Interim evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme.
Date: 2017-10-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, EU research policy, aid to undertakings, international cooperation, international market, market access, project evaluation, report, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises

Interim Evaluation of the  
Eurostars-2 Joint  
Programme  

Written by  
Expert Group Chair: Marcel Shaton 
Expert Group Members: Axel Lehmann, Eva Pando, Isella Vicini  
Expert Group Rapporteur: Michele Cincera 
June – 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim Evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme  

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate B — Open Innovation and Open Science 
Unit B.3 — SMEs, Financial Instruments and State Aid 
Contact   Maria KAYAMANIDOU, Laura PIANI 
E-mail   Maria.Kayamanidou@ec.europa.eu  
Laura.Piani@ec.europa.eu  
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Manuscript completed in June 2017. 

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be 
made of the following information. 

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
European Commission. 

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

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-79-72152-6 

doi: 10.2777/357102 

KI-02-17-984-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. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Interim Evaluation of the  

Eurostars-2 Joint  

Programme 

Written by 

Expert Group Chair: Marcel Shaton 

Expert Group Members: Axel Lehmann, Eva Pando, Isella Vicini  

Expert Group Rapporteur: Michele Cincera 

2017 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Eurostars-2 Joint Programme 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 4 

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7 

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation ..................................................................................... 7 
1.2 Scope of the evaluation ........................................................................................ 8 

2. CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 8 

2.1 Description of the initiative and its objectives .......................................................... 8 
2.2 Objectives of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme. .................................................... 10 
2.3 Baseline ........................................................................................................... 10 

3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................................................ 12 

3.1 Relevance and appropriateness ........................................................................... 12 
3.2 Efficiency and use of resources ........................................................................... 12 
3.3 Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 13 
3.4 Coherence ........................................................................................................ 14 
3.5 European Added Value ....................................................................................... 14 

4. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 14 

5. IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY ................................................................ 16 

5.1 Governance and Implementation ......................................................................... 16 
5.2 Project Portfolio ................................................................................................. 18 

6. RESPONSES TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS............................................... 31 

6.1 Relevance and appropriateness ........................................................................... 31 
6.2 Efficiency and use of resources ........................................................................... 33 
6.3 Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 36 
6.4 Coherence ........................................................................................................ 39 
6.5 European Added Value ....................................................................................... 42 

7. ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF COMPLETED EUROSTARS-1 PROJECTS ...................... 44 

8. POST 2020: FUTURE OPTIONS AND MODELS ................................................. 45 

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 48 

9.1 Key Issues ........................................................................................................ 48 
9.2 Programme implementation ................................................................................ 49 
9.3 Governance ...................................................................................................... 49 

ANNEX 1: EUROSTARS-2 JOINT PROGRAMME LEGAL BASIS ................................. 51 

ANNEX 2: MANDATE OF THE INTERIM EVALUATION EXPERT GROUP ..................... 65 

ANNEX 3: ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF COMPLETED EUROSTARS-1 PROJECTS ........... 69 

ANNEX 4: THE INTERIM EVALUATION EXPERT GROUP ......................................... 75 

ANNEX 5: MID-TERM EVALUATION EUROSTARS-2 – TASKFORCE REPORT ............. 77 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Scope of the Evaluation 

The Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the Union’s participation in 
the  Article  185  initiative  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  ("Eurostars-2")  under  Horizon 
2020 foresaw that the European Commission shall carry out an interim evaluation by 30 
June  2017.1  This  report  accordingly  presents  the  findings  of  the  Interim  Evaluation  of 
"Eurostars-2"  prepared  by  an  Expert  Panel  appointed  by  the  European  Commission,  DG 
Research & Innovation and chaired by Mr Marcel Shaton.  

The task of the Expert Group is to prepare a report and make recommendations based on 
available  relevant  evidence,  covering  all  aspects  of  the  interim  evaluation  as  set  out  in 
the legal basis and respecting the better regulation Guidelines of the Commission.   

Main Findings of the Interim Evaluation 

The major benefits of Eurostars rest in several niche features of the programme: 
  Bottom up approach; 
  Strengthening transnational cooperation among R&D performing SMEs;  
  Division of work between central structure (ESE) and decentralised structures (NFBs); 
  Introduction  of  new  products,  processes  and  services  within  two  years  of  projects' 

completion; 

  Targeting  of  SMEs  without  any  previous  international  experience  in  transnational 

industrial R&D collaborations. 

On the other side, some weaknesses could also be identified: 
  High heterogeneity of times to contract; 
  Insufficient accuracy and up-to-date information in the ESE database; 
  Uncertainty to get funding for selected projects when the contribution of Participating 

States has been exhausted by other projects; 

  Lack of synchronization of procedures for implementing the programme; 
  Not  enough  Participating  States  at  the  EU  level  are  active  in  the  Eurostars-2  joint-

programme. 

Recommendations for the Remainder of the Eurostars Programme 

Based on overall analysis, the expert group came up with the following 
recommendations: 

Key Issues 

  In  order  to  strengthen  the  EU  added  value,  at  least  two  R&D  performing  SMEs  from 
two  different  Participating  States  should  be  mandatory  in  the  proposed  project 
consortium  with  a  fair  distribution  of  activities  and  a  good  balanced  budget  (20% 
minimum  for  each  R&D  performing  SME,  i.e.  70%  minimum  for  both).  This  is 
important  to  respect  the  main  feature  of  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  to  go  to  the 
transnational  market  with  innovative  products  within  two  years  after  projects’ 
completion. (short term) 

  The  core  objective  of  Eurostars-2  is  to  introduce  into  the  market  two  years  after  the 
project completion the new products, services  or processes: this should be organised 

1 Decision No 553/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the participation 
of the Union in a Research and Development jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at supporting 
Research and Development Performing Small and Medium-sized enterprises. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
and  effectively  implemented  at  programme  level  as  well  as  at  project  level.  The  two 
years  requirement  should  be  a  clear  criterion  to  take  into  consideration  in  the 
evaluation process. Follow-up and market readiness measures should be monitored by 
the Participating States which have a much better knowledge of their beneficiaries and 
their market potential. (short term)  

 

  R&D performing SMEs as eligibility criteria should be assessed at national level as it is 
done for the SME self-declaration. Today, this action is pursed by ESE. (short term) 

  The  uniqueness  of  the  Eurostars  programme  in  the  European  panoply  of  market 
creating  innovation  tools  to  support  SMEs  should  be  preserved  and  re-strengthened. 
(short term) 

Programme implementation  

  The  EC  should  consider  in  the  short  term  granting  the  EU  top-up  to  those  Eurostars 
projects for which grant agreements have not been signed within one year of the cut-
off period. (short term)  

  Shorter  time  to  contract  will  permit  to  avoid  jeopardizing  the  innovation  potential  of 
projects.  Time  to  contract  should  be  calculated  at  the  project  level  when  the 
consortium agreement is signed and not at the  participant level when they sign their 
grant agreement with their respective NFB. (short term) 

  The  gathering  of  information  from  the  centralized  ESE  database  which  should  be 
the  overall 

constantly  updated  would  constitute  an  advantage 
implementation of the joint programme. (short term) 

to  monitor 

  The data collection, selection and monitoring mechanisms in the ESE Database should 

be improved. (short term) 

  Participating  States  should  first  receive  MIRs  and  assess  them  on  efficiency, 
effectiveness  and  pragmatism  to-go-to-the-market.  Their  assessment  per  project 
should  be  addressed  to  the  ESE  as  an  element  for  the  payment  of  the  EC  top-up.  It 
for 
will  allow  creating  an 
commercialisation to build new go-to-the-market and financial tool boxes. (long term)  

for  assessment  of 

the  bottlenecks 

instrument 

  Structure and content of MIR reports should be improved in order to assess projects’ 
results on efficiency, effectiveness and pragmatism with regards to-go-to-the-market. 
(short term)  

  Put  in  place  a  follow-up  of  the  results  of  funded  projects  (i.e.  FiRs)  and  their 
introduction  into  the  market  within  two  years  after  projects’  completion  (MIRs)  to 
better inform Participating States and the European Commission. (short term) 

  The  management  of  the  programme  should  foresee  the  total  annual  EU  funding  as 
requested  in  the  Annual  Work  Plan  (AWP).  Losses  of  EU  annual  funding  should  be 
avoided. The increase of the EU top-up rate to the NFBs in order to use the left-over 
EU  contribution  is  a  counter-productive  option  because  this  will  definitively  decrease 
the total budget (and impact) of the joint programme. (long term) 

  R&D performing SMEs as eligibility criteria should be assessed at national level as it is 
done for the SME self-declaration. Today, this action is pursued by ESE. (short term) 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Governance  

  The  Eurostars  budget  is  around  50%  of  the  total  administrative  budget  of  ESE 
including  EUREKA  activities.  This  is  not  perceived  in  the  institutional  governance  of 
EUREKA. A distinctive (from EUREKA) Eurostars governance agenda should be set up. 
(short term) 

  An  in  depth  and  representative  survey  of  the  barriers  encountered  by  under-
represented  Participating  States  should  be  carried  out  following  two  vectors: 
exogenous barriers and endogenous barriers. A particular emphasis will be put on the 
role of NPCs of under-represented Participating States. (short term) 

  The call for convergence of Art.185 creates difficulties and tensions with Participating 
States  that  are  reluctant  to  further  harmonize  the  national  rules  and  procedures  and 
funding  rates  for  Eurostars-2.  Article  185  TFEU  may  be  not  the  most  appropriate 
instrument in absence of further convergence potentialities. (long term). 

  The  current  evaluation  process  is  too  fragmented  and  the  evaluation  criteria  are  too 
numerous  and  narrow  to  have  a  realistic  overview  of  the  project's  quality.  More 
feedbacks  should  be  given  to  the  evaluators  about  the  outcomes  of  the  submitted 
projects they examined. (short term) 

Future Perspectives: Options and Models post-2020 

4  scenarios  of  the  future  Eurostars  can  be  envisioned  along  the  spectrum  from  sole 
operation  of  the  participating  states  to  the  sole  operation  of  the  European  Commission 
through the Framework Programme.  

  Eureka states participating operate the program on their own trough ESE without any 

involvement of the EU Commission. 

  Partnership  associating  the  Eureka  Participating  States  and  the  EU  Commission 
through  an  adjusted  article  185  or  another  tool  such  as  coordination  with  EIC 
maintaining the top-up and coverage of the administrative cost incurred by ESE. This 
option  requires  strengthening  the  uniqueness  of  Eurostar  as  specified  in  our 
recommendations. 

  Eureka  Participating  States  are  the  only  providers  of  R&D  founding.  The  Commission 
covers  the  administrative  costs.  This  option  requires  as  well  strengthening  the 
uniqueness of Eurostar as specified in our recommendations but can be built invoking 
article 185. 

  Eurostars will be an integral part of the Framework Program (could be EIC) under its 

procedures and rules, without any involvement of the Eureka participating states. 

6 

 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation 

The Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the Union’s  participation in 
the  Article  185  initiative  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  ("Eurostars-2")  under  Horizon 
2020 foresaw that the European Commission shall carry out an interim evaluation by 30 
June  2017.2  This  report  accordingly  presents  the  findings  of  the  Interim  Evaluation  of 
"Eurostars-2"  prepared  by  an  Expert  Panel  appointed  by  the  European  Commission,  DG 
Research & Innovation and chaired by Mr Marcel Shaton.  

The task of the Expert Group is to prepare a report and make recommendations based on 
available  relevant  evidence,  covering  all  aspects  of  the  interim  evaluation  as  set  out  in 
the legal basis and respecting the better regulation Guidelines of the Commission.   

The main purpose of the Expert Group is to: 

  Assess  the  progress  towards  the  objectives  of  the  Art.  185  "Eurostars-2"  Joint 
Programme and to what extent Eurostars-2 is relevant with respect to the demands of 
the involved Participating States and of the beneficiaries; 

  Assess  the  efficiency  with  respect  to  the  specific  and  operational  objectives  of  the 
initiative  as  laid  down  in  its  basic  act  [Decision  No  553/2014/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  May  2014]  and  the  corresponding  Impact 
Assessment (IA); 

  Assess  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  (expected)  impacts  of  Eurostars-2  at 
programme  and  project  levels  and  in  particular  the  efficiency  of  the  entry-into-the 
market of results/achievements of ended projects. 

  Assess  the  coherence  with  other  EU-level  interventions  which  have  similar  objectives 
to  Art.  185  "Eurostars-2"  as  well  as  synergies  including  with  other  funding 
programmes  such  as  the  ESIF  Regional  Funds,  collaborative  projects  were  SMEs  are 
participating  in  the  frame  of  bilateral  S&T&I  agreements  between  the  Participating 
States;   

  Assess  the  coherence  of  the  interaction  between  the  different  bodies  intervening  in 
Eurostars-2 governance (EUREKA High Level Group (HLG), Eurostars HLG, Eurostars-2 
Advisory  Group,  EUREKA  Secretariat,  NPCs,  National  Funding  Bodies,  European 
Commission) and their role during the execution of the programme; 

  Assess the effectiveness of the mobilisation of national and European funding for R&D 
performing  SMEs,  the  leverage  effect  from  the  Union's  contribution  and  the  way 
Eurostars-2  compare  to  the  'mainstream'  EUREKA  with  regard  to  the  participation  of 
SMEs; 

  Assess  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  EU  intervention,  compared  to  what 
could be achieved by Member States at national, regional and/or local levels and also, 
the added-value of the Eurostars-2 Programme compared to other forms of support to 
R&D&I  in  Horizon  2020  Framework  programme  (in  particular  SME-Instrument, 
collaborative projects in the Thematic priorities of LEITs and Societal Challenges, Joint 
Technology Initiatives). 

The  Eurostars-2  Programme  evaluation  is  one  of  a  series  of  interim  evaluations  being 
undertaken of existing Art. 185 initiatives under Horizon 2020 (H2020). It will feed into a 
wider  ‘meta-analysis’  of  Art.  185  initiatives  in  order  to  take  stock  of  the  experiences  in 
their  preparation  and  implementation,  identify  critical  issues  that  need  to  be  addressed 
and  propose  if  necessary  adjustments,  and  assess  how  the  Art.  185  instrument  can 
efficiently contribute to policy developments. 

2 Decision No 553/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the participation 
of the Union in a Research and Development jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at supporting 
Research and Development Performing Small and Medium-sized enterprises. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.2 Scope of the evaluation 

The  Eurostars-2  Programme  runs  for  seven  years,  from  2014-2020.  This  Interim 
Evaluation covers its operation over the first three years, 2014-2016. Whilst the focus is 
primarily  on  the  Eurostars-2  Programme,  it  is  also  necessary  to  take  into  account  data 
and results from the predecessor initiative the Eurostars Joint Programme (referred to for 
convenience  as  ‘Eurostars-1’)  which  operated  from  2008-20133.  Particular  attention  is 
paid to issues relating to the transition between the two programmes and the impact of 
the  Eurostars(-1)  in  terms  of  new  products,  processes,  or  services  introduced  into  the 
market two years after the project completion.  

‘Article  185  initiatives’  are  joint  programmes  established  by  Member  States  or/and 
Associated  Countries  (‘Participating  States’)  with  the  financial  participation  of  the 
European Union. Their establishment refers to Art. 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of  the  European  Union  (TFEU).  They  are  designed  to  meet  particular  challenges  in  the 
research  area  and  to  complement  Horizon  2020,  to  leverage  national  with  EU  funding, 
and  to  create  economies  of  scales  and  synergies  between  national  and  EU  research 
programmes  and  investments.  This  Interim  Evaluation  addresses  primarily  the  EU’s 
participation  and  benefits  from  the  Eurostars-2  rather  than  the  overall  performance  of 
the programme. Aspects such as European added value are critical.  

The  evaluation  is  timely  as  it  comes  when  the  European  Commission  is  proposing  the 
preparatory  phase  of  the  European  Innovation  Council  (EIC)  which  will  support 
innovators developing market breakthrough innovation. as well as starting to discuss the 
future of the Eurostars-2 Programme beyond Horizon 2020. As such, the report will feed 
into the wider debate on how to accelerate the emergence and maximise the scale-up of 
European innovative SMEs.  

2. CONTEXT 

2.1 Description of the initiative and its objectives 

2.1.1.R&D SMEs transnational research which contributes to competitiveness, growth and 
job creation in Europe.  

Eurostars-2  is  jointly  undertaken  by  34  Eurostars-2  Participating  States  and  Partner 
countries4  and  the  European  Union  on  the  basis  of  Article  185  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (ex-Art. 169 TEC). The participation of the EU 
was  formally  acted  through  the  Decision  No  553/2014/EU  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  15  May  2014  ("Eurostars-2  Decision")5.  The  decision  entered  into 
force on 27 June 2014.  

The  European  Union  supports  financially  the  Eurostars-2  Programme,  with  maximum 
€ 287 million for the period 2014-2020, coming from the Horizon 2020 budget allocated 
to "Innovation in SMEs" (Industrial Leadership pillar). The European Union contribution is 
equivalent  to  one  third  of  the  effective  contribution  of  the  Participating  States  (for  both 
operational and administrative expenditure) and may go up to a maximum of half of the 
contributions  of  the  Participating  States.  The  EU  contribution  applies  to  the  sole 

The 

p.58) 

30.07.2008, 

3 Decision No. 743/2008/European Commission of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 July 2008 (OJ L 
201, 
on: 
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LExUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:201:0058:0067:EN:PDF  
4  The  following  34  Participating  states  and  Partner  Countries  are  currently  participating  to  Eurostars-2: 
Participating  States:  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland, 
France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Iceland,  Italy,  Ireland,  Israel,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  The 
Netherlands,  Norway,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovak  Republic,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden,  Turkey,  United 
Kingdom. Partner Countries: South Korea, Switzerland. 
5  Decision  No  553/2014/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  May  2014:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0553&from=EN 

Decision 

found 

can 

be 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
Participating  States  which  are  either  Member  States  or  Associated  Countries  to  H2020; 
Partner countries are not eligible for EU contribution.  

Eurostars-2 is organised on the basis of continuously open call for proposals, with at least 
2  cut-off  dates  per  year  for  the  award  of  financial  support.  Financial  support  should 
mainly take the form  of grants to selected projects. The programme is managed by the 
EUREKA Secretariat AISBL6 ("ESE") in Brussels.  

Eurostars-2  is  aiming  to  provide  financial  support  to  transnational  market-oriented 
research projects initiated and driven by R&D performing SMEs7. A project should last no 
longer  than  three  years  and,  within  two  years  of  completion,  the  product  of  research 
should  be  ready  for  market  introduction.  Research  and  development  performing  SMEs 
shall  take  the  lead  and  should  be  able  to  exploit  commercially  the  project  results,  thus 
improving  their  competitive  position.  Research  organisations,  universities,  other  SMEs, 
large  companies  and  other  actors  of  the  innovation  chain  can  also  participate  in 
Eurostars-2 projects.  

Eurostars-2 activities should be in line with the objectives and the bottom-up principle of 
Horizon  2020:  projects  shall  be  innovative  with  no  thematic  restriction  but  limited  to 
civilian purposes.  

For the purpose of being eligible as a Eurostars-2 project, the consortium is a partnership 
composed of at least two entities that are independent of one another and established in 
two  different  Eurostars-2  Participating  States  or  Eurostars-2  Partner  Countries.  In  order 
to be considered as eligible for receiving EU financial contribution, the project is required 
to  meet  the  eligibility  criteria  described  above  and  to  be  a  partnership  composed  of  at 
least  two  entities  that  are  independent  of  one  another  and  established  in  two  different 
Eurostars-2  Participating  States  or  Eurostars-2  Partner  countries,  out  of  which  at  least 
one Member State or Horizon 2020 Associated country. 

Eurostars-2  aims  at  combining  integration  (managerial,  scientific  and  financial)  with  a 
decentralised access and national funding rules. The partners in the selected Eurostars-2 
projects  are  administratively  handled  by  their  respective  national  administrations.  It  is 
assumed  that  the  bottom-up  nature  of  the  scheme  and  national  funding  procedures  fit 
the specific needs of R&D performing SMEs.  

The  initiative  is  the  continuation  of  the  Eurostars  Joint  Programme  (2008-2013)  where 
the  European  Union  agreed  to  participate  in  the  programme  by  making  a  financial 
contribution to the equivalent of a maximum of one third of the effective contributions of 
the participating Member States and the other participating countries, within a ceiling of 
EUR 100 million for the whole period8. 

6 EUREKA is an intergovernmental network launched in 1985, to support market-oriented R&D and innovation 
projects  by  industry,  research  centres  and  universities  across  all  technological  sectors.  It  is  composed  of  41 
members,  including  the  European  Union  represented  by  the  Commission.  The  EUREKA  Secretariat,  based  in 
Brussels, acts as the central support unit for the network. 
7  Within  the  frame  of  the  Eurostars-2  Decision  (Art.2),  R&D  performing  SME  means  an  SME  which  meets  at 
least  one  of  the  following  conditions:  (i)  SMEs  with  100  Full  Time  Equivalent  (FTE)  employees  or  fewer  must 
have at least 5.0 FTEs dedicated to R&D activities, or dedicate at least 10.00% of their FTE to R&D activities, or 
dedicate at least 10.00% of their turnover to R&D activities and (ii) SMEs with a headcount of more than 100 
FTE employees must have at least 10.0 FTEs dedicated to R&D activities or dedicate at least 10.00% of  their 
FTE to R&D activities or dedicate at least 10.00% of their turnover to R&D activities. The current definition of 
SMEs is set out in the Recommendation 2003/361/EC (OJ L124, 20.05.2003, p.36). 
8 Decision No 743/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the Community’s 
participation  in  a  research  and  development  programme  undertaken  by  several  Member  States  aimed  at 
supporting research and development performing small and medium-sized enterprises. (OJ L 201, 30.07.2008, 
p.58-67): http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:201:0058:0067:EN:PDF 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2 Objectives of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme. 

Eurostars-2 aims to support such R&D performing SMEs by: 

  encouraging  them  to  create  new  economic  activities  based  on  R&D  results  and  bring 
new  products,  processes  and  services  to  the  market  faster  than  would  otherwise  be 
possible; 

  creating  an  easily  accessible  and  sustainable  European  R&D  support  mechanism  for 

them; 

  promoting their technological and business development and internationalisation. 

Eurostars projects are defined by the following specificities: 

  SME-oriented as at least one partner should be an R&D-performing SME; 
  market-oriented  as  they  must  have  a  maximum  duration  of  three  years  and  within 
two years of project completion the product of the research should be ready for launch 
into the market. 

  collaborative  and  international  as  in  any  project  there  should  be  at  least  two 

partners (autonomous legal entities) from two different participating states; 

  bottom-up  as  the  technological  areas  to  be  addressed  within  the  projects  are 
selected  by  the  applicants,  consequently  the  national  and  European  funds  being 
directed  at  certain  innovation  areas  by  the  beneficiaries’  research  potential  and 
interest; 

Eurostars  shall  align  and  synchronise  relevant  national  research  and  innovation 
programmes, and complement existing national and European Union programmes aimed 
at supporting R&D performing SMEs in their innovation process. 

2.3 Baseline 

The Eurostars-2 largely continues and builds on structures and activities begun under the 
previous  Eurostars  Joint  Programme  (2008-2013).  As  such,  the  baseline  for  this 
evaluation  is  essentially  the  situation  pertaining  at  the  end  of  Eurostars-1  as  set  out  in 
the Final Evaluation report for Eurostars-1 published in November 20149 and the Ex Ante 
Impact Assessment for Eurostars-2 undertaken by the European Commission.10 

In  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  Eurostars-1  as  well  as  the  final  evaluation  of  Eurostars-1 
impacts could not have been assessed due to any availability of ended projects. Indeed, 
the ultimate objective of the joint programme is to allow R&D performing SMEs to bring 
their  results  into  the  market  in  the  period  of  2  years  after  the  end  of  the  project.  The 
ongoing  mid-term  evaluation  of  Eurostars-2  will  be  in  the  position  for  the  first  time  to 
take  stock  of  the  results  arising  from  the  "Analysis  of  impact  of  completed  Eurostars-1 
projects11" 

Overall, the Final Evaluation concluded that the Eurostars-1 fully reached its target group 
of  R&D  performing  SMEs  and  an  important  feature  of  Eurostars-1  was  its  bottom-up 
approach  which  permitted  to  select  all  type  of  technologies  in  which  those  SMEs 
innovate.  The  Programme  was  justified  and  had  made  continuous  progress  towards  its 
objectives. It was operating as a coherent framework that delivered clear added value for 
Europe  and  the  associated  research,  development  and  innovation  activity  was  reaching 
critical  mass.  Activities  aimed  at  improving  conditions  for  industrial  exploitation  had 
expanded  significantly.  The  Programme  was  well  managed,  the  governance  system 

9  Final  Evaluation  of  the  Eurostars  Joint  Programme,  Report  of  Expert  Group  chaired  by  Marja  Makarow, 
European Commission, November 2014. 
10 Ex-ante Impact assessment accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  on  the  participation  of  the  Union  in  a  Research  and  Development  Programme  jointly 
undertaken  by  several  Member  States  aimed  at  supporting  research  performing  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises SWD(2013) 242 final. 
11 "Analysis of impact of completed Eurostars-1 projects", study of the European Commission under publication. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
functioned  properly  and  the  interaction  between  the  national  and  central  administrative 
bodies was effective.  

The  Final  Evaluation  Expert  Group  made  a  series  of  recommendations  in  relation  to  the 
Programme  Strategy  in  order  to  better  address  the  strategic  challenges.  In  summary, 
these were that:  

  Concerning  the  target  group  and  scope  of  the  programme,  all  R&D-performing  SMEs 
need  to  be  targeted,  whether  or  not  they  have  been  involved  in  international 
collaborations  before.  The  ESE  should  support  successful  Eurostars  projects  by 
providing links to the EUREKA network and to public and private financing instruments 
supporting follow-up development and commercialisation. 

  Regarding governance,  the High-Level Group’s  decisions should be implemented, and 
this implementation should be monitored. National parallel application and evaluation 
needs  to  be  abolished,  and  the  transparency  and  feedback  mechanisms  of  the 
evaluation improved. 

  Concerning  management  and  operations,  time-spans  from  submission  deadline  to 
evaluation  outcomes,  signed  grant  and  consortium  agreements,  and  to  activation  of 
funding,  must  be  synchronized  and  shortened  to  binding  deadlines.  The  Eurostars 
database  should be improved, based  on  re-designed application and reporting forms, 
in  order  to  serve  the  purpose  of  assessing  the  impact  of  the  programme  on 
employment as well as R&D and innovation activities of the SMEs, and for information 
exchange with national project coordinators. 

  Regarding funding, a commonly agreed baseline of harmonized funding rules needs to 
be  agreed,  providing  the  same  type  of  partners  with  the  same  maximum  rate  of 
funding in each country 

In  addition,  a  series  of  specific  recommendations  were  made  in  relation  to  the 
Programme’s  operational  excellence.  These  recommendations,  and  the  extent  to  which 
progress has been made, are discussed in Annex 1.  

The situation regarding national participation has changed significantly since Eurostars-1 
(for  reasons  that  are  discussed  in  more  detail  below).  For  this  Interim  Evaluation, 
therefore, the Expert Group has given special consideration to: 

1) The  situation  regarding  the  alignment,  harmonization  and  synchronization  of  national 

funding mechanisms; 

2) The  uniqueness  of  the  programme  and  its  position  in  the  European  Innovation 

landscape. 

3) The  continuing  added  value  of  the  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme,  not  only  from  a 

national, but also from a European perspective; and 

4) The  boundary  conditions  for  improving  national  participation  (commitments)  in  the 

future.  

Eurostars-2  is  no  longer  a  ‘green  field’.  Both  markets  and  policy  initiatives  have 
developed considerably over the three years since the current Programme was initiated, 
and  even  more  so  over  the  eight  years  since  the  predecessor  Eurostars-1  was  first 
launched.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

In  accordance  with  the  Expert  Group's  Terms  of  Reference,  the  Evaluation  focused  on 
five  key  aspects:  relevance  and  appropriateness,  efficiency  and  use  of  resources, 
effectiveness, coherence and EU added value. The evaluation brief is summarised below 
and reproduced in Annex 2.  

3.1 Relevance and appropriateness 

  To  what  extent  is  the  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  relevant  with  respect  to  the 
demands  of  the  involved  Participating  States  and  of  the  beneficiaries?  Do  the 
objectives still correspond to the needs of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme? 

  To  what  extent  is  Eurostars-2  appropriate  to  support  the  realization  of  the  EU  policy 
objectives  especially  ERA,  Innovation  Union,  the  three  "O",  thematic  sector  policies 
including 'Innovation in SMEs'? 

3.2 Efficiency and use of resources 

3.2.1 Efficiency with respect to the specific and operational objectives of the initiative as 
laid  down  in  its  basic  act  [Decision  No  553/2014/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of 
the Council of 14 May 2014] and the corresponding Impact Assessment (IA), including: 

3.2.2 Progress made towards achievement of the following specific objectives:  

  Promotion  of  transnational  market-oriented  research  activities  for  R&D  performing 
SMEs in any field, leading to the introduction of new or improved products, processes 
or services in the market by the participating SMEs; 

  Contribution  to  the  completion  of  the  ERA  and  increasing  the  accessibility,  efficiency 
and  efficacy  of  public  funding  for  R&D  performing  SMEs  in  Europe  by  aligning, 
harmonising and synchronising the national funding mechanisms. 

3.2.3 Progress made towards achievement of the following operational objectives taking   
into consideration the indicators and targets as mentioned in Chapter 8 of the IA: 

  Three  years  after  the  end  of  each  project,  for  each  1  M€  of  public  funding  (from  EU 
and  participating  Eurostars  countries),  on  average,  the  turnover  of  the  participants 
should  increase  by  at  least  10M€,  at  least  25  new  jobs  should  be  created  and  three 
new or improved products, processes or services should be on the market; 

  Scientific  integration  of  national  programmes:  Ensure  excellence  and  impact  of  the 
projects  selected  through  international  (EUREKA  initiative)  competition  and  the 
application of a single evaluation and selection process; 

  Management  integration  of  national  programmes:  Further  improve  operational 
excellence  and  accountability  for  the  programme  by  reducing  the  time  to  contract 
while maintaining an optimal frequency of calls per year; 

  Financial integration of national programmes: Harmonisation of national funding rules 

and application of a binding ranking list; 

  Facilitate  the  participation  of  R&D  performing  SMEs  without  previous  experience  in 

transnational R&D activities. 

12 

 
 
 
 
3.2.4 Efficiency with respect to the implementation structures of Eurostars-2, including 

  How  efficient  is  the  programme  implementation  by  ESE  in  collaboration  with  the 
National Funding Bodies. What were its main limitations in relation to National Funding 
Bodies  (NFBs)  during  the  execution  of  the  Programme?  What  could  be  the  lessons 
learnt for the future? 

  What resources are needed at the different levels (Commission services, Participating 
States  and  their  NFBs)  for  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  the  initiative?  Are 
these justified by the scale and scope of the initiative? 

  Efficiency  with  respect  to  Eurostars-2  as  an  instrument  to  foster  transnational  R&D 

cooperation within Europe, including: 

  To what extent has Eurostars-2 been cost-effective? Were the costs involved justified, 
given the changes/effects which have been achieved?  Is the operational performance 
of EUREKA/ESE and its role proportionate to its allocation of budget?  

