EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 30.4.2025

SWD(2025) 110 final

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}

Contents

1.    Introduction: purpose and scope of the evaluation    

2.    What are the expected outcomes of Horizon Europe?    

2.1    Horizon Europe and its objectives    

2.2    Points of comparison    

3.    How has the situation evolved during the evaluation period?    

4.    Evaluation findings    

4.1    To what extent has Horizon Europe been successful so far and why?    

4.1.1. Effectiveness: Towards scientific impacts – To what extent has Horizon Europe advanced scientific excellence (Key Impact Pathways 1-3)?    

Creating high-quality new knowledge (Key Impact Pathway 1)    

Strengthening human capital in R&I (Key Impact Pathway 2)    

Fostering diffusion of knowledge and open science (Key Impact Pathway 3)    

European Research Council (ERC)    

Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA)    

Research infrastructures    

Pillar II contributions to Excellent Science    

Joint Research Centre’s direct research actions    

4.1.2. Effectiveness: Towards ‘societal impacts’ – To what extent has Horizon Europe increased the R&I contribution to address global challenges (Key Impact Pathways 4-6)?    

Addressing EU policy priorities and global challenges through R&I (Key Impact Pathway 4)    

Delivering benefits and impact via R&I missions (Key Impact Pathway 5)    

Strengthening the uptake of R&I in society (Key Impact Pathway 6)    

Horizon Europe clusters    

Impacts of institutionalised European partnerships    

Social sciences and humanities (SSH)    

Promotion of gender equality    

International cooperation, including association of third countries    

4.1.3. Effectiveness: Towards economic impacts – To what extent has Horizon Europe fostered innovation-based growth, created jobs and leveraged investments in R&I (Key Impact Pathways 7-9)?    

Generating innovation-based growth (Key Impact Pathway 7)    

Creating more and better jobs (Key Impact Pathway 8)    

Leveraging investments in R&I (Key Impact Pathway 9)    

Programme-wide macroeconomic effects on GDP    

Pillar II economic effects    

European Innovation Council (EIC)    

European innovation ecosystems (EIE)    

European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)    

4.1.4. Towards the objective to widen participation and strengthen the European Research Area    

4.1.5. Exploitation and dissemination of results    

4.2    Efficiency    

4.2.1 Costs of Horizon Europe by stakeholder group    

4.2.2 Performance against administrative targets & value-for-money of Horizon Europe    

Administrative efficiency of the EU public sector    

Value for money of Horizon Europe    

4.2.3 Performance of Horizon Europe’s simplification measures    

Rationalisation of the European Partnership landscape    

Lump sum funding    

Blind evaluation of proposals    

Ethics appraisal    

4.2.4 Potential areas for further simplification    

4.2.5 Monitoring and reporting    

4.3    Coherence    

4.3.1. Internal coherence    

Technology readiness levels (TRLs)    

New programme governance    

4.3.2. External coherence and synergies    

Synergies between Horizon Europe and other EU programmes    

Seal of Excellence as an instrument of synergy    

EU Missions and European Partnerships as instruments of synergy    

4.4    EU added value    

4.4.1. Economic added value: Horizon Europe leveraged additional resources for R&I    

European Partnerships    

EU Missions    

4.4.2. Horizon Europe-supported activities would not have been possible without EU funding    

Collaboration networks across borders    

Scale and scope of R&I support    

4.4.3 Structuring effect of Horizon Europe and the European partnerships    

4.5    Relevance    

4.5.1.    Responding to the needs of beneficiaries    

4.5.2.    Strengthening Europe’s competitiveness    

4.5.3.    Response to emergencies and changing priorities    

5.    What are the conclusions and lessons learned?    

5.1    Conclusions    

5.2    Lessons learned    

Annexes:

Annex 1 – Procedural information

Annex 2 – Methodology and analytical models used

Annex 3 – Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, details on answers to the evaluation questions (by criterion)

Annex 4 – Overview of benefits and costs

Annex 5 – Stakeholder consultation: Synopsis report

Annex 6 – Description of synergies, by programme

Annex 7 – Partnership leverage analysis

Annex 8 – Additional state-of-play data, incl. on European Partnerships and EU Missions

Annex 9 – Activities implemented to engage citizens and end-users in projects

Annex 10 – Horizon Europe response to emergencies

Partnership evaluation reports:

Annex 11 – Chips JU

Annex 12 – Circular Bio-based Europe JU

Annex 13 – Clean Aviation JU

Annex 14 – Clean Hydrogen JU

Annex 15 – Europe’s Rail JU

Annex 16 – EuroHPC JU

Annex 17 – Global Health EDCTP3 JU

Annex 18 – Innovative Health Initiative JU

Annex 19 – SESAR 3 JU

Annex 20 – Smart Networks and Services JU

Annex 21 – EIT KIC Climate

Annex 22 – EIT KIC Digital

Annex 23 – EIT KIC Food

Annex 24 – EIT KIC Health

Annex 25 – EIT KIC InnoEnergy

Annex 26 – EIT KIC Manufacturing

Annex 27 – EIT KIC Raw Materials

Annex 28 – EIT KIC Urban Mobility

Annex 29 – European Partnership on Metrology

List of Figures

Figure 1: Horizon Europe intervention logic    

Figure 2 : Horizon Europe programme structure    

Figure 3: Horizon Europe key figures    

Figure 4: Distribution of Horizon Europe grant funding by type of beneficiary    

Figure 5: Share of new participants, by country category    

Figure 6: Distribution of Horizon Europe funding by pillar and programme part    

Figure 7: Distribution of Horizon Europe applications by type of organisation    

Figure 8: Horizon Europe success rates    

Figure 9:Applications per thousand scientists and engineers by MS    

Figure 10: Scientific impacts of Horizon Europe – Key Impact Pathways 1-3    

Figure 11 - Societal impacts of Horizon Europe – Key Impact Pathways 4-6    

Figure 12: Economic impacts of Horizon Europe – Key Impact Pathways 7-9    

Figure 13: Overview of Horizon Europe types of action and their characteristics    

Figure 14: Current TRL of Horizon Europe projects (left), as well as the levels at the project beginning and expected/achieved at the end, taking into consideration the size of EU contributions (right)    

Figure 15: Evolution of the framework programme for R&I    

Figure 16: R&D expenditure in billion EUR, 2000-2021    

Figure 17: The EU’s R&D intensity gap with other major economies    

List of Tables

Table 1: Gender balance in Horizon Europe    

Table 2: Collaborations, participations, and funding by type of country (international cooperation)    

Table 3: Overview of the application of Article 22(5) in the main Horizon Europe work programmes (WP) 2021-2022 and 2023-2024 and instruments    

Table 4: Results of macro-economic modelling for Horizon Europe funding (Nemesis, RHOMOLO, FIDELIO)    

Table 5: Progress on EIT key monitoring indicators    

Table 6: Collaborations, participations and funding by type of country (widening)    

Table 7: Seals of Excellence awarded    

Abbreviations

Glossary

1.Introduction: purpose and scope of the evaluation

Horizon Europe is the EU’s ninth research and innovation (R&I) funding programme. Set up by Regulation (EU) 2021/695 10 , it covers the period 2021-2027 and has a budget of EUR 93.5 billion 11 . The objective of the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe is to analyse the programme’s design, implementation and first results. It is published 4 years after the start of the implementation. It covers all instruments, in every scientific field supported. This evaluation will support the implementation of current EU R&I measures and the design of future measures. It fulfils the Commission’s legal obligation to explain how it has spent public funds. 

The evaluation addresses the better regulation criteria of relevance, coherence, efficiency and effectiveness, and the EU value added of the Horizon Europe programme. It investigates the rationale for the programme, its implementation and achievements, and the longer-term impacts of EU investment in research and innovation. Effectiveness is assessed for the first time following the Key Impact Pathways towards the programme’s scientific, societal and economic impacts. The efficiency analysis reviews costs and benefits for applicants to the programme and includes an assessment of potential unnecessary burdens and complexities for applicants and participants.

The evaluation faced some data limitations, described in Annex 2. In addition, it is widely acknowledged that it takes time for R&I activities to produce results, outcomes, and impacts and given the lifecycle of research and innovation projects, their impact is expected to become apparent only towards the end of the programme period – or even later.

The evaluation is based on the 15 148 signed projects as of 6 January 2025, including 983 closed projects (6.5%) 12 . This evaluation also assesses the performance of ongoing projects and steps taken for future implementation.

Evaluations of 19 institutionalised partnerships are set out in annexes to this evaluation. They are:

·Eight Knowledge and Innovation Communities of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology  13 (EIT Health, EIT Manufacturing, EIT Raw Materials, EIT Digital, EIT Urban Mobility, EIT Climate KIC, EIT Food, EIT InnoEnergy).

