| Topic | HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-HERITAGE-04 |
|---|---|
| Status | Forthcoming |
| Call | HORIZON-CL2-2027-01 — Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society - 2027 |
| Destination | Innovative Research on European Cultural Heritage and Cultural and Creative Industries (2026-27) |
| Type of action | Research and Innovation Actions · lump sum |
| Opening | 13 May 2027 |
| Deadline | 23 September 2027 |
| Budget | EUR 3 million to EUR 4 million per project · 4 projects expected · EUR 16 million in total |
| Part B page limit | 45 pages (standard application form; check your call) |
| Template | Work Programme 2026–2027 application form |
Expected outcomes
Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes. The topic says: “Projects should contribute to all of the following expected outcomes:”
- EO1 Deepened knowledge of the potential positive effects of cultural experiences on health and well-being is developed and made available to relevant stakeholders, along with validated scalable and replicable practices to reinforce these effects.
- EO2 Key industrial, health, cultural, educational and/or civil society actors are aware of validated systemic approaches to make cultural experiences improve health and well-being and are engaged in producing or supporting such cultural experiences.
- EO3 Competitive European cultural and creative sectors and industries systematically contribute to improve health and well-being.
Expected impacts named in the destination
The wider, long-term effects the destination seeks. Your outcomes feed them; they are not project deliverables.
- EI1 The full potential of cultural heritage, arts and cultural and creative industries and sectors as drivers of both sustainable innovation and a European sense of belonging is realised through a continuous engagement with society, citizens and economic sectors.
What evaluators will look for in this topic
Expected outcomes
- Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
- For each outcome (EO1 to EO3), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
- Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.
What the scope asks for
Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.
- “Proposals are free to choose the focus considered to have the best potential to achieve a strong impact and should make sure to delimit the focus in a way that allows for sufficiently thorough work.”
- “Proposals should, however, credibly explain why the chosen focus and approach are likely to achieve a strong impact.”
- “In order to achieve evidence-based and validated practices that can be understood and used by CHIs and/or CCSI as well as by other targeted key actors and stakeholders, projects should involve stakeholders from such sectors.”
- “As appropriate for the focus chosen, projects should properly take the gender dimension into account, such as for instance gender differences in cultural participation and its consequences.”
- “To the extent appropriate, projects should build on previous research and innovation and established methods.”
- “Proposals may consider, as appropriate considering the focus chosen, the involvement of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), based on its experience for example with the SciArt and artist-in-residency programmes, and the value it could bring in providing an effective interface between research activities and policymaking. ‘Health and well-being’ should in the context of this topic be understood in a comprehensive sense,…”
Conditions that shape the proposal
- Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
- Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
- Other Eligible Conditions: “The Joint Research Centre (JRC) may participate as member of the consortium selected for funding as a beneficiary with zero funding, or as an associated partner. The JRC will not participate in the preparation and submission of the proposal - see General Annex B.”
- Legal and financial set-up of the grants: “Beneficiaries may provide financial support to third parties. The support to third parties can only be provided in the form of grants. The maximum amount to be granted to each third party is EUR 60 000”
Impact pathway and traps
- The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
- The Joint Research Centre may take part. Decide whether its involvement helps, and say so if you include it.
- The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
- Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
- For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
- Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
- Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.
