COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL Final Evaluation of Eurostars-2
Date: 2024-10-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, aid to undertakings, innovation, international cooperation, research and development, scientific cooperation, small and medium-sized enterprises

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.10.2024  SWD(2024) 470 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL Final Evaluation of Eurostars-2 {COM(2024) 436 final}  
 
 
1 

 Glossary  Term or acronym Meaning or definition SMEs Small- and medium-sized enterprises ESE EUREKA secretariat NFB National Funding Body TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Eurostars-2 programme was a public-public partnership funded under the Horizon 2020 
Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation  (R&I)  covering  the  2014-2020  period. 
Eurostars-2  aimed  at  supporting  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (“SMEs”)  performing 
research  and  development  (R&D)  activities  through  international  cooperation.  It  was  the 
second iteration of a programme that started in 2008. 

1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

Eurostars-2 is jointly undertaken by 33 Eurostars-2 Participating States and Partner countries 
and the European Union (EU) based on Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU) (ex-Art. 169 TEC). The participation of the EU was formally acted 
through the Decision No 553/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 
May  2014  on  the  participation  of  the  Union  in  a  Research  and  Development  Programme 
jointly  undertaken  by  several  Member  States  aimed  at  supporting  R&D  performing  SMEs1 
("Eurostars-2 Decision"). The decision entered into force on 27 June 2014. 

The  European  Union  supports  financially  the  Eurostars-2  Programme,  with  maximum  EUR 
287  million  for  the  period  2014-2020,  coming  from  the  Horizon  2020  budget  allocated  to 
"Innovation in SMEs" (Industrial Leadership pillar). 

According  to  Article  15  of  the  Eurostars-2  Decision,  the  European  Commission  had  to 
conduct a final evaluation of Eurostars-2 by 31st of December 2022. 

This Staff Working Document accompanies the Commission Report on the final evaluation of 
the Eurostars-2 programme, covering the period between the inception of Eurostars-2 in 2014 
until  March  2022.2  It  builds  on  the  interim  evaluation  of  Eurostars-2  performed  in  20173,  a 
call  for  evidence  launched  in  2022,  and  available  monitoring  data.  The  performance  of 
Eurostars-2 was also covered as part of the external ex-post evaluation of Horizon 20204.  

The interim evaluation of Eurostars-2 performed in 2017 informed the impact assessment of 
its successor initiative “European Partnership on Innovative SMEs” supported under Horizon 
Europe.  It  highlighted  that  the  major  benefits  of  Eurostars  rest  in  the  niche  features  of  the 
programme,  such  as  its  bottom  up  approach,  its  strong  trans-national  focus,  the  division  of 
work between the central structure and the decentralised structures of national funding bodies. 
It  also  supports  beneficiaries  to  introduce  new  products  within  two  years  of  projects’ 

1 Decision No 553/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the participation 
of the Union in a Research and Development Programme jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at 
supporting research and development performing small and medium-sized enterprises Text with EEA relevance 
(europa.eu). 
2 Although there are no further calls under the programme, projects supported by the programme and related top-
up payments will continue until 2025. 
3 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Shaton, M., Pando, E., Vicini, I. et 
al., Interim evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme, Publications Office, 
2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/357102 
4  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation, Eurostars-2  final  evaluation  – 
Evaluation  study  of  the  European  Framework  Programmes  for  Research  and  Innovation  for  an  innovative 
Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/333838 

2 

 
 
 
completion  and  allows  SMEs  to  obtain  funds  without  any  prior  experience  in  transnational 
R&I collaboration.  

On the other hand, the interim evaluation pointed out that, due to the decentralised structure, 
times  to  grant  have  shown  a  high  level  of  heterogeneity  and  the  lack  of  synchronisation  of 
procedures often hampered the smooth implementation of the programme. The low number of 
active participating States and the uneven concentration5 of beneficiaries in them limited the 
impact  of  the  programme.  A  certain  level  of  uncertainty  had  manifested  in  terms  of  getting 
funding for selected projects when the contribution of participating States had been exhausted 
by other projects. 

1.2 Methodology 

The  final  evaluation  of  Eurostars-2  builds  on  the  findings  of  a  supporting  evaluation  study 
(ISBN 978-92-68-01803-3), conducted by external contractors, which is part of the Research 
and Innovation Framework Programme Impact Monitoring, Analysis and Evaluation strategy 
for  the  period  2019-2024  covering  the  overall  ex-post  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020  and  the 
interim evaluation of Horizon Europe, including partnerships. More particular the Eurostars-2 
final  evaluation  is  covered  under  the  Evaluation  study  of  the  European  Framework 
Programmes for Research and Innovation for an Innovative Europe. This study includes two 
case  studies,  using  data  collected  through  surveys  and  approximately  30  interviews  with 
programme participants and a wider variety of stakeholders (including beneficiaries, national 
funding bodies, the Eureka Secretariat and Commission services). 

This is complemented with statistical information about the Eurostars-2 programme provided 
by the Eureka Secretariat. The call for evidence published in September 2022 gathered replies 
from 62 entities from nine different countries and largely confirmed the conclusions that were 
drawn from the interviews conducted with stakeholders. 

Due  to  a  lack  of  more  detailed  information  and  data  on  final  project  results  and  impacts  of 
Eurostars-2  projects,  mainly  insights  from  interviews  and  desk  research  are  integrated  into 
this  final  evaluation  giving  only  limited  information  on  the  actual  results  and  impacts. 
Although the Eureka Secretariat has changed its monitoring system in response to the Interim 
Evaluation (2017), which noted the insufficient accuracy and lack of up-to-date information in 
the  Eureka  Secretariat  database,  it  was  not  yet  possible  to  assess  at  the  time  of  the  final 
evaluation  (2022)  if  the  new  monitoring  has  improved  data  timeliness  and  availability,  in 
particular due to the ongoing changes in the IT system of the Eureka Secretariat. 

Monitoring data provided (by 25 August 2022) include:  

- List of contact details for some National Funding Bodies  
- Data on the number of applications for each cut-off 
- Data on the countries of origin of the applicants        

5 9 participating countries concentrate more than half of all participating R&D SMEs: Germany, The 
Netherlands, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. 

3 

 
 
 
- Data on the number of funded projects for each cut-off  
- Data on the total projects budget for each cut-off       
- Data on the consortium composition for the 2014-2020 funding period  
- List of contact details for 10 Eurostars-2 beneficiaries  
- List of all approved Eurostars-2 projects  
- Data on the committed budget for each Participating State and Partner country 
for each cut-off & the committed EU contribution          
- List of Eurostars-2 projects with their evaluation status  
- Data on the time-to-contract per country for cut-off 1-15  
- Excel list with answers from the final reports of all projects from cut-off 1-5  
- Annual Reports of the Eurostars-2 programme from 2014-2021 1  
- Excel list with answers from the Market Impact Reports from 2019  
- Excel list with answers from the final reports from 2020  

Since around half of the Eurostars-2 projects were still running at the time of the evaluation 
(August  2022),  insights  from  final  reports  are  mainly  projected  from  cut-offs  1-5,  that  are 
completed.  Another  important  source  for  the  information  collected  on  the  Eurostars-2 
programme  has  been  the  stakeholder  interviews.  The  interviews  followed  a  semi-structured 
approach  and  were  conducted  via  videoconferences.  The  interviews  with  representatives  of 
the European Commission, the Eureka Secretariat and the National Funding Bodies allowed 
the  project  team  to  learn  more  about  the  administrative  functioning  of  Eurostars-2.  By 
speaking with programme beneficiaries such as SMEs, experiences on the actual outputs and 
results of the programme were collected. 

More information on the methodology and process to carry out this evaluation is available in 
Annex II. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  rationale  behind  Eurostars-2  is  that  SMEs  need  access  to  market,  finance,  skills  and 
knowledge in order to thrive and compete globally. They often lack in-house capabilities and 
capacity  to  achieve  the  innovative  breakthroughs  that  are  needed  for  their  scale  up  and 
integration  into  global  value  chains.  Collaboration  between  enterprises  and  with  public 
research-performing  organisations  are  key  for  faster  knowledge  diffusion  and  exploitation. 
Whilst many national programmes and instruments exist to facilitate participation of SMEs in 
R&I projects, most do not explicitly support or focus on international R&I collaboration.  

Under the Eurostars-2 programme, 33 participating countries, four additional non-EU partner 
countries and the EU, focused on the development of synergies of their R&I programmes and 
on improved cooperation between national  and regional R&I programmes for the benefit of 
R&D-performing SMEs. 

‘Eurostars-2’ aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy, its flagship initiative ‘Innovation Union’ 
and  the  Commission  Communication  of  17  July  2012  entitled  ‘A  Reinforced  European 
Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth’, aimed to supporting R&D performing 

4 

 
 
the  activities  under 

SMEs  by  co-financing  their  market  oriented  research  projects  in  any  field.  As  such,  and  in 
combination  with 
in  Enabling  and  Industrial 
Technologies’  objective  set  out  in  Horizon  2020,  it  aimed  to  contribute  to  the  goals  of  the 
Industrial  Leadership  part  of  that  programme  to  speed-up  development  of  the  technologies 
and innovations  that were to  underpin tomorrow’s businesses and help  innovative European 
SMEs to grow into world-leading companies.  

the  ‘Leadership 

The  Eurostars-2  programme  built  on  the  experience  of  its  predecessor,  the  Eurostars-1 
programme  implemented  between  2008  and  2013.  The  objective  of  Eurostars-1  was  to 
support transnational market-oriented research and innovation projects initiated and driven by 
R&D-performing  SMEs  in  order  to  improve  their  competitive  position.  Findings  from  the 
final evaluation of the Eurostars-1 programme6 showed that the financial support successfully 
helped  Eurostars-1  beneficiaries  to  develop  new  or  improved  products  and  services  with 
which they could improve their competitive position and that 88% of the analysed Eurostars-1 
projects developed their planned innovations.   

