Collective action in the energy sector : insights from EU research and innovation projects.
Date: 2020-10-06
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: EU research policy, business model, electrical energy, energy consumption, energy grid, energy production, fund (EU), innovation, new technology, research report

Collective action in the energy sector: 
insights from EU research and innovation 
projects  

Gangale, F.  

Mengolini, A.  

Marinopoulos, A. 

Vasiljevska, J.  

2020 

EUR 30339 EN 

 
 
 
This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does 
not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the 
Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying 
the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the 
referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion 
whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or 
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC120635 

EUR 30339 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-21418-2 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/51238 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 

© European Union, 2020 

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the 
reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under 
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that 
reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other 
material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union 2020, except: cover, ©melita-AdobeStock_309362765, 2020. Source: stock.adobe.com  

How to cite this report: Gangale, F., Mengolini, A., Marinopoulos, A., Vasiljevska, J., Collective action in the energy sector: insights from EU 
research and innovation projects, EUR 30339 EN, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-21418-
2, doi:10.2760/51238, JRC120635. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 

1 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

1.1  Policy context .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

1.2  Scope of the report ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 

2  Collective action projects ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

2.1  Projects identification and selection criteria ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 

2.2  Project categories ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 

2.3  Projects overview ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 

2.3.1 

Overarching and specific objectives ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 

2.3.2 

Time trend of projects and investment .................................................................................................................................................. 18 

2.3.3 

Geographical distribution of demonstration sites ......................................................................................................................... 21 

2.3.4 

Geographical distribution of stakeholders .......................................................................................................................................... 23 

2.3.5 

Scale and sector ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 28 

2.4  Technologies trialled ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 

2.4.1 

Generation solutions .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 

2.4.2 

Solutions for consumers ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 

2.4.3 

Storage solutions ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 

2.4.4 

Energy management solutions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 36 

2.5  Stakeholders involved ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 

2.6  Community engagement strategies ........................................................................................................................................................................... 42 

2.6.1 

Increased awareness ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 44 

2.6.2 

Participatory approach ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 

2.6.3 

Incentives and rewards........................................................................................................................................................................................ 47 

2.6.4 

Community trusted actors ................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 

3  Projects addressing non-technological challenges ...................................................................................................................................................... 51 

4  Conclusions and suggestions for future research ........................................................................................................................................................ 57 

References............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 

List of abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 64 

List of country codes ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 

List of boxes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 

List of figures ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 67 

List of tables ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68 

Annexes ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69 

Annex 1. Collective action projects - Key facts ............................................................................................................................................................... 69 

Annex 2. Projects addressing non-technological challenges – Key facts.................................................................................................. 71 

i 

 
 
 
Abstract 

This  report  analyses  EU-funded  collective  action  projects  in  the  energy  field.  The  objective  is  to 
provide an overview of the current state of play of relevant research and innovation activities in the 
EU and to identify the research gaps to be addressed in the future. The report focuses on collective 
action  projects  that  combine  the  use  of  new  technologies,  business  models  and  community 
engagement  approaches  to  support  consumers  in  changing  the  way  they  use  electricity.  The 
analysis  is  also  supported  by  an  overview  of  projects  that  address  the  social  dimension  of  the 
energy transition and promote the development of collective action initiatives at policy, institutional 
and societal level. 

2 

 
 
Acknowledgements 

We would like to acknowledge with much appreciation the valuable contribution of Laura Covrig and 
thank  Aura  Caramizaru,  Tilemahos  Efthimiadis,  Igor  Nai  Fovino  and  Andreas  Uihlein  for  reviewing 
the document. 

Authors 

Flavia Gangale, independent consultant, Rome, Italy 

Anna Mengolini, Joint Research Centre, European Commission 

Antonios Marinopoulos, Joint Research Centre, European Commission 

Julija Vasiljevska, Joint Research Centre, European Commission 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Policy context and scope of the report 

In  recent  years,  technological  innovation  and  the  decreasing  cost  of  technology  have  made  new 
forms  of  consumer  participation  in  energy  production  and  management  more  accessible. 
Consumers have started to produce, store and consume their own energy and are able to support 
the  operation  of  power  grids  and  energy  market  by  changing  their  load  patterns.  New  forms  of 
collective energy action have also started to emerge, enabling a more active role of consumers in 
the energy system. In some Member States, local communities already get involved in initiatives to 
collectively  reduce  energy  use,  manage  energy  better,  generate  or  purchase  energy.  Energy 
cooperatives,  peer-to-peer  (P2P)  trading  and  collective  self-consumption  run  within  existing  legal 
frameworks, under regulatory exemptions or in the framework of innovation projects.  

This  new  activism  by  consumers,  acting  collectively  to  widen  the  reach  of  their  endeavours,  has 
been acknowledged by recent EU energy policy documents that address the collective dimension of 
energy use. The Clean Energy Package (CEP), for example, has elaborated on the central role that 
collectively  acting  consumers  can  play  in  the  energy  transition  and  have  established  a  legislative 
framework  where  “jointly  acting  consumers”  and  “jointly  acting  renewable  self-consumers”  have 
more opportunities to get actively involved. The CEP also introduced the concepts of “citizen energy 
communities” and “renewable energy communities” as a way to engage consumers and increase the 
acceptance  of  renewables.  Communities  and  individuals  are  given  the  right  to  produce,  store, 
consume  and  sell  their  own  energy  and  are  recognized  as  key  stakeholders  in  the  new  energy 
system. 

The  EU  has  also  supported  a  variety  of  research  and  demonstration  projects to  test  and  validate 
innovative  approaches  of  collective  action  in  the  energy  field  and  to  promote  good  practice  at 
national, regional and local level.  

The objective of this report is to analyse these projects, to provide an overview of the current state 
of play of relevant research and  innovation  (R&I) activities in the EU  and to identify  the research 
gaps to be addressed in the future. The report focuses on EU-funded collective action projects 
i.e.  projects  that  combine  the  use  of  new  technologies,  business  models  and  community 
engagement approaches to support a more active participation of consumers in the energy market. 
More specifically, it focuses on projects that research and test collective level solutions to increase 
the ability of consuming self-produced and locally generated electricity and to facilitate the uptake 
of energy efficiency and active demand services. The analysis is also supported by an overview of 
projects  co-funded  by  the  EU  to  address  the  social  dimension  of  the  energy  transition  and  to 
promote the emergence and development of collective action initiatives at policy, institutional and 
societal level (i.e. projects addressing non-technological challenges).  

By  analysing these projects,  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  aims  to highlight emerging  trends  in 
collective energy use in the EU and to contribute to the sharing of knowledge and best practices. It 
also aims to contribute to the ongoing debate on how funding for research and innovation activities 
can support an inclusive energy transition.   

4 

 
Main findings 

Overall,  the  report  analyses  38  EU-funded  projects:  22  collective  action  projects  and  16  projects 
addressing non-technological challenges (i.e. policy, institutional and societal challenges).  

Project number. Collective action projects in the energy field are not new in the EU R&I scene, with 
a pretty constant number of projects starting each year since 2011. Time trend data suggests that 
the  growing  attention  that  collective  action  grass-root  initiatives  have  attracted  at  policy  level  in 
recent years has not yet been fully reflected in the research and innovation projects carried out to 
date  with  EU  financial  support.  More  funding  is  desirable  in  the  future  to  investigate  the 
technological,  economic  and  social  aspects  of  collective  action  in  the  energy  sector.  New  projects 
are however expected in the framework of H2020 as, at the time of writing, funding is still available 
under  topics  that  may  award  more  collective  action  projects.  The  “Orientation  towards  the  first 
Strategic  Plan  implementing  the  research  and  innovation  framework  programme  Horizon  Europe” 
also mentions energy communities as potential future research area.  

Geographical coverage. Organization participating in collective action projects come from a small 
number  of EU  Member States, with most  countries in central  and Eastern Europe  showing limited 
participation. Geographical differences in stakeholder participations depend on a variety of national 
circumstances.  In  particular,  a  supportive  legislative  and  regulatory  environment  encourages  the 
participation of institutional, commercial and non-governmental actors in innovation projects. Their 
participation, in turn, strengthens their capacities and expertise, and enables commercial actors to 
pursue emerging business opportunities at national and international level.  

As for projects addressing non-technological challenges, the analysis shows a high level of activity 
in  countries  with  a  long  tradition  of  local  energy  activism,  such  as  Germany,  Belgium,  the 
Netherlands  and the  UK with  participation  by  EU-13  countries  in  general  higher  than  in  collective 
action  projects.  This  finding  seems  to  suggest  a  growing  interest  in  collective  action  initiatives  in 
these countries, interest that research and public institutions, as well as civil  society associations, 
are trying to capture, ahead of more technological stakeholders. 

Future  EU-funded  projects  should  try  to  cover  more  geographical  areas  and  to  increase  the 
participation of underrepresented  countries. This would help  them to strengthen the scientific  and 
networking  capabilities  of  national  stakeholders  and  to  bring  about  more  widespread  and  quicker 
uptake  of  solutions  and  best  practices  for  the  active  participation  of  consumers  in  the  energy 
market.  

Targeted sectors. The majority of collective action projects are targeted at the residential sector 
only,  while  some  projects  also  involve  the  commercial  and  public  sectors.  The  inclusion  of  other 
sectors in the scope of the projects is an interesting development, as it is in line with the idea of a 
multi-stakeholder, municipally-based partnership, which is at the core of an integrated community-
oriented approach. 

Key conclusions 

Technologies  tested.  The  collective  action  projects  surveyed  trial  a  variety  of  different 
technological solutions that revolve around collective energy demand side management as a means 
to  improve  local  energy  management,  reduce  energy  consumption  and  costs  for  consumers, 
improve energy independency and support participation in local flexibility markets.  

5 

 
Projects  combine  the  demonstration  of  innovative  technological  solutions,  business  models  and 
community engagement approaches to support consumers in changing the way they use electricity. 
To  effectively  support  the  deployment  of  innovative  technological  solutions,  future  R&I  projects 
should increasingly combine these three aspects. 

Stakeholder’s  categories.  Overall,  collective  action  projects  display  a  high  participation  of 
traditional  stakeholders  (e.g.  universities  and  research  centres,  DSOs,  technology  manufacturers), 
and  a  moderate  participation  of  emerging  actors,  newer  in  the  energy  research  and  innovation 
arena, such as public institutions, energy cooperatives and local/not-for-profit organisations. 

Participation  by  a  wide  range  of  organisations,  with  different  roles  and  expertise,  should  be 
encouraged  as  it  helps  to  enrich  the  debate  and  add  new  perspectives,  including  from  a 
geographical point of view.  

Future  R&I  projects  should  promote  wider  participation  by  different  stakeholder  categories  and 
encourage collaboration between existing and new players in flexibility  services to test innovative 
business models. 

Consumer  engagement.  The  collective  action  projects  surveyed  reveal  that  engagement 
interventions based on community dynamics and on the sense of a community-based initiative can 
offer  a  valid  support  to  promote  behavioural  change  and  reach  the  project  goals.  Although  most 
projects emphasise the importance of the social context in which consumers live and operate and 
introduce the project goals as community’s achievements, many of them still focus mostly on the 
technical  level,  giving  only  a  theoretical  relevance  to  the  social  dimension  associated  with  energy 
practices.  In  the  future,  it  is  desirable  that  projects  translate  theory  into  practice  and  associate 
social  science  and  humanities-related  work  more  closely  with  the  development  of  technological 
solutions.  

A  well-designed  engagement  strategy  appears  to  be  key  to  bringing  participants  together  with  a 
common purpose and achieve the project objectives. The engagement strategy should be constantly 
reviewed  during  the  course  of  the  project  to  transpose  the  interim  results  of  the  interventions 
deployed.  

Future R&I should draw upon and add to the body of knowledge that has been developed by past 
EU-funded projects,  adapting  their findings to the local  and specific circumstances. Efforts should 
be  made to  make  the  new  knowledge  developed  within  the projects  available  to  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders, well beyond the project closing. 

Related and future JRC work 

The  JRC  continues  to  conduct  research  on  sociotechnical  aspects  of  the  energy  transition  and  on 
how the collective dimension of energy use can contribute to an inclusive energy transition. The JRC 
will  carry  on  analysing  research  and  innovation  projects  at  national  and  European  levels  with the 
aim  to  support  early  identification  of  the  challenges  and  opportunities  that  the  use  of  digital 
technologies and other innovative solutions can present for EU consumers’ living conditions.  

6 

 
1  Introduction 

1.1  Policy context  

The European Union’s energy system is undergoing a profound transformation driven by the need to 
reach  the  EU  climate  objectives  through  further  decarbonisation  and  to  supply  secure  and 
affordable energy to consumers and businesses (European Commission, 2019) (IRENA, 2019).   

The process of electrification of the energy system and its digitalisation is one of the key enablers 
of  this  transformation  (IRENA,  2019).  Developing  a  power  sector  that  combines  widespread 
electrification  and  digital  technologies  with  renewable  sources  is  considered  crucial  to  achieve 
carbon  neutrality  by  2050  (European  Commission,  2018).  By  linking  different  energy  carriers, 
energy system integration will allow consumers to embrace cleaner energy alternatives.  

In the last decade, the European power sector has seen a sharp increase in the share of distributed 
and  renewable  energy  sources  (RES).  This  shift  from  generation  in  large  central  installations 
towards decentralised production of electricity from renewable sources is challenging the technical 
and  economic  efficiency  of  incumbent  network  management  arrangements,  requiring  the 
development of new strategies for handling a more decentralized system. A variety of supply and 
demand side solutions need to be developed and trialled in order to facilitate the transition to the 
new energy system, harnessing flexibility in all of its parts (IRENA, 2018). 

According to the directive on common rules for the internal market for electricity, “consumers have 
an  essential  role  to  play  in  achieving  the  flexibility  necessary  to  adapt  the  electricity  system  to 
variable and distributed renewable electricity generation” (The European Parliament and the Council 
of  the  European Union,  2019).  Empowering  and  providing  consumers  with  the  tools  to participate 
more  in  the  energy  market,  will  help  to  achieve  the  EU  renewable  energy  targets  and  enable  EU 
citizens to benefit from the internal market for electricity (The European Parliament and the Council 
of the European Union, 2019; European Commission, 2019).  

New  forms  of  consumer  participation  in  energy  production  and  management  are  becoming  more 
accessible  thanks  to  technological  innovation  and  the  decreasing  cost  of  technology  (Council  of 
European Energy Regulators, 2019). Consumers have started to produce, store and consume their 
own energy and are able to support the operation of power grids and energy market by changing 
their load patterns. New forms of collective energy action have also started to emerge, enabling a 
more  active  role  of  consumers  in  the  energy  system.  In  some  Member  States,  local  communities 
already get involved in initiatives to collectively reduce energy use, manage energy better, generate 
or  purchase  energy  (Council  of  European  Energy  Regulators,  2019).  Energy  cooperatives,  peer-to-
peer  (P2P)  trading  and  collective  self-consumption  run  within  existing  legal  frameworks,  under 
regulatory exemptions or in the framework of innovation projects.  

This  new  activism  by  consumers,  acting  collectively  to  widen  the  reach  of  their  endeavours,  has 
been acknowledged by recent EU energy policy documents that address the collective dimension of 
energy  use  (see  Box  1).  The  Clean  Energy  Package  (CEP),  for  example,  has  elaborated  on  the 
central role that collectively acting consumers can play in the energy transition and has established 
a  legislative  framework  where  “jointly  acting  consumers”  and  “jointly  acting  renewable  self-

7 

 
consumers”1  have  more  opportunities  to  get  actively  involved.  Communities  and  individuals  are 
given  the  right  to  produce,  store,  consume  and  sell  their  own  energy  and  are  recognized  as  key 
stakeholders  in  the  new  energy  system.  The  CEP  also  provide  the  definitions  of  “citizen  energy 
community” and “renewable energy community” which are both  formulated as a particular way to 
organise  collective  actions  around  a  specific  energy-related  activity,  specifically  through  a  legal 
entity  (RESCoop,  2019).  A  recent  study  of  the  European  Commission  argues  that  energy 
communities  represent  an  opportunity  for  the  consumer  to  benefit  of  the  digitalisation  of  the 
energy  sector 
(European  Commission,  2019).  More  recently,  the  European  Green  Deal 
communication  has  highlighted  the  need  to  further  empower  regional  and  local  communities, 
including  energy  communities,  thus  acknowledging  the  collective  dimension  of  energy  use  in  the 
transition to a more sustainable energy future (European Commission, 2019). 

In  recent  years,  collective  action  initiatives,  usually  referred  to  as  community  energy  initiatives 
(Walker & Devine-Wright, 2008) (Gregg, et al., 2020), have also been extensively investigated in the 
social  sciences to  understand  their  potential  to  influence  the  way  energy is produced,  distributed, 
consumed and stored. Recent studies show that in a collective action context, consumers are willing 
to  sacrifice  part  of  their  comfort  to  reduce  energy  use,  even  in  the  absence  of  direct  financial 
benefits (Kandul, Lang, & Lanz, 2020). Leveraging on communal motives appears to be a promising 
way  to  enhance  involvement  in  community  energy  initiatives  and  foster  sustainable  behaviour 
among  people  who  may  not  otherwise  be  interested  in  environmental  protection  (Sloot,  Jans,  & 
Steg,  2019).  Community  energy  initiatives  can  also  help  to  mitigate  energy  poverty  (Hanke  & 
Lowitzsch, 2020), thus contributing to a social and just energy transition.   

In this report, we do not look specifically into energy communities, but we rather keep a wider focus 
and look into how collective action has been experimented in R&I projects in the EU to support the 
EU  ambitious  energy  goals.  By  analysing  the  technological  solutions  tested  and  the  engagement 
strategies deployed at collective level, the report aim is to provide insights on how collective action 
project can positively contribute to flourishing energy communities.  In times when the implications 
of the COVID-19 crisis for energy systems and clean energy transition are still evolving, the report 
aims to highlight the current R&I efforts towards a more sustainable energy future with consumers 
and communities at its centre.  

1 As defined in the Electricity Directive and the Renewable Energy Directive respectively ( (The European Parliament and the Council of the 

European Union, 2018) (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2019). 

