From H2020 to Horizon Europe:Essential Changes for Your Grant Proposal

If you're adapting an H2020 proposal template for Horizon Europe submission, understanding the fundamental changes is critical. The Horizon Europe proposal template requirements differ substantially from H2020 in structure, evaluation criteria, and mandatory elements.

The evaluation criteria look familiar—Excellence, Impact, Implementation still form the trinity. The same 0-5 scoring scale. The same thresholds (3/5 per criterion, 10/15 overall). And yet, researchers with H2020 experience are discovering that Horizon Europe plays by genuinely different rules. The words might be the same, but what evaluators actually reward has shifted.

Here's what makes this transition worth taking seriously: success rates actually improved from H2020's 11.9% to Horizon Europe's 17%. That's not a typo. But the improvement only benefits applicants who understand the structural changes. For those recycling H2020 narratives with surface-level updates, the new programme is arguably harder.

This post maps the transition. Not everything changed—and knowing what translates well can save you weeks of work. But several elements require complete reconstruction. Miss these, and you're submitting a proposal that speaks the wrong language.

Horizon Europe Proposal Template Evaluation: Same Names, Different Game

On paper, Horizon Europe proposal template evaluation criteria look almost identical to H2020. Both use the same 0-5 scoring descriptors—from "Poor" through "Excellent." Both apply the same thresholds. Both organize around Excellence, Impact, and Implementation.

But what each criterion now encompasses has evolved in ways that catch recycled proposals off guard.

Excellence Now Evaluates Open Science as Methodology

In H2020, Open Science practices were often treated as a nice-to-have, something to mention in the Impact section as a dissemination strategy. Horizon Europe embeds them directly into the Excellence criterion. Evaluators now assess whether your data management approach and Open Science practices are integral to your methodology—not an afterthought.

This means FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) need to inform your research design, not just your publication strategy. The question isn't "will you share your data?" It's "how does your commitment to open science shape what experiments you run and how you structure your outputs?"

Gender dimension integration also receives separate assessment weight under Excellence. For relevant topics, the "Do No Significant Harm" environmental principle and AI robustness criteria now factor into scoring. These weren't evaluation considerations in H2020—and proposals that ignore them leave points on the table.

Horizon Europe Impact: The Fundamental Restructuring

The Impact section underwent the most significant transformation. H2020 asked for "expected impacts aligned with the work programme." That framing invited descriptions of deliverables and their immediate applications.

Horizon Europe demands something genuinely different: "pathways towards impact." This requires demonstrating a logical chain—how project results lead through dissemination and exploitation to medium-term outcomes and ultimately long-term societal, economic, or scientific impacts.

This isn't semantic repositioning. It requires different thinking. A successful Horizon Europe impact section reads like a theory of change: "If we produce X, and we disseminate it through Y channels to Z stakeholders, then these specific outcomes become possible, which ultimately contributes to these destination-level impacts."

The new mandatory Summary Canvas table (Section 2.3) crystallizes this requirement. You must visually map target groups, their needs, project results, and how dissemination/exploitation measures connect results to specific outcomes and impacts. Evaluators assess proposals against this framework—checking whether claimed impacts flow logically from proposed activities.

Tie-Breaking Rules Reveal Shifting Priorities

When proposals score equally, Horizon Europe's tie-breaking sequence tells you what the Commission actually values. After standard score comparisons, evaluators now consider gender balance among research personnel and geographical diversity before SME involvement. H2020 prioritized SMEs earlier in the sequence.

This signals a genuine policy shift. Consortia that previously focused on industrial partners for competitive advantage now need to think carefully about personnel composition and the inclusion of partners from "Widening" countries.

New Horizon Europe Research Proposal Template Eligibility Requirements

Some Horizon Europe changes don't affect your research proposal template competitiveness—they determine whether you can submit at all. These eligibility requirements have no H2020 precedent.

Gender Equality Plans: No Plan, No Submission

From calls with deadlines in 2022 onwards, public bodies, higher education institutions, and research organisations from EU Member States or Associated Countries must have Gender Equality Plans as an eligibility criterion. Not an evaluation factor—an eligibility criterion.

Without a valid GEP, applications are inadmissible. It doesn't matter how brilliant your science is. The proposal won't even reach evaluators.

Data Management Plans: No Opt-Out Anymore

H2020's Open Research Data Pilot allowed opt-out from Data Management Plan requirements. Many applicants exercised that option. Horizon Europe makes DMPs mandatory for all projects with no opt-out mechanism.

A one-page DMP is required at proposal stage—evaluated under Excellence-Methodology. Full DMPs are due within six months of grant signature as mandatory deliverables. While data itself may remain "as closed as necessary," metadata must be open under CC0 license regardless of data restrictions.

Open Access: Immediate, No Exceptions

H2020 permitted 6-12 month embargo periods before open access. That flexibility is gone. Horizon Europe requires immediate open access at publication time—no embargo for peer-reviewed publications. Deposit in trusted repositories must occur simultaneously with publication under CC-BY license.

