Eureka: Four Decades of Fostering Collaborative Innovation - An Analysis of its Evolution, Impact, and Future Trajectory

Executive Summary

Established in 1985 as a direct European response to mounting technological competition and geopolitical pressures, the Eureka network has evolved from a strategic political initiative into the world's largest public network for international cooperation in research, development, and innovation (R&D&I). For nearly four decades, it has championed a uniquely agile, bottom-up, and market-driven approach to fostering collaboration, standing as a flexible and industry-focused counterpart to the European Union's more structured, top-down Framework Programmes. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of Eureka's history, the evolution of its funding instruments, its impact on European competitiveness, and its future trajectory in a rapidly changing global landscape.

The analysis reveals that Eureka's enduring relevance stems from its remarkable adaptability. It has evolved from a primarily European entity to a global network spanning over 45 countries, including full members from beyond Europe like Canada and South Korea. Its programme portfolio has diversified from the original, highly flexible Network Projects to include large-scale, strategic industry Clusters and the highly successful Eurostars programme, a joint initiative with the European Commission specifically targeting the innovation potential of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Quantitatively, Eureka's impact is significant. Impact assessments demonstrate that participating firms outperform their peers, showing substantial additional growth in both turnover and employment. However, this success is not evenly distributed; participation is concentrated in a handful of R&D-intensive nations and technology sectors, suggesting a "Matthew Effect" where established innovation leaders benefit most. The network's different instruments yield distinct outcomes: smaller Network Projects are correlated with faster commercialization and sales growth, while larger Cluster Projects are associated with greater job creation, offering a suite of strategic tools for different corporate objectives.

Looking ahead, Eureka is pivoting from a primary focus on industrial competitiveness to addressing broader societal challenges, notably the green and digital transitions, disaster resilience, and technological sovereignty. Its 2025 strategic priorities are heavily focused on deep tech fields such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and the circular economy. As the European Union plans its next Framework Programme (FP10), Eureka is positioned to play a critical role, not only as a complementary funding mechanism but as an agile policy testbed for new, more flexible R&D support models. Its future success will depend on its ability to navigate the governance challenges of deep tech while maintaining the bottom-up dynamism that has been the hallmark of its four-decade journey.

I. Genesis and Founding Principles (1985): A Response to a Competitive Imperative

The establishment of the Eureka network in 1985 was not merely the launch of another funding programme; it was a calculated political and economic response to a period of intense competitive anxiety and geopolitical maneuvering. Its creation can only be fully understood within the context of the technological and political landscape of the mid-1980s, where Europe perceived itself as falling behind its global rivals and sought a novel mechanism to assert its technological independence.

The Geopolitical and R&D Context of the 1980s

The mid-1980s were characterized by a pervasive sense of a "technology gap" between Europe and its primary competitors, the United States and Japan. In the decades following World War II, the United States had systematically built a formidable R&D apparatus, with federal funding growing remarkably and institutional innovations like the R&D contract mobilizing academic and private sector research on an unprecedented scale. In contrast, Europe's R&D efforts were comparatively fragmented.

This economic anxiety was amplified by the geopolitical climate of the Cold War. A pivotal catalyst for Eureka's formation was the announcement of the American Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), popularly known as "Star Wars." European leaders, particularly French President François Mitterrand, viewed SDI not only as an escalation of the arms race but as a strategic threat that could trigger a significant brain drain of Europe's top scientific and engineering talent to the United States. The fear was that the immense resources of the SDI program would monopolize high-tech research, leaving Europe in a subordinate position.

Within Europe itself, collaborative R&D policy was still in its infancy. The European Community had launched its very first Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP1) only a year earlier, in 1984. With a modest budget of 3.8 billion ECU, its primary goal was to rationalize and coordinate a handful of pre-existing, disparate research programmes in traditional sectors like coal, steel, and atomic energy. This created a clear opening for a different kind of initiative—one that was more agile, industry-led, and strategically focused on the high-technology sectors of the future.

The Franco-German Impetus: Mitterrand, Kohl, and the Declarations

The driving force behind Eureka came from the highest political level, championed by President Mitterrand of France and Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany. They envisioned a civilian-led, pan-European response to the American challenge. Key architects of the concept included Hubert Curien, the French Minister of Research and former chairman of the European Space Agency, and Jacques Attali, a key advisor to Mitterrand. Their efforts culminated in the "Paris Declaration" of July 17, 1985, which formally established the Eureka initiative among 18 founding countries and the European Commission. This foundational document was followed by the "Hannover Declaration" on November 5, 1985, which articulated the network's core operating principles.

