Study on the R&I measures in the Recovery and Resilience Facility : case study on emerging innovators.
Date: 2025-10-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU Member State, EU programme, EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, case study, community resilience, economic and social cohesion, economic recovery, innovation, performance measurement, project funding, research budget

Study on the R&I measures  
in the Recovery and  
Resilience Facility 

Case study on Emerging Innovators 

 
 
 
 
Study on the R&I measures in the Recovery and Resilience Facility - Case study on Emerging Innovators 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate A — ERA & Innovation Directorate 
Unit A.1 — Semester & Country Intelligence Unit 
Contact   Éva-Mária Szávuj, Head of Unit 

Email  

Anne-Lise Garmigny, Policy Officer 
Janis Neufeld, Policy Officer 
Francesco Cannas, Policy Officer 
Eva-Maria.SZAVUJ@ec.europa.eu 
Anne-Lise.GARMIGNY@ec.europa.eu 
Janis.NEUFELD@ec.europa.eu 
Francesco.CANNAS@ec.europa.eu 
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Manuscript completed in September 2025  
First edition 

The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. 
The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any  person acting on the 
Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-31262-9 

doi:10.2777/6030270 

KI-01-25-170-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2025 

© European Union, 2025 

The Commission’s reuse policy is implemented under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents 
(OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2011/833/oj). 
Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed, provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are 
indicated.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study on the R&I measures in the 
Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Case study on Emerging Innovators 

2025 

                                 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Introduction, methodology and limitations .................................................................... 3 

Overview of measures .................................................................................................. 4 

Alignment to countries’ R&I policies ............................................................................. 7 

Implementation progress and achievements .............................................................. 11 

Implementation progress ............................................................................................ 11 

Achievements beyond milestones and targets ........................................................... 14 

5. 

Complementarities and synergies with other EU Programmes .................................. 16 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Cohesion Policy .......................................................................................................... 18 

Horizon Europe ........................................................................................................... 20 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 21 

Annexes ...................................................................................................................... 23 

Annex I. Methodology ................................................................................................. 23 

Annex II. Further data elaborations and charts ........................................................... 24 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction, methodology and limitations  

This case study examines the use of RRF funding for research and innovation (R&I) in countries 
classified as Emerging Innovators. The term is a classification used in the European Innovation 
Scoreboard (EIS) (1). The emerging innovators are countries whose innovation performance is 
below  70%  of  the  EU  average.  This  group  of  countries  includes  (2)  six  countries:  Bulgaria, 
Croatia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia.  

The analysis provides an overview of RRF funding for research and innovation in the country 
group,  alongside  an  in-depth  analysis  for Croatia,  Poland,  and  Slovakia.  The  three countries 
were  selected  in  agreement  with  DG  RTD  as  representatives  of  their  group:  among  the 
emerging innovators, Croatia leads in both the total number and completion of RDI investments 
in the RRF; Poland boasts the largest RDI funding allocation in the RRF and ranks second in 
completed RDI reforms; and Slovakia distinguishes itself with the highest number of RDI reforms 
completed, the second-highest number of RDI investments, and the greatest proportion of RDI 
funding within its overall RRP. 

Emerging innovators account for only a small share of the total RRF support to R&I in the EU 
(3). This case study examines whether the mix of R&I-related measures put in place in these 
countries, although modest in terms of overall financial allocation, yet very significant relative to 
their  public  funding  for R&I,  was  strategically significant  for strengthening  their  R&I  systems, 
introducing discontinuity with the previous situation. 

The objective is to address the following aspects, highlighting any common trends among the 
group  of  emerging  innovators,  as  well  as  differences  across  countries  and  the  underlying 
reasons for those: 

•  Allocations  and  types  of  measures  dedicated  to  R&I,  including  the  complementarity 
between reforms and investments, and the coherence among different investments. 

•  The rationale behind RRF support for R&I focuses on the distribution of allocations across 
policy  areas,  the  types  of  support  provided,  and  the  extent  to  which  investments  are 
grounded in national policy frameworks. 

• 

Implementation progress of R&I-related RRF measures, including an overview of targets 
and  milestones  achieved  across  the  group  of  countries,  selected  examples  of  R&I 
outcomes, and a discussion on the long-term sustainability of the changes triggered by the 
RRF. 

•  Complementarities  and  synergies  (4)  with  other  major  EU  funding  instruments,  primarily 

Horizon Europe and Cohesion Policy. 

(1) European Innovation Scoreboard, here. 
(2) Country selection based on the 2024 EU Innovation scoreboard data. Ranking can shift year to year. In the 
2025 scoreboard, published in July 2025, three Member States experienced changes in their performance group 
compared to 2024: Croatia moved from the Emerging Innovators group to the Moderate Innovators group; Cyprus 
moved from the Strong Innovators to the Moderate Innovators; Hungary moved from the Moderate Innovators to 
the Emerging Innovators.  
(3) 5% of the total cost associated to R&I-related measures under scope in this study (EUR 2.9 billion out of EUR 
55.5 billion). 
(4)  Complementarity  refers  to  the ways  in  which  different EU funding  instruments  align  —  e.g.  by  addressing 
different  needs  or  stages  of  the  research  and  innovation  cycle,  targeting  distinct  types  of  beneficiaries,  or 
supporting complementary objectives—so as to work together in a coherent way, maximise overall impact and 
avoid overlaps.  
Throughout this evaluation, synergies refer to the strategic and planned use of the RRF alongside other sources 
of R&I funding. These synergies can take various forms: i) Co-funding – when a project receives financial support 
from more than one EU fund or instrument; ii) Upstream or downstream planned synergies – when different EU 
instruments  provide  a  coordinated  and  seamless  framework  that  supports  all  stages  of  the  research  and 

3 

 
 
 
The case study triangulates evidence from multiple sources: literature and document review, 
data from public sources and the FENIX database, semi-structured interviews, and two surveys. 
Further  details  can  be  found  in  Annex  I.  A  focus  group  was  also  conducted  to  validate 
preliminary findings and enrich the analysis. 

While  the  analysis  faces  some  limitations,  the  triangulation  of  sources  has  supported  the 
development of a balanced and comprehensive narrative. Key limitations include: 

•  The implementation of R&I measures under the RRF involved various bodies, depending 
on the specific policy area addressed. As a result, there is often no single point of contact 
within Member States. A Ministry of Science, Education and Innovation (or a similar ministry 
in charge of R&I policy) may only be partially involved in implementation, which can hinder 
a  comprehensive  understanding  of  the  policy  rationale, as  well  as  of  the  implementation 
and monitoring frameworks. 

•  The absence of comprehensive beneficiary lists for RRF measures and sub-measures has 
limited  the  ability  to  analyse  synergies  and  complementarities  with  other  EU  funding 
sources. As a result, the assessment relied mainly on anecdotal evidence gathered through 
desk research and interviews. 

2. Overview of measures 

All emerging innovator countries have planned both reforms and investments to support 
their R&I systems. Out of a total of 87 measures and sub-measures, 63 are investments and 
24 are reforms. On average, countries in this group plan to implement 4 reforms—considerably 
more than the 2.6 reforms planned by other EU countries. 

Figure 1: Number of measures and sub-measures per Member State 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

26

4

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

12

7

i

a
k
a
v
o
S

l

8

4

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

7

3

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

5

4

d
n
a
o
P

l

5

2

i

a
v
t
a
L

Investment

Reform

14

11

4

4

i

g
n
g
r
e
m
E

s
r
o
t
a
v
o
n
n

i

e
g
a
r
e
v
a

e
t
a
r
e
d
o
M

s
r
o
t
a
v
o
n
n

i

e
g
a
r
e
v
a

11

1

r
e
d
a
e
l
/
g
n
o
r
t

S

s
r
o
t
a
v
o
n
n

i

e
g
a
r
e
v
a

innovation process; iii) Supporting access to other programmes – this may include funding for training, technical 
assistance, or digital tools that enhance the capacity of public authorities to manage or apply for EU programmes, 
or that help SMEs and researchers submit competitive proposals to Horizon Europe, ERDF, or InvestEU; iv) Seal 
of Excellence  – this involves the RRF supporting projects that have received the Seal of Excellence, a quality 
label awarded to high-ranking project proposals submitted under Horizon Europe. In this case study, the focus is 
on  complementarities  and  synergies  with  Horizon  Europe  and  Cohesion  Policy,  as  neither  the  stakeholders 
consulted nor the documents reviewed for the three analysed countries reported any explicit links between the 
RRF and other EU programmes, such as InvestEU or the Innovation Fund. 

4 

 
 
 
 
Source: Authors based on FENIX data. 

Focusing on the three selected countries, Croatia has the highest number of measures and sub-
measures  overall.  Overall,  the  Croatian  RRP  shows  good  interplay  between  reforms  and 
investments, which allows for exploiting synergies between the two. Two types of reforms have 
been implemented following the Croatian RRP: 

•  Reforms aiming at strengthening the RDI capacities of the public research sector (C3.2. R1), 
creating  an  environment  to  attract  researchers  to  STEM  and  ICT  fields  (C3.2.  R2),  and 
improving the efficiency of public investment in research, development and innovation (C3.2. 
R3); and 

•  Decarbonisation of the energy sector (C1.2. R1). 