  Is the initiative implemented in an efficient way? Have the management aspects been 
properly addressed? Are effective monitoring and supervision arrangements in place to 
ensure adequate monitoring of the initiative?   

  Has the initiative been implemented in accordance with the provisions of the adopted 
work  plans,  budgets  and  the  delegation  agreement?  Are  the  reporting  requirements, 
including audit provisions efficient? 

  What kind of approaches could be considered to generate further efficiency gains?  

3.3 Effectiveness 

What have been the (qualitative and quantitative) (expected) impacts of Eurostars-2 - At 
programme and project levels, in particular: 

At Programme level: 

  To what extent is Eurostars-2 able to mobilize national and European funding for R&D 
performing  SMEs?  How  strong  is  the  leverage  effect  from  the  Union  contribution?  Is 
the programme sufficiently accessible, in particular for the R&D performing SMEs? Are 
there identified "barriers to entry"? 

  How  does  Eurostars-2  compare  to  the  'mainstream'  EUREKA  with  regard  to  the 

participation of SMEs, synchronisation of funding, type of projects etc. 

  What's the efficiency of the mechanisms and tools ensuring the entry-into-the-market 

of results/achievements of Eurostars-2 ended projects?  

  To what extent are the (expected) impacts of Eurostars-2 in line with its objectives? 

At Project Level:  

  How effectively are the projects managed by the participants? 

  What are the main economic and social impacts for R&D performing SMEs participating 
in  Eurostars-2?  What  is  the  impact  in  terms  of  new  products/processes/services  or 
significant improvement of  existing ones? What is the impact in terms of  competitive 
position,  company  profile,  employment,  qualification  of  staff,  R&D  investments  and 
attitude towards transnational collaboration? 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  What is the added value for an R&D-performing SME to participate in Eurostars-2 (i.e. 
what is the return on investment)? What is the motivation of other participant types to 
participate? Do the benefits from participating outweigh the costs? 

  What improvements/modifications are proposed to  enhance the participation of SMEs 
to the programme and maximise the benefits they can get from their participation? 

  How are the SMEs using the IPR resulting from the project? 

  Is  the  current  project  format  (at  least  one  R&D  performing  SME  and another  partner 

from a different country) appropriate with regard to Eurostars-2 objectives? 

  Does  Eurostars-2  play  an  adequate  role  in  promoting  excellence  in  scientific  and 
technological  research,  development  and  demonstration  in  the  considered  field  and 
impact of the projects selected?  

  Does  Eurostars-2  play  an  adequate  role  in  supporting  innovation  in  the  considered 

field? 

  Does  Eurostars-2  play  an  adequate  role  in  positioning  Europe  on  the  global  map  of 

science and technology in research in the concerned field?  

3.4 Coherence 

  External  coherence:  To  what  extent  is  Eurostars-2  coherent  with  other  EU-level 
interventions  which  have  similar  objectives?  What  are 
(i) 
complementarity, (ii) synergies including with other funding programmes such as the 
ESIF  Regional  Funds,  collaborative  projects  were  SMEs  are  participating  in  the  frame 
of  bilateral  S&T&I  agreements  between  the  Participating  States  (iii)  and  potential 
overlaps (iv)? 

relations 

the 

  Is  the  performance  of  Eurostars-2  in line  with  the  spirit  of  Article  185  TFEU?  Are  the 
procedures  implemented  at  national  level,  coherent  and  aligned  to  ensure  the  best 
performance of the Programme?  

  Internal coherence: How was the interaction between the different bodies intervening 
in  Eurostars-2  governance  (EUREKA  High  Level  Group  (HLG),  Eurostars  HLG, 
Eurostars-2  Advisory  Group,  EUREKA  Secretariat,  NPCs,  National  Funding  Bodies, 
European Commission)? Did their role evolve during the execution of the programme? 
Did the role of the Commission change? 

3.5 European Added Value 

  What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s), compared to what 

could be achieved by Member States at national, regional and/or local levels?  

  What  is  the  added-value  of  the  Eurostars-2  Programme  compared  to  other  forms  of 
support  to  R&D&I  in  Horizon  2020  Framework  programme  (in  particular  SME-
Instrument,  collaborative  projects  in  the  Thematic  priorities  of  LEITs  and  Societal 
Challenges, joint technology initiative, ERA-net)? 

4. METHODOLOGY 

The  Interim  Evaluation  Expert  Group  comprised  four  independent  experts  chosen  for 
their  experience  in  industrial  research  and  technological  development  and  a  rapporteur. 
The CVs of Panel Members are presented in Annex 4.  

The  evaluation  process  foresees  that  the  methodologies  used  to  address  the  questions 
mentioned above must be both qualitative and quantitative:  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
  For 

included  desk 

the  qualitative  part, 

review  of 
the  methodologies 
documents/reports,  extensive  in-depth  interviews  as  well  as  case-studies.  The 
interviews included staff of the EUREKA Secretariat, members of the Eurostars-2 High 
Level  Group,  members  of  the  Eurostars-2  Advisory  group,  staff  members  of  National 
Funding Bodies involved in Eurostars-2, Commission services, evaluators, participants 
in  the  Eurostars-2  Programme  (in  particular  R&D  performing  SMEs)  (interviews  have 
been carried out via the phone, video conferencing or face to face). The bottom line of 
the interviews and consultations are part of the inputs used for the elaborations of the 
assessment. 

  Participation  to  the  HLG  meeting  and  to  the  EC-EUREKA  Working  group  meeting  in 
Bilbao (October 2016), to the Eurostars Advisory Group meeting (November 2016) to 
the HLG meeting in Brussels (January 2017) and to the HLG meeting in Seville (March 
2017)  

  Five plenary meetings in Brussels to discuss findings, results from interviews and the 

draft report  

  Two meetings with the ESE staff to discuss procedures and data  
  One meeting with the Eurostars-2 mid-term evaluation Taskforce. 
  Results  arising  from  the  internet-based  public  consultation  that  lasted  12  weeks 

(January- April 2017). 

For  the  quantitative  part,  the  Group  carried  out  its  activities  through  an  independent, 
robust  process  built  partly  on  existing  evidence  base  as  well  as  collecting  new  data 
including  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence.  The  Expert  Group  has  been  given 
access to the EUREKA/ESE database of both Eurostars-1 and Eurostars-2 projects. 

The results of this Interim Evaluation are supplemented by: 

  The report on "Analysis of impact of completed Eurostars-1 projects" performed from 
September  2016  until  April  2017  provides  important  inputs  relevant  for  this 
assessment  assignment.  The  main  results  and  recommendations  of  this  report  are 
available in Annex 3. 

  The  results  of  the  analysis  based  on  the  internet  based  public  consultation  from 
January  2017  to  April  2017  and  launched  by  the  European  Commission  in  2017  is 
available in Annex 8. 

The  evaluation  framework  comprised  four  task  assignments.  The  Experts  analysed  the 
content  of  the  interviews  during  the  plenary  meetings  together  with  the  background 
documents and other information in order to formulate this report.  

Task 1 – Quantitative analysis of the ESE Eurostars-2 database 
Task 2 – Assessment through 5 evaluation main criteria  
Task 3 – Analysis of commercial results of Eurostars-1 projects 
Task 4 – Recommendations 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

5.1 Governance and Implementation 

Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  is  implemented  through  a  Dedicated  Implementation 
Structure  (DIS),  the  Eureka  Secretariat  (ESE),  which  is  responsible for  the  execution 
of  the  programme,  in  particular  for  the  organisation  of  the  calls  for  proposals,  the  co-
ordination  of  the  eligibility,  peer-review  evaluation  and  selection  of  projects,  the 
monitoring of projects and the allocation of the EU contribution. 

The governance system of the programme involves three main bodies:   

  The ‘Eurostars-2 High Level Group’ (EUREKA/Eurostars-2 HLG) is composed of 
the  European  Commission  and  the  EUREKA  High  Level  Representatives  of  the 
Eurostars-2  participating  countries,  which  have  signed  a  Eurostars-2  Bilateral 
Agreement  with  the  EUREKA  Secretariat.  Other  EUREKA  member  countries  not 
participating  in  the  Eurostars-2  Programme  retain  the  option  to  send  representatives 
to  Eurostars-2  HLG  meetings  as  observers.    The  Eurostars-2  HLG  is  competent  to 
supervise the implementation of Eurostars-2.  

  The ‘Eurostars-2  Advisory  Group’  (EAG)  is  composed  of  EUREKA  National  Project 
Coordinators (EUREKA/Eurostars-2 NPCs) from the Eurostars-2 participating countries. 
The European Commission may participate in the EAG meetings as observer. The EAG 
meetings will be chaired by the EUREKA Secretariat.  
The  EAG  shall  advise  the  EUREKA  Secretariat  as  well  as  the  Eurostars  HLG  on  the 
execution  of  the  Eurostars-2  Programme  and  shall  provide  advice  on  the 
arrangements for its implementation.  

  National  Funding  Bodies  (NFBs)  are  the  most  important  stakeholders  for  the 
implementation  of  Eurostars-2  at  national  level  and  to  support  Eurostars-2  in  its 
challenging  aim  of  further  synchronisation  and  financial  flexibility.  NFBs  will  actively 
collaborate to ensure the implementation of national milestones. They should improve 
and  adapt  their  national  underlying  programmes  and  procedures  in  such  a  way  that 
they are compliant with the Eurostars-2 rules and the specific implementing guidelines 
for Eurostars-2. They should also be willing to implement further improvements of the 
programme during the execution of Eurostars-2 from 2014 to 2020.  

The Eurostars-2 HLG, EAG and the National Funding Bodies can delegate thematic issues 
to be discussed by Working Groups.  

Such  a  "multilateral  approach"  (see  Box  1),  combines  a  centralized  management  and 
decentralised entry points: central international and independent peer review evaluation 
of the projects (with a common set of evaluation and eligibility rules) run by the ESE in 
Brussels,  combined  with  ‘local’  support  to  project  participants  in  the  application  and  in 
the  funding  phase  provided  by  the  NPCs  and  the  NFBs  based  on  a  binding  ranking  list 
and  national  earmarked  budgets.  The  model  is  designed  to  optimize  the  coordination 
among the national programmes for R&D performing SMEs while remaining close to final 
beneficiaries. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 1: Governance Structure of the Eurostars-2 Programme 

What is EUREKA? 

EUREKA was established as a platform for market-driven industrial R&D. It is a decentralized network facilitating 
the  coordination  of  national  funding  for  innovation,  and  aims  to  boost  the  productivity  and  competitiveness  of 
European  industries.  EUREKA  comprises  three  pillars  for  funding  R&D  projects  driven  by  the  private  sector: 
“Individual  projects”,  “Clusters”,  and  “Eurostars”.  EUREKA  “Umbrellas”  are  thematic  networks  to  facilitate  the 
generation of future EUREKA projects.  

Founded in 1985, EUREKA now unites over 40 countries and also includes the European Union (represented by the 
European  Commission).  As  stated  in  the  Hannover  Declaration,  envisaging  already  a  cutting-edge  trajectory,  it 
was assumed that EUREKA “will enable Europe to master and exploit the technologies that are important for its 
future  and  to  build  up  its  capability  in  crucial  areas”12  and  foresaw  possible  supportive  measures  from  the 
European Union13. 

The EUREKA’s structure is composed of the following main bodies14:  

The  EUREKA  Secretariat  (ESE)  is  an  international  association  based  in  Brussels  acting  as  the  central  support 
unit for the network. An Executive Board (EB) is responsible for the management of ESE. ESE 
acts also as the implementing body of the Eurostars programme.  

The EUREKA Chair rotates yearly between EUREKA’s member countries, with each Chairs mandate running from 

July to June the following year. The Chair implements a three-year rolling programme in 
cooperation with the previous and future chairs (the 'Troika'). The “Troika” countries form an 
Executive Group (EG) to which the EU representative is invited. It is responsible for reporting, 
and implements decisions taken by the HLG as well as for debating key policy issues.  

The MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE (MC) is the political body of EUREKA, gathering every two years the ministers 

from EUREKA countries and an EU Commissioner. The INTER-PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE 
(IPC) raises public awareness of EUREKA’s role. It is organized in alternate years with the MC 
The HIGH-LEVEL GROUP (HLG) is the key decision-making body of EUREKA. The ministry responsible for EUREKA 
in each member country names its High-Level Representative (HLR), who in turn endorses new 
EUREKA projects, takes decisions on the management of EUREKA, and prepares EUREKA policy 
discussions for the MC.  

The EXECUTIVE GROUP (EG) reports and implements the decisions taken by the HLG. The EG is also responsible 

for debating key policy issues, deciding on topics delegated by the HLG, and advising 
successive Chairs.  

The NATIONAL PROJECT COORDINATORs (NPCs) run the National EUREKA Offices at operational level and are 

responsible for project generation, national and international support and follow-up. They are 
the direct contact with project participants, facilitating the setting-up and running of a project. 

The NATIONAL INFORMATION POINTs (NIPs) provide industry and research institutes with an interface with 

EUREKA and facilitate participation in projects. 

Source: www.eurekanetwork.org (information adapted from EUREKA site, sections Structure and History) 

12   20th  Anniversary  Report,  Two  decades  of  support  for  European  Innovation”,  EUREKA  Secretariat, 

September 2005 

13   General 

Conditions, 

number 

4, 

from 

Hannover 

Declaration, 

in: 

http://www.eurekanetwork.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1b92be16-ec94-4a7e-a8d1-
6dd40e4fb318&groupId=10137 

14   EUREKA  Governing  Bodies  which  are  not  relevant  to  this  evaluation  are  not  included  as  it  is  the  case  of 

National Information Points (NIPs).  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.2 Project Portfolio  

To  fulfil  its  objectives  and  reflecting  its  market  orientation,  over  the  period  2014-2016 
the  Programme  issued  6  calls  for  proposals.  These  have  resulted  in  579  projects  (as  of 
December 2016) being selected for funding participating states. As can be seen in Table 
1, in total the number of participants of approved projects amounts to 1512 participants. 
The  success  rate  under  Eurostars-2  was  more  than  30%  in  total  (number  of 
approvals/number of applications). 

Table 1. Number of participants in Eurostars-2 projects by status – (2014 – November 2016) 

Below 
Threshold 
ii 

Incom 
plete 
Iii 

Ineli 
gible 
iv 

Not 
Funded 
v 

Unqua 
lified 
vi 

Veto 

vii 

With 
drawn 
viii 

total 

ix 

success 
rate in % 
i*100/ix 

Approved 

i 

68 

36 

8 

1 

5 

24 

127 

23 

126 

239 

13 

3 

16 

7 

21 

4 

Participating 
states (EU 28) 
Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 
Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

168 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 
Participating 
states 
EU) 
Iceland 

(non 

Israel 

Norway 

Turkey 

Partner 
countries 
South Korea 

Switzerland 

Total 

13 

5 

12 

5 

7 

100 

118 

95 

6 

5 

78 

15 

28 

136 

1512 

8 

7 

3 

3 

2 

18 

3 

15 

64 

2 

1 

13 

8 

2 

2 

1 

14 

6 

18 

1 

2 

3 

2 

34 

18 

20 

8 

23 

33 

65 

4 

16 

69 

89 

1 

23 

2 

10 

12 

24 

4 

1 

76 

18 

2 

61 

16 

13 

123 

69 

69 

6 

5 

59 

27 

29 

57 

1089 

6 

3 

1 

2 

2 

3 

19 

2 

9 

41 

3 

5 

2 

1 

1 

15 

2 

3 

3 

3 

11 

16 

18 

1 

5 

1 

8 

187 

10 

11 

3 

4 

2 

35 

6 

28 

42 

5 

2 

7 

4 

3 

39 

3 

3 

8 

4 

28 

18 

20 

8 

12 

9 

3 

22 

339 

91 

26 

10 

17 

37 

73 

25 

105 

187 

21 

6 

11 

9 

13 

4 

1 

12 

5 

3 

1 

2 

1 

24 

9 

13 

62 

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

118 

3 

21 

16 

7 

38 

11 

12 

145 

85 

83 

6 

4 

38 

13 

2 

4 

5 

1 

2 

1 

12 

7 

5 

3 

13 

1 

3 

12 

217 

101 

45 

11 

54 

101 

337 

4 

75 

353 

664 

1 

67 

13 

49 

32 

63 

14 

3 

432 

60 

22 

119 

41 

36 

421 

312 

305 

20 

24 

195 

67 

92 

353 

31.3 

35.6 

17.8 

9.1 

9.3 

23.8 

37.7 

0.0 

30.7 

35.7 

36.0 

0.0 

19.4 

23.1 

32.7 

21.9 

33.3 

28.6 

0.0 

38.9 

21.7 

22.7 

10.1 

12.2 

19.4 

23.8 

37.8 

31.1 

30.0 

20.8 

40.0 

22.4 

30.4 

38.5 

32.1 

2 

16 

216 

30 

112 

1355 

2 

10 

231 

4710 

Note1:  Switzerland  is  for  the  period  2014-2016  a  Eurostars-2  Partner  Country  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Eurostars-2 legal basis. 
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016. 
Note: approved participants also include those that withdrew from projects. 

It  follows  from  Table  1  that  the  number  of  participants  that  applied  varies  a  lot  across 
participating  countries.  Among  the  top  5  countries  we  find  Germany  (664  participants), 

18 

 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
The Netherlands (432); Spain (421); France (353) Switzerland (353). Last 5: Malta (3); 
Estonia (4); Croatia (11); Ireland (13); Luxembourg (14). Why do some countries have 
relatively  low  participation  rate  (e.g.  Malta,  Estonia,  Croatia,  Ireland,  Italy,  and 
Luxembourg),  while  the  others  have  a  rather  relatively  high  participation  rate  (e.g. 
Germany,  The  Netherlands,  Spain,  France,  and  Switzerland)?  One  explanation  to  this 
disparity  in  participation  rates  rest  in  the  larger  size  of  the  first  group  of  countries 
compared  to  the  second  group.  Economic  and  social  variables  can  be  considered  to 
explain  these  differences  such  as  GDP  per  capita,  total  population,  average  level  of 
higher education, R&D expenditures, the number of patents, or other potentially relevant 
qualitative  aspects  (awareness/knowledge  of  European  projects,  motivation/willingness 
to  apply  for  European  projects,  existing  similar  funding  schemes  at  national  level).  In 
order to increase/ incentivise participations, more promotional activities and information 
campaigns/sessions  could  be  organized  at  national  level  in  countries  showing  relatively 
low  participation  rates.  Switzerland  is  a  partner  country  from  January  2014  and 
participating country from January 2017. 

Another  fact  emerging  form  Table  1  is  the  success  rate  of  applicants  which  varies  a  lot 
across  participating  countries.  The  success  rate  for  all  participating  states  is  31.65%. 
Among  the  top  5  successful  applicant  countries  we  have  Norway  (40%);  Switzerland 
(38.5%);  The  Netherlands  (38.9%);  Sweden  (37.8%);  Denmark  (37.7%).  At  the  other 
end,  the  last  5  successful  applicant  countries  are  Greece  (0%);  Malta  (0%);  Estonia 
(0%);  Croatia  (9.1%);  Cyprus  (9.3%).  Once  again,  this  disparity  can  be  explained  by 
economic and social factors specific to each country and also by their previous experience 
in Eureka and more  or  less similar European projects. We  can also mention the level of 
scientific  collaborations  in  submitting  projects  that  could  play  a  determinant  role 
depending on each country. The provision of accompanying support measures to help the 
application  process  like  in  Spain  or  improving  scientific  collaborations  when  submitting 
projects could have a positive influence on the success rate. 

Before to discuss other salient facts emerging from the Eurostars-2 database, it is worth 
mentioning  that  in  several  cases  discrepancies  could  be  noticed  between  the  official 
figures reported in the ESE annual reports and the ones calculated here.15 One reason to 
explain  this  rests  in  the  different  time  periods  considered  to  make  the  calculations.  For 
instance,  in  this  report  we  use  the  database  as  received  in  December  2016.  So,  the 
number of projects accepted or withdrawn or with another status could be different. This 
leads the expert group to propose the following recommendation: 

Recommendation:  The  gathering  of information  from  the  centralized  ESE  database 
which  should  be  constantly  updated  would  constitute  an  advantage  to  monitor  the 
overall implementation of the joint programme. 

15  For  instance,  we  noticed  some  differences  in  the  sum  of  total  budgets  committed  by  NFBs  and  the  EC 

contribution as reported in ESE annual reports of 2015 (p.85) and 2016 (p.68). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1. Number of approved Eurostars-2 participants by country (2014-November 2016) 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Note1:  Switzerland  is  for  the  period  2014-2016  a  Eurostars-2  Partner  Country  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Eurostars-2 legal basis. 
Source: Authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016. 

Figure 1 shows that five countries concentrate more than half of all the 1512 participants 
of projects that were approved, namely, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, France, 
and Sweden. The category “Other” represents 125 participants from 16 countries (Italy, 
Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovenia, Iceland, Cyprus, Portugal, 
Slovakia,  Israel,  Luxembourg,  Ireland  and  Croatia).  Three  countries  have  no  participant 
(Estonia, Greece and Malta).  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Total National Funding Bodies (NFBs) commitment to participant project costs by top-up 
(in millions €) 

Total NFB commitment  
to participant project costs (M€) 
Cut-off 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Total 

growth rate (in %) between  
last and first top-up 

Participating states (EU 28) 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
  Croatia 
  Cyprus 
  Czech Republic  Czech Republic 
  Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
  Germany 
  Greece 
  Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 

Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

  Malta 
  Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
  Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

Iceland 
Israel 
  Norway 
Turkey 

  United Kingdom  United Kingdom 

Participating states (non-EU) 
Iceland 
Israel 
Norway 
Turkey 
Partner countries 
South Korea 
Switzerland 
Total 

1.4 
1.2 
0.4 

0.3 
3.1 

0.9 
3.7 
3.0 

3.9 

0.2 
0.1 

5.0 
3.6 
5.1 

3.3 
1.4 

0.5 
3.1 

1.7 
6.8 
8.6 

0.7 

0.2 
0.8 
0.3 

8.7 
0.3 

0.2 
0.3 
0.3 
2.5 
4.4 
3.9 

1.5 
4.1 
0.8 

0.1 
0.6 
4.0 

1.2 
2.1 
11.0 

0.2 
0.0 

0.4 
0.3 

8.3 
0.7 

0.9 
0.1 

4.5 
5.2 
3.8 

3.0 
2.4 

1.5 
6.6 

0.1 
2.5 
13.2 

0.2 

0.2 
1.3 

8.9 
0.8 
0.3 

4.1 
5.1 
3.3 

0.3 

0.2 

0.6 

5.0 
0.9 

3.8 
2.0 

1.9 
0.3 

5.1 

5.9 

9.1 
9.0 
1.2 

0.1 
3.0 
22.6 

3.8 
15.2 
35.7 

1.1 
0.0 

0.4 
2.5 
0.6 

29.8 
1.9 
0.3 
1.3 
0.5 
0.3 
16.1 
18.4 
16.1 

1.2 

15.8 
3.2 

0.8 
0.7 
0.7 

1.5 
0.8 

-2.7 
-0.4 
1.5 

-1.3 

-0.1 
0.5 
0.0 

0.8 
0.9 

1.7 
0.7 

-0.2 
0.4 
-0.4 

0.7 

0.0 
-1.3 

South Korea 
Switzerland 

1.5 
5.3 
60.8 
Note1:  Switzerland  is  for  the  period  2014-2016  a  Eurostars-2  Partner  Country  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Eurostars-2 legal basis. 
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016. 

7.5 
31.4 
248.1 

3.3 
8.2 
63.9 

1.6 
5.9 
66.7 

1.1 
6.3 
45.0 

0.4 
-0.1 
0.4 

5.7 
11.6 

Table 2 indicates that in total, the budget commitment of NFB has increased very slightly 
(+0.4%)  from  the  first  cut  off  (2014)  to  the  fifth  one  (first  half  of  2016).  Romania 
(1.7%),  The  Czech  Republic  (1.5%)  and  Germany  (1.5%)  are  the  three  countries  with 
the  highest  increase  rates.  On  the  other  hand,  Finland  (-2.7%),  Hungary  (-1.3%)  and 
Turkey (-1.5) exhibit the highest decreases. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3. Eurostars-2 projects’ budget by source of funding (in millions €) 

country 

Participant total 
costs (M€) 

EC 
commitment 

NFB 
commitment 

total 

Participant 
share of total 
costs (in %) 

EC funding 
with respect to 
total project 
costs (in %) 

NFB commitment 
with respect to total 
project costs (in %) 

I 

ii 

iii 

iv=i+ii+iii 

i*100/iv 

ii*100/iv 

iii*100/iv 

2.0 
18.6 
3.5 
0.3 
0.6 
7.3 
41.3 

11.4 
71.5 
92.7 

3.0 
0.9 
5.3 
1.3 
5.8 
1.5 

Participating states (EU 28) 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Participating states (non EU) 
Iceland 
Israel 
Norway 
Turkey 
Partner 
countries 
South Korea 
Switzerland 
Total 

92.5 
5.0 
0.8 
2.8 
1.3 
2.8 
48.2 
52.3 
41.9 

3.0 
2.8 
52.3 
5.3 

12.2 
66.5 
680.6 

3.0 
2.3 
0.3 
0.0 
0.0 
0.7 
5.7 

1.0 
3.8 
8.9 

0.3 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
0.6 
0.2 

7.5 
0.5 
0.1 
0.3 
0.1 
0.1 
4.0 
4.6 
4.0 

0.3 
0.0 
4.0 
0.8 

9.1 
9.0 
1.2 

0.1 
3.0 
22.6 

3.8 
15.2 
35.7 

1.1 
0.0 

0.4 
2.5 
0.6 

29.8 
1.9 
0.3 
1.3 
0.5 
0.3 
16.1 
18.4 
16.1 

1.2 

15.8 
3.2 

1.9 
7.9 
62.0 

7.5 
31.4 
248.1 

14.1 
29.9 
5.0 
0.3 
0.8 
11.0 
69.6 

16.2 
90.5 
137.4 

4.3 
0.9 
5.3 
1.7 
9.0 
2.3 

129.8 
7.3 
1.2 
4.4 
1.9 
3.2 
68.3 
75.3 
62.0 

4.5 
2.8 
72.1 
9.4 

21.6 
105.8 
990.7 

14.18 
62.13 
70.31 
100.00 
75.82 
66.46 
59.35 

70.60 
79.06 
67.49 

68.67 
100.00 
100.00 
71.94 
64.86 
66.52 

71.28 
68.09 
71.92 
63.34 
67.40 
88.54 
70.52 
69.50 
67.57 

66.88 
100.00 
72.54 
57.02 

56.52 
62.90 
68.70 

21,3 
7,7 
6,0 
0,0 
0,0 
6,4 
8,2 

6,2 
4,2 
6,5 

7,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,9 
6,7 
8,7 

5,8 
6,8 
8,3 
6,8 
5,3 
3,1 
5,9 
6,1 
6,5 

6,7 
0,0 
5,5 
8,5 

8,8 
7,5 
6.3 

64,5 
30,1 
24,0 
0,0 
12,5 
27,3 
32,5 

23,5 
16,8 
26,0 

25,6 
0,0 
0,0 
23,5 
27,8 
26,1 

23,0 
26,0 
25,0 
29,5 
26,3 
9,4 
23,6 
24,4 
26,0 

26,7 
0,0 
21,9 
34,0 

34,7 
29,7 
25.0 

Note1:  Switzerland  is  for  the  period  2014-2016  a  Eurostars-2  Partner  Country  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Eurostars-2 legal basis. 
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016. 

As  it  can  be  seen  from  Table  3,  the  top  4  participating  countries  with  the  highest  NFB 
commitment are Germany (35.7 million €); The Netherlands (29.8); Denmark (22.6) and 
Sweden  (18.4).  The  share  of  EC  funding  with  respect  to  the  total  project  costs  varies 
across  participating  countries.  This  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  funding  rates 
vary  from  one  country  to  the  other  (for  instance  in  Romania,  universities  cannot  be 
directly  funded  since  the  budget  depends  on  the  ministry  of  industry  and  not  from  the 
Ministry of education). Table 3 indicates that the top 5 countries with the relative highest 
EC funding are Austria (21.3%), Luxembourg (8.7%), Portugal (8.3%), Denmark (8.2%), 
and Belgium (7.7%).  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 summarises the current funding rates for Eureka projects for the majority of 
EUREKA countries. 

current funding rate (, 2017) 

Table 4. Current funding rates for Eureka projects 
Country 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech 
Denmark 
Finland 
France 

None available 
Typically loans 70, grants 50 
Up to 65 

50 to 80 
75 to 80 

Up to 70 

Max funding / notes 

60% 

€375.000 to €400.000 

50 

175.000* 

150 

50%  71 000 or 107 000 

None 
380,000 of costs eligible for 
funding 

50 

Max funding amount per project 
30 MISK for 3 yrs 

€450.00 

no limit 

45% 

The total maximum amount of 
aid from the eligible costs for one 
participant is EUR60 000.00 / 
year. 
868 860 (per project) 
Pre-competitive development: up 
to 45% Industrial research: up to 
70% 

5 000 000 

No limit 
For medium entreprise the 
percentage of eligible costs 
funded is 75%. For development 
research it is of 60% for small 
companies and 50% for medium 
entreprises. 

7000%  up to ~ 100,000/year/project 
100000 per year per project 
partner 

5000% 

6700% 

Totally 1,000,000€ (1€ = 
1500KRW) / project (Max 3 years) 
SME as defined by the European 
Union 

50  + 10  ** + 15  *** 

max 50 / max. 65 

Up to 70 

max. 25 for Research max. 25 for 
Development 
30-35 

25-55 

up to 75 

Up to 50 
max. 60 

Up to 80 

45-80 

Up to 85 

max. 50 

Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 

Iceland 
Ireland 
Israel 
Italy 

Latvia 
Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 
Norway 

Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 

Slovenia 
Spain 

South Korea 

Sweden 
Switzerland 
Turkey 
UK 
Source:  http://www.eurekanetwork.org/countries/belgium  (other  countries  can  be  selected  on  the  right  hand 
side of the web page). 

