Funding landscape of European projects : Strategic Research and Innovation Plan (SRIP) for safe and sustainable chemicals and materials.
Date: 2023-09-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU programme, chemical industry, distribution of EU funding, innovation, project funding, research and development, sustainable development, sustainable product

 
 
 
 
 
The Strategic Research and Innovation Plan (SRIP) for safe and sustainable Chemicals and 
Materials - Funding Landscape of European Projects 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate E — Prosperity 
Unit E3 — Industrial Transformation & Unit G6 — Common Knowledge & Data Management Service 
Contact   Christina Markouli, Evangelos-Panagiotis Daskalopoulos and Cyril Jousse, Unit E3 
Email  

RTD-E3-CHEMICALS-MATERIALS@ec.europa.eu 
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Manuscript completed in September 2023  

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission,  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the 
authors, and the European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse. 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-03162-9 

doi:10.2777/551502 

KI-05-23-154-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 

© European Union, 2023  

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged and the original meaning or message of the 
document is not distorted. The European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from 
the reuse. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision 
2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

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 for cover page: © MicroOne #305386384, 2019. Source: Stock.Adobe.com.

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The Strategic Research and Innovation Plan (SRIP) 
for safe and sustainable Chemicals and Materials 

Funding Landscape 
of European Projects 

2023 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 

EN

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 3 

1.  Introduction ............................................................................................ 4 
1.1. 

The Strategic Research and Innovation Plan (SRIP) for Chemicals 
and Materials 
The frame of the portfolio analysis 
1.2.1. 
1.2.2. 

Selection of relevant European programs 
CORTEX, the Commission’s text mining tools for project portfolio 
analysis 

4 
5 
5 

6 

1.2. 

2.  The methodology ................................................................................... 7 
7 
2.1. 
7 
2.2. 
9 
2.3. 
10 
2.4. 

The Raw Portfolio creation from CORTEX 
Query creation 
Meta-data harvest 
Validation by external experts 

3.  The analysis of raw and final portfolios ................................................ 11 
11 
3.1. 
The raw portfolio 
14 
3.2. 
The final portfolio 
15 
3.3. 
Deeper analysis per funding programme 
15 
3.3.1. 
16 
3.3.2. 
17 
3.3.3. 
17 
3.3.4. 
17 
3.3.5. 
Deeper analysis of lead and secondary categories per SRIP sections  17 
19 
3.4.1. 
3.4.2. 
22 
3.4.3. 

Horizon Europe (HE) 
LIFE (LF) 
INNOVATION FUND (IF) 
ERASMUS+ (E+) 
DIGITAL EUROPE (DE) 

SRIP chapter ‘Cross-cutting aspects’ 
SRIP chapter “Safe and sustainable by design” 
SRIP chapter “Safe and sustainable production processes and 
technologies” 
SRIP chapter “Exposure” 
SRIP chapter “Hazard assessment” 
SRIP chapter “Risk assessment” 
SRIP chapter “Decontamination and remediating pollution” 

3.4.4. 
3.4.5. 
3.4.6. 
3.4.7. 

23 
24 
24 
24 
25 

3.4. 

4.  Findings .................................................................................................. 26 
26 
4.1. 
26 
26 
26 
27 

The SRIP chapters 
Lessons learnt from the methodology 

Horizon Europe (HE) 
Other European programmes 

The programmes 
4.1.1. 
4.1.2. 

4.2. 
4.3. 

5.  Conclusions & perspectives .................................................................. 29 

ANNEXES .................................................................................................... 30 

2 

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The  European  Commission  published  the  Strategic  Research  and  Innovation  Plan 
(SRIP)  for  safe  and  sustainable  chemicals  and  materials  in  October  2022.  The  SRIP 
identified  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  needs  across  the  lifecycle  of  chemicals  and 
materials  to  increase  their  safety  and  sustainability  in  line  with  the  EU  Green  Deal 
objectives. The current report establishes a methodology to monitor the R&I funding 
landscape towards a successful implementation of the SRIP in the coming years.  

The  report  covers  a  snapshot  of  190  ongoing  projects  launched  in  2021  and  2022 
(March 2021 - September 2022 as cut-off dates) representing an EU contribution of 
nearly  1.06  billion  EUR  and  funded  under  the  Horizon  Europe,  LIFE,  Innovation 
Fund, and Erasmus+ programmes. The assessment also included Digital Europe for 
which no projects have however been identified.  

The  purpose  of  the  report  has  not  been  to  assess  the  individual  outcome  of  the 
projects.  Instead,  the  report  offers  a  baseline  to  assess  funding  gaps  and  future 
funding needs. The restricted timeframe allowed the establishment of the methodology, 
starting  with  text  mining  on  a  basis  of  around  12  000  projects.  This  proof-of-concept 
should  enable  national  and  regional  funding  bodies  to  carry  out  similar  steps  to 
evaluate their contributions to the implementation of the SRIP.    

The  analysis  shows  that  the  main  financial  support  for  the  SRIP  comes  from  the 
Horizon  Europe  Framework  Programme  (c.a.  842  million  EUR,  representing  ~80%  of 
overall  EU  contribution  from  the  five  analysed  programmes).  Horizon  Europe’s 
strongest  contribution  is  in  Pillar  II  (‘Global  challenges  and  European  industrial 
competitiveness’) and Pillar I (‘Excellence’). Pillar I is mainly associated with “Education” 
–  as  expected,  due  to  the  abundance  of  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions  identified. 
Three  main  Clusters  are  contributors  to  Pillar  II,  Clusters  1,  4  &  5,  associated  mainly 
with production processes and technologies, as well as ‘safe and sustainable by design’ 
of  chemicals  and  materials.  The  other  ones  are  less  represented.  For  Cluster  1  the 
notable contribution comes from the co-funded Partnership for the Assessment of Risks 
from Chemicals (PARC, 200 million EUR EU contribution, total budget of over 400 million 
EUR).  The  Innovation  Fund  allocated  186  million  EUR  to  four  projects  to  support 
sustainable  production  processes.  LIFE  and  Erasmus+  projects  contributed  to  several 
SRIP chapters but represent a smaller budget.  

The  methodology  has  two  steps:  the  European  Commission’s  automatic  text  mining 
tool  (CORTEX),  followed  by  a  scrutiny  of  the  results  by  expert  groups  to  confirm  the 
assignment of projects to the different SRIP chapters.   

In  the  analysed  timeframe  most  projects  belong  to  the  downstream  SRIP  chapters 
associated with the chemicals and materials use (“Exposure”, “Hazard assessment” & 
“Risk  assessment”),  as  well  as  their  end-of-life  (“Decontamination  and  remediating 
pollution”).  There  has  been  even  less  focus  on  issues  like  “Data”,  “Validation  and 
standardisation"  –  important  enabling  aspects  identified  in  the  SRIP.  The  limited 
focus  on  these  SRIP  chapters  requires  particular  attention  to  guide  future  investment 
decisions  and  strategic  planning.  However,  this  may  also  warrant  an  analysis  of 
projects still funded at the end of Horizon 2020.   

3 

 
 
1. 

Introduction  

1.1.  The Strategic Research and Innovation Plan (SRIP) for Chemicals 

and Materials 

The  European  Commission’s  Chemicals  Strategy  for  Sustainability  (CSS)1  is  part  of 
the  EU’s  Green  Deal  zero  pollution  ambition 2.  The  CSS  aims  to  “protect  citizens  and 
the environment better against hazardous chemicals and encourage innovation for the 
development of safe and sustainable alternatives”. 

The  CSS  sets  out  two  major  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  actions:  the  Strategic 
Research and Innovation Plan (SRIP) for safe and sustainable chemicals and materials3 
and the ‘safe and sustainable by design’ (SSbD) approach to chemicals. As a follow-up 
to the latter, the Commission adopted a Recommendation on 8 December 20224. 

The SRIP builds on several stakeholder consultations and highlights R&I areas critical to 
accelerate the transition towards safe and sustainable chemicals and materials. The plan 
provides a comprehensive outlook of R&I needs for chemicals and materials across their 
lifecycle, i.e., from production to (re)use, disposal and pollution remediation. It is divided 
into  the  following  chapters:  ‘safe  and  sustainable  by  design’  focusing  on  the  design 
phase,  modelling,  life  cycle  assessment  (LCA)  and  alternatives  to  substances  of 
concern;  production  processes  and  technologies;  exposure  monitoring  and 
modelling;  hazard  assessment;  risk  assessment,  the  latter  strongly  linked  to  the 
evolution  of  EU’s  regulations  and  in  the  scope  of  the  Zero  Pollution  Action  Plan5, 
decontamination  and  pollution  remediation.  Additional  enablers  and  cross-cutting 
aspects cover FAIR data management and standardisation, as well as education and 
training as key drivers for future research, green and innovative business. 

Indicators  are  key  in  monitoring  the  SRIP’s  implementation.  The  SRIP  itself 
announced that a follow up study would analyse the number of projects funded under 
Horizon  Europe  (HE)  and  the  associated  budgets.  Such  indicators  also  aim  to  guide 
funders in investments decisions. In this report, we present the number of projects and 
allocated budgets from various EU funding programs. 

