Integration of social sciences and humanities in horizon 2020 : participants, budget and disciplines : monitoring report on SSH-flagged projects funded in 2014 under the societal challenges and industrial leadership.
Date: 2016-02-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU programme, budget, business policy, innovation, report, research and development, research policy, social impact, social sciences, technology

 
 
 
CIAL SCIENCES AND 
HUMANITIES 
IN HORIZON 2020: 
PARTICIPANTS, BUDGET AND 
DISCIPLINES 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate B — Innovation Union and European Research Area 
Unit B.6 — Reflective Societies 

Contact: Philippe Keraudren 

E-mail:  rtd-ssh-reflective-societies@ec.europa.eu  

RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES 
IN HORIZON 2020:  
PARTICIPANTS, BUDGET AND DISCIPLINES 

Monitoring report on SSH-flagged projects funded in 2014 
under the Societal Challenges and Industrial Leadership  

Edited by Laura Hetel, Tom-Espen Møller and Julia Stamm  

2015 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Inclusive, Innovative and Reflective Societies 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union 

Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you) 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015. 

ISBN 
doi 

978-92-79-50762-5 
10.2777/382488 

© European Union, 2015. 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Cover image: © szélléva, 2015

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

PREFACE.................................................................................................................... 5 

1. KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 6 

2. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 8 

3.  INTEGRATION  OF  SSH  IN  THE  2014  CALLS  OF  THE  SOCIETAL  CHALLENGES  AND 

INDUSTRIAL LEADERSHIP PRIORITIES: GENERAL ASSESSMENT ............................... 10 

3.1 Budget going to SSH..................................................................................... 10 

3.2 Involvement of SSH partners ......................................................................... 11 

3.2.2 SSH partners by country affiliation ...................................................... 12 

3.2.3 SSH partners by type of activity.......................................................... 13 

3.3 Project coordination ...................................................................................... 14 

3.3.1 SSH coordinators by country affiliation................................................. 14 

3.4 Discipline prevalence .................................................................................... 15 

3.5 Quality of integration .................................................................................... 17 

4.  PROJECTS  AND  TOPICS  WITH  A  STRONG  SSH  DIMENSION  IN  WP  2014-2015  – 

EXAMPLES OF BEST PRACTICE............................................................................. 18 

5. DETAILED ASSESSMENT: INTEGRATION OF SSH BY WORK PROGRAMME PART............... 22 

5.1 Societal Challenge 1 'Health, Demographic Change and Well-being' ..................... 22 

5.2 Societal Challenge 2 'Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, 

Maritime and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy'.............................. 24 

5.3 Societal Challenge 3 'Secure, clean and efficient energy' .................................... 26 

5.4 Societal Challenge 4 'Smart, green and integrated transport' .............................. 28 

5.5  Societal  Challenge  5  'Climate  action,  environment,  resource  efficiency  and  raw 

materials' ................................................................................................ 30 

5.6  Societal  Challenge  6  'Europe  in  a  changing  world  –  Inclusive,  innovative  and 

reflective Societies' ................................................................................... 32 

5.7  Societal  Challenge  7  'Secure  Societies  –  Protecting  freedom  and  security  of 

Europe and its citizens' .............................................................................. 34 

5.8  LEIT-ICT  'Leadership  in  enabling  and  industrial  technologies  -  Information  and 

Communication Technologies' ..................................................................... 36 

5.9 LEIT-NMP 'Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies - Nanotechnologies, 
Advanced  Materials,  Biotechnology  and  Advanced  Manufacturing  and 
Processing' .............................................................................................. 38 

5.10 LEIT-SPACE 'Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies – Space' ............ 40 

6. CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD .......................................................................... 42 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
PREFACE 

Horizon 2020, the EU's research and innovation programme, will fully integrate social sciences and 
humanities research into each of its priorities. This new policy priority is based on the insight that 
European  social  sciences  and  humanities  (SSH),  with  all  their  diversity,  are  world  class  and  that 
they are essential to ensure that Horizon 2020 delivers value and benefits to society. Implementing 
this priority requires an entirely novel way of cross-disciplinary cooperation. 

The SSH encompass a wide range of disciplines such as sociology and economics, psychology and 
political  science,  history  and  cultural  sciences,  law  and  ethics.  Contributions  from  these  research 
and activity fields are needed under Horizon 2020 to generate new knowledge, support evidence-
based  policymaking,  develop  key  competences  and  produce  interdisciplinary  solutions  to  both 
societal and technological issues.    

This unprecedented systematic and strategic integration of SSH in the calls of Horizon 2020 comes 
with opportunities and challenges. On one hand, it provides more scope for contributions from the 
SSH under more thematic areas and more topics than ever before. On the other hand, it marks a 
clear departure from the approach under the Seventh Framework Programme where the SSH had 
their own dedicated programme and budget line. 

This  first  round  of  Horizon  2020  calls  challenged  the  Commission  services  involved  in  the 
preparation  of  the  2014-15  Work  Programme  to  embrace  a  more  interdisciplinary  and  integrative 
mindset.  At  the  same  time,  it  required  applicants  to  submit  proposals  and  build  consortia  that 
transcend disciplinary and sectorial boundaries, bringing together scholars from SSH and from life 
and physical sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) as well as researchers and 
practitioners across these fields.  

The goal of this monitoring report is to assess to what extent the 2014 calls for proposals under the 
Societal  Challenges  and  the  Industrial  Leadership  priorities  have  delivered  on  the  integration  of 
SSH as a cross-cutting issue.1 The report provides data on the budget dedicated to SSH activities, 
the share of SSH partners as well as their country affiliation and type of activity, the prevalence of 
various disciplines, and the overall quality of integration. 

As data collection for the report progressed, the lessons learned have been gradually fed into the 
preparation  of  the  2016-17  Work  Programme.  In  particular,  evidence-based  corrective  measures 
have  been  identified  and  implemented  that  are  expected  to  improve  significantly  the  qualitative 
integration of SSH in upcoming and future Horizon 2020 calls.  

The report also provides a baseline against which performance in terms of quantitative integration 
of SSH can be benchmarked in the upcoming years of Horizon 2020.  

Acknowledgments 

This  report  was  authored  by  Laura  Hetel,  Tom-Espen  Møller  and  Julia  Stamm,  with  important  input  being 
provided  by  Bogdan-Iustin  Birnbaum  (all  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and 
Innovation,  Unit  B6  'Reflective  Societies').  The  authors  are  grateful  to  Philippe  Keraudren  (European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation, Unit B6 'Reflective Societies', Deputy Head of Unit) for his counsel 
and guidance. 

1 Horizon 2020 is made up of three priorities: 1) Excellent Science, 2) Industrial Leadership and 3) Societal 
  Challenges. This monitoring report covers only the programmed parts of Horizon 2020 under the Industrial 
  Leadership and Societal Challenges priorities.    

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1. KEY FINDINGS 

The  integration  of  SSH  contributions  is  crucial  during  the  drafting  phase  of  the  Work 
Programme (upstream embedding).  

• 

Truly  interdisciplinary  topics  are  designed  in  such  a  way  that  the  challenges  in  question  are 
framed with the SSH as an integral part of the solution. 

•  Hence, in terms of the SSH integration, there is a strong correlation between the quality of the 

topic texts and the respective outcomes. 

•  A clear scope for input from the SSH yielded higher participation from SSH partners and better 
integrated  contributions  from  the  SSH,  confirming  that  the  integration  of  SSH  dimensions 
needs to happen from the earliest stages of the drafting process. 

•  Good integration of SSH steers the R&I process towards concepts, solutions and products that 

are relevant to societal needs, directly applicable or marketable, and cost efficient. 

The  SSH  contributions  come  from  a  broad  range  of  actors,  in  terms  of  type  of  activity, 
country of affiliation and SSH discipline. 

•  Both  researchers  and  practitioners  contribute  SSH  expertise  to  projects,  making  the  range  of 

SSH partners involved in Horizon 2020 very diverse. 

• 

• 

The  SSH  partners  belong  to  a  broad  range  of  institutional  backgrounds:  higher  education 
establishments, research organisations, and the public and private sectors. 

Together,  higher  education  establishments  and  non-profit  research  organisations  account  for 
67%  of  SSH  partners  while  public  sector  institutions  (such  as  ministries)  account  for  3%.  In 
addition, 17% of SSH partners come from the private sector (for-profit research organisations, 
SMEs,  consulting  agencies,  etc.)  while  the  remaining  13%  are  categorised  as  'others'  and 
mainly include civil society organisations.  

•  When  comparing  data  for  individual  work  programme  parts,  the  types  of  institutional  actors 
involved vary depending on the societal challenge or LEIT part in question. For instance, higher 
education  establishments  and  non-profit  research  organisations  account  for  80%  of  SSH 
partners in Societal Challenge 6 as compared to only 40% in Societal Challenge 3. The private 
sector  accounts  for  39%  of  SSH  partners  in  Societal  Challenge  4,  but  only  for  7%  of  them  in 
Societal Challenge 6.  

• 

• 

In  terms  of  countries  represented,  the  SSH  partners  come  predominantly  from  the  EU-15 
Member  States  (83%),  in  particular  from  the  United  Kingdom  (16%),  Germany  (10%),  the 
Netherlands (9%), Italy (8%), Belgium (7%), Spain (7%) and France (7%). Combined, the top 
seven  countries  account  for  64%  of  the  SSH  partners.  In  contrast,  only  10%  of  the  SSH 
partners  come  from  the  EU-13  Member  States.  We  are  therefore  facing  a  significant 
geographical divide between the EU-15 and the EU-13.2 

For  project  consortia led  by  an  SSH  partner,  the  project  coordinators  with SSH  expertise  also 
come predominantly from the EU-15 Member States (92%). In particular, the SSH coordinators 
come  from  Germany  (19%),  the  Netherlands  (13%),  the  United  Kingdom  (also  13%),  Spain 
(9%), Italy (8%), France (6%) and Belgium (5%). Together, the top seven countries account 
for  73%  of  the  SSH  coordinators  while  only  3%  of  SSH  coordinators  come  from  the  EU-13 
Member States. As a result, the geographical divide is even larger between the EU-15 and the 

2 The term EU-15 refers to the 15 member states of the European Union as of 31 December 2003: Austria, 
  Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, 
  Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. The term EU-13 refers to the 13 member states of the European Union that 
  joined the EU after 31 December 2003: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, 
  Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EU-13  for  the  SSH  coordinators  as  compared  to  the  divide  in  the  country  affiliation  of  SSH 
partners in general. 

•  Regarding the variety of SSH disciplines in the funded projects, contributions from the fields of 
economics, business and marketing (53%) and political science, public administration and law 
(38%)  are  well  integrated  while  many  other  SSH  disciplines  are  underrepresented.  This  is 
especially  the  case  for  the  humanities  and  the  arts  which  contribute  to  only  9%  of  funded 
projects with an SSH dimension. 

