LAB – FAB – APP : investing in the European future we want : report of the independent High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU research & innovation programmes.
Date: 2017-07-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU investment, EU research policy, education policy, innovation, report, research and development, research budget, research expenditure (EU), research programme

LAB – FAB – APP

Investing in the European  
future we want

Report of the independent High Level Group 
on maximising the impact of  
EU Research & Innovation Programmes

Research and 
Innovation 

LAB – FAB – APP — Investing in the European future we want 

European Commission
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate A – Policy Development and Coordination
Unit A.5 – Better Regulation

Contact   Edward RICKETTS
E-mail   RTD-HLG-IMPACT@ec.europa.eu

   RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu

European Commission
B-1049 Brussels

Manuscript completed in July 2017

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the High Level 
Group members, 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, 2017

Print

PDF

ISBN 978-92-79-70570-0

doi:10.2777/403189

KI-01-17-735-EN-C

ISBN 978-92-79-70571-7

doi:10.2777/477357

KI-01-17-735-EN-N

©  European Union, 2017
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is 
regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders.
Image © Konstantin Yuganov, #105103845, 2017. Source: Fotolia.com.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

LAB – FAB – APP
Investing in the European future we want

Report of the independent High Level Group  
on maximising the impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes

2017

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

Members of the High Level Group

Chair: Pascal Lamy – President Emeritus, Jacques Delors Institute

Martin Brudermüller – Vice Chairman of the Board of Executive Directors  
and Chief Technology Officer, BASF SE

Mark Ferguson – Director General, Science Foundation Ireland and Chief  
Scientific Adviser to the Government of Ireland

Lykke Friis – Prorector for Education, University of Copenhagen

Cristina Garmendia – Chair, Fundación Cotec

Iain Gray – Director of Aerospace, Cranfield University

Jan Gulliksen – Professor, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

Harri Kulmala – CEO of DIMECC Ltd, Finnish digital industry innovation ecosystem

Nevenka Maher – former Dean, Faculty of Business & Management Sciences  
Novo Mesto

Maya Plentz Fagundes – Managing Director, 50More Ventures

Lucyna A. Woźniak – Vice-Rector for Science and International Relations,  
Medical University of Łódź

Milena Žic Fuchs – Professor, University of Zagreb, Fellow, Croatian  
Academy of Sciences and Arts, Member of Academia Europaea

4

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTPREFACE

The 
Com-
European 
mission,  through  Carlos 
Commissioner 
Moedas, 
for  research,  science  and 
innovation,  invited  us  to 
draw up a vision and stra-
re commendations 
tegic 
to  maximise  the  impact 
of future European Union 
(EU)  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  programmes 
(Annex 1 contains the Group’s mandate). 

This report is the result of the Group’s deliberations. 
The twelve of us brought different but complemen-
tary perspectives to research, innovation and edu-
cation.  These  perspectives  were  grounded  in  per-
sonal experience with the policy, the practice or in 
many cases both. 

The  Group  has  built  on  the  results  of  the  interim 
evaluation of Horizon 2020, on a collection of docu-
ments (referred to in the report) and on issue papers 
prepared by the Commission services at our request. 
We took into account the stakeholder input received 
as part of the Horizon 2020 interim evaluation, con-
sulted with a range of predominantly European-level 
stakeholder  organisations  and  received  feedback 
from others (see Annexes 2 and 3 for further details). 

We  agreed  without  difficulty  on  a  number  of  core 
messages.  Our  main  message,  and  vision,  is  that 
investing in research and innovation is increasingly 
crucial  for  shaping  a  better  European  future  in 
a rapidly globalising world, where success depends 
ever  more  on  the  production  and  conversion  of 
knowledge into innovation.

Our  report  focuses  on  proposing  guiding  princi-
ples  for  designing  a  post-2020  EU  programme  for 
research and innovation. It does not propose priority 
themes or subjects such as health, energy, security, 

space or oceans. We believe, nevertheless, that our 
recommendations,  together  with  other  inputs  such 
as the ongoing foresight study (see Annex 3), should 
influence their choice and especially the participatory 
process for determining them. 

Our  recommendations  are  addressed  to  the  Euro-
pean institutions, national governments as well as to 
other stakeholders: companies, universities, research 
institutes,  non-governmental  organisations  and  all 
others  engaged  in  research  and  innovation  within 
the EU and beyond.

We also wish to reach out to a wider public. Our soci-
ety should increasingly become a living laboratory for 
innovative solutions to the many challenges we face 
in Europe – be they economic, environmental or social. 
Through  broad-based,  impact-focused  research  and 
innovation policy and investments, we can turn these 
challenges into innovation opportunities. This requires 
action and participation by many, if not all of us. 

We need to get rid of the notion that research and 
innovation  is  not  relevant  to  society.  To  shape  our 
future  together,  we  need  to  imagine,  invent  and 
create. We need research (“Labs”), innovation (com-
petitive fabrication (“Fabs”) and applications for the 
benefit of all (“Apps”). Hence the title of our report: 
Lab, Fab, App: investing in the future we want. 

I hope we will succeed in convincing public opinion 
and  decision-makers  that  further  EU  investment  in 
research and innovation and maximising its impact 
is probably the best option that Europe has to deliver 
solutions and future well-being for its citizens.

Let  me  wholeheartedly  thank  my  colleagues  and 
the Secretariat team for their engagement in and 
dedication  to  this  collective  endeavour.  I  really 
enjoyed working with them.

Pascal Lamy, Chair of the High Level Group

5

Summary of recommendations

The following recommendations are aimed at max-
imising the impact of future EU research and inno-
vation programmes. Each of them is exemplified by 
a key action. 

1.    Prioritise research and innovation in EU and 

national budgets
Action:  double  the  budget  of  the  post-2020 
EU research and innovation programme.

2.     Build a true EU innovation policy that creates 

future markets
Action:  Foster  ecosystems  for  researchers, 
innovators, 
industries  and  governments; 
promote and invest in innovative ideas with 
rapid scale-up potential through a European 
Innovation Council.  

3.    Educate  for  the  future  and  invest  in  people 

who will make the change
Action:  modernise,  reward  and  resource  the 
education and training of people for a creative 
and innovative Europe.

4.    Design  the  EU  R&I  programme  for  greater 

impact
Action:  make  the  future  programme’s  pillars 
driven by purpose and impact, fine-tune the pro-
posal evaluation system and increase flexibility. 

5.     Adopt  a  mission-oriented,  impact-focused 
approach to address global challenges 
Action:  set  research  and  innovation  missions 
that  address  global  challenges  and  mobilise 
researchers, innovators and other stakeholders 
to realise them.

6.     Rationalise  the  EU  funding  landscape  and 

achieve synergy with structural funds
Action: cut the number of R&I funding schemes 
and  instruments,  make  those  remaining 
re inforce  each  other  and  make  synergy  with 
other programmes work.

7.   Simplify further

Action: become the most attractive R&I funder 
in the world, privileging impact over process. 

8.   Mobilise and involve citizens

Action:  stimulate  co-design  and  co-creation 
through citizen involvement.

9.   Better align EU and national R&I investment
Action:  ensure  EU  and  national  alignment 
where it adds value to the EU’s R&I ambitions 
and missions.

10.  Make international R&I cooperation a trade-

mark of EU research and innovation
Action: open up the R&I programme to associ-
ation by the best and participation by all, based 
on reciprocal co-funding or access to co-funding 
in the partner country.

11. Capture and better communicate impact

Action:  brand  EU  research  and  innovation 
and ensure wide communication of its results 
and impacts.

6

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTINTRODUCTION

When  looking  ahead  to  the  future  of  Europe  in 
a globalising world, the contrast is striking between 
in  producing 
Europe’s  comparative  advantage 
knowledge  and  its  comparative  disadvantage  in 
turning that knowledge into innovation and growth. 

Europe  is  a  global  scientific  powerhouse.  It  has  all 
the  necessary  ingredients  to  shape  a  prosperous 
and  safe  future:  1.8  million  researchers  working  in 
thousands  of  universities  and  research  centres  as 
well as in world-leading manufacturing industries1, a 
suite of increasingly inter-connected research infra-
structures, a thriving ecosystem of small and medi-
um-sized  enterprises  and  an  increasing  number  of 
hotspots for start-ups2. With just 7 % of the world’s 
population  and  24 %  of  global  GDP,  it  produces 
around 30 % of the world’s scientific publications3.

But  compared  to  other  major  economies,  Europe 
suffers  from  a  growth  deficit  which,  together  with 
the  experience  of  uneven  progress,  fuels  social 
disenchantment  and  political  divisions  across  the 
continent. At the heart of Europe’s slow growth lies 
its  innovation  deficit.  Europe  does  not  capitalise 
enough on the knowledge it has and produces. 

The  EU  trails  well  behind  many  trading  partners 
when it comes to innovation. It spends less than half 
as  much  on  business  R&D  as  a  share  of  GDP  com-
pared to South Korea and the share of value added 
in high-tech manufacturing is half the South Korean 
average. The EU produces three times less quality pat-
ent applications than Japan4. The amount of venture 
capital available in the EU is at least five times lower 
than in the US; the number of fast-growing start-ups, 
so-called unicorns, is equally five times lower. The EU 
lags behind in investing in intangibles (40 % compared 
to 60 % in the US).5 

Figure 1: Comparative and growth rates of scientific publications, highly-cited scientific publications, researchers, 
patent applications and valued-added of high-tech sectors in the EU and the USA. Source: European Commission, 
DG Research and Innovation. Data: Eurostat, OECD, CWTS based on Web of Science database.

1) Source: Eurostat 

2) https://startupgenome.com 
3) Source: CWTS Web of Science 

4)  Patent Cooperation Treaty (http://www.wipo.int/pct) patents are a re-

cognised proxy for the ability of the economy to transform knowledge 
into marketable innovations.

5)  Intangible Investment in the EU and US before and since the Great 
Recession and its contribution to productivity growth. European In-
vestment Bank Working Paper 2016/08. Available at: http://www.eib.
org/attachments/efs/economics_working_paper_2016_08_en.pdf

7

growthgrowthgrowthgrowthgrowth0.9%-0.4%1.2%1.8%3.4%1.9%4.5%2.1%2.3%2.8%1.51.00.50.0World share of scientiﬁc publicationsWorld share of highly cited scientiﬁc publicationsNumber of researchers(FTE)Researchers per thousand labour forceEUUS = 1PCT patent applications per million population% gross value added of business economy in high-tech sectorsThe rich diversity of the EU and its Member States 
is a strength, but it also makes the articulation of 
common  European  research  and  innovation  (R&I) 
strategies and projects more complex than in coun-
tries such as the USA or South Korea. Contrary to the 
USA, investment in R&I at central EU level is mini-
mal compared to decentralised public investment at 
national level.

This is nothing new; we have known this for decades. 
But the rate of technological and economic change 
and the urgency of global challenges continue to 
outpace Europe’s response and reforms. 

It is imperative for Europe to act, to act now and to 
act decisively. 

Addressing  the  EU’s  innovation  deficit  requires 
action  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  –  this  is 
a collective responsibility. Universities need to mod-
ernise;  industry  and  start-ups  need  to  work  more 
intensively with academia; the key innovators need 
to get support to succeed; society at large needs to 
be an integral R&I actor. 

Research  and  innovation  matter  for  our  future. 
Especially  for  advanced  economies  like  Europe’s, 
science and innovation – and education – are what 
make the difference in enhancing productivity and 
boosting competitiveness. In the last twenty years, 
two-thirds  of  economic  growth  in  industrialised 
countries  is  attributed  to  science  and  innovation 
(see the economic rationale for public R&I funding 
study, referenced in Annex 3). 

