PROJECT-RESULT Pages

Climate change and environmental degradation are an existential threat to the European Union and to the world. As a response, among other things, the European Green Deal aims to make Europe climate-neutral by 2050, boost the economy through green technology, create sustainable industry and transport, and cut pollution. The transition towards greener and more sustainable economies is a game changer in the EU labour market alongside digitalisation and automation. Skill needs will change with impacts far beyond the key occupations driving them, affecting all economic sectors.

Europe needs to promote and support green employment, address the skilling and reskilling of workers, and anticipate changes in workplaces of the future. In order to get a better grasp on potential future outcomes, and better anticipate their potential policy implications, a foresight Deep Dive has been carried out. The Deep Dive uses a broad conceptualization of skills that encompasses the full palette from scientific and engineering skills to vocational and crafts-like skills. All are needed in the green labour market, although the scenario-led focus here for the most part is on skills of vocational professions. This policy brief presents the main findings.

A set of four different scenarios for the futures of green skills and jobs in Europe in 2050 were crafted:

• Scenario A: Green technology-intensive Europe: Struggling to fill all the green jobs
• Scenario B: Apocalypse Soon: Fighting skills mismatches in a degraded environment
• Scenario C: Feeling the pain: A workforce left behind in a non-green world
• Scenario D: Green leapfrogging: Old, mismatched Europe surrounded by new green giants

Large R&D-based companies (Big Tech) have risen as major institutions driving technology, defining networks, shaping markets and influencing the ways we live. These companies are heavily concen-trated in some parts of the world, most of them within the West Coast of the United States, with a few emerging challengers in Mainland China, Taiwan and elsewhere. Other continents, including Europe, participate marginally in the development of the knowledge-bases which, apparently, may well come to dominate the future. Societies have come to rely on Big Tech from how we do business to how we consume and connect with others. And decision-makers, regulators and stakeholders grapple with breakthrough innovations, enhanced connectivity, lopsided competition and a number of ethical and political implications for how societies govern themselves.

Organised societies face difficult choices. Should Big Tech be let free to carry on unimpeded? Should government break them up or try to tame them by imposing detailed standards of conduct? Should national and supra-national authorities aim at giving rise to new and alternative undertakings able to develop at far-reaching scale and scope? Or should policy actors give priority to an economic fabric full of smaller-sized enterprises that are alive and adaptive at the local level?

As many times in the past, the configuration of the present seems stiff and self-reinforcing. But a foresight perspective invites an awareness of the possibility of disruptions or genuine novelty in things to come. It is uncertain if current trends will be sustained over time or how they will be accommodated. Probing into the unknown can be inspiring and increase panoramic awareness. It also sets a base for being pro-active about destiny. Thus, studying the future(s) is a deliberation to be already being on the move. That is a productive, non-neutral and liberating attitude. A chance for aligning the possible with the desirable.

This policy brief addresses the challenge of anticipating of what “Big Tech” will imply for the future of Europe. In our deep dive we project towards 2040 and explore the implications to Europe emphasising research and innovation policy.

The scenario work, that comprises the bulk of this report, frames debates about industrial change and international political economy with the overarching vector of high-tech activities and offers a balancing, hopefully also piercing, view. We derive policy options for each scenario but also draw cross-cut-ting implications. Could tech-driven large companies be instruments for the European Union (EU) to respond effectively to the challenges of the future economy? Is this a viable, feasible option? Conversely, have foreign-owned Big Tech already won and will the EU be hostage to the tentacles of such sprawling giants? Can it adapt through bottom-up economic action? For all this, it was about time to tackle these pressing issues.

Climate change impacts are one of the main threats to human society and natural ecosystems. Even though natural dynamics also have a substantial effect on climate, there is no doubt that current alterations of climate with the correlated impacts are manmade. Alongside continuing efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change, there may be possibilities to geoengineer climate systems to reduce or mask the impacts of climate change. There are also strong arguments for large-scale changes in social practices for adapting to and mitigating climate change. The big challenge comes with the necessary scale of interventions as those changes need to be large-scale and global, putting new challenges to all levels of governance from local to global.

