COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience
Date: 2020-07-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: competitiveness, cooperation in the field of education, digital single market, education policy, epidemic, infectious disease, labour market, sustainable development, updating of skills, vocational education

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.7.2020  SWD(2020) 121 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning     Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience      {COM(2020) 274 final} - {SWD(2020) 122 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 

Purpose and scope ...................................................................................................................... 4 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 5 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ...................................................................... 5 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 10 

3.1 Baseline and points of comparison ..................................................................................... 10 

3.2 Description of the current situation .................................................................................... 12 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 26 

Short description of methodology ............................................................................................ 26 

Limitations and robustness of findings ..................................................................................... 26 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 28 

5.1 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 28 

5.2 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................. 34 

5.3 Relevance ............................................................................................................................ 35 

5.4 Coherence ........................................................................................................................... 37 

5.5 EU added value .................................................................................................................... 38 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................. 41 

6.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 41 

6.2 Lessons learned ................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 46 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 48 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .......................................................................... 58 

1 

 
 
Glossary 

Term  

Meaning or definition 

Credit 

Guidance 

Informal learning 

Learning outcomes 

National qualifications framework 

Non-formal learning 

Qualification 

Skills audit 

Confirmation that a part of a qualification, consisting of a coherent 
set of learning outcomes has been assessed and validated by a 
competent authority, according to an agreed standard. Credit is 
awarded by competent authorities when the individual has achieved 
the defined learning outcomes, evidenced by appropriate 
assessments and can be expressed in a quantitative value (e.g. 
credits or credit points) demonstrating the estimated workload an 
individual typically needs for achieving related learning outcomes. 

A continuous process that enables individuals to identify their 
capacities, skills and interests, through a range of individual and 
collective activities to make educational, training and 
occupational decisions and to manage their individual life paths 
in learning, work and other settings in which those capacities and 
skills are learned or used. 

Learning resulting from daily activities related to work, family or 
leisure and is not organised or structured in terms of objectives, 
time or learning support. It may be unintentional from the 
learner's perspective. Examples of learning outcomes acquired 
through informal learning are skills acquired through life and 
work experiences, languages learned during a stay in another 
country, skills acquired through volunteering, youth work, sport 
or family life.  

Statements regarding what a learner knows, understands and is able 
to do on completion of a learning process, which are defined in 
terms of knowledge, skills and responsibility and autonomy. 

An instrument for the classification of qualifications according to a 
set of criteria for specified levels of learning achieved, which aims 
at integrating and coordinating national qualifications subsystems 
and improve the transparency, access, progression and quality of 
qualifications in relation to the labour market and civil society. 

Learning which takes place through planned activities (in terms 
of learning objectives, learning time) where some form of 
learning support is present (e.g. student-teacher relationships). It 
may cover programmes to impart work skills, adult literacy and 
basic education for early school leavers; examples include in-
company training, through which companies update and improve 
the skills of their workers such as ICT skills; structured on-line 
learning; courses organised by civil society organisations for 
their members, their target group or the public at large. 

A formal outcome of an assessment and validation process, which is 
obtained when a competent authority determines that an individual 
has achieved learning outcomes to given standards. 

A process aimed at identifying and analysing the knowledge, 
skills and competences of an individual, including his or her 

2 

 
 
 
Third sector 

Validation of non-formal and 
informal learning 

aptitudes and motivations in order to define a career project 
and/or plan a professional reorientation or training project; the 
aim of a skills audit is to help the individual analyse his/her 
career background, to self-assess his/her position in the labour 
environment and to plan a career pathway, or in some cases to 
prepare for the validation of non-formal or informal learning 
outcomes. 

The sector of economy and society comprising non-
governmental and non-profit organizations or associations, such 
as charities, voluntary and community groups, engaging in 
activities primarily serving a social or public purpose. 

A process of confirmation by a competent authority that an 
individual has acquired learning outcomes acquired in non-
formal and informal learning settings measured against a 
relevant standard and consists of the following four distinct 
phases:  
identification through dialogue of particular experiences of an 
individual, documentation to make visible the individual’s 
experiences, a formal assessment of those experiences and 
certification of the results of the assessment which may lead to a 
partial or full qualification. 

Acronym  

Meaning or definition 

European credit and transfer system 

European credit system for vocational education and training 

European qualifications framework 

Non-governmental organisation 

National qualifications framework 

Vocational education and training 

ECTS 

ECVET 

EQF 

NGO 

NQF 

VET 

3 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope 

This document evaluates the Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the 
validation of non-formal and informal learning1 (hereafter “the Recommendation”). 
Evaluating the implementation and impact of EU legislation is a basic requirement 
of  the  Better  Regulation  framework.  The  Recommendation  itself  asks  the 
Commission to report to the Council assessing and evaluating “the action taken in 
response  to  its  provisions  and  on  the  experience  gained  and  implications  for  the 
future”.  The  results  of  the  evaluation  will  feed  into  the  policy  debate  to  put  in 
practice the European Pillar of Social Rights, namely the first and fourth principles2, 
with particular reference to the updated Skills Agenda (COM(2020) 274). 

In compliance with the Better Regulation Guidelines, the evaluation is based on the 
following criteria:  

–  effectiveness:  to  what  extent  the  objectives  of  the  Recommendation  have  been 

achieved through action by Member States and the Commission;  

–  efficiency:  relationship  between  costs  and  benefits,  relevant  factors  and 

proportionality of costs;  

–  relevance:  whether  six  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  objectives  of  the 
Recommendation, the measures it proposes to achieve them and the governance 
and support structures are still relevant;  

–  coherence:  whether  the  Recommendation  remains  coherent  with  other  EU  and 

national initiatives;  

–  EU  added  value:  whether  the  Recommendation  has  generated  additional  value 

compared to what action at national level alone would have produced. 

The  Recommendation  asked  Member  States  to  take  action  no  later  than  2018, 
therefore 
the 
the  period 
the  evaluation  covers 
Recommendation (end of 2012) to 2018 included. 

the  adoption  of 

from 

The  geographic  scope  includes  all  EU  Member  States.  This  requires  an 

1  Council  Recommendation  of  20 December  2012  on  the  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal 

learning, OJ C 398 of 22.12.2012 

2   European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights,  jointly  signed  by  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the 
Commission on 17 November 2017, at the  Social Summit for  Fair Jobs and  Growth in Gothenburg, 
Sweden. Principle 1, Education, training and life-long learning: “Everyone has the right to quality and 
inclusive education, training and life-long learning in order to maintain and acquire skills that enable 
them to participate fully in society and manage successfully transitions in the labour market”. Principle 
4,  Active  support  to  employment,  states  that  everybody  has  “the  right  to  timely  and  tailor-made 
assistance to improve employment or self-employment prospects”. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
explanation: 

  Croatia became a Member State on 1 July 2013. Therefore, information on 
the situation until 2012, date of the adoption of the Recommendation, does 
not cover Croatia. This is explicitly mentioned in figures.  

  The United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020. As this 
evaluation  covers  the  period  2012-2018,  in  this  Staff  Working  Document 
Member States always include the United Kingdom.  

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  Recommendation  addresses  an  important  element  of  lifelong  learning.  Its 
objective  is  to  support  all  people  to  develop  their  personal  and  professional  skills 
and  get  them  recognised,  so  that  they  can  play  an  active  role  in  society  and  the 
labour market.  

The  lifelong  learning  approach  focuses  on  the  knowledge  and  skills  that  people 
develop throughout their life in any learning setting, either formal (e.g. institutional 
education  and  training  programmes),  non-formal  (e.g.  in-company  training)  or 
informal (e.g. work and life experience). The Recommendation should therefore be 
seen in the European policy context defined by initiatives such as the European area 
of lifelong learning3, the strategic framework for European cooperation in education 
and  training  (Education  and  Training  2020)4  and  more  recently  the  2016  Skills 
Agenda5,  with  particular  reference  to  the  Upskilling  Pathways  initiative6,  and  the 
European Education Area7. Its implementation is related with the use of other tools 
developed  within 
the  European 
Qualifications  Framework  (EQF)9,  the  European  Credit  System  for  Vocational 

this  policy  process,  such  as  Europass8, 

3   Commission  Communication  on  Making  a  European  area  of 

lifelong 

learning  a  reality, 

COM(2001)678. 

4   Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009, OJ C 119, 28.5.2009, p. 2. 

5   Cf. Commission Communication on a New Skills Agenda for Europe: Working together to strengthen 

human capital, employability and competitiveness, COM(2016)381 final. 

6   Council  Recommendation  of  19  December  2016  on  Upskilling  Pathways:  New  Opportunities  for 

Adults, OJ C 484, 24.12.2016, p. 1. 

7  Cf.  Commission  Communication  on  Building  a  stronger  Europe:  the  role  of  youth,  education  and 

culture policies, CM(2018)268 final.  

8   First  established  as  a  portfolio  of  documents  in  2004  and  then  developed  into  an  online  platform  in 
2018. Cf. Decision (EU) 2018/646 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 April 2018 on 
a common framework for the provision of better  services for skills and qualifications (Europass) and 
repealing Decision No 2241/2004/EC, OJ L 112, 2.5.2018. 

9 

First established in 2008 and then reinforced in 2017. Cf. Council Recommendation of 22 May 2017 
on the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, OJ C 189, 15.6.2017. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
Education  Training  (ECVET)10  and  contributes  to  putting  in  practice  the  first  and 
fourth principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights.  

Impact  assessment11.  In  this  context,  a  Council  Recommendation  on  validation  of 
non-formal  and  informal  learning  was  considered  appropriate  to  address  the 
following  problems  identified  through  the  impact  assessment:  while  there  was 
widespread  consensus  on  the  benefits  of  skills  validation  for  individuals,  the 
economy,  and  society,  in  most  Member  States  people  had  limited  opportunities  to 
validate  their  skills  and  where  such  opportunities  were  available,  their  use  was 
limited. Besides, people who had their skills validated in one country might not be 
able  to  use  the  results  in  another  Member  State,  as  the  differences  in  approach, 
scope  and  conceptual  framework  made  it  difficult  to  compare  validation  results 
across countries. 

Addressing  these  problems  meant  pursuing  the  general  objectives  of  providing 
individuals in all Member States with opportunities to validate their skills acquired 
outside formal education and training systems and to use the results of validation to 
study or work anywhere in Europe12.  

Figure 2.1. The two general objectives 

Two  specific  objectives  were  defined.  First,  establishing  of  national  arrangements 
for  the  validation  of  non  formal  and  informal  learning,  linked  to  the  national 
qualifications framework. Second, making sure that such national arrangements had 
an  appropriate  level  of  quality  and  coherence,  so  that  their  results  could  be  more 
easily understood and compared across countries, thanks in particular to the link to 
the EQF.  

10   Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the establishment 
of a  European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET), OJ C 155, 8.7.2009, 
p.11. 

11  This section describes the results of the ex-ante impact assessment carried out prior to presenting the 
proposal for a Council Recommendation. Cf. SWD(2012)252 final: Impact assessment accompanying 
the proposal for a Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and 
informal learning. In particular section 2.2. 

12  Cf. section 3 of SWD(2012) 252 final.  

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 2.2. The two specific objectives 

Five  operational  objectives  indicated  the  action  to  take  to  pursue  the  specific  and 
general  objectives. They focused on national  qualifications frameworks, validation 
mechanisms,  the  value  of  skills  identification  and  documentation,  the  need  for 
cooperation, and awareness raising.  

Figure 2.3. The five operational objectives 

Recommendation13.  As  adopted  by  the  Council,  the  Recommendation  does  not 
explicitly mentions the objectives of the intervention logic, but its provisions relate 
to  them.  In  its  first  invitation  the  Recommendation  does  invite  Member  States  to 
allow individuals who developed skills through non-formal and informal learning to 
have them validated (cf. first general objective) and use them for their careers and 
further  learning  (cf.  second  general  objective).  For  this  purpose,  Member  States 
should  put  in  place,  by  2018,  arrangements  for  the  validation  of  non-formal  and 
informal learning, which may give priority to certain areas or sectors, so that people 
may eventually obtain through validation a formal qualification or credit towards it 
(Invitation 1.1, referring to specific objective 1).  

People should be able to take advantage of each of the four phases of validation  – 
identification,  documentation,  assessment  and  certification  –  separately  or  in  a 
coordinated process, so that individual validation pathways are flexible and adapted 
to specific individual needs (Invitation 1.2 to Member States, related to operational 
objectives 2 and 3).  

The Recommendation also provides a number of principles to be applied in setting 
up validation arrangements (Invitation 1.3 to Member States). They concern the link 
to national qualifications frameworks and the EQF (specific objective 1), the role of 
information and guidance (operational objective 5), qualification standards and use 
of  learning  outcomes  (operational  objective  1),  the  use  of  European  transparency 
documents  (specific  objective  2),  as  well  as  specific  target  groups,  quality 
assurance,  skills  audits,  credit  systems  and  validation  staff  –  all  complementary 

13   This section describes the Recommendation as adopted by the Council. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                           
elements to pursue the various objectives. Invitation 1.4 to Member States focuses 
on cooperation among stakeholders (operational objective 4). 

The  Recommendation  asks  the  Commission  to  organise  peer  learning  activities 
(operational objective 4) and support the national efforts by updating the European 
guidelines  for  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal  learning14  and  the  European 
learning15  (hereafter 
Inventory  of  validation  of  non-formal  and 
“Inventory”).  As  concerns  governance,  the  Recommendation  indicates  the  EQF 
advisory group, set up following the 2008 EQF Recommendation and confirmed by 
the 2017 EQF Recommendation, as the policy body most appropriate for its follow 
up.  

informal 

The Recommendation emphasises that validation promotes mobility (recitals 1 and 
2),  and  Invitation  1  to  Member  States  refers  to  the  opportunity  for  people  to  use 
their  validated  skills  for  their  careers  and  further  learning  (referring  to  general 
objective  1).  Supporting  people  to  use  the  results  of  validation  across  countries 
(second  general  objective)  is  pursued  through  European  transparency  tools:  if 
validation  arrangements  are  properly  linked  to  national  qualifications  frameworks 
aligned to the EQF (Invitation 1.3.a, pursuing second specific objective and the first 
operational  objective),  then  validation  leads  to  qualifications,  or  parts  of  them, 
which  are  easier  to  understand  and  compare  across  Europe.  Skills  that  are 
documented,  but  not  assessed  and  certified  in  the  form  of  qualifications  (cf. 
operational  objective  3  and  Invitation  1.2),  can  still  be  made  transparent  in  all 
Member  States  through  the  use  of  such  instruments  as  the  Youthpass  or  the 
Europass Mobility (cf. Invitation 1.3.i). 

In its recitals  and definitions, the Recommendation stresses that validation of non-
formal  and  informal  learning  is  a  transversal  policy  area,  which  contributes  to 
implementing  policies  related  to  education  and  training,  youth,  employment  and 
social inclusion. Validation is part and parcel of the lifelong learning approach and 
the  shift  to  learning  outcomes  –  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  acquired 
throughout  life  in  a  variety  of  settings,  from  school  to  work  experience  to 
volunteering  and  open 
its  cross-sector  nature, 
learning  resources.  Given 
implementing  validation  requires  coordinated  action  by  many  institutional,  social 
and  economic  actors.  As  a  direct  result,  validation  is  found  embedded  in  much  of 
the  EU  policy  on  vocational  education  and  training16,  higher  education17,  adult 

14  Cedefop  and  European  Commission,  European  guidelines  for  validating  of  non-formal  and  informal 

learning, first edition 2009, revised in 2015. 

