Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – The ERA Act: unlocking the fifth freedom (own-initiative opinion)
Date: 2025-07-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU research policy, area of freedom, security and justice, diffusion of innovations, fundamental rights, innovation, intellectual property, knowledge transfer, open science, research and development, scientific cooperation








C_202505138EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5138


28.10.2025






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
The ERA Act: unlocking the fifth freedom
(own-initiative opinion)
(C/2025/5138)


Rapporteur: 
Paul RÜBIG

Co-rapporteur: 
Stefano PALMIERI






Advisors


Brigitte BACH (to the rapporteur)




 


Pier Francesco MORETTI (to the co-rapporteur)




Plenary Assembly decision


23.1.2025




Legal basis


Rule 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure




Section responsible


Single Market, Production and Consumption




Adopted in section


26.6.2025




Adopted at plenary session


16.7.2025




Plenary session No


598




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


186/1/4




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomes the European Commission’s ambition to establish a ‘fifth freedom’ – the free movement of research, innovation, and knowledge. Europe is a leading knowledge producer, and, amid rising geopolitical tensions and the growing importance of knowledge sovereignty, this strategic asset must be leveraged.












1.2.


The EESC supports the recognition of knowledge as a European public good and endorses knowledge circulation as a fundamental right. The ultimate purpose of knowledge creation and circulation must be societal well-being. In this context, the EESC stresses the importance of clear rules on data ownership to ensure fair access, use, and protection of knowledge assets.












1.3.


The EESC calls on the Commission to pursue measures and structural incentives, especially in areas where Member State reluctance hampers progress and homogenisation – such as tax, pensions, gender, workplaces, salaries, and the challenges linked to scale-ups of firms and cross-border mobility of people and funds.












1.4.


The EESC underlines the importance of a 3 % GDP national spending goal for R&I (Research & Innovation), asking for an additional 1 % for preparedness and dual-use research.












1.5.


To initiate a breakthrough, the EESC calls for national R&I investments to be decoupled from deficit rules until the 3 % spending target is met. In addition, other funds (e.g. cohesion) should be increasingly used and aligned with R&I activities.












1.6.


An ambitious FP10 can serve as a backbone for a knowledge-based approach to provide meaningful solutions to the challenges facing the EU, unlocking the potential for economic growth, technological leadership and societal advancement. A governance structure that enables R&I across nations, sectors and disciplines is required to fully fulfil this potential.












1.7.


The EESC calls for firm efforts to cut bureaucracy (1) and speed up procedures (e.g. for funding and project participation). Simpler, faster and more transparent mechanisms are vital for eliminating persistent barriers to knowledge circulation.












1.8.


The EESC underscores the importance of skills and education, and calls for a more effective pan-European recognition of standards for qualifications (e.g. EU degree).












1.9.


The fifth freedom and the ERA act should cover the full dynamic R&I cycle, including higher education, collaborative and applied research and start-ups, ensuring that knowledge translates into innovation and impact.












1.10.


In an increasingly uncertain world, anticipatory policymaking is key to aligning short- and long-term goals and adapting to emerging risks. The EESC recognises the strategic role of foresight and calls for it to be embedded in the governance of the fifth freedom.












1.11.


The EESC recognises the role and potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in supporting knowledge, research and innovation. However, challenges that arise from these technologies that impact workers must be avoided and countered. The EESC calls for legislative initiatives to protect workers’ rights and ensure human-centred interactions and decision-making in human-machine interfaces (2).












1.12.


The EESC stresses the need to adopt a balanced approach to trade-offs at the heart of the fifth freedom, such as cohesion vs. excellence, or openness vs. autonomy. Acknowledging these tensions is essential for sound, forward-looking and fair policymaking. Recognising the challenge of research security and the risk of international interference, the EESC considers that a fair balance between control, restrictions, and openness must be maintained. Upholding the principle of ‘freedom with accountability’ through effective, efficient and transparent self-governance (3) is crucial.












1.13.


The fifth freedom must include mechanisms to counter disinformation and pseudoscience, build trust in scientific institutions, and promote ‘knowledge literacy’. Fostering critical thinking through education, supporting science communication and ensuring access to reliable information are key for evidence-based policymaking and democratic resilience.




2.   General comments









2.1.


In the third quarter of 2026, the Commission is expected to publish the European Research Area Act (ERA Act). This initiative aims to establish a ‘fifth freedom’ (4), which was proposed in the Letta report (5) and mentioned in the mission letter to Commissioner Zaharieva. It will enhance free movement of research, innovation and knowledge, reduce fragmentation and anchor R&I in the single market.












2.2.