The quantitative integration of SSH is satisfactory. 

• 

In terms of budget, €236 million out of €1.1 billion have been awarded to SSH partners, with 
€218 million under the Societal Challenges pillar and €18 million under the LEIT pillar. 

•  Societal Challenge 6 accounts for €70 million, i.e. less than 30% of the overall amount of €236 

million awarded to SSH.  

•  26% of consortia partners in projects funded under topics flagged for SSH have SSH expertise 
and will contribute it to their projects. When excluding Societal Challenge 6, the share of SSH 
partners amounts to 19%. 

The quality of SSH integration is highly uneven across projects. 

•  40% of projects funded under topics flagged for SSH show good integration of SSH in terms of 
share of partners, budget allocated to them, inclusion of explicit and purposeful contributions, 
and  variety  of  disciplines  involved.  However,  at  the  other  end  of  the  spectrum,  28%  of  the 
projects funded under topics flagged for SSH do not integrate any contributions from the SSH. 
When  excluding  Societal  Challenge  6,  the  share  of  projects  that  fail  to  integrate  contributions 
from  the  SSH  increases  from  28%  to  32%  while  the  share  of  projects  with  good  SSH 
integration decreases from 40% to 32%. 

• 

• 

The quality of integration differs considerably depending on the Societal Challenge or LEIT part. 
For Societal Challenge 6 all funded projects show a good integration of SSH. Societal Challenge 
2  and  7  also  perform  well  with  75%  and  74%  of  the  projects,  respectively,  showing  a  fair  or 
good integration of SSH. In contrast, only 31% and 44% of the projects funded under Societal 
Challenge 5 and LEIT-ICT have a fair or good integration of SSH. 

The  type  of  action  under  which  a  project  was  funded,  strongly  correlates  with  the  quality  of 
SSH integration in that project. Projects with good or fair integration of SSH account for 71% 
of Coordination and Support Actions (CSA), 60% of Research and Innovation Actions (RIA) but 
only 42% of Innovation Actions (IA). 

This  data  indicates  that  the  first  year  (2014)  of  the  implementation  of  Horizon  2020  was  overall 
successful in paving the way for a true embedding of the SSH. Projects selected for funding under 
SSH-flagged  topics  show  a  fair integration  of SSH in  terms  of  participation  and  budget.  However, 
there  is  still  room  for  improvement,  notably  when  it  comes  to  the  qualitative  integration  of  the 
SSH.  To  address  this  issue,  the  topic  texts  of  future  Work  Programmes  need  to  explicitly  call  for 
SSH contributions and be framed with the SSH as an integral part of the solution. In addition, the 
range  of  SSH  disciplines  invited  to  contribute  needs  to  be  significantly  broadened.  This  is 
particularly important for the humanities. Last but not least, stronger efforts need to be undertaken 
in the EU-13 Member States to promote interdisciplinary research approaches and the possibilities 
these create for the SSH communities. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. METHODOLOGY 

The  implementation  of  the  new  policy  priority  of  full  integration  of  SSH  requires  adopting  a 
multidimensional approach since a variety of areas and activities need to be targeted:   

1.  SSH  experts  need  to  be  included  in  the  Horizon  2020  Expert  Advisory  Groups 

(EAGs):  
This necessity was already observed in the first EAGs of Horizon 2020 in which 14% of all 
experts  had  SSH  expertise.  In  the  context  of  the  renewal  of  the  EAGs  in  late  2015,  even 
more attention has been paid to a fair representation of SSH experts.  

2.  SSH  experts  need  to  be  part  of  the  evaluation  panels  for  topics  with  SSH 

dimensions:  
Already  in  the  first  calls  of  Horizon  2020,  Commission  services  made  sure  to  include  SSH 
experts  in  the  evaluation  panels  for  relevant  calls.  The  analysis  of  a  sample  of  40  SSH-
flagged  topics  in  2014  showed  that  out  of  the  688  experts  appointed,  10%  had  a 
background in one or more SSH disciplines. Furthermore, all experts received a dedicated 
briefing on the new strategic relevance of SSH as a cross-cutting issue. 

3.  Work  programme  topics  with  SSH  dimensions  and  projects  resulting  from  these 
topics  with  SSH  dimensions  need  to  fully  integrate  SSH  research  and  SSH 
researchers.   

This monitoring report focuses on the  third dimension of SSH integration, namely on the projects 
resulting  from  SSH-relevant  topics.  The  data  provided  and  analysed  in  the  report  was  extracted 
from the grant agreements of the 308 projects selected for funding in 2014 under 97 topics3 in the 
Societal Challenges and Industrial Leadership priorities combined.  

All  97  topics  were  flagged  for  SSH  in  the  Participant  Portal.  As  such,  they  were  expected  to  fund 
projects  in  which  contributions  from  SSH  experts  would  be  integrated  to  varying  degrees.  The 
Societal  Challenges  priority  funded  260  projects  under  84  of  these  topics  while  the  Industrial 
Leadership priority funded 48 projects under the remaining 13 topics.4 

No reliable IT-based solution is yet in place for collecting data on the integration of SSH in Horizon 
2020 projects. As a result, data extraction for the 2014 projects was performed manually, project 
by project, according to a methodology that is both simple and robust. This methodology is based 
on the following categories: 

Budget going to SSH. This figure denotes the sum of grant amounts going to SSH partners.   

SSH  partners.  These  are  consortium  partners  (i.e.  legal  entities)  for  which  66%  or  more  of  the 
experts  listed  as  taking  part  in  the  project  have  expertise  in  the  area  of  SSH  and  contribute  this 
expertise  to  project  activities.  This  means  that  consortium  partners  that  have  less  than  66%  of 
experts with SSH expertise taking part in the project are not accounted for in this report although 
they may still play an important role in their projects. 

Activity type. This category is based on the legal status of consortium partners and on their public, 
commercial, research and educational affiliation.5 The five activity types used in this report are the 
ones used by the Common Research Data Warehouse (CORDA).6 

HES 
REC 

Higher or secondary education establishments 
Research organisations 

3 The 97 topics do not include topics that funded ERA-NETs, networks of National Contact Points or activities 
  under the 'Other Actions' sections of the Work Programme.  
4 It is important to bear in mind that some Societal Challenges also contributed topics to focus area calls in 
  other WP parts, thus making the exact contribution of each Societal Challenge sometimes difficult to 
  apprehend. 
5 This information is collected from consortium partners through the online Unique Registration Facility and 
  then validated during the negotiation stage of the grant agreement.  
6 The five categories used by CORDA are mutually exclusive so that a project partner can fall under only one 
  category. For example, although an entity can be both a higher education establishment (HES) and a research 
  organisation (REC), the entity will be classified as a higher education establishment (HES). Also, commercial 
  for-profit research organisations will only appear under the category private for-profit entities (PRC).   

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
PUB 

Public  body  (excluding  research  organisations  and  higher  or  secondary  education 
establishments) 
Private for profit entities (excluding higher or secondary education establishments) 

PRC 
OTH  Others 

Discipline prevalence. This category provides aggregated data on the distribution of SSH expertise 
across projects. It indicates what percentage of projects includes partner-level expertise in each of 
the following nine disciplines or clusters of disciplines:  

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

anthropology (excluding physical anthropology) and ethnology;  
economics, business and marketing;  
demography and geography (excluding physical geography);  
education and communication;  
history;  
humanities and the arts (archaeology, area studies, ethics, interpretation and translation, 
languages and cultures, literature, linguistics, philosophy, religion and theology); 
political science, public administration and law;  
psychology;  
sociology. 

The disciplines or clusters of disciplines are counted when at least one expert in the project has the 
relevant  SSH  expertise  and  contributes  this  expertise  to  project  activities.  This  includes  experts 
both from the SSH partners as well as from the non SSH partners (i.e. partners where the share of 
SSH experts is lower than 66%). Furthermore, this implies that, in some cases, a discipline could 
be represented by several experts in a given project while in other cases this same discipline could 
be represented by one expert only. For instance, when the table on 'Share of projects that include 
partner-level  expertise  from  SSH  disciplines  and  clusters  of  disciplines'  in  chapter  3.4  shows  that 
economics, business and marketing are represented in 63% of SSH-flagged topics in SC1, it means 
that  in  63%  of  SSH-flagged  projects  funded  under  SC1,  there  is  at  least  one  expert  with  such  a 
background.  It  may  thus  be  the  case  that  within  this  sample  of  63%  of  SC1  projects  with  an 
economics, business and marketing presence, some projects have only one expert in this cluster of 
disciplines  while  others  may  have  more.  The  methodology  on  disciplines  will  be  further  refined  in 
the  next  report  on  the  SSH  embedding  in  2015  in  order  to  also  take  into  account  the  relative 
weight of disciplines based on the number of experts actively engaged in SSH-embedded projects. 

Quality  of  SSH  integration.  This  category  is  a  composite  project-level  indicator.  It  aggregates  the 
performance of each project along four dimensions and associated thresholds, assessing whether 

• 
• 
• 

• 

the share of SSH partners is higher than 10%; 
the budget going to SSH is higher than 10%; 
contributions from the SSH are well integrated in project abstract, keywords, working 
programmes and deliverables; 
contributions from the SSH came from at least two distinct SSH disciplines.  

The quality of SSH integration in each project was assessed according to the following scale: 

None 

Weak 

Fair 

No threshold was met for any of the four dimensions 

Threshold met for one dimension 

Threshold met for two or three dimensions 

Good    

Threshold met for all four dimensions 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
3.  INTEGRATION  OF  SSH  IN  THE  2014  CALLS  OF  THE  SOCIETAL 
LEADERSHIP  PRIORITIES: 
CHALLENGES  AND 
GENERAL ASSESSMENT 

INDUSTRIAL 

3.1 Budget going to SSH  

The total funding available for the calls for proposals in the Work Programme 2014 amounted to €4 
billion, out of which €1.1 billion were dedicated to topics flagged for SSH. Under these topics €236 
million  of  the  €1.1  billion  (i.e.  21%)  went  to  SSH  partners.  Overall,  the  share  of  budget  going  to 
SSH partners amounts to 6% of the total 2014 budget of €4 billion. 