15  The  Inventory  was  first  produced  in  2004  and  then  updated  in  2005,  2008,  2010,  2014,  2018.  All 

updates are available on the Cedefop website, here. 

16   Cf. the 2015 Riga Conclusions, third medium term deliverable. 

17   Cf. Commission Communication on a renewed EU agenda for higher education, COM(2017)247 final, 

section2.2 and the 2015 ECTS users’ guide, section 5.2. 

8 

 
                                                           
learning  (cf.  Upskilling  Pathways),  school  education18,  employment  policy19  and 
youth policy20. The figure below summarises the intervention logic. 

Figure 2.4. Intervention logic

NQFs: National qualifications frameworks 

EQF: European qualifications framework 

18   For  instance  with  reference  to  early  school  leaving,  cf.  European  Commission,  Assessment  of  the 
Implementation  of  the  2011  Council  Recommendation  on  Policies  to  Reduce  Early  School  Leaving, 
2019, Figure 3.4 and pp. 76-77. 

19   Cf.  Council  Recommendation  of  22 April  2013  on  establishing  a  Youth  Guarantee,  OJ  C  120, 
26.4.2013  and  Council  recommendation  of  15  February  2016  on  the  integration  of  the  long-term 
unemployed into the labour market, OJ C 67, 20.2.2016. 

20   Cf. the Council Resolution on a European Union Youth Strategy 2019-2027 (2018/C 456/01), p. 4. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

3.1 Baseline and points of comparison  

In 201221, some validation arrangements were in place in 20 Member States, with 
huge differences in scope and stage of development. Four Member States had well-
established  validation  arrangements  leading  to  qualifications  (Finland,  France,  the 
Netherlands and Portugal)22. France was the only country where all qualifications in 
the  national  qualifications  directory  (with  the  exception  of  a  few  regulated 
professions)  could  also  be  obtained  on  the  basis  of  validation  of  non-formal  and 
informal  learning.  Seven  further  countries  (Denmark,  Germany,  Luxembourg, 
Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) had either a national system in 
its initial phase or a well-established, but partial, system of validation in one or more 
areas.  Limited  arrangements  were  also  available  in  Austria,  Belgium,  the  Czech 
Republic, Estonia, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia, e.g. in Belgium 
(Flanders)  and  Slovenia  validation  could  support  people  obtaining  vocational 
qualifications. In other Member States some opportunities for validation were also 
available,  but  mostly  in  the  form  of  single  initatives  without  any  systematic 
character. Validation was part of the policy debate in all Member States, but only 13 
Member  States  declared  to  have  some  form  of  validation  strategy  in  place  or  in 
development23. Data on the take-up of validation opportunities were very scarce in 
201224. 

The figure below summarises the situation in Member States before the adoption of 
the  Recommendation,  as  concerns  the  availability  of  validation  arrangements  and 
related features described below. 

21   The  main  information  source  is  the  external  study  supporting  the  evaluation,  resulting  in  the  final 
report “Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the 
validation of non-formal and informal learning”, prepared by  ICF S.A and 3s Unternehmensberatung 
GmbH    (ISBN  978-92-76-16348-0,  doi:10.2767/55823).  The  external  study  has  used  as  its  main 
sources the 2010, 2014 and 2018 updates of the European Inventory of validation of non-formal and 
informal  learning,  also  often  directly  referred  to  in  this  Staff  Working  Document.  Another  useful 
reference,  concerning  13  EU  Member  States  (and  other  8  OECD  countries)  is  OECD  2010,  Patrick 
Werquin, Recognition of Non-formal and Informal Learning – Country Practices. 

22   For  the  levels  of  development  of  validation  in  Member  States,  cf.  Inventory  2010,  Synthesis  report, 

section 2.3. 

23   CZ, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, LU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SK replied positively to a specific research question 

by the Inventory 2010 research team.  

24   Inventory 2010, Synthesis report, section 2.7.5 and Inventory 2014, Synthesis report, section 4.2.6. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3.1–1. Validation in Member States in 201225  

Source: Inventory 2010 

In 2010 validation could lead to partial or full qualifications in 24 Member States26, 
while  in  six  countries  validation  could  grant  access  to  formal  education 
programmes27.  The  link  to  national  qualifications  frameworks  (NQFs)  was 
uncertain,  as  at  the  time  NQFs  were  being  developed  in  all  Member  States,  while 
they  were  fully  operational  only  in  four  Member  States  and  were  approaching 
operation in a further nine countries28. At the time 16 Member States had referenced 
national qualification levels to the EQF29.  

25   Croatia joined the EU on 1 July 2013 and is therefore not included in this table. 

26   It should be noted that this was also possible in five countries (BG, CY, DE, LV, PT) that did not have 

a validation arrangement in place, but some validation initiatives were available. 

27   External study, Figure 10. 

28   FR,  IE,  MT  and  UK,  followed  by  BE  (Flanders),  DE,  DK,  EE,  LT,  LU,  LV,  NL,  PT.  Cf.  Cedefop 
Working Paper No 17, Analysis and overview of NQF developments in European countries, Annual 
reports 2012, p. 22. 

29   Cedefop  Working  Paper  No  17,  p.  9.  Referencing  of  levels  could  be  done  before  the  NQF  was 

operational. 

11 

 
                                                           
In 2010, the quality of validation was assured through a specific framework in five 
countries, while 11 others applied wider quality assurance frameworks30. While 24 
Member  States  reported  equivalence  of  standard  between  validation  and  formal 
education and training, that was rather a declaration of principle, as it also included 
countries that did not have a validation system in place.  

Often validation only  concerns  a limited set  of skills,  which would not  be enough 
for the award of a full qualification. Validation results could however be certified in 
formal  credit  that  may  by  further  cumulated  towards  a  full  qualification.  In  2010 
this was possible in 10 Member States31. 

Data from the 2010 Inventory shows that 17 Member States32 used the four stages 
of validation (identification, documentation, assessment and certification of skills) 
as  a  reference.  While  the  Recommendation  had  not  yet  been  proposed,  the  four 
stages  had  been  detailed  in  the  European  guidelines  for  validating  non-formal  and 
informal learning, first released in 2009.  

There  was  little  information  about  how  guidance  services  supported  people  who 
might benefit from validation – e.g. conducting skill reviews, providing information 
on  validation  opportunities,  and  advising  and  assisting  individuals  throughout 
validation processes. 

In  2010,  skills  audits33  to  facilitate  validation  or  res-skilling  of  disadvantaged 
groups were offered in ten Member States34, while five countries organised specific 
targeted initiatives for migrants or refugees35. 

Mandatory  professional 
qualification) for validation staff were reported in 17 Member States in 2010. 

requirements 

terms  of 

training,  experience, 

(in 

Country reports in the 2010 Inventory show that in 14 Member States there was a 
good level of involvement of most relevant stakeholders in validation activities. 

3.2 Description of the current situation  

3.2.1  By  the  end  of  201836,  it  appears  that  all  Member  States37  have  taken  some 
action towards the objectives of the Recommendation, though not enough to make 

30   The first group included BE, CZ, LT, PT, UK, the second AT, BE, DE, ES, FI, HU, IE, LU, LV, SI, 

UK. External study, section 4.1.1.7, Table 13. 

31   CZ, DK, FI, FR, IE, MT, NL, PT, SI, UK. External study, Figure 13. 

32   External study, section 4.1.1.2. 

33   Defined in the Glossary. 

34   FR, HU, IE, LU, LV, NL, SE, UK. External study, Table 12. 

35   AT, BE, IE, PL, UK. External study, Figure 8. 

36   The  direct  information  source  is  the  external  study  supporting  the  evaluation,  which  has  used  as  its 
main source of information the 2018 update of the Inventory, available  here. The Inventory includes 
country reports that were proofread early in 2019 by EQF advisory group members representing their 
national authorities responsible for validation. The Inventory provides therefore a picture of the state 

12 

 
                                                           
validation opportunities available to all. Some degree of validation arrangements 
are in place in all Member States38, almost all of which have or are developing some 
form  of  validation  strategy39.  Validation  is  still  primarily  connected  to  education 
and  training  institutions,40  but  validation  opportunities  have  also  increased  in  the 
labour market and the third sector41 – more recent growth has especially concerned 
the labour market42. In 17 Member States there are arrangements for skills validation 
provided by labour market  actors, often promoted by employers or associations of 
employers, sometimes in collaboration with public sector institutions. In 20 Member 
States  there  are  validation  arrangements  made  available  in  the  third  sector.  This 
includes initiatives associated with youth work or volunteering, as well as validation 
opportunities  developed  by  charities  or  other  non-governmental  organisations 
(NGOs) to support specific target  groups such as third country nationals or people 
with a disability. Labour market actors such as Chambers of Commerce may be able 
to  validate  and  certify  skills,  while  in  the  third  sector  the  focus  is  more  on  the 
documentation  of  skills43.  While  information  on  such  validation  opportunities  was 
not available in 2012, the large share of countries concerned suggests a significant 
increase  in  opportunities  in  Member  States,  as  also  confirmed  by  a  huge  majority 
(186 out of 261) of respondents to the public consultation44. 

While  some  developments  took  place  in  all  Member  States,  in  a  few  countries 
(Croatia,  Hungary,  Slovakia)  arrangements  remain  quite  limited  and  in  most,  they 
are  not  comprehensive.  Three  systems  (in  Belgium-Flanders,  Italy  and  Portugal) 
have  been  developed  as  broad  frameworks  covering  all  areas,  adding  them  to  the 
wide national arrangements already in place in 2012 (in Denmark, Finland, France, 
Luxembourg  and  Sweden).  All  other  Member  States  show  a  variety  of  less 
comprehensive  approaches.  Sometimes  good  projects  are  not  considered  up-
scalable,  such  as  the  German  ValiKom  project45.  Wide  systems  may  be  under 

of affairs towards the end of 2018. The external study has also carried out a number of interviews with 
key informants from national authorities and stakeholders’ organisations. 

37   As explained in section 1, mentions of Member States in this Staff Working Document, which covers 

the period until 2018, always include the United Kingdom.  

38   The  2018  Inventory  reviews  validation  arrangements  organised  in  the  three  areas  of  education  and 
training, labour market and third sector. This disaggregation was not applied in the 2010 Inventory, so 
comparison is only possible on the total figure. 

39   External study, Figure 5. 

40   Croatia is the only Member State that has validation arrangements in the labour market and the third 
sector, but not in the education and training are, where they are being developed in  close connection 
with the implementation of the national qualification framework. 

41   Third sector: Definition in the Glossary. 

42   External study, Figure 4. 

43   Inventory 2018, Synthesis report, section 3.5. 

44   External study, Annex 1, p. 139. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 1. 

45   Cf. Inventory 2018, Country Report Germany, p. 20.  

13 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
development,  but  still  focus  on  vocational  education  and  training,  as  in  Poland46. 
Different  frameworks  often  coexist,  e.g.  addressing  the  ‘labour  market  route’  and 
the  ‘education  route’  as  in  the  Netherlands47,  or  the  subsectors  of  education  and 
training,  as  is  the  case  in  Spain48    or  Lithuania49.  All  arrangements  have  some 
specific limitations. For instance, validation may only be available to workers with 
work experience, as  is  the case in  the otherwise comprehensive systems  in  France 
and Luxembourg50.  

The figure in the next page summarises the situation of validation in Member States 
before  the  adoption  of  the  Recommendation  (cf.  Figure  3.1–1)  and  in  2018,  as 
concerns the availability of validation arrangements and related features.  

46   Cf. External study, p. 28, and Inventory 2018, Country Report Poland, p. 31. 

47   Cf. Inventory 2018, Country Report Netherlands, p. 2. 

48   Cf. Inventory 2018, Country Report Spain, p. 7. 

49   Cf. Inventory 2018, Country Report Lithuania, section 2.3. 

50   Cf. External study, p. 37. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3.2–1. Validation in Member States 2012 – 2018  

Source: Inventory 2010 and 2018.  

3.2.2. Some data on participation are now available from most Member States, but 
they  are  often  not  comprehensive,  e.g.  referring  only  to  a  specific  sub-sector  of 
education  and  training,  and  fragmentary51.  However,  the  external  study  concludes, 
based  on  the  2018  Inventory  triangulated  with  other  sources,  that  in  14  Member 
States  (BE, BG, CY, EL, ES,  FI,  IT,  LU,  LV, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK) there has 
been  an  upward  trend  in  take-up  of  validation  opportunities  after  201252.  Use 
remained  stable  in  three  countries,  while  it  slightly  decreased  in  countries 
(Denmark, France and the Netherlands) with a solid validation system, as well as in 
Romania53.  The  figure  below  summarises  the  trend  in  the  use  of  validation 

51   Inventory 2018, Synthesis report, p. 45. 

52   External study, Table 6. 

53   E.g. in France the number of people who applied for a full qualification through validation in 2016 was 
5% lower than in 2015. However, it remains a high number  – almost 35,000 (Inventory 2018, France 

15 

 
 
                                                           
comparing  data  from  2016  and  2018,  also  showing  the  lack  of  data  for  several 
countries. 

Figure 3.2-2. Trend in the use of validation (2018 compared to 2016) 

Source: Inventory 2016 and 2018. Cf. External study, Table 6. 

In 22 Member States validation has become more  accessible, that is people find it 
easier  to  apply54.  This  may  have  been  achieved  through  embedment  in  labour 
policies  (Italy),  adult  education  policy  (Estonia),  equality  of  standards  (as  in 
Lithuania)  or  specific  measures,  such  as  the  German  ValiKom  initiative  55. 
Compared to the policy attention to validation and the growth of opportunities, the 
increase in take-up by people may appear limited. Besides, the external study found 
evidence of some ‘evaporation effect’: people who start a validation procedure and 
do  not  complete  it56.  In  fact,  engaging  in  validation  processes  requires  a  serious 
commitment  by  individuals57,  and  forms  of  active  support  to  individuals,  such  as 
paid time made available by the employer or financial aid, are not common. Barely 
more than one in ten validation beneficiaries responding to the public consultation 
(8  out  of  62,  or  11%)  had  received  an  incentive  or  support  to  participate  in 
validation58.  

Country Report, section 9.4.1), so that “the decrease in numbers might be explained by a certain level 
of maturity of the system”, Inventory 2018, Synthesis report, p. 34. Cf. External study, p. 39. 

54   External study, Table 7. 

55   External study, section 4.1.1.3. 

56   Cf. External study, section 4.1.1.3, p. 40.  

57   Cf. OECD 2018, Education Working Paper No 180, Viktória Kis, Hendrickje Windisch, Making skills 
transparent: recognising vocational skills acquired through work-based learning. In particular p. 59. 

58   External study, Annex 1, p. 154. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 17. 

16 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
Figure 3.2-3.  
Response to public consultation 
question 17 (asked to 
individuals).  
Have you received financial 
support? 
(External study, Figure A.3.19.) 

3.2.3.  The  increase  in  validation  arrangements  is  correlated  to  the  sustained 
development  of  national  qualifications  frameworks  (NQFs)  based  on  learning 
outcomes and their connection to validation arrangements59. Both developments are 
related  to  the  shift  towards  learning  outcomes  in  defining  and  describing 
qualifications standards, which occurred in all parts of education and training. This 
approach  promotes  the  value  and  facilitates  the  assessment  of  skills  developed 
outside  formal  education  and  training.  By  the  end  of  2018,  almost  all  Member 
States60  had  an  NQF  referenced  to  the  EQF.  In  24  Member  States,  validation  can 
lead to partial or full qualifications included in the NQF and in 17 it enables people 
to  access  formal  education  programmes  leading  to  qualifications  included  in  the 
NQF61.  In  13  countries,  any  qualification  included  on  the  NQF  can  be  acquired 
through validation62.  