Many present drivers seem to indicate a gloomy future for the climate. The current individualistic mindsets drive overconsumption and overproduction. The offsetting of carbon emissions is sometimes used to compensate for dirty activities. Intense competition for natural resources is not safeguarding their sustainability. Bio-holistic worldviews confront anthropocentric views, but climate delay has emerged as the new denial and the lack of courage to address climate supremacists, i.e. the global wealthy, shows little change of direction. According to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the wealthiest top 1% were responsible for 15% of global emissions, nearly twice as much as the world’s poorest 50%, who were responsible for just 7%. Overly optimistic beliefs in tech or social transformation to solve it prevail, and there is a wide reluctance to consider broad system change.

There are also drivers towards desired futures. Improved understanding of climate and global change and the capacity and knowledge to purposefully shape nature and society provide better means to address climate change. Climate anxiety and perception of government inaction have triggered, for instance, the ‘Fridays for future’ movement, which contributes to the emergence of global conscience on the climate and biodiversity crisis and the need for justice. New understandings of human purpose and fairness also encourage the development of a wider range of responses like de-desertification, seaweed permaculture, ocean fertilization, carbon capture and storage, and solar radiation management. We may learn to protect the global commons, including indigenous cultures and atmospheric commons.

Economic growth in societies based on individual material gain, here-and-now-thinking, short political cycles, and lack of broad political agreement on alternative paths seem to keep us on the path to the climate crisis. Furthermore, exacerbated social inequalities may lead many to have no willingness or ability to participate in transitions. While we are overconfident with systems’ design, we underestimate natural forces and ecosystems. Emerging options for large-scale ‘geoengineering’ interventions in the climate system promise new opportunities and new risks, including novel geopolitical tensions.There are diverse perceptions on geoengineering and possible social change towards potential acceptance or societal rejection. The planet lacks a fair and appropriate governance structure providing a framework on who might be entitled to carry out geoengineering projects in the name of the planet and what their responsibility is. There is no sufficient dialogue on what it means to be a responsible company, researcher, research organisation, or policy-maker in this context.

This deep dive is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project.

The concept of the global commons refers to resource domains that fall outside national jurisdiction, to which all have access, including high seas, airspace, outer space, and cyberspace. Given the growing significance of these domains and related resources for states and other global and local players across a range of purposes, defining the concept of the global commons has become more complex. The Global Commons Alliance network of concerned organisations refers to two definitions of the concept.

The first is based on geopolitics, where the global commons are areas whose potential economic resources lie beyond national jurisdiction: the atmosphere, the high seas, Antarctica, and outer space. The second definition has its roots more in economics and how shared resources can be overused by some at the expense of others, regardless of national jurisdiction. The strategic access and use of resource domains for military/commercial purposes put pressure on their status. Recent geopolitical developments highlight the need for exploring appropriate forms of global governance or stewardship to ensure responsible (sustainable) management to benefit present and future generations.

This deep dive aims to address the following questions:

• What constitutes a global commons? How do global commons differ? How is the concept of global commons likely to evolve up to 2040? Adapting a taxonomy of global commons for the emerging geopolitical, environmental, and economic context.
• What are the main emerging disruptors of global commons up to 2040? What could change and upset established global commons regimes? How can laws be introduced and implemented in emerging global commons? The emphasis is on geopolitics and how legal frameworks can survive technological change. How can innovation reinforce the commons?
• How is the economics of common property evolving (from Hardin's very influential work to the massive critique of Hardin by Elinor Ostrom)? linking to major policy debates such as privatisation. Can Ostrom’s approach be scaled up to the level of states? and extended to the common property of the atmosphere or oceans? What would be necessary for such a large-scale negotiation process?
• How can we govern the commons as a different type of ownership? The emergence of global commons-orientation in innovation? In particular mission-oriented innovation. Exploring the rights and personality of ecosystems and other entities as right holders. Ecological services as transversal.
• How can we make the global commons work? - the need for cooperative behaviour if global commons and sustainability are to be achieved. Multilateralism 2.0. and emerging role of science diplomacy up to 2040. Ukraine war as an epochal war: the dangers of the war (state of permanent cold war) for acting seriously on the global commons. Potential split with China and new hegemonies in Africa (e.g Belt and Road debt).
  
