Deliverable D3.4

Multi-Stakeholder Platform Governance Manual

Abbreviations
Introduction
DIRECTIONALITY
MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE
MAIN FINDINGS
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVMENT
CONCLUSION
ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
1. DIRECTIONALITY
3. MAIN FINDINGS
2. MULTI - LEVEL GOVERNANCE
4. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
CONCLUSIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Governance Manual, developed within the Horizon Europe project ERA_FABRIC, provides strategic guidance for the design and implementation of ERA Hubs connecting local capacities with the broader European Research Area (ERA). ERA Hubs serve as platforms for mobilising public and private stakeholders to jointly tackle major societal challenges, such as climate change and digitalisation. They align regional research and innovation with European priorities and rely on inclusive, adaptive governance to do so effectively. 

Aimed at EU, national and regional policy makers, the manual supports governance development that enables collaboration, alignment, and long-term impact. The manual identifies four key governance dimensions, based on the ERA Hubs concept:

Directionality: ERA Hubs steer innovation by uniting stakeholders around shared goals. Governance structures support the definition of missions, alignment of funding, and long-term strategic commitment.

Multi-Level Governance: Hubs operate across local, regional, national, and EU levels. Effective governance ensures vertical coordination of policies and instruments, enabling local experimentation to inform higher-level agendas.

Horizontal and Interregional Integration: ERA Hubs are bridges across borders, connecting with other knowledge ecosystems. Governance must enable cross-regional collaboration, shared learning, and co-investment to overcome fragmentation.

Stakeholder Engagement: Inclusive governance brings together academia, business, government, and civil society. Stakeholders co-create goals and implementation pathways, fostering legitimacy, trust, and cultural change.

The manual provides insights from case studies and concludes with policy recommendations to strengthen capacity, coherence, and collaboration across levels and sectors. 

ABBREVIATIONS

AI Artificial Intelligence

DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid

EC European Commission

ERA European Research Area

ERDF European Rural Development Fund

EU European Union

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

R&I Research and Innovation

RTI Research, Technology and Innovation

S3 Smart Specialisation Strategy/ies

1. INTRODUCTION

The ERA Hub concept addresses the fragmentation and lack of coordination in research policy in Europe. It fosters multi-level governance aligning local, regional, national and European research and innovation efforts, enhancing stakeholder collaboration including involvement of civil society, and facilitating structured collaboration across regions.

The main dimensions of an ERA Hub are:

  1. Directionality: directionality refers to the mobilization of the public and private stakeholders around shared objectives (i.e. green deal or the digital transition).
  2. Multi-level governance processes: an ERA Hub is inherently multi-level in its intervention. This means that the integration and mobilization effort across the diversity of stakeholders in a given R&I area or economic sector, needs to be made across vertical governance and implementation levels (i.e. regional, national and European).
  3. Horizontal / interregional integration: an ERA Hub is a formal bridge to other knowledge ecosystems (ideally, other ERA Hubs), independently of regional or national borders.
  4. Holistic approach: an ERA HUB brings together all public and private stakeholders. It aims to support co-creation and joint ownership of the goals and process to achieve them. This is particularly important to promote cultural and practical systemic change, in both private and public institutions.

ERA Hubs are NOT to be understood as:

  • a new institution or bureaucratic layers, but as a governance tool that strengthens coordination;
  • a funding mechanism, but as a structured way of aligning policy instruments;
  • a regional or national hub, but as a framework for cross-border collaboration;
  • a traditional research network, but as an integration point for policy, research and business collaboration.  

Even if the ideal ERA Hub does not exist yet, elements can be identified in all European regions. The self-assessment and guidance tool developed by the ERA_FABRIC project (https://erafabric.eu/self-assesment-tool/) may help individual actors or groups of stakeholders to identify strengths and weaknesses of their own region and benchmark against other regions.

This document focuses on the governance of ERA Hubs. Governance describes the policies and structures that promote and steer research and  innovation (Global Encyclopedia 2025; OECD 2005). 

 

The manual highlights some aspects of how institutions, politics and policies shape ways of research and innovation, such as.:

  • Political Action: what role do State and other actors play to foster research and innovation, provide means and directions and set the right conditions?
  • Acting in a network: strong networks can bring about vivid ideas. This idea is part of the ERA Hubs’ DNA. Good governance arrangements therefore focus on building alliances, integrating various stakeholders’ views.
  • Interdependence: The interplay of different sectors, organisations or political levels enable and at the same time may limit innovation. Governance rules therefore focus on communication that harnesses the potential of these interdependencies.
  • Transformative change: Research and Innovation shall lead to desired outcomes, resulting in the dissemination of new ways of doing things by changing the current ways of being and doing, including policies.

 

This final aspect is explained in a bit more detail, as ERA-Hubs intend to play a strong role in solving some of today’s grand societal challenges.

 

Geels (2014; 2020) explains through a multi-level perspective how transformative change happens and addresses grand challenges: from developments in niches towards reforming the current regime. This happens always in the context of global trends and conditions shaping these regimes and their transformations.

A regime may be considered as the main norms, conditions and set of powerful actors shaping economic activity and citizens’ choices. Fossil-fuel based economic models can be described as such a regime. Of course, regimes change over time – usually incrementally, as these norms, conditions and actors are well established and (vested) interests play a strong role in these systems.

“Radically” new ideas grow in niches, pockets at the edge of regimes. Pioneers drive them, often unpaid or unrecognised in the early stages. These new ideas challenge the regime or deviate from its main perceptions. They often require special protection to gain traction. Furthermore, niche developments require coordination, funding and space for experiments.
For example, the early developments in electric cars can be described as such a niche development.

Obviously, these niche developments require determined pioneers and coordinated action. ERA Hubs may be an actor to initiate or facilitate such transformation processes. They may also play a catalyst or managing role. 

This manual highlights some examples how other networks have managed their way through such a transformational process. 

In total, this ERA Hubs’ governance manual presents twelve brief case studies of research and innovation networks. The four dimensions of an ERA Hub serve as a structure to cluster them and deduce recommendations for governance rules.

The case studies were identified through desk research and input from the ERA_FABRIC project partners, taking also into consideration the interactions with their regional stakeholders, during the project consultation activities. The most relevant were chosen. Desk research, reflections with ChatGPT and personal interviews deepened the understanding on these cases.

This manual is structured as follows:

The following sections cover each one dimension of an ERA Hub. Each outlines the issues at stake and presents case studies to give impressions of achievements and learnings from different networks. Obviously, within each case study, aspects of other dimensions will become visible, as they are interlinked. Main take-aways from each case study derive key messages for ERA Hubs. Recommendations summarize each chapter.
Finally, this manual ends by drawing conclusions for governance arrangements for ERA Hubs. 

