REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed
Date: 2023-01-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European social policy, labour force, labour market, self-employed person, social rights, social security, working conditions

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.1.2023  COM(2023) 43 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Council Recommendation  on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed   
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 

KEY FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 2 

1. 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 

1.1. 

Setting out the context............................................................................................................. 4 

1.2.  Objectives of the Recommendation ........................................................................................ 5 

1.3. 

Supporting implementation ..................................................................................................... 6 

1.4.  Reviewing implementation ..................................................................................................... 8 

2.  Reviewing progress in implementing the Council Recommendation ............................................. 8 

Snapshot of the national implementation plans: a mixed picture in terms of focus and of 

2.1. 
level of ambition ................................................................................................................................. 8 

2.2. 

Formal coverage .................................................................................................................... 10 

2.2.1. 

Gaps .............................................................................................................................. 11 

2.2.2. 

Policy measures............................................................................................................. 12 

2.3. 

Effective coverage ................................................................................................................ 15 

2.3.1. 

Gaps .............................................................................................................................. 15 

2.3.2. 

Policy measures............................................................................................................. 17 

2.4.  Adequacy .............................................................................................................................. 18 

2.4.1. 

Gaps .............................................................................................................................. 19 

2.4.2. 

Policy measures............................................................................................................. 20 

2.5. 

Transparency ......................................................................................................................... 21 

2.5.1. 

Access to information ................................................................................................... 22 

2.5.2. 

Simplification ................................................................................................................ 24 

3.  Summarising progress ................................................................................................................... 26 

3.1. 

Positive developments in access to social protection for all ................................................. 26 

3.2.  Challenges remain ................................................................................................................. 26 

4.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 28 

ANNEX: Main features of the national implementation plans (NIPs) on access to social protection 
(and update) .......................................................................................................................................... 29 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KEY FINDINGS 

The  implementation  efforts  during  the  3 years  following  the  adoption  of  the  Council 
Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed, and against 
the background of measures to tackle the social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, show a 
mixed  picture  across  Europe.  The  overall  level  of  ambition  in  implementing  the 
Recommendation varies significantly and, with a few exceptions, most Member States do not 
aim to address all existing gaps in access to social protection. Further implementation efforts 
are needed to close existing gaps and the social and economic consequences of the Russian war 
of aggression against Ukraine and the resulting deepened energy crisis intensify the urgency to 
act. 

In the constantly evolving labour markets, there is a large number of people who, due to their 
type of employment relationship or form of self-employment, are left without sufficient access 
to  social  protection.  This  poses  risks  to  the  welfare  of  many  of  these  individuals  and  their 
families, but also the economy and society. 

In 2021, almost 40% of the population in employment in the EU (77 million people) were in 
non-standard  forms  of  work,  i.e.  with  temporary  contracts,  in  part-time  work  and/or  self-
employed and many in this group face significant gaps in social protection coverage. In 2022, 
in 17 Member States there is at least one group of non-standard workers not covered by all 
branches of social protection. The self-employed are not covered by all branches in 19 Member 
States. 

Formal coverage 

Since  2019,  15 Member  States  have  undertaken  or  planned  important  reforms  to  improve 
participation  to  social  protection  schemes  for  specific  categories  of  people  on  the  labour 
market. These concern notably self-employed people (in particular solo and dependent self-
employed people) or people in non-standard forms of contracts or working in specific sectors 
(domestic services, culture) with high prevalence of non-standard forms of work. However, 
significant numbers of them are likely to continue lacking formal access, as the measures do 
not address all gaps/branches and some Member States do not plan to address remaining gaps. 

In the dozen of Member States that  report data, it is estimated that at least 5.6 million non-
standard workers and 15.3 million self-employed people do not have access to unemployment 
benefits. Moreover, in those Member States where participation in social protection schemes 
is voluntary for the self-employed, the take-up rates of the schemes are generally low. 

Key  challenges  reported  by  Member  States  in  addressing  these  gaps  include  the  need  to 
maintain the flexibility of the labour market or the complexity of extending coverage for the 
self-employed (particularly unemployment and disability insurance) and for specific groups, 
such as platform workers, domestic workers, and farmers. 

On the other hand, measures to reduce the use of non-standard forms of contracts help to shrink 
formal coverage gaps. They include better monitoring, reducing social and fiscal incentives to 
hire  on  very  short-duration  contracts  or  through  false  self-employment,  regulating  platform 
work  or  reforming  labour  law  to  address  segmentation,  which  all  enhance  access  to  social 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
protection by ensuring correct classification or creating a clearer regulatory environment as to 
social protection rights attached to different employment statuses. 

Effective coverage 

Existing rules governing contributions and entitlements may prevent people who participate in 
social  protection  schemes  from  receiving  any  benefit  in  practice  (‘effective  access’).  For 
example, they may not meet the minimum duration or level of contributions. Since 2019, only 
a limited number of national measures have addressed the issue of effective access, for instance 
by  reducing  the  qualifying  periods  for  unemployment  or  healthcare  benefits.  The  income 
support gaps between people who, prior to joblessness, were in ‘standard’ employment versus 
others remain sizeable in many EU Member States. Overall, the self-employed are still less 
likely to receive any benefits and in a number of countries, temporary and part-time workers 
are still less likely to receive benefits than those with a permanent or full-time contract. 

Adequacy 

‘Adequate’ social protection schemes provide a sufficient and timely income replacement for 
individuals facing loss of income, upholding their standard of living and protecting them from 
poverty. Around half of Member States undertook or announced measures to improve adequacy 
in their national implementation plans, notably with regard to pensions – for self-employed, 
people  with  low  entitlements  or  specific  occupations.  Measures  were  also  put  in  place  to 
improve the adequacy of unemployment benefits by increasing their duration and/or amount. 
However, challenges persist. Temporary-contract employees face higher material and social 
deprivation compared to permanent-contract employees and so do part-timers compared to full-
time  workers.  Self-employed,  part-time  and  temporary  employees  are  also  more  at  risk  of 
monetary poverty compared to those in standard forms of employment. 

Transparency 

Transparency is crucial to improving access to social protection. Yet, social protection rules 
are sometimes too complex or unclear, so people may not be properly aware of their rights and 
obligations, or of how to exercise those rights and comply with their obligations. While not a 
primary focus of national implementation plans, many countries have started to digitalise the 
management and delivery of social protection through simplified one-stop portals, automated 
access to some benefits, pension simulators or pre-filled application forms. Still, more efforts 
are  needed  in  this  respect,  including  measures  to  address  the  digital  divide  for  vulnerable 
people, such as those with low levels of literacy (digital, administrative and financial), persons 
with disabilities and others. 

3 

 
 
 
 
1.  Introduction 

1.1. Setting out the context 

Nowadays,  EU  labour  markets  include  significant  numbers  of  people  in  (solo)  self-
employment, in jobs not governed by standard contracts, in combinations of dependent 
employment and self-employment or switching between them. In 2021, almost 40% of the 
population in employment in the EU-27 (76.7 million people) were in non-standard forms of 
work1, i.e. with a temporary contract (23.7 million), part-time work (36.4 million) and/or self-
employed (26.9 million including 18.4 million solo self-employed)2, as opposed to permanent 
full-time contracts. While the overall proportion of people in non-standard forms of work has 
been  stable  over  the  last  decade  and  situations  vary  greatly  from  one  group  to  another  and 
within groups, some new forms of employment (casual workers, portfolio workers, platform 
workers) have become more prevalent3 in EU Member States, and are generally less covered 
by social protection.  

Population in employment by status, EU-27 - 2021 

the  EU  were 

In  2021, 77  million  people 
in 
in  non-
standard  forms  of  work,  i.e. 
with  a  temporary  contract, 
part-time  work  and/or  self-
employed.  They  represent 
around 40% of the population 
in employment. 

Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey 

Social  protection  systems  are  often  still  designed  for  standard  workers  (full-time, 
permanent,  dependent  employees).  As  a  result,  large  parts  of  the  workforce  are  not 
sufficiently  covered  by  social  protection,  due  to  their  labour  market  status  or  the  type  of 
employment relationship. These gaps pose a risk to the welfare of the affected individuals and 
their families, who endure greater economic uncertainty. They also impact upon the economy 
and society in terms of domestic demand, investment in human capital and social cohesion. 
The  gaps  in  coverage  of  non-standard  employment  contribute  to  a  lack  of  fairness  within 
society, widening divides between generations, genders or social groups, since young people, 
the  foreign-born  and  women  are  less  frequently  hired  on  full-time,  open-ended  contracts. 

1 
Source: Eurostat, EU-Labour Force Survey (LFS). 
2 
Moreover, in 2017, around 800 000 people were ‘dependent self-employed’ i.e. self-employed with no 
employees, who worked during the last 12 months for only one client or for one dominant client, who determined 
their working hours (source: EU-LFS module on self-employment). 
3 
(2018) ESDE, Access and sustainability of social protection in a changing world of work. 

Eurofound  (2017),  Non-standard  forms  of  employment:  recent  trends  and  future  prospects,  and  EC 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Reducing gaps in access to social protection for non-standard forms of work could thus help 
reduce inequalities, including gender pay and pension gaps. 

According to principle 12 of the European Pillar of Social Rights ‘regardless of the type and 
duration of their employment relationship, workers and, under comparable conditions, the self-
employed,  have  the  right  to  adequate  social  protection’ 4 .  To  operationalise  this  political 
ambition, in 2019 the Council adopted a Recommendation on access to social protection for 
workers and the self-employed5. 

In  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  action  plan6,  the  Commission  highlighted  that  the 
exceptional  measures  taken  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  to  expand  social  protection  to 
groups excluded beforehand can be a source of inspiration for structural reforms that improve 
the protection for unemployed, non-standard workers and the self-employed. 

The digital transition, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, is reshaping the EU’s economy 
and  its  labour  markets,  not  least  through  the  expansion  of  digital  labour  platforms7.  While 
platform work can provide opportunities for accessing the labour market more easily or gaining 
additional income through a secondary activity, it also brings challenges, including in terms of 
social protection. 

