Horizon Europe Programme

Standard Application Form (HE RIA and IA)

Instructions, please remove

Project proposal – Technical description (Part B) 

Version 4.0
16 December 2024

Structure of the Proposal 

The proposal contains two parts:

•	Part A of the proposal is generated by the IT system. It is based on the information entered by the participants through the submission system in the Funding & Tenders Portal. The participants can update the information in the submission system at any time before final submission.
  
•	Part B of the proposal is the narrative part that includes three sections that each correspond to an evaluation criterion. Part B needs to be uploaded as a PDF document following the templates downloaded by the applicants in the submission system for the specific call or topic. The templates for a specific call may slightly differ from the example provided in this document.

The electronic submission system is an online wizard that guides you step-by-step through the preparation of your proposal. The submission process consists of 6 steps:

- Step 1: Logging in the Portal 
- Step 2: Select the call, topic and type of action in the Portal
- Step 3: Create a draft proposal: Title, acronym, summary, main organisation and contact details
- Step 4: Manage your parties and contact details: add your partner organisations and contact details. 
- Step 5: Edit and complete web forms for proposal part A and upload proposal part B
- Step 6: Submit the proposal

Instructions, please remove

HISTORY OF CHANGES	
Version	Publication date	Changes	
1.0	10.03.2021	•	Initial version	
1.1	19.04.2021	•	Formatting and alignment
•	Clarification of the indicative number of pages in section 2.2 is for sections 2.2 and 2.3
•	Added the name of the award criterion in section 3	
1.2	25.05.2021	•	Addition of a table in section 3.1 about in-kind contributions	
2.0	21.01.2022	•	Changes in tables on section 3 avoiding duplication of information
•	Reorder of points in ‘Impact’ section	
3.0	11.07.2022	•	Consolidation, formatting and layout changes. Tags added	
3.1	08.09.2022	•	Added instructions on Artificial intelligence	
3.2	14.11.2022	•	Added page limit for topics using lump sum funding	
3.3	27.09.2023	•	Guidance on the use of AI for the preparation of the proposal	
3.4	04.04.2024	•	Additional information on how to describe the activities per work package	
4.0	16.12.2024	•	Removed references to Do No Significant Harm principle and AI robustness and simplification of requirements on data management plan	

Proposal template Part B: technical description
(for full proposals: single stage submission procedure and 2nd stage of a two-stage submission procedure)

This template is to be used in a single-stage submission procedure or at the 2nd stage of a two-stage submission procedure.
The structure of this template must be followed when preparing your proposal. It has been designed to ensure that the important aspects of your planned work are presented in a way that will enable the experts to make an effective assessment against the evaluation criteria. Sections 1, 2 and 3 each correspond to an evaluation criterion. 
Please be aware that proposals will be evaluated as they were submitted, rather than on their potential if certain changes were to be made. This means that only proposals that successfully address all the required aspects will have a chance of being funded. There will be no possibility for significant changes to content, budget and consortium composition during grant preparation.
 Page limit: The title, list of participants and sections 1, 2 and 3, together, should not be longer than 45 pages. For topics using lump sum funding, the limit is 50 pages. All tables, figures, references and any other element pertaining to these sections must be included as an integral part of these sections and are thus counted against this page limit. The number of pages included in each section of this template is only indicative. 
The page limit will be applied automatically. At the end of this document you can see the structure of the a
Instructions, please remove

ctual proposal that you need to submit, please remove all instruction pages that are watermarked. 
If you attempt to upload a proposal longer than the specified limit before the deadline, you will receive an automatic warning and will be advised to shorten and re-upload the proposal. After the deadline, excess pages (in over-long proposals/applications) will be automatically made invisible, and will not be taken into consideration by the experts. The proposal is a self-contained document.  Experts will be instructed to ignore hyperlinks to information that is specifically designed to expand the proposal, thus circumventing the page limit. 
Please, do not consider the page limit as a target! It is in your interest to keep your text as concise as possible, since experts rarely view unnecessarily long proposals in a positive light.
 The following formatting conditions apply. 
The reference font for the body text of proposals is Times New Roman (Windows platforms), Times/Times New Roman (Apple platforms) or Nimbus Roman No. 9 L (Linux distributions).
The use of a different font for the body text is not advised and is subject to the cumulative conditions that the font is legible and that its use does not significantly shorten the representation of the proposal in number of pages compared to using the reference font (for example with a view to bypass the page limit).
The minimum font size allowed is 11 points. Standard character spacing and a minimum of single line spacing is to be used. This applies to the body text, including text in tables.
Text elements other than the body text, such as headers, foot/end notes, captions, formula's, may deviate, but must be legible.
The page size is A4, and all margins (top, bottom, left, right) should be at least 15 mm (not including any footers or headers).
This document is tagged. Do not delete the tags; they are needed for our internal processing of information, mostly for statistical gathering. In that light, please do not move, delete, re-order, alter tags in any way, as they might create problems in our internal processing tools. Tags do not affect or influence the outcome of your application.

DEFINITIONS 	
Critical risk	A critical risk is a plausible event or issue that could have a high adverse impact on the ability of the project to achieve its objectives.   
Level of likelihood to occur (Low/medium/high): The likelihood is the estimated probability that the risk will materialise even after taking account of the mitigating measures put in place.
Level of severity (Low/medium/high): The relative seriousness of the risk and the significance of its effect.	
Deliverable	A report that is sent to the Commission or Agency providing information to ensure effective monitoring of the project. There are different types of deliverables (e.g. a report on specific activities or results, data management plans, ethics or security requirements). 	
Impacts	Wider long term effects on society (including the environment), the economy and science, enabled by the outcomes of R&I investments (long term). It refers to the specific contribution of the project to the work programme expected impacts described in the destination. Impacts generally occur some time after the end of the project.
Example: The deployment of the advanced forecasting system enables each airport to increase maximum passenger capacity by 15% and passenger average throughput by 10%, leading to a 28% reduction in infrastructure expansion costs.	
Milestone	Control points in the project that help to chart progress. Milestones may correspond to the achievement of a key result, allowing the next phase of the work to begin. They may also be needed at intermediary points so that, if problems have arisen, corrective measures can be taken. A milestone may be a critical decision point in the project where, for example, the consortium must decide which of several technologies to adopt for further development. The achievement of a milestone should be verifiable.	
Objectives
Instructions, please remove

	The goals of the work performed within the project, in terms of its research and innovation content. This will be translated into the project’s results. These may range from tackling specific research questions, demonstrating the feasibility of an innovation, sharing knowledge among stakeholders on specific issues. The nature of the objectives will depend on the type of action, and the scope of the topic.	
Outcomes

	The expected effects, over the medium term, of projects supported under a given topic.  The results of a project should contribute to these outcomes, fostered in particular by the dissemination and exploitation measures. This may include the uptake, diffusion, deployment, and/or use of the project’s results by direct target groups. Outcomes generally occur during or shortly after the end of the project.
Example: 9 European airports adopt the advanced forecasting system demonstrated during the project.	
Pathway to impact 	Logical steps towards the achievement of the expected impacts of the project over time, in particular beyond the duration of a project. A pathway begins with the projects’ results, to their dissemination, exploitation and communication, contributing to the expected outcomes in the work programme topic, and ultimately to the wider scientific, economic and societal impacts of the work programme destination. 	
Research output	Results generated by the action to which access can be given in the form of scientific publications, data or other engineered outcomes and processes such as software, algorithms, protocols and electronic notebooks.	
Results	What is generated during the project implementation. This may include, for example, know-how, innovative solutions, algorithms, proof of feasibility, new business models, policy recommendations, guidelines, prototypes, demonstrators, databases and datasets, trained researchers, new infrastructures, networks, etc. Most project results (inventions, scientific works, etc.) are ‘Intellectual Property’, which may, if appropriate, be protected by formal ‘Intellectual Property Rights’.
Example: Successful large-scale demonstrator: trial with 3 airports of an advanced forecasting system for proactive airport passenger flow management.	
Technology Readiness Level	See Work Programme General Annexes B	

Guidance on the use of generative AI tools for the preparation of the proposal	
When considering the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools for the preparation of the proposal, it is imperative to exercise caution and careful consideration. The AI-generated content should be thoroughly reviewed and validated by the applicants to ensure its appropriateness and accuracy, as well as its compliance with intellectual property regulations. Applicants are fully responsible for the content of the proposal (even those parts produced by the AI tool) and must be transparent in disclosing which AI tools were used and how they were utilized. 
Specifically, applicants are required to:
•	Verify the accuracy, validity, and appropriateness of the content and any citations generated by the AI tool and correct any errors or inconsistencies. 
•	Provide a list of sources used to generate content and citations, including those generated by the AI tool. Double-check citations to ensure they are accurate and properly referenced. 
•	Be conscious of the potential for plagiarism where the AI tool may have reproduced substantial text from other sources. Check the original sources to be sure you are not plagiarizing someone else’s work. 
•	Acknowledge the limitations of the AI tool in the proposal preparation, including the potential for bias, errors, and gaps in knowledge.	

Instructions, please remove

 Fill in the title of your proposal below.
Title of the Proposal
 The consortium members are listed in part A of the proposal (application forms). A summary list should also be provided in the table below.
[This document is tagged. Do not delete the tags; they are needed for processing.] #@APP-FORM-HERIAIA@#
List of participants [e.g. 1 page]
Participant No. *	Participant organisation
Instructions, please remove

 name	Country	
1 (Coordinator)			
2			
3			
* Please use the same participant numbering and name as that used in the administrative proposal forms. 

1.	Excellence #@REL-EVA-RE@#
Excellence – aspects to be taken into account.
•	Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious, and goes beyond the state of the art.
•	Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, interdisciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate.	
	The following aspects will be taken into account only to the extent that the proposed work is within the scope of the work programme topic.
Instructions, please remove

1.1	Objectives and ambition #@PRJ-OBJ-PO@# [e.g. 4 pages]
•	Briefly describe the objectives of your proposed work. Why are they pertinent to the work programme topic? Are they measurable and verifiable? Are they realistically achievable?
•	Describe how your project goes beyond the state-of-the-art, and the extent the proposed work is ambitious. Indicate any exceptional ground-breaking R&I, novel concepts and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational models. Where relevant, illustrate the advance by referring to products and services already available on the market. Refer to any patent or publication search carried out.
•	Describe where the proposed work is positioned in terms of R&I maturity (i.e. where it is situated in the spectrum from ‘idea to application’, or from ‘lab to market’). Where applicable, provide an indication of the Technology Readiness Level, if possible distinguishing the start and by the end of the project.
	Please bear in mind that advances beyond the state of the art must be interpreted in the light of the positioning of the project. Expectations will not be the same for RIAs at lower TRL, compared with Innovation Actions at high TRLs. 
#§PRJ-OBJ-PO§#
1.2	Methodology #@CON-MET-CM@# #@COM-PLE-CP@# [e.g. 14 pages]
•	Describe and explain the overall methodology, including the concepts, models and assumptions that underpin your work. Explain how this will enable you to deliver your project’s objectives. Refer to any important challenges you may have identified in the chosen methodology and how you intend to overcome them. [e.g. 10  pages]
	This section should be presented as a narrative. The detailed tasks and work packages are described below under ‘Implementation’. 
•	Describe any national or international research and innovation activities whose results will feed into the project, and how that link will be established. [e.g. 1 page]
•	Explain how expertise and methods from different disciplines will be brought together and integrated in pursuit of your objectives. If you consider that an inter-disciplinary approach is unnecessary in the context of the proposed work, please provide a justification. [e.g. 1/2 page]
•	For topics where the work programme indicates the need for the integration of social sciences and humanities, show the role of these disciplines in the project or provide a justification if you consider that these disciplines are not relevant to your proposed project. [e.g. 1/2 page]
•	Describe how the gender dimension (i.e. sex and/or gender analysis) is taken into account in the project’s research and innovation content [e.g. 1 page]. If you do not consider such a gender dimension to be relevant in your project, please provide a justification.
	Note: This section is mandatory except for topics which have been identified in the work programme as not requiring the integration of the 
Instructions, please remove

gender dimension into R&I content.
	Remember that that this question relates to the content of the planned research and innovation activities, and not to gender balance in the teams in charge of carrying out the project.
	Sex and gender analysis refers to biological characteristics and social/cultural factors respectively. For guidance on methods of sex / gender analysis and the issues to be taken into account, please refer to https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/33b4c99f-2e66-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 
•	Describe how appropriate open science practices are implemented as an integral part of the proposed methodology. Show how the choice of practices and their implementation are adapted to the nature of your work, in a way that will increase the chances of the project delivering on its objectives [e.g. 1 page]. If you believe that none of these practices are appropriate for your project, please provide a justification here. 
	Open science is an approach based on open cooperative work and systematic sharing of knowledge and tools as early and widely as possible in the process. Open science practices include early and open sharing of research (for example through preregistration, registered reports, pre-prints, or crowd-sourcing); research output management; measures to ensure reproducibility of research outputs; providing open access to research outputs (such as publications, data, software, models, algorithms, and workflows); participation in open peer-review; and involving all relevant knowledge actors including citizens, civil society and end users in the co-creation of R&I agendas and contents (such as citizen science).
	Please note that this question does not refer to outreach actions that may be planned as part of communication, dissemination and exploitation activities. These aspects should instead be described below under ‘Impact’.
	Proposals selected for funding under Horizon Europe will need to develop a detailed data management plan (DMP) for making their data/research outputs findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) as a deliverable by month 6 and revised towards the end of a project’s lifetime. The DMP should describe how research outputs (especially research data) generated and/or collected during the project will be managed so as to ensure that they are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. 
	For guidance on open science practices and research data management, please refer to the relevant section of the HE Programme Guide on the Funding & Tenders Portal.
#§CON-MET-CM§# #§COM-PLE-CP§# #§REL-EVA-RE§#
2.	Impact #@IMP-ACT-IA@#
Impact – aspects to be taken into account.
•	Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions due to the project.
•	Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities.	
The results of your project should make a contribution to the expected outcomes set out for the work programme topic over the medium term, and to the wider expected impacts set out in the ‘destination’ over the longer term. 
In this section you should show how your project could contribute to the outcomes and impacts described in the work programme, the likely scale and significance of this contribution, and the measures to maximise these impacts.		
2.1		Project’s pathways towards impact [e.g. 4 pages]
•	Provide a narrative explaining how the project’s results are expected to make a difference in terms of impact, beyond the immediate scope and duration of the project. The narrative should include the components below, tailored to your project. 
(a)	Describe the unique contribution your project results would make towards (1) the outcomes specified in this topic, and (2) the wider impacts, in the longer term, specified in the respective destinations in the work programme.   
	Be specific, referring to the effects of your project, and not R&I in general in this field. 
	State the target groups that would benefit. Even if target groups are mentioned in general terms in the work programme, you should be specific here, breaking target groups into particular interest groups or segments of society relevant to this project.
	The outcomes and impacts of your project may:
•	Scientific, e.g. contributing to specific scientific advances, across and within disciplines, creating new knowledge, reinforcing scientific equipment and instruments,  computing systems (i.e. research infrastructur
Instructions, please remove