  
  The aim is to identify cross impacts of the global commons areas and key drivers.

The twelve scenarios in this deep dive are informed by transhumanism, portraying futures in which the human condition – our bodies, functions, and lives – and the features of societies are fundamentally transformed by technology. Even though scenarios are built along the lines of particular scientific and/or technological advancements, the discussion spreads over sociotechnical ensembles and the re-conceptualization of the relationship between technology and society by 2040.

The work leading to this report started with a horizon scanning exercise to identify a series of technological innovations and scientific breakthroughs that may be considered key factors towards re-engineering human nature. In parallel, the authors explored diverse narratives regarding the human condition and significance in the world, dreams and fears embodied in the so-called collective imaginary, echoing through myths and fantasies to literature, cinematography and the wider culture. At the intersection of these explorations, twelve topics were selected and further expanded into scenarios. They are not intended to cover the full spectrum of themes regarding human enhancement, but present a relevant ‘sample’ of potential future trajectories.

We propose these narratives as exploratory scenarios, describing futures where both positive and negative consequences are palpable. They are not normative, outlininga vision of the future deemed desirable. We invite readers to regard them as devices for imagining the future and debating the future. They aim to nurture a reflection on the dynamics of change, future opportunities and potential threats, and in doing so they contribute to future preparedness.

Three types of scenarios were developed:

• The first type describe futures where scientific and technological advancements enhance embodied experiences: Sensory augmentation: extending human senses beyond the natural limits and adding sensorial modalities which are not native to humans. Sensory and brain stimulation, psychedelic microdosing: inducing altered states of consciousness, for healing purposes or for fostering new perspectives on being human. Molecular therapies for delaying aging; and new artificial reproductive technologies allowing people to be fertile until much older age.
• The second type explore futures where human capabilities are extended by embodying non-biological means: a significant share of elderly people using exoskeletons for prolonging active life, for maintaining their mobility or as a form of assisted living; brain-computer interfaces leveraged in semi-automatized work environments, to improve learning outcomes, and to control smart devices; Brain to brain communication supporting cognitive and emotion sharing, leading to the creation of ‘hive minds’ covering multiple aspects of life.
• The third type focus on the simulation and replication of the human body and mind: Digital body twins allowing alert signals for disease prevention and the simulation of the short- and long-term effects of a person’s behavior on their health and body; Digital twins of the brain allowing testing hypotheses in cognitive science, in mental health studies, responses to different types of treatments; Digital immersive worlds – gaming/ fantasy worlds or ‘mirror worlds’ that are replicating real-life environments – hosting interactions among people and automated entities; Digital replicas of the deceased changing the socio-political understanding of grief; and Artificial agents with complex underlying computational procedures (including e.g. self-reflection, development of value system, affective computing) and sophisticated interfaces calling for new theoretical frameworks of consciousness.
  
  
  ***
  The twelve scenarios presented in this deep dive are part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project, which was conducted by Foresight on Demand Consortium on behalf of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD).

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Eye of Europe (EoE) project has reached an important milestone: Using an interactive approach, the members of the consortium came up with eleven exciting topics that will be addressed in Foresight Workshops with experts, citizens, entrepreneurs, scientists, policymakers, journalists and many other stakeholder groups within the coming 16 months. In the workshops, Eye of Europe partners will apply both established and novel Foresight approaches to dive deep into topics of common interest to stakeholders across the European Research Area. These workshops will take place in cities such as Madrid, Prague, Berlin, Bucharest, Paris and Thessaloniki, as well as online.