The mission was stated with unambiguous clarity: "to raise, through closer cooperation among enterprises and research institutes in the field of advanced technologies, the productivity and competitiveness of Europe's industries and national economies on the world market". As Mitterrand articulated, it was fundamentally about "assuring the technological independence of Europe in the key domains of the future". This framing reveals that Eureka was conceived as much as a foreign policy instrument as an R&D policy one. It was a sophisticated counter-move to SDI, designed to rally European industry around a common, non-military technological ambition and signal Europe's intent to remain a key player on the world stage.

Core Philosophy: A Bottom-Up, Market-Driven, Decentralized Alternative

From its inception, Eureka's design was deliberately novel and positioned as a distinct alternative to the emerging top-down, bureaucratic model of the EC's Framework Programmes. This distinction was built on three foundational pillars:

Bottom-up Approach: This is described as Eureka's "ground rule". It empowers the participants themselves—the companies and research institutes—to define their own project objectives based on their own strategic needs and market insights. This principle grants "a minimum of bureaucracy and a maximum of control and flexibility" to the innovators, a stark contrast to the prescriptive, thematic calls for proposals that characterized the Framework Programmes.
Market-Oriented Focus: Every Eureka project must be aimed at the development of a new, marketable product, process, or service with a clear civilian purpose. This close-to-market orientation ensures that publicly supported R&D is directly tied to tangible economic outcomes and industrial competitiveness, a focus that remains a defining feature of the network to this day.
Decentralized Structure: Eureka was established as an intergovernmental organization, not an EU institution. This structure has profound implications for its operation. Funding is not disbursed from a central European pot; instead, it is provided by national ministries and funding agencies in the participating countries. The network is coordinated through a lean system of National Project Coordinators (NPCs) who act as the primary interface with applicants in their respective countries. A small central Secretariat, established in Brussels in 1987, provides support, manages databases, and promotes the network, but the core operational and funding decisions remain at the national level.

This unique structure established a dynamic of complementary co-existence with the EC's Framework Programmes from the very beginning. While both initiatives sought to bolster European R&D, their divergent philosophies created a natural and productive division of labor. The Framework Programme could address large-scale, policy-driven research challenges, while Eureka could provide a more agile, flexible, and industry-responsive pathway for innovation. The fact that the European Commission itself was a founding member of Eureka underscores the early recognition of this symbiotic relationship. This duality has proven to be a resilient and powerful feature of the European innovation landscape for nearly four decades.

II. The Evolutionary Trajectory of Eureka's Programme Portfolio

Over its history, the Eureka network has demonstrated a remarkable ability to evolve its offerings to meet the changing demands of the European and global innovation ecosystems. Rather than relying on a single, static instrument, it has developed a sophisticated portfolio of programmes, each tailored to a specific segment of the R&D landscape. This evolution from a single, flexible mechanism to a multi-faceted toolkit reflects a strategic adaptation to the diverse needs of innovators, from small agile teams to large industrial consortia.

The Foundation: Network Projects as the Flexible Core

Network Projects are the original and purest expression of the Eureka philosophy. Established in 1985, this instrument embodies the core principles of a bottom-up, flexible, and decentralized approach. Its key feature is the "Open Call" mechanism, which allows project consortia to submit applications at any time, without being constrained by thematic priorities or rigid deadlines.

The eligibility criteria are intentionally simple and broad, designed to minimize bureaucracy and empower innovators. A project must involve at least two independent partners from at least two different Eureka countries, aim to develop an innovative product, process, or service, and have a civilian purpose. This flexibility has made Network Projects an enduringly popular instrument, serving as the accessible entry point for many organizations into international R&D collaboration. Over time, these projects have shown a trend towards smaller consortia and shorter durations, reflecting an increasing industry demand for greater agility and a faster time-to-market for new innovations.

Scaling Up Ambition: The Rise of Strategic Clusters (1987-Present)

Just two years after its founding, Eureka recognized that a different mechanism was needed to tackle long-term, large-scale R&D challenges in strategic technology sectors. This led to the creation of "strategic initiatives," which would later become known as Eureka Clusters. The first of these was the landmark Joint European Submicron Silicon Initiative (JESSI), launched in 1987 to bolster Europe's capabilities in microelectronics.