es);
•	Economic/technological, e.g. bringing new products, services, business processes to the market, increasing efficiency, decreasing costs, increasing profits, contributing to standards’ setting,  etc. 
•	Societal , e.g. decreasing CO2 emissions, decreasing avoidable mortality, improving policies and decision making, raising consumer awareness.
Only include such outcomes and impacts where your project would make a significant and direct contribution. Avoid describing very tenuous links to wider impacts. However, include any potential negative environmental outcome or impact of the project including when expected results are brought at scale (such as at commercial level). Where relevant, explain how the potential harm can be managed.
(b)	 Give an indication of the scale and significance of the project’s contribution to the expected outcomes and impacts, should the project be successful.  Provide quantified estimates where possible and meaningful.
	‘Scale’ refers to how widespread the outcomes and impacts are likely to be. For example, in terms of the size of the target group, or the proportion of that group, that should benefit over time; ‘Significance’ refers to the importance, or value, of those benefits. For example, number of additional healthy life years; efficiency savings in energy supply.
	Explain your baselines, benchmarks and assumptions used for those estimates. Wherever possible, quantify your estimation of the effects that you expect from your project. Explain assumptions that you make, referring for example to any relevant studies or statistics. Where appropriate, try to use only one methodology for calculating your estimates: not different methodologies for each partner, region or country (the extrapolation should preferably be prepared by one partner).
	Your estimate must relate to this project only - the effect of other initiatives should not be taken into account.
(c)	Describe any requirements and potential barriers - arising from factors beyond the scope and duration of the project - that may determine whether the desired outcomes and impacts are achieved. These may include, for example, other R&I work within and beyond Horizon Europe; regulatory environment; targeted markets; user behaviour. Indicate if these factors might evolve over time. Describe any mitigating measures you propose, within or beyond your project, that could be needed should your assumptions prove to be wrong, or to address identified barriers. 
	Note that this does not include the critical risks inherent to the management of the project itself , which should be described below under ‘Implementation’.
2.2	Measures to maximise impact - Dissemination, exploitation and communication #@COM-DIS-VIS-CDV@# [e.g. 5 pages, including section 2.3]
•	Describe the planned measures to maximise the impact of your project by providing a first version of your ‘plan for the dissemination and exploitation including communication activities’. Describe the dissemination, exploitation and communication measures that are planned, and the target group(s) addressed (e.g. scientific community, end users, financial actors, public at large). 
	Please remember that this plan is an admissibility condition, unless the work programme topic explicitly states otherwise. In case your proposal is selected for funding, a more detailed ‘plan for dissemination and exploitation including communication activities’ will need to be provided as a mandatory project deliverable within 6 months after signature date. This plan shall be periodically updated in alignment with the project’s progress. 
	Communication measures should promote the project throughout the full lifespan of the project. The aim is to inform and reach out to society and show the activities performed, and the use and the benefits the project will have for citizens. Activities must be strategically planned, with clear objectives, start at the outset and continue through the lifetime of the project. The description of the communication activities needs to state the main m
Instructions, please remove

essages as well as the tools and channels that will be used to reach out to each of the chosen target groups.
	All measures should be proportionate to the scale of the project, and should contain concrete actions to be implemented both during and after the end of the project, e.g. standardisation activities. Your plan should give due consideration to the possible follow-up of your project, once it is finished. In the justification, explain why each measure chosen is best suited to reach the target group addressed. Where relevant, and for innovation actions, in particular, describe the measures for a plausible path to commercialise the innovations.
	If exploitation is expected primarily in non-associated third countries, justify by explaining how that exploitation is still in the Union’s interest.
	Describe possible feedback to policy measures generated by the project that will contribute to designing, monitoring, reviewing and rectifying (if necessary) existing policy and programmatic measures or shaping and supporting the implementation of new policy initiatives and decisions.
•	Outline your strategy for the management of intellectual property, foreseen protection measures, such as patents, design rights, copyright, trade secrets, etc., and how these would be used to support exploitation.
	If your project is selected, you will need an appropriate consortium agreement to manage (amongst other things) the ownership and access to key knowledge (IPR, research data etc.). Where relevant, these will allow you, collectively and individually, to pursue market opportunities arising from the project.
	If your project is selected, you must indicate the owner(s) of the results (results ownership list) in the final periodic report.
#§COM-DIS-VIS-CDV§#

2.3 Summary 
Provide a summary of this section by presenting in the canvas below the key elements of your project impact pathway and of the measures to maximise its impact.

KEY ELEMENT OF THE IMPACT SECTION
SPECIFIC NEEDS	
What are the specific needs that triggered this project?

Example 1
Most airports use process flow-oriented models based on static mathematical values limiting the optimal management of passenger flow and hampering the accurate use of the available resources to the actual demand of passengers.

Example 2
Electronic components need to get smaller and lighter to match the expectations of the end-users. At the same time there is a problem of sourcing of raw materials that has an environmental impact. 

	
D & E & C MEASURES	
What dissemination, exploitation and communication measures will you apply to the results? 

Example 1
Exploitation: Patenting the algorithmic model. 

Dissemination towards the scientific community and airports: Scientific publication with the results of the large-scale demonstration. 

Communication towards citizens: An event in a shopping mall to show how the outcomes of the action are relevant to our everyday lives.

Example 2
Exploitation of the new product:  Patenting the new product;
Licencing to major electronic companies. 

Dissemination towards the scientific community and industry: 
Participating at conferences; Developing a platform of material compositions for industry; Participation at EC project portfolios to disseminate the results as part of a group and maximise the visibility vis-à-vis companies.

EXPECTED RESULTS	
What do you expect to generate by the end of the project? 

Example 1
Instructions, please remove

Successful large-scale demonstrator: Trial with 3 airports of an advanced forecasting system for proactive airport passenger flow management.

Algorithmic model:
Novel algorithmic model for proactive airport passenger flow management.

Example 2
Publication of a scientific discovery on transparent electronics.

New product: More sustainable electronic circuits. 

Three PhD students trained. 

TARGET GROUPS	
Who will use or further up-take the results of the project? Who will benefit from the results of the project? 

Example 1
9 European airports:
Schiphol, Brussels airport, etc.

The European Union aviation safety agency.

Air passengers (indirect).

Example 2
End-users: consumers of electronic devices.

Major electronic companies: Samsung, Apple, etc.

Scientific community (field of transparent electronics).

	
IMPACTS	
What are the expected wider scientific, economic and societal effects of the project contributing to the expected impacts outlined in the respective destination in the work programme?

Example 1
Scientific:  New breakthrough scientific discovery on passenger forecast modelling.

Economic: Increased airport efficiency
Size: 15% increase of maximum passenger capacity in  European airports,  leading to a 28% reduction in infrastructure expansion costs.

Example 2
Scientific: New breakthrough scientific discovery on transparent electronics. 

Economic/Technological: A new market for touch enabled electronic devices. 

Societal: Lower climate impact of electronics manufacturing (including through material sourcing and waste management).
	
OUTCOMES	
What change do you expect to see after successful dissemination and exploitation of project results to the target group(s)?

Example 1
Up-take by airports: 9 European airports adopt the advanced forecasting system demonstrated during the project.

Example 2
High use of the scientific discovery published (measured with the relative rate of citation index of project publications).

Instructions, please remove

A major electronic company (Samsung or Apple) exploits/uses the new product in their manufacturing.

	

#§IMP-ACT-IA§#
3.	Quality and efficiency of the implementation #@QUA-LIT-QL@# #@WRK-PLA-WP@#
Quality and efficiency of the implementation – aspects to be taken into account
‒	Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall
‒	Capacity and role of each participant, and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.	

3.1	Work plan and resources [e.g. 14 pages (19 pages for topics using lump sum funding)  – including tables]
Please provide the following:
•	brief presentation of the overall structure of the work plan;
•	timing of the different work packages and their components (Gantt chart or similar);
•	graphical presentation of the components showing how they inter-relate (Pert chart or similar).
•	detailed work description, i.e.:
Instructions, please remove

o	a list of work packages (table 3.1a);
o	a description of each work package (table 3.1b);
o	a list of deliverables (table 3.1c);
	Give full details. Base your account on the logical structure of the project and the stages in which it is to be carried out. Each work package should be a substantial part of the work plan, and the number of work packages should be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the project.
	Structure each work package by breaking it down into tasks. If tasks are not appropriate, work packages can be organised according to other criteria (e.g., according to the type of work or thematically). For each task or element of the work package, describe all activities to be carried out and quantify them (e.g., number of protocols, tests, measurements, combinations, study subjects, conferences, publications, etc.). Provide enough detail to clarify who will do this work and why it is needed for the project, (e.g., the level of qualification and number of person-months for personnel, as well as the requested equipment, consumables, meetings, etc.), to justify the proposed resources and so that progress can be monitored, including by the Commission
	Resources assigned to work packages should be in line with their objectives and deliverables. You are advised to include a distinct work package on ‘project management’, and to give due visibility in the work plan to ‘data management’ ‘dissemination and exploitation’ and ‘communication activities’, either with distinct tasks or distinct work packages. 
	You will be required to update the ‘plan for the dissemination and exploitation of results including communication activities’, and a ‘data management plan’, (this does not apply to topics where a plan was not required.) This should include a record of activities related to dissemination and exploitation that have been undertaken and those still planned. 
	Please make sure the information in this section matches the costs as stated in the budget table in section 3 of the application forms, and the number of person months, shown in the detailed work package descriptions.
•	a list of milestones (table 3.1d);
•	a list of critical risks, relating to project implementation, that the stated project's objectives may not be achieved. Detail any risk mitigation measures. You will be able to update the list of critical risks and mitigation measures as the project progresses (table 3.1e);
•	a table showing number of person months required (table 3.1f);
•	a table showing description and justification of subcontracting costs for each participant (table 3.1g);
•	a table showing justifications for ‘purchase costs’ (table 3.1h) for participants where those costs exceed 15% of the personnel costs (according to the budget table in proposal part A);
•	if applicable, a table showing justifications for ‘other costs categories’ (table 3.1i);
•	if applicable, a table showing in-kind contributions from third parties (table 3.1j)
3.2	Capacity of participants and consortium as a whole #@CON-SOR-CS@# #@PRJ-MGT-PM@# [e.g. 3 pages]   
 The individual participants of the consortium are described in a separate section under Part A. There is no need to repeat that information here. 
•	Describe the consortium. How does it match the projec
Instructions, please remove

t’s objectives, and bring together the necessary disciplinary and inter-disciplinary knowledge? Show how this includes expertise in social sciences and humanities, open science practices, and gender aspects of R&I, as appropriate. Include in the description affiliated entities and associated partners, if any.
•	Show how the partners will have access to critical infrastructure needed to carry out the project activities. 
•	Describe how the members complement one another (and cover the value chain, where appropriate) 
•	In what way does each of them contribute to the project? Show that each has a valid role, and adequate resources in the project to fulfil that role. 
•	If applicable, describe the industrial/commercial involvement in the project to ensure exploitation of the results and explain why this is consistent with and will help to achieve the specific measures which are proposed for exploitation of the results of the project (see section 2.2). 
•	Other countries and international organisations: If one or more of the participants requesting EU funding is based in a country or is an international organisation that is not automatically eligible for such funding (entities from Member States of the EU, from Associated Countries and from one of the countries in the exhaustive list included in the Work Programme General Annexes B  are automatically eligible for EU funding), explain why the participation of the entity in question is essential to successfully carry out the project. 
#§CON-SOR-CS§# #§PRJ-MGT-PM§#

Tables for section 3.1
 Use plain text for the tables in section 3.1. If the proposal is invited to start Grant Agreement preparation, these tables will have to be encoded in the grant management IT tool, where no graphics or special formats are supported. 
Table 3.1a: 	List of work packages
Work package No	Work Package Title	Lead Participant No	Lead Participant Short Name	Person-Months	Start Month	End month	

							

Instructions, please remove

Table 3.1b:	Work package description 
For each work package: 
Work package number 		
Work package title		
 Participants involved in each WP and their efforts are shown in table 3.1f. Lead participant and starting and end date of each WP are shown in table 3.1a.)
Objectives 

Instructions, please remove

Description of work (where appropriate, broken down into tasks), lead partner and role of participants. For each task, quantify the amount of work. Provide enough detail to justify the resources requested and clarify why the work is needed and who will do it. Deliverables linked to each WP are listed in table 3.1c (no need to repeat the information here).

	

Table 3.1c:	List of Deliverables  
Only include deliverables that you consider essential for effective project monitoring. 
Number	Deliverable name	Short description	Work package number 	Short name of lead participant 	Type	Dissemination level	Delivery date
(in months)	

					
Instructions, please remove

								

KEY 
Deliverable numbers in order of delivery dates. Please use the numbering convention <WP number>.<number of deliverable within that WP>. 
For example, deliverable 4.2 would be the second deliverable from work package 4.

Type: 
Use one of the following codes: 
R:	Document, report (excluding the periodic and final reports) 
DEM:	Demonstrator, pilot, prototype, plan designs 
DEC:	Websites, patents filing, press & media actions, videos, etc.
DATA:	Data sets, microdata, etc.
DMP: 	Data management plan
ETHICS:	Deliverables related to ethics issues.  
SECURITY: Deliverables related to security issues
OTHER: Software, technical diagram, algorithms, models, etc.

Dissemination level: 
Use one of the following codes: 
PU – Public, fully open, e.g. web (Deliverables flagged as public will be automatically published in CORDIS          project’s page)
SEN – Sensitive, limited under the conditions of the Grant Agreement	
Classified R-UE/EU-R – EU RESTRICTED under the Commission Decision No2015/444
Classified C-UE/EU-C – EU CONFIDENTIAL under the Commission Decision No2015/444
Classified S-UE/EU-S – EU SECRET under the Commission Decision No2015/444

Delivery date
Measured in months from the project start date (month 1)	

Table 3.1d:	List of milestones 
Milestone number	Milestone name	Related work package(s)	Due date (in month)	Means of verification	

					

KEY
Due date
Measured in months from the project start date (month 1)

Means of verification 
Show how you will confirm that the milestone has been attained. Refer to indicators if appropriate. For example: a laboratory prototype that is ‘up and running’; software released and validated by a user group; field survey complete and data quality validated.	

Table 3.1e:	Critical risks for implementation #@RSK-MGT-RM@#
Instructions, please remove

Description of risk (indicate level of (i) likelihood, and (ii) severity: Low/Medium/High)	Work package(s) involved	Proposed risk-mitigation measures	

			

Definition critical risk: 
A critical risk is a plausible event or issue that could have a high adverse impact on the ability of the project to achieve its objectives. 