·Nine joint undertakings under the Single Basic Act 14 (Europe Rail, Single European Sky, the Chips JU (previously Key Digital Technologies JU), Smart Network and Services, Global Health EDCTP3, Clean Hydrogen, Circular Bio-based Europe, Clean Aviation and Innovative Health Initiative). Their evaluation includes a final evaluation of the preceding JUs under Horizon 2020, covering a period of 10 years of support by the EU budget.

·The European High Performance Computing JU (EuroHPC).

·The European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research (‘Article 185’ initiative) 15 . 

The European Defence Fund, a specific programme of Horizon Europe, is outside the scope of this evaluation. It will be evaluated separately in the second quarter of 2025.

2.What are the expected outcomes of Horizon Europe? 

The Horizon 2020 interim evaluation and Horizon Europe impact assessment identified four key R&I challenges that should be tackled through future R&I programmes:

1) The creation and diffusion of high-quality new knowledge and innovation in Europe should be improved.

2) The impact of R&I should be reinforced to deliver on EU priorities.

3) The lack of rapid uptake of innovative solutions in the EU should be addressed.

4) The European Research Area (ERA) needs to be strengthened.

Based on these challenges, Horizon Europe aimed at promoting scientific excellence, generating new knowledge and high-quality technologies, addressing EU priorities and global challenges, providing the appropriate environment, and scaling up finance to turn great ideas into products and services that will create sustainable jobs and economic growth.

The general objective of Horizon Europe is to ‘deliver scientific, technological, economic and societal impact from the Union's investments in R&I so as to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of the Union and foster the competitiveness of the Union in all Member States including in its industry, to deliver on the Union strategic priorities and to contribute to the realisation of Union objectives and policies, to tackle global challenges, including the SDGs by following the principles of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement, and to strengthen the ERA’ 16 . The Programme’s specific objectives and intervention logic are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Horizon Europe intervention logic

Horizon Europe brought a considerable change compared to previous framework programmes by introducing Key Impact Pathways (KIPs for short, listed on the right-hand side of Figure 1). Every KIP is monitored using a short-term, medium-term and longer-term indicator 17 . Support for basic research remains a cornerstone of the programme, pursued primarily under the first pillar (Excellent Science), but also in the other two pillars. Applied research and incremental innovation are the centre of gravity in the second pillar, addressing both industrial and societal needs (Global challenges and European industrial competitiveness), while innovation is the focus of the third pillar (Innovative Europe). The mission-oriented approach provides direction to all activities supported by the programme. The European Partnerships approach was also reinforced under Horizon Europe to become more strategic, coherent, and impact-driven. 

The strategic orientations for R&I investments are defined in the multi-annual Horizon Europe strategic plans which act as a compass for defining Horizon Europe’s activities. Topics from the Work Programmes come from the Strategic Plan 18 .

Support to innovation ecosystems was reinforced under Horizon Europe, and it was given a dedicated programme part under the Innovative Europe pillar. The European innovation ecosystem ‘encompasses relations between material resources (such as funds, equipment, and facilities), institutional entities (such as higher education institutions and support services, research and technology organisations, companies, venture capitalists and financial intermediaries) and national, regional and local policy-making and funding entities’ 19 .

JRC’s direct research actions are funded under the framework programme, continuing its role as in previous periods, to generate scientific evidence for good public policies 20 .

Figure 2: Horizon Europe programme structure

The Horizon Europe Regulation identifies gender equality as a cross-cutting requirement to be followed during implementation 21 and underlines the relevance of social sciences and humanities in the description of cluster priorities. It also states that ‘the activities developed under the Programme should aim to eliminate gender bias and inequalities, enhancing work-life balance and promoting equality between women and men in R&I, including the principle of equal pay without discrimination based on sex’, that ‘the gender dimension should be integrated in R&I content and followed through at all stages of the research cycle’ and that ‘activities under the Programme should aim to eliminate inequalities and promote equality and diversity in all aspects of R&I with regard to age, disability, race and ethnicity, religion or belief, and sexual orientation’ 22 .

The importance of exploiting research and innovation results is also underlined in the Regulation: ‘More emphasis should be placed on exploiting those results, and the Commission should identify and help maximise opportunities for beneficiaries to exploit results, in particular in the Union’ 23 . This aspect is also integrated in the third specific objective. While exploitation is not obligatory, a ‘best effort’ is expected from beneficiaries 24 .

Horizon Europe has several new features, compared to the preceding programme:

1.strategic plans, multi-annual strategic documents co-designed with stakeholders to guide preparations for bi-annual work programmes; 

2.a new instrument: EU missions; 

3.streamlined European partnerships; 

4.enhanced synergies with other EU and national programmes; 

5.a stronger open science policy, to promote collaboration; 

6.an updated monitoring system.

The Horizon Europe Work Programme Group discusses indicative timelines for work programme preparation and provides guidance for topic drafting. The group has over 300 members from DGs AGRI, BUDG, CLIMA, CNECT, COMP, DEFIS, DIGIT, EAC, ECFIN, EMPL, ENER, ENV, GROW, HERA, HOME, IAS, JRC, MARE, MOVE, REGIO, RTD, SANTE, SG, TRADE. In addition, representatives from the Executive Agencies (CINEA, EISMEA, ERCEA, HADEA, REA) and the Joint Undertakings (Circular Bio-based Europe, Clean Aviation, Clean Hydrogen, EU Rail, Innovative Health Initiative, Key Digital Technologies) are also part of this group. The Horizon Europe ‘main’ work programme 2023-2024 and limited extension to 2025 contains 1 060 topics and other actions. The work programme 2023-2024 has 3 297 pages.

The initial budget for Horizon Europe was set at EUR 95.5 billion 25 for 2021-2027. In February 2024, the Council unanimously agreed, and the European Parliament gave consent, to the first ever mid-term revision of the expenditure ceilings in the multi-annual financial framework (MFF). The revision included a redeployment of EUR 2.1 billion from Horizon Europe to cover new initiatives but also added EUR 100 million from previously decommitted funds. Therefore, Horizon Europe Programme budget now stands at EUR 93.5 billion for 2021-2027 26 . The budget of the framework programme draws on a number of sources in addition to the one directly established in its legal base. Added to funds within the MFF 27 , were EUR 5.4 billion from the Next Generation EU (NGEU) instrument in support of the green and digital recovery from the COVID crisis, as well as reused decommitted funds 28 . Funding is allocated through work programmes, which can be either annual or multi-annual, covering different parts of the framework programme. In evaluating project proposals, the following criteria were assessed: (a) excellence; (b) impact; and (c) quality and efficiency 29 .

This evaluation compares the current Horizon Europe results to those from the same stage of implementation in Horizon 2020. This is the case for the KIP indicators and contribution to Sustainable Development Goals. For funding by country category, success rates, as well as the gender balance indicators – data is compared with the final Horizon 2020 averages.

Where the expected effects were quantitatively estimated or targets were set in the legal base, this evaluation compares the actual Horizon Europe data to these expectations. This is the case for the efficiency metrics (time to contract, time to pay, error rate, etc.) and leverage factors per JU.

If none of the above is possible, newly available data on Horizon Europe is presented without any baseline or benchmark. This is the case for KIP indicators that did not have an exact equivalent using a comparable methodology in the previous framework programme (e.g. KIP 2 and KIP 6), the share of funding spent on gender equality objectives and biodiversity, as well as some of the new indicators for the EIT KICs.

For all the KIP indicators, data comes from validated periodic project reports in the central database, which is also used for comparison with the baseline from Horizon 2020. In sections on some specific programme parts (i.e. the ERC, MSCA, EIT), the implementing entities also provided data from their internal, continuous monitoring.

3.How has the situation evolved during the evaluation period? 

Horizon Europe was launched in April 2021 with a total budget of EUR 95.5 billion, which was reduced to EUR 93.5 billion in February 2024. By the end of 2024, 58.4% of the voted budget (including NGEU funds) had been committed and 34.5% of the payments made.

Figure 3: Horizon Europe key figures

Source: All figures in this chapter come from CORDA 30  and the cut-off date is 6 January 2025. 

Between 2021 and 2024, 15 148 grants were signed, with a value of EUR 43.2 billion in EU contribution. Slightly more than half of Horizon Europe participants (51.1%) are newcomers, i.e. they did not participate in any Horizon 2020 project. Most newcomers are from the private sector, SMEs in particular.

Figure 4: Distribution of Horizon Europe grant funding by type of beneficiary

Higher education establishments have received the largest contribution (EUR 15.0 billion), followed by research organisations and private for-profit entities, which received similar amounts of contributions (EUR 11.9 billion). Around 16 220 private-for-profit entities (companies) were supported through grants, out of which 2 571 in pillar III (excluding the EIC Fund).

The share of funding per type of organisation is similar to Horizon 2020. Across the entire Horizon Europe programme, 81% of EU funding has been allocated to collaborative projects; in Horizon 2020, this was 78% 31 .