Clusters are industry-led Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) that convene major corporations, SMEs, universities, and research organizations to collaborate on the development of generic technologies deemed critical for European competitiveness. They represent a more top-down, strategic element within the otherwise bottom-up Eureka framework. These long-term ecosystems operate in specific thematic domains, with the current portfolio including:

CELTIC-NEXT: Next-generation communications technologies.
ITEA 4: Software innovation and the digital transition.
Xecs: Electronic components, systems, and applications.
SMART: Advanced manufacturing and production.
EUROGIA2030: Low-carbon energy technologies.

Clusters constitute a major part of Eureka's activity, at times accounting for over 70% of the total project funding within the network. Projects developed under the Cluster framework benefit from a high funding success rate, typically between 30-40%, which is attributable to the close collaboration and guidance provided by national funding bodies throughout the proposal development process. The model has matured significantly since the early days of JESSI and MEDEA (Microelectronics Development for European Applications), with the formal establishment of the Eureka Clusters Programme (ECP) providing a more unified governance and operational structure.

Democratizing Innovation: The Eurostars Programme and the Focus on SMEs (2008-Present)

The launch of the Eurostars programme in 2008 represented a pivotal strategic shift for Eureka, creating what was described as the "first European funding and support Programme to be specifically dedicated to R&D performing SMEs". This move was a direct response to the growing recognition across Europe of the critical role SMEs play in driving innovation, job creation, and economic growth.

Eurostars is a unique hybrid instrument, operating as a joint programme between the intergovernmental Eureka network and the supranational European Commission. It is co-funded by the national budgets of its 37 participating countries and by the EU's multi-year Framework Programmes—initially FP7, followed by Horizon 2020, and now Horizon Europe. A defining feature and strict eligibility criterion of Eurostars is that the consortium must be led by an R&D-performing SME, ensuring that the programme remains firmly focused on the needs and ambitions of smaller, innovative companies.

The programme has proven to be exceptionally successful and has evolved through successive iterations: Eurostars-2 ran from 2014 to 2020, and the current Eurostars-3 (2021-2027) is a central component of the "European Partnership on Innovative SMEs" under the Horizon Europe framework. With a competitive but encouraging application success rate of around 29%, Eurostars delivers demonstrable economic benefits, with participating companies consistently reporting significant increases in turnover and access to new international markets. This model has effectively become a cornerstone of European innovation policy for SMEs, successfully bridging the gap between national support systems and broader EU ambitions.

Expanding the Horizon: Globalstars, Innowwide, and the Global Ambition

As Eureka's membership and outlook expanded beyond the borders of Europe, the network developed new instruments to facilitate truly global R&D collaboration.

Globalstars: This programme leverages the flexible and efficient model of Network Projects to launch targeted calls for projects with specific non-Eureka countries. It has served as a vital bridge for cooperation with innovation powerhouses such as Brazil, India, Japan, and Singapore, allowing European companies to partner with the best talent and expertise, regardless of location.
Innowwide: Now operating alongside Eurostars as part of the Innovative SMEs Partnership, Innowwide provides funding for SMEs to conduct "viability assessment projects." These short-term studies allow companies to explore the feasibility of their research or commercial ambitions in target markets around the globe, effectively de-risking the first steps of international expansion. The strategic direction of this instrument was made clear when the first call under the new programme placed a special focus on markets in Africa.
Investment Readiness Programme (IRP): Recognizing that public funding is often just one step on the journey to commercial success, Eureka established the IRP. This programme provides targeted coaching and support to help startups and SMEs enhance their business plans, develop relationships with corporate partners, and ultimately become more attractive to private investors, thus bridging the critical gap between public grants and venture capital.

The development of these distinct instruments demonstrates a clear and sophisticated portfolio strategy. Eureka has systematically identified different needs within the innovation ecosystem and created tailored tools to address them: Network Projects for agile, bottom-up R&D; Clusters for long-term, strategic industrial leadership; Eurostars for the specific needs of high-growth SMEs; and Globalstars and Innowwide to support the global ambitions of its participants.

