Deliverable D4.1
CATALOGUE OF MEASURES AND TOOLS

Abbreviations
Introduction
METHODOLOGY
INDEX OF USE CASES
MAIN FINDINGS
Conclusions and recommendations
CONCLUSION
ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
METHODOLOGY
ANNEX
INDEX OF USE CASES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This deliverable presents a comprehensive framework for classifying ERA Hub schemes across the European Research Area, developed within the ERA_FABRIC project. The ambition of ERA Hubs is not to prescribe a single model of ecosystem organisation, but rather to support the emergence of context-sensitive, place-based innovation ecosystems capable of addressing regional needs while contributing to EU-wide objectives such as open science, green and digital (twin) transitions, and societal resilience. Against this backdrop, the document addresses a central challenge: how to systematically classify the variety of ERA Hub schemes operating across Europe in a way that reflects their core logic, stakeholder dynamics, and operational characteristics.

The classification developed in this deliverable is grounded in a structured yet flexible methodological approach that draws upon multiple sources collected along the ERA_FABRIC implementation, including the ERA_FABRIC stakeholder survey, regional partner profiling, the catalogue of measures and tools, and previous analytical work on research and innovation ecosystems and territorial governance. The classification is constructed using an ideal-type methodology, which enables the development of conceptual archetypes that help to structure and interpret the complex and hybrid reality of ERA Hubs. This approach does not aim to rank hub types or to prescribe uniform models, but rather to provide a heuristic tool that supports reflection and strategic development. The typology identifies four dominant logics – civic-driven, cluster-driven, research-driven, and policy-driven – each corresponding broadly to one of the four components of the quadruple helix innovation model: civil society, business, academia, and public authorities.

Civic-driven hubs are ecosystems anchored in civil society organisations and local communities. They prioritise inclusivity and public value, often using participatory tools such as citizen labs or co-creation spaces. 

Cluster-driven hubs are steered by the private sector, particularly by business associations and industrial consortia. Their focus is on competitiveness, applied innovation, and value chain integration. These hubs tend to be agile and demand-driven, but may require policy support to enhance inclusiveness and long-term impact. 

Research-driven hubs, meanwhile, are orchestrated by universities, RTOs, and other knowledge-producing institutions. They function as engines of knowledge production and transfer, leveraging their participation in European research programmes and advanced infrastructures. However, they may need targeted mechanisms to strengthen societal engagement and ecosystem integration.

 Lastly, policy-driven hubs are initiated and governed by public authorities and policy bodies. Their role is to align research and innovation activities with regional strategies, coordinate actors across sectors, and provide long-term institutional support through instruments such as RIS3 strategies and public-funding programmes.

Each of these hub types is analysed across five core dimensions: knowledge ecosystem functionality, stakeholder engagement, governance structure, cross-regional connectivity, and human-centric orientation. In addition, each hub type is associated with a set of typical tools and instruments, recurrent strengths, and common challenges. The analysis confirms that while each archetype has distinctive features, most real-world hubs operate in hybrid configurations, combining elements from multiple logics to meet their objectives. For instance, policy-driven hubs often incorporate research institutions as coordinators; research-driven hubs include civic engagement components; and cluster-driven hubs may evolve into platforms for policy experimentation or social impact innovation.

This report  also presents a comparative synthesis and a consolidated typology matrix that allows stakeholders to assess their positioning within the broader ERA Hubs landscape. These resources are intended to serve as practical tools for policy learning and strategic alignment. The classification facilitates the tailoring of support mechanisms and the design of appropriate instruments for Knowledge ecosystem development.

This deliverable contributes to the ERA_FABRIC project’s objective of operationalising the ERA Hubs concept in a way that is empirically grounded, strategically actionable, and sensitive to Europe’s rich territorial diversity. It offers a common vocabulary and analytical scaffold for understanding the evolving role of ERA Hubs, helping regional and national stakeholders to navigate their development trajectories and enhance their contribution to a more open, inclusive, and interconnected ERA.

