What Evaluators Look for in the Impact Section
A practical guide for applicants who want more than a passing score
Of all the sections in a Horizon Europe proposal, the Impact section is the one that most often determines whether a strong scientific idea gets funded or not. It is also the section that applicants consistently misunderstand, underwrite, or treat as a formality.
Evaluators — who are typically experienced researchers, innovation experts, or policy practitioners — read dozens of proposals. They know immediately when an Impact section has been written to satisfy the template rather than to genuinely communicate what a project will change in the world. And they score accordingly.
This post explains what evaluators are actually looking for when they read your Impact section, why so many proposals fall short, and how to write an impact narrative that earns a score of 4 or 5 out of 5.
Why the Impact Section Carries So Much Weight
Horizon Europe is not a curiosity-driven research fund. It is a mission-oriented programme designed to help the European Union address specific societal, economic, and environmental challenges — from climate change to digital sovereignty to public health.
This means that every funded project is expected to deliver value beyond the laboratory. The Impact section is where you demonstrate that you understand this — that you have thought seriously not just about what your project will discover or develop, but about who will use it, how, and to what end.
The evaluator's core question:
"If this project is funded and delivers everything it promises, what will actually be different in the world — and for whom?"
Every sentence of your Impact section should help answer this question.
Since Horizon Europe was introduced in 2021, Impact has been placed on equal footing with Excellence. It is no longer a supporting section — it is a co-equal criterion. A proposal that scores 5 on Excellence but 2 on Impact will not be funded. The programme is explicit: scientific quality alone is not sufficient.
The Three Sub-Criteria Evaluators Score
The Impact criterion is assessed across three sub-criteria. Evaluators are asked to score each one, and their comments are structured around these dimensions. Understanding them separately — and writing to each one explicitly — is the single most effective thing you can do to improve your Impact score.
Sub-criterion 1: Expected Outcomes and Impacts
This is where you explain what will change as a result of your project — in concrete, specific, and measurable terms. Evaluators are looking for a clear line between what your project produces, who uses it, and what difference it ultimately makes.
In particular, they want to see:
Direct project outcomes, such as new knowledge, tools, datasets, methodologies, prototypes, or guidelines.
Wider societal, environmental, economic, or policy impacts that result from those outputs being adopted and used.
Strong alignment with the expected outcomes and impacts described in the call text.
Ambition supported by evidence, including clear targets, timelines, and identifiable beneficiary groups wherever possible.
A common mistake is confusing outputs, outcomes, and impacts. While closely related, they represent different stages of change.
Outputs are the tangible results produced by the project itself. For example, a project may develop and validate an AI-based tool for crop disease detection.
Outcomes occur when stakeholders begin using those outputs. In this case, farmers may use the tool to identify disease outbreaks several weeks earlier than before, reducing crop losses and improving decision-making.
Impacts are the broader, longer-term changes that occur at scale. If the tool is widely adopted, it could contribute to significant reductions in pesticide use, lower production costs, and improved environmental performance across entire regions.
Evaluators expect to see all three levels clearly described. However, proposals that stop at the output level often receive weaker scores. The highest-scoring proposals demonstrate a credible pathway from project outputs to real-world outcomes and ultimately to meaningful long-term impacts.
Sub-criterion 2: Pathways to impact
Describing what your project will achieve is not enough. Evaluators also want to know how those results will reach the people who need them. This is your theory of change — the chain of events that links your research activities to real-world use.
A strong pathways section answers:
Who are the primary users or beneficiaries of your results?
What will they do differently as a result of your project?
What mechanisms will carry your results from the lab to the field — publications, policy briefs, standards, spin-offs, licensing, open platforms?
What potential barriers to uptake exist, and how will you address them?
Which stakeholders need to be engaged, and when?
What evaluators want to see here:
A credible, realistic chain from research activities to real-world change — not a generic list of dissemination channels. If your pathway is 'we will publish papers and attend conferences', that is not a pathway to impact. That is a plan to produce outputs. Show what happens after that.
