SME Instrument: 65 innovative companies to get € 90 million under Phase 2

Printer-friendly version PDF version
Phase 2 Results SME Instrument June cut-off

65 small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) from 18 countries have been selected in the latest round of Horizon2020 SME Instrument Phase 2. Each project, 56 in total, will receive up to € 2.5 million (€ 5 million for health projects) to finance innovation activities. The total amount to be distributed between the 65 SMEs is € 89.57 million.

Spanish SMEs were the most successful with 19 companies who will receive € 20.6 million in total. They are followed by 7 Italian SMEs who will share € 8.6 million and 6 German SMEs that will get € 7.7 million to share. Most projects are in the field of ICT with 12 proposals funded, followed by 9 in the field of transport and 7 in low carbon energy efficient systems.

The European Commission received 1167 project proposals 15 June 2016, the third cut-off date for Phase 2 in 2016. So far 529 SMEs have received funding under Phase 2 of the SME Instrument.

Thanks to the funding, the selected SMEs can finance innovation activities like demonstration, testing, piloting, scaling up and miniaturisation, in addition to developing a mature business plan for their product. The companies involved in the projects will also benefit from 12 days of business coaching.

The next cut-off for SME Instrument Phase 2 is 13 October 2016.

 

For more information

SME Instrument beneficiaries

Map of beneficiaries

Published on
  • James | Thu, 28/07/2016 - 15:24
    Discrimination against the UK

    Thanks for sharing this. These results show that the UK performed much less well in this cut-off proportionally to the others and confirm the fears we had that UK applicants might be discriminated against because of Brexit.

    We put months of work into our application and since the UK is still contributing to the EU budget for now, we thought we would be guaranteed a fair evaluation, which is also what you told us. This is deeply disappointing and we feel we are entitled to know how you addressed the issue of possible discrimination against UK applicants in the briefing you gave to evaluators. Could you please be transparent and share that briefing with us? I think it is our right to know what you have done to prevent this from happening and to assess how this could be prevented more effectively in the future.

  • Thijs | Fri, 29/07/2016 - 10:28
    Disadvantaged?

    The UK is screwed here? Take a look again. The whole northern part of Europe is screwed.

    Our friends from Spain, Italy and Portugal have a 18% success rate (!). Applicants from Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and France only 6%, on average. This is not an incident; it’s structural in all tender rounds.

    Fact: Most evaluators are southern European. Do the math… Because of this, southern European are favored over northern European applications. Big time.

    It is a heavily corrupted system, exactly the kind of malpractice that makes people vote to leave. The people responsible for this within the EU have to be called to account.

  • John | Thu, 04/08/2016 - 15:42
    Not disadvantaged

    You need to see the success rate in relation to applications sent. In doing so, you will see that the UK actually had a higher success rate than Italy, while Finland, Ireland, Norway, Turkey, Latvia, Spain and Portugal did especially well this round.

    *The CAPTCHA signature makes it almost impossible to post a comment. 15th try now!

  • Mary | Wed, 19/10/2016 - 14:10
    Improve instead of complayining

    Spanish teams are more successful because they submit their proposal many times and keep improving it until they pass the threshold. In Spain access to funding is very competitive and the best companies are really good at it, with highly qualified researchers and entrepreneurs.
    Your theory about evaluator conspiracy is stupid and definitely not worthy of a European innovation champion. If you are not good enough, improve or go home.

  • MD | Fri, 21/10/2016 - 12:02
    Yes because UK companies don

    Yes because UK companies don't resubmit or bother to improve their application??

    I have just had five resubmissions for phase 1 comeback, each application had been vastly improved from the previous submission. However, the scores all went down between 0.5 and 2.0 points. Either the evaluators didn't like the fact that they were UK based or the variation in evaluation is unacceptable high.

    These applications were already above threshold but still not funded, in fact in ICT health and well being you need to target 14/15 for funding. Lets face it, the competition is more like a lottery at this point.

  • John | Mon, 20/02/2017 - 13:03
    Totally True

    There are a lot of rubbish proposals, but this is not where the competition is. If you write a decent proposal, it is a lottery to see who gets the highest points. There is no standardisation of proposal evaluations, so if you get a high scoring evaluator, you will get financed, if you get a low scoring one you won't. The Commission does nothing to evaluate the evaluators, only looking to see if one evaluators consistently scores low, they tell them to increase the scores. It may be that all the proposals deserved those scores, but this is not considered.

    Itrs a shame, they seem to be very keen to do the evaluations on the cheap. The key to funding the best projects is to make sure the best projects get selected - it seems obvious!