A total of 10 077 SMEs received grants for EUR 7.4 billion. Each SME joined on average 1.7 projects. Pillar II involves 70% of all SME unique participants, and a majority of all EU contributions for SMEs, with EUR 4.7 billion allocated to them (68%). Within Pillar II, joint undertakings contributed EUR 697 million to SMEs, 15% of the funds managed by JUs. Pillar III plays an increasingly important role: the European Innovation Council alone issued EUR 1.8 billion in grants to SMEs, more than any other programme part.

Additionally, the EIC Fund has approved equity investments towards start-ups and SMEs for further EUR 1.7 billion 32 for the Horizon Europe period alone. This leads to a total amount of Horizon Europe funding allocated to SMEs of EUR 9.1 billion as of 6 January 2025 (20.3% of total FP funding including approved equity investments). However, just around one third of approved EIC Fund investments (EUR 0.57 billion) have actually been paid out to beneficiaries to date 33 .  

The Horizon Europe 15 ‘widening’ Member States 34 have received 14% of all the funding to date 35 - the same 15 MS had received 9% of the total funding in Horizon 2020 36 . Still, entities in four ‘non-widening’ Member States – Germany, France, Spain, and the Netherlands, in this order – received 50.9% of all Horizon Europe funding. Nonetheless, according to a monitoring report by the Commission 37 , once EU contribution is weighted by national R&D expenditure, beneficiaries from widening Member States received double the amount as beneficiaries from other Member States.

Number of new programme participants on the rise

Newcomer organisations currently represent a majority of all grant participants: 51%. The share is nonetheless significantly lower than at the end of Horizon 2020, where almost three-quarters of all participants were not recorded in FP7.

14 365 newcomers have received EUR 4.2 billion in EU contribution. This is about 12% of all funding allocated under Horizon Europe.

The discrepancy between the high share of participants and the relatively low share of funding to newcomers is due to the fact that most newcomers are small organisations, joining on average only one or two projects per framework programme. Larger organisations, which participate in many more projects and are also much more likely to be coordinators, are rarely Horizon Europe newcomers: just 4% of universities and 7% of research organisations coordinating projects did not participate in Horizon 2020.

More than half of all private for-profit participants and SMEs are newcomers (56.8%), as are those in the ‘other’ organisations category (e.g. civil society organisations) (59.2%). Around a quarter of higher education institutions in the programme are newcomers (23.7%), but they receive a negligible share of all funding (less than 1%). Among EIC Fund beneficiaries, 67% (165 organisations) are newcomers to Horizon Europe. The amount of EIC Fund investment approved towards newcomers is EUR 1.1 billion (65% of all investments approved by the Fund).

More collaborative projects and larger grants

More than eight out of every 10 euro went to collaborative projects, primarily in Pillar II – representing an increase from 78% in Horizon 2020. The average size of consortia increased from 12 partners in Horizon 2020 38 – to 16 partners in Horizon Europe Pillar II to date.

The average grant size is around EUR 2.9 million under Horizon Europe (compared to EUR 1.9 million under Horizon 2020, not adjusting for inflation). The major factors contributing to the larger average grant size are the discontinuation of the phase 1 of the SME instrument which used to award small grants (EUR 50 000 per project) to SMEs, and the introduction of larger grants under the EIC 39 . 

The largest share of funding was allocated to Pillar II – Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness (59.0%), of which 60.4% was allocated to the climate and digital clusters of activities. The Excellent Science pillar accounts for 25.9% of the funding, allocated mainly through the European Research Council. The two other pillars share the remaining 15.2% of funding.

Figure 6: Distribution of Horizon Europe funding by pillar and programme part

Horizon Europe has had a higher success rate than its predecessor, but nevertheless, 7 out of 10 high-quality proposals could not be funded due to the budgetary limitations.

The programme has been very sought after, receiving 88 803 eligible proposals to 531 fully evaluated calls. On average, each call comprised 4 topics.

Figure 7: Distribution of Horizon Europe applications by type of organisation

A total of 76 423 applicants had applied to the programme by 6 January 2025. Each was involved in 6.1 proposals on average. Most applicants were private for-profit entities (45 968) that had applied an average of three times. At the opposite end of the spectrum, 4 759 applicants were from higher education entities, each of which were involved in 37.5 proposals on average. Each research organisation applied an average of 14.4 times.

The average success rate of proposals has increased from 12% in Horizon 2020 to 16.4% in Horizon Europe. Success rates vary by pillar, but there are no major differences between country groups. The quality of the proposals has also improved compared to Horizon 2020, 54.6% of them being assessed as high quality by external experts, compared to 46% in Horizon 2020. Only 30.1% of the high-quality proposals could however be funded with the available budget. Even though this is an improvement on Horizon 2020 (25%), an additional EUR 81.8 billion (1.9 times the budget allocated to date) would have been needed to fund them all. To promote support through other means at national or regional level, 7 166 of the unfunded proposals have received a Seal of Excellence certificate.

A wider geographical coverage and higher success rates from the widening Member States than in Horizon 2020

The programme received applications with participants from 194 countries 40 . 

Entities located in the 15 widening Member States submitted fewer applications than those in the other Member States and accounted for 19.8% of all applications. Some widening Member States (Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia) have an application success rate close to the programme average (20%). It should be noted that the 15 widening Member States are home to 26% of the EU population of scientists and engineers.

Associated countries account for 12.6% of applications (mostly the UK, Norway, Türkiye, Israel, and Serbia), while non-associated third countries represent 5.6% (mostly Switzerland, US and China). Most associated-country applications were from the United Kingdom (6.1% of total applications and 48.5% of associated-country applications). Although the UK became an Associated Country on 1 January 2024, it is treated as an Associated Country for all grants and proposals from the start of the Programme (2021) in this analysis.

Additional data, including for European Partnerships and EU Missions, is available in Annex 8.

4.Evaluation findings 

This section provides an evidence-based assessment of the successes and shortcomings of the Horizon Europe programme in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. It begins by examining how effectively Horizon Europe has contributed so far to its scientific, societal and economic objectives, as well as the objectives of spreading excellence and widening participation. The section then considers the cost of pursuing these objectives. Finally, it provides evidence of the degree to which the programme has operated in a coherent way, both internally between its different instruments, and externally with other EU and national programmes.

4.1.1. Effectiveness: Towards scientific impacts – To what extent has Horizon Europe advanced scientific excellence (Key Impact Pathways 1-3)?

This section assesses Horizon Europe’s contribution to the three Key Impact Pathways focusing on ‘Creating high-quality new knowledge’; ‘Strengthening human capital in R&I’; and ‘Fostering diffusion of knowledge and Open Science’.

Figure 10: Scientific impacts of Horizon Europe – Key Impact Pathways 1-3

Source: Annex V to Regulation 2021/695

Creating high-quality new knowledge (Key Impact Pathway 1)

As of 6 January 2025, Horizon Europe beneficiaries reported 6 922 peer-reviewed scientific publications that had been validated by the Commission departments. Excluding the publications reported by the Joint Research Centre, Horizon Europe projects reported 4 299 peer-reviewed publications. Under Horizon 2020, at a comparable stage of advancement 41 and excluding publications under the direct actions of the JRC, beneficiaries had reported 2 827 validated peer-reviewed publications.

In past framework programmes, publications were mainly reported once the projects had been closed. For example, under Horizon 2020, grantees reported approximately 245 000 peer-reviewed scientific publications 42 , 43% of which were reported in 2021 or later, when the implementation period of Horizon 2020 had ended.

The R&I framework programme continues to support excellent science – between 1985 43 and 2023, it supported 35 Nobel Prize winners 44  - two more than were reported in the ex post evaluation of Horizon 2020. 

Strengthening human capital in R&I (Key Impact Pathway 2)

A total of 95 156 researchers are benefiting from upskilling activities under Horizon Europe, of which 44.14% are women. In addition, MSCA have registered 8 307 researchers benefitting from mobility grants, while the ERC has registered 1 662 such researchers. The EIT KICs also contribute to this KIP through the upskilling/reskilling of the workforce within strategic value chains. More data is available in the EIT dedicated section below.

Fostering diffusion of knowledge and open science (Key Impact Pathway 3)

A total of 10 222 publications – including non-peer-reviewed scientific articles – have been reported so far under Horizon Europe, over 79% of which are reported by beneficiaries as available in open access (OA) 45 . This is a moderate increase compared to Horizon 2020, which had 69.8% at the same stage of advancement. 

Horizon Europe’s mechanisms for driving the uptake of open science at national level include: 1) supporting the development of knowledge and tools on open science; 2) supporting the development of research and technology infrastructures, environments and platforms that enable open access practices; and 3) inspiring the uptake of open science practices through guidelines, the requirements of the FP and participation in Missions and consensus-building activities 46 .

·Clusters 1, 2, 5 and 6 have promoted open access in the work programmes, but as many projects are still at an early stage it is premature to provide feedback on open-source matters 47 .