8 

 
 
 
  
 
                                           
Box 1. From energy consumers to collectively acting energy citizens in EU energy policy 

The energy consumer has been acquiring an increasing central role in EU energy policy documents (Figure 1). 
The 2015 Energy Union strategy  (European Commission, 2015) places citizens at its core and recognizes 
that  by  taking  ownership  of  the  opportunities allowed  by  the  energy  transition,  they  can  "benefit  from  new 
technologies  to  reduce  their  bills,  participate  actively  in  the  market”  and  contribute  to  an  energy  transition 
“where vulnerable consumers are protected".  

The communication “Delivering a New Deal for Energy Consumers” (European Commission, 2015) further 
clarifies the role of the consumer in the energy transition. It recognises that the combination of decentralized 
generation  with  storage  options  and  demand  side  flexibility  "can  further  enable  consumers  to  become  their 
own  suppliers  and  managers  for  (a  part  of)  their  energy  needs,  becoming  producers  and  consumers  and 
reduce their energy bills”.  

While the New Deal recognizes that consumers increasingly participate in collective schemes and community 
initiatives, “to better manage their energy consumption”, it is only with the Clean Energy for All Europeans 
(European  Commission,  2016)  that  the  collective  dimension  of  energy  use  is fully  acknowledged.  The  focus 
shifts from the individual consumer acting in isolation to the collective dimension of energy use and to how 
this  can  contribute  to  a  more  inclusive  energy  transition.  Indeed,  the  communication  highlights  that 
community  energy  represents  an  inclusive  option  for  all  consumers  "to  have  a  direct  stake  in  producing, 
consuming  and  or  sharing  energy  between  each  other”  and  in  fighting  energy  poverty  through  reduced 
consumption  and  lower  supply  tariffs.    Community  energy  initiatives  directly  engage  with  consumers  and 
therefore  can  be  best  suited  "in  facilitating  the  up-take  of  new  technologies  and  consumption  patterns, 
including smart distribution grids and demand response, in an integrated manner". It is recognized that "where 
they  have  been  successfully  operated  such  initiatives  have  delivered  economic,  social  and  environmental 
value to the community that goes beyond the mere benefits derived from the provision of energy service". The 
appropriate  legal  framework  has  been  put  in  place  with  the  adoption  of  the  Electricity  Directive  and  the 
Renewable Energy Directive.  

The recent European Green Deal (European Commission, 2019) presents a forward-looking strategy where 
no one should be left behind. It emphasises the involvement of “local communities in working towards a more 
sustainable  future”  and  the  need  to  further  “empower  regional  and  local  communities,  including  energy 
communities”.  It  also  advocates  for  a  socially  just  transition  where  the  risk  of  energy  poverty  must  be 
addressed and citizens and workers most vulnerable to the energy transition must be protected.  

Figure 1. Towards a more inclusive and collective EU energy policy 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

9 

 
 
1.2  Scope of the report 

Collective energy action initiatives have existed in the European energy system for a long time and 
under  different  forms,  such  as  energy  cooperatives,  community  energy  groups,  associations  of 
consumers  and  collective  purchasing  groups.  The  recent  developments in  EU  legislation  discussed 
above – the recognition of jointly acting renewable self-consumers and active consumers as well as 
citizen and renewable energy communities– have paved the way for their widespread diffusion with 
a more formal role.  

Collective  action  initiatives  in  the  energy  field  are  often 
hindered  by  technological,  regulatory,  economic  and 
social  challenges.  R&I projects  can play a pivotal role to 
address these challenges and speed up the transition to 
a  new  energy  system  with  consumers  and  communities 
at its heart. In the last decade, several R&I projects have 
started to investigate new types of interactions between 
active consumers that allow them to capture the benefits 
of  renewable  energy  generation  and  to  participate  in 
electricity markets by providing flexibility to the system.  

In  this  report,  we  use  the  expression 
collective  energy  action  initiatives  to 
refer  to  different  forms  of  citizen 
participation around the issue of energy.  

By  collective  action  projects,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  refer  to  R&I  activities 
that  research  and  test  collective-level 
technological  solutions  to  enable  a 
more  active  participation  of  consumers 
in the energy market. R&I projects need 
to  have  a  start  and  an  end  date,  to 
state  clear  research  objectives  and  to 
provide for a monitoring and evaluation 
framework. 

In many Member States, R&I projects have been carried 
out  to  investigate  the  feasibility  of  collective  action 
initiatives,  the  challenges  they  have  to  face  and  the 
contribution  they  can  offer  to  a  more  secure  and  sustainable  energy  system.  In  some  Member 
States in particular, advanced legislation, regulatory exemptions and a well-established local energy 
activism (Wierling, et al., 2018) have favoured the flourishing of a variety of R&I projects (e.g. the 
Netherlands and Denmark).  

The  EU  has  also  funded  a  number  of  R&I  projects  in  this  field.  In  this  report,  we  focus  on  EU-

funded  collective  action  projects  that  combine  the  use  of  new  technologies,  business  models 
and community engagement approaches to enable a more active participation of consumers in the 
energy market (abbreviated as ‘CA projects’ in the figures titles).  

More  specifically,  we  focus  on  projects  that  research  and  test  technological  solutions  at 

collective level to increase the ability of consuming self-produced and locally generated 

electricity and to facilitate the uptake of energy efficiency and active demand solutions 

and  services.  We  direct  our  analysis  on  projects  funded  under  the  Framework  Programmes  for 
Research  and  Innovation,  the  Intelligent  Energy  Europe  (IEE)  programme  and  the  European 
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). These programmes have produced many examples of good 
practice  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels  and  can  serve  as  blueprints  for  similar initiatives in 
other  Member  States,  enabling  a  more  systematic  uptake  of  good  practices  across  the  EU 
(European Commission, 2016). 

The analysis is also supported by a brief overview of projects co-funded by the EU to address the 
social  dimension  of  the  energy  transition  and  to  promote  the  emergence  and  development  of 
collective  action  initiatives  at  policy,  institutional  and  societal  level  (projects  addressing  non-

technological  challenges,  abbreviated  as  ‘NTC  projects’  in  the  figures  titles)  (Figure  2).  These 
projects  focus  on  the  policy,  institutional,  economic  and  societal  dimensions  of  collective  energy 

10 

 
 
action  initiatives  to  boost  citizen’s  participation  and  speed  up  the  transition  towards  renewable 
energy. Their analysis is presented in a separate chapter at the end of the report.  

Figure 2. Overview of projects suveyed 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

Overall,  the  report  provides  an  overview  of  the  current  state  of  play  in  the  EU  to  see  what  has 
already been done and to identify the research gaps to be addressed in the future. Its ambition is 
thus to  share  the  body  of  knowledge  and best  practices  that  EU-funded  collective  action projects 
have developed and to provide actionable recommendations for future research programmes. The 
report is addressed to all stakeholders involved in setting up collective action initiatives at national, 
regional  and  local  level,  that  may  benefit  from  the  experiences  collected  so  far  thanks  to  EU 
funding. It is also addressed to stakeholders interested in furthering research on this topic, who may 
find the analysis helpful in identifying research gaps.  

The  report  complements  previous  works  carried  out  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  that  have 
looked  into  sociotechnical  aspects  of  collective  energy  use,  such  as:  community  engagement 
strategies,  stakeholders’  involvement,  emerging  technologies  and  social  innovation  in  energy 
transition (Mengolini, Gangale, & Vasiljevska, 2016) (Marinopoulos, Vasiljevska, & Mengolini, 2018) 
(Kounelis, et al., 2017) (Caramizaru & Uihlein, 2020). It builds on the work carried out by the JRC as 
part of its smart grid projects outlook (Gangale, Vasiljevska, Covrig, Mengolini, & Fulli, 2017) and is 
part of the JRC efforts to provide  updated topic-specific analyses (Gangale & Mengolini, 2019). It 
also  acknowledges  and  contributes  to  the  current  research  developments  in  the  field  (BRIDGE, 
2019) (Tounquet, De Vos, Abada, Kielichowska, & Klessmann, 2019) (USERSTCP, 2020). 

The report is driven by the following research questions: 

11 

 
 
 
 

Is the growing attention that collective action initiatives have gained at policy level in recent 
years reflected in the research and innovation projects carried out to date with EU financial 
support? 

  What kind of technologies and solutions have been trialled? 

  What kind of community engagement strategies have been tested? 

  What kind of stakeholders have been involved and what key partnerships have emerged? 

  What are the research gaps and areas for future research? 

The  report  is  structured  as  follows.  Chapter  2  introduces  the  collective  energy  action  projects 
surveyed, providing an overview of their objectives and of their time and geographical distribution. It 
also analyses in more depth the technologies tested, the stakeholders involved and the community 
engagement  strategies  used  in  the  projects.    Chapter  3  provides  a  snapshot  of  the  projects  that 
address  the  policy,  institutional,  economic  and  societal  challenges  of  collective  energy  action 
initiatives and of the activities they carry out.  Finally,  Chapter 4 provides a summary  of the main 
findings and offers suggestions for future research.  

12 

 
 
2  Collective action projects 

2.1  Projects identification and selection criteria 

This chapter focuses on EU-funded collective action projects that research and test collective-level 
technological  solutions  to  increase  the  ability  of  consuming  self-produced  and  locally  generated 
electricity  and  to  facilitate  the  uptake  of  energy  efficiency  and  active  demand-side  solutions  and 
services.  

The  identification  and  documentation  of  projects  involved  a  systematic  search  that  used  various 
combinations  of  the  following  keywords:  innovation,  collective,  self-consumption,  storage,  peer  to 
peer, energy trading, energy sharing, community, energy cooperative, neighbourhood, virtual power 
plant, microgrid, distributed generation, demand management, demand response, smart grids.  

A main source of information was the JRC database of smart grid projects (the SG database)2. The 
SG  database  includes  about  950  projects  and  can  be  searched  for  stage  of  development,  project 
main  application,  funding  source  and  stakeholder  category.  The  SG  database  was  an  important 
starting point for projects identification, but further search was necessary to detect recent relevant 
projects. Other sources of information used in the search process were: 

• 

The  Community  Research  and  Development  Information  Service  (CORDIS).  CORDIS  is  the 
European  Commission's  primary  source  of  results  for  the  projects  funded  by  the  EU's  framework 
programmes for research and innovation (from FP1 to Horizon 2020). It has a rich and structured 
public  repository  with  all  project  information  held  by  the  European  Commission  such  as  project 
factsheets, participants, reports, deliverables and links to open-access publications. 

• 

The  Intelligent  Energy  Europe  (IEE)  projects  database.  The  online  database  provides  a 
repository for projects funded under the IEE programme, launched by the European Commission in 
2003 as a means of supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy policies and help bring the 
EU  closer  to  its  2020 targets.  The  IEE  ran  until  2013,  but  some  projects  funded  through  the last 
calls for proposals started in 2014.  

• 

The  online  databases  of  the  INTERREG  transnational  cooperation  programmes,  key 
instruments of the European Union supporting cooperation and regional development within the EU 
through project funding by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). 

The search in organized repositories was coupled with a wide internet search of different sources of 
information,  such  as  project  websites,  academic  articles,  scientific  reports  and  projects’ 
dissemination and communication materials.    

Projects  emerging  from  the  search  were  included  in  a  dedicated  database  only  if  they  met  the 
following selection criteria: 

  The project is co-funded by the EU. 

  The  project  targets  the  residential  sector,  either  exclusively  or  in  combination  with  other 

sectors. 

  The project actively involves consumers at collective level. 

2 The SG database was developed by the JRC to analyse the state of play of smart grid projects in the EU. A version of the 
at: 

database, 
https://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/files/u24/2017/jrc_smart_grid_projects_inventory_2017.xlsx 

containing 

personal 

budget 

found 

data, 

and 

can 

not 

be 

13 

 
                                           
  There  is  enough  information  publicly  available,  e.g.  in  the  form  of  deliverables,  reports, 

research articles or a demonstrator description.  

The cut-off date for projects’ inclusion in the database was 31st March 2019.  

At the end of the identification and selection process, we retained 22 collective action projects in 
the  database,  involving  227  organizations  from  26  EU  countries  and  from  some  associated  and 
enlargement countries, i.e. Switzerland, Israel, Iceland, Norway, Serbia and Turkey. 

2.2  Project categories 

Project documentation was scanned to retrieve a variety of information, using as much as possible 
the  categorisation  proposed  in  the  JRC  smart  grid  projects  outlook  2017  (Gangale,  Vasiljevska, 
Covrig,  Mengolini,  &  Fulli,  2017).  The  categories  used  are  listed  below,  and  a  brief  explanation  is 
provided in case of discrepancy with the above mentioned outlook 2017. 

  Start and end date.  
  Demonstration site.  
  Funding sources (EU, own resources/national funding) and budget. 
  Scale. This is a new field of the database, introduced to gather information on projects’ spatial 
and relational dimension (Figure 3). The scale of a project refers to the spatial area where the 
project  intends  to  demonstrate  its  solutions  and  where  consumers  are  linked  using  the  same 
enabling technology.   

  Sector.  The  main  focus  of  the  report  is  on  residential  consumer  participation  in  energy 
production,  consumption  and  management.  For  this  reason,  the  database  only  reports 
residential and mixed sector projects, i.e. projects targeting one or more sectors, along with the 
residential  one.  Projects  targeted  exclusively  at  the  industrial,  commercial  and  public  sector 
were not taken into consideration. 

Figure 3. CA projects: scale 

• 

Technological solutions trialled. This is a new field of the database, designed to monitor the 
technological solutions trialled in collective action projects. These solutions are grouped under 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

14 

 
 
four  broad  categories:  generation  solutions,  solutions  for  consumers,  storage  solutions  and 
energy  management  solutions.    Figure  4    presents  the  four  general  categories  that  will  be 
further elaborated in section 2.4. 

Figure 4. Technological solutions trialled in CA projects 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

• 

Stakeholders  involved. The  stakeholder  categories  proposed  in  the  JRC  smart  grid  projects 
outlook  (Gangale,  Vasiljevska,  Covrig,  Mengolini,  &  Fulli,  2017)  were  adapted  to  reflect  more 
accurately the type of actors involved in collective action projects and to better understand the 
links and relations between them. Figure 5 below lists the stakeholders identified for this study 
that will be further investigated in section 2.5. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5. Stakeholders involved in CA projects 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

•  Consumer engagement interventions tested. This is another new field of the database. 
Engaging  consumers  in  a  collective  effort  requires  the  implementation  of  a  well-thought 
engagement strategy that builds on a sense of community and of shared values and goals. 
Figure 6 presents the main interventions used by the projects to actively involve consumers 
at collective level to reach a common objective. Section 2.6 will provide further analysis. 

Figure 6. Consumer engagement interventions trialled in CA projects 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

2.3  Projects overview  

2.3.1  Overarching and specific objectives 

The analysis of the projects’ description and goals revealed that all projects pursue one or more of 
the following overarching objectives, in line with the EU energy and climate policy goals: 

•  Reducing energy use and CO2 emissions.  

16 

 
 
 
 
•  Supporting  the  fast  growth  of  renewable  energy  generation,  particularly  in  constrained 

networks. 

•  Supporting  distribution  grids  stability,  alleviating  network  constraints  and  avoiding  RES 

curtailment. 

Besides these general objectives, that are common to many other EU-funded projects, the collective 
action projects analysed in this report typically pursue other - often intertwined - specific objectives 
(Figure 7), such as: 

• 

• 

Increasing the consumption rate of locally generated electricity.  

Improving local energy independency and self-sufficiency.  

•  Reducing  energy  consumption  and  electricity  bill  costs3; 

increasing  consumers 

understanding and engagement in energy efficiency. 

•  Supporting collective action initiatives (e.g. energy cooperatives, local energy communities) 

to introduce themselves in local flexibility markets. 

To  achieve  these  objectives,  the  projects  surveyed  use  different  enabling  technologies  and 
engagement approaches that connect  and unite consumers, widening the reach of their individual 
endeavours and supporting their role as active energy players.  

In  many  projects,  for  example,  collective  flexibility  is  used  to  optimise  local  energy  management 
(e.g.:  Compile,  City-Zen  Amsterdam),  while  some  projects  go  further  and  explore  the  possibility  of 
offering this collective flexibility to the market (e.g.: Flexcoop, Merlon). 

Figure 7. CA projects: specific objectives 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

3 It is also interesting to note that several projects also have the reduction of energy poverty among their project objectives (i.e.: Compile, 

Energaware, Smart Energy Island, WiseGrid).  

17 

 
 
 
                                           
The  projects  analysed  in  this  report  also  differ  from  other  EU-funded  projects  for  their  focus  on 
consumers  and  the  attention  to  the  individual  and  social  dimension  of  energy  consumption4.  The 
selected  projects  require  the  collective  active  participation  of  end  consumers and  the  adoption  of 
tailored strategies to ensure their engagement throughout the project activities and beyond. For this 
purpose,  many  projects  consider  social  science  and  humanities  disciplines  as  integral  part  of  the 
project and include them from the beginning of the project and not just as an isolated task. 

2.3.2  Time trend of projects and investment 

The scanning of the selected projects revealed that collective action projects are not new in the EU 
R&I scene, with a pretty constant number of projects starting each year since 2011 (Figure 8  and 
Figure  9).  Under  FP7,  projects  were  funded  in  2011  (Nice  Grid),  2012  (Eepos,  Origin  and  Ideas), 
2013 (Civis and Cossmic) and 2014 (City-zen and CityOpt). Since the start of H2020, 10 collective 
action projects were funded (Energaware, Sensible, Shar-Q, WiseGrid, Compile, Flexcoop, Nice Smart 
Valley, Merlon, Muse Grid, React). H2020 projects also includes projects funded under the ERA-Net 
Smart Grids Plus initiative in 2016 (Grid-Friends), 2017 (Nemogrid) and 2018 (Smart-MLA). Finally, 
the  database  also  includes  one  project  co-funded  by  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund 
(ERDF)  in  2017  (Smart  Energy  Island).  Data  for  2019  is  only  partial,  as  the  database  includes 
projects that started up to 31 March 2019.   