These  reforms  were  accompanied  by  linked  investments.  The  reform  C3.2.R1  introduced  a 
performance-based funding system for public research institutions and was complemented by 
investments enabling universities and research institutes to allocate funds through competitive 
tenders aligned with their strategic goals. Similarly, reforms C3.2.R2 and C3.2.R3, focused on 
attracting  talent  to  STEM/ICT  fields  and  improving  the  governance  of  competitive  research 
funding, were supported by investments in science-technology infrastructure, scholarships, and 
national grants managed by the Croatian Science Foundation to foster collaboration between 
academia and industry, support young researchers, and enable knowledge transfer. Altogether, 
the  investments  operationalise  and  reinforce  the  reforms’  objectives  by  translating  structural 
changes into concrete funding opportunities across the innovation chain. 

technology 

in  companies, 

thereby  enhancing 

Poland presents a well-structured and interlinked approach to reforms and investments in R&I, 
with a strong emphasis on fostering collaboration between science and industry. A cornerstone 
of this strategy is a key reform (PL-C[A]-R[2.4]) that enables universities and research institutes 
to  become  shareholders 
transfer  and 
interdisciplinary  cooperation.  Complementing  this,  a  related  investment  (PL-C[A]-I[2.4.1]) 
supports  the  development  of  research  infrastructure  across  institutions  like  the  Łukasiewicz 
Research  Network  and  agri-food  research  institutes,  thereby  reinforcing  structural  capacities 
essential for impactful science-business collaboration. The Polish RRP also integrates multiple 
sector-specific  R&I  measures.  In  the  renewable  energy  sector, a  dedicated  reform  (PL-C[B]-
R[2.1]) seeks to establish a robust market for renewable and low-carbon hydrogen by setting 
up regulatory frameworks and infrastructure planning—an important step toward decarbonising 
transport  and  ensuring  energy  security.  In  the  health  domain,  coordinated  investments  and 
reforms (PL-C[D]-I[3.1.1] and PL-C[D]-R[3.1]) aim to advance biomedical research, digitise the 
Polish  Clinical  Research  Network,  and  streamline  clinical  trial  regulations  through  a  new 
legislative act. These combined efforts are expected to enhance the efficiency, transparency, 
and  impact  of  Poland’s  healthcare research  landscape.  Education  and  digitalisation  are also 
addressed through an investment (PL-C[C]-I[2.2.1.2]) aimed at enhancing ICT infrastructure in 
schools. By equipping 16,000 schools with AI and STEM labs, the initiative intends to improve 
educational outcomes and digital literacy, particularly in emerging technologies. Meanwhile, the 
environmental  technology  agenda  is  advanced  through  a  mutually  reinforcing  reform-
investment pair (PL-C[A]-R[2.2] and PL-C[A]-I[2.2.1]). The reform establishes a legal framework 
for  the  secondary  raw  materials  market,  while  the  investment  supports  SME-led  projects 
developing  technologies  that  convert  waste  into  usable  materials—  vital  to  Poland’s  circular 
economy transition. 

Slovakia is the country with the highest number of reforms among emerging innovators. The 
Slovak RRP includes three components addressing R&I: 

•  Component C8, focused on universities, which includes five reforms (C8.R.1–C8.R.5); 

•  Component  C9,  dedicated  specifically  to  R&I,  with  two  reforms  (C9.R.1–C9.R.2) and  five 

investments (C9.I.1–C9.I.5); 

•  Component C17, supporting digitalisation, which includes investments C17.I.3 and C17.I.4. 

5 

 
 
The reforms, particularly those under Component 9  (i.e., dedicated specifically to R&I), have 
aimed  at  establishing  a  comprehensive  framework  for  R&I,  unifying  a  previously  fragmented 
support system, and creating an enabling environment for investment. The newly established 
R&I  support  system  applies  to  all  national  sources  of  R&I  funding  (with  the  exception  of 
Cohesion Policy funds, which are governed by separate legislation). These reforms have been 
complemented by investments under Component 9, which—aligned with the new strategy and 
rules—have supported participation in European programmes and initiatives, excellent science, 
decarbonisation,  and  digitalisation  of  the  economy,  including  voucher  schemes,  financial 
instruments,  and  stronger  cooperation  between  academia  and  industry.  Investments  under 
Component 17 (i.e., dedicated to digitalisation), by contrast, have supported European projects 
related  to  the  digital  economy  and  projects  focused  on  top  digital  technologies.  These 
investments are formally disconnected from accompanying reforms, although they can benefit 
from the reformed framework. 

Figure  2:  Total  allocation  (million  EUR)  in  RDI  investments  and  reforms  and  share  (%)  of  RDI 
allocation over total RRP budget, by country belonging to the Emerging Innovators 

10%

12%

166

15%

9%

4,035

4%

3%

167
a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

393

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

198
a
v
t
a
L

i

1106

2%

d
n
a
o
P

l

3

305

1%

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

3

736

3%

1
484

i

a
k
a
v
o
S

l

e
g
a
r
e
v
a
s
r
o
t
a
v
o
n
n

i

i

g
n
g
r
e
m
E

e
g
a
r
e
v
a
s
r
o
t
a
v
o
n
n

i

e
t
a
r
e
d
o
M

17

1,330

s
r
o
t
a
v
o
n
n

i

r
e
d
a
e
l
/
g
n
o
r
t

S

Investment

Reform

Share of RDI over total RRF

Source: Authors based on FENIX data. 

Emerging innovators have allocated a considerably smaller share of their RRF envelopes 
to research and innovation compared to moderate, strong and leader innovators (Figure 
2). Only  Latvia  and  Slovakia  devote  more  than  10% of  their  RRF  funds  to  R&I.  However, to 
contextualise the RRF support for R&I within each country's specific context and gain a better 
understanding of the boost this policy instrument has provided to national efforts in supporting 
their  R&I  systems,  it  is important  to  compare RRF  financing  with  that  of  the  Member  States. 
Unsurprisingly,  emerging  innovators’  investments  in  R&I  are  limited.  Emerging 
innovators generally have limited national budgets for R&I (i.e., they have low Government 
Budget Allocation to Research and Development, GBARD), and this makes the small share 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of R&I-related RRF funds relevant for this area. Even a relatively modest allocation of RRF 
funds to R&I results in a higher RRP/GBARD ratio than in strong or leader innovators, which 
already invest heavily from national sources (Figure 3). Conversely, moderate innovators may 
have both modest GBARD levels and a relatively higher share of RRF funds earmarked for R&I. 
This leads to a higher RRP/GBARD ratio than in emerging innovators. In Poland specifically, 
the share of R&I-related RRF allocation over GBARD between 2021 and 2023 accounts for less 
than  20%  of  the  GBARD  for  the  three  consecutive  years,  suggesting  that  national  R&I 
investment is relatively higher compared to the limited use of RRF for R&I due to prioritisation 
of other sectors within the RRP (5). By comparison, in Latvia and Slovakia, the relevance of RRF 
funds in the RDI area is highest. 

Figure 3: Share of RRF RDI allocation over GBARD between 2021 and 2023, by MS 

Bulgaria

Croatia

Latvia

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Emerging innovators average

Moderate innovators average

Strong/leader innovators average

6%

14%

31%
29%

29%

25%

72%

64%

53%

Source: Authors based on FENIX data and Eurostat data. 
Note:  The total  Government  Budget  Allocations  on  Research  and Development  (GBARD)  have  been  cleaned 
from  the  allocations  to  defence  and  to  transnational  entities  or  organisations  performing  Research  and 
Development. Note as well that the share compares the total RRP allocations on RDI (a multi-annual fund) to the 
sum of GBARD (an annual measure) between 2021 and 2023. 

3. Alignment to countries’ R&I policies 

This chapter examines the rationale behind RRF support for R&I, focusing on the distribution of 
allocations across policy areas, the types of support provided, and the extent to which these 
investments  are  grounded  in  national  policy  frameworks.  To  ensure  comparability  with  the 
Horizon Europe framework (see Section 4), RRF measures were classified along a spectrum 
ranging  from  fundamental  research  to  technology  development  and  innovation  support.  It  is 
important to note that this alignment is not exact, as the RRF was not originally designed as a 
dedicated R&I funding instrument. Still, these categories provide insights on the types of RRF 
support for R&I in the various countries.  

Countries  in  the  emerging  innovator  group  chose  to  focus  on  the  pillar  “smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth” rather than on the green and digital transition pillars. 
This analysis is consistent with the one concerning the contribution to ERA action (see main 
report),  where  a  preference  for  measures  supporting  the  EU-wide  access  to  excellence  is 
observed.  In  fact,  the  pillar  of  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  is  rather  wide,  and 
includes measures targeted at enhancing research competitiveness (e.g., R&I infrastructure and 
human capital measures), innovation-driven growth (e.g., science-business collaboration), and 

(5) To be noted that Poland has the ERDF programme with the highest R&I allocation across all Cohesion Policy 
programmes. 

