Proposal for a Council Regulation for a European Partnership for Key Digital Technologies
Date: 2021-09-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: digital single market

PUBLIC STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  
ON A EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP FOR  
KEY DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES 

Summary Report on the public stakeholder consultation on a European 
Partnership for Key Digital Technologies 

1.1 Introduction 

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines,1 an online public stakeholder consultation was 
conducted  on  the  12  candidates  for  institutionalised  partnerships  based  on  a  structured 
questionnaire,  between  September  and  November  2019,  gathering  1635  replies  for  all  12 
initiatives.  The  replies  to  the  common  questions  are  summarised  in  the  horizontal  results 
section 1.2. There is a summary of the results for each specific initiative in section 1.5  

1.2 Horizontal results 

The consultation was open to everyone, and available via the EU Survey online system2. The 
survey  contained  two  main  parts  to  collect  views  on  general  issues  related  to  European 
partnerships  (in  Part  1)  and  specific  responses  related  to  one  or  more  of  the  12  candidate 
initiatives  (as  selected  by  participants).  The  survey  was  open  from  11  September  to  12 
November  2019.  The  consultation  was  available  in  English,  German  and  French  and 
advertised widely through the European Commission’s online channels as well as via various 
stakeholder organisations.  

1.3 Profile of respondents 

In  total,  1635  respondents  filled  in  the  questionnaire  of  the  consultation.  Among  them,  272 
respondents  (16.64%)  were  identified  to  have  responded  to  the  consultation  as  part  of  a 
campaign (coordinated responses).  

Figure 1 Type of respondents (N=1635) - For all candidate initiatives 

Among  all  consultation  respondents,  1303  (79.69%)  have  been  involved  in  the  on-going 
research  and  innovation  framework  programme  Horizon  2020  or  the  preceding 
Framework Programme 7. In the group of campaign respondents, the share of those who were 
involved  in  these  programmes  is  higher  (.07%)  than  in  the  group  of  non-campaign 

1 Find more information here: ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-stakeholder-consultation_en 
2 https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/ConsultationPartnershipsHorizonEurope 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
respondents (77.62%). When asked to indicate in which capacity they were involved in these 
programmes, the majority stated they were a beneficiary (1033 respondents) or an applicant 
(852  respondents).  The  main  stakeholder  categories  (e.g.  companies/business  organisation, 
academic/research  institutions,  etc.)  indicate  a  similar  distribution  across  the  capacities  in 
which they ‘have been involved in Horizon 2020 or in the Framework Programme 7’ as the 
overall population of consultation respondents.  

Among  those  who  have  been  involved  in  Horizon  2020  or  the  preceding  Framework 
Programme 7, 1035 respondents (79.43%) are/were involved in a partnership. The share of 
respondents  from  campaigns  that  are/were  involved  in  a  partnership  is  higher  than  for  non-
campaign  respondents  (89.80%  versus  77.03%  respectively).  The  list  of  partnerships  under 
Horizon  2020  or  its  predecessor  Framework  Programme  7  together  with  the  numbers, 
percentages of participants is presented in Table 2Error! Reference source not found., the 
table also show the key stakeholder categories for each partnership.  

Table 1: Partnerships in which consultation respondents participated (N=1035) 

Name of the partnership 

Number 
and  %  of 
respondents 
from  both 
groups  
(n=1035) 

Number  and 
% 
of 
respondents 
from  a  non-
campaign 
group 
(n=815) 

c
r
a
e
s
e
r
/
c
i
m
e
d
a
c
A

s
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n
i
h

s
e
n
i
s
u
b
/
y
n
a
p
m
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

s

s
e
n
i
s
u
b
/
y
n
a
p
m
o
C

)
0
5
2
<
(

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

s

s
n
e
z
i
t
i
c
U
E

)
+
0
5
2
(

s
n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
B

Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen 
2 
Joint 
Undertaking  

(FCH2) 

