Societal readiness is redefining innovation in Europe

For years, much of the European innovation ecosystem has operated on the basis of an implicit assumption: for a solution to be considered successful, it must be technically sound, financially viable and scalable. This approach tends to push into the background the actors involved in the processes of design, production and commercialisation. Yet experience built up in fields such as energy, mobility, digitalisation, housing and industrial transition shows that this sequence does not always work. In fact, the opposite sometimes happens: technically brilliant projects fail not because they lack scientific excellence, but because they failed to understand in time the social context in which they were seeking to take hold.

That is precisely where the concept of societal readiness comes into its own, and why it is now being incorporated into pilot projects under certain Horizon Europe topics. These should not be seen as terminological fashion or as a cosmetic requirement, but as a deeper signal: the European Commission is beginning to recognise that innovation cannot be measured solely by its degree of technological maturity, but also by its degree of social maturity.

What are ‘societal readiness pilots’?

In concrete terms, societal readiness pilots are pilot strands that incorporate, from the very design of the project, both an assessment and a deliberate shaping of the social conditions needed for an innovation to be adopted, understood, accepted and capable of generating real impact.

They are therefore not limited to validating a solution from a technical standpoint. Their aim is also to test its social fit: how it responds to real needs, how it affects different groups, what forms of resistance it may generate, what institutional or community capacities it requires, and what kind of participation is necessary for its implementation to be both viable and legitimate.

Put differently, these pilots are based on a simple but far-reaching idea: an innovation is not truly ready simply because it works, but because it can be effectively integrated into social, institutional and territorial life. That is why these approaches often include elements such as the early involvement of relevant actors, co-creation with users or communities, the identification of cultural or social barriers, the integration of the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), and an analysis of the conditions for adoption beyond technical performance.

From TRL to societal readiness

This evolution marks a significant shift. For a long time, discussion about project readiness has been dominated by frameworks such as the technical advancement of a given technology, expressed through the technology readiness level (TRL). More recently, ideas such as market readiness and exploitation capacity have also gained ground. But the social dimension has too often remained secondary: as a cross-cutting requirement, as part of the impact section, or as a participation exercise added at the end of the project design process.

Societal readiness pilots challenge precisely that logic. They force us to ask not only whether an innovation can work, but whether it can work with society, for society and within society. In other words: whether it responds to real needs, engages with the capacities and expectations of territories, anticipates resistance, integrates diverse perspectives and is capable of generating social legitimacy, alongside technical performance.

A key perspective for social innovation

From the perspective of social innovation, this shift is particularly significant. For years, the field has argued that the major challenges of our time cannot be addressed through a purely sectoral or technocratic logic. Exclusion, territorial inequality, the just green transition, ageing, democratic cohesion and the social acceptance of new infrastructure are complex challenges shaped by cultural, institutional, economic and relational factors.

It is not enough to design technically viable solutions; it is also necessary to design better conditions for adoption, appropriation and governance. In that sense, societal readiness pilots should not be read merely as an opportunity to incorporate participatory activities or strengthen the presence of SSH in European proposals. That would be to understate their scope. Their transformative potential is greater: they invite us to change the very architecture of the innovation project itself.

Innovation also means building legitimacy

A socially prepared project is not one that consults its stakeholders at a single stage, but one that integrates social intelligence into its very logic of intervention. This means, among other things, identifying from the outset which actors will be affected, what tensions may emerge, what cultural or institutional barriers will shape implementation, what capacities need to be activated locally, and what forms of co-creation can help adapt the solution to diverse realities.

It also means accepting that social acceptance is not an automatic result of information or communication, but a construction that depends on trust, reciprocity and shared meaning.

That is why the relevance of this approach goes beyond explicitly social projects. Indeed, one of the most interesting signals in the current European agenda is that the social dimension is beginning to penetrate fields traditionally seen as technical: energy, mobility, industry and digitalisation. This is not about adding a social component in order to satisfy a political expectation. It is about understanding that, in all these areas, the viability of solutions depends increasingly on social factors: usage habits, risk perception, distributive fairness, community participation, institutional capacity and territorial justice.

What changes for those designing European projects

This shift has important consequences for those who design and support European projects. The first is strategic: it is no longer enough to fit an idea into a call; it must be shown that the idea understands the human, social and institutional ecosystem in which it seeks to intervene. The second is methodological: interdisciplinarity ceases to be a generic aspiration and becomes a genuine operational condition. And the third is political: European innovation is beginning to recognise that transforming societies is not only about transferring technology, but about building legitimate, inclusive processes that are sensitive to context.

This approach opens up a promising path. It reminds us of something essential: in times of accelerated transformation, the most relevant innovation is not the one that arrives first, but the one that manages to take root most effectively. And for a solution to take root, it must be technically robust, yes, but also socially intelligible, institutionally viable and democratically sustainable.

Europe appears to be starting to accept this. And that may be one of the most interesting signs of the present moment: the recognition that the innovation of the future will not be decided only in laboratories, technology centres or markets, but also in the capacity to listen to, involve and prepare society to play an active part in change.