3.2.4.  In  most  Member  States,  validation  can  lead  to  qualifications  applying  the 
same  standards  used  in  formal  programmes,  although  in  a  few  countries 
equivalence  of  standards  is  still  being  developed.  In  many  countries,  there  is  a 
mixed  approach,  so  that  validation  can  also  lead  to  qualifications  that  are  not  the 
same as those delivered through formal education and training. This equivalence – 
still in development in a few countries – has been strongly promoted by the gradual 
shift away from input based standards, restricting time, learning content and context, 
towards standards 7based on learning outcomes. Still, the external study  points out 
that in some countries (BG, ES, SI) results of formal education retain a higher status 
and  in  others  (EL,  MT)  the  opportunity  to  obtain  tertiary  qualifications  through 
validation  is  largely  theoretical63.  Credibility  of  validation  results  is  also  pursued 
through  dedicated  quality  assurance  frameworks,  as  done  in  13  Member  States. 
Five of them also use wider quality frameworks, which is the approach of other ten 
countries64. A majority of organisations  responding to  the public consultation  (111 

59   Cf. the reports on NQFs published by Cedefop since 2009. 

60   The exception is Spain, which is expected to finalise the process in 2020. 

61   External study, section 4.1.2.1. 

62   CY,  FI,  FR,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LU,  LV,  NL,  PL,  RO,  SE,  UK  (England  Northern  Ireland).  Cf.  Inventory 

2010, Synthesis report, section 3.5. 

63   External study, p. 61. 

64   External study, Table 13. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                           
out  of  160)  agreed  that  validation  arrangements  in  their  country  met  clearly 
established quality standards and slightly fewer (100 out of 157) acknowledged that 
this led to reliable and credible results65.  

Figure 3.2–4. 
Quality 
assurance of 
validation in 
2010 and 2018 

Source: Inventory 2010 and 2018. External study, Table 4.10. 

3.2.5.  In  2018,  formal  credit  towards  a  qualification  could  be  awarded  through 
validation  in  22  Member  States,  and  in  about  as  many  countries  people  could  be 
granted exemption from formal programmes, more frequently in higher education66. 
However, Member States have not given priority to strong synergies between credit 
systems and validation. The external study has found little information on whether 
credit  obtained  through  validation  is  converted  in  the  European  Credit  Transfer 
to  higher  education 
System  (ECTS),  which  might  support 
programmes in other countries67.  

its  portability 

Figure 3.2–5. Validation leading to formal credit – 2010 and 2018 

Source: Inventory 2010 and 2018. External study, Figure 13. 

3.2.6.  While  “all  four  stages  of  validation  are  in  place  in  the  vast  majority  of 
Member  States”68,  comparison  with  the  baseline  is  difficult  for  several  reasons. 
First,  because  the  information  collected  in  the  2018  Inventory  refers  to  the  use  in 
three  areas  (education  and  training,  labour  market  and  third  sector)  not  applied  in 
2010.  Second,  because  at  national  level    different  terminology  may  be  used, 
sometimes  to  reflect  specific  practices  –  e.g.  the  phases  of  identification  and 
documentation may be carried out together (Luxembourg) and be both covered by a 

65   External study, Annex 1, p. 147. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 5. 

66   Inventory 2018, Synthesis report, section 2.3.1. External study, Figure 4.13 

67   External study, p. 64. 

68   External study, p. 22. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
phase called ‘counselling’ (Spain)69. Finally, the practical use of the stages depends 
on  the  purpose  and  context  of  each  individual  validation  pathway.  For  instance, 
exemption  from  parts  of  a  formal  programme  following  validation  may  be 
considered  or  not  as  a  stage  of  certification  (into  formal  credits)  based  on  the 
organisation  of  that  specific  programme  and  the  system  of  which  it  is  part. 
Therefore, while 16 Member States explicitly refer to the four stages as presented in 
the  Recommendation,  in  others  all  stages  are  covered  in  validation  processes,  but 
called  otherwise70.  The  real  change  compared  to  2010  is  that  validation  is  now 
commonly  referred  to  as  a  process  including  all  stages  from  identification  to 
certification. 

3.2.7.  In  26  Member  States  people  can  take  advantage  of  information  and 
guidance related to validation71 and in 15 countries guidance is available to support 
people  throughout  all  phases  of  a  validation  process72.  In  the  majority  of  Member 
States people are offered information and guidance on the outcomes and benefits of 
validation  and  on  assessment  –  with  particular  reference  to  continuing  vocational 
training  and  adult  learning73.  Responses  to  the  public  consultation  confirmed  the 
perception of a certain improvement in information and guidance since 2012 (89 of 
150  responding  organisations,  about  60%)74  as  well  as  of  guidance  during  the 
validation  process75  (93  out  of  160  responding  organisations).  On  the  other  hand, 
one  of  the  reasons  why  take-up  was  smaller  than  expected  may  indeed  be  that 
relevant guidance provision, while increased, is not very effective in reaching out to 
potential  beneficiaries76.  Only  4  of  the  64  beneficiaries  responding  to  the  public 
consultation  found  their  validation  opportunity  thanks  to  a  guidance  centre77.  The 
coordination  of  validation  initiatives  with  existing  guidance  arrangements  is  not 
always clear78.  

3.2.8.  Provision  directed  to  specific  target  groups  has  also  increased.  In  2018,  24 
Member States systematically made skills audits available79 – an explicit invitation 
of the Recommendation80.  

69   Cases  mentioned  in  Inventory  2018,  Synthesis  report,  section  3.1.  Cf.  country  reports  for  Spain  and 

Luxembourg. 

70   External study, section 4.1.1.2. 

71   External study, Figure 7. 

72   External study, Table 8. 

73   Inventory 2018, Synthesis report, section 3.4. 

74   External study, Annex 1, p. 147-148. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 6. 

75   External study, Annex 1, p. 148. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 7. 

76   Cf. External study, p. 104. 

77   External study, Annex 1, p. 152. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 14. 

78   Cf. Cedefop research paper No 75, Coordinating guidance and validation, 2019. 

79   External study, Table 12. Cf. also Commission, Skills Audits: Tools to identify talents, 2019. 

19 

 
                                                           
Figure 3.2–5. Skills audits made available in 2010 and 2018  

Source: Inventory 2010 and 2018. External study, Table 12. 

A  good  number  of  countries  carry  out  validation  initiatives  addressing  specific 
target  groups  such  as  low-skilled  adults  or  long  term-unemployed81.  Targeted 
validation  initiatives  for  migrants  and  refugees  –  sometimes  as  specific  projects 
rather  than  systematic  provision  –  were  available  in  23  countries82.  A  few 
arrangements are open to all migrants and refugees (FI, DE, NL, SE and with some 
conditions AT and DK), while in eleven Member States, such measures are project-
based83. and as they address specific categories their visibility is relatively limited: 
about  half  organisations  responding  to  the  public  consultation  (81  out  of  160) 
considered  that  validation  arrangements  in  their  country  targeted  disadvantaged 
groups (long-term unemployed, migrants, disabled persons) either to a high (18) or 
to  some  extent  (63)84.  Besides,  the  cost,  complexity  and  length  of  validation 
procedures,  along  with  fragmented  provision  and  uncertain  value,  remain  major 
barriers for individuals from disadvantaged groups85.   

Figure 3.2–6 Targeted initiatives for migrants and refugees 

Source: Inventory 2010 and 2018. External study, Table 12. 

Several  Member  States  are  implementing  the  Recommendation  on  Upskilling 
Pathways  in  close  coordination  with  the  development  of  arrangements  for 

80   The Validation Recommendation invited Member States to provide opportunities for a ‘skills audit’ to 
“individuals who are unemployed or t risk of unemployment”, Invitation 1.3.d to Member States. 

81   External study, Table 10. 

82   External study, Figure 8. 

83   External study, Table 11. 

84   External study, Annex 1, p. 148-149. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 8. 

85   External study, section 4.1.1.6, p. 48. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
validation. as a way to provide low skilled adults with credit for the skills they have, 
as  a  possible  bridge  to  further  learning  opportunities.  This  is  often  driven  by  the 
need  to  upskill  workers  who  have  no  vocational  qualifications,  or  low  skilled 
unemployed  people  who  public  employment  services  are  seeking  to  return  to  the 
labour market86. 

3.2.9.  In  2018,  mandatory  professional  requirements  for  validation  staff  – 
counsellors, practitioners and assessors involved in validation – were reported in 23 
Member States87. In many countries competence development opportunities are not 
specifically  targeting  validation  staff.  Dedicated  training  for  validation  staff  is 
available in EL, NL, PT and is planned in DK and IT. 

3.2.10. In 2018, 18 Member States explicitly report that validation arrangements are 
developed  and  implemented  through  multi-stakeholder  cooperation88.  However, 
analysis of country reports shows a much more frequent participation of a variety of 
stakeholders in  one or the other phase of development and operation of  validation 
arrangements  or  in  activities  supporting  validation.  For  instance,  labour  market 
actors  such  as  chambers  of  commerce,  employer  organisations  and  trade  unions 
often  contribute  to  standard  definition  and  skills  assessment.  Public  employment 
services  and  youth  organisations  are  frequently  involved  as  providers  of  relevant 
information and guidance89. Interviews to national experts suggest that cooperation 
of a variety of stakeholders also  appears to work as a major factor influencing the 
efficient  of  validation  provision,  facilitating  a  balanced  distribution  of  costs  and 
burdens90. 

3.2.1191.  As  asked  by  the  Recommendation,  the  EQF  advisory  group  has  taken 
over  the  role  of  policy  group  following  the  implementation.  Validation  issues  are 
discussed in meetings of the EQF advisory group, including in particular the update 
of the European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning. Within 
the EQF advisory group, ten Member States volunteered to present one-off reports 
on  validation,  based  on  an  agreed  structure92.  Following  the  adoption  of  the 
Recommendation, the Commission has asked Member States to designate each one 
member  and  an  alternate  to  this  purpose  (or  assign  this  task  to  the  member  and 
alternate  already  following  the  EQF  Recommendation)  and  has  invited  new 

86   Cf. Commission Staff Working Document on the Council Recommendation on Upskilling Pathways: 
New Opportunities for Adults. Taking stock of implementation measures, SWD(2019) 89 final, section 
2.3.3. 

87   External study, Figure 9. 

88   External study, Figures 14 and 15. 

89   Inventory 2018, Synthesis report, section 3.2. 

90   External study, Section 4.2.1.3, p.79. 

91   From  now  on,  the  situation  described  refer  to  specific  governance  and  support  actions  by  the 
the  Member  States  or  by  the  Commission  alone,  as  requested  by  the 

Commission  and 
Recommendation. 

92   By  the  end  of  2019,  DE,  LU,  LV,  AT,  PT,  DK,  PL,  NO,  SE  had  presented  one-off  reports  on 

validation. 

21 

 
                                                           
stakeholders’  group  to  join  the  group,  namely  the  European  Youth  Forum  and  the 
European  Volunteering  Centre.  The  EQF  advisory  group  started  meeting  in  this 
configuration in its 21st meeting (26-27 September 2013) and validation has been on 
the agenda in all 30 meetings since then (until November 2019). An extraordinary 
meeting dedicated to validation took place on 5 May 2019 in Berlin, adjoining the 
third  Validation  Biennale,  a  relevant  event  organised  by  third  parties93.  Within  the 
EQF  advisory  group, ten Member States volunteered to  present one-off reports on 
validation, based on an agreed structure94. 

3.2.12.  In  the  context  of  the  EQF  advisory  group,  ten  peer  learning  activities 
specifically  addressing  validation  issues  have  been  organised:  on  non-formal 
qualifications  (2013,  SE),  peer  learning  activities  on  learning  outcomes  and 
validation  (2014,  IE),  on  validation  between  individual  pathways  and  collective 
strategies (2016, FR), on validation and refugees (2016, NL), on non-governmental 
stakeholders  and  the  Recommendation  (2017,  PT),  on  funding  validation  (2017, 
BE),  on  non-formal  qualifications  in  NQFs  (2018,  AT),  on  skills  assessment  and 
validation  (2018,  DE),  on  validation  and  volunteering  (2019,  BE),  on  peer  review 
and validation (2019, LT). 

3.2.13. In 2015 the Commission and Cedefop, following intensive consultation with 
national  authorities  and  stakeholders,  released  a  revised  version  of  the  European 
guidelines  for  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal  learning95,  fully  aligned  with 
the Recommendation. The European guidelines have proven a major instrument to 
support  national  validation  developments,  confirmed  by  national  experts 
interviewed and suggested by the impressive number of downloads from Cedefop’s 
website96. Three updates of the European Inventory of validation non-formal and 
informal learning were produced, in 2014, 2016 and 201897. 

3.2.14.  The  2015  Joint  Report  by  the  Council  and  the  Commission  on  the 
‘Education and Training 2020’ strategic framework mentioned the need to reinforce 
work on validation, as well as on transparency and comparability of qualifications. 
It  specifically  made  the  link  to  incoming  migration  and  to  the  innovative  learning 
methods  provided  by  digital  technologies.  It  didn’t  however  provide  any 
information on the implementation of the Recommendation, as Member States had 
been  asked  to  take  action  by  2018.  Reporting  has  rather  been  provided  to 
authorities  and  stakeholders  through  the  Inventory  (updates  of  2014,  2016,  2018) 
and  other  documents,  such  as  the  regular  updates  on  developments  of  national 
qualifications frameworks published by Cedefop. 

93   Cf. https://vplbiennale.org/. 

94   By the end of 2019, one-off reports on validation were presented by  DE, LU, LV, AT, PT, DK, PL, 

NO, SE. 

95  Cedefop  and  European  Commission,  European  guidelines  for  validating  of  non-formal  and  informal 

learning, first edition 2009, revised in 2015. 

96   External study, p. 71.  

97  All updates are available on the Cedefop website, here. 

22 

 
                                                           
3.2.15.  The  Europass  framework,  for  which  the  Recommendation  suggested  to 
explore  further  developments,  has  been  radically  revised  in  the  framework  of  the 
Skills  Agenda.  A  2016  Commission  proposal  became  in  2018  a  Decision  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  establishing  a  common  framework  for  the 
provision of better services for skills  and qualifications  (Europass)98. The  decision 
states  in  its  Article  3  that  the  Europass  online  platform  shall  provide  available 
information  or  links  to  available  information  on  seven  topics,  one  of  which  is 
“opportunities  for  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal  learning”  and  that  it  will 
make available web-based tools for documenting and assessing skills. 

3.2.16. The European Social Fund (ESF)99 has been a major source of funding for 
national  validation  activities,  proving  particularly  effective  in  supporting  wider 
developments rather than smaller projects100. In particular, ten Member States with 
validation arrangements at an early stage have used ESF resources101. Three of them 
(CY, EL, PL) explicitly relate these ESF-funded activities to the Recommendation. 
ESF  support  was  however  also  used  to  improve  validation  systems  already 
established, for instance in PT and BE (French community). In most Member States 
there has been some validation work supported through the ESF, either in projects 
explicitly  focusing  on  validation  or  in  wider  skills  development  activities.  The 
Erasmus+  programme  (2014–2020)102  has  supported  EU  level  activities  (Key 
Action  3,  Support  for  policy  reform),  such  as  the  peer  learning  activities  on 
validation  issues  mentioned  above,  and  a  number  of  strategic  partnerships  (Key 
Action  2,  Cooperation  for  Innovation  and  Exchange  of  Good  Practices). 
While validation is a complementary issue in many partnerships with another focus 
throughout all sub-sectors of education and training, it is the core theme in at least 
50  projects.  Specific  objectives  of  these  partnerships  include  the  recognition  of 
skills  acquired  through  volunteering,  the  validation  of  skills  of  specific  groups 
(migrants, prisoners, Roma), and the validation of skills in specific economic sectors 
such as tourism, construction, wellness, public administration, and maritime. Since 
2016, EU resources also became available through the Structural Reform Support 
Programme  (SRSP)103.  The  SRSP  has  supported  the  implementation  of  a national 
qualifications  framework  (BG)  and  is  currently  supporting  three  Member  States 
(BE,  ES,  NL)  to  improve  their  skills  validation  systems.  Other  relevant  projects 
include  raising  the  quality  of  adult  education  systems  (HU,  PT)  and  fostering 
excellence  and  labour  market  relevance  in  vocational  education  and  training  (ES, 
EL, FR, LU). 

