The ESG in the changing landscape of higher education
Statement by the E4 Group, August 2020
The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG)
set out the quality assurance framework for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and havebeen adopted by the Ministers for higher education as part of the Bologna Process. They weredeveloped by the stakeholder organisations representing quality assurance agencies (ENQA),
universities (EUA), professional higher education institutions (EURASHE) and students (ESU): acollaboration known also as the E4 Group. This consortium developed the original version in 2005
and collaborated with three further organisations when the current 2015 edition was developed:
BUSINESSEUROPE, Education International and EQAR.
The ESG are generally considered as one of the most successful EHEA tools: evidence shows that they
have been major drivers for more professional, transparent and streamlined quality assurance
processes both at the level of higher education systems and institutions. While respecting theirdiversity and autonomy, the ESG have also been a powerful tool for creating a common language for
quality assurance in Europe and establishing a set of shared principles for quality assurance in theEHEA, namely: the primary responsibility of higher education institutions for quality and qualityassurance; the responsiveness of quality assurance to diversity in higher education; the support for
quality culture; and the central role of stakeholders.
In recent years higher education provision has been changing rapidly, including the mainstreaming ofe-learning, the emergence of micro-credentials, the launch of the European Universities Initiative, andthe renewed importance of the third mission of higher education institutions. Furthermore, somehigher education institutions and systems are exploring ways to approach quality assurance that go
beyond the ESG. Questions have thus been asked about the continued relevance and applicability of
the ESG in this changing context and calls have been made for a further revision to take account ofthese developments.
This statement is prepared in response to those discussions. The E4 Group underlines that in order
to continue to be a unifying force, the ESG must remain fit-for-purpose, be sufficiently flexible torespond to the developing higher education landscape, and have high potential to support innovationand diversity in higher education and quality assurance. The appropriate use and interpretation of theESG are at the core of their suitability for this. Furthermore, the E4 Group wishes to underline that
the ESG are primarily a tool for the enhancement of the quality higher education learning and teaching.
The purpose of quality assurance and the ESG“The ESG are a set of standards and guidelines for internal and external quality assurance in highereducation. The ESG are not standards for quality, nor do they prescribe how the quality assurance
processes are implemented, but they provide guidance, covering the areas which are vital for successful
quality provision and learning environments in higher education. The ESG should be considered in abroader context that also includes qualifications frameworks, ECTS and diploma supplement that also
contribute to promoting the transparency and mutual trust in higher education in the EHEA.” (ESG2015, p. 6). This description of the purpose of the ESG remains valid and relevant. The E4 Groupacknowledge that the quality assurance frameworks will need to evolve over time as higher education

and the external challenges, such as the demand for sustainability, develop. A general consensus exists
on the dual purpose of quality assurance processes as outlined in the ESG: accountability andenhancement. Depending on the national and institutional context, one may be more dominant thanthe other. This variation is appropriate and acceptable in light of the core philosophy of respect fordiversity and accommodating flexibility.
While the ESG, and quality assurance in general, are a powerful tool to support higher education
development, quality assurance processes should not be assigned purposes for which they were notdesigned, such as overall policy implementation or monitoring. Broadening the aims of quality
assurance risks reducing its effectiveness and could dilute the consensus towards the ESG across theEHEA. Furthermore, in many higher education systems policy steering and monitoring is achieved
through a variety of other means which are effective in their own context. The most effective approachis to reflect on the synergies between the different tools and steering mechanisms and ensurecollaboration between different actors at the system level.
The focus of quality assurance and the ESG
The ESG’s focus on “quality assurance related to learning and teaching in higher education, including
the learning environment and relevant links to research and innovation” remains pertinent. The ESG
also call for institutions to develop “policies and processes to ensure and improve the quality of
their other activities, such as research and governance” (ESG 2015, p. 7) and evidence shows that
increasing numbers of institutions are working in this direction. A range of other reputable tools,actors and approaches to quality assure different areas of an institution’s operations are available. Itis for institutional leaders to consider how to bring these approaches together into a comprehensive
internal quality assurance system. In addition, experience in many higher education systems showsthat ESG driven procedures can be successfully combined with evaluation of other institutional
activities, when that it considered useful.
The ESG further state that they “apply to all higher education offered in the EHEA regardless of themode of study or place of delivery.” (ESG 2015, p. 5). As such, they can be well used for any form ofeducation provision, including e-learning, micro-credentials and university alliances. The standards
outline basic principles for the good management of any educational process and are appropriate andfit for new forms of education provision.
Use of the ESG
Many of the current key challenges linked to the use of the ESG are related to the interpretation ofthe ESG and its individual standards. The interpretation is often too restrictive and the scope for going
beyond the standards is not exploited. Further, some misunderstandings prevail.
The ESG make a clear distinction between standards and guidelines. “The standards set out agreed andaccepted practice for quality assurance in higher education in the EHEA and should, therefore, betaken account of and adhered to by those concerned, in all types of higher education provision.” The
guidelines, on the other hand only “explain why the standard is important and describe how standards
might be implemented. They set out good practice in the relevant area for consideration by the actors
involved in quality assurance. Implementation will vary depending on different contexts.” (ESG 2015, p.
9, italics added here for clarity). Therefore, when making judgements of compliance with the ESG, only

the standards should be considered. If the guidelines are taken for standards, there is a risk of
uniformity to the detriment of innovation and appropriate implementation in different contexts.
It is vital to have in place quality assurance processes that are flexible, fit-for-purpose, and that allow
for experimentation. This philosophy underpins ESG, which encourage context-sensitive
interpretation of the standards. It is also important to remember that the ESG set out the minimumstandards for quality assurance. Such guidance is important for institutions and systems of diverse
maturity - both those at an earlier stage as well as those with longer experience in developing theirquality assurance processes. However, any additional or innovative processes, be they related toeducation or other activities of higher education institutions, should not be excluded on account ofthem not being explicitly included in the scope or standards of the ESG.
The distribution of roles in quality assurance
The primary responsibility for quality and quality assurance of their activities lies with the higher
education institutions. This is reflected in the important tasks outlined in Part 1 of the ESG. The roleof the quality assurance agencies is to provide assurance to stakeholders, including the public, that theinstitutions have in place policies and processes to assume this responsibility and to support
institutions in this work.
The task of public authorities is to clearly articulate the purpose and role of quality assurance as partof the higher education system, to ensure that the legal frameworks allow quality assurance agencies
and institutions to meet the expectations of the ESG, and to make certain that regulations determining
the basic design of the external quality assurance system are fit-for-purpose.
Conclusion
The E4 Group believes that the ESG remain valid and relevant in the current higher education
landscape. We encourage a more flexible use and interpretation of the ESG, underpinned by crossstakeholder discussion on the consequences of this for the various actors involved in each context.
As the key stakeholder organisations in the EHEA, we are committed to a continuous dialogue withour constituencies about the needs and expectations of the sector, so that any discussion on futurerevision is informed by evidence drawn from the full range of stakeholders, including evidence collectedby the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR), and achieved in a way that maintains consensus
across the EHEA.