Investing in intangible assets makes vital contributions 
to productivity and is at the core of what makes firms 
competitive.  In  the  older  Member  States  (so-called 
EU-15), the contribution of total intangible assets to 
output growth is between one and three times as high 
as the contribution from tangible assets6.

6)  Unlocking Investment in Intangible Assets. European Commis-
sion, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, 
May 2017. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/
dp047_en.pdf

Science and innovation are also key to preserving 
the  values  of  enlightenment  and  democracy  and 
to  tackling  the  societal  challenges  of  our  time: 
building  a  digitally-smart,  low-carbon,  energy-ef-
ficient and circular economy that offers rewarding 
work and brings good quality of life for all in livea-
ble cities and countryside; ensuring a safe climate, 
building  a  fair  society;  keeping  our  oceans  clean 
and productive. Over time, performance in science 
and innovation will determine Europe’s place in the 
world and its capacity to boost the kind of growth 
that is exemplified by the world’s 2030 agenda for 
sustainable development.

Europe’s  challenge  and  ambition  are  straightfor-
ward:  step  up  investment  in  its  knowledge  assets 
and turn the high volume and quality of its science 
and research results faster and deeper into innova-
tions which generate value for economy and society. 
Transform  knowledge  into  economic  and  societal 
innovation – resulting in a competitive economy that 
derives  prosperity  from  higher  value-added  goods 
and services, as well as benefiting society.

Europe  must  embrace  the  transformative  power 
of open science, allowing for a faster circulation of 
increasing  amounts  of  knowledge,  and  seize  the 
potential  of  open  innovation  to  trigger  faster  and 
fairer growth, building a knowledge economy that 
is open to the world.  

We  have  an  asset  for  achieving  these  ambitions: 
Horizon  2020,  the  EU’s  main  funding  programme 
for research and innovation up to 2020. The interim 
evaluation of Horizon 2020 and the input from many 
stakeholders  demonstrate  that  its  success  is  creat-
ing  momentum.  Non-EU  countries  seek  to  be  part 
of  it.  Horizon  2020’s  continental  reach,  its  focus  on 
excellence and its track record in fostering cross-bor-
der  collaboration  is  unique  in  the  world.  It  strength-
ens  Europe’s  scientific  excellence  and  industrial 
competitiveness  through  competitive  funding  and 
cross-border,  cross-disciplinary  and  cross-sectorial 

8

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTworks.  It  pools  resources  and  ingenuity  for  tackling 
global challenges. It develops the evidence base for 
policy-making. It grows Europe together. 

The Group is convinced of the crucial role of research 
and innovation in shaping the future we want to see 
in Europe and beyond. Investing in research, innovation 
and education is an economic necessity, a social obli-
gation as well as a political opportunity for a shared 
project that makes Europe a pole of attraction in an 
increasingly connected world. The post-2020 budget 
discussion is the right moment to illustrate with clear 
determination the Europe we want.

It  is  in  this  light  that  the  Group  has  formulated 
11  recommendations  designed  to  maximise  the 
impact  of  future  EU  R&I  programmes  and  further 
increase their return on investment for Europe and 
Europeans.  The  recommendations  should  further 
sharpen  Europe’s  innovative  edge  by  making  pur-
pose drive process, form follow function and instru-
ments stimulate innovation. Each recommendation 
is exemplified by a key action. 

1.  Prioritise research  

and innovation in EU  
and national budgets

There is abundant evidence of Horizon 2020’s Euro-
pean added value compared to what can be done 
at national level; there is no evidence, on the other 
hand, of significant substitution effects between EU 
and national R&I investment7.  

EU  investment  in  research  and  innovation  projects 
is distinctive in the way that it fosters trans national 
collaboration  and  competition  of  a  scale,  scope 
and  speed  that  no  single  country  can  match. 
Horizon  2020  resources  are  invested  following 
continent-wide competition and independent expert 

7)  See annex 4 for an overview of the EU added value of Horizon 
2020, and annex 5 for a summary of an analysis on the substi-
tution effects between EU and national R&I investment.

evaluation.  It  supports  transnational  and  multidis-
ciplinary  collaboration,  pulls  additional  investment 
by the public and private sectors and leverages and 
structures national R&I. According to its interim eval-
uation, 83 % of Horizon 2020-funded projects would 
not have gone ahead without EU-level support.

The recent Monti report on future financing of the 
EU  states  that  research  and  innovation  should 
be  “one  of  the  essential  policy  priorities  in  the 
future”. R&I is foremost a budgetary policy: the vol-
ume of resources allocated is an expression of the 
policy ambition. Given that R&I is one of the main 
factors  of  global  competitiveness,  the  EU’s  ambi-
tion must be to at least align its investment with 
that of its main competitors, such as USA, Japan, 
South Korea or China. 

Doubling the overall budget of the post-2020 EU 
research  and  innovation  programme  is  the  best 
investment the EU can make. 

Reducing the overall level of R&I investment would 
be  a  mistake  and  a  clear  reversal  of  progress.  At 
a  minimum,  the  budget  should  maintain  the  aver-
age annual growth rate of Horizon 2020, taking the 
budget  foreseen  for  the  programme’s  final  year  as 
a  starting  point.  This  would  lead  to  a  seven-year 
budget  of  at  least  €120  billion  in  current  prices8. 
Anything  below  that  would  break  momentum  and 
call  into  question  the  EU’s  commitment  to  deliver 
on  its  political  priorities,  as  embodied  in  the  Rome 
declaration9  of  March  2017  in  which  innovation  is 
considered crucial. 

8)  The compound annual growth rate for the Horizon 2020 budget 
is around 6.5 % in current prices, while the annual budget for 
Horizon 2020’s final year in 2020 is projected to be just over 
€13 billion.

9)  For further details, see: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/

press-releases/2017/03/25-rome-declaration/

9

Figure 2: Comparative evolution of gross domestic expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP in the EU, China, 
South Korea, USA. Source: European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. Data: Eurostat and OECD.  

Increasing  the  budget  will  help  address  the  severe 
problem of underfunding. Doubling the R&I budget 
will  not  generate  any  concern  about  absorption 
capacity.  Horizon  2020  can  currently  only  fund  1  in 
4 of the proposals evaluated as high-quality through 
independent  peer-review.  To  be  efficient  and  avoid 
the  excessive  costs  of  high-quality  but  unfunded 
proposals,  the  post-2020  programme  must  ensure 
a success rate in the range of 15 to 20 %, as was the 
case for Horizon 2020’s predecessor. Funding should 
be secured for at least 30 % of high quality proposals. 

The Group welcomes the recent decision to finance 
defence research at EU level, as long as its budget 
is  additional  to  the  recommended  doubling  of  the 
civil R&I programme. We see great benefit in defence 
research  being  executed  along  the  lines  of  the 
DARPA model10, exploiting the advantages of excel-
lence-driven  transnational  competition  and  collab-
oration. However, given the different conditions and 
rules  that  govern  defence  research,  its  implemen-
tation should be clearly separate from the civil R&I 
supported by the EU.

10)  The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is 
an agency of the US Department of Defense that finances 
research projects on emerging technologies for military use.

The EU R&I programme represents only a small pro-
portion of total public investment in research and inno-
vation in the EU, about 10 % of public R&D investment. 
At the same time, success in the EU programme often 
correlates with the level and performance of national 
investment in R&I11. An increase in EU funding must 
therefore  be  matched  by  an  increase  in  national 
investments in R&I. The trends in national R&I invest-
ments  should  be  monitored  and  encouraged,  nota-
bly through the European Semester and encouraged 
through  the  EU  budget  –  for  example,  by  rewarding 
certain reforms or establishing a performance reserve. 
This  does  not  necessarily  mean  extra  reporting  by 
Member States, as existing EU data sets could be used. 

It is essential – also as a strong signal to the rest 
of  the  world  –  that  both  the  EU  and  its  Member 
States finally undertake to reach the 3 % target of 
GDP invested in R&I12. This should be made a core 
part of any European or national investment plan 
and a renewed agenda for economic convergence 
– especially, but not only, in the euro area. 

11) See annex 5 for an analysis of this.
12)  This target, set by the European Commission and endorsed 

by the European Parliament and Member States through the 
Council of the EU, was first established as part of the Lisbon 
Strategy in 2000. In 2010, it was reaffirmed as one of the five 
headline targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy.

10

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANT5.00%4.50%4.00%3.50%3.00%2.50%2.00%1.50%1.00%0.50%0.00%2006          2007          2008          2009           2010          2011          2012          2013         2014           20152.03%EU282.07%China2.79%US3.49%Japan4.23%South KoreaRecent estimates indicate that achieving the 3 % tar-
get  requires  an  additional  public  and  private  R&I 
investment of €150 billion per year13. The biggest gap 
to reaching the 3 % is the lack of private sector R&I 
investment.  Private  sector  investment  should  there-
fore be leveraged as much as possible, with Member 
States exploiting measures that fit their national pol-
icy toolbox, such as tax credits and innovative public 
procurement. Co-funding mechanisms with industry, 
countries,  foundations  and  other  sources  of  funding 
should be promoted, both at EU and national levels.

Only if EU and national programmes and bud gets 
work  better  together  in  increasing  R&I  invest-
ments  will  we  see  innovation-led  growth  that 
builds a prosperous and cohesive Europe. 

Action: double the budget of the post-2020 EU 
research and innovation programme.

2.  Build a true EU innovation policy 

that creates future markets

The  EU’s  innovation  deficit  is  not  due  to  a  lack  of 
knowledge or ideas, but because we do not capital-
ise on them. We need rapid European or international 
scale-up of innovative solutions.

Addressing this deficit requires more than public money 
and more than awarding grants. Much but not all inno-
vation stems from research; not all research leads to 
innovation. Research needs time to generate results, 
while speed is essential for successful innovation. Even 
so, research and innovation need to be integrated as 
much as possible in policy and programmes. Research 
is necessary, but not sufficient, to fuel innovation. 

Innovation needs fertile ecosystems – such as indus-
trial, agriculture, competition and trade policies – for 
researchers  and  innovators,  companies  and  public 
authorities,  stimulated  by  a  coherent  EU  innovation 
policy that cuts across all EU policy domains, thus pro-
viding a  common regulatory framework that fosters 
entrepreneurship.  Innovation  policy  should  provide 
stable  and  consistent  incentives  to  innovators  and 
markets. Other policy areas such as industry, compe-
tition, trade, agriculture, energy and transport should 
help create the right framework conditions for inno-
vation to flourish. A consistent and clear definition of 
strategy, targets, implementation levers and measures 
and evaluation of budgets as well as evidence-based 
policy-making are conditions for success. 

In  this  way,  EU  innovation  policy  can  boost  the 
growth of companies, which underpins the compet-
itiveness of our industry. To ensure European indus-
try’s success in the global market and its leadership 
in the current industrial revolution with its blurring of 
physical,  digital  and  biological  spheres,  innovation 
policy  should  aim  at  promoting  faster  and  better 
development, production and use of new products, 
and industrial processes and services. This in turn will 
entice  higher  private  investment  in  R&D;  currently, 
half  of  the  EU’s  investment  gap  in  private  R&D 
compared to our main competitors stems from the 
smaller share of high-tech companies.