98   OJ L 112, 2.5.2018. 

99   The European Social Fund is the main financial instrument for skills related activities in the Member 

States. 

100   Cf.  External  study,  sections  4.1.3.2,  4.2.1.2,  5.2.1,  and  Inventory  2016  Thematic  report  on  funding 

validation 

101   External study, section 4.2.1.2, p.76. 

102   The Erasmus+ programme supports European cooperation in education, training, youth and sport. 

103   Structural  Reform  Support  Programme,  established  to  support  Member  States upon  their  request in 
their  endeavour  to  design  and  implement reforms,  including  in  the  fields  of skills,  education  and 
training. 

23 

 
                                                           
3.2.17. Only a few Member States (EL, ES, IT, SE) are able to provide information 
on whether  validation beneficiaries find it easier to enter and move within the 
labour  market104.  This  very  limited  picture  is  positive.  For  instance,  almost  two 
thirds  of  respondents  to  an  Italian  survey  on  beneficiaries  reported  labour  market 
progress 
to  specific  professional 
accreditation (e.g. in  security in EL  and personal care in ES) was  also  reported to 
result in jobs.  

following  validation.  Validation 

leading 

3.2.18.  There  is  little  factual  information  on  how  validation  beneficiaries  have 
engaged  in  further  learning105.  Sometimes  validation  processes  are  indeed 
embedded in upskilling initiatives run by public instances (e.g. in BE, IT and PT) or 
social partners (as in DK, FI, IE, SE). While in a majority of countries validation is 
a way that people may use specifically to access further learning (cf. 3.2.5), there is 
almost  no  data  on  whether  a  positive  validation  experience  makes  people  more 
motivated to go further on their learning pathway.  

3.2.19. In many Member States the costs of validation are not identified, as funding 
its  public  provision  is  part  of  funding  the  education  and  training  system  or 
employment  policy  measures106.  This  is  true  for  countries  with  well-established 
systems  such  as  Denmark,  Finland  and  Sweden,  and  for  many  countries  where 
provision and related costs are more decentralised. A few countries (BE, ES, FR, IT, 
LU, NL, RO) do have specific budget items for validation. Two of them (Belgium 
and  Italy)  report developments inspired by the Recommendation107. A proper cost-
benefit study was carried out in Sweden, finding evidence of long-term benefits. As 
mentioned above, the ESF has provided the resources for many validation activities, 
especially the development of initial arrangements. In several countries, use of ESF 
resources was related to developments in line with the Recommendation, or directly 
inspired  by  it  (Cyprus,  Greece  and  Poland).    Several  representatives  of  national 
authorities  have  reported  that  validation  benefits  exceed  its  costs,  sometimes 
referring  to  specific  analyses108.  In  some  countries,  distribution  of  costs  over  the 
actors seems unbalanced. The main factors influencing the efficiency of validation 
have  been  identified  in  multi-stakeholder  cooperation  and  effective  targeting109.  A 
partnership of many actors allows a more balanced distribution of costs and a fairer 
allocation of burdens. The improved dialogue triggered by the Recommendation has 
for instance helped mainstreaming resources in Finland and debate sustainability in 
Sweden110.  Inappropriate  targeting  of  measures  addressing  specific  groups  has 
resulted in fragmented management and short-term planning, with limited results.  

104   External study, section 4.1.5. 

105   External study, section 4.1.4. 

106   Cf. External study, section 4.2.1. 

107   External study, section 4.2.1.1. 

108   External study, section 4.2.1.3. 

109   External study, section 4.2.2. 

110   External study, p. 80. 

24 

 
                                                           
4.  METHOD 

Short description of methodology 

This  evaluation  was  organised  following  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines, 
addressing the five criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU 
added value.  

An  external  study  supporting  the  evaluation  was  carried  out.  The  study  included 
desk research, field research, including a public consultation, and the development 
of conclusions and lessons learnt. The methodology is described in Annex 3. 

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  European  Inventory  on  validation  and  its  updates  are  the  main  source  of 
information on the situation of validation in Member States111. Country reports are 
prepared  by  external  consultants  and  proofread  by  representatives  of  relevant 
national  authorities  (since  the  2014  update  this  is  done  by  members  of  the  EQF 
advisory  group).  While  those  consultants  retain  their  responsibility  for  the 
deliverables sent to the Commission, namely for their analytical dimension, national 
representatives  check  the  accuracy  and  may  clarify  misunderstandings,  e.g.  in 
relation  to  the  legal  framework  for  validation,  ensuring  a  good  quality  of  the 
information on national validation activities.  

From one update to the next, information collection has become more structured and 
has  gone into more detail, also  with  reference to the Recommendation.  While this 
may require some adjustments, it remains to a large extent possible to compare over 
the years information on the main categories, such as the availability of validation 
arrangements, the provision of guidance, the link to qualifications frameworks and 
to  institutional  education  and  training.  The  Inventory  update  of  2010  and  to  some 
extent  the  update  of  2014  do  represent  a  solid  baseline  for  the  evaluation  of  a 
Recommendation adopted in 2012. The 2018 update was conceived with the explicit 
purpose  of  gathering  a  robust  knowledge  base  supporting  the  evaluation  of  the 
Recommendation. 

Further  reliable  information  sources  are  also  available.  The  one-off  reports  that 
some Member States have presented to the EQF advisory group are accurate and up 
to  date.  The  study  on  skills  audits  published  early  in  2019  provides  a  detailed 
picture of the situation in all Member States in 2018. Other useful literature is also 
available on relevant EU initiatives and national developments, such us the regular 
reports on national qualifications framework prepared by Cedefop. 

Input from interviews, expert meetings and the public consultation have allowed to 
complete and clarify the information available in the Inventory and other literature, 
supporting  a  cross-reference  analysis.  Input  has  sometimes  complemented  limited 
information,  e.g.  representatives  of  authorities  in  several  countries  have  declared 
that in their country the benefits of validation exceed its costs  – an issue on which 
secondary data are scarce. In other cases, input has corroborated findings from desk 
research;  for  instance,  results  from  the  public  consultation  show  that  some 

111 The inventory was updated in 2010, 2014, 2016, 2018. 

25 

 
                                                           
validation opportunities are available in most Member States, but their provision is 
often limited and typically not  available to  everybody, thus  confirming the picture 
provided by the 2018 update of the Inventory. 

While  the  overview  of  validation  in  Member  States  provided  by  the  European 
Inventory is a good information source on most relevant issues, there are however 
some objective limitations as concerns the availability and comparability of some 
categories  of  information.  In  spite  of  progress,  data  on  the  take-up  of  validation 
opportunities  and  the  costs  of  validation  remain  limited.  This  makes  it  difficult  to 
fully assess the effectiveness of the Recommendation, in terms of increased number 
of  people  benefitting  from  validation  opportunities,  and  its  efficiency,  in  terms  of 
proportionality  of  costs  compared 
individuals, 
organisations and society. 

the  benefits  brought 

to 

to 

the 

While  in  the  2018  update  of  the  Inventory  most  Member  States  reported  some 
information  on 
take-up  of  validation  arrangements,  data  are  not 
comprehensive. They are typically collected on some but not all subsectors in which 
validation arrangements are in place. For instance, they are collected for candidates 
to  lower  level  vocational  training  qualifications,  but  not  for  people  seeking 
exemption  from  parts  of  programmes  in  higher  education  or  higher  vocational 
training112.  Besides,  as  data  were  mostly  not  available  before  the  adoption  of  the 
Recommendation,  comparison  is  not  possible  or  not  reliable.  Information  about 
increase or decrease in take-up by potential beneficiaries is contained in the country 
reports of the 2018 update of the Inventory, but it either refers to comparison 2016 
or  to  an  assessment  based  on  partial  and  local  data.  However,  available  data  and 
triangulation  with  interviews  and  the  public  consultation  make  it  possible  to 
formulate well-grounded assessments. 

Clear information on the costs of validation is limited as such costs are mostly part 
of  wider  cost  items  related  to  education  or  employment  policy.  While  public 
funding is the most common resource for validation, it often is associated with other 
sources,  from  individuals  that  pay  a  fee  to  companies  and  private  organisations  to 
specific projects113.  Measuring the cost of validation is objectively difficult as it is a 
process where several actors may be involved, such as dedicated validation services, 
information and guidance centres, education and training institutions, Chambers of 
commerce and non-governmental organisations114. 

These limitations contribute to make it difficult to assess the  direct impact of the 
Recommendation on the overall positive evolution115. Relevant national documents 
rarely refer to the Recommendation. In many cases national efforts that implement 
the provision of the Recommendation may also be seen as the continuation of own 
national  strategies  and  initiatives.  However,  interviews  with  representatives  of 
national  authorities  did  result  in  some  explicit  statements  on  the  impact  of  the 

112   Inventory 2018, Synthesis report, section 3.8. 

113   Inventory 2018, Synthesis report, section 3.3. 

114   Cf. OECD 2010, p. 27. 

115   Cf. External study, section 4.5. 

26 

 
                                                           
Recommendation. The public consultation  has also contributed to  gather  views on 
the role of the Recommendation in increasing validation opportunities. A reasonably 
valid assessment of the impact of the Recommendation is therefore possible. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1 Effectiveness 

Evaluation  question  1  on  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Recommendation 
(Effectiveness) 

Question 1.1 – Progress. To what extent has there been progress towards the state 
of affairs described by the two statements below?  

1.1.a Individuals  have  easy  access  to  opportunities  to  have  their  skills 
validated; 

1.1.b Individuals can use the results of validation to learn or work in Europe. 

Question  1.2  –  Contribution.  To  what  extent  has 
Recommendation contributed to any such progress? 

the  adoption  of 

the 

The information reported in section 3 shows that there has been some progress in 
making  it  easier  for  people  to  access  validation  opportunities  (evaluation 
question  1.1.a)  and  in  making  it  possible  to  use  validation  results  to  learn  and 
study  across  Europe  (evaluation  question  1.1.b).  It  also  shows  that  there  still  is 
ample  room  for  further  progress,  namely  in  making  validation  opportunities 
available  to  any  individual  at  any  stage  of  life,  along  with  appropriate  support. 
Taking  into  account  the  non-binding  nature  of  the  Recommendation,  the  action 
taken  by  Member  States  shows  a  good  level  of  effectiveness,  though  more  and 
better action is needed to achieve the objectives of the Recommendation. 

1.1.a  –  People  have  more  validation  opportunities  than  in  2012  because  Member 
States have responded to the first invitation of the Recommendation and set up or 
improved  validation  arrangements  [3.2.1116],  taking  advantage  of  the  principles 
suggested  in  invitation  1.3  [3.2.3  to  3.2.9]  and  widening  stakeholders’ 
cooperation  [3.2.10],  as  called  for  by  invitations  1.4  and  1.5.  However,  the 
relative  fragmentation  of  provision,  restricted  access,  and  lack  of  support  still 
prevent many people in taking advantage of validation opportunities [3.2.2]. 

Figure 5.1.1 Validation arrangements in place in 2010 and 2018 

Source: Inventory 2010 and 2018. External study, Figure 3. 

116   Numerical codes between “[ ]” refer to sub-sections in section 3.2. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                           
While  132  of  160  organisations  responding  to  the  public  consultation  (83%) 
considered that validation opportunities were available in their country, only 54 of 
65 EU individual respondents  shared this view and 30 individuals believed they 
were  not  available117.  This  suggests  that  fragmented  provision  of  opportunities 
makes  them  less  visible  to  individuals  and  confirms  that  information  and 
guidance do not sufficiently reach out to potential users [cf. 3.2.7]. 

Besides, many respondents added a free text comment underlining the limitations 
of  validation  arrangements,  with  access  to  validation  being  limited  to  certain 
categories  or  made  difficult  by  cumbersome  procedures118.  The  external  study 
found  that  most  validation  arrangements  are  not  comprehensive,  all  envisage 
some  limitation  to  access  and  some  are  still  quite  limited  in  their  scope  [3.2.1]. 
On  the  one  hand,  this  is  in  line  with  the  pragmatic  approach  of  the 
Recommendation,  which  in  its  invitation  1.1  said  that  Member  States  could 
“prioritise certain areas and/or sectors”. On the other hand, it should be clear that 
action by 2018 was a first step towards validation available to everybody, which 
remains  the  objective  and  is  far  from  being  achieved.  Some  interviews  and 
discussions in the expert group showed awareness that the Recommendation was 
“only the beginning of a longer-term approach to validation” 119. Most respondents 
to  the public consultation  (198 out  of 257)  agreed that people should be  able to 
validate their skills in all cases, while 55 thought this should happen in particular 
cases120. Progress has been real, but limited, also with reference to disadvantaged 
groups. In spite of an increase in specific opportunities targeting them, in practice 
for many people from such groups access remains difficult [3.2.8].  

As reported in Section 3.2.2, more people have used a validation service, though 
not  as many  as  could  be expected, and in  a few  countries, use of validation has 
actually  slightly  decreased.  Individuals  who  might  benefit  from  validation  may 
not use it because they lack the necessary support. This is confirmed by responses 
to the public consultation: 23 of 62 beneficiaries of validation were satisfied with 
the guidance during the validation process, 17 were not satisfied and 15 had not 
had  any121,  while  financial  support  had  only  been  available  to  seven  of  62 
responding beneficiaries122 [3.2.2, Figure 3.2-3].  

117   External study, Annex 1, p. 139. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 1. 

118   External study, Annex 1, p. 145. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 4. 

119   External study, p. 86. 

120   External study, Annex 1, p. 142. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 2. 

121   External study, Annex 1, p. 153. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 15. 

122   External study, Annex 1, p. 154. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 17. 

28 

 
                                                           
Figure 5.1-2. Responses to 
public consultation question 
15 (individuals).  
Were you guided and 
supported during the validation 
process? 

External study, Figure A.3.17. 

The  increase  in  opportunities  and,  however  limited,  in  their  use  has  also  taken 
advantage  of  the  now  widely  shared  understanding  that  validation  is    a  process 
including different stages [3.2.6], each of which has its own value and should be 
separately available to people (invitation 1.2). This seems to be a frequent case, as 
for  instance  validation  initiatives  in  the  third  sector  [3.2.1],  skills  audits  for  the 
unemployed,  and  initiatives  targeting  specific  groups  [3.2.8]  do  not  go  beyond 
identification  and  documentation.  The  public  consultation  confirms  this:  on  the 
one hand most responding organisations were well aware of the four stages, with 
more  than  100  out  of  161  considering  each  phase  was  reasonably  accessible  in 
their  country123;  on  the  other  hand  only  14  of  64  responding  beneficiaries  had 
gone through the whole process and received a qualification, while others didn’t 
go  beyond  identification  (15),  documentation  (7)  or  some  form  of  assessment 
(11)124. 

Figure 5.1-3. Responses to 
public consultation question 4 
(organisations).  
To what extent can people in 
your country find skills 
identification (I), documentation 
(D), assessment (A) and 
certification(C) ?  

