From Ecosystems to Instruments: A Strategic Analysis of the European Union's Innovation Partnerships

Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive strategic analysis of the European Union's "Innovation Partnership" concept, tracing its fifteen-year evolution from an ambitious, high-level policy idea to a central, rationalized instrument of the EU's research and innovation (R&I) framework. The analysis reveals a fundamental tension and evolutionary journey between two competing philosophies: a bottom-up, challenge-driven approach aimed at fostering a dynamic innovation ecosystem, and a top-down, policy-aligned model designed to achieve specific strategic objectives.

The journey began in 2010 with the "Innovation Union" flagship initiative, which introduced the European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs) as a novel framework to break down silos and tackle societal grand challenges. These initial EIPs were primarily coordinating and advisory bodies, lacking dedicated funding and direct control over the instruments they sought to align. This structural weakness led to a subsequent bifurcation. On one hand, the term "Innovation Partnership" was codified in 2014 as a specific public procurement procedure for public bodies to acquire novel solutions. On the other hand, the broader collaborative spirit was channeled into the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, which saw a proliferation of nearly 120 different partnership models, inadvertently creating a new form of fragmentation.

The current state under the Horizon Europe programme (2021-2027) represents a direct response to this complexity. The landscape has been radically rationalized into a portfolio of around 50-60 partnerships organized under three clear structures: Co-funded, Co-programmed, and Institutionalised. This reform signifies more than mere simplification; it marks a profound strategic pivot. Partnerships are no longer just about fostering collaboration but are now key implementation tools for achieving the EU's core political priorities, namely the green and digital transitions and the pursuit of open strategic autonomy.

Performance analysis reveals a mixed legacy. The partnership model has been highly successful in leveraging private and national investment—with every euro of EU funding under Horizon Europe attracting approximately €1.63 from other sources—and in fostering cross-border, multi-stakeholder collaboration. However, a persistent "innovation divide" remains, with funding and coordination roles heavily concentrated in a few Western European Member States. Furthermore, evaluations consistently find that while partnerships excel at collaboration, they have fallen short in generating the expected volume of breakthrough, market-creating innovations. This critique has been partially addressed by the creation of the European Innovation Council (EIC), which now targets high-risk, high-gain innovation from individual entities, leaving partnerships to focus on more programmatic R&I within strategic value chains.

Looking ahead, the future of European Partnerships is being shaped by intensifying global competition and a growing emphasis on geopolitical resilience. The policy discourse for the next Framework Programme (FP10) is increasingly framed around competitiveness, supply chain security, and technological sovereignty. The partnership model is evolving from a purely R&I instrument into a tool of EU industrial and foreign policy. Its future success will be measured not only by scientific and economic outputs but also by its contribution to the EU's strategic autonomy in a contested global landscape. This report concludes with strategic recommendations for policymakers on designing future partnerships to maximize impact, ensure inclusivity, and enhance European competitiveness in this new era.

Part I: The Genesis of a Concept - European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs) and the Innovation Union

1.1 The Europe 2020 Strategy: Setting the Stage for an "Innovation Union"

The genesis of the European Innovation Partnership concept is inextricably linked to the political and economic context of the European Union in the late 2000s and early 2010s. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the EU sought a new long-term vision to restore economic stability and secure future prosperity. This culminated in the launch of the Europe 2020 strategy in March 2010, which set out a ten-year plan for "smart, sustainable and inclusive growth". The strategy was built upon five ambitious, measurable objectives for the Union to achieve by 2020, covering employment, R&D investment, climate and energy, education, and social inclusion.

Central to achieving these goals was a renewed focus on research and innovation. The European Commission's foundational communication, "Europe 2020," identified innovation as the primary engine for growth and the most effective means of tackling pressing societal challenges like climate change, resource scarcity, and an ageing population. To translate this ambition into action, the strategy established seven "flagship initiatives," each designed to drive progress in a key area.

Among these, the "Innovation Union" flagship, launched in October 2010 via the communication COM(2010) 546, was arguably the most critical for the EU's R&I policy. The communication presented a stark diagnosis of Europe's innovation landscape, citing chronic under-investment in knowledge compared to competitors like the US and Japan, unsatisfactory framework conditions such as expensive patenting and fragmented markets, and costly duplication of efforts. The document framed the situation as a critical juncture, arguing that "business-as-usual equals gradually losing our competitive advantages, and accepting Europe's steady decline". The Innovation Union proposed a broad concept of innovation that went beyond new products to encompass services, marketing methods, business models, and collaborative arrangements, aiming to create an environment where great ideas could be turned into products and services that generate growth and jobs. It was within this strategic framework, as one of over thirty action points, that the concept of European Innovation Partnerships was born.

1.2 The EIP Concept: A New Approach to Tackle Societal Grand Challenges

The European Innovation Partnership (EIP) was introduced as a fundamentally new approach to organizing and stimulating research and innovation in Europe. Critically, it was not conceived as a new funding instrument in itself, but rather as a high-level framework designed to foster a "new innovation ecosystem". The core purpose of the EIPs was to accelerate the development and market deployment of innovations by acting across policies, sectors, and national borders to tackle major societal challenges while simultaneously enhancing the competitiveness of European industry.

The EIP model was explicitly designed to overcome the limitations of existing Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) like European Technology Platforms (ETPs) and Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs). Whereas previous instruments often focused on specific parts of the innovation chain, the EIPs were intended to act across the whole chain, from research to market uptake, by focusing on both the supply side (developing new technologies) and the demand side (creating markets through regulation, standards, and public procurement). Their primary function was to streamline, simplify, and better coordinate existing instruments and funding streams, breaking down the "silos" that separated different policy areas (e.g., research, industry, health), funding sources (EU, national, regional, private), and stakeholder groups (academia, industry, public authorities, civil society).

The operational role of an EIP was therefore primarily advisory and coordinating. They were envisioned as platforms that would "inform, advise and influence" existing initiatives. A multi-stakeholder "Steering Group" would be established for each EIP, tasked with developing a Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP). This plan would formulate concrete suggestions on how to better align and pool resources from various sources to reduce the time-to-market for R&I breakthroughs. The EIPs were thus an experiment in strategic coordination, aiming to achieve critical mass and greater efficiency without creating new layers of bureaucracy or new funding lines.