Budget allocated to SSH-flagged topics and to SSH partners (million €)

Horizon 
2020 parts

Total budget 
2014 calls

Budget 
allocated to 
SSH-flagged 
topics

Budget 
going to 
SSH 
partners

Share of 
budget going 
to SSH 
partners under 
SSH-flagged 
topics

Share of 
budget going 
to SSH 
partners out of 
the total call 
budget

SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
Total SC
LEIT-ICT
LEIT-NMBP
LEIT-SPACE
Total LEIT
Total
Total ex. SC6

589
293
583
539
306
114
205
2629
710
533
130
1373
4002
3887

275
104
94
226
124
83
79
985
100
21
17
138
1123
1041

33
29
21
21
16
70
28
218
13
3
1
18
236
166

12 %
27 %
22 %
9 %
13 %
84 %
36 %
22 %
13 %
16 %
7 %
13 %
21 %
16 %

6 %
10 %
4 %
4 %
5 %
61 %
14 %
8 %
2 %
1 %
1 %
1 %
6 %
4 %

The budget share for SSH is highest in SC6 with €70 million (84%) out of the €83 million allocated 
to  the  SSH-flagged  topics,  followed  by  SC7  (€28  million,  36%)  and  SC2  (€29  million,  27%).  The 
lowest shares are to be found in SC4 (€21 million, 9%) and LEIT-SPACE (€1 million, 7%). 

However, when focussing on budget size instead of budget share, the picture is different. With €70 
million,  SC6  is  still  top  of  the  list.  However,  SC1  comes  next  with  €33  million  going  to  SSH 
partners,  followed  by  SC2  (€29  million)  and  SC7  (€28  million).  The  lowest  budget  numbers  are 
found in the LEIT parts. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2 Involvement of SSH partners 

Overall,  26%  of  consortium  partners  (i.e.  921  partners)  in  projects  funded  under  SSH-flagged 
topics  in  the  Societal  Challenges  and  the  LEIT  parts  of  Horizon  2020  have  and  contribute  SSH 
expertise (19% of partners when excluding SC6). Their share is highest in SC6 (88%), SC7 (39%) 
and SC2 (29%) while being lowest in LEIT-SPACE (8%), SC5 (11%) and SC4 (13%). 

Involvement of SSH partners in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Horizon 2020 
parts

Total 
number of 
topics

Number 
of SSH-
flagged 
topics

Funded 
projects 
under SSH-
flagged 
topics

Projects 
with SSH 
partner (-s)

Share of 
projects with 
SSH partners

Partners in 
projects 
under SSH-
flagged 
topics

SSH partners 
in projects 
under SSH-
flagged 
topics

Share of 
SSH 
partners

SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
Total SC
LEIT-ICT
LEIT-NMBP
LEIT-SPACE
Total LEIT
Total
Total ex. SC6

28
37
38
39
25
19
25
211
27
42
21
90
301
282

11
13
16
17
9
11
8
85
6
5
2
13
98
87

60
20
53
44
26
34
23
260
34
7
7
48
308
274

40
19
40
31
13
34
18
195
16
5
3
24
219
185

67 %
95 %
75 %
70 %
50 %
100 %
78 %
75 %
47 %
71 %
43 %
50 %
71 %
68 %

678
361
498
651
376
337
269
3170
264
86
72
422
3592
3255

112
104
102
85
41
297
104
845
49
21
6
76
921
624

17 %
29 %
20 %
13 %
11 %
88 %
39 %
27 %
19 %
24 %
8 %
18 %
26 %
19 %

219 out of 308 (71%) projects funded under SSH-flagged topics in the Societal Challenges and the 
LEIT parts of Horizon 2020 have at least one SSH partner in the project. All projects funded under 
the  SSH  flagged  topics  in  SC6  have  at  least  one  SSH  partner.  The  share  of  projects  with  SSH 
partners  is  also  very  high  for  SC2  with  95%.  The  lowest  share  of  projects  with  at  least  one  SSH 
partner is in LEIT-SPACE (43%), LEIT-ICT (47%) and SC5 (50%).  

89 projects (29%) funded under the SSH-flagged topics do not have SSH partners. This may point 
to insufficient guidance to evaluators during the evaluation process. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.2 SSH partners by country affiliation 

The vast majority of SSH partners are affiliated with EU Member States (93%), with the remaining 
7% affiliated with associated countries (5%) or third countries (2%). 

Country affiliation of SSH partners:     

Sub-groups

Total
EU-28
EU-15
EU-13
Associated countries
Third countries
Top 7 countries
Top 20 countries

Partners
921
856
762
94
47
18
593
851

Share
100 %
93 %
83 %
10 %
5 %
2 %
64 %
92 %

The 20 most represented countries listed below account for 92% of all SSH partners. 

Among  the  EU-28,  a  clear  divide  between  the  EU-15  and  the  EU-13  can  be  observed:  83%  of  all 
SSH partners are affiliated with the EU-15 while only 10% come from the EU-13. 

At  individual  country  level,  the  UK  is  best  represented  with  146  partners  accounting  for  16%  of 
total  SSH  partners.  Germany  comes  in  second,  with  95  partners  and  a  share  of  10%,  followed 
closely by the Netherlands (80 partners and a share of 9%), Italy (77 partners and a share of 8%), 
and Belgium, Spain and France that each account for account for 7% of SSH partners. As a result, 
64% of the SSH partners are affiliated with only seven countries. 

As regards the EU-13, Poland and Hungary are best represented with 24 and 16 partners each and 
a share of 3% and 2% respectively. 

11 

 
 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3 SSH partners by type of activity 

The majority of SSH partners belong to the realm of publicly funded science and research. 67% of 
them  are  affiliated  with  higher  or  secondary  education  establishments  (HES,  with  an  individual 
share of 47%) or research organisations (REC, 20%). 17% of all SSH partners come from private 
for profit entities (PRC), such as for-profit research organisations, SMEs or consultancies. 
The shares of the various activity types differ considerably depending on the Horizon 2020 part in 
question.  

Type of activity - share of SSH partners

Horizon 
2020 parts
SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
LEIT-ICT
LEIT-NMBP
LEIT-SPACE
Total
Total ex. SC6

HES

REC

PUB

PRC

OTH

18%
46%
32%
47%
14%
26%
24%
25%
41%
32%
15%
65%
21%
48%
14%
47%
14%
24%
33%
0%
47% 20%
22%
39%

4%
2%
1%
1%
5%
2%
8%
4%
19%
0%
3%
4%

13%
20%
8%
12%
25%
33%
12%
39%
10%
12%
11%
7%
10%
14%
12%
22%
10%
33%
17%
50%
17% 13%
13%
22%

The  share  of  SSH  partners  from  higher  education  establishments  (HES)  is  highest  in  SC6  (65%), 
SC2, SC7 and LEIT-SPACE (nearly 50%). It is lowest in SC4, SC3 and LEIT-NMBP (less than 30%). 
Research organisations fare best in SC5 (41%) and SC2 (31%). Private-for-profit entities are best 
represented in SC4 (39%), SC3 and LEIT-NMBP (both 33%), but their share is significantly lower in 
SC6 (7%), SC2 and SC5 (both 12%).  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3 Project coordination 

In total, 77 of 308 (25%) projects funded under the SSH-flagged topics in the Societal Challenges 
and  the  LEIT  parts  of  Horizon  2020  were  coordinated  by  an  SSH  partner.  The  highest  number  of 
SSH  project  coordinators  can  be  found  under  SC6  with  28  SSH-coordinated  projects  followed  by 
SC3 with 18 SSH-coordinated projects. The share of SSH-coordinated projects is the highest in SC6 
(82%), SC2 (40%) and SC7 (35%).   

If  one  excludes  the  high  number  of  SSH  coordinated  projects  under  SC6,  on  average  18%  of  the 
projects  are  coordinated  by  an  SSH  partner.  This  rather  low  share  of  SSH  coordinated  projects 
indicates that the potential for SSH integration remains underused. This is particularly the case for 
Societal  Challenge  1  and  4  where  only  7%  and  5%  of  the  projects  are  coordinated  by  an  SSH 
partner. In LEIT, there are also very few SSH coordinated projects. In LEIT-ICT 15% of the projects 
are  coordinated  by  SSH  partners  while  there  are  no  SSH  coordinated  projects  in  LEIT-NMBP  and 
LEIT-SPACE.  

Horizon 
2020 parts

SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
Total SC
LEIT-ICT
LEIT-NMBP
LEIT-SPACE
Total LEIT
Total
Total ex. SC6

Projects funded 
under SSH 
flagged topics
60
20
53
44
26
34
23
260
34
7
7
48
308
274

Projects 
coordinated by 
SSH partners
4
8
18
2
4
28
8
72
5
0
0
5
77
49

Share SSH 
coordinators

7 %
40 %
34 %
5 %
15 %
82 %
35 %
28 %
15 %
0 %
0 %
10 %
25 %
18 %

3.3.1 SSH coordinators by country affiliation 

Country affiliation of SSH coordinators: Sub-groups

For  project  consortia  led  by  an  SSH 
partner,  the  SSH  coordinators  come 
predominantly  from  the  EU-15  (92%). 
The  countries  with  the  highest  shares 
of  SSH  coordinators  are  Germany  (15 
projects  −  19%),  the  Netherlands  (10 
projects - 13%), the UK (10 projects − 
13%),  Spain  (7  projects  –  9%),  Italy 
(6  projects  −  8%),  France  (5  projects 
−  6%)  and  Belgium  (4  projects  − 
5%).  Together,  these  seven  countries 
account 
the  SSH 
coordinators.  In  contrast,  only  3%  of 
the  SSH  coordinators  come  from  the 
EU-13,  which 
the 
geographical  divide  between  the  EU-15  and  the  EU-13  is  even  larger  for  the  SSH  coordinators  as 
compared to the divide in the country affiliation of SSH partners. 

Total
EU-28
EU-15
EU-13
Associated countries
Third countries
Top 7 countries

Coordinators
77
73
71
2
4
0
57

Share
100 %
95 %
92 %
3 %
5 %
0 %
74 %

for  74%  of 

indicates 

that 

H2020 parts
Coordinators
Share

DE NL UK
10
10
15

Country affiliation of SSH project coordinators
ES
7

BE NO AT
3
4
4

SE DK
1
2

FR
5

EL
2

IT
6

IE
2

FI
2

EE HU LU PT
1
1

1

1

Total
77

19 % 13 % 13 % 9 % 8 % 6 % 5 % 5 % 4 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 100 %

13 

 
 
 
 
 
3.4 Discipline prevalence 

Projects funded under the SSH-flagged topics of the Societal Challenges and LEIT parts of Horizon 
2020  include  a  broad  range  of  SSH  disciplines.  In  particular,  contributions  from  economics, 
business  and  marketing  are  included  in  53%  of  these  projects  while  insights  from  the  fields  of 
political science, public administration and law are incorporated in 38% of the projects. These two 
clusters of disciplines are by far the best represented in projects. In addition, some disciplines that 
are  integrated  fairly  well  in  projects  are  education  and  communication  in  22%  of  projects, 
psychology in 19% of projects and sociology in 17% of projects.  

