Evaluation Criteria

Horizon Europe CSAs are assessed on three equally weighted criteria (0–5 points each) with a 60 % cumulative threshold and minimum 3/5 on each criterion.

1. Excellence (Weight 1/3)

* Clarity, pertinence & credibility of the project objectives vis-à-vis the four expected outcomes.

* Soundness of the proposed methodology incl. integration of SSH disciplines, survey design, FAIR data management and evidence-based communication models.

* Quality of trans-disciplinarity & multi-actor approach: degree of stakeholder co-creation, citizen science elements.

* Consideration of state-of-the-art & knowledge gaps; clear complementarity with existing initiatives (B-TRUST, EU-IBISBA, etc.).

2. Impact (Weight 1/3)

* Credibility of the pathways to impact: logic model linking activities → outputs → short/long-term outcomes → EU Green Deal goals.

* Suitability of the measures to maximise impact: communication, dissemination, exploitation, IP management, open-access & FAIR data commitments.

* Quantified KPIs & monitoring plan for behaviour change, media reach, policy uptake; alignment with Food 2030 metrics.

* Scale-up & replication potential across EU regions, languages, socio-economic groups; synergies with EIT Food, CAP networks, EU Partnerships.

* Contribution to EU policies (Green Deal, Protein Strategy, Biotech Act) and international cooperation (US links).

3. Quality & Efficiency of Implementation (Weight 1/3)

* Work plan coherence & effectiveness: logical WPs, milestones, risk management; deliverables linked to lump-sum payment schedule.

* Consortium composition & resources: balance of skills (biotech, SSH, communication, education, policy), geographical coverage, gender balance, involvement of widening countries where relevant.

* Allocation of budget & staff: proportional to objectives, avoidance of over-subcontracting; transparent internal lump-sum distribution.

* Project management, governance & decision-making: clear roles, advisory boards, ethics oversight, data-protection compliance.

Scoring Tips for Applicants

* Aim for ≥4.5/5 on Impact by providing concrete, measurable targets and a credible exploitation plan.

* Demonstrate risk-mitigation (e.g., misinformation backlash, regulatory delays) with contingency actions.

* Showcase cost-efficiency through lump-sum budgeting tables—even though costs are not reimbursed item-by-item, evaluators still judge realism.

* Provide letters of commitment from ministries, curriculum boards and media partners to boost credibility under Impact & Implementation.

Application Strategy

1. Shape a Winning Consortium

* Core scientific partners: biotech RTOs/universities with expertise in alternative proteins & food safety.

* SSH & survey experts: behavioural scientists, economists, sociologists.

* Communication professionals: media agencies, science communicators, influencers’ networks.

* Education actors: Ministries of Education, curriculum developers, teacher associations.

* Civil society & citizen groups: consumer organisations, NGOs, youth groups.

* Industry & value-chain actors: start-ups, ingredient suppliers, retailers willing to pilot new products.

* Policy/Regulatory bodies: EFSA liaisons, regional food authorities.

* Include at least one US partner to reinforce the trans-Atlantic dimension.

2. Co-create a Convincing Vision

* Articulate a Theory of Change: how awareness → behaviour shift → sustainable diets → Green Deal targets.

* Anchor every objective to the four expected outcomes in the topic text; map each outcome to specific WP, KPI and deliverable.

3. Design Work Packages (WPs)

1. WP1 – Coordination & Ethics (PMO, governance, lump-sum reporting).

2. WP2 – Citizen Insight & FAIR Data: surveys, living labs, EU-US comparison, data stewardship plan.

3. WP3 – Knowledge Translation & Materials: guidelines, repositories, curricula recommendations, multilingual assets.

4. WP4 – Multi-Channel Communication: campaign design, pilots, influencer engagement, monitoring reach.

5. WP5 – Policy & Market Road-mapping: regulatory gap analysis, policy briefs, alignment with CAP/Green Deal.

6. WP6 – Impact & Exploitation: KPIs, sustainability plan beyond project, links to EIT Food, Regional Innovation Valleys.

4. Budgeting Under a Lump-Sum

* Break the lump-sum into WP-level fixed amounts; allocate 10–15 % contingency.

* Document cost-drivers (staff, subcontracted media buys, citizen incentives for surveys, events) in the detailed cost annex for evaluators’ credibility.

5. Embed the Multi-Actor & Gender Dimension

* Describe co-creation workshops, advisory boards, citizen juries, and living labs.

* Provide gender-disaggregated KPIs (survey respondents, panel speakers, leadership roles).

6. Draft a Robust Impact Pathway

* Quantified targets: e.g. "Reach 25 million EU citizens; 10 000 educators trained; 15 policy briefs adopted".

* Show replication potential through open-access toolkits and national roll-out pledges.

7. Excellence Narrative Tips

* Reference latest EFSA novel-food dossiers and WHO guidelines to ground scientific credibility.

* Highlight complementarity with B-TRUST to avoid duplication – maybe invite them as partner/advisory.

8. Submission Mechanics

* Use Horizon Europe Part B template – stay within 45 pages.

* Upload ethics self-assessment, data-management & FAIR plan, and MAA (Multi-Actor Approach) checklist.

* Validate proposal early in the Funding & Tenders Portal to catch PIC/SME errors.

9. Rehearse for Consensus Meeting

* Conduct an internal mock review against Horizon CSA criteria scoring grid.

* Polish abstracts & keywords—these drive evaluator assignment.