COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the Council Recommendation of 19 December 2016 on Upskilling Pathways: New Opportunities for adults
Date: 2023-07-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: adult education, continuing education, continuing vocational training, education policy, labour market, professional qualifications, recognition of vocational training qualifications, updating of skills

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.7.2023  SWD(2023) 460 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION                   of the                          Council Recommendation of 19 December 2016 on Upskilling Pathways:                    New Opportunities for adults                                                                            
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF  
WORKING DOCUMENT 

EVALUATION of the Council 
Recommendation of 19 December 
2016 on Upskilling Pathways: New 
Opportunities for adults 

 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................5 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation ..................................................................................................... 5 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ...................................................................................7 

2.1  Description of the intervention and its objectives ............................................................. 7 

2.2   Points of comparison ........................................................................................................................ 10 

3. 

HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? .............................................................. 14 

3.1 Policy measures taken ........................................................................................................................ 14 

3.2 Trends in relevant indicators ........................................................................................................... 16 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 19 

4.1  To  what  extent  was  the  intervention  successful  and  why?  (effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence)................................................................................................................................... 19 

Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................................... 20 

Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................................... 27 

Coherence ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 

4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference? (EU added value) ............................ 35 

4.3 Is the intervention still relevant?.................................................................................................... 37 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ........................................................................................... 41 

5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 41 

5.2 Lessons learned ...................................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX I. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................................... 45 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .................................................................................................. 47 

ANNEX III. DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................ 54 

ANNEX  IV.  OVERVIEW  OF  BENEFITS  AND  COSTS  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  TABLE  ON 

SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] ......................................................................................................................... 70 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ......................................................................................... 75 

ANNEX VI. INTERVENTION LOGIC ............................................................................................................................................................... 92 

ANNEX VII. STARTING POINTS AND RELEVANT TRENDS IN INDICATORS AND POLICY MEASURES 

BY MEMBER STATE: OVERVIEW TABLES ................................................................................................................................... 93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ACVT 

ALMP 

Cedefop 

CIE 

CPD 

DG EAC 

DG EMPL 

DGVT 

EAEA 

EaSI 

EBSN 

EPALE 

EQF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ESIF 

ETF 

ETUC 

EU 

Advisory Committee for Vocational Training 

Active Labour Market Policy 

European Centre for the Development of Vocational 
Training 

Counterfactual impact evaluation 

Continuing Professional Development 

Directorate-General for Education and Culture 

Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs 
and Inclusion 

Directors General for Vocational Training 

European Association for the Education of Adults 

EU  Programme 
Innovation 

for  Employment  and  Social 

European Basic Skills Network 

European Platform for Adult Learning and Education 

European Qualifications Framework 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

European Training Foundation 

European Trade Union Confederation 

European Union 

 
 
 
Eurofound 

Eurostat  

GDPR 

ICT 

ILO 

ISG 

JTF 

NEET 

NGOs 

OECD 

PES 

PIAAC 

RRF 

SMEs 

SRSP 

STEM 

SWD 

TSI 

TVET 

UN 

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living 
and Working Conditions 

Statistical office of the European Union 

General Data Protection Regulation 

Information and communications technology 

International Labour organization 

Inter-service Steering Group 

Just Transition Fund 

Not in Education, Employment, or Training 

Non-governmental organizations 

Organisation 
Development 

for  Economic  Cooperation  and 

Public Employment Service 

Programme  for  the  International  Assessment  of 
Adult Competencies 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Small and medium-sized enterprises 

Structural Reform Support Programme 

Science, technology, engineering and mathematics 

Staff working document 

Technical Support Instrument 

Technical and Vocational Education and Training 

United Nations 

VET centres 

WEC-Europe 

Vocational education and training centre 

World Employment Confederation-Europe 

 
 
AT 

BE   

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

 
 
SE 

SI 

SK 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

 
 
1.  Introduction  

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

This document evaluates progress in relation to the Council Recommendation of 19 
December  2016  on  Upskilling  Pathways:  New  Opportunities  for  Adults1 
(hereafter  “the  Recommendation”),  adopted  on  the  basis  of  Articles  165  and  166  of 
the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  on  education  and  vocational 
training. Evaluating the implementation and impact of European Union (EU) legislation 
is a basic requirement of the European Commission Better Regulation framework. The 
Recommendation itself asks the Commission to report to the Council assessing and 
evaluating “the actions taken in response to this Recommendation”. The results of the 
evaluation  will  feed  into  the  policy  debate  to  put  in  practice  the  European  Pillar  of 
Social  Rights,  namely  the  first  and  fourth  principles2,  building  on  the  2020  European 
Skills  Agenda3  and  taking  measures  towards  the  2030  headline  skills  target  of  60% 
adults participating in learning every year.4 This document is accompanying the Report 
from the Commission to the Council5.  

In  compliance  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  the  evaluation  assesses  the 
following criteria:  

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

been achieved through action by Member States and the Commission;  

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

proportionality of costs;  

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

Adults, OJ C 484/1 of 24.12.2016. 

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

3   European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. 

4   European  Council  Conclusions,  24-25  June  2021,  following  up  on  the  Porto  Declaration  of  8  May 

2021. See also the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan. 

5   See Report from the Commission to the Council COM(2023) 439 final.  

5 

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

national initiatives;  

–  EU  added  value:  whether  the  Recommendation  has  generated  additional 
value compared to what action at national level alone would have produced; 

–  relevance: whether five years after the adoption of the Recommendation (end 
of the evaluation period: 2021), its objectives and the measures recommended 
to achieve them are still relevant. 

in 

The evaluation is based on a mixed-method data collection approach supported by 
an external study (hereafter referred to as “supporting study”).6 It combines a mapping 
of  implementation  measures  based  on  extensive  desk  research,  cross-checked  with 
national experts and validated by public authorities7, with implementation case studies, 
a  literature  review,  a  public  consultation  and  surveys  targeting  the  organisations 
involved 
the  Recommendation,  
organisations  representing  low-skilled  adults  and  adults  participating  in  initiatives 
implementing  the  Recommendation.  It  also  included  targeted  consultation  events 
and interviews with stakeholders at national  and EU level as well  as an  analysis of 
relevant  survey  data.  The  geographic  scope  includes  all  EU  Member  States  (EU 
27).  This  evaluation covers  the  period  from  the  adoption  of  the  Recommendation  in 
2016 to 20218 included.  

the  coordination  and 

implementation  of 

impact  evaluation  of  the 
It  should  be  noted  that  a  robust  counterfactual 
Recommendation  is not possible due to data limitations and the multitude  of factors 
other  than  the  Recommendation  which  may  have  influenced  trends  in  relevant 
indicators.  Moreover,  impacts  of  any  structural  changes  in  national  skills  policies 
influenced  by  the  Recommendation  may  take  longer  to  unfold.  Where  relevant,  this 
evaluation  discusses  alternative  explanations  for  the  observed  trends,  and 
presents  stakeholders  views  to  support  their  interpretation.  Finally,  responses  to 
the  public  consultation  or  targeted  consultations  may  not  be  representative  for  the 
relevant  target  populations  or  all  EU  Member  States.  Where  possible,  the  evaluation 
increase  the 
triangulates  results  from  several  information  sources  to 
robustness  of  its  conclusions.  See  Annex  II  for  further  details  on  the  evaluation 
methodology, its limitations and mitigation measures. 

6 Ecorys and 3S, Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation of 19 December 2016 on 

Upskilling Pathways: New Opportunities for Adults. 

7 For most but not all Member States at national level, cf. Annex 1 of the supporting study.  

8  The  mapping  of  policy  measures  done  by  the  external  supporting  study  considers  measures  taken  until 

November 2021. See Annex 3 of the  supporting study. 

6 

 
                                                 
2.  What was the expected outcome of the intervention?  

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Rationale  

At the time of adoption of the Recommendation, labour market trends pointed towards 
a decreasing share of jobs of an elementary nature, an increased frequency of 
job changes, and the emergence of new ways of working9, increasing the relevance 
of  having  at  least  basic  digital  and  other  transversal  skills.  Moreover,  demographic 
trends  pointed to  a shrinking workforce,  with a risk of associated staff  shortages. To 
mitigate  the  challenges  resulting  from  these  trends  and  increase  productivity, 
investment in skills was considered essential. 

It was hence a point of concern that around one quarter of Europeans in the 25-
64  age  group  did  not  have  an  upper  secondary  education  qualification,  and 
similar  shares  of  adults  lacked  basic  literacy,  numeracy  and  digital  skills 
according to Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Survey 
of Adult Skills (PIAAC)10 (cf. Section 2.2). Moreover, adults lacking basic skills often have 
less opportunities to develop their skills throughout their working life, as such skills are 
taken  for  granted  by  many  employers.11  They  risk  getting  stuck  in  a  “low  skills-poor 
jobs trap”12, calling for adequate policy action to support basic skills acquisition.   

The 2016 New Skills Agenda13 therefore called for strengthening basic skills as the 
foundations  of  further  learning  and  career  development.  The  Recommendation  was 
one of its main legislative proposals. 

Objectives 

The  general  objective  of  the  Recommendation  was  to  reinvigorate  and  provide 
guidance  to  Member  States’  policies  supporting  basic  and  further  skills 

9 E.g. collaborative economy models, contract based work.  

10  In  2016,  data  were  available  for  Rounds  1  and  2  of  Cycle  I,  cf.  Survey  of  Adult  Skills  (PIAAC)  - 

PIAAC, the OECD's programme of assessment and analysis of adult skills. 

11 Since the benefits of basic skills investment are wide-spread, there is a risk of underinvestment: see for 
instance Leuven (2005), The economics of private sector training: A survey of the literature, Journal of 
Economic Surveys.   

12 Cf. Burdett and Smith (2002), The low skill trap, European Economic Review. 

13 Commission Communication of 10 June 2016 on A new skills agenda for Europe - Working together to 

strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness, COM/2016/0381 final. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
low  skills, 

acquisition  among  adults  with 
in  order  to  enhance  their 
employability  and  active  participation  in  society.  Since  most  members  of 
Europe's  workforce  in  the  next  two  decades  are  already  adults  today,  such  policies 
were  seen  as  a  crucial  complement  to  EU  policies  to  reduce  early  leaving  from 
education and training that reduce the “flow” into adulthood with low basic skills.14  

The  Recommendation’s  specific  objective  was  to  offer  adults  with  a  low  level  of 
skills, knowledge and competences, for example those who have left initial education 
or training without completing upper secondary education or equivalent, an opportunity 
to acquire a minimum level of literacy, numeracy and digital competence and/or 
acquire  a  wider  set  of  skills,  knowledge  and  competences  relevant  for  the  labour 
market by making progress towards a qualification at European Qualifications 
Framework (EQF) level 3 or 415 depending on national circumstances.  

The Recommendation builds on other Recommendations in the area such as the 2012 
Council  Recommendation 
the  2016  Council 
Recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed.17 It supports 
the implementation of the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goal 4 
on  quality  education  and  lifelong  learning  opportunities  for  all18,  in  particular  the 
targets on digital skills and universal literacy and numeracy. 

validation16 

and 

on 

 Recommendations 

To  motivate  more  low-skilled  adults  to  engage  in  training  and  reach  these 
objectives, it was seen as key to assess the skills adults already have (including those 
acquired  through  non  formal  and  informal  learning),  guide  them  towards  learning 
opportunities  adapted  to  their  needs,  and  validate  and  recognise  the  skills  thus 
acquired.  Member  States  were  hence  recommended  to  offer  a  three-step 
personalised  support  via  an  integrated  upskilling  pathway  to  adults  in  the 
target group. 

14 Cf. in particular the Council Recommendation of 28 June 2011 on policies to reduce early school leaving 
and the Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee, then replaced 
by  the  Council  Recommendation  of  30  October  2020  on  A  Bridge  to  Jobs  –  Reinforcing  the  Youth 
Guarantee. 

15   For information on the EQF levels, cf. the EQF web page. 

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

learning. 

17 Council Recommendation of 15 February 2016 on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the 

labour market. 

18 UN Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 on Transforming our world: the 

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 

8 

 
                                                 
The three steps are: 

1)  Skills  assessment  –  aimed  at  identifying  the  existing  skills  of 
adults and any gaps in the skills set that need to be filled. 

2) Provision of a tailored and flexible learning offer – providing 
a  learning  offer  which  fills  the  specific  skills  gaps  identified  through 
the skills assessment. The offer could be training in literacy, numeracy 
or  digital  skills,  or  a  wider  set  of  skills,  knowledge  and  competences, 
relevant for the labour market and active participation in society. 

3) Validation and recognition – assessing and certifying the 
knowledge, skills and competences, building on validation 
arrangements, and encourage their certification towards a formal 
qualification. 

Member States were recommended to implement these three steps by: 

 

Identifying  priority  target  groups19  for  the  delivery  of  the  Recommendation 
at national level; 

  Ensuring  effective  coordination  and  partnership 

to 

implement 

the 

Recommendation, through clear responsibilities and by engaging stakeholders; 

 

Implementing  outreach,  guidance  and  support  measures  to  raise 
awareness  on  the  benefits  of  upskilling,  provide  guidance  and/or  mentoring 
services  to  support  learners’  progression  through  all  steps  of  the  process, 
consider  the  design  and  implementation  of  support  measures  to  adults  or 
employers  that  address  obstacles  to  participation,  and  support  the  initial 
training  and  Continuing  Professional  Development  (CPD)  of  staff  engaged  in 
delivery of the Recommendation. 

The European Commission was recommended to: 

  Support  the  use  of  European  funding  programmes  in  the  area  of  skills 

development;  

19 The situation across Member States is varied, and the group of low-skilled adults may be comprised of 
different  subgroups  (such  as  but  not  limited  to  employed,  unemployed,  economically  inactive, 
migrants, disadvantaged groups, persons in rural areas) depending on national circumstances. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Facilitate cooperation, information sharing and mutual learning between 
Member  States  and promote the  use of existing competence frameworks 
to support the implementation of the Recommendation; 

  Support and carry out relevant research and analysis on adult learning and 

skills assessments. 

