Tag Archives: Statistics

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) has undergone substantial changes over the past years, especially during the transition from the Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) to the Horizon Europe (2021-2027) framework program.

As part of the European Commissions (EC) and European Innovation Councils (EIC) portfolio of funding instruments (see EIC Programs), it supports startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) with up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total).

Keeping Up With The EIC

In contrast to many other public grant opportunities for businesses, the EIC Accelerator remains in constant flux due to varying influencing factors such as increasing marketing by the EIC, conflicts between the European Parliament and Commission as well as changes in the proposal templates, evaluation process and budgets (see Work Programme 2023).

To advise prospective applicants accurately, it is often the responsibility of professional writers, freelancers or consultants to keep track of the newest changes, trends and potential disruptions that could occur in the EIC programs.

This can include changes in the proposal submission process, potential budget alterations, disruptions through AI (see ChatGPT) or subtle changes in the success rates of the program (see Success Cases).

The Eroding Evaluation Process

The EIC Accelerator follows a simple but lengthy 3-step evaluation process that uses a short application (Step 1), a long application (Step 2) and a remote interview (Step 3) as its base (see What is the EIC Accelerator?).

For the first two steps, the EIC uses thousands of remote evaluators to account for the high number of submitted applications while the last step uses a small number of commercially-oriented jury members. Ideally, this process allows the EIC to vet good technologies in the first two steps and then select the best business cases in the last stage to ensure that the long-term success of the program remains high.

Since the inception of the new EIC Accelerator in 2021, the evaluation process has remained the same but the outcomes of the process have changed dramatically.

The graphic shows the selection rates for the EIC Accelerator’s full proposal (Step 2, white), the interview (Step 3, green) and the combined rates for both stages (Step 2×3, yellow).

It is evident that, while the overall success rates (yellow) have trended slightly downwards, there has been a strong trend for the increase of Step 2 and a decrease of Step 3 selection rates.

This means that the EIC is starting to rely more and more on the EIC Jury in the interview rather than the remote evaluators to assess the quality of the projects.

It likewise means that the quality of the EIC Jury is naturally being eroded since more interviews require more interviewers with a venture background but these are harder to come by than the remote evaluators.

Jury Jeopardy

The goal of the EIC Accelerator interviews is to use a small number of highly qualified experts who make the final funding decisions which increases the quality and ideally reduces the randomness of the selection process.

But, by increasing the number of jury members, the entire process will likely become even more random.

Written Step 1 and Step 2 EIC Accelerator applications present a certain degree of control and predictability whereas applicants can rely on expert proposal writers to support them. For the interview, even the most elaborate pitch coaching will still present a significantly higher luck factor and is subject to the influence of interpersonal skills that are difficult to assess and train within just a few weeks.

Even the EIC’s report on the EIC Accelerator program has revealed that the interviews are presenting a high degree of randomness when it comes to rejections and approvals (see 2020 Report). This is aggravated by the fact that applicants cannot rebut the comments of the jury members outside of being invited to an interview.

What Happened?

In 2021, everything seemed perfect: The EIC Accelerator budget was at an all-time high, Horizon Europe had just launched, the EIC had completely reinvented the submission process and global financial markets were on the good side of the economic bubble when money was available and interest rates were low.

The first EIC Accelerator deadline in June was concluded with unprecedented funding rates that were incomparable to the less than 1% observed just a few months before:

Rates in %	Step 2	Step 3	Step 2×3
June 2021	16	50	8
October 2021	19	47	9
March 2022	24	28	7
June 2022	24	32	8
October 2022	22	33	7
January 2023	33	20	7

Note: The January 2023 cut-off did not include the EIC Accelerator Strategic Challenges which might have impacted the selection rates.

16% of all Step 2 applicants were selected and a total of 50% were selected in the Step 3 interviews (see June 2021 Success). This means that one out of every two applicants was selected in the interview which is a very promising rate for interviewees.

Step 2 was still quite selective with a rate of only 16% but, over the following years, the selection rates for Step 2 gradually increased while the interview rates decreased.

Don’t Turn on the Light

There are a variety of potential explanations for this but the most obvious answer lies in the Step 2 evaluation process itself. Every company applying to the EIC Accelerator is able to see the comments and reasoning for the rejection of their proposal with great detail (see Developing the Rebuttal).

This means that the rejectee has a transparent view of what is needed to succeed in this step according to the first evaluators that have read the application. This is in contrast to the previous submission process where no comments were obtained and applicants that were rejected had to take a shot in the dark in their resubmission.

Today, a resubmission is much easier since the applicant only needs to address the evaluator’s criticisms in a logical manner to succeed while the new evaluators will likely not re-read the entire application and only rely on the conversation between the first evaluators and the applicant.

Innovation All the Way Down

But there is a second reason why this trend most likely occurred and it is directly related to the new system the EIC has created in its hunger for innovation. The previous system relied on numerical scorings to rank companies but the new system does not provide any possibility to rank the applicants.

Instead of handing out numerical scores from 1.00 to 15.00 per company, the EIC replaced this process with a binary grading (GO or NO GO). This has removed the resolution of the process since the EIC cannot introduce rankings and thresholds to account for the limited budgets.

If the current EIC Accelerator produces 500 companies for the interview but cannot differentiate between them then all companies have to attend the interview, thereby reducing the selection rates. In the previous EIC Accelerator, all projects selected for the interview could be ranked so it was possible to only allow the top 50 companies to attend the interview, thereby retaining a high selection rate.

Where Are We Going?

With the current process, there is a chance that success rates in the interview could drop into the single digits even if the EIC schedules longer interview weeks for Step 3. It is also jeopardizing the integrity of the interview sessions since the quality of jury members will be reduced by increasing their numbers and the randomness encountered in the interview can present long-term reputational damage to the EIC.

While there is no obvious solution to this problem, it is essential for the EIC to rank the applicants in some manner since it will otherwise erode the quality of the evaluation process in the long-term (see Application Process).

The best short-term approach would be to gather statistics on the rejection reasons in Step 3 and enforce them in Step 1 so that the number of applicants can be reduced early.

If teams are too small, their last funding round was too big, their industry is not attractive or other common rejection reasons are encountered then the EIC should disqualify them in Step 1 and not allow them to reach Step 3 just to be disappointed later on (see Who Should Not Apply).

The goal of the EIC should not be to market the EIC Accelerator broadly and have as many applicants as possible but to only attract the applicants that the Step 3 jury will be willing to fund. This should be reflected by the evaluation process whereas Step 1 should filter out companies based on the current criteria but also based on additional numerical criteria such as Full-Time Employees (FTE), current fund-raising, burn rate, customer traction, revenues and other simple parameters.

This article was last modified on May 11, 2023 @ 14:19

These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents.

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing.

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only).

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

How Deep Is Your Tech? The European Innovation Council Impact Report (EIC Accelerator)

May 8, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) provide €2.5 million in grants and €15 million in venture financing per startup or Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME).

This article discusses highlights from the 2022 impact report on the new EIC Accelerator program (grant and equity, with blended financing option).

1. The EIC Fund’s Mission

“In 2022, the EIC made a major development by establishing the EIC Fund as an investment vehicle for high risk, high-potential startups in their early stages of development.”

The EIC Fund is a great addition to the EIC’s portfolio of funding arms since it enables larger funding amounts and closer relationships with companies through ownership stakes, deep due diligence and board seats.

Unfortunately, it is currently not aligned with the needs of high-risk and early-stage startups due to many delays, a long backlog of unfunded companies spanning multiple years into the past and a distorted selection process that often abandons the idea of DeepTech (see Breaking the Rules).

2. Industries and the EIC’s Role

“Whether it’s the energy crisis, the food crisis, or the path towards economic resilience, the EIC is helping to find solutions to these deep societal challenges by identifying investment opportunities and catalysing private investments in deep tech startups that can scale in global markets.”

It is clear that many of the EIC Accelerator portfolio companies focus on very technical fields in the areas of health, energy, computing, space technology and others, often including hardware developments. This is a great accomplishment since pure software companies would be less risky and easier to scale in comparison.

Still, it remains to be seen if the EIC is crowding-in private investments or if private investors are crowding-in the EIC.

There are cases in which companies raised substantial capital before or during the EIC Accelerator approval process so it is likely that the EIC is pursuing a safe strategy of piggybacking on private markets while also following a risky approach of betting on disruptive technologies in parallel.

This is, of course, a very reasonable approach since disruptive DeepTech is too risky to be the exclusive priority of any investment vehicle, including the EIC.

While it is easier for the EIC to advertise results from EIC Pathfinder and EIC Transition due to the filing of patents and the publications of scientific papers, the EIC can only advertise results from the EIC Accelerator through valuations, scaling and revenues which are difficult to achieve (see The EIC Portfolio).

This places a major burden on the EIC since obtaining financial success cases is extremely difficult and creates distorted incentives where the evaluation prefers companies that are already successful rather than those that will (potentially) be. It also requires a near-unreasonable level of risk mitigation from companies that are expected to have signed contracts with major industry stakeholders or customers even at TRL5.

3. Stealing Thunder

“To date, the EIC has supported a portfolio of over 1 600 startups that have helped generate 12 deep tech Unicorns and 112 Centaurs here in Europe. EIC companies have attracted over EUR 10 bn of follow on investment and the valuation of the EIC portfolio of companies stands at over EUR 40 bn.”

Interestingly, the EIC lists a company called TWAICE as an example of a centaur but this is quite deceptive since, according to Crunchbase and public data, the company raised $30 million before obtaining EIC funding and no funding afterward. This would suggest that their valuation had already reached the centaur status, potentially exceeding the status of an SME, while the EIC support had little or no effect.

This casts doubt on the EIC’s unicorn or centaur claims and a thorough investigation of the EIC’s role in their growth and success is warranted.

4. Diversity

“The EIC also continues to outperform the market in supporting women-led companies and entrepreneurs from all regions of the EU – factors essential for a balanced and diverse innovation chain better addressing the needs and reflecting capabilities of our citizens.”

It is quite clear that the EU member states and associated countries are not equally represented in the portfolio of EIC-funded companies. Of course, this is not avoidable since different countries have varying startup ecosystems and low-GDP countries will generally struggle to create cutting-edge DeepTech startups.