In addition to the imperative of managing the green transition in a fair way, a new challenge 
has  emerged  since  early  2022:  the  economic  and  geo-political  environment  triggered  by 
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and resulting in increased energy and commodity 
prices,  inflationary  pressures  and  rising  economic  uncertainty.  This  may  push  already 
vulnerable households into poverty. Social protection systems are to play a key role in both 
preventing and addressing those impacts, by strengthening the existing social safety nets and 
supporting the most vulnerable. 

1.2. Objectives of the Recommendation 

The Council Recommendation aims to ensure that all workers and the self-employed have 
formal access to and contribute to effective, adequate and transparent social protection, 
in  respect  of  six  branches  of  social  protection:  unemployment  benefits;  sickness  and 
healthcare benefits; maternity and paternity benefits; invalidity benefits; old-age and survivor 
benefits; and benefits covering accidents at work and occupational diseases. 

4  
For the purposes of the Council Recommendation and of the present report, ‘non-standard workers’ refers 
to ‘employees’ under non-standard (temporary, part-time) contracts, while ‘people in non-standard forms of work’ 
includes both workers under non-standard contracts and the self-employed. 
5 
2019/C 387/01. 
6 
COM/2021/102 final. 
7  
According to the data used for the 2021 Commission proposal for a directive, 28 million people in the 
EU  work  through  digital  labour  platforms  and  1.7-4.1 million  could  be  re-classified  as  workers  under  the 
Directive. 

5 

 
                                                 
Paragraph 19 of the Council Recommendation invites Member States to implement the 
principles set out in the Recommendation as soon as possible and to submit a plan setting 
out  the  corresponding  measures  to  be  taken  at  national  level  by  15 May 2021.  As  of 
December 2022,  all  Member  States  but  Luxembourg  had  submitted  such  a  national 
implementation  plan  (NIP) 8.  The  NIPs  were  debated  by  the  EPSCO  (employment,  social 
policy,  health  and  consumer  affairs)  Ministers  in  December  2021  as  part  of  the  European 
Semester  and  in  May  2022  in  the  SPC  (Social  Protection  Committee).  European  social 
partners’ organisations were also specifically consulted in May 2022.  

1.3. Supporting implementation 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  Council  Recommendation,  the  Commission  has  taken  specific 
measures to support the implementation of the Recommendation. 

The  Commission  worked  with  the  SPC’s  Indicators  Sub-Group  to  draw  up  a  monitoring 
framework for assessing progress towards the key objectives of the Recommendation. A 
first version of the framework was endorsed by the SPC in October 20209 and since then, the 
Commission  has  been  supporting  methodological  improvements  and  annual  updates  to  the 
monitoring  framework10.  The  monitoring  framework  includes  indicators  to  measure  formal 
coverage, effective coverage, and benefit adequacy for all types of workers in relevant branches 
of social protection. It also includes labour market indicators to measure the diversity of labour 
market statuses and indicators on the rules governing entitlements and contributions.  

Nevertheless, further improvements are needed in monitoring access to social protection 
across EU Member States. For instance, current data available at EU level does not allow to 
directly  measure  the  relationship  between  materialisation  of  a  risk  and  receipt  of  a  benefit, 
except  for  unemployment  and  old-age-related  benefits.  Moreover,  while  progress  has  been 

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1312&langId=en. 
Monitoring framework on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. 
2021 update of monitoring framework. Note that the Joint Research Centre is also working on improving 

8 
9 
10 
it, e.g. Antón & Grande (2022), Monitoring the effective coverage and adequacy of social protection in the EU. 
6 

 
 
                                                 
made in quantifying gaps in formal coverage, these data are not available for all countries and 
the data that are available are not fully comparable. Finally, gradual progress needs to be made 
in  several  areas.  For  example,  a  better  understanding  is  needed  of  the  economic  and  social 
situation  of  the  self-employed  (in  particular  their  income),  taking  into  account  the  varying 
levels of social security contributions. 

On the policy side, the Commission fostered in-depth exchanges on the implementation 
of the different dimensions of the Recommendation, bringing together Member States’ 
representatives,  social  partners  and  stakeholders 11 .  The  European  Commission  also 
monitors social protection issues as part of the European Semester. In 2020, with the aim of 
mitigating the social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission recommended that 
nine  Member  States  improve  social  protection  coverage  for  non-standard  workers  and  self-
employed people  (EE, ES,  IT, CY,  LT, NL, PL, PT, SI)  and, in  2022, four Member States 
received  a  country-specific  recommendation  in  areas  covered  by  the  2019  Council 
Recommendation (EE, HU, NL and PL). In addition, the SPC Monitor12 each year points out 
Member States with a key social challenge concerning access to social protection13. 
the 
the  analysis  of 
 In  addition,  according 
Commission, two thirds of the recovery and resilience 
plans (RRPs) include reforms or investments aimed at 
improving access to social protection (mostly focusing 
on  simplifying  access  through  digital  investments  and 
enhancing the adequacy of unemployment and old-age benefits)14. 

Two thirds of recovery and 
resilience plans include reforms or 
investments aimed at improving 
access to social protection. 

to 

Moreover,  since  2019,  the  Commission  has  launched  several  related  initiatives,  for 
instance  to  improve  the  coverage  and  adequacy  of  minimum  wages 15 ,  and  of  minimum 
income16, to improve the situation of platform workers17, and to address the social impacts of 
the green transition, notably for workers in need of job transition support and income support18. 
The Directive on transparent and predictable working conditions also ensures that workers in 
the EU are given essential information on their contracts at an early stage, notably about social 
security19. These initiatives work hand in hand towards ensuring that all people, regardless of 
their form of work, have access to adequate social protection against economic risks and that 
all also contribute to its financing, as also advocated at global level20. 

These include a series of mutual learning events (see report published in 2020) and a high-level event on 

The monitoring tool developed with the SPC to identify annual key social trends in the EU. 
In the 2022 SPC Annual Report, the following eight Member States were listed as having a ‘key social 

11 
social protection for the self-employed in June 2022. 
12 
13 
challenge’ in the area of access to social protection: EL, ES, IT, NL, PL, PT, RO and SK. 
14  
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
mobile applications of public sector bodies. 
20 
recovery. 

See also the thematic analysis on the recovery and resilience scoreboard about social protection. 
Directive (EU) 2022/2041. 
COM(2022) 490 final. 
COM(2021) 762 final. 
COM(2021) 801 final. 
Directive (EU) 2019/1152. See also Directive (EU) 2016/2102 on the accessibility of the websites and 

2012 ILO Social Protection floors Recommendation and 2021 Global call to action for a human-centred 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.4. Reviewing implementation 

The  Council  Recommendation 
invites  the  Commission  to  review  progress  on 
implementation and to report to the Council. In its analysis, the current report builds on the 
monitoring framework drawn up with the SPC to assess the progress towards key objectives of 
the Recommendation  and  recent  measures  and reforms  taken or  announced by the Member 
States, as reflected in their NIPs, the European Semester or the RRPs. The report further builds 
on  the  European  Social  Policy  Network  (ESPN)  thematic  report  on  the  transparency 
dimension21, thematic discussions in the SPC, exchanges with social partners and conclusions 
from mutual learning events organised by the Commission.  

The  report  reviews  progress  on  the  four  dimensions  of  the  Recommendation  (formal 
coverage, effective coverage, adequacy and transparency)  and in respect of workers in 
non-standard forms of employment and self-employed people. It focuses on measures and 
reforms that have been undertaken since the adoption of the Council Recommendation or that 
are planned. As workers in standard forms of employment  have access  to most branches of 
social protection across most EU Member States, the report mostly focusses on addressing gaps 
for the self-employed and for workers with non-standard contracts. Where possible, the report 
uses data to measure progress since adoption of the Recommendation in autumn 2019, though 
for some indicators the latest available statistics date back to 2020-202122. 

2.  Reviewing progress in implementing the Council Recommendation 

2.1. Snapshot of the national implementation plans: a mixed picture in terms of 

focus and of level of ambition 

The overview23 of the 26 NIPs shows that almost all NIPs refer implicitly or explicitly to 
existing/remaining gaps in access to social protection at national level. However, in only 
half of Member States are all groups and types of gaps covered. Moreover, the NIPs very 
much focused on the situation in terms of formal coverage, while other dimensions of access 
to  social  protection  are  less  well  covered,  despite  existing  indicators  agreed  at  EU  level  to 
monitor  effective  access  or  adequacy.  Importantly,  some  Member  States  consider  that  they 
have  already  implemented  all  of  the  Recommendation’s  provisions  (BG,  SE),  or  almost  all 
(CZ, FR, HU, AT, PL), see also table in annex. 

Most NIPs (22 out of the 26 submitted)24 refer to specific measures taken or new commitments 
at  national  level  to  implement  the  Recommendation.  However,  the  range  and  scope  of 
measures,  and  their  timing  (already  taken  or  planned)  vary  considerably  across 

Information on formal coverage or related to contributions and entitlements (MISSOC) is available for 

Spasova, S., et al (2023), Making access to social protection for workers and the self-employed more 

21 
transparent through information and simplification, ESPN, Publications Office of the EU. 
22 
early 2022 while, for other indicators (e.g. EU-SILC), the data relate to 2021 (and therefore 2020 income). 
23 
in the SPC's 2021 Annual Report and in the 2022 Joint Employment Report. 
24 
The NIPs from BG, HU, SE and SK did not refer to such measures. 

A first overview of the 21 national implementation plans submitted as of September 2021 was published 

8 

 
                                                 
countries25: 10 NIPs focus on one main policy and/or legislative measure, 11 include a set of 
3-8 measures, and Belgium’s plan features more than 30 measures. 

The  NIP-measures  cover  a  wide  range  of  social  protection  branches,  but  the  three  most 
frequently covered are pensions, unemployment and sickness benefits – while other branches 
(maternity and paternity, accidents at work and occupational disease, healthcare and invalidity) 
are less often addressed. 