Figure 8. CA projects: start date by funding source 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

4  Dozens  of  projects  have  been  funded under  the  EU  Research  Framework  Programmes  where  the  same  objectives  were  pursued but 
without the specific focus on collective actions and community approaches. Just to give a few examples of projects trialling  similar 
Singular 
solutions: 
(https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/309048),  Dimmer 
(http://ebalance-
project.eu) 

(https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/609084),  E-balance 

(https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/260165), 

(https://www.sim4blocks.eu), 

Sim4blocks 

E-hub 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 9. CA projects: start and end date 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

As  for  investment,  its  time  distribution  is  not  always  in  line  with  the  number  of  projects  starting 
each year (Figure 10). Several reasons may explain the differences in the volume of project funding, 
such  as the  size  of the  sample  population  of the  demonstrators  or  the  number  of  demonstrators 
carried  out  within  the  same  project.  Not  all  the  project  funding  is  always  dedicated  to  testing 
collective action solutions. For several projects for example (9 out of 22), we considered the whole 
budget even if the project carries out several demonstrators and not all of them were considered 
relevant  for  our  analysis.  This  approach  implies  that  the  whole  project  budget  is  taken  into 
consideration even if only a fraction of it was spent on the relevant demonstrators. In most cases, 
we believe that this method does not affect the time trend soundness. Only in two cases,  City-zen 
(Amsterdam,  2014)  and  WiseGrid  (Ghent,  2016),  the  budget  effectively  allocated  to  the  relevant 
demonstrator might have been sensibly lower than the overall project budget.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10. CA projects: time distribution of investment * 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

* For yearly aggregations of investment, the project budget was assigned to the starting year. The category ‘Other’ includes private 
financing and funding received by national sources. 

Finally,  Figure 11 shows that the most common project budget range is 1 to 5 M€ (13 out of 22 
projects). 6 out of 22 projects have a budget over 10 M€ and only 3 projects a budget between 5 
and 10 M€. 

Figure 11. CA projects: budget ranges 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

Overall, time trend data suggests that the growing attention attracted by collective action initiatives 
at  policy  level  in  recent  years  has  not  yet  been  fully  reflected  in  the  research  and  innovation 
initiatives carried out to date with EU  financial support. More funding is desirable in the future to 
investigate technological, economic and social aspects of collective action projects.  

20 

 
 
 
New projects are however expected in the framework of H2020 as, at the time of writing, funding is 
still available under topics that may award more collective action projects, e.g. LC-SC3-EC-1-2018-
2019-2020  “The  role  of  consumers  in  changing  the  market  through  informed  decision  and 
collective  actions”5,  LC-SC3-EC-3-2020  “Consumer  engagement  and  demand  response”6,  LC-SC3-
ES-3-2018-2020 “Integrated local energy systems (Energy islands)”7, “LC-SC3-SCC-1-2018-2019-
2020  -  Smart  Cities  and  Communities”8  and  LC-SC3-SCC-2-2020  “Positive  Energy  Districts  and 
Neighbourhoods for urban energy transitions”9. Relevant projects have also been funded under the 
ERA-Net  Smart  Energy  Systems,  Joint  Calls  2017  and  2018,  but  they  were  not  included  in  the 
database  as,  being  very  recent,  not  enough  information  was  yet  available10.  The  “Orientations 
towards the first Strategic Plan implementing the research and innovation framework programme 
Horizon Europe” also mentions energy communities as potential future research area. 11 

2.3.3  Geographical distribution of demonstration sites 

Most  projects  carry  out  several  demonstrators  across  different  climatic,  cultural  and  regulatory 
conditions  to  validate  the  technical,  regulatory  and  economic  concepts  associated  with  the 
innovative solutions trialled. We only considered the demonstration sites targeted at the residential 
sector  (either  exclusively  or  together  with  other  sectors),  where  collective  level  technological 
solutions were trialled. After this screening we retained 38 out of the 51 demonstrators carried out 
within the projects.  Figure 12 shows that demonstration sites are concentrated in a few countries 
(e.g.  Italy,  UK,  France,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Spain),  with  most  Member  States  in  eastern  Europe 
lacking any demonstrator.  

5 Submission deadline is 20 September 2020. 
6 Submission deadline is 29 January 2020. 
7 Since the end of March 2019, latest start date for the inclusion in our database, two more potentially relevant projects received funding 
under this call, i.e. Ielectrix (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824392) and Renaissance (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824342)   
8 Submission deadline is 29 January 2020. Since the end of March 2019, latest start date for the inclusion in our database, two more 
potentially  relevant  projects  received  funding  under  this  call,  i.e.  Atelier  (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864374)  and  Sparcs 
(https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864242). 

9 Submission deadline is 29 January 2020. 
10  Relevant  projects  include  SONDER  -  Service  Optimization  of  Novel  Distributed  Energy  Regions  (01/09/2019  –  31/08/2022,  joint  call 
2018)  and  CLUE  -  Concepts,  planning,  demonstration  and  replication  of  Local  User-friendly  Energy  communities  (01/10/2019  – 
31/12/2022, joint call 2018)  

11  https://ec.europa.eu/research/pdf/horizon-europe/ec_rtd_orientations-towards-the-strategic-planning.pdf 

21 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 12. CA projects: number and location of demonstration sites 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

The map also shows that some municipalities have attracted more than one project (e.g. Nice (FR), 
Strem  (AT),  Rafina  (EL),  Amsterdam  (NL)).  This  circumstance  is  likely  due  to  favourable  local 
conditions, such as the number of already existing prosumers and their interest in innovative energy 
initiatives, the presence of stakeholders active on these topics, and the solicitude of local authorities 
for the development of such projects. If on the one hand this practice allows to take advantage of 
existing  relations  among  local  stakeholders  and  to  build  on  the  results  of  previous  research  and 
innovation  activities,  on  the  other  hand  a  greater  geographical  diversification  would  help  testing 
solutions  in  a  larger  set  of  climatic,  cultural  and  regulatory  conditions.  It  would  also  help  to 
showcase  solutions  and  build  capacities  in  a  larger  number  of  countries,  raising  interest  among 
commercial and public stakeholders as well as citizens. 

Figure 13 shows that the majority of projects are carried out in an  urban setting, about one third 
are implemented in a rural environment12 and four projects are carried out in geographical islands. 
Carrying  out  projects  in  different  settings  enables  testing  of  technological  solutions  in  different 
social  and  economic  environments.  Cities  are  major  centres  of  energy  consumption,  as  well  as 
formidable breeding grounds for innovative and ambitious energy transition initiatives (International 

12 Following (EUROSTAT, 2017), by rural areas we mean thinly populated areas with less than 5000 inhabitants. 

22 

 
 
                                           
Energy Agency, 2016). Rural areas, on the other hand, seem to offer a particularly fertile ground for 
the development of a decentralised, community-based approach. As we will also see later, projects 
revealed  that  social  fabric  and  community  identity  are  important  factors  for  the  success  of 
collective action projects. Small towns and villages appear to be more cohesive social clusters than 
city neighbourhoods (Abdurafikov, et al., 2014) while, in general, closer communities report higher 
engagement and satisfaction levels (CIVIS, 2016).  

Figure 13. CA projects: geographical setting of the demonstration sites  

Source: JRC, (2020) 

2.3.4  Geographical distribution of stakeholders 

Looking  at the  geographical  distribution  of  project  stakeholders, it  appears that  participations  are 
also  concentrated  in  a  small  number  of  EU  countries,  with  most  countries  in  central  and  Eastern 
Europe showing limited participation (Figure 14).  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14. CA projects: geographical distribution of participations 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

Besides  the  long-observed  participation  divide  between  EU-13  and  EU-1413  countries  (European 
Commission, 2018), there may be other reasons for this concentration.  

The  countries  with  a  higher  number  of  participants  are  characterised  by  a  well-established  local 
energy activism and by supportive legislative and regulatory frameworks. Some countries have set 

13  EU13  Member  States  are  meant  as  Bulgaria;  Croatia;  Cyprus;  Czech  Republic;  Estonia;  Hungary;  Latvia;  Lithuania;  Malta;  Poland; 
Romania; Slovakia; and Slovenia, whereas EU14 countries are the other 14 Member States of the European Union (not considering 
the UK that left the European Union on 31 January 2020.  

24 

 
 
                                           
up  sandbox  programmes,  i.e.  experimental  spaces  in  which  innovators  are  allowed  to  trial  new 
products, services and business models in a real-world environment without some of the usual rules 
and  regulations  applying  (IEA  ISGAN,  2019).  Germany,  Italy,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United 
Kingdom have already implemented sandbox programmes, while other countries such as Denmark, 
Ireland, Spain, Austria France, Norway and Sweden are either discussing or already in the process of 
designing and proposing a sandbox programme for implementation (IEA ISGAN, 2019). The scope of 
such frameworks varies from country to country, but it often includes the integration of increasing 
shares  of  renewable  generation,  the  development  of  flexibility  services  for  grid  stability,  the 
integration  of  energy  storage  in  the  power  sector  and  management  of  local  energy  communities 
(IEA  ISGAN,  2019).    The  Netherlands  for  example,  already  in  2015  adopted  an  experimental 
derogation from specific provisions of the Dutch Electricity Act to test alternative ways to increase 
the use of renewable energy or combined heat and power at local level, to promote more efficient 
use of the available energy infrastructure and to support increased involvement of energy users in 
their own energy provision14.  

One of the projects in our database, Grid-Friends, is carried out in the demonstration site of one of 
the  Dutch  projects  that  benefited  from  the  regulatory  exemption.  Other  countries  have  adopted 
specific legal frameworks to support the development of energy communities, e.g. France, Germany, 
Belgium (Wallonia), Greece, Portugal, Slovenia (BRIDGE, 2019).  

Regional  differences  in  participation  also  exist  within  countries,  with  some  regions  leading 
investment  in  collective  action  projects.  Figure  15  shows  a  higher  concentration  of  participations 
around  capital  cities  (e.g.  Paris,  Helsinki,  Athens).  This  finding  is  in  some  cases  justified  by  the 
location of the project demonstration sites, while in others it may more simply be attributed to the 
location of the participating organisations’ headquarters. 

14  The  experimental  regime  allows  for  associations  to  engage  in  collective  generation,  peer-to-peer  supply,  and  in  ‘project  grids’  for 
system operations. These associations must be entirely controlled by their members who decide on the organisation, process and 
distribution of costs (Lammers & Diestelmeier, 2017). There are exemptions from the rules regarding the separation of regulated 
and  market  activities.  Associations  may  operate  microgrids  and  benefit  from  exemptions  concerning  supply  license  requirements 
under certain derogations. 

25 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 15. CA projects: geographical distribution of participations by regions 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

Finally,  Figure  16  shows  the  geographical  distribution  of  lead  and  partner  organisations.  As 
expected,  the  comparison  with  the  map  displaying  the  geographical  distribution  of  participations 
(Figure  14),  shows  that  the  countries  with  a  higher  number  of  participations  also  show  a  higher 
number of lead organisations.    

26 

 
 
 
Figure 16. CA projects: geographical distribution of lead and partner organizations  

Source: JRC, (2020) 

In conclusion, the attention dedicated by some countries to the consumption of self-produced and 
locally  generated  energy  and  to  the  uptake  of  active  demand  solutions  and  services,  might 
contribute to justify the high level of activism among national stakeholders. A supportive legislative 
and  regulatory  environment  encourages  the  participation  of  institutional,  commercial  and  non-
governmental actors in innovation projects. Their participation, in turn, strengthens their capacities 
and expertise, and enables commercial actors to pursue emerging business opportunities at national 
and international level.  

Future  EU-funded  projects  should  try  to  cover  more  geographical  areas  and  to  increase  the 
participation of underrepresented  countries. This would help  them to strengthen the scientific and 
networking  capabilities  of  national  stakeholders  and  to  bring  about  more  widespread  and  quicker 
uptake  of  solutions  and  best  practices  for  the  active  participation  of  consumers  in  the  energy 
market.  

27 

 
 
2.3.5  Scale and sector 

Projects are implemented at different scales, ranging from multi-tenant buildings to whole regions 
and  islands. Table  1  below provides a brief description of the categories identified in the projects 
reviewed. 

Table 1. CA project: scale categories 

Scale 

Description 

Multi-tenant 
building 

Research  and  testing  localised  at  a  single  multi  occupancy  dwelling  (e.g.  a 
housing association complex). 

Neighbourhood 

Research and testing spread across a localised area, typically characterised 
by social interactions and networks. 

Municipality 

Research and testing spread across a village, town or part of a city. 

Region 

Research and testing spread across a wider local authority, network operator 
or energy retailer area. 

Island 

Research and testing spread across an entire island. 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

The majority of projects involve neighbourhoods (12 out of 22 projects, 16 demonstration sites) or 
are spread across a village, town or parts of a city (8 projects, 13 demonstration sites). Two projects 
(4  demonstration  sites)  are  carried  out  at  island  scale,  three  at  regional  scale  (3  demonstration 
sites) and two in multi-tenant buildings (2 demonstration sites). Figure 17 shows the geographical 
locations of demonstration sites by scale. 

The  two  projects  developed  at  multi-tenant  building  scale  are  carried  out  in  social  housing 
complexes  in  urban  areas  and  have  a  strong  focus  on  energy  efficiency  and  demand  side 
management. This area of  research might reveal interesting insights especially for those Member 
States that have already introduced a regulatory framework allowing collective self-consumption in 
multi-apartment  buildings.  Focusing  on  social  housing  complexes  offer  also  the  possibility  of 
addressing energy poverty (Gangale & Mengolini, 2019).  

Neighbourhoods offer ideal conditions for the development of collective action projects, especially 
in new urban developments and renewals, where diverse enabling technologies can be installed as 
part of the initial investment. We only find two projects in new city developments in our database 
(Grid-Friends and Eepos), and not much information on their peculiarities is provided in the project 
documentation available. 

Projects  developed  at  municipality,  region  and  island  scale  involve  prosumers  generally  spread 
across a wider territory and are often motivated by the sense of identity and pride being attached 
to community and locality and by the objective of reaching increased local energy independence.  

28 

 
 
 
Figure 17. CA projects: geographical distribution of demonstration sites by scale  

Source: JRC, (2020) 

Figure 18 shows the share of projects by sector. The majority of projects still targets the residential 
sector exclusively, while some projects also involve the commercial and public sectors (mixed sector 
projects).  The inclusion of other sectors in the scope of the project is an interesting development, as 
it is in line with the idea of a multi-stakeholder, municipally-based partnership, which is at the core 
of  an  integrated  community-oriented  approach.  Such  an  approach  can  also  help  with  maximising 
benefits and opportunities for consumers, thus contributing to technology acceptance and consumer 
engagement (Mengolini, Gangale, & Vasiljevska, 2016).  

29 

 
 
 
 
Figure 18. Share of CA projects by sector 

2.4  Technologies trialled  

Source: JRC, (2020) 

Collective action projects trial different technological solutions to achieve their objectives, typically 
to increase the ability of consuming self-produced and locally generated electricity and to facilitate 
the  uptake  of  energy  efficiency  and  active  demand solutions  and  services.  All  solutions,  however, 
revolve  around  collective  demand  side  management,  both  implicit  and  explicit,  as  a  means  to 
improve local energy management and/or to reduce energy consumption and costs for consumers. 
The solutions trialled in the projects, grouped under four broad categories, are summarized in Figure 
19.  

Figure 19. CA projects: technological solutions categories  

Source: JRC, (2020) 

30 

 
 
 
Collective demand response actions and other solutions building on community approaches are key 
to  optimising  local  energy  use  on  a  collective  level,  thus  supporting  local  consumption  of 
renewable and locally generated electricity.  

In some projects, collective approaches to demand side management and energy efficiency are only 
used as a means to increase consumers understanding and engagement in energy efficiency 
and reduce overall energy costs for consumers (e.g. EnergAware, CityOpt Nice). In these projects, the 
collective approach is meant to trigger behavioural change to cut local electricity demand and shift 
electricity demand peaks.  

In  other  projects,  ICT  solutions  based  on  accurate  localised  weather  forecasting  (e.g.  Origin,  Civis) 
are  used  to  improve  the  management  of  locally  generated  renewable  energy  through 
demand  side  management  of  shiftable  electrical  loads.  Demand  management  is  used  to  provide 
flexibility and it is often paired with efficiency measures to reduce consumption overall.  

Furthermore, some other projects combine demand side management with the use of storage (e.g. 
React) and smart EV charging (e.g. Compile, Grid-Friends, Merlon), while in others, the matching of 
local load and generation is achieved through the resort to innovative community-based solutions, 
such as community-scale storage (e.g. Smart Nice valley, Compile), virtual power plants (VPP) (e.g. 
City-Zen Amsterdam) and P2P approaches (e.g. Cossmic, Shar-Q). 

Finally,  collective  demand  response  and  energy  efficiency  solutions  are  used  also  to  provide 
balancing  and  ancillary  assets  towards  grid  stability  and  alleviation  of  network  constraints, 
enabling energy communities (e.g. cooperatives) to introduce themselves in local flexibility markets 
(e.g. Flexcoop, Merlon). 

In general, projects rely on different levels of automation and complexity, with advanced ICT tools 
and approaches (e.g. internet of things, big data, artificial intelligence, blockchain) used to different 
degrees. The optimisation and matching of local renewable electricity generation and consumption 
for example, can be achieved with different solutions ranging from ICT-enabled demand response 
schemes to more complex local energy management solutions, built on ICT platforms that enable 
the  orchestration  of  decentralized  energy  supply,  storage,  transport,  conversion  and  consumption 
within a given local geographical area.  

In the next paragraphs, we will present an overview of the main technological solutions trialled in 
the projects. These solutions, as listed in Figure 19, are represented further in Figure 20, where each 
solution is associated to the project where it has been trialled. Besides these technologies, we have 
also identified the projects that implement a microgrid in their demonstration sites. However, since 
the  term  “microgrid”  has  been  often  misused,  we  did  not  include  “microgrids”  as  a  trialled 
technology. In Box 2 we provide a definition of “microgrids” and how this definition differs from the 
concept  of  energy  communities;  we  further  present  how  “microgrids”  are  implemented  in  some 
selected projects. 