The EU’s substantial knowledge assets, based on sci-
ence and research, need to be faster and more inten-
sively turned into innovations, in the form of new prod-
ucts, processes, services and business models, which 
generate value for economy and society. Industry plays 
a fundamental role in this transformation. Academia 
and industry are no rivals in this – they are allies. The 
vocation of the R&I programme must be to make their 
alliance  productive.  The  participation  of  academia  is 
natural, that of industry is to be encouraged. 

13)  Staff Working Document for Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation. 
European Commission, May 2017. Available at: https://ec.euro-
pa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020evaluation

The promotion of innovation should play a key role 
in  delivering  on  all  EU  policy  priorities.  As  part 

11

Breakthrough innovation, the type that creates new 
markets, is rare in Europe. This is due to a range of 
factors,  including  lack  of  venture  capital,  a  deep-
rooted  aversion  to  risk  and  an  inability  to  exploit 
the scale that an economy of half a billion people 
represents.  EU  R&I  programmes  should  therefore 
put  a  stronger  focus  on  breakthrough  rather  than 
incremental innovation.

Modern R&I policies and programmes with the high-
est potential for promoting breakthroughs are those 
that  resolutely  push  and  pull  cross-disciplinary, 
cross-sectorial, cross-institutional and cross-border 
collaboration, responsive to market opportunities and 
societal expectations. The EU level is uniquely placed 
to remove borders of all kinds. 

A European Innovation Council should be installed 
as a permanent, high-level strategic body empow-
ered  to  invest  in  entrepreneurs  and  businesses, 
irrespective  of  size,  sector  or  maturity,  with  risky 
innovations  that  have  rapid  scale-up  potential  at 
the cross-roads of different technologies and disci-
plines. This will give renewed impetus for improving 
framework  conditions.  The  EIC  should  achieve  the 
same high standard for innovation as the European 
Research Council has created for frontier research. 

Action: Foster ecosystems for researchers, inno-
vators, industries and governments; promote and 
invest  in  innovative  ideas  with  rapid  scale-up 
potential through a European Innovation Council.

of a coherent innovation policy, EU policy-makers 
should be required to regularly identify, in dialogue 
with  stakeholders  and  citizens,  how  and  what 
innovation  can  help  them  more  easily  achieve 
their objectives. Every EU funding programme and 
each  instrument  should  have  innovation  objec-
tives and reserve budget for promoting innovation. 

Innovation  is  more  than  technology.  EU  innovation 
policy must be based on a definition of innovation 
that  acknowledges  and  values  all  forms  of  new 
knowledge – technological, but also business model, 
financing, governance, regulatory and social – which 
help  generate  value  for  the  economy  and  society 
and drive systemic transformation.

It should rigorously assess the potential innovation 
impact  of  new  policy  initiatives.  Particularly  when 
deployed in accordance with the EU innovation prin-
ciple, regulation can be a powerful way to stimulate 
innovation that is driven by demand. This would also 
address  the  challenge  of  fragmented  regulation 
within the EU, which hampers the uptake of new solu-
tions that are for example made possible by progress 
in nanotechnology or new materials. Public procure-
ment is also key in designing demand-side innovation 
policies that help reduce market uncertainty for inno-
vative solutions, shape future markets and open new 
opportunities for European companies.

A  true  EU  innovation  policy  should  allow  for  pol-
icy experimentation, for example through bringing 
together  regulators  and  innovators  to  overcome 
possible regulatory bottlenecks to innovative solu-
tions,  as  pioneered  in  the  EU  innovation  deals  for 
the circular economy.14   

Furthermore,  it  should  anticipate  the  effects  of 
the  expected  labour  market  transition  over  the 
next decades, due to digitalisation, automation and 
demographic trends.

14)  For further details, see: https://ec.europa.eu/research/innova-

tion-deals/index.cfm?pg=home

12

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANT3.  Educate for the future and 

invest in people who will make 
the change

Europe  can  have  the  most  impressive  talent  pool 
on earth, but it will fail to capitalise on this if the 
education system does not foster a more innova-
tive and risk-friendly culture. There will likely be no 
excellent research and innovation without excellent 
education. 

A  fundamental  reform  of  the  role  of  education 
should systematically embed innovation and entre-
preneurship  in  education  across  Europe,  starting 
from  early  stage  school  curricula.  Schools  should 
foster a culture that boosts self-confidence; society 
should build an environment that allows for failure of 
new ventures and continuous life-long-learning. In the 
future, everybody in society should be stimulated to 
be creative, from children to elderly, from employees 
to employers, from civil servants to start-ups. 

Europe’s universities need urgent renewal, to stim-
ulate  entrepreneurship  and  tear  down  disciplinary 
borders.  Strong  non-disciplinary  collaborations 
between  universities  and  industry  should  become 
the rule and not the exception. The post-2020 EU 
R&I programme needs to provide incentives for the 
modernisation  of  universities.  A  clearly-defined 
‘European  university’  label  could  reward  research 
and  higher  education  institutions  which  actively 
and successfully promote open science, open inno-
vation and openness to the world, i.e. through new 
ways of teaching, promoting cross-disciplinarity and 
entrepreneurship  whilst  attracting  researchers  and 
students  from  around  the  world.  The  EU  could,  in 
return,  offer  top-up  funding  for  certain  institutional 
costs at those universities.

For its part, the post-2020 EU R&I programme should 
reinforce support for skills and competence devel-
opment  in  EU-funded  projects.  Collaborative  R&I 

projects should include training activities for the next 
generation of researchers and innovators, particularly 
skills needed for data-driven open science. Develop-
ment  of  curricula  for  the  next  generation  workforce 
should be taken forward in synergy with the European 
Social  Fund.  High-level  objectives  between  the  EU’s 
R&I and Erasmus programmes should be aligned and 
their progress jointly monitored. 

Increasing  the  budget  of  the  post-2020  EU  R&I 
programme  will  provide  more  resources  for  the  
European  Research  Council  (ERC),  which  finances 
projects  defined  and  driven  by  researchers  on  the 
sole criterion of excellence. As shown by the interim 
evaluation of Horizon 2020, the ERC has become a 
global  beacon  of  scientific  excellence  and  provides 
those that do the science of the future with the skills 
and competences that Europe needs to stay at the 
forefront  of  development.  The  ERC’s  synergy  grant 
scheme  has  great  potential  to  stimulate  multidis-
ciplinarity,  while  the  ERC  proof  of  concept  scheme 
holds  great  promise  to  help  bridge  the  valley  of 
death between fundamental research and commer-
cialising a new product or service. 

The  post-2020  EU  R&I  programme  should  also 
increase the resources for Marie Skłodowska-Curie 
Actions which support researchers’ career develop-
ment  and  training.  New  training  and  career  devel-
opment  schemes  are  needed.  A  well-endowed  EU 
Industry Research Fellowship scheme will help break 
down  barriers  between  sectorial  and  disciplinary 
silos. It should be open to talent from everywhere, 
supporting  innovators  returning  to  an  EU  country 
from elsewhere, as well as providing entrepreneurial 
training schemes for refugees. 

Education  plays  a  central  role  in  Knowledge  and 
Innovation  Communities  (KICs)  established  by 
the European Institute of Innovation and Technol-
ogy (EIT). They bring together businesses, research 
centres  and  universities  in  areas  like  climate,  raw 
materials and digital technologies. Operating at the 

13

intersection of research, education and innovation, 
the  KICs  support  the  development  of  innovative 
products and services, the creation of new compa-
nies and the training of a new generation of entre-
preneurs. To maximise their impact and as part of 
rationalising the EU funding landscape, they should 
be  better  deployed  to  deliver  on  the  global  chal-
lenges (see recommendations 5 and 6). KICs could 
be  directly  incorporated  in  the  post-2020  EU  R&I 
programme.

Action: modernise, reward and resource the edu-
cation and training of people for a creative and 
innovative Europe.  

4.  Design the EU R&I programme 

for greater impact

One of Horizon 2020’s novelties was its three-pillar 
structure corresponding to who sets the agenda: the 
scientific  community  for  excellent  science,  industry 
for  industrial  leadership  and  society  for  addressing 
societal  challenges.  The  three  pillars  and  the  core 
principle of excellence across the entire programme 
have attracted large support from stakeholders who 
call for an evolution rather than a revolution: fine-tun-
ing the pillars, improving their internal coherence and 
maximising their mutually reinforcing impact.

To  maximise  impact,  the  post-2020  EU  R&I  pro-
gramme must act as a true investment programme. 
It  should  focus  on  purpose  and  impact  of  R&I 
instead of instruments, technological-readiness lev-
els, disciplines, prescriptive topics or industry sectors. 

The  future  three  pillars  should  feature  a  clear-
ly-defined  and  complementary  rationale  for  their 
interventions.  This  will  enhance  their  interconnec-
tion  and  combined  benefit  for  economy,  including 
industry,  and  society.  They  should  lay  out  results 

and  impacts  that  are  expected  to  be  achieved 
within  specified  timescales  (for  example,  via  ‘top 
down’ calls for proposals that have thematic objec-
tives; or via ‘bottom-up’ calls which are completely 
open to researchers and innovators, academia and 
all industry, irrespective of size, to define the area 
they would like to address). 

These pillars should focus on “science and skills”, “inno-
vation and competitiveness” and “global challenges”. 
Driven by complementary goals, they should be bet-
ter connected than in the current situation, with open 
science and open innovation being common threads. 

The European Research Council should be central to 
the science pillar, the proposed European Innovation 
Council  central  to  the  innovation  pillar,  and  large-
scale missions central to the global challenges pil-
lar. Innovation should be promoted across all pillars, 
with a consistent priority attached to interdisciplinar-
ity as a source of technological and other innovation 
(such as educational, business or social innovation). 

The post-2020 EU R&I programme should be open 
to  experiment  with  new  ways  of  calling  for  and 
evaluating  proposals  and  supporting  projects,  for 
example through innovative blending of grant, loan 
and equity-based forms of investment. 

Calls for proposals for funding under the post-2020 
EU  R&I  programme  should  become  more  flexible, 
overarching and, when top-down, non-prescriptive. 
Applicants  should  be  allowed  to  choose,  from  a 
portfolio of instruments provided, the one that best 
matches the R&I purpose, its potential impact and 
the risk involved. 

With excellence at its core, the evaluation process for 
proposals submitted to the post-2020 EU R&I pro-
gramme should be customised in line with each pil-
lar’s objectives. All proposals across the programme 
should  be  evaluated  on  the  basis  of  excellence, 
i.e. based on quality without geographic or other cri-
teria  involved,  while  recalling  that  a  certain  part  of 

14

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTthe  programme  should  contain  measures  targeted 
at lower-performing countries (see recommendation 
6).  However,  excellence  should  be  assessed  on  the 
basis of the pillar’s objectives, such as the potential 
for breakthrough innovation in the second pillar or the 
societal relevance in the third. 

A  modernised  proposal  evaluation  system  should 
also attract different types of evaluators. Evalua-
tion teams should consist of top people with broad 
experience well-matched to the call or mission and 
different competences to evaluate excellence and 
impact.  Resources  should  be  invested  in  provid-
ing meaningful evaluation feedback to applicants, 
including on the choice of funding instrument. 

Larger  projects  should  be  subject  to  a  mid-term 
evaluation, possibly leading to adjustment or even 
discontinuation. In line with open access, all initial 
and mid-term project evaluation reports should be 
made  public.  In  turn,  consortia  should  be  allowed 
to quickly and easily adapt their project in line with 
evolving needs and opportunities. 