Sky 
Clean 
Undertaking 

2 

Joint 

European 
Metrology 
Programme for Innovation 
and Research (EMPIR) 

354 
(33.33%) 

195 
(18.84%) 

150 
(14.49%) 

Bio-Based Industries Joint 
Undertaking 

142 
(13.72%) 

Shift2Rail 
Undertaking 

Joint 

124 
(11.98%) 

247 (30.31%) 

97 

145 (17.79%) 

57 

124 (15.21%) 

64 

122 (14.97%) 

39 

101 (12.40%) 

31 

9 

2 

0 

8 

7 

37 

43 

41 

10 

27 

37 

13 

9 

14 

20 

27 

14 

5 

31 

14 

s
O
G
N

8 

1 

2 

1 

3 

111 
(10.72%) 

88 (10.80%) 

42 

2 

7 

20 

12 

0 

66 (6.38%) 

46 (5.64%) 

10 

5G (5G PPP) 

53 (5.12%) 

47 (5.77%) 

20 

44 (4.25%) 

40 (4.91%) 

17 

3 

1 

0 

3 

6 

6 

20 

14 

1 

3 

5 

7 

2 

0 

0 

Electronic  Components 
and Systems for European 
Leadership (ECSEL) Joint 
Undertaking 

Single  European  Sky  Air 
Traffic 
Management 
Research  (SESAR)  Joint 
Undertaking 

Eurostrars-2 
(supporting 
research-performing  small 
and 
medium-sized 
enterprises) 

Innovative 
Medicines 
Initiative  2  (IMI2)  Joint 
Undertaking 

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a

c
i
l
b
u
P

5 

7 

19 

6 

7 

5 

3 

1 

6 

37 (3.57%) 

35 (4.29%) 

18 

2 

3 

3 

2 

4 

3 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number 
and  %  of 
respondents 
from  both 
groups  
(n=1035) 

Number  and 
of 
% 
respondents 
from  a  non-
campaign 
group 
(n=815) 

c
r
a
e
s
e
r
/
c
i
m
e
d
a
c
A

s
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n
i
h

s
e
n
i
s
u
b
/
y
n
a
p
m
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

s

s
e
n
i
s
u
b
/
y
n
a
p
m
o
C

)
0
5
2
<
(

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

s

s
n
e
z
i
t
i
c
U
E

)
+
0
5
2
(

s
n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
B

y
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a

c
i
l
b
u
P

s
O
G
N

28 (2.71%) 

26 (3.19%) 

15 

0 

3 

1 

2 

0 

2 

Name of the partnership 

Innovation 

Partnership  for  Research 
the 
and 
Area 
Mediterranean 
(PRIMA) 

in 

European  and  Developing 
Countries  Clinical  Trials 
Partnership 

Ambient  Assisted  Living 
(AAL 2) 

High-
European 
Performance  Computing 
Joint 
Undertaking 
(EuroHPC) 

25 (2.42%) 

24 (2.94%) 

12 

22 (2.13%) 

21 (2.58%) 

11 

22 (2.13%) 

18 (2.21%) 

6 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

3 

3 

5 

3 

0 

0 

2 

3 

2 

Table  2:  Candidate  Institutionalised  Partnerships  for  which  consultation  respondents  provide 
responses (N=1613) 

Name 
of 
partnership 

the 

candidate 

Institutionalised  European 

Clean Hydrogen 

European Metrology 

Clean Aviation 

Circular bio-based Europe 

Transforming Europe’s rail system 

Key Digital Technologies 

Innovative SMEs 

Innovative Health Initiative 

Smart Networks and Services 

Safe and Automated Road Transport 

Integrated Air Traffic Management 

Number and % of 
respondents  from 
both groups  
(n=1613) 

506 (31.37%) 

Number  and  %  of 
respondents  from 
a 
non-campaign 
group 
(n=1341) 
382 (28.49%) 

265 (16.43%) 

225 (16.78%) 

246 (15.25%) 

