The Knowledge of our Civilizations in 2040 — a foresight workshop hosted by the Foresight Team of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI — took place on 20–21 November 2025 at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, as part of the project Eye of Europe.

At the heart of the two-day workshop was the open question of how future civilizations might define, create, harness,
value, share, embed and apply knowledge. The workshop’s aim was to explore both conceivable and desirable alternative
futures for the knowledge of our civilization in Europe by the year 2040 by letting participants explore the theme of the
knowledge of our civilization through a facilitated process consisting of three main stages.

Across four working groups, participants started off by identifying different key domains of trouble in the current state of knowledge, with the notion of trouble being interpreted in a positive way as an area of investigation and exploration where things are in deep flux.

To delve into these areas of trouble, participants then applied the Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) framework twice: first, to critically examine the present by unpacking common narratives, systemic structures, shared worldviews and deep cultural metaphors; and then again, in a creative turn, to imagine desirable alternative futures. This second phase involved reconstructing alternative metaphors, beliefs, and systemic designs, eventually boiling down to a transformed litany.

The workshop set out to explore how future civilizations might define, create, value, and apply knowledge in 2040. Across four “troubles of knowledge,” participants showed that debates about knowledge are never purely technical but deeply political, ethical and cultural. The discussions revealed that today’s knowledge regimes are under pressure, making transformation both necessary and imaginable.

A first major theme concerned power and hierarchy. Many groups described current knowledge systems as exclusionary, dominated by majority viewpoints, elite institutions, economic logics and narrow validation mechanisms. Knowledge was seen as concentrated in authorities, shaped by growth paradigms and entangled with private or geopolitical interests. Declining trust and ideological polarization further destabilize what counts as shared truth. The central question recurring across groups was: Who defines knowledge, and for whom?

A second controversy focused on the purpose of knowledge. Is it primarily a tool for efficiency and competition, or a foundation for collective well‑being and long‑term responsibility? Several groups criticized current reward systems, the reduction of humans to “resources” and the dominance of problem‑solving logic over ethical and relational dimensions. The tension lies between knowledge as power and knowledge as care.

In the reconstruction phase, however, a shared horizon of hope emerged. Knowledge in 2040 was reimagined as relational, processual and co-created. Groups used metaphors such as mycelium networks, symphonies, assemblies, rivers and verbs to describe knowledge as something circulating, regenerative and sustained through relationships. Uncertainty, discomfort and failure were reframed as essential to meaningful knowledge creation.

Participants also envisioned new valuation systems: rewarding intrinsic motivation, collective achievement and planetary well‑being rather than market success. Ideas ranged from re‑commoning knowledge and revising metrics of excellence to fostering transdisciplinarity, citizen participation and relational education.

While the groups differed in where they anchored transformation - epistemic critique, moral renewal, valuation systems or institutional reform - they converged on a broader reorientation: from knowledge as possession to knowledge as relationship; from authority to dialogue; from scarcity to regenerative abundance.

Ultimately, the knowledge of our civilization in 2040 is imagined as being less about mastering complexity than about inhabiting it responsibly. It emphasizes shared meaning over information production and stewardship over competition. Whether such a transformation unfolds will depend not only on institutional reforms, but on the metaphors that guide our imagination. As the workshop demonstrated, changing how we speak about knowledge may be one of the most powerful steps toward changing how we imagine and eventually live it.

The Knowledge of our Civilizations in 2040 — a foresight workshop hosted by the Foresight Team of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI — took place on 20–21 November 2025 at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

The workshop brought together 28 people from a wide range of academic disciplines as well as artists and futurists from across Europe.

At the heart of the workshop was the open question of how future civilizations might define, create, harness, value, share, embed and apply knowledge. Our aim was to explore both conceivable and desirable alternative futures for the knowledge of our civilization in Europe by the year 2040.