 

References (accessed May 2025)

Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Living reference work. (2025) Chapter Innovation Policy Governance. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4234-1

OECD (2005) Governance of Innovation Systems: Synthesis Report. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2005/08/governance-of-innovation-systems_g1gh5aee/9789264011038-en.pdf

Geels, F. (2020) Transformative innovation and socio-technical transitions to address grand challenges, European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation . Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/967325

Geels, F. (2014) Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective. Theory, Culture & Society 31 (5). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0263276414531627

DIRECTIONALITY

1.1 Issue addressed

Directionality describes the effort to mobilize diverse stakeholders around shared transformative goals, e.g. the green and digital transition. By adopting this principle, ERA Hubs will be able to nurture a conducive ecosystem in fulfilling their respective mission.
Working directionally shifts focus from entrenched “business as usual” pathways towards long-term sustainable solutions. It will help overcome lock-ins. As the following examples show, directionality makes systems more adaptive to global trends.
Mobilising several stakeholders requires and at the same time enables cross-sector collaboration and bottom-up experimentation, key to navigating complex transitions. Effective governance and coordination structures are vital to sustain this collective effort. Moreover, dedicated financing is paramount for ERA Hubs to fulfil their missions.
The following examples show how different knowledge ecologies or innovation networks in Europe have taken on the challenge of aligning multiple stakeholders among a shared goal.

1.2 Examples

1.2.1 Shared Agendas in Catalonia: Jointly Address Complex Local Challenges

The Catalan Regional Government’s strategy for smart specialisation (RIS3CAT 2030) is framed in a context of major global challenges, such as climate change, pollution, waste of resources, persistent unemployment, increasing social inequalities and an ageing population. The RIS3CAT 2030 responds to these challenges by engaging regional stakeholders in transformative action to accelerate the transition towards a green, resilient and fair socioeconomic model aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Shared Agendas are the tool to engage regional stakeholders in this bottom-up and challenge-driven, multi-actor discovery process that allows the region to move into the desired direction.
Catalonia has set up an effective governance system of the RIS3CAT 2030: Catalonia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance, secretariat for economy and European funds, coordinates the strategy. It plays a central role in all governance bodies, guarantees the necessary coordination to prioritize the financing of initiatives and strategic actions, maximizes the capture of European funds in Catalonia and increases the participation of the actors of the Catalan research and innovation system in European and international networks and initiatives.
The governance is steered through the Interdepartmental Government Commission for Economic Recovery and the Governance of the Next Generation EU Funds, the general management for ERDF and the Opportunity Discovery Mechanism (ODM). The ODM is organised in seven technical offices, one for each of the systemic transformations prioritised by RIS3CAT 2030. The technical offices are assigned to different Government departments (ministries), according to their competences. The Department of Economy and Finance is responsible for coordinating the technical offices and monitoring the RIS3CAT 2030. Through the ODM, the Government promotes the active involvement of stakeholders (regional and local administrations, universities, research and technology centres, companies and civil society organisations and associations) in place-based shared agendas contributing to the systemic transformations prioritised by RIS3CAT. It does so by creating a new profile of policymakers with knowledge on transformative innovation policy and systems thinking and with skills to engage multiple stakeholders in transformative collective action.

Main Take-aways

Starting with a place-based problem: Transforming local problems into opportunities is the mind-set guiding RIS3CAT: ‘If we understand the problem and find solutions, there is a market’. Example: manure management. A shared understanding of the challenge (considering global trends, obstacles such as rules and routines of dominant systems, emerging alternatives, affected groups and environmental impacts) is the starting point.
Building coalitions of the willing (“This is not about consensus.”): Regional actors who really want to drive change collaborate in experimental spaces to explore, develop, test and expand alternative practices. Collaboration across departments focussing on joint challenge not competences/responsibilities, proves to be key. New knowledge and evidence is co-created through researchers who understand systemic challenges and know how to work with different people.

References (accessed May 2025)

RIS3CAT strategy document https://fonseuropeus.gencat.cat/ca/ris3cat/2030
RIS3CAT Governance set-up https://fonseuropeus.gencat.cat/ca/ris3cat/2030/governanca/
Shared Agendas in Catalonia https://tipresourcelab.net/knowledge-community/project/177-2/

 

1.2.2 Mission Implementation in Austria: Collaboration Across Departments & Dedicated Resources for Coordination

Inspired by the five EU missions in Horizon Europe, the ‘EU Missions’ working group of the Austrian RTI Task Force, consisting of seven federal ministries, worked from September 2021 to September 2022 in a process led by the Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Innovation to develop an implementation framework that should help to realise the five EU missions of Horizon Europe in Austria in a tailored, effective and verifiable manner.
The Mission Action Groups have adapted the European mission objectives to national needs. In order to achieve them, representatives of research, science, business, administration and civil society are pooled, coordinated and supported across departmental, sectoral and disciplinary boundaries by the newly established Mission Management Unit (MMU) at the Austrian Research Funding Agency “FFG”. The tasks of the MMU include:

  • Co-operation with all relevant competence bearers and stakeholder groups
  • Supporting the development, planning and implementation of measures
  • Participating in the monitoring of implementation
  • Supporting co-operation at national and European level

Current developments and tenders at national and regional level: each federal state can contribute with its knowledge and potential. The Mission Management Unit organises exchange events in each federal state with the state governments and local partners. This allows interested parties to contribute their expertise to the EU missions directly and individually.

The next major goal is the implementation of the 5 action plans, one for each EU mission. The action plans contain a portfolio of measures that will be implemented over the next few years and achieve the ambitious goals of the EU missions.

Main Take-aways

  • Multi-Level Governance and Coordination: Austria has established a multi-level governance structure to effectively implement EU missions. This involves cross-sectoral, cross-departmental, and multi-tiered coordination, ensuring that various stakeholders, including research organizations, funding agencies, and government bodies, work together seamlessly.

  • Strategic Integration and Support: The Austrian RTI Strategy 2030 and the RTI Pact 2021-2023 provide a coordinated strategic approach for the EU missions at the national level. This includes integrating EU missions into the performance and funding agreements of core research and innovation institutions, ensuring that these missions are aligned with national priorities and supported by adequate resources.

  • Stakeholder Involvement and tailored Implementation: Austria emphasizes the involvement of relevant stakeholder groups in the implementation process. A Working Group on EU Missions, chaired by the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research and the Federal Ministry of Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology, has been set up to coordinate efforts. This group prepared proposals for the required policy mix, instruments, and resources, ensuring that the implementation is tailored to the specific needs and potentials of different missions.