Annex VI presents a graphical overview  of the  intervention logic, summarising how 
the  recommended  actions  of  the  intervention  were  expected  to  deliver  on  the 
objectives  and  create  results  and  impact  in  the  form  of  more  basic  skills 
development  among  low-skilled  adults,  enabling  employment  and  a  more  active 
participation in society. 

2.2   Points of comparison  

A  first  category  of  points  of  comparison  relevant  for  the  evaluation  of  the 
Recommendation concerns quantitative indicators.  

Participation of adults in learning can help them to develop basic skills. In 2016, 
10.3% of adults aged 25-64 participated in adult learning in the 4 weeks prior 
to the survey, with wide variation across countries.20 Six countries had a participation 
rate below 5% (BG, EL, HR, PL, RO, SK) and seven countries had a rate above 15% (DK, 
EE, FI, FR, LU, NL, SE). By contrast, on average only 4.0% of low-qualified adults21 
participated  in  learning.  This  participation  gap  was  recorded  for  all  EU  Member 
States  for  which  data  are  available,  although  with  considerable  differences  in 
participation  levels:  while  16  Member  States  had  participation  rates  of  the  low 
qualified  of  under  5%  (BE,  CY,  CZ,  DE,  EL,  ES,  HR,  HU,  IE,  IT,  LV,  LT,  MT,  PL,  PT,  SI), 
participation was 19.7% in DK, 19.3% in SE and 12.9% in FI.  

9.4%  of  unemployed  adults  had  a  recent  learning  experience  in  2016-  slightly 
below the rate for adults overall, in spite of the greater need for skills acquisition by 
many unemployed adults, and the greater availability of time for learning.22 However, 
there  was  even  greater  variation  across  Member  States  in  the  learning 
participation  of  unemployed  adults  as  compared  to  adults  overall:  Their 
participation ranged from 3% or less in SK, HU and HR to 20% or more in DK, FI and LU 
and 43% in SE. 

Low levels of digital skills represent a particularly vital gap in an adults’ basic skills 
set, as basic digital skills are required both in the majority of workplaces and for full 

20 The rate was 9.4% for men and 11.1% for women. See Eurostat: online data code: TRNG_LFSE_01. 

21 Adults with low level of educational attainment (i.e. ISCED levels 0-2). 

22 The rate was 8.1% for men and 10.8% for women. See Eurostat: online data code TRNG_LFSE_02. 

10 

 
                                                 
participation  in  civic  life  today.  44%  of  adults  aged  25-64  in  the  EU27  lacked 
basic digital skills in 2016, ranging from less than 30% in LU, DK, NL, FI, SE and DE 
to  55%  or  more  in  RO,  BG,  CY,  PL  and  IE.23  A  lack  of  basic  digital  skills  was 
particularly  wide-spread  among  the  low-qualified:  77%  of  adults  in  this  group 
lacked basic digital skills, and 90% or more in 8 Member States (BG, CY, RO, PL, HR, EL, 
SK, LT).  

A  source  of  more  comprehensive  information  on  adults  basic  skills  is  the  OECD’s 
PIAAC: in the 20 Member States that participated in the first cycle of PIAAC between 
2011  and  2017,  around  a  quarter  of  adults  lacked  basic  numeracy  and/or 
literacy  skills:  16%  of  25–64-year-olds  had  both  low  levels  literacy  and  numeracy 
skills, 4.4% have only low levels of literacy, and 7.3% had only low levels of numeracy 
skills.24  

In  2016,  23.4%  of EU  adults  aged  25-64  had  a  low  educational  attainment, 
defined  as  not  having  completed  upper  secondary  schooling-  ranging  from  less  than 
10% in LT, CZ, SK, PL, and LV to 40% or more in PT, MT, ES and IT.25 In many Member 
States,  nowadays  more  young  people  obtain  an  upper  secondary  qualification  than 
they  did  in  previous  decades.  Hence,  the  educational  composition  of  the  25-34  year 
age  group  provides  insights  into  the  more  recent  conditions  in  national  education 
systems:  16.8%  of  adults  aged  25-34  had  a  low  educational  attainment  in 
2016, with less than 10% in PL, SI, HR, LT, SK, CZ, IE and FI, but still above 30% in ES, 
MT and PT.  

Since a key objective of the Recommendation was to improve the employability of low-
qualified adults through skills acquisition,  labour market indicators provide further 
reference  points:  In  2016,  16.3%  of  low-qualified  EU  adults  aged  25-64  were 
unemployed,  about  double  the  rate  of  all  adults  of  8.2%.26  The  employment  rate 
provides  a  broader  measure  of  labour  market  attachment,  as  it  also  captures  how 
many adults have left the labour force altogether. In 2016, 53.3% of low-qualified 
adults  aged  25-64  were  employed,  19  percentage  points  below  the  overall 

23 See Eurostat, online data code:ISOC_SK_DSKL_I. Individuals whose digital skills could not be assessed 
because they did not use the internet in the past 3 months are assumed to lack basic digital skills. 

24 See Eurydice (2021), Adult education and training in Europe Building inclusive pathways to skills and 
qualifications. These results will become a relevant point of comparison in 2024, when the results from 
the second cycle of PIAAC will be released. 

25 See Eurostat, online data code: EDAT_LFSE_03, and Figure 2 in Section 2.2.1 of the supporting study 
for an illustration of how the share of low qualified adults in the EU Member States varies across age 
groups. 

26 See Eurostat, online data code: LFSA_URGAE. 

11 

 
                                                 
employment  rate  of  72.3%.27  In  countries  with  a  lower  proportion  of  low  qualified 
adults, their unemployment rate tended to be higher and their employment rate tended 
to  be  lower  than  in  countries  with  higher  proportions  of  low-qualified,  pointing  to 
specific and multiple labour market disadvantages the remaining low-qualified adults 
are confronted with in these countries. 

A  second  category  of  points  of  comparison  relevant  for  the  evaluation  concerns 
the  policy  measures  to  support  adults  basic  skills  development  that  were 
already in place at the time of the introduction of the Recommendation in 2016. On 
the  basis  of  a  mapping  by  national  experts,  validated  by  national  authorities,  the 
supporting study accompanying this evaluation  identified  58 such policy measures 
across the EU-27 that were in place in 2016.28  Figure  provides an overview of 
the number of Member  States in which measures implemented before 2016 covered 
the three steps of the Recommendation, and the degree of implementation.  

Figure  1:  Degree  of  implementation  of  the  three  steps  of  the  Recommendation  in  2016  
(Number of Member States by degree of implementation) 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Skills assessment (2016)

13

8

4

2

Provision of (tailored and flexible) learning offer
(2016)

8

13

5

1

Validation and recognition (2016)

7

8

5

7

Measures identified implement the step fully or to a large extent (changes are visible throughout the
system/scheme)
Measures identified implement the step to some extent (some changes are visible)

Measures identified do not implement the step, but (some) discussions have started

Measures identified do not implement the step and no action is foreseen (yet)

Source: Section 2.2.2 of the supporting study. 

27 See Eurostat, online data code:  LFSA_ERGAED. 

28 See Section 2.2.2 of the supporting study for the summary info on policy measures in place in 2016, and 
Annex 3 of that study for the mapping of policy measures by Member State underpinning this analysis. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
This  mapping  finds  that  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Recommendation,  for  none  of 
the  three  steps,  the  identified  measures  implemented  the  step  fully  or  to  a 
large extent in the majority of Member States. The least implemented step was 
validation and recognition (with no relevant identified measures in BG, HR, CZ, DE, HU, 
IE, IT, LV, LU, MT, PL, SK)29, followed by the provision of a tailored and flexible learning 
offer  (with  no  relevant  identified  measures  in  BE,  BG,  CZ,  IT,  MT,  ES)  and  skills 
assessment (with no relevant identified measures in BG, HR, CZ, LV, MT and PL). When 
also considering measures implementing the step  to some  extent,  relevant measures 
existed in the majority of Member States. 

The study supporting this evaluation also groups the Member States by their estimated 
need for implementing the Recommendation in 2016- separately for each step, 
and  at  an  overall  level  (see  Section  2.2.2  of  the  supporting  study).  The  overall 
implementation  need  of  a  Member  State  was  estimated  on  the  basis  of  the  policy 
measures  already  in  place  (the  fewer  measures  already  in  place,  the  higher  the 
remaining  need  for  implementation),  and  on  the  basis  of  the  share  of  low  qualified 
adults and their adult learning participation (the worse a Member States score on these 
indicators, the higher the remaining need for implementation). The study adopted this 
“two pillar approach” to the overall implementation need in order to capture both the 
existence  of  relevant  policy  measures,  and  their  effective  outreach  in  terms  of  the 
share of adults reached by them as reflected in the quantitative indicators.  

This  mapping  suggests  that  in  2016,  14  Member  States  were  in  the  “high  need 
for  change”  category  (BE,  BG,  HR,  CY,  CZ,  EL,  ES,  HU,  IE,  IT,  MT,  PL,  RO,  SK,),  six 
Member States had a medium need for change (DE, LV, LT, LU, PT, SI), and seven 
Member States were in the “lower need for change” category (AT, DK, EE, FI, FR, 
NL,  SE).30  While  this  categorization  is  coarse  (and  also  many  Member  States  in  the 
“lower need for change” group are at some distance from the best-performers in terms 
of the quantitative indicators considered), it helps to highlight in which Member States 
implementing the Recommendation was expected to bring more progress.  

On the basis of this description of the intervention and these points of comparison, it is 
possible  to  sketch what different degrees of success  of the Recommendation 
over  the  evaluation  period  would  look  like31:  in  a  low  impact  scenario,  the 
Recommendation  is  not  seen  as  a  relevant  or  helpful  reference  point  by  national 

29 The mapping by the supporting study does not include all validation and recognition measures existing in 
a  Member  States,  but  only  those  that  the  Member  States  recognised  as  implementing  the 
Recommendation (see Annex 3 of the supporting study for more details on this mapping). Hence, the 
scope  of  the  mapping  is  different  than  the  scope  of  the  Cedefop  validation  inventory  and  the  2020 
evaluation of the Council Recommendation on validation (SWD(2020) 121 final). 

30 See Annex VII for an overview table, and the supporting study for more details. 

31 For the degree of success of the Recommendation see section 5.1 Conclusions.  

13 

 
                                                 
stakeholders,  and  there  would  be  no  clear  progress  in  implementing  the  three 
recommended steps. In a  moderate impact scenario, the Recommendation is seen 
as a helpful reference point for national reforms, and some progress in implementing 
the three steps have been taken- however, not yet in all Member States with medium 
or high need for change, and not yet at a sufficient scale in view of the objectives. In a 
high  impact  scenario,  there  is  clear  evidence  for  additional  measures  being 
implemented at scale in the Member States, resulting in an increasing participation of 
low-skilled adults in skills assessment, learning and validation opportunities. 

3.  How  has  the  situation  evolved  over  the  evaluation 

period?  

3.1 Policy measures taken 

The  supporting  study  identified  a  total  of  104  implementation  measures  in  place  in 
2021, up from 58 in 2016 at the start of the evaluation period.32 Figure 2 shows that 
there has been an increase in the number of measures that implement each of 
the three steps from the Recommendation fully or to a large extent since 2016. 
The  increase  was  most  pronounced  in  measures  that  fully  or  to  a  large  extent 
implement validation and recognition (+4 Member States- BE, BG, CY, EL), followed by 
the provision of tailored and flexible learning (+3 Member States- DK, EE, PL) and skills 
assessment (+2 Member States- BE, PL). 

32 See Section 3.2 of the supporting study for the summary info on policy measures implemented over the 
evaluation  period,  and  Annex  3  of  that  study  for  the  mapping  of  policy  measures  by  Member  State 
underpinning this analysis. 

14 

 
                                                 
Figure 2: Degree of implementation of the three steps from the Recommendation- evolution 
over the evaluation period- Number of Member States, 2016 vs. 2021 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

f
o
n
o
i
s
i
v
o
r
P

d
n
a
d
e
r
o

l
i

a
t
(

t
n
e
m

s
s
e
s
s
a
s
l
l
i
k
S

r
e
f
f
o

n
o
i
t
i
n
g
o
c
e
r

2016

2021

2016

2021

2016

7

2021

13

15

8

4

2

12

0
0

8

13

5

1

11

11

13

5

3

0

7

8

8

3

5

i

g
n
n
r
a
e

l

l

)
e
b
i
x
e
l
f

d
n
a
n
o
i
t
a
d

i
l

a
V

Measures identified implement the step fully or to a large extent (changes are visible throughout the
system/scheme)

Measures identified implement the step to some extent (some changes are visible)

Measures identified do not implement the step, but (some) discussions have started

Measures identified do not implement the step and no action is foreseen (yet)

Source: Section 3.2 of the supporting study. 

At  the  end  of  the  evaluation  period,  all  Member  States  had  introduced  skills 
assessment  measures  at  least  to  some  extent.  One  country  implemented  new 
measures  improving  their  existing  skills  assessment  process  (BE)  and  in  six  Member 
States skills assessment mechanisms were introduced (BG, CZ, HR, LV, MT, PL).   

All Member States  except for three (CZ, ES, IT) have now in place measures 
for a stronger tailored provision of learning to low-skilled adults. Six Member 
States  have  either  improved  their  existing  systems  by  strengthening  or  reforming 
existing  policies  (DK,  EE,  PL)  or  have  introduced  new  measures  to  integrate  tailored 
provision of learning into their support for the low-skilled (BE, BG, MT).  

