In Horizon Europe, many applicants still assume that a strong company name, a respected university, or a well-known consortium partner quietly strengthens a proposal from the very first pages.

And in many cases, reputation still does matter.

But in some newer two-stage Horizon Europe topics, the first-stage logic is shifting. Where blind evaluation applies, applicants must not disclose their identity in the proposal abstract and in Part B of the first-stage proposal. That means no organisation names, no acronyms, no logos, and no names of personnel in those first-stage narrative sections. In those cases, the proposal has to carry more of its persuasive weight on its own. (Source: UKRO summary of the Horizon Europe blind evaluation pilot)

This is why the topic matters now

The 2026–2027 Horizon Europe work programme places stronger emphasis on simplification and broader participation. Compared with the 2023–2024 edition, it is 33% shorter, around half of the call budget is planned as lump-sum funding, and 41 topics use a two-stage evaluation process. The European Commission ecosystem material also highlights anonymised evaluations in certain cases as part of that broader shift. (Source: Horizon Europe 2026–2027 work programme summary)

That does not mean “company names no longer matter.”

It means something more precise, and in some ways more interesting: in certain first-stage proposals, reputation can do less hidden work than before.

That is a meaningful difference.

For years, many applicants have written short first-stage proposals with an unspoken assumption in the background: even if the text is not perfect, the evaluator will notice who is behind it. A famous institution. A large industrial player. A recognisable consortium. A country or ecosystem already associated with strong research and innovation performance.

Blind first-stage evaluation challenges that habit. In the sections that are supposed to be anonymised, the narrative is expected to work without those visible identity markers. The immediate result is simple: weak logic is exposed more quickly, and strong logic has a better chance to speak for itself.

This may be one of the most under-discussed shifts in current proposal preparation.

The Commission did not introduce blind evaluation out of nowhere. It first appeared as a Horizon Europe pilot in the 2023–2024 work programme for two-stage calls. UKRO’s summary of the pilot explained the rationale clearly: to respond to concerns about possible bias toward well-known organisations in countries with better-performing R&I systems. The aim was not to declare the existing system broken, but to test whether reducing identity-based signalling could help mitigate perceived or potential reputational bias.

That pilot was not tiny

According to the Commission’s interim evaluation of Horizon Europe, blind evaluation in 2023–2024 covered all two-stage calls except one in Widening, across 16 calls and about 2,100 proposals. That is enough to treat it as a real policy and evaluation experiment, not a side note.

The rollout continued in 2025

KoWi’s summary of the 2025 work programme notes that 29 topics used two-stage evaluation, and around 20 of them were to be evaluated blindly in the first stage. That matters because it shows the method was not abandoned after the pilot year. On the contrary, the Commission kept collecting evidence on whether blind first-stage evaluation can work in practice.

By 2026–2027, this becomes part of a wider application logic

The official 2026–2027 programme introduction and related ecosystem summaries make clear that the system is becoming shorter, more structured, and in certain cases more anonymised at first stage. This is not just a formality. It changes what makes a short proposal convincing.

So what does this mean for applicants in practice?

First, it may be good news for newer or less visible organisations

If the evaluator is not supposed to see who you are from the proposal abstract and Part B, then a smaller company, a newer applicant, or a less well-known organisation may be judged more on the relevance and clarity of the concept than on institutional recognition alone. That does not eliminate all structural differences, and it certainly does not mean experience becomes irrelevant. But it can reduce one familiar disadvantage: the feeling that a proposal has to “borrow credibility” from the fame of the name behind it.

Second, it is a warning to established players

A strong name may still open doors in networking, consortium formation, and second-stage discussions. But if the first-stage narrative is blind, then a known organisation can no longer assume that its reputation will compensate for a vague concept, a generic impact story, or a weakly structured short proposal. In those cases, the proposal has to win on fit, logic, and credibility — not on identity cues.

Third, it increases the importance of the first pages

If you cannot lean on names, acronyms, logos, or institutional prestige in the core narrative, then the evaluator has fewer shortcuts. That means the proposal must establish very quickly:
– why the topic fit is real,
– why the challenge is framed correctly,
– why the proposed pathway is credible,
– and why the ambition is both relevant and realistically deliverable.

In other words, the proposal itself has to do more of the trust-building work. This is one of the clearest strategic implications of blind first-stage evaluation. It also aligns with the broader 2026–2027 move toward shorter work programmes, short first-stage proposals, and simplified but more disciplined application logic.

Fourth, it changes how people should think about “consortium strength”

In the old mindset, consortium strength is often described through names: this partner is famous, this RTO is known, this company has scale, this university has prestige. But if a first-stage proposal is evaluated blindly, that framing becomes less useful inside the actual text. The consortium still matters, of course. But at stage one, strength has to be translated into design logic: why the capabilities are necessary, why the work is structured this way, why the pathway is coherent, and why the expected outcomes are credible. Strong consortia still matter. The way they have to “show up” in the proposal changes.

Fifth, it may matter for participation patterns across countries and ecosystems

This is not only about companies, but also about who normally benefits when evaluators already recognise institutional environments, national ecosystems, or country-linked reputations. The original pilot rationale explicitly referred to concerns about better-known organisations in countries with stronger-performing R&I systems. That is why this discussion is potentially relevant not only for SMEs or newcomers, but also for applicants from widening or less visible ecosystems who want their first-stage ideas judged more on relevance and quality than on where they come from. Blind evaluation is not a magic equaliser, but it is clearly linked to the goal of reducing reputational bias in the early narrative review.

And this is not just a theoretical discussion

There are already concrete 2026 two-stage topics where this logic matters. HaDEA’s Cluster 4 publication highlighted multiple two-stage 2026 Industry topics, including HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-MAT-PROD-21-two-stage and digital/emerging technology topics such as HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-51-two-stage and -53-two-stage. These are not future concepts. Applicants are already operating inside this design logic.

So what should applicants change?

The first change is conceptual: stop assuming that a good name can quietly strengthen a weak first-stage draft.

The second is structural: write the short proposal as if the evaluator must be convinced only by the clarity of the logic in front of them.

The third is strategic: treat first-stage writing as its own discipline, not as a compressed version of a full proposal.

And the fourth is cultural: recognise that this can be an opportunity, not only a restriction. If early narrative evaluation becomes less dependent on visible reputation, then strong ideas from newer companies, less visible actors, or organisations outside the usual comfort zone may have more space to compete on substance.

That is why this development matters

Not because reputation suddenly disappears.

But because in some new Horizon Europe proposals, reputation may no longer be able to do so much of the invisible work.

And that puts the spotlight exactly where many applicants claim it should be anyway:
on relevance,
on proposal quality,
and on the strength of the idea itself.

Official references

 

#HorizonEurope
#EUFunding
#BlindEvaluation
#TwoStageProposals
#ProposalWriting
#GrantWriting
#ProposalStrategy
#ConsortiumBuilding
#ResearchAndInnovation
#EUProjects

How to Present Technical Project Results So Stakeholders Understand Their Value

Leave A Comment