Impact pathways that evaluators believe

The Impact criterion in Horizon Europe asks for three things: the credibility of your pathways to the expected outcomes and impacts of the topic, the scale and significance of your contribution, and the suitability of your dissemination, exploitation and communication measures. Each is scored as an aspect; each is where proposals lose half points.

Start from the topic, not from your project

Every topic text lists expected outcomes, and every destination lists expected impacts. These are not inspiration; they are the evaluator's checklist. The first thing a credible Impact section does is quote them and show, outcome by outcome, which project result contributes to which outcome and how.

Proposals that start from "our project will deliver a platform that will revolutionise..." are read as self-centred. Proposals that start from "Expected outcome 2 asks for X; result R3, validated in WP4, provides X by means of..." are read as relevant.

The pathway is a chain, and every link must hold

A pathway to impact is a sequence: project results, then outcomes during and shortly after the project, then wider impacts years later. The evaluator tests every link: who takes up the result, why they would, what has to be true for that to happen, and what the project does to make it true. Write the chain explicitly:

Each arrow needs a sentence of justification and, where possible, a number. "Three regional transport authorities (letters of intent attached) will pilot the tool in year 3, covering 1.2 million passengers" is a link. "The tool will be widely adopted" is not.

Scale and significance: give the evaluator a number to defend

Evaluators are asked to judge the magnitude of your contribution. They cannot defend "significant" in a consensus meeting; they can defend "a 15 percent reduction in energy use across 400 buildings, equivalent to 9 GWh per year". Quantify what you can, state the assumptions, and be honest about uncertainty. A credible range beats a confident guess.

Measures to maximise impact are not a communication plan

Dissemination, exploitation and communication are three different things with three different audiences, and the template asks you to treat them separately. Exploitation is the one most often done badly: it should name who will use each key result after the project, under what model, and what intellectual property arrangements make that possible. A draft exploitation plan with a table of key exploitable results, owners, routes and timing is now a baseline expectation, not a bonus.

Barriers and the things you cannot control

The template explicitly asks about barriers and obstacles, and about the extent to which impact depends on factors outside the project. Applicants skip this because it feels like admitting weakness. Evaluators read the omission as naivety. Name the regulatory, market and behavioural barriers, say which the project mitigates and how, and acknowledge the rest. Credibility, not optimism, scores.

A structure that scores

1. Expected outcomes of the topic, quoted, with a mapping table to results.
2. Pathways: one sub-section per expected outcome, written as a chain with evidence.
3. Scale and significance, quantified, with assumptions.
4. Barriers and dependencies, with mitigation.
5. Measures to maximise impact: dissemination, exploitation and communication, each with audiences, channels, KPIs and owners.
6. A summary table that an evaluator can lift into the consensus report.