AI is used by Horizon’s submission platform it should be limited to a role as a
guiding tool and support, while the
actual submitted document
should be in the form of
a
rich text document that can be edited by the applicant.
(EIC Pathfinder respondent)
•
•
Application guidance
A total of 35 respondents provided feedback on the guidance for the proposal writing process.
Applicants mentioned that they
would have appreciated more support throughout the
application process
from both Horizon Europe, NCP’s and the applicants’ own institutes.
Two concrete suggestions on how to improve the guidance material were received:
•
An
anonymous repository of previous evaluations/comments for MSCA PF applicants
would be helpful
to have an overview of what applicants tend to miss. (MSCA PF
applicants)
•
It would greatly help to
split the application guidance by call, as the 100+ page guide is
daunting
(MSCA PF applicant)
174
175
Close to half of these applicants being MSCA PF applicants, but also CL 3, CL4- 6 and EIC pathfinder applicants.
1 INFRA, 1 Cluster 1, 1 Cluster 6 and 1 MSCA Doctoral Networks applicant.
91
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
Internet interfaces / web portal
Complaints focused particularly on the
web portal via which proposals and reports are
submitted.
(examples in italic)
•
Users criticise the
portal’s design
and characterise it as confusing to navigate, not user
friendly, too complicated/complex and point out that this substantially adds to their
stress
and costs.
The design is also perceived as
slow
and
outdated
(‘so
many windows opening
all the time’).
Several contributions highlight the portal’s
lack of reliability/stability.
The Funding and
Tenders portal regularly
loses information
that has been entered, in particular, ‘in
Form
A’
and ‘when
two or more people are editing the "forms",
and that it is
unclear whether
content was saved
and at what point ‘when
switching between different parts (budget-
personal data).’
The
unreliability hinders collaboration
between applicants contributing
to a proposal.
(‘If the commission wants to encourage consortia with a large number of
partners, it should make it so that we are not dependent on only being one partner on the
portal at the time.’)
Users report the portal being
frequently under maintenance
and it being
not fit for
purpose.
(‘The
system had lots of bugs and kept crashing, and the submission deadline
was eventually extended. The system did not allow the correct input of all the required
information, which we were eventually told to ignore. Communication was poor
throughout.’;
ERC STG)’
The web
portal’s language
is experienced as
unclear.
(‘The
website was (…) verbose,
(…) it was hard to learn and keep track of the various different terms to know I was
following the correct links, in the proper section, etc.’;
MSCA PF)
5 detailed responses raise complaints with the
EIC’s
(former and now redundant)
application platform and highlight a
lack of coherence
of the
documents generated via
the platform’s Artificial Intelligence.
(‘When
you finally produce the Business plan it is
not clear and much of the inputs are repeated in multiple parts.’,
EIC Accelerator; ‘does
not enable systematic and coherent information to be presented,’,
EIC Pathfinder; ‘makes
it really difficult to present the project in a coherent way’.)
“My project management” sends out
inefficient
and
indirect communication about
updates
via generic, insufficiently targeted emails that then required logging into the
portal to find out whether the update is relevant for the receiver of the email.
Funding and tender opportunities portal (SEDIA) is experienced as
lacking flexibility
‘compared to its previous version’ It also poses technical challenges during the submission
process. (INFRA applicant)
The user experience of the online
grant agreement preparation platform
is flagged as
negative, due to
user-unfriendly, overly complicated
design and a lack of integration of
relevant
guidance.
(‘a
PAIN’,
‘at
least some design review should be mandatory, because
it is astonishing how much time is wasted in understanding how to navigate and use such
a platform.’,
both Cluster 4)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Apart from a
general review and redesign
of the inefficient and ineffective parts of the portals,
concrete
suggestions for improvements
included:
92
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0094.png
•
When
errors
occur during the validation of a form (in particular researcher information
form), the
error message should indicate which partner causes the error,
to enable a
follow up.
There should be an
option to indicate that a consortium partner does not have any
researchers in the project
(e.g. industry partners), so that the coordinator is not
unnecessarily warned about this fact when the application is validated.
Information on the applicant’s department, etc. should be
stored for later use in the
system,
so the information does not have to be entered again each time.
•
•
Use of consultants (for consultant fees, see Annex 4.1.2.3 to application cost)
A total of 35 applicants commented on the use of consultants during the application process, 25 of
which mention that the
high complexity
and ‘excessive
bureaucracy’ of the application is
creating a market for consultants.
Respondents came from across the programme parts, with
EIC applicants
being the most numerous (10 of 25).
176
Applicants are concerned the use of
consultants creates an
unfair advantage
for applicants that can afford hiring consultants,
compared to applicants that don’t have the funds to do so.
One unsuccessful EIC Accelerator applicant comments the process's complexity has created an
industry of consultants and grant writing agencies,
which might not always serve the EIC's best
interest, as these agencies try to work in the system and
please the evaluators rather than create
solid businesses.
The applicant suggests simplifying the process to a more
accessible,
using a
industry-standard approach,
and so making it more manageable for a broader range of startups.
Another unsuccessful EIC Accelerator applicant comments that for a small
SME
applying takes a
substantial investment (EUR 20 000 in addition to time). In the applicant’s view it was
impossible
to compete without experienced experts/consultants on board.
The applicant mentions not
being able to afford to spend more money on re-submitting a second time.
A Cluster 4 applicant stressed that the proposal preparation process is too complex and expensive
for an
SME,
particularly of “peripheral
countries”,
with “the
real beneficiaries of Horizon
Europe”
being “the
consultants”.
4.5.4 Proposal evaluation phase - Applicants’ feedback and suggestions
Responses to the open question about the proposal evaluation process raised relevant points on the
quality of the evaluation and of evaluators (21 responses).
i) A perceived inconsistent quality of evaluations (final ranking points):
Proposals, which had
been amended according to previous evaluation comments and resubmitted, received (much)
lower scores when resubmitted.
This was raised in 14 comments, of which 10 came from MSCA
PF applicants
177
. For instance, one 2021 MSCA PF applicant reported they obtained a score of
75% for a resubmitted, improved proposal, down from 92.4% for the previous submission. For
context,
15 400 proposals
were submitted to the
2021 and 2022 MSCA PF calls,
which were
almost all evaluated, and out of which 2994 responded to the survey. Seen in this light, 10 MSCA
PF proposals are not many. However, open questions intend to collect
anecdotal evidence,
which
176
6 EIC Accelerator; 4 EIC Pathfinder; 3 Cluster 4; 3 Cluster 6; 2 Cluster 5; 1 Cluster 1; 3 MSCA DN; 2 EIE; 1 ERC
COG.
177
as well as 1 MSCA DN, 2ERC COG and 1 ERC STG.
93
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0095.png
does not need to be representative
(across
the population of applicants) to be useful. It is a
starting
point for follow up actions
to establish whether a more general problem exists or not.
ii) Perceived inadequate quality of evaluation expert: Several comments centred on a perceived
insufficient scientific expertise of the evaluator and the bias of the evaluators. (5 responses)
Partial randomisation (lottery) in evaluation process
Ten respondents suggest that
lotteries/ partial randomisation
should be introduced in the
Horizon Europe evaluation process. Responding applicants came from across the programme
178
.
The reasoning of all respondents is similar and revolves around the following rationale: The
evaluation process is vulnerable to/ subject to the bias of evaluators, because it is difficult to
objectively differentiate between proposals of (very) high quality. A partial randomisation might
help overcome this bias by, for instance, introducing lotteries, as currently also tested by other
funding programs.
Concrete suggestions included two ways of applying lotteries:
•
Lotteries could be used for
all highest ranked proposals above a certain percentage
threshold.
One MSCA DN applicant suggested that “It
would be better, as other funders
are beginning to introduce, if every proposal above a certain threshold (e.g, 85% or 90%)
was entered into a lottery for funding”,
as “there
simply is no objective way to differentiate
between highly ranked proposals.”
Lotteries could be used for
proposals ranked just below the score of actually funded
proposals
(e.g. proposals awarded with the Seal of Excellence).
•
Communication about award
Five applicants commented that the
communication of the outcome of their application was
either too slow or unclear.
In an extreme case, one MSCA PF applicant reports spending nearly
one day to understand that the project had been selected for funding.
Another MSCA PF applicant mentions that the
grant invitation letter
was addressed to the
supervisor of the project and not the researcher, which
prevented the researcher to obtain a visa
based on research excellence.
Interview process
19 applicants raised issues concerning the interviewing process, seven (all of them ERC
applicants) mentioning underperformance of the online format due to technical issues. Two
applicants specifically mentioned that technical glitches and failure of Webex contributed to stress
and inability to appropriately answer questions. Another applicant mentions that a fully online
format would be a better interview format.
178
1 MSCA PF, 1 MSCA DN, 1 ERC COG, 1 ERC STG, 1 ERC ADG, 2 CL2, 2 EIC Pathfinder and 1 EIC Transition.
94
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0096.png
4.6 Annex 4 - Summary Tables
Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation
Citizens/
EU Society
Quantitative
Comment
EU Public
Administration
Quantitative
Comment
Horizon Europe
Beneficiaries
Quantitative
Comment
Horizon Europe
Applicants
Quantitative
Comment
I. BENEFITS
Direct scientific
Horizon
output with EU Europe creates
society
knowledge,
strengthens EU
48.68%
of the
human capital
projects with
in R&I, fosters
EU citizens’ or
diffusion of
end-users’
knowledge in
contribution
the public
sphere (open
KIP 3: 86.8%
science), and
of publications
addresses
are
Open
global
Access
challenges
one
through R&I.
off
KIP 3: 72.8%
of datasets are In the long run,
Open Access
the supported
activities are
KIP 3: 54.1%
expected to lead
of software
to
sizable and
applications are
wide-ranging
Open Access welfare benefits
to EU society
(economic,
social, and
environmental
benefits)
KIP 1: 6 922
peer reviewed
scientific
publications
(H2020*: 2827
peer reviewed
publications)
1. Indirect long-term
welfare benefits
for EU society
from
scientific impact
&
related benefits to
participants
KIP 4: 9 463
publications
linked to SDGs
KIP 2: 95 156
researchers
benefitting from
upskilling
activities
KIP 2: 8 307
MSCA
researchers
benefited from
mobility grants
(dashboard)
KIP 2: 1 662
ERC
researchers
benefited from
Direct
scientific
output
of
Horizon
Europe
(benefit to
researcher)
linked to
expected long-
term welfare
benefits from
scientific
impact
(Number as of
6 January
2025)
*) Note: all
figures referred
to as “H2020:”
provide baseline
figures of the
first 3 years and
3 months of the
programme,
unless indicated
otherwise. If no
metric is stated
for H2020, no
comparable
95
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0097.png
Data as of 6
January 2025
KIP 9:
total expected
GDP impact
Horizon
Europe fosters
innovation-
based growth,
created jobs
and leveraged
investments in
R&I.
(NEMESIS
model,
‘medium’
scenario)
*Note: H2020
final evaluation
range/sensitivity
using QUEST,
NEMESIS
mobility grants
(dashboard)
KIP 7: 124 IPR
outputs,
including patent
applications,
trademarks, and
utility designs
(H2020:
5
IPR
applications)
metric was
available.
Number as of 6
January 2025,
unless indicated
otherwise
€14 billion
(2021-2033)
(H2020* final
evaluation: €287
billion to €420
billion
over 17 years
(2014 -2030)
KIP 4: 3 570
innovative
outputs
linked to
SDGs
KIP 7: 3 703
innovative
products,
processes, or
methods
produced and
reported by the
projects
2. Indirect wider
economic benefits
for the EU economy
from
diffusion of innovation
&
related benefits to
participants
one
off
KIP 8:
39 543 FTEs
created or
maintained in
organisations
H2020:
17 365
FTE
Total FTEs
created or
maintained:
63 000 (2021-
2034)
Indirect impact
on employment
(Kip 8:
monitoring data,
as of6 January
2025)
(forecast
NEMESIS
model)
550
deep tech
start-ups and
SMEs supported
by EIC
Accelerator (01
December 2024)
90
start-ups
created by
students from
EIT programmes
(end of 2023)
96
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0098.png
346
start-ups as a
result of EIT
innovation
projects (end of
2023)
5 806
start-ups
received support
from EIT KICs
(end of 2023)
II. COSTS
Citizens/
EU Society
Quantitative
Paid:
€ 30 883million
(35%)
EU Public
Administration
Quantitative
Comment
Horizon Europe
Beneficiaries
Quantitative
Comment
Horizon Europe
Applicants
Quantitative
Comment
Comment
Operational
Expenditure
as of 31/12/2024
(Percentage share
of op. exp. budget)
Committed:
€ 56 561million
1. Direct economic cost
one
of R&I funding
off
to EU society
(64%)
(Percentage share
of op. exp. budget)
Op. exp. budget:
(2021-2027.
€ 88 322 million
as of 31/12/2024)
(H2020: 38%
of
the total Horizon
2020 budget (incl.
admin. exp.) had
been committed in
first 3 years)
(No direct
comparison with
% of operational
expenditure
budget possible)
97
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0099.png
Costs of
administrating
Horizon Europe
are incurred by
the public sector
at European
level but are
ultimately a cost
on EU Society.
2. Administrative costs
of implementing the
one
R&I framework
off
programme
to EU Public Sector
Paid:
€ 3 174 million
(56%)
Administrative
Expenditure
as of 31/12/2024
(Percentage share
of admin. exp.
budget)
(Percentage share
of admin. exp.
budget. No point
for comparison
with H2020)
Committed:
€ 3 317 million
(59%)
Adm. exp. budget:
€ 5 623 million
4.01%
Target:
5 %
Administrative
Expenditure as
percentage of
overall
expenditure
(as
of 21/11/2024)
(as per definition:
only budget in
legal basis, only
indirect research,
i.e. excl. JRC)
€ 4.75 billion
to
€6.47 billion
(1/1/2025)
Total
beneficiaries’
administrative
costs over
project lifetime
of all projects
signed under
Horizon Europe
so far
,
as of
1/1/2025)
*H2020 final
evaluation;
estimate not
robust)
3. Beneficiaries’
administrative costs
of participation
one
off
(H2020*:
€ 135 million
to € 215 million
over entire FP)
Level of confidence
in Horizon Europe
estimate is
medium/high.
98
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0100.png
(Difference
between HE and
H2020 estimate
likely driven by
data quality and
survey question.)
Total expected
€ 7.41 billion administrative
costs
of
to
€10.10 billion beneficiaries
over entire HE
programme
Administrative
6% to 10%
of the
cost of project
(median
project budget
respondents)
(5 161 survey
responses of
beneficiaries)
€ 1.92 billion
to
€ 2.82 billion
(1/1/2025)
Total
cost of
applicants
(robust)
4. Application costs
of
successful and
unsuccessful applicants
one
off
H2020 (total) *: *H2020 final
€ 5.61 billion
evaluation;
to
estimates not
€ 11.25 billion
robust)
€ 21 000 to
€ 32 000
(1/1/2025)
H2020*:
€18 000 to
€37 000
Average cost
/ proposal
99
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0101.png
No
substantial
change
of application
cost between
HE and H2020
Qualitative
evidence:
(4051 survey
responses
successful &
unsuccessful
applicants)
Time cost
36 to 45
person-days
16 to 25
person-days
36 to 45
person-days
(median
respondent)
coordinator
consortium
partner
mono-
beneficiary
100
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0102.png
TABLE 2: Simplification achieved and further potential
PART I: Simplification
and burden reduction (savings already achieved)
Simplification, burden reduction and cost savings
achieved already
by Horizon Europe, including points of comparison where available.
Citizens/ EU Society
Quantitative
Comment
EU Public Administration
Quantitati
ve
Comment
Horizon Europe Beneficiaries
Quantitative
Comment
Horizon Europe Applicants
Quantitati
ve
Comment
Administrative cost savings for beneficiaries
through removing all financial reporting requirements (due to
lump sum funding),
thus reducing a beneficiary’s reporting
burden (administrative costs). Lump sum grants also help to avoid financial errors and contribute to a shift of focus during the grant implementation stage, away from
financial controls, back to a project’s content. The measure changes the administrative costs of the EU public sector (implementing bodies) and a potentially negative
effect on applicant costs (current evidence suggests insignificant).
One-off
(change from Horizon 2020 to
Horizon Europe)
n/a
Cost savings
from no
longer having to
process financial
reporting documents
[qualitative feedback]
6 to 8 person-
median
days per
financial
reporting
reporting cost
period and
savings
of
consortium
lump sum
member
grant
beneficiaries
median
reduction in
time spent on
financial
reporting per
grant, over the
project’s
€ 33 200 -
lifecycle,
€ 44 200
excluding ERC
proof-of-
per (non-ERC
concept grants
PoC) lump
(POCs)
sum grant
Low
(no cause
for
concern so
far. Will
have to be
monitore)
Cost of
applicants
of
lump sum calls
(including
hassle cost)
from having to
submit budget
information in
an additional
‘budget table’
format, instead
of keeping it on
file
[qualitative
evidence from
2 surveys 2023;
see Annex
4.4.2 - Costs
and side-effects
of lump sum
funding)
Additional costs*
per
evaluator of a lump
sum grant proposal due
96 to 128
to increased
person-days
complexity (e.g.
assessing a budget
per (non-ERC
table) [qualitative
PoC) lump
feedback]
sum grant, or
Transition costs*
due
to adjustment of
workflows,
familiarising with
changed
implementation
practices [qualitative
feedback on experience
101
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0103.png
with lump sum funding
6 to 8 person-
so far]
days,
or
€1
*Costs and side-effects
800 to € 2 500
of lump sum funding
burden
reduction per
ERC PoC
mono-
beneficiary,
over the
project’s
lifecycle
savings on
certificate of
the financial
statements
(CFS) for EU
contributions
above € 430
000
€ 4 500
per
certificate
Total savings
€ 49.8 million over a lump
sum project
to
lifecycle,
€ 63.4 million
including
savings on
CFS, for grants
that have been
signed by Jan
2025
(including
ERC POCs)
Type of cost savings?
Blind evaluation of proposals to
improve evaluation process
through safeguarding it against possible biases of the evaluating expert. Costs of
implementation, mainly for public administration. Benefits for applicants
Recurrent
(change from Horizon 2020 to
Horizon Europe)
Non-
Implementation
negligible Bodies:
more time*
increase in spent on ‘admissibility
some
checks’
by call
cases
coordinators to make
(Some call sure that applicants
Some
extra
effort but
measure
viewed as
a general
Benefit of fair
treatment
&
Extra effort*
anonymising
102
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0104.png
co-
could not be identified
ordinator:
in the proposals,
“roughly
additional workload
three
[qualitative feedback]
times
*Costs and side-effects
longer”)
of blind evaluation
improvem
ent;
Observed:
more
‘widening’
country
applicants
that passed
first stage
(cor-
relation
only)
proposals,
[qualitative
feedback]
*Costs and
side-effects of
blind
evaluation
Administrative cost savings for applicants and beneficiaries
due to reformed
ethics appraisal
process
One-off
(change from Horizon 2020 to
Horizon Europe)
n/a
Reduced
workload for
proposals that
involve neither
serious nor
complex ethics
questions
[qualitative
feedback]
91% of the
Horizon Europe
proposals so far
cleared without
any further
conditions or
requirements
linked to ethics,
9% given
specific ethics
conditions
H2020: 44%
and 55% of
103
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0105.png
proposals
respectively
104
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0106.png
PART II: Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings)
Identified further potential simplification and savings
that could be achieved
with a view to make the initiative more effective and efficient without prejudice to its policy
objectives
179
.
Citizens/ EU Society
EU Public Administration
Horizon Europe
Beneficiaries
Quantitati
ve
Comment
Qua
ntita
tive
Horizon Europe
Applicants
Comment
Quantitative
Comment
Quantitative
Comment
Application of unsuccessful applicants are an area with a potential for efficiency savings for the framework programme. The evidence base of the evaluation does not
allow to specify any new simplification measures to the extent, that they could be assessed in terms of their expected costs savings’. Potential existing measures that
could be extended include: a targeted, carefully tested and designed use of the
two-stage evaluation processes;
and any measures that prevent the loss of the value
inherent in successful-unfunded proposals (proposals above the quality threshold but that remained unfunded due to the budget constraint) and allow it to be captured
for alternative funding applications at EU or national level. This may include the Seal of Excellence measure, after a detailed
ex ante
assessment.
One-off
n/a
Public sector
administrative
expenditure
related to
proposal
evaluation costs
are an area with
a potential for
efficiency
savings, to the
extent that a
duplication of an
evaluation can
be avoided.
n/a
Application costs of
unfunded proposals
are an area with a
potential for
efficiency savings
for the framework
programme overall.
Lump sum
funding involves the paying out of pre-agreed lump sums (that were specified in the proposal by the grant beneficiary) after the completion of a work
package. It renders obsolete the financial reporting (by beneficiary) and the checking of financial reports, as well as the reimbursement of detailed eligible costs by the
EU public administration). The evaluation of the lump sum pilot suggests that a wider use of lump sum funding likely has some simplification potential to reduce
beneficiaries’ administrative costs and address the persistence of frequent financial errors, highlighted by the European Court of Auditors. The net effect on costs depends
on details of implementation.
105
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0107.png
One-off
n/a
The use of lump sums
has the potential to
reduce financial
errors by removing
financial reporting
and the
reimbursement on the
basis of eligible costs
(both sources of
financial errors in
R&I funding). The
extent to which a
reduction of errors
can be achieved, and
a reduction of the
error rate can be
observed, depends on
details of
implementation,
including that of
ex
post
project reviews
and any changes to
the audit strategy.
While the rationale of
lump sum funding
supports the
assumption that
financial errors will
overall be reduced,
the piloted projects
have not yet
generated any
ex post
evidence to allow for
a validation of this
assumption and an
ex ante
estimation of
n/a
Public sector
€ 276
Potential
administrative
million
to simplification
expenditure is
€ 351
from lump
expected to
million
sum funding
change due to
under
multiple factors.
Horizon
The direction of
Europe
the net effect on
during 2025-
public sector
2027, based
costs depends on
on the ratio
implementation
of benefits-
details that
to-grant-
determine the
value and
additional
current
workload of
assumptions
proposal
about future
evaluators and
roll out
possible
(based on
adjustment costs
data as of: 1
for project
January
officers. The net
2025)
effect will also
be affected by
beneficiaries’
strategic
behaviour
(unintended
effects) in
response to the
measure over the
medium-term.
The currently
available
evidence base is
insufficient to
assess the
n/a
Application costs
may increase, as
proposals have to
submit an additional
budget table for the
project, to justify
the lump sums. The
cost of generating
the budget
information is not
fully additional but
to a large extent part
of the baseline:
Project management
best practice and
existing
requirements of the
programme mean
that applicants are
assumed to calculate
the project budget at
proposal stage
already. However,
adapting the budget
to the format,
structure and level
of detail requested
in the proposal
template and filling
in the template
gives rise to
additional costs.
Any change will be
affected by details
of implementation,
including the
179
This assessment is without prejudice to a possible future Impact Assessment.
106
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0108.png
future simplification
effects.
direction or
magnitude of the
net effect on
public sector
administrative
costs.
availability and user
friendliness of
guidance for
applicants. The
currently available
evidence base is
qualitative and does
not allow a
quantification of the
expected effect on
applicants.
Potential of the
“Personnel unit costs”
measure to reduce financial reporting burden on beneficiaries of actual cost grant. This optional method allows participants to
calculate and report personnel costs using a single daily rate that applies to all staff that is agreed upfront for all future grants of the beneficiary.
One-off
The use of
personnel
unit costs has
the potential
to remove the
burden of
calculating
personnel
costs per staff
member,
which
typically
takes about
2
person-days
per
consortium
member and
per reporting
period
107
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0109.png
Annex 5 Stakeholder consultation
In support of this evaluation, a broad range of consultation activities were conducted: the call
for evidence, the public consultation, interviews, surveys of participants and beneficiaries as
well as targeted consultations and a dedicated workshop meant to complement the findings of
the public consultation held on 29 June 2023.
To ensure that all possible views are well reflected and to ensure transparency and
accountability, consultations with various categories have been held in the frame of the interim
evaluation of Horizon Europe. The consultation process did not start from zero, as the
Commission based its work on the consultations that took place in 2016 for the interim
evaluation of Horizon 2020
180
which provided useful information on the mapping, priorities
and views of all major interested parties.
Stakeholder mapping
Stakeholder groups that are concerned by Horizon Europe can be broken down into the
following categories: academia, businesses (including small and medium-sized enterprises),
National Contact Points
181
and public authorities as well as non-governmental, research and
umbrella organisations.
182
Beyond that, the following Institutions have in the past contributed to the evaluation of the
Framework Programme:
•
the Council conclusions
183
on the Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, adopted on
01/12/2017,
•
the European Parliament, which reported on the assessment of Horizon 2020
184
and the
implementation in line with the interim evaluation,
185
•
the European Economic and Social Committee that provided recommendations for the
interim evaluation of Horizon 2020
186
, the ex post evaluation of Horizon 2020
187
as well
as an exploratory opinion on results and experiences of efforts to close the innovation gap
in the EU in the light of Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe
188
,
180
181
Results of the Horizon 2020 Stakeholder Consultation, 2018,
https://op.europa.eu/s/yXBt
National Contact Points (NCPs) are independent organisations of different nature (e.g. Ministries, Academies
of Science, Research agencies) that act as information providers to applicants in their native language. They are
based in all EU countries and Associated States as well as in some non-European countries.
182
So-called ‘umbrella organisations’ are industry-specific associations of EU public interest.
183
Council conclusions 15320/17
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31888/st15320en17.pdf
184
Briefing:
Interim
evaluation
of
Horizon
2020
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/614771/EPRS_BRI(2018)614771_EN.pdf
185
European Parliament Report on the assessment of Horizon 2020 implementation (A8-0209/2017)
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0209_EN.pdf
186
European Economic and Social Committee recommendations: interim evaluation of Horizon 2020
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/information-reports/interim-evaluation-
horizon-2020
187
European Economic and Social Committee Information report: ex post evaluation of Horizon 2020
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/information-reports/ex-post-evaluation-
horizon-2020
188
European Economic and Social Committee exploratory opinion: results and experiences of efforts to close the
innovation gap in the EU in the light of Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sl/our-
work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/results-and-experiences-efforts-close-innovation-gap-eu-light-
horizon-2020-and-horizon-europe-programme
108
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0110.png
•
the Committee of the Regions and the European Research Area and Innovation Committee
which is a policy advisory body whose main mission is to provide strategic input on any
research and innovation issue relevant to the development of the European Research
Area.
189
Next to the consultation activities that were accessible via the
‘Have your say’ portal,
targeted
consultations in the forms of workshops, interviews and a joint survey were conducted under
the remit of the various external evaluation studies, specifically addressing applicants,
participants national and regional authorities as well as business representatives.
Interviews
The main objective of conducting interviews was to gather evidence from different actors
concerned by the Framework programme, offering the possibility to give an objective
assessment by taking into account the different views. Interviews were particularly used in case
studies as well as international benchmarks. Beyond that, interviews were conducted to confirm
and complement data collection to support the drafting of findings and conclusions.
In total, 1 049 interviews
190
were conducted in support of this evaluation – these interviews do
include same actors on different topics by gathering large amounts of qualitative data among
Member States’ and associated countries’ representatives, EU officials (in the Commission, in
Executive Agencies and European Partnerships) as well as various other stakeholders (such as
Programme committee members, expert group members and industry representatives (e.g.),
along with other relevant stakeholder groups explored in the stakeholder mapping section.
Surveys
A joint targeted survey was conducted in support of the five evaluation studies which explored
the views of beneficiaries and unsuccessful participants in Horizon Europe which was
conducted between May and July 2023.
Contractors developed and administered nine online questionnaires to gather evidence on the
needs and motives for engaging with Horizon Europe, perceptions of expected project
outcomes and impact as well as obstacles encountered throughout application and project
implementations. The survey programme encompassed all three pillars of Horizon Europe.
For beneficiaries, it included five different questionnaires to account for different programme
parts, namely:
1) MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships beneficiary researchers,
2) ERC beneficiary Principal Investigators,
3) Beneficiary organisations under collaborative actions (Pillar I, II and III as well as
WIDERA),
4) the EIC Pathfinder and Transition grants, and
5) the EIC Accelerator grants.
For unsuccessful applicants, it included three questionnaires:
1) MSCA Postdoctoral fellowships & ERC,
2) Horizon Europe’s collaborative actions and
189
European Research Area and Innovation Committee,
https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vh7ej5swwyyh
190
This included 210 interviews in the frame of the Resilient Europe study, 140 in view of Digital and Industrial
Transition, 208 on Excellent Science, 217 on Innovative Europe and 274 in view of the Green transition study.
109
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0111.png
3) EIC accelerator grants.
Policy workshops
In the frame of the five evaluation studies, each of them held two policy workshops with the
exception of the Digital & Industrial Transition study which held five workshops in total.
Call for evidence
The
‘call for evidence’
opened on 1 July, 2022 and closed on 29 July 2022. The overall number
of responses submitted was 54. This number includes two identical contributions from
organisations from the same stakeholder group, which is likely to be an organised campaign.
Moreover, four organisations and one individual submitted the same response to the call for
evidence on the final evaluation of Horizon 2020 and the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe.
Finally, five responses to the call of evidence referred to the position paper attached. 16 position
papers were received. However, three of them concerned the evaluation of Horizon 2020 and
were considered out of scope. The findings from the feedback received during call for evidence
were taken into consideration in the survey design for the public consultation. In view of
content moderation, no feedback had to be unpublished as all contributions were in line with
the content moderation rules.
Who contributed?
The stakeholder groups which contributed the most to the call for evidence were academic or
research institutions and non-governmental organisations. Each of them accounted for around
a quarter of the responses received. Six responses were received from individuals, five from
business associations, companies or business organisations and other groups. Four responses
were received from public authorities, three of which came from the same national authority.
The other response from a public authority came from a local authority. The national authority
provided three reports analysing some implementation aspects of Horizon 2020 – notably on
participation, proposals and evaluation of proposals. The local authority’s feedback focused on
a specific initiative: the mission for 100 climate-neutral and smart cities.
Figure 28: Type of respondents (N= 54)
4; 8% 1; 2%
Academic/Research
Institution
NGO (Non-governmental
organisation)
Individual (EU and non-EU
citizens)
Business Association
Other
13; 24%
6; 11%
Company/Business
organisation
Public authority
12; 25%
Figure 29: Organisation size (N= 48)
5; 9%
5; 9%
5; 9%
12; 25%
22; 46%
Large
Medium
Micro
Small
15; 28%
Environmental Organisation
2; 4%
As for the geographical distribution of the responses received, around a quarter were from
organisations – mainly business associations and NGOs based in Belgium and active at the
European level. 12 responses came from France, half of which are from academic or research
institutions, 7 from Germany and 5 from Switzerland.
110
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0112.png
Figure 30: Country of origin (N= 54)
13
12
7
5
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
What aspects are addressed and what are the views and concerns?
The following section summarises the views and comments received. Contributions
encompassed several aspects and topics on the Programme’s design, its implementation,
participation, alignment with the EU priorities and complementarity with other initiatives.
Suggestions on aspects that should be considered by the evaluation were also provided.
Horizon Europe design
General comments:
Respondents addressed Horizon Europe as an ambitious programme,
which has brought novelties and simplifications compared to Horizon 2020. The Framework
Programme is seen by stakeholders as a crucial source of funding in the European R&I
landscape, for individual and collaborative projects. However, some stakeholders expressed
concerns about the complexity of the Programme’ structure, with calls from multiple sources
such as clusters, partnerships, and missions. In their view, it is essential to ensure good
coordination and complementarity of funding within the framework of the various initiatives
or programmes, to avoid scattering resources and to maximise the impact.
Horizon Europe Missions.
Respondents welcomed the new approach but underlined some
issues in the implementation (e.g., delays, the complexity of the calls, and the need to diversify
the stakeholders involved in the governance processes). Some stakeholders remarked on the
need to include actors such as regions, local authorities and civil society to tackle such public
policy challenges.
Horizon Europe Partnerships.
Partnerships were seen as an effective means to increase
coherence in the R&D activities of private and public actors. The new approach to partnerships
was considered a major simplification of Horizon Europe. However, there are concerns about
their implementation, due to the delays and the inadequate timing of initiatives designed to
support the implementation of the partnerships. There is still unclarity about the role of research
organisations and industrial partners – whereby the calls are open to anyone. Two respondents
addressing specifically the Partnership on Clean Aviation reported that the process of setting it
up was cumbersome and complex. The focus on large projects has implied that the number of
participants has decreased compared to the previous Clean Sky 2 Programme.
Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) coverage.
Respondents from academia and research
institutions expressed the need to balance the TRL coverage to ensure that the Framework
Programme continues supporting basic research below TRL 4 as well as applied research at
medium TRL. A shift from Research and Innovation Actions to Innovation Actions with high
TRL was pointed out. The need to fund replication in the industry and society in addition to
technology development was mentioned by a company.
111
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
Work programmes.
The feedback received concerns several aspects: from the process of co-
creation (e.g., extending the time allowed for national representatives to consult national
stakeholders) to the duration of the work programme (e.g., increasing it from two to three years)
to the structure of the work programmes (e.g., including more information in the main body of
the document instead of the Annex). It was also requested that the Commission publishes the
draft of the work programmes to avoid the circulation of unofficial drafts among some
interested parties.
As for the content of the work programmes, it was observed that often the topics are proposed
in a single call rather than being repeated in different years, with implications on the breadth
and sustainability of the impact. Some stakeholders asked to introduce calls dedicated to
specific research topics (e.g., paediatric cancer, infertility and Medically Assisted
Reproduction, Lyme disease, venous thromboembolism, AI-powered speech technology,
heating and cooling technologies, assistive technologies, and others).
According to some stakeholders, the fragmentation of the budget into several topics means that
often each call provides funding for only one or two projects. In this way, it is not possible to
have cross-fertilisation between projects of the same call. Furthermore, the multiplication of
instruments and work programmes, with various timeframes and deadlines and overlap on the
covered topics, has been detrimental to adequate participation as it created competition between
calls.
Approach for topics/calls for proposal.
There are contrasting views on the opportunity to
adopt a bottom-up (i.e., open to any idea or research topic as in the ERC or MSCA) or a top-
down approach (i.e., allocating budget to predefined research topics). In the case of a top-down
approach, it was observed that when the topic is too broad, the calls are heavily oversubscribed,
and the quality of the proposals is lower. In addition, it was suggested to focus top-down efforts
on key areas for the strategic autonomy of Europe.
One respondent questioned the choice of adopting a “portfolio approach”, selecting the
proposals to be funded considering how they fit within the portfolio of the specific programme
– specifically for the European Innovation Council.
Horizon Europe Implementation
Timing and communication on the calls for proposals.
Several stakeholders expressed their
concerns about the short time frame between the publication of the call for proposals in the EC
portal and the submission deadline, which creates difficulties for potential applicants.
According to some contributions, communication about the calls’ opening should be improved
to increase their visibility.
Template for proposals and IT tool.
While the new template for proposals is considered more
comprehensive than the one of Horizon 2020, the reduced maximum length of the proposals
and the lack of flexibility among different parts are considered problematic, especially for big
projects. The guides, documents and webinars to support proposal preparation are appreciated
but, according to some contributions, they are published too late in the process and the webinars
are often scheduled within a short time. Clarifications on specific aspects such as the “Do not
significant harm” principle, the gender and open science aspects under the Excellence criterion
are needed. Respondents reported frequent technical problems with the Funding and Tenders
portal (e.g., difficulties in adding affiliated entities in the proposal, impossibility to change the
order of partners in the list of participants).
Using lump sums to fund collaborative research projects.
While simpler rules for financial
reporting are appreciated, stakeholders from academia and research institutions nevertheless
112
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
raised concerns about this funding model since it has some drawbacks to collaboration within
the consortia. In particular, it was mentioned that i) it creates risk-averse approaches in both
the choice of partners and the envisaged deliverables and results, ii) it limits flexibility during
the project implementation, iii) it creates a tendency for smaller work packages with as few
involved partners as possible endangering collaboration and knowledge transfer; iv) it shifts
significant administrative and financial planning effort from the project implementation phase
to the proposal phase, with a possible deterrent effect on potential applicants, especially
newcomers.
Evaluation process.
According to some stakeholders, the evaluation process could be
improved by asking the applicant to select keywords in order of priority, to ensure that the
relevant expertise is included in the review panel. The quality of the Evaluation Summary
Reports (ESRs) was criticised by some respondents, pointing to the need to adapt the evaluation
assessment to the new proposal template (e.g., the reduced length implies that fewer details can
be provided in the proposal). The implementation of the “Right to react” tool needs to be
improved.
Widening participation
Participation from EU-13 countries.
The issue of lower participation from EU-13 countries
was underlined. Mentioned barriers to their involvement include factors such as understaffed
support offices, insufficient support in the project preparation phase, the need for experienced
support staff and additional well-tailored funding, slow decision-making processes compared
to the flexibility and short reaction time often required in projects, and the Programme’s focus
on a few big actors instead of the wider ecosystem. The strengthened support from the NCPs
for widening participation was appreciated.
Lack of association agreement with the UK and Switzerland.
Several stakeholders,
especially those based in Switzerland, pointed out the negative repercussions of excluding
Switzerland and the UK from the Associated countries on the implementation of Horizon
Europe.
International collaboration.
Openness to international collaboration is seen as an important
element of the Programme. The Africa initiative of Horizon Europe was mentioned as a good
example that should also be replicated in other regions (e.g., Latin America, ASEAN).
