Commission Expert Group to support the monitoring of EU missions : final report of the EG.
Date: 2024-01-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU action, EU research policy, innovation, organisation of research, report, research and development, research infrastructure, working environment

EUROPEAN MISSIONS 

Commission Expert Group  
to support the monitoring  
of EU Missions
Final report of the EG

Independent 
Expert 
Report

Research and 
Innovation 

Commission Expert Group to support the monitoring of EU Missions

European Commission
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate G — Common Policy Centre
Unit G.4 — Common Missions & EU Partnerships Service

Contact 
Email 

Marnix Surgeon
 RTD-HORIZON-EUROPE-MISSIONS@ec.europa.eu 
Marnix.Surgeon@ec.europa.eu 
 RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu

European Commission
B-1049 Brussels

Manuscript completed in January 2024.
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 978-92-68-11632-6

doi:10.2777/076494

KI-09-24-014-EN-N

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024

©  European Union, 2024

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). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative 
Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided 
appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective 
rightholders.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Commission Expert Group  
to support the monitoring  
of EU Missions
Final report of the EG

edited by
Erkki Karo (Chair)
Ascensión Barajas
Leena Sarvaranta
Leonidas Antoniou
Patries Boekholt
Patrick Monfray
Sabrina Montante
Sumathi Subramaniam (Rapporteur)

2024

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
EU Missions

GLOSSARY 

AC 

CSAs 

CAP 

CEF 

DG 

Associated Countries 

Coordinated and Support Actions 

Common Agriculture Policy  

Connecting Europe Facility 

Directorate-General 

DG REGIO  Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

DG RTD 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation  

EC 

EIB 

EIC 

EIF 

EG 

ERDF 

ERRIN 

ESIF 

EU 

FP 

HE 

HE KIP 

IAs 

MIP 

MLE 

European Commission 

European Investment Bank 

European Innovation Council 

European Investment Fund  

Commission EG to support the monitoring of EU Missions  

European Regional Development Fund 

European Regions Research and Innovation Network  

European Structural and Investment Fund 

European Union 

Framework Programme 

Horizon Europe 
HE Key Impact Pathways  

Innovation Actions  

Mission Implementation Plan 

Mutual Learning Exercise 

EU MS/AC 

EU Member States and Associated Countries 

RRF 

RRP 

RIS3 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Recovery and Resilience Plan 

Regional Innovation Smart Specialisation Strategy 

UN SDGs 

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 

R&I 

RIAs 

SPC 

STI 

S3 

Research and Innovation 

Research and Innovation Actions and  

Strategic Configuration of the HE Programme Committee 

Science, Technology and Innovation 

Smart Specialisation Strategy  

TRAMI 

Transnational Cooperation on the Missions Approach – EU funded project 

2 

 
 
 
Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 5 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 9 

1.1. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 9 
1.2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT .................................................................................. 10 
1.3. THE EXPERT GROUP’S WORKFLOW ........................................................................................ 10 

2. 

EU MISSIONS – A NOVEL POLICY APPROACH .............................................11 

2.1. A BRIEF HISTORY AND CONTEXTUALISATION ............................................................................ 11 
2.2. MISSION-ORIENTED APPROACHES .......................................................................................... 14 
2.3. EU MISSIONS AS POLICY EXPERIMENTS .................................................................................. 15 

3. 

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED MONITORING FRAMEWORK ................17 

3.1. DEFINING THE PROBLEMS AND GOALS TREE ............................................................................ 17 
3.2. INTERVENTION LOGIC FOR EU MISSIONS AS A POLICY APPROACH .............................................. 17 
3.3 DEFINING THE BEYOND HORIZON EUROPE CONTEXT OF EU MISSIONS AS A POLICY APPROACH ..... 19 
3.4. KEY PILLARS OF EU MISSIONS AS A POLICY APPROACH ............................................................ 21 

4. 

THE PROPOSED MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND INDICATORS ..............26 

4.1. MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND INDICATORS ........................................................................... 27 
4.2. USAGE OF THE MONITORING FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 27 

5. 

PROGRESS REPORT ON EU MISSIONS .........................................................33 

5.1. PILLAR 1: KNOWLEDGE CREATION AND VALORISATION ............................................................. 35 
5.2. PILLAR 2: GOVERNANCE ....................................................................................................... 38 
5.3. PILLAR 3: PARTICIPATORY ENGAGEMENT OF CITIZENS AND STAKEHOLDERS ................................ 45 
5.4. PILLAR 4: POOLING AND SCALING-UP ..................................................................................... 49 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................58 

MAIN FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 58 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ............................................................................ 61 

ANNEX I – THE FIVE EU MISSIONS AT A GLANCE .................................................63 

ANNEX II – INDICATORS AND METHODOLOGIES ...................................................68 

PILLAR 1 - KNOWLEDGE CREATION AND VALORISATION ................................................................... 68 
PILLAR 2 - GOVERNANCE............................................................................................................. 71 
PILLAR 3 - PARTICIPATORY ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS/CITIZENS ............................................ 78 
PILLAR 4 - POOLING AND SCALING-UP........................................................................................... 83 

ANNEX IIIA – SPC SURVEY – THE QUESTIONNAIRE ..............................................88 

ANNEX IIIB – SPC SURVEY – RESPONSES ..............................................................94 

3 

 
 
 
Table of Figures 
Figure 1. The Expert Group’s Workflow ...................................................................................... 11 
Figure 2. Defining the problems to be solved. ............................................................................. 17 
Figure 3. Intervention logic model of EU Missions as a policy approach. .................................... 18 
Figure 4. Units of analysis for defining the beyond HE scope of the monitoring framework. ....... 20 
Figure 5. Participation in the SPC Survey. .................................................................................. 35 
Figure 6. SPC Survey - Strategic orientation and commitment of MS & AC to EU Missions ....... 42 

Figure 7. SPC Survey - Practices for engaging stakeholders, users, citizens in different stages of 
implementing the EU Missions. ......................................................................................... 46 

Figure 8. SPC Survey - Practices  to engage private sector actors  in the implementation of the 
EU Missions ....................................................................................................................... 46 

Figure 9. SPC Survey - Budgetary processes for aligning existing national and regional/local funds with 
the EU Missions. ................................................................................................................. 50 

Figure 10. SPC Survey - Budgetary processes for allocating designated envelopes of national and 
regional/local funds for the EU Missions. ........................................................................... 50 
Figure 11. The three Key Tasks. ................................................................................................. 60 
Figure 12. Main recommendations of the Expert Group. ............................................................. 62 
Figure 13. Mission Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities .................................................................. 63 
Figure 14. Mission Cancer .......................................................................................................... 64 
Figure 15. Mission Adaptation to Climate Change ...................................................................... 65 
Figure 16. Mission A Soil Deal for Europe................................................................................... 66 
Figure 17. Mission Restore our Ocean and Waters .................................................................... 67 

Table of Tables 
Table 1a. EG’s proposed monitoring framework and indicators. ................................................... 6 

Table 1b. Pillars and corresponding indicators of the proposed monitoring framework .............. 29 

Table 2. Comparison of associated indicators in the Monitoring Frameworks for EU Missions as a 
policy approach and Horizon Europe Key Impact Pathways ............................................. 32 

Table of Case Studies 
The “Austrian model” of central policy coordination of EU Missions ............................................ 44 

ERRIN’S Support to EU Missions ............................................................................................... 48 

Embedding EU Missions in Romanian R&I policy through alignment with EU Programmes ....... 52 

EU Missions and Smart Specialisation Strategies ....................................................................... 53 

The European Investment Bank’s support in implementation of the EU Missions ....................... 55 

4 

 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents the results of the work of the Commission Expert Group to support the 
monitoring of EU Missions. The Expert Group (EG) developed a conceptual understanding 
of EU Missions as a policy approach in the context of EU’s research and innovation policy 
and proposes, in this report, a monitoring framework and indicators focusing on the ‘beyond 
Horizon Europe’ scope of Missions’ development and implementation. 

The conceptual understanding of EU Missions as a policy approach, presented in this report, 
is an original piece of work, adapted to the systemic nature of Missions. The EG defined the 
intervention logic for EU Missions as a policy approach in a ‘beyond Horizon Europe’ context 
and identified the key pillars of the approach. The ‘beyond Horizon Europe’ context means 
that our focus is on monitoring activities that are not directly funded by Horizon Europe, thus 
complementing  the  monitoring  conducted  by  the  EC  and  the  EU  Missions.  The  work  was 
supplemented  by  an  initial  mapping  of  the  current  progress  in  implementing  the  five  EU 
Missions as described in Mission Implementation Plans, Mission Assessment Reports, and 
other studies as well as a series of meetings with Mission Secretariats and other Missions’ 
stakeholders.  

Based  on  this,  the  EG  proposed  a  framework  and  indicators,  as  depicted  in  the  Table  1a 
below, that complement the Horizon Europe’s Key Impact Pathways framework and Mission-
specific  monitoring  and  evaluation  systems  currently  in  development.  The  proposed 
monitoring framework enables a systematic monitoring of EU Missions as a policy approach 
as well as, contributes to the monitoring of individual Missions.  

As part of the mandate, the EG deployed the short- to mid-term indicators of the monitoring 
framework through a survey that targeted EU Member States and Associated Countries. This 
enabled a review of the state-of-play of the following three key tasks:  

I.  Monitoring  EU  Missions  beyond  Horizon  Europe,  looking  at  the 
contribution  of  other  funding  programmes  at  EU  and  national, 
regional  and  local  levels  towards  the  achievement  of  Missions’ 
objectives. 

A  first  general  observation is  that  EU  Missions  as  a  novelty  of  the  EU’s  Research  and 
Innovation Framework Programme has been a significant trigger for Mission-oriented 
policy discussions and developments across, and at, different levels of the EU. The 
share of EU Member States and Associated Countries participating in different knowledge 
sharing exercises (e.g., TRAMI project, Mutual Learning Exercises and Enhanced Dialogues 
focusing on Missions) indicates that there is interest and willingness across the majority of 
the European countries to engage in Mission-oriented thinking and policy innovation. At the 
same time, we note that our survey findings, as well as, other prior studies indicate that in 
terms of concrete actions, most countries are at early stages in their contributions to 
EU Missions. 

Our  main  finding  from  the  first  monitoring  survey  is  that  the  majority  of  the  European 
countries  and  regions  are  setting  up  a  variety  of  mechanisms  to  integrate  the  EU 
Missions in their policies and policy initiatives. However, considering the short timeframe 
since the launch of Missions, targeted contributions and pooling of significant financial 
and  non-financial  resources  from  the  public  sector,  community  actions  and  private 
initiatives  towards  the  achievements  of  the  objectives  of  EU  Missions  have  not  yet 
synergised.  

5 

 
PILLAR 

SUB-ASPECT 

INDICATOR 

Pillar 1 
Knowledge 
creation and 
usage 

1.1 Knowledge valorisation at 
local and regional level for 
transformative Mission-
oriented solutions 

1.1.1 

New knowledge created in different 
Mission units (LLs, LHs, cities, hubs, 
platforms) [to launch in 2024+] 

1.1.2 

Novel solutions further developed & 
piloted in Mission units [2024+] 

2.1 Mission-oriented 

governance mechanisms 

2.1.1 

2.1.2 

Mission-oriented governance 
mechanisms at EU level to implement 
EU Missions [Piloted (P) - 2023] 

Mission-oriented governance 
mechanisms at MS and AC level to 
implement EU Missions [P-2023] 

2.2 Acceptance of Mission-

oriented innovation policy 

2.2.1 

3.1 Co-creation of Mission 

3.1.1 

solutions with citizens in 
programs beyond Horizon 
Europe 

3.2 Citizens engaged in 

processes and activities in 
line with the Missions 

Acceptance of Mission-oriented policy 
approach for complex societal 
challenges beyond five EU Missions 
[2025+] 

No. of actions developed by Mission 
units where citizens contribute to the 
co-creation of solutions [2024+] 

3.1.2 

No. of actions reported in 3.1.1 that 
have considered inclusiveness criteria 
[2024+] 

3.2.1 

No. of formal engagement mechanisms 
developed by Mission units [2024+] 

3.2.2 

Presence and relevance of Mission 
goals in (social) media [2024+] 

Pillar 2 
Governance  

Pillar 3  
Participatory 
engagement 
of citizens and 
stakeholders 

3.3 Strong civil engagement 
with R&I solutions for 
societal challenges 
achieved 

3.3.1 

Citizen awareness of the EU Missions 
[2024+] 

3.3.2 

Citizens’ engagement in the EU 
Missions domain [2024+] 

Pillar 4  
Pooling and 
scaling-up 

4.1 Pooling and leveraging 

public and private funds 

4.2 Scaling of transformative 
solutions and supportive 
measures 

4.1.1 

Mission-oriented budgets/funding in EU 
programmes other than HE [P-2023] 

Mission-oriented funding in shared 
management programmes disbursed 
by EU MS/AC; Co-programmed and 
co-funded HE Partnerships allocations 
by EU MS/AC; National and regional 
R&I programmes [P-2023] 

Mission-oriented private sector 
investment & donations from charities 
and philanthropic organisations [P-
2023] 

Innovative solutions further tested and 
deployed across countries and regions 
to support Mission goals [2025+] 

No. and types of institutional changes 
explicitly adopted to support scale-up 
of Mission solutions [2025+] 

4.1.2 

4.1.3 

4.2.1 

4.2.2 

Level  of  monitoring 
of indicators:  

Integrated into 
Mission Monitoring 
Systems 

Common Assessment 
across Missions 

Special EC 
Coordinated Survey  

Table 1a. EG’s proposed monitoring framework and indicators. 

6 

 
 
II.  Monitor whether the EU Missions are on track to deliver against their 

objectives and targeted impacts. 

Missions have largely progressed following the overall design of the approach and specific 
models of each Mission as proposed in respective Mission Implementation Platforms. Whilst 
EU level structures and processes are mostly set up and specific research and innovation 
activities such as piloting and scaling-up of solutions have been launched via calls in Horizon 
Europe, EU Missions are not yet at a stage where monitoring of their contribution to 
the substantive transformative goals of each Mission can be done. 

At EU level, the role of Missions as a policy approach and how to structure its implementation 
was set in the formal Horizon Europe regulations and in the implementation activities of each 
Mission. Beyond Horizon Europe, and at national, regional and local levels, most actors 
are  still  in  the  process  of  “sense  making”  and  exploring  and  experimenting 
appropriate  roles  and  logic  models  for  the  approach,  mainly  based  on  the  existing 
structures. The EG’s survey showed that the “sense making” stage is under development in 
terms of visions of how to plan and coordinate EU Missions and integrate specific Missions 
into national context. Nevertheless, viewed broadly, the on-going process transitions in 
terms of knowledge creation and valorisation, governance, participatory engagement 
of  citizens  and  stakeholders  and  pooling  and  scaling-up  in  the  EU  Missions  are  
indications  that  directionality  towards  achievement  of  the  Missions’  objectives  and 
targetd impacts is taking place.  

III.  Monitor supportive measures implemented to enable EU Missions, 
including policy interventions, governance approaches, deployment 
actions and involvement of end-users. 

There are several new governance approaches to support the EU Missions at EU, national 
and  regional  levels.  At  EU  level,  horizontal  governance  mechanisms  involving  the 
Commission’s  sectoral  Directorate-Generals  for  the  co-management  of  Missions 
seems  to  be  an  accepted  and  functioning  novelty.  Herein,  a  greater  inclusion  of  the 
Directorate-General  for  Regional  and  Urban  Policy  and  its  programmes  in  the  broader 
portfolio of Mission-oriented activities to trigger further coordination and pooling of resources 
at the Member State level is necessary.  

At national level, some countries are developing nationally coordinated governance 
approaches  across  the  five  Missions,  whilst  others  are  building  more  decentralized 
and Mission-specific models. The Mission Data Platform introduced by the TRAMI project 
provides a very detailed overview of these actions as well as a potential platform for future 
gathering and sharing of these practices.   

Our  findings  further  indicate  that  in  cases  where  the  Mission’s  objectives  are  closely 
aligned  to  pre-existing  European  and  national  policy  strategies,  and  when  the 
introduction  of  EU  Missions  has  overlapped  with  national  policy  planning  cycles, 
faster  and  deeper  integration  of  Missions  with  national  systems  and  processes  has 
occurred (e.g. the Europe Beating Cancer Plan, the upcoming Soil Directive in the Common 
Agricultural Policies, the national sustainable cities programmes, the national climate change 
adaptation  plans).  Also,  in  these  cases  the  chances  of  finding  new  policy  interventions 
alongside research and innovation funding decisions are highest. Apart from this, there are 
not many concrete examples of additional supportive policies and strategic activities. 

The inclusion of citizens and stakeholders and co-creation aspects are emphasised in the 
design  of  EU  Missions  as  a  policy  approach.  However,  beyond  traditional  engagement 

7 

 
practices as part of policy making and implementation of Horizon Europe funded and similar 
projects, citizen and stakeholder engagement in the implementation of EU Missions is 
rather  limited  and  requires  further  elaboration  and  conceptualization.  Given  that 
Missions’  goals  require  significant  transformation  of  investment,  consumption  and  other 
behaviours,  it  seems  paramount  that  stakeholders  are  engaged,  brought  on  board  and 
actively participate in the Missions prior to the scaling-up of potential solutions.  

The EG recognizes that the EU Missions as a policy approach is at a relatively early stage of 
its  evolution  and  that  EU  Missions  have  triggered  discussions,  policy  debates  and 
developments on the contributions of different EU and national level actors. Taking this into 
consideration, the report proposes recommendations for improving EU level actions to 
support  the  functioning  and  roll-out  of  the  approach  in  a  ‘beyond  Horizon  Europe’ 
context.  

8 

 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Background 

The European Commission (EC) introduced a novel policy approach – Missions – as part of 
the current Horizon Europe (HE) Framework Programme (FP)1.  This novel policy approach 
combines  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  and  sectoral  policies  to  tackle  some  of  the  more 
complex  societal  challenges  through  new  working  modes  across  different  levels  of 
governance, sectors of society and collaborations combining public and private investments. 
Monitoring  and  evaluation  of  Missions  must  consider  its  scope  and  ambitions,  novel 
processes and approaches. 

In this context, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD) 
set up an Expert Group tasked to develop and deploy a “methodology to monitor EU Missions 
beyond HE, looking at the contribution of other funding programmes at EU and national, as 
well as at regional and local levels towards the achievement of Missions’ objectives” (EG).  

It is expected that the methodology shall enable monitoring of:  

•  EU Missions beyond HE, looking at the contribution of other funding programmes at 
EU  and  national,  regional  and  local  levels  towards  the  achievement  of  Missions’ 
objectives; 

•  Progress of EU Missions to deliver against their main objectives; 

•  Supportive  measures 

including  policy 
interventions,  governance  approaches,  deployment  actions  and  involvement  of  end-
users.  

to  enable  EU  Missions, 

implemented 

The EG’s work builds upon the HE Key Impact Pathways  (HE KIP)2 and complements 
the work done in the context of the overall HE monitoring and evaluation framework, 
Missions specific monitoring and evaluation exercises, and other related studies and 
exercises. It is important to note that none of these exercises looks at Missions as a policy 
approach  and  proposes  relevant  indicators.  HE  KIP  looks  at  within  HE  developments  and 
does  not  provide  indicators  to  monitor  beyond  HE  R&I  developments;  Mission-specific 
monitoring exercises may partially cover beyond-HE elements, but do not focus on the whole 
policy approach. Hence, our work proposes a complementary monitoring lens and indicators 
for monitoring of the systemic approach. 

A key principle is that the framework shall permit the monitoring of EU Missions as a 
systemic  policy  approach  while  accounting  for  different  maturity  levels  and 
development pathways of individual Missions. Therefore, the work of the EG included a 
focus  on  aspects  such  as  process  transformations  across  several  key  pillars  as 
opposed to a solely results-oriented focus dominating traditional project monitoring 
and evaluation. These pillars were chosen with respect to necessary short-, medium-and 

1  Regulation  (EU)  2021/695  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  April  2021  establishing 
Horizon  Europe  –  the  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation,  laying  down  its  rules  for 
participation  and  dissemination,  and  repealing  Regulations  (EU)  No 1290/2013  and  (EU)  No 1291/2013 
(Text with EEA relevance). 

2  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and Innovation,  Nixon, J., Study to support the 
monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  framework  programme  for  research  and  innovation  along  key  impact 
pathways  – Operationalisation  plan  for IT  systems,  Nixon,  J.(editor), Publications  Office  of  the European 
Union, 2022.  

9 

 
 
long-term  actions  for  the  desired  transformative  outcomes  and  impacts.  Furthermore,  the 
EG’s  development  work  took  into  consideration  other  monitoring,  evaluation,  and 
assessment exercises of EU Missions as a policy approach as well as of individual Missions. 
The  proposed  monitoring  framework  for  EU  Missions  as  a  policy  approach  shall  be  an 
umbrella  framework  open  to  inclusion  of  supplementary  monitoring  data  from  these  other 
sources. 

The  EG’s  work  also  includes  guidance  and  suggestions  to  individual  Missions  in  the 
development of their Mission-specific monitoring frameworks, aiming to build synergies and 
complementarities between them.   

1.2. Purpose and scope of this report 

This report proposes a robust and harmonised framework for monitoring EU Missions beyond 
HE that may be utilised for the current five Missions and any future Missions. The monitoring 
framework comprises: 

•  Key  pillars  that  require  process  transformations  at  EU,  national,  regional  and  local 

levels, and  

•  Common  indicators  that  may  be  applied  to  current  and  future  Missions.  For  the 
indicators, while recognizing that some of the indicators need further specification and 
refinement  at  Mission  level,  we  identified  general  data  sources  and  methodologies 
allowing  for  monitoring  over  time  of  achievements,  progress  towards  objectives  and 
impacts, including delivery on EU policy objectives.  

The second part of the report introduces key findings from a survey that the EG carried out 
amongst EU Member States and Associated Countries (EU MS/AC) to pilot a few of the short- 
to medium-term indicators, together with a synthesis of the findings from prior studies and 
evaluation  exercises.  The  report  also  concludes  on  the  main  findings  and  makes 
recommendations for corrective actions. 

1.3. The Expert Group’s workflow  

The workflow of the EG is depicted in Fig. 1. Conceptualisation of the monitoring framework 
was carried out by defining a problems and goals tree for individual Missions (section 3.1) 
followed by a harmonisation exercise across the five Missions to create an intervention logic 
model for EU Missions as a policy approach (section 3.3).  

Hereafter, as mandated in the Terms of Reference of the EG, the beyond HE context of the 
monitoring framework was defined (section 3.4). From the intervention logic model, the EG 
was able to identify four key pillars for transformative action towards achieving the objectives 
of  Missions  (section  3.4).  The  intervention  logic  and  the  four  key  pillars  were  validated 
through a consultation of Mission Secretariats and Mission Implementation Platforms.  

Following this, indicator development work was carried out (sections 4.3 and 4.4) and included 
the identification of level of monitoring and timing (Annex I).  

A survey at EU MS/AC level was used to validate and test a few of the indicators in the proposed 
monitoring framework.  

10 

 
2 

INTERVENTION 

Harmonisation 
exercise 
across the five 
Missions 

1 

CONCEPT 
FORMULATION 

A problems & 
goals tree for 
each Mission 

8 

CONCLUSIONS  

Main findings & 
recommendation
s of the EG  

3 

BEYOND HE 
SCOPE  

Defining the 
units of 
analysis 

4 

FOUR KEY 
PILLARS 

Transformations 
necessary for 
achieving the 
objectives of 
Missions. 

7 

SURVEY AT EU 
MS/AC LEVEL  

Piloting of a 
subset of 
indicators for a 
first assess-
ment  

6 

DEVELOPMENT 
OF INDICATORS 
Identification of 
indicators, level 
of monitoring 
and timing 

5 

STAKEHOLDER 
CONSULTATION 

Validation of the 
intervention logic 
model and the   
4 key pillars 

Figure 1. The Expert Group’s Workflow 

2.  EU MISSIONS – A NOVEL POLICY APPROACH   

2.1. A brief history and contextualisation 

The  emergence  of  Mission-oriented  policy  approach  at  EU  level  started  during  the 
programmatic debates on HE around 2017. The High-Level Group report LAB – FAB – APP, 
mostly referred to as the Lamy Report, looked at how Europe could maximise the impact of 
EU R&I Programmes 3. One of its recommendations was to adopt a Mission-oriented, impact 
focused approach to address global challenges.  

This was very much in line with the earlier Lund Declaration that stated that Europe should 
focus more on the Grand Challenges of our time and move beyond, what they called the rigid 
thematic  approaches.  This  declaration  subsequently influenced  the  focus  of  Horizon 2020 
towards addressing societal challenges. 

In response to the findings of the Lamy report asking for a stronger impact focus for EU R&I 
policy, the concept of an EU Mission policy was further developed, first by the Expert Group 

3 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, LAB – FAB – APP – Investing in 
the European future we want – Report of the independent High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU 
research & innovation programmes, Publications Office, 2017.  

11 

 
 
 
on the Economic and Societal Impact of Research and Innovation (ESIR)4  and subsequently 
by M. Mazzucato in 20185. The ESIR report stressed that challenge-led Missions can achieve 
transformational  change  and  galvanise 
transforming  production, 
distribution, and consumption patterns across various sectors.   

innovation,  while 

Mazzucato’s report further emphasised that Mission policy is about designing and implementing 
Missions in a way that links them to delivery and results, hence bring a stronger stakeholder 
involvement into the research and innovation policy mix.  

While these reports developed the rationale behind Mission-oriented policies and sketched 
what could be achieved, they also gave some initial guidance on how Mission policy could 
be implemented in practice. The ESIR report suggested that Mission-oriented policies need 
a  modular  or  portfolio  approach,  a  broad  range  of  experimental  and  flexible  policy 
instruments, supported by cross-sectoral investments. They explicitly argued for instruments 
to fund the scaling-up of tested innovative solutions for the Single Market, with regulation and 
standards  allowing  this  to  occur  swiftly.  Mazzucato  elaborated  the  selection  criteria  for 
Missions: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

bold and inspirational with wide societal impacts, 

have a clear direction: targeted, measurable, and time-bound, 

ambitious (taking risks) but with realistic R&I actions, 

cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral, and cross-actor innovation, 

allowing for multiple, bottom-up solutions. 

With  these  reports  as  inspiration,  the  Commission  designed  the  Mission-oriented  policy 
approach to be implemented in HE. The impact assessment accompanying the proposal for 
HE6 announced the introduction of a limited number of highly visible R&I Missions with clear 
time-bound goals and expected impact. It was emphasised that the Missions “will be closely 
co-designed  with  end-users  and  citizens,  thus  prioritising  public  engagement  and 
involvement and building upon existing work and prior commitments to bring societal actors 
together to prioritise R&I activities”. 

The Commission then proposed five initial broad Mission areas in autumn 2018 which were 
discussed  and  adjusted  in  the  Council.  After  the  formal  decision  to  launch  HE,  the 
Regulations elaborated the key characteristics and expectations of Missions without referring 
to the five Mission areas that would start after the launch of HE. This suggested a novel policy 
approach which could be applied to any number of Missions within the time span of HE. 

4  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Towards  a  mission-oriented 
research and innovation policy in the European Union – An ESIR memorandum, Publications Office, 2017.  
5 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Mazzucato, M., Mission-oriented 
research & innovation in the European Union – A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth, 
Publications Office, 2018.  

6  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Impact  Assessment,  accompanying  the  document  Proposals  for  a 
Regulation of the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation 
and dissemination, SWD/2018/307 final. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
Missions in the HE Regulations 

1.  Missions  shall  be  programmed  within  the  pillar  'Global  Challenges  and  European  Industrial 
Competitiveness’ but may also benefit from actions carried out within other parts of the Programme 
as well as complementary actions carried out under other Union programmes. Missions shall allow 
for competing solutions, resulting in pan-European added value and impact;  

2. […] ensuring the active and early involvement of the Member States and extensive exchanges with 
the  European  Parliament.  The  Missions,  their  objectives,  budget,  targets,  scope,  indicators  and 
milestones shall be identified in strategic R&I plans or the work programmes as appropriate;  

3. During the first three years of the Programme, a maximum of 10 % of the annual budget of Pillar II 
shall be programmed through specific calls for proposals for implementing the Missions […]; 

4. Missions shall:  

(a) using SDGs as sources for their design and implementation, have a clear R&I content and 
Union  added  value,  and  contribute  to  reaching  Union  priorities  and  commitments  and  the 
Programme objectives referred to in Article 3;  

(b) cover areas of common European relevance, be inclusive, encourage broad engagement and 
active  participation  from  various  types  of  stakeholders  from  the  public  and  private  sector, 
including citizens and end-users, and deliver R&I results that could benefit all Member States;  

(c)  be  bold  and  inspirational,  hence  have  wide,  scientific,  technological,  societal,  economic, 

environmental or policy relevance and impact;  

(d) indicate a clear direction and clear objectives, be targeted, measurable and time-bound and 

have a clear budgetary envelope;  

(e)  be  selected  in  a  transparent  manner  and  be  centred  on  ambitious,  excellence-based  and 
impact-driven, but realistic goals and on research, development and innovation activities;  

(f) have the necessary scope, scale and mobilisation of the resources and leverage of additional 

public and private funds required to deliver their outcome;  

(g) stimulate activities across disciplines (including SSH) and encompass activities from a broad 

range of TRLs, including lower TRLs;  

(h) be open to multiple, bottom-up approaches and solutions which take into account human and 
societal  needs  and  benefits  and  recognise  the  importance  of  diverse  contributions  to  their 
achievement;  

(i) benefit from synergies with other Union programmes in a transparent manner as well as with 

national and, where relevant, regional innovation ecosystems.  

5. The Commission shall monitor and evaluate each Mission […] 

Article 8 - excerpt 

13 

 
 
 
 
In  June  2022,  the  Council  of  the  EU  published  its  Council  Conclusions  on  EU  Missions7 
emphasizing the Missions should have a directionality element underpinned by clear R&I and 
supported by effective governance (horizontal, vertical, portfolio level), citizen engagement, 
and monitoring & evaluation practices that enable the:  

“…collaborative,  transnational,  inclusive,  multidisciplinary  and  cross-sectoral 
approach to address complex societal challenges through the development of a 
systemic and coordinated approach across the whole value chain at EU, national, 
regional and local level through relevant actors, public policies, private initiatives 
and  funding  instruments  and  programmes  within  a  set  timeframe  and  with 
measurable goals... “  

Importantly, the Conclusions highlighted that for many aspects of the Missions there needs 
to  be  recognition  of  the  novelty  and  context-specificity  of  the  Missions,  i.e.  each  of  the 
Missions may require a unique/tailored governance set-up and also each of the EU MS/AC 
is free to set up its own governance model to contribute to Missions. This implies that the first 
years  of  implementing  Missions  are  clearly  exploratory  and  at  experimental  stage  where 
different actors are learning about the potential and practicalities of using this novel approach. 
This also means that monitoring and evaluation exercises should inform about the learning, 
experimental development, and implementation of the approach.  

2.2. Mission-oriented approaches 

While the EC’s initial efforts served as inspiration for several EU MS/AC and regions, at the 
time of the launch of HE, several countries were already experimenting with challenge-driven 
and/or Mission-oriented approaches in R&I policy. Several international review studies have 
mapped and characterised these novel policy approaches and identified numerous initiatives 
resembling  Mission-policy,  also  in  the  adjacent  field  to  EU  Missions.  A  Joint  Institute  for 
Innovation Policy (JIIP) study clearly demonstrated that there is no single model for Mission 
policy and that there are various degrees of Mission orientation8. Thereafter, Larrue made an 
even finer-grained characterisation of Mission-oriented innovation policies across the OECD 
countries to cover their wide variety in policy practice9. He also pointed out that, despite the 
experimentation  in  several  countries,  experience  with  their  design  and  evaluation  is  still 
limited. 

As the EG’s mandate is to monitor Missions beyond HE, it is important to take stock of these 
reviews to see what is already happening in terms of Mission policies across Europe, even if 
they were launched prior to the EC’s Missions. While the more active countries introduced 
their own Mission-oriented approaches several years ago, the specific policy responses of 
EU  MS/AC  regions  specific  to  the  five  EU  Missions  are  at  an  early  stage  as  the  five  EU 
Missions  started  their  work  in  the  past  two  years  and  may  also  be  influenced  by  prior 
development of Mission-oriented policies.  

7 Council Conclusions on European Missions. 
8  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Türk,  A.,  Arrilucea,  E.,  Skov 
Kristensen, F. et al., Mission-oriented research and innovation – Inventory and characterisation of initiatives 
– Final report, Publications Office, 2018. 

