Taking stock, evaluating the achievements and identifying the way forward for the ERA priority 3 policy measures : final report.
Date: 2021-12-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: EU policy, EU research policy, code of conduct, cost-benefit analysis, innovation, labour market, performance measurement, professional career, recommendation, recruitment, report, research staff, staff, technology, working conditions

Taking stock, evaluating the 
achievements and identifying 
the way forward for the ERA 
Priority 3 policy measures 

Final Report

Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services 
December – 2021 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Taking stock, evaluating the achievements and identifying the way forward for the ERA Priority 3 
policy measures 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate A — European Research Area & Innovation 
Unit A.3 — Research & Innovation Actors and Research Careers 
Contact   Dario Capezzuto 
Email  

dario.capezzuto@ec.europa.eu 
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Manuscript completed in December 2021 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the 
Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor 
any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). 

PDF  

ISBN: 978-92-76-42063-7 

doi: 10.2777/401723 

Catalogue number: KI-09-21-434-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011  
on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised 
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means 
that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 
For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly 
from the respective rights holders.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Taking stock, evaluating the 
achievements and identifying 
the way forward for the ERA 
Priority 3 policy measures 

Final Report 

Lead Author: James Rampton 
Expert Advisers: Chiara Biglia, Conor O’Carroll, Karen Vandevelde 

2021 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
European Research Area 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

ABSTRACT 

I 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I 
Introduction ............................................................................................................... i 
Context for the study ................................................................................................... i 
Performance of the Charter and Code and HRS4R........................................................... ii 
Performance of EURAXESS ......................................................................................... iii 
The labour market for researchers ................................................................................ v 
Future transformations in the context of the new ERA ..................................................... v 
Conclusions ............................................................................................................. vii 
Recommendations .................................................................................................... viii 

1. 

2. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 

1 
1.1 
Purpose and focus of the report ........................................................................... 1 
1.2  Sources of evidence ........................................................................................... 1 

EU POLICY CONTEXT 

3 
2.1  Evolution of the ERA .......................................................................................... 3 
2.2  The renewed ERA (2020) .................................................................................... 3 
2.3  Complementary policies ..................................................................................... 4 

PERFORMANCE OF THE CHARTER AND CODE AND HRS4R 

5 
3.1 
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 
3.2  Content ............................................................................................................ 6 
3.3  Outreach .......................................................................................................... 6 
3.3.1  Endorsement of the Charter and Code .................................................................. 6 
3.3.2  Award of the HRS4R .......................................................................................... 7 
3.3.3  Progress through the HRS4R process ................................................................... 8 
3.3.4  Correlation with Horizon 2020 funding ............................................................... 11 
3.3.5  Profile of awarded organisations (renewal phase) ................................................ 11 
3.4  Effects ........................................................................................................... 12 
Process and governance ................................................................................... 14 
3.5 
3.6 
Institutional approaches supporting researcher careers through the HRS4R ............ 16 
3.7  National approaches reinforcing the Charter and Code and HRS4R ......................... 18 
3.8  Complementary tools and approaches at national level ......................................... 22 
3.8.1  Reform of national frameworks for assessment, development, and promotion ......... 22 
3.8.2  National career assessment framework (NO) ....................................................... 23 
3.8.3  Researcher Career Development and Employment Framework (IE) ........................ 23 
3.8.4  Concordat between funders and employers of researchers (UK) ............................ 24 

4. 

PERFORMANCE OF EURAXESS 

25 
Introduction .................................................................................................... 25 
4.1 
4.2  Content .......................................................................................................... 26 

 
 
 
4.2.1  Relevance of EURAXESS services and instruments ............................................... 26 
4.2.2  Coherence with the ERA and other EU tools ........................................................ 28 
4.3  Outreach ........................................................................................................ 29 
4.3.1  Portal usage.................................................................................................... 29 
4.3.2  Reach amongst researchers .............................................................................. 29 
4.3.3  Reach amongst research-performing organisations .............................................. 30 
4.3.4  Volume of offers posted ................................................................................... 31 
4.4  Effects ........................................................................................................... 33 
4.4.1  Benefits for researchers ................................................................................... 33 
4.4.2  Benefits for registered research organisations ..................................................... 35 
4.4.3  Labour market benefits .................................................................................... 35 
4.4.4  European added value ...................................................................................... 37 
4.5  Governance and process .................................................................................. 37 
4.5.1  Declaration of Commitment .............................................................................. 37 
4.5.2  Overall modus operandi ................................................................................... 40 
4.5.3  Funding and resources ..................................................................................... 42 
4.5.4  Monitoring and quality assurance ...................................................................... 43 
4.5.5  Management at national level ........................................................................... 44 
4.5.6  Networking ..................................................................................................... 46 

THE LABOUR MARKET FOR RESEARCHERS 

49 
5.1  Higher education context .................................................................................. 49 
5.2  Challenges ...................................................................................................... 50 
5.3  Areas where (more) action is needed ................................................................. 53 
5.3.1  Recognising and supporting researchers beyond academia ................................... 53 
5.3.2  Widening institutional commitment to supporting researcher careers ..................... 54 
5.3.3  Widening national support for EU tools supporting researcher careers .................... 55 
5.3.4  Widening support for international mobility ......................................................... 55 
5.3.5  Widening support for intersectoral mobility ......................................................... 56 

FUTURE TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW ERA 

58 
6.1 
Framework for research careers ........................................................................ 58 
6.1.1  Objectives ...................................................................................................... 58 
6.1.2  Types of instruments ....................................................................................... 60 
6.2  Transformation of the Charter and Code ............................................................. 63 
6.2.1  The need for transformation ............................................................................. 63 
6.2.2  Overall aims of a transformed Charter and Code ................................................. 63 
6.2.3  Governance of a transformed Charter and Code .................................................. 63 
6.2.4  Pillars of a transformed Charter and Code ........................................................... 64 
6.2.5  Implementation of the revised Charter and Code ................................................. 65 
6.2.6  Non-academic sector ....................................................................................... 67 
6.3  Transformation of the HRS4R ............................................................................ 68 
6.3.1  The need for transformation ............................................................................. 68 
6.3.2  Overall aims of a transformed HRS4R ................................................................ 68 
6.3.3  Governance of the HRS4R ................................................................................ 70 

5. 

6. 

 
 
6.3.4  Implementation of a transformed HRS4R ............................................................ 70 
6.3.5  Tools to support a transformed HRS4R ............................................................... 71 
6.4  Transformation of EURAXESS (evolution to the ERA Talent Platform) ..................... 73 
6.4.1  Objectives ...................................................................................................... 73 
6.4.2  Target Users ................................................................................................... 74 
6.4.3  Services ......................................................................................................... 74 
6.4.4  Continuing and improving existing EURAXESS services ......................................... 76 
6.4.5  Introducing new services for the ERA Talent Platform ........................................... 76 
6.4.6  Governance .................................................................................................... 77 
6.4.7  Talent Management Offices at national level ....................................................... 78 
6.4.8  Funding Options .............................................................................................. 79 

7. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

80 
7.1  Conclusions .................................................................................................... 80 
7.2  Recommendations ........................................................................................... 82 

ANNEX 1: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ABSTRACT 

Launched  by  a  European  Commission  Communication  in  2000,  the  European  Research 
Area  (ERA)  aims  to  create  a  single,  borderless  market  for  research,  innovation  and 
technology  across  the  EU.  Priority  3  of  the  ERA  relates  to  “An  open  labour  market  for 
researchers”, in which highly skilled people can move to where their talents can be best 
employed. Policy measures to implement Priority 3 include: 

  Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers: 
a set of principles to set high standards for the recruitment and working conditions of 
researchers. 

  Human Resources Strategy for Researchers (HRS4R): a process to support research 

organisations in the implementation of the Charter and Code. 

  EURAXESS  Services  network,  which  provides  free  personalised  assistance  to 
researchers, with a special focus on international mobility and career development. 

The  present  study  has  taken  stock  of  these  policy  measures  by  evaluating  their 
achievements.  It  has  then  defined  needs  and  offered  recommendations  about  new  or 
revised policy measures to promote the human resources dimension of the new ERA, which 
was the subject of a Commission Communication in 2020. 

Based on the research findings, the study offers the outline of an overall policy framework 
for research careers. Transformations of the existing policy tools are proposed, including 
an evolution of the Charter and Code from a document endorsed by institutions into a core 
part of the overall ERA; a revision of the HRS4R, so that the main emphasis is more clearly 
on supporting continuous improvement; and an evolution of EURAXESS into an ERA Talent 
Platform which provides more holistic support to research careers. Suggestions are also 
offered for other types of policy tool that could support research careers in the context of 
the new ERA. 

 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

In its Communication on the new European Research Area (ERA) in 2020, the European 
Commission highlights the importance of ensuring that working, employment and career 
development  conditions  attract  and  retain  the  best  researchers  in  Europe.1  The 
Commission  notes  the  role  played  by  existing  instruments  in  supporting  researchers’ 
careers but highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach. This approach should 
feature a toolbox of tools that will address skills mismatches, enable researchers to pursue 
careers within and beyond academia, improve researchers’ employability, and boost the 
permeability of talents across Europe’s economy and society. 

In support of this, a study has been undertaken by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation 
Services (CSES) and a team of experts. The study has gathered evidence on existing policy 
measures, namely: 

  Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers 
(Charter and Code); published by the Commission in 2005, these are a set of principles 
to set high standards for the recruitment and working conditions of researchers. They 
describe  roles  and  responsibilities  of  researchers,  their  employers,  and  funding 
organisations.  The  principles  relate  to  working  conditions;  recruiting,  assessing, 
attracting and retaining talent; training and career development of researchers; and 
ethical and professional aspects. 

  Human Resources Strategy for Researchers (HRS4R) was launched in 2008 to support 
research institutions and funding organisations in the implementation of the Charter 
and Code. Institutions which make progress in aligning their human resources policies 
and practices to the principles of the Charter and Code, based on an action plan, receive 
recognition in the form of the “HR Excellence in Research Award”. 

  EURAXESS  Services  network,  which  provides  free  personalised  assistance  to 
researchers, with a special focus on international mobility and career development. 

The  study  has  then  defined  needs  and  offered  recommendations  about  new  or  revised 
policy measures to promote the human resources dimension of the new ERA. The study 
complements the work  of the “Triangle Task Force  –  Goal 2” of the  European Research 
Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC), which has reviewed the Charter and Code in light 
of the new ERA. 

The study has gathered evidence from the following sources: literature review; monitoring 
data  relating  to  the  Charter  and  Code,  HRS4R  and  EURAXESS;  survey  of  organisations 
involved  in  the  HRS4R  process;  review  of  a  sample  of  HRS4R  actions  plans;  survey  of 
EURAXESS  Service  Network  Members;  contributions  from  high-level  experts;  and 
consultations of stakeholders and research institutions. 

Context for the study 

The  ERA  is  a  key  EU  policy  with  the  ambition  to  create  a  single,  borderless  market  for 
research, innovation and technology across the EU. It helps countries be more effective 
together, by strongly aligning their research policies and programmes. The ERA was first 
launched  by  a  European  Commission  Communication  in  2000,  which  focussed  on  six 
priorities, including Priority 3: “An open labour market for researchers”. A number of policy 
measures were then introduced in pursuit of the objective linked to Priority 3, which was 

1 COM(2020) 628 final, Commission Communication A new ERA for Research and Innovation 

i 

 
                                                           
“A truly open and excellence-driven ERA in which highly skilled and qualified people can 
move seamlessly across borders to where their talents can be best employed”.2 

The 2020 Commission Communication sets four strategic objectives for the new ERA, of 
which two particularly relate to researchers and research careers: the second objective of 
“Improving access to excellence”, which includes a sub-priority entitled “Nourishing talent 
for excellence”; and the fourth objective of “Deepening the ERA” includes a sub-priority 
entitled “A European Framework for Research Careers”. To implement the new ERA, the 
Commission proposes several mechanisms including a “Pact for Research and Innovation 
in Europe” which calls for Member States to mobilise around  key principles and  values, 
and to identify priority areas for joint action. 

Performance of the Charter and Code and HRS4R 

There is wide acceptance and uptake of the Charter and Code and HRS4R, including outside 
the EU. Around 1,300 organisations in 44 countries have endorsed the Charter and Code 
principles, whilst 634 organisations from 37 countries have obtained the HRS4R Award. 
Award holders vary in size from fewer than 10 staff to more than 31,000. In total, more 
than 200,000 researchers are covered by these institutions, of which on average 19% are 
international and 39% are women. 

Uptake  of  the  Charter  and  Code  has  been  increased  by  Article  32  in  the  Model  Grant 
Agreement for Horizon 2020, which required applicants to take all measures to implement 
the principles in the Charter and Code. Moreover, the award of the HRS4R can serve as 
evidence  that  a  Horizon  2020  applicant  fulfils  the  requirements  of  Article  32.  Whilst  a 
majority of the top 100 beneficiaries of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships and 
Innovative Training Networks are recipients of the HRS4R award, only 16 of the top 100 
beneficiaries of Horizon 2020 have also received the award. 

National  contexts  have  a  considerable  influence  on  the  take-up  of  the  HRS4R.  Some 
countries feature a relatively large number of institutions with the award, such as Spain 
(143), UK (100), Poland (93), and the Czech Republic (51), whilst others have relatively 
few, such as Germany (20) and Italy (18). 

HRS4R action plans feature a diversity of activities, including the revision or monitoring of 
employment  contracts  of  researchers,  training  in  professional  skills  or  research-related 
skills for researchers, training for supervisors or HR managers, information and training 
for  new  researchers,  new  or  improved  open,  transparent  and  merit-based  recruitment 
(OTM-R) policies, improved appraisal systems, and support for mobility. In many  cases, 
HRS4R action plans are embedded in the overall policy or strategy of the institution and 
supported by higher levels of management. 

The  benefits  of  the  award  have  been  recognised  by  participants  in  the  HRS4R  process. 
They include ease of recruitment, including international talent; increased credibility and 
professionalism of human resources services; improved institutional culture and strategy; 
improved ability to attract EU funding and (to a lesser extent) national or other funding; 
and reinforced international partnerships. 

A  number  of  factors  limit  uptake  of  the  HRS4R.  The  perceived  benefits  may  seem 
insufficient given that the process can be complex, the requirements are extensive, and 
the administration supporting the process can be burdensome. The evaluation process can 
be fragile, as it relies on a limited number of peer review experts and lacks the prestige 
and credibility of professionally-run and expensive accreditation programmes, whilst the 
capacity of the European Commission to follow up the programme is limited. Institutions 

2 COM(2000) 6, Commission Communication: Towards a European Research Area. 

ii 

 
                                                           
may not have sufficient trust in the HRS4R to engage in the process and their institutional 
commitment may look impressive on paper but might be thin in reality. 

One  challenge  is  that  the  HRS4R  award  is  based  on  a  “soft”  process,  aspiring  towards 
“hard”  change  management.  Although  the  HRS4R  guidelines  emphasise  continuous 
improvement, in practice some assessors tend  to place more  emphasis on performance 
assessment. This risk is aggravated by the rigidity of the self-assessment tools and a need 
for  more  tools  to  support  improvement  (e.g.  to  help  institutions  develop  an  adequate 
survey,  methods  to  set  up  effective  focus  groups,  good  practice  on  how  to  ensure 
institutional support, etc.). As a result, the focus of the process is both on performance 
against  minimum  standards  and  on  supporting  institutional  change  (promoting  high 
ambitions,  tailor-made  solutions,  and  stakeholder  involvement).  Looking  ahead,  the 
performance aspect of a revised HSR4R could focus on specific areas of an updated Charter 
and  Code  and  lead  to  a  binding  agreement  between  researchers,  their  employers,  and 
funders, with perhaps a stronger role for Member States. This could be complemented by 
a soft process focussed on institutional change and supported  by training, exchanges of 
good practice, and mentoring by HR experts. 

Some Member States have specifically incorporated the Charter and Code (or the principles 
therein) into their national regulatory frameworks. This includes the Czech Republic, which 
has  also  used  funding  from  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  to  enable 
research  organisations  to  set  up  their  strategic  management  in  accordance  with  the 
HRS4R.  In  some  Member  States,  Rectors  Conferences  (or  equivalent)  have  specifically 
endorsed the Charter and Code. Some ERA National Action Plans (NAPs) include specific 
commitments to take action at national level to promote or ensure compliance with the 
Charter and Code, whilst others merely emphasise the importance of compliance. Some 
NAPs  do  not  mention  the  Charter  and  Code  at  all.  Some  Member  States  have  also 
introduced specific tools or approaches that promote adherence to the Charter and Code 
(either directly or indirectly). 

Performance of EURAXESS 

The EURAXESS services network has over 630 centres with over 1,500 people across 42 
countries. They provide a broad range of practical information for internationally mobile 
researchers.  They  are  complemented  by  42  national  web  portals  with  country-specific 
information for researchers and an EU portal with a database of jobs, funding and hosting 
opportunities, and a range of online tools for researchers and employers. The network is 
complemented by EURAXESS Worldwide hubs in multiple countries, which promote Europe 
as a research and innovation destination, including through attracting international talent 
into Europe and attracting European talent back to Europe. 

Usage of the EURAXESS portal has steadily increased from 2 million visits in 2017 to 4.9 
million in 2020. An improvement in the quality of content is suggested by an increase in 
user engagement in terms of the time spent on the website, the number of actions per 
visit and the number of return visits. The number of researchers registered on EURAXESS 
more  than  doubled  from  32,000  in  2017  to  68,000  in  2020.  The  number  of  registered 
organisations (i.e. actual or potential employers of researchers) on EURAXESS increased 
from 12,000 in 2017 to 18,000 in 2020. Of these, 11% are in the UK or EFTA countries 
and 18% in other third countries. Between 2017 and 2020, a total of 341,311 vacancies 
(of which 26% from outside the EU), 2,793 hosting offers and 1,348 funding offers were 
shared on EURAXESS. 

Researchers  have  accessed  the  full  range  of  services,  including  those  relating  to  entry 
conditions and visas, health insurance, work permits, taxation, salaries, research funding, 
job  opportunities,  departure,  family-related  issues,  recognition  of  diplomas,  pensions, 
intellectual  property  rights,  and  unemployment  benefits.  Services  related  to  entry 
conditions  and  visas  are  particularly  demanded,  representing  over  30%  of  all  requests. 

iii 

 
Through  the  support  provided  to  mobile  researchers,  EURAXESS  has  enabled  many  EU 
and non-EU researchers to easily relocate by providing tailor-made advice. EURAXESS has 
particularly supported the international mobility of early career stage researchers (R1-R2), 
reflecting established trends within researchers’ career trajectories. EURAXESS-supported 
activities have also sought to directly foster intersectoral mobility. However, there is scope 
to increase the contribution of EURAXESS to promoting intersectoral mobility, which is not 
yet extensive and comprehensive across the network.  

Research  organisations  have  enjoyed  better  access  to  research  talent,  as  evidenced  by 
the  steady  stream  of  vacancies,  hosting  and  funding  offers  posted  on  EURAXESS.  They 
have also benefitted from the sharing of best practice, notably at EU level via the TOP III 
and TOP IV projects, as well as through national networks. However, there is also a need 
for more dissemination within and across EURAXESS networks. EURAXESS has achieved a 
degree of quality, consistency and diversity in service provision, but this is contingent on 
the  resources  dedicated  to  EURAXESS,  which  appear  to  be  uneven  across  the  EU  and 
within national networks. 

Overall,  EURAXESS  has  contributed  to  the  development  of  an  open  labour  market  for 
researchers  by  supporting  good  working  conditions  and  a  stimulating  and  favourable 
working environment for researchers. EURAXESS has helped attract international research 
talent  into  the  EU  through  having  a  reasonable  degree  of  visibility  outside  the  EU,  as 
evidenced by the fact that there are 31,319 non-EU researchers registered on EURAXESS. 
However, the number of non-EU organisations within the EURAXESS network is relatively 
low (3,392) compared to the number of EU organisations, suggesting a need for greater 
visibility outside the EU.  

EURAXESS has supported uptake of the HRS4R. The portal hosts the HRS4R e-tool and 
serves  as  the  main  source  of  information  about  the  HRS4R  process.  Moreover,  several 
EURAXESS members reported that their network membership allows them to fulfil certain 
requirements of the HRS4R. The TOP IV project has also supported EURAXESS members 
to develop a strategy for career development services. EURAXESS has also contributed to 
the  reinforcement  of  high  ethical  and  professional  standards  among  researchers  by 
providing information and advice on such issues. 

The  EURAXESS  Declaration  of  Commitment  (DoC)  has  broadly  served  its  purpose.  The 
DoC is a statement of an organisation’s participation and acknowledges the objectives that 
the Network aspires to meet. However, the DoC is a declaration of best efforts rather than 
a legal commitment and is dependent on the level of funding and resources made available 
at national and institutional levels. This voluntary approach has led to a large degree of 
buy-in with the national level and institutions taking ownership and tailoring services to 
their own contexts. Quality has been supported by productive networking between service 
members within and between different countries. 

The  current  EURAXESS  governance  model,  with  its  reliance  on  opting-in  and  voluntary 
commitment of resources risks not being able to deliver the expansion in service provision, 
wide  targeting  of  users,  and  levelling  up  of  quality  that  is  implied  by  the  new  ERA.  A 
binding framework might therefore be required if formal commitments are to be translated 
into improving the quality and range of services provided. This risks adversely affecting 
the current voluntary commitment of resources, with EURAXESS currently heavily reliant 
on individual institutions to provide funding. Having a binding commitment would require 
measuring performance and quality of service provided. The challenge will be to get the 
commitment  from  participating  countries  as  this  will  require  allocations  of  human 
resources and funding. 

iv 

 
The labour market for researchers 

Given  the  ambitions  of  the  new  ERA  to  ensure  that  working,  employment  and  career 
development conditions attract and retain the best researchers in Europe, there is a need 
for EU policy tools to respond to current challenges in the labour market for researchers. 

The  Charter  and  Code  must  take  a  broader  view  of  researchers’  career  and  ensure 
coverage  of  both  STEM  and  non-STEM  researchers.  There  is  a  need  to  improve  the 
employability of researchers, so that they can undertake the high-quality research needed 
to meet the demands of the knowledge society and address societal challenges. However, 
the risk is that many of these researchers are mostly prepared for a career in academia, 
whereas the need is for many of them to work in other sectors. There is thus a need to 
develop more diverse career paths for researchers and to make those career paths more 
visible, in order to address the mismatch between researchers’ skills and jobs available. 
To do this requires both the provision of appropriate skills training for researchers and a 
wider  cultural  change  in  academia,  for  example,  an  appreciation  of  non-academic  skills 
and experiences, as well as new co-operations with the non-academic sector. Linked to 
this,  there  is  a  need  to  ensure  that  career  evaluation  systems  recognise  that  people 
employed  to  do  research  often  combine  research  with  other  tasks,  whereas  current 
systems reward behaviours/outcomes that are too narrow.  Improving employability will 
require increased inter-sectoral and inter-disciplinary mobility, whilst also ensuring wide 
and balanced circulation of talent across Europe and limiting brain drain. There is also a 
need to close the gaps relating to gender, ethnicity, disability, and socio-economic status 
in research positions.  

Future transformations in the context of the new ERA 

The  Council  Conclusions  of  28  May  2021  on  “Deepening  the  European  Research  Area: 
Providing researchers with attractive and sustainable careers and working conditions and 
making brain circulation a reality” welcomed the Commission proposals in the new ERA for 
a toolbox of support measures to strengthen research careers and called for the Charter 
and Code to evolve into a single framework with a more holistic approach addressing all 
challenges and broadening its focus to sectors beyond the academia, as a complement to 
the Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe.3 Evidence gathered by the current study 
suggests that such a framework might feature the following objectives and types of actions 
at different levels. 

Outline of a policy framework for research careers 

Global Objective(from 
the new ERA) 
Specific Objectives 
(Pillars of the revised 
Charter and Code) 

Operational 
Objectives 

EU level actions 

  Deepen the ERA by fostering an open labour market for researchers in 

Europe, which attracts, develops, and retains research talent 

Improve working conditions and professional aspects for researchers 

  Promote adherence to research and ethical values 
  Ensure effective and fair recruitment and selection of researchers 
 
  Foster research talent and holistic evaluation of research performance 
  Ensure a supportive legislative framework 
  Promote political commitment to the Charter and Code 
  Ensure compliance with the Charter and Code, where appropriate 
  Support reform at EU, national and institutional levels 
  Provide services for employers and researchers 
  Support pilot initiatives 
  Promote mutual learning and exchange of experience and good practice 
  Monitor implementation and progress 
  Review EU legislative framework 
  Political commitment (e.g. Council Recommendation) 
  Multi-stakeholder governance / oversight 
  Monitoring 

3 Council Conclusions of 28 May 2021 on Deepening the European Research Area: Providing researchers with 
attractive and sustainable careers and working conditions and making brain circulation a reality 

v 

 
                                                           
Outline of a policy framework for research careers 

EU support for / 
action at the national 
level 

EU support for / 
action at the 
institutional level 

EU support for 
individual 
researchers 

  Open method of coordination (national guidelines, benchmarking, 

mutual learning, etc.) 

  National action plans (within the overall ERA) 
  EU support for national reforms (e.g. Concordat type) 
  National talent management offices 
  Promoting use of ESIF to support research careers 
  Promote endorsements of principles 
  Guidelines for institutions 
  Strengthened HRS4R (new focus on continuous improvement) 
  Requirements/incentives within Horizon Europe 
  Communities of practice (transnational, national) 
  Pilot initiatives 
 
  ERA Talent Platform 
  Promote endorsements of principles (e.g. via MSCA) 
  Design/requirements of MSCA reinforces Charter and Code 
  ERA Talent Platform 

“Designed into” European University Alliances 

Within the context of this overall framework, the Charter and Code should evolve from a 
document endorsed by individual institutions into a core part of the overall ERA. Adoption 
of the updated Charter and Code by the Council and Member States, as well as institutions, 
would  give  it  greater  strength  and  serve  as  a  stimulus  to  action  at  all  levels.  A  multi-
stakeholder platform for research careers could be established to own and champion the 
Charter and Code and other relevant tools. 

The four specific objectives of the policy framework (see table above) could also serve as 
“pillars”  of  an  updated  Charter  and  Code.  The  pillars  have  been  proposed  by  the  ERAC 
Triangle Task Force on the revision of the Charter and Code and encompass issues that 
have grown in importance, such as open science and open innovation, research integrity, 
gender equality, diversity and inclusion, team science, intersectoral and interdisciplinary 
mobility, and research assessment. 

The updated Charter and Code could be implemented through a range of means, including: 

  EU  level:  integration  into  ERA  policies,  decision-making  and  monitoring  (including 
national-level  indicators);  integration  into  quality  and  selection  criteria  and  calls  in 
relevant  EU  programmes,  so  that  funded  activities  respect  and  promote  them; 
integration  of  relevant  pillars  into  gender  equality  plans  required  of  Horizon  Europe 
applicants; co-financed actions to promote the  pillars; European University Alliances 
as test-beds and pilots for a revised HRS4R. 

  National  level:  national  commitments  to  the  Charter  and  Code  and  actions  to 
implement  the  pillars,  integrated  into  ERA  National  Action  Plans  (should  such  plans 
form part of the new ERA). 

 

 

Institutions: refreshed endorsements of the Charter and Code, access to communities 
of practice, continuing support through the HRS4R with the emphasis on continuous 
improvement. 

Individual researchers: encouragement to endorse the pillar related to “Research and 
ethical  values”,  which  would  raise  their  awareness  of  the  Charter  and  Code,  thus 
helping them to push for better conditions. 

The HRS4R should continue as a tool to improve HR practices in research institutions and 
to align these practices with European standards. Going forward, the focus should be very 
clearly on supporting continuous improvement by defining a broad set of objectives which 
are  strived  for,  whatever  the  starting  point  and  without  a  “finish”  line.  Within  this 

vi 

 
 
approach, the role of assessor becomes one of providing support and coaching rather than 
one of assessing performance against minimum standards. 

To increase impact and synergies with the rest of the ERA, the HRS4R should be brought 
into  the  overall  ERA  governance  and  owned  and  championed  by  a  multi-stakeholder 
platform (proposed above for the Charter and Code). EU-level organisations representing 
HEIs and research institutes could play a strategic advisory role at EU level. The role of 
Member  States  could  be  increased  by  aligning  the  HRS4R  more  closely  with  national 
policies and embedding HRS4R processes in national processes. For example, the HRS4R 
could  become  a  “national  award”  rather  than  an  “institutional  award”,  where  national 
frameworks and processes are aligned with and support the Charter and Code. 

The  stated  Commission  policy  priority  is  for  EURAXESS  to  evolve  into  a  more 
comprehensive  ERA  Talent  Platform,  which  will  go  beyond  being  merely  a  provider  of 
information and support to mobile researchers to become a provider  and hub for talent 
development  and  career  evaluation  services.  The  new  platform  will  need  to  expand  the 
current EURAXESS services in order to provide a comprehensive range of online supports 
for users through EU and national portals. Bridgehead Organisations (BHOs) may need to 
become National Talent Management Offices (NTMO) to provide and coordinate the suite 
of services. There is also a need for the new ERA Talent Platform to have a clearer identity 
and offer greater consistency in the scope and quality of services. 

There is a need to expand the primary focus of EURAXESS from researchers in academia 
to researchers in all sectors. This requires a strengthening of the service offer based on 
quality  criteria  and  performance,  which  in  turn,  requires  a  revision  of  the  governance, 
management, and funding. It will also require widening the stakeholder group to include 
business, universities, research performing organisations and researchers themselves, not 
only as users but also as implementation partners. 

There is a need to broaden the EURAXESS service offer so that it supports researchers in 
the  multiple  roles  that  they  play  in  society  and  economy,  including  through  skills 
acquisition, career development, international mobility, virtual mobility, and intersectoral 
mobility.  EURAXESS  Jobs  could  expand  its  range  of  positions  offered  to  include  non-
research positions that could be career destinations for researchers.  The platform could 
broker mentoring services, act as a training library and host skills training opportunities. 
It could also incorporate existing service provision at national level into a broader EU-wide 
framework; customise services in line with national contexts; provide a greater focus on 
research in non-academic environments; and combine the current strong focus on mobility 
with support for career development. 

A robust governance framework will be needed, including a more binding commitment to 
improve service provision, albeit customised to each country. More structured resources 
from the EU or national levels might be required, given that a binding framework might 
adversely  affect  the  current  voluntary  commitment  of  resources.  National  Talent 
Management Offices may need appropriate national funding to deliver the commitments 
by Member States, perhaps incentivised by the possibility to receiving EU co-financing. 

Conclusions 

1.  There  has  been  wide  acceptance  of  the  Charter  for  Researchers  and  the  Code  of 
Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers at institutional level within and outside 
the EU, but they require updating. 

2.  The HRS4R process and award has engaged a large and diverse cohort of institutions 

within and outside the EU. 

vii 

 
3.  The  HRS4R  process  and  award  has  helped  bring  about  positive  change  in  human 

resources practices in organisations undertaking research. 

4.  Many organisations perceive that the benefits of the HRS4R process do not justify 

the time and effort required to gain the award. 

5.  Take-up and effectiveness of the Charter and Code and HRS4R is strongly influenced 

by national context and national policies. 

6.  EURAXESS  has  reached  a  critical  mass  of  researchers  and  research  organisations 
within and outside the EU, resulting in a steady increase in volume and intensity of 
use. 

7.  Researchers have gained a diversity of benefits from EURAXESS, but particularly in 
support of international mobility, whilst research organisations have enjoyed better 
access to research talent. 

8.  There is a need for a clearer identity and greater consistency in EURAXESS services 

and in their quality. 

9.  There  is  a  need  to  broaden  the  EURAXESS  service  offer  so  that  it  supports  the 

development of research talent more broadly. 

10.  The current EURAXESS governance model has served its purpose but risks not being 
able  to  deliver  the  expansion  in  service  provision,  wider  targeting  of  users  and 
levelling up of quality that is required by the new ERA. 

11.  The  labour  market  challenges  facing  researchers  suggest  a  need  for  new  and 
different forms of support for research careers, if the aspirations of the new ERA are 
to be met. 

12.  The existing EU policy tools have made an important contribution towards creating 
an  open  labour  market  for  researchers  in  the  EU  but  it  will  be  necessary  to  bring 
them together into an overall framework if the aspirations of the new ERA relating 
to research careers are to be satisfied. 

Recommendations 

1.  The Commission should consider introducing a single policy framework for research 
careers, featuring a more holistic approach addressing all challenges and broadening 
its focus to sectors beyond academia.  

2.  The  existing  policy  tools  for  research  careers  and  any  new  ones  should  be  fully 

integrated into the governance and monitoring of the new ERA. 

3.  The  Charter  and  Code  should  be  updated  to  reflect  the  current  challenges  and 

opportunities manifested in the labour market for researchers. 

4.  The Charter and Code should evolve from a document endorsed by individuals into 
a core part of the overall ERA, which is owned and endorsed at all levels and shapes 
policy at all levels. 

5.  The Commission should consider a revision of the HRS4R, so that the main emphasis 
is  more  clearly  on  supporting  continuous  improvement  rather  than  assessing 
performance against minimum standards. 

viii 

 
6.  The  Commission  should  consider  ways  to  increase  the  contribution  made  by  EU 

funding programmes to supporting research careers. 

7.  The  Commission  should  enable  the  evolution  of  EURAXESS  into  an  ERA  Talent 

Platform which provides more holistic support to research careers. 

8.  The Commission should continue to explore how the existing legislative framework 
may  be  better  used  to  address  labour  market  issues  facing  researchers,  such  as 
social security or pension entitlements. 

9.  The Commission should consider how best to  support reforms at national level, in 

line with the new ERA and the updated Charter and Code. 

10.  The Commission should support mutual learning and exchange of experience related 

to research careers. 

ix 

 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 

1.1  Purpose and focus of the report 

In its Communication on the new European Research Area (ERA) in 2020, the European 
Commission highlights the importance of ensuring that working, employment and career 
development  conditions  attract  and  retain  the  best  researchers  in  Europe.4  The 
Commission also notes the role played by existing instruments in supporting researchers’ 
careers but highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach. This approach should 
feature a toolbox  of new or revised tools that  will, amongst other things, address skills 
mismatches, enable researchers to pursue careers within and beyond academia, improve 
researchers’ employability, and boost the permeability of talents across Europe’s economy 
and society. 

In support of this, the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (CSES) and a team of 
experts  have  undertaken  a  study  on  behalf  of  the  Commission  entitled  “Taking  stock, 
evaluating the achievements and identifying a way forward for the ERA Priority 3 policy 
measures”. The study has gathered evidence on the existing policy measures, namely the 
Charter  for  Researchers  and  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Recruitment  of  Researchers 
(Charter  and  Code),  the  Human  Resources  Strategy  for  Researchers  (HRS4R),  and 
EURAXESS.  It  has  then  defined  needs  and  offered  recommendations  on  how  to  review, 
revamp, and strengthen the indicated policy measures, as well as possible new measures 
to promote the human resources dimension of the new ERA. 

