Author: Julien Sudre, Horizon Europe grant writing and project management specialist and founder of Grant360 and Innotrope
Exploitation is mandatory in Horizon Europe because beneficiaries must use their best efforts to put project results to use, directly or through other organisations. Exploitation is not limited to selling a product: it can include further research, licensing, public-policy uptake, standardisation, training or the deployment of a public service. For grants using the standard Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement, the obligation to make best efforts generally continues for up to four years after the action ends. The precise obligations depend on the signed Grant Agreement (GA), its Annex 5 and any call-specific conditions.
A completed deliverable is evidence that work has been performed. Exploitation addresses a different question: who will use the result, for what purpose, and what must happen to make that use possible?
What does exploitation mean in Horizon Europe?
Exploitation means using project results in further research and innovation activities outside the action, or in developing, creating, manufacturing and marketing a product or process, providing a service, or carrying out standardisation activities. It may be commercial or non-commercial.
For example, a research institute can reuse a validated dataset in a new research project; a hospital can adopt a diagnostic protocol; a municipality can implement a decision-support tool; and a company can license a patented component. Each is a potential exploitation route when the result is actually put to use.
It helps to distinguish three concepts:
- Communication: how do we make the project and its activities visible? For example, publish an accessible project update for the public.
- Dissemination: how do we make results available to audiences that can use them? For example, present validated findings to researchers or public authorities.
- Exploitation: how will results actually be used beyond the project? For example, integrate the findings into a clinical protocol or follow-on research.
A publication can disseminate a result without demonstrating that anyone has subsequently used it. Conversely, a documented decision by a public authority to adopt a project methodology may provide evidence of exploitation.
For the wider framework, read Exploitation and Intellectual Property in Horizon Europe.
Which Horizon Europe rules make exploitation mandatory?
Article 16 and Annex 5 of the standard Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement establish obligations concerning ownership, protection, access rights and exploitation of results. Beneficiaries receiving funding must use their best efforts to exploit their results directly or have another entity exploit them, generally for up to four years after the action ends.
This is a best-efforts obligation, not a guarantee that every result must become a commercial success. Beneficiaries should take appropriate, proactive measures and be able to explain what they did, what they learned and why a proposed route did or did not work. The applicable agreement may contain additional requirements or exceptions.
Under the standard Horizon Europe conditions, if results remain unexploited one year after the end of the action despite the beneficiary's best efforts, the beneficiary must use the Horizon Results Platform to seek interested parties, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the granting authority. This does not mean that every result must automatically be uploaded at project closure or that ownership must be transferred.
Important distinction: Article 17 principally addresses communication, dissemination and visibility. The exploitation obligation belongs under Article 16 and its applicable Annex 5 provisions. Always check the version of the GA signed for your project.
Primary sources: European Commission - Horizon Europe Programme Guide; European Research Executive Agency - Dissemination and exploitation; European Commission - Dissemination and exploitation of research results.
Why should exploitation start before the project ends?
Exploitation should be planned from proposal preparation because users, ownership arrangements, technical validation, regulatory requirements and post-project resources can determine whether a result can be adopted. Waiting until the final report may leave insufficient time to address these barriers.
Consider a consortium developing an energy-management algorithm. Its technical team may complete a validated prototype, but a utility cannot deploy it without integration documentation, access to the necessary data, agreed software rights and an organisation responsible for maintenance. These requirements should influence the work plan well before the final review.
A practical sequence is to identify prospective users during proposal preparation, validate their needs during implementation, test the exploitation route as results mature, and confirm ownership and next steps before closure. These are management recommendations rather than universal contractual deadlines.
For a structured approach, see How to Write an Effective Exploitation and Dissemination Plan in Horizon Europe.
How do you identify Key Exploitable Results?
Identify Key Exploitable Results (KERs) by examining which project outputs have a credible pathway to further use, rather than treating every deliverable as an exploitable asset. A KER might be software, a dataset, a validated methodology, a prototype, a training programme or a policy framework.
For each candidate, record the result itself, its intended users, the problem it solves, the evidence of maturity, the owner or potential joint owners, any dependencies on existing knowledge, and the next action required for uptake.
Illustrative result register - not an official reporting template:
- Validated prediction model: potential user: municipal energy department. Route to use: pilot deployment. Immediate next step: agree access to input data. Proposed lead: software partner.
- Research dataset: potential user: academic teams. Route to use: follow-on research. Immediate next step: document reuse conditions. Proposed lead: research institute.
- Training curriculum: potential user: professional association. Route to use: continuing education. Immediate next step: test the course with practitioners. Proposed lead: training partner.
The table is useful only if the consortium revisits it when new evidence emerges. A prototype that fails validation may need a different exploitation route; an unexpected user may reveal a stronger application than the one originally proposed.
Who owns the results and who can exploit them?
As a general rule, Horizon Europe results belong to the beneficiary that generates them, subject to the GA and applicable joint-ownership arrangements. Ownership does not automatically mean that another partner can use the result without permission: access rights, licences and dependencies on background knowledge must be considered.
Background refers to pre-existing data, know-how or information needed to implement the action or exploit its results, as identified under the applicable arrangements. Results are outputs generated by the action. Where partners jointly generate a result and their contributions cannot be separated for the purpose of establishing or seeking protection, joint-ownership rules may apply.