9  Philippe  Larrue,  2021.  "The  design  and  implementation  of  mission-oriented  innovation  policies:  A  new 
systemic policy approach to address societal challenges,"OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy 
Papers 100, OECD Publishing. 

14 

 
 
Not only do Mission-oriented policies have different characteristics, but Missions also have 
quite different features. The JIIP review of Mission policy distinguishes transformer Missions 
(with the aim of achieving transformative change addressing societal challenges), accelerator 
Missions  (a  concentration  of  direct  resources  that  relies  on  accelerated  scientific  and 
technological  advancements)  and  hybrid  scenarios.    Based  on  the  information  in  Mission 
Implementation  Plans  (MIPs),  the  five  EU  Missions  are  mostly  transformer  Missions.  The 
Missions are thematically distinct, they are at different stages of development and the nature 
of challenges are Mission specific. The Missions also vary in other respects:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the degree to which they rely on the development of new scientific and technological 
solutions, or rather the deployment of solutions that already exist;  

an  emphasis  on  centralised  (EU,  MS/AC-led) 
decentralized regional, local and citizen interventions; 

interventions  or  rather  more 

the  degree  to  which  policy  leadership  (e.g.  defining  the  ambitions  and  directions)  is 
taken by sectoral policy, or by research and innovation policy actors;  

the degree to which the key perceived impacts of Missions are (for now) focusing on 
public policy issues or on market creation and shaping goals; 

the degree to which the key stakeholder communities of a Mission domain are already 
aware and well organised or still need to be mobilised by the Mission’s activities. 

The positioning of each Mission on these scales asks for a different portfolio of interventions 
and  policy  instruments  to  be  utilised  to  achieve  the  key  objectives.  For  monitoring  and 
evaluation, this means that while one can draft a common intervention logic for Missions as 
a policy approach to inform about the change processes and the general progress of utilizing 
the approach, each of the actual Missions inevitably places its focal emphasis on different 
steps and elements in this intervention logic (e.g., knowledge creation vs usage).  

Hence, the policy approach level monitoring and evaluation exercises can inform and provide 
learning opportunities about general progress in rolling out the policy approach as part of HE, 
as well as about the progress of setting-up and implementing specific Missions vis-à-vis the 
general model (e.g., whether Missions are considering and utilizing all possible resources of 
the  approach).  At  the  same  time,  these  exercises  should  not  be  used  for  comparing  and 
benchmarking the five EU Missions against each other in terms of their “success”.  

2.3. EU Missions as policy experiments 

The goal of EU Missions as a novel policy approach is to have greater impact on societal 
challenges compared to traditional R&I policy. Therefore, Missions are both an R&I policy 
approach and an experimentalist governance approach, i.e., they bring together and address 
two inter-related aspects of policy making10: 

• 

• 

lack  of  sufficient  directionality,  boldness,  inclusiveness,  trans-disciplinarity  of  current 
EU R&I policies and instruments to tackle complex societal challenges; 

limited  use  of  R&I  outputs  in  established  sectoral  public  policy  processes  to  tackle 
complex societal challenges. 

10 Matthijs J. Janssen & Jonas Torrens & Joeri H. Wesseling & Iris Wanzenböck, 2021. "The promises and 
premises of mission-oriented innovation policy—A reflection and ways forward,"Science and Public Policy, 
Oxford University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 438-444. 

15 

 
 
There  is  no  EU  document,  beyond  Article  8  of  the  HE  Regulation,  that  sets  out  the  exact 
structure and logic of EU Missions as a policy approach, as it is an experimental approach. 
This also implies that there are no baselines or established best practices for many elements 
of the policy. Consequently, in the first stages of monitoring, one needs to focus on mapping 
the emergent practices through exploratory means. Monitoring the progress of EU Missions 
as  a  policy  approach,  therefore,  requires  that  we  monitor  first  the  evolving  governance, 
implementation,  and  participatory  processes  alongside  the  traditional  outputs  from  R&I 
activities.  

Once  Missions  have  evolved  through  different  stages  of  implementation  and  matured 
sufficiently, we can move away or complement the process-based view with monitoring of 
transformative  aspects  towards  achievement  of  the  transformative  goals  of  individual 
Missions and Missions as a policy approach i.e., changing the way R&I is done and used in 
policy. Working in this context, the EG proposes a monitoring framework that can be adjusted 
for different stages of the evolution of Missions via selection of specific subsets of indicators 
for monitoring. 

EU  Missions  as  a  policy  approach  as  currently  operationalized in  the  MIPs  of  the  five  EU 
Missions  makes  explicit  the  experimentalism  of  the  approach  vis-a-vis  traditional  R&I 
instruments on several dimensions: 

•  The  substantive  goals  of  EU  Missions  extend  clearly  beyond  the  traditional  7-year 
timeframes of EU FPs. Most Missions set their core targets around 2030 with the Cities 
Mission foreseeing follow-on broader impacts to be achieved in a timeframe extending 
to 2050s; 

•  The emphasis on citizen and stakeholder involvement in all stages of Mission policy 
from design to implementation and monitoring and evaluation. This opens a traditionally 
technocratic and expert-driven policy arena of R&I to more democratic processes of 
priority-setting and co-creation; 

•  The ambitions of the EU Missions to achieve transformative changes within relatively 
short  timeframes  requires  pooling  of  additional  resources  on  a  scale  that  extends  a 
traditional  R&I  policy  context.  This  entails  financial  and  institutional  resources in  the 
form  of  novel  policy  mixes  and  projects  and  initiatives  portfolios  to  be  coordinated. 
These include, and extend beyond the HE scope to other policy domains, EU MS/AC 
and regional levels, private sector and citizen actions.  

The proposed monitoring and evaluation framework offers a tool to capture changes related 
to  these  three  aspects,  that  are  partially  beyond  the  scope  of  the  data  collection  systems 
developed under HE. Therefore, the framework must accommodate the experimentalism to 
inform on the progress in implementing these experimental dimensions at two levels:   

1)  on the level of the policy approach i.e., does the approach as currently designed 

and practiced enable full usage of the experimental dimensions?  

2)  on the level of specific Missions i.e., to provide information on whether EU Missions 
as a policy approach can support the experimental dimensions of specific Mission 
challenges in the different EU Missions domains? 

16 

 
 
3.  RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED MONITORING FRAMEWORK 

3.1. Defining the problems and goals tree 

Based on official Commission documents related to the HE Missions11, core objectives, main 
problems  and  planned  interventions  were  identified  (Annex  I,  Figs.  13-17).  Thereafter, 
through analysis of individual Mission intervention logic models, we defined the intervention 
logic of EU Missions as a policy approach as follows:  

•  Elaboration of a problem tree for each Mission. Problems that are expected to be 
solved  by  each  Mission  were  identified  and  represented  in  a  cascade  format  in  a 
problem tree (Fig. 2).  

•  Transforming  problems  into  goals.  Once  the  problems  were  identified,  they  were 
transformed into goals represented in a goals or outcomes tree included in the logic 
model  (Fig.  3).  The  cascade  design  allowed  distinction  of  interactions  between  the 
outcomes  and  definition  of  temporal  short-,  medium-  and  long-term  outcomes.  The 
uniqueness  of  Missions  is  reflected  in  a  temporal  sequence  of  necessary  activities. 
Herein,  the  long-term  transformative  outcomes  and  impacts  are  solving  specific 
Mission challenges to transforming how STI is used. This requires a more explicit focus 
on  enabling  and  transformer  outcomes  from  providing  necessary  knowledge  and 
solutions to setting-up structures of governance and engagement. 

P R O B L E M   T R E E  

3 

What happens due to the main 
problem? 
Due to main problem….  
problems 4, 5, 6 happen. 

Problem 4 

Problem 5 

Problem 6 

1 

Why has this Mission 
been implemented? 

M a i n   P r o b l e m  

2 

Why has the main problem 
arisen? 
Due to problems 1,2,3…. the 
main problem happens. 

Problem 1 

Problem 2 

Problem 3 

Figure 2. Defining the problems to be solved. 

3.2. Intervention logic for EU Missions as a policy approach  

Based on the conceptualisation and review, the EG constructed a general intervention logic 
model for EU Missions as a systemic policy approach (Fig. 3).  

In our model, the starting point for the changes expected in EU Missions is R&I as defined in 
the HE Work Programmes and specific calls. This R&I-focused logic model for EU Missions 
was  developed  and  operationalized  in  the  HE  KIP.  However,  EU  Missions  as  a  systemic 
policy approach requires commitment, engagement, and active participation from a broader 

11 Includes HE Regulations, Commission Staff Working Documents (SWD) for HE, DG RTD presentations on 

Mission policy and MIPs. 

17 

 
 
IMPACT 

Greater impact on societal challenges compared to traditional R&I policies 

TRANFORMATIVE 
OUTCOMES 

Strong civil engagement with R&I 
solutions for societal challenges 

Transformative solutions solving 
specific Mission challenges 

TRANFORMER 
OUTCOMES 

Citizens engaged in 
processes and 
activities in line with 
the Missions 

Acceptance of 
Mission-oriented 
policy approach for 
complex societal 
challenges 

Engagement and 
commitment of 
national and regional 
actors and private 
sector 

Novel Mission-
specific solutions 
supporting Mission 
goals being scaled 

ENABLER 
OUTCOMES 

New Mission-
oriented governance 
mechanisms at 
MS/AC level to 
implement Missions 

New Mission-
oriented governance 
mechanisms at EU 
level to implement 
Missions 

Leveraging public 
and private sector 
financing for 
Missions 

Missions-relevant 
research and 
innovation outputs 
generated and 
deployed 

OUTPUTS 

MIP Soil Mission 

MIP Oceans & 
Water Mission 

MIP Climate 
Mission 

MIP Cancer 
Mission 

MIP Cities 
Mission 

INPUTS 

Public – private investments under HE, norms, and rules 

Figure 3. Intervention logic model of EU Missions as a policy approach. 

perspective to achieve the expected transformative goals. As such, our model must cover 
the  ’beyond  HE’  scope  to  capture  the  commitment  and  involvement  of  stakeholders  who 
operate beyond the specific rules of HE.   

This is the reason behind inclusion of the implementation plans of the five EU Missions as 
outputs in the intervention logic model for EU Missions as a systemic policy approach. The 
activities planned and coordinated in the MIPs are the immediate result of the HE resources 
(inputs) allocated to HE programmes and calls. Without these initial resources and activities, 
focused on five specific goals, it would not be feasible to go a step forward, beyond HE, and 
reach the “enabler outcomes” (processes level changes) and “transformer outcomes” (actual 
behavioural changes among actors) that lead to the “transformative outcomes” (new system 
dynamics) and final goal which is impact on societal challenges.   

The ‘beyond HE context’ implicit in this intervention logic model is the basis for building a 
monitoring system with two characteristics: 

1.  Complexity-aware monitoring12: Missions are complex policy interventions that attempt 
to  generate  a  social  change,  involving  different  stakeholders  in  the  policy  cycle.  This 
ambitious goal requires systemic interventions, with coordinated and balanced actions 
carried  out  at  different  governmental  levels  and  aligned  with  community  interests. 
Considering  the  embedded  complexity  of  the  Mission-oriented  policy,  the  proposed 
monitoring system should fulfil the following requirements: 

• 

• 

• 

Integrating structural elements, processes, results and interactions among them; 

Providing information about the different perspectives within the system; 

Defining the limits of the system, with a clear view on what belongs to the system 
and what is outside. 

12 Discussion Note - Complexity-Aware Monitoring (usaidlearninglab.org) 

18 

 
 
2.  Harmonization  vs.  Diversity:  The  MIPs  of  the  five  EU  Missions  include  intervention 
logics based on their goals, objectives, and processes. As shown in Figs. 13-17 in Annex 
I, these intervention logics are heterogenous and create challenges for building a common 
monitoring system. The challenge is to create a harmonized intervention logic valid for all 
of  them  and  coherent  with  the  overall  goal  of  the  Mission-oriented  policy.  Hence,  it  is 
important  to  note  that  in  the  intervention  logic  model  depicted  in  Fig.  3,  the  key 
transformative outcomes and impacts of EU Missions as a systemic policy approach are 
defined in a R&I policy specific manner. In this model, Missions strive towards R&I having 
greater  impact  on  societal  challenges  compared  to  traditional  R&I  policies  through 
stronger civil engagement and ability to deliver Missions-specific solutions. It is implicit in 
the model that for each Mission, there are Mission-specific transformative outcomes 
and impacts from specific transformative solutions to the specific intended impacts that 
are defined, operationalized and then monitored and evaluated through Mission-specific 
frameworks. Our work on EU Missions as a policy approach complements these with a 
common logic and monitoring of policy processes and outcomes.  

3.3 Defining the beyond Horizon Europe context of EU Missions as a policy 

approach 

EU Missions as a policy approach is unique by design. In addition to R&I policy actions and 
funding, the approach asks for cross-sectoral policy  coordination and complementary 
activities to achieve the set goals within the ambitious timelines. 

The  EG’s  mandate  is  to  monitor  EU  Missions  in  this  ‘beyond  HE’  scope,  looking  at  the 
contribution of other funding programmes at EU and national, as well as at regional and local 
levels  towards  the  achievement  of  the  Missions’  objectives.  To  demarcate  what  the 
monitoring framework should include beyond HE, units of analysis needed to be clarified.  

The units of analysis considered as beyond HE are depicted in concentric circles around the 
Mission  funding  from  within  HE  (Fig.  4).  As  the  design  of  the  beyond  HE  monitoring 
framework is oriented to future evaluation and impact assessment, the model must consider 
one of the key challenges of evaluation: the attribution of an effect to a particular intervention. 
The further one goes from the directly HE funded activities, the more difficult it is to directly 
attribute their effects to the Missions. Further, as the experimental essence of Missions is to 
trigger complementary activities to support the ambitions of Missions, the activities that shall 
be  included  in  the  framework  cover  more  than  traditional  R&I  interventions  from  funding 
through to institutional processes. 

At the centre circle (C-I) are all R&I activities directly funded by the HE programme for 
the  current  five  EU  Missions.  These  are  monitored  through  the  EC’s  internal  monitoring 
systems,  especially  the  HE  KIP  framework  and  indicators  of  the  HE  as  well  as  Mission-
specific  monitoring  and  evaluation  systems,  and  not  directly  integrated  into  the  proposed 
monitoring framework. There are clear interlinkages between the HE KIP and the proposed 
monitoring  frameworks.  This  entails  the  inclusion  of  all  the  previous  and  current  EU  FP 
funded projects and results as a potential pool of knowledge and solutions to be utilized by 
the EU Missions.  

The second circle (C-II) consists of initiatives, processes, structures, or solutions that are 
launched by the EU Missions and that are also co-funded or co-regulated by other EU 
programmes,  or  by  national,  regional  or  local  funding  programmes,  or  by  other 
stakeholders (e.g., private sector, foundations). In this context, one of the novelties of the 
Mission approach is the focus on specific “Mission units” that are created or selected by 
the Missions to act as core centres of Mission-oriented activities in EU MS/AC and their 

19 

 
regions.  The  specific  focus  of  these  units  is  on  co-creating  knowledge  and/or  piloting, 
demonstrating, and deploying of Mission-relevant activities and solutions. To this end, Cities 
mission has selected 112 cities to act as first pilots to trigger broader changes across the EU 
cities; the Cancer Mission is establishing National Cancer Mission Hubs; Soil Mission has the 
ambition to set-up 100 living labs and lighthouses; Oceans Mission is focusing its actions on 
4  lighthouses  (for  different  types  of  basins);  the  Climate  mission  has  set  up  the  Mission 
Charter  that  has  pooled  by  now  308  authorities  (mostly  regions)  to  work  on  the  climate 
adaptation  and  mitigation  actions.  We  find  that  these  Mission  units  are  important  focal 
points for traceability of the results-solutions-deployment chain and important foci for 
monitoring. As the Missions focus on different types of problems and activities (e.g., different 
types of pilot activities, engagement practices etc), the activities within these Mission units 
can be mostly monitored at the level of individual Missions through customized monitoring 
indicators. But we also find that for the monitoring of EU Missions as a policy approach, the 
Mission-specific monitoring results should be aggregated into general policy level monitoring 
as  well  through  coordination  of  a  common  approach  to  monitoring  and  aggregation  of 
monitoring data.  

In a third circle (C-III) we include all EU Missions concordant initiatives, processes or 
solutions that are independently launched by EU, national, regional, or local funding 
programmes, or by other stakeholders (e.g., private sector, foundations). These can be 
included in the proposed monitoring framework if this support is clearly stated by the initiators 
as being linked to the EU Missions. Again, this can be monitored at the level of individual 
Missions as well as at supra-Mission policy level.  

In a fourth circle (C-IV) we can categorise all other activities, processes and solutions that 
are  in  the  same  thematic  areas  or  following  the  same  objectives  as  the  current  five  EU 
Missions (e.g. national climate change focused Mission-oriented initiatives introduced before 
the  five  EU  Missions  were  launched),  or  have  a  clear  Mission  policy  approach  but  cover 
another thematic area than the EU Missions. This fourth circle of activities and solutions 
will not be included in the monitoring framework as they are too far detached from the 
inner circle, C-I for attribution of their effects to EU Mission policy.   

C-I  All  R&I  activities  directly  funded  by  the  HE 
Programme for five EU Missions 

C-II  All 
initiatives,  processes,  structures,  and 
solutions launched by the HE Missions and that are 
also co-funded or co-regulated by other actors. 

C-III  All 
initiatives,  processes,  structures  and 
solutions  launched  by  other  actors  in  concordance 
with five EU Missions 

C-IV All other activities in the policy domains of five 
EU  Missions  or  Mission-specific  activities  in  other 
policy domains 

I 

II 

III 
IV 

Figure 4. Units of analysis for defining the beyond HE scope of the monitoring framework. 

20 

 
 
3.4. Key pillars of EU Missions as a policy approach 

In the process of conceptualizing EU Missions as a policy approach, we conducted a state-
of-the-art synthesis of the five EU Missions to understand their current stages of development 
(Figs. 13-17, Annex I).  

This  work  allowed  us  to  highlight  the  commonalities  and  key  differences  in  the  roll-out  of 
Missions. Based on this analysis, we defined four pillars that focus on the transformative 
changes in EU Missions, both in specific policy domains of each Mission and in the way 
R&I is used in the context of complex policy challenges.  

Pillar 1: Knowledge creation and valorisation  

EU Missions as a policy approach puts a strong emphasis on demand-driven knowledge 
valorisation  i.e.,  development  of  new  bodies  of  knowledge  as  well  as  usage  of  existing 
knowledge to co-create innovative solutions to achieve the goals of different Missions.  

As the Missions are targeting societal transformations, knowledge valorisation shall combine 
and transform research results into sustainable solutions, products and services that benefit 
society and are the basis for economic prosperity, environmental benefits, social progress, 
and policy making. The success of each EU Mission is, therefore, reliant on the mobilisation 
of a large variety of knowledge from different sciences for the generation of transformative 
solutions,  acceptance  of  these  at  large  and  behavioural  changes,  involving  and  including 
many  actors  from  public  and  private  organisations  to  citizens  and  communities  for  their 
effective implementation at scale, in particular at regional and local levels.  

All five EU Missions engage, to different degrees, in regular projects of HE through Research 
and  Innovation  Actions  (RIAs)  and  Innovation  Actions  (IAs),  but  also  through  more 
specialized and custom-built instruments such as the innovation pilots directly funded through 
the MIPs as in the case of Cities Mission or ad-hoc Coordinated and Support Actions (CSAs). 
More broadly, EU Missions should stimulate multidisciplinary approaches and use the entire 
research and innovation value chain, from fundamental research to applied research and a 
mix of cutting-edge innovations (technological, social, financial, political, educational, etc.).  

Effective  Missions,  therefore,  have  to  operate  as  portfolios  of  actions  –  such  as  research 
projects, policy measures or even legislative initiatives and educational training – to achieve 
a  measurable  goal  that  could  not  be  achieved  through  individual  actions.  To  this  effect,  a 
culture of experimentation and risk taking is a crucial element in the philosophy of Missions. 
This means promoting “thinking out of the box” and stimulating cross-disciplinary academic 
and innovation work, bridges across sectors and cross-actor collaborations to develop new 
solutions and address specific problems7. 

The first enabling action contributing to the achievement of the Mission goals is to secure 
resources and coordination for the portfolios of actions. This should include access to existing 
R&I outputs as well as support of new R&I initiatives to fill the gaps in the R&I space that feed 
into other actions of piloting to scaling-up stages of Missions’ implementation. In this context, 
the EC has developed a Mission portfolio approach for projects supported by FPs for R&I 
(FP7,  H2020,  HE)  and  other  EU  programmes  (EMFF,  Interreg,  LIFE,  etc.).  This  approach 
allows  identification  of  a  portfolio  of  EU  funded  projects  that  have  the  potential  to 
contribute to Mission solutions, and monitors the past and on-going project results that 
could be used by Mission stakeholders.  

21 

 
Further  to  the  monitoring  of  a  portfolio  of  Mission-relevant  projects  is  the  usage  and 
capitalisation of the potential of this knowledge in the development of Mission-oriented 
solutions  that  can  be  further  developed,  tested,  piloted,  and  scaled-up  across  countries, 
regions and communities by various Mission stakeholders. This approach, as well as the HE 
KIP framework, focus mostly on EU-level initiatives as it maps existing and new projects and 
outputs and overlooks R&I activities beyond HE. It does not include potential R&I activities 
and  outputs  at  the  level  of  EU  MS/AC  R&I  actors  that  could  directly  contribute  to  the  EU 
Missions, or could have been called into action to support EU Missions. Given the bottom-up 
and stakeholder-participation driven nature of the EU Missions, this could be an important 
source of knowledge creation and dynamism in the Mission context.  

A  similar  portfolio  analysis  across  all  R&I  actors  at  EU  MS/AC  level  would  clearly  be  too 
complex a task and would entail the risk (as in the case of the EU level mapping) that mapping 
of  projects  also  covers  projects  that  are  in-line  with  the  EU  Missions  but  not  necessarily 
directly linked to them or without clear added value for valorisation. Furthermore, each of the 
EU Missions focuses its core “on the ground” activities in what we call here Mission units. 
Mission units are initiatives promoted and supported by each Mission to initiate the change 
that will generate the expected goals. Currently, these Mission units take different forms, from 
regional or local pilots or demonstrators (Climate) to pilot cities and platforms (Cities), living 
labs  and  lighthouses  (Soil),  pilots  and  hubs  (Ocean  &  Waters),  and  hubs  and  networks 
(Cancer).  They  also  are  initially  selected  and  funded  by  HE  EU  Mission-specific  calls.  As 
Missions’ implementation progresses, we should expect the bottom-up emergence of further 
Mission units (e.g. new cities joining the Cities Mission ambitions, independently or with the 
support of EU MS/AC policy). 

These  Mission  units  represent  a  context  for  monitoring  the  creation  of  new  localized 
knowledge and the use of existing knowledge (either created through EU’s FP projects or by 
other past or on-going initiatives within EU MS/AC) for the development of novel solutions, 
their  testing  and  piloting.  R&I  activities  of  Mission  units  are,  therefore,  a  measurable 
proxy for knowledge valorisation.  

Hence,  for  understanding  the  R&I  role  in  Missions  as  well  as  the  role  of  EU’s  FP  in 
contributing to Missions, it is important to monitor knowledge created from projects supported 
through HE and other EU Programmes, the exploitable outcomes therein and the subsequent 
valorization linked to the Mission units. This will provide an overview of the added value of 
EU  funds  on  Missions  in  the  national  and  regional  research  and  innovation  landscape. 
Mission units established by the five Missions will act within different contexts, governance 
structures and institutional capacity. The knowledge creation and valorisation in the long run 
will be inevitably influenced by contextual factors and actors involved. In some contexts, the 
R&I outputs of EU projects will be directly applicable while in other contexts we might see the 
development and/or utilization of more local R&I outputs.  

The HE KIP captures only the R&I activities implemented through traditional HE calls, mainly 
at the EU level. Hence, there is an evidence gap at national, regional, and local levels. This 
is the reason underlying the introduction of the indicator on knowledge valorisation at regional 
and local levels in the proposed monitoring framework (see Table 1b and Annex II for further 
elaboration of the indicators). The indicator proposed in the monitoring framework can link 
the  EU  portfolio  approach  to  Mission  units  extending  it  to  national  and  regional 
projects that are not supported by EU funding i.e. other activities and initiatives funded 
directly  through  Mission  Implementation  Platforms,  or  by  other  EU  level  and  MS/AC  and 
private sources that are not captured by the EU Mission portfolio approach.  

22 

 
 
 
Pillar 2: Governance 

EU Missions as a policy approach needs to be legitimate and accepted among different policy 
actors, as well as, wider society.  

It is commonly argued that effective Missions addressing complex societal issues require a 
different  governance  approach  in  comparison  to  traditional  R&I  policies  (see 
Mazzucato  201913,  Larrue  202113).  To  maximise  the  contribution  of  R&I  to  address  the 
societal  challenges,  the  R&I  efforts  should  support  or  influence  sectoral  policies  that 
affect the Mission goals and objectives. This asks for new governance mechanisms that 
support achieving directionality, coordination, and synergies between these different 
policy domains. While many Mission-oriented instruments and projects may develop novel 
arrangements for their tasks and bottom-up initiatives, for EU Missions as policy approach, it 
is important to have system-level revisions of governance arrangements to enable more 
systemic  effects.  To  maximise  the  long-term  impact  of  Missions,  the  new  governance 
mechanisms need to engage policy and decision makers from EU MS/AC, regions, and cities, 
to identify, develop, fund, implement and disseminate Mission activities.  

EU  Missions,  therefore,  require  an  effective  multi-level  governance  model.  Furthermore, 
there is a need to tailor the governance model to each of the EU Missions ensuring  

i. 

ii. 

horizontal governance - coordination between relevant actors, public policies, private 
initiatives and funding instruments and programmes at the same administrative level  
vertical governance - coordination between relevant actors, public policies, private 
initiatives  and  funding  instruments  and  programmes  across  multiple  levels: 
European, national, regional, and local. 

The Missions, as expressed in the MIPs, expect the EU MS/AC to contribute through funding 
and supporting of local R&I actions and providing institutional solutions for implementing and 
scaling-up  of  different  solutions  and  practices  towards  achievement  of  EU  Missions.  This 
requires  EU  MS/AC  to  rethink  their  governance  approaches,  to  best  support  EU  Missions 
given their contexts. Nevertheless, EU MS/AC contributions to the Missions is a voluntary 
process  which  accepts  variable  geometry,  meaning  that  countries  can  be  selective  as  to 
which Mission(s) to support in line with their national and regional policy agendas.  

Emergent Mission-oriented practices need to be embedded in different levels of policy 
making (HE, EU beyond HE, MS, AC and regions) in a stable manner and ideally beyond 
the current HE strategic planning period. In this way, EU Missions as a policy approach may 
achieve its desired ambition of introducing a new solutions-oriented R&I policy paradigm, and 
forging closer linkages/synergies between R&I and other “policy” domains in the long term.  

Pillar 3: Participatory engagement of citizens and stakeholders 

The ambition of Missions, in terms of speed and scale of transformative changes, requires 
not only engagement of different actors in R&I projects and initiatives, but also broader and 
extensive societal mobilization. This is essential, on the one hand, to legitimise Missions 
as  cross-silo  collective  efforts  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  foster  collective  behavioural 
changes in society. Engagement of different types of stakeholders, users and citizens in 
Mission  activities  must  cover  planning,  implementation,  monitoring,  and  evaluation 
activities. In this regard, we use the concept “citizens” in a broad sense, including all actors 
not belonging to the traditional R&I system. Nevertheless, this concept is not perfectly defined 

13 Mazzucato, M. (2019). Governing Missions in the European Union - European Commission (europa.eu) 

23 

 
 
and  delimited.  According  to  the  Missions  approach,  citizen  engagement  denotes  the 
development and implementation of solutions by all the social actors concerned by a problem.   

The engagement of citizens and stakeholders is understood as a key element in the five EU 
Missions from two perspectives: they are expected to be part of the change processes and 
also the final recipients of solutions. In this regard, citizens could be involved in different roles 
e.g.,  as  political  agents,  users,  producers,  consumers  or  owners  of  e.g.  land,  buildings  or 
transport means. At the same time, citizens could have different functions, as co-designers, 
co-implementers and co-beneficiaries of solutions developed as part of Missions.  

According to the logic model of EU Missions as a systemic policy approach, the engagement 
of citizens would contribute to the achievements of Mission goals following a three-step path.  

The  first  enabling  action  of  governments  will  be  focused  on  the  co-creation  of  solutions, 
notably based on technological developments. In this regard, citizens will participate in all the 
steps of the policy cycle: agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making, implementation 
and  evaluation.  Co-creation  will  generate  two  benefits:  on  one  hand,  citizens  will  provide 
valuable inputs for policy formulation and R&I processes and on the other hand, scaling-up 
of solutions, oriented to solve the real needs of the society, will be smarter and faster.  

The second step will be the rooting of citizen engagement, by means of stable and permanent 
structures  or  practices  that  act  as  transforming  elements.  The  commitment  of  public  and 
private  organizations  with  civil  engagement  will  generate  two  changes:  on  the  site  of  the 
development of solutions, these mechanisms will reduce the cost and time of the R&I actions, 
due to the learning processes and capacity building in the society. On the other hand, the 
scaling up of solutions will be faster, as a result of this fluid channel with the society.  

Finally,  civil  engagement  in  solving  societal  problems  will  be  embedded  in  the  European 
culture and will remain as a commonly accepted and usual behaviour. At this point, citizen 
engagement in public policies will be the general procedure.  

According  to  the  MIPs  of  the  five  EU  Missions,  initiatives  to  support  engagement  are 
managed through the following mechanisms: 

•  Mapping and opinion collection, actions and databases building, supported by HE calls; 

•  Dissemination activities (identification and rewards for best practices); 

•  Awareness actions, focus on capacity building, literacy, education with pupils, students, 

teachers or parents; 

•  Networking events, such as civil society fora; citizen events; participatory workshops; 

national policy roundtables to elaborate national policy roadmaps; 

•  Co-creation  processes,  aiming  to  identify  priorities;  develop  citizen’  science  actions; 

carry out participative and co-creative methods or implement initiatives; 

•  Creation  of  devoted  structures,  such  as  national  support  structures;  Mission  hubs; 

citizen observatories; citizen assemblies; citizen panels; citizen communities. 

Co-creation, rooting and cultural change towards citizens engagement should be promoted 
not  only  by  HE  calls,  but  also  by  regional  and  national  policies.  To  the  extent  that  public 
policies  are  implemented  at  the  three  levels,  the  benefits  from  citizen  engagement  will 
contribute to the achievement of the five EU Missions’ goals. In fact, indicators on citizens’ 
engagement according to these two dimensions are foreseen to be included in all Mission-
specific monitoring systems. 

24 

 
Pillar 4: Pooling and Scaling-up 

Pooling and scaling-up activities of Missions cover both financing and investments (pooling 
of  R&I  resources,  but  also  resources  specifically  for  scaling-up)  as  well  as  policies  and 
strategies (e.g. regulatory changes, revisions of standards) in support of scaling-up activities 
and large-scale deployment of transformative solutions.  

HE  funds  allocated  to  Missions  are  intended  as  seed  money  to  trigger  the  pooling  of 
further  and  more  significant  financial  resources  across  public  programmes  at  EU, 
national  and  regional  levels  (shared  management,  direct  management)  as  well  as  private 
investments  (including  new  PPP-models  for  industry  transition).  MIPs  explicitly  state  that 
most of the funding needs to be pooled from sources beyond HE (mainly EU MS/ AC levels, 
regional and private investments).  

Contribution to Missions’ objectives will require directional mobilisation beyond HE. In this 
connection, it will be important to support the development of complementary activities by 
European, national, regional and local funding programmes as well as activities supported 
by industry and by charities. Monitoring of the quantification of the further funding planned 
and/or  allocated  at  EU  level  beyond  HE  through  shared  management,  through  national, 
regional  and local  funds  as well  as  private  sector  (industrial  business)  investments will  be 
important,  as  this  will  allow  re-orientation  of  support  and/or  introduction  of  corrective 
measures  where  necessary.  Private  sector  investment  will  be  determinant  for  supporting 
sustainable  infrastructure,  research,  innovation  and  digitalisation,  SMEs  and  social 
investment and skills that are essential for scaling-up of transformative solutions.  