However,  a  number  of  other  SSH  disciplines  are  underrepresented.  This  is  the  case  for  the 
humanities  and  the  arts  which  appear  in  only  9%  of  funded  projects,  for  demography  and 
geography (6% of the projects), anthropology and ethnology (3% of the projects) and history (2% 
of the projects). 

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of 
disciplines

Economics, Business, 
Marketing
Political Science, Public 
Administration, Law
Education, Communication
Psychology
Sociology
Humanities, the Arts
Demography, Geography
Anthropology, Ethnology
History

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise

Share of projects 
that include 
partner-level 
expertise

164

116

69
58
53
29
17
8
5

53 %

38 %

22 %
19 %
17 %
9 %
6 %
3 %
2 %

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  terms  of  the  prevalence  of  various  SSH  disciplines  under  the  different  parts  of  Horizon  2020, 
economics,  business  and  marketing  represent  the  most  prevalent  cluster  of  SSH  disciplines  in 
Societal  Challenges  1  through  5.  Political  science,  public  administration  and  law  are  the  most 
prevalent SSH cluster in Societal Challenges 6 and 7. The humanities and the arts form the largest 
cluster in LEIT-ICT and LEIT-NMBP, while education and communication form the largest cluster in 
LEIT-SPACE. History does not contribute in any of the Societal Challenges and LEIT parts, with the 
exception of Societal Challenge 6 and 7 where it contributes in 9% of the projects. It is also worth 
noticing that humanities and the arts  only contribute in 3% of the projects funded under Societal 
Challenge 6.  

The  table  below  shows  in  detail  the  prevalence  of  disciplines  and  clusters  of  disciplines  in  the 
different  parts  of  Horizon  2020.  The  most  prevalent  discipline  in  each  Horizon  2020  part  is 
highlighted  in  green,  the  second  most  prevalent  discipline  in  light  green  and  the  least  prevalent 
discipline in light pink. 

Share of projects that include partner-level expertise from SSH disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Horizon 2020 
parts

Economics, 
Business, 
Marketing

Political 
Science, Public 
Administration, 
Law

SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
LEIT-ICT
LEIT-NMBP
LEIT-SPACE

63 %

80 %

55 %

45 %

46 %

74 %

65 %

18 %

29 %

14 %

28 %

75 %

30 %

25 %

31 %

79 %

74 %

15 %

0 %

0 %

Education, 
Communication

Psychology

Sociology

Humanities, 
the Arts

Demography, 
Geography

Anthropology, 
Ethnology

History

13 %

20 %

23 %

16 %

15 %

41 %

39 %

24 %

14 %

29 %

42 %

0 %

11 %

23 %

0 %

9 %

35 %

18 %

0 %

0 %

20 %

10 %

6 %

2 %

4 %

62 %

43 %

9 %

0 %

0 %

10 %

5 %

0 %

2 %

8 %

3 %

26 %

26 %

43 %

0 %

7 %

10 %

0 %

0 %

8 %

15 %

17 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

2 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

6 %

17 %

3 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

9 %

9 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

15 

 
 
 
 
3.5 Quality of integration 

40%  of  projects  funded  under  topics  flagged  for  SSH  show  good  integration  of  SSH  in  terms  of 
share of partners, budget allocated to them, inclusion of explicit and purposeful contributions, and 
variety  of  disciplines  involved.  However,  at  the  other  end  of  the  spectrum,  28%  of  the  projects 
funded  under  topics  flagged  for  SSH  do  not  integrate  any  contributions  from  the  SSH.  When 
excluding  Societal  Challenge  6,  the  share  of  projects  that  fail  to  integrate  contributions  from  the 
SSH increases from 28% to 32% while the share of projects with good SSH integration decreases 
from 40% to 32%. 

Quality of SSH integration

Horizon 2020 
parts
SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
LEIT-ICT
LEIT-NMBP
LEIT-SPACE
Total
Total ex. SC6

None Weak

Fair

Good

0 %

6 %

23 % 17 % 30 % 30 %
10 % 15 % 20 % 55 %
30 %
28 % 36 %
34 % 18 % 30 % 18 %
50 % 19 % 15 % 15 %
0 %
0 % 100 %
13 % 13 % 17 % 57 %
53 %
12 % 32 %
29 % 14 % 14 % 43 %
57 %
29 % 14 %
28 % 11 % 21 % 40 %
32 % 12 % 24 % 32 %

3 %

0 %

The  quality  of  integration  differs  considerably  across  the  various  Societal  Challenges  and  LEIT 
parts.  In  Societal  Challenge  6  all  funded  projects  show  a  good  integration  of  SSH.  Societal 
Challenge 2 and 7 also perform well with respectively 75% and 74% of the projects showing a fair 
or good integration of SSH. In contrast, only 31% and 44% of the projects funded under Societal 
Challenge 5 and LEIT-ICT show a fair or good integration of SSH. It is worth noting that more than 
half  of  the  projects  in  SC4,  SC5,  LEIT-ICT  and  LEIT-SPACE  show  either  no  integration  or  weak 
integration of SSH. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  type  of  action  under  which  a  project  was  funded  strongly  correlates  with  the  quality  of  SSH 
integration  in  that  project.  Projects  with  good  or  fair  integration  of  SSH  account  for  71%  of 
Coordination  and  Support  Actions  (CSA),  60%  of  Research  and  Innovation  Actions  (RIA)  but  only 
(IA). 
42% 

Innovation 

Actions 

of 

17 

 
4.  PROJECTS  AND  TOPICS  WITH  A  STRONG  SSH  DIMENSION  IN 
WP 2014-2015 – EXAMPLES OF BEST PRACTICE 

In 2014, 37% of topics have been flagged for SSH. In practical terms, this meant that they aimed 
at  including  SSH  research  as  integral  part  of  the  expertise  needed  to  properly  address  the  issue 
outlined  in  the  topic:  When  truly  embedded,  the  SSH  are  not  relegated  to  an  add-on  status.  The 
integration  of  SSH  encompasses  a  broad  variety  of  disciplines,  and  contributions  from  the  SSH 
cover a broad range of conceptual schemes. Below are some examples of good practice for funded 
projects and SSH-flagged topics. 

PROJECTS  

There  are  significant  differences  in  the  biological  pathways  to 
aging among individuals. In particular, healthy ageing, quality of 
life and life expectancy differ significantly between individuals of 
different socioeconomic groups. To understand what determines 
this  variation,  LIFEPATH 
integrates  biology,  biostatistics, 
epidemiology  and  epigenomics  approaches  with  social  science 
approaches (sociology, economics and public health policies). 

LIFEPATH  aims  to  show  that  healthy  ageing  is  an  achievable 
goal  for  society,  as  it  is  already  experienced  by  individuals  of 
investigate  the 
high  socio-economic  status.  It  will  also 
consequences  of 
recession  and 
the  current  economic 
accompanying  increase  in  social  inequalities  on  health  and  the 
biology  of  ageing.  Based  on  these  insights,  it  will  provide 
evidence  for  healthy  ageing  policies  that  can  address  social 
disparities in ageing. 

There  is  currently  a  lack  of  methodologies  for  the  conservation 
of  modern  and  contemporary  artworks  that  use  non-traditional 
materials  (plastics,  fiberglass,  etc.)  As  a  result,  many  works  of 
art  will  not  be  accessible  in  very  short  time  due  to  extremely 
fast  degradation  processes.  NANORESTART  will  develop 
nanomaterials  to  ensure  long  term  protection  and  security  of 
modern and contemporary cultural heritage, taking into account 
environmental and human risks, feasibility and materials costs. 

together  specialists 

NANORESTART  brings 
in  chemistry, 
materials  science,  art  conservation,  art  restoration  as  well  as 
museum  curators  and  cultural  heritage  educators.  They  will 
priorities  and  assess  the  new  materials  on  modern  and 
contemporary  artefacts  in  urgent  need  of  conservation,  then 
disseminate the knowledge among conservators on a worldwide 
perspective.  The  market  for  conservation  of  this  heritage  is 
estimated  at  some  €5  billion  per  year  and  could  increase  by  a 
significant  factor  in  the  next  years  due  to  the  wider  use  of 
nanomaterials. 

The  goal  of  EMPOWER  is  to  substantially  reduce  the  use  of 
conventionally-fuelled  vehicles  (CFV)  in  cities.  To  do  so,  it 
integrates technological and socio-economic approaches in order 
to influence both the mobility options available to CFV users and 
the  mobility  behaviour  of  these  users.  The  project  brings 
together 
infrastructure 
specialists,  cognitive  psychologists,  economists  as  well  as 
specialists in traffic behaviour and organisational psychology. 

engineers, 

transport 

transport 

Project LIFEPATH:  
Life course pathways 
underlying social 
differences in healthy 
ageing  

Type of action: RIA 

WP Part: SC1 Health, 
Demographic Change and 
Wellbeing  
Call: Personalised Healthcare 
Topic: PHC-01-2014 
Understanding health, ageing 
and disease: determinants, 
risk factors and pathways 

Project NANORESTART: 
NANOmaterials for the 
REStoration of works of 
ART  

Type of action: IA 

WP Part: LEIT 
Call: Nanotechnologies & 
Advanced Materials 
Topic: NMP 21 - 2014: 
Materials-based solutions for 
the protection or preservation 
of European cultural heritage 

Project EMPOWER: 

Empowering  a  reduction  in 
use 
conventionally-
of 
fuelled vehicles  

Type of action: RIA 

WP Part: SC4 Smart, Green 
and Integrated Transport  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Call: Mobility for Growth 

Topic: MG-5.1-2014 
Transforming the use of 
conventionally fuelled vehicles 

in urban areas 

them 

The  project  will  create,  test  and  demonstrate  a  set  of  tools  for 
the  transport  industry  and  policy-makers.  These  tools  will 
to  understand,  choose  and  successfully 
empower 
implement  positive  evidence-based  and  cost-  effective  policy 
interventions and  changes in infrastructure, i.e. shifting trips to 
other transport modes and vehicle types, promoting sharing and 
self-organisation  in  users,  and  reducing  demand  outside  peak 
times. EMPOWER expects to reach 1 million CFV vehicle users. 