7 

 
 
 
 
institutional  efficiency  (e.g.,  governance  and  institutional  reforms),  among  others.  Smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth remain the programme’s main priorities, but a smaller portion 
of funding is reserved for the green and digital transition. The main theme of these measures is 
hydrogen: six measures in Croatia and two in Poland are devoted to the development of this 
technology. 

The choice of instruments and the policy areas targeted were largely shaped by national 
policy priorities underpinning the RRPs, as well as the structure of existing national R&I 
programmes. Among emerging innovators, the share of support for innovation in the form of 
skills  development  and  research  infrastructure  is  above  the  average  of  both  moderate  and 
strong/leader innovator countries. However, as illustrated in the table below, the composition of 
RRF  investments  varies  significantly  across  countries,  and  no  clear  pattern  within  the  group 
emerges. There is a wide range of configurations observed in which emerging countries tend to 
leverage existing frameworks to facilitate faster mobilisation and absorption of funds. 

8 

 
 
 
 
Table 1: RRF RDI investments’ distribution by type of support and country, million EUR 

Skills  R&D 

projects 

Research 
infrastructure 

Public-private 
partnerships 
and science-
business 
cooperation 

Strategic 
instruments  

Grants for RDI in 
enterprises 

Financial instruments 
and tax incentives 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Latvia 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Emerging innovators 
(average) 

Moderate innovators 
(average) 

Strong/Leader 
innovators (average) 

2 

45 

1 

0 

194 

146 

65 

143 

126 

1 

375 

31 

324 

167 

14 

72 

0 

569 

55 

85 

132 

8 

73 

0 

0 

25 

149 

43 

66 

845 

162 

1,314 

6 

189 

98 

39 

0 

63 

196 

0 

0 

0 

43 

78 

24 

0 

14 

0 

162 

0 

0 

29 

1,823 

953 

0 

0.3 

0 

0 

0 

32 

5 

251 

20 

Source: Authors based on FENIX data.  
Note 1: The table covers only investments, not reforms (for this reason, in countries with RDI reforms associated to costs, the total amounts do not precisely correspond to 
their RRPs’ total funding to RDI). To ensure comparability with the Horizon Europe framework, RRF investment measures were classified along a spectrum ranging from 
fundamental research to technology development and innovation support. It is important to note that this alignment is not exact, as the RRF was not originally designed as a 
dedicated R&I funding instrument. 
Note 2: In each row, the colours illustrate the distribution by investment area of each Member State (or group of countries), on a scale from red (least RRP resources in this 
area) to dark green (most resources).

9 

 
  
The in-depth analysis of Croatia, Poland and Slovakia revealed that the RRF measures 
and  sub-measures  have  played  a  critical  role  in  strengthening  domestic  R&I  policy 
frameworks. However, the way each country integrated the RRF with the national policy 
mix reflects different institutional capacities and strategic priorities. 

In Croatia, the RRP is closely aligned with the National Development Strategy 2030 (NRS 2030), 
the country’s overarching policy document that defines long-term goals. In the field of R&I, the 
strategic  priorities  set  in  the  NRS  are  mirrored  in  the  Croatian  RRP,  especially  in  the 
comprehensive reform “Raising research and innovation capacity” (C3.2), which includes three 
key  reforms.  The  design  of  the  RRP  in  Croatia  also  benefited  from  a  comprehensive  RDI 
portfolio  analysis  conducted  by  the  World  Bank  between  2018  and  2019.  Although  initially 
intended  to  inform  the  next  cycle  of  Cohesion  Policy  programming,  this  analysis  proved 
fortuitous  when  the  RRF  was  introduced  during  the  pandemic.  This  pre-existing  analytical 
foundation  allowed  for  rapid  translation  into  a  comprehensive  and  synergistic  package  of 
reforms  and  investments.  Indeed,  Croatia  was  among  the  first  countries  to  have  its  national 
RRP  approved.  Finally,  the  RRP’s  R&I  measures  are  integrated  into  the  S3  strategy  and  its 
governance  framework,  ensuring  complementarities  with  the  Cohesion  Policy  (see  section  5 
below). 

Poland’s  approach  to  integrating  the  RRF  focused  more  on  sectoral  complementarity, 
particularly in energy, climate, and health. In the energy field, the RRP is aligned with the Polish 
Energy Policy 2040 (PEP2040) and the National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP 2021–2030). 
The RRP supports key reforms to decarbonise the economy, promote energy efficiency, and 
develop innovative technologies like low-carbon hydrogen (e.g., through reform PL-C[B]-R[2.1]). 
Initiatives such as the GreenEvo project and the Polish Hydrogen Strategy 2030 are reinforced 
through RRF funding. In the health sector, the RRP complements the Strategic Framework for 
Health  System  Development  2021–2027.  While  the  Innovative  Development  Operational 
Programme  (PO  IR)  remains  the  main  national  tool  supporting  health  R&D,  the  RRP  boosts 
these objectives with investments like PL-C[D]-I[3.1.1], which funds medical and health sciences 
research  to  strengthen  system  resilience.  Turning  to  the  reform  of  science–business 
collaboration  (PL-C[A]-R[1.2])  and  its  related  investment  measures,  these  are  designed  to 
reduce  the  structural  gap  between  research  institutions  and  companies  and  are  thematically 
aligned with national instruments such as the National Centre for Research and Development’s 
programmes. These programmes support applied R&D, and the RRF is used to scale up these 
programmes, as well as to promote technology transfer and innovation vouchers, and joint R&D 
projects. 

In contrast, Slovakia used the RRF to establish the very foundations of a coherent national R&I 
policy.  The  RRP  served  as  a  catalyst  for  systemic  reform,  particularly  by  enhancing 
interdepartmental coordination and addressing chronic fragmentation in policy governance. For 
the first time, Slovakia developed and implemented a national R&I strategy with clearly defined 
objectives,  instruments,  and  budget  lines.  The  RRF  was  instrumental  in  creating  a  unified 
strategic and legal framework that now governs both national and RRF-funded R&I measures. 
According  to  consulted  stakeholders,  in  the  absence  of  the  RRF,  Slovakia  would  not  have 
established a central institution for strategic R&I management, and alternative funding sources 
would  have  remained  limited  to  minimal  state  budget  allocations(6),  making  the  RRF’s 
contribution uniquely transformative. 

The  three  countries'  strategic  choices  regarding  the  Technology  Readiness  Levels 
(TRLs) supported through the RRP also exhibit distinct approaches. These choices are 
linked to the role assigned to the RRP in shaping and supporting R&I policy, as well as 
to the timing of its implementation. Slovakia, which adopted the RRP to establish a highly 
comprehensive strategy, aimed to address virtually all identified market gaps across the R&I 
sector.  This  led  to  a  large  volume  of  diverse  calls  for  proposals,  specifically  categorised  to 

(6) R&I support in the country has traditionally depended almost exclusively on Cohesion Policy 

10 

 
 
support both early-stage research (TRL 1-3, primarily for academia with industry partners) and 
later-stage development and commercialisation (TRL 4-9, focused on industry with academia 
partners). Beyond grants, Slovakia also incorporated financial instruments like startup support 
and  loans,  demonstrating  a  broad  spectrum  of  TRL  support,  from  foundational  research  to 
market-ready innovations. Croatia also embraced a comprehensive TRL coverage, but with a 
differentiated and tailored approach to each stage. For lower TRLs, direct grant support was not 
a primary focus. Instead, Croatia prioritised reforms like performance-based funding to elevate 
overall research excellence and made significant investments in research infrastructure, which 
indirectly  supports  very  early-stage  research.  Also,  a  relevant  portion  of  their  RRF  allocation 
was  directed  towards  human  resources  for  R&D  (e.g.,  STEM  scholarships,  mobility  grants, 
support for research groups), recognising that a robust talent pool is foundational to advancing 
technologies across all TRLs, even if it doesn't directly map onto the TRL scale. Another key 
targeted area was industry-science collaboration and technology transfer, addressing a clear 
gap in existing instruments for this specific stage of the innovation chain. This suggests a focus 
on  TRLs  where  collaboration  and  translation  are  most  critical,  likely  mid-to-high  TRLs.  In 
contrast,  Poland's  RRF  strategy  was  shaped  by  tight  implementation  deadlines,  leading  to  a 
pragmatic  prioritisation  of  projects  at  higher  TRLs.  The  emphasis  was  on  applied  research 
projects  that  could  be  implemented  rapidly,  with  a  clear  aim  at  strengthening  the 
commercialisation  of  R&D  activities  and  enhancing  research  infrastructure.  This  meant  that 
obtaining RRF funding for basic, long-term research (lower TRLs) was less feasible, as such 
projects are inherently difficult to accelerate. Poland's approach highlights a strategic choice to 
focus on demonstrable and quicker returns on investment, aligning with the RRF's time-bound 
nature by favouring projects closer to market entry. 

