Horizon Europe and the green transition : interim evaluation support study : executive summary.
Date: 2024-08-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU programme, clean technology, climate change, green economy, innovation, report, research and development, research programme, sustainable development

Horizon Europe and 
the Green Transition 

Interim Evaluation Support Study 

Independent 
Expert 
Report 

Read the full publication 
Evaluation Study on the European Framework Programmes for Research and 
Innovation for addressing Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness – 
Focus on activities related to the Green Transition 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  report  presents  the  findings  and  conclusions  of  the  second  phase,  on  Horizon  Europe,  of  the 
evaluation  study  on  the  European  Framework  Programmes  for  Research  and  Innovation  for 
addressing  Global  Challenges  and  Industrial  Competitiveness  –  Focus  on  activities  related  to  the 
Green Transition.  

1.  Evaluation objective and methodology 

This report is part of a study combining a back-to-back approach for the ex-post evaluation of Horizon 
2020 and the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe, with a thematic focus on Green Transition aspects 
and the long-term impact of the Framework Programme(s). It constitutes the final report for the second 
phase of the evaluation study focusing on Horizon Europe.  

This evaluation study covers all activities of the European Framework Programmes in the impact area 
Green Transition, i.e. all related activities in Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) and the first phase of Horizon 
Europe (2021-2023). It notably covers two Clusters under Horizon Europe: Cluster 5 (Climate, Energy, 
and  Mobility)  and  Cluster  6  (Food,  Bioeconomy,  Natural  Resources,  Agriculture  &  Environment), 
sitting  in  Pillar  II.  Jointly,  they  represent  45%  of  the  budget  allocated  to  Pillar  II,  and  25.2%  of  the 
Horizon Europe total budget.  

This evaluation study also assesses European Partnerships under the Framework Programme with a 
legal obligation for evaluation (Joint Undertakings, Knowledge and Innovation Communities, Art. 185 
or 187 TFEU  1) active in Green Transition-related fields, as well as thematically relevant Missions and 
the  JRC.  Other  Partnerships  relevant  for  the  Green  Transition  (Co-funded  and  Co-programmed 
European Partnerships) are taken into account as part of the evaluation of the thematic areas.  

1 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary  
Horizon Europe and the Green Transition – Interim Evaluation Support Study 

The evaluation was conducted between February 2023 and January 2024. A specific methodological 
approach  was  designed  during  the  inception  phase  of  the  study,  in  agreement  with  the  Steering 
Committee, using a mix of various data collection and data analysis tools such as bibliometrics, case 
studies,  survey,  benchmarking,  etc.  The  different  tools  mobilised  throughout  the  evaluation  enabled 
the collection of evidence to answer the various evaluative questions considered.   

2.  Overview of the Green Transition in Horizon Europe 

According  to  phase  1  results  focusing  on  Horizon  2020,  research  and  innovation  can  play  a 
considerable  role  in  providing  the  desired  directionality  for  the  Framework  Programme.  The 
Framework  Programme  aims 
technological  requirements,  and 
technological  and  social  innovations,  for  shaping  the  transformation  process  to  a  green  European 
society,  paving  the  way  for  the  required  behavioural  change  through  integration  of  all  stakeholders, 
including  civil  society.  However,  the  Green  Transition  goes  far  beyond  transitions  pushed  by  new 
technologies.  Nature-based  solutions,  as  well  as  non-technological  and  socio-economic  innovations, 
are also hugely important to realise the transition. 

foundational 

to  provide 

the 

The European Green Deal has programmatically influenced the design of Horizon Europe, although it 
was  presented  only  after  the  Commission’s  initial  proposal  for  Horizon  Europe  was  adopted.  Within 
Horizon  Europe  the European Green Deal is  most  prominently reflected through the  development of 
the directly climate-related Missions (Adaptation to Climate Change, Climate-Neutral Cities, Soil, and 
Ocean and Waters), Cluster 4 (Digital, Industry and Space), Cluster 5 (Climate, Energy, Mobility) and 
Cluster  6  (Food,  Bioeconomy,  Natural  Resources,  Agriculture  and  Environment).  The  strategic 
orientations  of  Horizon  Europe  for  2021-2024  clearly  aimed  at  supporting  the  ongoing  economic, 
societal, and industrial transformations by accelerating the twin Green and Digital Transition.  