Level of likelihood to occur: Low/medium/high
The likelihood is the estimated probability that the risk will materialise even after taking account of the mitigating measures put in place.

Level of severity: Low/medium/high
The relative seriousness of the risk and the significance of its effect.	
#§RSK-MGT-RM§#

Table 3.1f: 	Summary of staff effort
Please indicate the number of person/months over the whole duration of the planned work, for each work package, for each participant. Identify the work-package leader for each WP by showing the relevant person-month figure in bold.

	WPn	WPn+1	WPn+2	Total Person-
Months per Participant	
Participant Number/Short Name 					
Participant Number/
Short Name 					
Participant Number/
Short Name 					
Total Person Months					

Table 3.1g:	‘Subcontracting costs’ items 

For each participant describe and justify the tasks to be subcontracted (please note that core tasks of the project should not be sub-contracted).

Participant Number/Short Name	
	Cost (€)	
Instructions, please remove

Description of tasks and justification	
Subcontracting 			

Table 3.1h:	‘Purchase costs’ items (travel and subsistence, equipment and other goods, works and services) 

Please complete the table below for each participant if the purchase costs (i.e. the sum of the costs for ’travel and subsistence’, ‘equipment’, and ‘other goods, works and services’) exceeds 15% of the personnel costs for that participant (according to the budget table in proposal part A). The record must list cost items in order of costs and starting with the largest cost item, up to the level that the remaining costs are below 15% of personnel costs. 
Participant Number/Short Name	
	Cost (€)	Justification	
Travel and subsistence 			
Equipment 			
Other goods, works and services			
Remaining purchase costs (<15% of pers. Costs)			
Total			

Table 3.1i:	‘Other costs categories’ items (e.g. internally invoiced goods and services)

Please complete the table below for each participant that would like to declare costs under other costs categories (e.g. internally invoiced goods and services), irrespective of the percentage of personnel costs. 
Participant Number/Short Name	
	Cost (€)	Justification	
Internally invoiced goods and services			
…			

Table 3.1j:	‘In-kind contributions’ provided by third parties

Please complete the table below for each participant that will make use of in-kind contributions (non-financial resources made available free of charge by third parties). In kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge are declared by the participants as eligible direct costs in the corresponding cost category (e.g. personnel costs or purchase costs for equipment). 
Participant Number/Short Name	
Third party name	Category	Cost (€)	Justification	
	Select between
Seconded personnel
Travel and subsistence
Equipment
Other goods, works and services
Internally invoiced goods and services 			
				
#§QUA-LIT-QL§# #§WRK-PLA-WP§#

Instructions, please remove

ANNEXES TO PROPOSAL PART B 

Some calls may ask to upload annexes to proposal part B. The annexes must be uploaded as separate documents in the submission system. The most common annexes to be uploaded in Horizon Europe are (standard templates are published in the Funding & Tenders portal): 

Instructions, please remove

 
•	CLINICAL TRIALS: Annex with information on clinical trials 
•	FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIRD PARTIES: Annex with information on financial support to third parties. 
•	CALLS FLAGGED AS SECURITY SENSITIVE: Annex with information on security aspects. 
•	ETHICS: ethics self-assessment should be included in proposal part A. However, in calls where several serious ethics issues are expected, the character limited in this section of proposal part A may not be sufficient for participants to give all necessary information. In those cases, participants may include additional information in an annex to proposal part B.  

 
Proposal template Part B: technical description
Title of the Proposal
[This document is tagged. Do not delete the tags; they are needed for processing.] #@APP-FORM-HERIAIA@#
List of participants
Participant No. *	Participant organisation name	Country	
1 (Coordinator)			
2			
3			
…			

1.	Excellence  #@REL-EVA-RE@# 
1.1	Objectives and ambition #@PRJ-OBJ-PO@#
1.1 Objectives – Draft for HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-CIRCBIO-02
1.1.0 Problems and Challenges Addressed
Post-consumer textiles in Europe generate close to seven million tonnes of waste every year. Most of this waste comes from blended textiles – combinations of cotton, polyester, viscose, elastane and coated fabrics. Less than one percent is recycled back into new fibres. Current systems cannot handle blends, coatings, dyes, multi-layer products or persistent chemicals. Collection and sorting systems do not provide reliably characterised input streams. Recyclers lack information on fibre composition, contaminants and recyclability limits. Manufacturers cannot access high-quality recycled fibres that meet durability and safety requirements.
Large-scale studies from EEA, JRC, McKinsey, PwC and Systemiq highlight five systemic barriers: lack of scalable technology for blends, weak sorting capacity, contamination risks from chemicals, unclear cost structures, and insufficient industry uptake due to uncertain recycled-fibre quality. These issues block Europe’s goal of a circular textile system.
The project focuses on developing, demonstrating and validating technologies and systems that overcome these barriers at TRL 6 to 8.
1.1.1 General Purpose
The project purpose is to enable fibre-to-fibre recycling of mixed post-consumer textiles by developing and demonstrating technologies, processes and models that allow manufacturers, recyclers, local authorities and citizens to manage and reuse blended textile waste safely, efficiently and at industrial scale.
1.1.2 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives below translate the project purpose into clear technical and practical results. Each objective targets a barrier identified earlier and links directly to the scope and expected outcomes of the call. Together, they build a complete value‑chain approach: from understanding the waste, to enabling disassembly, advancing recycling, ensuring safety, proving feasibility and preparing market uptake.
Objective 1 – Characterise mixed post-consumer textile waste streams
•	Map waste flows, blend types, coatings, contaminants and non-textile components.
•	Define quality parameters required for fibre-to-fibre recycling.
•	KPI: Database covering at least 3,000 representative samples and 8 regional waste streams.
Objective 2 – Demonstrate safe and effective disassembly of complex textile products
•	Develop techniques for removal of fasteners, coatings, multilayers and contaminants.
•	Validate scalable separation methods for fibre blends.
•	KPI: At least 85% clean separation efficiency across three major blend categories.
Objective 3 – Advance recycling technologies for blended fibres
•	Validate chemical, mechanical or biotech solutions adapted to cotton–polyester and similar blends.
•	Remove persistent chemicals such as PFAS and minimise microplastic release.
•	KPI: Recycled fibre purity above 90% and full removal of targeted chemicals.
Objective 4 – Determine recyclability limits and viable secondary applications
•	Test how many recycling cycles regenerated fibres can undergo.
•	Identify high-value applications when fibre-to-fibre recycling is no longer suitable.
•	KPI: Recycling loop performance documented for at least two cycles.
Objective 5 – Produce market-ready secondary textile materials
•	Deliver recycled fibres or yarns that meet durability, safety and non-toxicity requirements for apparel and home textiles.
•	KPI: Demonstration products with at least 50% recycled content.
Objective 6 – Validate economic and environmental feasibility
•	Perform full LCA and LCC based on PEF methods.
•	Compare new processes to conventional waste treatment and virgin-fibre production.
•	KPI: Minimum 30% reduction in environmental footprint compared to baseline.
Objective 7 – Support uptake by manufacturers, recyclers and local authorities
•	Develop business models, governance mechanisms and guidance for deployment.
•	Work with stakeholders to improve waste collection and sourcing of feedstock.
•	KPI: At least ten organisations engaged in uptake agreements.
1.1.x State of the art and remaining limitations
This section explains what the scientific and industrial community has achieved so far on textile recycling, and where clear gaps remain, especially for mixed post-consumer textiles from blended products. It builds on recent European reports and Horizon projects and shows why a new Innovation Action under HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-CIRCBIO-02 is needed.
1. What has been achieved so far
1.1. Better knowledge of textile waste flows and policy drivers
European agencies and research centres have mapped textile waste in Europe and provided a solid evidence base, most notably in the European Environment Agency report “Textile Waste Streams in Europe” (EEA, 2023). The European Environment Agency shows that around 6.95 million tonnes of textile waste were generated in 2020, about sixteen kilograms per person. Only about 4.4 kilograms per person were collected separately, while the rest went into mixed municipal waste. This confirms that post-consumer waste is the main source and that current collection systems capture only a small share of the available material. fileciteturn1file0turn1file3
The Joint Research Centre report “Textiles and the Environment” (JRC, 2022) and other studies have also clarified the main barriers in the textile value chain, such as mixed materials, lack of sorting capacity, limited recyclability and complex supply chains. fileciteturn1file0turn1file3
At policy level, the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, the Circular Economy Action Plan, the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, the Waste Framework Directive revision, and forthcoming Digital Product Passports and Extended Producer Responsibility schemes now create a clear direction towards long lasting, repairable, recyclable and largely recycled textiles, free of dangerous chemicals. fileciteturn1file1 These strategies confirm that fibre-to-fibre recycling, chemical safety and circular business models are key priorities.
1.2. First generation recycling technologies and pilots
Research and industry have developed and piloted several textile recycling technologies:
•	Mechanical recycling of pure or near pure cotton or wool is widely used for downcycling into insulation, wipes or nonwovens. It is mature but mostly leads to lower value products and has limited suitability for high quality apparel.
•	Chemical recycling of mono-material polyester has reached pilot and demonstration level. These technologies can produce new polyester of near virgin quality when input is well defined and low in contaminants.
•	Emerging enzymatic and solvent-based processes for cellulose or for the separation of certain blends have been demonstrated at laboratory or small pilot scale.
Large cross-sector projects funded by the EU have also demonstrated at industrial scale some of the building blocks needed for circular systems. For example, EcoReFibre has shown high throughput processing of post-consumer fibreboards and partial substitution of virgin fibres. REFRESH and EoLO-HUBs have developed smart dismantling, sorting and recycling of glass fibre reinforced composites from wind turbine blades. QUASAR has designed a full circular model for end-of-life photovoltaic modules including collection, sorting, digital twins and recycling. fileciteturn1file2 These projects prove that high throughput sorting, disassembly and recycling of complex waste streams at scale are possible when the value chain is well organised.
1.3. Economic and strategic analysis of textile recycling
McKinsey’s report “Scaling Textile Recycling in Europe: Turning Waste into Value” (McKinsey, 2022) has quantified the potential of fibre-to-fibre recycling, estimating that with targeted investment, the share of fibre-to-fibre recycling could increase from less than one percent today to eighteen to twenty six percent of gross textile waste by 2030, with investment needs of around six to seven billion euro and a potential annual profit pool of 1.5 to 2.2 billion euro. fileciteturn1file3 This confirms that a profitable industry is possible if the main bottlenecks are solved.
The IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute study “Does Large‑Scale Textile Recycling in Europe Reduce Climate Impact?” (IVL, 2023) has carried out a consequential life cycle assessment of large scale textile recycling in Europe. It concludes that large scale textile-to-textile recycling can reduce climate impact with high probability, but the size of the benefit depends strongly on energy mix, recycling yields and, above all, the extent to which recycled fibres actually replace virgin fibres. fileciteturn1file3 This provides a solid LCA basis for new projects.
The PwC study “The Road to Circularity: Why Circular Business Models are Needed Now” (PwC, 2021) provides practical frameworks for circular business models, stages of circular maturity and ways to measure progress. These are useful for designing viable business and governance models for new recycling systems. fileciteturn1file3
1.4. Policy and system level insights
The recent Systemiq report “The Textile Recycling Breakthrough: Why Policy Must Lead the Scale‑Up of Polyester Recycling in Europe” (Systemiq, 2022) highlights that scaling polyester and blended textile recycling will not happen through technology alone. It stresses that bold policy measures are needed on collection, sorting infrastructure, extended producer responsibility, and stable demand for recycled content. fileciteturn1file3 This supports the idea that future projects must combine technological and systemic solutions.
Overall, the scientific and industrial community has:
•	Identified the scale of the problem and main barriers along the value chain.
•	Developed and piloted promising recycling technologies for pure streams and some simple blends.
•	Demonstrated high throughput sorting, dismantling and recycling in other sectors (wood-based panels, composites, photovoltaic modules).
•	Provided clear economic, environmental and policy analysis showing that a circular textile system is both needed and potentially viable.
2. What remains unsolved and limits current practice
Despite this progress, several critical limitations remain, especially for mixed post-consumer textiles from blended products, which are the focus of the call.
2.1. Handling of complex blends and multi-material products
Most current fibre-to-fibre recycling processes work only for mono-material streams or very simple blends. Blended textiles that combine cotton, polyester, viscose, elastane and other fibres, often with coatings, prints, laminates and accessories, are still very hard to process. The Preliminary State of the Art review confirms that fibre blends reduce recyclability and lower the quality of recycled fibres due to incompatible polymers and difficult to remove finishes and dyes. fileciteturn1file0
There is no widely deployed technology chain in Europe that can take heterogeneous post-consumer blends at scale and output high quality secondary fibres that meet safety, durability and performance needs for new apparel. This is exactly the type of material targeted by the call.
2.2. Persistent chemicals, dyes and microplastics
Many garments contain persistent chemicals such as PFAS, complex dye systems and performance finishes. Current mechanical processes cannot remove these substances, and even many chemical or enzymatic routes struggle with them. As a result, either the recycled fibres contain unwanted chemicals, which may conflict with future PFAS restrictions and Safe and Sustainable by Design criteria, or pre-treatment becomes so complex and costly that it is not viable.
Studies reviewed in the Preliminary State of the Art note that some dyes and treatments are irreversibly bound to fibres and that recycling can create hazardous residues if these are not handled properly. fileciteturn1file0 There is also rising concern about microplastic release from both virgin and recycled synthetic fibres during production and use. These issues are central to the call, which asks to remove persistent chemicals and minimise hazardous releases during recycling.
2.3. Lack of robust characterisation and traceability of waste streams
Recyclers often receive mixed textile fractions with limited information on fibre composition, blend ratios, presence of elastane, type of dyes or previous treatments. The lack of reliable characterisation hampers process control, safety assessment and quality assurance of recycled fibres. The Preliminary State of the Art and EEA reports both highlight the absence of standardised data on composition and quality of textile waste, and point to the need for better material characterisation and harmonised reporting. fileciteturn1file0turn1file3
Digital product passports and extended producer responsibility schemes are planned but not yet fully in place. Until traceability and data availability improve, recyclers cannot fully comply with Safe and Sustainable by Design requirements or guarantee stable quality.
2.4. Limited industrial scale demonstrations for blended textiles
While there are industrial pilots for other waste streams and some pure textile fractions, very few projects have demonstrated end to end fibre-to-fibre recycling of complex blended apparel and home textiles at TRL 6 to 8. Most promising technologies are at laboratory or small pilot scale, with limited throughput and narrow input specifications.
McKinsey, Systemiq and JRC analyses all underline that collection, sorting and pre-processing limit the volume of textile waste that can be directed to fibre-to-fibre recycling and that input purity constraints of current technologies are a major bottleneck. fileciteturn1file3 There is still a lack of integrated demonstration lines that combine collection, sorting, disassembly, decontamination, recycling, fibre regeneration and use in new products for blended materials.
2.5. Uncertain economics and climate benefit for complex blends
Although the business case for textile recycling in general looks promising, the detailed costs and benefits for complex blends are still uncertain. The McKinsey study provides an aggregate view but highlights that significant investment in collection and sorting is needed, and that many technologies are not yet cost competitive. fileciteturn1file3
The IVL life cycle assessment study shows that large scale recycling can reduce climate impact, but the reduction remains modest if recycled fibres do not fully replace virgin fibres or if processes are energy intensive. fileciteturn1file3 Today, there is still limited empirical data on real world recycling yields, energy use and replacement rates for blended post-consumer textiles. This makes it hard for investors, brands and policymakers to judge which pathways should be scaled.
2.6. Fragmented value chain and slow uptake
Systemiq and PwC point out that without coordinated value chain action, clear roles and workable business models, circular solutions remain stuck in pilots. fileciteturn1file3 Local authorities face new obligations for separate collection but lack tested models for sorting and collaboration with recyclers. Brands are under pressure to increase recycled content and phase out hazardous chemicals but lack stable supply of high quality recycled fibres. Recyclers lack long term feedstock contracts and product offtake agreements.
As a result, promising technologies do not scale, and Europe exports large shares of its textile waste or sends it to incineration instead of closing the loop.
3. How a winning project under HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-CIRCBIO-02 can address these gaps
A strong Innovation Action under this call can move beyond the current state of the art by addressing these unresolved issues in an integrated way.
Such a project can:
•	Develop and demonstrate recycling processes that can treat real mixed post-consumer blends (for example cotton polyester and viscose polyester) including coated and accessorised garments, at industrially relevant scale.
•	Integrate advanced disassembly and pre-treatment steps that remove fasteners, coatings and contaminants, and that reduce the load of persistent chemicals and microplastics before or during recycling.
•	Build a robust characterisation framework for mixed textile waste, including sampling strategies, analytical methods and data models, to support both process control and regulatory compliance.
•	Test recyclability limits in practice by running multiple recycling cycles on regenerated fibres, documenting property changes and defining clear quality thresholds and alternative high value applications when further fibre-to-fibre recycling is no longer viable.
•	Generate real world LCA and LCC data for these new value chains, following Product Environmental Footprint methods, to quantify environmental and economic performance and to prove that they contribute meaningfully to climate and resource goals.
•	Design and pilot business and governance models that link local authorities, sorters, recyclers and manufacturers, building on circular business frameworks from PwC and policy signals from the EU Textile Strategy, CEAP and ESPR.
By doing so, the project would directly address the expected outcomes of the call:
•	It would provide European textile manufacturers with access to novel technologies for fibre to fibre recycling of post consumer blended textiles.
•	It would help local authorities and citizens move towards more resource and cost efficient management of used textiles by supplying clear solutions for sorting, characterisation and recycling.
•	It would equip European recyclers with properly characterised mixed post consumer textile waste and tested process routes to convert it into safe, durable and non toxic secondary materials.
This is the gap between what the community has achieved so far and what is still missing. Filling this gap is exactly the role of a winning project under HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-CIRCBIO-02.