The  five EU  Missions, in  their  financing strategies, include  other  EU  funding,  national  and 
regional  funding  and  private  sources  for  i)  preparing  and  planning,  ii)  accelerating 
transformations,  iii)  demonstrating  systemic  transformations  and  iv)  deployment  of 
transformative solutions at large scale. It shall be noted that leveraging of public and more 
importantly private investments will be vital for scaling-up of solutions.   

For Missions to be successful, implementation must go far beyond R&I to develop new 
solutions,  to  change  production-consumption  patterns  and  to  build  resilience  of 
Europeans. EU level funding programmes kick-start research, development, and innovation 
via a portfolio approach. This portfolio must be linked and expanded at national, regional, and 
local  levels,  and  via  industrial  clusters.  Herein,  engagement  of  interdisciplinary  and  inter-
sectoral stakeholders will be ensured by alignment that favours converging funding rules 
and conditionalities in different policy programmes. 

Permissive regulation must be in place to allow for new transformative solutions to be 
tested  and  deployed  at  large  scale.  Stable  and  robust  framework  conditions,  regulatory 
sandboxes,  future-oriented  legislation,  and  other  processes  must  be  in  place  because 
Missions  are  focusing  on  complex  societal  challenges  with  a  problem-solving  and  action-
oriented approach, involving technological and economic aspects but also individual or group 
behaviour, multi-layer governance and policies and conflicts of interests. 

The  MIPs  do  address  the  need  for  inclusion  and  for  creating  impact  at  scale  via  the 
transformation  of  key  community  systems,  enabling  conditions  and  international 
collaboration. Conducive policy, and regulatory and legal environments that are informed 
through  consideration  of  societal  readiness,  will  be  imperative  for  the  deployment  of 
innovations  that  are  adapted  to  societal  needs  and  are  acceptable  for  society.  Intensive 
policy support and best practice sharing across EU MS/ACneeds to be in place in the 
coming years for pooling/leveraging of resources and for accelerating conducive regulatory 
and  policy  landscapes  in  support  of  deployment  of  Mission-oriented  approaches  and 
solutions.  

25 

 
4.  THE PROPOSED MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND INDICATORS 

The proposed monitoring framework is intended to be a tool to inform on the progress of 
EU Missions as a systemic policy and the impact of Missions at EU, national, as well as 
regional and local levels, where applicable. It is also intended to identify potential needs 
for  corrective  measures.  To  serve  this  purpose,  the  framework  considers  the  main 
characteristics of a Mission-oriented approach: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

directionality element i.e. strategic coordination between R&I and other sectoral policy 
areas;  

utilisation of knowledge towards the achievement of Missions’ objectives; 

collaborative, transnational, inclusive and cross-sectoral approach to address complex 
societal challenges through the development of a systemic and coordinated approach 
across the whole value chain at EU, national, regional and local levels;  

process of co-design, co-implementation and co-monitoring with public actors, private 
sector and civil society at national, regional and local levels; 

substantial investments beyond HE funds, both financial and other resources such as 
policies  and  regulations,  that  need  to  be  pooled  for  testing,  demonstrating,  piloting, 
scaling-up and large-scale deployment of transformative solutions.  

It is clear that the impetus provided at the EU level works as the basis for a further action by 
EU MS/AC. As EU MS/AC represent different contextual landscapes of administration and 
execution, this further action comes as tailored, flexible and bottom-up approaches.  

The monitoring  framework, therefore,  focuses on capturing process  transitions that 
are  essential  for  transformation  in  support  of  achieving  the  Missions’  objectives.  In 
this context, the monitoring framework introduced in section 3.4. is structured into four key 
pillars:  knowledge  creation  and  valorisation,  governance,  participatory  engagement  of 
citizens and stakeholders and pooling and scaling-up. 

To  align  the  proposed  monitoring  framework  with  ongoing  EU  level  and  Mission-specific 
evaluations, assessments, and monitoring work, the EG conducted a series of consultations 
with: 

•  EC services carrying out portfolio analysis of projects funded within the HE programme 

as well as those funded by other European programmes; 

•  EG  leading  the  monitoring  exercise  of  HE  Partnerships  with  a  view  to  setting  up 

implementation synergies in data collections; 

•  Separate meetings with all Mission Secretariats and project management teams of the 

five Missions; 

• 

Joint meetings with the EG, Mission Secretariats, Mission Implementation Platforms, 
DG RTD and other Commission Services such as DG MARE and DG SANTE;  

•  Three meetings with TRAMI - the TRAnsnational cooperation on the Missions approach 
- an EU funded project focussed on Making Missions Work by bringing together MS 
and AC funding agencies, ministries, regions etc., creating Communities of Practice, 
exchanging  knowledge  and  offering  mutual  learning  with  a  view  to  setting  up 
implementation synergies in data collection and exchange of survey results. 

26 

 
Several clear directions arose from these consultations and were considered in developing 
and refining concrete approaches to be used in the monitoring framework for EU Missions as 
a policy approach:   

• 

• 

• 

other monitoring work in progress is relevant and shall be taken into consideration to 
ensure  that  the  monitoring  framework  for  Missions  as  a  policy  approach  and  the 
monitoring frameworks of individual Missions are aligned and complement each other; 

engagement  of  different  constellations  of  EU  MS/AC  representatives  is  essential  for 
tracking the progress and impact of Missions at EU and national level (and at regional 
and  local  level  if  appropriate);  this  engagement  must  be  based  on  a  thorough 
understanding of the broad landscape of Mission-related activities; such an informed 
engagement will foster trust and facilitate mutual learning, informed decision-making 
and can lead to cascading involvement at national, regional and local levels; 

national, regional and local practices should be considered to avoid burdensome data 
collection exercises; 

•  monitoring of private sector investment may require separate coordination efforts at EU 

and national levels;   

• 

it will be important to draw lessons from short-term activities that end as these will be 
beneficial for the further development of current Missions and any future Missions that 
may be launched, and for a sustainable monitoring framework for Missions as a policy 
approach. 

4.1. Monitoring Framework and Indicators 

Building on the conceptual and empirical work described above, a Monitoring Framework for 
EU  Missions  as  a  systemic  policy  approach,  with  a  specific  focus  on  the  ‘beyond  HE’ 
dynamics  of  Missions  is  proposed  (Table  1b).  The  proposed  indicators  capture  unique 
elements of EU Missions as a policy approach and are structured into four key pillars that are 
crucial to achieve the desired outcomes and impacts.  

Annex  II  provides  a  description  of  the  conceptualization  and  rationale  for  the  proposed 
indicators under each pillar as well as a short methodological guide for further development 
and testing of the indicators.  

4.2. Usage of the Monitoring Framework  

The proposed monitoring framework is designed to provide an additional monitoring lens 
to that of the HE KIP, and the Missions’ own implementation monitoring approaches 
currently being developed (see especially indicators in Pillar 1 and Pillar 3 suggested to be 
included in Mission-specific monitoring systems).  

Importantly, the existing monitoring and evaluation approaches, and especially the HE KIP 
framework, do not cover all proposed key pillars and do not focus on the beyond HE context. 
For  example,  while  the  HE  KIP  indicators  provide  monitoring  and  evaluation  data  on  EU 
Mission activities within HE, they do not provide insights on how the R&I potential created 
and delivered is being utilized and valorised in the “beyond HE” activities of the EU Missions. 

The  HE  KIP  framework  is  reliant  on  HE  projects  and  participants  as  the  core  primary 
information sources to which reporting of other data is linked. The starting point for indicators 
in  the  proposed  monitoring  framework  for  EU  Missions  as  a  policy  approach  is  non-HE 

27 

 
projects/participants’ Mission-related activities.  Whilst there may be some overlap in the data 
captured,  the  two  monitoring  frameworks  complement  each  other  in  the  types  of  data 
collected and monitoring perspectives provided. Table 2 compares associated indicators in 
the proposed and HE KIP frameworks. 

Pillar 

Sub-aspect 

Proposed indicator 

Level of data 
gathering 

Timing 

l

e
g
d
e
w
o
n
K

.
1

d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
e
r
c

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
r
o
l
a
v

1.1 Knowledge 
valorisation at 
local and 
regional levels 
for 
transformative 
Mission-
oriented 
solutions  

2.1 Mission-
oriented 
governance 
mechanisms 

1.1.1 New knowledge created 
in different Mission units (living 
labs, lighthouses, cities, 
demonstrators, hubs, etc) 

Data per Mission 
(Mission-based 
specifications 
needed) 

From 2024+ and as 
part of Missions’ own 
monitoring systems 

1.1.2 Novel solutions further 
developed and piloted (lab 
scale) in different Mission units  

Data per Mission 
(Mission-based 
specifications 
needed) 

2.1.1 Mission-oriented 
governance mechanisms at 
EU level to implement EU 
Missions  

Common 
assessment 
across Missions  

From 2024+ and as 
part of Missions’ own 
monitoring systems  

EC supported studies 
collected data on this 
indicator in 2023 (see 
Section 5). Further 
data collection 
exercises should be 
launched in the 
coming years. 

2.1.2 Mission-oriented 
governance mechanisms at 
MS and AC level to implement 
EU Missions 

Common 
assessment 
across Missions 

Piloted in 2023 by the 
EG through the SPC 
Survey 

2.2 Acceptance 
of Mission-
oriented 
innovation 
policy 

2.2.1 Acceptance of Mission-
oriented policy approach for 
complex societal challenges 
beyond original five EU 
Missions 

Common 
assessment 
across Missions 

From 2025+ onwards 
and via EC 
coordinated study 

3.1. Co-
creation of 
Mission 
solutions with 
citizens in 
programs 
beyond HE 

3.2 Citizens 
engaged in 
processes and 
activities in line 
with the 
Missions 

3.1.1 Number of actions 
developed by Mission units 
where citizens contribute to 
the co-creating of solutions   

Data per Mission 
(Mission-based 
specifications 
needed) 

3.1.2 Number of actions 
reported in 3.1.1 that have 
considered inclusiveness 
criteria 

3.2.1 Number of formal 
engagement mechanisms 
developed by Mission units 

3.2.2 Presence and relevance 
of Mission goals in social 
media 

Data per Mission 
(Mission-based 
specifications 
needed) 

Data per Mission 
(Mission-based 
specifications 
needed) 

Common 
assessment 
across Missions 
– social media 
survey 

In line with the KIP 
indicators and 
monitoring, part of 
Missions’ own 
monitoring systems 
In line with the KIP 
indicators and 
monitoring, part of 
Missions’ own 
monitoring systems 
In line with the KIP 
indicators and 
monitoring, part of 
Missions’ own 
monitoring systems 

Special EC 
coordinated survey 
from 2024 onwards 

28 

e
c
n
a
n
r
e
v
o
G

.
2

d
n
a
s
n
e
z
i
t
i
c

f
o
t
n
e
m
e
g
a
g
n
e
y
r
o
t
a
p
c

i

i
t
r
a
P

.

3

l

s
r
e
d
o
h
e
k
a
t
s

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3 Strong civil 
engagement 
with R&I 
solutions for 
societal 
challenges 
achieved  

3.3.1 Citizen awareness of the 
EU Missions 

3.3.2 Citizen engagement in 
the EU Missions domain 

Common 
assessment 
across Missions 
– Eurobarometer 
Common 
assessment 
across Missions 
– Eurobarometer 

4.1.1 Mission-oriented 
budgets/funding in EU 
programmes other than 
Horizon Europe  

Data per Mission 
(Mission-based 
specifications 
needed) 

Special EC 
coordinated survey 
from 2024 onwards 

Special EC 
coordinated survey 
from 2024 onwards 

EC supported studies 
collected data on this 
indicator in 2023 (see 
Section 5). Further 
data collection 
exercises should be 
launched in the 
coming years. 

4.1 Pooling and 
Leveraging of 
public and 
private funds  

p
u
-
g
n

i
l
a
c
s
d
n
a
g
n

i
l

o
o
P

.
4

4.2 Scaling of 
transformative 
solutions and 
supportive 
measures 

4.1.2 Mission-oriented 
budgets/funding in shared 
management programmes 
disbursed by EU MS/AC; Co-
programmed and co-funded 
Horizon Europe Partnerships 
allocations by EU MS/AC; 
National and regional R&I 
programmes  
4.1.3 Mission-oriented private 
sector investment (InvestEU 
and direct investments by 
companies) and Mission-
oriented donations from 
charities and philanthropic 
organisations 
4.2.1 Innovative Mission 
solutions (technological, 
social, financial, political, 
educational etc) further tested 
and deployed across countries 
and regions to support Mission 
goals 
4.2.2 Number and types of 
institutional changes 
(standards, regulations, 
policies, processes etc) 
explicitly adopted to support 
scale-up of Mission solutions  

Common 
assessment 
across Missions  

Piloted in 2023 by the 
EG 

Common 
assessment 
across Missions 

Piloted in 2023 by the 
EG 

Common 
assessment 
across Missions 

From 2025 onwards 

Common 
assessment 
across Missions 

From 2025 onwards 

Table 1b. Pillars and corresponding indicators of the proposed monitoring framework 

As can be seen from Table 2, the indicators of the proposed monitoring framework for the 
EU  Missions  as  a  policy  approach  are  explicitly  intended  to  capture  interventions  and 
progress  “beyond  HE”.  These  include  actions  and  activities  that  extend  far  beyond R&I  to 
other sectoral interventions that may or may not be stimulated by R&I funding (through HE).  

Taken together, data from the two fameworks should provide a holistic picture of the progress 
of EU Missions as well as the overall progress of the policy approach of Missions. The usage 
of the monitoring framework and its indicators shall be agreed upon at EU, MS/AC and 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
Mission stakeholder levels based on added value of the indicators, variables to collect, 
their definitions and avoidance of duplication of efforts. 

The monitoring framework is designed to track progress towards achieving the objectives of 
the Missions as a generic policy approach via short, medium- and long-term actions in 
relevant sectoral policies by public actors, private sector, and civil society, as well as through 
pooling of adequate funding. Hence, the proposed indicators do not have to be launched all 
at the same time but can be gradually introduced – staring initially with indicators focusing on 
enabler and transforming outcomes and moving later to transformative outcomes – to both 
Mission-specific and policy-level monitoring exercises. A few indicators (focusing on setting-
up basic processes) can also be phased out as Missions evolve and mature over the years 
and move towards the 2030 targets.  

The  monitoring  framework,  therefore,  includes  proposals  on  the  timing/launch  of  the  data 
gathering  and  monitoring  exercises  as  indicated  in  Table  1b.  The  proposals  take  into 
consideration that Missions are designed based on a long-term and sequential pathway into 2030 
(and beyond) where some of the key outputs and outcomes will be targeted at later stages.  

Eventual  launch  should  be  of  course  aligned  with  relevant  mission-specific  and  other 
monitoring  and  evaluation  practices  to  avoid  mistiming  and  duplication  of  activities. 
Therefore,  an  important  consideration  that  the  EG  emphasized in  its  development  work  is 
that the monitoring framework shall build upon data reporting in on-going and/or planned 
activities by the five EU Missions, HE KIP framework, and the EU MS/AC activities. As 
the monitoring framework proposes new indictors and thus may entail additional reporting, 
simplification  of  efforts  through  mid-point  and  end  of  FP  as  timepoints  for  more  extensive 
stakeholder consultations for collection of data may be considered.  

At the same time, one must keep in mind that as a novel policy approach Missions tend to 
lack appropriate “legacy” indicators i.e. there are no common baselines and benchmarks. 
Thus,  at  least  in  the  first  stages  of  monitoring  the  beyond  HE  dynamics  of  Missions,  one 
needs to rely on exploratory and more intensive data gathering processes, which can in time, 
as the actual practices become more institutionalised, be codified, and automated. 

In keeping with this, we have proposed (Table 1b) that: 

• 

• 

• 

some of the proposed indicators (especially in Pillar 1 and 3) are included, through 
necessary  customisation,  in  Mission-specific  monitoring  systems,  but  these 
should be also coordinated accross the different EU Missions to enable common policy-
approach  level  monitoring  of  these  aspects  (especially  the  R&I  and  participation 
elements of EU Missions); 

some of the data for the indicators may be collected and analysed by the EC or by EC 
supported  external  initiatives  (e.g.,  as  part  of  Commission  surveys  such  as  the 
biennial EU R&I policy questionnaire distributed as part of the OECD STIP Compass 
exercise, Eurobarometer surveys);  

the  type  and  frequency  of  data  collection shall  be  coordinated  to  coincide  with  the 
Missions’ life cycle and with on-going and/or planned initiatives, such as Mission-
specific KIP monitoring, HE monitoring and evaluation exercise, and specific studies, 
e.g. the TRAMI survey. 

30 

 
 
Monitoring Framework for EU 
Missions as a policy approach 

Horizon Europe                                                     

Key Impact Pathways Framework 

Pillar 1 - Knowledge creation and 
valorisation 

Relevant KIP indicators and their differences 
compared to EG proposed indicators 

KIP  1  Short-  and  medium-term  indicators  (publications 
and citations) are limited to publication and citation counting 
and  do  not  focus  on  regional  and  local  knowledge  creation 
and usage. 

1.1.1. New knowledge created in different 
Mission  units  (living 
lighthouses, 
cities, demonstrators, hubs, platforms etc). 

labs, 

KIP 1 Long-term indicator (world class science) focuses on 
worldwide  recognition  (top1%  citation)  and  does  not  focus  on 
regional and local knowledge creation and usage. 

1.1.2. Novel solutions further developed 
and piloted (lab scale) in different Mission 
units. 

The  EG  proposed  indicator  focuses  beyond  HE  and  on  the 
transformative processes at regional and local levels that go 
beyond 
(and  using  both  qualitative  and 
quantitative data). 

technology 

KIP 5 Short- and medium-term indicators (Mission results 
and  outcomes)  is  limited  to  counting  of  products  and 
technological  and  commercial  innovations  in  specific  HE 
projects potentially relevant for R&I Missions, but it does not 
focus on regional and local pick-up and usage. 

KIP5  Long-term  indicator  (Mission  targets)  is  a  broad 
indicator  on  achieved  Missions’ 
targets  using  mostly 
qualitative  information  using  impact  studies,  and  where 
possible  quantitative  date,  that  could  benefit  from  the  more 
detailed indicators of this report. 

KIP6 Long-term indicator (societal R&I uptake) is focusing 
on  the  uptake  of  HE  co-created  scientific  results  and 
innovative solutions, but it does not focus on Missions-specific 
regional and local pick-up and usage. 

The  EG  proposed  indicator  focuses  beyond  HE  and  on  the 
transformative processes at regional and local levels that go 
beyond technology and economics (using both qualitative and 
quantitative data). 

Pillar 2 – Governance 

Not covered in HE KIP 

Pillar 3 - Participatory engagement 
of stakeholders/citizens 

Relevant KIP indicators and their differences 
compared to EG proposed indicators 

3.1.1.  Number  of  actions  developed  by 
Mission  units  where  citizens  contribute  to 
the co-creating of solutions 

KIP 6 Short-term indicator (co-creation) is a simple count 
of  all  ongoing  and  finished  HE  projects  where  EU  citizens, 
workers and other end-users contribute to the co-creation of 
R&I  content.  The  EG  proposed  3.1.1  indicator  suggests    to 
extend  this  indicators  to  “beyond  HE”  activities  of  Mission 
units. 

3.1.2. Number of actions reported in 3.1.1 
that have considered inclusiveness criteria 

Not covered in KIP 

3.2.1.  Number  of  formal  engagement 
mechanisms developed by Mission units 

KIP 6 Medium-term indicator (engagement) - number and 
share  of  FP  beneficiaries  with  citizen  and  end-user 
engagement  mechanisms  after  HE  projects.  The  EG 
proposed 3.3.1 indicator suggests extending this indicators to 
“beyond HE” activities of Mission units. 

3.2.2. Presence and relevance of 
Mission goals in social media 

Not covered in HE KIP 

31 

 
 
 
3.3.1. Citizen awareness of the EU 
Missions 

3.3.2. Citizen engagement in the EU 
Missions domain 

Not covered in HE KIP 

Not covered in HE KIP 

Pillar 4 - Pooling and Scaling-up 

Relevant KIP indicators and their differences 
compared to EG proposed indicators 

4.1.1  Mission-oriented  budgets/funding 
in EU programmes other than HE 

4.1.2  Mission-oriented  budgets/funding 
in  shared  management  programmes 
disbursed  by  EU  MS/AC;  Co-programmed 
Europe 
and 
Partnerships  allocations  by  EU  MS/AC; 
National and regional R&I programmes 

co-funded 

Horizon 

4.1.3  Mission-oriented  private  sector 
investment 
direct 
(InvestEU 
investments  by  companies)  and  Mission-
oriented  donations 
from  charities  and 
philanthropic organisations 

and 

further 

4.2.1 
Innovative  Mission  solutions 
(technological,  social,  financial,  political, 
educational  etc) 
tested  and 
deployed  across  countries  and  regions  to 
support  Mission  goals  –  includes  Horizon 
Europe  R&I  funded  solutions  and  non-
Horizon  Europe  R&I  and  other  sector 
solutions 

KIP 9  Short-term indicator (co-investment) measures the 
amount  of  public  and  private  investment  mobilised  with  the 
initial  investment  from  ongoing  and  completed  Horizon 
Europe  projects  listed  by  participants  as  EU  and  total 
contributions in their HE applications.  

KIP  9  Medium-term  indicator  (scaling  up)  measures  the 
amount of public and private investment mobilised to exploit 
or scale up FP results as declared by the beneficiary entities 
themselves as part of their final reports in terms of investment 
mobilised from regional schemes / national schemes / private 
sources / other European schemes & the amount of private 
follow-up  investment  mobilised  by  FP  companies  derived 
using Orbis Zephyr, Dealroom and/or Crunchbase data.  

The  EG  proposed  indicator  looks  at  co-investment  and 
mobilisation  of  investments  beyond  explicit  links  to  HE 
projects and with specific focus on EU Missions. 

KIP 5 Short- and medium-term indicators (Mission results 
and  outcomes)  is  limited  to  counting  of  products  and 
technological  and  commercial  innovations  in  specific  HE 
projects  potentially  relevant  for  R&I  Missions.  The  EG 
proposed  indicator  looks  at  results  and  outcomes  beyond 
explicit links to HE projects. 

KIP  5  Long-term  indicator  (Mission  targets)  is  a  broad 
indicator  on  achieved  Missions’ 
targets  using  mostly 
qualitative  information  using  impact  studies,  and  where 
possible  quantitative  date,  that  could  benefit  from  the  more 
detailed indicators of this report. 

It is to be noted that for indicator 1.1.2, Mission units are the 
units of analysis whereas for indicator 4.2.1, Horizon Europe 
R&I funded solutions and non-Horizon Europe R&I and other 
sector solutions are included.  

4.2.2  Number  and  types  of  institutional 
changes  (standards,  regulations,  policies, 
processes etc) explicitly adopted to support 
scale-up  of  Mission  solutions  –  data  is 
captured at EU level and mostly at MS and 
regional levels 

KIP 6 Long-term indicator (societal R&I uptake) is focusing 
on  the  uptake  of  HE  co-created  scientific  results  and 
innovative solutions, but it but it does not focus on Missions-
specific  solutions  and  its  pick-up  and  usage.  The  indicator 
4.2.2 proposed by the EG takes an explicitly Missions-specific 
focus on uptake on R&I and other relevant solutions stemming 
for Missions as a policy approach. 

Table 2. Comparison of associated indicators in the Monitoring Frameworks for EU Missions as a policy 
approach and Horizon Europe Key Impact Pathways 

32 

 
 
5.  PROGRESS REPORT ON EU MISSIONS 

The progress reported in this chapter will shed light on: 

•  The effectiveness of the new policy approach for EU Missions and the extent to which 
it  generates  a  higher  mobilisation  of  critical  mass  and  resources  towards  the 
achievement of objectives and impacts; 

•  The progress of EU Missions and underlying activities according to their objectives and 
targeted impacts (individually and collectively; at the EU, national and, where relevant, 
regional and local levels); 

•  Early  implementation  barriers  and  drivers  towards  impacts,  e.g.  in  terms  of 
contributions, coherence, mobilisation of resources, leverage of additional public and 
private funds, engagement and collaboration; 

•  First  results  achieved,  in  view  of  their  further  demonstration,  exploitation  and 
valorisation,  including  for  policy  making  by  Commission  Services  and  national 
administrations.  

The EG’s assessment of the progress on EU Missions as a policy approach is based on the 
following data gathering steps:   

1.  Synthesis of relevant findings from: 

−  Horizon Europe Strategic Plan for 2021-2024 
−  Horizon Europe Work Programmes 
−  EU Missions Implementation Plans 
−  Mission areas review report14 
−  Cancer Mission assessment report 15  
−  Mission Adaptation to Climate Change assessment report16  
−  Mission Climate-neutral and smart cities assessment report17 
−  Mission A Soil Deal for Europe assessment report 18 
−  Mission Restore Our Ocean & Waters and Waters assessment report 19 

14 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Angelis, J., Reid, A., Griniece, E. 
et al., Study supporting the assessment of EU Missions and the review of Mission areas – Mission areas 
review report, Reid, A.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,  

15  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Angelis,  J.,  Boski,  I., Study 
supporting the assessment of EU Missions and the review of Mission areas – Cancer Mission assessment 
report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,  

16  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Nauwelaers,  C.,  Phillips, 
C., Study supporting the assessment of EU Missions and the review of Mission areas – Mission Adaptation 
to Climate Change assessment report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,   

17 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Kaufmann, P., Wieser, H., Kofler, 
J. et al., Study supporting the assessment of EU Missions and the review of Mission areas – Mission Climate-
neutral and smart cities assessment report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,   

18 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Janssen, M., Schiele, J., Study 
supporting the assessment of EU Missions and the review of Mission areas – Mission A Soil Deal for Europe 
assessment report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,   

19  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Griniece,  E.,  Rantcheva, 
A., Study supporting the assessment of EU Missions and the review of Mission areas – Mission Restore our 
Ocean & Waters and Waters assessment report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,   

33 

 
 
−  Transnational Cooperation on the Missions Approach (TRAMI) – Mapping analysis 

report  

−  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU 
Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward. COM/2023/457 
final 

−  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  accompanying  EU  Missions  two  years  on:  An 
Assessment of progress in shaping the future we want and reporting on the review 
of Mission Areas and areas for institutionalised partnerships based on Articles 185 
and 187 TFEU 

2.  Consultations with the following experts and policy actors: 

−  Separate meetings with Mission Secretariats and project management teams of the 

five Missions; 

−  Joint  meeting  between  the  EG,  Mission  Secretariats,  Mission  Implementation 
Platforms,  DG  RTD  and  other  Commission  Services  such  as  DG  MARE  and  DG 
SANTE; 

−  Discussions with experts from DG REGIO; 
−  A discussion with the expert group monitoring HE Partnerships 
−  Three meetings with TRAMI with a view to setting up implementation synergies in 

data collection and exchange of survey results; 

−  European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN) that has adopted EU 

Missions as a key priority; 

−  Region  Blekinge,  Sweden  on  its  joint  Smart  Specialisation  Strategy  (S3)-EU 

Missions Strategy;  

−  European Investment Bank (EIB) on its support to EU Missions; 
−  Business Europe on private sector engagement in EU Missions & its Position Paper 

in reply to the HE mid-term review public consultation: 

3.  A  survey  of  the  Strategic  Configuration  of  the  HE  Programme  Committee  and 
members of the Missions Working Groups - SPC Survey (Annex III) carried out by 
the EG between 13.09.23-12.10.23 with responses provided at the level of MS and 
AC.  

The EG designed a questionnaire which focused on process oriented indicators in short- to 
mid-term in Pillars 2 and 4 of the monitoring framework, taking into account that  

−  EU Missions were launched in 2021; 
−  A  first  monitoring  report  should  provide  insights  on  the  actual  progress  in 

implementing Missions; 

−  Data gathering capacity at national level is varied; 
−  Other studies and evaluations on EU Missions had been carried out in 2023. 

34 

 
to  coordinate  national 
into  one  national 

The  survey  was  sent  to  the  SPC  with  a 
level 
request 
responses 
level 
total,  21 
response  per  country. 
country  responses  were  received:  17 
from the EU MS and 4 from AC. A few 
EU  MS  informed  that  their  progress  on 
EU  Missions  was  at  an  early  stage  and 
as thus did not permit useful completion 
of the survey. 

In 

In the following sections, we provide the 
overview  of  the  current  state  of  the 
implementation  of  the  EU  Missions  by 
highlighting  progress  on  each  of  the 
Pillars  of  our  monitoring 
framework. 
Indicators  in  Pillars  1  and  3  require 
from  Mission  units  and 
reporting 
aggregation  of  data 
individual 
from 
Missions. As the different Mission units are still in the launch phase and as individual Missions 
have not yet fully finalised their monitoring systems (including defining and collecting data 
from Mission units), the SPC Survey did not include questions on Pillars 1 and 3. For these 
Pillars, a synthesis of findings available in other Missions-related studies and evaluations is 
presented. Findings from the SPC Survey and a synthesis of findings from other Missions-
related studies and evaluations are reported for Pillars 2 and 4.  

Figure 5. Participation in the SPC Survey. 

It was clear that the respondents arranged via the SPC did not have access to all information 
and/or  that  they  were  not  aware  of  all  on-going  processes  in  their  respective  countries. 
Despite this, in relation to Pillar 2 questions, we noted that majority of respondents were able 
to provide assessments on all building blocks in the SPC Survey. In cases where respondents 
completed the questions by Mission, we noted diversity across Missions per respondent. We 
take  this  to  indicate  that  respondents  can  report  progress  in  governance  of  Missions.  In 
addition, open responses to explain the progress in different building blocks indicated that 
respondents  were  able  to  assess  and  describe  the  building  blocks  as  envisioned  in  the 
proposed monitoring framework.  

5.1. Pillar 1: Knowledge creation and valorisation  

As the different Mission units are still in the launch phase, it is not yet timely nor possible to 
synthesise information pertaining to the two Pillar I indicators on new knowledge creation and 
on solutions beyond the R&I actions launched within HE. Also, the already completed studies 
and  evaluations  of  EU  Missions  have  not  defined  Mission  units  as  units  of  analysis,  nor 
collected  regional  and  local  level  data  pertaining  to  Mission  units.  Hence,  the  evidence 
discussed below covers knowledge creation and valorisation processes in a broader context 
of the EU Missions.   

The five EU Missions have different maturity levels in terms of knowledge creation and 
valorisation.  This  is  evident  from  the  proportions  of  RIAs,  IAs,  CSAs  and  procurement 
actions  (including  framework  contracts  etc)  launched  within  HE  Missions-related  Work 
Programmes. For example, there were a higher percentage of RIAs than IAs in the Soil and 
Cancer Missions until 2023. In the Ocean & Waters and Cities Missions, almost half of the 
actions  launched  in  the  period  2021-2022  and  most  calls  launched  in  2023  were  IAs 

35 

 
supporting the testing, piloting, and validation of transformative and innovative solutions. This 
indicates greater emphasis on usage and valorisation of existing bodies of knowledge. 

RIAs and IAs are included in the HE KIP monitoring and evaluation framework. However, the 
activities of CSAs and the procurement and framework contracts will not be as well covered. 
The  latter  could  entail  important  R&I  elements  as  exemplified  by  the  Cities  Mission 
Implementation Platform that funds several innovation pilot projects implemented by selected 
cities considered as Mission units. This type of data, may therefore, not be captured via the 
HE KIP monitoring framework.  

As  indicated  in  section  3.4,  knowledge  valorisation  is  dependent  on  a  Mission  portfolio 
approach covering R&I actions and activities beyond. In this respect, the portfolio mapping 
of the Ocean & Waters Mission identified over 800 relevant projects, past and current, from 
different EU level programmes with a budget of around 4 billion contributing to the Mission 
objectives and enablers (from H2020 and HE to LIFE, Interreg etc)20. Therefore, the Mission 
is acting as catalyst for synergies and complementarities across different EU, national and 
regional programmes, already pooling funds beyond R&I. Further, the recent SWD on “EU 
Missions” emphasised that the pledges to the Ocean & Waters Mission Charter have grown 
rapidly with more than 480 signatories joining the initiative and putting forward initiatives with 
a budget allocation of approximately 3.72 billion EUR.  

While these represent positive developments contributing to the achievement of the goals of 
EU Missions as a policy approach, the interviews carried out in the Ocean & Waters Mission 
assessment report suggest that the contribution logic and added value of the Charter initiative 
is not well understood by target audiences. Regional representatives stated that local actors 
did not see a clear process for, and clear benefit of, joining the Charter. Hence, not all regional 
actors made a pledge. According to the SWD assessing the EU Missions, the most concrete 
achievement  of  the  Ocean  &  Waters  Mission  seems  to  include  the  development  of 
connections between dedicated initiatives and targeted efforts of the Implementation Platform 
and Mission Charter to overcome institutional fragmentation.  The Mission’s added value in 
terms of R&I valorisation and development of effective solutions remains to be determined.  