References (accessed May 2025)

National Implementation of the EU Missions https://www.ffg.at/europa/heu/missions/nationale-umsetzung

Creating national governance structures for the implementation of EU missions, EC https://horizoneuropencpportal.eu/sites/default/files/2024-05/creating-national-governance-structures-for-the-implementation-kiax24002enn.pdf

Missions in Austria https://era.gv.at/horizon-europe/missions/missions-in-austria/

Austrian EU Missions OECD Case Study https://stip.oecd.org/moip/case-studies/33

Mission Data Platform, TRAMI https://mission-data-platform.eu/

 

1.2.3 Mobility as a Service in Finland: Strong Vision, Cooperation across Departments & Room for Experimentation


This case study describes how Mobility as a Service evolved in Finland in the past 20 years. This transformative, deliberately steered process aimed at a new, more sustainable transport system.

Early Stages

In 2004 Finland’s Ministry of Transport & Communication initiated a network, called ITS, of science and business actors and public officers to discuss alternative, more sustainable modes of transport.
In 2006 ITS Finland was established as a non-profit organization. Its task was to promote the development and deployment of intelligent transport solutions that are environmentally friendly and accessible by all citizens. ITS invited stakeholders from private and public sectors as well as academia to the table.
In this context, visionary actors perceived the transport system in new ways. The transport system could be viewed similar to the telecommunication system: mobility providers may be similar to communication providers, users may route their way by interconnected means of different providers and platforms.
In the subsequent years, the Ministry formulated a new transport policy. It highlighted the need to renew transport services, containing ideas around public-private collaboration, technology neutrality and user orientation. Also at this time, government agencies concerned with traffic and transport were reorganised to align with this new vision of a more sustainable transport system. Inter-ministerial collaboration brought about a programme that enabled next steps. They included first experiments, e.g. an on-demand mini-bus system in Helsinki.


Policy Shifts

In 2012 a report to the Parliament marked a shift in the general perception of the transportation system and the minister of Transport established an informal club, the New Transport Policy Club. This was an informal association, a “hand-made coalition” of politicians and civil servants (mainly from the Ministry of Transport and Communication), big cities, industry stakeholders (including both incumbents and start-ups from transport and telecommunications), ITS Finland and Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation under the Ministry of Economics). The purpose of the club was to exchange thoughts about the future of transport policy.
The Ministry of Transport and Communication started a portfolio of transport experiments. Some failed, others progressed. Tekes followed the same avenue to get the business sector to work on solutions. It issued funding calls for experiments. To enable this quickly, Tekes took a new approach and heavily reduced the standard procedures and criteria. It proved to be helpful as this created an ecosystem of experiments and start-ups. This gave hints as to which regulatory frameworks required adaptation, resulting in a new bill (“Transport Code”). This new bill paved the way for scaling the experiments, so that the vision instilled in this new bill would come alive.

Main Take-aways

  • Vision & Action: A strong vision, backed by central figures in key ministries helped this transformative process to take shape and proceed. This vision showed its strong pull effect, even when national elections brought about new majorities in the national parliament. Deliberately selected people helped to navigate forward. They worked in exclusive meetings on this vision and action ideas.
  • Horizontal Collaboration: was key to get businesses to follow the vision developed in the Ministry of Transport and Communication’s ecosystem. The national business agency helped to speed up by encouraging the private sector to develop and implement business cases. At the time, this horizontal collaboration could be considered as an experiment. The agencies explored new ways of cooperation.
  • Learning & Financing: This case study shows the vital role of programmes for experiments to learn from. Secondly, being open to failure was critical too. This requires obviously good funding mechanisms for start-ups and other actors to be able to try and err and try again.

References (accessed May 2025)

Tranformative Innovation Learning History: Finland https://tipconsortium.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/finland-TLHC-v5.pdf
ITS Finland https://its-finland.fi/en/activity/
Kivimaa, P., Rogge, K. (2022) Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions. Research Policy 51. https://publica-rest.fraunhofer.de/server/api/core/bitstreams/e6b3f6e7-43aa-451f-9fc2-a499fc48a203/content
Transformative Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies (not yet published) https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/transformative-mission-oriented-innovation-policies-9781803929514.html

 

1.2.4 Medifly Hamburg: Legal Provision for Experimentation

As described in the introduction, the opportunity of experimentation is crucial for transformational change towards a shared goal. This example describes how business actors, public agencies (hospitals), city administrations and academia join up to experiment within regulatory frameworks. The relevant frameworks allowed for exceptions but Medifly had to deal with obstacles that lay in citizens’ or bureaucrats’ perceptions rather than juridical hurdles.

Project History

Medifly is an urban air mobility solution in Germany’s second largest city Hamburg. It aims to reduce transport costs and time by the use of drones to transport medical goods (e.g. tissue samples).
In 2017, an applied research institute and the city administration initiated the network Windrove to bring together the local and regional drone community. In workshops, stakeholders identified the transport of tissue samples as a suitable use case that would also be easy to justify to the general public. In 2019 a project consortium prepared for test flights in downtown Hamburg. The consortium encompassed small and large private aviation and software businesses, the applied research institute and a cluster organisation.


Stakeholder Engagement and Experimentation

Commencing in 2020, Medifly conducted test flights while meticulously examining existing regulatory frameworks. At the time, national legislation prohibited the operation of drones over residential areas, railway facilities, hospitals among others. However, agreeing to and implementing a set of safety terms and conditions, the consortium managed to obtain an operational waiver from the competent authority. Initially, they granted approvals on a per-flight basis. As the consortium observed consistent adherence to safety protocols and authorities engaged directly with the technology, the latter became more receptive.
As a result, the flight route was expanded to a network. Formats such as public events and online surveys were used to learn if public sentiment was in favour of regular medical drone operations. The surveys included a platform where citizens could interact with the challenges of identifying safe air traffic routes and could try planning routes. Volunteers helped during test flights as “plane spotters”. Proactive measures, including regular information sessions and collaboration with local media, were undertaken to build trust and transparency. Notably, inquiries at local police stations revealed an absence of noise complaints related to the test flights.

Main Take-aways

  • Courage, Vision and Patience: Unmanned aircraft is a new technology. Integrating such into established air traffic systems requires learning from experiments and building trust. Both of which take time and are dependent on each other. The case of Medifly shows that working within such a niche requires courage, vision and sometimes endurance. Especially, when it is necessary to overcome social perceptions that a new way of doing things, in this case, urban air transportation, are not fully embraced at the start.
  • Regulatory framework allowed for experimentation: Initially, Medifly was able to make use of waivers to obtain operational authorisation. Still, the project had to take one step after the other and so authorities and the public could gain confidence.
  • Addressing concerns, involving citizens: In addition to that, the project offered different avenues for different stakeholders to gain insights and trust: online consultation and a tool to “play” with flight routes, online and offline information, hands-on experience etc.

