The next Horizon programme’s fate hinges on 2026 talks to balance industry’s agenda, academic autonomy, and strict oversight
The year 2026 is poised to be the decisive moment for the fate of the new Horizon programme, the very instrument that has funded over 15,000 projects and reshaped the face of European research in recent years. However, everything is still in the proposal and negotiation phase.
Last July, as part of the next long-term EU budget for 2028-2034, the European Commission put forward an ambitious proposal: to double the funding for the research and innovation framework programme to a substantial €175 billion. This new Horizon Europe, in the Commission’s vision, is intended to be a powerful catalyst for the continent’s competitiveness and fund concrete solutions to real-world challenges, from AI assisting doctors to satellites protecting farmers, and cleaner, smarter ways to move, live, and work.
The four pillars shaping the future Horizon programme
The proposed programme is structured around four key pillars.
The first pillar, Excellent Science, with a proposed €44.079 billion, aims to strengthen the EU’s scientific base and attract top talent, notably through an expanded European Research Council adopting a “Choose Europe” approach.
The second and largest pillar, Competitiveness and Society, receives €75.876 billion. It is intended to support collaborative research in areas of high societal impact like the clean transition, digital leadership, defence, and space, in close synergy with the proposed European Competitiveness Fund.
The third pillar, Innovation, with €38.785 billion, is designed to fuel the development of new products and business models, significantly scaling up the European Innovation Council to support high-risk projects, including in defence.
Finally, the fourth pillar, European Research Area, would dedicate €16.262 billion to fostering a more unified and excellent research landscape. It would also support research infrastructures as a new feature.
Simplification and moonshot projects as strategic levers
Crucially, the Commission’s plans include streamlining the entire process, promising simplified support, fewer topics, and a shorter timeline from call closure to grant signature. Furthermore, Horizon Europe, in its proposed form tightly linked to the European Competitiveness Fund, would gain the capacity to launch ambitious “moonshot projects”. These large-scale ventures are conceived to move breakthrough ideas from research to real-world demonstration and deployment, leveraging pooled funding from EU, national, public, and private sources. Designed with the goal of positioning Europe as a global leader, these moonshots could drive transformative progress in strategic fields such as the future circular collider, clean aviation, quantum computing, next-generation AI, data sovereignty, automated transport, regenerative therapies, fusion energy, the space economy, zero water pollution, and advanced ocean observation.
The ambitious blueprint is now on the table, awaiting the decisions that will shape Europe’s scientific and industrial future. The fate of this blueprint now hinges on the forthcoming interinstitutional negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission, setting the stage for the critical decisions of 2026.
The Integration between Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund
The debate is now open. Among the first stakeholders to take a position is BusinessEurope, the leading EU-level business organization. BusinessEurope welcomes the proposed structure under the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028-2034, which closely links Horizon Europe with the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF). This integration represents a significant step forward, providing a promising foundation to link innovation with other means of improving competitiveness.
In its published document, “Competitiveness and Innovation: strengthening the Horizon Europe & European Competitiveness Fund Combination in the MFF”, the organization stresses that in the context of the ongoing negotiations, there should be no cuts to the budgets for the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation and the ECF. Instead, the total budget of €177 billion in 2025 prices (€200 billion in current prices) for research and innovation proposed in the Draghi report should be the target for FP10.
While BusinessEurope welcomes that Pillar II of Horizon Europe remains the largest recipient of funds, with an increase of €22.4 billion, it notes that its overall budget share has declined to 43.3% from 56% in the previous framework. This, they argue, underemphasizes the crucial transfer of knowledge into industrial applications, thereby undermining competitiveness and sending the wrong signal. Therefore, BusinessEurope calls for a reinforced overall budget for Horizon Europe to achieve a corresponding increase of €22.1 billion (2025 prices) specifically for Pillar II, to be complemented by funding from the ECF.
Industry involvement in governance and strategic direction
The organization further emphasizes that industry must have a clear role in shaping priorities, designing calls, and overseeing implementation. This requires the involvement of industry experts at all relevant governance levels of both the ECF and Horizon Europe: from top-down strategic direction-setting to bottom-up project-level oversight. For successful top-down direction, industry must have a central role on bodies like the Competitiveness Coordination Tool and the ECF’s Strategic Stakeholders Board. Transparent and well-defined linkages must also exist between such boards and entities like the Observatory on Emerging Technologies, particularly when informing the strategic programming for Pillar II.
The proposed concept of EU Tech Frontrunners or industry-driven consortia emerges as a promising and more agile, market-oriented approach than traditional partnerships. This model offers a platform for smaller companies and startups to scale their innovations in Europe, with established frontrunner companies acting as catalysts. Funding for these consortia could be drawn from both Horizon Europe and the ECF, covering everything from basic research to deployment and concrete investments.
Academic concerns over autonomy and governance clarity
The European University Association (EUA), on the other hand, is concerned about the proposed connection between Horizon Europe and the ECF. It is precisely the vague and inconsistent language across both the Horizon Europe and ECF proposals that troubles the academic association. In particular, the EUA wrote, the new competitiveness component of Horizon Europe, largely replacing today’s Pillar II, at times seems to belong to Horizon Europe, while in many other instances it is presented as if already integrated into the ECF. This ambiguity undermines the stated commitment to a truly independent programme.