In the case of the Cancer Mission, the portfolio mapping identified existing and ongoing R&I 
projects  worth  more  than  4  billion  EUR  (from  FP6  onwards)  as  well  as  complementary 
projects under other policy initiatives (e.g. Beating Cancer Plan, Digital Europe etc) that can 
potentially  improve  cancer  understanding  and  research  capabilities  in  the  EU.  Portfolio 
mappings have been carried out for other Missions covering H2020 and HE but not beyond21. 
It is likely that we will see a large diversity in the contribution of past and current FPs’ projects 
towards  the  Missions  as  well  as  in  how  different  EU  programmes  led  by  DG  SANTE,  DG 
CLIMA, DG ENV, DG MARE etc. contribute to the Missions. 

Such portfolio approaches only indicate a potential pool of R&I and other outputs that can be 
used in the context of different Missions. This does not mean that all this potential is deemed 
relevant and will be utilised and valorised. Even in the case of the Mission-specific RIAs and 
IAs funded under HE, one cannot guarantee that the R&I outputs of these projects will be 

20European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Chimini, G., Failler, P., Galgani, 
L. et al., Portfolio analysis, EU mission “Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030” – Analysis of a portfolio of 
projects  financed  by  sixteen  EU  programmes  contributing  to  the  objectives  and  enablers  of  the  mission 
ocean and waters, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023.  

21 EU-funded projects contributing to the EU Missions - European Commission (europa.eu) 

36 

 
 
directly picked up and valorised. This is because the projects are selected via open calls and 
implemented by actors who are not necessarily formally engaged in the Missions.  

A key aspect of EU Missions as a policy approach is the ability to bring together a critical 
mass of cross-disciplinary and cross sectoral actors who can identify innovative potential in 
projects and go forward on testing, demonstrating, piloting, scale-up and deployment. Herein, 
Mission Units as dedicated structures play a crucial role in knowledge valorisation as 
they  are  set  up  to  foster  the  involvement  of  a  large  spectrum  of  key  stakeholders. 
Mission  units  are  set  up  at  national,  regional  or  local  levels  and  as  such  they  are  vital  in 
connecting to on-going national and [sub-]regional activities, such as European and Regional 
Digital Innovation Hubs, for example.  

These activities may not be directly supported under the EU Missions even though they may 
have  relevance  for  the  achievement  of  Missions’  objectives.    Mission  units,  with  pre-set 
Mission  objectives  covering  various  phases  to  contribute  to  Mission  goals,  can  serve  as 
designated  and  defined  spaces  for  the  assembly  of  diverse  actors  and  expertise.  This  is 
foreseen in Mission Soil where Living Labs and Lighthouses can play a central role in the 
work done to harmonize the R&I agenda, enhance the current capacity, and involve a large 
spectrum of stakeholders, ensuring a better trans-disciplinary approach.  

However, as seen in the roll out of Cancer Mission hubs which are its Mission units, such an 
engagement has been challenging because of limited cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral 
cooperation  in  the  national  and  regional  contexts.  Supporting  this,  earlier  studies  and 
evaluations expressed concern in relation to valorisation of Mission projects at EU, MS 
and sub-regional levels, reporting that it has been challenging for Mission Implementation 
Platforms to coordinate and assemble various stakeholders to participate in Mission units. 
This is because the R&I focus of Missions is centred on the HE framework and there is less 
emphasis on the engagement of EU MS/AC level actors and activities, even though there 
could  be  important  local  level  actions  and  initiatives  that  could  contribute  to  the  Mission 
activities and targets.  

The  Climate  Mission’s  implementation  in  France  is  another  exemplification  of  this 
observation. A few regional and local authorities are partners in Climate Mission’s projects, 
but they do not appear to have an approach to these projects different to other European 
projects. Integration of French long-lasting efforts on climate change adaptation (3 National 
Adaptation  Plans,  2011  –  current),  that  started  years  before  EU  Mission  has  not  yet 
occurred22.  

Lack  of  steering  and  support  from  national  governments,  lack  of  management  of  local 
participation and a lack of communication processes lead to a lack of engagement of regional 
or local governments in Missions.  

Further, there is a perception among the stakeholders that it is unclear as to how to engage 
in Missions, outside of the usual suspects skilled in EU programmes. Earlier studies showed 
that organisations with experience in international projects and mobilisation of a large variety 
of  science,  actors  and  practices,  seemed  to  be  better  equipped  for  participating  in  the 
Missions. Herein, in the case of the Cities Mission, the main difference between 112 selected 
and  224  non-selected  cities  was  their  previous  participation  in  EU-funded  projects.  While 

22 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Angelis, J., Reid, A., Griniece, E. 
et al., Study supporting the assessment of EU Missions and the review of Mission areas – Mission areas 
review report, Reid, A.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2023. 

37 

 
 
72%  of  selected  cities  were  previously  involved  in  international  projects,  only  2%  of  non-
selected  cities  had  this  experience.  Further,  of  the  10  cities  that  signed  the  Climate  City 
Contracts, 6 cities were from Sweden and Spain where similar practices had existed before 
and were in fact used as examples for the Cities Mission. 

Considering the above challenges, CSAs, procurements, and framework contracts are highly 
utilised in the implementation of the five EU Missions, more than for example in the HE Pillar 
2  clusters.  In  the  period  2021-2022  almost  1/3  of  all  actions  in  the  HE  Missions  Work 
Programme  were  CSAs.  This  indicates  a  focus  on  consolidating  and  engaging  a  wide 
community  of  relevant  stakeholders,  and  further  on  supporting  the  complex  governance 
structures.  Mission  Implementation  Platforms  and  other  dedicated  structures,  such  as 
Mission units, put in place by the five EU Missions, are meant to play a key role. They should 
strongly  focus  on  mutual  learning  and  fostering  exchanges  and  they  should  facilitate  the 
involvement of a large spectrum of stakeholders supporting knowledge valorisation.  

Hence,  monitoring  of  R&I  activities  in  Mission  units  that  follow  through  from  knowledge 
creation  to  valorisation,  can  provide  insights  of  the  relevance  of  the  existing  R&I  project 
portfolios  for  the  Missions,  and  indicate  whether  EU  Missions  as  a  policy  approach  adds 
significant value to the valorisation of R&I.  

Overall, implementation structures such as Living Labs have only recently been established 
for the EU Missions. Therefore, it is too early to judge the impact of EU funded projects and 
the role of Mission units in supporting knowledge creation and valorisation. The creation of 
new knowledge is still central in EU Missions, and it is relevant to monitor both the creation 
of, and usage and valorisation of knowledge by different Missions within their focal Mission 
units as proposed by the indicators in Pillar 1.  

5.2. Pillar 2: Governance 

The following synthesis is based on findings from prior studies and the SPC Survey regarding 
achievements and challenges on governance mechanisms across the three indicators in the 
Governance pillar. 

Indicator 2.1.1 Mission-oriented governance mechanisms at EU level  

This indicator was not directly piloted in the SPC Survey as several prior studies gathered 
evidence on the progress of setting up the governance systems at EU level.  

All five Missions have, as of now, designed similar governance structures and are set 
up  as  cross-EC  undertakings.  Typically,  one  DG  operates  as  Mission  manager,  while 
another has taken up the role as deputy Mission manager. All Missions have an EC Owner 
group which represents the DGs and agencies  involved in the Mission. The composition of 
these  owner  groups  varies  considerably  across  the  Missions,  with  for  instance  the  Owner 
group of the Cancer Mission consisting of over 25 EC entities, while other Missions have less 
than ten, mostly sectoral DGs involved23.   

The  role  of  Mission  Secretariat  is  usually  taken  up  by  the  Mission  manager’s  and  deputy 
manager’s DGs. All Missions have a Mission Board composed of independent experts. The 
Mission Board has an advisory role as spelled out in the HE Implementation Rules. Some 

23  Not  all  Mission  Implementation  Plans  listed  the  full  composition  of  the  Owner’s  Group  as  they  were  not 

completed at the time of publishing these Plans.  

38 

 
 
Missions have additional advisory mechanisms, e.g. the Cancer Mission is supported by the 
subgroup on cancer under the Steering Group on Health Promotion, Disease Prevention and 
Management of Non-communicable Diseases (SGPP) set up by DG SANTE and DG RTD. 

All Missions except the Cancer Mission have by now established a Mission Implementation 
Platform which is a structure to implement Mission activities and to interact with stakeholders. 
The  UNCAN.eu  platform  of  the  Cancer  Mission  has  a  narrower  and  more  targeted  focus 
compared to the platforms of other Missions.  Some Missions have chosen existing networks 
to host their Mission Platform such as the NetZeroCities platform for the Cities Mission and 
the  Climate-ADAPT  forum  for  the  Climate  Mission.  The  Mission  Implementation  Platforms 
can be considered as temporary project-based activities as they are implemented through 
fixed  term  public  procurement  contracts  (limited  by  the  duration  of  the  HE  Strategic  Plan 
period).  

Overall,  prior  studies  have  highlighted  several  strengths  and  good  practices  indicating 
positive progress in launching some of the key building blocks of this indicator: 

•  Shared ownership of Mission management by the EC across key DGs (DG RTD and 

one or a few sectoral DGs);  

•  Positive synergy and coordination between the Mission and (upcoming) regulations/ 
strategies  at  EU  level  (e.g.,  Europe  Beating  Cancer  Plan,  Green  Deal  policies, 
Common Agricultural Policies, upcoming Soil Directive);  

•  Strong connections to global policy coordination activities and initiatives as well as 

UN SDGs; 

• 

Introduction  of  novel  interventions  and  instruments  to  trigger  Mission-oriented 
changes (e.g. Climate City Contracts, Soil Manifesto etc); 

•  Emergent  attempts  to  build portfolios  of  projects  and  policies  based  on  past  and 

ongoing EU FPs on R&I; 

•  Emergent  reflexive  learning  practices:  CSA  projects  in  HE  (TRAMI  and  Mission-
specific CSA projects), Mutual Learning Exercises (MLE)/Policy Support Facility (PSF), 
Enhanced Dialogues, external assessments, development of policy and Missions-level 
monitoring frameworks. 

Still,  the  same  studies  also  highlighted  several  governance  challenges  where  corrective 
actions are needed: 

•  Weak coordination and alignment between some EU funding streams and Missions 

(e.g., especially ERDF); 

•  Complete  set  of  governance  mechanisms  deemed  too  complex  and  non-
transparent (e.g. Mission Owners Groups considered in some cases too broad to be 
effective) and lack of strategic implementation aspects (high-level discussion, learning, 
steering); 

• 

Limited involvement of the European Parliament (except Cancer Mission); 

•  Low  involvement  of  other  DGs  outside  the  management  group  in  some  Missions 

(e.g., Cities) or sometimes diverging interests; 

• 

• 

Insufficient staffing and resource allocation to handle all Mission governance tasks; 

Insufficient  governance  mechanisms  and  capacities  to  co-create  Missions  with  EU 
MS/AC and regions (and pool resources) in most Missions; 

39 

 
•  Limited  coordination  between  Missions  regarding  monitoring  and  evaluation 
systems  may  make  it  harder  to  pool  Mission-specific input  into  common  monitoring 
and evaluation exercises of Missions. 

Overall,  while  all  Missions  have  set  up  the  formal  governance  mechanisms,  it  has  also 
become  evident  that  further  implementation  of  Mission  activities  may  need  revisions  of 
governance  mechanisms.  A  general  finding  is  that  the  EU  level  governance  structure  is 
considered too complex, and it is not sufficiently transparent when it comes to responsibilities 
of each body in the governance structure.  

 A common feature for all Missions is the Programme Committees that assist the EC in the 
implementation of HE and provide opinions on the HE Work Programmes. The members are 
delegates and experts of national governments of EU MS. For each of the five Missions the 
EC  has  established  a  dedicated  working  group  (“sub-group”),  composed  of  MS’  experts, 
under the Strategic Configuration of the HE Programme Committee (SPC). These sub-groups 
give advice on the Mission work programmes. However, the final and official opinions and 
decisions on any issue around the Missions are taken by the SPC itself.  The sub-groups 
have a focus on the R&I component of the Missions and, therefore, most delegates are from 
R&I ministries across Europe. Some Missions have organised additional national delegates 
to take part in the SPC to broaden the policy focus.  

The  governance  of  the  engagement  with  MS,  AC,  regions,  and  cities  varies  considerably 
across the Missions. Each Mission has different types of mechanisms and degrees of effort 
to  engage  with  national  and  regional  governments  and  other  stakeholders,  depending  on 
their specific knowledge eco-systems.  

•  The Soil and Cancer Missions focus mostly on national level government authorities. 
The  Soil  Mission  intends  to  build  mechanisms  to  involve  EU  MS/AC  and  regions 
through their Living Labs and Lighthouses.  

•  The Cancer Mission is building up National Cancer Mission Hubs and has strong links 
with the European Parliament through the Special Committee on Beating Cancer.  

•  The Climate Mission makes use of existing governance structures to engage with EU 

MS/AC such as the Working Group 6 of the EU Climate Change Committee.  

•  The  Cities  Mission  has  a  strong  focus  on  governance  mechanisms  for  engagement 
with regional and local actors such as cities that are members of the NetZEROCities 
platform.  

•  The Ocean & Waters Mission has a wide set of governance mechanisms not only with 
national and regional government authorities and stakeholders, but it also operates at 
macro-regional  level  (e.g.,  Sea  Basin  Convention,  All  Atlantic  Ocean  &  Waters 
Research  Alliance)  and  global  level  (e.g.,  UN  and  International  Ocean  &  Waters 
Governance Forum). 

Indicator 2.1.2 Mission-oriented governance mechanisms at MS level 

The analysis below combines responses for this indicator in the SPC Survey (for full set of 
results,  see  Annex  IIIb)  and  findings  from  prior  studies  and  documentation.  In  the  SPC 
Survey, we asked EU MS/AC to describe their governance approach to support EU Missions 
from the perspectives of policy approach and building blocks of governance. Overall, we 
find  that  EU  MS/AC  are  in  rather  early  stages  in  rethinking  and  revising  their  governance 
approaches to align or support EU Missions. 

40 

 
 
Policy approach 

In the SPC Survey, six countries responded that they have a unified policy approach across 
all five EU Missions and a further four countries indicated that this is being planned. Four 
countries  reported  that  they  have  Mission-specific  policy  approaches  in  place  for  all  or 
some of the Missions while nine countries indicated that this is in the planning stages.  

From our sample, a few larger countries (Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands) indicated that 
they have or are planning both generic and Mission-specific policy approaches. Importantly, 
a  few  countries  with  both  unified  and  decentralized  approaches  reported  that  they  plan  to 
contribute  to  EU  Missions  relying  on  existing  policy  and  governance  approaches  with  no 
plans to rethink them. We take this to indicate that while there are countries planning to build 
bespoke governance systems to contribute to EU Missions, most of the countries will rather 
try  to  integrate  and  adjust  EU  Missions  with  their  existing  policy  approaches  and 
interpret or prioritize Missions from these perspectives. 

The decentralized and variated nature of EU Missions implies that any desired improvement 
by the EC would need to recognize this diversity and develop Mission- and country specific 
approaches  to  vertical  coordination  and  implementation  of  the  EU  Missions.  While  in 
some countries, there might be one contact/entry point for Mission-relevant activities, in most 
countries we are likely to see contribution to the EU Missions coordinated by different types 
of actors. Therefore, looking at all EU Missions from the same lens may prove to be difficult.  

As EU MS/AC level activities differ considerably in terms of a centralisation of Mission policy 
or rather a decentralised approach by specific Mission, it is also likely that the speed and 
scope  of  Mission  achievements  and  commitments  in  countries  will  also  vary 
considerably.  

Governance styles 

Our proposed indicators on governance for EU Missions consist of 8 building blocks.  In the 
SPC Survey, we asked respondents to provide progress assessments on all building blocks 
and  to  provide  explanation  in  case  a  certain  building  block  has  achieved  at  least  partial 
implementation.  The  sub-questions  on  governance  building  blocks  pertaining  to  citizen 
engagement and budgeting will be discussed under the respective Pillars 3 and 4 below.  

While  10  out  of  21  of  respondents  reported  that  their  unified  or  Mission-specific  policy 
approaches  are  in  place,  a  significantly  fewer  number  of  countries  reported  ‘in  place 
and functioning’ governance building blocks. For the common approach, only one of the 
countries reported consistently that the system is functioning, relying on existing institutions 
and arrangements of the “whole of governance” approach to contribute to EU Missions.  

For  the  countries  reporting  and  providing  Mission-specific  information  on  governance,  the 
landscape of responses was more diverse (Fig. 6):    

•  majority of the respondents reported that the development of different governance 
building  blocks  is  still  in  rather  early  stages  (building  blocks  not  in  place,  under 
development or not yet implemented); 

• 

across  the  different  Missions,  the  Cities  Mission  stands  out  as  the  Mission  with  the 
largest (though still minority) number of countries reporting progress in at least partly 
implementing different building blocks (see Annex IIIb for detailed graphs);  

41 

 
• 

• 

• 

between  different  building  blocks,  development  of  policy  commitment  and 
introduction of novel implementation structures have been progressing the most, 
although  still  only  a  minority  of  countries  reported  at  least  partial  functioning  (and 
especially for Cancer and Cities Missions); 

the vertical coordination building block – a crucial element for linking EU and MS/AC 
level activities – has advanced the furthest in the Cities Mission, probably as existing 
platforms were used that were already active before the start of the EU Mission; 

the least emphasis has been put on setting up monitoring and evaluation systems to 
track the progress of EU Missions. 

Figure 6. SPC Survey - Strategic orientation and commitment of MS & AC to EU Missions  
[99 total responses from 21 countries] 

Based on the SPC survey, we can pinpoint the emergence of several modalities of how EU 
MS/AC are integrating EU Missions and national policies and strategies: 

•  When  Missions  fit  existing  sectoral  strategic  policy  processes  and  their  timelines, 
formal  policy  commitment  and  reference  to  Missions  is  easier  to  achieve.  In  other 
cases, we are more likely to see the introduction of governance instruments emulating 
the EU approach (mirror groups, Mission hubs, National Contact Points, coordination 
groups  under  SPC)  to  provide  national  input  to  EU  processes  and  increase  local 
success in receiving HE funding etc. For example, Spain has integrated Climate and 
Cancer Missions in national policy documents and plans, and for other Missions, mirror 
groups and similar instruments have been established.  

•  Alternatively,  the  centralized  Missions  model  (found  or  developed  in  e.g.  Austria, 
Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Spain)  proceeds  by  integration  of  Missions  with  the 

42 

 
national R&I strategies (or at least its horizontal and vertical coordination initiatives). 
This  creates,  from  the  R&I  policy  perspective,  a  more  holistic  and  coherent  national 
approach  to  Missions,  but  it  will  likely  face  the  challenge  of  integrating  sectoral 
ministries  and  their  strategic  processes  with  the  Mission  approach.  The  case 
study of Austria shows the magnitude of horizontal and vertical coordination needed at 
the national level to make such a model work. 

•  EU Missions can trigger national initiatives for relevant strategies and policies if these 
have been lacking. For example, the Netherlands has reported that the discussions on 
the Cancer Mission triggered debates on local cancer strategy/policy and for the very 
first time, a national cancer strategy was presented in November 2023. 

•  While a few Missions can be differentiated at the EU level, they may seem to be rather 
similar  or  fall  into  a  common  institutional  landscape  and  may  lead  to  common 
governance  institutions  and  processes  at  EU  MS/AC  level.  This  is  seen  in 
discussions in the Netherlands over joint governance for Climate and Cities Missions. 

•  A  few  countries  claim  to  have  built  linkages  between  EU  Missions  and  other  EU 
policy structures in their countries. For example, Portugal reports links between Soil 
Mission  and  Common  Agriculture  Policy  (CAP).  Greece  and  Cyprus  report  strong 
overlap between Mission areas and the S3 and Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) 
flagship  investments  and  targeted  programs  to  support  Greek  municipalities  in  the 
process  of  sustainability  and  digital  transformations  under  the  broad  umbrella  of  the 
Cities Mission. 

•  Some  countries  are  also  reporting  discussion  on  aligning  national  and  EU  policies 
through re-addressing or topping up of existing national R&I programmes that can 
be used for the Mission objectives. From the SPC survey, it is difficult to assess in how 
far  these  are  genuinely  aligned  or  whether  these  programmes  co-exist  with  the  HE 
Mission work programme calls. The survey did not identify dedicated new programmes 
to co-fund national stakeholders active in the EU Missions.   

Overall,  governance  mechanisms  dedicated  to  the  co-creation  of  Mission  policies 
across EU, national, regional and local levels are largely missing. Many countries have 
shown a particular policy interest for those Missions that fit with their own national challenges 
and/or research and innovation interests and not necessarily with all five Missions.   

For a few EU Missions, the emphasis of implementation and EU MS/AC-level contributions 
are at the regional and local levels and the coordination and alignment on the national level 
is  not  well  developed.  In  other  thematic  Missions,  the  alignment  with  national  and  trans-
national strategies is crucial for achieving the Mission goals. In the case of Cancer, Ocean & 
Waters and Soil Missions, the alignments with national strategies are reported to work well.  

Indicator 2.2.1 Acceptance of Mission-oriented policy 

This indicator was not piloted and monitored by the EG in the SPC Survey, but prior studies 
and observations indicated a few critical aspects to be considered in the future development 
of Missions as a policy approach.  

As of now, we can see that the EU Missions are often viewed more as EC’s Missions rather 
than  “EU-wide”  Missions.  There  are  critical  aspects  that  need  to  be  refined  to  enable 
greater ownership and acceptance of Missions and Missions as a policy approach: 

•  While the process of public consultations around Missions was extensive, several prior 
studies indicated that the translation of the consultation results to actual Missions 

43 

 
was not transparent enough (e.g. redefinition of Cities and Climate Missions through 
omitting  the  citizens/societal  aspects)  limiting  the  external  understanding  and  hence 
legitimacy of the processes; 

•  While most assessments and MIPs emphasize the importance of EU MS/AC in overall 
implementation  of  Missions  (from  pooling  of  resources  to  enabling  scaling-up  via 
domestic policies), there is no clear and formal role for EU MS/AC level actors as 
of now. Most effort has been put into setting up horizontal coordination practices at EC 
level, while Missions mostly tend to focus their concrete implementation at regional or 
local level; 

• 

Long-term  sustainability  and  acceptance  of  the  novel  governance  arrangements 
engaging  several  DGs  around  the  Missions  will  be  crucial.  Therefore,  renewed  and 

The “Austrian model” of central policy coordination of EU Missions 

a)  EU  Missions  became  an  element  in  the  Austrian  STI  Strategy  2030,  and  therefore  in  the  legal 
obligations of key STI actors in Austria.   

b) A dedicated Working Group on EU Missions under the STI Task Force consisting of the Directors-
General of Federal Chancellery, the Finance Ministry, and the three STI ministries was established. 
It  is  co-chaired  by  the  Ministry  of  Education,  Science  and  Research,  and  the  Ministry  of  Climate 
Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology. Members of the "Working Group 
on EU Missions" are the ministries of the "STI Task Force" next to further relevant sectoral ministries, 
and  the  eleven  central  STI  institutions  who  have  a  legal  mandate  to  implement  the  EU  Missions 
through their portfolio. The "Working Group on EU Missions" created five "Mission Action Groups", 
one for each of the EU Missions, co-chaired by a sectoral and a STI ministerial official and consisting 
in  total  of  about 300  Austrian  stakeholders in  the  fields  of  the EU  Missions. Jointly  they drafted  a 
strategy  document  called  "Implementation  Plan for  the  EU  Missions of  Horizon  Europe  in  Austria" 
which  forms  the  basis  for  developing  action  plans  for  the  EU  Missions.  In  addition,  we  had  two 
international advisory boards (one on strategic intelligence, another one on foresight and citizens) to 
give guidance at the early stage on the design of the Austrian governance structure. Both advisory 
boards determined their work in the meantime. A "Mission Management Group" was established to 
bring the co-chairs of the "Working Group in EU Missions" together with the co-chairs of the "Mission 
Action Groups" to discuss issues of relevance for all five EU Missions. In late 2023, Austria launched 
a tender to establish a Mission Facility for Policy Learning, Foresight, Monitoring and Evaluation to 
facilitate  the  necessary  flexibility  but  also  consistency  and  overview  on  the  activities  during  the 
implementation phase of the EU Missions in Austria. 

c)  During  the  early  phase  of  establishing  the  EU  Missions  in  Austria,  the  Ministry  of  Education, 
Science and Research had regular contact with the Austrian Conference on Spatial Planning (ÖROK), 
a major actor at the intersection of national and regional policies. In spring 2023, ÖROK launched a 
project called Regional Innovation and Transformation in which context EU Missions might become 
a prominent example. In addition, it will be a platform to discuss the future orientation of EU Structural 
Funds towards societal challenges. In summer 2023, bilateral talks with the "Verbindungsstelle der 
Bundesländer"  (Contact  Point  of  the  Federal  Regions)  started  to  include  the  regions  in  the 
development of the action plans for the five EU Missions. In parallel, the representatives for Austrian 
cities, and the representatives for Austrian communities have also been invited to take part actively 
in the development of the action plans. The continued and structured co-development of the action 
plans for the five EU Missions started at a workshop in October 2023.   

Source: As reported in the SPC Survey 

44 

 
sustained political and policy commitment to Missions would ensure that Missions 
can progress with a supported policy approach. 

5.3. Pillar 3: Participatory engagement of citizens and stakeholders 

Citizen and stakeholder participation is one of the constitutive elements of EU Missions as a 
policy approach to achieve Europe-wide value and relevance of Mission-oriented R&I. Citizen 
and  stakeholder  participation  can  be  operationalised  via  two  complementary  lenses: 
participation in Mission-oriented R&I projects and participation in the overall design and 
implementation  of  EU  Missions  as  a  broader  policy  approach.  While  the  monitoring 
framework  proposes  indicators  for  both  lenses,  given  the  present  early  implementation 
stages of EU Missions, these indicators were not piloted in the SPC Survey. 

The  previous  studies  on  Missions’  implementation24  have stated  the  following  conclusions 
related to citizens´ engagement: 

• 

Inclusion of citizens and stakeholders in the implementation of Missions has, in general, 
been weak, although some good practices have been identified;  

•  The awareness or the engagement of industry, NGOs, regulators, and the professional 
community seems to be slightly more positive, but still a challenge. In this connection, 
the TRAMI project indicated that the anchoring of the Missions in the wider public (civil 
society) is currently weak, or difficult to assess due to the lack of information.  

•  Social factors that can drive or hinder the expected changes must be considered 

alongside technological challenges for achievement of Missions’ actions and goals.   

•  A socio-cultural approach shall be followed during the definition process of Missions, 
and mainly in the implementation stages to increase the participation of citizens.  

•  New approaches and processes based on social sciences and humanities are required 
for reinforcing engagement. Cross-disciplinary research is pointed out as the solution 
to develop new participation channels; 

Hence,  existing  evidence  on  citizens  engagement  in  the  five  EU  Missions  indicate  that 
activities in this pillar are not yet sufficiently or systematically developed, due to the 
early stage of the initiatives, but also because of inadequate and non-targeted communication 
on the benefits of Missions to generate a culture shift in society.  

Given the emphasis on the importance of stakeholder participation – which is not common 
and  extensive  in  traditional  policy-making  based  on  R&I  –  our  SPC  Survey  included  a 
question  on  how  EU  MS/AC  are  approaching  this  element  of  Missions  and  are  rethinking 
participation practices to match the ambition of Missions. 

According  to  the  SPC  Survey,  practices  at  national  level  for  engaging  citizens  and 
stakeholders  in  Missions’  implementation  is  under  development  in  most  of  the  21 
countries that answered the questionnaire (Fig.7). The work towards systemic engagement 
of private sector actors (industry, financial sector etc) is at an early stage (Fig.8).  

As the preferred forms of stakeholder engagement in R&I actions are part of different national 
governance  traditions,  there  is  inevitably  high  heterogeneity  in  the  importance  placed  and 
actual designs of citizen and stakeholder engagement in EU Missions. An additional factor to 
be  considered  is  the  lack  of  a  common  framework  for  defining  and  managing 

24 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Angelis, J., Reid, A., Griniece, E. 
et al., Study supporting the assessment of EU Missions and the review of Mission areas – Mission areas 
review report, Reid, A.(editor), Publications Office of the European Union, 2023.  

45 

 
 
stakeholders’ engagement. We noticed among EU MS/AC, different interpretations of this 
aspect of Missions that lead to different approaches being pursued and very different answers 
to the same question in the SPC Survey. Still, some trends common to the five EU Missions 
amongst EU MS/AC can be identified based on the information provided by the SPC Survey:   

•  Most of the respondents stated that engagement of stakeholders is carried out through 

participation in HE calls, in RIAs and mainly in CSAs. 

• 

In  the  same  way,  dissemination  actions  are  understood  by  most  EU  MS/AC  as 
engagement  mechanisms.  They  are  fostered  by  the  implementation  structures  or 
platforms or carried out by the Mission units (living labs, lighthouses).  

•  New policy coordination structures such as national Mirror Groups and Hubs are 

also expected to play a relevant role in engagement of stakeholders.  

• 

Initiatives promoted or engagement mechanisms hosted by existing bodies such 
as ministries, innovation agencies, research councils or boards in different fields, are 
also  mentioned.  In  this  regard,  citizens  science  movements,  are  remarked  in  those 
countries where it is an established practice, for instance, Norway.   

Overall, based on the SPC Survey and the synthesis of prior studies and evaluations, we can 
conclude  that  citizen  engagement  activities  of  Missions  are  at  different  stages,  in 
accordance with the specific context of each Mission. Engagement processes are being 
developed in parallel to the governance and implementation structures, mainly led by 
the Mission Implementation Platforms and the Mission Secretariats.    

Figure 7 (left). SPC Survey - Practices (e.g. formal procedures, charters, contracts etc) for engaging stakeholders, users, 
citizens in different stages of implementing the EU Missions (planning, implementing, monitoring & evaluation). 
[No of responses:99 // 21 countries] 

Figure 8 (right). SPC Survey - Practices (e.g. formal procedures, charters, contracts, manifestos, endorsements, labels) 
to engage private sector actors (firms, associations, financial sector etc) in the implementation of the EU Missions  
[No of responses:94 // 21 countries] 

46 

 
Within the context of HE, engagement has been directly supported in the Work Programmes 
of Missions by means of specific calls for co-creation in RIAs or in CSAs. The content, scope, 
and approach of HE calls in each Mission are considered a key reference in terms of definition 
of relevant stakeholders, their roles and expected contribution.  

While  the  HE  KIP  framework  proposes  indicators  that  focus  on  the  engagement  and  co-
creation  elements  in  R&I  projects,  our  monitoring  framework  proposes  that  individual 
Missions could adopt similar Mission-specific indicators at the level of Mission units to monitor 
whether  the  Mission-oriented  approaches  trigger  wider  participatory  dynamics  outside  the 
traditional RIA and IA projects of HE. 

In addition, through MIPs, we can pinpoint several emerging practices  that boost citizen and 
stakeholder participation at the broader policy level. For example: 

•  The specific stakeholder engagement frameworks – Charters in Climate and Ocean & 
Waters  Missions;  the  Climate  City  Contracts  in  Cities  Mission,  the  Soil  Manifesto  – 
provide  the  advantage  of  defining  engagement  paths  and,  therefore,  are  a  very 
valuable reference for EU MS/AC aimed at developing governance and engagement 
mechanisms that are, to some extent, new for them.  

•  Networking  events  and  actions  related  to  literacy  and  citizen  awareness  have  been 
supported  in  the  five  Missions,  e.g.  through  initiatives  such  as  EU4Ocean  &  Waters 
and the Blue Forum, the Soil Manifesto and the European Climate Pact.  

•  Novel governance mechanisms, such as Mission hubs or national networks, are open 

to relevant stakeholders, as in the case of Cancer and Cities Missions.  

•  To give visibility to the “beyond HE actions”, the Charter of the Ocean & Waters Mission 
offers  a  platform  for  initiatives  from  different  stakeholders  aligned  with  the  Mission 
goals.  Currently,  more  than  350  actions  have  been  registered.  Initiatives  could  be 
related,  among  other  issues,  to  “Citizen  engagement,  citizen-science,  youth-led 
initiatives,  communities  of  practice,  ocean  &  waters  and  water  literacy,  outreach, 
awareness raising and participatory approaches” and “Education and training”.  