In spite of the progress made since 2016, validation and recognition of skills 
acquired remains the least developed step of the Recommendation. Eight Member 
States  have  not  yet  implemented  relevant  measures  to  establish  validation  and 
recognition in their upskilling systems (CZ, HR, HU, IE, LU, MT, PL, SK). In other Member 
States,  some  progress  is  evident:  five  Member  States  have  introduced  systems  for 
validation and recognition of skills acquired during the upskilling pathway (BE, BG, DE, 
IT,  LV),  two  have  improved  their  existing  systems  by  reforming  existing  policies  (CY, 
EL), and discussions have started in SK. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  summary,  the  supporting  study  identified  improvements  in  14  Member  States 
compared  to  the  situation  in  2016.  Member  States  deemed  to  have  the  higher 
need  for  implementation  in  2016  were  more  likely  to  implement  reforms  over  the 
subsequent  years:  progress  was  found  in  two  of  seven  Member  States  with  lowest 
need  for  change  in  2016  (29%,  namely  DK  and  EE),  two  of  six  Member  States  with 
medium need for change (33%, namely DE and LV), and 10 of 14 Member States with 
greatest need for change (71%, namely BE, BG, CY, CZ,  EL, HR, IT, MT, PL, SK).33  

No data are available on the number  of low-skilled adults reached by these 
implemented  measures,  but  a  2019  stocktaking  report34  points  to  a  limited 
scale.  The  report  took  stock  of  implementation  measures  reported  by  the  Member 
States  to  the  Commission  by  mid-2018,  as  indicated  in  paragraph  16  of  the 
Recommendation.  It  concluded  that  “in  the  vast  majority  of  cases,  the  measures 
outlined by Member States target only a few thousand individuals”, and that “taken as 
a  whole,  the  measures  proposed  by  Member  States  would  not  reach  a  significant 
proportion of the 61 million adults35 in need of upskilling“ (p. 28). 

3.2 Trends in relevant indicators 

From the quantitative “points of comparison” introduced in Section 2.2.,  trends over 
the  5  year-period  from  2016  to  2021  can  be  assessed  for  the  participation  in 
adult  learning  of  low  qualified  adults,  the  share  of  adults  with  at  least  basic 
digital  skills,  the  share  of  low-qualified  adults,  as  well  as  their  unemployment 
and employment rates. A caveat is that no data on trends in directly measured adult 
basic  skills  are  available36,  and  not  all  implementation  measures  can  be  expected  to 
lead to  formal qualification. However, reinforced basic skills training not leading  to  a 
formal qualification would still be reflected in adult learning participation, and can also 
be expected to influence the other indicators indirectly.  

Learning participation among low-qualified adults increased slightly over the 
evaluation period from 4.0 to 4.3% in the 4 weeks prior to the survey.37 However, the 
learning participation of low qualified adults increased in only 13 of 22 Member States 

33 Cf. the overview in Section 4.1, Table 8 of the supporting study.  

34 SWD(2019) 89 final. 

35 At the time of the 2019 stocktaking report, data for EU28 (including UK) were used. 

36 Since  results from PIAAC cycle  2  will become available only in 2024, cf. Section 2.2. The Eurostat´s 
basic digital skills indicator has been revised for the data collected in 2021 and published in 2022, and 
uses  individuals’  digital  activities  in  five  (instead  of  previously  four)  domains  as  a  proxy  for  their 
digital skills, cf. the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2022. 

37 See Eurostat, online data code: TRNG_LFS_02. 

16 

 
                                                 
with available data for both periods (59%), most noticeably in FI, SE, NL and EE. This 
compares to a slightly higher  absolute increase in adult learning participation among 
all EU adults, from 10.3% in 2016 to 10.8% in 2021.38 Participation in learning among 
adults  overall  increased  in  19  Member  States  (70%),  with  the  most  pronounced 
increases taking place in NL, SI, IE, MT, SE, ES and FI.39 There are hence no signs of a 
systematic  closing  of  the  adult  learning  participation  gaps  between  low 
qualified  and  other  adults.  Uncertainty  for  these  comparisons  of  2016  and  2021 
data  on adult learning  participation levels comes from an improved measurement of 
adult  learning  in  the  Labour  Force  Survey  from  2021  (possibly  increasing  measured 
participation),  and  from  a  possible  continued  effect  of  COVID-19  safety  measures 
(possibly limiting participation).40  

Among  unemployed  adults,  there  was  a  more  pronounced  increase  in  adult 
learning  participation,  from  9.4%  in  2016  to  12.7%  in  2021.41  Participation 
increased in 20 of 27 Member States, with the most pronounced increases taking place 
in  LU,  EE,  NL,  IE  and  PT.  Since  unemployed  adults  do  not  receive  support  for  adult 
learning from an employer, their participation is particularly sensitive to the degree of 
public  support  that  is  provided  to  them,  notably  by  public  employment  services. 
However  also  in  2021,  there  was  still  great  variation  in  adult  learning 
participation rates of the unemployed across Member States, with participation 
ranging from 4% or less in HU, EL, CZ and HR to 30% or more in NL, DK and LU and 
47% in SE.  

The  share  of  adults  aged  25-64  with  at  least  basic  digital  skills  improved 
marginally, from 56% to 58% between 2016 and 2019. Increases could be observed 
in 20 of 27 Member States, and were most pronounced in IE, MT, EL, LT and PT. The 
2021  value  stood  at  57%,  consistent  with  a  picture  of  limited  overall  progress, 
although  the  2021  value  is  not  perfectly  comparable  to  previous  years  due  to  an 
update  of  the  methodology  for  calculating  the  Digital  Skills  Indicator  to  reflect  the 
Digital  Competence  Framework  2.0..42  Among  low  qualified  adults,  the  share  with  at 

38 See Eurostat, online data code: TRNG_LFS_02. 

39  This  refers  to  participation  in  the  last  four  weeks,  as  measured  every  year  through  the  Labour  Force 
Survey. For its target that at least 60% of EU adults should participate in adult learning every year by 
2030, the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan refers to a 12 month as opposed to a 4 week 
reference period. This will allow a more comprehensive measurement of adult learning participation. 
However, the first data using this indicator after 2016 will only be published in 2023. 

40 See the Education and Training Monitor 2022 for more details on participation of adults in learning, and 

its revised measurement in the LFS from 2021 onwards. 

41 See Eurostat, online data code:TRNG_LFSE_02. 

42 See ISOC_SK_DSKL_I for data up to 2019, and ISOC_SK_DSKL_I21 for the 2021 data.  The digital 
skills indicator is a composite indicator based on selected activities performed by individuals on the 
internet in the specific areas: until 2019, these included information, communication, problem solving 

17 

 
                                                 
 
least basic digital skills slightly increased from 23% to 25% between 2016 and 2019, 
and hence remained far below average.  

The share of low qualified adults aged 25-64 decreased from 23.4% in 2016 
to  20.7%  in  2021,  with  decreases  across  all  Member  States  except  DE.43  This 
corresponds  to  a  decrease  by  about  7.4  million  adults  from  56.1  million  in  2016  to 
48.7 million low qualified adults across the EU in 2021.44 Also in the age group of 25-
34  years,  the  share  of  low  qualified  adults  decreased  from  16.8  to  14.8%,  with 
decreases  in  all  Member  States  except  CZ,  DE,  PL,  FI.  The  decreases  also  in  this 
younger  cohort  suggest  that  the  decrease  in  the  broader  25-64  age  group  can  be 
partly,  but  not  exclusively,  explained  by  the  retirement  of  cohorts  with  lower 
influenced  by 
educational  attainments.  However,  the  decrease  may  be  also 
improvements  in  initial  education  and  training  systems  leading  to  less  early  school 
leaving  without  upper  secondary  schooling,  as  opposed  to  Upskilling  Pathways 
implementation measures.  

Survey data do not suggest a clear increase in the rate at which low-qualified 
adults have completed a “second chance” upper secondary schooling pathway 
over  the  evaluation  period.  A  first  indicator  is  the  rate  at  which  low-qualified 
adults  aged  25-29  complete  such  a  pathway  over  a  5  year-period:  in  2011, 
18.4%  of  the  25-29  year  olds  had  not  yet  completed  upper  secondary  schooling.  By 
2016,  this  share  had  declined  to  17.5%  of  the  same  cohort  (then  30-34  years  old), 
suggesting  that  an  additional  0.9  %  of  that  cohort  had  acquired  upper  secondary 
schooling 5 years later. Comparing the years 2016 and 2021, the corresponding share 
declined  from 16.0% to 15.3%, and hence  a comparable (yet slightly lower) 0.7% of 
adults  had  acquired  upper  secondary  schooling  over  the  five  year-period.45  A  second 
indicator  is  the  share  of  all  adults  with  upper  secondary  education  who  have 
completed it aged 25 or above46: this share was 7.4% in 2016 and 7.6% in 2021, 
and hence also comparable (yet slightly higher) at the end of the evaluation period. In 
2021, this share ranged from 2% or less in BG, EL, SK, HR, RO, CY and CZ to 24% or 
more  in  PT,  DK,  NL  and  FI.  This  highlights  that  at  the  end  of  the  evaluation  period, 

and software and from 2021 onwards an additional area, safety, was added. More information about 
the methodology is available in the Digital Skills Indicator Metadata. 
For a more comprehensive assessment of EU progress on digital skills, see the  Digital Economy and 
Society Index (DESI) 2022. 

43 See Eurostat, online data code:e EDAT_LFSE_03. 

44 See Eurostat, online data code: EDAT_LFS_9901. 

45 See Eurostat, online data code: EDAT_LFS_9903 and EDAT_LFSE_03. 

46  This  indicator  is  arguably  more  comprehensive,  yet  less  sensitive  to  policy  change  over  a  short  time 
period, as the reference population is larger (all adults with upper secondary education as the highest 
EQF level). 

18 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
there  was  still  a  stark  heterogeneity  across  Member  States  in  the  likelihood  of 
still  receiving  upper  secondary  schooling  through  a  “second  chance”  pathway  after 
initial education age.47    

The labour market situation of low-qualified and other adults alike improved 
over  the  evaluation  period,  but  without  clear  signs  of  a  closing  gap  in  labour 
market opportunities.48 The unemployment rate of low qualified adults aged 25-64 
decreased from 16.3% to 12.7% between 2016 and 2021, with decreases in 20 of 27 
Member  States  (most  pronounced  in  LT,  EL,  CY  and  CZ,  with  decreases  by  7.5 
percentage  points  or  more).49  The  employment  rate  of  low  qualified  adults  increased 
from 53.3% to 55.6%, with increases in 23 Member States (most pronounced in CZ, LT, 
MT and PL). However,  these trends reflect broader improvements in EU labour 
markets  as  opposed  to  a  consistent  decrease  in  the  disadvantage  of  low-qualified 
adults:  while  the  drop  of  the  unemployment  rate  was  more  pronounced  among  low 
qualified  adults  than  among  all  adults  (where  it  decreased  from  8.2%  to  6.2%),  the 
increase in employment rates was somewhat less pronounced compared to all adults 
(where it increased from 72.3% to 75.3%).  

4.  Evaluation findings  

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why? (effectiveness, 

efficiency, coherence) 

The analyses suggest that the intervention has overall been moderately successful: 
on  the  upside,  Section  3  shows  that  some  Member  States  have  made  progress  in 
implementing  the  three  steps  from  the  Recommendation-  and  stakeholders  credit  it 
with  stimulating  developments  at  national  level,  view  the  Recommendation  as 
internally coherent and estimate that  implementation actions have  been  efficient 
in the sense that their benefits outweigh their costs. However, implementation actions 
taken up to 2021 tend to lack scale and integration across the three steps of the 
Recommendation, preventing them from fully reaching its objectives.  

47 Source: Eurostat special extract from the Labour Force Survey. See the Eurydice reports from 2015 and 
2021 for a more extensive analysis of these data for the years 2013 and 2019. A low number of this 
indicator appears most worrisome in conjunction with a high share of low-qualified adults aged 25 and 
above: this amounts to a high share  of adults  who have  “missed the train”  while they  were in initial 
education age combined with limited opportunities to still “get on the train” as an adult. 

48 See Eurostat, online data code:LFSA_URGAE and LFSA_ERGAED. 

49 Reflecting mostly transitions to employment as opposed exits from the labour force, as the activity rate 
among  low-qualified  adults  increased  from  71.1  to  73.3%  over  this  period-  cf.  Eurostat,  online  data 
code: LFSA_ARGAEDCOB. 

19 

 
                                                 
in 

the 

from 

three  steps 

implementing 

Effectiveness 
The available evidence paints a picture  of  overall moderate effectiveness of the 
Recommendation:  on  the  one  hand,  Section  3  shows  that  some  Member  States 
have  made  progress 
the 
Recommendation,  and  there  are  moderate  positive  trends  in  relevant  indicators. 
Some stakeholders view the Recommendation as a catalyser for renewed focus on 
support for adults to acquire  basic skills50 and consider the three step-approach 
as a useful reference point. This is also reflected in the public consultation responses 
summarized in Figure 3, which shows that a majority of respondents indicate a “fairly” 
or “very” large degree of implementation for all features of the Recommendation. On 
the other hand, the mapping conducted by the external supporting study does not find 
substantial  improvements  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  three  steps  of  the 
Recommendation  over  the  evaluation  period  in  13  Member  States51,  including  in  8 
Member States52 where it finds that there was medium or high need for change at the 
end of 2016. In some Member States, the lack of substantial improvements  over the 
evaluation period is due to existence of advanced measures already in 2016.53  Where 
Member States have taken implementation measures, these measures often lack scale 
and coordination and cannot be linked to improvements at  a “macro” level (as 
reflected in representative surveys), even where they are successful at a “micro” level 
(as  reflected  in  positive  evaluations  of  specific  upskilling  projects).  This  is  consistent 
with  the  finding  of  an  often  limited  scale  of  implementation  measures  in  the  2019 
stocktaking report.54  

50 For instance, according to the position paper by the European Association for the Education of Adults 
(EAEA),“Upskilling Pathways has prompted national strategies to focus on basic skills and validation 
of  skills  acquired  through  non-formal  and  informal  learning,  moving  the  attention  of  learning 
programmes on learners with low(er) basic skills”. 

51 AT, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, LT, LU, NL, PT, RO and SE, cf. Section 3.1 and Annex VII. 

52 ES, HU, IE, LT, LU, PT, RO and SI, cf. Annex VII. 

53 Member States such as AT, FR, NL rather continued on the good course already set by 2016.  

54 SWD(2019) 89 final. 

20 

 
                                                 
Figure  3:  To  what  extent  have  the  following  features  of  the  Recommendation  been 
implemented in your country/the EU? 

