In July 2025, the European Commission presented its proposal for the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, FP10. Once again, gender equality is legally framed as a core priority of the EU’s research agenda and reaffirmed as a broad guiding principle.
Yet how this commitment will be monitored and measured will depend not only on FP10 itself but also on the wider budgetary rules and tools shaping EU spending. These include the budget expenditure tracking and performance framework, which monitors horizontal priorities across the EU budget – including gender equality.
As our recent paper highlights, significant progress has been made on gender equality under Horizon Europe, thanks in part to the introduction of mandatory Gender Equality Plans (GEPs).
However, the proposed FP10 Regulation contains a striking omission – GEPs aren’t explicitly mentioned in the main document, despite being one of the EU’s most tangible instruments for driving structural change in research and innovation institutions. This doesn’t mean that GEPs won’t be mandatory again but their absence from the main legal text is politically concerning – because what’s left unmentioned becomes easier to weaken, overlook and harder to defend.
Our research shows that the progress made under Horizon Europe needs to be not only preserved but strengthened, by reinforcing GEPs and upgrading gender expenditure tracking into a more robust tool.
If this happens in the name of simplification, great, but it mustn’t come at the expense of gender equality, turning hard-won achievements into little more than box-ticking exercises.
Going beyond box-ticking
Under Horizon Europe, GEPs aren’t optional add-ons in research policy but have been mandatory for all public institutions since 2022. The Commission has made them a condition for participating, recognising them as concrete policy instruments designed to transform organisational cultures, structures and decision-making processes.
Their purpose isn’t symbolic – they’re designed to confront entrenched gender imbalances, close persistent pay gaps, ensure women have a seat at decision-making tables, integrate the gender dimension into research content, and tackle gender-based violence within institutions.
And there’s already some good, clear evidence of their positive impact.
Horizon Europe is also subject to a structural gender mainstreaming mechanism that receives far less public attention, the gender budget tracking tool. At first glance it sounds technical, even overly bureaucratic.
In practice, it’s an accountability instrument, using a four-point scale (0*, 0, 1 and 2) to assess how policies and funding contribute to gender equality, from initiatives whose main objective is gender equality to measures with no expected impact, or whose contribution cannot yet be determined. Crucially, the system is cautious and realistic. It recognises that gender’s meaningful integration cannot always be assessed at the proposal stage and that real impact often becomes visible only once a project begins to unfold.
Under the proposed Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the EU would introduce a simplified mechanism, removing the 0* category entirely in the name of promoting stronger gender integration and refining budget assessments. While this may create the illusion of clearer and stronger gender mainstreaming, in practice it risks hiding uncertainty by forcing programmes into a simplistic yes-or-no classification, rather than acknowledging where the gender impact remains unclear or insufficiently assessed. In research programmes, where gender impacts are often indirect or emerge over time, this risks oversimplifying how gender equality is assessed in research funding.
This could dilute the EU’s existing architecture due to the pursuit of administrative simplicity, while creating the impression that gender mainstreaming in research content is being strengthened.
All this sends the wrong signal – that gender equality is negotiable rather than foundational. As it stands, the system merely tracks intervention.
What it should do instead is evolve towards real gender budgeting, ‘an application of gender mainstreaming in the budgetary process’ which ‘involves conducting a gender-based assessment of budgets, incorporating a gender perspective at all levels of the budgetary process, and restructuring revenues and expenditures to promote gender equality’.
Turning gender equality into a binding priority
There’s still time to strengthen FP10 in a way that truly supports gender equality. But this cannot be achieved through vague principles alone, especially if binding commitments are left unnamed.
The Commission’s proposed gender expenditure tracking tool is again a step in the right direction, but it risks becoming yet another layer of paperwork if it’s not backed by clear rules, shared guidelines and real accountability for gender equality. The proposal should move beyond mere gender tracking towards genuine gender budgeting, setting clear targets and metrics, and making the collection and reporting of gender-disaggregated data mandatory and standardised across programmes. Only then can gender equality meaningfully shape priorities, funding allocations and accountability from the outset.
But tracking alone isn’t enough. Structural change also requires institutional commitments. And that’s why GEPs must be explicitly anchored in the FP10 Regulation, because they do far more than merely ticking a compliance box. They incorporate gender mainstreaming into the very fabric of organisational culture, far beyond the research sphere.
That’s why the EU should go further and extend the GEP requirement to all participating legal entities in FP10, including those from non-associated third countries. Through Horizon Europe, the EU is wielding significant influence in shaping standards and inspiring national policies well beyond its borders.
Broadening this requirement isn’t only about geography – it should also move beyond gender mainstreaming, with GEPs incorporating an explicit intersectional approach, thus recognising how gender inequalities intersect with other forms of discrimination. In this way, the EU can preserve progress and generate a positive ripple effect for gender equality globally.
The strength of Horizon Europe’s approach lies precisely in these structural mechanisms. They embed gender equality systematically into research governance and funding, but they should be made stronger by making interventions and impacts more measurable, traceable, and accountable.
In an era where gender issues are increasingly being sidelined or politicised, structural instruments that have been effective in promoting gender equality cannot afford to be diluted or omitted. Going into FP10, they need to be reinforced and strengthened.
To read the full report that this commentary is based on, click here.
For the fourth year in a row, CEPS is once again proud to mark International Women’s Day on 8 March with another short series of Expert Commentaries to showcase the insights and expertise of some of our most talented female researchers.