4. Implementation progress and achievements 

This chapter provides an update on the implementation progress of R&I-related RRF measures 
in emerging innovator countries. It includes an overview of the targets and milestones achieved 
across  the  group,  and  a  discussion  of  selected  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  outcomes  in 
Croatia, Poland, and Slovakia. 

4.1. 

Implementation progress 

The  consulted  Member  State  authorities  in  this  country  group  agreed  that  having  a 
clearly defined set of R&I milestones and targets, aligned with a specific timeline, helped 
establish  a  structured  pace  for  project  implementation.  Altogether,  emerging  innovators 
selected  96  milestones  and  106  targets  to  track  the  progress  of  their  87  measures  (2.3 
milestones or targets per measure on average). Milestones are qualitative achievements that 
reflect the final point or the intermediate progress towards the goal of a measure. They are often 
procedural or administrative in nature and are measured in a qualitative way. Milestones are 
mainly tracking the contract awards and funding decisions (e.g., “Notifications awarding projects 
[…].”),  the  publication  of  calls  or  proposals  (e.g.,  “Launch  of  calls  to  support  excellent 
researchers”),  the  project  initiation  or  progress  reports  (e.g.,  “Studies  on  Carbon  Geological 
Storage”), and the policy or strategy adoption (e.g., “Entry into force of the amendments to the 
Higher Education Act”). Instead, targets are always quantitative and measure the outcomes that 
represent  the  end  goal  of  a  measure.  The  most  recurrent  themes  in  targets  are  the  project 
completion  or  output  delivery  (e.g.,  “Number  of  excellent  researchers  supported”).  Targets 
measuring  outputs  directly  connected  to  investments  in  energy  infrastructure  (e.g.,  “New 
hydrogen  production  capacity  installed”)  or  financial  commitments  (e.g.,  “Commitment  of 
funding”) are less prevalent. 

On  average,  emerging  innovators  tend  to  have  a  slightly  lower  share  of  achieved 
milestones  or  targets compared to  other  country  groups.  The  Figure below  displays  the 

11 

 
 
progress of the milestones and targets, showing that only a minority have been either completed 
(not  yet  assessed)  or  fulfilled,  around  20%  each.  The  comparative  analysis  highlights  that 
emerging innovators have a smaller share of non-completed milestones than other countries. 
In fact, all emerging innovator countries have either fulfilled or completed more than half of their 
milestones. However, when it comes to targets, countries in the emerging group appear to be 
lagging behind: on average, they have fulfilled or completed only 17% of their targets, whereas 
moderate  and  strong/leader  innovator countries  have  completed  or fulfilled  22% and  50% of 
their targets, respectively. 

Figure 4: Milestones and targets by progress status and by group   

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

i

g
n
g
r
e
m
E

s
r
o
t
a
v
o
n
n

i

e
t
a
r
e
d
o
M

s
r
o
t
a
v
o
n
n

i

r
e
d
a
e
l
/
g
n
o
r
t

S

s
r
o
t
a
v
o
n
n

i

Milestones and targets

43%

17%

20%

20%

Milestones

14%

22%

29%

35%

Targets

63%

21%

6%

11%

Milestones and targets

49%

10%

12%

29%

Milestones

28%

5%

17%

51%

Targets

65%

14%

9%

13%

Milestones and targets

41%

3%

16%

40%

Milestones

36%

19%

3%

42%

Targets

48%

12%

3%

38%

Not completed

On track

Completed (not assessed)

Fulfilled

Source: Authors based on FENIX data (last update March 2025). 
Note: The graph shows both the total number of M&T per group of innovators and the share of their progress. 

Among  the  six  countries  classified  as  emerging  innovators,  Croatia,  Poland,  and 
Slovakia  show  the  highest  rates  of  fulfilled  milestones  and  targets,  leading  to  the 
completion  of  measures.  See  the  country  fiches  for  more  information  on  the  content  of  the 
fulfilled  M&T.  However,  in  many  cases,  the  fulfilled  targets  relate  to  outputs.  Using  outcome 
indicators  as  targets  has  proven  challenging  due  to  measurement  difficulties  and  the  long 
timeframes typically required to observe the impacts of R&I projects. While Croatia's Ministry of 
Science proactively included outcome indicators and targets, this was not a widespread practice 
across all sectors or countries.  

In  two  of  the  three  countries  analysed  in-depth,  Slovakia  and  Poland,  significant 
implementation  bottlenecks  were  reported,  mainly  related  to  the  creation  of  ad  hoc 
administrative  processes  and  the  coordination  of  multiple  implementing  actors.  In 
Slovakia, a new implementation system had to be built from scratch, requiring the identification 
of implementing bodies and the setup of processes and structures.  The first major bottleneck 
emerged  during  application  assessment:  administrative  controls,  mandated  by  Slovak 
legislation as part of the application process, were extremely time-consuming, meaning that for 
some calls initiated in 2023, contracts were only signed at the beginning of 2025. Eventually, 
detailed  administrative  controls  were  postponed  and  carried  out  only  for  successful  projects 
before  contract  signature. As  a  consequence  of  such  prolonged  approval  processes,  project 

12 

 
 
 
 
durations had to be shortened from three to two years. Preparing state aid schemes also took 
additional  time.  Finally,  because  R&I  measures  were  launched  simultaneously  rather  than 
sequentially (reforms followed by investments), managing implementation and coordinating with 
delayed  Cohesion  Policy  funds  also  proved  challenging,  especially  due  to  COVID-related 
disruptions.  The  large  number  of  calls  placed  significant  pressure  not  only  on  implementing 
bodies  but  also  on  final  recipients,  causing  absorption  capacity  issues.  While  a  few  projects 
have already been completed, the majority are still in the implementation phase. In Poland, the 
organisational  setup  for  managing  R&I  measures  also  proved  challenging,  particularly 
concerning the implementation of milestones and targets. These often required interpretation 
by the European Commission, which in turn increased the efforts of the RRF Coordinating Body 
to  ensure  that  the  necessary  documentation  was  in  place—adding  another  layer  of 
administrative burden. Stakeholders also pointed to the absence of unified governance for R&I 
programmes, which led to a dispersion of resources on the beneficiaries’ side and hampered 
the  monitoring  of  synergies.  Finally,  a  shortage  of  skilled  and  qualified  personnel  capable  of 
implementing  highly  technical  projects  represents  another  bottleneck.  Conversely,  Croatian 
stakeholders attributed the smooth RRF implementation to the autonomy granted to  sectoral 
authorities (e.g. R&I), who were able to design their own calls and set priorities in alignment with 
the  RRF  framework,  free  from  the  extensive  rules  and  procedures  typically  associated  with 
ERDF. This allowed for precise targeting of investments. 

The  compressed  RRF  timeframe  was  considered  problematic,  particularly  for  R&I 
investments,  across  all  three  countries.  In  Poland,  the  lengthy  negotiation  and  approval 
process  of  the  RRP—lasting  over  two  years—meant  that  only  projects  deemed  quickly 
implementable and realistically achievable could be included. This constrained timeline posed 
a  risk  of  prioritising  less  ambitious  initiatives  that  could  be  completed  within  the  shortened 
implementation  period.  According  to  participants  in  the  focus  groups,  while  other  countries 
typically benefited from a five-year implementation horizon—often structured as three years of 
investment followed by two years to observe results—Poland had to compress its efforts within 
a much tighter timeframe. This was particularly challenging in the R&I sector. As a result, some 
of  the  planned  R&I  investments  and  reforms  have  yet  to  be  implemented.  While  no  major 
bottlenecks  were  associated  with  the  RRF  in  Croatia(7),  Croatian  participants  in  the  focus 
group(8) — echoed by counterparts from Croatia and Poland — advocated for longer and more 
predictable  timelines  for  research  funding.  They  argued  that  continuity  is  essential  for  the 
research system, and longer periods for fund utilisation would ease implementation.  

On RRF flexibility, the three countries shared mixed views. Overall, while planning under 
the  RRF  was  relatively  flexible,  the  implementation  proved  more  rigid.  Croatian 
representatives  highlighted  that  R&I  funding  under  the  RRF  offered  more  flexibility  than 
Cohesion  Policy  Funds,  allowing  the  country  to  pilot  innovative  instruments  that  had  shown 
promise  in  the  past  but  lacked  sustained  support.  A  key  focus  was  on  industry-science 
collaboration  and  technology  transfer,  targeting  a  critical  gap  in  existing  tools  (Reform  3). 
Slovakia and Poland offered more nuanced assessments. Slovak stakeholders noted that while 
planning under the RRF was relatively flexible, the implementation phase was less so. Changing 
needs  required  adjustments,  but  even  minor  modifications  involved  lengthy,  complex 
procedures.  Nonetheless,  simplified  cost  options  and  lump-sum  funding  helped  reduce 
administrative burdens. In Poland, the RRF’s flexibility proved only partially effective, particularly 
in  adapting  to  evolving  R&D  priorities.  The  possibility  to  revise  the  National  Plan  (e.g.,  in 
response to inflation, geopolitical shifts, or new EU priorities like REPowerEU) enabled support 
for  areas  such  as  cloud  infrastructure  and  cybersecurity.  However,  the  strict  2026  deadline 

(7) The only bottleneck mentioned during the focus group in relation to Croatia's RRF implementation concerned 
technical issues with its IT management platform. These were exacerbated by the country’s adoption of the euro 
in 2023, which required extensive adaptations to the existing system and led to functionality problems.  
(8)  They  were  representatives  of  the  Ministry  of Science,  Education  and  Youth,  HAMAG-BICRO  (the  Croatian 
Agency for SMEs, Innovation and Investments), and the World Bank, advising the Ministry of Science, Education 
and Youth. 