Europe’s Research and Innovation (R&I) system is entering a period of profound change. Demographic decline, rapid technological shifts, and constrained funding are beginning to alter student intake, the graduate pipeline, and research career prospects. By 2050, Europe’s population structure will look markedly different:

• The share of people aged 85+ will more than double, reaching around 10% of the population.
• The workforce is expected to shrink by 12%—equivalent to roughly 25 million people.
• The EU will have over 3 million fewer young people under 20, reducing the talent pool entering education and research.

These shifts raise fundamental questions for the future of Europe’s R&I landscape. To address them, DG Research & Innovation commmissioned a study “The Demographic Turn: Actions Needed for Research, Innovation and Policy in Europe”, which explores possible futures for Europe's R&I system and highlights how demographic pressure could become a driver of renewal and transformation. 

The study delivers:

• Background data showing a shrinking youth population, a declining workforce, and growing fiscal pressures on R&I funding.
• A six-step foresight approach combining horizon scanning, scenario-building, and windtunneling to anticipate future challenges.
• Four Scenarios illustrating different pathways for Europe’s R&I system.
• Strategic actions to protect fundamental research, enable lifelong learning, strengthen regional innovation, and build societal trust in technology
  

This policy brief provides insights into the thematic areas addressed in the first five Eye of Europe workshops. It also informs about the upcoming workshops and the futures4europe platform, the online home of the European foresight community, where visitors can explore a rich collection of foresight projects, showcase their work, and discover foresight-related upcoming events.

The increase of geopolitical tensions gives rise to several uncertainties for scientific communities and their respective research. On the one hand, the sciences have a role to play in keeping up peaceful cooperation between national or regional rivals (science diplomacy). On the other hand, questions of dual use and research security become ever more relevant across fields as both hot and cold conflicts emerge.

 
The Futures of Science and Conflict workshop (March 27th, 2025, 10:00-13:00 CET) will gather experts from multiple fields to share and discuss the factors, trends, and topics that will shape the future role of scientists, their research, and their working relationships in times of increased geopolitical tensions and conflict. During the workshop, participants will co-create scenarios outlining the challenges and opportunities presented by uncertain futures. This workshop is organised through the Eye of Europe project – a Horizon Europe funded CSA initiative. 

The workshop will undertake the following activities
• Influencing Factor Assessment Survey (pre-workshop, ~15 min.)
• Discussion of Factor Assessment
• Co-production of Scenarios
• Discussion of challenges, opportunities, and implications for research and innovation ecosystems

Welcome to the second issue of Horizon Futures Watch, bringing you a fresh batch of articles revolving around the latest foresight developments in Horizon projects and beyond. Two new themes are treated in this issue: Tackling security concerns and the future of Science for Policy. 

The ‘Tackling security concerns’ section goes beyond the scope of the Futures4Europe platform foresight project on the ‘interpenetration of criminal and lawful activities’ and explores new needs that arise for fighting crime and countering hybrid threats as a result of rapid technological developments. 

The Science for Policy theme explores novel approaches taken to support the democratic process through evidence-based methods for policymaking.  

We open this issue with an up-to-date selection of news on foresight projects and publications. The Foresight in the Field section presents the application of foresight in EUROPOL’s European Innovation Lab to support law enforcement agencies around the EU.

FCT, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management and the European Commission (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation) promoted, on December 5, a workshop with the active participation of representatives from all sectors of the National Research and Innovation System (R&I), and representatives of European states participating in this MLE-Mutual Learning Exercise, in order to discuss and agree on possible guidelines and joint work with a view to an institutionalization of capabilities and the creation of foresight communities in this system.

The following day, December 6th, FCT hosted the meeting of this network that has, besides Portugal, representatives from Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Norway, Romania and Slovenia.   

Foresight on Demand (FOD) is a rapid foresight response mechanism organised in a framework contract, and aims at providing quick forward-looking inputs to policymaking by leveraging the best available foresight knowledge. It addresses the growing need for quicker and more responsive foresight to inform policymaking in an increasingly turbulent environment.

Representatives of all twenty FOD partner organisations and representatives of different client authorities met in person during a lunch-to-lunch meeting in Brussels taking place at IDEA consult premises from October 10 to October 11, 2024.