191 (14.24%) 

242 (15%) 

215 (16.03%) 

184 (11.41%) 

151 (11.26%) 

182 (11.28%) 

162 (12.08%) 

111 (6.88%) 

110 (6.82%) 

109 (6.76%) 

108 (6.70%) 

93 (5.77%) 

110 (8.20%) 

108 (8.05%) 

107 (7.98%) 

102 (7.61%) 

66 (4.92%) 

EU-Africa  research  partnership  on  health  security  to  tackle 
infectious diseases – Global Health 

49 (3.04%) 

47 (3.50%) 

1.4 Characteristics of future candidate European Partnerships 

The following subsections present the answers provided to specific consultation questions in 
each  graph. 
greater  detail.  The  questions 

indicated 

title  of 

the 

are 

in 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  2:  To  what  extent  do  you  think  that  the  future  European  Partnerships  under  Horizon 
Europe need to (N=1363) (non-campaign replies) comply with the following? 

1.4.1 Main advantages and disadvantages of Institutionalised European Partnerships 

Advantages  mentioned:  Long term commitment, stability, and visibility  in  financial, legal, 
and  strategic  terms;  Participation  of  wide  range  of  relevant  stakeholders  in  an  ecosystem 
(large/small  business,  academics,  researchers,  experts,  etc.);  Complementarity  with  other 
(policy) initiatives at all levels EU, national, regional; Efficient and effective coordination and 
management;  High  leverage  of  (public)  funds;  Some  innovative  field  require  high  levels  of 
international coordination/standardisation (at EU/global level); Ability to scale up technology 
(in 
through  collaboration;  Networking  between  members;  Direct 
communication with EU and national authorities 

terms  of  TRL) 

Disadvantages  mentioned:  Slow  processes;  System  complexity;  Continuous  openness  to 
new  players  should  be  better  supported  as  new  participants  often  bring  in  new 
ideas/technologies that are important for innovation; Lower funding percentage  compared to 
regular  Horizon  Europe  projects;  Cash  contributions;  Administrative  burdens;  Potential  for 
IPR constraints. 

1.4.2 Relevance of EU level to address problems in partnerships’ areas 

Figure  3:  To  what  extent do  you  think  this  is  relevant  for  research  and  innovation  efforts  at  EU 
level to address the following problems in relation to the candidate partnership in question? (non-
campaign replies) Aggregation of responses of all candidate initiatives 

4 

 
 
 
1.4.3 Horizon Europe mode of intervention to address problems 

Figure 4: In your view, how should the specific challenges described above be addressed through 
Horizon Europe intervention? (non-campaign replies) For all candidate initiatives 

When  asked  to  reflect  on  their  answers,  respondents  that  pointed  to  the  need  for  using 
institutionalised  partnership  mentioned  the  long-term  commitment  of  collaboration,  a 
common  and  ambitious  R&I  strategy  as  well  as  the  overall  collaboration  between  industry 
and  research  institutions.  Others  shared  positive  experiences  with  other  modes  of 
interventions: 

  Traditional calls, because of their flexibility and integration of a wide range of actors, as 
long as the evaluation panels do not deviate from the policy premier. This was mentioned 
by 94 participants, including companies (25), academics (26) and EU citizens (25). 

  Co-funded  partnership,  as  a  mechanism  to  ensure  that  all  participants  take  the  effort 
seriously,  while  allowing  business  partnerships  to  develop.  This  approach  was  deemed 
suitable  based  on  previous  experiences  with  ERANETs.  This  was  raised  by  84 
participants, 36 of them academic respondents, 18 companies and 16 EU citizens. 

  Co-programmed partnerships, to tackle the need to promote and engage more intensively 
with the private sector. This was mentioned by  97 participants, most of them companies 
(34), followed by academics (22), business associations (15) and EU citizens (11).  