·Cluster 3, and to a lesser extent Cluster 4, have more restrictions than other clusters, that apply to sensitive actions that use classified background information and/or produce security-sensitive results 48 .

49 50 51 The main barrier to publishing in open access is accessing sufficient funds to pay for the fees required by some journals or data repositories. The Horizon Europe Regulation states that if the results are not exploited within a given period, the beneficiary shall use an online platform to find interested parties to exploit those results. In 2021, the European Commission created Open Research Europe, a free open access publishing platform for European Commission-funded researchers across all subject areas. As of October 2024, over 750 peer-reviewed publications and 1 500 peer-reviews are available on the platform. Over 1600 authors from nearly 1000 institutions have published in Open Research Europe.

European Research Council (ERC)

According to statistics provided by ERCEA, Horizon Europe ERC grantees have published 2 181 peer reviewed scientific publications by the end of 2024 52 .

One of the objectives of Horizon Europe has been to attract talent to Europe. In the programme’s first 4 years, around 2% of applicants to the ERC’s schemes came from non-associated countries 53 and they made up nearly 1.5% of successful ERC applicants taking up a grant 54 . Almost half of these grantees came from the US, followed by Australia, India, South Africa, Cameroon and Uganda.

55 56 In addition, the survey and the interviews with ERC beneficiaries confirmed the impacts of obtaining an ERC grant on principal investigators (PIs) and their research teams. The main effects cited by interviewees include strengthening their reputation as a researcher, the capacity to conduct frontier research, and the possibility to establish and consolidate their own research group. In addition, according to the survey, ERC grants give PIs the opportunity to improve their skills, mostly in project and people management, as well as in scientific methods and/or techniques. Intersectoral mobility among ERC beneficiaries is very limited, but international mobility opportunities are highly appreciated. 

Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA)

A total of 65 000 researchers are expected to benefit from MSCA under Horizon Europe, including 25 000 PhD candidates 57 . Of these, MSCA reports more than 8 300 researchers to have already been recruited under Horizon Europe. The MSCA also contribute to producing excellent science through peer reviewed scientific publications (361; 5% of all publications reported under KIP 1).

Postdoctoral fellows benefitting from the MSCA particularly value the freedom to pursue their specific research agendas (91% 58 ) and the opportunity to engage in fundamental research (86%) 59 . Moreover, 95% of MSCA postdoctoral fellows affirm that the opportunities provided align with their need to improve their skills and competencies 60 . Countries with the most advanced and attractive research systems continue to host the largest shares of researchers. As with Horizon 2020, the programme also continues to support fellows in returning to their home countries, particularly Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Spain.

According to the survey, 75% of MSCA postdoctoral fellows are satisfied with the supervision provided and agree that the arrangements in place are clearly defined 61 . Nine out of 10 surveyed researchers report that participating in the programme helped them obtain a research position with better career prospects (87%) 62 . A majority of respondents also expect their Horizon Europe project to improve the working conditions of researchers 63 and the provision of career advice 64  For quality and transparency of recruitment practices, the trend is similar, although slightly lower among staff exchanges participants 65 Interviewees pointed to measures such as providing more stable job contracts and improving salary conditions as the MSCA benefits that improved the competitiveness of their organisations the most 66 . 

Overall, MSCA postdoctoral fellows consider host organisations to be highly committed to improving the stability of researchers’ jobs (60%) 67 while noting challenges to keep the MSCA allowances competitive. Since the time of the survey, salaries have already been revised. The need for improved communication on fellowship and grant details before projects commence has also been noted by fellows 68 .

Successful applicants regard MSCA projects as an effective means to create or enhance collaborations with leading research organisations. Notably, 89% of MSCA beneficiary organisations 69  believe that their participation in the programme significantly strengthens their relationship with leading research organisations in Europe and beyond. For MSCA postdoctoral fellows, the programme provides ample opportunities for interdisciplinary cooperation 70 . The MSCA continues to successfully attract well-networked organisations with a long-standing tradition of scientific excellence, with the top 1% most networked entities accounting for 29.6% of total participations in the programme, surpassing the Horizon Europe average of 22.1% 71 .

Research infrastructures

72 73 Research infrastructures (INFRA) supports the roadmap of the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), outlining the essential RIs needed in Europe for the next 10-20 years. INFRA funds various phases of ESFRI projects, including design studies, preparatory phases, and implementation phases. However, many interviewees and survey respondents consider the existing funding for RI development to be insufficient. Problems with the lack of funding for the maintenance or sustainability of infrastructure reported in the final evaluation of Horizon 2020 still persist. 

74 75 76 This programme part aims to foster collaboration among RIs and to ensure accessibility for researchers across Europe. Changes made under Horizon Europe include discontinuing integrating activities (INFRAIA) grants and introducing the more challenge oriented INFRASERV grants for the provision of access. INFRASERV topics bring together more heterogenous RIs than INFRAIA and aim to better address societal challenges. Typically, INFRASERV grants integrate two or more past INFRAIA RI communities. For example, the canSERV project integrates more than 130 access providers, including providers from 13 pan-European life sciences RIs to support cancer research. Another example is the AQUARIUS project, which supports Mission Ocean by providing free access to a diverse portfolio of European RIs, including research vessels, marine observation platforms, aircraft, drones, satellites and more. Interviewees expressed concerns about these changes, notably the complexity of project coordination, the fragmentation of funding and the sustainability of the services developed beyond the lifetimes of individual projects. Interviewees indicated the need for a longer-term vision for the integration of RIs. However, the full impact of these changes will need to be assessed over a longer period of time.

77 INFRA plays an important role in the development of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). While advances are being made on FAIR data and the creation of new services, interviewees expressed concerns about two issues which are already being addressed: 

·The first is the lack of synchronisation between projects, potentially leading to a duplication of efforts and unexploited synergies. To address this, the INFRA work programme includes two topics (in 2021 and 2024) with dedicated activities for coordination among INFRAEOSC projects. The Commission also organises annual ‘concertation’ meetings of INFRAEOSC projects in order to further support coordination and the development of synergies.

·The second is the discontinuation of dedicated funding for the science clusters. Interviewees consider these clusters to be a key platform through which RIs of the same scientific discipline can collaborate, which in turn enables integration of RI services and data into the EOSC.

Pillar II contributions to Excellent Science

Scientific excellence is a primary evaluation criterion for Pillar II projects.

In addition to the main generators of peer reviewed publications (the ERC and JRC, both detailed above), Pillar II has generated 3 026 peer-reviewed publications. The largest share comes from Cluster 4 (Digital, industry, and space) with 1 453 publications. This is followed by Cluster 1 (Health) with 478 publications, and Cluster 5 (Climate, energy, and mobility) with 420 publications. Cluster 6 (Food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture, and environment) has produced 430 publications. Cluster 2 (Culture, creativity, and inclusive society) and Cluster 3 (Civil security for society) contribute the fewest publications, 130 and 132 respectively. The lower number of publications for Cluster 2 and 3 is consistent with their lower funding expenditure, as together they contribute 5% of the pillar II budget.

Joint Research Centre’s direct research actions

According to a bibliometric study 78  that analysed the JRC’s publications indexed by Scopus between 2018 and 2022, JRC publications are cited 2.26 times the world average 79 , similar to prestigious institutions such as the University of Oxford. The results were similar during the Horizon 2020 programming period. Moreover, the JRC publishes in top journals 80 , with 45.4% in the top 10% most cited category and 6.6% in the top 1%, showing a significant increase from 37.1% and 2.1% respectively for the first 5 years of Horizon 2020.

Collaboration is a key aspect of the JRC’s work, with 82% of publications involving authors from other organisations. Under Horizon Europe, the JRC joined as an associated partner for 32 collaborative projects under Pillars I and II. Of these, it joined 24 projects from Clusters 2, 4, 5 and 6, hosted three doctoral networks and three postdoctoral fellowships under MSCA, and provided research infrastructure in two pan-European research consortia 81 . 

In addition, a panel of independent experts 82  provided a positive assessment of the JRC, acknowledging its relevance, high-quality work and agility in addressing new challenges. Examples of JRC’s expertise in support of policy-making include:

·The EU digital policies: JRC studies on technological and organisational enablers for data sharing in the EU informed the Data Act 83 , while the estimation of benefits from interoperability informed the impact assessment of the Interoperable Europe Act 84 . 

·Monitoring and measuring climate action: In 2024, the Commission presented its recommendation for a 2040 climate target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% relative to 1990 levels, with an impact assessment of possible pathways to reach climate neutrality by 2050 85 . The impact assessment was underpinned by the JRC’s quantitative scenario analysis on the policy options.