ABBREVIATIONS

CSOs Civil Society Organizations

DIH Digital Innovation Hub

EDIH European Digital Innovation Hub

EIT European Institute for Innovation and Technology

ERA European Research Area

ESF European Social Fund

ESG Environmental Social Governance

EU European Union

IP Intellectual Property

NEB New European Bauhaus

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

RTOs Research and Technology Organizations

R&D Research and Development

R&I Research and Innovation

RIS3 Research Innovation Smart Specialisation Strategy

RIS4 Research Innovation Smart Sustainable Specialisation Strategy

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises

INTRODUCTION

The present Catalogue of measures and tools has been conceived in the framework of the ERA_FABRIC project to support the development of the ERA Hub concept and translate it into practice. This deliverable acts both as a guide and as a practical repository for policymakers, researchers and practitioners aiming to enhance the knowledge ecosystems potential in response to emerging challenges and to align research efforts with the broader vision of the European Research Area (ERA) in a continuous and adaptive collaboration model.

The European Research Area’s renewed strategic priorities emphasize excellence, inclusivity, knowledge transfer and societal alignment in R&I policies. ERA_FABRIC contributes to these goals by addressing structural barriers to inclusivity and impact within the ERA and developing innovative, evidence-based tools for more effective policy implementation. This document embodies this approach by cataloguing a wide range of measures and tools that stakeholders can use to maximize the benefits of research and innovation initiatives and projects, particularly at the local and regional levels. In total, the Catalogue puts together 33 successful best practices of research and innovation policies spread across 4 main areas, corresponding to the following key objectives in the ERA perspective:

  • Promoting a single market for the green and digital transition;
  • Connecting territories through smart specialization complementarities;
  • Enhancing the local impacts and synergies of EU framework programme project results;
  • Deepening the human centricity of R&D and innovation policies.

The Catalogue of Measures and tools is not simply a descriptive document but a product of extensive stakeholder engagement, analysis of regional use cases and synthesis of best practices. The development of this deliverable reflects ERA_FABRIC’s commitment to participatory processes and co-creation, involving a diverse range of actors from policymakers to researchers, intermediaries and local communities. Through interregional workshops and other consultative methods adopted in the ERA_FABRIC implementation, the project team identified the critical needs and gaps that hinders the full realization of the ERA’s potential. The deliverable consolidates these insights into actual actionable measures taking place, providing stakeholders with examples of solutions to improve the impact of research initiatives. It serves as a bridge between the strategic aspirations of the ERA and the practical realities of policy implementation.

METHODOLOGY

The methodological approach adopted by the project focused attention on four main areas of transformative change considered relevant from an ERA Hub perspective, corresponding to the four action lines in which the content of this document is divided, namely:

  • Promoting a single market for the green and digital transition;
  • Connecting territories through smart specialization complementarities;
  • Enhancing the local impacts and synergies of EU funded research & innovation project results;
  • Deepening the human centricity of R&D and innovation policies.

From an operational point of view, the deliverable is based on a combination of two main typologies of complementary activities carried out by the partners to identify relevant case studies for each of the above mentioned action lines we have taken into consideration:

  1. a)     an extensive literature review,
  2. b) the collection and elaboration of the input coming from the discussion occurred within interregional workshops moderated by the project partners and involving working groups composed by stakeholders of the quadruple helix, grouped in the 3 thematic domains of the project (sustainable manufacturing, bio-based circular economy and clean renewable energy).

First, with the aim of gathering the knowledge and experience of local and regional stakeholders spread in the regions participating in the project, the organization of interregional working groups took place, taking advantage from the previous phase of the project, during which, in each of the 9 project regions, the most relevant stakeholders belonging to the quadruple helix were mapped. Moreover the participation to the working group was extended, opening the participation to other European stakeholders identified via networking and communication campaigns.

Each of the 4 interregional workshops was arranged online with a two hours duration. All workshops had the same structure composed with the following elements:

  • Introduction  of the ERA_FABRIC project
  • Illustration of the main findings of the action line from the literature review process
  • Presentation of a keynote speech related to the topic of the session
  • Execution of the parallel co-working sessions in the three thematic domains of: Sustainable manufacturing, Bio-based circular economy and Clean renewable energy
  • Final plenary session to share the wrap-up of the main conclusions for each parallel session

The introductory section allowed participants to be contextualized in the thematic area of investigation and the expectations to be covered in the discussions of the small groups. Once the participants were divided into three parallel sessions, there were a series of questions prepared beforehand in order to guide the discussion and help participants to manifest their overview and experience.

