The EIT: he who chases two rabbits will catch neither

The EIT mission to support an environment that enables entrepreneurship and innovation in Europe is extremely valid – and such mission needs an open approach. It is difficult to achieve innovation with complex consortium bidding processes, a fee-based membership model, and a focus on financial sustainability.

Connecting education, research and innovation to drive social progress, supporting entrepreneurship and strengthening institutional innovation capacity all have a clear European added value. To achieve such a European approach to innovation ecosystems and the knowledge triangle, an open, simple and accessible model that enables broad participation and recognises the lasting public value of ecosystem-building, education and capacity development is needed.

ECIU’s key points

• Preserve a dedicated European instrument connecting education, research, innovation for social progress, focusing on simplifying access.
• Simplify governance, funding flows, consortium requirements and participation rules.
• Strengthen universities’ long-term innovation capacity rather than adding new short-term project requirements.
• Apply realistic sustainability expectations that recognise the public value of education, research, innovation entrepreneurship support- and ecosystem-building.

1. Open participation

Current consortium-building and fee-based membership models favour organisations with established networks and the resources to navigate complex applications. Competitive bids consume disproportionate time and consultancy costs, while membership fees, limited awareness, inconsistent openness and complex structures make it difficult for new universities and companies to join.

Rather than repeatedly funding costly competition to establish closed networks, a clear mission and opening participation through transparent entry points, proportionate requirements and low barriers would be needed.

2. Build lasting institutional capacity

The EIT Higher Education Initiative has raised awareness of innovation and entrepreneurship, but demanding partnership and project structures weaken accessibility and long-term impact. Future support should focus on durable capabilities within universities and empower the structures that translate knowledge into innovation, entrepreneurship and societal impact. ECIU projects such as BOOGIE-U and E-Campus show the value of placing technology transfer and innovation offices in a leading role. Investment should create institutional change that lasts beyond individual projects and funding cycles.

3. Simplify delivery and funding

Cascading funding from Horizon Europe through the EIT and KICs to partners is difficult to manage. Delayed contracts and payments, rigid calendar-year budgets, last-minute rule changes and, in some cases, projects being withdrawn after teams were encouraged to begin work create avoidable risk and frustration. Technical, financial and audit requirements are disproportionately onerous compared with other EU funding schemes.

Simpler governance, direct and predictable funding arrangements, proportionate reporting and stable rules must be ensured. Its sustainability model must recognise that entrepreneurship education, ecosystem-building and institutional capacity generate public value and cannot always be expected to become commercially self-financing.

Conclusion

Europe should preserve a dedicated capacity to connect education, research, and innovation, support entrepreneurship and start-ups, in a collaborative way. The key consideration should be the instrument’s ability to deliver meaningful impact: an open, transparent and user-centred approach that enables broad participation and strengthens lasting innovation capacity. Such an open approach focusing on start-ups, validation trials, scaling support, links to larger industry customers and professional support to the adaptation of new technologies must not be stymied by a focus on financial sustainability.