None available 

N/A 

75 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5. National contribution to the Eurostars-2 programme relatively to the national knowledge 
base (as measured by BERD) 

indicative budget 

budget contribution/ 
BERD country 

2014  2015  2016  2017  sum 5 first cut offs 

Participating states  
(EU 28) 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovak republic 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

Participating states  

86.1  84.1  41.2  82.9 
3.5 
1.1 
0.5 
0.7 
0.4 
1.0 
5.0 

3.5 
1.7 
0.5 
0.5 
0.4 
1.0 
5.0 

3.5 
1.1 
0.5 
0.7 
0.4 
1.0 
5.0 

1.8 
0.6 
0.3 
0.3 
0.2 
0.5 
2.5 

3.8 

3.8 
10.0  10.0 
15.0  15.0 

1.9 
3.8 
5.0  10.0 
7.5  15.0 

0.8 
1.0 
2.5 
0.4 
0.4 
0.6 
0.4 

0.8 
1.0 
2.2 
0.4 
0.4 
0.6 
0.4 
13.8  13.7 

0.4 
0.5 

0.8 
1.0 

0.4 
0.2 
0.6 
0.3 
0.6 
0.3 
0.2 
0.4 
6.9  13.7 

1.1 

1.1 

0.6 

1.1 

0.3 

1.0 

1.0 
1.0 
0.4 
0.5 
5.3 
10.0  10.0 
4.5 

0.5 
5.6 

6.4 

Iceland 
Israel 
Norway 
Turkey 
Partner countries 
South Korea 
Switzerland 

0.5 
2.5 
7.3 
4.0 

6.5 
4.0 

0.5 
2.5 
6.5 
4.0 

6.5 
4.0 

0.5 
1.0 
0.4 
0.5 
7.5 
9.0 
4.5 

0.5 
2.5 
7.0 
4.0 

4.0 
7.0 

0.5 
0.2 
0.2 
3.8 
4.5 
2.3 

0.3 
1.3 
3.5 
2.0 

2.0 
3.5 

211.3 
8.8 
3.4 
1.3 
1.5 
1.0 
2.5 
12.5 
0.0 
9.4 
25.0 
37.5 
0.0 
1.9 
2.5 
4.7 
1.0 
1.1 
1.5 
1.0 
34.4 
2.8 
1.0 
2.5 
0.9 
1.1 
14.6 
24.5 
13.2 

1.3 
6.3 
17.2 
10.0 

15.0 
11.5 

BERD 
2014 

298,811 
10,444 
10,072 
433 
375 
80 
3,250 
8,054 
303 
6,071 
48,643 
87,188 
1,684 
1,511 
2,921 
21,892 
152 
387 
671 
68 
13,630 
4,317 
2,289 
782 
927 
853 
13,172 
14,581 
43,878 

332 

6,739 
6,055 

45,585 
15,357 

UE15=100 

100.0 
118.5 
47.3 
408.0 
562.1 
1670.7 
108.8 
219.1 
0.0 
218.7 
72.7 
60.8 
0.0 
175.0 
121.0 
30.2 
928.4 
387.3 
316.1 
1987.0 
357.1 
91.7 
61.8 
451.9 
141.8 
187.3 
157.0 
237.6 
42.5 

533.1 
0.0 
361.7 
233.5 

46.5 
105.9 

110.9  108.0  69.8  140.2 

Total 
Note1: BERD = Business Enterprise R&D. 
Note2:  Switzerland  is  for  the  period  2014-2016  a  Eurostars-2  Partner  Country  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Eurostars-2 legal basis 
Source:  authors’  own  calculations  based  on  ESE  Eurostars-2  database  -  version  as  of  December  2016, 
Eurostars-2 Annual Work Plan (2014,2015,2016) and Eurostars-2 Annual Report 2016. 

288.6 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figures highlighted in red in the 6th column of Table 5 are the ones that contribute most 
in absolute terms to the Eureka budget. On the other hand, figures highlighted in red in 
the last column of Table 4 are associated with countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Germany, 
Italy, Portugal or UK) that contribute relatively less to the Eureka budget comparatively 
to the importance of their knowledge bases (as measured by their total expenditures on 
R&D in the private sector). The benchmark is for EU28 = 100. On the contrary, countries 
like  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Malta,  Romania,  Slovak  republic,  or  Slovenia  -  despite  their  relative  small 
contribution  to  the  Eureka  budget  -  are  in  relative  terms  contributing  more  if  we 
relativize  their  contribution  to  the  importance  of  their  private  R&D.  Finally,  Denmark, 
Finland,  The  Netherlands  Spain  and  Sweden  are  in  relative  terms  the  most  important 
contributors to the Eureka budget. 

Table  6  shows  the  geographic  distribution  of  participants  of  approved  Eurostars-2 
projects.  This  table  is  not  symmetric  and  must  be  read  line  by  line.  For  instance,  for 
Austria,  considering  all  the  approved  projects  with  at  least  one  Austrian  organization, 
leads to a total of 170 participants among which 68 are from Austria, 36 from Germany 
and  12  from  the  Netherlands.  One  interesting  fact  that  emerges  from  this  table  is  that 
overall, participants of a given country tend to collaborate mainly with other participants 
from the same country or from neighbouring countries (border-related effect).  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Iceland 
Israel 
Norway 
Turkey 
South Korea 
Switzerland 
Total 

68 

AT  BE 
1 
2  36 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
1 
6 
2 
1 
0 
7 
8 
7 
36 

1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 

0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
8 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 

  BG  HR  CY  CZ  DK  FI  FR  DE  HU 

Table 6. Geographic distribution of participants of approved Eurostars-2 projects 

0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
6  23 

1 
0 
4 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
5 
0 
0  24 
0 
0 
0 
1 

3 
6 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1  127 
0 
2 
5 

18 
20 

7 
8 
0 
0 
0 
4 
12 
5 
4  126 
3 

39 
9 
4 
0 
1 
4 
22 
5 
25 
18  239 

IE 
1  0 
0  0 
0  0 
0  0 
0  0 
1  0 
0  0 
0  0 
2  2 
4  0 

IT  LV  LT  LU  NL  PL  PT  RO  SR  SL  ES  SE  UK 
3 
0 
3 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
4 
0 
8 
0 
4 
0 
8 
0 
16 
2 

5 
3 
1 
0 
1 
2 
4 
5 
23 
24 

4 
3 
0 
0 
2 
0 
20 
6 
12 
16 

12 
4 
0 
0 
1 
1 
16 
5 
31 
60 

1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1 

2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
1 
1 

2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
1 
1 

2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
2 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
3 
5 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
2 
2 

1 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
2 
0 
4 
2 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 

0 
0 
2 
0 
2 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 

2 
2 
3 
0 
3 
4 

4  13  0 
1 
0 
0  3 
0 
1  0  16 
4 
0 
0  0 
0 
0 
0  0 
10 
0 
0  0 
2 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
7 
3 
4  21 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 

2 
0 
5 
1 
4 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 

1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
2 
0 
1 
1 

1 
0 
3 
2 
4 
0 

3 
0 
1 
1 
1 
0 

IS 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

IL  NO  TR  KR  CH  Total 
170 
88 
19 
2 
14 
55 
266 
72 
320 
518 

4 
2 
0 
0 
0 
1 
16 
7 
2 
9 

7 
3 
0 
0 
0 
2 
13 
0 
34 
33 

2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 

0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
2 
4 
2 
0 
5 

3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 
0 
1 
2 

0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 

0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 

0 
1 
8 
0 
5 
0 

29 
6 
49 
18 
60 
13 

10 
1 
0 
4 
4 
2 
6 
3 
4 
0 
2 
3 
6 
0 
7 

3 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
3 
2 
0 
0 
3 
0 
1 
2 
172  81 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
2 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
  20 

3 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
1 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

385 
0 
43 
0 
18 
0 
34 
0 
15 
0 
16 
0 
243 
0 
292 
0 
251 
0 
14 
0 
14 
0 
183 
0 
47 
0 
58 
0 
0 
331 
2  18  53  294  62  303  571  30  6  44  17  52  11  417  34  15  33  11  15  235  294  229  12  14  172  40  74  315  3653 

15 
3 
3 
0 
0 
2 
7 
10  118 
13 
12 
0 
0 
0 
0 
21 
4 
5 
2 
4 
2 
28 
7 

3 
5  13 
0 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
17 
2 
14 
3 
32 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
5 
0 
1 
0 
1 
3 
25 

21 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 
6 
26 
7 
1 
0 
3 
2 
2 
4  136 

15 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
8 
0 
0 
0 
7 
0 
0  100 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1  168 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 
1 
3 
0 
5 
0 
0  12 
0 
0 
0 
0 
9 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 

1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
7 
9 
0 
0 
0 
4 
3 
1  28 
1 

1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
2 
6 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0  15 
3 
2 

1  0 
0  0 
0  0 
2  0 
0  0 
0  0 
0  0 
2  0 
3  0 
0  0 
0  0 
0  0 
0  0 
0  0 
0  1 

22 
4 
0 
0 
0 
1 
10 
14 
95 
1 
1 
16 
2 
0 
7 

18 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
7 
26 
9 
4 
0 
21 
6 
3 
12 

24 
2 
0 
1 
1 
1 
23 
7 
10 
0 
1 
2 
1 
0 
36 

59 
2 
2 
3 
3 
1 
29 
14 
21 
0 
2 
13 
3 
6 
45 

3 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
18 
20 
0 
1 
78 

0 
0 
0 
0 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
5 
1 
0 
0 
0 

1 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
1 
0 
4 
0 
0 
1 
0 
2 
3 

4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 

4 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
3 
7 
4 
0 
0 
6 
0 
2 
0 

2 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
3 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
1 
5 

1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 

Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016. 
NB: Switzerland is for the period 2014-2016 a Eurostars-2 Partner Country within the meaning of the Eurostars-2 legal basis 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Share (in %) of approved Eurostars-2 participants by type of organisation - (2014-
November 2016) 

Large company 
5% 

Other 
1% 

Non R&D performing 
SMEs 
3% 

Research institute 
10% 

University 
15% 

R&D performing SMEs 
66% 

R&D performing SMEs

University

Research institute

Large company

Non R&D performing SMEs Other

Source: Own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016. 

Figure 2 indicates that about two-third of participants are R&D active SMEs, while 2.6% 
of participants are non-R&D SMEs. These statistics clearly show that Eurostars-2 projects 
are mainly granted to support SMEs active in R&D activities. The other two categories of 
organizations  which  received  an  important  part  of  Eurostars-2  funding  are  universities 
and research institutes with 15% and 10% approval rates respectively. These two other 
statistics further confirm that the focus of Eurostars-2 projects is R&D activities. 

Figure  3  also  show  the  distribution  of  participants  of  approved  Eurostars-2  projects  by 
type  of  organisation  for  the  top  10  countries  participating in  this  programme.  Here  also 
the  R&D  performing  SMEs  represent  in  all  countries  more  than  50%  of  all  participants 
with the highest share in the UK (96%) and the lowest (51%) in Austria. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Top 10 countries in Eurostars-2: share of participants by type of organisation 

Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016. 
NB:  Switzerland  is  for  the  period  2014-2016  a  Eurostars-2  Partner  Country  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Eurostars-2 legal basis. 

28 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4. Share (in %) of approved Eurostars-2 participants by technological area 
(2014-November 2016) 

4% 

13% 

30% 

24% 

29% 

Biotech

ICT

Industrial

Environment

Energy

Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016. 

Figure  4  shows  that  Eurostars-2  participants  come  mainly  from  Biotech,  ICT,  and 
Industrial  sectors  respectively  followed  by  the  Environment  and  Energy  sectors.  These 
statistics tend to suggest that, at first, Eurostars-2 projects beneficiaries came from only 
five  technological  sectors.  Second,  among  the  five  sectors,  one  was  not  particularly 
targeted as focus of intervention as it was the case for categories of beneficiaries where 
we saw that R&D SMEs were predominant.  

Figure 5. Share (in %) of projects by economic (market) sector 

Agriculture, Forestry And Fishing

Consumer Related

Other Electronics Related

Industrial Products / Manufacturing

2,3 

3,5 

3,8 

3,8 

Services

4,8 

Energy

Communications

Transportation

Construction And Building Products

Medical / Health Related

6,3 

6,5 

7,3 

8,3 

8,8 

Computer Related

13,6 

Biotechnology / Molecular Biology

31,0 

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016. 

Figure  5  also  displays  the  distribution  of  approved  projects  by  economic  sector.  The 
ranking  of  sectors  according  to  their  importance  (number  of  project)  is  more  or  less  in 
line  with  the  ranking  based  on  the  (more  aggregated)  distribution  in  terms  of 
technological  sectors  (see  Figure  4).  The  energy  sector  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  scale  in 
Figure 4, whereas in Figure 5 it is at the middle. This can be explained by the fact that in 
the  economic  distribution,  the  energy  sector  includes  not  only  the  producers  of  energy 
but also the distributors and the firms operating in the services sectors for energy. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6. Share (in %) of projects by number of participants per project (2014-November 2016) 

4% 

7% 

33% 

21% 

35% 

2

3

4

5

6 or more

Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016. 

Figure 6 shows that the less participants are in a project, the more we observe approved 
projects. Actually, projects with two or three participants constitute 68% of all approved 
projects  while  those  with  four,  five  or  six  participants  constitute  only  32%.  These 
statistics  tend  to  suggest  that  beyond  the  number  of  participants  in  each  Eurostars-2 
projects  might  determine  the  likelihood  of  being  approved.  Figures  7  and  8  show  the 
share of projects that started and ended in a given year. 

Figure 7. Number of participants (in %) in Eurostars-2 projects that started their project in a given 
year - (2014-November 2016) 

1% 

13% 

47% 

39% 

2014

2015

2016

2017

Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016. 

30 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8. Number of participants (in %) in Eurostars-2 projects that completed their project in a 
given year - (2014-November 2016) - Projections 

15% 

19% 

32% 

34% 

2016

2017

2018

2019

Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016. 

6. RESPONSES TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This  section  aims  at  responding  the  five  evaluation  questions  (relevance  and 
appropriateness,  efficiency,  effectiveness,  coherence,  and  European  added  value)  using 
all the material gathered during the study (interviews and evidence based facts extracted 
from the ESE database of Eurostars-2 projects, previous reports,…) 

6.1 Relevance and appropriateness 

transnational 

Eurostars-2 supports international innovative projects led by research and development- 
performing  small-  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (R&D-performing  SMEs).  Eurostars-2 
targets  R&D  SMEs 
innovation, 
competitiveness, growth and job creation. It contributes to speeding up the development 
of  the  technologies  and  innovations  that  will  underpin  tomorrow’s  businesses  and  help 
innovative  European  SMEs  to  grow  into  world-leading  companies.  Eurostars-2  is  jointly 
undertaken by 34 Participating states and Partner countries and the European Union. In 
the 2014-2020 period, it has a total public budget of €1.14 billion.  

research  which  contributes 

to 

The  Eurostars-2  programme  is  well  aligned  with  the  overall  European  Research  and 
Innovation  policy  objectives.  The  role  of  SMEs  for  the  economy  has  never  been  so 
important.  Eurostars  aims  to  bring  increased  value  to  the  economy,  higher  growth  and 
more  job  opportunities.  Eurostars  targets  therefore  all  the  market  sectors,  and  with  its 
bottom-up  approach,  it  supports  the  development  of  rapidly  marketable  innovative 

31 

 
 
 
 
products,  processes  and  services  that  help improve  the  daily lives  of  people  around  the 
world.  The  Eurostars-2  programme  is  considered  a  very  valuable  tool  to  foster  R&D 
performing SMEs. It is complementary to other programmes for SMEs but with the added 
value of encouraging transnational research cooperation between at least two SMEs. The 
full  bottom-up  approach,  together  with  the  small  size  of  the  consortia  which  eases 
project  management,  are  also  added  value  of  the  programme.  In  addition,  other  key 
strengths  are  represented  by  the  geographic  coverage,  with  extra-EU  partners  allowed, 
the long-term perspective, and the quite high success rate with an average of 30%.   

These  characteristics  could  attract  a  relatively high  share  of  newcomers  to  collaborative 
European funding, roughly 50%. As illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, the most represented 
partners are R&D performing SMEs, close to two thirds. A significant share is represented 
by research centres and universities (one fourth in total), demonstrating the capacity of 
the programme in fostering technology transfer activities from the research environment 
to industrial applications. The participation of large enterprises is beneficial, as it provides 
established  marketing  channels  and  lead  clients  for  the  innovative  solutions  developed 
within the projects. 

A more in-depth analysis of the ESE Eurostars-2 database also shows that: 

  79%  of  Eurostars-2  projects  have  at  least  two  R&D  performing  SMEs.  For  58%  of 
these  projects  (i.e.  with  at  least  2  R&D  performing  SMEs)  70%  of  the  total  project 
costs  are  concentrated  in  two  R&D  performing  SMEs.  These  figures  indicate  that 
beneficiaries of Eurostars-2 projects are mainly R&D performing SMEs. 

  84 % of R&D performing SMEs in Eurostars-2 projects fund at least 20% of the project 

total costs. 

  11  projects  involving  at  least  one  R&D  performing  SME  (out  of  470  of  this  type  of 
projects)  have  R&D  performing  SMEs  from  the  same  participating  state.  In  other 
words,  most  of  R&D  performing  SMEs  which  participate  in  Eurostars-2  projects 
perform collaborations with other participating states. 

Finally, a recent report16 shows that Eurostars-1 projects with only two R&D performing 
SMEs participating have higher performances compared to larger consortia (i.e. three or 
more  participants  in  the  same  project).  This  result  was  also  found  in  the  econometric 
analysis carried out in the ongoing current study on the socio-economic impact of Eureka 
projects.  

The  main  issue  highlighted  during  the  interviews  with  the  various  stakeholders  rests  in 
the  difficulty  for  in  Art.  185  to  align  or  harmonise  the  national  rules  of  the  Participating 
States  (convergence  issue),  and  to  the  difference  of  procedures  between  them,  also  in 
terms  of  timing.  Other  issues  were  mentioned  as  well  among  which  the  different 
procedures at stake across the Participating States or the possibility to have projects that 
are de facto mono beneficiary. 

16  Analysis  of  impact  of  completed  Eurostars-1  projects  carried  out  by  Ernst  and  Young  (2017)  and 

commissioned by the European Commission. 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
In light of these findings, the expert group proposes the following recommendations that 
could be implemented  

in the short term: 

Recommendation:  In  order  to  strengthen  the  EU  added  value,  at  least  two  R&D 
performing  SMEs  from  two  different  Participating  States  should  be  mandatory  in  the 
proposed  project  consortium  with  a  fair  distribution  of  activities  and  a  good  balanced 
budget (20% minimum for each R&D performing SME, i.e. 70% minimum for both). This 
is  important  to  respect  the  main  feature  of  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  to  go  to  the 
transnational  market  with  innovative  products  within  two  years  after  projects’ 
completion. 

Recommendation: The core objective of Eurostars-2 is to introduce into the market two 
years  after  the  project  completion  the  new  products,  services  or  processes:  this  should 
be  organised  and  effectively  implemented  at  programme  level  as  well  as  project  level. 
The  two  years  requirement  should  be  a  clear  criterion  to  take  into  consideration  in  the 
evaluation  process.  Follow-up  and  market  readiness  measures  should  be  monitored  by 
the  Participating  States  which  have  a  much  better  knowledge  of  their  beneficiaries  and 
their market potential. 

In the long term: 
Recommendation: The call for convergence of Art.185 creates difficulties and tensions 
between  Participating  States  that  are  reluctant  to  further  harmonize  the  national  rules 
and procedures and funding rates for Eurostars-2. Article 185 TFEU may be not the most 
appropriate instrument in absence of further convergence possibilities. 

6.2 Efficiency and use of resources 

The  Eurostars  programme  is  considered  successful  in  achieving  one  of  its  main 
objectives,  the  promotion  of  transnational  market-oriented  research  activities  for  R&D 
performing SMEs in any market area. The evaluation criteria based on a time to market 
of  two  years  for  the  achieved  results  is  strongly  in  line  with  the  idea  of  promoting  new 
and  improved  products,  processes,  and  services.  The  mix  of  national  and  central 
management,  and  of  national  and  central  funding,  as  well,  may  in  some  instances 
successfully  increase  the  accessibility  for  R&D  performing  SMEs  to  public  funding,  and 
foster  the  harmonisation  of  different  national  funding  mechanisms  under  a  common 
policy umbrella. However, different funding rules and rates represent a major issue in the 
programme (see Table 4). These differences arise because of the lack of convergence in 
aligning,  harmonising  and  synchronising  national  funding  mechanisms  due  to  policy 
orientations  and  implementation  of  Participating  States.  As  a  result,  the  share  of  EC 
funding with regards to the total project costs varies across participating countries. This 
can for instance be explained by the fact that the funding rates vary from one country to 
the  other  (for  instance  in  Romania,  universities  cannot  be  directly  funded  since  the 
budget  depends  from  the  ministry  for  industry  and  not  for  education).  Table  3  lists  the 
top  5  countries  with  the  highest  EC  funding,  namely  Austria;  Luxembourg;  Portugal; 
Denmark;  and  Belgium.  In  addition,  timing  issues  represent  an  additional  limit  to 
maximise the programme efficiency (e.g. in Italy, where a procedural problem linked to 
the approval time of the national budget act, too close to the first cut off to launch a call, 
and too far from the September cut-off, when Italian funds are all normally allocated). 

It  is  worth  to  notice  the  role  Eurostars-2  plays  in  fostering  the  access  to  public  R&D 
funding  by  R&D  performing  SMEs.  The  limited  size  of  consortia  and  the  bottom-up 
approach  are  attractive  features,  for  instance  when  compared  to  Horizon  2020,  where 
the  complicated  management  structures  associated  to  large  projects  or  the  extreme 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
competitiveness of instruments, like the SME Instrument, may represent limiting features 
for SMEs.  

The comitology system underlying the governance of Eurostars-2 could be simplified, for 
instance  by  reducing  the  multiple  layers  characterizing  it.  The  time  to  grant  has  been 
improved in comparison to Eurostars-1, and it should be aligned with the general Horizon 
2020  time  to  grant  of  8  months.  However,  because  of  differences  across  Participating 
States,  of  administrative  efficiency  and  the  mix  of  national  and  European  level 
management,  for  some  projects  it  may  take  a  significant  amount  of  time  before  all 
participants can sign the contracts.  

Funding  synchronisation  processes  create  delays  in  the  time  to  sign  contracts.  This  in 
turn  can  jeopardize  the  fast  introduction  of  new  products  and  services  into  the  final 
market  or  reduce  the  technological  performance  of  Eurostars  projects  (see  the  Ernst  & 
Young  report).  Box  2  discusses  the  concept  of  innovation  time-based  competition  and 
stresses  the  importance  for  companies  to  be  fast  when  introducing  new  or  improved 
products,  processes  or  services  to  achieve  and  maintain  a  sustainable  competitive 
advantage. 

Box 2. Innovation time-based competition 

Time-based  competition  is  the  extension  of  Just-In-Time  (JIT)  production  into  every  aspect  of  the  product 
delivery  cycle,  from  research  and  development  through  marketing  and  distribution  of  the  final  product.  Even 
quality, while still key to success, is not the competitive advantage it once was in many industries.  

Time-based  competition  is  a  broad-based  competitive  strategy  which  stresses  time  as  the  major  element  for 
achieving and maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage. It seeks to reduce the time needed to propose, 
develop, manufacture, market and deliver its products. 

Time-based  competition  materialises  in  two  different  forms:  fast  to  market  and  fast  to  produce.  Firms  that 
compete  with  to-market  speed  emphasize  reductions  in  design  lead-time.  In  other  words,  the  firm  has  the 
capability to minimize the time it takes to develop new products or make fast design changes. Products 50% 
over budget but introduced on time have been found to generate higher profit levels than products brought to 
market  within  budget  but  six  months  late.  Also,  this  form  allows  firms  to  gain  a  market  advantage  by  being 
able to consistently introduce more new products or large numbers of improved products more rapidly than its 
competitors,  thereby  dominating  the  market.  Sun  Microsystems,  for  instance,  attained  leadership  in 
engineering  workstations  by  reducing  (by  50%  compared  to  competitors)  the  time  required  to  design  and  to 
introduce new systems.  

Additionally, these firms are now moving further along the learning curve than the competition. Both factors in 
the long run increase barriers to entry by competitors. 
Fast-to-product firms emphasize speed in responding to customer demands for existing products. Wal-Mart, for 
instance,  has  been  able  to  dominate  its  industry  by  replenishing  its  stores  twice  as  fast  as  its  competitors. 
Firms  competing  in  this  field  concentrate  on  lead-time  diminution  throughout  the  system,  from  the  time  the 
customer  places  an  order  until  the  customer  in  the  end  receives  the  product.  This  includes  the  capability  to 
reduce the time it takes to manufacture products as well as the capability to shorten the time between taking a 
customer's  order  and  actually  delivering  the  product  (delivery  speed).  These  reductions  in  lead-time  come 
typically  together  with  significant  reductions  in  inventory  levels.  As  with  JIT,  there  is  less  rework,  fewer 
supervisors, lower carrying costs, less overhead, and so forth, as well as enhanced quality and on-time delivery 
performance.  Some  customers,  known  as  impatient  customers,  place  a  great  deal  of  value  on  reduced  lead-
time. These customers are willing to pay a premium to get their goods and services quickly. This combination of 
lower costs and higher revenues contributes significantly to an improved corporate performance. 

Source: adapted from: 
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Str-Ti/Time-Based-Competition.html#ixzz4dGUtlw5Y  

The  central  evaluation  process  is  widely  recognised  by  the  different  stakeholders 
consulted  as  positive  and  well  structured,  being  fast,  transparent,  and  professional.17 
Evaluation  reports  are  considered  complete  and  well  detailed.  Potential  issues,  but  also 

17  A  detailed  description  of  the  evaluation  process  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  is  available  at: 

https://www.eurostars-eureka.eu/eurostars-process-evaluation 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
areas  of  improvement,  are  represented  by  the  fact  that  the  evaluation  criteria  are 
numerous and narrow, which precludes an overall view of whole projects’ quality, as well 
as by the fact that no feedback about the projects’ outcomes is provided to evaluators. In 
addition,  the  common  ranking  of  projects  from  different  technological  areas  may  prove 
difficult  and  the  outcomes  of  the  discussions  and  decision-making  process  of  the 
Independent Evaluation Panel (IEP) should be more transparent. 

In terms  of  fostering international collaborations, the participation of extra-EU  countries 
is  a  strength  of  the  programme,  and  numerous  projects  are  cross  borders,  being  from 
neighbouring  countries  (see  Table  5).  However,  data  show  that  many  projects  are 
implemented  starting  from  national  collaborations,  and  Southern  and  Eastern-Central 
European countries are (except for Spain) still under-represented (cfr Table 1). 

Based on a survey targeting unsuccessful Eurostars-1 applicants18, Figure 9 indicates that 
for  this  programme,  the  challenges  to  find  suitable  partners,  administrative  burden  and 
bureaucracy associated with national as well as international funding and also the lack of 
transparency  on  how  EUREKA  works  are  considered  to  be  the  primary  barriers  to 
participate  in  Eurostars-1  projects.  Notably,  just  24  %  of  participants  emphasized  the 
fact that EUREKA provides just a label but no funding as being a barrier. In order to shed 
some more light into these issues, a more detailed survey investigating the main barriers 
and  obstacles  for  participation  of  under-represented  Participating  States  should  be 
carried-out. The task force established by Eurostars members did not really address this 
issue. The time frame and the resource limitations did not allow tackling this aspect.  

Figure 9. Barriers to participate in the Eurostars-1 programme (% of respondents) 

Perceived bureaucracy assoc. with nat. funding

Perceived bureaucracy assoc. with internat. Funding

Lack of transparency on how EUREKA works

Administrative barriers

Finding suitable partners

Management of the consortium

EUREKA provides just a label, but no funding

Expected low success rates

Expected legal problems with partners

Less attractive compared to other funding programmes

Note: Multiple answers were possible. 

0,0

5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0

18 Impact Assessment of EUREKA Network Projects and Cluster Projects (2017) ongoing study commissioned by 

the EUREKA Secretariat. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
In light of these findings, the expert group proposes the following recommendations: 

Recommendation:  Shorter  time  to  contract  will  permit  to  avoid  jeopardizing  the 
innovation potential of projects. Time to contract should be calculated at the project level 
when the consortium agreement is signed and not at the participant level when they sign 
their grant agreement with their respective NFB. 

Recommendation: The EC should consider in the short term granting the EU top-up to 
those  Eurostars  projects  for  which  grant  agreements  have  not  been  signed  within  one 
year of the cut-off period. 

Recommendation:  An  in  depth  and  representative  survey  of  the  barriers  encountered 
by  under-represented  Participating  States  should  be  carried  out  following  two  vectors: 
exogenous  barriers  and  endogenous  barriers.  A  particular  emphasis  will  be  put  on  the 
role of NPCs of under-represented Participating States. 

Recommendation: Put in place a follow-up of the results of funded  projects (i.e. FiRs) 
and their introduction into the market within two years after projects’ completion (MIRs) 
to better inform Participating States and the European Commission. 

Recommendation: The current evaluation process is too fragmented and the evaluation 
criteria are too numerous and narrow to have a realistic overview of the project's quality. 
More feedbacks should be given to the evaluators about the outcomes of the submitted 
projects they examined. 

6.3 Effectiveness 

The  Eurostars-2  programme  targets  mostly  R&D  performing  SMEs  (see  Figure  1  and 
Figure  3)  through  transnational  R&D  market  oriented  (high  Technological  Readiness 
Levels)  industrial  collaborations.  With  66%  of  all  participants,  the  presence  of  R&D 
performing  SMEs  in  Eurostars-2  is  somewhat  lower  than  it  was  the  case  in  Eurostars-1 
(72%).19  The  EU  Funding  contribution  for  Eurostars-2  has  a  significant  influence  on  the 
success  of  the  Programme,  and  for  R&D  performing  SMEs.  The  number  of  projects 
submitted and the total number of thirty-five participating countries are also indicators of 
this  success.  Eurostars-2  is  particularly  effective  in  mobilising  national  funding,  even 
though major differences exist between the participating countries (Figure 10). 

19 Sources: Figure 1 and Final Evaluation of the Eurostars Joint Programme (2014). 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
40,0

35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

Figure 10. Total NFBs commitment (share of countries in % with respect of total) 

35,7 

31,4 

29,8 

22,6 

18,4 

16,1 16,1 15,8 15,2 

9,1 9,0 

7,5 

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

n
a
p
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

y
a
w
r
o
N

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

3,8 3,2 3,0 2,5 1,9 1,3 1,2 1,2 1,1 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

y
e
k
r
u
T

a
e
r
o
K
h
t
u
o
S

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

d
n
a
o
P

l

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

s
u
r
p
y
C

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

l

e
a
r
s
I

y
l
a
t
I

As  can  be  seen  in  Figure  11,  Eurostars-2  contribution  to  Research  &  Development  and 
Innovation  activities  in  Europe  and  partner  countries  varies  significantly  across 
participating countries. Among the Top 5 countries, we found Germany (664 participants 
of  approved  proposals),  The  Netherlands  (432);  Spain  (421);  France  (353)  Switzerland 
(353).  The  countries  with  the  lowest  numbers  of  submitted  proposals  are:  Greece  (1), 
Malta (3); Estonia (4); Croatia (11); Ireland (13); Luxembourg (14). 

The success rate varies as well across participating countries, and is averaged at 30.6% 
which  is  considered  by  the  stakeholders  as  high  success  rate.  As  can  it  can  be  seen  in 
figure  12,  the  Top  5  successful  applicant  countries  include  Norway  (40.0%);  The 
Netherlands (38.9%); Switzerland (38.5%); Sweden (37.8%); Denmark (37.7%). The 5 
less successful applicant countries are Estonia (0%); Greece (0%); Malta (0%); Croatia 
(9.1%); Cyprus (9.3%). 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11. Number of participants of approved Eurostars-2 projects by country 

700

664 

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

45,0

40,0

35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

432 421 

353 353 

337 

312 305 

217 

195 

119 

101 101 92 

75  67  67  63  60  54  49  45  41  36  32  24  22  20  14  13  11  4  3  1 

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

n
e
d
e
w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
a
w
r
o
N

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

y
e
k
r
u
T

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
o
P

l

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

a
i
v
t
a
L

l

e
a
r
s
I

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

a
t
l
a
M

e
c
e
e
r
G

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
e
r
o
K
h
t
u
o
S

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

Figure 12. Success rate (in %) 

40,0 

38,9 38,5 

37,8 37,7 

36,0 35,7 35,6 

33,3 

32,7 

31,3 31,1 30,7 30,4 30,0 

28,6 

23,8 23,8 

23,1 22,7 22,4 21,9 21,7 

20,8 

19,4 19,4 

17,8 

12,2 

10,1 

9,3  9,1 

i

n
a
p
S

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

y
e
k
r
u
T

a
i
v
t
a
L

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

e
a
r
s
I

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

e
c
e
e
r
G

a
t
l
a
M

0,0  0,0  0,0 

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

a
e
r
o
K
h
t
u
o
S

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

38 

y
a
w
r
o
N

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  terms  of  project  implementation  and  monitoring,  a  stronger  control  of  a  project’s 
impact  in  terms  of  “product  innovation”,  “successful  placement  of  a  product  on  the 
market  within  two  years  after  projects’  completion”  or  “sustainability  of  transnational 
cooperation” would be beneficial, possibly by establishing common impact measurements 
methodologies. 