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f815479a-0f01-11eb-bc07-

01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&format=PDF  

2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN  
3 https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/knowledge-publications-tools-and-data/interactive-

reports/srip-chemicals-materials-2022 
4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2022/2510/oj 
5 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/zero-pollution-action-plan_en  

4 

 
 
 
1.2.  The frame of the portfolio analysis  

1.2.1. 

Selection of relevant European programs 

To determine the project portfolio for analysis, the starting point has been the ongoing 
Framework Programmes (FP) available in eGrants and relevant for R&I for chemicals 
and  materials:  Horizon  Europe  (HE) 6,  Digital  Europe  (DE) 7,  Erasmus+  (E+)8, 
Innovation  Fund  (IF)9  and  the  Programme  for  Environment  and  Climate  Action  LIFE 
(LF)10. A first text mining led to a total of ~12 000 projects for which grant agreements 
had been signed or were under preparation in the selected timeframe from March 2021 
until September 2022.  

Horizon Europe (HE) 
Horizon  Europe  is  the  EU’s  key  funding  programme  for  research  and  innovation, 
running from 2021 to 2027, with a total budget of 95.5 billion EUR. The programme is 
built  around  three  main  pillars  (Pillar  I:  Excellent  Science,  Pillar  II:  Global  Challenges 
and  European  Industrial  Competitiveness  and  Pillar  III:  Innovative  Europe).  A  new 
element of HE refers to the five EU Missions concerning adaptation to climate change, 
the fight against cancer, oceans and water restoration, carbon-neutral and smart cities, 
and soil health.  

Digital Europe (DE) 
The  Digital  Europe  Programme  is  the  funding  programme  focusing  on  building  the 
strategic  digital  capacities  of  the  EU  and  facilitating  the  wide  deployment  of  such 
technologies. The overall budget is 7.5 billion EUR and this is expected to accelerate 
the recovery  of the EU’s economy  and support  digital transformation, and  particularly 
benefit  SMEs  between  2021  and  2027.  It  supports  projects  in  five  key  technology 
areas: supercomputing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, advanced digital skills, and 
ensuring a wide use of digital technologies across the economy and society (including 
Digital Innovation Hubs).  

ERASMUS+ (E+) 
The  Erasmus+  programme  supports  education,  training,  youth  and  sport  in  Europe. 
With a total budget of ~26.2 billion EUR it finances projects with a focus on the green 
and  digital 
inclusion  and  promotion  of  young  people’s 
engagement in democratic processes and their understanding of the European Union.  

twin  transition,  social 

Innovation Fund (IF) 
The Innovation Fund aims to support technically and financially mature projects with a 
focus  on  highly  innovative  technologies  in  a  wide  range  of  eligible  sectors  (energy-
intensive industries, renewable energy generation, energy storage, carbon capture and 
utilisation  and/or  storage)  from  2020  to  2030.  The  IF  also  offers  project  development 

6 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/horizon-europe_en  
7 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/digital-europe-

programme_en  

8 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/erasmus_en  
9 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/funding-climate-action/innovation-fund/what-innovation-fund_en  
10 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/programme-

environment-and-climate-action-life_en  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
assistance.  Its  approximate  total  budget  of  38  billion  EUR  does  not  stem  from  public 
budgets but uses revenues from the auctioning of allowances.  

LIFE programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LF) 
The  Programme  for  the  Environment  and  Climate  Action  has  been  set  up  to  finance 
environment-  and  climate-specific  projects.  It  has  a  budget  of  5.45  billion  EUR  for 
2021-2027  and  consists  of  four  main  sub-programmes:  i)  nature  and  biodiversity,  ii) 
circular  economy  and  quality  of  life,  iii)  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation  and 
iv) clean energy transition. 

1.2.2. 

CORTEX, the Commission’s text mining tools for project portfolio 
analysis 

Project  portfolio  analysis  is  an  element  of  evidence-informed  policymaking  and 
supports  recommendations  or  policy  conclusions.  The  analysis  can  be  followed  by 
validation,  curation,  and  identification  of  project  results.  The  analysis  in  this  report 
started with a large text mining exercise. 

The  text  mining  analysis  performed  was  supported  by  the  eGrants  (European 
Commission databases & tools) CORe TEXt mining tool (CORTEX), which is available 
for  the  Commission's  services.  CORTEX  is  a  digital  platform  that  allows  to  perform 
keyword-based  queries on a selection of FPs  or calls. The tool analyses all available 
documents  in  the  databases.  Queries  are  designed  with  a  list  of  keywords  following 
specific syntax rules related to wording and categorisation. The output of each query is 
visualised as  a list of “proposals” 11 (list of projects, with a link to  the “proposal fiche”, 
which summarises info and provides links to all available documents through eGrants) 
or  “attachments”12  (all  documents  in  relation  to  the  project).  Such  results  can  be 
exported  into the Horizon  Dashboard13 or in a  table format for further use.  Within the 
Horizon  Dashboard,  EU  and  Member  States  (MS)  contributions  can  be  shown  and 
sorted according to several filters (e.g. “programmes”, “thematic priorities”, or “topics”). 

11  “Proposal”  as  per  CORTEX  terminology:  relates  to  projects  identified,  from  initial  (under  preparation)  to 

final status (e.g. rejected, closed). 

12 “Attachment” as per CORTEX terminology: relates to any internal document available through the eGrants 

package (e.g. Grant Agreement, Deliverable). 

13  RTD - EU Research and Innovation Data at Your Fingertips (europa.eu) 

6 

 
 
 
 
2.  The methodology  

2.1.  The Raw Portfolio creation from CORTEX 

A  portfolio  in  CORTEX  is  the  resulting  list  of  projects  and  project  attachments,  which 
can  be  exported,  visualised  and  interlinked  with  supporting  information  (meta-data). 
Creating a portfolio consists of the following steps (Figure 1):  

•  Query creation (dealing with keywords and syntaxes) which is used to generate the 

raw portfolio (see 2.2). 

•  Meta-data harvest (see 2.3) which adds additional information to the raw portfolio. 

Figure 1. Overview of the steps followed for the project raw portfolio creation and 
analysis using the CORTEX text-mining tool 

After completion of these two steps, a raw portfolio of projects is obtained, mentioned 
as such throughout the rest of this report. 

2.2.  Query creation   

The main goal of keyword selection and arrangement through an accurate syntax is to 
obtain the optimal rate between “true positive” and “false positive” selections 14. The 
selection  of  keywords  has  been  made  following  a  careful  analysis  of  the  different 
chapters of the SRIP and by applying an iterative process and in-house expertise.  

14 “True positive” and “false positive” are coming from statistics, part of the “confusion matrix” concept. 

7 

 
 
 
As the initial queries provided too many non-relevant projects, the list of keywords for 
each chapter was classified into “mandatory” and “non-mandatory” ones. Mandatory 
keywords  were  expected  to  be  mentioned  in  either  title,  abstract  or  free  keywords  in 
the  proposal  fiche  of  each  project.  Conventional  keywords  were  expected  to  be 
mentioned anywhere in the fiche besides the mandatory keywords. 

Considering  the  large  number  of  projects  and  the  diversity  of  areas  concerned,  the 
“cross-cutting” chapters under the SRIP were divided into four sub-sections. All these 
steps  are  crucial  to  narrow  the  queries  and  acquire  a  final  result  with  as  few  “false 
positive” projects as possible. 

The query for each section can take the following form: 

(Mandatory keywords shared by all section) AND (Mandatory keywords shared inside 
a  section)  AND  (A  combination  of  conventional  or  mandatory  keywords  unique  to  a 
specific keyword row). 

Five steps were required for the creation of the query: 

•  Keywords  were  converted  into  the  most  convenient  spelling  (e.g.  the  use  of 
wildcard, as  for “interoperab*” instead of “interoperable”, “interoperability” and 
“interoperabilities”) to cover almost all relevant wording possibilities (see Annex 
1). 

•  Queries were transferred into the system and sorted by section. Sections were 

arranged according to mandatory/non-mandatory keywords. 

•  A debugging step was performed to manually improve queries. 

•  Queries were merged to the mandatory keywords common to all sections (i.e., 
"chemical OR material"). The final ten queries are highlighted (see Annex 2). 

•  Finally,  in  order  to  be  able  to  use  again  for  future  needs,  all  sections  were 
merged into one file to allow for the CORTEX relevance score normalisation. 

The  final  ten  queries  took  the  following  format  as  illustrated  with  an  example  from 
chapter 3, sub-chapter 3.1 – “Data”: 

("find"  OR 

"access"  OR 

(title:("chemical"  OR  "material")  AND  ("safety"  OR  "sustainability")  AND  ("FAIR" 
AND 
"reus*"))  OR 
(free_keywords:("chemical"  OR  "material")  AND  ("safety"  OR  "sustainability")  AND 
"reus*")))  OR 
("FAIR"  AND 
(abstract:("chemical" OR "material") AND ("safety" OR "sustainability") AND ("FAIR" 
AND ("find" OR "access" OR "interoperab*" OR "reus*"))) AND (title:("chemical" OR 
"material")  OR  free_keywords:("chemical"  OR  "material")  OR  abstract:("chemical" 
OR "material"))) 

"interoperab*"  OR 

"interoperab*"  OR 

"access"  OR 

("find"  OR 

8 

 
 
 
2.3.  Meta-data harvest 

Meta-data  complement  the  data  themselves,  to  create  additional  information  and 
improve knowledge. They are derived from several sources: 

•  an  automatic  selection  from  CORTEX.  It  covers  identifiers  of  projects  (e.g. 
proposal  number,  acronym)  and  relates  to  the  associated  information  about 
programmes (e.g. type of action, call ID) and financial aspects (e.g. requested 
grant, budget). Thus, a raw portfolio was established consisting of 18 different 
meta-data fields, including a relevance score15 for the classification calculated 
by CORTEX; 

•  an additional selection of information has been performed through searches in 
other  eGrants  datasets  (mainly  from  CORDIS  &  CORDA)  and  external 
websites (e.g. reports, articles);  

•  a grouping by SRIP chapters used to categorise projects, considering all other 

meta-data (e.g. keywords, title). 