Alignment with the EU priorities and complementarity with other initiatives
According to several respondents, the choice of the research topics in Horizon Europe is well
aligned with the EU priorities and it contributes to the digital and green transition. Some
suggestions on how to further increase the contribution of Horizon Europe to the twin transition
were provided by stakeholders specialised in relevant fields (e.g., distinguishing between
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and tracking the
support for the two fields).
Further synergies with the Euratom programme were encouraged by some respondents working
on nuclear energy. As for the other EU programmes, some contributions suggested using the
funding from other programmes (e.g., the European Regional Development Fund) to support
the Missions, since they tackle broad societal challenges.
113
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0115.png
Suggestions for the evaluation
It was suggested that the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe should explore the following
areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the effects of changing the Programme’ structure (merging KETs and societal
challenges)
the distribution of single beneficiary instruments and multi-beneficiaries (i.e.,
collaborative projects)
the coverage of different TRLs and the balance between funding of basic science and
innovation
the impact of the new instruments such as missions and the new widening measures
the impact of the new capping of budgets on partnerships
the effects of using lump-sums
the access, participation, contribution and added value of associated countries and non-
associated third countries to the various parts of Horizon Europe
the consequences of changing the list of associated and non-associated countries
compared to Horizon 2020, particularly in terms of opportunities and collaborations
the efforts towards simplification and streamlining of instruments
the impact of the funded thematic research, considering the introduction of missions in
addition to challenges
first effects and impact of the introduction of Gender Equality Plans.
Public consultation: scope and objectives
In line with the Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox
191
, the public consultation on Horizon
Europe forms part of a combined consultation and evaluation exercise.
192
It aimed to explore
stakeholders’ views regarding the key aspects of the past and the present as well as the future
of the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, notably for the ex-post
evaluation of Horizon 2020 (2014-2020), the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe (2021-
2023) as well as to receive inputs from stakeholders to be used for the definition of strategic
orientations for the Horizon Europe Strategic Plan (2025-2027).
The reason for conducting a joint consultation is the relatively short time span between the
legal obligation for the Horizon 2020 ex-post evaluation (published on 29/01/2024) and the
legal obligation for the Horizon Europe interim evaluation. Additionally, another reason for
conducting a joint consultation instead of reaching out to the broad public on three separate
instances was to counter stakeholder fatigue, also bearing in mind that all three dimensions
concern the same group of stakeholders. Nevertheless, it is important to note that this public
consultation was geared towards anyone with an interest in the EU R&I Framework
programmes, not only towards beneficiaries and the main stakeholder groups delineated in the
section above but also unsuccessful applicants as well as independent experts.
191
192
Better Regulation Toolbox, notably Tool #52.
Better Regulation Toolbox, Tool #50, p. 434.
114
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0116.png
The combined public consultation was accessible in English, French and German on the Have
Your Say web portal from 01/12/23 until 23/03/23. Respondents had the possibility to submit
their replies in any official EU language resulting in in 2 788 responses and 265 position papers
in total. For the section on Horizon Europe, 1 663 responses were submitted along with 136
position papers. The factual summary report, along with all contributions to the three
dimensions covered in this public consultation as well as position papers are accessible on the
Have your Say portal.
Findings in this consultation did not only feed into the analysis presented
on the following pages as well as highlighted in the respective sections in the main Staff
Working Document but also form basis for the development of the 10
th
Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation.
Methodology used for the analysis of the responses received through the public consultation
Quantitative analysis
Quantitative analysis was conducted by means of descriptive statistics, differentiating and
comparing responses of different groups of respondents. Correct representation and
interpretation of results are fundamental to drawing coherent conclusions which is why the
number of respondents has been shown along with percentages. Linkages between answers and
respondents’ characteristics such as participation in the programme, country affiliation and
type of respondent (e.g. Member State and business organisation representatives, researchers).
When evident, correlations between answers given in closed questions have been explored.
The summary statistics were bundled in .xml format which allowed for swift cross-comparison
among the various dimensions covered in the public consultation survey.
Qualitative analysis
Key messages were extracted from qualitative contributions, primarily position papers and
open questions present in the public consultation survey. Same holds true for the analysis of
the feedback contributions received for the call for evidence. Contributions were clustered by
topics and specific aspects raised in both position papers and open questions by means of using
Excel, presenting findings in a contribution matrix.
Content moderation according to Better Regulation Tool #54
193
In view of content moderation, only three contributions were unpublished: all three were taken
into consideration content-wise, however in two cases GDPR-related concerns led to
unpublishing on the Have your say portal. Another respondent reached out to the support team
of the public consultation via the indicated functional mailbox asking to unpublish the
contribution as a wrong attachment was uploaded as a position paper – for the analysis, the
newer position paper was taken into account.
Identification of campaigns
194
Responses have been reviewed manually to identify campaigns and potential duplicates among
submitted position papers as well as open questions. Overall, 24 campaigns were identified
193
194
Better Regulation Tool #54, p. 478.
Better Regulation Tool #54, p. 476.
115
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0117.png
which contained between 2 and 9 identical contributions each. The campaigns account for 88
(or 5% of) responses.
195
Public consultation & Horizon Europe Public Event: Participants
In total,
1 663
respondents chose to complete the section of the consultation on Horizon Europe
programme.
Contributions were received from a wide range of actors.
51% (841) of the
respondents were part of academic or research institutions, 17% (277) were companies or
business organisations, and 14% (238) were citizens (EU and not EU). The remaining
respondents (18%; 307) included different types of stakeholders: 87 were
public authorities,
72 were
NGOs,
49 were
business associations,
4 were
environmental organisations
and 2
were
trade unions.
93 respondents selected the category “other”
196
. Among the 87 (5%) public
authorities that contributed to the section on Horizon Europe, 35 worked at the national level,
28 at the international level, 15 at the regional level and 9 at the local level
197
.
Figure 31: I am giving my contribution as… (N=1 663)
49; 3%
72; 4%
87; 5%
93; 6%
36; 2%
4; 0%
2; 0%
Academic/research institution
Company/business organisation
EU citizen
Other
Public authority
202; 12%
841; 51%
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Business association
277; 17%
Non-EU citizen
Environmental organisation
Trade union
59% (988) of respondents provided personal views, while 38% (633) contributed as a member
of an institution or organisation and 3% (42) did not provide this information.
198
More than
half (61%; 872) of the organisations that contributed were large, whereas 16% (226) were
medium size, 12% (173) were micro and 11% (154) were small
199
.
195
For additional information, please consult the factual summary report for the interim evaluation of Horizon
Europe on
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13460-Horizon-Europe-
interim-evaluation/public-consultation_en
196
Question: “I am giving my contribution as…”
197
Question: “Scope”.
198
Question: “Are you providing your personal views or the views of an institution/organisation?” – not obligatory
to be answered
199
Question: “Organisation size”.
116
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0118.png
Figure 32: What is the size of your organisation? (N=1 425)
Large (250 or more)
173; 12%
154; 11%
226; 16%
872; 61%
Medium (50 to 249 employees)
Small (10 to 49 employees)
Micro (1 to 9 employees)
Geographical coverage
The consultation gathered responses from
61 countries, including all 27 EU Member States.
88% (1 459) came from EU27 countries, 5% (87) from the Horizon Europe Associated
Countries
200
, and 7% (117) from Third Countries
201
. The countries with the largest number of
respondents were Germany (204), Italy (192), France (181) and Spain (178). Looking at non-
EU countries, the largest number of contributions came from the United Kingdom (43),
Switzerland (42), Norway (37) and Türkiye (26).
Figure 33: What is your country of origin? – EU 27 Member States (N=1 459)
250
204
200
192
181 178
125
150
100
112
64 62
50
0
43 41 39 37 36
29 27
18 11 10 10
9
7
7
5
4
4
2
2
Experience with the framework programmes
200
Horizon Europe Associated Countries include Norway (37), Türkiye (26), Israel (6), Ukraine (6), Bosnia and
Herzegovina (2), Georgia (2), North Macedonia (2), Albania (1), Serbia (1), Iceland (1), Moldova (1), Faroe
Islands (1), and Tunisia (1). No responses were received from Armenia, Kosovo and Montenegro. List of Horizon
Europe Associated Countries and countries with provisional arrangements:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-
tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/list-3rd-country-participation_horizon-euratom_en.pdf
201
United Kingdom (43), Switzerland (42), United States (5), Brazil (3), China (3), Colombia (3), India (2),
Canada (2), Venezuela (2), Argentina (1), El Salvador (1), Philippines (1), New Zealand (1), Mexico (1), Ethiopia
(1), Australia (1), Azerbaijan (1), Bangladesh (1), Japan (1), Jordan (1), Uruguay (1), South Africa (1).
117
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0119.png
The respondents were asked to select one or more options describing their experience with
Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe.
202
81% (1 355) of all the respondents that contributed to
the part of the consultation on the evaluation of Horizon Europe had
participated in Horizon
2020
203
and 76% (1 264) of them were Horizon
Europe beneficiaries
204
. 36% (595) of
respondents stated that they “proposed project(s) to receive funding from Horizon Europe but
were
unsuccessful”.
However, considering that the same respondent could select multiple
options, 7% (109) of respondents applied for Horizon Europe funding and were never
successful
205
. Respondents also included
organisations supporting other entities
that apply
for or participate in the EU R&I framework programmes (25%; 417) and
organisations that
have never applied
for funding but are interested in R&I (2%; 37).
Figure 34: Please select the option(s) that best describe(s) your experience with the European
Research and Innovation programmes (N=1 663; multiple answers possible)
I/my organisation has participated/is currently
participating in at least one project funded by Horizon
2020
I/my organisation has participated/is currently
participating in at least one project funded by Horizon
Europe
I/my organisation has proposed project(s) to receive
funding from Horizon 2020 but was unsuccessful
I/my organisation has proposed project(s) to receive
funding from Horizon Europe but was unsuccessful
I/my organisation supports other entities that apply for /
participate in the EU R&I Framework Programmes
I/my organisation is interested in research and innovation
but has not applied so far for EU funding under the
European Research and Innovation Programme
None of the above
39%
81%
76%
36%
25%
2%
0%
0
200
400
600
800
1000 1200 1400 1600
“Please select the option(s) that best describe(s) your experience with the European Research and Innovation
programmes)”. The question allowed multiple answers. Therefore, the same organisation could be, for instance,
a beneficiary of both Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, or an unsuccessful applicant of Horizon 2020 but a
beneficiary of Horizon Europe, or both an unsuccessful applicant and a beneficiary of Horizon 2020, if it submitted
multiple proposals with different outcomes.
203
They selected the response option “I/my organisation has participated/is currently participating in at least one
project funded by Horizon 2020 (2014 – 2020)”.
204
They selected the response option “I/my organisation has participated/is currently participating in at least one
project funded by Horizon Europe (2021 – 2027)”.
205
They selected the response option “I/my organisation has proposed project(s) to receive funding from Horizon
Europe but was unsuccessful” alone or with other response options, but they did not select “I/my organisation has
participated/is currently participating in at least one project funded by Europe”.
202
118
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0120.png
The respondents were active or interested in all the parts of Horizon Europe
206
. The highest
number of respondents were interested in
cluster 5
“Climate, energy and mobility” (58%; 960),
cluster 4
“Digital, industry and space” (52%; 873),
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
(47%;
778),
cluster 6
“Food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture and environment” (44%;
729), and the
European Research Council
(42%; 693)
Figure 35: In which of the following areas of Horizon Europe are you or your organisation
mainly active / interested in? (N=1 663; multiple answers possible)
Climate, energy and mobility (Cluster 5)
Digital, industry and space (Cluster 4)
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture and
environment (Cluster 6)
European Research Council
Health (Cluster 1)
European Innovation Council
Widening Participation and Strengthening the European
Research Area
European Research Infrastructures
Culture, creativity and inclusive society (Cluster 2)
Civil security for society (Cluster 3)
European Institute of Innovation and Technology
European Innovation Ecosystems
None of the above
0
1%
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
24%
23%
34%
32%
31%
30%
30%
47%
44%
42%
41%
52%
58%
Overview of position papers
136
position papers uploaded in response to this consultation included content relevant for the
evaluation of Horizon Europe. Among the 136 position papers, 59 had been sent in by academic
or research institutions, 16 by non-governmental organisations, 16 by public authorities, 15 by
business associations, 5 by companies or business organisations, one by a trade union, one by
an EU citizen and 23 by respondents who did not identify with any of the previous categories
of stakeholders. The largest number of position papers came from Belgium (31), France (19),
The Netherlands (15) and Germany (11). The high number of position papers from Belgium
is due to the presence of many organizations with pan-European or EU scope that maintain an
office in Brussels.
206
Question: In which of the following areas of Horizon Europe are you or your organisation mainly active / interested
in? Please select all that apply.
119
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0121.png
Public Event on Horizon Europe
An
online public event
was held on 29 June 2023 to complement the public consultation
process and gather more comprehensive feedback on specific topics of Horizon Europe. The
event focused on key themes that emerged prominently in the survey results, namely:
▪
▪
▪
Proposal preparation and project implementation in Horizon Europe
The balance between low and high TRLs across Horizon Europe
The novelties of Horizon Europe (i.e., the three-pillar structure, the European Innovation
Council, the new approach to European Partnerships, the EU Missions).
In total,
217 stakeholders
from
206 different organisations
participated in the event
207
.
Participants encompassed different stakeholder categories, with 42% of them representing
academic or research organisations, 21% public authorities and 16% companies or business
organisations.
Figure 36: Types of stakeholders participating in the public event (Number of participants for
which the information is available: 213)
12; 6%
6; 3%
2; 1%
1; 1%
Academic/research institution
Public authority
22; 10%
90; 42%
Company/business organisation
Other
Business association
Non-EU citizen Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
45; 21%
Private citizen
Environmental organisation
35; 16%
Participants came from
39 different countries.
The highest share (15%) came from Belgium,
as many pan-European organisations are registered there, followed by France (13%) and Spain
(19%).
207
In addition, there were 9 people from the European Commission and 9 contractors present. The total of
participants connected to the event was 235. The event was broadly promoted, and registrations were accepted for
297 participants.
120
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0122.png
Figure 37: Country of origin of stakeholders participating in the public event (Number of
participants for which the information is available: 216)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
More than
60% of the stakeholders participating in the event were either Horizon 2020 or
Horizon Europe participants
(or both), whereas 49% of them were organisations supporting
other entities that apply for / participate in the EU Framework Programmes.
Figure 38: Experience with the EU Framework Programmes of stakeholders participating in
the public event (Number of participants for which the information is available: 208. Multiple
options possible)
Horizon Europe participants
Horizon 2020 participants
Supporting organisations
Horizon Europe unsuccessful applicants
Horizon 2020 unsuccesful applicants
Interested in R&I but never applied
11%; 23
3%; 6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
24%; 50
21%; 43
48%; 100
Belgium
France
Spain
Germany
Italy
Kingdom
United
Netherlands
Austria
Slovakia
Portugal
Ireland
Sweden
Finland
Romania
Hungary
Norway
Switzerland
Czechia
Lithuania
Estonia
Tunisia
Slovenia
Greece
Poland
Iceland
Kosovo
Ukraine
Philippines
Cyprus
Georgia
United States
Latvia
Armenia
Turkey
Moldova
Ethiopia
Panama
Serbia
Malaysia
63%; 131
63%; 130
None of the above
121
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
Public consultation & Horizon Europe Public Event: Results
The benefits of participating in Horizon Europe
The majority of respondents (74%; 1 184) agreed that participating in Horizon Europe
“improved cooperation with partners from other countries (within the EU and beyond)”, 39%
(618) agreed that Horizon Europe “improved excellence in research and innovation” compared
to other programmes available in EU Member States or Associated Countries, and 34% (544)
agreed that Horizon Europe brought the “possibility to finance projects which otherwise could
not be supported at national and/or regional level”. Less than 1% (0.6%; 9) of respondents
stated that there was “no additional benefit” in participating in Horizon Europe compared to
other national and/or regional R&I programmes.
The analysis by country group shows that, although the ranking of response options is aligned,
certain benefits are considered particularly relevant for some country groups:
•
76.8% of respondents from Third Countries and 78.1% of respondents from EU13 selected
“improved cooperation with partners from other countries” compared to 73.4% of
respondents from EU14 and 73.2% from Associated Countries.
50% of respondents from Third Countries, 49.6% of respondents from Associated
Countries and 49.4% of respondents from EU13 selected “improved excellence in research
and innovation” compared to 35.4% of respondents from EU14.
35.2% of respondents from EU14 and 35% from Associated Countries selected “possibility
to finance projects which otherwise could not be supported at national and/or regional
level” compared to 28.1% of respondents from EU13 and 27.8% from Third Countries.
37.5% of respondents from Third Countries and 35.4% from EU13 selected “improved
international visibility” compared to 31.9% of respondents from EU14 and 28.5% from
Associated Countries.
28.5% of respondents from EU14 selected “strengthened critical mass to address pan-
European challenges” compared to 22.8% of respondents from Associated Countries,
19.4% from Third Countries and 14.6% from EU13.
•
•
•
•
122
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0124.png
Table 20: According to you, what are the main benefits of participating in Horizon Europe
compared to national and/or regional R&I programmes in EU Member States or Associated
countries? Select maximum 3 answers (EU14 N= 1 223; EU13 N= 178; EU Associated
Countries N=83; Third countries N=112)
RESPONSE OPTION
EU14
EU13
EU
ASSOCIATED
COUNTRIES
THIRD
COUNTRIE
S
Improved cooperation with partners from other countries (within the EU
73.4%
and beyond)
Improved excellence in research and innovation (e.g., more high impact
35.4%
publications and patents)
Possibility to finance projects which otherwise could not be supported
35.2%
at national and/or regional level
Improved international visibility
Strengthened critical mass to address pan-European challenges
Strengthened interdisciplinary cooperation
31.9%
28.5%
21.8%
78.1%
73.5%
76.8%
49.4%
47.0%
46.4%
28.1%
33.7%
26.8%
35.4%
14.6%
20.8%
21.7%
13.3%
18.1%
15.2%
12.5%
22.3%
Horizon Europe provided financial means at a scale not provided in
17.7%
national and regional schemes
Strengthened cooperation between academia and the private sector
15.5%
15.2%
3.6%
3.6%
15.2%
31.3%
24.1%
Reimbursement of costs at a higher level than in national and/or
11.8%
regional research and innovation programmes
Horizon Europe covered a topic not covered by national and regional
8.8%
R&I support
Horizon Europe supported the development of emerging technologies
Horizon Europe helped to bring innovations to the market
Additional risk capital provided to support companies
5.9%
2.9%
1.8%
11.2%
4.8%
0.9%
11.8%
12.0%
7.1%
5.6%
2.8%
3.9%
0.0%
20.5%
9.6%
4.8%
0.0%
6.3%
7.1%
3.6%
0.0%
There are no additional benefits compared to national / regional support 0.7%
The position papers highlighted similar benefits
208
. The most recurrent benefit mentioned in
the position papers by different stakeholders (from academia, research organisations,
companies and business associations) was the possibility to collaborate with partners across
different sectors and involving different actors such as researchers, non-academic stakeholders
and policy makers. Another aspect underlined by some position papers submitted by
208
18 position papers included comments on the benefits of Horizon Europe.
123
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0125.png
respondents from industry was that Horizon Europe allowed RDI actors to undertake projects
to address global challenges such as climate change and energy security, which require long-
lasting and coordinated efforts. One business association mentioned the increased visibility of
projects funded by Horizon Europe compared to those nationally funded, and one academic
actor remarked that Horizon Europe funding helped to attract international talent.
Figure 39: According to you, what are the main benefits of participating in Horizon Europe
compared to national and/or regional R&I programmes in EU Member States or Associated
countries? Select maximum 3 answers (N=1 596)
Improved cooperation with partners from other countries
(within the EU and beyond)
Improved excellence in research and innovation (e.g., more high
impact publications and patents)
Possibility to finance projects which otherwise could not be
supported at national and/or regional level
Improved international visibility
Strengthened critical mass to address pan-European challenges
Strengthened interdisciplinary cooperation
Horizon Europe provided financial means at a scale not
provided in national and regional schemes
Strengthened cooperation between academia and the private
sector
Reimbursement of costs at a higher level than in national
and/or regional research and innovation programmes
Horizon Europe covered a topic not covered by national and
regional R&I support
Horizon Europe supported the development of emerging
technologies
Horizon Europe helped to bring innovations to the market
Additional risk capital provided to support companies
There are no additional benefits compared to national /
regional support
1184
618
544
515
417
351
270
247
170
150
99
49
36
9
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
The reasons preventing participation in Horizon Europe
The main reported “reasons that may have prevented potential beneficiaries from participating
in Horizon Europe” are the programme’s low success rates (for 58% of respondents; 916), an
application process perceived as cumbersome (for 42% of respondents; 665), the inadequate
knowledge of potential applicants of the EU research and innovation framework programme
(for 41% of respondents; 644) and the limited financial and human resources available to
prepare a proposal (for 40% of respondents; 630)
209
.
209
The first two reasons are relatively more important for unsuccessful than for successful applicants, whereas the
third and fourth reasons are more important for successful than for unsuccessful applicants.
124
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0126.png
Figure 40: In your view, what are the main reasons that may have prevented potential
beneficiaries from participating in Horizon Europe? Select maximum 3 answers. (N=1 585)
Success rates in Horizon Europe are too low to be worth applying
The Horizon Europe application process is cumbersome
Inadequate knowledge of the EU research and innovation
framework programme
Limited financial/human resources to prepare a proposal
Difficulties in finding project partners
The Horizon Europe project implementation rules are
cumbersome
Other
Lack of a relevant area/topic for my research and innovation
interests
Limited attractiveness compared to other national or regional
programmes
Lack of expertise
Concerns about sharing valuable knowledge with partners
Limited attractiveness compared to other European or
international programmes
916
665
644
630
368
337
293
262
170
167
86
37
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Figure 41: Stakeholder breakdown – top four main reasons preventing participation in Horizon
Europe (up to three responses allowed, environmental organisations and trade unions not
represented due to low response rate (2 or fewer)
The low success rates, the “limited financial / human resources to prepare a proposal” and the “difficulties in finding
project partners” are relatively more important reasons for respondents from EU13 countries than for those from
EU14 countries. By contrast, the cumbersome application process and project implementation rules are relatively
more important for respondents from EU14 countries.
125
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0127.png
Table 21: In your view, what are the main reasons that may have prevented potential
beneficiaries from participating in Horizon Europe? Select maximum 3 answers. (Successful
applicants N= 1 225; Unsuccessful applicants N= 106)
RESPONSE OPTION
HORIZON
SUCCESSFUL
APPLICANTS
58.7%
40.7%
EUROPE HORIZON
EUROPE
UNSUCCESSFUL
APPLICANTS
68.9%
36.8%
32.1%
Success rates in Horizon Europe are too low to be worth applying
Limited financial/human resources to prepare a proposal
Inadequate knowledge of the EU research and innovation 40.5%
framework programme
The Horizon Europe application process is cumbersome
Difficulties in finding project partners
40.2%
23.8%
48.1%
17.9%
17.0%
17.0%
23.6%
The Horizon Europe project implementation rules are cumbersome 21.0%
Other
18.0%
Lack of a relevant area/topic for my research and innovation 16.7%
interests
Limited attractiveness compared to other national or regional 11.5%
programmes
Lack of expertise
Concerns about sharing valuable knowledge with partners
10.8%
5.6%
7.5%
9.4%
3.8%
2.8%
Limited attractiveness compared to other European or international 2.1%
programmes
Table 22: In your view, what are the main reasons that may have prevented potential
beneficiaries from participating in Horizon Europe? Select maximum 3 answers. (EU14 N= 1
213; EU13 N= 178; EU Associated Countries N= 83; Third Countries N= 111)
RESPONSE OPTION
EU14
EU13
EU
THIRD
ASSOCIATED COUNTRIES
COUNTRIES
33.7%
42.2%
36.1%
29.7%
24.3%
26.1%
Success rates in Horizon Europe are too low to be worth applying
The Horizon Europe application process is cumbersome
Limited financial/human resources to prepare a proposal
60.0%
43.9%
39.9%
62.9%
28.7%
46.6%
126
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0128.png
Inadequate knowledge of the EU research and innovation framework
39.4%
programme
The Horizon Europe project implementation rules are cumbersome
Difficulties in finding project partners
Other
Lack of a relevant area/topic for my research and innovation interests
22.6%
20.8%
17.9%
17.1%
34.8%
55.4%
52.3%
10.1%
34.3%
19.1%
16.9%
13.5%
15.2%
3.9%
26.5%
36.1%
14.5%
13.3%
9.6%
14.5%
6.0%
6.3%
18.9%
19.8%
10.8%
9.0%
5.4%
4.5%
Limited attractiveness compared to other national or regional programmes 10.6%
Lack of expertise
Concerns about sharing valuable knowledge with partners
10.1%
5.7%
Limited attractiveness compared to other European or international
2.2%
programmes
3.4%
1.2%
2.7%
127
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0129.png
The deterring reasons mentioned by respondents in the position papers
210
are:
•
The low success rates compared to the effort needed to prepare the proposal – this issue
was underlined by academic actors, research organisations, but also companies and
business associations.
The requirement to create large consortia, which creates administrative burden, especially
for the project coordinator, and difficulties in project management (e.g., for projects on
research infrastructures).
The administrative procedures for application, the language used in the calls for proposals
and the documents for the application process are considered too complex for newcomers
and SMEs and require expert help (e.g., from consultants).
According to a business association at European level, SMEs encounter difficulties in
finding partners.
Some universities and associations of universities maintained that the programme was too
complex, with different actions and instruments addressing the same objectives. It is
difficult for small organisations with limited experience and resources and for newcomers
to navigate the landscape of opportunities available and to identify the relevant ones for
them. Against this background, the EU Missions and the European Partnerships are said to
create additional layers of complexity.
•
•
•
•
Some academic stakeholders participating in the event claimed that joining consortia and
partnerships is not always easy, since sometimes they are perceived as “closed clubs”. This
barrier is stronger for newcomers or small local/regional organizations with low experience in
Horizon Europe. In addition, some research organisations maintained that the Work
Programmes’ structure has become more complex over time, and it is difficult for researchers
to navigate the different opportunities, especially for those not familiar with EU funding.
According to them, this aspect may prevent participation from actors without the necessary
administrative support (typically SMEs).
Novelties in Horizon Europe
More than half of respondents maintained that the following “changes, introduced in Horizon
Europe, contribute
somewhat or to a great extent
to strengthening the impact of European
research and innovation”:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Definition of the future R&I priorities through a co-creation process with stakeholders
(76%; 1 200)
Implementation of an open science policy (73%; 1 147)
Development of several multi-annual Strategic Plans (71%; 1 106)
211
Creation of a pillar dedicated to innovation, including the European Innovation Council
(64%; 997)
Introduction of the impact logic in the formulation of topics (61%; 958)
Creation of a pillar grouping societal and industrial issues (54%; 849)
New approach to Partnerships (co-programmed, co-funded and institutionalised) (53%;
825)
Creation of “EU Missions” (52%; 813)
210
211
17 position papers included comments on the barriers to participation.
Associations of research and academic actors at EU and national level observed in their position papers that the
Strategic Plans improve the long-term planning process and the predictability for applicants, and (improve and?)
demonstrate the alignment of Horizon Europe with key global challenges.
128
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0130.png
Some position papers from research institutions addressed the three-pillar structure of Horizon
Europe positively, as it was seen in continuation with Horizon 2020. Likewise, according to
the participants in the event the three Pillars’ structure is working well. However, stakeholders
from academia, research organisations as well as business support organisations, observed a
gap between the research funded in Pillar I and Pillar II and the actions funded in Pillar III,
since the first two Pillars fund collaborative research whereas Pillar III focuses on actions
carried out by single beneficiaries. Therefore, the research projects funded under Pillar II often
achieve a medium (5-6) Technology Readiness Level but struggle to scale up. In this view,
some participants from research organisations regretted the lack of support for small
collaborative projects under Pillar III since the Fast Track to Innovation had been discontinued.
They called for enlarging the Transition grant scheme (which currently bridges ERC to EIC)
to also cover Pillar II. A participant from a company supporting researchers and universities
participating in Horizon Europe expressed appreciation for the fact that the Pillar II has brought
together industrial and societal challenges as the two are interlinked.
The event participants assessed positively the creation of Pillar III, dedicated to innovation, but
according to some stakeholders (both from universities and business support organisations) it
is unclear what the medium and long-term objectives of the European Innovation Ecosystems
(EIE) programme are. This lack of clarity makes the participation more difficult for
stakeholders.
Figure 42: In your view, to what extent do the following changes, introduced in Horizon
Europe, contribute to strengthening the impact of European research and innovation?
Definition of the future R&I priorities through a co-creation
process with stakeholders (N=1579)
44
570
630
91 78
39
Development of several multi-annual Strategic Plans (N=1572)
481
666
72 111
203
166
Implementation of an open science policy (N=1566)
563
543
71 152
51
186
34
Creation of a pillar dedicated to innovation, including the
European Innovation Council (N=1570)
Introduction of the impact logic in the formulation of topics
(N=1564)
Creation of a pillar grouping societal and industrial issues
(N=1560)
443
554
69 118
352
414
544
81 159
76
290
313
536
83
186
55
387
New approach to Partnerships (co-programmed, co-funded and
institutionalised) (N=1567)
334
491
90
173
84
395
Creation of “EU Missions” (N=1565)
309
504
115
215
95
327
0%
To a great extent
Somewhat
A little
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
Does not make a difference
129
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0131.png
Figure 43: Stakeholder breakdown – definition of future R&I priorities through a co-creation process
with stakeholders (N = 1579)
Definition of the future R&I priorities through a co-creation process with
stakeholders
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
29
20%
40%
279
13
106
327
17
107
43 53
23
80
1 4
1
3
8 12
6
30
1
73
13
28
28
1
33
28
71
2
7 11
8
24
16
29
12
1
5 5
3
7
4
23
2
3
3
1
13
To a great extent
A little
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 44: Stakeholder breakdown – Development of several multi-annual Strategic Plans
(N=1572)
Development of several multi-annual Strategic Plans
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
21
23
1
22
20%
40%
38
40
1
7 4
2
9
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
219
346
60 46
23
105
18
104
1
58
15
1
73
9
33
14
111
4 12
127
3
32
1
13 7
9
2 1
33
7
5
1
6
8
5
1
8
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
To a great extent
A little
130
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0132.png
Figure 45: Stakeholder breakdown – Creation of a pillar dedicated to innovation, including the
European innovation Council (N=1570)
Creation of a pillar dedicated to innovation, including the European
Innovation Council
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
22
20%
40%
6
73
1
61
10
15
23
63
11
25
27
2
34
42
19
233
19
87
285
76 34
23
11
17 11
4
2
10 14
4
2 2
5 3
2
3 2
1
42
9
17
29
147
11
76
To a great extent
A little
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
Box 4: Overview of the comments on the European Innovation Council
27 position papers included comments on the European Innovation Council. Whilst several
stakeholders appreciate the creation of the European Innovation Council, they pointed out
some implementation issues, concerning:
▪
▪
The insufficient flexibility of the administrative processes.
The limited scope of the EIC Transition (accepting proposals only from the ERC PoC
Pathfinder and FET).
The application and evaluation process.
The low success rates.
The harmonisation of the IP provisions with the rest of Horizon Europe and with the
Commission Recommendation on intellectual property.
212
Similarly, the event participants deemed the EIC as a valuable tool that addresses all
stages of innovation. The specific procedures for proposals selection under the different
EIC components and its general structure were considered appropriate. However, it was
observed that during the first years of Horizon Europe the EIC had major governance
issues, particularly in the Accelerator component, since the work of the newly established
EIC Fund was not smooth enough and there were delays in the selection of beneficiaries.
In addition:
For several participants, the Accelerator component excessively focused on deep-tech
instead of on disruptive and breakthrough innovation in general, missing the opportunity
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
212
2008/416/EC, Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer
activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations.
131
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0133.png
of funding disruptive social innovation. The focus on deep-tech innovation contradicts
the attention to interdisciplinarity given in the rest of Horizon Europe.
▪
According to a participant representing an association for technology research, the
requirement for co-investors was not communicated well, it is quite challenging for start-
ups to meet and this in turn can hinder their participation.
A National Contact Point highlighted the need to improve communication on the EIC
calls, the participation rules and the administrative procedures. Due to the peculiarities
of the programme compared to the rest of Horizon Europe, these aspects differ from the
rest of the FP. For this reason, additional communication and training is needed to explain
them to potential applicants and participants.
It is difficult for applicants and participants to understand how the EIC portfolio has been
built and works, as it appears completely different from other EU initiatives.
Some concerns were expressed regarding the rejection process as a participant
representing a network of universities reported difficulties in communicating with
evaluators.
The budget for the Pathfinder and Transition components was considered insufficient
from academic stakeholders.
▪
▪
▪
▪
Figure 46: Stakeholder breakdown – Creation of EU Missions (N= 1565)
Creation of “EU Missions”
Academic/research institution
Business association
1
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
36
59
151
17
79
2
69
22
18
9
247
126
3 2
3
38
18
10
1
37
60
60
12
66
152
8
13
22
1
19
20%
7
22
27
3
2
1
6
4
6
6
7
2
1
13
16
19
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
33
40%
10
4
4
11
To a great extent
A little
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
132
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0134.png
Figure 47: Stakeholder breakdown – Creation of a pillar grouping societal and industrial issues
(N= 1560)
Creation of a pillar grouping societal and industrial issues
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
16
20%
33
8
12
15
1
31
40%
5 5
4
19
27
160
9
59
1
69
11
5
6
101
258
20
23 14
4
2
17 12
8
4
5
2
2
19
25
1
21
48
7
117 42
27
194
3 1
1
65
5
11 1
4
To a great extent
A little
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 48: Stakeholder breakdown – New approach to Partnerships (N= 1567)
New approach to Partnerships (co-programmed, co-funded and
institutionalised)
Academic/research institution
155
9
78
76
3
30
9
15
17
1
20
20%
21
40%
11
68
12
23
31
5
8
13 10
15
4
1
5
2
7
3
1
7
3
20
55
9
16
19
236
20
25 6
12
103 53
47
204
4 1
2
3
69
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
To a great extent
A little
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
133
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0135.png
Figure 49: Stakeholder breakdown – Introduction of the impact logic in the formulation of
topics (N= 1564)
Introduction of the impact logic in the formulation of topics
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
28
20%
40%
46
10
197
275
90 55
50
130
11
79
1
69
12
88
20
29 6
8
2
14 11
14
1
2
56
5
37
11
19
24
1
18
29
5 4
1
10 3
2
1
31
19
17
8 2
1
12
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
To a great extent
A little
Implementation and administrative procedures
Design and implementation of the calls for proposals
Most respondents agreed with the following statements: “the rules of participation [are] clear”
(77%; 1 218), that “the standard application form [facilitates] the application” (67%; 1 053)
and that “the descriptions of the calls for proposals [are] clear” (64%; 1 110) and “frequent
enough” (58%; 905). However, 29% (457) of respondents maintained that finding the right call
for proposals was difficult and 31% (485) of respondents did not think that “there [is] an
adequate mix of calls for proposals addressing specific topics (top-down) and calls for
proposals without a pre-defined topic (bottom-up)”
213
.
51 position papers discussed aspects of the calls for proposals. Several of these topics were
discussed more in depth during the public event. The main messages concern:
•
The scope of the calls for proposals. Several research organisations and universities deemed
the description of the calls for proposal in Horizon Europe as too vague and
“multidimensional”. As a result, only large consortia can address every aspect of the call
and it is difficult to understand how researchers in different disciplines should contribute
to the projects. Moreover, according to some respondents, vague calls for proposals worsen
the risk of oversubscription.
The template for the proposal. There were different views on whether or not the page limit
of the template simplifies the application. Some position papers highlighted the challenges
experienced in filling in specific parts of the template due to its alleged rigid structure and
its page limit. The new page limits set in the Horizon Europe application forms (part B)
•
213
This opinion is shared especially among academic and research organisations. The results of the analysis broken
down by type of respondent are reported in Table 23 and Table 24- additional statistics.
134
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
was generally seen as positive by the event participants, since proposals are now shorter,
more concise and to the point. However, some applicants claim that the page reduction has
posed a new challenge to proposal writing, as sometimes there is not adequate space to
address exhaustively all the aspects requested by the calls for proposals. This issue is
particularly relevant for large consortia, since part of the proposal is dedicated to the
partners’ description.
•
Using the two-stage application procedure. Whilst some actors thought that the current
balance between two-stage and single-stage application procedure is appropriate (e.g., an
association representing universities), other actors (e.g., some research organisations, a
business association, a public authority) would like to expand the use of the two-stage
procedure.
The challenging submission deadlines. Some respondents considered that finding and
responding to calls for proposals within a restricted time frame and with sometimes
overlapping deadlines was difficult. Likewise, during the event, some applicants expressed
the need to review the frequency of the calls for proposals, asking for more flexibility.
According to them, the calendar of the deadlines for submission doesn’t always consider
public holidays or celebrations.
The balance between top-down and bottom-up calls. In their position papers and during the
event, some universities and research organisations, but also some public authorities,
pointed out the need for more bottom-up calls for proposals, especially in Pillar II. In their
opinion, the bottom-up approach would facilitate the deployment of Social Sciences and
Humanities within the Framework Programme.
