Even the most interesting and innovative project will fail in the competition for funding if it contains errors. What are the most common and how can they be avoided?
Companies have more and more opportunities to apply for EU funding. When applying, it's crucial to demonstrate attention to detail and avoid mistakes—otherwise, your application will end up in the trash. Entrepreneurs still make numerous errors when preparing projects. Which are the most common? Find the answers in the table below. We compiled this list based on research into negative project evaluations in various funding calls.
The conclusion is inconsistent with the assumptions
First , you need to ensure that the planned project meets the competition's main objectives. Otherwise, the application has little chance of being funded. For example, in the recent, largest grant competition in Poland – the SMART Path – as many as 90% of submitted projects with an R&D module failed to meet the basic criteria. This means that companies failed to demonstrate that the planned activities constitute research and development or that they will lead to innovation at the national level, even though this was a basic requirement.
Unfortunately, the authors of these applications can only dream of receiving funding – they were rejected. To avoid repeating this mistake, it's worth remembering that the priority is to verify the competition's guidelines and align planned activities as closely as possible.
Insufficient financial capacity
“Be smart about your intentions” – this should be the motto guiding entrepreneurs applying for EU funding. However, application results show that companies often lack adequate resources to complete a project and – equally importantly – sustain its results after the funding ends.
In the aforementioned SMART Path, as many as 60% of applications were rejected because the submitting entrepreneurs lacked sufficient financial capacity to implement the project. Insufficient human resources, too few to carry out the project, are also a common mistake. Many companies, for example, lack a suitable research team.
The project is written too generally
This is a problem for a significant number of applicants – their projects are too general. They lack specifics regarding, among other things, the target audience, their needs, and a detailed description of the products or services being produced. The application should also specify the resources: human resources, technical resources, legal resources, and subcontractors' services necessary for the proper implementation of the project.
Entrepreneurs also describe technological challenges and project parameters too broadly and imprecisely. Descriptions of planned activities are often unclear or inadequate to the program's objectives. However, precision is required in applications. The more detail, the better. Lack of precision in application descriptions means that experts cannot adequately assess, for example, whether a project has innovative potential and whether its implementation will deliver the expected results.
Something is missing here, i.e. incomplete documentation
One of the most common irregularities is the absence of one or more attachments in submitted documents. This is common, as some applications require the submission of dozens of attachments. It's also important to remember to sign all of them where indicated.
To avoid mistakes, it's worth preparing a list of all necessary attachments in advance. Keep in mind that preparing or obtaining some of them can be time-consuming , as is the case with permits and approvals, such as environmental decisions.
They overestimate the level of innovation
Entrepreneurs often highly value the solutions they create. They perceive their products or services as unique. This often stems from ignorance about existing solutions developed by competitors.
Therefore, before submitting an application, it is always worth conducting an in-depth analysis and examining what the market and industry rivals are offering – especially in competitions that require innovative new solutions that are then to be promoted in other countries.
Will it be worth it?
72% of SMART Path applications lacked justification for the project's profitability. This is crucial, however, because without a proper economic analysis, it will be difficult to assess whether implementing a specific solution will actually bring benefits to the applicant and the market.
In this case, thorough research is also essential. If a project lacks arguments regarding potential profits, projected costs, or demand, even the most compelling projects may be abandoned due to doubts about their real business value.
Does not meet EU regulations
It's worth remembering that the European Commission, which manages EU funds, pays particular attention to meeting the requirements of EU regulations. This means it places emphasis on, among other things, ecology, sustainable development, and equal opportunities. Planned projects that fail to address these aspects may have little chance of receiving funding.
Of course, much depends on the nature of the project, but it's worth checking the competition criteria to see which elements and activities will be awarded points. A common mistake in calls for proposals for environmental projects is for companies to fail to consider the project's impact on the environment or to fail to use green technologies. There are also competitions in which entrepreneurs face rejection of their applications due to a lack of consideration for gender equality and the accessibility of new solutions for people with disabilities.