Similar  to  Eurostars-1,  Eurostars-2  had  no  specific  scientific  or  technological  focus  but 
supported  cross-border  R&I  collaboration  among  SMEs,  large  firms,  research  organisations 
and universities with a strong focus on internationalisation through R&D-driven projects with 
up to four consortium members. As part of the improvements from the previous Eurostars-1 
programme,  Eurostars-2  aimed  to  head  towards  shorter  time-to-grant,  stronger  integration, 
and lean, transparent, and more efficient administration to the ultimate benefit of research and 
development performing SMEs.  

Following the previous practice under Eurostars-1, the Eureka Secretariat was designated as 
the implementation structure for Eurostars-2. The Eureka Secretariat has been created as the 
operational  office  of  Eureka,  an  intergovernmental  initiative  established  in  1985  with  the 
objective of promoting cooperation in industrial research.7 

The  overall  objectives  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  were  mainly  to  provide  financial 
support to SMEs to: 

• 

• 
• 
• 

Support transnational market-oriented research projects initiated and driven by 
R&D- performing SMEs 
Encourage the development of new products, processes, and services by SMEs  
Promote technological and business development  
Boost the internationalisation of SMEs 

To achieve these set goals, the programme's activities took a bottom-up approach; the project 
partners  were  free  to  generate  innovation  in  any  technological  areas  and  address  any  (civil) 
market areas. The regular calls were bottom-up and easily accessible. One central feature of 
the  Eurostars-2  programme  was  the  mix  of  a  centralized  and  decentralized  application  and 
evaluation  approach.  Whilst  the  evaluation  of  applications  was  performed  by  the  Eureka 

6 COM(2015)479 - Final evaluation of the Eurostars Joint Programme (2008-2013) 
7 Home - Eureka (eurekanetwork.org) 

5 

 
 
 
Secretariat,  the  funding  and  its  monitoring  for  each  beneficiary  were  implemented  by  the 
National Funding Bodies (NFBs).  

The financial support of the Eurostars-2 programme aimed at leading to the following outputs 
(short-term): 

• 

• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Development  of  international  partnerships  between  SMEs  and  other  stakeholders 
to  work  on  R&D-driven  projects  to  commercialise  new  products,  processes,  and 
services within two years after project completion. 
Extended  international  networks  of  stakeholders  within  the  European  and 
international innovation ecosystems. 
In the medium-term, the following results should be facilitated: 
Improved SME innovation performance. 
Development of new market-ready products/services. 
Leverage  of  EU  structural  (ESIF  -  European  structural  and  investment  funds), 
national, regional funds and private investment. 

In the longer term, the Eurostars-2 programme aims to contribute to the following impacts: 

• 
• 
• 

Industrial leadership of EU and associated countries. 
Improved business environment of supported SMEs; 
Acceleration of European product, process, and service innovation. 

The following Figure summarises the intervention logic of the Eurostars-2 programme.   

6 

 
 
Figure 1 Intervention logic of Eurostars-2 

7 

 
 
 
 
2.2 

Point(s) of comparison  

Overall,  building  on  the  lessons  from  the  Eurostars-1  programme,  Eurostars-2  targeted  to 
demonstrate  clear  progress  towards  further  alignment  and  synchronisation  of  the  national 
research and innovation programmes as a truly joint programme featuring stronger scientific, 
management and financial synchronisation. Stronger scientific integration had to be achieved 
through  the  common  definition  and  implementation  of  activities  and  should  ensure  the 
excellence  and  the  high  impact  of  the  projects  selected.  Management  integration  aimed  to 
ensure further improvement of operational excellence and accountability for the programme. 
Stronger  financial  integration  was  to  be  based  on  overall  and  yearly  adequate  financial 
contribution  by  the  States  participating  in  Eurostars-2  and  a  high  degree  of  national 
synchronisation.  This  was  to  be  achieved  through  a  progressive  harmonisation  of  national 
funding rules. 

General objective 

To  tackle  the  room  for  improvement  identified  above,  the  following  general  objective  for 
Eurostars-2 has been set: 

• 

Stimulate economic growth and job creation by enhancing the competitiveness of 
R&D performing SMEs through transnational R&D collaboration. 

Specific objectives 

To achieve the general objective above, two specific objectives have been set. 

1. 

2. 

SO1.  Promotion  of  transnational  research  activities  for  R&D  performing  SMEs 
'close to the market' 
SO2. Contributing to the completion of the ERA and increasing the accessibility, 
efficiency,  and  effectiveness  of  public  funding  for  R&D  performing  SMEs  in 
Europe  by  aligning,  harmonising  and  synchronising  the  national  funding 
mechanisms 

Operational objectives 

To  reach  the  specific  objectives  above,  the  following  operational  objectives  have  been 
identified. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

integration  of  national  programmes:  Further 

OO1.Scientific integration of national programmes: Ensure excellence and impact 
of the projects selected through international (EUREKA wide) competition and the 
application of a single evaluation and selection process. 
OO2.Management 
improve 
operational excellence and accountability for the programme by reducing the time 
to contract while maintaining an optimal frequency of calls per year. 
OO3.Financial  integration  of  national  programmes:  Harmonisation  of  national 
funding rules and application of a binding ranking list. 
OO4.  Facilitate  the  participation  of  R&D  performing  SMEs  without  previous 
experience in transnational R&D activities. 

8 

 
 
HOW  HAS  THE  SITUATION  EVOLVED  OVER  THE  EVALUATION 

3. 
PERIOD? 

3. 1 Current state of play 

Based  on  the  framework  of  its  predecessor  programme,  the  Eurostars-2  programme  was 
implemented as jointly undertaken between EUREKA and the EU in the 2014-2020 funding 
period  by  33  Eurostars-2  participating  states  and  four  partner  countries.  Besides  the 
participation of all EU Member States and COSME8 countries such as the countries from the 
European  Free  Trade  Association  -  EFTA  (Iceland,  Norway,  Switzerland),  other  countries 
outside of the European continent such as Canada, the Republic of Korea, and South Africa 
have been partnering countries in the Eurostars-2 programme.   

Between 2014 and 2021, 15 joint calls (cut-offs at least twice per year) took place, and 5891 
projects  were submitted in  total.  The number of  funded projects  in  the period from January 
2014 to December 2020 amounted to 1546. The Figure 2 below provides for an overview of 
the number of approved projects for the Eurostars-2 programme between 2014-2020 for each 
cut-off. While the number of applications differed significantly for each cut-off, the average 
number  of  approved  projects  per  cut-off  was  103  projects.  The  countries  with  the  highest 
number  of  applications  were  Germany  (2602  applications), 
the  Netherlands  (1766 
applications)  and  Denmark  (1542  applications).  The  countries  with  the  lowest  number  of 
applications  were  Greece  (eight  applications),  Malta  (14  applications)  and  South  Africa  (40 
applications).  The  average  success  rate  defined  as  the  percentage  of  applicants  actually 
receiving funding of Eurostars-2, was 27%. The average project duration was 30 months and 
project consortia mostly consisted of an average of two to three organisations. 

Figure 2  - Number of approved projects for the Eurostars-2 programme between 2014 - 2020 

Source: PPMI/Idea Consult/Prognos (2022), based on data delivered by Eureka Secretariat. 

8 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/smes/cosme_en 

9 

 
 
 
 
When looking at the implementation status of approved projects, projects from the cut-offs 2- 
9 which started between 2014 and 2018 are mostly terminated while most of the projects from 
the  cut-offs  10-15  which  started  between  2018  and  2021  were  still  ongoing.  As  of  August 
2022,  601  Eurostar-2  projects  were  still  running  (39%)  and  800  projects  were  completed 
(52%). The  remaining  9% of the Eurostars-2 projects  have been either  withdrawn or are on 
hold  because  of  ethical  conflicts.  According  to  the  Annual  Eurostars-2  report  (2021), 
withdrawals are mainly due to bankruptcy issues, feasibility issues as well as project changes. 
Main project changes in 2021 were related to prolongation requests (62%).  

With  regards  to  the  budget  committed  in  the  2014-2020  period,  the  Eurostars-2  programme 
had a total committed public budget  of  EUR 1.14 billion distributed over the Annual Work 
Plans during that period.  While the EU committed EUR 287 million (33.3%) to the financing 
of the projects, the remaining EUR 856 million (66.6%) has been committed by the Eurostar 
participating  countries  themselves  through  national  funding  resources.  The  average  project 
costs  have  been  around  EUR  1.4  million,  out  of  which  a  maximum  of  50%  was  funded 
through Eurostars-2.  

The committed national budget by participating states and partner countries for all 15 cut-offs 
in the 2014-2020 funding period shows strong variances. The committed grant amounts by the 
33 Participating countries and the four Eurostars-2 partner countries differed significantly for 
each country. While the highest grant amounts have been committed by Germany (EUR 112 
million),  the  Netherlands  (EUR  102  million)  and  France  (EUR  74  million),  no  grants  have 
been committed by Greece. The committed budget per participating state and partner country 
shows that five countries (Germany, Netherlands, France,  Sweden, and  Norway) committed 
almost  half  of  the  total  committed  national  budget  showing  that  the  intensity  of  financial 
commitment by participating country is differing significantly.  

