Proposal for a Recommendation of the Council and of the European Parliament on further European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education
Date: 2004-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European standard, cooperation policy, higher education, teaching quality

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 12.10.2004 
COM(2004) 642 final 

2004/0239 (COD) 

Proposal for a  

RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL AND OF THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

on further European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

On  the  24th  of  September  1998,  the  Council  of  Ministers  adopted  the  Recommendation  on 
European  cooperation  in  quality  assurance  in  higher  education1.  The  Recommendation  calls 
upon  Member  States  to  support  or  establish  quality  assurance  systems  and  to  encourage 
higher education institutions and competent authorities to cooperate and exchange experience. 
It also asks the Commission to support such cooperation and to report on the implementation 
of the objectives of the Recommendation at European and Member State level. 

The Commission Report demonstrates remarkable progress in establishing quality assurance 
systems and promoting cooperation. These developments are positive but not sufficient. More 
far reaching measures are needed in order to make European higher education perform better 
and become a more transparent and trustworthy brand for our own citizens and for students 
and  scholars  from  other  continents.  Following  the  review  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation, the Commission is therefore invited to adopt not just the Report but also a 
proposal for a new Council and European Parliament Recommendation. 

Accordingly,  the  Commission  would  propose  to  the  Council  and  to  the  European 
Parliament  to adopt a new Recommendation, which would build on the Recommendation 
of  1998  and  contribute  in  a  concrete  way  to  the  aim  of  mutual  recognition  of  quality 
assurance systems and assessments across Europe. The present Memorandum provides an 
explanation of the five steps outlined in the proposed Recommendation, quoted in italics. 

2. 

A. 

FIVE STEPS TO ACHIEVE MUTUAL RECOGNITION 

Internal quality assurance mechanisms 

“require all higher education institutions active within their territory to introduce or develop 
rigorous internal quality assurance mechanisms.” 

University  associations  and  networks  have  taken  several  initiatives,  with  support  of  the 
Commission,  to  develop  internal  quality  management  (or  "quality  culture")  within 
institutions,  as  described  in  section  3.3  of  this  report..  The  good  practice  of  actively 
maintaining and developing quality management is, however, still thinly and unevenly spread 
in  Europe.  There  is  a  need  to  spread  this  practice,  which  relates  to  issues  of  institutional 
staffing and governance, across a wider variety of institutions in Europe, as a complement to 
and a sound basis for external evaluation. The Commission will map the progress in this field 
and continue its support to quality management initiatives. 

B. 

A common set of standards, procedures and guidelines 

“require  all  quality  assurance  or  accreditation  agencies  active  within  their  territory  to  be 
independent in their assessments, to apply the features of quality assurance laid down in the 
Council  Recommendation  of  September  1998  and  to  apply  a  common  set  of  standards, 
procedures and guidelines, for assessment purposes.” 

1 

Council  Recommendation  of  24  September  1998  on  European  cooperation  in  quality  assurance  in 
higher education (98/561/EC) OJ L 270/56 of 07.10.1998. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Ministers for Higher Education gathered in Berlin in September 2003 adopted a Mandate for 
ENQA, calling on it, through its members and in co-operation with the EUA, EURASHE and 
ESIB,  to  develop  "an  agreed  set  of  standards,  procedures  and  guidelines  on  quality 
assurance".ENQA  has  started  to  work  on  this  mandate  and  will  report  back,  through  the 
Bologna  Follow-up  Group,  to  the  next  Ministerial  meeting  in  Bergen,  in  May  2005.  The 
Commission takes the following position on this part of the Mandate: 

Standards, criteria or reference points 

Standards in this context are criteria or reference points used by agencies when they evaluate 
or accredit institutions or programmes. Agreed set of standards should, however, not become 
straightjackets. Standards should be used as reference points, providing a common language 
to  refer  to.  Agencies  should  identify  and  publish  the  standards  which  they  apply  and  relate 
these to the common reference points. Reference points are expected to increase transparency 
and  comparability  in  Europe.  They  would  help  to  highlight  similarities  and  differences 
between  study  programmes,  without  harmonising  them.  Universities  and  other  higher 
education institutions should have the freedom to differ, to innovate and to go beyond what is 
described in the agreed set of standards. 

