EIC programme managers consulted Member States on draft challenge topics

Between 22 and 27 September 2022 the European Innovation Council’s in‑house programme managers ran a series of workshops with invited experts from EU Member States and Associated States. The sessions were moderated by Anne‑Marie Sassen, Head of Unit “Programme Managers Office”, and Keith Sequeira, Head of Unit “EIC Board, Strategy and Feedback to Policy”. Each meeting reviewed the three EIC funding streams — Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator — and explored candidate “challenge” areas that the EIC might include in future work programmes. The exchanges were explicitly consultative. Programme Managers presented draft ideas, explained their selection methodology, outlined portfolio and impact expectations and sought technical and policy feedback from national experts.

Why the EIC uses targeted 'Challenges' and what Programme Managers do

The EIC operates three core instruments with different technology readiness aims: Pathfinder for early high‑risk research, Transition to mature proof‑of‑concepts and Accelerator for scaling companies and deep‑tech SMEs. The Programme Managers (PMs) combine sectoral technical expertise with a proactive portfolio management model. They do more than curate calls. They identify strategic technological gaps, cluster funded projects into thematic portfolios, broker links with investors and industry, and manage follow‑up activities such as joint roadmaps, data sharing and market engagement.

What happened in the workshops and how Member States engaged

Each Programme Manager walked through a diagnosis of the sector, described candidate challenge topics, explained evaluation and portfolio selection modalities and opened the floor to Member State input. Moderators emphasised that the ideas were drafts for the EIC work programme and that feedback from national experts would be reflected before final decisions. Across sectors the tone of Member State input was constructive and often pointed to policy or implementation bottlenecks such as regulation, standards, clinical and procurement pathways, supply chains and workforce shortages.

Where the PMs landed and which themes attracted the most scrutiny

The workshops covered a broad set of candidate challenges. Below are the sector highlights and key points of discussion, including technical context and sceptical caveats about unproven claims or feasibility risks.

Architecture, Engineering and Construction (Franc Mouwen)

AEC was presented as a large but historically low‑investment sector with major systemic challenges. PM Mouwen used a 'metro map' metaphor to describe innovation pathways. The central policy priority was reducing embedded carbon — the emissions produced during material extraction and fabrication — which is less addressed than operational carbon from heating and HVAC. The proposed 2023 draft Pathfinder challenge was the “Triad of computational design, digital fabrication and materials” to combine algorithmic design, digital fabrication (for example robotic or 3D printing) and new low‑carbon materials.

Member State experts flagged the regulatory and standards bottlenecks, procurement inertia and IP questions that block adoption of new materials and digital processes. Several delegates pushed for more focus on renovation and modular offsite construction to achieve faster carbon reductions. PM Mouwen also tied the agenda to the New European Bauhaus, arguing for human‑centred design and the experiential dimension of built spaces.

Space systems & technologies (Stella Tkatchova)

PM Tkatchova proposed narrow, strategic challenges such as in‑space solar energy harvesting (Pathfinder) and customer‑driven space technologies and services (Accelerator). The objective is to avoid overlap with ESA and other Commission instruments while addressing niche gaps: in‑orbit power generation, green propulsion, in‑orbit servicing, debris recycling and affordable modular satellites.

Member State delegates wanted clarity on EIC’s relationship with DG DEFIS and ESA, and asked that portfolio mechanisms used during selection be explained in challenge guides. Cybersecurity, interoperability and the economics of in‑orbit servicing were also raised.

Agrifood (Ivan Stefanic)

Proposed themes included a Pathfinder topic on precision nutrition and an Accelerator topic on technologies for resilient agriculture. Precision nutrition aims to combine genomics, microbiome and other 'omics' to personalise diet to prevent non‑communicable diseases, while the resilient agriculture agenda targets automation, robotics, crop resilience to climate stress and circular value‑chain technologies.

Advanced materials & environmental sustainability (Francesco Matteucci)

Matteucci and the energy PM proposed portfolios and challenge candidates on CO2 and nitrogen management and valorisation, system integrated energy storage, process integration of clean energy technologies, and 'green' digital devices. The focus was on avoiding critical raw materials, life‑cycle impacts and building forward‑looking portfolios such as the 2021 green hydrogen set of Pathfinder projects that will have a portfolio kick‑off meeting.