Figure 3  - Committed national budget by participating states and partner countries* for cut-off 
1-15 in EUR million 

Source: PPMI/Idea Consult/Prognos (2022), based on data delivered by Eureka Secretariat. Switzerland, South 
Korea, Canada and South Africa were Eurostars-2 partner countries in the 2014-2020 funding period.  

10 

 
 
 
With  regards  to  the  committed  budget  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme,  the  total  committed 
amount  for  the  cut-offs  1-15  was  EUR  1.074  billion  composed  of  EUR  891.33  million  of 
official  funding  committed  for  the  cut-offs  1-15  through  the  official  declaration  of 
commitments  by the participating  countries and  partner  countries. Out of this amount, EUR 
6.94  million  was  committed  as  alternative  funding  (loan).  The  committed  budget  of  the 
partner  countries  consisting  of  Switzerland,  South  Korea,  Canada  and  South  Africa  was 
around  EUR  84.12  million.  The  total  expected  EU  contribution  for  the  cut-offs  1-15  was 
around EUR 281 million.  

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

Effectiveness and efficiency 

The main beneficiaries of the Eurostars-2 programme were R&D-performing SMEs (66%)9, 
30%  of  which  had  no  prior  experience  in  international  collaboration  before  having 
participated  in  the  Eurostars-2  programme.  By  supporting  transnational  consortia,  the 
Eurostars-2  programme  aimed  at  increasing  the  number  of  cross-regional  research  activities 
and  partnerships  of  SMEs  with  other  organisations  such  as  other  SMEs  or  research 
organisations.  The  most  common  transnational  collaborations  were  e.g.,  for  the  cut-offs  11 
and  12  between  project  partners  from  Germany-Switzerland  (9%  of  projects),  Germany-
Netherlands (9% of projects) and Switzerland-Netherlands (8% of projects).  

The  transnational  partnerships  followed  a  bottom-up  approach  meaning  that  no  specific 
thematic  nor  technological  focus  was  required  under  the  Eurostars-2  programme.  Different 
technological  areas  were  thus  addressed  in  the  2014-2020  funding  period.  In  terms  of 
thematic focus, a strong focus of the Eurostars-2 projects has been on biological sciences and 
technologies (35%), followed by electronics, IT and telecoms technologies (22%). In terms of 
markets, while around 38% of the projects focused on the medical and health-related market, 
other  different  markets  were  addressed  by  the  Eurostars-2  programme  such  as  industrial 
products/manufacturing, computer-related markets and biotechnology markets.   

Eurostars-2 as a partnership aims to add value by being open to new beneficiaries as a niche 
programme  that  was  also,  or  even  in  particular,  interesting  for  SMEs  with  no  previous 
experience  in  securing  public  funding.  By  attracting  around  50%  of  newcomers  to  the 
Horizon programme, the Eurostars-2 programme achieved to attract inexperienced SMEs and 
other  organisations  to  participate  in  an  EU-wide  funding  programme.  Moreover,  findings 
from the Market Impact Reports from 2020 show that 30% of SMEs had no prior experience 
in  international  collaboration  before  having  participated  in  the  Eurostars-2  programme. 
However,  based  on  findings  from  interviews  with  NFBs  and  beneficiaries,  the  openness  of 
partnerships  as  well  as  the  flexibility  of  introducing  amendments  to  the  project  depends 
significantly on national rules and differs therefore by each NFB.  

9 With the rest of the funding going to other stakeholders, such as research and technology organisations.  

11 

 
 
 
The  partnerships’  budget  leverage  factor,  in  mobilising  additional  resources,  on  top  of 
contribution from partners could not be fully established since the NFBs do not follow up on 
completed projects in that respect. However, findings from the interviews with beneficiaries 
suggest that the successful implementation of a Eurostars-2 project is perceived as a quality 
label by private investors. 

A  lesson  learned  regarding  partnership-specific  criteria  concerns  the  divergence  in  national 
rules  and  on  how  to  increase  transparency  to  Eurostars-2  applicants.  The  uniqueness  of 
Eurostars-2  rests  on  the  funding  of  transnational  collaborative  projects  led  by  R&D 
performing  /  innovative  SMEs.  However,  consortium  members  for  a  given  project  face 
different  rules  for  application  depending  on  their  country  of  origin.  In  addition,  funding  is 
allocated  based  not  only  on  the  position  on  the  ranking  list  but  also  according  to  the 
availability  of  national  funding.  There  is  scope  for  further  convergence  of  the  rules  and  for 
better explanations to applicants of the link between the availability of national funding and 
the provision of grants. 

Findings from the final reports of completed Eurostars-2 projects of the cut-off 1-5 indicate 
that  94%  of  beneficiaries  of  completed  Eurostars-2  projects  perceived  the  programme  as 
effective and only 6% saw potential for improvement. Interviews with beneficiaries  indicate 
that  the  Eurostars-2  funding  was  relevant  to  taking  the  first  steps  to  further  elaborate  their 
innovation which would have been difficult for smaller enterprises without the public funding 
support. Findings from the interviews suggest that the elements of cross-regional cooperation 
between different organisations combined with the bottom-up approach are one of the central 
drivers  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  giving  interested  organisations  the  flexibility  to  find 
adequate  collaboration  partners  outside  of  their  country.  The  initiated  knowledge  transfer 
between partnerships worked out very well in many cases. In addition, some SMEs explained 
that the Eurostars-2 support was perceived as a de-risking factor and success label for private 
investors making the projects more attractive for private investments. 

Coherence  

According  to  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  (2017),  the  programme 
was  one  of  several  funding  programmes  aiming  at  boosting  growth,  jobs  and  innovation  in 
Europe implemented by the EU. By having been implemented under Article 185 TFEU, the 
programme  is  considered  a  niche  programme  that  addresses  SME  needs  which  are  not 
covered  by  national  or  regional  funding  programmes.  By  strengthening  the  transnational 
cooperation  between  the  Member  States,  the  Eurostars-2  programme  supported  the 
establishment  of  the  European  Research  Area  on  two  levels.  On  the  one  hand,  NFBs 
cooperated  with  the  Eureka  Secretariat  while  putting  into  place  cross-regional  funding 
schemes which would not  be possible in this broad scope by national  funding  programmes. 
On  the  other  hand,  based  on  the  limited  information  available,  it  appears  that  SMEs 
successfully transferred their knowledge across borders within Europe and even in some cases 
industry 
to  support  research  excellence  and 
worldwide,  contributing 
stakeholders in Europe.  

leadership  of 

12 

 
 
Overall, Eurostars-2 supported synergies in terms of cross-border learning between NFBs and 
SMEs. There are strong indications that the EU co-funding was an incentive for NFBs to take 
part in the Eurostars-2 programme and improve their own national funding processes.  

While NFBs and the Eureka Secretariat  endeavoured to  further align national  and European 
funding rules, NFBs reported that there were still delays in the projects’ start as the time-to-
contract  differs  from  each  participating  state  and  partner  country.  According  to  the  interim 
evaluation (2017), the Eurostars-2 programme belongs with the EIC Accelerator (former SME 
Instrument)  to  the  most  known  funding  instruments  of  Horizon  2020.  Findings  from  the  15 
interviews  show  that  NFBs  and  beneficiaries  also  perceive  a  high  level  of  coherence  and 
sustainability among partnerships. This is also confirmed in the final reports of cut-offs 1-5. 

Communication  and  coherence  within  the  partnerships  are  perceived  by  interviewed 
beneficiaries as good.  

Moreover,  several  interviewed  SMEs  indicated  that  the  Eurostars-2  programme  has  been  a 
good starting point to develop a product, process, or service through public funding support as 
the  success  rate  (27%)  has  been  relatively  high  compared  to  the  EIC  Accelerator.  Several 
interviewed beneficiaries have been successful in a second step in receiving funding from the 
EIC Accelerator and see synergies between both programmes.  

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference? 

The  Eurostars-2  programme  was  an  Article  185  initiative  consisting  of  national  funding 
efforts that have been topped up by funding contributions of the EU. From the perspective of 
interviewed  beneficiaries,  this  mixed  centralised  and  decentralised  approach  is  unique  and 
perceived as an EU added value. The Eurostars-2 programme is regarded as a well-established 
support  programme  for  SMEs  in  the  European  Research  Area  allowing  different  types  of 
organisations  to  collaborate  with  international  partners  while  having  the  well-known  local 
NFBs as a national contact institution. For many SMEs, this programme offers the possibility 
to go international for the first time and to learn more about other EU markets. The Eurostars-
2 programme is thus not only offering the opportunity to strengthen the relationship with the 
consortium  partners  but  to  discover  and  reach  out  to  new  markets  and  contacts.  Especially 
companies  that  do  not  have  high  resources  have  the  possibility  through  the  programme  to 
collaborate with other companies and develop new intellectual properties and leverage skills 
that they do not have in their home countries.  

Another important feature of the programme is the open innovation and bottom-up approach 
giving  SMEs  with  different  sectoral  backgrounds  the  possibility  to  apply  for  funding.  The 
Eurostars-2  programme  has  been  perceived  by  beneficiaries  as  an  important  support 
instrument  to  strengthen the European Research  Area and beyond. As national  and regional 
support programmes do often not allow cross-border cooperation, the Eurostars-2 programme 
seems to have been in the 2014-2020 funding period a successful niche programme for SMEs 
and other organisations wishing to engage in transnational collaboration.  