13 

 
 
 
constrained R&D projects, which typically require longer timeframes, iterations, and adaptability. 
As  a  result,  many  initiatives  had  to  be  streamlined,  leaving  little  room  for  experimentation. 
Moreover, plan revisions required Commission approval, making it difficult to respond swiftly to 
emerging trends like generative AI or quantum technologies. 

4.2.  Achievements beyond milestones and targets  

This section offers insights into the results achieved by the RRF, extending beyond milestones 
and targets that primarily address operational objectives related to fund absorption rather than 
R&I outcomes. The analysis is based on evidence from Croatia, Poland, and Slovakia, gathered 
through desk research, interviews, and a focus group with RRF coordinating bodies, ministries 
and implementing agencies in these countries.  

A few common elements across the three countries emerged: 

•  The outcomes and broader impact on the R&I system are not fully visible yet. Focus 
group participants strongly emphasised that it is "too early" to conduct a truly robust analysis 
of  RRF  outcomes  and  impacts.  It  was  mentioned  that  key  indicators,  such  as  published 
papers in peer-reviewed journals and citations, require a significant amount of time (years) 
to accumulate, and projects are still actively in implementation.  

•  There is a lack of evidence on the impact of most measures, as they were not designed 
with an embedded assessment framework for R&I impact evaluation. Such a framework 
would typically track indicators such as scientific publications, patents, intellectual property 
rights,  technology  readiness  level  progression,  and  knowledge  exploitation  through 
commercial and societal uptake. 

•  The integration of the RRF funds within existing national policies/programmes, along with 
the  interplay  between  reforms  and  investments  pursuing  the  same  objectives,  makes  it 
difficult both to assess the specific contribution of each individual RRF measure and 
to disentangle the overall contribution of the RRF from that of national interventions.  

Despite  these  challenges,  cases  were  identified  where  measures  are  already  delivering 
preliminary tangible results or are reasonably expected to generate sustainable outcomes with 
potential for continuation and further scaling. 

Through  reforms, the  RRF  has  played  a  central  role  in supporting  changes  in  the  R&I 
system.  For example, in Croatia, the reform introducing performance-based funding through 
the new Act on the Croatian Science Foundation has replaced an outdated headcount-based 
system  with  a  merit-driven  model  that  prioritises  excellence,  societal  impact,  and  stronger 
science-business collaboration. By establishing new programmes and monitoring frameworks, 
alongside strengthened operational capacities, Croatia, with this reform, has laid the foundation 
for a modern, competitive research environment. This measure marks a decisive shift towards 
quality-driven  funding  and  strategic  alignment  with  EU  standards.  According  to  interviewed 
stakeholders, the Croatian R&I landscape has recently shown encouraging signs, particularly in 
public-private  collaboration  and  a  growing  number  of  researchers. 
the 
establishment of two new authorities (the National Implementation and Coordination Authority 
and the Research and Innovation Authority) enabled more effective coordination of R&I efforts. 
The  Slovak  reforms  also  led  to  improved  strategic  steering  and  national  budget  allocations 
(expected to reach EUR 326 million in 2026). The methodological guideline introduced in 2023 
unified R&I funding mechanisms, ensuring streamlined administration of grants and state aid. 
By  introducing  stricter  accreditation  criteria  and  a  system  of  periodic  scientific  performance 
fostered  cross-sector 
evaluation,  Slovakia  raised  standards 
collaboration, and enhanced the accountability of research organisations. 

for  research 

In  Slovakia, 

institutions, 

The benefits of RRF-funded investments extend well beyond the initially defined targets 
and  will  yield  long-term  impact.  This  is  particularly  evident  in  investments  in  green 

14 

 
 
technologies, as well as in research and digital infrastructure. The former are contributing to the 
decarbonisation of industry, enhancing circularity, and promoting sustainable business models. 
The  latter  are  expected  to  strengthen  R&I  capacity  and  potential  in  the  future.  For  example, 
according to Polish stakeholders, investments in research and digital infrastructure—such as 
cloud computing—have created a solid foundation that, with the right operational support, can 
serve  for  many  years.  According  to  the  same  stakeholder,  the  sustainability  of  such 
interventions will be more likely where the RRP has triggered new models of collaboration, such 
as those established within the IPCEI on Cloud Infrastructure and Services, that can be further 
developed through public-private partnerships and integration into European value chains.  

In  Croatia  and  Slovakia,  the  sustainability  of  RRF-driven  R&I  efforts  is  underpinned 
primarily  by  the  new  legislative framework  developed  due  to  the  RRF.  According  to  the 
Croatian RRP, continued support for programmes financed through the RRF will be  ensured 
through  national  budget  allocations, savings  generated by  the  implementation  of  programme 
agreements  with  universities  and  research  institutes  under  Reform  C3.2.R1,  strengthened 
capacity within the scientific community to apply for competitive EU funding, and the R&D tax 
allowance scheme, introduced under the RRF and set to take effect in 2025.  In parallel, with 
World Bank support, the Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (MSEY) has developed a set 
of  complementary  activities  beyond  the  RRF’s  scope.  These  aim  to  transform  Croatia’s  R&I 
landscape  by  addressing  gaps  not  covered  by  other  funding  sources  and  drive  structural 
reforms that improve research quality, productivity, and the development of a green, digital, and 
globally competitive economy. In  Slovakia, key structural changes implemented by the RRP, 
including improved accreditation procedures and competitive grant mechanisms, are expected 
to  further  enhance  the  innovation  system.  Sustainability  will  depend  on  maintaining  stable 
funding and cultivating a culture of high-quality, competitive research. 

All  three  countries  have  committed  to  continue  investing  in  the  R&I  policy  areas 
supported  by  their  RRPs  and  have  already,  at  least  partially,  secured  budgetary 
allocations beyond 2026. However, concerns remain about their ability to  maintain the 
same level of funding. In Croatia, the MSEY has committed to financing research through the 
"Competitiveness and Cohesion” programme until 2029  and plans to continue support under 
the next MFF, thereby ensuring ongoing investments in research and innovation. The Ministry 
of  Regional  Development  and  EU  Funds  also  expects  that  many  RRF-initiated  reforms  will 
transition  into  national  mechanisms  after  2026.  However,  concerns  remain  around  funding 
sustainability, particularly in maintaining R&D intensity and achieving the 3% investment target. 
In  Slovakia,  the  National  R&I  Strategy  has  institutionalised  governance  structures  and 
budgetary  commitments  to  ensure  continuity  beyond  2026.  Nevertheless,  one  consulted 
stakeholder  raised  concerns  about  the  long-term  viability  of  research  activities  once  RRF 
projects  end,  despite  the  RRF’s  role  in  mitigating  chronic  underfunding  of  public  research 
institutions. Poland plans to sustain R&I support primarily through the European Funds for the 
Modern  Economy,  which  will  be  the  main  source  of  innovation  financing  for  the  2021–2027 
period. According to one interviewee, additional support will come from national programmes 
managed  by  the  National  Centre  for  Research  and  Development  and  the  National  Science 
Centre—targeting  both  basic  and  applied  research—as  well  as  through  new  financial 
instruments and partnerships, such as venture capital funds, public-private partnerships, and 
collaboration with the private sector. However, currently, there is no national strategy or binding 
budget commitment in place to ensure continuity after the RRF is concluded.  

15 

 
 
 
5. Complementarities  and  synergies  with  other  EU 

Programmes 

For  R&I  actors  in  emerging  innovator  countries,  Cohesion  Policy  R&I  allocations 
represent  the  most  significant  source  of  funding  compared  to  the  RRF  and  Horizon 
Europe. As shown in Figure 10, Cohesion Policy allocations for R&I are higher than those from 
RRF and Horizon Europe for all emerging innovators. This predominance is not surprising given 
that  most  regions  in  this  group  of  countries  are  classified  as  less  developed  according  to 
Cohesion Policy(9), thus receiving more funding in absolute terms. The weaker performance of 
these countries, both in terms of development and in terms of innovation, is also reflected in the 
smaller share of Horizon Europe funds awarded to their organisations. While the ranking of the 
funds based on their financial allocation is the same across all emerging innovator countries 
(see Figure 10), it is worth underlining some nuances. The prevalence of Cohesion Policy funds 
in  the  R&I  financing  is  highest  in  Poland  (80%  of  the  total  EU  RDI  funding  considered(10)), 
Bulgaria  (74%)  and  Romania  (69%).  It  is less  so  in  Latvia  (55%)  and  Slovakia  (54%).  In  the 
latter two countries, the role of RRF R&I measures is more prominent, accounting respectively 
for 30% and 41% of these countries’ total EU R&I funding considered. As noted in the previous 
section,  all  three  countries  plan  to  sustain  their  RRF-supported  R&I  efforts  by  relying  on 
Cohesion Policy funds. However, given the sheer volume of Cohesion Policy support in these 
countries, the continuity of R&I funding beyond 2026 appears less of a concern for Poland, while 
it may be more challenging for Slovakia and Croatia. 