In  line  with  the  EU  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF)  2021-2027,  climate  and  biodiversity 
mainstreaming targets were set for Horizon Europe: according to the Horizon Europe legal basis, 35% 
of  total  (administrative  and  operation)  budget  shall  contribute  to  climate  objectives  (legally  binding), 
and  the  programme  should  contribute  to  the  overall  ambition  of  providing  7.5%  of  annual  spending 
under the MFF to biodiversity objectives in 2024 and 10% in 2026 and 2027  2.  

3.  Key findings per evaluation criteria 

The intervention logics indicate that the Green Transition is strategically encompassed within Horizon 
Europe by four Key Strategic Orientations (KSOs). All are linked to the Green Transition priorities as 
outlined  in  the  European  Green  Deal.  However,  KSOs  B  and  C  do  so  in  the  most  direct  way  via 
interlinkages between the European Green Deal priorities and Impact Areas of Horizon Europe. 

The  introduction  of  Key  Impact  Pathways  (KIPs)  also  contributed  to  a  reorientation  from  an  activity-
driven  to  an  impact-driven  programme  3.  The  KIPs  represent  a  new  approach  to  evaluating  and 
communicating the impact of EU R&I funding built around three pillars and nine storylines. The KIPs of 
Horizon  Europe  aim  to  capture  long-term  and  wider  effects  on  science,  society,  and  economy, 
including capturing impacts of the European Green Deal.  

All three pillars of KIPs (scientific, societal, and economic) have significant implications for the Green 
Transition.  Nonetheless,  given  the  complexity  of  the  topic,  there  is  insufficient  reflection  of  the 
European Green Deal and other societal objectives stemming from key EU policy priorities in the Key 
Impact Pathways. There are also potential trade-offs between some of the priorities stipulated in KIPs 
and  Green  Transition  objectives  that  span  beyond  the  scope  of  the  Framework  Programme, 
particularly regarding the discussion about limits to growth and decoupling  4. 

2 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 
3 European Commission 2022, Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Programme Guide, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-
tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/programme-guide_horizon_v1.5_en.pdf  
4 Vogel, J., & Hickel, J. (2023). Is green growth happening? An empirical analysis of achieved versus Paris-compliant CO2–
GDP decoupling in high-income countries. The Lancet Planetary Health, 7(9), e759-e769. 

2 

 
 
Executive Summary  
Horizon Europe and the Green Transition – Interim Evaluation Support Study 

  Relevance 

The assessment regarding relevance showed and confirmed that Clusters 5 and 6 are highly relevant 
for  the  Green  Transition  and  the  related  policy  objectives.  The  design  processes  of  Horizon  Europe 
have  been  built  upon  an  interplay  of  top-down  and  bottom-up  processes  that  integrate  long-term 
priorities, societal needs, and emerging issues in the Green Transition area.  

For  tackling  the  Green  Transition,  improvements  in  the  programming  of  the  Framework  Programme 
have been made. In terms of stakeholder needs in the Green Transition area, engagement processes 
at the EU level related to the implementation of the European Green Deal and reflection of its priorities 
in  R&I  agenda-setting  are  well  connected 5,6.  At  the  Commission  level,  the  Horizon  Europe  Strategic 
Plan  2021-2024  was  created  through  a  co-creation  process  between  all  relevant  DGs,  aiming  to 
increase ownership and optimise the impact of investments. To support the complex societal transition 
processes,  the  work  programme  design  at  the  Commission  level  now  takes  a  co-creation  approach, 
with  a  common  budget  envelope  at  Cluster  level,  under  a  Steering  Board  composed  of  Director-
Generals, an Executive Committee composed of Directors, and an individual Directors' Group for each 
programme  part (e.g. Cluster). (In contrast to the approach in Horizon 2020 where DGs disposed of 
their own R&I budget line, which limited the need for effective co-creation).   

