More resources bring more complexity (and more exclusion from access)
Anyone who has tried at least once to apply for a large-scale European funding program, such as Horizon Europe or the EIC Accelerator, may have initially felt overwhelmed by the complexity of the required steps. Endless documentation, technical rules, bureaucratic constraints, tight deadlines, and the obligation to form international partnerships… All requirements that go far beyond simply describing a scientifically high-quality project. In this context, the support of an experienced consultant becomes crucial, revealing a broader issue: are innovation funds truly within everyone’s reach? In recent years, the role of the European project consultant has become not only common but virtually indispensable. This evolution stems from a concrete need: funding programs are very specialized and competitive, with success rates below 5%, that they demand skills rarely found in-house, especially within start-ups, SMEs, or small academic research groups.
This is precisely the issue that the European Association of Innovation Consultants (EAIC) has addressed, clearly and with some concern. EAIC is a European association that brings together leading companies and professionals specialized in consulting for the design and management of proposals funded by EU research and innovation programs, such as Horizon Europe, EIC Accelerator, LIFE, Digital Europe, and others. In a statement issued in January 2025 by Vice President Xavier Aubry and President Luc Ragon, the association defended the role of consultants in the application process, but at the same time, indirectly highlighted a systemic problem: without dedicated professionals, many actors, even those with excellent ideas, are excluded from access to major European funds. Why does this happen?
Is funding by competition or by merit?
The rhetoric of excellence, which drives the selection logic of major European R&I programs, is based on a theoretically virtuous idea: to fund the best projects, regardless of their origin. But in practice, those who manage to stand out are often those who can afford a well-oiled project machine, or who have access to highly specialized consulting networks. In short, those who possess enabling means succeed, even if these don’t stem from their own qualifications or the quality of their proposal.
For many researchers, the cost, not just economic, but in terms of time and know-how, of preparing a successful application is too high. Developing a competitive project entails a huge amount of work, including: analyzing the call and its strategic objectives, building the consortium, defining expected impacts. And more: drafting an economic and financial plan aligned with EU policies, risk management, and dissemination strategies.
All of this must be done within non-extendable deadlines and under rules that change frequently. In this setting, the consultant becomes a key figure, not limited to technical writing, but also acting as a mediator, coordinator, and strategic interpreter. They coordinate potential partners, harmonize visions, and align expectations with the Commission’s evaluation criteria. In short, they establish a coherent and functional operational strategy for the proposal’s success. Without their involvement, many projects might never even get off the ground.
The cost of the consulting
There is another complication: the cost of consulting. Although some consultants work on a success fee basis (that means that the payment arrives only in case of approval), this still involves a risk and a considerable investment of time and energy. Moreover, support during the application phase cannot be covered by the project funds, since EU rules only allow reimbursement of expenses incurred after the Grant Agreement is signed.
The result is a paradox: accessing European funds requires resources that many do not have, and that the system itself does not fund, thus creating a temporary selection process with flawed criteria, based solely on the candidate’s ability to afford the process. As a result, while equal and inclusive access to research and innovation is promoted on paper, in practice we are witnessing a reversed form of natural selection: it is not necessarily the best idea that wins, but the one that survives the bureaucracy and its upfront costs.
Need for a systematic rethink
Defending the role of consultants, as the EAIC rightly does, does not mean ignoring the issue. On the contrary, it brings it to light: consultants are not the problem: they are the consequence of a project development process that has become too complex for applicants, and insufficiently structured to support innovation effectively.
And if a significant share of EU funding relies on these external professionals, the real question is not whether consultants are legitimate, they certainly are, and often indispensable, but rather: why has such a model become so fundamentally necessary? It’s a wake-up call: if the system tends to reward only those who already have structures, capital, and connections, it risks becoming exclusive rather than inclusive.
Which contradicts the mission of European calls for proposals: to fund research and innovation while promoting equity and cohesion. If a significant part of the system only works thanks to external professionals, the issue is not whether consultants are legitimate (they are), but why they have become indispensable.
Can a public funding system, intended to foster innovation, be built on dynamics that effectively favor those already inside it? If the answer is no, then a structural inequality exists, and it is essential to imagine new forms of simplification, institutional support, or funding for preparatory phases that ensure equal access opportunities.
Complexity, in itself, isn’t a bad thing. In fact, it is often necessary. But it must be justified, not an end in itself. Otherwise, it becomes a silent filter that rewards bureaucratic resilience more than transformative vision.