In this regard, ERRIN stands out for its engagement and activities in contribution to increasing 
awareness and engagement of regions in EU Missions.  

The plethora of these activities is likely to be monitored through Mission-specific monitoring 
approaches being developed. The overall challenge for EU Missions as a policy approach, 
once we move from the initiation and piloting to the scaling-up phase of the Missions, is to 
trigger  broader  societal  awareness  and  acceptance  of  the  challenges  to  facilitate 
stakeholder  and  societal  mobilisation  and  behavioural  changes.  As  of  now,  Missions 
are  close  to  scientific  and  technological  models  but  have  not  sufficiently  influenced  the 
behaviour of citizens. This can become a main barrier to achieve the goals of Missions.  

Therefore, in the forthcoming years, an effort should be done towards social innovations and 
dissemination  of  good  practices.  Hence,  the  monitoring  framework  proposes  more  macro-
level  indicators  of  awareness  and  acceptance  of  Missions  that  monitor  whether  societal 
readiness to go alongside the transformative changes is sufficient and extends beyond the 
narrower R&I and policy actions directly funded and implemented under the EU Missions. 

47 

 
 
ERRIN’S Support to EU Missions 

ERRIN has played an active role in shaping and implementing the Missions right from the beginning 
of  their development process,  representing  the regional and  local perspectives. Led  by  its  Smart 
Cities  Working  Group,  ERRIN  has  been  a  key  contributor  to  the  Cities  Mission  since  its  early 
development  stages.  Notably,  ERRIN  provided  input  to  the  Mission  Board  members  in  2019. 
Moreover,  ERRIN's  involvement  in  the  Cities  Mission  extends  to  its  previous  participation  in  the 
Cities  Mission  Assembly,  and  one  of  its  members,  Francoise  Guaspare  from  the  Ile-de-France 
Region, currently holds a position on the Cities Mission Board. 

Building on this foundation, ERRIN also took an early and proactive role in shaping the Mission on 
Adaptation to Climate Change. ERRIN produced an initial input paper to refine the selection criteria 
and enhance the engagement of regions and communities in this Mission. Since then, ERRIN has 
been  consistently  contributing  to  shaping  other  Missions,  including  Soil,  Ocean  &  Waters  and 
Cancer.  These  contributions  take  the  form  of  various  events,  input  papers,  and  both  formal  and 
informal dialogues with the EC. 

For the period 2022-2023, EU Missions have been identified as a top priority for ERRIN. The network 
has  established  an  internal  governance  system  dedicated  to  EU  Missions.  To  ensure  that  the 
regional and local perspectives remain central to the Missions, ERRIN has appointed a dedicated 
EU  Missions  Policy  Officer,  responsible  for  coordinating  ERRIN's  work  related  to  the  EU 
Missions. Furthermore, ERRIN operates five topical Working Groups (WG) and a Task Force (TF) 
that  work  on  each  of  the  EU  Missions:  Smart  Cities  WG,  Blue  Economy  WG,  Bioeconomy  WG, 
Health WG and Adaptation TF. In addition, the ERRIN Management Board and the Policy Working 
Group  address  strategic  and  transversal  aspects  related  to  EU  Missions. ERRIN's  active 
participation in HE Missions-related projects underscores its commitment to furthering the objectives 
of  the  Missions.  ERRIN  also  cooperates  with  key  lead  organisations  to  promote  central  Mission 
related activities. For example, in April 2023, ERRIN, together with the EC, launched the Soil Mission 
Manifesto to mobilise local ecosystems on soil health.  

ERRIN has also established a close collaboration with the TRAMI project, which aims to enhance 
the cooperation and coordination between EU, national, regional and local actions in support of the 
implementation of EU Missions. By co-organising two Mutual Learning Events on the role of the 
regional policy and the triple helix collaboration, ERRIN and TRAMI provided a platform for sharing 
best practices and fostering collaboration among industry, academia and the public sector to drive 
innovations for the EU Missions. This collaboration helps bridge the gap between policy objectives 
and  practical  implementation,  encourages  cross-sectoral  cooperation,  and  promotes  knowledge 
exchange, ultimately accelerating progress towards the Mission goals. 

In the Mutual Learning Events organised with the TRAMI project, regions voiced their concern that 
the Missions run a risk of turning into a set of running Horizon projects rather than supporting solid 
political ambitions. As the implementation process of the Missions is moving forward, there is a need 
to tighten coordination within the EC.  

It is very clear that EU Missions need to be better rooted at national, regional and local levels for 
implementation  of  EU  Missions to be successful.  Through  its  membership spanning 120  regional 
organisations from 21 European countries, ERRIN is well positioned to focus on ways to mainstream 
EU Missions within regional ecosystems and public policies. Its role is to help establish local and 
regional ownership of EU Missions while facilitating collaboration among stakeholders involved in 
the Missions’ on-the-ground implementation. Going forward ERRIN can assist in identifying the main 
obstacles to Mission implementation at regional level and propose measures to overcome them and 
to engage in cross-cutting Mission relevant issues, in partnership with the European Mission Network 
(EMiN) established in the TRAMI project. 

Useful links: Horizon Europe Missions , ERRIN input to Horizon 2021-2027 consultation  

Source: Interview with ERRIN. 

48 

 
 
5.4. Pillar 4: Pooling and Scaling-up 

Sub-category 4.1. Pooling and Leveraging of public and private funds 

Pillar 4 of the proposed monitoring includes sub-indicators 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 on pooling 
and leveraging of public and private funds especially with a view of beyond HE contributions.  

Indicator 4.1.1 (Mission-oriented budgets/funding in EU programmes other than HE) was not 
piloted in the SPC Survey as Missions assessment reports recently attempted to pool data 
on these aspects. These reports showed that across the five Missions between 40-67% of 
respondents answered that  allocation of resources at EU level (e.g. from LIFE and  Digital 
Europe Programme etc) was more than sufficient to achieve the goals of the Missions. At the 
same time, respondents stated that EU MS/AC and regional level activities were insufficient, 
and more emphasis should be placed on aligning and pooling resources from these levels.  

For  indicators  4.1.2  and  4.1.3,  the  SPC  Survey  asked  respondents  to  report  on  the 
development and progress on aligning and pooling of current funds as well as allocating new 
designated funds to contribute to the implementation of EU Missions. In addition, the SPC 
Survey  requested  respondents  to  provide  exact  amounts  or  estimates  of  budgets/funds  in 
EU,  EU-MS/AC  shared  management,  national  and  other  programmes  and  initiatives  and 
private sector investments in support of EU Missions, as well as feedback on challenges in 
collecting the data.  

Based on the SPC Survey (Figures 9 and 10) we can report that: 

•  Most countries have not yet considered the need to revise budgetary processes and 
activities to align national and/or regional funds with the EU Missions – only three to 
five  countries  responded  that  such  alignment  actions  are  under  development  or 
partly/fully  implemented  either  at  the  national  level  (as  a  common  approach)  or  for 
specific Missions.  

•  Processes  to  allocate  designated  national  and/or  regional  funding  envelopes  to 

Missions are in early stages. 

•  The respondents in the SPC Survey were in general not able to report exact amounts 
of aligned or pooled funds as actual funding decisions have not yet been made, or the 
information is too scattered between different organisations and instruments.  

•  EU MS/AC were not able to provide systematic information on the role of the private 
sector  in  contributing  to  Missions  confirming  prior  findings  that  private  sector 
contributions to Missions are still only emerging and fragmented. 

Countries that reported developments in alignment and pooling of funds, highlighted several 
types  of  mostly  “soft”  guidance  and  coordination  activities 
to  achieve 
alignment/pooling:  setting  up  multi-level,  cross-sectoral  support  structures  whose 
responsibilities  include  mapping  of  different  funding  instruments  and  resources  for  EU 
Missions;  providing  advice  for  the  effective  alignment,  allocation,  consolidation,  and 
implementation of funds; creation of National Steering Forum and Implementation Roadmaps 
and assessment of ‘fit for purpose’ of existing funding programmes for specific Missions.  

Four countries mentioned direct alignment of national, regional or local funding for EU 
Missions’ objectives and activities, although exact amounts were not readily available as 
responsibilities  are  distributed  amongst  different  ministries.  The  funds  in  these  countries 
come  through  a  variety  of  channels  that  are  not  necessarily  R&I,  such  as  Fundo  Azul  in 
Portugal,  German  national  funding  programmes,  municipalities  in  Germany  and  Lithuania, 
Viable Cities initiative in Sweden and funds of the Lithuanian Ministry of Environment. A few 

49 

 
countries  also  indicated  that  they  were  taking  measures  for  concordance  of  national  R&I 
projects  in  support  of  EU  Missions  (Spain,  Belgium,  Austria,  Portugal)  and  Mission 
Implementation Platforms were referenced as possible channels to capture such budgetary 
commitments. 

National  authorities  are  aware  of  different  existing  funding  programmes  at  EU,  EU-
MS/AC, national and regional levels, as well as funding programmes of charities and 
philanthropic  organisations  with  relevance  for  Missions,  as  was  reported  by  9/21 
countries in the SPC Survey. However, respondents stated that the necessary conditions 
to  pool  and  leverage  public  and  private  initiatives  and  funding  instruments  and 
programmes  to  contribute  to  the  objectives  of  EU  Missions  were  not  yet  in  place. 
Respondents  listed  several  reasons  for  this:  lack  of  political  ownership,  lack  of  policy 
commitment and government-led processes to bring together funds to implement Missions, 
and/or  limited  budgetary  coordination  by  agencies  able  to  identify  correlation  between 
national and European instruments.   

Looking at specific funds and programmes: 

• 

In  the  SPC  Survey,  budgets  in  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans  (RRP)  were 
mentioned  by  three  countries  in  relation  to  EU  MS/AC  shared  management 
programmes.  In  all  three  cases,  neither  exact  amounts  nor  estimates  for  Mission-
oriented activities were provided; or these were budgets allocated to priority areas that 
aligned with, but not dedicated to, EU Missions. In the previous assessment reports of 
the  five  Missions,  budgets  in  national  RRPs  to  fulfil  Missons’  objectives  were 
mentioned, although not systematically in all EU MS/AC (e.g. in support of the Cancer 

Figure 9 (left). SPC Survey - Budgetary processes for aligning existing national and regional/local funds with the EU Missions. 
[No of responses:88 // 21 countries] 

Figure 10 (right). SPC Survey - Budgetary processes for allocating designated envelopes of national and regional/local 
funds for the EU Missions.  
[No of responses:86 // 21 countries] 

50 

 
Mission,  it  is  estimated  that  450  MEUR  has  been  allocated  in  the  RRPs  of  Czech 
Republic, Croatia and Greece). The EC SWD on EU Missions reported that EUR 10.7 
billion EUR from the RRF will be allocated to Ocean & Waters Mission by end 2023.  

•  Shared management and sectoral programmes under the umbrella of the European 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  (namely  ERDF,  European  Social  Fund, 
Cohesion  Fund,  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development,  European 
Maritime,  and  Fisheries  Fund),  Interreg,  European  Urban  Initiative,  etc  represent 
mechanisms  for  alignment  between  EU  and  national  and  regional  levels.  These 
programmes may serve as complementary funds that may be utilized at national and 
interregional levels for piloting, demonstration, deployment and diffusion of innovative 
solutions.  The  previous  assessments  of  the  five  Missions  reported  that  alignment  of 
these programmes to Missions’ objectives for actionable activities at EU MS level is in 
progress and information on the support from these programmes is not yet available. 
This may underlie the lack of mention of these funds in the SPC Survey replies.  

•  Co-Funded Partnerships in HE are instruments that involve EU MS/AC contributions 
and through which EU MS/AC could contribute to Missions’ objectives.  However, these 
Partnerships  have  been  late  in  launching  and  synergies  with  Missions  are  not 
systematic  even  though  Missions  shall  catalyse  and  leverage  significant  funds  at 
national level through instruments such as Partnerships9. In both the SPC Survey and 
in  the  previous  Mission  assessment  reports,  respondents  specified  co-funded 
Partnerships as examples of instruments with synergies to EU Missions (3 countries) 
and in a few cases were able to report national contributions to the Partnerships but 
were not able to pin-point exact amounts/estimates directed toward EU Missions.  

One  important  finding  from  the  SPC  Survey  is  that  from  the  perspective  of  EU  MS/AC, 
alignment, or pooling of EU funds (under-co-management with EU MS/AC) might be 
difficult due to the complexities of the EU funding system and logic where competing 
goals and priorities of different programmes may make it harder to align activities with the EU 
Missions. As was well summarised by one country respondent: 

‘’If it is intended that funds from programmes such as CAP, ESF, ERDF, etc. are 
to  be  implemented  in  the  [soil]  Mission  in  national  activities  then  this  must  be 
explicitly  communicated  by  the  people  responsible  in  the  Commission  to  the 
bodies responsible for (i) the programming of these programmes at Union level 
but also to (ii) the responsible implementing bodies at national level. The funds 
from  these  programmes  are  all  currently  allocated  to  specific  national  activities 
and are already oversubscribed. As such, there is little willingness amongst the 
national  implementing  bodies  -  who  have  no  connection  to  the  Missions  or  to 
Horizon  Europe  -  to  expand  the  portfolio  to  include  Mission-related  activities 
without explicit direction to do so.’’ 

Supporting this finding are several examples (see Case Studies in 3 and 4) both at national 
and regional levels where operationalisation actors have tried to use funds from the RRF or 
implement  S3  to  contribute  to  EU  Missions,  and  have  had  to  overcome  restrictive 
conditionalities and/or have had to be persistent and creative in pushing alignments through 
multi-level policy processes. We find this to be a crucial bottleneck in triggering EU MS/AC 
and regional level commitments  to EU Missions. To  date, EU Missions are still largely 
perceived as EC initiatives. If in addition, pooling other EC funding to Missions comes with 
restrictive conditionalities, it may make it less likely for Mission operationalisation actors to 
take further efforts to pool their own national and/or regional resources in contribution to EU 
Missions. 

51 

 
Overall, at EU and EU-MS/AC levels, there is evidence that some pooling of funds is 
taking  place.  However,  despite  the  existence  of  various  funding  mechanisms  with 
relevance for Missions, the pooling effect is low at national, regional, and local levels, 
and  has  not  been  triggered  at  scale.  These  findings  are  not  surprising  considering  the 
relatively early stage of implementation of the EU Missions and the dominant decentralized 
policy  approach  by  EU  MS/AC.  Nevertheless,  for  further  implementation  progress  on  EU 
Missions  as  envisioned  in  the  MIPs,  it  is  assumed  that  efforts  towards  mobilization  of 
resources for significant pooling of public and private resources shall be led by EU MS/ACs. 
As such, the insufficient level of pooling and leveraging of funds at national, regional, and 
local levels if not corrected, will become an issue. 

Embedding EU Missions in Romanian R&I policy through alignment with EU 
Programmes  

The  Romanian  Ministry  of  Research,  Innovation  and  Digitization  proposed  the  establishment  of 
competence  centres  to  foster  collaboration  between  the  private  sector  and  public  research 
organisations  to  reduce  the  fragmentation  of  the  national  R&I  system.  These  centres  were  to  be 
supported  via  the  2021  Romanian  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan’s  investment  in  education.  The 
Ministry was inspired to align the competence centres to the EU Mission policy approach. However, 
it was difficult to deviate from the agreed RRP investment plans in 2021 as the EU Missions were 
not yet launched in Horizon Europe. Thereafter, the Ministry decided to establish the competence 
centres in 2022. To align to the EU’s Mission approach, the Ministry published an open competitive 
call  matching  the  competence  centres  to  be  established  to  the  thematic  domains  of  the  five  EU 
Missions.   

Today five competence centres are established for Cancer, Adaptation, Oceans & Water, Climate-
neutral and Smart Cities and Soil. They have been designed as a platform for collaboration between 
several higher education institutions and the private sector. The Competence Centres must address 
only one mission and develop national joint R&I agendas and roadmaps in line with the EU Missions’ 
agenda. It is expected that these competence centres will increase the participation of the public and 
private sectors in Horizon Europe’s Mission funding.  

This Mission-oriented approach is unique in that it requires the involvement of the private sector from 
the start. Each competence centre must include at least five public research organisations and at 
least five SMEs. Large enterprises can join the centres as well. Companies will co-fund their activities 
within the centre (SMEs at 25% and LSE at 50% of eligible costs for industrial research). In the short 
time  that  these  competence  centres  have  been  operational,  each  of  them  has  already  secured 
considerable amounts of private sector co-funding from national and international partners.  

This  example  shows  that  national  authorities  can  be  flexible  in  reorienting  their  activities  to  the 
Mission approach, even if they have not been explicitly agreed in investment agreements of other 
European funding programmes. It also shows that there may be more private sector engagement in 
Mission approaches than can be monitored with currently used methods.  

Source: Consultations with Romanian government representatives. 

52 

 
  
 
EU Missions and Smart Specialisation Strategies  

EU Missions as a policy approach and Smart Specialization Strategies (S3) share commonalities: i) 
EU Missions address grand societal challenges whilst S3 represent priorities established by regional 
authorities to address the region’s unique socio-economic conditions – herein there is broad scope 
for thematic alignment between the two approaches focused on sustainability as a key principle; ii) 
EU  Missions are applicable across the EU and balance socio-economic-environmental innovations 
whereas S3 balance placed-based technological and social innovations; iii) open and participatory 
principles  and  empowerment  of  actors  characterise  both  policies  -  EU  Missions’  implementation 
requires coordination of policy makers and engagement of citizens and stakeholders whilst S3 shall 
be  an  inclusive  process  of  stakeholders’  involvement  centered  on  ‘entrepreneurial  discovery’ 
processes where actors of the quadruple helix are involved.  

Operationally,  complementarities  and  synergies  between  EU  Missions  and  S3  have  not  been 
formalized. This may result in inefficiencies mainly related to mismatches in the setting of priorities 
(top-down vs. bottom-up mechanisms), budgetary periods (annual vs. pluriannual commitments) and 
in the scheduling of calls and funding activities. This explains the general finding that linking EU’s 
regional development funds and EU Missions has been a challenge for MS. Further, current evidence 
shows that the alignment of the two policies is mainly in the hands of regional and local policy makers 
and depends on their willingness to take extra steps beyond formal conditionalities of the S3.  

Nevertheless,  certain  regional  governments  have  been  inspired  by,  and  have  considered,  the 
principles  of  the  EU  Mission  policy  approach.  In  Spain,  the  Navarra  region  launched  a  specific 
instrument as part of its S3 – the Strategic R&D Projects for sustainability which include pluriannual 
commitments for specific  challenges or “missions” on  topics that are  also covered  by the five EU 
Missions. In the Andalucia region, the Mission approach is embedded in the overall designing of S3, 
to the point that it has been changed to Smart Specialisation Strategy for Sustainability (S4).  

The Blekinge Region in Sweden has followed a similar path, linking sustainability goals with growth 
goals by incorporating the Mission-oriented approach and EU Missions as the core element in S3. 
This came about through the selection of Oceans & Waters, Cities and Climate Adaptation Missions 
that have strong potential for the utilization of regional strengths of the business sectors in Blekinge, 
namely digital skills and manufacturing skills for car and marine industries. There was strong industry 
involvement  in  the  strategy  process  from  the  beginning.  The  local  business  sector  was  keen  to 
engage  as  the  co-benefits  included  sustainability  transitions  for  companies  encompassing 
directionality,  diversification,  and  creation  of  solutions  via  trans-disciplinary  and  cross-sectoral 
linkages  and  the  breaking  of  silos.  Yet,  all  these  proactive  steps  came  a  bit  as  a  surprise  to  the 
national authorities who did not expect creative approaches beyond the mandatory conditionalities 
for S3. At present, interaction of the local university and the region has strengthened, and top-down 
regional  funding  has  been allocated  to  oceans and  marine research  conducted  by  the university. 
There  are  also  mission  pilots  in  the  pipeline,  with  the  objective  to  increase  the  understanding  of 
missions in the regional context.  

In conclusion, despite the policy design challenges, the examples show that the S3 and EU Missions 
approaches  and  resources  can  be  integrated,  especially  if  there  is  support  from  national 
governments  to  extend  the  S3  approach  beyond  its  narrower  conditionalities  and  sufficient 
commitment from industrial and academic stakeholders.  

Source: EG consultations with the regions. 

53 

 
 
According  to  prior  Mission  assessment  reports,  there  is  no  significant  private  sector 
participation nor private sector investment in the five Missions. Also, only two countries 
responded to this question in the SPC Survey, stating that information pertaining to private 
sector  investment  was  not  known. Whilst  these  findings  outline  the  current  general 
observations, there is some evidence that private sector contributions in Missions within the 
HE framework are progressing. For example, the Soil Mission attracted 25% private for-profit 
companies  in  funded  projects  from  the  first  two  Work  Programmes  (2021-2022).  The 
Connected,  Cooperative  and  Automated  Mobility  Partnership  (CCAM),  Toward  Zero 
EMission  Road  Transport  Partnership  (2Zero)  and  the  Cities  Mission  launched  a  Horizon 
Europe Mission Innovation Action (HORIZON-MISS-2023-CIT-01) on co-designed innovative 
passenger mobility and freight transport concepts. This tripartite consortium includes industry 
and other private sector investment and engagement.  

Even if private sector contributions to the Missions have not yet reached significant levels, it 
should be noted that the national and regional examples (Case Studies 3 and 4) highlight 
possibilities to trigger this by linking EU Missions to other policy concepts (from national R&I 
strategies to S3). This is especially so where there is explicit focus on industrial development 
and private sector innovation. It seems that the current focus on launching the public policy 
side of the Missions (linking R&I with core public policy concerns in specific domains of e.g. 
health,  climate  etc)  may  have  underplayed  the  industrial  and  innovation  elements  of 
Missions that will become crucial once the Missions move from launch and pilot phases to 
scaling-up and diffusion stages. While the reliance on the EIB to develop the “fundability” of 
actions  under  the  EU  Missions  is  a  good  example  of  developing  this  focus,  we  find  that 
underused possibilities such as linking EU Missions and S3 type industrial and innovation 
activities  can  bring  about  the  necessary  strengthening  of  private  sector  engagement  and 
contribution to EU Missions.  

Further to EIB, EU initiatives and programmes such as InvestEU that supports sustainable 
investment,  and  Connecting  Europe  Facility  could  be  used  together  with  EIB-backed 
instruments  to  leverage  private  sector  investments.  The  groundwork  to  support  such 
leveraging  in  the  Missions  is  starting  to  take  place.  Examples  from  Mission  assessment 
reports: 

•  Adaptation  Mission:  A  particular  focus  has  been  given to  synergies  with  Cohesion 

policy and the EIB adaptation strategy. 

•  Cancer  Mission:  Collaboration  with  the  EIB  focusses  on  an  investment  agenda  to 
support the development of Comprehensive Cancer Infrastructures and cancer control 
services (e.g. screening, vaccination, training) in MS.  

•  Cities Mission: Contacts are ongoing with EIB, the European Bank for Reconstruction 
and  Development  and  national  development  banks,  with  philanthropic  organisations 
and with other private actors, in relation to making the Mission Label a meaningful tool 
to facilitate access to funding and finance. 

•  Ocean & Waters Mission:  The Mission has mobilised and aligned EUR 500 million 
from  the  European  Investment  Fund  (EIF)  BlueInvest  for  developing  and  marketing 
solutions for blue economy. The “Blue champions” pilot scheme, launched in 2023, will 
provide advisory support for 15 companies to qualify for EIB scale-up funding. A market 
assessment study by EIB has the objective to select 25 priority projects from the EIF 
BlueInvest II project portfolio for further investment.  

•  Soil  Mission:  As  regards  buy-in  from  within  the  private  sector,  discussions  with 
philanthropic  institutions  are  at  an  advanced  stage  as  regards  the  co-design  and 
coordination of activities and complementary funding. The EIB is carrying out a study 

54 

 
to assess the demand and supply sides for private-sector investment in relation to soil 
health. It is also developing a pipeline for large scale soil investments in connection 
with InvestEU.  

Overall, as EU Missions move from establishment phase to scaling up phase, the time is now 
opportune  to  engage  in  dialogue  with  the  private  sector  to  lay  the  ground  and  create 
conducive conditions for increased engagement, involvement, and financial contributions. 

The European Investment Bank’s support in implementation of the EU Missions 

The  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  offers  loans,  guarantees,  equity  investments  and  advisory 
services  for  private  companies  and  public  institutions.  The  minimum  EIB  loans  to  the  corporate 
sector are around €25 million, lower amounts are in certain cases possible. The Advisory Services 
include  technical  and  financial  expertise  available  to  EIB’s  clients  to  develop  and  implement 
investment projects and programmes, and to improve institutional and regulatory frameworks. 

The EIB has put in place a framework to ensure that the projects it supports are aligned with the 
goals of  the  Paris  Agreement  and  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (de  facto  alignment since 
2020).  The  EIB  Group  will  support  €1  trillion  of  investments  in  climate  action  and  environmental 
sustainability  in  the  period  2021-2030.  The  EIB  will  gradually  increase  the  share  of  its  financing 
dedicated to climate action and environmental sustainability to exceed 50% of its operations in 2025. 
In 2022, the share of EIB investments that went to climate action and environmental sustainability 
projects totaled €36.5 billion, or 58% of the EIB’s own resource financing. 

The  EIB, through  EIB  Advisory,  has supported  the  EC  with  the  initial  development of investment 
plans around the five Missions at their conceptualisation stage and is currently providing technical 
and financial advisory services for their implementation. The bankability potential (i.e. ability to attract 
repayable finance for certain types of investments) differs from Mission to Mission. As part of the 
normal EIB operations, some cities for example have already been granted long-term Framework 
Loans for developing their infrastructure. Advisory services are, among others currently engaging in 
awareness raising campaigns.  

For the Cancer Mission, the EIB is already active in the financing of wider life sciences investments, 
while  for  Soil  and  Ocean  &  Waters  Missions  the  bankability  perspectives  are  currently  being 
investigated. In collaboration with the EC and the Mission managers, the EIB Advisory Service is 
currently  carrying  out  market  assessments  for  Soil  and  Ocean  &  Waters  Missions,  including  an 
identification  of  finance  gaps/barriers  and  the  development  of  a  pipeline  of  potentially  investable 
projects.  

Potential finance gaps can be addressed by the mobilisation of public capital (e.g. risk sharing and/or 
blending)  thereby  levering  private  investments.  For  more  risk-intensive  investments,  special  risk 
sharing facilities could be used for providing greater access to credit for a wider range of SME clients. 
Also,  guarantee,  equity  and  capacity  building  investments  to  support  Europe’s  SMEs  by  the 
European Investment Fund (EIF) and the grants and equity provided by the European Innovation 
Council  (EIC)  are  relevant  for  speeding  up  the  deployment  of  new  technologies  in  some  of  the 
Missions. 

Source: Consultation with the European Investment Bank 

55 

 
 
 
Sub-category 4.2 Scaling of transformative solutions and supportive measures 

The  ultimate  success  of  EU  Missions  lies  to  great  extent  with  national  and  regional 
policymakers  who  are  able  to  identify  transformative  solutions  and  adapt/implement 
regulations,  laws,  and  incentives  for  deployment  at  scale.  The  deployment  shall  consider 
cultural shifts and behavioural changes necessary for solutions to be inclusive and equitable. 
Pillar 4 in the proposed monitoring framework includes indicators 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 on scaling 
of  transformative  solutions  and  supportive  measures.  Considering  that  the  Missions  were 
launched  in  2021,  and  that  most  Missions  are  still  in  the  early  phases,  scaling  of 
transformative  solutions  and  supportive  measures  is  proposed  as  a  mid-  to  long-term 
outcome in the proposed monitoring framework and as such the respective indicators were 
not piloted in the SPC Survey.  

At this stage, it is important to capture processes in relation to sub-indicators 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 
that can inform on the extent to which the transformative pathway in EU Missions as a policy 
approach is taking place, i.e. developments in the chain of co-creation, piloting and testing 
– validation – demonstration – supportive regulatory and legal frameworks – equitable 
and inclusive deployment – diffusion.  

Based on data from previous assessments, information available on EU Missions and the 
qualitative input provided by respondents of the SPC Survey, the following types of enabling 
transformative  processes  are  on-going  and  may  be  used  as  short-term  indicative 
measures  of  the  progress  in  setting-up  the  pathways  and  framework  for  scaling-up  of 
activities in relation to EU Missions:  

•  Scaling-up: DG RTD has adopted a portfolio approach of previous and on-going R&I 
FP  projects  that  identifies  projects  ready  for  scaling-up  and  is  extending  this  to  a 
‘portfolio  of  actions  approach’  that  will  systematically  link  R&I  actions  with  policy 
activities (e.g. finance, regulation etc). 

•  Synergies with EU Programmes and Initiatives:  

leveraging  of 

−  Work is on-going to link the Missions to relevant centralized EU Programmes and 
shared  management  programmes 
financial  envelopes, 
for 
reinforcement  of  synergies  and  maximizing impacts,  as well  as  horizontal  policy 
integration and vertical governance that require regional and/or local authorities to 
engage and commit to Missions. Synergies between Missions and centralized EU 
programmes may take the form of co-created calls, cross-referencing programmes 
in  calls,  provisions  for  complementary  funds,  joint  promotion  in  relevant 
stakeholder  communities,  awarding  of  bonus  points  for  projects  that  make 
demonstrable use of research outcomes from other EU funded projects and a seal 
of excellence for projects that may facilitate access to national, regional and other 
funds.  

−  Transformative  processes  that  support  testing,  deployment  and  scale-up  of 
innovative Mission solutions are underway but more directionality is required to link 
to the New European Innovation Agenda, HE Pillar III, European Digital Innovation 
Hubs and instruments backed by the EIB. 
•  EU Missions-driven bottom-up actions at regional level  

−  The  Climate  Mission  has  developed  joint  activities  with  the  European  Cohesion 
Policy;  is  an  enabler  for  the  EIB’s  Strategy  on  Smarter  Adaptation  and  will 
cooperate with the European Environmental Agency to showcase results on the 
Mission through the Mission Implementation Platforms. 

56 

 
− 

− 

In  the  Ocean  &  Waters  Mission,  scale-up  of  R&I  solutions  through  testing  and 
replication is  happening in more  than  100  associated  regions  in  Europe.  This  is 
being  helped  by  the  Ocean  &  Waters  Mission  Work  Programmes  that  mostly 
comprise IAs. The IAs shall involve associated regions other than those involved 
in the projects, to demonstrate the viability and replication of innovative solutions 
(validation, testing, demonstration, prototyping, piloting) in relation to the Mission 
objectives.  Furthermore, the associated regions scheme is implemented together 
with the BlueInvest and the Blue Champion mechanisms co-designed with the EIB 
to provide a high potential for upscale and replication of innovative solutions. 

In  relation  to  the  Cancer  Mission,  regional  health  innovation  ecosystems  act  as 
living  labs  for  testing  and  deploying  new  solutions  through  different  funding 
schemes and partnerships.  

•  Mission  Charters  and  Labels  may  facilitate  further  access  to  financing  sources  and 

private investment. 

−  Ten European cities were awarded the Label of the EU Mission for Climate-Neutral 
and  Smart  Cities.  The  Label  can  facilitate  access  to  EU,  national  and  regional 
financing  sources,  and  private  investment.  The  Label  is  awarded  based  on  a 
Climate City Contract co-created with public and private sectors as well as citizens, 
and  includes an action plan and an investment strategy.  

−  Missions Charters - More than EUR 3.72 billion has been mobilized through 480 
concrete submitted actions (projects, initiatives, and activities) that signed Mission 
Ocean & Waters Charters. These are not actions funded via the Mission, but rather 
on-going actions funded via European as well as national and other funds that can 
contribute to the objectives of the Mission.  

•  Mission Implementation Platforms are taking a supportive and communicative role. 

−  Climate Mission Implementation Platform will, from 2023-2025, provide technical 
assistance  to  at  least  200  regions  (as  compared  to  target  of  150  regions  and 
communities) to become climate resilient by 2030. 

−  The Cities Mission Implementation Platform is running the Pilot Cities Programme 
aimed  at  supporting  European  cities  in  testing  and  implementing  innovative 
approaches  to  rapid  decarbonisation,  working  across  thematic  areas  and 
functional silos in support of systemic transformation. 

•  Early processes towards new Mission-driven regulatory approaches  

−  The adoption and implementation of the proposed Soil Monitoring Directive could 

massively drive the upscaling (uptake) of place-based solutions.  