According to the event participants applicants are generally satisfied with the quality and
availability of information provided to fulfil a proposal application. However, some
stakeholders reported a few cases where mixed and non-consistent information was found
between call documents, F&T portal and the info-days organized by NCPs. In this respect,
stakeholders called for better use of the FAQ section on the F&T Portal.
Some position papers appreciated the existence of an updated Funding and Tenders Portal,
although some technical improvements are suggested. Similarly, some event participants
expressed their concern over the technical flaws of the F&T portal, especially close to the
deadlines, when the system is often perceived as unstable. Moreover, the imposed “two-
factor” authentication method may slow down the administrative procedures.
•
•
•
•
135
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0137.png
Figure 50. To what extent do you agree with the following statements concerning the calls for
proposals under Horizon Europe?
33
The rules of participation are clear (N=1585)
382
836
172
119
28
43
The standard application form facilitates the application (N=1575)
304
749
294
92
108
37
The descriptions of the calls for proposals are clear (N=1577)
222
788
306
189
35
60
The calls for proposals are frequent enough (N=1558)
177
728
373
184
36
The reduced page limit for proposals reduces the burden on
applicants (N=1578)
331
561
305
234
62
85
The strengthened gender equality provisions bear potential to
promote gender equality
across R&I organisations and activities (N=1581)
229
575
336
142
57
242
The IT tool is user-friendly (N=1577)
188
553
399
235
96
106
Finding the right call for my proposal is easy (N=1578)
141
484
442
375
82
54
The feedback received on rejected proposals and the re-
submissions rules are clear (N=1575)
123
491
356
266
119
220
There is an adequate mix of calls for proposals addressing specific
topics (top-down) and calls for
proposals without a pre-defined topic (bottom-up) (N=1574)
101
450
353
371
114
185
0%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I do not know / No opinion
136
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0138.png
Figure 51: Stakeholder breakdown – Rules of participation are clear (N= 1585)
The rules of participation are clear
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Strongly agree
22
10%
20%
30%
40%
36
6
12
11
1
41
50%
60%
70%
18
32
48
196
7
19
425
7
87
72
17
13
4
1
92
1
118
132
2
15
4
11
12
1
8
80%
3
28
16
2
1
8
7
11
1
3
7
3
3
2
2
7
6
1
4
90%
100%
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 52: Stakeholder breakdown – The standard application form facilitates the application
(N= 1575)
The standard application form facilitates the application
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
19
10%
20%
30%
40%
33
6
10
16
1
43
50%
60%
70%
27
33
161
7
52
1
82
16
12
19
1
10
80%
3
2
5
90%
100%
400
21
125
1
39
7
3
2
2
57
1
15
4
1
22
5
11
14
143
5
1
52
17
30
4
15
3
17
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
137
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0139.png
Figure 53: Stakeholder breakdown – The calls for proposals are frequent enough (N= 1558)
The calls for proposals are frequent enough
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
10
10%
20%
30%
17
4
6
10
1
46
40%
50%
60%
70%
10
32
39
81
9
11
25
1
13
80%
6
1
5
90%
100%
84
5
41
387
16
114
2
41
9
69
1
28
7
6
3
4
6
15
3
7
5
195
92
7
34
21
18
1
5
6
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Evaluation of proposals
Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the “time to sign the grant agreement” (65%;
1 028) and the “time to evaluate the proposals” (63%;1 002) was ”adequate”. Whilst 44% (698)
of respondents thought that the feedback received from the evaluation was “clear and
informative”, 24% (383) of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement.
Likewise, whilst some position papers highly valued the evaluation system of Horizon Europe
and observed improvements over time, others underlined the need for more consistent and
detailed feedback in the evaluation reports.
214
Some research organisations and associations
thereof welcomed the “right to react” mechanism, but a national agency supporting applicants
put into question the effectiveness of the procedure.
Six papers referred to the “blind evaluation process” that has been piloted, stating that
stakeholders were interested in the results of the pilot and in the possibility of expanding its
use.
Although stakeholders recognised that efforts have already been made to reduce the time to
grant, the actual time between proposal submission and evaluation was still considered too long
by different stakeholders (e.g., respondents from universities, from business associations).
Box 5: Main messages on the evaluation of proposals from the public event
▪
Applicants are generally satisfied with the timing for proposal evaluation and the
signature of the Grant Agreement, seen as mostly “adequate”.
214
51 position papers discussed aspects of the evaluation of proposals.
138
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0140.png
▪
However, they have raised several concerns related to the quality and clarity of the
evaluations provided through the ESRs. Comments of the evaluators are sometimes
reported as too generic, contradictory and not really helpful for a reworking the proposal
for a new submission.
Although the Horizon Europe programme is highly impact-oriented, an academic
stakeholder has highlighted that some evaluators are lacking adequate preparation or
guidance on how to adequately assess impact. Differences between the scopes of the
different Clusters should also be taken into account.
Likewise, higher competences in evaluating integrated SSH aspects would be welcome,
given the increasing space and importance that these disciplines are receiving in many
topics.
According to a participant representing a business company, the evaluators specific field
of expertise should be in line with the scientific field of the proposal. Otherwise, the risk
is to receive misplaced or inconsistent evaluation, especially in the case of disruptive
technology.
It was suggested by academic stakeholders that the guidelines for evaluators provided by
the programme’s officers should be public, thus ensuring more transparency in the
evaluation process.
▪
▪
▪
▪
Figure 54. To what extent do you agree with the following statements concerning proposal
evaluation under Horizon Europe?
24
The time taken to sign the grant agreement is adequate (N=1028)
227
801
208
101
217
35
The time taken to evaluate proposals is adequate (N=1002)
170
832
240
177
128
The feedback received from the evaluation is clear and
informative (N=698)
130
568
343
305
78
153
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
139
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0141.png
Figure 55: Stakeholder breakdown – The time taken to sign the grant agreement is adequate
(N= 1028)
The time taken to sign the grant agreement is adequate
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
133
4
42
16
129
3
26
4
7
6
1
5
20%
38
40%
15
13
31
45
94
6
9
10
3
2
4
2
1
11
13
21 10
5
10
13
18
37
432
11
40
95 43 96
11
4
3
25
4
27
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
Strongly agree
Disagree
0%
Agree
60%
80%
100%
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Strongly disagree
Figure 56: Stakeholder breakdown – The time taken to evaluate proposals is adequate (N=
1002)
The time taken to evaluate proposals is adequate
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
97
5
24
1
19
86
125
458
20
52
2
38
18
8
24
106
7
38
97
12
42
3
1
2
8
20
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Agree
10
2
5
7
18
33
45
2
43
20%
40%
5
10
13
3
6
1
5
6
11
15
9
10
2
8
Strongly agree
Disagree
60%
80%
100%
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Strongly disagree
140
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0142.png
Figure 57: Stakeholder breakdown – The feedback received regarding the evaluation is clear
and informative (N= 698)
The feedback received regarding the evaluation is clear and informative
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
69
3
25
1
13
6
4
4
26
289
12
94
9
194
160
11
43
55
3
14
19
60
2
56
67
12
31
16
1
36
4
14
16
34
3
12
3
5 1
2
1
30
6
10
20
5
0%
20%
34
40%
10
60%
19
80%
3
10
100%
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Project implementation
Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “the standard templates facilitate project
reporting” (62%; 978), that “the mechanisms for project monitoring and reporting were
adequate” (61%; 955), that their “organisation’s usual accounting practices were accepted”
(59%: 1 933), that “the cost calculation rules were clear” (59%; 925). The majority of
respondents were “satisfied with the support received by the EC services (including agencies)
during grant preparation and implementation” (52%; 813) and agreed or strongly agreed that
“the extension of the single audit principle reduces the burden on beneficiaries (51%; 790).
Conversely, only 39% (616) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “the use of lump
sum funding reduces the burden on beneficiaries” and 15% (233) maintained the opposite. 63
position papers commented on aspects of project implementation. Several of these topics were
discussed more in depth during the public event. The main messages concerned:
•
The lack of the Annotated Model Grant Agreement
and the delays for a final Annotated
Model Grant Agreement - this issue was raised also during the public event. The event
participants also urged the publication of an Indicative Audit Programme to receive detailed
rules on auditing.
The lump sum funding.
The position papers expressed different views on whether the
lump sum funding reduces the burden on beneficiaries, depending also on the project size.
Many stakeholders, including universities, national research centres and a large company,
recommended a thorough evaluation of the funding scheme before expanding its use,
especially for large collaborative applied research projects. While the simplification
brought by lump sum schemes has been generally appreciated, concerns were raised by
different stakeholders, in particular by a series of European associations of research centres,
on the intensification of the workload in the proposal stage. Moreover, research and
▪
141
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0143.png
technologies organisations (RTOs) report experiencing a lack of genuine collaboration
among partners in large projects working with lump sums, as a result of different
approaches aiming to minimise financial risks. On the other hand, representatives from the
R&I community from Italy, Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Poland observed the simplified
reporting, the reduced financial errors, and the decreased administrative burden induced by
lump sum funding and have explicitly called for its extension.
215
•
The increasing difficulties in managing projects due to large consortia.
A participant
in the event acting as NCP reported that it is becoming increasingly difficult to manage big
consortia, especially in relation to the budget and administration. This aspect affects the
expected level of participation of SMEs, since only experienced project managers have the
experience and resources to deal with large consortia.
The tools for reporting and monitoring.
Most event participants are satisfied with the
standard tools for reporting and monitoring and find very useful the assistance received by
the EC services (including agencies) during grant preparation and implementation.
The new cost calculation rules.
According to some respondents, the new rules have not
simplified the reporting and may have shifted costs towards the preparation phase. During
the event, contrasting views were expressed on the measures to simplify the calculation of
personnel costs. Whereas some participants consider the 215-day-a-year rule as a positive
simplification, other academic actors see it as a rigid scheme that does not allow for the
calculations to be adapted to the specificities of each country or entity.
The decentralisation of project management to the executive agencies.
The
collaboration between the EC Project Officers and the beneficiaries is broadly positive.
However, some participants have experienced high turnover and frequent changes in the
people acting as Project Officer, which is reported as not beneficial for the project
execution. In addition, an academic participant expressed concerns about the efficiency of
the communication channels with the Commission, since he/she experienced fragmentation
in communication between the Project Officer and the Commission.
The integration of gender aspects into project implementation.
The increasing
importance of Gender Equality Plans (GEP) has been widely welcomed by the event
participants. However, while the adoption of GEPs is often quite simple and
straightforward for universities, it may not be the same for other types of organizations.
More guidance and support on how to design the GEPs and how to effectively integrate
gender aspects into project implementation would be welcome to avoid turning GEPs into
a “just-tick-the-box” exercise.
18 position papers provided comments on the EC
communication and information
activities.
These stakeholders expressed appreciation for the effort made by the
Commission, such as organisation of Infodays, and webinars. They point to areas in which
communication and guidance can be improved: Synergies with other EU programmes and
the Model Grant Agreement.
•
•
•
•
•
215
For further information on lump sums, please refer to Annex 4, Section 4.4.2.
142
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0144.png
Figure 58. To what extent do you agree with the following statements concerning the project
implementation under Horizon Europe?
The standard templates facilitate project reporting
(N=1567)
The mechanisms for project monitoring and reporting are
adequate (N=1565)
Our organisation’s usual accounting practices were
accepted (N=1570)
Project implementation HEurope: The cost calculation
rules are clear (N=1563)
I am satisfied with the support received by the EC services
(including agencies) during grant preparation and
implementation (N=1566)
The extension of the single audit principle reduces the
burden on beneficiaries (N=1561)
41 12
245
733
254
23
282
167
788
263
96
36
228
192
741
175
91
335
44
179
746
221
179
33
194
197
616
286
38 14
94
340
228
562
218
501
The use of lump sum funding reduces the burden on
beneficiaries (N=1569)
218
398
232
141
92
488
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 59: Stakeholder breakdown – I am satisfied with the support received from the EC
services (N= 1566)
I am satisfied with the support received from the EC services (including
agencies) during grant preparation and implementation
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Agree
12
20%
32
40%
14
2
5
5
10
31
44
2
15
4
1
18
111
3
40
1
87
2 1
16
137
2
20 6
2
19
5 2
3
8
5
18
22
63
383
7
83 55
28
3
33 15
2
141
8
44
Strongly agree
Disagree
60%
80%
100%
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Strongly disagree
143
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0145.png
Figure 60: Stakeholder breakdown – The cost calculation rules are clear (N= 1563)
The cost calculation rules are clear
Academic/research institution
Business association
94
3
46
2
17
94
29
11
4
12
133
386
9
32
110
94
37
79
10
3
29
2
25
1
37
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
2
Trade union
Other
2
5
12
28
39
1
4
5
11
14
12
6
1
11
1
12
16
10
20%
40
40%
11
12
9
To a great extent
A little
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 61: Stakeholder breakdown – Our organisation's usual accounting practices were
accepted (N= 1570)
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
9
85
5
41
409
16
144
3
131
9
45
51
17
106
2
1
4
13
1
26
16
3
5
3
1
13
93
7
27
46
36
25
1
13
12
21
14
3
2
6
1
1
6
40
10
16
16
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
To a great extent
A little
Somewhat
Not at all
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
144
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0146.png
Figure 62: Stakeholder breakdown – The mechanisms for project monitoring and reporting are
adequate (N= 1565)
The mechanisms for project
monitoring and reporting are adequate
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
100
7
50
329
12
101
2
154
7
46
48
26
2
10
3
1
141
9
60
19
3
3
5
72
11
27
30
1
7
33
13
2
2
1
53
11
20
27
1
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
8
15
5
1
6
10
20%
31
40%
15
7
19
To a great extent
A little
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 63: Stakeholder breakdown – The standard templates facilitate project reporting (N=
1567)
The standard templates facilitate project reporting
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
14
20%
41
40%
21
3
6
8
127
8
58
2
83
16
30
45
2
8
3
1
13
27
5
11
12
2
6
1
382
19
113
52
135 20
4
8
1
54
10
17
16
2
127
4
40
To a great extent
A little
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
145
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0147.png
Figure 64: Stakeholder breakdown – The extension of the single audit principle reduces the
burden on beneficiaries (N= 1561)
The extension of the single audit principle reduces the burden on
beneficiaries
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
120
5
51
2
285
15
102
113 25
11
5
2
245
10
79
1
28 8
26
4
8
4
60
13
19
35
28 1
2
3 1
10
14
2
1
1
72
13
26
29
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
10
20%
31
40%
15
26
To a great extent
A little
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 65: Stakeholder breakdown – The use of lump sum funding reduces the burden on
beneficiaries (N= 1569)
The use of lump sum funding reduces the burden on beneficiaries
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
To a great extent
A little
12
19
5
8
11
1
16
20%
14
40%
7
6
106
7
49
1
46
7
17
26
30
2 2
9
10
7
9
4
3
1
26
11
11
19
19
24
211
5
69
129
7
3
85
48
4
226
10
88
30 17
16
2
74
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
Satisfaction with the types of support
Considering only the responses of those who expressed an opinion or used the specific type of
support, the share of respondents who were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” is above 50% for the
following types of support:
▪
Grants for collaborative projects (80%; 1099)
146
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0148.png
▪
▪
▪
▪
Grants for single beneficiary projects (65%; 592)
Support for networking (57%; 551)
Technical assistance (54%; 447)
Training and expert advice (52%; 450).
Conversely, the types of support with the lowest share of respondents who were “satisfied” or
“very satisfied” are:
▪
▪
▪
Prizes (36%; 169)
Blended finance (grants and equity support) (35%; 151)
Public procurement (34%; 156)
Nonetheless, the types of support with the highest share of respondents who are “dissatisfied”
or “very dissatisfied” are European Partnerships (22%; 204) and EU Missions (24%; 196).
Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that for both European Partnerships and EU
Missions, positive responses (“satisfied” or “very satisfied”) outweigh negative ones
(“dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied”). For European Partnerships, 446 and for EU Missions
325 respondents indicated that they are either satisfied or very satisfied (out of 1 564 and 1 546
total replies respectively). For the European Partnerships the share of “dissatisfied” or “very
dissatisfied” respondents was higher among public authorities (31.6%), NGOs (28.9%) and
academic and research organisations (24.1%) than among companies and business
organisations (9%) or business associations (12%)
216
. Likewise, for the EU Missions the share
of respondents who were “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” was higher among NGOs
(38.2%), academic and research organisations (25%) and public authorities (24.6%) than
among companies and business organisations (13.3%)
217
.
During the event, a participant representing a European industrial association claimed that the
increased size of funding and partnerships, as well as the higher complexity of projects, has not
led to higher efficiency from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe. A better balance between large
projects with a broad value-chain prospective and small projects with a narrower technology
development angle should be found.
216
The results of the analysis broken down by type of respondent are reported in the additional statistics section
further below.
217
The results of the analysis broken down by type of respondent are reported in the additional statistics section
further below.
147
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0149.png
Figure 66. What is your level of satisfaction with the way the European Commission
implements the following types of support under Horizon Europe?
14
Grants for collaborative projects (N=1569)
Grants for single beneficiary projects (N=1557)
Support for networking (N=1554)
Training and expert advice (N=1547)
Technical assistance (N=1563)
Co-funding (e.g., European Partnerships)(N=1564)
EU Missions (N=1546)
Prizes (N=1544)
28
Public procurement (N=1561)
36
Blended finance (grants and equity support)(N=1554)
115
201
128
225
304
205
134
104
387
417
346
304
795
26
198
273
82
26
77
53
105
90
28
141
219
341
235
308
18
63
17
57
32
52
281
147
1075
1106
1118
151
49
717
633
97
26
121
583
687
644
194
64
198
24
100
347
277
736
0%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very dissatisfied
I do not know / I have not used it
Figure 67: Stakeholder breakdown – Grants for collaborative projects (N= 1569)
Grants for collaborative projects
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
149
9
72
2
30
6
12
9
88
17
31
45
2
17
0%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
20%
35
40%
60%
15
1
80%
13
100%
5
12
30
4
4
419
18
138
102 38
9
86
6
2 2
19 7
1
30
1
11
4
1
29
7
14
17
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
Very dissatisfied
I do not know / I have not used it
148
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0150.png
Figure 68: Stakeholder breakdown – Grants for single beneficiary projects (N= 1663)
Grants for single beneficiary projects
Academic/research institution
Business association
1
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
9
32
8
11
47
11
10
5
16
117
7
44
222
3 1
26 19
3
3
28
10
8
3
30
66
12
106
55
15
25
156
282
10
21
10 2
2
40
Trade union
Other
0%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
12
20%
22
40%
12
5
60%
30
80%
100%
Very dissatisfied
I do not know / I have not used it
Figure 69: Stakeholder breakdown – Blended finance (N= 1554)
Blended finance (grants and equity support)
Academic/research institution
15
58
Business association
3
105 17
11
3
4
1
588
27
192
3
28
4
12
10
5
2
1
1
2
9
2
2
4
4
0%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
14
20%
4
1
40%
60%
55
80%
100%
5
9
128
26
46
51
Company/business organisation
5
18
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
4
16
Non-EU citizen
2
32 12
5
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
1
2
Public authority
Trade union
Other
5
Very dissatisfied
I do not know / I have not used it
149
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0151.png
Figure 70: Stakeholder breakdown – Public procurement (N= 1561)
Public procurement
Academic/research institution
17
56
Business association
1
Company/business organisation
3
18
Environmental organisation
5
113 26
10
4
30 9
3
19
2
8
6
13
31
5
7
3 0
5
129
24
39
576
28
204
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
2
10
Trade union
Other
3
5
0%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
15
16
1
4
8
47
1
55
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very dissatisfied
I do not know / I have not used it
Figure 71: Stakeholder breakdown – Prizes (N= 1544)
Prizes
Academic/research institution
15
68
Business association
7
117
4
33
11
545
27
207
3
Company/business organisation
5
9
28 11
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
3
18
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
1
Trade union
Other
2
7
0%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
12
20%
2
9
17
1
5
1
40%
5
27
2
12
2
1
17
2
1
10
4
127
26
41
45
1
53
60%
80%
100%
Very dissatisfied
I do not know / I have not used it
150
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0152.png
Figure 72: Stakeholder breakdown – Co-funding (N= 1565)
Co-funding (e.g., European Partnerships)
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
46
4
24
174
9
57
50
149
9
9
4
3
7
3
2
13
45
11
12
26
12
12
1 3
1
9
2
88
16
27
92
25
3
316
14
120
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
6
20
1
12
11
20%
13
12
6
1
25
21
40%
11
60%
3
24
80%
100%
0%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
I do not know / I have not used it
Figure 73: Stakeholder breakdown – EU Missions (N= 1546)
EU Missions
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
6
10
20%
21
40%
2
4
9
4
7
17
29
4
12
21
44
7
30
1
37
4
3
10
22
2
13
2
60%
30
80%
100%
3
12
2
11
8
130
6
34
9
4
170
4
85
30
21
162
2
91
20
29
26
336
Very dissatisfied
I do not know / I have not used it
TRLs
In the position papers, the comments on the types of support mainly concerned the technology
readiness levels (TRLs) targeted by the calls for proposals. Several universities and research
organisations noticed a tendency in Horizon Europe to fund projects at higher TRLs under
Pillar II. This tendency was seen negatively by most of the respondents, as there is a perceived
gap between the fundamental research funded by the ERC and the very applied and innovation-
oriented calls within Pillar II. In this regard, different research organisations, universities, but
151
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0153.png
also some public authorities recommended combining the thematic calls targeting high TRL
under Pillar II with some calls targeting lower TRL research.
Box 6: Summary of the discussion held in the public event on the balance between low and
high Technology Readiness Levels across Horizon Europe
▪
The discussion reaffirmed the findings of the public consultation and focused primarily
on issues identified in Pillar II.
First of all, participants appreciated the programme's emphasis on addressing the full
TRL spectrum from basic research to market implementation with adequate instruments
and resources.
However, participants from business, academia and research organisations voiced
concerns that the prevalence of calls for high TRL projects, including Research and
Innovation Actions (RIA), acted as a barrier for researchers. This issue was observed
across all clusters and Missions, hampering the ability to build a portfolio of basic
research projects that would nurture future innovation.
Participants emphasized the importance of covering the entire innovation cycle,
including a better coverage of low TRL projects, and the need for structured synergies
with other EU programs to facilitate funding and resource utilization for market uptake
and commercialisation.
Additionally, participants pointed to the importance of maintaining a balance between
low, medium, and high TRL levels, supporting the full range of TRLs, and ensuring
smooth transitions between different programs and pillars. It was noted that TRLs were
often addressed in silos, leading to gaps within the program. Concerns were expressed
because of the gaps between the European Research Council (ERC) and Marie
Skłodowska-Curie Actions and calls for projects in Pillar II. A research organisation
noted that the Pathfinder was considered a good example for integrating in a continuum
the TRL spectrum, but its positioning within Pillar III was questioned.
Concerns were expressed by research organisations about overly prescriptive project
calls in Pillar II, lack of diversity in funding opportunities, and the potential negative
impact on researchers' flexibility and participation.
Another participant, taking into account EU policy that emphasize European
competitiveness and strategy autonomy, highlighted the importance of focusing on mid-
level TRLs to facilitate the deployment of pilots, testing, demonstrators, and scale-ups.
At the same time, stakeholders acknowledged the significant progress made by Horizon
Europe in integrating transdisciplinary approaches within clusters, which was positively
received.
Finally, some stakeholders from research organisations emphasised the limitations of the
TRL concept for SSH advocating for more consideration of societal readiness in addition
to technical aspects.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
In their position papers, the respondents explained their concerns about the implementation of
the EU Missions and the European Partnerships, summarised respectively in Box 5 and Box 6.
152
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0154.png
Effort to participate in Horizon Europe
66% (1 037) of respondents maintained that “the effort to participate in Horizon Europe
compared to Horizon 2020” was “similar”. According to 16% (246) of respondents it was
greater and for 7% (113) it was lower. A relatively larger share of respondents from Associated
Countries and Third Countries indicated that the effort was “greater” than from EU14 or EU13.
Among the different types of respondents, the effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe
was perceived as “greater” both compared to Horizon 2020 and to other programmes especially
by academic and research institutions.
218
The effort to participate in Horizon Europe was
usually deemed greater (36%; 574) or similar (34%; 533) to other research and innovation
programmes. Only 8% (123) of respondents thought it was lower.
Although many respondents acknowledged the simplification efforts put in Horizon Europe
219
,
the participation in Horizon Europe was still considered too burdensome and the position
papers pointed out some room for improvement
220
. A few papers have highlighted the
additional requirements linked to the cross-cutting issues (e.g., the Gender Equality Plan),
which have further increased the costs of proposal preparation.
Figure 74: The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe compared to Horizon 2020 and
other similar international programmes was:
The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe
compared to Horizon 2020 was…(N=1581)
246
1037
113 185
The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe
compared to that of other similar international research and
innovation programmes was…(N=1575)
574
533
123
345
0%
Greater
Similar
Lower
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I do not know / No opinion
218
The results of the analysis differentiating by type of respondent and by geographical area are reported in Table 27,
Table 28, Table 29 and Table 30 - additional statistics.
219
For example through the Funding & Tender portal, the standard template for proposal preparation, the introduction
of simplified financing (e.g., lump sum), simplified procedures for Grant Agreement preparation and reporting.
220
50 position papers discussed issues related to the costs of participation, simplification efforts and administrative
burden. The main messages are in line with the ones presented in the previous sections on proposal preparation
and project implementation.
153
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0155.png
Figure 75: Breakdown by country – Effort to participate compared to Horizon 2020 (N= 1581)
The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe compared to Horizon
2020 is:
Third countries
Associated countries
EU13
EU14
0%
19
15
25
187
10%
20%
30%
40%
66
49
109
813
50%
60%
70%
80%
5
8
19
81
16
10
24
135
90%
100%
Greater
Similar
Lower
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 76: Stakeholder breakdown – Effort to participate compared to Horizon 2020 (N= 1581)
The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe compared to Horizon 2020 is:
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Greater
15
10%
20%
Lower
30%
40%
6
12
1
54
50%
60%
70%
80%
32
6
16
44
54
1
5
7
131
5
37
1
164
1
119
7
5
5
11
556
28
32
1
32
6
11
14
45
3
35
77
2
90% 100%
Similar
I do not know / No opinion
154
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0156.png
Figure 77: Breakdown by country – Effort to participate compared to other programmes (N=
1575)
The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe compared to that of
other similar international research and innovation programmes was:
Third countries
Associated countries
EU13
EU14
0%
10%
41
30
60
443
20%
Similar
30%
40%
40
32
65
396
50%
60%
5
7
12
99
70%
80%
21
14
36
274
90%
100%
Greater
Lower
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 78: Stakeholder breakdown – Effort to participate compared to other programmes
(N= 1575)
The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe compared to that of other
similar international research and innovation programmes was:
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Greater
20
10%
Similar
20%
Lower
30%
10
20
25
1
27
40%
50%
4
60%
70%
15
23
74
336
13
99
12
285
5
32
59
123
8
65
1
74
55
17
7
3
2
12
1
23
32
1
31
80%
90%
100%
53
7
I do not know / No opinion
155
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0157.png
Costs of proposal preparation
A majority (52%; 744) of the respondents declared that their “proposal preparation for Horizon
Europe” took overall less than 50 days, 34% (483) more than 50 but less than 100 days and
15% (213) more than 100 days.
221
Figure 79: Approximately, how much time did the proposal preparation for Horizon Europe
take overall? Please indicate the total number of person-days. (N= 1 663)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
15%
34%
52%
0
Less than 50 person-days
Between 50 and 99
person-days
More than 100 person-
days
Figure 80: Breakdown by country group – Total number of person-days (N= 1663)
Approximately, how much time did the proposal preparation for Horizon
Europe take overall? Please indicate the total number of person-days.
Third Countries
5
9
16
8
18
8
5
23
EU Associated Countries
2
8
13
11
14
6
11
12
EU13
6
13
18
21
26
23
24
35
EU14
20 80
0%
10%
166
20%
129
30%
175
40%
50%
162
60%
162
70%
80%
211
90%
100%
Less than 10 person-days
More than 100 person-days
More than 30 but below 40 person-days
More than 50 but below 60 person-days
More than 10 but below 20 person-days
More than 20 but below 30 person-days
More than 40 but below 50 person-days
More than 60 but below 100 person
221
The results of the analysis differentiating by country group and type of respondent and by geographical area are
reported in Table 31 and Table 32 - additional statistics.
156
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0158.png
Figure 81: Stakeholder breakdown – Number of person-days (N= 1663)
Approximately, how much time did the proposal preparation for Horizon
Europe take overall? Please indicate the total number of person-days.
Academic/research institution
11
33
119
75
121
Business association
1
2
5
3
Company/business organisation
10
32
40
35
Environmental organisation
1
EU citizen
4
9
24
18
28
Non-EU citizen
3
4
2
6
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
7
6
11
Public authority
4
12
6
8
Trade union
Other
10
11
13
0%
Less than 10 person-days
More than 100 person-days
More than 30 but below 40 person-days
More than 50 but below 60 person-days
10%
20%
30%
40%
97
9
45
39
9
4
11
8
7
13
60%
70%
8
5
116
5
29
1
31
23
1 1
3
11
11
9
80%
90%
7
100%
183
3
27
4
38
2
6
50%
More than 10 but below 20 person-days
More than 20 but below 30 person-days
More than 40 but below 50 person-days
More than 60 but below 100 person
Managing participation in Horizon Europe
The consultation also asked participants about the “time spent managing participation”. The
analysis of responses cannot be conclusive because there is great variability in the responses in
terms of who provided information or not, which programme parts the respondents were linked
to and their specific role in the projects.
222
The chart below shows the information provided on “average number of person-days spent
during the entire project”, by project duration.
222
For example, among projects with a duration of 36 months, the estimates range from 5 person-days to 750 person-
days.
157
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0159.png
Figure 82: Approximately, how much time does your project spend on managing participation
in Horizon Europe? Total number of person-days spent overall on managing participation.
Average estimate of person-days by project duration (N= 188)
250
200
156
150
100
50
0
Duration: 12 months Duration: 24 months Duration: 36 months Duration: 48 months
(N=24)
(N=14)
(N=101)
(N=49)
68
120
213
The answers to the open question “Approximately, how much time does your project spend on
managing participation in Horizon Europe?” can only be interpreted with caution because of
the following:
▪
342 responses could not be processed because respondents did not provide the required
information: they could not provide an estimate or when they did it was not in the required
format.
Comparability is difficult because respondents interpreted the question in different ways
(e.g., some respondents included in the estimate the time spent for the internal project
coordination, others provided an estimate of the time that it took for the whole project
activities).
The resources spent on managing participation largely depended on the type of action (i.e.,
Research & Innovation Action or Coordination and Support Action) or the role of the
respondent in the project (i.e., coordinator or partner), and the project size.
▪
▪
Suggestions on how administrative burden for applicants and participants can be further
reduced are related to simplifying the application and submission process (including the
process to amend the proposal), reducing the reporting requirements, increasing flexibility in
accepting different time management measurements as well as accounting practices, creating
a simplified contractual framework and reduced models for calculating costs and accounting,
implementing two-staged application processes to reduce the burden of the application, and
eliminating the repeating parts in the project proposal templates.
223
Progress towards achieving Horizon Europe objectives
Assessing the achievement of Horizon Europe objectives
The majority of respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that “Horizon Europe was on track
to deliver” its objectives.
223
830 respondents answered the open question “How can the administrative burden for applicants and participants
be further reduced (regarding application process, reporting requirements, cost calculation etc.)?”
158
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0160.png
Figure 83: To what extent do you agree that Horizon Europe is on track to deliver on the
following objectives
45
Develop, promote and advance scientific excellence (N=1566)
468
833
130
22
68
Support the creation and diffusion of high-quality fundamental or
applied knowledge, skills, technologies and innovations (N=1558)
Support training and mobility of researchers and attract talents
(N=1556)
Facilitate technological development, demonstration and
knowledge and technology transfer (N=1551)
Strengthen the impact of R&I in developing, supporting and
implementing Union policies (N=1549)
Strengthen and increase the impact and attractiveness of the
European Research Area (N=1552)
Foster all forms of innovation, including breakthrough innovation
and social innovation (N=1552)
Support the access to and uptake of innovative solutions in
European industry and in society to address global challenges,
including climate change and the SDGs (N=1552)
401
828
59 21
168
81
43 13
170
170
74
420
740
12
173
323
748
221
297
762
233
14
59 184
10
310
725
234
70
32
203
249
687
292
106
17
186
250
678
282
90
22
235
Strengthen deployment and exploitation of innovative solutions
(N=1546)
Fostering excellence based participation from all Member States,
including low R&I performing countries (N= 1547)
257
668
313
86
33
200
250
622
292
110
240
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
159
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0161.png
Figure 84: Stakeholder breakdown – Develop, promote and advance scientific excellence
(N= 1566)
Objectives: Develop, promote and advance scientific excellence
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
17
19
1
27
0%
Strongly agree
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
42
60%
70%
80%
45
1
5
90%
7
100%
56
17
35
7
250
10
73
3
96
13
8
2
1
20
7
7
6
1 2
2 2
10
423
23
152
60 32
14
24
3
2
25 2 15
Public authority
Trade union
Other
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 85: Stakeholder breakdown – Support the creation and diffusion of high-quality
fundamental or applied knowledge, skills, technologies and innovations (N= 1558)
Objectives: Support the creation and diffusion of high-quality fundamental or
applied knowledge, skills, technologies and innovations
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
46
12
13
17
35
43
2
209
10
70
141
3
100
17
3
12
5
1
1
1
24
9
5
7
2
7
10
2
418
25
34
85
38
14
35
1 2
6 13
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
25
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
44
60%
70%
80%
7
5
90% 100%
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
160
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0162.png
Figure 86: Stakeholder breakdown – Support training and mobility of researchers and attract
talents (N= 1556)
Objectives: Support training and mobility of researchers and attract talents
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
19
15
21
1
36
6
44
1
60
14
28
39
1
10
1
14
84
13
8
9
109
242
22
45
2
20
2
2
1
7
4
16
4
10
15
407
2
9
74 24
8
42
8
58
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
10%
Agree
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Strongly disagree
Figure 87: Stakeholder breakdown – Strengthen the impact of R&I in developing, supporting
and implementing Union policies (N=1549)
Objectives: Strengthen the impact of R&I in developing, supporting and implementing
Union policies
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
18
10%
Agree
Strongly disagree
20%
30%
40%
30
6
11
17
1
37
50%
60%
70%
36
90
16
37
15
1
13
80%
1
1
90%
9
100%
58
147
11
135
3
31
6
9
1
2
13
15
5
19
4
5
388
19
32
122
35
7
4
4
1
1
36
95
3
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
161
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0163.png
Figure 88: Stakeholder breakdown – Support access to and uptake of innovative solutions in
European industry and in society to address global challenges including climate change and
the SDGs (N= 1552)
Objectives: Support the access to and uptake of innovative solutions in European
industry and in society to address global challenges, including climate change and the
SDGs
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
13
10%
Agree
Strongly disagree
20%
30%
4
11
1
36
40%
50%
60%
29
10
33
33
16
76
13
13
4
1
1
18
70%
80%
3
1
9
122
9
332
21
147
51
9
2
3
132
3
52
131
3
40
41
13
1
28
12
5
5
3
1
30
4
10
18
90% 100%
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 89: Stakeholder breakdown – Foster all forms of innovation including breakthrough
innovation and social innovation (N= 1552)
Objectives: Foster all forms of innovation, including breakthrough innovation and
social innovation
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
15
10%
Agree
Strongly disagree
20%
30%
4
8
1
35
40%
50%
60%
32
7
32
38
126
7
51
1
80
14
12
16
1
19
70%
80%
4
2
6
90% 100%
333
22
131
1
42
8
8
5
1
154
1
38
1
11
9
1
1
16
16
3
7
62
13
107
3
1
4
12
5
26
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
162
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0164.png
Figure 90: Stakeholder breakdown – Facilitate technological development, demonstration and
knowledge and technology transfer (N= 1551)
Objectives: Facilitate technological development, demonstration and knowledge and
technology transfer
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
17
10%
20%
30%
40%
8
10
1
43
50%
60%
70%
37
10
32
39
13
155
12
74
366
18
142
128
2
40
4
3
26
99
1
2
10
1
13
2
93
13
9
23
5
4
3
1
1
1
13
4
1
11
17
20
4
15
80%
1 5
90%
100%
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 91: Stakeholder breakdown – Strengthen deployment and exploitation of innovative
solutions (N= 1546)
Objectives: Strengthen deployment and exploitation of innovative solutions
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
14
10%
Agree
Strongly disagree
20%
30%
3
13
1
36
40%
50%
60%
32
9
30
28
22
1
19
70%
80%
3
1
7
90% 100%
117
9
60
1
78
11
18
4
1
337
16
130
2
34
7
15
6
1
4
25
5
9
16
163
5
45
42
9
5
119
1
2
13
3
15
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
163
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0165.png
Figure 92: Stakeholder breakdown – Strengthen and increase impact and attractiveness of the
European Research Area (N= 1552)
Objectives: Strengthen and increase the impact and attractiveness of the European
Research Area
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
4
46
2
44
10
7
18
1
9
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
10%
Agree
Strongly disagree
20%
36
30%
40%
50%
60%
15
70%
37
36
14
1
4
80%
16
90%
100%
85
18
9
3
32
172
13
113
385
6
40
116
15
13
1
9 3
17
2
5
13
3
5
54
36 7
78
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
164
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0166.png
Figure 93: Stakeholder breakdown – Fostering excellence-based participation from all Member
States, including low R&I performing countries (N= 1547)
Objectives: Fostering excellence-based participation from all Member States, including
low R&I performing countries
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
4
39
1
26
10
4
11
1
10
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
10%
20%
33
30%
40%
50%
60%
19
70%
28
25
90
11
9
23
146
300
20
113
154
4
47
2
30
6
10
7
1
5
1
80%
12
90%
100%
1
15
2
11
17
7
21
4
2
10
4
59
20
8
51
114
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Cross-cutting issues
Please find below additional breakdowns regarding the cross-cutting objectives of Horizon
Europe, along with aspects highlighted in the position papers.