Table 1: Evolution of Eureka's Core Programmes
Programme	Launch Period	Core Objective	Target Audience & Key Characteristics
Network Projects	1985-Present	Facilitate flexible, international, market-driven R&D projects.	Audience: SMEs, large companies, research orgs, universities. Characteristics: Purely bottom-up (no thematic limits), open call (apply anytime), typically 2-4 partners from 2+ countries, lean application process. Focus on agility and speed-to-market.
Clusters Programme	1987-Present	Drive long-term, strategic R&D in key technology areas to boost European competitiveness.	Audience: Large industry leaders, SMEs, research orgs, universities. Characteristics: Industry-led Public-Private Partnerships, thematic focus (e.g., software, electronics, energy), large consortia (often 10+ partners), high project costs (avg. €6.75M), projects last up to 3 years.
Eurostars Programme	2008-Present	Support international, innovative, market-oriented R&D projects led by SMEs.	Audience: R&D-performing SMEs (must lead the consortium), with partners from large companies, research orgs, or universities. Characteristics: Joint programme with the European Commission, co-funded by national bodies and the EU. Bottom-up but SME-led. High success rate (~29%). Designed to boost SME growth and internationalization.

III. A Shifting Landscape: Disruptions, Adaptations, and Strategic Pivots

The nearly four-decade history of the Eureka network is a testament to its institutional resilience and adaptability. It has not operated in a static environment but has been continuously shaped by profound external and internal forces. Its ability to navigate the evolving European R&D ecosystem, respond to major economic and geopolitical shocks, and embrace the globalization of innovation has been central to its longevity and enduring relevance.

Navigating the European R&D Ecosystem: Complementarity and Competition with EU Framework Programmes

From its inception, Eureka has existed in a dynamic relationship with the European Union's multi-year Framework Programmes (FPs), which have evolved from FP1 in 1984 to the current Horizon Europe programme. This relationship is defined by both complementarity and a healthy degree of competition. The structural differences are fundamental: Eureka is an intergovernmental network with decentralized, national funding, while Horizon Europe is a supranational EU programme with a large, centrally managed budget. Eureka's philosophy is bottom-up and market-driven, whereas Horizon Europe is largely top-down, with priorities and thematic calls defined at the EU policy level.

This has resulted in a natural and effective division of labor. Eureka is widely perceived as being more agile, flexible, and closer to the market, making it particularly well-suited for SMEs. Indeed, some Eureka programmes dedicate as much as 40% of their funding to SMEs, a share significantly higher than the typical 15% or less found in many parts of the Framework Programmes. Consequently, Eureka often functions as a crucial "stepping stone," providing companies with their first experience of international R&D collaboration before they engage with larger, more complex EU programmes.

Over the years, this complementary relationship has evolved towards deeper synergy, particularly with the strategic push to create a unified European Research Area (ERA). The Eurostars programme stands as the primary example of this integration, being a joint initiative co-funded and co-managed by both Eureka and the European Commission. More recently, new mechanisms have been created to build explicit pathways between the two systems. The "Fast Track to the EIC Accelerator," for instance, allows highly-rated, successful Eurostars projects to bypass the initial application stage for the EU's flagship scale-up funding instrument, creating a clear ladder of support for high-potential SMEs. This relationship is formally managed through the European Commission's membership in Eureka and the activities of joint working groups tasked with enhancing cooperation and ensuring the innovation ecosystem is coherent and effective for its users.

The Impact of Economic Cycles and Geopolitical Events

Eureka's trajectory has been significantly influenced by major economic and political shifts. The network has demonstrated a capacity to weather economic downturns and adapt to a changing geopolitical map.

Economic Cycles: The recession of the early 1990s was reflected in R&D investment trends. A 1996 report noted that the average cost of new projects was higher than in the previous year, possibly indicating a release of pent-up R&D demand as Europe emerged from the downturn. In more recent times, Eureka has been explicitly positioned as a tool for economic recovery and resilience. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, its flexible, close-to-market instruments were seen as a way to stimulate innovation-led growth. In 2020, the network launched a specific and rapid call for proposals aimed at tackling the pandemic, focusing on critical areas such as medical robotics, diagnostics, sanitation technology, and the resilience of critical supply chains.
Geopolitical Shifts: The end of the Cold War was a transformative moment for Eureka. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 paved the way for a rapid eastward expansion of the network. Hungary joined in 1992, followed by Russia in 1993, and the Czech Republic and Poland in 1995. This expansion fundamentally altered Eureka's identity, transforming it from a primarily Western European initiative into a truly pan-European organization. Conversely, the network has shown it is not immune to contemporary geopolitical ruptures. Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Eureka's members voted to suspend Russia's membership, a decisive action demonstrating that participation is contingent on shared values.

The Globalisation of Innovation: From a European Club to a Global Network

Perhaps the most profound disruption to Eureka's original concept has been its own successful globalization. Initially conceived as a means to bolster European competitiveness, the network has evolved to recognize that innovation is a global endeavor. This strategic pivot began in the 2000s and has accelerated significantly in the last decade.