Energy systems & green technologies (Antonio Marco Pantaleo)

The energy sessions covered multiple candidate challenges: clean cooling technologies (Pathfinder), renewable energy harvesting and solar fuels (Transition), services and technologies for energy management (Accelerator), energy storage solutions (Accelerator) and low‑carbon heating and cooling (Accelerator). PM Pantaleo emphasised process integration, demand response and coupling storage assets to industrial and district energy systems.

Member State delegates asked how EIC topics intersect with Horizon Europe Missions (for example Climate‑Neutral and Smart Cities) and national deployment programmes. PM Pantaleo noted EIC can propose its Accelerator beneficiaries as partners for mission demonstrators but the primary EIC role is high‑risk innovation rather than large deployment programmes.

Medical technologies and devices (Enric Claverol‑Tinturé)

PM Claverol‑Tinturé proposed a mix of Transition and Accelerator topics: moving micro‑nano‑bio devices through Transition to market and an Accelerator call for aerosol and surface decontamination technologies to reduce the need for pandemic social distancing. He also sketched future ideas such as retina reprogramming, low‑field MRI for low‑cost portable imaging, and robotic automation to accelerate biological discovery.

Health and biotechnology (Iordanis Arzimanoglou)

PM Arzimanoglou reviewed EIC activity in cell and gene therapies and presented a draft 2023 Accelerator challenge on biomarker‑guided treatment in precision oncology. He argued for investing in predictive and prognostic biomarkers and companion diagnostics that can improve patient selection, monitor response and reduce ineffective treatments.

Delegates debated the commercial potential of biomarkers, recommended inclusion of digital and mechanical biomarkers and raised licensing and manufacturing scale issues for cell and gene therapies.

Quantum technologies and responsible electronics (Samira Nik and Isabel Obieta Vilallonga)

The digital workshops linked the EIC agenda to the European Chips Act and the emerging quantum ecosystem. Draft challenge ideas included a Pathfinder on Responsible Electronics to reduce environmental impact and critical raw material dependence, a Transition on chip‑scale optical frequency combs, and Accelerator topics on fault‑tolerant quantum hardware, real‑environment quantum sensors and semiconductor chip design for advanced nodes and specialised IP.

Cross‑cutting themes, risks and national feedback

Several consistent issues recurred across workshops. Member State experts warned about regulatory and standards barriers, fragmented national ecosystems, and the difficulty of scaling capital‑intensive technologies. They urged the EIC to be explicit about how portfolio selection criteria work, how portfolio management affects award decisions and the interplay between EIC funding and other EU programmes such as Horizon Europe Missions, the Innovative Health Initiative, the Chips Act and national deployment instruments.

How the EIC runs selection and post‑award support

Programme Managers described the EIC’s selection architecture. Evaluators and jury members are selected from the Horizon Europe experts database. Successful Step‑1 applicants may be appointed business coaches to prepare full proposals. Step‑2 applicants go to interviews with an EIC jury. For Accelerator winners the EIC Fund can provide blended finance including grants and equity, with partners such as the EIB and private investors involved in due diligence and co‑investment. The EIC also uses business acceleration services and a Trusted Investor Network to help companies scale.

Outputs from the workshops and how to follow up

Programme Managers invited written feedback and published slide decks and short reports for each session. The file list below reproduces the presentation files that were posted after the meetings. The EIC asked national contacts to send further questions or suggestions to EISMEA‑D.02@ec.europa.eu.

Practical takeaways and context for industry and national policymakers

If you are an innovator, researcher or policy official reading these draft challenges, treat them as signals of strategic interest rather than confirmed calls. The EIC’s challenge model is designed to cluster projects so that follow‑on activities such as market engagement, investor introductions and cross‑project technical roadmaps are possible. For national policymakers the workshops indicate where the Commission sees gaps that need EU‑level risk appetite and where complementary national measures will be necessary to de‑risk adoption such as standards, procurement and regulatory pathways.

Selected glossary and clarifications for non‑specialists

Final observations and caveats

The workshops illustrate the EIC’s growing use of targeted, portfolio‑level management to pull high‑risk deep tech towards market impact. That approach can create useful synergies but also raises questions about how selection criteria, portfolio weighting and post‑award services will be applied. Member States repeatedly asked for transparency about how portfolio considerations influence individual proposal rankings and for practical follow‑up on regulatory, standards and procurement barriers. The proposals presented are draft inputs to future work programmes. Interested stakeholders should follow the formal work programme publication and use the contact channels to submit evidence and corrections.

Contact: EISMEA‑D.02@ec.europa.eu