Opportunities and challenges in targeted funding of Research and Innovation : lessons learnt from the Horizon 2020 : focus areas and implications for Horizon Europe missions : executive summary.
Date: 2021-12-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU financing, EU research policy, circular economy, digitisation, information security, innovation, organisation of research, research and development, research expenditure (EU), research programme

Opportunities and 
Challenges in Targeted 
Funding of Research and 
Innovation 

Lessons learnt from the Horizon2020 
Focus Areas and implications for Horizon 
Europe Missions 

Executive summary 

CWTS, IDEA Consult, technopolis 
November – 2021 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Opportunities and Challenges in Targeted Funding of Research and Innovation: Lessons learnt from 
the Horizon2020 Focus Areas and implications for Horizon Europe Missions 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate G – Common Policy Center 
Unit G3 – Common Strategic Planning and Programming Service 
Contact   Siv Jacobsen 
Email  

siv.jacobsen@ec.europa.eu 
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Manuscript completed in November 2021.  
This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the 
European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of 
the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission 
nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

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

PDF  

ISBN:  978-92-76-36176-3 

doi: 10.2777/793603 

KI-02-21-939-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

is  authorised  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0 

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  based  on  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 
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 elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly 
from the respective rightholders. The European Union does not own the copyright in relation to the following elements: 
Image credits:  
Cover  page:  ©  Lonely  #46246900,  ag  visuell  #16440826,  Sean  Gladwell  #6018533,  LwRedStorm  #3348265,  2011;  kras99 
#43746830, 2012. Source: Fotolia.com.  

(CC-BY  4.0) 

International 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Opportunities and Challenges 
in Targeted Funding of 
Research and Innovation 

Lessons learnt from the Horizon2020 Focus Areas 
and implications for Horizon Europe Missions 

Executive Summary 

Jonathan Bening, Msc 

Dr. Valentijn Bilsen 

Josephine Bergmans, Msc 

Federico Bley, Msc 

Sarah Rose Bieszczad, Msc 

Dr. Cathy Lecocq 

Dr. Guus Dix 

Dr. Vincent Traag 

Dr. Julien Chicot 

Alberto Domini, Msc 

Margaux le Gallou, Msc 

Dr. Viola Peters 

2021 - Directorate-General for Research and Innovation - EN          

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Focus Areas approach was a key novelty of the Horizon 2020 policy. By singling out 
a  limited  set  of  R&D  domains,  the  European  Commission  took  the  trend  towards  more 
targeted funding of science and innovation to a new level. The Commission selected four 
such domains in the final three years of H2020: 

1.  Boosting the effectiveness of the Security Union 

2.  Connecting economic and environmental gains - the circular economy 

3.  Digitising and transforming European industry and services 

4.  Building a low-carbon, climate resilient future 

In  these  four  focus  areas,  the  Commission  intended  to  foster  the  development  and 
impact of R&D projects that addressed specific societal and environmental challenges. It 
sought to do so by creating synergies between different work programmes and projects. 

Our consortium combined three important sources of insights to evaluate the Focus Area 
approach in the final three years of H2020: 

1.  Learning  from  others.  Several  countries  opted  for  targeted  funding  of  R&D 
before. Through desk research, we learned from the experiences and outcomes of 
R&D polices in the Netherlands, Germany, Estonia, France and Belgium. 

2.  Learning  from  each  other.  There  were  four  Focus  Areas  in  the  2018-2020 
period.  Each  of  these  Focus  Areas  brought  policymakers  from  different  DGs  and 
SCs  together.  We  aimed  to  learn  from  their  experiences  through  a  range  of 
interviews. 

3.  Learning  from  one’s  past:  Targeted  R&D  funding  is  an  ongoing  European 
endeavour.  We aimed to learn from past experiences and outcomes by exploring 
the  overall  thematic  focus  of  the  Focus  Areas  and  several  funded  projects  more 
in-depth. 

Each of these three sources adds a distinct layer of insights. In combination, they offer a 
first  step  in  the  direction  an  overall  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020  and  foster  evaluative 
learning on the way to Horizon Europe Missions. This fact sheet presents our main policy 
recommendations:  what  are  the  takeaways  from  the  Focus  Areas  for  the  mission-
oriented  approach  that  succeeds  it?  The  full  report  presents  our  case  studies  and 
quantitative analyses. 