1.3 The Five Pilot EIPs: An Analysis of Intent and Structure

Following the conceptual launch in the Innovation Union communication, the European Commission moved to test the EIP model through a series of pilots. The first, launched in early 2011, was the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP-AHA). This pilot vividly illustrated the challenge-driven nature of the concept. Its headline objective was not simply to fund research, but to achieve a tangible societal outcome: to increase the average number of healthy life years for EU citizens by two by the year 2020. This "triple win" objective aimed to improve citizens' quality of life, ensure the sustainability of health and care systems, and create new market opportunities for EU businesses. The EIP-AHA's Strategic Implementation Plan, adopted in November 2011, outlined work packages focused on prevention, integrated care, and independent living, bringing together a wide range of actors from the health, ICT, and social care sectors.

The perceived promise of this new approach led the Commission to propose four additional EIPs in 2012 and 2013, each targeting a distinct societal challenge:

Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI): Launched in 2012, this EIP aimed to foster a competitive and sustainable farming and forestry sector that could "achieve more from less," ensuring a steady supply of food and biomaterials while working in harmony with the environment.
Water (EIP Water): Proposed in May 2012, this partnership sought to accelerate innovation in the water sector to manage growing pressure on water resources sustainably. It brought together actors from urban and rural water management, industry, and finance to connect the supply and demand sides of water innovation.
Raw Materials: Adopted in October 2012, this EIP was developed in the context of the 2008 Raw Materials Initiative. Its goal was to ensure a secure and sustainable supply of non-energy, non-agricultural raw materials for the European economy, which are vital for high-tech manufacturing and green technologies.
Smart Cities and Communities (EIP-SCC): Launched in July 2012, this partnership reframed an earlier initiative to create a platform for improving urban life through integrated solutions in energy, transport, and ICT.

These five EIPs shared a common DNA. They were all challenge-driven, focused on mobilizing a broad range of stakeholders across the entire innovation chain, and tasked with developing a Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) to guide the alignment of existing initiatives and funding. They represented the EU's most ambitious attempt to date to orchestrate a coordinated, pan-European response to large-scale societal problems.

1.4 Initial Assessment: A Tool for Collaboration, Not Direct Funding

From the outset, it was clear that the EIP model was fundamentally different from traditional funding programmes. The EIPs brought "no new funding arrangements per se" but were intended to drive the alignment of priorities and leverage existing investments. They were platforms for dialogue and coordination, intended to influence how existing money was spent rather than distributing new funds themselves.

However, this very structure contained a critical weakness that was identified early on. A 2014 evaluation of the EIP framework concluded that the ambitious objective of creating a new, integrated innovation ecosystem would "not be reached given the framework used for their implementation". The experts involved in the evaluation argued that for the EIPs to succeed, they needed to be evaluated on their capacity to drive large-scale systemic change, but the tools at their disposal were insufficient for this task.

This early critique foreshadowed the subsequent evolution of the EU's partnership approach. The initial EIP concept was ideologically ambitious but structurally weak. It represented a political desire to coordinate innovation policy across the EU without granting the EIPs the institutional power or dedicated financial levers necessary to enforce that coordination. Their primary instrument was the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP), a guidance document that relied on the voluntary cooperation of myriad independent actors controlling their own budgets. The EIPs were, in essence, an experiment in "soft power" innovation policy. The finding that this approach was inadequate to fundamentally reshape the fragmented R&I landscape demonstrated that influence without direct financial control is insufficient to overcome the inertia of entrenched national and EU systems. This realization was a key driver behind the EU's subsequent pivot towards more structured, legally-defined, and co-funded partnership models under the Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe programmes, where shared financial commitment became the central pillar of the partnership concept.

Part II: The Bifurcation and Fragmentation - Procurement Tools and the Horizon 2020 Landscape

2.1 Directive 2014/24/EU: The "Innovation Partnership" as a Formal Procurement Procedure

As the high-level strategic EIPs were taking shape, a parallel and distinct development occurred that would become a source of lasting confusion. The 2014 EU Public Procurement Directives, specifically Directive 2014/24/EU, introduced a new, formal procedure named the "Innovation Partnership". It is crucial to distinguish this specific procurement tool from the broader, ecosystem-building EIPs.

The Innovation Partnership procedure is a practical instrument designed for a public contracting authority (e.g., a city, a government agency) that has a need for an innovative product, service, or works that cannot be met by purchasing anything already available on the market. It uniquely allows the authority to enter into a structured, phased partnership with one or more suppliers to conduct the necessary research and development (R&D) and then, if successful, to purchase the resulting solution on a commercial scale. This effectively combines the stages of pre-commercial procurement (PCP) and public procurement of innovative solutions (PPI) into a single, streamlined procedure.

The mechanics of the procedure are clearly defined. It is structured as a competitive procedure with negotiation, meaning the technical specifications are not fixed from the outset due to the innovative nature of the project. Tenders are awarded based on the best price-quality ratio, which is deemed most suitable for comparing innovative solutions. The partnership is structured in successive phases aligned with the R&D process, with intermediate targets that must be met by the partners. The contracting authority has the power to terminate the partnership after each phase or, if multiple partners are involved, to reduce the number of partners, thereby managing risk. A critical prerequisite is a thorough market consultation to confirm that no existing solution can meet the authority's needs. This procurement tool, while sharing the name "Innovation Partnership," operates on a completely different level—as a transactional tool for public buyers—than the strategic, policy-coordinating EIPs.

2.2 The Horizon 2020 Framework: Proliferation and Fragmentation

The EU's main R&I funding vehicle during this period was the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, which ran from 2014 to 2020 with a budget of nearly €80 billion. While it was the financial instrument meant to implement the Innovation Union, the way it adopted the partnership concept led to a landscape characterized by proliferation and complexity. Instead of a single, unified partnership model, Horizon 2020 supported a diverse and often overlapping array of partnership types, which co-existed and created a confusing ecosystem for potential participants.

