Communication in Horizon Europe: A Complete Guide to Building Visibility, Trust, and Impact

Introduction — Why Communication Has Become the First Pillar of Impact in Horizon Europe

In Horizon Europe, communication is more than an accessory activity or a decorative layer applied once the scientific work is complete. It is a structural component of the programme’s philosophy. The European Commission no longer sees research as a silo that delivers knowledge solely to experts. It expects projects to engage with society, to show their relevance, and to translate scientific efforts into public understanding. Communication is therefore not a matter of promotion; it is a matter of public accountability, transparency, and trust.

This evolution reflects a deeper shift in European research policy. Public funding must lead to public value, and public value begins with visibility. The Commission wants citizens to understand what their money supports; journalists to access accurate, contextualised information; policymakers to recognise the relevance of research activities; and young people to see science as an approachable, human endeavour. Communication brings all these dimensions together by turning complex research projects into stories, messages, and insights that non-specialists can grasp. It is the foundation upon which dissemination and exploitation later build. Without communication, results remain invisible, misunderstood, or disconnected from the broader social landscape.

This comprehensive guide, built from nineteen specialised articles, offers a deep exploration of how communication functions in Horizon Europe: how it defines project identity, manages audiences, interacts with dissemination and exploitation, supports compliance, aligns with Open Science, manages crises, leverages EU networks, and sustains visibility long after funding ends. It aims to provide coordinators, communication leaders, and Horizon Europe beneficiaries with a complete, authoritative reference for mastering communication as a strategic lever of impact.

Communication in Horizon Europe is often misunderstood because it gathers under a single term a wide range of practices: websites, press releases, social media posts, videos, infographics, events, newsletters, podcasts, interviews, and more. But communication is not defined by tools. It is defined by its purpose. It exists to make the project visible, understandable, and relevant to audiences who are not experts in the scientific field.

In this sense, communication is distinct from dissemination, which shares results with people who can use them professionally, and from exploitation, which focuses on turning results into concrete benefits. Communication introduces the project to society. It explains why the project exists, what challenge it addresses, and how it contributes to European priorities. It brings forward the people behind the research, the communities it serves, and the value it aspires to generate. It transforms a technical endeavour into a collective story.

Communication begins on the first day of the project. The Grant Agreement explicitly requires beneficiaries to promote the action from the moment work starts. This early visibility helps establish trust and transparency, makes it easier to engage communities later on, and signals to the Commission that the consortium is active, organised, and aligned with Horizon Europe’s expectations. It also offers a narrative structure that will benefit dissemination and exploitation once results emerge.

Although this pillar article focuses on communication, understanding the boundaries between communication, dissemination, and exploitation is essential to avoid confusion and to design a coherent strategy. The three concepts share a common goal — to generate impact — but they operate at different levels.

Communication speaks to broad audiences. It tells the story of the project, describes its aims, frames its relevance, and presents progress in accessible language. It is public-facing, narrative, inclusive, and continuous.

Dissemination addresses specialists. It shares results, data, methodologies, and insights with communities who can use them — researchers, industry actors, regulators, standardisation bodies, and policymakers. It follows scientific or professional conventions and must respect IP constraints.

Exploitation, finally, is about use. It ensures that results live on after the project by integrating them into products, services, policies, education, or further research. It focuses on continuity, uptake, and long-term value.

Communication does not dilute science; dissemination does not replace narrative; exploitation does not happen without visibility. But conflating them weakens all three. A project that communicates without disseminating offers noise without substance. A project that disseminates without communicating becomes invisible beyond its niche. Understanding the distinctions equips consortia with a framework to align messages, audiences, timing, and impact.

A strong communication strategy emerges not from a list of tools, but from a deliberate conceptual process. It begins with a fundamental question: what story does this project tell, to whom, and why? Before choosing a single channel, the consortium must understand its audiences. Horizon Europe communication is not aimed at a diffuse “general public” but at groups who differ in knowledge, interests, expectations, and motivations. A journalist does not think like a student. A local authority does not respond like a citizen engaged in science outreach. Teachers, NGOs, regional clusters, SMEs, and civil-society organisations all read the project through different lenses.