Inclusion and exclusion in science and innovation policies 

The  first  policy  recommendations  concern  inclusion  and  exclusion  in  science  and 
innovation policies. Against the background of the vast increases in scale of these policies 
over  the  past  decade,  we  discern  a  risk  of  a  ‘winner  takes  all’  dynamics  in  targeted 
funding  of  R&D.1  From  the  country  case  studies  we  learned  that  governments  tend  to 
pick  today’s  winners  by  stimulating  R&D  efforts  in  current  areas  of  strength.  As  such, 
targeted funding policies could solidify  – or even strengthen – the dividing line between 
existing areas and organisations and new ones. A particular source of concern here was 
the (lack of) inclusion of SMEs. 

Dynamics  of  inclusion  and  exclusion  can  lead  to  substantial  differences  between 
countries, institutions, consortia and individuals in their ability to receive the benefits of 
targeted  investments  in  R&D.  If  so,  early  success  in  competitive  funding  leads  to 
inequalities  that  are  more  difficult  to  address  later  on.  Our  statistical  analysis  of  the 
distribution of funding under the Focus Areas shows that certain countries, organisations 

1 Bol, T., Vaan, M. de, Rijt, A. van de (2018) The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Science of the United States of America 115(19): 4997-4890; Hoenig, B. (2017). Europe’s new 
scientific elite: Social mechanisms of science in the European Research Area. London: Routledge; Yie, Y. 
(2014). “Undemocracy”: Inequalities in science. Science 344(6186) 809-810. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
and  consortia  are  better  able  to  attract  funding  than  others.  Whether  winner-take-all 
dynamics play a role here requires further analysis. 

Our  evaluation  leads  to  two  policy  recommendations.  First,  the  increase  in  scale  in 
European R&D policies makes some beneficiaries worried about increases in budgets and 
consortia size. 

1.  We recommend a policy that does not unwittingly increase budget and consortium 
size with increased ambition. Instead, the EC could carefully balance the amount 
of  funding  in  relation  to  the  kind  of  consortium  that  it  is  aiming  for,  especially 
considering what size is manageable for a consortium geared towards research or 
societal take-up. 

In the Focus Areas, the emphasis on the uptake of knowledge and innovation was greater 
than the emphasis on citizen support. The missions (partially) shift from the inclusion of 
end-users  to  the  inclusion  of  citizens.  The  European  citizenry,  however,  is  not  a 
homogenous entity. Some citizens have more of a say in political processes than others. 

2.  We  recommend  to  systematically  monitor  which  (groups  of)  citizens  are  actually 
reached.  A  monitoring  system  that  accompanies  citizen  science  initiatives  could 
help to find out who is included or excluded in the policy making process. 

Creating focus, staying focused 

The  experiences  of  the  national  funding  initiatives  and  the  task  teams  shows  that 
creating  focus  in  the  design  phase  is  something  different  from  staying  focused 
afterwards. One could argue that there was not enough internal governance structure to 
guide  the  selection  of  the  topics  and  calls  after  the  Focus  Areas  had  been  established. 
External to the EC, the majority of the beneficiaries failed to see a direct connection with 
their respective Focus Area or experience much difference with other H2020 projects. All 
in all, the Focus Areas  became less  of a lived  reality when the attention shifts  from the 
task teams to the policy officers of the funded projects and to the beneficiaries. How will 
the missions be able to stay focused in the domain of research and innovation – as well 
as beyond it? 

The  first  policy  recommendation  is  bound  up  with  the  issue  of  internal  focus.  Missions 
seek not only stronger convergence in the domain of research and innovation but also a 
tighter integration of new knowledge  with new policies. Here, the Focus Areas lead to a 
recommendation that a mission-oriented approach could take to heart: 

3.  Agreements  on  the  higher  political  and  institutional  levels  is  a  prerequisite  for 
making  sure  that  the  results  of  mission-oriented  projects  will  feed  back  into  the 
executive branches. We recommend a stronger internal mandate to stay focused. 

The  second  policy  recommendation  is  bound  up  with  external  focus.  Under  the  Focus 
Areas,  the  differences  between  the  DGs  involved  sometimes  remained  visible  in  the 
portfolio  of  projects  that  received  funding.  Beneficiaries  did  not  experience  the  Focus 
Area  as  a  truly  relevant  unit.  As  such,  one  can  expect  that  focus  will  be  more  easily 
created in some missions than in others. Two options stand out: 

4.  On  the  one  hand,  more  diverse  or  heterogenous  missions  can  opt  for  a  more 
active communication and monitoring process to demonstrate the relatedness and 
relevance of projects subsumed under the Focus Area. Beneficiaries can then see 
how their project is  related to  others. On the  other hand, they  could  accept that 
heterogeneity  is  inherent  to  a  mission  with  a  diverse  set  of  stakeholders  and 
impacts. Beneficiaries then know that they can relate to one topic that is loosely 
related to the mission. 