Two new sets of standards are gaining importance: the existence of internal quality assurance 
mechanisms and the use of learning outcomes and competences. In order to be relevant, the 
reference  points  would  need  to  be  updated  regularly  and  keep  in  pace  with  emerging  new 
knowledge  and  changing  needs  of  society.  One  way  of  organising  the  updating  exercise 
would  be  to  create  Stakeholder  Panels,  involving  university  teachers,  professionals  and 
successful  students/alumni  active  in  the  field;  The  Commission  will  take  the  initiative  to 
convene a first series of Stakeholder Panels in the academic year 2004-2005. 

Procedures 

The  ENQA  survey2  has  demonstrated  that  the  basic  procedure  set  out  in  the  Council 
Recommendation  of  1998  has  proven  its  worth  and  is  by  and  large  being  applied  in  most 
evaluations.  This  procedure,  recommended  in  an  EU  context,  has  been  transferred  to  the 
broader Bologna context  by  the  Ministers in Berlin. A desirable  outcome of this  part of the 
Mandate exercise would be an ENQA Handbook of Quality Assurance Procedures, containing 
a  number  of  commonly  accepted  models  or  protocols,  based  on  good  practice  in  Member 
States. The Commission believed that publication of such a handbook would be desirable. In 
line  with  the  Council  Recommendation  of  1998  and  the  2003  Berlin  Communiqué,  the 
Commission  would  expect  systematic  international  involvement  in  agency  governance  and 
evaluations. 

Guidelines 

Guidelines  refer  to  principles  that  ought  to  be  respected  when  carrying  out  external 
evaluations. An agreed set of guidelines or principles will be established through the ENQA 
mandate.  Some  of  these  principles  can  already  be  identified,  such  as  university  autonomy 
public accountability and independence of external agencies, proportionality and fairness. A 
desirable  outcome  of  this  part  of  the  exercise  would  be  the  establishment  of  a  Code  of 

2 

Quality  Procedures  in  European  Higher  Education  –  An  ENQA  Survey,  ENQA  Occasional  Papers  5, 
April 2003. http://www.enqa.net/texts/procedures.pdf 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Principles for European quality assurance, to which all stakeholders could adhere and which 
would also be included in the ENQA Handbook. 

C. 

A European Register of Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agencies 

“encourage  quality  assurance  and  accreditation  agencies,  together  with  organisations 
representing  higher  education,  to  set  up  a  “European  Register  of  Quality  Assurance  and 
Accreditation  Agencies”,  as  described  in  the  Annex,  and  to  define  the  conditions  for 
registration.” 

External evaluations have more impact if the agency concerned fulfils the highest standards of 
independence  and  professionalism.  For  this  reason,  it  is  proposed  that  quality  assurance 
agencies operating in Europe should be subject to regular review themselves. The results of 
these  reviews  should  be  published.  Ministers  in  Berlin  have  asked  ENQA  and  partners  to 
"explore  ways  of  ensuring  an  adequate  peer  review  system  for  quality  assurance  and/or 
accreditation agencies or bodies". The review of agencies should lead to the establishment of 
a  European  Register  (“List”,  Clearing  House”)  of  Quality  Assurance  Agencies,  covering 
public,  private  and  professional  agencies,  operating  or  based  within  Europe  whether  on  a 
regional, national, European or international basis. The publication of the Register on the web 
would contribute to the acceptance of evaluation and accreditation systems and assessments 
and would facilitate indirectly the recognition of qualifications within Europe and beyond. 