Roles of rapporteurs were crucial at this point as they were in charge of taking notes during the parallel session and sharing the main insights once every participant was back to the main room. This was useful to wrap-up the relevant information and conclusions, with room to question and debate. 

Proper distribution of participants was ensured in each workshop. On the one hand, each partner of the ERA_FABRIC project sent an invitation letter to their regional network in order to confirm representation of the region during the debate in the workshop. The invitation letter included the purpose and the areas to be discussed in the event. It also included a form to confirm attendance in case there was interest to participate. The online tool used for that helped the organization team to anticipate the number of participants and prepare the parallel session groups. With the aim of having a diversified  group in the parallel sessions, the form asked participants who registered to manifest their stakeholder type. 

On the other hand, the engagement of a wider number of participants was assured via different ERA_FABRIC communication channels. (LinkedIn, project’s webpage and newsletter, etc.). These actions contributed to the participation of stakeholders from regions not directly involved in the project.

The first interregional workshop was celebrated on May 14th 2024 focusing on “Promoting a single market for the green and digital transition”.  The questions for the parallel sessions in this workshop were the following ones:

  • In what specific areas do you see the most significant challenges and opportunities for growth and innovation within the context of the twin transition?
  • What mechanisms can be put in place to facilitate the translation of R&I results into tangible economic benefits, fostering innovation and competitiveness within the single market?
  • What do you see as an indicator of a well-functioning knowledge ecosystem?
  • What specific policy changes or regulatory reforms do you believe would most effectively accelerate the twin transitions while ensuring fair competition and societal benefits?

The second interregional workshop took place on June 11th 2024 with the title “Fostering inter-regional connections between innovation ecosystems across the EU”. In this workshop, the following questions were prepared  for the discussion in the parallel sessions:

  • How do regions (countries) effectively support cross-regional collaboration?
  • What are mechanisms to link European excellence research and knowledge valorization in your region?
  • What are practices to align and reinforce European research projects with regional / national strategies (Smart Specialisation)?
  • What factors promote or hinder cross-regional cooperation for research and innovation?

The third interregional workshop took place on October 25th 2024 with the topic “Enhancing the local impacts and synergies of EU framework programme project results”. The questions to stimulate the debate in the parallel sessions were:

  • What would we expect, as a positive impact, of EU project results in our region? What are our needs as an innovation ecosystem?
  • What processes or tools are currently missing that could better connect local/regional needs with EU project outcomes to maximize impact?
  • How can we overcome the difficulties of engaging SMEs or smaller organizations in EU project activities to ensure they benefit from the results?
  • Are we ensuring that the results of EU projects are effectively integrated into local policies and strategies? What are the main barriers to do so? How could we overcome this?
  • What would you need in order to use/exploit research or project results with organizations geographically far away from you in the European Union (after the project ends)?

The fourth interregional workshop was on November 28th 2024. The action line at this point was about “Deepening the human centricity of R&D and innovation policies”.  The questions to obtain comments about human-centric perspective on regional ecosystems were the following:

  • What methods could help us engage local communities more effectively in defining priorities and objectives for R&D policies and projects? 
  • What can we do to help innovators focus more on community needs?
  • How can we ensure that we communicate the results and benefits of innovation policies and projects to citizens?
  • What kind of metrics would help us track the impact of our R&D projects on local communities and ensure they align with human-centric goals, and how can we make citizens provide these metrics?

The results of the final to wrap-up sessions of each interregional workshop can be found in the Annex 1 of the present document.

In a transversal way (thus: before, during and after the workshops took place) the team developed a complete literature review for each of the action lines to identify case studies that matched the conclusions extracted from the interregional workshops. At the same time, the literature review was useful to present debates and questions that led the working groups to additional conclusions. To ease the reading process, the complete bibliography that was used to develop the use cases can be found at the end of each factsheet.