This fragmented landscape included several major categories of partnerships:

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): These were collaborations between the EU and private sector partners. They were primarily implemented through two main instruments:
- Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) / Joint Undertakings (JUs): These were long-term, institutionalized partnerships with dedicated legal structures and management, often focused on strategic industrial sectors like innovative medicines (IMI), clean aviation (Clean Sky), and electronic components (ECSEL).
- Contractual Public-Private Partnerships (cPPPs): These were more flexible partnerships based on a contractual arrangement between the Commission and industry associations to implement a common research agenda. Examples included Factories of the Future, Big Data Value, and Cybersecurity.
Public-Public Partnerships (P2Ps): These initiatives aimed to coordinate the research programmes of Member States and were addressed to public bodies. The main instruments were:
- ERA-NET Cofund: This instrument supported public research funders in implementing a single joint call for proposals with EU top-up funding, building on the earlier ERA-NET scheme.
- European Joint Programme (EJP) Cofund: This was a more ambitious instrument supporting the implementation of a joint programme of activities over five years, including research, coordination, and training.
Other Partnership Forms: Alongside these formal PPPs and P2Ps, other collaborative structures continued to operate, including the original European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs), European Technology Platforms (ETPs), the European Institute of Innovation and Technology's Knowledge and Innovation Communities (EIT-KICs), and the large-scale Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) Flagships like the Graphene Flagship and the Human Brain Project.

By 2017, this proliferation had led to a situation where around 70 EU PPPs were active, and the total number of partnership initiatives under Horizon 2020 eventually grew to almost 120. A critical report from that period noted that while these instruments helped define common priorities, their multiplication had ironically created a "new form of fragmentation," with different types of partnerships often focusing on similar fields.

2.3 Legal and Financial Frameworks under Horizon 2020

The legal and financial underpinnings for all Horizon 2020 projects, including these varied partnerships, were established with a stated goal of simplification compared to the previous Framework Programme (FP7). The cornerstone legal text was the Regulation on the Rules for Participation and Dissemination, which laid out the conditions for participation and the management of project results.

A key simplification measure was the introduction of a single, standard Model Grant Agreement (MGA) for most project types, replacing the multiple different models used in FP7. This MGA, a substantive document of over one hundred pages, outlined the contractual obligations for all beneficiaries signing a grant with the Commission.

The financial model was also simplified. For most research and innovation actions, a single reimbursement rate of 100% of direct eligible costs was applied for all participants, with a 25% flat rate to cover indirect costs (overheads). A notable exception was for "innovation actions"—those closer to the market—where for-profit entities received a lower reimbursement rate of 70% of direct costs, a measure designed to reflect the higher potential for commercial exploitation.

The rules governing Intellectual Property (IP) were also refined with a stronger focus on exploitation and impact. Building on the proven regulations of FP7, the Horizon 2020 rules clarified aspects of ownership, access rights, and dissemination, including a strong push for Open Access to scientific publications. The terminology was updated, with the term "results" replacing the previous "foreground," but the core principles remained. The overarching goal was to ensure that the knowledge and intangible assets generated in EU-funded projects could be more effectively protected and translated into commercial and economic benefits.

The Horizon 2020 era thus represents a "messy middle" in the evolution of EU partnerships. It was a period of intense experimentation that successfully operationalized the collaborative spirit of the original EIPs into a multitude of concrete, funded mechanisms. However, in doing so, it failed to solve the original problem of fragmentation. Instead, it recreated it at the instrument level, leading to a complex, crowded, and often confusing landscape for innovators and researchers. This over-complexity and lack of coherence became the primary justification for the radical simplification and strategic rationalization of the partnership model that would follow under Horizon Europe.

Part III: The Current State - Rationalisation and Strategic Alignment in Horizon Europe

3.1 A New, Rationalised Architecture

The transition from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe (2021-2027), the EU's current and most ambitious R&I programme with a budget of €95.5 billion, marked a watershed moment for European Partnerships. Acknowledging the "new form of fragmentation" created by the previous framework, the European Commission undertook a major reform aimed at rationalizing the partnership landscape and making it more strategic, coherent, and impact-driven.

The complex and crowded field of nearly 120 partnership initiatives under Horizon 2020 was streamlined into a much smaller, more manageable portfolio. The first Horizon Europe Strategic Plan (2021-2024) identified an initial list of 49 candidate European Partnerships, establishing a clear, centrally planned portfolio. This rationalization was accompanied by the introduction of a simplified architecture with only three distinct implementation modes, or "types," of partnership:

Co-programmed European Partnerships: These are the most direct successors to the contractual PPPs (cPPPs) of Horizon 2020. They are based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the European Commission and private partners, typically large industry associations. The partners jointly develop a strategic research and innovation agenda, but the implementation is decoupled. The EU's financial contribution is delivered through standard, competitive calls for proposals within the relevant Horizon Europe Work Programmes, while the private partners commit to making their own matching investments in activities aligned with the agenda. This model is relatively simple to implement and is used for partnerships like "Made in Europe" and "AI, Data and Robotics".
Co-funded European Partnerships: This model builds on the experience of the ERA-NETs and EJPs from Horizon 2020. It is a partnership between the Commission and a consortium of national and/or regional public research funding organizations. The partners agree on a joint programme of activities, which they implement themselves, most notably through the launch of transnational joint calls for proposals. The European Commission provides co-funding for these activities, typically at a rate of 30% or 50%, through a single grant agreement with the consortium. This model is designed to align national research strategies and pool resources, as seen in partnerships like "Biodiversa+" and "Innovative SMEs".
Institutionalised European Partnerships: These are the most integrated and complex form of partnership, reserved for long-term strategic initiatives where a high degree of integration is necessary and other forms are deemed insufficient. They require the adoption of specific EU legislation (based on Articles 185 or 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU) and are implemented by dedicated legal structures known as Joint Undertakings (JUs). This category also includes the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). Examples include the Clean Hydrogen JU, the Chips JU, and the Innovative Health Initiative (IHI) JU.

