The European Union faces a pivotal moment. Geopolitical instability, energy challenges, global tech rivalry, and ambitious climate goals, call for a bold investment strategy in innovation and technological autonomy. The STEP initiative (Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform) emerged as the political solution. It aimed to combine efforts, bolster key technologies, and solidify European leadership in advanced fields like deep tech, clean energy, and biotech. Yet, despite the substantial pledges and anticipation surrounding it, realizing this endeavor proves challenging. Stakeholders and companies are discovering that European innovation isn’t just hindered by funding shortages, but also by a dysfunctional, overly complex administrative system.
The Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) isn’t a novel financial instrument. It aims to expand on eleven existing EU programs, like Horizon Europe, Digital Europe, the Innovation Fund, InvestEU, EU4Health, and the Structural Funds. This strategy was presented as a “smart” way to use existing resources. However, in reality, it increases complexity. Each program has its own rules, eligibility requirements, assessment processes, and timelines. The Commission has issued numerous guidance materials, hoping to offer practical advice and explanations. Despite the aim of assisting applicants, the outcome is an overwhelming amount of guidelines, rules, webinars, briefings, and interpretations that cause more confusion than clarity.
This complex approach wasn’t chosen by chance. It reflects the EU’s ingrained culture of “compromise and coexistence,” where political objectives must often accommodate established frameworks and existing structures. Rather than establishing a fresh, flexible mechanism with a centralized authority, existing financial tools were favored to avoid upsetting institutional dynamics and national jurisdictions. The consequence is an institutional disarray, where numerous unrelated procedures, lacking unified planning, operate simultaneously but lack coordination.
Consider how a typical project seeks funding through STEP. The beneficiary first submits a proposal, aiming for the STEP Seal – the “Seal of Sovereignty” – which acknowledges the project’s strategic importance. This seal in theory is supposed to unlock various funding streams. Yet, in reality, it offers no guarantees. The project then undergoes a complete assessment by the relevant program, based on its particular guidelines. There isn’t a single process, nor is there automatic approval. Instead, there is a duplication of processes, overlaps, and unclear responsibilities.
The interval from the initial request (call of proposals) to the project’s complete funding can exceed eighteen months. This timeframe is extended by the need to adjust national or regional Operational Programmes to include STEP initiatives. Due to this cumbersome and time-consuming process, even the most promising project proposals risk getting bogged down in red tape before they can even begin.
Unlike Europe’s approach, significant competitor economies like the US and China have embraced more centralized and strategic approaches. The U.S. CHIPS Act, for instance, used straightforward processes and central management, facilitating swift private investments. Similarly, China utilizes targeted state support, focusing on strategic projects with a technological and geopolitical dimension. Conversely, the EU’s approach is fragmented, which wastes valuable time.
While communications have been made, access to STEP for small and medium-sized businesses is severely restricted. Unofficial remarks from interested parties suggest that the administrative and technical hurdles deter numerous SMEs from participating. STEP appears to mainly benefit organisations with prior experience in European programs, equipped with specialized personnel and the means for legal and technical assistance. In other words, it favors a select few.
Limited access to STEP pojects, exacerbates current regional economic and social disparities. Countries and regions with weak national or local innovation support systems are having difficulties in participating. Consequently, rather than fostering convergence through Cohesion Support Funds, STEP could widen the divide between established and emerging innovation ecosystems.
Initial assessments, though lacking by full quantitative data, are disappointing. The effectiveness of the STEP Seal grant is less than anticipated. The mechanism’s success is implicitly doubted, even by even by executives of the managing authorities themselves.
The most concerning aspect is that STEP, despite being presented as an innovation, mirrors the pathogenic traits of European bureaucracy: fragmentation, unclear responsibilities, conflicting rules, and a complex multi-layered system. It’s not surprising that over a dozen European Commission departments are involved. Its legal framework references at least eleven distinct regulations and directives. The STEP mechanism functions as a broad network, yet it lacks central management or organization. This lack of a clear political structure and loose architecture, undermines the instrument’s effectiveness.
What alternatives exist? There are good practices within the EU that can be used as strong examples. The EIC Accelerator, for instance, has built a largely consistent system for choosing and overseeing cutting-edge SMEs, gaining global recognition. Likewise, the InvestEU Platform has established a streamlined way ‘single entry point’ to access funding via the EIB and national banks. Combining procedures, implementing unified assessments, and building “one-stop-shop” digital platforms might be vital elements for a revamped STEP strategy.
In an environment where fierce tech rivalry worldwide is breathtaking, speed is crucial. Each month lost or even delayed means lost opportunities, less competitiveness, wasted investments. STEP, rather than speeding things up, slows them down. Rather than simplifying, it complicates. Instead of strengthening the single market, it reproduces its national and administrative wall boundaries.
If the European Union is to truly foster innovation, technological independence, and competitiveness, it must fundamentally rethink its financial mechanism design and execution. The solution isn’t just more guidelines, but a significant simplification of regulations, a streamlined evaluation process, and direct financial aid with a single point of contact for recipients.
STEP serves as a reminder that good intentions alone are not enough.
Ambitious visions must be matched by institutional clarity and operational effectiveness. Europe’s technological future hinges not on declarations, but on execution. In this decisive moment, what is needed is not only a common strategy, but also a collective self-awareness. We must dare to acknowledge the problems and respond with pragmatism. If the Union aims to lead globally, it must approach thinking, planning, and action with the same agility and determination that it requires of the very innovations it wants to finance. Otherwise, initiatives like the STEP platform will become another well-intended endeavor, trapped in the gears of European bureaucracy.
Konstantinos Kokkinoplitis is Founder and Director of Seven Sigma P.C. and RISE, and a former Secretary General for Research and Technology in Greece
https://www.linkedin.com/in/constantinos-kokkinoplitis-90a33158/