Diversity goals, including gender targets, are generally driven by political agendas and it remains to be seen if such goals, as they are applied to technology investments, will have a positive impact on all citizens in the long term.

5. No Country for Old Companies

There is a preference for companies within a certain age range whereas the majority of funded businesses are 6-10 years old and a total of 50% of companies are below 10 years of age. This, of course, can stem from the fact that many older businesses are not incentivized to innovate while it is often startups that are in a position to disrupt industries with ground-breaking technologies.

6. Congesting Innovation

“The first EUR 260 m in investments through the EIC Fund has resulted in 92 investment agreements. 48 investments by the EIC Fund have been sufficiently mature to leverage just under EUR 500 m in co-investments by private and other funds, resulting in a leverage of 2.6 times the value of the EIC Fund equity investments. 2022 also saw the largest investment round involving the EIC Fund: a EUR 100 m fundraising round by SiPearl. 44 investment agreements signed by the EIC Fund have taken the form of convertible loans. These act as a bridge to the next fundraising round, which is expected to fall within 12-18 months of receiving EIC support.”

It is no secret that the EIC Fund has had a difficult past (see An Inside Look). Confusion and disappointment among beneficiaries as well as delays in the issuance of funds are still plaguing startups even 4 years later.

Most companies are still waiting to receive their equity investments and the EIC is still making structural changes to the fund which will likely lead to more delays – i.e. handing the EIC Fund to the European Investment Bank (EIB).

“Since September 2022 it has been fully functional and is in the process of taking investment decisions on 179 companies selected by the EIC Accelerator for equity support in 2021 and 2022.”

It is likely that the EIC Accelerator will undergo substantial changes over the coming years which will reshape the evaluation process and especially the selection procedure.

Considering the current evaluation process, the EIC is putting the cart before the horse by performing the due diligence on a company after the funding decision has already been made.

While the EIC Fund can still decide not to invest in a company, it is not how the program was intended to function.

Currently, a subjective assessment process using conflicting criteria in 3 steps screens companies while final investment decisions are made based on a 35-minute interview. Only then will months of due diligence be performed. This is, of course, highly uncommon in the investment industry.

7. Turtles Investing In Hares

“Operational Excellence: Including time from application to grant for Accelerator, 6 months for Transition, and 8 months for Pathfinder”

Days-to-Grant by Program

	2021	2020
EIC Accelerator	300	152
EIC Transition	91	–
EIC Pathfinder	167	207
Due Diligence*	>720	180-360

*Days-to-Termsheet

The statistics on the application durations are quite revealing since they suggest that the average beneficiary was rejected at least once in the process. For a company applying to the EIC Accelerator, it is possible to move from the beginning of Step 1 to the final funding decision in Step 3 within 6 months if no rejections are received. Afterward, 2+ months can be expected to access the funding.

Since the average duration given by the EIC is 300 days or 10 months (100% higher than in 2020), it seems that either the projects are rejected before obtaining funding, applicants skip deadlines due to the higher workload or the EIC caused substantial delays in the issuance of the financing.

Still, it is unclear what this timeline actually represents since it does not clarify the start and end points (i.e. Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, money in the bank).

But it is possible that the numbers reflect rejections faced by beneficiaries which highlights the inaccuracy of the evaluation process and the persistent luck factor of obtaining funding.

This article was last modified on May 1, 2023 @ 19:40

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, Phase 2, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

Analyzing A Leaked EIC Accelerator Interview List (Success Rates, Industries, Direct Submissions)

May 5, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) uses a 3-step evaluation process to select successful startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME).

It awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total) but the application process is often lengthy and can be subject to randomness especially in the last interview stage (see EIC Accelerator 2020 Report).

Applicants often rely on professional writers, freelancers or consultants to support them through this process since it can be challenging to perform in-house (see What is the EIC Accelerator?).

This article presents a brief breakdown of the statistics related to companies that have been invited to the Step 3 interviews in November 2021 of which some were successful and some were unsuccessful.

Note: The information in this article is based on a complete list of invitees to the Step 3 interviews for October 2021 which is publicly available as of today – albeit likely unintentionally. It is not linked here since the original document contains personal information related to the invited companies.

The October 2021 Interviews

The last cut-off in 2021 was on October 6^th which closed the first year of the new EIC Accelerator program in its reinvented form. 1,109 companies applied in Step 2 out of which 211 or 19% were successfully invited to the Step 3 interviews (see EIC Accelerator Interview Success Rates).

In the interviews, the selection rate was remarkably high with 99 companies or 47% being successful in the process, leading to an overall success rate for the EIC Accelerator of 9%, excluding Step 1. The 99 winners were able to access a €627 million budget albeit a majority in the form of equity which is still delayed (see EIC Fund).

Industries

The types of technologies and industries funded under the EIC Accelerator are always subject to the Strategic Challenges of that year (see 2021 Work Programme). In 2021, there were two Strategic Challenges, namely Digital Health and Green Deal technologies which greatly influenced the criteria for both the Step 2 and Step 3 selections.

Due to COVID-19’s status as a global health crisis in 2021 and the EIC’s Digital Health focus, the participation of health-related projects was exceptionally high and greatly outperformed all other industries.

It is aligned with the EIC’s general focus on DeepTech with most projects focusing on very scientific and technical industries related to health, engineering, environment, agriculture, energy and BioTech.

Interestingly, the transport sector was only funded at a 14% rate which is understandable since it is a highly competitive industry that often relies on public subsidies and is difficult to penetrate. This often leads to a high-risk profile that the EIC is not entirely comfortable with.

Agriculture and space projects have seen the highest funding rates while construction and security projects saw the lowest rates but such statistics have limited significance due to the small sample sizes.

Countries

The EIC Accelerator is generally available to all EU member states and countries associated with Horizon Europe (see All Eligible Applicants). In that context, it is interesting to analyze which countries are generally performing well in the interview since the EIC rarely publishes such data.

While the EIC does publish the nationalities of the winning companies, the losing companies and their nationalities are obscured. This makes sense since the EIC wants to encourage the participation of as many countries as possible since every country is effectively paying a participation fee but it would be of little interest to reveal an unequal funding selection.

It is no surprise that the most winners in the EIC Accelerator for October 2021 were also from the countries that have seen the highest number of passing Step 2 applications with France, Germany, Israel, Spain and the Netherlands taking the lead. Success rates in the Step 3 interviews ranged from 48% to 57% for the top countries but showed significantly higher variabilities for the remaining countries.

Due to the small sample sizes, the data is not fully representative as a whole but it is obvious that Norway, Denmark and Belgium had particularly poor outcomes with only 20%, 27% and 17% success rates.

For applicants from Portugal, Hungary and Slovenia, the outcomes were even worse whereas the representatives of these countries were rejected by the EIC Jury at a 100% rate even after passing Step 1 and Step 2 and in spite of the 47% overall success rate in Step 3.

Croatia, Lithuania and Romania were far more lucky with all of the country’s representatives being funded.

Direct Interview

The EIC Accelerator has a complicated resubmission procedure which generally allows for only two attempts before a freezing period is reached but there are certain exceptions (see Resubmission Process). It is possible for applicants that have been rejected in Step 3 to be re-invited to the next Step 3 interviews without requiring a Step 2 resubmission.

Such direct invitations have been noted in the EIC Accelerator Step 3 interviewee list and it is obvious that their success was far more likely. Out of 11 direct invitations, a total of 9 or 82% were successful while only 45% were successful for standard invitations from Step 2 submissions.

Conclusion

Due to the small sample size and the influence of the specific Work Programme, the takeaways from this article are limited but it is still obvious that certain countries, industries and mechanisms such as direct invitations have more success than others.

The EIC should publish such data periodically since it is insightful and can help applicants and consultants in making decisions regarding the EIC Accelerator. It would be beneficial if they further publish anonymized information regarding the team size, financing status, revenue range and customer numbers to allow prospective applicants to gain a realistic view of their success chances.

Further, statistics related to Step 2 success chances based on simplified data of industries, team sizes and others would likewise benefit the ecosystem even if they are provided as simple spreadsheets.

This article was last modified on May 3, 2023 @ 18:48

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

Steering the EIC Accelerator: Lessons Learned from the Pilot Program

May 2, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) is providing startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) with up to €2.5 million in grants and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total).

The program is often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants to navigate the complex proposal template and EIC requirements.

This article presents a summary of the 2022 EIC Accelerator report and is discussing insights regarding the success of the pilot program leading up to 2020.

Note: An explanation of the EIC Accelerator terminology can be found here: Explaining the EIC Accelerator.

1. The EIC Fund

1.1 Delays

“It needs to considerably speed up the process leading to the signature of the financing agreement. In the pilot phase, delays were due to the novelty of the instrument, both for the EC and the beneficiaries, whereas in the current programming period there were legal difficulties in transitioning the Fund under Horizon Europe.”

The current status of the EIC Fund, with all its troubles and delays, is on display in a recent 2022 impact report on the EIC Accelerator (see How Deep Is Your Tech?), the EC website (here) and in a recent media article (here). While over 90 investment decisions have been made, the funding has not reached the bank accounts of beneficiaries in most cases.

While grant payments have been made effectively, albeit with some delays, the equity investments have been hampered, likely due to a combination of structural difficulties and the inexperience encountered by the EU operatives.

Of course, including the beneficiaries as a reason for the delays is not entirely accurate since the delays were caused by the EIC, primarily.

1.2 Communication

“Stakeholders’ expectations about the benefits and implications of receiving the Fund’s support could be managed by further communication through national contact points, SME and start-up associations.”

The EIC has historically struggled with properly communicating what the EIC Accelerator is seeking and what applicants should expect. This is likely due to the nature of public institutions that often prioritize political agendas and communications over clear and pragmatic advice.

As an example, it is in the interest of the EIC to communicate how it funds disruptive innovations that the private market is ignoring but it is not in their interest to admit that the evaluation process often prioritizes low-risk investments, even going as far as giving grants to companies that received €20M+ from private markets just days before (see Breaking the Rules).

The EIC has even listed a portfolio company as an example of a supported centaur (i.e. €100M+ valuation) even though the company likely had this status before the EIC funding was obtained, according to public data.