#§PRJ-OBJ-PO§#
1.2	Methodology #@CON-MET-CM@# #@COM-PLE-CP@#
Insert here text for your proposal
1. Overall methodology and logic
The proposal needs an integrated method that goes from real waste streams all the way to new products and uptake, while fixing the gaps identified in the state of the art:
•	complex blends and multi-material products
•	persistent chemicals and microplastics
•	poor characterisation and traceability
•	lack of industrial scale demonstrations
•	uncertain economics and climate gain
•	fragmented value chain and slow uptake
The core idea is:
Start from real mixed post-consumer waste, co-design solutions with the value chain, build data and models for that waste, develop and integrate disassembly and recycling lines that are safe and efficient, test limits and alternative uses, and wrap this in sound LCA, business models and policy alignment, with open science and FAIR data as a backbone.
To do that, the methodology should follow these main steps:
Step A. System mapping and co-design with stakeholders
Aim: understand and frame the real problem before jumping to tech.
Activities:
•	Map textile waste flows, actors and current practices in chosen regions.
•	Identify key user groups: sorters, recyclers, textile mills, brands, local authorities, citizen groups.
•	Run co-design workshops to define needs, acceptance criteria, risk perceptions, and priority material types.
Disciplines and organisations:
•	Industrial ecology and waste management: universities, research institutes.
•	Textile technology: textile research centres, technical universities, textile industry labs.
•	Social sciences and humanities: sociologists, human geographers, behavioural experts, consumer researchers.
•	Public policy and law: EU law experts, policy think tanks.
•	End-users: municipalities, producer responsibility organisations, sorting companies, recyclers, brands, NGOs.
This step feeds directly into Objective 1 (characterisation), Objective 7 (uptake) and provides context for all others.
Step B. Waste characterisation and data model
Aim: build a solid, quantified description of mixed post-consumer blends and a data model that supports process design and SSbD.
Activities:
•	Design sampling strategy across regions, collection modes and product types.
•	Analyse composition (fibre types, blend ratios), non-textile parts (zips, trims), coatings, dyes, PFAS and other chemicals.
•	Measure physical properties: weight, density, colour mixes, contamination levels.
•	Build a relational data model of samples and flows that can later feed sorting rules, process design and LCA.
Disciplines and organisations:
•	Analytical chemistry and toxicology: chemical institutes, test labs.
•	Materials science: fibre labs, textile test institutes.
•	Data science and statistics: universities, data companies.
•	Environmental science: institutes with experience on microplastics and pollutants.
This is the core of Objective 1 and tackles the “poor characterisation and traceability” limitation.
Step C. Disassembly and pre-treatment lines
Aim: make complex products and blends “recycling ready”.
Activities:
•	Design mechanical and robotic disassembly stations to remove metal and plastic accessories (buttons, zips, labels).
•	Test cutting, shredding and sorting sequences that preserve fibre quality and separate obvious off-spec fractions.
•	Develop wet or dry pre-treatment to remove surface finishes, some dyes, and reduce PFAS load where possible, using safe solvents or enzymatic baths.
•	Integrate in-line sensing (near infrared, hyperspectral, imaging) to control what goes into downstream processes.
Disciplines and organisations:
•	Mechanical engineering and automation: robotics companies, machine builders.
•	Chemical engineering: research groups on separation processes and solvents.
•	Biotech: enzyme companies and biotech institutes (if enzymatic pre-treatment is used).
•	Sensor and control engineering: sensor vendors, industrial automation firms.
This step drives Objective 2 and starts addressing persistent chemicals and complex blends.
Step D. Recycling process development for blends
Aim: convert pre-treated blends into usable fibres or polymer streams.
Activities:
•	Select and adapt recycling routes per blend family: for example, depolymerisation of polyester, dissolution of cellulose, controlled mechanical routes for certain cotton-rich fractions.
•	Build pilot or demo lines at industrial sites reaching TRL six to eight.
•	Include measures to capture and treat microplastics and process emissions.
•	Couple process experiments with process models (mass balance, energy balance, yield models).
Disciplines and organisations:
•	Polymer chemistry and reaction engineering: universities, industrial R and D labs.
•	Process engineering: engineering firms, equipment suppliers.
•	Environmental engineering: experts on air and water treatment, microplastic capture.
•	Quality control: textile labs for fibre and yarn testing.
This step is central for Objective 3 and Objective 5, and addresses the lack of industrial demonstrations and microplastic control.
Step E. Recyclability limits and cascade use design
Aim: understand how far fibre-to-fibre recycling can go and what to do after that.
Activities:
•	Run repeated recycling cycles on the same material and track mechanical properties, chemical safety and process yields.
•	Define threshold values where material is no longer suitable for high quality textile use.
•	Match out-of-spec streams to suitable non-textile uses (nonwovens, insulation, composites) that still keep materials in use.
•	Create “cascade use maps” per material type.
Disciplines and organisations:
•	Materials science and mechanical testing: test labs, universities.
•	Product designers and industrial partners in sectors that can absorb non-textile outputs (construction, automotive suppliers, insulation producers).
•	LCA experts to compare cascade options.
This is Objective 4 and covers the recyclability limit gap.
Step F. LCA, LCC and techno-economic assessment
Aim: prove environmental and economic sense with numbers, not slogans.
Activities:
•	Define baselines (current waste treatment route and virgin fibre production, per region and product type).
•	Model new value chains with data from Steps B to E.
•	Perform LCA based on Product Environmental Footprint methods, including climate impact, water use, resource use, toxicity where data allow.
•	Perform life cycle cost and basic business case analysis: cost per kilogram recycled fibre, capital and operating cost ranges, needed gate fees or EPR levels.
•	Run sensitivity analysis on key parameters (yields, energy mix, replacement rate, collection costs).
Disciplines and organisations:
•	Environmental assessment: LCA specialists with PEF experience.
•	Economists and industrial engineers: universities, consultancies.
•	Data scientists: for sensitivity and scenario analysis.
This delivers Objective 6 and addresses uncertainty on economics and climate gain.
Step G. Business models, governance and policy fit
Aim: turn technical options into workable arrangements between actors, in line with EU policy.
Activities:
•	Map current and planned rules: national Waste Framework implementation, EPR schemes, eco-design rules, PFAS restrictions, product passport roll-out.
•	Co-develop business models: for example, recycler as service provider, long term feedstock contracts between local authorities and recyclers, volume and quality guarantees.
•	Develop governance models for shared infrastructure: regional sorting hubs, shared data platforms.
•	Draft policy recommendations based on evidence from pilots.
Disciplines and organisations:
•	Law and EU policy: legal departments at universities, policy think tanks, law firms.
•	Economics and business: business schools, circular economy consultancies.
•	Public administration: municipalities, regional waste agencies, ministries as observers or partners.
•	Social sciences: political scientists, public administration scholars.
This is the core of Objective 7 and responds to the fragmented value chain limitation.
Step H. Living labs and social acceptance
Aim: ensure solutions are accepted and used by people in the system.
Activities:
•	Set up “living labs” in pilot regions where local authorities, sorters, workers, brands, citizens and NGOs can interact with the new system.
•	Study worker safety, training needs and job quality in sorting and recycling sites.
•	Study citizen views on separate textile collection, data use, and recycled products.
•	Co-develop communication and labelling approaches for products with recycled content to support trust.
•	Include psychology and sociology to understand acceptance and possible rebound effects (for example, if recycled garments encourage over-consumption).
Disciplines and organisations:
•	Sociology and psychology: universities, institutes for applied social research.
•	Design and communication: design schools, marketing departments of brands.
•	Labour studies: groups focusing on working conditions, unions as stakeholders.
•	NGOs and citizen groups.
This supports Objective 7 and strengthens innovation aspects of other objectives.
Step I. Open science, FAIR data and citizen science
Aim: make data and knowledge reusable and transparent.
Activities:
•	Draft a data management plan from month one with clear FAIR targets.
•	Use standard open formats for data (for example comma-separated tables, plain text, widely used image formats) and machine-readable metadata (for example using common vocabularies for textile waste, chemicals and processes).
•	Deposit curated datasets, models and protocols in trusted repositories (for example Zenodo, institutional repositories) with persistent identifiers.
•	Use open source tools where practical and publish code under open licences.
•	Encourage open peer review for key methods by posting preprints and inviting comments.
•	Design simple citizen science tasks where possible, such as citizen logging of clothing use and discarding habits, or contributions to mapping local textile collection points.
FAIR components and how to verify them:
•	Findable: every dataset has a persistent identifier, rich metadata, and is indexed in at least one public catalogue. This can be checked by searching repository catalogues and confirming that keyword searches retrieve the dataset.
•	Accessible: data are reachable through open protocols (web, APIs) with clear access conditions. This can be checked by a third party trying to download sample data without special software.
•	Interoperable: data use open formats and shared vocabularies so they can be read by standard tools. This is confirmed when external users can load the data into common software and link it with other datasets without heavy conversion.
•	Reusable: data have clear licences (for example CC BY or similar), documentation, and quality notes. Reuse can be confirmed by external citations and downloads, or by recorded reuse cases in reports.
Disciplines and organisations:
•	Research data management: university libraries, data centres.
•	IT and software: organisations running repositories and tools.
•	Citizen science experts: NGOs or universities with experience in public data collection.

2. Methodology per objective and per limitation
Here I link this to the objectives you drafted (slightly shortened labels).
Objective 1 – Characterise mixed post-consumer textile waste
Key steps: A, B, I.
Methodology:
•	Use system mapping (Step A) to define which regions, collection streams and product categories to include.
•	Apply a statistically sound sampling plan and lab protocols (Step B) for composition and contaminant analysis.
•	Build a digital data model with FAIR data practices (Step I) so the information can feed sorting, process design and LCA.
Disciplines:
•	Waste management, textile science, analytical chemistry, data science, environmental science, social sciences (for sampling design and interpretation of behaviours).
State-of-the-art limitation addressed: lack of robust characterisation and traceability.
Objective 2 – Disassemble complex products and remove contaminants
Key steps: C, D, I.
Methodology:
•	Co-design disassembly needs with recyclers and sorters.
•	Develop and test mechanical, robotic and wet pre-treatment lines on real waste, not just clean lab scraps.
•	Measure accessory removal rates, damage to fibres, and contaminant reduction.
Disciplines:
•	Mechanical engineering, automation, robotics, chemical engineering, biotech, sensor engineering, occupational safety.
Limitations addressed: complex blends and multi-material products, persistent chemicals, lack of industrial pre-treatment lines.
Objective 3 – Advance recycling technologies for blended fibres
Key steps: D, E, F, I.
Methodology:
•	For each main blend type, select suitable routes and run design of experiments to optimise yields, energy use and quality.
•	Model mass and energy balances, build simple predictive models for yields based on input properties.
•	Combine experimental data with LCA and cost models to guide process choices.
Disciplines:
•	Polymer chemistry, process engineering, environmental engineering, LCA, economics.
Limitations addressed: limited industrial demonstrations for blends, uncertain performance and cost.
Objective 4 – Recyclability limits and alternative applications
Key steps: E, F.
Methodology:
•	Define test protocols for repeated recycling loops.
•	Run loops until properties drop below relevant product standards.
•	Map the material to other sectors and run quick LCA screens for cascade options.
Disciplines:
•	Materials science, testing labs, industrial partners from other sectors, LCA experts.
Limitations addressed: lack of evidence on how many cycles are feasible and missing guidance on cascade use.
Objective 5 – Produce market-ready secondary textile materials
Key steps: D, E, H.
Methodology:
•	Work with textile mills and brands to translate recycled streams into yarns and fabrics.
•	Co-define quality and safety targets (strength, elongation, colourfastness, chemical safety).
•	Run product trials and user testing in living labs to check comfort, appearance and acceptance.
Disciplines:
•	Textile engineering, design, marketing, psychology, sociology, toxicology.
Limitations addressed: missing link between recycling output and real products, social acceptance.
Objective 6 – Validate environmental and economic feasibility
Key steps: F, I.
Methodology:
•	Collect process data along the pilots.
•	Apply LCA and LCC in line with PEF methods.
•	Run scenario analysis to cover different policy and market cases.
•	Publish methods and main datasets openly for scrutiny.
Disciplines:
•	Environmental assessment, economics, industrial engineering, data science.
Limitations addressed: uncertainty around climate impact and costs, lack of robust numbers.
Objective 7 – Uptake by manufacturers, recyclers and local authorities
Key steps: A, G, H, I.
Methodology:
•	Use co-design workshops to build trust and define roles and incentives.
•	Develop and test draft contracts, service models and governance schemes in pilot regions.
•	Study social acceptance, worker conditions and equity aspects.
•	Align results with EU rules and national plans and prepare policy briefs.
Disciplines:
•	Law, EU studies, economics, public administration, sociology, psychology, design, communication.
Limitations addressed: fragmented value chain, slow uptake, policy gaps.

