The purpose of this study was to evaluate the support for innovation provided by the EU Research & Innovation Framework Programme, contributing to the ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020 and an interim evaluation of Horizon Europe, due at the end of 2024. The main objective was to assess how Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe's Innovative Europe related programme parts (Innovative SMEs, Access to Risk Finance, EIC Pilot, EIT KICs and Eurostars-2 partnership) and Pillar 3 programme parts (EIC, EIE, EIT KICs and Eurostars-3 partnership) interventions and actions support innovation, identifying their achievements, successes, and areas for improvement.
The study evaluated the implementation of Innovative Europe pillar using criteria such as relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, partnerships and the added value of Horizon Europe. Several key methods were employed in this evaluation:
• Desk research involved reviewing previous evaluations and studies, reports from EU institutions, Work Programmes, and relevant annual reports.
• 31 case studies were conducted, including cross-cutting studies for innovation in Horizon Europe as a whole.
• 7 benchmark studies were performed to provide comparative insights.
• The study team conducted 450 interviews with Programme Managers, researchers, relevant stakeholders, beneficiaries, and EC officials.
• Surveys were administered for the EIC and EIE programme parts, targeting beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants, with a separate EIC Accelerator survey for SMEs.
• Supporting methods includedmicroeconometric analysis, macroeconometric analysis (incl. NEMESIS model), patent analysis, company analysis, network analysis, analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and efficiency indicator analysis.
The main challenge of the study in Phase 1 (Horizon 2020) was the absence of a separate pillar dedicated to innovation in the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (FP). The study team encountered data inconsistencies during this phase. In Phase 2, the primary challenge was the early timing of the evaluation within the new FP, as most projects were still ongoing, limiting the analysis of effectiveness. Furthermore, the study team struggled with data inconsistencies across the covered programme parts.