I3 2026 and Europe’s commitment to interregional innovation

The Interregional Innovation Investments (I3) call has become one of Europe’s most relevant opportunities for innovative projects close to the market. Funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), its aim is not to support early-stage research, but to accelerate the validation, demonstration, scaling and commercialisation of innovative solutions developed by regional ecosystems connected through specialisation priorities: strategic areas of innovation defined by each region according to its capabilities and competitive advantages. Its two investment strands, Strand 1 and Strand 2a, are open, with a deadline of 12th November 2026.

This year, the European Commission expects to support projects of up to €10 million, with a general aid intensity of 70% and 100% funding for financial support to third parties, with particular emphasis on the participation of less developed regions. “But it is also a demanding call: the winning proposals will be those that combine technological maturity, business ambition, territorial impact and a strong narrative around European interregional investment,” warns Aurora García, leader of the Regions and Cities Area in European Projects at Zabala Innovation.

A call for mature innovation

“The key to understanding I3 is its market orientation,” says García. “Projects must start from a minimum technology readiness level (TRL) of 6 and move towards demonstration, deployment or commercialisation, up to TRL 9. The call targets consortia capable of turning validated solutions into interregional investment cases, with companies – especially SMEs – at the heart of the project,” she adds.

The programme is structured around three thematic priorities: green transition, digital transition and smart manufacturing. However, the real common thread is not only the theme itself, but the ability to build a European value chain with economic, territorial and industrial impact, structured through a portfolio of complementary and interconnected investments that enables validated solutions to be developed into mature business cases across several regions.

Strand 1 and Strand 2a: two different logics

Strand 1 is designed for more mature consortia capable of deploying interregional investments in shared or complementary smart specialisation priorities. Its focus is on scaling innovative projects with market potential, while integrating less developed regions into European value chains.

Strand 2a, by contrast, has a stronger cohesion component. Its objective is to strengthen the integration of innovation actors from less developed regions and transition regions into European value chains, generating local opportunities for smart economic transformation. According to the guidance provided by the body managing the call – the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (Eismea) – projects must demonstrate how these regions will take on concrete and sustainable roles in the value chain, including business opportunities, capacity building and subsequent investment.

In practical terms, “Strand 1 is better suited to proposals that already have a mature interregional value chain, while Strand 2a is more appropriate when the core narrative is the integration of territories with lower innovation performance into European markets and value chains,” stresses Antonio Barrios, consultant in the Regions and Cities Area.

Main new features of the I3 2026 call

The 2026 edition of I3 introduces several relevant changes compared with previous calls. The first is the simplification of the budget table at application stage. It will no longer be necessary to submit detailed individual sheets by partner and work package in the initial proposal, reducing the administrative burden during preparation. However, the detailed tables will still be used at the interim and final reporting stages.

The second important change is the revision of the evaluation criteria. “The framework has become more comprehensive and transparent, with clearer subcriteria,” according to Barrios. In addition, the scoring system has been rebalanced: the impact criterion now carries greater weight, with 10 points, while relevance remains at 5 points. “Brussels wants projects that are not only well aligned with European priorities, but also generate lasting benefits for regions, companies and value chains,” this expert emphasises.

The third change is the increase in the maximum threshold for financial support to third parties (FSTP), from €60,000 to €100,000 per SME, a modification designed to give greater critical mass to the subprojects funded within large I3 investments.

Keys to building a strong and distinctive I3 proposal

García and Barrios agree that a competitive proposal must clearly demonstrate six elements:

• A clear investment logic. I3 does not reward promising ideas, but investment portfolios with companies, assets, demonstrators, markets and financial continuity. The project must explain what will be deployed, who will adopt it, which barriers will be removed and what future investment will be activated.
• A well-constructed value chain. It is not enough to bring together partners from several countries. Each region must have a functional role – technology provider, industrial demonstrator, pilot market, scaling node, end user or adoption ecosystem – and the consortium must reflect the quadruple helix logic, integrating companies, public administrations, knowledge centres and civil society to ensure that the solution can be validated, adopted and scaled across different territories.
• Less developed regions. Proposals must demonstrate a comprehensive strategy to ensure the participation of legal entities from less developed, transition or outermost regions. They must also include specific measures to strengthen their involvement and contribution to the consortium’s objectives. This should include plans for the replication of results in the participating regions and the involvement of the relevant regional authorities, in order to ensure sustainable impact.
• Genuine alignment with smart specialisation strategies. Smart specialisation should not appear as a formal annex, but as the strategic basis that justifies interregional cooperation.
• Credible business participation. Companies – and especially SMEs – must play a central role in the proposal, not only as beneficiaries, but also by leading deployment, validation, adoption and scaling activities. Indeed, the call itself establishes that at least 70% of total eligible direct costs must be allocated to investments in companies, with particular attention to SMEs. For this reason, business participation must also be reflected in the budget, in the consortium’s governance and in the project’s investment logic. Eismea also stresses that I3 combines financial and non-financial support, including business planning, intellectual property, certification, commercialisation, standardisation, testing, demonstration and piloting.
• Quantified impact. In 2026, with the new weighting of the impact criterion, it will be essential to measure results in terms of investment mobilised, employment, new products, regional capacities, SME integration and continuity after the project.

Common mistakes detected in proposals

• Presenting I3 as if it were a collaborative R&D project. If the proposal does not demonstrate technological maturity, business adoption and market reach, it will be weakened.
• Building a geographically diverse but strategically weak consortium. Interregional cooperation must be justified by real complementarities, not by meeting minimum eligibility requirements.
• Underestimating the role of less developed or transition regions. In I3 2026, especially under Strand 2a, these regions must take on sustainable functions, rather than merely acting as passive beneficiaries.
• Designing a weak FSTP approach. If cascade funding is used, the proposal must explain precisely how third parties will be selected, what support they will receive, what they will contribute to the investment portfolio and how potential conflicts of interest will be avoided. It should also be borne in mind that costs allocated to financial support to third parties – for example, SMEs – cannot exceed 30% of total eligible costs.

Recommendations to increase the chances of success

• Start with the definition of the investments, not the technical writing. A good I3 project should be summarised in one sentence: what innovation is being deployed, in which value chain, with which companies, in which regions and with what economic impact.
• Build a distinctive narrative. The best proposals do not merely meet requirements: they explain why that combination of regions, companies and technologies is unique for Europe.
• Involve quadruple helix ecosystems from the outset. The call values the involvement of regional authorities, clusters, innovation agencies and leading companies, but with companies in charge of deployment.
• Treat impact as the central axis of the proposal. In I3 2026, impact does not mean a list of generic indicators; it means demonstrating lasting benefits for European competitiveness, industrial resilience and the integration of regions into value chains.
• Use budget simplification without relaxing the financial strategy. Although the initial table is lighter, the budget must still demonstrate coherence, proportionality and a clear allocation towards business investments.