 

References (accessed May 2025)


The history of Medifly http://Medifly.hamburg/history
Lasch, H. et. al. (2022) Visualising the societal acceptance and the planning reality of Urban Air Mobility (UAM): Digital Participation Tool Medifly. Abstract European Cartographic Conference https://ica-abs.copernicus.org/articles/5/73/2022/ica-abs-5-73-2022.pdf

Recommendations

When ERA Hubs unite diverse actors to strive for a common goal, they will be more likely to add meaningfully to today’s grand challenges.

The case studies have shown that a main, overarching objective is a starting point. This aligns effort. Of course, this objective needs to bring about good change for societies. Quite a number of main objectives will seem to be clear, such as unleashing human potential, safeguarding human development within its ecological boundaries, making digitalisation work for humans and a competitive European economy. Still, it is necessary that ERA Hubs spend enough time upfront and during operations to consider and review their main objective. Main objectives are derived from bold visions: a desirable future that may seem too distant to get to at the moment but unleashes energy and taps into potential within an ecosystem.
This requires involving many different stakeholders. Yet, it is not about reaching consensus, but forging a critical mass of determined actors. And at the same time, it is not about interests of a particular group but society at large. Therefore, directional effort requires some skills in navigating possible tensions while striving towards the vision and main objective.

It proved helpful to start with a place based problem and linking it to broader policy goals. Starting in this sense means understanding: its root causes, its impacts, its opportunities.

The case studies have shown that cross-departmental or -sector collaboration is needed in the transformative processes. The examples showcase different ways how to do that: setting up a clear management structure with a strong political, bi-partisan backing, informal clubs, inviting possible allies to touch and experience new ideas or technologies and many more. 

Experimentation and room for trial-and-error processes help to fulfil missions. This pertains to solutions as well as trying and learning for governance setups or policy. The Finnish example Mobility as a Service renders an account of this. In addition, other examples illustrate how a niche in a transformative process may look like. They need to be nurtured and fostered to develop their potential.

2. MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE

 

2.1 Issue addressed

Multi-Level Governance in the context of ERA Hubs looks at the interplay of  partnerships across these different levels: EU, national, regional and local.

ERA Hubs may facilitate coordination among different levels and help to streamline or harmonise policies, initiatives and resources. In doing so, ERA Hubs bridge regional fragmentation or build a critical mass. Learnings and ideas from local pilots may be leveraged and mutual learning can be facilitated across communities.

By taking in members from different levels, ERA Hubs will be able to tackle this challenge (ERA_FABRIC 2024, D2.2 chapter 5.2).

The subsequent section presents examples how different networks manage these vertical relationships.

References (accessed May 2025)

ERA_FABRIC (2024) Deliverable D2.2. EU Place-based Research and Innovation Ecosystems, Mapping Case Studies of Knowledge Ecosystems across European Regions   https://erafabric.eu/deliverables/d2-2-eu-pb-rai-ecosystems/ 

 

2.2 Examples

2.2.1 Bioeconomy Austria: Critical Mass Instead of Regional Fragmentation

Bioeconomy Austria is a national initiative aimed at transitioning Austria towards a sustainable, bio-based economy. It focuses on replacing fossil resources with renewable biological resources, thereby addressing climate change, resource scarcity, and environmental pollution. The initiative is part of Austria’s broader Bioeconomy Strategy, adopted in March 2019. 

It builds on regional networks, clusters and initiatives, pools their expertise and capacities and thus creates critical mass.

Results and Achievements

  • Network Establishment: Bioeconomy Austria has successfully created a robust network of over 350 partners, including businesses, research institutions and governmental bodies. This network facilitates knowledge exchange, synergy utilization, and joint project development. Bioeconomy Austria started as a nationally funded project of regional stakeholders. In 2024, an association was founded as a legal entity.
  • Strategic Workshops and Action Plans: The initiative has conducted numerous workshops and consultations, involving over 400 stakeholders, to develop a comprehensive action plan. This plan outlines concrete measures for establishing a bio-based economy in Austria.
  • Policy Integration: Bioeconomy Austria contributes to better cohesion and interlinking of regional, national and European policies for circular bioeconomy.

Main Take-aways

  • Multi-Stakeholder Involvement: The initiative emphasizes the involvement of diverse stakeholders, including businesses, research institutions, and policymakers, ensuring a holistic approach to innovation and knowledge ecosystem development.
  • Interdepartmental Coordination: Effective governance is achieved through interdepartmental collaboration, involving multiple ministries and high-ranking committees of experts. This ensures that the bioeconomy strategy is well-coordinated and aligned with national and international goals.
  • Regional and National Integration: Bioeconomy Austria operates through regional hubs and a national cluster, promoting inter- and intra-regional collaboration. This structure supports the development of localized solutions while maintaining a cohesive national strategy.

The governance model of Bioeconomy Austria is particularly relevant to ERA Hubs as it demonstrates the importance of multi-stakeholder involvement, interdepartmental coordination, and regional integration. These elements are crucial for fostering innovation and developing robust knowledge ecosystems within ERA Hubs. By adopting similar governance practices, ERA Hubs can enhance their effectiveness and contribute to a sustainable and circular economy.

References (accessed May 2025)

Bioeconomy Strategy for Austria (2019), Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Climate and Environmental Protection, Regions and Water Management
 https://www.bmimi.gv.at/en/topics/climate-environment/climate-protection/bioeconomy/strategy.html

Summary Austrian Bioeconomy Strategy, Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Climate and Environmental Protection, Regions and Water Management https://www.bmimi.gv.at/en/topics/climate-environment/climate-protection/bioeconomy/summary-strategy.html

Bioeconomy Strategy for Austria (2019), Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/en/Topics/Research/Research-in-Austria/Strategic-focus-and-advisory-bodies/Strategies/Bioeconomy-Strategy.html

Bioeconomy Austria https://www.bioeconomy-austria.at/

Gateway to the Austria Bioeconomy, Presentation https://bioregions.efi.int/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2.3_Bioeconomy-Austria_-Florian-Kamleitner-Bioeconomy-Austria-the-network-of-networks-as-an-austrian-wide-innovation-ecosystem.pdf 

 

2.2.2 Technopoles in Emilia-Romagna:  Regional Coordination, Local Ideas, Multiple Funds

Emilia-Romagna has created an innovation network that integrates industry stakeholders and research institutions, but also municipal and regional authorities. It invests EU funds strategically and harvests local needs in a coordinated effort to foster its economic development.

In a joint effort of regional and local actors, eleven so-called “technopoles” have been established since 2010, aiming at developing and strengthening R&D locations.

Each technopole is a co-location of laboratories, companies, universities or other educational institutions and public authorities. Each has a main infrastructure that provides space for high technology innovation. One or more strategic areas guide each technopole. They range from food and agronomy to automotive industries, health and life sciences to renewable energies.

