Wednesday, October 15th, 2025
On 16 September 2025, the European Commission convened an Implementation Dialogue at The Square, Brussels, under the leadership of Ekaterina Zaharieva, Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation. The event, attended by more than 1,000 participants on site and online, was dedicated to one of the most pressing concerns for Horizon Europe beneficiaries: how to make the programme simpler, more transparent, and more accessible.
The session opened with Tony Lockett and Matias Will of DG Research and Innovation, who explained the format of the dialogue. They noted that discussions would be structured around three major stages of the Horizon Europe journey: proposal submission, evaluation, and simplified cost options. The Commission encouraged participants to provide honest and practical feedback, emphasising that implementation is where the success of Horizon Europe is ultimately measured.
Commissioner Zaharieva then set the tone. She acknowledged that, despite the Commission’s stated objective of simplification, many beneficiaries perceive Horizon Europe as even more complex than its predecessor, Horizon 2020. She stressed that her mandate from the President was clear: to engage directly with stakeholders and identify what works, what does not, and how to fix it.
The first thematic block addressed the process of submitting proposals. Participants highlighted the increasingly prescriptive nature of Horizon Europe work programmes, which can now extend beyond 3,000 pages, and noted that the proliferation of partnerships often confuses applicants rather than helps them. Non-financial requirements such as gender equality plans, open science practices, and the “Do No Significant Harm” principle were also seen as adding to the administrative burden.
Stakeholders were broadly supportive of two-stage proposal procedures but called for shorter timelines, particularly in Stage 1, to reduce the cost and effort of preparing applications. There was a strong call for more bottom-up opportunities, rather than narrowly defined topics that leave little room for creativity. The Funding and Tenders Portal was described as difficult to navigate, with participants urging the Commission to introduce smarter filters and real-time eligibility checks. Small businesses and startups, in particular, stressed that the current system imposes such a heavy burden that many must rely on consultants to apply at all.
The second part of the dialogue turned to evaluation. Commissioner Zaharieva recognised the need to build trust in the system and pointed to ongoing pilots, such as blind evaluation, as well as the possibility of randomisation in cases where too many proposals achieve top scores but exceed available budgets.
Stakeholders, however, raised concerns about the consistency and clarity of evaluation feedback. Applicants often receive contradictory comments when resubmitting projects, which undermines their confidence in the system. Many felt that compliance elements, such as gender and open science, were given disproportionate weight compared to scientific excellence. There were also calls for more evaluators from industry and for stronger representation of interdisciplinary expertise. Above all, participants asked for evaluation reports written in clear and actionable language, rather than bureaucratic phrasing. One widely supported proposal was to shift compliance requirements into Part A of the application, as simple check-boxes, leaving Part B fully dedicated to assessing excellence and methodology.
As noted by Fernando Liesa from ALICE:
“Shifting compliance or requirements for projects execution, e.g. Gender dimension, Open Science practice, use of GNSS, into Part A of the application, as simple check-boxes, leaving Part B fully dedicated to assessing excellence, methodology and pathways to generate impact seems a sensible approach to ensure best proposals in terms of contribution to knowledge and impact are funded.”
The third thematic block focused on the use of simplified cost options, particularly lump sums. Commissioner Zaharieva explained that the Commission’s aim was to reduce reporting costs by around 30 percent. Yet stakeholder reactions were mixed.
SMEs, newcomers, and research organisations such as CNRS in France reported that lump sums had indeed reduced their administrative burden. However, larger companies and experienced universities were more sceptical, arguing that lump sums shift the burden towards technical reporting and internal consortium controls. They also pointed to inconsistent communication from project officers and uncertainty about audit procedures, which creates additional risks.
Several suggestions emerged from the discussion: lump sums should remain optional and not imposed on large or complex projects; they should be targeted mainly at smaller and simpler projects; and clearer written guidance and templates are urgently needed. Some participants even suggested exploring hybrid models, such as payments tied to the delivery of milestones or outputs, as a way to balance simplicity with accountability.
In her closing remarks, Commissioner Zaharieva admitted frankly that Horizon Europe is still too complex and prescriptive. She committed to increasing the number of bottom-up calls, shortening time-to-grant to around one year, and making evaluation feedback clearer and written in what she called “human language.” She also defended the use of lump sums but underlined that they should not be mandatory in every case and must be accompanied by better guidance and consistency.
Looking forward, the Commissioner highlighted that the next Framework Programme (FP10, 2028-2034) will aim to double the EU’s research and innovation budget, operate more simply, and be strongly results-oriented. Horizon Europe, however, still has two and a half years left, during which improvements to its implementation and simplification must be made to ensure it delivers maximum value for researchers, innovators, and European citizens.