South Korea became the first non-European associate country in 2009, followed by Canada in 2012. This marked the beginning of a new era. In a landmark policy shift formalized in 2022, both Canada and South Korea transitioned from associated to full members of the network. This was made possible by a crucial change to Eureka's statutes, allowing non-European countries to attain full membership rights after a minimum of eight years as an associated country. This grants them the ability to vote in high-level meetings and hold the network's rotating Chairmanship, privileges previously reserved for European members.

Today, the network includes a growing roster of associated countries from around the world, including South Africa, Singapore, Chile, and Argentina. This global reach is now considered a core strategic asset, enabling European innovators to collaborate with partners in key global innovation hotspots and access new markets. This evolution reflects a pragmatic understanding that in the 21st century, technologically advanced products and services rely on global value chains and that true competitiveness requires collaboration with the best partners, wherever they may be located. This transformation from a defensive European bloc to an open, global network is a clear indicator of Eureka's adaptive capacity.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis: Eureka vs. Horizon Europe
Feature	Eureka Network	Horizon Europe
Governance Model	Intergovernmental network of national ministries/agencies.	Supranational EU programme managed by the European Commission.
Funding Source	Decentralized: National public and private funds from member countries.	Centralized: EU budget, with contributions from member states.
Core Philosophy	Bottom-up: Participants define projects based on market needs.	Top-down: Thematic calls based on strategic EU policy priorities.
Thematic Approach	Largely open to any technology field (esp. Network Projects, Eurostars). Clusters are thematic.	Highly structured into Pillars and Clusters with pre-defined topics and challenges.
Typical Consortium Size	Flexible. Network Projects are often small (2-4 partners). Clusters are large (10+ partners).	Generally larger consortia (often 3+ partners from 3+ countries), especially in Pillar II.
Target TRL (Technology Readiness Level)	Close-to-market. Typically TRL 3-6, aiming for commercialization within 2 years post-project.	Covers the full spectrum, from basic research (TRL 1-2 in ERC) to demonstration (TRL 5-8 in IAs).
Primary Target Audience	Industry, particularly innovative SMEs.	Broad: Research institutions, universities, industry (large and small), public bodies.
Key Strength	Agility, flexibility, speed, close-to-market focus, and strong national-level support.	Scale of funding, strategic long-term vision, ability to tackle massive societal challenges, prestige.

IV. An Anatomy of Impact: Winners, Losers, and Value Creation

Assessing the impact of a multi-decade, multi-national innovation network like Eureka requires a nuanced, data-driven approach. The value it creates is not monolithic; it varies by country, by industry sector, and by the type of organization participating. An analysis of participation data, economic outcomes, and the factors contributing to project success reveals a complex picture of who benefits most from Eureka's support and how that value is generated.

A Quantitative Analysis of Participation: Who Gets Funded?

An examination of project data reveals clear patterns in participation, highlighting which countries, sectors, and organizations have been most successful at leveraging the Eureka network.

Geographic Distribution: Participation is not evenly spread across the network's member countries; rather, it is concentrated in a handful of R&D-intensive nations. For the flexible Network Projects, Germany and Spain are the leading participants, each accounting for approximately 8.5% of all participants in the 2001-2015 period. They are followed by France (7%), the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia. The concentration is even more pronounced in the large, strategic Cluster Projects. Here, 60% of all participants come from just four countries: France (with a dominant share of over 24%), Spain, Germany, and Finland. Including Turkey and the Netherlands brings this figure to 70%. This pattern suggests that the industrial structures and national research priorities in these countries are exceptionally well-aligned with Eureka's thematic agendas, particularly in high-tech manufacturing and digital technologies. This creates a self-reinforcing dynamic where countries with strong innovation ecosystems are best positioned to form consortia and secure funding, further cementing their leadership.
Sectoral Focus: The bulk of Eureka's project portfolio is concentrated in three major technology areas: Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Industrial Products & Manufacturing, and Bio- and Medical Technologies. A 2020 qualitative evaluation of the Eurostars programme highlighted the particular prominence of the Biotech/Medical sector, which accounted for 39% of participating enterprises and an even higher 45% of participating startups. The Industrial sector was also strong, representing 18% of enterprises.
Organizational Distribution: Eureka successfully engages a wide range of organizations. While its strategic Clusters are often driven by large industrial players such as Philips or Infineon, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are a vital and substantial component across all programmes. In new Network Projects, SMEs consistently account for over 40% of all participants, and their share in Clusters is also significant, ranging from 30% to 50%. The Eurostars programme is, by its very design, centered on SMEs, which must lead every project consortium. Startups, defined as companies five years old or younger, are also a key constituency, making up 27% of all participants in the Eurostars programme.