The study complements the work of the “Triangle Task Force – Goal 2” of the European 
Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC), which was set up in 2020 by the ERAC 
standing  working  groups  on  “Human  Resources  and  Mobility”,  “Open  Science  and 
Innovation”, and “Gender in Research and Innovation” with the goal to review the Charter 
and Code in the light of the new  ERA  objectives  and priorities. The  Triangle Task Force 
conducted an extensive analysis of the principles and structure of the Charter and Code 
and formulated a comprehensive proposal for its revision. It has also issued a report on 
research evaluation in a context of open science and gender equality.5 

The  purpose  of  this  final  report  is  to  contribute  to  shaping  EU  policy  on  researchers’ 
careers,  recruitment,  performance  assessment,  working  conditions,  and  career 
development.  In  light  of  the  revitalised  ERA,  the  paper  summarises  the  challenges  and 
opportunities within the labour market for researchers and the areas where (more) action 
is needed. It offers findings regarding the state of play and achievements of the Charter 
and Code, HRS4R, and EURAXESS, as seen from a European perspective, as well as policy 
and  implementation  at  national  level.  It  finally  offers  pointers  towards  a  set  of 
transformations  to  review,  revamp,  and  strengthen  the  policy  measures  in  light  of  the 
current situation, including the new ERA as set out in the Commission Communication in 
2020.  

1.2  Sources of evidence 

The paper is based on the following sources of evidence: 

 

literature, including studies published by the European Commission; 

  monitoring data relating to the Charter and Code, the HRS4R, and EURAXESS, provided 

by the European Commission; 

 

survey of organisations involved in the HRS4R process; 

4 COM(2020) 628 final, Commission Communication A new ERA for Research and Innovation 
5 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1201-2021-INIT/en/pdf  

1 

 
                                                           
 

 

 

 

review of a sample of HRS4R actions plans; 

survey  of  EURAXESS  Service  Network  Members  (Bridgehead  Organisations  (BHOs), 
EURAXESS Service Centres (ESCs), EURAXESS Contact Points (ECPs), and EURAXESS 
Career Development Centres (ECDCs); 

contributions from high-level experts in the fields covered by the policy measures; 

consultations of a selection of stakeholders at EU level and national level, and a number 
of institutions, including through policy workshops on the Charter and Code/HRS4R (21 
April 2021) and EURAXESS (19 May 2021) and a final workshop (7 July 2021); 

  Triangle Task Force of the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC), 
including consultation of key members and a review of the documents produced by the 
Task Force. 

2 

 
2.  EU POLICY CONTEXT 

2.1  Evolution of the ERA 

The  European  Research  Area  (ERA)  was  first  launched  by  a  European  Commission 
Communication in 2000, which focussed on six priorities, including Priority 3:  “An  open 
labour  market  for  researchers”.6  A  number  of  specific  policy  measures  were  then 
introduced  in  pursuit  of  the  objective  linked  to  Priority  3,  which  was  “A  truly  open  and 
excellence-driven ERA in which highly skilled and qualified people can move  seamlessly 
across borders to where their talents can be best employed”. 

Specific policy measures introduced under or that contribute to ERA Priority 3 include: 

  European  Charter  for  Researchers,  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Recruitment  of 
Researchers  (Charter  and  Code)  and  its  implementation  mechanism,  the  Human 
Resources Strategy for Researchers (HRS4R); these should contribute to establishing 
a supportive  framework and attractive conditions for  researchers'  careers within the 
EU,  which  in  turn  will  accelerate  the  achievement  of  a  digital  and  knowledge-based 
society and economy; 

  The  EURAXESS  Services  network,  which  provides  free  personalised  assistance  to 
improve the life of researchers, with a special focus on international mobility and career 
development issues; 

  RESAVER: a pan-European pension created by the European Commission to enhance 
the  mobility  of  researchers  by  enabling  employees  to  remain  affiliated  to  the  same 
supplementary pension fund when moving between different countries and changing 
jobs. It is open to all public and private organisations engaged in research activities;7 

  Visas  for  researchers:  Directive  (EU)  2016/801  established  a  special  admission 
procedure and conditions of entry and residence for non-EU researchers to carry out 
research for more than 3 months.8 

2.2  The renewed ERA (2020) 

In order to give the ERA renewed impetus,  the Commission published a revitalised ERA 
Communication in 2020.9 The new ERA aims to accelerate the green and digital transitions, 
strengthen  Europe’s  resilience  and  preparedness  to  face  future  crises,  and  support 
Europe’s  competitive  edge  in  the  global  race  for  knowledge.  It  includes  four  strategic 
objectives, of which two particularly relate to researchers and research careers: 

  The  second  objective  of  “Improving  access  to  excellence”  includes  a  sub-priority 
entitled “Nourishing talent for excellence”. In pursuit of this priority, the Commission 
proposes:  i)  to  promote  and  monitor  access  to  excellence  of  researchers  and 
institutions  from  Widening  Countries,  with  Cohesion  Policy  support;  (ii)  to  support 
Member  States  to  better  integrate  researchers  in  smart  specialisation  strategies  in 
cooperation with industry; and (iii) help them design measures to support researchers 
in Widening Countries to improve their skills for excellence in the labour market. 

  The fourth strategic objective of “Deepening the ERA” includes a sub-priority entitled 
“A  European  Framework  for  Research  Careers”.  This  sub-priority  highlights  the 
importance  of  working,  employment  and  career  development  conditions  that  attract 
the  best  researchers  and  retain  them  in  Europe,  and  references  the  existing  ERA 

6 COM(2000) 6, European Commission Communication “Towards a European Research Area". 
7 www.resaver.eu 
8 Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of 
entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, 
pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing. 
9 COM(2020) 628 final, Commission Communication A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 

3 

 
                                                           
instruments, as well as the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA). It then calls for a 
more  comprehensive  approach:  a  toolbox  built  on  tackling  the  recognition  of 
researchers’ skills; enhanced mobility and exchanges between academia and industry; 
targeted  training  opportunities;  and  a  one-stop-shop  portal  that  researchers  can 
access for a number of support services. 

To implement the new ERA, the Commission proposes several mechanisms including: 

 

 

 

“ERA Roadmap” setting out actions to be implemented in collaboration with Member 
States and stakeholders; 

“Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe” which calls for Member States to mobilise 
around key principles and values and to identify priority areas for joint action;10 

“ERA Forum for Transition”,  a Commission-driven forum for discussion with Member 
States to prepare the research and innovation angle of the national recovery plans, to 
maximise  the  benefit  from  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF),  to 
implement the industrial strategy through work on industrial ecosystems and to discuss 
regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives to create a favourable framework for research 
and innovation in the EU; 

  Annual  “ERA  Scoreboard”,  which  will  address  the  progress  at  EU  and  national level, 
revise priorities and actions in the ERA Roadmap, and provide evidence and analysis 
for the European Semester. 

2.3  Complementary policies 

In 2020, the  European  Commission also launched three important policies in parallel to 
the new ERA: 

  European  Education  Area  (EEA):  a  Commission  Communication  set  the  goal  of 

achieving the EEA by 2025.11 

  European  Skills  Agenda:  sets  objectives  for  upskilling  and  reskilling  to  be  achieved 

within the next 5 years.12 

  Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027) outlines the Commission’s vision for high-

quality, inclusive, and accessible digital education in Europe. 

10 COM(2021) 407, Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe. 
11 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on achieving the European Education Area by 2025 
COM/2020/625 final. 
12 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. 

4 

 
                                                           
3.  PERFORMANCE OF THE CHARTER AND CODE AND HRS4R 

3.1  Introduction 

The  European  Charter  for  Researchers  and  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Recruitment  of 
Researchers  (the  Charter  and  Code)  are  a  set  of  principles  published  by  the  European 
Commission in 2005 and designed to set high standards for the recruitment of researchers 
and for the working conditions of researchers.13 They describe roles and responsibilities 
for three key groups of stakeholders: researchers, the institutions employing or hosting 
them, and the organisations funding them. The Charter and Code focus on four key areas: 

  Working  conditions  of  researchers;  promoting  and  creating  a  stimulating  and 

favourable work environment; 

  Recruiting, assessing, attracting, and retaining talent; international visibility; 

  Training and career development of researchers; 

  Ethical and professional aspects. 

The  Human  Resources  Strategy  for  Researchers  (HRS4R)  supports  research  institutions 
and funding organisations in the implementation of the Charter and Code in their policies 
and practices. Institutions which make progress in aligning their human resources policies 
to the 40 principles of the Charter and Code, based on a customised action plan/human 
resources strategy, receive recognition from the European Commission in the form of the 
“HR  Excellence  in  Research  Award”.14  The  HRS4R  was  launched  in  2008  as  the  best 
possible procedure to guarantee adequate implementation of the Charter and Code. While 
acknowledging that working conditions and career opportunities differ across Europe and 
across  individual  institutions,  the  peer  review  process  for  the  HRS4R  offers  a  middle 
ground  between  ensuring  minimum  standards  and  aspiring  to  maximum  quality.  It 
involvement  of  a  wide 
institutional  support,  bottom-up 
emphasises  top-down 
representation of researchers, a feasible action plan, and a solid monitoring system. 

As the HRS4R process was updated in January 2017, the link with the Charter and Code 
was strengthened by a number of methods: 

  Up until 2016, any institution was free to implement the Charter and Code as they saw 
fit; as of 15 May 2018, institutions that are willing to endorse the Charter and Code 
are initiating the application for the "HR Excellence in Research Award", which implies 
a long-term commitment.15 For countries such as Poland where endorsing the Charter 
and Code was mandatory, this led to an enormous increase in HRS4R applications. 

  Article 32 of the Horizon 2020 Model Grant Agreement (MGA) introduced a “best effort 
obligation” to implement the principles of the Charter and Code, as does the Annotated 
Model Grant Agreement of Horizon Europe).16 While this did not mean that the HRS4R 
involvement  became  mandatory,  it  did  provide  the  easiest  way  for  institutions  to 
demonstrate their compliance with the Charter and Code. 

 

In  2018,  the  application  and  assessment  process  for  the  HRS4R  became  more 
streamlined in an online procedure, forging a strong link with the  Charter and Code, 
forcing every applicant organisation to address every principle in the Charter and Code 
and allowing the European Commission to manage the process more efficiently. 

 

Institutional coordinators implementing the HRS4R process in their own institution can 

13 Commission Recommendation of 11 March 2005 on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of 
Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. 
14 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/hrs4r  
15 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/charter-code-researchers 
16 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/aga_en.pdf 

5 

 
                                                           
become  evaluators  for  other  applicant  organisations,  thus  creating  a  community  of 
experts committed to promoting adequate HR support for researchers. 

3.2  Content 

There is a need to update the principles in the Charter and Code to better reflect 
the current research environment, which has evolved considerably since they  were  first 
developed in 2005. Most notably, the new ERA gives greater priority than did the previous 
ERA to issues such as  open, transparent and  merit-based recruitment (OTM-R), gender 
and  diversity,  open  science,  research  evaluation  methods,  and  research  ethics.  These 
priorities are not absent from the Charter and Code but perhaps merit a stronger focus, 
given the development of the research environment (see section 5). In order to remain 
relevant in the future, the Charter and Code must find a structural approach which is able 
both to support continuity and to incorporate new policy developments. 

3.3  Outreach 

3.3.1 Endorsement of the Charter and Code 

There  is  wide  acceptance  and  uptake  of  the  Charter  and  Code  and  HRS4R, 
including  outside  the  EU.  Around  1,300  organisations  in  44  countries  have  endorsed 
the Charter and Code principles, including 16 international organisations.17 A total of 634 
organisations  from  37  countries  have  obtained  the  HR  Excellence  in  Research  Award. 
Another  137  organisations  have  submitted  their  application  and  are  in  the  process  of 
obtaining the award.18 The difference between the number of organisations that endorsed 
the Charter and Code and those that have applied for or obtained the award is due to the 
fact  that  the  introduction  of  a  compulsory  link between  Charter  and  Code  endorsement 
and  HRS4R  engagement  is  relatively  recent.  Uptake  of  the  Charter  and  Code  has  been 
increased by Article 32 in the Model Grant Agreement for  Horizon  2020, which requires 
applicants  to  take  all  measures  to  implement  the  principles  in  the  Charter  and  Code. 
Moreover, the award of the HRS4R can serve as evidence that an organisation applying to 
Horizon 2020 fulfils the requirements of Article 32.19 

Some 80% of the organisations endorsing the Charter and Code principles are located in 
the EU. The countries with the most institutions endorsing the Charter and Code are Spain 
(296), Poland (150), UK (119), France (100), Italy (91), and the Czech Republic (73).20 

Some 77% of the awarded organisations are located in the EU and are distributed in 24 
Member  States,  with  only  Estonia,  Hungary,  and  Latvia  not  hosting  any  award-holders. 
Thirteen  non-Member  States  host  awarded  organisations,  namely  Albania,  Australia, 
Bosnia-Herzegovina,  Iceland,  Israel,  Moldova,  Montenegro,  North  Macedonia,  Norway, 
Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK. 

17 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/hrs4r/awarded 
18 As of 21 October 2021. 
19 Within Horizon Europe, Article 18  
20 The EURAXESS website lists only 21 UK organisations as having endorsed the Charter and Code. However, 
the list omits another 98 organisations that have received the HRS4R award. 

6 

 
                                                           
Figure 1. Number of institutions which have endorsed the Charter and Code by country 
Source: European Commission’s e-tool and HRS4R website 

3.3.2 Award of the HRS4R 

The countries with the most institutions receiving the award largely correspond 
with  the  countries  with  the  highest  number  of  institutions  endorsing  the 
principles. The four countries with the most recipients of the award are Spain (143), UK 
(100),  Poland  (93),  the  Czech  Republic  (51),  and  France  (46).  The  first  three  of  these 
figured  in  the  top  three  of  countries  with  institutions  endorsing  the  principles.  The 
relatively high number of awards in the Czech Republic may be explained in part by the 
strong national support through a government resolution and through dedicated funding 
from the EU Structural and Investment Funds (see section Error! Reference source not 
found.). Overall, approximately 47% of institutions that have endorsed the Charter and 
Code have gone on to gain the award. However, it should be noted that prior to 2017, any 
institution endorsing the Charter and Code was not required to enter the HRS4R process. 

Figure 2. Award of the HRS4R by country 

7 

 
 
 
 
3.3.3 Progress through the HRS4R process 

Of the organisations that have endorsed the Charter and Code, only 38% have 
gone on to apply for the HRS4R Award. As shown in Table 1, those that have applied 
for  the  award  are  relatively  evenly  distributed  between  the  initial, implementation,  and 
renewal  phases.  Due  to  the  transition  from  manual  follow-up  into  an  online  tool,  some 
institutional data are not available yet in the online tool. 

Table 1 Number of institutions by stages in the HRS4R process 

Initial 

Implementation 

Renewal 

Only endorsed principle 

Number 

Percent 

170 

153 

210 

681 

13 % 

12 % 

16 % 

62 % 

Total (known) 

1214 

100 % 

Not known: data unavailable 

Total 

109 

1323 

- 

- 

The  HRS4R  is  a  rigorous  process  with  significant  proportions  of  candidates 
required to undertake minor or major revisions at key points. As shown in the Table 
2, in the last three years between 29%, 41%, and 45% of candidates have been required 
to  resubmit  with  minor  revisions,  whilst  2%,  5%,  and  4%  have  had  to  make  major 
revisions before being granted the HRS4R award. Where candidates are required to make 
revisions,  the  assessor’s  report  provides  feedback  and  suggestions  for  improvement  in 
order to meet the criteria for the award. 

Table 2 Assessment results of HRS4R applications 

Year 

Phase 

Submitted 

Minor 
revisions 

Major 
revisions 

% 
Minor 

% 
Major 

2019 

2019 

2019 

2019 

Initial 

Implementation* 

Renewal 1 

Renewal 2 

2019 

Total assessments** 

2020 

2020 

2020 

2020 

Initial 

Implementation* 

Renewal 1 

Renewal 2 

102 

34 

23 

1 

126 

119 

34 

20 

2 

2020 

Total assessments** 

141 

2021*** 

Initial 

2021*** 

Implementation* 

2021*** 

Renewal 1 

2021*** 

Renewal 2 

2021*** 

Renewal 3 

83 

46 

28 

5 

1 

34 

n/a 

2 

0 

36 

51 

n/a 

6 

1 

58 

45 

n/a 

5 

3 

0 

2021***  Total assessments** 

117 

53 

3 

33% 

n/a 

 n/a 

9% 

0% 

3% 

n/a 

0% 

0% 

0 

0 

3 

7 

n/a 

0 

0 

7 

5 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

5 

29% 

2% 

43% 

n/a 

30% 

50% 

6% 

n/a 

0% 

0% 

41% 

5% 

54% 

n/a 

18% 

60% 

0% 

6% 

n/a 

0% 

0% 

0% 

45% 

4% 

8 

 
 
 
 
* The implementation phase assessment is for recommendations only: no revision can be asked; ** to 
give meaning to the statistics, the total assessments line does not include Implementation phases; *** 
2021 data range is 01/01/2021 to 05/10/2021. 

National  contexts  can  have  a  considerable  influence  on  the  progression  of 
institutions  through  the  HRS4R  process.  As  already  noted,  there  are  considerable 
variations in the extent to which institutions in different countries progress from endorsing 
the Charter and Code to applying for the HRS4R. Once in the HRS4R process, there are 
further country differences. 

Figure  3  shows  the  progression  through  the  HRS4R  process  for  institutions  in  those 
countries featuring at least 10 institutions in the process. The figure shows: 

 

 

some countries were “early adopters”, with many or most institutions already at the 
renewal phase and fewer in the initial and implementation phases (BE, ES, IT, PL); 

some other countries have demonstrated a more recent commitment, with the majority 
of applicants in the initial or implementation phases (CZ, FR, PT). 

9 

 
 
Figure 3. Institutions in the initial, implementation, and renewal stage of the HRS4R process 

10 

 
 
3.3.4 Correlation with Horizon 2020 funding 

Only a small minority of the top beneficiaries of Horizon 2020 funding are also 
recipients of the HR Excellence in Research Award. Data on funding allocated within 
Horizon  2020  has  been  analysed  to  identify  the  extent  to  which  the  most  significant 
beneficiaries are also involved in the HRS4R. The analysis shows a number of findings. 

  Only 16 of the top 100 beneficiaries of Horizon 2020 funding have also received the 

award. 

  The  top  100  beneficiaries  of  Horizon  2020  funding  are  in  16  different  countries,  of 
which 13 were EU-15 countries, including the UK (the others are Israel, Norway, and 
Switzerland). 

  The 16 institutions having the award are in 9 different countries, of which 8 were EU-

15 countries, plus Norway. 

  Two institutions with the award received more than €500m  of funding from Horizon 
2020, namely the Fraunhofer Society for the Advancement of Applied Research (DE) 
and the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine (UK). 

A  majority  of  the  top  beneficiaries  of  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Individual 
Fellowships are also recipients of the HR Excellence in Research Award. Applicant 
organisations  are  not  required  to  have  the  award,  although  they  must  comply  with  the 
Charter and Code principles. The data on funding allocated to Individual Fellowships (IF) 
within the MSCA has been analysed to identify the  extent to which the most significant 
beneficiaries are also involved in the HRS4R. The analysis shows a number of findings. 

  53 of the top 100 beneficiaries of MSCA IF funding have also received the award. 

  The top 100 beneficiaries of MSCA IF funding are in 15 different countries, of which 12 
were  EU-15  countries,  including  the  UK  (the  others  are  Cyprus,  Norway,  and 
Switzerland). 

  One institution with the award received more than €50m of MSCA IF funding, namely 

the University of Copenhagen (DK). 

A majority of the top beneficiaries of MSCA Innovative Training Networks (ITN) 
are  also  recipients  of  the  HR  Excellence  in  Research  Award.  Again,  applicant 
organisations  are  not  required  to  have  the  award,  although  they  must  comply  with  the 
Charter  and  Code  principles.  The  data  on  funding  allocated  to  Innovative  Training 
Networks  (ITN)  within  the  MSCA  has  been  analysed  to  identify  the  extent  to  which  the 
most significant beneficiaries are also involved in the HRS4R. The analysis shows a number 
of findings. 

  56 of the top 100 beneficiaries of MSCA ITN funding have also received the award. 

  The top 100 beneficiaries of MSCA ITN funding are in 14 different countries, of which 

12 were EU-15 countries, including the UK (the others are Norway and Switzerland). 

  One institution with the award received more than €112m of MSCA ITN funding, namely 

CNRS, the French National Centre for Scientific Research (FR). 

3.3.5 Profile of awarded organisations (renewal phase) 

A  wide  diversity  of  organisations  has  received  the  HR  Excellence  in  Research 
Award.  Data  was  available  for  165  organisations  that  are  in  the  renewal  phase.  A 
summary is provided in Table 3. Some findings to emerge from the data are as follows. 

  The smallest organisation by staff size is, Finance Think, an independent not-for-profit 
research institute in North Macedonia, with just 6.5 staff, of which 4.5 are researchers. 

11 

 
  The largest organisation by staff size is CNRS, the French National Centre for Scientific 

Research, with +31,000 staff, of which +15,000 are researchers. 

  More than 200,000 researchers are covered by these institutions, of which on average 

19% are international and 39% are women. 

  A  few  organisations  have  annual  budgets  of  less  than  €100,000,  whilst  some  have 

annual budgets in excess of €1bn. 

Table 3 Staffing profile of organisations in the HRS4R renewal phase 

Staffing levels 

Maximum  Average 

Total 

STAFF and STUDENTS (FTE) 

Total researchers = staff, fellowship holders, bursary holders, PhD 
students either full-time or part-time involved in research  

15,222 

1,299 

201,359 

Of whom are international (i.e. foreign nationality) 

Of whom are externally funded (i.e. for whom the organisation is 
host organisation) 

Of whom are women 

Of whom are stage R3 or R4 = Researchers with a large degree of 
autonomy, typically holding the status of Principal Investigator or 
Professor 

3,955 

4,803 

5,341 

5,069 

237 

38,556 

300 

48,366 

523 

79,483 

419 

64,035 

Of whom are stage R2 = in most organisations corresponding with 
postdoctoral level 

8,476 

269 

41,933 

Of whom are stage R1 = in most organisations corresponding with 
doctoral level 

4,862 

420 

65,896 

Total number of students (if relevant) 

110,008 

11,220  1,817,678 

Total number of staff (including teaching, research, management) 

31,612 

1,977 

306,431 

Source: European Commission 

3.4  Effects 

The  benefits  of  the  award  have  been  recognised  by  participants  in  the  HRS4R  process. 
They include:  

Ease  of  recruitment:  some  74%  of  awardees  reported  greater  ease  in  attracting 
researchers, (46% to a great or reasonable extent and only 6% not at all). Similarly, 70% 
reported that it was easier to attract international  talent (39% to a great or reasonable 
extent and only 8% not at all). 

Enhanced HR function: some 88% of organisations having the award reported increased 
credibility of their HR services (65% to a great or reasonable extent). Some 86% reported 
a more professional HR function (69% to a great or reasonable extent). 

Institutional strengthening: some 93% of organisations having the award reported an 
improved institutional culture (75% to a great or reasonable extent). Some 92% reported 
a strengthened institutional strategy (75% to a great or reasonable extent). 

Better access to funding: in particular, 69% reporting they had benefited from being 
able to attract more EU funding (45% to a great or reasonable extent). Organisations also 
reported improved ability to attract national or other funding, although to a lesser extent. 

Improved  international  dimension:  with  72%  reporting  reinforced  international 
partnerships  (34%  to  a  great  or  reasonable  extent)  and  84%  reporting  increased 
international prestige and profile (69% to a great or reasonable extent). 

12 

 
 
Figure 4. Organisational benefits of the HRS4R award 
Source: survey of HRS4 awardees and applicants 

These benefits are also reported by CESAER, the association representing universities of 
science  and  technology  in  Europe.  This  included  improved  experience  of  researchers; 
enhanced  ability  to  attract  and  retain  high  calibre  staff;  engaging  all  categories  of 
researchers to define activities tailored to different career stages; development of career 
support actions; participation in international networks and sharing best practice on issues 
such as career development and supervision; bringing essential human resources policies 
into  the  foreground  of  institutional  policy-making.21  On  many  occasions,  such  as 
promotional  events,  the  European  Commission  has  also  presented  testimonies  from 
institutions from  several countries demonstrating how the HRS4R process facilitated, or 
even directly triggered institutional cultural change. 

Through  the  systematic  and  online  inventory  of  gaps  against  the  40  Charter  and  Code 
principles  as  well  as  the  OTM-R  questionnaire,  the  HRS4R  process  provides  a  clear 
framework for HR strategy and brings the attention of the institution on issues that would 
otherwise  remain  hidden.  The  most  crucial  gaps  being  addressed  in  HRS4R-active 
institutions  include  the  revision  of  recruitment  policies,  training  programmes  for  early 
career  researchers,  ethical  codes  of  conduct,  working  conditions.  The  feedback  of 
assessors is designed to help institutions set adequate priorities in their HR policies. 

Among the  components of the  HRS4R process  that have been  recognised as facilitating 
cultural  change  are  the  mandatory  involvement  of  researchers  in  the  process,  the 
endorsement  of  high-level  authorities  in  the  organisation,  and  the  embedment  of  the 
HRS4R in institutional strategies and process. It has also been recognised that HRS4R also 
brings researchers and support staff together to reflect on strengths and weaknesses and 
helps to identify joint concerns and opportunities. It enables being part of an international 
network and shares best practices with innovative and ambitious universities. 

21 CESAER (2018), Sharing experiences with Human Resources Strategy for Researchers. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
3.5  Process and governance  

Whilst the HRS4R award supports the achievement of the objectives of the ERA, it has not 
specifically  come  within  the  legal  and  governance  framework  of  the  ERA.  There  might 
therefore be scope to strengthen the effectiveness of the HRS4R, as well as its recognition 
and credibility, by integrating it within the legal, governance, and operational framework 
for the ERA.  

There  might  also  be  merit  in  revising  the  HRS4R  process,  given  that  the  number  of 
institutions who have been involved is small compared to the total number of institutions 
involved  in  EU-funded  research.  One  reason  for  this  is  that  a  number  of  barriers  and 
challenges limit involvement in and uptake of HRS4R, namely: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the HRS4R process can be perceived as complex, the requirements are extensive, and 
the administration supporting the process can be burdensome. Indeed, the survey of 
HRS4R  applicants  and  awardees  showed  that  60%  found  the  process  “fairly 
burdensome” and another 22% “very burdensome”. 

the  perceived  benefits  may  seem  insufficient  compared  to  the  cumbersome 
requirements; 

the evaluation process is fragile, as it relies on a limited number of peer review experts 
and lacks the prestige and credibility of professionally-run and expensive accreditation 
programmes; 

institutions may not have sufficient trust in the HRS4R system to want to engage in 
the process; 

the institutional commitment for organisations may look impressive on paper but might 
be thin in reality; 

the capacity to follow-up the programme at European Commission level is limited; 

it is not sufficiently recognised internationally.  

A second challenge for HRS4R lies in the fact that the award procedure is based on a 
“soft” process, aspiring towards “hard” change management. Although the HRS4R 
guidelines emphasise continuous improvement, in practice some assessors tend to place 
more emphasis on performance assessment. This risk is aggravated by the rigidity of the 
self-assessment  tools  and  a  need  for  more  tools  to  support  improvement  (e.g.  to  help 
institutions develop an adequate survey, methods to set up effective focus groups, good 
practice on how to ensure institutional support, etc.). As a result, the focus of the process 
is  both  on  assessing  performance  against  minimum  standards  and  on  supporting 
institutional  change  (promoting  high  ambitions,  tailor-made  solutions,  and  stakeholder 
involvement).  While  the  Commission  has  developed  an  online  tool  to  support  EU-level 
monitoring, the current HRS4R process  is  fundamentally quality-driven focusing less  on 
the quality of the outcome but more on the quality of the process, covering a wide range 
of  countries  and  institutions.  Large  institutions  with  generous  research  funding  and 
substantial  support  services  will  be  judged  differently  from  small  institutions  which  are 
predominantly teaching-oriented; peer reviewers must make judgments based on limited 
information and assess  the institutional progress against regulatory contexts  or  funding 
contexts  with  which  they  are  often  unfamiliar.  Site  visits  contribute  to  increasing 
knowledge and understanding of the national and institutional context, but only take place 
from the fifth year after obtaining the Award. 

Given  that  the  HRS4R  process  is  a  very  “soft”  process,  the  minimum  standards  to 
demonstrate that an institution deserves the award are difficult to translate into 
concrete, EU-wide indicators. This weakness is exposed even more in the observation 
that  not  a  single  institution  has  had  the  award  withdrawn  to  date,  unless  it  was  made 

14 

 
following the specific request of the institution not to continue the process.22 Nevertheless, 
while the soft nature of the process may be a weakness in some ways, it can be a strength 
in others. Soft processes can be extremely effective over time, in particular their effect 
outside of their initial focus is easily underestimated. 

Based on these observations, perhaps “less could be more” in the HR Excellence in 
Research Award. Rather than adding extra burden onto the process, the HRS4R could 
choose “depth” over “breadth” and limit itself to, for example, a select number of principles 
in  the  (revised)  Charter  and  Code  which  appear  to  benefit  most  from  the  HRS4R-style 
approach to change management and which are seen as priorities. These key principles 
could be defined as non-negotiable and lead to a potentially binding agreement between 
researchers on the one hand and their employers and funders on the other, with perhaps 
a stronger role for Member States. 

In order to complement this “hard process”, a “soft process” could support the slow  but 
powerful  mechanisms  of  institutional  change  that  previous  HRS4R  success  stories  have 
illustrated,  that  would  not  be  mandatory  but  rather  inspirational  and  aspirational.  This 
could  take  the  shape  of  an  investment  in  HR  expertise  across  Europe  through 
international training programmes and exchanges of good practice, supported by 
an  international  network  of  HR  experts  operating  in  research  environments. 
Unlike  many  other  roles  or  professions  in  research  or  funding  institutions,  there  is  no 
structured community (yet) that exchanges expertise on a  regular basis with an aim to 
raise  the  bar  for  research-related  HR  (compared  with,  for  example,  initiatives  such  as 
HEInnovate or the international network of Communities of Practice set up by the Horizon 
2020-funded ACT project to develop gender equality actions at research performing and 
research  funding  organisations23  or  organisations  such  as  the  European  Association  of 
Research  Managers  (EARMA),  European  Quality  Assurance  Forum  (EQAF),  or  University 
Industry  Innovation  Network  (UIIN),  active  in  other  policy  areas).  Engaging  key 
stakeholders in this way could be a complementary, soft approach, leaving room for HRS4R 
to develop into a more limited, indicator-driven or benchmark-driven process. 

The  HRS4R  process  balances  between  top-down  performance  assessment,  on  the  one 
hand, and bottom-up improvement on the other. Without intrinsic institutional drivers to 
improve,  pressure  to  demonstrate  performance  may  result  in  a  selective  institutional 
report  and  little  quality  improvement.  On  the  other  hand,  institutions  with  a  powerful 
intrinsic  motivation  to  provide  excellent  HR  services  may  see  little  benefit  in  an  award 
process which is burdened with a long list of performance requirements. For an assessor 
reviewing  an  HRS4R  application,  it  can  be  difficult  to  gauge  whether  an  institution  has 
genuinely used HRS4R  as a process to  steer institutional reform,  or whether they meet 
the criteria based on a selective, brushed-up presentation. Site visits may reveal a more 
complete picture, but are still no guarantee for eliminating window-dressing. 

An entirely different approach, choosing radically for the bottom-up improvement focus, 
is taken by the HEInnovate initiative (https://heinnovate.eu/en) coordinated by DG EAC 
and the OECD, as described in the next box. 

22 New guidelines foresee the possibility of the HRS4R award being withdrawn. 
23 https://act-on-gender.eu/  

15 

 
 
 
                                                           
Example: HEInnovate 

The  starting  point  for  most  higher  education  institutions  (HEIs)  engaged  with 
HEInnovate is a free self-assessment tool looking at the entrepreneurial and innovative 
nature of their higher education environment. Extensive training and support materials, 
including  practical  case  studies,  are  available  to  support  workshops  and  further 
development. 

HEInnovate covers eight areas for self-assessment: 

  Leadership and Governance 

  Organisational Capacity: Funding, People and Incentives 

  Entrepreneurial Teaching and Learning 

  Preparing and Supporting Entrepreneurs 

  Digital Transformation and Capability 

  Knowledge Exchange and Collaboration 

  The Internationalised Institution 

  Measuring Impact 

Under each of the eight areas, statements have been designed so that individuals can 
rate them on a scale of ’not applicable’ (n/a) to 5, according to how much they agree or 
disagree with the statement in relation to their institution. On the scale, 1 represents 
the lowest and 5 the highest score. HEInnovate is not a benchmarking tool but a self-
assessment tool designed to trigger self-reflection and self-awareness, promote internal 
discussion  amongst  stakeholders  in  higher  education,  compare  against  previous 
assessments as well as see how perceptions change over time. 

The  HEInnovate  website  provides  a  toolbox  for  further  organisational  development, 
training  and  networking,  confident  that  an  approach  targeted  at  improving  quality 
reaches a higher level of performance over time, than the other way around. There is 
no right or wrong answer in the self-assessment tool, but a guiding framework helping 
institutions  to  identify  strengths  and  weaknesses  and  to  shape  discussions  on  future 
strategies and priorities in university-business collaboration. 

When considering options for future development, HRS4R could build on similar strengths. 
Preliminary findings from interviews with HRS4R assessors and participants suggests that 
their engagement benefits greatly from the community and network facilitated by HRS4R 
cohorts and workshops. Institutions share good practices and lend expertise. The positive 
dynamics  have  triggered  bottom-up  initiatives  outside  of  the  European  Commission’s 
coordination (e.g. HRS4R workshops at the University of Liège (Belgium) or at University 
College  Cork  (Ireland))  bringing  together  institutions  in  an  open  and  safe  environment 
without  pressure,  forging  networks  of  HR  experts  across  Europe.  Over  time,  these 
dynamics also help to reach a high level of performance and could be strengthened in the 
future by a better networking structure. 

3.6  Institutional approaches supporting researcher careers through the HRS4R 

A review of a random sample of nine institutions holding the award illustrates the different 
approaches taken by institutions, both in terms of actions related to human resources and 
the management of the process. Based on this review, activities undertaken within HRS4R 
action plans include the following. 