Once the working groups and the literature review were completed, the team proceeded to list use cases presented in this document that could become useful for policymakers and those in charge of deploying ERA Hubs.

INDEX OF USE CASES

The ERA_FABRIC team collected 33 measures and tools from regional to national, international and global level. The use cases included in this catalogue aimed at achieving the maximum diversity in terms of geographic scope, sectors, instruments used, etc. 

For each of the use cases, the following information is provided within a given template:

  • Location: Geographical location where the use case took place (could include a region, a country, or multiple possibilities if it was an international use case).
  • Domains: Relevant thematic domains (Sustainable Manufacturing, Bio-based Circular Economy, Clean Renewable Energy) for the activity of the use case. Could include one or more of them if it was a transversal case.
  • Action Lines:  Relevant action lines (Connecting Territories Through S3, Boosting Local Impact, Human Centricity, Twin Transition) for the activity of the use case. Could include one or more of them if it was a transversal case.
  • Background: General background and conditions that faced the stakeholders and that created the environment for the use of the policy instruments of the use case.
  • Approach adopted: How stakeholders approached the background and used one or multiple instruments to face the conditions.
  • Conclusions and lessons learned: General conclusions and what ERA Hubs could learn from the use case.
  • Bibliography: A list of references addressing the main sources of information on the use case.

Use cases are listed in the table provided at page 13, showing their respective intersection across Location, Domains and Action Lines dimensions. Use cases are presented in alphabetical order and listed as separate factsheets in the following pages.

When a specific use case presented a broad scope in terms of measure/tool adopted, it was attributed to all three domains considered by ERA_FABRIC (Sustainable Manufacturing, Bio-based Circular Economy, Clean Renewable Energy), so as to highlight its potential applicability to multiple scenarios

.



ANNEX 1

Results from interregional workshops

 

Results from the First ERA_FABRIC interregional workshop:  “Promoting a single market for the green and digital transition”

Question 1: In what specific areas do you see the most significant challenges and opportunities for growth and innovation within the context of the twin transition?

 Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • Resilience of digital transformation: huge amount of data, high energy consumption of data centres, green coding.
  • Understand how to make use and absorb research results in local businesses (especially in green transition)

Comments from clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • Biomethane is an area of great possibility especially when combined with digital tools and the current energy policy situation.
  • Data management is probably the largest opportunity within the twin transition, but many still lack digital skills in this area.

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • Manufacturing advancements: There is a significant need to adapt manufacturing technologies to meet the growing demand for clean energy solutions. The focus should be on increasing efficiency, reducing costs, and ensuring sustainability in production processes.
  • Smart Energy Grid: Innovations in grid management and energy storage are crucial for the effective integration of renewable energy sources. These advancements will improve the reliability and efficiency of energy distribution, supporting the overall stability of the grid.
  • Digital Tools and Smart Solutions: Implementing digital tools and smart technologies can optimize energy use and enhance the integration of renewable sources into existing infrastructures.

Question 2: What mechanisms can be put in place to facilitate the translation of R&I results into tangible economic benefits, fostering innovation and competitiveness within the single market?

Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • Alignment of policies support (not only financially) for market implementation/balance risks.
  • Support for feasibility studies to transfer IP into the market.

 Comments from clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • Models and guidelines: We need simple common models to systematically implement twin transition, accompanied by guidelines for companies to allow smooth integration in different business models.
  • Assisting companies in understanding the opportunities that different business models can provide (for example startups can allow for a faster pace).
  • Foster knowledge transfer by sharing success stories and facilitating conversations.

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • Clusters and technology transfer centers: These entities play a vital role in facilitating collaboration and knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry. They help bridge the gap between research outcomes and practical applications.
  • Public and private investments: Both sectors need to significantly invest in new green technologies. Public investments can de-risk early-stage innovations, while private investments drive large-scale deployment.
  • Enhanced resources for research institutions: Increasing funding and resources for research institutions can accelerate the commercialization of research outputs, promoting innovation and economic growth.
  • Liaison offices for industry: These offices can help align industrial needs with research capabilities, ensuring relevant innovations are brought to market effectively.