CARISMA: 
Project 
Coordination 
and 
Assessment  of  Research 
and  Innovation  in  Support 
Climate  Mitigation 
of 
Actions 

Type of action: CSA 

WP Part: SC5 Climate 
Action, Environment, 
Resource Efficiency and 
Raw Materials  

Call:  Growing  a  Low  Carbon, 
Resource  Efficient  Economy 
with  a  Sustainable  Supply  of 
Raw Materials 
Topic: SC5-2014-one-stage 

The  CARISMA  project  has  two  overall  objectives.  First,  through 
effective stakeholder consultation and communication leading to 
improved  coordination  and  assessment  of  climate  change 
mitigation  options,  it  aims  to  benefit  research  and  innovation 
efficiency  as  well  as  international  cooperation  on  research  and 
innovation  and  technology  transfer.  Second,  it  seeks  to  assess 
policy  and  governance  questions  that  shape  the  prospects  of 
climate  change  mitigation  options,  and  discuss  the  results  with 
to 
the  CARISMA 
representatives 
incorporate  what  can  be  learned  for  the  benefit  of  climate 
change  mitigation.  The  experienced, 
interdisciplinary  and 
diverse  CARISMA  consortium  has  an  extensive  track  record  of 
collaborating in Framework Programme projects. 

target  audiences 

from 

It combines capacity for technological, environmental, economic 
and  social  assessment  with  deep  expertise  across  a  range  of 
climate  change  mitigation  options,  encompassing  mature  and 
emerging  technologies  as  well  as  practices  and  governance, 
which  are  increasingly  identified  as  important  areas  to  achieve 
deep greenhouse gas emission reductions. Communication with, 
and  support  to,  the  CARISMA  target  audiences  are  an  integral 
part  of  the  project.  In  all  inventory  and  assessment  activities 
envisaged  in  the  project,  interaction  with  stakeholders  is  a  key 
part. To facilitate coordination and avoid overlap, these activities 
are  overseen  by  a  dedicated  work  package.  The  target 
audiences  include  national  and  local  policymakers,  innovation 
and  strategy  managers  in  business  and  industry,  research 
funding  organisations  and  the  research  community.  The 
CARISMA project will result in online platform services, face-to-
face  interactions,  policy  briefs  and  publications  and  increased 
capacity in the EU, Accession Countries and beyond, to address 
the  climate  change  challenge  and  move  towards  a  green, 
innovative and thriving global economy. 

ISIB-01-2014:  Provision  of 
EU 
goods 
public 
agriculture and forestry 

by 

WP Part: SC2 Food Security, 
Sustainable Agriculture 
and Forestry, Marine, 
Maritime and Inland Water 
Research and the Bio-
economy   

TOPICS 

"Proposals  should  develop  a  systematic  and  operational 
framework  to  map,  characterize  and  quantify  the  variety  of 
public  goods  provided  by  agricultural  and  forestry  ecosystems 
throughout  Europe.  This  will  include  identifying  links  between 
economic  activities  in  the  primary  production  sectors  and  the 
delivery  of  public  goods  (including  conflicting  demands)  as  well 
as important 'disservices' of agriculture resulting in trade-offs as 
regards the provision of public goods. Proposals should take into 
account  various  temporal  and  spatial  scales,  different  types  of 
cropping,  husbandry,  and  forest  management  systems  as  well 
as  the  diversity  and  dynamics  of  climatic,  natural,  cultural  and 
socio-economic  conditions  all  over  the  EU.  Furthermore, 
proposals  should  consider  ways  in  which  to  valorise  and 
establish effective support measures (policies, incentives, public 
services) for the delivery of public goods in response to societal 
expectations." 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PHC-22-2015:  Promoting 
mental  well-being 
in 
ageing population 

WP Part: SC1 Health, 
Demographic Change and 
Wellbeing   

EE-2015-3-MarketUptake 
Consumer  engagement  for 
sustainable energy 

WP Part: SC3 Secure, Clean 
and Efficient Energy  

"Proposals should include multi-disciplinary research to improve 
the  understanding,  prevention,  early  diagnosis,  and  treatment 
of,  mental  conditions  and  disorders  of  older  people.  This  may 
include research into physical, psychological, environmental and 
social  determinants  of  healthy  ageing.  Proposals  may  address 
the  role  of  external  or  internal  determinants  of  mental  health, 
including  e.g.  behaviour,  resilience,  sensory  deficits,  chronic 
(e.g. 
disease,  substance  use,  socio-economic  stressors 
loneliness,  poverty,  violence,  trauma  and  conflicts),  or  other 
physical  and  environmental  stressors.  Clinical 
trials  or 
comparative  effectiveness  research  should  contribute  to  the 
therapeutic 
establishment  of 
intervention  strategies  to  improve  mental  health  in  the  older 
population.  Preference  will  be  given  to  interventions  with  high 
public  health  relevance,  i.e.  addressing  particularly  frequent  or 
severe situations, with a high impact on the quality of life of the 
individual  and/or  associated  with  a  significant  socio-economic 
burden." 

integrated  preventative  or 

"Project  proposals  should  focus  on  changing  the  behaviour  of 
consumers  in  their  everyday  life  (e.g.  at  home,  at  work,  at 
school),  using  market  segmentation  and  focussing  on  'action', 
the  last  step  of  the  AIDA  (Awareness  –  Interest  –  Desire  – 
Action)  framework.  Equipment  responsible  for  main  energy 
consumption  […],  as  well  as  products  from  the  small  scale 
renewable  energy  market,  should  be  addressed  in  priority. 
Educational  activities  or  tools  (such  as  comparative  ones)  may 
be necessary, e.g. to help consumers read and understand their 
energy  bills  or  labels;  to  help  them  take  advantage  of  ICT 
devices  and  tools  to  monitor  and  analyse  their  energy  use;  to 
increase trust in individual smart meters or energy audits; or to 
help  them  participate  in  community  renewable  energy  projects 
(e.g.  RES  consumer  cooperatives,  community-owned  projects, 
etc.).  Actions  should  take  gender  issues  into  account  when 
relevant  and  involve  manufacturers,  retailers  and  consumer 
associations  when  these  can  play  a  decisive  role.  The  use  of 
social  innovations  and  innovative  technologies  (e.g.  smart 
meters/appliances/ICT)  should  be  considered  when  it  brings 
the  younger 
added  value,  especially  when  addressing 
generation.  More  fundamental  activities  aimed  at  a  better 
understanding  of 
stakeholders' 
perception, motivation and behaviour are part of the scope (e.g. 
understanding  of  product  labels  and  building  certificates, 
difference  in  patterns  of  consumption  for  women  and  men) 
provided  their  results  can  directly  lead  to  improvements  in  the 
effectiveness of consumer-driven initiatives. 

consumers'  and  other 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  DETAILED  ASSESSMENT:  INTEGRATION  OF  SSH  BY  WORK 
PROGRAMME PART 

5.1 Societal Challenge 1 'Health, Demographic Change and Well-being' 

In  2014  SC1  funded  a  total  of  28  topics  under  two  calls  for  proposals:  Personalising  Health  and 
Care  (PHC)  and  Health  Co-ordination  Activities  (HCO).  The  2014-15  Work  Programme  set  the 
budget for these 28 topics at €589 million. 

11 out of the 28 topics were flagged for SSH: 

• 
• 

5 topics under the call PHC 
6 topics under the call HCO. 

These  11  topics  funded  60  projects  for  a  budget  of  €275  million,  out  of  which  €33  million  (i.e. 
12%)  went  to  SSH  partners:  €31  million  under  the  call  Personalising  Health  and  Care  and  €2 
million under the call Co-ordination Activities. 

In terms of types of action, the 60 funded projects include: 

• 
• 
• 

50 Research and Innovation Actions 
5 Innovation Action 
5 Coordination and Support Actions.  

SSH partners account for 17% of project partners (112 out of 678) in the 60 projects. The six most 
represented countries are the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and France. 

DE
Country UK
24
Partners
9
21% 12% 10% 8%
Share

NL
11

ES
13

Country of affiliation of SSH partners
AT
PT
7
4
6%
4%

DK
2
2%

CH
4
4%

IE
4
4%

FI
3
3%

IT
5
4%

EL
2
2%

BE
8
7%

FR
8
7%

NO
2
2%

CZ
1
1%

EE
1
1%

LU
1
1%

PL
1
1%

RO
1
1%

SE
1
1%

Project coordination is done by an SSH partner in 4 out of the 60 projects. The 4 SSH project 
coordinators are affiliated with the 4 countries listed below.   

Country of affiliation of SSH partners
Number of projects coordinated

DE
1

FR
1

NL
1

PT
1

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of type of activity, 64% of all 112 SSH partners are either HES or REC.  

Type of activity 
of partners
HES
REC
PUB
PRC
OTH
Total

Number of 
SSH partners
51
20
4
22
15
112

Share of   
SSH partners
46%
18%
4%
20%
13%
100%

In  terms  of  type  of  SSH  expertise  across  all  60  funded  projects,  two  clusters  of  disciplines  are 
prevalent:  63%  of  projects  include  partners  with  expertise  in  economics,  business  or  marketing 
while 42% of projects include partners with expertise in psychology.  

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Economics, Business, Marketing
Psychology
Political Science, Public Administration, Law
Sociology
Education, Communication
Humanities, the Arts
Demography, Geography
Anthropology, Ethnology
History

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
38
25
17
12
8
6
4
1
0

Share of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
63 %
42 %
28 %
20 %
13 %
10 %
7 %
2 %
0 %

When  it  comes  to  the  quality  of  SSH  integration,  30%  of  projects  funded  under  the  SC1  topics 
flagged  for  SSH  showed  good  integration  of  SSH  and  of  their  contributions while  23%  of  projects 
failed to integrate the SSH. 

Quality of   SSH 
integration
None
Weak
Fair
Good
Total

Number of 
projects
14
10
18
18
60

Share of 
projects
23 %
17 %
30 %
30 %
100 %

22 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
5.2  Societal  Challenge  2  'Food  Security,  Sustainable  Agriculture  and  Forestry, 
Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy' 

In 2014 SC2 funded a total of 37 topics under three calls for proposals: Sustainable Food Security 
(SFS), Blue Growth (BG), and Innovative, Sustainable and Inclusive Bioeconomy (ISIB). The 2014-
15 Work Programme set the budget for these 37 topics at €292,5 million. 
13 out of the 37 topics were flagged for SSH: 

• 
• 
• 

6 topics under the call SFS 
4 topics under the call BG 
3 topics under the call ISIB.  

These  13  topics  funded  20  projects  for  a  budget  of  €104  million,  out  of  which  €29  million  (i.e. 
27%) went to SSH partners: €11 million under the call SFS, €12 million under the call BG and €6 
million under the call ISIB. 
In terms of types of action, the 20 funded projects include: 

• 
• 
• 

14 Research and Innovation Actions 
1 Innovation Action 
5 Coordination and Support Actions.  

SSH  partners  account  for  29%  of  project  partners  (104  out  of  361)  in  the  20  projects.  The  five 
most represented countries are the UK, France, Italy, Belgium and Germany. 