Skills assessment (n=48)

2%

29%

Provision of a tailored offer (n=47)

2%

28%

Provision of a flexible offer (n=48)

2%

33%

38%

43%

29%

23%

8%

17%

11%

25%

10%

Validation and recognition of skills acquired (n=48)

4%

35%

42%

13%

6%

Motivation and outreach measures to raise awareness
(n=47)

2%

30%

Guidance and/or mentoring to support learners’ 
progression (n=48)

4%

27%

38%

38%

21%

9%

19%

13%

Support measures to address obstacles to participation in
learning  (n=48)

6%

29%

42%

10%

13%

Training of teachers  (n=48)

4%

25%

29%

27%

15%

Not at all

To a small extent

To a fairly large extent

To a very large extent Do not know/Not applicable

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: Public consultation, cf. Annex 6 of the supporting study. 

Skills assessment offers of some sort are wide-spread across Member States55, 
but  require  more  attention to staff professionalisation and capacity and a non-
stigmatising integration with the other steps to realize their full potential. 46% of 
respondents to the survey of coordinating and implementing  organisations56 that was 
conducted as part of the supporting study indicated that skills assessments are used 
“not at all” or “to a small extent” by priority target groups. This is consistent with the 
53%  of  respondents  to  the  survey  of  organisations  representing  low-skilled  adults57 
who held the view that skills assessments were used by the target group at most to a 
small  extent.  Obstacles  to  a  more  effective  implementation  of  the  skills  assessment 
step include a lack of a formal and agreed process of how skills assessments should 
be  undertaken,  an  associated  lack  of  specific  skills  and  available  time  of  career 

55  Skills  assessment  offers  now  exist  in  all  Member  States  at  least  to  some  extent  according  to  the 

supporting study, cf. Section 3.1 and Section 4.1 of the supporting study.  

56 A total of 108 responses from national respondents from all Member States except HU were collected as 
part  of  this  survey,  conducted  as  part  of  the  external  supporting  study.  They  include  respondents 
working for  ministries or other government bodies responsible for adult learning/training, vocational 
education and training, lifelong learning or skills policies, or for education and training providers. See 
Annex 1 of the supporting study for details.  

57  This  survey  was  conducted  as  part  of  the  external  supporting  study  and  collected  51  responses  from 
organisations  representing  various  target  groups  of  the  Recommendation.  See  Annex  1  of  the 
supporting study for details. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
counselling staff, and a lack of awareness of the benefits of skills assessments by the 
target  group  itself.58  Targeted  consultations  pointed  to  a  risk  of  stigmatization  of 
potential  beneficiaries  where the skills assessment step is communicated as  a “skills 
audit” to identify a lack of skills59: the skills assessment step can be communicated in a 
more  positive  and  motivating  way  by  emphasising  existing  skills  to  build  upon,  and 
presenting  the  skills  assessment  step  as  a  pathway  towards  more  effective  support 
concerning the other two steps of the Recommendation.  

Eight  Member  States  have  taken  steps  to  improve  the  provision  of  tailored  and 
flexible  learning  offers  to  low-skilled  adults,  but  challenges  remain  due  to 
insufficient funding to support the diverse target groups and barriers to access and 
take-up.60  In  the  survey  of  coordinating  and  implementing  organisations,  “tailored 
learning offer” was the feature most often selected as “reformed or implemented after 
2016”. 73% of respondents to this survey indicate that learning offers are now tailored 
to  the  needs  of  target  groups  to  a  large  or  fairly  large  extent,  with  similar  levels  of 
agreement in the survey of organisations representing low-skilled adults (69%) and in 
the  public  consultation61  (60%).  According  to  stakeholders,  a  first  characteristic  of 
effective  approaches  is  their  flexibility  in  the  delivery  modalities,  combining  a 
flexible timetable and enrolment schedule with hybrid provision online and offline, with 
a  suitable  combination  of  home-,  classroom  and  workplace-based  learning.  A  second 
characteristic  is  their  modular  nature,  breaking  down  the  learning  content  into 
smaller  chunks  that  allow  for  visible  progress  during  a  self-paced  and  learner-led 
learning pathway.62 Finally, they are  backed by  sufficient funding to operate at the 
scale that is needed to make tailored offers to the diverse target groups. 

58 In its contribution  to the public consultation, the European Training Foundation (ETF) highlighted the 
importance  of  sufficient  capacity  notably  of  Public  Employment  Services  (PES),  which  should  be 
guided to enhance the assessment tools for an effective skills audit for low skilled adults. 

59 Voiced e.g. by participants from EAEA and PL during the  validation  workshop on the findings of the 

supporting study. 

60 BE, BG, CY, DK, EE, MT, PL and SI as per the supporting study, cf. Section 3.1. For further analysis of 
the  barriers  to  access  and  take-up,  also  see  the  impact  assessment  accompanying  the  Commission 
proposal on individual learning accounts, SWD(2021) 369 final. 

61 60 respondents participated in the public consultation between 16 December 2021 and 17 March 2022. 
See  Annex  V  for  a  summary,  and  the  “Have  your  say”  page  of  this  consultation  for  further 
information.  Position  papers  received  during  the  public  consultation  are  also  quoted  throughout  this 
report. 

62  For  instance,  the  public  consultation  position  paper  by  Eurodiaconia  highlights  the  importance  of 
“positive flexibility” in terms of both delivery modalities and pace of learning. The position paper by 
“Literacy  100”  also  highlights  the  importance  of  such  flexibility  for  the  target  group  of  the 
Recommendation: “A standard curriculum governed by tests does not have the flexibility to respond to 
such a variety of individual needs. In this system, there are learners who will simply be unable to keep 
up in lessons and will therefore fall by the wayside.”  

22 

 
                                                 
Implementing  measures  cover  basic  skills  in  addition  to  job-specific  skills,  and 
stakeholders point to a need for attention to put sufficient focus on basic skills to 
ensure  accessibility  of  offers  for  the  target  groups  of  the  Recommendation.  For 
instance, the supporting study reports examples of implementation measures focusing 
on literacy in 20 Member  States.63 Stakeholders highlighted the  importance of  adults 
basic  skills  development  as  a  precondition  for  labour  market  success  and  further 
learning  of  job-specific  skills64:  such  skills  are  taken  as  granted  by  many  employers, 
highlighting the specific responsibility of public support offers in this area. Also 
the  2019  stocktaking  report  of  implementation  measures  concluded  that  a  stronger 
embedding of basic skills provision into skills assessment and training offers targeting 
low-skilled adults remains a point of attention.65 

Eight  Member  States  have  taken  steps  to  improve  their  skills  validation  and 
recognition  provisions  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation66, 
but  they  often  remain  insufficiently  integrated  into  the  rest  of  the  education 
and  training  sector.  Provisions  for  the  validation  of  prior  learning  are  often 
characterized by low awareness and take-up among adults. A successful approach 
to  skills  validation  and  recognition  depends  on  a  high  level  of  awareness  and  trust 
among individuals, education and training providers and employers. Where offers only 
exist at a project level or in specific corners of the adult learning system, insufficient 
trust and awareness often lead to low take-up, in particular among low-skilled adults. 
These  conclusions  are  in  line  with  the  2020  evaluation  of  the  2012  Council 
Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning, which calls for 
more support to individuals to promote take-up of existing offers and more strategic 
cooperation to build awareness and trust.67  

Member  States  implementation  measures  identify  a  large  number  of  priority 
target groups, but often do not succeed in effectively reaching all adults who 
would  benefit  from  them.  Around  45%  implementation  measures  mapped  by  the 

63 NL, IE, DE, EL, MT, PT, LV, BE, ES, LV, HU, HR, AT, IE, PL, BG, LU, SK, SI, IT. 

64 For instance, EAEA and the World Employment Confederation Europe (WEC - Europe) in their public 

consultation position papers. 

65 SWD(2019) 89 final, p. 29. 

66 BE, BG, CY, DE, EL, IT, LV and SK as per the supporting study, cf. Section 3.1. Note that the mapping 
by the supporting study does not include all validation and recognition measures existing in a Member 
States, but only those that the Member States recognised as implementing the Recommendation (see 
Annex 3 of the supporting study for more details on this mapping). 

67  SWD(2020)  121  final.    This  was  reflected  also  during  the  targeted  consultations,  with  e.g.  an  IE 
representative to the EQF advisory group stating that “it takes time to build the infrastructure. Looking 
forward,  there  should  be  a  way  to  ensure  the  person-centred  part  of  the  Recommendation  becomes 
stronger”. 

23 

 
                                                 
supporting  study  identify  their  target  group  primarily  on  the  basis  of  a  low  level  of 
basic  skills,  and  40%  primarily  on  the  basis  of  the  employment  status.  Mapped 
measures  also  target  specific  vulnerable  groups  such  as  migrants  and  refugees  (AT, 
BE, DE, ES, IE, IT, LU, MT, PL, SE), people with disabilities (AT, BE, BG, DE, IE, IT, LV, PL, 
RO, SI), older workers (BE, BG, DE, LT, LU, IT, PL, RO, SI) or the long-term unemployed 
(AT, BG, FR, HU, IE, LT, RO).68 However, stakeholders report that even though relevant 
target  groups  have  been  identified,  challenges  remain  in  effectively  reaching 
them.69 These include a lack of awareness of opportunities among the target groups, 
financial  barriers  to  participation,  and  a  lack  of  motivation  of  the  target  group, 
including due to negative previous experiences with learning and a perceived stigma of 
“being  an  adult  that  needs  to  return  to  school”.70  Stakeholders  also  report  that 
digitalisation has greatly increased the target group of the Recommendation 
in  view  of  the  prevalence  of  low  digital  skills71,  rendering  traditional  definitions  of 
priority targets groups incomplete.72    

Career  guidance  and  outreach  efforts  exist  in  all  Member  States,  but  with 
varying degrees of effectiveness. Guidance provided by a counsellor of the Public 
Employment  Service  is  widely  available  across  EU  Member  States,  but  suffers  from 
low  levels  of  awareness,  may  be  perceived  as  intimidating73,  and  is  not  always 
available  to  low-skilled  who  are  not  unemployed.74  In  the  survey  of  organisations 
representing  low-skilled  adults,  53%  said  that  awareness  amongst  the  target  group 

68 Cf. supporting study Section 4.1, Q1.2(a). 

69 E.g. the EAEA position paper argues that  “Upskilling Pathways do not always seem to reach the most 
vulnerable  target  groups,  for  instance  women  who  are  inactive  in  the  labour  market  and  older 
workers”. 

70  E.g.  the  position  paper  by  “Literacy  100”  points  out  that  “Education  in  adulthood  can  be  a  daunting 
prospect for adults who have low levels of personal resilience and self-esteem. It is not uncommon for 
people who have been homeless to describe overwhelmingly negative childhood memories of bullying, 
inadequate teaching support, and poor understanding of their difficulties at both school and home.” 

71 Cf. supporting study Section 4.1, Q1.2(a), and Section 3.2. 

72 Cf. also recent analysis by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre on this topic: Centeno C., Karpinski, 
Z., Urzi Brancati, C., Supporting policies addressing the digital skills gap – Identifying priority groups 
in  the  context  of  employment,  EUR  31045  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-51319-3, doi:10.2760/07196, JRC128561 

The  JRC  analysis  mentions  e.g.  the  need  to  include  NEETs,  individuals  with  medium-level  formal 
education, those living in rural areas, and individuals inactive in the labour  market, as  well as  those 
employed in semi-skilled and low-skilled occupations. 

73 Cf. position paper by Eurodiaconia, which states that “our members stress, many times these services are 
seen as intimidating or untrustworthy by some people. To be accessible and inclusive, PES need to be 
provided in a safe space for everyone to feel protected from bias and any form of discrimination”. 

74 Cf. Position paper by EAEA, noting that “guidance measures are not sufficiently available everywhere; 

however, they would be in a central position to address target groups with low skills”. 

24 

 
                                                 
was  missing  or  low.  In  the  survey  of  adult  learners75,  the  greatest  proportion  of 
respondents  said  that  they  learned  about  their  adult  learning  programme  through 
friends  (42%)  and  only  around  10%  cited  national  websites  or  a  guidance  provider, 
consistent with a limited effective outreach of organized career guidance and outreach 
efforts.  The  provision  of  outreach  and  guidance  services  to  employers  to 
encourage  them  to  support  employees  has  been  somewhat  inconsistent  and 
piecemeal,  having  detrimental  effect  in  particular  on  SMEs.  Effective  outreach 
examples  are  often  characterized  by  integration  with  the  broader  system  of 
support  to  adult  learners  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring  local  level 
cooperation.76  Reaching  potential  learners  with  complex  needs  arising  from  multiple 
vulnerabilities  requires  a  holistic  provision  of  support  including  psychological  support 
and active outreach77, with associated funding for staff training and infrastructure.78 

While  Member  States  have  delivered  implementation  measures  in  cooperation 
with  relevant  stakeholders,  their  coordination  often  still  suffers  from  a  lack 
of  clearly  defined  responsibilities.  The  stakeholders  most  commonly  involved  in 
implementing  the  Recommendation  are  public  employment  services,  social  partners, 
NGOs  and  local  actors  including  public libraries79, but include other  stakeholders such 
as  private  employment  services.80  In  the  public  consultation,  around  half  of 
respondents agreed that the implementation actions since  2016 have been delivered 
in cooperation with the relevant stakeholders to a “fairly large” or “large” extent.81 The 
consultations  point 
for 
implementation.82 Experts consulted during the validation workshop and the interviews 

involvement  as  a  success 

to  stakeholder 

factor 

75 This survey  was conducted  as part of the external  supporting study, and collected responses  from 102 

adult learners. See Annex 1 of the supporting study for details. 

76 Including to support service provision also in rural areas, cf. position paper by ETF. 

77 Cf. position papers by “Literacy 100” and Eurodiaconia. 

78  Cf.  the  European  Basic  Skills  Network  (EBSN)  position  paper,  and  see  supporting  study  Section  4.1, 
Q1.5 for examples. The EAEA position paper concludes that “Public investment in infrastructure and 
the training of adult learning and education staff is at the forefront.” 

79 The position paper by “Public libraries 2030” points out that “public libraries play an important role in 
the  non-formal  education  sector  as  they  are  often  the  first  organisations  providing  assistance  and 
support to vulnerable groups with low literacy skills”. 