Box 1: COVID-19 pandemic and impact on social protection systems 

The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the vital role of social protection in providing a 
safety net in times of crisis, while also exposing access gaps and pushing many Member States 
to temporarily extend social protection to previously uncovered groups. Given the overlap of 
the sanitary crisis with the implementation period of the Recommendation, it is no surprise that 
24 out of the 26 national plans refer to measures taken as a response to the pandemic, with 
three of the plans referring exclusively to such measures. However, only 8 national plans refer 
to measures that have become permanent, with a focus mostly on improving coverage for the 
self-employed or workers in specific sectors, such as the cultural sector. 

The COVID-19 pandemic also accelerated in some cases the digitalisation of social services, 
including  wider  and  simplified  use  of  electronic  forms,  tele-counselling  and  better  data 
interoperability between different public authorities. 

In terms of timing, 13 Member States refer to measures taken since 2019 and 18 Member 
States refer to measures in preparation or ‘planned for the future’. Some Member States also 
refer to measures taken before the Recommendation was adopted. 

In terms of target groups, while some measures are aimed at all persons in employment, most 
also address the situation of specific groups: measures specifically for the self-employed are 
mentioned  by  17 Member  States  and  measures  for  workers  with  non-standard  contracts  by 
11 Member States. 

The  NIPs  of  some  Member  States  (such  as  Belgium,  Estonia  and  Cyprus)  include  detailed 
information  on  each  measure  they  plan,  in  terms  of  branch,  target  group,  expected  impact, 
timeline,  budget,  implementing  body  and  plan  for  monitoring/evaluating.  For  some  other 
countries, the NIPs do not detail the measures announced for the future. 

Only a limited number of NIPs refer to involvement of social partners in the drafting of 
the  NIP  or  of  some  measures.  Other  stakeholders,  such  as  civil  society  organisations,  are 
barely referred to. EU social partner organisations indicated26 that their involvement was very 
low  or  very  late  in  the  process,  and  they  called  for  closer  involvement  in  the  design  and 
implementation of measures to improve access to social protection for non-standard workers 
and for the self-employed. 

25 
the COVID-19 crisis. 
26 

Considering only structural measures and therefore excluding temporary measures taken as a reaction to 

Consultation of EU social partners (May 2022) on the implementation of the Recommendation. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
In addition to improving access to social protection, some Member States’ NIPs also referred 
to measures aimed at decreasing the overuse of non-standard forms of work. For instance, 
the  Netherlands  is  taking  steps  to  reduce  the  social  and  fiscal  incentives  to  be  (solo)  self-
employed or for companies to hire on temporary contracts; Germany and Poland took measures 
to better monitor the coverage status of people in non-standard contracts. 

The Recommendation also encourages Member States to improve the availability of national 
statistics on access to social protection, but only a few Member States (5 out of 26, see annex) 
plan specific measures,  despite  the relatively limited availability of quantitative data in  this 
area. While many Member States do have data, mostly from administrative sources, they are 
not  always  broken  down  by  type  of  employment  relationship,  gender  or  age  and  there  are 
limited attempts to estimate the coverage rate by the various branches of social protection27. 
Moreover, available data is not systematically used in policy making. Neither the NIPs, nor 
social  partners’  input  to  the  consultations  raised  specific  issues  regarding  the  impact  of  the 
implementation  measures  on  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises.  However,  employers’ 
organisations have indicated that access for the self-employed to the most relevant branches of 
the basic social protection at a reasonable cost should be the guiding principle, while access to 
a more advanced protection should remain optional.  

Measures  referred  to  in  the  NIPs  could  benefit  from  better  linkage  with  policy  measures 
under  the  RRPs,  and  follow-up  measures  in  the  European  Semester  context.  This  would 
maximise their impact. For example, most NIPs do not mention measures related to improving 
the  transparency  of  social  protection  schemes,  while  a  large  number  of  RRPs  focus  on 
digitalization in social protection with the objective to provide better access to social security 
services, simplify procedures and offer simple and effective digital solutions for  people and 
businesses. Furthermore, Member States could also mobilise the Technical Support Instrument 
(TSI) to support national implementation of structural reforms. 

2.2. Formal coverage 

Workers  and  self-employed  people  are  considered  ‘formally  covered  by  a  specific  social 
protection branch if the existing legislation or collective agreement states that they are 
entitled  to  participate  in  a  social  protection  scheme  in  that  specific  branch.  Formal 
coverage can be provided via mandatory or voluntary schemes’ (Council Recommendation, 
recital 15). 

Member States were invited to improve the formal coverage (for all branches mentioned in the 
Recommendation)  and  extend  it  to:  (a)  all  workers,  regardless  of  the  type  of  employment 
relationship, on a mandatory basis; (b) self-employed people, at least on a voluntary basis and, 
where appropriate, on a mandatory basis.  

27 Based on discussion in the Indicators Sub-Group of the SPC, October 2022. 

10 

 
                                                 
2.2.1.  Gaps 

The  mapping  of  formal  coverage28 under  the  monitoring  framework  shows  that  there 
remain significant gaps across EU Member States for both non-standard workers and 
self-employed people, despite some progress since 201929. 

In 2022, in 17 Member States30 at least one group of non-standard workers faces formal gaps 
in at least one of the relevant social protection branches. The social security branches with the 
most gaps are unemployment (13 Member States), sickness (11), and maternity benefits (9). 
The  categories  affected  include  casual  workers  or  those  on  simplified,  short-term  fixed 
contracts,  seasonal  workers  and  those  on  other  country-specific  work  contracts 31.  In  five 
Member States32 the gaps relate only to the specific group of ‘apprentices and trainees’ (and 
often to a sub-group in this category)33. In addition, in around half of the Member States, non-
standard  workers’  access  to  at  least  one  social  protection  branch  is  only  voluntary,  often 
through ‘opt-in systems’ notably for unemployment, old-age, invalidity, sickness and maternity 
benefits. 

Based on data available in a limited number of Member States, it is estimated34 that roughly 
5.6 million non-standard workers are without access to unemployment benefits (in 11 Member 
States), while 366 000 have no access to sickness benefits (in six Member States) and 413 000 
are without access to maternity benefits (in five Member States). These numbers should clearly 
be seen as lower-bound estimates, since not all Member States report such gaps where they 
exist. 

As for the self-employed specifically, formal gaps exist in at least one of the branches of 
social  protection  in  19 Member  States  (in  2022).  The  branches  most  concerned  are 
unemployment benefits (13 Member States), followed by benefits for accidents at work and 
occupational  diseases  (9),  paternity  benefits  (5)  and 
sickness  benefits  (3).  While  being  in  line  with  the 
Recommendation,  the  fact  that  access  for  self-
employed people is voluntary in at least one branch in 
19 Member  States35,  mostly  through  opt-in  systems, 
results  generally  in  low  take-up  rates  for  these 

In 2022, self-employed in 19 
Member States and some non-
standard workers in 17 Member 
States were not covered by at least 
one branch of social protection. 

Data collection on formal coverage (SPC), latest update: Spring 2022. 
Given  reforms  in  formal  coverage  that  are  ongoing  or  announced  (see  Box  2),  the  number  of  gaps 

28 
29 
identified in this section looks set to shrink slightly over the next few years. 
30 
CZ, DK, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LV, LU, HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI and SK. Note: this reflects the 
situation as of spring 2022. Since October 2022, the remaining formal gap has been filled in Spain, with domestic 
workers having access to unemployment benefits. 
31 
This includes ‘mini-jobs’ in Germany, (some) ‘civil law contracts’ (i.e. a category of atypical contracts 
used to contract labour)  in Poland, ‘agreements  to perform a job’ in  Czechia,  work agreements  with irregular 
income in Slovakia, etc. 
32 
33  
on a quality framework for traineeships. 
34 
Member States with a gap. 
35  

DK, EL, FR, IT and NL. 
This echoes the preliminary results of the review of the implementation of the Council Recommendation 

Based on aggregating national estimates based on different sources and methods and not covering all 

In particular for sickness, old-age and survivor benefits and maternity benefits. 

11 

 
                                                 
schemes36. In some Member States this may be explained by a short amount of time given to 
people to decide whether to opt in into voluntary schemes, coupled with long binding periods. 

2.2.2.  Policy measures 

Most NIPs confirm the gaps in formal coverage described above and most Member States 
presented measures (to be) taken to address them. However, many of those measures were 
taken in response to the COVID-19 crisis, to extend access on a temporary and exceptional 
basis to specific categories of workers previously not (or only partially) covered (workers on 
precarious  contracts,  domestic  workers  and  self-employed  people)  or  working  in  specific 
sectors/occupations (cultural sector, healthcare workers, etc.)37. 

In slightly more than half of the Member States (15), the measures taken or announced since 
2019 on formal coverage are structural reforms to permanently address the gaps in the branches 
covered  by  the  Recommendation 38.  These  relate  most  often  to  closing  gaps  in  formal 
coverage for self-employed people, which is explained by the large number of Member States 
where they are still excluded from accessing a number of branches. Less attention is given to 
the other non-standard forms of work (e.g. temporary/part-time contracts).  

Table 1: Structural reforms in formal coverage since 2019 

Structural reforms in 15 Member States:  

Target groups 

self-

For 
employed 

non-

For 
standard 
employees 

both 

For 
groups 

No  structural  reforms  (in 
12 Member States) 

Member States 

EL,  FR,  IT, 
LT, MT, NL 

ES, PL, PT 

BE,  EE,  IE, 
CY, LU, RO 

AT, BG, CZ, DK, DE, HR, 
LV, HU, SI, SK, FI and SE 

Source: NIPs and update by the SPC. Note: countries in italic: reforms proposed or announced not yet adopted. 

Among the reforms for self-employed people, some have already been implemented, many are 
‘in the pipeline’, while others are planned for the future (see Box 2). 

