Paradigm shift: Is the world ready for a new model of collaborative R&I?

Summary

• The central message was that collaborative R&I is not being abandoned, but redefined. The emerging model is more selective, strategic and ecosystem-driven, with fewer European Partnerships (around 20 instead of 63 under discussion), closer alignment between FP10 and the proposed ECF, stronger institutional links between research and industry, and greater emphasis on connecting research to deployment, investment and competitiveness.

• Speakers stressed that Europe's competitiveness depends on overcoming fragmentation between European, national and regional innovation systems, as around 90% of public R&I funding still remains at national level.

• Several cross-cutting themes:

  1. the growing importance of regional innovation ecosystems,
  2. SME participation through bottom-up models such as Eureka,
  3. increased co-investment from public, private and philanthropic actors,
  4. the need to build long-term institutional partnerships rather than project-based collaborations.

• Trust, strategic networks and ecosystem building were repeatedly identified as critical enablers of Europe's future innovation capacity.

EURICE GROUP relevance

From community initiatives to European policymaking

• As the funding landscape becomes more strategic and partnership structures consolidate, organisations that provide primarily administrative support may come under greater pressure.
• By contrast, those that can act as strategic collaboration architects: building trusted consortia, connecting European and national agendas, supporting SME and industry engagement, managing exploitation and sustainability pathways, and translating evolving policy priorities into competitive project portfolios, are likely to strengthen their position.
• Several risks to monitor:
  1. a possible narrowing of international openness under the growing emphasis on sovereignty and economic security,
  2. increasing top-down steering at the expense of bottom-up collaboration,
  3. unresolved questions around intellectual property and openness in industry-oriented partnerships,
  4. continued uncertainty over the practical division of roles between FP10 and the ECF.

Session 1 · 14:00–14:30
Sovereign interests: A boost or a barrier to R&I strategy?

Robbert Dijkgraaf, President-elect, International Science Council · Moderated by Maryline Fiaschi

Core argument

• Dijkgraaf argued that collaboration has become the dominant model in research, but that Europe risks becoming trapped in a framework where the whole is less than the sum of the parts, a direct critique of fragmented national interests.
• He called for an intermediate layer between EU-wide programmes and national funding, something that allows clusters of willing member states to collaborate without requiring full EU-27 alignment. The Netherlands was cited as a case study for making this argument coherently.
• On the global level, he stressed that scientific values are global values, not just European ones, and pushed back against a narrowing of collaboration to "like-minded countries" only. He emphasised the importance of including perspectives from Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Key tension flagged

• The so-called "cliff of paranoia": the risk of shutting off collaboration in the name of sovereignty versus staying open at a time of geopolitical complexity. Dijkgraaf described this as a narrow but exciting path to walk.
• On private vs public research: he acknowledged that private industry (especially in breakthrough tech) brings focus and speed, but that publicly-funded collaborative science offers a different kind of value: breadth, shared language, and longer-term orientation.

"The problem with Europe is that the whole is less than the sum of the parts." "We need something in between, where we are not just addressing win-win, but spreading effort across a much wider network."

Session 2 · 14:30–15:10
Beyond borders: Towards a true single market for innovation?

Janet Geddes (Innovate UK) · Brit Helle (Eureka) · Freek van Muiswinkel (Utrecht University) · Moderated by Simon Pickard

On the value of international collaboration for SMEs

• Eureka's model was highlighted as proof-of-concept: a bottom-up, company-led approach where businesses self-select into international collaboration and "skin in the game" is a prerequisite. Scientifically demonstrated return on investment for SMEs.
• Innovate UK stressed that the bulk of accompanying support: investor readiness, market access missions, corporate challenges, happens at national level. International programmes open doors, but national agencies carry most of the load.
• A concrete example: beneficiary companies taken on international missions (Singapore cited), and corporate challenges linking large companies with SMEs and universities (a software development partnership connected to Beethoven universities).

On connecting regional and European agendas

• Utrecht University noted the value of regional ecosystems finding common ground through EU programmes, a Copenhagen/Sweden example showed that regions discovering shared problems (e.g. retaining entrepreneurial talent) can build lasting structures from initial programme-level connections.
• Van Muiswinkel flagged public procurement as an underused lever: directing procurement towards innovative products and companies as a complement to grants and venture investment.