(9)  Cohesion  policy  distinguishes  three  groups  of  regions  by  their  level  of  development.  The  group  of  less 
developed regions includes regions with a GDP per capita of less than 75% of the EU average.  
(10)Sum of RRF RDI, Cohesion Policy and Horizon Europe funds. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  5:  Comparison  of  R&I  funding  allocation  across  Cohesion  Policy,  RRF  investments,  and 
Horizon Europe, million EUR (11) 

5
0
7
,
7

9
3
5
,
4

9
4
7

7
6
1

3
6
1

1
8
9

3
9
3

5
3
1

1
5
3

8
9
1

8
9

6
0
1
,
1

9
5
6

2
6
5
,
1

5
0
3

8
8
2

1
2
0
,
2

6
3
7

0
8
7

9
0
1

4
8
4

2
4
2

3
6
7
,
1

9
4
3
,
1

5
6
1
,
2

0
3
3
,
1

3
7
6

Bulgaria

Croatia

Latvia

Poland

Romania Slovakia Emerging
innovators
average

Moderate
innovators
average

Strong and
leader
innovators
average

RRF R&I investments

Cohesion Policy R&I allocation

Horizon Europe net EC contribution

Source: Authors based on FENIX data, Horizon Europe country profiles and Cohesion Open Data platform. 

Based on the analysis of the titles and descriptions of the measures and sub-measures, as well 
as their associated M&T, only 6 out of the 87 measures and sub-measures introduced by 
countries in the emerging innovator group make explicit reference to Horizon Europe or 
its components, and only  4 refer to a co-funding strategy with Cohesion Policy funds. 
Romania  stands  out  for  its  efforts  to  align  its  RRF  measures  with  EU-level  research  and 
innovation  initiatives.  It  is  the  only  country  in  this  group  with  measures  referencing  all  four 
categories  related  to  Horizon  Europe:  support  for  the  Seal  of  Excellence,  co-funding  of 
European  Partnerships,  facilitating  access  to  programmes  such  as  Horizon  Europe,  and 
alignment  with  EU  Missions.  This  suggests  a  formal  policy  orientation  toward  leveraging  the 
RRF  to  enhance  integration  with  EU  R&I  priorities.  By  contrast,  Latvia  demonstrates  strong 
efforts in promoting synergies with Cohesion Policy, being the only emerging innovator country 
with  four  cases  explicitly  referencing  coordination  or  complementarity  with  ERDF  and  ESF+ 
measures. Croatia and Slovakia, two of the countries covered in this case study, each have one 
measure that explicitly references Horizon Europe.  

(11)  The  data  on  Cohesion Policy support  to  R&I  presented in  the  country fiches  differ  from  those  in  the  case 
studies due to differences in approach. In the country fiches, Cohesion Policy support to R&I refers to the total 
amounts  planned  under  Specific  Objective  1.1  (“Enhancing  research  and  innovation”).  In  the  case  studies, 
however, focusing solely on the overall SO1.1 allocation would have prevented an analysis by investment area 
(instrumental to establish correspondences with Horizon Europe and RRF support for the coherence analysis). 
For this reason, Cohesion Policy support to R&I in the case studies is calculated as the sum of the amounts for 
each investment area. Annex V in the main report sets out the definition of each area. 
Similarly, the data on Horizon Europe presented in the country fiches differ from those in the case studies due to 
methodological differences. In the country fiches, Horizon Europe data refer to the total net EU contribution. In 
the case studies, by contrast, the figures reflect the sum of allocations by investment area (an approach necessary 
to establish correspondences with Cohesion Policy and RRF support for the coherence analysis). Annex V in the 
main report defines each investment area. Discrepancies arise from the impossibility of assigning certain Horizon 
Europe calls to the investment areas used in this analysis. 

17 

 
 
 
 
Table 2: Number of R&I measures and sub-measures making explicit reference to Horizon Europe 
(or its components) and Cohesion Policy funds 

Support to/for… 

N. of cases per emerging 
innovator countries 

Total case in FENIX 

Co-funding European 
Partnerships in HE 

1 Croatia; 1 Romania 

Seal of Excellence 

1 Romania 

Access to programmes, 
incl. Horizon Europe 

1 Romania; 1 Slovakia 

Alignment of national R&I 
organisations with EU 
missions 

1 Romania 

Synergy with Cohesion 
policy 

4 Latvia 

Source: Authors based on FENIX data. 

3 

4 

5 

1 

7 

The  following  sections  provide  an  insight  into  the  synergies  and  overlaps  between  the  RRF, 
Cohesion Policy, and Horizon Europe funding in the three case study countries.  

5.1.  Cohesion Policy 

The  three  analysed  countries  have  not  combined  RRF  and  ERDF  financing  but  have 
instead sought to use these funds complementarily, relying on different approaches. For 
example, as the largest beneficiary of Cohesion Policy funds,  Poland has used, to the extent 
possible,  the  RRF  strategically  to  address  gaps  in  areas  not  covered  by  or  only  partially 
addressed  by  Cohesion  Policy.  In  terms  of  R&I  investments,  according  to  stakeholders 
consulted (12), effective complementarity has been observed in cities such as Warsaw, where 
Cohesion  Policy  funds  do  not  support  R&I  infrastructure,  making  the  RRF  essential  for  its 
development.  Moreover,  the  RRF  played  a  key  role  in  supporting  R&I  in  sectors  either  not 
covered at  all  by  the  Cohesion  Policy, such  as  food  security,  or only  partially  addressed,  for 
example, developing hydrogen technologies. While both RRF and JTF support the development 
of hydrogen technologies, they do so in complementary ways, targeting different aspects of the 
hydrogen  value  chain  and  focusing  on  distinct  regional  and  strategic  objectives.  The  JTF  is 
primarily  aimed  at  facilitating  the  socio-economic  transition  of  regions  (e.g.  Eastern 
Wielkopolska and Upper Silesia) heavily dependent on fossil fuels, such as coal. Notably, the 
fund  allocates  resources  for  the  development  of  clean  urban  transport  infrastructure,  which 
encompasses hydrogen-powered buses and related facilities. Additionally, efforts are made to 
decontaminate  and  repurpose  degraded  areas  for  renewable  energy  production,  including 
green  hydrogen.  In  contrast,  the  RRP  adopts  a  national  perspective,  funding  large-scale 
initiatives aimed at building hydrogen production facilities, establishing refuelling stations, and 
integrating  hydrogen  solutions  into various  sectors  of  the  economy.  In  other  words, the  RRF 
aims to create the conditions necessary for establishing a hydrogen market that does not yet 
exist, thereby enabling hydrogen uptake and contributing to the socioeconomic transition of the 

(12) RRF coordinating body interview and was somehow confirmed by the NCBR. 

18 

 
 
 
regions  targeted  by  the  JTF.  Croatia  followed  a  different  approach,  where  the  Smart 
Specialisation Strategy serves as the main framework bringing together both the RRP and the 
Operational  Programme  Competitiveness  and  Cohesion  (OPCC)  calls,  structuring  them  in  a 
coherent  manner.  This  approach  ensures  strategic  and  impactful  use  of  funds.  The  current 
priority  for  Croatian  authorities  is  to  maximise  the  absorption  of  RRF  funds  (2021–2026); 
Cohesion Policy funding is expected to become a primary focus only from mid-2025 onwards, 
especially in 2026.  

Rather  than  in  establishing  actual  synergies,  countries  tended  to  focus  on  avoiding 
overlaps through coordination between implementing agencies and programme design. 
As noted above, Croatia adopted a timing-based approach to ensure complementarity between 
RRF and Cohesion Policy programmes. Slovakia initially planned a similar approach, with RRF 
interventions starting first, followed by continued support from CP funds. An interdepartmental 
coordination platform (managed by the Ministry of Informatisation, Regional Development and 
Investments)  was  established  to  oversee  synergies  and  complementarities,  setting  clear 
boundaries  and  collaboration  guidelines  in  a  dedicated  document  (13).  This  document  is 
regularly updated, and each call for proposals includes a special annex on synergies, reviewed 
by  all  relevant  stakeholders.  In  several  cases,  the  timing  of  implementation  was  carefully 
scheduled to prevent duplication of investments from both sources. Despite these efforts, some 
calls under both CP and RRF were launched simultaneously, requiring adjustments or redesigns 
of  the  boundaries.  For  example,  planned  synergies  in  digitalisation  did  not  materialise  as 
intended, since calls from both CP and RRF supported identical activities, with some applicants 
submitting proposals to both schemes. To prevent duplication, a decision was made to allow 
applicants  to  apply  to  only  one  of  the  two  calls.  While  the  original  plan  assumed  that  RRF-
supported interventions would subsequently receive CP funding, this approach has not always 
succeeded  in  practice  due  to  delays  (see  Section  4)  and  the  involvement  of  different  bodies 
managing  the  RRF  and  the  interdepartmental  coordination  platform.  By  contrast,  in  Croatia, 
close collaboration between the MSEY and the Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds 
during the programming phase was considered key to ensuring alignment between RRF and 
Cohesion  Policy  investments.  According  to  the  MSEY,  the  RRF’s  approach  to  coordination 
between bodies and distribution of responsibilities has proven successful so far, representing 
the best model to date, and should be replicated in the next MFF.  

