Deploying circular systemic solutions through living labs in cities and regions (Circular Cities and Regions Initiative 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.

• “Proposed living labs should enable systematic participation of all ecosystem stakeholder in targeted cities and regions to co-create solutions that are practical, relevant, and readily applicable.”
• “In line with the nature of living labs, projects must adopt the multi-actor approach to involve end-users.”
• “Proposals should set up engaging and effective governance structures, facilitate collaboration and coordination, and ensure continuous feedback and monitoring to enable an iterative and flexible process.”
• “Proposals should integrate systemic socio-ecological approaches and involve the effective contribution of SSH disciplines (e.g., economics, politics, sociology, psychology, gender studies).”
• “Proposals should support the validation, testing and optimisation of innovative, circular systemic solutions in selected cities/regions (the ‘demonstrators’), along with relevant governance models and business plans.”
• “This means that proposals should select their targeted sector(s) and/or value chain(s), based on a detailed analysis of the local/regional contexts and specific circular potentials.”
• “Proposals should facilitate knowledge and experience transfer for further outreach and large scale replication across Europe.”
• “Proposals should turn their insights into actionable recommendations, identifying the lessons learned, specifying the enabling framework, main barriers and enablers, business case, and other relevant factors for successful replication and upscaling in other cities and/or regions (the ‘replicators’).”
• “At least two different demonstration and three replication ‘living labs’ (incl. cities/regions – possibly together with their public and/or private ecosystem partners in their territory) must be part of the consortium.”
• “One out of the three replication labs must be located in Horizon Europe widening countries (including Outermost Regions).”
• “Proposals should clearly specify how they will ensure synergies and complementarities with other relevant circular economy projects and initiatives, including those recognised as CCRI Projects and CCRI Associated Partners.”
• “In that sense, proposals should include a dedicated task, appropriate resources and a plan on how they will collaborate with the CCRI office, projects and partners (e.g. thematic discussion groups, joint events, joint R&I gap analysis and policy briefs).”

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.
• Two-stage submission: the first stage uses a shorter proposal and is assessed on Excellence and Impact only. Check the page limit and sections in the stage-one form of your call.
• TRL: the topic expects TRL 6–8 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
• Innovation action: evaluators expect a plausible path to commercialisation and named first users or customers.
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: at least five (5) distinct ‘living labs’ linked to regional or local authorities (and possibly together with their public and/or private ecosystem actors operating in their respective territories) must be part of the consortium as beneficiaries, among which at…”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: The proposals must apply the multi-actor approach. See definition of the multi-actor approach in this work programme part.”

Impact pathway and traps

• The topic asks for social sciences and humanities (SSH) expertise. Evaluators look for SSH partners with a real role in the methodology, not a token task.
• Users or citizens are part of the scope. Show how they take part in the design and testing, not only that they are informed.
• The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
• The topic expects cooperation with other projects or initiatives. Reserve effort and budget for it in the work plan.
• The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• Market uptake is part of the scope. Evaluators look for a credible route to market with named first adopters.
• 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.