External study, Figure A.3.6. 

123   With a lower score (92) for the documentation phases. External study, Annex 1, p. 145. Cf. Annex 2 to 

this Staff Working Document, Question 4. 

124   External study, Annex 1, p. 153. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 16. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 5.1-4. Responses to 
public consultation question 
16 (individuals).  
What steps did your validation 
experience include? 
External study, Figure A.3.20. 

I = Identification of skills 
D = Documentation of skills 
A = Assessment 
C = certification  

More relevant actors are playing a role in validation [3.2.10]125, and this may have 
contributed  to  make  it  easier  for  some  people  to  access  validation.  Out  of  160 
organisations  responding  to  the  public  consultation,  114  considered  that  all 
relevant parties were involved in national validation developments to a high (51) 
or  some  extent  (63)126.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  most  validation 
arrangements  are  not  comprehensive  and  many  people  do  not  have  access  to 
validation  or  do  not  take  advantage  of  it  [3.2.2],  suggests  that  more  strategic 
coordination  of  actors,  each  of  which  may  already  be  playing  an  active  role  in 
validation, would more effectively pursue the objectives of the Recommendation. 

1.1.b  –  More people  find it easier now than in  2012 to  use their validation results 
across countries, namely when they obtain a full qualification through validation. 
In fact validation can now lead to qualifications included in the qualifications 
framework (invitation 1.1.b) in most Member States – though in only about half 
Member States validation can lead to any qualification in the framework [3.2.3]. 
This is facilitated by widespread equivalence of standards between validation and 
formal  education  and  training,  called  for  by  invitation  1.3.h  [3.2.4].  The  figure 
below shows that, thanks to  the close link between validation arrangements  and 
national  qualifications  frameworks  referenced  to  the  EQF,  implementing 
invitation  1.3.a,  in  2018  in  most  countries  people  who  obtain  a  qualification 
through validation will be able to use it to learn or work across Europe.   

Figure 5.1–5 Validation and national qualifications frameworks in 2018 

Source: External study, Figure 10. Inventory 2018. Synthesis Report, p.27. 

125   The  three  latest  updates  of  the  Inventory  suggest  a  positive  evolution.  Inventory  2018,  Synthesis 

report, pp. 42-43. 

126   External study, Annex 1, p. 150. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 11. 

30 

 
 
 
                                                           
National  qualifications  frameworks  are  increasingly  including  qualifications 
awarded  outside  institutional  education  and  training,  sometimes  called  “non-
formal” or “non-traditional” qualifications127, such as the more and more common 
micro-credentials128.  Recent  research  has  highlighted  the  need  for  formal 
education and training, credit systems and qualifications frameworks to take into 
account  micro-credentials  and  related  developments129,  which  could  have  a 
disruptive  impact130,  but  could  also  “bring  together  the  world  of  education  and 
training  and  the  world  of  work”131  and  boost  the  flexibility  of  learning 
pathways132.  A  more  coordinated  development  and  implementation  of  validation 
and  qualifications  frameworks  might  generalise  validation  as  a  pathway  to  all 
qualifications.  

1.2 – The contribution of the Recommendation to the (partial) progress at national 
level  seen  above  took  several  forms,  as  learned  from  interviews  with  national 
experts133. In systems at an earlier stage of development, the Recommendation has 
helped shaping them (IT, MT). It has also supported existing systems by adding 
weight  to  national  action  (BE,  ES),  making  the  approach  more  comprehensive 
(SI), giving a new strategic direction (FI, SE) or making validation more visible at 
national level (CZ). It also influenced initiatives targeting specific groups (BE, IT, 
PT, SI)134.   

Evaluation question 2 on follow-up and support activities (Effectiveness) 

Question 2.1 – Follow-up. To what extent have the support actions (invitation 2) 

127   Cedefop, National qualifications framework developments in Europe 2017, section 3.5. 

128   Micro-credentials  can  be  defined  as  documented  statements  that  acknowledge  a  person’s  learning 
outcomes, that are related to small volumes of learning and that for the user are becoming visible in a 
certificate, badges, or endorsement (issued in a digital or paper format). The terminology about micro-
credentials is still quite diverse, cf. OECD, Education Working Papers No 216, Shizuka Kato, Victoria 
Galán-Muros, Thomas Weko, The emergence of alternative credentials, in particular section 2.1. 

129   Cf. the opinions reported at pp. 23-24 of the briefing paper “Challenges and opportunities of  micro-
credentials  in  Europe”,  produced  within  the  ongoing  Erasmus+  project  ‘MicroHE  –  Support  future 
learning  excellence  through  micro-credentialing  in  higher  education’.  The  European  MOOC 
Consortium is also working on a framework for micro-credentials, also an ongoing Erasmus+ project. 

130   Cf. the report “Digital credentialing. Implications for the recognition across borders”, Unesco 2018, in 
particular  pp.  27-28  and  the  recent  articles  “HE  seen  as  failing  on  social  mobility,  OECD  expert 
warns”, by Mary Beth Marklein, published on 3.2.2020 on University World News, and “Could micro-
credentials compete with traditional degrees?”, published on 17 February 2020 on the BBC website. 

131   Quoted  from  the  report  “Making  sense  of  qualifications”,  QQI  (Quality  and  Qualifications  Ireland), 

2019, p. 5. 

132   A “personalisation of a student’s learning journey”, as said in “Micro-credential roundtable”, note for 
an  event  organised  by  the  New  Zealand  Productivity  Commission  in  September  2019.  The  New 
Zealand  Qualifications  Authority  has  introduced  a  micro-credential  system  for  tertiary  education  in 
August 2018. 

133   External study, section 4.5.1. 

134   External study, pp.47-48. 

31 

 
                                                           
been taken by the Commission and Member States? 

Question  2.2  –  Support.  To  what  extent  has  the  Commission  implemented  the 
actions called for in invitation 3? 

The  information  reported  in  section  3  [3.2.1  to  3.16]  shows  that  the  follow-up 
and  support  actions  called  for  in  invitations  2  and  3  have  been  implemented. 
The only exception concerns invitation 2.b on using the Education and Training 
2020 Joint Report, cf. next paragraph. 

2.1  –  The  follow-up  activities  envisaged  by  the  second  invitation  of  the 
Recommendation  have  been  mostly  implemented.  The  EQF  advisory  group  had 
become  the  validation  policy  group  [3.2.11]  and  Cedefop  has  provided  a  major 
contribution to the follow-up, including through its reporting activity135. The 2015 
Joint Report by the Council and the Commission on the ‘Education and Training  
2020’ strategic framework, prepared less than three years after the adoption of the 
Recommendation,  has  not  proven  to  be  an  effective  reporting  tool  for 
validation[3.2.14]. 

2.2 – Some  contribution to the above mentioned progress may have come from the 
support activities envisaged in invitation 3, which have all been implemented as 
seen  in  sections  [3.2.12,  13,  15,  16],  mostly  covered  by  the  Erasmus+  budget. 
National  efforts  to  widen  validation  opportunities  have  taken  advantage  in 
the  European  guidelines  [3.2.13]136.  Some  suggestions  for 
particular  of 
improvements were collected. For instance, peer learning activities could become 
more  effective  through  closer  coordination  with  similar  activities  related  to 
relevant initiatives and with a higher profile137.  

Evaluation question 3 on the impact of the Recommendation (Effectiveness) 

Question  3  –  Impact.  To  what  extent,  where  progress  has  been  identified,  is  it 
possible to state that individuals have benefitted from validation, and in particular,  

3.1 Find it easier to enter and move within the labour market; 

3.2 Engage in learning opportunities throughout their career. 

At this stage, the limited information available does not allow to draw any well-
grounded  conclusion  on  the  impact  of  validation  on  its  beneficiaries:  whether 
validation helps them finding a job or a better job, and whether they engage in 
further  learning.  Only  a  couple  of  countries  carried  out  targeted  surveys  on 
validation  beneficiaries,  which  suggested  a  positive  impact  [3.2.17  and  3.2.18], 

135   Cf. External study, section 4.1.3.1.   

136   External study, p. 70. 

137   External study, p. 70. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                           
but they cannot support an answer to this question at European level. As data on 
uptake  in  general  remains  rather  limited,  a  systematic  follow  up  of  validation 
beneficiaries is at this stage not possible.  

5.2 Efficiency 

Evaluation question 4 on efficiency 

Question  4.1  –  Costs  and  benefits. What  are  the  costs  (such  as  expenditure  and 
administrative burden)  and the  benefits  associated  with the  implementation  of the 
Recommendation for the different stakeholders, at local, national and EU level? 

Question  4.2  –  Factors.  What  factors  influenced  the  efficiency  with  which  the 
results  identified  were  achieved?  What  factors  may  have  caused  cost/benefit 
differences  between  Member  States?  What  good  or  bad  practices  can  be 
identified? 

Question 4.3 – Proportionality of costs. To what extent are the costs of the actions 
suggested by Recommendation proportionate to the benefits brought to individuals, 
economy and society? 

There  is  not  enough  information  on  costs  and  benefits  directly  related  to  the 
Recommendation  (or  indeed  to  validation  activities  themselves)  to  be  able  to 
compare them or to assess the proportionality of costs. Interviews and the public 
consultation  express  positive  views,  but  don’t  represent  solid  evidence. 
Stakeholder cooperation is recognised as an efficiency factor.  

therefore  reviewing 

the  Recommendation,  and 

Considerations  of the cost-effectiveness  of the Recommendation depend  on a very 
thin  information  basis  (cf.  section  4.2).  It  is  very  difficult  to  identify  the  cost  of 
validation as separate from costs of wider education or labour action, and detecting 
their 
costs  determined  by 
proportionality,  is  not  feasible.  As  there  is  a  certain  consensus  that  some  national 
action might not have been taken without the Recommendation138, this suggests that 
costs  may  have  been  higher.  However,  any  such  increase  in  cost  cannot  be 
identified,  as  the  stimulus  to  action  due  to  the  Recommendation  typically  had  an 
impact  on  existing  systems  and  ongoing  initiatives.  Besides,  only  a  few  countries 
have dedicated funding frameworks for validation, which is often covered through 
wider  budgetary  items  such  as  education  or  employment139.  In  several  countries 
early-stage  arrangements  have  developed  into  better  established  systems,  often 
supported by ESF, which in the long run should result in better cost-effectiveness140. 
Information on benefits is also very limited, as seen above [3.2.17 and 3.2.18]. The 
qualitative judgement of national  representatives, as gathered in  the  external  study 
through  interviews,  is  that  validation  benefits  exceed  its  costs  [3.2.19],  although 
this  refers  to  validation  rather  than  to  the  Recommendation.  A  positive  view  on 
proportionality  of  cost,  with  reference  to  the  Recommendation,  was  expressed  by 

138   External study, Section 5.1.1, pp. 97-98. 

139   External study, Section 4.2.1.1. 

140   External study, Section 4.2.1.2. 

33 

 
 
                                                           
more than half organisations responding to the public consultation (86 out of 160); 
however most others (57, more than one third) did not feel able to reply, confirming 
the lack of solid information141. 

When  it  comes  to  factors  influencing  efficiency,  a  positive  result  is  that  the 
Recommendation  “has  been  reported  to  contribute  to  rationalising  the  use  of 
financial  and  other  resources  in  the  development  and  provision  of  validation”142, 
therefore increasing the efficiency of validation activities in Member States. To a 
certain extent, this happened because the Recommendation inspired comprehensive 
stakeholder partnerships, which appear to be a significant efficiency factor [3.2.10].  

5.3 Relevance 

Evaluation question 5 on relevance 

Question 5.1 – Relevance of objectives. To what extent are the objectives relevant 
in the current policy context? Do they address current needs? 

Question  5.2  –  Relevance  of  measures.  To  what  extent  are  these  measures  still 
relevant to achieve the objectives? 

Question  5.3  –  Relevance  of  governance  and  support.  To  what  extent  are  the 
provisions on governance and support still relevant to  support the achievement of 
the objectives? 

There  is  wide  consensus  among  national  authorities  and  stakeholders  that  the 
today’s  social  and  economic 
Recommendation  remains  relevant 
conditions143.  Specific  measures  may  need  adjustments,  wider  representation  of 
stakeholders  could  make  governance  more  relevant,  and  it  would  be  helpful  to 
include provisions for a solid evidence base. 

in 

5.1  –  The  objectives  and  principles  of  the  Recommendation  provide  a  useful 
contribution  to  addressing  the  rapidly  evolving  skills  challenges144.  In  several 
Member  States  the  Recommendation  has  promoted  national  action  and  its 
potential has been highlighted with particular reference to the skills needs related 
to digitalisation and innovation of work practices145.   

The  Recommendation  is  seen  as  responding  to  the  needs  of  the  different 
stakeholders,  although  its  high-level  provisions  may  more  easily  support  policy 
stakeholders than practitioners. Two thirds of the organisations responding to the 

141   External study, Annex 1, p. 149. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 9. 

142   External study, section 5.2.1, p. 106. 

143   External study, sections 4.3 and 5.3. 

144   External study, section 4.4.1. 

145   External study, pp. 82-83. 

34 

 
 
                                                           
public  consultation  (103  out  of  156)  agreed  that  it  appropriately  addressed  their 
needs, though one in five (32) was not able to reply146.  

Figure 5.3-1. Responses to public 
consultation question 10 
(organisations).  
To what extent do you think the 
Council Recommendation 
appropriately addresses the needs of 
your organisation? 

External study, Figure A.3.12. 

The call for involvement of all relevant stakeholders was often highlighted and 
considered to deserve stronger emphasis at EU level147. More guidance on how to 
put  in  place  wide  ranging  stakeholders’  partnerships,  building  on  the  2015 
European  guidelines  for  validating  non-formal  and  informal  learning,  would  be 
beneficial148. 

5.2 – Specific measures and principles are also mostly judged as still relevant. The 
flexible approach to the four stages of the validation process fits with the need for 
both  national  adaptations  and  individual  pathways,  although  further  guidelines 
might  prove helpful149. The link to  national  qualifications  frameworks retains its 
importance, though developments could better take into account the increasingly 
rapid evolution of skills and occupational standards150.  

Interviewees from several Member States have noted  have noted the relevance of 
the  Recommendation  with  reference  to  the  inclusion  of  disadvantaged  groups, 
including  migrants151.  There  was,  however,  some  concern 
that  so  far 
disadvantaged  groups  had  not  been  among  the  main  beneficiaries  of  the 
Recommendation,  probably  because  of  inadequate  outreach.  It  is  possible  to 
achieve  higher  relevance  to  the  needs  of  disadvantaged  groups  through  close 
coordination with interventions from other policy fields152.  

While  the  four  stages  approach  has  been  an  effective  factor  promoting  a  shared 
understanding  of  validation  throughout  Europe  [3.2.6],  the  meaning  of  the 
assessment  and  the  certification  phases  might  need  some  reflection  to  remain 

146   External study, Annex 1, p. 150. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 10. 

147   External study, section 4.1.2.5. 

148   External study, p. 86. 

149   External study, section 4.1.1.2. 

150   External study, section 4.1.2.1. 

151   External study, section 4.3.1, p.84. 

152   External study, section 4.3.2.1, p. 84. 

35 

 
 
 
                                                           
universally  relevant  in  a  changing  context153.  Emerging  practices  in  skills 
recognition,  such  as  micro-credentials  and  other  digital  methods,  may  require  a 
re-definition of the certification phase. The equivalence of standards, traditionally 
focused on formal education and training and their qualifications, may also need 
some reflection (cf. above, section 5.1). 

