Development of safe and sustainable alternatives to substances of concern (IA)

Call HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-two-stage (stage 2) has closed on 13.10.2026.

71 proposal has been submitted.

The breakdown per topic is:

• HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-MAT-PROD-21-two-stage: 17
• HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-51-two-stage: 33
• HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-53-two-stage: 21

Evaluation results are expected to be communicated around 2nd week of January 2027.

General reminder:

Please make sure that your full proposal is consistent with your short outline proposal. It may NOT differ substantially. The project must stay the same.

Proposal part B page limit:

The title, list of participants and sections 1, 2 and 3, together, should not be longer than 48 pages (DIGITAL-EMERGING-51, DIGITAL-EMERGING-53) or 43 pages (MAT-PROD-21). All tables, figures, references and any other element pertaining to these sections must be included as an integral part of these sections and are thus counted against this page limit.

The page limit will be applied automatically. At the end of this document you can see the structure of the actual proposal that you need to submit, please remove all instruction pages that are watermarked.

If you attempt to upload a proposal longer than the specified limit before the deadline, you will receive an automatic warning and will be advised to shorten and re-upload the proposal. After the deadline, excess pages (in over-long proposals/applications) will be automatically made invisible, and will not be taken into consideration by the experts. The proposal is a self-contained document. Experts will be instructed to ignore hyperlinks to information that is specifically designed to expand the proposal, thus circumventing the page limit.

Please, do not consider the page limit as a target! It is in your interest to keep your text as concise as possible, since experts rarely view unnecessarily long proposals in a positive light.

Proposal part B formatting conditions:

The following formatting conditions apply.

The reference font for the body text of proposals is Times New Roman (Windows platforms), Times/Times New Roman (Apple platforms) or Nimbus Roman No. 9 L (Linux distributions).

The use of a different font for the body text is not advised and is subject to the cumulative conditions that the font is legible and that its use does not significantly shorten the representation of the proposal in number of pages compared to using the reference font (for example with a view to bypass the page limit).

The minimum font size allowed is 11 points. Standard character spacing and a minimum of single line spacing is to be used. This applies to the body text, including text in tables.

Text elements other than the body text, such as headers, foot/end notes, captions, formula's, may deviate, but must be legible.

The page size is A4, and all margins (top, bottom, left, right) should be at least 15 mm (not including any footers or headers).

CALL UPDATE: GENERALISED FEEDBACK FOR SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS AFTER STAGE 1

HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-two-stage (stage 1)

To best ensure equal treatment, successful Stage 1 applicants do not receive evaluation summary reports (ESRs) pertaining to their proposals. Instead, the Agency provides generalised feedback with information and advice that might assist applicants in preparing Stage 2 full proposals.

This generalised feedback is based on the most common shortcomings identified in the ESRs of successful Stage 1 applicants. It is not intended as individual feedback for a specific ESR. In preparing a Stage 2 full proposal, applicants may choose to address or clarify these shortcomings.

Please be mindful that a stage 2 full proposal will undergo more detailed evaluation, possibly by a new group of independent external experts. It is essential to ensure that the full proposal is consistent with the brief outline proposal submitted at Stage 1. It must NOT differ substantially.

HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-MAT-PROD-21-two-stage

EXCELLENCE

• In many cases, the starting TRL level 5 is not sufficiently substantiated through the provision of relevant data.
• In some cases, the state of the art is only partially described.
• In some cases the integration of the SSbD framework is invoked but not concretely bound in the proposal starting conditions or in the achievements to be developed.
• Although open science practices are generally taken into account, in some cases it remains unclear whether the data generated may be shared with the Common Data Platform for Chemicals.

IMPACT

• In some cases, the market analysis is not appropriate and a suitable mechanism to track or validate the KPI is not sufficiently described.
• Not all the relevant substitution barriers are sufficiently considered. In addition, IPR are not always thoroughly discussed.
• In many cases, the identification of market targets and related stakeholders as well as the expected investments and growth prospect are not clear or not sufficiently developed. This is a very relevant element in an Innovation Action.

Published: 16.12.2025

Deadline: 17.03.2026

Available budget: EUR 98,000,000.00

In accordance with General Annex D of the Work Programme, the evaluation of the first-stage proposals was made looking only at the criteria ‘Excellence’ and ‘Impact’. The threshold for both criteria was 4. The overall threshold (applying to the sum of the two individual scores) was set for each topic/type of action with separate call-budget-split at a level that allowed the total requested budget of proposals admitted to stage 2 be as close as possible to 3 times the available budget (and not below 2 times). The thresholds that were applied are the following:

HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-51-two-stage – “AI improved advanced manufacturing and production processes in factories (RIA) (Made in Europe and AI, Data and Robotics partnerships): 9.5 points

HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-MAT-PROD-21-two-stage – “Development of safe and sustainable alternatives to substances of concern (IA)”: 8.5 points

HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-53-two-stage - Innovative AI methods and technologies for the process industries (RIA) (Processes4Planet and AI, Data and Robotics partnerships): 9.5 points

The results of the evaluation for each topic are as follows:

HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-51-two-stage

HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-53-two-stage

HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-MAT-PROD-21-two-stage

Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls)

191

79

52

Number of inadmissible proposals

4

0

0

Number of ineligible proposals

3

1

0

Number of above-threshold proposals

33

21

17

Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals

189827153.75

121314614.38

114126082.2

Number of proposals in the reserve list

N/A

N/A

N/A

Ranking distribution

Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 10 and higher or equal to 9

55

31

12

Number of proposals with scores lower than 9 and higher or equal to 8

54

18

16

Summary of observer report:

The evaluation of HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-two-stage, stage 1, was carried out through a structured remote process, including expert briefings, individual evaluations, written SEP discussions, consensus preparation and remote consensus meetings. The observer reviewed a structured sample of meetings and proceedings in SEP, including proposal records, written discussion trails and consensus documentation. The overall assessment is clearly positive. The process demonstrated professionalism, transparency and procedural maturity. The observed meetings were generally well prepared and effectively facilitated, with evaluators applying the award criteria through structured discussion and with due attention to consistency, impartiality and confidentiality. Commission/Agency staff supported the process constructively and neutrally, helping discussions remain focused on the criteria and requirements, while respecting independent expert judgement. SEP provided a robust process record and supported traceability across the evaluation workflow, including written exchanges, scoring status and consensus outputs. The process appeared proportionate to the scale and complexity of the call. The observed evaluation was compliant with the applicable rules and aligned with the principles of excellence, transparency, fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, speed and efficiency. No indication was observed that would call into question the fairness of the process or the equal treatment of proposals. Practical improvement points were identified concerning operational resilience in remote evaluation work: technical readiness for remote conferencing, reliable backup channels if the main evaluation system is temporarily unavailable, role-specific expert preparedness, and systematic meeting opening procedures. Overall, the evaluation process was of high quality and provides confidence that the procedure was conducted fairly, professionally and in line with the applicable evaluation framework.

We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.

For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.