A multi-stakeholder board manages each technopole. One major actor plays a vital coordinating role for this technopole. Technopole members’ voices need to be addressed by the technopole or the region at large. If feasible, citizen or business consultation workshops add to this process. As industry leaders and public officials govern the bodies of the technopoles, agenda setting coordinates various stakeholders’ needs. Local authorities present a major partner. They are board members and provide financial or infrastructural resources.

At the regional level, a government agency links all efforts within and across the technopoles’ strategic areas. Additionally, this agency connects the region to EU programmes and actors.

Networking at the site also facilitates the development of applications for European research and innovation programmes. Conversely, EU programmes like Horizon or ERDF help to advance the local agenda. Inputs from the technopoles are combined at the regional level, when applying for these funds as a region.

 

Main Take-aways

  • Joint forces and sources of local, regional and European level: Local and regional actors together have developed R&D Lighthouses attracting further researchers. The technopole network was set up through EU and regional funds which were complemented by local authorities’ and universities’ and research institutes’ contributions. Regional grant schemes foster cooperation by setting funding criteria demanding agreements among relevant parties (e.g.: local authorities, universities, owner of infrastructure, …).
  • Establish a culture of cooperation: It is the region’s aspiration to share skills, ideas and resources among public and private entities. This culture of cooperation allows the region to grow and flourish. 
  • Strong coordinating body: A central government agency has the clout and backing from all relevant stakeholders to coordinate the region’s efforts. Also, at the next level, the technopoles have such a coordinating body. They do steer the processes and thus have an influence on their outcomes. Yet, their strong mission is to support and be in service of the region and the network’s members.

 

References (accessed May 2025)

ART-ER, Emilia-Romagna regional agency https://www.art-er.it/ 

Emilia-Romagna Regional Action Plan https://projects2014-2020.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1580757205.pdf

The Network for Technopoles for High Technology in Emilia-Romagna, informational video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQl2RC5jxvU


2.3 Recommendations

When ERA Hubs coordinate stakeholders across different territorial levels, they will be more likely to make a strong difference for their regions’ development.

The case studies highlight the relevance of a “gravitational centre” for coordination tasks. This actor or group of actors requires the backing of other main stakeholders. On this basis, it will be able to generate a positive dynamic for cooperation within a region and beyond. This enables localized policy and governance solutions. At the same time, multi-level governance requires maintaining a cohesive strategy, aligning other level’s strategies. A strong coordinating centre proves helpful to meet this goal.

Multi-level research and innovation networks thrive among others through their culture of cooperation, striving for common goals. Therefore, this culture needs to be nurtured.
They also thrive on strategic priorities. Therefore, research and innovation efforts need to be aligned strategically. The combination of funds from multiple levels proved to be conducive. 

Strong national and/or regional strategies support this culture and span an umbrella to coordinate efforts. This allows ideas and pilots to float from “bottom to top” and reverse, so that different levels can inspire each other.

 

 

3. MAIN FINDINGS

3.1 Examples

3.1.1 Collaboration Corridors: Agreement on Common Priorities, Establishment of Longer-Term Cooperation  

The Collaboration Corridors concept is designed to create structured pathways for collaboration between different regions and innovation hubs. The primary goal of the Collaboration Corridors is to enable regions with different innovation capacities to work together effectively, to facilitate knowledge transfer and joint innovation activities. By fostering interregional collaboration, the corridors aim to drive technological uptake and innovation across underrepresented regions. Additionally, they seek to bridge the innovation gap between leading and moderate/modest innovator regions, ensuring a more balanced and inclusive approach to technological advancement.

Governance Arrangements

Effective governance for Collaboration Corridors involves establishing a structured framework with clear guidelines and methodologies for collaboration. These guidelines outline the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of all participating entities. They provide a roadmap for good practices in collaboration, ensuring consistency and clarity. Stakeholder engagement is crucial, involving regional governments, innovation hubs, and other relevant parties in the governance process. This helps to ensure that the corridors meet the needs of all parties involved and fosters a sense of ownership and commitment. Regular monitoring and evaluation are essential to assess collaboration outcomes and make necessary adjustments to ensure the corridors remain effective and beneficial. The governance framework must be flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances and emerging challenges. This means being open to feedback and willing to make necessary adjustments to the guidelines and processes. Ensuring transparency in operations and decision-making processes builds trust among stakeholders. Clear communication channels and regular reporting on activities and outcomes help maintain accountability and foster a collaborative environment.

Main Take-aways

  • Sustainability: The framework is designed to support long-term collaboration that continues beyond the initial projects.
  • Inclusivity: The corridors engage a wide range of stakeholders from different regions, promoting a diverse and collaborative environment. 
  • Scalability: the framework is replicable across Europe, allowing for widespread adoption and impact.

 

References (accessed May 2025)

Project BOWI (Boosting Widening Digital Innovation Hubs) https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/873155/reporting

Project BOOST (Boosting Smart Regional Innovation Ecosystems) https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101070737 

 

3.1.2 Leveraging Regional & National Funds for Interregional Projects

Not only European programmes such as Horizon Europe, LIFE, Interreg, Digital Europe, etc. offer financial support for European cooperation. There are also a growing number of initiatives that leverage national and regional funds for interregional cooperation. 

European Partnerships are initiatives in which the EU Commission and private and/or public partners commit themselves to jointly supporting the development and implementation of a research and innovation programme. The ERA-LEARN platform provides an excellent overview. It not only explains the different governance models of “Co-funded partnerships” involving public authorities, “Co-programmed partnerships” between the Commission and private and/or public partners and “Institutionalised partnerships” but also provides up-to-date information on all calls for proposals.

The world’s biggest public network for international cooperation in R&D and innovation is EUREKA, an intergovernmental network involving more than 45 countries, including member countries from outside Europe, such as Canada, South Korea, and South Africa. It supports market-driven R&D and innovation projects.  Each member country has a National Contact Point (NCP) responsible for coordinating and managing EUREKA projects. NCPs ensure that projects align with national priorities and funding mechanisms. The central EUREKA secretariat provides operational support, ensuring consistency and facilitating communication between member countries. This centralized governance structure helps maintain strategic and operational continuity. EUREKA allows for various funding models, including grants, loans, and tax incentives, tailored to the specific needs of participating countries. This flexibility enables countries to leverage their national funds effectively. EUREKA supports a wide range of project types, from small-scale feasibility studies to large-scale, multi-partner collaborative projects, across various technological domains.