3.2 Strategic Alignment: Driving the Green and Digital Transitions

The reform of the partnership landscape was not merely an exercise in simplification; it represented a profound shift in strategic purpose. Under Horizon Europe, partnerships are explicitly defined as "objective-driven and more ambitious" instruments designed to contribute directly to achieving the EU's overarching political priorities. The focus has moved from the relatively broad "societal challenges" of Horizon 2020 to the highly specific, policy-driven goals of the twin green and digital transitions, strengthening European resilience, and ensuring the EU's "open strategic autonomy".

This strategic alignment is hard-wired into the selection and design of the partnerships. The portfolio was co-designed with Member States and stakeholders through the Horizon Europe strategic planning process to ensure that each partnership addresses a specific area of strategic importance where collaboration is essential. The expected impacts of the partnerships are now directly linked to key EU policy initiatives like the European Green Deal, the EU Industrial Strategy, and the Digital Decade policy programme.

Examples of this tight policy alignment are abundant across the portfolio:

The Clean Steel Partnership aims to develop breakthrough technologies for carbon-neutral steel production, directly supporting the Green Deal's climate targets.
The Smart Networks and Services (SNS) JU is tasked with developing 6G technology capacities to ensure European technological sovereignty in a critical digital field.
The Batt4EU Partnership works to establish a competitive and sustainable European industrial battery value chain, a cornerstone of both the green transition (for electric mobility and energy storage) and strategic autonomy (reducing dependence on foreign battery suppliers).

This shift reflects a more interventionist approach, where partnerships are used not just to foster innovation in general, but to steer R&I activities towards solving specific problems and building capacity in targeted industrial ecosystems deemed critical for Europe's future.

3.3 The Broader Ecosystem: The Role of the European Innovation Council (EIC) and EU Missions

To fully understand the role of European Partnerships in Horizon Europe, they must be viewed within the context of the programme's other major new instruments: the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the EU Missions. The introduction of these new elements has allowed for a clearer division of labour in the EU's innovation support landscape.

The European Innovation Council (EIC) was established as a flagship initiative to support breakthrough, disruptive, and often deep-tech innovations that are considered too risky for private investors alone. It operates primarily through two funding schemes aimed at individual entities or small consortia:

EIC Pathfinder: Supports early-stage research on radical new technologies with high potential (TRL 1-4).
EIC Accelerator: Provides a unique blend of grant funding (up to €2.5 million) and equity investment (up to €15 million) to help individual startups and SMEs scale up their game-changing innovations (TRL 5-9).

The EIC's focus on individual, high-risk/high-gain innovators is distinct from the programmatic, collaborative, and more strategically directed nature of the European Partnerships. The EIC is designed to nurture the "acorns" of breakthrough innovation, while the Partnerships are designed to cultivate the "forests" of strategic industrial ecosystems.

The five EU Missions (on Cancer, Climate Adaptation, Oceans and Waters, Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities, and a Soil Deal for Europe) represent another new approach. Missions are portfolios of actions—cutting across different disciplines, sectors, and policy areas—that aim to achieve bold, inspirational, and measurable goals within a set timeframe. They are designed to mobilize public engagement and deliver tangible solutions to problems that citizens care about. The relationship between Missions and Partnerships is one of complementarity and required coherence; for example, the Mission on Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities works in synergy with partnerships like Driving Urban Transitions (DUT) and 2ZERO (Towards zero-emission road transport) to achieve its goals.

3.4 Governance and Monitoring: The Biennial Monitoring Report (BMR)

Coinciding with the new strategic approach, Horizon Europe introduced a more robust governance and monitoring framework for partnerships to ensure accountability and track progress towards their ambitious goals. A central element of this new framework is the Biennial Monitoring Report (BMR) on European Partnerships.

The BMR is designed to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based overview of the entire partnership landscape. Published every two years (the first edition was in 2022), it uses a set of common indicators to monitor the performance of all partnerships, allowing for a consistent and comparative analysis. The report assesses progress towards objectives, analyzes contributions to EU policy goals (like the green and digital transitions), and provides a country-by-country snapshot of participation and performance. It is intended to be a key tool for strategic discussions and for guiding the implementation of the partnerships throughout their lifecycle.

This enhanced monitoring is supported by platforms like ERA-LEARN, which provides guidance, tools, and good practices to the partnership community, and events like the annual Partnership Stakeholder Forum, which brings together all relevant actors for networking and policy discussion.

This comprehensive reform under Horizon Europe represents a fundamental philosophical shift. The previous approach, particularly under Horizon 2020, could be characterized as "letting a thousand flowers bloom," resulting in a vibrant but fragmented and difficult-to-navigate landscape. The new approach is akin to "cultivating a strategic garden." The EU is no longer acting merely as a passive funder of collaborative innovation but as a strategic director. The rationalization of the portfolio, the tight alignment with political priorities, the clear division of labour with the EIC, and the implementation of a centralized monitoring system all point to a more interventionist, industrial-policy-oriented approach to R&I. The EU is now actively using the partnership model to steer the direction of European research and innovation towards pre-defined strategic goals, a move that fundamentally changes the nature of these public-private collaborations.

Part IV: Performance Analysis - A Deep-Dive into Winners, Losers, and Impact

4.1 Funding and Participation Landscape: A Macro View

The financial commitment to partnerships has grown substantially over the last decade, cementing their role as a central pillar of the EU's R&I strategy. Under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), partnerships accounted for 9.1% of the budget. This share more than doubled to 21.5% under Horizon 2020, reflecting their increasing importance.

With the launch of Horizon Europe, this commitment has intensified further. European Partnerships are expected to represent approximately 25% of the total Horizon Europe budget of €95.5 billion. Their concentration is even more pronounced within Pillar II, "Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness," where they account for nearly 50% of the budget, making them the primary tool for tackling large-scale industrial and societal goals.