5.3 – The relevance of follow-up and support measures, while acknowledged, could 
improve,  as  suggested  by  some  interviewees  and  participants  in  the  expert 
meetings,  by  involving  a  wider  range  of  stakeholders  (for  instance  through 
validation events) and  ensuring a solid information basis that would convert the 
Inventory into an instrument for actual monitoring as is usually carried out in the 
framework of the open method of coordination154.  

5.4 Coherence 

Evaluation question 6 on coherence 

To  what  extent  is  the  Recommendation  coherent  with  other  European  policy 
initiatives and developments in related instruments? 

The Recommendation is coherent with European policies and tools in related 
fields. Some of its provisions, while conceptually coherent, may be less coherent 
with  specific  tools  implemented  nationally.  The  Recommendation  is  coherent 
with  national  validation  policies,  although  some  of  its  provisions  are  not  fully 
implemented.   

Most  national  experts  interviewed  recognise  the  conceptual  and  thematic 
coherence  of  the  Recommendation  with  other  EU  policy  areas  and 
instruments155.  The  principle  of  learning  outcomes  is  the  red  thread  that  ensures 
consistency  across  relevant  EU  policies  and  tools.  While  there  is  clear  coherence 
with  major  tools  such  as  the  EQF  and  recent  initiatives  such  as  Upskilling 
Pathways156, some national experts noted an insufficient practical and organisational 
coherence with specific policy tools. In particular, the synergies between validation 
and  credit  systems  such  as  ECTS  and  ECVET,  specifically  called  for  in  the 
Recommendation, do not seem to have been achieved beyond a few cases157. While 
the 2018 Inventory reports the in most Member States validation can result in credit 
[3.2.5], the external study notes that there it is unclear how this relates to the use of 
ECTS and ECVET158. Most Member States implement ECVET as an instrument to 

153   External study, section 5.3.1. 

154   External study, sections 4.3.4.  

155   External study, section 4.4.3 

. 

156   External study, sections 4.5.3.1. and 4.5.3.5. 

157   The external study mentions synergies with ECVET in Bulgaria and ECTS in Denmark, p. 63. 

158   External study, p. 64. 

36 

 
 
                                                           
support  flexible  vocational  pathways  and  rarely  as  a  credit  point  system159,  which 
reduces the coherence of the Recommendation with this tool160. On the other hand, 
use of ECTS is standard practice in higher education throughout Europe, but link to 
validation is equally not clear in many countries. The links between validation and 
recognition of small sets of skills is an issue that deserves further development, also 
in  relation  to  innovative  practices  of  skills  recognition  such  as  micro-credentials, 
which are often linked to short courses, but may also have an impact on validation 
activities161. 

There is wide consensus among interviewees from Member States that the measures 
of  the  Recommendation  are  consistent  both  with  each  other  and  with  national 
validation  policies162.  This  is  particularly  apparent  in  countries  that  adapted  their 
relevant  legal  framework  or  strategies163.  General  consistency  with  national 
policies coexists with different levels of practical implementation of the principles 
of  the  Recommendation.  For  instance,  as  seen  above  [3.2.1]  access  to  validation, 
while  not  comprehensive  in  any  country,  is  more  or  less  wide  depending  on  the 
scope of validation arrangements. Stakeholders who noted some lack of coherence 
referred  indeed  to  the  gap  between  the  limited  access  made  available  by  national 
action and the general access promoted by the Recommendation164. 

5.5 EU added value 

Evaluation question 7 on the EU added value 

Could  the  objectives  of  the  Recommendation  have  been  achieved  sufficiently  by 
the  Member  States  acting  alone?  In  particular,  to  what  extent  could  the  main 
findings (results/outputs) identified have been achieved without EU intervention? 

Were  there  benefits  in  replacing  different  national  policy  approaches  with  a  more 
homogenous policy approach? To what extent are national validation arrangements 
converging? 

To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  by  the  Recommendation  continue  to 
require action at EU level? 

There  is  a  certain  consensus  that  in  several  countries  the  Recommendation  has 
had a positive impact on national action towards its objectives. Appropriate public 
discourse  would  support  the  more  common  understanding  of  validation  that  is 

159   Cf. European Commission, Study on EU VET instruments (ECVET and EQAVET), 2019, section 4.1. 

160   External study, section 4.5.3.2. 

161   Cf.  Beverly  Oliver,  “Making  micro-credentials  work  for  learners,  employers  and  providers”,  Deakin 

University, 2019, in particular p. 32. 

162   External study, sections 4.5.2 and 5.4. 

163   External study, p. 90. 

164   External study, p. 91. Cf. above, section 5.1 Effectiveness, paragraph 1.2. 

37 

 
 
                                                           
emerging throughout national policies and arrangements. Experts from about half 
Member  States  considered  that  further  EU  action  in  the  field  is  necessary  or 
appropriate, and could gain if it were more specific and closer to the operational 
level. 

Interviews with national experts suggest that the Recommendation has had a certain 
positive  impact  on  national  action  in  a  number  of  Member  States,  to  different 
extents and in different forms165.  

In  countries  where  validation  arrangements  in  2012  were  less  developed,  the 
Recommendation  has  been  beneficial  contributing  to  the  policy  debate  (e.g.  inter-
ministerial discussions on validation in Slovakia166) and to actual development (e.g. 
supporting the legislative process in Italy167).  

Representatives from countries with better established arrangements also recognise 
that  “the  CR  has  given  some  impetus  to  already  existing  national  validation 
strategies  or  actions”,  or  that  the  Recommendation  has  had  a  positive  impact  in 
shaping strategic choices168.  

A huge majority of organisations responding to the public consultation  (100 out of 
160) agreed that the Recommendation had played a role in national action towards 
more and better validation opportunities and slightly less (91 out of 160) that it had 
enabled  individuals  to  progress  on  their  learning  pathway  or  career169.  Free-text 
comments  highlighted  the  role  of  the  Recommendation  in  fostering  the  debate  on 
validation and stimulating developments.  

Figure 5.5-1. Responses to public consultation question 12 (organisations).  
To what extent do you think the Council Recommendation has contributed to: 

160 respondents 

External study, Figure A.3.14. 

165   External study, section 4.6.1. 

166   External study, section 4.6.3, p. 101. 

167   In  Italy  the  “principles  and  indications  included  in  the  Recommendation  on  the  Validation  of  non-
formal and informal learning of 2012 have all been taken into account in detail throughout the entire 
regulatory  process  allowing  full  alignment  to  them”,  Inventory  2018,  Country  report  Italy, 
Introduction.   

168   External study, interviews mentioned on p. 98. 

169   External study, Annex 1, p. 151. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 12. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
A  slightly  smaller  proportion  of  responding  organisations  (95  out  of  160  or  60%) 
considered  that  the  Recommendation  had  indeed  contributed  to  making  validation 
more available to people170.  

National  arrangements  are  largely  conceived  and  practised  “in  accordance  with 
national circumstances and specificities” (invitation 1 of the Recommendation), and 
the Recommendation does not aim at imposing one specific validation approach to 
the  diverse  national  policies.  However,  a  number  of  interviewed  national  officials 
and  participants  in  expert  meetings  recognise  that  its  principles  have  promoted  a 
more  common  understanding  of  validation  across  Europe171.  The  widespread 
view of validation as a four stage process mentioned above is a clear indication of 
this  positive  trend  towards  a  shared  understanding,  which  will  facilitate  people  to 
use their validation results across countries. Documentary sources suggest however 
that in a few countries the concept of validation needs further clarification172. Free-
text comments of organisations responding to the public consultation note that more 
public discourse on validation would facilitate a common vision within and across 
countries173.  

During  interviews,  11  key  informants  also  reported  a  certain  impact  on  national 
policies  in  areas  other  than  validation.  Which  specific  areas  varies  between 
countries, with seven however agreeing on some impact on career guidance174.  

Key informants from 11 countries, along with EU level key informants, considered 
continued  EU  action  necessary  to  achieve  the  objectives  agreed175,  while  for  five 
others EU action could play a role in promoting comprehensive national systems176. 
Several  experts  interviewed  noted  that  EU  action  could  better  support  national 
action if provisions  were less generic, for instance better defining target  groups or 
more closely linking to the operational European guidelines177. 

170   External study, Annex 1, p. 152. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 13. 

171   External study, section 4.5.2, p. 101. 

172   In AT, HR and LU. External study, pp. 99-100. 

173   External study, p. 100 and Annex 1, p. 151. Cf. Annex 2 to this Staff Working Document, Question 

12. 

174   External study, section 4.5.2, p. 100. 

175   Informants from BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, HR, IE, IT, LT, PT and SE. External study, section 4.5.3. 

176   Informants from EL, FI, HR, SI and SK. External study, section 4.5.3, p. 101. 

177   Informants from AT, IE, LT, MT, NL and SE. External study, section 4.5.3, p. 101. 

39 

 
 
                                                           
6.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

6.1 Conclusions 

The ambitious objectives of the Recommendation have not been fully achieved, but 
there  is  evidence  of  significant  –  albeit  fragmented  –  progress  since  2012.  All 
Member States have taken some relevant action by 2018, using to a large extent the 
principles  suggested,  although  this  has  not  yet  resulted  in  systems  open  to 
everybody.  The  follow  up  and  support  activities  carried  out  were  appreciated  by 
stakeholders,  who  nevertheless  identified  the  need  for  further  improvement  and 
made  suggestions  for  how  to  achieve  this.  The  Recommendation  called  for 
stakeholders’ coordination and in cases where this has been put into practice, it has 
indeed proven to be a factor making national action more efficient. The objectives 
and  measures  of  the  Recommendation  are  considered  still  fully  relevant  in  the 
current socio-economic situation. Their general coherence with the policy context is 
also  acknowledged,  although  coordination  with  policy  tools  at  operational  level 
could improve. The EU added value is most visible in the higher policy profile and 
increased practice of validation observed to different degrees in all Member States, 
in some of which national action alone would not have reached the same extent. The 
evaluation has identified areas where further action is needed to achieve the goals 
of  the  Recommendation,  to  provide  people  with  access  to  more  and  better 
validation  opportunities,  enabling  them  to  access  further  learning  and  to  put  their 
skills to good use in European society and the labour market. 

Achievements 

Most countries’ arrangements are still far from being comprehensive, but there has 
been progress towards providing more validation opportunities178. Some degree 
of validation arrangements have been set up or strengthened in almost all Member 
States, including by actors in the labour market and the third sector. To some extent, 
validation has become  more accessible, and based on the limited available data, it 
to  some  extent179.  The 
appears 
Recommendation is  recognised to  have contributed to  this progress,  by  raising the 
profile  of  validation  in  the  policy  debate  and  in  some  countries  stimulating  action 
that might not have been taken otherwise180.  

take-up  by  people  has 

increased 

that 

The four stages of validation are acknowledged to be a sound common reference 
framework,  applied  with  terminological  variants181,  and  Member  States  have  to  a 
large  extent  adopted  the  principles  suggested  in  the  Recommendation  when 
developing  validation  arrangements182: 
to  national 
qualifications frameworks, now available across Europe, there is more information 
and  guidance,  many  initiatives  target  disadvantaged  groups,  quality  assurance  has 

there  are  clear 

links 

178   Cf. above, sections 3.2.1 and 5.1, reply to evaluation question 1.1a. 

179   Cf. above, section 3.2.2. 

180   Cf. above, section 5.1, reply to evaluation question 1.2. 

181   Cf. above, sections 3.2.6 and 5.1, reply to evaluation question 1.1.a. 

182    Cf. above, sections 3.2.3 to 3.2.9 and 5.1, reply to evaluation question 1.1.a. 

40 

 
                                                           
improved  and  equivalence  of  standards  with  formal  education  is  common, 
transparency tools and formal credit systems are used to some extent in connection 
to validation.  

Challenges 

In spite of progress,  most  validation arrangements have limitations to access183. 
In  many  countries,  young  people  with  no  work  experience  cannot  apply  for 
validation that leads to full or partial qualifications. Validation can help them access 
formal education, but not the labour market. The Recommendation does not call for 
centralised, unified national validation systems, but does call for arrangements that 
“enable individuals” (with no qualifier) to have their skills validated. In action taken 
by 2018, Member States have prioritised certain sectors or areas. This was a realistic 
approach in 2012, as such pragmatically envisaged by the Recommendation, but it 
inevitably excludes some categories of potential users.  

While  data  remain  limited,  they  suggest  that  fewer  people  than  expected  have 
engaged  in  validation,  despite  larger  provision  of  opportunities  and  guidance184. 
There  may  be  several  reasons.  Of  course,  limiting  access  as  mentioned  above 
reduces the number of eligible individuals. Even for them, in practice access can be 
difficult because validation opportunities are provided by a variety of agencies with 
little  coordination.  Guidance,  while  available,  may  not  have  been  effective  in 
reaching  out  to  potential  beneficiaries185.  Finally,  if  there  is  no  active  support  to 
individuals, such as paid leave or a financial contribution, they may not be able to 
engage in validation186.  

Reaching  specific  disadvantaged  groups,  such  as  long-term  unemployed  or 
migrants,  remains  a challenge, despite being the  focus of an increasing  number of 
initiatives187. While data on their outcomes are limited, impact  is  often reduced by 
ineffective reach out, procedural complexity and uncoordinated provision on the one 
hand, and on the other hand, the high level of individual commitment required. This 
often results in inefficiencies, with potentially good initiatives not fully exploited. 

Scarcity  of  information  is  an  issue  through  all  aspects  of  validation  provision188. 
While there is good information on the structure of validation arrangements and the 
related  policy  and  legal  frameworks,  there  is  little  and  fragmented  information  on 
their  operation,  costs,  outcomes  and  impact.  There  are  occasional  surveys  on 
beneficiaries  and  organisations 
tracking.  The 
information available is not enough for any proper monitoring, and benchmarking 

involved,  but  no  systematic 

183   Cf. above, sections 3.2.1 and 5.1, reply to evaluation question 1.1a. 

184   Cf. above, section 3.2.2. 

185   Cf. above, section 3.2.7. 

186   Cf. above, section 5.1, reply to evaluation question 1.1a, in particular Figures 5.1.3 and 4.  

187   Cf. above, sections 3.2.8 and 5.3, reply to evaluation question 5.2. 

188   Cf. above sections 5.1, reply to evaluation question 3, and 5.2. Cf. External study, section 5.6.  

41 

 
                                                           
could only be based on a few qualitative indicators with limited value, such as the 
existence or not of a specific legal framework.    

6.2 Lessons learned  

Providing  more  validation  opportunities  is  not  enough.  Providing  support  to 
individuals  is  necessary189.  A  core  principle  of  the  Recommendation,  and  of 
European  skills  policy,  is  that  everybody  should  have  opportunities  to  validate 
their  skills190.  In  2012  it  was  pragmatic  to  focus  on  providing  “more 
opportunities”;  in  2020  it  is  necessary  to  open  up  opportunities  and  support 
individuals  to  actually  take  advantage  of  them191.  People  who  are  aware  of  the 
benefits  of  validation  and  of  available  opportunities  may  nevertheless  wonder 
whether  the  benefits  are  worth  the  costs.  They  need  to  be  motivated  enough  to 
invest time, energy and often money over a sustained period192, all at the expense 
of  work  and  family.  To  increase  their  motivation,  investment  should  be  shared 
with  employers  (e.g.  paid  leave,  technical  assistance),  authorities  (e.g.  financial 
support, coaching, simplified procedures), and other actors such as unions, trade 
organisations,  and  education  and  training  providers193.  Specific  support  should 
address  the  barriers  limiting  the  access  of  individuals  from  disadvantaged 
groups194. 