The  proposed  European  Innovation  Council  should 
be  a  driver  for  designing  new  proposal  evaluation 
and selection processes to better capture high-risk, 
high-return  projects,  introduce  greater  flexibility  in 
grant management (stop-go decisions) and tolerate 
failure.  Elements  of  the  ERC’s  process  for  proposal 
evaluation could provide a source of inspiration. 

Action:  make  pillars  driven  by  purpose  and 
impact, fine-tune the proposal evaluation system 
and increase flexibility. 

5.  Adopt a mission-oriented, 
impact-focused approach 
to address global challenges 

Innovation  leaders  do  not  limit  themselves  to 
studying  challenges  or  solving  ‘market  failures’. 
They  develop  strategic  missions  where  they  see 
societal  and  market  potential  and  actively  direct 
public  investment  accordingly.  To  become  an 
innovation leader and maximise the impact of its 
intervention, the EU should however not spread its 
investments  in  R&I  too  thinly.  Instead,  it  should 
prioritise  investing  in  areas  where  the  EU  added 
value  is  greatest  in  terms  of  the  degree  of  risk 
involved  and  where  the  benefits  of  economies 
of  speed,  scale  and  scope  can  be  reaped.  Those 
responsible  for  other  sectorial  policies  –  such  as 
industry, agriculture, energy, transport, ICT, culture 
– should be fully engaged with innovation policy-
making, both helping to programme research and 
innovation and unlocking the innovation potential 
of structural funds (see recommendation 6).

The  post-2020  EU  R&I  programme  should  thus 
translate  global  societal  challenges  (social,  eco-
nomic,  environmental)  into  a  limited  number  of 
large-scale  research  and  innovation  ‘missions’. 
These  would  define  expected  impacts  across  an 
entire portfolio of activities, rather than at the level 
of individual call topics. The UN Sustainable Devel-
opment  Goals  should  serve  as  a  global  reference 
framework for defining Europe’s R&I missions. 

R&I  missions  should  foremost  be  easy  to  com-
municate  and  capture  public  imagination  and 
involvement, thus allowing for better communica-
tion of the benefits of the future programme (see 
recommendation 11). They should mobilise many 
actors  and  investors,  including  at  national  level, 
and induce action across disciplines, sectors and 
institutional silos. 

15

Missions  should  be  open  to  all  actors  in  the 
research  and  innovation  cycle,  in  particular  new 
actors of innovation and change such as cities and 
regions, which could act as “innovation laboratories 
of change” in piloting new ideas and concepts. 

Missions,  or  “moon  shots”,  should  have  a  break-
through  or  transformative  potential  for  science, 
technology, industry or society. It should be possi-
ble, within the appropriate timeframe, to ascertain 
to what extent the mission has been accomplished. 
Failure should be allowed, and unexpected spill-over 
benefits should be encouraged. 

Missions  defined  in  this  way  will,  by  design,  fully 
integrate  social  sciences  and  humanities  (SSH). 
Where missions concern the big social questions of 
our time, for example having rewarding work in an 
era of robotics, living and working well together in 
culturally diverse cities or ensuring equal opportu-
nities in and fair benefits from an innovative soci-
ety,  SSH  researchers  will  initiate  and  lead  them. 
Design-thinking  should  also  be  included  to  the 
greatest extent. 

Having  set  the  direction  and  expected  impact, 
missions should be underpinned by non-prescrip-
tive  calls  for  proposals  that  allow  applicants  to 
choose  the  funding  instrument  they  need;  for 
instance  research  projects,  co-funded  activities, 
prizes,  financial  instruments  or  public  procure-
ment.  Instruments  should  support  missions,  not 
the other way around.

Partnerships (public-private and public-public) with 
industry, foundations and public authorities should 
be  taken  forward  in  as  far  as  they  mobilise  joint 
investment in established missions, through a sim-
ple and flexible co-fund mechanism. The addition-
ality  of  other  sources  of  funding  and  capabilities 
in  order  to  realise  a  mission  along  with  bringing 
together  the  required  partners  and  stakeholders 
(from industry, SMEs, universities, research centres, 
civil society etc.) should be a key guiding criterion. 

16

The  Group’s  remit  was  not  to  prescribe  Europe’s 
moon shots. By way of illustration, it has identified 
some potential missions for the post-2020 EU R&I 
programme:  achieving  a  plastic  litter-free  Europe 
by 2030; understanding and enhancing the brain by 
2030;  producing  steel  with  zero  carbon  in  Europe 
by 2030; making 3 out of 4 patients survive cancer 
by 203415; building and operating the first quantum 
computer  in  Europe.  The  Group  calls  on  the  Euro-
pean  Commission  to  launch  a  wide  stakeholder 
debate  among  citizens,  scientists  and  innovators 
on potential future R&I missions for Europe.

Action:  set  research  and  innovation  missions 
that  address  global  challenges  and  mobilise 
researchers, innovators and other stakeholders 
to realise them.

6.  Rationalise the EU funding 

landscape and achieve synergy 
with structural funds

The range of funding schemes for R&I across the 
EU  budget  is  numerous,  complex  and  not  acces-
sible  enough.  As  a  result,  companies  and  innova-
tors  do  not  easily  know  where  to  look.  This  risks 
increasing transaction costs and diluting excellence 
by  favouring  a  “competition  among  those  in  the 
know”,  excluding  those  who  may  be  excellent  but 
unfamiliar with the system. Today’s set of EU fund-
ing schemes also illustrates the lack of a systemic 
and coordinated R&I policy at EU level. 

The Group supports a modernised and user-friendly 
EU budget which maximises European added value 
by  privileging  transnational  collaboration  and 
competition. 

15) Target put forward by Cancer Research UK.

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTAccess  to  EU  funding  for  the  user  should  be  facil-
itated  by  having  harmonised  rules  for  participation 
across  the  EU  budget  and  a  one-stop-shop  for 
research and innovation funding. 

A  coherent  execution  of  the  R&I  programme 
will foster excellence, openness, collaboration and 
inter-disciplinarity, avoiding capture by incumbents 
or silo mentality. 

EU  funding  schemes  with  similar  intervention 
logic  should  be  combined.  For  example,  the 
post-2020  EU  R&I  programme  could  incorporate 
the  successor  of  the  SME  programme  COSME16. 
A  minimum  objective  should  be  to  eliminate  one 
third  of  R&I  funding  schemes,  instruments  and 
acronyms  across  the  landscape.  Sunset  or  exit 
clauses should be introduced in major structuring 
initiatives.  As  already  recommended,  the  various 
innovation support schemes should be streamlined 
with a European Innovation Council.

While the EU R&I programme is about boosting and 
networking excellence at European level, the struc-
tural funds are essential for R&I capa city-building 
in regions that are catching up in terms of their R&I 
performance  and  their  participation  in  the  EU  R&I 
programme. It is crucial that the post-2020 EU R&I 
programme and future structural funds are designed 
from  the  beginning  with  complementary,  mutually 
reinforcing and inter operable intervention logics. 

A substantial proportion of the future structural and 
agricultural  funds  should  focus  on  financing  R&I 
infrastructures and their sustainability, universities, 
research  centres,  incubators,  science  parks  and 
innovation diffusion activities that are aligned with 
and  support  the  post-2020  EU  R&I  programme’s 
objectives  and  pillars.  This  approach  should  take 
into consideration increasingly transnational smart 

16)  COSME (Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Me-

dium-sized Enterprises) is the EU programme running from 2014 
to 2020 which provides funding for a range of support services 
to SMEs in particular. It has an overall budget of €2.3 billion.

specialisation strategies17. The EU R&I programme 
should set the agenda for R&I investments within 
the structural funds. 

The  budget  for  such  investment  could  flow  from 
the  future  structural  funds  to  the  post-2020  EU 
R&I  programme,  to  be  implemented  according  to 
the  latter’s  main  principles  but  with  a  geographical 
rationale. The option of using structural funds for par-
ticipating  in  transnational  R&I  co-funded  activities 
should be made easy. 

At the same time, building on the Horizon 2020 expe-
rience,  the  future  EU  R&I  programme  should  have 
a  ring-fenced  amount  to  “spread  excellence  and 
widen participation”. The resources, in this ring-fenced 
amount of the post-2020 EU R&I programme, should 
be used to assist regions in setting up transnational, 
mission-like smart specialisation strategies that com-
plement or support the R&I programme’s objectives.

Structural Funds should also be deployed in a much 
more  flexible  and  simple  way  in  order  to  fund  –
under the Seal of Excellence scheme18 – proposals 
evaluated under the R&I programme calls but not 
funded due to a lack of resources. 

None  of  this  will  work  without  conducive  EU  State 
Aid rules. The current State Aid rules are perceived 
as  insufficiently  innovation-friendly.  While  designed 
to avoid unfair competition within the single mar-
ket,  they  should  not  act  as  a  barrier  to  strategic 
investments  which  correspond  to  EU  priorities  and 
are  carried  out  through  projects  selected  through 

17)  A policy process that aims to boost innovation within EU regions 
and promote efficient public investment in R&I. EU regions focus 
on their strengths in research and innovation by establishing a 
strategy for smart specialisation, which is a condition to receive 
Structural Funds support via the European Regional Development 
Fund. For further information, see: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/re-
search-topic/smart-specialisation.

18)  The Seal of Excellence scheme, launched in 2015, is a quality 
label recognising proposals submitted to Horizon 2020 calls 
which were evaluated as high-quality but were not funded due 
to lack of available budget. The holder of a Seal of Excellence 
can approach other sources of funding (regional, national, 
private, public) with this quality label.

17

EU-level competition. State aid exemptions should 
–  under  pre-defined  conditions  –  be  extended  to 
transnational  smart  specialisation  strategies  which 
act as R&I missions of common European interest. 

At  the  same  time,  the  EU  should  work  with  inter-
national  partners  to  create  a  global  level  playing 
field with regard to public support to private sector 
R&I. The EU should aim at building converging and 
open state aid regimes with our main trading part-
ners that stimulate R&I investment without distorting 
competition. A well-resourced post-2020 EU R&I pro-
gramme  entirely  open  to  international  participation 
will increase the strength of this argument. 

Action: cut the number of R&I funding schemes 
and  instruments,  make  those  remaining  rein-
force  each  other  and  make  synergy  with  other 
programmes work. 

7. Simplify further

Within  the  EU  funding  programmes  landscape, 
Horizon 2020 has achieved remarkable simplifica-
tion. It has made access to the programme easier, 
reduced  costs  for  applicants  and  made  the  pro-
gramme more attractive. 

The drive for simplification should continue: for the 
EU  budget  overall,  for  the  EU  R&I  programme,  as 
well as for programmes at national level.

Call documents should become much simpler, easy to 
find, easy to read and easy to respond to. The Parti-
cipant Portal website should function as a one-stop-
shop for all steps from application to final reporting, 
covering  all  R&I  initiatives  across  the  EU  budget. 
Do cumentation  (including  grant  agreements)  should 
be  kept  to  a  minimum;  their  simplification  should 
result from co-design with researchers and innovators. 

Priority should be given to increasing flexibility within 
the calls for proposals. In those calls, applicants should 
not only be given the choice of the instrument for their 
proposal  but  also  a  choice  between  cost-based  or 
lump-sum  funding  for  their  project,  with  payment 
against  fulfilment  of  activities.  The  latter  will  elimi-
nate the need for cost reporting, timesheets, financial 
audits and deliver on the objectives of an EU Budget 
Focused on Results19. Novel ways of proposal evalua-
tion and selection should be explored that accelerate 
the process and that take better account of off-main-
stream ideas and of less well-known actors. 