1.4.4  Relevance  of  a  set  of  elements  and  activities  to  ensure  that  the  proposed  European 
Partnership would meet its objectives 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  5:  In  your  view,  how  relevant  are  the  following  elements  and  activities  to  ensure  that  the 
proposed  European  Partnership  would  meet  its  objectives  -  Setting  joint  long-term  agenda  with 
strong involvement of: (non-campaign replies) For all candidate initiatives 

Figure  6:  In  your  view,  how  relevant  are  the  following  elements  and  activities  to  ensure  that  the 
proposed  European  Partnership  would  meet  its  objectives  –  Pooling  and  leveraging  resources 
(financial, infrastructure, in-kind expertise, etc.) through coordination, alignment and integration 
with: (non-campaign replies) For all candidate initiatives  

Figure  7:  In  your  view,  how  relevant  are  the  following  elements  and  activities  to  ensure  that  the 
proposed  European  Partnership  would  meet  its  objectives  –  Partnership  composition  (non-
campaign replies) Aggregation of responses of all candidate initiatives 

Figure  8:  In  your  view,  how  relevant  are  the  following  elements  and  activities  to  ensure  that  the 
proposed  European  Partnership  would  meet  its  objectives  –  Implementing  the  following 
activities (non-campaign replies) For all candidate initiatives 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.4.5  Relevance  of  setting  up  a  legal  structure  (funding  body)  for  the  candidate  European 
Partnerships to achieve improvements 

Figure 9: In your view, how relevant is to set up a specific legal structure (funding body) for the 
candidate European Partnership to achieve the following? (non-campaign replies) Aggregation of 
responses of all candidate initiatives 

7 

 
 
 
 
1.4.6 Scope and coverage of  the  candidate European Partnerships based on their inception 
impact assessments 

Figure  10:  What  is  your  view  on  the  scope  and  coverage  proposed  for  this  candidate 
institutionalised European Partnership, based on its inception impact assessment? (non-campaign 
replies) Aggregation of responses of all candidate initiatives 

1.4.7 Scope for rationalisation and alignment of candidate European Partnerships with other 
initiatives  

When  asked  whether  it  would  be  possible  to  rationalise  a  specific  candidate  European 
Institutionalised  Partnership  and  its  activities,  and/or  to  better  link  with  other  comparable 
initiatives, nearly two thirds of respondents answered “Yes” (1000, or 62%), while over one 
third  answered  “No”  (609,  or  39%).  Nearly  no  differences  were  found  between  stakeholder 
categories,  only  large  companies  and  SMEs  indicated  slightly  more  often  “Yes”  in 
comparison to other respondents. The views of citizens are the same as for other respondents. 
Respondents  that  are/were  directly  involved  in  a  current/preceding  partnership,  indicated 
“No” more often, the balance is about 50/50 between “Yes” and “No” for this group.  

1.4.8  Relevance 
economic/technological and societal impacts  

of  European  Partnerships 

to 

deliver 

targeted 

scientific, 

Figure 11: In your view, how relevant is it for the candidate European Institutionalised Partnership 
to  deliver  on  the  following  impacts?  (non-campaign  replies)  Aggregation  of  responses  of  all 
candidate initiatives 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.5 Stakeholder consultation results for this specific initiative 

1.5.1 Objectives 

The survey contained two main sections: the first one aimed to collect views on general issues 
related to European partnerships, and the second aimed to obtain specific responses related to 
one or more of the 12 candidate initiatives (as selected by participants). 

1.5.2 Who replied to the questionnaire? 

For the KDT Partnership, 182 respondents provided their views of which 20 were identified 
as belonging to a campaign. These campaign contributions were analysed separately and are 
not  part  of  the  actual  analysis  with  a  number  of  162  responses.  Out  of  these  162  non-
campaign  responses,  55  (33.95%)  of  the  respondents  were  representatives  of  academic  and 
research  institutions,  42  (25.93%)  were  company/business  organisations,  35  respondents 
(21.60%) were citizens. Public authorities (4,32%) and NGOs (3,08%) also participated in the 
consultation.   