See 2021 update of monitoring framework and Schoukens (2022), Improving access to social protection 

See details for other countries in 2022 Joint Employment Report (JER), Proposal for the 2023 JER and 

36 
for the self-employed in the EU. 
37 
ESPN (2021), Social protection and inclusion policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis. 
38 
In some countries, rights have been extended across the board for all employees, for instance the right to 
paternity leave (in BG and HR) in line with the 2019 Work-Life Balance Directive. These measures are not dealt 
with specifically in this report. 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Box 2: Social protection for the self-employed 

While  the  total  share  of  self-employed  people  in  the  workforce  has  remained  stable  over  the  last  25 years  (at 
around 14% of the workforce), the proportion of those without employees has been rising (around 68.3% of the 
27 million self-employed people in the EU)39. Available evidence for 7 Member States (BE, DE, IT, LU, NL, PL 
and SE) points to high in-work poverty rates among solo self-employed people40. This trend increases the need to 
ensure access to social protection for self-employed people. 

In  the  12 Member  States  reporting  data41,  15.3 million  self-employed  lack  access  to  unemployment  benefits, 
3.9 million lack access to benefits relating to accidents at work and occupational diseases (in nine Member States) 
and 5.3 million to sickness benefits (in three Member States). 

As illustrated below, a number of structural reforms show that it is possible to close these gaps and could provide 
inspiration for other countries still facing such gaps. 

In November 2019, Ireland introduced a new jobseeker’s benefit scheme for those who had been self-employed. 
Starting in 2019, France granted self-employed people access to an income allowance under certain conditions 
(judicial termination or insolvency procedure) and in 2022 relaxed the conditions for claiming the benefit. From 
end 2020, France also extended sickness benefits to professions libérales. In Malta, under certain conditions, self-
employed people have been eligible for unemployment benefits since early 2019. As part of the work-life balance 
decree (June 2022), Italy introduced the right to a daily allowance for self-employed women before childbirth 
(where complications arise) and the right to parental leave for self-employed fathers. 

Cyprus is reforming the social insurance system to extend coverage to self-employed people and non-standard 
forms of employment (entry into force scheduled for 2023). The Luxembourg government proposed introducing 
paternity benefits for self-employed fathers. Estonia is expanding coverage of unemployment insurance to self-
employed people, business account holders and members of management and control bodies. It is also working 
on extending health coverage to people not insured or with intermittent insurance. The Netherlands is preparing 
to introduce mandatory disability insurance for the self-employed (to be completed by 2026). 

The NIPs also include commitments for the future. For example, Romania is planning to extend paternity leave 
to  the  self-employed;  Belgium  is  assessing  how  to  make  loss-of-income  protection  for  the  self-employed 
(‘bridging  right’)  permanent;  Greece  is  planning  to  extend  access  to  sickness  benefits  to  the  self-employed; 
Lithuania  is  considering  including  all  self-employed  people  in  the  unemployment  insurance  system;  the 
Netherlands is experimenting with providing the self-employed with access to collective pension schemes. 

For non-standard workers, the reforms so far include: access to contributory unemployment 
benefits for domestic workers in Spain (from October 2022); a new status and a special social 
security  fund  for  professionals  in  the  cultural  sector  in  Portugal  (from  October 2022  – 
employees on very short-term contracts are covered for most risks and are entitled to a new 
allowance for suspension of artistic activity). Moreover, in parallel with supportive actions at 
EU level42, a number of Member States are taking measures to improve the status and working 
conditions  of  artists  and  cultural  and  creative  professionals,  a  sector  characterized  by 
prevalence of non-standard forms of work43. 

39 
Eurostat, Labour Force Survey. 
40  
Eurostat, EU-SILC 2019 used in the ‘Working Yet Poor’ EU project. 
41  
Data collection on formal coverage (EC-SPC), latest update: Spring 2022. 
42  
EU Work Plan for Culture 2023-2026; European Parliament resolution on the situation of artists and the 
cultural recovery in the EU;  2020 Study released by the Commission on  the status and working conditions of 
artists and cultural and creative professionals.  
43  
Guarantee Scheme for artists. Czechia, Spain, Greece and Romania included related reforms in their RRPs. 

In Belgium a reform of the status of artists is under discussion while Ireland is piloting a Basic Income 

13 

 
                                                 
Other reforms are being prepared. With the support of the Recovery and Resilience Facility 
(RRF),  at  the  end  of  2021,  Poland  initiated  a  reform  to  extend  mandatory  insurance  and 
improve  coverage.  It  concerns  in  particular  civil  law  contracts  with  provisions  aimed  at 
ensuring  that  they  are  covered  by  old-age/pension  and  accident  insurance.  Other  reforms 
include: a government bill in Ireland giving minimum level of protection (sickness benefits) to 
low-paid employees who may have no entitlement to a company scheme;  in Luxembourg, a 
proposal  for  universal  healthcare  coverage  (October  2021)  to  provide  affiliation  to  health 
insurance for unaffiliated vulnerable people. 

Finally, Romania plans to ensure formal access to all social security branches for seasonal and 
day workers as well as platform workers, while Belgium is evaluating ways to improve formal 
coverage for platform workers (unemployment benefits and accidents at work) and for specific 
categories of workers (e.g. childminders). Czechia does not intend to turn its ‘agreements to 
perform a job’ into an employment relationship but does plan to amend the criteria for access 
to  insurance,  and  does  plan  to  improve  access  to  coverage  for  sickness  and  related  risks 
(including maternity) for non-standard workers. 

Other Member States reported that they do not intend to provide (full) access to certain 
groups  currently  not  covered,  in  particular  self-employed  people.  Reasons  for  this 
approach include: the costs that it would involve, concerns regarding impact on the flexibility 
of  the  labour  market  or  the  complexity  of  providing  full  coverage  for  the  self-employed 
(notably  for  unemployment  insurance,  sickness  or  disability  insurance).  In  some  cases,  the 
reason for not taking action to close a formal gap is the small size of the groups not covered or 
the fact that some risks  can be covered by other branches or by the insurance attached to  a 
person’s main job (when the gap affects some additional marginal contracts). 

Social  partners  have  expressed  diverging  views  on  the  issue  of  formal  coverage,  in 
particular for the self-employed. Employers’ organisations have argued that ‘a mandatory 
and full coverage of and contribution to all six branches of social protection would denature 
the very notion of the self-employment’ and that ‘a certain choice between the different social 
protection branches as well as to the level of relevant contributions must be possible’44. On the 
other hand, workers’ organisations have called governments to ensure that self-employed are 
compulsorily covered in all branches and to address the issue of ‘bogus self-employment’45. 

Over  the  last  few  years,  the  working  conditions  of  platform  workers  have  been  at  the 
centre  of  social  policy  debate,  with  a  particular  focus  on  their  employment  status  (self-
employed or employee) and its impact on social protection coverage. 

Platform workers’ access to social protection is discussed in 11 NIPs (BE, DE, EE, FR, HR, 
IT, CY, LT, PT, RO and SI) with most of them considering it a challenge. Five Member States 
(BE, IT, CY, RO and SI) included concrete measures in their NIPs while four Member 
States refer generally to the need to take action in this area in future (DE, EE, LT and PT). For 

European  cross-industry  employers’  statement  on  the  monitoring  framework  on  access  to  social 

44 
protection for workers and the self-employed, March 2021. 
45 
improving access to social protection for the self-employed. 

ETUC  statements  in  consultation  of  EU  social  partners  (May  2022)  and  at  June  2022  EC  event  on 

14 

 
                                                 
instance, Cyprus counts platform workers among the group of people on non-standard contracts 
to whom access to benefits (unemployment, accidents at work) should be extended  through 
social  insurance  reform;  Belgium  and  Romania  announce  legislative  changes  to  ensure 
adequate social protection for platform workers, including those who are self-employed (see 
also above). 

Moreover,  since  submitting  their  NIPs,  some  Member  States  (Greece,  Spain,  France)  have 
taken further action for platform workers, also through their RRPs. Portugal has  announced 
further  measures  and  others  (Germany,  Croatia,  Luxembourg  and  the  Netherlands)  are 
currently discussing possible changes in the relevant legislation. 

2.3. Effective coverage 

While formal coverage is a necessary condition for accessing social protection schemes, it 
may not be sufficient unless effective coverage is ensured for all workers, regardless of 
the type of employment relationship, and for the self-employed. According to the Council 
Recommendation,  ‘effective  coverage’  for  a  group  means  ‘a  situation  in  a  specific  social 
protection branch where the individuals in a group have an opportunity to accrue benefits and 
the  ability,  in  the  event  that  the  corresponding  risk  materialises,  to  access  a  given  level  of 
benefits’. It can be achieved by adapting the rules governing contributions and entitlements so 
that individuals can accrue and access benefits irrespective of the type of their employment 
relationship  or  labour  market  status.  Finally,  effective  coverage  also  means  that  the 
entitlements are preserved, accumulated and/or transferable across all types of employment and 
self-employment statuses, over time and between different schemes within a given branch. 

2.3.1.  Gaps 

In the monitoring framework, effective coverage is estimated using the receipt rate of social 
benefits  (at  individual  level)  by  working-age  individuals  at  risk  of  poverty  before  social 
transfers, in different activity statuses46. As of 2021, coverage by social benefits varies widely 
in the EU-27 across activity statuses47. 

 

In the EU, on average, temporary workers tended to be more likely to receive benefits 
than those with permanent contracts48 (respectively 47.9% and 39.1%) and part-time 
workers more than those working full-time (43.3% and 37.9%) as their adverse social 
situation requires more support from social transfers. However, this is not occurring in 
all Member States. Moreover, self-employed remained the least likely activity status49 

46 
It reflects the extent to which social protection systems reach the groups that are at risk of poverty before 
social  transfers  (which  could  be  considered  as  a  proxy  for  the  risks  falling  under  the  scope  of  the 
Recommendation). Although the ideal indicator on coverage would be the proportion of persons receiving benefits 
for each type of risk by previous labour market status, it is difficult in current EU-wide surveys to capture the 
population for which the risk materialises. 
47 
specified. 
48 
49 
are statistically reliable only in a few Member States. 