31 

 
 
 
Figure 20. Technological solutions trialled in each CA project   

Source: JRC, (2020) 

32 

 
 
 
 
Box 2. Microgrids 

The definition of “microgrid” has been proposed as early as 2004 in the EU project “Large scale integration of 
micro-generation  to  low  voltage  grids  (MicroGrids)”  funded  by  the  FP5  programme.  It  has  been  later 
complemented  by  the  More  MicroGrids  project  and  in  general  terms,  it  can  be  formulated  as  follows: 
microgrids  are  electricity  distribution  systems  containing  loads  and  distributed  energy  resources,  (such  as 
distributed  generators,  storage  devices,  or  controllable  loads),  that  can  be  operated  in  a  controlled, 
coordinated  way,  either  while  connected  to  the  main  power  network  and/or  while  islanded  (Papadimitriou, 
Kleftakis,  &  Hatziargyriou,  2018).  As  mentioned  by  the  EU  Technology  Platform  on  Smart  Grids  (currently 
ETIP-SNET), the unique feature of microgrids is that, although they operate most of the time connected to the 
distribution network, they can be automatically transferred to islanded mode and continue to operate, serving 
the  loads  of  the  microgrid  in  case  of  a  fault  in  the  upstream  grid  or  for  any  other  reason.  They  can  also 
resynchronize automatically after the fault restoration.  

Based on the above, the microgrid is a fully controlled entity that can operate autonomously and be seen by 
the  main  grid  as  a  single  aggregated  load  and/or  generator.  Thus,  they  should  not  be  confused  with  the 
interconnection  of  distributed  generation  to  a  distribution  line  in  the  absence  of  loads  or  monitoring  and 
control, or with the demand side integration in the absence of any  generation (Hatziargyriou, 2014). Another 
common  confusion  regards  the  virtual  power  plant  (VPP),  which  is  also  a  cluster  of  distributed  energy 
resources  (and  possibly  loads)  collectively  operated  by  a  control  entity;  these  resources  are  not  necessarily 
located together and can also refer to much bigger sizes. Finally, microgrids should not be confused with local 
energy communities, since the latter can be based on a microgrid structure or not.   

As  for  the  analysed  collective  action  projects,  six  of  them  claim  to  implement  a  microgrid  in  their 
demonstration  sites.  In  the  Luče  demonstration  site  of  the  Compile  project,  a  microgrid  is  tested.  A  remote 
rural  low  voltage  network  with  weak  and  unstable  connection  to  the  upstream  grid  is  equipped  with 
generation  capacity  (solar  photovoltaic  panels),  community  and  residential  battery  energy  storage  systems 
(BESS),  home  energy  management  system  (HEMS)  and  a  microgrid  controller  to  be  able  to  operate 
autonomously  and  increase  the  security  of  supply.  A  similar  concept  is  implemented  in  the  Oud-Heverlee 
demonstration site in Belgium, part of the Muse Grids project, where the last dozen houses in a distribution 
line in a rural street will become a microgrid, being able to act as an energy island when needed. Although a 
“microgrid” is mentioned in the Schoonschip demonstration site of the Grid-Friends project in Amsterdam, this 
is not technically a microgrid. As the subtitle of the project also implies, it is about “demand response for grid-
friendly  quasi-autarkic  energy  cooperatives”,  with  the  goal  to  maximise  cost  efficiency  and  use  intelligent 
demand  response  to  support  the  community  and  provide  green  energy  and  system  services  to  the  grid. 
Microgrids are also mentioned in the Merlon project, but only in the context of providing additional services to 
the  distribution  and  transmission  grid  (microgrid-as-a-service).  Finally,  in  the  Nice  Grid  project  a  successful 
islanding  part  of  the  grid  operating  as  a  microgrid  for  a  few  hours  has  been  tested,  but  full  microgrid 
capability was not an objective of the demonstrator. 

2.4.1  Generation solutions 

In most of the projects (18 out of 22), generation technologies are part of the demonstration site, 
supporting the reduction of energy needs from the main electricity (or heat) network.  Photovoltaic 
(PV)  solar  panels  are  used  in  the  majority  of  these  projects  (16  out  of  18).  In  some  cases, 
ownership  of solar panels  is a pre-requisite for participation in the project  (e.g.  City-zen), while in 
others they are leased to project participants during the demonstration. There are also cases where 
PV  generation  comes  from  solar  parks  owned  by  the  participating  energy  cooperative.    Some 
projects  use  combined  heat  and  power  (CHP)  plants,  either  exclusively  (e.g.  Eepos,  Ideas)  or 
complementary  to  PV (e.g.  Merlon,  Origin,  Shar-Q).  CHP  plants  generally  use  some  kind  of  biofuel 

33 

 
and are therefore considered as a form of renewable  energy source.  They are typically owned by 
the community and there is no need for micro-CHP installation in each house/building. 

Below, we present some examples from representative projects. 

In  the  Italian  demonstration  site  of  the  Origin  project  a  group  of  residential  and  commercial 
buildings forms the energy community under study. Residential buildings have approximately 20 to 
25 residents each, and are heated using biomass boilers augmented with solar hot water systems; 
electrical  demand  is  met  by  a  combination  of  large  solar-PV  arrays  and  grid  electricity  (ORIGIN, 
2015).  Besides  electrical  storage  and  EV  to  enhance  self-consumption  of  solar  PV,  solutions  like 
addition  of  wind  and/or  hydro  generation  with  pump  storage  were  found  attractive  for  the  site. 
Another  proposed  solution  included  the  expansion  of  the  district  heating  to  more  than  one 
residential  buildings  with  Origin  orchestrated  biomass  CHP  /  solar  system  with  thermal  storage. 
While for this community the addition of wind and hydro electricity generation in combination with 
electrical  storage  showed  a  good  potential  to  provide  a  better  year-round  electricity  supply,  the 
biomass  and  CHP  options needed  careful  consideration,  due  to  the  biomass  supply  chain  and  the 
need  for  a  comparative  lifecycle  carbon  and  financial  assessment.  In  general,  the  possibility  to 
model and analyse possible scenarios was very beneficial for the community. 

In the Finnish demonstration site of the Idea project, a district energy supplier generates, distributes 
and supplies heat and electricity from renewable resources (bio-fuelled CHP and wind turbines) in a 
predominantly  residential  area.  It  interacts  with  the  energy  market  and  has  the  means  to  control 
local  energy  production  and  distribution  to  increase  profits.  The  district  energy  supplier  can  also 
provide  services to  its  customers.  According  to  the project,  in  the  future  district  heating  providers 
can  profitably  extend  their  energy  service  contract  to  their  customers  to  include  the  generation, 
supply and distribution of locally produced renewable electricity. 

2.4.2  Solutions for consumers 

The projects surveyed test several technological solutions that enable demand response to support 
end-users to effectively manage their energy production and consumption. 

In  all  except  three  of  the projects,  some  kind  of  near  real-time metering  of  consumption  is  used, 
either by a smart meter or by sub-metering. In some cases, smart meters were already in place in 
the houses/buildings participating in the projects, whereas in other cases commercial or prototype 
smart meters, often with some extended functionality, were installed as part of the demonstration.  

Smart meters are key enablers for the involvement of consumers and communities. Their roll out at 
EU level has been going on since the Third Energy Package in 2009. Estimations from the Member 
States  and  the  EC  suggest  that  by  2030  more  than  90  %  of  the  electricity  meters  in  EU  will  be 
smart; however according to a recent benchmarking15 the penetration level in 2020 was still smaller 
than 50 %.  

Other  technologies  tested  in  the  projects  surveyed  include:  smart  plugs  with  remote  monitoring 

and control capabilities to make a legacy device “smart”;  smart home appliances, which include 

smart  features  and  wireless  connectivity  and  user  interfaces,  in  most  cases  part  of  the  related 
home management system (HEMS). 

15 Benchmarking smart metering deployment in the EU-28, https://op.europa.eu/s/n8i2  

34 

 
                                           
 
The projects surveyed involved the participants, either from the planning phase of the project or at 
least  during  the  demonstration  period.  In  this  way  they  collected  valuable  feedback  on  how  the 
consumers  received  the  solutions,  how  they  used  them  and  how  engaged  they  were  during  and 
after the demonstration phase.  

Below, we present some examples from representative projects.   

The CIVIS project highlights the important role of ICT solutions in the successful engagement with 
energy community. In particular, it  proposes  a triple-role  for the future of ICT: as an engagement 
tool, as a research tool, and as a project design tool (CIVIS, 2016). 

In  the  City-zen  project,  user  interfaces  (tied  to  solar  panels,  household  batteries,  or  energy 
platforms) were designed to support consumers to become more conscious of how they consume 
energy. By monitoring their energy use, they experience and understand their relationship to energy 
and  experience  gratification  upon  seeing  their  energy  savings  and  the  respective  monetary  gains 
(Gerritse, van Loon, van der Eerden, Zweistra, & Eising, 2019). 

In the Origin project, user interfaces played an important role. Feedback from participants highlights 
the  wish  to  get  the  information  from  monitoring  more  accessible  on  phones  and  tablets,  even 
mentioning a one-click approach. This would help elderly consumers and the busier ones and could 
open  up  new  business  models  and  increase  the  pool  of  potential  participants  (ORIGIN,  2015). 
Moreover, feedback on smart systems such as smart plugs and sensors suggested a plug-and-play 
approach, so that they can easily be retrofitted into existing dwellings, ideally without the need for 
specialist installers.  

2.4.3  Storage solutions  

In  the  majority  of  projects  (15  out  of  22)  energy  storage  solutions  are  implemented  in  the 
demonstrator, mostly in the form of a battery energy storage system (BESS) and less frequently in 
the  form  of  thermal  energy  storage,  i.e.  electric  water  heater  and  heat  pumps  for  domestic  hot 
water and/or heating purposes.  

EV batteries can be  also considered as a form of energy storage; they are used in several  of the 
projects surveyed to increase self-consumption of energy produced on-site encouraging consumers 
to move their charging from  times when local  production is low to times when production is high 
(e.g.  Merlon,  Smart-Mla).  Some  projects  also  provide  the  installation  of  community  EV  charging 
points (e.g. Compile).  

In recent years, the concept of V2G (Vehicle-to-Grid) has emerged; according to it batteries of an EV 
could be used to store excessive electric energy and give it back to the grid, i.e. using the EV battery 
as a buffer. Some of the projects surveyed tested the V2G concept (e.g. City-zen, Shar-Q), but not in 
combination with the collective action approach.  

Regarding  BESS,  in  most  of  the  cases  a  domestic  BESS  is  employed,  which  often  operates  in 
coordination with a solar PV system and an energy management system (EMS) in order to maximize 
self-consumption  of  PV  produced  electricity.  Such  residential  battery  storage  systems  have  been 
commercialized since 2015 and the introduction of the well-known Tesla Powerwall. In four projects 
(Compile, Muse Grids, Nice Grid, Sensible) the concept of a community BESS is implemented. With 
such a system, the community members can benefit from a larger storage capacity compared to a 
household  one,  which  can  be  sized  in  a  more  optimal  way  thanks  to  the  aggregation  of  demand 

35 

 
and/or  production  from  the  whole  community.  The  objectives  of  such  a  community  BESS  are 
multiple: 

 

 

 

 

In the Compile project, a BESS is installed in the demonstration site Luče in Slovenia. This is a 
rural low voltage network with a weak and unstable connection to the grid, resulting in frequent 
power  failures  and  reduced  capability  to  integrate  renewables.  Therefore,  the  goal  of  the 
community BESS, along with the rest of the system, will be to ensure the security of supply 
of the local energy system with high penetration of renewables.  

In  the  Muse  Grids  demonstration  site  of  Oud-Heverlee  in  Belgium,  the  community  BESS  is 
combined  with  a  number  of  existing  heat  pumps,  roof-top  solar  PV  installations,  EV  chargers, 
fuel cells, thermal storage, etc. all installed in the last dozen of houses of a rural street. The aim 
of this demonstrator is for these houses to become a microgrid at the end of the distribution 
line, with the ability to act as an energy island, being more autonomous and independent.  

In the Nice Grid project, four different types of BESS at different levels of the distribution grid 
of  Carros  (France)  are  installed.  These  four  systems  have  demonstrated  the  wide  range  of 
flexibility  capabilities  that  energy  storage  can  offer.  More  specifically,  two  community  BESS 
have been installed in residential solar districts offering peak demand reduction during cold 

days  and  storing  of  excessive  PV  generation  during  sunny  days.  The  other  three  types  of 

storage  were:  a)  a  large  BESS  connected  at  the  primary  substation  for  peak  demand 

reduction,  b)  a  large  BESS  connected  at  the  secondary  substation  in  an  industrial  area  that 

could offer limited islanding capability, and c) 18 small residential BESS in combination with 

PV allowing prosumers to help reduce winter consumption and summer injection peaks.  

In the Sensible project, community BESS are implemented in two of the demonstration sites. In 
the Meadows community located on the south side of Nottingham city centre (UK), a community 
BESS operates along with residential BESS and monitoring and control installed in 40 selected 
houses.  In  the  demonstration  site  of  Evora  (Portugal)  a  BESS  is  installed  together  with 
supercapacitors at the secondary substation, which is owned by the DSO (EDP Distribucao) and 
it is also complemented by additional BESS along the low voltage feeder and at household level. 
This  solution  represents  a  mixed  concept  where  multiple  BESS  are  installed  and  owned  by 
different actors (both DSO and the community), operating in coordination for the optimized and 
safe operation of the distribution grid. 

2.4.4  Energy management solutions 

An  important  technology trialled  in many projects is  the  energy management system (EMS).  Even 
though  there  is  no  single  definition,  usually  by  EMS  we  refer  to  an  integrated  information  and 
automation  system  of  computer  aided  tools  that  collects  measurement  data  and  any  other 
necessary  piece  of  information,  to  monitor,  control,  and  optimize  the  energy  performance  of  a 
system. A secondary objective of an EMS can be to better visualize and share the above information 
not  only  with  the  operators  but  also  with  the  end-users.  Depending  on  the  scale  of  the 
demonstration  site  (see  Figure  3  and  Figure  17),  different  energy  management  systems  are 
implemented:  HEMS  and  building  energy  management  system  (BEMS)  for  the  home  and  building 

36 

 
level and local energy management system (LEMS) for the local level. VPPs and Distributed Ledger 
Technology (DLT) are used for virtual communities16 and special applications.  

HEMS and BEMS are well-established energy management systems and the main challenge  faced 
by  the  projects  was  to  integrate  new  type  of  devices  into  such  systems,  as  for  example  PV, 
batteries, EV charging stations, etc., as well as to make them interoperable with other applications 
or  elements  of  the  energy  system.  More  relevant  for  collective  action  projects  are  LEMS  that  are 
found  in  11  of  the  analysed  projects.  LEMS  allow  the  coordination,  consumption  and  storage  of 
decentralized energy sources within a local geographical area, enabling the optimisation of demand 
and  supply  side  management  at  community  level.  This  optimisation  can  serve  multiple  purposes, 
such  as  the  maximization  of  self-produced  energy  from  the  local  energy  community,  the 
aggregation of energy consumption and/or production for participation in the energy market, or the 
improvement of security of supply in case of disruption in the main grid. At the core of a LEMS is an 
integrated  ICT  platform  that  process  a  large  quantity  and  variety  of  data,  including  energy 
production  and  consumption  data,  weather  forecast,  devices  status  and  hourly  electricity  tariffs. 
Similarly,  the  VPP  technology  aggregates  the  capacities  of  various  distributed  energy  resources, 
which  however  can  be  located  in  a  different  geographical  area.  In  this  sense,  it  is  more  a  cloud-
based distributed power plant and its purposes are mainly trading or selling power.  

In Figure 19, we have included DLT under the category of energy management solutions, although 
DLTs are not energy management systems per se. In fact, DLTs are “particular types of databases in 
which  data  is  recorded,  shared  and  synchronised  across  a  distributed  network  of  computers  or 
participants” to enable “parties with no particular trust in each other to exchange any type of digital 
data  on  a  peer-to-peer basis  with fewer  or  no  third parties  or  intermediaries” (Nascimento, et  al., 
2019). DLTs (e.g. blockchain) are currently been implemented in a number of demostration sites to 
facilitate various types of energy transactions. In the Nemogrid project, for example, a scenario of a 
peer-to-peer market based on blockchain for energy transactions is investigated with the objective 
to evaluate new sustainable business models. In the Smart-Mla project, blockchain is used for smart 
contracts  that  enable  interactions  between  energy  assets  in  a  community  and  external  flexibility 
markets. 

Below  we  report  some  examples  from  representative  projects.  We  focus  on  LEMS  and  the 
Aggregation/VPP concept, as they better exemplify the collective approach. 

The  Idea  project  tested  an  energy  management  tool  at  the  neighbourhood  level  (LEMS)  whose 
analytical functionality was based on simulation, prediction, and optimisation models. These models 
could  accurately  predict  the  energy  supply  and  demand  of  the  neighbourhood,  could  offer  user-
specific optimisation for the production, storage and sale of RES energy at neighbourhood level, and 
could  simulate  the  effects  of  further  RES  investments  to  support  investment  decision-making 
process  for  the  consumers  and  the  neighbourhood  as  a  whole.  The  objective  of  the  optimisation 
algorithms  was  the  energy  cost  and/or  the  CO2  emissions.  From  the  technical  point  of  view,  the 
main components of the developed LEMS were: a) an internet-based infrastructure to manage real-
time  information  flows,  b)  an  optimisation  and  decision  support  system  for  the  management  of 
energy production and consumption, and c) data management and storage services. 

16 Virtual communities are non-placed based communities. In these cases, ‘the community need not to be an actual neighbourhood or 
physical  community  but  a  collection  of  participants  or  members  who  form  a  virtual  community,  typically  through  intermediaries 
(Sioshansi, 2019).  

37 

 
                                           
In  the  Austrian  demonstration  site  of  the  Merlon17  project  an  integrated  LEMS  optimising  and 
managing  electricity  and  heat  is  tested,  which  includes  a  large  energy  storage  connecting  PV, 
electric  vehicle  charging  facilities,  a  large  biogas  CHP  unit,  and  residential  and  public  buildings, 
acting  as  prosumers.  One  of  the  goals  is  to  enable  aggregators  and  energy  cooperatives  to  gain 
access  to  this  wide  variety  of  distributed  energy  resources  assets  through  a  properly  configured 
open and fully transparent flexibility pooling and sharing marketplace. This will give the interested 
stakeholders the opportunity to optimally segment, classify and cluster/aggregate demand, storage, 
EV and CHP assets for the formulation of virtual power plants for the provision of flexibility services 
to the local DSO.  