ZA
Country UK
20
Partners
1
19% 13% 8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Share

BE DE NL DK ES
5
6
7

IS OTH BG CZ
1
2

EE HU RO SE
1
1

FO RS
1
1

PL AT
2
3

FR
13

IT
8

SI
1

7

5

2

1

1

1

Country of affiliation of SSH partners
IE
3

PT NO FI
3
4
4

Project coordination is done by an SSH partner in 8 out of the 20 projects. The 8 SSH project 
coordinators are affiliated with the six countries listed below.   

Country of affiliation of SSH partners 
Number of projects coordinated

BE
1

DE
1

FR
2

IE
1

NL
1

UK
2

In terms of type of activity, close to 80% of all 104 SSH partners are either HES or REC. 

 Type of 
activity 
of partners   
HES 
REC 
PUB 
PRC 
OTH 
Total 

Number 
of SSH 
partners 
49 
33 
2 
12 
8 
104 

Share of 
SSH 
partners 
47% 
32% 
2% 
12% 
8% 
100% 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  terms  of  type  of  SSH  expertise  across  all  20  funded  projects,  two  clusters  of  disciplines  are 
prevalent:  economics,  business  and  marketing  as  well  as  political  science,  public  administration 
and law.  

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Economics, Business, Marketing
Political Science, Public Administration, Law

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
16
15

Share of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
80 %
75 %

Education, Communication
Demography, Geography
Sociology
Humanities, the Arts
Anthropology, Ethnology
History

Psychology

4
2
2
1
0
0

0

20 %
10 %
10 %
5 %
0 %
0 %

0 %

When  it  comes  to  the  quality  of  SSH  integration,  55%  of  projects  funded  under  the  SC2  topics 
flagged for SSH showed good integration of SSH partners and of their contributions while 10% of 
projects did not include any SSH partners. 

Quality of    
SSH integration
None
Weak
Fair
Good
Total

Number of 
projects
2
3
4
11
20

Share of 
projects
10 %
15 %
20 %
55 %
100 %

24 

 
 
      
                  
5.3 Societal Challenge 3 'Secure, clean and efficient energy' 

In  2014  SC3  funded  a  total  of  38  topics  under  two  calls  for  proposals:  Efficient  Energy  (EE)  and 
Competitive Low-Carbon Energy (LCE). The 2014-15 Work Programme set the budget for these 38 
topics at €583 million. 

16 out of the 38 topics were flagged for SSH: 

• 
• 

15 topics under the call EE 
1 topic under the call LCE.  

These 16 topics funded 53 projects for a budget of €94 million, out of which €21 million (i.e. 22%) 
went to SSH partners: €16 million under the call EE and €5 million under the call LCE. 

In terms of types of action, the 53 funded projects include: 

• 
• 
• 

12 Research and Innovation Actions 
0 Innovation Actions 
41 Coordination and Support Actions.  

SSH  partners  account  for  20%  of  project  partners  (102  out  of  498)  in  the  53  projects.  The  five 
most represented countries are Germany, the UK, Belgium, France and Italy. 

LV PT RO SE CH NO RS UA
Country DE
22
Partners
1
1
22% 11% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Share

IT AT NL
7
8
9

UK
11

FR
9

BE
9

IE
1

FI
2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Country of affiliation of SSH partners
SK CZ DK EE
1
2

ES HU EL
2
3
5

PL
2

Project  coordination  is  done  by  an  SSH  partner  in  18  out  of  the  53  projects.  The  18  SSH  project 
coordinators are affiliated with the twelve countries listed below.   

Country of affiliation of SSH partners 
Number of projects coordinated

AT
2

BE
1

DE
6

EL
1

ES
1

FI
1

FR
1

HU
1

IE
1

IT
1

NL
1

UK
1

In  terms  of  type  of  activity,  40%  of  all  102  SSH  partners  are  either  HES  or  REC  while  33%  are 
PRC.  

Type of activity 
of partners
HES
REC
PUB
PRC
OTH
Total

Number of 
SSH partners
27
14
1
34
26
102

Share of   
SSH partners
26 %
14 %
1 %
33 %
25 %
100 %

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  terms  of  type  of  SSH  expertise  across  all  53  funded  projects,  three  clusters  of  disciplines  are 
prevalent: economics, business and marketing; political science, public administration and law; and 
education and communication.  

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Economics, Business, Marketing
Political Science, Public Administration, Law

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
29
16

Share of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
55 %
30 %

Education, Communication
Psychology
Sociology
Anthropology, Ethnology
Demography, Geography
History

Humanities, the Arts

12
6
3
0
0
0

0

23 %
11 %
6 %
0 %
0 %
0 %

0 %

When  it  comes  to  the  quality  of  SSH  integration,  36%  of  projects  funded  under  the  SC3  topics 
flagged for SSH showed good integration of SSH partners and of their contributions while 30% of 
projects did not include any SSH partners. 

Quality of SSH 
integration
None
Weak
Fair
Good
Total

Number of 
projects
16
3
15
19
53

Share of 
projects
30 %
6 %
28 %
36 %
100 %

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
        
 
 
 
5.4 Societal Challenge 4 'Smart, green and integrated transport' 

In 2014 SC4 funded a total of 39 topics under two calls for proposals: Mobility for Growth (MG) and 
Green  Vehicles  (GV).  The  2014-15  Work  Programme  set  the  budget  for  these  39  topics  at  €539 
million. 

17 out of the 39 topics were flagged for SSH: 

• 
• 

16 topics under the call MG 
1 topic under the call GV. 

These 17 topics funded 44 projects for a budget of €226 million, out of which €21 million (i.e. 9%) 
went to SSH partners: €19 million under the call MG and €2 million under the call GV.  

In terms of types of action, the 44 funded projects include: 

• 
• 
• 

38 Research and Innovation Actions 
0 Innovation Actions 
6 Coordination and Support Actions.  

SSH partners account for 13% of project partners (85 out of 651) in the 44 projects. The five most 
represented countries are the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, Germany and Italy.  

Country
Partners
Share

NL
13
16%

BE
11
14%

UK
11
14%

DE
9
11%

Country of affiliation of SSH partners
IT
PL
4
8
5%
10%

LU
3
4%

ES
3
4%

AT
7
9%

FR
6
8%

NO
3
4%

PT
2
3%

CH
2
3%

EL
1
1%

FI
1
1%

OTH
1
1%

Project coordination is done by an SSH partner in 2 out of the 44 projects. The 2 SSH project 
coordinators are affiliated with the countries listed below.   

Country of affiliation of SSH partners  DE

NO

Number of projects coordinated

1

1

In terms of type of activity, close to 50% of all 85 SSH partners are either HES or REC. 

Type of 
activity of 
partners 
HES 
REC 
PUB 
PRC 
OTH 
Total 

Number of 
SSH 
partners 
21 
20 
1 
33 
10 
85 

Share of   
SSH 
partners 
25% 
24% 
1% 
39% 
12% 
100% 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
In  terms  of  type  of  SSH  expertise  across  all  44  funded  projects,  three  clusters  of  disciplines  are 
prevalent: economics, business and marketing; political science, public administration and law; and 
psychology.  

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Economics, Business, Marketing
Political Science, Public Administration, Law
Psychology
Education, Communication
Humanities, the Arts
Sociology
Anthropology, Ethnology
Demography, Geography

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
20
11
10
7
1
1
0
0

Share of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
45 %
25 %
23 %
16 %
2 %
2 %
0 %
0 %

History

0

0 %

When  it  comes  to  the  quality  of  SSH  integration,  18%  of  projects  funded  under  the  SC4  topics 
flagged for SSH showed good integration of SSH partners and of their contributions while 34% of 
projects did not include any SSH partners. 

Quality of    
SSH integration
None
Weak
Fair
Good
Total

Number of 
projects
15
8
13
8
44

Share of 
projects
34 %
18 %
30 %
18 %
100 %

28 

 
 
 
             
 
5.5 Societal Challenge 5 'Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and 
raw materials' 

In  2014  SC5  funded  a  total  of  25  topics  under  three  calls  for  proposals:  Waste  –  A  resource  to 
recycle,  reuse  and  recover  raw  materials  (WASTE),  Water  Innovation  –  Boosting  its  value  for 
Europe (WATER) and Growing a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy with a sustainable supply 
of raw materials (SC5). The 2014-15 Work Programme set the budget for these 25 topics at €306 
million. 

9 out of the 25 topics were flagged for SSH: 

• 
• 
• 

3 topics under the call WASTE  
1 topic under the call WATER 
5 topics under the call SC5. 

These 9 topics funded 26 projects for a budget of €124 million, out of which €16 million (i.e. 13%) 
went to SSH partners: €3 million under the call WASTE, €1 million under the call WATER and €12 
million under the call SC5.  

In terms of types of action, the 26 funded projects include: 

• 
• 
• 

4 Research and Innovation Actions 
16 Innovation Action 
6 Coordination and Support Actions.  

SSH partners account for 11% of project partners (41 out of 376) in the 26 projects. The six most 
represented countries are Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, Germany and Sweden. 

Country
Partners
Share

ES
6
15%

NL
6
15%

BE
5
12%

Country of affiliation of SSH partners
UK
SE
FR
4
5
2
10%
12%
5%

DE
4
10%

DK
3
7%

IT
2
5%

PL
2
5%

EL
1
2%

CH
1
2%

Project coordination is done by an SSH partner in 4 out of the 26 projects. The 4 SSH project 
coordinators are affiliated with the 3 countries listed below.   

Country of affiliation of SSH partners  DE

Number of projects coordinated

2

NL

1

UK

1

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of type of activity, 73% of all 41 SSH partners are either HES or REC.  

Type of activity 
of partners
HES
REC
PUB
PRC
OTH
Total

Number of 
SSH partners
13
17
2
5
4
41

Share of   
SSH partners
32%
41%
5%
12%
10%
100%

In  terms  of  type  of  SSH  expertise  across  all  26  funded  projects,  three  clusters  of  disciplines  are 
prevalent: economics, business and marketing; political science, public administration and law; and 
education and communication.  

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Economics, Business, Marketing
Political Science, Public Administration, Law
Education, Communication
Demography, Geography
Humanities, the Arts
Sociology
Anthropology, Ethnology
History

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
12
8
4
2
2
1
0
0

Share of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
46 %
31 %
15 %
8 %
8 %
4 %
0 %
0 %

Psychology

0

0 %

When  it  comes  to  the  quality  of  SSH  integration,  15%  of  projects  funded  under  the  SC5  topics 
flagged for SSH showed good integration of SSH partners and of their contributions while 50% of 
projects did not include any SSH partners. 