Since the EIC has encountered difficulties in clearly communicating with future applicants, likely due to potential conflicts with political appearances, it is increasing its reliance on National Contact Points (NCP). The EIC has already made data sharing on the platform mandatory for all applicants and NCP’s often have access to beneficiary lists before results are officially published.

To communicate more clearly, the EIC should publish detailed but anonymous information regarding the rejection reasons of applicants especially in the interview stage. If the evaluation process is in fact consistent, then it should be possible to give superior guidance directly.

As an example, if companies are rejected because of their small teams, then there should be a clear cut-off that applies to all companies. If a company is rejected because they have raised €15 million just before the interview, then this should be consistent among applicants as well.

1.3 Conflicting Agendas

“A contentious point on the Fund structure pivots around the interpretation of two eligibility rules: non-bankability and co-investment. The two criteria respond to the need to identify investment-worthy projects with traction from private investment, but that cannot be financed through traditional debt instruments. The first criterion addresses the lack of additionality observed in the SMEI and reflects the need to ensure that the Fund is not competing with the market by supporting projects that financial intermediaries could have financed. The second criterion ensures that market players do not see the recipient companies as publicly subsidised entities. It also guarantees that the European Commission remains a dormant investor in the company, till it may exit, due to the entrance of new investors.”

In the previous EIC Accelerator pilot phase, the non-bankability criterion was still present but it has now been removed from both the official EIC Work Programme and from the evaluation criteria. The term was used to refer to companies that cannot receive funding from private sources such as banks or institutional investors since they are too high risk.

Regardless, the current proposal template is still asking all applicants to explain why they need funding from the EIC which is consistent with the removed non-bankability rule.

The independent report points out that forcing companies to obtain co-investments for the EIC Fund on their own opposes the narrative of being solely dependent on the EIC. Upon closer investigation, there is a narrow role for the EIC to play even if a company is non-bankable since the grant and equity components can de-risk the project for outside investors.

In reality, the EIC has not honored that role and, by diluting the non-bankability criterion, has allowed itself to provide grants for companies that have easy access to private capital (see Investing in Well-Funded Companies).

It is interesting to see that the independent investigators were able to predict such an outcome based on 2020 data. The EIC had to decide between risk (non-bankability) and success (co-financing, private investor interest) and it chose the latter.

2. Gender

2.1 Changing the Goal to Reach the Goal

“The EIC Pilot has made commendable efforts in trying to achieve more balanced participation, especially for women.”

The EIC has set mandatory targets for female participation in the EIC Accelerator even during its pilot period but it is unclear to which degree they have increased the number of female-led applicants as opposed to the number of female-led winners.

In 2020 and prior, the EIC used different thresholds for male and female participants which effectively increased the difficulty for male while reducing the difficulty for female CEO’s. The EIC has further loosened its criteria on what a female-led company means and expanded the definition to also include CTO and CSO positions instead of just the CEO position.

This is an interesting development since changing the definition of the goal is not the same as reaching the goal.

It is also unclear if such outcome-driven goals will benefit future female founders or if they create the wrong incentives and hurt the long-term diversity of the ecosystem.

Increasing the number of applicants from widening countries and the number of applying female CEO’s could be a more sustainable option rather than changing the definition of the goal or forcing certain outcomes. Additionally, the EIC could subsidize consulting fee’s for female CEO’s or implement similar programs to encourage an increase in applicants instead of distorting evaluation criteria.

2.2 Eroding DeepTech

“Nevertheless, identifying attraction and inclusiveness as the programme’s KPIs creates possible conflicts with the award criteria for project selection and in particular with excellence in science and innovation.”

Interestingly, the above quote from the independent report was given twice in the document, verbatim. It highlights the general conflict of impact investments or Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) policies since they can erode investment decisions.

Investors generally have to prioritize profits and shareholder value but introducing an additional target can jeopardize such priorities. This is true for both the focus on DeepTech and gender targets since they present impacts outside of financial success.

For the EIC, it is unavoidable to have such conflicts since it is not a typical investor but focuses on difficult-to-finance and high-impact DeepTech projects. As such, profits are already being jeopardized.

Introducing gender targets to this equation is further eroding potential profits since it presents additional restrictions on investment decisions.

In the end, something will have to give since the EIC must now:

Maximize success for political appearances (i.e. unicorns, centaurs, follow-up funding)
Focus on high-risk DeepTech
Increase female participation

Of these three targets, the second goal of high-risk DeepTech investments is the most endangered since it is very easy to sweep inconsistencies under the rug (i.e. Breaking the Rules) while advertising success and diversity.

This has already been predicted by the independent report based on 2020 data from the EIC Accelerator Pilot.

Ironically, the incentives created by the EIC might hurt the DeepTech ecosystem in the long term because it is unlikely that any institutional investor will take more risks than the EIC. If the EIC Fund avoids high-risk projects to prioritize diversity and fast success then it might send the wrong signals to private markets.

This would render the advertised €2.6 of private capital for every €1 invested by the EIC a crowding-out of innovation funds into regular investments rather than a crowding-in of private capital into high-risk DeepTech.

3. Industries

The projects funded under the EIC Accelerator Pilot are aligned with the general focus on technology-driven projects with strong representations of optics, robotics, energy, health and climate tech.

4. Evaluation

4.1 Luck and Randomness

“The outcomes of the evaluation process were often unpredictable, especially for the Accelerator. In interviews, participants reported a sense of randomness in project selection. Some beneficiaries reported that it was possible to succeed with a resubmitted proposal including minimal or no changes at all. This fact has somehow undermined the credibility of the evaluation process and created a sense of haphazardness in project selection where the “luck factor” determined the difference between a selected and a non-selected high-quality proposal. Feedback provided by the evaluators was not considered sufficient to improve rejected proposals. At the same time, case study feedback on the jury panel was mixed. Whereas in some instances, the selected teams were impressed by the competence of the jury members, in other cases, they were left disappointed by the insufficient understanding of the more technical aspects.”

Unfortunately, the luck factor and randomness in the evaluation process have remained intact throughout the entire EIC Accelerator program. It is still a reality that companies are rejected or funded with inconsistent feedback. A company can be rejected because it raised €10 million in funding while a company can be funded even though it just raised €30 million.

Since there is no accountability for the EIC regarding the consistency of the process and the rejected applicants are generally not incentivized to make their rejections public, it is often only consultancies and professional writers who collect such case studies.

Still, the feedback from evaluators has greatly improved after 2020 and it is a positive sign that the EIC is rising to the ambitious challenge of reinventing itself.

4.2 Third Time’s a Charm

“In the case studies, 9 of the 15 projects analysed required 3 to 5 attempts before being funded. Similar feedback was also collected through the survey and the interview programme.”

The current evaluation process is restricting re-submissions but, back in 2020, it was still possible to re-submit proposals indefinitely. Even though the evaluation process has changed dramatically since 2021, it is still a reality that funded projects will encounter rejections along the way.

Considering that the majority of projects required 3 to 5 submissions means that the process is too random to deliver consistent and desirable results. Unfortunately, this likewise means that there are many projects that are eligible for funding but were unlucky in the evaluator or jury selections.

The EIC could aim to mitigate such issues if they were to assess which evaluators and jury members provided wrong assessments.

As an example, a NO GO grading by an evaluator in Step 1 or Step 2 for a project that would succeed in Step 3 can be represented as a strike for that evaluator. In the same way, a GO grading for a project that would be rejected twice in the interview can likewise be represented as a strike.

The same can be implemented for individual jury members who reject a project in the first interview which is then funded in the second interview with no meaningful changes.

This would allow a degree of communication between the Step 1 and 2 remote evaluators and the Step 3 jury members who have very different backgrounds and funding criteria.

There should likewise be a degree of consistency among all evaluation steps regarding rejection reasons. If a company is rejected for a specific factor then the evaluators and jury cannot fund projects that exhibit the same factor (i.e. team size, amount of funding, etc.).

This would reduce the luck factor.

4.3 High-Risk, Low-Reward

“Low success rates were not commensurate with the efforts required by the application process. Oversubscription was driven by the programme’s success and popularity, but also by a large number of re-submissions, with more than one out of 10 applicants applying more than five times between 2018 and 2020. Two-thirds of the Accelerator participants were successful at their first, second or third submission.”

Figure: Funded applicants that had to submit multiple times.

Since resubmissions have now been restricted, this graphic is generally cut after the first two attempts which shows that there are likely a variety of eligible applicants that are being rejected. This is aggravated by the tendency of most companies to lose interest over time which leads to an even higher number of companies that could have been funded with more persistence.

4.4 A Fair Lottery

“The fully-fledged EIC has significantly improved the EIC application process. According to [consultants], the new application system saves considerable time and effort for both the implementing agency and the applicants. Moreover, the new system is likely to favour the best applicants by reducing the “noise” of unsuitable applications that also contributed to reducing the programme attractiveness by keeping unnecessarily low success rates.”

The confirmation by consultants that the application process saves time is quite odd since the system established in 2021 is significantly longer and requires more effort than the 2020 system. It has increased the reliance of applicants on consultants greatly since the time to prepare an application now takes multiple months instead of weeks.

While success rates started out higher than in 2020, they are gradually falling and have recently fallen below 5%, thereby reaching similarly low levels compared to the old system. Over time, the success rates might become as competitive as the previous EIC Accelerator Pilot.

4.5 The Pitch

“Finally, success in the interview requires personal skills (e.g., English fluency, presentation and communication skills) that are difficult to acquire in a short time.”

There is likewise a strong likeability factor in the interviews where the interviewers will be more inclined to fund a project if they like the team. Agreeable and friendly speakers are often favored over disagreeable speakers which is rather unfortunate since many of the great entrepreneurs of our era, if not all, were highly disagreeable (see EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation).

5. Pay-to-Play

“More than 70% of survey respondents stated that they hired a consultant to prepare an application for the EIC.”

The EIC Accelerator is time-consuming, complex and obscure. Applicants generally start by reading the official EIC communications but, due to their focus on promotional materials, this often leads prospective applicants to have more questions than answers.

Unfortunately, this fact can also be exploited by consultancies since many applicants are greatly overestimating their chances of success based on their review of the EIC guidelines regarding innovation, high risk, a lack of funding and DeepTech definitions.