3. Summary table
Step	Concept behind it	Model involved	Assumptions	Input	Output	
Step A – System mapping and co-design	Understand real flows and actors before designing solutions	Stakeholder and system mapping model of textile value chain	Key actors are willing to share data and join workshops	Existing reports, interviews, workshops	Shared view of system, list of needs and constraints	
Step B – Waste characterisation and data model	Build a data grounded view of mixed waste	Sampling design, statistical models, data model for materials and flows	Samples represent wider streams, lab methods are reliable	Physical samples, lab measurements, metadata	Database of composition and contaminants, digital model ready for reuse	
Step C – Disassembly and pre-treatment	Turn complex products into suitable input for recycling	Process models for disassembly and contaminant removal	Products can be disassembled without excessive fibre damage, safe solvents or enzymes are available	Sorted textile items with accessories and finishes	Cleaned textile fractions, measured removal rates, process settings	
Step D – Recycling of blends	Convert blends into usable fibres or polymers	Process and reaction models for chosen recycling routes	Selected routes can be scaled and reach TRL six to eight within project	Pre-treated blends, process recipes, pilot line data	Recycled fibres or polymers, process performance data	
Step E – Recyclability limits and cascade use	Define how far fibre-to-fibre can go and plan next uses	Degradation and cascade use models	Product standards define clear thresholds, suitable non-textile markets exist	Recycled fibres over several cycles, test results, product specs	Limits per material, cascade maps and suggested end uses	
Step F – LCA, LCC and techno-economic assessment	Prove environmental and economic sense	LCA models, LCC models, simple business case models	Baselines are well defined, data from pilots is adequate	Process data, energy use, costs, market prices	Climate and cost indicators, sensitivity analysis, guidance for investors and policy	
Step G – Business models and governance	Turn technical routes into workable arrangements	Business model frameworks, governance models, policy analysis	Actors are ready to engage in new contracts and schemes	System map, LCA and LCC results, policy reviews	Business model options, draft agreements, policy briefs	
Step H – Living labs and social acceptance	Ensure people accept and use the solutions	Behaviour and acceptance models, labour impact models	Social research participants are representative and open	Pilot sites, workers, citizens, brands, NGOs	Insights on acceptance, communication and labelling strategies, worker guidance	
Step I – Open science and FAIR data	Make data and knowledge reusable and transparent	Data management and FAIR implementation plan	Repositories, licences and standards are available and acceptable	Project datasets, code, protocols, metadata	FAIR compliant datasets and tools, open publications, evidence of reuse	

#§CON-MET-CM§# #§COM-PLE-CP§# #§REL-EVA-RE§# 
2.	Impact #@IMP-ACT-IA@#
2.1	Project’s pathways towards impact
The project has been designed so that each technical and non-technical result directly supports the three expected outcomes of the call. These outcomes require clear benefits for manufacturers, recyclers, local authorities and citizens. To reach them, the project produces eight concrete results that cover the full chain from waste generation to product manufacturing.
The table below explains how each project result will contribute to the three expected outcomes of the call and how these outcomes will be reached by the end of the project. Each result is linked to a clear group of beneficiaries and supported by measurable progress indicators that show both the scale of impact (how many stakeholders benefit) and the significance of impact (how much they benefit). These values reflect the ambition required for a 36-month Innovation Action with a budget of six million euro. They also build on the gaps identified in the current practice and the technical limits highlighted in the proposal.
By month thirty six, the project will deliver mature technical routes for fibre-to-fibre recycling of blended waste, clean and reliable feedstock preparation, detailed recyclability limits, tested prototype products and strong evidence of environmental and economic gains. It will also deliver new business models, governance schemes and open datasets to support scale-up. These results collectively ensure that manufacturers gain access to new recycling technologies (EO1), authorities and citizens gain resource and cost benefits in handling blended waste (EO2), and recyclers receive well-characterised input streams (EO3). The scale and significance linked to each result show how the project can create real and measurable changes across the value chain.

Project Result	Expected Outcome(s)	Target Groups (TG) & Why They Benefit	Scale (How many benefit)	Significance (Quantified benefit linked to KPIs)	
Result 1 – Waste-stream map and digital dataset	EO3, EO2	TG1: Recyclers – receive complete and reliable data for process control. TG2: Local authorities – gain clarity on waste volumes and contamination patterns.	TG1: 10–15 recycling companies. TG2: 8–10 authorities and EPR bodies.	Recyclers gain >95% correct blend identification; municipalities gain 20% improved planning accuracy (linked to sample size KPI of 3,000 samples).	
Result 2 – Tested sorting, dismantling and pre-treatment system	EO3, EO2	TG1: Recyclers – receive clean feedstock. TG2: Sorters and waste collectors – operate more efficient routes.	TG1: 10 recyclers using clean feedstock. TG2: 8 sorting centres involved.	Sorting accuracy improved by ≥85%, accessory removal ≥90%, and PFAS reduction ≥60% (KPIs).	
Result 3 – Pilot-scale recycling routes (TRL6–7)	EO1, EO3	TG3: Textile manufacturers – gain access to new recycling technologies. TG1: Recyclers – adopt validated process settings.	TG3: 15–20 manufacturing partners and brands. TG1: 10 recyclers.	Fibre purity ≥90%, continuous runs >48 hours, TRL 6–7 demonstration (KPIs).	
Result 4 – Recyclability thresholds and cascade-use map	EO1, EO2	TG3: Manufacturers – plan products based on clear limits. TG2: Local authorities – plan secondary routes to reduce landfill and cost.	TG3: 15–20 manufacturing partners. TG2: 8–10 authorities.	Clear recyclability limit per blend (e.g. 2 cycles for cotton–polyester), 3 cascade options per fraction (KPIs).	
Result 5 – Prototype yarns, fabrics and textile items	EO1, EO2	TG3: Manufacturers – test recycled materials in real products. TG4: Consumers – get better quality recycled items.	TG3: 20+ manufacturers/brands. TG4: At least 5,000 consumers exposed through pilots and communication.	5 prototypes, ≥50% recycled content, >95% quality-test pass rate (KPIs).	
Result 6 – LCA and LCC showing environmental and cost gains	EO2, EO1	TG2: Local authorities – receive proof of cost savings. TG3: Manufacturers – receive validated environmental benefits.	TG2: 8–10 authorities. TG3: 15–20 manufacturing companies.	Climate impact ≥30% reduction, cost gap ≥20% lower than baseline (KPIs).	
Result 7 – Business models, governance and social acceptance	EO2, EO1, EO3	TG2: Local authorities – get cooperation frameworks. TG3: Manufacturers & recyclers – understand viable business cases. TG4: Consumers – benefit from acceptance studies.	TG2: 8–10 authorities. TG3: 25+ companies. TG4: 300+ participants in acceptance study.	3 business models, 10+ uptake agreements, 300+ users in acceptance research (KPIs).	
Result 8 – Open datasets, guidelines, industry engagement and policy input	EO1, EO2, EO3	TG5: Policy makers – use guidelines for new rules. TG3: Manufacturers & recyclers – use open technical guidance. TG2: Authorities – use waste-planning advice.	TG5: 20–30 policy stakeholders; TG3: 25+ companies; TG2: 8–10 authorities.	100% datasets FAIR, 1 policy brief, 20+ industry representatives engaged (KPIs).	

TABLE – Barriers and Measures per Expected Outcome (EO1, EO2, EO3)
EO1: European textile manufacturers have access to new fibre-to-fibre recycling technologies for post-consumer textile waste
Category of Barrier	Barrier to Overcome	Measures to Overcome the Barrier	
Political & Legal	Rules on chemical safety, PFAS, dyes and product requirements are not fully clear for recycled fibres.	Set up early contact points with regulators; track changes in ESPR, REACH, PFAS rules and Digital Product Passport; adapt process steps accordingly; share evidence with authorities through WP7.	
Political & Legal	Lack of harmonised guidance for recycled fibre quality, especially from blended materials.	Develop simple technical guidance in WP5; align with textile standards; create shared quality benchmarks with brands and producers.	
Social & Environmental	Brands and consumers may distrust recycled fibres due to concerns about safety and performance.	Run living labs; test safety and durability benchmarks; create clear product information explaining quality tests; involve designers and consumer groups early.	
Social & Environmental	Lack of acceptance for textiles made from waste that may contain chemicals.	Show chemical reduction results from WP3; validate fibres in WP5; present safety data in user-friendly format; improve transparency in WP8.	
Technological	Current recycling routes for blends are not stable at pilot scale; difficulties in removing coatings, dyes and additives.	Run extra trials in WP3 and WP4; adapt pre-treatment; optimise process conditions; engage chemical and materials experts for troubleshooting.	
Technological	Limited information on recyclability limits and when fibres lose usable performance.	Define thresholds through multi-cycle tests (WP5); document strength loss, degradation and safety effects; provide clear limits to manufacturers.	
Economical	Recycled fibres may cost more than virgin fibres; uncertain long-term demand.	Use LCC analysis in WP6 to show cost paths; propose business models in WP7; secure early commitments from brands; explore cost-sharing schemes.	
Economical	Manufacturers may fear unstable supply of recycled feedstock.	Use WP2 and WP3 to show stable feedstock preparation; develop cooperation agreements between sorters, recyclers and manufacturers; create regional feedstock models in WP7.	

EO2: Local authorities and consumers benefit from resource- and cost-efficient handling of post-consumer blended textiles
Category of Barrier	Barrier to Overcome	Measures to Overcome the Barrier	
Political & Legal	Collection rules differ across regions and lack clear guidance for blended textile waste.	Work with authorities early; share waste-mapping evidence from WP2; propose simple collection guidelines; align actions with EPR and national waste plans.	
Political & Legal	Responsibilities between authorities, sorters and recyclers are unclear.	Create clear cooperation models in WP7; prepare draft agreements; test roles in two pilot regions.	
Social & Environmental	Low participation in separate textile collection due to low trust or lack of awareness.	Run public information actions in WP8; provide simple and positive messages; use behavioural nudges; involve citizens through easy tasks.	
Social & Environmental	Concerns about hygiene, odour and contamination in used textiles.	Develop clear handling guidance; show how pre-treatment improves cleanliness; provide training for workers and volunteers.	
Technological	Sorting accuracy for mixed blends is not consistent; waste arrives contaminated.	Improve dismantling and sorting workflows in WP3; refine sensor rules based on WP2 dataset; design simple pre-sorting steps for local sites.	
Technological	Pre-treatment steps may not reach required safety or chemical reduction levels.	Adjust pre-treatment conditions; test multiple routes; involve chemical experts; validate at pilot scale in WP3.	
Economical	Municipal budgets are limited and discourage investment in improved sorting systems.	Provide LCC evidence showing long-term savings; propose modular sorting solutions; develop shared cost models in WP7.	
Economical	Uncertain financial return from better collection and sorting.	Use WP6 results to show cost reductions; design business cases linking feedstock quality to recycling revenue; secure early interest from recyclers.	

EO3: European recyclers are equipped with well-described mixed post-consumer textile waste
Category of Barrier	Barrier to Overcome	Measures to Overcome the Barrier	
Political & Legal	No common guidance for reporting fibre composition, blends, trims or chemical treatments.	Create simple sampling and testing rules in WP2; align metadata with Digital Product Passport; provide open methods and templates in WP8.	
Political & Legal	Unclear requirements for the handling of textiles containing PFAS, dyes or other chemical loads.	Work with legal and chemical experts in WP7; follow upcoming PFAS rules; define safe handling and pre-treatment steps in WP3.	
Social & Environmental	Waste often arrives dirty, mixed or with hidden chemical loads; concern for worker safety.	Introduce dismantling rules and safe handling protocols in WP3; provide safety training; improve pre-treatment steps to reduce contamination.	
Social & Environmental	Low trust among workers and recyclers due to safety fears or inconsistent input quality.	Share clear contaminant data from WP2; provide evidence of chemical reduction; publish safe working guidelines.	
Technological	No standard method for identifying blend types; inconsistent data from manual sorting and basic lab checks.	Use systematic sampling (WP2); train sensors using the new dataset; apply lab protocols; adopt automated classification rules.	
Technological	Missing or incomplete metadata on waste prevents stable process control.	Build the digital dataset under FAIR rules; include required fields for chemistry, finishes, trims; validate through pilot use in WP4.	
Economical	Characterisation is too expensive for individual recyclers; lack of shared infrastructure increases cost.	Create shared datasets; design cost-sharing models in WP7; promote regional hubs and cooperative testing arrangements.	
Economical	Poorly described inputs cause process downtime and raise operational cost for recyclers.	Use detailed dataset from WP2; improve pre-sorting through WP3; provide process settings in WP4 to handle variations more reliably.	

By the end of the project, all core technical and organisational results will be demonstrated at a level suitable for real-world use. However, meaningful environmental, industrial and social impacts require continued action in the years that follow. This project therefore sets out a clear and realistic pathway for how its outputs will turn into large-scale outcomes and long-term impacts within five years after the project ends. The actions listed below build directly on the project’s achievements and show how these achievements will be carried forward by industry, authorities, and policy makers using a combination of private investment and public funding at EU and national level.

