By Julien Sudre, grant writer and founder of Grant360. Originally published 8 December 2025. Updated: 23 September 2026.
For standard collaborative Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Actions (RIAs) and Innovation Actions (IAs), proposals are evaluated on Excellence, Impact, and Quality and efficiency of implementation. Excellence examines the objectives, advancement beyond the state of the art and methodology. Impact examines the credible contribution to the topic's expected outcomes and wider impacts, including measures to maximise uptake. Implementation examines the work plan, resources and consortium's capacity. The exact questions, scoring and thresholds depend on the action and call; consult its documents rather than assuming that every Horizon Europe scheme uses identical rules. European Commission: how projects are chosen; standard RIA/IA evaluation form.
This guide draws on the author's experience writing more than a hundred grant applications. It uses collaborative RIAs and IAs as its main examples. For your proposal, start with the evaluation criteria and application form attached to the specific topic in the Funding & Tenders Portal.
What does Excellence assess?
Excellence assesses whether the project has clear, pertinent and ambitious objectives and whether its methodology can achieve them. For RIAs and IAs, the Commission's evaluation form describes the aspects considered, including advancement beyond the state of the art and the soundness of the proposed approach. Consult that form and the work programme for the wording applicable to your call.
Begin with the problem and the current state of knowledge or technology. Identify the gap using relevant publications, existing projects or performance benchmarks, then state what your project will achieve and how it will be tested. "Develop a more sustainable process" leaves too much to infer. "Compare the process with the current industrial baseline at three pilot sites, measuring energy use and product quality" describes a testable approach. A numerical target is useful when its baseline and rationale are credible.
Explain methods, data, assumptions and limitations at a level that allows assessment. Address interdisciplinarity, the gender dimension in research and innovation content, open science and other cross-cutting matters where relevant to the action and required by the call. A generic paragraph on each does less than a clear explanation of how it affects your actual methodology. The Horizon Europe Programme Guide provides programme-level guidance.
Our own experience of writing numerous grant applications has also taught us something: even great scientific ideas can fail if you do not create a "wow" moment in the first pages of your Excellence section. Your idea should make reviewers excited about the proposal. Usually, this comes from a combination of strong alignment with the call text and EU policy, plus an original but convincing scientific approach.
Practical check: For every objective, identify the proposed method, the evidence it will produce and the point at which success can be assessed.
What does Impact assess?
Impact assesses the credibility of the project's contribution to the expected outcomes of its topic and, through them, to wider expected impacts in the work programme. It also considers the suitability of measures to maximise those effects, including dissemination, exploitation and communication. The standard RIA/IA application form asks applicants to set out pathways towards outcomes and impacts, the scale and significance of their contribution, and measures to maximise impact.
Show a pathway, not just a list of promises: project result -> intended user -> steps towards use -> expected change -> evidence or assumption. Suppose a consortium develops a tool for hospitals. The software is a result; validation and staff training support use; changes in diagnosis time are potential outcomes that require a baseline and measurement plan. Wider health effects depend on later adoption and other conditions, which should be acknowledged.
Dissemination makes results available to relevant audiences. Exploitation is the use of results in research, practice, policy or commercial activity. Communication engages audiences with the project and its activities. Describe the audiences, responsible partners, timing and barriers to uptake. Quantify a projected benefit when the underlying assumptions can be explained; a dramatic figure without a defensible calculation is less useful than a modest, well-supported estimate.
As grant writers, it is usually in the Impact section that we bring the most value, because it is often a section that researchers do not always like or whose logic they find difficult to grasp. However, our approach can be applied by anyone: start from a strong review of the current situation and problems, then envision a future where your solution solves those issues. Although talking about the future is difficult, always try to back claims with evidence. Your job here is to turn a scientific proposal into a project aimed at improving something critical.
Practical check: Can a reader trace every major impact claim to a result, a potential user, an activity supporting uptake and a plausible method of verification?
What does Quality and efficiency of implementation assess?
This criterion assesses whether the work plan and resources are appropriate and whether the individual participants and consortium as a whole have the capacity to carry out the work. The Commission's RIA/IA evaluation form sets out these aspects, while the application form includes tables for work packages, deliverables, milestones, risks and resources.
Organise tasks into work packages with defined objectives, leads, timing, deliverables and dependencies. Explain why each partner is needed and match its person-months and budget to its responsibilities. A pilot scheduled only at the end of the project may leave little time to correct problems; if late validation is necessary, explain how earlier tests reduce that risk. Evaluate technical, organisational and adoption risks with an owner and a workable response.
There is no universal ideal split of budget among partners or ideal ratio of universities to companies. The appropriate composition follows the work and topic. If a project needs clinical access, regulatory analysis or industrial demonstration, show who can supply it and how their work is resourced. For more detail, see How do you build a strong Horizon Europe consortium?.
Our experience with this section is that every detail counts. We strongly advise working with project managers to design a strong work plan: the way work is organised in work packages and tasks, the distribution of effort among partners, the risk assessment, a realistic budget, and other practical details. Many aspects can make or break the proposal.
Practical check: Trace each objective to a work package, responsible partner, deliverable, milestone and credible allocation of effort.
How do the three criteria relate to one another?
They test different parts of one project logic. Excellence asks whether the idea and approach are sound. Impact asks what meaningful change the results could enable and how. Implementation asks whether the team and plan can produce those results. A statement in one section should have support in the others.
For example, if Excellence promises a validated sensor, Implementation needs the testing tasks, sites and resources; Impact needs the intended users, barriers to deployment and a justified uptake pathway. If one link is absent, adding stronger adjectives will not repair it. Use the official application template and evaluation form side by side when reviewing a draft.
How are the criteria scored, and what do thresholds mean?
For standard single-stage RIAs and IAs, each criterion is generally scored on a 0-5 scale, with the usual threshold of 3 for each and 10 overall. These are not universal Horizon Europe thresholds: two-stage procedures, other actions and call-specific conditions can differ. Check the current Horizon Europe work programmes and General Annexes, plus the topic's conditions, for the applicable scores, weighting and thresholds.
Passing a threshold does not guarantee funding. Proposals that satisfy the criteria still compete within the call's budget and selection rules. A strong score on one criterion cannot always offset a score below an individual threshold on another. If you receive an Evaluation Summary Report (ESR), examine both its scores and comments to understand the assessment. The Commission explains the selection process.
What mistakes should you check under each criterion?
Use the following review questions rather than a generic checklist:
Excellence
Weakness to look for: ambitious claims without a baseline, comparator or convincing method.
Revision to consider: specify the gap, measurable objective, evidence and validation.
Impact
Weakness to look for: broad benefits with no users or route to uptake.
Revision to consider: identify users, barriers, steps, assumptions and indicators.
Implementation
Weakness to look for: tasks, timing or resources that do not support the objectives.
Revision to consider: reconcile work packages, partners, dependencies, risks and budget.
Ask a reader outside the writing team to locate the supporting evidence for one central claim under each criterion. If they cannot find it, either add the missing analysis or revise the claim. For a deeper account of the procedure, see How are Horizon Europe proposals evaluated and selected?.
Conclusion: What is the best way to address all three evaluation criteria?
Begin with the specific call, design a project whose objectives, expected contribution and delivery plan support one another, and write the evidence where the relevant criterion asks for it. Excellence, Impact and Implementation are connected, but each requires its own substantiated answer. Review the current official forms before submission; a coherent, well-evidenced proposal is easier to evaluate, though funding remains competitive.
For a step-by-step approach to drafting, read Horizon Europe grant writing complete guide.