6. The Reality

6.1 Does the EIC Accelerator Work At All?

“The majority of Accelerator projects included in the case studies showed progress with their core technology assets but with no evidence yet of scaling up. At the time this evaluation was carried out, almost all projects achieved a TRL between 8 and 9. Two projects were expected to licence production and four to achieve production on a larger scale.”

The EIC Accelerator is designed for the purpose of scaling up disruptive innovations. The guidelines are clear in that TRL8 has to be reached after a grant project and an equity injection should propel the project to TRL9 (see Technology Readiness Levels).

Defining the TRL’s is often very subjective but if, after 2 years, no evidence of scaling has been observed then this could be a negative sign.

“Case study analysis showed that projects progressed in upgrading and improving their core technology assets, but there is no evidence yet on commercialisation, although some companies reported that they were ready to scale up production and staff or to licence production.”

In contrast, this lack of scaling is likely a positive as opposed to a negative result since it shows that these projects are, in fact, difficult to execute and require extensive development times. If the EIC Accelerator funds high-risk and disruptive innovations then this is exactly the result one would expect. Most DeepTech projects cannot be completed in 2 years which is why they are called DeepTech.

DeepTech will require more time than a SaaS business that can scale vertically in a matter of months. What is ironic is that this lack of scaling is seen as negative while it should be viewed as a good first step since the TRL8 levels were effectively reached.

The EIC generally expects 2-year projects but this should not be the norm. It should be aware that DeepTech projects can take 5 years to reach TRL9 and should inform the jury and remote evaluators that the length of the project should have no impact on the evaluation, especially in the final interview.

Now, the EIC has 2 general options:

(1) Improve their support for commercialization such as custom business coaches who are industry authorities, helping companies to gain more customers at TRL6-7 and adjusting the EIC communication to focus on commercial/scaling strategies and not on vague concepts such as disruption, innovation and diversity which are not helping companies to succeed.

(2) Abandon DeepTech investments and fund companies that are already scaling to gain success cases quickly.

Unfortunately, it seems like the EIC is gradually moving toward the second option.

6.2 Do EIC Portfolio Companies Grow?

“Based on Dealroom data, in July 2021, 27 Accelerator beneficiaries reached a valuation of more than €100M. They represent 7% of the sample on which data are available in Dealroom (N=410) and 4% of all Accelerator beneficiaries (N=768).”

Such a result should not be negatively assessed. EIC Accelerator beneficiaries can have valuations as low as €1 million at TRL6 since there are few restrictions regarding the project maturity, company age and team size.

“Around 30% of the companies receiving a grant in 2018 saw their employees grow, on average, at a rate above 20% in the three following years”

The problem with any KPI introduced by the EIC is that it will become the focus irrespective of the EIC’s mission. Diversity, gender ratios, valuations, global scaling and similar metrics are all used by the EIC to assess companies but this will, in the long term, only encourage the evaluators to select companies that already score high in these areas instead of helping SME’s to reach that target or to foster innovation.

KPI’s are important but they need to be part of the project execution (i.e. actively supporting business growth) rather than the application process since it will otherwise exclude many startup companies that are genuinely at TRL6 rather than TRL8-9 companies pretending to be.

6.3 Are the EIC Accelerator and the EIC Fund Actually Supporting DeepTech?

“Literature shows that deep tech VCs need to work with a 10-15-year lifetime investment. The profitability of equity investments also tends to be negative in the first years (generally up to five) because the investee company is not able to yield a positive return.”

The romance of DeepTech is well presented by the EIC through unicorns (€1 billion valuation), centaurs (€100 million valuation), disruption and events where much is said about innovation but the reality looks different.

Disruption starts at a point where very few, if anyone at all, can see the vision or wants to invest. If they do recognize a superstar in the making and want to invest, they usually do so with smaller amounts since the risk remains too high.

Peter Thiel saw the immense potential of Facebook in 2004 but only invested $500,000 into the company regardless. He understood that success will take more validation and he can always invest more later.

Negative profits for 5 years are to be expected in DeepTech but the EIC’s selection criteria seem to favor commercial success more and more after every submission cycle. Even the mandatory financial template that the EIC uses only accounts for 5 years of predictions.

According to DeepTech literature, no company should break even during this time but the EIC Jury would not fund such companies.

It would be beneficial for applicants if the EIC would publish statistics regarding the financials submitted by EIC beneficiaries and provide information regarding break-even-points, annual growth rates, start-end-revenues and margins to assess what the EIC is looking for and how much DeepTech they are comfortable with.

6.4 What Happens To Rejectees?

“Around 60% of high-scoring declined Accelerator proposals were implemented at a smaller scale, with less substantial results and benefits, resorting to private financing (business angels, friends or family, or venture capital investors) or a combination of private and public funds. The absence of alternative forms of funding is the most common reason why declined proposals were not implemented.”

This is quite interesting since it demonstrates that there is a role to play for the EIC and that even the high-scoring companies (i.e. above the funding threshold but rejected) will struggle to attract financing and are therefore truly non-bankable.

Through the EIC Fund and its pressure on companies to demonstrate extensive traction (i.e. customers, signed contracts, LOI’s) as well as source co-investors for the EIC Fund even before the project is granted, the EIC is clearly starting to align with private markets rather than the other way around.

One statistic that would be an interesting and insightful addition to this report would be to identify which companies have raised financing right before obtaining the EIC Accelerator grant or those who have been part of a due diligence process leading up to the funding.

Such statistics would reveal the dark number of how many companies could have succeeded without the EIC and can be contrasted to the number of projects that are not implemented without EIC support.

This article was last modified on Apr 17, 2023 @ 19:57

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

Who Should Not Apply To The EIC Accelerator And Why

April 24, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator grant financing (with blended equity option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) funds Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups with up to €2.5 million in grants and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total).

The EIC Accelerator sets out clear guidelines for applicants whereas it advertises to fund:

“…startups and spinout companies to develop and scaleup game-changing innovations…”

While additional information is found inside the EIC Work Programme, the general criteria are quite vague and the first hurdle for any company interested in the EIC Accelerator is to find out if the program is suitable at all (see EIC Accelerator Explained).

This article touches on common reasons why companies should not pursue the EIC Accelerator program and might be better off looking for alternatives such as EIC Pathfinder or EIC Transition as well as non-EIC grants (see One-Stop Shop).

Note: A company that is not suitable for the EIC Accelerator can be highly attractive to other investors as well as have an excellent technology and business model. The EIC Accelerator would have likely avoided funding companies such as TikTok, AirBnB, Amazon or the European Deliveroo in the TRL5-6 stage.

1. Technology

1.1 A Simple Technology

The EIC Accelerator has funded apps and pure software businesses before but this does not mean that it is easy to obtain funding with such technologies.

In a recent report on the program, common industries funded under the EIC Accelerator were in the areas of energy, agriculture, health and similar technologies which illustrates the highly technical and scientific nature of the desired products and services (see EIC Report).

The EIC Accelerator (formerly SME Instrument) has clearly become more business-focused and is now more easily swayed by good financials compared to other R&D grants but it still retains its general focus on disruptive innovations.

Every project that seeks EIC Accelerator financing should perform a realistic assessment of how sophisticated its technology is prior to applying for grant funding.

1.2 Intellectual Property (IP) and Innovation

There are a variety of industries that are very saturated or where differentiation is minuscule such as logistics-support solutions, communication tools, social networks, payment infrastructures and many others. This will render the description of the innovation and the elaboration of competitive differentiators difficult.

It is often best to apply with a grant project that has clear IP and differentiators in an industry that is less saturated. Although this does not need to be the norm since energy and battery industries are highly saturated but are repeatedly funded under the EIC.

By funding multiple projects in a single industry, the EIC is funding competitors which is effectively growing the industry rather than nurturing a single industry winner.

While competition is a reality for all businesses and should not be a reason to avoid the EIC Accelerator, it should be assessed if the market is overcrowded and if the commercial differentiators have long been eroded.

Ideally, the target market should not be in the process of being disrupted by many other startups at the time of the application.

2. Company

2.1 Small Team

Startups often have a chicken-and-egg problem whereas companies with very small teams and no track record need financing to grow but need growth to attract financing. Since bootstrapping (i.e. self-financing through revenues) is not an option in typical DeepTech companies, private or public funding is often sought out to bridge the gap.

The EIC Accelerator is funding large teams with 100+ employees but also small teams with less than 4 staff members but the latter is often a tough sell.

While Step 1 and Step 2 evaluators are happy to see that a team is having a large reach through scientists, contractors or freelancers, the Step 3 jury will likely be very critical of teams where staff members only account for 1-3 members.

It would be useful if the EIC were to publish company statistics on the beneficiaries since factors such as the team size will likely greatly influence the success chances. In general, a team of 5+ staff members would be advisable although smaller teams have also been funded.

2.2 Founded Recently

The EIC Accelerator specifically mentions startups as their ideal applicants whereas the statistics of funded projects show that 41% of companies are aged 6-10 years while only 9% are aged 5 years and below.

Still, if a company has only begun product developments recently while starting from scratch but already reached a Technology Readiness Level (see TRL) high enough for the EIC Accelerator then it might not be sophisticated or unique enough to succeed in the program.

Additionally, if a company is only a few months old, it has likely not built substantial customer interest or market traction yet which will severely limit the appeal of the project to the EIC Accelerator evaluators and jury.

Of course, an exception is a spin-off company that has been created from a larger company, University or research institute and is founded with a strong technology and market track record.

2.3 Limited Funding

The EIC Accelerator funds projects starting at TRL5 but prefers TRL6 as the starting point in most cases. To reach this level, especially for DeepTech projects, it is necessary to raise substantial seed investments to support personnel and hardware costs.

If a company has not raised substantial financing yet or has only raised the starting capital during the founding process then the technology might lack the sophistication necessary to succeed in the EIC Accelerator program.

2.4 Limited Traction or Customers

The EIC Accelerator is a market-focused funding program and, even though it explicitly foresees Research & Development work, it has a strong commercial focus. This often leads to overlaps in the judgment of the evaluators where the TRL is assessed through the use of the technology by existing customers.