The  majority  of  respondents,  namely  124  (76.54%),  have  been  involved  in  the  on-going 
research and innovation framework programme, while 84 respondents (67.74%) were directly 
involved in a partnership under Horizon 2020 or its predecessor Framework Programme 7. 

1.5.3 Results on general questions 

Relevance of efforts of the candidate European Partnership to address problems 

At the beginning of the consultation, the respondents of this partnership indicated their views 
of the needs of the future European Partnerships under Horizon Europe. Overall, respondents 
indicated that many of these needs were fully required. The elements which most respondents 
indicated as fully needed, was making a significant contribution to EU global competitiveness 
in  specific  sectors  and/or  domains  (112  respondents  or  69.14%)  and  focusing  more  on  the 
development  and  effective  deployment  of  technology  (101  respondents  or  62.35%).  These 
identified  needs  are  in  line  with  the  proposed  focus  of  the  partnership.  No  statistical 
differences were found between the views of citizens and other respondents for most needs. 

Main  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  participation  in  the  Institutionalised  European 
Partnership 

The respondents were asked what they perceived as the main advantages and disadvantages of 
participation  in  an  Institutionalised  European  Partnership  (as  a  partner)  under  Horizon 
Europe.  A  key-word  analysis  showed  that  respondents  viewed  collaboration  as  the  main 
advantage,  in  addition  to  a  strategic  research  agenda  and  leadership  in  Europe.  The 
subsequent administrative burden was identified as a disadvantage. 

1.5.4.  Results  on  candidate  European  Partnership  Specific  Questions  by  non-campaign 
respondents 

Relevance of research and innovation efforts at the EU level to address problems in relation to 
key digital technologies 

9 

 
 
In  the  consultation,  respondents  were  asked  to  provide  their  view  on  the  relevancy  (5-point 
scale)  of  research  and  innovation  efforts  at  EU  level  to  address  the  following  problems  in 
relation to key digital technologiesProblems in uptake of digital innovations 

With  regard  to  the  problems  in  uptake  of  digital  innovations,  the  majority  of  respondents 
picked either a 4 or a 5  on the 5-point relevancy scale. Respondents indicated that the most 
relevant  problem  is  when  the  regulatory  framework  lags  behind  technology  developments 
(106  respondents  or  67.95%  indicated  this  as  a  ‘relevant’  or  ‘very  relevant’  problem).  The 
options  that  have  received  the  least  5  (‘very  relevant’)  answers,  out  of  all  the  problems 
presented,  are  the  lack  of  consideration  of  societal  or  user  needs  (37  respondents  or  23%) 
followed  by  the  barriers  to  exploitation  due  to  limited  access  to  capital  data  or  intellectual 
property (37 respondents or 24%). 

Structural and resource problems 

With  regard  to  structural  and  resource  problems,  the  limited  collaboration  and  pooling  of 
resources  between  Member  States,  European  Commission,  Industry  and  Research 
organisations  (Universities,  RTO’s)  is  clearly  considered  as  a  very  relevant  problem  for 
research and innovation efforts at EU level to address (65 respondents or 42% indicated a 5 
on the 5-point relevancy scale).  

Research and innovations problems 

Finally, respondents indicated that research and innovation problems are considered the most 
relevant,  as  all  of  the  problems  presented  in  this  category  have  received  more  5  (very 
relevant) responses than any of the other problems. The rapid change including big data and 
the  emergence  of  new  computing  paradigms  is  considered  the  most  relevant,  with  105 
respondents selecting ‘very relevant’ on this problem (66%). 

1.5.5 Addressing the specific challenges through Horizon Europe intervention 

Respondents were asked to indicate how these challenges could be addressed through Horizon 
Europe  intervention.  As  shown  in  the  figure  below,  just  over  40%  of  respondents  indicated 
that  an  Institutionalised  Partnership  would  be  the  best  fitting  intervention  to  address  these 
problems. 