VINNOVATE is another example of how regional funds can be effectively utilized for interregional projects. This interregional funding mechanism was developed by regions involved in the Vanguard Initiative. It supports industry-led and strategic interregional projects by providing grants for activities at Technology Readiness Levels 6-8. Projects must involve at least one SME and organizations from at least two distinct regions and countries. Each applicant must comply with the requirements of their respective regional or national funding instruments. This ensures alignment with local policies and regulations.

Main Take-aways

  • Partnerships: Regions can strengthen their regional specialisation by joining these European partnerships in strategically relevant thematic areas.
  • Funding: There is a large number of coordinated regional/national funding instruments for interregional cooperation. It is important to have a good overview.

References (accessed May 2025)

ERA-LEARN support platform: https://www.era-learn.eu/

EUREKA https://eurekanetwork.org/

VINNOVATE Call 2025, Vanguard Initiative: https://www.s3vanguardinitiative.eu/multipurpose-page/call-2025 

 

3.1.3 CLUST-ER Emilia-Romagna: Aligning S3 & International Projects

The region of Emilia-Romagna, along with ART-ER and the regional clusters (CLUST-ERs), align their interregional activities through a coordinated and strategic approach that leverages synergies and maximizes resource efficiency. Emilia-Romagna Region, ART-ER, and CLUST-ERs work closely together to participate in various European platforms such as Thematic Smart Specialisation platform sub-groups, Vanguard initiative pilots, and ERRIN working groups. This integrated coordination ensures that resources are distributed efficiently, and synergies are created, fostering a trustful network for interregional innovation projects.

The region supports the participation of regional stakeholders in S3 Partnerships and the Vanguard Initiative, adopting an integrated and coordinated approach to investments in innovation and the development of European value chains. 

Based on the analysis of cooperation within these networks, the region decides on topics for which ERDF/regional funds will be made available for interregional cooperation. Joint interregional calls are designed and implemented in relevant European Partnerships, with ART-ER and CLUST-ERs co-designing these calls and activating companies to participate. 

Main Take-aways

  • Strong Regional Collaboration: Effective interregional collaboration requires strong coordination and collaboration within the region. Engaging quadruple-helix actors (government, academia, industry, and civil society) is crucial for aligning resources and expertise.
  • Efficient Resource Distribution: Leveraging synergies and distributing resources efficiently among regional players enhances capacity building and expertise development. This approach fosters a trustful network that serves as a foundation for successful interregional innovation projects.
  • Strategic Participation in European Networks: Active participation in European networks and initiatives, such as the Sustainable Blue Economy Partnership and Horizon Europe projects, amplifies the benefits of interregional collaboration. Aligning regional strategies and funding with European excellence research and innovation frameworks ensures impactful outcomes.

References (accessed May 2025)

CLUST-ER, Clusters in Emilia-Romagna, ART-ER: https://www.art-er.it/clust-er

ART-ER European projects and activities: https://www.art-er.it/en/projects-and-activities

Smart Specialisation Strategy S3 Emilia-Romagna Region 2021-2027: https://fesr.regione.emilia-romagna.it/erdf/s3,  (Full version in Italian)

3.2 Recommendations

When ERA Hubs connect regions to harness synergies, they will be more likely to boost specialisation efforts and thus strengthen their competitiveness. Being able to connect and align with other regions requires clear and flexible frameworks, strategic thinking and financial resources.

Interregional cooperation shall foster competitiveness and impactful innovation processes. A major building block is strategic thinking. Important to any region, it becomes even more so when going to the EU-/interregional level. It is necessary to decide which initiatives to participate in. Creating a roadmap upfront helps in these decisions. It should tell where you are heading to, how you want to get there and which challenges might arise. Potential partners in other regions are able to interact more efficiently with their counterpart, when they convey their take on these questions.

Therefore, ERA Hubs should strive for a portfolio approach to ensure sustainability beyond single projects, ensure clear and flexible frameworks and corridors. A clear framework gives guidance to all actors as to what they are expected to deliver and who is responsible for which tasks and decisions. Such a framework forms a basis on which stakeholders can interact efficiently. This coordinates efforts and lowers entry barriers for interregional networks

It is vital to establish strong coordination and collaboration within the region as an essential prerequisite of effective interregional collaboration. The more one region speaks with one voice, the more it can get out of interregional collaboration.

While the framework needs to be clear, it doesn’t mean that it has to be rigid. Changing trends or policies require individual regions to adjust or reorient to changing priorities. Interregional cooperation frameworks have to consider this. 

Finally, to think strategically, bridging regions and defining frameworks requires time and therefore financial resources. The examples show that it is vital to connect EU and national funds to maximise the resource base for interregional collaborations.

4. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

4.1 Issue addressed

ERA Hubs aim, among other goals, to translate research results into the economy, build robust networks and contribute to main societal challenges (ERA_FABRIC 2023a, 2023, 2025b). This requires a ‘joint ownership of goals and processes’ and the representation of ‘a broad spectrum of stakeholders’, prioritising ‘underrepresented groups’ (ERA_FABRIC 2023).

To this end, the triple helix model for innovation ecosystems is a well-established concept but has shown its limits. Its scope is limited, especially in addressing complex societal challenges that require broader stakeholder engagement (Cai & Amaral 2021).

Integrating more perspectives, i.e. helices, helps to meet needs more accurately, creates synergies, makes more knowledge and resources accessible, creates a larger common ground and enables more dynamic processes and solutions across sectors (SIRR 2024).

The quadruple helix framework acknowledges the role of societal engagement and public opinion in shaping innovation processes, by including civil society or the public in more general. To promote socio-ecological transitions and sustainable development the fifth helix, natural environment, adds ecological considerations in innovation processes (eg. Donati et. al. 2023). 

This implies to involve citizens, often as final beneficiaries of innovation, in the development process – a key message of the quadruple helix model. The following examples give insights in its effective application.
On top of this, some initiatives try to work with nature as a fifth actor (quintuple helix). Research for this governance manual has found some projects as examples. They are working on a tool box and action plan which haven’t been published at the time of finalizing this manual (e.g. a project called “WATSUPS” in the city of Mechelen, Flanders, or the EU-wide UPSURGE project).

References (accessed May 2025)

Cai, Y., Amaral, M. (2021) Triple Helix Model of Innovation: From Boundaries to Frontiers. Triple Helix 9(2): 107–117. https://brill.com/view/journals/thj/9/2/article-p107_1.xml 

Donati, L., Stefani, G., Bellandi, M. (2023) The Evolutionary Emergence of Quintuple Helix Coalitions: A Case Study of Place-Based Sustainability Transition. Triple Helix 10(1): 125-155. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-12340010

ERA_FABRIC (2023) Policy Brief. https://erafabric.eu/resources/policy-brief/ 

ERA_FABRIC (2023a) Deliverable D2.1. https://erafabric.eu/deliverables/d2-1-knowledgeeco/ 

ERA_FABRIC (2025b) Enhancing Research and Innovation through ERAHubs. E-Leaflet. 