Sub-criterion 3: Measures to maximise impact — your DEC plan
The third sub-criterion covers your Dissemination, Exploitation, and Communication (DEC) strategy. Evaluators look for evidence that your consortium has a concrete plan — with clear ownership, timelines, and target audiences — for each of the three activities.
Dissemination involves sharing scientific results with the research community through publications, datasets, conferences, and open-access repositories.
Exploitation focuses on turning project results into products, services, policies, standards, or other forms of value that continue beyond the project lifetime.
Communication involves engaging non-specialist audiences — including the public, media, policymakers, and stakeholders — to raise awareness, increase visibility, and build support for the project's objectives and results.
Each of these activities serves a different purpose, targets a different audience, and uses different channels. A strong DEC plan addresses all three separately, rather than treating them as interchangeable or combining them under a single dissemination strategy.
How Evaluators Actually Score the Impact Section
The evaluation guidelines provide a scoring framework that helps evaluators distinguish between weak, average, and outstanding proposals. Understanding what separates a score of 3 from a score of 5 can help you calibrate your writing and identify where your proposal may still need strengthening.
Score 0 – Failed
The proposal does not address the criterion, or the information provided is insufficient for evaluation.
Score 1 – Poor
The criterion is addressed only superficially, or the proposal contains serious weaknesses that undermine confidence in the approach.
Score 2 – Fair
The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but significant weaknesses remain. Important elements may be missing, underdeveloped, or unconvincing.
Score 3 – Good
The proposal addresses the criterion well and demonstrates a reasonable understanding of what is required. However, several shortcomings are still present and limit its overall strength.
Score 4 – Very Good
The proposal addresses the criterion very well and presents a convincing case. Only a small number of shortcomings remain.
Score 5 – Excellent
The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in a clear, coherent, and convincing manner. Any remaining shortcomings are minor and do not affect the overall quality of the proposal.
Most funded Horizon Europe proposals receive Impact scores between 3.5 and 4.5. A score of 5 is relatively rare and usually reflects more than just a complete Impact section. It requires a compelling narrative, strong evidence, credible pathways to impact, and a convincing case that the project will create meaningful change beyond the research itself.
When evaluators award a score of 5, they are not simply acknowledging that the proposal meets the requirements. They are recognising that the case for funding is exceptionally strong.
A score of 3 means the evaluator can see that you have thought about impact but the case is not fully made — impacts are described generically, pathways are vague, or the DEC plan lacks substance.
A score of 4 means the evaluator is convinced — your impacts are specific and credible, your pathways are realistic, and your DEC plan is detailed and well-resourced.
A score of 5 means the evaluator is excited. The impact case is not just complete — it is persuasive, ambitious, and clearly grounded in deep understanding of the field.
Strong vs Weak Impact Language: Real Examples
The language you use in the Impact section shapes how evaluators perceive the credibility of your project. Strong impact writing demonstrates a clear pathway to change, while weak impact writing relies on broad aspirations and generic statements.
Strong Impact Language
Strong impact statements are specific, measurable, and linked to identifiable users, timelines, and mechanisms for uptake.
Rather than simply claiming that a project will improve sustainability or support innovation, strong proposals explain exactly what will be delivered, who will use it, and what change is expected as a result. They include concrete targets, named stakeholder groups, and realistic timeframes.
For example, a strong impact statement might explain that a validated tool will be adopted by a defined number of organisations within a specific period after project completion, or that policy recommendations will be delivered to identified authorities through planned engagement activities.
Strong impact language gives evaluators confidence that the consortium has thought beyond project delivery and understands how its results will create value in the real world.
Weak Impact Language
Weak impact statements tend to be vague, generic, and difficult to verify.
Phrases such as "contribute to sustainability", "engage stakeholders", or "disseminate results widely" provide little evidence of how impact will actually occur. They describe intentions rather than pathways and leave evaluators with unanswered questions.