Administrative  processes  along  the  entire  project 
life-cycle, including amendments, should be simplified 
and  streamlined  across  the  programme.  Consortia 
should have the flexibility, within the existing project 
budget, to easily adapt work plans and composition 
of research teams to new developments and oppor-
tunities. Non-performing projects should be stopped. 

To  further  reduce  the  burden  for  beneficiaries  of 
EU-funded  R&I  projects,  the  Commission  should 
accept  usual  accounting  practices  of  the  bene-
ficiaries.  Reporting  obligations  should  be  kept  to 
a  minimum,  and  be  weighed  against  the  need  to 
have continuous and real-time data on the results 
and impacts of projects. 

In  order  to  reduce  the  audit  burden,  the  obliga-
tion  to  provide  representative  ‘error  rates’  for  the 
programme should be dropped. Audits should only 
be carried out when there is a suspicion of fraud or 
serious financial wrongdoing on a project.

Further simplification can be achieved through bet-
ter  alignment  of  national  programmes  among 
each  other  and  with  the  EU  programme,  in  line 
with recommendation 9. Member States should be 

19)  Launched in 2015, this is an initiative designed to maximise 

the EU’s investments in support of growth, jobs and stability in 
Europe and beyond. For further details, see: http://ec.europa.eu/
budget/budget4results/index_en.cfm.

18

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTencouraged to use the same evaluation processes 
and implementation rules for national funding pro-
grammes,  progressively  leading  to  similar  proce-
dures governing R&I programmes across Europe.

EU-level missions to choose. The same goes for the 
programme’s  implementation  through  co-designing 
research and innovation agendas and taking part in 
developing and testing new solutions. 

Citizens should also be actively involved in meas-
uring progress towards the fulfilment of missions, 
including stirring public debate on how to interpret, 
value and share progress. 

Crowdsourcing of ideas and funds for all types of 
innovation  should  become  an  integral  part  of  the 
future EU R&I programme, particularly in the context 
of missions that have a societal vocation.

Maximum use should be made of social media. Virtual 
‘Groups of 1000 citizens’ (G1000)22, for example, could 
give an opinion on new missions, even going as far as 
allowing for an open process of defining certain parts 
of the calls for proposals. Potential users or beneficiar-
ies of envisaged new solutions could be encouraged 
to provide real-time feedback and suggestions. 

Whenever possible, citizen science should be encour-
aged, where citizens become providers and users of 
data.  This  will  reinforce  and  give  new  meaning  to 
the policy of open access to publications and data; 
this  openness  should  enable  citizens  and  citizen 
groups  to  participate  in  evidence-based  policy  and 
decision-making.  This  could  give  rise  to  new  types 
of partnerships, such a “P4P”s or “P4.0s” where “peo-
ple” are working together with the public and private 
sector.  This  could  be  systemically  implemented  on 
European, national and regional levels.

Action:  stimulate  co-design  and  co-creation 
through citizen involvement.

Action: be the most attractive R&I funder in the 
world, privileging impact over process. 

8. Mobilise and involve citizens 

Investing  in  R&I  is  crucial  for  shaping  our  future. 
EU R&I programmes stimulate co-creation through 
cross-border  collaborations  and  collaborations 
between different sectors. 

Drawing  on  national  examples  such  as  Nesta20, 
the future EU R&I programme should aim to become 
the  biggest  co-created  and  co-creation  pro-
gramme in the world. Countries like the Netherlands 
and Denmark have carried out successful initiatives 
of involving citizens in the R&I agenda-setting, which 
can serve as sources of inspiration21.

Fully mobilising and involving stakeholders, end-us-
ers and citizens in the post-2020 EU R&I programme, 
for  instance  in  defining  its  missions,  will  not  only 
increase the degree of co-creation, it will also maxim-
ise its impact and stimulate a stronger demand for 
innovative products and services as well as a better 
grasp of social changes. This will bring open science 
and open innovation to the next level and turn Europe 
into a continental living innovation lab. 

The EU R&I programme should provide incentives for 
stakeholders and end-users to participate more widely 
in its multi-annual programming, for example through 
identifying, debating and possibly even deciding which 

20) See: http://www.nesta.org.uk.
21)  See: http://www.wetenschapsagenda.nl/national-science-agen-

da/?lang=en and: www.cimulact.eu.

22) http://www.g1000.org/en/.

19

vision on alignment, one based on clear direction 
of  the  missions  the  EU  wants  to  accomplish  and 
on  a  clear  division  of  labour  between  the  EU  and 
national policy levels – where each focuses on its 
core tasks and where it can add most value. EU R&I 
programmes should focus on topics and objectives 
with high EU added value, beyond specific national 
priorities and interests.

EU  Member  States  should  develop  multi-an-
nual  national  R&I  strategies  outlining  priorities 
for  national  R&I  investments  and  their  alignment 
with the EU R&I programme. These should also be 
aligned to broader EU socio-economic goals, as laid 
out in the EU Annual Growth Survey. These national 
R&I  strategies  should  be  subject  to  EU-supported 
international peer review. 

The EU should limit its co-investment in partnerships 
with  Member  States  to  those  which  help  achieve 
the  EU’s  missions  and  have  a  high  degree  of  EU 
added  value.  A  simplified  and  flexible  co-funding 
mechanism should be established to this end, with 
lead  agencies  specialising  in  their  implementation. 
The  EU  contribution  should  maximise  the  leverage 
of national and private investments. The proportion 
of national and EU contributions should be defined 
according to the mission in question. Conditions and 
rules for launching joint calls for proposals should be 
light-touch and not defined in advance by the EU.

Action: ensure EU and national alignment where it 
adds value to the EU’s R&I ambitions and missions.

9.  Better align EU and national 

R&I investment

The achievement of a European Research Area – 
a unified area in which researchers and innovators, 
scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely 
– is enshrined in the EU’s Treaty as part of the EU’s 
objective to strengthen its scientific and technolog-
ical  bases.  It  is  fundamental  to  the  EU’s  research 
and innovation ambitions. 

The  European  Research  Area  does  not  mean 
that  EU  and  Member  States  do  the  same  thing. 
Complementarity should prevail. 

Member States should invest smartly and sustain-
ably in R&I at national level, focusing investments 
on  building  human  capital  and  infrastructures  for 
R&I  and  prioritising  those  areas  where  they  are 
strongest. They should contribute to the European 
Research Area by continuously increasing the per-
formance of their funding and by promoting open 
science  and  open  innovation.  The  EU’s  regulatory 
and policy framework should contribute to making 
the Area open, effective and efficient. 

The  post-2020  EU  R&I  programme  should  act  as 
a common strategic reference agenda for all R&I 
investments  in  Europe.  It  should  concentrate  its 
resources  on  where  its  added  value  is  greatest, 
mainly  through  fostering  transnational  collabo-
ration  and  competition  and  taking  advantage  of 
economies  of  scale,  speed  and  scope  to  achieve 
breakthrough, disruptive innovation. 

The alignment of national and EU R&I investments 
has, for many years, been a cornerstone of the Euro-
pean Research Area. Yet it is increasingly clear that 
the  complex  set  of  funding  schemes  and  instru-
ments  designed  to  provide  R&I  support  creates 
a substantial cost for coordination. It risks making 
alignment a goal in itself rather than a means to 
an  end.  The  Group  proposes  a  new  and  simpler 

20

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTA  step-change  would  be  to  open  the  EU  R&I  pro-
gramme  to  association  by  trading  partners  of 
a similar level of excellence, such as Canada or Aus-
tralia. Association of non-EU countries to future EU 
R&I programmes should be governed by excellence 
in R&I, not confined to a particular part of the world. 
This  will  make  the  EU  programme  the  potential 
nucleus of a global programme for open science and 
open innovation, exporting good regulatory practices 
and improving international trading and investment 
conditions. It will be an expression of the EU’s ambi-
tion to harness globalisation through collaboration 
in  science  and  innovation,  thus  helping  to  address 
the negative aspects of globalisation. 

Whatever  Brexit  modalities  are  agreed  between 
the  UK  and  the  EU  by  2019,  full  and  continued 
engagement  with  the  UK  within  the  post-2020 
EU R&I programme remains an obvious win-win for 
the UK and the EU. The UK has one of the strongest 
science bases of all European countries. A positive 
cooperation  model  (e.g.,  based  on  mutual  invest-
ment) should be established, so that the UK remains 
part of the European Research Area. 

Action: open up the R&I programme to associa-
tion by the best and participation by all, based on 
reciprocal co-funding or access to funding in the 
partner country.

10.  Make international R&I co-

operation a trademark of EU 
research and innovation

Access  to  talent,  knowledge,  ideas  and  markets 
across the globe is one of the positive sides of glo-
balisation23.  Europe  should  organise  itself  better 
to benefit from this. 

International cooperation in R&I is fundamental to 
make this a reality. Using the Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals to frame large-scale R&I missions 
will stimulate and steer international R&I coopera-
tion on common global challenges. Europe should 
continuously invite the rest of the world to collab-
orate in research and innovation; and dedicate the 
means to this end. 

Horizon 2020 mainstreams funding for international 
cooperation throughout the programme. Contrary to 
its  predecessor  programme,  it  excludes  a  number 
of third countries24 such as Brazil, Russia, India and 
China from its funding. Participation by such partners 
has dropped noticeably compared to the past. 

In the post-2020 EU R&I programme, international 
cooperation  should  be  stimulated  through  one 
centralised fund, acting as a reserve which can be 
mobilised in order to undertake international coop-
eration activities within its different pillars. 

To become even more open to the world, the post-
2020  R&I  programme  should  encourage  and  sup-
port all international partners in as far as they help 
realise  its  missions,  on  the  condition  of  reciprocal 
co-funding or access to funding in the partner country. 

23)  See the recent European Commission reflection paper on 

Harnessing Globalisation – one of the five papers that follow 
the White Paper on the Future of Europe.  

24)  Countries which are not EU Member States, nor associated to 

the Horizon 2020 programme. See the current list of associated 
countries here: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/
ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/3cpart/h2020-hi-list-ac_en.pdf.

21

Communication on relevance and impacts to cit-
izens will be improved by moving from individual 
success  stories  to  portfolio  analysis,  reporting 
on mission achievement rather than on only indi-
vidual project successes. The Commission should 
develop  ways  and  means  to  derive  intelligence 
and results in real time from EU-funded research 
in response to EU policy needs. 

A  consistent  and  unique  branding  of  the  pro-
gramme  should  ensure  the  wide  and  global  vis-
ibility  of  EU  investment  and  activity  in  research 
and innovation. 

Beneficiaries  of  EU  R&I  funding  should  become 
principal  communicators  on  impact  –  they  must 
be sure that what they do is responsive and respon-
sible to society at large. Communicating on science 
should become part of researchers’ career and their 
reward  system.  A  communication  strategy  should 
be part of the proposal requirements and followed 
through at each milestone. Stories to be told should 
be accessible to non-scientists. Beneficiaries should 
be  incentivised  to  report  on  impacts,  for  instance 
by making the reports of the beneficiaries publicly 
available and showcasing the most impactful.

The  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  Member 
States,  should  develop  a  common  action  plan 
and exchange of best practices on how to make 
science  and  citizens  talk.  An  on-line  “EU  Univer-
sity”  can  provide  a  platform  for  top  EU-supported 
researchers  or  innovators  to  give  brief  lectures, 
responding to R&I-related questions from citizens. 

Action:  brand  EU  research  and  innovation  and 
ensure  wide  communication  of  its  results  and 
impacts.

