Does Regional Spread Equal Regional Impact in EDIHs?

European Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIHs) are designed to bring digital skills, test-before-invest services, and innovation support closer to SMEs and public sector organisations (PSOs) across regions. By design, they are meant to act as regional gateways rather than single-city hubs. But does the way consortia are structured – and financed – always live up to that promise?

Consider one example. An EDIH covering a nine-county region is led by a consortium of five partners. On paper, the mission is regional, yet the geographical spread is uneven. Most partners are clustered in one location, one sits outside the region altogether, and only a single partner is based in the eastern part of the catchment.

The funding profile reinforces this imbalance. The majority of the multi-million euro budget is allocated to the institutions in the dominant cluster, while smaller amounts flow to partners in other counties. The “front office” of the hub is also located within the cluster, while the outlying sites are framed more as access points than as core decision-making centres.

This raises a bigger question for the EDIH programme as a whole: does the geography of finance dictate the geography of impact? If funding is concentrated in a few institutions, can we be confident that SMEs and PSOs in every county of the region will enjoy equal access to services, skills, and investment? Or will the benefits naturally gravitate to the areas where the largest partners are based?

If EDIHs are to fulfil their mandate as regional engines of digital transformation, a few principles could help safeguard balance:

• Transparent reporting of SME and PSO engagement by county, not just at regional level.

• Geographically linked targets, ensuring every county sees a proportional share of funded activity.

• Decentralised outreach, with real investment in local contact points, not just satellite offices.

• Inclusive governance, where each partner has equal weight in shaping delivery, regardless of size or location.

These challenges are not unique to one consortium; they echo across the EDIH network. But if public funding is meant to catalyse transformation fairly, then the question must be asked: can concentrated funding structures truly guarantee broad regional impact?