·Green Deal industrial plan: JRC studies on supply chains and recycling potential 86 - 87 and its Raw Materials Information System 88  were used to track supply and demand for shaping the Critical Raw Materials Act 89 . For the Net-Zero Industry Act, the JRC provided analysis and recommendations on strategic infrastructure investment needs, industrial development and clean tech policies for key strategic net-zero technologies (notably batteries, electrolysers, solar energy, onshore wind and offshore renewables, sustainable biogas and biomethane, carbon capture and storage, heat pumps and geothermal, and grids) 90 .

4.1.2. Effectiveness: Towards ‘societal impacts’ – To what extent has Horizon Europe increased the R&I contribution to address global challenges (Key Impact Pathways 4-6)?

This section assesses Horizon Europe’s contribution to the Key Impact Pathways focusing on societal impact: ‘Addressing EU policy priorities & global challenges through R&I’; ‘Delivering benefits and impact via R&I missions’; and ‘Strengthening the uptake of R&I in society’.

Figure 11 - Societal impacts of Horizon Europe – Key Impact Pathways 4-6

Source: Annex V to Regulation 2021/695

Addressing EU policy priorities and global challenges through R&I (Key Impact Pathway 4)

By mid-2024, beneficiaries mobilised EUR 7.42 billion of their own funds to address SDGs, and EUR 6.08 billion of their own funds to support climate-relevant projects. A total of 9 463 publications were linked to SDGs and 8 827 are climate-relevant in that they support EU policy priorities and address global challenges through R&I. Regarding innovative outputs, 3 570 were linked to SDGs, and 2 893 were climate-related.

91 92 Of the projects supported under Horizon Europe, the biggest proportion focused on SDG3 - Good health and well-being (44%), followed by SDG7 - Affordable and clean energy (24.2%), SDG9 - Industry, innovation and infrastructure (22.9%), and SDG16 - Peace, justice and strong institutions (21%). Climate action (SDG13) is no longer in the top four, whereas the coverage of SDG3, SDG7 and SDG16 increased so far compared to Horizon 2020 (from 26% to 44%, from 12% to 24%, and from 6% to 21%, respectively).  

Effectiveness in contributing to EU policy priorities:

·Climate action:

-The climate contribution of Horizon Europe was 35% by the end of 2023 93 . By comparison, the contribution of the previous framework programme, Horizon 2020, was 32%, falling short of the 35% target 94 .

-65% of Horizon Europe call topics on climate science in Cluster 5 between 2021 and 2024 95  should contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s work by improving climate, adaptation and mitigation knowledge and projections. The results of these projects are not yet available. The previous two framework programmes were identified as the second most frequently acknowledged funding source of the research referenced in the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Cycle reports, with over 4 500 publications cited, coming from over 1 200 projects 96 . 

·Spending on biodiversity increased from 7.9% in 2021 to 8.7% in 2023 97 . According to Horizon Europe’s legal basis, the programme should contribute to the overall ambition of directing 7.5% of annual spending under the MFF towards biodiversity objectives in 2024 and 10% in 2026 and 2027 98 . 

·Although there is no specific target determined for spending on clean air objectives, the Commission is obliged to report on Member States’ uptake of EU funds to achieve the objectives of Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants. From 2021 to 2024, the committed contribution of Horizon Europe to clean air is estimated at EUR 3 762.9 million (4%) 99 .

·Horizon Europe investments in the digital transformation for 2021-2023 are estimated at up to EUR 14 053.2 million, or 33% of the Horizon Europe budget for these years (compared to 32% under Horizon 2020) 100 . 

·Horizon Europe investments in security (Cluster 3) supported the EU’s commitment to ensuring the EU’s civil security resilience of citizens and critical infrastructure, and establishing a common culture for disaster preparedness 101 . 

Delivering benefits and impact via R&I missions (Key Impact Pathway 5)

EU Missions, of which there are five, are a new feature of Horizon Europe. They aim to address societal challenges and boost the impact of the programme. Following the submission of reports 102 from the five Mission Boards, they were launched in September 2021 in the form of a Commission Communication 103 . Since then, the Missions have developed activities funded through three Horizon Europe work programme parts (2021-2023), accounting for 10% of the Pillar II budget.

Projects related to EU Missions have led to 33 peer-reviewed scientific publications and 1 intellectual property rights (IPR) output. A total of 87 innovative products, processes, and methods have been developed under the projects. In addition, in 38 mission projects (representing 66.7% of the total), citizens or end-users were involved in the co-design of R&I content (compared to 48.7% programme-wide, reported below under KIP 6).

104 In January 2024, the Commission expert group supporting the monitoring of EU Missions found that ‘faster and deeper integration of Missions with national systems and processes has occurred in cases where the Mission’s objectives are closely aligned to pre-existing European and national policy strategies, and when the introduction of EU Missions has overlapped with national policy planning cycles. In terms of concrete actions, most countries are at the early stages in their contributions to EU Missions’. For the evaluation at hand, the Mission secretariats provided data on progress towards their goals:

As of the end of 2024, the EU Mission ‘Restore our ocean and waters by 2030’ is supporting 225 demonstration sites to prepare the ground for the uptake by national and regional actors of the proposed solutions:

·122 demo sites in projects selected/running under Specific Objective 1 on marine protection and restoration, and restoration of inland waters.

·Another 55 demo sites in projects selected/running under Specific Objective 2 on preventing and eliminating pollution (microplastics, nutrients and chemicals). 

·29 demo sites in projects selected/running under Specific Objective 3 on greenhouse gas emissions from maritime economic activities in the EU, zero-carbon and low impact aquaculture, low-carbon multi-purpose use of marine and water space.

·19 demonstrators in projects selected/running that contribute to the development of the ‘digital twin ocean’, a multi-dimensional and near real-time virtual representation of the ocean. The digital twin combines ocean observations, artificial intelligence, and advanced modelling operating on high-performance computers, and is accessible to all 105 .

These results are available on the Mission Ocean and Waters Monitoring dashboard 106 .

The Mission ‘A Soil deal for Europe’ (Mission Soil) aims to ‘establish 100 living labs and lighthouses leading the transition towards healthy soils by 2030’. The first 25 living labs have been set-up. The encompass around 250 real-life testing sites and involve 167 partners, 25% of which are from private sector, in 11 Member States. They take a bottom-up research approach that is place-based and collaborative, engaging stakeholders to address specific soil health needs and challenges in real-world settings. Although the list of living labs and lighthouses has not been published, numbers were provided by the Mission secretariat for this evaluation. Similar or higher numbers are expected under current and future annual work programmes. High-performing living labs sites will be designated as ‘lighthouses’ on a rolling basis, starting in 2025, based on criteria from the Mission implementation plan (undergoing refinement) 107 . 

Mission Soil has also contributed to key EU policies, including the proposal for a directive on soil monitoring and resilience. A key tool for such policy support is its Soil Health Dashboard 108 , launched in March 2023, which provides an overview of soil health in the EU using 19 indicators. It covers the whole EU territory and covers some of those indicators for the first time (i.e. concentrations of heavy metals).

The Mission ‘100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities by 2030’ has also made progress:

·In 2022, 100 cities 109 from 27 MS were selected to participate in the Cities Mission, as well as 12 cities from associated countries (out of a total of 377 interested cities) 110 .

·By October 2024, 53 of these cities 111 had received the Mission label, meaning that their ‘climate city contracts’ were completed and assessed positively by the Commission.

·In addition to those with climate city contracts, 104 participating cities 112  are exploring innovative approaches to accelerate their climate transitions with funding from a pilot programme.

·As of November 2024, no cities have been designated by the Mission as climate neutral and smart. Cities with a Mission label have 5-6 years to work towards becoming climate neutral and smart 113 along the lines set out in their climate city contracts.

The Mission on adaptation to climate change is progressing towards its goal of ‘supporting 150 European regions and communities becoming climate resilient by 2030’:

·As of November 2024, the Mission is supporting 145 regions in accelerating their adaptation efforts. Of these, 32 regions are receiving financial support to assess their climate risk, 40 are receiving financial support to develop their pathways to climate resilience, 58 are receiving technical assistance to develop their adaptation plans, and 18 have already received the fill range of support.

·200 regions / local authorities are participating in projects funded by the Mission. Of these, 162 are participating in projects where they test and demonstrate innovative adaptation solutions. For example, the CLIMATEFIT project 114  helps Mission participants to develop investment strategies and mobilise financial resources.

Although the list of regions and communities has not been published, the Mission secretariat provided the figures for this evaluation.

The Mission has produced guidance 115 , tools 116 , and data 117 , and has supported the implementation of innovative solutions 118 , 119 , Much of the support is provided on the Climate ADAPT portal and through the Mission Adaptation Community 120 . For example, participating as a leading demonstration site in the ARCADIA project 121  enabled the region of Emilia-Romagna (Italy) to exchange information with other regions, raise awareness among local policymakers about climate adaptation, and explore improvements to its water network management 122 . 