Table 3: Distribution of Eureka Participation (Illustrative)
Category	Leading Participants	Key Observations
Top Participating Countries	1. Germany 2. Spain 3. France 4. The Netherlands 5. Finland	Participation is highly concentrated. For Clusters, 60% of participants come from just four countries, indicating strong alignment between national industrial strategy and Eureka's thematic priorities.
Top Technology Sectors	1. ICT / Digital 2. Industrial / Manufacturing 3. Bio / Medical Technologies 4. Energy / Environment	Biotech and medical fields are particularly dominant in the SME-focused Eurostars programme, especially for startups. ICT and manufacturing are core to both Network and Cluster projects.
Participation by Organisation Size	1. SMEs 2. Large Enterprises 3. Research Orgs / Universities	SMEs are the most numerous participants overall, especially in Network Projects and Eurostars. Large enterprises are crucial drivers of the high-cost Cluster projects. Research organizations are key partners across all programmes.

Economic Outcomes: Assessing the Impact on Turnover, Employment, and Market Access

Multiple independent impact assessments have consistently demonstrated that participation in Eureka projects yields significant and positive economic outcomes for the firms involved, particularly when compared to a control group of similar non-participating firms.

Turnover and Employment Growth: The economic benefits are quantifiable. One year after the completion of a project, participating firms showed an additional annual turnover growth of 15% for Network Projects and 13% for Cluster Projects compared to their non-funded peers. The effect on employment is also positive and significant, with participants experiencing additional annual employment growth of 4% (Network Projects) and 7% (Cluster Projects). Interestingly, the analysis shows that large companies (with more than 250 employees) tend to experience the highest performance in terms of employment growth after a project.
Market Access and Competitiveness: Beyond direct financial metrics, one of the most valued benefits of Eureka participation is enhanced market access. Surveys reveal that 69% of participating companies successfully enter new markets, and 68% achieve an improved market share as a result of their project. An evaluation of Swedish participants confirmed this, with firms describing their Eureka project as a critical "gate opener" to international markets that would have been difficult to access otherwise.

The Differentiated Impact of Programme Instruments

A deeper analysis reveals that the impact of Eureka funding is not uniform across its programme portfolio. Different instruments are optimized for different outcomes, a finding that has profound strategic implications for applicants. Studies comparing the effects of Network Projects and Cluster Projects have found that:

Smaller, more agile R&D consortia, typical of Network Projects, have a stronger positive influence on turnover growth and commercialization.
Larger, more strategic consortia, characteristic of Cluster Projects, have a greater positive influence on employment growth.

This differentiation is a logical consequence of each instrument's design. Network Projects are built for speed and focus, aiming to bring a specific product or service to market quickly, which naturally translates into faster sales. Clusters, in contrast, are designed to build entire technology ecosystems and value chains, involving a wider range of partners and suppliers over a longer period, which logically results in broader job creation. This means that the choice of a Eureka instrument should be a deliberate strategic decision for a company, aligned with its specific corporate objectives—whether that is rapid market validation for a single product or long-term capacity building within a new industrial ecosystem.

Success and Failure Factors in Collaborative R&D

The success of a Eureka project is determined by a combination of factors related to motivation, consortium quality, and project management. The primary motivation for companies to join a Eureka project is the opportunity for international cooperation (cited by over 70% of participants) and the prospect of new business opportunities (over 60%). The inherent flexibility and bottom-up nature of the network is also considered a crucial asset by participating firms. The EUREKA label itself is a significant benefit, acting as an internationally recognized "hallmark of excellence" that enhances a company's reputation and helps attract further partners and investment.

Conversely, the most significant barriers to participation are practical ones: the difficulty of finding suitable international partners (cited by 43% of firms), the administrative burden (40%), and the bureaucracy associated with securing national funding (38%). Once a project is underway, failure is often linked to common project management pitfalls, such as poorly defined objectives, changing requirements, a lack of senior management support, and ineffective communication within the consortium. Project withdrawals are also frequently caused by internal shifts in a participating company's corporate strategy, which can render the project's objectives obsolete.