16 

 
 
  Revising  or  monitoring  employment  contracts  of  researchers:  several 
institutions have taken actions in this regard. However, any revisions to contracts can 
only be undertaken within the parameters set by relevant national frameworks, which 
in some countries can be fairly prescriptive (and thus the institution might have limited 
autonomy  to  determine  the  terms  of  employment  contracts).  Examples  of  actions 
taken  include:  monitoring  contract  conditions  and  salaries  to  ensure  career 
development  and  salary  improvement  according  to  a  merit-based  system;  better 
dissemination  of  information  on  funding  and  salaries;  provision  of  contractual 
information in English; reminding research professors of their contractual obligations; 
clarification of status of “postdoctoral” researchers; updating employment contracts to 
remove barriers for researchers to engage in consultancy work. 

  Training in professional skills for researchers: one university offered training for 

early-stage researchers to improve their CVs and professional skills.  

  Training  in  research-related  skills:  several  institutions  have  offered  training  for 
researchers  on  issues  such  as  research  management,  academic  ethics,  intellectual 
property  rights,  and  data  protection.  In  one  case,  this  takes  the  form  of  a  lifelong 
learning programme for the development of specific competencies of academic staff, 
covering  subjects  such  as  ethics,  databases,  research  skills,  (anti-)plagiarism, 
interactive training, industry 4.0, and using video resources in training. 

  Training for supervisors or HR managers: several institutions have introduced or 
expanded  training  for  managers  and  supervisors  in  line  with  the  principles  of  the 
Charter  and  Code.  One  institution  has  also  trained  HR  managers  in  the  rights  of 
residence for foreign nationals. 

  Information  and  training  for  new  researchers:  several  institutions  have 
developed  new  training  or  information  for  new  recruits.  In  many  cases,  such 
information has been provided in English for the first time. One university created a 
Welcome  Pack  for  Researchers  and  a  Welcome  Course  for  new  researchers.  These 
provide an overview of the institution and its research capacities. The course runs 2-3 
times  a  year  to  coincide  with  recruitment  peaks  and  is  monitored  via  an  evaluation 
survey.  Another  institution  introduced  a  PhD  Information  System  to  provide  all  PhD 
students with a digital Training and Supervision Plan, giving more detailed information 
and  insight  in  the  progress  of  the  PhD  student,  and  improving  communication  and 
coordination with the supervisor.  

  Communicating  the  HRS4R:  the  action  plans  of  some  institutions  include 
communicating information about the implementation and achievements of the HRS4R, 
for example via their intranets or websites. 

  Open, Transparent and Merit-based Recruitment (OTM-R): several institutions 
have introduced or strengthened OTM-R policies. In one case, this was accompanied 
by a revision of the recruitment platform, recruitment guidelines based on the policy 
and evaluation of the recruitment results. In other institutions, a new policy has been 
accompanied  by  training  and  monitoring,  unconscious  bias  training  for  all  interview 
panels, reviews of interview paperwork against a set of researcher competences, and 
publication of OTM-R policies on institutions’ websites. 

  Improved  appraisal  systems:  several  institutions  included  actions  related  to 
appraisal  systems  for  researchers.  In  most  cases,  this  amounted  to  incremental 
improvements rather than wholesale reforms. Examples included: improved protocol 
for managing research lecturers; new or improved annual appraisal systems for PhD 
student and other researchers; system for annual assessment of research activity of 
the academic staff; study of a new appraisal system, including meritocratic policies to 
acknowledge  researchers  who  achieve  excellence  results  in  order  to  support  career 
development and professional recognition; and implementation of tailored indicators 

17 

 
 
for monitoring and supporting the research progress of the university departments. 

Looking  across  the  action  plans,  some  findings  emerge  that  might  inform  the  future 
development of tools at EU level. 

Many  actions  within  action  plans  relate  to  the  broader  research  capacity  of 
institutions rather than specifically to researchers. For example, in relation to the 
“Research environment” principle, actions taken by different institutions include: purchase 
of new equipment and facilities within a “Strategic Research Infrastructure Programme”; 
developing  a  scientific  and  technological  infrastructure  map  to  serve  as  an  inventory 
involving  the  consolidation  and  cataloguing  of  the  scientific  and  technological 
infrastructures  of  the  university;  establishment  of  new  research  laboratories  and  the 
renovation  of  existing  ones;  and  collaboration company  wholly-owned  by  the  university 
and dedicated to technology transfer. 

Some  actions  within  action  plans  relate  to  the  institutional  administrative 
capacity  and  processes,  rather  than  specifically  to  researchers.  For  example,  in 
relation to the “Research environment” principle, one university included a new system of 
budget administration. 

There  is  considerable  support  for  mobility  and  some  instances  of  actions 
specifically related to recognising mobility, e.g. in career appraisal systems. Many 
actions  relate  to  attracting  and  welcoming  more  international  researchers,  co-operation 
with  employers  or  foreign  institutions  to  enable  mobility  or  promoting  mobility 
opportunities to existing staff. One university has explicitly introduced the recognition of 
mobility  experience  into  its  career  systems  and  recruitment  criteria.  Another  institution 
has  introduced  the  evaluation  of  short  mobility  and long  mobility into a  new  evaluation 
system for its PhD courses. 

In most but not all cases, HRS4R action plans are embedded in the overall policy 
or  strategy  of  the  institution.  Different  examples  include:  integration  into  the 
performance  cycle  of  the  institution;  integration  into  the  institution’s  research  and 
innovation  strategy  and  the  HR  strategy;  explicit  link  to  the  institutional  strategy  and 
annual management processes. However, in a few cases, there is no mention of integration 
in or link to overall policy and strategy. In one case, this was because the institution itself 
did not have an explicit research strategy. 

The  HRS4R  process  is  generally  supported  by  higher  levels  of  management. 
Typically, institutions form a steering group, which includes one or more Vice-Rectors or 
similar  (e.g.  Deputy  Rector,  Vice  President).  In  many  cases,  there  appears  to  be  good 
involvement of senior staff responsible both for research (e.g. Vice-rector for Research) 
and for HR (e.g. Director Human Resources, Vice Rector for Organisation and Management 
Processes). 

Some HRS4R action plans provide no information about the scope and method of 
alignment  with  national  evaluation  systems  or  requirements.  The  available 
information  is  not  sufficient  to  rule  out  alignment,  however,  such  information  is  not 
routinely included in action plans. One  Italian institution highlighted that its action plan 
was  aligned  with  the  national  evaluation  system  requirements  to  reinforce  its 
sustainability.  One  Dutch  university  referred  to  compliance  with  a  national  requirement 
relating  to  a  change  in  the  legal  status  of  civil  servants,  which  will  affect  the  HR 
department’s work and the proposed actions. 

3.7  National approaches reinforcing the Charter and Code and HRS4R 

In  its  Recommendation  on  the  Charter  and  Code,  the  Commission  recommended  that 
Member  States  endeavour  to  transpose  the  general  principles  and  requirements  of  the 
Charter  and  Code  into  national  regulatory  frameworks  of  sectoral  and/or  institutional 

18 

 
standards  and  guidelines.24  The  evidence  shows  that  Member  States’  approaches  vary 
widely in terms of the type and scope of action taken.  

There is considerable diversity in the extent to which Member States have incorporated 
support for the Charter and Code and HRS4R in their ERA National Action Plans (published 
in 2016). The National Action Plans are not published on the Europa website and whilst 
some  are  available  elsewhere,  a  few  are  only  in  the  national language.  Based  on  those 
that are available, it is possible to identify the different approaches taken. 

Some Member States have specifically incorporated the Charter and Code (or the 
principles therein) into their national regulatory frameworks. For example: 

  Within Denmark, national rules and legislation ensure that conditions of employment 
within universities are aligned with the principles of the Charter and Code, whilst still 
allowing universities a high degree of autonomy in the recruitment of researchers and 
other staff.25 

 

In France, domestic law ensures transparency in recruitment to research positions in 
line  with  the  principles  of  the  Charter  and  Code.  Relevant  research  positions  must 
published via a sufficient spread  of jobs portals to be visible to potential applicants, 
including those in other countries, including via EURAXESS and Galaxie26 (the national 
portal for research posts), as well as relevant specialist journals (e.g. Science, Nature). 
Publication in languages other than French (especially English) is encouraged.27 

  The Czech Republic has perhaps gone furthest, having introduced a requirement in law 
for research organisations and relevant public authorities to comply with the Charter 
and Code (see box below). 

Example: incorporation of the Charter and Code into national regulatory 
framework (CZ) 
The Government of the Czech Republic has incorporated the Charter and Code into the 
national regulatory and policy framework for research and innovation. Resolution of 16 
August  2006  No.  951  endorses  the  Commission  Recommendation  concerning  the 
Charter  and  the  Code  of  Conduct  and  places  requirements  on  research  organisations 
and relevant public authorities involved in research. The heads of central bodies of public 
administration and the President of the Czech Academy of Sciences have been assigned 
the  task  of  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  Charter  and  Code  of  Conduct  on  a 
continual basis and within their respective jurisdictions. 

The two main types of bodies involved in research have distinct responsibilities in line 
with this Resolution: 

 

research organisations are required to create a favourable environment for top-class 
researchers allowing them to perform excellent research and development (R&D) in 
their institutions. The HRS4R must form an integral part of research organisations´ 
management  culture  and  its  quality  shall  be  subject  to  monitoring  within  the 
framework  of  the  newly-developed  methodology  for  research  organisations´ 
evaluation  and  institutional  funding.  EU  funding  from  the  ESIF  is  provided  on  a 
competitive  basis  to  help  research  organisation  satisfy  these  requirements  (see 
below); 

  public authorities are required to put effort on further development of preconditions, 
which will stimulate institutional changes in research organisations and provide the 
research  community  with  methodology  instruments  and  financial  incentives.  They 

24 Commission Recommendation of 11 March 2005 on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of 
Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. 
25 ERA Roadmap (2017). 
26 https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid22713/galaxie.html  
27 ERA Roadmap (2016) France. 

19 

 
                                                           
Example: incorporation of the Charter and Code into national regulatory 
framework (CZ) 

are also required to prepare, adopt, and implement a comprehensive Action Plan for 
Human Resources Development in R&D, including gender equality in R&D. 

As  a  complement  to  these  legal  requirements,  the  Ministry  of  Education,  Youth  and 
Sports developed a comprehensive Action Plan for Human Resources Development and 
Gender Equality in R&D, which was approved by the Government in January 2018. As 
well as gender equality and mainstreaming, the Plan supports PhD students and early 
stage  researchers,  international  mobility,  and  the  quality  of  the  institutional 
environment.28 

One Member State (CZ) has used EU funding to enable research organisations to 
implement  the  HRS4R.  The  regulatory  requirement  for  research  organisations  in  the 
Czech  Republic  to  incorporate  the  HRS4R  into  their  management  culture  has  been 
supported  by  dedicated  EU  funding  from  the  ESIF.  The  Operational  Programme  for 
Research, Development and Education (OP-RDE) supported measures to help the country 
achieve  international  excellence  in  research,  through  improving  research  infrastructure, 
training  future  researchers,  promoting  international  co-operation  of  research  teams 
(including multi-disciplinary aspects), enhancing the quality of research management and 
supporting co-operation between the public and private sectors. Within the OP-RDE, two 
specific calls on “Development of capacities for research and development” were dedicated 
to setting up the strategic management of the research organisation in accordance with 
the conditions for obtaining the HR Excellence in Research Award. The first call closed in 
April 2017,29 whilst the second call closed in June 2019.30 Across the two calls, a total of 
CZK 1760m (€67.2m) was available, of which CZK 1440m (€55.0m) was allocated, against 
a demand of CZK 908m (€75.8m). Crucially, if the award is not obtained in the first year, 
the funding is withdrawn and any funding already allocated must be returned. 

The main mandatory activity supported was that of setting up the strategic management 
of the research organisation in accordance with the terms of the Charter and Code in order 
to obtain the HR Excellence in Research Award. Additional optional activities were strategic 
setting and development of: 

 

 

internal evaluation of the research organisation; 

international cooperation in research and development and internationalisation of the 
research organisation; 

 

cross-sectoral cooperation; 

  popularisation of research and development. 

In  some  Member  States,  the  Rectors  Conferences  (or  equivalent)  have 
specifically endorsed the principles of the Charter and Code. For example, in Greece 
the  2010  meeting  of  the  Rectors  Conference  adopted  the  principles  of  the  Charter  and 
Code and  encouraged all higher education institutions to endorse and  implement them. 
Following on from this, the 2016 ERA National Action Plan includes a commitment by the 
Ministry  of  Education,  Research  and  Religious  Affairs  and  the  General  Secretariat  for 
Research  and  Innovation  to  ask  a  future  meeting  of  rectors  and  directors  of  research 
centres to promote a commitment to seek the HR Excellence in Research Award amongst 
all relevant bodies. The ERA National Action Plan also includes an intention to improve the 

28 European Commission (2019), European Research Area Progress Report 2018, Country Profile: Czech 
Republic 
29 https://opvvv.msmt.cz/vyzva/vyzva-c-02-16-028-rozvoj-kapacit-pro-vyzkum-a-vyvoj.htm  
30 https://opvvv.msmt.cz/vyzva/vyzva-c-02-18-054-rozvoj-kapacit-pro-vyzkum-a-vyvoj-ii.htm  

20 

 
 
                                                           
regulatory  framework  for  the  procedures  for  selecting  non-permanent  research  staff  in 
order to become more open, transparent, and merit-based. 

Some ERA National Action Plans include specific commitments to take action at 
national level to  promote or  ensure compliance with the Charter  and Code. For 
example,  Ireland’s  ERA  National  Action  Plan  states  that  Government  and  relevant 
stakeholders  should  consider  how  the  rules  for  national  funding  schemes  could  better 
promote  the  uptake  and  effective  implementation  by  research-performing  organisations 
of the principles of openness, transparency, and merit-based recruitment as articulated in 
the Charter and Code. Slovenia’s National Action Plan includes a commitment to national 
schemes to promote the principles of the Charter and Code and encourage universities to 
implement the HRS4R. 

Some  ERA  National  Action  Plans  emphasise  the  importance  of  research 
organisations complying with the principles of the Charter and Code (e.g. BE, BG, 
FR).  For  example,  the  Bulgaria  ERA  National  Action  Plan  states  that  all  public  research 
organisations  should  adopt  and  put  into  practice  the  Charter  and  Code.  However,  the 
National Action Plan does not specify whether this relates to a requirement placed on such 
organisations  by  the  government,  or  merely  an  exhortation. Similarly,  France’s  ERA 
National Action Plan states that the Ministry of Higher Education Research and Innovation 
(MESRI) strongly encourages research organisations that have endorsed the Charter and 
Code  to  engage  in  the  HRS4R  process.  Ireland’s  National  Action  Plan  also  states  that 
research-performing organisations should be encouraged to participate in the HRS4R. 

Some  Member  States  have  taken  measures  to  encourage  or  support  research 
organisations to endorse the principles of the Charter and Code and commit to 
seeking the HR Excellence in Research Award. These include: 

 

In  Belgium,  the  Governments  of  the  Wallonia-Brussels  Federation  and  Wallonia 
introduced  a  “Partnership  for  Researchers"  in  May  2011,  with  a  particular  focus  on 
promoting  open  and  transparent  procedures  in  the  recruitment  of  researchers.  The 
Partnership  for  Researchers  was  based  on  the  Charter  and  Code  and  mirrored  the 
European Partnership for Researchers.31 

  The  Federal  Government  of  Belgium  organised  information  sessions  to  support  the 

implementation of the HRS4R by federal research institutes in 2016-18. 

 

 

 

In  its  role  as  the  main  national  funder  of  research,  the  Research  Council  of  Norway 
works  with  the  Association  of  Norwegian  Universities  to  promote  and  support  the 
HRS4R process, as well as directly supporting research institutions seeking the award. 
Like some other research funding organisations, the RCN has itself also endorsed the 
Charter and Code and the HRS4R. 

In Ireland, the Irish Research Council (IRC) and the Irish Universities Association (IUA) 
led an initiative to enable all higher education institutions in Ireland to gain the award. 

In the Czech Republic, the Managing Authority for the OP-RDE encouraged applicants 
to  attend  events  promoting  the  HRS4R:  one  on  “How  to  Best  Attract  Talented 
Researchers", which provided practical information on how to implement the HRS4R 
and gain the award (Brno, 24/1/2017; the other on “Raising perspectives for talented 
researchers by institutions implementing the HRS4R & complying with Article 32 of the 
H2020 multi-beneficiary grant agreement” (Brussels, 24/10/2017). 

Some ERA National Action Plans make no reference at all to the Charter and Code 
or the HRS4R (e.g. EE, LT, PT). This does not necessarily imply a lack of action on the 
part  of  national  government  either  to  transpose  the  Charter  and  Code  into  national 

31 COM(2008)317 final, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 
Better Careers and More Mobility: A European Partnership for Researchers. 

21 

 
                                                           
frameworks  or  to  promote  compliance  by  research  organisations.  However,  it  does 
highlight  a  need  for  a  more  joined-up  approach,  whereby  any  relevant  actions  at  the 
national level are included in ERA National Action Plan (and in any progress reports). In 
contrast, several Member States (and other countries) have explicitly stated their support 
for the Charter and Code and HRS4R in their ERA National Action Plans (e.g. BE, BG, CH, 
CY, DK, FR, EL, IE, IT, MT, NO, RS, SI, TU). 

3.8  Complementary tools and approaches at national level 

The  Commission  Recommendation  on  the  Charter  and  Code  made  a  number  of 
recommendations for Member States. This includes ensuring that employers or funders of 
researchers develop and maintain a supportive research environment and working culture 
and  improve  recruitment  methods  and  career  evaluation/appraisal  systems.  It  also 
includes  considering  the  principles  of  the  Charter  and  Code  as  an  integral  part  of 
institutional quality assurance mechanisms. 

In this context, it is possible to identify a number of tools or approaches at national level 
that  promote  adherence  to  the  principles  of  the  Charter  and  Code.  Four  examples  are 
offered  in  this  section  (including  two  from  non-Member  States).  These  are  not  always 
presented  with  explicit  reference  to  the  Charter  and  Code.  Nonetheless,  they  serve  as 
examples of actions taken at national level. One purpose in identifying such actions can 
be to consider whether action at EU level can be taken either to stimulate the dissemination 
of good practice or to  support  other Member States (or non-Member  States involved in 
the HRS4R) in taking similar approaches. 

3.8.1 Reform of national frameworks for assessment, development, and promotion 

The  main  public  funders  of  research  in  the  Netherlands  (VSNU,  NFU,  KNAW,  NWO,  and 
ZonMw) have recognised that “the implicit and overly one-sided emphasis on traditional, 
quantifiable  output  indicators  (e.g.  number  of  publications,  h-index  and  journal  impact 
factor) is one of the causes of a heavy workload. It can also upset the balance between 
academic  fields  and  is  inconsistent  with  the  San  Francisco  Declaration  on  Research 
Assessment (DORA) principles”.32 

To address this problem in a systematic way across the country, these funders are planning 
to  introduce  a  new  national  framework  for  assessment,  development,  and  promotion, 
namely  a  recalibrated  “University  Job  Classification  System”  (UFO).  Each  institution  will 
introduce: 

 

 

institution-wide  committees  to  create  support  for  the  new  system  and  involve  the 
target groups in the process; 

institution-specific assessment criteria and narratives based on the national framework 
for all key areas and team achievements; 

  programmes to stimulate and supervise academics in their career; 

 

courses  on  academic  leadership  in  education,  research,  impact,  and  (in  university 
medical centres) patient care; 

  doctoral programme criteria meeting the DORA principles.33 

In parallel, the same bodies are also revising the way that research proposals are assessed 
in  order  to  support  the  diversification  of  career  paths.  New  funding  instruments  will 
recognise  and  promote  diversity  in  research  and  in  researchers,  whilst  placing  greater 
emphasis  on  team  science  and  inter-disciplinary  collaboration.  The  Standard  Evaluation 

32 VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO and ZonMw (2019), Room for everyone’s talent towards a new balance in the 
recognition and rewards of academics. 
33 https://www.vsnu.nl/recognitionandrewards  

22 

 
                                                           
Protocol  (SEP)  used  to  evaluate  research  units,  will  place  greater  emphasis  on  societal 
impact, open science, diversity, and talent policy. 

Whilst  the  reformed  national  frameworks  are  designed  specifically  for  the  Netherlands’ 
context, the principles and the overall approach offer the potential to be replicated in other 
EU Member States, albeit after appropriate customisation. At the European level, there is 
scope to promote learning from and adoption of best practice in this field, not least the 
revisions to the national framework in the Netherlands. The public funders of research in 
the  Netherlands  note  that  this  could  take  place  within  the  context  of  the  European 
University Association and Science Europe. Those bodies also recognise the necessity of a 
broader  cultural  change  amongst  academics  themselves,  including  academic  leaders,  if 
the system of recognition and rewards is to be reformed.34 

3.8.2 National career assessment framework (NO) 

Universities Norway, the national university association, formed a working group in 2019 
to develop a Norwegian Career Assessment Matrix (NOR-CAM).35 The framework builds on 
the gradual shift in the way that careers have been assessed in Norway from a narrow 
focus  on  publication-based  proxy  measures  towards  a  more  holistic  view  of  researcher 
accomplishments. Whilst government regulations ensure a degree of uniformity in hiring 
practices  and  structuring  of  career  progression,  it  was  recognised  that  there  was  still 
significant variation across the country and thus a need to “level up” practice across the 
sector. NOR-CAM will cover six categories: 

 

 

research output 

research process 

  educational competency 

 

 

leadership and service 

societal interaction and impact 

  other experience. 

For each category, three types of information will be captured: 

  Description of criteria with clear definitions 

  Documentation and objective evidence for each criterion 

  Reflection and qualitative self-assessment. 

The  report  of  the  working  group  was  approved  by  the  Board  of  Universities  Norway  in 
February 2021 (and  was to be published in English later in 2021). The intention is that 
NOR-CAM will serve as a practical assessment tool for research organisations in Norway 
which can stimulate further change across the country within the parameters of existing 
government regulations. 

3.8.3 Researcher Career Development and Employment Framework (IE) 

The Researcher Career Development and Employment Framework, published by the Irish 
Universities Association in December 2020, forms one of the actions within the Innovation 
2020, the national science and innovation strategy, as well as Ireland’s ERA National Action 

34 Evidence on this example is drawn from CSES (2020), Towards a 2030 Vision on the Future of Universities in 
Europe 
35 Evidence on this example is drawn from: European Universities Association (2021), Reimagining Academic 
Career Assessment: Stories of innovation and change 

23 

 
                                                           
Plan.36  The  framework  is  targeted  at  early  career  researchers  and  aims  to  address  the 
problems of career precarity and the difficulties in moving from academia to other sectors. 
It directly references the Charter and Code and specifically recognises the fact that most 
researchers  move  to  non-academic  employment  with  a  focus  on  competences.  The 
framework  is  intended  to  be  an  overarching  policy  framework  to  be  adopted  within 
institutional policies and procedures. It is broad in the approach regarding the conditions 
for researchers (including skills needs), but narrow in that it only covers research positions, 
albeit at levels R1 to R4, as well as “infrastructural” roles, such as Research Assistants. 

The framework is structured around the key stages of the researcher employee life cycle: 

1.  Pre Recruitment 

2.  Recruitment 

3.  Pre-employment and contracting 

4.  Orientation 

5.  Professional and Career Development 

6.  Progression 

7.  Termination 

3.8.4 Concordat between funders and employers of researchers (UK) 

HEIs  and  other  research  organisations  in  the  UK  have  considerable  autonomy  around 
recruitment policies, pay, and conditions of researchers and other staff. In this context, 
there has been a major effort on the part of funders and employers of researchers to set 
high standards for the career management and conditions of employment of researchers 
on fixed-term or similar contracts funded through research grants or similar schemes. A 
“Concordat  on  Contract  Research  Staff  Career  Management”  was  signed  in  1996  and 
succeeded by a “Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers” in 2008, 
which was then updated in 2019. The Concordat is consistent with the principles of the 
Charter  and  Code.37  It  serves  as  an  alternative  pathway  to  the  HRS4R  process,  as  UK 
institutions adhering to the Concordat automatically receive the HR Excellence in Research 
Award. However, institutions may still choose to follow the HRS4R process, if they prefer. 

The  updated  Concordat  consists  of  three  defining  principles  covering  “Environment  and 
Culture”, “Employment”, and “Professional and Career Development”. For each of these 
principles,  the  Concordat  outlines  the  key  responsibilities  of  researchers,  managers  of 
researchers,  institutions,  and  funders.  Signatory  organisations  commit  themselves  to 
undertaking  regular  review  and  reporting  of  their  progress,  and  contributing  to  sharing 
practice across the sector. 

Whilst  the  research  organisations  are  themselves  responsible  for  implementing  the 
Concordat, oversight is provided by a governing body, which maintains a steering group, 
reports annually to the  relevant Ministers, publishes  a UK implementation plan, sets up 
working  groups  on  topics  where  there  are  systemic  challenges,  provides  a  platform  to 
share practice, and publishes a major review after three years. 

36 https://www.iua.ie/for-researchers/researcher-career-framework/#  
37 https://www.vitae.ac.uk/policy/concordat  

24 

 
                                                           
4.  PERFORMANCE OF EURAXESS 

4.1  Introduction 

The  establishment  of  EURAXESS  goes  right  back  to  the  beginnings  of  ERA  policy  and 
specifically that of the freedom of movement of researchers. Despite support for mobility 
in  the  Framework  Programmes,  especially  through  the  MSCA,  researchers  often 
experienced difficulties in moving abroad. A key report in 2001 focused on the obstacles 
to the mobility of researchers and identified a number of key issues that prevented easy 
movement,  specifically  lack  of  access  to  practical  information.38  The  recommendations 
included the establishment of an internet portal to provide national and community level 
information  on  job  opportunities,  legal,  tax,  social  security,  administrative,  and  cultural 
situations  in  different  countries.  There  was  also  the  recommendation  to  provide  at 
institutional and national level tailored assistance and information for mobile researchers. 
In  the  same  year,  a  Commission  Communication  introduced  a  mobility  strategy  for  the 
European Research Area.39 This was a formal recognition of the importance of supporting 
researcher mobility. It had the high-level objectives of making Europe more attractive for 
researchers,  enhancing  mobility,  and  stimulating  increased  intersectoral  mobility.  This 
report  recommended  establishing  interconnected  national  and  EU  internet  portals 
providing  practical  information  and  advertising  research  posts.  It  also  recommended 
Mobility  Centres  to  provide  customised  assistance  to  mobile  researchers.  This  was  the 
point that both internet and personal assistance supports began originally with the name 
of ERA-MORE, which then became EURAXESS. 

Many of the recommendations in ERA policy documents related to issues on social security 
and  visas,  which  were  longer-term  projects.  However,  it  was  realised  that  providing 
practical information was something that could be immediately implemented. To that end, 
the Commission launched in 2003, the ERA-MORE call for a network of Mobility Centres 
that  could  provide  grants  of  up  to  €250k  for  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries. 
When  the  initial  grant  period  ended  there  was  a  mixed  response  in  further  support  by 
countries. Some countries continued to support the Mobility Centres with direct funding, 
while others maintained the service by allocating staff on a part-time basis.  

The development of these services was done by the Commission with the support of the 
ERA  Steering  Group  on  Human  Resources  and  Mobility  (SGHRM),  whose  role  was  to 
provide input and align policy implementation on the ERA at national level.40 The SGHRM 
also  worked  with  the  Commission  on  the  development  of  the  European  Charter  for 
Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. In parallel, a 
Member  and  Associated  State  committee  was  formed  from  what  are  known  as  the 
Bridgehead Organisations (BHOs). These are the organisations that coordinate all of the 
national EURAXESS services. These national services are provided by EURAXESS Service 
Centres (ESC) and Local Contact Points (LCPs), typically located in universities (research 
office or human resources department). 

The Commission has continued to provide support through network funding calls in FP7 
and Horizon 2020. The EURAXESS TOP I to IV projects have provided the network of BHOs 
across Europe the opportunity and funding to optimise service provision and collaborate 
in  exchanging  good  practice  in  how  better  to  improve  services.  In  addition,  there  have 
been projects funded in FP7 and Horizon 2020 (Science with and for Society) as community 
support actions to focus on aspects of researcher career development that in many cases 
have linked directly to EURAXESS services. 

38 High Level Expert Group Report on Improving Mobility of Researchers, EC 4/04/2001. 
39 COM (2001) 331 final, A Mobility Strategy for the European Research Area. 
40 The SGHRM Established 2002 and re-launched with 2009 with adapted mandate to follow-up the 
Communication «Better careers and more mobility; a European Partnership for Researchers» (Competitiveness 
Council Conclusion Sept 2008). It is now under ERAC as the Standing Working Group on Human Resources and 
Mobility (SWG HRM). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/preparatory-bodies/european-research-
area-innovation-committee/  

25 

 
                                                           
4.2  Content 

4.2.1 Relevance of EURAXESS services and instruments 

The EURAXESS services network is extensive with over 630 centres with over 1,500 people 
across 42 countries. They provide a broad range of practical information for internationally 
mobile  researchers  and  their  families.  In  addition  to  the  EURAXESS  Services  network, 
there  are  complementary  national  web  portals  with  country-specific  information  for 
researchers (currently 42 national portals) and a central EU portal.41 The EU portal offers 
a  database  of  jobs,  funding,  and  hosting  opportunities  and  a  range  of  online  tools  for 
researchers and employers. 

The  EURAXESS  centres  and  national  web  portals  provide  country-specific  and  free 
information and personalised assistance for researchers in a range of areas summarised 
in  Table  4.  The  services  are  directed  towards  researchers,  employers,  businesses  and 
entrepreneurs. In all participating countries there is a broad and diverse range of services 
provided,  the  centres  affiliated  to  the  network  offering  free  of  charge  support  to 
researchers  at  specialised  or  minimum  level.  In  many  instances,  EURAXESS  acts  as  an 
information  broker  and  signposts  to  organisations  that  can  provide  more  detailed 
information, for example on intellectual property rights (IPR) and career development. The 
internet portals provide all of the basic requirements in terms of job vacancies, CV facility, 
etc.  Some  offer  more  advanced  services  but  this is  often  because  they  already  exist  at 
national level or are seen as the appropriate host for a national service. For example, the 
UK  EURAXESS  Career  Development  Centre  is  hosted  by  Vitae  as  this  organisation  has 
national competency in this area.42 In Ireland, the EURAXESS BHO in the Irish Universities 
Association runs the Fast-Track Work Permit procedure on behalf of the Irish Naturalisation 
and Immigration Services.43 This underlines the fact that the level of services provided by 
EURAXESS at national level is highly dependent on the resources committed. 

Table 4 Range of information and services offered by EURAXESS 

Provided using in-
house expertise 

Provided through 
signposting to 
other organisations 

Living in Europe 
  Entry conditions/visas 
  Accommodation 
  Access 

the 

to 

culture 

of 

the 

host 

country/language courses 

  Health insurance 
  Day-care, schooling, and family-related issues 
  Banking 
  Medical care 
Working in Europe 
  Work Permits 
 
Taxation/salaries 
  Career Development 
  Unemployment support 
  Dual career 
  HRS4R 
  Recognition of diplomas 
 
 

Intellectual property rights (IPR) 
Pensions for Researchers (RESAVER) 

79 % 
72 % 
68 % 

64 % 
62 % 
61 % 
58 % 

64 % 
51 % 
41 % 
35 % 
33 % 
32 % 
29 % 
26 % 
24 % 

66 % 
55 % 
56 % 

50 % 
54 % 
51 % 
50 % 

60 % 
50 % 
29 % 
39 % 
29 % 
29 % 
46 % 
36 % 
36 % 

41 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu 
42 EURAXESS is hosted by the British Council. See: https://www.vitae.ac.uk/researcher-careers/euraxess-uk-
career-development-centre/euraxess-uk-career-development-centre  
43 https://www.euraxess.ie/ireland/fast-track-work-permit-non-eu-rd-hosting-agreement-scheme  

26 

 
 
                                                           
Leaving Europe 
  Departure conditions and formalities 
 
  EURAXESS Worldwide 

Job, funding, and hosting opportunities 

Source: CSES Survey of EURAXESS members 

Provided using in-
house expertise 

Provided through 
signposting to 
other organisations 

62 % 
32 % 
19 % 

48 % 
36 % 
26 % 

The  EURAXESS  services  network  is  complemented  by  EURAXESS  Worldwide,  which 
promotes  Europe as a research and innovation destination, including through attracting 
international talent into Europe and attracting European talent back to Europe. EURAXESS 
Worldwide operates through hubs that are located in the ASEAN countries (with a focus 
on Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam),44 Australia and New Zealand, 
China,  Japan,  Korea,  Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean,  and  North  America.  In  2020, 
EURAXESS  expanded  to  Australia/New  Zealand.  In  2021,  additional  resources  were 
allocated to prepare the launch of the EURAXESS Africa hub in 2022. 

The EURAXESS network of services have also expanded in recent years. EURAXESS Tunisia 
has  recently  received  a  start-up  grant  and  will  soon  initiate  the  set-up  of  the  national 
network and portal. EURAXESS Georgia and Armenia are also expanding, following their 
adherence to the network in 2019. 

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  EURAXESS  instruments,  a  number  of  findings  can  be 
offered. 

EURAXESS is highly relevant to the opportunities and challenges related to the 
international  mobility  of  researchers.  As  shown  above,  the  majority  of  EURAXESS 
members provide and signpost services related to living in Europe, as well as work permits, 
taxation  and  salaries.  Services  related  to  entry  conditions  and  visas  remain  particularly 
relevant,  as  evidenced  by  the  high  demand  for  them  expressed  by  researchers  using 
EURAXESS. 

EURAXESS  has  steadily  increased  its  relevance  beyond  mobility  to  researcher 
careers  in  general,  but  there  is  scope  to  do  more.  The  recognition  of  the  need  to 
support researchers in training and career development led to the intention to establish 
EURAXESS Career Development Centres (ECDCs), with a service provision currently not 
standardised  across  the  network  on  career  development  support,  and  access  to  some 
training opportunities.45 The provision of support for ECDCs is somewhat uneven across 
countries but this may be an area for future expansion. Similarly, there is some service 
provision  relevant  to  the  reform  of  human  resources  practices  within  research 
organisations, but there is scope to do more, including through more  direct support for 
institutions  considering  engagement  with  the  HRS4R  (currently  only  provided  or 
signposted by a minority of EURAXESS members). 