In the City-Zen project, a VPP of 50 households equipped with battery systems and solar panels was 
formed  by  connecting  them  to  a  central  control  system.  Each  household  individually  produces, 
consumes and stores energy. One use case of the VPP tested in the project is to allow  trading in 
energy  markets  via  an  aggregator  while  another  use  case  is  using  locally  generated  energy,  i.e. 
expanding the notion of home self-consumption achieved with a HEMS to a broader area.  

2.5  Stakeholders involved 

In  total,  227  organisations,  grouped  into  12  categories,  participated  in  the  projects.  As  some  of 
these organizations participated in more than one project (about 12 % of them), we also checked 
the  total  number  participations,  totalling  257.  Project  consortia  range  from  4  to  23  partners  and 
most  of  them  (86  %)  are  multinational,  that  is,  bringing  together  organisations  from  different 
countries.  For  such  organisations,  projects  represent  an  opportunity  to  encounter  partners  from 
other countries and share knowledge and ideas with them, as well as to network and explore new 
market possibilities.  

Unless the project documentation makes it clear that only some project partners participated in the 
relevant demonstrators, the database includes all the partners of the project consortium, regardless 
of  their  specific  contribution  to  the  development  of  collective  action  solutions.  We  based  this 
decision  on  the  consideration  that  project  partners  usually  participate  in  all  project  tasks,  even  if 
only with an advisory role.  

Table  2  presents  a  short  description  for  each  category,  while  Figure  21  shows  the  number  of 
participations in the surveyed projects. Universities and research centres, technology manufacturers 
and  ICT  companies  are  the  categories  with  the  highest  number  of  participations,  but  other 
stakeholder  categories,  such  as  DSOs,  public  institutions  and  energy  cooperatives,  also  play  an 
increasingly important role.  

In  the  following  paragraphs  we  provide  some  examples  of  the  role  taken  by  the  participating 
organisations in the project surveyed. 

17 www.merlon-project.eu/  

38 

 
 
                                           
Table 2. CA projects: stakeholder categories 

Stakeholder category 

Description 

Consultancies 

Organisations providing professional expert advice to other public and private 

organisations 

Distribution 

system 

DSOs  are  organisations  responsible  for  the  operation,  management  and 

operators (DSO) 

planning of distribution electricity networks 

Energy cooperatives 

Given the differences in country-specific definitions, the Report adopts a wide 

definition  of  energy  cooperatives,  as  associations  where  citizens  jointly  own 

and  participate 

in  decentralised  energy  or  energy  efficiency  projects, 

independently of their legal statute. 

Energy 

management 

Organisations  providing  energy  management  solutions  and  services,  typically 

service providers 

enabling higher consumer participation 

Engineering 

services 

Organisations active in engineering services, e.g. development and construction 

providers 

of  low-energy  buildings  and  other  civil  infrastructures,  installation  and 

management of smart metering infrastructure. 

ICT companies 

Organisations active as smart energy software developers, system designers, 

system integrators. 

Public institutions 

Public entities, such as regions, municipalities, local authorities, environmental 

and energy agencies. 

Retail 

companies/municipal 

utilities 

Technology 

manufacturers 

Organisations active in the sale, including resale, of electricity to customers.  

Organisations  active  in  the  design  and  production  of  technological  solutions, 

particularly hardware solutions. 

Universities/research 

Universities  are  public  and  private  higher  education 

institutions,  e.g. 

centres 

universities,  institutes  of  technologies  and  colleges.  Research  centres  are 

public  and  private  organisations  dedicated  to  scientific  research,  both  basic 

and applied. 

Networks/Interest groups  Organizations  whose  scope  is to  represent  and  promote  a  common  objective 

at national and international level. 

Other  

Organisations active in  different sectors, that  cannot be placed in any of the 

above-mentioned categories (e.g. innovation angels, district heating operators, 

real estate developers, housing associations, electric mobility providers). 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

39 

 
Figure 21. CA projects: number of participations per stakeholder category 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

Universities and research centres is the category with the highest number of participations (33 
%)  and the category which figures more often with a project  lead role (in 11 projects out of 22). 
This  finding  may  suggest  that  research  into  technological  and  social  aspects  of  collective  action 
projects  is  still  much  needed.  Besides  conducting  research,  Universities  and  research  centres  also 
take up a consulting role, supporting other stakeholders in the implementation of projects through 
their  knowledge  and  expertise.  In  the  project  Nemogrid  for  example,  the  Chemnitz  University  of 
Technology is  responsible  for  the  investigation  of  consumer  and  prosumer  perspectives,  their 
motivation, and acceptance. In the Merlon project, the Imperial College London leads the activities 
for  the  definition  of  new  business  models  for  local  energy  flexibility  markets,  while  more  on  the 
technical  side,  in  the  project  Muse  Grids  the  Fundación  CARDIF  is  involved  in  the  design  and 
development of the smart control for multiple energy grids.  

Although  their  participation  in  collective  action  projects  is  surely  beneficial,  Universities  and 
research  centres  should  be  aware  of  adopting  a  marked  academic  approach  in  collective  action 
projects,  as such an approach was reported by some participants as having a negative impact on 
engagement (CIVIS, 2016).  

DSOs figure in 10 out of 22 projects and represent 6 % of all participations. Their participation in 
collective action projects represents an opportunity  to trial  new technological  solutions in real  life 
environments,  as  well  as  to  explore  new  business  models  that  create  value  for  all  the  parties 
involved. In the Merlon project for example, the DSO is testing new solutions for the integration of 
distributed energy resources that help to avoid, or at least reduce to a minimum, the need for grid 
reinforcement.  In  the  Italian  demonstrator  of  the  WiseGrid  project,  the  local  DSO  is  testing  the 
possibility  to  use  electric  vehicles  and  battery  storage  along  the  low  voltage  branch  of  its  smart 
grid,  to  mitigate  and  smooth  the  fluctuating  power  output  generated  by  the  nearby  PV  farm. The 
Nice Smart Valley project has investigated the set-up of a local flexibility market, operated by the 
DSO,  as  a  means  to  value  flexibility  for  the  operation  of  the  distribution  grid.  By  participating  in 
these projects, DSOs can also gain experience in aspects related to community development, such 
as  social  cohesion,  citizen  engagement  activities  and  activation  of  end-users  (e.g.  in  the  Compile 
project). 

40 

 
 
The category Other, includes a variety of organisations that cannot be placed in any other category. 
An interesting type of organisation figuring in this category is ‘Local not-for-profit organisations’ (3 
participations),  stakeholders  that  are  mainly  acting  as  a  contact  point  for  project  participants, 
facilitating  their  recruitment  and  engagement.  An  interesting  example  of  their  contribution  is 
offered by the project Sensible, where the backing received by the project partner Mozes, a not-for-
profit  community  energy  group,  meant  that  the  project  found  it  easier  to  gain  trust  and  support 
from the local community members (Kiamba, Rodrigues, & Marsh, 2017). Mozes treated community 
engagement  as  a  cumulative  process  that  aimed  to  not  only  gauge  the  level  of  support  for  the 
scheme  but  also  to  prioritise  local  needs,  strengthen  the  relationship  with  the  community,  and 
review and inform on the project (Kiamba, Rodrigues, & Marsh, 2017). Another interesting case is 
provided  by  the  project  Smart  Energy  Island,  where  a  not-for-profit  community  interest  company 
partnered with not-for-profit energy supplier to provide inhabitants with a competitive, local energy 
deal.  This  proposal  helped  the  project  in  gaining  participants  support  and  engagement  and 
contributed to reduce energy poverty in a location where the percentage of fuel poor is higher than 
in the rest of the country (i.e. 15.5 % fuel poor compared with English average 11.1 %). 

The  analysis  of  the  projects  surveyed  shows  that  participation  of  local  actors  with  strong  roots 
within the community where the demonstration takes place is still very limited in collective action 
projects.  On  the  other  hand,  we  will  later  see  how  these  organisations  show  a  much  higher 
participation  rate  in  projects  addressing  non-technological  challenges.  This  finding  seems  to 
highlight the difficulty still faced by most collective action projects to focus on the end users and to 
take  into  consideration  the  social  dimensions  of  the  energy  transition.  Which  stakeholder  is  best 
placed to ensuring that the social dimension is taken in due consideration depends on a variety of 
local  factors.  In  general,  it  can  be  said  that  organisations  with  strong  local  ties,  who  are  already 
trusted to act in the interest of the local community are in a better position to trigger collaboration, 
engagement,  knowledge-sharing  and  co-creation  and  that  it  would  be  desirable  to  see  more  of 
them in future project consortia. 

Public  institutions  also  represent  only  6  %  of  participations  and  are  present  in  9  out  of  22 
projects,  most  of  them  being  municipalities.  Although  they  never  hold  a  leading  role,  their 
participation in the projects is often crucial to help building the sense of a community effort and to 
facilitate  project  recruitment  and  engagement  (Mengolini,  Gangale,  &  Vasiljevska,  2016).  In  the 
project CityOpt for example, the metropolitan local authority Nice Côte d’Azur was widely involved in 
project  recruitment,  e.g.  through  sending  the  initial  recruitment  letter,  the  development  of  a 
registration online form on their website and the implementation of a participant hotline and web 
forum. The local  authority marketed the project  as an opportunity for citizens to participate in an 
innovative  initiative  that  could  improve  the  resilience  of  the  local  energy  system  and  put  the 
metropolitan  area  on  the  path  towards  the  upcoming  energy  transition.  Besides  helping  the 
recruitment and engagement processes, the participation of public institutions  - in particular local 
authorities - in collective action projects could also help to build their capacity to take the lead or 
participate  in  future  community  energy  projects.  As  land  use  planners,  local  authorities  can  take 
advantage of urban development plans, such as new eco-friendly neighbourhoods, to lead project 
developers towards community energy solutions, including collective self-consumption (Bolle, 2019). 
In  our  database,  the  only projects implemented in  newly  developed  neighbourhoods  (i.e. in  Eepos, 
the  housing  area  “Merenkulkijanranta”  in  Helsinki,  and,  in  Grid-Friends,  the  new  neighbourhood 
Schoonschip,  in  Amsterdam),  do  not  list  local  authorities  in  the  project  consortium.  In  future 

41 

 
research projects, it would be desirable to see more public institutions and local authorities taking 
the  lead  of  collective  action  projects  in  the  framework  of  their  urban  development  and  renewal 
plans, also in cooperation with local energy cooperatives and local associations. 

Overall,  the  projects  surveyed  display  a  high  participation  of  traditional  stakeholders  (e.g. 
universities  and  research centres,  DSOs,  technology  manufacturers),  and  a moderate  participation 
of emerging actors, newer in the energy research and innovation arena, such as public institutions, 
energy  cooperatives  and  local  not-for-profit  organisations.  Contrary  to  what  one  might  have 
expected,  other  emerging  stakeholders,  such  as  for  example  aggregators,  do  not  figure  in  the 
analysis. Their role is however sometimes fulfilled by other actors, such as traditional retailers (e.g. 
EDF in the Nice Smart Valley project, where EDF implemented  a platform to indirectly control  the 
flexibilities of its customers) or cooperatives (e.g. in the Flexcoop project, where energy cooperatives 
assumed also the role of aggregators to trial an innovative business model).  

Future  R&I  projects  should  promote  wider  participation  by  different  stakeholder  categories  and 
encourage collaboration between existing and new players in flexibility services to test innovative 
business models.  

2.6  Community engagement strategies 

Active  participation  of  users  is  a  distinctive  characteristic  of  collective  action  projects  in  our 
database, where new technologies, business models and engagement approaches that build on the 
idea of a shared effort are combined to support consumers in changing the way they use energy.  

Engagement strategies typically combine the use of a wide variety of targeted interventions that, in 
most  cases,  have  the  double  objective  to  support  the  recruitment  of  project  participants  and  to 
engage them in the project activities over the duration of the project and beyond. A well-designed 
engagement  strategy  that  leverages  on  community-level  dynamics  is  key  to  bringing  people 
together with a common purpose and achieve the project  objectives. Overall, engaged community 
members  are  less  likely  to  perceive  barriers  to  a  local  energy  project,  thereby  enabling  smother 
project implementation (Kiamba, Rodrigues, & Marsh, 2017).  

Our  analysis  presents  the  interventions  that  aim  to  develop  the  sense  of  a  community-based 
initiative and use community dynamics to foster individual behavioural change towards sustainable 
energy practices. Projects reports were screened to identify the interventions used throughout the 
project, the challenges encountered, the outcomes achieved, and the lessons learned. For about 1/3 
of the projects, however, especially the most recent, this analysis was not possible, as the project 
documentation  does  not  contain  any  reference  to  the  engagement  strategy  used.  In  most  cases, 
given the importance (at least formally)  attributed by the projects surveyed to social  aspects, the 
lack  of  documentation  is  probably  due  to  their  recent  start.  In  some  cases,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
might also be a sign of the difficulty faced by most projects to focus on the end users and integrate 
their social dimension since the early stages of project  development.  Table  3 below describes the 
main  interventions  used  in  the  projects,  aggregated  according  to  the  main  lever  used  to  engage 
participants, while Figure 22 lists the projects where the listed interventions where used. 

42 

 
 
Table 3. CA projects: consumer engagement interventions  

Lever 

Intervention 

Description 

Increased 
awareness 

Information 
communication 
material 

and 

A  wide  variety  of  means  used  to  advertise  the  project,  inform 
the participants about its objectives, achievements and benefits 
for the local community. 

Social comparison  

Social comparison correlates a household’s performance in the 
project  to  that  of  similar  households  in  the  community  to 
provide a point of comparison for an individual’s own behaviour.  

Community 
monitoring 

energy 

Community-wide  energy  monitoring  devices  provide  project 
participants with a collective overview of their consumption and 
of the level of renewable and locally generated electricity in the 
community. 

Participatory 
approach 

Community events 

Social  networks  and 
aggregation forums 

Community  events  are  used  to  provide  an  opportunity  for 
participants to come together within the  context of the  project 
and  develop  the  sense  of  a  community‐based  initiative.  They 
can  take  different  forms,  e.g.  thematic  meetings,  workshops, 
coffee mornings, open house days in the project show room. 

Social  networks  and  dedicated  virtual  aggregation  platforms 
can  be  used  to  provide  a  virtual  place  for  participants  to 
exchange  their  experiences,  share  data  of  their  achievements, 
tips  and  best  practices,  and  to  offer  energy  advice  to  other 
participants.  They  can  also  be  used  by  project  partners  to 
interact with participants and share information with them. 

Involvement  in  project 
design 

Involvement  in  project  design  (co-design)  refers  to  the  active 
involvement  of  project  participants 
in  the  creation  and 
evaluation of the technologies, concepts and services that they 
will ultimately use.  

Incentives & 
rewards 

Community rewards 

Community  rewards  are  tangible  (typically  financial)  outcomes 
linked to project participants’ collective achievements. They are 
typically allocated to initiatives that benefit the community. 

Gamification 

Gamification  refers  to  the  use  of  playful  challenges  and 
competitions  with  other  project  participants  to  enhance 
participation and engagement. 

Community 
trusted actors  

Trusted 
partners 

project 

Trusted  project  partners  are  typically  local  organisations  that 
are  perceived  by  the  project  participants  as  acting  in  their 
interest and in the interest of the local community.  

Local champions 

Local  champions  are  members  of  the  community  where  the 
demonstration  takes  place,  who  volunteer  to  spread  the  word 
on  the  project  and  its  importance  for  the  community,  thus 
helping  in  the  recruitment  and  engagement  phases.  They  also 
act as a local point person for other participants who may have 
questions  and  concerns  and  as  a  liaison  with  the  project 
partners. 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

43 

 
Figure 22. Consumer engagement interventions trialled in each CA project  

2.6.1 

Increased awareness 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

Information  and  communication  material  is  used  by  about  half  of  the  projects  surveyed. 
Information  material  includes  a  wide  range  of  means,  e.g.  leaflets,  street  posters,  information 
brochures, press coverage, promotional videos, animations, graphic tutorials, comic strips and even 
the use of dedicated show rooms to explain the demonstration. In the project Nice Smart Valley for 
example,  the  show  room  was  equipped  with  virtual  and  augmented  reality  technologies,  to  make 
visitors immerse themselves in the demonstrator’s operation, discover the latest technologies and 
display the data platforms at the heart of the smart city. In the project Nice Grid on the other hand, 
the information and communication strategy also included a variety of less conventional means, e.g. 
an agreement with a local charity organization to contribute to the project by painting local LV/MV 
substations  so  that  they  are  better  integrated  into  the  urban  landscape,  while  at  the  same  time 

44 

 
 
enhancing  local  young  people’s  awareness  about  smart  grids  and  the  creation  of  a  storytelling 
containing explanations of vocabulary specific to the energy sector with simple words.  

Social  comparison  is  an  engagement  intervention that  aims to  influence  participants’  behaviour 
by  comparing  their  performance  to  the  performance  of  peer  members  of  the  community.  Peer 
comparison  activates  social  norms  –  descriptive  and  injunctive  norms  –  that  have  an  important 
influence  on  behaviour  (Cialdini,  Kallgren,  &  Reno,  1991)  (Schultz,  Nolan,  Cialdini,  Goldstein,  & 
Griskevicius,  2007).  Descriptive  norms  describe  the  prevalent  behaviour  in  a  particular  situation, 
motivating action by informing people of what is generally seen as effective or adaptive behaviour 
in a given situation (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgreen, 1993). Injunctive norms refer to perceptions of what 
is  commonly  approved  or  disapproved  within  the  culture  and  motivate  action  by  promising  social 
sanctions for normative and counter normative conduct (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgreen, 1993). Adding 
an injunctive norm that conveys the message that the energy practice is good for the community, 
for  example  through  colour  coding  of  the  actual  versus  average  energy  profile,  can  support 
behavioural  change  and  substantially  reduce  the  risk  of  the  boomerang  effect  (Allcot,  2011).  The 
Origin  project,  for  example,  stressed the  sense  of  a  community  achievement by  using  the  energy 
monitor to map the buildings that participate in the project and by colour coding them to visualise 
those that consume more or less energy than the community average, using normalised indicators.  