International cooperation
35 position papers discussed international cooperation. They pointed to the benefits of
international collaboration for EU research and innovation because it allows access to more
talents, resources and knowledge. Stakeholders also considered that the non-association of
Switzerland and the UK, and uncertainty about the status of non-EU countries, has thus far
limited the ability of consortia to work with international partners.
165
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0167.png
Figure 94: Stakeholder breakdown – Improved cooperation with partners from other countries
within the EU and beyond (N= 1597)
Improved cooperation with partners from other countries (within the EU and beyond)
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
607
28
200
127
3
24
51
76
2
66
70%
80%
90%
100%
Gender equality
Figure 95: Stakeholder breakdown – Gender equality provisions bear potential to promote
gender equality across R&I organisations and activities (N= 1581)
The strengthened gender equality provisions bear potential to promote gender
equality across R&I organisations and activities
Academic/research institution
116
1
38
11
70
2
33
7
4
15
1
16
0%
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
10%
20%
30%
31
40%
50%
60%
16
70%
27
36
65
15
14
37
10
15
5
1
4
15
1
1
9
90%
9
100%
3
1
320
10
59
178
1
2
8
32
1
34
7
15
15
36
75
13
63
84
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
80%
Agree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
16 position papers discussed the gender cross-cutting issue. Stakeholders welcomed the
introduction of the Gender Equality Plan (GEP) as an important step for addressing gender
inequalities, whereas they remained more sceptical about the requirement to complete the
Researcher Table. Stakeholders also considered that without post-award monitoring, there is
no guarantee that the GEP and the Researcher Table translate in concrete actions.
Open science
21 position papers discussed open science. Open science received strong support from research
organisations. However, they also considered that to fully achieve the objectives of Open
166
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0168.png
Science, more guidance and dedicated resources are needed, along with progress within
national policy frameworks.
Figure 96: Stakeholder breakdown – Implementation of an open science policy (N= 1566)
Implementation of an open science policy
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Somewhat
Not at all
28
20%
40%
29
1
31
77
7
61
2
60
314
12
79
294
6
38
5
13
11
1
15 9
8
25
75 36
25
56
2
61
6
17
30
31
12
22
8 2
1
4 4
2
2 1
1
2
4 1
1
6
15
13
To a great extent
A little
60%
80%
100%
Does not make a difference
I do not know / No opinion
Social Sciences and Humanities
36 position papers discussed social sciences and humanities (SSH) in Horizon Europe.
Stakeholders acknowledged the progress made in integrating SSH expertise into Horizon
Europe, in particular through a dedicated cluster in Pillar II, but they also raised concerns about
the lack of systematic involvement of SSH researchers upstream in work programme and call
preparation across all clusters. Stakeholders considered that SSH research involvement was an
important, yet not fully exploited, driver of interdisciplinarity across the various intervention
areas of Horizon Europe. A number of position papers by research organisations also
emphasised that SSH researchers found it challenging to identify funding opportunities and
blamed what they considered the overly prescriptive nature of the work programmes, the
application of the TRL scale, and the insufficient SSH expertise in evaluators and evaluation
panels.
Widening
19 position papers (all from academia and public authorities) discussed widening issues.
Stakeholders emphasised the significance of continued support for widening actions in Horizon
Europe. They highlighted the success of instruments such as Teaming for Excellence, ERA
Chair, and Twinning, while they pointed to some issues in the new Hop-On scheme
(implementation and partner selection). Stakeholders also considered that the reasons for low
engagement from widening countries appeared to be largely systemic. They advocated to
leverage budget from other EU programmes like the European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF) and NextGeneration EU to structurally invest in R&I and reduce territorial unbalances.
According to the stakeholders participating in the public event, the integration of cross-cutting
and horizontal aspects (e.g., SSH disciplines, gender issues, multi-actor approach) is highly
positive and beneficial for the research projects, in line with the Responsible Research &
167
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0169.png
Innovation (RRI) principles, which are fundamental for the value of scientific results. However,
some applicants claim that the call for proposals’ text is not always clear on how those cross-
cutting aspects should be integrated in the research activities. This may lead to increased time
for the preparation of the proposal and a “just-tick-the-box” effect.
Effectiveness of the EU Missions and European Partnerships
Participants in the public event considered the long-term objectives and possible synergies
under the EU Missions as very positive aspects that boost innovation possibilities. Missions
are particularly appreciated by public authorities for providing them with scientific inputs to
address local challenges. However, participants from different stakeholder categories (from
business support organisations, National Contact Points and public authorities) recognised that
often targeted stakeholders do not have a clear understanding of the EU Missions. For example,
local authorities (typically regions) have little information about the Missions’ calls and
implementation. In general, the involvement of stakeholders from different fields of activities
and levels of governance was considered a key aspect to be improved.
After excluding the responses of those who selected “I do not know”, respectively 52% (461)
and 50% (485) of respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that “the implementation so far
of EU Missions is on track to deliver on their objectives” for the EU Missions on “Climate-
neutral and smart cities” and “Adaptation to climate change”. For the other EU Missions this
percentage was between 40% (A Soil Deal for Europe; 257) and 45% (Prevention, cure and
solutions for cancer; 312). The share of respondents who “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed”
ranged between 18% (Prevention, cure and solutions for cancer; 122) and 25% (Restoring
healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters; 190).
Figure 97: To what extent do you agree that the implementation so far of EU Missions is on
track to deliver on their objectives?
55
Adaptation to climate change (N=1547)
Climate-neutral and smart cities (N=1541)
Restoring healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters
(N=1545)
Prevention, cure and solutions for cancer (N=1541)
126
120
88
87
359
341
239
225
247
257
249
265
246
142
38
84
40
100
165
52
136
48
577
646
781
850
888
A Soil Deal for Europe (N=1534)
60
197
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / no opinion
168
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0170.png
Figure 98: Stakeholder breakdown - Adaptation to climate change (N= 1547)
EU Missions results: Adaptation to climate change
Academic/research institution
Business association
60
2
30
1
14
5
3
7
12
24
1
6
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
10%
Agree
Strongly disagree
19
20%
30%
22
40%
50%
10
60%
2
70%
80%
47
6
11
14
30
4
1
9
4
4
1
1
22
90% 100%
8
58
184
134
10
39
1
21
13
17
23
34
91
2
26
5
30
292
16
108
1
63
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 99: Stakeholder breakdown - Mission Cancer (N= 1541)
EU Missions results: Prevention, cure and solutions for cancer
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
13
3
41
7
14
11
14
3
35
1
1
5
1
4
1
2
4
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
8
18
8
1
42
50
3
8
21
128
4
33
2
9
4
3
9
8
18
36
45
83
136
46
22
29
189
403
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
1
6
Public authority
Trade union
Other
9
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
169
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0171.png
Figure 100: Stakeholder breakdown – Mission Oceans (N= 1541)
EU Missions results: Restoring healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
1
Public authority
Trade union
Other
4
0%
8
18
11
5
8
5
6
13
48
1
17
5
31
1
45
2
13
20
5
30
1
11
2
1
2
2
38
2
19
12
20
29
42
129
4
26
131
1
21
3
75
28
27
167
2
77
377
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 101: Stakeholder breakdown – Mission cities (N= 1541)
EU Missions results: Climate-neutral and smart cities
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
9
12
2
5
9
5
11
28
1
22
13
1
65
1
25
9
49
1
54
7
12
27
3
9
16
3
3
1
1
24
170
121
8
35
71
29
2
17
7
1
20
11
18
25
30
332
18
130
1
68
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
170
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0172.png
Figure 102: Stakeholder breakdown – Mission Soil (N= 1534)
EU Missions results: A Soil Deal for Europe
Academic/research institution
Business association
35
1
4
117
3
25
1
1
133
57
22
29
195
2
423
Company/business organisation
5
21
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
8
4
26
12
3
32
6
15
13
2 1
4
19
3
9
100
19
35
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
1
4
Public authority
Trade union
4
12
3
1
2
44
Other
3
0%
7
10%
20%
20
30%
40%
9
1
50%
60%
70%
39
80%
90%
100%
Strongly agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Box 7: Specific comments on the EU Missions
43 position papers included comments on the EU Missions.
Whilst several stakeholders embraced the concept of the EU Missions, they pointed out some
implementation issues, which may jeopardise the achievement of their objectives. In
addition, some have noticed that the EU Missions were at an early stage and their added
value could hardly be evaluated yet. The key messages from the position papers and the
discussion during the public event are the following:
▪
The governance of the EU Missions is unclear to several stakeholders and is not
considered suitable to ensure that the funded projects deliver on the strategic objectives.
This was concern was raised also during the event. Different stakeholders (from
academia, National Contact Points, business support organisations, public research
promotion agencies) perceived the overall functioning of Missions as unclear, and
recommendations were made to communicate more effectively on that. The EC should
develop specific communication channels for stakeholders and provide better
communication on the entire Missions’ portfolio.
There is a risk of dispersion of resources as every Mission has multiple priorities and
expected outcomes are very broad. To be fully efficient, some stakeholders participating
in the event suggested a better portfolio management by the EC to ensure more ambitious
impacts and avoid overlaps between Missions.
There is little coordination with national initiatives. In this regard, some event
participants questioned the fact that Missions are exclusively funded through Horizon
Europe, not through other funds. They called for more synergies with both other EU
funding sources, such as ERDF funds, and national funding sources.
▪
▪
171
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0173.png
▪
National and local stakeholders struggle to find an entry point to contribute to the
Missions. During the event, different stakeholders called for the simplification of
participation and implementation rules, as Missions are currently perceived as complex,
making it difficult to attract a variety of actors.
According to stakeholders from industry, the EU Mission calls have a too narrow scope
and do not focus enough on technology development. These aspects limit the possibility
for the industry to participate.
According to research organisations and academia, the EU Missions should focus more
on research and development activities. In their opinion, these are currently too focused
on piloting and deployment of solutions.
Participation from research actors was perceived as low due to the lack of opportunities
for collaborative research within the EU Missions. Participants from academia confirmed
this opinion in the event.
The link between the EU Missions’ calls and the calls published in the Pillar II clusters
is unclear. There is a risk of duplication with other parts of Horizon Europe (e.g.,
European Partnerships). This issue was raised also during the public event by
stakeholders from academia. At the same time, synergies between the Missions and Pillar
II are limited due to different timeline and topics. A participant working in the airspace
industry recommended to align the topics of the Missions and those in Pillar II to boost
synergies.
There are concerns over the introduction of new EU Missions at this stage.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
The consultation asked the respondents their opinion about the rationalisation of the European
Partnerships from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe. After excluding the responses of those
who selected “I do not know”, 53% (472) of respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that
“the rationalisation of European Partnerships had allowed additional public and private
investments in research and innovation to be leveraged”. In comparison, 31% “neither agreed
or disagreed”, and 17% “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed”. In addition, 49% (435) “agreed”
or “strongly agreed” that “the rationalisation of European Partnerships [has] led to delivering
more solutions for the benefits of society, the environment and the economy”, while 16%
“disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” and around a third of respondents (34%) “neither agreed
or disagreed”.
Similarly, event participants agreed that partnerships are effective instruments for combining
national and EU funds for research and innovation (R&I) and enhance research and
dissemination in Europe. Industrial partners, particularly a participant from the aerospace and
defence sector, strongly appreciated the fact that partnerships provide a long-term perspective
for industry and enable reaching high TRLs.
While the simplification process from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe was generally
appreciated by stakeholders, some event participants called for further simplification,
harmonization and greater synergies between the different types of Partnerships. Conversely,
representatives from the industry underlined the importance of flexibility and of leaving room
for each partnership to decide its own procedures (considering that a Single Act is already in
force).
172
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0174.png
Figure 103. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
33
108
364
279
114
654
The rationalisation of European Partnerships has allowed
additional public and private investments in research and
innovation to be leveraged (N=1552)
46
The rationalisation of European Partnerships has led to delivering
more solutions for the benefits of society, the environment and
102
the economy (N=1546)
333
306
100
659
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I do not know / No opinion
After excluding the responses of those who selected “I do not know”, respectively 57% (491)
and 71% (694) of respondents maintained that EU Missions and European Partnerships were
“somewhat” or “to a great extent” “more effective compared to regular collaborative research”.
Respondents from businesses and business associations valued the partnership approach more
than those from other groups.
224
As a matter of fact, some research organisations participating
in the event stated that collaborative research should remain the bulk of the programme.
Figure 104: The rationalisation of European Partnerships has allowed additional public and
private investments in research and innovation to be leveraged (N= 1552)
The rationalisation of European Partnerships has allowed additional public and
private investments in research and innovation to be leveraged
Trade union
0
Public authority
Other
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Non-EU citizen
EU citizen
9
32
3
42
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
181
3
3
7
9
13
5
46
1
67
13
134
0
45
6
61 13
14 4
4
1
362
5
32
24
15
13
2 1
13 9
2
105
10
16
25
8
0
18
79
2
7 2
5 3
27
27
24
0
Environmental organisation
0
Company/business organisation
Business association
Academic/research institution
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Agree
Strongly disagree
224
The results of the analysis differentiating by type of respondent are reported in Table 33 and Table 34 – additional
statistics..
173
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0175.png
Figure 105: The rationalisation of European Partnerships has led to delivering more solutions
for the benefits of society, the environment and the economy (N= 1546)
The rationalisation of European Partnerships has led to delivering more solutions for
the benefits of society, the environment and the economy
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
0
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
Strongly agree
Disagree
7
10%
13
20%
30%
2
11
4
12
31
4
9
28
1
37
6
61
0
40
6
9
11
10
2
1
3
185
9
49
135
59
21
11
10
5
2
87
17
29
1
1
113
348
10
6
17
1
26
0
30
40%
50%
5
1
1
3
4
60%
70%
28
24
80%
90%
100%
Agree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 106: In your opinion, to what extent are European Partnerships and EU Missions
supported by Horizon Europe effective compared to regular collaborative research projects in
achieving Horizon Europe’s objectives?
European Partnerships more effective compared to regular
collaborative research (1543)
EU Missions more effective compared to regular collaborative
research (N=1534)
53
360
334
142 87
567
190
0%
301
161 101
102
679
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A little
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
To a great extent
Somewhat
Neutral
174
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0176.png
Figure 107: Additional breakdown - European Partnerships (N=1543)
In your opinion, to what extent are European Partnerships and EU Missions
supported by Horizon Europe effective compared to regular collaborative
research projects in achieving Horizon Europe’s objectives?: European
Partnerships
Trade union
2
18
26
12
12
28
1
45
13
4
23
1
20
18
6
1
2
5 12
0
9
4 4
7
6 0
3
5 2
25
12
75
1
28
22
0
Public authority
Other
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Non-EU citizen
EU citizen
Environmental organisation
0
Company/business organisation
Business association
Academic/research institution
0%
To a great extent
Somewhat
80
23
159
10%
20%
175
30%
A little
51
18
7 5
7
77
57 27
60%
70%
103
0
10
294
80%
90%
100%
7
40%
50%
Neutral
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 108: Additional breakdown - EU Missions (N= 1534)
In your opinion, to what extent are European Partnerships and EU Missions
supported by Horizon Europe effective compared to regular collaborative
research projects in achieving Horizon Europe’s objectives?: EU Missions
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
To a great extent
Somewhat
12
10%
20%
7
9
22
111
7
47
1
150
7
24
81
4
15
6
1
45
63
2
147
1
334
17
21
8
35
5
10
25
1
21
30%
5
22
1
8
11
12
4
6
11
8
6
50%
60%
7
8
70%
4
1
87
15
28
25
1
25
80%
90%
100%
40%
Neutral
A little
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
Box 8: Specific comments on the European Partnerships
49 position papers included comments on the European Partnerships.
The key messages
from the position papers and the discussion during the public event are the following:
175
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0177.png
▪
Partnerships were considered by different types of actors (academia, research and
technology organisations, businesses, public authorities) a key instrument to ensure a
quick transfer from knowledge into application and innovation. Businesses highly
appreciated partnerships as a means to support the European industrial policy.
Whilst in general the streamlining of partnerships under Horizon Europe was seen
positively, some respondents (especially research organisations) maintained that the
partnerships have remained fragmented and overly complicated, discouraging
newcomers from joining. Concerns on the difficulty in accessing relevant information on
the opportunities available, the applicable rules and the reporting requirements were
raised also by some event participants from different stakeholder categories (i.e.,
industry, National Contact Point, research organisation).
There have been implementation issues and delays at the start of the activities.
There seems to be a lack of clarity on the governance structures and on the synergies and
complementarities with other European and national instruments (including EU
Missions). Representatives from regional public administrations and academia
participating in the event underlined the difficulties in being involved in the
institutionalised partnerships’ activities while not being involved in its governance. This
contradiction makes it difficult to create synergies between the Partnerships’ activities
and other R&I actions funded at local / regional / national level. Similarly, some
stakeholders from national research promotion agencies observed that there should be
better coordination efforts to ensure availability of matching funds from national sources.
According to some academic and research actors, the conditions of participation of some
partnerships have not been transparent. In particular, the rules for participation of
research performing organisations raised concerns since organisations that participate in
the governing structure of the partnership have been excluded from the calls for
proposals.
Deterring factors to participation: the applicable rules for private partners and public
bodies, as well as the cost reporting requirements, have been identified as a deterring
factor to participation, especially from academic stakeholders. According to an industry
stakeholder, the request to commit on a certain funding level from the beginning as a pre-
requisite to participation can disincentivize companies from joining.
Centralised / decentralised management of the Partnerships: some participants from
research organisations suggested to centralize the Partnerships management, either by
the EC or by an Executive Agency to ensure better a more consistent management and
to avoid duplicating governing structures. Conversely, industry stakeholders urged to
avoid an excessive involvement of the EC and allow flexibility, considering the amount
of funding committed by the private sector.
Level of knowledge and experience of policy officers managing the partnerships:
participants from different stakeholder categories (i.e., National Contact Point, research
organisations, academia) pointed out the need for training for all the actors involved in
managing and implementing partnerships (especially co-funded), including policy
officers.
▪
▪
▪
▪
Other points discussed during the event with stakeholders were the following:
▪
▪
▪
176
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0178.png
Impact of exceptional limitations
After excluding the responses of those who selected “I do not know”, the majority (56%; 650)
of respondents stated that their project was not “impacted by the exceptional limitations on
participation in Horizon Europe by non-EU legal entities” or was impacted a little. Only 13%
(151) of respondents indicated that their project was impacted “to a great extent”.
Figure 109. According to you, to what extent is your research or innovation project impacted
by the exceptional limitations on participation in Horizon Europe by non-EU legal entities?
151
353
287
363
362
0%
10%
20%
To a great extent
30%
40%
Somewhat
50%
A little
60%
Not at all
70%
80%
90%
100%
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 110: Additional breakdown - impact of exceptional limitations on participation (N=
1516)
According to you, to what extent is your research or innovation project impacted by the
exceptional limitations on participation in Horizon Europe by non-EU legal entities?
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
To a great extent
12
10%
20%
A little
2
16
5
10
16
1
14
30%
8
40%
Not at all
50%
16
60%
70%
16
10
14
35
78
4
24
6
60
1
28
12
12
2
51
5
14
37
1
26
80%
90%
100%
193
7
54
164
8
73
1
55
10
12
181
12
51
159
Somewhat
I do not know / No opinion
Synergies with other EU programmes
55% (823) of respondents expressed an opinion on the synergies between Horizon Europe and
Erasmus+. Between 13% and 41% of all the respondents expressed an opinion on the synergies
between Horizon Europe and other EU programmes
225
. After removing the responses of those
225
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), LIFE - Programme for Environment and Climate Action, European
Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), Creative Europe Programme, European Social Fund Plus
(ESF+), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Just Transition Mechanism, Recovery and Resilience
177
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0179.png
who selected “I do not know / no opinion”, the majority of respondents selected that “synergies
were exploited” or “fully exploited” with Erasmus+ (63%; 518), Digital Europe Programme
(62%; 838), Euratom Research and Training Programme (62%; 225), EU4Health Programme
(57%; 275), Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) (56%; 237), Programme for Environment and
Climate Action (LIFE) (55%; 339), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (52%;
299).
45 position papers provided comments on the synergies between Horizon Europe and other EU
programmes. Most contributions, from academia, business and public actors, focused on
synergies with structural funds (ERDF). They concluded that it was too early to assess to what
extent these synergies will be possible, as the operational programmes are not fully approved.
However, they also pointed out that synergies with the ERDF had proved difficult to harness
in the past because financing modalities were different or incompatible. Stakeholders also
believe that the creation of various new EU programmes in the current MFF period is positive
because they create more opportunities for applying research discoveries (e.g., Innovation
fund). However, at the same time, beneficiaries face a complex EU financing landscape with a
multitude of programmes, each with its own rules for participation. Stakeholders asked for
clearer rules, guidance, and more clarity about the possible pathways between programmes.
Facility, EU4Health Programme, Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), Digital Europe Programme (DEP), Single
Market Programme, InvestEU, Innovation Fund under the Emission Trading Scheme, Union Space Programme,
Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) and the Instrument for Pre-
accession, Assistance (IPA III), Internal Security Fund (ISF), Border Management and Visa Instrument (BMVI),
European Defence Fund, Euratom Research and Training Programme.
178
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0180.png
Figure 111. How do the following EU programmes work in synergy (complement and
reinforce) with Horizon Europe?
144
Erasmus +
101
Digital Europe Programme (DEP)
LIFE - Programme for Environment and Climate Action
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
EU4Health Programme
51
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)
70
186
155
51
Recovery and Resilience Facility
34
Creative Europe Programme
51
European Defence Fund
Union Space Programme
European Social Fund Plus (ESF)+
24
InvestEU
26
Innovation Fund under the Emission Trading Scheme
102
69
73
31
Single Market Programme
92
65
59
22
98
115
86
1227
109
99
76
1191
53
30
106
121
80
1161
130
132
69
125
83
55
1120
1177
151
127
60
1127
156
138
66
1091
126
57
85
55
1074
1129
68
59
68
207
145
60
1027
282
271
240
179
60
226
208
57
68
889
888
930
374
240
65
678
Euratom Research and Training Programme
1248
1189
1230
1249
1250
1263
1308
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF)
19
100
88
63
30
Internal Security Fund (ISF)
76
67
68
19
Just Transition Mechanism
81
85
63
Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation
28
59
74
74
Instrument (NDICI) and the Instrument for Pre-accession…
21
66
Border Management and Visa Instrument (BMVI)
51
52
0%
Synergies fully exploited
No synergies exploited
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Few synergies exploited
Several synergies exploited
I do not know / No opinion
179
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0181.png
Figure 112: Additional breakdown - LIFE (N= 1510)
LIFE - Programme for Environment and Climate Action
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
2
0%
Synergies fully exploited
No synergies exploited
10%
19
20%
30%
3
3
11
9
3
16
14
1
15
40%
1
50%
60%
21
32
141
118
32
447
1
15
7
47
1
26
8
6
33
4
3
21
162
2
7
1
13
6
2
121
21
29
44
1
41
70%
80%
90%
100%
Several synergies exploited
I do not know / No opinion
Few synergies exploited
Figure 113: Additional breakdown - Erasmus+ (N= 1511)
Erasmus +
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
3
18
1
9
23
15
1
20
6
20
18
1
22
81
5
35
1
222
11
18 9
142
41
19
173
2
280
41
9
25
5
5
92
13
31
5
36
1
31
6
3
Public authority
2
Trade union
Other
Synergies fully exploited
No synergies exploited
0%
20%
40%
Several synergies exploited
I do not know / No opinion
60%
80%
100%
Few synergies exploited
180
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0182.png
Figure 114: Additional breakdown - DEP (N= 1511)
Digital Europe Programme (DEP)
Academic/research institution
51
139
7
91 33
6
2
457
22
Business association
1
Company/business organisation
16
44
28 9
3
162
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
16
26
19 5
118
3
4
4
14
10
5
2 1
4
10
6
18
36
33
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
25
2
6
17
16
40
Other
Synergies fully exploited
No synergies exploited
0%
20%
40%
Several synergies exploited
I do not know / No opinion
60%
80%
100%
Few synergies exploited
Exploitation and dissemination of results
Respondents indicated scientific publication(s), workshops or other events, project website and
social media (especially LinkedIn) as the initiatives that mostly helped dissemination,
exploitation and access to research and innovation results. In particular, 68% (1 056) and 62%
(942) of respondents respectively stated that scientific publication(s) and workshops or other
events “helped disseminate, exploit and access research and innovation results” ”to a great
extent”.
13 position papers provided comments on Horizon Europe dissemination and exploitation
initiatives. Stakeholders agreed that increased efforts in knowledge valorisation were key to
ensure greater impacts. They advocated for continued investment, better monitoring and further
awareness raising of dissemination and exploitation activities.
181
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0183.png
Figure 115: To what extent do the following initiatives help disseminate, exploit and access
research and innovation results?
10
Scientific publication(s) (N=1542)
Workshops, events, etc. (N=1525)
Project website (N=1529)
Social media (N=1514)
Open science activities for early sharing of results (N=1525)
CORDIS (N=1524)
Patent filing (N=1515)
Horizon Dashboard (N=1517)
Horizon Results Platform (N=1514)
Horizon Results Booster (N=1520)
IPR Helpdesk (N=1501)
Innovation Radar (N=1512)
Horizon Standardization Booster (N=1515)
Other (N=837)
222
220
165
194
380
324
722
662
535
469
381
446
417
182
143
451
222
189
112
109
449
504
1056
942
501
479
61 110
8
381
70 124
30
130
146
41
155
177
130
56
170
152
68
106
107
60
355
321
463
521
581
681
731
305
145
106
2
53
25
273
225
16
148
100
87
92
741
846
1005
0%
To a great extent
Somewhat
10%
A little
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
182
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0184.png
EC support services for dissemination and exploitation:
Figure 116: Additional breakdown - Horizon Dashboard (N= 1517)
HEurope dissemination: Horizon Dashboard
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
To a great extent
Somewhat
16
32
5
14
31
9
19
33
97
8
42
73
220
13
30
132
61
3
16
265
13
97
1
49
5
2
13
22
4
1
20
2
64
13
24
11
3
20
2
8 1
23
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A little
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 117: Additional breakdown - Horizon Results Booster (N= 1520)
HEurope dissemination: Horizon Results Booster
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
16
5
5
26
10
18
20
1
28
7
2
71
2
30
1
38
4
8
13
20
3
1
5
20
3
32
37
1
27
200
13
58
30
95
5
16
2
83
14
65
346
17
122
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
To a great extent
Somewhat
A little
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
183
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0185.png
Figure 118: Additional breakdown - Horizon Results Platform (N= 1514)
HEurope dissemination: Horizon Results Platform
Academic/research institution
Business association
102
2
41
1
29
12
7
7
22
1
20
0%
To a great extent
Somewhat
30
6 1
21
15
43
3
25
2
19
4
6 1
4
1
23
217
14
65
98
3
33
14
2
70
13
27
31
64
296
16
103
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A little
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 119: Additional breakdown - CORDIS (N= 1524)
HEurope dissemination: CORDIS
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
To a great extent
Somewhat
33
15
22
1
26
8
237
12
264
5
93
41
12
146
79
1
58
16
20
77
25 8
2
69
61
7
6
36
23
4
9
1
22
8 1
1
5
34
6
15
15
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A little
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
184
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0186.png
Figure 120: Additional breakdown - Innovation Radar (N= 1512)
HEurope dissemination: Innovation Radar
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
13
4
8
10
6
11
11
1
17
10 2
73
3
28
1
31
14
5
18
1 3
7 1
8
5
138
8
51
84
11
22 14
2
109
19
41
47
1
38
55
428
23
139
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
To a great extent
Somewhat
A little
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
Figure 121: Additional breakdown - IPR Helpdesk (N= 1501)
HEurope dissemination: IPR Helpdesk
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
17
5
6
27
8
12
16
1
21
5 2
99
4
28
60
1
38
5
7
2
14 16
3
2
37
48
1
35
155
16
27
18
77
65
2 2
118
1
91
16
371
13
8 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
To a great extent
Somewhat
A little
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
185
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0187.png
Figure 122: Horizon Standardization Booster (N= 1515)
HEurope dissemination: Horizon Standardization Booster
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Environmental organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
0%
To a great extent
8
10%
20
20%
A little
30%
31
40%
50%
60%
2
6
16
7
15
9
9
26
11
3
1
1 3
3
2
46
70%
80%
90% 100%
19
3
42
51
46
2
19
114
6
32
49 43
1
17 15
3
114
20
526
28
173
Somewhat
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
Horizon Europe added value
Asked about what would happen to their “research and innovation project(s) without European-
level funding through Horizon Europe”, 45% (669) of respondents maintained that their project
“would not have taken place”, 38% (567) that, likely, it “would have been funded but with
reduced cooperation with partners from other countries” and 35% (519) that it would have been
“funded but with substantial reduction in scope, duration or level of ambition”.
186
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0188.png
Figure 123: What would happen to your research and innovation project(s), without European-
level funding through Horizon Europe? Multiple answers possible. (N=1490)
No funding secured, and would not have taken place at all
Likely funded, at least to some extent, through other sources but
without/ with reduced cooperation with partners from other
countries
Funded (by either a public or private source), but with a substantial
reduction in scope, duration or level of ambition
Likely funded, at least to some extent, through other sources but
with reduced international visibility of research and/or research
team
Likely funded, at least to some extent, through other sources but
without/ with reduced interdisciplinary cooperation
No funding secured (by either a public or private source), but
would have taken place later
Funded by a public source at national or regional level, without any
major changes in scope, duration or level of ambition
Funded by a private source at national or regional level, without
any major changes in scope, duration or level of ambition
45%; 669
38%; 567
35%; 519
27%; 407
21%; 311
18%; 262
11%; 160
5%; 70
Another scenario, please elaborate
4%; 67
Funded by another EU programme, without any major changes in
scope, duration or level of ambition
4%; 57
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
No major differences were observed among the various stakeholder groups.
187
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
Key lessons learned and messages for the future
On budgeting for the future and work programmes
▪
Consider budget increases for the next Framework Programme, especially for those parts
of the Framework Programme in which many excellent proposals could not be funded.
A long-term, stable budget is key for R&I stakeholders. Therefore, avoid reallocating the
Framework Programme budget to other EU priorities.
Consult more extensively and timely when drafting the work programmes.
Improve coordination among EC services when preparing the Work Programmes to ensure
coherence among topics of different Work Programmes.
Improve the integration of social sciences and humanities in the Work Programmes.
Ensure to cover the entire TRL spectrum, addressing the gap between fundamental research
in Pillar I and Innovation Actions in Pillar II - e.g., by introducing more Research and
Innovation Actions targeting medium TRLs in Pillar II.
Ensure a balance between bottom-up and top-down calls for proposals combining different
types of calls in all the Pillars.
Ensure a balance between large and small projects in the different calls for proposals.
Enhance the synergy between clusters in Pillar II by introducing cross-cluster calls of
proposals.
The co-design approach was appreciated and should be continued. Improve the
transparency of the process and streamline consultation practices.
To identify funding priorities, define the goals but leave more room for stakeholders to
define the pathways to achieve those goals.
Ensure that excellent, fundamental and frontier research remain at the centre of Horizon
Europe (especially according to academic actors) and reinforce the support for research
infrastructures.
Ensure that the budget of single Innovation Actions is sufficient to carry out pilot and
demonstration activities.
Introduce new measures to bring research into the market and increase participation from
SMEs via targeted actions.
Continue to support international cooperation by promoting collaborations of national and
European research infrastructures with research infrastructures outside the EU.
Publish the Annotated Model Grant Agreement.
Ensure continuity and stability in the rules of participation.
Further simplify the administrative procedures (e.g., rules to reimburse personnel costs).
Publish clear guidelines to support administrative processes during project implementation.
Monitor the effects of using the lump-sum model and consider for which projects it could
be extended. Provide more guidance on this type of instrument.
188
▪
▪
▪
▪
On intervention modes and types of action
▪
▪
▪
▪
On the identification of funding priorities
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
On the implementation of the programme/projects and procedures
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0190.png
▪
▪
Consolidate and streamline the EU funding programmes and instruments.
Enhance the possibility of exploiting synergies with other EU programmes by clarifying
the mechanisms to access the different programmes and further harmonising the rules and
procedures.
Additional statistics
Calls for proposals – Breakdown by type of respondents
Table 23: To what extent do you agree with the following statements concerning the calls for
proposals under Horizon Europe? Finding the right call for my proposal was easy.
TYPE OF RESPONDENT
N
STRONGL
Y AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER DISAGREE STRONGL
AGREE
Y
NOR
DISAGREE
DISAGREE
29.6%
28.3%
25.7%
27.7%
25.6%
24.8%
23.4%
17.1%
18.1%
26.8%
5.5%
2.2%
5.7%
4.8%
3.7%
I DO NOT
KNOW
/
NO
OPINION
1.7%
0.7%
11.4%
9.6%
4.9%
Academic/research institution
Company/business organisation
EU citizen
Public authority
Other
Non-governmental
(NGO)
Business association
Non-EU citizen
Environmental organisation
Trade union
organisation
807 8.4%
269 10.8%
194 2.9%
83
82
8.4%
11.0%
30.0%
34.6%
37.1%
31.3%
28.0%
65
38
35
3
2
10.8%
7.9%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
29.2%
42.1%
37.1%
33.3%
50.0%
18.5%
13.2%
25.7%
33.3%
0.0%
21.5%
26.3%
17.1%
33.3%
50.0%
4.6%
7.9%
5.7%
0.0%
0.0%
15.4%
2.6%
11.4%
0.0%
0.0%
189
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0191.png
Table 24: To what extent do you agree with the following statements concerning the calls for
proposals under Horizon Europe? There is an adequate mix of calls for proposals addressing
specific topics (top-down) and calls for proposals without a pre-defined topic (bottom-up).
TYPE
OF N
RESPONDENT
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE NEITHER
AGREE
NOR
DISAGREE
28.2%
23.7%
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
I DO NOT
KNOW /
NO
OPINION
8.9%
Academic/research
institution
Company/business
organisation
EU citizen
Public authority
Other
841 6.0%
24.8%
8.4%
277 9.7%
29.6%
19.1%
22.1%
5.2%
14.2%
202 3.1%
87
93
7.1%
8.5%
1.5%
29.7%
28.6%
29.3%
23.1%
24.5%
22.6%
19.5%
29.2%
22.4%
16.7%
23.2%
21.5%
5.7%
7.1%
7.3%
7.7%
14.6%
17.9%
12.2%
16.9%
Non-governmental 72
organisation (NGO)
Business association 49
Non-EU citizen
Environmental
organisation
Trade union
36
4
5.3%
14.3%
0
28.9%
34.3%
0
10.5%
17.1%
0
39.5%
14.3%
33.3%
7.9%
2.9%
0
7.9%
17.1%
66.7%
2
0
50.0%
0
50.0%
0
0
190
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0192.png
Types of support – breakdown by type of respondents
Table 25: What is your level of satisfaction with the way the European Commission
implements the following types of support under Horizon Europe? Co-funding (e.g., European
Partnerships). The number of respondents (N) and the calculation of % exclude the respondents
who selected “I do not know / I have not used it”.
TYPE OF RESPONDENT
N
VERY
SATISFIE
D
9.5%
SATISFIE
D
NEUTRA
L
DISSATISFIE
D
VERY
DISSATISFIE
D
5.1%
Academic/research institution
Business association
48
6
25
14
4
10
2
19
35.8%
30.7%
18.9%
16.0%
16.7%
36.0%
39.6%
36.0%
34.7%
12.0%
6.3%
0
2.8%
Company/business organisation
6.9%
44.1%
25.5%
11.8%
11.8%
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental
(NGO)
Other
Public authority
Trade union
organisation
15.8%
5.3%
57.9%
34.2%
5.3%
31.6%
15.8%
23.7%
5.3%
5.3%
38
58
57
2
20.7%
10.5%
50.0%
19.0%
35.1%
50.0%
36.2%
22.8%
0
19.0%
21.1%
0
5.2%
10.5%
0
191
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0193.png
Table 26: What is your level of satisfaction with the way the European Commission
implements the following types of support under Horizon Europe? EU Missions. The number
of respondents (N) and the calculation of % exclude the respondents who selected “I do not
know / I have not used it”.