There remains scope for EURAXESS to increase its relevance to emerging needs, 
to technical and scientific developments, and to emerging policy developments. 
EURAXESS services continue to focus primarily on international mobility (as demonstrated 
by  Table  4)  with  limited  provision  of  services  related  to  actually  undertaking  research, 
such as IPR. The focus on international mobility means that certain key emerging topics, 
such as open science, have not been extensively covered by EURAXESS services. There is 
now a strong focus in the ERA and indeed national policies on issues such as open science 
and gender  equality that will have a profound impact on researcher training and career 

44 The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is an economic union comprising 10 member states: Brunei, 
Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. 
45 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/career-development  

27 

 
 
                                                           
development.  However,  the  mandate  for  EURAXESS  is  broad  enough  that  the 
implementation of new policy developments can be incorporated into its services (or those 
of any successor, i.e. the ERA Talent Platform). Taking this further, the impact of Covid-
19 has moved a great deal of training and research online thereby emphasising the value 
of web resources. This could provide an impetus at both national and European level to 
have EURAXESS portals as hosts for online services. 

The  design  of  EURAXESS  facilitates  its  relevance  to  different  national  and 
institutional contexts, although this can pose the risk of unevenness in service 
provision across the EU. As will be described in section 4.5.1, EURAXESS is governed 
by a Declaration of Commitment (DoC), a document of best-effort declaration rather than 
a binding framework, and is very dependent on the level of commitment and resources 
committed at the national, regional, and institutional levels. This offers the opportunity for 
services, service delivery, and national networks to be customised in a way that makes 
them relevant not only to the needs of individual and institutional users but also to the 
different  governance  contexts  at  national  or  institutional  level.  Indeed,  the  EURAXESS 
services across different countries are not simply copies of one another. Many offer unique 
services that are particular to that country and often based on the resources at hand. The 
majority of the centres are not dedicated purely to EURAXESS but often had a similar role 
at  national  level  for  supporting  researchers  before  the  EURAXESS  designation,  e.g.  the 
Association Bernard Gregory in France or the German Scholars Organisation. 

4.2.2 Coherence with the ERA and other EU tools 

EURAXESS services have developed in parallel with ERA policy developments on 
researcher careers and the previous ERA  Priority 3,  an open  labour market for 
researchers. Indeed, the number of researcher posts advertised through the EURAXESS 
job portal per 1,000 researchers in the public sector is one the EMM indicators for Priority 
3. However, this does not mean that the actual recruitment process is open, merit-based, 
and  transparent.  The  publication  in  2011  of  the  European  Framework  for  Researcher 
Careers  provided  a  framework  for  classifying  job  opportunities  and  was  adopted  by 
EURAXESS for advertising vacancies.46 This was because there is a wide variety of names 
given  to  similar  researcher  positions  even  within  countries.  This  generic  categorisation 
allowed potential applicants to identify relevant jobs for their stage of career development. 
However, this framework is not in common usage across Europe nor even within the EU 
Framework Programmes (ERC and MSCA). 

EURAXESS  supports  and  is  supported  by  relevant  actions  within  Horizon  2020 
(and its predecessors and successor programmes). The outcomes of FP7 and H2020 
thematic projects in this area have been integrated into EURAXESS services. For example, 
the  PIPER  project  has  brought  external  learning  resources  to  ‘train  the  trainers’  of 
researchers for proactive management of career paths.47 EURAXESS directly supports the 
implementation of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA), for example, by providing 
a mechanism to link researchers with potential hosts for their Individual Fellowships. In 
addition, EURAXESS has been supported by Horizon 2020 funding in the form of the TOP 
projects  that  have  received  EU  funding  to  improve,  strengthen,  and  enhance  the 
EURAXESS network.48 

46https://cdn5.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/policy_library/towards_a_european_framework_for_research_ca
reers_final.pdf and https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/europe/career-development/training-researchers/research-
profiles-descriptors  
47https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/career-development/researchers/pipers-project-career-kit Policy into Practice: 
EURAXESS Researcher Skills for Career Development, FP7-CDRP-2013-EUR-CD] [Trans-national collaboration 
on career pathway development for researchers, Grant agreement no: 643330 
48 https://euraxess-top.eu/ 

28 

 
                                                           
4.3  Outreach 

4.3.1 Portal usage 

Usage of the EURAXESS portal has steadily increased since 2017. Figure 5 shows 
the number of visits recorded over the last four years derived from analysis of EURAXESS’s 
web analytics metrics provided by the European Commission. The EURAXESS website was 
revamped in 2016, leading to a harmonised, user-friendly online setting for all EURAXESS 
portals and tools and making EURAXESS one of the most popular websites of the European 
Commission. In 2017, there were 2.03 million visits paid to the EURAXESS websites, which 
steadily rose to 4.9 million by 2020. This represents an increase of 143%, suggesting this 
EU instrument has gained in visibility and popularity over recent years. This is mainly due 
to the addition of the HRS4R e-tool on EURAXESS, which brought an increased pool of new 
visitors and users from the institutions.  

Visits to EURAXESS portal (2017-2020)

5.000.000

4.000.000

3.000.000

2.000.000

1.000.000

0

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 5. EURAXESS portal usage 
*Source: EURAXESS data shared by the European Commission 

An  improvement  in  the  quality  of  content  is  suggested  by  an  increase  in  user 
engagement in terms of the time spent on the website, the maximum number of actions 
per  visit  and  the  number  of  return  visits.  Web  analytics  data  shows  that  in  2020  users 
spent  an  average  of  5  minutes  and  31  seconds  when  on  the  EURAXESS  website.  This 
represents  an  increase  from  2017,  where  users  spent  on  average  4  minutes  and  19 
seconds. The number of actions per  visit also exhibit a positive upward trend: in 2017, 
there were 1,934 maximum actions per visit, which steadily role to 3,662 in 2020. The 
notable increase in EURAXESS’s bounce rate (i.e. the time spent on the website) coupled 
with  the  maximum  number  of  actions  per  visit  indicator  strongly  suggests  that  user 
engagement  has  increased.  The  number  of  return  visits  on  the  EURAXESS  website  has 
more than doubled since 2017. In 2017, there were over 1.1 million visits recorded on the 
website. By 2020, over 2.5 million visits were recorded, representing a 123% increase. 

4.3.2 Reach amongst researchers 

EURAXESS has reached a critical mass of researchers.  The number of researchers 
registered on EURAXESS has more than doubled over the last four years. In 2017, there 
were  around  32,000  registered  researchers  on  EURAXESS,  and  this  number  jumped  to 
over 68,000 by 2020, representing a 113% increase (see Figure 6). The latest data shared 
by European Commission revealed that the current number of researchers on EURAXESS 

29 

 
 
stands at 70,102, showing an increase of over 2,000 since 2020. Of the 70,102 registered 
researchers on EURAXESS, around 25% (17,363) have uploaded their CV. 

Number of researchers on EURAXESS (2017-2020)

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 6. Evolution of the number of registered researchers on EURAXESS 
*Source: EURAXESS data analysed by the European Commission 

4.3.3 Reach amongst research-performing organisations 

EURAXESS  has  reached  a  critical  mass  of  employers.  The  number  of  registered 
organisations  has  increased,  albeit  to  a  lesser  extent  than  the  number  of  researchers. 
Figure 7 shows the evolution of the number of registered organisations on EURAXESS since 
2017.  The  figure  shows  that  in  2017,  there  were  over  12,000  registered  research 
organisations, which steadily rose to reach just over 18,000 in 2020. 

Growth  in  the  number  of  registered  organisations  has  slowed.  While  the  total 
number  of  registered  research  organisations  has  increased  over  the  last  few  years,  the 
number of newly registered institutions has declined each year. Indeed, there were 2,491 
newly registered organisations on EURAXESS in 2018, which fell to 1,765 in 2020. 

Number of registered institutions on EURAXESS

20.000
18.000
16.000
14.000
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 7. EURAXESS reach amongst research-performing organisations 
*Source: EURAXESS data analysed by the European Commission 

30 

 
 
 
 
EURAXESS  has  significant  reach  amongst  research  organisations  within  and 
outside the EU. Figure 8 provides a pie chart representing the registered organisations 
on EURAXESS by country type. A majority (70%) of registered organisations are located 
in the EU, while EFTA countries and the UK make up respectively 4% and 7% of the total 
number.  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  (ENP)  countries  represent  1%  of  the  total 
number  of  organisations.49  Other  third  countries  account  for  18%  of  all  organisations 
registered on EURAXESS.  

Geographic distribution of registered organisations

Other 3rd 
country…

ENP
1%

UK
7%

EFTA
4%

EU 
70%

Figure 8. Geographic distribution of the existing registered organisations affiliated to EURAXESS 
*Source: EURAXESS data provided by the European Commission 

4.3.4 Volume of offers posted 

EURAXESS  offers  the  opportunity  for  registered  research  organisations  to  post  job 
vacancies,  funding  and  hosting  offers.50  Table  5  provides  a  summary  table  of  the 
distribution of vacancies across Member States and in third countries. The table suggests 
a number of findings as discussed next.51 

Table 5 EURAXESS vacancies by type and country (2017-2020) 

Country 

Number of 
funding offers 

Number of 
hosting offers 

Number of 
posting offers 

Austria  
Belgium 
Bulgaria  
Croatia  
Cyprus 
Czechia  
Denmark  
Estonia  
Finland  
France 
Germany  
Greece  

18 
14 
2 
9 
1 
9 
0 
10 
1 
80 
104 
89 

19 
59 
4 
1 
3 
6 
0 
4 
28 
97 
47 
12 

9,941 
6,975 
264 
13,972 
472 
1,664 
1,857 
544 
476 
33,305 
15,421 
5,451 

49 European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) countries are Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, 
Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine. 
50 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/posting  
51 The UK is included as a third country here but was an EU Member State until 31 January 2020. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                           
Country 

Number of 
funding offers 

Number of 
hosting offers 

Number of 
posting offers 

Hungary  
Ireland  
Italy  
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland  
Portugal  
Romania 
Slovakia  
Slovenia  
Spain  
Sweden 
Total EU 
Third country  
Total worldwide 

4 
75 
59 
2 
1 
20 
3 
25 
67 
20 
14 
6 
1 
66 
12 
712 
637 
1,349 

1 
26 
83 
5 
1 
50 
11 
14 
45 
18 
6 
1 
7 
1,858 
145 
2,551 
242 
2,793 

81 
6,492 
57,541 
309 
85 
1,583 
83 
20,971 
32,011 
1,686 
2,895 
226 
629 
11,451 
24,624 
251,009 
90,302 
341,311 

Source: EURAXESS data shared by the European Commission 

Research  organisations  have  posted  a  substantial  number  of  vacancies  on 
EURAXESS. Between 2017 and 2020, a total of 341,311 posting offers were shared on 
EURAXESS, both at the EU and international level. These accounted for more than 98% of 
vacancies  offered  on  the  EURAXESS  networks.  Of  these,  some  73.5%  were  posted  by 
registered research organisations in the EU, with the remainder coming from registered 
research  organisations  in  third  countries.  In  terms  of  the  distribution  at  the  EU  level, 
countries  that  provided  a  high  number  of  vacancies  in  other  categories  also  provided  a 
large number of postings, namely, Italy (57,541), France (33,305), Poland (32,011), and 
Germany  (15,421).  The  Netherlands  provided  a  significant  number  of  posting  offers 
(20,971) in contrast to having provided relatively few vacancies in terms of funding and 
hosting opportunities.  

Research  organisations  have  offered  a  steady  stream  of  hosting  offers  on 
EURAXESS.  Hosting  offers  are  expressions  of  interest  from  research  institutions 
interested in supporting researchers’ applications to the MSCA Individual Fellowships Calls, 
as well as offers from registered research organisations which wish to make their research 
infrastructures  (facilities,  resources,  services  or  any  other  infrastructure)  available  to 
researchers. From 2017-2020, registered research organisations posted a total of 2,793 
hosting  offers  on  EURAXESS.  Variations  across  Member  States  do  exist  but  to  a  lesser 
extent compared to the number of funding offers. One outlier, Spain, offered 1,858 hosting 
positions,  which is  well  above  the  EU  average  of  94.  Member  States  that  offered  fewer 
number  of  hosting  offers  include  Bulgaria  (4),  Croatia  (1),  Cyprus  (3),  Denmark  (0), 
Estonia  (4),  Hungary  (1),  Lithuania  (1),  and  Slovakia  (1).  Third  country  organisations 
offered 242 hosting opportunities, representing around 8% of all hosting offers. 

Research  organisations  have  offered  a  steady  stream  of  funding  offers  on 
EURAXESS.  Registered  research  organisations  are  able  to  post  funding  offers,  such  as 
research  scholarships  (e.g.  at  Master’s  level),  doctoral  positions,  post-doctorate 
scholarships or research seminars.52 Of the 1,348 funding offers on EURAXESS, 712 were 
posted  by  institutions  within  the  EU,  representing  53%  of  the  total  number  of  funding 
offers.  There  are  significant  variations  across  Member  States,  with  Germany,  France, 
Greece, Ireland, Poland, Italy, and Spain accounting for over 75% of all funding offers at 
EU level. Five EU Member States had no more than one funding opportunity on EURAXESS, 

52 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/funding/search 

32 

 
                                                           
namely  Croatia  (1),  Denmark  (0),  Hungary  (1),  Lithuania  (1),  Slovakia  (1).  Some  637 
funding  offers  were  posted  by  registered  research  organisations  in  third  countries 
representing 47% of the total number of funding opportunities advertised via EURAXESS. 

4.4  Effects 

4.4.1 Benefits for researchers 

Researchers  have  accessed  a  wide  range  of  services.  As  noted  in  section  4.2.1, 
members of the EURAXESS network members provide information, advice, and guidance 
related to living in, working in or leaving Europe using in-house expertise or by signposting 
to  other  organisations.  These  have  been  extensively  used,  as  shown  in  Figure  9,  which 
shows the number of requests made on EURAXESS in 2019. Researchers have accessed 
the  full  range  of  services,  including  those  relating  to  entry  conditions  and  visas,  health 
insurance, work permits, taxation, salaries, research funding, job opportunities, departure, 
family-related issues, recognition of diplomas, pensions, IPR, and unemployment benefits. 

Researchers have particularly demanded services related to entry conditions and 
visas. The latest data on the number of requests made across the EURAXESS networks 
shows that the most  requested service on EURAXESS in 2019 was entry conditions and 
visas (representing over 30% of all requests), well ahead other popular services such as 
health insurance (11%), work permit (9%), and taxation and salaries (9%). Conversely, 
the  least  requested  services  were  (in  decreasing  order)  IPR  (1.6%),  unemployment 
(1.4%), and research landscape (1.3%). It is important to note that a significant number 
of requests were classified as “other” (over 12% of the total number of requests), which 
could suggest that there are additional services needed by users and not currently offered 
by  EURAXESS.  However,  caution  should  be  exercised  when  interpreting  this  finding,  as 
some of the requests classified as “other” might in practice relate to some of the existing 
categories of EURAXESS. 

EURAXESS services requested by researchers(2019)

70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0

Figure 9. Requested EURAXESS services 
*Source: EURAXESS data shared by the European Commission 

EURAXESS  has  played  a  key  role  in  promoting  the  international  mobility  of 
researchers  within  the  EU  and  beyond.  As  noted  above,  there  has  been  a  steady 
supply in the number of hosting offers  since 2017, which has in turn created additional 
opportunities for  researchers to improve their mobility. Likewise, the  sustained trend in 
the  number  of  posting  offers  also  suggests  an  adequate  pipeline  of  opportunities  for 
researchers  to  continue  to  be  mobile.  Reflecting  this,  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
EURAXESS  network  members  responding  to  the  survey  (92%)  are  of  the  opinion  that 

33 

 
 
researchers have benefitted from EURAXESS, of which 56% to a great extent and 28% to 
a  reasonable  extent.  In  addition,  qualitative  data  gathered  for  this  study  also  suggests 
EURAXESS has played a key role in facilitating international mobility. Through the support 
provided to mobile researchers, EURAXESS has enabled many EU and non-EU researchers 
to easily relocate by providing tailor-made advice according to survey respondents. The 
support provided was described as essential both pre- and post-arrival as in the case of 
latter mobile researchers often need support to establish themselves in their host country. 
As one survey respondent commented: “EURAXESS provides mobile researchers with the 
peace of mind needed so that they can focus on their research activities”. 

EURAXESS particularly supports the international mobility of earlier career stage 
researchers (R1-R2) more than more established researchers (R3-R4) according to the 
survey results. This, however, is probably not attributable to EURAXESS but rather to more 
established  trends  within  researchers’  career  trajectories  as  evidenced  by  a  recent 
scientific article published by Cañibano et al. (2020)53 drawing on evidence generated by 
the MORE4 survey and which shows there is an overrepresentation of mobile researchers 
at the R2 and R3 level. 

EURAXESS has contributed to intersectoral mobility. There are examples of concrete 
EURAXESS-supported activities that have sought to directly foster intersectoral mobility. 
For  instance,  TOP  IV’s  work  package  4  entitled  “Engagement  with  industry”  aimed  to 
support the EURAXESS networks in acquiring the relevant know-how and tools to develop 
new  services  dedicated  to  creating  more  synergies  and  complementarity  between 
academia  and  industry.  More  specifically,  this  work  package  developed  an  “academia-
industry  mentoring  toolkit”  with  a  view  to  offer  the  necessary  expertise  to  EURAXESS 
members for them to in turn offer mentoring programmes for researchers with an interest 
in  industry.  In  addition,  a  manual  on  scientific  entrepreneurship  was  also  developed, 
outlining  definitions  of  the  main  technical  terms  as  well  as  relevant  information  on 
accelerators, incubators, investment funds, and other entrepreneurship opportunities. This 
manual was subsequently disseminated via EURAXESS centres and inserted in the online 
career development section for researchers on the EURAXESS portal. 

There  is  scope  to  increase  the  contribution  of  EURAXESS  to  promoting 
intersectoral mobility, which is not yet extensive and comprehensive across the 
network. Qualitative feedback gathered from the interviews suggests that intersectoral 
mobility facilitated by EURAXESS remains marginal in many Member States. For instance, 
in Romania the Chamber of Commerce and Industry was initially included in the national 
EURAXESS network but the results stemming from this collaboration were limited due to 
competing  demands  on  the  part  of  the  individuals involved  as  well  as  a  general  lack  of 
human  resources,  according  to  an  interviewee.  Interviewees  from  France,  Serbia,  and 
Poland indicated that there was little to no collaboration with the private sector suggesting 
a  limited  role  for  EURAXESS  in  terms  of  intersectoral  mobility  in  some  countries. 
Notwithstanding  this,  a  sizable  number  of  survey  respondents  described  intersectoral 
mobility  as  an  important  additional  service  that  would  be  valued  by  universities  and 
research-performing institutions but also by the private sector. Suggestions were made to 
improve the facilitation of intersectoral mobility, such as providing internship opportunities 
via R&D financial instruments and by further supporting career development on the part 
of  researchers  but  also  on  the  part  of  employers  who  have  so  far  not  been  involved  in 
career development activities. Another suggestion that was offered by stakeholders would 
be to create greater synergies with the Enterprise Europe Network. 

53 Cañibano, C., D’Este, P., Otamendi, F. J., & Woolley, R. (2020). Scientific careers and the mobility of 
European researchers: an analysis of international mobility by career stage. Higher Education, 80(6), 1175-
1193. 

34 

 
                                                           
4.4.2 Benefits for registered research organisations 

Registered research organisations have enjoyed better access to research talent. 
As noted above, research organisations have posted a considerable volume of vacancies 
and a steady stream of hosting and funding offers. The fact that the number of postings 
is increasing year on year suggests that this has helped research organisations to reach 
researchers more effectively. This finding is supported by the views of EURAXESS network 
members  responding  to  the  survey,  of  whom  69%  reported  that  EURAXESS  has  had  a 
positive impact to either a great extent (31%) or a reasonable extent (38%). 

Registered  research  organisations  have  benefitted  from  the  sharing  of  best 
practice. At the EU level, numerous activities have shared best practice, notably via the 
TOP  III  and  TOP  IV  projects.  At  the  national  level,  the  sharing  of  best  practice  within 
national  networks  appears  to  have  been  adequate  according  to  quantitative  feedback 
received  from  EURAXESS  members.  The  achievements  of  EURAXESS  in  relation  to 
affiliated  institutions  sharing  best  practice  is  reported  as  high  by  surveyed  EURAXESS 
members: a total of 77% of survey participants indicated that institutions have been able 
to share practice to a great extent (40%) or to a reasonable extent (37%). Indeed, several 
survey respondents indicated that one of the main benefits of the EURAXESS networks is 
in providing opportunities for sharing best practice. As one survey participant pointed out: 
“[the]  availability  of  best  practices  and  contact  persons  from  within  a  huge  network  to 
improve own services to researchers”. However, there is also evidence to suggest further 
sharing and dissemination both within and across EURAXESS networks is needed according 
to interviews undertaken. 

EURAXESS has achieved a degree of quality, consistency, and diversity in service 
provision,  but  there  is  scope  for  improvement.  Consistency  of  service  provision  is 
important  in  terms  of  ensuring  high  quality  and  a  core  offering  that  is  relevant  to  all 
researchers  and  registered  research  organisations.  Diversity  is  important  in  terms  of 
having services customised to national or local circumstances. This obviously requires a 
balance  to  be  struck  between  allowing  the  flexibility  necessary  for  customisation  whilst 
ensuring that EURAXESS users can be certain to receive the type and quality of service 
that  they  require.  EURAXESS  members  surveyed  believe  that  service  provisions  and 
information have been improved to a great extent (46%) or to a reasonable extent (34%). 
Survey responses indicate that EURAXESS has been somewhat successful in achieving a 
consistency and diversity of services between countries: 61% of EURAXESS members felt 
that this has been achieved to a great (28%) or reasonable extent (33%). However, nearly 
half  of  survey  respondents  (47%)  were  not  able  to  give  such  a  positive  assessment, 
including 20% that did not know. Further inputs generated during interviews suggest that 
the  consistency  and  diversity  of  EURAXESS  services  is  contingent  on  the  resources 
dedicated  to  EURAXESS,  which  appeared  to  be  uneven  across  the  EU  but  also  within 
national  networks  (see  section  4.5).  Qualitative  feedback  received  from  interviews 
revealed there is indeed a diversity of services offered by EURAXESS members reflecting 
the  local  and  national  needs  of  researchers  across  Member  States.  For  example,  in  the 
French national network, family-related issues, access to culture and the French language, 
social  security  rights,  and  visa  and  entry  conditions  are  the  main  services  provided.  In 
Ireland, on the other hand, the main service offered is around visa and entry conditions 
given that the network administrator is in charge or the EURAXESS fast track immigration 
scheme for non-EU researchers. Conversely, EURAXESS members based in Italy indicated 
that accommodation was an important service provided. 

4.4.3 Labour market benefits 

EURAXESS  has  contributed  to  the  development  of  an  open  labour  market  for 
researchers  by  supporting  good  working  conditions  and  a  stimulating  and 
favourable  working  environment  for  researchers.  International  mobility  of 
researchers can be hampered by various administrative and cultural hurdles. EURAXESS 

35 

 
has  been  providing  valuable  and  needed  support  to  mobile  researchers.  This  was 
confirmed  by  quantitative  data  generated  by  the  survey  as  well  as  interviews  which 
confirmed EURAXESS was perceived very favourably by researchers that have sought its 
services.  Indeed,  survey  data  shows  that  an  important  majority  (over  70%  of  survey 
respondents) agree that EURAXESS has improved the working conditions of researchers 
(see Figure 10). 

EURAXESS  has  helped  attract  international  research  talent  into  the  EU.  The 
quantitative data available suggest EURAXESS has a reasonable degree of visibility outside 
the  EU.  Indeed,  quantitative  data  analysis  revealed  that  there  are  31,319  non-EU 
researchers registered on EURAXESS. However, the number of non-EU organisations that 
are part of the EURAXESS network is relatively low (3,392) compared to the number of 
EU organisations, suggesting more visibility could be raised among intuitional users at the 
international  level.  Survey  data  shows  that  majority  of  EURAXESS  members  (68%) 
thought  that  EURAXESS  has  indeed  contributed  to  effective  recruiting,  assessing, 
attracting, and retaining talent with international visibility. 

EURAXESS  has  supported  uptake  of  the  Human  Resources  Strategy  for 
Researchers (HRS4R). The EURAXESS portal hosts the HRS4R e-tool and serves as the 
main  source  of  information  about  the  HRS4R  procedure  and  application  process  for  the 
“HR  Excellence  in  Research  Award”.  Moreover,  several  EURAXESS  network  members 
reported that their EURAXESS membership allows them to  fulfil certain requirements  of 
the  HRS4R.  The  TOP  IV  project  has  also  supported  EURAXESS  members  to  develop  a 
strategy for the career development services, including through a “support buddy” system 
and through equipping the network and individual researchers with on-line tools to help 
researchers  in  planning  their  career  in  different  sectors.54  Reflecting  this,  the  evidence 
from  the  survey  shows  that  a  majority  of  EURAXESS  members  (over  60%)  believe 
EURAXESS  has  contributed  towards  effective  training  and  career  development  of 
researchers. However, a sizable portion of survey respondents indicated that EURAXESS 
had  only  done  so  to  a  moderate  extent  (20%),  suggesting  a  possible  need  to  expand 
content or services in this area. 

EURAXESS has contributed to the reinforcement of high ethical and professional 
standards among researchers. A majority of survey respondents (57%) reported that 
EURAXESS  had  done  this  to  a  great  extent  (25%)  or  to  a  reasonable  extent  (32%). 
However,  there  is  limited  evidence  from  other  data  sources  regarding  this  particular 
objective,  notably  from  interview  feedback  suggesting  further  research  is  needed  to 
provide a more accurate answer to this question. 

54 https://euraxess-top.eu/top-iv/workpackages-and-tasks/  

36 

 
                                                           
Labour market benefits

Reinforcing high ethical and professional standards

Effective training and career development of
researchers

Effective recruiting, assessing, attracting & retaining
talent

Good working conditions/ stimulating working
environment

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Great extent

Reasonable extent

Modest extent

Not at all

Don’t know

Figure 10. Labour market benefits offered by EURAXESS 
Source: CSES survey of EURAXESS members 

4.4.4 European added value 

EURAXESS  adds  value  to  the  actions  of  Member  States.  National  bodies  in  the 
EURAXESS participating countries seek to develop, attract, and retain research talent as 
part of their overall research and innovation policies (including their ERA National Action 
Plans).  In  respect  of  mobility,  this  includes  the  provision  of  information,  advice,  and 
guidance  about  the  country  in  order  to  facilitate  the  attraction  of  research  talent. 
EURAXESS adds value to these efforts by bringing together the services provided by each 
country into a common portal, thus increasing the ease with which researchers can access 
them.  Moreover,  the  current  governance  framework  is  based  on  a  largely  voluntary 
commitment by participating countries. 

In the event that EURAXESS was discontinued, the task of providing mobility and 
career development services for researchers would largely fall to national bodies 
or to research organisations themselves. It is conceivable that some or all national 
networks would endure in some form meaning that some level of service provision would 
continue.  However,  without  the  co-ordinating  role  played  at  EU  level,  service  provision 
would become highly fragmented across the participating countries. Users would have to 
access  multiple  national  or  regional  portals  and  the  quality  and  consistency  of  service 
provision would vary  even more than at present. The top tier of research  organisations 
would continue to attract talent on the strength of their existing profile, reputation, and 
institutional funds that allow them to provide EURAXESS-like services. However, the vast 
majority  of  registered  research  organisations  would  have  to  invest  more  of  their  own 
resources but would be likely to reach a smaller pool of researchers. Finally, the networking 
and collaboration benefits of EURAXESS could continue at national level, provided that the 
relevant  national  bodies  (e.g.  BHOs)  continue  to  invest  resources  in  such  activities. 
However, it is likely the benefits from transnational networking would be greatly reduced, 
with  the  current  EU-wide  networking  likely  to  be  replaced  by  a  patchwork  of  bilateral 
arrangements. 

4.5  Governance and process 

4.5.1 Declaration of Commitment 

The  EURAXESS  Declaration  of  Commitment  (DoC)  is  “an  agreement  that  EURAXESS 
member organisations sign to confirm their alignment with the mission of the EURAXESS 

37 

 
 
Network  and  the  responsibilities  it  entails”.55  It  is  a  statement  of  an  organisation’s 
membership and participation in the EURAXESS Network and acknowledges the objectives 
that the members of the Network aspire to meet.56 The DoC was originally introduced in a 
manner  similar  to  the  commitments  that  Member/Associated  States  make  for  National 
Contact Points (NCPs) in the Framework Programmes.57 It is an important aspect of the 
service as it defines what the different types of network members (BHOs, ECPs, ECDCS) 
should  offer  and  provides  details  on  the  expectations  related  to  the  set-up  and  content 
management  of  the  national  portals.  It  also  defines  the  various  national  structures  and 
their interrelationship. However, the DoC is a declaration of best efforts rather than a legal 
commitment  and  is  dependent  on  the  level  of  funding  and  resources  made  available  at 
national and institutional level. This has led to a diverse range of services across countries. 
Moreover, although the DoC is signed by the highest authority within the relevant body, 
this  does  not  necessarily  translate  into  a  high  level  of  commitment  and  involvement  at 
senior level, for example, in terms of collaboration in the national network. 

A  small  group  of  EURAXESS  BHOs  initiated  the  update  of  the  DoC  mid-2019,  including 
among others, elements meant to strengthen the coordination role of the BHOs/National 
Coordinators in terms of activities monitoring, performance assessment, data collection, 
etc. The majority of affiliated countries did not validate the updated version of the DoC on 
the  rationale  that  a  strengthened  commitment  would  require  national  consultation  with 
centres and local contact points, including a new process of reconfirming adherence to the 
network, thus risking to lose some affiliations. 

The consensus within the EURAXESS Service Network is that the Declaration of 
Commitment has broadly served its purpose, although there may be scope for a 
stronger tool to ensure commitment. Some 60% of EURAXESS providers reported that 
the  DoC  had  been  reasonably  or  very  relevant  and  useful,  and  only  6%  did  not  find  it 
relevant  or  useful  at  all.  Similarly,  most  (52%)  found  it  had driven  the  development  of 
national EURAXESS services to a reasonable or great extent and only 4% thought not at 
all.  However,  a  significant  minority  (30%)  did  not  know  where  the  DoC  had  driven  the 
development of national EURAXESS services and 18% did not know if it was relevant and 
useful.  This  suggests  a  possible  need  for  a  more  binding  tool  that  builds  on  but  goes 
beyond the DoC. 

One of the ways in which the DoC supports EURAXESS is in guiding new members of the 
EURAXESS  network.  As  one  consultee  said:  “The  DoC  offers  an  important  sense  of 
direction  and  steering  information  for  every  member,  as  well  as  for  existing  ones  to 
strengthen the quality of the services provided and the communication system. Without 
any  such  document,  it  would  be  challenging  to  pinpoint  to  new  members  the  reference 
point for offering EURAXESS services”. Another reported benefit is that the DoC ensures 
understanding and commitment from the management of the relevant institutions. 

One way by which the DoC could be strengthened might be to ensure a more explicit focus 
on activities going beyond mobility. This would involve reviewing the distinction between 
EURAXESS Service Centres (ESC) that risk being seen as focusing solely on mobility and 
EURAXESS  Career  Development  Centres  (ECDC)  that  provide  information  on  career 
support to individual researchers but liaise with an identified service centre for all mobility-
related issues. 

It might also be possible to increase the relevance and usefulness of the DoC by making 
it open to supranational organisations consisting of several legal entities. 

55 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/career-development/organisations/resources-and-tools/glossary  
56 https://cdn5.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/domains/de/declaration_of_commitment-final_2017.pdf 
57 https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/support/ncp/h2020-standards-principles_en.pdf  

38 

 
                                                           
Figure 11. Relevance and usefulness of the Declaration of Commitment 
Source: CSES survey of EURAXESS members 

Figure 12. Contribution of the Declaration of Commitment to the development of national services 
Source: CSES survey of EURAXESS members 

The  current  governance  model,  with  its  reliance  on  opting-in  and  voluntary 
commitment of resources risks not being able to deliver the expansion in service 
provision, wide targeting of users, and levelling up of quality that is implied by 
the new ERA. After the initial period of EU funding to kick-start EURAXESS, the network 
has essentially been reliant on national bodies and institutions to commit resources. This 
voluntary  approach  has  led  to  a  large  degree  of  buy-in  with  the  national  level  and 
institutions taking ownership and tailoring services to their own contexts. Quality has been 
supported  by  productive  networking  between  service  members  within  and  between 
different countries. However, if EURAXESS is to evolve into a wider talent platform that 
provides the full range of services needed for research careers to be interoperable between 
academic and different sectors, then a different model is likely to be required. Whilst the 
existing service members show high level of commitment, it is not certain that they would 
have the same capacity or interest to expand provision on a voluntary basis. 

A  binding  framework  might  be  required  if  formal  commitments  are  to  be 
translated  into  improving  the  quality  and  range  of  services  provided  but  risks 
adversely  affecting  the  current  voluntary  “buy-in”.  The  majority  of  EURAXESS 
members (83%) felt that a binding framework would bring about improvements, such as 
greater consistency in the type, scope, and quality of services offered. Having a binding 
commitment would require measuring performance and quality of service provided. The 
challenge will be to get the commitment from participating countries as this will require 

39 

 
 
 
allocations of human resources and funding. Another solution would be to have a degree 
of customisation of the DoC to reflect different levels of commitment. Given that national 
regulations and frameworks are  one  of the most important determinants of the  context 
for  any  institution,  customising  frameworks  to  the  national level  might  enable  the  right 
balance  to  be  struck  between  ensuring  consistent  provision  across  Europe  and  allowing 
appropriate customisation to local circumstances.  However, this solution will only partly 
improve  the  current  framework  of  cooperation,  as  it  can  lead  to  national  networks  not 
endorsing or advancing towards a quality-oriented standard in service provision. This may 
influence the overall activities and perceptions of EURAXESS services network performance 
and brand. 

4.5.2 Overall modus operandi 

EURAXESS  BHOs,  centres  and  LCPs  were  asked  to  comment  on  the  current  modus 
operandi of EURAXESS. An overview of their responses is provided in Figure 13. 

The overall modus operandi of EURAXESS is mostly seen as fit for purpose by the 
EURAXESS network. Some 56% - 82% of respondents considered the modus operandi 
to be good or very good across a range of indicators. 

The networking elements of EURAXESS are considered most fit for purpose, i.e. 
the  structure  of  the  network  at  EU  and  national  level,  network  capacity  building,  and 
collaboration within the network. Indeed, these were considered to be either good or very 
good by 82%, 75%, and 72% of respondents, respectively. 

A  revision  of  the  EURAXESS  modus  operandi  might  allow  more  consistent 
organisation  and  delivery  of  services  across  the  network.  Whilst  the  majority 
opinion was positive in respect of all indicators, the lowest scoring were those relating to 
national commitment and funding, geographical fragmentation, quality and standards of 
performance,  and  monitoring,  data  collection  and  analysis.  This  no  doubt  reflects  the 
strong voluntary dimension of EURAXESS with BHOs, centres and LCPs having a significant 
amount  of  choice  over  the  precise  means  of  implementation  and  the  precise  services 
offered. 