The scale of the financial leverage is a key performance indicator. For the initial 49 partnerships launched under Horizon Europe, the total committed budget was estimated at €55.3 billion, comprising €23.9 billion from the Horizon Europe budget and a leveraged commitment of €31.4 billion from public and private partners. The 2024 Biennial Monitoring Report (BMR) updated these figures, showing a planned EU investment of €24.9 billion leveraging nearly €40 billion from partners. This translates to an overall leverage ratio of 1.63, meaning every euro invested by the EU attracts an additional €1.63 from other sources, a significant contribution towards the EU's overall goal of investing 3% of GDP in R&D. This leverage effect varies by partnership type, with EIT KICs showing the highest ratio (2.35), followed by Co-funded (2.17), Institutionalised (1.44), and Co-programmed (1.39) partnerships.

Metric	Horizon 2020 (2014-2020)	Horizon Europe (2021-2027)
Total FP Budget	~€80 billion	€95.5 billion
Approx. Number of Partnerships	~120	60 (49 in first plan, 9 new, plus PRIMA)
Share of FP Budget to Partnerships	21.5%	~25% overall; ~50% of Pillar II
Total Committed Partner Investment	~€3 billion (national, for P2Ps)	~€40 billion (all partners)
Overall Leverage Ratio	Not systematically tracked across all types	1.63 (all activities)
Primary Strategic Goal	Addressing broad societal challenges	Driving specific EU policy priorities (Green/Digital)

4.2 The Geographic Divide: Analysis of Participation by Member State

Despite the goal of strengthening the European Research Area (ERA), participation and funding in partnerships remain geographically concentrated, revealing a persistent "innovation divide" between different groups of countries.

Analysis of Horizon 2020 data showed that half of all funding was awarded to organizations in just four countries: Germany, the UK, France, and Spain. This trend has largely continued into Horizon Europe. A 2024 report on country participation shows that the "Non-Widening" Member States (the EU-15, or older member states) account for the lion's share of activity, representing 56% of all unique applicants and requesting 68% of the total EU contribution. In contrast, the "Widening" Member States (the 13 countries that joined the EU since 2004) account for only 20% of unique applicants and 16% of the requested contribution.

While the share for Widening countries has seen a modest increase from Horizon 2020 (where they received 8% of the total EU contribution and represented 12.3% of participants), a significant gap clearly remains. This disparity is also reflected in leadership roles. The coordination of partnerships is highly concentrated among the most research-intensive countries, with France, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and Spain being the most active, a fact often attributed to their more extensive national administrative resources and well-funded R&I systems. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where countries with strong initial capacity are better positioned to lead and attract further funding, while others struggle to catch up.

4.3 The Beneficiary Matrix: Distribution by Organisation Type

The distribution of funding and participation also varies significantly by the type of organization involved. Data from the first three years of Horizon 2020 (2014-2016) showed that Higher Education establishments (HES) and Private for-profit companies (PRC) were the dominant applicants, submitting 38.4% and 36.1% of applications respectively. They were followed by Research Organisations (REC) with 18.2%.

This pattern has shifted somewhat in Horizon Europe. HES remain the leading applicants (39%), but the share of private companies has decreased to 29%, while Research Organisations hold steady at 20%. In terms of funding received, HES also lead, followed by private non-profit organizations and RECs.

Network analysis studies reveal deeper patterns about influence and funding success. Research indicates that organizations from the EU-15 countries tend to hold more central positions in collaboration networks than those from Widening, associated, or third countries. Furthermore, while academic institutions are numerous, projects coordinated by private companies (PRC) or public bodies (PUB) have a higher probability of securing greater amounts of funding than those led by universities (HES) or research centers (REC). This suggests that while academia is crucial for generating proposals and network connections, industry and public authorities are often more successful in leading large, high-value projects.

Organisation Type	Participation Share (%)	EU Contribution Share (%)
	Non-Widening EU	Widening EU
Higher Education (HES)	High	Moderate
Private for-profit (PRC)	High	Low
Research Orgs (REC)	High	Moderate
Public Bodies (PUB)	Moderate	Low
Other (OTH)	Low	Low

Note: This table represents a qualitative synthesis of trends identified in monitoring reports. Precise quantitative data crossing these two dimensions is not readily available in a consolidated format.

4.4 The SME Conundrum: From Broad Support to Targeted Excellence

The EU's strategy for supporting Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) through innovation funding has undergone one of the most significant transformations between Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. This reflects a major strategic pivot from a policy of broad-based support to a more focused, venture capital-style approach.

Under Horizon 2020, the SME Instrument was a key feature, particularly its "Phase 1," which provided small grants (€50,000) to a very large number of companies to fund feasibility studies. This approach resulted in high SME participation rates across the programme, with SMEs accounting for 41.1% of all participants. This was a "support" model, aimed at fostering a wide base of innovation capacity across a large number of smaller firms.

In Horizon Europe, this model was abandoned. The SME Instrument was discontinued, primarily due to concerns about the low progression rate from Phase 1 to Phase 2 and high administrative costs relative to grant size. It was replaced by the highly selective and competitive EIC Accelerator. The Accelerator offers a powerful combination of substantial grant funding and direct equity investment to a much smaller number of high-potential, "game-changing" innovators with scalable business models.

This strategic shift has had a clear impact on participation metrics. The overall share of SME participants in Horizon Europe has dropped to 33.9%. However, the total funding flowing to SMEs has increased significantly, driven by the large equity injections from the EIC Fund. In the first three years of Horizon Europe, SMEs received €6.6 billion, compared to €11.7 billion over the full seven years of Horizon 2020. This is a deliberate pivot from a support model to an "investment" model. The "winner" in this new paradigm is the high-growth, high-risk, venture-capital-ready startup. The "loser" is arguably the more traditional SME seeking smaller grants for incremental innovation. This strategy represents a significant gamble: that creating a few European "unicorns" will yield greater overall economic impact than supporting thousands of smaller innovators—a hypothesis whose outcome is still unfolding. Alongside the EIC, the co-funded Innovative SMEs Partnership (the successor to the Eurostars programme) continues to provide a crucial avenue for R&D-performing SMEs to engage in international collaborative projects.