−  The Circular Cities and Regions Initiative (CCRI) brought together policymakers, 
business  leaders,  and  experts  on  the  circular  economy  as  well  as  the  public  to 
explore how cities, regions and their partners across Europe are advancing from 
their  political  decisions  and  strategies  towards  the  deployment  of  systemic 
solutions. 

Overall, the on-going transformative processes can contribute to the further deployment and 
scale-up of innovative solutions, as well as, pooling of funding across countries and regions. 
It is important that different types of activities finally lead to the development of permissive 
(new)  regulations,  policies  and  strategies  that  will  be  necessary  for  the  cross-sectoral 
problem solving and action-oriented approach that Missions need to take. 

57 

 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

In  response  to  the  mandate  provided  by  the  EC,  the  EG  has  proposed  a  monitoring 
framework for EU Missions as a systemic policy approach. The comprehensive monitoring 
framework  goes  through  different  stages  of  implementation  with  a  specific  focus  on  how 
Missions evolve outside the Horizon Europe framework.  

The monitoring framework complements the general HE KIP framework that focuses on a 
range  of  impacts  of  the  EU’s  R&I  policy interventions, including  Missions.  It  also seeks  to 
complement the Mission-specific monitoring frameworks being currently set-up to monitor the 
launch and implementation of individual Missions and how the Missions progress in achieving 
their specific goals and impacts. 

Missions  are  a  novel  policy  approach  in  the  EU  context,  in  the  early  phases  of 
implementation, with no “baseline” indicators and no baseline policy and governance 
processes.  The monitoring framework proposed by our EG focuses mostly on process-level 
elements which include the setting up of different proceedings and governance systems that 
are crucial for enabling the achievement of the goals of EU Missions as a policy approach. 
The analytical focus on EU Missions as a policy approach, as opposed to individual Missions 
as  HE  instruments,  has  enabled  us  to  distinguish  crucial  elements  of  the  systemic  policy 
approach. This entails changing how R&I is done and used in the EU and is summarized in 
the 4 Pillars of our framework that do not fall into the traditional logic of HE interventions and 
monitoring. 

Main findings 

The  EG  deployed  the  short-  to  mid-term  indicators  of  the  monitoring  framework  through  a 
survey that targeted EU Member States and Associated Countries. This enabled a review of 
the state-of-play of the following three key tasks (Fig. 11):  

Key Task I: 

Monitoring EU Missions beyond Horizon Europe, looking at the 
contribution of other funding programmes  at EU and national, 
regional and local levels towards the achievement of Missions’ 
objectives. 

A  first  general  observation is  that  EU  Missions  as  a  novelty  of  the  EU’s  Research  and 
Innovation Framework Programme has been a significant trigger for Mission-oriented 
policy discussions and developments across the EU, and at different levels of the EU. 
The  share  of  EU  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries  participating  in  different 
knowledge sharing exercises (e.g., TRAMI project, Mutual Learning Exercises and Enhanced 
Dialogues focusing on Missions) indicates that there is interest and willingness across the 
majority  of  the  European  countries  to  engage  in  Mission-oriented  thinking  and  policy 
innovation. At the same time, we note that our survey findings, as well as other prior studies, 
indicate that in terms of concrete actions, most countries are at early stages in their 
contributions to EU Missions. 

Our  main  finding  from  the  first  monitoring  survey  is  that  the  majority  of  the  European 
countries  and  regions  are  setting  up  a  variety  of  mechanisms  to  integrate  the  EU 
Missions in their policies and policy initiatives. However, considering the short timeframe 

58 

 
since the launch of Missions, targeted contributions and pooling of significant financial 
and  non-financial  resources  from  the  public  sector,  community  actions  and  private 
initiatives  towards  the  achievements  of  the  objectives  of  EU  Missions  have  not  yet 
synergised.  

Key Task II: 

Monitor whether the EU Missions are on track to deliver against 
their objectives and targeted impacts. 

Missions have largely progressed following the overall design of the approach and specific 
models of each Mission as proposed in respective Mission Implementation Plans. Whilst EU 
level  structures  and  processes  are  mostly  set  up  and  specific  research  and  innovation 
activities such as piloting and scaling-up of solutions have been launched via calls in Horizon 
Europe, EU Missions are not yet at a stage where monitoring of their contribution to 
the substantive transformative goals of each Mission can be done. 

At EU level, the role of Missions as a policy approach and how to structure its implementation 
was set in the formal Horizon Europe regulations and in the implementation activities of each 
Mission. Beyond Horizon Europe, and at national, regional and local levels, most actors 
are  still  in  the  process  of  “sense  making”  and  exploring  and  experimenting  with 
appropriate  roles  and  logic  models  for  the  approach  mainly  based  on  the  existing 
structures. The EG’s survey showed that the “sense making” stage is under development in 
terms of visions of how to plan and coordinate EU Missions and integrate specific Missions 
into national context. Nevertheless, viewed broadly, the on-going process transitions in 
terms of knowledge creation and valorisation, governance, participatory engagement 
of  citizens  and  stakeholders  and  pooling  and  scaling-up  in  the  EU  Missions  are  
indications  that  directionality  towards  achievement  of  the  Missions’  objectives  and 
targetd impacts is taking place.  

Key Task III: 

implemented  to  enable  EU 
Monitor  supportive  measures 
governance 
policy 
Missions, 
approaches, deployment actions and involvement of end-users. 

interventions, 

including 

There are several new governance approaches to support the EU Missions at EU, national 
and  regional  levels.  At  EU  level,  horizontal  governance  mechanisms  involving  the 
Commission’s  sectoral  Directorate-Generals  for  the  co-management  of  Missions 
seems  to  be  an  accepted  and  functioning  novelty.  Herein,  a  greater  inclusion  of  the 
Directorate-General  for  Regional  and  Urban  Policy  and  its  programmes  in  the  broader 
portfolio of Mission-oriented activities is necessary to trigger further coordination and pooling 
of resources at the Member State level.  

At national level, some countries are developing nationally coordinated governance 
approaches  across  the  five  Missions,  whilst  others  are  building  more  decentralized 
and Mission-specific models. The Mission Data Platform introduced by the TRAMI project 
(https://mission-data-platform.eu) provides a very detailed overview of these actions as well 
as a potential platform for future gathering and sharing of these practices.   

59 

 
 
Our findings further indicate that in cases where the EU Mission’s objectives are closely 
aligned  to  pre-existing  European  and  national  policy  strategies,  and  when  the 
introduction  of  EU  Missions  has  overlapped  with  national  policy  planning  cycles, 
faster and deeper integration of EU Missions with national systems and processes has 
occurred (e.g. the Europe Beating Cancer Plan, the upcoming Soil Directive in the Common 
Agricultural Policies, the national sustainable cities programmes, the national climate change 
adaptation  plans).  Also,  in  these  cases  the  chances  of  finding  new  policy  interventions 
alongside research and innovation funding decisions are highest. Apart from this, there are 
not many concrete examples of additional supportive policies and strategic activities. 

The inclusion of citizens and stakeholders and co-creation aspects are emphasised in the 
design  of  EU  Missions  as  a  policy  approach.  However,  beyond  traditional  engagement 
practices as part of policy making and implementation of Horizon Europe funded and similar 
projects, citizen and stakeholder engagement in the implementation of EU Missions is 
rather  limited  and  requires  further  elaboration  and  conceptualization.  Given  that 
Missions’  goals  require  significant  transformation  of  investment,  consumption  and  other 
behaviours,  it  seems  paramount  that  stakeholders  are  engaged,  brought  on  board  and 
actively participate in the Missions prior to the scaling-up of potential solutions.  

The EG recognizes that the EU Missions as a policy approach is at a relatively early stage of 
its  evolution  and  that  EU  Missions  have  triggered  discussions,  policy  debates  and 
developments on the contributions of different EU and national level actors. Taking this into 
consideration, the report proposes recommendations for improving EU level actions to 
support  the  functioning  and  roll-out  of  the  approach  in  a  ‘beyond  Horizon  Europe’ 
context.  

...whether the 
EU Missions are 
on track to 
deliver against 
their argeted 
impacts

EU Missions 
beyond Horizon 
Europe...

...supportive measures 
implemented to enable 
EU Missions

Figure 11. The three Key Tasks. 

60 

 
 
 
Recommendations for corrective actions  

1.  Provide  stronger  political  and  policy  anchoring  of  EU  Missions.  This  can  be 
achieved via reinforced anchoring of Missions in the EU Green Deal processes as well 
as  in  the  EU,  national  and  regional  R&I  policies  (New  European  Innovation  Agenda, 
Smart Specialization Strategy, Recovery and Resilience Facility).  

2.  Build stronger and wider co-ownership of EU Missions in EU MS/AC by opening 
different  stages  of  the  policy  processes  –  from  defining Mission  areas  and  launching 
specific Missions to designing specific Mission interventions to take place in EU MS/AC 
– to more transparent collaboration with MS/AC. 

3.  Broaden both the EC-wide participation as well as engagement of different MS/AC 
and  regional  actors  in  different  phases  (from  establishment  to  deployment  and 
scale-up)  of  EU  Missions.  This  can  be  achieved  via  better  alignment,  timelines, 
permissive  conditionalities  and  design  of  EU  policies  and  programmes  to  allow  co-
funding of Mission activities so that Mission actors can include these programmes and 
resources  in  their  Mission-level  activities.  These  include  the  main  relevant  policy 
concepts (S3, the Regional Innovation Valleys Initiative), key supportive programmes 
and activities (ERDF, RRF, Digital Europe, I3 Instrument, Horizon Europe Partnerships) 
and the use of different labelling tools such as Seals of Excellence and Mission Labels 
for the earmarking of funds for EU Missions. 

4.  Clarify  the  expected  role  and  value  of  citizen  and  stakeholder  engagement  in 
Missions as a policy approach and share good practices (by developing frameworks 
and  guidelines)  of  how  this  can  be  designed  and  achieved  beyond  traditional 
approaches to policy engagement and R&I project implementation. 

5.  Start already now building stronger societal visibility of Missions to prepare societal 
actors  across  EU  MS/AC  for  the  scale-up  stage  of  Missions’  implementation  where 
individual  and  collective  behavioural  changes  become  pivotal  for  pooling  necessary 
resources and triggering scale-up actions. 

6.  Focus  on  developing  and  communicating  clear  business  cases/pathways  for  the 
different Missions to trigger wider pooling of resources. For Missions to achieve their 
transformative  goals,  significant  private  sector  engagement  (and  re-alignment  from 
current practices) needs to be triggered, but this needs stronger inclusion of these actors 
in the Missions’ debates and processes. 

7.  Next  to  the  desired  financial  pooling  effects  of  Missions,  the  scale-up  stage  of 
Missions needs to focus also on the integration of Mission goals and activities in 
the  broader  national  and  regional  policy  landscapes.  EU  MS/AC  level  policy  and 
regulatory  support,  standards  development  etc.  are  needed  to  enable  large  scale 
piloting and scaling-up of Mission solutions.  

8.  The  proposed  process  level  monitoring  framework  for  EU  Missions  as  a  policy 
approach  can  complement  and  supplement  other  monitoring,  evaluation,  and 
assessment  exercises  of  Horizon  Europe  as  well  as  of  individual  Missions  to 
provide a combined picture of the progress towards Missions’ objectives. While 
some of the proposed indicators can be taken up in the monitoring system of individual 
Missions, for buy-in of EU MS into EU Missions as a policy approach, anchoring and 
linking  this  monitoring  framework  to  the  biannual  EU  R&I  policy  questionnaire 
distributed as part of the OECD STIP Compass exercise is encouraged.  

61 

 
…reinforced anchoring of 
Missions in the EU Green 
Deal processes as well as in 
the EU, national and regional 
R&I policies… 

… from establishment to 
scale-up phase via better 
alignment, timelines, 
permissive conditionalities 
and design of EU policies … 

… to prepare societal actors 
for the scale-up stage where 
individual and collective 
behavioural changes 
become pivotal …  

…EU MS/AC level policy and 
regulatory support, etc. are 
needed to enable large scale 
piloting and scaling-up of 
Mission solutions … 

… by opening stages of the 
policy processes… to 
designing specific Mission 
interventions to take place in 
EU MS/AC … 

… share good practices 
of how this can be 
designed and achieved 
beyond traditional 
approaches … 

… to trigger wider pooling 
of resources...  
to achieve transformative 
goals, via private sector 
engagement … 

… a combined picture on 
the achievement of 
progress towards Missions’ 
objectives may be obtained 
… 

Figure 12. Main recommendations of the Expert Group. 

62 

 
 
 
ANNEX I – THE FIVE EU MISSIONS AT A GLANCE 

Cities consume over 65% of the world’s energy and  
account for more than 70% of global CO2 emissions. 

Why has the main problem arisen? 
•
•

Overpopulation of cities. 
Not enough integration in funding 
approaches.  
Fragmentation of the EU’s cities’ policy. 
EU mechanisms do not favour a holistic 
strategy aiming at climate neutrality. 
Only a few European cities working towards 
climate neutrality. 
Lack of citizens’ and stakeholder 
engagement. 

Inadequate monitoring, evaluation, and 
communication framework. 

•
•

•

•

•

What are the consequences? 
1.

A high percentage of greenhouse gas 
emissions come from cities. 

2.

3.

4.

Inability of cities to test, develop and scale 
innovative solutions. 

Limited integrated interventions. 

Many cities face substantial challenges 
related to the  
- operational (skills & expertise) capacities,  
- availability of funding,  
- and political support from voters and 
national governments. 

Rationale:  The  high share  of  Cities  in  energy 
consumption  and  global  CO2  emissions  make 
them  an  important  part  of  European  efforts  to 
achieve the goals of the European Green Deal. 

Goal:  Deliver  100  climate-neutral  and 
smart  cities  by  2030  that  enables 
others to follow suit by 2050. 

Climate-
Neutral & 
Smart 
Cities 

Specific Objectives: 
SO-1: A “demand driven” and city-focused process based on R&I and 

focused on the preparation of Climate City Contracts (CCC). 

SO-2: Tailored R&Ι pilots & Scale-up and replicate solutions. 
SO-3: Synergies and mutual support with EC initiatives. 
SO-4: Access of cities and businesses to EU skills and expertise.  
SO-5: Upgrade Cities’ administrative, financial & policy capacity & buy-

in from citizens, stakeholders, and regions.  
SO-6: A transparent monitoring system of the progress. 
SO-7: Assistance from national, regional, local authorities, banks and 
private investment, through regulatory & funding levers. 

Building Blocks 

Mission 
Label 

Mission Platform 

Climate City Contracts 

Global Knowledge Exchange Centre 

National, local, and regional 
authorities’ network 

Intervention  
Logic:  

Challenges 

Objectives 
(SOs 1-7) 

Activities 
(Act. 1-
10) 

Results 

Figure 13. Mission Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities 

63 

 
 
2.7 million people are diagnosed with cancer and 1.3 million lose their lives due to 
the disease each year in Europe. 

Why has the main problem arisen? 
•

Increasing challenges of health systems 
including shortages of care workforce. 

•

•

•

•

Fragmented research & policy 
initiatives.  

Lack of understanding of cancer 
development, prevention, diagnostics, 
treatments quality of life of patients 
during and after cancer treatment. 

Room for improvements in cancer 
control through screening programmes 
in Central and Eastern Europe. 

Lack of: networking | capacity & skills | 
digital infrastructures | novel 
mechanisms for citizens engagement. 

What are the consequences? 
•

Increased demand for cancer-care 
and pressure on EU health systems.  
200€ billion costs in Europe (2018). 

Fragmentation of EU cancer 
research, healthcare providers, 
patient care communities & 
industries. Absence of patient/citizen 
engagement. 

A high percentage of cancer could be 
prevented with prevention, screening 
and early detection programmes. 

Lack of equal access to innovative 
treatments across countries, regions 
& socio-economic groups. 

•

•

•

•

Rationale:  Europe’s  Beating  Cancer  Plan  is  an  ambitious 
goal. The Mission aims to spark cross-sectoral collaboration 
on an ambitious European scale to improve prevention and 
control  by  integrating  innovative  approaches  to  R&I,  public 
health policies, data sharing, and citizen engagement. 

 Mission 
Cancer 

Goal: The Mission goal is improving the lives 
of  more  than  3  million  people  by  2030, 
through  prevention,  cure,  and  for  those 
affected by cancer to live longer and better.  

In  addition,  it  aims  to  improve  the  baseline 
scenario  for  reducing  mortality  from  14%  to 
20% for females & 30% to 40% for males. 

Specific Objectives: 
SO-1: Improve the understanding of cancer. 

SO-2: Prevention including screening and 

early detection.  

SO-3: Optimise diagnostics and treatment. 

SO-4: Support quality of life. 

Building Blocks 
1.

Foster Innovation through generation of knoweldge & evidence.  

R&I Programme 

2.

3.

4.

Promote innovation, test, validate, demonstrate & upscale solutions.  

Living Labs 

Track progress and monitor inequities in access to knowledge, reserach and care. 

Monitoring System 

Engage with cancer community, citizens/patients and society at large.  

Health Literacy 

Intervention logic:  

Understanding 

Prevention, screening, 
and early detection 

Diagnosis & Treatment 

Quality of life 
detection 

Key Novel Activities:  
•

Development of a common strategic R&I agenda 
to steer national efforts & streamline investments 
towards its objectives.  
The  exploitation  of  existing  R&I  results  and 
acceleration of their transition into public health.  
Linking  R&I,  EU/national  policies  &  implemen-
tation of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan.  
Increase cross-sectoral collaboration by bringing 
together  R&I,  finance,  social  sciences,  and 
humanities for a continous interaction. 

•

•

•

Figure 14. Mission Cancer 

64 

 
 
 
 
The hottest decade on record has just concluded.  
The climate impacts will continue for decades. 

Why has the main problem arisen? 
• Our planet is vulnerable to CC. 
• CC is happening today, with rising 

•

intensity.  
Too late to prevent climate impacts 
already occurring. 

• All sectors are impacted.  
• Adaptation is not fast, smart & systemic 
• Only few relevant actions submited to 
the Covenant of Mayors (2020). 

• Societal transformation needs education 

& behavioral changes. 

What are the consequences? 
• Regions with low growth have less 

capacity to adapt. 

• Both infrastructures and social 
structures are underprepared. 
• How prevent the un-adaptable and 
adapt to the un-preventable? 

• Public finances or regulations are not 
sufficient to face the challenge. 

• Adaptation and mitigation actions should 

not be antagonist but complementary & 
in parallel. 

Rationale:  The  2021  EU  Adaptation  Strategy 
integrates  the  Mission  as  an  essential  delivery 
mechanism 
induce 
for  demonstrators 
leverage effect on 1:10. 

to 

Goal:  Accompany  by  2030  at  least  150 
Europan regions and communities 
towards climate resilience. 

Objectives: 

Adaptation 
to Climate 
Change 

Ob1: Preparing and Planning for climate 

resilience 

Ob2: Accelerating transformations to 

climate resilience 

Ob3: Demonstrating systemic 
transforms to climate resilience 

implementation Steps 

Cross-border Value 

Impact at Scale 

Innovative Solutions 

Vision & Pathways 

Partnerships & Engagement 

Opportunities and Risks 

Implementation Phases 

Supporting system 
60-100 regions & 
communities to be 
fully engaged

Adjustments 
Activate all actions to 
unfold full potential, 
+ 50 - 100 regions & 
communities

Develop legacy & 
Seek to sustain 
the momentum 
achieved

Figure 15. Mission Adaptation to Climate Change 

65 

Mission Implementation 
Platform:  
•

Coordination 
management.  

and 

•

•

•

•

Support 
development 

and 

Monitoring, 
and evaluation. 

learning 

Broader 
engagement, 
communication, 
dissemination, 
exploitation. 

citizen 

and 

Connect  to/collaborate 
with 
the  activities  of 
EEA,  JRC,  EIB,  EIT’s 
Climate-Knowledge 
and Climate-KIC. 

 
 
  
 
 
60-70% of European soils are in an unhealthy condition. 

Why has the main problem arisen? 
• Human activities affect the health of 

Use, 

Land 

the soil, associated with: 
-
-

Consumer Demand Patterns 
Intensive 
Urbanisation 
Agro Production Processes 
-
Industry Processes 
-
-
Climate Change. 
Fragmented public policies & 
limited coordination of R&D 
capacities. 

•

• Weak engagement of citizens. 
•

Limited ecosystem services and 
enormous costs of degraded soils. 

Rationale: Healthy soils are essential for all life-
sustaining processes on Earth. The Mission’s aim is 
to significantly increase the share of healthy soils in 
Europe to levels that are in line with Green Deal 
commitments and targets by 2030. 

What are the consequences? 
Low capacity of soils to supply 
ecosystem services such as: 
•

producing  adequate  quantities  of 
safe and nutritious food & feed,  
storing and purifying water,  
recharging aquifers, & reducing the 
impact of droughts & floods, 
capturing  carbon  &  reducing  the 
eMission of greenhouse gases,  
supporting  crop  productivity  and 
reducing contamination 
preserving 
landscapes. 

biodiversity 

and 

•
•

•

•

•

Goal: The Mission will 
establish 100 living labs 
and lighthouses to lead 
transition towards healthy 
soils by 2030.  

Specific Objectives: 
SO-1: Reduce desertification 
SO-2: Increase soild organic carbon stocks 
SO-3: Stop sealing & re-use of urban soil 
SO-4: Reduce pollution & enhance restoration 
SO-5: Prevent erosion 
SO-6: Improve soil structure  
SO-7: Reduce the EU global foorprint on soil 
SO-8: Improve soil literacy in society 

Building Blocks: 
1.

An Ambitious inter- and transdisciplinary R&I programme. 

100 Living Laboratories for experimentation and Lighthouses 
to accelerate the uptake of solutions. 

An EU framework for Soil Monitoring and Reporting. 

2.

3.

4.

Soil literacy and citizen engagement.  

Literacy 

Monitor 

R&I 

LLs 

Timeline:  

Induction & Pilot  

2021-2025

Expansion & Innovation  

2024-2030

Scaling Up & 
Mainstreaming  

2027-2030 

Other Initiatives as Examples:  
The  NATI00NS  project  acts  as  a  messenger  by 
raising  awareness  through  dedicated  events  at 
MS&ACs  and  discussions  on  the  best  Living  Lab 
facilities to address regional soil needs. 
The PREPSOIL project is increasing awareness by 
reaching out to a wider audience: from universities, 
students up to society at large. 

Figure 16. Mission A Soil Deal for Europe 

66 

 
  
 
 
 
 
The EU’s Ocean & Waters, seas and freshwater ecosystems are rapidly degrading  
as a result of human activities. 

Why has the main problem arisen? 
• Unsustainable exploitation of 

marine and freshwater resources. 

• Pollution is affecting the water 
system notably plastics and 
microplastics, nutrients, 
chemicals, and underwater noise.  

• Climate change is altering the 
physical and biological state of 
the Ocean & Waters, seas, and 
waters and disturbing their 
ecosystems. 

What are the consequences? 
•

Threatening of the natural capital, the essential 
goods and services & risks to perturb the self-
regulatory characteristics of the water system.  
•
EU fish stocks are not in good status.  
•
Aquatic species and habitats are endangered.  
• Reducing Ocean & Waters’s capacity to act as CO2 

•

•

sink.  
1 billion tons of CO2 are released annually from 
degraded coastal ecosystems.  
Extreme sea level events and floods are likely to 
occur more frequently threatening EU’s 
communities and population. 

Restore 
our 
Ocean & 
Waters & 
Waters 

Rationale: To restore the hydrosphere’s health and 
its essential functions and services, its degradation 
must  be  reversed.  To  achieve  it,  all  the  principal 
drivers  –  unsustainable  exploitation,  pollution, 
climate  change  &  insufficient  citizen  engagement 
and  knowledge  –  a  systemic  approach  should  be 
applied. 

Goal 
The Missions is to 
restore the health 
of the EU’s Ocean 
& Waters and 
waters by 2030. 

2030 Objectives 

Filling the 
knowledge and 
emotional gap  

Zero pollution 

Revamping  
governance 

Mission Lighthouses:  

Sites  to  pilot,  demonstrate, 
develop    and  deploy  the 
Mission  activities  across 
EU seas and river basins 

•
•
•
•

Baltic & North sea basin 
Mediterranean sea basin 
Danube river basin 
Atlantic & Arctic coast 

Implementation Phases 

Regenerating marine 
and freshwater 
ecosystems 

Decarbonising 
Ocean & Waters & 

MISSION 
CHARTER 

To  mobilize  stakeholders  to 
achieve the Mission’s goals of 
strengthening 
cooperation, 
aligning  efforts  and  achieving 
critical  mass 
the 
transformational change. 

for 

Figure 17. Mission Restore our Ocean and Waters 

67 

 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX II – INDICATORS AND METHODOLOGIES  

Annex II provides a short conceptualization and rationale for the proposed indicators under each 
pillar as well as a short methodological guide for further development and testing of the indicators. 

Pillar 1 - Knowledge creation and valorisation 

According to the intervention logic model for Missions as a policy approach, the monitoring system 
proposed  for  Pillar  1  -  Knowledge  creation  and  valorisation  -  is  composed  of  the  following 
additional indicators supplementing the EU’s KIP and portfolio approaches: 

1.1  Knowledge valorisation at regional and local levels for transformative Mission-oriented 

solutions 
1.1.1 New knowledge created in different Mission units (cities, living labs, lighthouses, hubs, 
platforms, etc.) 
1.1.2 Novel solutions further developed and piloted (lab scale) in different Mission units (living 
labs, lighthouses, cities, demonstrators, hubs, platforms, etc.)  

1.1 Knowledge valorisation at regional and local levels for transformative Mission-
oriented solutions 

1.1.1 indicator: New knowledge created in different Mission units (cities, living labs, lighthouses, 
hubs, platforms etc) 

Definition: Knowledge created in Mission units with a potential for contribution to solutions that 
address Mission challenges. 

Rationale  and assumptions:  This short-  to mid-term  indicator monitors  whether Mission  units 
selected or created as part of the Missions are creating, through their co-creative and bottom-up 
activities, new knowledge that potentially enables solutions to tackle Mission challenges. Novel 
knowledge  for Mission solutions should contribute  to  scientific, societal,  and  economic  impacts 
across  countries  and  regions  in  the  long  run  (see  the  HE  KIP).  While  the  HE  funds  significant 
knowledge  creation  and  different  portfolio  exercises  and  HE  KIP  indicators  monitor  these 
processes, in some cases, the bottom-up and co-creative logic of Missions could enable also local 
Mission  units  to  define  their  own  needs  and  purse  R&I  actions.  In  the  short  term,  these 
transformative processes initiated by the Mission Units are usually linked to the Horizon Europe 
funding.  For  example,  in  the  Cancer  Mission  the  CSA  ECHoS  supporting  the  establishment  of 
national  mission  hubs,  an  example  of  Mission  Units,  is  planning  to  define  guidelines,  best 
practices,  capacity  building  activities  in  knowledge  exchange  programmes.  Some  knowledge 
produced by the ECHoS consortium could not be tracked only by the regular HE funded projects 
reporting, especially in a mid-term frame and might need a more active involvement of Mission 
Units. This can include new concepts or new ways to address a specific issue or challenge and 
that may lead to the convergence of multiple innovative solutions. The monitoring should cover 
productions embracing both traditional R&I outputs (scientific publications), but also other outputs 
from grey literature and science-policy advice to new methods and concepts supporting Mission 
objectives, on efficient solutions at regional and local level.  

Baseline: The starting points are Mission units promoted by each Mission (living labs, lighthouses, 
cities, demonstrators, hubs, platforms, etc.) to initiate the changes that will generate the expected 
goals (defined in section 3.4). As the Missions focus on different types of problems and activities 
(e.g. different types of pilot activities, engagement practices etc), these Mission units can be mostly 
monitored at the level of individual Missions through customization of generic indicators for specific 
Missions,  but  the  Mission-specific  monitoring  results  can  still  be  aggregated  into  policy  level 
monitoring.  

68 

 
 
Benchmark: Possible comparative benchmarking between Missions and Mission units 

Frequency of measurement: Biennial reporting by problem solving Mission units, or as per 
Mission-specific monitoring schedule 

Methodology:  

•  Calculated as count of R&I outputs (and their type, such as publications, science-policy 
advice,  communication  events,  patents,  etc…)  reported  in  all  ongoing  and  completed 
actions developed in and linked to Mission units.  

•  Build-up  of  well-designed  survey/questionnaire  for  each  Mission  unit  to  identify  R&I 
outputs created with potential for scale-up/transfer across countries and regions in the 
EU.  Questions  could  monitor  R&I  outputs,  the  interdisciplinary  approach,  new  R&I 
questions, contributing actors (gender) and the geographical coverage. 

Dimensions:  

•  Data pooled into averages and comparison related to each Mission unit on R&I outputs 

resulting from Mission unit activities. 

•  Data related to each Mission unit on number of R&I outputs produced characterized by 
innovation  types  (strategic,  operational,  technological,  social,  financial,  political, 
educational, etc.) to enable solutions. 

Data sources: 

•  Data/statistics from problem solving Mission units 
•  Data collection from professional networks (websites and other communication sources) 
•  Data/statistics from MS, AC and regions 

Interpretation: The EG recommends a combined quantitative (publications, patents, and classical 
R&I outputs) and qualitative approach. This will add value by identifying the innovation types, the 
novelty to enable solution, the interest of national and regional actors to support the further scaling 
and the potential new R&I questions/investigations resulting from R&I actions, interdisciplinary and 
cross  sectoral  cooperation.  Such  a  combined  approach  will  be  beneficial  in  the  long-term  to 
capture the value chain of outcomes and impacts. 

Reporting  obligation:  We  suggest  including  this  indicator  in  the  monitoring  system  of  each 
Mission.  

1.1.2 indicator:  Novel solutions further developed and piloted (lab scale) in Mission units (living 
labs, lighthouses, cities, demonstrators, hubs, platforms, etc.) 

Definition:  Knowledge-based  Mission  solutions  (technological,  social,  financial,  political, 
educational,  etc.) 
incentives,  regulations, 
investments further developed and piloted in Mission units. 

to/underlie  policies,  strategies, 

that  contribute 

Rationale  and  assumptions:  This  short-  to  mid-term  indicator  measures  whether  the 
Mission  units  are  developing  further  (via  e.g.,  piloting)  relevant  knowledge  outputs  and 
innovative solutions with the potential of being further scaled across the EU. Each Mission 
unit  (living  labs,  lighthouses,  cities,  demonstrators,  hubs,  platforms,  etc.)  will  nurture  and 
accelerate innovations – either stemming from internal R&I outputs (see indicator 1.1) or from 
the overall pool of Mission-relevant R&I outputs (national and international) – by developing 
further  and  piloting  new  approaches  at  (living)  “lab”  scale.  This  indicator  should  use  both 
quantitative  and  qualitative  measures  and  be  able  to  capture  R&I  solutions  that  have  the 
potential  for  scale-up.  The  R&I  actors  involved  in  Mission  units  should  be  able,  through  a 
selection of existing knowledge and R&I actions at lab scale, to identify solutions that can be 
further scaled across countries and regions.  

The innovative solutions could be conceptualized following the HE KIP indicator 4 “Solutions” 
as new or significantly improved: methods, technologies, and instruments / commercial goods 

69 

 
 
/  commercial  services  /  scientific  or  industrial  processes  /  business  models.  This 
conceptualization should be further customized for each Mission to capture the particularities 
and  include,  where  relevant,  other  categories  such  as  improvements  in  social,  financial, 
political, educational practices and instruments. 

Baseline: The starting points are Mission units promoted by each Mission (living labs, lighthouses, 
cities, demonstrators, hubs, platforms, etc.) and their planned and implemented activities. 

Benchmark:  No common benchmark, but possible comparative benchmarking between Missions 
and Mission units 

Frequency of measurement: Biennial reporting by problem solving Mission units, or as per 
Mission-specific monitoring schedule 

Methodology:  

•  Qualification/Identification  of  R&I  actors  and  engaged  users  that  contribute  to  the 

monitoring per Mission unit. 

•  Gathering of data beyond usual publications, use of grey literature, events, media and 

social networks text analysis. 

•  Build-up of well-designed survey/questionnaire for each Mission unit to identify planned 
and implemented actions aimed at further developing and piloting novel solutions. 
•  Questions  should  monitor  the  scale  of  activities  (e.g.  person  years),  the  R&I  fields 
involved (disciplines, trans-disciplinarity), the potential R&I outputs, type of participants, 
countries and regions actively contributing.  

Dimensions:  

•  Data pooled into averages and comparison related to each Mission unit in specific R&I 

fields involved.  

•  Data  pooled  into  averages  and  comparison  related  to  each  Mission  unit  on  R&I  pilot 

actions developed/implemented or under development. 