13 

 
 
Compared  to  other  funding  programmes,  the  Eurostars-2  programme  offered  extended 
possibilities  to  initiate  a  cooperative  learning  process  with  successful  international  partners 
with  competencies  that  would  have  been  not  available  on  the  regional  or  national  level. 
Moreover,  interviewed  beneficiaries  emphasize  that  the  granting  amount  offered  at  the  EU 
level  is  generally higher than at  the national  or regional level.  Therefore, allowing them for 
comparatively more activities performed through the Eurostars-2 programme. 

With regards to the project results, one central objective of the Eurostars-2 programme was to 
support organisations to develop market-ready products, services, and processes. The limited 
number of Market Impact Reports from 2020 suggest that most commercialised results were 
products (53%), followed by services (28%) and processes (19%). 

Interviews with beneficiaries suggest that the Eurostars-2 programme was overall successful 
in  its  activities  to  support  R&D  performing  SMEs  to  develop  new  processes,  products  or 
services. Beneficiaries were capable to develop patents and prototypes that led to the growth 
of  the  company  and  other  beneficiaries  received  private  investments  after  the  project's 
completion to further develop their project.  

With  regards  to  the  rating  of  the  overall  technological  achievements  of  beneficiaries  of  the 
cut-offs 1-5, 89% of the beneficiaries either ranked their technological achievement as good 
or  even  excellent.  Reasons  indicated  in  the  final  reports  on  why  some  technological 
achievements were not satisfying were e.g., changes in the regulatory environment requiring a 
technical  change  and  a  different  approach  to  market  entry  or  technological  problems  that 
could  not  be  solved  during  the  project  implementation.  Project  results  were  mainly 
commercialised in Europe, followed by North America and Asia. 

Findings  from  the  final  reports  of  the  cut-offs  1-5  show  that  75%  of  the  Eurostars-2 
beneficiaries were satisfied with the outcome of their project and 86% stated that they planned 
to continue the collaboration of their partnership after the end of their funding. Overall, based 
on  preliminary  results,  the  number  of  full-time  equivalents  that  resulted  from  Eurostars-2 
partnerships after the completion of the projects reached the overall programme objective of 
1500 FTEs. 

According  to  interviews  performed  with  SMEs,  the  Eurostars-2  projects  seem  to  have 
contributed to the EU policy priorities such as the twin transition (green and digital transition) 
as well to the Sustainable Development  Goals  (SDGs). Data  from  final  reports provided by 
the Eureka Secretariat show that 29% of beneficiaries confirmed that their project contributed 
to one or more of the objectives of the SDGs. 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

By  targeting  R&D  performing  SMEs,  the  Eurostars-2  programme  aimed  at  boosting 
innovation,  growth,  and  competitiveness  of  the  EU  innovation  ecosystem  through  applied 
research and development. The financial support of the Eurostars-2 programme contributed to 
the bottom-up and market-oriented development of new, innovative products, processes, and 
services.  

14 

 
 
The nearly constantly increasing number of applications to the 15 cut-offs is a good indicator 
showing that the programmes’ objectives and support schemes were and are still relevant for 
the  main  target  group,  namely  interested  R&D-driven  SMEs  and  other  SMEs.  While  the 
average success  rate of Eurostars-2 applicants  for all 15 cut-offs (final submission  dates for 
the calls) of the calls was 27% of proposals awarded, the success rate has been significantly 
lower during the last four cut-offs with success rates between 19-25% showing that more and 
more SMEs and other organisations have applied for Eurostars-2 funding support in the 2014-
2020  funding  period.  Compared  to  the  Eurostars-1  programme  (26%),  the  success  rate 
remained  similar.    The  7  interviews  with  National  Funding  Bodies  pointed  to  the  existing 
need and demand for financial support for R&D-driven companies. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

Due  to  a  lack  of  more  detailed  information  and  data  on  final  project  results  and  impacts  of 
Eurostars-2  projects,  mainly  insights  from  interviews  and  desk  research  are  integrated  into 
this final evaluation giving only limited information on the actual results and impacts. 

Target group and scope of the programme 

The evaluation faced certain limitations. Between 2014-2020, 15 Eurostars-2 calls took place 
and  around  1546  Eurostars-2  projects  were  selected.  However,  the  final  evaluation  only 
shows  a  limited  picture  of  the  results  and  impact  of  completed  Eurostars-2  projects.  As 
Eurostars-2 projects have an implementation duration of 36 months and many projects were 
extended due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, only 52% of all Eurostars-2 projects 
were completed by August 2022, at the time of completion of the external evaluation study. In 
addition, the methodology and questions asked in the final reports (FIR) were changed after 
cut-off 5 to further harmonise report templates for all EUREKA programmes. However, based 
on interviews with 6 beneficiaries, 7 NFBs and 1 EU official and the feedback following the 
‘call for evidence’, the Eurostars-2 programme is regarded as a relevant support programme 
for  SMEs  to  develop  new  and  innovative  products,  processes,  and  services.  While  a  strong 
focus  of  the  funded  projects  has  been  on  biological  science  and  technologies  (35%)  and 
electronics, IT, and telecoms technologies (22%), the technological openness and the bottom-
up  approach  are  perceived  by  interviewees  as  one  of  the  major  benefits  of  the  Eurostars-2 
programme. According to interviewed SMEs, the geographical openness,  and the possibility 
to collaborate with partner organisations from a broad range of the 33 participating countries 
is one of the EU added values of the Eurostars-2 programme compared to regional or national 
funding  programmes  which  often  have  also  lower  funding  rates.  The  increasing  number  of 
applications throughout the 15 cut-offs indicates the existing relevance of the programme for 
the  target  groups.  For  some  interviewed  stakeholders,  the  Eurostars-2  programme  is  an 
attractive  but  fewer  known  niche  programme  giving  SMEs  unexperienced  in  going 
international for the first time the chance to collaborate with international partners.  

15 

 
 
 
Governance and management 

Overall, findings from the final evaluation indicate that the governance structure of Eurostars-
2 by the Eureka Secretariat  together with  the NFBs is  adequate. According  to  interviewees, 
the governance structure is complex but adapted to the needs of the Eurostars-2 programme 
and  cost-efficient.  The  Eureka  Secretariat  confirms  that  the  governance  model  has  been  re-
established in terms of risk management policies for the organisations.  

According to available information, the Eurostars-2 programme seems to have had a positive 
impact. As around half of the projects were still running at the time of the evaluation, and the 
monitoring  and  reporting  system  did  not  allow  for  a  proper  tracking  of  results,  it  is  not 
possible to draw detailed conclusions on final project results and their impact. 

The  external  evaluation  points  to  the  role  of  the  Eureka  Secretariat  which  is  broadly 
confirmed to be relevant for the successful implementation of the programme because of its 
broad,  international  network  and  expert  database  with  broad  knowledge  in  different 
technological fields. The Eureka Secretariat did, however, by the time of the evaluation, not 
provide  more  detailed  monitoring  and  reporting  information  on  project  results  allowing  to 
fully assess the effects of the programme nor the efficiency of its implementation. 

Interviews  with  NFBs  show  that  application  and  participation  rates  differ  in  the  different 
participating  states  and  partner  countries.  As  outlined  in  more  depth  in  the  case  study  on 
participation this is largely explained by the design of the programme, which means that the 
budget allocated at the national level is a strong determinant of the number of projects funded 
with beneficiaries from a given country. The countries that provide the  strongest input have 
the most participants.  

The  centralised  evaluation  process  of  applications  is  generally  confirmed  to  be  well 
structured,  however  it  is  also  sometimes  criticised  for  being  non-transparent  to  applicants. 
Complicated  application  processes  lead  to  sub-business  of  external  firms  helping  with  the 
application  process  and  writing  the  actual  project  application  according  to  interviewees.  In 
addition, beneficiaries emphasised that the lack of user-friendliness of the Eureka Secretariat 
website  was  perceived  in  some  cases  as  a  challenge  for  applicants  to  understand  specific 
national eligibility criteria applied in the context of an EU level funding programme.  

Results and impacts of Eurostars-2 projects 

Due to IT and database issues in the Eureka secretariat at the time of the study the study team 
faced  a  lack  of  information  and  data  on  project  results  and  impacts  of  Eurostars-2  projects. 
Only insights from interviews and desk research are integrated into the final evaluation giving 
only  selective  and  limited  insights  into  the  actual  results  and  impacts.  With  regards  to  the 
project  implementation  and  results,  interviews  with  beneficiaries  indicate  that  Eurostars-2 
projects seem to be successful to develop new processes, products or services. To follow up 
on the achievements and success of the projects, the final report and market impact reports are 
requested periodically for three years from the Eurostars-2 projects by the Eureka Secretariat. 
However,  these  reports  have  certain  limitations  as  some  organisations  participating  in  the 

16 

 
 
Eurostars-2  programme  do  not  have  any  market  impact  (e.g.,  universities)  and  beneficiaries 
stop replying after having received their final payment. Overall, interviews with beneficiaries 
and  feedback  from  various  SMEs  in  the  Call  for  Evidence  show  that  SMEs  have  been 
successful  in  developing  new  patents  and  prototypes  and  received  private  investments  after 
the project completion. In this context, Eurostars-2 projects are perceived as quality labels by 
private investors. 

5.2 Lessons Learned 

Overall, the Eurostars-2 programme has been successful in boosting innovations developed by 
international project consortia with a focus on SMEs. Based on the recommendations given in 
the interim evaluation (2017) and progress and improvements made since 2017, the following 
lessons can be drawn. 

