Author: Julien Sudre | Horizon Europe proposal development and project management specialist | Founder of Grant360 and Innotrope
A strong Horizon Europe Plan for the Exploitation and Dissemination of Results (PEDR) identifies the project's expected results, who can use them, how they will be shared, and who will take responsibility for their uptake during and after the grant. It also coordinates communication activities, intellectual property (IP) decisions, measurable objectives and a realistic implementation calendar. The plan should be a working management document, not a catalogue of publications and events.
This guide explains how to prepare the plan, involve the consortium, and turn expected research outputs into credible pathways to impact. For a broader introduction, read our guide to preparing an exploitation and dissemination plan.
What is the dissemination and exploitation plan required to achieve?
The plan should connect each relevant project result to an identifiable audience, a dissemination route, an intended use and a responsible partner. It should also explain how communication activities promote the project and its results to appropriate audiences.
Dissemination means making results available to people who can use them; exploitation means using results in further research, products, services, standards, policies or other applications. Communication promotes the action and its results to broader audiences. These activities complement one another but are not interchangeable. See our comparison of communication, dissemination and exploitation.
For example, a project developing an energy-efficiency tool might communicate its objectives through an accessible website, disseminate its validated methodology through a technical paper and practitioner workshop, and exploit the tool by integrating it into a municipality's planning process. Each activity has a different audience, purpose and indicator.
Primary source: European Research Executive Agency (REA): Dissemination and exploitation.
When should the plan be written and updated?
Start planning at proposal stage, prepare the full plan normally within the first six months of the action, and update it as results, partners' intentions and uptake opportunities evolve. Always check the specific call conditions, Description of Action (DoA) and signed Grant Agreement (GA) for the applicable deliverables and deadlines.
The Horizon Europe Programme Guide calls for a planned summary in proposals unless the work programme provides otherwise, followed by a complete plan normally within the first six months of the funded action and regular updates. It does not impose a universal rule that every project must submit exactly two versions at months 6 and 12 or at the end: the contractual deliverable schedule determines the formal submissions.
A useful internal lifecycle is:
- Proposal: develop expected results, audiences, initial dissemination and exploitation routes, and communication approach.
- Start-up: develop the result inventory, partner responsibilities, IP decision process, baseline indicators and action calendar.
- During implementation: revise validated results, stakeholder feedback, protection decisions, activities completed, uptake evidence and corrective actions.
- Final phase: define result-specific owners, next users, post-project resources, commitments and remaining barriers.
Primary source: European Commission: Horizon Europe Programme Guide.
Who should contribute to the plan?
The coordinator should organise the drafting process, but result-producing and result-using partners must supply the substance. Work Package (WP) leaders, researchers, technology-transfer or IP specialists, communication teams and prospective users each hold different information needed for a credible plan.
Ask every relevant partner to complete a short result fiche describing what it expects to produce, its contribution, potential users, likely ownership, protection concerns, dissemination opportunities and intended use. Discuss overlaps collectively rather than treating individual fiches as isolated annexes.
For example, a university may develop an algorithm while a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) integrates it into a commercial service. The plan should record their respective contributions, anticipated rights and responsibilities, and the conditions under which the algorithm may be published or licensed. Ownership and access arrangements must be checked against the GA and Consortium Agreement (CA), rather than inferred from the WP structure.
How do you identify and prioritise exploitable results?
Create a living results register and prioritise results according to their usefulness, maturity, ownership clarity and realistic uptake opportunities. A result is not automatically a product: it may be a dataset, method, software component, prototype, training resource, scientific finding or policy recommendation.
A practical register can contain:
- Result and maturity: what exists now, and what still needs validation?
- Potential users: which named types of organisations or communities could use it?
- Intended benefit: what problem does it address, compared with existing approaches?
- Ownership and access: who owns it, and whose background or permissions are needed?
- Dissemination route: how will relevant users learn about and access it?