SIRR (2024) Does the Future of Rural Innovation Lie in Multi-Helix Hubs? Cooking together for sustainability. https://www.interregnorthsea.eu/sirr/news/does-the-future-of-rural-innovation-lie-in-multi-helix-hubs-cooking-together-for 

Innovation for place-based transformations, Action Book (2024) https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC135826 

 

4.2 Examples

4.2.1 AMAI! Flanders: Civil Society Involvement in AI Application 

This example illustrates how all four stakeholder groups (“helices”) collaborate in Flanders to develop market-ready products applying artificial intelligence. An organisation specialised in citizen science is tasked to steer this process.

General Overview

AMAI! (”wow” in Flemish) has become an innovation approach that started as a project to inform citizens about AI and involve them in the development of new AI applications in Flanders. As a part of the Flemish AI Plan (2009), the government wanted to engage with and educate citizens about this emerging technology. It collaborated with two organisations, one specialising in citizen science (Scivil), one in “data & society”.

AMAI! has set up an involvement and engagement process for citizens. They take major decisions in the whole cycle from identifying problems, developing projects up to fund allocation.

By the end of 2024, 14 projects have been funded. They range from a smart diabetes assistant and language assistants to solutions to environmental issues.

The AMAI! approach inspires other regional actors to incorporate citizen engagement elements into their industry-academia formats.

Citizen-Involvement in more detail

The four main steps in more detail:

  1. Ideas phase: citizens can formulate ideas for projects or problems to be solved by AI. In addition, experts and domain organisations formulate ideas. The AMAI! team clusters these ideas within their four areas of focus (work, mobility, climate, health)
  2. Co-creation phase: AMAI! invites local policy makers, SMEs, civil society org. + citizens to co-creation workshops. Everyone pursuing a project idea is invited to take part to deepen the understanding of the project and find possible partners among the other participants. One workshop focusing on one theme each. These workshops span across the region. 
  3. Project calls: subsequently, a project call is open for applications. Applicants must be consortia of at least three different stakeholders (e.g.: civil society, business, science). A citizen jury takes the final fund allocating decision, after an expert jury has reviewed all project applications. The expert jury members have different backgrounds: academia, industry, policy, etc.
    The citizen jury is organised in two ways: 1) an open online vote, 2) a citizen assembly process spread over two Saturdays
  4. Project implementation phase: each project must involve a citizen science component during its implementation. AMAI! offers intervision sessions for the projects. 

 

Main Take-aways

  • Engagement: AMAI! offers many avenues for citizens to participate in the process: booths at festivals and other events, visiting organisations, games & do-it-yourself toolkits, online interaction and partnerships with traditional media. This attracts different groups of different people according to their needs, spaces and interests.
  • Project selection and improvement: The AMAI! Approach works in cycles to improve the quality of projects. Co-creation workshops for project owners, idea bringers and others become partners in this way. Public buy-in is increased through public votes on fund allocation in citizen panels and online voting.
  • Resources for meaningful citizen involvement: AMAI! employs four full-time staff to engage the public professionally.

 

References (accessed May 2025)

AMAI! Website https://amai.vlaanderen/ 

Citizen Science Roadmap for Local Government, SCIVIL https://www.scivil.be/sites/default/files/paragraph/files/2021-12/Citizen%20science%20roadmap%20for%20local%20government_EN_sep21.pdf,

Co-creating Artificial Intelligence: Designing and Enhancing Democratic AI Solutions Through Citizen Science https://theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org/articles/10.5334/cstp.732#T2 

EU Missions Playbook https://www.trami5missions.eu/missions-playbook-0 

 

4.2.2 BioökonomieREVIER: Citizen Engagement Process in Green transformation

This case study from western Germany explains how a citizen assembly process helped the region to increase the buy-in of the public in the transition phase towards a bioeconomy based region.

Overview

The goal of BioökonomieREVIER is to actively shape the green transition of the German Rhenish lignite mining area towards a circular, sustainable bioeconomy model region to compensate for the consequences of the lignite phase-out in 2030 and the associated job losses. Activities include research on innovative agriculture, biotechnology & synthetic materials and others; strengthening business networks to identify business challenges and flagship projects. To address fears, conflicts and uncertainties the green transition brings about, the region launched a citizen engagement process.

To this end, a steering group was set up with local actors, representing civil society, agriculture, business and trade unions, science & education, politics and government agencies.

A regional science hub (Research Center Jülich) manages the circular bioeconomy model region.

Citizen Assembly

The region chose to set up a citizen assembly. This is a method to include citizens’ ideas and address fears. Participants were selected randomly. In this case, 12 participants were chosen for a two-days online assembly. The assembly then offered small group discussions, expert inputs and interviews. It all led to recommendations, which the assembly members presented to the public and authorities in a so-called citizen café.

Other citizen engagement activities included providing a regional smartphone application, a local stakeholder online map, an innovation contest and a mobile exhibition. 

A research group (“CURE”, see references) specialising in citizen participation in green transitions designed and facilitated the whole process.

Within the region, several research institutions, local businesses etc. are involved in the activities (innovation labs, conferences, projects, …). Also, the model region engages young people to inform about new, upcoming job profiles and career avenues in the region. 

Main Take aways

  • Participation for better outcomes: Well-designed citizen participation ensures that many views and groups interests or resistance will be highlighted and respected. It facilitates and utilises the wisdom of crowds to improve decisions. This leads to broader acceptance of decisions, based on the outcome of the participatory process.
  • Stick to the guidelines for citizen assemblies: Citizen assembly is a well-crafted method of participation. They therefore follow a certain set of rules, e.g.: select participants randomly to gain a representative panel in the assembly, inform the public about the process, offer information and preparatory materials for participants …
  • Engage experts in facilitating citizen engagement processes: they know about the intricacies when planning and carrying out the process, ensure equal distribution of talk time, and address diverse emotions that might come up … 

References (accessed May 2025)

Citizen Participation, BioökonomieREVIER https://www.biooekonomierevier.de/buergerbeteiligung_biooekonomie

Innovation Labs/Clusters, BioökonomieREVIER https://www.biooekonomierevier.de/Innovationscluster_BiooekonomieREVIER

CURE, Center for environmental management, resources and energy, University of Bochum https://www2.wiwi.rub.de/kompetenzfelder/cure/

Citizens’ assemblies, Institute for Government https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/citizens-assemblies 

 

 

4.2.3 Driving Urban Transitions: Financial and Non-Financial Support for Civil Society Involvement

This case study explains how an international initiative links an EU initiative with national funds and local communities.