Monitoring and data collection for the partnership  

Due  to  a  lack  of  more  detailed  information  and  data  on  final  project  results  and  impacts  of 
Eurostars-2  projects,  mainly  insights  from  interviews  and  desk  research  are  integrated  into 
this  final  evaluation  giving  only  limited  information  on  the  actual  results  and  impacts. 
Although the Eureka Secretariat has changed its monitoring system in response to the Interim 
Evaluation (2017), which noted the insufficient accuracy and lack of up-to-date information in 
the  Eureka  Secretariat  database,  it  was  not  yet  possible  to  assess  at  the  time  of  the  final 
evaluation  (2022)  if  the  new  monitoring  has  improved  data  timeliness  and  availability,  in 
particular  due  to  the  ongoing  changes  in  the  IT  system  of  the  Eureka  Secretariat. 
Nevertheless,  changes  in  IT  systems,  staff  replacement  and  clearer  guidance  in  the  project 
agreement  are  expected  to  lead  to  an  improved  situation  in  the  successor  programme  of 
Eurostars-2, which is subject to reporting obligations related to co-funded partnerships under 
Horizon Europe, with an increased focus on impact. 

Uncertainty to get  funding for selected projects when  the contribution of participating 
states has been exhausted by other projects 

This was a key weakness identified in the interim evaluation. Due to the lack of information 
and  data  noted  above  this  aspect  was  not  fully  examined  in  this  final  evaluation.  However, 
since the selection process for the partnership did not change in the interim period, it is likely 
that the issue persisted throughout Eurostars-2.  

Divergence in national rules and transparency to applicants 

Consortium  members  for  a  given  project  face  different  rules  for  application  depending  on 
their country of origin. In addition, funding is allocated based, not only on the position on the 
ranking  list,  but  also  according  to  availability  of  national  funding.  The  link  between 
availability  of  national  funding  and  provision  of  grants  is  not  always  clearly  explained  to 
applicants.  

Synergies between the Eurostar programme with other EU funding instruments  

The  Eurostars-2  programme  has  been  perceived  as  an  interesting  funding  programme  for 
SMEs applying for the first time for EU funding apart from their national or regional funding 

17 

 
 
programmes,  with  potential  to  further  strengthen  its  synergies  with  other  EU  funding 
programmes (e.g., EIC Accelerator).  

Geographic diversity of participation  

The  findings  indicate  that  five  out  of  the  33  participating  states  and  four  partner  countries 
contribute around 49% of the total committed national budget of the Eurostars-2 programme. 
Due to  the design  of the programme there is  a strong correlation  between budget  allocation 
and participation at national level.  

Visibility of the Eurostars-2 programme in some participating states:   

While some participating countries offer different types of support services and promotional 
activities that increase the visibility of the Eurostars-2 programme on the national level, other 
NFBs  do  not  have  the  financial  and  human  resources  to  promote  the  programme  on  the 
national level. The lack of certain minimum level of promotional activities to be performed at 
the  national  level  results  in  an  uneven  visibility  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  in  all 
participating  states.  The  lack  of  more  centralised  communication  activities  and  better 
coordinated communications and social media activities by Eureka Secretariat also leads to a 
suboptimal visibility of the programme. 

Time-to-contract  

The time-to-contract is the time between the cut-off date and the date of signature of the grant 
agreement.  In  the  bilateral  agreements  between  the  NFBs  and  the  Eureka  Secretariat,  the 
involved  parties  agreed  to  keep  the  time-to-contract  within  seven  months  meaning  that  the 
Eureka Secretariat would communicate funding results to the applicants of selected Eurostars-
2  projects  and  their  respective  NFBs  within  four  months  and  that  NFBs  would  finalise  the 
grant  agreement  within  three  months  after  the  communication  of  the  funding  results  by  the 
Eureka Secretariat. Statistics show that the average time-to-contract decreased from cut-off 1 
with  an  average  time-to-contract  of  9,7  months  to  6,6  months  for  the  cut-off  14.  However, 
divergences of national rules in the different participating states and partner countries appear 
to  be  a  barrier  to  the  operational  performance  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  and  further 
synchronisation of national rules is a key factor for improvement. The adaptions of the time-
to-contract  in  the  2021-2027  funding  period  are  perceived  by  interviewed  beneficiaries  and 
the SME’s that supplied feedback in the call for evidence as an important step.  

Absorption of designated budget 

The  design  of  the  programme,  where  national  funding  is  topped  up  with  the  European 
Commission contribution is unique. Committed national funding was distributed as shown in 
the figure below and subsequently topped up with the Commission portion. 

18 

 
 
Figure 4 - Committed national funding in Eurostars-2 per country, EUR million  

Source: PPMI/Idea Consult/Prognos (2022), based on data delivered by ESE. Switzerland, South Korea, Canada 
and South Africa as Eurostars-2 partner countries in the 2014-2020 funding period.  

A comparison of the committed funding with the actual funding provided is only possible to a 
limited  extent.  This  is  because  at  the  time  of  the  report  only  the  first  six  cut-offs  had  been 
closed. For all other cut-offs, the Eureka Secretariat still receives information on expenditures 
from NFBs, so a final comparison of the pre-committed budget to the actual funding provided 
is  not  possible.  Nevertheless,  from  the  data  of  the  closed  first  six  cut-offs,  there  is  a 
considerable discrepancy between the pre-committed budget and the actual funding provided. 
The  reasons  for  this  discrepancy  are  manifold  and  were  answered  in  different  ways  in  the 
interviews. Besides others, one reason relates to  the design  of the programme. The fact  that 
the  ranking  list  is  created  independently  means  that  it  does  not  exactly  match  the  NFBs' 
commitments, so not all funds are allocated. In addition, NFBs confirm that it is difficult for 
countries to set a fixed amount for Eurostars-2 in advance, as these are checked (and possibly 
re-allocated)  in  the  national  budget  right  before  the  cut-off.  So  if  the  funding  is  needed 
elsewhere,  it  may  well  be  that  less  budget  is  available  for  Eurostars-2  than  originally 
committed. Hence, partly because of the matching needs between the national budgets, calls 
and  available  EC  budget  the  programme  failed  to  absorb  the  full  budget  dedicated  to  it.  As 
compared  to  other  instruments,  such  as  the  EIC  Accelerator  where  absorption  ratios  are 
around  100%,  Eurostars-2  lacked  tools  and  instruments  to  enhance  flexibility  of  call 
management to ensure full budget absorption of the programme. Still, towards the end-phase 
of the programme the European Commission facilitated the creation of an extra call during the 
Covid outbreak, which ensured continuity of the programme. The extra call was funded using 
the substantial underspend over the lifetime of the programme. A total of EUR 16.6 million 
EU funding was dedicated to the 15th call, meaning that the total current EU underspending 
for the lifetime of the programme was reduced to EUR 31.4 million, which however were not 
lost but could be used in other parts of Horizon 2020. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG 

The  European  Commission’s  Directorate-General  (DG)  for  Research  and  Innovation  is  the 
lead DG for this evaluation (PLAN/2022/1345). 

Organisation and timing 

The  Commission  published  a  ‘call  for  evidence’  on  the  final  evaluation  of  the  ‘Eurostars-2 
programme (EU partnership on innovative SMEs)’ on 23 September 2022 that was open for 
feedback until 21 October 2022. 

Three partnerships based on Article 185 TFEU (the Active and Assisted Living Research and 
Development  Programme  (AAL2),  Eurostars-2  and  the  Partnership  for  Research  and 
Innovation in  the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA))  have evaluations  coming up by the  end of 
2022.  In  this  context,  DG  Research  and  Innovation  set  up  one  inter-service  group  (ISG)  to 
oversee the three evaluations.  

The  ISG  was  established  on  4  July  2022  involving  representatives  from  the  Secretariat-
General,  DG for Research and  Innovation, DG for Communications Networks,  Content and 
Technology, DG for Agriculture and Rural Development, DG for Informatics, DG for Budget, 
DG for Competition, DG for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, DG for Environment, DG 
for  Migration  and  Home  Affairs,  DG  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries,  DG  for  Structural 
Reform Support, the Joint Research Centre and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-
sized Enterprises. The ISG contributed to the evaluation and ensured that it met the necessary 
standards for approval of the final report. Two meetings were held. 

Evidence, sources, and quality 

This evaluation report drew on the following sources of evidence: 

Beck  et  al.  (2019):  Eurostars.  The  international  programme  for  Research  Intensive 
under: 

• 
SMEs. 
Danish 
https://innovationsfonden.dk/sites/default/files/2019-12/eurostars-a-joint-swiss-danish-
impact-study_0.pdf .  

Available 

Impact 

Study. 

Swiss 

joint 

A 

• 
ERA-LEARN  (2020):  Annual  Report  on  Public-Public  Partnerships  2020.  Available 
under:  https://www.era-learn.eu/news-events/news/era-learn-annual-report-on-public-public-
partnerships-2020 .  

• 
ERA-LEARN  (2020):  Workshop  report.  “Supporting  the  preparation  of  future 
European  Partnerships"  Brussels,  9-10  March  2020.  Available  under:  https://www.era-
learn.eu/documents/era-learn-ws-report-supporting-the-preparation-of-future-european-
partnerships.pdf/view . 

20 

 
 
 
European  Commission  (2014)  Final  evaluation  of  the  Eurostars  Joint  Programme. 
• 
Available 
under: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323644226_Final_Evaluation_of_the_Eurostars_Joi
nt_Programme_Expert_group. 