Stakeholders’  cooperation  is  not  enough.  There  is  a  need  for  strategic 
coordination. While a variety of agencies providing validation can be a richness, 
responding to the needs of a diverse set of beneficiaries, a closer coordination of 
providers and cooperation with all stakeholders could improve both effectiveness 
– through better visibility, wider reach out, operational synergies – and efficiency, 
learning195.  The 
by  distributing  burdens, 
Recommendation does stress stakeholders’ involvement and coordination (points 
4 and 5). However, while many individual validation initiatives reach a good level 
of  stakeholders’  cooperation,  coordination 
is  weaker  between  validation 
initiatives and between validation and other areas of skills policy196.  

facilities  and  peer 

sharing 

Providing  more  guidance  is  not  enough.  Closer  cooperation  and  effective 
coordination  between  providers  of  guidance  and  validation  is  needed197.  

189   Cf. footnote 153. 

190   Most respondents to the public consultation (80%) agreed that people should be able to validate  their 

skills in all cases, cf. section 5.1. 

191   On the importance of a “more systematic support to validation candidates”, cf. External study, p. 44.   

192   Cf. mention of the evaporation effect above, section 3.2.2. 

193   Cf. External study, p. 104. 

194   Cf. above section 3.2.8, and external study, p.104 

195   Cf. above sections 3.2.10 and 5.2. 

196   Cf. External study, p. 107. 

197   Cf.  Cedefop  research  paper  No  75,  Coordinating  guidance  and  validation,  2019.  Cf.  above  section 

3.2.7. 

42 

 
                                                           
While  relevant  guidance  should  be  “made  available  to  all  individuals  and 
organisations”,  as  the  Recommendation  says198,  in  any  time  and  place  there  is  a 
need to tailor the media and the message to the audience: to reach out to them, to 
convey  the  right  meaning.  For  instance,  to  illustrate  to  vulnerable  workers  the 
benefits  of  validation  with  a  view  to  upskilling,  and  guiding  them  to  the  most 
suitable  validation  pathway.  This  would  promote  take-up  in  general,  and  in 
particular 
initiatives  addressing 
disadvantaged  and  vulnerable  groups,  making  them  more  effective  and 
efficient199,  in  coordination  with  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation  on 
Upskilling Pathways200.   

tailoring  of  validation 

improve  effective 

A formal link to national qualifications frameworks is not enough. Coordinated 
implementation  of  validation  and  national  qualifications  frameworks  is 
needed201. The emergence of qualifications frameworks and their alignment to the 
EQF, with their central concept of learning outcomes independent from learning 
settings and inputs, has been a major factor in promoting validation action in most 
Member  States.  While  well-established  in  the  Recommendation,  and  effectively 
pursued  through  the  EQF  advisory  group,  the  link  between  validation  and 
qualifications frameworks needs to develop in its practical implementation202. 

A link to formal credit and qualifications is not enough. Validation should take 
advantage  of  innovative  practices  in  skills  recognition,  such  as  micro-
credentials.  As  micro-credentials  recognise  a  small  or  very  small  set  of  skills, 
they  can  be  a  useful  instrument  to  validate  skills  developed  outside  formal 
education  and  training.  If  they  are  developed  and  awarded  respecting  agreed 
standards  of  quality  assurance  and  transparency,  micro-credentials  could  make 
flexible203.  Appropriate  developments,  closely 
learning  pathways  more 
coordinated  with  qualifications  frameworks,  could  build  upon  the  experience 
gained  through  the  implementation  of  ECVET204  and  national  experience  with 
partial qualifications205.   

198   On  the  actual  impact  of  the  Validation  Recommendation  on  national  guidance  policy,  cf.  External 

study, section 4.6.2, p. 100. 

199   Cf. External study, p. 109. 

200   Cf. above section 3.2.8. 

201   Cf. above sections 5.1, reply to evaluation question 1.1.b. 

202   Cf. External study, section 4.1.2.1, p. 55. In half Member States, only a part of qualifications in their 
NQF can be obtained through validation, cf. above section 5.1, reply to evaluation question 1.1b. 

203   Cf. above section 5.1, reply to question1.1.b. 

204   Cf.  European  Commission,  Study  on  EU  VET  instruments  (ECVET  and  EQAVET),  2019  and  the 
synthesis  reports  by  the  ECVET  Secretariat  on  the  Peer  Learning  Activities  “Units,  partial 
qualifications  and  full  qualifications”,  May  2016  and  “ECVET,  NQFs  and  Upskilling  Pathways”, 
October  2018.  ECVET  is  indeed  mentioned  as  a  source  of  inspiration  in  the  briefing  paper  of  the 
MicroHE Erasmus+ project mentioned above. 

205   Cf. as examples of practices in Member States, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Germany, 

Poland, Sweden. 

43 

 
                                                           
The  current  level  of  information  is  not  enough.  Systematic  information 
collection on validation is necessary. Validation has grown in all Member States 
in terms of policy significance and operational developments. Still, the poor and 
fragmented  information  available  makes  it  difficult  to  meaningfully  assess  the 
relevance of policy measures, the  effectiveness  of their implementation, and the 
proportionality  of  investments.  The  Recommendation  calls  for  updating  the 
European  Inventory  of  validation,  which  is  recognised  as  a  valuable  tool206,  but 
does  not  provide  for  any  systematic  information  collection  at  national  level  that 
could support the quality, accuracy and relevance of the Inventory. With a proper 
information  basis,  it  would  be  possible  to  agree  on  indicators  and  monitor 
progress207.  

206   Cf. External study, p. 69. 

207   Cf. External study, p. 107, p. 111 and section 5.6. 

44 

 
 
                                                           
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1. 

LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The  evaluation  of  the  Recommendation  was  led  by  the  Directorate-General  for 
Employment, Inclusion and Social Affairs.  

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

An  evaluation  roadmap  published  on  16  October  2018  explained  the  context, 
purpose  and  scope  of  the  evaluation  and  informed  stakeholders  that  an  external 
evaluation  study  would  be  carried  out,  building  upon  the  2018  update  of  the 
European  Inventory  of validation and information  provided by  national  authorities 
within the EQF advisory group, and that a public consultation would be launched. 

An  Inter-service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  was  set  up,  coordinated  by  DG 
Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Inclusion  and  Social  Affairs  (represented  by 
staff  from  the  lead  policy  unit,  another  policy  unit  and  the  evaluation  unit)  and 
including  members  from  the  Secretariat  General,  Education  and  Culture,  the  Joint 
Research  Centre.  The  ISSG  could  take  advantage  of  the  technical  assistance  of 
expert staff from Cedefop and the European Training Foundation (ETF). 

The  ISSG  also  acted  as  steering  group  for  the  external  study  supporting  the 
evaluation,  which  was  carried  out  by  ICF  Consulting  Services.  Contract 
VC/2019/120  was  awarded  after  reopening  of  competition  (tender  VT/2018/035) 
within  the  multiple  framework  contract  “Provision  of  services  related  to  the 
implementation  of  Better  Regulation  Guidelines”  (VT/2016/027).  The  contract 
VC/2019/120 started on 1st April 2019 and lasted eight months, until 31 December 
2019.  

The draft final report was received on 4 December 2019, the inter-service steering 
group  provide  comments  by  20  December  2019  and  the  contractor  delivered  the 
final report on 20 January 2020, along with the agreed annexes on the stakeholders’ 
consultation  

The  external  support  study  had  been  announced  in  the  evaluation  roadmap 
published  on  16  October  2018.  It  included  a  public  consultation,  which  remained 
open 13 weeks (7 August 2019 to 13 November 2019). 

The preparation of the evaluation was discussed with the EQF advisory group in its 
meetings of 2nd October 2018, and interim results were presented in the meeting of 
4-5 November 2019.  

3. 

EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

All Better Regulation requirements were fulfilled.  

45 

 
 
 
 
4. 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB (IF APPLICABLE) 

Not applicable. 

5. 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

A specific study supporting the evaluation of the Recommendation was carried out 
in  2019.  The  final  report  is  available  here.  It  included  a  public  consultation 
(7 August to 13 November 2019), which resulted in 261 responses. The contractor 
also  organised  two  expert  workshops,  focusing  on  validation  in  the  labour  market 
and on validation and qualifications frameworks. 

The main sources of information were: 

– 

– 

– 

the  European  inventory  of  validation  non-formal  and  informal  learning208.  The 
2010  update,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  the  2014  update,  provided  the  baseline 
information,  while  the  2018  update,  finalised  in  summer  2019,  provided 
information updated to the end of 2018; 
interviews  with  72  experts  from  national  government  bodies,  qualifications 
authorities, 
learning  providers,  validation  practitioners,  and  stakeholders’ 
associations; 
literature from research and academia. 

information 

Complementary 
that  national 
representatives of 6 countries (Germany,  Latvia, Portugal,  Luxembourg, Denmark, 
UK)  have  presented  to  the  EQF  Advisory  Group  over  2019  (one-off  reports  on 
validation)209. 

included  a 

series  of 

reports 

The  present  Staff  Working  Document  relies  upon  the  final  report  of  the  specific 
study  as  well  as  on  direct  consultation  of  the  European  inventory  of  validation  of 
non-formal  and  informal  learning,  the  national  one-off  reports  on  validation. 
Information acquired in peer learning activities of the EQF advisory group as well 
as through the ordinary coordination of the EQF advisory group. Available literature 
was equally consulted, in particular publications from the OECD. 

208  It is hosted on the Cedefop website, here. 

209   They are available here. 

46 

 
                                                           
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

Synopsis Report on stakeholder consultation activities 

In  accordance  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  this  Annex  provides  a 
synopsis  or  summary  of  all  the  consultation  activities  conducted  within  the 
evaluation.  

The  stakeholder  consultation  activities  were  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  the 
external study supporting the evaluation210: 

  Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) 

  Expert group meetings 

  Public consultation 

1 - Key informant interviews (KIIs) 

In  total,  72  KIIs  were  conducted.  In  some  Member  States,  no  KIIs  could  be 
conducted  (DK,  LV)  while  in  several  others  fewer  than  two  were  completed  (EE, 
LT,  RO,  UK).  This  was  mostly  due  to  lack  of  responsiveness  or  lack  of  detailed 
knowledge of the Recommendation among some of the targeted stakeholders. 

Table A2.1. Number of KIIs completed by Member State and at EU level  

Member State 

No. of KIIs 
completed 

Member State 

No. of KIIs 
completed 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

2 

3 

2 

3 

3 

3 

0 

1 

3 

3 

2 

4 

2 

5 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Number of EU-level KIIs completed 

4 

0 

1 

2 

2 

4 

3 

3 

1 

2 

2 

2 

4 

1 

5 

210   A more detailed presentation f results is available in the external study, Annex 3. 

47 

 
 
                                                           
Member State 

No. of KIIs 
completed 

Member State 

No. of KIIs 
completed 

The following table shows the type of stakeholders taking part in the KIIs for this 
evaluation study.  

Total number of KIIs completed 

72 

Table A2.2 Overview of KIIs completed by stakeholder type 

Stakeholder type 

No. of KIIs 
completed 

No. of KIIs with EQF 
AG members 

14 

Ministry of education representatives 

National VET agency representatives 

Qualification authority representatives 

validation organisation representatives  

HEI and academia representatives  

Chambers of commerce and crafts 
representatives 

Labour market agency representatives 

Ministry of labour representatives  

EU umbrella organisation representatives  

Total  

21 

12 

11 

8 

8 

4 

2 

1 

5 

72 

The topic guide used to collect information from the KIIs included 25 questions on 
the  five  evaluation  criteria,  effectiveness  (14),  efficiency  (3),  relevance  (3), 
coherence (2), EU added value (3). 

2 - Expert group meetings 

Two  Expert  group  meetings  were  held  in  Brussels  to  enable  a  reflection  on  the 
evaluation’s  interim  findings  and  to  facilitate  the  exchange  of  experiences  and 
observations  among  stakeholders  the  implementation  of  the  CR  (in  different 
Member States and the EU) and on the topic of validation more generally.  

The two thematic meetings held were as follows: 

The  role  of  employers  and  other  labour 
market actors in validation arrangements 

Wednesday 
2019 

13  November 

How  validation  arrangements  relate  to 
national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) 
and  the  shift  to  learning  outcomes  and 
flexible learning pathways 

Thursday 14 November 2019 

A total of 15 participants included three from European umbrella organisations (the 
European  Youth  Forum  and  European  Association  for  the  Education  of  Adults)  and  12 
from  ten  countries  (BE-Fr,  CZ,  ES,  IE,  IT,  MT,  PL,  SE,  SK  and  Norway), 
specifically  from  national  ministries  (2),  national  agencies  for  education  and 
training  (2),  regional-level  labour  organisations  (2),  training  and  academic 
institutions (2), an organisation in charge of validation (3), and one from a business 
organisation.  

48 

 
 
 
Below is a summary of the key messages from the Expert group meetings. 

The  role  of  employers  and  other  labour  market  actors  in  validation 
arrangements 

  The  CR  is  effective  and  relevant  in  helping  Member  States  conceptualise 
validation  and  in  creating  momentum  for  multi-stakeholder  collaboration 
involving employers and labour market actors.  

  The  Recommendation  has  generated  considerable  added  value  in  those 
Member States where validation is still in its early stages of development.  

  Limited  evidence  overall  as  to  whether  the  Recommendation  has  enabled 
people  to  use  their  validation  outcomes  for  entering  the  labour  market  and 
progressing within it. 

How  validation  arrangements  relate  to  national  qualifications  frameworks 
(NQFs) and the shift to learning outcomes and flexible learning pathways 

  The  Recommendation 

outcomes 
helped 
(knowledge/skills/competences) as a ‘currency’ for validation across the EU.  

establish 

learning 

has 

  The  intended  objectives  of  the  Recommendation  are  restrained  by  the 
fragmentation  of  validation  processes  observed 
in  many  countries, 
compounded  by  the  lack  of  a  common  vision  among  different  stakeholder 
types in some cases.  

  While 

the  Recommendation  has  helped  shape  a  more  common 
understanding of validation across the EU, there is very limited evidence of 
validation outcomes being used for intra-EU mobility purposes. 

Overall conclusions 

  The  Recommendation 

is  regarded  as  having  continuously  fed 

into 
discussions on validation in many Member States and has been used as for 
developing  validation  processes  in  those  countries  where  they  were  mostly 
inexistent prior to 2012.  

  Validation  cannot  operate  separately  and  needs  to  be  embedded  in  wider 
skills and lifelong learning strategies, which requires institutional change to 
facilitate multi-stakeholder collaboration.  

 

It may still be too  early to assess the extent to which the Recommendation 
and  other  relevant  EU-level  instruments  can  be  applied  to  improve  links 
between  validation  and  formal  education  systems,  to  develop  flexible 
learning options as a gateway to validation and to facilitate EU mobility.  

  Validation  does  have  a  bright  future  as  it  can  be  expected  that  skills  will 
increasingly  require  updating  to  remain  relevant  to  the  rapid  evolutions  of 
the labour market. 

3 - Public consultation 

49 

 
The public consultation has served to gather views on the Council Recommendation 
from  the  wider  community  of  experts  and  practitioners  on  validation  on  the  one 
hand, and from people who have undergone a validation process. Certain questions 
were therefore only targeted at organisations acquainted with validation while some 
others were specifically targeted at individual end-users of validation. 

Following its translation into 22 other European languages, the public consultation 
was  launched  on  7  August  2019  and  closed  on  13  November  2019.  It  was 
disseminated  to  the  relevant  networks  of  DG  EMPL  with  the  targeted  networks 
having  been  requested  to  disseminate  the  public  consultation  to  their  respective 
beneficiaries and partners.  