TYPE OF RESPONDENT
N
VERY
VERY
SATISFIED NEUTRAL DISSATISFIED
SATISFIED
DISSATISFIED
28.3%
41.2%
30.6%
30.9%
26.7%
20.6%
37.0%
35.3%
34.7%
39.4%
26.7%
35.3%
18.5%
23.5%
0%
11.7%
20.0%
29.4%
6.5%
0%
4.1%
8.5%
0%
8.8%
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
EU citizen
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental
(NGO)
Other
Public authority
Trade union
Environmental organisation
459 9.6%
17
98
94
15
0%
21.4%
9.6%
26.7%
5.9%
organisation 34
52
57
2
1
11.5%
7.0%
0%
0
19.2%
29.8%
0%
100%
40.4%
38.6%
100.0%
0
25.0%
21.1%
0%
0
3.8%
3.5%
0%
0
192
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0194.png
The efforts to participate in Horizon Europe compared to Horizon 2020 – breakdown by
country group
Table 27: The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe compared to Horizon 2020 is:
(EU14 N= 1 216; EU13 N= 177; EU Associated Countries N= 82; Third Countries N= 106)
GREATER
SIMILAR
LOWER
I
DON’T
KNOW
11.1%
13.6%
12.2%
15.1%
EU14
EU13
EU Associated Countries
Third Countries
15.4%
14.1%
18.3%
17.9%
66.9%
61.6%
59.8%
62.3%
6.7%
10.7%
9.8%
4.7%
The efforts to participate in Horizon Europe compared to Horizon 2020 – breakdown by
type of respondents
Table 28: The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe compared to Horizon 2020 is:
TYPE OF RESPONDENT
N
GREATER
SIMILAR
LOWER
I
DON’T
KNOW
9.5%
13.1%
16.5%
16.5%
8.6%
16.7%
5.3%
17.1%
33.3%
0.0%
Academic/research institution
Company/business organisation
EU citizen
Public authority
Other
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Business association
Non-EU citizen
Environmental organisation
Trade union
809
268
194
85
81
66
38
35
3
2
16.2%
13.8%
16.5%
14.1%
18.5%
9.1%
13.2%
17.1%
33.3%
50.0%
68.7%
61.2%
61.3%
63.5%
66.7%
66.7%
73.7%
45.7%
33.3%
50.0%
5.6%
11.9%
5.7%
5.9%
6.2%
7.6%
7.9%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
193
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0195.png
The efforts to participate in Horizon Europe compared to other research and innovation
programmes – breakdown by country group
Table 29: The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe compared to that of other research
and innovation programmes was: (EU14 N= 1 212; EU13 N= 173; EU Associated Countries
N= 83; Third Countries N= 107)
GREATER
EU14
EU13
EU Associated Countries
Third Countries
36.6%
34.7%
36.1%
38.3%
SIMILAR
32.7%
37.6%
38.6%
37.4%
LOWER
8.2%
6.9%
8.4%
4.7%
I DON’T KNOW
22.6%
20.8%
16.9%
19.6%
The efforts to participate in Horizon Europe compared to other research and innovation
programmes – breakdown by type of respondents
Table 30: The effort needed to participate in Horizon Europe compared to that of other research
and innovation programmes was:
TYPE OF RESPONDENT
Academic/research institution
Company/business organisation
EU citizen
Public authority
Other
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Business association
Non-EU citizen
Environmental organisation
Trade union
N
803
38
270
3
194
35
65
82
83
2
GREATER
41.8%
34.2%
27.4%
33.3%
38.1%
28.6%
30.8%
24.4%
30.1%
50.0%
SIMILAR
35.5%
31.6%
36.7%
0.0%
28.4%
48.6%
23.1%
32.9%
27.7%
0.0%
LOWER
7.3%
13.2%
11.9%
0.0%
6.2%
2.9%
10.8%
4.9%
3.6%
0.0%
I DON’T KNOW
15.3%
21.1%
24.1%
66.7%
27.3%
20.0%
35.4%
37.8%
38.6%
50.0%
194
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0196.png
Costs of proposal preparation – breakdown by country group
Table 31: Approximately, how much time did the proposal preparation for Horizon Europe
take overall? Please indicate the total number of person-days. (EU14 N= 1 105; EU13 N= 166;
EU Associated Countries N= 77; Third Countries N= 92)
RESPONSE OPTIONS
EU14
EU13
EU
ASSOCIATED
COUNTRIES
2.6%
10.4%
16.9%
14.3%
18.2%
7.8%
14.3%
15.6%
THIRD
COUNTRIES
Less than 10 person-days
More than 10 but below 20 person-days
More than 20 but below 30 person-days
More than 30 but below 40 person-days
More than 40 but below 50 person-days
More than 50 but below 60 person-days
More than 60 but below 100 person-days
More than 100 person-days
1.8%
7.2%
15.0%
11.7%
15.8%
14.7%
14.7%
19.1%
3.6%
7.8%
10.8%
12.7%
15.7%
13.9%
14.5%
21.1%
5.4%
9.8%
17.4%
8.7%
19.6%
8.7%
5.4%
25.0%
195
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0197.png
Costs of proposal preparation – breakdown by type of respondents
Table 32: Approximately, how much time did the proposal preparation for Horizon Europe
take overall? Please indicate the total number of person-days.
TYPE
OF
10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 100 >100
<10 M/DAYS
RESPONDENT
M/DAYS
M/DAYS
M/DAYS
M/DAYS
M/DAYS
M/DAYS
M/DAYS
Academic/research
institution (N=755)
Company/business
organisation (N=256)
EU citizen (N=176)
Other (N=69)
Public authority (N=64)
1.5%
4.4%
9.9%
16.0%
12.8%
15.4%
24.2%
15.8%
3.9%
12.5%
13.7%
17.6%
11.3%
10.5%
14.8%
15.6%
2.3%
0.0%
6.3%
5.1%
14.5%
18.8%
10.2%
18.8%
12.5%
15.9%
8.7%
17.2%
22.2%
18.8%
10.9%
17.6%
13.0%
7.8%
13.1%
10.1%
17.2%
13.6%
15.9%
9.4%
Non-governmental
organisation
(NGO) 0.0%
(N=55)
Business
(N=32)
association
12.7%
20.0%
7.3%
14.5%
14.5%
20.0%
10.9%
3.1%
6.3%
9.4%
28.1%
15.6%
9.4%
12.5%
15.6%
Non-EU citizen (N=29)
Environmental
organisation (N=2)
Trade union (N=2)
10.3%
13.8%
20.7%
31.0%
3.4%
3.4%
10.3%
6.9%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
196
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0198.png
Effectiveness of the European partnerships and EU Missions supported by Horizon
Europe compared to regular collaborative research – breakdown by type of respondent
Table 33: In your opinion, to what extent are European Partnerships supported by Horizon
Europe effective compared to regular collaborative research projects in achieving Horizon
Europe’s objectives? Breakdown by type of respondent.
TYPE OF RESPONDENT
N
TO
A SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL A LITTLE NOT
GREAT
ALL
EXTENT
20.2%
30.3%
14.9%
21.7%
32.5%
22.2%
19.3%
23.9%
24.1%
22.5%
9.8%
6.8%
12.2%
10.8%
8.8%
7.2%
2.7%
2.7%
4.8%
6.3%
3.4%
1.9%
6.4%
4.8%
2.5%
AT I DON’T
KNOW
Academic/research institution
Company/business organisation
EU citizen
Public authority
Other
Non-governmental
(NGO)
Business association
Non-EU citizen
Environmental organisation
Trade union
organisation
789
264
188
83
80
37.3%
39.0%
39.9%
33.7%
27.5%
62
19.4%
21.0%
9.7%
9.7%
0.0%
40.3%
38
34
3
2
60.5%
35.3%
0.0%
100.0%
18.4%
11.8%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
33.3%
0.0%
2.6%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
18.4%
35.3%
33.3%
0.0%
197
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0199.png
Table 34: In your opinion, to what extent are EU Missions supported by Horizon Europe
effective compared to regular collaborative research projects in achieving Horizon Europe’s
objectives?
TYPE OF RESPONDENT
N
TO
A SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL A LITTLE NOT
GREAT
ALL
EXTENT
14.2%
8.4%
11.2%
11.1%
15.0%
10.9%
0.0%
19.1%
18.0%
18.6%
30.9%
26.3%
15.6%
18.9%
10.3%
9.2%
11.7%
13.6%
10.0%
7.8%
18.9%
5.7%
5.7%
5.9%
8.6%
7.5%
12.5%
10.8%
8.0%
2.3%
6.4%
4.9%
10.0%
9.4%
5.4%
AT I DON’T
KNOW
Academic/research institution
EU citizen
Other
Environmental organisation
Non-EU citizen
Business association
Company/business organisation
Non-governmental
(NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
organisation
784
261
188
81
80
64
37
42.6%
56.3%
46.3%
30.9%
31.3%
43.8%
45.9%
34
23.5%
14.7%
2.9%
11.8%
2.9%
44.1%
3
2
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
33.3%
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
Table 35: To what extent do you agree with the following statement: the rationalisation of
European Partnerships has allowed additional public and private investments in research and
innovation to be leveraged. Breakdown by cluster of interest of the respondent.
226
CLUSTER 1 CLUSTER 2 CLUSTER 3 CLUSTER 4 CLUSTER 5 CLUSTER 6
(N=640)
(N=469)
(N=472)
(N=820)
(N=900)
(N=677)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
6%
24%
19%
9%
2%
5%
25%
19%
8%
2%
7%
23%
20%
10%
2%
9%
26%
20%
9%
2%
9%
24%
21%
9%
2%
6%
24%
19%
10%
2%
226
The same respondent could select one or more clusters.
198
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0200.png
I do not know / No opinion
40%
41%
38%
34%
35%
39%
Table 36: To what extent do you agree with the following statement: the rationalisation of
European Partnerships has led to delivering more solutions for the benefits of society, the
environment and the economy. Breakdown by cluster of interest of the respondent.
227
CLUSTER 1 CLUSTER 2 CLUSTER 3 CLUSTER 4 CLUSTER 5 CLUSTER 6
(N=640)
(N=470)
(N=472)
(N=817)
(N=897)
(N=674)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I do not know / No opinion
6%
19%
23%
8%
4%
41%
6%
21%
21%
6%
4%
42%
6%
20%
23%
8%
4%
38%
8%
22%
24%
7%
4%
36%
8%
23%
23%
7%
3%
36%
6%
23%
22%
8%
3%
38%
Table 37: In your opinion, to what extent are European Partnerships supported by Horizon
Europe effective compared to regular collaborative research projects in achieving Horizon
Europe’s objectives? Breakdown by cluster of interest of the respondent.
228
CLUSTER 1 CLUSTER 2 CLUSTER 3 CLUSTER 4 CLUSTER 5 CLUSTER 6
(N=635)
(N=466)
(N=471)
(N=822)
(N=899)
(N=675)
To a great extent
Somewhat
Neutral
A little
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
18%
25%
11%
7%
5%
34%
18%
27%
9%
8%
5%
33%
21%
26%
9%
8%
4%
32%
27%
24%
10%
6%
4%
30%
26%
25%
10%
7%
4%
29%
21%
24%
12%
8%
5%
31%
227
228
The same respondent could select one or more clusters.
The same respondent could select one or more clusters.
199
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0201.png
Table 38: In your opinion, to what extent are EU Missions supported by Horizon Europe
effective compared to regular collaborative research projects in achieving Horizon Europe’s
objectives? Breakdown by cluster of interest of the respondent.
229
CLUSTER 1 CLUSTER 2 CLUSTER 3 CLUSTER 4 CLUSTER 5 CLUSTER 6
(N=631)
(N=462)
(N=467)
(N=813)
(N=892)
(N=671)
To a great extent
Somewhat
Neutral
A little
Not at all
I do not know / No opinion
12%
20%
13%
9%
9%
37%
12%
23%
11%
9%
10%
36%
11%
19%
12%
9%
12%
38%
11%
21%
11%
8%
9%
39%
12%
24%
12%
7%
8%
37%
14%
20%
14%
8%
9%
35%
229
The same respondent could select one or more clusters.
200
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0202.png
Synergies with other EU programmes
Table 39: How do the following EU programmes work in synergy (complement and reinforce)
Horizon Europe?
ERASMUS +.
Breakdown by part of Horizon Europe in which the
respondent is interested / active.
230
N
SEVERAL SYNERGIES SYNERGIES
EXPLOITED
EXPLOITED
29%
31%
29%
29%
31%
27%
27%
25%
28%
25%
30%
33%
32%
11%
12%
10%
11%
12%
8%
9%
9%
9%
8%
11%
10%
10%
FULLY
European Research Council
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
European Research Infrastructures
CLUSTER 1
CLUSTER 2
CLUSTER 3
CLUSTER 4
CLUSTER 5
CLUSTER 6
European Innovation Council
European Innovation Ecosystems
European Institute of Innovation and Technology
Widening and ERA
615
707
469
614
452
459
795
879
657
510
343
357
480
230
The respondents could select one or more programme parts.
201
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0203.png
Table 40: How do the following EU programmes work in synergy (complement and reinforce)
Horizon Europe?
DIGITAL EUROPE PROGRAMME.
Breakdown by part of Horizon
Europe in which the respondent is interested / active.
231
N
SEVERAL SYNERGIES SYNERGIES
EXPLOITED
EXPLOITED
21%
20%
27%
25%
26%
28%
26%
20%
23%
26%
28%
29%
25%
6%
7%
7%
7%
9%
9%
9%
8%
8%
7%
11%
12%
9%
FULLY
European Research Council
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
European Research Infrastructures
CLUSTER 1
CLUSTER 2
CLUSTER 3
CLUSTER 4
CLUSTER 5
CLUSTER 6
European Innovation Council
European Innovation Ecosystems
European Institute of Innovation and Technology
Widening and ERA
616
708
469
619
454
462
806
884
663
515
345
360
481
231
The respondents could select one or more programme parts.
202
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0204.png
Table 41: How do the following EU programmes work in synergy (complement and reinforce)
Horizon Europe?
LIFE.
Breakdown by part of Horizon Europe in which the respondent is
interested / active.
232
N
SEVERAL SYNERGIES SYNERGIES
EXPLOITED
EXPLOITED
15%
15%
17%
16%
19%
18%
18%
21%
24%
20%
23%
21%
18%
3%
5%
5%
4%
5%
4%
6%
6%
6%
4%
6%
6%
5%
FULLY
European Research Council
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
European Research Infrastructures
CLUSTER 1
CLUSTER 2
CLUSTER 3
CLUSTER 4
CLUSTER 5
CLUSTER 6
European Innovation Council
European Innovation Ecosystems
European Institute of Innovation and Technology
Widening and ERA
617
708
471
619
454
462
802
883
664
514
344
359
477
232
The respondents could select one or more programme parts.
203
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0205.png
Table 42: How do the following EU programmes work in synergy (complement and reinforce)
Horizon Europe?
European Regional Development Fund.
Breakdown by part of Horizon
Europe in which the respondent is interested / active.
233
N
SEVERAL SYNERGIES SYNERGIES
EXPLOITED
EXPLOITED
18%
17%
20%
18%
19%
18%
19%
18%
19%
18%
22%
23%
21%
5%
5%
6%
4%
5%
4%
5%
5%
4%
4%
6%
5%
5%
FULLY
European Research Council
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
European Research Infrastructures
CLUSTER 1
CLUSTER 2
CLUSTER 3
CLUSTER 4
CLUSTER 5
CLUSTER 6
European Innovation Council
European Innovation Ecosystems
European Institute of Innovation and Technology
Widening and ERA
614
705
470
616
453
460
797
880
661
511
344
357
478
233
The respondents could select one or more programme parts.
204
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0206.png
Annex 6 Description of synergies, by programme
The following text provides a summary of synergies found by the evaluation between Horizon
Europe and other EU programmes identified in annex IV of the legal base. It is based on data
collected through 5 impact area evaluation support studies
234
and a meta-analysis
235
.
Among programmes in shared management,
the ERDF
presents a clear case for synergies as
one of its investment priorities focuses on innovation and support to SMEs, as well as
digitisation and digital connectivity”, with the overall objective of fostering regional
development and closing regional disparities.
236
In the
ex post
evaluation of Horizon Europe,
findings on synergies with the ERDF were mixed: this fund’s programmes build human and
infrastructural capacities needed to compete in Horizon 2020 but “measures to create synergies
allowing the ERDF to deploy results of Horizon 2020 projects were hardly implemented”.
237
In the current MFF, synergies with the ERDF focused on:
•
•
the Seal of Excellence (see separate section in the SWD),
combined funding: Teaming, a type of Widening action, has been implemented with EUR
383 million of total EU contribution, and mobilised EUR 217 million from ERDF
programmes for complementary funding,
Table 43: Combined funding through Teaming (ERDF)
Country
PT
PL
CZ
CY
EL
SK
EE
ES70
Canary Islands
(Outermost region)
Overall budget
(EUR)
87,760,000
79,976,317
50,035,742
50,000,000
35,303,140
31,935,000
30,000,000
30,000,000
25,032,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
495,042,199
ERDF
(EUR)
56,900,000
21,600,000
32,390,068
0
22,500,000
18,103,500
0
0
24,552,000
0
15,000,000
12,750,000
12,750,000
0
216,545,568
ERDF %
64.8%
27.0%
64.7%
0.0%
63.7%
56.7%
0.0%
0.0%
98.1%
0.0%
100.0%
85.0%
85.0%
0.0%
43.7%
LT
LV
SI
BG
HR
TR
TOTAL
234
All published in 2024, on Excellent Science:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2295765,
Resilient Europe:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/797281,
Digital
&
Industrial
Transition:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/845650,
Green Transition:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/67934,
Innovative Europe:
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132
235
Catalano G., Consiglio, G. and Delponte L.
Horizon Europe Internal and External Coherence (Synergies):
Supporting the Interim Evaluation of Horizon Europe.
Publications Office of the European Union, 2025,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/5616419
236
237
Funding priorities presented at
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/erdf_en
SWD on the ex post evaluation of Horizon Europe, SWD(2024) 29 final, pp. 77-78.
205
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0207.png
Source:
REA monitoring as of 6 December 2024
•
transfers from ERDF to Horizon Europe - this is a new modality for creating synergies with
the ERDF. As of May 2024, two Member States – Lithuania and Malta – transferred ERDF
funds to Horizon Europe activities, under pillars 1 and 3. Lithuania has requested a transfer
of EUR 18.5 million from EDRF to ERC, MSCA PF and WIDERA (ERA) for 2024 and
2025. In particular, out of a total of EUR 18.5 million, EUR 12.5 million was directed to
the EIC and EUR 6 million to the Excellent Science and WIDERA pillars. Similarly, Malta
has requested a transfer of EUR 5 million to Horizon Europe for the period 2023-2027,
mainly for mono-beneficiary projects under Excellent Science, Innovative Europe and
WIDERA.
cumulative funding (e.g. ERDF as national contribution to European Partnerships – see
separate section on Partnerships as a synergy mechanism in the main SWD),
cooperation on the Regional Innovation Valleys (RIVs): The RIVs are supported by the
European Innovation Ecosystems (EIE) and the ERDF’s Interregional Innovation
Investments (I3) instrument. Early findings showed that this synergy – not foreseen by
design – was labour-intensive to implement.
238
More recently, 13 EIE regions declared that
they will use the ERDF to co-fund 50% their activities.
239
•
•
ERASMUS+
is the programme where stakeholders responding to the public consultation
perceived the most synergies with Horizon Europe: 35% reported that several synergies were
being exploited or that they were fully exploited (518 respondents). The Erasmus+ Mobility
Projects, facilitate the incorporation of participants into MSCA research teams via traineeships
and staff exchanges, and the participation of MSCA researchers in Erasmus+-funded blended
intensive programmes. The Erasmus+ European Universities Initiative and Horizon Europe
have also demonstrated synergies, particularly through the MSCA. European University
Alliances have participated in MSCA COFUND actions, linking projects to these alliances and
fostering partnerships between European Universities and WIDERA projects. Moreover,
Horizon Europe calls on the European Excellence Initiative foresee competitive calls for
cooperation on the R&I dimension related to the ERA Policy Agenda. These calls are open to
all types of alliances, including the European Universities alliances. European University
alliances are also eligible to compete for other opportunities under Horizon Europe to fund
transformative aspects (under the WIDERA (ERA) component) and collaborative research and
innovation activities.
240
With
InvestEU,
the
potential
for synergies was confirmed but evidence of its realization in
practice has been challenging to obtain. The rationale for this synergy focuses on the EIC which
bridges the funding gap for high-risk innovations until they are suitable for InvestEU co-
financing. Up to 10% of EIC Accelerator calls (from 2021) can be allocated for blending with
InvestEU instruments to support EIC Accelerator-selected companies, follow-on investments,
or Seal of Excellence companies.
241
The Commission has found anecdotal evidence of the same
companies being supported by the EIC and InvestEU, by comparing names of companies (but
Naujokaitytė, R., Cakić, M., Didžiulytė, M., Zharkalliu-Roussou, K. et al., Evaluation study of the European
framework programmes for research and innovation for an innovative Europe, Publications Office of the EU,
2024, p. 92,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132
239
EISMEA internal monitoring data, September 2024.
240
Evaluation study on Excellent Science, 2024, p. 49.
241
Innovative Europe evaluation study, 2024, p. 90,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132
238
206
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0208.png
lacking individual identifiers and other details). Limited reporting on the beneficiaries of
indirectly managed programmes prevents more in-depth analysis of this synergy.
242
With
EU4Health,
development of synergies focused on
coordination of work programmes
and cross-referencing
to raise the applicants’ awareness of complimentary interventions is
underway between several programmes. The EU4Health Work Programmes invite applicants
to build upon the results of Horizon Europe programme, especially EU Mission Cancer.
243
In
turn, the WPs of Horizon Europe also make references to EU4Health initiatives, for example
the networks of young cancer survivors established under EU4Health.
244
An examination of e-
grants data (covering 50% of the EU4Health budget) shows a significant extent of cross-
participation of entities, benefitting from both programmes (see Figure 124 below).
Evidence of synergies is similar with the
Connecting Europe Facility:
the main activities
comprised cross-referencing of calls and knowledge exchange activities.
245
The CEF is also
funding the EuroHPC JU. The Regulation establishing Horizon Europe foresaw that the
synergy with CEF would consist in “large-scale roll-out and deployment of innovative new
technologies and solutions in the fields of transport, energy and digital physical
infrastructures”.
Horizon Europe’s synergy with the
LIFE programme
focuses on the uptake of R&I results
and their deployment at national, interregional and regional scale to help address
environmental, climate or clean energy transition issues.
246
For Standard Action Projects,
which represent the main type of grants, the LIFE programme awards bonus points to project
proposals that are substantially building or scaling up the results of other EU programmes. In
2021-2023 calls, the bonus was granted to 184 projects for substantially building on or up-
scaling the results of other European programmes – indicating mainly Horizon Europe.
247
Some activities supported by the LIFE programmes (focusing on demonstration of innovative
solutions) are similar to activities implemented by the EU Missions in Horizon Europe.
248
The Horizon Europe Regulation refers to potential synergies with the
European Defence Fund
(EDF), and the EDF Regulation states that ‘positive spill-over effects to the civilian sector can
also be expected, where applicable’
249
and that ‘the Commission will take into account other
242
No individual identifiers of benefitting companies. No start and end dates of InvestEU support provided by,
inter
alia,
the
EIB,
EIF
(equity),
CDP
equity
and
the
EIF
(guarantees).
See
https://www.eib.org/attachments/general/lists/investeu-final-recipients-beneficiaries-en.pdf,
https://www.eif.org/InvestEU/guarantee_products/ieu-debt-visibility-report-final-recipients.pdf,
https://www.eib.org/attachments/general/lists/investeu-final-recipients-beneficiaries-en.pdf
and
https://www.cdp.it/sitointernet/en/accordo_investeufund_cdpequity.page#:~:text=Please%20find%20in%20the
%20table%20below%20the%20list.
243
The study supporting the interim evaluation of EU4Health is forthcoming in 2025 and includes the list of
relevant Work Programmes in an annex.
244 For example, references to the EU-CAYAS-NET network or the ERN-Padcan initiatives, both supported by
the EU4Health programme are included in the topic ” HORIZON-MISS-2024-CANCER-01-05: Improving the
understanding and management of late-effects in adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer”, Horizon
Europe work programme 2023-2025, 12. Missions and Cross-cutting Activities (European Commission Decision
C(2024) 2371 of 17 April 2024), pp. 94-96
245
Green Transition evaluation support study, 2024,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/67934,
p. 60.
246
Annex IV of the regulation establishing Horizon Europe, point 9.
247
CINEA internal monitoring of 2021-2023 calls as of October 2024. NB: the LIFE Clean Energy Transition
sub-programme mainly uses Coordination and Support Actions, which do not use bonus points in project
evaluation.
248
Study supporting the interim evaluation of LIFE, forthcoming in 2025.
249
Recital 35 of Regulation (EU) 2021/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021
establishing the European Defence Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1092.
207
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0209.png
activities financed under Horizon Europe […] in order to avoid unnecessary duplication and
ensure cross-fertilisation and synergies between civil and defence research’.
250
The White
Paper on options for enhancing support for research and development involving technologies
with dual-use potential
251
reviews the existing R&D support framework which is characterised
by a strict separation in EU funding for civil and defence R&D activities. This has implications
for the exploitation and market uptake of results of technologies with dual-use potential. The
White Paper found that the EU institutions continuously need to explore possible options to
strengthen this cross-fertilisation in the context of R&D support involving technologies with a
dual-use potential, while taking into account the fundamental differences between civil and
military spheres. For this purpose, the Commission launched a public consultation on options
for strategic support to technologies with a dual-use potential, whose results indicate an overall
tendency mostly favourable to keeping civil and defence R&D separate, in particular among
research institutions, NGOs and citizens.
252
Some public authorities, business associations and
private companies showed more openness to removing the exclusive focus on civil applications
subject to further discussion on the details of implementation.
When it comes to security resilience and EU preparedness, synergies are exploited between
Horizon Europe (in particular Cluster 3) and
the Internal Security Fund (ISF), the
Integrated Border Management Fund (IBMF), the European Maritime and Fisheries
Fund (EMFF) and the civil protection mechanism.
These synergies aim to further the uptake
of innovations and solutions developed by security research funded under Horizon Europe. A
study on civil security research
253
reports that, to bridge the ‘Valley of Death’, stakeholders
highlighted the potential to use security-related funding schemes, such as the ISF and IBMF,
for funding targeted follow-up projects promoting market uptake.
While these options exist, beneficiaries may not always be aware of them and how to leverage
them in combination with known funding sources.
254
Nevertheless, there are some examples
of synergies such as the European Union’s Internal Security Fund Police project on drone
detection, tracking and identification CORAGEOUS
255
which was based on the results of three
Horizon 2020 projects: SafeShore
256
, ALFA
257
and ALADDIN.
258
Security capabilities addressed by Cluster 3 are focussing on civil end-users, which have
different needs from defence/military users, thus limiting potential synergies. While certain
technologies have a dual use potential (e.g. cybersecurity or drones), especially at low-TRL
level, the technological requirements will differ depending on the intended final use (civil or
military), which means that higher TRL projects are by nature rarely dual use. While synergies
between civil and defence research can be exploited, innovators also want to ensure that both
civil and defence capabilities are supported.
259
To facilitate this, the ISF and IBMF published
250
Recital 33 of Regulation (EU) 2021/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021
establishing the European Defence Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/1092.
251
COM (2024) 27 of 24.01.2024
252
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14060-RD-on-dual-use-technologies-
options-for-support_en
253
“2024 Study on Strengthening EU-Funded Security Research and Innovation - 20 Years of EU-Funded Civil
Security Research and Innovation”, p.105 (forthcoming).
254
Ibid, p. 110.
255
https://courageous-isf.eu/
256
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/700643
257
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/700002
258
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/740859
259
European Commission, DG HOME, Study on Strengthening EU-Funded Security Research and Innovation -
20 Years of EU-Funded Civil Security Research and Innovation, forthcoming in 2025, p. 41.
208
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0210.png
dedicated calls supporting the testing, validation or deployment of new methods and
technologies resulting from Horizon Europe projects.
260
With the
Digital Europe Programme,
as shown in Figure 124 further below, there is a
noteworthy level of cross-participation: 1 512 common participants (representing 50% of DEP
beneficiaries in the 70% of its budget that is visible in e-grants). The public consultation on
Horizon Europe also shows that “synergies were (fully) exploited” with the DEP (62%; 838
respondents). Collaboration between the responsible Commission services (e.g., joint design
of calls, evaluation of proposals and workshops) fosters synergies between Cluster 3 and DEP
and more specifically enabling digital actions to capitalize on outputs from Cluster 3 and its
predecessors.
261
Synergies with the
Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)
were foreseen in the Horizon
Europe’s legal base through the take-up and deployment of innovative solutions, making
Member States economies and society more resilient and better prepared for the future. As of
December 2023, five Member States (BG, CZ, EL, ES, SK) have leveraged synergies between
Horizon Europe and the RRF by supporting projects with the EIC Seal of Excellence
262
. The
Work programme of MSCA under Horizon Europe also encourages synergies with the
Cohesion policy funds and the RRF, notably in COFUND and the Seal of Excellence.
In addition, a new instrument, Pathways to Synergies, has been established to stimulate
synergies between Horizon Europe and the RRF: focusing on human resource development
and internationalization (so-called upstream synergies) and the valorization and upscaling of
research results into marketable solutions (downstream from Horizon Europe). A call for
proposals was launched in March 2023, with projects starting in June 2024. This is a rather
complex instrument requiring significant effort from the National Contact Points.
263
With the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP),
synergies have been identified only with
Cluster 6, as the CAP Network
264
(established in 2023) raises awareness about Horizon Europe
Cluster 6 projects and Mission Soil
265
. The Horizon Europe regulation foresaw a broader
synergy with “the CAP making the best use of R&I results and promoting the use,
implementation and deployment of innovative solutions”.
For the
Single Market Programme (SMP),
the Regulation establishing Horizon Europe
foresaw a synergy through the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) and this was confirmed by
the evaluation (an improvement to the Horizon 2020 period when no synergies were found
266
).
The EEN provides information on various types of EU funding and alternative sources of
finance tailored to the specific needs of SMEs. In addition, there is a collaboration between the
EIT and SMP, where the EIT has received a budget of EUR 4 million from the SMP to establish
the European Solar Academy.
267
This initiative facilitates the upskilling and reskilling of the
260
Five dedicated calls in 2021-2024: ISF/2022/SA/3.4.1, BMVI/2021-2022/SA/1.2.1, BMVI/2024/SA/1.1.5,
ISF/2024/SA/3.4.2, ISF/2024/SA/3.4.1.
261
Resilient Europe evaluation study, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/797281, p. 71.
262
Innovative Europe evaluation study, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132, p. 91.
263
Evaluation study on Excellent Science, 2024, p. 225, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2295765.
264
The EU CAP Network is a forum through which the National CAP Networks, organisations, administrations,
researchers, entrepreneurs and practitioners can share knowledge and information (e.g. via peer-to-peer learning
and good practices) about agriculture and rural policy.
https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/index_en
265
Green Transition evaluation study, 2024, p. 59-61.
266
Study on the external coherence and synergies of Horizon 2020, 2023, p. 81.
267
Call SMP-COSME-2024-EIT-EUSOLARACADEMY.
209
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0211.png
solar photovoltaic technologies workforce, with a specific focus on SMEs, through education
and training providers in EU Member States.
268
With the
Union Space Programme (USP),
the synergy revolves around bolstering innovation
among SMEs in the space sector. The EIC integrates regular space challenges into its work
programmes and its beneficiaries have expedited access to key Horizon Europe Cluster 4
activities, including the CASSINI business accelerator.
269
While it is not possible for both
frameworks to procure together, cooperation is organised around activities of both initiatives
such as hackathons or matchmaking.
270
Within Cluster 4, synergies have developed with the
European Space Agency (ESA) – the Technology Mapping Exercise plays a role in avoiding
overlap and duplication between the EU and ESA activities.
271
The approach adopted for
Cluster 4 includes the Cassini accelerator, an EU initiative aimed at supporting startups and
SMEs in the space sector. It provides tailored business development services, mentoring, and
access to funding opportunities to help these companies grow and scale their innovations.
272
For grants directly managed by the Commission services, data is available on participants who
engage in both Horizon Europe and other EU programmes
273
(see figure below). This data
indicates of the strongest
potential
synergies between Horizon Europe and Erasmus+, Digital
Europe Programme and LIFE.
Figure 124: Cross-participants between Horizon Europe and other programmes managed in e-
grants
3000
2500
2000
60%
1500
40%
1000
500
0
SMP
DIGITAL
ERASMUS2027
INNOVFUND
CEF2027
EMFAF
ESF +
100%
80%
20%
0%
EU4H
EURATOM2027
CREA2027
LIFE2027
ERDF I3
ISF
Number of HE participants
Share of HE participants on total programme's participants
Source:
e-grants data extracted on 28 February 2024
Note:
only 10-20% of ISF and ERASMUS+ projects is managed in e-grants. EU4Health data in e-grants is limited to around 50%
of the budget, while for DEP this share is 70%.
268
269
Innovative Europe evaluation study, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132, pages 88-89.
The accelerator is part of the broader CASSINI Space Entrepreneurship Initiative, which seeks to foster
innovation and competitiveness in the European space industry by leveraging EU space assets and data.
270
Digital and Industrial Transition evaluation study, 2024, p. 114.
271
Ibid, Annex V - Stakeholders’ consultations results and synopsis report, p. 65.
272
Innovative Europe evaluation study, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132, p. 91.
273
Data are available only for 13 programmes, including Horizon Europe.
210
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0212.png
There are 67 entities benefitting both from the
Innovation Fund under the Emission Trading
Scheme
and Horizon Europe (31% of total Innovation Fund’s participants as of 28 February
2024). This is not necessarily indicative of the degree of synergies between the two
programmes, but shows the interest of entities in applying to different EU funding programmes.
They received a relatively high amount of resources, € 3 billion amounting to 46.6% of total
Innovation Fund budget as of the reference date. Horizon Europe work programmes encourage
applicants to include in their proposals a business case strategy and feasibility study with a
view towards possible future applications for the Innovation Fund. In this context, five
coordination and support actions (CSA) have been launched, with consortia consisting of
participants from mature Horizon 2020 projects, to promote the dissemination of best practices
and produce sound Innovation Fund applications. According to CINEA, out of the 34 Horizon
2020 projects considered potentially mature/relevant for an Innovation Fund application and
involved as beneficiaries in the CSAs, five are in the process of preparing an application for
the call closing in April 2025.
In order to further explore these potential synergies and cross-participation in EU programmes,
text analysis of project abstracts offers additional insights.
274
Projects identified as highly
similar to Horizon Europe’s were more frequently funded by Euratom and ERDF I3 – 85% of
all these project pairs were rated as highly similar. This level of similarity was less frequently
found with projects funded by Creative Europe, ESF+, ERASMUS+ and the SMP. Almost all
(94%) of the identified project pairs were concurrent rather than sequential – not surprising
considering the relatively early stage of programme implementation. With Creative Europe,
ESF+, Euratom – the evaluation found relatively limited evidence of synergies.
The
Creative Europe
programme is complimentary to Cluster 2 (Destination culture and, to a
lower extent, democracy). For instance, Creative Europe introduced a mobility scheme for
artists and professionals, offering residencies and location-based cultural initiatives in line with
the New European Bauhaus.
275
However, the remainder of Creative Europe programme (66%
of its budget), covers subsectors such as the audiovisual industry, video games and news media
– in these sectors, evidence of synergies was not found.
For the
Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument
(NDICI),
the synergies relate to the close interaction of the
Global Health EDCTP3
Joint
Undertaking (EUR 1.86 billion of which up to EUR 910 million from Horizon Europe) and the
Team Europe Initiative on local manufacturing of vaccine and other medical products in Africa
(MAV+, EUR 1 billion from NDICI).
276
These initiatives are proposed in the
EU Global Health
Strategy
that the Commission adopted in November 2022. This collaboration supports the
process of bringing innovative products to citizens in Africa from end-to-end: research and
development of innovative products, regulatory capacity for clinical trials and product
approval, local production, and procurement and delivery to the population. Additionally, the
DeSIRA initiative, which seeks to enhance an inclusive, sustainable and climate-relevant
transformation of agrifood systems in low and medium income countries through R&I based
274
Between a Horizon Europe project and a project funded by one of the other EU programmes analysed (based
on e-grants data availability). Catalano G., Consiglio, G. and Delponte L.
Horizon Europe Internal and External
Coherence (Synergies): Supporting the Interim Evaluation of Horizon Europe.
Publications Office of the
European Union, 2025,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/5616419
275
276
Resilient Europe evaluation study, 2024,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/797281,
page 68.
Resilient Europe evaluation study, 2024,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/797281,
pages 66, 126
211
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0213.png
on multistakeholder approaches, is complementary to actions for food systems transformation
supported by Horizon Europe.
The evaluation did not find evidence of synergies with the
Instrument for Pre-Accession
Assistance (IPA III) and Just Transition Mechanism.
Several
networks
facilitate the development of synergies: the R&I and Cohesion Management
Authorities (RIMA) network of MS representatives
277
, the Seal of Excellence Community of
Practice (management bodies implementing the Seal, with DG REGIO) and an interservice
group of Commission DGs focusing on synergies (coordinated by DG RTD).
277
More information is available at
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-
groups/consult?lang=en&groupID=103692
212
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0214.png
Annex 7 European Partnerships: Leverage analysis
Glossary
Term
Co-investment
(or ‘direct call
leverage’)
Total direct leverage
Meaning or definition
In R&I projects, the difference between the project’s total eligible costs
and the EU contribution to the project. This is equal to Key Impact Pathway
9, short-term indicator (‘co-investment’).
For European partnerships only: co-investment plus additional activities
linked to the goal of the partnership, where applicable. It therefore
represents the difference between the total costs of the partnership’s R&I
activities (operational project costs, and additional activities) and the EU’s
contribution to such activities. Contributions to the partnership’s
administrative costs are not included.