Concerning the scope of R&I activities performed, all Destinations correspond directly with dedicated 
EU priorities for the Green Transition. Still, in the area related to the Green Transition, Clusters 5 and 
6  are  predominantly  focused  on  advancing  specific  technologies  and  industrial  transition.  However, 
insufficient  attention  is  given  to  the  pipelines  of  necessary  solutions,  the  right  mix  of  available  and 
emerging  technologies,  the  interplay  of  different  technological  and  non-technological  solutions,  and 
the nature and logic of the Green Transition processes as such.  

Broader  issues  of  socio-cultural  change  –  including  aspects  of  multi-stakeholder  alignment, 
governance,  lifestyles,  and  behaviour  change  –  have  received  relatively  less  attention.  They  are 
mostly  subsumed  under  specific  Destinations  in  Cluster  5,  while  Cluster  6  takes  a  more  transversal 
approach.  One  positive  aspect  is  that  Destinations  which  focus  on  climate  science,  food  and 
communities allocate more than half their funding to projects that feature inputs from social sciences 
and humanities (SSH), which helps them consider societal needs and broader societal processes. In 
Cluster  5,  Destinations  in  the  areas  of  smart  mobility  and  communities  put  particular  emphasis  on 
social innovation. Projects in energy supply and clean transport modes, as well as projects supporting 
the  implementation  of  Partnerships,  generally  engage  a  broad  range  of  actors,  albeit  with  a  primary 
focus on industry stakeholders and cross-value chain collaborations. Missions tend to  adopt broader 
engagement  priorities  with  a  particular  focus  on  citizens,  cities  and  local  authorities.  However,  the 
instrument is still not sufficiently understood by groups such as civil society and local authorities.  

Weaknesses  have  been  identified  in  addressing  broad  structural  and  infrastructural  transformations, 
driving the definition and implementation of new paradigms, values, regulations, standards and norms, 
and  in  a  lack  of  priorities  for  the  fields  of  action  to  achieve  these  societal  and  governmental 
transformations more broadly. Horizon Europe still has to deliver on addressing more complex societal 
aspects  of  the  Green  Transition  to  enhance  its  relevance.  These  include  vested  and  competing 
interests, addressing established assumptions and power structures, integration of diverse values and 
types  of  knowledge,  social  change  conducive  to  the  Green  Transition,  and  further  advancing  open-
ended and needs-based approaches. 

International cooperation is necessary to jointly tackle climate change and environmental challenges. 
In  Clusters  5  and  6,  three  geographic  areas  outside  of  Europe  received  specific  attention:  Africa, 
China, and Latin America and the Caribbean. In 2023, specific Science, Technology, and Innovation 
(STI)  cooperation  agendas  were  set  for  all  three  regions,  enabling  cooperation  with  higher 
directionality in the coming years. While Horizon Europe has set up some strategic considerations for 
level-playing-field  cooperation  with  these  regions,  the  strategic  approach  towards  international 
cooperation still needs to deliver results in terms of engaging third countries and associated countries. 

5 European Commission (2022). Shaping the EU’s climate transition: European citizens take the floor. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/55bf10bc-c762-11ec-b6f4-01aa75ed71a1/  
6 European Commission (2023). Horizon Europe strategic plan 2025-2027 analysis. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/b3baec75-fdd0-11ed-a05c-01aa75ed71a1/  

3 

 
 
Executive Summary  
Horizon Europe and the Green Transition – Interim Evaluation Support Study 

  Coherence 

The  new  Horizon  Europe  programming  approach  that  engages  all  relevant  DGs,  contributed  to 
increasing  the coherence  of the Framework  Programme significantly. This new  portfolio approach to 
designing and managing the work programme, for which regular Cluster meetings with policy DGs and 
the JRC are performed, is an important step towards developing the programme in a more integrated 
and multi-disciplinary way.  