The Eurostars-2 programme is overall considered to play an adequate and complimentary 
role in promoting excellence in technological research, development and demonstration. 
This  is  due  to  many  aspects.  First,  compared  to  the  ERA-NETS,  which  are  sectoral 
programmes,  Eurostars  is  a  horizontal,  bottom  up  approach,  hence  it  diminishes 
fragmentation.  It  is  easier  to  manage,  to  follow  and  makes  it  understandable  for  the 
beneficiaries;  in  addition,  still  in  comparison  with  the  ERA-Nets,  more  countries 
participate,  allowing  more  options  of  collaboration  between  the  stakeholders.  In 
comparison  to  large  national  clustering  programmes,  it  targets  specifically  SMEs,  whilst 
cluster  programmes  are  normally  driven  by  large  companies.  Finally,  in  comparison  to 
the SME instrument, it really fosters collaborative actions, and the evaluation process is 
deemed  more  credible  and  transparent.  From  all  the  above  reasons,  the  Eurostars-2 
programme  sits  in  a  unique  niche  and  strengthens  the  transnational  cooperation  and 
research between SMEs and other research institutions. 

From a market perspective, the Eurostars-2 programme addresses successfully different 
technological  areas  and  markets.  The  most  represented  technological  areas  are  Biotech 
and  ICT  domains,  the  latter  horizontally  impacting  several  market  areas  (see  Figures  4 
and 5).  

In light of these findings, the expert group proposes the following recommendations: 

In the short term: 

Recommendation: R&D performing SMEs as eligibility criteria should be assessed at 
national level as it is done for the SME self-declaration. Today, this action is pursued by 
ESE.  

Recommendation: Structure and content of MIR reports should be improved in order to 
assess projects’ results on efficiency, effectiveness and pragmatism with regards to-go-
to-the-market. 

In the long term: 

Recommendation: Participating States should first receive MIRs and assess them on 
efficiency, effectiveness and pragmatism to-go-to-the-market. Their assessment per 
project should be addressed to the ESE as an element for the payment of the EC top-up. 
It will allow creating an instrument for assessment of the bottlenecks for 
commercialisation to build new go-to-the-market and financial tool boxes. 

6.4 Coherence 

The  main  objective  of  Eurostars-2  is  to  enhance  European  competitiveness  through  a 
bottom-up approach aiming to support R&D performing SMEs by: 

  Creating an easily-accessible and sustainable European R&D support mechanism; 
  Encouraging  R&D  performing  SMEs  to  create  new  economic  activities  based  on  their 
R&D results and bring new products, processes and services to the market faster than 
would otherwise be possible; 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
  Promoting technological and business development and internationalisation. 

These  companies  will  develop  some  capabilities  that  will  permit  them  to  access  to  a 
program  that  distinguishes  itself  from  other  types  of  public  programs  where  SMEs  have 
not been traditionally represented. According to an analysis carried out by ESE, in the 5 
first  cut  offs  of  Eurostars-2,  51%  of  the  R&D  performing  SMEs  who  participate  in 
approved projects are less than 10 years  old, and 49% of them have less than 10 Full-
Time  Equivalents  (FTEs).  In  comparison  with  Eurostars-1,  the  percentage  of  companies 
with less than 10 FTEs with approved projects has increased. 

National Funding Bodies (NFBs) play a key role in maintaining a sustainable mechanism - 
they  are  the  entry  to  the  program,  and  the  channel  of  first  and  main  communication  – 
that  facilitates  the  access  for  young  and  small  SMEs  with  a  weak  structure  and  a  short 
experience in an international environment. The proximity to NFBs and the sharing of the 
same language allow R&D performing SMEs to have a contact on a continuous basis and 
to  solve  problems  and  doubts  during  the  application  process  and  the  implementation  of 
the  project.  The  Commission  and  Participating  States  agreed  on  certain  amendments 
concerning  the  smooth  implementation  of  the  programme  and  use  of  the  EU  top-up. 
Convergence  elements  have  been  achieved  in  Eurostars-1  with  the  implementation  of  a 
centralized  evaluation  procedure  operated  by  ESE.  Yet,  in  Eurostars-2,  no  further 
developments of new convergence processes have been witnessed. 

The  legal  basis  enabling  the  cooperation  between  the  Commission,  Participating  States 
and  the  ESE  is  covered  by  Art.  185  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union  (TFEU)  which  stipulates  that  ‘Article  185  initiatives’  are  joint  programmes 
established  by  Member  States  or/and  Associated  Countries  (‘Participating  States’)  with 
the  financial  participation  of  the  European  Union.  They  are  designed  to  meet  particular 
challenges  in  the  research  area  and  to  complement  Horizon  2020,  to  leverage  national 
with EU funding, and to create economies of scales and synergies between national and 
EU research programmes and investments. 

The Eurostars programme is part of the palette of instruments put in place for the benefit 
of  SMEs  in  Europe.  It  covers  a  specific  niche  that  other  EU,  national  and  regional 
interventions  do  not  address  for  the  benefit  of  SMEs  in  Europe.  The  Eurostars-2 
Programme  cohabits  with  another  among  the  most  popular  instruments  of  H2020, 
namely the SME Instrument. To secure their uniqueness, both programs must have their 
own value and vision. What makes  Eurostars-2 unique is the cooperation among two or 
more international partners, with at least one R&D performing SME as a leader, although 
one  should  note  that,  in  its  current  architecture,  the  programme  does  not  prevent  de 
facto  "mono-beneficiarisation".  If  we  analyse  the  composition  of  consortia  in  the  first  5 
cut  offs  of  Eurostars-2,  projects  with  at  least  2-R&D  performing  SMEs  coming  from  2 
different  countries  represents  about  80%  of  all  project  funded.  Furthermore,  having  a 
research centre as a partner increases significantly the success rate.20 

A main feature of the programme is the benefits it offers to all types of participants. For 
large companies, the benefit can be the collaboration in an innovation projects together 
with  a  small  company,  which  by  definition  is  more  flexible  and  faster  in  incorporating 
innovation  in  new  products  or  process.  For  a  R&D  performing  SME  or  a  public  research 
institution,  the  benefit  to  collaborate  with  a  larger  company  can  rest  in  the  higher 
capabilities  of  the  latter  to  transfer  new  knowledge  to  the  market,  especially  at 
international level. 

The  commercialization  of  the  products  is  one  the  main  goals  of  the  programme,  and 
analysing  data  from  Market  Impact  Reports  (MIR)  and  Final  Report  (FIR)  received  until 

20 Source: ESE internal document. 

40 

 
 
                                                 
mid-January  2017,  reveals  that  77%  of  the  products,  processes  and  services  have 
already  been  brought  to  the  final  market,  and  the  median  time  to  market  for 
commercialisation of all participants is 1.2 years, with some variations depending on the 
type of consortium.  

According  to  the  Eurostars-1  annual  report  2016,  the  participation  is  expected  to  bring 
benefits  to  R&D  performing  SMEs  in  terms  of  turnover  growth  and  employment 
improvement. The FiR and MIR data show that on average, participating SMEs benefitted 
from additional turnover of € 0.55 million after completion of an Eurostars project, up to 
the time of reporting. This amount increases to € 0.79 million for main participants. The 
expected result for turnover within 2-3 years is € 2.96 million and € 4.47 million for main 
SMEs. In terms of employment, 2.3 jobs are created on average by main participants up 
to  the  time  of  reporting,  and  1.9  for  other  types  of  partners.  The  number  of  new 
employees  expected  is  5  for  main  partners  and  3.1  for  other  partners.  Based  on  this 
data,  we  can  conclude  that  the  Eurostars  program  encourages  SMEs  to  create  new 
economic activities based on R&D results and bring new products, processes and services 
to the market, with an impact in their size. The impact on the technological base of the 
SMEs  is  improved  as  well.  The  MIR  and  FIR  reports  indicate  that  around  37%  of 
participants report IPR activity, and for main participants this figure is of 45%. 

In terms of weaknesses, a real issue as indicated in Figure 13 rests in the fact that some 
participating  states  are  transferring  a  lower  amount  than  what  was  committed  at  the 
beginning of the year. This situation raises a real concern as it creates a EU funding loss 
should  which  should  be  avoided.  This  money  is  also  lost  by  the  EC  because  of  the 
annuality  of  the  budget  allocation.  As  a  consequence,  less  projects  and  participants  can 
be funded as originally planned. 

Figure 13. Difference between total NFB commitment to participant project costs and funding 
received (M€) - (2014- November 2016) 

25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
-5,0
-10,0
-15,0
-20,0
-25,0
-30,0

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

i

n
a
p
S

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
r
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
v
t
a
L

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
r
k
a
v
o
l
S

a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
o
P

l

y
a
w
r
o
N

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

n
e
d
e
w
S

l

e
a
r
s
I

y
e
k
r
u
T

l

a
t
o
T

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
e
r
o
K
h
t
u
o
S

Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016. 

In  terms  of  coherence,  the  call  for  convergence  of  Art.185  also  creates  difficulties  and 
tensions with Participating States that are unwilling to harmonize the national rules and 
procedures  for  Eurostars-2.  Participating  States  should  otherwise  apply  those  rules  to 
their national programmes given the full bottom-up feature of the Eurostars programme. 

Finally, ESE overall operations are highly dependent on Eurostars-2 (almost 50% of the 
ESE  budget  is  dedicated  to  Eurostars-2  activities).  Differentiation  between  EUREKA  and 
Eurostars-2 activities is not well distinguished in the various governance bodies (e.g. the 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
systematic  parallelism  of  the  bodies  of  EUREKA  and  Eurostars-2  takes  the  same 
composition  and  structure)  as  shown  in  the  diagram  presenting  the  current  Eureka 
governance Section. 

In light of these findings, the expert group proposes the following recommendations: 

In the short term: 

Recommendation:  In  order  to  strengthen  the  EU  added  value,  at  least  two  R&D 
performing  SMEs  from  two  different  Participating  States  should  be  mandatory  in  the 
proposed  project  consortium  with  a  fair  distribution  of  activities  and  a  good  balanced 
budget (20% minimum for each R&D performing SME, i.e. 70% minimum for both). This 
is  important  to  respect  the  main  feature  of  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  to  go  to  the 
transnational market within two years after projects’ completion. 

Recommendation: The management of the programme should foresee the total annual 
EU  funding  as  requested  in  the  Annual  Work  Plan  (AWP).  Losses  of  EU  annual  funding 
should  be  avoided.  The  increase  of  the  EU  top-up  rate  to  the  NFBs  in  order  to  use  the 
left-over  EU  contribution  is  a  counter-productive  option  because  this  will  definitively 
decrease the total budget (and impact) of the joint programme. 

Recommendation:  The  Eurostars  budget  is  around  50%  of  the  total  administrative 
budget  of  ESE  including  EUREKA  activities.  This  is  not  perceived  in  the  institutional 
governance  of  EUREKA.  A  distinctive  (from  EUREKA)  Eurostars  governance  agenda 
should be set up. 

6.5 European Added Value 

As  an  Article  185  initiative,  the  Eurostars-2  program  aims  at  leveraging  national  efforts 
for  the  European  good  in  a  way  that  delivers  added  value  for  Europe.  The  top  up 
contribution of the European Commission encourages member states to allocate funds in 
this programme thanks to this leverage effect. The EU financial contribution to Eurostars-
2 shall be up to € 287 million.  

The  Eurostars  programme  is  a  well-established  and  long-lasting  programme  and 
perceived by all stakeholders as an important part of the ERA. It represents an important 
support for R&D performing SMEs in Europe to become relevant players in the world-wide 
innovation  ecosystem.  Without  exceeding  this  amount,  the  Union’s  contribution  shall  be 
at  least  one  third  of  the  contributions  of  the  Participating  States.  It  shall  cover 
operational  costs,  including  the  costs  of  the  evaluation  of  proposals,  and  administrative 
costs.  

Until the moment of the publication of this report, the level of funding allocated by the EC 
was € 62 million, indicating that it would be necessary to increase the efforts from all of 
stakeholders to increment the number of applicants, and the budget of Member states, to 
be able to use all the budget allocated by the EC. 

Since  the  start  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  in  2014,  the  budget  commitment  of 
National  Funding  Bodies  increased  on  an  annual  basis  on  average  very  slightly  (0.4%), 
with  three  countries  with  the  highest  increases,  Romania  (1.7%),  The  Czech  Republic 
(1.5%) and Germany (1.5%), while at the other end, Finland (-2.7%), Hungary (-1.3%) 
and Turkey (-1.5%) exhibit a decrease of their contribution. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
The  number  of  countries  active  in  the  programme  is  made  up  of  the  28  EU  Members 
states, 4 non-EU participating states, and 2 partner countries, totalling 34 countries, but 
some  of  them  with  a  level  of  participation  very  low  or  even  null  as  Croatia,  Estonia, 
Greece,  Ireland,  or  Malta.  Other  (larger)  countries  exhibit  a  much  higher  participation 
such as for instance Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark, France, Switzerland or Spain. 
8  participating  countries  concentrate  more  than  half  of  all  participating  R&D  SMEs: 
Germany,  The  Netherlands,  United  Kingdom,  France,  Spain,  Denmark,  Switzerland, 
Sweden and Norway. 

Partner  countries  (EUREKA  member  countries  or  EUREKA  associated  countries  that  are 
not EU member states or associated countries to H2020) are allowed to participate to the 
programme but are not entitled to receive any EU top-up. 

As  already  said,  the  number  of  applicants  from  different  countries  varies  a  lot,  and  the 
success rate too. To achieve the goal of the programme and deliver further added value 
for  Europe,  it  would  be  necessary  to  work  with  the  countries  where  the  participation  is 
low and encourage them to support the application process of domestic SMEs and other 
research organizations. 

To emphasize the European meaning of the programme, and to differentiate it from other 
cross  border  programmes,  it  would  be  necessary  to  reduce  the  number  of  consortia 
involving  participants  from  the  same  country  or  from  neighbouring  countries  (language 
border effect). 

The  uniqueness  of  the  programme  Eurostars  comes  from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  only 
European  programme  in  near-the-market  R&D  industrial  cooperations  focusing  on  R&D 
performing  SMEs.  It  embeds  the  subsidiarity  principle  between  the  EC  and  the 
Participating  States 
the  DIS  (Dedicated 
that  agreed  on  designating  ESE  as 
Implementation  Structure)  of  the  programme.  Its  main  goal  is  that  the  results  of  the 
innovation projects steered by a R&D performing SME reach the final market in less than 
2  years,  with  an increment  in turnover  and  employment  creation  during  the  years  after 
the end of the project. 

This  type  of  companies  often  shows  difficulties  to  participate  in  European  R&D 
Cooperation  Projects,  and  this  programme  supports  especially  young  and  small  R&D 
performing  SMEs  to  achieve  for  the  first  time  the  European  level  for  their  innovation 
projects.  It  is  often  easier  for  R&D  performing  SMEs  to  participate  in  programmes  at 
regional  and  national  levels,  but  thanks  to  the  centralized  evaluation  process  (with 
independent  experts  and  a  peer  to  peer  panel  approving  the  research  proposal),  these 
firms  have  an  opportunity  to  test  the  level  of  their  innovation  and  the  international 
interest of the developed technologies. 

In light of these findings, the expert group proposes the following recommendations: 

In the short term: 

Recommendation:  The  uniqueness  of  the  Eurostars  programme  in  the  European 
panoply of market creating innovation tools to support SMEs should be preserved and re-
strengthened. 

Recommendation:  In  order  to  strengthen  the  EU  added  value,  at  least  two  R&D 
performing  SMEs  from  two  different  Participating  States  should  be  mandatory  in  the 
proposed  project  consortium  with  a  fair  distribution  of  activities  and  a  good  balanced 
budget (20% minimum for each R&D performing SME, i.e. 70% minimum for both). This 
is  important  to  respect  the  main  feature  of  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  to  go  to  the 
transnational market within two years after projects’ completion.  

43 

 
 
 
 
7. ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF COMPLETED EUROSTARS-1 PROJECTS 

Ernst  and  Young  was  contracted  by  the  European  Commission  to  evaluate  the 
performance  and  to  assess  the  impact  of  the  Eurostars-1  in  terms  of  new  products, 
processes  or  services  introduced  into  the  market  two  years  after  the  project’s 
completion.  The  analysis  was  also  aimed  at  providing  concrete  recommendations  and 
comments on how to better implement the Eurostars-2. 

Extensive  results  and  conclusion  of  this  analysis  are  reported  in  Appendix  7.  In  light  of 
the findings of this report, the following conclusions and recommendations are proposed. 

The  data  collection  mechanism  in  place  for  the  first  five  cut-offs  of  the  Eurostars-1 
significantly limits the monitoring and the measurement of the performance and impacts 
attributable  to  the  Eurostars  projects.  Moreover,  reliability  of  data  included  in  the  Final 
Report and Market Impact Report is limited.  

In  addition,  the  submission  of  Final  Report  and  Market  Impact  Report  and  the 
completeness  of  data  is  not  granted  as  only  a  part  of  the  beneficiaries  submitted 
completed reports. This might indicate the reporting activity was perceived as optional by 
some beneficiaries. 

Due  to  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  measuring  the  impacts  of  completed  Eurostars 
project is currently not possible in a comprehensive manner. As a result, this study was 
based  on  a  sample  of  182  projects  for  which  completed  information  was  available  from 
the  main  beneficiaries.  88%  of  the  analysed  projects  were  successful  in  developing 
products/ services/ processes within the project implementation period and 82% of these 
successful projects succeeded in the commercialisation of results.  

Regarding  the  latter,  in  terms  of  impacts  of  the  participation  in  the  Eurostars-1 
programme on the SMEs that implemented them, the main conclusion is that apart from 
the profitability of the investment, identified as limited, the other economic indicators for 
which data is available cannot be used to assess the direct impacts of the participation in 
the programme as they refer to the overall economic performance of the beneficiaries.  

The study also revealed that the participation in Eurostars-1 programme is perceived by 
the  interviewed  beneficiaries  as  a  positive  experience,  having  various  types  of  benefits 
(i.a  knowledge  and  network-related).  However,  the  beneficiaries  also  identified  barriers 
in  the  application  phase  (i.a.  political,  administrative),  project  implementation  (i.a. 
financial  and  technical)  and  commercialisation  phase  (i.a.  demand  and  consortium-
related). 

As  main  recommendations,  the  data  collection,  selection  and  monitoring  mechanisms 
should be improved. 

Recommendation: The data collection, selection and monitoring mechanisms in the ESE 
Database should be improved. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. POST 2020: FUTURE OPTIONS AND MODELS 

The  Expert  Group’s  terms  of  reference  request  specific  advice  on  the  lessons  learned 
from the Article 18521 initiative and the options for  future  European programmes in this 
area. 

In light of recent developments concerning the participation of States and the experience 
gained with the implementation of the programme, the issue arises whether the current 
model  of  EU  participation  in  the  Eurostars-2  Programme  is  still  the  most  effective  and 
best suited one in order to meet the EU’s goals and objectives.  

Several instruments exist at the EC to support the co-ordination of national policies and 
programmes  with  different  intensities  of  convergence  and  coordination.  The  choice  of 
instrument in  a  given  case  should  help  maximise  the  European  value-added  of  the  EU’s 
contributions  under  the  specific  framework  conditions  of  national  and  co-operation 
activities among the participating States.  

Adapting and modifying Article 185 

Article 185 provides the Commission with reasonable flexibility in terms of structuring its 
participation  and  with  regard  to  the  rules  and  procedures  for  the  provision  of  financial 
support  to  national  R&D  activities.  The  current  Eurostars-2  implementation  model 
calculates  the  EU  contribution  based  on  the  funds  spent  (costs  incurred)  by  the  project 
partners  in  the  Participating  States  on  a  Call  by  Call  basis.  The  Commission  then 
transfers the EU contribution to the ESE which serves as the implementation structure for 
the  Eurostars-2  Programme.  The  ESE  distributes  the  EU  funds  to  the  national  funding 
bodies  that  manage  the  funding  agreements  with  the  national  project  partners  involved 
in Eurostars-2 projects. As discussed in the main report, in the past this financing model 
was  prone  to  significant  levels  of  underspending  of  planned  EU  contributions  as  some 
Participating States failed to commit sufficient resources to the Calls in order to fund all 
proposals  selected  whilst  other  States  with  budget  commitments  had  no  national 
applicants among the selected projects.  

21 Article 185 TFEU states that "In implementing the multiannual framework programme, the Union may make 
provision, in agreement with the Member States concerned, for participation in research and development 
programmes undertaken by several Member States, including participation in the structures created for the 
execution of those programmes". 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Other policy instruments 

The  European  Commission  can  support  co-ordination  activities  of  national  research 
policies  through  other  instruments  than  those  based  on  Article  185.  Other  policy 
instruments  like  Joint  Programming  Initiative  (JPI)  to  address  grand  societal  challenges 
for Europe, ERA-Net, ERA-Net Co-Fund Actions, JTI have clearly been assessed as being 
not relevant to the specificity of Eurostars.  

At a practical level, the scope for action comes down to a handful of policy options each 
of  which  more  or  less  maps  to  a  specific  programme  model  or  policy  instrument  as 
described in the previous sub-section. These are summarised in Table 7 here below.  

Table 7. Four policy scenarios for future Eurostars 

Policy Approach 

1) No EU participation  

Policy Definition and 
Associated Instrument 

No  Art.  185  on  a  coordinated 
European  initiative  for  market-
oriented  research  cooperation 
of R&D-performing SMEs. 

Implemented through: EUREKA 
Network. 
dedicated 
No 
European  policy  instrument  is 
implemented. 

Implications 

need 
(and 

Established  networks  under 
to 
Eurostars-2 
be 
if  not 
differentiated 
merged) 
the  EUREKA 
ones  in  terms  of  beneficiaries, 
governance 
financing 
instruments. 

from 

and 

Loss  of  Eurostars-2  as  a 
‘flagship’  initiative  on  market-
oriented  research  cooperation 
of R&D-performing SMEs. 

2) Continue the Programme-
based national collaboration 

A  successor  programme  to  the 
current 
Eurostars-2 
programme  is  established  on 
the same/similar basis. 

‘More  of  the  same’,  potentially 
continuing  both  the  positive 
and  negative  features  of  the 
current Programme.  

Implemented  through:  Article 
185 initiative 

3) Design a new Programme-

based national collaboration 

States 

Participating 
work 
together  to  align  their  policies 
and  increase  funding,  with  the 
EC  providing  ‘glue  financing’ 
the  sole  administrative 
for 
expenditure. 

Overcoming  negative  aspects 
would require major changes in 
the  current  structure  of  the 
consortia;  more  promotion  of 
the  programme  at  national 
level, 
national 
mechanisms  to  improve  the 
commercialization  of  projects 
outcomes; etc.  

set-up 

of 

if 

EU  added  value  would  be 
limited 
participation 
continues  at  current  levels  and 
risk  on  EU's  underuse  of 
financial  commitments  will  be 
significant. 

these  risks,  a 
To  mitigate 
coordination 
between 
Participating  States  and  the 
future  EIC  policy  might  be 
envisaged 

of 

will 

attain 

National 
Convergence 
Policies 
its 
momentum.  Less  accumulation 
of  EU  and  National  rules  for 
implementation.  Collaboration 
continues  in  a  more  informal 
basis:  no  bilateral  agreements 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Implemented  through:  Article 
185 initiative 

ESE 

each 
between 
Participating 
are 
necessary  for  the  allocation  of 
the EU contribution.  

and 
State 

Less  administrative  burden  for 
the 
the 
ESE 
Participating States. 

and 

EU, 

4) EU-funded collaboration 

European  Union  programme 
funded  in  the  frame  of  the  9th 
Framework  Programme  under 
the  umbrella  of  the 
future 
European  Innovation  Council 
pilar ("EIC")  

Collaboration  continues  under 
the  umbrella  of  the  future  EIC 
under  the  9th  FP,  not  the 
EUREKA  Framework.  No  more 
coordination 
National 
of 
Policies in this field. 

Implemented 
through: 
Framework Programme.  

EU 

The  future  Eurostars  will  be 
part  of  the  panoply  of  market-
creating 
innovation 
instruments under the EIC. 

of 

developing 

Risk 
"grey 
zones'"  with  other  existing 
activities  addressing  innovative 
SMEs. 

"uniqueness" 

The  risk  could  be  mitigated  if 
the 
the 
programme 
is  demonstrated 
with success.  

of 

These  options  are  not  mutually  exclusive  and  at  this  stage  it  would  be  premature  to 
recommend  one  over  the  other.  A  new  Article  185  might  be  appropriate,  provided 
sufficient countries commit to fund such a programme over seven years (or however long 
the  next  Framework  Programme  will  run)  and  agree  major  changes  in  funding  and 
coordination (as listed in Table 7). 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The major benefits of Eurostars rest in several niche features of the programme: 
  Bottom up approach; 
  Strengthening transnational cooperation among R&D performing SMEs;  
  Division of work between central structure (ESE) and decentralised structures (NFBs); 
  Introduction  of  new  products,  processes  and  services  within  two  years  of  projects' 

completion; 

  Targeting  of  SMEs  without  any  previous  international  experience  in  transnational 

industrial R&D collaborations. 

On the other side, some weaknesses could also be identified: 
  High heterogeneity of times to contract; 
  Insufficient accuracy and up-to-date information in the ESE database; 
  Uncertainty to get funding for selected projects when the contribution of participating 

States has been exhausted by other projects; 

  Lack of synchronization of procedures for implementing the programme; 
  Not  enough  Participating  States  at  the  EU  level  are  active  in  the  Eurostars-2  joint-

programme. 

Based on these conclusions and the overall analysis, the expert group summarises the 
following recommendations: 

9.1 Key Issues 

  In  order  to  strengthen  the  EU  added  value,  at  least  two  R&D  performing  SMEs  from 
two  different  Participating  States  should  be  mandatory  in  the  proposed  project 
consortium  with  a  fair  distribution  of  activities  and  a  good  balanced  budget  (20% 
minimum  for  each  R&D  performing  SME,  i.e.  70%  minimum  for  both).  This  is 
important  to  respect  the  main  feature  of  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  to  go  to  the 
transnational  market  with  innovative  products  within  two  years  after  projects’ 
completion.  
(short term) 

  The  core  objective  of  Eurostars-2  is  to  introduce  into  the  market  two  years  after  the 
project completion the new products, services  or processes: this should be organised 
and  effectively  implemented  at  programme  level  as  well  as  project  level.  The  two 
years  requirement  should  be  a  clear  criterion  to  take  into  consideration  in  the 
evaluation process. Follow-up and market readiness measures should be monitored by 
the Participating States which have a much better knowledge of their beneficiaries and 
their market potential. (short term)  

 

  Recommendation:  R&D  performing  SMEs  as  eligibility  criteria  should  be  assessed  at 
national level as it is done for the SME self-declaration. Today, this action is pursed by 
ESE. (short term) 

  The  uniqueness  of  the  Eurostars  programme  in  the  European  panoply  of  market 
creating  innovation  tools  to  support  SMEs  should  be  preserved  and  re-strengthened. 
(short term) 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.2 Programme implementation  

  The  EC  should  consider  in  the  short  term  granting  the  EU  top-up  to  those  Eurostars 
projects for which grant agreements have not been signed within one year of the cut-
off period. (short term)  

  Shorter  time  to  contract  will  permit  to  avoid  jeopardizing  the innovation  potential  of 
projects.  Time  to  contract  should  be  calculated  at  the  project  level  when  the 
consortium agreement is signed and not at the participant level when they sign their 
grant agreement with their respective NFB. (short term) 

  The  gathering  of  information  from  the  centralized  ESE  database  which  should  be 
constantly  updated  would  constitute  an  advantage  to  monitor  the  overall 
implementation of the Joint programme. (short term) 

  The data collection, selection and monitoring mechanisms in the ESE Database should 

be improved. (short term) 

  Participating  States  should  first  receive  MIRs  and  assess  them  on  efficiency, 
effectiveness  and  pragmatism  to-go-to-the-market.  Their  assessment  per  project 
should be addressed to the ESE as an element for the payment of the EC top-up.  It 
will  allow  creating  an 
for 
commercialisation to build new go-to-the-market and financial tool boxes. (long term)  

for  assessment  of 

the  bottlenecks 

instrument 

  Structure and content of MIR reports should be improved in order to assess projects’ 
results on efficiency, effectiveness and pragmatism with regards to-go-to-the-market. 
(short term)  

  Put  in  place  a  follow-up  of  the  results  of  funded  projects  (i.e.  FiRs)  and  their 
introduction  into  the  market  within  two  years  after  projects’  completion  (MIRs)  to 
better inform Participating States and the European Commission. (short term) 

  The  management  of  the  programme  should  foresee  the  total  annual  EU  funding  as 
requested  in  the  Annual  Work  Plan  (AWP).  Losses  of  EU  annual  funding  should  be 
avoided. The increase of the EU top-up rate to the NFBs in order to use the left-over 
EU  contribution  is  a  counter-productive  option  because  this  will  definitively  decrease 
the total budget (and impact) of the joint programme. (long term) 

  R&D performing SMEs as eligibility criteria should be assessed at national level as it is 

done for the SME self-declaration. Today, this action is pursued by ESE. (short term) 

9.3 Governance  

  The  Eurostars  budget  is  around  50%  of  the  total  administrative  budget  of  ESE 
including  EUREKA  activities.  This  is  not  perceived  in  the  institutional  governance  of 
EUREKA. A distinctive (from EUREKA) Eurostars governance agenda should be set up. 
(short term) 

  An  in  depth  and  representative  survey  of  the  barriers  encountered  by  under-
represented  Participating  States  should  be  carried  out  following  two  vectors: 
exogenous barriers and endogenous barriers. A particular emphasis will be put on the 
role of NPCs of under-represented Participating States. (short term) 

  The call for convergence of Art.185 creates difficulties and tensions with Participating 
States that are reluctant to further harmonize the national rules and procedures and 
funding  rates  for  Eurostars-2.  Article  185  TFEU  may  be  not  the  most  appropriate 
instrument in absence of further convergence potentialities. (long term). 

49 

 
 
 
  The  current  evaluation process  is  too  fragmented  and  the  evaluation  criteria  are  too 
numerous  and  narrow  to  have  a  realistic  overview  of  the  project's  quality.  More 
feedbacks  should  be  given  to  the  evaluators  about  the  outcomes  of  the  submitted 
projects they examined. (short term) 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: EUROSTARS-2 JOINT PROGRAMME LEGAL BASIS 

DECISION  No  553/2014/EU  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE 
COUNCIL 

of 15 May 2014 

on  the  participation  of  the  Union  in  a  Research  and  Development  Programme 
jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at supporting research and 
development performing small and medium-sized enterprises 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular 
Article 185, and the second paragraph of Article 188, thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1), 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2), 

Whereas: 

In its Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020 A Strategy for smart, 
(1) 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth’  (the  ‘Europe  2020  strategy’)  the  Commission 
emphasised the need to develop favourable conditions for investment in knowledge and 
innovation  so  as  to  achieve  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  in  the  Union.  Both 
the European Parliament and the Council have endorsed this strategy. 