The reverse was true in eight Member States (BE, BG, EE, ES, IT, CY, LV and MT). 
Family workers were even less likely to be covered by social benefits, though the values for this category 

All indicators on effective access and adequacy are based on Eurostat, EU-SILC (2021), unless otherwise 

15 

 
                                                 
to receive benefits when at risk of poverty (31.2%, compared with 41.8% for all kinds 
of employees in the EU-27) and this was the case in most Member States despite the 
exceptional income support measures during the COVID-19 period, when their benefit 
receipt rate almost trebled. 

  Overall,  in  14  Member  States,  people  in  standard  forms  of  employment  (those  with 
permanent and full-time employee contracts) were more likely to receive benefits than 
all other employed persons (part-timers, temporary contracts and self-employed) and in 
four Member  States  the  gap  was  larger  than  10 percentage  points50.  In  six Member 
States51, around 10% or less of non- ‘permanent full-time’ employees were receiving 
social benefits. 

  Among unemployed people, a little over half (52.7%) received (any) social benefits in 
2021. However, the rate was below 25% in Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia, Poland, Romania 
and  Slovakia.  Among  all  registered  short-term 
unemployed (without a job since less than one 
year) 
unemployment 
received 
benefits/assistance  in  2021  in  the  EU52,  but 
less  than  50%  in  six Member  States 53  and 
only one third or less in Croatia, Poland and 
Slovakia. 

More than 40% of 
unemployed persons 
(since less than a year) in 
the EU did not receive 
any unemployment 
benefits in 2021.  

57.3% 

Regarding income transfers following an earnings loss (typically 
unemployment benefits), recent OECD research54 shows that the income support gaps between 
people  who,  prior  to  joblessness,  were  in  ‘standard’  employment  versus  others  are  often 
sizeable  in  EU  Member  States.  This  is  mainly  driven  by  the  limited  availability  of  income 
support for those with a history of self-employment, who often are excluded from earnings-
related unemployment  benefits.  For instance, in  Italy  and  Portugal  ‘standard workers’ were 
50% more likely than other workers to receive income support following a job loss while gaps 
were also large in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (20-30% more likely). 

People in non-standard forms of employment are more likely to be deprived of effective 
access when in need. Indeed, existing rules governing contributions and entitlements can make 
effective access to benefits more difficult for non-standard workers and the self-employed. For 
instance,  in  2022,  the  qualifying  period  for  unemployment  benefits  stood  at  1 year  in 
12 Member  States  and  was  as  long  as  2 years  in  two Member  States55.  Such  criteria,  often 
intended to safeguard the financial sustainability of the system, exclude a number of people 
with temporary contracts and/or precarious careers from receiving benefits, even if they have 
contributed  and  are  at  risk  of  poverty.  This  also  occurs  with  sickness  benefits  where 
qualification periods are as long as 6 months or more for employees in 10 Member States, and 

BG, LV, LT and SI. 
EL, HR, HU, PL, PT and RO. 
Eurostat, EU-LFS, lfsa_ugadra. 
BG, CZ, EL, ES, CY and SI. 
OECD (2022), De-facto gaps in social protection for standard and non-standard workers: An approach 

50 
51 
52  
53 
54 
for monitoring the accessibility and levels of income support. 
55 

Source: MISSOC (1st January 2022). 

16 

 
                                                 
are longer for the self-employed than for 
employees in five Member States. Finally, 
in  one  third  of  the  Member  States, 
contributory  maternity  benefits  are  not 
available  to  those  who  have  not  been  in 
employment for at least 8 months. 

2.3.2.  Policy measures 

In 2022, the qualifying period for unemployment 
benefits was at least 1 year in 14 Member 
States. For sickness benefits, it reached  
6 months or more in 10 Member States.  

The  challenge  of  effective  access  faced  by  workers  with  non-standard  contracts,  in 
particular very short-duration contracts, and by the self-employed is recognised in many 
NIPs. However, the number of structural reforms implemented or proposed is limited. 
Moreover,  there  was  very  little  focus  in  the  NIPs  on  how  to  improve  transferability  of 
entitlements from one scheme or job status to another. 

European workers’ organisations have expressed concerns that most NIPs do not sufficiently 
address problems with effective access (notably strict eligibility rules that prevent those in need 
from accessing benefits). European employers’ organisations argue that social protection needs 
to  be  connected  to  employment  contributions  and  that  incentives  to  work  need  to  be 
strengthened56. 

Several Member States argue in their NIPs that the current rules governing entitlements 
are appropriate and that contribution periods must be long enough to provide incentives 
to work and to ‘preserve the sustainability of the system and implement safeguards to avoid 
abuse’. This shows that changing the contribution and entitlement rules remains a challenging 
policy  issue,  requiring  impact  assessment,  political  consensus  and  involvement  of  all 
stakeholders.  

The majority of the measures reported were taken on an exceptional and temporary basis 
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding unemployment benefits, the eligibility 
conditions were loosened in a number of countries. For instance, Italy and Lithuania expanded 
the  categories  of  potential  beneficiaries  and  Finland  allowed  those  temporarily  laid-off  to 
access  unemployment  benefits.  Latvia  introduced  a  temporary  unemployment  assistance 
benefit for those whose rights have expired and for young unemployed graduates.  Germany 
adopted a social protection package which gave easier access to basic social security benefits 
for jobseekers. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of measures were taken to facilitate access to 
unemployment benefits or income support schemes for the self-employed. For instance, 
the Netherlands adopted several temporary income support packages; Belgium extended the 
‘bridging right’ (allowance in cases of bankruptcy) to cover the self-employed; Spain supported 
the self-employed through special benefits and exemptions from contributions. A number of 
Member  States57 focused  on  facilitating  access  to  unemployment  benefits  or  other  income 

Business  Europe  statement  during  consultation  of  EU  social  partners  (May  2022);  and  March  2021 

56 
European cross-industry employers’ statement. 
57 
DE, EE, ES, FR, LU and AT. 

17 

 
                                                 
support for artists, as most of them could not otherwise meet the standard eligibility conditions. 
Germany  took  measures  to  maintain  insurance  coverage  for  self-employed  artists  by 
subsidising  their  contributions.  Temporary  measures  to  facilitate  effective  access  to  other 
branches (such as healthcare and sickness benefits) were also taken in a number of Member 
States58. 

A  limited  number  of  structural  reforms  were  also  made,  in  particular  regarding  access  to 
unemployment benefits and other income support schemes (see Box 3 below). 

Box 3: (Selected) reforms relating to effective coverage 

Spain is reforming the unemployment assistance system to fill some of the coverage gaps, extend the maximum 
duration  and  simplify  the  system.  Since  March  2022,  it  has  also  provided  access  to  non-contributory 
unemployment subsidies for employees over the age of 52 with discontinuous fixed contracts. 

In 2019, Italy reduced the contributions required to qualify for unemployment benefits for short-term contracts 
and platform workers. Moreover, in 2022, it improved access to unemployment benefits for non-standard workers; 
for example, it extended the maximum period the benefit could be paid for in cases of involuntary redundancy for 
atypical contract workers (DIS-COLL allowance) to 12 months and introduced more generous wage guarantee 
schemes (covering suspension or reduction of activity) and made them accessible to those previously not covered, 
including apprentices and domestic workers. 

In 2020, Cyprus removed the (3-year) qualifying period for healthcare benefits. 

In 2021-22, Lithuania has been preparing a reform of unemployment insurance (still to be adopted) to reduce the 
minimum contribution period (from 12 to 9 months), to give the self-employed access to the insurance and to 
adjust contribution rates. 

In some countries, measures were taken that make access to social protection potentially 
more stringent59: in Romania the qualifying period for sickness benefits was increased from 
1 to 6 months (for both employees and the self-employed) in 2020. In 2021, France changed 
the  eligibility  criteria  and  benefits  calculation  for  unemployment  benefits,  increasing  the 
minimum  contribution  requirements.  Slovenia 
the  qualifying  period  for 
unemployment  benefits  (from  9 to  10 months)  in  2020  –  and  introduced  a  1-month  waiting 
period for the payment of sickness benefits. 

increased 

2.4. Adequacy 

The Council Recommendation defines adequate social protection schemes as ‘maintaining 
a decent standard of living and providing appropriate income replacement, while always 
preventing […] members [of schemes] from falling into poverty’. To achieve this, Member 
States are ‘recommended to ensure that the contributions to social protection are proportionate 
to the contributory capacity of workers and the self-employed’, and that ‘the calculation of the 
social protection contributions and entitlements of the self-employed are based on an objective 
and  transparent  assessment  of  their  income  base’.  To  assess  the  adequacy  of  benefits,  the 
monitoring framework includes indicators to measure the prevalence of poverty and of material 
and social deprivation, as well as the impact of social transfers to reduce poverty. 

58 
59  

See ESPN (2021). 
Source: MISSOC.  

18 

 
                                                 
2.4.1.  Gaps 

Rates  of  material  and social  deprivation  are higher  for  temporary-contract  employees 
than permanent-contract employees and for part-timers compared to full-time workers. 
Self-employed people and temporary-contract employees are also more at risk of poverty 
than those in standard forms of employment. 

As the chart below shows, unemployed people  experience the highest  average  material  and 
social  deprivation  rates  (36.2%  in  the  EU  in  2021),  followed  by  the  temporary-contract 
employees (13.1%, compared with 6.4% for permanent-contract employees)60. Part-timers also 
face higher rates of deprivation (10.6%) than those working full-time (6.7%). High at-risk-of-
poverty  (AROP)  rates  are  found  among  the  self-employed  (21.4%),  temporary-contract 
employees (17.2%) and part-timers (15.5%). 

Material and social deprivation, EU-27 - 2021 (%) 

Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC, 16-64 

In many Member States, social transfers play a key role in limiting poverty and, as might 
be expected, have a bigger impact among workers in non-standard forms of employment 
and the self-employed than among those in standard employment. For instance, in 2021, 
the at-risk-of-poverty rate among those with temporary contracts was 30.0% lower after than 
before social transfers. The impact is also high for part-timers (27.4%) and the self-employed 
(29.2%). 