Understanding these audiences allows the project to define messages that resonate. Messages must be precise, consistent, and meaningful. They cannot rely on internal jargon or refer implicitly to deliverables and work packages. The communication narrative must translate scientific intentions into societal relevance. It must articulate the challenge the project addresses, the innovation it pursues, and the value it hopes to create. Communication is ultimately an act of translation — translating expertise into meaning, uncertainty into opportunity, and complexity into clarity.

A communication strategy must also consider time. A project that only communicates at the beginning and end appears silent for years. Regularity matters. A steady rhythm of updates — even small ones — signals progress, builds anticipation, and allows the project to create a living presence in the public sphere. This rhythm can support other activities: each scientific milestone becomes an opportunity to create an accessible narrative; each event becomes a source of interviews, recordings, or visual material.

Finally, the strategy must integrate compliance, including the use of the EU emblem and funding statement, adherence to accessibility standards, and respect for pre-notification rules whenever results intersect with intellectual property or partner interests. Coherence between narrative strategy and legal obligations demonstrates maturity and professionalism.

Visual identity is one of the most underestimated assets of a Horizon Europe project. It is not merely decorative. It is the first layer of recognition, the anchor of narrative consistency, and a major component of communication compliance. A well-designed visual identity makes it possible for audiences to understand, at a glance, that a piece of content belongs to the project. It enhances trust by showing organisation, coherence, and care.

A visual identity includes the logo, colour palette, typography, iconography, and templates for presentations, posters, brochures, infographics, and videos. Every public-facing output should use these elements. But visual identity must also obey a strict legal requirement: the correct use of the European emblem and the mandatory funding disclaimer. Non-compliance is one of the most frequent reasons a Project Officer asks for corrections during reporting. A robust visual identity kit therefore includes versions of the EU emblem, guidance on placement, and templates that already integrate the disclaimer.

Visual identity is not branding in the commercial sense. It is a means of clarity. It helps the public navigate content, strengthens the project’s presence in the European research landscape, and ensures that each partner communicates with one voice.

One of the most powerful tools of Horizon Europe communication is storytelling. Contrary to common belief, storytelling is not a technique for embellishing science or creating artificial narratives. It is the discipline of structuring information in a way that is intelligible to non-specialists. It allows the project to articulate not only what it does but why it matters. It introduces characters — scientists, users, communities — and frames the work within broader societal challenges. It invites readers to care.

Storytelling in a research project balances accuracy with accessibility. It avoids exaggeration but also avoids drowning audiences in technical detail. It contextualises findings by linking them to real-world needs, European policy priorities, or societal trends. It embraces metaphors, examples, and narrative arcs that guide readers from problem to solution.

A good story does not simplify the science; it clarifies it. It respects scientific nuance while making it comprehensible. It also humanises the project by showing the faces, motivations, and aspirations of the people behind the research. This helps build emotional connection — an essential ingredient in public engagement.

Communication in Horizon Europe carries ethical responsibilities. Because projects are publicly funded, they must be accessible to all citizens, including those with sensory, cognitive, linguistic, cultural, or technological barriers. Accessibility is not a technical detail. It is a core requirement. Websites must follow accessibility guidelines. Videos should include subtitles. Images must be described through alt text. Documents should use contrasts and fonts readable by people with visual impairments.

Inclusion also extends to content. Communication should avoid stereotypes, represent diverse communities, and recognise the variety of audiences who may encounter the project. The tone must be respectful, the language clear, and the representation broad. Communication that excludes or ignores certain groups weakens its own impact.

Ethics plays a final role in ensuring that communication remains accurate, responsible, and respectful of privacy. When research involves human participants, data, or sensitive subjects, communication must be carefully reviewed. It should avoid disclosing personal details, avoid sensationalism, and remain faithful to scientific evidence. Mistakes in this area can compromise trust and raise serious compliance concerns.

Journalists play a crucial role in Horizon Europe communication. They are intermediaries between scientific work and the wider public. But media work follows its own logic: deadlines are short, angles must be clear, and information must be accessible.

Engaging effectively with the media requires preparing clear messages, anticipating questions, and providing relevant context. Press releases should be concise and framed around societal impact rather than technical detail. They should include quotes, visuals, and contact information. They should aim to answer the journalist’s implicit question: “Why should my readers care?”

Media engagement also requires honesty about uncertainty. Preliminary results should never be presented as definitive breakthroughs. Horizon Europe communication must avoid hype and remain grounded in evidence. Transparency builds credibility. A well-informed journalist can become an ally throughout the project, amplifying results at key moments.

