ERC Starting/Consolidator/Advanced Grants

A working framework for drafting or self-reviewing an ERC proposal to the European Research Council. The ERC funds frontier research across all disciplines and uses a two-panel structure: the B1 Extended Synopsis and the B2 Full Proposal, reviewed by a specialized evaluation panel. This skill covers the Starting (StG), Consolidator (CoG), and Advanced (AdG) grant types under the latest Work Programme.

When to use

• Drafting an ERC Starting Grant (StG) — for researchers 2–7 years post-PhD, €1.5M ceiling, 5 years.
• Drafting an ERC Consolidator Grant (CoG) — for researchers 7–12 years post-PhD, €2M ceiling, 5 years.
• Drafting an ERC Advanced Grant (AdG) — for established PIs with a significant track record, €2.5M ceiling, 5 years.
• Writing the B1 Extended Synopsis (2 pages) that must stand alone and give the reviewer the full project in miniature."
• Writing the B2 Full Proposal (≈7–8 pages) covering the "Ground-breaking nature and potential impact of the research project," "Methodology," "The Principal Investigator's competence to execute it," and the "Resources and cost."
• Preparing the CV and Track Record — the ERC's most distinctive review element.
• Completing the ethics issues table, the data management plan (short form), and the hosting agreement.
• Engaging with the host institution and preparing the Host Institution Commitment Letter.

When NOT to use

• This is not a Proof of Concept (PoC) grant — PoC is a separate track for commercialization potential.
• This is not an Synergy Grant (SyG) — SyG requires 2–4 PIs and a larger budget.
• This is not a fellowship or training grant. ERC is a research grant, not a career-development mechanism.
• This is not a national-grant skill (e.g., UK MRC, German DFG, French ANR) — the ERC is a standalone panel.
• This is not for the ERC's "Grant Agreement" (the contract) phase — that is a post-award process.

Prerequisites

• A host institution in an EU or associated country that is ERC-fundable. The host institution must sign the Host Institution Commitment Letter.
• A PhD completion date that falls within the eligibility window for the grant type (StG 2–7 years, CoG 7–12 years, AdG no specific window). Verify on the current Work Programme.
• A Track Record that can be mapped to the ERC's evaluation criteria. The ERC evaluates the PI, not the institution.
• A project that is "frontier research" — the ERC's standard is that the proposed work is at the edge of the field, not incremental.
• A list of the panel (PE, SH, LS, EN, PE9, etc.) and subdomain the proposal maps to. Use the ERC evaluation panel list.

Core workflow

1. Pick the ERC grant type based on the candidate's PhD date and track record. StG is for early-career, CoG is for mid-career, AdG is for established. The budget reflects the career stage and evidence requirements.

2. Pick the evaluation panel from the ERC's list. ERC panels are SH (Social Sciences and Humanities), LS (Life Sciences), PE (Physical Sciences and Engineering), PE9 (Computational Sciences). Use the correct subdomain. A proposal that maps to the wrong panel is less damaging than one that is split across panels.

3. Confirm the host institution's ERC agreement status. An institution in an EU or associated country with a signed ERC agreement can host. The Host Institution is the applicant's employer and signs the Host Institution Commitment Letter.

4. Draft the B1 Extended Synopsis (2 pages) first, as a standalone document. This is the ERC's most-distinctive element. It must give the reviewer the "what, why, how, and who" in two pages without referring to the B2. It is not a shorter version of the B2; it is a separate abstract. Reviewers read the B1 first, and the B1 gates the B2.

5. Draft the B2 Full Proposal (≈7–8 pages) with the four sections the ERC demands:

   • Section 1: "Ground-breaking nature and potential impact of the research project" (≈2 pages)
   • Section 2: "Methodology" (≈2–3 pages)
   • Section 3: "The Principal Investigator's competence to execute it" (≈2 pages)
   • Section 4: "Resources and cost" (≈1 page)

6. Write the CV and Track Record — the ERC's unique contribution. The CV is not an NIH/NSF biosketch; it is a publication-and-output list weighted toward the most recent 5 years. The Track Record is the "5 best papers" or equivalent outputs, with a narrative that connects each output to the ERC line of research. The ERC wants the PI to identify which work makes them the right person for this project.

7. Draft the ethics issues table. Complete all applicable fields (Human Participants, Animal Welfare, Privacy / Data, Dual Use, Environmental Impact, Other). A "no ethics issues" answer requires a justification, not silence.

8. Draft the short data management plan in the ERC template, consistent with the B2's data description.

9. Obtain the Host Institution Commitment Letter — signed by the host institution's legal representative. The letter confirms the institution's commitment to hosting the PI for the grant duration, provides the research infrastructure, and confirms the PI's employment conditions. The host institution is the PI's employer.

10. Assemble and submit via the ERC application portal. The ERC uses eSubmission, not ASSIST or Research.gov. Verify the portal and the submission window. Plan submission at least 48 hours before the deadline.

Document patterns

B1 Extended Synopsis (2 pages)

# Extended Synopsis

## The challenge (0.5 page)
- The fundamental problem or frontier question.
- Why it matters and why now.

## The proposed approach (0.75 page)
- The central hypothesis.
- The methodology in one sentence.
- The key experiments or activities.

