EU Funds at a Turning Point: Why 2026 Will Reward Execution

Dr. Becker, what are the most significant milestones expected in OPKK’s 2026 pipeline, and how do you foresee SMEs benefiting from them?

2026 is likely to be a turning point for OPKK 2021–2027 because the programme moves from approvals into full-scale delivery. The emphasis shifts away from launching new funding topics and toward getting projects contracted, procured, and implemented quickly, which makes execution speed and cash flow management far more decisive for companies.

Three dynamics will define that shift. First, delivery timelines will tighten, forcing faster moves from grant award to purchasing and implementation, particularly in manufacturing, digitalization, and energy efficiency where delays translate directly into cost and liquidity pressure. Second, the programme will put more weight on measurable results such as productivity gains, faster innovation rollout, and market impact, not only on formal compliance. Third, more projects will be funded through a mix of instruments, with grants supporting early development and testing, and loans covering the larger scale-up and capital investment phase.

For SMEs, the competitive advantage in 2026 will come less from winning funding and more from being ready to deliver. Companies that enter with a clear project scope, realistic procurement and delivery plan, secured financing for their share of costs, and disciplined cash-flow planning will be best placed to turn OPKK support into tangible upgrades in efficiency and competitiveness. In short, 2026 will reward execution readiness more than ideas on paper.

For many SMEs, this will be the last high-volume window in the current EU funding cycle, so the cost of being unprepared will be higher than in earlier years.

What major challenges do SMEs still face in accessing OPKK funding in 2026, and how could policy adjustments address these gaps?

In 2026, the main barriers for SMEs are less about eligibility and more about execution capacity. Many companies can meet the formal criteria, but struggle to prepare a mature project, secure co-financing, and then manage procurement, reporting, and audit requirements at the pace the programme now expects.

Cash-flow is often the hard constraint, because companies typically need to pay suppliers upfront and wait for reimbursements, which can be difficult for smaller SMEs. On top of that, projects are becoming more complex - particularly for innovation, digitalisation, and green investments.  That raises the bar for participation and tends to favour better resourced companies.

Policy adjustments can narrow these gaps by further simplifying procedures, strengthening advisory and preparatory support earlier in the project lifecycle. That means simpler applications and more standardised templates, stronger pre-application advisory and project preparation support, and more predictable payment dynamics. Complementary instruments such as guarantees could ease liquidity pressure without overlapping with grants, while encouraging phased projects and clearer execution expectations would make funding more accessible in practice, not only on paper.

How should businesses prepare for the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2028–2034, and what are the key structural changes they should anticipate?

Businesses should treat the MFF 2028–2034 as a strategic planning cycle, not a funding hunt. The priority is to build an investable pipeline early with clearly defined projects, realistic timelines, and financing structures that work in real operating conditions once the framework starts.

The European Commission has already put forward a proposal for the next long term EU budget, framed around competitiveness and resilience, with a more streamlined structure and a stronger alignment between EU priorities and national delivery.

One key change companies should prepare for is a stronger role of national and regional partnership plans, meaning more funding decisions will be shaped earlier through domestic priorities, consultations, and implementation systems. That makes early positioning, partnerships, and alignment with national priorities more important than waiting for calls to open.

A second shift is expected to be a stronger focus on outcomes and milestones, drawing on lessons from the recovery fund. Companies will need credible KPIs, baselines, and execution plans that translate investment into tangible gains such as productivity improvements, energy savings, faster time to market, or export growth.

As a result, success will depend less on reacting to individual calls and more on preparation, scalability and the ability to demonstrate impact within a broader growth strategy.

With the 2028–2034 MFF set to prioritize competitiveness, digital and climate goals, how do you expect the balance between grants and financial instruments to evolve?

Under the 2028–2034 MFF, the balance is expected to shift toward a more prominent role for financial instruments, while grants will increasingly serve as a targeted risk-mitigation tool rather than a primary source of financing. Grants will remain important, particularly for early-stage innovation, R&D and first-of-a-kind projects, where market risk is highest.

At the same time, scaling, capital investment and deployment phases are likely to rely more on loans, guarantees and blended structures, reflecting the EU’s focus on competitiveness, leverage and value for money. This approach allows public funds to mobilise larger volumes of private capital and support more projects with the same budget envelope.

For businesses, this means adapting to a financing environment where grants de-risk innovation, but long-term growth increasingly depends on the ability to structure investments, demonstrate returns and integrate financial instruments into their overall funding strategy.

Looking ahead, what long-term strategies should Croatian SMEs adopt to align with both the final phase of OPKK and the ambitions of the next MFF cycle?

Croatian SMEs should treat the final phase of OPKK and the next MFF as one continuous investment journey, not two separate funding cycles. The priority now is to complete OPKK projects in a way that genuinely lifts productivity, technology capability, and market position, while already preparing the next wave of investments that can roll forward into 2028–2034 without a long reset.

For the next cycle, the best long term strategy is to keep a simple, rolling investment pipeline of two to three priorities that can be funded through different instruments. In most SMEs that means one digital upgrade that improves efficiency, one energy or resource measure that cuts operating costs, and where relevant one product or service improvement that strengthens market position. The companies that will benefit most are not those with the most ambitious plans, but those that can execute a limited set of projects well, track a small number of measurable results, and build on them step by step.

Ultimately, companies that align EU funding with a coherent growth strategy, rather than individual calls, will be best positioned to leverage both the closing phase of OPKK and the ambitions of the next MFF.