80 The WEC-Europe position paper mentions successful public-private partnerships in FR, BE and NL. 

81 See Section 4.1, Q1.4(b), Figure 12 of the supporting study. 

82 E.g. the EAEA position paper argues that „those countries that succeed in involving other stakeholders, 
e.g. labour market services, but also social partners, are more successful in upskilling. EAEA members 
argue that Upskilling Pathways requires a holistic approach that needs not only the education sector 
but also the active engagement of employers, social services, labour market services, etc. in order to 
reach key target groups and make progress in the implementation of the strategy“. 

25 

 
                                                 
on the EU level expressed that there is room across the EU to involve social partners 
more  in  implementation,  in  particular  in  evaluation  and  monitoring  of  measures. 
Coordinating bodies for adult learning policies exist in all Member States except CZ, DK, 
SI,  SK  and  SE83,  and  stakeholders  report  that  the 
implementation  of  the 
Recommendation has  in some cases  improved  the cooperation between ministries of 
education  and  labour.84  However,  existing  arrangements  often  do  not  yet  ensure 
effective coordination, with persisting coordination challenges in particular between the 
ministries  of  education  and  labour,  and  between  national  and  regional  authorities.85 
Unclear  responsibilities  create  a  risk  that  some  target  groups  receive  insufficient 
support, make it difficult for adults to navigate the landscape of available support, and 
create  uncertainty  for  civil  society  stakeholders  who  are  looking  for  long-term 
cooperation partners. 

Reflecting the challenges with an effective  coordination of the involved stakeholders, 
there is significant scope for improvement in the integration of the three steps 
into a comprehensive upskilling pathway. Stakeholders highlighted the importance 
of promoting smooth transitions between the three steps to encourage each individual 
step’s    uptake  and  effectiveness:  for  instance,  the  skills  assessment  step  aims  to 
identify tailored learning offers, and tailored learning offers combined with validation 
of  informally  acquired  skills  can  allow  adults  without  completed  upper  secondary 
schooling  to  obtain  a  formal  qualification.  A  joined-up  approach  between  all  three 
steps, reflected also at a strategic level,86 is also crucial to ensure that adult learners 
feel supported and stay committed to their upskilling pathway, but is often not yet a 
reality. Some stakeholder point to a need for an individualized and holistic approach to 
support  for  the  low-skilled  adults  furthest  away  from  learning,  integrating  support 
concerning the three steps with social services and labour market programmes.87 

Consistent  with  the  picture  of  a  limited  progress  in  terms  of  scale,  integration 
and outreach of implementation measures, there is no evidence of an overall 
acceleration in positive trends in the relevant indicators since 2016, and there 
are  no  systematic  links  between  such  trends  and  implementation  measures. 
For instance, the number of adults aged 25-64 without upper secondary education in 

83 Supporting study Section 4.1, Q1.4(b). 

84 EAEA position paper.  

85  Cf.  e.g.  the  ILO  position  paper,  emphasising  the  importance  of  “a  whole-of-government  approach  to 

effective governance”. 

86 The EAEA position paper highlights the importance of embedding the measures into a broader strategic 
framework:  “What  emerges  is  that  those  countries  that  have  integrated  Upskilling  Pathways  into  a 
broader  lifelong  learning  strategy  are  most  likely  to  reach  the  target  groups  and  build  innovative 
upskilling programmes, for instance Slovakia, Finland and Austria.” 

87 See e.g. position papers by Eurodiaconia and “Literacy 100”. 

26 

 
                                                 
the EU decreased by 13.2% between 2016 and 2021, from 56.1 million to 48.7 million 
adults-  corresponding  to  a  decrease  at  approximately  the  same  pace  as  could  be 
observed over the 5 years preceding the introduction of  the Recommendation (2011-
2016), when it decreased by 13.3% from 64.7 to 56.1 million adults.88 This suggests 
that  the  decrease  mostly  happened  because  older  cohorts  (with  lower  educational 
attainment levels) have dropped out of this age group and because of less early school 
leaving from initial education, as opposed to implementation measures operating at a 
significant  scale.  The  supporting  study  concludes  that  also  at  Member  State  level, 
greater implementation progress as identified through the mapping of policy measures 
in  Section  3.1  has  not  consistently  been  associated  with  stronger  improvements  in 
relevant  indicators.89  However,  a  caveat  is  that  these  quantitative  analyses  are  only 
able to capture short to medium run impacts of the Recommendation, whereas further 
possible  indirect  impacts  through  an  influence  on  national  policy  discussions  (cf. 
Section 4.2) would likely only materialize over the longer run.     

Efficiency 
No  strong  conclusions  on  efficiency  can  be  drawn  since  Member  States  have  not 
systematically  collected  data  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  implementation 
measures.  However,  stakeholders  consider  the  implementation  costs  as 
proportionate to the  implementation benefits: in  the survey of coordinating and 
implementing  organisations,  64%  of  respondents  believed  that  the  costs  are 
proportionate to the benefits (15% to a great extent, 31% to a fairly large extent, and 
19% to a small extent), 36% felt unable to comment, and no respondent felt that the 
costs  were  not  proportionate  to  the  benefits.  Targeted  stakeholder  consultations 
corroborate  the  view  that  implementation  actions  have  been  cost  effective, 
independently  of  the  starting  point  of  a  Member  State.  This  reflects  low  overall 
implementation  costs  in  most  Member  States  and  comparatively  large  benefits-  not 
only  in  terms  of  direct  upskilling  measures,  but  also  in  the  form  of  increased 
awareness and stakeholder  discussions on the issue of adults  basic skills at national 
level. However, efficiency of implementation is perceived to vary with the degree 
to  which  clear  responsibilities  are  assigned  between  implementing  actors,  the 
degree to which processes are in place to select quality training providers, involve 
specifically trained staff and cooperate with employers, as well as the degree to 
which monitoring and evaluation is used to improve delivery.  

88  Also  see  Annex  9  of  the  supporting  study,  which  does  not  find  trend  breaks  for  a  larger  number  of 
indicators relevant to the Recommendation (including participation in adult learning, unemployment or 
inactivity  rates).  Except  for  basic  digital  skills,  no  “before-after”  comparisons  of  direct  measures  of 
adult’s basic skills are available for this evaluation, since the results from the second cycle of PIAAC 
will only become available in 2024 (cf. Section 2.2). 

89 See the “interrupted time series analysis” of the supporting study, presented in Section 4.1 Q1.1 and in 

Annex 9.  

27 

 
                                                 
Implementation costs were mostly incurred by State, regional and municipal 
administrative  bodies.  Respondents  to  both  the  survey  of  coordinating  and 
implementing  organisations  and  the  survey  of  organisations  representing  low-skilled 
adults  indicated  that  incentives  were  provided  to  a  great/large  extent  to  education 
providers (41% and 45% respectively), to employers (38% and 37% respectively), and 
to  individuals  (31%  and  33%  respectively).90  The  survey  of  adult  learners  found 
limited  costs  for  adults  themselves:  most  programmes  were  offered  free  of 
charge for them, and a minority mentioned costs of usually less than 100€ for course 
fees  or  course  supplies.  However,  stakeholder  interviews  pointed  to  more  significant 
cost to learners related to validation processes. 

EU  funds,  in  particular  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  have  played  a 
dominant  role  in  funding  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation  during  the 
evaluation period. The ESF allocated €42 billion to investment priority 10.iii (enhancing 
equal  access  to  lifelong  learning)  for  the  period  2016-2020,  which  includes 
implementation measures of the Recommendation in several Member States that aim 
to  increase  adult  participation  in  learning,  enhance  the  basic  skills  of  low  qualified 
adults, upskill workers to secure their professional paths, and help people getting back 
to  work.91  In  the  targeted  interviews  conducted  for  the  supporting  study,  national 
stakeholders in most Member States92 underlined the crucial role of the ESF in funding 
implementation of the Recommendation in their Member State, confirming the findings 
of  the  2019  stocktaking  report  of  planned  implementation  measures.93  Additional  EU 
funding  sources  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation  include  the 
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Erasmus+, the EU Programme for 
Employment  and  Social  Innovation  (EaSI),  Horizon  2020  (the  EU's  research  and 
innovation  funding  programme  from  2014-2020)  and  the  Structural  Reform 
Support  Programme  (SRSP, succeeded  by  the  Technical  Support  Instrument  (TSI)  in 
2021).  Figure  4  summarizes  the  responses  to  the  public  consultation  concerning  EU 
funding support: it confirms that several EU funding programmes have been available 

90  Education  and  training  providers  may  be  public  or  private,  and  may  receive  funding  to  cover  staff, 
infrastructure or awareness raising costs, allowing them to offer their services to adults for free or at a 
reduced  price.  Incentives  to  employers  include  e.g.  reimbursements  for  training  costs  or  for  salary 
costs  while  an  employee  participates  in  training.  Incentives  to  individuals  can  take  the  form  of 
scholarships/study  grants  to  cover  the  costs  of  living  while  studying,  or  support  for  travel  or  other 
expenses related to participation in upskilling measures. See supporting study Section 4.2 Q2.1. 

91 For instance in BG, HU, LT and PL. See Section 4.2 of the supporting study for additional details, and 

examples for EU support from the different programmes. 

92 Including AT, BE, BG, CY, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, 

SK. 

93 SWD(2019) 89 final. 

28 

 
                                                 
to support implementation, whereby agreement that the contribution has been “fairly” 
or “very” large is highest for the ESF, the ERDF and Erasmus+. 

Figure 4: Contribution of EU funding programmes to Upskilling Pathways implementation 

European Social Fund (n=44)

5%

11%

30%

27%

27%

Employment and Social Innovation Programme (n=45)

4%

16%

20%

11%

49%

Erasmus + (n=46)

7%

24%

30%

15%

24%

Technical Support Instrument (n=44)

7%

9%

11%

5%

Horizon Europe (n=43)

9%

14%

5%

2%

68%

70%

Digital Europe (n=44)

9%

11%

14%

7%

59%

European Regional Development Fund (n=45)

4%

24%

22%

16%

33%

Just Transition Fund (n=44)

9%

9%

9%

European Globalization Fund (n=44)

9%

5%

11%

5%

Invest EU (n=44)

9%

7%

11%

73%

70%

73%

The Recovery and Resilience Facility (n=45)

11%

7%

16%

11%

56%

Other (n=20)

5%

5%

5%

85%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

They have not contributed at all

They have contributed to a small extent

They have contributed to a fairly large extent

They have contributed to a very large extent

Do not know

Source: Public consultation, cf. supporting study Annex 6. 

Factors limiting efficiency of EU funding relate to a  perceived high administrative 
burden in particular for smaller beneficiaries, and to the time-limited and project-
based nature of EU funds which limits the time available for institutional learning to 
determine  the  most  efficient  ways  of  supporting  the  complex  and  heterogeneous 
target  group  of  low-skilled  adults.  However,  the  2021  evaluation  of  the  2014-2018 
ESF support to education and training94 concludes that in spite of these challenges, the 
overall benefits of ESF support over this period have outweighed its costs.95 
The  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  (RRF)  introduced  in  2020  in  response  to  the 
COVID-19  pandemic  is a  further  significant  source  of EU  funding  for  implementation 
measures.  While  disbursements  only  started  in  the  end  of  the  evaluation  period  and 
will continue until 2026, several national policymakers pointed to an important role of 

94 SWD(2021) 10 final. 

95  Cf. Section 4.2 of the supporting study. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
upcoming reforms and investments funded by the RRF for the implementation of the 
Recommendation.96 

Stakeholders  report  a  range  of  benefits  from  implementation  measures  for 
individual learners, employers, and society at large. In the survey of coordinating 
and  implementing  organisations,  approximately  nine  of  ten  respondents  considered 
that the measures introduced in the last five years contributed to individuals gaining 
a qualification (94%), access to further education (93%) or to employment (92%), and 
basic literacy, numeracy and digital skills (89%). The positive assessment was shared 
in  the  survey  of  organisations  representing  low-skilled  adults  and  in  the  survey  of 
adult learners themselves, of which over three quarters noted that their expectations 
before  participation had been met to a great or  large extent.  Concerning benefits for 
employers, respondents to the survey of coordinating and implementing organisations 
reported  that  implementation  measures  contributed  to  fewer  skills  shortages  (76%), 
more  motivated  staff  (73%),  and  higher  levels  of  productivity  (66%).  At  the  level  of 
society,  most  EU  and  national  authority  level  stakeholders  indicated  that  the 
Recommendation had increased the political salience of action to improve adult basic 
skills,  and  provided  different  stakeholders  with  a  common  reference  framework  on 
which  discussions  could  be  based.  The  various  benefits  of  upskilling  measures  for 
adults  are  also  backed by  a  significant  body  of  research,  including  a  2017  European 
Centre  for  the  Development  of  Vocational  Training  (Cedefop)  study  that  explored 
benefits of reducing the share of low-skilled adults in the EU: the results of this study 
point to large fiscal benefits in terms of lower out-of-work social benefits expenditure 
and  positive  effects  on  tax  revenues,  increases  in  GDP  and  other  benefits  stemming 
from indirect impact channels via improved health and reduced crime.97 

Costs  and  benefits  of  the  Recommendation  varied  across  Member  States 
depending  on  their  starting  point,  but  higher  costs  were  generally  also 
associated  with  higher  benefits.  In  Member  States  that  had  in  place  measures 
largely  in  line  with  the  Recommendation  so  that  no  major  changes  in  policy  or 
legislation  were  required,  stakeholders  confirmed  that  they  incurred  no  or  low 
additional  cost  as  a  result  of  the  Recommendation.  In  Member  States  where  adult 
learning systems were overall less in line with the type of provision put forward in the 
Recommendation initially and which took implementation steps (cf. Section 3.1), costs 
were higher. However, stakeholders from these Member States also felt that benefits 
were likely to be relatively large, so that implementation was similarly efficient. Across 

96 Including BE, CY, EL, ES, FR, GR, IE, LU- cf. supporting study Section 4.2 Q2.2 and EAEA position 

paper. 

97  Cedefop  (2017),  Investing  in  skills  pays  off:  the  economic  and  social  cost  of  low-skilled  adults  in  the 
EU. For a literature review, also see Annex 10 of the  impact assessment accompanying the proposal 
for a Council Recommendation on individual learning accounts, SWD(2021) 369 final. 