Nonetheless,  thematic  portfolio  management  for  projects  funded  across  Horizon  Europe  Clusters, 
Partnerships,  and  Missions  is  missing.  To  increase  the  internal  coherence  of  Horizon  Europe's 
actions.  and  create  synergies  between  different  types  of  actions  funded  under  different  Pillars, 
mechanisms  for  thematic  portfolio  management  of  projects  across  different  programme  parts  and 
implementation bodies should be established.  As a pre-requisite, the main project funding database, 
eGrants, should integrate project data from Co-Funded Partnerships and EIT KICs.  

Compared to Horizon 2020, linkages and synergy creation mechanisms between Horizon Europe and 
other  funding  mechanisms  at  the  European  level  have  increased  but  challenges  persist.  While 
awareness-raising  activities  and  cross-referencing  to  programmes  such  as  the  Innovation  Fund 
increased,  more  top-down  coordination  between  different  DGs  is  needed  to  decrease  fundamental 
differences in eligibility and evaluation criteria and timing.  To realise the Green Transition, there is a 
key  need  to  build  co-ordinated  bridges  from  demonstration  activities  in  Horizon  Europe  to  the  large-
scale  implementation  support  provided  by  other  programmes.  This  requires  strengthening  external 
coherence  via  linkages  between  Horizon  Europe  projects  and  other  funding  mechanisms  outside 
Horizon  Europe,  such  as  better  monitoring  or  support  in  preparing  convincing  business  cases  for 
certain technologies and solutions.  

Rationalising  the  partnership  landscape  has  contributed  to  developing  more  coherent  approaches  in 
many  partnership  areas.  This  has  helped  Co-Funded  Partnerships  to  significantly  increase  public 
funding  from  EU  Member  States  and  strengthen  collaboration  with  the  EU  level.  For  the  Co-Funded 
Partnerships,  strategic  cooperation  frameworks  and  proactive  involvement  from  the  EC  concerning 
strategic planning of Work Programmes to facilitate the creation of synergies are needed. 

For  the  Horizon  Europe  Missions,  a  key  challenge  seems  to  be  the  need  for  stronger  emphasis  of 
implementation,  uptake  and  behavioural  change.  All  Missions  have  developed  some  bottom-up 
mechanisms  for  ensuring  vertical  governance  and  coordination  with  the  national,  regional,  and  local 
levels, but limiting factors remain insufficient coordination between national, regional, and local levels 
of  governance,  leverage  of  investments  and  access  to  resources  outside  of  Horizon  Europe,  and 
stakeholder engagement including with citizens and businesses. 

  Effectiveness 

Concerning  the  evaluation  criterion  of  effectiveness,  most  projects  are  still  at  an  early  stage  of 
development and therefore only the projects’ expected outcomes are considered.  

The analysis indicates that Cluster 5 and Cluster 6 projects are likely to develop sustainable solutions 
contributing to the Green  Transition.  With  their diverse portfolio of anticipated results and  outcomes, 
most  Destinations  in  Cluster  5  strongly  emphasise  projects  with  scientific,  technological  close-to-
market  outputs,  and  technology  and  innovation  outcomes  (Destination  2,  3,  5,  6).  Cluster  6  also 
provides  for  a  broad  range  of  anticipated  results  across  its  seven  Destinations,  including  projects 
across  biodiversity  and  ecosystems,  ‘farm  to  fork’,  circular  economy,  bioeconomy,  zero  pollution, 
climate action (land, ocean, and water), communities, and governance. The breadth and depth of the 
outcomes from these results are found (through the intervention logic analysis) to provide a sufficient 
structural approach to support the acceleration of the transition to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 
as  required  by  the  European  Green  Deal,  alongside  opportunities  to  strengthen  and  balance 
environmental,  social,  and  economic  goals  on  a  path  towards  sustainability.  It  should  be  also  noted 
more broadly here that the thematic alignment of all current HE projects with climate and biodiversity 
policy priorities is found to be 26% and 8% respectively. 