There may be a need to revise the process for engaging institutions. Indeed, only 
17%  of respondents reported the  engagement of institutions to be very good and 23% 
reported it to be poor or very poor (although 43% reported it to be good). 

The following sub-sections explore the individual factors in more detail. 

40 

 
Figure 13. Fitness for purpose of the EURAXESS modus operandi 
Source: CSES Survey of EURAXESS members 

41 

 
 
4.5.3 Funding and resources 

EURAXESS remains heavily reliant on individual institutions to provide funding. 
As shown in Figure 14, nearly three quarters of EURAXESS centres, BHOs or LCPs report 
that  their  own  institution  was  the  main  source  of  funding.  Only  about  one-third  of 
respondents reported that national funding was a main source of funding. EURAXESS is 
thus  reliant  on  institutions  perceiving  that  the  benefits  of  providing  services  will  justify 
their investments of resources. As one EURAXESS centre noted, “Since participation in the 
EURAXESS  network  is  on  a  voluntary  basis  in our  country  and  no  salary  is  involved  for 
EURAXESS work (besides the projects), it is hard to demand anything from the centres. 
All the involvement is based on good will and extra resources”. 

Figure 14. Main sources of EURAXESS funding 
Source: CSES survey of EURAXESS members 

EU  funding  is  not  widely  used  for  EURAXESS  and  tends  to  support  networking 
rather  than  direct  service  provision.  Only  15%  of  respondents  reported  that  EU 
funding was one of the main sources of funding for their EURAXESS centre. Of these 13 
respondents, 4 four referred to the TOP projects, whilst another three referred to Horizon 
Europe or Horizon 2020. One mentioned receiving Erasmus+ funding. 

The majority of EURAXESS centres, BHOs or LCPs have at least one full-time staff 
member  devoted  to  EURAXESS.  As  shown  in  Figure  15,  75%  of  survey  respondents 
reported that the staff resources devoted to EURAXESS amounted to at least one full-time 
equivalent (FTE) person. One third (33%) had at least two, whilst one quarter had fewer 
than  one.  A  small  number  (7%)  reported  no  dedicated  staff  time  for  EURAXESS.  When 
asked  to  comment,  a  few  respondents  noted  that  the  EURAXESS  services  were  simply 
integrated  or  absorbed  into  other  job  roles,  e.g.  within the  research  support  office  of  a 
university or within a project services team. 

42 

 
 
Figure 15. Staff resources devoted to EURAXESS services (FTE) 
Source: CSES survey of EURAXESS members 

4.5.4 Monitoring and quality assurance 

There  may  be  a  need  for  a  more  consistent  approach  to  quality  assurance  of 
EURAXESS services. Nearly two thirds of survey respondents felt that the “Quality and 
standards of performance”  of EURAXESS services  were good and less  than 9% thought 
they were poor or very poor. However, only 19% felt that it was very good. This suggests 
some  scope  to  raise  the  quality  of  all  services  to  the  level  of  the  best.  This  might  be 
achieved  through  strengthening  quality  assurance,  coordination  of  activities  and 
performance monitoring at national and EU level. Indeed, only 13% of survey respondents 
reported that monitoring, data collection, and analysis was very good, whilst 49% felt it 
was good and 20% felt it was poor or very poor. 

Given the discretion, ownership and flexibility available to the EURAXESS BHOs, 
ESCs  and  LCPs,  the  extent  and  nature  of  quality  assurance  of  services  varies 
widely.  Only  about  one  quarter  of  survey  respondents  (26%)  reported  that  they 
undertook extensive and regular checks of their EURAXESS services, although another half 
(50%) did at least undertake initial or occasional checks.  

Figure 16. Survey responses on EURAXESS quality assurance 
NB: excludes “don’t know” responses 

43 

 
 
 
Respondents were asked to describe (in response to an open question) how they checked 
the quality of their EURAXESS services. The main approaches were as follows: 

 

Interviews of or questionnaire sent to researchers benefitting from EURAXESS. Several 
centres  or  LCPs  reported  that  they  routinely  interviewed  or  sent  a  questionnaire  to 
researchers soon after  their arrival at an institution (e.g. 4-6 weeks)  and again just 
prior to departure. 

  Regular survey of all researchers or users; other centres or LCPs reported that they 
sent an on-line survey to all researchers in their institution or to all EURAXESS users 
at regular intervals, e.g. every six months, and which covered services in general. 

  Evaluation of events: some centres or LCPs requested feedback about specific events 

from the participants. 

  Content check: a small number of respondents described how they specifically checked 
the continued relevance of content and also checked the functionality of web pages, 
e.g. to identify any broken hyperlinks. 

  Regular updates of content, guides, etc. to ensured continued relevance and utility. 

  Standardisation of processes: reported by two respondents. In both cases, the steps 
to  be  taken  in  processes  were  described  and  were  in  line  with  the  overall  internal 
quality plan of the organisation (i.e. going beyond EURAXESS services). 

  Application  of  the  HRS4R  checklist:  three  respondents  reports  that  HRS4R  checklist 
guided  the  quality  assurance  of  their  EURAXESS  services,  with  one  of  them  also 
reporting that their HRS4R Action Plan included the development of EURAXESS services 
specifically  for  external  users.  The  review  of  HRS4R  activities  thus  incorporated  a 
quality check of EURAXESS services. 

  Networking:  two  EURAXESS  centres  reported  that  the  participation  in  national  or 
European  EURAXESS  groups  or  networks  was  a  stimulus  and  support  for  quality 
improvement. 

4.5.5 Management at national level 

The role of BHOs, as set out in the Declaration of Commitment, is to act as co-ordinators 
of  the  EURAXESS  network  at  national  level  and  liaise  with  the  European  Commission, 
national governments and other organisations. They have also acted as each country’s link 
to the ERAC Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SWG HRM).58 They should 
coordinate and support the whole network of ESCs, ECPs, and CDCs at a national level and 
represent their countries at the BHO meetings and at the EURAXESS Biennial Conference. 
BHOs  are  appointed  by  the  relevant  national  Ministry  or  other  entity  responsible  for 
national research policy and are potential beneficiaries of transnational operation grants. 
In turn, the BHOs provide support to the ESCs, ECPs, and ECDCs.59 

The EURAXESS Centres are organised in 42 national networks coordinated by BHOs. The 
BHOs also provide the connection to the relevant national ministry and to the European 
Commission. The Commission organises a six-monthly meeting of BHOs to update them 
on  policy  developments,  coordinate  implementation,  share  best  practice  and  take 
decisions. BHOs are typically funded by their national ministries. In some countries, the 
BHOs are operated by the same institution as the MSCA NCP.60 

58 The SWG HRM was until 2018 the Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM). 
59 Declaration of Commitment by the Members of the EURAXESS Service Network, 2017. 
60 MSCA NCPs are national structures established and financed by governments of the EU member states and 
the states associated to the framework programme. NCPs offer advice and information in the relevant national 
language(s) to applicants and potential applicants to MSCA. The NCP systems can vary from one country to 
another from highly centralised to decentralised networks, and a number of very different actors, from 

44 

 
                                                           
There is a need for greater buy-in to the action plans of BHOs. BHOs develop annual 
action  plans  setting  out  their  activities  for  the  year  ahead.  Evidence  from  the  survey 
suggests that fewer than half (45%) of EURAXESS centres and LCPs were aware of and 
supporting the plans. Indeed, 47% reported being unaware of the plans. Encouragingly, 
of those that were aware, only a small proportion (8% of all respondents or 16% of those 
that were aware) were not supporting the relevant BHO action plan. 

Amongst  the  survey  respondents  that  were  supporting  the  BHO  action  plan,  there  was 
considerable diversity in the objectives or activities to which they contributed. In response 
to  an  open  question  inviting  them  to  describe  their  support  for  the  BHO  action  plan, 
respondents most commonly mentioned the following: 

  Communication and promotional activities: including signposting to or contributing to 
the  EURAXESS  national  portal,  promoting  awareness  of  the  national  portal,  e.g.  via 
social media. 

  Providing support for career development or for dual careers. 

  Participating in national networking meetings. 

Figure 17. Awareness of BHO action plans 
Source: CSES survey of EURAXESS members 

BHOs had the opportunity to apply for EU funding from Horizon 2020, via a series of calls 
entitled “EURAXESS TOP I” to EURAXESS TOP IV”. These actions supported activities of 
the EURAXESS Service Network represented by BHOs to address strategic issues related 
to support services of the network.  

For example, the TOP IV project, coordinated by the Greek BHO based in the Centre for 
Research  and  Technology  Hellas,  aims  to  further  intensify  the  services  provided  by  the 
EURAXESS Service Centres and expand the mandate of supporting the career development 
of  mainly  young  researchers  in  Europe  with  a  particular  focus  on  female  students  and 
researchers in Higher Education Institutions.61 The project activities include: 

  Establishing EURAXESS Career Development services. 

  Supporting the enhancement of services for researchers across all national networks, 
such as dual career support, social twinning activities, and diversity management (with 

ministries to universities, research centres and special agencies to private consulting companies. Source: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/ncp 
61 https://www.euraxess.es/spain/spain-network/euraxess-top-iv 

45 

 
 
                                                           
a focus on gender and multicultural issues). 

  Developing  new  services  oriented  to  a  better  connection  between  academia  and 

industry, including raising awareness on scientific entrepreneurship. 

  Capacity building for EURAXESS members. 

  Stronger  promotion  of  the  EURAXESS  initiative,  including  the  engagement  and 

collaboration with other relevant networks initiatives. 

  Further improving the support to  third country researchers in Europe, particularly in 

collaboration with the EURAXESS Worldwide chapters. 

  Support the development of the EURAXESS national portals. 

  Facilitating the evolution of EURAXESS in regards to future developments in ERA. 

4.5.6 Networking 

The “internal” collaboration and networking aspects of EURAXESS are strong, i.e. 
within the network of EURAXESS providers. As shown by Figure 18, the overwhelming 
majority  (83%)  of  EURAXESS  BHOs,  centres,  and  LCPs  reported  that  their  organisation 
had benefitted from the collaboration activities, of which most (45%) to a great extent. 
Only 3% believed their organisation had not benefitted and only 1% did not know. When 
asked  about  the  extent  to  which  different  elements  of  the  current  modus  operandi  of 
EURAXESS  are  fit  for  purpose,  those  relating  to  networking  were  rated  most  highly, 
namely: 

  Structure of the network at EU/national level: 74% good or very good (of which 30% 

very good). 

  Network capacity building: 75% good or very good (of which 33% very good). 

  Collaboration within the network: 82% good or very good (of which 41% very good). 

This  finding  is  supported  by  the  qualitative  feedback  gathered  from  the  survey  and 
interviews, which suggests that for several EURAXESS members, the collaborative feature 
of  the  EURAXESS  networks  is  one  of  the  most  important  forms  of  added  value.  One 
EURAXESS member in Germany pointed out that the German EURAXESS national network 
holds  group  study  visits  annually,  which  are  attended  by  local  EURAXESS  members. 
Similarly,  feedback  received  from  Spain’s  portal  administrator  indicates  that  regular 
communication  channels  with  local  EURAXESS  members  are  used  to  keep  members 
informed of EU project participation. In addition, the same stakeholder added that national 
training  days  are  also  organised  thus  creating  opportunities  for  hands-on  collaboration 
between EURAXESS members. Similar accounts were shared by  other BHO  members in 
other Member States, therefore suggesting that the level of collaboration within EURAXESS 
national networks is relatively high. As one EURAXESS centre noted: “the mutual exchange 
and collaboration among EURAXESS network across Europe is a key aspect, that enables 
the  improvement  and  development  of  services”.  Another  particularly  highlighted  the 
usefulness of events, such as training or meetings with experts on practical issues related 
to  immigration,  taxation,  healthcare,  etc.  These  were  seen  as  useful  to  keep  ESCs  and 
LCPs  up  to  date  on  latest  developments,  such  as  revisions  to  legislation  or  procedures 
related to employment and immigration. 

46 

 
Figure 18. Extent of benefits from collaboration within EURAXESS 
Source: CSES survey of EURAXESS members 

Collaboration  across  national  networks  is  described  positively  by  EURAXESS 
members  but  may  not  have  been  as  high  as  the  level  of  collaboration  within 
national networks. Indeed, formal cross-border collaboration took place as part of the 
TOP  I  to  TOP  IV  projects  (among  other  initiatives),  but  other  formal  opportunities  may 
have been few and far between. Despite the lack of quantitative data needed to confidently 
determine  whether  this  has  indeed  been  the  case,  anecdotal  evidence  from  interviews 
conducted to date suggest that there has been instances of informal communication and 
collaboration between EURAXESS members based in different countries. Indeed, several 
interviewees  explained  that  the  EURAXESS  network  provides  informal  channels  of 
communication and collaboration with other EURAXESS members, which is of great 
benefit  for  mobile  researchers  when  relocating  according  to  interviewed  EURAXESS 
members. As one interviewee based in France put it “If there is a need for collaboration in 
my university for a completely different topic, I know people from the EURAXESS centre 
in  Hungary,  so  I  can  contact  them  […]  and  ask  for  support,  and  that's  a  good  way  to 
engage”.  

Collaboration has been supported by the TOP projects. A review of the TOP III and 
TOP  IV  projects  revealed  that  these  projects  provided  opportunities  for  EURAXESS 
members  to  collaborate  on  a  range  of  topics.  For  instance,  TOP  III’s  Work  Package  7 
(thereafter WP7) organised a “Network Call” with a view to improve structural partnerships 
with  other  networks.  Similarly,  the  subsequent  TOP  IV  project  provided  additional 
opportunities  for  collaboration  between  EURAXESS  members,  via,  for  example,  its  WP5 
which provided two cross-border peer-to-peer activities such as Study Visits Programme 
(SVP)  and  Book-a-Trainer  Scheme  (BTS)  and  sought  to  share  and  facilitate  the 
dissemination  of  the  expertise  and  knowledge  accumulated  and  developed  by  the 
EURAXESS network. 

There  is  scope  to  strengthen  the  collaboration  and  connection  with  “external” 
stakeholders,  particularly  with  other  transnational  networks  such  as  the 
Enterprise Europe Network, EURES or Europass, but also with the private sector. 
Collaboration  with  external  stakeholders  was  reported  by  most  EURAXESS  providers 
(70%) to be good or very good. However, only 14% of those reported it to be very good 
with  most  56%  reporting  it  to  be  good.  Some  22%  did  not  know  how  effective  such 
collaboration  was.  This  was  reinforced  by  the  qualitative  responses  to  open  survey 
questions. As one respondent noted: “the network's internal work and capacity building 

47 

 
 
should  be  more  open  to  external  stakeholders  and  less  focused  on  the  technicality  of 
internal reports and statistics”. 

The level of collaboration with the private sector seems to vary widely across the 
EURAXESS network with some EURAXESS members suggesting that it has been 
low.  For  example,  feedback  received  from  interviews  indicate  that  the  Irish  national 
network is in a strong position regarding collaboration with industry due to the fact that 
the portal administrator is involved in the facilitation of the scientific visa scheme, which 
is  of  great  benefit  to  the  Irish  private  sector  as  it  allows  companies  to  quickly  hire 
researchers  from  non-EU  countries  using  this  scheme  for  free.  The  same  interviewee 
further explained that at present, there are 14 participating enterprises, which constitute 
a  network  allowing  high  levels  of  cooperation  between  EURAXESS  members  and  users, 
and  the  Irish  private  sector.  Similarly,  feedback  received  from  stakeholders  in  Spain 
indicates that collaboration with the private sector is an important goal for the Spanish 
EURAXESS national network. However, various hurdles were reported. One of them lies in 
the  lack  of  visibility  and  added  value  EURAXESS  offers  to  the  private  sector  given  that 
many companies have at their disposal established and effective avenues for their human 
resource needs. Conversely, in countries such as France, Romania, and Austria, feedback 
received  from  stakeholders  suggests  that  private  sector  engagement  has  been  low, 
although  EURAXESS  stakeholders  expressed  an  interest  in  exploring  further  ways  to 
collaborate with industry. Some EURAXESS members reported private firms did not always 
see the immediate benefits of their collaboration with EURAXESS, for example, because 
they often have strong human resource functions and established methods of recruitment. 

48 

 
5.  THE LABOUR MARKET FOR RESEARCHERS 

5.1  Higher education context 

Whilst  the  ERA  recognises  that  research  careers  feature  across  all  sectors,  the  higher 
education  sector  plays  a  pivotal  role  in  developing  talent,  undertaking  research  and 
contributing to innovation ecosystems. This role is evolving and will need to evolve further 
in  light  of  developments  and  challenges  in  the  context  in  which  higher  education 
institutions (HEIs) operate. 

First, like all sectors, HEIs need to respond to the challenges posed by the COVID-
19 global pandemic. Public and private funders are prioritising investments not only in 
the  development  of  vaccines  but  also  in  research  into  how  best  to  tackle  the  wider 
economic, social and public health challenges raised by the pandemic. This is creating a 
need and an opportunity for HEIs to adapt and expand their capacities for and approach 
to research and innovation. At the same time, the pandemic and the associated economic 
downturn  bring  their  own  risks.  This  may  include  loss  of  income  due  to  difficulties  in 
attracting  students  (particularly  international)  and  disruption  in  the  undertaking  of 
research.  These  risks  are  manifesting  themselves  in  a  context  of  increasing  global 
competition in higher education, not least from universities in the USA and China, many 
of  whom  have  access  to  considerable  public  and  private  funding  for  research  and 
innovation.  Indeed,  research  and  development  spending  in  2019  amounted  to  some 
$613bn in the USA (3.1% of GDP) and $515bn in China (2.2% of GDP), but only $391bn 
in  the  EU  (2.1%  of  GDP).62  In  this  context,  there  is  a  need  for  the  EU’s  universities  to 
retain  or  attain  world-class  status  in  research  and  (continue  to)  attract  top  research 
talents.  This  challenge  also  raises  the  question  as  to  the  balance  that  EU  policy  should 
strike between prioritising support for (a few) world-class universities that can compete 
with the best and support to raise the performance of the sector as a whole. 

A second need is for the research role of HEIs to evolve, so that they can (continue to) 
play their part in addressing the green transition and other societal challenges, 
such as those highlighted in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to 
which  the  EU  is  committed.  Indeed,  HEIs  have  the  potential  to  play  a  unique  role  in 
generating and disseminating the knowledge required to meet such challenges.  This will 
require  a  mix  of  longer-term,  bottom-up,  curiosity-driven  research  as  well  as  active 
participation  in  the  EU’s  societal  challenges-focussed  strategic  research  and  innovation 
agenda, albeit whilst maintaining their autonomy and academic freedom. Such research 
will  need  to  be  international,  interdisciplinary,  and  intersectoral  in  nature,  given  the 
complex and multi-faceted nature of such challenges. HEIs will thus need both to organise 
themselves so that researchers of different disciplines can work together and to strengthen 
their  co-operation  with  non-academic  sectors  and  with  research  partners  in  other 
countries. 

Linked to this, a third need is for greater societal engagement by HEIs. Citizen science 
can increase the quality and relevance of research by tapping into sources of evidence that 
would  not  otherwise  be  reached  or  by  giving  new  insights  and  alternative  perspectives 
that  “professional”  researchers  might  not  offer.  Greater  societal  engagement  is  also 
needed  to  strengthen  the  understanding  and  interpretation  of  scientific  evidence  and 
research results by policy-makers and wider societal actors, and scientific literacy among 
citizens.  Such  engagement  is  needed  to  maintain  and  increase  trust  in  the  research 
process  and  in  the  results  of  research.  This  is  increasingly  important  given  that  the 
authority of scientific evidence is being increasingly challenged and the development and 
application of new technologies often raise concerns or even fears amongst the public. 

62 OECD (2021), Gross domestic spending on R&D (indicator) (Accessed on 22 April 2021). 

49 

 
                                                           
A fourth need is for HEIs to maintain and enhance co-operation with other HEIs and 
actors in other sectors within their research and innovation ecosystems and  at 
all levels, including transnationally. Such co-operation is required to address the three 
other needs just mentioned. Co-operation can open up diverse and multiple opportunities, 
such  as  enabling  knowledge  and  technology  exchange  (e.g.  in  relation  to  the  green 
transition),  facilitating  intersectoral  mobility,  and  supporting  smart  specialisation  and 
socio-economic, cultural and civic development at the local and regional levels. Such co-
operation takes place in a diversity of ways, but increasingly requires structured and long-
term partnership structures to be established. 

Finally, linked to all these challenges, is the need for HEIs to continually respond to the 
opportunities and challenges raised by digitalisation and digital transformation. 
As more and more research, teaching and learning takes place on-line, there is an ever-
increasing need for researchers and academics to have the necessary digital skills and for 
HEIs to provide such skills to learners. There is also the need to foster open science and 
open  access  to  data,  which  is  sometimes  hindered  by  the  culture  and  governance  of 
universities, including career appraisal systems that do not incentivise such practices. 

In  the  new  ERA  Communication,  the  Commission  states  its  commitment  to  develop, 
together  with  the  Member  States,  a  roadmap  of  actions  for  creating synergies  between 
higher education and research, notably building on the dual role of universities. Similarly, 
in  the  new  EEA  Communication,  the  Commission  states  its  commitment  to  a 
transformation  agenda  for  higher  education  by  the  end  of  2021.63  The  Commission 
proposes  to  work  with  the  higher  education  sector  and  Member  States  to  co-create 
incentives for an accelerated transformation of HEIs in an open and inclusive manner. To 
this  end,  the  European  University  pilot  alliances  will  serve  as  testbeds  for  institutional 
transformations  focused  on  connectivity  among  HEIs  and  with  their  surrounding 
ecosystems, inclusion, digital and green readiness and resilience, and innovation linked to 
research and in teaching and learning. The Commission also proposes the full rollout of 
the  European  Universities  initiative  under  the  Erasmus+  programme  in  synergy  with 
Horizon Europe, the Digital Europe Programme and other EU instruments. 

5.2  Challenges 

The  need  for  action  to  support  research  careers  is  demonstrated  by  the  challenges 
manifested in the labour market. They are as follows. 

There  is  a  need  to  improve  the  employability  of  researchers,  so  that  they  can 
undertake the high-quality research needed to meet the demands of the knowledge society 
and  achieve  key  policy  objectives,  not  least  the  SDGs.  Encouragingly,  the  stock  of 
researchers  increased  by  22%  in  Europe  between  2007-2015.64  The  main  areas  of 
expansion are at the R1 (PhD) and R2 (post-doctorate) levels, with far smaller increases 
at R3 and R4. However, the risk is that many of these researchers are mostly prepared 
for a career in academia, whereas the need is for many of them to work in other sectors 
and the number of R3 and R4 university academic positions is, in any case, limited. There 
is  then  a  need  for  training  to  prepare  researchers  for  careers  beyond  academia.  These 
include  digital  skills,  collaboration  and  teamwork,  leadership,  entrepreneurial  skills, 
commercialisation, project management, customer service, open and responsible science 
skills  (including  Open  Access  publication,  FAIR  and  open  data  management,  research 
integrity  and  ethics,  engagement  with  society,  and  the  role  of  citizen  science  in 
strengthening engagement in open science). In response to these needs, the Commission 
is  developing  a  European  Competence  Framework  for  Researchers  to  foster  targeted 

63 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. 
64 UNESCO Science Report towards 2030, UNESCO (2015). 

50 

 
                                                           
training for the skilling, upskilling and reskilling of researchers and intersectoral mobility, 
based on the new ERA Communication and the European Skills Agenda. 

There  is  also  a  need  to  expose  researchers  to  the  non-academic  sector,  as  a  way  of 
widening,  enhancing  and  updating  skills  and  experience.  This  is  all  the  more  necessary 
since  complex  societal  challenges  require  research  to  draw  on  expertise  of  different 
academic disciplines and non-academic sectors. At doctoral level (R1), the EUA-CDE calls 
for  the  development  of  transversal  or  generic  skills  and  competences,  in  addition  to 
research  skills  and  notes  that  doctoral  schools  and  similar  structures  are  responding  to 
this  need.65  However,  a  survey  carried  out  by  the  European  Commission  in  the  MORE3 
study  showed  that  while  81%  of  PhD  candidates  consider  transferable  skills  training 
important, only 33% received such training.66 

There is need to develop more diverse career paths for researchers and to make 
those  career  paths  more  visible,  in  order  to  address  the  mismatch  between 
researchers’ skills and jobs available. Not only is there a mismatch between the supply 
of post-doctoral researchers and the availability of senior academic positions, there is also 
an increasing need for researchers that can engage with non-academic sectors and with 
citizens in order to address societal challenges. Ultimately, the need is for research career 
paths  that  are  more  “interoperable”  between  academic  and  non-academic  sectors,  with 
researchers  receiving  the  necessary  training,  experience,  and  support  to  develop  their 
careers in this way. Indeed, it is striking that the very first Commission policy document 
on  the  researcher  in  the  context  of  ERA  published  in  2003  was  the  Communication 
“Researchers in the European Research Area: one profession, multiple careers”.67 To do 
this requires not only the provision of appropriate skills training for researchers but also a 
wider  cultural  change  in  academia,  for  example,  an  appreciation  of  non-academic  skills 
and experiences, as well as new co-operations with the non-academic sector and the local 
innovation ecosystem, both in research and in the design of curricula, and the oversight 
of  doctoral  programmes.  Such  co-operation  can  also  be  necessary  to  overcome  the 
reticence of researchers to move into other sectors, such as manufacturing industry that 
they might not at first consider very appealing, despite the career opportunities available 
therein. 

There is a need to ensure that career evaluation systems recognise that people 
employed  to  do  research  often  combine  research  with  other  tasks.  Within 
universities, there is need for systems of merit, addressing the variety of tasks performed 
by researchers to avoid detrimental effects to researchers careers and to the mission of 
universities. The system by which professionals are evaluated and rewarded serves as a 
behavioural  driver:  incentivising  them  to  prioritise  certain  activities  and  outcomes  over 
others. This can encourage the pursuit of excellence in research. However, two main risks 
arise: first, that the choice of behaviours/outcomes rewarded is too narrow, leading the 
academic to neglect other beneficial activities; second, that the choice of metrics applied 
to the selected outcome is too narrow.68 For example, an overemphasis on “journal impact 
factor” risks aggravating the trend towards “less practical, less relevant research and large 
anonymised  data  cohorts  with  tight  statistical  methods  leave  little  space  for  practical 
adoption  and  impact”.69  A  survey  carried  out  by  the  EUA  showed  that  for  researcher 
assessment  in  over  75%  of  respondent  universities,  research  publications  and  securing 
external  research  funding  are  the  main  criteria.70  Moreover,  some  national  regulatory 

65 European Universities Association Council for Doctoral Education (2019), Doctoral education in Europe today: 
approaches and institutional structures. 
66 Mobility Patterns and Career Paths of EU Researchers (www.more3.eu). 
67 COM(2003) 436 final, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - 
Researchers in the European Research Area: one profession, multiple careers. 
68 EUA (2019), Reflections on University Research Assessment: Key concepts, issues and actors. European 
University Association. 
69 Alexander, A. (2018). The Entrepreneurial Academic – Fighting against a "Race to the Bottom"; in The Future 
of Universities Thoughtbook, University Industry Innovation Network. p. 81. 
70 EUA (2019), Research Assessment in the Transition to Open Science. 

51 

 
                                                           
frameworks may limit the ability of universities to have an open, transparent, and merit-
based  recruitment  process.  Since  most  sustainable  careers  within  academia  involve 
education, service to society and leadership, in addition to research, an assessment of a 
researcher’s potential should also take into account the skills required to take on such a 
broader role. 

There  is  a  need  to  reduce  the  precarity  of  employment  conditions  that 
researchers  increasingly  experience,  particularly  within  universities.  This  is 
caused by a number of factors including increased competition for permanent academic 
positions (given the increased supply of post-doctoral researchers), short-term research 
funding models, the recognition of a too narrow list of metrics and the variation in salaries 
across  Europe.  This  precarity  can  manifest  itself  in  low  and  insecure  income,  gaps  in 
portability of pensions and social security, and a need to move between jobs. It can be 
aggravated by cultural or personal barriers to mobility, limited time for skills development 
or poor practice in the management and supervision of researchers. 

There  is  an  increased  need  for  inter-sectoral  and  inter-disciplinary  mobility 
amongst researchers. Two trends are driving this. First, short-term funding for research 
positions at R1, R2 and R3 levels in general is requiring researchers to change roles within 
academia  or  even  into  and  out  of  other  sectors;  indeed  sectors  such  as  manufacturing 
very often offer more permanent positions for researchers than does academia. Second, 
many  of  the  key  challenges  facing  society  require  solutions  that  draw  on  and  combine 
expertise  from  different  academic  disciplines  and  with  expertise  from  non-academic 
sectors.  There  is  therefore  a  need  to  develop  a  mix  of  specialist  and  transversal 
competences,  which  typically  requires  a  degree  of  inter-sectoral  and  inter-disciplinary 
mobility, although such mobility will take very  different forms and  vary across different 
disciplines.  

There is a need to enable wide and balanced circulation of talent. As noted in the 
study on the Future of Universities in Europe, the rationale for promoting the geographical 
mobility  of  academics  and  researchers  is  that  individuals  gain  career  benefits  from 
international  experience,  host  institutions  gain  from  the  experience  and  different 
perspective  offered  by  non-nationals,  and  innovation  is  promoted  through  the  cross-
fertilisation  of  ideas  from  diverse  professionals.  However,  mobility  can  be  hindered  by 
issues relating to social security provision, employment rights, and language. There are 
also  differences  in  the  employment  status  of  researchers  and  academics  in  different 
countries,  different  national  frameworks  for  recruitment,  reward,  etc.  and  different 
practices by research funders, all of which may result in unequal treatment of researchers. 
Moreover, geographical mobility can contribute to the “brain drain” away from countries 
with weaker research sectors towards those with stronger ones, which can be aggravated 
by  differentials  in  salary  levels.  For  example,  within  the  MSCA,  universities  in  EU-13 
countries tend to submit fewer proposals and proposals are on average of lower-quality 
compared to EU-15 countries.71 

There  is  a  need  to  close  the  gaps  relating  to  gender,  ethnicity,  disability,  and 
socio-economic status in research positions. There remains a gender gap in research 
positions and a “glass ceiling” for women throughout their academic careers beyond the 
doctoral level, and a persistent under-representation of women in the highest grades and 
research posts and as heads of academic institutions.72 These gaps are likely to be even 
more pronounced when other characteristics are also considered, such as race, ethnicity, 
disability or socio-economic status. The situation varies significantly between higher and 
lower innovation countries, with the latter tending to have a lower gender equality index 

71 European Commission (2017), FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions 
72 European Commission: She figures 2018. 

52 

 
                                                           
and  fewer  actions  and  strategies  to  promote  gender  equality  in  research  compared  to 
higher innovation countries.73 

There is a need to counteract the labour market challenges for researchers that 
are  being  aggravated  by  the  effects  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  as  for  all 
occupations.  Whilst  additional  investments  in  research  to  address  the  effects  of  the 
pandemic  are  creating  some  new  opportunities,  there  are  also  delays  to  recruitment  in 
many other cases. Those in work may face uncertainty and opportunities for mobility or 
training may be more limited. 

5.3  Areas where (more) action is needed 

5.3.1 Recognising and supporting researchers beyond academia 

In  order  to  support  intersectoral  mobility  of  researchers  and  maintain  its 
relevance in the renewed ERA, the Charter and Code must take a much broader 
view of a researcher’s career and ensure coverage of both STEM and non-STEM 
researchers.  The  standard  definition  of  “researcher”  is  based  on  the  OECD’s  Frascati 
Manual, first developed in 1963,74 but many of its principles are less suited to researchers 
working in other research organisations, industry, NGOs, or government agencies, despite 
the fact that such organisations also employ researchers and obtain research funding from 
EU  framework  programmes.  Indeed,  the  interim  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020  found  that 
organisations  other  than  universities  had  received  67%  of  EU  funding  from  the 
programme.75  They  equally  carry  a  responsibility  as  employers  to  provide  a  safe, 
supportive,  and  inspiring  work  environment  for  researchers.  Academic  freedom,  for 
example, is a precious good in academic environments, but in organisations expected to 
deliver specific research results, the lack of academic freedom does not stand in the way 
of other supportive measures for researchers’ careers, many of which may be even better 
than those in an academic environment (e.g. job security, training or career development). 
A similar limitation lies in the fact that the Charter and Code do not acknowledge the reality 
that for most researchers, the actual “research period” takes up a small part of their career 
and will be followed by a much longer phase of applying advanced research skills in other 
professions,  in  a  broader  academic  role  including  teaching,  or  in  non-academic 
environments. 

Following on from this, there may be a need for EU policy to adopt a wider definition 
of “researcher”. Indeed, one possible barrier to improving the labour market position of 
researchers is that the occupation is not well defined and thus not well recognised. This 
lack of definition and of recognition tends to hinder a full understanding of the situation of 
researchers  and  thus  makes  it  difficult  for  policymakers  to  respond  in  ways  that  will 
improve it. In the context of the new ERA, a better definition of “researcher”, building on 
but  going  beyond  Frascati,  could  inform  the  design  of  relevant  EU  policy  tools.  A  key 
benefit  of  better  defining  the  occupation  of  researcher  and  the  related  skills  and 
qualifications  would  be  to  facilitate  more  effective  monitoring  of  labour  market 
developments, for example, related to skill gaps, mobility or working conditions. Here, it 
would  be  important  for  any  definitions  to  be  consistent  with  or  aligned  with  the  ESCO 
classification of European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations.76 

There  is  an  important  choice  to  make  in  how  to  define  “researchers”.  Different 
options are possible including those in Table 6. 

73 ERAC Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation (2018) Report on the implementation 
of Council Conclusions of 1 December 2015 on Advancing Gender Equality in the European Research Area. 
74 OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and 
Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. 
75 SWD(2017) 220, Commission Staff Working Document, In-Depth Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, p.92 
76 https://ec.europa.eu/esco/portal  

53 

 
                                                           
Table 6 Options for defining “researcher” 

Focus 

Definition / Coverage 

Occupation  Persons carrying out research (nearly) full time (e.g. MSCA postdoctoral researcher, R&D 

scientist) 

Tasks 

Persons carrying out research as part of their occupation (e.g. professor, R&D manager, 
innovative entrepreneur) 

Skills set 

Persons trained as researchers, continuing to use research skills in diverse careers 

Each option has relative merits and drawbacks: 

  Occupation: would enable the clear identification of individuals targeted by any policy 
measures, which would facilitate the design, implementation, and monitoring of such 
measures. But this definition might risk not taking into account other tasks undertaken 
by researchers (teaching, mentoring, entrepreneurship, etc.) or risk failing to include 
those in other occupations who undertake research. 