The Open Research Europe platform offers free publication with automatic compliance. No Article Processing Charges apply, and open peer review provides transparent evaluation. This provides a straightforward compliance pathway—though disciplinary repositories remain acceptable alternatives.

Horizon Europe Funding Instruments: What Actually Changed

Collaborative Projects: Procedural, Not Structural Changes

Research and Innovation Actions (RIA) and Innovation Actions (IA) preserve their core characteristics. Minimum three partners from three countries. 100% funding for RIA, 70% for for-profit IA participants. The 25% indirect cost flat rate remains unchanged.

The consequential changes are procedural:

Lump sum funding expanded dramatically. From a small H2020 pilot covering roughly 2% of grants, the Commission is moving toward 50% of Horizon Europe budget by 2027 using lump sums. Through 2024, 314 topics covering €4.7 billion already used this model.

Lump sum funding eliminates financial reporting, timesheets, and financial audits—payment depends solely on work package completion. But it front-loads the administrative burden. Your budget must be defined in granular detail before submission, and once the Grant Agreement is signed, this budget is fixed. Lump sum proposals receive 50-page limits (versus 45 standard) specifically to accommodate these detailed cost justifications.

Personnel cost calculation shifted from hourly to daily rates. Annual personnel cost divided by 215 fixed productive days per year, calculated on calendar year reference. Time recording remains optional; monthly declarations signed by the person and supervisor suffice.

Pre-financing increased substantially—from approximately 100% of average period funding to 160%. This significantly improves cash flow for smaller organisations and first-time participants.

ERC Grants: Advanced Grant Interviews Now Required

ERC budget amounts remained stable (€1.5M Starting, €2M Consolidator, €2.5M Advanced, €10M Synergy), but the overall ERC allocation increased from €13.1 billion in H2020 to €16 billion in Horizon Europe.

The most significant process change: Advanced Grant evaluation now includes interviews. Previously, only early-career grants required in-person defense. This standardization means Advanced Grant applicants must prepare for panel presentations—a skill some established researchers hadn't previously needed.

Eligibility calculation also shifted from PhD award date to certified date of successful defence, with extended grounds now including disability, natural/man-made disasters, and gender-based violence.

MSCA: New Names, New Rules

The most visible MSCA change is nomenclature: Innovative Training Networks became Doctoral Networks, Individual Fellowships became Postdoctoral Fellowships, RISE became Staff Exchanges. These names better reflect the actions' purposes while maintaining functional continuity.

But eligibility also shifted. Postdoctoral Fellowship eligibility moved from years since PhD award to maximum 8 years of full-time equivalent research experience—accommodating career breaks more equitably. An optional 6-month non-academic placement at fellowship end now encourages intersectoral mobility.

EIC Accelerator: A Complete Transformation

The H2020 SME Instrument's two-phase structure (Phase 1 feasibility grants of €50,000; Phase 2 innovation grants up to €2.5M) transformed into something genuinely different.

The EIC Accelerator now uses a three-step process. The short application screening (Step 1) requires a pitch deck and 3-minute video—elements foreign to traditional academic grant writing. Full applications (Step 2) receive remote expert evaluation before selected applicants proceed to face-to-face interviews with the EIC Jury (Step 3).

Most consequentially, the equity component (€1-10 million) creates genuinely blended finance: grant funding for innovation activities combined with investment for market deployment. Grant-only applications remain available but are limited to one per company across the entire 2021-2027 programme period.

Evaluation weighting also equalized: H2020 SME Instrument weighted Impact at 50%; EIC Accelerator weights all three criteria equally at 33.3%.

Horizon Europe Programme Structure: The Conceptual Reorganization

H2020's three pillars—Excellent Science, Industrial Leadership, and Societal Challenges—became Horizon Europe's Excellent Science, Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness, and Innovative Europe.

This isn't mere renaming. Industrial Leadership merged into Pillar II with Societal Challenges, reflecting policy recognition that industrial competitiveness and societal challenges require integrated responses. The new Pillar III (Innovative Europe) houses the €10.1 billion European Innovation Council—creating a coherent innovation-focused programme component that H2020 lacked.

H2020's seven Societal Challenges became six Clusters. The Food Security challenge merged with Bioeconomy elements. Energy and Transport challenges consolidated. Culture expanded from Inclusive Societies into a broader "Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society" cluster with doubled budget.

Within clusters, the new Destinations concept organizes topics around expected impacts rather than purely thematic groupings. Proposals must align not just with topic text but with the overarching Destination impact description—a requirement that H2020 applicants often underweighted.

Associated Country Resolutions: Finally, Clarity

The UK's Brexit transition created years of uncertainty: UK entities couldn't coordinate projects and faced self-funding requirements through 2023. UK association took effect January 1, 2024, restoring full participation except for EIC Fund equity investments.

Switzerland's non-association from 2021-2024 similarly disrupted established collaborations. Full association returned from January 1, 2025, ending four years of workaround arrangements.

These resolutions benefit proposal writers: UK and Swiss partners now strengthen rather than complicate consortia. However, Canada, New Zealand, and Republic of Korea hold Pillar II-only association, meaning their participation is limited to Global Challenges calls—not Pillar I or III programmes.