For non-partnerships, or partnerships without additional activities, this
indicator is identical to co-investment.
Leverage factor
The ratio (expressed as a number or a value in euro) between the total costs
borne by partners other than the EU for R&I activities and the EU
contribution to R&I activities.
It is calculated for all measures of leverage set out above.
For co-investment, the formula is:
CA
Part
/ CA
EU
+
And for total direct leverage (including additional activities):
(CA
Part
AA
Part
)/ (CA
EU
+ AA
EU
).
No financial data is available for this evaluation on additional activities
funded by the EU (
AA
EU
) which therefore equals to zero: this means other
funding sources with their origin in the EU budget, such as cohesion policy
funds, are not accounted for in additional activities.
Funding rate
The EU contribution to a project as a percentage of a project’s total eligible
costs. Also ‘reimbursement rate’.
The partners’ contribution to a project (see ‘co-investment’) as a
percentage of the total eligible costs of that project. It is the opposite of the
funding rate. It differs from the leverage factor, as the denominator is the
total project costs, not the EU contribution to the project.
Co-funding rate
213
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0215.png
Is Horizon Europe leveraging additional resources for R&I?
The simplest measure of financial leverage of Horizon Europe is the
co-investment
(also ‘co-
funding’) by participants in R&I projects. This is the proportion of project costs that, while
eligible for reimbursement, are not covered by the grant provided by the EU – the measure that
the EU Financial Regulation calls ‘leverage
effect’
278
. This measure is monitored as the short-
term indicator of Key Impact Pathway 9 (‘Co-investment – Amount of public & private
investment mobilised with the initial investment from the Programme’).
As of 6 January 2025, project participants invested a total of EUR 10.17 billion of their own
resources in Horizon Europe projects. This is equivalent to a leverage factor of 0.236: in other
words, each euro the EU is investing in Horizon Europe R&I projects directly attracts
additional R&I investment of about EUR 0.24. To date, the programme-wide leverage factor
for Horizon Europe is identical to the ratio observed in Horizon 2020 projects (0.236).
Direct leverage factor of Horizon Europe programme parts based on project co-investment vary
widely. In several programme parts, particularly in Pillar 1 and in WIDERA actions, but also
in Cluster 2 under Pillar II, EU contribution covers essentially all project costs (leverage factor
of zero). Some programme parts instead have much higher leverage factors than the average
for Horizon Europe. These are broadly the ones where there is higher industry participation
(e.g. Cluster 4 and Cluster 5 under Pillar II, as well as the EIC), or where all or a prominent
part of the budget is allocated to European Partnerships (EIT, EIE).
Table 44: Co-investment rates of Horizon Europe programme parts
Programme part
European Research Council (ERC)
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)
Research infrastructures
Total Pillar 1
CL1 - Health
CL2 - Culture, creativity and inclusive society
CL3 - Civil Security for Society
CL4 - Digital, Industry and Space
CL5 - Climate, Energy and Mobility
CL6 - Food, Bioeconomy Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment
Total Pillar 2
The European Innovation Council (EIC) (grants only)
European innovation ecosystems
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)
Total Pillar 3
Widening participation and spreading excellence
Reforming and enhancing the European R&I System
Total Pillar 4 (WIDERA)
Total Horizon Europe
Leverage factor
0.001
0.04
0.09
0.02
0.29
0.01
0.10
0.36
0.35
0.22
0.30
0.38
1.57
0.39
0.45
0.003
0.02
0.004
0.24
Source:
CORDA, data as of 6 January 2025.
For partnerships with cascading grant (EIT KICs, co-funded partnerships), the leverage factor is calculated based
on the grant initiating the partnership (ex
ante
value) rather than on actual activities.
278
EU Financial Regulation, art. 2(40) (“Definitions”).
214
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0216.png
Wherever available – particularly for EIT KICs – the rest of this annex uses data based on implemented activities
of the partnership.
The co-investment rate is primarily a function of the funding rate for each action, which is
defined by the Commission in advance
279
. However, even within the same type of action or the
same consortium, participants may be reimbursed differently: in general, costs from private
for-profit entities are covered to a lesser extent than those of universities or non-profit
organisations
280
.
Table 45: Co-investment rates of main Horizon Europe types of action
Type of action
Leverage
factor
(co-investment to
Horizon Europe
projects)
0.03
Coordination and support
actions (CSA)
European Innovation Council
(grants only)
European Research Council
Innovation actions (IA)
Joint undertakings
(JU)
Marie Sklodowska-Curie
Actions (MSCA)
Research and innovation
actions (RIA)
0.39
0.001
0.22
0.8
0.04
0.02
Source:
CORDA, data as of 6 January 2025.
For each euro of EU contribution, Horizon Europe leveraged EUR 0.49 in co-investment from
private for-profit entities (EUR 5.8 billion), roughly the same ratio observed in Horizon 2020.
SMEs contributed EUR 2.6 billion in own funding to support project costs, equivalent to a co-
investment ratio of 0.36 (an increase from 0.33 at the end of Horizon 2020). For comparison,
co-investment from higher education institutions is EUR 0.03 per euro invested by the EU.
279
In fundamental research actions (such as research and innovation actions or European Research Council
grants), the EU contribution covers in principle all project costs (100% reimbursement rate). For applied research
actions, such as innovation actions and most European Innovation Council grants, the reimbursement rates are
lower.
280
There is also the case of non-associated third-country participants from high-income countries, which in most
cases are not eligible for funding. However, since they do not submit eligible costs declarations, this analysis
cannot take into account the co-investment leveraged from these participants.
215
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0217.png
Among the main types of actions,
joint undertakings (JUs)
have, the highest leverage factor
(0.8 as of January 2025), mainly due to their design. In the average JU project, 55% of total
eligible costs are covered by the EU, and the remaining 45% by project participants. Co-
investment ratios in JUs are higher for participants classified as for-profit companies: they
brought in additional resources for projects in the amount of EUR 2.83 billion, a direct leverage
factor of EUR 1.23 per each euro in EU contribution the projects received. Out of this, at least
EUR 2.17 billion comes specifically from privately-owned enterprises, and at least
EUR 313 million from state-controlled enterprises
281
. These have a comparatively high
leverage factor of 2.25 (against 1.15 for companies without public ownership).
However, the leverage potential of JUs – and, more generally, of European partnerships – goes
beyond co-investment in projects. The rest of this section will present the available evidence
on resources leveraged by European partnerships and highlight existing information and
analysis gaps.
A distinction is made between institutionalised partnerships – which include JUs, public-public
Article 185 (TFEU) initiatives, and EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) – and
non-institutionalised co-programmed and co-funded partnerships. In general, data availability
on leverage is better for institutionalised partnerships. This is the effect of stricter reporting
requirements on these types of partnerships.
Leverage of European Partnerships: an overview
Achieving a ‘strong leverage effect on a sufficient scale’ is a legal requirement for European
Partnerships
282
. The legal base of the programme also requires partnerships to provide
‘information on quantitative and qualitative leverage effects, including on committed and
actually provided financial and in-kind contributions’.
283
Examining co-investment alone shows that
partnerships do indeed leverage higher resources than
Box 9: What are additional activities of
partnerships?
For European Partnerships,
additional
activities
are activities arranged by the
partnership and implemented under the
responsibility of the partners. They do not
receive EU funding, but that are linked and
support the general objective of the
partnership. They may include support to
additional R&I projects, promotion of
technologies and standards, training,
communication activities, and others.
In Joint Undertakings, these activities are
called “in-kind contributions to additional
activities” (IKAA): private members often
have to provide IKAA to match their legal
contribution commitments. Most European
Partnerships arrange, however, some forms
of additional activities that are not funded by
the Horizon Europe budget.
281
Source on state ownership of Horizon Europe companies: LexisNexis World Compliance (through Orbis
database). For around EUR 200 million in co-investment, no status in terms of state ownership can be determined.
282
Regulation establishing Horizon Europe, art. 10(2), point (a).
283
For all European Partnerships, Annex III of the Regulation establishing Horizon Europe, point 3 “Monitoring”,
letter (b), and for JUs specifically, SBA Art. 171(2), letter f). The provision is identical in both sources.
216
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0218.png
the rest of the Framework Programme
284
. When all partnerships are removed, the leverage ratio
for the ‘mainstream’ FP is around 0.09, equivalent to EUR 2.96 billion in co-investment. For
partnerships the co-investment ratio is 0.62 (EUR 7.22 billion).
All types of partnerships also arrange
additional activities
(see Box 9). The monetised value
of the members’ additional activities counts towards the partnership’s leverage objectives. For
some partnerships, in particular the co-programmed ones, these activities represent the main
source of leverage. However, availability and quality of data on additional activities varies –
as does the level of oversight from the Commission on their content.
This indicator is called “direct call leverage” in the Biennial Monitoring Report on partnerships, with identical
definition and calculation method.
284
217
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0219.png
Key figures as of 31 December 2023
The following sections offer a state of play in terms of current
285
monetised contributions to
R&I activities, by type of partnership and for each partnership. Administrative expenditure
supporting the running costs of the partnership is not taken into account
286
.
The reference date for all sources (EU funding
287
, project co-investment, and additional
activities) is 31 December 2023, the last date for which data on both co-investment in projects
and additional activities are available for most partnerships. Only grants signed before this date
are included in the analysis.
As intended by the design of different partnerships, the highest co-investment ratios are
achieved by grants initiating co-funded European Partnerships (approximately 2:1) followed
by other institutionalised partnerships (including joint undertakings and Article 185 public-to-
public initiatives) and EIT KICs, while co-programmed partnerships have a lower leverage
ratio of 0.15.
Once additional activities are included, leverage ratios for institutionalised partnerships
increase significantly, with partners already contributing more to R&I activities than the EU
contribution received to date (leverage factor higher than 1). The increase is particularly
remarkable for co-programmed partnerships: the total amount of additional activities declared
up to the end of 2023 is over three times as high as the EU contribution allocated to call
activities, and considerably higher than the amounts declared by JUs.
Some institutionalised partnerships have a long track-record by now, having existed in a similar
organisational setup for at least two programming periods (i.e. since before the start of
Horizon 2020). In Horizon Europe, these ‘older’ partnerships have a substantially higher
leverage factor than those that have been created more recently. In particular, the three older
EIT KICs have a leverage factor including additional activities close to 3:1, but a gap between
‘older’ and ‘newer’ partnerships is also visible for the JUs.
285
This report uses contributions to projects that are stated in grant agreements, as they appear in the
Commission’s monitoring systems (in most cases, the CORDA database). This is done even if the activities to be
reimbursed by the Commission, and associated payments by beneficiaries, have not yet taken place. The main
exception is the EIT, for which data from the EIT’s own monitoring system is used: this allows to keep track of
the actual stage of implementation of the activities of the EIT KICs. For additional activities, only “incurred” costs
are considered (regardless of whether they have been already certified by external auditors, which is a requirement
for Joint Undertakings).
286
For partnerships that manage their own call activities (such as Joint Undertakings), contributions to
administrative costs form a steady revenue stream for and reflect a legal commitment by members. However,
these costs in itself provide no indications on the capacity of the JU to stimulate additional funding for R&I
activities.
287
It is to be noted that some partnerships bring together several sources of EU funding. For instance, the EuroHPC
Joint Undertaking is largely supported by resources from the Digital Europe programme; the Clean Steel co-
programmed partnership also arranges calls supported by the Research Fund from Coal and Steel. This section
takes into account all EU contribution (and co-investment) in activities from directly managed programmes.
218
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0220.png
Table 46: Contribution and leverage of European partnerships in Horizon Europe, by type, as
of 31 December 2023
Type
partnership
of
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (EUR)
Other
EU
contribution
(b) (EUR)
Participants
co-investment
in EU R&I
projects
(c) (EUR)
Additional
activities of JU
members, costs
incurred
(d) (EUR)
Direct ‘call’
leverage
factor
(c) / (a + b)
(EUR)
Direct
leverage factor
including
additional
activities
(c + d) / (a + b)
(EUR)
1.46
1.76
0.86
3.36
not disclosed
1.01
2.83
0.39
2.19 *
JUs/Art.185
Older
partnerships
Newer
partnerships
Co-programmed
Co-funded
EIT KICs
Older KICs
Newer KICs
Total
2 986 133 799
2 108 863 823
877 269 976
3 126 851 284
750 858 915
1 014 095 224
256 905 842
757 189 382
7 877 939 223
187 108 681
0
187 108 681
24 710 696
unknown
unknown
2 869 777 262
2 445 045 874
424 731 388
472 755 667
1 482 259 292
512 462 324
269 356 882
243 105 443
5 337 254 545
1 753 655 258
1 259 902 814
493 752 444
10 113 314 067
not disclosed
510 380 000
458 630 000
51 750 000
12 377 349 325
0.90
1.16
0.40
0.15
1.97
0.51
1.05
0.32
0.66
211 819 377
Sources:
CORDA (Horizon Europe contribution and costs, for all excluding KICs and Art. 185), eGrants
dashboard (other EU contribution and costs, for all excluding KICs and Art. 185), Annual Activity Reports of JUs
(for additional activities), EIT monitoring system (for EIT KICs), additional activity reporting of co-programmed
partnerships, partnership secretariat (for Art. 185 and procurement actions under EuroHPC JU). For lump sum
projects, co-investment amounts are estimated based on ex-ante assumptions.
‘Older’ partnerships are initiatives that were launched before the start of Horizon 2020 under the same or similar
legal form. ‘Newer’ partnerships were launched during Horizon 2020 or at the start of Horizon Europe. All
partnerships that changed their form in Horizon Europe (e.g. GH-EDCTP3 and SNS JU) are considered ‘newer’.
* When additional activities are not disclosed, the values for call-level co-investment (column c) are used for this
calculation. For some JUs and co-programmed partnerships, data on additional activities is not yet available (see
dedicated sections).
Institutionalised partnerships
Joint undertakings
Main statistics about co-investment in JU Horizon Europe projects, as well as additional
activities from JU members as of 31 December 2023, are available in Table 47.
Co-investment is defined here as the difference between total eligible project costs and EU
contribution to project activities. This definition is consistent with the approach used in the
entire Horizon Europe programme to estimate the same indicator.
The only partial exception is Europe’s Rail JU, as it is the only JU where all projects have been
supported through lump sum grants. The value presented in the table is an
ex-ante
estimate; JU
administrative figures reported by the European Court of Auditors suggest that this may
become an underestimate once all contributions from partners are validated
288
.
There is large variation across the JUs in leverage factors, whether additional activities are
included or not. A finding common to almost all JUs is that equal contributions by EU and
partners (leverage factor of 1) is not normally achieved through call activities alone. There are
288
Since lump sum projects do not report costs, it is not possible to know directly from administrative sources the
total co-investment. This analysis presents both estimated figures (based on expected funding rates) and the values
of members’ contributions presented in the 2023 Report on Joint Undertakings by the European Court of Auditors.
219
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0221.png
nonetheless two exceptions: the Clean Hydrogen JU and the Key Digital Technologies JU
(‘KDT’, the current Chips JU), where co-investment from participants in projects significantly
exceeds EU contribution.
In the case of KDT, the high co-investment ratio is linked to the ‘tripartite’ structure of the
partnership, involving Member States alongside private partners. Part of the co-investment in
projects consists of Member State contributions at the level of project beneficiaries. The
Commission monitoring systems do not directly capture the extent of such contributions.
289
This would be particularly significant for assessing the amount of private co-investment in the
EuroHPC JU, the other tripartite JU, where the majority of participants are universities and
research organisations rather than private for-profit companies.
The nominal value of costs for additional activities varies between zero (KDT, EuroHPC
290
)
and over EUR 900 million. For some partnerships, reporting on additional activities started
only in 2023 (Circular Bio-based Enterprises JU, Innovative Health Initiative JU) or is
incomplete at the reference date
291
, and therefore the figure may not be representative of future
trends
292
. Nevertheless, it is already apparent that some JUs rely more on additional activities
to leverage resources from partners. Two partnerships, Global Health-EDCTP3 (successor of
an Article 185 partnership in Horizon 2020) and Smart Networks and Services (whose
predecessor was a ‘contractual public-private partnership’, the equivalent of Horizon Europe’s
co-programmed partnerships) have fairly low leverage at call level, with most project
participation covered by the EU. Even at this early stage of implementation, the vast majority
of the funding they leveraged comes from expenditures on additional activities.
Table 47: Contribution and leverage of Joint Undertakings in Horizon Europe
JU name
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (EUR)
Other
EU
contribution
(b) (EUR)
Participants’
co-investment
in EU R&I
projects
(c) (EUR)
Additional
activities of JU
members,
costs incurred
(d) (EUR)
Direct ‘call’
leverage factor
(c) / (a + b)
(EUR)
Direct
leverage factor
including
additional
activities
(c + d) / (a + b)
(EUR)
0.78
0.41*
3.62
0.96
0.79
(0.89 ***)
1.66
CBE
CAJU
CLEANH2
EuroHPC
EURAIL
GH-EDCTP3
116 257 141
805 807 009
498 985 785
45 905 466
243 907 308
103 090 624
0
0
0
187 108 681
0
0
29 591 423
267 948 600
873 864 986
223 022 492
123 455 961
(146 100 000
***)
18 520 603
61 539 083
65 617 750
293
930 463 076
0
69 944 330
152 821 896
0.25
0.33
1.75
0.96
0.51
(0.60 ***)
0.18
289
The Commission monitoring systems also cannot capture whether the resources brought in by Member States
actually originate from the EU budget through shared management funds, such as cohesion funds and the ERRF.
290
For EuroHPC: “As the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking’s Council Regulation (EU) 2021/1173 does not provide
for a legal base to collect IKAA from its private members, the Private members of the Joint Undertaking do not
provide contributions in the form of IKAA” (EuroHPC annual accounts 2023, p. 50).
For KDT: the Private members of the Chips Joint Undertaking do not provide contributions in the form of IKAA"
(Annual accounts 2023, p. 23), even if there is the legal option to do so. Plausibly the members do not account for
IKAA as the partnership achieves already high leverage through call-based activities.
291
Clean Aviation JU, for which 2023 additional activities are missing.
292
Partnership-specific annexes within this evaluation may include estimates of total additional activities planned
by partners, as well as estimates of the expected leverage ratio over the entire partnership duration. This section
only focuses on incurred costs reported at the end of 2023.
293
Figures are for 2021 and 2022: incurred costs of in-kind additional activities for 2023 are not available in the
2023 Annual Report. The direct leverage factor is therefore underestimated compared to other JUs.
220
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0222.png
JU name
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (EUR)
Other
EU
contribution
(b) (EUR)
Participants’
co-investment
in EU R&I
projects
(c) (EUR)
Additional
activities of JU
members,
costs incurred
(d) (EUR)
Direct ‘call’
leverage factor
(c) / (a + b)
(EUR)
IHI
KDT
(now
Chips JU)
SESAR
SNS
183 837 301
349 454 010
203 081 665
368 109 437
0
0**
0
0
168 183 428
878 293 945
168 449 916
30 140 908
3 419 717
0
193 300 000
209 447 135
0.91
2.51
0.83
0.08
Direct
leverage factor
including
additional
activities
(c + d) / (a + b)
(EUR)
0.93
2.51
1.78
0.65
Source:
CORDA (Horizon Europe contribution and costs), eGrants dashboard (other EU contribution and costs),
Annual Activity Reports of JUs (for additional activities). For lump sum projects in EURAIL, the co-investment
value is estimated based on
ex ante
coefficients.
* For CAJU, additional activities for 2023 are not included, as they are not reported in the 2023 AAR.
**
No
funding
from
Digital
Europe
was
awarded
at
the
reference
date.
*** Value for ‘Members’ contributions’ as of 31 December 2023, reported by Europe’s Rail JU to the European
Court of Auditors, and published in the annual report on EU Joint Undertakings for the financial year 2023. Both
validated contributions (EUR 75.8 million) and contributions undergoing validation (EUR 70.3 million) are
accounted for. The figure does not include contribution by non-JU members.
Most JUs operating under Horizon Europe have a predecessor in Horizon 2020,
with
some projects funded under the previous programme still being implemented by the successor
partnership.
Table 48 presents data on main leverage indicators for these partnerships in the Horizon 2020.
For co-investment based on eligible project costs, the data is collected and calculated in the
same process used for Horizon Europe – except for contributions from other EU spending
programmes, which are not available to this evaluation.
For leverage measures including non-project activities, the methodology has been slightly
adapted to reflect the different taxonomy used in Horizon 2020 on reporting of non-eligible
costs borne by partners. Under the predecessor FP, some co-investment from JU members that
today would be reported as ‘additional activities’ was reported and validated under the same
umbrella as contribution to project activities. This means that, for some JUs, it is not possible
to determine exactly the direct leverage factor including additional activities in the same way
between the two programmes.
Despite some differences in methodology, the closest replacement is the data on JU members’
contribution released in the 2023 annual report on JUs by the European Court of Auditors,
which includes the full extent of contributions from JU members (both to projects and as
additional activities)
294
.
294
European Court of Auditors, Annual Report on EU Joint Undertakings for the financial year 2023
(https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/SAR-JUS-2023/SAR-JUS-2023_EN.pdf). The main difference in
methodology is that the reports from the Court of Auditors do not distinguish between contributions to project
activities and contributions for administrative costs, and do not include contributions from participants that are
not member of the JU.
221
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0223.png
Several JUs in Horizon 2020 did not match EU contributions with co-investment in project
activities only. Four JUs (fewer than in Horizon Europe) also reported additional activities,
which constitute the majority of the funding they leverage from partners.
CORDA data and ECA data, even if taken at the same reference date, sometimes differ in ways
that cannot be explained by differences in methodology. Compared with data published by
ECA, CORDA shows:
-
a higher amount for partners’ contribution in ECSEL (predecessor of the current Chips
JU), which cannot be explained by the role of Member States contribution (both sources
include them as part of co-investment).
lower EU contribution for EuroHPC, which significantly affects its leverage factor.
While this is partly explained by EUR 100 million from the CEF programme not
appearing in the CORDA-based analysis, there are more than EUR 100 million in
EU contribution still not accounted for.
-
Table 48: Contribution and leverage of JUs in Horizon 2020
Project co-investment
(source: CORDA)
Participants
Direct ‘call’
co-investment leverage factor
in EU R&I (c) / (a)
projects
(c) (EUR)
391 606 355
324 042 268
3 480 250 749
138 767 919
548 788 058
1 547 184 225
63 891 076
534 783 461
0.48
0.20
3.02
0.97
0.86
1.06
0.17
0.98
Leverage including additional activities
(source: European Court of Auditors, JU AARs)
JU members Additional
Direct
contributions
activities of JU leverage factor
to
project members,
including
activities
costs incurred additional
(ECA 2023) (y) (EUR)
activities
(x)
(x + y) / (a)
172 700 000
2 150 572 377 2.83
1 104 100 000 1 407 000 000 1.52
2 676 100 000 0
2.32
199 900 000
0
1.40
134 700 000
1 298 300 000
373 100 000
644 000 000
1 039 000 000
0
266 794 243
0
1.84
0.89
1.72
1.18
JU name
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (EUR)
BBI-CBE
CS2-CAJU
ECSEL-Chips
EuroHPC*
FCH-
CLEANH2
IMI2-IHI
S2R-EURAIL
SESAR
820 647 794
1 646 763 050
1 153 801 145
142 404 897
638 885 191
1 463 289 940
372 397 665
545 246 497
Source:
CORDA (Horizon 2020 contribution and costs), Annual Activity Reports of JUs (for additional activities),
European Court of Auditors 2023 report on JUs, table 2.1.
Note: figures on the right-hand side of the table cover only JU members. Figures on the left-hand side may include
co-investment from any participant in JU projects.
* For EuroHPC, no data on in eGrants funding from CEF (EUR 100 million according to ECA).annual progress
report 2023 of EDCTP2.
For the Horizon 2020 implementation period, this evaluation also covers the EDCTP2 Article
185 initiative, whose successor is a JU. The concepts of co-investment and additional activities
also apply to this partnership, although no data sources are available beyond the partnership’s
own progress reports. Figures for the Horizon 2020 period are presented in the table below.
222
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0224.png
Partnership
name
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (EUR)
Participants
co-investment
in EU R&I
projects
(c) (EUR)
Additional
activities of JU
members,
costs incurred
(d) (EUR)
Direct ‘call’
leverage
factor
(c) / (a + b)
(EUR)
Direct
leverage factor
including
additional
activities
(c + d) / (a + b)
(EUR)
1.38
EDCTP2
(Art. 185)
604 334 900
168 830 000
666 779 018
0.28
Source:
annual progress report 2023 of EDCTP2.
In-cash vs. in-kind contributions
In Horizon Europe, JUs are required to report periodically on committed and actually provided
financial and in-kind contributions. Due to the complex legal obligations associated with the
amount of contributions required from JU members, the definition of ‘financial’ and ‘in-kind’
take a specific meaning in this context.
‘Financial contribution’ (sometimes called ‘cash’ contribution
295
) encompasses:
-
-
-
expenditure to cover the administrative costs of the partnership, from any partner (the EU,
Member States or international organisation, and other partners);
contributions to operational (project) activities from Member States and international
organisations, where applicable;
contributions from JU members other than the EU to project beneficiaries eligible to receive
funding, if these are provided for.
This multiple usage can create confusion, as the phrase ‘cash contributions’ may describe both
revenue contributing to the to the JUs’ running costs and project-specific investments
296
.
For this analysis, it is important to make a distinction between these types of financial
contributions. Financial contributions for project activities are an integral part of co-investment
as defined here, while contributions to administrative costs are not included in the calculations.
In-kind contributions come specifically from members of the JU, and are of two types:
•
In-kind contributions to operational activities (IKOP).
These are defined in the legal
basis (‘Single Basic Act’) for JUs as ‘the eligible costs incurred by [members of the
partnership
297
] in implementing indirect actions less the contribution of that joint
undertaking and of the participating states of that joint undertaking to those costs’.
298
Some sources – especially, annual reports on EU Joint Undertakings by the European Court of Auditors – call
these financial contributions “cash contributions”. Under this definition, the highest cash contribution will always
be in partnerships where project participants receive substantial financial support from EU Member States.
296
See
for
instance
ECA
Report
on
Joint
Undertakings
(2022),
p.
26.
Link:
https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/SAR-JUS-2022/RAS-Jus-FY2022_EN.pdf
297
“private members, constituent entities or the affiliated entities of either, by international organisations and by
contributing partners”
298
In principle, the sum of IKOP and financial contributions to operational activities (including from Member
States) is identical to the co-investment as measured elsewhere in this section. IKOP however also undergo a
certification process whose outcome cannot be pre-empted. For most leverage measures, the report intentionally
refers only to “co-investment” as captured in CORDA, rather than to IKOP.
295
223
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0225.png
•
In-kind contributions to additional activities (IKAA),
which are the costs incurred
by members of the partnership to implement additional activities as defined in Box 9,
excluding any contribution from the EU and from participating states.
At the current stage of reporting, it is unclear for most JUs whether any financial contributions
to operational activities
beyond IKOP are provided for, or even monitored. From the latest
Activity Reports, a distinction is apparent for only two partnerships.
•
Innovative Health Initiative, which distinguishes between IKOP and financial
contributions (defined as ‘contribution from IHI private members and contributing
partners to IHI project beneficiaries eligible to receive funding’) for all grant
agreements signed before 31 December 2023. Financial contributions account for
approximately 12.4% of all project co-investment.
299
Global Health – EDCTP3, for which the legal basis does not provide for any IKOP
obligations (Single Basic Act of JUs, Article 103(2)). Some project costs that are not
covered by EU contributions are classified as ‘financial contribution’
300
.
•
Even though private members of JUs may always make cash contributions to project
activities
301
, the Horizon Europe regulation states that financial contributions from partners and
Member States ‘should be aimed primarily at covering administrative costs as well as
coordination and support of other non-competitive activities’
302
. While this suggests that JU
members other than the EU are not expected to provide
financial
contributions to R&I
activities, Member States in tripartite JUs do in fact provide substantial contributions to R&I
projects, even when selected competitively.
To sum up, for most JUs under Horizon Europe, the entire co-investment from private partners
to date in signed grant agreements consists of in-kind contributions. This is also true for
additional activities, which are by definition ‘in kind’ for JUs.
It is to be noted that, in the EU Financial Regulation, ‘in-kind contribution’ means ‘non-
financial resources made available free of charge by third parties to a beneficiary’
303
. However,
in the legal basis for JUs, IKOP are defined more broadly, as
any
eligible project cost not
covered by the EU or by other partners. From this definition, it is unclear whether in-kind
contributions in the form of IKOP show any meaningful difference with co-investment from
beneficiaries in non-partnership R&I projects – which are normally not referred to as ‘in-kind’
contributions.
Article 185 initiatives
Only one ‘Article 185’ initiative is covered by this interim evaluation, the European Partnership
on Metrology (EPM) with its Horizon 2020 predecessor, the European Metrology Programme
for Innovation and Research (EMPIR)
304
.
Data availability on the activities of this partnership is limited: its grants are not managed with
Commission corporate tools, implementation data for Horizon Europe is not yet integrated in
299
300
IHI JU Consolidated Annual Activity report, pp. 102-103
GH-EDCTP3 annual activity report 2023, section 2.4, p. 53.
301
JU SBA art. 11
302
Annex III HE Regulation, point 1 “Selection”, last paragraph.
303
EU financial regulation, article 2(38) (“Definitions”).
304
The other Article 185 partnership funded under Horizon Europe,
PRIMA (Partnership for Research and
Innovation in the Mediterranean Area),
has separate evaluation provisions and is not covered in this Staff Working
Document.
224
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0226.png
CORDA, and no annual activity report is made public. The information found here has been
communicated directly by the partnership secretariat. Unlike other partnerships, total costs can
only be estimated based on the EU contribution provided rather than calculated precisely.
Figures suggest that, if the same estimation methodology is applied, the European Partnership
on Metrology in Horizon Europe has higher leverage than its predecessor in Horizon 2020,
EMPIR. This is due in particular, but not exclusively, to the inclusion of additional activities
from Member States in EPM – whereas these were not reported in EMPIR.
Table 49: Contribution and leverage of Art. 185 initiatives
Partnership
name
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (€)
Other
EU
contribution
(b) (€)
Participants’
contribution to
EU R&I
projects
(c) (€)
88 305 000
(estimate)
261 847 645
(estimate)
Additional
activities of
partners, costs
incurred
(d) (€)
Direct ‘call’
leverage
factor
(c) / (a + b)
(€)
Direct leverage
factor including
additional activities
(c + d) / (a + b) (€)
European
Partnership
on Metrology
(Horizon
Europe)
EMPIR
(H2020)
67 698 053
0
67 102 272
1.30
2.30
299 629 630
NA
0.87
NA
Source:
Figures provided by EURAMET as of 31/12/2023.
Note: Co-funding estimated.
EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities
Implementation data on EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities (EIT KICs) is not fully
available in Commission monitoring systems. These capture the grants initiating the KIC and
any Horizon Europe grant which the KICs – which are bodies with an independent legal
personality – may have received in other FP calls. Due to long-standing data integration
difficulties, they do not yet fully capture the activities arranged by the KICs. Nor do they
capture revenues of the KIC and non-EU funded KIC activities, which are the equivalent of
additional activities for other European partnerships.
A monitoring system for KIC activities arranged by EIT distinguishes between the following:
•
•
•
•
EIT contribution to the KIC
partners’ co-funding (co-investment)
The KICs’ revenues,
305
which may include participation fees or a share of the profits
from the products launched by partners
Additional activities, called ‘non-EU funded activities’ (NEFA). These may include
other sources of EU funding, such as grants received in other parts of Horizon Europe.
The amount of EU resources supporting additional activities is not known to this
evaluation.
This data makes it possible to get an approximation of the amounts leveraged by KICs beyond
the EU grants supporting it. Nevertheless, an exact estimate of the funding leveraged in
305
This metric and corresponding leverage factors is shown for EIT KICs only, and not used for comparisons with
other types of partnerships.
225
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0227.png
Horizon Europe is still not possible, because data is disaggregated only by year, and not by
source of funding.
For the Horizon Europe implementation period, there is a clear distinction between EIT
Climate-KIC, EIT Digital and EIT InnoEnergy – the KICs that were launched in 2009, during
the FP7 programming period – and the others. These ‘first-wave’ KICs all have leverage factors
close to or above 1, indicating that resources from partners exceed the EU contribution. For the
KICs launched under Horizon 2020, leverage factors are well below 1, indicating that most
activities of these KICs are directly funded by the Horizon Europe budget. This is in line with
the KIC funding model as defined in the EIT Strategic Innovation agenda
306
, based on a gradual
decreasing of the EIT funding rate during the KIC’s life cycle and gradual increase of the level
of private and public investment from partners (excluding revenues).
The three first-wave KICs have reached the 15-year term by which they are expected to become
financially sustainable without the financial contribution of the EIT. Figures show that these
KICs have increased their capacity to leverage resources through co-investment and additional
activities beyond the EIT grant, which is part of the definition of financial sustainability used
for KICs
307
. There has been a change compared to Horizon 2020: during the previous
programming period, the leverage factor of these ‘older’ KICs was generally similar to that
seen for the newer ones. This is also in line with the KIC funding model, where the highest
amount of external funding for KICs is intended to materialise over the last 4 years (exit from
EIT grant phase) of the KIC’s 15-year life cycle.
EIT KICs’ leverage effect in Horizon 2020 included the concept of ‘KIC Complementary
Activities (KCA)’, i.e. non-EIT-funded additional activities of EIT KICs triggered by the EIT
intervention. The concept was however abandoned in Horizon Europe, based on the
recommendation in the ECA special report, No. 4 / 2016
308
; accordingly, it is not included in
the leverage factors in Table 51. Owing to the change in methodology, the amount of additional
activities declared as NEFA is significantly lower than the amounts accounted under KCAs in
the previous programme. In line with the KIC model, the amounts of NEFAs are expected to
increase towards the end of each KIC’s life cycle.
The EIT also reports the investment collected by companies supported by EIT KICs
309
, and
includes as part of leverage in its own reporting. This source of
indirect
leverage is not included
in our calculations for consistency with other partnerships. Figures are however presented later
in this annex (“Are Horizon Europe participants collecting additional investments?”
subsection) and in partnership specific annexes, as they are particularly important to capture
the leverage potential of the KICs and their progress towards financial sustainability. For the
most mature EIT KICs, the ratio between these additional investments and EU contribution
ranges between 3:1 (EIT Climate-KIC) to 32:1 (EIT InnoEnergy).
306
Decision (EU) 2021/820 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 on the Strategic
Innovation Agenda of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) 2021-2027; chapter 3.6.2. “KIC
funding model”.
307
Decision 13/2021 of the Governing Board of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology:
https://eit.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-13_20210317-gb66-13_new_eit_fs_principles.pdf
308
European Court of Auditors, Special report no 04/2016: The European Institute of Innovation and Technology
must modify its delivery mechanisms and elements of its design to achieve the expected impact. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union, 2016.
Link:
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_04/SR_EIT_EN.pdf
309
This indicator captures a similar measure as one of the indicators under Key Impact Pathway #9 medium-term
(“Scaling-up - Amount of public & private investment mobilised to exploit or scale-up results from the
Programme”)
226
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0228.png
Table 51: Contribution and leverage of EIT KICs, Horizon Europe period
Partnership
name
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (EUR)
Participants’
contribution to
EU
R&I
projects
(c) (EUR)
Additional
activities
of
partners, costs
incurred
(NEFA)
(d) (EUR)
Direct ‘call’
leverage factor
(c) / (a + b)
(EUR)
Direct
leverage factor
including
additional
activities
(c + d) / (a + b)
(EUR)
0.96
4.84
2.51
0.23
0.38
0.48
0.55
0.31
KIC revenues
(e) (EUR)
Direct
leverage factor
including
additional
activities and
revenues
(c + d + e) / (a
+ b) (EUR)
1.43
5.15
3.49
0.34
0.54
0.64
0.73
0.41
EIT-Climate
EIT-Digital
EIT
InnoEnergy
EIT Food
EIT Health
EIT
Manufacturing
EIT
RawMaterials
EIT
Urban
Mobility
65 980 000
79 574 358
111 351 484
174 870 085
168 614 546
116 940 356
169 078 233
127 686 161
47 820 000
49 144 817
172 392 066
39 016 977
49 987 028
42 029 568
91 995 523
20 076 344
15 450 000
335 650 000
107 530 000
2 010 000
14 020 000
14 200 000
1 510 000
20 010 000
0.72
0.62
1.55
0.22
0.30
0.36
0.54
0.16
30 780 518
24 996 942
108 881 000
18 614 854
27 122 643
18 421 215
29 906 809
12 693 752
Source:
Figures provided by EIT as of 31/12/2023. ‘Other EU contribution’ omitted as not known. KIC revenues
not included in the calculation for consistency with other partnerships.