- Exploitation route: who will use it, for what purpose, and under what conditions?
- Evidence and next step: what would demonstrate uptake, and what action comes next?
Use the term Key Exploitable Result (KER) for a result the consortium selects for focused exploitation planning; it is a useful management category, not a guarantee of market potential. A result may support several routes at once, such as open scientific reuse and a separately licensed implementation.
For more on the broader strategic context, see our exploitation and IP pillar guide.
How should target audiences and dissemination activities be matched?
Define audiences by what they can do with a result, then select channels that enable that use. A list such as "researchers, industry and policymakers" is too broad unless it specifies their needs and intended next actions.
Examples of result-to-audience matching:
- Validated scientific method: target users: researchers in the relevant field. Dissemination activity: open-access paper, repository and reproducibility workshop. Evidence of useful engagement: reuse requests, citations or independent applications.
- Building-retrofit decision tool: target users: municipal energy teams. Dissemination activity: demonstration and practitioner guide. Evidence of useful engagement: pilot agreements or documented trial use.
- Evidence on a regulatory gap: target users: relevant public authorities. Dissemination activity: policy brief and targeted consultation. Evidence of useful engagement: formal feedback or reference in a policy process.
For a sensitive or potentially patentable result, coordinate public disclosure with the agreed IP procedure before publishing details. Dissemination should be timely, but it must respect legitimate interests, confidentiality, security and applicable open-science obligations.
How should intellectual property be addressed in the plan?
The plan should identify foreseeable ownership and access questions, establish a process for protection decisions, and explain how those decisions affect dissemination and exploitation. It should not promise unrestricted publication or commercial exclusivity before the partners have established their rights.
Under the applicable Horizon Europe rules, beneficiaries generally own the results they generate, subject to the GA's provisions on joint ownership, access rights and other specific circumstances. Partners should identify background needed for implementation or exploitation and clarify how relevant access will be secured. The consortium should also define a review process for proposed publications or other disclosures.
For example, if two partners jointly develop software, the plan can state that they will document their respective contributions, determine whether joint ownership applies, agree on the intended licensing approach and clear any third-party code dependencies before release.
Read our detailed guide to intellectual property in Horizon Europe and our guide to the European IP Helpdesk.
Primary source: European Commission: Annotated Model Grant Agreement (consult the latest applicable version and your signed GA).
How do you select a credible exploitation pathway for each result?
Specify the intended use, the organisation responsible, the additional work needed, the resources required and the evidence that would show progress. Exploitation can involve further research, educational uptake, standards, policy, public-service deployment or commercial use; it is not limited to selling a product.
Consider three illustrative pathways:
- Research: a university maintains a validated dataset and incorporates it into a follow-on research programme, with a named repository and stewardship arrangements.
- Public-sector uptake: a municipality pilots a decision-support tool, assesses staff training and maintenance costs, and decides whether to integrate it into its procedures.
- Commercial use: an SME validates a prototype with prospective customers, resolves necessary IP rights and identifies regulatory, manufacturing and financing steps before launch.
A pathway is stronger when it acknowledges dependencies. "The tool will be commercialised" is an aspiration; "Partner B will test the tool with three prospective users, assess licensing options and decide whether to fund a productisation phase" is an actionable plan. The numbers here are illustrative internal targets, not Horizon Europe requirements.
See why exploitation is a Horizon Europe obligation.
How should communication activities fit into the plan?
Communication should explain the project's purpose, progress and public relevance, while dissemination and exploitation focus on making results available and putting them to use. Align the three workstreams without reporting a social-media impression as evidence that a result has been exploited.
For example, a project website can introduce the project and direct visitors to a technical repository; a targeted webinar can help practitioners understand a released tool; and a follow-up pilot can provide evidence of actual use. Record each stage separately.