The EU Cancer Mission’s goal is to ‘improve the lives of more than 3 million people by 2030 though prevention, cure and for cancer patients, including their families, to live longer and better’. While the number of people whose lives have been improved cannot yet be reported, progress towards the goal is as follows:

·the ECHoS project 123 , which involves 60 partners from all EU Member States and three associated countries, is creating a network of national cancer Mission hubs through stakeholder engagement and cross-policy dialogue.

·The Mission supports the revised Council Recommendation on cancer screening 124  by helping develop innovative, less invasive and more accessible methods and technologies for cancer screening. It also supported a pilot roadshow in Lithuania, Poland and Romania to raise awareness about cancer prevention and screening, which had 16 804 visitors 125 . 

·A dialogue with young cancer survivors from all over Europe was organised, which resulted in a new research topic being added to the 2024 Cancer Mission work programme on ‘late-effects of treatment in adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients and survivors’ (budget: EUR 36 million). A complimentary study on the provision of AYA care in Europe is being supported by the 2024 EU4Health programme 126 .

·Support for 20 international clinical trials which use participative research to optimise affordable personalised diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The trials involve over 3000 patients with difficult-to-treat cancers and aim to integrate successful interventions into national healthcare systems by 2030.

Mission Cancer is currently setting up its monitoring system so it can effectively measure progress towards its goal of improving the lives of more than 3 million people by 2030 through prevention, cure and solutions to live longer and better. However, it faces the challenge of defining ‘improving lives’ in the context of a disease that may return after treatment.

EU Missions’ governance

The process for designing all five EU Missions was participatory, open and transparent, despite challenges with conducting consultations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic 127 . The regulation establishing Horizon Europe called for Missions to ‘be bold and inspirational’, with ‘wide, scientific, technological, societal, economic, environmental or policy relevance and impact’ 128 . Their goals were further developed at the political level in diverse ways. 129

The Missions’ implementation plans include possible impact-level indicators 130 but their monitoring and evaluation framework has not been finalized, despite the fact that the regulation establishing Horizon Europe stipulated that “The missions, their objectives, budget, targets, scope, indicators and milestones shall be identified in strategic R&I plans or the work programmes” 131 .

In the 2023 assessment of Missions, many stakeholders reported that their governance process is ‘cumbersome, complex and lacking transparency’ 132 . While acknowledging the differences between the Missions’ governance, the Commission committed to make the EU Missions more effective for example by:

·intensifying discussion with political actors, notably Member States, on how to streamline their governance to make it more efficient, inclusive, and effective;

·mobilising a broader portfolio of instruments to secure greater participation of the private sector, including public-private partnerships and the public procurement of innovation;

·carrying out targeted actions to support local and national communication efforts to boost citizen engagement and raise awareness about EU Missions.

Since the 2023 assessment, the relevant Commission departments have strengthened the governance processes by reinforcing the horizontal steer and coordination of the EU Missions. More specifically, they engaged with Member States through the mutual learning exercise (MLE) of the Policy Support Facility. In addition, the Mission Boards’ terms of reference (ToR) were updated in 2024 to improve coordination mechanisms and ensure strategic alignment with EU-wide and local objectives.

Governance issues were also flagged in the evaluation of Focus Areas – a pilot initiative under the predecessor programme, Horizon 2020. The evaluation remarked that Focus Areas were added as an extra layer of cooperation, within a policy mix already suffering from ‘increasing complexity and fragmentation’ 133 .

Strengthening the uptake of R&I in society (Key Impact Pathway 6)

A total of 1 636 projects (or 49% of the projects that provided such information by 6 January 2025) have EU citizens or end users involved. This is a new indicator in Horizon Europe: comparable figures for Horizon 2020 are only available for civil society engagement, reported in just 2.9% of projects as of 31 March 2017.

The inclusion of citizens and stakeholders and co-design aspects are emphasised in EU Mission projects (67% of their projects report this type of engagement, compared to 49% programme-wide). Some examples include:

·The first European Mission Soil Week in 2023 brought together over 300 in-person and 600 online participants, including key stakeholders, researchers, and policymakers, to discuss the importance of soil health. Launched in April 2023, the Mission Soil manifesto now has 3400 signatories, including more than 600 legal entities and a growing number of local and regional authorities. 

·The EU Mission on adaptation to climate change organised 27 community-level events in the regions and local authorities involved in the Mission, and 21 regions / local authorities have received technical assistance to engage citizens and stakeholders.

·the EU Cancer Mission held a dialogue with over 100 young cancer survivors from across Europe, to better understand the challenges they face during and after cancer treatment. It has brough young cancer patients and survivors on board to co-create initiatives 134 that will help address their physical and mental well-being, follow-up care, continuity in education etc. 

Horizon Europe clusters

This section provides a few, illustrative examples of Pillar II projects per cluster, but is not exhaustive 135 . The work programmes did not provide indicators or targets to assess progress towards the expected outcomes and impacts. Given the early stage of programme implementation (only 6.6% of projects were closed on 6 January), the evaluation can only present examples of outputs.

Under the health cluster (Cluster 1), the CLIMOS project 136  involved collaboration on an indicator for climatic suitability conditions for leishmaniasis 137 (a parasitic tropical disease caused by sandflies, deadly in around 8% of the 700 000 to 1 million new cases each year). This cross-project effort resulted in a machine learning modelling approach that has been applied to predict the climatic suitability for this disease across several regions. Several countries can therefore prepare for the climate change-related arrival of a devastating disease.

Horizon Europe also funds digital health solutions, as demonstrated by XpanDH 138  - a project that aims to speed up the adoption of the European electronic health record exchange format (EEHRxF) across the EU by mobilising and building capacity in individuals and organisations, enabling citizens to easily access and share their health data with healthcare professionals. Another project, MELISSA 139 , which brings together experts in diabetes, AI, behavioural sciences, and clinical trials, among others, – is developing an AI-based digital diabetes management solution that provides personalised treatment and care recommendations. AI approaches are used to adjust daily insulin treatment in line with real-time glucose fluctuations.

Cluster 2 – Culture, creativity and inclusive societies supports research aimed at strengthening European democratic values, including rule of law and fundamental rights. For example, ITHACA 140  is developing and testing a human-centric AI and ethics-by-design online discussion platform for civic participation in local governance, integrating human and social interpretations into the design, to ensure that AI decision-making processes are explainable, transparent and fair and consider the needs of vulnerable groups.

Cluster 3 initiatives address security threats, disaster management, and crisis response. They enable the development of security solutions in real environments by involving security practitioners and citizens 141 . Horizon Europe contributes to border security through projects such as MELCHIOR 142 and ODYSSEUS 143 aimed at making border control checks more efficient and ethical thanks to advanced, non-intrusive technologies. MELCHIOR, which builds on the success of the Horizon 2020 project MESMERISE 144 , is further developing and demonstrating a novel technology based on infrasound waves for detecting drugs, explosives, weapons, and illicit goods concealed on individuals and in body cavities. ODYSSEUS uses a combination of portable unobtrusive screening technology, drone-assisted image processing, and AI-based data analytics to enable border authorities to remotely validate identities and check vehicles, luggage or cargo, while enhancing the travel experience for EU and non-EU citizens.

Horizon Europe also supports disaster resilience in Cluster 3 through initiatives such as DIREKTION 145 , which follows up on the Horizon 2020 project Fire-IN 146 . The project promotes an EU-wide network of fire and rescue practitioners, evaluating emerging technologies, and fostering collaboration between various stakeholders to address challenges related to climate change, ageing infrastructure, and geopolitical instability. Under Cluster 3, Horizon Europe also funds efforts to improve cybersecurity, e.g. the CS-AWARE-NEXT 147  project, which focuses on improving cybersecurity management for organisations and local supply networks by providing advanced AI-based threat intelligence integration, supporting compliance with European legislation, and enhancing internal and external cooperation.

Through its targeted investments, Cluster 4 has not only contributed to immediate research advances but has also laid the groundwork for an EU positioning in key technology areas contributing to the digital and industrial transition, such as quantum computing, space and advanced materials. However, and even though the patent profiles of Cluster 4 researchers show the appropriate specialisation in all KETs, patent filing trends from EU-27 countries have remained stable since FP7, while the EU global patent shares in most KETs 148 have been declining 149 . 

Through projects like IRISS 150 , the programme supports the development and implementation of sustainable and safe materials. With a specific focus on SMEs, IRISS aims to help industries utilise safe and sustainable-by-design materials (SSbDs) via a state-of-the-art ecosystem. Cluster 4 also funds the development of advanced materials such as high-performance composites (HPCs) whose applications are currently hindered by long processing times, high costs, and low recyclability. The r-LightBioCom project 151 proposes a paradigm shift in the way HPCs are manufactured and recycled, unlocking sustainable-by-design production of lightweight HPCs. The project seeks to enable new circular value chains by reducing HPC waste generation and reliance on non-sustainable energy sources. 