A  large  body  of  literature  indicates  that  peer  comparison  interventions  can  cause  households  to 
reduce  residential  energy  use  (Kažukauskas,  Broberg,  &  Jaraitė,  2017)  (Schultz,  Nolan,  Cialdini, 
Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007) (Allcot, 2011). The surveyed projects do not provide an assessment 
of  the  intervention  effectiveness  but  provide  interesting  observations  regarding  participants’ 
preferences and the relevant peer group.  

In the Civis project, for example, the user study revealed that people are willing to share publicly (or 
with  a  selected  group  of  people)  their  energy  conservation  actions,  and  do  not  consider  this  a 
privacy issue. Besides getting information on the average energy use of other cooperatives and of 
the  neighbourhood,  participants  in  the  Swedish  demonstrator  were  also  interested  in  getting 
information on building-level energy reduction actions taken by other cooperatives. Participants in 
the  Italian  test  sites  were  very  interested  by  the  provision  of  daily  consumption  comparisons 
between different municipalities involved in the project (CIVIS, 2016). 

The  Flexcoop  project  revealed  that  interest  for  peer  comparison  is  particularly  strong  in  energy 
cooperatives,  where  comparison  with  similar  peers  acts  as  a  motivation  towards  energy  efficient 
behaviour. A recent research seems to confirm this finding. A survey conducted in two cooperatives 
in France and Belgium,  reveals that length of membership and members having many peers who 
are  (also)  members  are  positive,  significant  predictors  of  reported  energy  savings  and  engaged 
energy-saving actions (Hoppe, Coenen, & Bekendam, 2019).   

Community  energy  monitoring  is  a  way  to  increase  individual  and  collective  awareness  about 
local  energy  production  and  consumption  patterns  and  about  the  status  of  the  local  energy  grid. 
Increased  awareness  can  support  the  establishment  of  a  collaborative  framework  and  enable 
individuals  to  contribute  their  share  towards  meeting  the  collective  goal,  triggering  behavioural 
change. In case of excess or deficit of energy at local level, for example, participants can shift their 
demand  or  change  their  patterns  of  usage  if  they  are  timely  informed  of  the  event  and  of  the 
actions  they  can  take.  In  the  Origin  project,  project  participants  received  local  renewables  and 
demand forecasts coded into four colour levels, with dark red representing a clear deficit, and bright 

45 

 
green  representing  a  clear  surplus.  The  colour  codes  invite  participants  to  change  their  energy 
related behaviour, guided by textual suggestions. In the project WiseGrid, participants are given an 
individual and collective overview of their consumption, as well as of the production of renewable 
energy from the solar panels in the neighbourhood. In order to maintain a good net balance, project 
participants are encouraged to consume consciously when local solar energy is high. 

Information about local  energy production and consumption is generally conveyed  through a user 
interface,  installed  in  participants’  premises  or  in  communal  areas,  or  even  more  accessibly  on 
phones  and  tablets.  The  focus  is  typically  on  indicators  and  metrics  related  to  the  collective 
performance  of  project  participants,  e.g.  self-consumption  levels, demand  flexibility potential,  grid 
imports-exports. Besides the current situation, many projects display also historical data to see how 
local production and consumption patterns have changed with time (e.g. Ideas project). 

2.6.2  Participatory approach 

Knowledge  acquisition  and  learning  are  greatly  facilitated  by  interaction  and  collaboration  with 
others  (Lave  &  Wenger,  1991).  Exchanging  experiences  and  knowledge  among  peers  can  also 
facilitate engagement in the project and acceptance of the trialled technological solutions. Several 
projects  highlighted  participants  desire  for  peer  support  and  knowledge-sharing  and  implemented 
different forms of physical or virtual collaboration, including community events, social networks and 
dedicated  aggregation  forums,  and  co-design  sessions.  These  interventions  facilitated  direct 
personal interaction and interpersonal trust and served to strengthen local ties and networks among 
participants. 

Community events are used to provide an opportunity for participants to come together within the 
context  of  the  project  and  develop  the  sense  of  community  of  the  initiatives.  They  also  create 
opportunities to make visible what people are doing individually, giving people a sense that ‘things 
are happening’ (Coxcoon, Sansom, McMullen, & Ballard, 2015). They can take different forms, e.g. 
information  sessions,  focus  groups,  thematic  meetings,  workshops,  coffee  mornings,  open  house 
days in the project show room.   

Community  events  are  typically  organised  to  share  information  about  the  project  objectives  and 
initiatives, the state of progress of the project activities and the challenges that participants may 
face. They serve also as settings for people to meet and informally exchange personal experiences 
with  the  trialled  technological  solutions  with  their  neighbours  and  give  advices.  In  this  way, 
community  events  contribute  to  informal  knowledge  sharing  and  shared  learning  within  the  local 
community,  promoting  engagement  and  behavioural  change.  The  majority  of  projects  surveyed 
resorts  to  one  or  more  forms  of  community  events  (e.g.  CityOpt  Nice,  City-zen,  Civis,  Compile, 
Cossmic, Muse Grids, Nice Grid, Nice Smart Valley, Origin, Sensible, Smart Energy Island, WiseGrid). 

Social  networks  and  aggregation  forums  represent  a  way  to  inform  participants  who  have 
access to ICT about project developments, to make actions happening at the household level visible 
at  the  community  level  and  to  promote  the  creation  of  virtual  communities  of  practice  where 
participants can interact and collaborate online.  

In  the  Nice  Smart  Valley  project  for  example,  a  specific  Twitter  account  for  the  community  of 
prosumers  was  created  to  promote  the  project,  solicit  participation  and  engage  participants. 
Through this account, the Nice Smart Valley community could regularly get information about the 
demonstrator, share publications and interact with the project team. 

46 

 
In the Civis project, the ICT platform provided information about how many participants have taken 
an action, and supported collaboration and sharing of experiences through a  commenting function 
for  each  action  added,  where  users  can  post  questions  and  react  to  other  participants’  input. 
Participants can also sign up and log in with a Facebook account and ‘share’ their actions directly 
with other participants.  

In the Eepos project, an end user collaboration tool was created that offered an interface between 
the ICT platform and social media, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Google+. The tool allows users to 
publish their energy saving and to compare their performance with others.  

These and other interventions trialled by the projects aim to support knowledge sharing between a 
community  of  users,  reinforce  the  sense  of  participation  in  a  community  endeavour  and  enhance 
experiences  of  social  gratification  from  collective  activities.  As  noted  by  the  project  Civis, 
participants at the demonstration sites seemed to enjoy these features, supporting the notion that 
engagement  can  be  driven  not  just  by  individuals’  pre-existing  motivations  (e.g.,  financial  or 
environmental) but by households’ experiences and interactions once they start participating in the 
project  and that ICT can help support these more community-based routes to engagement  (CIVIS, 
2016). 

Involvement in project design (co-design). Early community involvement in project design can 
help to motivate participants, convey the idea of a community effort, build trust in the initiative and 
trigger  a  desire  to  cooperate.  Several  projects  surveyed  adopted  some  sort  of  community 
involvement in project design.  

In  the  Cossmic  project,  co-design  workshops  and  games  were  conducted  with  participants  to 
develop  the project  concepts.  Methods  used  included  rough  prototyping,  experience  prototype  and 
product  box.    Workshops  incorporated  a  number  of  communication  tools  to  encourage  ideas  and 
discussion to flow, such as tomorrow headlines, storyboards, service images (COSSMIC, 2015). 

In  the  Origin  project,  a  participatory  approach  was  used  to  produce  community-led  inputs  for  the 
design  of  the  user  interface  and  to  assess  its  acceptance  by  the  users.  A  similar  approach  was 
adopted in the project Flexcoop, where the elicitation of end user’s requirements was done through 
a participatory process carried out in the two Flexcoop Living Labs.  

In the project  Civis, the co-design process informed the iterative design of interventions and apps 
and  suggested  possibilities  for  future  projects  (e.g.,  a  focus  on  involving  youth).  Besides 
emphasising the many benefits associated with the resort to co-design approaches, the project also 
highlighted  the  potential  challenge  of  generating  unfulfilled  expectations  with  the  consequent 
negative  impact  on  participation  and  engagement  (CIVIS,  2016).  In  the  Italian  test  sites,  for 
example,  the  project  reported  a  negative  impact  on  some  participants  who,  having  actively 
participated in co-design activities, did not see realized in the ICT platform a dedicated tool-set for 
the optimization of private PV panels (CIVIS, 2016).  

2.6.3 

Incentives and rewards 

Community  rewards  are  used  to  support  participants  engagement  by  providing  an  incentive  to 
reach  common  societal  (e.g.  energy  saving)  and  community  goals  (e.g.  avoiding  blackouts, 
supporting  local  community  projects)  (Mengolini,  Gangale,  &  Vasiljevska,  2016). They  are  typically 

47 

 
financial outcomes linked to project participants’ collective achievements and are usually allocated 
to initiatives that benefit the local community. 

Two  projects  in  the  database  trialled  this  intervention,  reporting  encouraging  results.  The  CityOpt 
project designed an engagement strategy that revolved around the idea of engaging individuals as 
members of a community, rather than only as consumers of energy  (Abdurafikov, et al., 2014). A 
community-based  application  was  created  where  demand  response  solicitations  based  on  real 
network  peaks  were  sent  to  participants.  By  participating  in  the  collective  challenge  of  load 
shedding,  participants  gained  points  that  could  be  invested  in  one  or  more  project  benefiting  the 
local community.  Schools and the education system in general were indicated as the ideal target 
for initiatives aimed at rewarding community-based efforts (Abdurafikov, et al., 2014). The project 
reported a strong commitment of the participants to reduce their consumption during the alerts. The 
average load shedding per  participant was equivalent to that recorded by participants in the  Nice 
Grid  project,  where  participants  were  bigger  consumers,  using  mostly  electric  heating18.  Although 
such results cannot be credited to a single intervention, the idea of a community of people working 
together  for  the  same  objectives  seemed  to  be  effective  in  giving  a  collective  dimension  to 
individual  action  and  in  amplifying  individual  behaviours.  In  a  survey  run  during  the  project, 
participants said that they felt ‘actors’ of the change and not simply observer, since the effect of 
their little action would affect their community on a very pragmatic level (Abdurafikov, et al., 2014).  

The Civis project also reported positive participants’ feedback from the provision of a community-
level incentive. The project assigned savings achieved by participants through a more efficient use 
of  energy  to  initiatives  that  benefit  the  local  community.  Participants  stressed  that  the  benefits 
should go to a local, tangible project clearly connected to their community’s efforts  (CIVIS, 2016). 
Participants would rather finance local associations than the public sector/social initiatives, as they 
feel  associations  are  more  worthwhile  in  their local  context.  They  would  rather  save  energy  for  a 
little project that is financed completely by Civis, rather than donate to an already existing initiative, 
covering  just  a  percentage  of  the  amount  required  (CIVIS,  2016).  According  to  the  Civis  project, 
participants’ response to the use of community-level rewards varies between test sites for different 
potential  reasons,  including  the  different  community  boundaries,  which  characterize  the  involved 
areas. Closer communities report higher engagement and satisfaction levels (CIVIS, 2016). A similar 
conclusion was also drawn by the CityOpt project, where small towns and villages appeared to be 
more  cohesive  social  clusters  than  city  neighbourhoods.  Villagers  are  indeed  more  open  to 
possibilities and more interested in rewards at the local community level (Abdurafikov, et al., 2014).  

Gamification.  Including playful  challenges  and  competitions  has  been  trialled  in  several  national 
and  EU  funded  projects  as  a  way  to  enhance  consumers’  participation  and  engagement  (S3C 
consortium,  2014)  (Mengolini,  Gangale,  &  Vasiljevska,  2016).  The  experiences  with  gaming 
interfaces and competitive elements are promising and inspiring, both in terms of engagement and 
in terms of outcomes. Gamification modifies consumer engagement into a function of both interest 
in  the  project  scope  and  in  gaming,  with  one  potentially  providing  mutual  support  to  the  other 
(Davison,  2019).  However,  a  challenge  of  gamification  is  to  capture  the  interest  and  attention  of 
end users in the long run (S3C consortium, 2014).  

18 In CityOpt, it was observed an average load shedding of 300 Wh per participant between 6 and 8 pm, the average annual consumption 
being 3,500 kWh (90 % of CityOpt customers contracted power is less than 6 kVA). While in the Nice Grid project, the average load 
shedding was 350 Wh per participant between 6 and 8 pm, the average annual consumption being 8,000 kWh (70 % of Nice Grid 
customers contracted power greater than 9 kVA) (Abdurafikov, et al., 2014). 

48 

 
                                           
Two projects in the database provide interesting insights into the use of gamification in collective 
action  projects.  In  the  Energaware  project,  a  serious  game  was  implemented  to  teach  users, 
households  from  the  social  housing  sector,  about  best  practices  for  achieving  energy  savings  at 
home. The project found evidence of improvement in engagement in certain specific energy saving 
behaviours. The intervention was, to some extent, effective in motivating positive behaviour change, 
but this effect were only found to prevail in the relative short-term, and did not persist to the final 
term stage (ENERGAWARE, 2018).  

The  project  CityOpt  on  the  other  hand,  offers  interesting  evidence  of  the  benefits  of  combining 
gamification  with  community  rewards.  Participants  could  earn  points  corresponding  to  the 
estimated electricity saved during a load shedding request alert. As we already noted above, CityOpt 
points  could  then  be  used  as  a  currency  to  invest  in  one  or  more  community  project,  at 
neighbourhood, city or regional scale.  

2.6.4  Community trusted actors 

Several projects stressed that establishing a trusted relationship with the consumer is a crucial step 
to overcome resistance and fully engage the consumer. The project Origin, for example, highlighted 
that  regardless  of  the  type  of  demand  response  program  deployed,  participation  is  likely  to  be 
predicated  on  a  consumer  engagement  strategy  that  encourages  trust  and  provides  clear 
information  describing  its  aims  and  outcomes  (ORIGIN,  2015).  Recent  studies  on  stakeholder’s 
influence  on  the  development  of  community  renewable  energy  schemes  (Ruggiero,  Onkila,  & 
Kuittinen,  2014)  have  highlighted  the  importance  of  two  stakeholders:  intermediary  organizations 
acting as “trusted authorities” and local champions (Mengolini, Gangale, & Vasiljevska, 2016). 

Trusted  project  partners  are  organisations  involved  in  the  project  as  project  partners  or  as 
supporting organisations. They are typically existing local and community organisations with a good 
knowledge of the locality and of the social environment in which they operate. Organisations with 
strong local ties that adopt a community relationship approach are better placed than other actors 
to  bring  people  together  with  a  common  purpose  and  their  involvement  in  the  project  can  often 
work as a door opener. In the project Sensible, for example, the backing received from a pre-existing 
not-for-profit energy community group has meant that the project has found it easier to gain trust 
and support from the local community members (Kiamba, Rodrigues, & Marsh, 2017).   

In some of the projects surveyed, an important role in recruiting project participants and ensuring 
their active participation in project activities is played by energy cooperatives. Energy cooperatives 
are community-led energy initiatives trusted for being community partners and political advocates. 
In  the  EU,  where  overall  trust  in  the  electricity  market  is  still  problematic  (European  Commission, 
2018),  energy  cooperatives  can  play  an  important  role  in  gaining  consumer  trust  and  enabling  a 
wider  reach.  A  survey  developed  during  the  Flexcoop  project,  for  example,  revealed  that  the 
acceptance level to grant the management of home devices to cooperatives was 83 % in Spain and 
60  %  in the Netherlands. Many  would  not  be  willing  to  participate  in the project  if  the  managing 
company was a different one (FLEXCOOP, 2018). 

Other  stakeholders,  such  as  public  institutions  and  housing  cooperatives,  can  also  act  as  local 
trustworthy  organisations.  In  the  Civis  project,  for  example,  the  region  energy  advice  service, 
provided by the cities in the region, as well as housing companies, seem to be perceived as reliable 

49 

 
sources of information (CIVIS, 2016), able to make participants understand the objectives and the 
challenges of the project. 

Local champions are members of the local community where the demonstration takes place, who 
play  a  project  marketing  role  and  a  participants’  supporting  role.  They  have  a  prominent  role  in 
starting,  endorsing  or  carrying  out  a  project  thanks  primarily  to  their  individual  values,  skills  and 
competencies  (Ruggiero,  Onkila,  &  Kuittinen,  2014).  We  could  find  evidence  of  resort  to  this 
engagement  intervention  only  in  the  project  Origin.  The  project  sought  to  create  local  champions 
who  then  became  trusted  advocates  of  the  project  in  each  community.  Their  contribution  to  the 
project  success  was  indeed  relevant  as  evidence  was  found  to  suggest  that  the  absence  of  this 
localism  caused  the  notion  of  demand  response  to  disappear  from  community  consciousness. 
Energy practices quickly reverted back to their original state (ORIGIN, 2015). This finding underlines 
the importance of interpersonal relations to build the sense of a community achievement and the 
difficulty of achieving firm, long lasting changes through an engagement strategy based on a purely 
informational  approach.  The  importance  of  trusted  actors  that  participants  can  relate  to  is 
confirmed also by the findings of a survey carried out  within the project  Civis, where participants 
reported as reasons for decreasing engagement during the trial a perceived ‘academic’ approach to 
the project by the project team (CIVIS, 2016).  

50 

 
3  Projects addressing non-technological challenges  

This  section  presents  an  overview  of  EU-funded  projects  that  address  the  policy,  institutional, 
economic and societal challenges of collective energy action initiatives. Rather than testing enabling 
technological  solutions,  these  projects  draw  on  social  sciences  and  humanities  to  promote  the 
emergence  and  development  of  collective  energy  action  initiatives  at  local  level.  These  initiatives 
are seen as a means to boost citizens’ participation, to deliver environmental, social and economic 
value  to  the  people  and  communities  involved  and  to  speed  up  the  transition  towards  renewable 
energy.  