The most recent adequacy indicators point to a levelling-off of social and material deprivation 
rates for all categories, following a steady decline between 2014 and 2020, especially amongst 
the unemployed and the self-employed. Moreover, the AROP rate (after social transfers) is still 
more than four times higher for self-employed people than for standard workers, and more than 
3.5 times higher for temporary-contract employees than for standard workers. 

The  latest  figures  are  from  2021,  generally  referring  to  the  income  situation  in  2020.  It  is 
acknowledged that social protection systems helped people to weather the COVID-19 crisis 
without more substantial increases in poverty risks or income inequalities, thanks to very strong 
increased  coverage,  exceptional  support  measures  and 
policy  responses  (including 

60  

Eurostat, EU-SILC, 2021 (age group 16-64). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
expenditure). However, another crisis, triggered by the situation in Ukraine, has started to have 
major economic and social impacts, in particular through inflation and rising energy poverty. 
Given the lags in data availability, it is still too early to measure the amplitude of the impact of 
these crises. 

2.4.2.  Policy measures 

The  area  of  adequacy  is  addressed  to  some  extent  in  the  NIPs  (16 Member  States  present 
measures aimed to improve adequacy). Few Member States focus on the level of adequacy 
of social protection for workers in non-standard jobs. However, many have adopted or 
plan to adopt measures to improve adequacy, focusing on pensions for the self-employed 
or special categories of employees. Some measures are also being rolled out to improve the 
adequacy of unemployment benefits. 

The  extent  to  which  different  categories  of  self-employed  people  and  workers  in  non-
standard  forms  of  employment  contribute  to  pensions,  will  determine  their  future 
benefits.  For  the  self-employed,  fluctuations  in  work  and  earnings  represent  a  challenge  in 
contributing  regularly.  Spain  and  Latvia  decided  to  adjust  the  method  of  calculating 
contributions for the self-employed, to support the adequacy of future pensions, while Belgium 
plans  to  align  the  pensions  systems  of  the  self-employed  and  employees  and  adjust 
contributions by the self-employed to better reflect their contribution capacity. For the same 
reason, and to incentivise participation in the system, Portugal also reduced contributions rates 
and now calculates the contribution base every quarter, based on income earned in the previous 
quarter. Austria and Estonia took measures to raise pension adequacy, notably for those with 
low entitlements, as did Germany, where women will be the main beneficiaries. Czechia tabled 
a  pension  reform  to  improve  the  fairness  of  the  pension  system  (e.g.  by  addressing  gender 
gaps). In 2021, France adopted legislative measures aiming at increasing the pensions level for 
farmers’ helpers and in 2022 Finland amended the pension insurance for the self-employed61. 

Increasing the coverage rate or duration of unemployment benefits helps improve their 
adequacy, and Estonia and Lithuania took measures in this direction. Belgium also raised the 
minimum  level  of  unemployment  benefits,  along  with  other  minimum  social  security  and 
assistance  benefits.  In  this  area  in  particular,  many  measures  have  been  taken  as  a  policy 
response  to  COVID-19.  As  an  illustration,  the  duration  of  unemployment  benefits  was 
temporarily prolonged in 2020-21 (and 2022 in some cases) in Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, 
Greece, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden. Belgium, France and Italy suspended 
the gradual reduction of benefits over time (‘degressivity’), while their level was temporarily 
increased in Ireland, in Luxembourg (for those in partial unemployment), in Malta (with a top-
up)  and  permanently  in  some  countries  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  partially  in  Portugal). 
While most of these measures have now been discontinued, or will be, some Member States 
have chosen to make them structural. For the cultural sector in particular, new measures have 
been taken in several Member States. A limited number of measures focused on adequacy in 
branches other than pensions or unemployment. Some examples are found in the Belgian NIP 

61 

Measures adopted after the submission of the NIP. 

20 

 
                                                 
(sickness,  invalidity)  and  in  the  Maltese  NIP  (in  healthcare,  treatments  for  new  chronic 
conditions will be free from 2023). 

Box 4: Gaps in social protection affecting young people62 

The gaps in access to social protection for workers and the 
self-employed are particularly pronounced among certain 
categories,  for  instance  young  people.  In  2021,  young 
people  (16-29)  who  were  unemployed  and  at  risk  of 
poverty  (before  social  transfers),  were  much  less  likely 
(38%)  than  30-64-year-olds  (57%)  to  receive  social 
benefits in the EU.  

In half of the Member States, less than 
30% of young people received any 
social benefits while being unemployed 
and at risk of poverty (2021). 

A recent report confirms that young workers often lack formal access to unemployment, sickness or maternity 
benefits63. In most cases, these gaps are not driven directly by age-specific rules. They are rather due either to: 
a  lack  of  formal  coverage  for  specific  categories  (trainees,  apprentices,  casual  workers,  platform  workers, 
dependent  self-employed)  in  which  there  are  a  lot  of  young  people;  or  to  issues  of  effective  coverage  (in 
particular  when the rules  –  minimum qualification period  or restrictions on  minimum contributions paid or 
hours worked – effectively exclude young people with a short employment history and precarious contracts 
from social protection benefits). For instance, it is harder for young workers to meet the eligibility requirements 
for  unemployment  benefits  when  they  lose  their  job.  The  same  is  true  for  sickness  benefits.  Interestingly, 
Austria, Belgium and Slovenia apply shorter minimum contribution periods for young people. This is also the 
case in Spain for maternity benefits. 

While few NIPs include youth-specific reforms, there are some exceptions: the amendment of the law on social 
insurance of students and trainees in Greece and reform of maternity leave for students in Croatia. Moreover, 
some  measures  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  crisis  were  focused  on  young  people,  e.g.  students.  Austria 
introduced a training bonus in addition to unemployment benefits and extended the hardship fund to students. 
Belgium introduced unemployment payments for students  who had lost their job due to the pandemic; and 
Latvia had put in place a temporary unemployment benefit for young graduates registered as unemployed. 

Moreover, some general (not youth-specific) measures are nevertheless particularly relevant for young 
people  due  to  their  specific  situation  (for  instance  as  temporary-contract  or  platform  workers).  Examples 
include:  the  reforms  addressing  formal  coverage  for  non-standard  workers  (or  effective  access)  referred  to 
above; Estonia’s extension of healthcare insurance to all residents including students; and temporary support 
in  Spain  (during  COVID-19)  to  temporary-contract  workers,  allowing  them  easier  access  to  contributory 
unemployment benefits. 

2.5. Transparency 

Transparency  is  the  fourth  dimension  addressed  by  the  Council  Recommendation 64 . 
Transparency is crucial to guaranteeing access to social protection for workers and the 
self-employed. People may be insufficiently aware of their rights and obligations, and of 
the different ways of exercising those  rights and complying with their obligations. The 

See also summary of SPC April 2022 thematic discussion on access of young people in 2022 SPC Annual 

Ghailani,  D.  et  al  (2021),  ‘Access  to  social  protection  for  young  people.  An  analysis  of  policies  in 

62 
Report. 
63 
35 countries’, ESPN. 
64 
It recommends that Member States ensure that ‘the conditions and rules for all social protection schemes 
are transparent’ and that ‘individuals have access to updated, comprehensive, accessible, user-friendly and clearly 
understandable information’ (para 15) and that they ‘simplify, where necessary, the administrative requirements 
of social protection schemes’ (para 16). 

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
rules may be too complex or not sufficiently clear. This can discourage participation in social 
protection schemes and contribute to low take-up rate for some social benefits. Self-employed 
people and people in non-standard forms of work may be more affected, because, as discussed 
above, they are often subject to specific rules and more complex procedures. In addition, these 
categories may often lack organisations to represent their interests, as the social partners do for 
other categories. 

The very diverse panorama of social protection systems among the Member States explains 
also  different  approaches  to  transparency  of  social  protection  schemes  and  benefits.  For 
instance, some countries have very general ‘one-size-fits-(almost)-all’ schemes, while others 
have just started to transition from a set of very specific protection schemes to more general 
ones. Another marked difference is that some started the digital transition long ago while others 
were prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some Member States state in their NIP that the 
rules on access to social protection are already clear and transparent and that information is 
accessible  (e.g.  BE,  EE,  FR,  HR,  MT,  SE),  with  some  also  highlighting  the  importance  of 
maintaining/improving  this  (BE,  MT,  NL,  SE).  In  some  countries,  access  to  information 
(including information on the six branches of social protection) is enshrined in legislation (e.g. 
BE,  CZ,  EE,  LV,  RO,  SI,  SK).  Some  have  included  transparency  and  simplification  as 
objectives  in  their  RRP,  as  in  the  case  of  Cyprus’s  planned  reform  of  the  social  insurance 
system  and  the  restructuring  and  digitalisation  of  social  insurance  services 65.  In  general, 
however,  transparency  is  not  well  reflected  in  the  NIPs,  but  a  series  of  reforms  and 
measures have taken place or are being rolled out across the EU to support access to clear 
and up-to-date information and awareness of social rights, and to simplify procedures, in 
many cases also through the RRPs. 

2.5.1.  Access to information 

Access  to  information  on  social  protection  is  needed  for  people  to  become  aware  of  their 
existing rights and obligations. The provision of information can be ‘passive’, for instance in 
the  form  of  information  brochures  or  web  portals,  or  more  ‘active’,  mainly  via  awareness-
raising campaigns, general or targeted. 

As recital 22 of the Council Recommendation points out, ‘digitalisation can, in particular, 
contribute  to  improving  transparency  for  individuals’,  and  digital  provision  of 
information  is  indeed  a  key  part  of  Member  States’  efforts  to  improve  access.  Though 
there is still a great diversity of practices, so-called portals now exist in all Member States, be 
they one-stop general/governmental or integrated social security portals, or portals for specific 
branches of social protection66. 

Where information is provided for the different  work statuses, special attention is generally 
paid (to various extents) to the situation of the self-employed (depending in part on whether 
self-employed people have formal access to the various branches of social security and whether 

Reforms aimed at increasing transparency are presented in 12 RRPs (BE, CZ, DE, EL, HR, CY, IT, LT, 

65 
PT, RO, SI, SK), especially in sections dedicated to digitalisation. 
66 
can be found in the dedicated ESPN report: Spasova et al. (forthcoming). 