## The impact (0.5 page)
- What advances if this succeeds.
- Why the field will be different.

## The PI and host (0.25 page)
- One sentence: who, where, and why this team.

*Do not refer to the B2. The B1 must be self-contained.*

B2 Full Proposal skeleton (≈7–8 pages)

# Full Proposal

# 1. Ground-breaking nature and potential impact of the research project

## 1.1 Current state of the art
- What is known.
- What is missing.
- Why the gap matters.

## 1.2 Project's contribution to advancing the state of the art
- The central advance.
- Expected results.
- How it changes the field.

# 2. Methodology

## 2.1 Overall methodology
## 2.2 Work plan (Work Package structure)
  - WP1: objective, tasks, deliverables, start month, end month.
  - WP2: ...
  - WP3: ...
## 2.3 Risks and mitigation
- Per-work-package risk table.

# 3. The Principal Investigator's competence to execute it

## 3.1 CV (summary)
## 3.2 Track record
- 5 best outputs (publications or equivalents).
- Narrative connecting to the proposed work.

# 4. Resources and cost

## 4.1 Justified budget per category
## 4.2 Team and infrastructure

Track Record (1 page, ERC format)

# Track Record

## 5 Best Outputs
1. **[Output 1]** — [Journal, Year]. [One sentence on why this is a key output
   and how it relates to the proposed work.]
2. **[Output 2]** — ...
...

## Summary of Research Achievements
- Aggregate list: [X] peer-reviewed publications, [Y] [other outputs].
- Recent (last 5 years) publication summary.
- PhD students supervised / postdocs mentored (if any).

## Key Grants (if any)
- Current grants funding the lab.

Ethics Issues Table

Host Institution Commitment Letter skeleton (institution template, but must include)

[Institution letterhead]

To: [PI name]
Date: [Letter date]

Subject: Commitment to host the ERC [grant type] project "[Project title]"

Dear [PI name],

[Institution name] confirms its commitment to host your ERC [grant type] project
for the full grant duration of [X] years, subject to ERC funding.

We confirm:
- Your appointment as [title] at [department].
- [X]% research time protected out of [Y] hours per week.
- Access to [specific infrastructure, facilities, labs].
- [Other institution-specific commitments].

For and on behalf of,
[Signature block]
[Name, title]
[Institution]

Common pitfalls

• B1 that reads like a B2 summary. The ERC explicitly warns against the B1 being a compressed B2. The B1 must make sense as a standalone document. If the reviewer cannot evaluate the merit of the proposal from the B1 alone, the proposal is downgraded in step 1.
• Track Record that is a publication dump. The ERC wants the 5 best outputs, not a full CV. Each output must be tied to a sentence explaining why this output makes the PI the right person for this specific project. A generic publication list fails the ERC criterion.
• Project that is incremental. The ERC funds frontier research. A project that "builds on prior work" without stating what frontier question the project answers is screened out at step 1.
• Host Institution Commitment Letter that is generic. The letter must document the specific research infrastructure, protected time, and institutional commitment. Reviewers at the ERC sometimes check the letter against the institution's profile.
• Ethics issues table left blank or marked all "No" without justification. The ERC ethics review is perfunctory in most panels but missing or evasive answers are flagged.
• Budget that does not add up. ERC budgets are capped. Verify the ceiling (€1.5M StG, €2M CoG, €2.5M AdG) and the direct cost + indirect structure.
• Panel mismatch. Submitting to the wrong panel wastes reviewer time. Use the ERC panel list and the current Work Programme's panel descriptions.
• Wrong eligibility window. StG and CoG have PhD-date windows. A recent PhD above the StG window is administratively screened out. Verify the current Work Programme.

Validation

• The B1 stands alone and contains the full "what, why, how, who" in 2 pages.
• The B2 has all four sections within the page limit.
• The Track Record lists 5 outputs with sentences connecting them to the proposed work.
• The Host Institution Commitment Letter is signed and specific.
• The ethics issues table is complete.
• The budget is below the ceiling for the grant type.
• The eligibility window is met.
• The submission passes the ERC portal's format verification.

Open alternatives

• ERC eSubmission portal vs. institutional submission. The ERC submission is via the ERC's dedicated portal. There is no FastLane or Research.gov equivalent. Institutional sponsored-research offices may have internal portal wrappers but the submission is direct to the ERC.
• No SciENcv equivalent for ERC. The ERC CV is a custom template, not SciENcv-generated. Use the ERC's CV template in the portal.

References

• ERC: Apply for a grant — current Work Programme, call calendar, and application portal.
• ERC: Work Programme and Information for Applicants — the canonical document.
• ERC: Evaluation panels — panel list, criteria, and evaluation process.
• ERC: Ethical and linguistic checks — ethics issues table guidance.
• ERC: Host Institution requirements — institutional eligibility and commitment letter.
• European Commission: Funding & Tenders Portal — the central EU portal where ERC calls are published.

Changelog

• 1.0.0 (2026-06-10): Initial adaptation by Pradyumna Jayaram.