Due  to  the  acquisition  of  too  broad  results  on  the  SRIP  chapter  relating  to  ‘cross-
cutting  aspects’,  it  was  decided  to  segregate  its  components  into  four  sub-chapters. 
Following this categorisation, the final SRIP categories appear in Table 1. 

Table 1. The different sections of the SRIP chapters and sub-chapters to categorize 
projects in the portfolio 

SRIP 
chapter 

Sub-

chapter  Content 

1 
2 
3 
4 

 Data 
 Validation and standardisation  
 Education 
 Business 

Enablers & cross-
cutting aspects 

 Safe and sustainable by design  
 Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies  
 Exposure 
 Hazard assessment  
 Risk assessment  
 Decontamination and remediating pollution  

3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

15  Scoring system to evaluate confidence into the automatic categorization of projects 
(https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/guide/current/scoring-theory.html). 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4.  Validation by external experts  

The raw portfolio identified through the CORTEX step was - as final step - validated by 
an  expert  group  of  data  scientists 16.  If  information  was  missing  but  available  in  other 
Commission  project  management  tools,  then  the  database  of  the  portfolio  was 
updated.  If  not,  information  was  gathered  from  external  documents  (e.g.  from  project 
websites).  Even  after  this  step,  gaps  remained  for  some  projects,  these  were 
designated as “non-attributed” and were excluded from further analysis. Furthermore, 
an  evaluation  was  performed  on  relevance  of  the  project  to  the  assigned  chapter,  as 
well as a classification to ‘lead’/‘secondary’ category. Lastly, the analysis was validated 
by in-house experts. 

Overall, this stage consists of the following steps (Figure 2):  

• A validation step to revise the raw portfolio and create the final portfolio by checking 
the “false positives” based on the meta-data extracted from CORTEX. 

• A second step with additional meta-data retrieved manually for a final relevance. 

Figure 2. Overview of the steps followed for the project final portfolio creation and 
analysis using the human-evaluation step 

Based  on  desk  research  on  the  available  information  in  the  project  description  (from 
publicly  available  databases  such  as  CORDIS  and  LIFE  Public  database)  and  the 
project websites (if available), the relevance of the projects to the SRIP chapters was 
assessed. In the second round, each project was denoted either as “false positive” or 
associated with a ‘lead’ and, if meaningful, one or more ‘secondary’ categories. 

16 https://www.horizonresultsbooster.eu/ 

10 

 
 
 
3.  The analysis of raw and final portfolios 

3.1.  The raw portfolio 

The raw portfolio of projects was acquired via the application of the CORTEX queries 
as  described  above.  The  queries  scrutinised  a  large  number  of  projects  (~12  000 
projects  in  total)  from  five  EU  funding  programmes  –  HE,  IF,  E+,  LF  and  DE  –  and 
accordingly selected 276 projects as relevant (denominated “raw” project portfolio).  

Approximately  79%  of  the  established  raw  portfolio  (218  projects)  was  funded  by  the 
HE  programme,  with  all  projects  belonging  to  the  WP21-22  (101  distinct  topics 
covered). E+ projects accounted for around 8.7% of the portfolio (24 projects), with LF 
following  closely  (6.5%  of  portfolio  with  18  projects).  Lastly,  DE  and  IF  were 
represented with only 12 (4.3%) and 4 (1.4%) projects, respectively (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Distribution of projects within the 276 projects raw portfolio by funding 
programme (in % of number of projects) 

LF

HE

E+

DE

IF

4.3 1.4

6.5

8.7

79

For  the  raw  portfolio,  the  EU  contribution  is  estimated17  to  be approximately  1  490.6 
million EUR. In terms of respective budgets, HE projects accounted for 1 236.6 million 
EUR (83% of the total EU contribution), followed by IF with 186.1 million EUR (12.5%). 
E+  and  LF  were  supported  by  27.2  million  EUR  (1.8%)  and  32  million  EUR  (2.1%), 
respectively. DE projects received the smallest amount of EU support with 8.7 million 
EUR (0.6% of total EU contribution). 

More  specifically,  HE  projects  belonged  to  a  wide  range  of  project  types,  such  as 
Research  and  Innovation  Actions  (RIA;  74  projects),  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions 
(MSCA; 64 projects), Innovation Actions (IA; 24 projects) and European Research Council 
(ERC;  23  projects)  actions.  Other  actions  represented  in  the  HE  portfolio  belonged  to 

17 Due to lack of information, some budgets are consolidated according to requested grants and/or external 

sources which are, nevertheless, considered reliable. 

11 

 
 
 
 
Coordination and Support Action (CSA; 18 projects), European Innovation Council (EIC; 
12  projects),  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology  -  Knowledge  and 
Innovation Community (EIT-KIC; 2 projects) and only one project funded by the COFUND 
action.  Pillar  II  was  the  most  abundant  one  (with  117  projects),  followed  by  Pillar  I  (87 
projects) and Pillar III (14 projects). A more comprehensive analysis on the breakdown of 
the projects in relation to the actions they belong to is presented in Table 2.  

Table 2. Total budget and EU contribution of HE projects by action (in million EUR) in the 
raw portfolio 

Pillar I 

Pillar II 

Pillar III 

HE actions 

ERC 

MSCA* 

COFUND 

CSA** 

IA 

RIA 

EIC 

EIT-KIC 

Total 

Budget - EU contribution 
(in million EUR) 

No. of projects 

38.8 

55.5 

200 

28.1 

212.3 

432 

33.5 

236.5 

23 

64 

1 

18 

24 

74 

12 

2 

1236.6 

218 

* MSCA includes also 4 WIDERA projects. ** CSA includes 5 WIDERA projects. 

Based  on  the  CORTEX  automatic  relevance  score,  203  projects  (73.5%  of  the  raw 
portfolio)  were  initially  considered  relevant  for  only  one  SRIP  chapter,  while  the 
remaining 73 (26.5%) were common for at least two of the SRIP chapters. 

Table 3. Overview of the raw portfolio 

SRIP 
Data 

Validation & Standardisation 

Education 

Business 

SSbD 

SSPT 

Exposure 

Hazard Assessment 

Risk Assessment 

DRP  

HE 

LF 

38 

25 

47 

21 

35 

6 

35 

7 

18 

61 

1 

3 

2 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

12 

FP 
IF 

1 

2 

1 

E+ 

DE 

5 

10 

2 

6 

17 

2 

1 

2 

2 

The number of projects attributed to each SRIP section for each Framework Programme (FP, see section 1.2.1) is presented, 
according  to  CORTEX  relevance  scores  (each  of  the  276  projects  can  have  several  attributions;  Colour  code  emphasises 
trends in a range from the lowest [white] to the highest [green] numbers). Abbreviations: DRP, Decontamination and remediating 
pollution; SSbD, Safe and sustainable by design; SSPT, Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies. 

12 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Taking a broader view (Figure 4-A & Table 3 for details), the most populated chapters 
relate  to  the  ‘enablers  and  cross-cutting  aspects’.  Due  to  this  high  outcome,  the 
assignment  of  projects  to  the  ‘cross-cutting  aspects’  SRIP  chapters  has  been  broken 
down  to  the  clusters  “Data”,  “Validation  and  standardisation”,  “Education”  and 
“Business" for the subsequent analysis. 

Figure 4. Projects’ repartition among SRIP chapters for the raw portfolio (A) and (each 
project is allocated to a section according to its highest relevance score) the final portfolio 
(B) after experts’ review (each project is allocated according to its ‘lead’ attribution) 

A - Raw portoflio (276 projects) 

DRP 57

Risk 6

Hazard 2

Exposure 30

SSPT 6

SSbD 31

Cross-
cutting
aspects
144

Data 35

Valid & Stand 14

Education 64

Business 31

B - Final portfolio (190 projects) 

Exposure 11

Hazard 1 Risk 3

DRP 13

SSPT 68

Cross-
cutting
aspects
60

SSbD 34

Data 16

Education 34

Business 10

Abbreviations: DRP, Decontamination and remediating pollution; SSbD, Safe and sustainable by design; SSPT, Safe and 
sustainable production processes and technologies; Valid&Stand, Validation & standardisation. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.  The final portfolio 

The following findings result from the analysis performed by data scientists within the 
Horizon Results Booster. 

