As the EIC Summit opens in Brussels, the future of the European Innovation Council (EIC) should be discussed not only as a question of innovation funding, but as part of Europe’s wider debate on competitiveness, technological leadership and the design of FP10.
Europe is trying to solve a familiar problem. It produces excellent research, talented entrepreneurs and high-potential technologies, but too often struggles to turn them into companies that grow, scale and remain in Europe. The issue is not a lack of ideas. It is the continuity, speed and scale of support available when research-based innovation moves from the laboratory towards markets, investment and industrial uptake.
This is precisely where the EIC matters.
For universities of science and technology, the EIC is one of the most important instruments in the European research and innovation landscape. It supports high-risk, high-potential innovation at the point where technological uncertainty is still high, markets may not yet be ready, and private investment may come too late. It is also one of the few EU instruments that recognises that breakthrough innovation needs more than predictable, incremental support: it needs expert judgement, tolerance of uncertainty and the ability to back ambitious ideas before markets are ready
That function should be reinforced in FP10. In practical terms, this means a visible and well-resourced EIC within FP10, expert-led governance, openness to bottom-up breakthroughs, appropriate use of blended finance and equity, and predictable links to later-stage support through the ECF, InvestEU, member states, regions and private investors.
The current debate on FP10 and the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) has rightly focused on the relationship between research, innovation, deployment and scale-up. Much of the attention so far has been on Pillar II and collaborative research. That debate is essential, but incomplete. The EIC is also central to the FP10–ECF interface, because it sits at a critical point in the innovation chain: where frontier knowledge, entrepreneurial ambition and early venture development begin to meet.
The future of the EIC in FP10 should therefore start from a simple principle: reinforce what works.
The EIC should remain strong, visible and firmly anchored within FP10. Its added value lies in scientific and technological ambition, openness to unexpected breakthroughs, expert-led judgement, bottom-up discovery and the agility to support innovators across different stages of development. These features are not administrative details. They are what make the instrument useful.
They are also what could be weakened if the next generation of EU instruments treats early-stage, research-based innovation mainly as a feeder pipeline for downstream industrial priorities.
Europe does need stronger pathways from research and innovation to deployment and scale. The ECF can play an important role if it helps promising companies access later-stage support, industrial uptake and larger-scale investment. But the answer should not be to blur the role of FP10 or make its innovation instruments dependent on priorities set elsewhere.
The EIC and the ECF should be complementary, not hierarchical.
FP10 must remain Europe’s central programme for excellence-driven research and research-based innovation, with the EIC as a strong and visible instrument for breakthrough, market-creating deep-tech innovation. The ECF, if well designed, can help create continuation pathways for companies and technologies that are ready for deployment and scale. But these connections must be clear, operational and timely. For startups and scaleups, uncertainty is not neutral. A promising venture cannot wait years while institutional interfaces are clarified.
This matters because Europe’s scale-up challenge is real. Too many promising companies still look elsewhere when they need larger rounds, faster support or more mature markets. The EIC cannot and should not be expected to finance the full journey from idea to global company. But it can be a crucial foundation for a stronger European scale-up pathway, connected to member states, regions, investors, corporates and future EU instruments.
The point is not to make the EIC do everything. It is to avoid weakening one of the most valuable instruments within the Framework Programme while trying to solve the next problem in the chain.
This also means looking beyond EU instruments alone.
The success of the EIC depends on the ecosystems around it. Universities of science and technology are not simply sources of projects. They are places where frontier research, advanced technologies, entrepreneurial talent, infrastructure, companies, investors and public authorities come together. Many have built sophisticated structures for spinout support, venture building, technology transfer, investor engagement, entrepreneurship education and regional innovation partnerships.
They understand both the research base and the needs of emerging ventures. They can help innovators navigate grants, equity, blended finance, intellectual property, regulation and market access. In many regions, they are among the most capable actors connecting talent, knowledge, companies, investors and public authorities.
This capacity should be recognised more clearly in European innovation policy.
A stronger EIC should work with and through these ecosystems. It should draw on universities’ frontier research, their capacity to accelerate technological development, their ability to identify and train emerging talent, and their experience in supporting science-based ventures before they are visible to traditional investors. It should also help spread good practice across Europe, so that excellence in innovation support is not concentrated in only a few regions.
This is especially important because demand for EIC support already far exceeds what the instrument can provide. Low success rates are not only a budgetary concern. They are a strategic signal that Europe has more high-quality research-based innovation than it is currently able to support. Every strong project that cannot move forward is a potential technology, company or societal solution that may be delayed, redirected or lost.
If Europe is serious about competitiveness, it cannot afford an innovation system where too many promising ideas fall between instruments.
The EIC Summit is therefore more than a showcase. It is a timely moment to ask how FP10 can better connect research excellence, breakthrough technological innovation and scale-up capacity. For universities of science and technology, that connection is not abstract. It is visible every day in laboratories, incubators, technology transfer offices, entrepreneurship centres, student ventures and regional innovation ecosystems across Europe.
FP10 should build on this strength.
A stronger EIC, firmly embedded in FP10 and properly complementary to the ECF, can help Europe turn frontier science and cutting-edge technologies into future industries. It can support innovators who take risks before markets are ready. It can help create stronger pathways for deep-tech ventures to grow in Europe. And it can recognise universities of science and technology not only as sources of innovation, but as proactive actors in the ecosystems that make innovation possible.
Europe’s innovation gap with other global powers will not be closed by choosing between research and competitiveness. It will be closed by understanding that research-based innovation is one of the foundations of competitiveness.
That is why the EIC matters and why its future in FP10 must be ambitious, agile and firmly rooted in Europe’s research and innovation ecosystems.
Authors:
Tim Bedford is Associate Principal at the University of Strathclyde, Vice President and Co-Chair of Task Force Innovation at CESAER – the strong and united voice of universities of science and technology.
Louise Drogoul is Senior Advisor for Innovation & Sustainability at CESAER
We use both our own cookies and those of carefully selected partners we collaborate with.
Check out our detailed Cookie policy » and our Privacy policy » .