Figure 12: Assessment of Horizon Europe intervention 

Respondents  that  selected  an  Institutionalised  Partnership  as  the  best  fitting  intervention 
mentioned  for  example  that  it  is  the  most  suitable  instrument  to  “bring  together  the  critical 
mass of public and private resources needed to ensure Europe’s competitiveness, sovereignty 
and  autonomy  in  the  strategic  domain  of  KDT”.  Furthermore,  several  respondents  signalled 
its  suitability  to  implement  a  long-term  vision  and  to  provide  “substantial  and  long-term 
guidance on the R&I activities in the EU”, the “broad impact and wide range of stakeholders” 
in  the  key  digital  technologies  area,  and  the  importance  of  “aligning  national  strategies  on 
digital technologies into a single EU strategy”. 

10 

 
 
 
Respondents  who  did  not  select  institutionalised  partnership  as  their  preferred  intervention 
(N=76)  mentioned  traditional  calls,  public  private  sector  and  the  development  of  new 
technology. 

Relevance of elements and activities to ensure that the proposed European Partnership would 
meet its objectives 

Involvement of actors in setting joint long-term agenda 

Respondents were asked how relevant the involvement of actors is in setting a joint long-term 
agenda to  ensure that the proposed European Partnership would meet  its objectives.  A high 
number  of  respondents  (120  respondents  or  77%)  indicated  that  a  strong  involvement  of 
industry is a very relevant actor for setting a joint long-term agenda. The role of academia and 
Member States,  Associated Countries is  also  considered  very relevant by many  respondents 
(respectively 95 respondents or 61.29%, and 76 respondents or 51.35% indicated their role of 
as  ‘very  relevant’).  A  strong  involvement  of  foundations,  NGOs  and  other  stakeholders  is 
considered  less  relevant  by  respondents  (respectively  30  respondents  or  20.69%,  and  18 
respondents  or  13.24%  indicated  their  role  as  ‘very  relevant’).  Respondents  that  are/were 
involved in a current/preceding partnership indicated that industry and government (Member 
States and Associated Countries) are more relevant compared to other respondents. 

Pooling and leveraging resources 

Respondents were asked to assess the relevance of different actors in pooling and leveraging 
resources (such as financial, infrastructure, in-kind expertise) through coordination, alignment 
or  integration  to  meet  partnership  objectives.  The  role  of  industry  is  considered  as  very 
relevant,  as  104  respondents  out  of  154  (68%)  indicated  that  their  involvement  is  very 
relevant  for  the  above-listed  purpose.  The  involvement  of  foundations,  NGOs  and  other 
stakeholders is seen as less important (respectively 25 respondents or 18% indicated the role 
of foundations/NGOs, and 20 respondents or 15% indicated the role of other stakeholders as 
very relevant).  

A slight statistical difference was found between the views of citizens and other respondents. 
Citizens  found  the  relevance  of  academia  in  pooling  and  leveraging  resources  through 
coordination,  alignment  or  integration  slightly  less  relevant.  Similarly,  respondents  that 
are/were  involved  in  a  current/preceding  partnership  indicate  a  slightly  higher  relevance  of 
industry. 

The partnership composition 

Respondents  were  asked  about  the  relevance  of  certain  elements  of  the  partnership 
composition, such as flexibility in the composition of partners over time and involvement of a 
broad range of partners  (including across disciplines and sectors), to  reach objectives of the 
KDT Partnership.  

A high share of respondents (117 or 77%) view that flexibility in composition of partners over 
time  is  relevant  by  giving  a  score  of  4  and  5  on  the  indicated  scale.  The  large  majority  of 
respondents  (125  or  82%)  also  indicated  that  ensuring  involvement  of  a  broad  range  of 
partners is relevant to ensure that proposed European Partnership would meet its objectives. 

