Frequently Asked Questions

While there isn't a specific 'narrative' criterion, the introduction significantly influences the overall impression and perceived impact of your project. Impact is a key evaluation criterion, and a well-crafted introduction is essential for demonstrating the potential impact of your innovation.

The 'missing link' refers to the gap between what the EU wants to achieve and what it needs to avoid (negative repercussions). Your introduction should clearly illustrate this gap and position your innovation as the solution that bridges it.

When applications receive the same score, the EIC Accelerator prioritizes them based on the impact criterion first, then the excellence criterion, and finally gender balance. This highlights the importance of a strong impact narrative in your introduction.

Don't focus on writing an easy introduction that avoids highlighting the true impact of your innovation. It's crucial to make the problem relevant to the EU's goals and demonstrate how your solution directly addresses a significant need, even if it requires more effort.

The parable illustrates the mistake of focusing on what's easy rather than what's effective. Searching for the key under the streetlight is easier, but it won't lead to finding the key. Similarly, an easy-to-write introduction that avoids the real impact won't lead to funding.

Thoroughly research and understand the market, relevant trends, applicable policies, and financial pressures related to your innovation. This context is crucial for framing the problem and demonstrating the importance of your solution to the EU.

Rewrite the introduction as many times as necessary until you are confident that it perfectly reflects the impact of your innovation. It's not uncommon to revise it multiple times to ensure it effectively sets up the rest of the proposal.

The ultimate goal is to guide the reader directly to your innovation and clearly demonstrate its value. The introduction should make it obvious why your solution is essential for addressing a critical problem and achieving the EU's objectives.

The data used in this analysis comes from official EIC releases, CORDIS databases, and the EIC Accelerator Data Hub. AI was used to determine the industry of each project based on its description. Note that the EIC Accelerator Data Hub has been found to contain inaccuracies.

Blended finance (grant and equity) is the most popular funding type in Challenge Calls, followed by grant-first. There's slightly less interest in blended finance and more in grant-first compared to Open Calls, potentially reflecting the riskier nature of Challenge projects.

Open calls fund a wider variety of industries, with MedTech dominating. Challenge calls focus on specific technology areas like Energy, Battery, and Quantum Technology, showing the EIC's strategic priorities.

Energy and MedTech/Healthcare are the most frequently funded industries in EIC Accelerator Challenge Calls. Other well-represented industries include Battery, Quantum technology, and Semiconductors, aligning with the EIC's focus areas.

The EIC Accelerator has a strong focus on DeepTech, so MedTech/Healthcare, Biopharma, and Energy are the most frequently funded industries. However, the program also supports a diverse range of other industries, including Quantumtech, Aerospace, and Agriculture.

While the EIC Accelerator aims to support innovation across all eligible countries, a significant portion of funding has gone to companies in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. This raises concerns about whether the program is reinforcing the wealth of top countries rather than supporting areas where funding is less available.

Based on data from 2021-2024, the top countries in terms of the number of funded companies are France, Germany, and the Netherlands. These countries have secured a significant portion of the total EIC Accelerator awards.

The EIC Accelerator is primarily designed for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) and startups from EU member states and countries associated with Horizon Europe. These associated countries include Ukraine, Israel, and Tunisia. The program targets companies with DeepTech innovations that have the potential to scale globally.

Due to the increasing complexity of the EIC Accelerator application process, many companies rely on consultants for assistance. This can create a dependency and potentially disadvantage startups from low-GDP countries that cannot afford these services.

The EIC Accelerator offers several funding options, including blended finance (grant and equity), grant-first, grant-only, and equity-only. Blended finance has been the most popular option, while equity-only has been the least common.

A winning company can receive up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €15 million in equity financing, for a total of €17.5 million per project. The specific amount depends on the project's needs and the evaluation of the EIC.

Delays in equity investments are primarily due to structural difficulties and the EIC's inexperience with managing the fund, rather than issues caused by the beneficiaries themselves. While grant payments have been processed relatively smoothly, the equity component has faced significant hurdles.

Around 60% of high-scoring rejected proposals are implemented at a smaller scale, often relying on private financing or a combination of private and public funds. The absence of alternative funding is a major reason why some rejected proposals are never implemented.

The EIC Accelerator offers up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €15 million in equity investment per project, potentially totaling €17.5 million. This blended finance approach aims to support high-risk, high-impact innovations from startups and SMEs.

Non-bankability refers to companies that cannot secure funding from traditional private sources like banks or institutional investors due to the high risk associated with their projects. While the term has been officially removed, the application still asks why EIC funding is needed.

The EIC has set mandatory targets for female participation and has adjusted its definition of 'female-led' companies to include CTO and CSO positions, not just CEOs. However, there are concerns that changing the definition of the goal isn't the same as achieving true gender balance.