A knowledge-based approach can offer meaningful solutions to the EU’s challenges, unlocking potential for economic growth, technological leadership and societal progress. The ERA Act is therefore welcome.












2.3.


Knowledge is the result of experience, study and analysis, shaping culture, behaviour, and values. Europe has a long tradition in this and should rely on knowledge as a powerful tool for democracy, solidarity, equality, rights and freedom.












2.4.


The framework conditions for R&I policy have shifted significantly. While the SDGs and Green Deal remain key, recent global dynamics have brought forward new interlinked priorities, such as strategic autonomy, defence and sustainable competitiveness. In this context, knowledge could have a different role, especially (but not only) in strategic technological fields. The very concept of knowledge is evolving, which can be seen in the transformation of collective cognitive systems driven by AI, augmented reality and neuronal chips (6). The EESC therefore recommends that the ERA Act move beyond voluntary coordination towards regulatory measures and structural incentives.




3.   Structural and regulatory aspects









3.1.


The EESC stresses the need to reform structural and regulatory aspects to achieve the ERA Act’s objectives. The ERA Act could provide a roadmap for necessary EU-level initiatives to tackle these challenges.












3.2.


Structural and regulatory changes are needed to improve cross-border open funding and grant portability. To optimise efficiency and impact, initiatives like EUREKA, Eurostars, ELISE and the EIT’s pan-European infrastructure (which integrates education, research and business) could be leveraged to enhance cross-border R&I.












3.3.


The EESC underscores the importance of pan-European qualification standards. Researcher mobility and knowledge-sharing depend on a broad recognition of skills. Recognising European qualifications (e.g. an EU degree) is necessary to enable the fifth freedom, e.g. by streamlining automatic recognition procedures.












3.4.


Structural barriers still impede worker participation and mobility, including pensions, salaries, and taxation. The lingering effect of gender inequality (7) and the precarious employment conditions of early-career researchers should also be highlighted.












3.5.


The EESC underscores the critical role of R&I security, especially in sensitive sectors like defence and medicine. It is essential to ensure robust control over digital infrastructure, data quality and security – particularly identity protection – and to address AI influence, data ownership in licensing agreements, and propaganda.












3.6.


The EESC underlines that knowledge must be treated as a European public good. Broad access to scientific knowledge, data and technology is vital for Europe’s strategic goals. While the ERA Act rightly promotes transparency and accessibility – via open-access publishing, open science, infrastructure and data-sharing – this raises concerns about costs (e.g. publishing fees) and how to balance openness with private-sector innovation (see 4.18). The ERA Act should strengthen IP and licensing policies, including streamlined patenting and a stronger unitary patent system. The Commission should prioritise pan-European digital platforms.












3.7.


In light of geopolitical shifts and hybrid threats, the EESC welcomes the proposed Council recommendation to enhance security in R&I internationalisation (8). It supports better coordination among Member States. While recognising the R&I sector’s vulnerability to malign interference, openness and international knowledge exchange remain fundamental. A fair balance must be struck between security and openness (9).




4.   The bigger picture









4.1.


The EESC wishes to highlight broader, fundamental aspects that are sometimes underrepresented but must be considered when establishing the fifth freedom.












4.2.


A well-funded framework programme (potentially aligned with the European Competitiveness Compass, but with its own governance) is vital in the ERA Act context. The proposed EUR 220 billion budget and the Warsaw Declaration are welcome. Given geopolitical shifts, a 3 + 1 % R&D spending target – with 1 % for preparedness and dual-use research – should be considered. Stronger links between R&D promotion and EU enlargement, cohesion and food security deserve further exploration. Existing synergies, like ERDF-to-Horizon Europe transfers, should be expanded (10). The EESC also recommends binding capacity-building targets and an EU-wide monitoring framework to ensure progress, transparency and comparability.












4.3.


To initiate a breakthrough, the EESC calls for national R&I investments to be decoupled from deficit rules until the 3 % spending target is met.












4.4.


A robust FP10 is essential for Europe’s global attractiveness and for generating and circulating the knowledge the ERA Act seeks to unlock. Its added value lies in enabling cross-border, cross-sector and cross-disciplinary research and depends, inter alia, on an own governance structure suitable to promote R&I across boundaries. The FP10 can thus be seen as the backbone of the fifth freedom.












4.5.


Applied and collaborative research must play a key role in the FP10, ensuring that research translates into economic and societal impact. The FP10 also has to focus on reducing unnecessary red tape, developing a more efficient mode of reporting and making access easier.












4.6.


To accelerate the complex process from fundamental research to innovation scale-up, the fifth freedom must extend beyond basic research. Currently, there is too much focus on innovation inputs (11) and too little on the full R&I cycle from a systemic perspective. A well-balanced mix of support for basic and applied research, innovation scale-up, and a strong education–research–business triangle are vital pillars of European competitiveness.