There  is  no  evidence  of  a  crowding-out  effect  of  the  RRF  in  Slovakia,  whereas  some 
instances  have  been  reported  in  Croatia  and  Poland,  primarily  due  to  the  perceived 
complexity and slower implementation of Cohesion Policy funds. During the focus groups, 
Polish  representatives  mentioned  that  crowding-out  effects  occurred  where  RRF  funds 
displaced Cohesion Fund allocations due to the perceived complexity or slower implementation 
timelines of the latter. Some stakeholders shifted their focus to RRF calls because they were 
simpler  and  more  immediate,  leading  to  an  underutilisation  of  complementary  instruments. 
Similarly, Croatian representatives confirmed that a form of "crowding out" is visible with respect 
to Cohesion Policy funds, primarily because ERDF rules are more  rigid and involve a higher 
administrative burden. To prevent double funding, they carefully ensure that no overlapping calls 
exist between the RRF and ERDF. A strategy of "temporal complementarity" has been adopted, 
whereby RRF investments were launched earlier to help manage potential crowding-out effects. 
Indeed, Croatia’s current strategic priority is to maximise the absorption of RRF funds (2021–
2026), with cohesion funding expected to become the main focus only from mid-2025 onward, 
and especially in 2026.  

(13) https://www.eurofondy.gov.sk/fondy-eu/synergie/  

19 

 
 
 
 
5.2.  Horizon Europe 

Unlike the Cohesion Policy funds, Horizon Europe, a centrally managed, competition-based EU 
programme,  participation  depends  on  the  ability  of  organisations  to  develop  strong  R&I 
proposals.  Participation  in  Horizon  Europe  is  based  on  scientific  excellence,  which  must  be 
demonstrated in a highly competitive, international context. In terms of securing Horizon Europe 
funding,  Croatia,  Poland,  and  Slovakia  have  been  more  successful  than  other  emerging  or 
moderate innovator countries. Their success rate (14) is 15.4%, 15.6%, and 16.2%, respectively, 
while the average for emerging countries is 15.1% and for moderate countries is 15.3%.  

In this country group, there are some examples of the synergistic use of RRF and Horizon 
Europe  funds.  Beyond  the  cases  of  Romania  already mentioned  above,  the  analysis  of  the 
FENIX  database  revealed  two  additional  cases  of  explicit  reference  to  Horizon  Europe 
components, which were also confirmed during interviews. In Croatia, the implementation of the 
Action Plan to Ensure the Administrative Capacities of the Croatian Science Foundation and its 
activities  (C3.2.R3)  has  been  supported  by  technical  assistance  through  the  “Strategic 
Partnership  for  Research,  Innovation  and  Growth”  (SPRING  Project)  (15).  This  Consultancy 
Agreement was signed between the Ministry of Science and Education and the World Bank, 
and it also received support from the European Commission’s Horizon Policy Support Facility 
(PSF), which aids policy development under the EU’s Horizon Europe Framework Programme. 
In Slovakia, the RRF investment (C9.I.1) provides direct support for the preparation of Horizon’s 
applications  and/or  matching  financial  sources  for  the  projects,  which  succeeded  in  Horizon 
Europe. This is likely to demonstrate some synergy effects and achieve more significant results 
with  more  substantial  financial  back-up  from  several  sources.  Besides  that,  support  is  also 
provided for the successful Seal of Excellence projects. According to the implementing bodies, 
this saves time in the project selection process. 

Beyond explicit synergies, in both Poland and Croatia, the RRF was said to contribute to 
success in Horizon Europe indirectly by strengthening the national R&I ecosystems. In 
Poland, regarding synergies with Horizon Europe, stakeholders consulted did not report any 
explicit links between Horizon Europe and the RRF. However, the RRP can serve as a tool to 
build the capacities needed to participate in Horizon Europe, with the initiative lying largely with 
researchers to leverage RRP support for greater engagement. In this context, investment A2.4.1 
on  developing  research  capacities  and  reform  A2.4  on  strengthening  science–industry 
cooperation  is  expected  to  equip  Polish  universities  and  businesses  with  the  necessary 
resources to enhance collaboration and competitiveness. In Croatia, the most common research 
areas funded through Horizon Europe in the 2021-2024 period include biomedical and health 
research,  research  into  high-efficiency  power  systems,  advanced  materials  for  energy 
applications,  sustainable  energy  technologies,  quantum  and  advanced  computing,  digital 
transformation, and inclusive technology development (16). Horizon Europe projects in Croatia 
typically focus on experimental and frontier research, while the RRF strengthens the national 
RDI ecosystem  through  investments in  talent,  infrastructure, and  public-private  collaboration. 
Together,  these  two  instruments  provide  a  complementary  framework  that  advances  both 
scientific excellence and systemic innovation capacity. 

(14) Horizon Dashboard data 4 April 2025. 
(15) 
effectiveness-of-investments-in-research-development-and-innovation  
(16) Overview based on summaries of selected Horizon Europe projects where Croatia is identified as a contributor. 

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/09/30/world-bank-supports-croatia-in-improving-

20 

 
 
 
 
6. Conclusions 

As a general conclusion, this case study finds that in emerging innovators, the RRF has proven 
a substantial boost to R&I, particularly when considered against the scale of their national R&I 
budgets. Beyond the financial dimension, the RRF has acted as a transformative instrument, 
especially through its support for reforms, enabling a clear break with the past and opening a 
new  path  in  the  evolution  of  national  R&I  frameworks.  However,  the  level  of  ambition  of  the 
different emerging innovators varied. 

This section will present more specific conclusions.  

In the  three countries analysed—Croatia, Poland, and Slovakia—the RRF played a key 
role in strengthening national R&I systems, though with varying levels of ambition and 
integration between reforms and investments. Croatia shows a high degree of integration, 
aligning  RRF  measures  with  pre-existing  strategies  and  analytical  work  to  create  a  coherent 
package  of  reforms  and  investments.  Poland  used  the  RRF  to  reinforce  sectoral  priorities, 
particularly in energy and health, complementing existing national policies. Slovakia, in contrast, 
used the RRF as a foundational instrument to establish a unified national R&I framework for the 
first time. These different approaches reflect each country’s institutional capacity and strategic 
priorities. 

Emerging  innovators  have  primarily  used  RRF  support  for  R&I  under  the  Smart, 
sustainable,  and  inclusive  growth  pillar,  rather  than  focusing  on  green  and  digital 
transitions. This broad pillar encompasses measures to strengthen research competitiveness 
(e.g., infrastructure and human capital), foster innovation-driven growth (e.g., science-business 
collaboration),  and  improve  institutional  efficiency  (e.g.,  governance  reforms).  Consistently, 
among  emerging  innovator  countries,  the  ERA  action  that  benefited  the  most  is  Action  16: 
"Improve EU-wide access to excellence"—in contrast to strong and moderate innovators, which 
placed greater emphasis on green and digital objectives through synergies with ERA Actions 
11 and 12. This suggests that emerging innovators are using the RRF to address structural R&I 
gaps and strengthen their research ecosystems. 

Progress  in  fulfilling  M&T  in  the  emerging  innovator  group,  particularly  targets,  has 
lagged  behind.  Among  the  six  countries  in  this  group,  Croatia,  Poland,  and  Slovakia 
recorded  the  highest  rates  of  fulfilled  M&T,  contributing  to  the  completion  of  several 
measures.  However,  many  of  the  fulfilled  targets  were  output-oriented,  with  outcome-based 
targets  proving  more  difficult  to  achieve.  Croatia  successfully  delivered  a  coherent  set  of 
legislative  reforms  and  investments,  establishing  performance-based  funding  and  reinforcing 
the  autonomy  and  capacity  of  its  research  institutions.  Poland,  despite  a  delayed  start,  is 
advancing  across  several  strategic  areas—including  the  circular  economy,  hydrogen, 
healthcare innovation, and science-industry collaboration—through a mix of legal reforms and 
targeted  investments.  Slovakia  focused  on  strengthening  coordination,  governance,  and 
funding  mechanisms  while  launching  a  high  volume  of  calls  to  support  collaborative  and 
international  research.  So  far,  there  is  limited  evidence  beyond  the  procedural  and  output 
indicators tracked by the milestones and targets. 