Furthermore, according to the EUA, the proposed links between Pillar II and the ECF, with joint work programmes, shared governance and the introduction of a single rulebook, are likely to create friction, delays and legal uncertainty as the new programme takes form, and very likely beyond. The blurred boundaries and governance arrangements between Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund threaten the programme’s autonomy, risking confusion and the dilution of Horizon Europe’s research-driven mission. The envisaged use of joint work programmes, a single rulebook and shared governance may slow implementation, but also divert Horizon Europe towards industrial or short-term political objectives.
Different positions on governance, budget, and implementation
On the issue of funding, BusinessEurope raises concerns about cash contributions and funding rates. Secondo Business Europe Currently, companies provide cash for administrative costs and in-kind contributions to European Partnerships under Horizon Europe. However, under the new proposal, companies may be asked for additional direct cash contributions. Simultaneously, the issue of funding rates is critical. While current Horizon Europe offers rates of 70% for Innovation Actions and 100% for Research and Innovation Actions, the new proposal caps funding for large companies at 70% of eligible costs. In practice, due to non-eligible costs and limited contributions, the effective rate often falls to around 50%. BusinessEurope warns that further reductions in EU funding would discourage companies from engaging in essential upstream research.
Neth-ER’s concerns over ambition and budget adequacy
Joining the debate, Neth-ER (the Netherlands House for Education and Research) has also voiced its reaction to the proposals for Framework Programme 10 and the European Competitiveness Fund. Neth-ER states that the current proposals, unfortunately, lack detail on key provisions and require significant further clarification. Moreover, it notes with concern that the proposed budget falls short of the strategic recommendation from the Draghi-Heitor report to double Horizon Europe’s budget to at least €200 billion.
The organization calls on the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that the final regulation reflects the necessary ambition to genuinely strengthen Europe’s research and innovation landscape. It emphasizes that research and innovation are fundamental enablers of the EU’s competitiveness, its capacity to tackle societal challenges, and its ability to deliver public value. In Neth-ER’s view, only a truly ambitious and strong FP10 can deliver on these imperatives.
Five priorities to safeguard excellence and impact
To achieve this, Neth-ER outlines five core priorities: first, a protected budget of at least €200 billion to secure the future of European research. Second, the unwavering application of excellence and impact as the core funding criteria. Third, ensuring formal representation of the R&I sector on the ECF’s advisory board and guaranteeing a strong presence of social sciences, humanities, and health within Pillar II. Fourth, implementing simplification that genuinely benefits researchers and does not merely shift administrative burdens elsewhere. Fifth, maintaining a primarily civil focus in FP10 while establishing a dedicated dual-use advisory platform to support applicants and beneficiaries.
Underpinning this call for ambition is a powerful economic argument: each euro invested in the Framework Programme is estimated to generate up to eleven euros in economic gains. Neth-ER concludes that a world-leading knowledge economy requires sustained, world-class investment. The current proposed increase, it argues, simply falls short of the very strategic ambitions outlined in the FP10 regulation itself, which positions research and innovation as central to the Union’s ability to anticipate challenges, develop key technologies, and respond to crises—from climate and health to security and geopolitics.
Concerns of the European Court of Auditors
Finally, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has issued its assessment, providing two opinions on the European Commission’s legislative proposals to boost competitiveness, research, and innovation through the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) and the Horizon Europe programme.
The auditors acknowledge that both proposals are heavily aligned with the EU’s overarching strategic priorities. However, they raise a critical concern: neither the Commission nor member states currently possess comprehensive, reliable data on how EU funds are actually used to meet these objectives, and the proposals do not address this systemic monitoring gap. The ECA also calls for greater clarity on how the fundamental principle of “excellence” will be applied in practice. Furthermore, they note an inconsistency: while the Horizon Europe proposal references the European Semester process, the draft ECF regulation does not.
Regarding the ECF specifically, the auditors highlight that its design allows for rapid reallocation of funds across policy areas and for additional contributions from member states or other stakeholders. They caution that this enhanced budgetary flexibility could have significant state-aid implications that require clarification. The ECA also advises setting minimum requirements for the fund’s “revolving capacity”—its ability to reuse funding through guarantees, loans, or equity—and ensuring that management fees for implementing partners, like the European Investment Bank, remain at reasonably low levels.
Risks related to compliance, transparency, accountability
While both proposals aim for simplification through measures like a single rulebook and harmonised payment conditions, the ECA points out that key operational details remain unclear. These include rules for procurement, the use of financing not linked to costs, and simplified cost options.
The auditors additionally flag several risks related to compliance, transparency, accountability, and the traceability of funds. They note that research spending is a particularly high-risk area where errors are frequent and significant. Innovative funding approaches, such as pre-commercial procurement, would require special oversight. While simplification tools like lump-sum payments reduce bureaucracy, the rules governing their use must be unambiguous.
The ECA confirms that it will have full audit rights over the funding, whether managed directly by the Commission or indirectly through partnerships or financial institutions. However, it explicitly requests that all agreements with entrusted entities, beneficiaries, and third parties explicitly safeguard these rights. A final point addresses a broader novelty of the 2028-2034 financial framework: a separate horizontal regulation will define how programme performance monitoring, assessment, and evaluation operate. The ECA notes that this regulation will be the subject of a forthcoming opinion, underscoring the ongoing need for robust scrutiny as the new architecture takes shape.
Setting the stage for the 2026 negotiations
The stage is thus set for a defining negotiation. The vision from the Commission, the detailed industrial priorities from BusinessEurope, the call for protected excellence from the research community represented by Neth-ER, and the rigorous safeguards demanded by the European Court of Auditors collectively map out the battlefield for the coming talks.