Who will use the results? How will they be adopted? When will change occur? What evidence supports these claims?
If a statement could be copied into almost any Horizon Europe proposal without modification, it is probably too generic to score highly.
A Simple Rule
When reviewing your Impact section, look for statements that are broad or aspirational and ask yourself four questions:
Who will use the result?
What will they do differently?
When will this happen?
How will the change occur?
If your text answers all four questions clearly, you are probably writing strong impact language. If not, your impact claims likely need to be more specific and evidence-based.
The pattern is consistent: strong impact language is specific, quantified, time-bound, and linked to named actors or mechanisms. Weak impact language is generic, passive, and non-committal.
The Five Most Common Mistakes in the Impact Section
1. Confusing outputs with impacts
Saying 'we will publish 15 papers and attend 10 conferences' is describing outputs, not impacts. Evaluators want to know what changes in the world as a result of those papers being read and those conferences being attended. Always ask: then what?
2. Writing generic impact statements
Phrases like 'this project will benefit European citizens', 'advance the state of the art', or 'contribute to sustainability' appear in virtually every proposal. They are not wrong — but they are not specific enough to earn a good score. Replace every generic statement with a concrete one.
3. Ignoring the call text's expected impacts
Every Horizon Europe topic includes a section on 'expected outcomes and impacts'. These are not suggestions — they are the evaluators' checklist. If your Impact section does not address them explicitly, you will lose points. Read them carefully and address each one directly.
4. Treating DEC as a minor task
Many proposals list a few conferences, one open-access publication policy, and call it a DEC plan. Evaluators see through this immediately. Your DEC plan should include named activities, responsible partners, target audiences, timelines, and where relevant, a budget. It should read like a plan, not a list.
5. Leaving impact to the final section only
Impact should not appear only in the Impact section. It should be threaded through your entire proposal — in the introduction, in the objectives, in the work package descriptions, and in the conclusion. When impact appears only at the end, it reads as an afterthought rather than a core project driver.
Your Impact Section Checklist
Before you submit, go through this list. If any item is missing, your Impact section is incomplete.
Sub-criterion 1: Expected outcomes and impacts
□ I have addressed every 'expected outcome and impact' listed in the call text
□ I have distinguished between outputs, outcomes, and impacts
□ My impacts are specific, quantified, and time-bound where possible
□ I have identified the primary beneficiaries of my results
□ I have addressed both short-term and longer-term impacts
Sub-criterion 2: Pathways to impact
□ I have described how results will travel from the project to real-world use
□ I have identified the key actors in that pathway (partners, intermediaries, end users)
□ I have acknowledged potential barriers to uptake and explained how I will address them
□ I have described stakeholder engagement activities that support the pathway
□ My pathway is realistic given my consortium's reach and resources
Sub-criterion 3: DEC plan
□ I have addressed dissemination, exploitation, and communication separately
□ Each activity has a named lead partner and a target audience
□ I have described my open access and open data approach
□ My exploitation plan explains how results will be used commercially or in policy
□ My communication plan targets non-specialist audiences, not just researchers
□ My DEC activities are reflected in the work plan and budget
Conclusion: Impact Is a Skill, Not a Section
The best Horizon Europe proposals do not treat impact as a section to be completed — they treat it as a lens through which the entire proposal is written. The research objectives exist to produce results. The results exist to create value. The value must be specific, credible, and clearly linked to the activities you plan to carry out.
If you write your Impact section after everything else is done, you are already behind. The strongest proposals define their impact logic first — and then design the project around it.
At SublimeHub, impact strategy and DEC planning are core parts of how we support proposals. Whether you are starting from scratch or refining a draft, we can help you build an impact narrative that evaluators find genuinely compelling.
Need help with your Impact section?
SublimeHub specialises in Horizon Europe proposal writing, including impact strategy and DEC planning.