47 people participated in the meeting that focussed on getting to know all FOD partners, especially the new partner organisations of FOD II, gaining insights on expectations of client authorities, as well as on updating the FOD consortium on ongoing and upcoming requests and discussing the FOD service provision processes. The meeting offered the opportunity to exchange in group discussions, during the FOD partner art gallery, where partners presented their organisations and services through art pieces and creative work, and informally during lunch, coffee and at the social dinner.

The meeting revealed inspiring insights on lessons learned during FOD I (2019-2023), on promoting the FOD framework for potential projects, as well as on emerging topics potentially relevant to the current FOD II (2024-2028) period.

The third Horizon Futures Watch Workshop on the Future of Science for Policy in Europe took place on 28th June 2023. 

The workshop began with a presentation by members of the Foresight on Demand Consortium, aiming to explore the future of science for policy and more specifically knowledge exchange processes between knowledge actors and policymakers, with the intention to produce scientifically informed policy in Europe. The presentation outlined scenarios rooted in developments, trends, and drivers that are currently underway providing a glimpse into potential characteristics that might define the landscape in the 2030s. The scenarios were developed around two key dimensions for the governance of science: the extent to which government directs science and the extent of stakeholder engagement in the shaping of scientific agendas. Drawing from previously identified trends such as Citizen Science, Open Science, Mission-driven research and innovation, and data-driven policy, the team identified five scenario narratives as shown below.

All scenarios, departed from trends already identified within the European R&I system and opened the floor for in-depth discussions concerning the future Science for Policy and policy governance. The discussion that ensued between the speakers and the workshop participants raised points about the future of science for policy and the potential evolution of current R&I policy: 

Foresight and Science for Policy: Certain scenarios speculated that Foresight will not, in the future, be practiced as it was before – as a response to crises – but will be integrated in political agenda setting for R&I. This could render traditional Science for Policy redundant, as it could become an intrinsic element of policy initiatives. In this setting, scientific advice would be co-created through diverse frameworks rather than coming from a single institutionalized source. 

Mapping Scenarios: During the discussions, the intricate nature of European R&I systems was highlighted. Participants proposed that Member States be encouraged to undertake similar scenario-building exercises, which can have the benefit of drawing all relevant stakeholders around the table. This approach could enable the creation of viable roadmaps based on these scenarios and assess the alignment of these streams with National and European initiatives.

Addressing Systemic Failures in Science and Democracy: The discussion also touched upon the democratization of scientific processes leading to considerations about cultivating openness and transparency and encouraging the multidisciplinary nature and the involvement of actors beyond just the scientific realm. Bio Agora, for example, which aims to develop the Science Service for European Research and Biodiversity Policy Making, actively contributes to breaking the silo thinking in science, society and policy, and showcased its approach in a subsequent presentation. Similarly, the PHIRI project (Population Health and Research Infrastructure, PHIRI) presented its approach for best gathering available evidence for research on health and well-being of populations impacted by Covid-19. Through the input gathered from various stakeholders in different member states, PHIRI showcased how they adopted a multi-stakeholder approach to develop scenarios that are insightful for understanding the challenges for public health in the short and long term using the expertise of people from diverse backgrounds. 

Indeed, audience feedback suggested broadening the scope of the prospective analysis conducted on the Future of Science for Policy. This expansion could encompass the involvement and contributions of stakeholders in policy governance who extend beyond the scientific community. This approach aims to achieve a more comprehensive and systemic understanding of the subject matter. 

The project presentations further led to insightful conversations on the strategic significance of Foresight and collaborative governance methods as valuable aspects for addressing deliberative issues, including:

• The concept of Temporality: While it is essential to strive for a better understanding of the future, equal emphasis should be placed on comprehending the present. As Henk Hilderink, Public Health Foresight Expert at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) said: "If we wait until we understand what the present is, then we are never going to look at the future”.
• Collaborative governance methods: Discussions revolved around identifying the appropriate Collaborative Governance Practices. This entails a keen focus on leveraging Emerging Technologies to facilitate methods conducive to achieving collaborative multilevel governance.

