Frequently Asked Questions

Assess your project's suitability for the EIC Accelerator, your team's internal skill level, your ability to divert focus from core business activities, and your financial resources. Carefully weigh these factors to make an informed decision.

Consider your budget for the writing process and the opportunity cost of internal team members spending time on the application. Compare the cost of a consultant to the potential revenue generated by product development activities during that same time.

Preparing an application, including potential resubmissions, can take a significant amount of time, potentially 30 to 60 days initially, and even longer with revisions. Consider the time needed to research the evaluation process and prepare for the evaluation interview.

Even the most innovative company needs excellent proposal writing to secure the EIC Accelerator grant. The application template is simplified and doesn't fully reflect what the application should contain. Strong writing skills are essential to clearly communicate your project's value and impact.

The EIC Accelerator Grant is a funding opportunity for early-stage startups and established SMEs. It aims to support the further development of innovative products with significant commercial and European impact. This grant is highly competitive, so a strong application is crucial for success.

A strong track record of obtaining research grants, extensive experience in writing business plans, crafting commercial strategies, and receiving exhaustive feedback from investors are all good indicators. If you have these, you may be well-positioned to write the proposal yourself.

Assess your project's innovativeness, commercial traction, European impact, and the strength of your team. It's recommended to get a free assessment from multiple consultancies regarding your project's quality, especially its innovative character, to gauge its suitability.

The author advises female entrepreneurs to apply to the EIC Accelerator as soon as possible. They suggest that the current high funding rates for female-led companies (around 35%) might not last indefinitely due to evolving policies and political pressures.

In the past, applicants to the EIC Accelerator could choose to omit their CEO's gender or select 'undisclosed' in the Funding & Tenders Portal. However, in practice, selecting 'undisclosed' was often treated the same as selecting 'male' during the evaluation process.

If a male CEO identifies as non-binary, it could potentially allow them to dismiss jury questions about their gender identity by stating they prefer not to discuss it. This could be used to deflect scrutiny and potentially gain an unfair advantage in the evaluation process.

The author suggests that political pressure could lead to changes in how the EIC Accelerator handles gender equity targets. Democratic government organizations may prioritize political considerations over existing policies, potentially impacting the advantages currently offered to female entrepreneurs.

The European Commission defines 'non-binary' as an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is not fully encompassed or represented by 'man' or 'woman'. Non-binary identities are varied, and individuals may identify with some aspects of binary identities or reject them entirely.

When the beneficial treatment of female CEOs was introduced, the EIC stipulated that the person must have been in the CEO position for a reasonable amount of time. This was to prevent applicants from simply appointing a female CEO solely for the purpose of the EIC Accelerator application.

The European Commission defines gender identity as a person's deeply felt internal and individual experience of their own gender, whether as a man, a woman, or non-binary. This identity may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth.

The newest Horizon Europe grant proposal template now requires applicants to select their gender from the options of male, female, or non-binary. This is a significant change that could impact how the EIC Accelerator's gender equity targets are met in the future.

The EIC Accelerator program has implemented gender equity targets to increase funding rates for female entrepreneurs. Historically, female-led companies received a small percentage of funding, but these targets aim to boost that number significantly, giving female CEOs a competitive advantage during the evaluation process.

Potentially, yes. The article suggests that if being non-binary is treated similarly to being female in the evaluation process, there might be an incentive for male CEOs to identify as non-binary to gain an advantage, as there are no specific lifestyle or behavioral requirements associated with being non-binary.

Yes, the EIC Accelerator has always considered gender equality. The proposal template and evaluation results include comments on gender-related policies, which can affect the proposal's score. Also, if two applications have the same score, the number of female team members can be a deciding factor.

Address hiring practices, gender treatment within your company, and the broader impact of your project on gender equality. Research and discuss any potential gender-specific repercussions of your technology to strengthen your application.

The EIC Accelerator applicants declare the gender of their CEO within the submission forms. If the gender is not declared, it is considered to be male by default, so be sure to declare the correct gender.

The EIC Accelerator is looking for innovative technologies with significant scale-up potential. If you are a woman working on such a project, you should consider applying, as you may have a substantial advantage.

No, the quality of the application is still crucial. While the threshold for invitation might be lower for female CEOs, the proposal must still be professionally written and demonstrate a high-level business concept to be considered for funding.

Yes, the EU has implemented policies to increase the number of female entrepreneurs funded through the EIC Accelerator. This includes a lower threshold score for female CEOs to receive an interview invitation, increasing their chances of being selected.

The initial goal was to allocate 25% of EIC Accelerator funding to women-led companies. In the May cut-off, this target was exceeded, with 34% of the selected companies being led by female CEOs.

