High-Level Expert Group on Maximising the Impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes

High-Level Expert Group on Maximising the Impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes
Name	High-Level Expert Group on Maximising the Impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes
Formed	2016
Jurisdiction	European Union
Purpose	Review and enhance impact of EU research and innovation funding
Parent agency	European Commission

High-Level Expert Group on Maximising the Impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes

The High-Level Expert Group on Maximising the Impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes was an ad hoc advisory body established by the European Commission in 2016 to assess Horizon 2020 and advise on reforms for subsequent frameworks such as Horizon Europe. Convened under the remit of Carlos Moedas and reporting to Commissioners, the Group produced recommendations intended to shape budgetary, strategic and governance decisions by institutions including the European Council and the European Parliament.

Background and Mandate

The Group was created against the backdrop of debates involving Jean-Claude Juncker's Political Guidelines, the mid-term review of Horizon 2020, and preparatory work for the next multiannual financial framework debated by the Juncker Commission. Its mandate drew on prior evaluations such as those by the European Court of Auditors and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and intersected with initiatives led by European Research Council stakeholders, national agencies like the French National Centre for Scientific Research and funding bodies including Innovate UK and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The Group was tasked to analyse impact pathways used by European Investment Bank-supported projects, coordinate with Joint Research Centre assessments, and propose mechanisms to improve exploitation and uptake across Member States and associated countries such as Switzerland and Norway.

Membership and Leadership

Membership combined figures from academia, industry, civil society and funding institutions, featuring leaders drawn from institutions like the Max Planck Society, CNRS, Karolinska Institutet, and firms comparable to Siemens and SAP SE. The chair and vice-chairs included senior figures who had served on boards such as the European Research Council Scientific Council and advisory panels to prime ministers and ministers of science in Member States like Germany, France, and Sweden. Representatives included laureates of awards such as the Royal Society honours and former directors from agencies like Science Foundation Ireland and the National Science Foundation (United States) who had experience with programmes such as FP7 and bilateral instruments involving European Economic Area partners.

Key Recommendations and Reports

The Group produced a flagship report that recommended structural reforms: improving coherence between thematic clusters in Horizon Europe and programmes like the Digital Europe Programme, strengthening links to the European Innovation Council, and creating stronger pathways from research outputs to market adoption via instruments modelled on the European Investment Fund and targeted missions inspired by the Apollo program and the Human Genome Project. It advocated increased use of open science practices aligned with policies from Science Europe, incentives for interdisciplinary consortia involving institutions such as ETH Zurich and Imperial College London, and enhanced metrics drawing on indicators used by the Scimago Institutions Rankings and the Times Higher Education impact frameworks. The Group's recommendations included proposals for simplification of grant rules referencing precedents from Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and harmonisation with state-aid rules supervised by the European Court of Justice.

Implementation and Influence on EU Policy

Elements of the Group's agenda were reflected in the design of Horizon Europe, the establishment of the European Innovation Council, and the adoption of mission-oriented research approaches championed in communications from Ursula von der Leyen and successive Commissioners. The Commission incorporated suggestions into work programmes, drawing on models used by CERN for consortium governance and by pan-European initiatives such as the European Open Science Cloud. Budgetary adjustments were negotiated through the Council of the European Union and parliamentary scrutiny by committees of the European Parliament including the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. National research ministries in Member States like Italy, Poland, and Spain referenced the Group's analyses when aligning national programmes and conditionalities attached to cohesion funds administered by the European Investment Bank.

Reception and Criticism

The Group's proposals received support from research councils and industry associations such as BusinessEurope and Science Europe for prioritising impact and innovation. Critics from parts of the academic community, including commentators associated with organisations like the European University Association and trade unions linked to the European Trade Union Confederation, argued that emphasis on economic impact risked sidelining basic research exemplified by institutions like the Max Planck Society and École Normale Supérieure. NGOs and policy analysts from think tanks such as the Bruegel and the Centre for European Reform questioned the feasibility of some administrative simplifications given constraints imposed by the European Court of Auditors and legal frameworks shaped by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Legacy and Subsequent Developments

The Group's work influenced subsequent policy instruments, contributing to the integration of impact assessment modules in grant evaluations used by the European Research Council and to the operationalisation of missions within Horizon Europe. Its emphasis on transfer mechanisms catalysed new collaborations among national agencies including ANR, CSIC, and regional development authorities across the European Committee of the Regions. Follow-up initiatives included task forces housed in the European Commission and ad hoc reviews by the European Court of Auditors that revisited effectiveness and value-for-money in large-scale programmes, while debates informed by the Group continue to shape discussions in venues such as COP26-adjacent research fora and OECD ministerial meetings.

Category:European Union advisory bodies