The scope, as published
It is widely recognised that cultural experiences, such as those offered by cultural heritage institutions (CHIs) or cultural and creative sectors and industries (CCSI), can be beneficial for health and well-being. Research done, though scattered and not always systematic, supports this conclusion, with for instance the World Health Organisation arguing that cultural experiences contribute to health in four areas: prevention of ill-health, promotion of healthy behaviour, as well as management and treatment of disease. However, there is still a lack of systematic research into the key characteristics and circumstances of cultural experiences to best support health and well-being. The challenge is to remedy this situation by developing evidence-based and validated practices that can be understood and used by CHIs and CCSI as well as other key stakeholders to develop cultural experiences that effectively support health and well-being. There are many possible ways to approach this challenge. Proposals are free to choose the focus considered to have the best potential to achieve a strong impact and should make sure to delimit the focus in a way that allows for sufficiently thorough work. Activities may thus concentrate on different kinds of arts and culture – interventions and/or experiences – online and/or in person – and/or on cross-sectoral issues. Proposals should, however, credibly explain why the chosen focus and approach are likely to achieve a strong impact. One possible focus could be on arts and culture-based experiences as a societal support kit, in situations of crises or other circumstances where health or well-being is under threat. Decision-makers could thus benefit from a set of validated practices that help support well-being among the population in such situations. Such research might be based on good examples provided by Member States/Associated Countries or other stakeholders, with a view to consolidate and build on existing knowledge and practices. Another possible focus could be on mobilising a particular cultural and creative industry to contribute to health and well-being, such as for instance the video games industry. Ever more people spend ever more time on games, making this an important and growing source of cultural experiences, with a strong interactive component. Besides being a source of entertainment, video game communities give opportunities for isolated, underprivileged or discriminated people to find a sense of belonging, and to contribute to societal goals. At the same time, however, a context of competitivity and anonymity may invite harassment and discrimination in online multi-player video games. A third possible focus could be an implementation research approach, exploring the obstacles to adoption of already validated arts and culture –based intervention(s) that support health and well-being, and developing effective way(s) to achieve broad uptake. In order to achieve evidence-based and validated practices that can be understood and used by CHIs and/or CCSI as well as by other targeted key actors and stakeholders, projects should involve stakeholders from such sectors. To validate practices, projects may launch small scale pilot trials but may also choose other validation methods appropriate to the focus chosen. As appropriate for the focus chosen, projects should properly take the gender dimension into account, such as for instance gender differences in cultural participation and its consequences. Projects may award financial support to third parties in order to involve entities such as CCSI, CHIs or other important stakeholders which are not part of the project consortium. Such support can only be given in the form of grants. To the extent appropriate, projects should build on previous research and innovation and established methods. In particular, as appropriate, projects may establish links to the project funded under call topic ‘HORIZON-CL2-2025-01-HERITAGE-09 Impacts of Culture and the Arts on Health and Well-being’. Proposals may consider, as appropriate considering the focus chosen, the involvement of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), based on its experience for example with the SciArt and artist-in-residency programmes, and the value it could bring in providing an effective interface between research activities and policymaking. ‘Health and well-being’ should in the context of this topic be understood in a comprehensive sense, comprising both mental and physical health and well-being. See the 2019 WHO Scoping review “ What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being ?”
Other topics in HORIZON-CL2-2027-01
- HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-01 — Advisory support and network for countering and preventing radicalisation,…
- HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-02 — Women’s, LGBTIQ and minority rights in a context of autocracy, conflict and…
- HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-03 — Student and family engagement for developing a culture of democratic/civic…
- HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-04 — Addressing the impact of artificial intelligence, cyberviolence, and deepfakes…
- HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-05 — Development aid and democratic governance
- HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-DEMOCRACY-08 — Global Human Rights and EU values
- HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-HERITAGE-01 — Towards a consolidated culture and creativity driven European innovation…
- HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-HERITAGE-02 — AI4Creatives Support Platform: embracing a fair AI revolution
- HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-HERITAGE-03 — Crafting routes to a circular economy
- HORIZON-CL2-2027-01-HERITAGE-05 — Re-imagining the creative economy: the interplay between the cultural and…
Source and attribution
Topic text from the official topic page on the EU Funding & Tenders Portal, retrieved 19 October 2026. © European Union, reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (CC BY 4.0). Changes: the expected outcomes and impacts are split into numbered statements, long passages are shortened, and the evaluator checklist is GrantWise's own commentary. Your call and the Work Programme always win; check them before you submit. GrantWise is independent and not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of the European Commission.