Terms of reference, defining what makes a good agency, would need to be established as well 
as  procedures  and  guidelines  for  this  type  of  review.  A  review  system  would  need  to  be 
worked  out,  with  checks  and  balances  between  the  various  stakeholders:  universities, 
students, social partners and professional bodies, governments and agencies. 

The  Register  would  mean  that  present  and  future  ENQA  members  and  other  agencies 
operating  in  Europe  would  be  subject  to  quality  assurance  and  evaluation  themselves.  Most 
agencies would find no difficulty in adhering to the terms of reference and it would provide 
them with a quality label. Candidate members would be stimulated to raise the level of their 
operations, before being registered as full members. They would receive special help to assist 
them in their capacity building process. 

D. 

University autonomy in choice of agency 

“enable  higher  education  institutions  active  within  their  territory  to  choose  among  quality 
assurance or accreditation agencies in the European Register, an agency which meets their 
needs and profile.” 

Higher education institutions should be given the freedom to choose an agency which meets 
their  needs,  provided  that  this  agency  figures  in  the  Register  and  is  recognised  by  their 
country as being independent and trustworthy. This might be an agency in another European 
country. Universities should be encouraged to develop an accreditation strategy. Universities 
should manage their accreditation and consider which type of accreditation serves best their 
particular  interests.  On  the  basis  of  such  a  strategy,  they  may  opt  for  regional,  national  or 
international accreditation. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
E.  Member State competence to accept assessments and draw consequences 

“accept  the  assessments  made  by  all  quality  assurance  and  accreditation  agencies  listed  in 
the  European  Register  as  a  basis  for  decisions  on  licensing  or  funding  of  higher  education 
institutions, including as regards such matters as eligibility for student grants and loans.” 

Member States are responsible for organising their national quality assurance systems. They 
define the national qualifications framework. They give higher education institutions the right 
to award degrees (licensing). Member States fund most of higher education as well as student 
loans  and  grants.  Member  States  therefore  decide  on  the  type  of  quality  assurance  or 
accreditation  they  need  in  order  to  take  positive  or  negative  decisions  on  licensing  and 
funding. 

In carrying out these responsibilities, Member States rely more and more on the judgement of 
their  national  quality  assurance  agency  or  agencies.  In  a  few  cases3,  Member  States  have 
decided  to  open  the  possibility  of  recognising  the  judgement  of  an  agency  of  another 
European country as equivalent to the judgement of national agencies. It is indeed debatable 
whether  it  is  really  necessary  for  every  country  to  set  up  its  own  quality  assurance  system. 
Cooperation  could  bring  economies  of  scale  and  synergies  through  pooling  of  expertise, 
increased  objectivity  and  credibility.  Belgium  (Flanders)  and  the  Netherlands  have  even 
decided to set up one joint accreditation system. In those cases the  judgement of  an  agency 
from abroad would replace the judgement of a national agency and subsequent decisions for 
licensing or funding would be based on that judgement.  

The Commission believes that opening doors to agencies from other European countries is a 
positive  development.  The  competition  it  creates  would  stimulate  agencies  to  improve 
themselves  and  the  services  they  offer,  and  would  bring  their  evaluation  and  accreditation 
services  to  an  international,  European  level.  This  in  turn  would  contribute  to  increasing  the 
quality of these outputs. It might also lead agencies to adopt specialisations. Some might opt 
for a regional, national or European role. Others might concentrate on institutional evaluation 
or  on  certain  disciplines  (for  example,  engineering)  or  groups  of  disciplines  (such  as 
humanities or social science). Enabling transnational quality assurance in this way would also 
be an effective support for mutual recognition of quality assurance systems, quality assurance 
or accreditation assessments, and therefore to the recognition of qualifications at a European 
scale and beyond, whilst leaving the initiative with universities and national authorities. 

An alternative might be for Member States to retain institutional evaluation and accreditation 
in national hands and to allow universities to seek programme accreditation abroad on top of 
national  institutional  accreditation.  Universities  would  do  so,  not  to  obtain  direct  access  to 
state  funding,  but  rather  for  reasons  of  branding,  as  is  already  happening  in  the  fields  of 
engineering and business studies. 