This can even extend to the point where the EIC jury will reject a project for having a TRL that is too low because no customer has interacted with the prototype yet even though the validation clearly places it at TRL6.

While it is not necessary to have paying customers, it is highly beneficial to have existing customer relationships, Letters of Intent (LOI) and other proof of traction to satisfy the evaluators.

2.5 Lacking Corporate Identity

It is very common for evaluators and EIC jury members to perform an internet search of the company they are assessing. This includes the reading of website materials, LinkedIn profiles and other public company data.

If a company has no website, social presence, or even a domain name for company emails then it will place a negative light on the company itself. Since creating such online representations is simple and not costly, it is recommended to prepare them thoroughly before considering an EIC Accelerator application.

If the CEO of a company communicates using GMAIL or similar services then this is generally a sign that the project is not fit for the EIC Accelerator.

Conclusion

It will not be necessary for every EIC Accelerator applicant to implement all the recommendations above but each individual factor can be expected to impact the evaluation.

In general, it is often beneficial to err on the side of a straightforward technology with strong market interest and traction rather than a sophisticated technology with weak market interest.

Interestingly, companies with a simple technology would likely be able to raise substantial financing from private markets in a more efficient and straightforward process compared to the EIC Accelerator. But since the EIC offers non-dilutive grants, it is still useful as a funding vehicle for companies in addition to dilutive private financing (i.e. Investing in Well-Funded Companies).

Although, it is not aligned with the mission of the EIC.

This article was last modified on Apr 17, 2023 @ 19:53

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

January 27, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) is one of the multiple programs available to Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups. It awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total) and applications are often supported by consultants, professional writers or freelancers.

Still, there are alternative options for project financing available under the EIC framework.

EIC Funding Programs

The EIC’s funding programs can be complex and there is limited structured information that can support and guide a selection process. There are different funding arms (i.e. EIC Pathfinder, EIC Transition, EIC Accelerator), different topics (i.e. Challenges), varying budget allocations (see EIC Budget 2023), different funding modes (i.e. grant, equity, mixed) and even different application systems (i.e. written applications, videos or interviews).

To reduce the complexity, this article aims at providing a guide for selecting the right EIC financing.

The three flagship EIC grant funding programs are EIC Pathfinder, EIC Transition and EIC Accelerator. For an explanation of the differences between them, please view this article: EIC Funding Framework

The core selection criteria for the EIC funding options are (1) the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the innovation, (2) the topic or industry, (3) the number of applicants and (4) the financing needs and investor availability.

Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

To decide between EIC Pathfinder, EIC Transition and EIC Accelerator, the prospective applicant must first identify the level of their current technology according to the TRL’s:

basic principles observed
technology concept formulated
experimental proof of concept
technology validated in lab
technology validated in relevant environment
technology demonstrated in relevant environment
system prototype demonstration in operational environment
system complete and qualified
actual system proven in operational environment

While the descriptions for the TRL’s are rather vague, the general cornerstones are easily differentiated when considering that TRL5 accounts for validating the key technology in a test setting while TRL6 accounts for the testing of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) in a customer environment (i.e. actively testing the prototype)

After identifying an applicants TRL, it is then straightforward to make a decision regarding the funding program whereas:

EIC Pathfinder starts at min. TRL1 and ends at max. TRL4
EIC Transition starts at min. TRL4 and ends at max. TRL5-6
EIC Accelerator starts at min. TRL5-6 and ends at max. TRL9

Topics

The EIC’s Work Programme is renewed and adopted each year which means that the budgets and thematic topics will change annually.

Why is the budget relevant?

The total budget defines how much funding is available in any given year and for any given cut-off. If 1,000 applicants compete for €100 million then it will be more difficult than if 100 applicants compete for €1,000 million since the average funding per project increases.

It is advisable to identify the general competitiveness of a funding program prior to planning an application which includes the number of total applicants, the number of winning projects and the overall budget size (see 2022 Results).

Why are the topics relevant?

In general, there are always “Open” and “Challenge” Calls for the respective funding arms whereas the former is available to all types of technologies and industries while the latter is only available to specific projects that fulfill certain criteria.

To elaborate, topics or Challenges are a specialized focus of the respective funding program whereas the total budget is divided into multiple buckets. While the “Open” bucket is available to all applicants, the “Challenges” bucket is only available to those who fulfill the criteria regarding the technologies and industries outlined in the Work Programme.

In practice, it is always preferable to apply to the “Challenges” if possible since it can be less competitive while providing higher success chances.

This can be illustrated in a simple example:

The EIC Accelerator budget for 2023 is €1.1 billion in total but it is divided into the “Open” call with €611 million and the “Challenges” with €523 million. The strategic challenges for the EIC Accelerator in 2023 are (see 2023 EIC Budget):

Novel biomarker-based assays to guide personalised cancer treatment
Aerosol and surface decontamination for pandemic management
Energy storage
New European Bauhaus and Architecture, Engineering and Construction digitalisation for decarbonisation
Emerging semiconductor or quantum technology components
Novel technologies for resilient agriculture
Customer-driven, innovative space technologies and services

From a statistics perspective, there are likely fewer companies that fall into these particular topics while there is a high probability that the majority of applicants are only eligible for the Open call.

It is therefore advisable to identify the current topics for each funding program prior to preparing a submission. Considering that resubmissions are a common occurrence in case of rejections, it is likewise preferred to apply in a timely manner to account for at least 3 Step 2 submissions in the case of the EIC Accelerator (see Resubmissions).

Consortia vs. Single Applicant

The EIC Accelerator is a single-applicant instrument which means that only a single entity is receiving the funding and must be located in the EU or a country associated with Horizon Europe. For EIC Pathfinder and EIC Transition, the applicants can either be single entities or consortia consisting of multiple entities.

Financing Needs and Availability

Each funding program has a dedicated budget and a general budget amount per project. For the EIC Accelerator, the general funding allocations are a maximum of €2.5 million for grant funding and €15 million for equity funding while the average ticket sizes are generally below the maximum.

For the last cut-off of 2022, the average ticket size for all projects (incl. grant-only, grant-first, equity-only and blended finance) was €6.03 million (see 2022 EIC Accelerator Results).

For EIC Pathfinder, the limits for projects are €3 million and for EIC Transition they are set to up to €2.5 million per project.

It is therefore beneficial to also assess the funding needs of the project beforehand to assure that the amount of funding that can be granted will allow the project to reach its desired endpoint.

It should also be assured that sufficient follow-up or co-financing is available in relevant cases. For the EIC Accelerator, the projects requesting grant-only, equity-only and blended financing are generally required to demonstrate that additional financing is available.

For grant-only applications which are only requesting funding up to TRL8, the funding to reach TRL9 should be justifiable. The EIC reserves the right to cancel ongoing grant projects in case a lack of additional financing is jeopardizing the project (see Cancelling Funding).

For applications that include equity components such as blended finance, the EIC expects applicants to secure outside investors for a co-financing round. While such rules can change on a year-by-year basis, it is important to be aware of them to meet and manage expectations.

This article was last modified on Feb 19, 2023 @ 23:35

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

ChatGPT for the EIC Accelerator: Will the Real AI Please Stand Up

January 25, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) has been largely reinvented in 2021. The previous application process of preparing and submitting a 30-page PDF file has been overhauled and replaced with a very comprehensive online platform that uses AI features and visualizations.

While it still funds Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups with €17.5 million in total funding per project (€2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity), it is now compartmentalizing and standardizing the entire application process.

The EIC website prominently uses the term “EIC AI Platform” but calling it Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems like an overstatement. In reality, all texts and annexes must be prepared manually by applicants and no automation or intelligence seems relevant to the process which is why applicants often rely on consultants, professional writers or freelancers.

The AI features likely refer to back-end assessment features relevant to the evaluators but not to the applicants or visualizations of the innovativeness expressed through graphics.

This article is investigating the usability of ChatGPT for EIC Accelerator applications which could bring true AI and text generation to the application process.

ChatGPT

ChatGPT is a chat-based interface for AI-generated text developed by Open.AI and popularised in 2022. It has made waves in all industries that rely on written content creation since the chatbot is able to instantly generate complex texts based on user instructions.

Of course, grant writing is a major application area for such AI-generated texts since it is complex but follows very specific structures that could be standardized and automated. Especially the EIC Accelerator could potentially be a major target for AI automation since it has replaced a free business plan submission with specific and compartmentalized questions that are easier to generate compared to complex structures.

While it is to the detriment of the remote evaluators who have to read the AI-generated proposals, it is of interest to applicants and consultants to identify if a technology such as ChatGPT can save time and deliver high-quality output. Potentially, it could even increase the quality of the final application.

What is needed to write an EIC Accelerator proposal?

Assessment

An EIC Accelerator proposal differs greatly from a simple market analysis, a business plan or any content creation around mainstream subjects. The very first step and job of every consultant is to identify if the project can win the EIC Accelerator or not.

This requires a significant amount of due diligence to identify if there are any problems with the company or the project that could present a flaw in any of the application steps. The application process is complex and, through the 3-step approach taken by the EIC, it is necessary to consider how the evaluations will differ in each step.

In the first two steps, there is generally a focus on the technology and the attractiveness of the innovation to the EU with appealing industries winning over those that are lesser known (see Winning Candidates). The commercial strategy and traction are often poorly assessed in the first two steps but are becoming key in the Step 3 interviews.

Structuring

Once the project has been assessed, the next step is the structuring of the EIC Accelerator proposal according to the unique technical aspects and commercial plan of the applicant. This can present a challenge to many companies since the template questions are often vague, some proposal sections are interconnected and many individual sections are repetitive due to very similar template questions.

Writing

Finally, the writing and preparation of all proposal texts and annexes that are needed for the EIC Accelerator will follow which includes the development of all sections and the ongoing consistency verification between sections.

What can be automated with ChatGPT?

Selection and assessment process

As of today, the assessment process will be difficult to automate through technologies such as ChatGPT. If it was possible, there would be no need for an application process for the EIC Accelerator since the AI could simply select the winners based on unstructured documents or public website data.

While the Artificial Intelligence (AI) is designed to understand the context of what is requested, the context of companies seeking to apply for the EIC Accelerator is currently too nuanced to automate at this stage.