Considerable  knowledge  and  capacity  outputs  (publications,  competence,  skills,  knowledge  of 
researchers,  and  increasing  international  visibility  and  action  through  collaboration)  are  expected  for 
both Clusters. The intervention logic analysis shows Cluster 6 results contributing to recommendation- 

4 

 
Executive Summary  
Horizon Europe and the Green Transition – Interim Evaluation Support Study 

and  input-to-policy-based  outputs  and  outcomes  for  policymakers  (with  projects  providing  research 
publications),  as  well  as  to  skills,  knowledge  and  competence  of  researchers,  and  to  international 
visibility  and  action  through  collaboration.  In  contrast,  Cluster  5  strongly  focuses  on  testing-, 
demonstrating- and piloting-based outputs and outcomes. 

The  low  extent  to  which  patent-based  outputs  and  results  are  present  for  both  Clusters  and  the 
difference  between  the  nature  of  the  innovation  activities  being  pursued  by  each  of  the  Clusters  are 
indicated by the differing (and low) level of focus of the Clusters on patents, with 20% of respondents 
for  Cluster  5  and  only  10%  for  Cluster  6  indicating  that  their  projects  have  or  are  likely  to  result  in 
patent-based outputs. 

The  tensions  between  the  need  for  decisions  to  advance  specific  technologies  and  the  potential  for 
lock-ins  and  a  more  disorderly  Green  Transition  are  only  addressed  to  a  limited  extent  in  Cluster  5. 
While it  is considered  in  the programming phase and its prioritisation,  it still can play a role. In  most 
cases,  solutions  must  be  demonstrated  and  validated  across  diverse  contexts.  A  forward-looking 
analysis has  indicated  that it remains  unclear whether longer-term targets (i.e.  the  EGD  or EU 2050 
strategy)  can  be  sufficiently  met  with  the  approach  taken:  e.g.  whether  substantial  emissions 
reductions  will  be  achieved  as  a  result  of  Destination  3  on  Sustainable,  Secure  and  Competitive 
Energy Supply within reasonable time horizons  7. Still, the limited number of funded projects does not 
allow  to  fully  reflect  the  structural  differences  between  the  economies  of  Member  States,  including 
their different capacities to integrate new technologies into existing infrastructure.  

In Cluster 6, the strong focus on stakeholder engagement and multi-actor processes (including gender 
and inclusivity considerations) are expected to lead to greater societal embedding of innovations and 
business opportunities. For Cluster 6, the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) approach is considered 
to  only  work  to  a  limited  extent.  Some  Destinations  and  several  sub-destinations  are  dedicated  to 
social change and social innovation in addition to science-driven technological development. Only the 
combination of both is perceived as an impactful pathway towards a Green Transition.  

The  broad  scope  of  the  calls  and  topics  within  Cluster  5  and  Cluster  6  across  multiple  different 
instruments and types of projects increases the complexity and may dilute or reduce the overall results 
and  outcomes.  Although  they  have  a  different  focus,  the  Cluster  calls,  Partnerships  and  Missions 
support  the  same  types  of  projects  (IA,  RIA,  CSA).  An  assessment  of  the  instruments  and  greater 
specialisation could help reduce the complexity and risks of overlaps or duplications. 