European  Commission  (2017):  Interim  Evaluation  of 

• 
Programme. 
/publication/e6bbaa13-b867-11e7-ac8e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  

Available 

under: 

the  Eurostars-2  Joint 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-

European Commission (2017): Impact assessment of EUREKA network projects and 
under: 

• 
cluster 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319162491_Impact_Assessment_of_EUREKA_Net
work_Projects_and_Cluster_Projects.  

Available 

projects. 

European  Commission  (2017):  Commission  staff  working  document  on  in-depth 
• 
interim  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020.  Available  under:  https://op.europa.eu/de/publication-
detail/-/publication/33dc9472-d8c9-11e8-afb3-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

European  Commission  (2017):  Meta-evaluation  of  Article  185  initiatives  –  report  of 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
expert 

• 
the 
/publication/3966c4a7-b47c-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

group.  Available 

under: 

• 
European  Commission  (2019):  European  Partnerships  under  Horizon  Europe:  results 
of  the  structured  consultation  of  Member  States.  Available  under:  https://www.era-
learn.eu/news-events/news/european-partnerships-under-horizon-europe-results-of-the-
structured-consultation-of-member-states-1. 

European Commission (2021). Study on the effectiveness of public innovation support 
in  Europe.  Available  under:  https://op.europa.eu/de/publication-detail/-

• 
for  SMEs 
/publication/d031aa03-9295-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

EUREKA  (2018):  Eurostars-Guidelines  for  project  progress  reports  2018-2020. 

• 
Available under: https://www.eurekanetwork.org/programmes/eurostars/guidelines. 

EUREKA (2019): Eurostars – Eligibility guidelines for applications. Available under: 

• 
https://www.eurekanetwork.org/programmes/eurostars/guidelines. 

EUREKA 

• 
report. 
https://issuu.com/eurekaassociation/docs/annual_report_2019.   

(2019): 

Annual 

Available 

under: 

EUREKA  (2020):  Eurostars  -  Submitting  your  Project  Progress  Report  and  Final 
• 
under: 
Report 
https://www.eurekanetwork.org/dA/9b6b673323/Guidelines+for+the+online+submission+of+
PPRs+and+FiRs+(Nov+2020).pdf?language_id=1. 

Available 

online. 

• 

• 

EUREKA (2014): Annual Report 2014. Eurostars-2. 

EUREKA (2015): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2. 

21 

 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

EUREKA (2016): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2. 

EUREKA (2017): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2. 

EUREKA (2018): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2. 

EUREKA (2019): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2. 

EUREKA (2020): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2. 

EUREKA (2021): Annual Report 2021. Eurostars-2. 

External expertise 

Expert advice has been widely used to prepare the Commission Staff Working Document. It 
mainly includes the Study report on the final evaluation of Eurostars-2, commissioned by the 
European  Commission.  The  contractor  is  PPMI  and  more  specifically  Prognos.  The  study, 
Eurostars-2 final evaluation – Evaluation study of the European Framework Programmes for 
Research  and  Innovation  for  an  innovative  Europe,  Publications  Office  of  the  European 
Union, 2023, has been published in 2023 by Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Study design 

Prognos, as part of a consortium led by PPMI, carried out a support study to provide input for 
this evaluation. The study was delivered over a period of nine months in 2022. 

Limitations and reliability of data 

The feedback to the ‘call for evidence’ was extensive and largely confirmed satisfaction with 
the programme and the key findings of the study. 

The study report on the final evaluation of Eurostars-2 was largely conducted by using desk 
research  and  the  analyses  of  administrative  data  and  stakeholder  interviews.  With  the 
exception of the interviews, it did  not  collect  any new data but  relied in its analyses on the 
data that had already been collected and presented elsewhere.  

The evaluation builds on a broad set of qualitative and quantitative data such as desk research, 
stakeholder interviews, an intervention logic, and secondary data such as reports  and earlier 
evaluations. The EUREKA secretariat provided secondary data in the form of Annual Reports 
and monitoring data of the Eurostars-2 programme. In addition, the evaluation is enriched by 
findings from two case studies on the Eurostars-2 programme performed as part of the wider 
study  on  the  support  to  the  innovation  of  the  EU  Research  &  Innovation  Framework 
programme (‘Framework Programme’).  

The evaluation faces certain limitations. Between 2014-2020, 15 Eurostars-2 calls took place 
and  1546  Eurostars-2  projects  were  selected.  However,  the  final  evaluation  only  shows  a 
limited  picture  of  the  results  and  impact  of  completed  Eurostars-2  projects.  As  Eurostars-2 
projects have an implementation duration of 36 months and many projects were extended due 
to  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  only  52%  of  all  Eurostars-2  projects  were 
completed  by  the  24th  of  August.  In  addition,  the  methodology  and  questions  asked  in  the 
final reports (FIR) were changed after cut-off no. 5 to further harmonise report templates for 
all EUREKA programmes. Several questions were therefore not available anymore in the FIR 
from cut-off no. 6 onwards. In addition, the market impact of Eurostars-2 projects is followed 
up through two market impact reports (MIR) which are requested from beneficiaries after the 
end  of  the  project  completion.  MIRs  from  2019  and  2020  have  been  available  for  the  final 
evaluation.  

As  interviews  were  meant  to  primarily  cover  the  content  of  the  case  studies,  but  also 
contribute  to  the  final  evaluation,  the  list  of  questions  covering  two  case  studies  and  the 
evaluation was extensive. This meant that not all questions could be given the same priority 
during the interviews and questions were selected that were most pertinent to interviewees. 

Methodology, sources of information and data analysis 

The methodology for the support study was based on: 

• 

Desk-based research; 

23 

 
 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Interviews; 
Case studies; 
Analysis of funding and administrative data; 
Other quantitative methods. 

The final Eurostars-2 evaluation follows a mixed-method approach by combining quantitative 
and qualitative data collection and analysis methods. The desk research was a starting point to 
get  the  first  insights  on  the  Eurostars-2  joint  programme.  In  addition,  information  was 
enriched  by  expert  interviews  with  relevant  stakeholders.  Monitoring  data  provide  an 
additional source of evidence on the actual results and impact of the Eurostars-2 programme. 
Moreover,  findings  from  the  interim  evaluation  and  the  Eurostars-2  case  studies,  which  are 
also  part  of  the  study  on  the  support  to  the  innovation  of  the  EU  Research  &  Innovation 
Framework programme (‘Framework Programme’), were giving additional insights. 

The evaluation is based on 12 evaluation questions linked to the EU evaluation criteria. The 
following Table gives an overview of the six evaluation criteria of this evaluation.  

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RELEVANT QUESTIONS 

Evaluation 
criteria 
Relevance 

Coherence 

Efficiency 

Judgement criteria 

This refers to the assessment of the relationship between the needs of  society /target 
groups – and the objectives of the initiative. 
Coherence covers the assessment of the initiative compared to other EU initiatives and 
policies and if possible, to relevant national and regional policies. internal coherence is 
considered  as  coherence  with  the  evaluated  cluster  support  initiatives.  external 
coherence  is  considered  as  coherence  with  national/regional  support  and  other  EU-
level programmes. 
This  part  assesses  the  relationship  between  the  resources  used  (i.e.,  inputs)  and  the 
outputs achieved. 

Effectiveness  The effectiveness criterion assesses how successful the different initiatives have been 

added 

EU 
value 

Partnership 

in terms of achieving or making progress towards the set objectives. 
Assessment  of  whether  the  achievements  of  the  initiative  could  have  been  achieved 
without EU intervention (by national actions by the member states) and why action on 
the EU level is required. 
The partnership criterion deals with all questions related to the partnership of entities 
within the frame of the Eurostars-2 programme such as private funding and openness 
of partnerships 

Desk research 

The  desk  research  provided  a  first,  comprehensive  overview  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme 
and  allowed  to  learn  more  about  the  developments  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  since  the 
2007-2013  funding  period  and  the  interim  findings  and  recommendations  of  the  interim 
evaluation (2017).  

Critical assessment of work carried out by external contractor 

The work carried out  by the contractors is  of good quality.  The Commission  services agree 
with the conclusions presented as this address the key issues arising from the evaluation. 