The EIC Accelerator is both broad and narrow in its scope (i.e. all industries can apply but not all companies) and is contradictory in many ways. It is designed for groundbreaking technologies and companies that have difficulties in raising private financing but well-financed companies can win as well (i.e. Breaking the Rules). There are likewise many cases where companies have to resubmit multiple times before they are approved for funding which questions the accuracy and consistency of the process.

The EIC claims to seek high-risk projects but often prefers to fund low-risk business cases with proven revenue generation and industry partnerships in the final selection step which uses external angel investors and venture partners as the jury.

In general, the assessment is currently too multifaceted to automate in any meaningful way. It is likewise inconsistent by design and any standardization and automation would likely raise questions regarding the validity of the selection process and mission of the EIC.

Planning and structuring

The planning and structuring of an EIC Accelerator application is a creative task and could be a promising candidate for automation. If the AI understands the task and the parameters then it can become a useful guide.

Here is an example from ChatGPT for the structure of the “Features and Use Cases” section of an EIC Accelerator application:

Input:

I want you to segment a topic into multiple sub-levels. I want you to pick 4 top-level titles and each title has 4 sub-level titles. The topic I want you to structure is a technology that allows RedOx flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization.

Output:

Introduction to RedOx flow Batteries
- Basics of RedOx flow Technology
- Advantages of RedOx flow Batteries
- Current State of RedOx flow Battery Development
- Future Potential of RedOx flow Batteries
Tin-based Electrolytes for RedOx flow Batteries
- Chemistry of Tin Electrolytes
- Performance Characteristics of Tin Electrolytes
- Development and Production of Tin Electrolytes
- Applications of Tin Electrolytes in RedOx flow Batteries
Big Data and AI for RedOx flow Battery Management
- Role of Big Data in RedOx flow Battery Operations
- Artificial Intelligence for Predictive Maintenance
- Data Processing for Battery Health Monitoring
- Data Visualization for Battery Performance Optimization
Implementing Software Solutions for RedOx flow Batteries
- System Architecture for RedOx flow Battery Management Software
- Integration of Tin Electrolytes and Big Data/AI
- Deployment and Testing of Software Solutions
- Case Studies and Best Practices for Software Implementation

The result is surprisingly good but here is the catch: The input is already guiding the chatbot into a structure that is most useful. A 4×4 structure is always a good starting point. From there, one can include or change the structure since it is unlikely that 4×4 will be ideal for every project.

What is especially impressive is that ChatGPT autonomously introduced keywords such as “Predictive Maintenance” and “Battery Health Monitoring”. It likewise segregated the hardware and software components well which is exactly what is needed for a technology description.

Improving the Structure

What is not ideal is the general introduction to RedOx flow batteries and the redundant segments that are unnecessary for a clean technology description.

But overall, it is an excellent result based on minimal input.

With the structure above for the imaginary tin-data-RedOx flow battery technology, the following adaptations would be necessary for the EIC Accelerator:

RedOx flow Battery Hardware
- RedOx flow Stack and Module Design
- RedOx flow Battery Manufacturing Process
- RedOx flow Battery Operation
Tin-based Electrolytes for RedOx flow Batteries
- Proprietary Tin Electrolytes
- Synthesis and Manufacturing Process of Tin Electrolytes
- Safety and Environmental Impact of Tin Electrolytes
Big Data and AI for RedOx flow Battery Management
- Big Data in RedOx flow Battery Operations
- Artificial Intelligence for Efficiency Optimization and Predictive Maintenance
- Data Processing for Battery Health Monitoring
- Data Visualization for Battery Performance Insights

While it is impressive that AI was associated with predictive maintenance, this was not the intended primary use. Efficiency optimization and data processing were closer to the intended use case while the same is true for other associated features.

The last section regarding the implementation was likewise impressive but it did not lend itself to a good technology description since any further explanations would already be part of previous sections.

Nonetheless, with a small amount of editing, the initial 16 segments were reduced to a useful structure containing 10 segments.

One can then add another top-level topic to include other omitted parts of the process (i.e. emissions, transport, logistics, installation).

Usefulness of ChatGPT for Structuring

This approach can be useful for inexperienced writers who need support for the structuring of the application. The downside is that it requires a detailed input that already tells the chatbot what the output is supposed to look like while it also requires extensive editing of the output.

This defeats the purpose of using a chatbot but it can still be useful to ask ChatGPT to generate ideas related to a certain topic or get multiple variations of structures. The same approach can be used for competitor sections, commercial strategies, value propositions and even work packages since these will also rely on top-level structures.

But with all of the information provided above, there is still one major flaw: These text generations only relate to the structure of an application but do not help in generating the bulk of the proposal text.

Writing the Proposal

Now, we will test ChatGPT with the same level of information but will ask it to answer a key question found in the EIC Accelerator Step 2 grant proposal template. We will choose the question “What is your unique selling point?” which is quite simple:

Input:

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your unique selling point?“. The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization.

Output:

Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. This results in improved performance and longevity of the batteries, as well as better management and prediction of their performance. This can lead to cost savings and increased reliability for businesses and organizations that use redox flow batteries. In addition, our technology can also open up new applications for redox flow batteries that were previously infeasible.

It managed to generate 610 characters which is quite impressive since the input was minimal. Unfortunately, the text is vague and has followed the input very closely with little to no creative elaborations that would be relevant for an EIC Accelerator application.

Improving the Output

Now, we will improve the output to be more aligned with the EIC Accelerator by introducing instructions on how USP’s should be presented.

Input:

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your unique selling point?“. I want the answer to contain a list with the 3 most important selling points and you should add placeholders for numbers to be added regarding the cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity. The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization.

Output:

Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. This results in improved performance and longevity of the batteries, as well as better management and prediction of their performance. Our top 3 selling points are: 1) cost savings of up to [number]%, 2) efficiency increases of up to [number]%, and 3) total energy capacity increases of up to [number]%. These benefits make our technology an attractive solution for businesses and organizations that use redox flow batteries, and can also open up new applications for these batteries.

This is already better since we now have a list of selling points and can add quantifiers that were omitted from the first version. We also exceed 700 characters on this answer which shows that there are ways of increasing the output with additional input.

Again, the problem for inexperienced writers is that the input is already leading the chatbot in the right direction. It is not obvious to ChatGPT that a list of selling points and qualifications are needed to answer this question but it is obvious to professional writers and consultants who work with EIC Accelerator grants.

Improving the Input

Now, the second problem that we encounter is quite obvious: Our input is almost as long as the output. This is obviously a problem since we are here to save time and not to teach ChatGPT how to write.

Still, one can prepare a general text that describes the technology, commercial strategy, team, market and other aspects which can then be copy-pasted while asking ChatGPT to convert the text into an answer to a specific question. For example:

Input

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What are your strengths?“.
The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation.
The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development.
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later.
I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity.

Output

Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our main strength is our ability to provide significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases for our customers. We achieve this through our 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. Additionally, we have 3 additional patents in development.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access].
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.

The ChatGPT output is generally ignoring the character restriction given in the first part of the input. It likewise always tries to enter all information that was given instead of only choosing what is relevant to meet the character limit. It does account for the question regarding the “strengths” but it does not lead with the answer and always tries to summarise the input rather than to answer the question.

Input

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “Is your technology creating a new value chain?“.
The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation.
The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development.
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later.
I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity.

Output

Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our technology is creating a new value chain for the energy storage industry by providing significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases for our customers. We achieve this through our 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design, and for the software mechanisms and control system. Additionally, we have 3 additional patents in development.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access].
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
Our technology creates a new value chain by providing customers with cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity increases, by working with battery system manufacturers and by generating revenues through selling of hardware, electrolyte, maintenance costs and data and software access.

The text is clearly very repetitive. This is not ideal if our goal is to generate most of the input with only minor adjustments. Of course, one can try to force ChatGPT to be more precise and ask it to only use the input that is useful to answer the question but this would likely increase the input and customization even further.

Input

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your innovation?“.
The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation.
The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development.
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later.
I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity.

Output

Our innovation is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our innovation is creating significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases. We achieve this through our 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. Additionally, we have 3 additional patents in development.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access].
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
Our innovation allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently, providing significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation.

This time, ChatGPT led with the requested answer albeit the text is still far too long and repetitive.

Input

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your unique positioning or place on the market?“.
The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation.
The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development.
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later.
I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity.

Output

Our unique positioning in the market is that we provide a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. We provide significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases for our customers. Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access].
We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development.
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
Our unique positioning in the market is that we provide a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently with significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases and working with battery system manufacturers to distribute our products.

The general problem is that the chatbot is not trying to create an answer to the question primarily but is aiming to always summarise the input in its entirety while ignoring character limits. But this effect could be remedied with better input instructions.

Still, ChatGPT does not understand that the “position in the market” must be contrasted with current market dynamics.

Unfortunately, it seems like each input will require substantial customization and generating 100+ unique inputs for the EIC Accelerator proposal with extensive post-editing is unfeasible.

Annexes

For ChatGPT, is it impossible to present a useful Freedom To Operate (FTO) analysis from scratch since it is based on dated data sets among other limitations and it is likewise infeasible to generate financials and documents such as Letters of Intent (LOI).

Although, it can aid in creating templates for the Data Management Plan (DMP) or LOI’s:

Input:

I want you to create a template text for a customer (use a placeholder) who sends me a letter of intent to purchase my redox flow battery. Please include benefits such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity. I need four different versions of the letter.

Output 1

Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name],

We are writing to express our interest in purchasing your innovative redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] is actively seeking new solutions to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of our energy storage systems. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our operations.

We would like to move forward with the purchase of your redox flow battery technology and request more information on the details of the product and the purchasing process. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you and to the potential benefits that this technology will bring to our company.

Please let us know your next steps, and we are happy to start the purchase process.

Sincerely,
[Placeholder for Customer Name]

Output 2

Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name],

We are writing to express our interest in your redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] specializes in [placeholder for company’s specialization] and we are always looking for new ways to improve our operations. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our company.

We would like to move forward with the purchase of your redox flow battery technology, and we would appreciate if you could provide us with more information about the product and the purchasing process. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you, and to the potential benefits that this technology will bring to our company.