4.7.


An EU Industrial & Technology Research Council would be a valuable addition, giving applied research a united voice and reinforcing Europe’s leadership in strategic fields.












4.8.


Given Europe’s fragmented R&I landscape and silo effects, organisations and companies providing networking and transfer functions should be seen as key enablers of the fifth freedom by enhancing coordination, communication and knowledge transfer (e.g. the Science-Media Hub, AI factories, EIT). Participatory and civic organisations, intermediary institutions, and non-formal education must be recognised as vital for knowledge circulation and public acceptance and uptake.












4.9.


The EESC sees the fifth freedom as a chance to map European R&I activities. An overview of planned, ongoing and future research – and outcomes – would enhance transparency, coordination and visibility, especially for businesses, showcasing the societal return on R&D (e.g. job creation, tax revenues). The EU should develop or harmonise platforms to systematically map R&I, building on initiatives like the European Open Science Cloud and CORDIS. The EESC also urges the Commission to identify instruments supporting the fifth freedom, such as Erasmus, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, or Regions of Knowledge.












4.10.


The EESC stresses that the potential ‘costs of non-Europe’ are substantial, including in R&I. Fragmentation and poor coordination limit knowledge dissemination, increase duplication and reduce impact. Deeper EU integration in key policy areas could unlock major economic gains (12). Strengthening the fifth freedom across the entire R&I cycle is thus key to boosting EU competitiveness and resilience.












4.11.


The fifth freedom offers a chance to create an interface for knowledge creation and application across Europe, promoting circulation, use and uptake. Instruments could include short- and medium-term stays by EU citizens in universities, RPOs, RTOs, or companies to ‘carry’ knowledge between places, or expanding the Seal of Excellence. Successful transfer depends on re-contextualisation and absorptive capacities in receiving areas. Strengthening these capacities should be a priority, supported by cohesion funds. Matching the right people with the right jobs is equally crucial, requiring better mechanisms to develop talent aligned with industry needs.












4.12.


Europe must address a key bottleneck in innovation funding: slow turnaround times for approvals. High-potential innovations need timely support to maintain momentum. The Commission should therefore simplify access to finance, cut red tape, and ensure fast, flexible funding for innovators.












4.13.


The EESC highlights the importance and potential of AI in developing the fifth freedom and boosting European productivity. Given the pervasive potential of AI, an approach is needed to tackle the challenges that could impact workers. Legislation should close gaps in worker protection and ensure human control in all human-machine interactions.












4.14.


Strategic foresight can significantly support citizen engagement, R&I directionality, European missions and partnerships, smart specialisation, and the twin transition (13). It offers a valuable approach for creating safe spaces – e.g. at local level – testing scenarios, combining ‘exnovation’ with innovation, and identifying weak signals and breakthrough ideas to link short- and long-term visions for fair transitions (14). The EESC calls for EU scientific excellence to be promoted, for an ecosystem to be fostered that generates intangible assets, and for support for high-risk ideas, as well as clear rules to protect them. Several emerging technologies have already been identified as valuable for addressing key challenges (15). Other promising solutions can achieve integrated sustainability, ensuring the supply of critical raw materials combined with environmental protection (16) and carbon neutrality.












4.15.


Amid discussions on improving Europe’s global competitiveness, we must not lose sight of the need for transformative innovation and systemic change to address societal challenges. A balance is needed between freedom and the ‘directionality’ of innovation. Europe must seize opportunities while safeguarding societal values and advancing the green transition, developing a European approach to progress (17).












4.16.


Transformative knowledge must proliferate quickly within and across socio-technical systems. This reinforces the need for a systemic view of R&I: the fifth freedom should include a broad range of actors – including schools, civic society and public organisations – to support the diffusion of transformative innovation and knowledge-based, responsive policymaking.












4.17.


In addition to science-to-industry links, the EESC emphasises science-to-policy interfaces. The fifth freedom should foster rapid uptake of research results into evidence-based policymaking. This requires the inclusion of public administration and policy professionals in mobility schemes.












4.18.


Inherent trade-offs underpin the fifth freedom – often complex and not easy or possible to resolve. The EESC strongly recommends acknowledging them from the outset, as this is essential for informed policymaking. Trade-offs include, but are not limited to:






—



Cohesion vs. excellence: Strengthening leadership in key fields will likely benefit some regions over others. Removing barriers to mobility holds great potential but may widen disparities. The ERA must therefore integrate regional dynamics, support place-based strategies (e.g. smart specialisation strategies) and institutions in regions with lower R&I capacities, and better link to cohesion instruments and ERA hubs.