11.  Better capture and  

communicate impacts

The  post-2020  EU  R&I  programme  needs  a  defi-
nition  of  impact  beyond  GDP  that  captures  for 
instance impact on science, skills and competences, 
competitiveness  of  European  industry,  innovation 
practices,  performance  of  Member  States,  and  on 
policy-making. 

At  the  design  stage  of  the  post-2020  EU  R&I 
programme,  a  comprehensive  and  centralised 
monitoring and programme evaluation system 
is  needed,  based  on  a  streamlined  set  of  indi-
cators  differentiating  between  the  different  pil-
lars and specifying what can be captured short, 
medium and long term. 

In  order  to  minimise  reporting  burdens  for  bene-
ficiaries,  the  Commission  should  rely  as  much  as 
possible  on  automated  data  collection  systems 
and  seek  innovative  ways  for  tracking  project 
results and the mobility and career development of 
EU-funded researchers and innovators. 

The  EU  R&I  programme  should  be  big  on  big 
data. Data will be the fuel of science and innova-
tion in the 21st century. Data from publicly-funded 
research should be easily accessible and re-usable 
across disciplines with due protection of  partners’ 
legitimate interests, especially intellectual property. 
The European Open Science Cloud should foster the 
emergence of an ecosystem of new data services 
and technologies. 

The Commission should work with Member States 
to develop a system to measure the impacts of EU 
R&I programmes at national level in a comparable 
way,  with  an  agreed  core  set  of  impact  indicators 
that everybody will use. The EU and Member States 
should  aim  to  deploy  commonly  accepted  econo-
metric  models  to  measure  the  macro-economic 
impact of both EU and national R&I programmes.

22

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTANNEX 1

Mandate of the High Level Group

The High Level Group (HLG) shall formulate a vision 
for  future  EU  Research  and  Innovation  (R&I)  and 
draw  strategic  recommendations  on  maximising 
the impact of EU R&I programmes in the future, i.e. 
how to fulfil that vision. It will produce to this effect 
a report of 15 to 20 pages by end of June 2017. 

While  the  HLG’s  report  will  be  addressed  to  the 
European Commission, the wider audience for the 
report  will  be  the  EU  institutions  as  well  as  the 
broad range of stakeholders involved in current and 
future  EU  R&I  as  part  of  the  European  Research 
Area and beyond. 

The full mandate of the HLG is contained in Commis-
sion Decision C(2016) 5871 final of 21 September 
2016, which can be found online here:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/
archive/h2020_evaluations/tor_hlg_h2020_
interim_evaluation.pdf#view=fit&pagemod-
e=none

The Group is set up in the context of the Interim Eval-
uation  of  Horizon  2020,  which  is  currently  carried 
out by Commission Services. The HLG’s work will be 
grounded in the results of the evaluation (i.e. rele-
vance,  coherence,  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  EU 
added value) as they become available. It will also 
be  informed  by  the  economic  rationale  for  invest-
ments in R&I, as well as by R&I foresight. It may take 
into account other input it considers appropriate.

The focus of the HLG’s vision and recommendations 
for future EU investments in R&I will be excellence, 
openness  and  impact  and  how  to  maximise  their 
impact as part of future R&I policy and programming 
at EU level. 

The  HLG  report  will  influence  the  programming  of 
the 2018 – 2020 work programme of Horizon 2020 
(with more than €30 billion to programme) and will 
set the scene for a public and political debate on R&I 
in the Multiannual Financial Framework post-2020.

23

ANNEX 2

Consultations with stakeholders

The following European stakeholder organisations 
participated in meetings of the High Level Group: 

▶ Business Europe 
 ▶ Committee of the Regions
 ▶  European Alliance for Social Sciences  

and Humanities Research

 ▶  European Association of Craft, Small  

and Medium-Sized Enterprises

 ▶  European Association of Research & Technology 

Organisations

 ▶  European Climate Foundation, Industrial  
Innovation for Competitiveness Initiative
 ▶ European Economic and Social Committee
 ▶  European Industrial Research Management 

Association

 ▶ European Network of Innovation Agencies
 ▶  European Regions Research and Innovation Network
 ▶ European Start-up Network
 ▶ European Trade Union Confederation
 ▶ European University Association
 ▶ Science Europe

The following individuals participated in meetings 
of the High Level Group:

 ▶  Patrick Aebischer, President Emeritus, École 

Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

 ▶  Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, President, European 

Research Council

 ▶  Koenraad Debackere, Executive Director  

for Research and Development, Katholieke  
Universiteit Leuven

 ▶  Marjolein Helder, Founder and Chief Executive 
Officer of Plant-e, and Member of the High  
Level Group of Innovators

 ▶  Peter Olesen, Chairman of the Governing Board, 
European Institute of Innovation and Technology

 ▶  Kinga Stanisławska, Managing Director and 

Founder of Experior Venture Fund, and Member 
of the High Level Group of Innovators

The High Level Group received written input from 
a number of organisations, such as:

 ▶ Academia Europaea
 ▶  Association of European Research 
Establishments in Aeronautics 
 ▶ Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
 ▶ Cancer Research UK
 ▶ ETH Zurich and University of Zurich
 ▶ European Brain Council
 ▶ European Research Council Scientific Council
 ▶  The European Organisation for Nuclear  

Research (CERN)

 ▶ Government of Portugal
 ▶ Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana
 ▶ Norwegian University Rectors

The High Level Group interacted with the following 
EU institutional actors: 

European  Parliament  –  Members  of  the  European 
Parliament  Soledad  Cabezon  Ruiz,  Christian  Ehler, 
Barbara Kudrycka and Lieve Wierinck attended part 
of a High Level Group meeting. 

Council  of  the  EU  –  Pascal  Lamy  visited  the 
COREPER  I  committee,  consisting  of  the  Deputy 
Permanent Representatives of EU Member States. 

European Commission – the High Level Group and 
its members interacted, within a number of differ-
ent  meetings,  with  Vice  President  Jyrki  Katainen 
(Jobs,  Growth,  Investment  and  Competitiveness) 
and Commissioners Violeta Bulc (Transport), Miguel 
Arias Cañete (Climate Action & Energy), Corina Crețu 
(Regional  Policy),  Phil  Hogan  (Agriculture  &  Rural 
Development), Julian King (Security Union), Günther 
H.  Oettinger  (Budget  and  Human  Resources)  and 
Margrethe  Vestager  (Competition).  Carlos  Moedas 
(Commissioner  for  Research,  Science  and  Innova-
tion) attended a part of the meetings of the Group. 

24

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTANNEX 3

Summary of 3 building blocks for 
High Level Group report

1) Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020 

Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Executive 
Summary  of  the  Interim  Evaluation  of  Horizon 
2020, 30 May 2017

Horizon  2020  was  designed  to  drive  economic 
growth  and  create  jobs  by  coupling  research  and 
innovation  (R&I),  with  an  emphasis  on  excellent 
science, industrial leadership and tackling societal 
challenges. The general objective is to contribute to 
the EU’s overarching jobs and growth strategy by: 
helping to build a society and an economy based 
on knowledge and innovation across the Union; by 
leveraging  additional  research,  development  and 
innovation funding; and by contributing to attaining 
R&I targets, including the target of 3 % of GDP for 
R&I across the Union by 2020. 

This  evaluation  assesses  Horizon  2020’s  current 
progress  towards  its  objectives.  The  findings  will 
contribute to the last Work Programme for 2018 
–  2020,  will  provide  the  evidence-base  for  the 
report  of  the  High  Level  Expert  Group  on  maxi-
mizing  the  impact  of  EU  Research  and  Innova-
tion  programmes  and  will  inform  the  design  of 
future  Framework  Programmes.  An  interim  eval-
uation,  when  the  first  projects  have  only  started 
three years ago, has obvious limitations. Science 
and  innovation  are  long  term  and  risky  endeav-
ours  creating  impact  that  can  only  very  partially 
be captured after such a short period. A monitor-
ing system with indicators to systematically track 
impact  (in  particular  for  societal  challenges)  is 
found to be wanting. No similar programmes exist 
to benchmark progress. 

Nevertheless,  the  interim  evaluation  finds  that  the 
Programme’s  original  rationale  for  intervention  and 
its  objectives  and  challenges  identified  at  the  pro-
gramme launch are still highly relevant also in light 
of new political priorities. The EU still spends too lit-
tle on R&I (the 3 % R&D expenditure target has not 
been met and Horizon 2020 only represents a small 
proportion  of  the  total  public  R&D  spending  in  the 
EU)  and  the  innovation  gap  with  key  competitors 
still  exists,  even  though  performance  is  improving. 
Horizon  2020  supports  cutting  edge  research  and 
technological  developments  and  has  allowed  for 
fast  reactions  to  important  developments  like  the 
Ebola  outbreak  and  the  migration  surge.  But  the 
right  balance  still  has  to  be  found  between  being 
too prescriptive or not prescriptive enough to be able 
to swiftly capture disruptive technologies and busi-
ness innovations. The relevance of the programme 
is shown by the sustained interest in its highly com-
petitive calls: more than 30 000 proposals were sub-
mitted per year (compared to 20 000 for FP7), a third 
of which from newcomers. Still, more can be done 
to bring R&I closer to the public and further improve 
relevance  and  impact.  The  translation  and  linking 
of the high-level objectives into work programmes, 
calls, and projects could be made more systematic, 
transparent and participatory. 

The  externalisation  of  the  most  resource-inten-
sive parts of the programme to Executive Agencies 
increased efficiency compared to FP7. It helped keep 
the  administrative  expenditure  below  the  target  of 
5 %  of  the  budget.  Simplification  measures  have 
greatly improved operations, notably on the time-to-
grant (on average 192 days, 100 days faster than in 
FP7). More specific feedback to applicants would fur-
ther  improve  the  evaluation  procedure.  The  attrac-
tiveness of the Programme led to very low success 
rates  (11.6 %  compared  to  18.5 %  in  FP7),  leaving 
some parts strongly underfunded. An additional EUR 
62.4 billion would have been needed to fund all the 
high-quality  proposals  evaluated.  Horizon  2020’s 

25

focus  on  excellence  leads  to  a  high  concentration 
of  funding  (both  in  terms  of  participants  and  geo-
graphical representation). Even though Horizon 2020 
is open to world and has a broad international out-
reach through a number of multilateral initiatives the 
level of funding of participants from third countries 
has decreased compared to FP7. 

Looking  at  effectiveness,  early  evidence  at  this 
very early stage of implementation indicates that 
progress is being made towards delivering on all 
Horizon 2020 objectives. Horizon 2020 is produc-
ing  world-class  excellence  in  science  through  for 
example the creation of multi-disciplinary interna-
tional networks, training and mobility of research-
ers  and  the  creation  of  research  infrastructures. 
Support  to  innovation  and  industrial  leadership 
has  been  effective  with  some  early  results  on 
company  growth,  additional  funding  leveraged 
and  innovations  brought  to  the  market.  Horizon 
2020 is already generating outputs that contrib-
ute  to  tackling  societal  challenges.  However,  the 
programme  falls  behind  the  expenditure  target 
for sustainable development and climate change. 
Horizon 2020 is making progress, albeit slowly, in 
spreading  excellence  and  widening  participation 
and is making slight progress compared to FP7 in 
generating science with and for society. 

Even though Horizon 2020 only represents a small 
proportion  of  total  public  R&D  spending  in  the 
EU,  macroeconomic  models  estimate  significant 
socio-economic impact from Horizon 2020 (in the 
order of over EUR 400 billion gained by 2030). 