  Tasks: would facilitate a focus on improving working conditions in which research is 
undertaken and recognition of the skills gained in research, regardless of the formal 
job position of the person undertaking the research. The risk would be that the cohort 
of persons is quite disparate and thus hard to target by policy measures. 

  Skills  set:  would  facilitate  recognition  of  the  researchers’  expertise  once  they  leave 
active research in their disciplinary area by offering a focus on key competences, e.g. 
the ability to analyse and solve highly complex problems, collaborate internationally, 
communicate results. This recognition would in turn help the design of skills training 
and  career  development,  particularly  with  a  view  to  careers  that  are  interoperable 
between academia and other sectors. But again, the risk would be that the cohort of 
persons is quite disparate and thus hard to target by policy measures. 

5.3.2 Widening institutional commitment to supporting researcher careers 

Whilst  around  1,300  organisations  have  endorsed  the  Charter  and  Code  principles,  a 
substantial cohort of universities and research organisations have not formally 
endorsed the Charter and Code. Similarly, whilst the number of organisations that have 
gained  the  HR  Excellence  in  Research  Award  is  significant  (i.e.  634),  it  represents  less 
than 10% of the 5,881 of organisations participating in Horizon 2020 (of which 2,510 HEI 
and 3,371 REC). Article 32 in the Horizon 2020 Model Grant Agreement (MGA) required 
applicants to take all measures to implement the principles in the Charter and Code, as 
does the Annotated Model Grant Agreement of Horizon Europe.77 But it seems that a formal 
endorsement of the Charter and Code and certainly the involvement in HRS4R process are 
not the preferred implementation method.78 The challenge is thus to increase the number 
of  organisations  committed  to  the  Charter  and  Code  and  then,  in  turn,  to  increase  the 
number  that  go  on  to  gain  the  award.  One  possibility  would  be  that  the  receipt  of  the 
award  could  serve  as  a  “Seal  of  Excellence”,  so  that  organisations  holding  it  receive 
recognition when applying for Horizon Europe funds, for example, additional points in the 
scoring process for specific calls for proposals. The same approach would also be possible 
within the ESIF, although this would be dependent on Managing Authorities for the relevant 
programmes choosing to take such a course of action. 

77 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/aga_en.pdf 
78 https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020-amga_en.pdf  

54 

 
 
 
                                                           
Looking  ahead,  the  total  number  of  organisations  participating  in  Horizon  2020 
could  inform  a  target  for  efforts  to  increase  the  number  of  organisations 
obtaining  the  HR  Excellence  in  Research  Award,  i.e.  moving  them  from  the 
commitment implied by Article 32 towards a formal application for the award. Efforts to 
pursue such a target would need to be informed by a more in-depth understanding of the 
reasons  why  certain  institutions  choose  not  to  endorse  the  principles  or  apply  for  the 
award. They also need to ensure a focus on institutions involved both in STEM and non-
STEM disciplines. 

An important choice to be made would be the extent to which the Charter and Code take 
on a more binding nature. The Charter and Code have been beneficial for many countries 
and institutions, but remain a “soft power” instrument based on voluntary commitments, 
which  cannot  guarantee  the  implementation  of  its  principles.  Stronger  incentives  or 
more  binding  tools  such  as  legislative  instruments  or  a  formal  commitment  of 
Member States or a link with research funding could promote wider commitment to 
the Charter and Code principles and to seeking the HR Excellence in Research Award. If 
pursuing an approach focused on performance assessment, one must be mindful of the 
risks of reducing the intrinsic motivation for quality improvement, which is highlighted by 
committed stakeholders as a valuable component of the HRS4R. 

5.3.3 Widening national support for EU tools supporting researcher careers 

As well as efforts at EU level, there may be scope for national government support to 
incentivise  HRS4R  involvement.  This  is  demonstrated  by  countries  hosting  most 
organisations with the awards: Spain (132), UK (98), Poland (91), France (35), and the 
Czech Republic (25).79 Each country has taken a different approach: some have relied on 
organisations  making  their  own  choices,  whilst  others  have  actively  encouraged 
endorsement of the Charter and Code, whilst others have made certain funding streams 
depend upon applicant organisations having endorsed the Charter and Code or submitted 
an HRS4R application. Compulsory measures, such as the obligation at Polish universities 
to endorse the Charter and Code, or the excellence initiative at Czech universities, turn 
the  HR  Excellence  in  Research  Award  into  an  essential  and  required  part  of  managerial 
change, thus becoming external drivers for HRS4R uptake. 

5.3.4 Widening support for international mobility 

Actions at EU level have done much to enable wide and balanced circulation of talent both 
within and into the EU. This has included legislation to remove legal barriers, including the 
Fixed Term Work Directive (1999)80 and the Third Country Researchers Directive (2005) 
or scientific visa81 and its update in 2016 to include students.82 The RESAVER Europe-wide 
researcher  pension  scheme  allows  for  mobile  employees  to  keep  their  pension 
arrangements while changing countries and jobs.83 EURAXESS offers practical support for 
researchers to be internationally mobile, through its network in the EU Member States and 
through EURAXESS Worldwide (see section 4). Last, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 
(MSCA)  have  co-financed  international  mobility  periods,  including  via  the  Individual 
Fellowships, Innovative Training Networks, and COFUND programmes. 

Looking  ahead,  the  Communication  on  the  new  ERA  highlights  the  need  for  European 
researchers to access excellence and expand their experience. It also highlights the need 

79 https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/hrs4r/dashboard 
80 Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work 
concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. 
81 European Council (2005) Procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific 
research, European Council Directive 2005/71/EC (OJ L 289, 3.11.2005). 
82 European Council (2016), Conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of 
research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing, 
European Parliament and Council Directive EC 2016/801 (OJ L132/21 11.05.2016). 
83 https://www.resaver.eu/ 

55 

 
                                                           
for  Europe  to  become  a  pole  of  attraction  for  the  world’s  best  talents.  The  ERA  thus 
proposes widening support for intra-European and extra-European mobility. This includes 
strengthening  mobility  opportunities,  as  well  as  broadening  the  EURAXESS  services, 
network and portals into an “ERA Talent Platform”. This will be an online one-stop–shop, 
with improved structure and governance, exploiting links to Europass, the EU platform for 
people to manage their learning and careers and the EURES network of European public 
employment services. Broadening EURAXESS in this way will depend on the commitment 
of  stakeholders across the research and  employment spectrum particularly the relevant 
ministries in participating countries. EURAXESS must transform from a network of people 
to  a  network  of  capacities,  i.e.  centres  providing  high  value  support  with  high  levels  of 
expertise,  working  with  clear  quality  standards,  and  measuring  impact.  There  may  be 
potential for EURAXESS to contribute to those issues that have been given greater priority 
in the new ERA, including research integrity, open science, and citizen science. The bridge 
from  training  to  employment  for  researchers  is  already  present  in  current  EURAXESS 
services but could be expanded. 

5.3.5 Widening support for intersectoral mobility 

Until  recently,  EU  research  policies  focused  in  particular  on  researchers’  international 
mobility. As various barriers to international mobility were addressed and the investment 
in training researchers increased, the challenges shifted towards researchers’ intersectoral 
mobility. The number of PhD degrees awarded increased significantly in Europe, but the 
transfer  of  researchers’  careers  from  academic  employment  into  various  sectors  of  the 
knowledge economy, did not come about by itself. Many universities continued to focus 
their early career researchers’ training on academic career paths; mobility schemes funded 
international  research  visits  but  not  the  research  stays  in  R&D  companies  that  could 
equally  be  of  benefit.  Researchers  reported  a  reluctance  amongst  employers  to 
acknowledge their potential; employers reported a mismatch of expectations when hiring 
staff with research skills. 

The European Commission Study on Fostering Industrial Talents examined the nature and 
frequency of schemes that did support intersectoral mobility.84 The MSCA proved to be the 
most  widespread  mobility  scheme  that  supported  international  as  well  as  intersectoral 
mobility. National schemes were  far more limited in most EU Member States; the most 
common intersectoral mobility programmes were PhD schemes in which a supervisor from 
a  university  and  a  supervisor  from  industry  take  joint  responsibility  for  a  PhD  research 
project  or  doctoral  training  programmes  which  prepared  researchers  for  future 
intersectoral mobility. Lack of sustainable intersectoral mobility funding, lack of trust and 
appreciation  between  academia  and  non-academic  organisations  and  the  dominance  of 
bibliometric  evaluation  criteria  in  academia  were  the  most  significant  barriers  to 
intersectoral mobility. 

The ERA Priority 3 policy measures have demonstrated their power in steering policies at 
national  and  institutional  level.  If  redesigned  with  a  focus  on  intersectoral  mobility,  a 
number of opportunities could arise. The Charter and Code, for example, which is mostly 
focused  on  researchers  in  an  academic  environment,  could  take  into  account  research 
positions  in  industry,  in  the  public  sector,  in  NGOs,  and  other  organisations  that  hire 
researchers. It could also take into account the fact that most researchers in an academic 
environment will only spend a part of their career in the research profession but will rely 
on their research skills in whatever career path they pursue. The HRS4R criteria currently 
do  not  expect  universities  to  take  responsibility  for  their  researchers’  future  careers 
beyond academia through for example skills training, intersectoral mobility initiatives or 
career development tools. 

84 European Commission (2018), Study on Fostering Industrial Talents in Research at European Level. 

56 

 
                                                           
Looking  ahead,  the  proposed  “ERA4You”  initiative  will  introduce  measures  to  reinforce 
inter-sectoral mobility, strengthen academic-business cooperation and the involvement of 
the private sector in training and skills development of researchers. The intention set out 
in  the  Commission  Communication  on  the  new  ERA  is  that  ERA4You  will  underpin 
permeability  of  research  and  innovation  talents  to  the  whole  of  society  and  the  entire 
economy and encourage researchers towards entrepreneurship and business creation. A 
dedicated pillar for  Widening Countries will support  researchers from  these countries to 
develop and access excellence. 

EURAXESS  as  a  talent  portal  may  be  an  effective  tool  to  support  the  quality  and  the 
promotion of intersectoral mobility schemes. As a portal and service centre, it could help 
prepare researchers for a wide range of careers through training, career development and 
networking  activities.  It  could  advertise  mobility  schemes,  promote  the  benefits  of 
university-industry  collaboration,  as  well  as  help  bridge  the  distance  between  non-
academic  employers  on  one  side,  and  universities  and  early  career  researchers  on  the 
other. 

57 

 
 
6.  FUTURE  TRANSFORMATIONS  IN  THE  CONTEXT  OF  THE  NEW 

ERA  

6.1  Framework for research careers 

The  Council  Conclusions  of  28  May  2021  on  “Deepening  the  European  Research  Area: 
Providing researchers with attractive and sustainable careers and working conditions and 
making brain circulation a reality” recalled that enhancing the attractiveness of research 
careers across the Union is a vital element of the new ERA. The Conclusions highlighted 
that  the  ERA  has  successfully  fostered  mobility  of  researchers  and  removed  barriers  to 
circulation and career development. These achievements have been obtained through a 
variety of instruments including the Charter and Code, the HRS4R, EURAXESS, the MSCA, 
European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST), and widening measures. While 
recognising  clear  progress,  the  Council  noted,  however,  that  the  European  and 
international  dimension  of  research  careers  still  requires  continued  joint  efforts  and 
commitments by Member States and the EU. 

On that basis, the Council welcomed the Commission proposals in the ERA Communication 
for  a  toolbox  of  support  measures  to  strengthen  research  careers  and  other  related 
actions,  such  as  those  related  to  open  science,  inclusiveness,  and  access  to  excellence 
(e.g. EURAXESS and facilitate brain circulation). More specifically, the Council called for 
the  Charter  and  Code  to  evolve  into  a  single  framework  with  a  more  holistic  approach 
addressing  all  challenges  and  broadening  its  focus  to  sectors  beyond  the  academia. 
According  to  the  Council,  the  renewed  Charter  and  Code  should  provide  guidelines  for 
further improvements in the recruitment, selection, rewarding, and assessment systems 
of researchers across Europe. This would be a complement to the Pact for Research and 
Innovation in Europe, which calls for Member States to mobilise around key principles and 
values and to identify priority areas for joint action. 

In this context, we present here the outline of an overall framework for research careers, 
which  can  go  some  way  to  meeting  the  Council’s  request  for  a  toolbox  of  support 
measures. 

6.1.1 Objectives 

A first step will be the articulation of clear objectives as suggested in Figure 19. These can 
demonstrate what EU policy is intended to achieve and make the level of ambition visible. 
The suggested objectives are at three levels. 

Global  objective:  the  policy  framework  supports  the  new  ERA  and  thus  its  global 
objective is rooted in the fourth objective of the ERA, namely “Deepening the ERA”. This 
objective carries forward the priorities of the 2012 ERA, including that of an “open labour 
market for researchers”. 

Specific  objectives: a set of specific objectives  can be suggested in line with the  four 
pillars  proposed  by  the  ERAC  Task  Force,  namely:  Promote  adherence  to  research  and 
ethical values; Ensure effective and fair recruitment and selection of researchers; Improve 
working conditions and  professional  aspects for researchers; and Foster  research talent 
and holistic evaluation of research performance. These specific objectives can inform a set 
of indicators related to the results that are intended from the full toolbox of policy tools. 

Operational objectives: these can directly inform a set of actions and subsequently a 
set of indicators related to direct effects or outputs. 

58 

 
Figure 19. Overview of EU policy framework for research careers 

59 

 
 
6.1.2 Types of instruments 

Flowing from the operational objectives, we can suggest eight types of EU policy tool that 
could be used to support research careers in the context of the new ERA. 

1.  Legal  framework:  research  careers  are  already  supported  through  EU  legislation, 
notably the directives on third country researchers and students (2003, 2016). Other 
EU  legislation  also  contributes  through  the  harmonisation  of  certain  aspects  of  the 
labour market, for example, relating to free movement of labour or the rights of part-
time and fixed-term workers. Further legislative reform may not be feasible in the short-
term, however, there may be scope to explore how the existing legislative framework 
may be better used to address issues such as social security or pension entitlement. 
Member States could be encouraged to consider how their legislative frameworks could 
be updated to give better support to research careers. 

2.  Commitments to the Charter and Code: whilst these have little if any legal standing, 
they can raise awareness and mobilise stakeholders to take action. In that way, they 
can be the foundations of the policy framework. Whereas commitments have so far only 
been made at institutional level, there would be merit in encouraging commitments to 
a revised Charter and Code at EU level (e.g. through the Council) and at national level. 

3.  Compliance: where appropriate, different actors  could be  requested to demonstrate 

their compliance with the Charter and Code: 

  National  level:  commitment  to  complying  with  and  promoting  the  Charter  and  Code 
could be incorporated into the implementation of the overall ERA, e.g. in ERA National 
Action Plans. 

 

 

Institutional level: in certain strands of Horizon Europe (particularly MSCA), applicants 
could be required to demonstrate their compliance with the Charter and Code. 

Individual level: the design of MSCA Fellowships and other relevant actions could be 
such that the Charter and Code are respected. 

4.  Support for reform: could be encouraged by the EU, either through funding or soft 

support: 

  National level: as part of or in parallel to the ERA National Action Plans, support and 
encouragement  could  be  given  to  reforms.  For  example,  EU  guidelines  for  national 
policy reform could be similar to the UK’s Concordat, which served as an alternative 
implementation mechanism for the HRS4R. 

  National level:  technical  assistance  to  support  reform  of  national  career  assessment 
systems,  etc.  could  be  provided.  One  option  would  be  to  create  a  dedicated  action 
within Horizon Europe. Another possibility might be support through the Commission’s 
existing  Technical  Support  Instrument  (TSI),  which  provides  technical  support  to 
reforms in EU Member States, as did its predecessor, the Structural Reform Support 
Programme (SRSP).  Expertise delivered by the Commission requires no national co-
funding but the success of the reform support relies on the engagement and ownership 
of  the  Member  State  authorities.  In  many  cases,  the  support  is  given  as  a  mix  of 
external  support,  combined  with  Commission's  own  expertise  (DG  REFORM  and/or 
other  Commission  services)  which  is  deployed  specifically  for  each  case  in  a  tailor-
made fashion.85 

  National level: the European Commission could promote the use of European Structural 
and Investment Funds to support research careers, for example, as has been done in 
the Czech Republic (see section 3.7). 

85 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_21_746  

60 

 
                                                           
 

Institutional level: the strengthened HRS4R would have a greater focus on supporting 
continuous  improvement,  rather  than  assessing  performance.  The  HRS4R  process 
could also be introduced as a standard element within European University Alliances. 

5.  Service provision: the EURAXESS services would evolve into the ERA Talent Platform, 
featuring  National  Talent  Management  Offices  and  a  network  of  service  providers 
serving employers and individual researchers. 

6.  Pilot initiatives: through Horizon Europe (or other programmes), EU support could be 
given to piloting new approaches to issues such as tenure track, research assessment, 
career diversification, work-life balance, incentives to hire early-career researchers and 
to address gender equality, or interoperability with industry. 

  National  level:  Member  States  could  receive  support  to  test  new  approaches  to 

systemic reform.  

 

Institutional level: partnerships of institutions could be supported to develop and pilot 
new approaches. These partnerships could feature a transnational dimension as well 
as  a  commitment  to  disseminating  results,  lessons  learned,  and  good  practices.  In 
addition, any new European University Alliances could also feature the piloting of new 
approaches to these issues. 

7.  Mutual learning and exchange of experience:  

  EU level: an open method of co-ordination (or similar approach) could be introduced. 
This  would  give  soft  support  to  reforms  at  national  level,  for  example,  through 
guidelines, benchmarking, exchange of experience, etc. 

 

Institutional  level:  communities  of  practice  could  be  funded  to  improve  capacity  of 
institutions  to  support  research  careers,  improve  HR  policies  and  practices,  and 
improve  the  implementation  of  research  career  development  strategies  or  HRS4R 
actions plans. 

8.  Monitoring  implementation  and  progress  (within  the  overall  ERA):  the 
effectiveness  of  the  framework  could  be  monitored  as  part  of  the  monitoring  of  the 
overall ERA at different levels: 

  EU-level monitoring: the Commission would monitor progress against the objectives 

set for research careers, using appropriate indicators. 

  National  reporting:  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  ERA  at  national  level 
should  consistently  cover  progress  against  the  same  set  of  core  indicators  in  all 
countries. 

 

Institutional: those institutions participating in the HRS4R would report progress at key 
intervals. 

  Research  tracking  surveys:  regular  surveys  of  MSCA  Fellows  and  other  relevant 

beneficiaries of EU support would provide useful additional evidence of impact. 

The table presents a summary of tools that could be revamped or introduced. They are 
then described in more detail in the next sub-sections: 

  Charter and Code (section 6.2) 

  HRS4R (section 6.3) 

  EURAXESS (section 6.4) 

  Other tools (section 6.5). 

61 

 
 
Table 7 Possible EU instruments supporting interventions at different levels 
EU level 

Types of EU instrument 

National level 

Institutional level 

Individual level 

Legal framework 

  Review  options  within 
current  framework,  e.g. 
around  social  security  or 
pension entitlement 

  Guidance on reviewing or 
national 

updating 
legislative frameworks 

Commitment 

  Endorsement 

of 

the 

  Endorsement 

of 

the 

  Endorsement 

of 

the 

  Endorsement 

of 

the 

Charter and Code 

Charter and Code 

Charter and Code 

Charter and Code 

Compliance 

Support for reform 

Service provision 

EU co-financed pilot 
initiatives 

Mutual learning and 
exchange of experience 

  Open  method  of  co-

ordination 

 

for 

national 

  National  Action  Plans 
(within overall ERA) 
  National guidelines 
  Support 
reforms 
Promoting use of ESIF to 
support research careers 
Talent 
Management Offices (ERA 
Talent Platform) 
Piloting  new  approaches 
(e.g. 
track, 
tenure 
assessment, 
research 
career 
diversification, 
etc.) 

  National 

 

Monitoring 
implementation and 
progress 

  EU-level 

monitoring 

(within overall ERA) 

overall ERA) 

  Benchmarking 
  Exchanges of experience 
  Good practice 
  National reporting (within 

University Alliances 
  Communities of practice 
  Exchanges of experience 
  Good practice 
  Reporting within HRS4R 

  Requirements/incentives 
within Horizon Europe 
  Guidelines for institutions 
  Strengthened 
HRSR 
process 

  Designed  into  European 

  Design/requirements  of 

MSCA 

 

University Alliances 
Institutional 
Talent 
Management Offices (ERA 
Talent Platform) 
Piloting  new  approaches 
(e.g. 
track, 
tenure 
research 
assessment, 
work-life balance, etc.) 
  Designed  into  European 

 

 

Individual 
Management 
(ERA Talent Platform) 

Talent 
Services 

  Mentoring 
  Researcher networks 

  Research 

surveys 

tracking 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2  Transformation of the Charter and Code 

6.2.1 The need for transformation 

As noted in section 1.1, the potential need for a transformation of the Charter and Code 
has been considered not only by this study but also by the “Triangle Task Force – Goal 2” 
of the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC). The findings from this 
study  and  from  the  Triangle  Task  Force  suggest  that  there  is  potential  for  the  current 
Charter and Code principles to be grouped as “pillars” and elevated, so that they serve as 
the objectives of an overall policy framework for research careers. In addition, the Charter 
and Code merit being sustained as discrete policy tools in their own right. There is general 
agreement that the Charter and Code are still relevant, but that a revision is necessary to 
reflect developments over the years and fill the gaps that limit their impact for contributing 
to the new ERA. Indeed, without questioning the relevance of the content of the Charter 
and  the  Code,  a  clear  need  for  change  comes  from  the  European  Commission  and  the 
Council  of  the  European  Union,  with  the  latter  calling  for  a  further  evolution  to  a  single 
framework with a more holistic approach addressing all challenges and broadening its focus 
to sectors beyond academia.86 

6.2.2 Overall aims of a transformed Charter and Code 

The research for this study uncovered a strong consensus amongst stakeholders that the 
Charter  and  Code  should  not  evolve  into  classifying  institutions  as  “compliant”  or  “non-
compliant”. Instead, the overall aim of a transformed Charter and Code should be to bring 
about change (in culture, working practices, etc.) across the research sector to enhance 
the  attractiveness  of  research  careers  across  the  European  Union.  In  this  context,  the 
approach to date of encouraging institutions to endorse the Charter and Code and undergo 
the HRS4R process has been beneficial but insufficient to bring about this wider change. 

To  support  the  transformation  of  human  resources  practices,  it  is  suggested  that  the 
Charter and Code should evolve from a document endorsed by individual institutions into 
a core part of the overall ERA which shapes policy at all levels: EU, national, institutional. 
To shape policy in this way, it needs to be owned and endorsed at all levels, not only the 
institutional but also the EU and national levels and even by individual researchers. In this 
way,  the  Charter  and  Code  can  serve  as  the  overarching  EU  policy  framework  for 
supporting research careers. 

In addition, the research undertaken by this study and the work of the ERAC Triangle Task 
Force has shown that transformation should address other more specific issues. There is a 
need to: 

  update content and avoid duplicates/overlaps of areas of activity (see section 6.2.4); 

 

 

simplify the structure of the Charter and Code and clarify to which target groups the 
different areas of activity apply; 

involve the non-academic sector in the discussion on the Charter and Code as the vast 
majority of PhD graduates and postdoctorates leave academia; 

  provide  a  clearer  definition  of  “researcher”,  which  encompasses  the  wide  variety  of 
researchers’ tasks and skills and which is applicable to researchers beyond academia. 

6.2.3 Governance of a transformed Charter and Code 

Given its status as a European Commission Recommendation, the formal governance  of 
the Charter and Code has to date been the sole responsibility of the European Commission. 
Whilst the Commission has proactively engaged with other stakeholders, there is a strong 

86 Council Conclusions of 28 May 2021 on Deepening the European Research Area: Providing researchers with 
attractive and sustainable careers and working conditions and making brain circulation a reality. 

63 

 
                                                           
rationale  for  the  Charter  and  Code  being  owned  and  governed  by  a  wider  set  of 
stakeholders. 

First,  it  is  suggested  that  a  transformed  Charter  and  Code  could  be  formally 
adopted  by  the  Council,  for  example,  through  a  Council  Recommendation.  Such 
adoption  would  give  the  Charter  and  Code  greater  strength  and  serve  as  a  stimulus  to 
greater  action  at  EU  and  national  levels.  In  terms  of  content,  such  a  Recommendation 
might: 

 

 

reference existing EU legislation and policies + labour market facts; 

state general principles or common criteria for national policies; 

  propose types of policy actions that Member States should take; 

 

 

 

 

 

specify actions that the Commission should take; 

specify data gathering (e.g. by Member States); 

specify monitoring/information-gathering and reporting by EU bodies; 

specific co-ordination and communication mechanisms at EU level; 

identify examples of good practice activities. 

Second,  it  is  suggested  that  a  multi-stakeholder  platform  for  research  careers 
could be established to “own” and “champion” the areas of activity described in 
the  Charter  and  Code  (and  other  relevant  tools).  Such  a  platform  would  bring 
together  the  full  range  of  interests  related  to  research  careers,  including  the  European 
Commission,  Member  States  and  representatives  of  the  academic  and  non-academic 
sectors.  The  remit  of  this  platform  would  relate  to  the  human  resources  element  of 
Objective  4  of  the  new  ERA  (“Deepening  the  ERA”).  Its  role  would  be  to  promote  the 
Charter and Code and related tools, advise the Commission in implementation and support 
the co-ordination of efforts by different parties to implement them. This platform would 
need to align with or be part of the overall governance of the new ERA, rather than being 
a stand-alone mechanism only for the Charter and Code. 

6.2.4 Pillars of a transformed Charter and Code 

The  research  and  consultations  for  this  study  uncovered  a  strong  consensus  amongst 
stakeholders  in  support  of  an  evolution  of  the  Charter  and  Code,  rather  than  a  radical 
rewriting of them. Although the high value of Charter and Code is widely recognised as a 
comprehensive approach to the rights and responsibilities of researchers, employers and 
funders,  they  nonetheless  need  to  be  updated.  Some  issues  have  acquired  greater 
importance since the creation of the Charter and Code in 2005, such as open science and 
open innovation, research integrity, gender equality, diversity and inclusion, team science, 
intersectoral and interdisciplinary mobility, and research assessment. There is also scope 
to increase clarity by streamlining some of the existing principles that remain relevant but 
are potentially duplicated. For example, there are currently multiple principles related to 
'Supervision' and ‘Mobility’. 

The need for a revision of the Charter and Code has also been established by the Triangle 
Task Force, which conducted an extensive analysis of the Charter and Code and formulated 
a comprehensive proposal for its revision. Principles have been reduced from 40 to 32 and 
new definitions provided. The  TTF-Goal 2 has  re-grouped the principles into four pillars, 
starting from those used in the HRS4R and adapting them to the revised principles.  The 
first  pillar,  renamed  “Research  and  ethical  principles”,  includes  those  principles  that  are 
identified as fundamental to the building of the ERA and that need to be mainstreamed in 
the  rest  of  the  principles.  The  other  three  are  “Recruitment  and  selection”,  “Working 
conditions  and  professional  aspects”,  and  “Talent  development  and  researchers´ 
evaluation”. 

64 

 
Table 8 Revised Charter and Code pillars (proposed by ERA Triangle Task Force) 

Pillar 

Areas 

1.  Research and Ethical Values 

2.  Recruitment and selection 

3.  Working conditions and professional 

aspects 

4.  Talent  development  and  research 

evaluation 

Teaching 

  Research freedom 
  Open science 
  Research integrity 
  Responsible research 
 
Public engagement 
  Gender equality 
  Embracing diversity 
 
  Recognition of the profession 
  Recruitment 
  Recruitment (code) 
  Selection (code) 
 
Transparency (code) 
 
Judging merit (code) 
  Variations in CV (code) 
  Recognition of qualifications (code) 
  Seniority (code) 
 
  Stability and permanence of employment 
 
  Contractual and legal obligations 
  Dissemination and exploitation of results 
  Working conditions 
 
  Research culture 
  Complaints/appeals 
 
Participation in decision-bodies 
  Diversification of research careers 
  Career development 
  Career advice 
  Evaluation and appraisal 
 
  Supervision 

People and team management 

Post-doctoral appointments 

Intellectual property rights 

Funding and salaries 

Source: ERAC Triangle Task Force – Goal 2 

6.2.5 Implementation of the revised Charter and Code 

To date, the implementation of the Charter and Code has relied on just two mechanisms, 
both of them aimed at institutions: endorsement by institutions and adoption of the HRS4R 
process.  As  noted  above,  both  mechanisms  have  helped  improved  the  situation  of 
researchers but by themselves they cannot bring about the wider transformation need to 
enhance the attractiveness of research careers. Instead, it is suggested that the Charter 
and Code need to be endorsed at all levels and implemented in numerous different ways, 
so that they permeate policy and practice at all levels. 

To this end, one option could be to separate the Charter as a set of high-level pillars and 
have  several  Codes  as  operational  instruments.  The  Charter  could  be  endorsed  by  the 
Member States, for example, through a Council Recommendation, as well as by institutions 
and individuals. Whilst endorsement of the Charter would carry no immediate obligations, 
the implementation of the different Codes could be connected to implementation processes 
and different levels of awards. This would make it possible to bridge together a number of 
processes  that  are  already  under  way  (e.g.  OTM-R  checklist,  Gender  Equality  Plan 
requirement  of  Horizon  Europe,  Research  Integrity  Promotion  Plans,  Open  Science 
initiatives). At the same time, institutions that have already obtained the HR Excellence in 
Research Award could easily build on the actions they already have in place and join the 
new process. 

65 

 
At EU level, the following actions could be considered: 

  Wider  and  more  explicit  integration  of  the  Charter  and  Code  into  ERA  policies, 

processes, decision-making, and monitoring. 

  As part of this, a selection of (proxy) indicators could help to measure national progress 
in a number of key areas of the Charter and Code. Although appropriate indicators may 
not  be  available  for  all  relevant  areas,  a  selection  of  indicators  may  be  feasible  but 
some may be challenging or difficult to compare across countries. Table 9 presents a 
possible selection of such indicators that could be incorporated into the ERA monitoring. 

Table 9 Possible national-level indicators for the Charter and Code 

Possible Charter and Code indicators 

  Average monthly bursary (R1 level) / National median wage 
  Average monthly researcher salary (R2 level) / National median wage 
  Social  security  coverage:  holiday  money,  pension,  unemployment  benefit,  paid 

maternity leave (yes/no) 

  Share of international researchers at R1-R4 level 
  Share of researchers participating in training and development 
  Share of women amongst researchers at R3-R4 level 
  Number of researchers recruited externally 
  Number of PhD researchers with a non-academic supervisor 

  Wider integration of the Charter and Code into EU funding programmes. This would go 
beyond the current approach of recognising endorsement and compliance by individual 
applicant  institutions.  It  would  involve  integrating  the  Charter  and  Code  pillars  into 
quality and selection criteria and designing them into calls, so that the funded activities 
themselves would respect and promote them. Considerable progress has already been 
made  through  designing  parts  of  the  MSCA,  for  example,  through  promoting  good 
working conditions for Individual Fellowships. Other parts of Horizon Europe could also 
be designed in such a way as to promote different pillars within the Charter and Code. 

 

Integration  of  (some  or  all  of)  the  Charter  and  Code  pillars  into  tools,  such  as  the 
gender  equality  plans,  which  are  an  eligibility  criterion  for  organisations  wishing  to 
participate in Horizon Europe.87 Given that the plans are a formal document signed by 
the  top  management,  and  disseminated  within  the  institution,  this  would  strengthen 
awareness of and compliance with the Charter and Code. Furthermore, as to fulfil the 
GEP eligibility criterion in Horizon Europe beneficiaries are only required to  provide a 
self-declaration  at  the  proposal  stage,  there  could  always  be  a  verification  of  actual 
implementation  during  the  on-site  visit.  The  CASPER  project  has  recommended  that 
HRS4R peer assessors who go on site should be trained on gender equality issues;88 
this could be done through the GE Academy project which already provides training.89 

  EU  co-financed  actions  that  specifically  promote  the  pillars  (e.g.  in  Horizon  Europe). 
These could fund reforms of national systems, development of national/sectoral tools 
or pilots. 

At national level, the following actions could be considered: 

  National commitments to the Charter and Code could be shaped by EU-level guidelines 
and would be much stronger if the Charter and Code were endorsed by the Council, as 
Member States are directly involved in the design and approval of the legislative Act. 

  National  actions  to  implement  the  Charter  and  Code  and  improve  conditions  for 

87 https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/democracy-and-
rights/gender-equality-research-and-innovation_en 
88 https://ge-academy.eu/ 
89 https://www.caspergender.eu/ 

66 

 
 
                                                           
researchers, as part of ERA National Action Plans (where such plans form part of the 
new  ERA).  This  could  also  take  the  form  of  a  national-level  gap  analysis  and 
implementation plan for the Charter and Code. 

  The  European  Commission  could  implement  an  awareness-raising  action  on 
international  evaluation  agencies,  such  as  the  European  Association  for  Quality 
Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), which could then have an impact on the Member 
States' agencies, in order to include evaluation criteria for research institutions based 
on measures to support researchers' careers. 

At institutional level, the following actions could be considered: 

 

Institutions could be invited to refresh their endorsements of the transformed Charter 
and  Code,  given  the  time  elapsed  since  many  institutions  first  endorsed  them.  This 
would  increase  the  profile  of  the  Charter  and  Code  and  might  stimulate  many 
institutions to review and improve their practices. 

  Endorsement could give access to communities  of practice built on the model of the 

ACT Project of Horizon 2020 for gender equality (Grant agreement No 788204). 

  Continuing support through the HRS4R for institutions endorsing the Charter and Code. 
As  described  in  section  6.3,  this  could  place  greater  emphasis  on  soft  support  for 
continuous  improvement,  rather  than  demonstrating  achievement  of  a  certain 
standard.  

  The “Trusted Partner” principle could be introduced at this level. 

At individual level, the following actions could be considered: 

  There may be value in individual researchers being encouraged to endorse part of the 
Charter and Code, for example, the pillar related to “Research and ethical values”. This 
would raise their awareness of the Charter and Code and thus help equip them to push 
for better conditions. In the long run, if researchers are more aware of the Charter and 
Code, they will be more likely to promote good practice when they become supervisors 
or  managers.  However,  it  has  to  be  taken  into  account  that  placing  any  burden  on 
individual researchers in the absence of adequate support from the employers might 
limit any beneficial effects. 

6.2.6 Non-academic sector 

As highlighted by the recent Council Conclusions, researchers are increasingly likely to find 
a job outside academia or to reach a permanent position in academia at a later stage in 
their professional careers. Indeed, the vast majority of PhD graduates and post-doctorate 
researchers  leave  academia.  Many  non-academic  employers  actually  demonstrate  good 
practice in research careers, for example, in terms of offering good working conditions or 
supporting talent development. Non-academic employers are thus key players in terms of 
contributing to the overall ERA, both in terms of the quantity of researchers they recruit 
and in terms of the quality of research positions. 

