Horizon Europe · Call Intelligence Brief

Enhancing industry-academia knowledge exchange in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) (CSA)

HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-41

Everything you need to decide whether to apply — and how to win.

Deadline 21 April 2026 · 17:00 Brussels
Total Budget €2,000,000
Instrument CSA · 100% funding
Stage Single-stage
Topic Code HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-41 F&T Portal, topic page header
Call Identifier HORIZON-CL4-2026-01 F&T Portal, General Information: "INDUSTRY"
Instrument HORIZON-CSA F&T Portal, "Type of action"
Budget Model Lump Sum F&T Portal, "Type of MGA": HORIZON Lump Sum Grant [HORIZON-AG-LS]
Funding Rate 100% General Annexes, Annex G — CSA = 100%
Page Limit (Part B) 28 pages CSA + lump sum = 28pp (General Annexes 2026-2027, Annex A)
Evaluation Thresholds 3 / 3 / 3 · cum. 10 STANDARD — no topic-specific override in section 5b
Expected Projects [NOT STATED] Not stated in topic conditions or WP text
Destination Achieving technological leadership — open strategic autonomy in raw materials, chemicals and innovative materials (2026-27) F&T Portal, Destination section
Cluster / Pillar Cluster 4 — Digital, Industry and Space / Pillar II WP Part 7 — Digital, Industry and Space
China Eligibility ELIGIBLE ✓ Destination excludes RIA & IA only — CSA not restricted
Comm. Network Protection Not applicable Not stated in topic conditions

Verify these facts: Topic page on F&T Portal
Source documents: General Annexes 2026-2027 (Commission Decision C(2025) 8493), WP Part 7 — Digital, Industry and Space
If any fact above doesn't match the Portal, this brief may be outdated. Check the F&T Portal directly.

KEY DIFFERENCE: China is ELIGIBLE for this topic. The destination text excludes Chinese entities from "both Research and Innovation Actions (RIAs) and Innovation Actions (IAs) falling under this destination." This is a CSA — Coordination and Support Action — which is NOT listed in the exclusion. Chinese entities may participate. This is a frequently misread rule: the exclusion is instrument-specific, not blanket.

Source: "Legal entities established in China are not eligible to participate in both Research and Innovation Actions (RIAs) and Innovation Actions (IAs) falling under this destination." — Destination conditions. CSA is not named.

Expected Outcomes

(Topic text, Expected Outcomes section):

  1. Increased innovation capabilities for industry by harnessing the potential of Social Sciences and Humanities, including the Arts, to provide effective solutions to companies' research and innovation challenges and organisational development.
  2. Improved strategies to bring new products and technologies to the industry environment and ultimately to the market.
  3. By facilitating industry exposure, SSH researchers' better understanding of industry needs and opportunities for collaboration.
01

Call Decoder

What the EC actually wants — decoded from the topic text.

1.1 Strategic Signals

1
This is about industry pulling from SSH — not SSH pushing into industry
The topic centres on companies' specific needs as the starting point. SSH researchers solve industry problems, not the other way around. Proposals that frame this as "SSH researchers need more industry exposure" misread the direction. The industry is the client; SSH provides the expertise.

Source: "This action aims to leverage the strengths of social sciences, humanities and arts (SSH) to address companies' specific needs, fostering a dynamic and productive industry-academia co-creation for knowledge valorisation." — Topic scope

2
Three mandatory activities — all three must be covered
The topic specifies exactly three activities: (1) developing a methodology for SSH-industry knowledge exchange, (2) a service to industry/SMEs using international SSH teams, and (3) a feasibility study on SSH knowledge exchange for innovation management. These are not suggestions — "The action will cover the following activities" is directive language. All three must appear in your work plan.

Source: "The action will cover the following activities: [...]" — Topic scope, activities list

3
Co-creation formats are named — use them
The topic names specific formats: hackathons, team-based approaches, targeted mentorship and exchange programmes. These are examples, not requirements ("for example"), but they signal what the EC envisions. Proposals that describe abstract "collaboration frameworks" without concrete co-creation activities will feel disconnected from the scope.

Source: "This action will implement SSH–industry co-creation (for example hackathons, team-based approaches, targeted mentorship and exchange programmes etc) focussing on specific challenges from industry and SMEs [...]" — Topic scope

4
The scope covers a broad range of industry challenges — not just technology
The topic lists specific challenge areas SSH should address: socio-technical implications, broadening strategic perspectives, customer needs, legal requirements, market pathways, inequality considerations, organisational development, sustainability and long-term profitability. This is wider than just "technology transfer." Proposals should show how SSH adds value across multiple dimensions, not just one.