Question 3: What do you see as an indicator of a well-functioning knowledge ecosystem?

 Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • Presence of a sound regional orchestration involving all actors: companies, research, government, investors, etc.
  • Quality criteria: bottom-up, strong roots in local business, access to different stakeholders: clusters, innovation/technology centres, EDIHs, etc.
  • Specific Indicators should include:
    • Number of companies reached by services
    • Increase in turnover of companies
    • Technology Readiness Level -> TRL 6 or 7,
    • Researchers: not only publications but indicators measuring innovation and impact for society
    • Revenue from digital channels and customer digital engagement.

Comments from clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • Collaboration and mutual trust among different stakeholders
  • Awareness concerning the role of a well structured  knowledge ecosystem for growth and competitiveness

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • Commercial and innovation partnerships: Successful ecosystems feature strong partnerships between commercial entities and research organizations, leading to market innovations.
  •  Joint initiatives and events: Frequent collaborative initiatives, projects, and events indicate a healthy ecosystem where stakeholders actively engage and innovate together.
  • Balanced human resource capacities: Effective ecosystems balance industrial needs with the availability and capacity of skilled human resources to drive innovation.

Question 4: What specific policy changes or regulatory reforms do you believe would most effectively accelerate the twin transitions while ensuring fair competition and societal benefits?

Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • Support for cross-regional collaboration along value chains

Comments from clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • Improving awareness and education on the twin transition potential
  • Simplification of bureaucracy to be aligned with regulation requirements

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • CO2 pricing and taxation: Implementing CO2 taxes and appropriate pricing mechanisms can create a level playing field, making green technologies more economically competitive.
  • Collaborative funding opportunities: Policies should promote funding structures that support collaborative efforts between companies, service providers, and infrastructure projects to foster comprehensive renewable energy solutions.
  • Awareness campaigns: More targeted and in-depth awareness campaigns can educate stakeholders about the benefits and practicalities of the green transition, enhancing adoption rates.
  • Long-term R&D support: Sustained support for research and development in emerging green technologies are crucial for achieving long-term climate goals.
  • Circular economy focus: Policies should emphasize the importance of a circular economy, investing in technologies and infrastructure that support the recycling and reuse of materials to reduce waste and carbon emissions.

 

Results from the second ERA_FABRIC interregional workshop:  “Fostering inter-regional connections between innovation ecosystems across the EU”

 Question 1: How do regions (countries) effectively support cross-regional collaboration?

Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • Meetings taking place within EU-funded programs (e.g. Interreg, i3) that are working for exchanging good practices and information. However, there is room for improvement and further exploitation.
  • It is crucial to participate in platforms and networks to take advantage of the exchange of information across regions.
  • There is an important role from the funding / regulatory bodies to boost open innovation mechanisms, ideas, etc. 

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • Regions should play an active role in European projects and networks (I3, Interreg, EIE, ERASMUS, EEA  & Norway Grants), participation in Vanguard initiative, TAIEX Program (Technical Assistance and Information Exchange instrument), TWINNING projects, etc.
  • Political support: e.g. regular diplomatic interactions and high-level meetings between regional leaders can strengthen ties and pave the way for collaborative initiatives.
  • Regions may help finding European partners, e.g. by supporting Enterprise Europe Network facilitating matchmaking events, project consortia construction.
  • Financial support for preparation of Horizon Europe project proposals for Higher education Institutions.
  • Regions can provide indirect support via intermediaries such as clusters, Technology Transfer centers, Technopoles, etc. who initiate cross-regional collaboration.

Comments from Clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • Regions should provide co-funding for the preparation (financial support, matchmaking events) and implementation of EU projects.
  • Regions may join cross-border initiatives and then involve local entities according to topic and specialisation.
  • Liguria case (Public-private partnership, cooperation between Liguria authorities and technology park): Liguria region mapped the companies and other stakeholders for different areas such as clean renewable energy. Based on this map, they created a private-public entity with the role to support collaboration among stakeholders. This helped to understand who is doing what and to foster collaboration among stakeholders. Three main hubs: robotics, logistics and renewable energy.
  • Emilia-Romagna case: The Region launched a call for proposals to support building consortia and internationalisation based on regional S3 strategy. The call addressed the lack of relevant skills of human resources and focussed on academia and companies. It provided mini-grants (15-25k EUR). The topic had to be clearly related to S3.
  • Mazovia case: All partners bring their own experience and knowledge (stakeholders) to build stakeholders’ groups. Identification of key stakeholders for each smart specialisation area.