Choose channels proportionate to the project's audiences and resources. A dedicated website or project-specific social-media account is not automatically required for every grant; the signed GA and DoA determine project-specific commitments. Apply the required EU funding visibility and disclaimer rules to relevant materials.
For channel selection and implementation, consult our Horizon Europe communication pillar guide and our guide to designing a project visual identity.
Primary source: European Research Executive Agency: Communicating about your EU-funded project.
Which indicators show whether the plan is working?
Use separate indicators for activity, audience engagement and actual result uptake. Counting outputs alone cannot demonstrate whether the intended users have adopted a result.
Useful indicator levels include:
- Activity: example indicator: number of workshops or published resources. What it shows and does not show: delivery, not uptake.
- Reach and engagement: example indicator: relevant participants, qualified enquiries or repository accesses. What it shows and does not show: interest, not necessarily use.
- Uptake: example indicator: external pilots, reuse in research, licensing agreements or documented policy application. What it shows and does not show: evidence of a result being used.
- Longer-term effects: example indicator: verified operational improvement or documented societal benefit. What it shows and does not show: this may require follow-up beyond the grant period.
For each indicator, state its baseline, target where meaningful, measurement method, responsible partner and review frequency. A target of 500 website visits is less useful than evidence that the intended practitioners accessed and tested a tool. Avoid attributing wider economic or societal change to the project without a credible method.
How do you make post-project exploitation realistic?
Name the partner or external organisation expected to continue each important result, specify the next action and identify the resources and rights needed. "The consortium will continue exploiting results" is insufficient if the consortium has no agreed mechanism or budget after the grant ends.
For a software result, address hosting, maintenance, licensing, documentation and user support. For a policy result, identify the authority or network that can take it forward and the next decision point. For a research dataset, identify the repository, access conditions and stewardship responsibility.
The applicable Horizon Europe model grant provisions include a best-efforts exploitation obligation during the action and, for relevant beneficiaries, for up to four years after its end. This does not guarantee that every result will be commercially successful or that every beneficiary must exploit every result in the same way. Check the signed GA for the applicable obligations and any special conditions.
Primary source: European Commission: Annotated Model Grant Agreement (verify against the current applicable text and signed agreement).
What should the final plan contain?
A usable final plan should make it possible to trace each priority result from evidence of achievement through dissemination to its intended use and post-project owner. Its structure can be adapted to the project, but the following sections form a practical editorial checklist:
- Project objectives, expected impact and the plan's scope.
- Governance, partner responsibilities and decision procedures.
- Result inventory and prioritised KER fiches.
- Target audiences, needs and dissemination channels.
- Result-specific exploitation pathways, owners, resources and barriers.
- IP, access-rights, confidentiality and disclosure procedures.
- Communication approach and EU funding visibility arrangements.
- Activities, milestones, indicators, evidence and review schedule.
- Post-project stewardship and follow-up actions.
The plan should be revised when a result changes, a user group proves unsuitable, a protection decision affects publication, or an exploitation route becomes unrealistic. Its value lies in guiding decisions, not merely satisfying a deliverable deadline.
Conclusion: What makes a dissemination and exploitation plan credible?
A credible Horizon Europe dissemination and exploitation plan connects specific results, specific users, responsible partners and feasible next actions. It is prepared early, updated throughout implementation and grounded in the consortium's actual rights, resources and evidence. Communication makes the project visible; dissemination enables others to access its results; exploitation turns those results into use. Managing these activities together - without confusing their purposes - gives the project a practical route from funded research to lasting value.
About the author
Julien Sudre specialises in Horizon Europe proposal development, collaborative project management and project communication. Through his professional work and Grant 360, he develops practical resources to support research and innovation teams from proposal preparation through project implementation and reporting.
Official references
- European Commission - Horizon Europe Programme Guide
- European Research Executive Agency - Dissemination and exploitation
- European Research Executive Agency - Communicating about your EU-funded project
- European Commission - Annotated Model Grant Agreement (check the latest version and the signed grant)