•  65 projects in total out of the raw portfolio of 276 projects (34 HE, 14 E+, 12 
DE and 5 LF – 23.6% of the raw portfolio) were evaluated as “false positive”. 
•  Due to lack of sufficient meta-data (i.e. project not launched yet, unavailability 
of  webpage,  inadequate  data  from  CORDIS),  evaluation  of  the  relevance 
could not be performed for 21 projects (19 HE and 2 E+ projects – 7.6% of the 
raw portfolio).  

This  resulted  in  a  total  of  86  projects  being  excluded  from  the  initial  raw  portfolio  of 
276  projects (a total of 65  “false positive” + 21 lacking data). For all further  analysis, 
we took into account the remaining 190 projects (i.e., 276 raw portfolio minus the 
86  excluded  projects).  The  experts  panel  reviewed  the  portfolio  as  well  as  the 
allocation of projects from each Framework Programme (Table 4). Most of the projects 
of  the  final  portfolio  effectively  belonged  to  two  or  more  SRIP  chapters.  Only  51 
projects  could  be  assigned  to  a  single  SRIP  chapter,  whereas  139  projects  were 
categorised in two or more SRIP chapters. Among those, 48 projects were related to 
three SRIP chapters. 

Table 4. Overview of the final portfolio. Number of projects attributed to the different SRIP 
chapters for each Framework Programme (FP, see section 1.2.1) 

SRIP 
Data 

Validation & Standardisation 

Education 

Business 

SSbD 

SSPT 

Exposure 

Hazard Assessment 

Risk Assessment 

DRP  

FALSE 

INFO 

HE 

16 

22 

7 

34 

60 

11 

1 

2 

12 

34 

19 

FP 

IF 

LF 

E+ 

DE 

4 

3 

4 

1 

1 

5 

8 

4 

12 

15 

1 

From the raw portfolio, “false positive” projects (FALSE) are mentioned, as well as those for which classification and further 
analysis  was  not  possible  due  to  a  lack  of  information  (INFO).  Colour  code  corresponds  to  lowest  [white]  to  the  highest 
[green] numbers. 
Abbreviations: DRP,  Decontamination  and  remediating  pollution;  SSbD,  Safe  and  sustainable  by  design;  SSPT,  Safe  and 
sustainable production processes and technologies. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.  Deeper analysis per funding programme 

3.3.1. 

Horizon Europe (HE) 

The HE programme is the most prevalent funding programme and was represented by 
218 projects in the raw portfolio. According to the automatic CORTEX allocation, those 
projects  were  mostly  populating  cross-cutting  aspects,  mainly  “Data”  (38  projects)  and 
“Education”  (47  projects),  as  well  as  the  chapter  dedicated  to  “Decontamination  and 
remediating pollution” (61 projects). To a slightly lesser extent, “Safe and sustainable by 
design” and “Exposure” categories were populated with 35 projects each.  

Following  the  experts’  review,  34  projects  were  evaluated  as  “false  positives”  and  19 
were  not  attributed  (too  early  stage,  not  started  yet  or  inadequate  data).  Then,  165 
projects  were  found  to  be  relevant  for  the  SRIP  categories.  In  this  final  portfolio,  the 
vast majority of the relevant projects belonged to the categories “Safe and sustainable by 
design”  (34  projects)  and  “Safe  and  sustainable  production  and  technologies”  (60 
projects).  A  total  of  45  projects  were  relevant  to  ‘enablers  and  cross-cutting  aspects’ 
(mainly “Data” with 16 and “Education” with 22 projects), followed by operational sections 
(mainly “Exposure” with 11 projects, and “Decontamination and remediating pollution” as 
‘lead’ category for 12 projects). Mismatches were found between raw and final portfolios, 
mainly  due  to  lack  of  information  during  the  automatic  process.  Indeed,  such  revised 
attribution requires deeper analyses under human supervision (data scientists). 

Specifically, pillars are unequally contributing to the SRIP chapters (see Tables 5 & 7), 
regarding number of projects in ‘lead’ categories. Pillar II is most focused on “Safe 
and  sustainable  by  design”  (18  projects)  and  “Safe  and  sustainable  production 
processes and technologies” (33 projects), with projects linked to HE Clusters 4 & 5. 
However, budget-wise Cluster 1 was found to be the most important one with an EU 
contribution of 260.2 million EUR, thanks to the PARC partnership (200 million EUR of 
EU contribution). Cluster  4 followed with 239.7  million  EUR of EU contribution, while 
Cluster 5 was third with 110.7 million EUR. Others were less represented (Table 7). 

Table 5. Total budget and EU contribution of HE projects by action (in million EUR) in the 
final portfolio 

HE actions 

Budget - EU contribution 
(in million EUR) 

No. of projects 

Pillar I 

Pillar II 

Pillar III 

ERC 

MSCA* 

COFUND 

CSA** 

IA 

RIA 

EIC 

EIT-KIC 

Total 

24.1 

49.7 

200 

11.7 

169.8 

362.2 

24.3 

0 

841.8 

16 

52 

1 

10 

18 

59 

9 

0 

165 

* MSCA includes also 3 WIDERA projects. ** CSA includes 5 WIDERA projects. 

15 

 
 
 
  
Pillar  I  is  supporting  “Safe  and  sustainable  by  design”  (12  projects)  and  “Safe  and 
sustainable  production  processes  and  technologies”  (23  projects),  as  well  as 
“Education”  (16  projects),  with  the  later  linked  to  MSCA  grants.  Pillar  III  has  a  more 
limited impact on SRIP chapters. 

When  all  SRIP  attributions  are  merged  (both  ‘lead’  and  ‘secondary’),  the  most 
populated  groups  remain  the  same  (Table  6).  More  specifically,  the  main  chapters 
identified  were  “Safe  and  sustainable  production  process  and  technologies”  (with  32 
RIA,  11  IA  and  24  MSCA  projects),  “Education”  (with  3  RIA  and  50  MSCA  projects), 
“Safe  and  sustainable  by  design”  (with  26  RIA,  14  MSCA  and  26  RIA  projects)  and 
“Business” (with 22 RIA, 12 IA and 11 MSCA projects). 

A deeper analysis revealed that more than half of the HE projects belonged to RIA (59 
projects)  and  MSCA  (52  projects)  actions.  IA,  ERC,  CSA  and  EIC  actions  followed, 
while only one COFUND project (PARC) was included. It is noteworthy that no EIT-KIC 
projects were part of the final portfolio. The most abundant pillar, Pillar II, consisted 
of 88 projects, followed by Pillar I (68 projects) and Pillar III (only 9 projects). Table 5 
provides a comprehensive breakdown of the projects and their corresponding actions.  

Table 6. Heatmap presenting the 165 HE projects (final portfolio; each project can have 
several assignments) relating to the SRIP chapters and HE programme actions 

Pillar I 

HE 
actions 

ERC 

MSCA 

COFUND 

Pillar II 

Pillar III 

CSA 

IA 

RIA 

EIC 

a
t
a
D

1 

1 

3 

4 

13 

1 

*
d
n
a
t
S
&
d

i
l
a
V

2 

1 

1 

12 

4 

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

50 

7 

4 

3 

1 

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
B

6 

11 

1 

12 

22 

4 

D
b
S
S

6 

14 

2 

4 

26 

3 

T
P
S
S

7 

24 

1 

11 

32 

5 

e
r
u
s
o
p
x
E

5 

5 

d
r
a
z
a
H

1 

2 

6 

9 

4 

k
s
i
R

P
R
D

2 

1 

2 

3 

2 

1 

3 

1 

*no project is associated with “Validation & standardisation” as a ‘lead’ category; colour code emphasises trends in a range 
from the lowest [white] to the highest [orange] numbers). 
Abbreviations: DRP,  Decontamination  and  remediating  pollution;  SSbD,  Safe  and  sustainable  by  design;  SSPT,  Safe  and 
sustainable production processes and technologies; Valid&Stand, Validation & standardisation. 

3.3.2. 

LIFE (LF) 

According  to  the  raw  portfolio,  18  projects  were  widely  spread  among  all  SRIP 
sections, with 12 projects relating to “Decontamination and remediating pollution”. This 
allocation was however not maintained for the final portfolio. 

The  majority  of  LF  projects  (13)  were  considered  as  relevant  after  the  review.  They 
were  mainly  allocated  to  the  cross-cutting  aspects  (“Education”  [4  projects]  and 
“Business”  [3  projects]),  as  well  as  “Safe  and  sustainable  production  processes  and 

16 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
technologies”  (4  projects).  Mismatches  are  also  related  to  automatic  versus  deep 
analysis, with data scientists providing a more accurate evaluation (Table 4). 

3.3.3. 

INNOVATION FUND (IF) 

The  raw  portfolio  included  four  projects,  spread  between  cross-cutting  aspects  and 
“Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies”. 

After  review,  all  4  projects  were  reallocated  to  “Safe  and  sustainable  production 
processes  and  technologies”  as  ‘lead’  category  (Table  4).  IF  came  third  in  EU 
contributions  budget,  for  a  total  of  186.1  million  EUR,  following  the  contribution 
amounts of HE Clusters 1 and 4 (Table 7).  

3.3.4. 

ERASMUS+ (E+) 

Among  the  24  E+  funded  projects  in  the  raw  portfolio,  main  attributions  were  to  the 
section related to “Education” (17 projects), and the “Validation and standardisation” (6 
projects) (Table 2). 