The final set of topics for EoE pilot workshops is as follows:

• Democracy – a long term Project: This online workshop will gather domain experts to shed light on a large spectrum of future challenges to democracy.
• The Knowledge of our Civilisation(s) in 2040: In this two-day Berlin based workshop participants with diverse domain expertise will explore the future of knowledge in human civilisation in the face of multiple drivers of change.
• European Industrial Decarbonisation: This two-day workshop in Madrid will gather diverse stakeholders to debate alternative pathways of industrial decarbonisation for Europe in the face of different geopolitical scenarios.
• Emotion Ecosystems: This Bucharest based two-day workshop will investigate the impact of technologies like affective computing and brain-machine interface on individuals and collectives with different stakeholder groups.
• Democracy and Technology: In this workshop citizens in Prague will jointly reflect on democratic approaches to risks connected with new technologies and their impacts on various societal groups.
• Aging and Assisted Living Technologies: This workshop in Berlin with international research and policy actors is dedicated to future ways of integrating smart and digital technologies into assisted living and care for older adults.
• Fashion Futures: In two Thessaloniki based workshops citizens and domain experts will explore the future of sustainable fashion in interaction with values and identities both with a regional and international perspective.
• Public Policy and Change of Diets: In this workshop in Paris a diverse group of citizens will reflect on policy inroads into future pathways towards healthy and sustainable diets.
• Science and Conflicts: In this online workshop, experts and actors of the science system will jointly dive into possible implications of growing geopolitical tensions for science.
• Future of Knowledge and Emotions: This futures survey will provide input for the two interrelated topics the future of knowledge and the future of emotion ecosystems that will feed the respective workshops.
  
  
  These Eye of Europe Foresight pilot workshops have a twofold purpose.
  
  First of all, the workshops serve the project’s aspirations expressed by Eye of Europe coordinator, Radu Gheorghiu, namely to nurture the “vibrant community of individuals engaging in a conversation about our collective future” and to fuel the “continuous loop of dialogue, learning and inspiration”.
  
  Secondly, by addressing topics of common interest to R&I actors across ERA and major R&I challenges, they aim to mobilise collective anticipatory intelligence. In particular, we hope to shed light on the evolution of research and innovation and its contribution to a wide range of important future questions.
  
  How did the team arrive at these topics?
  
  The topic generation process involved three major elements:
  
• Analysis of R&I strategy documents from a range of different EU countries
• interviews with R&I actors from different positions in ERA’s research and innovation ecosystem,
• and interactive discourse among EoE partner organisations.
  
  It was important to the topic identification team, led by Pier Francesco Moretti from CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche in Italy, not to remain at the surface of the challenges that are expressed in key documents but to dive deeper into underlying root causes and dynamics. So when in the document analysis, topics like energy, artificial intelligence, digitalisation, health and security emerged at top positions, we strived to identify crosscutting underlying aspects.

This is the first episode of Futures4Europe conversations, initiated by the Eye of Europe project – a series of dialogues between Bianca Dragomir and professionals from all over the world, who engage in work that is future sensitive.

About this episode - On engaging meaningfully with futures

Often framed as a professional activity essential for 'planning', guiding 'decision making' or 'orienting strategies', futures studies could be more generously placed in the realm of humanities where, along other human capacities, imagination and anticipation should be nurtured and celebrated.

In this light, futures education is more like a tending a garden. Like doing the soil work that turns it into the fertile ground for seeds to grow into 'flowers' such as human creativity, a heightened awareness of the mechanisms of change, agency coupled with humility, a sense of taking part into shaping something yet non-existent.

Peter Bishop, founder of Teach the Future, argues that this garden should be welcoming everyone, including young people, or perhaps especially them.

The European foresight community has experienced remarkable growth in recent years. The newly published Eye of Europe report "Showcasing Perspectives: A Stocktaking of R&I Foresight Practices in Europe" provides an assessment of just that, namely the actors, preferred methodologies, success factors and bottlenecks for effective R&I foresight projects, as well as trends for future R&I foresight projects in Europe.