Question 2: What are mechanisms to link European excellence research and knowledge valorization in your region?

Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • How do we really promote European Research Excellence?
    • Private-public partnerships are crucial for those technical projects with higher TRL. For instance, in Eindhoven there is this partnership with academia called Brainport development.
    • For lower TRL more public funding is important to reach higher TRLs but also this higher Research Excellence valorisation.
  • There is a need for mobility programs not only for researchers but also for innovators and other agents of the innovation ecosystem.
  • Specialised regional funds (e.g. Catalonia) are working as a good mechanism but the crucial part is to find the right profiles and organisation – maybe the possibility to reach participants from other regions can improve their exploitation (be more flexible geographically speaking).

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • Support structures: In many regions, there are already relevant intermediaries – clusters, EDIHs, technology transfer centers and other similar organisations. However, in some regions there is a need for these innovation agents who bring research and companies together. Appropriate support services (money, know how, …) are also needed.
  • Fiscal incentives for exploring and bringing results generated from EU projects to the market.
  • National dedicated funding for European research results valorisation.
  • Research Valorization Programs (RVP) supported by the World Bank.

Comments from Clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • There is a need to involve local stakeholders in EU research projects who will valorize the project results in the region.
  • Intermediaries such as clusters, networks of research laboratories and tech transfer centers are arenas for knowledge transfer.
  • Information about EU projects and dissemination of EU project results needs to be improved in some regions. 

Question 3: What are practices to align and reinforce European research projects with regional / national strategies (Smart Specialisation)?

Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • Policy makers or representatives (such as agencies in some regions) should be involved in the development stage of EU projects to make this alignment possible, but also during the project for dissemination and boosting the impact once it is finished. It is crucial to define and have a more active role from a governmental agent.
  • A variety of actors should be involved, research bodies, industry, clusters and other potential stakeholders and potential end-users.
  • Knowledge management is crucial (e.g. city of Amsterdam)

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • Creation of working groups in correlation with S3 domains in order to build teams ready to apply to calls;
  • Prioritize research areas that leverage existing regional strengths or address significant challenges. This approach should align with the Smart Specialization strategy, which emphasizes innovation-driven growth based on distinctive regional assets.
  • Identify model regions with strong integration of R&D and showcase best practice projects.
  • Specific calls for Regions on dedicated smart specialization topics.
  • Match regional competencies but also needs (across different actors incl. citizens).

Comments from Clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • More exchange of knowledge between different stakeholders through conferences, workshops, etc. would help.
  • There is alignment with smart specialisation strategies where it is a requirement for funding of projects (e.g. Horizon Europe Regional Innovation Valleys).
  • Applicants for EU projects would often need more info on S3. It needs an info point/desk office (locally or a regional office in Brussels) providing info and advice.

Question 4: What factors promote or hinder cross-regional cooperation for research and innovation?

Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

Promoting factors:

  • Having common goals and a policy framework and financing mechanisms that support cross-regional collaboration.
  • Identification of complementary goals along the value chain and find these complementarities across regions to boost cooperation.

Hindering factors:

  • Cultural differences.
  • Administrative barriers: mainly for SMEs and “newcomers”.

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

Promoting factors:

  •  Platforms, open innovation, sharing Info, database
  • Clusters in specific branches that create cooperation projects with SME
  • Policies that encourage collaboration, like simplified legal and administrative procedures for cross-border cooperation, are crucial.
  • Make use of EU programmes (Horizon Europe, Interreg etc.) but foster Partnerships (co-) financed by national or regional funds. Align funding conditions in partnerships as much as possible (e.g. ERA-nets have different funding schemes and amount available in different regions).