The Horizon monitoring system is seen by some stakeholders as insufficient for the task for which it is 
intended:  it  is  not  able  to  spot  the  TRL  levels  or  to  indicate  how  far  the  development  of  critical 
technologies  has  progressed  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  a  55%  reduction  scenario,  and  it  is 
unable  to  indicate  the  extent  to  which  a  technology  will  reduce  costs  for  industry,  etc.  However,  it 
should be noted that this degree of monitoring may not be realistic. Reliable cost assessments would 
require  access  to  (and  disclosure  of)  confidential  business  data  and  a  highly  sophisticated  level  of 
modelling.  Furthermore,  while  R&I  activity  may  often  not  deliver  what  was  expected,  it  can  provide 
significant  learning  opportunities.  A  systematic  process  to  identify  and  utilise  learnings  from  projects 
that  have  not  progressed/delivered  as  expected  does  not  exist  at  present  in  a  structured  way.  (It  is 
only done on an ad-hoc basis and, while there  may  be some learning shared between projects, this 
refers more to the general implementation of projects, such as the sharing of best practice). 

While a cross-cutting analysis of the individual Partnership evaluations shows that these can progress 
towards  the  objectives  that  have  been  set,  in  many  instances  the  outputs  and  outcomes  of  the  first 
calls under Horizon Europe are not yet visible. Therefore it is too early to provide a final assessment of 
the Partnerships’ effectiveness. Findings show that most projects under the CBE (Circular Bio-based 
Europe JU) have reached their key project objectives. The EIT Food-KIC is also found to have been 
very  successful  in  supporting  entrepreneurs,  with  its  KPIs  appearing  overall  to  have  been  met. 
Furthermore,  insight  indicates  that  Partnerships  bring  forward  high-quality  deliverables  that  feed  into 
policy development. 

7 An important point that should be noted here though is that HE is not designed to deliver the long-term targets. HE facilitates 
the development of technologies and solutions and where the wide-scale deployment of these is beyond the scope of HE. 
Furthermore, there are many critical external factors that influence the achievement of the long-term targets. 

5 

 
 
Executive Summary  
Horizon Europe and the Green Transition – Interim Evaluation Support Study 

  Efficiency 

For  efficiency,  stakeholders  are  generally  satisfied  with 
the  application,  administrative  and 
management  processes,  including  for  Partnerships.  The  effort  to  prepare  and  submit  a  Horizon 
Europe proposal was overall considered satisfactory, albeit less so by unsuccessful applicants (as one 
might expect). For the beneficiaries who participated in Horizon 2020, changes introduced in Horizon 
Europe regarding application and administrative processes were perceived positively.  

For  institutionalised  and  co-programmed  Partnerships,  administration  and  management  of  the 
initiatives  have  thus-far  been  assessed  to  be  efficient.  They  have  streamlined  structures  and 
coordinated  governance  processes.  Institutionalised  Partnerships  build  upon  the  work  of  their 
predecessors,  allowing  for  further  simplification.  Co-funded  Partnerships  were  efficient  for  those 
Partnerships  able  to  build  on  previous  activities,  and  less  efficient  for  those  that  were  not  able, 
particularly in terms of initial grant management. Coordination between the European Commission and 
the  Partnerships  could  be  further  improved  in  work  programme  preparation  in  terms  of  consistent 
communications  and  timing.  Overall,  programme  implementation  challenges  for  Partnerships  remain 
based on the differences in application and reporting processes across different types of Partnerships.  

The co-design process, while seen as a positive change for coherence, generated some inefficiencies 
due  to  the  administrative  burden  of  coordination.  Meanwhile,  in  implementation,  the  Framework 
Programme  is  considered  to  be  flexible,  both  for  consortium  changes  and  evolution  of  project 
objectives due to changed  circumstances. Several co-programmed  and  institutionalised Partnerships 
are considered to adequately respond to changing market needs through the involvement of the right 
stakeholders.  

Though  the  Framework  Programme  is  open  and  does  attract  new  applicants,  there  is  a  need  to 
facilitate  access  for  new  applicants,  particularly  SMEs.  Although  in  most  cases  their  project  is  not  a 
continuation  of  research  activities  previously  funded,  most  beneficiaries  have  participated  in  a 
previous FP.  While  previous experience does not guarantee success, there is  a  rate of renewal  and 
participants who were successful in the past are selected to work on new projects. In terms of barriers 
to  new  applicants,  the  Framework  Programme  is  seen  as  complex  to  understand,  with  a  sizable 
number of topics being spread out over multiple different instruments and implementation modes (incl. 
Partnerships).  Projects  are  seen  as  too  large,  impeding  the  inclusion  of  SMEs.  It  must  be  noted, 
however,  that  there  is  a  lack  of  information  on  lump  sum  participations  which  could  facilitate 
participation  by  SMEs.  Finally,  identifying  relevant  partners  remains  a  particular  challenge  for  new 
applicants and SMEs that are not well-connected to established networks.  