Croatia  stood  out  for  its  smooth  implementation,  enabled  by  sectoral  autonomy  and 
strategic alignment. In contrast, Slovakia and Poland faced more significant bottlenecks, 
including complex governance structures, delays in application processing, limited coordination 
between funding instruments, and insufficient administrative capacity. Across all three countries, 
stakeholders  stressed  that  R&I  investments  require  longer,  more  predictable  timelines  than 
those  allowed  under  the  RRF,  highlighting  the  need  for  more  flexible  and  sustained  policy 
frameworks to ensure lasting innovation outcomes. 

In  this  group  of  countries,  there  are  some  examples  of  RRF  R&I  measures  or  sub-
measures making explicit reference to Horizon Europe or Cohesion Policy funds. Among 

21 

 
 
the case study countries, Croatia demonstrates a well-coordinated and temporally sequenced 
use of RRF and ERDF. Slovakia established formal mechanisms to coordinate the two funding 
sources; however, in practice, synergies have often been limited to avoiding duplication rather 
than  fostering  true  complementarities.  Regarding  Horizon  Europe,  Slovakia’s  RRF  provides 
direct  support  for  preparing  Horizon  applications  and/or  co-financing  successful  projects, 
including  Seal  of  Excellence  initiatives.  In  Croatia,  an  RRF  measure  has  benefited  from 
technical  assistance  provided  through  the  Horizon  Europe  Policy  Support  Facility.  Finally, 
Poland  has  used  the  RRF  strategically  to  fill  gaps  left  by  Cohesion  Policy,  particularly  in 
emerging fields such as hydrogen and digital health; no explicit links between Horizon Europe 
and the RRF were identified.  

The analysis shows that Croatia, Poland, and Slovakia are committed to sustaining the 
momentum  generated  by  RRF-funded  reforms  and  investments  in  R&I  beyond  2026, 
though their strategies and capacities to ensure long-term sustainability differ. In Croatia and 
Slovakia, structural reforms—anchored in new governance frameworks, national strategies, and 
budgetary mechanisms—provide a solid foundation for continuity. In Poland, sustainability relies 
more  on  leveraging  RRF-triggered  investments  and  collaborations,  supported  by  follow-up 
funding through Cohesion Policy. While all three countries have laid important groundwork for 
lasting impact, the continuation of support beyond the RRF will ultimately depend on their ability 
to maintain high levels of ambition in R&I policy implementation and to secure stable funding, 
with Cohesion Policy playing a critical role in all three countries.   

22 

 
 
 
 
7. Annexes 

7.1.  Annex I. Methodology 

The preparation of the case study has focused on the following steps: 

•  Review of desk-based evidence collected in the context of the MS-level analysis, especially 

for the three countries selected for in-depth analysis.  

•  Review of evidence from interviews. In the interviews foreseen for all 27 MS (with the RRP 
National Coordinating Body and Ministries of Science/Research/Innovation), questions were 
added  in  case  the  respective  country  was  selected  for  a  case  study.  Depending  on  the 
country  and  the  outcomes  of  the  horizontal  interviews,  additional  interviews  target  the 
following groups: an additional relevant ministry, a key national innovation/research agency, 
a key representative of target groups, the national body coordinating Cohesion Policy in the 
country  (with  some  flexibility  depending  on  the  country:  for  instance,  in  countries  where 
Cohesion Policy plays little role, the related interview might risk having little added value and 
therefore we may consider swapping it with a more relevant interviewee).  

•  Analysis of data, specifically: 

  The data feeding into the “Overview of measures” section are elaborations mainly based 
on FENIX datasets received from the Commission. To provide data on the weight of the 
RRP  RDI  allocation  over  the  national  government  allocation  to  RDI,  data  from  the 
Eurostat GBARD have been used. 

  For  the  section  on  “Synergies  with  Horizon  and  Cohesion  policy”,  the  data  analysis 
exploited  the  datasets  available  for  the  various  programmes  of  interest.  The  analysis 
focused on the allocation of the resources of a programme into specific areas of action 
(see Annex V of the main report). For the RRF, the considered allocation just refers to 
investments. 

• 

Integration of evidence from the focus group organised with targeted representatives of 
the three countries selected for in-depth analysis. The focus groups aimed to discuss the 
preliminary  findings  of  the  case  study,  enhance  the  evidence  base,  and  ensure  that 
conclusions are well-founded and nuanced. See Annex VII of the main report for the focus 
groups’ main takeaway messages.  

•  Triangulation  of  evidence.  As  a  final  step,  findings  were  cross  verified  to  the  extent 
possible  using  multiple  sources  of  information  to  ensure  the  validity,  reliability,  and 
completeness of the analysis. This process helps reduce bias and strengthens the credibility 
of the conclusions. 

23 

 
 
 
 
7.2.  Annex II. Further data elaborations and charts 

Figure 6: Financial allocations by country, fund and typology. Million EUR 

RRF RDI 
investments 

Cohesion 
Policy 

Horizon 
Europe 

Country  
Typology of investment 

Bulgaria 

R&D projects 

Research infrastructure 

Public-private partnerships and science business 
collaboration 

Skills 

Grants for RDI in enterprises 

Financial instruments and tax incentives 

Strategic instruments (e.g., roadmaps, strategies) 

Croatia 

R&D projects 

Public-private partnerships and science business 
collaboration 

Research infrastructure 

Strategic instruments (e.g., roadmaps, strategies) 

Skills 

Grants for RDI in enterprises 

Financial instruments and tax incentives 

Latvia 

Strategic instruments (e.g., roadmaps, strategies) 

Skills 

R&D projects 

Research infrastructure 

Financial instruments and tax incentives 

Grants for RDI in enterprises 

Public-private partnerships and science business 
collaboration 

167 

143 

14 

8 

2 

393 

126 

73 

72 

63 

45 

14 

0 

198 

196 

1 

1 

Poland 

Research infrastructure 

R&D projects 

Grants for RDI in enterprises 

1,106 

569 

375 

162 

24 

803 

148 

42 

54 

460 

99 

1,015 

74 

34 

194 

653 

60 

370 

96 

23 

58 

174 

19 

8,245 

833 

258 

6,590 

122 

2 

2 

79 

4 

13 

23 

98 

6 

66 

2 

19 

4 

1 

72 

12 

4 

1 

1 

2 

52 

464 

16 

80 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Skills 

Financial instruments and tax incentives 

Strategic instruments (e.g., roadmaps, strategies) 

Public-private partnerships and science business 
collaboration 

Romania 

Skills 

Research infrastructure 

R&D projects 

Public-private partnerships and science business 
collaboration 

Strategic instruments (e.g., roadmaps, strategies) 

Financial instruments and tax incentives 

Grants for RDI in enterprises 

Slovakia 

R&D projects 

Public-private partnerships and science business 
collaboration 

Skills 

Research infrastructure 

Financial instruments and tax incentives 

Grants for RDI in enterprises 

Strategic instruments (e.g., roadmaps, strategies) 

305 

194 

55 

31 

25 

736 

324 

149 

146 

85 

32 

24 

540 

1,669 

354 

512 

107 

21 

674 

784 

184 

4 

288 

50 

258 

35 

44 

270 

239 

10 

3 

11 

181 

28 

6 

94 

3 

49 

5 

2 

5 

30 

Source: Authors based on FENIX data, Horizon Europe country profiles and Cohesion Open Data platform. 
Note 1: The data on Cohesion Policy support to R&I presented in the country fiches differs from those in the case 
studies due to differences in approach. In the country fiches, Cohesion Policy support to R&I refers to the total 
amounts  planned  under  Specific  Objective  1.1  (“Enhancing  research  and  innovation”).  In  the  case  studies, 
however, focusing solely on the overall SO1.1 allocation would have prevented an analysis by investment area 
(instrumental to establishing correspondences with Horizon Europe and RRF support for the coherence analysis). 
For this reason, Cohesion Policy support to R&I in the case studies is calculated as the sum of the amounts for 
each investment area. Annex V in the main report sets out the definition of each area. 
Similarly, the data on Horizon Europe presented in the country fiches differs from those in the case studies due 
to methodological differences. In the country fiches, Horizon Europe data refer to the total net EU contribution. In 
the case studies, by contrast, the figures reflect the sum of allocations by investment area (an approach necessary 
to establish correspondences with Cohesion Policy and RRF support for the coherence analysis). Annex V in the 
main report defines each investment area. Discrepancies arise from the impossibility of assigning certain Horizon 
Europe calls to the investment areas used in this analysis. 
Note 2: For each country, the colours illustrate the distribution by investment area of each fund, on a scale from 
white (least resources from the fund to this area) to dark green (most resources). 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

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

On the phone or in writing 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service: 
  by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
  at the following standard number: +32 22999696,  
  via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website (european-
union.europa.eu). 

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

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

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This case study focuses on Emerging Innovators, within the study 
assessing how the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) 
supported research and innovation (R&I) across the EU27 by 
analysing 387 R&I measures in national Recovery and Resilience 
Plans. 

Studies and reports