More details about the state of play and measures in the different Member States as regards transparency 

22 

 
                                                 
on the same or different terms to other categories). However, in several Member States there 
are  information  gaps  and  shortcomings  specifically  affecting  (sub-groups  of)  non-standard 
workers and the self-employed, for which detailed information may or may not be provided 
(especially  on  general  government  sites):  information  tailored  to  the  self-employed  and  to 
people  in  non-standard  forms  of  employment  is  still  generally  limited  (Romania),  or  the 
different categories are not well-differentiated (Cyprus), or information on certain schemes is 
missing, for instance information on voluntary schemes (Austria)67. More generally, gaps and 
shortcomings  in  the  information  made  available  by  the  public  administrations  and/or 
(public or private) providers involved in the various social protection branches have been 
explicitly identified as an issue in 17 Member States (BE, CZ, DE, EE, IE, EL, FR, HR, CY, 
LT, NL, AT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE)68. Another possible shortcoming relates to outdated websites, 
created as a result of specific programmes/projects,  triggered by certain  events (such as the 
COVID-19 crisis) and funded on a temporary basis but not maintained and updated afterwards. 

The most developed personalised information available is on old-age benefits, often via 
online calculators. Indeed, 21 Member States report that they provide pension calculators (or 
simulators)  directly  accessible  by  the  citizens,  who  can  use  them  to  get  estimates  of  future 
pension entitlements based on actual contributions and periods (BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, ES, FR, 
IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, AT, NL, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI, SE)69. However, information relating 
to occupational pension schemes and voluntary schemes seem to vary a lot between Member 
States and, even in the more advanced field of old-age benefits, it is not clear whether there is 
enough information catering for those in non-standard forms of work. 

Increased digitalisation and the shift from physical services to online and digital services can 
create difficulties in accessing information, in particular for vulnerable groups (e.g. people with 
low digital skills, people with visual/hearing impairments, older people or homeless people)70. 
At the same time, many websites providing information on social protection are accessible to 
people with visual impairments (e.g. BE, DK, EE, IE, EL, LT, LU, SI) or hearing impairments 
(e.g. CZ, DK, EE, IE, EL, HR, LT, LU, RO, SI)71. In some cases, there are ongoing reforms to 
ensure accessibility of information on social protection benefits, while in Sweden for instance, 
information on the websites is already available in a form suitable for people with different 
disabilities,  via  easy  Swedish  or  sign  language.  Swedish  authorities  must  also  provide 
interpreters free of charge. In Finland, since 2019, the Social Insurance Institution  has been 
expanding its online services in sign language and offers an interpreter service for people with 
disabilities. 

Physical  offices  can  play  an  important  role  in  enhancing  accessibility  for  people  with 
disabilities and low digital literacy. In many countries however, there has been a significant 

Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Such calculators have been reported for sickness benefits in only three Member States, and for invalidity 

67 
68 
69 
benefits in Belgium only. 
70 
The  recent ESPN report points to issues relating to access to digital  information on social protection 
benefits for specific groups (BE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, LV, LT, RO), including people with low levels of digital 
literacy (DK, EL, LT), homeless people (DK), people with cognitive or physical disabilities (especially visual 
impairments) (DK, EE, LT, RO), and elderly people (EE, LV). 
71 

Spasova et al. (forthcoming). 

23 

 
                                                 
decline in opportunities for physical access to information, often accelerated by the COVID-19 
crisis. Programmes to improve digital literacy and address the digital divide have been reported 
in some Member States (like BE, EE and IT). It is also noteworthy that some countries among 
the most digitally advanced are already (re-)developing physical access or creating one-stop 
service  centres  (EE,  LV).  In  2020  in  Estonia,  a  home  delivery  service  for  pension  benefits 
became available, at a reduced price since early 2022. 

Given the complexity of systems and procedures to access social benefits, outreach is another 
crucial  aspect  of  access  to  information  –  to  raise  people’s  awareness  of  their  rights  and 
obligations and of the importance of being part of social protection systems. For 2017-2021, 
14 Member States reported awareness-raising campaigns on social security systems/benefits 
‘in general’ or information on several benefits to address these challenges. In several countries, 
campaigns  were  conducted  to  raise  public  awareness  of  the  conditions  for  accessing  social 
security benefits, in terms of social contributions and the importance of regular employment, 
which is especially important for the self-employed and the people in non-standard forms of 
employment. In Finland for instance, unemployment funds and trade unions regularly conduct 
information campaigns aimed at convincing workers to join unemployment funds to be better 
protected  against  income  losses  in  case  of  unemployment.  There  were  also  campaigns  on 
specific branches of social protection in a majority of Member States. Of particular interest are 
the campaigns on old-age benefits targeted at non-standard workers and the self-employed (CZ, 
DE, HR, HU) and campaigns on future access to benefits and their adequacy (CZ, EL, LT, HU, 
MT, NL, PL, FI). 

2.5.2.  Simplification 

Transparency can be improved through different types of simplification: simplification in the 
formal rules of a social protection scheme (addressed above), in the administration (institution) 
structure  itself  or  simplification  in  the  application/receipt  process  for  accessing  benefits. 
Several Member States have undertaken or planned reforms to simplify the general or 
specific schemes, thereby extending or improving access for categories of workers in non-
standard forms of  employment or self-employed to  more types of benefits.  Austria and 
Portugal  introduced  clearer  rules  for  access  for  (categories  of)  the  self-employed.  Other 
simplification measures being adopted include the ‘once-only principle’72 for data collection 
(BE, IE, EL, ES, LV, LU, PL), creation or improvement of one-stop social security portals (IE, 
LV, HU, MT, NL, SI, SK, SE) and (partial) automation of data exchange (DE, EL)73. 

Another  category  of  reforms  relates  to  simplification  of  the  application  procedures.  They 
include measures such as the launching of web portals with integrated functionalities for users 
and sharing of data among the different institutions (BG, CZ, IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, FI), but 

72 
The  ‘once-only  principle’  for  data  collection  means  establishing  comprehensive  digital  one-stop 
structures  for  gathering  data  from  several  authorities  in  a  single  place  and  exchanging  it  (digital 
registers/databases, social security cards…). 
73 
privacy. Three countries have reported recent or planned reforms aiming to address those issues (DK, IE, NL). 

Increased/extensive  digitalisation  may  raise  numerous  issues  around  personal  data  protection  and 

24 

 
                                                 
also online and pre-filled application procedures (DE, IT, SK), or the automatic granting of 
benefits for eligible people in specific branches. 

Box 5: (Selected) reforms/measures on transparency 

Belgium:  The  Federal  Government  Agreement  for  2020-2024  contains  a  commitment  to  develop  the  existing 
mypension.be  website,  to  include  online  accounts,  calculation  instruments  and  automatic  granting  of  rights  to 
benefits.  Moreover,  the  Belgian  NIP  mentions  the  establishment  of  new  websites  with  the  same  functions  as 
mypension for unemployment benefits and benefits related to accidents at work. Since March 2020, people who 
might qualify for increased reimbursement of healthcare costs have been identified automatically. 

Czechia:  In  2022,  the  Czech  Social  Security  Administration  has  launched  an  awareness-raising  campaign  on 
digital access to old-age pensions. Other awareness-raising campaigns include targeted activities informing future 
beneficiaries  of  the  adequacy  of  their  old-age  benefits.  Since  2016,  the  Czech  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social 
Affairs  has  been  sending  letters  to  self-employed  people  on  the  potential  implications  of  paying  minimum 
premiums for benefit adequacy and advising them on possible ways of avoiding poverty in old age. 

Germany: The Digital Pension Overview Act (11 February 2021) provides for a digital pension portal, which 
will provide information on pension entitlements. The portal will be introduced gradually with full implementation 
in autumn 2023. 

Greece: Information  activities  were  conducted  to  raise  awareness  of  the  gender  pension  gap  and  increase 
women’s  awareness  of  the  link  between  pension  levels  and  contributions.  Moreover,  an  online  platform  was 
launched  in  December 2020,  initially  to  provide  tele-counselling  services  for  unemployed  people  during  the 
COVID-19 crisis, which became permanent following its success. 

Italy: The pre-filled application service for survivors’ pensions has been fully operational since October 2021. 
Whenever an old-age pension is suspended following a pensioner’s death, the service is activated automatically, 
and the spouse is notified of the procedure via a text message. 

Latvia:  The  project  ‘Unified  Web  Platform  for  Government  and  Local  Government  Entities’  (2018)  brings 
information websites together in a single platform, to be completed by 2025. Latvia is also developing the SSIA 
(State  Social  Insurance  Agency)  universal  data  dashboard,  collating  information  and  providing  personalised 
information. 

Malta: There has also been some automation of the process for healthcare coverage for older people. As of 2022, 
persons aged 80 or over who receive a supplementary allowance because their income is low will automatically 
(without the need for a means test) become eligible for free medical assistance. 

Portugal: New IT features are available via the ‘Social Security Online’ service, for instance consultation of the 
person’s contributions and benefits history; electronic submission of pension applications and pension forecasts 
through an online simulator; a special ATM payment service for contributions by self-employed people. A new 
social security portal was launched in May 2021 (simpler, in line with accessibility standards and more secure). 

Romania: The application process for disability benefits has been simplified through the Single Contact Point, a 
platform  which provides  information on benefits and guidance  for applying. Insured people can also  use  it  to 
apply for benefits. The possibility  to submit documents electronically was strengthened during the  COVID-19 
pandemic. 

Targeted at the self-employed 

Bulgaria: The interoperability of databases has been increased for tracking and paying healthcare benefits; users 
no longer have to collect and keep documents proving payment of healthcare benefits and old-age benefits. The 
relevant information is generated  by  integrated information systems  linking  the social security,  health and tax 
administrations. 