One new constraint emerged: strategic autonomy clauses allow certain calls to restrict participation to EU Member States only or specific Associated Countries, particularly in quantum computing, space technologies, and security-sensitive domains. Check topic conditions carefully.

Widening Participation: Tripled Resources

Widening budget tripled from H2020's €935 million to Horizon Europe's €2.95 billion—approximately 3% of total programme budget. Greece was added to the Widening countries list; Luxembourg was removed.

Instrument changes matter for applicants. Teaming consolidated from two phases into single 6-year projects requiring complementary structural fund co-financing. Twinning now permits small-scale research activities—previously funding was limited to networking. ERA Chairs requires including the Chair holder's CV in proposals.

New instruments include the Hop-on Facility (joining ongoing Pillar II or EIC Pathfinder projects), Excellence Hubs (regional ecosystem development), and ERA Talents (career mobility support focusing on Widening country researchers).

Practical Guidance for Horizon Europe: What to Salvage, What to Rebuild

If you're adapting an H2020 proposal, here's what translates well versus what requires reconstruction.

Sections That Transfer With Updates

State of the Art typically transfers effectively with condensation (Horizon Europe templates are shorter) and updated references. The core scientific positioning usually remains valid.

Methodology and technical work packages maintain conceptual continuity but require reformatting and, crucially, integration of Open Science practices as fundamental methodology rather than bolt-on compliance. Describe how FAIR data principles inform your research design, not just post-hoc data sharing plans.

Partner expertise content can inform rewriting, but the material now belongs in Part A online forms, not Part B narrative. Partner description sections have been eliminated from Part B templates.

Sections Requiring Complete Reconstruction

Impact sections cannot be adapted—they require reconceptualization around pathways logic. The Summary Canvas table alone demands structured thinking that H2020 impact sections typically didn't provide. Your entire theory of change needs articulation.

Dissemination, Exploitation, and Communication must follow new structural requirements with clear separation between three distinct activities. A draft plan is now an admissibility condition at proposal stage—not something you can defer to the grant agreement phase.

Ethics documentation relocated entirely to Part A with expanded question sets. Material from H2020 ethics self-assessments must be translated into the new online format.

Template Structure: The Compression Challenge

Page limits reduced from H2020's variable but often 70-page Part B to Horizon Europe's 45 pages for standard RIA/IA (50 for lump sum). This compression forces prioritization that lengthy H2020 proposals often avoided.

The H2020 Section 1 split of "Objectives" (1.1) and "Ambition" (1.4) merged into a combined "Objectives and Ambition" section. The "Relation to work programme" subsection disappeared—this alignment must now permeate the entire proposal rather than appearing in a dedicated section.

Implementation section restructured significantly: management structure merged with the work plan, and consortium capacity replaced the previous separate consortium description. The result is a more integrated—and shorter—presentation.

Common Adaptation Failures

Having seen many recycled H2020 proposals, certain patterns consistently undermine competitiveness.

Treating page limits as targets produces over-dense, unreadable proposals. Evaluators explicitly note that shorter proposals addressing requirements clearly score better than maximum-length proposals that simply include more. White space and visual clarity matter.

Including hyperlinks to circumvent limits backfires. Evaluators are instructed to ignore hyperlinks and annexes attempting to expand beyond page limits. All essential information must appear in Part B text. Your reference list can link to publications, but don't try to hide critical content behind URLs.

Preserving H2020 impact structures consistently fails. The old approach of listing deliverables and calling them impacts attracts evaluator criticism. Genuine pathway logic showing causal chains from activities through intermediary steps to distal impacts is non-negotiable.

Neglecting new eligibility requirements causes immediate rejection. GEP compliance must be verified before submission. Partners without valid Gender Equality Plans cannot participate regardless of scientific expertise. This catches first-time Horizon Europe applicants with alarming frequency.

The Bottom Line on Horizon Europe Transition

The H2020 to Horizon Europe transition preserved evaluation foundations while transforming nearly everything around them. Success requires recognizing which familiar elements remain valid—core scientific methodology, expertise networks, foundational research questions—and which demand fundamental rethinking.

Impact sections cannot be updated; they must be rebuilt around pathways logic. Open Science practices cannot be compliance checkboxes; they must inform research design. Administrative requirements cannot be afterthoughts; GEPs and DMPs are now gatekeeping eligibility.

The improved success rates—from 11.9% to 17%—suggest evaluators can distinguish applicants who genuinely adapted from those who superficially updated. With 67% of high-quality proposals still unfunded, competition remains fierce. But the rules are clear for those willing to learn them.

Researchers who invest in understanding these structural changes, rather than minimizing adaptation effort, position themselves not just for the programme's remaining years but for the eventual transition to FP10. The patterns Horizon Europe established—impact pathways, Open Science integration, equity considerations—aren't going away. They're the new baseline.

Your old H2020 proposal isn't worthless. But it isn't ready either. The question is whether you'll do the work to close that gap.