Unresolved question raised

• Whether bottom-up programme logic (business knows best) can be sustained under pressure to align with top-down strategic priorities. Eureka reported that their projects "fit into strategic windows by themselves", but acknowledged this may not hold as political pressure on strategic focus increases.

Session 3 · 15:10–15:30 · Spotlight
Regional ecosystems: A blueprint for the future of collaborative R&I?

Arco Krijgsman (ASML) · Alberto Zilio (Ericsson) · Supported by Brainport Eindhoven

On European tech competitiveness

• Ericsson's Zilio made a frank point: Europe is not Ericsson's first market. Most European tech companies' primary global market lies outside Europe, a reversal of the pattern seen in the US and China, where home market dominance provides the base for global scale.
• The single market was described as incomplete and a "patchwork of different bands", with regulatory fragmentation cited as a concrete barrier (national regulations as many as member states).
• Europe is currently not investing in scale-up within Europe (current rules don't allow it). The comparison: 5 years to get a factory extension permit in Europe vs 18 months in Taiwan.
• ASML's Krijgsman emphasised that ecosystem trust is foundational: people knowing each other, having each other's phone numbers, low threshold for direct contact. This is what Brainport Eindhoven has built and what the EU should try to replicate or support structurally.
  Key asks of EU policy
• More structured industry involvement in the loop with academia and government, not ad hoc, but institutional.
• Long-term investment frameworks: current European investment levels in deep tech (AI, robotics, semiconductors) not comparable to US/China. EQT/Wallenberg family fund cited as a positive signal.

Session 4 · 16:00–16:40
Pooled resources: Is co-investment in R&I key to Europe's future?

B. Løseth (Norway) · T. López Garrido (DG GROW) · A. Thies (DESY) · S. Minucci (Philea) · Moderated by Goda Naujokaitytė

Commission position

• DG GROW outlined an ambition to create a single European funding authority: one instrument to replace fragmented EU-level tools, with a proposed model that consolidates what currently exists across multiple programmes.
• The Commission acknowledged working in silos internally, and committed to a more systematic platform for dialogue with external stakeholders: described as a systematic plan, essentially a structured website/portal for competence-mapping and engagement.

Research funder perspective (Norway)

• ~90% of R&I funding remains national, a figure confirmed by multiple speakers. Løseth emphasised that flexibility is both a necessity and a risk: motivated politicians are needed to maintain appropriate budget levels year-on-year, and alignment with EU priorities requires ongoing political investment that can erode under pressure.
• Capacity challenge flagged: shifting alignment to strategic priorities takes organisational effort, and that effort is often underestimated.
• Philanthropy perspective (Philea)
• Foundations want maximum flexibility in the legal base of future instruments, not to be restricted to a single modality. But they also recognise that the research sector needs stability and predictability.
• Philea pushed for philanthropic participation in Horizon Europe from 2028 and emphasised that foundations want to be involved in the design of programmes, not just as funders at the end of the chain.

Shared theme across speakers

• The need to build trust over time, not just in individual projects, through long-term, predictable frameworks. Trust is not generated in a three-year project; it needs institutional structures that outlast any single funding cycle.
• The tension between needing to respond fast (geopolitics, strategic crises) and needing long-term stability for industry planning. Several speakers said these are not incompatible, but require different mechanisms.

Session 5 · 16:40–17:30
R&I partnerships: Will a radically new landscape take shape under the next MFF?

Commission direction

• A significant rationalisation of partnerships is on the table: from 63 current partnerships down to approximately 20. The logic is not cuts but consolidation: more strategic, higher impact, simpler architecture.
• The Commission's stated default position is to keep the competitive framework as the baseline, with partnerships sitting on top of that, not replacing it. Private sector participation is to be incentivised but not ring-fenced.
• Under the next MFF, partnerships under ECF (European Competitiveness Fund) and FP10 are designed to have an institutional link forcing research and industry to work together, not dependent on individual goodwill.

Industry partnership perspective

• A.SPIRE's Orduña noted that industrial associations are not policymakers but need to be at the table, innovation means more than TRL 1–3, and the scale-up trajectory (from research through to industrial deployment) must be supported under both Horizon and ECF.
• Concern expressed that Horizon Europe is a strong instrument but the shift towards closer industrial strategy alignment risks locking results within industry. Deeper conversation needed on IP, openness, and competitive vs collaborative logic.