Please let us know your next steps, and we are ready to start the purchase process.

Sincerely,
[Placeholder for Customer Name]

Output 3

Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name],

We are writing to express our interest in your innovative redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] operates [placeholder for company’s operations] and we are always looking for new ways to improve our efficiency and cost-effectiveness. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our operations.

We would like to move forward with the purchase of your redox flow battery technology and we would appreciate if you could provide us with more information about the product and the purchasing process. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you, and to the potential benefits that this technology will bring to our company.

Please let us know your next steps, and we are ready to start the purchase process.

Sincerely,
[Placeholder for Customer Name]

Output 4

Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name],

We are writing to express our interest in your redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] is a leader in [placeholder for company’s specialization] and we are always looking for new ways to improve our operations. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our company.

Please let us know your next steps, and we are ready to start the purchase process.

Sincerely,
[Placeholder for Customer Name]

Unfortunately, the templates are quite repetitive even though it is quite easy to be more creative with the provided input. With different input instructions, it is likely possible to gain more versatile letter templates but this article is investigating if satisfactory results can be generated with minimal work effort.

Conclusion: Is ChatGPT useful for the EIC Accelerator?

Yes. ChatGPT has great potential for structuring and brainstorming applications, especially for new writers. What would be necessary to increase the usability of chatbots is a version of ChatGPT that is familiar with successful grant proposals for the EIC Accelerator so that it understands what types of answers do well in certain sections.

The problem with that approach is that ChatGPT is making editorial decisions such as including “predictive maintenance” or trying to add the development plan to the question about the company’s strengths.

Unfortunately, ChatGPT is not a time saver at this stage. There can also be serious concerns regarding plagiarism since, while the text is AI generated, it is based on data sets that can be from proprietary sources. This is a risk carried by anyone who uses ChatGPT for professional use.

But ChatGPT can be a useful tool if used appropriately.

This article was last modified on Jan 21, 2023 @ 15:24

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

How Grant-First Projects get Equity Investments (2023 EIC Accelerator Work Programme Part 2)

November 5, 2022 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total). It is a popular funding instrument specializing in DeepTech startups and small mid-caps which aim to finalize their product developments, enter the market and scale globally.

The EIC’s 2023 Work programme

While the European Innovation Council (EIC) has remained silent regarding the 2023 Work programme that is yet to be released, ScienceBusiness has published the second draft of the highly anticipated document dated July 2022. This article series is exploring some changes and interesting aspects of the EIC Accelerator that are relevant for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and for professional writers, freelancers or consultants.

ScienceBusiness has likewise published the entire library of Horizon Europe documents by the European Commission (EC) that are mostly in draft form and can be found here.

All the information and conclusions provided in this article are subject to change and the opinion of the author. The following statement by the EIC is part of the 2023 EIC Work Programme draft that this article is based on:

“This document represents a working draft of the EIC work programme for the purpose of feedback and comments from members of the Horizon Europe Programme Committee for the EIC and European Innovation Ecosystems. This draft has not been adopted or endorsed by the European Commission. Any views expressed are the views of the Commission services and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the Commission. The information transmitted is intended only for the Member State or entity to which it is addressed for discussions and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.”

Financing Modes

The introduction of new funding modularities such as grant-first, grant-only, equity-only and blended financing has created confusion and added a variety of conditions that need to be considered (read: 2021 EIC Accelerator Work Programme). These especially relate to the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) and timelines expected from the applicants (read: Technology Readiness Levels). The success rates have historically differed among these options based on data published by the EIC (read: 2022 Results) although these statistics are incomplete due to the ability of the Jury to change the funding request during the Step 3 interviews (read: Changing Grant Requests).

Grant-First Financing

An interesting development of the EIC Accelerator is the introduction of the grant-first application. As opposed to grant-only applications which foresee applicants to reach TRL9 at the end of the project (read: Funding TRL’s), grant-first is designed for very risky projects which need to define and reach important milestones before follow-up equity financing can be issued. The outcome of the grant-first project is expected to be TRL8 and should be accompanied by a milestone which can be assessed and allows the applicant to become eligible for equity investments by the EIC Fund.

In theory, the EIC Accelerator should only fund high-risk projects since the risk level is part of the evaluation criteria. In fact, the 2023 Work Programme writes:

“Financial support is provided through three main funding schemes: the ‘EIC Pathfinder’ for advanced research on breakthrough / game-changing technologies; ‘EIC Transition’ for transforming research results into innovation opportunities; and the ‘EIC Accelerator’ for individual companies to develop and scale up breakthrough innovations with high risk and high impact.”

This is its mission since low-risk and high-return projects are financed by private markets and banks. In reality, the Step 3 EIC Jury will often prefer lower-risk and high-impact projects of companies that are already interesting to private markets so it is common that a company financed by the EIC would have raised private capital anyways as well as cases such as a recently funded software company that has raised €30+ million in the past and then received grant-only support by the EIC in 2022.

It is difficult to imagine that such a company was unable to leverage financing below €2.5M from private markets after raising over €30M in the past.

It could be argued that grant-first support is the original vision of the EIC Accelerator since these projects are the riskiest and most groundbreaking projects that require a safety net in the form of milestones to assess the progress on-the-fly before further funding is committed.

“Grant First: Your innovation is based on a scientific discovery or novel technology and still requires significant work to validate and demonstrate in relevant environments in order to properly assess its commercial potential.”

If the commercial potential for high-risk grant-first projects is uncertain but, on the other hand, it is clear for other projects (i.e. equity-only, grant-only, blended) then the latter should be medium-risk at best by way of comparison since all projects must have functioning technologies already (i.e. TRL5/6: validated/demonstrated in the relevant environment).

Path to Equity Financing

For grant-first projects, the new 2023 EIC Work Programme now outlines how a company can access the equity component which allows it to reach TRL9. What is interesting is that no re-application via the 3-step EIC Accelerator application process using the online template is required (i.e. at least it is not explicitly mentioned). Instead, a formal assessment is performed which is followed by due diligence conducted by the European Investment Bank (EIB).

“Grant First: Grant-first companies are eligible for a follow on equity component subject to a milestone assessment attesting that the innovation activities are well under way and that the innovation has the potential for deployment or the interest shown by potential strategic/lead investor(s) in co-investing with the EIC into the company, as a sign of maturity of the innovation and of deployment perspective.

If the milestone assessment for a Grant First proposal is positive, you will be:

required to demonstrate that you have sufficient financial means (e.g. revenue flow, existing investors or shareholders) to finance or any remaining innovation activities and the deployment and scaling up of your innovation; or

invited to enter due diligence and negotiations to receive an EIC equity investment, including to complement any other third party investments if insufficient. Allocation of the equity investment is conditional to the due diligence assessment.

In your proposal for grant-first support, you will have to include a milestone at mid-term or at the latest 6 months before the end of the project, for the EIC to assess and decide whether to proceed or not with the negotiation and the award of an investment component.”

Considering this process, it is reasonable for all new applicants applying for blended finance or grant-first to directly include the respective milestones in the applications albeit this can also be done after the Step 3 interview has been passed successfully.

Limitations of Grant-First Projects

What is interesting to note is that, while equity financing can be used for all activities from TRL5 to TRL9, grant-first applicants are limited to only the grant component which technically limits the maximum budget that can be requested to reach TRL8 to €2.5M (including loans if they become available in the future).

For a blended finance project, financing TRL5 to TRL8 can be supplemented with equity investments which makes the maximum budget to reach TRL8 significantly larger. Considering that grant-first applications are only for the highest-risk projects, this means that the EIC will prioritize the allocation of its budget to medium and low-risk projects that receive blended financing without additional milestones.

A company with high-risk developments for artificial organs or new cancer treatments at TRL5 will be difficult to finance under the EIC because of the substantial funding requirements at low TRL’s, the need for long and expensive clinical trials as well as the limitation of grant-first applications to only obtain a grant to finance the activities.

Even in a less capital-intensive field, a project that requires €10M to reach TRL8 could not be funded without loans from other sources since grant-first applications have a maximum budget limit of €2.5M. There are still cases where an applicant can ask for larger funding amounts but this is only available in rare cases and is unlikely to be significantly higher.

There are mentions of loans provided by the EIC but these will only be available in the future since it is still vaguely described in the Work Programme. In fact, the rule that grant funding can only cover 70% of the costs is still in place so a grant-first applicant also needs sufficient co-financing or a loan by default.

“To provide for the co-financing of TRL5 to 8 activities, the EIC may introduce the option for grant-first applicants to request in their full proposal an investment component to co-finance the 30% of the costs for their TRL5 to 8 activities not covered by the grant component. If and when this option becomes available, the application form will be modified accordingly.”

Grant Budget Amounts

The 2023 EIC Work Programme also outlines the conditions for the request of higher grant amounts and longer durations:

“The grant component should normally be less than EUR 2.5 million but may be for a higher amount in exceptional and well justified cases. The innovation activities to be supported should normally be completed within 24 months but may be longer in well justified cases. “

This article is part of a series whereas the remaining articles can be found here, once published:

This article was last modified on Nov 5, 2022 @ 10:14

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, Phase 2, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator, Success

EIC Accelerator 2022 Results and the Vanevo GmbH Success Case

October 19, 2022 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) has recently closed its latest financing cut-off with a total budget of €396.7 million (read: Diverse Grant Strategy).

The 75 winners are startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) from 21 countries who requested grant and blended financing support back in June 2022 and, after passing all evaluation steps, they have finally been rewarded (read: Interview Preparation Process).

An #EUeic double feature! ?

Presenting the selected #SMEs and most recent applications from #eicAccelerator:

? 75 companies chosen to receive €396 M from June cut-off
? 1092 proposals received requesting €6.3 B from October cut-off

More details ? https://t.co/XQTcb5hsej pic.twitter.com/oJDMIKTFd3

— European Innovation Council (@EUeic) October 14, 2022

The EIC program awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total) which provides a lucrative option for startups that are currently building innovative projects, especially those in the DeepTech space.

With the official proposal template having grown in size due to the latest change in the application framework, many companies rely on external consultants, professional writers or freelancers to help them prepare a successful application but it is very feasible to perform such a grant proposal in-house (read: Consultancies for the EIC Accelerator).

