How to Write a Winning Horizon Europe Proposal: Step-by-Step Guide [2026]

Misaligned proposals are rejected before evaluators finish the first page. A proposal that addresses the right call with mediocre writing outperforms a brilliant proposal aimed at the wrong topic.

Horizon Europe organises funding into Clusters and Missions within its Pillars. Each annual Work Programme lists specific Topics with defined expected outcomes, scope, and indicative budgets. Your project must directly address the stated expected outcomes, not just relate to the general theme.

Consortium composition is assessed explicitly under the Implementation criterion and influences your Excellence and Impact scores indirectly. Evaluators look for complementary expertise, not duplicated capabilities.

Finalise your partner list at least two months before submission. Late additions disrupt budget planning, work package design, and internal review cycles. Each partner should sign an internal consortium agreement before submission (or commit to signing one before grant signature).

Every Horizon Europe proposal has two components. Understanding what belongs where saves time and prevents last-minute reformatting.

Section 1 covers the scientific and technical merit of your proposal. It is typically the first section evaluators read in depth and sets the tone for how they read Sections 2 and 3.

Section 1.1: Objectives and ambition

State your objectives in numbered, measurable terms. Each objective should correspond to one or more work packages. Vague objectives like “improve understanding of X” score poorly; specific objectives like “develop and validate a prototype achieving Y performance at Z cost threshold” give evaluators something concrete to assess.

The ambition sub-section must explain what would not be possible without this project. Reference recent literature (post-2020 preferred) and describe the knowledge gap or technological barrier you are addressing. Avoid citing only your own previous work.

Section 1.2: Methodology

Describe your approach, the models and assumptions underlying it, and why this approach is more likely to succeed than alternatives. Include a discussion of scientific and technical risks with mitigation strategies. If interdisciplinary methods are involved, explain how you will integrate them.

Impact is where proposals most often fail to score above threshold. The European Commission's “Key Impact Pathways” framework requires you to show how your project's results will generate scientific, economic, and societal effects, not just outputs.

Section 2.1: Pathways to impact

Describe a plausible causal chain from your project activities to long-term impacts. Use the following logic: Activities produce Outputs (deliverables, publications, software). Outputs lead to Outcomes (adoption by end-users, policy uptake, new business). Outcomes generate Impacts (jobs, carbon reduction, new markets, improved health).

For each major impact claimed, estimate its scale, the timeframe for realisation, and the target beneficiaries. Generic claims about “significant societal benefit” score 2-3/5. Specific quantified claims with realistic assumptions score 4-5/5.

Section 2.2: Measures to maximise impact

This sub-section covers your dissemination strategy (academic publications, conferences), exploitation plan (commercialisation, licensing, standardisation), and communication activities (press, social media, policy briefs). Each activity should name a target audience, a channel, and a timing.

If your project produces potentially exploitable results, include a preliminary Intellectual Property (IP) management plan describing ownership, access rights, and commercialisation strategy.

Section 3 proves you can execute what Sections 1 and 2 promise. Evaluators assess whether the work plan is coherent, the team capable, and the resources realistic.

Work package structure

Work packages (WPs) divide your project into coherent activity areas. A well-structured work plan for a three-year RIA typically includes:

Milestones and deliverables

Milestones are control points that signal completion of a significant phase. Target 5 milestones for a three-year project (add 1-2 for each additional year). Each milestone should correspond to a go/no-go decision point or a critical dependency between work packages.

Deliverables are tangible outputs: reports, prototypes, datasets, software. Aim for 2-3 per work package. Each deliverable entry in the template requires a title, description, type, dissemination level, and due month.

Risk management

List 5-10 critical risks in a table. For each, describe the likelihood (low/medium/high), potential impact on the project, and the specific mitigation measure. Distribute risks across three categories: technical risks, management risks, and business/market risks. Evaluators will flag a risk table that lists only technical risks as incomplete.

The budget is entered in Part A and referenced throughout Section 3. Evaluators scrutinise cost tables for credibility, not just compliance.

Cross-cutting issues are evaluated within the three main criteria, not as separate scores. Failing to address them meaningfully depresses scores across all three sections.

The final proposal you submit is a collaborative document that must read as if written by one author. Internal review is the stage that turns a collection of partner contributions into a coherent, competitive proposal.

Pre-Submission Checklist

Run through every item before clicking Submit. Late or non-compliant submissions are rejected without evaluation.

Preparation Timeline