V. The Future of Eureka: Navigating the Twin Transitions and the Next Innovation Wave

As Eureka approaches its fifth decade, it is undergoing another significant strategic evolution. While its foundational mission to bolster industrial competitiveness remains, the network is increasingly orienting its activities towards addressing pressing global societal challenges. Its future trajectory will be defined by its role in navigating the green and digital transitions, its deepening integration with the EU's broader research and innovation strategy, and its capacity to harness the transformative potential of disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence.

Strategic Reorientation: From Industrial Competitiveness to Societal Challenges

The evidence from Eureka's recent strategic planning and thematic calls points to a clear broadening of its focus. The "twin transitions"—green and digital—are now central pillars of its strategy. The Portuguese Chairmanship (2021-22) made collaboration on projects related to the European Green Deal a key priority, a focus that was continued by the subsequent Turkish Chair (2023-24). This strategic direction is reflected in a series of targeted, thematic calls for projects in areas such as sustainability, low-carbon technologies, and the circular economy.

Alongside sustainability, the concepts of resilience and technological sovereignty have gained prominence, largely in response to the vulnerabilities exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and rising geopolitical instability. In a direct and agile response to real-world events, a call for "Disaster Resilience, Recovery and Response" projects was launched in 2024, seeking innovations in areas from early warning systems and resilient construction to search and rescue technologies. This demonstrates a shift towards using the network's flexible instruments to generate solutions for acute societal needs, reinforcing the long-standing goal of fostering European "technological sovereignty" in critical domains.

The Road to 2030: Analysis of the Strategic Roadmap and Thematic Priorities for 2025

Eureka's current strategic roadmap is centered on the ambition to be the "best place for innovative companies to begin their collaborative R&D and grow internationally". The pipeline of funding calls for 2025 provides a clear window into the network's priorities, revealing a strong emphasis on deep tech and areas of strategic importance for European autonomy:

Quantum Technologies: A dedicated Network Projects call aims to accelerate the development of quantum computing, communications, and sensing. The objective is to support projects that can develop quantum technologies that outperform or augment existing classical technologies, solving problems relevant to industry and society.
Circular Value Creation: A major thematic call seeks to support projects that move beyond basic recycling to systematize sustainability across the entire product lifecycle. This includes developing new circular business models and leveraging enabling technologies like AI, IoT, and digital product passports to optimize resource use from design to remanufacturing and reuse.
Lightweighting Technologies: This call focuses on the intersection of advanced materials, additive manufacturing, and digitalization to create products that are lighter, use fewer resources, and have a reduced environmental impact, a key enabling technology for sectors like aerospace and automotive.
Artificial Intelligence and Robotics: AI is not just a standalone topic but a cross-cutting theme embedded within multiple calls, reflecting its status as a foundational technology for innovation in nearly every sector, from fighting crop diseases to enabling autonomous satellites.

This thematic focus indicates a sophisticated evolution of Eureka's model. While maintaining its core bottom-up flexibility through its open calls, the network is increasingly using strategically guided thematic calls to steer innovation towards areas of high economic and societal impact, ensuring alignment with Europe's overarching policy goals.

Synergies and the Path Forward with FP10: Eureka's Role in a More Integrated European Research Area

As the European Union begins planning its next multi-year Framework Programme (FP10, set to launch after 2027), Eureka is actively positioning itself as an indispensable partner. The high-level debate around FP10, including influential analyses like the Heitor Report, is replete with calls for the EU's flagship R&I programme to become less bureaucratic, more expert-led, more flexible, and more willing to embrace risk. These are precisely the qualities that have defined the Eureka model for decades.

In its official position paper on FP10, the Eureka network advocates for a more streamlined and integrated European innovation ecosystem. It calls for the creation of clearer, more formal pathways that allow successful projects and companies to graduate from Eureka's instruments to larger-scale EU programmes like the European Innovation Council (EIC). The paper highlights the proven efficiency of the Eurostars model, which demonstrates a powerful 1-to-7 leverage effect, where every euro of EU funding mobilizes seven euros of total public and private investment. This makes Eureka a highly cost-effective vehicle for the EU to achieve its policy objectives, particularly in supporting SMEs.

The future vision is one of deep and pragmatic synergy. In this model, Eureka would increasingly function as the agile "scout" and "incubator" for the broader European system. Its flexible, nationally-embedded structure allows it to identify and support promising, industry-led innovations at an early stage. The most successful of these can then be channeled towards the massive scaling power of EU instruments, creating a more coherent and impactful innovation pipeline for Europe. This positions Eureka not just as a complementary programme, but as an agile policy testbed where new funding and collaboration models can be piloted rapidly before being deployed at the full EU scale.