Yes, the evaluation process can be unpredictable, and some applicants report a sense of randomness in project selection. Resubmitted proposals with minimal changes sometimes succeed, undermining the credibility of the evaluation process.

In the past, many successful projects required 3 to 5 submissions. While resubmissions are now restricted, persistence can still be beneficial. Understand that the process can be random, and eligible projects may be rejected due to evaluator or jury selection.

Over 70% of applicants hire consultants due to the complexity and time-consuming nature of the application process. While consultants can be helpful, be aware that some may exploit the perceived obscurity of the guidelines.

If you don't have a company website, you can skip that field. However, providing as much relevant information as possible about your project is still important.

Clearly and concisely describe the type of writing services you are seeking. Be specific about your project goals, target audience, and any relevant deadlines.

Yes, including your LinkedIn profile can provide additional context about your professional background and experience, which can be helpful for me to assess your needs.

Writing time refers to the estimated number of days required to complete your project. This timeframe can vary depending on the complexity and scope of the work.

Please indicate your specific area of interest, such as grant writing, in your message or by selecting the appropriate option if a checkbox is provided. This helps me prioritize your request.

My fees are typically discussed after I understand the scope of your project. Please provide as much detail as possible in your initial contact so I can provide an accurate estimate.

At a minimum, include your name, email address, company (if applicable), and a brief message outlining your needs. Providing your website and industry can also help me understand your request better.

Knowing your location or country helps me understand potential time zone differences and tailor my services to your specific region or industry standards.

Yes, providing examples of past projects or references can be extremely helpful in understanding your expectations and ensuring I'm a good fit for your needs.

Please include your company name, industry, and website. This information allows me to quickly research your company and understand your specific needs and goals.

From a consultant's perspective, a good EIC evaluator is one who doesn't focus on minor flaws, and a good jury member is impressed by the team. This highlights the subjective nature of the evaluation and the importance of making a strong overall impression.

In Step 1, four evaluators assess the proposal, with at least three needing to approve it. In Step 2, three evaluators are involved, and all three must approve the project. A fourth evaluator may be added in Step 2 if there's a close rejection to provide an additional opinion.

Despite the randomness of the evaluation process, it's crucial to apply and give it your best shot. The potential impact of up to €12.5 million in funding is significant, so persistence and a well-prepared proposal are essential. Don't be discouraged by the challenges and seek expert help if needed.

Yes, every successful EIC Accelerator project has flaws. The key is to minimize the number of flaws and ensure they don't become critical issues in the eyes of the evaluators. Successful applicants manage to avoid the 'cuts' by presenting a compelling overall case.

The rebuttal system allowed applicants to respond to the evaluators' initial comments and address their concerns. It was removed in 2023 after the AI platform collapse. The removal means evaluators now assess proposals without access to previous feedback, potentially leading to new and inconsistent criticisms.

The evaluation process involves subjective assessments by different evaluators, each with their own biases and perspectives. This means that the same proposal can receive varying feedback and criticisms depending on who reviews it. The selection of evaluators is also random, contributing to the unpredictable nature of the process.

Flaws can be minor details, such as a missing chemical in the process description or inconsistencies in market report years. These aren't necessarily mistakes but points that lack detail and can be subject to the evaluator's interpretation. Addressing these potential points of concern is crucial.

The 75% certainty ratio in Step 1 means that at least three out of the four evaluators must be convinced that the project is good enough to proceed. This indicates that the EIC aims for a high level of confidence in the project's potential before moving it to the next stage.

'Death by a single cut' refers to the fact that failing in just one evaluation criterion is enough to get your EIC Accelerator proposal rejected. Even if your proposal excels in other areas, a single critical flaw can prevent you from receiving funding. This highlights the importance of addressing all potential weaknesses.

The EIC Accelerator program, funded by the European Commission and European Innovation Council, offers up to €2.5 million in grant funding and €10 million in equity financing to startups and SMEs. It's designed to support companies with highly innovative technologies and significant growth potential. The program is known for its competitive and complex application process.

The current process is bureaucratic and time-consuming, often taking 8-15 months with a low success rate. It prioritizes adherence to rules and buzzwords over genuine innovation, making it a poor use of resources for companies needing urgent funding.

Evaluators should prioritize assessing whether a company is impressive and a good fit for the EIC portfolio. This requires a more subjective approach, acknowledging that every company has flaws and focusing on overall potential rather than minor imperfections.

AI could be integrated into the evaluation process, but this may complicate and randomize the process further if not implemented effectively. Increased AI usage by applicants could also lead to a surge in submissions, straining resources and potentially diluting the quality of the evaluation.