Quality of    
SSH integration
None
Weak
Fair
Good
Total

Number of 
projects
13
5
4
4
26

Share of 
projects
50 %
19 %
15 %
15 %
100 %

30 

 
 
 
 
 
5.6 Societal Challenge 6 'Europe in a changing world – Inclusive, innovative and 
reflective Societies' 

In 2014 SC6 funded a total of 19 topics under four calls for proposals: Overcoming the Crisis: New 
Ideas,  Strategies  and  Governance  Structures  for  Europe  (EURO),  the  Young  Generation  in  an 
Innovative, Inclusive and Sustainable Europe (YOUNG), Reflective Societies: Cultural Heritage and 
European  Identities  (REFLECTIVE),  and  New  Forms  of  Innovation  (INSO).  The  2014-15  Work 
Programme set the budget for these 19 topics at €114,4 million. 

11 out of the 19 topics were flagged for SSH: 

• 
• 
• 
• 

4 topics under the call EURO 
3 topics under the call YOUNG 
1 topics under the call REFLECTIVE 
3 topics under the call INSO  

These 11 topics funded 34 projects for a budget of €83 million, out of which €70 million (i.e. 84%) 
went  to  SSH  partners:  €42  million  under  the  call  EURO,  €18  million  under  the  call  YOUNG,  €1 
million under the call REFLECTIVE and €9 million under the call INSO. 

In terms of types of action, the 34 funded projects include: 

• 
• 
• 

25 Research and Innovation Actions 
7 Innovation Actions 
2 Coordination and Support Actions.  

SSH  partners  account  for  88%  of  project  partners  (297  out  of  337)  in  the  34  projects.  The  four 
most represented countries are the UK, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. 

Country of affiliation of SSH partners

Country UK DE
Partners
32
Share

IT NL BE ES FR SE EL HU PL DK AT PT CH NO BG CZ
43
5
26 19 18 18 16 14 12 11
14 % 11 % 9 % 6 % 6 % 6 % 5 % 5 % 4 % 4 % 3 % 3 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 %

8

9

6

6

6

5

6

Country of affiliation of SSH partners

Country
Partners
Share

RO EE
3
5

LU SK CY LV SI HR LT MT RS TR BR CA US UA
IE
1
3
5
2 % 2 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

FI
3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

3

Project  coordination  is  done  by  an  SSH  partner  in  28  out  of  the  34  projects.  The  28  SSH  project 
coordinators are affiliated with the fifteen countries listed below.   

Country of affiliation of SSH partners  AT BE DE DK EE EL ES FI FR IT LU NL SE UK NO
1  
3

Number of projects coordinated

1 1 2 1 1 5 1

1 2

2 2

1

4

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of type of activity, 80% of all 297 SSH partners are either HES or REC. 

Type of 
activity of 
partners 
HES 
REC 
PUB 
PRC 
OTH 
Total 

Number of 
SSH 
partners 
193 
44 
7 
21 
32 
297 

Share of   
SSH 
partners 
65% 
15% 
2% 
7% 
11% 
100% 

In  terms  of  type  of  SSH  expertise  across  all  34  funded  projects,  four  clusters  of  disciplines  are 
prevalent:  political  science,  public  administration  and  law;  economics,  business  and  marketing; 
sociology; and education and communication.  

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Political Science, Public Administration, Law
Economics, Business, Marketing
Sociology
Education, Communication
Demography, Geography
History
Psychology
Anthropology, Ethnology

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
27
25
21
14
5
3
3
2

Share of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
79 %
74 %
62 %
41 %
15 %
9 %
9 %
6 %

Humanities, the Arts

1

3 %

When it comes to the quality of SSH integration, all projects funded under the SC6 topics flagged 
for SSH showed good integration of SSH partners and of their contributions.  

Quality of SSH 
integration
None
Weak
Fair
Good
Total

Number of 
projects
0
0
0
34
34

Share of 
projects
0 %
0 %
0 %
100 %
100 %

32 

 
 
 
 
 
  
                
             
5.7 Societal Challenge 7 'Secure Societies – Protecting freedom and security of 
Europe and its citizens' 

In  2014  SC7  funded  a  total  of  25  topics  under  four  calls  for  proposals:  Disaster-resilience: 
safeguarding  and  securing  society,  including  adapting  to  climate  change,  Fight  against  crime  and 
terrorism,  Border  Security  and  External  Security  and  Digital  Security:  Cybersecurity,  Privacy  and 
Trust. The 2014-15 Work Programme set the budget for these 25 topics at €205 million. 

8 out of the 25 topics were flagged for SSH: 

• 

• 
• 
• 

2 topics under the call Disaster-resilience: safeguarding and securing society, including 
adapting to climate change  
3 topics under the call Fight against crime and terrorism,  
2 topics under the call Border Security and External Security and 
1 topic under the call Digital Security: Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust. 

These 8 topics funded 23 projects for a budget of €79 million, out of which €28 million (i.e. 36%) 
went  to  SSH  partners:  €6  million  under  the  call  Disaster-resilience:  safeguarding  and  securing 
society,  including  adapting  to  climate  change,  €14  million  under  the  call  Fight  against  crime  and 
terrorism, €7 million under the call Border Security and External Security and €2 million under the 
call Digital Security: Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust.  

In terms of types of action, the 23 funded projects include: 

• 
• 
• 

9 Research and Innovation Actions 
6 Innovation Action 
8 Coordination and Support Actions.  

SSH  partners  account  for  39%  of  project  partners  (103  out  of  269)  in  the  23  projects.  The  five 
most represented countries are the UK, Italy, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands. 

Country UK
Partners 17
3
Share 17 % 11 % 8 % 8 % 8 % 7 % 4 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 %

SE NO RS OTH FR MT RO CH
2
3

BG AT DK
3
3
4

ES NL DE
7
8
8

HR HU IE
1
1
1

TR UA
1
1

BE
8

PT
1

IT
11

EL
1

SI
1

2

2

2

Country of affiliation of SSH partners
FI
3

PL
3

3

3

Project  coordination  is  done  by  an  SSH  partner  in  8  out  of  the  23  projects.  The  8  SSH  project 
coordinators are affiliated with the 4 countries listed below.   

Country of affiliation of SSH partners  ES NL UK NO

Number of projects coordinated

1

4

2

1  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of type of activity, 69% of all 103 SSH partners are either HES or REC.  

Type of activity 
of partners
HES
REC
PUB
PRC
OTH
Total

Number of 
SSH partners
49
22
8
14
10
103

Share of   
SSH partners
48%
21%
8%
14%
10%
100%

In  terms  of  type  of  SSH  expertise  across  all  23  funded  projects,  two  clusters  of  disciplines  are 
prevalent:  74%  of  projects  include  partners  with  expertise  in  economics,  business  or  marketing, 
65% of projects include partners with expertise in economics, business and marketing.  

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Political Science, Public Administration, Law
Economics, Business, Marketing

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
17
15

Share of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
74 %
65 %

Sociology
Education, Communication
Psychology
Humanities, the Arts
Anthropology, Ethnology
Demography, Geography

History

10
9
8
6
4
4

2

43 %
39 %
35 %
26 %
17 %
17 %

9 %

When  it  comes  to  the  quality  of  SSH  integration,  57%  of  projects  funded  under  the  SC7  topics 
flagged for SSH showed good integration of SSH while 13% of projects failed to integrate the SSH.  

Quality of SSH 
integration
None
Weak
Fair
Good
Total

Number of 
projects
3
3
4
13
23

Share of 
projects
13 %
13 %
17 %
57 %
100 %

34 

 
  
 
 
 
5.8  LEIT-ICT  'Leadership  in  enabling  and  industrial  technologies  -  Information 
and Communication Technologies' 

In  2014  LEIT-ICT  funded  a  total  of  27  topics  under  three  calls  for  proposals:  Information  and 
Communication Technologies (ICT), EU-Brazil Research and Development Cooperation in Advanced 
Cyber  Infrastructure  (EUB)  and  EU-Japan  Research  and  Development  Cooperation  in  Net  Futures 
(EUJ). The 2014-15 Work Programme set the budget for these 27 topics at €709,5 million. 

6 out of the 27 topics were flagged for SSH: 

• 
• 

5 topics under the call ICT 
1 topic under the call EUJ. 

These 6 topics funded 34 projects for a budget of €100 million, out of which €13 million (i.e. 13%) 
went to SSH partners under the call ICT.   

In terms of types of action, the 34 funded projects include: 

• 
• 
• 

22 Research and Innovation Actions 
9 Innovation Actions 
3 Coordination and Support Actions.  

SSH partners account for 19% of project partners (49 out of 264) in the 34 projects. The five most 
represented countries are the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain and Austria.   

NO
Country UK
13
Partners
1
27 % 14 % 12 % 10 % 6 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 2 % 2 % 2 %
Share

SE OTH BE
1
2
2

Country of affiliation of SSH partners
IT
6

NL
7

AT
3

DE
2

PT
2

FR
2

ES
5

EL
2

FI
1

Project  coordination  is  done  by  an  SSH  partner  in  5  out  of  the  34  projects.  The  5  SSH  project 
coordinators are affiliated with the countries listed below.   

Country of affiliation of SSH partners  DE
1

Number of projects coordinated

ES
3

NO
1

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of type of activity, around 60% of all 49 SSH partners are either HES or REC. 

Type of 
activity of 
partners 
HES 
REC 
PUB 
PRC 
OTH 
Total 

Number of 
SSH 
partners 
23 
7 
2 
11 
6 
49 

Share of   
SSH 
partners 
47% 
14% 
4% 
22% 
12% 
100% 

In terms of type of SSH expertise across all 34 projects funded under the SSH-flagged topics, five 
clusters  of  disciplines  are  prevalent:  humanities  and  the  arts;  education  and  communication; 
economics  business  and  marketing;  psychology;  and  political  science,  public  administration  and 
law. 

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Humanities, the Arts
Education, Communication
Economics, Business, Marketing 
Psychology
Political Science, Public Administration, Law 
 Sociology
Anthropology, Ethnology
Demography, Geography
History

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
9
8
6
6
5
3
1
0
0

Share of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
26 %
24 %
18 %
18 %
15 %
9 %
3 %
0 %
0 %

When it comes to the quality of SSH integration, 32% of projects funded under the LEIT-ICT topics 
flagged for SSH showed good integration of SSH partners and of their contributions while 53% of 
projects did not include any SSH partners. 

Quality of SSH 
integration
None
Weak
Fair
Good
Total

Number of 
projects
18
1
4
11
34

Share of 
projects
53 %
3 %
12 %
32 %
100 %

36 

 
  
 
 
 
                           
5.9  LEIT-NMP 
- 
in  enabling  and 
Nanotechnologies,  Advanced  Materials,  Biotechnology  and  Advanced 
Manufacturing and Processing' 

technologies 

'Leadership 

industrial 

In  2014  LEIT-NMP  funded  a  total  of  42  topics  under  four  calls  for  proposals:  Nanotechnologies, 
Advanced Materials and Production (NMP), Biotechnology (BIOTEC), Factories of the Future (FoF), 
Energy-efficient  Buildings  (EeB)  and  Sustainable  Process  Industries  (SPIRE).  The  2014-15  Work 
Programme set the budget for these 42 topics at €533 million. 