For these employers and research careers, the biggest problems are that: i) researchers 
in academia are too often insufficiently prepared for employment in other sectors; ii) the 
career paths from academia to other sectors (and, to a lesser extent, back into academia) 
are  insufficiently  developed.  However,  even  after  15  years  of  the  Charter  and  Code, 
relatively few non-academic employers have endorsed them or engaged with the HRS4R 
(in particular, relatively few industrial employers). This suggests a lack of relevance and 
that the Charter and Code and HRS4R tend to primarily address challenges in the academic 
sector. 

In this context, even if extra efforts were made to promote the Charter and Code to non-
academic employers, it is perhaps unlikely that i) many more non-academic employers will 
endorse the Charter and Code  or  engage in HRS4R, except perhaps those that are very 

67 

 
dependent  on  public  funding,  including  Horizon  Europe;  or  that  ii)  an  increase  in 
endorsements or HRS4R commitments would have a substantial impact on the problems. 

It is therefore suggested that the main effort is not given over to promoting endorsement 
of the Charter and Code by non-academic employers. Instead, a different approach could 
be  considered  to  addressing  the  two  problems  just  noted  (insufficient  preparation  of 
academic  researchers  for  careers  in  other  sectors,  insufficiently  developed  career  paths 
between academia and other sectors). 

Such an approach could include the following: 

 

Involving  representatives  of  the  non-academic  sectors  in  the  overall  governance 
platform for research careers (see section 6.2.3). 

  EU  level  guidelines  on  research  careers  encouraging  or  stimulating  national  policies 

addressing these two problems. 

  EU programmes stimulating the piloting of good practice, e.g. in partnerships between 
academia and non-academia to improve employability, create better career paths, etc. 

  Ensuring that the European Competence Framework for Researchers (currently being 
developed by the Commission, based on the new ERA Communication and the European 
Skills Agenda) is relevant to and beneficial for the non-academic sector. 

  Updating  the  ESCO  Classification  in  order  to  include  researchers  among  occupations 

and give evidence to related skills and competences. 

6.3  Transformation of the HRS4R 

6.3.1 The need for transformation 

The evidence gathered demonstrates the value in the HRS4R in promoting good working 
conditions and talent development for researchers since its establishment in 2008 and its 
revision in 2016. There was an initial investment in cohorts of institutions going through 
the process together. Later, there was more reliance on ad hoc information sessions and 
mutual  support  between  institutions  going  through  the  process,  as  well  as  better 
monitoring and follow-up systems, as more and more institutions participated. In this way, 
the HRS4R has supported the implementation of the Charter and Code and contributed to 
the  ERA,  whilst  also  evolving  to  meet  the  demands  of  changing  circumstances.  In  the 
context of the new ERA, the need is for further transformations embedded within a stronger 
policy structure (Open Science, new ERA, Council Conclusions on research careers, updated 
Charter  and  Code),  and  the  development  of  other  complementary  tools  supporting 
research careers (EURAXESS, researcher competency framework, etc.). 

6.3.2 Overall aims of a transformed HRS4R 

The overall aim of a transformed HRS4R will remain as being to help make research careers 
more attractive in Europe. The specific objectives of the HRS4R can be those highlighted 
for  an  overall  policy  framework  for  research  carers,  noted  above,  namely:  Promote 
adherence  to  research  and  ethical  values;  Ensure  effective  and  fair  recruitment  and 
selection  of  researchers;  Improve  working  conditions  and  professional  aspects  for 
researchers; and Foster research talent and holistic evaluation of research performance. 

The operational objective and essence of the HRS4R will remain as a tool to improve HR 
practices in institutions which employ or fund significant numbers of researchers (including 
funding agencies, HE institutions, research institutes, etc.) and to align these services with 
European standards. 

Two main approaches could be considered to fulfil these objectives: 

  Either:  assessing  performance  against  minimum  standards  which  must  be  met, 

68 

 
controlled, and monitored, with a focus on results; here, the primary focus is on the 
end-point, i.e. reaching a certain standard. 

  Or: Supporting improvement by defining a broad set of targets which are strived for, 
with a focus on the process; here, the primary focus is on continuous improvement, 
whatever the starting point and without a “finish” line”. 

Currently, the HRS4R process suffers from attempting to combine both approaches. This 
is not a problem for institutions which are intrinsically driven to engage and have the means 
to  do  so,  but  discourages  those  who  already  meet  the  benchmark  results  to  improve 
further, discourages those who have a drive to improve but not the means or support to 
do so, and discourages those without interest to engage at all. The evidence gathered by 
the  study  and  the  consultation  of  stakeholders  suggested  that  the  combination  of 
“performance assessment” and “continuous improvement” has probably reached its limit. 
Further efforts to promote uptake of the HRS4R might increase the numbers of institutions 
entering the process. However, paradoxically, success (in terms of substantially increased 
uptake)  might  ultimately  be  unsustainable,  as  the  increased  need  to  monitor  applicants 
goes  beyond  the  resources  available  for  that  purpose.  If  the  aim  is  for  institutions  to 
improve their HR practice further, then a different approach may be necessary. 

The  choice of approach has implications for all aspects  of the  HRS4R, as set  out below. 
Whilst  both  have  their  merits  and  drawbacks,  the  improvement/support  option  is 
recommended  as  being  most  likely  to  make  the  greatest  contribution  to  improving 
conditions  for  researchers  and  contributing  to  the  new  ERA.  In  addition,  the 
improvement/support approach has the benefits of agility: it will be better able to meet 
the  challenges  posed  by  future  changes  to  the  Charter  and  Code  than  the  performance 
assessment approach; it may even allow for a broader incorporation of policy areas within 
the ERA’s framework for research careers. 

Table 10 Characteristics of different approaches to the HRS4R 
Performance assessment 

Characteristics 

Improvement / support 

Nature 

Priority 
Scope 
Governance 

Management 
Agility 

European 
Commission role 
Member state 
role 

EURAXESS link 

Assessors role 

to 

funding 

link  with 

One-off award based on pass/fail (with 
little  or  no  action  required  between 
renewal periods) 
Gatekeeping: minimum standards 
Narrow focus 
Possibility 
requirements 
Control system, top-down  
Difficult  to  incorporate  transformations 
and updates 
Intensive 
resources in staff and tools 
All-or-nothing: all Member States must 
agree  to  be 
involved  and  to  be 
measured against the same standards 
Possibility to “score” institutions 

substantial 

follow-up, 

Must  be  highly  trained,  apply  equal 
standards, high evaluation rate 

Measurement 
method 
Measurement 
quality 

Indicators (proxy-indicators) 

Quick but not fully reliable  

featuring  assessment 
Ongoing  process 
based on actions taken and progress made 
(but no pass/fail) 
Stretching: culture change 
Broad focus 
Possibility  to  engage  ambassadors,  peer-
learning 
Community-driven, bottom-up 
Easy  to  incorporate  transformations  and 
updates 
Light  follow-up,  minimal  resources  in  staff 
and tools 
Varying  degrees  of  involvement:  Member 
States  can  opt  in,  opt  out,  or  take  a 
differentiated approach 
Possibility 
practice 
Supportive,  coaching  role,  less  evaluation-
intense 
for 
evaluators) 
Descriptors; surveys  

to  support  communities  of 

required 

training 

(some 

Laborious  but  rather  reliable  (stakeholder 
engagement) 

Measurement 
risks 

Goal-replacement;  window-dressing; 
inappropriate proxy-indicators 

improvement; 
Lack  of  pressure 
narrative-driven (easy to hide weaknesses) 

if  no 

Motivation 
Effectiveness 
(time) 

External (pressure) 
Short-term  

Internal (engagement) 
Long-term  

69 

 
6.3.3 Governance of the HRS4R 

To date, the HRS4R process has been managed by the European Commission on a day-to-
day basis with the Standing Working Group on Human Resources and Mobility supporting 
its implementation and monitoring on behalf of the ERAC. In the context of the new ERA, 
the governance of the HRS4R could be updated in two ways: 

 

Incorporation into the overall governance of the new ERA, with the HRS4R featuring in 
the overall ERA policy agenda and implementation by Member States. 

  Being championed by a multi-stakeholder platform, as proposed above for the Charter 
and Code and aligned with or part of the overall governance of the new ERA. Such a 
platform  could  promote  uptake  by 
in 
implementation,  and  bring  perspectives  from  all  sectors.  Stakeholder  organisations 
could  play  a  significant  role  in  both  the  performance  assessment  and  supportive 
approaches  and  contribute  to  the  ambassador-role,  mutual  learning  and  cultural 
change. 

institutions,  advise  the  Commission 

The role of the European Commission will differ according to the chosen approach. Either 
approach  will  require  a  reworking  of  the  current  HRS4R  tool,  evaluation  cycle,  and 
monitoring  system  –  a  transformation  which  will  be  necessary,  in  line  with  the 
transformation of the Charter and Code. 

If focused on “performance assessment”, the European Commission’s role will relate to: 

 

 

 

selecting appropriate indicators; 

reworking the electronic HRS4R tool into an indicator-driven tool; 

training assessors to ensure equal standards; 

  appointing  a  management  committee  to  oversee  implementation  and  to  deal  with 

appeals / disagreements. 

If focused on “improvement”, the European Commission’s role will relate to:  

 

 

 

selecting  new  methods  of  support  (workshops,  conferences,  benchmark  tools,  good 
practices inventories); 

reworking the electronic HRS4R tool into a community-driven tool; 

creating opportunities for institutions to learn from one another, inspire one another, 
challenge one another. 

In either approach, linking the HRS4R-governance with other governance areas (e.g. Pact 
for Research and Innovation in Europe, ERA National Action Plans, Horizon Europe funding, 
gender  equality  plans)  will  remain  a  responsibility  for  the  Commission,  but  the  level  of 
freedom and flexibility will be higher in the “improvement” focus. 

6.3.4 Implementation of a transformed HRS4R 

A transformed HRS4R could retain key elements of the current assessment process, i.e. it 
would be operated at EU level and aimed directly at institutions. This would ensure that a 
vital characteristic of the HRS4R is retained, namely that institutions would remain directly 
engaged in an EU process and able to draw on good practice across the EU, rather than 
being constrained by national contexts (which are not always favourable). The focus would 
shift  more  towards  supporting  continuous  improvement  and  away  from  performance 
assessment or demonstrating achievement of any standard. Receipt of the award would 
essentially  be  proof  of  progress  and  commitment  rather  than  achievement;  this  would 
formalise what is very often the de facto case at present. 

As a complement to this focus on institutions in the implementation, it may be beneficial 
to carve out a role for Member States and intermediary organisations in the implementation 

70 

 
of  the  HRS4R.  For  example,  EU-level  organisations  representing  universities  and 
research institutes could be involved in a strategic advisory role at EU level.  

The role of Member States in supporting implementation could be increased by seeking 
opportunities to align the HRS4R more closely with national policies. This might strengthen 
institutions’ own efforts, as the HRS4R processes become embedded in national processes 
to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent.  It  would  reduce  the  workload  on  the  Commission,  with 
monitoring and support incorporated into national processes. However, there would be a 
risk of divergence and of “nationally endorsed selective implementation” in case there are 
specific  national  regulations  that  stand  in  the  way  of  a  full  Charter  and  Code 
implementation  (e.g.  low  salaries,  lack  of  social  security  for  PhD  researchers,  language 
regulations).  This  could  be  avoided  through  a  system  of  EU-wide  quality  control,  if  the 
national  approach  is  assessed  by  international  peer  review  evaluations,  while  the 
coordination  within  Member  States  could  be  organised  locally  according  to  an  approved 
implementation  and  follow-up  process.  The  assessors  could  be  engaged  in  checking  the 
quality of the national approach against the standards set by the Charter and Code, which 
is  far  less  labour-intensive  than  assessing  each  individual  institution,  making  the 
governance and management more feasible than is currently the case. 

Linked to this, it might also be possible to make the Charter and Code implementation a 
“national  award”  rather  than  an  “institutional  award”.  Where  national  frameworks  and 
processes are aligned with and  support the Charter and Code, all institutions that come 
under  the  governance  of  such  frameworks  would  be  covered.  Relevant  national  bodies 
could play a role akin to “national contact points” for the HRS4R, through promoting up-
take and supporting candidate institutions. National frameworks and processes could then 
be  supported  by  mutual  learning  between  relevant  national  bodies  in  different  Member 
States. 

National funding agencies and national evaluation agencies could play a significant 
role in both the performance assessment approach and the supportive approach. This could 
be  achieved  through  making  a  strong  commitment  to  implement  the  Charter  and  Code 
through  relevant  national  funding  schemes  (e.g.  adequate  salaries  and  bursaries,  social 
security, training and development, intersectoral and international mobility support, ethics, 
open science) and through setting conditions for Charter and Code compliance from host 
organisations  receiving  funding  from  national  funding  agencies.  Similarly,  national 
frameworks  for  the  evaluation  of  universities  and  research  institutes  could  assess 
compliance with the Charter and Code. 

European University Alliances could serve as test-beds and pilots for a revised HRS4R, 
whether focussed on the performance assessment approach or the supportive approach. 
EU support could include built-in top-up funding to do this. Future Alliances would have to 
demonstrate commitment to the Charter and Code and engagement in the HRS4R process. 
Alternatively, there could be some other mechanism to ensure that Alliances are committed 
to and ensure high standards in HR and in supporting research careers. 

6.3.5 Tools to support a transformed HRS4R 

implementation  of  a  transformed  HRS4R  could  be  supported  by  various 

The 
complementary tools. 

Support for Member States to develop approaches that comply with the Charter 
and  Code  and  support  the  HRS4R  process.  These  would  have  to  be  definite  new  or 
improved tools that demonstrably address the Charter and Code pillars, rather than merely 
badging  existing  approaches.  Such  approaches  would  promote  systemic  change  across 
institutions in the country, possibly through the actions of national funding agencies. The 
EU might offer co-funding to develop and support them. Questions would remain over how 
to sustain beyond the initial period of funding. They might become self-sustaining where 
they are designed in such a way that institutions are willing to pay to enter the process, 
although this might prove difficult to achieve. Alternatively, Member States might choose 
to continue funding them in the long run. 

71 

 
EU support for networks or partnership of institutions engaged in HRS4R. These 
could  be  part  of  the  wider  ERA  process  or  a  process  similar  to  the  open  method  of  co-
ordination.  They  could  operate  either  within  a  country  or  transnationally  or  both.  Some 
could focus on specific policy challenges related to research careers. Here, we can draw on 
the  example  of  URBACT,  which  enables  cities  to  work  together  and  develop  integrated 
solutions  to  common  urban  challenges.  The  objectives  of  URBACT  and  the  types  of 
intervention could be replicated in support of research careers (see box). 

Table 11 Possible features of networks or partnerships supporting research 
careers 

Characteristics 

Features 

Objectives 

  Capacity for Policy Delivery: to improve the capacity of institutions to support 

 
 

research careers 
Policy Design: to improve HR policies and practices in research organisations 
Policy  Implementation:  to  improve  the  implementation  of  research  career 
development strategies/HRS4R action plans 

  Building  and  Sharing  Knowledge:  to  ensure  that  practitioners  and  decision-
makers  at  all  levels  have  access  to  knowledge  and  share  know-how  on  all 
aspects of research careers 
Transnational exchanges 

 
  Capacity-building 
  Capitalisation and dissemination 

Interventions 

Source: CSES based on https://urbact.eu/urbact-glance  

Support  from  Horizon  Europe  might  be  offered  through  specific  calls  targeted  at 
institutions  engaged  or  intending  to  engage  with  the  HRS4R.  There  are  two  possibilities 
here: 

 

compliance and incentives, e.g. prioritising applicants with good HR practice and/or the 
HRS4R; 

 

funding to support good HR practice and/or engagement with the HRS4R. 

One specific call under Horizon Europe planned for 2022 will offer an opportunity to support 
transformations linked to the Charter and Code and/or the HRS4R. Entitled “Acceleration 
Services  in  support  of  the  institutional  transformation  of  Higher  Education  Institutions”, 
this call will support projects that develop and test acceleration services, provide services 
for HEIs, implement investment strategies for securing regional, national or EU funding, 
and  provide  policy  feedback  to  the  European  Commission,  Member  States  and  other 
audiences. Services can address different aspects of transformation, including improving 
the  attractiveness  of  researchers’  careers,  including  through  reform  of  the  career 
assessment and incentives regime. The indicative budget for the call is €10.5m.90 

EU Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF): the European Commission could promote 
the use of ESIF to support research careers, including uptake of HRS4R. This would be in 
two ways: i) making the ESIF regulations more friendly towards using ESIF funding in this 
way, although this may not be possible for the current period, given that the Regulations 
for 2021-27 have been finalised;91 ii) promoting good practice cases in using the ESIF in 
this way, e.g. the example of the Czech Republic (see section Error! Reference source 
not found.). For example, the Commission has previously commissioned studies showing 
how the ESIF have supported the development of sport and culture. 

90 Horizon Europe Work Programme 2021-2022: 11. Widening participation and strengthening the European 
Research Area (European Commission Decision C(2021)4200 of 15 June 2021) 
91 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/legislation/regulations/ 

72 

 
                                                           
6.4  Transformation of EURAXESS (evolution to the ERA Talent Platform) 

6.4.1 Objectives 

EURAXESS was established to provide information to internationally mobile researchers on 
the full range of administrative, social and cultural issues when moving to a new country. 
This  was  in  the  context  of  addressing  a  significant  gap  for  internationally-mobile 
researchers.  The  stated  policy  priority  is  for  EURAXESS  to  evolve  into  a  more 
comprehensive ERA Talent Platform. It is important to understand that the transformation 
of EURAXESS to an ERA Talent Platform puts this service into a new completely different 
context  to  that  when  it  was  originally  launched.  Specifically,  the  fourth  objective  of 
Deepening the ERA (P4) goes far beyond the previous third objective of the open labour 
market and stresses the need to: 

 

 

support and develop the skills that researchers need for excellent science; 

foster more sustainable, less precarious researcher careers; 

  provide  greater  opportunities  for  mobility  (including  intersectoral,  international)  and 
career development (including recognition of non-traditional career trajectories); 

  eliminate  remaining  national  legal  and  regulatory  barriers  to  mobility  (e.g.  pension 

portability and recognition of qualifications); and 

 

recognise, incentivise, reward researcher engagement in open science and in particular 
open access publishing and producing open FAIR data. 

In this context, new ERA Talent Platform will go beyond being merely a provider 
of information and support to mobile researchers to become a provider and hub 
for talent development and career evaluation services. The lessons learnt from the 
operation  of  EURAXESS,  at  European  and  national  level  both  in  terms  of  portals  and 
services, of what has worked well and where there can be improvements should be taken 
into account. This must be done in the broader policy context beyond ERA that includes 
the EEA, the Digital Education Action Plan and the European Skills Agenda. 

In this transition from EURAXESS to an ERA Talent Platform, both aspects of the 
services, web and HR, must be taken into account. It is clear that the new platform 
will need to expand the current EURAXESS services in order to provide a comprehensive 
range of online supports for users. To reflect the step change in requirements, the BHOs 
will  become  National  Talent  Management  Offices  (NTMO)  to  provide  and  coordinate  the 
suite of services to be offered. The main users targeted by EURAXESS are researchers and 
employers. The new platform should expand the range of users given the new services to 
be offered. 

There is  a need for the new ERA Talent Platform to have  a clearer  identity and 
offer greater consistency in the scope and quality of services provided than has 
been  the  case  for  EURAXESS.  The  current  EURAXESS  service  offer  features  a  high 
diversity in the scope and quality of services provided. This is largely due to the current 
governance model, based on a high reliance on voluntary commitment, which results in 
variation  and  uncertainty  in  the  resources  committed.  Any  revisions  to  the  model  of 
governance  and  funding  should  include  a  focus  on  ensuring  more  consistent  quality,  so 
that current areas of weak provision are raised to the level of the best. There is a strong 
case  for  a  degree  of  customisation  at  national  and  institutional  level.  But  such 
customisation should perhaps be built around a core set of services and core standards of 
quality.  Overall,  strengthening  the  identity  and  quality  of  EURAXESS  services  might  be 
achieved by a stronger focus on the user’s perspective, i.e. moving from the presentation 
of information in a form determined by the provider to basing the service design on the 
needs of users and then seeking to add value in their journey for services, information and 
tools.  

73 

 
6.4.2 Target Users 

The target users for the ERA Talent Platform will be researchers in all sectors, employers 
(universities  and  RPOs,  industry  and  business,  public  sector,  and  NGOs),  and  research 
funders. 

There  is  a  need  to  expand  the  primary  focus  of  EURAXESS  from  researchers  in 
academia  to  researchers  in  all  sectors.  Whilst  EURAXESS  has  not  been  closed  to 
researchers  or  research-performing  organisations  outside  academia,  in  practice  its  main 
users  are  predominantly  researchers  within  academia.  However,  there  is  an  increasing 
need  to  develop  more  diverse  career  paths  for  researchers,  including  those  that  are 
interoperable  between  the  academic  and  non-academic  sectors.  Expanding  the  primary 
focus  of  EURAXESS  involves  revisions  to  communication  and  marketing  to  reach  such 
researchers in greater numbers. But, more importantly, it requires a strengthening of the 
EURAXESS  service  offer  based  on  recognised  quality  criteria  and  performance,  which  in 
turn,  requires  a  revision  of  the  process  and  governance,  management  and  delivery  and 
funding of EURAXESS (see section 6.4.6). 

There is scope to reach more users outside the EU. EURAXESS Tunisia has recently 
received  a  start-up  grant  and  will  soon  initiate  the  set-up  of  the  national  network  and 
portal.  EURAXESS  Georgia  and  Armenia  are  also  currently  expanding,  following  their 
adherence  to  the  network  in  2019.  EURAXESS  Worldwide  services  have  been  to  some 
extent  successful  in  increasing  the  attractiveness  of  Europe  to  researchers  around  the 
globe.  However,  these  services  are  currently  limited  and  operated  in  eight  international 
hubs.  In  2020,  EURAXESS  expanded  to  Australia/New  Zealand.  In  2021,  additional 
resources were allocated to prepare the launch of the EURAXESS Africa hub in 2022. There 
is also the opportunity to expand the services and to move into new regions, for example, 
Russia. 

Linked to this, there is a need to expand the target users of EURAXESS beyond 
the  research  community  to  include  other  sectors.  The  key  stakeholders  in  the 
development of EURAXESS have been the national authorities and organisations that host 
the  service  centres  and  portals.  The  National  Talent  Management  Offices  will  need  to 
support more diverse career paths for researchers, including those that are interoperable 
between the academic and non-academic sectors. This means that there must be greater 
engagement with the broad employment sector through offering appropriate services. To 
provide a more comprehensive service to a wider group of users, it will be important to 
widen  the  stakeholder  group  to  include  business,  universities,  research  performing 
organisations  and  of  course  researchers  themselves,  not  only  as  users  but  as 
implementation partners. The fact is that the career path for most researchers takes them 
outside  the  academic  and  research  organisations  where  they  have  been  educated  and 
trained.  This  wider  group  could  introduce  new  concepts  and  possibilities  for  governance 
and indeed could advise on future ERA Talent Platform services. 

6.4.3 Services 

There is a need to (continue to) broaden the EURAXESS service offer into a talent 
platform that supports the development of research careers towards the multiple 
roles  that  researchers  can  play  in  society  and  economy,  skills  acquisition,  and 
career  development,  as  well  as  international  mobility,  virtual  mobility,  and 
intersectoral mobility. EURAXESS was established in the context of the ERA 2000 with 
its principal focus on transnational mobility. Looking to the future, the range and depth of 
EURAXESS  services  must  be  broadened  as  part  of  the  implementation  of  the  new  ERA 
policies  concerning  researchers  and  their  careers.  These  include  not  only  international 
mobility,  but  also  virtual  mobility,  mobility  between  sectors  and  disciplines,  as  well  as 
researcher competences and training. For example, EURAXESS Jobs could expand its range 
of positions offered to include non-research positions that could be career destinations for 
researchers. EURAXESS could also act as a broker for a mentoring service for women, e.g. 
a Female Researcher Mentoring Forum. 

74 

 
There is the opportunity for EURAXESS to also act as a training library and host 
to relevant skills training opportunities. Access to training will become important to 
support the intersectoral mobility of researchers and their entry into a diversity of careers. 
One area that is well developed is that of skills training for doctoral candidates that is often 
delivered  through  Doctoral  Training  Programmes  or  Schools.  Of  course,  there  is  quite  a 
variation of the breadth and depth of skills training offered in any institution or country. 
Well-resourced institutions do provide high level skills training for their researchers across 
a  wide  range  of  areas  including  research  methodology,  ethics,  research  integrity,  open 
science,  communication,  leadership,  and  entrepreneurship.  There  are  also  companies 
providing  such  training.  Moreover,  these  skills  are  recognised  at  PhD  level  with  credits 
through the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS).92 EURAXESS could 
add  value  to  these  services  and  better  link  them  to  broader  support  for  careers  and 
mobility. 

As  with  EURAXESS,  the  ERA  Talent  Platform  will  offer  online  services  through  European 
and national portals. At national level, this will be underpinned by the Talent Management 
Office and associated local or institutional Talent Management Offices. The suite of services 
offered will include: 

 

incorporation  of  existing  service  provision  at  national  level  into  a  broader  EU-wide 
framework; 

  appropriate  customisation  of  services  in  line  with  national  contexts  (for  example, 

addressing brain drain issues for widening countries); 

  providing a greater focus on research in non-academic environments; 

 

combining  the  current  strong  focus  on  mobility  with  support  for  career  development 
(which can sometimes be provided via different silos). 

The  TMOs  will  combine/network  existing  services  for  researchers  to  provide  a  highly 
professional  support  for  researcher  career  development.  The  TMOs  and  the  portal  will 
ensure: 

  distinct service offers for employers in different sectors; 

 

representation of different sectors in service design and delivery;  

  building on experience  gained from  EURAXESS to improve  existing and develop new 
services (for example, the cross-competence hubs to be developed part of the TOP IV 
Extension project that will start in September 202193).  

Starting in 2021, EURAXESS has begun to experiment with a new working model for the 
service provision part of a one-year pilot project of developing EURAXESS cross-country 
and cross-border digital competence hubs (Top IV Extension project). The project has 
good  potential  to  strengthen  the  effectiveness,  optimise  the  services,  and  enhance  the 
EURAXESS  Services  Network’s  role  in  building  the  next  generation  of  researchers  and 
innovators.  EURAXESS  will  connect  with  multiplier  and  enabler  organisations  in  the 
EURAXESS  partner  countries,  such  as  business  and  industrial  clusters  and  networks, 
incubators,  accelerator  programmes,  start-up  ecosystem  stakeholders,  non-academic 
employers, and others, aiming at engaging mobile and non-mobile researchers in a cross-
border  career  development  experience  that  will  enhance  their  skills  in  areas  addressing 
major societal challenges. The project will design, implement and show case the concept 
of competence hubs, as physical and virtual platforms that will assist talented researchers 
on career development issues. They will be based on the collaboration of multidisciplinary 

92 https://ec.europa.eu/education/resources-and-tools/european-credit-transfer-and-accumulation-system-
ects_en  
93  The  proposal  already  provides  a  novel  architecture  of  services  and  operational  concept  for  EURAXESS 
multidisciplinary  teams  acting  cross-country  and  cross-borders.  This  pilot  project  will  provide  three  different 
models  of  hubs  (TM  in  Academia,  TM  for  Intersectoral  Mobility,  TM  for  Scientific  Entrepreneurship)  and  will 
experiment them considering physical and virtual settings. 

75 

 
                                                           
 
teams  of  EURAXESS  service centres, joining forces for a better quality and personalised 
service provision at national and European level. 

6.4.4 Continuing and improving existing EURAXESS services 

EURAXESS has very successfully offered a wide range of services for mobile researchers 
including  those  relating  to  entry  conditions  and  visas,  health  insurance,  work  permits, 
taxation,  salaries,  research  funding,  job  opportunities,  departure,  family-related  issues, 
recognition of diplomas, pensions, IPR, and unemployment benefits. These should continue 
but with greater  consistency and quality of services across the network.  EURAXESS has 
also supported uptake of the HRS4R and should continue to support the revised HRS4R.  

EURAXESS  has  played  a  key  role  in  promoting  the  inward  and  outward  international 
mobility of researchers globally. Improved services should include: 

  Reaching more users outside the EU as currently, the EURAXESS Worldwide services 
are limited and operated currently on a regional basis (nine international hubs). This 
should be expanded and include new regions, for example, Russia and Africa. 

  Providing  more  information  for  EU  researchers  moving  to  third  countries.  Recent 
political  developments  show  that  there  are  countries  where  the  values  enjoyed  in 
Europe  of  freedom  to  research  and  academic  autonomy  are  not  shared.  It  will  be 
important for researchers based in the EU contemplating a move to a third country to 
have information on the status of host universities. This service would be also of high 
value to institutions and businesses seeking partnerships in  third countries especially 
in the context of Horizon Europe. 

  EURAXESS has provided support for refugee researchers through the Science4Refugees 

initiative; this should continue.  

  Expanding  support  for  intersectoral  mobility.  This  can  build  on  the  TOP  IV’s  work 
package  4  entitled  “Engagement  with  industry”  aimed  to  support  the  EURAXESS 
networks  in  acquiring  the  relevant  know-how  and  tools  to  develop  new  services 
dedicated  to  creating  more  synergies  and  complementarity  between  academia  and 
industry. 

  There  should  be  more  sharing  and  dissemination  within  and  across  EURAXESS 

networks. 

6.4.5 Introducing new services for the ERA Talent Platform 

A key aspect of the ERA Talent Platform will be offering new services to help implement 
the new ERA policies especially under P4 – Deepening the ERA. These should include the 
following: 

  Establishing ERA Talent Platform Career Development services. 

  Supporting the enhancement of services for researchers across all national networks, 
such as dual career support, social twinning activities and diversity management (with 
a focus on gender and multicultural issues). 

  Develop new services oriented to a better connection between academia and industry, 

including raising awareness on scientific entrepreneurship. 

  Capacity building for ERA Talent Platform members. 

  Stronger  promotion  of  the  ERA  Talent  Platform,  including  the  engagement  and 

collaboration with other relevant networks initiatives. 

  Further  improving  the  support  to  third  country  researchers  in  Europe,  particularly  in 

collaboration with the ERA Talent Platform Worldwide chapters. 

  Services  targeted  at  specific  regions,  sectors  and  groups  (e.g.  Female  Researcher 
Mentoring  Forum,  promotion  of  virtual  mobility  especially  in  context  of  researcher 
retention in widening countries). 

76 

 
  Expand its range of positions offered that include non-research positions that could be 
career destinations for researchers (e.g. knowledge brokers, data stewards, research 
infrastructure  operators,  talent  managers,  research  support,  and  management 
positions).  

 

In  the  context  of  intersectoral  mobility  host  to  relevant  skills  training  opportunities. 
Currently across Europe there is wide range of training provided for researchers at all 
career stages.  

  Support the development of the ERA Talent Platform national portals. 

  Facilitating the evolution of  ERA Talent Platform in regard to future developments in 

ERA. 

 

Increase the digitalisation of information services on the new portal. 

  Portal interoperability with Europass and linking with EURES. 

6.4.6 Governance 

To deliver the level of services described above, a robust governance framework will need 
to be put in place. Currently, the voluntary Declaration of Commitment (DoC) only specifies 
best efforts and is not formally integrated into the overall governance of the ERA. Now it 
needs to be an integral part of ERA National Action Plans. This will require a firm political 
commitment by Member States, for example, through a Council Recommendation. 

A more binding framework might help improve service provision. A key feature of 
the  EURAXESS  modus  operandi  has  been  the  largely  voluntary  aspect  in  terms  of  the 
organisation of the network and the provision of services. Members of the networks were 
therefore asked to give their opinion on whether a binding framework might bring about 
improvements in service provision. Of those who offered an opinion, the majority (83%) 
felt that it would bring about improvements, whilst only 16% thought that it would bring 
about  no  improvements  at  all.  The  main  benefit  mentioned  (in  response  to  an  open 
question)  was  the  potential  for  greater  consistency  in  the  type,  scope,  and  quality  of 
services offered, thus reducing the extent to which services are fragmented across Europe 
and allowing greater granularity of service provision. 

Any binding framework might risk adversely affecting the current voluntary “buy-
in” to EURAXESS and might thus require more resources to be devoted from the 
EU or national levels. Nearly half of respondents (44%) were not able to offer an opinion 
as to whether a binding framework would, in principle, be useful. When asked to comment, 
several respondents highlighted the benefits of EURAXESS centres choosing to participate 
on the basis of the benefits they perceive. Some highlighted the risk that institutions might 
choose  to  withdraw  from  the  EURAXESS  network,  if  the  conditions  of  any  binding 
framework were not acceptable. As one noted: “We are simply not allowed to offer a service 
that is not in the line of our university’s policy. If you had a binding framework it might 
well be that we could not be members anymore”. Depending on the terms and conditions 
of a binding framework, consistent and dedicated funding might be required to sustain and 
increase the current level of commitment by institutions. 

It might be most appropriate for any binding framework to be customised to the 
situation of each country. When asked to comment, a common response was that the 
effectiveness of any framework would depend on its design and would need to encompass 
the full diversity of institutions. Given that national regulations and frameworks are one of 
the  most  important  determinants  of  the  context  for  any  institution,  customising 
frameworks  to  the  national  level  might  enable  the  right  balance  to  be  struck  between 
ensuring consistent provision across Europe and allowing appropriate customisation to local 
circumstances. 

77 

 
Figure 20. Potential for EURAXESS binding framework to improve service provision 
Source: CSES survey of EURAXESS members 

The  ERA  Talent  Platform  should  be  incorporated  into  a  broader  governance 
framework  covering  a  wider  set  of  EU  actions  in  this  field.  This  would  ensure 
increased synergies between tools, improved efficiency and greater impact, since the ERA 
Talent Platform will address labour market challenges that are closely linked with other EU 
policy tools including the Charter and Code, HRS4R and the European Skills Agenda. Such 
a governance framework could be introduced by a Council Recommendation in line with 
Article 292 TFEU. This option would also allow the ERA Talent Platform to be linked to the 
European  Semester  and  incorporated  into  the  wider  monitoring  of  the  new  ERA,  for 
example, through the proposed ERA Scoreboard. Similarly, the ERA Talent Platform should 
also be incorporated into  ERA National Action Plans (or equivalent under the new  ERA), 
which help increase commitment and the identification of achievements, whilst still allowing 
freedom for Member States to shape their own approaches. 