1. Extending Policy and Strategic Impacts (Years 3–8)
After the project ends, the technical evidence, datasets and guidelines will need to be integrated into ongoing policy work at EU and national level. Authorities working on the Circular Economy Action Plan, the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, the Waste Framework Directive, the EU Textiles Strategy and the Zero-Pollution Action Plan can directly use the project’s results on chemical reduction, safe sorting, pre-treatment and recycling routes for blended materials.
To support this, partners will participate in expert groups and standardisation bodies to help shape rules for fibre quality, data reporting, chemical handling and Digital Product Passport requirements. The waste-characterisation dataset and sampling protocols will be proposed for use in Extended Producer Responsibility schemes. These elements will help improve cross-border alignment and reduce uncertainty for recyclers and manufacturers.
Funding sources:
• Public: Horizon Europe Cluster 6 policy-support actions, LIFE Programme, Interreg, national circular economy programmes.
• Private: in-kind contributions by recycling companies, textile brands and EPR bodies participating in standardisation work.

2. Expanding Environmental Impact Through Deployment (Years 3–8)
The environmental gains demonstrated in the project—lower waste, reduced need for virgin fibres, lower emissions and safer chemical profiles—depend on the expansion of the tested methods into wide use. After project completion, partners will work with regions and municipalities to roll out feedstock preparation sites (sorting, dismantling, pre-treatment) and to create regional recycling hubs based on the project’s pilot lines. These hubs can be adapted to the blend types and waste volumes of their region.
The project’s microplastic reduction measures, chemical handling rules and energy-saving process settings will be included in regional waste planning and in new industrial plants. All regions adopting the approach will benefit from reduced landfill, fewer uncontrolled exports, lower energy use and fewer chemical emissions.
Funding sources:
• Public: European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Innovation Fund (small-scale projects), national green transition funds.
• Private: capital from recyclers and technology suppliers, long-term purchase commitments by brands, and local authority investment for collection and sorting infrastructure.

3. Strengthening Industrial and Market Uptake (Years 3–8)
The project’s recycled fibres, thresholds, and product prototypes will support the market entry of circular textiles. After the project ends, partners will work with manufacturers, brands and textile mills to scale up pilot results. This includes upgrading pilot lines to demonstration plants, establishing stable supply agreements for mixed textile waste and recycled fibres, and creating capsule collections or product lines based on the prototypes tested in the project.
The governance models developed during the project will be used to help companies and authorities agree on long-term cooperation structures and feedstock contracts. Clear and simple quality rules and safety benchmarks will support adoption. As markets mature and more actors adopt the standards, recycling routes will become more stable, costs will decrease, and demand for secondary fibres will grow.
Funding sources:
• Public: EIC Transition, EIC Accelerator, InvestEU, national industrial innovation grants.
• Private: direct investments by brands, recycling plant operators, and textile manufacturers; corporate sustainability budgets aimed at replacing virgin fibres.

4. Building Socio-economic Value and New Skills (Years 3–8)
The project lays the basis for new jobs, new skills and local economic activity linked to sorting, pre-treatment, recycling and remanufacturing. After project completion, partners will support vocational centres, universities and regional clusters to use the project’s training modules to upskill workers in waste collection, sorting, chemical safety, digital traceability and circular design.
Municipalities will be able to use governance models to create local circular business networks involving small companies specialised in dismantling, repair, collection, pre-sorting and remanufacturing. This will strengthen local economies, create small and medium-sized enterprises in regions with textile waste, and offer new employment opportunities.
Funding sources:
• Public: ESF+ for training and skills, ERDF for regional clusters, national labour programmes.
• Private: contributions from companies wanting skilled staff, sponsorship by brands, social enterprises.

5. Increasing Consumer and Societal Acceptance (Years 3–8)
Consumer acceptance will be expanded using the insights generated by the project’s living labs and social research. After the project ends, partners will run wider awareness campaigns with municipalities, NGOs and brands to promote proper textile separation, explain the safety and quality of recycled fibres, and encourage sustainable consumption patterns.
Cities will be supported in adopting improved textile collection systems using simple and clear messages developed during the project. This will also help raise awareness among young people and schools, encouraging responsible waste practices.
Funding sources:
• Public: Horizon Europe Cluster 2 (culture and behaviour), national waste awareness programmes, city-level budgets.
• Private: brand-led campaigns and associations promoting circular textiles.

6. Destination-Level Impacts (Years 3–8)
The continuation work described above contributes directly to the broader impacts expected under the destination:
• Climate mitigation and adaptation: Reduced emissions from virgin fibre production, less incineration, and more efficient use of resources.
• Industrial competitiveness and autonomy: Stable supply of secondary fibres reduces dependence on imported raw materials and strengthens European companies.
• Improved living conditions: Cleaner air, water and soil due to reduced chemical and microplastic emissions; safer textiles for consumers and workers.
• Societal transformation: Broader public acceptance of circular practices, better waste habits, and more inclusive cooperation between authorities, citizens, companies and civil society.
These impacts cannot be achieved during the project alone, but the project provides all the required elements—data, technology, governance and skills—to enable them.

2.2	Measures to maximise impact - Dissemination, exploitation and communication #@COM-DIS-VIS-CDV@#
TABLE FOR RESULT 1 – Waste-stream map and digital dataset
Target Groups to Inform (TGs)	Engagement Measures (innovative & practical)	Performance Indicators (Quantitative)	
TG1 Recyclers	Short “data clinics” showing how the dataset improves process control.	At least 10 recyclers use the dataset in trials.	
TG2 Authorities	Regional waste-mapping sessions using local data.	8 authorities use the dataset for planning.	
TG5 Policy makers	Policy roundtables explaining how the dataset supports rules on waste and chemicals.	20 policy users download or reference the dataset.	

TABLE FOR RESULT 2 – Tested sorting, dismantling and pre-treatment system
Target Groups to Inform (TGs)	Engagement Measures (innovative & practical)	Performance Indicators (Quantitative)	
TG1 Recyclers	Hands-on trials where recyclers run their own waste through the system.	Sorting accuracy reaches 85% in 3 pilot sites.	
TG2 Authorities	“Sorting labs” for authorities to compare cost and performance.	8 authorities attend sorting labs.	
TG3 Manufacturers	Short videos showing clean feedstock quality and safety gains.	10 manufacturers request feedstock samples.	

TABLE FOR RESULT 3 – Pilot-scale recycling routes for blends (TRL 6–7)
Target Groups to Inform (TGs)	Engagement Measures (innovative & practical)	Performance Indicators (Quantitative)	
TG1 Recyclers	Industry test days where recyclers choose input waste for trials.	15 recycling companies attend the test days.	
TG3 Manufacturers	Pilot batches provided for brand testing in real product trials.	5 pilot batches tested by brands.	
TG5 Policy makers	Short briefings on safety, energy and chemical performance.	2 policy bodies use findings in consultations.	

TABLE FOR RESULT 4 – Recyclability thresholds and cascade-use map
Target Groups to Inform (TGs)	Engagement Measures (innovative & practical)	Performance Indicators (Quantitative)	
TG3 Manufacturers	“Design with limits” workshops showing how to plan products using thresholds.	30 product designers join workshops.	
TG2 Authorities	Sessions showing how cascade uses reduce landfill and cost.	5 regions adopt cascade-use options.	
TG5 Policy makers	Technical notes linking thresholds with EPR planning.	1 national or EU working group references thresholds.	

TABLE FOR RESULT 5 – Prototype yarns, fabrics and textile items
Target Groups to Inform (TGs)	Engagement Measures (innovative & practical)	Performance Indicators (Quantitative)	
TG3 Manufacturers	“Touch and test” sessions with prototypes for brand buyers and designers.	5 prototypes tested by manufacturers.	
TG4 Consumers	Consumer trials with early-stage products in selected pilot regions.	500 consumers take part in trials.	
TG1 Recyclers	Visits to show how fibres feed into real products.	5 recyclers confirm stable process-to-product link.	

TABLE FOR RESULT 6 – LCA and LCC showing environmental and cost gains
Target Groups to Inform (TGs)	Engagement Measures (innovative & practical)	Performance Indicators (Quantitative)	
TG2 Authorities	One-page “decision sheets” showing climate and cost results.	Authorities report a 20% savings potential.	
TG3 Manufacturers	Joint sessions on using climate data for buying and design choices.	10 manufacturers integrate findings into decisions.	
TG5 Policy makers	Policy workshops explaining how LCA supports upcoming rules.	2 policy consultations use the results.	

TABLE FOR RESULT 7 – Business models, governance and social acceptance insights
Target Groups to Inform (TGs)	Engagement Measures (innovative & practical)	Performance Indicators (Quantitative)	
TG2 Authorities	Role-play sessions showing how authorities, sorters and recyclers can work together.	2 regions adopt the governance model.	
TG3 Manufacturers	Business model try-outs with brands and recyclers.	10 manufacturers test business model options.	
TG4 Consumers	Online focus groups and user discussions on acceptance of recycled textiles.	300 users take part in acceptance work.	
TG5 Policy makers	Briefings based on governance and social research.	At least 1 policy report references the findings.	

TABLE FOR RESULT 8 – Open datasets, guidelines, industry engagement and policy input
Target Groups to Inform (TGs)	Engagement Measures (innovative & practical)	Performance Indicators (Quantitative)	
TG1 Recyclers	“Data open days” explaining how to reuse datasets.	20 recyclers attend open-data sessions.	
TG2 Authorities	Tutorials on how to apply guidelines in planning.	10 authorities download the guideline pack.	
TG3 Manufacturers	Step-by-step demonstration on using guidelines for product design.	20 companies join the guideline sessions.	
TG5 Policy makers	Joint work with policy bodies to transfer evidence into recommendations.	1 policy brief prepared using project input.	

TABLE — Communication Measures per Target Group
Target Group (TG)	Communication Measures (informing about project info, activities, expectations, achievements)	Performance Indicators (Quantitative)	
TG1 – Recyclers	• Quarterly “technology updates” explaining pilot progress and early findings. • Direct newsletters with process settings, safety notes and test schedules. • Short video briefings showing sorting, dismantling or pilot trials.	• 4 updates per year. • At least 15 recycler subscribers. • 50% of recyclers open each update. • 200 views per technical video.	
TG2 – Local Authorities & EPR Bodies	• Bi-annual briefings explaining progress on waste mapping, sorting, and cost impact. • Webinars tailored for city waste managers. • Simple “planning notes” summarising what to expect at each project stage.	• 2 briefings per year to at least 8 authorities. • 30 webinar participants per session. • 10 authorities download planning notes.	
TG3 – Manufacturers & Brands	• “Design for recycling” newsletters with milestones. • Product-focused webinars presenting prototypes and material tests. • Brand-targeted fact sheets explaining opportunities for recycled content.	• At least 20 manufacturers subscribed. • 3 prototype webinars with 40 participants. • 15 downloads of fact sheets each quarter.	
TG4 – Consumers & Users	• Public social media posts on milestones and safety results. • Short explainer videos showing the path from waste to new products. • Simple messages explaining why separation matters.	• 50,000 social media impressions per year. • 5 public videos with 1,000 views each. • Engagement rate above 5%.	
TG5 – Policy Makers & Regulators	• Policy briefs summarising early evidence (every 6 months). • Closed roundtables with EU, national and regional bodies. • Short memos linking results to rules on chemicals, DPP and EPR.	• 10 policy stakeholders reached per brief. • 3 roundtables with at least 20 participants total. • Policy memos shared at least twice per year.	
TG6 – Citizens (general public)	• Clear visual posts on sorting benefits, waste flows and project progress (simple wording). • Partnership with municipalities for local communication (posters, website updates). • Interaction events in selected cities showing before/after waste handling.	• 100,000 impressions per year across city channels. • 10 municipalities share project content. • 3 city events with 300+ total visitors.	
TG7 – Textile Research Institutes / Universities	• Technical newsletters summarising research trends, datasets and methods. • Open data tutorials inviting institutes to reuse the dataset. • Presentations at textile and materials conferences.	• 100 downloads of dataset per year. • 30 participants in data tutorials. • 3 conference presentations.	
TG8 – Sorting Companies / Waste Collectors	• Operational updates on dismantling, sorting and chemical test results. • On-site visits by project partners explaining equipment needs. • Short “how-to” sheets summarising expected sorting improvements.	• 10 companies receiving quarterly updates. • 5 site visits per year. • 500 downloads of how-to sheets.	
TG9 – SMEs & Start-ups in Circular Textiles	• Monthly short messages showing new business opportunities. • Startup-focused webinars explaining how they can join follow-up stages. • Showcasing SME pilot roles on the project website.	• 200 SME contacts in mailing list. • 50 attendees per startup webinar. • Website visits above 1,000 per month.	
TG10 – NGOs & Civil Society Groups	• Joint communication campaigns with NGOs on sorting and pollution reduction. • Data-sharing sessions explaining evidence on chemicals and microplastics. • Community information packs for workshops.	• 5 NGO partners engaged. • 200 participants in joint sessions. • 300 downloads of community packs.	

IPR TABLE – Result 1: Waste-stream map and digital dataset
Organisations Involved in Development	Organisations Involved in Operation / Use	Suggested IPR Model (Ownership + Conditions)	Open Access?	
Universities, textile research centres, chemical labs, data teams, local authorities (for data input)	Recyclers, local authorities, EPR bodies, policy makers	Joint ownership by data-producing partners. Public bodies receive free use rights. Recyclers may use dataset under a simple non-exclusive licence. Commercial resale not allowed. Credit to creators required.	Yes (dataset released under FAIR rules)	

IPR TABLE – Result 2: Tested sorting, dismantling and pre-treatment system
Organisations Involved in Development	Organisations Involved in Operation / Use	Suggested IPR Model (Ownership + Conditions)	Open Access?	
Robotics firms, machine suppliers, textile labs, chemical partners, sorting companies	Sorting centres, recyclers, municipalities	Process design owned by technical developers. Municipalities and recyclers receive free non-commercial use rights. Commercial rights available via licence after project. Safety guidelines open for all.	Partly (guidelines open; core process design closed)	

IPR TABLE – Result 3: Pilot-scale recycling routes (TRL 6–7)
Organisations Involved in Development	Organisations Involved in Operation / Use	Suggested IPR Model (Ownership + Conditions)	Open Access?	
Chemical firms, biotech partners, recycling technology developers, textile research institutes	Recyclers, textile manufacturers, brands	Each route owned by the developer (industrial partner). Project partners receive internal right-to-use for testing. After project, commercial licences available. No exclusive rights given to a single firm.	No (industrial know-how kept private)	

IPR TABLE – Result 4: Recyclability thresholds and cascade-use map
Organisations Involved in Development	Organisations Involved in Operation / Use	Suggested IPR Model (Ownership + Conditions)	Open Access?	
Universities, textile research centres, recyclers, manufacturers	Manufacturers, recyclers, authorities, policy makers	Joint ownership of threshold rules. Released under a free open licence. Anyone may use the thresholds with credit to creators. No resale of the rules allowed.	Yes (fully open)	

IPR TABLE – Result 5: Prototype yarns, fabrics and textile items
Organisations Involved in Development	Organisations Involved in Operation / Use	Suggested IPR Model (Ownership + Conditions)	Open Access?	
Textile mills, garment producers, textile institutes	Brands, manufacturers, designers	Prototype designs owned by the producer. Use in marketing or product launches requires agreement. Non-exclusive testing rights granted to project partners. General findings shared openly without revealing design details.	Partly (general results open; product designs closed)	

IPR TABLE – Result 6: LCA and LCC findings
Organisations Involved in Development	Organisations Involved in Operation / Use	Suggested IPR Model (Ownership + Conditions)	Open Access?	
Universities, LCA consultancies, economists	Authorities, recyclers, manufacturers, policy makers	Methodology open for all. LCA datasets published under FAIR rules. Firms may reuse results without licence. Commercial LCA software remains owned by its developer.	Yes (findings open)	

IPR TABLE – Result 7: Business models, governance and social acceptance insights
Organisations Involved in Development	Organisations Involved in Operation / Use	Suggested IPR Model (Ownership + Conditions)	Open Access?	
Universities, business schools, social science partners, municipal authorities	Authorities, brands, recyclers, NGOs, business networks	Governance models and templates released under a free open licence. Commercial firms may adapt them freely with credit. No exclusivity granted. Social insights always public.	Yes (fully open)	

IPR TABLE – Result 8: Open datasets, guidelines, industry and policy input
Organisations Involved in Development	Organisations Involved in Operation / Use	Suggested IPR Model (Ownership + Conditions)	Open Access?	
Project coordinator, universities, technical leaders, communication team	All target groups, including recyclers, authorities, brands, NGOs, policy makers	All guidelines and datasets open. Partners keep ownership of their background know-how. No exclusive rights granted. Free reuse allowed with credit to creators.	Yes (open access for all outputs)	

#§COM-DIS-VIS-CDV§#

2.3 Summary 
KEY ELEMENT OF THE IMPACT SECTION
SPECIFIC NEEDS	
What are the specific needs that triggered this project?

Insert here text for your proposal

	
EXPECTED RESULTS	
What do you expect to generate by the end of the project? 