30 

 
                                                 
Member  States,  the  COVID  pandemic  was  perceived  as  having  a  negative  effect  on 
efficiency, by slowing down delivery without proportionate cost reductions.98  

Key factors improving the efficiency of implementation measures identified by 
the  stakeholders  include  clear  responsibilities  for  and  transparency  about 
implementation  measures,  competitive  and  performance-based  selection  of 
training  providers,  availability  of  specifically  trained  staff  and  cooperation 
with  employers.99  Respondents  in  some  Member  States  (including  IE,  MT  and  NL) 
highlighted  that  divided  responsibilities  for  adult  education  and  skills  across 
government  departments  can  reduce  efficiency  by  leading  to  a  co-existence  of 
implementation measures with overlapping objectives, causing a duplication of efforts 
as well as confusion and insufficient take-up among potential beneficiaries. Relatedly, 
the Austrian case study found that uncertainties around the continuation of previously 
announced adult education priorities limit efficiency.100 Other Member States (including 
FI,  MT,  SE)  highlighted  the  importance  of  reducing  the  costs  of  publicly  procured 
services to implement the Recommendation through an open application process in 
which  potential  adult  education  providers  are  required  to  set  out  their  project  costs, 
and  of  improving  the  quality  of  delivery  by  linking  payments  with  outcomes. 
Several  Member  States  (including  LV  and  PL)  highlighted  the  importance  of 
specifically trained staff in the adult learning sector for an efficient implementation 
of the Recommendation. Stakeholders also mentioned cooperation with employers 
as  a  factor  that  can  increase  the  efficiency  of  support  delivery,  by  tailoring  an 
individual’s upskilling pathway to job requirements.  

Stakeholders  identify  the  limited  availability  and  use  of  rigorous  monitoring  & 
evaluation of implementation measures as an over-arching factor limiting efficiency 
of implementation.101 Even where monitoring or evaluation measures are in place, there 
is  often  a  lack  of  clear  “feedback  loops”  that  would  allow  such  information  to 
influence  the  design  of  the  implementation  measures.  Monitoring  and  evaluation  are 
key to improving the efficiency of implementation over time on the basis of “lessons 
learned”  about  the  design  of  the  three  steps  of  the  Recommendation  in  the  specific 
Member  State  contexts.  However,  adequate  arrangements  can  be  resource  intensive 
(especially the collection of data on participant outcomes such as employment rates) 
and complex (as they will often involve several stakeholders such as public authorities, 

98 Supporting study Section 4.2 Q2.4. 

99 Cf. supporting study Section 4.2 Q2.4. 

100 Cf. supporting study Annex 4. 

101 Cf. the ETF position paper, concluding that “Stronger monitoring and evaluation procedures and wider 
in-country and cross-country mutual learning would help a more structural orientation of education 
and training polices and actions to serve the most deprived groups”. 

31 

 
                                                 
education  and  training  providers  and  employers).  Hence,  they  require  robust 
cooperation  arrangements,  a  sufficient  scale  and  sufficiently  long  planning 
horizon  to  make  their  set-up  worthwhile-  conditions  that  are  often  not  met  by  the 
implementation measures taken in the Member States so far. Some stakeholders also 
called for an EU level monitoring framework for the Recommendation. 

Coherence 
Stakeholders consulted at both EU and national level consider the Recommendation to 
be internally coherent102, with consistent objectives, recommendations and expected 
impacts.  The  measures  proposed  in  the  Recommendation  (three-step  approach, 
coordination and partnership, outreach, guidance and support measures, follow-up and 
evaluation)  are  perceived  to  provide  a  comprehensive  policy  framework  to  guide 
implementation  actions  at  national  level.  At  the  level  of  implementation,  some 
stakeholders  highlighted  that  it  is  important  for  step  one  (skills  assessment)  to 
emphasize existing skills to build upon as opposed to skills deficits, in order to 
avoid stigmatization and  ensure coherence with the objective of  motivating adults  to 
continue their upskilling pathway.103   

Stakeholders also report a high level of coherence between the Recommendation 
and  relevant  policies  and  strategies  at  national  and  regional  level.  In  the 
implementing  organisations,  88%  of  respondents 
survey  of  coordinating  and 
considered  that  the  objectives,  target  groups  and  measures  to  implement  adult 
learning  measures  have  been coherent  with  education  and  training,  employment  and 
social policies at national/regional level to a fairly large (44%) or great (44%) extent. In 
the  public  consultation,  more  than  half  of  the  respondents  considered  that  the 
measures set out in the Recommendation were to a fairly or very large extent coherent 
with  their  national  policies  (Figure  5).  In  several  Member  States  (e.g.,  AT,  DK,  EE,  FR, 
SE),  existing  national  and  regional  policies  for  upskilling  adults  already  aligned  well 
with the Recommendation in 2016 and in other Member States, steps have been taken 
to increase alignment (cf. Section 3.1), though these steps have not always been very 
large (cf. Section on “Effectiveness).  

102 Cf. Section 4.4 of the supporting study. 

103 Cf. supporting study Section 5.2. This point was also made by participants from EAEA and PL during 

the validation workshop on the findings of the supporting study. 

32 

 
                                                 
Figure  5:  Coherence  of  implementation  measures  with  other  education  and  training, 
employment and social policies  

25%

27%

27%

14%

7%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

In line to a very large
extent (n=11)

In line to a fairly
large extent (n=12)

In line to a small
extent (n=12)

Not at all in line
(n=3)

Do not know (n=6)

Source: Public consultation, cf. Annex V and supporting study Section 4.3 Q3.2. 

Challenges  to  coherent  implementation  at  national  level  are  an  insufficient 
integration of the three steps from the Recommendation into a single pathway and 
a  lack  of  strategic  coordination:  while  a  Member  State  may  have  provisions 
relevant to all three steps of the Recommendation, these may follow separate logics 
and  not  be  integrated  in  a  user-friendly  way.104  Similarly,  insufficient  strategic 
coordination between implementation measures and other parts of the adult learning 
system with absence of a national adult learning strategy (e.g. in CZ, LV) can result in a 
situation  where  the  available  steps  do  not  add  up  to  an  upskilling  pathway  as 
envisaged  by  the  Recommendation.  Conversely,  stakeholders  perceive  better 
coherence  in  Member  States  where  national  skills  strategies  exist  (as  e.g. 
recently  introduced  in  SK).  Further  factors  perceived  to  increase  coherence  are  clear 
involving  all  key  national 
responsibilities  at  ministerial 
stakeholders e.g. via the board of a national training agency (as in BG). 

level,  and 

The  Recommendation  is  also  perceived  to  be  coherent  with  other  relevant  EU 
policies.105  The  2018  Council  Recommendation  on  key  competences  for  lifelong 
learning provides orientation on the basic skills that should be conveyed during the 
upskilling  pathways.106  A  number  of  Council  Recommendations  focus  on  how  to 
support  distinct  groups  of  adults 
the  2013  and  2020  Council 
Recommendations on establishing and reinforcing the Youth Guarantee, and the 2016 
Council  Recommendation  on  the  integration  of  the  long-term  unemployed  into  the 
labour  market107).  Others  address  elements  of  the  three  step-approach 

(i.e. 

104 For instance in DE, cf. supporting study Section 4.4 Q4.1. 

105 Supporting study Section 4.4 Q4.2(a). 

106 Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. 

107  Council  Recommendation  of  22  April  2013  on  establishing  a  Youth  Guarantee;  Council 
Recommendation  of  30  October  2020  on  A  Bridge  to  Jobs  –  Reinforcing  the  Youth  Guarantee; 
Council  Recommendation  of  15  February  2016  on  the  integration  of  the  long-term  unemployed  into 
the labour market. 

33 

 
                                                 
recommended in this Recommendation  (i.e., the 2012 Council Recommendation on the 
validation  of  non-formal  and  informal  learning,  addressing  steps  one  and  three,  and 
the  2022  Council  Recommendations  on  micro-credentials,  addressing step  three,  and 
individual  learning  accounts,  addressing  in  particular  step  two108).  The  present 
Recommendation  outlines  how  Member  States  can  build  on  these  Recommendations 
and  provide  low-skilled  adults  with  an  integrated  upskilling  pathway.  A  point  of 
attention  mentioned  by  stakeholders  is  the  need  to  pay  attention  to  coherence 
among EU policies in the realms of labour market and education, mirroring the 
need  for  strategic  coordination  at  national  level,  and  to  provide  clear  guidance  to 
national stakeholders on the links between relevant EU policy and strategic documents 
created e.g. in different Council formations.109 

More  generally,  the  Recommendation  reflects  an  increasing  recognition  of 
continuing  skills  development  throughout  life  as  an  individual  right.  The  first 
principle  of  the  2017  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights110  recognizes  the  right  to 
education,  training  and  life-long  learning  as  its  first  principle.  On  25  June  2021,  the 
European  Council  welcomed  the  EU  headline  targets  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social 
Rights  Action  Plan  and  the  Porto  Declaration.111  Leaders  thereby  supported  the 
ambition  that  at  least  60%  of  all  adults  should  participate  in  training  every 
year by 2030 and at least 80% should have at least basic digital skills. This is 
seen  as  necessary  for  employability  and  social  cohesion  in  view  of  the  accelerating 
labour  market  transformations.112  While  these  commitments  reflect  that  the  current 
up- and reskilling challenge goes beyond basic skills and low-skilled adults, improving 
support for low-skilled adults remains essential for reaching these goals: low-
skilled adults  are  consistently under-represented in adult learning participation  within 
Member  States,  but  show  large  participation  differences  across  Member  States  (cf. 
Section  3.2)-  pointing  to  the  potential  for  progress  through  policy  support  that  is 
tailored to their needs.  

Finally, almost all stakeholders consulted at both EU and national level considered that 
there  was  good  coherence  between  the  Recommendation  and  relevant  EU 

108 Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning. 
Council Recommendations of 16 June 2022 on individual learning accounts and micro-credentials for 
lifelong learning and employability. 

109 Supporting study Section 4.4 Q4.2(a). 

110 European Pillar of Social Rights. 

111 European Council Conclusions, 24-25 June 2021. This followed up on the Porto Declaration of 8 May 

2021. See also the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan. 

112 Council Conclusions of 8 June 2020 on reskilling and upskilling as a basis for increasing sustainability 

and employability, in the context of supporting economic recovery and social cohesion.   

34 

 
                                                 
funding mechanisms.113 They emphasised in particular the high degree of coherence 
with  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF,  now:  ESF+114),  which  allows  funding  for  national 
and  regional  measures  corresponding  to  all  fields  of  the  Recommendation,  but  also 
mentioned Erasmus+, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Structural 
Reform  Support  Programme  (SRSP)  (and  its  successor,  the  Technical  Support 
Instrument (TSI)) and the EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI), 
as well as the more recent Just Transition Fund (JTF) and the Recovery and Resilience 
Facility (RRF).  

4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference? (EU added value)  

The EU added value of the Recommendation is that in several Member States, it has 
increased  the  policy  attention  on  low  basic  skills  among  adults,  provided  a 
common  framework  for  national  policy  action,  fostered  stakeholder 
collaboration  within  and  across  Member  States,  and/or  provided  funding  and 
technical  support  for  policy  experimentation.115  Many  Member  States  have  taken 
action to implement one or several of the three steps (cf. Section 4.1, “Effectiveness”). 
In some Member States (including HR, EL and SK), the Recommendation served as an 
inspiration  for  reforms  of  the  adult  learning  system.  In  others,  it  served  as  a 
benchmark against which to compare the existing support systems, and pilot or 
introduce  targeted  provisions  concerning  one  of  the  three  steps,  most  often  skills 
validation 
the 
Recommendation,  though  the  frequent 
implementation  of  one  step  of  the 
Recommendation  in  isolation  from  the  other  two  may  have  contributed  to  the 
perception  of  insufficient  efforts  to  ensure  a  smooth  integration  and  improved 
permeability of the three steps.116 Despite  the good practices and progress identified, 
implementation  measures  often  lacked  scale  and  coordination  (cf.  Section  4.1, 
“Effectiveness”).  

(cf.  Section  3.1).  Stakeholders  welcomed 

flexibility  of 

this 

Stakeholders  appreciated  the  role  of  the  Recommendation  in  fostering  knowledge 
sharing  across  Member  States  (informing  reforms  e.g.  in  EL,  BG  and  CY).117  Three 
mutual  learning  events  organised  by  the  European  Commission  brought  together 
stakeholders from Member States who wanted to incorporate experiences from other 

113 Supporting study Section 4.4 Q4.2(b). 

114  For  the  2021-2027  programming  period,  the  ESF+  has  a budget  of  €99.3  billion  and will  continue  to 
support the implementation of the EU’s skills policies including by supporting adults with low skills 
and basic skills acquisition. 

115 Supporting study, Section 4.5 Q5.1. 

116 Supporting study, Section 4.1 Q1.3. 

117 Supporting study, Section 4.5 Q5.1. 

35 

 
                                                 
Member States in their own national reforms. Mutual learning also took place through 
the national coordinators for adult learning, the adult learning working group 
and  –in  a  more  informal  and  “bottom  up”  manner-  via  the  European  Platform  for 
Adult  Learning  and  Education  (EPALE).  Technical  assistance  was  provided  via  the 
Structural  Reform  Support  Programme  (SRSP)  or  its  successor,  the  Technical 
Support Instrument (TSI), to BE, HR, CY, HU, IT, NL, PT and ES118, as well as indirectly 
by supporting the OECD in developing national skills strategies and diagnostic 
reports  in  several  Member  States  (including  BE,  IT,  LV,  LT,  NL,  PL,  PT,  SK,  SI,  ES).119 
Cedefop supported Member State reforms by producing comparative research on their 
upskilling  systems120,  and  by  organising  policy  learning  fora  on  the  Recommendation. 
Competence frameworks such as DigComp121 were promoted and available to support 
the  implementation.  The  Recommendation  fed  into  further  initiatives  to  support 
upskilling  also  at  EU  level,  as  reflected  for  instance  in  a  substantial  number  of 
country-specific  recommendations122  on  this  topic  in  the  European  Semester  process 
over the evaluation period, the 2020 Council Conclusions on Reskilling and Upskilling123 
and  the  2020  European  Skills  Agenda.124  Finally,  stakeholders  highlighted  that  the 
Recommendation  helped  to  direct  EU  funds  from  the  various  funding  streams 
towards basic skills development projects for diverse target groups. As reflected in the 
2019 stocktaking report125, stakeholders emphasise the key importance of EU funding 
for the implementation measures (cf. Section 4.1). This included three specific calls 
for actions on the Recommendation to support policy experimentation through 
the  piloting  of 
the  EaSI  programme.  The 
implementation plans submitted by Member States in 2018 suggest that initially, this 
most  often  took  the  form  of  temporary  or  pilot  projects,  with  unclear  long-term 
impacts.126  However,  it  is  still  unclear  whether  this  will  also  be  true  for  the  skills 

implementation  measures  under 

118 Supporting study Section 4.2 Q2.2.  

119 National Skills Strategies - OECD. 

120 See for instance the 2020 reports on “Empowering adults through upskilling and reskilling pathways”, 

volume 1 and volume 2. 

