Societal impact in Horizon Europe: ambition vs. structural constraints

Societal impact has become a central objective in European research and innovation policy. Across Horizon Europe, programmes increasingly emphasise collaboration with societal actors, co-creation, and real-world uptake of research results.

Yet in practice, achieving societal impact remains structurally challenging.

A position paper on participatory research (Participation as Imposition, “Partizipation als Zu-Mutung”) provides a useful lens to understand these challenges. While the paper focuses on participatory research systems, its findings point to broader structural issues that affect how societal impact is generated across European R&I programmes.

Insights & learnings from EU-funded projects

Many of the challenges described in the position paper reflect our experience working in EU-funded research and innovation projects across Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020, and FP7.

At PNO Innovation, we support consortia from proposal development through to project implementation – particularly in strategic proposal design, coordination support, dissemination, impact planning, and stakeholder engagement. In this role, we contribute to shaping the structural conditions under which participatory approaches are implemented.

Across projects such as AGILE, R2D2-MH, DRIVER+, DAREnet, FOCUS and CURSOR, we observe a recurring pattern: participatory approaches are increasingly embedded at programme level, but in practice often constrained by rigid project structures, limited resources, and insufficient recognition of non-technical impact.

Participatory engagement tends to lose effectiveness when:

• project formats allow limited flexibility for adaptive processes
• coordination, facilitation, translation, and relationship-building work remains structurally underfunded
• evaluation frameworks undervalue non-technical outcomes such as trust-building or social learning
• project timelines do not allow for long-term engagement and ownership

Structural challenges in societal impact generation

While many EU projects demonstrate how participatory research can be meaningfully integrated into R&I processes that engage stakeholders in active collaboration, we continue to observe recurring structural limitations that directly affect impact generation:

• Co-creation is often treated as a complementary method rather than an integral part of research design
• Project formats provide limited flexibility for iterative or adaptive engagement
• Budgets do not sufficiently account for coordination, translation, and relationship-building work
• Evaluation and reporting systems fail to capture non-technical outcomes such as trust, learning processes, or social dynamics

These observations have shaped how we support consortia – increasingly focusing on creating project structures that realistically enable participatory approaches and long-term impact.

A shift in Horizon Europe – and where tensions remain

The current phase of Horizon Europe (2025–2027) signals stronger policy-level commitment to participation and societal engagement across clusters:

• Cluster 1 – Health: increased involvement of patients and citizens
• Clusters 2 & 6: emphasis on participatory democracy, societal transformation, and sustainability
• Cluster 3 – Civil Security: co-creation approaches in resilience and disaster preparedness
• Cluster 5 – Climate, Energy & Mobility: societal readiness pilots testing participatory R&I models for FP10
• Missions and CSAs: continued support for open, iterative engagement formats

At the same time, our project experience shows that structural tensions persist: underfunded coordination work, rigid deliverables, and short project timelines continue to limit meaningful engagement.

Why do structural conditions matter for societal impact?

The position paper identifies 13 systemic challenges, many of which resonate strongly with EU-funded projects. Four recurring areas stand out:

• Invisible work: communication, facilitation, and relationship-building are essential but often not funded
• Rigid project logic: predefined project structures limit adaptive and open-ended processes
• Expectation of consensus: participation is often framed as harmony, rather than allowing productive disagreement
• Short-termism: project timelines rarely support long-term trust-building and sustained engagement

While Horizon Europe increasingly promotes participatory approaches – for example through new instruments such as Societal Readiness Pilots – funding and evaluation structures are not yet fully aligned with the realities of participatory work.

What needs to change to improve societal impact?

From both the position paper and our project experience, clear priorities emerge for the future design of European funding programmes:

1. Differentiating participation formats across project phases
2. Recognising and funding coordination, communication, and relationship work
3. Aligning evaluation criteria with participatory logic
4. Embedding co-creation structurally, beyond symbolic engagement
5. Providing flexible financial mechanisms for civil society and local actors

These observations are echoed in broader discussions within the European research management community. For example, EARMA’s policy recommendations for FP10 emphasise the need for simpler and more flexible programme structures, improved recognition of non-technical impact, and more realistic funding for coordination and management efforts.

How we apply this in practice - real-world insights from our EU work

The insights from the position paper strongly align with how we approach our work at PNO Innovation.

We support consortia in integrating participatory approaches and meaningful collaboration and governance structures already at the proposal stage – rather than treating them as an add-on during implementation.

Across the project lifecycle, we focus on:

• designing project structures that enable realistic participation
• aligning communication and dissemination with stakeholder engagement
• integrating impact and exploitation strategies with societal actors
• supporting coordination and governance of participatory processes

In these contexts, we work closely with partners who lead co-creation activities. Our role is to ensure that the structural conditions are in place for these approaches to generate visibility, acceptance, and long-term impact.

Conclusion: From ambition to implementation

Societal impact is not a by-product of research – it is the result of deliberate structural design. Participation and collaboration are not a box to tick – it is a structural prerequisite for impactful research.

For future programmes, particularly FP10, the key challenge will be to move beyond policy ambition and ensure that participatory approaches are supported by appropriate funding logic, evaluation criteria, and institutional structures.

Only when these frameworks reflect the realities of participation in practice can European R&I fully realise its transformative potential.

About the authors

Tanja Oster and Andreas Seipelt are part of the PNO Innovation Germany team. They advise European consortia on stakeholder engagement, co-creation, and strategic impact planning. The perspectives presented in this article are based on PNO Innovation’s project experience and do not represent official positions of individual project consortia.