For example, a company may own software developed during the project while a university owns a dataset needed to run it. A viable post-project service may therefore require a data-access agreement in addition to a software licence.
The Consortium Agreement (CA) should clarify governance and practical arrangements without contradicting the GA. Before publishing or licensing a result, check protection needs, confidentiality, third-party rights and relevant access rights.
Read the dedicated guide: Intellectual Property in Horizon Europe. See also the European IP Helpdesk's Horizon Europe guidance.
Which exploitation route should you choose for each result?
Choose the route that matches the result's maturity, users, ownership arrangements and resources. Commercialisation is one option, but further research, public-sector uptake, training, standardisation and open-source deployment can also constitute exploitation when they lead to actual use.
A software tool could be licensed to a company, maintained openly by a research organisation, integrated into a municipal service or developed further through a new research project. These routes may coexist, provided the licences and rights are compatible.
For each route, answer four operational questions: Who will use it? What evidence shows demand? What must happen before adoption? Who will finance and manage that step?
A proposed spin-off without a customer, a responsible team or a development budget is an ambition, not yet an operational exploitation pathway. Likewise, making a dataset publicly available is valuable dissemination, but the exploitation plan should also identify how it could be reused and by whom.
How can you communicate results to potential users without confusing visibility with exploitation?
Present each result in terms of the problem it solves, its demonstrated performance, the intended user and the conditions for adoption. Tailor the explanation to the audience while keeping technical claims consistent with the available evidence.
For a city authority, a model may need to be described through its integration requirements and planning benefits. For researchers, the same model may require methodological documentation and reproducibility information. For a potential licensee, ownership, development costs and market requirements may be central.
A concise result brief can include: the user problem, the result and its maturity, evidence of performance, limitations, intellectual-property status, contact person and next step. Its effectiveness can be assessed through qualified discussions, pilot requests, reuse agreements or adoption decisions rather than impressions alone.
What must happen after the Horizon Europe project ends?
Before project closure, assign a responsible organisation and a realistic next step to each priority result. The legal best-efforts obligation can continue after the funded implementation period, so an exploitation plan should not depend entirely on temporary project governance or an expiring website budget.
For a digital platform, the consortium should decide who will host it, maintain security updates, answer user enquiries and cover operating costs. For a policy methodology, it should identify the authority or network that could test and adopt it. For jointly owned results, partners may need a separate agreement governing post-project decisions and licensing.
An illustrative post-project follow-up schedule could review adoption evidence after three, six and twelve months, then at intervals appropriate to the result. This is an internal management practice, not a universal Horizon Europe reporting timetable.
If a result remains unexploited after one year despite best efforts, check the Horizon Results Platform obligation in the applicable GA. Do not confuse this conditional requirement with a general duty to make every result openly available.
How can beneficiaries demonstrate that they made their best efforts?
Maintain a proportionate evidence trail linking each important result to the actions taken to support its use. The objective is to document credible attempts and outcomes, including unsuccessful ones, rather than to claim impact that has not occurred.
Useful evidence may include user interviews, pilot-test reports, licensing discussions, follow-on research applications, training adoption records, policy consultations, decisions on intellectual-property protection and records of unsuccessful market approaches.
Illustrative monitoring indicators:
- Potential users contacted: evidence to retain: meeting records and follow-up correspondence. Interpretation: outreach activity, not proof of uptake.
- Pilots agreed or completed: evidence to retain: signed arrangements and validation reports. Interpretation: progress towards use.
- Results reused in research: evidence to retain: project documentation or dataset citations. Interpretation: evidence of scientific exploitation.
- Licences or adoption agreements: evidence to retain: executed agreements. Interpretation: evidence of an agreed exploitation route.
- Results deployed in practice: evidence to retain: usage records or documented implementation. Interpretation: evidence of actual uptake.
A consortium should distinguish outputs (what it produced), uptake (who uses the result) and longer-term impact (what changes because of that use). These are related but not interchangeable.
Which European services can support exploitation?
European Commission resources can help beneficiaries describe results, reach potential users and refine exploitation pathways. The appropriate service depends on the result and the support currently available.
The Horizon Results Platform supports the visibility of results and connections with interested parties. CORDIS provides public information on EU-funded research and its results. The European IP Helpdesk offers guidance on intellectual-property questions. Check the current eligibility and availability of any additional coaching or acceleration service before describing it as an entitlement for a particular project.
These tools complement rather than replace the consortium's responsibility to identify users, clarify rights and take concrete exploitation measures.
Conclusion: Why is exploitation not optional in Horizon Europe?
Exploitation is not optional because Horizon Europe requires beneficiaries to make their best efforts to ensure that funded results are put to use, with obligations that can continue after the project ends. It is broader than commercialisation and should be built into technical planning, intellectual-property management and post-project governance from the outset.
The practical test is simple: for every important result, the consortium should be able to explain who could use it, what prevents uptake, who is responsible for the next step and what evidence will demonstrate progress. A completed report documents the work; a credible exploitation pathway gives that work a future beyond the grant.
About the author
Julien Sudre specialises in Horizon Europe grant writing, project management and communication. Through his professional work and Grant 360, he supports research and innovation organisations in developing proposals and managing collaborative projects. The operational tables and examples in this article are illustrative guidance, not European Commission templates or additional contractual requirements.