In this brief, we explore practices and processes by which information should be exchanged between knowledge actors and policy-makers with the intention to produce scientifically informed policies in Europe. We can see an increasing prominence of science in many public debates and the increasing willingness of governments to mobilize scientific and other advice mechanisms in the context of public debate.

The aim of science for policy is to produce actionable science, however, the level of control over those producing the knowledge and their responsibility for the consequences of the action is a matter of important societal dispute. Debates and interactions in the political and public space encompass interest-driven channels of communication, including scientific advice but also lay knowledge.

Therefore, science for policy needs to integrate knowledge from different sources and this requires building connections and relationships between actors from different scientific disciplines and across public administrations, affecting both the nature of science and the nature of policy-making. Science for policy may face adjustments in its modes of operation and its formats of interaction, which – at times – may well be at odds with the dominant empirical-analytical perception of science.

We make a deep dive into developments which are currently underway in the realm of research and innovation policy, and which can take us to different futures, including events largely unpredictable and decisions bound by constraints of diverse nature. We identify possible policy implications based on five scenarios of the future (in 2030), which highlight different types of science for policy ecosystems:

• Scenario A on societal-challenge-driven and mission-oriented research and policy provides the context for advice mechanisms to policy. Such a context can be amenable for scientific advice but it also entails risks for science.
• Scenario B on participatory science and policy support ‘under construction’ opens up the discussion on broadening the sources of evidence; why and how to include new types of actors beyond the ‘usual suspects’ (well-connected experts). This has implications for how to promote science and develop the policy support system. 
• Scenario C on data enthusiasm and AI overtaking scientific policy advice illustrates the role of data, AI and international governance challenges and it alarms about over-reliance on multinational data providers, which may lead to a loss of transparency, autonomy and (normative) reflection in scientific advice. We should ask whether technology can be neutral, and whether scientific advice can be normative. 
• Scenario D on open science and policy support points out that open science is not the same as open scientific advice whereby experts can speak frankly. Useful scientific advice has characteristics of a protected space where also unpopular (but well-founded) opinions can be voiced. 
• Scenario E on policy-based evidence-making in incumbent-driven industrial policy increases weight on advice mechanisms and embedding data, evidence, and experimentation within government agencies, and government research and regulatory organisations. 

This report summarizes the results of a foresight process that started at the end of 2020 with the goal to develop reference foresight scenarios. Foresight scenarios are a tool to improve strategy development and decision making in a context of turbulence, uncertainty, novelty, and ambiguity. Recent events, such as the COVID pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, made clear that being prepared for the unknown and unexpected becomes increasingly important. The reference scenarios presented in this report aim to help decision makers to increase the preparedness of their organisations under increasingly unpredictable circumstances.

Airborne transmission is considered one of the most common ways of transmitting respiratory viruses. The reach of airborne pathogens and persistence of aerosolized particles suspended in the air are a significant concern for the spread of pandemic and seasonal respiratory diseases. This is particularly relevant in indoor spaces where most respiratory infections occur. Controlling the transmission of airborne pathogens is therefore a cornerstone of public health efforts to manage and prevent the spread of infectious diseases, ensuring safety and health for individuals and communities. Technologies that allow such control are essential to address the challenge.

This report is the output of a comprehensive study which evaluates the potential of the current technology landscape for suppressing indoor airborne pathogen transmission. The analysis outlines two main technology groups: those for detecting airborne pathogens and those for decontaminating air and surfaces. It identifies several key technologies in each group, and assesses their maturity, impact, and potential priority for funding. It outlines the drivers, enablers, and barriers for the development and adoption of these technologies, providing insights into factors that may influence their future implementation. It also explores forward-looking perspectives with scenarios for future health crises and offers recommendations for policy and research to address the challenges and leverage the opportunities in the field of indoor air quality.