Source: "[...] including, but not limited to understanding the socio-technical implications of new technologies and innovations, broadening the perspectives of companies' strategic actions, creating a deeper understanding of customer needs, legal requirements and pathways to the market, strengthening the integration of social, economic and cultural inequality considerations into industry practices and innovation processes, developing new ideas and innovations and contributing to organisational development, sustainability and long-term profitability." — Topic scope

1.2 Scope Boundaries

IN SCOPE (directly from topic text):
  • SSH–industry co-creation for knowledge valorisation
  • SMEs, spinoffs, and startups alongside larger industry
  • International teams of SSH researchers and students
  • Social sciences, humanities, and arts (the "A" in SSH is explicitly included)
  • Methodology development + service delivery + feasibility study
Our Reading

Based on: The scope names "industry and SMEs including spinoffs and startups" (mandatory activity 2) and covers a very broad range of challenge areas. There is no sector restriction — the topic does not limit to manufacturing, digital, or any specific industry. The destination is about raw materials and advanced materials, but this specific CSA topic is a cross-cutting SSH intervention.

The absence of sector restriction suggests proposals could work across multiple industries. However, anchoring to at least some of the destination's core themes (materials, chemicals, industrial transformation) would strengthen relevance scoring under Excellence.

This is a strategic interpretation. Assess whether it applies to your specific project.

02

Compliance Matrix

What kills your proposal before evaluation.

StatusGateRuleYour Check
🔴 CRITICAL Lump sum budget table Mandatory Excel budget table with lump sum breakdown (HORIZON Lump Sum Grant) Download the "Detailed budget table (HE LS)" from the submission system. If purchase costs >15% of personnel costs for any participant, justify in the "Any comments" sheet.
🔴 CRITICAL Page limit 28 pages for Part B (CSA + lump sum, General Annexes Annex A) 12 fewer pages than a standard RIA. Plan content carefully — every page counts.
🔴 CRITICAL Consortium minimum Min. 1 legal entity from an EU MS or Associated Country (General Annex B, CSA) CSA minimum is lower than RIA/IA. But a single-entity proposal for this topic would be weak — the scope requires "international teams."
🟡 IMPORTANT Lump sum cost justification Topic update (16 Feb 2026): if purchase costs (travel + equipment + other) exceed 15% of personnel costs per participant, justify in "Any comments" sheet This was a February 2026 update. Many applicants may miss it. Read the Topic Updates section on the Portal.
🟡 IMPORTANT PIC registration All participants must be registered in the Participant Register (General Annex B) Start early for new partners — especially SSH academics new to Horizon Europe
🟢 NOTE China eligibility Chinese entities ARE eligible for this CSA — the destination exclusion applies to RIA and IA only If you have Chinese SSH partners, they can participate
🟢 NOTE Gender Equality Plan Required for public bodies, HEIs, and research organisations (General Annex B) Confirm GEP status for all academic partners
🟢 NOTE Evaluation thresholds Standard: 3/3/3, cumulative 10 (General Annex D) No topic-specific override. Standard thresholds apply.
TRAP: Underestimating the lump sum budget table. This is not an actual-costs proposal where the budget is secondary to the narrative. In a lump sum topic, the detailed budget table IS the budget. Evaluators assess it under Implementation. Sloppy cost estimates or missing justifications in the "Any comments" sheet will cost you points.
2026-2027 Change: The template has been simplified — cost justification for items previously in Part B has been moved to the Excel "Any comments" sheet. This is a February 2026 update specific to this call. Applicants using older guidance will put cost justification in the wrong place.

Source: "we simplified the proposal template, removing this information from Part B and bringing it closer to the relevant budget items. Specifically, you must include justification in the 'Any comments' sheet [...]" — Topic updates, 16 February 2026

Need this analysis for YOUR topic? Request a Decision Brief — €79
112 Horizon Europe topics covered · Delivered within 1 working day
03

Scoring Playbook

How to score well on each criterion — for this specific CSA topic.

Scoring overview: 3 criteria, each scored 0–5 in half-point steps. Standard thresholds: 3 per criterion, 10 overall. For CSA, all criteria have equal weight in ranking. Tiebreaker: Excellence score first, then Impact. (Source: General Annex D, WP 2026-2027)
Excellence
min 3 / 5
threshold 3 / 5
Impact
min 3 / 5
threshold 3 / 5
Implementation
min 3 / 5
threshold 3 / 5

EXCELLENCE

CSA sub-criteria from General Annex D: clarity and pertinence of objectives; soundness of proposed methodology.