Most evaluation and accreditation is carried out on a national or regional basis. It is expected 
that these local exercises will become more comparable and more European through the use 
of an "agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines" and through involvement of foreign 
experts.  In  a  limited  number  of  cases,  there  is  scope  for  transnational  evaluation  and 
accreditation.  In  highly  internationalised  fields  of  study  like  business,  medicine  or 
engineering,  universities  or  their  sponsors  (public  or  private)  might  find  the  emergence  of 

3 

Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
international  labels  useful  for  reasons  of  branding  or  consumer  protection.  Integrated  study 
programmes,  like  joint  masters,  obviously  require  a  collaborative  effort  from  the  respective 
quality assurance agencies. 

The  Commission  supports  the  setting  up  and  testing  phase  of  transnational  evaluation  and 
accreditation of single and joint programmes of studies and stands ready to support proposals 
from  subject  specific  professional  organisations,  setting  up  European  accreditation  in  fields 
like  medicine  or  engineering.  As  a  first  step,  the  Commission  will  support  the  launch  of  a 
limited  number  of  Europe-wide  accreditation  initiatives  in  2004-2005.  Without  European 
accreditation, universities, which perceive a need for an accreditation which goes beyond their 
own country, may be tempted to seek to obtain labels from outside Europe and notably from 
agencies in the United States. 

3. 

CONCLUSION 

These five steps would require decisive action at institutional, agency, national, and European 
level.  Institutions  must  set  up  rigorous  internal  quality  management  and  develop  an 
“accreditation  strategy”.  Agencies  should  apply  the  1998  Recommendation  to  the  full  and 
prepare themselves for severe scrutiny. Member States should support their universities and 
allow  university  autonomy,  including  in  the  choice  of  agency.  Member  States  should  also 
allow  their  agencies  to  operate  independently  and  cross-border.  They  should  be  willing  to 
accept  the  assessment  of  trustworthy  agencies  located  in  other  European  countries  or 
operating  on  a  European  scale.  European  cooperation  should  lead  to  the  setting  up  of  a 
European  “Register”  (“list”,  “clearing  house”)  of  trustworthy  quality  assurance  and 
accreditation  agencies.  In  this  way,  the  much  debated  “mutual  recognition”  can  become  a 
reality.  

The  new  Council  and  European  Recommendation  would  give  a  strong  impulse  to  the 
establishment of a coherent European system of quality assurance in higher education, would 
enhance quality, facilitate recognition of qualifications and promote mobility. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
2004/0239 (COD) 

Proposal for a  

RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL AND OF THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

on further European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 
149(4) and 150(4) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal of the European Commission,4 

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee5, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions6, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty7, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

although the implementation of the Council recommendation of 24 September 1998 on 
European  cooperation  in  quality  assurance  in  higher  education  has  been  a  marked 
success as demonstrated in the report of the Commission of ……… 2004, there is still 
a  need  to  improve  the  performance  of  European  higher  education  for  it  to  become 
more transparent and trustworthy for European citizens and for students and scholars 
from other continents. 

the  Council  Recommendation  called  for  support  to  and,  where  necessary,  the 
establishment of transparent quality assurance systems, and almost all Member States 
have set up national assurance systems and have initiated or enabled the establishment 
of one or more quality assurance or accreditation agencies. 

the  Council  Recommendation  called  for  quality  assurance  systems  to  be  based  on  a 
series of essential features, including evaluation of programmes or institutions through 
internal  assessment,  external  review,  and  involving  the  participation  of  students, 
publication of results and international participation. 

(4) 

these features have generally been implemented in all quality  assurance systems and 
they  have  been  affirmed  by  European  Ministers  of  Education,  gathered  in  Berlin,  in 

4 
5 
6 
7 

OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
September  2003,  in  the  context  of  the  Bologna  Process,  working  towards  the 
realisation of a European Higher Education Area. 