After  reviewing,  15  “false  positives”  were  discarded  as  non-relevant,  while  another 
project (nearly starting project) was excluded from attribution due to lack of information. 
Then, only 8 projects were found to be relevant and were all attributed to the leading 
section “Education” (Table 4 & 7).   

3.3.5. 

DIGITAL EUROPE (DE) 

In  the  raw  portfolio  the  projects  from  this  programme  were  mostly  attributed  to 
‘enablers and cross-cutting aspects’ (10 attributions to “Business” and 5 to “Education”; 
Table 2).  

All  the  12  projects  funded  under  DE  were  however  declared  by  the  experts  as  “false 
positive” for the SRIP categories (sub-sections; Table 4). 

3.4.  Deeper analysis of lead and secondary categories per  

SRIP sections 

Given  the  analysis  by  the  experts,  it  appeared  necessary  to  establish  ‘lead’  and 
‘secondary’ categories when assigning projects to all relevant SRIP chapters. Each 
SRIP chapter could hence feature as a ‘lead’ category where the project had its centre 
of gravity or as a ‘secondary’ category where the project had an impact which is more 
auxiliary.  Obviously,  one  project  can  have  only  one  ‘lead’  category  but  may  have 
several ‘secondary’ ones. For that reason, there are only 190 ‘lead’ attributions (for the 
190 projects) and more than 190 ‘secondary’ attributions. 

The interlinkages between ‘lead’ and ‘secondary’ categories are summarised in Table 
8. Each category could be either identified as a ‘lead’ category (rows of the table) or as 
‘secondary’  category  (table  columns)  for  every  project.  The  values  in  the  diagonal  of 
cells denote the number of projects that are found to be relevant to a category, either 
as ‘lead’ or as ‘secondary’. The number of projects in a ‘lead’ and ‘secondary’ category 
are represented separately (at right and bottom ends, respectively). 

17 

 
For  example,  the  diagonal  cell  for  the  “Data”  category  denotes  that  23  (=  16+7) 
projects  in  total  were  relevant  for  this  category,  16  ones  belong  to  “Data”  as  a  ‘lead’ 
category (as shown in the right end column) and 7 others are devoted to “Data” as a 
‘secondary’ attribution (as shown in the separated row at bottom end). 

Table 7. Distribution of projects in the final portfolio between ‘lead’ categories and 
Framework Programmes (FP, see section 1.2.1) 

‘Lead’category 

a
t
a
D
2 
1 

1 
1 
1 
5 
1 
2 

1 

1 

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

16 

1 

1 

1 

3 
4 
8 

s
s
e
n
s
u
B

i

1 
1 

3 

1 
1 

3 

D
b
S
S

3 
9 
1 
2 

11 
2 
2 
2 
1 

1 

FP 

HE 

Pillar 
I 

Pillar 
II 

Missions 
ERC 
MSCA 
RI 
CL1 
CL2 
CL3 
CL4 
CL5 
CL6 
EIC 
EIE 
EIT 

Pillar 
III 

Wid. & ERA 

LF 
E+ 
IF 
Total per ‘lead’ 
category 

e
r
u
s
o
p
x
E
1 
2 
3 

T
P
S
S

7 
16 

d
r
a
z
a
H

k
s
i
R

1 

1 

  Budget  
P
R
D
1 
2 
2 

2 

3 

1* 

1 

1 

1 

19 
9 
3 
4 

4 

4 

2 
1 
1 

2 
1 

1 

(number of 
projects)  
44.7 (4) 
24.1 (16) 
49.2 (49) 
10.0 (1) 
260.2 (10) 
7.6 (2) 
4.7 (1) 
239.7 (39) 
110.7 (13) 
58.5 (10) 
24.3 (9) 
0.2 (3) 
0 (0) 
8.0 (8) 
18.7 (13) 
12.0 (8) 
186.4 (4) 
Total: 
1 059 (190) 

16 

34 

10 

34 

68 

11 

1 

3 

13 

Colour  code  emphasises  trends  in  a  range  from  the  lowest  (white)  to  the  highest  (green)  numbers).  The  external  right 
column presents the EU contribution in million EUR and the total number of projects (emphasized by colour code from white 
to blue) per funding action. Bottom row presents the total number per ‘lead’ category respectively (colour code from white to 
blue). (*) is for the PARC partnership. 
Abbreviations:  CL,  Cluster;  EIC,  European  Innovation  Council;  EIE,  European  Innovation  Ecosystems;  EIT,  European 
Institute  of  Innovation  &  Technology;  ERA,  European  Research  Area;  ERC,  European  Research  Council;  DRP, 
Decontamination  and  remediating  pollution;  MSCA,  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions;  RI,  Research  Infrastructures;  SSbD, 
Safe and sustainable by design; SSPT, Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies; Wid, Widening. 

The  values  within  the  table  (cells  from  yellow  to  green)  are  the  numbers  of  projects 
found to belong to a ‘lead’ category, but also contributing to a ‘secondary’ category. For 
example, within the table we can see that projects attributed to “Data” as ‘lead’ are also 
attributed to several other SRIP categories, as shown in the “Data” row (e.g. 6 projects 
are  also  attributed  to  SSbD  as  ‘secondary’  category).  Finally,  concerning  “Data”  as 
‘secondary’ attribution, Table 8 shows it also through the Data column (e.g. 2 projects 
attributed to “SSPT” as ‘lead’ are belonging also to “Data” as ‘secondary’ attribution). 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8. Repartition of projects from the final portfolio between different categories 
according to ‘lead’ and/or ‘secondary’ attribution 

d
n
a
t
S
&
d

i
l

a
V

2 

20 

4 

12 

2 

Number of 
projects per 
attribution 

Data 

Valid&Stand 

Education 

Business 

SSbD 

SSPT 

Exposure 

Hazard 

Risk 

DRP 

a
t
a
D

23 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

y
r
o
g
e
t
a
c

’

d
a
e
l

‘

s
A

As ‘secondary’ category 

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
E

s
s
e
n
s
u
B

i

e
r
u
s
o
p
x
E

D
b
S
S

T
P
S
S

d
r
a
z
a
H

k
s
R

i

P
R
D

Total 
as 
‘lead’ 

3 

2 

6 

3 

2 

77 

1 

10 

19 

3 

1 

1 

5 

3 

65 

13 

35 

10 

2 

10 

91 

2 

1 

55 

7 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

16 

1 

1 

4 

3 

12 

1 

2 

8 

1 

16 

0 

34 

10 

34 

68 

11 

1 

3 

1 

14 

13 

Total: 
190 

Total as 
‘secondary’ 

7 

20 

43 

55 

21 

23 

5 

11 

5 

1 

Colour codes emphasise various trends. Throughout the diagonal of the table, total number of projects - attributed both as 
‘lead’  or  ‘secondary’  -  is  mentioned  for  each  SRIP  category.  As  well,  ‘lead’  and  ‘secondary’  amounts  (right  column  and 
bottom row respectively) are provided, with a range of colours from white (lowest) to blue (highest). Within the table, number 
of  projects  cross-attributed  are  outlined,  with  a  colour  range  from  the  lowest  (white)  to  the  highest  (green)  numbers.  
Abbreviations: DRP,  Decontamination  and  remediating  pollution; SSbD,  Safe  and  sustainable  by  design;  SSPT,  Safe  and 
sustainable production processes and technologies; Valid&Stand, Validation & standardisation. 

“Education”,  “Business”,  “Safe  and  sustainable  by  design”  and  “Safe  and  sustainable 
production processes and technologies” exceed 50 projects each (in total of ‘lead’ and 
‘secondary’  attributions).  Table  8  shows  also  that  35  projects  included  in  “Safe  and 
sustainable production processes and technologies” (‘lead’) category also contribute to 
the  “Business”  (‘secondary’)  one.  Again,  this  category  shares  19  projects  with 
“Education”,  as  ‘secondary’  attribution.  On  this  basis,  it  became  clear  that  the  SRIP 
chapters  are  less  populated  as  regards  to  “Exposure”,  “Hazard  assessment”,  “Risk 
assessment” and “Decontamination and remediating pollution” (±10 projects) and even 
to  a  much  lesser  extent,  to  “Data”  and  “Validation  and  standardisation”  (around  20 
projects). For this reason, the following paragraphs are presenting results for clusters 
(i.e. pools) of projects according to leading categories. 

3.4.1. 

SRIP chapter ‘Cross-cutting aspects’  

“Data” cluster 

A  cluster  of  16  projects  from  the  final  portfolio  were  funded  under  HE  actions  (more 
than  half  belonged  to  RIA,  while  the  vast  majority  was  part  of  Pillar  II)  and  were 
associated with an EU contribution of 89.2 million EUR (see Table 9).  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9. “Data” cluster of projects by HE actions 

HE actions 

No. of projects 

Pillar I 

Pillar II 

ERC 

CSA 

IA 

RIA 

Total 

1 

3 

3 

9 

16 

Budget, EU contribution 
(in million EUR) 
2.0 

3.6 

26.0 

57.6 

89.2 

In  terms  of  number  of  projects,  the  most  prevalent  ‘secondary’  category  within  the 
“Data”  cluster  was  “Safe  and  sustainable  by  design”  (6  projects),  followed  by 
“Education” and “Hazard assessment” (with 3 projects each; Figure 5).  

