Research and innovation (R&I) foresight in Europe is no longer a niche methodological practice. It is increasingly recognised as a governance capability for navigating polycrises and rapid technological change. Yet it remains unevenly institutionalised and therefore strategically underused. The revised Eye of Europe report, Showcasing Perspectives: A Stocktaking of R&I Foresight Practices in Europe, argues that the value of foresight depends less on the number of activities conducted than on mandates, timing, institutional anchoring and the conditions that enable uptake.
The report, drafted by the DLR Project Management Agency (DLR-PT) is based on a mixed-methods design combining desk research, an online survey, and qualitative interviews. It identifies 181 organisations involved in R&I foresight and analyses a portfolio of 69 recent projects submitted by 51 organisations from 21 European Research Area (ERA) countries. Taken together, these cases show how foresight is applied at the intersection of science, innovation and policy. This includes agenda-setting at national and regional levels, addressing mission-oriented challenges such as climate change and health, and anticipating the impact of digitalisation and emerging technologies. This demonstrates that foresight is already being applied in situations involving both high levels of uncertainty and significant political implications.
A central finding concerns a governance gap in the way foresight is used. In some contexts, foresight is supported by institutional routines and longstanding project experiences. In others, however, it remains disconnected from budget cycles, regulatory windows, and key decision points. This results in ad hoc exercises, which lower their impact. foresight generates policy value when it is embedded in governance cycles where decisions are taken and backed by clear administrative or political mandates. When senior decision-makers are engaged from the outset and remain committed, foresight can inform strategies, influence funding priorities and contribute to formal policy instruments. However, when it is poorly timed or treated as a standalone initiative (as it is in the case of some of the 69 cases), it tends to remain advisory rather than impactful.
Process and participation matter
This is also why the study considers the foresight process itself to be significant. Across the 69 cases, co-creation and participatory engagement generated long-lasting benefits, such as trust-building and enhanced futures literacy, which often outlast the written output such as yet another foresight report. These learning effects strengthen anticipatory capacity by shaping how institutions interpret signals, assess risk and negotiate trade-offs in uncertain conditions. Furthermore, the report indicates that the participation of decision makers is associated with higher uptake than expert-only approaches.
The report also identifies structural weaknesses that limit the political legitimacy of foresight, and consequently its strategic impact. Participation patterns remain strongly centred on experts and the political administration: scientists and experts, as well as public bodies, are involved in the vast majority of projects (93% and 90%, respectively), while citizens and business representatives are integrated less systematically (30% and 40%, respectively). This choice of participants influences which futures are considered plausible and which risks are prioritised. For mission-oriented and transformative R&I agendas, where implementation depends on social acceptance and behavioural change, broader participation is not simply a box-ticking exercise but appears to be an important condition for the development of robust policies that are socially acceptable.
Methodologically, the report highlights a continued focus on exploratory tools. Scenarios, trend analysis and horizon scanning dominate (64%, 52% and 48% respectively), while methods that connect more directly to implementation and robustness, such as policy stress-testing (7%), backcasting (20%) and futures literacy formats (10%), remain underused. This has both technical and political implications. While the prevailing method mix supports exploration, it often fails to translate long-term insight into robust decision-making under short-term political incentives, budget constraints and organisational routines. In this context, broadening the methodological repertoire is about strengthening the capacity of institutions to connect long-term perspectives to actionable pathways that can withstand electoral, administrative, and fiscal pressures.
When it comes to communicating results, the study highlights a tendency to rely too heavily on written outputs, which can restrict visibility and sustained engagement. In contrast, more immersive, visual or experiential formats can extend interaction beyond the immediate project cycle. This determines whether foresight is perceived as just another report in the bookshelf or as an active reference point in debates on public policy.
Capacity was identified as the overarching constraint in the assessed cases. Almost all respondents (96%) identified capacity-building needs relating to methods, facilitation, data analysis, communication, policy translation and staffing. When foresight is added to existing roles as an additional task, continuity and quality tend to deteriorate and institutionalisation stalls. Therefore, the synthesis treats capacity building as a prerequisite for transitioning from project-based experimentation to routine governance functions embedded in organisational practice and decision-making cycles.
Looking ahead, the report identifies emerging practices of political significance. AI-supported horizon scanning and data-driven anticipation offer greater speed and scope, while experiential and speculative formats increase engagement and deliberation. At the same time, the report emphasises the need for critical reflection on transparency and bias. It highlights a growing focus on representation (including future generations and nature), debiasing techniques, and human-centred, sustainability-oriented futures. These developments signal a shift away from technology- or growth-centred narratives, towards approaches that more explicitly address values, legitimacy and intergenerational justice as these issues are gaining importance in European debates on the direction of R&I policy.
The findings raise a broader question for the European foresight community: what would it take for foresight to move from project-based experimentation to a routine governance capability across Europe? Addressing this question requires attention not only to methods, but to mandates, institutional design, participation and capacity. How these elements are strengthened will shape the role foresight can play in guiding Europe’s R&I policy in the years ahead.
For more information, please contact the author, Simon Winter, at Simon.Winter@dlr.de.