(5) 

the  European  Network  for  Quality  Assurance  in  Higher  Education  ENQA  was 
established  in  2000  and  has  a  growing  membership  of  quality  assurance  or 
accreditation agencies in all Member States. 

(6)  Ministers  of  education,  gathered  in  Berlin,  in  September  2003,  “called  upon  ENQA 
through its members, in co-operation with the EUA, EURASHE and ESIB, to develop 
an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurances, to explore 
ways  of  ensuring  an  adequate  peer  review  for  quality  assurance  and/or  accreditation 
agencies  or  bodies,  and  to  report  back  through  the  Follow-up  Group  to  Ministers  in 
2005”. 

(7) 

(8) 

It  is  desirable  to  draw  up  a  positive  list  or  register  of  independent  and  trustworthy 
quality assurance agencies operating in Europe, be they regional or national, general or 
specialised, public or private, profit-making or not for profit, to support transparency 
in  higher  education  and  help  the  recognition  of  qualifications  and  periods  of  study 
abroad.  

In  the  context  of  the  Lisbon  Strategy,  the  European  Council,  in  Barcelona  in  March 
2002, expressed their conclusion that European education and training systems should 
become a “world quality reference”8 

HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT MEMBER STATES: 

A. require all higher education institutions active within their territory to introduce or develop 
rigorous internal quality assurance mechanisms. 

B.  require  all  quality  assurance  or  accreditation  agencies  active  within  their  territory  to  be 
independent in their assessments, to apply the features of quality assurance laid down in the 
Council  Recommendation  of  September  1998  and  to  apply  a  common  set  of  standards, 
procedures and guidelines, for assessment purposes. 

C.  encourage  quality  assurance  and  accreditation  agencies,  together  with  organisations 
representing  higher  education,  to  set  up  a  “European  Register  of  Quality  Assurance  and 
Accreditation  Agencies”,  as  described  in  the  Annex,  and  to  define  the  conditions  for 
registration. 

D. enable higher  education institutions  active within their territory to choose  among quality 
assurance  or  accreditation  agencies  in  the  European  Register,  an  agency  which  meets  their 
needs and profile. 

E. accept the assessments made by all quality assurance and accreditation agencies listed in 
the  European  Register  as  a  basis  for  decisions  on  licensing  or  funding  of  higher  education 
institutions, including as regards such matters as eligibility for student grants and loans. 

8 

Barcelona European Council - Presidency 
Conclusions.http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/71025.pdf 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
II. INVITE THE COMMISSION : 

A.  to  continue,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  its  support  for  cooperation 
between  higher  education  institutions,  quality  assurance  and  accreditation  agencies, 
competent authorities and other bodies active in the field. 

B.  to  present  triennial  reports  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  progress  in  the  development  of 
quality  assurance  systems  in  the  various  Member  States  and  on  cooperation  activities  at 
European  level,  including  the  progress  achieved  with  respect  to  the  objectives  referred  to 
above. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 

For the Parliament 

 The President   

The President 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX  

“The European Register of Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agencies”. 

The Register should provide a list of reliable agencies whose assessments Member States (and 
public  authorities  within  Member  States)  can  trust.  It  should  be  founded  on  the  following 
main principles: 

1. 

The list should be drawn up by representatives of quality assurance and accreditation 
agencies  active  in  the  Member  States,  together  with  representatives  of  the  higher 
education  sector  (universities  and  non  university  higher  education,  students, 
university teachers and researchers) and social partners. 

2. 

Conditions for registration of agencies should include: 

–  The engagement of complete independence in reaching their judgement, 

–  Recognition by one or more Member States (or public authorities within Member 

States), 

–  Operation on the basis of the common set of standards, procedures and guidelines 

referred to in section 6 of this recommendation, 

–  Regular  external  review  by  peers  and  other experts, including  publication  of  the 

criteria, methodologies and results of such review. 

EN 

10 

   EN