Is Europe a technology leader in connected, cooperative and automated mobility (CCAM)?
15th June 2026 at 3:00 pm
The CCAM Partnership already has a Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda and an established roadmap logic. Therefore, HORIZON-CL5-2026-10-D6-02 “Geopolitical competition and socioeconomic resilience in CCAM: an innovation and policy roadmap for EU leadership” should not be read as a call to reinvent the CCAM roadmap. But it asks for a thorough assessment and update of its underlying facts and assumptions in a rapidly changing world. It should provide the geopolitical, industrial and socioeconomic intelligence needed to understand whether Europe (still) has the capabilities, value chains, governance models and policy instruments to lead in CCAM technology amid intense global competition.
What this call is really asking for
A strong resilience analysis proposal should position CCAM as a European competitiveness issue linked to industrial strategy, technological sovereignty, public value and regional cohesion. The central question is not “what should the CCAM roadmap be?” but “what evidence does Europe need to protect and strengthen its CCAM leadership in a changing geopolitical and socioeconomic environment?” Consortia must show how projects will support existing European structures, including the CCAM Partnership, the European Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Alliance (ECAVA), the CCAM Technology Observatory and future policy discussions.
Pro Tip: A strong opening narrative should explicitly recognise the existing CCAM roadmap landscape. Then explain the project’s added value: stress-testing Europe’s leadership assumptions against geopolitical, industrial and socioeconomic realities.
Map Europe’s CCAM exposure with analytical precision
The call expects an assessment of Europe’s CCAM position in global competition. This includes strategic vulnerabilities, dependencies and opportunities across business models, supply chains, critical components, technological capabilities, infrastructure and regulatory frameworks. This is a demanding analytical task as it requires more than stakeholder interviews or a high-level SWOT analysis. Evaluators will expect a clear method for identifying where Europe is strong, where it is exposed and which dependencies could affect long-term deployment and competitiveness. A credible proposal should distinguish between different types of dependencies:
| Dependency type | Why it matters for CCAM leadership |
| Critical components | Sensors, semiconductors and computing hardware may affect industrial autonomy and scaling capacity |
| Software and AI capabilities | Automated driving depends on perception, decision-making, validation and software-defined vehicle architectures |
| Data and digital infrastructure | CCAM deployment requires trusted data spaces, connectivity, cloud-edge systems and interoperability |
| Validation and testing capacity | Europe needs credible approaches for safety assessment, simulation, real-world testing and certification |
| Standards and regulation | Leadership depends partly on shaping safety, liability, data governance and interoperability frameworks |
| Business models and investment | Deployment will not scale without viable services, investor confidence and routes for SMEs |
Pro Tip: Avoid treating all dependencies equally. Evaluators will expect prioritisation. Which vulnerabilities are most urgent, which are manageable and which require coordinated EU-level intervention?
Use scenarios to test strategic resilience
The call topic requires stakeholder-driven participatory future scenarios and strategic pathways. Its value lies in testing whether Europe’s CCAM ambitions remain credible under different global and economic conditions. Relevant scenarios could examine:
- diverging global safety and regulatory regimes
- intensified competition around AI, chips, software stacks and connected vehicle data
- faster CCAM deployment in non-European markets
- slower European uptake due to infrastructure gaps or fragmented governance
- stronger EU coordination through ECAVA, common standards and shared validation approaches
- uneven deployment between metropolitan, rural and cross-border regions
The proposal should show how scenario results will be used. Strong scenarios should inform policy choices, investment priorities, risk mitigation strategies and recommendations for future research and innovation.
Make Living Labs a validation mechanism
The call requires iterative validation through at least three dedicated Living Labs, representing diverse European regions, urbanisation levels and governance capacities. This requirement must be integrated into the methodology. Living Labs should be used to test whether the project’s findings hold under different territorial and institutional realities. A metropolitan region may highlight congestion, public transport integration, data governance and digital infrastructure readiness. A rural or peripheral region may expose transport poverty, affordability concerns and weaker market incentives. A cross-border setting may reveal interoperability, liability, certification and governance challenges.
Pro Tip: Do not present Living Labs as consultation formats only. They should be evidence-generating environments that improve the quality of the final CCAM resilience analysis.
Socioeconomic resilience must be central
The call explicitly asks for data-driven analysis of socioeconomic effects across Member States and Associated Countries, sectors and demographic groups. This includes employment, growth, equity and transport poverty. The methodology should explain how integrated economic-transport modelling will assess potential effects on productivity, income growth, regional convergence, employment patterns and mobility access. Applicants should address questions such as:
- Which sectors and occupations may be affected by CCAM deployment?
- Could automated mobility widen territorial inequalities if infrastructure readiness differs?
- How might CCAM affect transport poverty and access to essential services?
- Which business models support both competitiveness and affordability?
- What social innovation or governance measures could improve inclusive deployment?
This is also where Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) expertise needs to shape the project design. SSH should not be limited to stakeholder engagement, acceptance or communication. It should inform the modelling framework, scenario design, Living Lab validation and policy recommendations.
Translate evidence into policy and investment guidance
The call title includes an “innovation and policy roadmap for EU leadership”. Hence, every project must deliver evidence-based guidance to support existing and future CCAM policy, investment and coordination processes. Useful outputs may include an assessment of Europe’s CCAM dependencies and vulnerabilities, policy options to reduce external dependencies and strengthen resilience, and socioeconomic resilience measures for affected regions, sectors and user groups. The proposal should also clarify how it will contribute to CCAM Partnership monitoring, including Key Performance Indicators, and apply the European Common Evaluation Methodology where relevant.
Pro Tip: Define the main outputs by user group. Policymakers, industry, investors, SMEs and regional authorities need different forms of evidence. Showing this distinction can make the impact pathway more credible.
Have you decided to apply and are you looking for proposal preparation support?
accelopment supports European consortia in transport, digitalisation, AI-enabled systems, industrial innovation and policy-relevant impact strategies. Particularly relevant examples include ROADVIEW, which contributes to the CCAM Partnership through resilient automated mobility technologies. For a call such as HORIZON-CL5-2026-10-D6-02, proposal success depends on strategic positioning, an accurate reading of the call’s purpose, a credible analytical methodology and a clear route from evidence to impact. accelopment supports consortia from concept refinement and partner alignment to proposal writing, impact strategy, submission preparation and project implementation.
Andreia Cruz
Research & Innovation Project Manager
Dr. Johannes Ripperger
Research & Innovation Manager