What scores 4-5 for THIS topic: Objectives that map to all 3 expected outcomes — innovation capability for industry (EO1), improved market strategies (EO2), and SSH researcher understanding of industry (EO3). The methodology must describe concrete co-creation formats (the topic names hackathons, team-based approaches, mentorship, exchange programmes) and explain how they address real industry needs. A strong proposal will show a credible methodology for matching SSH expertise to specific company challenges — not a generic "we will organise workshops."

Source: EO1–EO3 require industry innovation capability + market strategies + SSH researcher development. Methodology must implement "SSH–industry co-creation" with named formats. — Topic scope

IMPACT

What scores 4-5 for THIS topic: A credible pathway showing how the action's outputs (methodology + service + study) lead to sustained SSH-industry collaboration beyond the project. The feasibility study (mandatory activity 3) is your vehicle for systemic impact — it should produce recommendations that others can adopt. Demonstrate uptake by showing how SMEs and startups, not just large companies, benefit from the co-creation service.

Source: EO1 targets "companies' research and innovation challenges." EO2 requires "strategies to bring new products and technologies to the industry environment and ultimately to the market." — Topic expected outcomes

IMPLEMENTATION

What scores 4-5 for THIS topic: A clear WP structure covering all 3 mandatory activities. The lump sum budget table must be credible — allocations proportionate to effort. Consortium demonstrates both SSH research capacity and industry connections. Given the €2M total budget, the work plan should be focused and realistic — do not overpromise. Risk register should address: industry partner disengagement, recruitment of SSH researchers willing to work on industry problems, and IP sensitivity around company-specific challenges.
Our Reading

Based on: The €2M total budget and the scope requiring methodology development, a service to industry, and a feasibility study.

With €2M, we expect 1-2 projects to be funded. The scope is focused enough for a single project to address all three activities comprehensively. This means the competition is for a small number of grants — quality of the consortium and credibility of industry access will be decisive. A consortium led by an SSH institution with a strong industry network (through a science park, innovation hub, or industry association partner) would be well-positioned.

This is a strategic interpretation based on budget arithmetic and scope analysis. Assess whether it matches your consortium's profile.

Ranking & Tiebreakers

CSA ranking: Proposals ranked by total score (sum of 3 criteria, equal weight). Tiebreaker: (1) Excellence, (2) Impact. (Source: General Annex D, WP 2026-2027)
04

Consortium Blueprint

Who you need — and the minimum is lower than you think.

Minimum consortium: 1 legal entity from an EU Member State or Associated Country (General Annex B, CSA). In practice, the scope's emphasis on "international teams" and "industry-academia co-creation" requires a multi-partner, multi-sector consortium.

SSH Research Institutions

  • Universities with SSH faculties active in applied/industry-oriented research
  • Research centres in innovation studies, design thinking, organisational science
  • Arts institutions (the topic explicitly includes "the Arts")

Source: "Social Sciences and Humanities, including the Arts" — Topic expected outcomes

Industry & SME Partners

  • Industry associations or clusters (access to multiple companies)
  • SMEs, spinoffs, startups — explicitly named in scope
  • Innovation hubs or science parks as intermediaries

Source: "Service to industry and SMEs including spinoffs and startups" — Topic scope, mandatory activity 2

Coordination & Methodology

  • Organisation with experience in industry-academia matchmaking
  • Policy body or knowledge transfer office
  • Network organisation for scaling the methodology

Source: Mandatory activities require methodology development + feasibility study — requires coordination expertise

Who's In, Who's Out

Entity / CountryStatusSource
China ELIGIBLE ✓ Destination exclusion names RIA and IA only — CSA not restricted
Russia / Belarus EXCLUDED Standing EU Council sanctions — all instruments
UK, Switzerland, Associated Countries ELIGIBLE General Annex B — standard association rules
Get this level of analysis for any April 2026 topic — €79
Compliance traps · Scoring playbook · Consortium blueprint · All sourced
05

Topic Positioning Guide

How to frame your idea for this specific topic.

Destination Context

This topic sits under Destination "Achieving technological leadership for Europe's open strategic autonomy in raw materials, chemicals and innovative materials" in Cluster 4 — Digital, Industry and Space. The destination is heavily focused on industrial transformation, advanced materials, and critical raw materials.

This CSA is unusual within the destination — it's a soft, SSH-focused topic in a hard-tech environment. That creates both a positioning opportunity and a trap.

1
Anchor to industrial transformation — not pure SSH theory
The destination context is about industrial competitiveness, the Clean Industrial Deal, and advanced materials. While this CSA is SSH-focused, framing it within the destination's industrial transformation narrative strengthens relevance. Show how SSH insights drive real industrial innovation — not just academic understanding.