In terms of funding the ‘secondary’ categories with the highest EU contribution in this 
cluster belonged to “Risk assessment” and “Business”, with “Safe and sustainable by 
design” lagging behind (Figure 6). 

Figure 5. “Data” cluster, number of relevant projects as ‘secondary’ category 

Figure 6. “Data” cluster, funding distribution of relevant projects as ‘secondary’ category 
(in million EUR) 

In  this  cluster,  there  is  a  strong  discrepancy  on  ‘secondary’  ranking  between  the 
number  of  projects  and  budget  granted.  It  is  due  to  the  different  HE  instruments 
associated to the categories.  For example, the two projects associated with the “Risk 
assessment” category are large RIA projects, while the three “Education” projects were 
funded by undersized CSA and IA actions. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
“Validation and standardisation” cluster 

None of the projects in the final project portfolio were identified to have “Validation and 
standardisation” as their ‘lead’ category. Nevertheless, 20 projects were attributed as a 
‘secondary’  category  –  mostly  associated  with  the  “Safe  and  sustainable  production 
processes and technologies” as ‘lead’ category. 

“Education” cluster 

The  ‘lead’  category  of  “Education”  was  associated  with  34  projects  for  a  total  EU 
contribution  of  60.3  million  EUR  (Figure  7).  The  majority  of  the  projects  (22)  were 
supported through the HE programme, belonging predominantly to MSCA (16 projects) 
and CSA (4 projects). 

Figure 7. “Education” cluster, EU contribution budget (in million EUR) per programme 

HE

E+

LF

12.0

3.2

45.1

Almost  half  of  the  projects  in  the  cluster  were  found  to  be  relevant  for  at  least  one 
‘secondary’  category,  mostly  the  “Safe  and  sustainable  production  processes  and 
technologies” category, but also the “Business” and “Safe and sustainable by design” 
categories.  No  significant  discrepancies  between  the  distribution  of  the  number  of 
cluster projects and their budgets were identified.  

“Business” cluster 

Ten projects were included in the “Business” cluster, comprising a total budget of 31.5 
million EUR of EU contribution.  

The vast majority of the projects in this cluster were supported by the HE programme 
(three were  an IA, while RIA, MSCA, ERC and EIC actions were represented  by one 
project each). Three of the projects were funded by the LF programme (Figure 8). 

Figure 8. “Business” cluster, EU contribution budget (in million EUR) per programme 

HE

LF

2.3

29.2

21 

 
 
 
 
Four of the projects were evaluated to be associated to a ‘secondary’ category, with 2 
projects to the “Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies” cluster, 
one  project  to  the  “Safe  and  sustainable  by  design”  cluster  and  one  project  was 
associated  with  the  “Education”  category.  This  was  a  MSCA  postdoctoral  fellowship, 
and the value of the grant was significantly lower in comparison to the budgets of the 
other projects in the cluster. 

3.4.2. 

SRIP chapter “Safe and sustainable by design”  

Figure 9. Number and the funding amount corresponding to the projects shared, in each 
‘secondary’ SRIP section 

In  the  "Safe  and  sustainable  by  design"  category,  many  relevant  projects  are  shared  with  other  ‘secondary’  categories.  If 
projects are shared with two or more categories, a thin green line links all (‘secondary’) categories together. 

This  chapter  encompassed  34  projects  all  of  which  were  supported  through  the  HE 
programme, for a total value of 117.3 million EUR. Most of the projects (15) belonged 
to  RIA,  and  10  to  MSCA.  The  other  types  of  actions  were  IA  and  ERC  (3  projects 
each), EIC (2 projects) and one CSA project.  

Almost  all  the  projects  with  this  ‘lead’  category  were  relevant  to  at  least  one  other 
category.  They  were  associated  with  enabling  categories  such  as  “Education”  and 
“Business” (with 10 and 13 projects, respectively), but also with “Safe and sustainable 
production  processes  and  technologies”  (10  projects).  Figure  9  provides  a  schematic 
overview  of  the  categories  associated  with  the  "Safe  and  sustainable  by  design" 
category,  along  with  information  on  the  associated  project  numbers  and  the  EU 
contribution budget. 

22 

 
 
3.4.3. 

SRIP chapter “Safe and sustainable production processes and 
technologies”  

This  SRIP  chapter  includes  the  largest  cluster  of  68  projects  funded  by  HE  (60 
projects),  as  well  as  IF  and  LF  programmes  (4  projects  each).  The  EU  funding  is 
estimated to be 478.3 million EUR (Figure 10).  

Figure 10. “Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies” cluster, EU 
funding (in million EUR) per programme 

HE

IF

LF

8.6

283.5

186.1

The  HE  projects  were  supported  through  RIA  actions  (25  projects),  MSCA  (16 
projects), IA (8), ERC (7) and EIC (4). The distribution of the HE funds among the type 
of actions is presented in Figure 11. 

Figure 11. “Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies” cluster, EU 
funding (in million EUR) per HE instrument type 

RIA

IA

EIC

ERC

11.5

9.9

MSCA

5.5

86.9

169.7

Most  of  the  projects  in  this  chapter  (57  projects)  were  relevant  to  at  least  one 
‘secondary’ category. There was an easily identified concentration (in terms of number 
of projects) in the enabling categories “Business” (mostly RIA/IA projects), “Education” 
(MSCA  projects)  and  “Validation  and  standardisation”  (RIA/EIC  projects).  There  was 
also some association with the “Safe and sustainable by design” category (Figure 12).  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12. Number and the funding amount corresponding to the projects shared, in each 
‘secondary’ SRIP category 

In the “Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies” category, many relevant projects are shared with other 
‘secondary’ categories. If projects are shared with two or more categories, a thin green line links all (‘secondary’) category 
together. 

3.4.4. 

SRIP chapter “Exposure”  

The  “Exposure”  cluster  encompasses  11  HE  projects  with  a  total  EU  contribution  of 
44.6 million EUR. The projects were mainly RIAs and MSCAs. Almost all projects (10 
in  total)  are  found  to  contribute  to  a  ‘secondary’  category  –  mostly  “Hazard 
assessment”,  but  also  enabling  categories  such  as  “Education”,  “Validation  and 
standardisation” and “Data”. Again, the difference between the typical budget of MCSA 
and  RIA  projects  resulted  in  different  distribution  in  the  cluster  in  terms  of  number  of 
projects and budget. 

3.4.5. 

SRIP chapter “Hazard assessment”  

Only  one  project  was  assessed  as  contributing  mainly  to  the  “Hazard  assessment” 
category. CoLiBRI is a MSCA project supported with 206 887 EUR. It was found to be 
also relevant to “Education” and “Safe and sustainable by design” categories. 

3.4.6. 

SRIP chapter “Risk assessment”  

Only three projects could be found under this chapter. The projects were very diverse – 
two of them were HE projects (COFUND and MSCA for a total EU contribution budget 
of 200.2 million EUR) and one was a LF project with a budget of almost 3 million EUR. 
All projects in this cluster were associated with at least one ‘secondary’ category, both 
enablers 
(“Exposure”  and 
“Decontamination and remediating pollution”).  

“Education”)  and  main  categories 

(“Data”  and 

24 

 
 
A  particularly  relevant  example  in  this  chapter  concerns  the  HE  Partnership  for  the 
Assessment  of  Risks  from  Chemicals  (PARC) 18  with  200  million  EUR  in  EU 
contribution. This is an EU-wide R&I partnership to support EU and national chemical 
risk  assessment  and  risk  management  bodies  with  new  data,  knowledge,  methods, 
networks  and  skills  to  address  current,  emerging  and  novel  chemical  safety 
challenges.  

3.4.7. 

SRIP chapter “Decontamination and remediating pollution”  

The “Decontamination and remediating pollution” needs are covered by a cluster of 13 
projects with a total EU contribution budget of 34 million EUR. Twelve of the projects 
are  HE-funded  through  various  actions  –  MSCA,  RIA,  IA,  CSA,  and  ERC  and  EIC. 
There was also one LF project with a 1.7 million EUR EU contribution.  

Ten  of  the  projects  in  this  cluster  were  also  found  to  be  relevant  to  at  least  one 
‘secondary’  category.  The  enabling  categories  (with  “Education”  being  the  most 
prominent both in numbers of projects and EU contribution budget) were well covered, 
while other SRIP ‘secondary’ categories were also found to be relevant (Figure 13).  

Figure 13. “Decontamination and remediating pollution” chapter, number of relevant 
projects by ‘secondary’ category 

18 Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals | Parc (eu-parc.eu) 

25 

 
 
 
4.  Findings  

4.1.  The programmes  

4.1.1. 

Horizon Europe (HE) 

Following the assessment of the relevance of the projects through experts’ reviewing, 
190  projects  were  selected  as  the  final  project  portfolio.  Then,  the  projects  were 
assigned  to  the  different  SRIP  chapters  which  have  been  classified  as  ‘lead’  and 
‘secondary’ categories. 

Based on this methodology, it appeared that ~80% (165 out of 190) of the total number 
of projects in the portfolio belong to HE with a total EU contribution of 842 million EUR. 