Insert here text for your proposal
	
D & E & C MEASURES	
What dissemination, exploitation and communication measures will you apply to the results? 

Insert here text for your proposal

TARGET GROUPS	
Who will use or further up-take the results of the project? Who will benefit from the results of the project? 

Insert here text for your proposal

	
OUTCOMES	
What change do you expect to see after successful dissemination and exploitation of project results to the target group(s)?

Insert here text for your proposal

	
IMPACTS	
What are the expected wider scientific, economic and societal effects of the project contributing to the expected impacts outlined in the respective destination in the work programme?

Insert here text for your proposal
	
#§IMP-ACT-IA§#

3. Quality and efficiency of the implementation #@QUA-LIT-QL@# #@WRK-PLA-WP@# 
3.1	Work plan and resources 
Insert here text for your proposal
Scope (Proposals should address)	Matching Expected Outcomes	Indicative Activities (Minimum 2 per item)	Alignment with Project Objectives (from proposal concept)	
1. Fibre blends (cotton-polyester, natural + semi-synthetic + synthetic blends)	• Textile manufacturers get access to new fibre-to-fibre recycling technologies.	• Create pilot-scale recycling lines able to treat real blends with coatings, elastane, dyes. • Validate regenerated fibres in yarn and fabric production with mills and brands.	• Obj.1: Develop and validate technologies for mixed blends. • Obj.3: Produce regenerated fibres and prototype products.	
2. Novel and market-ready solutions for collection, sorting and recycling of blended post-consumer textile waste	• Local authorities + consumers benefit from efficient waste management. • Recyclers get well-described mixed waste streams.	• Build regional waste-stream maps with municipalities and collectors. • Test automated sorting and pre-sorting systems (optical, NIR, data-supported).	• Obj.2: Build a European waste-stream database. • Obj.7: Create circular business models for authorities and recyclers.	
3. Techniques to disassemble complex products and remove non-textile parts	• Recyclers receive clean feedstock free of fasteners, coatings, dirt and mixed materials.	• Develop mechanical or robotic dismantling steps for zips, buttons, labels, trims. • Create chemical or green-solvent pre-treatments for removal of coatings and finishes.	• Obj.1: Advanced sorting and dismantling. • Obj.5: Decontamination + safe materials.	
4. Separation of multi-material layers and fibre blends	• Manufacturers get durable and non-toxic secondary materials.	• Develop controlled separation processes (solvent-based, thermal, enzymatic). • Test continuous-flow separation steps at TRL6-7.	• Obj.1: New processing routes for blended textiles. • Obj.3: Industrial-grade regenerated fibres.	
5. Removal of contaminants and persistent chemicals (e.g. PFAS), safe handling of dyes, microplastics control	• Secondary materials become non-toxic, durable and fit for Safe and Sustainable by Design. • Local authorities gain cost-efficient, safe waste handling.	• Create pre-treatment lines for removal of PFAS, dyes, coatings. • Develop filtering and closed-loop water treatment to limit microplastic release.	• Obj.5: Safety, non-toxicity, microplastic minimisation. • Obj.6: Environmental validation (LCA).	
6. Test and define recyclability limits; define alternative uses when fibre-to-fibre is no longer possible	• Manufacturers get clear rules for materials that cannot be recycled further.	• Conduct multiple recycling cycles per fibre type and track property changes. • Identify high-value uses for material that can’t undergo further fibre-to-fibre recycling.	• Obj.4: Define recycling limits and cascade routes.	
7. Characterise mixed post-consumer textile waste (composition, blends, contamination)	• Recyclers have correctly described waste streams. • Authorities gain clearer waste-management models.	• Create sampling and testing protocols for fibre mix, chemicals, accessories. • Build digital profiles of waste fractions (metadata, composition, contaminants).	• Obj.2: Create a shared database of waste composition + contaminants.	
8. Advance recycling technologies able to remove persistent chemicals and minimise hazardous releases	• Manufacturers get clean, compliant recycled fibres. • Recyclers get safe and efficient processing models.	• Test chemical pathways under SSbD criteria. • Test emission-minimisation routes for microplastics and chemical residues.	• Obj.5: Clean and safe recovered fibres. • Obj.6: Life-cycle performance validated.	
9. Use LCA + LCC to confirm technical and economic feasibility using recognised methods (PEF)	• Effective and cost-efficient waste management for authorities + consumers. • Strong business case for manufacturers and recyclers.	• Complete PEF-aligned LCA on recycling processes and product outputs. • Complete LCC comparing recycling vs virgin production + incineration.	• Obj.6: Full life-cycle environmental and economic proof.	
10. Apply SSbD principles across the whole chain	• Manufacturers receive safe secondary materials. • Recyclers use processes with minimal hazard.	• Develop safety-checkpoints along sorting, dismantling, recycling steps. • Test compliance with current and upcoming chemical rules (including PFAS phase-out).	• Obj.5: Safety and non-toxicity across all processes.	
11. Contribute to “Textiles of the Future” partnership and coordinate with past calls	• Avoid duplication, assets reused, stronger uptake.	• Map relevant Horizon projects (EcoReFibre, QUASAR, REFRESH, etc) and reuse methods. • Create joint workshops, shared datasets.	• Obj.7: Governance, value-chain coordination. • Obj.8: End-to-end demonstration at TRL6-8.	
12. Clustering with other Horizon projects	• Faster scale-up and transfer of knowledge.	• Join coordination clusters, joint training, cross-testing of methods. • Share open datasets following FAIR principles.	• Obj.7: Strengthen cross-project collaboration.	

TABLE — Work Package Title | Objective of the WP | Tasks

WP1 – Project Management & Quality Assurance
Objective: Ensure smooth coordination, quality control, reporting, monitoring, risk management, and partner communication.
Work Package Title	Objective of the WP	Tasks	
WP1 – Project Management & Quality Assurance	Manage the project, coordinate the consortium, monitor progress, ensure quality, risk mitigation, compliance, and timely reporting.	T1.1 – Inception & Mobilization: Review proposal, refine risks, confirm resources, update schedule; kick-off internal alignment. T1.2 – Collaboration Platform & Productivity Stack: Setup tools (e.g., Notion, Drive, Slack) for document control, reporting, versioning. T1.3 – Monitoring, Reporting & Risk Management: Produce periodic reports; maintain risk register; lead GA compliance. T1.4 – Quality Control: Internal review cycles, pre-submission checks for deliverables, two-level validation. T1.5 – Meetings & Communication: Bi-monthly online meetings; annual plenaries; ad-hoc technical meetings.	
Milestones: M1.1 Project Handbook finalised; M1.2 Collaboration tools operational.			

WP2 – System Mapping, Stakeholder Needs & Waste Characterisation
Objective: Create a full evidence base of waste flows, stakeholder needs, blend types, contaminants, and material properties.
Work Package Title	Objective of the WP	Tasks	
WP2 – System Mapping, Stakeholder Needs & Waste Characterisation	Map textile waste streams, identify stakeholders’ needs, gather samples, analyse composition, contaminants, and create the digital waste dataset.	T2.1 – System & Value-Chain Mapping: Map flows, collectors, sorters, recyclers, brands, local authorities. T2.2 – Stakeholder Needs and Acceptance Baseline: Interviews and workshops with citizens, authorities, sorters, recyclers, brands. T2.3 – Sample Collection Strategy & Protocols: Define regions, waste types, sampling frequency. T2.4 – Laboratory Testing & Chemical Analysis: Fibre composition, blend ratios, dyes, PFAS, finishes, microplastics. T2.5 – Digital Waste Data Model (FAIR aligned): Metadata structure, controlled vocabularies, dataset creation.	
Milestones: M2.1 Waste-characterisation dataset complete; M2.2 Stakeholder needs report validated.			

WP3 – Disassembly, Sorting and Pre-Treatment Solutions
Objective: Develop and test methods for dismantling garments, removing accessories, coatings, contaminants, and preparing clean feedstock.
Work Package Title	Objective of the WP	Tasks	
WP3 – Disassembly, Sorting & Pre-Treatment Solutions	Build processes to transform complex garments into clean recycling feedstock through sorting, dismantling, and contaminant removal.	T3.1 – Design of Dismantling Workflows: Manual, robotic or semi-automatic removal of trims, zips, elastics. T3.2 – Automated Sorting Tests: Optical/NIR sorting, machine learning rules based on WP2 dataset. T3.3 – Pre-Treatment for Contaminant Removal: Wet/dry routes for dyes, PFAS reduction, finishes removal using safe chemistry. T3.4 – Clean Feedstock Validation: Test purity, chemical safety, fibre damage.	
Milestones: M3.1 Pre-treatment line validated at pilot scale; M3.2 Clean feedstock meets safety thresholds.			

WP4 – Recycling Technologies for Blended Textiles (TRL6–7)
Objective: Develop, integrate, and demonstrate recycling processes for real blended textile waste streams.
Work Package Title	Objective of the WP	Tasks	
WP4 – Recycling Technologies for Blended Textiles (TRL6–7)	Develop upgraded chemical, mechanical, and biotech processes capable of treating blended textiles at pilot scale.	T4.1 – Selection of Routes per Blend Category: Match fibre blends with suitable recycling pathways. T4.2 – Process Adaptation & Scale-Up: Chemical depolymerisation, enzymatic dissolution, mechanical reprocessing. T4.3 – Integrated Pilot Demonstration (TRL6–7): Run continuous trials with WP3 feedstock. T4.4 – Microplastics & Emissions Control: Filtration, capture systems, wastewater cleaning.	
Milestones: M4.1 Pilot line operational; M4.2 First regenerated fibre batch delivered to WP5.			

WP5 – Recyclability Limits, Secondary Applications & Product Validation
Objective: Identify how many cycles materials can undergo before failure and validate regenerated fibres in textile and non-textile applications.
Work Package Title	Objective of the WP	Tasks	
WP5 – Recyclability Limits, Secondary Applications & Product Validation	Determine fibre degradation over cycles, define safe thresholds, and create prototype products using regenerated materials.	T5.1 – Multi-Cycle Reprocessing Trials: Repeat WP4 processes to study fibre degradation. T5.2 – Threshold Definition (Mechanical, Chemical, Safety): Set pass/fail criteria. T5.3 – Cascade Use Identification: Map pathways for non-textile uses (insulation, composites). T5.4 – Product Prototype Manufacturing: Work with mills/brands to produce yarns, fabrics, home textiles.	
Milestones: M5.1 Recyclability thresholds established; M5.2 Prototype products validated.			

WP6 – Environmental, Economic & Technical Feasibility (LCA, LCC, TEA)
Objective: Verify environmental, economic and technical viability using PEF-aligned assessment.
Work Package Title	Objective of the WP	Tasks	
WP6 – Environmental, Economic & Technical Feasibility (LCA, LCC, TEA)	Quantify environmental performance, climate benefits, costs, and technical feasibility.	T6.1 – Baseline Definition: Virgin fibre production, incineration, landfill, exports. T6.2 – Life Cycle Assessment (PEF): Test all pilot routes, compare to baseline. T6.3 – Life Cycle Cost Analysis: Process cost, scenarios for EPR and policy changes. T6.4 – Combined Technical Feasibility Assessment: Reliability, scalability, resource use.	
Milestones: M6.1 LCA results published; M6.2 LCC and TEA validated for pilots.			

WP7 – Business Models, Governance, Social Acceptance & Policy Support
Objective: Build business cases, governance models, social acceptance strategies, and policy recommendations.
Work Package Title	Objective of the WP	Tasks	
WP7 – Business Models, Governance, Social Acceptance & Policy Support	Create viable business and governance models, ensure user acceptance, and align results with EU and national policy.	T7.1 – Value-Chain Governance Models: Roles, contracts, feedstock agreements between authorities–sorters–recyclers–brands. T7.2 – Social Acceptance & Behaviour Research: Workers, citizens, brands; living labs. T7.3 – Business Model Development: Cost-sharing, service models for recycling providers. T7.4 – Policy Recommendations & Regulatory Fit: PFAS rules, ESPR, DPP, EPR alignment.	
Milestones: M7.1 Governance models validated; M7.2 Policy recommendations approved.			

WP8 – Dissemination, Exploitation, Communication & Open Data (DEC)
Objective: Ensure wide uptake, knowledge sharing, exploitation pathways and FAIR-aligned open data.
Work Package Title	Objective of the WP	Tasks	
WP8 – Dissemination, Exploitation, Communication & Open Data (DEC)	Maximise impact through wide engagement, open data, industry clustering and exploitation planning.	T8.1 – Communication Strategy: Public communication, visuals, events. T8.2 – Dissemination & Clustering: Engage with “Textiles of the Future” partnership and Horizon clusters. T8.3 – Exploitation Planning: IPR, market pathways, technology uptake. T8.4 – FAIR Data & Open Science Practices: Data curation, repositories, open review, citizen involvement.	
Milestones: M8.1 FAIR datasets released; M8.2 Exploitation plan validated.			