This report, part of the FUTURINNOV project—a collaboration between the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency—provides the second literature review of third-party reports, in a continuous workstream that surfaces periodically cross-sector emerging technologies and breakthrough innovations.
It summarises findings in a final selection of 30 signals and trends through an iterative methodology focused on their potential impact and novelty.
These findings are categorised and analysed across the 10 critical technology areas defined by the European Commission, as well as through other frameworks such as the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform and the EIC’s portfolios and specific taxonomy.
The report concludes with a cross-cutting analysis and offers recommendations to support the EIC’s strategic intelligence, particularly in prioritising innovation funding.
Additionally, it aims to raise awareness among EU policymakers about technological developments that may not yet be widely known.

This report documents the process and findings of a horizon scanning exercise, part of a series under the FUTURINNOV (FUTURe-oriented detection and assessment of emerging technologies and breakthrough INNOVation) project, a collaboration between the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC), aiming to bolster the EIC's strategic intelligence through foresight and anticipatory methodologies.
The workshop, held on 13 May 2024, had as its primary goal the evaluation and prioritisation of trends and signals on emerging technologies and breakthrough innovation, across all technolo-gy readiness levels (TRLs), within the EIC's Advanced Materials portfolio and with a particular fo-cus on their use in the Energy sector.

Signals for the workshop were gathered from experts, literature review, and text/data mining of patents, publications, and EU-funded projects. These signals were then scrutinised for their sig-nificance to the field's future by a diverse group of sector experts which led to the identification of nine key topics: accelerated material design/synthesis; biomaterials as part of the circular economy; advanced materials allowing new applications; closed loop battery recycling; innova-tions in catalysis; organic batteries for sustainable energy storage; design to performance bat-teries; design to cost batteries; and electrochemical water treatment. Furthermore, the workshop identified additional wild cards with high novelty and disruptive potential such as: circularity of materials (safe and sustainable by design); membranes / separators; process optimisation; 3D printing of electrode materials for energy and environmental engineering applications; and use of AI for the study of materials.
Participants also highlighted various factors that could influence the development, adoption, and promotion of these emerging technologies, which can be grouped under the following categories: governance and compliance frameworks; funding; collaboration and knowledge exchange; sustainable and efficient development; infrastructure and technological advancement and limita-tions; industry and market dynamics and constraints; innovation and risk management; supply chain and raw materials; and talent development.

This report documents the process and findings of a horizon scanning exercise, part of a series under the FUTURINNOV (FUTURe-oriented detection and assessment of emerging technologies and breakthrough INNOVation) project, a collaboration between the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC), aiming to bolster the EIC's strategic intelligence through foresight and anticipatory methodologies.

The workshop, held on 24 April 2024, had as its primary goal the evaluation and prioritisation of trends and signals on emerging technologies and breakthrough innovation, across all technology readiness levels (TRLs) and within the EIC's Quantum technologies portfolio.

Signals for the workshop were gathered from experts, literature review, and text/data mining of patents, publications, and EU-funded projects. These signals were then scrutinised for their significance to the field's future by a diverse group of sector experts which led to the identification of nine key topics: quantum sensing; quantum algorithms for lattice-based computational fluid dynamics models; materials for quantum; Artificial Intelligence for quantum; error correction; solid-state scalability; quantum for Artificial Intelligence; quantum as a service – metacloud; and quantum computers. Furthermore, the workshop identified additional wild cards with high novel-ty and disruptive potential such as quantum sensing AI on edge and molecular spin qubits.
Participants also highlighted various factors that could influence the development, adoption, and promotion of these emerging technologies, which can be grouped under the following categories: technical advancements; investment and infrastructure support; cross-sector collaboration; regulatory navigation; talent acquisition; market maturity; and application utility.

This report provides a literature review of publications authored by numerous external organisations. It summarises 34 signals and trends of emerging technologies and breakthrough innovations across the 11 primary categories of a taxonomy defined by the European Innovation Council (EIC). The authors investigate not only what is deemed most novel in multiple application domains but what is worth the attention of European Union (EU) policy audiences involved with priority-setting and decision-making.

