The European Union’s ambitious plan to address a projected 800,000-worker shortage in its battery sector has encountered significant credibility issues. InnoEnergy, a Netherlands-based clean tech company awarded €10 million in EU funding, claims to have trained 100,000 people through its European Battery Alliance Academy. Independent analysis reveals systematic flaws in how these numbers were calculated, raising fundamental questions about public spending oversight and project accountability.
The methodology behind InnoEnergy’s reported success deserves immediate scrutiny. The company counts certificates issued rather than individual participants, meaning a single person completing four courses appears in the data as four separate learners. This approach artificially inflates participation metrics while obscuring the actual reach of the training initiative. When journalists tested the system, they obtained completion certificates by simply clicking through content without engaging with material, including one instance where a 0% test score still generated certification.
InnoEnergy’s progress reports contain unexplained fluctuations that undermine data reliability. The Battery Management, Connection and Control course reportedly had 394 participants in February 2024, jumped to 2,203 six months later, then dropped to 642 by February 2025. Similarly, public announcements claimed 27,000 learners completed the Battery Technician course, while internal reports documented only 2,300. These discrepancies suggest either poor data management practices or deliberate misrepresentation of program outcomes.
The inclusion of educational Minecraft game users in the learner count further distorts the program’s actual impact on workforce development. Children aged nine to 15 playing this game accounted for approximately 10% of reported learners, despite the initiative’s stated goal of reskilling workers to meet immediate industry labor demands. The average participant age of 34 appears artificially low for a workforce retraining program in a region where half the population is over 44 years old.
InnoEnergy’s grant agreement with the European Institute of Innovation and Technology established a key objective of reaching 100,000 direct learners, with an additional claim that seven indirect beneficiaries would emerge for each direct participant, totaling 700,000 people impacted. The company justified this 1:7 multiplier by citing three academic papers, yet one was published nearly three years after the agreement was signed and could not have informed the original calculation. The other two papers contain no evidence supporting such a significant multiplier effect.
The courses themselves appear designed for speed rather than comprehensive skill development. Beginner courses lasting 4.5 hours receive equal weight in progress reports as 40-hour expert courses, despite vast differences in depth and practical application. Former employees characterized the e-learning approach as insufficient for actual workforce retraining, noting that hundreds of thousands of internal combustion engine mechanics require hands-on technical training to transition into roles in the battery sector. Research from the Bruegel think tank assessed the academy’s ability to address the skills gap as limited at best, questioning whether online certificates can genuinely solve the challenges of large-scale workforce transformation.
InnoEnergy has licensed these EU-funded courses to private companies, including American firms, charging between $385 and $2,475 per course. South Carolina-based Soteria Battery Innovation Group offered 24 self-paced online courses with identical names to those in EBA Academy progress reports, enabling a private U.S. entity to profit from materials developed with European taxpayer money intended specifically for European industry support. When questioned about this arrangement, InnoEnergy claimed the courses were localized for North American markets without providing pricing details or explaining why the three-year collaboration ended prematurely.
The European Commission lacks verification mechanisms to confirm whether the battery industry actually received the workforce support these grants were designed to provide. Commission officials acknowledged they have not tracked how many workers were genuinely reskilled in recent years, essentially accepting InnoEnergy’s reported figures at face value. This monitoring gap reflects a recurring problem identified by the European Court of Auditors: inadequate oversight makes determining real-world effects of EU-funded projects difficult.
Despite unverified claims and methodological concerns, InnoEnergy secured an additional €9 million EU grant in June 2024 to establish the European Solar Academy, targeting 65,000 workers over two years. Testing revealed the Solar Careers Decoded course can be completed in three minutes through the same click-through method, with certification awarded despite failing the assessment. The pattern suggests systemic issues extend beyond the battery training program into new initiatives.
InnoEnergy reported a €66 million loss before tax in 2024, with government grants accounting for more than half its income. The company’s financial dependence on public funding intensifies concerns about accountability and outcome measurement. When presented with 25 detailed follow-up questions about data discrepancies, course methodology, and licensing arrangements, InnoEnergy refused to respond, stating previous answers reflected contractual obligations and declining further comment.
The EIT is currently assessing InnoEnergy’s final report and indicated it will consider grant reductions if relevant objectives are not met, though specific amounts remain unspecified. Meanwhile, EU institutions have publicly cited the 100,000-learner milestone as fact, with the EIT defending its decision to highlight the achievement based on information provided by InnoEnergy. Whether the institute will correct the public record if reported figures cannot be verified remains unclear.
The case exposes structural weaknesses in how the European Union monitors multi-million euro grant programs designed to address strategic industrial needs. When completion certificates can be obtained without meaningful engagement, when children playing video games inflate workforce training statistics, and when counting methodologies obscure actual participation rates, the fundamental purpose of public investment gets lost in bureaucratic reporting requirements that prioritize quantitative targets over qualitative outcomes.