121  Several  reports  were  published  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  to  support  the  use  of  the  competence 

frameworks.  

122 Country-specific recommendations e.g. for 2019  and 2020. 

123 Council Conclusions of 8 June 2020 on reskilling and upskilling as a basis for increasing sustainability 

and employability, in the context of supporting economic recovery and social cohesion.   

124 2020 European Skills Agenda. 

125  SWD(2019)  89  final,  p.  19: “With  very  few  exceptions, all  countries  have  indicated  that  much  of  the 

activity to support low-skilled adults is co-funded through the European Social Fund.”   

36 

 
                                                 
investment  and  reform  measures  funded  under  the  national  Recovery  and  Resilience 
Facility  as  part  of  the  Next  Generation  EU  budget  and  implemented  until  the  end  of 
2026.127 

Stakeholder  views  on  the  intervention’s  influence  on  national  policies  are 
mixed,  but  point  to  a  significant  influence  in  some  Member  States.  In  the 
survey of coordinating and implementing organisations, 41% of respondents state that 
adult  learning  policy  measures  in  their  country/region  during  the  past  5  years  would 
have  been  implemented  in  the  same  way  without  the  Recommendation  to  a  fairly 
large  or  great  extent,  whereas  34%  of  respondents  state  this  would  have  been  the 
case  not  at  all  or  to  a  small  extent  and  24%  do  not  know.  However,  46%  of 
respondents state that the overall objectives of the Recommendation could have not at 
all or only to a small extent been achieved without EU intervention, as opposed to 32% 
who believe this to be the case to a fairly large or great extent, and 22% who do not 
know.128  A  substantial  minority  of  37%  of  respondents  also  indicated  that  the 
Recommendation  helped  adult  learning  measures  to  converge  with  other  Member 
States to a fairly large or a great extent. 129 This picture is consistent with the mixed 
implementation progress outlined in Section 3.1, and the limited competences of 
the  EU  in  the  skill  policy  domain,  where  EU  Recommendations  are  one  among 
many factors influencing national policies.  

4.3 Is the intervention still relevant? 

Basic  skills  –  literacy,  numeracy  and  digital  –  are  the  foundation  for  any  further 
learning and for full participation in the labour market and in society, and the review in 
Section 3.2 highlights that still far too many adults in the EU do not possess a 
functional level of these skills.  

Since  the  adoption  of  the  Recommendation  in  2016,  the  digital  transition  has 
accelerated,  partly  due  to  the  COVID-19  adaptation  measures,  and  the  EU  has 
embarked  on  an  ambitious  “European  Green  Deal”,  striving  to  become  climate-

126  The  2019  stocktaking  report  of  implementation  measures  concludes  that  “the  majority  of 
implementation  measures  seem  to  be  primarily  driven  by  access  to  EU  funds  and  tied  in  with  their 
planning periods. Hence, many initiatives are running until 2020 or at best to 2022, and there are no 
obvious plans on how to sustain them beyond this date” (SWD(2019) 89 final, p. 20). 

127 Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard. 

128  Supporting  study,  Section  4.5  Q5.1.  In  the  targeted  consultation  with  the  EQF  advisory  group,  a 
representative from SK indicated that  “Basic skills were not reflected in national policies in SK and 
were not discussed as an issue. The Recommendation helped put this topic on the table. (…) A strategy 
on lifelong learning (LLL) was approved in November 2021 and basic skills development is included 
in a set of concrete measures”. 

129 Supporting study, Section 4.5 Q5.2. 

37 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
neutral  by  2050.  Both  trends  increase  the  importance  of  basic  and  other  transversal 
skills as a foundation to manage change at a personal level, and thrive on rapidly 
changing labour markets.130 Demographic ageing is expected to accelerate in the 
coming decade as the “baby boomer” generation retires, increasing the pressure to use 
the full potential of everyone on the labour market today. Finally, COVID-19 and recent 
geo-political  events  have  highlighted  the  importance  of  societal  resilience  for 
dealing with adverse external shocks and the resulting uncertainty- again with a crucial 
role for basic skills for managing change.131  

in 

that 

their  view 

Stakeholders  are  hence  near  unanimous 
the 
Recommendation’s objectives are still relevant132: in the public consultation, 87% 
of  respondents  agreed  to  this  statement.  Respondents  to  the  survey  of  coordinating 
and implementing organisations also found that the objectives of the Recommendation 
were  still  relevant  to  the  current  socio-economic  and  policy  context  in  their 
country/region:  95%  of respondents  said  that  this  was  true  to  a  great  or  fairly  large 
extent.  The  continued  importance  of  the  objectives  is  reflected  in  high-level  EU 
targets  on  adult  skills  development  for  2030  (cf.  Section  4.1  on  “Coherence”). 
Some stakeholders expressed appreciation that the Recommendation makes reference 
to a wider skills set next to numeracy, literacy and digital skills133, and highlighted that 
recent  socio-economic  trends  highlight  the  need  to  include  life  skills  such  as  digital 
safety awareness and environmental awareness in adults basic skills set.134  

130 This view was also frequently expressed by stakeholders in the consultations. For instance, the WEC-
Europe  position  paper  concluded  that  “careers  today  are  no  longer  linear  but  take  numerous  twists 
and turns, which makes upskilling pathways even more important”. 

131  See  for  instance  “Adult  learning  and  COVID-19:  challenges  and  opportunities”  from  the  ET  2020 

working group on adult learning, and the position paper submitted by Wallonia. 

132 Supporting study, Section 4.3 Q3.1. Cf. also the position paper by WEC-Europe, concluding that “EU 
guidance is required to a fairly large extent to promote the exchange of good practices and promote 
mutual learning and bench-learning”. 

133  The  position  paper  of  Wallonia  mentions  “soft  skills,  transversal  skills  (communication,  problem 
solving,  teamwork,  emotional  intelligence)  and  entrepreneurial  skills  based  on  creativity,  critical 
thinking and problem solving, but also on taking initiatives, perseverance and collaboration.” 

134 Position paper by the European Basic Skills Network:  “To build individual and social resilience it is 
imperative  that  all  adults  have  access  to  quality  provision  of  a  dynamic  set  of  skills.  Basic  Skills 
continue  to  be  the  core  focus,  but  they  need  to  be  acquired  in  a  context  that  acknowledges  and 
develops Life Skills.”  The ILO position paper calls for “renewed emphasis on the development of core 
skills,  including  social  and  emotional  skills,  cognitive  skills,  basic  digital  skills  and  relevant  skills 
related  to  environmentally  sustainable  economies,  as  well  as  science,  technology,  engineering  and 
mathematics  (STEM)  skills,  in  education  and  training,  including  TVET”.  Also  the  Eurodiaconia 
position paper highlights the importance of transversal skills to  “continue learning, adapt to change 
and deal with uncertainty during labour market transitions”. 

38 

 
                                                 
Stakeholders  also  consider  the  measures  defined  in  the  Recommendation  to  be 
still  relevant  for  the  objectives  of  the  Recommendation135:  93%  of  the 
respondents  to  the  survey  of  coordinating  and  implementing  organisations  agreed  to 
this  statement  to  a  great  of  fairly  large  extent,  and  this  was  the  case  for  69%  of 
respondents  to  the  survey  of  organisations  representing  low-skilled  adults.  Moreover, 
97% of respondents to the survey of coordinating and implementing organisations and 
98%  of  respondents  to  the  survey  of  organisations  representing  low-skilled  adults 
agreed  to  a  great  or  fairly  large  extent  that  the  low-skilled  are  still  in  need  of 
specifically targeted and tailored measures to help them gain skills.  

Stakeholders  highlighted  the  continued  relevance  of  the  Recommendation’s 
“system  building”  approach,  and  the  need  to  adapt  education  and  training 
provision  in  view  of  the  changing  socio-economic  context.  While  each  of  the 
three  steps  of  the  Recommendation  is  important,  the  steps  need  to  be  part  of  an 
integrated  system136  to  meet  the  diverse  needs  of  low-skilled  adults.  The 
Recommendation’s accompanying measures - including outreach, guidance, support 
measures  and  effective  coordination  –remain  essential  components  of  such  an 
integrated  system.  They  should  involve  providers  of  social  services  and  active  labour 
market  programmes,  in  order  to  lower  access  thresholds  for  the  “hardest  to  reach” 
adults  in  the  target  group.  Moreover,  stakeholders  pointed  to  the  need  to  rethink 
adult learning systems137 in light of the digital and green transition’s challenges (e.g. 
a  more  rapid  and  wide-spread  transformation  of  jobs)  and  opportunities  (e.g. 
possibilities for digital integration of services, tailored online and blended learning), and 
the inadequacies of existing education infrastructure that have been exposed by 
the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Stakeholders  report  that  the  various  priority  target  groups  of  the 
Recommendation  remain  relevant  (most  frequently  mentioning  the  long-term 
unemployed and inactive, migrants and older workers- cf. Section 4.1, “Effectiveness”), 
but  highlight  that  implementation  measures  need  to  better  reflect  the  individual 
nature of upskilling needs. Stakeholders also highlight that an exclusive focus on 
traditional priority target groups risks missing adults who would benefit from 

135 Supporting study, Section 4.3 Q3.1. 

136  Positive  examples  concerning  the  integration  of  the  three  steps  identified  by  the  supporting  study    
include PT, DK, SE (already at the start of the evaluation period) and –at a project level- PL, cf. Section 
4.1 Q1.3. 

137 In the targeted consultations with ACVT and DGVT, for instance DE highlighted that  “many qualified 
adults  are  in  need  of  updating  their  skills  and  qualifications  to  match  the  new  skills  needed  on  the 
labour market. While low-qualified adults remain a priority target group, it is also important to take 
into account this additional target group in future implementation of the Recommendation”. 

39 

 
                                                 
implementation  measures,  for  instance  adults  with  low  basic  digital  skills.138 
Conversely,  implementation  measures  need  to  recognize  that  traditional  priority 
target  groups  are  no  monolithic  blocks  but  heterogeneous,  as  e.g.  some 
migrants are highly qualified while for other adults, multiple disadvantages intersect.139 
This  is  in  line  with  the  findings  from  a  recent  Cedefop  opinion  survey  on  the 
perceptions and circumstances of adults in Europe, which concludes that belonging to a 
specific group has surprisingly little predictive power at the level of individuals.140 The 
Recommendation’s  approach  of  responding  to  this  challenge  remains  relevant:  it 
emphasises the importance of an integrated and individualized delivery of the 
parts  of  the  Recommendation  (including  individual  skills  assessment  &  tailored 
implementation  allows  to  respond  to 
learning  offer),  as  this  approach  to 
heterogeneous and specific individual needs while avoiding access barriers based on ex 
ante-criteria defined at a group as opposed to an individual level.   

EU  level  attention  to  implementation  remains  relevant:  it  has  made  a 
difference  over  the  evaluation  period  by  increasing  policy  attention  for  adult  basic 
skills  development,  and  fostering  national  reform  and  policy  experimentation  via 
funding,  mutual  learning  and  technical  assistance  (cf.  Section  4.2).  However,  many 
Member  States  are  only  at  the  start  of  the  process  of  building  an  integrated 
(cf.  Section  4.1). 
upskilling  pathway  as  outlined  by  the  Recommendation 
Correspondingly, 87% of respondents to the public consultation agreed that EU policy 
guidance is still required to a fairly large or very large extent (Figure 6). Similarly, more 
implementing 
than  80%  of  respondents  to  the  survey  of  coordinating  and 
organisations indicated that the objectives of the Recommendation still require action 
and support at EU level to a fairly large or great extent.141  

The  continued  relevance  of  the  intervention  is  reflected  also  in  the  Commission 
decision  on  the  European  Year  of  Skills.142  In  her  State  of  the  European  Union 
address  announcing  the  proposal,  President  von  der  Leyen  highlighted  that  “we  need 
everyone  on  board”  as  Europe  lacks  not  only  high-end  professionals  but  also    “truck 

138 In the targeted consultations, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) stated that it considers 
the Recommendation as a crucial instrument, but that a challenge is that “the Recommendation did not 
include provisions for universal support and encouraged Member States to define the target group. In 
some instances, this has led to certain groups being left out”.   

139 Supporting study, Section 4.3 Q3.4. 

140  See  Cedefop  (2021),  More  perceptions:  opinion  survey  on  adult  learning  and  continuing  vocational 

education and training in Europe- Volume 2: Views of adults in Europe.    

141 Supporting study, Section 4.5 Q5.2. 

142 Decision 2023/936 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Year of Skills. 

40 

 
                                                 
 
drivers, waiters and airport workers”.143 The intervention’s objective of enhancing the 
employability  of  low-skilled  adults  through  basic  and  further  skills  acquisition 
remains highly relevant in today’s context of wide-spread skills shortages that 
hold  back  Europe’s  investment  and  growth,  as  clearly  recognised  by  the  newly 
launched Green Deal Industrial Plan144 . 

Figure 6: To what extent is EU policy guidance still required to provide opportunities for low-
skilled adults to develop their skills?  