A  degree  of  discrepancy  is  noted  between  the  policy  approach  of  the  research  funding  (i.e.  more 
impact  orientation)  and  project  formation,  where  the  research  logic  dominates.  Thus,  there  are 
difficulties  in  including  industry,  new  actors  (e.g.  farmers)  and  communication  professionals  in  the 
proposals.  These  drivers  towards  new  types  of  applicants  may  be  expected  and  even  encouraged, 
given the moves towards market-ready solutions and stakeholder engagement in Horizon Europe. 

Given the infancy of Horizon Europe implementation, cost efficiency cannot yet be determined, but the 
leverage  factor  (ratio  of  amount  co-financed  to  amount  contributed  by  the  EU)  was  considered.  For 
Cluster  5,  excluding  Partnerships,  the  leverage  factor  was  0.141,  of  which  financing  was  leveraged 
principally for Innovation Actions (leverage factor 0.240). For Cluster 6, excluding Partnerships, it was 
0.051, similarly principally for IA actions (0.130). Partnerships have higher leverage factors: for Cluster 
5,  0.493  and  for  Cluster  6,  0.227.  Differences  between  the  Clusters  and  the  Partnerships  can  be 
explained by the nature of the projects and the effect of Innovation Actions.  

Overall,  budget  allocations  are  perceived  to  be  aligned  with  the  projects’  ambitions.  However,  a 
disproportionate  relationship  between  ambition  (through  strategic  planning)  versus  budget  allocation 
has been noted across all implementation modes, preventing some relevant challenges to the Green 
Transition from being addressed and resulting in the rejection of hundreds of high-quality applications. 

At  programme  level,  there  is  an  insufficient  translation  of  the  SDGs  and  other  societal  objectives 
stemming from key EU policy strategies into the Key  Impact  Pathways.  Additionally, participant  data 
for EIT-KICs, Co-funded Partnerships and third-party payments were not integrated into eGrants at the 
time  of the evaluation, impeding the overall programme monitoring. The development of an effective 
monitoring of stakeholder groups participating in European Partnerships and the Horizon Europe work 

6 

 
Executive Summary  
Horizon Europe and the Green Transition – Interim Evaluation Support Study 

programmes  is  essential  for  elaborating  project-portfolio  strategies,  dissemination  of  results  (notably 
from Partnerships) and further enhancement of valorisation strategies. 

In comparison to Horizon 2020, it was found that the project monitoring and evaluation systems have 
been improved to integrate dissemination and exploitation aspects. Nonetheless, there is an ongoing 
need to reinforce dissemination and exploitation of results in both Cluster 5 and 6, to ensure higher-
level  TRL  projects  are  brought  to  market.  Both  Horizon  Results  Booster  and  the  Horizon  Results 
Platform  are  underused.  There  is  also  a  need  to  further  promote  shared  activities  and  learning 
between  projects.  Finally,  feedback  to  policy,  given  the  distance  between  the  EC  and  the 
implementation  of  the  programme,  could  be  improved.  A  policy-to-feedback  framework  being 
developed by the EC could help improve this. Additionally, coordination and support actions could be 
developed for the different Destinations with the objective of sharing results across projects and with 
policy makers. 

  EU added value 

EU added value is identified as one of the programme’s key strengths, albeit effects cannot yet be fully 
assessed.  Key  benefits  identified  include  opportunities  for  researcher  mobility,  access  to  relevant 
research expertise across Europe, funding opportunities, tackling of topics insufficiently covered at the 
national  level,  and  capacities  to  address  grand  societal  challenges.  To  a  limited  extent,  regulations 
(including  national  differences  in  implementing  EU  regulations)  and  language  barriers  are  negatively 
impacting EU added value.  