To respond to Europe’s need for a new generation of batteries that are durable, safer and sustainably manufactured, the framework programme invests in projects such as TEMPEST 152 . Supported under Cluster 5, the project aims to develop high-performance, lightweight, and recyclable batteries for various transportation applications. Its approach involves advanced chemistry and AI with the aim of optimising battery systems with integrated health monitoring and thermal management.

In addition, the European Green Deal relies on continuous input from the scientific research community to ensure it is implemented effectively and based on the latest evidence. By providing better understanding on how the climate system works and how it will change over time, climate science is fundamental for making informed and wise decisions about reducing emissions and adapting to a changing climate 153 . For example, the Cluster 5 projects TipESM 154  and ClimTip 155  bring together scientists from a range of disciplines boost our understanding of climate tipping points on our planet - including their impact on ecosystems and society and to develop a set of early warning indicators and safe future emission pathways that minimise the risk of exceeding these dangerous thresholds and increase societal preparedness. 

Cluster 6 supports the development of innovative circular solutions that will be crucial to halting environmental degradation and accelerating the transition to a competitive circular economy in Europe. For example, the CISUTAC project 156  is increasing circularity and sustainability in the textiles and clothing sector. It does so by demonstrating the feasibility and value of repair and disassembly, as well as sorting for reuse and recycling, and the creation of circular garments through ‘fibre-to-fibre' recycling and design for circularity regarding two material groups of textiles fibre materials (polyester and cotton).

Innovation in aquaculture is also funded under Cluster 6. For example, the Aquaponics from WAstewater REclamation (AWARE) project 157  is investigating to grow fish in recycled water. The project hereby aims to farm fish for human consumption in any city, with no impact on natural habitats and no dependence on natural freshwater availability.

EU-funded research is a key contributor to the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 158 . For example, EU-funded projects have provided knowledge on pollinators that was taken up in the IPBES reports and in turn sparked policy action that addresses knowledge gaps on pollinators 159 . Pollinators such as bees and butterflies are a key group of animals that plays a crucial role in maintaining global food security and ecosystems health and that is essential for biodiversity and human well-being. A key Horizon Europe-funded projects in this area is RestPoll 160 , that proposes a holistic approach to pollinators habitat restoration through an innovative network of demonstration cases and living labs that engage not only experts but also others stakeholders to achieve solutions combining cutting-edge research, participatory planning and new business models.

Impacts of institutionalised European partnerships

The legal base for joint undertakings sets out various possible impacts 161 and each JU contributes to one or more of these pathways:

·According to each of their evaluations, all JUs (see annexes) have helped to create and diffuse high-quality new knowledge and skills, through publications, patents, technological solutions, cooperation and knowledge transfer. They have also helped to harmonise regulations and standards across Member States and between other actors. 

·All JUs also reported some contribution to the EU’s global leadership and value chain resilience in key technologies. Some had more tangible effects than others. For example, the Chips JU (previously ECSEL/KDT) strengthened the European electronic components and systems (ECS) industry by driving innovation and advances in semiconductor manufacturing, and improving the resilience of its technology value chains, particularly in strategic sectors like mobility, health, and environmental technologies 162 . The Clean Hydrogen JU was instrumental in advancing electrolyser technology and scaling up capacity from 100 kW in 2011 to 10 MW by 2017 and 30 MW in 2023. This JU has ensured that Europe remains a leader in hydrogen fuel cell buses and refuelling infrastructure. Projects like JIVE and JIVE 2 made it possible for fuel cell electric buses to be running in 22 European cities 163 .

·Several JUs contributed to developing and accelerating the uptake of innovative solutions. For example, IMI2/IHI JU projects made a practical contribution to the fight against COVID-19, supported an approved vaccine for Ebola virus disease 164 and a new antibiotic for difficult-to-treat infections 165 , provided insights into the genetics of Alzheimer’s disease, and identified biomarkers associated with diabetes development 166 . The world’s second malaria vaccine (R21) was developed through clinical studies supported by the Global Health EDCTP JU, receiving the WHO recommendation for global use in 2023 167 .  

·Moreover, the EMPIR (institutional) partnership 168 supported research that contributed to the revision process of for of the seven base units for the International System of Units in 2019, linking them to fundamental constants of the universe, addressing the related measuring challenges 169 .

Data on the EIT KICs is presented below in the section on that specific topic.

Visibility, transparency and phasing-out of European Partnerships

Horizon Europe introduced new criteria for evaluating partnerships 170 . This section focuses on their (a) international positioning and visibility as global ambassadors for European research and innovation, (b) openness to new participants and transparency of stakeholder involvement, and (c) phasing out preparedness. In addition, an analysis of the partnerships’ directionality is presented under the chapter on relevance below, while the partnerships’ additionality is assessed under EU added value.

On international positioning and visibility, the European Partnerships’ approaches have varied depending on their strategic objectives. According to the Biennial Monitoring Report survey, 23 Partnerships have allocated a budget to establish collaborations with partners outside the EU. However, their approaches vary significantly:

·European-centred partnerships, which focus primarily on European initiatives (e.g. EIT Urban Mobility, Circular Bio-based Europe, Single European Sky Partnership, Driving Urban Transition, InnoEnergy, European Partnership for an Industrial Battery Value Chain, People-centric sustainable built environment - Built4People), either have no international exposure or involve limited efforts to connect with stakeholders outside the EU. Any connection with non-EU stakeholders has mostly been made during international conferences.

·Global-oriented partnerships, which require the involvement of international partners to achieve their objectives (e.g. Global Health EDCTP3, Biodiversa +, Innovative Health Initiative, Water4All), focus on international collaboration aligned with the SDGs and EU policy priorities, such as the AU-EU Innovation Agenda, and are active in the relevant global fora.

171 172 173 174 Despite their efforts, partnerships’ external evaluations identified the following obstacles: lack of sufficient financial resources to engage effectively with international partners, concerns about the competitiveness of European industry, geopolitical issues and demands for technological sovereignty, and the absence of a well-defined strategy for international collaboration. 

On transparency and openness, according to the data collected by the BMR survey 175 , the number of new organisations involved in the partnerships increased slightly between 2022 and 2024. Most of the 308 new organisations are associated with the EIT KICs 176 , while the other institutionalised partnerships have attracted fewer newcomers 177 . In addition, the partnerships extended to 55 countries in 2022 to 54 in 2024, demonstrating their significant reach beyond European borders. Several new countries have joined, including Australia, Brazil, Egypt and Georgia. Participation from widening countries has increased from 840 to 1 070 members, with some countries experiencing a significant rise of around 30% in the number of participating institutions 178 . 

However, challenges with attracting participants persist, especially due to the co-funding requirements 179 and membership fees 180 . In particular, some partnerships such as the Circular Bio-based Europe, Made in Europe and BATT4EU struggle to attract organisations from Central and Eastern Europe 181 . The share of SME members increased more than that of universities and private organisations between 2022 and 2024, primarily because of their participation in the EIT KICs. Only three JUs reported SME as members (SNS, Clean Aviation, Single European Sky) 182 . 

On phasing-out preparedness, all EIT KICs have in place a phasing-out strategy to become financially sustainable after 15 years of operation. Only three other institutionalised partnerships have adopted a phasing-out plan which was required by the end of 2023 183 (Single European Sky ATM Research 3, Global Health EDCTP3 and Europe’s Rail). EIT InnoEnergy 184 , EIT Digital 185 , and EIT Climate-KIC 186 reached the end of their partnership status in December 2024, and continue their activities without structural EIT funding. The EIT has signed a Memorandum of Cooperation offering these three KICs targeted, project-based funding through calls for proposals for education and training activities, that are more difficult to self-finance. In 2023-2024, the EIT grants represent 25% of the EIT InnoEnergy budget, 25% of the EIT Climate budget and 27% of the EIT Digital budget. Data for 2025 is not yet available.

Social sciences and humanities (SSH)

Under Horizon Europe, SSH 190  activities are implemented by: (1) mobilising multidisciplinary SSH expertise in Cluster 2, focusing on democracy, governance, cultural heritage and socio-economic transitions; and (2) making SSH a cross-cutting priority in order to boost the Programme’s economic and societal impacts – a commitment now set in its legal base, building on the systematic integration first initiated under Horizon 2020 191 . In 2025, the first SSH integration monitoring report for Horizon Europe will provide an analysis of the funding attributed in 2021-2024 to SSH-flagged topics and the level of SSH integration achieved through the programme so far. As of August 2024, SSH-flagged topics account for 27.3% (665 out of 2 432 topics), while SSH projects account for 9.5% (1 363 out of 14 423 total funded projects).

Although progress has been made on the integration of SSH and funding of related research, position papers submitted to the Horizon Europe public consultation by stakeholders flagged concerns such as insufficient early engagement of SSH researchers in the preparation of the work programme and call across all clusters, difficulties in identifying funding opportunities due to overly prescriptive work programmes, and the use of the TRL scale in certain topics.