(2) 
Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) 
established  Horizon  2020  –  The  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation 
(2014-2020)  (‘Horizon  2020’).  Horizon  2020  aims  at  achieving  a  greater  impact  with 
respect  to  research  and  innovation  by  contributing  to  the  strengthening  of  public-public 
partnerships, including through Union participation in programmes undertaken by several 
Member  States  in  accordance  with  Article  185  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union. 

(3) 
Public-public  partnerships  should  aim  to  develop  closer  synergies,  increase 
coordination  and  avoid  unnecessary  duplication  with  Union,  international,  national  and 
regional  research  programmes,  and  should  fully  respect  the  Horizon  2020  general 
principles,  in  particular  those  relating  to  openness  and  transparency.  Moreover,  open 
access to scientific publications should be ensured. 

(4) 
By  Decision  No  743/2008/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  (4), 
the  Community  decided  to  make  a  financial  contribution  to  Eurostars,  a  joint  research 
and  development  programme  undertaken  by  all  Member  States  and  five  participating 
countries in the framework of Eureka, an intergovernmental initiative established in 1985 
with the objective of promoting cooperation in industrial research (‘Eurostars’). 

(5) 
In April 2012, the Commission communicated to the European Parliament and the 
Council  a  report  on  the  interim  evaluation  of  Eurostars  carried  out  by  a  Group  of 

51 

 
 
 
Independent  Experts  two  years  after  the  beginning  of  the  programme.  The  overall 
opinion  of  the  experts  was  that  Eurostars  meets  its  objectives,  adds  value  to  European 
research and development performing small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) and 
should  be  continued  after  2013.  Eurostars  is  also  considered  to  meet  a  number  of 
genuine  needs  of  SMEs  engaged  in  research  and  development;  it  has  attracted  a  large 
number  of  applications,  with  the  budget  for  projects  eligible  for  funding  exceeding  the 
initial  budget.  A  number  of  recommendations  for  improvement  were  made,  mainly 
addressing the need of further integration of national programmes and improvements in 
the  operational  performance  in  order  to  reach  shorter  time-to-contract  and  more 
transparency in the procedures. 

(6) 
The definition of SME provided for in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC 
of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (5) 
should apply. 

(7) 
In accordance with Council Decision 2013/743/EU (6), support may be provided to 
an  action  building  on  Eurostars  and  reorienting  it  along  the  lines  stated  in  its  interim 
evaluation. 

(8) 
The second Research and Development Programme jointly undertaken by several 
Member  States  aimed  at  supporting  research  and  development  performing  small  and 
medium-sized  enterprises  (‘Eurostars-2’),  aligned  with  the  Europe  2020  strategy,  its 
flagship initiative ‘Innovation Union’ and the Commission Communication of 17 July 2012 
entitled  ‘A  Reinforced  European  Research  Area  Partnership  for  Excellence  and  Growth’, 
will aim to supporting research and development performing SMEs by  co-financing their 
market  oriented  research  projects  in  any  field.  As  such,  and  in  combination  with  the 
activities under the ‘Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies’ objective set out 
in  Horizon  2020,  it  will  contribute  to  the  goals  of  the  Industrial  Leadership  part  of  that 
programme  to  speed-up  development  of  the  technologies  and  innovations  that  will 
underpin tomorrow’s businesses and help innovative European SMEs to grow into world-
leading  companies.  As  part  of  the  improvements  from  the  previous  Eurostars 
programme, Eurostars-2 should head towards shorter time-to-grant, stronger integration 
and  lean,  transparent  and  more  efficient  administration  to  the  ultimate  benefit  of 
research  and  development  performing  SMEs.  To  keep  the  bottom-up  nature  and  the 
business-driven  agenda  with  its  main  focus  on  market  potential  from  the  previous 
Eurostars programme is key to the success of Eurostars-2. 

(9) 
In  order  to  take  into  account  the  duration  of  Horizon  2020,  calls  for  proposals 
under  Eurostars-2  should  be  launched  at  the  latest  by  31  December  2020.  In  duly 
justified cases calls for proposals may be launched by 31 December 2021. 

(10)  The  Eureka  Ministerial  Conference  on  22  June  2012  in  Budapest  endorsed  a 
strategic  vision  for  Eurostars-2  (‘Budapest  Document’).  The  ministers  committed  to 
support the continuation of Eurostars after its termination in 2013 for the period covered 
by  Horizon  2020.  This  will  consist  of  a  reinforced  partnership  addressing  the 
recommendations  of  the  interim  evaluation  of  Eurostars.  The  Budapest  Document  sets 
out two main objectives for Eurostars-2. Firstly, a structural-oriented objective to deepen 
the  synchronisation  and  alignment  of  the  national  research  programmes  in  the  field  of 
funding,  which  is  a  central  element  towards  the  realisation  of  the  European  Research 
Area by the member countries. Secondly a content-related objective to support research 
and  development  performing  SMEs  engaging  in  transnational  research  and  innovation 
projects. The Budapest Document invites the Union to participate in Eurostars-2. 

(11)  For the purpose of simplification, administrative burdens should be reduced for all 
parties.  Double  audits  and  disproportionate  documentation  and  reporting  should  be 
avoided. When audits are conducted, the specificities of the national programmes should 
be taken into account, as appropriate. 

52 

 
 
(12)  Audits  of  recipients  of  Union  funds  provided  under  Eurostars-2  should  be  carried 
out in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013. 

(13)  The Participating States intend to contribute to the implementation of Eurostars-2 
during the period covered by Eurostars-2 (2014-2024). 

(14)  Eurostars-2  activities  should  be  in  line  with  the  objectives  and  bottom-up 
principles  of  Horizon  2020  and  with  the  general  principles  and  conditions  laid  down  in 
Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013. 

(15)  A ceiling should be established for the Union’s financial contribution to Eurostars-2 
for  the  duration  of  the  Horizon  2020.  Within  the  limits  of  that  ceiling,  there  should  be 
flexibility  regarding  the  Union’s  contribution,  which  should  be  at  least  one  third  but  no 
more than half of the contribution of the Participating States in order to ensure a critical 
mass  necessary  to  satisfy  the  demand  from  projects  eligible  for  financial  support,  to 
achieve  a  high  leverage  effect  and  ensure  stronger  integration  of  national  research 
programmes of the Participating States. 

In accordance with the objectives of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013, any Member 
(16) 
State  and  any  country  associated  to  Horizon  2020  should  be  entitled  to  participate  in 
Eurostars-2. 

(17)  Any  Eureka  Member  or  country  associated  to  Eureka  that  is  not  a  Member  State 
or a country associated to Horizon 2020 may become a Eurostars-2 partner country. 

(18)  The Union’s financial contribution should be subject to  formal commitments from 
the  Participating  States  to  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  Eurostars-2  and  to  the 
fulfilment of those commitments. Financial support under Eurostars-2 should mainly take 
the  form  of  grants  to  projects  selected  following  calls  for  proposals  launched  under 
Eurostars-2. In order to meet the objectives of Eurostars-2, the Participating States shall 
ensure  sufficient  financial  contributions  to  fund  a  reasonable  number  of  proposals 
selected through each call. 

(19)  The  joint  implementation  of  Eurostars-2  requires  an  implementation  structure. 
The Participating States have agreed on designating the Eureka Secretariat (‘ESE’) as the 
implementation  structure  for  Eurostars-2.  ESE  is  an  international  non-profit  association 
established  under  Belgian  law  in  1997  by  the  Eureka  countries  and,  since  2008,  is 
responsible  for  the  implementation  of  Eurostars.  ESE’s  role  goes  beyond  the 
implementation  of  Eurostars,  being  at  the  same  time  the  secretariat  of  the  Eureka 
initiative, with its own governance linked to the management of Eureka projects outside 
of  Eurostars.  The  Union,  represented  by  the  Commission,  is  a  founding  member  of  the 
Eureka initiative and full member of the Eureka Secretariat association. 

In order to achieve the objectives of Eurostars-2, ESE should be in charge of the 
(20) 
organisation of the calls for proposals, the verification of the eligibility criteria, the peer-
review  evaluation  and  the  selection  and  the  monitoring  of  projects,  as  well  as  the 
allocation  of  the  Union  contribution.  The  evaluation  of  proposals  should  be  performed 
centrally  by independent  external  experts  under  the  responsibility  of  ESE  following  calls 
for proposals. The projects’ ranking list should be binding for the Participating States as 
regards  the  allocation  of  funding  from  the  Union’s  financial  contribution  and  from 
contribution from Participating States. 

(21)  Overall, Eurostars-2should demonstrate  clear progress towards further alignment 
and synchronisation of the national research and innovation programmes as a truly joint 
programme  featuring  stronger  scientific,  management  and  financial  synchronisation. 
Stronger  scientific  integration  should  be  achieved  through  the  common  definition  and 
implementation of activities and should ensure the excellence and the high impact of the 
projects  selected.  Management  integration  should  ensure  further  improvement  of 

53 

 
 
operational  excellence  and  accountability  for  the  programme.  Stronger  financial 
integration should be based on overall and yearly adequate financial contribution by the 
States  participating  in  Eurostars-2  and  a  high  degree  of  national  synchronisation.  This 
should be achieved through a progressive harmonisation of national funding rules. 

(22)  The  Union’s  financial  contribution  should  be  managed  in  accordance  with  the 
principle of sound financial management and with the rules on indirect management set 
out  in  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No  966/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council (7) and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (8). 

(23) 
In order to protect the Union’s financial interests, the Commission should have the 
right to  reduce,  suspend  or  terminate  the  Union’s  financial  contribution if  Eurostars-2  is 
implemented  inadequately,  partially  or  late,  or  if  the  Participating  States  do  not 
contribute,  or  contribute  partially  or  late,  to  the  financing  of  Eurostars-2.  Those  rights 
should  be  provided  for  in  the  delegation  agreement  to  be  concluded  between  the  Union 
and the ESE. 

(24)  Participation  in  indirect  actions  funded  by  Eurostars-2  is  subject  to  Regulation 
(EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9). However, due to 
the  specific  operating  needs  of  Eurostars-2,  it  is  necessary  to  provide  for  derogations 
from that Regulation in accordance with Article 1(3) of that Regulation. 

(25) 
In  order  to  facilitate  the  participation  of  SMEs  which  are  more  used  to  national 
channels  and  which  would  otherwise  carry  out  research  activities  only  within  their 
national  boundaries,  the  Eurostars-2  financial  contribution  should  be  provided  in 
accordance  with  the  well-known  rules  of  their  national  programmes  and  implemented 
through a funding agreement directly administered by the national authorities, combining 
Union funding with the corresponding national funding. A derogation should therefore be 
made from Article 15(9), Articles 18(1), 23(1), (5) to (7), 28 to 34 of Regulation (EU) No 
1290/2013. 

(26)  Calls for proposals by Eurostars-2 should also be published on the single portal for 
participants  as  well  as  through  other  Horizon  2020  electronic  means  of  dissemination 
managed by the Commission. 

(27)  The  Union’s  financial  interests  should  be  protected  by  means  of  proportionate 
measures  throughout  the  expenditure  cycle,  including  the  prevention,  detection  and 
investigation of irregularities, the recovery of funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used 
and,  where  appropriate,  administrative  and  financial  penalties  in  accordance  with 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. 

(28)  The  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the  Participating  States,  should  conduct  an 
interim  evaluation  assessing  in  particular  the  quality  and  efficiency  of  Eurostars-2  and 
progress towards the objectives set, as well as a final evaluation and prepare a report on 
those evaluations. 

(29)  Upon  request  from  the  Commission,  ESE  and  the  Participating  States  should 
submit  any  information  which  the  Commission  needs  to  include  in  the  reports  on  the 
evaluation of Eurostars-2. 

(30)  Since  the  objectives  of  this  Decision,  namely  to  support  transnational  research 
activities  performed  by  research-intensive  SMEs  and  to  contribute  to  the  integration, 
alignment  and  synchronisation  of  national  research  funding  programmes  cannot  be 
sufficiently achieved by the Member States due to lack of transnational dimension and of 
complementarity  and  interoperability  of  national  programmes  but  can  rather,  by  reason 
of the  scale and impact of the  action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may 
adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of 

54 

 
 
 
the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set 
out in that Article, this Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve 
those objectives, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION: 

Article 1 

Subject matter 

This  Decision  lays  down  rules  on  the  participation  of  the  Union  in  the  second  Research 
and  Development  Programme  jointly  undertaken  by  several  Member  States  aimed  at 
supporting  research  and  development  performing  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
(‘Eurostars-2’) and the conditions for its participation. 

Article 2 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this Decision the following definitions apply: 

‘SME’  means  a  micro-,  small-  and  medium-sized  enterprises,  as  defined  in 

(1) 
Recommendation 2003/361/EC; 

‘research and development performing SME’ means an SME which meets at least 

(2) 
one of the following conditions: 

(a) 

reinvests at least 10 % of its turnover to research and development activities; 

dedicates  at  least  10  %  of  its  full-time  equivalents  to  research  and  development 

(b) 
activities; 

has  at  least  five  full-time  equivalents  (for  SME  with  no  more  than  100  full-time 

(c) 
equivalents) for research and development activities; or 

has  10  full-time  equivalents  (for  SME  with  over  100  full-time  equivalents)  for 

(d) 
research and development activities. 

Article 3 

Objectives 

Eurostars-2 shall pursue the following objectives: 

(1) 

promote research activities that comply with the following conditions: 

(a) 
the  activities  are  carried  out  by  transnational  collaboration  of  research-  and 
development  performing  SMEs  among  themselves  or  including  other  actors  of  the 
innovation chain (e.g. universities, research organisations); 

results of activities are expected to be introduced into the market within two years 

(b) 
of the completion of an activity; 

(2) 
increase  the  accessibility,  efficiency  and  efficacy  of  public  funding  for  SMEs  in 
Europe  by  aligning,  harmonising  and  synchronising  the  national  funding  mechanisms  of 
Participating States; 

55 

 
 
promote  and  increase  the  participation  of  SMEs  without  previous  experience  in 

(3) 
transnational research. 

Article 4 

Participation in and partnership with Eurostars-2 

1.      The  Union  shall  participate  in  Eurostars-2  jointly  undertaken  by  Austria,  Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France, 
Germany,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Norway,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia, 
Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden,  Switzerland,  Turkey  and  the  United  Kingdom,  (the 
"Participating States"), in accordance with the conditions laid down in this Decision. 

Iceland, 

Ireland, 

Israel, 

2.      Any  Member  State  other  than  those  listed  in  paragraph  1  and  any  other  country 
associated to Horizon 2020 may participate in Eurostars-2 provided it fulfils the condition 
laid down in point (c) of Article 6(1) of this Decision. If it fulfils the condition laid down in 
point (c) of Article 6(1), it shall be regarded as a Participating State for the purposes of 
this Decision. 

3.   Any Eureka Member or country associated to Eureka that is not a Member State or a 
country associated to Horizon 2020 may become a Eurostars-2 partner country provided 
it  fulfils  the  condition  set  out  in  point  (c)  of  Article  6(1).  Those  Eureka  Members  or 
countries  associated  to  Eureka  that  fulfil  the  condition  laid  down  in  point  (c)  of  Article 
6(1),  shall  be  regarded  as  partner  countries  for  the  purposes  of  this  Decision.  Legal 
entities  from  those  partner  countries  shall  not  be  eligible  for  the  Union’s  financial 
contribution under Eurostars-2. 

Article 5 

Union’s financial contribution 

1.   The Union financial contribution, including EFTA appropriations, to Eurostars-2 shall 
be  up  to  EUR  287  000  000.  The  Union’s  financial  contribution  shall  be  paid  from  the 
appropriations  in  the  general  budget  of  the  Union  allocated  to  the  relevant  parts  of  the 
Specific Programme, implementing Horizon 2020, established by Decision 2013/743/EU, 
in  accordance  with  point  (c)(vi)  of  Article  58(1),  and  Articles  60  and  61  of  Regulation 
(EU,  Euratom)  No  966/2012,  and  in  particular  from  appropriations  under  the  heading 
"Innovation in SMEs" under Part II. 

2.      Without  exceeding  the  amount  laid  down  in  paragraph  1,  the  Union’s  contribution 
shall  be  at  least  one  third  of  the  contributions  of  the  Participating  States  referred  to  in 
point  (a)  of  Article  7(1).  It  shall  cover  operational  costs,  including  the  costs  of  the 
evaluation of proposals, and administrative costs. Where during the lifetime of Eurostars-
2 the rate of the Union’s contribution needs to be adapted, the Union’s contribution may 
go up to a maximum of half of the contributions of the Participating States referred to in 
point (a) of Article 7(1). 

3.      An  amount  not  exceeding  4  %  of  the  Union’s  financial  contribution  referred  to  in 
paragraph  1  may  be  used  to  contribute  to  the  administrative  costs  of  Eurostars-2. 
Participating  States  shall  cover  the  national  administrative  costs  necessary  for  the 
implementation of Eurostars-2. 

Article 6 

Conditions for the Union’s financial contribution 

1.   The Union’s financial contribution shall be conditional upon the following: 

56 

 
 
the demonstration by the Participating States that they have set up Eurostars-2 in 

(a) 
accordance with the objectives laid down in Article 3; 

(b) 
the  designation  by  the  Participating  States  or  organisations  designated  by 
Participating States, of the ESE, as the structure responsible for implementing Eurostars-
2 and for receiving, allocating and monitoring the Union’s financial contribution; 

the  commitment  by  each  Participating  State  to  contribute  to  the  financing  of 

(c) 
Eurostars-2; 

the  demonstration  by  ESE  of  its  capacity  to  implement  Eurostars-2,  including 
(d) 
receiving,  allocating  and  monitoring  the  Union’s  financial  contribution,  in  the  framework 
of indirect management of the Union budget in accordance with Articles 58, 60 and 61 of 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012; and 

the  establishment  of  a  governance  model  for  Eurostars-2  in  accordance  with 

(e) 
Annex II. 

2.   During the implementation of Eurostars-2, the Union’s financial contribution shall also 
be conditional upon: 

(a) 
the implementation by the ESE of Eurostars-2’s objectives set out in Article 3 and 
activities  set  out  in  Annex  I,  in  accordance  with  the  rules  for  participation  and 
dissemination referred to in Article 8; 

the maintenance of an appropriate and efficient governance model in accordance 

(b) 
with Annex II; 

compliance  by  ESE  with  the  reporting  requirements  set  out  in  Article  60(5)  of 

(c) 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012; 

(d) 
the effective payment by the Participating States of the financial contribution to all 
participants in Eurostars-2 projects  selected for funding following the  calls for proposals 
launched  under  Eurostars-2,  fulfilling  the  commitments  referred  to  in  point  (c)  of 
paragraph 1 of this Article; 

(e) 
allocation  of  the  funding  from  the  national  budgets  for  Eurostars-2  projects  and 
the Union’s financial contribution in accordance with the ranking lists of the projects; and 

the  demonstration  of  clear  progress  in  the  scientific,  managerial  and  financial 
(f) 
cooperation  by  the  establishment  of  minimum  operational  performance  targets  and 
milestones for the implementation of Eurostars-2. 

Article 7 

Contribution from Participating States 

1.      Contribution  from  the  Participating  States  shall  consist  of  the  following  financial 
contributions: 

(a) 
co-financing  of  the  selected  Eurostars-2  projects  through  relevant  national  forms 
of  funding,  mainly  through  grants.  The  Commission  may  use  the  established  grant 
equivalence  rules  for  the  valuation  of  the  contributions  from  the  Participating  States  in 
forms other than grants; 

financial contribution to the administrative costs of Eurostars-2 not covered by the 

(b) 
Union contribution as set out in Article 5(3). 

57 

 
 
2.   Each Participating State shall designate a National Funding Body (NFB) to administer 
financial support to the national participants in Eurostars-2 in accordance with Article 8. 

Article 8 

Rules for participation and dissemination 

1.   For the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013, the ESE shall be considered to be 
a funding body. 

2.   By way of derogation from Article 15(9) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013, the NFBs, 
under the coordination of the ESE, shall verify the financial capacity of all applicants for 
funding under Eurostars-2. 

3.      By  way  of  derogation  from  Article  18(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1290/2013,  grant 
agreements with beneficiaries of indirect actions under Eurostars-2 shall be signed by the 
NFBs concerned. 

4.      By  way  of  derogation  from  Article  23(1),  (5),  (6)  and  (7)  and  Articles  28  to  34  of 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1290/2013,  the  funding  rules  of  the  participating  national 
programmes shall apply to Eurostars-2 grants administered by the NFBs. 

Article 9 

Implementation of Eurostars-2 

1.   Eurostars-2 shall be implemented on the basis of annual work plans. 

2.      Eurostars-2  shall  provide  financial  support  mainly  in  the  form  of  grants  to 
participants following calls for proposals. 

Article 10 

Agreements between the Union and the ESE 

1.   Subject to a positive ex-ante assessment of the ESE in accordance with Article 61(1) 
of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, the Commission, on behalf of the Union, shall 
conclude a delegation agreement and annual transfer of funds agreements with the ESE. 

2.      The  delegation  agreement  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  shall  be  concluded  in 
accordance  with  Article  58(3)  and  Articles  60  and  61  of  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No 
966/2012, and in accordance with Article 40 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012. 
It shall also set out the following: 

the  requirements  for  the  ESE  regarding  the  performance  indicators  set  out  in 

(a) 
Annex II to Decision 2013/743/EU; 

the requirements for the ESE’s contribution to the monitoring referred to in Annex 

(b) 
III to Decision 2013/743/EU; 

specific  performance  indicators  for  the  functioning  of  the  ESE  in  respect  of 

(c) 
Eurostars-2; 

requirements for the ESE regarding the provision of information on administrative 

(d) 
costs and of detailed figures concerning the implementation of Eurostars-2; 

arrangements  regarding  the  provision  of  data  necessary  to  ensure  that  the 

(e) 
Commission is able to meet its dissemination and reporting obligations; 

58 

 
 
(f) 
an  obligation  for  the  ESE  to  sign  bilateral  agreements  with  the  NFBs  before  any 
transfers of the Union’s financial contribution take place, such bilateral agreements laying 
down 
the 
implementation of Eurostars-2; 

the  minimum  operational  performance 

targets  and  milestones 

for 

(g) 
provisions for the publication of calls for proposals by Eurostars-2, in particular on 
the single portal for participants, as well as through other Horizon 2020 electronic means 
of dissemination managed by the Commission. 

Article 11 

Termination, reduction or suspension of the Union’s financial contribution 

1.    If  Eurostars-2 is not implemented  or is implemented inadequately, partially or late, 
the Commission may terminate, proportionately reduce, or suspend the Union’s financial 
contribution in line with the actual implementation of Eurostars-2. 

2.      If  the  Participating  States  do  not  contribute,  contribute  partially  or  late  to  the 
financing  of  Eurostars-2,  the  Commission  may  terminate,  proportionately  reduce,  or 
suspend  the  Union’s  financial  contribution,  taking  into  account  the  amount  of  funding 
allocated by the Participating States to implement Eurostars-2. 

Article 12 

Ex-post audits 

1.   ESE shall ensure that ex-post audits of expenditure on indirect actions are carried out 
by the respective NFBs in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013. 

2.   The Commission may decide to carry out itself the audits referred to in paragraph 1. 
In  such  cases,  it  shall  do  so  in  accordance  with  the  applicable  rules,  in  particular  the 
provisions of Regulations (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No 
1291/2013. 

Article 13 

Protection of the financial interests of the Union 

1.      The  Commission  shall  take  appropriate  measures  ensuring  that,  when  actions 
financed  under  this  Decision  are  implemented,  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  are 
protected  by  the  application  of  preventive  measures  against  fraud,  corruption  and  any 
other  illegal  activities,  by  effective  checks  and,  if  irregularities  are  detected,  by  the 
recovery  of  the  amounts  wrongly  paid  and,  where  appropriate,  by  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive administrative and financial penalties. 

2.   The ESE shall grant Commission staff and other persons authorised by it, as well as 
the  Court  of  Auditors,  access  to  its  sites  and  premises  and  to  all  the  information, 
including information in electronic format, needed in order to conduct their audits. 

3.      The  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  may  carry  out  investigations,  including  on-
the-spot  checks  and  inspections,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  and  procedures  laid 
down  in  Council  Regulation  (Euratom,  EC)  No  2185/96  (10)  and  Regulation  (EU, 
Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11), with a view 
to  establishing  whether  there  has  been  fraud,  corruption  or  any  other  illegal  activity 
affecting the financial interests of the Union in connection with an agreement or decision 
or a contract funded under this Decision. 

59 

 
 
4.   Contracts, grant agreements and grant decisions resulting from the implementation 
of this Decision shall contain provisions expressly empowering the Commission, the Court 
of Auditors,  OLAF and the  ESE to conduct such audits and investigations, in accordance 
with their respective competences. 

5.      In  implementing  Eurostars-2,  the  Participating  States  shall  take  the  legislative, 
regulatory,  administrative  or  other  measures  necessary  to  protect  the  Union’s  financial 
interests,  in  particular  to  ensure  full  recovery  of  any  amounts  due  to  the  Union  in 
accordance  with  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No  966/2012  and  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1268/2012. 

Article 14 

Communication of information 

1.   At the request of the Commission, the ESE shall send any information necessary for 
the preparation of the reports referred to in Article 15. 

2.      The  Participating  States  shall  submit  to  the  Commission,  through  the  ESE,  any 
information  requested  by  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  or  the  Court  of  Auditors 
concerning the financial management of Eurostars-2. 

3.      The  Commission  shall  include  the  information  referred  to  in  paragraph  2  of  this 
Article in the reports referred to in Article 15. 

Article 15 

Evaluation 

1.      By  30  June  2017,  the  Commission  shall  carry  out,  in  close  cooperation  with  the 
Participating  States  and  with  the  assistance  of  independent  experts,  an  interim 
evaluation  of  Eurostars-2.  The  Commission  shall  prepare  a  report  on  that  evaluation 
which  includes  the  conclusions  of  the  evaluation  and  observations  by  the  Commission. 
The Commission shall send that report to the European Parliament and to the Council by 
31 December 2017. The result of the interim evaluation of Eurostars-2 shall be taken into 
account in the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020. 

2.   At the end of the Union’s participation in Eurostars-2, but no later than 31 December 
2022,  the  Commission  shall  conduct  a  final  evaluation  of  Eurostars-2.  The  Commission 
shall  prepare  a  report  on  that  evaluation  which  is  to  include  results  of  that  evaluation. 
The Commission shall send that report to the European Parliament and to the Council. 

Article 16 

Entry into force 

This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 17 

Addressees 

This Decision is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 15 May 2014. 

For the European Parliament  

60 

 
 
The President  

M. SCHULZ 

For the Council  

The President  

D. KOURKOULAS 

________________________________________ 

(1)  Opinion of 10 December 2013 (not yet published in the Official Journal). 

(2)  Position of the European Parliament of 15 April 2014 (not yet published in the Official 
Journal) and decision of the Council of 6 May 2014. 

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 
December  2013  establishing  Horizon  2020  —  the  Framework  Programme  for  Research 
and  Innovation  (2014-2020)  and  repealing  Decision  No  1982/2006/EC  (OJ  L  347, 
20.12.2013, p. 104). 

(4)    Decision  No  743/2008/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  July 
2008  on  the  Community’s  participation  in  a  research  and  development  programme 
undertaken  by  several  Member  States  aimed  at  supporting  research  and  development 
performing small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 201, 30.7.2008, p. 58). 

(5)  OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36. 

(6)    Council  Decision  2013/743/EU  of  3  December  2013  establishing  the  specific 
programme implementing Horizon 2020  — the Framework Programme for Research and 
Innovation 
repealing  Decisions  2006/971/EC,  2006/972/EC, 
2006/973/EC, 2006/974/EC and 2006/975/EC (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 965). 

(2014-2020)  and 

(7)    Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No  966/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the 
Union  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1605/2002  (OJ  L  298, 
26.10.2012, p. 1). 

(8)    Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  1268/2012  of  29  October  2012  on  the 
rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 362, 31.12.2012, p. 
1). 

(9)  Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 
December  2013  laying  down  the  rules  for  participation  and  dissemination  in  ‘Horizon 
2020  —  the  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation  (2014-2020)’  and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 81). 

(10)  Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-
the-spot  checks  and  inspections  carried  out  by  the  Commission  in  order  to  protect  the 
European  Communities’  financial  interests  against  fraud  and  other  irregularities  (OJ  L 
292, 15.11.1996, p. 2). 

(11)    Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No  883/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  11  September  2013  concerning  investigations  conducted  by  the  European 
Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  1073/1999  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  Council  Regulation  (Euratom)  No  1074/1999  (OJ  L 
248, 18.9.2013, p. 1). 

61 

 
 
________________________________________ 

ANNEX I 

Implementation of Eurostars-2  

1. 

The  ESE  shall  organise  continuously  open  calls  for  proposals,  with  cut-off 

dates for the award of financial support to indirect actions. 

2. 

Applicants shall submit project proposals to the ESE as a single entry point. 

3. 

After the  closure of a  call for proposals, a  central eligibility check shall be 
carried  out  by  the  ESE  on  the  basis  of  the  eligibility  criteria  set  out  in  the  annual  work 
plan. No different or further eligibility criteria may be added by the Participating States. 

4. 

The  NFBs,  under  the  coordination  of  the  ESE,  shall  verify  the  financial 

capacity of the participants according to common, clear and transparent rules. 

5. 

Eligible  proposals  shall  be  evaluated  centrally  and  ranked  by  a  group  of 
external  independent  experts  in  accordance  with  the  criteria  set  out  in  Article  15(1)  of 
Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013, on the basis of transparent procedures. 

6. 

The  ESE  shall  provide  an  evaluation  review  procedure  in  accordance  with 

Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013. 

7. 

The ranking list, approved as a whole by the Eurostars-2 high-level group 
referred  to  in  Annex  II,  shall  be  binding  for  the  allocation  of  funding  from  the  national 
budgets for Eurostars-2 projects. 

8. 

Once the ranking list is approved, each Participating State shall finance its 
national  participants  in those  projects  selected  for  funding  through  the  designated  NFB, 
making all possible efforts to ensure that the top-50 ranked projects and at least 50 % to 
75  %  of  the  projects  above  thresholds  are  funded.  The  financial  contribution  to  the 
participants shall be calculated according to the funding rules of the national programme 
of the relevant Eurostars-2 Participating State. The Union’s financial contribution shall be 
transferred  by  the  ESE  to  the  NFBs  provided  that  the  NFBs  have  paid  their  financial 
contribution to the projects. 

9. 

All  eligible  participants  in  projects  selected  centrally  shall  be  funded.  The 
granting  of  financial  support  by  the  NFBs  to  project  participants  selected  centrally  shall 
be subject to the principles of equal treatment, transparency and co-funding. 

10. 