Implementation of activities 

11 

 
 
Respondents  were  asked  to  provide  opinions  on  the  relevance  of  implementation  of  several 
activities for meeting objectives of the Partnership. According to the analysis, a high number 
of respondents view that joint R&I programme, collaborative R&I projects, deployment and 
piloting of  activities, as  well as,  co-creation of solutions  with  end-users is very  relevant  for 
meeting the objectives. Over 85% of respondents assessed listed activities as relevant or very 
relevant, giving a score of 4 and 5 on the indicated scale. In comparison, only 37 respondent 
out  152  (24.34%)  consider  that  the  input  to  regulatory  aspects  is  very  relevant  for  meeting 
objectives of the KDT Partnership. 

Relevance of setting-up a specific legal structure (funding body) for the candidate European 
Partnership to meet objectives 

Respondents  were asked to  assess the  relevance  of a specific legal  structure (funding body) 
for  the  candidate  European  Partnership  to  achieve  several  objectives.  According  to  the 
feedback,  a  large  number  of  respondents  suggested  that  setting-up  a  specific  legal  structure 
would be very relevant to implement activities more effectively (70 respondents or 46%), to 
implement  activities  faster  to  respond  to  sudden  market  or  policy  needs  (62  respondents  or 
42%), to facilitate synergies with other EU and national programmes (62 respondents or 41%) 
and  to  facilitate  collaboration  with  other  relevant  European  Partnerships  (60  respondents  or 
41%). On the other hand, a lower number of respondents (24 or 16%) indicated that the legal 
structure  would  be  very  relevant  to  ensure  better  links  with  regulators.  Respondents  that 
are/were  involved  in  a  current/preceding  partnership  indicate  a  slightly  higher  relevance  of 
setting  up  a  specific  legal  structure  to  facilitate  collaboration  with  other  relevant  European 
Partnerships. 

Scope and coverage proposed for candidate institutionalised European Partnership 

Respondents  were  asked  to  assess  the  scope  and  coverage  proposed  for  the  Key  Digital 
Technology  Partnership,  based  on  its  inception  impact  assessment.  Overall,  the  majority  of 
respondents consider that the scope and coverage are right in terms of technologies, research 
areas,  geographical  coverage,  types  of  partners,  range  of  activities  and  sectors.  However,  a 
significantly smaller number of respondents consider it too narrow for the research areas (22 
respondents or 15%) and type of partners covered (20 respondents or 14%). 

Alignment of the European Partnership with other initiatives 

The majority of respondents (100 or 76%) consider that it would be possible to rationalise the 
candidate European Institutionalised Partnership and its activities, and/or to better link it with 
other comparable initiatives.  

1.5.6 Relevance of the Candidate European Partnership to deliver impacts 

Respondents  were  asked  to  assess  the  relevance  of  the  candidate  European  Institutionalised 
Partnership to deliver on listed societal, economic/technological and scientific impacts.  

The majority of respondents indicated that the partnership would be ‘very relevant’ to deliver 
on the following societal impacts: provision of trusted electronics components and systems to 
the public and businesses (86 respondents or 55.84%), enabled safety - automotive, avionics, 
and security - transactions, communications (94 respondents or 61.44%). On the other hand, 
contribution to more functional, efficient, economical and accessible electronics systems was 
by a smaller number of respondents indicated as ‘very relevant’ (70 respondents or 46.05%). 

12 

 
 
Among economic/technological impacts that were suggested, a large number of respondents 
indicated that the  partnership would be ‘very relevant’ for more innovative, sustainable  and 
globally competitive electronics and systems industries – including SMEs (95 respondents or 
61.89%),  and  for  the  development  and  exploitation  of  innovative  technology  paradigms  (80 
respondents or 53.33%). 

A  large  number  of  respondents,  namely  102  out  of  153  (66.66%),  indicated  that  the 
partnership  would  be  ‘very  relevant’  for  the  mentioned  scientific  impact:  new  scientific 
knowledge  and  reinforcement  of  EU  research  and  innovative  capabilities  in  Key  Digital 
Technologies.  

13