•  Data  pooled  into  averages  and  comparison  related  to each  Mission  unit  on  inter-  and 
transdisciplinary  interactions  (number  and  what  disciplines/sectors/communities  are 
contributing). 

Data sources: 

•  Data/statistics from Mission units 
•  Data/statistics from identified R&I actors 
•  Data/statistics from identified users 
•  Data collection from social networks using text analysis on Mission solution uses 

Interpretation:  Qualified  knowledge-based  Mission  solutions  (technological,  social,  financial, 
political, educational, etc.) that contribute to/underlie policies, strategies, incentives, regulations, 
investments, user satisfaction developed and piloted in Mission units. 

Reporting  obligation:  We  suggest  including  this  indicator  in  the  monitoring  system  of  each 
Mission. 

70 

 
 
 
 
Pillar 2 - Governance 

Based on  the  intervention  logic  of  the Missions  as  a  policy approach,  we  propose  to  gradually 
introduce the following processes focused monitoring indicators for governance that cover different 
elements / building-blocks of governance systems as well as capture the likely/ideal evolution of 
the systems:  

2.1  Mission-oriented governance mechanisms 

2.1.1 Mission-oriented governance mechanisms at EU level to implement Missions 
2.1.2 Mission-oriented governance mechanisms at MS and AC levels to implement Missions 

2.2 Acceptance of Mission-oriented innovation policy 

2.2.1 Acceptance of Mission-oriented policy approach for complex societal challenges 

beyond original five Missions 

2.1 Mission-oriented governance mechanisms 

2.1.1 indicator: Mission-oriented governance mechanisms at EU level to implement EU Missions 

Definition: Mission-oriented governance mechanisms at EU level to coordinate activities within 
and between the HE domain and specific policy domains 

indicator  monitors  and  measures 

Rationale  and  assumptions:  This 
the  governance 
arrangements  at  the  EU  level  implementation  of  Missions.  While  the  original  proposals  and 
regulations  of  Missions  as  part  of  HE  envisioned  specific  governance  mechanisms  (Mission 
boards,  secretariats,  owners  groups,  implementation  platforms,  visions  of  how  financing 
instruments etc should be pooled to support Missions etc), the process of implementation of the 
five  Missions  in  practice  will  show  the  fit-for-purpose  of  the  mechanisms  for  different  types  of 
Missions as  well as  the  overall  sustainability  of  the  governance mechanisms  (e.g. how  will  the 
procured  services,  such  as  Mission  Implementation  Platforms,  prove  themselves  and  become 
institutionalized). 

We  propose  to  unpack  “governance”  into  the  following  “key  building”  blocks  that  should  be 
monitored for each Mission (separately and also pooled into overall monitoring and assessment): 

in  different  stages  of  Mission 

a.  Strategic  orientation  and  commitment  (explicit  inclusion  of  Missions  in  political  statements, 
strategies, action plans, legislation) beyond HE (in specific Mission-related policies domains and 
directorates) 
b. Engagement practices (e.g. formal procedures, Mission labels/endorsements etc) for engaging 
stakeholders,  users,  citizens 
implementation  (planning, 
implementing, monitoring & evaluation) 
c. Budgetary process for aligning and pooling funds for Missions from beyond HE sources (e.g. 
linkages between HE and sectoral/domain budgets, ERDF, RRF, EIB etc) 
d. Horizontal policy coordination routines (principles and practices) to link R&I and other Mission-
related policy domains (including coordination between DGs and lower-level units) 
e.  Vertical  policy  coordination  routines  (principles  and  practices)  to  link  EU,  national  and 
regional/local/community-based Mission-related policies and activities 
f.  Novel  Mission-oriented  policy  implementation  structures  and  capacities  (e.g.  have  Mission 
Implementation Platforms been put in place and function beyond existing funding periods) 
g. Novel Mission-oriented policy portfolio/mix (e.g. have new comprehensive policy portfolios been 
developed to implement Missions) 
h. Monitoring and evaluation system that allows for constant revision of Missions and approach to 
implementation 

71 

 
All building blocks can be monitored through the following scale that allows for monitoring both the 
progress in rethinking governance (in specific blocks and overall, and either on the level of specific 
Missions or EU as a whole) as well as at Missions level differences in styles of governance (what 
building  blocks  are  considered  relevant  for  Mission  governance  and  how  these  are  being 
designed, rethought): 

0 Not applicable – the building block is not applicable to the context where the assessment 
takes place. 
1 Not in place – the building block under assessment does not exist and there are no plans 
or actions for putting it in place. 
2 Building Block under development – the building block does not exist yet, but it is under 
development. 
3 In place, not implemented – the building block is in place, but it is not implemented. (e.g. 
statements of commitment, but no action). 
4  In  place,  partly  implemented  –  the  building  block  is  in  place,  but  the  level  of 
implementation is not complete. 
5 In place, functioning – the building block under assessment is complete and satisfices 
the need of Mission-oriented approach. 

The monitoring exercise can both gather data on progress (though answers in the scale from 0-5) 
and detailed qualitative insights through open questions and qualitative data provision (e.g. why a 
certain building block is not developed, or what a specific building block consists of).  

72 

 
 
Example  of  how  the  results  can  be  visualized  based  on  OECD  work  on  monitoring  policy 
commitment  for  SDGs.  Given  the  exploratory  nature  of  the  EU’s  Mission  approach,  in  first 
instances, these building blocks can be more qualitatively mapped and characterised as different 
varieties  of  (emergent)  novel  approaches,  or  governance  styles  (e.g.,  top-down,  bottom-up; 
hierarchical, contractual, network based). Mapping of these approaches allows to monitor what is 
done differently on governance level to support Missions (novel mechanisms, novel styles, focus 
on some functions vs less focus on others) and reveal novel and functioning practices to be shared 
across  different  Missions.  Over  time,  once  the  practices  mature,  a  more  coherent  Mission 
governance approach(es) can be defined and codified. 

Baseline: Existing formalised designs of governance as stated in HE regulations and MIPs 

Benchmark: Formal baseline as benchmark. Possibility to carry out comparative benchmarking 
between Missions (e.g. by number of implemented governance mechanisms, styles of governance 
etc to support Missions). 

Frequency  of  measurement:  Annual  or  biennial  stock-taking  exercises  (e.g.  mutual  learning 
exercises between Missions, EC coordinated survey/study/assessment). 

Methodology: Expert assessment and joint learning based on: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

interviews and/or focus groups with Mission Secretariats (assessing the building blocks 
on the proposed scale + providing qualitative information) 
comparison of approaches against baseline, against own internal evolution (2nd stage), 
against other Missions 
open-ended questions with brief explanations (e.g. what type of governance 
mechanisms could be included / excluded) to key policy makers 
secondary supportive data from policy websites such as TRAMI, STIP Compass 

Dimensions: data and values for this indicator may be disaggregated by:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

simple count of governance mechanisms implemented to support the Missions (as a 
whole, or per each Mission), i.e. what are key elements of governance to support 
Missions 
differences in functions such as planning, coordination, engagement, implementation, 
monitoring and evaluation 
types of mechanisms for coordination, implementation, engagements (e.g., 
roundtables, co-creation tools, implementation platforms etc) 
qualitative assessments on the functioning of novel governance mechanisms based on 
interviews, case studies, policy documentation and other qualitative sources 
funding attached to the mechanism (for implementation and for Mission activities) 

Data sources: Biennial reporting by Missions (Secretariats, Implementation Platforms) based on 
strategies, policies, plans, instruments (including justification/explanatory documents). 

Linkage with other indicators: The Mission-oriented governance mechanisms are intended to 
bring  a  lasting  effect  on  novel  (R&I)  policy  approaches  to  tackle  the  societal  challenges  of  the 
Missions, with cross-cutting policy approaches generating a wider pool of funding and resources 
from  a  wider  set  of  stakeholders.  Hence,  as  part  of  the  common  monitoring  framework,  these 
insights from governance can be linked and related to the ability of different units to e.g. pooling 
of funding or engaging with stakeholders to support the implementation of Missions. In addition, 
one  can  carry  out  comparative  analyses  on  e.g.  what  types  of  governance  styles  are  able  to 
engage and/or pool more people and resources. 

Reporting  obligation:  We  suggest  launching  this  as  biennial  stock-taking  and  peer  learning 
exercise (or link it to planned assessments and evaluations) coordinated by the EC Mission policy 
unit and implemented through e.g. mutual learning exercises between Missions, EC coordinated 
survey/study/assessment. 

73 

 
2.1.2 indicator: Mission-oriented governance mechanisms at MS and AC levels to implement EU 
Missions 

Definition:  Mission-oriented  governance  instruments  introduced  at  relevant  policy  levels  (EU 
MS/AC level; regional/city/community level; for each Mission).  

Rationale  and  assumptions:  This  indicator  monitors  and  measures  whether  the  novel 
governance mechanisms have been adopted and are functioning across the EU MS/AC in support 
of the five EU Mission objectives and the Mission policy approach. The outputs to be measured 
can be categorised in terms of typical governance mechanisms identified, across several functions 
explicitly  supporting  Missions.  Combining  prior  conceptual  thinking  on  governance  of  Missions 
(see Mazzucato 201925, Larrue 202126) and how to monitor novel emergent policy coordination 
and coherence initiatives in the context of complex transformative goals (see OECD work on policy 
coherence for SDG implementation), we propose to unpack “governance” into the following key 
“building blocks”: 

a. Strategic orientation and commitment (explicit inclusion of Missions in political statements, 
strategies, action plans, legislation) 

b.  Engagement  practices  (e.g.  formal  procedures,  charters,  contracts,  manifestos, 
endorsement)  for  engaging  stakeholders,  users,  citizens  in  different  stages  of  Mission 
implementation (planning, implementing, monitoring & evaluation) 

c.  Budgetary  process  for  aligning  and  pooling  funds  for  the  five  EU  Missions  (EU  funds 
implemented locally, national/local budgetary sources) 

d. Horizontal policy coordination routines (formal and informal principles and practices) to 
link R&I and other Mission-related policy domains (including coordination between ministries 
and lower-level units) 

e. Vertical policy coordination routines (formal and informal principles and practices) to link 
EU, national and regional/local/community-based Mission-related policies and activities 

f. Novel Mission-oriented policy implementation structures and capacities (e.g. mirror groups, 
national Mission boards, Mission labels/charters etc) 

g. Novel Mission-oriented policy portfolio/mix (e.g. have new comprehensive policy portfolios 
been developed to implement Missions) 

h. Monitoring and evaluation system that allows for constant revision of Missions and their 
implementation at national or local levels 

All building blocks can be monitored through the following scale that allows for monitoring both the 
progress  in  rethinking governance  (in  specific  block and  overall, either  on country  levels or  for 
specific Missions) as well as level differences in styles of governance (what building blocks are 
considered relevant for Missions governance and how these are being designed, rethought): 

0 Not applicable – the building block is not applicable to the context where the assessment 

takes place. 
1 Not in place – the building block under assessment does not exist and there are no plans 
or actions for putting it in place. 
2 Building Block under development – the building block does not exist yet, but it is under 
development. 
3 In place, not implemented – the building block is in place, but it is not implemented. (e.g. 
statements of commitment, but no action) 

25 Mazzucato, M. (2019). Governing Missions in the European Union. Independent Expert Report. 
26 Larrue, P. (2021). The design and implementation of Mission-oriented innovation policies: A new systemic 

policy approach to address societal challenges. 

74 

 
 
4  In  place,  partly  implemented  –  the  building  block  is  in  place,  but  the  level  of 
implementation is not complete. 
5  In  place,  functioning  –  the  building  block  under  assessment  is  complete  and  relevant 
satisfices the need of Mission-oriented approach. 

The monitoring exercise can both gather data on progress (though answers in the scale from 0-5) 
as  well  as  qualitative  insights  (e.g.  open  responses  on  why  a  certain  building  block  is  not 
developed, or what a specific building block consists of). 

Example of how the results can be visualized based on OECD work on monitoring policy 
commitment for SDGs:

Given the exploratory nature of the EU’s Mission approach, in first instances, these building blocks 
can  be  more  qualitatively  mapped  and  characterised  as  different  varieties  of  (emergent)  novel 
approaches, or governance styles (e.g., top-down, bottom-up; hierarchical, contractual, network 
based). Mapping of these approaches allows to monitor what is done differently on governance 
level to support Missions (novel mechanisms, novel styles, focus on some functions vs less focus 
on others) and reveal novel and functioning practices to be shared across different countries and 
units. Over time, once EU and national/regional level practices mature, a more coherent Missions 
governance approach(es) can be defined and codified. 

Baseline:  No  baseline  as  Mission  specific  Mission  focused  governance  mechanisms  have  not 
existed before. Can be set based on first round of monitoring (e.g are countries building bespoke 
governance systems or relying on specific national traditions and existing arrangements). 

Benchmark:  Comparative  benchmarking  between  EU  MS/AC,  regions  and  also  between 
Missions (e.g. by number of implemented governance mechanisms, styles of governance etc to 
support Missions) 

75 

 
 
Frequency of measurement: biennial monitoring  

Methodology: 

•  Survey or country fiche question for respondents (MS, AC or regional levels) to fill based 
on pooling of relevant unit level (e.g. MS/AC, region) data assessing the building blocks 
on the proposed scale and providing qualitative information 
•  Open-ended  questions  with  brief  explanations  (e.g.  what 
mechanisms could be included / excluded) to key policy makers 

type  of  governance 

•  Secondary supportive data from policy websites such as TRAMI, STIP Compass 

Dimensions: data and values for this indicator may be disaggregated by:  

•  Simple count of governance mechanisms and their stage of implementation to support 

the Missions (as a whole or per Mission) 

•  Differences in functions such as planning, coordination, engagement, implementation, 

• 

monitoring and evaluation 
Types of mechanisms for coordination, implementation (e.g., mirror groups, Mission 
advisory boards, national/ regional implementation platforms) 

•  Qualitative assessments on the functioning of novel governance mechanisms based on 

interviews, case studies, policy documentation and other qualitative sources 
Funding attached to the mechanism (for implementation and for Mission activities) 

• 

Data sources: biennial monitoring through EU MS/AC level reporting on Missions’ implementation 
(e.g. via TRAMI mapping exercises or EU R&I policy questionnaire distributed as part of the OECD 
STIP Compass exercise)  

Linkage with other indicators: the Mission-oriented governance mechanisms are intended to 
bring  a  lasting  effect  on  novel  (R&I)  policy  approaches  to  tackle  the  societal  challenges  of  the 
Missions, with cross-cutting policy approaches generating a wider pool of funding and resources 
from  a  wider  set  of  stakeholders.  Hence,  as  part  of  the  common  monitoring  framework,  these 
insights  from  governance  can  be  linked  and  related  to  the  ability  of  different  units  to  e.g.  pool 
funding or engage stakeholders to support the implementation of Missions. In addition, one can 
carry out comparative analyses on e.g. what types of governance styles are able to engage and/or 
pool more people and resources. 

Reporting  obligation:  We  suggest  launching  this  as  biennial  stock-taking  and  peer  learning 
exercise  through  MS/AC  level  reporting  on  Missions’  implementation  (e.g.  via  TRAMI  mapping 
exercises or EU R&I policy questionnaire distributed as part of the OECD STIP Compass exercise)  

2.2 Acceptance of Mission-oriented innovation policy 

2.2.1 indicator: Acceptance of Mission-oriented policy approach for complex societal challenges 
beyond original five EU Missions 

Definition:  The  acceptance  of  Mission-oriented  approach  as  a  policy  intervention  tool  among 
different stakeholders (EU level, MS/AC, general public) 

Rationale and assumptions: Missions are not only about solving the specific challenges (the five 
EU Missions), but also a new and experimental policy approach to increase the effectiveness of 
the  R&I  policies  and  improve  coordination  between  different  policy  silos  (R&I  and  ‘problem’ 
domains). The sustainability (and effectiveness) of this approach is best monitored and evaluated 
through the routinization of the approach (extensive use to tackle different challenges on different 
levels  of  governments)  as  well  as,  and  especially  given  the  high  reliance  on  stakeholder 
participation, public awareness and acceptance of the novel intervention model (vs traditional silos 
and interventions models). 

For the public discourse level acceptance of the Mission-oriented approach, we propose to monitor 
this through the citizen engagement indicators 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 (see the pillar on engagement). 

76 

 
For the public policy discourse level, we propose to unpack the policy level acceptance of Mission-
oriented approach through the following scales that can be monitored at the level of EU, MS/AC 
as well as regional/local levels: 

0 – No active debate and use of the EU designed Mission-oriented approach to tackle new 
challenges (beyond the original 5 Missions)  
1 – Continued experimentation with the EU designed Mission-oriented approach to tackle a 
few new Missions (single governance or policy domain level initiatives) 
2 – Continued experimentation with the EU designed Mission-oriented approach to tackle a 
few new Missions as multi-level and/or cross-domain initiatives  
3 – There is a common understanding of one or a few approaches/traditions of how 
Missions-oriented approach is best designed (they can be also pre-defined through 
monitoring) 
4 – There is strategic plan or roadmap or similar to use this common EU-inspired Mission-
oriented approach to tackle complex societal challenges (single governance level or policy 
domain initiatives) 
5 - There is EU-wide strategic plan or roadmap or similar to use Mission-oriented approach 
to tackle complex societal challenges  

Baseline:  Current  state  of  five  Missions  as  depicted  in  ongoing  reviews  (e.g.  assessments  of 
existing missions, mid-term evaluation of HE etc). 

Benchmark:  No  common  benchmark,  but  possible  comparative  benchmarking  between  policy 
domains, countries, regions 

Frequency  of  measurement:  biennial  stock-tacking  and  reporting  by  EU,  MS  and  AC  and 
regions/other units responsible for Mission-oriented policy-making 

Methodology: 

• 

Interview or survey question or country fiche question for respondents (EU, MS and AC 
or regional level) to fill based on pooling of relevant unit level (e.g. EU domains, MS and 
AC, regions)  

•  Secondary supportive data from policy websites such as TRAMI, STIP Compass 

Dimensions: data and values for this indicator may be disaggregated by:  

•  Simple count of policy domains, countries, regions were Mission-oriented initiatives are 

discussed/pursued 

•  Differences in the “deepness” on acceptance of Mission-oriented approach 
•  Qualitative assessments on the functioning of novel approach based on interviews, 

case studies, policy documentation and other qualitative sources 

Data  sources:  biennial  reporting  by  EU,  MS/AC  and  regions/other  units  based  on  domestic 
strategies, policies, instruments (including justification/explanatory documents) 

Linkage with other indicators: together with engagement level indicators (public awareness and 
acceptance), it is possible to monitor and evaluate the overall impact of Mission-oriented policy 
approach on RDI policy and tackling of societal challenges. 

Data reporting obligation: We suggest to launch this as biennial stock-taking and peer learning 
exercise coordinated on the EU level by the EC Mission policy unit and on EU MS/AC level through 
EU MS/AC level reporting on Missions’ implementation (e.g. via TRAMI mapping exercises or EU 
R&I policy questionnaire distributed as part of the OECD STIP Compass exercise). 

77 

 
 
Pillar 3 - Participatory engagement of stakeholders/citizens 

In the monitoring framework, the following indicators are proposed in Pillar 3:  
3.1.  Co-creation of Mission solutions with citizens in programs beyond HE  

3.1.1  Number  of  actions  developed  by  Mission  units  where  citizens  contribute  to  the  co-
creation of solutions   
3.1.2 Number of actions reported in 3.1.1 that have considered inclusiveness criteria 

3.2 Citizens engaged in processes and activities in Mission units  

3.2.1 Number of formal engagement mechanisms developed by Mission units  
3.2.2 Presence and relevance of Mission goals in (social) media. 

3.3 Strong civil engagement with R&I solutions for societal challenges achieved  

3.3.1 Citizen awareness of the EU Missions 
3.3.2 Citizens’ engagement in the EU Missions 

3.1 Co-creation of Mission solutions with citizens in programs beyond HE  

3.1.1 indicator: Number of Mission-relevant actions developed by Mission units where citizens 
contribute to the co-creation of solutions 

Definition: Number of unique Mission-relevant actions (activities with specific budget and target) 
developed  by  Mission  units  and  funded  by  regional,  national  or  other  European  organisations 
where citizens are engaged in the co-creation of knowledge in the domains of the EU Mission. 
According to the definition adopted in the HE KIP27, co-creation actions are the following: 
•  Co-creating  R&I  visions,  agendas,  policies  or  frameworks,  R&I  action  plans  or  technology 

roadmaps  

•  Collecting data for R&D projects, analysing data for the projects 
•  Providing resources, e.g. computational, space/locations, practical support, monitoring and/or 

evaluating R&I results 
• 
Testing and experimenting with innovative R&I solutions 
•  Contributing to scientific publications or patent applications  
•  Debating R&I findings and their implications. 

According to the review of the engagement approaches included in the domains of the five EU 
Missions, “Citizens” refers to stakeholders interested or concerned by the project from different 
roles: consumers, producers, users and owners. On the other hand, in the co-creation activities 
they could be acting as co-designers, co-implementers or co-beneficiaries. “Solutions” are defined 
as projects, scale-up actions and innovations related to the five Mission domains but not funded 
by HE. 

Rationale  and  assumptions:  According  to  the  Mission  approach,  citizens  engagement  in  co-
creation of technological solutions would provide valuable feedback for the R&I process and would 
enable societal uptake of disruptive innovations. Regional and national governments and the EC 
should have promoted co-creation actions in the domain of the five Missions and beyond HE calls.  

Baseline: Existing co-creation actions supported by regions, MS/AC and the EC. 

Benchmark: Possibility to carry out comparative benchmarking between Missions.  

Frequency of measurement: Annual or biennial stock-taking exercises as part of Mission-level 
monitoring. 

27 European Commission (2022). Study to support the monitoring and evaluation of the Framework Programme 
for research and innovation along Key Impact Pathways. Indicator methodology and metadata handbook. 

78 

 
 
 
 
Methodology: Counting unique actions supported by regions, MS/AC and the EC implementing 
co-creation mechanisms 

Type of engagement action 
Type of citizens engaged  

Dimensions: data and values for this indicator may be disaggregated by:  
• 
• 
•  Regional, national or European context  
•  Missions 

Data  sources:  Annual  or  biennial  stock-taking  exercises  as  part  of  Mission-level  monitoring  / 
Mission Implementation Platforms’ data collection actions. 

Linkage  with  other  indicators:  co-creation  actions  are  directly  related  with  the  Pillar  1  - 
Knowledge  creation  and  valorisation,  as  they  are  part  of  the  process  adopted  by  the  research 
teams.  Moreover, it is related to Pillar 2 – Governance, as engagement is considered a relevant 
dimension when defining Mission-oriented governance arrangements and co-creation would be 
included as a required practice when implementing Missions.  

Reporting obligation:  no  formal  obligation but  could  be  formalized in Mission-based  reporting 
system or incentivized via public comparisons and policy learning experiences. 

3.1.2 indicator: Number of actions reported in 3.1.1 that have considered inclusiveness criteria 

Definition:  The  inclusiveness  concept  refers  to  a  fair  representation  of  the  society  in  the  co-
creation of knowledge, to avoid bias in the results, use and accessibility of the solutions. The most 
relevant inclusiveness action is the gender dimension. But inclusiveness should be also observed 
according  to  the  perspective  of  other  collectives,  such  as  handicapped  people;  migrant 
populations;  disadvantaged  groups;  rural  inhabitants;  elderly  or  young  people.  Engagement 
activities  considering  inclusiveness  aspects  should  have  implemented  actions  guaranteeing  a 
balanced  gender  participation  and  a  fair  representation  of  vulnerable  groups in  the  co-creation 
process. 

Rationale  and  assumptions:  Citizen  engagement  actions  should  be  defined  and  managed 
following gender equality and inclusiveness criteria to avoid unintended effects of the co-creation 
processes. Access to technological solutions would be guaranteed by including these criteria. The 
risk of exclusion of citizens who are interested in Mission-oriented policy can be minimized if co-
creation processes are designed accordingly. On the other hand, it is necessary to be aware to 
what extent inclusiveness is a feasible approach in the co-creation of solutions to manage potential 
bias.   

Baseline:  Existing  co-creation  actions  including  gender  equality  and  inclusiveness  criteria 
supported by regions, MS/AC and the EC. 

Benchmark:  Possibility  to  carry  out  comparative  benchmarking  between  Missions  and 
engagement of different population groups. 

Frequency of measurement: Annual or biennial stock-taking exercises as part of Mission-level 
monitoring. 

Methodology: Counting unique actions supported by regions, MS/AC and the EC implementing 
co-creation mechanisms following gender equality and inclusiveness criteria. 

Dimensions: data for this indicator may be disaggregated by:  
•  Actions considering gender equality 
•  Actions considering inclusiveness criteria related to vulnerable populations 
• 
• 
•  Regional, national or European context  
•  Missions 

Type of engagement action 
Type of citizens engaged  

79 

 
 
Data  sources:  Annual  or  biennial  stock-taking  exercises  as  part  of  Mission-level  monitoring  / 
Mission Implementation Platforms’ network data collection actions. 

Linkage with other indicators: Based on the input from 3.1.1 

Reporting obligation:  no  formal  obligation but  could  be  formalized in Mission-based  reporting 
system or incentivized via public comparisons and policy learning experiences.  

3.2 Citizens engaged in processes and activities in Mission units 

3.2.1 indicator: Number of formal engagement mechanisms developed by Mission units 

Definition: Number of unique formal engagement mechanisms developed by Mission units at the 
regional,  national  or  European  level  and  not  funded  by  HE  calls.  According  to  the  definition 
adopted in the HE KIP, engagement mechanisms are the following: 
•  Virtual or physical permanent structures (Mission hubs, observatories, communities) 
•  Appointed staff in the organisations 
•  Rules and standards 
•  Dedicated events (workshops, assemblies, panels, fora, roundtables) 
•  Other tools (event-based, web-based, etc.)  

Rationale and assumptions: According to Missions as a policy approach, regional, national and 
European  governments  should  promote  the  creation  of  engagement  mechanisms  to  give 
continuity to the participation of society in the co-creation and scaling-up of solutions. Moreover, it 
is supposed that Mission units supported by governments have adopted the participatory approach 
in their internal processes due to their added value in terms of return on R&I investments.    

Baseline: Existing engagement mechanisms supported by regions, MS, AC and the EC in the five 
Missions. 

Benchmark:  Possibility  to  carry  out  comparative  benchmarking  between  Missions  and  type  of 
mechanisms.  

Frequency of measurement: Annual or biennial stock-taking exercises as part of Mission-level 
monitoring. 

Methodology: Counting unique engagement mechanisms developed by Mission units. 

Dimensions: data for this indicator may be disaggregated by:  
• 
Type of engagement mechanism  
•  Regional, national or European context  
•  Missions 

Data  sources:  Annual  or  biennial  stock-taking  exercises  as  part  of  Mission-level  monitoring.  / 
Mission Implementation Platforms’ data collection actions. 

Linkage with other indicators: engagement mechanisms are directly related to Pillar 4 - Pooling 
and  Scaling-up.  Firstly,  resources  should  be  allocated  to  create  supportive  engagement 
mechanisms,  beyond  R&I  activities,  and  this  requires  additional  budget.  On  the  other  hand, 
permanent  structures,  as  well  as  punctual  events,  could  be  used  for  scaling  up  technological 
solutions and disseminate good practices.  Moreover, it is related with Pillar 2 - Governance, as 
engagement  is  considered  a  relevant  dimension  when  defining  Mission-oriented  governance 
arrangements  and  engagement  mechanisms  would  be  included  as  a  required  practice  when 
implementing Missions.  

Reporting obligation:  no  formal  obligation but  could  be  formalized in Mission-based  reporting 
system or incentivized via public comparisons and policy learning experiences. 

3.2.2 indicator: Presence and relevance of Mission challenges and goals in (social) media 

80 

 
 
Definition:  Frequency  and  relevance  of  comments,  opinions  and  publications  in  the mass  and 
social media on the challenges and goals of the five Missions. KIPs for social media could be likes, 
engagement, followers’ growth, traffic conversions, social interactions, social shares, web visitors. 

Rationale  and  assumptions:  social  media  is  considered  a  mandatory  channel  for  connecting 
with  the  society  and  a  window  to  the  civil  reactions  and  opinions  towards  social  issues.  It  is 
supposed that the topics related to the Missions will have a relevant presence in mass media, and 
especially  in  social  media,  if  citizens  are  actively  involved  and  interested  in  those  issues.  This 
indicator provides information on the extent to which the civil population is interested and involved 
in  concrete  issues  related  to  Missions.  It  should  be  considered  that  the  characteristics  of  the 
population using social media could introduce a bias in the indicator. 

Baseline: No available data before the implementation of the five EU Missions. 

Benchmark: Possibility to carry out comparative benchmarking between Missions. 

Frequency of measurement: Periodical (e.g. biennial) measurement of KPIs, according to the 
monitoring schedule  

Methodology: Counting values of KPIs (likes, engagement, followers’ growth, traffic conversions, 
social interactions, social shares, web visitors...), using the available tools and supported by IT 
experts. 

Type of social network 

Dimensions: data for this indicator may be disaggregated by:  
• 
•  Regional, national or European context  
•  Missions 

Data sources: Social media data 

Linkage with other indicators: presence and relevance in social media are related with citizen 
engagement indicators, as individuals will express themselves throughout these communication 
channels.  Moreover,  governments  should  also  use  this  channel  to  activate  the  engagement  of 
citizens  in  the  five  EU  Missions.  Moreover,  it  is  related  with  Pillar  2  –  Governance,  as 
communication  actions  by  governments  should  be  considered  when  defining  Mission-oriented 
governance arrangements.  

Reporting obligation:  no  formal  obligation but  can be arranged  as designated cross-Missions 
external study with limited additional reporting obligations. 

3.3 Strong civil engagement with R&I solutions for societal challenges achieved 

3.3.1 indicator: Citizen awareness of the EU Missions 

Definition: Level of awareness of Missions as EU policy and Mission goals 

Rationale and assumptions: Missions are expected to involve the society on the achievement 
of their goals. The transformative effect on the population would not be possible without a broad 
knowledge of the policy. This indicator will allow to depict to what extent public intervention has 
transformed  the  public  opinion  on  EU  Missions  and  their  goals,  which  is  a  needed  change  to 
guarantee success of the policy. 

Baseline: No available data before the implementation of the five EU Missions. 

Benchmark: Possibility to carry out comparative benchmarking between Missions. 

Frequency of measurement: According to Eurobarometer schedule.   

Methodology: Eurobarometer is the instrument used by the EC, the European Parliament and 
other EU institutions and agencies to regularly monitor the state of public opinion in Europe on 

81 

 
 
issues related to the European Union as well as attitudes on subjects of political or social nature. 
This tool is appropriated to measure the awareness of the Missions, goals and activities among 
the  civil  society.  Questions  should  address  specific  goals  related  to  each  of  the  Missions,  and 
drafted in order to extract information to measure the level of awareness. The following structure 
could be used: 

At what extend are you aware of the following challenges that EU tries to tackle in collaboration 
with your government and local authorities? (From 1 to 5, being 1, Nothing and 5, Fully aware).    

•  Deliver 100 climate-neutral and smart cities by 2030 
• 

Improve the lives of more than 3 million people by 2030, through prevention and cure of 
cancer, and reduce mortality. 

•  Supporting  by  2023  at  least  150  European  regions  and  communities  towards  climate 

resilience. 

•  Establish 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead transition towards healthy soils by 2030 
•  Restore the health of the EU´s oceans and waters by 2030 

Dimensions: data for this indicator may be disaggregated by:  
•  Regional, national or European context  
•  Missions 

Data sources: Eurobarometer survey (Special or Flash Eurobarometer) 

Linkage with other indicators: Citizen awareness of the EU Missions is linked with indicators in 
Pillar 3, since this is the final result of the engagement process. Moreover, this indicator is related 
with the transformative outcomes of the other pillars.  

Reporting obligation: no formal obligation, but can be arranged as designated cross-Missions 
external Eurobarometer study with limited additional reporting obligations. 

3.3.2 indicator: Citizens’ engagement in the EU Missions  

Definition:  Level  of  active  participation  of  citizens  in  actions  related  to  the  EU  Missions  in  a 
continuous way (transformed behaviour concerning the role of citizens in the EU Missions). 

Rationale and assumptions: Missions are expected to involve the society on the achievement 
of their goals. The transformative effect on the population would not be possible without a broad 
knowledge  of  the  policy.  This  indicator  shows  the  extent  to  which  public  intervention  has 
transformed the role of citizens in the deployment of solutions for the EU Missions. They should 
not appear as users of technology, but also as developers and pushing forces.   