This stocktaking, carried out by the DLR Projektträger in the framework of the Eye of Europe project, is based on a comprehensive survey of 43 R&I foresight organisations in 16 ERA and four non-ERA countries. Interviews with renowned national foresight experts complement the findings. Similar response rates from government and academia, business and other organisations such as consultancies or NGOs allowed for a diverse snapshot of R&I foresight approaches in Europe.

Highlighting flagship projects

For the preparation of the study, European foresight actors submitted 54 different R&I foresight projects. These include projects that aim to anticipate technological and societal changes in order to inform national and regional R&I strategies and make them more robust, or foresight projects that address complex global issues such as climate change, cancer or sustainable food security. Others seek to understand new developments, such as the digital transformation, and analyse the social and economic impact of these changes, or to develop and design new products.

R&I foresight projects are not only carried out at European and national level. The report additionally highlights sub-national champions such as the Friuli Venezia Giulia region and Sardinia in Italy, the Helsinki-Uusimaa region in Finland, Ostbelgien and the Flemish government in Belgium, or Hauts-de-France, to show how they have used foresight methods to advance their R&I agendas.

What are critical success factors and bottlenecks for R&I foresight projects in Europe?

Here is what the R&I foresight experts believe contributed to the success of their projects: Top of the list of critical success factors - mentioned by almost all respondents - is high-level commitment and support from government representatives. Ensuring cross-sectoral stakeholder engagement was another frequently cited factor. Leveraging existing networks or databases of expertise was also cited as a critical success factor, as it enables the rapid mobilisation of the right experts. But how can we ensure that we reach the relevant people and keep them engaged?

Several R&I foresight experts stressed the importance of defining and communicating a clear purpose for the project and explaining why it is important and worth stakeholders' time, as well as demonstrating that foresight can add value in the context of today's R&I challenges. What can foresight achieve and what are its limitations? Transparency of methods also contributes to credibility. Facilitating direct interaction between participants in creative settings has the potential to be beneficial, allowing for more dynamic and contextually rich foresight outcomes. The R&I foresight experts noted that it is important to allow sufficient time for interactive discussions. Wherever possible, the setting should be face-to-face.

Yet, these R&I foresight projects have not always gone to plan. Bottlenecks identified include recurring ones such as insufficient time for comprehensive analysis and stakeholder engagement, or financial constraints that can prevent in-depth trend analysis and essential foresight activities. It can also be time-consuming to mobilise a diverse group of experts and policy-makers for participatory exercises, which can be a challenge in a time-critical project. Short-term thinking and a reluctance to challenge established beliefs can hinder the exploration of alternative futures and stifle innovative foresight efforts. Others reported the "impact gap" and their struggle to ensure that foresight results influence decision making, often exacerbated by an over-reliance on written summaries that lack engaging communication methods. Finally, maintaining objectivity in horizon-scanning activities and avoiding the pitfalls of techno-optimism can also be challenging.

What's next? Trends in R&I foresight

The report provides answers to those curious about the new frontiers and trends in the use of R&I foresight. Whether it's the integration of AI and machine learning technologies into foresight practices, the representation of future generations and nature in foresight processes, speculative and design-based approaches or debiasing techniques, the methods of R&I foresight are constantly evolving.

For those wishing to expand their networks, the report also provides an overview of international and European (R&I) foresight networks, national (R&I) foresight networks, networks focusing on technology assessment, and examples of regular (R&I) foresight conferences or conferences with sessions dedicated to R&I foresight.

This stocktaking report is a snapshot of the status quo of R&I foresight actors in Europe. However, new innovative projects are being implemented as you read this article. As the Eye of Europe project consortium, we are committed to strengthening fora for exchange among R&I practitioners interested in foresight methodologies. Let's continue the lively discussions on the Futures4Europe platform to shape tomorrow's R&I agendas together.