Climate-tech · Case study

Research allowance appeal: certified after a full rejection.

Practical example based on real projects · anonymised, figures rounded · Last updated: 24 September 2026

A climate-tech company we worked with was rejected outright, then certified after a formal objection, even with most of its costs in external contract research.

€75,000

research allowance granted

€300,000

eligible base

25%

funding rate

Get a free funding assessment Read the story

At a glance

The mandate in figures

IndustryClimate-tech / Web3Carbon-certificate infrastructure

Research allowance granted€75,000Fully claimable, credited against tax, surplus refunded

Eligible base€300,000

ScenarioRejected, then certified on appeal

Projects1

Funding rate25%

About the company

The company, and the R&D underneath

The company builds technical infrastructure to represent climate-related certificates in a standardised, verifiable way and make them tradable on a blockchain. The hard part is not the idea but the technology behind it: standardised, tamper-proof data models that merge heterogeneous inputs into a robust, comparable certificate.

The cost profile was striking. Most of the expenditure went not to the company's own staff but to external development work, that is, contract research. The whole case therefore hinges on one question: is this external work recognised as eligible contract research or not.

The challenge

Where the funding really sat

Contract research is eligible only if the contractor independently solves a scientific or technical problem and thereby generates new knowledge for the client. If the external work is classified as a pure service, merely executing a specification, it drops out of funding.

For a project whose eligible base consists mostly of contract research, this is existential. That is exactly where the rejection struck. The first decision denied the project, threatening not just a reduction but the complete loss of funding.

Novelty Technical risk / uncertainty Systematic approach

Our approach

How we built the case

Substance

We worked out which concrete technical uncertainty the external work carries, which problem without a safe solution was actually addressed there, and how it could have failed. A standardised, verifiable representation of heterogeneous climate data is not a solved standard problem; it demands its own methodological decisions with an open outcome.

Contractual and substantive delineation

We showed that the external work was result-oriented and aimed at the independent solution of a technical problem, not at merely supplying labour.

Objection itself

filed on time and re-argued along the three criteria, with the clear thread that the research embedded in the project is also visible in the externally executed part.

How the case moved

✕

Rejected

Full rejection of the project

↻

Re-argued

External work shown as genuine R&D

✓

Certified

Granted on formal objection

What made up the eligible base

In-house ~25%Contract research ~75%

In-house personnel workContract research (recognised)

Eligible base €300,000, predominantly contract research, recognised in full after the appeal. Split shown is illustrative.

The result

A €75,000 research allowance.

After the appeal, the project was certified. A full rejection became a granted certificate with an eligible base in the order of magnitude of around €300,000. At the 25% rate applicable to the fiscal years in question, this yields a research allowance in the mid five-figure range.

Eligible base €300,000 · SME rate 25%

Rejected, then certified on appealThe outcome of the mandate.

Eligible base €300,000Recognised cost the allowance is calculated on.

SME rate 25%Applied to the eligible base.

Key takeaways

What other companies can learn

Anyone with a high contract-research share must secure the eligibility of that external work from the outset. Three points are decisive:

01

Result, not labour

The contract and the description must make clear that the contractor owes a result and independently solves a technical problem. A construct that only supplies hours is not eligible.

02

Show the uncertainty in the external part too

Contract research is eligible only if real failure risk existed there as well. That belongs explicitly in the description.

03

The rate depends on the fiscal year

The increased SME rate of 35% applies only to costs incurred after 27 March 2024. Costs incurred earlier are funded at 25%. That is not a flaw in the application but a consequence of the cut-off logic.

More on Research Allowance: The guide Research Allowance: requirements, rates and application explains the programme step by step. How we support your project is covered under Research Allowance consulting.

“

This mandate is the textbook example that a rejection is not the final word.

BeFunded On the research allowance

FAQ

Research Allowance: your questions

The most common questions on this kind of case. Short answer first, detail after.

Yes, but only if the contractor independently solves a scientific or technical problem. A share of the contract cost is then recognised as the eligible base. Pure service work without R&D character is not eligible.

For projects in the relevant periods, 60% of the recognised contract cost is included in the eligible base. The funding rate is applied to that base.

Yes. A timely objection with a freshly built reasoning can correct a rejection. The prerequisite is that the project genuinely meets the three criteria and that this is made visible in the appeal.

The increased SME rate of 35% applies only to costs incurred after 27 March 2024. Earlier costs are funded at the basic rate of 25%.

Keep reading

More case studies

Biotechnology

Mechanics, control and biology funded as one interdisciplinary R&D project.