Roland Vilhelmsson | Thu, 28/07/2016 - 15:32
Correct number

June 30 you said that 69 applications were submitted from Sweden. Today it looks like you say 22. Which is the correct number?

  • Roland Vilhelmsson | Thu, 28/07/2016 - 15:35
    Correct number

    PS. My question concerns Phase 2 applications under June 2016 cut-off.

  • faturma | Thu, 28/07/2016 - 16:57
    correct number

    Dear Roland, 69 night application have been submitted in June cut-off, 3 out of them have been funded (June cut off), 22 have been fuded (cumulative all cut-offs)
    Marie @EASME

  • MD | Fri, 30/09/2016 - 10:55
    graph legend

    Dear Marie @EASME,

    Can I recommend you change the legend on your graph from 'TOTAL' to 'TOTAL FUNDED', otherwise most people will look at the graph and think 'TOTAL' refers to submissions. I don't think anybody looking at this graph cares about the total cumulative projects funded, but they may be interested to know only 2.9% from the UK were funded in the June cut-off (4 out of 137 applications) compared to 6.6% from Germany (6 out of 91 applications).

  • Miguel González | Fri, 29/07/2016 - 18:06
    Threshold for funding in the call 2-2016-2017

    Is it possible to know which was the threshold score to get funding in the call H2020-SMEINST-2-2016-2017?
    I know that 13 points were not enough
    Thank you

  • faturma | Mon, 01/08/2016 - 10:32
    threshold

    Dear Miguel,
    we dont publish the threshold.
    Marie @EASME

  • Weronika | Tue, 02/08/2016 - 11:14
    Number of received projects

    Hi,

    I have a question that refers to the number of submitted proposals. There are two different information - here you say it is 1167 and in Flash Information or in statistics that I place below it is 1189.

    https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/news/sme-instrument-1189-phase-2-proposals...

    Please let me know which number is correct.

    Weronika

  • storejo | Tue, 02/08/2016 - 16:19
    Dear Weronika,

    Dear Weronika,
    1189 is the number of proposals submitted in total and 1167 is the number of eligible proposals. Proposals first go through an admissibility and eligibility check. After these checks out of the 1189 proposals 1167 were deemed admissible and eligible and were subsequently evaluated.
    Best regards,
    Johanna@EASME

  • James | Tue, 16/08/2016 - 14:49
    Discrimination against the UK (2)

    Would it be possible to have an answer from the European Commission on my post above? I think we are entitled to know how you briefed evaluators as this is key to what comes out of the black box.

    @John - what I was referring to is the UK's success rate in this round by comparison to previous rounds, not by comparison to other countries. This is more meaningful as until now, you can see the UK has outperformed all other EU countries except Spain.

  • faturma | Tue, 16/08/2016 - 18:45
    UK referendum

    Until the UK leaves the EU, EU law continues to apply to and within the UK, both when it comes to rights and obligations. This includes the eligibility of UK legal entities to participate and receive funding in Horizon 2020 actions. Experts should not evaluate proposals with UK participants any differently than before.

    Marie @EASME

  • Stefania | Tue, 30/08/2016 - 12:06
    Submitted proposals June cutoff - Italy

    Hello,
    is it possible to know how many project proposals did you received from Italy under June cut off - Phase 2?
    On June 30th you published the number of SMEs who submitted proposals (for Italy was 261), while the number of submitted project proposals from each country is missing.
    https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/news/sme-instrument-1189-phase-2-proposals...

    Thank you in advance
    Stefania

  • faturma | Tue, 30/08/2016 - 17:12
    submitted proposals

    Dear Stefania, there were 209 projects submissions for italy Ph 2 June cut off. Best, Marie @EASME

  • Marta | Fri, 16/09/2016 - 16:35
    Average Score

    Where can I see the average score for each topic? Thank you xo

  • faturma | Wed, 21/09/2016 - 13:41
    Dear Marta, we dont provide

    Dear Marta, we dont provide such statistics.

    Best, Marie @EASME

  • Anonymous | Mon, 02/04/2018 - 13:49
    Hello,

    Hello,
    Is it possible for the applicants invited to the face to face interview for the Phase 2 of the SME Instrument to bring a professional translator (that are not employed in the applicant company) with them to the interview?
    Thank you very much for the answer in advance.

  • storejo | Tue, 10/04/2018 - 17:44
    Hello, No this is

    Hello, No this is unfortunately not possible. Best, Johanna@EASME

  • New comment