Overview

Driving Urban Transitions (DUT) is a public-public partnership, co-funded by 28 European countries and the European Commission under Horizon Europe. The consortium consists of 65+ national and regional R&I funders, authorities, agencies and research organisations. The partnership issues annual funding calls with an indicative budget of 450 mio Euro for 2022-2028.

The DUT Partnership aims to contribute significantly to the European and global mission on climate-neutral cities, the European Green Deal, and the Urban Agenda for the EU by developing and implementing a transformative research and innovation (R&I) programme, empowering local authorities, businesses, and citizens to translate global strategies into local actions.

Stakeholder Engagement

DUT offers different spaces and formats for the various stakeholders, especially civil society, to enter discussions and engage with each other:

  • AGORA Dialogues: spaces for researchers, practitioners, public administrators, planners, entrepreneurs, social innovators, and more to come together and identify and work jointly on priorities and the most pressing urban challenges of today and the future.
  • DUT City Panel: offering a platform for peer-to-peer learning and DUT strategy development support to participating cities.
  • Urban Doers Community: a funding scheme for small-scale funding of local projects in cities. The bodies implementing these projects are invited for EU-wide peer-to-peer exchange and to feed into policy discussions and papers.
  • Policy Discussions: DUT publishes policy papers and invites policy makers at EU and national levels to discuss issues with various DUT stakeholders. 

Main Take-aways

  • Supporting transformative urban R&I needs new ways of R&I funding: Driving transformative change includes challenging the current modes of funding. This could be specific call requirements, such as the obligatory involvement of local public administration and other urban actors. Other ways are setting up a community of projects for mutual learning, reflecting the results with public administration in city panels and strategic discussions with all kinds of stakeholders in the Agora.
  • Mobilizing local knowledge and experience is key for facilitating (urban) transformation: DUT strives to fund local transition projects and at the same time harness their knowledge for other urban transformation processes. This requires small scale funding and an exchange platform for these local initiatives to be able to interact with.

 

References (accessed May 2025)

Driving Urban Transitions Partnership: https://dutpartnership.eu/; https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/driving-urban-transitions-to-a-sustainable-future-dut/

DUT Stakeholder Involvement formats (AGORA City Panel, Urban Doers Community, Pop Community): https://dutpartnership.eu/the-dut-partnership/stakeholder-communities/

Webinar Human Centricity of R&D & Innovation Policies, ERA_FABRIC https://erafabric.eu/video/#uael-video-gallery-5869f20-2 

 

4.3 Recommendations

When ERA Hubs include all stakeholders, they will be more likely to address grand challenges and realise best possible solutions.

Stakeholder engagement requires challenging current modus operandi, time, resources and professional facilitation for engaging citizens/stakeholders. In doing so, many perspectives will be fed into the innovation process that will lead to better outcomes.
While all examples worked on a quadruple helix framework, their processes very often addressed the environmental issues rendered in the quintuple helix approach.

Citizen participation is a way to challenge current regimes. Yet, for it to work, it is necessary to rethink current funding schemes and set specific criteria in funding calls.

Empowering local actors to connect and exchange at European level fosters innovation at multiple levels. It generates a flow of ideas, also towards policy makers. This requires special effort to create meaningful spaces for local initiatives to invest their time in this. 

Stakeholder engagement offers many avenues for improving ideas. Co-creative project development and implementation may be demanding. However, it should pay off in the long run.

As all examples show, broad stakeholder engagement requires effort, time and other resources. This has to be budgeted.
One major building block are professional facilitators who help in designing the engagement process and can act as a neutral instance during the process. This seems especially important, when citizen engagement shall address societal fears or uncertainties.

For citizens to make their step and actively participate, they need to be informed in a timely manner. This information needs to be invitational or inspiring. Citizens shall be able to receive it in many different ways and through different channels. This maximises the number of people contacted.

CONCLUSIONS

ERA Hubs aim at creating dynamic, mission-oriented research and innovation ecosystems that align local, regional, national, and European actors. These hubs are not new bureaucratic layers or funding mechanisms, but governance tools that strengthen coordination for addressing grand challenges and improving competitiveness. 

The ERA_FABRIC Governance Manual highlights how ERA Hubs can foster directionality, multi-level governance, horizontal integration and stakeholder involvement to unlock transformative innovation. It briefly presents examples how various innovation networks in Europe are mastering or have gone through these challenges. Based on the learnings from various workshops, surveys and interviews carried out, best practices collected in the ERA_FABRIC project, and especially desk research on the case studies presented in this manual, we draw the following conclusions for better governance of interregional knowledge ecosystems, tasks that ERA Hubs could fulfil in the future. 

Directionality

  • Create a shared agenda: ensure that necessary stakeholders pull in the same direction, start with and deeply understand a local/place-based problem, gather a coalition of the willing, link local priorities’ needs to national and EU strategic priorities;
  • Create spaces for experimentation, invest in niches, apply a trial and error mindset, ensure policy-relevant learning;
  • A common vision and strategic alignment are essential to transformative change. Drivers may be academia, businesses, universities; regional agencies may act as intermediaries; policy makers need to set conditions right.

Multi-Level Governance

  • Support the development of localized (governance) solutions while maintaining a cohesive national and/or regional strategy
  • Develop ideas, pilots and strategies in “bottom-top-bottom cycles” – each level inspiring others, invest in a culture of cooperation and invest in strong and serving coordinating agents,
  • Invest in research and innovation strategically  and combine various funds from all levels.

Horizontal and Interregional Integration

  • Strive for a portfolio approach to ensure sustainability beyond single projects, ensure clear and flexible frameworks and corridors,
  • Remain adaptable to evolving global and local priorities,
  • Establish strong coordination and collaboration within the region as an essential prerequisite of effective interregional collaboration.

Stakeholder Involvement

  • Empower local communities/neighbourhood initiatives/entrepreneurs and connect them to European level (e.g. funding requirements fostering civil society engagement; Establish “arenas” for structured exchange and collaboration between programme owners and local stakeholders; etc.)
  • Co-creation: collect ideas from a wide audience, let different stakeholders enhance them in a collaborative manner, facilitate this process well and professionally, budget for this adequately with respect to time and financial resources;
  • Address fears or uncertainties in societal transitions with engagement, consultation and an invitation to participate and co-shape.

ERA Hubs pioneer new ways in research and innovation. This manual has shown that delivering on their transformative potential requires courage, coordination, and collaboration. While no ideal model exists yet, the cases and recommendations presented here demonstrate pathways for ERA Hubs to act as convenors, experimenters, and catalysts.
Through coordinated action, networked engagement, multi-level alignment and a commitment to transformative missions, ERA Hubs can become key enablers of Europe’s green, digital and social transitions.

MENU
Scroll to Top
Skip to content