Frequently Asked Questions

A low Impact score suggests that the proposal didn't adequately address commercial aspects like customer needs, market analysis, commercialization strategy, intellectual property, or regulatory considerations. It could also mean the European dimension of the project wasn't sufficiently emphasized.

The maximum score is 15, with the official threshold for success being above 13. However, an unofficial threshold of above 13.6 is often cited. Scores below 12 usually indicate significant issues with the project's innovation or the proposal's quality.

While specific flaws vary, common issues include neglecting customer needs, a weak commercialization strategy, unclear innovation, insufficient detail in work packages, and inconsistencies between different parts of the application. Addressing these areas can improve your score.

A score in this range suggests the proposal is generally well-written but lacks specific details needed to pass the unofficial threshold. Focus on customizing detailed changes to your project, addressing common flaws found in proposals with similar scores.

A low Implementation score implies weaknesses in the work packages, further development stages, tasks, team, partners, timing, budget, or other concrete development steps. This could be due to a lack of clarity on how the grant financing will be used or inconsistencies within the application.

A score below 12 indicates that extensive work is needed. You should re-evaluate the innovation of your project or seriously rework the proposal to improve its quality, clarity, design, quantifications, and explanations.

'Non-bankability' is a key criterion because the EIC Accelerator aims to fund projects that cannot secure financing from other sources. You need to demonstrate that your project is high-risk and requires further de-risking, making it unattractive to traditional investors.

This guide offers a more general approach to structuring the 'Technology' section, focusing on why the EIC Accelerator is needed instead of private investment. It prioritizes EU-specific narratives and omits some key sections to provide a clearer perspective on arguing for EIC support.

If your technological developments don't directly address the problem, they won't be viewed as essential, and your grant proposal's evaluation score will likely be low. Ensure a clear and direct connection between the problem and your solution.

Showcase any existing traction, such as pilot customers, validations, and Letters of Intent (LOI). This demonstrates that there's real-world interest in your product or service and helps to mitigate the perception of it being a new and unproven technology.

'Scaling' refers to the potential for your project to achieve global reach and become a future EU unicorn startup. You should explain why your project has the capacity to scale and quantify its potential impact on the environment, industry, and the EU.

Position the EIC Accelerator as the ideal solution for financing your innovation project. Explain how the EIC's support is crucial for solving the EU problem you're addressing and how it will act as a springboard to achieve commercialization.

The 'Technology' section should clearly present your innovative solution and explain how it directly addresses the problem you've identified. Highlight the unique selling points (USPs) of your technology and demonstrate that it's a 'must-have' solution, not just a 'nice-to-have'.

In this section, highlight the necessity of the work packages, the implementation plan, and the desired outcome of your project. Explain how the EIC Accelerator's funding will be used and why it's a crucial step in realizing your project's development.

If budget is a major constraint, carefully weigh the costs of internal preparation against the potential benefits of external expertise. Explore consultancies offering flexible payment plans or success-based fees. Remember that a well-prepared application can significantly increase your chances of securing funding.

Your team should possess strong writing, editing, and business planning skills. Experience in securing research grants, crafting commercial strategies, and incorporating feedback from investors is also crucial. Be realistic about your team's capabilities and seek external feedback if needed.

Review your past success in securing similar grants and funding. Evaluate your team's experience in writing business plans and commercial strategies. Seek feedback from investors and stakeholders on your existing materials to identify areas for improvement.

Reach out to multiple consultancies that specialize in EIC Accelerator grant writing. Many offer free initial assessments to evaluate your project's potential and provide feedback on its innovativeness and alignment with the program's criteria. This can help you make an informed decision.

Consider the consultancy fees versus the opportunity cost of internal team members spending time on the application. Evaluate the potential impact on product development and core business activities. Explore different consultancy options and their pricing structures to find a solution that fits your budget.

Yes, the special advantage for women, along with coaching support, might be shorter-lived than anticipated. The inclusion of non-binary gender options and potential political pressures could reshape the playing field and affect the enforcement of gender equity targets.

Excellent female entrepreneurs should seize the opportunity to apply to the EIC Accelerator now while high funding rates of 35% are still enforced. Political pressure might eventually lead to changes in the program's gender equity policies.

Potentially, yes. Because gender identity is defined as a 'deeply felt experience' without time limitations, there's a possibility that some male CEOs might designate themselves as non-binary to gain an advantage, especially if the status of non-binary becomes equivalent to that of a female applicant.

When the beneficial treatment of female CEO's was announced, it was also made clear that the respective person would have to be in the CEO position for a longer timeframe and not be elected CEO just for the purpose of the EIC Accelerator submission.

It's speculated that a CEO might dismiss critical jury questions about gender identity by stating, 'I would prefer not to discuss my gender identity.' This could potentially be used to avoid scrutiny or gain an advantage in the evaluation process.