The shares of invited and funded women-led companies have increased significantly. Compared to earlier in 2020, the overall rise is estimated to be 5- to 17-fold in just six months, showing a substantial improvement in female representation.

Yes, the new policy could increase your chances of receiving an interview invitation in future cut-offs. The lower threshold for female CEOs might make the difference between being invited and not being invited.

If the quotas are not being reached during a single interview week, previously rejected female-led companies may be eligible for a runner-up interview to help reach the 25% target.

That's perfectly acceptable. Sometimes, a patent can reveal too much information to competitors. Protecting an innovation through trade secrets or other means can be a valid strategy, especially if it provides a stronger competitive advantage.

The innovation! The EIC Accelerator, managed by the European Innovation Council, prioritizes funding market-disrupting and market-creating companies. Therefore, understanding the innovative nature of the project is the crucial first step before evaluating other aspects.

Typically, they originate from two main areas: either a strong technical background (like a university spin-off with cutting-edge R&D) or close ties to industry stakeholders experiencing the customer pain point firsthand. Innovations usually fall into at least one of these categories.

No, not at all. While patents are important, they're just one piece of the puzzle. The proposal needs to clearly explain how the innovation directly solves customer needs and is significantly better than alternatives. A patent alone doesn't prove substantial innovation.

Very important. The EIC wants to fund innovations that are difficult to copy. Strong barriers to entry, whether through know-how, proprietary methods, IPR, or commercial advantages, are crucial for long-term success and a positive evaluation.

A strong innovation assessment is key to preparing a competitive EIC Accelerator proposal. By thoroughly evaluating the innovation's origin, its ability to solve customer pain points, its IPR status, and the barriers to entry, you significantly increase the chances of a successful application.

This article focuses on innovation. You can find parts 2 and 3, which cover traction and the team respectively, by following the links provided within the article.

It's absolutely critical. An innovation can be technically impressive, but if it doesn't address a significant customer pain point or offer a clear advantage over existing solutions (easier to use, lower cost), customers won't adopt it. The EIC heavily screens for innovations that are both innovative and profitable.

Barriers to entry can include things like specialized know-how that's hard to replicate, proprietary methods or processes, strong intellectual property rights (IPR), a significant head start in the market, or established relationships with key industry players and customers.

Focus on the origin of the innovation (technical or industry-driven), how well it solves a customer pain point, the strength and relevance of its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and the barriers that prevent competitors from easily copying it.

The EIC Accelerator offers blended financing, which combines grant funding with equity investment. This approach aims to provide comprehensive support for innovative SMEs with high-growth potential.

The preliminary, but official, proposal template for the EIC Accelerator's Step 2 application is available online. Look for a link within the official EIC Accelerator documentation or announcements.

The suspension was implemented to update the platform and add features to Step 1. While the exact nature of the changes isn't specified, expect some improvements or new functionalities upon its reopening on June 22nd.

Yes, absolutely. Since the Step 2 proposal template is already available, you should start preparing your application now. This will give you a head start when the submission portal opens on June 9th.

The blog post mentions insufficient announcements from the EIC regarding the suspension. Applicants should actively monitor the official EIC website and communication channels for updates and clarifications.

Unfortunately, if you haven't already submitted your Step 1 application, you won't be able to apply for the June deadline. However, you can still apply for the final 2021 deadline in October.

Step 1 submissions were temporarily suspended on May 5th, 2021 to allow the EIC IT team to update the platform and add new features. This closure was unexpected as the call was designed to be continuously open. Submissions are scheduled to reopen on June 22nd.

The official proposal template for Step 2 has already been published. The Step 2 application process will be officially launched on May 17th, and you'll be able to submit your application starting June 9th.

Over 1,200 Step 1 applications were successfully submitted between April and the date of the suspension on May 5th. This indicates a high level of interest in the EIC Accelerator program.

The suspension disrupts the intended continuous application process. Applicants need to adjust their timelines and strategies based on the new deadlines and submission windows provided by the EIC.

The EIC Accelerator application includes Document 1 (main proposal), Document 2 (annexes), Document 3 (financial documents), Document 4 (pitch deck), an abstract, submission forms, and optional ethics documents. Documents 1-4 are submitted as PDFs, with size limits. Financial documents also require an XLS/ODS version.

InDesign offers superior control over design, image quality, file size, and PDF export compared to Word. It's particularly useful for managing large documents with embedded PDFs, like Document 2 (annexes), and ensures a professional final product.

Consider your collaboration needs, design requirements, and technical skills. If you prioritize collaborative editing and are comfortable with Word, it might be suitable. If you need precise control over design and are comfortable with a steeper learning curve, InDesign is a better choice.