Baseline: No available data before the implementation of the five EU Missions. 

Benchmark: Possibility to carry out comparative benchmarking between Missions. 

Frequency of measurement: According to Eurobarometer schedule   

Methodology: Eurobarometer is the instrument used by the EC, the European Parliament and 
other EU institutions and agencies to regularly monitor the state of public opinion in Europe on 
issues related to the European Union as well as attitudes on subjects of political or social nature. 
This tool is appropriated to measure in the long term the level of engagement of the civil society 
in Missions goals and activities. Questions should address each of the Missions and drafted in 
order to extract information to measure the level of engagement. The following structure could be 
used: 

At what extend are or have you been engaged in activities related to the following Missions that 
EU lead in collaboration with your government and local authorities? (From 1 to 5, being 1, Nothing 
and 5, Fully engaged).    

82 

 
 
•  Climate neutral and Smart cities Mission (deliver 100 climate-neutral and smart cities by 

2030) 

•  Mission  Cancer  (improve  the  lives  of  more  than  3  million  people  by  2030,  through 

prevention and cure of cancer, and reduce mortality) 

•  Adaptation to climate change Mission (supporting by 2023 at least 150 European regions 

and communities towards climate resilience) 

•  Soil Mission (establish 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead transition towards healthy 

soils by 2030) 

•  Oceans & Water Mission (restore the health of the EU´s oceans and waters by 2030) 

Dimensions: data for this indicator may be disaggregated by:  
•  Regional, national or European context  
•  Missions 

Data sources: Eurobarometer survey (Special or Flash Eurobarometer) 

Linkage with other indicators: Citizen engagement in the EU Missions is linked with indicators 
in pillar 3, since this is the final result of the engagement process. Moreover, this indicator is related 
with the transformative outcomes of the other pillars.   

Reporting obligation:  no  formal  obligation but  can be arranged  as designated cross-Missions 
external Eurobarometer study with limited additional reporting obligations. 

Pillar 4 - Pooling and Scaling-up 

For Missions to achieve their desired goals and impacts, one of the most crucial tasks is to achieve 
significant  pooling  of  public  (beyond  HE)  and  private  funding  to  support  knowledge 
creation and scaling-up of Mission-relevant solutions. In this context, HE funds allocated to 
Missions are intended as seed money to prepare and enable a greater mobilisation of public 
and private investments. Hence, it is crucial to monitor the ability of Missions (also through the 
support of governance and engagement activities) to pool such resources at different levels and 
subsets  of  societies.  At  the  same  time,  scaling-up  and  institutionalization  of  Mission-relevant 
solutions  does  not  only  require  financial  pooling,  but  also  pooling  and  alignment  of  relevant 
institutional elements (standards, regulation, processes) among different Mission actors. 

Keeping this logic in mind, we propose the following indicators: 

4.1 Pooling and Leveraging of public and private funds 

4.1.1  Mission-oriented  budgets/funding  in  EU  programmes  other  than  Horizon  Europe 
disbursed via projects  
4.1.2 Mission-oriented budgets/funding in shared management programmes disbursed by EU 
MS/AC;  Co-programmed  and  co-funded  Horizon  Europe  Partnerships  allocations  by  EU 
MS/AC; National and regional R&I programmes  
4.1.3  Mission-oriented  private  sector  investment  (InvestEU  and  direct  investments  by 
companies) and Mission-oriented donations from charities and philanthropic organisations  

4.2 Scaling of transformative solutions and supportive measures 

4.2.1 Innovative Mission solutions (technological, social, financial, political, educational etc) 
further tested and deployed across countries and regions to support Mission goals 
4.2.2 Number and types of institutional changes (standards, regulations, policies, processes 
etc) explicitly adopted to support scale-up of Mission solutions 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
4.1 Pooling and Leveraging of public and private funds 

This  indicator  can  be  monitored  through  3  sub-indicators  that  need  differentiated  monitoring 
strategies but can be eventually totalled into one pooling and leverage figure: 

4.1.1 indicator: Mission-oriented budgets/funding in EU programmes other than Horizon Europe  

4.1.2 Indicator: Mission-oriented budgets/funding in shared management programmes disbursed 
by EU MS/AC; Co-programmed and co-funded Horizon Europe Partnerships allocations by EU 
MS/AC; National and regional R&I programmes 

4.1.3 Indicator: Mission-oriented private sector investment (InvestEU and direct investments by 
companies) and Mission-oriented donations from charities and philanthropic organisations. 

Definition: Pooling and leveraging of public and private sector funding that includes beyond HE 
EU  funds,  MS/AC  funds,  local  funds,  private  funds.  Alignment  and  resources  allocations  of 
different funding instruments beyond HE, at EU, MS/AC, shared management, regional and local 
levels,  including  private investments  to  achieve  deliberative  directionality  and  scale-up  towards 
achievements of Missions’ objectives. 

Rationale  and  assumptions:  HE  funds  allocated  to  Missions  are  intended  as  seed  money  to 
prepare and enable a greater mobilisation of public and private investments. This indicator reflects 
this directional mobilisation beyond HE by capturing the development of complementary activities 
supported  by  European,  national,  regional  and  local  funding  programmes  as  well  as  activities 
supported by industry and by charities, in contribution to Missions’ objectives. Sub-indicators 4.1.1, 
4.1.2  and  4.1.3  quantify  the  further  funding  planned  and/or  allocated  at  EU  level  beyond  HE 
through shared management, through national, regional and local funds as well as private sector 
(industrial business) investments.  

Baseline: amount of public and private investment mobilised by Horizon Europe funded Missions 
projects.  

Benchmark: no benchmark available as Missions is a new instrument launched under Horizon 
Europe 

Frequency of measurement: biennial, taking into consideration different call launch timings of 
the various EU programmes.  

Methodology:  

Sub-indicator  4.1.1:  calculated  as  a  simple  amount  (in  EUR)  of  planned  and/  allocated 
budgets/funds in all ongoing and completed in EU programmes other than Horizon Europe.  

Sub-indicator  4.1.2:  calculated  as  a  simple  amount  (in  EUR)  of  planned  and/or  allocated 
budgets/funds  in  shared  management  programmes  (ESIF,  including  Interreg,  ERDF,  Cohesion 
Fund; CAP, RIS3, RRF, etc) disbursed by EU MS/AC; Co-programmed and co-funded Horizon 
Europe Partnerships allocations by EU MS/AC; National and regional R&I programmes. Data may 
be captured by Commission-led Missions portfolio analyses, Mission Implementation Platforms’ 
led monitoring and evaluations. For the Missions-relevant funding in HE Partnerships, we suggest 
that the Partnerships Monitoring system also collects data on EU and MS/AC level (co-)funding of 
Missions-relevant activities. 

For  sub-indicator  4.1.3,  it  will  be  important  to  establish  concordance  between  the  European 
Investment Bank (EIB) and other financial institutions and an InvestEU portfolio linked to Missions 
because:  i)  the  four  policy  areas  where  the  programme  is  active  (Sustainable  infrastructure, 
Research, innovation and Digitalisation, SMEs and Social investment and Skills) are essential for 
scaling  of  transformative  solutions  towards  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Missions  and  ii)  we 
foresee  several  challenges  in  getting  a  complete  picture  of  Missions-related  private/industry 
investments  at  EU  MS/AC  levels. Therefore,  as a  first proxy  of private sector investment,  data 

84 

 
collection for sub-indicator 4.1.3 may be coordinated by the EIB based on the InvestEU Missions-
related  project  portfolio.  Later,  it  might  be  possible  to  collect  data  from  the  private  sector, 
particularly  industry,  at  EU  MS/AC  level  via  introduction  of  a  targeted  question  in  a  survey 
proposed for the monitoring framework and/or sub-indicator 4.1.2. 

Data collection for these sub-indicators will be cumulative (over years) to demonstrate progressive 
pooling and leveraging, scaling up, optimisation, as well as alignment of public and private financial 
instruments  and  resources  at  EU,  MS/AC  levels  and  by  the  private  sector.  Allocation  of  public 
funding and private investment shall be used as a proxy of vertical implementation in MS/AC.  

Dimensions: data captured for these indicators may be disaggregated by: 
•  Public and private sector investments 
•  Complementary capacities in support of Missions’ objectives via sub-level analysis of Mission 
dedicated  calls  in  EU,  shared  management  programmes  and  other  national  and  regional 
programmes e.g. the use of Digital Europe Programme to support the development of skills 
and capacities and the use of ERDF on the development and strengthening of regional and 
local research and innovation ecosystems and smart economic transformation  

•  Country/region 
•  Programme year 
•  R&I funds and other funds contributing to sectoral policies 
•  Mission-label associated financial envelopes 

Data Sources:  
Sub-indicator 4.1.1: Data for this sub-indicator may come from administrative/financial reporting 
that is already being analyzed as EC-led Mission portfolio of actions and information collected from 
signatories of Mission Charters/Manifestos/Contracts. 

Sub-indicator 4.1.2: A Missions-related data collection may be set up and may be coordinated at 
EU level in conjunction with MS and AC Programme Committee level groups that may mandate 
Mission  coordinating  structures  (e.g  Mission  Implementation  Platforms,  national  Mission  mirror 
groups,  Mission-specific  monitoring  exercises)  to  conduct  a  survey  and/or  liaise  with  surveys 
conducted by the European Partnerships, TRAMI etc.   

Sub-indicator  4.1.3:  Data  collection  may  be  coordinated  by  the  EIB  based  on  the  InvestEU 
Missions-related project portfolio. Later, it might be possible to collect data from industry at MS 
and  AC  levels  via  introduction  of  a  targeted  question  in  a  survey  proposed  for  the  monitoring 
framework  and/or  sub-indicator  4.1.2.    Mission  monitoring  exercises  may  include  questions  to 
capture donations from philanthropic organisations and charities.  

Reporting  obligation:  Formalisation  in  Mission-specific monitoring  frameworks  and  in  EU  R&I 
policy questionnaire distributed as part of the OECD STIP Compass exercise. 

4.2 Scaling of transformative solutions and supportive measures  

4.2.1 indicator: Innovative Mission solutions (technological, social, financial, political, educational 
etc) further tested and scaled across countries and regions to support Mission goals 

Definition: Qualified knowledge-based Mission solutions (technological, social, financial, political, 
educational, etc.) with the potential for large scale deployment at EU, national, regional or local 
levels. 

Rationale and  assumptions:  This mid-  to long-term  outcome  should  be  measured  to  monitor 
novel solutions created by Mission units and from initiatives at regional, MS/AC and innovation 
networks/clusters that have been tested and scaled across countries and regions. This indicator 
is linked to indicator 1.1.2 that measures novel solutions associated to Mission units, but it goes 
beyond indicator 1.1.2 and measures the portfolio of expanded Mission solutions deployed at EU, 
national,  regional  and  local  levels.  In  this  way,  it  is  an  indication  of  knowledge  co-created  and 

85 

 
 
validated into innovations, products and services that are equitable and inclusive across the EU 
and AC.  

Baseline: number of Mission solutions arising from Horizon Europe funded Missions projects.  

Benchmark:  possible  comparative  benchmarking  between  interdisciplinary  and  intersectoral 
solutions arising from Horizon Europe projects and Missions-related projects 

Frequency of measurement: biennial reporting by EU, MS and AC, regions, Mission units and 
other initiatives 

Methodology: 
•  Build-up of well-designed survey/questionnaire on EU and MS/AC level to identify deployed 

• 

solutions. 
Interview question (EU level) and survey question or country fiche question for MS, AC and 
regional levels 

•  Grey literature, media and social networks text analysis 

Dimensions:  
•  Qualified count of deployed Mission solution at EU, MS/AC, regional and local levels 
•  Data  pooled  into  averages  and  comparison  related  for  each  Mission  unit  to  their  strategic 

strands of intervention (objectives, thematic areas, geographic areas) 

•  Data pooled into averages and comparison between the countries for the five Missions 

Data sources: 
•  Survey or Mission fiche from EC, MS, AC and regions 
• 
Interview question (EU level)  
•  Case studies of key examples 
•  Data collection from social networks using text analysis on Mission solution uses 

Interpretation: The risk is that a quantitative approach beyond the Mission units, involving MS, 
AC and regional actors can inflate the number of solutions as solutions not directly linked to the 
Missions and that are thematically linked to the Missions may be included. Therefore, the survey 
has to be carefully designed to define the appropriate respondents to make sure that the identified 
deployed solutions can be associated to Mission activities and are effectively contributing to the 
Mission goals. An additional qualitative approach that includes interviews of key actors who can 
link outcomes to development and deployment work of the transformative solutions could help to 
track the Mission-relatedness of the solutions.  

Reporting  obligation:  Formalisation  in  Mission-specific monitoring  frameworks  and  in  EU  R&I 
policy questionnaire distributed as part of the OECD STIP Compass exercise. 

4.2.2  indicator:  Number  and  types  of  institutional  changes  (standards,  regulations,  policies, 
processes etc) explicitly adopted to support scale-up of Mission solutions 

Definition: Scaling of transformative solutions towards achieving objectives of Missions supported 
via introduction of conducive processes, enabling regulatory and legal environment. 

Rationale and assumptions: For Missions to be successful, implementation must go far beyond 
R&I  to  develop  new  solutions  and  improve  the  lives  of  Europeans.  This  indicator  measures 
permissive  (new)  regulations, policies  and strategies that  are  conducive  for  further deployment 
and scale-up of innovative solutions, as well as pooling of funding across countries and regions. 
In  this  way,  it  will  measure  the  triggers  supporting  changes  in  regional  and  local  contexts 
supporting the deployment of innovative solutions. It will be important to capture the triggers that 
induce  technological  and  economic solutions and  the  individual or  group  behaviour,  multi-layer 
governance and policies that facilitate scale-up and large-scale deployment of Mission-oriented 
solutions and technologies. This will give a holistic view of the cross-sectoral problem solving and 
action-oriented approach that Missions need to take to address complex societal challenges.  

86 

 
Baseline: no baseline  

Benchmark:  possible  comparative  benchmarking  between  Horizon  Europe  projects  and 
Missions-related projects 

Frequency of measurement: biennial reporting by EU, MS and AC, regions, Mission units and 
other initiatives 

Methodology:  MS  and  AC  shall  be  encouraged  to  enable  concordance  to  Missions  when 
developing funding opportunities and in formulations of policies, strategies, and regulation, as well 
as  knowledge  valorization  chains  such  that  the  data  captured  may  be  directly  associated  to 
Missions.  

Dimensions: data captured for these indicators may be disaggregated by: 
•  Country/region 
•  Programme year 
• 
• 

Living Labs, Lighthouses etc 
Types of solutions and technologies  

Data  sources:  Data  shall  be  captured  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels.  This  may  be 
coordinated at EU level in conjunction with MS and AC Programme Committee level groups that 
may  mandate  Mission  coordinating  structures  (e.g.  Mission  Implementation  Platforms  /Mission 
mirror  groups)  to  conduct  a  survey  and/or  liaise  with  surveys  conducted  by  the  European 
Partnerships, TRAMI etc. Data may also be obtained via text mining of official EU documents such 
as EU Semester reports, country fiches, Recovery and Resilience Plans etc.  

Data quality assessment: internal quality testing of survey data and other information sources 

Reporting  obligation:  Formalisation  in  Mission-specific monitoring  frameworks  and  in  EU  R&I 
policy questionnaire distributed as part of the OECD STIP Compass exercise. 

87 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX IIIA – SPC SURVEY – THE QUESTIONNAIRE  

Introduction 

This  survey  is  launched  to  collect data  for  a  dedicated  monitoring  report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  EU  Missions  as  a  policy  instrument.  This  survey  is  not  intended  to 
evaluate  and  compare  the  performance  of  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries  in  the 
implementation of EU Missions. The data will be collected as input to determine the extent of the 
roll-out of EU Missions as a policy instrument in Member States and Associated Countries and to 
provide suggestions for improving the functioning of the instrument. The monitoring report is led 
by the Commission EG to support the monitoring of EU Missions and is expected to be published 
in the end of 2023. 

Commission EG to support the monitoring of EU Missions 

The Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation took the initiative to set up 
an EG with a view to developing and deploying a methodology to monitor EU Missions beyond 
Horizon Europe, looking at the contribution of other funding programmes at EU and national, as 
well as at regional and local levels towards the achievement of Missions’ objectives. 

Mandate of the EG 

The EG has developed a robust framework for monitoring EU Missions beyond Horizon Europe 
that includes common indicators for the five current EU missions, and that will allow: 

• 

• 

the  monitoring  over  time  of  achievements,  progress  towards  objectives  and  impacts, 
including delivery on EU policy objectives; 
identification of potential needs for corrective measures. 

Objective of this survey 

The survey will collect data at national level (as well as regional and local levels, where possible) 
to provide a systematic overview of the effectiveness of the new policy approach for EU Missions 
and the extent to which it generates a higher mobilisation of critical mass and resources towards 
the  achievement  of  objectives  and  impacts.  It  is  also  intended  to  identify  early  implementation 
barriers  and  drivers  towards  impacts,  e.g.  in  terms  of  contributions,  coherence,  mobilisation  of 
resources,  leverage  of  additional  public  and  private  funds,  collaboration.  The  EG  will  use  the 
collected data in a dedicated monitoring report on EU Missions that is expected to be published 
end 2023. Taking into consideration the short time from the launch of EU Missions and that not all 
activities  have  been  launched,  this  survey  will  collect  data  for  a  subset  of  indicators  of  the 
monitoring framework. 

Please see the following link for a brief overview of the monitoring framework and a more 
comprehensive explanatory video presentation of the framework compiled by the EG.  

Ideally, we would like to receive 1 coordinated response per country. Therefore, we kindly ask 
the  designated  respondent  to  contact  national  representatives  and  experts,  and/or  relevant 
representatives from ministries and other administrative authorities to consolidate the necessary 
information so that an accurate picture of the progress towards achievement of the objectives and 
targeted impacts of EU Missions may be obtained. 

88 

 
 
 
 
Personal data 
DATA  PROTECTION  NOTICE: Personal  data  will  be  processed  in  line  with  Regulation  (EU) 
2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of 
natural  persons  regarding  the  processing  of  personal  data  by  the  Union  institutions,  bodies, 
offices, and agencies and on the free movement of such data. As part of the survey, the following 
personal data will be collected: name and e-mail address. The data collected will be processed 
only  by  the  EG  members  contracted  by  the  European  Commission  to  carry  out  the  monitoring 
exercise and will not be re-used without prior written authorisation. 

 * I confirm that I have read and understood the data protection notice. 

* First name:  

* Last name:  

* E-mail: @ 

National approach 
* 1. Please indicate the country you represent:  

2. Please indicate which of the following best describes the policy approach to EU Missions in 
your country  

Policy approach to EU Missions 

Planned 

In place 

a.  There  is  a  unified  policy  approach  across  the  5  EU 
Missions or a group of EU Missions 

b. There are Mission-specific policy approaches 

c. Other 

2.1 If you selected 2.a, please list the Missions included in the unified approach 

1000 character(s) maximum 

2.2  If you selected 2.b, please list the Missions for which you have developed a specific 

approach  

1000 character(s) maximum 

2.3.  If you selected 2.c please briefly explain your answer 

1000 character(s) maximum 

Policy design and coordination 
3.  Please  describe  the  development  and  progress  in  your  country  on  the  following  elements 
to  EU  Missions. 
of policy  design  and  coordination of  national  activities 
* in the case you have a common approach, you may choose to complete only column 1, or you 
may complete column 1 as well as provide Mission-specific information.  

in  relation 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1  Not  applicable –  the  building  block  is  not  applicable/relevant  to  the  context  where  the 
assessment takes place. 

2 Not in place – the building block under assessment does not exist and there are no plans or 
actions for putting it in place. 

3  Building  block  under  development –  the  building  block  does  not  exist  yet,  but  it  is  under 
development. 

4  In  place,  not  implemented  – the  building  block  is  in  place,  but  it  is  not  implemented.  (e.g. 
statements of commitment, but no action). 

5 In place, partly implemented – the building block is in place, but the level of implementation is 
not complete. 

6 In place, functioning – the building block under assessment is complete and satisfies the need 
of mission-oriented approach. 

Common approach across 
the 5 EU Missions or a 
group of EU Missions 
indicated in Q2. 

Mission- specific 
answers (one column 
per mission). 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed  

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

a) Strategic orientation and commitment to 
EU Missions (explicit inclusion of the EU 
Missions in national political statement, 
strategy, action plan, legislation etc) 

b) Horizontal (e.g. between ministries and 
relevant agencies) policy coordination 
principles and practices to link research & 
innovation and other mission-related policy 
domains 

c) Vertical policy coordination principles 
and practices to link EU, national and 
regional/local/community-based mission-
related policies and activities 

d) Novel mission-oriented policy 
implementation structures and capacities 
(e.g. mirror groups, national mission 
boards/hubs, mission labels/charters etc) 

e) Monitoring and evaluation systems that 
allow for constant revision of Missions and 
their implementation on national and local 
levels 

3.1 Please describe the practical approach(es) in place in your country in relation to the building 
blocks (in Q3) for which an assessment level 3-5 was provided (e.g. in case you have introduced 
or piloted novel governance mechanisms, please elaborate the practices).  

5000 character(s) maximum 

90 

 
 
Engagement of stakeholders 
the engagement  of 
4.  Please 
country. 
stakeholders/citizens in 
* in the case you have a common approach, you may choose to complete only column 1, or you 
may complete column 1 as well as provide Mission-specific information. 

development 
EU 

Missions 

progress 

describe 

on 
in 

your 

and 

the 

the 

1  Not  applicable –  the  building  block  is  not  applicable/relevant  to  the  context  where  the 
assessment takes place. 
2 Not in place – the building block under assessment does not exist and there are no plans or 
actions for putting it in place. 
3  Building  block  under  development –  the  building  block  does  not  exist  yet,  but  it  is  under 
development. 
4  In  place,  not  implemented –  the  building  block  is  in  place,  but  it  is  not  implemented.  (e.g. 
statements of commitment, but no action). 
5 In place, partly implemented – the building block is in place, but the level of implementation is 
not complete. 
6 In place, functioning – the building block under assessment is complete and satisfies the need 
of mission-oriented approach. 

Common approach across 5 
EU Missions or a group of 
EU Missions indicated in Q2 

Mission- specific 
answers (one column 
per mission). 

Only values between 1 and 
6 are allowed 

Only values between 
1 and 6 are allowed 

Only values between 1 and 
6 are allowed 

Only values between 
1 and 6 are allowed 

a) Engagement practices (e.g. formal 
procedures, charters, contracts etc) for 
engaging stakeholders, users, citizens in 
different stages of implementing the EU 
Missions (planning, implementing, 
monitoring & evaluation) 

b) Engagement practices (e.g. formal 
procedures, charters, contracts, 
manifestos, endorsements, labels) to 
engage private sector actors (firms, 
associations, financial sector etc) in the 
implementation of the EU Missions 

4.1 Please describe the practical approach(es) in place in your country in relation to the building 
blocks (in Q4) for which an assessment level 3-5 was provided (e.g. in case you have introduced 
practices)  
or 
5000 character(s) maximum 

engagement  mechanisms, 

elaborate 

piloted 

please 

novel 

the 

Aligning and pooling of resources 
5.  Please  describe  the  development  and  progress  on aligning  and  pooling  of  resources to 
contribute 
country. 
of 
* in the case you have a common approach, you may choose to complete only column 1, or you 
may complete column 1 as well as provide Mission-specific information. 

EU  Missions 

implementation 

your 

the 

to 

in 

1  Not  applicable –  the  building  block  is  not  applicable/relevant  to  the  context  where  the 
assessment takes place. 
2 Not in place – the building block under assessment does not exist and there are no plans or 
actions for putting it in place. 

91 

 
 
 
3  Building  block  under  development –  the  building  block  does  not  exist  yet,  but  it  is  under 
development. 
4  In  place,  not  implemented –  the  building  block  is  in  place,  but  it  is  not  implemented.  (e.g. 
statements of commitment, but no action). 
5 In place, partly implemented – the building block is in place, but the level of implementation is 
not complete. 
6 In place, functioning – the building block under assessment is complete and satisfies the need 
of mission-oriented approach. 

Common approach across the 
5 EU Missions or a group of 
EU Missions indicated in Q2. 

Mission- specific 
answers (one column 
per mission). 

Only values between 1 and 6 
are allowed 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

Only values between 1 and 6 
are allowed 

Only values between 1 
and 6 are allowed 

a) Budgetary processes for aligning 
existing national and regional/local 
funds with the EU Missions 

b) Budgetary processes for allocating 
designated envelopes of national and 
regional/local funds for the EU 
Missions 

5.1 Please describe the practical approach(es) in place in your country in relation to the building 
blocks (in Q5) for which an assessment level 3-5 was provided (e.g. in case you have introduced 
or 
practices).  
5000 character(s) maximum 

budgeting  mechanisms, 

elaborate 

piloted 

please 

novel 

the 

6. Pooling resources to contribute to the implementation of EU Missions 

6.1 If possible, please provide an exact amount or an estimate of the funds at national and EU co-
funded levels that are strategically aligned or pooled (i.e. there has been strategic or budgetary 
processes to explicitly align or pool funds): 
* in the case you have a common approach, you may choose to complete only column 1, or you 
may complete column 1 as well as provide Mission-specific information. 
** this is a first attempt at gathering information on MS/AC level pooling of resources - please try 
to provide as much information as possible, or if this is not feasible explain the current challenges 
and progress under questions 6.3 and 6.4. 

Total  for  5  EU 
Missions 

Mission- 
specific 
answers (one column 
per mission). 

Millions € 

a)  mission-oriented 
in  EU 
programmes  (Horizon  Europe,  EU4Health,  Interreg, 
LIFE, etc) implemented in your country 

budgets/co-funding 

b) national R&I funds to support EU Missions (national 
R&I programmes, etc) 

c) other national funds to support EU Missions (national 
sectorial programmes, ESIF, CAP, RRF etc) 

d)  private  sector  investments  to  support  EU  missions 
(InvestEU, direct private investments, charities) 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2  In  case  you  filled  some  of  the  boxes  above,  please  clarify  whether  these  are exact 
numbers or estimates.  You  are  also  free  to  provide  feedback  on  the  ease  and  limitations  of 
gathering such data.  

5000 character(s) maximum 

6.3 If you are unable to provide an exact amount or estimate, please briefly explain the challenges 
in obtaining this data. 

5000 character(s) maximum 

6.4 If you are unable to provide an exact amount or estimate, please briefly explain whether there 
are on-going processes and/or future plans to ensure contribution of these funds to support the 
objectives of EU Missions. 

5000 character(s) maximum 

Open comments and suggestions 
7. Do you have any other comments and/or suggestions on how to improve the implementation of 
the mission-oriented approach and the 5 EU Missions?  

5000 character(s) maximum 

93 

 
 
 
ANNEX IIIB – SPC SURVEY – RESPONSES   

This Annex reports the MS/AC level responses (21 MS/AC responded to the survey) to all key 
questions of the SPC Survey. Note that the categories “N/A” and “no answer” indicate that MS/AC 
opted to responde to other categories of answers (e.g. if countries reported only unified or common 
approach, they did not provide mission specific answers; some countries responded only for a few 
and not all missions etc). 

Q.2. Policy approach to EU Missions 

Please indicate which of the following best describes the policy approach to EU Missions in 
your country 

2.a.  Unified  policy  approach  across the  5  EU Missions or a  group of 
Missions 

N/A; 11

In place; 6

Planned; 4

In Place: Spain, 
Austria, Turkey, 
Germany, Estonia, 
Norway  

Planned: 
Netherlands, Portugal, 
Moldova, Czech 
Republic 

2.b. There are Mission-specific policy approaches 

N/A; 8

In Place: Germany, 
Norway, Lithuania, 
Croatia 

Planned: Belgium, 
Netherlands, Malta, 
Croatia, Türkiye, Greece, 
Italy, Ireland, Slovenia 

In place; 4

Planned; 9

94 

 
 
 
 
Q.3. Policy Design & Coordination  

Please describe the development and progress in your country on the following elements of 
policy design and coordination of national activities in relation to EU Missions. 

3.a. Strategic orientation and commitment to EU Missions 
(explicit inclusion of the EU Missions in national political statement, 
strategy, action plan, legislation etc)

Cancer
Soil
Cities
Oceans & Waters
Climate
Common

0

5

10

15

20

25

no answer

Not applicable

Not in place

Building block under development

In place, not implemented

In place, partly implemented

In place, functioning

3.b. Horizontal Policy Coordination 
(principles and practices to link research & innovation and other mission-
related policy domains).

Cancer
Soil
Cities
Oceans & Waters
Climate
Common

0

5

10

15

20

25

no answer

Not applicable

Not in place

Building block under development

In place, not implemented

In place, partly implemented

In place, functioning

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.c. Vertical Policy Coordination 
principles and practices to link EU, national and regional/local/community-based 
mission-related policies and activities

Cancer
Soil
Cities
Oceans & Waters
Climate
Common

0

5

10

15

20

25

no answer

Not applicable

Not in place

Building block under development

In place, not implemented

In place, partly implemented

In place, functioning

3.d. Novel mission-oriented policy implementation structures and capacities (e.g. 
mirror groups, national mission boards/hubs, mission labels/charters etc)

Cancer

Soil

Cities

Oceans & Waters

Climate

Common

0

5

10

15

20

25

no answer

Not applicable

Not in place

Building block under development

In place, not implemented

In place, partly implemented

In place, functioning

3.e. Monitoring and Evaluation Systems 
for constant revision of Missions and their implementation on national and local 
levels

Cancer
Soil
Cities
Oceans & Waters
Climate
Common

0

5

10

15

20

25

no answer

Not applicable

Not in place

Building block under development

In place, not implemented

In place, partly implemented

In place, functioning

96 

 
 
 
 
Q.4. Stakeholders and Citizens Engagement 

Please describe the development and progress on the engagement of stakeholders/citizens in the 
EU Missions in your country. 

4.a. Engagement practices for engaging stakeholders, users, citizens in different 
stages of implementing the EU Missions

Cancer

Soil

Cities

Oceans & Waters

Climate

Common

0

5

10

15

20

25

no answer

Not applicable

Not in place

Building block under development

In place, not implemented

In place, partly implemented

In place, functioning

4.b. Engagement practices to engage private sector actors 
(e.g. formal procedures, charters, contracts, manifestos, endorsements, labels // 
firms, associations, financial sector etc)

Cancer
Soil
Cities
Oceans & Waters
Climate
Common

0

5

10

15

20

25

no answer

Not applicable

Not in place

Building block under development

In place, not implemented

In place, partly implemented

In place, functioning

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q.5. Aligning and Pooling of Resources  

Please  describe  the  development  and  progress  on  aligning  and  pooling  of  resources  to 
contribute to the implementation of EU Missions in your country. 

5.a. Budgetary processes for aligning existing national and regional/local funds 
with the EU Missions

Cancer

Soil

Cities

Oceans & Waters

Climate

Common

0

5

10

15

20

25

no answer

Not applicable

Not in place

Building block under development

In place, not implemented

In place, partly implemented

In place, functioning

5.b. Budgetary processes for allocating designated envelopes of national and 
regional/local funds

Cancer

Soil

Cities

Oceans & Waters

Climate

Common

0

5

10

15

20

25

no answer

Not applicable

Not in place

Building block under development

In place, not implemented

In place, partly implemented

In place, functioning

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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.

This  report  presents  the  results  of  the  work  of  the  Commission  Expert 
Group  (EG)  to  support  the  monitoring  of  EU  Missions.  The  EG  developed 
a  conceptual  understanding  of  EU  Missions  as  a  policy  approach  in  the 
context  of  the  EU’s  research  and  innovation  policy  and  proposes,  in  this 
report,  a  monitoring  framework  and  indicators  focusing  on  the  ‘beyond 
Horizon Europe’ scope of Missions’ development and implementation.

This policy approach is an original piece of work, adapted to the systemic 
nature  of  Missions,  based  on  a  ‘beyond  Horizon  Europe’  context  and 
identifying its key pillars. Because the focus is on monitoring activities not 
directly  funded  by  Horizon  Europe  (HE),  it  complements  the  monitoring 
conducted  by  the  EC  and  the  EU  Missions.  The  work  was  supplemented 
by an initial mapping of the current progress in implementing the five EU 
Missions. 

Based on this, the EG proposed a framework and indicators complementing 
the HE’s Key Impact Pathways framework and Mission-specific monitoring 
and evaluation systems currently in development, to enable a systematic 
monitoring of EU and individual Missions.

Studies and reports