National  ministry  stakeholders  taking  part  in  the  KIIs  have  also  been  asked  to 
disseminate the public consultation to their relevant networks, while national-level 
validation  and  career  guidance  organisations  have  been  encouraged  to  do  likewise 
with their beneficiaries.  

The  public  consultation  generated  a  total  of  262  responses.  In  addition,  ten 
organisations  submitted  a  position  paper  together  with  their  public  consultation 
responses: seven at the national-level and three at the EU-level.  

Due  to  a  few  incomplete  or  ‘blank’  responses,  sample  sizes  show  small  variation 
across  the  questions.  To  that  end,  sample  sizes  are  provided  below  each  chart  for 
reference. 

Responses  came  from  all  Member  States,  plus  Turkey  (5),  Albania,  Armenia, 
Morocco  North  Macedonia,  Norway,  Pakistan  and  Switzerland  (one  each). 
Respondents from Italy were most numerous with 27 responses (10%), followed by 
23 responses (9%) from Portugal and 18 (7%) from the United Kingdom. Cf. Figure 
A2/1 below. 

50 

 
Figure A2.1 Overview of responses by country (External study, Figure A3.1) 

262 

27 

23 

18 

15 

14 

14 

12 
12 
11 

10 

9 

9 

8 
8 

Italy

United Kingdom

France

Belgium

Sweden

Cyprus

Romania

Luxembourg

Austria

Turkey

Latvia

Finland

Slovakia

Iceland

Lithuania

Norway

Pakistan

North Macedonia

Morocco

8 
8 

6 
6 
5 
5 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
3 
2 
2 

2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

                         N=262, Source: public consultation results 

In terms of participant type, the 262 responses split unevenly between organisations 
(163  responses  or  62%)  and  EU/non-EU  citizens  (99  responses  or  38%).  This 
sample  size  provides  a  good  basis  for  analysis  as  both  groups  are  sufficiently 
represented, whilst it also allows for further segmentation by type of organisation. 

When analysing the type of organisations in the sample, public authorities are most 
prevalent (44 responses), followed by NGOs (38 responses) and academic/research 
institutions (31 responses).  

Table A2.3 Type of organisations in the sample (External study, Table A3.1) 

Type of organisation 

No. of responses 

Academic/research institution 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) 

Public authority 

Other 

Company/business organisation 

Business association 

Trade union 

Total 

31 

38 

44 

26 

11 

6 

7 

163 

                N=163, Source: public consultation results 

51 

 
 
 
Questions for all respondents 

The first three public consultation questions were addressed to all respondents.  

Q1  -  To  your  knowledge,  are  there  possibilities  for  people  in  your  country  to 
validate the skills they have acquired outside school or university? 

Nearly three out of four respondents (72%) thought this was the case, 20% believed 
that  such  possibilities  were  not  available,  whilst  7%  didn’t  know.  Rather 
unsurprisingly, a significantly larger share of representatives of organisations were 
aware of validation opportunities compared to citizens (28pp difference).  

Figure A2.2. Q1 - To your knowledge, are there possibilities for people in your country to 

validate the skills they have acquired outside school or university?  
(External study, Figure A3.3) 

83% 

72% 

55% 

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

33% 

20% 

12% 

12% 

7% 

5% 

Yes, they are available

No, they are not
available

Don't know

Total

Citizens

Organisations

Source: public consultation results 

Well-established systems are  well known: almost  all respondents  from France and 
Sweden believed that validation opportunities were available.   

A  total  of  88  open-text  answers  were  received  to  further  clarify  and  explain 
responses to Q1. Whilst the views are rather heterogeneous, most responses refer to 
the limited availability of validation arrangements. These are often provided through 
specific  projects  and/  or  in  relation  to  VET  and  hard  skills.  Put  differently,  well-
developed and nationwide procedures are still seldom in place, thus further efforts 
are required according to the responses.  

Q2  -  Do  you  think  that  people  who  acquired  skills  in  the  workplace  or  outside 
school should be able to have them validated? 

Nearly all respondents agreed, with 4 out of 5 selecting ‘Yes, in all cases’ and  the 
others  ‘Yes,  but  only  in  particular  cases’.  Two  non-governmental  organisations 
disagreed.  

Q3  -  Have  you  personally  participated  in  a  programme  to  validate  skills  you 
acquired (through work, community groups, volunteering etc.) outside an education 
programme? 

52 

 
 
One  out  of  four  respondents  have  participated  in  a  programme  to  validate  skills 
acquired outside an education programme as shown in the figure below. They were 
therefore invited to respond to questions . 

Questions for organisations 

Questions 4 to 13 were addressed to organisations.  

Q4 To what extent can people in your country obtain /identification/ documentation/ 
assessment/ certification/ of their skill? 

Some  60%  of  respondents  believed  in  relation  to  all  four  stages  that  these  can  be 
obtained  to  a  high  extent  or  to  some  extent.  A  small  minority  (max  7%)  believed 
there was no opportunity.  

A  total  of  34  respondents  provided  further  comments.  Several  comments  describe 
hindering  effects,  including  complex  and  lengthy  validation  processes,  the  limited 
possibilities  for  identification  and  documentation  of  skills,  as  well  as  limited 
awareness about the validation possibilities. As pointed out above, validation often 
covers only a set of professions and skills rather than being offered on a universal 
basis.  

Q5  Do  you  think  that  validation  services  in  your  country  /consistently  meet  clear 
quality standards?/ produce reliable and credible results?/ 

A majority of respondents agreed that this is the case, to a high extent (less than one 
third)  or  to  some  extent  (more  than  one  third).  Free  comments  mentioned  well-
established  legal  frameworks,  well-functioning  implementation  mechanisms,  the 
links between validation and the NQFs and a robust quality assurance framework – 
while  also  noting  that  validation  is  a  complex  process.  A  minority  selected  ‘to  a 
small extent’ (14%) and even less ‘not at all’.  

Q6 on easy access to information and guidance on validation and Q6a on progress 
since 2012 

58%  of  the  responding  organisations  believed  this  was  the  case  to  a  high  extent 
(15%) or to some extent (43%), and about as many agreed that progress since 2012 
has been relatively significant, with only 5% indicating there was no progress at all. 
The results are almost the same for the next question: 

Q7 on guidance during the validation process and Q7a on progress since 2012 

with  58%  stating  this  is  the  case  to  a  high  extent  (20%)  or  to  some  extent  (38%). 
The share of those considering there was good progress (some or high) is somewhat 
lower in this case, amounting to 55% of all answers.  

Q8  on  how  validation  arrangements  target  disadvantaged  groups  (long-term 
unemployed, migrants, disabled persons) and Q8a on progress since 2012 

Just  above  half  of  the  responding  organisations  agreed,  mostly  (40%)  to  some 
extent, with a similar pattern as concerns progress. The share of those indicating ‘to 

53 

 
a little extent’ or ‘not at all’ is the highest in relation to this effectiveness question – 
almost one in five respondents. 

Q9  Overall,  to  what  extent  do  you  consider  that  the  cost  of  implementing  the 
Council  Recommendation  are  proportionate  to  the  benefits  to  individuals,  the 
economy and society? 

While a significant proportion of the responding organisations (36%) were not able 
to  reply, a moderate majority agreed that costs were proportional, to  a high extent 
(26%) or to some extent (27%).  

Q10  To  what  extent  do  you  think  the  Council  Recommendation  appropriately 
addresses the needs of your organisation? 

Most  responding  organisations  agreed  (32%  to  a  high  extent  and  35%  to  some 
extent)  that  the  Recommendation  has  appropriately  addressed  their  needs.  12% 
considered this was the case to a little extent with 1% going for ‘not at all’.   

Q11  To  what  extent  do  you  think  the  development  of  validation  policies  and 
initiatives in your country involve all interested parties? 

Concerning  the  involvement  of  all  interested  parties  in  the  development  of 
validation  policies  and  initiatives,  the  majority  of  Almost  three  out  of  four 
responding  organisations  indicated  that  there  had  been  involvement  to  high  extent 
(32%)  or  to  some  extent  (40%).  However,  one  in  five  (19%)  said  this  had  only 
happened  to a little extent.  

/enabling 

Q12 To what extent do you think that the Council Recommendation has contributed 
their  educational  or  professional 
to 
development/  generating  national  action  towards  more  and  better  validation 
opportunities/? 

to  progress 

individual 

in 

On both topics, three every four responding organisations thought that this had been 
the case to a high extent (24%) or to some extent (more than 40%). However one in 
five (19%) had a more negative view as concerns support to individual progress and 
one  in  four  (26%)  as  concerns  support  to  national  action.  Free-text  comments 
mentioned  that  the  Recommendation  gave  the  impetus  and  some  suggested  a 
renewal and update of the Recommendation.  

Q13  In  general,  to  what  extent  do  you  think  the  Council  Recommendation  has 
contributed to make validation more available to people? 

60%  of  the  public  consultation  respondents  believed  that  the  CR  contributed  to 
make validation more available to people to a high extend (19%) or to some extent 
(41%),  with  23%  indicating  that  this  was  the  case  to  a  little  extent  and  6% 
considering there was no progress at all.  

This  section  summarises  the  answers  to  the  questions  targeting  respondents 
indicating having taken part in a validation process. As reported in Q3, 27% of the 
survey respondents  indicated having taken part in validation. Due to the  relatively 
low  number  of  responses,  cautious  approach  to  the  figures  presented  below  is 
recommended in order to avoid inflating and misinterpreting tendencies.  

54 

 
Questions for validation beneficiaries 

Questions  14  to  19  were  only  addressed  to  respondents  who  had  participated  in  a 
validation experience.  

Q14 How did you access the validation initiative that you used?  

Almost  half  of  respondents  (44%)  had  found  out  about  the  validation  opportunity 
themselves. For about one in seven validation was part of an organised initiative; as 
many had learned it from their employer. Only 6% took  part in a validation activity 
after receiving information from their career guidance centre. Among the 16% that 
selected the ‘Other’ option, some had received a Youthpass certificate or learned it 
through a regional initiative. 

Q15 Were you guided and supported during the validation process?  

Nearly half of respondents stated they were well guided and supported, whilst 35% 
said that guidance and support could have been better. Only 15% had received little 
guidance  or  not  at  all.  Free  text  comments  reiterated  the  importance  of  guidance 
during validation process. 

Q16 What steps did the validation process include? 

A  third  of  respondents  had  gone  through  the  whole  process  and  received  a 
qualification  or  a  certificate.  Others  passed  examinations  or  practical  tests  (18%), 
while  almost  one  third  didn’t  go  beyond  assisted  documentation  (15%)  or 
identification (14%).  

Q17  Have  you  received  any  form  of  financial  incentive  or  support  related  to  the 
validation process? 

Only one in ten respondents (11%) had received a specific incentive to participate in 
validation,  though  as  many  had  been  somewhat  supported  as  participants  in  a 
training programme or other project. The huge majority had no financial support, as 
60% specifically stated (others preferred not to say) 

Q18  Did  the  validation  programme  you  took  part  in  enable  you  to  obtain  a 
qualification or certificate, or part of a qualification (e.g. exemption from part of a 
course)? 

Following validation, almost one third of the respondents (30%) had received a full 
qualification  and  another  third  (33%)  received  part  of  a  qualification.  Conversely, 
20% stated neither of these was the case.  

Q18a Is the qualification or certificate you obtained after undergoing validation the 
same that can be obtained through a formal programme (i.e. from school, college, 
university etc.) 

This was not the case for almost half of respondents (47%), while it was the case for 
38%. 6% preferred not to say it whilst 9% did not know.  

Q19 Free text comment on the validation experience 

55 

 
A total of 23 participants provided further insights about their overall experience. In 
terms  of  ‘what  went  well’,  respondents  said  the  validation  offered  them  a  truly 
personalised 
learning  experience  with  goals  and  a  guided  process.  Some 
respondents mentioned that validation made a change of career possible. As fot he 
challenges,  respondents  referred  to  the  complex,  lengthy,  and  often  costly 
procedure, as well as to difficult recognition.  

56 

 
 
 
Annex 3: Methods and analytical models 

An  external  study  supporting  the  evaluation  was  carried  out,  applying  the 
methodology  described  here.  The  study  included  desk  research,  field  research  and 
the development of conclusions and lessons learnt.  

The  desk  research  reviewed  existing  literature,  including  studies,  reports  and 
official  documentation,  released  by  EU  institutions,  international  organisations, 
national and regional authorities, stakeholders and academic research. This included 
in  particular  the  2018  update  of  the  European  Inventory  on  validation  (Synthesis 
Report, associated Country Reports and Thematic Reports) and as previous updates 
of  the  Inventory  (2010,  2014  and  2016),  which  have  represented  a  key  source  of 
secondary information.  

Other relevant sources included a Commission study on Skills Audits211, the one off 
reports by Member States on validation presented to the EQF Advisory group212, and 
the Commission  study on the EU instruments supporting vocational  education and 
training213.  Complementary  sources  included  European  Commission  publications, 
Cedefop  resources,  ECVET  Secretariat  resources,  specialised  reports  from  the 
European  Youth  Forum  and  the  Lifelong  Learning  Platform,  as  well  as  academic 
papers published by the ILO, OECD and UNESCO. 

Field research included key informant interviews (KII) and two expert meetings, as 
well as a public consultation214. 

The  contractor  held  72  key  informant  interviews  with  experts  from  26  Member 
States and five EU stakeholders’ organisations. Given the limited time available and 
the  specialised  issues  addressed  it  was  not  possible  to  agree  interviews  with 
qualified informants from DK and LV. The table below reports on the categories of 
informants  that  could  be  interviewed.  They  include  14  members  of  the  EQF 
advisory group.   

Two  expert  meetings  were  held  on  13  and  14  November  2019,  with  a  total  of  15 
experts, invited for their personal expertise rather in representation of their country 
or organisation. The first meeting focused on the role of employers and other labour 
market  actors  in  validation  arrangements  and  the  second  one  discussed  how 
validation arrangements relate to national qualifications frameworks and the shift to 
learning outcomes and flexible learning pathways. The discussions have helped the 
contractor  to  assess  the  information  obtained  from  other  sources,  namely  desk 
research and interviews. 

211   Finalised end of 2018 and published in March 2019, here. 

212   Available here. 

213   Cf. European Commission, Study on EU VET instruments (ECVET and EQAVET), 2019. 

214   More details in Annex 2. 

57 

 
 
                                                           
The  public  consultation  was  launched  on  7  August  2019,  in  all  EU  official 
languages,  and  closed  on  13  November  2019.  It  was  disseminated  to  the  relevant 
networks  of  the  Commission  with  the  request  to  further  disseminate  among  their 
respective  affiliates,  beneficiaries  and  partners,  with  emphasis  on  stimulating 
responses  by  individuals  having  benefitted  from  validation  opportunities.  The 
questionnaire  included  a  few  questions  for  all  respondents,  some  which  are 
specifically addressed to organisations with an interest in validation and others for 
individuals who have used validation opportunities. Organisations were also invited 
to  submit  position  papers.  The  262  responses  came  from  organisations  (163 
responses or 62%) and individual citizens (99 responses or 38%). The most frequent 
categories  of  organisations  were  public  authorities  (44),  non-governmental 
organisations (38) and academic/research institutions (31). 

The  contractor  carried  out  a  cross-comparison  of  the  desk  research  results 
(secondary sources), feedback from key informants, input from expert meetings, and 
responses  to  the  public  consultations.  This  supported  synthesizing  the  results  into 
responses to the evaluation questions for each of the five evaluation criteria and fed 
into the conclusions and lessons learnt. 

58