Building a Horizon Europe Cluster 2 Consortium That Actually Works

The Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) dimension is not optional, and international cooperation is not an add-on. Three unwritten rules, and one written one, for designing Horizon Europe Cluster 2 partnerships that can succeed both in evaluation and implementation.

In our previous articles, we explored the 2026–2027 work programme and highlighted five 2027 topics worth preparing for well in advance. In this edition of Project Writing Corner, we move from the what to the how: how do you build a Cluster 2 consortium that is more than a collection of partners, and instead becomes a coherent, high-performing project team?

For organisations familiar with Erasmus+, CERV or Creative Europe, some aspects of building a Horizon Europe consortium will feel familiar, while others are quite different. The biggest difference is not technical, it’s cultural.

In Horizon Europe Cluster 2, the consortium is not simply a prerequisite for accessing funding; it is one of the elements being evaluated.

Evaluators assess not only the quality of your proposal, but also the quality of the partnership behind it.

Here are three aspects worth paying close attention to, followed by one technical point you simply cannot afford to get wrong.

1. SSH Is Not “Your Academic Partner”, It Is an Epistemological Choice

The Work Programme is explicit: Cluster 2 topics require the effective and meaningful contribution of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) to maximise the societal impact of research and innovation.

In practice, this means SSH is not a methodological appendix. It is the intellectual foundation of many Cluster 2 projects.

So what does this mean when building a consortium?

First, having a generic university partner is not enough. An engineering department with one sociologist attached does not constitute meaningful SSH integration. You need one or more partners whose core expertise lies in the social sciences and humanities relevant to the topic.

Second, SSH expertise should be embedded throughout the project, not isolated in a transversal work package. When SSH appears only in a single methodological WP, evaluators often perceive it as decorative. Well-integrated SSH contributes to analysis, piloting, evaluation and policy recommendations alike.

Finally, diversity within SSH matters. The Work Programme explicitly encourages contributions from both quantitative disciplines, such as economics or quantitative sociology, and qualitative and humanities disciplines, including philosophy, anthropology, history and cultural studies. A consortium made up exclusively of economists is not an SSH-balanced consortium.

For NGOs and SMEs, this is excellent news rather than a challenge.

You are the natural complement to academic SSH research.

You bring access to communities, beneficiaries and real-world evidence that universities alone often struggle to obtain.

SSH research and organised practice are not competing approaches, they are two sides of the same triangle, with policymaking completing the picture.

2. Partners Beyond the EU: A Genuine Opportunity with Specific Rules

Cluster 2 explicitly encourages international cooperation whenever it is relevant to the topic.

In some areas, such as global human rights, post-conflict democracy or the governance of global commons, it is practically indispensable. Without partners from neighbouring regions or the Global South, proposals may struggle to demonstrate genuine international relevance.

Before building such partnerships, there are three key aspects to understand.

- Associated Countries vs Third Countries

Countries associated with Horizon Europe, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Israel, Türkiye, Tunisia, Canada and others, participate under the same eligibility rules as EU Member States.

Partners from non-associated third countries may also participate, but funding conditions vary. Some countries are automatically eligible for funding, while others must participate using their own resources or through specific funding arrangements.

Always verify the status of each country in General Annex B of the Work Programme before inviting a partner.

- The Case of China

The 2026–2027 Work Programme introduces specific restrictions regarding Chinese participation.

Legal entities established in China are not eligible to participate in Innovation Actions (IA), and additional eligibility conditions apply to universities linked to China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT).

Overlooking these provisions could jeopardise the eligibility of the entire proposal.

- The Strategic Value of International Partners

When carefully selected, partners from outside the EU are much more than a formal requirement.

They provide access to comparative research contexts, local datasets, stakeholder networks and broader dissemination opportunities.

For topics such as Global Human Rights, Post-Conflict Democracy or Creative Alliances, credible partners operating in relevant geographical contexts often strengthen the proposal’s Impact score significantly.

3. The Civil Society-Friendly Consortium Cluster 2 Is Actually Looking For

The Work Programme is remarkably clear about the type of partnerships it expects.

Destination 3 explicitly states that funded projects should engage social partners, civil society organisations, practitioners, VET providers and SMEs.

This is not aspirational language.

It is guidance on consortium composition.

A competitive Cluster 2 consortium in 2027 will often resemble the following:

• 2–3 academic partners with complementary SSH expertise across different countries and disciplines.

• 2–3 civil society organisations or NGOs with strong community engagement and direct access to beneficiaries.

• 1–2 SMEs contributing technical expertise, such as data analysis, digital tools, capacity building or communication.

• One policy organisation or think tank capable of translating research findings into policy recommendations.

• One or two international partners, where relevant to the topic.

• Stakeholder organisations or end-user representatives, such as trade unions, patient associations or professional bodies, involved at least through advisory structures.

For members of the Impacto network, this is an encouraging message.

You are exactly the type of organisation Cluster 2 is seeking, not as operational support for academia, but as providers of expertise that academic institutions cannot easily replicate: community access, beneficiary engagement, territorial knowledge and effective dissemination.

One Technical Note: Roles, Work Packages and Leadership

Within the Implementation section of the proposal, evaluators consistently look for three things.

- Alignment Between Roles and Expertise

If a partner is leading a work package without demonstrated experience in the relevant field, evaluators immediately recognise this as a weakness.

- A Credible Budget Distribution

A consortium where the coordinator receives 60% of the budget while the remaining partners divide the rest rarely appears balanced.

As an informal rule of thumb:

• partners receiving less than 5% of the total budget often appear merely decorative;

• partners receiving more than 30% require a clear structural justification.

- Capacity to Generate Civil Society Impact

Particularly under Destinations 1 and 3, evaluators want convincing evidence that the consortium genuinely knows how to work with and for civil society organisations.

Simply stating this is not enough.

Existing networks, previous collaborations and clearly defined responsibilities are essential.

A Final Checklist Before Inviting a Partner

Before accepting, or proposing, a new consortium member, ask yourself three simple questions.

• What unique value does this organisation bring?

If the answer cannot be explained in three sentences, the partner is probably cosmetic rather than strategic.

• Do they have the financial and operational capacity required for the role?

Horizon Europe places considerable emphasis on operational and financial capacity. An underprepared partner can become a risk for the entire consortium.

• Are we building on an existing relationship, or starting from scratch?

Building new partnerships is absolutely legitimate, but it takes time.

That is precisely why we encouraged you, in our previous article, to start preparing for the 2027 calls now rather than waiting until the year they open.