Hindering factors

  • Communication of Needs: Enhancing cooperation between universities, research institutes, and industry to ensure that research is aligned with market needs and has clear pathways for commercialization.
  • Confidentiality, IPR practices – reluctance to share Info.
  • Delay in the national support mechanisms.

Comments from Clean renewable energy parallel session:

Promoting factors:

  • Capacity building, focused study visits to innovative demo sites, international events, matchmaking
  • Financial support for preparation of EU projects: consortium building, proposal writing
  • Support projects awarded with a seal of excellence.
  • Alignment of local goals with EU strategies
  • Well-established innovation ecosystem.

Hindering factors:

  • Lack of funding for preparation and for co-financing implementation of EU projects.
  • Bureaucratic burden.
  • Lack of knowledge about other regions.

 

Results from third ERA_FABRIC interregional workshop: “ Enhancing the local impacts and synergies of EU framework programme project results”

Question 1: What would we expect, as a positive impact, of EU project results in our regions?

Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • Important to have a common definition of what we understand by “local impact” to focus the resources of the EU project to boost the expected impact
  • Different definitions are possible depending on the type of agent you are: a company may expect competitiveness, a citizen more infrastructure available to use, public administration may look for more long-term paths.

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • Improving regional economic indicators
  • Higher number of new related spinoffs
  • Support for new and small businesses with new ideas and projects that need funding and know-how for development. Each region has many talented individuals who can offer expertise across different business sectors and research areas.
  • Job creation and securing jobs in general

Comments from clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • Better competitiveness of SMEs and their greater involvement in future EU projects
  • Prevent brain drain – it should be easier to keep smart people in our regions and not have them move to richer regions
  • Better connection between universities and companies
  • Higher TRL of the research results – for the quicker uptake in the industry

 

Question 2: What tools are currently missing that could better engage local companies/organizations in EU programs?

Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • SMEs lack internal resources to deal with the bureaucracy and proposal writing activities to participate in EU calls: technical language is required. It would be interesting to have some trainings and supportive platforms to train SMEs and local startups
  • Tools allowing flexibility in resources usage during the execution of the project

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • Lack of community-building efforts to foster greater networking. It would be interesting for each innovation center to have a dedicated person or company responsible for organizing events
  • Easier access to prepare proposals. There is a need for a facilitator, like ACCIÓ in Catalonia. Less administration is needed, and it must be clearly communicated that they have to be part in shaping the future
  • Access to a network of consultants
  • A platform/website to facilitate the networking

Comments from clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • Promotion of opportunities should be more targeted to potential applicants. For instance, it targeted communications to SMEs (directly to the CEO of the company) presenting the potentially interesting applications. Regional authorities (regional innovation agencies, regional accelerators, etc.) should be in charge of this as it would be in their own interest
  • There is a need for an EU-wide policy on intellectual property joint ownership, so that participants in projects from different countries can all benefit from releasing patents. More funding should go in the direction of interregional projects and collaborations, but sharing IP property – as it can be registered in only one of the participating countries – could be a problem
  • We need a more hands-on approach to the applications and the one in charge of doing so should be a mix of institutions and agencies that already have the chance to offer this opportunity. We need more meetings to clarify program details and offer guidance for optimal application. Sometimes companies and institutions are afraid of how to apply and are not aware of the program details.
  • There is a need of more matchmaking events or better promotion of the existing ones, for instance an  enhanced promotion of Enterprise Europe Network

 

Question 3: How can we make sure that the results of EU projects are effectively integrated into local policies and strategies?

Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • The potential public beneficiaries’ bodies (e.g. local policymakers, local/regional public administration) must be part of the project from the start, not just engaging them for the uptake
  • EU projects must be adapted to the regional ecosystem particularities in order to have a smooth bridge to local policies and strategies
  • Joint collaboration is needed between the stakeholders developing the local strategies and the developers of results in EU projects. Otherwise, we struggle integrating EUproject results to the local/regional policy framework.