Source: Destination description references "Competitiveness Compass," "Clean Industrial Deal," and "twin green and digital transition" as drivers. — Destination text

2
Position the service as a replicable model, not a one-off pilot
Mandatory activity 2 is a "service to industry and SMEs." The feasibility study (activity 3) examines whether this works at scale. Together, they signal the EC wants a proven, transferable model — not a bespoke consulting engagement for 3 companies. Design for replicability from day one.

Source: "A study to tackle the key questions concerning the technical and conceptual feasibility of Industry-Academia knowledge exchange with SSH to improve innovation management and organisational development." — Topic scope, mandatory activity 3

3
Include the Arts — it's explicitly invited
The topic and expected outcomes mention "Social Sciences and Humanities, including the Arts." This is not standard HE language. If your consortium includes design, creative industries, or arts-based innovation partners, highlight this as a direct response to the topic text.

Source: "harnessing the potential of Social Sciences and Humanities, including the Arts" — Topic expected outcome 1

Cross-Cutting Alignment

PriorityReferenced?How to Address
SSH integration CORE TOPIC This IS the SSH topic. Your entire proposal is SSH integration.
SME/startup participation YES — explicit "Industry and SMEs including spinoffs and startups" — mandatory activity 2. Include SME service delivery in your work plan.
Knowledge valorisation YES — explicit "Industry-academia co-creation for knowledge valorisation" — this is the topic's stated mechanism.
Inequality/inclusion YES — in scope list "Strengthening the integration of social, economic and cultural inequality considerations into industry practices" — named as a challenge area.
Sustainability YES — in scope list "Contributing to organisational development, sustainability and long-term profitability" — named as a challenge area.
Open Science / FAIR data NOT EXPLICIT Not mentioned in topic text. Standard HE requirements apply — include DMP commitment but don't over-invest here.

Red Flags

Red Flag 1: Treating this as an academic SSH project. The topic is about industry benefit, not SSH research advancement. A proposal that reads like a sociology research project with an industry "case study" attached will fail the pertinence test in Excellence. The industry partners must be clients with real problems, not research subjects.

Source: EO1 requires "effective solutions to companies' research and innovation challenges" — not academic publications about industry. — Topic expected outcomes

Red Flag 2: Missing any of the 3 mandatory activities. The scope says "the action will cover the following activities" and lists exactly three. Omitting the feasibility study (activity 3) because it seems less exciting than the co-creation service (activity 2) will create a compliance gap.

Source: "The action will cover the following activities: [...]" — Topic scope. Directive language, not optional.

Red Flag 3: Overscoping for €2M. This is a small budget. Proposals that promise transnational industry transformation at the scale of a €10M RIA will not be credible under Implementation. Focus on a well-defined proof of concept with clear scalability logic, not a sprawling programme.
06

Quick-Start Checklist

Your action plan — work backwards from 21 April 2026.

Documents to Gather

WP Part 7 — Digital, Industry and Space (2026-2027)
Standard Application Form (HE CSA) from topic submission page
Detailed budget table (HE LS) — lump sum Excel template
General Annexes 2026-2027
Read the Topic Update from 16 Feb 2026 — lump sum justification rules changed

Consortium Building (now — Week -4)

Identify 3-6 partners: SSH institutions + industry intermediaries + companies/SMEs
Ensure at least one partner with direct industry/SME network access
Consider arts/creative sector partners (explicitly invited in scope)
Confirm PIC registration for all partners
Confirm GEP status for academic partners
Check Partner Search announcements on F&T Portal (71 published)

Proposal Timeline (deadline: 21 April 2026)

By ~25 March: Consortium confirmed, concept note agreed
By ~1 April: Start writing Part B (28 pages — plan content carefully)
By ~10 April: First draft + lump sum budget table complete
By ~16 April: Internal review, check "Any comments" justifications in budget table
By ~19 April: Portal submission, PDF + Excel upload verification
21 April 17:00 Brussels: DEADLINE

Key Decisions to Make Early

Which industry sectors will you focus on? (Open scope, but anchoring to destination themes helps)
Which SSH disciplines? (Sociology, psychology, design, arts, economics, law — all mentioned in scope)
How many companies/SMEs will participate in the co-creation service?
How many WPs? (Recommend 3-4 for this budget: methodology, service, study, management/dissemination)
Who leads the feasibility study — an academic or an industry partner?
JRC cooperation: topic destination mentions INCITE and EIGL — plan liaison
Ready to apply? Get your Decision Brief — €79
Request via form · We verify the topic · Brief delivered within 1 working day