The  ESE  shall  be  responsible  for  evaluating  proposals,  informing  NFBs, 
coordinating  the  synchronisation  process,  monitoring  projects  through  project  reporting 
and audits carried out by NFBs, and reporting to the Commission ensuring a short time-
to-grant. It shall also take appropriate measures to encourage recognition of the Union’s 
contribution  to  Eurostars-2,  both  to  the  programme  itself  and  to  individual  projects.  It 
shall  promote  appropriate  visibility  for  the  Union’s  contribution  through  the  use  of  the 
Horizon 2020 logo in all published material, including printed and electronic publications, 
related to Eurostars-2. 

11. 

ESE  shall  conclude  Eurostars-2  bilateral  agreements  with  the  NFBs  of 
Participating  States.  Those  Eurostars-2  bilateral  agreements  shall  set  out  the 
responsibilities  of  the  contracting  parties  in  accordance  with  the  Eurostars-2  rules, 
objectives  and  implementation  modalities.  The  Eurostars-2  bilateral  agreements  shall 
include  the  rules  governing  the  transfer  of  the  Union’s  contribution  and  the  minimum 
operational  targets  and  national  progressive  milestones  for  further  integration  and 
synchronisation of national programmes, including a shorter time-to-grant in accordance 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
with  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No  966/2012  and  Regulation  (EU)  No  1290/2013.  Those 
targets  and  milestones  shall  be  agreed  by  the  Eurostars-2  high-level  group  in 
consultation  with  the  Commission.  The  signature  of  the  Eurostars-2  bilateral  agreement 
and  compliance  with  the  operational  targets  and  milestones  shall  be  a  pre-condition  for 
NFBs to receive the Union’s contribution. 

12. 

The  ESE  may  conclude  Eurostars-2  bilateral  agreements  with  the  NFBs  of 
partner  countries.  Those  Eurostars-2  bilateral  agreements  shall  set  out 
the 
responsibilities  of  the  contracting  parties  in  accordance  with  the  Eurostars-2  rules, 
objectives and implementation modalities, specify the conditions under which partnership 
with Eurostars-2 shall take place, and include the minimum operational targets, including 
a short time-to-grant. 

13. 

Networking  activities  and  exchange  of  best  practices  shall  also  be 
organised  amongst  the  Participating  States  in  order  to  promote  stronger  integration  at 
scientific, managerial and financial level. 

14. 

Other  activities  shall  also  include  brokerage,  programme  promotion  and 
networking  activities  with  other  stakeholders  (investors,  research  and  innovation 
providers,  intermediaries)  mainly  to  widen  participation  from  beneficiaries  in  all 
Participating  States  and  to  involve  SMEs  with  no  prior  experience  in  transnational 
research projects. 

________________________________________ 

ANNEX II 

Governance of Eurostars-2  

1. 

The ESE shall manage Eurostars-2. 

The  Head  of  the  ESE,  as  the  legal  representative  of  the  ESE,  shall  be  in  charge  of 
implementing Eurostars-2 by: 

preparing  the  annual  budget  for  the  calls,  central  organisation  of  joint  calls  for 
(a) 
proposals and reception of the proposals as single entry point; the central organisation of 
the eligibility and evaluation of proposals, according to common eligibility and evaluation 
criteria,  central  organisation  of  the  ranking  and  selection  of  proposals  for  funding,  and 
project  monitoring  and  follow-up;  the  receipt,  allocation  and  monitoring  of  the  Union 
contribution; 

collecting  the  necessary  information  from  the  NFBs  for  the  transfer  the  Union 

(b) 
contribution; 

(c) 

promoting Eurostars-2; 

reporting  to  the  Eurostars-2  high-level  group  and  the  Commission  on  the 

(d) 
Eurostars-2 programme; 

(e) 

informing the Eureka network about the activities of Eurostars-2; 

signing  the  delegation agreement  with  the  Commission,  the  bilateral agreements 

(f) 
with the NFBs and the contracts with the experts assessing Eurostars-2 applications; 

adopting  the  Eurostars-2  annual  work  plan  following  the  prior  agreement  of  the 

(g) 
Eurostars-2 high-level group and of the Commission. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. 

The  Eurostars-2  high-level  group, 

the  national 
representatives  in  the  Eureka  High  Level  Group  of  the  Eurostars-2  Participating  States, 
shall supervise the operations of the ESE on Eurostars-2 by: 

composed  of 

(a) 

supervising the implementation of Eurostars-2; 

(b) 

appointing the members of the Eurostars-2 Advisory Group (‘EAG’); 

(c) 

approving the annual work plan; 

approving  the  ranking  list  of  Eurostars-2  projects  to  be  funded  and  taking  the 

(d) 
award decision. 

The  Union,  represented  by  the  Commission,  shall  have  the  status  of  observer  in  the 
Eurostars-2  high-level  group.  The  Commission  shall  be  invited  to  participate  at  the 
meetings, shall receive all meeting documents and may take part in the discussion. 

Any  partner  country  shall  have  the  right  to  send  representatives  to  meetings  of  the 
Eurostars-2 high-level group as observers. 

3. 

The  EAG  shall  be  composed  of  Eureka  National  Project  Coordinators 
(persons in the national government  or agency dealing with the operational level of the 
management  of  Eureka/Eurostars  programme  and  in  charge  of  the  promotion  of 
Eurostars-2  in  the  Participating  States)  from  the  Participating  States.  The  Commission 
and  partner  countries  shall  have  the  right  to  send  representatives  to  the  EAG  meetings 
as observers. The EAG meetings shall be chaired by the ESE. 

The EAG shall advise the ESE and the Eurostars-2 high-level group on the arrangements 
for the implementation of Eurostars-2. 

4. 

The NFB shall be in charge of the administration of financial support to the 

national participants. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: MANDATE OF THE INTERIM EVALUATION EXPERT 

GROUP 

The interim evaluation shall be carried out by the Commission  in accordance with article 
15 of the Eurostars-2 Decision22. The evaluation will start by finding out how the situation 
has  evolved  since  the  Programme  began  and  how  the  Programme  has  been 
implemented. The interim evaluation should examine the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme at 
programme  and  project's  level.  For  the  project  level  assessment  of  the  impact  of  the 
Eurostars-1  ended  projects  will  be  taken  into  account  as  well.  Special  emphasis  will  be 
put on the implementation and the economic impact of the programme and if the original 
objectives  of  the  Programme  and  their  evolvement 
first  two-years  of 
implementation.  The  evaluation  shall  also  audit  the  governance  of  the  programme  and 
access its evolution in particular as far as its impact in the market is concerned.  

its 

in 

The  results of the interim evaluation of  Eurostars-2 Joint Programme  will be included in 
the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation. 

Terms of Reference are as follows: 

Purpose and Scope 

The purpose of the Expert Group ("the Group") is to assist the European Commission in 
carrying out the interim evaluation of Eurostars-2 Joint programme. 

The  Group  is  required  to  prepare  a  report  and  to  make  recommendations  based  on 
available  relevant  evidence,  covering  all  aspects  of  the  interim  evaluation  as  set  out  in 
the  legal  basis  (see  Annex  1)  and  respecting  the  better  regulation  Guidelines  on 
evaluation.  

The Group will synthesise the information included in wide range of inputs studies (both 
horizontal  and  thematic)  together  with  other  relevant  documents  to  be  provided  by  the 
Commission.  These  documents  comprising  the  evidence-based  will  be  structured 
according to the five main evaluation criteria and related evaluation questions prescribed 
by  the  Better  regulation  guidelines  in  order  to  ensure  a  coherent  approach  and  to 
facilitate the aggregation of information.  

The  evaluation  should  provide  comprehensive  answers  to  the  following  five  main 
evaluation criteria and accompanying evaluation questions:  

a) Relevance and appropriateness: 

  To  what  extent  is  the  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  relevant  with  respect  to  the 
demands  of  the  involved  Participating  States  and  of  the  beneficiaries?  Do  the 
objectives still correspond to the needs of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme? 

  To  what  extent  is  Eurostars-2  appropriate  to  support  the  realization  of  the  EU  policy 
objectives  especially  ERA,  Innovation  Union,  the  three  "O",  thematic  sector  policies 
including 'Innovation in SMEs'? 

22 According to Article 15 (1) of Eurostars-2 Decision "by 30 June 2017, the Commission shall carry out, in close 
cooperation with the Participating States and with assistance of independent experts, an interim evaluation 
of Eurostars-2. The results of the interim evaluation shall be presented to the European Parliament and the 
Council by 31 December 2017."   

65 

 
 
 
                                                 
b) Efficiency and use of resources: 

a.  Efficiency with respect to the specific and operational objectives of the initiative as 
laid  down  in  its  basic  act  [Decision  No  553/2014/EC  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  14  May  2014]  and  the  corresponding  Impact  Assessment 
(IA), including: 
a.1. Progress made towards achievement of the following specific objectives:  

-  Promotion  of  transnational  market-oriented  research  activities  for  R&D 
performing  SMEs  in  any  field,  leading  to  the  introduction  of  new  or 
improved products, processes or services in the market by the participating 
SMEs; 

-  Contribution to the completion of the ERA and increasing the accessibility, 
efficiency and efficacy of public funding for R&D performing SMEs in Europe 
funding 
by  aligning,  harmonising  and  synchronising 
mechanisms. 

the  national 

a.2.  Progress  made  towards  achievement  of  the  following  operational   objectives 
taking into consideration the indicators and targets as mentioned in Chapter 8 
of the IA: 

-  Three years after the end of each project, for each 1 M€ of public funding 
(from  EU  and  participating  Eurostars  countries),  on  average,  the  turnover 
of the participants should increase by at least  10M€, at least 25 new  jobs 
should  be  created  and  three  new  or  improved  products,  processes  or 
services should be on the market; 

-  Scientific  integration  of  national  programmes:  Ensure  excellence  and 
impact  of  the  projects  selected  through  international  (EUREKA  initiative) 
competition  and  the  application  of  a  single  evaluation  and  selection 
process; 
-  Management 

improve 
operational  excellence  and  accountability  for  the  programme  by  reducing 
the  time  to  contract  while  maintaining  an  optimal  frequency  of  calls  per 
year; 

integration  of  national  programmes:  Further 

-  Financial  integration  of  national  programmes:  Harmonisation  of  national 

funding rules and application of a binding ranking list; 

-  Facilitate  the  participation  of  R&D  performing  SMEs  without  previous 

experience in transnational R&D activities. 

b.  Efficiency  with  respect  to  the  implementation  structures  of  Eurostars-2, 

including 
b.1.  How  efficient  is  the  programme  implementation  by  ESE  in  collaboration 
with  the  National  Funding  Bodies.  What  were  its  main  limitations  in 
relation  to  National  Funding  Bodies  (NFBs)  during  the  execution  of  the 
Programme? What could be the lessons learnt for the future? 

b.3.  What  resources  are  needed  at  the  different  levels  (Commission  services, 
Participating  States  and 
the  preparation  and 
their  NFBs) 
implementation  of  the  initiative?  Are  these  justified  by  the  scale  and 
scope of the initiative? 

for 

c.  Efficiency  with  respect  to  Eurostars-2  as  an  instrument  to  foster  transnational 

R&D cooperation within Europe, including: 
c.1.  To  what  extent  has  Eurostars-2  been  cost-effective?  Were  the  costs 
involved justified, given the changes/effects which have been achieved? Is 
the  operational  performance  of  EUREKA/ESE  and  its  role  proportionate  to 
its allocation of budget?  

66 

 
 
c.2.  Is  the  initiative  implemented  in  an  efficient  way?  Have  the  management 
aspects been properly addressed? Are effective monitoring and supervision 
arrangements in place to ensure adequate monitoring of the initiative?   

c.3. Has  the  initiative  been  implemented  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
the  adopted  work  plans,  budgets  and  the  delegation  agreement?  Are  the 
reporting requirements, including audit provisions efficient? 

d.   What  kind  of  approaches  could  be  considered  to  generate  further  efficiency 

gains?  

c) Effectiveness: 

What have been the (qualitative and quantitative) (expected) impacts of Eurostars-2 - At 
programme and project levels, in particular: 

At Programme level: 

-  To what extent is Eurostars-2 able to mobilize national and European funding 
for  R&D  performing  SMEs?  How  strong  is  the  leverage  effect  from  the  Union 
contribution?  Is  the  programme  sufficiently  accessible,  in  particular  for  the 
R&D performing SMEs? Are there identified "barriers to entry"? 

-  How does Eurostars-2 compare to the 'mainstream' EUREKA with regard to the 

participation of SMEs, synchronisation of funding, type of projects etc. 

-  What's the efficiency of the mechanisms and tools ensuring the entry-into-the-

market of results/achievements of Eurostars-2 ended projects?  

-  To  what  extent  are  the  (expected)  impacts  of  Eurostars-2  in  line  with  its 

objectives? 

At Project Level:  

-  How effectively are the projects managed by the participants? 
-  What  are  the  main  economic  and  social  impacts  for  R&D  performing  SMEs 
in  terms  of  new 
participating 
products/processes/services or significant improvement of existing ones? What 
is  the impact in  terms  of  competitive  position,  company  profile,  employment, 
qualification  of  staff,  R&D  investments  and  attitude  towards  transnational 
collaboration? 

in  Eurostars-2?  What 

is  the 

impact 

-  What  is  the  added  value  for  an  R&D-performing  SME  to  participate  in 
Eurostars-2 (i.e. what is the return on investment)? What is the motivation of 
other  participant  types  to  participate?  Do  the  benefits  from  participating 
outweigh the costs? 

-  What  improvements/modifications  are  proposed  to  enhance  the  participation 
of SMEs to the programme and maximise the benefits they can get from their 
participation? 

-  How are the SMEs using the IPR resulting from the project? 
- 

Is  the  current  project  format  (at  least  one  R&D  performing  SME  and  another 
partner  from  a  different  country)  appropriate  with  regard  to  Eurostars-2 
objectives? 

-  Does  Eurostars-2  play  an  adequate  role  in  promoting  excellence  in  scientific 
and technological research, development and demonstration in the considered 
field and impact of the projects selected?  

-  Does  Eurostars-2  play  an  adequate  role  in  supporting  innovation  in  the 

considered field? 

-  Does  Eurostars-2  play  an  adequate  role  in  positioning  Europe  on  the  global 

map of science and technology in research in the concerned field?  

67 

 
 
 
 
d) Coherence: 

a.  External  coherence:  To  what  extent  is  Eurostars-2  coherent  with  other  EU-
level  interventions  which  have  similar  objectives?  What  are  the  relations  (i) 
complementarity, (ii) synergies including with other funding programmes such 
as the ESIF Regional Funds, collaborative projects were SMEs are participating 
in the  frame  of    bilateral  S&T&I  agreements  between  the  Participating  States 
(iii) and  potential overlaps (iv)? 

b.  Is  the  performance  of  Eurostars-2  in  line  with  the  spirit  of  Article  185  TFEU? 
Are  the  procedures  implemented  at  national  level,  coherent  and  aligned  to 
ensure the best performance of the Programme?  

c.  Internal  coherence:  How  was  the  interaction  between  the  different  bodies 
intervening  in  Eurostars-2  governance  (EUREKA  High  Level  Group  (HLG), 
Eurostars  HLG,  Eurostars-2  Advisory  Group,  EUREKA  Secretariat,  NPCs, 
National Funding Bodies, European Commission)? Did their role evolve during 
the execution of the programme? Did the role of the Commission change? 

e) European Added Value23: 

a.  What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  EU  intervention(s),  compared 
to what could be achieved by Member States at national, regional and/or local 
levels?  

b.  What  is  the  added-value  of  the  Eurostars-2  Programme  compared  to  other 
forms  of  support  to  R&D&I  in  Horizon  2020  Framework  programme  (in 
particular  SME-Instrument,  collaborative  projects  in  the  Thematic  priorities  of 
LEITs and Societal Challenges, joint technology initiative, ERA-net)?  

Any  other  question  that  the  independent  experts  feel  necessary  to  address  for 
accomplishing their task can be added by the Group after consultation with the European 
Commission. 

23 Concerning the aspect of EU-added value, the findings of a currently on-going horizontal study dedicated to 
analyzing the EU added value of FP interventions will be made available as input for the Group. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 3: ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF COMPLETED EUROSTARS-
1 PROJECTS 

The  scope  of  the  study  consisted  in  the  400  Eurostars-1  ended  projects  that  have  been 
funded during the period 2008 – 2010 (i.e. from cut-off 1 to cut-off 5) and their impacts 
on  the  market  in  terms  of  turnover  generated,  company  growth,  new  market 
development,  increase  of  employees,  innovation,  sustainability,  economic  and  social 
impact,  complementarities  in  terms  of  impacts  with  other  Horizon  2020  initiatives  in 
particular SME Instrument Phase 2 projects and collaborative projects under the Societal 
Challenges and Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies. 

In  terms  of  the  methodology  implemented,  three  main  tasks  have  been  undertaken  in 
order  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  study,  namely:  desk  research,  interviews  and 
results analysis. 

First, desk research has been performed and included the following activities: 

  Literature  review  of  policy  documents  and  analysis  of  the  policy  papers  and  other 
relevant policy literature mainly aimed to investigate specific aspects of the Eurostars-
1 programme such as: addressed needs, objectives, governance, funding mechanism, 
monitoring setup; 

  Analysis  of  the  contents  and  of  the  quality  of  project  reporting  questionnaires  (Final 
Report and Market Impact Report) and analysis of existing data concerning Eurostars-
1  implemented  projects  –  mainly  data  extracted  from  the  Final  Reports  and  Market 
Impact  Reports  and  included  in  the  Eurostars  database,  in  order  to  identify  eventual 
data gaps, issues of data quality and possible data needs that may affect the results of 
the impact evaluation. 

  Cross-checks  of  data  declared  by  Eurostars-1  beneficiaries  (in  Final  Reports,  Market 
Impact  Reports  and  during  the  interviews  performed  within  the  current  study)  with 
data extracted from Amadeus database.  

Two  series  of  interviews  were  successively  conducted  in  the  next  phase  of  the  study, 
namely: 

  Short  interviews  with  main  partners  (or,  if  not  available,  with  other  appointed 
partners)  aimed  to  construct  an  overview  at  programme  level  regarding  projects’ 
completion  and  commercialisation  of  project  results,  the  following  questions  being 
addressed: 

o  When did the project end? (Please specify the date.); 

o  Have  all  the  initially  planned  products  /  services  /  processes  been 
introduced  in  the  market?  (Yes/No.  If  yes,  please  specify  the  date.  If  no, 
why?). 

  In-depth  interviews  with  main  partners  from  a  representative  sample  of  30  projects 
which  allowed  the  Research  Team  to  collect  detailed  information  regarding:  added 
value of the participation in Eurostars-1, success and hampering factors for achieving 
the project results, potential areas of improvement.  

The last task consisting in the results analysis focused first on constructing at programme 
level  the  profile  of  submitted  and  approved  applications,  implemented  projects  and 
corresponding  beneficiaries.  Descriptive  statistics  have  been  created  reflecting  the 
following  dimensions:  distribution  by  cut-off,  size  and  structure  of  the  consortia, 

69 

 
 
geographical  distribution,  EU  commitment,  distribution  by  technological  area  addressed 
by the projects.  

Secondly,  the  assessment  of  impacts  of  Eurostars-1  projects  was  performed  based  on 
three types of analyses: 

  An  analysis  at  commercial  level  aimed  at  measuring  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Eurostars-1  projects,  in  terms  of:  (1)  achievement  of  the  expected  results  (i.e. 
developing  a  product/process/service)  and  (2)  effectiveness  in  introducing  a 
product/process/service in the market; 

  An analysis at beneficiary level focused on the impacts deriving from the participation 
in  the  programme  in  terms  of  company  growth,  jobs  created  and  profitability  of  the 
investment. 

  An in-depth analysis has been performed on a representative sample of 30 projects in 
order  to  investigate  topics  such  as:  reasons  for  applying,  previous  experience  and 
collaboration  with  project  partners,  project  results  and  benefits  on  the  beneficiaries, 
sustainability  of  project  benefits  and  results,  hampering  and  fostering  factors  for 
introducing the project results in the market. 

The study consisted also in identifying complementarities of the Eurostars-1 programme 
with other Horizon 2020 initiatives through both desk research and interviews. 

In terms of findings, the quality analysis of available data first focused on the design of 
the  Final  Report  and  Market  Impact  Report  which  reflect  the  projects  and  beneficiaries’ 
achievements at project completion, respectively, after the introduction of the developed 
products, processes or services in the market.  

The following main findings emerged: (1) some general and/or unclear questions partially 
useful for monitoring are included in the reports; (2) insufficient information is requested 
for  monitoring  innovation  created;  (3)  some  requested  economic  indicators  are  not 
related to the impact of the programme; (4) insufficient information is requested on the 
project return on investment. 

The second phase of quality analysis of available data continued with the assessment of 
the  accuracy  of  the  Eurostars  Database.  Some  inconsistencies  and  missing  information 
were  identified,  such  as:  (1)  information  related  to  the  participants’  role  within  the 
project  (leading  or  partner)  and  to  the  situation  monitoring  (project  withdrawn  or 
completed)  was  in  some  cases  different  in  various  spreadsheets;  (2)  even  if  the  Final 
Report  form  was  sent  for  completion  to  all  Eurostars  participants,  only  88%  of  them 
provided  the  required  data,  some  of  them  only  partially;    (3)  impacts  on  economic 
indicators,  prior  and  after  project  completion,  can  be  estimated  for  23%  of  the  total 
number of beneficiaries, as only them submitted complete data both for Final Report and 
Market  Impact  Report;  (4)  the  data  reported  for  some  economic  indicators  contain 
several typos, resulting in severe misunderstandings; (5) the database does not contain 
information about the number and type of planned products, only related to the launch of 
products and the code of products is different in each spreadsheet, the status regarding 
the market launch couldn’t be tracked. 

Considering  the  above-listed  findings  on  the  accuracy  of  the  Eurostars  Database  which 
resulted from an analysis of internal logic of data, the Research Team decided to perform 
further  checks  with  the  company  data  available  in  Amadeus.  Checks  on  the  ‘annual 
turnover’  and  ‘the  number  of  employees’  were  performed.  In  more  than  50%  of  cases 
the  deviations  were  higher  than  10%,  a  lower  turnover  and  a  higher  number  of 
employees, respectively, being declared by the main partners in the Final Report.  

70 

 
 
and 

The  accuracy  of  data  included  in  the  Eurostars  Database  regarding  (1)  the  end-date  of 
of  developed 
the  projects 
products/processes/services was also checked based on short interviews aimed to involve 
main partners of all analysed projects. Only 16% of the main partners were available to 
participate in the interviews. In 60% of the cases, differences (from 1 month to 2 years) 
regarding the end-date of the projects were declared. 

of  market 

introduction 

the  date 

(2) 

Regarding  the  submitted  and  approved  applications,  only  27.4%  of  the  submitted  ones 
were approved. The success rate of applications submitted decreased from the 1st to the 
5th  cut-off.  The  trend  in  terms  of  accepted  beneficiaries  mirrors  the  accepted  projects. 
The number of approved beneficiaries was stable only during the first three cut-offs, and 
then decreased during the 4th and 5th calls. Small (i.e. with 2 or 3 participants) and large 
consortia  (i.e.  with  a  number  of  participants  greater  than  5)  registered  similar  success 
rates.  

The  involvement  of  universities  and  research  institutes  did  not  prove  to  have  a  positive 
contribution to the approval of the applications; the highest success rates  corresponded 
to  consortia  with  only  R&D  SMEs,  with  a  higher  number  of  R&D  SMEs,  and  with  main 
partners  located  in  the  UK,  France  and  Sweden.  However,  in  terms  of  nominal  values, 
France, Spain, Sweden and Germany had the highest number of selected applications; in 
fact,  these  were  the  countries  with  the  highest  number  of  submitted  applications.  As 
regards all project partners, the highest success rates were achieved by applications with 
partners located in Switzerland, France and Sweden, while in nominal values, Germany, 
France and Spain had the highest number of submitted and selected applications. 

Regarding  the  implemented  projects,  out  of  the  400  applications  approved,  only  370 
projects have been implemented, the remaining 30 projects  being withdrawn.  However, 
the  lower  number  of  projects  implemented  during  the  4th  and  5th  cut-offs  is  correlated 
with  the  success  rates  registered  during  the  selection  process,  and  not  with  the 
withdrawals. The highest number of withdrawals is related to the 2nd cut-off.  

Out  of  the  total  approved  applicants  11%  decided  to  withdraw  from  the  programme; 
some were related to the 30 withdrawn projects, but also to other implemented projects. 
The  370  projects  were  implemented  by  1,197  beneficiaries.  The  size  of  the  consortium 
varied  between  only  2  project  partners  to  up  to  9  project  partners,  the  majority  of  the 
projects having either 2 or 3 partners.  

Given the nature of the programme, the highest number of participants was represented 
by  R&D  SMEs;  however,  an  important  number  of  universities,  research  institutes,  SMEs 
and large companies participated in the programme.  In particular, in 33% of the  cases, 
the consortia were formed only by R&D SMEs, while in 67% of the cases, other types of 
institutions were also involved. A high number of main partners were located in France, 
followed  by  Sweden,  Spain,  Germany  and  the  UK.  On  the  other  hand,  when  discussing 
about  all  project  partners,  the  hierarchy  is  dominated  by  Germany,  followed  by  France, 
Spain, Sweden and Italy. 

Within  the  analysed  cut-offs,  EUR  59.8  million  were  committed  from  EU  funds  to  the 
project implementation. Both the total EU commitment and the average EU commitment 
per project were decreased towards the last cut-offs.  

Eurostars  projects  can  address  any  technological  area  for  any  market,  but  must  have  a 
civilian purpose and be aimed at the development of a new product, process or service. 
Considering the first 5 cut-offs, 86% of the projects addressed three technological areas, 
namely ICT, Biotech, and Industrial. 

The  commercial  analysis  revealed  that  88%  of  the  analysed  projects  developed  the 
planned  products/processes/services.  Around  50%  of  them  were  coordinated  by  R&D 
performing  SMEs  based  in  France,  Spain,  Germany,  Sweden  and  the  Netherlands.  The 

71 

 
 
successful projects cover all the technological areas. However, 73% of them refer to ICT, 
Industrial and Biotech. 

Moreover, 82% of these projects succeeded in introducing the results in the market. The 
success  rate  was  higher  among  the  projects  funded  under  the  first  three  calls,  having 
smaller  consortia  including  R&D  SMEs  plus  other  types  of  beneficiaries  and  addressing 
Environment, ICT and Industrial technological areas.  

The  analysis  at  beneficiary  level  highlighted  that  SMEs  that  implemented  successful 
projects  in  terms  of  commercialising  the  project  results  appear  to  have  higher  annual 
turnover,  earnings  and  number  of  employees,  and  a  lower  annual  investment  in  R&D 
than  the  other  SMEs.  In  addition,  over  the  monitoring  period,  they  benefited  from  a 
higher  growth  of  the  turnover  and  earnings  and  they  faced  a  lower  increase  of  the 
investment  in  R&D.  As  a  general  highlight  of  a  study,  the  projects  for  which  data  are 
available showed a limited profitability of the investment undertaken.  

The  in-depth  analysis  of  30  randomly  selected  projects  indicated  no  significant 
differences  between  beneficiaries  with  successful  and  not  successful  projects  in 
commercialising the projects’ results in terms of: 

  reasons  for  applying  to  Eurostars-1  programme  (i.a.  access  to  funding,  entering  new 
markets, development of internal capabilities, creation of long-term partnerships); 

  previous experience in R&D activities, most of them declaring that are experienced; 

  collaboration  with  project  partners,  most  of  them  declaring  smooth  collaboration 

during the project implementation; 

  project  benefits,  main  declared  benefits  referring  to  knowledge,  network,  reputation, 

competitive position and internationalisation;  

  sustainability  of  project  benefits  and  results,  most  of  them  declaring  they  are  still 

active in the market and involved in R&D activities; 

  hampering (i.a. political financial, technical, administrative) and fostering factors (i.a. 
created  partnership,  market  knowledge,  successful  research  results)  for  introducing 
the project results in the market. 

The main conclusions revealed by the performed analyses are presented below: 

The data collection mechanism (i.e. design and content of FiR and MIR) in place for the first five 
cut-offs  of  the  Eurostars-1  significantly  limits  the  monitoring  and  the  measurement  of  the 
performance and impacts attributable to the Eurostars projects as:  

-  FiR and MIR contains information related to the  evolution of the overall financial situation 
of  the  beneficiaries.  However  this  is  not  directly  attributable  to  the  participation  in 
Eurostars; 

-  the  design  of  the  FiR  and  MIR  did  not  differentiate  between  types  of  beneficiaries  in  order  to 
adapt the data collected to the type of beneficiary (i.e. currently universities have to declare the 
turnover achieved); 

-  the  data  collected  from  beneficiaries  and  included  in  FiR  and  MIR  did  not  allow  the 
identification  and  monitoring  of  individual  products/services/processes  that  were  planned  and 
that  have  been  developed/planned  as  well  as  the  link  between  granted  patent  and 
products/services/processes cannot be deducted; 

Reliability of data included in FiR and MIR is rather limited. All information are collected on a 
declarative  base  and  reliability  and  coherence  of  data  is  not  ensured  by  an  effective  validation 
process: 

-  the method and type of documents used to collect and integrate data and information provided 
by the beneficiaries in FiRs and MIRs might have caused some inconsistencies and errors in the 
aggregated  source,  the  Eurostars  database  (i.e.  not  updated  information,  contradictory  data 

72 

 
 
included in different sections of the database), which could have been determined among others 
by:  the  use  of  different  units  of  measurement  in  reporting  quantitative  data,  different 
understanding  on  the  requested  information,  typing  mistakes  in  transferring  data  from  the 
original document submitted by the beneficiary in the Eurostars database;  

-  The Eurostars database contains information that appears non-consistent with data included in 

other databases (e.g. Amadeus). In 70% of the cases, we found deviations higher than 10% for 
the declared “Turnover” and for the declared “Number of Employees”. 

-  discrepancies appeared during the cross-checks performed by the Research Team between 

different beneficiaries’ declarations (i.e. in some cases the declared end date and first 
commercialisation date corresponding to the Eurostars-1 projects differed between the 
Eurostars database and the phone interviews conducted within the study); 

The submission of FiR and MIR and the completeness of data is not granted: only 21.5% 
of beneficiaries (i.e. 258 out of 1,197) have submitted completed reports, this allowed the analysis 
only  of  around  50%  (i.e.  182  out  of  370)  of  the  completed  projects.  This  might  indicate  the 
reporting activity was perceived as optional by some beneficiaries. 

Due to the reasons mentioned above (availability, reliability and usefulness of data), measuring the 
impacts of completed Eurostars project is currently not possible in a comprehensive manner. As a 
result,  this  study  was  based  on  a  sample  of  182  projects  for  which  completed 
information  was  available  from  the  main  beneficiaries.  Considering  the  projects  for  which 
data are available, most of the analysed projects (160 out of 182, representing 88% of them) were 
successful in achieving project results (i.e. developing products/ services/ processes within the 
project implementation period); moreover, a large part of them (131 out of 160, representing 82% 
of them) succeeded in commercialising the project results. 

Consortia that managed the projects that successfully introduced a product/service/process in the 
market included SMEs that: 

-  have higher annual turnover and have benefited from a higher growth of the turnover 
over  the  six-year  period  considered  (including  the  implementation  and  post-
implementation phases); 

-  have a lower annual investment in R&D as well as faced a lower increase of the investment in 

R&D over the six years; 

-  have  higher  annual  earnings  and  they  benefited  from  a  higher  increase  in  earnings  (5% 
compared  to  -4%),  both  in  absolute  value  as  well  as  in  relative  terms  (i.e.  as  %  of  the 
turnover). 