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • Make sure we have a connection between those who are implementing the projects and public authorities
  • This is a big challenge on the regional level. Even though the outcomes of projects are relevant (e.g. in climate change mitigation, flood management) they are very rarely being taken up by the regional policymakers
  • Inclusion of administrations or government departments into consortium and proposals

Comments from clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • We need to better involve public authorities in the projects’ activities, from the start. This way they can get a better understanding of the project; what works and what doesn’t, and can also contribute to better policies
  • Public authorities should be more connected to the ecosystem and the police should have more of a bottom-up approach so that they take into consideration the real needs of the ecosystem
  • We need to make sure that some of the public authorities’ actions don’t only result in formalisms for their regions, and that instead they are actively done in regional activities
  • We could ask the reviewers to check whether the results of EU projects have been implemented in local policies, having KPIs on policy uptake. In this scenario, policymakers should participate in the project from the beginning as partners.

 

Question 4: What would you need in order to increase the use/exploitation of research or project results?

Comments from sustainable manufacturing parallel session:

  • There is some unbalance between research results and market-oriented results: we should first consider…what do businesses need?
  • Right now, there are efforts to have an exploitation strategy “in paper” instead of allocating resources to have the support needed once the project ends (e.g. technical support, marketing and promotion for project results)
  • There is also need to connect researchers with policymakers (already commented in question 3)

Comments from bio-based circular economy parallel session:

  • Knowledge transfer of project results should be spread among more target groups, including local authorities in charge of regional and local strategies
  • We need more strategic dissemination, and communication of every Horizon European project. Organisations outside the consortia, from the involved regions, should be involved in the dissemination and communication of the project’s results

Comments from clean renewable energy parallel session:

  • We need extra financial support to allow the programs to keep disseminating results after the projects are over. That would help with the motivation. Expositions and conferences, bringing together both locally and internationally for better dissemination.
  • There should be more thematic conferences or sessions with dedicated presentations of the different programs to disseminate the projects’ results using available funds – organised from more strategic and regional levels.
  • A huge problem is that there is a fragmentation and low number of projects funded by each call.

 

 

Results from the fourth ERA_FABRIC interregional workshop:  “Deepening the human centricity of R&D and innovation policies”

Question 1: What methods could help us engage local communities more effectively in defining priorities and objectives for R&D policies and projects?

  • Participatory workshops, working groups, task forces, etc.: Who and how?
    • Ownership of problem
    • Selection bias (polarized, most enthusiastic / angry)
    • Methodologies: e.g. Design Thinking
  • Living Labs: citizen can test solutions and co-shape
  • Gamification: mutual learning – not competition
  • Participatory Budgeting in Cities: local open calls for projects of citizens 
  • Early stage involvement of innovators in calls: Companies asked to provide abstract of research project before opening a public call for proposal
  • Associations of citizens

 

Question 2: What can we do to help innovators focus more on community needs?

  • Improve diagnosis: involve civil society representatives from the beginning with the aim of understanding better the needs
  • Public-private Solution Development: Innovation Procurement
  • Collaboration with Vocational Education Training entities to develop training programs
  • Local incubation programs / local hackathons to answer local problems (smart city or health solutions) 
  • Crowdsourcing calls for small scale R&D projects addressing local needs, e.g. on air quality
  • Communication: Language Training for innovators how to speak with citizens
  • Universities: listen and share, knowledge sharing instead of transfer 

 

Question 3: How can we ensure that we communicate the results and benefits of innovation policies and projects to citizens?

  • Use the right language! Story telling: share success stories through „neighbourhood testimonials“ having benefited. 
  • Coaching for researchers / PhD students on storytelling: impact for society
  • Provide different layers of complexity: 
    • For researchers: data sets
    • For citizens: visualization, infographics
      -> test with different stakeholder groups (citizens, journalists, etc.) -> role for intermediaries
  • Local community events/festival, also cultural events, night of researchers
  • Collaboration with regional media
  • Communication with kids: Book for kids, researchers at schools
  • Students as ambassadors

 

Question 4: What kind of metrics would help us track the impact of our R&D projects on local communities and ensure they align with human-centric goals? How can we make citizens provide these metrics?

  • Incentives for citizens to provide data (example: % reduction of energy costs)
  • Currently often only collect KPI –> needed: also qualitative info, long-term satisfaction
  • Narratives together with metrics: narrative needed to convey the message/data

 

MENU
Scroll to Top
Skip to content