The risk of path dependencies in R&D funding 

The  evaluation  of  a  range  of  national  and  European  R&D  policies  over  multiple  decades 
makes  it  possible  to  highlight  some  of  the  assumptions  and  goals  that  have  come  to 

3 

 
 
underpin them. We focus here in particular on the risk of path dependencies in targeted 
R&D funding: Does the earlier objective economic competitiveness still inform the current 
focus  on  societal  and  environmental  challenges  –  even  when  these  two  might  be 
incompatible? 

To  start  with,  many  national  funding  initiatives  assumed  that  policymakers  can  foster 
scientific  breakthroughs  and  technological  innovations  and  thereby  stimulate  economic 
growth.  In  all  five  country  cases,  the  emergence  of  targeted  funding  initiatives  was 
closely  tied  to  the  attempt  of  national  governments  to  increase  the  competitiveness  of 
their respective economies. In accordance with these national developments, the attempt 
to increase economic competitiveness also gained momentum in European R&D policies. 

The  choice  for  the  Focus  Areas  reveals  a  shift  in  objectives  from  economic  growth, 
narrowly  conceived,  to  a  broader  set  of  societal  and  environmental  challenges.  At  the 
same  time,  our  evaluation  of  the  Focus  Area  calls  and  topics  demonstrates  that  an 
economic  and  technological  focus  remained  central.  The  strong  legacy  of  such  an 
economic  focus  in  targeted  funding  of  R&D  under  the  Focus  Areas  raises  profound 
questions of goal alignment and compatibility. 

The last four years, for one, saw a challenge to the policy paradigm of economic growth 
and technology-oriented solutions for the major societal and environmental problems we 
face today. Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee, Nobel prize winners in economics, portray 
the hope that technological innovation will solve the existential threats linked to climate 
change while simultaneously maintaining our consumption levels as the ‘free lunch’ that 
is too good to be true. Economic growth is itself a major of force of environmental harm 
and  so  ‘mitigation  through  better  technologies  may  not  do  the  trick;  people’s 
consumption will need to fall’.2 

Given this challenge to the compatibility of major policy goals, we discern a risk of path 
dependency  in  science  and  innovation  policy.  The  legacy  of  economic  objectives  and 
technology-oriented  solutions  could  lead  to  a  lock-in  where  it  only  possible  to  see 
something  as  a  solution  to,  for  instance,  carbon  neutrality  when  it  aligns  with  the 
assumptions  of  ‘growth’,  ‘innovation’  and  ‘competitiveness’  that  dominated  national  and 
European  policy  initiatives  before.  The  mission-oriented  policies  of  the  EC  have  the 
ambition  to  drive  a  systemic  change  instead  of  fixing  the  problems  that  emanate  from 
the  existing  system.  If  growth  is  such  a  systemic  problem,  then  the  EC  would  be  ill-
advised  to  unreflectively  buy  into  the  economic  assumptions  that  underpinned  earlier 
science and innovation policies. 

5.  Against  the  background  of  the  recent  shift  towards  missions,  we  recommend  to 
bring  the  tension  between  the  economic  objectives  and  environmental  and 
societal ones to the centre of attention. 

The  shift  from  applied  science  and  impact  pathways  to  actual  behavioural  change  also 
brings  the  relation  between  technical  expertise  and  expertise  from  the  social  sciences 
and humanities into view. According to EC policymakers, the societal side was not always 
properly  considered  in  the  Focus  Area.  A  circular  economy,  for  instance,  requires  more 
than technological improvement; it stands or falls with changes in behaviour on the part 
of the consumer. 

2 Duflo, E. & Banerjee, A. V. (2016). Good economics for hard times: Better answers to our biggest problems. 
London: Penguin, 146-207). See Mazzucato for a further elaboration on the considerable harms caused by the 
dominant patterns of growth in OECD countries (OECD, General Secretariat (2019). ‘Beyond growth. Towards a 
new economic approach’. Report of the Secretary General’s Advisory Group on a New Growth Narrative). The 
available evidence relation between growing affluence on the one hand and pollutant emissions on the other 
shows that ‘any transition towards sustainability can only be effective if far-reaching lifestyle changes 
complement technological advancements’. This is complicated, however, by an engrained imperative for growth 
in competitive market economies which stimulates the expansion of consumption and inhibits necessary societal 
change (Wiedmann, T. et al. (2020) ‘Scientists’ warning on affluence’ Nature communications 11:1307; Leclere, 
D. et al (2020). Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585: 551-
556). 