4.5 Case Study Evaluations: Assessing the Legacy of the Initial EIPs

Evaluating the long-term impact of the five original EIPs provides crucial lessons on the effectiveness of the partnership model in different sectors.

EIP-AGRI (Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability): This EIP is widely regarded as a success story. Formal evaluations have consistently praised it as a flexible and effective tool for bridging the gap between academic research and farming practice. Its distinctive bottom-up, farmer-led approach, implemented through "Operational Groups," has been highly appreciated by stakeholders for fostering genuine co-creation of practical solutions. The EIP-AGRI is seen as a vital instrument for building coherent national and regional Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS). While challenges related to administrative burdens and the need for better knowledge dissemination remain, the model's core validity is proven, and it continues to be funded under the new CAP Strategic Plan, with recent calls focusing on themes like environmental sustainability and regenerative agriculture.
EIP on Raw Materials: This partnership was instrumental in elevating the strategic importance of raw materials and significantly increasing R&I funding for the sector, which grew from approximately €180 million under FP7 to €600 million under Horizon 2020. A key legacy is its robust monitoring and evaluation framework, which includes the biennial Raw Materials Scoreboard, a tool providing quantitative data to inform policymaking. The work and strategic direction of the EIP have directly fed into subsequent, more binding EU policies, most notably the Critical Raw Materials Act, which now sets concrete targets for the EU's domestic capacity in mining (10%), processing (40%), and recycling (25%) of strategic raw materials by 2030.
EIP on Smart Cities and Communities (EIP-SCC): The most tangible legacy of the EIP-SCC is the creation of the Smart Cities Marketplace. This platform merged the original EIP's marketplace with the Smart Cities Information System (SCIS) to create a central hub for the smart city ecosystem. The Marketplace functions as a market-changing undertaking, bringing together cities, industry, SMEs, and investors. It uses an "Explore-Shape-Deal" matchmaking process to help develop ideas into bankable projects, and has successfully matched over 130 projects with more than €600 million in investments. The EIP was a key catalyst for pooling resources and promoting integrated thinking across the previously siloed sectors of energy, transport, and ICT in the urban context. Its work continues through the Marketplace and is closely linked to the EU Mission on Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities.
EIP on Water: This EIP was launched to accelerate the uptake of innovative solutions for Europe's water challenges by tackling barriers in funding, regulation, and public procurement. It successfully initiated projects like WaterPiPP, which explored and tested methods for innovation-oriented public procurement in the water sector. While the EIP on Water as a distinct entity has concluded, its objectives and network have been absorbed into the broader EU water policy framework. Its legacy is visible in the new European Water Resilience Strategy and the ambitious Horizon Europe Mission "Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030," which continues to fund R&I in areas like water security, pollution reduction, and ecosystem restoration with significant budgets.
EIP on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP-AHA): As the first EIP pilot, the EIP-AHA successfully mobilized a large, multi-stakeholder community and put active and healthy ageing on the EU policy map. Its key achievements include the development of the MAFEIP (Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the EIP-AHA), an impact assessment tool to support evidence-based decision-making, and the "Blueprint on Digital Transformation of Health and Care". The initiative has evolved from its original form and its work is now continued through the "Active and Healthy Living in the Digital World" multi-stakeholder hub, which focuses on the scaling-up and deployment of digital health tools, aligning with the EU's Green Paper on Ageing. Related programmes, such as the Active and Assisted Living (AAL) Programme, continue to be evaluated positively for their relevance in addressing Europe's demographic challenges through ICT-based solutions.

Part V: Critical Assessment and Systemic Challenges

5.1 The Effectiveness Paradox: Collaboration vs. Breakthrough Innovation

A central and recurring theme in the evaluation of European Partnerships is a fundamental paradox regarding their effectiveness. On one hand, the model is consistently praised for its success in achieving process-oriented goals. Multiple analytical assessments have concluded that EIPs and their successors are "very efficient in promoting collaboration among innovation stakeholders". They have proven effective at bringing together diverse actors from academia, industry, and the public sector, aligning research agendas, and pooling resources to tackle complex problems in a coordinated manner.

On the other hand, there is a persistent critique that this success in fostering collaboration has not translated into the expected level of tangible, market-creating output. The same assessments that praise the collaborative aspect also find that the partnerships have "fallen short of breeding innovation activity of the expected scope and scale". This points to a widespread perception that while Europe is proficient at generating ideas and fostering research networks, it remains weak in the crucial subsequent stages of commercialization, scaling up innovative companies, and producing disruptive technologies that can compete globally. This "valorization gap" suggests that while partnerships are an effective tool for organizing the "R" in R&D, they may be less suited to driving the "I" of market-creating innovation, a challenge that the creation of the more targeted European Innovation Council (EIC) is intended to address.

5.2 Administrative and Regulatory Hurdles

The performance of partnerships is intrinsically linked to the broader European innovation ecosystem, which is hampered by several systemic and well-documented barriers.

Administrative Complexity and Bureaucracy: Despite continuous efforts at simplification from FP7 to Horizon 2020 and now Horizon Europe, the administrative burden remains a significant challenge for participants. The European Court of Auditors (ECA) has consistently identified systemic errors in financial reporting by beneficiaries of partnership projects, particularly in the declaration of personnel and equipment costs. This indicates a level of complexity in the rules that even experienced participants struggle to navigate perfectly, creating overhead and risk.
Market Fragmentation: A primary obstacle to scaling up innovation in Europe is the absence of a truly unified single market for new products and services. Innovators and companies emerging from partnerships face a patchwork of differing national regulations, tax systems, intellectual property (IP) frameworks, and standards. This fragmentation makes it difficult and costly for a successful innovation in one Member State to be deployed across the EU, hindering the growth of European companies compared to their counterparts in more homogenous markets like the US or China.
Risk Aversion and Access to Finance: The European financial ecosystem is often characterized as more risk-averse than that of the US. This is particularly true for venture capital, where the pool of available funding is smaller and less geared towards early-stage, high-risk technology ventures. This financial conservatism extends to the public sector, where public procurement is not always effectively used as a tool to drive demand for innovative solutions, often favouring lowest-cost offers over more innovative, lifecycle-costed approaches.
Skills Shortages: A lack of specific skills is a frequently cited barrier to innovation and growth. This includes not only technical expertise in cutting-edge fields but also crucial managerial and entrepreneurial skills needed to scale a business, navigate international markets, and secure financing. This shortage is felt most acutely by innovative SMEs and can limit their ability to absorb and exploit the results of partnership projects.