Events are among the most visible forms of communication. Workshops, webinars, citizens’ dialogues, science festivals, demonstration days, and final conferences create moments where the project becomes tangible. Events allow researchers to meet audiences, answer questions, gather feedback, and showcase prototypes or insights. They also generate content — photos, testimonials, interviews, videos — that feeds the communication ecosystem for months.

An effective event requires careful design. The programme must flow logically, speakers must be prepared, and messages must be aligned. Visual identity must be present. The event must be documented thoroughly so that its impact can be reported later. Above all, an event should have a purpose. It should bring value to participants, not simply satisfy a deliverable. A well-executed event strengthens credibility, visibility, and engagement.

Every project faces challenges. Experiments fail, delays occur, disagreements emerge, or unexpected external events cast a shadow on the work. A crisis does not necessarily damage a project — but a poor communication response almost always does.

Crisis communication in Horizon Europe is built on four principles: speed, accuracy, transparency, and empathy. The consortium must quickly gather the facts, determine what can be said, and communicate with clarity. Silence creates suspicion. Over-reassurance creates distrust. A crisis response should acknowledge uncertainties, explain what is known, describe what actions are being taken, and avoid placing blame prematurely.

Crises are not solely technical. They can emerge from ethical concerns, partner conflicts, misinterpreted results, or negative media coverage. A good crisis communication plan anticipates these risks and assigns clear responsibilities. When communication is handled responsibly, a crisis can even strengthen the project’s credibility by demonstrating professionalism and integrity.

Communication is not only strategic; it is contractual. Article 17 of the Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement specifies that beneficiaries must promote the action and its results through targeted communication activities. The EU emblem must appear on all public materials, accompanied by the mandatory funding disclaimer. Content must respect accessibility rules. Partners must be notified before results are disseminated, typically with at least fifteen days’ notice, so that potential intellectual property claims or legitimate interests can be safeguarded.

Compliance is not decorative; it is fundamental. The Commission may request corrections, withhold approvals, or question deliverables if communication does not meet legal requirements. A clear internal workflow — where partners validate materials, check IP constraints, and ensure visibility rules are applied — prevents mistakes and supports smooth reporting.

Horizon Europe has shifted from activity-based reporting to impact-based reporting. It is no longer sufficient to state that a website was built or that social media posts were published. The Commission expects evidence that communication has reached people, generated engagement, influenced understanding, or supported dissemination and exploitation.

Evaluating communication involves collecting metrics, interpreting them, and explaining what they mean. A spike in website traffic must be contextualised. A successful event must be linked to participant feedback. A media appearance must be analysed in terms of reach and tone. Communication impact is not a matter of quantity alone but of narrative coherence: what changed because of the effort, and how does it support the project’s objectives?

A continuous impact log — maintained throughout the project — simplifies reporting and provides a valuable historical record. Evaluation is not a policing mechanism. It is a learning process that helps the consortium refine its strategy.

One of Horizon Europe’s lesser-known rules is that exploitation obligations extend up to four years after the project closes. Communication therefore continues beyond the final review. Websites may need to remain accessible; key results must be uploaded to the Horizon Results Platform; occasional updates may be required to maintain visibility and support uptake.

Post-project communication is lighter, but it is still strategic. It ensures that results do not vanish once funding ends. It also strengthens institutional reputation, which benefits partners in future proposals. A quiet project appears unfinished. A project that communicates its legacy demonstrates maturity.

Communication in Horizon Europe is more than a requirement. It is an expression of the programme’s purpose: to ensure that research supported by public funds benefits society not only through results but through visibility, clarity, and trust. Communication humanises science, strengthens democracy, encourages engagement, and opens pathways to impact. It sets the stage for dissemination and exploitation by building awareness, curiosity, and recognition.

A project that communicates well becomes more than a scientific endeavour. It becomes part of the public conversation. It becomes a story that citizens can understand, policymakers can act upon, journalists can amplify, students can be inspired by, and stakeholders can engage with. Communication transforms a project from a technical undertaking into a visible contribution to Europe’s collective future.

Mastering communication means mastering the first step toward impact. It means treating visibility not as an obligation but as an opportunity. Above all, it means recognising that science is not complete until it is shared — clearly, responsibly, and meaningfully — with the society that makes it possible.