However,  a  number  of  factors  may  impede  full 
effectiveness  in  terms  of  market  uptake:  techno-
logical and regulatory obstacles, lack of standards 
and access to finance, as well as lack of customer 
acceptance  of  new  solutions.  Also,  while  support-
ing established innovators, the programme has not 
yet been able to reach out to young, fast-growing 
companies. As currently designed, it is not able to 

identify and support new innovators that are devel-
oping breakthrough solutions at the intersection of 
different sectors and technologies, or that are capa-
ble of creating new markets and have the potential 
to scale up rapidly. 

Horizon  2020,  with  its  three  pillars,  has  a  more 
coherent structure than FP7; the use of focus areas 
to  promote  interdisciplinary  solutions  to  multiple 
societal  challenges  is  particularly  supported  by 
stakeholders.  However,  a  large  number  of  instru-
ments  make  the  landscape  for  EU  R&I  support 
difficult to navigate and may lead to less coherent 
interventions. A stronger focus on higher Technology 
Readiness Levels in some parts of the Programme 
creates concerns of diverting resources away from 
preparing  future  breakthrough  innovations,  albeit 
longer-termed ones. Despite initiatives being taken 
to  reinforce  synergies  with  other  EU  funds,  nota-
bly the European Structural and Innovation Funds, 
further  coherence  is  hampered  by  the  different 
intervention logics and complexity of the different 
funding and other rules such as State Aid rules. The 
Public-to-Public Partnerships supported by Horizon 
2020 co-funding are building lasting collaborations 
but appear not to have been influential on Member 
States’ policies and strategies. 

Horizon  2020  produces  demonstrable  benefits 
compared  to  national  and  regional-level  support 
to R&I in terms of scale, speed and scope, notably 
through the creation of cross-border, multidiscipli-
nary  networks;  pooling  of  resources  and  creating 
critical  mass  to  tackle  global  challenges.  It  thus 
increases the EU’s attractiveness as a place to carry 
out research. Stakeholders find that Horizon 2020 
has  higher  added  value  than  other  programmes. 
The programme’s additionality (i.e. not displacing or 
replacing national funding) is very strong (83 % of 
projects would not have gone ahead without Hori-
zon 2020 funding). The strong and direct pan-Euro-
pean competition guarantees the EU added value 

26

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTof single beneficiary programme parts, like the SME 
Instrument  and  the  European  Research  Council. 
The latter is now a beacon of scientific excellence 
across the world.

2)  The Economic Rationale for Public R&I Funding 

and its Impact

Paper  published  by  the  European  Commission’s 
Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation, 
January  2017.  Available  at:  https://bookshop.
europa.eu/en/the-economic-rationale-for-public-
r-i-funding-and-its-impact-pbKI0117050/. 

Research  and  Innovation  (R&I)  are  key  drivers  of 
productivity and economic growth as demonstrated 
by  ample  empirical  evidence.  Firms  and  econo-
mies achieve large and significant returns on these 
investments, which also create new and better jobs. 
The  importance  of  R&I  increases  even  further  as 
our  economies  become  more  knowledge-based 
and intensive in intangible assets. 

R&I  investments  are  of  course  also  crucial  to 
address  key  societal  challenges  and  improve 
well-being.  They  contribute  to  better  health  out-
comes, the fight against climate change, and more 
inclusive  and  resilient  societies.  Therefore,  a  full 
understanding  the  impacts  of  R&I  needs  to  con-
sider  both  the  economic  impacts  and  the  social 
impacts that support higher levels of well-being. 
A number of market failures are directly linked to 
investment decisions in R&I. High risks, sunk costs, 
market  uncertainty,  lack  of  full  appropriability  of 
results,  or  unavailability  of  funding,  all  induce 
underinvestment  in  R&I  below  what  is  socially 
desirable. To maximise the spillovers that the cre-
ation and diffusion of knowledge generates, public 
funding for R&I is needed. 

At  the  same  time,  we  should  not  lose  sight  of 
the fact that the rationale for public R&I funding 
is  evolving.  Innovation  dynamics  are  changing 
big  time.  Digitalisation,  artificial  intelligence  and 

robotics  grow  exponentially,  big  data  analytics 
changes our approach to business, science is more 
and more open and inter-disciplinary, and “winner 
takes most” competition can make a small num-
ber of highly profitable firms drive market shares 
to a considerable extent. 

Celerity  of  change,  increased  complexity  and 
higher concentration of benefits in key innovators 
radically influence the impacts of R&I investments 
and  can  lead  to  “negative  externalities”  in  the 
form  of  extraordinary  network  and  scale  effects, 
erosion  of  human  capital,  and  fast  and  creative 
destruction. All these phenomena affect -and are 
affected by- the impact of R&I investments. 

Public  R&I  funding  should  therefore  address  the 
needs  of  fundamental  research  while  equally  sup-
port market-creating disruptive innovation, and strike 
a  balance  between  cooperation  and  competition. 
Increasingly,  well-functioning  markets  and  smart 
regulations that avoid market fragmentation and the 
production of skilled human capital and appropriate 
financing affect R&I decisions and their capacity to 
impact on productivity and economic growth. 

The  benefits  of  public  R&I  funding  have  been 
extensively  researched  and  are  generally  pos-
itive  according  to  a  number  of  meta-analyses. 
Nonetheless, capturing the whole breadth of R&I 
benefits  is  a  complex  operation  and  significant 
challenges  to  that  measurement  are  linked  to 
the intangible and changing nature of innovation. 
More robust evidence is therefore needed. 

As  regards  EU  public  R&I  funding,  the  economic 
impacts  of  FP7  have  been  estimated  to  be  very 
large  and  significant.  Further  work  is  needed  to 
measure  the  impact  of  public  supranational  R&I 
investments.  The  interim  evaluation  of  Horizon 
2020, the EU R&I funding programme 2014-2020, 
and the ex-ante evaluation of the successor to Hori-
zon 2020, will shed additional light on this issue. 

27

The meta-scenarios look at the context of EU R&I 
interventions, as it is shaped by global megatrends 
and  the  transitions  required  for  sustainability, 
in particular in relation to the Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals of Agenda 2030. 

Two types of scenario are used to illustrate these 
transitions:

 ▶  ‘perseverance  scenarios’  where  current  trends 

persevere leading to crises;

 ▶ ‘ change  scenarios’,  in  which  Europe  leads  the 

transition to ‘the future we want’.

 A number of key messages emerge from the sce-
narios report: 

 ▶  R&I  investment  is  key  for  a  strong  Europe  in 
turbulent times. Investment in R&I enables us 
to be in charge of our future. 

 ▶  The  acceleration  of  change  and  the  systemic 
nature  of  the  challenges  require  flexibility  for 
experimentation  and  learning  from  the  best  as 
well  as  connecting  disciplines  and  connecting 
policies.

 ▶  Options  are  needed  before  crises  strike.  To 
best  develop  options,  R&I  needs  direction  (to 
create  the  conditions  for  future  markets),  but 
also openness and flexibility (for the markets to 
emerge) and global cooperation in order to help 
solve global problems through global markets.

 ▶  Getting  the  governance  and  regulation  right  is 
paramount.  Appropriate  governance 
involves 
openness, inclusiveness and fairness as guiding 
principles.  Cities  are  a  key  level  of  governance; 
R&I policy should make them play an active role. 
Public  engagement  and  innovation-conducive 
regulation will make the difference.

To  sum  up,  the  economic  impacts  of  public  R&I 
funding are large and significant. Public R&I policy is 
justified by market failures, positive spill-overs and 
negative  externalities.  These  impacts  are  directly 
affected by: (1) Adequate investments from funda-
mental research to market-creating and disruptive 
innovation,  (2)  Improved  framework  conditions  in 
support  of  innovation,  including  more  accessible 
and cost-efficient business support, (3) Responsive 
public R&I policy that adapts to the changing land-
scape of innovation creation and diffusion. 

3)  BOHEMIA, New Horizons: Foresight in Support 
of  the  Preparation  of  the  European  Union’s 
Future Policies in Research and Innovation

Study  carried  out  for  the  European  Commission’s 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, to 
be published in the second half of 2017. 

The BOHEMIA study, a foresight exercise launched 
by the European Commission in 2016, is develop-
ing  future  scenarios  for  the  different  contexts  of 
EU  R&I  policy.  It  is  gathering  views  of  experts  on 
future  technologies,  societal  issues,  R&I  practices 
and  their  likely  evolution  and  will  develop  policy 
recommendations. 

The project is divided into three phases: 

 ▶  Phase 1: Extensive review of available foresight 
to produce meta-scenarios relevant for Europe 
and deeper insights in topical fields (published 
in  June  2017  and  available  at:  https://ec.eu-
ropa.eu/research/foresight/index.cfm?pg=stra-
tegic#bohemia)

 ▶  Phase 2: Delphi survey to gain insights on future 
technologies,  societal  issues,  and  R&I  practices 
based on the scenarios (survey May June 2017, 
analysis of results ongoing)

 ▶  Phase 3: Analysis and policy recommendations 

(to be published in the last part of 2017)

28

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTANNEX 4

European added value of EU  
support to research and innovation

Without replacing national research and innovation 
(R&I)  activities,  EU  funded  R&I  activities  through 
the Framework Programmes produce demonstrable 
benefits  compared  to  national  and  regional-level 
support to research and innovation in terms of scale, 
speed and scope. The added value comes through 
– inter alia – strengthening the EU’s scientific excel-
lence  through  competitive  funding;  the  creation  of 
cross-border, multidisciplinary networks; the pooling 
of  resources  to  achieve  critical  mass  for  tackling 
global challenges, and developing the evidence-base 
to underpin policymaking. 

Overall,  this  increases  the  EU’s  global  attractive-
ness as a place to carry out research and innovation, 
strengthens the EU’s competitiveness, contributes to 
growth and jobs25 and makes the EU a world leader 
in tackling global challenges. Therefore, EU research 
and innovation should be “one of the essential policy 
priorities in the future”26.

EU support to research and innovation:

 ▶  Strengthens  the  EU’s  scientific  excellence 
through competitive funding – Excellence-based 
EU-wide  competition  increases  the  quality  and 
visibility  of  the  research  and  innovation  output 
beyond what is possible with national or regional 
level competition. This is shown by the fact that 
EU-funded  peer-reviewed  research  publications 
are  cited  more  than  twice  the  world  average. 
Publications  from  EU  funded  R&I  activities  are 
almost four times more represented in the world’s 
top  1 %  of  cited  research  compared  with  the 
overall publication output of the 28 EU Member 
States.27 Compared to 1.7 % of national publica-
tions, 7 % of European Research Council publica-
tions (973, since its creation in 2007) are among 
the top 1 % highly cited in the world by field, year 
of publication and type of publication28. 

 ▶  Creates critical mass to address global chal-
lenges  –  Collaborative  projects  funded  at  EU 
level  will  help  to  achieve  the  “critical  mass” 
required  for  breakthroughs  when  research 
activities  are  of  such  a  scale  and  complexity 
that  no  single  Member  State  can  provide  the 
necessary  financial  or  personnel  resources”. 
This occurs where a large research capacity is 
needed  and  resources  must  be  pooled  to  be 
effective,  or  where  there  is  a  strong  require-
ment for complementary knowledge and skills 
(e.g.  in  highly  inter-disciplinary  fields).  Invest-
ing  in  research  and  innovation  at  EU  level 
will  address  global  challenges  (e.g.  migration, 

25)  Macro-economic modelling suggests that by 2030, the extra 
impacts of investing EUR 70 billion in R&I at EU level is 
expected to generate between 0.27 % and 0.35 % more GDP, 
to increase EU net exports by between EUR 18 and 23 billion 
and to increase employment by between 110 000 and 179 
000 units compared to the reference scenario. Source: PPMI 
study, “Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic 
Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020)”, 
forthcoming.