-  have  higher  number  of  employees  and  created  on  average  three  new  jobs  after  the  project 
implementation.  However,  there  is  no  difference  concerning  the  percentage  of  employees 
involved  in  R&D  activities;  in  general  SMEs  that  participated  in  Eurostars-1  projects  allocated 
42% of their FTEs to R&D activities with no significant variation before/after the completion of 
project activities. 

Projects  for  which  data  are  available  showed  a  limited  profitability  of  the  investment 
undertaken. Data available indicated that on average a SME invested more than € 1.2 million and 
benefited  from  an  additional  turnover  equal  to  €  682  thousand  (i.e.  less  than  50%  of  the  overall 
investment). 

All  interviewed  beneficiaries  consider  the  participation  in  the  Eurostars-1  programme  a  positive 
experience  and  highlighted  benefits  in  terms  of  knowledge,  network,  reputation,  competitive 
position and internationalisation, as revealed by the in-depth analysis of 30 selected projects. 

From  the  interviews  with  beneficiaries  it  emerged  that  the  following  factors  foster  the 
commercialisation  of  project  results:  access  to  funding  for  projects  with  a  high-risk  and  strategic 
potential,  well-established  partnerships  with  a  clear  division  of  rights  and  responsibilities,  initial 
maturity  of  the  planned  products/services/processes,  market  knowledge  and  strong  strategy, 
support offered by ESE. 

Some  barriers  existed  in  different  phases  of  the  Eurostars-1  programme,  as  perceived  by  the 
beneficiaries, them mainly referring to the following: 

-  application  phase:  political  (i.e.  at  National  Project  Coordinators  level),  financial  (i.a. 
insufficient national funds), technical (i.a. disqualification of one project partner), administrative 
(i.a.  different  format  of  the  application  form  applied  at  European  and  national  level)  and 
partner-related barriers (i.a. lack of experience in applying for European funds);  

-  project  implementation:  barriers  regarding  the  project  setup  and  management  (i.e. 
importance  given  to  different  project  activities,  difficulties  in  coordination  multiple  partners), 
financial,  technical  and  administrative  bottlenecks  (i.a.  differences  between  national  granting 
procedures  across  EU  Member  States,  unexpected  extensive  period  of  testing,  administrative 

73 

 
 
burden  existing  at  national  level),  R&D  results  not  as  expected,  reduced  support  within  the 
participating organisations; 

-  commercialisation  phase:  external  (i.a.  changes  in  the  regulatory  landscape),  demand-
related  (i.a.  non-receptive  European  market),  internal  consortium  (i.a.  changes  in  the  market 
strategy),  market  readiness  of  the  project  results,  objective  and  project  setup  problems  (i.a. 
insufficient funding foreseen). 

The  analysis  was  also  aimed  at  providing  concrete  recommendations  and  any  other  useful 
comments  on  how  to  better  implement  the  Eurostars-2  programme.  Consequently,  the  following 
recommendations could be taken into account: 

  R1: Improving the data collection mechanism by: 

-  restructuring  the  project  reporting  questionnaires  in  order  to  collect  information  that  would 
reflect  the  performance  and  impacts  of  the  participation  in  the  Eurostars  programme  and  not 
only  the  overall  economic  performance  of  the  beneficiaries  and  tailoring  the  requested 
information  per  type  of  beneficiary  (i.a.  requesting  specific  information  in  order  to  clearly 
understand if the commercialisation took place or is expected to, requesting specific information 
about the gross earnings generated by the commercialisation of the project results, not asking 
universities about turnover generated, inquire about types of investments undertaken); 

-  creating a system of associating unique IDs to each planned product /service /process in order 
to  be  possible  to  identify  which  of  them  have  been  developed  and  commercialised,  which 
intellectual property rights are in place for each of them (i.a. granted patents); 
linking the reimbursement of part of the granted funds to the submission of the projects reports 
(FiR and MIR) in order to increase the number and completeness of submitted FiRs;  

- 

-  using  different  IT  tools  that  would  allow  to  restrict  the  completion  of  FiR  and  MIR  to  one 
common  predefined  format  for  all  beneficiaries  and  to  automatically  centralise  the  information 
declared by all beneficiaries; 

  R2:  Improving  the  selection  mechanism  in  order  to  financially  support  projects 
having  the  greatest  market  potential  in  order  to  reduce  the  number  of  withdrawn 
projects and increase the number of successful projects in terms of commercialisation 
of products/processes/services. At project selection stage, maturity and potentiality of 
the  product/service  to  go  to  market  within  two  years,  according  to  thematic  domain 
and the market targeted, could be included as a selection criteria or  could be judged 
through a market readiness assessment.  

  R3:  Making  the  financing  of  projects  (or  at  least  a  percentage)  dependent  on 
introduction  to  market  in  order  to  incentivise  beneficiaries  to  commercialise  the 
project results and to dis-incentivise to withdraw from the project. 

  R4: Increasing the rigorousness of the monitoring mechanism by: 

-  checking the data and information declared by the beneficiaries through various non-declarative 
methods (i.a. by cross-checking the declared financial data with other sources like Amadeus or 
financial  situations  submitted  to  national  authorities,  requesting  supporting  documents  that 
could  justify  the  declared  data  and  information,  by  performing  random  audits  at  least  for  the 
qualification criteria); 

-  asking clarifications for the observed outliers; 
-  developing a continuous communication with Eurostars-1 beneficiaries and incentivising them to 

actively participate in the monitoring and reporting phase; 

-  verifying  and  updating  the  Eurostars  database  as  the  FiR  and  MIR  are  received  in  order  to 

permanently have included in the database the last information and data available; 

74 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4: THE INTERIM EVALUATION EXPERT GROUP 

Marcel Shaton Chair (Israel). From 1998 till 2015 Marcel Shaton has been the General 
Manager  of  I.S.E.R.D.  the  Israeli  Europe  R  &  D  Directorate.  In  this  capacity  he  was 
responsible in Israel of the implementation of the Framework Programs, the Eureka and 
R&D  binational  European  activities.  He  participated  in  various  EU  RTD  Committees  and 
was the national NCP Coordinator. As such he led the Israeli Delegation for negotiations 
on  Israeli  accession  to  the  Framework  Programs.  From  1993  to  1998  he  was  a  Minister 
for  Economic  Affairs  at  the  Mission  of  Israel  to  the  European  Communities  in  Brussels. 
From  1985  to  1993  Marcel  Shaton  had  various  positions  at  the  Foreign  Trade 
Administration,  Ministry  or  Industry  and  Trade,  Jerusalem  up  to  Deputy  Director  of  the 
Foreign  Trade  Administration.  Between  1980  and  1985  he  was  the  Economic  Counsellor 
at the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations in Geneva and IL representative 
to GATT. Previously he worked as a coordinator for International Economic Affairs at the 
Ministry  of  Finance  and  as  a  commodity  trade  analyst  at  the  Trade  Governmental 
Administration,  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Trade.  Mr.  Shaton  holds  a  M.A.  degree  (Cum 
Laude)  in  Political  Science  and  a  B.A.  degree  in  Political  Science  and  Economics,  both 
from  the  Hebrew  University.  He  graduated  from  the  Commercial  Attaches  course  of  the 
Ministry of Industry and Trade. 

Axel Lehmann, (Germany). Axel Lehmann is a Full Professor Emeritus of the Faculty for 
Informatics at the Universität der Bundeswehr München, Germany, where he held a chair 
for  modelling  and  simulation  until  2011.  Besides  his  research  activities  as  faculty 
member,  he  is  also  Executive  Director  of  the  research  Institute  for  Intelligent  Systems 
(IT  IS)  at  his  university.  His  major  areas  of  research  range  from  computer-based 
modelling  and  simulation,  knowledge-based  diagnosis  and  decision  support  systems,  to 
serious  games  for  education  and  training.  He  is  former  President  of  the  Society  for 
Modeling  and  Simulation  International  (SCS),  Fellow  of  the  German  Informatics  Society 
(GI),  and  of  the  Federation  of  Asian  Simulation  Societies  (ASIASIM).  He  serves  on 
several  editorial  boards  of  journals,  e.g.  Japan  Journal  of  Industrial  and  Applied 
Mathematics  (JSIAM),  Telecommunication  Systems  –  Modeling,  Analysis,  Design  and 
Management.  He  was  and  still  is  active  as  expert  for  various  institutions,  like  for  the 
European  Commission  (FP6-  and  FP7-REGPOT,    COST),  for  the  Spanish  Ministry  of 
Science  and  Innovation  (Severo-Ochoa-Centers  of  Excellence),  or  for  the  Minister  of 
Science, Research and Arts in Baden-Württemberg, Germany (IT innovations). 

Isella  Vicini, (Italy). MSc Computing Science  – University of Milan, 1986. (1986-1993) 
Researcher  at  the  Robotic  Department  of  CNR  (National  Research  Council)  where  she 
coordinated  and  managed  targeted  activities  of  research  project  in  ICT  area.  She  is  co-
author of more than 30 scientific papers published in national and international journals 
and conference proceedings. (1993-2008) Project Manager in Think3 Inc. and responsible 
for European projects management and administration. (2008-onwards) Warrant Group - 
European  Funding  Division  Director.  Project  Manager  of  HELM  Project  (FP7); 
Dissemination  Manager  of  EFEVE  Project  (FP7);  Project  Manager  and  Dissemination 
Manager of NEWSPEC Project (FP7), Poseidon project (H2020), NANOCATHEDRAL Project 
(H2020)  and  Partial  PGM  project  (H2020);  involved  as  project  manager  consultant  in 
other 18 running projects FP7, Life+, CIP, SME, FTI and H2020. 

Eva  Pando,  (Spain).  She  is  currently  Managing  Director  of  IDEPA,  regional  development 
agency  of  Principality  of  Asturias.  This  organization  has  the  role  to  improve  the 
competitiveness of Asturias companies through innovation, and internationalization, with 
the  goal  of  creation  new  jobs  and  richness  in  the  region.  Previously,  for  10  years,  she 
was general manager in a Business Innovation Centre (CEEI ASTURIAS) dedicated to the 
development of new based technology  companies in the Principality of Asturias (Spain). 
CEEI  ASTURIAS  depends  from  IDEPA.  Previously  she  worked  in  the  venture  capital 
market for 7 years. During this time she was dealing with two different tasks: the first as 
investing  director,  and  the  second  as  investing  department  Coordinator.  She  was  also 
member  of  13  boards  of  directors  from  participated  companies  during  this  period. 

75 

 
 
Currently  she  hold  the  position  of  vice  president  of  the  board  of  directors  of  ANCES 
(Spanish Association of Business Innovation Centers), and she is member of the board of 
directors of ASBAN, a business angels network. 

Michele  Cincera,  Rapporteur  (Belgium).  Michele  Cincera  is  Professor  of  Industrial 
economics  at  the  Solvay  Brussels  School  of  Economics  and  Management  –  Université 
Libre  de  Bruxelles.  Since  2012,  he  is  the  Director  of  the  International  Centre  of 
Innovation, Technology and Education Studies (iCite). In 2009-2010, he was visiting the 
EC-JRC-IPTS  as  a  senior  scientist.  His  research  interests  embrace  the  quantitative 
assessment  at  the  micro-level  of  innovative  and  entrepreneurial  activities,  their 
determinants and socio-economic impacts as well as the analysis of National Innovation 
Systems and policies supporting science, research and innovation. 

76 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: MID-TERM EVALUATION EUROSTARS-2 – 

TASKFORCE REPORT 

Introduction  

The goal of the present report is the comparison between the initial Eurostars-2 targets 
and the achievements at mid-term of the programme. The results shall demonstrate the 
areas, where the targets have been fully or partially achieved and highlight areas, where 
more effort is needed to fulfill all targets of Eurostars-2 until 2020. Further improvements 
will  be  presented  as  well.  The  report  also  analyses  arguments  for  a  continuation  of  the 
programme after 2020. The report is based on data from the EUREKA Secretariat and on 
surveys  carried  out  within  the  EUREKA  High  Level  Group  and  actors  having  applied  for 
Eurostars-2. 
Eurostars-2 is an initiative of the EUREKA member states and is co-financed by the EU in 
accordance with article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The 
relevant targets of Eurostars-2 are formulated in the following documents: 
  2014-2020  Budapest  Document,  endorsed  during  the  EUREKA  Ministerial  Conference 

on 22 June 2012 in Budapest. 

  General  Implementing  Guidelines,  for  the  Eurostars-2  programme  endorsed  by  the 

High Level Group in Ankara in June 2013. 

  Decision  No  553/2014/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  May 

2014. 

The  targets  for  Eurostars-2  on  political  and  operational  level  are  summarised  in  the 
following table: 

Political targets of Eurostars-2 

Operational targets of Eurostars-2 

source 

target 

source  Target 

1,2,3    Stimulate economic growth and job 

creation by enhancing the compe-
titiveness of R&D performing SME 
  Lean administration by deepening 
the synchronisation of the national 
funding programmes 

  Opening to Associated and non EU-

Member EUREKA countries  

1,2,3    Increased number of applications 
  Balanced and flexible financing by 
securing funding of the 50 highest 
rated projects and of the top 50 to 
75% of the applications above 
threshold 

  7 months time to contract 
  Market introduction 2 years after 

project completion  
  Enhanced promotion 

2 

Common  programme  evaluation 
including: 

2 

Introduce: 

  Impact assessment  
  Synchronisation, communication 

and management process 

  Online submission system 
  Common financial viability method 

standard  

  Unique progress report 
  Redress procedure 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

  Favorable conditions for investment 

3 

in knowledge and innovation 
  Greater impact with respect to 

research and innovation 

  Closer synergies, coordination and 

no unnecessary duplication 
  Participation of SMEs without 

previous experience in transnational 
research 

  Common programme evaluation 

  Low administrative burden, no 
double audits and reporting 
  Progressive harmonisation of 

national funding rules 

Main observations on the programme implementation between 2014 and 2016 

1. Achievements 

1a Political achievements   

European policy objectives 
The  HLG  survey  underlines  that  Eurostars-2  clearly  contributes  to  the  establishment  of 
the  following  European  strategies  mentioned  in  Decision  No  553/2014/EU  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014: 
  The  Europe  2020  strategy  emphasises  the  need  to  develop  favorable  conditions  for 
investment  in  knowledge  and  innovation  so  as  to  achieve  smart,  sustainable  and 
inclusive  growth  in  the  Union.  Eurostars-2  clearly  contributes  to  the  Europe  2020 
strategy  in  SMEs  due  to  its  bottom-up  nature,  business-driven  agenda,  focus  on 
market and international dimension also beyond EU.  Moreover Eurostars-2 facilitates 
the  participation  of  SMEs  which  are  more  used  to  national  channels  and  is  often  the 
first step towards internationalisation. 

  A  ‘Reinforced  European  Research  Area  Partnership  for  Excellence  and  Growth’:  by 
reducing  the  fragmentation  of  the  European  research  landscape  through  networking 
between  Member  States  and  the  European  Commission  and  coordinating  R&D 
measures  on programme and project level.  Participating states and partner countries 
agree that Eurostars-2 is one of the best examples for an ERA instrument as it brings 
national and EU policies together. 

  Horizon  2020  aims  at  achieving  a  greater  impact  with  respect  to  research  and 
innovation  with  its  ‘Industrial  Leadership  pillar’,  including  its  financial  contribution  to 
Eurostars-2.  By strengthening P2P partnerships the Union’s contribution to Eurostars-
2  has  pushed  participating  states  in  their  common  effort  to  establish  clear  and 
transparent  procedures  which  are  manageable  for  SMEs.  As  a  result  of  the  efficient 
central evaluation and increased  coordination of national programmes  a high number 
of  high  quality  projects  can  be  funded.  At  the  same  time  Eurostars-2  avoids 
duplication with Union, international, national and regional research programmes.   

 Funding policy objectives  
  Promotion  of  research  activities:  Eurostars-2  is  designed  to  explicitly  support 
transnational  collaboration  of  research-  and  development  performing  SMEs  among 
themselves  or  including  other  actors  of  the  innovation  chain.  71%  of  the  applying 
organisations  are  R&D  performing  SMEs  and  the  most  popular  configuration  is  a 
consortium of 2 R&D performing SMEs. The commercialisation of the developments is 
continuously monitored during the project lifetime and also until 3 years after project 
completion. The figures from Eurostars-1 are very convincing: 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  899  new  products,  processes  and  services  reported,  693  of  them  were  brought  to 

market 

  Median time to market for the first commercialisation 10 months 

  Promote  and  increase  the  participation  of  SMEs  without  previous  experience  in 

transnational research  

According to the participant survey launched in December 2016 27% of the participating 
SMEs  had  no  previous  experience  with  international  cooperation  before  applying  for 
Eurostars-2.  Additionally  27%  of  webinar  participants  in  2016  had  no  international 
experience.  This  demonstrates  that  this  group  is  showing  an  increasing  interest  in 
international R&D cooperation.  

1b Opening Eurostars-2 

Three  out  of  the  36  Eurostars-2  countries  are  associated  countries  to  EUREKA:  South 
Korea,  South  Africa  and  Canada.  South  Africa  and  Canada  joined  Eurostars-2  in  March 
2016 (starting from COD 6 in Eurostars-2). South Korea participates in Eurostars-2 from 
the  beginning.  Furthermore,  Switzerland  as  a  full  member  of  EUREKA  was  fully 
associated  to  the  EU  only  in  2107  but  they  participated  in  Eurostars-2  from  the 
beginning.  

The  associated  countries  and  Switzerland  fully  participate  in  Eurostars-2  without 
financially  benefitting  from  the  cooperation  with  the  EU.  Full  participation  means, 
amongst  others,  following  the  Eurostars-2  common  eligibility  and  evaluation  rules  and 
respecting  the  international  ranking  list.  Since  these  countries  are  neither  EU  member 
states  nor  associated  members  states  to  Horizon  2020,  they  are  not  entitled  to  receive 
top up from the EU nor can they benefit from the financial EU support in the evaluation 
process. The countries pay a fee to the EUREKA secretariat to cover the costs of e.g. the 
evaluation of the project proposals. The mechanism integrating countries, which are not 
eligible  to  receive  EU  top  up  allows  an  opening  of  Eurostars  to  the  world  (via  the 
association  to  EUREKA)  and  to  EUREKA  member  countries,  who  are  not  associated  to 
Horizon2020, like Russia and Liechtenstein. 
The main reasons for those countries to participate in Eurostars-2 are: 
  Eurostars-2 provides opportunities for national SMEs to work on the best joint projects 

with the best partners possible  

  Joining  Eurostars-2  was  a  request  of  the  national  SMEs  in  order  to  be  able  to 
cooperate  with  all  EUREKA  member  states  using  all  EUREKA  instruments  (EUREKA 
network projects, Cluster projects and Eurostars projects).  

  Eurostars-2 fits the national policy to support SMEs becoming global players. In order 
to  realise  this,  engaging  in  collaborative  activities  with  outstanding  overseas 
companies  is  required.  Since  Europe  is  a  high-density  region  of  enterprises  with 
innovation  and  technological  capabilities,  it  is  a  good  environment  for  the  national 
SMEs to induce innovation 

  The  international  cooperation  through  Eurostars-2  helps  the  national  SMEs  to 
overcome  the  multiple  differences  in  national  technology-related  legal  systems  and 
technology  environments  through  technology  joint  development,  and  to  expand 
together to new markets through open technology innovation. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 Operational targets and achievements 

1a) A balanced budget from the NFB and the European Commission to secure funding for 
the top-50 projects of the projects above the threshold.  

242 projects out of 250 from Cut-off 1 to Cut-off 5 have secured funding (overall, 92 
% to 100 % of the top 50 projects have secured funding)24.   

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

92 % 

98 % 

94 % 

100 % 

100  % 

Cut-off 1

Cut-off 2

Cut-off 3

Cut-off 4

Cut-off 5

Approved for funding

Not funded

Withdrawn by participants

1b)  A  balanced  budget  from  the  NFB  and  the  European  Commission  to  secure 
funding for 50-75% of the projects above the threshold 

At programme level, the target has been reached with funding secured for 79 % to 100 
% of the projects ranked above the threshold as a result of the effort of the participating 
states and the partner countries to provide enough funding to support the projects.   

100%

75%

50%

25%

0%

Overall results of the funding of the projects above the threshold 

83% 

80% 

100% 

90% 

79% 

Cut-off 1

Cut-off 2

Cut-off 3

Cut-off 4

Cut-off 5

24   One project ranked in top 50 projects from Cut-off 2 was withdrawn by all participants due to not having 

the necessary financial means to carry out their part of the project. 

80 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2a) Time-to-contract of 7 months or shorter on average by Cut-off 

Time-to-contract is the time elapsed between the Cut-off date and the date of notification 
of  the  grant  decision  from  the  NFB  to  the  participant,  or  the  date  of  signature  of  the 
grant agreement. 

Clear  improvements  of  Time-to-contract  can  be  observed  in  comparison  to  the  first 
Eurostars Programme (2008 – 2013) but also over the Eurostars-2 Cut-offs. The average 
Time-to-contract  in  Eurostars-2  has  decreased  from  8,9  months  in  Cut-off  1  to  7,1 
months  in  Cut-off  4  reaching  the  target  of  7  months  or  shorter  as  set  in  Eurostars-2 
Bilateral Agreement.  

Some delays can be observed for the Cut-off 1 as NFBs were advised not to conclude any 
grant decision/ agreement during the summer 2014, due to clarifications required for the 
eligibility  of  the  Union  financial  contribution.  Other  key  structural  reasons  for  delay  for 
the  fist  Cut-offs:  for  4  NFBs,  the  Bilateral  Agreement  needed  to  be  signed  before  any 
grant  decision  could  be  finalised  and  2  NFBs  underwent  a  change  in  their  national  RDI 
framework.  

11,2 

Average Time to contract in months 

8,9 

8,7 

7,9 

7,1 

Average
Eurostars 1 (2008-
2013)

Cut-off 1

Cut-off 2

Cut-off 3

Cut-off 4

This  aim  could  be  reached  among  others  because  countries  have  accepted  the  English 
Eurostars-2  application  form  in  their  national  applications  and  others  aligned  their 
national procedure to reach time- to-contract of 7 months 

2b) High degree of national synchronisation 

The aim of the national synchronisation is to allow the consortia to start with the project 
as soon as possible and at the same time. By shortening the time to contract the national 
synchronisation is fulfilled to a high degree as well, as for all participants in one project 
the contracts are more or less signed at the same time. Thus a common project start is 
enabled.  

3a)  A  common  financial  viability  methodology  defined,  based  on  a  proposal 
accepted by the National Implementation Group 

The  financial  viability  is  defined  by  the  capacity  to  finance  the  project  development, 
taking into account the potential access to public funds. The financial viability assessment 
is  not  an  eligibility  criterion,  therefore  “negative”  assessments  do  not  result  in  the 
ineligibility  of  a  project.  The  verification  of  the  financial  capacity  to  carry  out  the 
proposed  project  is  an  integral  part  of  the  evaluation  stage  and  must  be  completed 
before the Independent Evaluation Panel meeting. The idea behind this methodology is to 
safeguard the public money not  only in the country where there are  doubts on financial 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
capacity  of  one  specific  partner,  but  on  the  rest  of  the  countries  participating  in  the 
project.  

A  common  financial  viability  methodology  has  been  defined  and  presented  for  a 
discussion to the NIG in June 2016. It was agreed to the general principle of the financial 
viability methodology. The proposal will be further finalised with the comments received 
and  the  final  financial  viability  methodology  proposal  will  be  presented  to  the  NFBs 
represented at the NIG during the next meeting in June 2017. 

3b) A common reporting system accepted, based on a proposal accepted by the 
National Implementation Group and taking into account national requirements 

A  Standard  and  unique  common  progress  report  in  English  was  accepted  by  the  NIG  in 
June 2016. The report  aims to collect information on the level of each participant about 
technical progress, the quality of cooperation in the project, deviations from the original 
project  plan  and  any  other  unforeseen  changes  in  the  implementation  of  the  plan.  The 
new  IT  system  is  being  developed  for  Eurostars-2,  to  ensure  participants  and  NFBs  use 
an  efficient  online  reporting  mechanism  ensuring  that  each  participant’s  data  remains 
available  to  the  participants  and  their  NFB.  After  the  central  implementation  of  the 
common  progress  report  in  2017,  the  ESE  will  monitor  and  support  the  implementation 
on the national levels.  

3a HLR survey and SWOT Analysis 

In  HLR  survey  a  SWOT  analysis  on  Eurostars-2  was  included.  The  main  results  are 
summarised in the graph below.  

The large majority of the participating states and member countries are satisfied with the 
programme.  Eurostars-2  is  regarded  to  be  a  very  relevant  programme.  Often  it  is  the 
only  SME  funding  programme  or  compared  to  other  national  funding  programmes  the 
biggest one with respect to the funding.  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  results  underline  the  achievements  mentioned  above.  Eurostars-2  has  a  highly 
recognised  European  added  value.  With  regard  to  the  EU  objectives  Eurostars-2  is 
consistent  with  them  as  it  supports  cross  border  operations  of  SMEs,  decreases  the 
fragmentation of the ERA and is the best example for an ERA as it brings national and EU 
policies  together.  By  addressing 
is 
complementary to EU programmes, especially the SME instrument.  

levels  (4-6)  Eurostars-2 

intermediate  TRL 

The possibility for the project participants to cooperate internationally and with partners 
beyond the EU allows access to international markets. Specifically for the SMEs it is often 
the first step towards internationalisation.  

The HLR have a strong interest to continue the joint programme.  The strong and 
long  lasting  commitment  from  participating  states  and  partner  countries  and  the 
allocation  of  dedicated  national  budgets  is  a  strength  compared  to  other  programmes. 
The co-funding of the Commission is an incentive to agree on the central procedures and 
accept 
towards  a 
synchronised/harmonised  programme.    Also  the  leverage  effect  of  a  joint  programme 
should not be underestimated. The collaboration of participating states, partner countries 
and  the  Commission  enables  us  to  support  more  SMEs  than  we  can  separately.  In 
addition the Eurostars-2 label raises the visibility of the funded SMEs. 

to  make  progress 

list.  Additionally 

the  ranking 

it  helps 

However room for improvement is given e.g. with regard to the budget. In the beginning 
of  Eurostars-2  all  participating  states  have  committed  themselves  to  participate  in  the 
programme  and  to  provide  a  certain  budget.  Due  to  several  reasons  like  the  economic 
crisis some countries unfortunately cannot live up to their original financial commitments. 
This sometimes causes problems in other countries, as they cannot spend their budget.  

Eurostars-2 is not everywhere well known and some countries would like to receive more 
applications with a higher quality. Compared to Eurostars 1 the administrative burden is 
even  higher  under  H2020.  Specifically  the  requirements  regarding  audits,  self-
assessment and ethics are considered to be too high.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3b Participant survey 

With the participants survey no complete SWOT analysis was performed but it was asked 
for the main strengths and weaknesses (see graph on the next page). 

The  participants  often  are  of  the  same  opinion  as  the  HLRs.  Eurostars-2  fits  to  their 
needs,  is  being  regarded  to  be  easy,  fast  and  compared  to  other  programmes  the 
administrative burden is much lower. They appreciate the very good support at national 
level and the transparency of the programme. The possibility to cooperate internationally 
is  a  big  advantage  for  them.  The  lack  of  budget  in  some  countries  leads  to  not  funded 
projects  although  they  are  above  the  threshold.  Nevertheless  Eurostars-2  has  a  high 
success rate compared to other programmes.  Again room for improvement is still given 
and  the  participants  request  a  better  alignment  between  the  central  and  national 
processes. 

In  conclusion  also  the  participants  think  that  Eurostars-2  is  a  great  programme  for  the 
support of R&D in SMEs, more than two third of them will or would apply again and they 
would welcome the continuation of Eurostars. 

Strengths 
•Small projects, i.e. small number of partners (at least 

two)  

•Public funding rate  
•Straightforward application process  
•Bottom-up principle, with no thematic restriction  
•Transparent, central evaluation with the feedback 

received  

•National contact point (support received in national 
language, national funding contract/procedure, …)  
•Possibility to cooperate internationally with a large 
number of members states, even outside European 
Union/Europe  

•Fast evaluation and grant agreement signature  
•Two Cut-off days per year  
•Comprehensive feedback on the evaluation  
•Success rate  

Weaknesses 
•Dualism: Central evaluation and monitoring / 
National contact point (national funding rules, 
reports, …)  

•Process of selecting funded projects (e.g. some 

projects on the ranking list are not funded, because 
at least in one country the national budget is 
exhausted)  

•Public funding rate (e.g. different rates in different 

countries) 

•Success rate is too low 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
4) IMPROVEMENTS FOR EUROSTARS-2 2018-2020  

The  overall  performance  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  in  the  period  2014  -  2016  is 
considered  satisfactory,  but  some  specific  improvements  to  increase  the  scope  of  its 
results are going to be implemented from now to 2020. 

4a) Balanced participation of all countries 

In terms of number of proposals 
Some  countries  receive  very  few  applications,  making  it  difficult  for  them  to  fund  as 
many projects as expected, and globally the programme was designed to receiving more 
applications. 
The  implementation  of  specific  national  roadshows,  with  the  support  of  the  EUREKA 
Secretariat  and  with  the  cooperation  of  other  countries  more  experienced  in  the 
programme,  and  the  general  dissemination  of  the  specificities  of  Eurostars-2  will 
contribute  to  increase  the  number  of  applications.  In  addition,  cooperation  between 
national  and  regional  authorities  will  lead  to  a  more  effective  knowledge  of  the 
programme  by  the  SMEs.  With  a  targeted  approach  even  more  SMEs  without  previous 
international experience could become involved in Eurostars-2 projects. 

In terms of quality of the proposals 
Certain countries receive a good number of applications, but the quality is not that high 
and  as  a  result  the  ratio  of  approved  projects  is  low,  hampering  the  allocation  of 
committed funds. As a whole, Eurostars-2 is a competitive programme aimed at financing 
the best close to market projects performed in international cooperation and led by R & D 
performing SMEs. 
The training of the Eurostars National Project Coordinators and Project Officers is crucial, 
so more specific training sessions about how proposal are evaluated will be organised by 
the  EUREKA  Secretariat.    Knowing  more  about  the  evaluation  can  give  inference  how  a 
good  application  should  look  like.  The  assistance  to  the  eligibility  sessions  is  also  an 
important possibility to gain experience on the same topic. Best Practices will be shared 
by visits of experienced officers to other countries upon request, and the review of draft 
proposals  will  be  done  in  cooperation  between  the  officers  of  the  different  countries 
involved in the consortium. 
Additionally  National  Offices  will  organise  workshops  for  participants  focused  on  how  to 
write  competitive  applications,  and  also  will  provide  support  services  to  the  participants 
in the preparation of proposals by reviewing draft applications prior to their submission. 
This will be supported by experienced offices.  

4b) Increased commitment of some countries 

Given that only guaranteed-funded projects are approved in the Eurostars-2 programme, 
and  this  is  done  with  national  funds,  there  is  a  correlation  between  the  commitment  of 
each country and the number of projects approved. In a scenario of global financial crisis, 
some  countries  cannot  live  up  to  their  original  financial  commitments,  which  reduces 
their  number  of  applications  approved,  and  also  causes  problems  in  other  countries 
having sufficient funding available. 
A detailed analysis will be made to determine the reasons of the reduced commitment in 
those  countries,  and  bilateral  discussions  will  take  place  in  order  to  determine  what 
support  can  be  provided  by  the  network  in  order  to  raise  the  funding  and  explore  the 
availability of national and regional funding programmes. 