—



Openness vs. strategic autonomy: In balancing global knowledge flows and technological sovereignty, the EU must embrace an open but risk-aware approach to cooperation.










—



IP protection vs. open science: Tension arises between fostering open access to data and ensuring commercial incentives through intellectual property rights. The principle of ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’
                         (18) should be applied.










—



Speed vs. regulatory/ethical oversight: Pressure for rapid innovation vs. ethical scrutiny, especially in emerging fields like AI.










—



Private ownership vs. European public good: Ensuring broad access to knowledge and innovation while respecting private-sector investments and fair commercial returns.
















4.19.


Given the situation in the US, the fifth freedom should incorporate strategies to reverse the brain and start-up drain. Possible instruments include fast-track visas, time-limited tax breaks for incoming talent, and sector-specific action plans. The EESC calls for relevant investments to be decoupled from national deficits.












4.20.


The EESC is deeply concerned about rising misinformation and pseudoscience, which undermine evidence-based policymaking and democratic resilience. The fifth freedom must include mechanisms to counter disinformation, strengthen trust in scientific institutions, and promote ‘knowledge literacy’. Fostering critical thinking through education, supporting science communication, and ensuring access to reliable information are key. Climate change denial is one notable example.




5.   The role of the EESC, the CoR and European agencies (19)









5.1.


The EESC, CoR and/or European agencies (20) can play an important role in shaping the ERA Act by promoting policy measures that align R&I with societal needs, integrating local knowledge, civil society experience and bottom-up perspectives into policymaking. They can support inclusive participation and help ensure that benefits are broadly shared across regions and social groups (see 3.4).












5.2.


The EESC, CoR and/or European agencies could foster knowledge dissemination, transfer and re-contextualisation, strengthening absorptive capacities and regional readiness (see 4.11). They are also well-placed to assess the socio-economic impacts of cross-border funding, help prevent knowledge-based growth from concentrating in innovation hubs, and ensure ERA governance is informed by regional and social indicators (see 4.18).






Brussels, 16 July 2025.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
               





(1)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – The competitiveness of the EU’s small and medium-sized enterprises in light of new administrative burdens/obligations (Polish presidency exploratory opinion) (OJ C, C/2025/2012, 30.4.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2012/oj).

(2)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Assessment of the Letta and Draghi reports on the functioning and the competitiveness of the EU’s single market (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2025/2004, 30.4.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2004/oj).

(3)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Proposal for a Council recommendation on enhancing research security (COM(2024) 26 final — 2024/0012 (NLE)) (OJ C, C/2024/6022, 23.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6022/oj).

(4)  The term is considered unclear by some as it is inherently different from the other ‘four freedoms’ of the Single Market.

(5)  Letta, E. Much more than a market report.

(6)  
            https://www.futures4europe.eu/post/eye-of-europe-foresight-pilot-topics-ur2q3.

(7)  European Commission, (2024), Science, research and innovation performance of the EU – A competitive Europe for a sustainable future, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/965670.

(8)  European Commission, (COM(2024) 26 final, Proposal for a Council recommendation on enhancing research security.

(9)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Proposal for a Council recommendation on enhancing research security (COM(2024) 26 final — 2024/0012 (NLE)) (OJ C, C/2024/6022, 23.10.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6022/oj).

(10)  DG ECTI, STU(2025)754234. Exploring synergies between Horizon Europe and the EU Cohesion Policy.


(11)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A new ERA for Research and Innovation (COM(2020) 628 final) (
OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 79).

(12)  EPRS, STU(2023)747436. Mapping the cost of non-Europe.

(13)  European Commission, 2023. Citizens’ engagement approaches and methods in R&I foresight. Destatte, P., Third thematic paper. PSF Challenge. Horizon Europe.

(14)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 2023 – Strategic Foresight Report Sustainability and people's wellbeing at the heart of Europe's Open Strategic Autonomy (COM(2023) 376 final) (OJ C, C/2024/4057, 12.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4057/oj).

(15)  World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/reports/top-10-emerging-technologies-of-2023/.

(16)  Moretti PF, Grzybowski BA, Basios V, Fortunato E, Diez MS, Speck O, Martins R, STEM materials: a new frontier for an intelligent sustainable world, BMC Mat (2019) 1:3 https://doi.org/10.1186/s42833-019-0004-4.

(17)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A new ERA for Research and Innovation’ (COM(2020) 628 final) (
OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 79


(18)  
            https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en.

(19)  EIT, Euro HPC, EUIPO and EU-Lisa.

(20)  
            https://agencies-network.europa.eu/.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5138/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)