5.3 Findings from the European Court of Auditors (ECA)

The European Court of Auditors, as the EU's independent external auditor, provides critical oversight of the financial management and performance of European Partnerships, particularly the institutionalized Joint Undertakings (JUs). Their annual reports have highlighted several recurring issues:

Partner Contributions: A primary concern flagged by the ECA is that contributions from private and public partners are "not always at the agreed level". In its 2023 report, the ECA noted that several JUs under Horizon 2020, including the Circular Bio-Based Europe (CBE) and European High-Performance Computing (EuroHPC) JUs, had failed to achieve their targets for private-member in-kind contributions. This is a critical issue, as the leverage of private and national funding is a core justification for the partnership model.
Project Delays and Financial Management: The ECA has also pointed to delays in project implementation within some JUs, leading to the accumulation of unused EU funding. In the case of the Fusion for Energy (F4E) JU, which manages Europe's contribution to the massive ITER fusion project, the auditors have warned of significant risks related to cost estimates and a high degree of reliance on external service providers, which could lead to poor knowledge retention.
Calls for Transparency: In light of these findings, the ECA has called for greater transparency and accountability. A key recommendation from the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe was that a full and public list of the members of JUs and co-programmed partnerships should be made available. This would allow for independent assessment of the extent to which partners are meeting their legal and contractual obligations to contribute financially to the partnerships' objectives.

5.4 The Challenge of Coherence and a Crowded Landscape

The EU's innovation policy has evolved into a complex "multi-instrument" system, and a primary challenge is ensuring coherence and effective interfaces between these different instruments. While Horizon Europe rationalized the partnership landscape, the ecosystem now includes the powerful new EIC and the ambitious EU Missions, creating a new set of coordination challenges.

The relationship between the programmatic, collaborative partnerships and the individual-focused, high-risk EIC is particularly critical. These instruments are designed to be complementary: an EIC Pathfinder project might develop a breakthrough technology that is then scaled up by a company funded by the EIC Accelerator, which could later join a large institutionalized partnership to integrate the technology into an industrial value chain. However, ensuring this smooth flow and effective "handover" of projects, knowledge, and companies from one instrument to another across a complex bureaucratic landscape is a significant challenge. The success of the entire system depends not just on the performance of each individual instrument, but on the effectiveness of the interfaces between them.

This "system-of-systems" integration is the next major frontier for EU innovation policy. Evaluations have already highlighted the need for better valorization of research results and the creation of more effective synergies between different parts of the framework programme. The future effectiveness of European Partnerships will therefore depend not only on their internal management and the commitment of their partners, but increasingly on their ability to successfully integrate with, and build upon, the outputs of the EIC, the European Research Council (ERC), and the EU Missions. Mastering this complex innovation pipeline is the key to translating Europe's collaborative strength into tangible, market-leading innovation.

Part VI: The Future Trajectory - European Partnerships Beyond 2027

6.1 The Horizon Europe Strategic Plan (2025-2027): New Partnerships and Evolving Priorities

The strategic direction for the final years of the Horizon Europe programme (2025-2027) signals a continued and even deepened reliance on the partnership model as a key tool for achieving EU policy objectives. The second Horizon Europe Strategic Plan, adopted in March 2024, maintains the three key strategic orientations established at the programme's outset: the Green transition, the Digital transition, and building a more Resilient, Competitive, Inclusive and Democratic Europe.

Significantly, the plan elevates the concept of "Open Strategic Autonomy" to an overarching principle that cuts across all three orientations, reflecting the EU's heightened focus on reducing dependencies and strengthening its position in a tense geopolitical landscape. This strategic imperative is directly reflected in the decision to launch a new wave of partnerships. The plan introduces nine new co-programmed and co-funded European Partnerships, bringing the total portfolio to 58. The chosen topics for these new partnerships are highly strategic and directly address areas of industrial and technological vulnerability or opportunity for the EU, including:

Brain Health
Innovative Materials for the EU
Raw Materials for the Green and Digital Transition
Solar Photovoltaics
Textiles of the Future
Virtual Worlds

The creation of partnerships in areas like raw materials and photovoltaics is a clear response to the need to build resilient domestic supply chains and reduce reliance on non-EU countries for critical technologies, demonstrating the model's direct application as an instrument of the EU's industrial strategy.

6.2 Shaping FP10: Key Debates on Competitiveness, Simplification, and Strategic Autonomy

As Horizon Europe enters its final phase, discussions are intensifying around the design of its successor, the 10th Framework Programme (FP10), which is set to begin in 2028. These debates are taking place against a backdrop of significant budgetary pressures—including the need to repay borrowing from the NextGenerationEU recovery fund—and a powerful political narrative centered on European competitiveness.

A central and potentially disruptive proposal, floated by the European Commission in its initial reflections on the post-2027 EU budget, is the creation of a large, overarching "Competitiveness Fund". This fund would aim to support strategic sectors along the entire investment journey, from research to manufacturing. This has sparked concern among research stakeholders, who worry that R&I funding could be subsumed into this broader fund rather than being protected within a standalone, science-driven FP10, potentially diluting the focus on fundamental, curiosity-driven research. The Commission's rationale is to overcome the fragmentation and rigidity of the current budget structure and provide seamless financing from lab to market, a long-standing challenge for the EU.

The theme of simplification is also paramount in the FP10 discussions. There is a strong push to reduce the number of overlapping funding instruments and to create a "true single point of entry" for beneficiaries to access all EU funding and advisory services, which would be a major overhaul of the current system.

