Blog post by Stephen Wyber
This article summarises the results of a round-table discussion at the Science|Business annual conference held in Brussels on 4-5 February 2026. We are grateful for the engagement of other participants whose ideas have shaped what is presented here.
The European Research Area (ERA) Act, now due to be published in the 4th quarter of 2026, has been promoted as the main legislative game in town when it comes to making a reality of the freedom of circulation of knowledge throughout the EU. Advancing open access and open science are central to this goal.
While the ERA Act is historic as the first general research-focused piece of legislation tabled by the European Commission, there has been plenty of other work already in this space. Through funding and the conditions applied to funding, the EU has set and shaped standards and practices around open access and open science for many years. It has also provided the space and structure for discussions among different stakeholders, enabling the debate to move forward.
This raises the question of where and how the ERA Act can add value beyond the work already taking place. This is a challenge the Commission will take on over the coming months as it finalises its proposals.
To better understand this process, the article draws on political science approaches and ideas to pin down some of the complexities and questions that arise in this context. It starts by looking at the landscape of actors involved in delivering on open science, then at the tools available to them, and finally, at how to apply this framework to choices around where and how to act.
Multi-Level, Multi-Actor Governance
The concept of multi-level governance, championed by Hooghe and Marks, has strong roots in the study of European integration. Building on the logic of subsidiarity (which primarily applies to questions around what should be regulated at the European or national level), it extends this logic to recognise the role played by regional and local governments as well.
The Open Science space has its own multi-level governance dynamics. Many of the goals of the movement are global in nature, and the work of institutions like UNESCO and the UN, as well as community-led ones, such as on Diamond Open Access, reflect this scope.
There is then the European level, with a long history of funding and efforts to influence practice through discussion and norm setting. Various EU laws directly affect researchers, and with the ERA Act, they will be brought into focus. National governments, too, have a variety of roles, again through funding and providing spaces, but also through a wide range of laws that shape how research works. In some countries, regional governments also play a role here. They will also need to reconcile their work on research and open science with other policy goals (security, competitiveness, and more).
Outside of government itself, there are often (discipline-specific or general) agencies and funders. These are typically independent of government, but also play a significant role, for example, through the mandates provided to researchers, the influence they can have over practice, and investment in infrastructure. They can also define how the impact of research is assessed, for example.
Then there are institutions, which are the bodies closest to researchers, and which have a direct influence on researcher actions and behaviours. They typically establish policies addressing different aspects of open science, such as rights retention, and are best placed to enforce rules. Finally, there are researchers themselves, who ultimately make decisions that, cumulatively, determine how well Europe does in achieving open science.
Multi-level governance always brings the risk of tensions, with different players having different perceptions about what the optimal level is for each relevant decision. There is, to some extent, a trade-off between centralisation and harmonisation on the one hand, and greater freedom and adaptation to local circumstances on the other. One may be seen as restricting innovation and the full realisation of potential, the other as leading to inefficiencies and standing in the way of collaboration.
This is no different with open science, especially given a long history of defending individual and institutional autonomy, as well as the need to keep a distance between politics and research. In looking at how the ERA Act can support open science, it will be important to reflect both on which questions can only be addressed at the EU level, as well as where EU action is necessary to create the space and impetus for action elsewhere, without unduly restricting all of the other actors at work.
A Variety of Tools
This brings us to a second set of choices: what are the most appropriate tools to achieve progress towards open science? Each of the actors (other than researchers) mentioned above has access to a range of possibilities, each of which may be more or less effective at achieving their goals.
European and national (and sometimes regional) governments can pass legislation, such as the ERA Act. As long as it is implemented and enforced, this can be a very powerful tool, creating obligations and directing decisions. It may also be necessary when elements of existing legislation need to be amended, as is the case, for example, with the EU’s current copyright laws.
At the same time, legislation is often slow to pass, and should apply generally. This means that it is not always the best option for regulating an evolving situation, or one where there is a need to adapt to the needs of different disciplines, for example. It can also potentially give rise to opposition, especially when it is perceived as being imposed. Finally, legislation can also be so high-level that it has little direct practical application, for example, simply by establishing that an issue is a priority.
Without the force of government behind it, the contracts that research funders offer institutions and researchers in exchange for resources, as well as the contracts between researchers and institutions, also offer possibilities for strong conditionality.
There are also ‘softer’ tools available. Setting standards can offer a way of bringing about convergence in practice with a lower risk of resistance and rejection. At the same time, it does not guarantee that everyone will adhere to them.
Often linked to standards is the opportunity for peer exchange. This allows for learning and sharing, at least among the willing, and can provide a basis for ideas to emerge and be accepted over the longer term.
Finally, there is the impact of funding itself, supporting the creation of open science infrastructures and making it easier and cheaper to pursue this as a goal. It is expensive, but represents a clear positive incentive or support for uptake.
Once again, there are likely to be different perceptions around the desirability or merits of each type of tool, including from different actors. As highlighted, funding will be popular with those who receive it, but there remains a question about how far it can, on its own, drive change. Laws are often seen as impositions, but they offer stronger guarantees and a more general application. ‘Softer’ measures may bring more acceptance, but can risk being coalitions of the willing and having limited power in the face of legal barriers.
Towards a Matrix Approach
Combining the different levels and spaces where action can be taken with the different tools available means that for every aspect of open science, there is a matrix of potential choices, both by level and by type of action.
It is likely in each case that more than one choice will be required, for example, to benefit from the force and catalysing power of legislation (at European or national level), the insight, nuance, and buy-in that standard-setting and peer-exchange offers (again at European or national level), integration into institutional policies, and finally practical uptake by researchers.
The combination will vary by the aspect in question – improving the situation of authors in working with copyright will require a different set of actions to work to overhaul research assessment. In some cases, relatively specific laws may be needed (not least, as previously mentioned, to resolve problems created by other laws), while in others, it will be enough to underline the political importance of an issue.
As discussions on the ERA Act advance, the focus will logically be on what should be explicitly included in European-level legislation. However, the real strategic question is not only what the ERA Act should contain, but what it should deliberately leave to other levels and instruments. In this sense, the debate is as much about restraint as it is about ambition. Taking a more holistic view of the open science ecosystem makes it possible to see how legislation, funding, standards, and peer exchange can reinforce one another. Without this broader perspective, there is a risk not only of overreach but also of missed opportunities to catalyse action where it can be most effective.
10 February 2026