The newest Horizon Europe grant proposal template now requires applicants to select their gender from the options of male, female, and non-binary. Previously, the 'undisclosed' option was available, which was effectively treated as male during the evaluation process.

The EIC Accelerator blended financing is a competitive funding program by the European Commission that provides both grant and equity funding to startups and SMEs. It aims to support innovative projects that address societal challenges and meet sustainability targets, with a strong emphasis on gender equity.

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

Gender equity targets have significantly benefited female entrepreneurs by increasing their funding rates from under 5% to 35% or higher. This gives female CEOs a slight advantage in the competitive EIC Accelerator application process, potentially making the difference between acceptance and rejection.

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.

Address your company's hiring practices, gender treatment policies, and the potential impact of your project on gender equality. Research and discuss any repercussions of your technology on gender differences to strengthen your application.

Refer to the European Commission's official website for the EIC Accelerator program. You can also find helpful resources and guidance on writing a strong proposal, including information on business models and evaluation criteria, from reputable consulting firms.

Yes, reapplying is a good idea. The threshold for interview invitations is lower for female CEOs, potentially giving your application a better chance of success in future cut-offs. Make sure your proposal is professionally written and of high quality.

While not as advantageous as having a female CEO, having female team members can still positively influence your application. The evaluation process considers gender equality policies within the company, so highlighting these efforts is beneficial.

The EIC Accelerator requires applicants to declare the gender of their CEO in the submission forms. If the gender is not declared, it is considered to be male by default. This information is used to ensure the selection quotas for female-led companies are met.

Having a female CEO can significantly improve your chances. The EU has implemented policies to increase the number of women-led companies receiving funding, even reducing the minimum score needed for an interview invitation for female CEOs.

No, having a female CEO doesn't guarantee funding. While it provides an advantage, your proposal still needs to be a high-quality business proposal with a strong evaluation score. The policy simply increases the chances of receiving an interview invitation.

The main areas to assess are the origin of the innovation (technical or industry-driven), how well it solves a customer pain point, the status of its intellectual property rights (IPR), and the barriers that prevent competitors from easily copying the innovation.

Understanding this relationship helps determine if the innovation is truly valuable and profitable. It reveals whether customers will actually want the innovation because it effectively addresses their needs and offers a compelling advantage over existing solutions.

Most innovative companies come from either a technical background (like university spin-offs) or an industry background (with close ties to stakeholders experiencing the customer pain point). These origins often indicate the quality and potential of the innovation.

No, it's unlikely. The EIC Accelerator prioritizes innovations that are not only different but also provide tangible benefits to customers, such as being easier to use or more cost-effective than existing alternatives. Simply being different isn't enough.

The EIC Accelerator defines innovation as something unique and new that has the potential to disrupt or create markets. They are looking for companies that can become future European unicorns, valued at over €1 billion, through groundbreaking innovations.

No, a patent alone doesn't guarantee a high score. While IPR is important, the application needs to clearly demonstrate how the innovation addresses customer needs and is superior to market alternatives. The patent is just one piece of the puzzle.

Innovation is the most important factor. The EIC Accelerator, managed by the European Innovation Council, prioritizes market-disrupting and market-creating companies. Therefore, a thorough assessment of the project's innovative nature should always be the first step.

Not necessarily. Sometimes, keeping an innovation secret can be a better strategy than patenting it. A patent can reveal too much information to competitors, potentially jeopardizing the startup's success, especially if the innovation is easily reverse-engineered.

Strong innovations should have barriers that prevent competitors from easily copying them. These barriers can include proprietary know-how, unique methods, strong IPR, a significant head start, or established commercial relationships and exclusivity agreements.

InDesign offers greater control over design, formatting, image quality, and PDF export, which can be crucial for meeting page and file size limitations. It avoids frustrating formatting glitches common in Word, especially during revisions. InDesign ensures a superior final outcome in terms of visual presentation.

Document 1 (Main proposal), Document 2 (Annexes), and Document 3 (Financial documents) each have a maximum file size of 10MB. Document 4 (Pitch deck) also has a 10MB limit.

Yes, InDesign is significantly better for handling documents with numerous embedded PDFs, such as CVs or support letters in Document 2. Its design focus and robust PDF handling capabilities make it superior to Word for managing large, visually rich documents.

No, the choice of software itself doesn't directly impact the evaluation. However, a well-designed and formatted proposal created with InDesign can present your information more effectively, potentially improving the overall impression and readability for the evaluators.

If extensive collaboration with tracked changes and comments is essential, Microsoft Word might be a better choice despite its formatting limitations. Consider assigning one person to finalize the formatting in InDesign after collaborative editing in Word.