24 

 
 
ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON 
ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Evaluation Matrix 

Criterion 
Evaluation criteria defined by the Better Regulation Guidelines 

Guiding questions 

Evidence-based answers  

Relevance 

To what extent have the objectives 
of  the  partnership  been,  and  are 
still relevant vis-à-vis of the needs 
and  problems  addressed  by  the 
Framework  Programme?  How 
flexible has the partnership been? 

to 

face 

The  analysis  confirms  that  the  Eurostars-2 
programme was successful in reaching its main 
target  group  consisting  of  R&D-performing 
SMEs and other SMEs. Out of the total number 
of 12.968 participants who were and are part of 
consortia  applying  for  Eurostars-2  funding  in 
15  Cut-offs,  68%  of  all  participants  involved 
were  either  R&D-performing  SMEs  or  other 
SMEs.  For  the  participating  SMEs  it  is  still 
relevant to also involve other beneficiaries such 
as  universities  and  other  research-performing 
organisations  to  benefit from  research findings 
and to further develop their products, processes 
or services.   
Within  the  funding  period  of  2014-2020,  the 
Eurostars-2  programme  had 
the 
consequences of the outbreak of the COVID-19 
pandemic  which  started  in  the  beginning  of 
2020.  While  12  out  of  15  calls  had  already 
taken  place  at  that  moment  and  most  of  the 
Eurostars-2  projects  had  already  started  their 
activities (77.2%), the pandemic had mostly an 
impact 
project 
implementation.  With  regards  to  the  impact  of 
the  general  work  processes  such  as  on-spot 
(Independent 
evaluation 
Evaluation Panel) sessions, and meetings of the 
Eurostar  Ethics  Panel,  new  collaborative  ways 
were  put  into  practice  to  continue  activities 
normally.  Call  management  processes  were 
flexible and adapted to the circumstances of the 
COVID-19  pandemic  and  internal  as  well  as 
external physical meetings such as promotional 
events  changed  to  online  meetings.  Constantly 
increasing  numbers  of  submitted  project 
applications  during  the  cut-offs  13-15  and  the 
highest  number  of  approved  projects  with  a 
total  of  123  projects  show  that  the  COVID-19 
pandemic  did  not  influence  the  relevance 
market  needs  of  R&D-performing  SMEs 
targeted by the Eurostars-2 programme. 

cross-border 

processes, 

IEP 

the 

on 

Coherence 

How well do the different  actions  By having been implemented under Article 185 

25 

 
 
 
work  together,  internally  (i.e.,  to 
the 
other 
partnership,  with 
and  with  other 
partnerships 
Framework 
Programme 
activities),  and  with  other  EU 
interventions/policies 
(complementarities, 
synergies, 
overlaps)?  Is  Eurostars-2  more 
effective  in  achieving  synergies, 
compared  to  other  modalities  of 
the programme? 

Efficiency 

for 

flexibility  needs 

What  is  the  relationship  between 
the 
the 
resources  used  by 
partnership  and  the  changes  it  is 
generating?  How  did  processes 
in 
cater 
implementation?  How 
cost-
effective  has  Eurostars-2  been? 
How proportionate were the costs 
of  application  and  participation 
borne  by  different  stakeholder 
groups,  taking  into  account  the 
associated benefits? 

26 

By 

transferred 

throughout 

strengthening 

rate  collected 

TFEU,  the  programme  combines  national  and 
EU rules and is considered a niche programme 
that  addresses  SME  needs  which  are  not 
covered  by  national  or  regional  funding 
the 
programmes. 
transnational cooperation between the Member 
States,  the  Eurostars-2  programme  focused  on 
the  establishment  of  the  European  Research 
Area  on  two  levels.  On  the  one  hand,  NFBs 
cooperated  with  the  ESE  while  putting  into 
place  a  cross-regional  funding  schemes  which 
would  not  be  possible  in  this  broad  scope  by 
national  funding  programmes.  On  the  other 
hand,  SMEs  successfully 
their 
knowledge  across  borders  within  Europe  and 
even  in  some  cases  worldwide.  The  high 
satisfaction 
the 
interviews  in  the  study  indicates  that  the 
Eurostars-2  programme  was  a  successful 
programme  within  Horizon  2020  to  further 
support  research  excellence  and  leadership  of 
industry stakeholders in Europe.  
Overall, Article 185 TFEU supported synergies 
in  terms  of  cross-border  learning  between 
NFBs  and  SMEs.  There  are  strong  indications 
that the EU top-up contribution is an incentive 
for  NFBs  to  take  part  in  the  Eurostars-2 
programme. 
Eurostars-2  programme  has  been  a  good 
starting point to develop a product, process, or 
service  through  public  funding  support  as  the 
success rate has been relatively high compared 
to  the  EIC  Accelerator.  Several  interviewed 
beneficiaries  have  been  successful  in  a  second 
step 
the  EIC 
Accelerator  and  see  synergies  between  both 
programmes.  
Insights  shared  by  beneficiaries  and  NFBs 
confirm  that  the  Eurostars-2  programme  is 
overall  perceived  as  efficient  in  terms  of  its 
implementation  processes  to  achieve  its  main 
objective.  The  mix  of  national  and  European 
funding 
is  seen  as  efficient  and  funding 
amounts  were  high  enough  for  successful 
project 
implementations.  The  Eurostars-2 
programme  is  perceived  as  straightforward 
when it comes to the application and evaluation 
process  compared  to  other  central  EU  funding 
programmes.  Information  events  organised  by 
national  funding  bodies  (e.g.  in  Denmark  or 

in  receiving  funding  from 

 
 
in 

the 

and 

The 

from 

findings 

participants 

programmes. 

Sweden)  are  perceived  as  helpful  guidance  in 
the  simultaneous  dual-application  process  on 
the  European  and  national 
levels.  The 
Eurostars-2  programme  is  perceived  by  those 
SMEs as a good starting point for start-ups and 
SMEs  to  get  familiar  with  EU  funding  rules 
and  processes,  especially  for  interested  SMEs 
that  have  not  applied  beforehand  for  EU 
funding 
centralised 
evaluation  process  of  applications  is  generally 
confirmed to be well structured and transparent 
for applicants.  
Nevertheless, 
interim 
evaluation  (2017)  and  insight  from  interviews 
with NFBs show that the mix of centralized and 
decentralized implementation structures is  also 
leading to different funding rules and rates that 
apply in the different participating states.  Even 
though  the  participating  states  are  constantly 
trying  to  align  their  national  rules  as  reported 
by  interviewed  NFBs,  differing  numbers  of 
applications 
the 
participating  states  show  that  the  full  potential 
of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  is  not  exploited 
in  all  participating  states.  In  this  context,  the 
case  study  on  varying  participation  rates  of 
Eurostars-2  participating  states  confirms  that 
the  main  reason  for  the  lower  number  of 
applications  in  some participating  states is due 
to different programme budgets and the lack of 
visibility  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme.  Also, 
findings from interviews with NFBs show that 
different  supportive  and  promotional  activities 
that  are  performed  by  some  NFBs  can  be  a 
central 
to  boost  application  and 
participation  rates.  For  instance,  the  Swedish, 
Dutch and German NFBs explained during the 
interviews  that  they  have  implemented  several 
successful  promotional  activities  such  as 
dedicated  websites  or  dedicated  informative 
interested  SMEs.  However, 
events 
promotional  activities,  like  participation  rates, 
are  closely  linked  to  budget  amounts  by  the 
participating states which differed in the 2014-
2020  funding  from  EUR  one  million  (South 
Africa) to EUR 112 million (Germany). 
The  main  beneficiaries  of  the  Eurostars-2 
programme  were  R&D-performing  SMEs 
(66%).  By  supporting  transnational  consortia, 
the Eurostars-2 programme aimed at increasing 

factor 

for 

Effectiveness  What 

is 

the  progress  made 
the 
towards 
partnership  and 
the 
Framework programme, including 

the  objectives  of 
those  of 

27 

 
 
for 

achieved, 

the  contribution  to  EU  priorities 
and  Sustainable  Development 
Goals? 
Were  adequate  systems  put  in 
place to produce and share lessons 
learnt  from  implementation  and 
results 
policy 
making  and  between  Framework 
Programme 
interventions?  To 
what  extent  does  the  programme 
communication/valorisation 
identifying, 
strategy 
capitalising  upon  and  (possibly) 
transferring 
good 
practices/results? 
the  partnership-
Includes  also 
specific  question  of  how 
the 
partnership  has  helped  foster  the 
and 
international 
visibility  of  the  European  R&I 
system,  and  an  assessment  of  the 
level  of  international  cooperation 
at partnership and project level 

positioning 

allow 

in 

the number of cross-regional research activities 
and  partnerships  of  SMEs  with  other 
organisations  such  as  other  SMEs  or  research 
organisations.  
transnational  partnerships  followed  a 
The 
bottom-up  approach  meaning  that  no  thematic 
and technological focus was required under the 
Different 
programme. 
Eurostars-2 
technological areas were addressed through the 
Eurostars-2  programme 
the  2014-2020 
funding period. In terms of thematic focuses of 
the  Eurostars-2  projects,  a  strong  focus  has 
been  on  biological  sciences  and  technologies 
(35%), 
IT  and 
followed  by  electronics, 
telecoms  technologies  (22%).  While  around 
38% of the projects focused on the medical and 
health-related  market,  other  different  markets 
were  addressed  by  the  Eurostars-2  programme 
industrial  products/manufacturing, 
such  as 
computer-related  markets  and  biotechnology 
markets.   
Findings  from  the  final  reports  of  completed 
Eurostars-2  projects  of  the  cut-off  nos.  1-5 
show  94%  of  beneficiaries  of  completed 
Eurostars-2  projects  perceived  the  programme 
as  effective  and  only  6%  saw  the  potential  for 
improvement.  Interviews  with  beneficiaries 
confirm  that  the  Eurostars-2  funding  was 
relevant  to  taking  the  first  steps  to  further 
elaborate  their  innovation  which  would  have 
been  difficult  for  smaller  enterprises  without 
the public funding support. 
Key benefits of participation in the Eurostars-2 
programme  mentioned  in  the  final  impact 
reports of the cut-offs nos. 1-5 were mainly the 
possibility  for  SMEs 
to  collaborate  with 
academia  (28%)  as  well  as  the  increased 
visibility and reputation (25%). 
Moreover,  the  findings  from  the  conducted 
interviews  indicate  that  the  elements  of  cross-
different 
regional 
organisations  combined  with  the  bottom-up 
approach  were  regarded  as  one  of  the  central 
drivers  of  the  Eurostars-2  programme  giving 
interested  organisations  the  flexibility  to  find 
adequate  partners  outside  of  their  country  to 
collaborate.  The  initiated  knowledge  transfer 
between  partnerships  worked  out  very  well  in 
many cases. In addition, some SMEs explained 
that the Eurostars-2 support was perceived as a 

cooperation 

between 

28 

 
 
added 

EU 
value 

What  is  the  value  resulting  from 
the  partnership  that  is  additional 
to the value that could result from 
interventions 
at 
regional  or  national  level  or  with 
other forms of implementation? 