Expert Outlook: The Transformative Potential of AI and Deep Tech on Eureka's Model

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and data science is set to fundamentally reshape the process of research and development itself. AI tools are no longer just for analysis; they are becoming active partners in innovation, functioning as "knowledge managers, hypothesis generators, and assistants" that can dramatically accelerate discovery and problem-solving.

This technological shift presents both a profound opportunity and a significant challenge for the Eureka network. The future success of its participants, especially the SMEs it champions, will increasingly depend on their ability to adopt and integrate these AI-driven R&D methodologies. For Eureka itself, AI offers the potential to augment its own operations. Future expert networks will likely be AI-powered, using machine learning to streamline everything from identifying the most promising project ideas to facilitating the search for ideal international partners, making the entire network more efficient and effective.

However, the growing focus on deep tech fields like AI and quantum also presents a governance challenge. These areas often require massive, coordinated, and long-term investment in foundational infrastructure, talent, and standard-setting—activities that may be better suited to a more strategic, top-down approach, as seen in the Eureka Clusters, rather than a purely bottom-up one. The future of Eureka will likely involve a sophisticated balancing act: preserving the invaluable flexibility and agility of its bottom-up core while implementing more "guided" thematic calls in critical technology areas to ensure that the innovations it fosters are aligned with Europe's broader goals for strategic autonomy and global competitiveness.

VI. Recommendations and Strategic Outlook

After nearly four decades of facilitating cross-border innovation, the Eureka network has proven to be a uniquely resilient and effective instrument in the European R&D landscape. Its evolution from a politically-driven initiative to a global, multi-faceted network demonstrates a remarkable capacity for adaptation. Based on the comprehensive analysis of its history, impact, and future direction, several key recommendations emerge for its stakeholders.

Recommendations for Policymakers (National and EU)

Deepen and Formalize Synergies with FP10: The ad-hoc pathways between Eureka and EU programmes should be formalized into a "stairway to excellence." Policymakers should design explicit, well-communicated mechanisms that allow high-potential projects funded by Eurostars or Network Projects to seamlessly transition to follow-on support from the EIC or other relevant FP10 instruments. This would create a more coherent and legible support system for innovators.
Leverage Eureka as a Rapid Policy Instrument: The EU and national governments should fully embrace Eureka's agility by using it as a rapid deployment vehicle for strategic R&D initiatives. When new crises or technological opportunities emerge, a targeted, thematic Eureka call can be launched in a fraction of the time required for a full Framework Programme call, enabling a more dynamic response to a changing world.
Actively Counteract the "Matthew Effect": To ensure the benefits of Eureka are more widely distributed, national funding bodies in less R&D-intensive countries should proactively use their role as NPCs to foster consortium building. This could involve funding brokerage events, providing hands-on support in partner searches, and creating incentives for their national champions to join international projects, thereby helping to level the playing field.

Recommendations for Potential Participants (SMEs, Large Enterprises, Research Institutions)

Make a Strategic Choice of Instrument: Applicants should view Eureka's portfolio not as a single funding source but as a suite of strategic tools. A company's choice of instrument—Network Project, Cluster, or Eurostars—should be a deliberate decision based on its specific corporate objectives, whether that is speed-to-market, long-term ecosystem building, or SME-led innovation.
Leverage the Full Value of the Network: The primary value of Eureka extends beyond the grant funding. Participants should actively leverage the "Eureka label" to enhance their corporate image and credibility. Furthermore, they should view the project consortium not as a temporary arrangement but as the foundation for long-term international business and research partnerships that can provide value long after the project ends.

Concluding Remarks on Eureka's Enduring Relevance

The Eureka network has thrived for nearly forty years because its core principles—flexibility, decentralization, and an unwavering focus on industry-led, market-driven innovation—have allowed it to continuously adapt to a changing world. It was born as a response to the competitive pressures of the 1980s, expanded to unify a continent after the Cold War, and is now globalizing to meet the demands of 21st-century innovation.

Today, as Europe faces the twin challenges of the green and digital transitions and a renewed drive for technological sovereignty, Eureka's role is more critical than ever. It remains the primary platform for bottom-up, agile, international R&D collaboration, providing a vital and effective complement to the large-scale, strategic initiatives of the European Union. By continuing to evolve its model, deepen its synergies with other key players, and embrace the next wave of technological disruption, Eureka is well-positioned to remain a cornerstone of the European and global innovation ecosystem for decades to come.