Table 52: Contribution and leverage of EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities, Horizon
2020 period
Partnership
name
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (EUR)
Participants’
contribution to
EU
R&I
projects
(c) (EUR)
98 674 162
130 542 884
86 098 276
31 832 416
69 004 172
5 719 037
64 673 354
5 761 949
Additional
activities
of
partners
(KCA)
(d) (EUR)
1 657 120 000
1 380 120 000
1 511 040 000
284 410 000
797 440 000
68 870 000
783 760 000
48 120 000
KIC revenues
(e) (EUR)
Direct ‘call’
leverage factor
(c) / (a + b)
(EUR)
Direct
leverage factor
including
revenues
(c + e) / (a + b)
(EUR)
0.21
0.32
0.28
0.36
0.37
0.32
0.39
0.27
EIT-Climate
EIT-Digital
EIT-
InnoEnergy
EIT-Food
EIT-Health
EIT-
Manufacturing
EIT-
RawMaterials
EIT-
UrbanMobility
554 145 243
464 239 920
526 143 929
129 670 630
283 219 403
32 658 504
273 328 932
31 322 415
17 197 636
18 227 714
62 851 641
14 271 010
36 623 641
4 639 228
41 656 653
2 783 022
0.18
0.28
0.16
0.25
0.24
0.18
0.24
0.18
Source:
Figures provided by EIT as of 31 December 2023. ‘Other EU contribution’ (column (b) in other tables)
omitted as not known. KIC revenues not included in the calculation of leverage factors for consistency with other
partnerships.
Non-institutionalised partnerships
Co-programmed partnerships
Research activities under co-programmed partnerships are defined within a Strategic Research
and Innovation Agenda (SRIA), co-designed with partners, and implemented through standard
227
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0229.png
Pillar II calls. Each partnership operates according to the requirements set by a specific
memorandum of understanding (MoU). Funding rates are not significantly different from those
in the rest of Pillar II and, accordingly, co-investment ratios are lower than for other types of
European partnerships (Table 53). The only exception is the Clean Steel partnership, which has
a high call leverage factor of EUR 0.68 per euro invested by the EU.
The added value of these partnerships in terms of leverage is supposed to come primarily from
in-kind
additional activities. Similarly to the JUs
310
, these are defined as additional activities
that are within the scope of the SRIA and the objectives of the partnerships but are not covered
by EU funding. Co-programmed partnerships are required to monitor and regularly report on
agreed and provided contributions alongside with additional activities from private members
311
312
. Contrary to JUs, however, these activities are not subject to any formal certification
process.
To date, information on additional activities under the scope of the partnership is reported
primarily by its members to the Commission through confidential IT channels, on a periodic
basis (every year or every two years, according to the MoU). While the exact scope of the
activities remains confidential, all MoUs of co-programmed partnerships provide that the
outcome of periodic reporting from partners should feed into the Horizon Europe evaluation
process
313
.
Compared to the EU contribution they receive, the value of additional activities reported by
partners is very high: even with some data gaps (see Table 53), the total investments declared
amount to over EUR 10 billion for all partnerships combined. However, due to the way this
data is reported and constraints relating to confidentiality and competitiveness, very little is
known about the actual extent of these activities – for instance, on whether the same activities
are declared by multiple partners, or whether EU funding from other sources is used.
Table 53: Contribution and leverage of Co-programmed partnerships
Partnership name
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (EUR)
Other
EU
contribution
(b) (EUR)
Participants’
contribution to
EU
R&I
projects
(c) (EUR)
Additional
activities
partners,
incurred
(d) (EUR)
of
costs
Direct
‘call’
leverage
factor
(c) / (a + b)
(EUR)
0.20
0.09
0.20
0.18
0.68
0.01
0.05
Direct
leverage factor
including
additional
activities
(c + d) / (a + b)
(EUR)
2.40
0.33 **
not disclosed
2.67
2.52
3.79
3.75
2ZERO
AI, Data and
Robotics
Built4People
CCAM
Clean Steel
EOSC
Batt4EU
305 398 972
606 528 909
175 969 111
208 302 018
64 294 037
162 604 303
308 590 260
0
0
0
0
24 710 696 *
0
0
60 476 390
54 004 190
34 480 935
36 592 313
60 861 599
2 234 950
14 192 116
673 506 087
144 581 063 **
not disclosed
519 897 048
162 995 000
614 007 650
1 141 660 899
310
One of the differences between additional activities in co-programmed partnerships and in Joint Undertakings
is the absence of any certification mechanisms on these additional activities.
311
Co-programmed Partnership MoU, Section 6, “Monitoring”
312
In-kind additional activities are addressed in the Annual Activities Plan (AAP) of each Partnership and (as for
JUs) should be planned and reported via a dedicated IT tool, in such a way as to ensure future integration in the
EC corporate systems. Additional activities require close monitoring, since if contributions from non-EU partners
fall significantly below the agreed estimations in the AAP, EC contributions must be adjusted. Co-programmed
Partnership MoU, Section 5.5. “Fulfilment of Commitments”
313
Section 6 of MoUs of all co-programmed partnerships.
228
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0230.png
Partnership name
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (EUR)
Other
EU
contribution
(b) (EUR)
Participants’
contribution to
EU
R&I
projects
(c) (EUR)
Additional
activities
partners,
incurred
(d) (EUR)
of
costs
Direct
‘call’
leverage
factor
(c) / (a + b)
(EUR)
0.13
0.08
0.20
0.24
Made in Europe
Photonics
Processes4Planet
ZEWT
462 613 569
259 183 714
506 463 819
239 757 594
0
0
0
0
58 235 406
21 878 617
102 653 959
58 200 225
2 734 830 000 **
1 257 792 356
1 218 131 688
1 645 912 276
Direct
leverage factor
including
additional
activities
(c + d) / (a + b)
(EUR)
6.04 **
4.94
2.61
7.11
Source:
CORDA and eGrants dashboard, grant agreements signed at 31 December 2023, and additional activity
reports of co-programmed partnerships (2021-2022, 2023). Only incurred expenditures are taken into account.
* Funding from the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS)
** Additional activity reports available for 2021 and 2022 only.
229
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0231.png
Co-funded partnerships
Co-funded partnerships are implemented through a grant agreement, established following a
call for proposals
314
. Typically, the co-funding rate is either 30% or 50% of the total project
cost, leading to a substantial level of co-investment from partners. These are in most cases
public organisations, namely funding bodies at national or regional level.
All data presented in the analysis is related to the grant agreement and therefore
ex-ante.
There is no guarantee that the partnerships’ partners will actualise their political commitments
and estimated contributions. This uncertainty makes it difficult to accurately assess whether
the estimated leverage set out above will materialise as planned.
All grants initiating co-funded partnerships have leverage factors above 1: partners are
expected to bring in at least as many resources as the EU. Agroecology, and Assessment of
risks from chemicals (PARC), exhibit the lowest leverage factor of 1.00, indicating that for
every euro contributed by Horizon Europe, consortia members also contribute EUR 1 to the
partnerships’ total costs. Several other partnerships have a leverage ratio of 2.33, which is
equivalent to a 30%-70% split in resources between the EU and partners. Sustainable Blue
Economy and Driving Urban Transitions reported much higher leverage factors, at 3.86 and
3.79 respectively.
It is to be noted that co-funded partnerships may receive the EU contribution throughout
multiple work programmes, via ‘top-up calls’ that result in amendments to grant agreements.
These amendments increase the EU contribution, typically within the constraints of the
resources available in the work programme they are funded under. Leverage factors may
therefore vary in the future as the resources committed with the first grant are ‘topped-up’ in
following years. This is especially likely for partnerships with leverage factors above 2.33. Due
to their implementation through different phases, partners may have included activities and
anticipated costs on their initial proposals that will only be ‘matched’ by an increased EU
contribution in future work programmes.
However, the high leverage factor for co-funded partnerships does not show the source of the
funds committed by national authorities. In the context of the 2024 Biennial Monitoring Report
on partnerships, at least four Member States reported having financially supported their
participation in co-funded partnerships through the use of ESIF and ERDF funds
315
, as well as
the Recovery and Resilience Fund
316
. While these examples are ideal cases of synergies
between different types of EU funds, they do not technically represent additional spending in
R&I compared to the EU budget. Despite these reporting exercises, no granular monitoring on
the amounts committed by Member States from other EU funds is available for this evaluation.
Another major limitation to the analysis of leverage for co-funded partnerships is that the
amounts shown in Table 54 only account for the grants signed between the consortia and the
EU. Most co-funded partnerships
317
arrange their own funding schemes for third-party
beneficiaries, a form of ‘cascade granting’
318
. They may also arrange non-EU funded activities,
such as funding schemes aimed at beneficiaries beyond EU Member States and Horizon Europe
associated countries.
314
315
Horizon Europe Work Programme 2023-2025, General Annexes
BMR 2024, p. 77.
316
BMR 2024, p. 196. The case of Italy is specifically mentioned.
317
The exception is PARC, where partners are the only beneficiaries of EU funding.
318
Cascading schemes might include various financial mechanisms, such as grants, prizes, procurement, and
Horizon Europe blended finance.
230
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0232.png
Each partnership implements its own work programme, disbursing funds to end-point
beneficiaries. Rules of participation may vary, and there may be additional co-funding from
beneficiaries (or non-EU funded participation, such as from third country entities that are
supported by other parties), as well as other additional non-EU-funded activities.
This layered financing structure could allow for a more comprehensive assessment of leverage,
since it would make it possible to estimate additional contributions and activities, beyond the
EU contribution to the specific partnership grant agreement. However, the impact of cascade
granting, specifically the additional contributions of beneficiaries and end-point beneficiaries,
cannot be quantified as reporting data on the cascading component are not currently available
in Commission monitoring systems in a manner that allows for appropriate aggregation.
Moreover, beside contributions to R&I projects (in-kind and other), there are also membership
contributions in some cases. Details on such contributions are not reported.
In essence, as of today, it is not possible through Commission monitoring systems to capture
and consolidate all the data necessary to quantify additional contributions to co-funded
partnerships from members and end-point beneficiaries.
Table 54: Contribution and leverage of co-funded partnerships
Partnership name
Horizon
Europe
contribution
(a) (EUR)
60 000 000
200 000 000
40 000 000
70 000 000
37 000 000
33 045 067
69 644 027
100 575 465
23 000 000
91 574 573
26 019 783
Partners contribution
to EU R&I projects
(c) (EUR)
60 000 000
200 000 000
96 144 162
208 350 377
140 266 254
77 105 156
162 502 734
234 676 086
88 827 683
213 674 014
60 712 827
Direct ‘call’
leverage factor
(c) / (a + b)
(EUR)
1.00
1.00
2.40
2.98
3.79
2.33
2.33
2.33
3.86
2.33
2.33
Agroecology
Assessment of risks from chemicals
(PARC)
Biodiversa+
Clean Energy Transition
Driving Urban Transitions
ERA4Health
Innovative SMEs
Personalised Medicine
Sustainable Blue Economy
Transforming health and care systems
Water4All
Source:
CORDA, 31 December 2023.
Note: All figures are
ex-ante.
Implementation figures on cascade grants and additional activities not yet
available.
Top-up EU grants supplementing the resources of the partnership are not included, as none was signed at
31/12/2023.
Are Horizon Europe participants collecting additional investments?
The concept of leverage may also be used to encompass funding received by beneficiaries after
project participation (a form of ‘indirect’ leverage). For example, the Horizon 2020 ex post
evaluation reports that SMEs participating in the LEIT parts of the programme (largely
equivalent to Cluster 4 in Horizon Europe) collected at least EUR 9.4 billion in investment
after project signature.
319
Information on additional investment collected by participants is available only in a fragmented
way, also in Horizon Europe. Suitable data is currently not available to this evaluation for most
319
Horizon 2020 ex post evaluation Staff Working Document, p. 83.
231
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0233.png
programme parts: the first programme-wide data – as captured under the Key Impact Pathway
9 medium-term indicator
320
– will become available from 2025 onwards.
The only programme part for which structured figures about additional investments are already
available is the EIT. The EIT collects data on investment collected by
start-ups
participating
in KICs on an annual basis: these constitute a prominent component of the EIT’s own leverage
framework.
The data shared by EIT indicates that the value of these investments is considerably larger than
the amount of the EIT grant in most KICs. While the values cannot be aggregated across KICs
to give a single leverage factor for all EIT KICs – as the same company may be involved in
multiple KICs – there are visible differences between them, with some KIC participants
attracting much more investments than others. In the InnoEnergy KIC, the amount of
investment collected by supported startups is over 30 times higher than the EIT grant, which
leads to a very high implied leverage factor. Most of the amount invested is reported for 2023.
This KIC has the peculiarity of acting itself as a venture capital fund, managing a portfolio of
over 200 investments in the energy and transportation sectors
321
.
Table 55: Additional investments collected by start-ups participating in EIT KICs, 2021-2023
Partnership name
EIT
contribution
(EUR) (a)
Additional
investments to
start-ups (EUR) (b)
Ratio between
additional
investments
and EIT grant
(b / a)
2.7
4.3
32.3
4.8
7.0
1.0
2.3
0.7
EIT-Climate
EIT-Digital
EIT-InnoEnergy
EIT-Food
EIT-Health
EIT-Manufacturing
EIT-RawMaterials
EIT-Urban Mobility
65 980 000
79 574 358
111 351 484
174 870 085
168 614 546
116 940 356
169 078 233
127 686 161
179 420 000
340 620 000
3 593 970 000
840 060 000
1 175 440 000
113 930 000
395 120 000
92 230 000
Source:
Figures provided by EIT as of 31 December 2023. Figures for additional investments are rounded to the
closest 10 000. EIT contribution refers specifically to the grant the KICs received from the EIT between 2021 and
2023 – other sources of funding from the EU are not included as not structurally collected in EIT reporting.
‘Scaling-up - Amount of public & private investment mobilised to exploit or scale-up results from the
Programme (including foreign direct investments)’
321
See European Partnership Annex on EIT InnoEnergy, p. 8.
320
232
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0234.png
Annex 8 Additional data on state-of-play, including for the European
Partnerships and EU Missions
Five EU Missions aim to provide concrete solutions to some among the greatest challenges and
to directly support EU priorities.
Horizon Europe work programmes allocate up to EUR
Figure 125: Horizon Europe funding
2.55 billion exclusively for Mission-specific calls for the
allocated to EU Missions
first four years of the programme (2021-2024). By the end
of December 2024,
236
grants had been signed for a total
of
EUR 1.84 billion
322
.
The
average grant size
for Missions is
EUR 7.8 million,
higher than for Horizon Europe (EUR 288 million) but
closer to the average of Pillar II (EUR 6.4 million).
Of the
3 302 beneficiaries,
87% are from Member States,
34% of which from Widening countries.
902
participants
in Missions projects are SMEs, collectively receiving
EUR 303 million.
Missions have been designed to facilitate participation
from a diverse array of beneficiaries. Research
organisations lead in the funding received (27%, EUR
499.4M), followed by higher education (25%, EUR
459.3M) and private for-profit entities (23%, EUR 428.1M). Private for-profit entities have the
most distinct participants (917) and highest participation rate (30%), followed by “Other”
entities, which are often civil society organisations (584 beneficiaries, 19%).
Figure 126: Horizon Europe Mission beneficiaries by type of organisation
As of January 2025, 50 European partnerships were identified (three are still under
preparation), and another ten are announced in the Strategic Plan for 2025-2027. The JUs have
awarded
530 grants
as of 6 January 2025, which include
4 281 participants
(engaged in 9 186
322
There are two types of mission calls in Horizon Europe: calls that are 100% dedicated to one specific mission
and horizontal calls that benefit to all 5 missions or joint calls that benefit to two or three missions. Funding for
these calls is split between missions according to a weighting defined by the EC, while Participants and
Participations are counted for each mission separately.
233
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0235.png
participations). The total EU funding allocated to this has been
EUR 4.8 billion
(towards total
project costs of EUR 7 billion).
Table 56: Key figures for Joint Undertakings
JU name
Grants
Participants
Participation
EU funding
(EUR)
Total Cost
(EUR)
Circular Bio-based Europe JU
Clean Aviation JU
Clean Hydrogen JU
EuroHPC JU
Europe's Rail JU
Global Health EDCTP3 JU
Innovative Health Initiative JU
Key Digital Technologies JU
(now Chips JU)
Single European Sky
ATM Research 3 JU
Smart Networks and Services
JU
Total
52
28
102
17
23
74
30
58
68
78
530
588
282
840
119
363
305
633
1,120
292
494
4,281
788
627
1,294
209
747
563
967
1,979
809
1,203
9,186
330,864,460
805,855,802
642,578,756
82,291,527
278,279,609
233,973,983
352,319,886
1,345,275,223
228,694,245
495,989,812
4,796,123,303
430,584,418
1,066,919,085
1,533,550,982
171,866,473
366,579,075
253,828,364
677,241,398
3,221,782,121
399,221,417
537,171,119
8,658,744,451
Source:
CORDA, data as of 6 January 2025. Only Horizon Europe funding included.
More information on the funding provided by EU programmes other than Horizon Europe to
the JUs is available in the section on external coherence and synergies below.
The EU contribution to SMEs in institutionalised partnerships is:
•
•
For the JUs: 14.5%, while the share of unique participants that are SMEs is 32.5%.
For the EIT KICs: 21.9% of total EIT funding.
323
726 SMEs participated in the activities
of EIT KICs out of 1971 active partners, constituting 36.8% of SME participation.
324
The
11 co-programmed partnerships
325
have had 589 grants as of 6 January 2025, awarding
EUR 4.0 billion of EU funding to 4 753 participants (with 9 650 participations), towards a total
project cost of EUR 4.6 billion.
The
14 co-funded partnerships
have had 14 grants (one per partnership), awarding EUR 1.17
billion of EU funding to 673 participants (with 1 228 participations), towards a total grants
budget of EUR 3.7 billion.
323
The EIT KICs have been awarded EUR 1 740 million of EIT funding in 2021-2024. The EIT contribution to
SMEs in EIT KICs over the same period was EUR 381 million.
324
Participations of active partners under the EIT KICs Grant Agreements 2023-2025 as of January 2025.
325
See lists of partnerships in the SWD glossary.
234
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0236.png
Country Tables
Applications
Table 57: Horizon Europe applications by country
EU-27
Member
State
Countr
y code
Country
group
Horizon
Europe
application
s in eligible
proposals
over 2021-
2024
13,139
% of
total
Horizon
Europe
application
s in eligible
proposals
per year
Horizon
Europe
application
s in high
quality
proposals
% of high
quality
application
s
Retained
Application
s
Success
rate of
applicatio
n in
Horizon
Europe
'000 of
scientist
s and
engineer
s per
country
*
459.4
Share of
scientist
s and
engineer
s in EU-
27
Application
s per '000
of scientists
and
engineers
in the
population
29
Austria
AT
Non
widening
Non
widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non
widening
Widening
Non
widening
2.8%
3,285
9,034
68.8%
2,733
20.8%
2.5%
Belgium
BE
21,707
4.7%
5,427
15,514
71.5%
5,241
24.1%
548.8
2.9%
40
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
BG
HR
CY
CZ
DK
3,148
2,882
5,261
6,264
10,373
0.7%
0.6%
1.1%
1.3%
2.2%
787
721
1,315
1,566
2,593
1,854
1,767
3,334
3,986
7,385
58.9%
61.3%
63.4%
63.6%
71.2%
577
487
841
1,230
2,272
18.3%
16.9%
16.0%
19.6%
21.9%
232.3
120
49.5
424.7
345.8
1.2%
0.6%
0.3%
2.3%
1.8%
14
24
106
15
30
Estonia
Finland
EE
FI
3,300
10,632
0.7%
2.3%
825
2,658
2,133
7,242
64.6%
68.1%
626
2,292
19.0%
21.6%
71.5
318.3
0.4%
1.7%
46
33
235
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0237.png
EU-27
Member
State
Countr
y code
Country
group
Horizon
Europe
application
s in eligible
proposals
over 2021-
2024
35,620
% of
total
Horizon
Europe
application
s in eligible
proposals
per year
Horizon
Europe
application
s in high
quality
proposals
% of high
quality
application
s
Retained
Application
s
Success
rate of
applicatio
n in
Horizon
Europe
'000 of
scientist
s and
engineer
s per
country
*
2876.9
Share of
scientist
s and
engineer
s in EU-
27
Application
s per '000
of scientists
and
engineers
in the
population
12
France
FR
Non
widening
Non
widening
Widening
Widening
Non
widening
Non
widening
Widening
Widening
Non
widening
Widening
Non
widening
Widening
7.6%
8,905
25,502
71.6%
8,210
23.0%
15.4%
Germany
DE
47,656
10.2%
11,914
33,308
69.9%
10,431
21.9%
3958
21.1%
12
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
EL
HU
IE
23,970
3,966
8,790
5.1%
0.9%
1.9%
5,993
992
2,198
15,972
2,500
5,980
66.6%
63.0%
68.0%
4,282
753
1,741
17.9%
19.0%
19.8%
372.9
340.5
343.4
2.0%
1.8%
1.8%
64
12
26
Italy
IT
48,391
10.4%
12,098
31,425
64.9%
8,788
18.2%
1224
6.5%
40
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
LV
LT
LU
1,920
2,659
2,291
0.4%
0.6%
0.5%
480
665
573
1,149
1,574
1,584
59.8%
59.2%
69.1%
356
497
436
18.5%
18.7%
19.0%
73.6
149.5
39.9
0.4%
0.8%
0.2%
26
18
57
Malta
Netherlands
MT
NL
1,026
24,916
0.2%
5.4%
257
6,229
625
17,546
60.9%
70.4%
194
5,753
18.9%
23.1%
26.5
1228.7
0.1%
6.6%
39
20
Poland
PL
9,329
2.0%
2,332
5,648
60.5%
1,691
18.1%
1630.1
8.7%
6
236
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0238.png
EU-27
Member
State
Countr
y code
Country
group
Horizon
Europe
application
s in eligible
proposals
over 2021-
2024
15,329
6,248
2,102
4,899
52,030
% of
total
Horizon
Europe
application
s in eligible
proposals
per year
Horizon
Europe
application
s in high
quality
proposals
% of high
quality
application
s
Retained
Application
s
Success
rate of
applicatio
n in
Horizon
Europe
'000 of
scientist
s and
engineer
s per
country
*
519.8
582
160.3
96.4
1762.9
Share of
scientist
s and
engineer
s in EU-
27
Application
s per '000
of scientists
and
engineers
in the
population
29
11
13
51
30
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
PT
RO
SK
SI
ES
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non
widening
Non
widening
3.3%
1.3%
0.5%
1.1%
11.2%
3,832
1,562
526
1,225
13,008
9,752
3,506
1,251
3,250
35,751
63.6%
56.1%
59.5%
66.3%
68.7%
2,627
1,039
415
1,004
10,299
17.1%
16.6%
19.7%
20.5%
19.8%
2.8%
3.1%
0.9%
0.5%
9.4%
Sweden
SE
12,968
2.8%
3,242
8,692
67.0%
2,521
19.4%
767.3
4.1%
17
Total EU-
27
Widening
Non-
Widening
Associate
d
countries
380,816
81.8%
95,204
257,264
67.6%
77,336
20.3%
18723
100%
20
92,303
288,513
19.8%
62.0%
23,076
72,128
58,301
198,963
63.2%
69.0%
16,619
60,717
18.0%
21.0%
4,850
13,873
25.9%
74.1%
19
21
58,817
12.6%
14,356
37,656
64.0%
10,759
18.9%
237
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0239.png
EU-27
Member
State
Countr
y code
Country
group
Horizon
Europe
application
s in eligible
proposals
over 2021-
2024
25,990
% of
total
Horizon
Europe
application
s in eligible
proposals
per year
Horizon
Europe
application
s in high
quality
proposals
% of high
quality
application
s
Retained
Application
s
Success
rate of
applicatio
n in
Horizon
Europe
'000 of
scientist
s and
engineer
s per
country
*
Share of
scientist
s and
engineer
s in EU-
27
Application
s per '000
of scientists
and
engineers
in the
population
Third
countries
Total
Horizon
Europe
5.6%
6,434
18,292
70.4%
5,598
22.0%
465,623
100.0
%
115,993
313,212
67.3%
93,693
20.12%
238
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0240.png
Table 58: Horizon Europe number of applications by type of organization
EU-27 Member
State
Country code
Country group
Horizon Europe
applications in
eligible proposals
over 2021-2024
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
Number of applications
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
AT
BE
BG
HR
CY
CZ
DK
EE
FI
FR
DE
EL
HU
IE
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
13,139
21,707
3,148
2,882
5,261
6,264
10,373
3,300
10,632
35,620
47,656
23,970
3,966
8,790
4,824
6,772
592
1,035
1,277
2,928
5,972
1,338
5,114
9,031
17,696
6,514
1,218
4,483
4,000
5,482
1,270
782
2,881
1,469
2,500
1,069
2,555
12,227
14,636
8,855
1,260
3,164
258
560
263
364
320
328
751
263
487
1,147
1,038
1,288
280
286
3,295
3,564
520
469
442
1,117
655
176
1,938
10,898
12,164
5,821
706
319
762
5,329
503
232
341
422
495
454
538
2,317
2,122
1,492
502
538
239
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0241.png
EU-27 Member
State
Country code
Country group
Horizon Europe
applications in
eligible proposals
over 2021-2024
48,391
1,920
2,659
2,291
1,026
24,916
9,329
15,329
6,248
2,102
4,899
52,030
12,968
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
IT
LV
LT
LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SK
SI
ES
SE
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
18,699
644
837
434
380
11,974
3,756
4,422
1,565
627
1,201
13,675
7,351
15,902
453
770
1,215
331
7,364
2,364
4,735
2,109
692
1,389
16,262
3,258
1,869
228
397
78
166
638
641
992
669
228
344
2,541
795
8,865
378
279
464
89
3,304
1,950
4,222
1,101
302
1,610
16,341
1,151
3,056
217
376
100
60
1,636
618
958
804
253
355
3,211
413
Total EU-27
Widening
380,816
92,303
134,359
28,334
118,994
30,429
17,219
6,771
82,140
19,182
28,104
7,587
240
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0242.png
EU-27 Member
State
Country code
Country group
Horizon Europe
applications in
eligible proposals
over 2021-2024
288,513
58,817
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
Non-Widening
Associated
countries
Third countries
Total Horizon
Europe
106,025
31,646
88,565
14,639
10,448
3,165
62,958
6,702
20,517
2,665
25,990
465,623
12,231
178,236
5,765
139,398
2,014
22,398
4,061
92,903
1,919
32,688
Legend:
HES - Higher Education Instritutions
REC- Research Organisations
PRC - Private-for-profit entities
PUB - Public bodies
OTH - Other
241
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0243.png
Table 59: Horizon Europe % of all applications per country by type of organization
EU-27 Member
State
Country code
Country group
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
% of all applications per country
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
AT
BE
BG
HR
CY
CZ
DK
EE
FI
FR
DE
EL
HU
IE
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
37%
31%
19%
36%
24%
47%
58%
41%
48%
25%
37%
27%
31%
51%
30%
25%
40%
27%
55%
23%
24%
32%
24%
34%
31%
37%
32%
36%
2%
3%
8%
13%
6%
5%
7%
8%
5%
3%
2%
5%
7%
3%
25%
16%
17%
16%
8%
18%
6%
5%
18%
31%
26%
24%
18%
4%
6%
25%
16%
8%
6%
7%
5%
14%
5%
7%
4%
6%
13%
6%
242
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0244.png
EU-27 Member
State
Country code
Country group
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
IT
LV
LT
LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SK
SI
ES
SE
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
39%
34%
31%
19%
37%
48%
40%
29%
25%
30%
25%
26%
57%
33%
24%
29%
53%
32%
30%
25%
31%
34%
33%
28%
31%
25%
4%
12%
15%
3%
16%
3%
7%
6%
11%
11%
7%
5%
6%
18%
20%
10%
20%
9%
13%
21%
28%
18%
14%
33%
31%
9%
6%
11%
14%
4%
6%
7%
7%
6%
13%
12%
7%
6%
3%
Total EU-27
Widening
35.3%
15.9%
31.2%
21.8%
4.5%
30.2%
21.6%
20.6%
7.4%
23.2%
243
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0245.png
EU-27 Member
State
Country code
Country group
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
Non-Widening
Associated
countries
Third countries
Total Horizon
Europe
59.5%
63.5%
46.6%
67.8%
62.8%
17.8%
6.9%
10.5%
4.1%
14.1%
9.0%
7.2%
4.4%
8.2%
5.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
244
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0246.png
Table 60: Horizon Europe % of all applications per organization type
EU-27 Member
State
Country code
Country group
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
% of all applications per organisation type
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
AT
BE
BG
HR
CY
CZ
DK
EE
FI
FR
DE
EL
HU
IE
IT
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
3%
4%
0%
1%
1%
2%
3%
1%
3%
5%
10%
4%
1%
3%
10%
3%
4%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
9%
10%
6%
1%
2%
11%
1%
3%
1%
2%
1%
1%
3%
1%
2%
5%
5%
6%
1%
1%
8%
4%
4%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
2%
12%
13%
6%
1%
0%
10%
2%
16%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
7%
6%
5%
2%
2%
9%
245
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0247.png
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
LV
LT
LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SK
SI
ES
SE
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
2%
2%
1%
0%
1%
8%
4%
0%
1%
1%
0%
5%
2%
3%
2%
0%
1%
12%
2%
1%
2%
0%
1%
3%
3%
4%
3%
1%
2%
11%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2%
5%
1%
0%
2%
18%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
5%
2%
3%
2%
1%
1%
10%
1%
Total EU-27
Widening
Non-Widening
Associated
countries
Third countries
Total Horizon
Europe
75%
16%
59%
18%
7%
100%
85%
22%
64%
11%
4%
100%
77%
30%
47%
14%
9%
100%
88%
21%
68%
7%
4%
100%
86%
23%
63%
8%
6%
100%
246
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0248.png
Table 61: Horizon Europe number of applications by pillar
EU-27 Member State
Country code
Country group
Horizon Europe
applications in
eligible proposals
over 2021-2024
Pillar I
Pillar II
Pillar III
Widening &
ERA
Number of applications
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
AT
BE
BG
HR
CY
CZ
DK
EE
FI
FR
DE
EL
HU
IE
IT
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
13,139
21,707
3,148
2,882
5,261
6,264
10,373
3,300
10,632
35,620
47,656
23,970
3,966
8,790
48,391
3,371
5,274
276
515
588
1,967
4,009
579
3,091
12,344
15,532
2,311
807
2,543
13,153
8,355
14,462
2,210
1,774
3,946
3,257
5,297
2,079
6,573
19,134
26,540
18,886
2,465
5,216
29,734
1,044
1,507
253
217
227
437
843
251
746
3,480
4,492
1,286
371
779
4,562
369
464
409
376
500
603
224
391
222
662
1,092
1,487
323
252
942
247
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0249.png
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
LV
LT
LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SK
SI
ES
SE
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
1,920
2,659
2,291
1,026
24,916
9,329
15,329
6,248
2,102
4,899
52,030
12,968
285
317
449
181
8,355
2,257
3,486
663
304
992
13,094
4,487
1,214
1,726
1,658
568
13,704
5,565
9,206
4,513
1,406
3,202
33,371
6,939
161
302
154
84
2,305
809
1,440
481
165
361
4,602
1,258
260
314
30
193
552
698
1,197
591
227
344
963
284
Total EU-27
Widening
Non-Widening
Associated
countries
Third countries
Total Horizon 2020
380,816
92,303
288,513
58,817
25,990
465,623
101,230
15,528
85,702
20,808
9,295
131,333
233,000
62,017
170,983
31,015
15,111
279,126
32,617
6,845
25,772
4,110
1,330
38,057
13,969
7,913
6,056
2,884
254
17,107
248
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0250.png
Table 62: Horizon Europe % of applications of the country by pillar
EU-27 Member State
Country code
Country group
Pillar I
Pillar II
Pillar III
Widening &
ERA
% of applications of the country by pillar
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
AT
BE
BG
HR
CY
CZ
DK
EE
FI
FR
DE
EL
HU
IE
IT
LV
LT
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
26%
24%
9%
18%
11%
31%
39%
18%
29%
35%
33%
10%
20%
29%
27%
15%
12%
64%
67%
70%
62%
75%
52%
51%
63%
62%
54%
56%
79%
62%
59%
61%
63%
65%
8%
7%
8%
8%
4%
7%
8%
8%
7%
10%
9%
5%
9%
9%
9%
8%
11%
3%
2%
13%
13%
10%
10%
2%
12%
2%
2%
2%
6%
8%
3%
2%
14%
12%
249
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0251.png
EU-27 Member State
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Country code
LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SK
SI
ES
SE
Country group
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
Pillar I
20%
18%
34%
24%
23%
11%
14%
20%
25%
35%
Pillar II
72%
55%
55%
60%
60%
72%
67%
65%
64%
54%
Pillar III
7%
8%
9%
9%
9%
8%
8%
7%
9%
10%
Widening &
ERA
1%
19%
2%
7%
8%
9%
11%
7%
2%
2%
Total EU-27
Widening
Non-Widening
Associated
countries
Third countries
Total Horizon
2020
27%
17%
30%
35%
36%
28%
61%
67%
59%
53%
58%
60%
9%
7%
9%
7%
5%
8%
4%
9%
2%
5%
1%
4%
250
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0252.png
Table 63: Horizon Europe % of all applications per pillar
EU-27 Member State
Country code
Country group
Pillar I
Pillar II
Pillar III
Widening &
ERA
% of all applications per pillar
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
AT
BE
BG
HR
CY
CZ
DK
EE
FI
FR
DE
EL
HU
IE
IT
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
3%
4%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
0%
2%
9%
12%
2%
1%
2%
10%
3%
5%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
7%
10%
7%
1%
2%
11%
3%
4%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
9%
12%
3%
1%
2%
12%
2%
3%
2%
2%
3%
4%
1%
2%
1%
4%
6%
9%
2%
1%
6%
251
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0253.png
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
LV
LT
LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SK
SI
ES
SE
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
Non widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Widening
Non widening
Non widening
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
2%
3%
1%
0%
1%
10%
3%
0%
1%
1%
0%
5%
2%
3%
2%
1%
1%
12%
2%
0%
1%
0%
0%
6%
2%
4%
1%
0%
1%
12%
3%
2%
2%
0%
1%
3%
4%
7%
3%
1%
2%
6%
2%
Total EU-27
Widening
Non-Widening
Associated
countries
Third countries
Total Horizon
2020
77%
12%
65%
16%
7%
100%
83%
22%
61%
11%
5%
100%
86%
18%
68%
11%
3%
100%
82%
46%
35%
17%
1%
100%
252
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0254.png
Table 64: Participation in Horizon Europe by country (Source: CORDA data – cut-off date 6 January 2025).
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
Horizon
Europe
participatio
ns in signed
grants over
2021-2024
% of total
Horizon
Europe
participatio
ns in signed
grants per
year**
'000
scientists
and
engineers*
Share of
scientists
and
engineers in
EU27
Participatio
ns per '000
scientists
and
engineers in
the
population
Number of
Horizon
Europe
signed
grants with
at least 1
participant
from the
country
1,872
3,260
414
628
958
5,720
1,747
516
2,085
4,813
1,450
4,355
354
576
1,346
4,556
400
367
284
151
3,630
% of total
Horizon
Europe
signed
grants with
at least 1
participant
from the
country
13.0%
22.6%
2.9%
4.4%
6.7%
39.7%
12.1%
3.6%
14.5%
33.4%
10.1%
30.3%
2.5%
4.0%
9.4%
31.6%
2.8%
2.5%
2.0%
1.0%
25.2%
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
2,956
5,590
634
888
1,366
11,468
2,533
678
4,553
11,473
2,468
9,380
562
792
1,952
9,843
537
461
368
202
6,425
3.5%
6.5%
0.7%
1.0%
1.6%
13.4%
3.0%
0.8%
5.3%
13.4%
2.9%
11.0%
0.7%
0.9%
2.3%
11.5%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
7.5%
806
1,525
173
242
373
3,128
691
185
1,242
3,129
673
2,558
153
216
532
2,684
146
126
100
55
1,752
432
556
211
39
406
3,765
329
65
335
1,599
313
2,599
110
351
306
1,136
132
38
65
24
1,177
2.5%
3.2%
1.2%
0.2%
2.3%
21.5%
1.9%
0.4%
1.9%
9.1%
1.8%
14.8%
0.6%
2.0%
1.7%
6.5%
0.8%
0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
6.7%
6.8
10.1
3.0
22.7
3.4
3.0
7.7
10.5
13.6
7.2
7.9
3.6
5.1
2.3
6.4
8.7
4.1
12.1
5.6
8.3
5.5
253
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0255.png
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
Horizon
Europe
participatio
ns in signed
grants over
2021-2024
% of total
Horizon
Europe
participatio
ns in signed
grants per
year**
'000
scientists
and
engineers*
Share of
scientists
and
engineers in
EU27
Participatio
ns per '000
scientists
and
engineers in
the
population
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Total EU-27
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Associated countries
Third countries
Total Horizon Europe
1,821
2,876
1,098
2,892
1,110
425
85 351
17 910
67 441
10 200
6 045
101 596
2.1%
3.4%
1.3%
3.4%
1.3%
0.5%
100.0%
21.0%
79.0%
10.0%
6.0%
100.0%
497
784
299
789
303
116
85,351
17,910
67,441
10,200
6,045
101,596
1,462
468
614
744
114
143
100.0%
21.0%
79.0%
10.0%
6.0%
100.0%
8.3%
2.7%
3.5%
4.2%
0.7%
0.8%
23,278
4,885
18,393
2,782
1,649
27,708
1.2
6.1
1.8
3.9
9.7
3.0
17,533
4,539
12,994
Number of
Horizon
Europe
signed
grants with
at least 1
participant
from the
country
1,254
1,700
702
1,890
727
321
100.0%
25.9%
74.1%
% of total
Horizon
Europe
signed
grants with
at least 1
participant
from the
country
8.7%
11.8%
4.9%
13.1%
5.1%
2.2%
4.9
3.9
5.2
254
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0256.png
Table 65: Participation in Horizon Europe by country and organisation type (Source: CORDA data – cut-off date 6 January 2025).