The  final  portfolio  also  allows  for  getting  insights  into  HE  clusters.  SRIP-related 
projects  belong  mainly  to  pillars  I  (65  projects  as  ‘lead’,  73.3  million  EUR)  &  II  (76 
projects  as  ‘lead’,  691.4  million  EUR).  Within  pillar  II,  cluster  4  (39  projects  as  ‘lead’, 
239.7  million  EUR)  and  5  (13  projects  as  ‘lead’,  110.7  million  EUR)  are  the  two 
contributing  the  most.  The  projects  funded  by  HE  mainly  focused  on  SRIP  chapters 
related  to  “Safe  and  sustainable  by  design”,  “Safe  and  sustainable  production 
processes  and  technologies”  and  ‘enablers  and  cross-cutting  aspects’.  In  terms  of 
specific  actions  under  HE,  “Safe  and  sustainable  production  processes  and 
technologies”, “Business” and “Safe and sustainable by design” were mainly supported 
by RIA, while MSCA was the principal HE action for “Education”. 

4.1.2.  Other European programmes  

The other European programmes influence the portfolio to a lesser extent.  

The  IF  and  LF  projects  were  strongly  correlated  to  the  “Safe  and  sustainable 
production  processes  and  technologies”  as  ‘lead’  category  –  while  LF  correlated  also 
well  with  “Education”  and  “Business”.  Interestingly,  E+  projects  related  better  to  the 
“Education”  section  as  ‘lead’,  and  “Safe  and  sustainable  production  processes  and 
technologies” as ‘secondary’ affiliation.  

All  DE-funded  projects  had  to  be  classified  as  “false  positive”.  Hence,  DE  has  not 
contributed – under this snapshot – to the SRIP. 

4.2.  The SRIP chapters 

According  to  the  expert  evaluation  on  the  final  portfolio,  upstream  sections  (i.e. 
‘enablers  and  cross-cutting  aspects’  -  especially  “Education”,  “Business”  -  as  well  as 
“Safe and sustainable by design” and “Safe and sustainable production processes and 
technologies”)  were  undoubtedly  more  populated  than  the  downstream  ones  (i.e., 
“Exposure”,  “Hazard  assessment”,  “Risk  assessment”  and  “Decontamination  and 

26 

 
remediating  pollution”).  The  number  of  identified  projects  is  particularly  low  in  the 
“Hazard  assessment”  and  “Risk  assessment”  (with  only  1  and  3  projects  as  ‘lead’ 
categories,  respectively),  which  implies  that  support  in  these  two  cases  is  not 
adequate.  This  shows  a  HE  focus  on  design  and  production  processes  which  are 
the  core  aspects  of  the  value  chains.  This  is  a  major  finding  of  this  study  and  an 
important  element  for  feedback  to  policy  –  as  more  R&I  efforts  could  be  placed  on 
supporting the more downstream SRIP categories via R&I in the future. 

A  striking  finding  was  the  complete  absence  of  ‘lead’  categories  associated  to 
“Validation  and  standardisation”,  although  several  projects  were  associated  to  it  as 
‘secondary’  category  –  mostly  correlated  with  “Safe  and  sustainable  production 
processes  and  technologies”.  Based  on  the  most  recent  programmes,  this  snapshot 
shows  a  shortage  of  R&I  funds  supporting  validation  and  standardisation,  both 
important for ensuring reliability and reproducibility that facilitate regulatory compliance, 
and market acceptance of chemicals, materials or technologies.   

“Safe  and  sustainable  by  design”  and  “Safe  and  sustainable  production 
processes  and  technologies”  are  very  well  associated  with  the  ‘secondary’ 
categories  “Education”  and  “Business”,  with  “Safe  and  sustainable  production 
processes  and 
“Validation  and 
technologies”  also  having  connections  with 
standardisation”. Notably, a strong association between the “Safe and sustainable by 
design” and “Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies” is identified 
– with them appearing as complementary categories.  

Lastly,  “Education”  as  a  ‘lead’  category  exhibits  a  high  correlation  for  the  ‘secondary’ 
“Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies”, while the “Data” category 
displays a proximity for the ‘secondary’ category “Safe and sustainable by design”. 

4.3.  Lessons learnt from the methodology 

Firstly,  it  should  be  noted  that  this  exercise  was  performed  using  EU  data  space 
(eGrants) and on a limited range of time (March 2021 – September 2022).  

Two notable findings relate to the methodology used itself.  

Firstly,  the  careful  choice  of  keywords  and  the  rigorous  structure  of  the  syntax  are 
decisive  for  the  optimal  CORTEX  text-mining  application.  Only  slight  changes  in  the 
choice of either of the above elements can have profound effects on the project portfolio 
to  be  identified,  and  thus,  to  the  end  result.  Secondly,  the  study  was  undertaken  by 
applying  two steps  in the same  process:  the  automatic process  by  using the CORTEX 
text-mining  tool  and  the  evaluation  step  by  an  expert  panel  of  data  scientists.  It  is 
noteworthy that the application of the automatic process is imperative, to mine the vast 
number of projects and other meta-data, as well as to narrow the portfolio into a number 
that is manageable and possible to be analysed in realistic terms.  

However,  the  application  of  a  human-derived  scrutiny  of  the  “raw”  portfolio  arising 
from  the  text-mining  tool  is  also  mandatory,  as  a  major  finding  of  this  study  was  that 
the automatic attribution is not accurate enough solely based on the relevance score of 
CORTEX.  Thus,  the  combination  of  an  automatic  process  and  the  expert  opinion  is 
indispensable to ensure that the analysis is based on a workable portfolio of projects, 

27 

 
which  at  the  same  time  consists  of  a  reasonable  amount  of  “false  positive”  hits,  and 
thus, the right approach to transform raw data into useful and coherent information.  

Finally,  we  excluded  many  projects  (7.6%)  from  the  “raw”  portfolio  for  a  number  of 
reasons  (inadequate  data  from  CORDIS,  unavailable  official  website,  etc.).  This 
highlights the obstacle of data availability and launched a debate about what strategies 
can be employed to overcome this issue. 

28 

 
5.  Conclusions & perspectives  

This  study  establishes  a  baseline  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  Strategic 
Research  and  Innovation  Plan  (SRIP)  for  safe  and  sustainable  chemicals  and 
materials as announced in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS).  

By putting forward this indicator, the Commission aims to help identify and address R&I 
funding  gaps  and  proposes  a  method  to  support  strategic  decisions  in  funding 
programmes. The report highlights chapters of the SRIP receiving R&I funding support 
through five of the latest EU Framework Programmes. It also draws conclusions about 
the  new  methodology  itself  and  suggests  using  a  combination  of  an  automatic  text-
mining tool and expert human reviewing in similar endeavours. 

The  work  focused  on  projects  launched  under  current  European  programmes  before 
the  publication of the  SRIP in October  2022.  It  does  not cover projects  funded  under 
previous European programmes, such as Horizon 2020. 

The study is therefore a snapshot of R&I funding relevant for the  SRIP  and  pinpoints 
areas  which  are  well  or  less  sufficiently  funded.  For  example,  downstream  sections 
(“Exposure”,  “Hazard  assessment”,  “Risk  assessment”  and  “Decontamination  and 
remediating pollution”) were identified to be considerably less frequently represented in 
comparison to upstream ones (“Education”, “Business”, ‘Safe and sustainable’-related 
categories). For further qualitative conclusions about R&I funding in the SRIP context, 
e.g.  focusing  on  specific  outputs,  deeper  analyses  will  be  required  on  (meta-)data 
extracted from past, current and/or future Framework Programmes. 

The  methodology  in  this  report  can  also  be  used  by  Member  States  and  Associated 
Countries  for  any  funding  programmes  relevant  for  the  SRIP.  To  this  end,  the 
Commission 
to  make  similar 
assessments  before  making  investment  decisions,  to  contribute  to  the  successful 
implementation of the SRIP and the CSS. 

invites  EU,  national  and  regional  R&I 

funders 

29 

 
ANNEXES 

ANNEX 1 
Keywords’ list according to SRIP sections and ranking (M for mandatory ones) 

Section 3: Enablers and cross-cutting aspects 

  3.1. Keywords for “Data”: 

M “FAIR” AND ("find” OR “access” OR “interoperab” OR “reus") 

M “Chemical” OR “material” 

M “safe” OR “sustainab” 

  3.2. Keywords for “Validation and standardisation”: 

M “Chemical” OR “material” 

M “safe” OR “sustainab” 

_"OECD” AND (“guidance" OR "guideline”) 

M “validat” OR “standard” 

  3.3. Keywords for “Education”: 

M “Chemical” OR “material” 

M “safe” OR “sustainab” 

M "curricul" OR “education” OR “skill” OR “train” 

  3.4. Keywords for “Business”: 

M “Chemical” OR “material” 

M “safe” OR “sustainab” 

M “as a service" OR “leas” 

M "circular value chain”  

Section 4: Keywords for “Safe and sustainable by design” 

M “Chemical” OR “material” 

M "safe" AND "sustainab" 

_ "by design" OR “by-design” 

_ "model"  

_ "characteri" 

30 

 
 
_ "Life Cycle Assessment" OR “life-cycle assessment” OR “LCA” 

_ “Socio-economic assess” OR “socioeconomic assess” 

_ "Substance" AND "very high concern" OR “SVHC” 

_ “artificial intelligence” 

_ “deep learning” OR “machine learning” 

Section 5: Keywords for “Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies” 