26)  High Level Group Own Resources report, http://ec.europa.eu/
budget/mff/hlgor/library/reports-communication/hlgor-re-
port_20170104.pdf

27) Elsevier based on Field Weighted Citation Index.
28)  The European Research Council is recognised as a global brand 

synonymous with research excellence, with substantial structuring 
effects in the Member States. Four ERC grantees have been 
awarded the Fields Medal after being funded by the ERC. The ERC, 
MSCA and FET, together with collaborative research themes, have 
supported at least 17 Nobel Prize winners prior or after the award 
of their prize and Horizon 2020 beneficiaries have also contri-
buted to major scientific discoveries including the Higgs Boson at 
CERN, the detection of gravitational waves and the discovery of a 
planetary system composed of seven Earth-like worlds (exo-pla-
nets) located relatively close to Earth in 2017.

29

security,  climate  change,  health)  which  facili-
tates  finding  solutions  much  faster  and  more 
efficiently  compared  to  what  can  be  done  at 
national level.

 ▶  Reinforces the EU’s human capital – EU-funded 
R&I activities support human capital reinforce-
ment  through  mobility  and  training  which  pro-
vide  access  to  complementary  knowledge29. 
300 000-340 000 researchers in the EU Frame-
work  Programmes  teams  are  fully  or  at  least 
partly  involved  in  EU-funded  research  activi-
ties30. In the case of the Marie Skłodowska-Cu-
rie  Actions,  evidence  shows  that  the  research 
impact  of  internationally  mobile  researchers  is 
up to 20 % higher than the impact of those who 
opt to stay in their home country31.

 ▶  Builds  multidisciplinary 

transnational  net-
works  for  more  impact  –  EU  R&I  activities 
build cross-sectorial, inter-disciplinary, intra- and 
extra-European  research  and  innovation  net-
works which is key for bringing knowledge quickly 
to  market  and  gaining  industrial  leadership. 
Based  on  a  counterfactual  analysis,  EU-funded 
R&I teams had, on average, 13.3 collaborations 
versus  six  collaborations  in  the  control  group. 
The  beneficiary  teams  also  established  almost 
twice as many collaborations with partners from 
outside  the  EU  (on  average,  3.6  partners  from 
third countries versus 2.1 partners in the control 
group).32 This leads to more impact: for example, 

29)  Study on assessing the contribution of the Framework Pro-
grammes to the development of human research capacity: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_re-
ports_studies_and_documents/fp_hrc_study_final_report.pdf

30)  PPMI study, “Assessment of the Union Added Value and 

the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes (FP7, 
Horizon 2020)”, forthcoming.

31)  http://www.oecd.org/sti/Science-brief-scoreboard.pdf “Outflows 
tend to be associated with higher rated publications than their 
staying or returning counterparts. Assuming one could raise the 
performance of “stayers” to the level of their internationally 
mobile researchers […] this would help countries catch up with 
leading research nations.”

32) PPMI study, based on survey data.

30

Horizon 2020 publications including authors from 
associated and third countries score up to more 
than three times as much as the world average.33  

 ▶  Increasing  the  EU’s  competitive  advantage 
–  EU  R&I  activities  increase  the  competitive 
advantage of participants, for example through 
international  multi-disciplinary  networks,  the 
sharing  of  knowledge  and  technology  trans-
fer  and  access  to  new  markets.  According  to 
a  counterfactual  analysis,  EU  funded  R&I 
teams grow faster (11.8 % more)34. EU-funded 
R&I teams are around 40 % more likely to be 
granted patents or produce patent applications 
compared  with  non-funded  teams.35  Further-
more,  patents  produced  in  the  context  of  EU 
Framework  Programmes  are  of  higher  quality 
and higher likely commercial value than similar 
patents produced elsewhere. 

 ▶  Creates  new  market  opportunities  through 
collaborative  multi-disciplinary  teams  and 
dissemination  of  results  –  Compared  to  the 
national  level,  EU  R&I  activities  involve  key 
industrial  players,  SMEs  and  end-users,  which 
reduces  commercial  risks,  for  example  through 
the  development  of  common  standards  and 
interoperable  solutions  and  by  defragmenting 
existing  markets.  EU  funded  collaborative  R&I 
activities  with  open  access  policies  enable  a 
more  rapid  and  wide  dissemination  of  results 
to  users,  industries,  firms  (SMEs  in  particular), 
citizens,  etc.  –  leading  to  a  better  exploitation 
and larger impact than would be possible only 
at Member State level.

33) Elsevier based on Field Weighted Citation Index.
34)  Average growth rate of 24.4 % in EU-funded teams  

compared with 12.6 % in the control group. 

35) PPMI study, based on survey data.

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANT ▶  Has  a  high  additionality  –  The  EU  invests  in 
distinctive  research  and  innovation  projects, 
which  are  unlike  those  funded  at  national  or 
regional level: the programme’s additionality (i.e. 
not  displacing  or  replacing  national  funding)  is 
very  strong  with,  on  average,  83 %  of  projects 
that would not have gone ahead without Horizon 
2020 funding39. 

 ▶  Strengthens the evidence-base for policy-mak-
ing  –  EU-funded  R&I  activities  have  an  impor-
tant role of supporting policy-making, which is for 
example illustrated by the results of EU funded 
projects related to antimicrobial resistance36 and 
EU-funded projects in the field of climate change 
which played a key role in developing and aggre-
gation  climate  change  models,  with  a  strong 
impact  at  the  International  Panel  on  Climate 
Change (IPCC). 

 ▶  Leverages  private  investment:  EU-funded  R&I 
activities induce the private sector to invest more 
of  their  own  funds.  A  counterfactual  analysis 
shows  a  24.6 %  difference  in  the  budget  lever-
age.37  Involving  key  EU  industry  players  helps 
ensure  that  research  results  and  solutions  are 
applicable across Europe and beyond, enables the 
development of EU- and worldwide standards and 
interoperable  solutions,  and  offers  the  potential 
for  exploitation  in  a  market  of  450  million  peo-
ple:  based  on  preliminary  data,  public-private 
partnerships are expected to attract between EUR 
0.90 and 2.17 from private actors per each EUR 
of  EU  funding  invested38.  Thanks  to  its  leverage 
effect, it is estimated through macro-econometric 
modelling that each EUR of EU investment in R&I 
would bring a GDP increase of between EUR 6 and 
8.5 between 2014 and 2030. 

36)  Several of these projects have allowed collaboration with policy 
makers, such as the European Medicines Agency and their 
results have had an effect on antibiotic stewardship policies 
and infection control policies .

37)  Beneficiary teams increased their R&D budgets by 22.4 %. The 
corresponding value for the non-FP teams was -2.2 %. PPMI 
study, based on survey data.

38)  Data provided by the Thematic Units responsible for the seven JUs.

39) PPMI study, study based on survey data.

31

The  growth  rate  between  both  averages  is  then 
computed. Similarly, the change in EU contribution 
between FP7 and Horizon 2020 is the growth rate 
between the yearly average EU contribution under 
FP7 and the yearly average under Horizon 2020.

Findings

All  EU  Member  States  are  positioned  in  terms  of 
change in GBARD and EU contribution between the 
Framework Programmes. Countries that are located 
on  the  left  side  of  the  graph  have  experienced 
budget cuts between the two periods, while coun-
tries on the right side have seen their national R&D 
budget increased. Countries in the upper part of the 
graph receive more funding from the EU in Horizon 
2020 than in FP7, while countries in the lower part 
receive less.

While  some  countries  present  simultaneously 
a  decrease  in  national  budget  for  R&D  and  an 
increase  in  EU  contribution  from  the  Framework 
Programmes,  this  result  is  not  systematic  for  all 
countries. 

Figure 1 shows a cluster of several countries that 
have  experienced  a  moderate  increase  of  both 
indicators, and even countries that have seen both 
funding measures increase strongly over the period. 

Overall, there is no direct evidence of overall crowd-
ing-out effect (i.e. many countries are not located in 
the upper left part of the graph).

ANNEX 5

Comparison of trends between 
national government budget 
allocations for R&D and EU 
contribution in FP7 and Horizon 
2020 by EU Member State

Objective

This exercise aims at assessing the extent to which 
statistical  evidence  potentially 
illustrates  that 
EU  funding  in  the  context  of  the  Framework  Pro-
grammes is substituting public funding for research 
at national and regional level.

Methodology

The two indicators that are examined are:

 ▶  The government budget allocations for 

research and development (GBARD, previously 
called GBAORD)40, which include budget from 
central and regional governments.

 ▶  The amounts of EU contribution in FP7 and 

Horizon 2020 (annualised)41.

The idea is to examine the extent to which budget 
increase  or  decrease  by  national  governments 
correlates  with  increase  or  decrease  of  EU  con-
tribution over the same period. Two time periods 
are  considered:  2007-2013  (the  duration  of  the 
FP7  programme)  and  2014-2016  (Horizon  2020 
to date).

To  measure  the  change  in  GBARD  between  both 
periods,  the  yearly  average  GBARD  is  calculated 
over  2007-2014  and  over  2014-2015  for  each 
Member State (2016 is not yet available for most 
Member States). 

40) Source : Eurostat.
41) Source : Corda.

32

LAB – FAB – APP – INVESTING IN THE EUROPEAN FUTURE WE WANTFigure 1: Change in GBARD and change in EU contribution between FP7 and H2020  
(size of circles: number of applications in Horizon 2020)

33

Change of yearly amount of EU contribution between FP7 and H2020GBARD change between yearly average over 2007-2013 and yearly average over 2014-2015National budget for R&Dhas increasedNational budget for R&Dhas decreasedAT BE BG HR CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE EL HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SK SI ES SE UK -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7  Strong increase in EU contribution between FP7 and Horizon 2020 and moderate decrease in national government spending for R&D over the same period Strong increase in EU contribution between FP7  and Horizon 2020 and strong increase in national government spending for R&D over the same period Moderate increase in EU contribution between FP7  and Horizon 2020 and moderate increase in national government spending for R&D over the same period Getting in touch with the EU

IN PERSON
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct Information Centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: http://europa.eu/contact

ON THE PHONE OR BY E-MAIL
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact

Finding information about the EU

ONLINE
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on 
the Europa website at: http://europa.eu

EU PUBLICATIONS
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at:  
http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained  
by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact)

EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

OPEN DATA FROM THE EU
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data) provides access to  
datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and 
non-commercial purposes.

The European Commission, through Carlos Moedas, 
Commissioner for research, science and innovation, invited 
us to draw up a vision and strategic recommendations 
to maximise the impact of future European Union (EU) 
research and innovation programme. 

This report is the result of the Group’s deliberations. 
The twelve of us brought different but complementary 
perspectives to research, innovation and education. 
These perspectives were grounded in personal experience 
with the policy, the practice or in many cases both. 

The Group agreed without difficulty on a number of core 
messages. Our main message, and vision, is that investing 
in research and innovation is increasingly crucial for shaping 
a better European future in a rapidly globalising world, 
where success depends ever more on the production and 
use of knowledge.

Studies and reports

K
I
-
0
1
-
1
7
-
7
3
5
-
E
N
-
N

ISBN 978-92-79-70571-7 
doi:10.2777/477357