The Partnerships and Missions were found to be positioned in areas with high EU added value. They 
foster  collaboration  by  mobilising  relevant  stakeholders  to  implement  long-term  strategic  R&I 
objectives but there is a need for synergy-creation mechanisms between them to support deployment 
of the solutions needed. 

4.  Contribution of the Framework Programme to the Green Transition 

The  analysis  conducted,  using  keyword-based  queries,  allowed  the  identification  of  the  share  of 
projects under each HE programme part thematically aligned with the Green Transition topic, as well 
as with specific subtopics covered in phase 1 of the evaluation. It shows a strong alignment between 
Clusters  5  and  6  with  the  Green  Transition  (about  90%),  the  highest  of  all  HE  Programme 
components.  Illustrating  the  topical  mainstreaming,  more  than  a  quarter  of  Horizon  Europe  projects 
outside  Clusters  5  and  6  are  thematically  aligned  with  Green  Transition  topics.  The  highest 
contributions  come  from  the  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology  (EIT)  and  Cluster  4 
(Digital, Industry and Space).  

Through  the  Case  Studies  and  individual  Partnerships  evaluations,  it  was  found  that  all  programme 
parts covered in this evaluation contribute to the Green Transition, and the case studies confirmed that 
Horizon  Europe  addresses  emerging  themes  in  each  area.  However,  perceived  challenges  include 
policy  priority  evolutions  and  the  lack  of  understanding  by  most  stakeholders  of  what  a  Green 
Transition  entails  and  the  role  of  R&I  in  supporting  it.  Continued  political  prioritisation  of  the  Green 
Transition,  co-creation  processes  and  effective  communication  are  necessary  to  address  these 
challenges. While all Partnerships contribute to the Green Transition by addressing long-term needs, 
in some cases, it was found that the Partnership objectives contributing to the Green Transition were 
secondary, e.g. in cooperative, connected, and automated mobility (CCAM). 

The multi-level perspective approach indicates that projects under Clusters 5 and 6 will contribute to 
the Green Transition to a similar extent for both Clusters. Anticipated results slightly exceed the results 
from  Horizon  2020.  Most  projects  will  contribute  to  the  macro  process  of  ‘building  and  nurturing 
niches’. Most Horizon  Europe projects are anticipated to contribute to a  large  or very large extent to 
the  macro-process  ‘expanding  and  mainstreaming  niches’  in  a  similar  or  better  way  than  in  Horizon 
2020.  Findings  are  lower  for  the  third  macro-process  ‘opening  and  unlocking  regimes’,  with  the 
contribution of between a third and a half of the projects. While this result is to be expected for an R&I 
programme  focussing  on  developing  and  testing  new  solutions,  it  can  also  be  concluded  that  more 
research  into  transitioning  processes  and  abandoning  existing  rules  and  practices  to  achieve  the 
Green Transition is needed. 

7 

 
 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Contact   Thomas Schubert (DG RTD), Veera Natunen (DG RTD) 
Email  

Thomas.SCHUBERT@ec.europa.eu  
RTD-G2-SUPPORT@ec.europa.eu 
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

© European Union, 2024 | Reuse of this document is allowed, provided appropriate credit is given and any changes 
are indicated (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). For any use or reproduction of elements that 
are not owned by the EU, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective right holders.  
All  images  ©  European  Union,  unless  otherwise  stated.  Image  sources:  © ivector  # 235536634  # 249868181 
# 251163013 # 266009682, # 273480523 # 362422833 # 241215668 # 244690530 # 245719946 # 251163053 
# 252508849, 2020. Source: Stock.Adobe.com. 

ISBN 978-92-68-19609-0, doi: 10.2777/540675, KI-05-24-591-EN-N