To  identify  relevant  projects,  we  searched  internet  sources  and  EU  organised  repositories  using 
various  combinations  of  the  following  keywords:  community  energy,  collective  action,  energy 
cooperatives,  community-owned,  community-based,  prosumers  initiatives,  shared-interest,  citizen 
energy, local partnerships, Rescoops.  

We  identified  16  projects  funded  between  2006  and  2019  under  different  EU  funding  streams, 
such as the IEE, H2020 and the INTERREG transnational cooperation programmes19 (Figure 23 and 
Figure  24).  Figure  23  shows  an  increasing  interest  in  projects  supporting  the  emergence  of 
collective action initiatives since 2016.  

The  projects  share  the  ambition  to  support  the  development  of  local  initiatives  that  increase  the 
ability of consuming self-produced and locally generated electricity and that facilitate the uptake of 
energy efficiency and active demand solutions and services. They all put citizens at centre stage of 
the  ongoing  energy  transition  and  leverage  on  the  sense  of  a  community  effort  towards  a  more 
sustainable and participatory energy future.  

Figure 23. NTC projects: time distribution by funding source 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

19 In particular we found projects funded under the following Interreg V cooperation programmes: Baltic Sea Region (BSR), North  West 

Europe (NWE), North Sea region (NSR) and Northern Periphery and Artic (NPA).  

51 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 24. NTC projects: start and end date  

Source: JRC, (2020) 

161 organisations, grouped into 9 categories, participated in the projects (Figure 25). The categories 
are the same as those considered in the collective action project analysis, with the only difference 
that, given their large number, Not-for-profit organisations are counted as a separate category and 
not included in the category Other as it was the case for collective action projects.  

Figure 25. NTC projects: number of participations per stakeholder category  

Source: JRC, (2020) 

Universities  and  research  centres  play  a  leading  role,  showing  that  research  in  this  sector  is  still 
much  needed.  Public  institutions  also  show  a  high  level  of  participation,  as  their  involvement  is 
often  crucial  to  promote  the  emergence  and  development  of  collective  action  initiatives  at  local 
level. A very interesting role is played by Not-for-profit organisations that participate in 8 out of 16 
projects. In this category we mainly find environmental organisations (such as Friends of the Earth 
and ClientEarth), acting as trusted actors to promote citizen engagement and project development. 
A similar role is also played by the category Networks/Interest groups, mainly listing associations of 
energy cooperatives (e.g. RESCoop, Energy4All, Ode Decentraal) and other associations lobbying to 
promote  the  development  of  local  innovative  projects  and  the  development  of  collective  action 

52 

 
 
 
initiatives amongst their associates. A relevant role is finally played by Energy cooperatives, often 
acting as knowledge centres to develop and test methodologies based on best practices.  

As  for  the  geographical  distribution  of  stakeholders,  Figure  26  shows  a  high  level  of  activity  in 
countries with a long tradition of local energy activism, such as Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands 
and the UK.  It is also interesting to note that participation by EU-13 countries is in general higher 
than  in  collective  action  projects.  Countries  like  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Latvia  and 
Poland,  that  did  not  have  any  participation  in  collective  action  projects,  figure  in  several  projects 
addressing  non-technological  challenges.  This  finding  seems  to  suggest  a  growing  interest  in 
collective action initiatives in these countries, interest that research and public institutions, as well 
as civil society associations, are trying to capture, ahead of more technological stakeholders. 

Finally,  Figure  27  shows  the  geographical  distribution  of  lead  and  partner  organisations.  As 
expected,  the  comparison  with  the  map  displaying  the  geographical  distribution  of  participations 
(Figure  26)  shows  that  the  countries  with  a  higher  number  of  participations  also  show  a  higher 
number of lead organisations. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 26. NTC projects: geographical distribution of stakeholders  

Source: JRC, (2020) 

54 

 
 
 
 
Figure 27. NTC projects: geographical distribution of lead and partner organizations 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

The  activities  adopted  to  promote  the  emergence  and  development  of  collective  action  initiatives 
can be grouped under the following three main categories (Figure 28): 

Informing policy making and promoting active participation by public authorities. Several 
projects draft policy papers and country specific handbooks to inform and empower policy makers 
at EU and national level to put forward enabling legislative and regulatory frameworks for collective 
action initiatives. These outputs address a variety of topics, such as financial, legal, regulatory and 

55 

 
 
governance  aspects  and  make  practical  recommendations  to  enable  legislative  change.  Some 
projects  also  carry  out  capacity  building  activities  for  local  authorities,  e.g.  supporting  them  to 
include  collective  action  initiatives  into  local  energy  action  plans  or  to  team  up  with  other 
stakeholders to develop local initiatives.  

Increasing the body of knowledge. Many projects aim to promote a better understanding of the 
factors  that  drive  individual  and  collective  energy  choices  and  energy  related  behaviour.  They 
investigate  a  wide  spectrum  of  factors,  including  socioeconomic,  gender,  sociocultural,  and  socio-
political  issues  and  their  interrelations  with  technological,  regulatory,  and  investment-related 
aspects. Deeper knowledge in these fields can help in the identification of innovative and effective 
ways  of  involving  local  communities  in  collective  action  initiatives.  Projects  also  investigate  the 
changing roles of different stakeholders in the evolving  energy system, new business models and 
innovative financing instruments for energy cooperatives and other community-based initiatives.  

Creating  networks  and  local  partnerships  to  support  the  development  of  collective  action 
initiatives. Partnerships bring together a diverse range of stakeholders, such as energy cooperatives, 
not-for-profit  organisations,  local  authorities  and  technology  providers,  thus  creating  a  forum  to 
exchange  experience  and  knowledge,  develop  and  test  methodologies  based  on  best  practices, 
create  opportunities  for  investment.  Projects  often  promote  the  exchange  of  best  practices  from 
different countries through manuals and studies, while supportive tools, such as feasibility studies, 
template contracts and financing and investments schemes, are shared to support the development, 
replication and upscaling of initiatives. Projects also adopt specific actions to inform citizens on the 
opportunities  and  benefits  of  becoming  active  consumers  and  on  the  opportunities  to  form 
collective consumer groups and consumer cooperatives. 

Figure 28. NTC projects activities 

Source: JRC, (2020) 

56 

 
 
 
4  Conclusions and suggestions for future research 

This  report  reviews  collective  action  projects,  i.e.  projects  whose  main  focus  is  testing  and 
demonstrating  technological  solutions  at  collective  level  to  support  a  more  active  participation  of 
consumers  in  the  energy  market.  More  specifically,  it  focuses  on  projects  that  research  and  test 
collective  level  solution  to  increase  the  ability  of  consuming  self-produced  and  locally  generated 
electricity  and  to  facilitate  the  uptake  of  energy  efficiency  and  active  demand  solutions  and 
services.  

The following considerations have emerged from these collective action projects.   

Project number. Collective action projects are not new in the EU R&I scene, with a pretty constant 
number of projects starting each year since 2011. This time trend data suggests that the growing 
attention  attracted  by  collective  action  initiatives  at  policy  level  in  recent  years  has  not  yet  been 
fully  reflected  in  the  research  and  innovation  initiatives  carried  out  to  date  with  EU  financial 
support. New projects are however expected in the framework of H2020 as, at the time of writing, 
funding is still available under topics that may award more collective action projects. 

Geographical  coverage.  Demonstration  sites  are  concentrated  in  a  few  countries  (e.g.  Italy,  UK, 
France,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Spain),  with  most  Member  States  in  eastern  Europe  lacking  any 
demonstrator. The majority of projects are carried out in an urban setting, while about one third of 
them are implemented in a rural environment.  

Stakeholder  participations  are  also  concentrated  in  a  small  number  of  EU  countries,  with  most 
countries  in  central  and  Eastern  Europe  showing  limited  participation.  Regional  differences  in 
participation  also  exist  within  countries,  with  some  regions  leading  investment  in  collective  action 
projects. Geographical differences in participation depend on a variety of national circumstances. In 
particular,  a  supportive  legislative  and  regulatory  environment  encourages  the  participation  of 
institutional, commercial and non-governmental actors in innovation projects. Their participation, in 
turn, strengthens their capacities and expertise, and enables commercial actors to pursue emerging 
business opportunities at national and international level.  

Future  EU-funded  projects  should  try  to  cover  more  geographical  areas  and  to  increase  the 
participation of underrepresented  countries. This would help  them to strengthen the scientific and 
networking  capabilities  of  national  stakeholders  and  to  bring  about  more  widespread  and  quicker 
uptake  of  solutions  and  best  practices  for  the  active  participation  of  consumers  in  the  energy 
market.  

Targeted  sectors.  The  majority  of  projects  still  targets  the  residential  sector  exclusively,  while 
some projects also involve the commercial and public sectors (mixed sector projects). The inclusion 
of other sectors in the scope  of the project is an interesting development, as it is in line with the 
idea  of  a  multi-stakeholder,  municipally-based  partnership,  which  is  at  the  core  of  an  integrated 
community-oriented approach. 

Technologies tested. The projects surveyed trial a variety of different technological solutions that 
revolve  around  collective  energy  demand  side  management  as  a  means  to  improve  local  energy 
management, reduce energy consumption and costs for consumers, improve energy independency 
and support participation in local flexibility markets. In general, projects rely on different levels of 
automation  and  complexity,  with  advanced  ICT  tools  and  approaches  (e.g.  internet  of  things,  big 

57 

 
data, artificial intelligence, blockchain) used to different degrees. The optimisation and matching of 
local  renewable  electricity  generation  and  consumption  for  example,  is  achieved  with  different 
solutions  ranging  from  ICT  enabled  demand  response  schemes  to  more  complex  local  energy 
management solutions, built on ICT platforms that enable the orchestration of decentralized energy 
supply, storage, transport, conversion and consumption within a given local geographical area.  

Projects  often  combine  the  demonstration  of  innovative  technological  solutions,  business  models 
and  community  engagement  approaches  to  support  consumers  in  changing  the  way  they  use 
electricity.  To  effectively  support  the  deployment  of  innovative technological  solutions,  future  R&I 
projects should increasingly combine these three aspects. 

Stakeholders’ categories. Some organizations (about 12 % of them) participate in more than one 
project.  Although  this  enables  organisations  to  deepen  their  expertise  on  technical  and  social 
sciences solutions, participation by a wide range of organisations should be encouraged as it helps 
to enrich the debate and add new perspectives, including from a geographical point of view.  

‘Universities and research centres’ is the category with the highest number of participations (33 %). 
This  finding  may  suggest  that  research  into  technological  and  social  aspects  of  collective  action 
projects  is  still  much  needed.  Although  their  participation  in  collective  action  projects  is  surely 
beneficial,  Universities  and  research  centres  should  be  aware  of  adopting  a  marked  academic 
approach in collective action projects, as such an approach was reported by participants as having a 
negative impact on engagement. 

The participation of DSOs in collective action projects (6 %) represents an opportunity to trial new 
technological  solutions  in  real  life  environments,  as  well  as  to  explore  new  business  models  that 
create value for all the parties involved. 

The  participation  of  public  institutions,  especially  local  authorities,  in  collective  action  projects  is 
often crucial to help building the sense of a community effort and to facilitate project recruitment 
and engagement. Their participation in future EU-funded projects should be incentivised, as it also 
helps  to  build  their  capacity  to  participate  in  future  community  energy  projects  and  initiatives.  In 
future research projects, it would be desirable to see more public institutions and local authorities 
taking the lead of collective action projects in the framework of their urban development plans.   

Several local factors influence the identification of the stakeholders that are best placed to ensure 
that the social dimension is taken in due consideration. In general, it can be said that organisations 
with strong local ties, who are already trusted to act in the interest of the local community are in a 
better  position  to  trigger  collaboration,  engagement,  knowledge-sharing  and  co-creation.  Their 
participation in collective action projects is still quite limited, which may suggest the difficulty still 
faced  by  most  projects  to  focus  on  the  end  users  and  to  take  into  consideration  the  social 
dimensions of the energy transition.  

Overall,  the  projects  surveyed  display  a  high  participation  of  traditional  stakeholders  (e.g. 
universities  and  research centres,  DSOs,  technology  manufacturers),  and  a moderate  participation 
of emerging actors, newer in the energy research and innovation arena, such as public institutions, 
energy cooperatives and local/not-for-profit organisations. 

Future  R&I  projects  should  promote  wider  participation  by  different  stakeholder  categories  and 
encourage collaboration between existing and new players in flexibility services to test innovative 
business models. 

58 

 
Consumer  engagement.  The  projects  surveyed  reveal  that  engagement  interventions  based  on 
community dynamics and on the sense of a community-based initiative can offer a valid support to 
promote  behavioural  change  and  reach  the  project  goals.  Although  most  projects  emphasise  the 
importance  of  the  social  context  in  which  consumers  live  and  operate  and  introduce  the  project 
goals as community’s achievements, many of them still focus mostly on the technical level, giving 
only a theoretical relevance to the social dimension associated with energy practices. In the future, 
it  is  desirable  that  projects  translate  theory  into  practice  and  associate  social  science  and 
humanities-related work closely with the development of technological solutions.  

A  well-designed  engagement  strategy  appears  to  be  key  to  bringing  participants  together  with  a 
common purpose and achieve the project objectives. The engagement strategy should be constantly 
reviewed  during  the  course  of  the  project  to  transpose  the  interim  results  of  the  interventions 
deployed.  

Future projects should draw upon and add to the body  of knowledge that has been developed by 
past  EU-funded  projects,  adapting  their  findings  to  the  local  and  specific  circumstances.  Efforts 
should  be  made  to  make  the  new  knowledge  developed  within  the  projects  available  to  a  wide 
range of stakeholders, well beyond the project closing. 

The projects surveyed generally reported a widespread interest and positive participants’ feedback 
in the engagement interventions trialled. Future research projects, however, should try to evaluate 
the  effectiveness  of  specific  engagement  interventions,  at  least  from  a  qualitative  point  of  view. 
The  analysis  of  the  projects  also  suggests  a  number  of  aspects  that  would  benefit  from  further 
investigation by future research projects, including: 

  Personal  motivations for joining a collective action project/initiative and invest in the enabling 
technologies.  Some  factors,  such  as  the  sense  of  identity  and  pride  being  attached  to 
community and locality and by the objective of reaching increased local energy independence, 
should be given particular attention. Research should investigate different consumer segments, 
such as youth, women and vulnerable consumers. 

  Comparative  research  could  also  investigate  the  different  response  of  participants  who  are 
consumers  of  energy  supplied  by  energy  cooperatives  and  consumers  who  are  supplied  by 
traditional suppliers, in terms of engagement and behavioural change. 

  Research in the effectiveness of specific interventions would also be beneficial, especially in the 

case of more complex interventions, such as community rewards.  

This  report  also  analyses  projects  that  address  non-technological  challenges  of  local 

collective energy action initiatives. These projects put citizens at centre stage of the ongoing 
energy transition and leverage on the sense of a community effort towards a more sustainable and 
participatory  energy  future.  They  show  a  high  participation  of  emerging  actors,  such  as  public 
institutions, local/not-for-profit organisations and energy cooperatives. Their inclusion in the project 
consortia  is  in  line  with  the  typical  project  objectives  (i.e.  informing  policy  making  and  promoting 
active participation by public authorities, increasing the body of knowledge and  creating networks 
and local partnerships) and with the attention that these projects show for the social dimension of 
energy consumption.  

59 

 
As for the geographical  distribution of stakeholders,  the analysis  shows a high level  of activity in 
countries with a long tradition of local energy activism, such as Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands 
and the UK.  It is also interesting to note that participation by EU-13 countries is in general higher 
than  in  collective  action  projects.  This  finding  seems  to  suggest  a  growing  interest  in  collective 
action  initiatives  in  these  countries,  interest  that  research  and  public  institutions,  as  well  as  civil 
society associations, are trying to capture, ahead of more technological stakeholders. 

The  JRC  continues  to  conduct  research  on  sociotechnical  aspects  of  the  energy  transition  and  on 
how the collective dimension of energy use can contribute to an inclusive energy transition. The JRC 
will  carry  on  analysing  research  and  innovation  projects  at  national  and  European  levels  with the 
aim  to  support  early  identification  of  the  challenges  and  opportunities  that  the  use  of  digital 
technologies and other innovative solutions can present for EU consumers’ living conditions.  

60 

 
 
 
 
References 

Abdurafikov, R., Anfosso, A., Citterio, R., Decorme, R., dell'Aquila, M., Grahn, E., . . . Santinelli. (2014). 

CityOpt - Deliverable 1.1 General and demo case description.  

Allcot, H. (2011).  Social  Norms  and  Energy  Conservation.  Journal  of  Public  Economics,  95,  1082  - 

1095. 

Bolle,  A.  (2019).  How  cities  can  back  renewable  energy  communities  -  Guidelines  for  local  and 

regional policy makers. EnergyCities. 

BRIDGE. (2019). Energy Communities in the EU. Task Force Energy Communities. BRIDGE H2020. 

Caramizaru,  A.,  &  Uihlein,  A.  (2020).  Energy  communities:  an  overview  of  energy  and  social 

innovation, EUR 30083. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. 

Cialdini,  R.,  Kallgren,  C.,  &  Reno,  R.  (1991).  A  focus  theory  of  normative  conduct.  Advances  in 

Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234. 

CIVIS. (2016). D3.3 Final Field Tested Integrated Energy System Workpackage 3. CIVIS Project. 

CIVIS. (2016). D5.3 Smart, decentralised and social market framework. CIVIS Project. 

COSSMIC. (2015). D2.2 CoSSMic user concepts. Leendert Wienhofen/SINTEF. 

Council  of  European  Energy  Regulators.  (2019).  Regulatory  Aspects  of  Self-  Consumption  and 

Energy Communities. Brussels: CEER. 

Coxcoon,  R.,  Sansom,  H.,  McMullen,  J.,  &  Ballard,  C.  (2015).  Final  report  of  the  LCNF  Community 

Energy Action project. Centre for sustainable energy. 

Davison, P. (2019). Activating Community Engagement (ACE). Project trial analysis report. Northern 

Powergrid. 

ENERGAWARE. 

(2018). 

D6.6 

– 

EnerGAware 

Handbook. 

Retrieved 

from 

https://energaware.eu/downloads/EnerGAware_D6.6_EnerGAware%20Handbook_r1.pdf. 

