What do evaluators really look for in the Impact section (C&D&E)?

In Horizon Europe calls, competition for public funding is fierce. Dozens of consortia with flawless scientific excellence (Section 1) present technically faultless proposals. However, when scores are published, it is very common to find proposals with excellent technical scores that are left off the final list. The reason? A generic, unconvincing, or market-disconnected Section 2 (Impact).

The C&D&E (Communication, Dissemination & Exploitation) strategy is not an administrative requirement of a proposal filled in with stock phrases in the final days before the call deadline. As we have analyzed throughout this series in our articles on Communication Strategies in European projects, Scientific dissemination and transfer by audience, and Results exploitation and business engineering, Communication, Dissemination, and Exploitation form an integrated impact strategy.

Evaluators of European Commission Horizon Europe proposals know this perfectly well. In this article, we open the evaluator’s mind to analyze which criteria we apply, which errors systematically penalize, and how to structure a solid and winning Impact section.

From “window dressing” to rigor: leaving generic promises behind

The most common mistake when drafting Horizon Europe proposals is abusing promotional language without providing evidence. Phrases like “we will create an attractive website,” “we will publish multiple scientific articles,” or “a spin-off will be created at the end of the project” no longer convince anyone.

Evaluators look for rigor, methodology, and justification. To achieve the maximum score in the Impact section, they demand two fundamental elements:

• Quantifiable and justified KPIs for European projects: It is not enough to say that “10 workshops” will be organized. You must define the typology of attendees (profile and segmentation of audiences), the planned capacity, the target interaction rate, and the expected impact after the event. Every figure must follow a realistic calculation logic.
• Pathways to Impact: The European Commission requires visualizing an uninterrupted causal chain connecting four levels:

1. Project Results (Outputs): What the project produces directly (e.g., a software platform at TRL 7, a battery module, or a methodological guide).
2. Transfer Measures (Measures): The concrete C&D&E actions to put those results into circulation.
3. Medium-term Results (Outcomes): The adoption or response by the target audiences (e.g., 15 ESCOs adopting the methodology, 3 municipalities replicating the model).
4. Long-term Impacts (Impacts): The real contribution on a social, economic, or environmental scale (e.g., 20% reduction in CO2 emissions at a regional level or mitigation of energy poverty).

The trap of lack of segmentation: Channels and Audiences Matrix

Treating all project audiences equally is the fast track to losing points. An evaluator immediately detects when a consortium has designed a “flat” plan that intends to communicate the same content to a researcher, an industrial manufacturer, a policymaker, and a neighborhood community.

To convince the Horizon Europe evaluation panel, the proposal must include a well-structured C&D&E Matrix of audiences, channels, and objectives, surgical breakdown provided:

In this matrix, the operational boundary between the three activities must be crystal clear:

• Communication: Aimed at society and the broader sector to generate engagement, visibility, and project reputation.
• Dissemination: Aimed at the scientific and technical community and the industrial value chain to transfer reusable technical knowledge.
• Exploitation: Aimed at customers, commercial partners, and investors to capture value and ensure market adoption.

Credible Exploitation and Intellectual Property (IPR) from Day 1

Exploitation is the block that usually receives the most critical scrutiny from Horizon Europe evaluators, especially in calls oriented toward high TRLs (such as Innovation Actions). Promising ambitious commercialization strategies without analyzing market reality conveys a lack of maturity.

Evaluators meticulously analyze three aspects in the exploitation subsection of the proposal:

1. Starting point and TRL/MRL jump: The proposal must precisely define the initial technology maturity (Technology Readiness Level) and market maturity (Market Readiness Level) of each Key Exploitable Result (KER), justify why it is at that level, and demonstrate how project activities will enable achieving the target TRL.
2. Preventive Intellectual Property (IPR) management: It must be demonstrated that the consortium has analyzed the protection of results and inventions prior to the start of the project. The evaluator wants to see how Background will be differentiated from Foreground, which protection strategies will be prioritized (patents, trade secrets, open-source software, or trademarks), and how Joint Ownership Agreements will be addressed.
3. Alignment with partner profiles: If a technological KER is assigned to a research center or university without its own commercial capacity, the evaluator will look to see which industrial partner, SME, or business engineering partner will lead the commercialization of results through licensing, transfer agreements, or company creation.

Coherence and Resources: Budget and specialized leadership

One of the most serious errors in preparing Horizon Europe proposals is designing an extremely ambitious Impact chapter while allocating a symbolic budget or dividing Person-Months (PMs) evenly among partners who lack competencies in technology transfer or communication.

To obtain the highest mark, the evaluator must verify that coherence exists between the plan’s ambition and the allocated resources:

• Realistic resource allocation: PMs and direct costs (events, licenses, Open Access publications, branding) must be proportional to the committed KPIs.
• Professional leadership of the Work Package: Management of the C&D&E / Exploitation Work Package should fall to a specialized partner. Having a benchmark partner in business engineering and innovation like R2M Spain demonstrates to the evaluator that activities will not be improvised, but rather executed by a multidisciplinary team with proven experience in the European R&D&I ecosystem.

Conclusion: Impact as a guarantee for the future

The Impact section in Horizon Europe is not mere advertising decoration to satisfy European Commission requirements; it is the roadmap that ensures public funding translates into market-applicable R&D&I results, industrial progress, and lasting socioeconomic return.

Throughout this series, we have seen how European project communication strategy, audience-driven dissemination, and exploitation engineering feed off each other to cross the valley of death. Designing this framework with rigor right from the proposal stage is the best guarantee to convince evaluators and ensure the success of your project.

Are you preparing a Horizon Europe proposal or do you need to lead the Impact and Exploitation section of your consortium?

At R2M Spain, we have a solid track record as C&D&E and Exploitation leaders in dozens of European projects. We help consortia and coordinators design winning proposals and execute impact plans with the highest technical, legal, and commercial rigor.

📩 Get in touch with our Proposals and Innovation team and secure the maximum score in the Impact section of your next proposal.