M “Chemical” OR “material” 

M "Production process" OR “production technology” 

_ “clean” OR “green” OR “sustainab” AND “safe” 

_"raw material" OR “primary material” OR “secondary material” OR “feedstock” 

_"recycl" OR "upcycl" OR “sort” OR “separat” OR “optimi” 

_"wastewater" AND “valori” OR “reus” OR “treat” 

_ “emission” AND “valori” 

_"CCUS" OR "carbon capture and storage" OR "carbon capture, utili?ation and storage" 

_ “chemical storage” OR “energy storage” 

_ “energy efficiency” OR “optimi” 

_ “closed-loop” OR “closed loop” 

_”resource management” OR “water management” OR “energy management” 

_ “electrificat” 

Section 6: Keywords for “Exposure” 

M “Chemical” OR “material” 

M “expos” 

_ "monitor" 

_ "pathway" 

_ “analy” OR “characteri” OR “sens” 

_ “bio-monitor” OR "biomonitor" 

_ "Non-target" OR “Non target” 

_ "model"  

_ “environmental fate” 

Section 7: Keywords for “Hazard assessment” 

M “Chemical” OR “material” 

M “hazard” OR “toxic” 

M "assess"  

31 

 
 
 
 
_ "New Approach Methodolog" OR “NAM” 

_ "mixture assessment factor” OR “MAF” 

_ “toxicokinetic” OR “ecotoxic” 

_ “decision support” 

_ “adverse outcome pathway” OR “AOP” 

Section 8: Keywords for “Risk assessment” 

M “Chemical” OR “material” 

M “risk” 

M "assess"  

_ "Group" 

_ "communicat"  

Section 9: Keywords for “Decontamination and remediating pollution” 

M “Chemical” OR “material” 

M “pollut” OR “decontaminat” OR “remediat” OR “restor” 

_ "monitor" OR “detect” 

_ “risk analy” OR “risk management” 

_ “stor” 

32 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 
CORTEX queries for each SRIP sections 

Section 3.1: “Data” 

(title:("Chemical" OR "material") AND ("safety" OR "sustainability") AND ("FAIR" AND 
("find" OR "access" OR "interoperab*" OR "reus*")) OR (free_keywords:("Chemical" 
OR "material") AND ("safety" OR "sustainability") AND ("FAIR" AND ("find" OR 
"access" OR "interoperab*" OR "reus*"))) OR (abstract:("Chemical" OR "material") 
AND ("safety" OR "sustainability") AND ("FAIR" AND ("find" OR "access" OR 
"interoperab*" OR "reus*"))) AND (title:("Chemical" OR "material") OR 
free_keywords:("Chemical" OR "material") OR abstract:("Chemical" OR "material")))  

Section 3.2: “Validation and standardisation” 

((title:("validation" OR "standard") OR free_keywords:("validation" OR "standard") 
OR abstract:("validation" OR "standard")) OR (title:("validation" OR "standart") OR 
free_keywords:("validation" OR "standart") OR abstract:("validation" OR "standart")) 
OR ("OECD" AND "Guideline") OR ("OECD" AND "Guidance") AND (title:("safe" 
OR "sustainable") OR free_keywords:("safe" OR "sustainable") OR abstract:("safe" 
OR "sustainable")) AND (title:("Chemical" OR "material") OR 
free_keywords:("Chemical" OR "material") OR abstract:("Chemical" OR "material"))) 

Section 3.3: “Education” 

((title:("curricul" OR "education" OR "skill" OR "training") OR 
free_keywords:("curricul" OR "education" OR "skill" OR "training") OR 
abstract:("curricul" OR "education" OR "skill" OR "training")) AND (title:("safe" OR 
"sustainable") OR free_keywords:("safe" OR "sustainable") OR abstract:("safe" OR 
"sustainable")) AND (title:("Chemical" OR "material") OR 
free_keywords:("Chemical" OR "material") OR abstract:("Chemical" OR "material"))) 

Section 3.4: “Business” 

((title:"circular value chain" OR free_keywords:"circular value chain" OR 
abstract:"circular value chain") OR (title:("as a service" OR "leas*") OR 
free_keywords:("service" OR "leas*") OR abstract:("service" OR "leas*")) AND 
(title:(("Chemical" OR "material") AND ("safe" OR "sustainable")) OR 
(free_keywords:("Chemical" OR "material") AND ("safe" OR "sustainable")) OR 
(abstract:("Chemical" OR "material") AND ("safe" OR "sustainable"))) AND 
(title:("Chemical" OR "material") OR free_keywords:("Chemical" OR "material") OR 
abstract:("Chemical" OR "material"))) 

Section 4: “Safe and sustainable by design” 

((("deep learning" OR "machine learning") OR "artificial intelligence" OR 
(("substance" AND "very high concern") OR "SVHC") OR ("Socio-economic assess" 
OR "socioeconomic assess") OR "LCA" OR "life cycle assessment" OR "characteri" 
OR "model" OR "by design") AND (title:("safe" AND "sustainable") OR 
free_keywords:("safe" AND "sustainable") OR abstract:("safe" AND "sustainable")) 

33 

 
AND (title:("Chemical" OR "material") OR free_keywords:("Chemical" OR "material") 
OR abstract:("Chemical" OR "material"))) 

Section 5: “Safe and sustainable production processes and technologies” 

((electrification OR "energy management" OR "water management" OR "resource 
management" OR "closed loop" OR ("energy efficiency" OR "optimisation") OR 
("chemical storage" OR "energy storage") OR "carbon capture and storage" OR 
"CCUS" OR "carbon capture, utilisation and storage" OR ("emission" AND 
"valorisation") OR ("wastewater" AND ("valorisation" OR "reuse" OR "treatment")) 
OR ("recycling" OR "upcycling" OR "sorting" OR "separation" OR "optimisation") OR 
("raw material" OR "primary material" OR "secondary material" OR "feedstock") OR 
(("clean" OR "green" OR "sustainable") AND "safe") AND (title:(("production 
process") OR ("production technology")) OR free_keywords:(("production process") 
OR ("production technology")) OR abstract:("production process" OR "production 
technology")) AND (title:("Chemical" OR "material") OR free_keywords:("Chemical" 
OR "material") OR abstract:("Chemical" OR "material")))) 

Section 6: “Exposure” 

(("environmental fate" OR "model" OR "non-target" OR "biomonitoring" OR "bio-
monitoring" OR ("analytical" OR "characterisation" OR "sensor" OR "sensing") OR 
"pathway" OR "monitor") AND (title:("exposure") OR free_keywords:("exposure") 
OR abstract:("exposure")) AND (title:("Chemical" OR "material") OR 
free_keywords:("Chemical" OR "material") OR abstract:("Chemical" OR "material"))) 

Section 7: “Hazard assessment” 

((("adverse outcome pathway" OR "AOP") OR "decision support" OR "ecotoxic" OR 
"toxicokinetic" OR ("Mixture asessment factor" OR "MAF") OR ("New Approach 
Methodology" OR "NAM")) AND ((title:(("hazard" OR "toxic") AND "assessment") OR 
free keywords:("assessment" AND ("hazard" OR "toxic")) OR abstract:("assessment" 
AND ("hazard" OR "toxic")))) AND (title:("Chemical" OR "material") OR 
free_keywords:("Chemical" OR "material") OR abstract:("Chemical" OR "material"))) 

Section 8: “Risk assessment” 

(("communication" OR "grouping") AND (title:("risk" AND "assessment") OR 
free_keywords:("risk" AND "assessment") OR abstract:("risk" AND "assessment")) 
AND (title:("Chemical" OR "material") OR free_keywords:("Chemical" OR "material") 
OR abstract:("Chemical" OR "material"))) 

Section 9: “Decontamination and remediating pollution” 

(("storage" AND ("pollution" OR "decontamination" OR "remediation" OR 
"restoration")) OR ("risk analysis" OR "risk management") OR ("monitor" OR 
"detect") AND (title:("pollution" OR "decontamination" OR "remediation" OR 
"restoration") OR free_keywords:("pollution" OR "decontamination" OR 
"remediation" OR "restoration") OR abstract:("pollution" OR "decontamination" OR 
"remediation" OR "restoration")) AND (title:("Chemical" OR "material") OR 
free_keywords:("Chemical" OR "material") OR abstract:("Chemical" OR "material"))) 

34 

 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of 
the centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 
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,  
-  via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_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 (european-union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 
You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free 
publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre 
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu). 

EU open data 
The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and 
agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial 
purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
− 

The Strategic Research and Innovation Plan (SRIP) 
highlighted research and innovation (R&I) needs crucial for 
accelerating the transition to safe and sustainable 
chemicals and materials. The current report describes a 
methodology for monitoring EU R&I funding allocated to 
the different chapters of the SRIP. This study 
encompassed the identification of the project portfolio by 
CORTEX, a Commission-developed text-mining tool, the 
evaluation of projects for relevance by an expert group and 
the analysis of results. The findings of this study are a 
snapshot of the areas where R&I funding relevant for the 
SRIP components is currently invested through Horizon 
Europe and other Framework Programmes. It is expected 
to contribute towards tracking and monitoring the 
successful implementation of the SRIP and evaluating its 
impact on the R&I for chemicals and materials.  

Research and Innovation policy