In the same consultation, certain respondents expressed that, although social science specialists are involved in the consortia, SSH methodologies are not always integrated into the project overall. Moreover, over 40% (889) of the respondents believed that SSH disciplines should be further developed for the 2025-2027 strategic plan 192 .

193 Respondents were asked for their views on potential untapped complementarities between the different Horizon Europe Clusters. They flagged untapped complementarities between Cluster 2 projects and Cluster 3 in particular (44%, 320), followed by Clusters 4 and 1 (39%, 284 and 281 respectively). 

Specific findings were observed for Clusters under Pillar II. For example, interviewed Cluster 2 project coordinators acknowledged that the integration of the SSH aspect throughout Pillar II Clusters has facilitated greater interdisciplinary collaboration, enabling SSH participants to engage more extensively in scientific domains beyond SSH, and positioning SSH as a critical driver of project impacts across all Clusters 194 . Cluster 4 interviewees however reported that the effective incorporation of SSH into its funded projects could be better targeted at specific actions, while the cluster placed increasing importance on the integration of skills and the human dimension in the various topics 195 .

In Clusters 5 and 6, the broader consideration of societal needs and processes received limited attention, although destinations focusing on climate science, food and communities dedicate over half of their funding to projects with contributions from SSH 196 . 

Promotion of gender equality

Between 2021 and 2023, Horizon Europe allocated EUR 215.3 million to actions focused on improving gender equality (i.e. where it was a principal objective). Another EUR 4 841.4 million was allocated to actions with gender equality as an important and deliberate objective but not as the main reason for intervention. In total, EUR 5 056.7 million can be directly linked with gender equality-advancing efforts, corresponding to 11% of Horizon Europe commitments 197 . Examples of such contributions include funding for gender-related research under Horizon Europe Pillar I (e.g. Marie-Skłodowska-Curie Actions and the ERC), under Pillar II (e.g. gender biases in AI, radicalisation and violence against women, women’s health, backlash against women in politics, women in rail), and under Pillar III (the Women Leadership Programme (EIC), the  EU Prize for Women Innovators (EIC/EIT), the Supernovas  (EIT),  Girls Go Circular (EIT)  and WIDERA (e.g. implementation of inclusive gender equality plans).

The figures above are ex-ante budgetary estimates: project-level estimates on gender equality relevance of funded activities are not yet available to this evaluation. It is likely that the share of Horizon Europe activities with some relevance for gender equality is higher than 11%: as of January 2025, only 19.5% of all research topics under the Horizon Europe main work programme 198  explicitly indicated that gender equality is not at all relevant. 199  As a benchmark, an estimated 23% of Horizon 2020 projects took the gender dimension into account 200 . 

Table 1: Gender balance in Horizon Europe 201

Source: Commission monitoring data (cut-off date: 6 January 2025). For Horizon 2020 advisory groups: Horizon 2020 ex-post evaluation, section ‘Promotion of gender equality in Horizon 2020’ (p. 45)

The percentage of women in Commission expert evaluation panels and in Horizon Europe advisory and expert groups has increased compared to Horizon 2020. Women now sign 45% of expert evaluation contracts, against 42% at the end of Horizon 2020. Moreover, as of 2025, women make up 51% of Horizon Europe advisory and expert groups (against a 50% target): a considerable increase since Horizon 2020 (43%) and FP7 (33%). The share of women-led consortia has also substantially increased, from 24% under Horizon 2020 to 31% under Horizon Europe. Although the percentage varies significantly from one programme part to another 202 , the positive trend is also observed in the programme parts where women’s participation is lower 203 .

Conversely, the share of women participating in projects as researchers is similar to that of Horizon 2020 (38% of all researchers), with a notable exception of the MSCA where the share of women among recruited researchers (fellows) is 45.1% 204 . This is higher than the average share of women researchers in the EU in 2021 - 33.7% 205 . While this under-representation occurs at all career stages, the imbalance is more pronounced in later stages: women represent only 26% of senior researchers/associate professors and full professors/directors of research participating in the programme 206 . This figure is lower than the EU average (e.g. 29.7% for grade A researchers). 

In private sector-oriented parts of the programme, the participation rate of women is lower:

·The share of women-led companies and of companies with women CEOs accounted for 19% and 17% of EIC Accelerator companies respectively 207 .

·24% of start-ups created through EIT innovation projects in 2021-2022 are led by women 208 . 

·The share of women participants in the partnerships’ activities is below 30% 209 . This is well below the proportion of women employed in science and technology in the EU in 2022 (52%), the overall proportion of women among scientists and engineers (41%) 210 , as well as the share of women researchers in Horizon Europe (38%).

These results are consistent with the broader start-up and scale-up landscape. In the EU, women reportedly represent only 2% of the founders of ‘unicorn’ companies 211 , and there is an estimated USD 1.7 trillion financing gap for women-owned SMEs 212 . The share of investment attracted by women-led start-ups also remains comparably low, with only 8.7% of investments going to women-led companies 213 . The discrepancy is particularly pronounced for venture capital funding, as in 2023, all-men founded companies secured 75% of capital raised whereas all-women founded companies secured a mere 7% (the remaining 18% was secured by mixed companies) 214 . A significant funding imbalance persists for all-women teams, who receive 2 to 6 times less investment than all-men teams, despite securing a similar number of deals 215 . Closing this considerable gender gap is crucial for the EU if it is to harness the full potential of women entrepreneurs, which would increase economic output and innovation 216 .   

In 2022, gender equality plans (GEPs) became an eligibility criterion for public bodies, research organisations and higher education establishments. The objective was to increase awareness about and action on gender equality and inclusiveness 217 . Data updated in January 2025 shows that 81% of Horizon Europe applications in these categories declared to have a gender equality plan at proposal stage 218 – a considerable improvement given that most research performing organisations in EU countries did not yet have a GEP in 2021 219 . 

At the end of 2023, the European Commission conducted a pilot compliance check on a randomly selected set of beneficiaries and affiliated entities of projects funded under Horizon Europe calls with deadlines in 2022. The findings of the pilot check revealed deficiencies in GEPs in 59% of the checked entities, resulting in the launching of grant termination procedures for three entities 220 . The effectiveness of gender equality plans (GEPs) could be further supported by facilitating development of compliant plans, and by strengthening enforcement by means of ex ante verification and regular ex post compliance checks 221 .

International cooperation, including association of third countries

Stakeholders consulted in interviews and during workshops stressed that the Horizon Europe internationalisation strategy should follow a ‘win-win’ principle, ensuring reciprocity and a level playing field with international partners (e.g., exploitation rules, IPR, etc.) and strengthening ties with ‘like-minded’ countries 223 . In the first two 2-year work programmes, 21% of collaborative research topics encouraged international cooperation.

Horizon Europe extended the association policy to like-minded third countries – countries with a strong R&I basis, located in the EU neighbourhood and beyond. It offered them the possibility of a partial association 224 and reciprocal access to national R&I programmes of associated countries seen as equivalent to Horizon Europe. Under Horizon 2020, reciprocity clauses were introduced only in the association agreements with Switzerland and the Faroe Islands (similar provisions existed in the FP7 Association Agreement with Israel). In line with the regulation establishing Horizon Europe, such reciprocity clauses have been introduced in all new association agreements. 225  As of October 2024, through the reciprocity clause, the association of third countries has provided access to EU-based entities in 64 national programmes of the 19 associated countries 226 . 

The association of third countries also implies a substantial financial input. The combined annual financial contribution of the associated countries is close to EUR 3 billion, resulting in a substantial increase in the funding for R&I activities under Horizon Europe (Horizon Europe budget and the financial contribution of associated countries constituting external assigned revenue of the Union budget).

For high-income countries, association has increased access to excellence and globally-ranked research performing organisations and infrastructures. In the targeted evaluation survey, 73% of responding beneficiaries agreed to a (very) large extent that Horizon Europe has achieved or is likely to achieve increased international visibility through collaboration with leading global partners (3 208 respondents).

Partners from associated countries supplement scientific areas in which Member States may be lacking: the ex post evaluation of Horizon 2020 found that peer-reviewed publications, involving a contributor from at least one associated or other non-EU country, have a higher scientific impact 227 .

Association also contributes to broader geopolitical goals: the reform of national R&I systems in the enlargement countries and support to R&I capacity building 228 . their alignment with the ERA and the EU objectives in the area of ‘Science and Research’ (EU acquis, Chapter 25) 229 . All nine states recognized as candidates for EU membership are associated to Horizon Europe: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye and Ukraine. Kosovo, which formally submitted its application for EU membership in 2022 and is considered a potential candidate, also became associated to Horizon Europe for the first time in 2021. These countries are collaborating in projects such as Montevitis 230 , which has developed infrastructure for the systematic collection of data on the viticulture sector, enabling an analysis of climate change effects 231 . In addition, as the majority of the associated countries belong to the widening group, Horizon Europe is helping to narrow the gap in R&I excellence across the continent 232 .