Estonia: Procedures  for  self-employed  people  have  been  further  simplified  with  the  introduction  of  the 
entrepreneur account policy in 2019. This keeps track of the income and taxes of self-employed people, and the 
bank managing the account forwards the correct sums to the Health Insurance Fund and Pension Fund. 

Slovenia: In 2023 the Centres for Social Work’s information system will begin automatic collection of data on 
payment of social contributions for self-employed people and farmers. 

25 

 
 
3.  Summarising progress 

The Council Recommendation’s implementation period coincided with the pandemic. In 
2020-21, policy attention was very much focused on emergency measures to address its 
social and economic consequences; fewer efforts were devoted to systemic reforms to adapt 
social protection branches to new and still changing labour market realities.  The emergency 
measures helped extend social protection to previously uncovered or partially covered groups, 
but  mostly  on  a  temporary  basis.  At  the  same  time,  the  crisis  also  highlighted  some  deep 
structural  gaps  and  the  need  to  address  these,  but  only  some  countries  pursued  structural 
reforms. 

3.1. Positive developments in access to social protection for all 

Measures implemented since 2019 or announced for the future include a number of changes in 
legislation (or practices) that (will) facilitate concrete access for numerous workers and self-
employed  people 
the  Council 
Recommendation. It will be important to closely monitor their implementation and impacts and 
to follow up on those not yet adopted. 

the  key  social  protection  branches  covered  by 

to 

Many reforms are concentrated in the area of formal coverage, focusing on extending and 
improving  social  protection  for  the  self-employed  (in  particular  solo  and  dependent  self-
employed people), in most cases moving from ‘no coverage’ to ‘mandatory coverage’. Reforms 
were also implemented, or are planned, to improve formal coverage for workers with specific 
forms  of  contracts  or  in  specific  sectors.  In  eight Member  States,  the  emergency  measures 
deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide a safety net for those not formally covered 
did trigger systemic changes in formal access. 

There  were  also  some  positive  developments  regarding  effective  access,  for  instance 
reducing  the  length  of  the  minimum  required  contributions  for  unemployment  benefits  and 
regarding adequacy, mostly related to old-age benefits for the self-employed or for those 
with low entitlements, and to a lesser extent to unemployment benefits. As for transparency, 
available information shows both the many existing good practices across EU Member States 
and the need for further progress. 

3.2. Challenges remain 

The overall level of ambition varies significantly among the NIPs, notably in terms of scope, 
number and timing of the measures (taken or announced). With a few exceptions, most of them 
do not aim to address all coverage gaps identified in the monitoring framework or in the context 
of the European Semester. 

It should also be taken into account that the starting point is very diverse across the 27 EU 
Member  States.  In  particular,  the  NIPs  of  some  of  the  most  advanced  welfare  states  with 
universal  and  generous  social  security  systems  contain  relatively  few  commitments  to  new 
structural reforms. Conversely, it is a concern that some Member States where non-standard 
workers  and  self-employed  are  still  not  (adequately)  covered  have  not  submitted  ambitious 

26 

 
reform plans. In addition, a few Member States consider that they fulfil the provisions of the 
Recommendation as soon as all workers and the self-employed are formally covered by the 
social protection schemes, omitting to take effective access, adequacy and transparency into 
account. 

While a number of measures aim at improving formal coverage for the self-employed, those 
with non-standard forms of contracts are the focus of fewer measures. Significant gaps in 
formal and effective coverage remain for both groups, and are likely to continue in the absence 
of further reforms. 

Implementation  challenges  as  acknowledged  also  by  many  Member  States  include:  the 
complexity of improving formal coverage for the self-employed; addressing the situation of 
specific  groups  of  non-standard  workers  such  as  platform  workers,  domestic  workers  and 
farmers; the difficult balance between ensuring more effective access to benefits and financing 
the system. 

The high-level event on social protection of the self-employed in June 2022 demonstrated the 
strong  interest  many  Member  States  have  in  addressing  the  issue  and  the  need  for  further 
mutual  learning  on  how  to  tackle  the  gaps  affecting  both  formal  and  effective  access  to 
adequate social protection.  

Finally,  adequate  and  inclusive  social  protection  requires  strong  public  support  and 
involvement of all actors. However, there is no evidence that social partners, still less civil 
society  organisations  have  been  closely  involved  in  preparing  the  NIPs.  European  social 
partner organisations stressed this lack of involvement as a key concern. 

27 

 
 
 
4.  Conclusions 

The Council Recommendation has played a role in building momentum for introducing 
changes to long-established national social protection systems, in order to address existing (or 
deepening)  gaps.  It  has  brought  higher  visibility  for  the  issues  of  coverage,  adequacy  and 
information about social protection for workers and the self-employed in many Member States. 
Moreover, a number of implementation measures are an integral part of the national reform 
programmes  in  the  context  of  the  European  Semester  and  RRPs.  However,  many 
implementation challenges remain. 

With the further accelerated spread of forms of employment generally less protected by social 
protection and given the imperative of managing the digital and green transition in a fair way, 
the Recommendation is more relevant than ever in ensuring that social protection systems 
are fit to cushion a large part of the active population from economic shocks. Enhancing access 
to social protection also translates into higher contributions to public budgets, thus contributing 
to the financial and political sustainability of social protection systems. 

Implementation of the Council Recommendation needs to be anchored in broader socio-
economic policies both at EU and national levels. Importantly, some Member States took 
the Recommendation and the related NIP process as an opportunity to reflect on, conduct or 
prepare general reforms to social protection systems, adapting them to changing labour market 
and societal realities, including the emergence of platform work, beyond specific measures in 
the areas of the Recommendation. 

Interestingly, a number of Member States have also taken steps over the last few years to 
reduce  the  use  of  non-standard  forms  of  contracts,  by  monitoring  them  better,  reducing 
social  and  fiscal  incentives  to  hire  on  very  short-duration  contracts  or  through  false  self-
employment, reforming labour law to address segmentation. These actions are important; they 
complement measures  providing better coverage  to  those in  non-standard forms  of  work  as 
described in the report, and should be followed up. 

The  developments  in  access  to  social  protection  have  fed  the  reflections  of  the  High-Level 
Group  on  the  future  of  social  protection  and  of  the  welfare  state  in  the  EU.  Addressing 
implementation gaps identified in this report will also contribute to responding to calls from 
the Conference on the Future of Europe for ‘stronger social policies’ and ‘full implementation’ 
of the European Pillar of Social Rights in the area of social protection and inclusion. 

Adapting systems to ensure better access to social protection for all is a long-term process, 
involving social partners and other relevant national organisations. It is a positive development 
that some steps have been taken in a number of Member States, but remaining gaps in access 
to social protection are still to be tackled. The Commission report should trigger debates on 
how to address the remaining challenges and how the EU could support these efforts. 

28 

 
 
ANNEX: Main features of the national implementation plans (NIPs) on access to social protection (and update)74 

[Y: Yes; N:No] 

AT 

BE  

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV  MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Total 
(Yes)  

The  NIP 

1. 
a 
diagnosis  about  gaps  in  access  to 
social protection  

includes 

indicates 

provisions 

In  the  NIP  the  Member 
fulfils 
it  already 
the 
of 

2. 
State 
most/all 
Recommendation  
3. 
includes 
measures/reforms  to  improve  formal 
coverage  

NIP 

The 

The 

4. 
measures/reforms 
effective coverage  

NIP 
to 

includes 
improve 

The 

5. 
measures/reforms 
adequacy 

NIP 
to 

includes 
improve 

The 

6. 
measures/reforms 
transparency  

NIP 
to 

includes 
improve 

7. 
The  measures  /  reforms 
address  all  or  most  of  the  gaps  in 
access to social protection* 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

23/26 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

7/26 

N 

N 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(P) 

N 

N 

N 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(A) 

N 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(P) 

N 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(P) 

N 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(P) 

N 

N 

N 

16/26 

N 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(A) 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(A) 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(P) 

N 

Y 
(A) 

N 

N 

Y 
(A) 

N 

N 

Y 
(P) 

N 

9/26 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(A) 

N 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(A) 

N 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(A) 

N 

N 

Y 
(A) 

N 

N 

N 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(P) 

N 

Y 
(A) 

N 

N 

N 

N 

14/26 

N 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(P) 

Y 
(A) 

Y 
(P) 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

6/26 

Y 
(A) 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y~ 

Y 

N 

Y~ 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N  

N 

N 

N 

Y~ 

N 

N 

6/26 

74 
social protection. 

Member States were invited, through the SPC delegates, to provide the Commission (during summer 2022) with an update of their measures and reforms on access to 

29 

 
 
                                                 
[Y: Yes; N: No] 

8. 
The NIP refers to measures 
taken  in  response  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic 

The  NIP 

9. 
only/mostly 
refers to measures taken in response to 
the COVID-19 pandemic 

10. 
The NIP refers to measures 
taken during the COVID-19 pandemic 
that became permanent  

11. 
measures for young people  

The  NIP  includes  specific 

12. 
measures for platform workers 

The  NIP  includes  specific 

The 

13. 
includes 
measures  to  improve  statistics  at 
national level 

NIP 

14. 
The  NIP  refers  explicitly 
to  consulting  social  partners  in 
preparing  the  NIP  or  some  of  its 
measures 
15. 
recovery 
(RRP) 
resilience 
reforms/investments 
to 
access to social protection 

and 
includes 
improve 

plan 

The 

AT 

BE  

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EL 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV  MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Total 
(Yes)  

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

24/26 

N 

N  

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

3/26 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

8/26 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

8/26 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y+ 

N 

N 

N 

Y+ 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y+ 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

8/26 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

5/26 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

9/26 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

- 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

18/25 

Sources: National implementation plans and RRPs. Note: Only 26 Member States are covered since, as of December 2022, Luxembourg had not submitted its national implementation plan. Note: 
*Gaps as measured by indicators of the EC/SPC Monitoring framework on access to social protection;  (A)= adopted; (P)= planned; Y~: for these Member States there are only limited gaps to be 
addressed (according to the indicators of the Monitoring framework on access to social protection); Y+: for these Member States, there are no specific measures in the NIP but there are in the 
national RRP. 

30