This work that has led to this literature review (1) reviews and evaluates 186 reports and articles on emerging technologies, (2) captures 489 signals, of which 86 have been short-listed and 34 selected for this report, (3) creates an internal database of signals which is used to digest and analyse the evolution of signals and novel technologies (4) connects signals with EIC portfolios and other European Commission (EC) initiatives such as policies surrounding critical technologies and Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) investments that, together with the primary and secondary levels of the EIC taxonomy, provide multiple types of analysis and insights (5) draws conclusions that aim to support the EIC’s funding prioritisation and additionally, provide reflections on EIC portfolio setting.

By using the best publicly-available data to produce a harmonised internal database, along with an appropriate filtering and selection methodology, the authors aim to provide a support platform for future-oriented technology analysis of relevance for other EU policy-making initiatives.

Successfully managing the green and digital transitions is a crucial factor that could increase the resilience and strategic autonomy of the EU and shape its future. Yet digitalisation of agriculture and rural areas raises vital questions about winners and losers, costs, benefits, and long term implications.


This foresight exercise explores the interplay between digital transition, policies and the resilience of the agricultural sector and rural areas, against the backdrop of potential disruptive and transformative changes. The report presents the outcomes of this exploration, proposing building blocks for an effective EU digital transition strategy for agriculture and rural areas supported by a hands-on policymaker’s toolkit

The blog post reveals the goals and steps of the foresight process and explains how visioning can support transitions. 

In times of growing uncertainties and complexities, anticipatory thinking is essential for policymakers.
Technology foresight explores the longer-term futures of Science, Technology and Innovation. It can be used
as a tool to create effective policy responses, including in technology and innovation policies, and to shape
technological change.

In this report we present six anticipatory and technology foresight methods that can contribute to anticipatory
intelligence in terms of public funding of innovation: the Delphi survey, genius forecasting, technology roadmapping, large language models used in foresight, horizon scanning and scenario planning.

Each chapter provides a brief overview of the method with case studies and recommendations.
The insights from this report show that only by combining different anticipatory viewpoints and approaches
to spotting, understanding and shaping emergent technologies, can public funders such as the European
Innovation Council improve their proactive approaches to supporting ground-breaking technologies. In this
way, they will help innovation ecosystems to develop.

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the European Innovation Council (EIC) conducted a series of Horizon Scanning exercises across six EIC programme managers’ (PM) portfolios as part of an ongoing collaborative effort to strengthen EIC strategic intelligence capacity through the use and development of anticipatory approaches. The fields covered include: Space Systems & Technologies; Quantum Technologies; Agriculture & Food; Solar Fuels & Chemicals; Responsible Electronics and Architecture, Engineering & Construction.

The main findings of this Horizon Scanning – the identification and analysis of ‘signals’ from nascent research, technologies, or trends on the periphery of the mainstream – show opportunities for investment in emerging technologies and breakthrough innovations that can advance EU competitiveness while also serving to support the EU’s long-term policy and societal visions.
Other insights were taken from this exercise, namely the identification of drivers, enablers and barriers to technology development and adoption, that could be the starting ground of further foresight exercises and policy initiatives.

The report highlights three main themes – sustainability, energy, and scalability, which are overarching across signals, drivers, enablers and barriers. And concludes with a series of recommendations to streamline Horizon Scanning activities in the specific context and needs of the EIC.

Growing volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, present leading challenges in policy-making nowadays. Anticipatory thinking and foresight are of utmost importance to help explore trends, risks, emerging issues, and their potential implications and opportunities in order to draw useful insights for strategic planning, policy-making and preparedness.

This report is a part of the “Anticipation and monitoring of emerging technologies and disruptive innovation” (ANTICIPINNOV) project, a collaboration between the European Commission Joint Research Centre with the European Innovation Council (EIC).

The findings include a set of 106 signals and trends on emerging technologies and disruptive innovations across several areas of application based on a review of key reports on technology and innovation trends and signals produced by public and private entities outside of the EU institutions. Its goal is to strengthen the EIC’s strategic intelligence capacity through the use and development of anticipatory approaches that will - among other goals – support innovation funding prioritisation. Other insights were extracted, namely those related with the scope of the EIC Programme Manager portfolios.

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.