As indicated above, the diversity of national and institutional systems should be reflected 
in the management and delivery of services. This means there should be a considerable 
degree of customisation to national and local priorities and contexts. This can be realised 
by agreeing common standards and core services at EU level but with Member States and 
Associated  Countries  free  to  determine  the  precise  model  by  which  ERA  Talent  Platform 
services  would  be  provided.  National  Action  Plans  for  the  ERA  Talent  Platform  would  be 
approved in line with the core requirements set at EU level and implemented and monitored 
by  the  relevant  national  bodies.  EU-level  reporting  and  monitoring  would  ensure 
consistency across different countries. Implementation of National Action Plans would be 
supported by training, networking, and exchange of experience at EU level.  

6.4.7 Talent Management Offices at national level 

There  is  potential  support  for  the  creation  of  an  EU-wide  network  of  national 
“Talent Management Offices” (TMOs). Survey respondents were invited to comment 
on the possibility of creating TMOs, consisting of multidisciplinary teams and capacities at 
national  level  offering  personal  assistance  to  researchers.  Of  the  EURAXESS  service 
members who were able to offer an opinion, the vast majority (98%) believed that TMOs 
better serve the needs of researchers. However, the concept of TMOs would require further 
exploration  and  development,  as  48%  of  EURAXESS  service  members  were  not  able  to 
offer an opinion either way. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
Based on the qualitative responses offered by EURAXESS members, TMOs might offer the 
following: 

 

incorporation  of  existing  service  provision  at  national  level  into  a  broader  EU-wide 
framework; 

  appropriate customisation of services in line with national contexts; 

  enabling a better focus on research in non-academic environments; 

 

 

combining  the  current  strong  focus  on  mobility  with  support  for  career  development 
(which can sometimes be provided via different silos); 

in  some  cases,  fulfilling  a  role  akin  to  “national  contact  points”  for  the  HRS4R  (as 
described in section 0 above). 

6.4.8 Funding Options 

Any binding framework would need to be accompanied by appropriate resources. 
Bringing together previous points, it seems that a binding framework is required to bring 
about the desired evolution of service provision and yet a binding framework might risk 
imposing requirements on service members that they are unable or unwilling to agree to. 
It thus becomes clear that the evolution of EURAXESS into a broader talent platform will 
require more consistent resources to be devoted either at EU level or national level or both. 

The current funding model is not appropriate nor sufficient to transform EURAXESS to an 
ERA Talent Platform. A new funding model will be needed, possibly combining funding from 
different sources: 

  Core EU funding: in order to kick-start the ERA Talent Platform, it may be necessary 
for the EU to provide initial funding matched by Member State commitment to continue 
support after 3 years.  

  Project-based EU funding: the network funding model through the TOP projects along 
with  other  support  (e.g.  Community  Support  Actions  under  SwafS  in  Horizon  2020) 
have been very successful especially with trialling new initiatives and mutual learning. 
These  could  be  very  directly  focussed  on  the  transition  to  the  Talent  Platform,  for 
example, in supporting national or institutional Talent Management Offices or in new 
piloting new services or reaching new users. 

  Core  national  funding:  to  have  a  real  commitment  from  Member  States  and  other 
participating countries, it will be appropriate for the relevant national bodies to make 
more explicit financial commitments to the operation of ERA Talent Platform services 
in their respective countries. Specifically, the National Talent Management Offices will 
need  appropriate  funding  to  deliver  the  commitments  by  Member  States.  National 
commitments  to  provide  core  funding  might  be  incentivised  by  the  possibility  to 
receiving matching EU funding. 

  Voluntary  commitments  of  resources:  the  current  approach  of  national  bodies  and 
institutions committing their own resources could be carried forward, depending on the 
governance and delivery model that is chosen for the ERA Talent Platform. As with the 
voluntary  model  (described  above),  a  balance  would  need  to  be  struck  between  the 
need, on the one hand, for a widening of services and improvement in quality and, on 
the  other  hand,  the  need  to  retain  the  commitment  of  current  EURAXESS  network 
members. Institutional members might be incentivised to commit their own resources 
by the possibility to receiving matching EU or national funding. 

79 

 
 
 
7.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Drawing together the evidence presented in the previous sections, this section presents a 
number of conclusions and recommendations. 

7.1  Conclusions 

1.  There has been wide acceptance of the Charter for Researchers and the Code 
of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers at institutional level within and 
outside  the  EU,  but  they  require  updating:  The  Charter  and  Code  are  widely 
recognised  as  a  comprehensive  approach  to  the  rights  and  responsibilities  of 
researchers,  employers  and  funders,  but  they  need  to  be  updated  to  take  greater 
account  of  emerging  issues,  such  as  open  science  and  open  innovation,  research 
integrity,  gender  equality,  diversity  and  inclusion,  team  science,  intersectoral  and 
interdisciplinary mobility, and research assessment. 

2.  The  HRS4R  process  and  award  has  engaged  a  large  and  diverse  cohort  of 
institutions within and outside the EU: around 1,300 organisations have endorsed 
the Charter and Code, whilst 634 organisations from 37 countries have obtained the 
HR Excellence in Research Award. Recipients of the Award vary in size from very small 
organisations  (fewer  than  10  staff,  annual  budgets  of  less  than  €100,00)  to  large 
national organisations (more than 15,000 researchers, annual budgets of more than 
€1bn). Moreover, a majority of the top 100 beneficiaries of Marie Skłodowska-Curie 
Individual Fellowships are also recipients of the Award. 

3.  The  HRS4R  process  and  award  has  helped  bring  about  positive  change  in 
human  resources  practices  in  organisations  undertaking  research:  HRS4R 
action  plans  feature  a  diversity  of  actions,  including  revision  or  monitoring  of 
employment contracts, training in professional skills or research-related skills, training 
for  research  supervisors  or  HR  managers,  introduction  or  strengthening  of  OTM-R) 
policies,  improved  career  appraisal  systems  and  recognition  of  mobility.  The  HRS4R 
process  is  often  supported  by  higher  levels  of  management  and  embedded  in  the 
overall policy or strategy of the organisation. 

4.  Many organisations perceive  that the  benefits of the  HRS4R process  do not 
justify  the  time  and  effort  required  to  gain  the  award.  Some  of  the  highest-
performing research organisations do not struggle to attract high-quality researchers 
and therefore see limited  value in the award.  Other  organisations may consider the 
requirements of the HRS4R process to be complex and cumbersome. As a result, only 
38% of the organisations that have endorsed the Charter and Code have applied for 
the award and only 16 of the top 100 beneficiaries of Horizon 2020 have received the 
award. 

5.  Take-up  and  effectiveness  of  the  Charter  and  Code  and  HRS4R  is  strongly 
influenced by national context and national policies. Some Member States have 
incorporated the Charter and Code into their national regulatory frameworks or have 
made  commitments  in  their  ERA  National  Action  Plans  to  promote  the  Charter  and 
Code and HRS4R. Some have also provided direct support to institutions (including EU 
Structural Funds) to help them gain the award. As a result, the take-up of the Charter 
and Code and the HRS4R varies widely by Member State. 

6.  EURAXESS  has  reached  a  critical  mass  of  researchers  and  research 
organisations  within  and  outside  the  EU,  resulting  in  a  steady  increase  in 
volume and intensity of use: More than 18,000 research organisations and more 
than  70,000  researchers  are  registered  users  of  EURAXESS.  This  includes  around 
5,400 organisations (30%) outside the  EU. Between 2017 and 2020, the number of 
visits to the website increased by 143% to 4.9m, the number of return visits doubled 
to more than 2.5m, and the average time spent increased by 28%. 

80 

 
7.  Researchers  have  gained  a  diversity  of  benefits  from  EURAXESS,  but 
particularly in support of international mobility, whilst research organisations 
have enjoyed better access to research talent. Users have accessed a wide range 
of  services,  but  particularly  related  to  entry  conditions  and  visas.  The  steadily 
increasing  number  of  job  vacancies,  hosting  offers,  and  funding  offers  posted  on 
EURAXESS  is  evidence  of  its  attractiveness  to  research  organisations and  benefit  to 
researchers. In line with broader trends in research, EURAXESS particularly supports 
the international mobility of early career researchers (R1-R2). 

8.  There  is  a  need  for  a  clearer  identity  and  greater  consistency  in  EURAXESS 
services and in their quality: The current governance model, with its high reliance 
on best effort and voluntary commitment, results in variation in the level of resources 
committed and  the approaches to quality assurance across the  EURAXESS network. 
There is a strong case for customisation of services at national and institutional level 
but also a need to raise the quality of all services to the level of the best, for example, 
through quality assurance, co-ordination, and performance monitoring at national and 
EU level. 

9.  There is a need to broaden the EURAXESS service offer so that it supports the 
development  of  research  talent  more  broadly.  Whilst  the  provision  of  services 
related to international mobility has been successful, there is a need for more holistic 
support for research careers. In particular, there is a need to help prepare researchers 
to  fulfil  non-research  roles  (e.g.  teaching,  mentoring,  entrepreneurialism,  open 
science,  public  engagement,  etc.)  and  for  careers  that  are  interoperable  between 
academia and other sectors. 

10.  The current EURAXESS governance model has served its purpose but risks not 
being  able  to  deliver  the  expansion  in  service  provision,  wider  targeting  of 
users and levelling up of quality that is required by the new ERA. Although the 
Declaration of Commitment (DoC) is signed by the highest authority within the relevant 
body,  this  does  not  necessarily  translate  into  a  high  level  of  commitment  and 
involvement at senior level. Moreover, the delivery of services depends on voluntary 
commitment of resources by national bodies and institutions. If EURAXESS is to evolve 
into a wider platform that provides a fuller range of services of a certain level of quality, 
then  a  more  binding  framework  might  be  required.  Such  a  framework  might  then 
require more resources to be devoted from the EU or national levels. 

11.  The labour market challenges facing researchers suggest a need for new and 
different forms of support for research careers, if the aspirations of the new 
ERA  are  to  be  met.  There  is  a  need  to  improve  the  skills  and  employability  of 
researchers so that they can perform high-quality research needed to meet  societal 
challenges. This will require the development of better, more diverse and more visible 
career paths both within academia and between academia and other sectors, as well 
as wider and more balanced circulation of talent. It will also require better provision of 
skills training and professional training, career evaluation systems that recognise and 
reward  a  wider  set  of  skills  and  responsibilities,  and  less  precarious  employment 
conditions,  particularly  within  academia.  New  roles  will  be  required,  such  as  the 
emerging professionals (e.g. Research Manager and Administrators or Data Stewards 
in  the  open  science  context),  to  support  the  growing  complexity  of  the  tasks  that 
researchers  have  to  fulfil.  At  the  EU  level,  this  suggests  a  need  for  EURAXESS  to 
develop  into  a  wider  talent  platform  that  serves  and  engages  researchers  and 
organisations both in academia and in other sectors. 

12.  The  existing  EU  policy  tools  have  made  an  important  contribution  towards 
creating  an  open  labour  market  for  researchers  in  the  EU  but  it  will  be 
necessary to bring them together into an overall framework if the aspirations 
of the new ERA relating to research careers are to be satisfied. Whilst there are 
operational links between the Charter and Code/HRS4R and EURAXESS, the tools were 
established  by  different  means:  the  Charter  and  Code  were  established  by  a  2005 
Commission Recommendation, whilst EURAXESS was  established via the 2003 ERA-

81 

 
MORE  call  for  a  network  of  mobility  centres.  Moreover,  these  policy  tools  have  not 
been fully integrated into the various processes associated with the ERA. For example, 
they are not included in all ERA National Action Plans and the monitoring of the ERA 
does not consistently cover the implementation and achievements of these tools in all 
countries. With a new ERA adopted in 2020, there is now the need and the opportunity 
for the Charter and Code/HRS4R and EURAXESS to be fully integrated into the ERA, 
thus maximising the synergies between them and the synergies and other policy tools 
within the ERA. 

7.2  Recommendations 

1.  The  Commission  should  consider  introducing  a  single  policy  framework  for 
research  careers,  featuring  a  more  holistic  approach  addressing  all 
challenges and broadening its focus to sectors beyond academia. In fact, such 
a  framework  has  been  called  for  by  the  Council.  It  is  recommended  that  the  policy 
framework supports the new ERA by having objectives directly informed by the new 
ERA. The policy framework would include EU level actions around legislation, political 
commitment, multi-stakeholder governance and monitoring. It would also include EU 
support for action at the national level and institutional level and actions in support of 
individual researchers.  

2.  The  existing  policy  tools  for  research  careers  and  any  new  ones  should  be 
fully  integrated  into  the  governance  and  monitoring  of  the  new  ERA:  As 
possible  and  appropriate,  the  policy  tools  should  feature  in  or  be  referenced  by  the 
legal or political bases for the new ERA. Where appropriate, the tools should also come 
under the oversight of relevant ERA governance mechanisms or platforms, in order to 
increase wider “ownership” of them and to facilitate synergies with other ERA policy 
tools.  Should  National  Action  Plans  (NAPs)  be  adopted  within  the  new  ERA,  these 
should require Member States to support take-up and implementation of the tools. The 
effectiveness of the framework could also be monitored as part of the overall ERA at 
EU and national levels. Depending on the overall monitoring framework for the new 
ERA,  this  might  include  monitoring  at  three  levels:  within  the  ERA  Scoreboard; 
monitoring indicators within NAPs; and broader ERA indicators at EU level. 

3.  The Charter and Code should be updated to reflect the current challenges and 
opportunities  manifested  in  the  labour  market  for  researchers:  The  pillars 
proposed by the “Triangle Task Force  – Goal 2” of the European Research Area and 
Innovation  Committee  (ERAC)  would  be  appropriate  to  the  current  challenges  and 
opportunities  and  benefit  from  having  been  developed  by  the  ERAC  and  thus  to  a 
certain extent owned by the Member States. 

4.  The  Charter  and  Code  should  evolve  from  a  document  endorsed  by 
institutions into a core part of the overall ERA, which is owned and endorsed 
at all levels and shapes policy at all levels: 

  At  EU  level,  the  pillars  should  be  more  widely  and  explicitly  integrated  into  ERA 
policies,  processes,  decision-making,  and  monitoring,  with  relevant  indicators 
measuring progress at EU and national levels. 

  Formal endorsement of the transformed Charter and Code by the Council would in 
effect represent national commitments, which could then be shaped and supported 
by EU-level guidelines. 

 

 

Institutions could be invited to refresh their endorsements of the new Charter and 
Code. 

Individual researchers could be encouraged to endorse (parts of) the new Charter 
and Code, which would raise their awareness, help them push for better conditions 
and make them more likely to adopt good practice when they become supervisors 
or managers. 

82 

 
5.  The  Commission  should  consider  a  revision  of  the  HRS4R,  so  that  the  main 
emphasis is more clearly on supporting continuous improvement rather than 
assessing  performance  against  minimum  standards.  The  new  process  would 
feature  assessment  based  on  actions  taken  and  progress  but  would  not  involve 
institutions passing or failing. The role of assessors would relate more to coaching and 
less to evaluation. Assessors might also need to be trained on the process and on the 
issues of gender equality, open science, research integrity and the other pillars of the 
transformed Charter and Code. More peer learning would be encouraged with a view 
to supporting broad cultural change within institutions rather than ensuring minimum 
standards. 

6.  The Commission should consider ways to increase the contribution made by 
EU funding programmes to supporting research careers. This could include: 

  Wide  integration  of  the  Charter  and  Code  pillars  into  the  quality  criteria  and 

selection criteria of relevant calls within EU funding programmes. 

  EU programmes, such as Horizon Europe, could continue to recognise endorsement 

of and compliance with the Charter and Code. 

  EU actions could co-finance reforms of national systems, development of national 
or  sectoral  tools,  and  piloting  of  new  approaches  to  supporting  research  careers. 
The  call  proposed  under  Horizon  Europe  in  2022  for  “Acceleration  Services  in 
support of the institutional transformation of Higher Education Institutions” provides 
an example of the types of actions that could be used. 

  Communities  of  practice  could  be  co-financed,  for  example,  national  bodies  or 
funding agencies involved in reforming frameworks relating to research careers, or 
institutions involved in the HRS4R process. 

  Encouraging Managing Authorities for  European Structural and  Investment Funds 

to include support for research careers within their programmes. 

7.  The Commission should enable the evolution of EURAXESS into an ERA Talent 
Platform  which  provides  more  holistic  support  to  research  careers.  The  key 
features of the Platform should include: 

  New  governance  framework  featuring  more  binding  commitments  by  relevant 

national bodies and by relevant institutions involved in service delivery. 

  Creation of an EU-wide network of national “Talent Management Offices” (TMOs) in 
order  to  incorporate  existing  provision  at  national  level  into  a  broader  EU-wide 
framework,  maintain  appropriate  customisation  of  services  in  line  with  national 
contexts,  enable  a  better  focus  on  research  in  non-academic  environments  and 
combine the current strong focus on mobility with support for career development. 

  A new funding model appropriate to the new governance framework. To the extent 
that the new framework is binding on institutions involved in service delivery, the 
funding model will need to provide core funding from EU or national sources, ideally 
complemented by continued voluntary commitments made by institutions. 

  Broadening the service offer to go beyond being merely a provider of information 
and  support  to  mobile  researchers  to  become  a  provider  and  hub  for  talent 
development and career evaluation services. 

  Expansion of the primary focus from researchers in academia to researchers in all 

sectors. 

  Strengthening the involvement of the non-academic sector both as users but also 
in the governance and management of EURAXESS, particularly at EU and national 
levels. 

  Enhanced efforts to reach more users outside the EU. 

  Monitoring of EURAXESS integrated into the wider monitoring of the new ERA. 

83 

 
8.  The  Commission  should  continue  to  explore  how  the  existing  legislative 
framework  may  be  better  used  to  address  issues  labour  market  facing 
researchers, such as social security or pension entitlements. As part of this, the 
Commission  could  encourage  Member  States  to  consider  how  their  legislative 
frameworks could be updated to give better support to researchers. 

9.  The  Commission  should  consider  how  best  to  support  reforms  at  national 
level, in line with the new ERA and the updated Charter and Code. As part of 
or in parallel to the ERA National Action Plans, support and encouragement could be 
given  to  reforms,  for  example,  EU  guidelines  for  national  policy  or  EU  funding  to 
support  reform  of  national  career  assessment  systems,  etc.  For  example,  reforms 
could be similar to the UK’s Concordat, which served as an alternative implementation 
mechanism for the HRS4R. 

10.  The Commission should support mutual learning and exchange of experience 
related to research careers. This could include an open method of co-ordination (or 
similar approach) at EU level to give soft support to reforms at national level. It could 
also  include  communities  of  practice  to  improve  capacity  of  institutions  to  support 
research careers, improve HR policies and practices, and improve the implementation 
of research career development strategies or HRS4R actions plans. 

84 

 
 
ANNEX 1: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 

This annex sets out the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for the actions recommended by the 
study. The purpose of the CBA is to inform decision-making by the Commission and the 
future implementation of selected actions. Provisional estimated costings are provided as 
far  as  possible,  but  there  are  many  different  variables  that  could  influence  costs,  and 
different  options  in  terms  of  how  particular  actions  could  be  implemented,  and  on  what 
scale.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  this  CBA  exercise  is  not  a  fully-fledged  impact 
assessment.  Rather,  it provides  a  starting  point  in  the  quantification  and  assessment  of 
costs,  and  is  intended  as  useful  inspiration  for  following  up  some  actions,  based  on  an 
assessment  of  their  relative  priority.  The  steps  followed  by  the  CBA  are  summarised  in 
Table 12. 

A crucial point to note is that the recommended actions are not discrete but are interlinked 
and overlapping. Moreover, the Commission will also be able to choose the extent to which 
it implements certain some actions, i.e. it is not always a simple choice between “policy-
on” or “policy-off”. For those reasons, it is not possible to aggregate the costs and 
benefits in order to develop a single overarching benefit-cost ratio for all actions. 
Instead, the costs and benefits are presented for each action. 

Table 12 Steps in the CBA process 

Steps in the CBA 
process 

Step 1 - Identification 
of a list of actions 

Step 2 - Development 
of a typology of 
different costs 

Step 3 – Desk 
research 

Step 4 - Analysis of 
drivers of costs and 
benefits (qualitative) 

Description 

The various research tasks have informed a set of future transformations 
described in section 6 and summarised in the recommendations in section 
7. From these, a list of specific actions has been developed for the purposes 
of the CBA. 

Technical assistance costs (including consultancy and legal support) 

A typology of costs differentiates between different types of costs: 
 
Personnel costs 
 
Training and skills development costs 
  Monitoring, evaluation and reporting costs 
 
  Costs related to studies and consultancy support 
  Costs of IT systems 
 
Infrastructure costs 
  Costs linked to networking with other sectors 
  Costs linked to communications 
Desk research has drawn on previous experience or existing activities to: 

Identify likely costs and benefits for relevant stakeholders. 
Illustrate challenges in monetisation. 

 
 
  Demonstrate  how  costings  have  been  produced  and  explaining  the 
underlying  rationale  for  working  assumptions  developed  regarding 
costs and benefits.  

The prioritised actions were then be analysed. As many costs and benefits 
may  either  be  difficult  to  monetise,  or  be  variable  depending  on  many 
factors,  it  has  been  important  to  understand  the  drivers  of  costs  and 
benefits for different types of actions through a qualitative assessment.  

Step 5 – Monetisation 
of costs and benefits 

To  the  extent  possible,  the  costs  and  benefits  of  actions  have  been 
monetised. Where these cannot be monetised, an explanation of data gaps 
and challenges is provided. 

Step 6 – Analysis of 
costs and benefits for 
actions at different 
levels of governance 

Assessment of costs, focusing on EU-level actions and actions at national 
or institutional levels. 

The results of the CBA are presented in Table 13. 

85 

 
 
Table 13 Costs and benefits of possible actions 

Possible actions suggested by the study 

1 Introduction of a single policy framework for research careers. 

  Benefits: unquantifiable. A single policy framework would satisfy the requirement 
of the Council Conclusions of 28 May 2021. If adopted by the Member States (e.g. 
through  a  Council  Recommendation), 
it  would  ensure  high-level  political 
commitment to a holistic approach to supporting research careers, thus supporting 
further  actions  by  Member  States.  It  would  also  increase  the  effectiveness  of  EU 
interventions by aligning them into a single policy framework facilitating monitoring 
and enhancing synergies between them. 

  Costs: personnel costs. A range of Commission staff would be required to develop 
framework,  engage  with  Member  States,  draft  a  proposed  Council 
the 
Recommendation, etc. An indicative estimate might be that total Commission staff 
time might be equal to: 1 officer X 0.3 FTE for 3 months at an annual salary cost of 
80,000 EUR = 16,000 EUR). However, the actual cost could be very different, as it 
will depend on the level of ambition, the receptiveness of Member States, degree of 
support offered by the rotating Presidency, etc. These and other factors may affect 
the time input required by the Commission. 

2 Integration of existing tools into the governance and monitoring of the new 
ERA. 

  Benefits: unquantifiable. Enhanced effectiveness of implementation and monitoring 
of  EU  policy  tools  supporting  research  careers  and  of  the  overall  ERA  by  stronger 
governance and oversight of EU policy tools, which considers the tools in relation to 
the wider ERA.  

  Costs: negligible, if incorporated into the wider development of new ERA governance 
and monitoring arrangements. Possible savings in personnel costs by streamlining 
of governance, reporting, and monitoring requirements. 

3 Updating the Charter and Code  

  Benefits: unquantifiable. Charter and Code more relevant to current opportunities 
and challenges in the labour market for researchers. Positive impact on HR practice 
in  research  organisations,  provided  that  the  updated  Charter  and  Code  inform  a 
revision of the HRS4R process so it better addresses the current opportunities and 
challenges. 

  Costs: personnel costs. Staff time required to redraft the Charter and Code would 
be negligible, provided that the pillars proposed by the ERA Task Force are adopted. 
Similarly,  staff  time  required  to  gain  approval  of  the  Council  would  be  negligible 
provided  that  the  updated  Charter  and  Code  are  incorporated  into  wider  policy 
proposals, e.g. a wider Council Recommendation on research careers. 

  Costs: communication costs. There would be a need to communicate the updated 
Charter  and  Code  to  target  audiences,  most  notably  research  organisations  that 
would be encouraged to endorse the updated Charter and Code. To the extent that 
communication is incorporated into wider communication activities, e.g. related to 
the  new  ERA  or  the  new  ERA  Talent  Platform,  the  communication  costs  would  be 
negligible.  A  dedicated  communication  campaign  specifically  for  the  Charter  and 
Code might cost 100,000 – 1m EUR, depending on its ambition and scope. However, 
these  costs  could  be  submerged  into  a  wider  campaign  to  revise  the  HRS4R  (see 
number 5). 

4 Evolution of the Charter and Code into a core part of the overall ERA 

  Benefits:  unquantifiable.  Wider  impact  from  the  Charter  and  Code  through  wider 

86 

 
 
 
awareness, ownership, and endorsement by key players at all levels (EU, national, 
institutional, individuals).  

  Costs: negligible, if incorporated into the  wider development of  the new  ERA  and 

wider revisions of the Charter and Code and the HRS4R. 

5  Revision  of  the  HRS4R  to  place  the  main  emphasis  on  continuous 
improvement 

  Benefits:  unquantifiable.  Potential  for  widespread  benefits  for  researchers  and 
research  organisations  through  a  more  supportive,  bottom-up  process  that 
generates continuous improvement in organisations involved in the HRS4R process.  

  Costs: personnel costs. Commission staff would be required to oversee the revision 
to the HRS4R process. This time would be addition to Commission staff time already 
devoted to operating the HRS4R process on a day-to-day basis, which might continue 
to  be  required,  whilst  the  revision  is  under  development.  An  indicative  estimate 
might be 1 FTE staff officer X 12 months at an annual salary cost of 80,000 EUR. 
However, the actual cost of the additional time required would depend on the nature 
and scope of the revision and the extent to which the staff time already committed 
day-to-day  operation  of  the  HRS4R  can  be  redeployed  to  the  revision,  without 
adverse impacts. 

  Costs: technical assistance costs. These could be substantial, as all documentation, 
processes, communication, etc. would require revision and assessors would require 
to be retrained. The precise additional cost would depend on the extent to which the 
HRS4R can be revised through the technical assistance already provided or whether 
additional  provision  is  required.  For  example,  where  existing  technical  assistance 
provision already includes training or retraining of assessors on an annual basis, the 
new requirements could be incorporated into such training. 

  Costs:  communication  costs.  There  would  be  a  need  to  communicate  the  revised 
HRS4R  process  to  relevant  audiences.  It  is  unlikely  that  all  the  required 
communication could be incorporated into wider communication activities related to 
the new ERA or the new ERA Talent Platform. A dedicated communication campaign 
is likely to be required, although this could also cover the update of the Charter and 
Code. A dedicated communication campaign (also covering the Charter and Code) 
might cost 200,000 – 1m EUR, depending on its ambition and scope. 

6 Increasing the contribution made by EU funding programmes to supporting 
research careers: 

i.  Wider  integration  of  Charter  and  Code  into  the  quality  criteria  and 

selection criteria of relevant calls within EU funding programmes. 

ii.  EU  programmes,  such  as  Horizon  Europe,  continuing  to  recognise 

endorsement of and compliance with the Charter and Code. 

iii.  Encouraging  Managing  Authorities  for  European  Structural  and 
Investment  Funds  to  include  support  for  research  careers  within  their 
programmes. 

iv.  Wider  EU  co-financed  actions  could  fund  reforms  of  national  systems, 
development  of  national  or  sectoral  tools,  and  piloting  of  new 
approaches to supporting research careers (see number 9). 

v.  Communities  of  practice  could  be  co-financed,  for  example,  national 
bodies or funding agencies involved in reforming frameworks relating to 
research  careers,  or  institutions  involved  in  the  HRS4R  process  (see 
number 10). 

  Benefits: unquantifiable. EU-funded research and innovation projects incorporating 
better  HR  practices  in  respect  of  researchers.  Increased  number  of  applicant 

87 

 
 
 
organisations (e.g. Horizon Europe) endorsing and complying with the Charter and 
Code.  Improved  conditions  for  research  careers,  where  ESIF  programmes  provide 
support. 

  Costs:  negligible,  if  any  support  for  research  careers  is  “designed  into”  the 
development of programmes or calls. Where ESIF programmes divert funds towards 
supporting  research  careers,  this  would  represent  an  opportunity  cost  in  terms  of 
other types of intervention receiving less funding. However, it can be assumed that 
Managing  Authorities  would  only  offer  support  for  research  careers  where  they 
perceive that such support best meets their strategic objectives. 

7 Evolution of EURAXESS into an ERA Talent Platform 

  Benefits:  unquantifiable.  Wider  impact  from  a  wider  range  of  services  of  more 
consistent quality, used by more researchers, employers, and other stakeholders in 
a wider range of sectors(EU, national, institutional, individuals).  

  Costs:  personnel  costs.  A  range  of  Commission  staff  would  be  required  would  be 
required  to  oversee  the  evolution  of  EURAXESS  into  an  ERA  Talent  Platform.  This 
time  would  be  addition  to  Commission  staff  time  already  devoted  to  operating 
EURAXESS on a day-to-day basis, which might continue to be required, whilst the 
revision is under development. An indicative estimate might be 1-2 FTE staff officer 
X 12-24 months at an annual salary cost of 80,000 EUR. However, the actual cost 
of the additional time required would depend on the nature and scope of the revision 
and the extent to which the staff time already committed to day-to-day operation of 
the  EURAXESS  can  be  redeployed  to  the  revision,  without  adverse  impacts. 
Depending on the nature and scope of the ERA Talent Platform, there might also be 
a need for additional staff to operate the Platform on a day-to-day basis, in addition 
to the current staff commitment to EURAXESS. Alternatively, the Commission might 
choose to spend more on technical assistance (e.g. consultancy support) rather than 
on staff time. 

  Costs: technical assistance costs. These could be substantial, as all documentation, 
processes, communication, etc. would require revision.  The precise additional cost 
would  depend  on  the  extent  to  which  the  Platform  can  be  developed  through  the 
technical assistance already provided or whether additional provision is required. 

  Costs:  communication  costs.  There  would  be  a  need  to  communicate  the  new 
Platform  to  relevant  audiences.  It  is  unlikely  that  all  the  required  communication 
could be incorporated into wider communication activities related to the new ERA. A 
dedicated communication campaign is likely to be required, although this could also 
have synergies with any campaign around the update of the Charter and Code and 
the  launch  of  the  revised  HRS4R.  A  dedicated  communication  campaign  for 
EURAXESS might cost 200,000 – 1m EUR, depending on its ambition and scope. 

8  Exploring  how  the  existing  legislative  framework  may  be  better  used  to 
address issues labour market facing researchers 

  Benefits: unquantifiable. Potential widespread, systemic effects for large numbers 
of researchers (who are able to enjoy better conditions and easier mobility) and for 
research organisations (who are better able to attract, develop and retain talent). 
Consequent impact on the EU’s research and innovation performance. 

  Costs: personnel costs. Would depend on the scope and ambition. Given previous 
work already undertaken by the Commission (e.g. around the impact of the acquis 
on research careers), the additional staff time might be quite modest. An indicative 
estimate might be 1 officer X 0.3 FTE for 3 months at an annual salary cost of 80,000 
EUR  =  16,000  EUR.  However,  it  might  be  possible  to  incorporate  this  task  into 
existing staff roles. 

88 

 
 
 
 
9  Supporting  reforms  at  national  level,  in  line  with  the  new  ERA  and  the 
updated Charter and Code 

  Benefits: unquantifiable. Support for reforms of national systems could bring about 
substantial,  systemic  changes  in  HR  practices  in  research  organisations  within 
relevant  Member  States,  thus  benefitting  large  numbers  of  researchers  and 
strengthening  the  capacity  of  research  organisations  to  contribute  to  the  overall 
objectives of the ERA. 

  Costs:  technical  assistance.  The  precise  cost  would  depend  on  the  nature  and 
intensity  of  support.  An  indicative  figure  can  be  suggested  based  on  the 
Commission’s Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP), which supported 854 
technical assistance projects at an average cost of €285,000 in 2017-2020. Taking 
account of inflation, a similar level of support could be provided at a cost of 300,000 
EUR per Member State or 8,1m EUR if all 27 Member States are supported. 

Support  for  mutual  learning  and  exchange  of  experience  related  to 

10. 
research careers: 

i.  Open method of co-ordination (or similar approach) at EU level to give 

soft support to reforms at national level.  

ii.  Communities  of  practice  to  improve  capacity  of  institutions  to  support 
research  careers,  improve  HR  policies  and  practices,  and  improve  the 
implementation  of  research-career  development  strategies  or  HRS4R 
actions plans. 

  Benefits:  unquantifiable.  Mutual  learning  and  exchange  of  experience  has  the 
potential to bring about bottom-up improvements in policy and practice at all levels, 
thus improving support for research careers. 

  Costs: technical assistance. Precise costs would depend on the nature and scope of 
activities. In respect of a mutual learning programme supporting Member States, an 
annual  budget  of  0.5-5m  EUR  would  enable  a  range  of  events,  publications  and 
supporting activities to take place. In respect of supporting communities of practice, 
an  indicative  example  is  provided  by  URBACT  III,  which  facilitates  the  sharing  of 
knowledge and good practice between cities and other levels of government in order 
to  promote  integrated  sustainable  development  and  improve  the  effectiveness  of 
regional and cohesion policy. The programme has supported 691 beneficiaries at an 
average cost of 63,000 EUR.94 Should all organisations holding the HRS4R award be 
offered a similar level of support, the total cost would be 35-36m EUR. 

94 Source: List of URBACT III beneficiaries. See: https://urbact.eu/files/urbact-iii-operational-programme  

89 

 
 
                                                           
Getting in touch with the EU 

IN PERSON 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

ON THE PHONE OR BY EMAIL 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service: 
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

Finding information about the EU 

ONLINE 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU PUBLICATIONS 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from:  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local 
information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu 

OPEN DATA FROM THE EU 
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for 
free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Launched  by  a  European  Commission  Communication  in  2000,  the  European  Research 
Area  (ERA)  aims  to  create  a  single,  borderless  market  for  research,  innovation  and 
technology  across  the  EU.  Priority  3  of  the  ERA  relates  to  “An  open  labour  market  for 
researchers”, in which highly skilled people can move to where their talents can be best 
employed. Policy measures to implement Priority 3 include: 

  Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers: 
a set of principles to set high standards for the recruitment and working conditions of 
researchers. 

  Human Resources Strategy for Researchers (HRS4R): a process to support research 

organisations in the implementation of the Charter and Code. 

  EURAXESS  Services  network,  which  provides  free  personalised  assistance  to 
researchers, with a special focus on international mobility and career development. 

The  present  study  has  taken  stock  of  these  policy  measures  by  evaluating  their 
achievements.  It  has  then  defined  needs  and  offered  recommendations  about  new  or 
revised policy measures to promote the human resources dimension of the new ERA, which 
was the subject of a Commission Communication in 2020. 

Studies and reports