6.3 The Future of Public-Private Collaboration: Recommendations from Key Stakeholders

A consensus is emerging among key stakeholders that while the partnership model is valuable, it needs further refinement for FP10. Influential reports and stakeholder groups have put forward several key recommendations:

The Draghi Report on the Future of European Competitiveness, a highly anticipated input for the next Commission, is expected to call for public-private partnerships that are simpler in their structure and governance and more sharply focused on key priorities. It also emphasizes the need for increased funding for ground-breaking basic research to feed the innovation pipeline.
The European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC), representing Member States, has issued an opinion on FP10 calling for the selection process for partnerships to be more open, transparent, and conducted in "true co-creation" with Member States and stakeholders from a much earlier stage.
Leading research and technology organizations, such as those represented by EARTO, advocate for reinforcing the strategic policy advisory role of partnerships, developing a better portfolio approach to reduce duplication and foster synergies, and significantly decreasing the administrative burden, particularly around the accounting of in-kind contributions.

There is a clear and consistent call to "double down on what works" by using partnerships to address entire industrial value chains, while simultaneously increasing their flexibility and strategic impact.

6.4 Anticipated Disruptions and Long-Term Vision for EU R&I Funding

The long-term vision for European Partnerships is increasingly shaped by external factors, moving beyond purely R&I objectives. The concept of "partnership" is expanding to become a primary instrument of the EU's broader foreign and industrial policy. The EU's Global Gateway strategy, for instance, aims to build "mutually beneficial strategic partnerships" with third countries to secure supply chains, promote sustainable development, and counter the influence of global competitors. Future partnerships, especially in areas like critical raw materials, clean energy, and digital technologies, will be integral to this agenda.

Furthermore, the growing importance of security and defence is beginning to influence R&I policy. Expert reports are now recommending closer collaboration between civil and defence research communities and greater investment in dual-use R&I to bolster Europe's security, autonomy, and competitiveness. This could lead to the creation of future partnerships that explicitly bridge the civil-defence divide.

This trend represents the final stage in the evolution of the partnership concept: its "geopoliticization." The journey began with the EIPs, which were focused on solving internal EU societal challenges like ageing and water quality. It evolved under Horizon Europe to partnerships aligned with internal policy goals like the Green Deal. Now, looking towards FP10 and beyond, the value of a partnership will increasingly be measured by its contribution to the EU's geopolitical resilience and strategic autonomy. Success will be defined not just by patents filed or papers published, but by the ability to secure a critical supply chain, develop a European technological alternative to a foreign-dominated market, or solidify a strategic alliance with a key international partner. This transforms the European Partnership from a scientific and economic instrument into a fully-fledged tool of 21st-century statecraft.

Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

The fifteen-year evolution of the European Union's Innovation Partnership concept reveals a dynamic and often reactive policy journey. It began with the ambitious, high-level vision of the European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs), designed as ecosystem-building frameworks to break down silos and tackle grand societal challenges through coordination and influence. This idealistic but structurally weak model gave way to a bifurcation: the creation of a specific "Innovation Partnership" procurement tool and the proliferation of a fragmented landscape of diverse partnership models under Horizon 2020. The current state, under Horizon Europe, is a direct response to this complexity—a rationalized, streamlined portfolio of Co-funded, Co-programmed, and Institutionalised Partnerships.

This latest iteration represents a fundamental strategic pivot. The partnership model has been transformed from a tool for general collaboration into a primary instrument for implementing targeted EU policy, driving the green and digital transitions and reinforcing Europe's strategic autonomy. While this approach has succeeded in leveraging significant private and national investment and fostering large-scale collaboration, it continues to face persistent challenges. These include a stubborn geographic innovation divide, administrative complexity, and a perceived gap between successful collaboration and the generation of breakthrough, market-creating innovations.

As the EU looks towards its next Framework Programme (FP10) in an era of heightened geopolitical competition, the role of partnerships will only become more critical. They are no longer just R&I instruments but tools of industrial, economic, and foreign policy. To maximize their future impact, policymakers should consider the following strategic recommendations:

Balance Strategic Direction with Bottom-Up Flexibility: While aligning partnerships with EU priorities is essential, FP10 must create protected spaces and mechanisms within or alongside the partnership structure for more exploratory, bottom-up, and potentially disruptive ideas that do not fit neatly into pre-defined strategic agendas. This could involve ring-fencing a portion of partnership budgets for open, non-prescriptive calls to maintain a healthy balance between top-down direction and bottom-up discovery.
Implement True Simplification and Reduce Burden: The administrative burden, especially for SMEs, newcomers, and partners providing in-kind contributions, remains a significant barrier. For FP10, the EU should move towards radical simplification, such as adopting more trust-based models for smaller partners, simplifying the calculation and reporting of in-kind contributions, and establishing a genuine single-entry point for all related EU funding that provides harmonized rules and guidance.
Actively Bridge the Innovation Divide: The concentration of funding and leadership roles in a few Member States undermines the goal of a cohesive European Research Area. Future partnership design must include stronger, mandatory mechanisms to foster integration. This could include incentivizing consortia that feature meaningful leadership roles for entities from Widening countries, dedicating specific work packages to capacity-building, and using Cohesion Policy funds more synergistically to prepare regional innovation ecosystems for participation in high-value partnerships.
Optimize the Instrument Mix and Interfaces: The effectiveness of the entire EU innovation system depends on the smooth functioning of the interfaces between its core instruments. The Commission should establish clearer pathways and dedicated "handover" mechanisms for promising technologies to transition from the ERC and EIC to relevant European Partnerships for further development and industrial scaling. This requires proactive portfolio management at the EU level to ensure the instruments are complementary in practice, not just in theory.
Strengthen Partner Commitment and Accountability: To address the recurring issue of partners not meeting their contribution targets, as flagged by the European Court of Auditors, the EU must enforce greater accountability. This should include making the full membership and committed contributions of all institutionalized and co-programmed partnerships publicly transparent. Furthermore, the legal frameworks for these partnerships should include clearer, more enforceable clauses regarding partner commitments, with consequences for non-compliance, to ensure the principle of leverage is robustly upheld.