Deliverables & Milestones per Work Package
WP No – Title	Deliverables (linked to tasks)	Milestones	
WP1 – Project Management & Quality Assurance	D1.1 Project Handbook & Risk Register (T1.1, T1.3) • D1.2 Collaboration Platform & PM Tools Ready (T1.2) • D1.3 Periodic Technical & Financial Reports (T1.3) • D1.4 Quality Review Summary Reports (T1.4) • D1.5 Minutes from Consortium Meetings (T1.5)	M1.1 Project Handbook signed • M1.2 PM tools active and tested	
WP2 – System Mapping, Stakeholder Needs & Waste Characterisation	D2.1 System Map & Value Chain Report (T2.1) • D2.2 Stakeholder Needs & Acceptance Baseline (T2.2) • D2.3 Sampling Protocol & Field Guide (T2.3) • D2.4 Lab Results on Blends & Chemicals (T2.4) • D2.5 Digital Waste Dataset (FAIR-ready) (T2.5)	M2.1 Waste-characterisation draft dataset finalised • M2.2 Stakeholder needs confirmed	
WP3 – Disassembly, Sorting & Pre-Treatment Solutions	D3.1 Dismantling Workflows for Garments (T3.1) • D3.2 Sorting Rules & Sensor Parameters (T3.2) • D3.3 Pre-Treatment Protocols for Coatings, PFAS, Dyes (T3.3) • D3.4 Clean Feedstock Test Report (T3.4)	M3.1 Sorting + dismantling steps validated at pilot scale • M3.2 Clean feedstock meets safety level set in WP2	
WP4 – Recycling Technologies for Blended Textiles (TRL6–7)	D4.1 Recycling Route Selection for Blend Types (T4.1) • D4.2 Pilot-Scale Process Settings & Recipes (T4.2) • D4.3 Integrated Pilot Trials Report (T4.3) • D4.4 Microplastic & Emissions Control Report (T4.4)	M4.1 Pilot line running with WP3 feedstock • M4.2 First batch of regenerated fibres delivered to WP5	
WP5 – Recyclability Limits, Secondary Uses & Product Validation	D5.1 Multi-Cycle Performance Report (T5.1) • D5.2 Recyclability Threshold Guide (T5.2) • D5.3 Cascade Use Options & Decision Guide (T5.3) • D5.4 Prototype Yarns, Fabrics or Home Textile Items (T5.4)	M5.1 Recyclability thresholds set • M5.2 Prototype products ready for trials	
WP6 – Environmental, Economic & Technical Feasibility (LCA, LCC, TEA)	D6.1 Baseline Report (Virgin vs. Current Waste Routes) (T6.1) • D6.2 PEF-Aligned LCA Report (T6.2) • D6.3 LCC & Cost Scenarios (T6.3) • D6.4 Technical Feasibility Summary (T6.4)	M6.1 First LCA results reviewed • M6.2 LCC & feasibility validated with partners	
WP7 – Business Models, Governance, Social Acceptance & Policy	D7.1 Governance & Value-Chain Model (T7.1) • D7.2 Social Acceptance Findings & Living Lab Insights (T7.2) • D7.3 Business Model Options for Scale-Up (T7.3) • D7.4 Policy Recommendation Brief (T7.4)	M7.1 Governance model confirmed by partners • M7.2 Policy brief endorsed by stakeholders	
WP8 – Dissemination, Exploitation, Communication & Open Data (DEC)	D8.1 Communication Strategy & Visual Identity (T8.1) • D8.2 Dissemination & Clustering Report (T8.2) • D8.3 Exploitation & IPR Plan (T8.3) • D8.4 FAIR Dataset Release & Open Science Summary (T8.4)	M8.1 First FAIR datasets online • M8.2 Exploitation plan approved by consortium	

Risk Register Table (All WPs Covered)
Risk No – Title	Short Description	Prob. (1–5)	Impact (1–5)	Mitigation Action	Linked WP	
WP1 – Project Management
| R1 – Coordination Delays | Slow response from partners or missed deadlines. | 2 | 4 | Strict monthly reviews, automated reminders, early detection of slippage, dedicated task managers. | WP1 |
| R2 – Key Staff Turnover | Loss of key personnel at partner organisations. | 3 | 4 | Create staff backup plans; ensure task shadowing; quick reallocation of roles if needed. | WP1 |
| R3 – Digital Tools Failure | PM platforms or shared drives become inaccessible. | 2 | 3 | Maintain backups, mirrored storage, offline archives, support hotline. | WP1 |

WP2 – System Mapping and Waste Characterisation
| R4 – Lack of Access to Waste Streams | Municipalities or collectors may delay sample access. | 3 | 4 | Early agreements; multiple regions; alternative collectors; flexible sampling schedule. | WP2 |
| R5 – Poor Quality Samples | Collected waste may not reflect real variation. | 2 | 4 | Increase sample size; adaptive sampling; periodic sample reviews. | WP2 |
| R6 – Missing Data from Stakeholders | Some actors may avoid sharing data due to confidentiality concerns. | 3 | 3 | Signed NDAs; anonymised datasets; clear benefit for sharing; secure data rooms. | WP2 |

WP3 – Sorting, Dismantling and Pre-Treatment
| R7 – Low Sorting Accuracy | Automated sorting fails to classify complex blends. | 3 | 5 | Improve sensor training; increase labelled datasets; manual validation loops. | WP3 |
| R8 – Chemical Pre-Treatment Not Effective | Processes do not remove coatings, PFAS or dyes to required safety levels. | 3 | 5 | Test multiple chemistries; adjust process time and concentration; involve chemical experts early. | WP3 |
| R9 – Safety Hazards in Pre-Treatment | Exposure to chemicals or fumes during tests. | 2 | 4 | Safety protocols; PPE; equipment checks; audits. | WP3 |

WP4 – Recycling Technologies (TRL6–7)
| R10 – Low Recycling Yields | Pilot processes may give low fibre yield or high residue. | 3 | 5 | Adjust process parameters; optimise reaction paths; run small pilots first. | WP4 |
| R11 – Equipment Breakdown | Pilot machinery may fail or delay testing. | 2 | 4 | Preventive maintenance; spare parts on-site; technical support contracts. | WP4 |
| R12 – Emissions Above Acceptable Limits | Microplastic or chemical release higher than expected during processing. | 3 | 4 | Install better filtering units; closed-loop water use; emissions monitoring. | WP4 |

WP5 – Recyclability Limits & Product Validation
| R13 – Fibre Degradation Faster Than Expected | Recycled fibres lose strength quickly after multiple cycles. | 3 | 4 | Adjust blend category use; explore additives; switch to alternative routes. | WP5 |
| R14 – Prototype Products Fail Quality Tests | Yarn or fabric fails durability or safety tests. | 2 | 4 | Tight collaboration with mills; iterative adjustments; pre-tests before final prototypes. | WP5 |
| R15 – No Viable Cascade Applications Found | Out-of-spec materials may lack suitable secondary uses. | 3 | 3 | Engage early with industry users; test multiple sectors (construction, automotive). | WP5 |

WP6 – Environmental, Economic and Technical Assessment
| R16 – Lack of Reliable LCA/LCC Data | Partners may not deliver complete data for modelling. | 3 | 4 | Clear templates; structured data catalogue; follow-up sessions; data audits. | WP6 |
| R17 – Low Environmental Gain | LCA may show modest improvement compared to current practice. | 2 | 5 | Improve process energy efficiency; adjust blend selection; refine baseline. | WP6 |
| R18 – Economic Feasibility Unclear | LCC may show high processing costs. | 3 | 4 | Run cost sensitivity analysis; refine business models; seek economies of scale. | WP6 |

WP7 – Business Models, Social Acceptance & Policy
| R19 – Low Social Acceptance | Consumers or citizens distrust recycled textiles or separate collection. | 3 | 4 | Living labs; co-design; clear communication; safety benchmarking. | WP7 |
| R20 – Policy Changes Impact Work | New rules (PFAS bans, ESPR updates, EPR rules) may change requirements. | 2 | 4 | Continuous policy monitoring; update routes; align with national authorities. | WP7 |
| R21 – Weak Engagement from Brands | Brands may show limited interest in testing recycled materials. | 3 | 4 | Early engagement; co-branding; proof-of-quality trials. | WP7 |

WP8 – Dissemination, Exploitation & Communication (DEC)
| R22 – Low Industry Uptake of Results | Industry may not adopt project outputs at the expected pace. | 3 | 4 | Targeted outreach; industry workshops; strong exploitation plan. | WP8 |
| R23 – Poor Data Reuse due to Limited FAIR Compliance | Datasets may not be reusable by others. | 2 | 4 | FAIR audits; metadata checks; training for partners. | WP8 |
| R24 – Communication Reach Lower Than Expected | Low traffic, low engagement on channels. | 3 | 3 | Targeted campaigns; optimise messages; collaborate with clusters. | WP8 |

Cross-Project External Risks (Affecting All WPs)
| R25 – Supply Chain Disruptions (Global Events) | War, pandemic, strikes or transport interruptions delay samples, equipment or trials. | 2 | 5 | Backup suppliers; remote operations; alternative pilot locations. | All WPs |
| R26 – Extreme Energy Price Increase | High energy costs can affect pilot runs and LCA results. | 3 | 4 | Energy optimisation; off-peak scheduling; flexible budgeting. | WP4, WP6 |
| R27 – Loss of Access to Pilot Sites | Industrial partners may face shutdowns or operational limits. | 2 | 5 | Secondary pilot sites; flexible planning; distribute trials across countries. | WP4, WP5 |

3.2	Capacity of participants and consortium as a whole #@CON-SOR-CS@# #@PRJ-MGT-PM@#
Insert here text for your proposal
o keep the matrix readable, the expertise is grouped into clear areas:
1.	WP2 – Waste mapping & characterisation
Waste flow analysis, sampling, lab testing, chemical analysis, data modelling.
2.	WP3 – Sorting, disassembly & pre-treatment
Mechanical design, robotics, sorting tech, chemistry for contaminant removal.
3.	WP4 – Recycling technologies (TRL6–7)
Polymer chemistry, process engineering, biotech, industrial piloting.
4.	WP5 – Recyclability limits & product validation
Materials testing, textile mills, product making, cascade options.
5.	WP6 – LCA, LCC, TEA
Environmental analysis, economic modelling.
6.	WP7 – Business models, social sciences, policy
Social acceptance, governance, law, EU policy, business model design.
7.	WP8 – Dissemination, exploitation, communication, FAIR
Communication, open data, exploitation, citizen engagement.
8.	WP1 – Project management & quality
PM, risk, reporting, internal quality assurance.

Matrix Table
Partner / Partner Type	WP1 PM & Quality	WP2 Waste Mapping & Characterisation	WP3 Sorting & Pre-Treatment	WP4 Recycling Tech (TRL6–7)	WP5 Recyclability & Product Validation	WP6 LCA & LCC	WP7 Business Models, Social & Policy	WP8 DEC & FAIR Data	
Project Coordinator (University / RTO)	X	X	(some)	(some)	(some)	X	X	X	
Technical University (Materials, Chemistry, Engineering)		X	X	X	X				
Textile Research Institute		X	X	X	X				
Sorting Company / Waste Collector		X	X						
Recycling Plant / Technology Provider			X	X	X		(some)		
Chemical Company (Dyes, Finishes, PFAS Substitution)		X	X	X					
Biotech Partner (enzymes, solvents)			X	X					
Automation / Robotics Supplier			X						
Textile Mill / Garment Manufacturer				X	X				
Brands / Retailers					X		X	X	
LCA / Sustainability Consultancy						X			
Economics & Business School						X	X		
Policy / Legal Think Tank							X		
Municipal Authority / EPR Organisation		X	X				X	X	
NGO / Citizen Organisation							X	X	
Data Management & FAIR Specialist		X						X	
Communication Agency								X	

Checks for Completeness
Below is a quick check to ensure all needs are covered:
✓ WP2 – covered by universities, textile RTOs, chemical labs, municipal bodies, data specialists
✓ WP3 – covered by robotics partners, sorting companies, chemical partners
✓ WP4 – covered by recyclers, chemical and biotech partners, textile institutes
✓ WP5 – covered by textile mills, manufacturers, materials labs
✓ WP6 – covered by LCA consultants, economists
✓ WP7 – covered by business schools, social scientists, policy think tanks, NGOs
✓ WP8 – covered by communication agency, data specialists, brands
✓ WP1 – covered by coordinator
All gaps are filled — consortium is coherent, balanced, and aligned with call expectations.

#§CON-SOR-CS§# #§PRJ-MGT-PM§#

Tables for section 3.1
Table 3.1a: 	List of work packages
Work package No	Work Package Title	Lead Participant No	Lead Participant Short Name	Person-Months	Start Month	End month	

							

Table 3.1b:	Work package description 
For each work package: 
Work package number 		
Work package title		

Objectives 

Description of work 

	

Table 3.1c:	List of Deliverables  
Number	Deliverable name	Short description	Work package number	Short name of lead participant	Type	Dissemination level	Delivery date
(in months)	

								

Table 3.1d:	List of milestones 
Milestone number	Milestone name	Related work package(s)	Due date (in month)	Means of verification	

					

Table 3.1e:	Critical risks for implementation #@RSK-MGT-RM@#
Description of risk (indicate level of (i) likelihood, and (ii) severity: Low/Medium/High)	Work package(s) involved	Proposed risk-mitigation measures	

			
			
#§RSK-MGT-RM§#
Table 3.1f: 	Summary of staff effort
	WPn	WPn+1	WPn+2	Total Person-
Months per Participant	
Participant Number/Short Name 					
Participant Number/
Short Name 					
Participant Number/
Short Name 					
Total Person Months					

Table 3.1g:	‘Subcontracting costs’ items 
Participant Number/Short Name	
	Cost (€)	Description of tasks and justification	
Subcontracting 			

Table 3.1h:	‘Purchase costs’ items (travel and subsistence, equipment and other goods, works and services) 
Participant Number/Short Name	
	Cost (€)	Justification	
Travel and subsistence 			
Equipment 			
Other goods, works and services			
Remaining purchase costs (<15% of pers. Costs)			
Total			

Table 3.1i:	‘Other costs categories’ items (e.g. internally invoiced goods and services)
Participant Number/Short Name	
	Cost (€)	Justification	
Internally invoiced goods and services			
…			

Table 3.1j:	‘In-kind contributions’ provided by third parties
Participant Number/Short Name	
Third party name	Category	Cost (€)	Justification	
	Select between
Seconded personnel
Travel and subsistence
Equipment
Other goods, works and services
Internally invoiced goods and services 			

#§QUA-LIT-QL§# #§WRK-PLA-WP§#