4c) Better promotion of the programme 

The  visibility  of  Eurostars-2  programme  and  the  brand  Eurostars  will  be  raised  to 
facilitate the previous goals: 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   A specific study about how to reach the targeted clients of the programme, the R&D 
performing  SMEs,  will  be  conducted  in  order  to  review  the  current  communication 
strategy and tools  

  Every  year  the  Chairmanship  of  EUREKA  will  organise  an  international  Eurostars-2 
event  directed  to  promote  the  participation  of  all  participating  states  and  partner 
countries in the Eurostars-2 programme 

  The cooperation in communication activities with the European Enterprise Network and 
the European Commission will be enhanced, given their key role as promoters  of the 
innovation and internationalisation between the SMEs 

  The  protection  of  the  current  figurative  trademark  and  the  word  trademark  will  be 

extended for another ten years 

  An  improved  homepage  will  be  in  place  and  the  presence  in  social  media  will  be 
increased.  The  webinars  organised  before  each  Cut-off  date,  which  are  already  well 
accepted, will be more widely promoted 

  The visibility of National Contact Points will be increased 

These  measures  will  be  applied  to  all  the  countries  participating in the  programme  with 
special  attention  to  those  that  need  an  increase  in  the  quantity  or  the  quality  of  the 
proposals. 

4d) Decreased administrative burden  

The Eurostars-2 programme is characterised by being centrally evaluated and financed in 
a decentralised manner. 
Currently  the  administrative  burden  in  the  ESE  and  the  participating  states  and  partner 
countries  is  too  high.  We’ll  strive  for  a  leaner  internal  administration  by  improving  the 
current  methodologies  of  ethics  assessment,  internal  audits  and  measures  while 
preserving the EU financing and regulations. 
Duplicate requests for information to participants at national and international levels will 
be avoided by the implementation of the common reporting system. Again, learning from 
Best  Practice  developed  by  the  members  of  the  EUREKA  Network  is  a  great  opportunity 
to  improve  national  procedures  and  rules  and  make  them  more  innovative  and 
appropriate for SMEs. 

4f) Impact Assessment 

According  to  the  General  Implementing  Guidelines,  for  the  Eurostars-2  programme 
endorsed by the High Level Group in Ankara in June 2013 a mid-term as well as an ex-
post evaluation shall be carried out in close cooperation between the Commission and the 
Member States. Furthermore an objective impact evaluation of the Eurostars programme, 
based  on  both  internal  (collected  by  the  ESE)  and  external  sources  of  information  and 
data  should  be  carried  out.  The  EUREKA  network  should  discuss  with  the  Commission 
further  details  and  the  timing  of  such  an  impact  assessment.  Ideally,  the  impact 
assessment should support the discussions and preparation of Eurostars beyond 2020. 

5) Conclusions 

EUREKA strongly believes in the necessity and opportunities of a joint programme based 
on  the  well-established  and  reliable  model  of  Eurostars-2.  Based  on  the  interest, 
commitment and demand of the SMEs, Member States and European Union the excellent 
and strong programme  Eurostars should be  continued beyond 2020 and we should 
start with the discussions now. 
The programme will be an important instrument of an overall innovation chain within the 
European Research and Innovation Area and national innovation policies to support SMEs 
in  developing  innovative  and  competitive  products  that  will  impact  job  creation  and 
economic  development.  Eurostars  will  still  have  a  unique  position  in  the  funding 
landscape in the future. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eurostars stimulates and finances R&D activities in SMEs in an international environment. 
Thus Eurostars contributes to and strengthens the Industrial Leadership Pillar of H2020. 
With  the  co-funding  of  the  Commission,  the  participating  states  and  partner  countries 
Eurostars is one of the best examples of the ERA. To continue with the joint programme 
will  create  a  win-win  situation  for  the  participating  states,  partner  countries  and  the 
Commission as well. Together we can effectuate more than each of the parties alone.  

87 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: PUBLIC CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 

Section D - EUROSTARS2 

Introduction to Eurostars2 

Eurostars  supports  international  innovative  projects  led  by  research  and  development- 
performing  small-  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (R&D-performing  SMEs).  With  its 
bottom-up  approach,  Eurostars  supports  the  development  of  rapidly  marketable 
innovative  products,  processes  and  services  that  help  improve  the  daily  lives  of  people 
around  the  world.  Eurostars  has  been  carefully  developed  to  meet  the  specific  needs  of 
SMEs.  It  is  an  ideal  first  step  in  international  cooperation,  enabling  small  businesses  to 
combine and share expertise and benefit from working beyond national borders. 

Eurostars  is  a  joint  programme  between  EUREKA  and  the  European  Union,  co-funded 
from the national budgets of 36 Eurostars Participating States and Partner Countries and 
by  the  European  Union  through  Horizon  2020.  In  the  2014-2020  period  it  has  a  total 
public budget of €1.14 billion.  

Additional information can be found at www.eurostars-eureka.eu/about-eurostars  

D.1: What is your level of familiarity with the Eurostars2 Joint Programme? 

 Very good 

 Good 

 Fair 

 Low 

D.2:  Have  you  participated  in  an  action  under  Eurostars-1  and/or  Eurostars-2  (several 
answers are possible)?  

 Yes, in funded project of Eurostars1 

 Yes, in non-selected project of Eurostars1 

 Yes, in funded project of Eurostars2 

 Yes, in non-selected project of Eurostars2 

 No  

D.3:  If  you  are  not  involved  in  a  Eurostars  project,  how  did  you  find  out  information 
about the Joint Programme?  

 In a conference 

 At a scientific workshop or training event 

  Through  media  (Internet,  national  information  channels,  newspapers,  specialised 

press, etc.) 

  Through  national  networks  (NPS,  NCPs,  EEN,  KAM,  Regional  authorities,  national  or 

regional Innovation Agencies, national or regional Chambers of Commerce, etc.) 

 Other 

Please specify (maximum 100 characters, mandatory for "Other"): 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objectives 

C.4:  To  which  extent  is  the  Eurostars  programme  likely  to  achieve  the  following 
objectives?  

Fully   To  a 

large 
extent 

a 

To 
small 
extent 

Not  

No 
opinion 

Promote  research  activities 
that  are 
carried  out  by  transnational  collaboration 
of research- and development performing 
SMEs  among  themselves  or  including 
other  actors  of  the  innovation  chain  (e.g. 
universities, research organisations) 

Promote  research  activities  where  results 
are  to  be  introduced  into  the  market 
within  two  years  of  the  completion  of  an 
activity 

Increase  the  accessibility,  efficiency  and 
efficacy  of  public  funding  for  SMEs  in 
Europe  by  aligning,  harmonising  and 
synchronising 
funding 
mechanisms of Participating States 

national 

the 

Promote  and  increase  the  participation  of 
SMEs  without  previous  experience 
in 
transnational research 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

D.5: A major objective of the Joint Programme is to introduce the results of projects into 
the  market  within  2  years  of  the  completion  of  the  project.  Does  the  present  design  of 
the  Eurostars  Joint  Programme  sufficiently  support  such  a  target,  do  you  see  any 
possibilities to improve this?  

 Fully 

 To a large extent 

 To a small extent 

 No 

 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

D.6:  In  the  absence  of  a  Eurostars-2  grant,  would  R&D  performing  SMEs  have 
undertaken their projects by their proper or other means? (maximum 600 characters) 

 Yes 

 To a large extent 

 To a small extent 

 No 

 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

D.7: Is there sufficient budget from Participating States to achieve the objectives of the 
Eurostars2 Programme?  

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sufficient budgets from all Participating States 

 Sufficient budgets from some Participating States 

 Insufficient budgets from some Participating States 

 Insufficient budgets from all Participating States 

 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

Relevance 

D.8: Does the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme in its design and implementation contribute 
to the general objectives of making Horizon 2020 more oriented towards innovation and 
economic impact and support the holistic approach to innovation taken by Horizon 2020?  

 Yes 

 To a large extent 

 To a small extent 

 No 

 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

D.9:  Is  the  design  of  the  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  (minimum  2  participants  from  2 
different Eurostars-2 participating States, R&D performing SME as leading partner in the 
consortia, 3 years project duration, project results to be introduced into the market after 
to 2 years of the project completion, etc.) an adequate response to the observations on 
SME innovation support in FP7 and H2020?  

 Yes 

 To a large extent 

 To a small extent 

 No 

 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

Coherence 

D.10:  Does  the  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  complement  other  interventions  / 
‘Fast  Track  to  Innovation’, 
instruments 
Collaborative  projects,  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  actions)  or  from  other  EU  programmes 
(COSME) and realise synergies where possible?  

from  Horizon  2020  (SME  Instrument, 

 Yes 

 To a large extent 

 To a small extent 

 No 

 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

D.11:  Are  the  resources  mobilized  by  the  Participating  States  and  the  European  Union 
justified by the scale and scope of the initiative?  

 Yes 

 To a large extent 

 To a small extent 

 No 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

D.12: How do you assess the efficiency of the mechanisms and tools ensuring the entry-
into-the-market of results/achievements of Eurostars-2 ended projects? 

 Very efficient 

 Efficient 

 Partially efficient 

 Not efficient 

 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

Effectiveness 

D.13:  In  your  opinion  is  the  Programme  sufficiently  accessible  in  particular  for  R&D 
performing SMEs?  

 Yes 

 To a large extent 

 To a small extent 

 No 

 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

D.14:  What  is  the  benefit  for  an  R&D-performing  SME  to  participate  in  Eurostars2 
projects? (maximum 600 characters) 

European Added Value 

D.15:  Do  you  think  that  the  total  amount  of  EU  financial  contribution  (i.e.  max  287 
million  EUR)  is  appropriate  in  order  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  Eurostars2 
Programme?    

 Too high 

 Adequate 

 Too small 

 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

D.16:  What  is in  your  opinion  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  EU  intervention  in 
the  Programme  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  at  national  or  regional  level? 
(maximum 600 characters) 

D.17: Is the design and performance of Eurostars2 in line with the spirit of Art.185 TFEU 
and  with  the  requirements  of  Art.26  of  Horizon  2020,  in  particular  concerning  financial, 
managerial and scientific integration?  

 Yes 

 To a large extent 

 To a small extent 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 No 

 No opinion 

Comments (maximum 600 characters) 

Strengths, weaknesses and the future 

D.18:  In  your  opinion  what  are  the  strengths,  weaknesses,  opportunities  and  threats 
regarding the management of Eurostars2 Joint Programme? (maximum 600 characters) 

D.19: What are the lessons learnt for the future? (maximum 600 characters)  

D.20: Would you be in favour of a future Eurostars initiative? 

 Yes, as a joint programmes with the participation of both Participating States and the 

EU 

 Yes, as a joint programmes, but only with the Participating States 

  No,  I  would  prefer  community  support  in  the  context  of  a  future  Framework 

Programme 

 No, only national programmes are relevant in this domain  

 No opinion 

 Other  

Comments (maximum 600 characters, mandatory for "Other") 

D.21: Do you have any further comments (maximum 1200 characters)? 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7: RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION OF 
EUROSTARS-2 PROGRAMME 

This  section  presents  an  overview  of  the  outcomes  of  the  Public  Consultation  related  to 
the  Evaluation  of  the  Eurostars-2  Art.185  initiative.  The  online  survey  was  open  for 
submission for more than 13 weeks (27 January – 30 April 2017). 
1. Profile of the respondents to the public consultation 
As  shown  in  Figure.1,  about  two  thirds  of  the  93  respondents  belong  to  a  single 
institution or company and one respondent is an individual.  

Figure.1. Capacity of respondents 

2,2 

35,5 

62,4 

As an individual

On behalf of a single institution/company

On behalf of an “umbrella” organisation of EU interest 

Figure.2.  shows  that  58%  of  respondents  are  business  organisations  (among  which  two 
thirds SMEs), 22% public authorities and 15% universities.  

Figure 2. SMEs 

In terms of geographic coverage, Figure 3 indicates that nearly 50% of respondents are 
originating  from  5  countries:  Belgium  (16.1%),  Norway  (9.7%),  Spain,  Greece  (7.5%) 
and  Italy  (6.5%).  This  geographical  snapshot  is  of  importance  once  related  to  the  total 
Eurostars-2  contribution  to  Research  &  Development  and  innovation activities  in  Europe 
and  partner  countries  across  participating  countries.  Germany,  The  Netherlands,  France 
and  Switzerland,  identified  amongst  the  Top  5  countries  in  this  matter,  have  showed 
limited interest in the consultation.  

The  attractiveness  in  responding  to  such  survey  from  SMEs  is  strong  and  the  ratio 
Companies- Institutions is quite balanced.  

Figure 3 adds an interesting aspect of the disproportion of interests in responding to such 
public  consultation,  more  importantly  in  Partner  Countries  and  Moderate  Innovator 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
countries.  It  is  interesting  to  raise  the  absence  of  audiences  from  Member  States  from 
EU-13 where alternative national or regional innovation-support measures for SMEs may 
exist. 

Figure 3. Country of respondents 

16,1 

9,7 
9,7 

7,5 

6,5 

5,4 

4,3 
4,3 
4,3 
4,3 

3,2 
3,2 

Belgium
Norway
Spain
Greece
Italy
Serbia
Turkey
Poland
Lithuania
Croatia
Bulgaria
France
Romania
Portugal
Austria
Denmark
Finland
Other
Slovenia
Cyprus
Netherlands
Germany
Ukraine
Switzerland
Sweden
Albania

2,2 
2,2 
2,2 
2,2 
2,2 
2,2 

1,1 
1,1 
1,1 
1,1 
1,1 
1,1 
1,1 
1,1 

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

In addition, it is interesting to note that the level of familiarity with the Eurostars2 Joint 
Programme  varies  amongst  countries,  but  remains  viable  (Figure  4).  More  than  two 
thirds of respondents have a fair or a very good knowledge of the programme while only 
3%  of  respondents  consider  it  low.  In  fact,  three  quarters  of  respondents  have  already 
participated in a Eurostars (1 or 2) project.  

Figure.4. Level of familiarity with the Eurostars2 Joint Programme 

15,1 

53,8 

28,0 

3,2 

Fair

Good

Low

Very good

The majority of the surveying entities seem to have learnt about the Programme thanks 
to  networks  of  national  and/or  European  sources.  Figure  5  shows  that  most  of 
respondents  (near  35%)  know  about  Eurostars  Programme  through  national/regional 
networks (NPS, NCP, EEN, authorities, innovation agencies…) followed by "Media" (23%). 
Other  undefined  sources  of  information  account  for  the  33%.  "Conferences"  and 
"Scientific  workshops  and  training  events"  account  for  the  remaining  4%  and  5% 
respectively. 

Such  results  provide  a  positive  feedback  of  satisfaction  among  beneficiaries  and 
surveyors  with  active  networks.  This  indicates  that  the  tools  developed  can  be  widely 
available  Such  interpretation  seems  quite  pragmatic  as  similar  ratio  is  found  when 

94 

 
 
 
 
analysing  other  EU  instrument(s)  available  for  SMEs,  funded  under  Horizon  202025. 
However, the potential of such network seem to be in need of further exploration as 65% 
of  the  consulted  entities  have  received  the  information  through  alternative  ways  of 
communication (Conference, media, and so forth).  

Figure 5. Participation in an action under Eurostars-1 and/or Eurostars-2  

24,7 

75,3 

No

Yes

Thus,  it  is  interesting  to  link  such  consultation  with  the  analysis  of  EU  added  value 
completed by the Eurostars-2 projects26 ; it appears easier for R&D performing SMEs to 
participate in programmes at regional and national levels.  

Figure 6. If you are not involved in a Eurostars project, how did you find out information 
about the Joint Programme? 

Through national networks (NPS, NCPs,
EEN, KAM, Regional authorities, national or
regional Innovation Agencies, national or…

Through media (Internet, national
information channels, newspapers,
specialised press, etc.)

Other

In a conference

At a scientific workshop or training event

0,0

5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0

In terms of information process, 94.6% of participants in the public consultation find that 
Eurostars  promotes  research  activities  carried  out  by  SMEs  among  themselves  or 
including other actors of the innovation chain, fully (59.1%) or to a large extent (35.5%) 
– Figure 6. 

25  Mid-term  evaluation  report  of  the  SME  instrument,  European  Commission,  February  2017,  p110,  when 
stating  "  Surveyed  agencies  indicate  that  availability  throughout  Member  States  and  Associated  countries 
can best be guaranteed by making the Enterprise Europe Network responsible (85%), or by having the EU 
maintain a repository of proven approaches (71%)".  

26 Interim evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme , EC, June 2017, p17.  

95 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Regarding  achievement  of  Objective  D.4  (Promotion  of  research  activities  where  results 
are  to  be  introduced  into  the  market  within two  years  of  the  completion  of  an  activity), 
80.7% of respondents  considers the goal fully (44.1%) achieved  or to a large extent. A 
18.3% of respondents think that this objective is to a small extent accomplished (Figure 
8.9). 

Figure 7 (Objectives D.4): To which extent is the Eurostars programme likely to achieve 
the  following  objectives?:  Promote  research  activities  that  are  carried  out  by 
transnational  collaboration  of  research-  and  development  performing  SMEs  among 
themselves  or  including  other  actors  of  the  innovation  chain  (e.g.  universities,  research 
organisations)? 

4,3 

35,5 

1,1 

59,1 

Fully

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Figure 8. (Objectives D.4): To which extent is the Eurostars programme likely to achieve 
the following objectives?: Promote research activities where results are to be introduced 
into the market within two years of the completion of an activity 

18,3 

44,1 

36,6 

1,1 

Fully

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Such picture has an importance when bearing in mind the objectives  of the Programme 
as  defined  in  the  EU  legal  Decision.  The  particularity  of  "being  market-oriented"  is 
essential  for  the  programme  as  it  is  defined  that  'the  R&D-performing  SME(s) 

96 

 
 
 
 
collaborating  in  a  Eurostars-2  funded  project  shall  have  a  maximum  duration  of  three 
years  and  within  two  years  of  project  completion  the  product  of  the  research  should  be 
ready  for  launch  into  the  market'.  Therefore,  the  18.3%  of  respondents  which  have 
stated  that  Eurostars-2  Programme  is  to  a  small  extent  achieving  the  market-oriented 
approach may be critical for the assessment of the Effectiveness of the Programme. 

Figure 9. (Objectives D.4): To which extent is the Eurostars programme likely to achieve 
the  following  objectives?  Increase  the  accessibility,  efficiency  and  efficacy  of  public 
funding  for  SMEs  in  Europe  by  aligning,  harmonising  and  synchronising  the  national 
funding mechanisms of Participating States. 

19,4 

43,0 

32,3 

5,4 

Fully

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Also  the  public  consultation  indicates  that  the  accessibility,  efficiency  and  efficacy  of 
public funding available for SMEs, R&D intensive included, are perceived as more positive 
with the existence of a programme such as Eurostars-2. 75.4% responded in this sense, 
amongst which 43% fully agree with such perception.  

In  comparing  results  from  the  respondents  on  R&D  performant  SMEs  and  on  the 
achievement of accessing the market within a limited fixed timeframe, it would be useful 
to  assess  more  in  details  the  profiling  of  the  19.4%  of  targeted  audience  which 
responded negatively ('to a small extent'). It would also be useful to link such profiling to 
the reasons of their statement and assess to which extend the external coherence of the 
programme remains sustainable.  

When  asked  about  the  current  Eurostars  design  in  order  to  support  the  introduction  of 
results  into  the  market  within  2  years  after  completion,  67.8%  of  respondents  consider 
this  goal  achieved  (fully  23.7%,  to  a  large  extent  44.1%);  23.7%  believe  this  goal 
accomplished to a small extent, with 4.3% thinking that the goal is not achieved (Figure 
10). 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10. (D.5): A major objective of the Joint Programme is to introduce the results of 
projects into the market within 2 years of the completion of the project. Does the present 
design  of  the  Eurostars  Joint  Programme  sufficiently  support  such  a  target,  do  you  see 
any possibilities to improve this? 

23,7 

23,7 

4,3 

4,3 

44,1 

Fully

No

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Figure  11.  (D.6):  In  the  absence  of  a  Eurostars-2  grant,  would  R&D  performing  SMEs 
have undertaken their projects by their proper or other means? 

3,2 

19,4 

3,2 

10,8 

63,4 

No

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Yes

82.8%  of  respondents  think  that  the  SMEs  supported  by  Eurostars-2  programme  would 
not  have  undertaken  their  projects  by  their  proper  or  other  means  (19.4%  fully  no, 
63,4% to a large extent).   

Such survey needs to be combined with the ratios already set in Figure 9 which assesses 
the  level  of  promotion.  Majority  of  respondents,  which  also  have  participated  to  the 
Programme as previous figures mentioned, considers that the Programme is not fulfilling 
its  support  and  has  not  improved  during  its  implementation.  The  essence  of  the 
Eurostars-2  programme  objective  is  to  introduce  into  the  market  after  two  years  of 
completion  of  the  project.  Indicators  as  the  ones  extracted  from  Figure  11  show  two 
elements:  

98 

 
 
 
 
(1) At the time of the mid-term evaluation analysis is not aligned with the possibility of 
completed  projects,  funded  under  Eurotars-2  Programme.  However,  such  possibility 
should  be  interpreted  with  care  as  the  programme  was  launched  on  the  twentieth  day 
following  that  of  its  publication  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  on  the  14 
May 2014.  

(2)  The  completed  projects  were  not  amongst  the  target  audience  who  contributed  to 
this public consultation. However, this assumption also appears fragile when taking into 
account  that  Eurostars-2  aims  at  promoting  transnational  market-oriented  research 
activities for R&D performing SMEs in any market area. 

Such  latest  remarks  lead  adequately  to  the  following  Figure  11  which  relates  to  the 
relevance  in  receiving  funding  from  Eurostars-2  Programme  and  Figure  12  on  the 
available funding envelope per project. 

Figure  12.  (D.7):  Is  there  sufficient  budget  from  Participating  States  to  achieve  the 
objectives of the Eurostars2 Programme? 

2,2 

24,7 

10,8 

49,5 

12,9 

Insufficient budgets from all Participating States

Insufficient budgets from some Participating States

No opinion

Sufficient budgets from all Participating States

Sufficient budgets from some Participating States

When  asked  about  the  budget  (Figure  12),  49.5%  of  the  respondents  believe  that  it  is 
"insufficient  budget  from  some  Participant  States",  compared  to  the  24.7%  that 
considers  it  sufficient.  10.8%  think  that  the  budget  from  all  Participating  States  is 
sufficient (2.2% insufficient). There is a remaining 12.9% showing no opinion. 

These two elements of available and amplitude of funding under Eurostars-2 Programme 
for  R&D  performing  SMEs  requires  to  be  interpreted  with  the  current  economic  crisis 
under  which  Europe  is  for  the  lest  years.    In  such  macro-ecosystem,  the  programme 
features,  of  being  a  bottom-up  programme,  from  any  technological  domain,  for  any 
market appears attractive. 

When  asked  about  the  contribution  of  Eurostars  to  make  H2020  more  oriented  towards 
innovation  and  economic  impact,  Figure  13  shows  that  78.5%  think  so  (44.1%  plus 
34.4% to a large extent). Only a 1.1% answers "no" and 11.8% "to a small extent", with 
8.6% with no opinion. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  13.  (Relevance  D.8):  Does  the  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  in  its  design  and 
implementation  contribute  to  the  general  objectives  of  making  Horizon  2020  more 
oriented  towards  innovation  and  economic  impact  and  support  the  holistic  approach  to 
innovation taken by Horizon 2020? 

1,1 

8,6 

44,1 

34,4 

11,8 

No

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Yes

It is too early to say at that point that such proportion is evidence-based as it is required 
two years after completion of the project to measure, thanks to the reporting system put 
in place, the economic impact of the programme. It is however clear that the perception 
of the projects' projections by the projects' holders is strongly positive.  

Concerning the design of Eurostars-2 (participants, SME leadership, duration, etc.), most 
of  the  respondents  (78.5%)  have  a  positive  view  again:  51.6%  considered  that  the 
design  is  an  adequate  response  to  the  observations  on  SME  innovation  support  in  FP7 
and  H2020  and  26.9%  to  a  large  extent.  The  figure  also  shows  11.8%  "to  a  small 
extent", 1.1% "no" and 8.6% "no opinion". 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  14.  (D.9):  Is  the  design  of  the  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  (minimum  2 
participants  from  2  different  Eurostars-2  participating  States,  R&D  performing  SME  as 
leading partner in the consortia, 3 years project duration, project results to be introduced 
into the market after to 2 years of the project completion, etc.) an adequate response to 
the observations on SME innovation support in FP7 and H2020? 

1,1 

8,6 

51,6 

26,9 

11,8 

No

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Yes

35%  of  respondents  answered  that  Eurostars-2  complements  other  instruments  from 
H2020  (SME  Instrument,  FTI,  collaborative  projects,  MSCA,…)  or  other  EU  programmes 
(like  COSME),  realising  synergies  wherever  is  possible  (Figure  15).  also,  23.7%  agrees 
with  this  statement  to a large  extent,  unlike  a  19.4%  plus  4.3%  that  consider  this  goal 
achieved  to  a  smaller  extent  or  definitely  not  (respectively).  There  is  17.2%  of 
respondents with no opinion.  

Interesting  to  compare  such  perception  with  the  ones  resulting  of  a  similar  objective 
towards  innovative  SMEs  under  SME  instrument.  In  relation  to  the  Fast-Track  to 
Innovation (FTI) pilot scheme as well as Eurostars, the complementary nature of the 
SME Instrument is predominantly in its specific focus on supporting individual SMEs. 27  

However,  the  ratio  of  around  23%  considering  that  the  complementarity  is  of  a  small 
extent  combined  with  the  17.2%  of  no  opinions  shows  most  importantly  that  the 
beneficiaries of the  Euroastars-2 programme and to a larger extend the respondents do 
not  have  a  clear  picture  of  the  distinct  specificities  of  these  different  instruments 
available for Innovative SMEs, under Horizon 2020. Such presumption could also refer to 
the  definition  as  only  the  Eurostars  Programme  refers  strictly  to  R&D  performant  SMEs 
and not only SMEs carrying an innovative projects as under SME Instrument or FTI.  

27 See, "mid term evaluation of "Innovation in SMEs", February 2016, p97-100. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 15. (Coherence D.10): Does the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme complement other 
interventions  /  instruments  from  Horizon  2020  (SME  Instrument,  ‘Fast  Track  to 
Innovation’,  Collaborative  projects,  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  actions)  or  from  other  EU 
programmes (COSME) and realise synergies where possible? 

4,3 

17,2 

35,5 

23,7 

19,4 

No

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Yes

Figure  16.  (D.11):  Are  the  resources  mobilized  by  the  Participating  States  and  the 
European Union justified by the scale and scope of the initiative? 

3 

20 

14 

11 

45 

No

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Yes

Figure  16  confirms  the  relative  knowledge  of  Eurostars-2  programme  with  regards  to 
mobilisation of resources from the Participating States and the EU. 65%  of respondents 
consider  positively  this  mobilization  while  11%  of  them  answer  "to  a  small  extent"  or 
"no"  (3%).  The  14%  remaining,  of  "no  opinion"  remains  again  an  indicator  on  the 
relative knowledge about the Programme features (see Figure 17). 

Figure  17  shows  that  only  7.5%  of  respondents  think  Eurostars-2  is  very  efficient  in 
terms  of 
the  entry-into-the-market  of 
results/achievements of ended projects, 29.0% efficient, 34.4% partially efficient, 6.5% 
not efficient and 22.6% show no opinion.  

the  mechanisms  and 

tools  ensuring 

102 

 
 
 
 
Figure  17.  (D.12):  How  do  you  assess  the  efficiency  of  the  mechanisms  and  tools 
ensuring  the  entry-into-the-market  of  results/achievements  of  Eurostars-2  ended 
projects? 

7,5 

29,0 

34,4 

22,6 

6,5 

Efficient

No opinion

Not efficient

Partially efficient

Very efficient

When  asked  about  the  accessibility  of  the  Programme  particularly  for  R&D  performing 
SMEs,  74.2%  of  respondents  shows  a  positive  opinion  (45.2%  "yes"  plus  29.0%  "to  a 
large  extent").  16.1%  says  "to  a  small  extent"  jointly  with  4.3%  saying  that  the 
Programme is not accessible.  

Figure 18. (Effectiveness D.13): In your opinion is the Programme sufficiently accessible 
in particular for R&D performing SMEs? 

4,3 

5,4 

45,2 

29,0 

16,1 

No

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Yes

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
47.3%  of  respondents  consider  the  EU  financial  contribution  to  the  Eurostars-2 
Programme  (i.e.  max  287  million  EUR)  "adequate",  compared  to  39.8%  considering  it 
"too small", completed with 12.9% of "no opinion" (Figure 19). Again such perception of 
about  50%  of  the  respondents  is  to  be  analysed  with  care  within  the  macroeconomic 
environment where the R&D performing SMEs are driving their projects.  

Figure  19.  European  Added  Value  D.15:  Do  you  think  that  the  total  amount  of  EU 
financial  contribution  (i.e.  max  287  million  EUR)  is  appropriate  in  order  to  achieve  the 
objectives of the Eurostars2 Programme? 

39,8 

47,3 

12,9 

Adequate

No opinion

Too small

Finally in this section, Figure 20, when asked about the alignment of Eurostars 2 with the 
spirit of Art.185 TFEU and with the requirements of Art.26 of Horizon 2020, in particular 
concerning  financial,  managerial  and  scientific  integration,  24.7%  consider  it  in  line, 
jointly with 35.5% that believes "to a large extent". There are 26.9% of respondents with 
"no opinion", 10.8% answering "to a small extent" and 2.2% "no". 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 20. (D.17): Is the design and performance of Eurostars2 in line with the spirit of 
Art.185  TFEU  and  with  the  requirements  of  Art.26  of  Horizon  2020,  in  particular 
concerning financial, managerial and scientific integration? 

2,2 

24,7 

26,9 

10,8 

35,5 

No

No opinion

To a large extent

To a small extent

Yes

105 

 
 
 
 
 
106 

 
 
 
 
[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

The Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the Union’s participation in 
the  Article  185  initiative  Eurostars-2  Joint  Programme  ("Eurostars-2")  under  Horizon 
2020 foresaw that the European Commission shall carry out an interim evaluation by  30 
June  2017.  This  report  accordingly  presents  the  findings  of  the  Interim  Evaluation  of 
"Eurostars-2"  prepared  by  an  Expert  Panel  appointed  by  the  European  Commission,  DG 
Research & Innovation and chaired by Mr Marcel Shaton. 

The strengths of the Programme reportedly lie in its bottom-up approach, its stimulus to 
international  cooperation  for  SMEs,  and  its  focus  on  go-to-market  of  project  outputs. 
Reported  drawbacks  are  limited  active  participation  to  the  Programme  from  quite  some 
"participating"  countries,  sub-optimal  and  heterogeneous  implementation  modalities 
resulting  in  uncertainties  about  time-to-contract  and  funding  with  selected  applicants, 
and insufficient quality of data at programme level to guarantee efficient monitoring.  

The  Expert  Group  provided  short-  and  long-term  recommendations  based  on  available 
evidence and proposed four policy scenarios for a continuation of Eurostars after 2020.   

Studies and Reports