4 

 
 
                                                 
6.  Technical expertise is very important but might be  insufficient to understand and 
foster  the  societal  and  environmental  changes  the  missions  are  after.  It  requires 
other  forms  of  scientific  expertise  to  understand,  for  instance,  under  what 
conditions citizens would be willing to substantially modify their behaviour. This is 
where the social sciences and humanities could play a bigger role, not just as an 
add-on to technological change. 

The creation and monitoring of impact as a distributed responsibility 

The  creation  of  impact  was  central  to  the  Focus  Areas  and  Horizon2020  more  broadly 
conceived.  But  the  impact  of  R&D  policies  is  not  easy  to  monitor  and  evaluate.  Our 
country cases reveal that the success or failure of targeted funding scheme was difficult 
to  establish.  There  was  often  no  clear  and  feasible  strategy  of  how  to  monitor  the 
progress and effectiveness of the policy as a whole. In similar vein, there was relatively 
little in place in the Focus Areas to assemble and aggregate the outcome of the projects 
to  get  at  the  bigger  picture.  This  had  ramifications  for  the  way  project  results  could  be 
communicated and disseminated beyond the individual efforts of the beneficiaries. 

Against the background of these issues, we argue that the dissemination and monitoring 
of the results of funded projects is a combined responsibility of the beneficiaries and the 
EC  itself.  Earlier  evaluations  indicated  that  applicants  considered  the  statements  about 
expected impacts to be difficult to write as calls oscillated between grand challenges that 
no single applicant could be expected to solve and very concrete expectations about the 
deliverables.  Our  evaluation  of  the  Focus  Areas  corroborates  this.  In  light  of  these 
considerations, we would recommend clarity and feasibility in monitoring requirements: 

7.  The societal impact that beneficiaries are expected to create should be achievable 
to  allow  for  a  sense  of  ownership.  The  call  should  make  as  concrete  as  possible 
what  statements  about  expected  impact  should  look  like  but  still  allow  the 
applicant some leeway in how to go about. In that light, it could be necessary to 
better  distinguish  the  short,  the  medium  and  the  long-term  objectives.  One 
suggestion would be to ask applicants to meet certain short-term goals and then 
to  give  an  outline  of  the  path  afterwards  for  the  long  run  to  help  policymakers 
think about – and act on – the future. 

Dissemination, communication and monitoring have to do with the efforts of beneficiaries 
but equally with efforts on the part of the EC. The EC policymakers involved in the Focus 
Areas came to recognize that it is very important that the EC itself works on drawing out 
the  results  and  fostering  communication  once  a  portfolio  of  projects  has  been  selected. 
This  work  was  not  really  considered  properly.  They  mention  the  absence  of  a  clear 
dissemination and communication plan as a central limitation of the Focus Areas. 

8.  Our  policy  recommendation  here  would  be  to  develop  process  monitoring  in 
addition  to  project  monitoring.  Process  monitoring  would  enable  the  EC  to 
stipulate  beforehand  –  and  to  subsequently  follow  –  how  the  results  of  funded 
projects  help  to  achieve  the  overall  objectives  of  the  mission.  A  more 
comprehensive  communication  and  dissemination  plan  would  indicate  how  the 
projects will feed back into the policymaking process in a later stage. 

What goes for monitoring goes for communication. Despite the explicit intention to create 
synergies, their actual creation remains limited in the Focus Area projects we singled out. 
The  project  officers  and  beneficiaries  did  try  to  create  synergies  on  their  own  accord 
without  feeling  facilitated  by  an  explicit  policy  of  helping  them  in  the  creation  of  cross-
sectoral synergies. Even though the scope increased with the Focus Areas, the efforts to 
increase communication and cooperation remained rather individualized and, despite the 
intention, more in a sectoral than in a veritable cross-sectoral manner. 

9.  One way to go about it, is to think about the commitment to capacity building by 
providing  longer  term  perspectives  for  funding  and  the  commitment  to  create 
longer term synergies between projects. Clear and long-term policy objectives and 
priorities  make  alignment  possible  between  important  stakeholders  and  allows 
policymakers and stakeholders to build on previous experiences 

5 

 
 
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 email 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:  
https://op.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). 

EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

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

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Focus Areas approach was a key 
novelty of Horizon 2020. By selecting four 
R&D domains, the European Commission 
took the trend towards more targeted 
funding of science and innovation to a new 
level. The Focus Areas succeeded in 
creating a greater internal awareness of 
each other and building up experience with 
the organization of exchange between 
beneficiaries. Increasing the R&D ambitions, 
Horizon Europe Missions could learn from 
the Focus Area experiences: the need for a 
strong internal mandate to align project 
results and executive action; the possible 
incompatibilities between economic and 
environmental objectives; and the role of 
social sciences and humanities in solving 
societal challenges. 

Studies and reports