EIC Accelerator Results June 2022

The EIC has announced the latest cut-off results online (PDF, Web, Twitter) and the following statistics can be extracted.

Success Rates

986 Step 2 applications were received in the June 15^th cut-off with 74% applying for the EIC Open as opposed to the Strategic Challenges. 638 companies (65%) requested blended financing while 158 (16%) requested grant-only and 190 (19%) grant-first.

When regarding the success rates from Step 2, this yields the following percentages for each application type:

Grant-first: 24 of 190 applicants succeeded with a 12.6% success rate.
Grant-only: 8 of 158 succeeded with a 5.1% success rate
Blended financing: 43 of 638 succeeded with a 6.7% success rate
Overall: 75 of 986 gives an average success rate of 7.6%

It is important to note that the Step 1 success rates of 50-80% have to be included in the assessment which will lower success rates slightly. It is also interesting to consider that 7 out of the 8 grant-only winners are from the UK who only had the grant-only option. This can be a sign that the EIC wants to avoid handing out pure grants without the chance of following up with the EIC Fund’s equity at a later stage (grant-first) or right away (blended).

Grant vs. Equity

Grant-first: 24 Companies (or 32%) are receiving grant-first contributions which is the model where a company is looking to cover innovation activities up to TRL8 with the EIC contribution. These companies can choose to apply for the EIC Fund’s equity at a later date to reach TRL9 (read: Inside Look into the EIC Fund).

Blended financing: 43 Companies (or 57%) are receiving blended financing which includes both the grant and the EIC Fund’s equity contribution and the expected end of the project is TRL9 (read: Technology Readiness Levels).

Grant-only: 8 Companies (or 11%) have decided to apply for grant-only support with the goal of reaching TRL9. Since this is the only available funding option for UK companies, it is unsurprising that 7 out of the 8 grant-only winners are from the UK.

In total, 43% of all funded companies receive a pure grant while 57% are receiving a mix of grant and equity financing while there are no companies who will receive equity-only support.

Geography

From a geographical perspective, the winners are located in:

13 in France,
8 in Germany,
7 in the United Kingdom,
6 in the Netherlands,
5 in Sweden,
4 in Austria,
4 in Ireland,
4 in Israel,
3 in Belgium,
3 in Finland,
3 in Norway,
3 in Spain,
2 in Denmark,
2 in Italy,
2 in Portugal,
1 in Czechia,
1 in Estonia,
1 in Greece,
1 in Iceland,
1 in Romania,
1 in Slovenia.

Only 21 countries are represented among the winners which means that countries such as Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Latvia or Cyprus as well as all other third countries have had no approved projects during this cut-off.

Budget

Considering the EIC’s statement that 88% of applicants receive grant and equity financing and that there are no equity-only projects during this cut-off, the 32 companies receiving grant-only or -first support are sharing 12% of the total €396.7M budget yielding an average grant of €1.49M.

Vanevo: Successful Grant Application

Vanevo is setting a new standard for RedOx flow batteries through their platform technology approach. By reinventing and simplifying the manufacturing process of the battery stack and delivering a uniquely versatile and scalable business model, they are able to accelerate the mass adoption of RedOx flow technologies in critical sectors that require long-term energy storage.

Supported by Segler Consulting, Vanevo was awarded the EIC Accelerator grant in October 2022 which will allow them to reach commercial readiness and realise their vision of low-cost, sustainable and low-emission energy storage.

This article was last modified on Feb 19, 2023 @ 23:32

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, Phase 2, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator, Success

The June 2021 EIC Accelerator Results and the STABL Energy GmbH Success Story

October 26, 2021 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has finally completed its first iteration in 2021 despite the delayed launch of Horizon Europe (2021-2027) and only two deadlines in this first year. With the application process having changed dramatically after Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) ended, many professional writers and consultants had to adapt their approach to grant preparations (read: Re-Inventing the EIC Accelerator). With a longer proposal document, new templates, pitch videos, read-only pitch decks and more supporting information being requested, it was an interesting experiment for both the applicants and the European Innovation Council (EIC).

Many Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups have applied to the EIC’s grant and, as has always been the case, only a fraction has been successful. The following article describes one of these success cases as well as the overall statistics of the June 2021 EIC Accelerator call.

The June 2021 EIC Accelerator Call

With the application process having changed dramatically, it comes as no surprise that there were many differences compared to the 2020 cut-offs. One of these differences is that the final statistics for the June deadline are not as clear as they were in 2020 since the new 3-Step process has an obscured number of total applicants.

This is due to the fact that there is no Step 1 deadline and it is unknown how many of the approved Step 1 projects actually applied to Step 2 in June since a significant number might have delayed the application to October 2021. The information communicated by the EIC is also limited with makes a detailed look at the overall statistics difficult.

Nonetheless, with the information that is available today (Linkedin: Nicolas Sabatier and EIC Support), one can conclude that:

Step 1

On May 17^th, 67% or 755 out of 1,114 applicants had passed the threshold and received a GO for Step 1. With the Step 2 deadline having been on June 16^th, this number continued to increase since at least 1,523 total Step 1 applications had been submitted at this point in time (but not all were evaluated yet). It is unlikely that all Step 1 successes decided to apply to the June deadline since, due to the limited time, many might have postponed the application to October 2021. If the success rate of selected applications has remained the same and 801 applicants eventually applied to Step 2 then an approximate 1,196 applicants have applied to Step 1 with the intention to apply to Step 2 in June 2021, yielding 801 approved projects and a 67% success rate for Step 1.

Note: To calculate a success rate for June 2021, one has to filter the number of applicants who applied to Step 1 and aimed for the June 2021 cut-off. It must also be considered that many rejected companies might not have applied to Step 2 even if they were selected. Since there is no publically available data on this, the numbers given here are estimated.

Step 2

With the deadline having been on June 16^th 2021 (it was delayed by 7 days from its original date), the number of applicants amounted to 801. It was later announced that 130 applicants were selected for the interviews, thereby yielding a 16% success rate for this Step.

Step 3

The EIC Accelerator pitch week occurred via remove video calls with the EIC Jury and was conducted in mid-September 2021. Out of the 130 candidates, 65 were able to convince the Jury and succeed in gaining the EIC Accelerator funding. This yielded a 50% success rate for this Step although 24 Swiss applicants were excluded from the process due to the political developments between the EU and the Swiss government.

Step 1-3 Total

With success rates of 67%, 16% and 50% for the respective Steps, the overall success rate for the June 2021 EIC Accelerator was an approximate 5.4% with 65 out of an estimated 1,196 applicants having been successful.

Additional Statistics

Budget

The original budget in the official EIC Accelerator Work Programme (read: The 2021 EIC Accelerator Work Programme) was set at €500M+ but, due to the lack of excellent cases, it was reduced in retrospect (i.e. only €360M+ were allocated to successful candidates). This is a very interesting development since the 2020 applications tended to have far more suitable candidates while budgets were generally too low.

In fact, all 2020 projects with a score of over 13 out of 15 were technically eligible to receive funding, pending the Jury assessment, and the total budgets requested by said projects were, as an example, €1.8B in January 2020 or €2.7B in May 2020. If a Jury assessment were to be applied and only 50% of selected companies were approved, it would still yield budgets that far exceed the 2021 numbers.

It is clear that the EIC Accelerator has become more selective. But it has also become less selective in some ways.

It is more selective since it had an excess budget but deemed most companies to be unsuitable to receive this funding. It has become less selective since success rates have exceeded 5% while 2020 saw rates between 1% and 3%.

A reasonable conclusion to make is that the new barrier for the EIC Accelerator is not the chasing of decimal points (i.e. a 2020 score of 13.7 could be invited to the interviews while 13.6 is not) but the effort applied to preparing the proposal documents for each step. Since many companies have no interest in spending such an extreme effort for almost a year, the pool of serious applicants will be minimized. If this is a good process will remain to be seen but, clearly, the European Innovation Council is not afraid to innovate.

Note: As this was the first cut-off of the new EIC Accelerator, the success rates and budget allocation might differ greatly for the October deadline and those in 2022.

Gender

The EIC has managed to gain a 20% ratio for female entrepreneurs amongst all beneficiaries (i.e. female CEO’s) due to its strict gender equity goals.

Top 3 Countries

Clear winners during this 2021 Call in June were France (18% of the successful beneficiaries), Germany (17%) and the Netherlands (12%).

Type of Funding

92% of successful applicants received both grant and equity financing (blended finance) according to the EIC’s Twitter account but this data does not seem to fit the beneficiaries list. The more accurate and official list of all beneficiaries shows the following statistic:

31/65 blended (48%)
5/65 grant-only (8%)
24/65 grant-first (37%)
5/65 equity-only (8%)

Note: The given statistics of 92% of applicants receiving grant and equity financing would fit if either the 8% grant-only or the 8% equity-only was excluded from the total. Although, this does not seem to yield an accurate statement and is likely an error.

EIC Accelerator Success: STABL Energy GmbH

One of the 11 funded German projects is STABL Energy GmbH which has been among the 5% of selected applicants. During the 6 month process after Step 1 opened in April 2021, they were able to successfully pass all three Steps of the EIC Accelerator evaluation and succeed in securing blended financing under the EIC.

STABL is developing innovative power electronics for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and, with their modular approach, they are able to deliver unprecedented benefits to the industry such as higher energy efficiency, software control, unique data services and lifecycle extensions through second-life use cases.

Why STABL was the perfect fit for the EIC Accelerator

STABL is enabling a sustainable, versatile and future-proof energy storage ecosystem that serves all relevant industries such as utilities, renewables and electric transport. As such, it was able to be part of the Green Deal Strategic Challenge and was an ideal fit for the subsegment of Battery and Energy Storage which was amongst the preferred project types (read: EIC Accelerator Work Programme).

In addition, STABL is a startup with high-level partnerships, traction and an excellent management team. The EIC aims to fund ambitious companies such as STABL that have a strong vision and the capability to realise them as well as the ability to change the European technological landscape for the better.

Note: Segler Consulting has supported STABL Energy GmbH for the entire application process.

This article was last modified on Feb 19, 2023 @ 23:34

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)