European  Commission.  (2015).  COM(2015)  339.  Delivering  a  New  Deal  for  Energy  Consumers. 

Brussels. 

European Commission. (2015). COM(2015) 80.  A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union 

with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy. Brussels. 

European Commission. (2016). COM(2016) 860. Clean Energy for All Europeans. Brussels. 

European Commission. (2018). COM(2018)  773.  A Clean Planet for all. A European strategic long-

term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. Brussels. 

European Commission. (2018). Consumer Markets Scoreboard. Making markets work for consumers. 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

European  Commission.  (2018).  From  Horizon  2020  to  Horizon  Europe  Monitoring  Flash  -  Country 
from 

participation. 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/h2020_monitoring_reports/h2020_mo
nitoring_flash_092018.pdf. 

Retrieved 

European  Commission.  (2019).  Assessment  and  roadmap  for  the  digital  transformation  of  the 
internal  energy  market.  Brussels:  European 

innovative 

energy  sector  towards  an 
Commission. 

European Commission. (2019). COM(2019) 640. The European Green Deal. Brussels. 

EUROSTAT. (2017). Eurostat Regional Yearbook - 2017 Edition. Luxembourg: European Union. 

61 

 
Gangale, F., & Mengolini, A. (2019). Energy poverty through the lens of EU research and innovation 

projects, EUR 29785. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. 

Gangale,  F.,  Vasiljevska,  J.,  Covrig,  C.,  Mengolini,  A.,  &  Fulli,  G.  (2017).  Smart  grid  projects  outlook 
2017.  Facts,  figures  and  trends  in  Europe,  EUR  28614.  Luxembourg:  Publication  Office  of 
the European Union. 

Gerritse, E., van Loon, R., van der Eerden, M., Zweistra, M., & Eising, J. (2019).  City-zen, a balanced 

approach to the city of the future. City-zen consortium. 

Gregg,  J.,  Nyborg,  S.,  Hansen,  M.,  Schwanitz,  V.,  Wierling,  A.,  Zeiss,  J.,  .  .  .  Padovan,  D.  (2020). 
Collective  Action  and  Social  Innovation  in  the  Energy  Sector:  A  Mobilization  Model 
PerspectiveE. Energie, 13(3), 651. 

Hanke,  F.,  &  Lowitzsch,  J.  (2020).  Empowering  Vulnerable  Consumers  to  Join  Renewable  Energy 
Communities  - Towards an Inclusive Design of the Clean Energy Package.  Energies, 13(7), 
1615. 

Hatziargyriou, N. (2014). Microgrids: Architectures and Control. Wiley-IEEE Press. 

Hoppe,  T.,  Coenen,  F.,  &  Bekendam,  M.  (2019).  Renewable  Energy  Cooperatives  as  a  Stimulating 

Factor in Household Energy Savings. Energies, 12(1188). 

IEA  ISGAN.  (2019).  Smart  Grid  Case  Studies  -  Innovative  Regulatory  Approaches  with  Focus  on 

Experimental Sandboxes. International Energy Agency. 

International  Energy  Agency.  (2016).  Energy  technology  Perspectives  2016  -  Towards  Sustainable 

Urban Energy Systems. Paris: OECD/IEA. 

IRENA. (2018). Power System Flexibility for the Energy Transition, Part 1: Overview for policy makers. 

Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency. 

IRENA.  (2019).  Global  energy  transformation:  A  roadmap  to  2050  (2019  edition).  Abu  Dhabi: 

International Renewable Energy Agency. 

Kandul,  S.,  Lang,  G.,  &  Lanz,  B.  (2020).  Social  comparison  and  energy  conservation  in  a  collective 

action context: A field experiment. Economics letters Volume 188, 108947. 

Kažukauskas, A., Broberg, T., & Jaraitė, J. (2017). Social comparisons in real time: A field experiment 
of  residential  electricity  and  water  use.  Umeå,  Sweden:  Centre  for  Environmental  and 
Resource Economics. 

Kiamba,  L.,  Rodrigues,  L.,  &  Marsh,  J.  (2017).  Community  Energy  Schemes:  The  Role  of  Public 

Participation and Engagement. Plea Edinburgh 2017 Proceedings. 

Kounelis, I., Giuliani, R., Geneiatakis, D., Di Gioia, R., Karopoulos, G., Steri, G., . . . Nai-Fovino, I. (2017). 
Blockchain in Energy Communities. A proof of concept, EUR 29074. Luxembourg: Publication 
Office of the European Union. 

Lammers, I., & Diestelmeier, L. (2017).  Experimenting with Law and Governance for Decentralized 

Electricity Systems: Adjusting Regulation to Reality? Sustainability, 9(2), 212. 

Lave,  J.,  &  Wenger,  E.  (1991).  Situated  Learning:  Legitimate  Peripheral  Participation.  Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Marinopoulos, A., Vasiljevska, J., & Mengolini, A. (2018). Local Energy Communities. An Insight from 

European Smart Grid Projects. CIRED Workshop. Ljubljana. 

Mengolini,  A.,  Gangale,  F.,  &  Vasiljevska,  J.  (2016).  Exploring  Community-Oriented  Approaches  in 

Demand Side Management Projects in Europe. Sustainability, 8(12). 

Nascimento,  S.,  Anderberg,  Anderberg,  A.,  Andonova,  E.,  Bellia,  M.,  Cales,  L.,  .  .  .  Spirito,  L.  (2019). 
Blockchain  Now  And  Tomorrow:  Assessing  Multidimensional  Impacts  of  Distributed  Ledger 
Technologies, EUR 29813. Luxembourg: European Union. 

62 

 
ORIGIN. (2015). Origin Final report. ORIGIN Project. 

Papadimitriou, C., Kleftakis, V., & Hatziargyriou, N. (2018). DC Microgrids for energy communities in 

the developing world. CIRED 2018 Ljubljana Workshop. Ljubljana: CIRED. 

Reno, R., Cialdini, R., & Kallgreen, C. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 194-112. 

RESCoop.  (2019).  What  are  ‘citizen’  and  ‘renewable’  energy  communities?  Question  &  Answer 
from  https://www.rescoop.eu/blog/what-are-citizen-and-renewable-

briefing.  Retrieved 
energy-communities. 

Ruggiero,  S.,  Onkila,  T.,  &  Kuittinen,  V.  (2014).  Realizing  the  social  acceptance  of  community 
renewable  energy:  A  process-outcome  analysis  of  stakeholder  influence.  Energy  research 
and social science, Volume 4, Pages 53-63, 4. 

S3C consortium. (2014). Report on Case Analyses, Success Factors and Best Practices. . 

Schultz,  W.,  Nolan,  J.,  Cialdini,  R.,  Goldstein,  N.,  &  Griskevicius,  V.  (2007).  The  Constructive, 
Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429-434. 

Sioshansi,  F.  (2019).  Consumer,  Prosumer,  Prosumager.  How  service  innovations  will  disrupt  the 

utility business model. Academic Press, Elsevier. 

Sloot, D., Jans, L., & Steg, L. (2019). In it for the money, the environment, or the community? Motives 
for  being  involved  in  community  energy  initiatives.  Global  Environmental  Change,  Volume 
57, 101936. 

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2018). Directive on the promotion 
of  the  use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  .  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  L 
328/82. 

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/944 
on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU 
(recast). Official Journal of the European Union, L 158/125. 

Tounquet, F., De Vos, L., Abada, I., Kielichowska, I., & Klessmann, C. (2019).  Energy Communities in 

European Union. ASSET. 

USERSTCP.  (2020).  Global  Observatory  on  Peer-to-Peer,  Community  Self-Consumption  and 
Transactive  Energy  Models.  Retrieved  from  https://userstcp.org/annex/peer-to-peer-energy-
trading/. 

Walker, G., & Devine-Wright, P. (2008). Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy 

Policy, 497-500. 

Wierling, A., Schwanitz, V., Zeiß, J., Bout, C., Candelise, C., Gilcrease, W., & Sterling Gregg, J. (2018). 
Statistical  Evidence  on  the  Role  of  Energy  Cooperatives  for  the  Energy  Transition  in 
European Countries. Sustainability, 10(3339). 

63 

 
 
List of abbreviations 

BEMS 

Building Energy Management System 

BESS 

Battery Energy Storage System 

CA 

CEP 

CHP 

Collective Action 

Clean Energy for All Europeans Package 

Combined Heat and Power 

CORDIS  Community Research and Development Information Service 

DLT 

DSO 

EC 

Distributed Ledger Technology 

Distribution System Operator 

European Commission 

EMS 

Energy Management System  

ERDF 

European Regional Development Fund 

ESIF 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

EU  

EV 

European Union 

Electric Vehicle 

HEMS 

Home Energy Management System 

ICT 

IEE 

JRC 

Information and Communication Technology 

Intelligent Energy Europe 

Joint Research Centre 

LEMS 

Local Energy Management System 

NTC 

P2P 

PV 

R&I 

RES 

SG  

TSO 

Non Technological Challenges 

Peer to Peer 

Photovoltaic  

Research and Innovation 

Renewable Energy Sources 

Smart Grid 

Transmission System Operator 

64 

 
List of country codes 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MK 

MT 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

RS 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

North Macedonia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Serbia 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

United Kingdom 

65 

 
List of boxes 

Box 1. From energy consumers to collectively acting energy citizens in EU energy policy........................ 9 

Box 2. Microgrids ......................................................................................................33 

66 

 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1. Towards a more inclusive and collective EU energy policy .............................................. 9 

Figure 2. Overview of projects suveyed .............................................................................11 

Figure 3. CA projects: scale ..........................................................................................14 

Figure 4. Technological solutions trialled in CA projects ...........................................................15 

Figure 5. Stakeholders involved in CA projects .....................................................................16 

Figure 6. Consumer engagement interventions trialled in CA projects ...........................................16 

Figure 7. CA projects: specific objectives ...........................................................................17 

Figure 8. CA projects: start date by funding source ................................................................18 

Figure 9. CA projects: start and end date ...........................................................................19 

Figure 10. CA projects: time distribution of investment * .........................................................20 

Figure 11. CA projects: budget ranges ..............................................................................20 

Figure 12. CA projects: number and location of demonstration sites ............................................22 

Figure 13. CA projects: geographical setting of the demonstration sites ........................................23 

Figure 14. CA projects: geographical distribution of participations ...............................................24 

Figure 15. CA projects: geographical distribution of participations by regions ..................................26 

Figure 16. CA projects: geographical distribution of lead and partner organizations ...........................27 

Figure 17. CA projects: geographical distribution of demonstration sites by scale ..............................29 

Figure 18. Share of CA projects by sector ..........................................................................30 

Figure 19. CA projects: technological solutions categories ........................................................30 

Figure 20. Technological solutions trialled in each CA project ....................................................32 

Figure 21. CA projects: number of participations per stakeholder category .....................................40 

Figure 22. Consumer engagement interventions trialled in each CA project .....................................44 

Figure 23. NTC projects: time distribution by funding source .....................................................51 

Figure 24. NTC projects: start and end date ........................................................................52 

Figure 25. NTC projects: number of participations per stakeholder category ....................................52 

Figure 26. NTC projects: geographical distribution of stakeholders ..............................................54 

Figure 27. NTC projects: geographical distribution of lead and partner organizations ..........................55 

Figure 28. NTC projects activities ...................................................................................56 

67 

 
 
List of tables 

Table 1. CA project: scale categories ................................................................................28 

Table 2. CA projects: stakeholder categories .......................................................................39 

Table 3. CA projects: consumer engagement interventions .......................................................43 

68 

 
 
Annexes 

Annex 1. Collective action projects - Key facts 

Project name 

Project duration 

Total budget (M EUR) 

Countries involved 

Project coordinator 

CITY-OPT 

Feb 2014 – Jan 2017 

3.96 

AT, FI, FR, IT 

CITY-ZEN AMSTERDAM 

Mar 2014 – Feb 2019 

42.9 

BE, FR, NL, IT, UK 

VTT  Technical  Research  Centre 
of Finland (FI) 

Instelling 

Vlaamse 
voor 
Technologisch  Onderzoek  NV 
(BE) 

CIVIS 

COMPILE 

COSSMIC 

EEPOS 

Oct 2013 – Sept 2016 

Nov 2018 – Apr 2022 

Oct 2013 – Dec 2016 

4.07 

6.93 

4.27 

DE, FI, IT, NL, PT, SE, UK 

University of Trento (IT) 

AT, BE, EL, ES, HR, PT, SI,  

University of Ljubljana (SI) 

DE, IT, NL, NO 

Sintef (NO) 

Oct 2012 – Sept 2015 

4.1 

AT, DE, ES, FI 

ENERGAWARE 

Feb 2015 – Apr 2018 

1.96 

ES, FR, PT, UK 

FLEXCOOP 

Oct 2017 – Sept 2020 

3.98 

BE,  CY,  DE,  DK,  EL,  ES,  HR,  NL, 
UK  

Fraunhofer FOKUS (DE) 

GRID-FRIENDS 

May 2016 – Feb 2019 

IDEAS 

MERLON 

Nov 2012 – Oct 2015 

Jan 2019 – Dec 2021 

MUSE GRIDS 

Nov 2018 – Oct 2022 

2.42 

4.08 

7.55 

7.43 

DE, NL 

- 

CWI 
Wiskunde & Informatica (NL) 

Stichting 

Centrum 

FI, FR, IS, UK 

Teesside University (UK) 

AT, BE, CY, EL, ES, FR, UK 

Hypertech EnergyLabs (EL) 

BE, DK, ES, IE, IL, IT, NL 

Rina Consulting (IT) 

69 

VTT  Technical  Research  Centre 
of Finland (FI) 

Universitat 
Catalunya (ES) 

Politecnica 

de 

 
NEMOGRID 

Apr 2017 – March 2020 

1.32 

CH, DE, SE 

SUPSI  -  University  of  Applied 
Sciences  and  Arts  of  Southern 
Switzerland (CH) 

NICE GRID 

Nov 2011 – Jan 2016 

NICE SMART VALLEY 

Jan 2017 – Dec 2019 

Nov 2012 – Oct 2015 

Jan 2019 – Dec 2022 

10.76 

Jan 2015 – Dec 2018 

Nov 2016 – Oct 2019 

29.7 

5 

4.08 

15.38 

4.04 

12.21 

ORIGIN 

REACT 

SENSIBLE 

SHAR-Q 

FR 

FR 

Enedis (FR) 

Enedis (FR) 

DE, ES, IT, PT, UK 

Heriot-Watt University (UK) 

AT, DE, ES, IE, IT, FR, NL, RS, SE, 
UK 

VEOLIA Serveis Catalunya (ES) 

DE, ES, FI, FR, PT, UK 

Siemens AG (DE) 

AT, CZ, DE, EL, ES, PT, SK 

ATOS Spain (ES) 

UK 

Hitachi Europe Ltd (UK) 

SMART ENERGY ISLAND 

2017 - 2019  

SMART-MLA 

Nov 2018 -Oct 2021 

2.02 

DK, NO, RO, SE, TR 

Engineering 
Research Analysis EPRA (TR) 

Procurement 

WISEGRID 

Nov 2016 – Apr 2020 

17.60 

BE, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, RO, UK 

Etra i+d (ES) 

70 

 
 
Annex 2. Projects addressing non-technological challenges – Key facts 

Project name 

Project duration 

Total budget (M EUR) 

Countries involved 

Project coordinator 

CO-POWER 

Apr 2013 – Apr 2016 

CO2MMUNITY 

Oct 2017 - Sept 2020 

COBEN 

COMETS 

CVPP 

ECCO 

ENSRC 

May 2019 – Apr 2022 

2017 - 2020 

2017 - 2021 

EU HEROES 

Sept 2017 – Aug 2020 

1.56 

3.15 

4.62 

3.00 

6.11 

5.39 

0.37 

1.23 

BE, CZ, DE, DK, ES, HU, IE, UK 

Friends of the Earth Europe (BE) 

DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL, SE 

Christian-Albrechts  University 
Kiel (DE) 

BE, DE, DK, NL, NO, UK 

University of Oldenburg (DE) 

BE, DK, EE, ES, IT, NO, NL, PL 

University of Turin (IT) 

BE, IE, NL 

BE, DE, FR, IE, NL, UK 

TUE  -  Technische  Universiteit 
Eindhoven (NL) 

Boerenbondvereniging 
Innovatieve Projecten vzw (BE) 

voor 

BG, IE, PT, UK 

Waterford County Council (IE) 

DE, EL, ES, LT, NL, PL, UK 

RVO- 
Economische Zaken (NL) 

Ministerie 

Van 

CENTRIA  University  of  Applied 
Sciences (FI) 

VUA 
Vrije 
- 
Amsterdam (NL) 

Universiteit 

FC.ID  –  Associação  para  a 
Investigação 
e 
Desenvolvimento  de  Ciências 
(PT) 

LECO 

Aug 2017 – July 2020 

1.95 

DE, FI, IE, NO, SE 

NEWCOMERS 

Jun 2019 – May 2022 

2.98 

DE, IT, NL, SE, SI, UK 

PROSEU 

Mar 2018 – Feb 2021 

3.12 

DE, ES, HR, NL, PT, UK 

RESCOOP 2020 

Apr 2012 – Mar 2015 

1.96 

BE, DE, DK, FR, IT, NL, UK 

Ecopower Cvba (BE) 

71 

 
 
 
 
RESCOOP MECISE 

Mar 2015 – Apr 2019 

RESCOOP PLUS 

Mar 2016 – Feb 2019 

2.19 

1.50 

BE, ES, FR, UK 

Ecopower Cvba (BE) 

BE, DK, EL, ES, FR, IT, NL, PT 

Levelcardinal  Unipessoal  LDA 
(PT) 

European  University  Viadrina 
Frankfurt (DE) 

und 
Wirtschaft 
WIP 
Infrastruktur  GmbH  &  Co 
Planungs-KG (DE) 

SCORE 

Apr 2018 – Mar 2021 

1.99 

BG, CZ, DE, IT, PL 

SOCIAL RES 

May 2019 – Aug 2022 

2.44 

DE, ES, FR, HR, IE, IT, PT, RO, UK 

72 

 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre 
nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

 
 
 
 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
3
0
3
3
9
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/51238 

ISBN 978-92-76-21418-2