carried 

out 

to 

as 

important 

de-risking  factor  and  success  label  for  private 
investors  making  the  projects  more  attractive 
for private investments. 
The  Eurostars-2  programme  is  perceived  by 
support 
an 
beneficiaries 
instrument 
the  European 
strengthen 
Research  Area  and  beyond.  As  national  and 
regional  support  programmes  do  often  not 
allow cross-border cooperation, the Eurostars-2 
programme  has  been  the  2014-2020  funding 
period a successful niche programme for SMEs 
and  other  organisations  wishing  to  engage  in 
transnational collaboration.  
Compared  to  other  funding  programmes,  the 
Eurostars-2  programme  offered  the  possibility 
to  initiate  a  cooperative  learning  process  with 
successful 
partners  with 
competencies 
that  would  have  been  not 
available  on  the  regional  or  national  level. 
Moreover, interviewed beneficiaries emphasize 
that the granting amount offered at the EU level 
is  generally  higher  than  at  the  national  or 
regional level. Therefore, more activities could 
be 
the  Eurostars-2 
through 
programme. 

international 

performed 

facilitate 

Additional partnership-specific criteria 
Additionality  How  much  additional  private 
and/or public R&I investments on 
EU priorities have been mobilised 
thanks  to  the  partnership,  under 
the  partnership  and  on  top  of 
contribution  of  partners,  both  at 
national and European level? How 
do  partnerships 
the 
creation  and  expansion  of  R&I 
networks 
together 
that  bring 
relevant  and  competent  actors 
from 
thus 
contributing  to  the  realisation  of 
the ERA? 
To  what  extent  has  Eurostars-2 
created 
the 
competitiveness  of  the  Union's 
industry,  aimed  at  a  better 
exploitation  of 
industrial 
potential of policies of innovation, 
technological 
research 
in 
development 
particular  with  regards  to  ICT 
based  products  and  services  for 

conditions 

(H2020), 

Europe, 

across 

and 

the 

for 

29 

funding 

The successful implementation of a Eurostars-2 
project is perceived as a quality label by private 
investors.  Evidence  suggests  that  investors 
perceive the previous public funding support as 
a  de-risking  factor  and  a  proof  of  quality 
making  the  project  more  attractive  for  private 
helped 
investments.  Eurostars-2 
companies 
to  develop  patents  and  attract 
further private investments.  
To  further  boost  successful  Eurostars  projects, 
the  Eureka  Secretariat  InnoVest  Programme 
was  introduced  in  2017.    The  new  programme 
was  set  up  in  cooperation  with  European 
Business  Angels  Network 
the 
European  Business  and  Innovation  Centre 
Network  (EBN)  and  Tech  Tour.  Its  objectives 
have  been 
the  matching  of 
investment-ready companies with investors and 
to  increase the investment  awareness of SMEs 
having  participated  in  the  Eureka  Secretariat 
projects. The programme has only been open to 
SMEs  coming  from  the  Eureka  Secretariat 
national authorities financing the programme.  

to  facilitate 

(EBAN), 

 
 
 
NFBs  and  beneficiaries  perceived  Eurostars-2 
as a niche programme that was also interesting 
for  SMEs  with  no  previous  experience  in 
securing  public  funding.  By  attracting  around 
to  Horizon  2020 
50%  of  newcomers 
programme, 
programme 
the  Eurostars-2 
achieved  to  attract  inexperienced  SMEs  and 
other  organisations  to  participate  in  an  EU-
wide  funding  programme.  Moreover,  findings 
from  the  Market  Impact  Reports  from  2020 
that  30%  of  SMEs  had  no  prior 
show 
experience in international collaboration before 
having 
the  Eurostars-2 
programme.  
Based  on  findings  from  interviews  with  NFBs 
and beneficiaries, the openness  of partnerships 
introducing 
the  flexibility  of 
as  well  as 
depends 
the 
amendments 
significantly  on  national  rules  and  differs 
therefore by each NFB.  

participated 

project 

in 

to 

Transparency 
& openness 

at  partnership 

active and healthy ageing?  
How  open  is  the  partnership  to 
new  participants  (incl.  procedures 
/  mechanisms 
involve  new 
to 
and 
members 
project  level,  as  well  as  gradually 
engage 
of 
stakeholders across Europe)? How 
transparent  are  the  processes  for 
all 
consulting 
relevant 
stakeholders 
constituent 
and 
entities  in  the  identification  of 
priorities?  How  accessible  is  the 
partnership to SMEs? 

broader 

set 

a 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

Due  to  lacking  information  and  data  on  project  results  and  impacts  of  Eurostars-2  projects, 
only insights from interviews and desk research are integrated into the final evaluation giving 
only  selective  and  limited  insights  into  the  actual  results  and  impacts.  With  regards  to  the 
project  implementation  and  results,  interviews  with  beneficiaries  show  that  the  Eurostars-2 
programme  indicates  that  Eurostars-2  projects  seem  to  be  successful  to  develop  new 
processes, products or services. To follow up on the achievements and success of the projects, 
the final report and market impact reports are requested periodically for three years from the 
Eurostars-2  projects  by  the  ESE.  However,  these  reports  have  certain  limitations  as  some 
organisations participating in the Eurostars-2 programme do not have any market impact (e.g., 
universities) and beneficiaries stop replying after having received their final payment. Overall, 
interviews  with  beneficiaries  show  that  SMEs  have  been  successful  in  developing  new 
patents, and prototypes and received private investments after the project completion. In this 
context, Eurostars-2 projects are perceived as quality labels by private investors. 

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative   Comment  Quantitative 

Comment  

Costs on research programme level 

4% 

N/A 

96% 

Average 
percentage  of 
total 
annual 
Programme 
budget 

Average  %  of 
top-up 
payments 
from  allocated 
budget. 

Administrative 

recurrent 

Support Actions 

recurrent 

Research projects 

recurrent 

Direct benefits 

Indirect benefits 

Better quality of life 

Strengthening 
industrial 
Europe 

base 

the 
in 

Increase  efficiency  and 
sustainability  of  support 
and care systems 

Benefits 

31 

 
 
                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

Overview of consultation activities 

An important source for the information collected on the Eurostars-2 programme has been the 
conduction  of  stakeholder  interviews.  The  interviews  followed  a  semi-structured  approach 
and  were  conducted  via  videoconferences.  The  interviews  with  representatives  of  the 
European Commission, the ESE and the National Funding Bodies allowed the project team to 
learn  more  about  the  administrative  functioning  of  the  Eurostars-2.  By  speaking  with 
beneficiaries of the programme such as SMEs, experiences on the actual outputs and results of 
the programme were collected. Overall, 15 interviews have been conducted with beneficiaries 
of different cut-offs in the Eurostars-2 programme coming from different participating states, 
contact  persons  of  National  funding  bodies  and  the  ESE  secretariat.  An  overview  of  the 
performed interviews and the interview guide is attached in the following table. 

Stakeholders consulted 

The following table provides an overview of the stakeholders consulted. 

OF 

TYPE 
STAKEHOLDER 
EU official  
EUREKA secretariat 
Lead partner 
National investment bank 
Innovation agency 
Innovation agency 
National ministry 
Innovation agency 
Innovation agency 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10  SME 
11  SME 
12  SME 
13  SME 
14  SME 
15  SME 

ROLE IN THE EUROSTARS-
2 PROGRAMME 
DG RTD 
EUREKA 
National funding body 
National funding body 
National funding body 
National funding body 
National funding body 
National funding body 
National funding body 
Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 

COUNTRY  DATE  OF  THE 

Belgium 
Belgium 
Germany 
France 
Netherlands 
Sweden 
Italy 
Ireland 
Croatia 
Denmark 
Denmark 
Netherlands 
Sweden 
Spain 
Austria 

INTERVIEW 
May, 18 2022 
June, 13 2022 
April, 29 2022 
April, 27 2022 
May, 10 2022 
May, 23 2022 
April, 27 2022 
April, 26 2022 
April, 27 2022 
May, 9 2022 
June, 10 2022 
May, 13 2022 
May, 9 2022 
May, 17 2022 
June, 1 2022 

The  call  for  evidence  was  open  for  feedback  between  23  September  2022  and  21  October 
2022. Feedback received is extensive, largely positive and in confirmation of the key findings 
of  the  study.  The  feedback  did  therefore  not  lead  to  extra  research  for  the  study,  nor  to 
changes  in  key  findings.  The  feedback  was  submitted  from  62  entities  from  9  different 
countries and represented both academic spinoffs as well as startups and regular companies. 
Mostly  mentioned  were  the  programme’s  facilitation  for  engaging  into  international 
partnerships, financing of R&D that would have not been done otherwise and development of 
new products and services to the market. Overall, there was a high level of satisfaction with 
the  management  of  the  programme  and  the  relatively  easiness  of  participating.  It  is  worth 
mentioning that in several comments it was pointed out that the ES-2 program. was the first 
engagement  in  international  cooperation  and  funding.  Finally,  it  was  mentioned  that  the 
international partnership and cooperation developed in the ES-2 programme tended to outlive 
the project duration and became of a more permanent nature. 

32