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
Horizon
Europe
investments
in signed
grants (EUR
million)
over 2021-
2024
1 393
3 354
165
300
481
6 832
1 239
259
1 689
4 563
1 228
4 897
136
199
902
3 655
157
197
99
46
3 793
% of total
Horizon
Europe
investment
% of
Horizon
Europe
investment
in EU-27
Horizon
Europe
investments
in signed
grants (EUR
million) per
year
380
915
45
82
131
1 863
338
71
461
1 244
335
1 336
37
54
246
997
43
54
27
12
1 034
Yearly
GERD (in
EUR
million)*
Horizon
Europe
investment
in EUR per
EUR million
of GERD
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
3.2%
7.8%
0.4%
0.7%
1.1%
15.8%
2.9%
0.6%
3.9%
10.6%
2.8%
11.3%
0.3%
0.5%
2.1%
8.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.2%
0.1%
8.8%
3.5%
8.5%
0.4%
0.8%
1.2%
17.3%
3.1%
0.7%
4.3%
11.6%
3.1%
12.4%
0.3%
0.5%
2.3%
9.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.1%
9.6%
14908.47
19185.6965
698.7235
210.2575
5623.1335
125696.629
11100.3205
671.9625
3216.493
20851.9545
8187.77
60329.777
1021.205
2538.434
4559.7465
27612.643
741.1585
819.0275
308.3535
115.758
21923.168
9 347
17 480
23 630
142 880
8 560
5 435
11 163
38 586
52 501
21 882
14 994
8 117
13 270
7 833
19 792
13 238
21 150
24 043
32 160
39 416
17 302
255
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0257.png
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Total EU-27
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Associated countries
Third countries
Total Horizon Europe
Horizon
Europe
investments
in signed
grants (EUR
million)
over 2021-
2024
670
998
288
1 445
358
109
39 451
5 952
33 498
3 238
526
43 215
% of total
Horizon
Europe
investment
% of
Horizon
Europe
investment
in EU-27
Horizon
Europe
investments
in signed
grants (EUR
million) per
year
183
272
78
394
98
30
Yearly
GERD (in
EUR
million)*
Horizon
Europe
investment
in EUR per
EUR million
of GERD
1.5%
2.3%
0.7%
3.3%
0.8%
0.3%
91.3%
13.8%
77.5%
7.5%
1.2%
100.0%
1.7%
2.5%
0.7%
3.7%
0.9%
0.3%
10 759
10 379
20 224
30 558
50 700
81 127
10616.877
4323.392
1489.6915
19240.1825
1279.8545
1177.459
368 448
34 033
334 415
6 308
23 075
19 313
7 508
27 976
9 234
10 707
17 490
10 017
256
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0258.png
Table 66: Participation in Horizon Europe by type of organisation (Source: CORDA data – cut-off date 6 January 2025).
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
Horizon
Europe
participatio
ns in signed
grants
2 956
5 590
634
888
1 366
11 468
2 533
678
4 553
11 473
2 468
9 380
562
792
1 952
9 843
537
461
368
202
6 425
1 821
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
994
1 483
134
234
575
3 829
1 359
261
1 100
2 547
957
2 181
181
209
893
3 397
166
76
107
75
2 630
647
Participation
954
81
1 357
229
470
333
3 694
603
204
1 788
3 721
657
3 297
162
223
735
3 439
142
238
87
56
1 979
459
174
75
54
83
234
234
64
218
620
149
337
72
71
85
388
93
22
48
52
183
146
733
1,054
94
61
253
3,110
158
33
1,146
3,784
548
2,924
84
162
87
1,930
56
104
84
10
1,096
399
194
1,522
102
69
122
601
179
116
301
801
157
641
63
127
152
689
80
21
42
9
537
170
257
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0259.png
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
Horizon
Europe
participatio
ns in signed
grants
2 876
1 098
2 892
1 110
425
85,351
17,910
67,441
10,200
6,045
101,596
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Total EU-27
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Associated countries
Third countries
Total Horizon Europe
758
260
1 495
254
113
26,915
5,074
21,841
4,709
2,903
34,527
Participation
875
239
308
794
344
117
27 265
5 797
21 468
2 662
1 268
31 195
150
207
85
62
4 226
1 512
2 714
595
432
5 253
812
238
283
344
71
19 658
3 847
15 811
1 600
968
22 226
192
142
113
83
62
7 287
1 680
5 607
634
474
8 395
258
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0260.png
Table 67: Participation in Horizon Europe by type of organisation (continued) (Source: CORDA data – cut-off date 6 January 2025).
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
% of all projects of specific organisation types
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
2.9%
4.3%
0.4%
0.7%
1.7%
11.1%
3.9%
0.8%
3.2%
7.4%
2.8%
6.3%
0.5%
0.6%
2.6%
9.8%
0.5%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
7.6%
1.9%
2.2%
0.8%
3.1%
4.4%
0.7%
1.5%
1.1%
11.8%
1.9%
0.7%
5.7%
11.9%
2.1%
10.6%
0.5%
0.7%
2.4%
11.0%
0.5%
0.8%
0.3%
0.2%
6.3%
1.5%
2.8%
1.0%
1.5%
3.3%
1.4%
1.0%
1.6%
4.5%
4.5%
1.2%
4.2%
11.8%
2.8%
6.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.6%
7.4%
1.8%
0.4%
0.9%
1.0%
3.5%
2.8%
4.5%
2.9%
3.3%
4.7%
0.4%
0.3%
1.1%
14.0%
0.7%
0.1%
5.2%
17.0%
2.5%
13.2%
0.4%
0.7%
0.4%
8.7%
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
0.0%
4.9%
1.8%
3.7%
1.1%
2.3%
18.1%
1.2%
0.8%
1.5%
7.2%
2.1%
1.4%
3.6%
9.5%
1.9%
7.6%
0.8%
1.5%
1.8%
8.2%
1.0%
0.3%
0.5%
0.1%
6.4%
2.0%
2.3%
1.7%
33.6%
26.5%
21.1%
26.4%
42.1%
33.4%
53.7%
38.5%
24.2%
22.2%
38.8%
23.3%
32.2%
26.4%
45.7%
34.5%
30.9%
16.5%
29.1%
37.1%
40.9%
35.5%
26.4%
23.7%
% of all projects of the country
32.3%
24.3%
36.1%
52.9%
24.4%
32.2%
23.8%
30.1%
39.3%
32.4%
26.6%
35.1%
28.8%
28.2%
37.7%
34.9%
26.4%
51.6%
23.6%
27.7%
30.8%
25.2%
30.4%
28.1%
2.7%
3.1%
11.8%
6.1%
6.1%
2.0%
9.2%
9.4%
4.8%
5.4%
6.0%
3.6%
12.8%
9.0%
4.4%
3.9%
17.3%
4.8%
13.0%
25.7%
2.8%
8.0%
8.3%
13.7%
24.8%
18.9%
14.8%
6.9%
18.5%
27.1%
6.2%
4.9%
25.2%
33.0%
22.2%
31.2%
14.9%
20.5%
4.5%
19.6%
10.4%
22.6%
22.8%
5.0%
17.1%
21.9%
28.2%
21.7%
6.6%
27.2%
16.1%
7.8%
8.9%
5.2%
7.1%
17.1%
6.6%
7.0%
6.4%
6.8%
11.2%
16.0%
7.8%
7.0%
14.9%
4.6%
11.4%
4.5%
8.4%
9.3%
6.7%
12.9%
259
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0261.png
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
SE
SI
SK
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Total EU-27
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Associated countries
Third countries
Total Horizon Europe
4.3%
0.7%
0.3%
78.0%
14.7%
63.3%
13.6%
8.4%
100.0%
2.5%
1.1%
0.4%
87.4%
18.6%
68.8%
8.5%
4.1%
100.0%
3.9%
1.6%
1.2%
80.4%
28.8%
51.7%
11.3%
8.2%
100.0%
1.3%
1.5%
0.3%
88.4%
17.3%
71.1%
7.2%
4.4%
100.0%
1.3%
1.0%
0.7%
86.8%
20.0%
66.8%
7.6%
5.6%
100.0
%
51.7%
22.9%
26.6%
31.5%
28.3%
32.4%
46.2%
48.0%
34.0%
27.5%
31.0%
27.5%
31.9%
32.4%
31.8%
26.1%
21.0%
30.7%
7.2%
7.7%
14.6%
5.0%
8.4%
4.0%
5.8%
7.1%
5.2%
9.8%
31.0%
16.7%
23.0%
21.5%
23.4%
15.7%
16.0%
21.9%
3.9%
7.5%
14.6%
8.5%
9.4%
8.3%
6.2%
7.8%
8.3%
Table 68: Investment in Horizon Europe by type of organisation (Source: CORDA data – cut-off date 6 January 2025).
EU-27
Member
State
Countr
y code
Country group
Horizon
Europe
investment
s in signed
grants
(EUR
million)
over 2021-
2024
1 393
3 354
165
300
481
6 832
1 239
259
1 689
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Investment by type of organisation
575
356
25
887
47
100
248
2 326
789
128
465
493
70
146
109
1 963
221
91
558
62
13
7
15
142
107
8
43
359
976
22
29
77
2 159
70
11
543
78
936
13
18
32
242
51
22
79
260
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0262.png
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembou
rg
Latvia
Malta
Netherland
s
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Total EU-27
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Associated countries
Third countries
Total Horizon Europe
4 563
1 228
4 897
136
199
902
3 655
157
197
99
46
3 793
670
998
288
1 445
358
109
39 451
5 952
33 498
3 238
526
43 215
993
534
761
42
46
509
1 393
58
29
33
19
1 729
229
296
77
851
82
31
13 276
1 900
11 376
1 512
211
14 999
1 479
273
1 632
50
63
278
1 188
45
102
28
15
997
162
258
90
331
108
35
11 139
1 827
9 313
708
49
11 896
163
47
155
11
22
24
194
23
9
7
8
86
41
41
24
99
16
7
1 401
287
1 114
141
38
1 580
1 740
330
2 049
26
44
35
741
13
54
25
3
757
163
369
74
138
138
25
10 970
1 561
9 409
781
179
11 930
187
43
300
7
24
57
140
17
3
7
1
225
75
34
23
25
14
11
2 664
378
2 287
96
49
2 810
261
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0263.png
Table 69: Investment in Horizon Europe by type of organisation (continued) (Source: CORDA data – cut-off date 6 January 2025).
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
HES
PRC
PUB
REC
OTH
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
% investments in countries by organisation
type
41.3%
25.5%
1.8%
25.8%
5.6%
26.4%
28.2%
33.2%
51.4%
34.0%
63.7%
49.4%
27.5%
21.8%
43.5%
15.5%
30.8%
23.1%
56.4%
38.1%
37.0%
14.6%
33.4%
41.3%
45.6%
34.1%
29.7%
14.7%
42.3%
48.7%
22.7%
28.7%
17.9%
34.9%
33.0%
32.4%
22.2%
33.3%
36.8%
31.7%
30.8%
32.5%
28.8%
51.8%
27.8%
32.2%
26.3%
24.2%
25.8%
1.8%
8.0%
2.4%
3.2%
2.1%
8.7%
3.0%
2.5%
3.6%
3.8%
3.2%
8.0%
11.2%
2.7%
5.3%
14.6%
4.4%
7.4%
18.2%
2.3%
6.1%
4.1%
29.1%
13.6%
9.7%
16.1%
31.6%
5.7%
4.1%
32.2%
38.1%
26.9%
41.8%
18.9%
22.0%
3.9%
20.3%
8.5%
27.6%
24.8%
7.0%
19.9%
24.3%
36.9%
27.9%
7.9%
6.0%
6.6%
3.5%
4.1%
8.6%
4.7%
4.1%
3.5%
6.1%
5.5%
12.0%
6.3%
3.8%
11.1%
1.6%
6.7%
1.3%
5.9%
11.3%
3.4%
% investment in organisation type
3.8%
5.9%
0.3%
0.7%
1.7%
15.5%
5.3%
0.9%
3.1%
6.6%
3.6%
5.1%
0.3%
0.3%
3.4%
9.3%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
11.5%
1.5%
2.0%
3.0%
4.1%
0.6%
1.2%
0.9%
16.5%
1.9%
0.8%
4.7%
12.4%
2.3%
13.7%
0.4%
0.5%
2.3%
10.0%
0.4%
0.9%
0.2%
0.1%
8.4%
1.4%
2.2%
1.6%
3.9%
0.8%
0.5%
1.0%
9.0%
6.8%
0.5%
2.7%
10.3%
3.0%
9.8%
0.7%
1.4%
1.5%
12.3%
1.4%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
5.5%
2.6%
2.6%
3.0%
8.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.6%
18.1%
0.6%
0.1%
4.6%
14.6%
2.8%
17.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.3%
6.2%
0.1%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
6.3%
1.4%
3.1%
2.8%
33.3%
0.5%
0.6%
1.1%
8.6%
1.8%
0.8%
2.8%
6.7%
1.5%
10.7%
0.3%
0.8%
2.0%
5.0%
0.6%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
8.0%
2.7%
1.2%
262
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0264.png
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
RO
SE
SI
SK
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Total EU-27
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Associated countries
Third countries
Total Horizon Europe
26.8%
58.9%
22.8%
28.9%
33.7%
31.9%
34.0%
46.7%
40.1%
34.7%
31.1%
22.9%
30.2%
32.1%
28.2%
30.7%
27.8%
21.9%
9.4%
27.5%
8.4%
6.9%
4.5%
6.2%
3.6%
4.8%
3.3%
4.4%
7.2%
3.7%
25.6%
9.5%
38.6%
23.0%
27.8%
26.2%
28.1%
24.1%
34.0%
27.6%
8.1%
1.8%
3.9%
9.8%
6.8%
6.3%
6.8%
3.0%
9.3%
6.5%
0.5%
5.7%
0.5%
0.2%
88.5%
12.7%
75.8%
10.1%
1.4%
100%
0.8%
2.8%
0.9%
0.3%
93.6%
15.4%
78.3%
6.0%
0.4%
100%
1.5%
6.3%
1.0%
0.4%
88.7%
18.2%
70.5%
8.9%
2.4%
100%
0.6%
1.2%
1.2%
0.2%
92.0%
13.1%
78.9%
6.5%
1.5%
100%
0.8%
0.9%
0.5%
0.4%
94.8%
13.4%
81.4%
3.4%
1.8%
100%
Table 70: Participation in Horizon Europe by Pillar (Source: CORDA data – cut-off date 6 January 2025).
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
Horizon Europe
participations
in signed grants
Excellent
Science
Global
Challenges and
European
Industrial
Competitiveness
756
1 205
95
135
424
3 581
911
89
516
2 960
1 957
3 917
417
631
718
6 797
1 411
442
3 649
7 445
Innovative
Europe
Widening
Participation and
Strengthening the
European
Research Area
164
317
72
27
76
839
154
74
151
858
79
151
50
95
148
251
57
73
237
210
Participation
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
2 956
5 590
634
888
1 366
11 468
2 533
678
4 553
11 473
263
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0265.png
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
Horizon Europe
participations
in signed grants
Excellent
Science
Global
Challenges and
European
Industrial
Competitiveness
599
3 090
84
164
553
2 730
55
84
42
42
2 006
437
659
138
920
200
70
22 545
3 150
19 395
3 030
2 389
27 964
1 626
5 345
345
517
1 176
6 244
368
348
241
92
3 743
1 126
1 800
816
1 623
753
258
53 805
12 173
41 632
6 060
3 387
63 252
Innovative
Europe
Widening
Participation and
Strengthening the
European
Research Area
191
767
39
66
163
677
57
19
40
25
534
168
217
66
295
73
49
52
178
94
45
60
192
57
10
45
43
142
90
200
78
54
84
48
2 823
1 387
1 436
526
91
3 440
Participation
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Total EU-27
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Associated countries
Third countries
Total Horizon Europe
2 468
9 380
562
792
1 952
9 843
537
461
368
202
6 425
1 821
2 876
1 098
2 892
1 110
425
85 351
17 910
67 441
10 200
6 045
101 596
6 178
1 200
4 978
584
178
6 940
264
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0266.png
Table 71: Participation in Horizon Europe by Pillar (continued) (Source: CORDA data – cut-off date 6 January 2025).
EU-27
Member
State
Count
ry
code
Country
group
Excellent
Science
Widening
Participati
on and
Strengthe
ning the
European
Research
Area
% participation in each Pillar, by country
3.1%
6.2%
0.7%
1.0%
1.1%
10.7%
2.2%
0.7%
5.8%
11.8%
2.6%
8.5%
0.5%
0.8%
1.9%
9.9%
2.4%
4.6%
1.0%
0.4%
1.1%
12.1%
2.2%
1.1%
2.2%
12.4%
2.8%
11.1%
0.6%
1.0%
2.3%
9.8%
2.3%
4.4%
1.5%
2.8%
4.3%
7.3%
1.7%
2.1%
6.9%
6.1%
1.5%
5.2%
2.7%
1.3%
1.7%
5.6%
Global
Challenges and
European
Industrial
Competitiveness
Innovative
Europe
Excellent
Science
Global
Challenges and
European
Industrial
Competitiveness
Innovative
Europe
Widening
Participation
and
Strengthening
the European
Research Area
% participation in each Pillar, by country
25.6%
21.6%
15.0%
15.2%
31.0%
31.2%
36.0%
13.1%
11.3%
25.8%
24.3%
32.9%
14.9%
20.7%
28.3%
27.7%
66.2%
70.1%
65.8%
71.1%
52.6%
59.3%
55.7%
65.2%
80.1%
64.9%
65.9%
57.0%
61.4%
65.3%
60.2%
63.4%
5.5%
5.7%
11.4%
3.0%
5.6%
7.3%
6.1%
10.9%
3.3%
7.5%
7.7%
8.2%
6.9%
8.3%
8.4%
6.9%
2.7%
2.7%
7.9%
10.7%
10.8%
2.2%
2.3%
10.8%
5.2%
1.8%
2.1%
1.9%
16.7%
5.7%
3.1%
2.0%
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
Non-widening
MS
Non-widening
MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening
MS
Non-widening
MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening
MS
Non-widening
MS
Non-widening
MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening
MS
Non-widening
MS
2.7%
4.3%
0.3%
0.5%
1.5%
12.8%
3.3%
0.3%
1.8%
10.6%
2.1%
11.0%
0.3%
0.6%
2.0%
9.8%
265
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0267.png
EU-27
Member
State
Count
ry
code
Country
group
Excellent
Science
Widening
Participati
on and
Strengthe
ning the
European
Research
Area
% participation in each Pillar, by country
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.1%
5.9%
1.8%
2.8%
1.3%
2.6%
1.2%
0.4%
85.1%
19.2%
65.8%
9.6%
5.4%
100%
0.8%
0.3%
0.6%
0.4%
7.7%
2.4%
3.1%
1.0%
4.3%
1.1%
0.7%
89.0%
17.3%
71.7%
8.4%
2.6%
100%
1.7%
0.3%
1.3%
1.3%
4.1%
2.6%
5.8%
2.3%
1.6%
2.4%
1.4%
82.1%
40.3%
41.7%
15.3%
2.6%
100%
Global
Challenges and
European
Industrial
Competitiveness
Innovative
Europe
Excellent
Science
Global
Challenges and
European
Industrial
Competitiveness
Innovative
Europe
Widening
Participation
and
Strengthening
the European
Research Area
% participation in each Pillar, by country
10.2%
18.2%
11.4%
20.8%
31.2%
24.0%
22.9%
12.6%
31.8%
18.0%
16.5%
26.4%
17.6%
28.8%
29.7%
39.5%
27.5%
68.5%
75.5%
65.5%
45.5%
58.3%
61.8%
62.6%
74.3%
56.1%
67.8%
60.7%
63.0%
68.0%
61.7%
59.4%
56.0%
62.3%
10.6%
4.1%
10.9%
12.4%
8.3%
9.2%
7.5%
6.0%
10.2%
6.6%
11.5%
7.2%
6.7%
7.4%
5.7%
2.9%
6.8%
10.6%
2.2%
12.2%
21.3%
2.2%
4.9%
7.0%
7.1%
1.9%
7.6%
11.3%
3.3%
7.7%
2.1%
5.2%
1.5%
3.4%
Lithuania
Luxembo
urg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlan
ds
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Widening MS
Non-widening
MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening
MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening
MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Total EU-27
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Associated countries
Third countries
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
7.2%
1.6%
2.4%
0.5%
3.3%
0.7%
0.3%
80.6%
11.3%
69.4%
10.8%
8.5%
100%
Total Horizon Europe
266
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0268.png
Table 72: Investment in Horizon Europe by Pillar (Source: CORDA data – cut-off date 6 January 2025).
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
Horizon
Europe
investments in
signed grants
(EUR million)
Excellent
Science
Global
Challenges and
European
Industrial
Competitiveness
Innovative
Europe
Widening
Participation
and
Strengthening
the European
Research Area
102
436
25
7
35
971
121
33
53
637
137
635
9
22
120
307
25
13
8
8
511
104
21
312
33
47
90
77
18
55
121
75
17
47
34
10
13
49
27
1
28
11
48
81
Investment by Pillar
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
1 393
3 354
165
300
481
6 832
1 239
259
1 689
4 563
1 228
4 897
136
199
902
3 655
157
197
99
46
3 793
670
413
551
6
39
118
2 209
422
31
140
943
272
1 417
11
42
253
912
13
22
5
4
1 258
132
857
2 055
101
208
239
3 575
678
141
1 375
2 908
802
2 798
80
125
517
2 387
91
161
58
23
1 976
353
267
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0269.png
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Total EU-27
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Associated countries
Third countries
Total Horizon Europe
998
288
1 445
358
109
39 451
5 952
33 498
3 238
526
43 215
186
23
465
65
10
9 963
824
9 139
1 096
115
11 173
587
217
756
227
57
23 352
3 883
19 469
1 739
398
25 488
93
19
209
26
15
4 679
480
4 199
274
10
4 963
131
29
15
41
27
1 457
765
692
130
4
1 591
Table 73: Investment in Horizon Europe by Pillar (continued) (Source: CORDA data – cut-off date 6 January 2025).
EU-27
Member
State
Country
code
Country group
Excellent
Science
Widening
Participatio
n and
Strengtheni
ng the
European
Research
Area
% investment in each Pillar, by country
61.5%
61.3%
61.1%
69.3%
49.6%
52.3%
54.7%
54.3%
7.3%
13.0%
15.0%
2.2%
7.2%
14.2%
9.7%
12.8%
1.5%
9.3%
20.1%
15.7%
18.6%
1.1%
1.4%
21.0%
Global
Challenges
and
European
Industrial
Competitiv
eness
Innovative
Europe
Excellent
Science
Widening
Participatio
n and
Strengtheni
ng the
European
Research
Area
% investment in each Pillar, by country
3.4%
8.1%
0.4%
0.8%
0.9%
14.0%
2.7%
0.6%
2.1%
8.8%
0.5%
0.1%
0.7%
19.6%
2.4%
0.7%
1.3%
19.6%
2.1%
3.0%
5.6%
4.8%
1.1%
3.4%
Global
Challenges
and
European
Industrial
Competitiv
eness
Innovative
Europe
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
29.7%
16.4%
3.7%
12.8%
24.5%
32.3%
34.1%
11.9%
3.7%
4.9%
0.1%
0.3%
1.1%
19.8%
3.8%
0.3%
268
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0270.png
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Widening MS
Widening MS
Total EU-27
Widening MS
Non-widening MS
Associated countries
Third countries
Total Horizon Europe
8.3%
20.7%
22.2%
28.9%
8.5%
21.1%
28.0%
24.9%
8.6%
11.1%
5.1%
7.7%
33.2%
19.7%
18.7%
7.9%
32.2%
18.1%
8.8%
25.3%
13.8%
27.3%
33.8%
21.8%
25.9%
81.4%
63.7%
65.3%
57.1%
59.2%
62.9%
57.2%
65.3%
58.3%
81.6%
58.3%
50.1%
52.1%
52.8%
58.9%
75.6%
52.3%
63.4%
52.4%
59.2%
65.2%
58.1%
53.7%
75.6%
59.0%
3.1%
14.0%
11.1%
13.0%
7.0%
11.0%
13.3%
8.4%
15.8%
6.6%
7.9%
18.6%
13.5%
15.5%
9.3%
6.5%
14.5%
7.1%
13.7%
11.9%
8.1%
12.5%
8.5%
1.8%
11.5%
7.2%
1.6%
1.4%
1.0%
25.3%
5.0%
1.4%
1.3%
17.4%
0.6%
28.7%
23.6%
1.3%
12.1%
13.1%
10.1%
1.0%
11.4%
25.2%
3.7%
12.9%
2.1%
4.0%
0.7%
3.7%
1.3%
8.4%
2.4%
12.7%
0.1%
0.4%
2.3%
8.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
11.3%
1.2%
1.7%
0.2%
4.2%
0.6%
0.1%
89.2%
7.4%
81.8%
9.8%
1.0%
100%
5.4%
11.4%
3.1%
11.0%
0.3%
0.5%
2.0%
9.4%
0.4%
0.6%
0.2%
0.1%
7.8%
1.4%
2.3%
0.9%
3.0%
0.9%
0.2%
91.6%
15.2%
76.4%
6.8%
1.6%
100%
1.1%
12.8%
2.8%
12.8%
0.2%
0.4%
2.4%
6.2%
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
10.3%
2.1%
1.9%
0.4%
4.2%
0.5%
0.3%
94.3%
9.7%
84.6%
5.5%
0.2%
100%
7.6%
4.7%
1.0%
2.9%
2.2%
0.6%
0.8%
3.1%
1.7%
0.1%
1.8%
0.7%
3.0%
5.1%
8.2%
1.8%
0.9%
2.6%
1.7%
91.6%
48.1%
43.5%
8.2%
0.2%
100%
269
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0271.png
Figure 127: Technology Readiness Level (TRL): status at project start, as indicated in the latest
Periodic Reporting
Source: Elaboration based on Dashboard and CORDA extractions, January 2025.
270
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0272.png
Figure 128: Technology Readiness Level (TRL): status at project start, by Pillar, as indicated
in the latest Periodic Reporting
Source: Elaboration based on Dashboard and CORDA extractions, January 2025.
271
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0273.png
Figure 129: Technology Readiness Level (TRL): status at project end, as indicated in the latest
Periodic Reporting
326
Source: Elaboration based on Dashboard and CORDA extractions, January 2025.
326
This can either be the achieved or expected TRL at project end. Ongoing projects might report the TRL that
they aim to achieve by the end of the project.
272
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0274.png
Figure 130: Technology Readiness Level (TRL): status at project end, by Pillar, as indicated
in the latest Periodic Reporting
Source: Elaboration based on Dashboard and CORDA extractions, January 2025.
273
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0275.png
Annex 9 Activities conducted to increase citizen and user engagement
The evaluation found different activities conducted to increase citizen and user engagement:
•
Cluster 1 engages end-users and SMEs in the health industry – but it has suboptimal
synergies with Cluster 2 on social dimension (i.e. insufficient community engagement in
health-related activities).
Cluster 2 expanded its participant base by including more CSOs, practitioner groups (non-
academic participants) and end users. A third of stakeholder consultation respondents also
expressed that Cluster 2 has unexploited potential for complementarities with the other
Clusters.
Cluster 3 mandates the involvement of public bodies and security practitioners as a key
eligibility criterion. The compulsory association of end-users to the project is considered
to have had beneficial effect on the added-value of the programme and is a measure that
contributes to dissemination of research results.
Cluster 4 emphasizes the importance of involving local stakeholders with the aim to foster
scalability and replicability.
Cluster 5 projects in areas of energy supply, transport and mobility tend to prioritise
collaborations across industries and value chains. As for citizen engagement, Destination
4 (‘Efficient, sustainable and inclusive energy use’) aims to make participatory urban
planning a norm with a focus on awareness raising and uptake of technological solutions
rather than their co-design or co-creation. Project results are not yet available.
Cluster 6 is applying the Multi Actor Approach (MAA) to foster stakeholder participation:
its WP 2021-2022 had 74 MAA topics (37%) and the WP 2023-2024 had 85 MAA topics
(39%). Moreover, living labs and lighthouses are deployed through some Cluster 6 actions
to ensure that end-users are involved in developing, experimenting and demonstrating
innovations to address users’ needs on the ground.
According to the results of the Horizon Europe beneficiaries’ survey, nearly half of the
responding projects (47.7%; 2 537) plan to engage citizens in their R&I activities. For
Cluster 5 and 6 Partnership projects, this proportion falls to one-third (N=190)
327
.
As a contribution to Horizon Europe Strategic Plan 2025–2027, a citizen engagement event
took place on 1 December 2022, in the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe.
Citizens provided feedback under three topical areas: ‘Digital and technological
transition’, ‘Green transition’ and ‘Resilience’
328
.
The feedback opportunity for ‘main’ Horizon Europe work programme 2025 took place
between 15 April and 6 May 2024. It was based on strategic orientations for the work
programme of all Horizon Europe clusters, Research Infrastructures, European Innovation
Ecosystems, EU Missions and the NEB Facility. 2222 contributions from 1052 individual
respondents were received
329
.
EIC and EIT KICs promote citizen engagement through competitions and awards.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
327
Engaging stakeholders in R&I for the Green Transition - Comparative analysis of Horizon Europe Cluster 5&6,
Partnerships and Missions, section 3.4,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/6499313
328
Results from the citizens’ engagement event on Horizon Europe Strategic Plan 2025-2027, 2023,
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/3455df69-b2f4-4f2f-9699-
7afc6ed7d68b_en?filename=ec_rtd_citizen-engagement-event-summary.pdf
329
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-
calls/horizon-europe/horizon-europe-work-programmes_en#feedback-opportunity-for-the-2025-work-
programme
274
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
•
•
The EIC’s Business Acceleration Services connect portfolio companies and researchers
with corporates, investors, buyers, accelerators and venture builders amongst many others
with a view to increasing the likelihood of market entry and scaling of EIC funded
innovations.
The EIT KICs disseminate R&I results in their community networks effectively, including
among venture capital investors. In Horizon Europe, the EIT KICs report annually on
dissemination activities and uptake of services.
275
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0277.png
Annex 10 Horizon Europe response to emergencies
As stated in section 4.5.3 of the SWD, Programme parts across all Horizon Europe pillars
responded to Covid, mpox and Ukraine emergencies:
•
Cluster 1 is the only cluster with an ‘emergency action fund’,
whose release can be
triggered by a policy announcement (WHO’s global pandemic).
330
It mobilised resources
and enhanced preparedness for health emergencies (e.g. COVID-19, Mpox, and previously
Zika).
The first emergency call under Horizon Europe
331
provided EUR 123 million to
tackle the virus and its variants.
332
This support advanced our understanding of the virus
by developing diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines, and informed public health policies.
For instance, the project VERDI provided scientific evidence of vaccine effectiveness in
children
333
, and CoVICIS helped to better understand the protective effect of vaccination
in immunocompromised patients
334
.
.
In addition, the project EuCARE provided insights
into the severity of the different variants of SARS-CoV-2
335
. EuCARE also assessed the
impact of prevention measures in schools showing that school opening did not increase
transmission in Italy, Germany, and Portugal.
336
Horizon Europe contributes EUR 35 million on an annual basis to the cooperation between
HERA and
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)
to support the
development of next generation vaccines for several diseases, including for COVID-19.
337
The
European COVID-19 Data Platform,
hosted by the European Open Science Cloud
(EOSC), is a free-to-use, open digital space for researchers to share and upload data sets
(for more details on EOSC, see also KIP3 in section 4.1.1 of this document). Since its
launch on 20 April 2021, it has seen more than 114 000 users and 3.6 million web requests
from over 170 countries. The platform offers access to 9 million records of sequences
provided by 129 countries, as well as of biomolecular data and publications (contributing
to over 1 million publications), viral sequences, sequences from patients, and other
microbiological data.
338
In response to the
mpox outbreak in 2022, the EU mobilised EUR 17 million of
emergency funding under Horizon Europe to support European clinical research.
These projects address research gaps in the current 2024 mpox outbreak and capitalise on
the networks established during the COVID-19 pandemic to enhance Europe’s
•
•
•
•
The possibility for the mobilisation of emergency research funds is expressed as an “other action” integrated
in the Horizon WP for Health since 2018: Horizon Europe 2021-2022 WP (p. 173):
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2021-2022/wp-4-
health_horizon-2021-2022_en.pdf;
and Horizon Europe 2023-2024 (p. 222):
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-
tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2023-2024/wp-4-health_horizon-2023-2024_en.pdf
331
Cluster 1 – funded under the ‘label’ of ‘HERA incubator’.
332
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1548
333
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2205011?url_ver=Z39.88-
2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
334
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2790203
335
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(24)00021-8/fulltext
336
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971223007634?via%3Dihub
337
Speech by the President: Grand Challenges Annual Meeting
338
https://www.covid19dataportal.org/
330
276
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0278.png
preparedness and response.
339
For instance, the project MPX-RESPONSE is evaluating
the safety and efficacy of therapies against mpox.
340
•
A benchmark study of the United States medical research agency (National Institutes of
Health) response to COVID-19 reported that
Horizon Europe demonstrated flexibility
in coping with changing circumstances in the world, such as COVID-19,
as the FP
continues its funding efforts and directs initiatives towards COVID-19 and coronavirus
research, including the preparations for the emerging variant.
341
ERC identified 183 projects in COVID-19 related fields
such as diagnostics and
treatments (including vaccines), medical devices, digital tools, AI, immunity, infection and
pathology, and social and economic behaviour, wellbeing and crisis management.
342
Furthermore, 48% (109) of ERC beneficiaries, who responded to the evaluation survey in
May-July 2023, ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘rather agreed’ that, compared with the research
funding available at national and/or regional level, Horizon Europe provided greater
flexibility to respond to pressing socio-economic needs.
343
•
•
With
‘ERC for Ukraine’,
the ERC appealed to its grantees to provide temporary
employment to researchers and support staff from Ukraine and seeking refuge in the EU,
under the initiative ‘ERC for Ukraine’.
•
The
MSCA
supported affected doctoral candidates and post-doctoral researchers from
Ukraine by establishing in 2022 the EUR 25 million MSCA4Ukraine scheme.
344
The
scheme enables displaced researchers from Ukraine to continue their work at academic
and non-academic organisations in EU Member States and Horizon Europe associated
countries, while maintaining their connections to research and innovation communities in
Ukraine.
345
A EUR 10 million top-up was subsequently awarded in April 2024 to allow 50
additional researchers to continue their work safely in academia, businesses, research
centres and public institutions based in the EU and countries associated to Horizon Europe.
In total, 175 researchers from Ukraine had received a fellowship.
In addition,
the EIC and EIT published dedicated calls to address COVID-19.
346
The
EIC also organised events to enable EIC companies to pitch to investors, corporates and
public healthcare authorities looking for innovative solutions to COVID challenges.
347
At the end of 2023, the
EIT established an EIT Community Hub
348
in Kyiv,
working to
bridge the Ukrainian and EU’s innovation ecosystem and boost ideas and businesses
emerging from Ukraine.
349
Under Horizon Europe, the
EIT Jumpstarter
added a new
activity
350
in 2023, entitled “rebuild Ukraine” – only for Ukrainian citizens and teams,
allowing Ukrainian innovators to bring their ideas to the market. In 2024, 20% of total
•
•
339
340
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/health/mpox-research-and-innovation_en
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02393-6
341
Resilient
Europe
evaluation
study,
Annex
5,
benchmark
study
1,
p.
21,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/22355
342
European Research Council, COVID-19 Frontier research in the spotlight, 2022,
https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-08/COVID19-Frontier_research_in_the-spotlight.pdf
343
Excellent Science evaluation study, 2024, Annex 4, p. 843,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/9552959
344
Ibid, pp. 843-844,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/9552959
345
Excellent Science evaluation study, 2024, p. 72,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/2295765
346
Innovative Europe evaluation study, 2024, chapter 9.1, p. 98,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132
347
Deep Tech Europe. EIC Impact Report, 2021, p. 50,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/005280
348
Innovative Europe evaluation study, 2024, chapter 4.1, pp. 40-41,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132
349
https://eit-ris.eu/ukraine/
350
Innovative Europe evaluation study, 2024, Annex 10, p. 544,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/726675
277
 kom (2025) 0189 - Ingen titel
3012098_0279.png
applications within the EIT Jumpstarter came from Ukraine. The overall EIT support has
so far channelled to Ukraine more than EUR 2 million between 2022 and 2023.
•
•
•
In 2023, 41 Ukrainian partners (of which 29 higher education institutions) are participating
in the EIT HEI initiative for strengthening their innovation capacity and establishing
connections with European counterparts.
Close to 900 Ukrainian girls in secondary school were trained on digital and
entrepreneurial skills related to circular economy through the Girls Go Circular
initiative.
351
Human capital strengthening:
the
'Scientists Help Scientists'
initiative
allocated
additional funds to aid displaced Ukrainian researchers under the Human Frontier Science
Program (HFPSO).
352
351
352
DG EAC monitoring data,
https://eit-ris.eu/ukraine/
HFSP Scientists for Scientists (S4S) Initiative | Human Frontier Science Program
278