5 out of the 42 topics were flagged for SSH: 

• 
• 

4 topics under the call NMP 
1 topic under the call FoF. 

These  5  topics  funded  7  projects  for  a  budget  of  €21  million,  out  of  which  €3  million  (i.e.  16%) 
went to SSH partners, mostly under the NMP call.   

In terms of types of action, the 7 funded projects include: 

• 
• 
• 

0 Research and Innovation Actions 
4 Innovation Actions 
3 Coordination and Support Actions.  

SSH partners account for 24% of project partners (21 out of 86) in the 7 projects. The five most 
represented countries are Austria, France, the Netherlands, Germany and Greece.    

Country of affiliation of SSH partners

Country
Partners
Share

AT
3
14 %

FR
3
14 %

NL
3
14 %

DE
2
10 %

EL
2
10 %

ES
2
10 %

IT
2
10 %

UK
2
10 %

OTH
2
10 %

BE
1
5 %

BR
1
5 %

No project coordinator for any of the 7 projects has SSH expertise.  

In terms of type of activity, close to 40% of all 21 SSH partners are either HES or REC. 

  Type of 
activity of 
partners 
HES 
REC 
PUB 
PRC 
OTH 
Total 

Number of 
SSH 
partners 
5 
3 
4 
7 
2 
21 

Share of   
SSH 
partners 
24% 
14% 
19% 
33% 
10% 
100% 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of type of SSH expertise across all 7 projects funded under the SSH-flagged topics, three 
clusters  of  disciplines  are  represented:  humanities  and  the  arts;  economics  business  and 
marketing; and education and communication.  

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Humanities, the Arts
Economics, Business, Marketing 
Education, Communication
Psychology
Political Science, Public Administration, Law 
 Sociology
Anthropology, Ethnology
Demography, Geography
History

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

Share of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
43 %
29 %
14 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %

When  it  comes  to  the  quality  of  SSH  integration,  43%  of  projects  funded  under  the  LEIT-NMP 
topics  flagged  for  SSH  showed  good  integration  of  SSH  partners  and  of  their  contributions  while 
29% of projects did not include any SSH partners. 

Quality of SSH 
integration
None
Weak
Fair
Good
Total

Number of 
projects
2
1
1
3
7

Share of 
projects
29 %
14 %
14 %
43 %
100 %

38 

 
 
   
5.10 LEIT-SPACE 'Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies – Space' 

In  2014  LEIT-SPACE  funded  a  total  of  20  topics  under  four  calls  for  proposals:  Applications  in 
Satellite Navigation (GALILEO), Earth Observation (EO), Protection of European Assets in and from 
Space (PROTEC) and Competitiveness of the European Space Sector (COMPET). The 2014-15 Work 
Programme set the budget for these 20 topics at €130 million. 

2 out of the 20 topics were flagged for SSH: 

• 
• 

1 topic under the call EO 
1 topic under the call COMPET. 

These 2 topics funded 7 projects for a budget of €15 million, out of which €1 million (i.e. 6%) went 
to SSH partners.    

In terms of types of action, the 7 funded projects include: 

• 
• 
• 

5 Research and Innovation Actions 
0 Innovation Actions 
2 Coordination and Support Actions.  

SSH  partners  account  for  7%  of  project  partners  (6  out  of  72)  in  the  7  projects.  The  five 
represented countries are Greece, Austria, Belgium, Germany and Portugal.    

Country of affiliation of SSH partners

Country
Partners
Share

EL
2
33 %

AT
1
17 %

BE
1
17 %

DE
1
17 %

PT
1
17 %

No project coordinator for any of the 7 projects has SSH expertise.  

In terms of type of activity, half of SSH partners belong to OTH with the rest divided between HES 
(33%) and PRC (17%).  

Type of 
activity of 
partners 
HES 
REC 
PUB 
PRC 
OTH 
Total 

Number 
of SSH 
partners 
2 
0 
0 
1 
3 
6 

Share of  
SSH 
partners
33% 
0% 
0% 
17% 
50% 
100% 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
In terms of type of SSH expertise across all 7 projects funded  under the SSH-flagged topics, two 
clusters  of  disciplines  are  represented:  education  and  communication  as  well  as  economics, 
business and marketing.  

Discipline prevalence in projects funded under SSH-flagged topics

Disciplines and clusters of disciplines

Education, Communication
Economics, Business, Marketing 
Psychology
Political Science, Public Administration, Law 
 Sociology
Anthropology, Ethnology
Demography, Geography
History
Humanities, the Arts

Number of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Share of projects 
that include partner-
level expertise
29 %
14 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %

When  it  comes  to  the  quality  of  SSH  integration,  14%  of  projects  funded  under  the  LEIT-SPACE 
topics  flagged  for  SSH  showed  good  integration  of  SSH  partners  and  of  their  contributions  while 
57% of these projects did not include any SSH partners. 

Quality of SSH 
integration
None
Weak
Fair
Good
Total

Number of 
projects
4
0
2
1
7

Share of 
projects
57 %
0 %
29 %
14 %
100 %

40 

 
 
 
                             
       
 
 
 
6. CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD 

The  results  of  the  monitoring  of  the  SSH-flagged  topics  in  2014  are  encouraging.  Already  in  the 
first year of Horizon 2020, substantial progress has been made to implement the new policy on the 
integration of social sciences and humanities (SSH) as a cross-cutting issue across the Framework 
Programme. However, as the report shows, there are obvious concerns regarding the integration of 
SSH in some Societal Challenges and the LEIT parts of the programme. Some disciplines are widely 
represented  while  others  are  almost  invisible.  This  is  particularly  the  case  for  the  humanities  and 
the  arts.  Also,  the  significant  geographical  divide  between  the  EU-15  and  the  EU-13  needs  to  be 
stressed. 

To address these issues and also to meet the concerns of the SSH communities, work has already 
been undertaken since spring 2014. The activities, that will be continued during the entire duration 
of Horizon 2020, focus on four priorities: 

1.  Improving the quality of  topics: 

In  cooperation  with  a  strong  network  of  SSH  liaison  officers  that  has  been  established  across  all 
Societal Challenges and LEIT parts of the programme, all topics in the Work Programme 2016-17 
were  screened  for  their  potential  SSH  relevance.  In  a  next  step,  appropriate  wording  was 
introduced in order to make sure that the SSH dimensions constitute an integral part of the topic 
description  and  are  recognised  by  proponents  as  such  (see  the  examples  provided  in  section  4). 
This work will be continued with a view to the preparation of the Work Programme 2018-19 in an 
even more proactive manner. The ultimate aim is to make SSH research questions an integral part 
of the development process for new research questions. To this end, a series of workshops will be 
organised  addressing  concrete  thematic  priorities  and  exploring  the  concrete  needs  for 
interdisciplinary research cooperation to tackle them. Special efforts will be undertaken to include 
the important insights the humanities can offer to address societal challenges.  

2.  Improving the quality of evaluation: 

To ensure a fair and consistent evaluation of SSH-flagged topics, the participation of experts with 
SSH  expertise  in  the  evaluation  panels  is  key.  Based  on  a  sample  of  40  evaluated  SSH-flagged 
topics, in 2014, out of 688 evaluators, 10% had a background in one or more SSH disciplines and 
42%  had  interdisciplinary  competence  in  both  SSH  and  non-SSH  disciplines.  Furthermore,  a 
briefing on the concept of SSH embedding and the role of SSH research in SSH-flagged topics was 
developed  both  for  moderators  and  for  evaluators  and  was  consistently  used  in  the  evaluations. 
The  quality  of  SSH  expertise  in  the  evaluation  panels  will  be  continuously  monitored  in  the 
forthcoming evaluations. 

3.  Improving the quality of feedback: 

The  monitoring  of  the  integration  of  SSH  as  a  cross-cutting  issue  will  be  repeated  on  a  regular 
basis. Where needed, the methodology used in the report will be refined. Best practice examples, 
such as the projects listed in section 4, will be identified and showcased. The results of the report 
will be published both internally and externally and will serve as guidance for Commission services, 
for applicants, for research policy makers and for the research and innovation community at large.  

4.  Improving the quality of communication: 

An  effective  communication  and  dissemination  strategy  is  essential  to  achieve  a  satisfactory  level 
of  SSH  integration  across  Horizon  2020.  The  Commission  is  aware  that  many  scientists  are  still 
reluctant  to  engage  into  interdisciplinarity  work  because  of  complex  inter-knowledge  issues  and 
practical problems. Reaching out to all relevant stakeholders in the scientific community (both SSH 
and non SSH disciplines) will raise the awareness on the importance of tackling societal challenges 
in  a  multidisciplinary  perspective.  In  this  context,  the  Commission  will  further  streamline  its 
communication  strategy  by  involving  the  network  of  contact  points  at  national  level  and  by 
addressing  interdisciplinary  concerns  through  dedicated  fora  for  debates  with  the  scientific 
communities.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
42 

 
 
How to obtain EU publications 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

        via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

        from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
        from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
        by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
        calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

        (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).  

 
 
 
         
 
 
K
I
-
0
1
-
1
5
-
6
2
2
-
E
N
-
N

One  of  the  novelties  of  the  Horizon  2020  programme  is  the  systematic  and  strategic 
integration  (“embedding”)  of  the  social  sciences  and  humanities  into  each  of  the 
priorities  of  Horizon  2020  (http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-
sections).  Contributions  from  these  disciplines  are  needed  to  generate  new  knowledge, 
support  evidence-based  policy-making,  develop  key  competences  and  produce 
interdisciplinary solutions to both societal and technological issues. 

The  broad  integration  of  the  SSH  within  the  Societal  Challenges  and  Industrial 
Leadership  priorities  is  an  exercise  that  provides  both  opportunities  and  challenges.  It 
provides  opportunities  by  creating  more  scope  for  SSH  contributions  under  more 
thematic  areas  and  more  topics  than  before.  It  also  creates  new  challenges  since  this 
new approach necessitates a change of mind towards more interdisciplinarity.  

This monitoring and evaluation report assesses in a thorough and detailed manner how 
the different SSH disciplines have been integrated into the projects funded in 2014 under 
the Societal Challenges and the Industrial Leadership priorities. The report illustrates the 
success of the new policy on the integration of SSH as a cross-cutting issue and it also 
points out where further efforts are needed. 

The  report  will  be  published  on  a  regular  basis,  with  the  next  version  to  be  released  in 
summer 2016 and focusing on the results of the 2015 calls for proposals. 

Studies and reports 

ISBN 

doi 

978-92-79-50762-5 
10.2777/382488