57%

28%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

7%

0%

9%

 Required to a very
large extent (n=26)

Required to a fairly
large extent (n=13)

Required to a small
extent (n=3)

Not at all required
(n=0)

5 Do not know (n=4)

Source: Public consultation, cf. Annex V and supporting study Section 4.5 Q5.3. 

5.  What are the conclusions and lessons learned? 

5.1 Conclusions 

The analysis in Sections 3 and 4 suggests that developments over the evaluation 
period  are  closest  to  the  “moderate  impact”  scenario  outlined  at  the  end  of 
Section  2:  On  the  one  hand,  stakeholders  highlight  the  continued  relevance  of  the 
Recommendation, consider it to be coherent with other national and EU level policies, 
and deem implementation efforts taken so far to have been  efficient. Moreover, EU 
action  is  perceived  to  create  added  value  beyond  what  Member  States  could  have 
achieved  on  their  own.  On  the  other  hand,  to  date,  the  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation has not yet been fully effective, as steps have not yet been taken in 
all Member States even with a medium or high need for change and, where steps were 
taken, they are not yet at a sufficient scale that would enable reaching the objectives. 

143 State of the Union address 2022. 

144 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions,  A Green Deal Industrial Plan for the Net-Zero 
Age, COM(2023) 62 final 

41 

 
                                                 
 
Some  steps  in  the  right  direction  have  been  taken.  A  first  achievement  is  the 
stakeholder  perception  that  the  Recommendation  has  in  some  Member  States 
reinvigorated  national  discussions  on  basic  skills  and  on  support  for  low-
skilled adults in general. It has fostered cooperation among different stakeholders 
and acted as a useful benchmark for national policy discussions (Section 4.2). However, 
the  full  impact  of  this  “agenda  setting”  role  of  the  Recommendation  cannot  yet  be 
ascertained,  as  national  reform  processes  take  time.  For  instance,  the  national 
“Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans”  aim  to  combine  significant  EU  funding  support  from 
the Next Generation EU budget with durable national reforms, including of adult skills 
development measures, and will be implemented by Member States until 2026. 

A  second  achievement  is  that  a  majority  of  Member  States  has  expanded  its 
knowledge basis on implementation measures over the evaluation period (Section 
3.1),  often  in  the  form  of  EU-funded projects.  In  terms  of the  implementation of the 
three step approach, skills assessment offers of some sort are now wide-spread across 
Member  States,  and  a  number  of  Member  States  have  taken  steps  to  improve  the 
provision  of  tailored  and  flexible  learning  and  opportunities  for  skills  validation  and 
recognition  since  2016.  Future  implementation  efforts  can  draw  on  the  “lessons 
learned” from these measures. 

A  third  achievement  is  that  the  Recommendation  has  fostered  mutual  learning 
across  EU  Member  States.  Stakeholders  appreciated  the  mutual  learning  and 
technical  assistance  provided  over 
“policy 
the 
experimentation”  was  sometimes  explicitly  based  on  examples  from  other  Member 
States (Section 4.2).  

implementation  period,  and 

large 

However,  significant  challenges  still  remain.  A  first  challenge  is  the  uneven 
implementation  progress  among  Member  States,  with 
remaining 
discrepancies in upskilling opportunities available for low-skilled adults. The supporting 
study  does  not  find  substantial  improvements  concerning  the  implementation  of  the 
three steps of the Recommendation over the evaluation period in 13 Member States145, 
even  including  in  8  Member  States  with  medium  or  high  need  for  change  in  2016 
(Section  3.1).  Relevant  indicators  point  to  the  persistence  of  large  differences  in 
opportunities across Member States. For instance, the likelihood of still receiving upper 
secondary schooling through a “second chance” pathway after initial education age, or 
of  participating  in  adult  learning  while  being  unemployed  is  uneven  across  Member 
States (Section 3.2). 

145 This also includes some Member States which continued on the good course that had already been set 

by 2016.  

42 

 
                                                 
A  second  challenge  is  the  often  still  small  scale  and  insufficient  effective 
outreach146 of implementation measures taken by the  Member  States which was 
already  reflected  in  Member  State’s  planned  implementation  measures  reported  in 
2018.147 Also project-based EU funding as opposed to structural domestic funding, and 
no clear evidence in terms of impacts on relevant available indicators are evidence of 
significant implementation challenges (Section 4.1). Stakeholders highlight a resulting 
insufficient  outreach  to  key  target  groups  in  view  of  the  accelerating  labour  market 
transitions, in particular for adults with multiple vulnerabilities and those who are not 
part of traditional target groups (Section 4.3). 

A  third  challenge  is  the  often  still  insufficient  integration  of  the  three  steps  of 
the  Recommendation 
into  a  comprehensive  pathway,  reflecting  an 
insufficient  degree  of  strategic  coordination.  Stakeholders  highlighted  the 
importance of promoting smooth transitions between the three steps to promote each 
individual  step’s  uptake  and  effectiveness  and  adult  learners’  commitment  to  their 
upskilling  pathway.  However,  the  joint-up  approach  of  the  Recommendation  is  often 
not  yet  reflected  in  Member  States’  implementation  measures,  which  also  results  in 
limited “systemic learning” on the basis of monitoring and evaluation (Section 4.1). 

5.2 Lessons learned 

Recent  socio-economic  trends  are  increasing  the  importance  of  basic  skills 
for active participation in the labour market and in society. However, support is 
not always sufficiently tailored to meet the needs of the individual. At the same time, 
participation  in  measures  to  support  basic  skills  development  runs  a  risk  of  being 
perceived  by  potential  beneficiaries  as  stigmatising  or  not  relevant.  Moreover,  recent 
labour  market  trends  are  broadening  the  priority  target  groups  which  could  benefit 
from further strengthening their basic and transversal skills (Sections 4.1 and 4.3).  

  Success factors include opening up access to support to a broader range of 
adults  with  tailoring  to  specific needs  on  an  individual  basis,  mainstreaming 
basic skills support across overall adult skills development strategies, and a 
communicative  emphasis  on  future  upskilling  benefits  as  opposed  to 
current skills deficits. 

There  is  a  need  to  devote  sufficient  policy  attention  and  resources  to 
including  through  structural  funding  of  adequate 
effective  outreach, 

146 Understood here in terms of the share of adults in need of support with basic skills development who 
receive  support.  Effective  outreach  may  be  insufficient  either  because  of  low  formal  coverage 
of/eligibility for support measures, or because of low awareness and take-up among target groups. 

147 SWD(2019) 89 final. 

43 

 
                                                 
infrastructure.  Progress  on  adults’  basic  skills  includes  successfully  reaching  the 
“hardest  to  reach”,  who  have  often  had  negative  experiences  with  school-based 
learning or face multiple and intersecting disadvantages, including a low level of digital 
skills.  

  Success  factors  include  a  broad  partnership  approach  which  combines  the 
forces of different types of organisations, including public employment services 
and  social  partners  but  also  those  not  primarily  involved  in  education  and 
training  such  as  libraries  and  community  or  health  or  social  inclusion  centres, 
stimulating  adults  to  engage  in  learning  activities  in  their  usual  and  trusted 
environments.  They  also 
include  a  public  provision  of  adequate 
infrastructure  to  activate  local  initiatives  that  can  start  more  learning 
pathways among low-skilled adults. 

There  is  a  need  to  move  from  good  practice  on  a  specific  step  of  the 
Recommendation at small scale towards system-level improvements backed 
by  increases  in  domestic  funding.  Over  the  evaluation  period,  the  dominant 
approach to implementation has been based on pilot projects and EU funding- which 
has  generated  relevant  evidence,  but  fallen  short  of  the  system-level  improvements 
envisaged by the Recommendation. 

  Success factors include strategic cooperation at national level, characterized 
by clear responsibilities that allow for a smooth integration of the three steps 
into  a  transparent  and  user-friendly  upskilling  pathway  with  interlinked 
steps,  follows  a  systematic  approach  to  staff  professionalisation  and  is 
responsive  to  results  from  monitoring  and  evaluation.  This  does  not  mean 
reducing  regional  or  local  initiatives,  including  by  employers,  but  underpinning 
them with a clear and stable framework for cooperation. 

44 

 
 
ANNEX I. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

The  evaluation  of  the  Recommendation  was  led  by  the  Directorate-General  for 
Inclusion  and  Social  Affairs,  with  a  Decide  planning  reference 
Employment, 
PLAN/2020/9155.  This  Staff  Working  Document  is  accompanying  the  Report  to  the 
Council148 which has a Decide planning reference PLAN/2022/2233.  

Organisation and timing 

An evaluation roadmap published on 12.1.2021 explained the context, purpose and 
scope of the evaluation and informed stakeholders that an external  evaluation study 
would be carried out, supported by a public consultation. The feedback to the roadmap 
was  open  from  12.11.2021  to  9.2.2021.  The  public  consultation  was  open  for  13 
weeks  from  16.12.2021  to  17.3  2022.  Targeted  consultations  were  carried  out 
mainly  within  Q1  and  Q2  2022.  See  Annex  V  for  further  details  on  the  stakeholder 
consultations carried out. 

An  Inter-service  Steering  Group  (ISG)  was  set  up,  coordinated  by  the  Directorate-
General  for  Employment,  Inclusion  and  Social  Affairs  (represented  by  staff  from  the 
lead  policy  unit,  other  relevant  policy  units  and  the  Better  Regulation  unit)  and 
including  members  from  Eurostat,  the  Secretariat-General,  and  the  Directorate-
Generals  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  a  SMEs  (GROW);  Education, 
Youth, Sport and Culture (EAC); Economic and Financial Affairs (ECFIN); Migration and 
Home  Affairs  (HOME);  Justice  and  Consumers  (JUST);  Regional  and  Urban  Policy 
(REGIO);    Research  and  Innovation  (RTD);  Health  and  Food  Safety  (SANTE);  Structural 
Reforms  Support  (REFORM)  and  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC).  The  ISG  could  take 
advantage of the technical assistance of an expert from Cedefop. 

The  ISG  also  acted  as  steering  group  for  the  external  study  supporting  the 
evaluation,  which  was  carried  out  by  Ecorys.  Contract  VC/2021/0381 was  awarded 
after  reopening  of  competition  (tender  VT/2020/066)  within  the  multiple  framework 
contract  VC/2017/0372).  The  contract  VC/2021/0381  started  on  8.7.2021.  The  draft 
final report of the external study was received on 29.4.2022, the inter-service steering 
group  provided  comments  by  11.5.2022  and  the  contractor  delivered  the  accepted 
revised final report on 21.9.2022, along with the agreed annexes (including an annex 
on the stakeholders’ consultation).  

148 COM(2023) 439. 

45 

 
 
                                                 
Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 

All Better Regulation requirements were fulfilled.  

Consultation of the RSB (if applicable) 

Not applicable. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

The main sources of information used in this evaluation are: 

  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  supporting  the  Commission 
the 

proposal  underpinning 
explanatory memorandum150 of the Commission proposal 

the  Recommendation 

in  2016149  and 

  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  taking  stock  of  the 
implementation measures reported by the Member States in 2018151 

  Study supporting the evaluation152 of the Council Recommendation of 19 
December  2016  on  Upskilling  Pathways:  New  Opportunities  for  Adults, 
carried out by Ecorys  

  Public consultation- with 60 responses, cf. Annex V 

  Targeted  consultations-  an  exchange  of  views  took  place  in  dedicated 
meetings  with  the  Directors  General  for  Vocational  Training  (DGVT),  the 
Advisory Committee on Vocational Training (ACVT), the European Network of 
Public  Employment  Services  (PES  Network),  the  National  coordinators  for 
adult  learning  and  the  European  Qualifications  Framework  (EQF)  advisory 
group, cf. Annex V 

  Eurostat  data 

See  Annex  II  for  additional  information  on  the  methodological  approach  taken.  To 
ensure  quality,  the  ISG  provided  feedback  throughout  all  steps  of  the  evaluation 
process. Chronological overview of the evidence collection process: 

149 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:cd0fa1ca-2ee9-11e6-b497-

01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_4&format=PDF  

150 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0382&rid=9 

151 SWD(2019) 89 final. 

152 https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8516&furtherPubs=yes 

46 

 
                                                 
ISG meeting to discuss the Tender specifications 

Type of activity 

Date 
17.12.2020 
12.1.2021 – 9.2.2021  Publication of the roadmap and feedback 
18.3.2021 
16.4.2021 

Launch Request for services 
Offers received 
Signature of Contract 

8.7.2021 
23.7.2021 

10.9.2021 

ISG meeting: kick-off meeting with external contractor 
ISG  Meeting:  Inception  external  evaluation  report  and 
discussion  about  the  consultation  strategy  and  public 
consultation 

16.12.2021 17.3.2022  Public consultation 
14.12.2021 

ISG Meeting: Interim external evaluation report 

Q1-Q2 2022 
29.4.2022 
10.5.2022 

20.6.2022 
14.9.2022 

31.10.2022 

Targeted consultations 
Draft final report 
ISG meeting: draft Final external evaluation report 
Revised draft Final external report 

ISG meeting on the draft Staff Working Document 
Receipt  of  final  version  of  external  report  supporting  the 
evaluation 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Overall approach to the evaluation  

The evaluation follows the requirements set out in the Better Regulation Guidelines 
and Toolbox.153 This includes looking into how EU Member States have responded to 
the  Recommendation  and  assessing  its  implementation  against  the  five  key 
evaluation  criteria  of  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence and  EU  added 
value presented in the below  Table. The evaluation work including  the external  study 
and  the  evaluation  report  are  structured  around  describing  the  baseline  and  the 
evolution  of  relevant  policy  measures  and  indicators  over  the  evaluation 
period until November 2021.  

153 Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox. 

47 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview of evaluation criteria 

Evaluation 
criteria 

Overview of key points 

The  assessment  of  effectiveness  has  been  multi-faceted,  covering  the  extent  to  which  the 
Recommendation  was  effectively  implemented  (i.e.  to  meet  objectives  and  expected  results),  but 
also  how  it  was  implemented  in  terms  of    the  extent  to  which  the  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation facilitated access for low-skilled adults to different upskilling opportunities from 
the baseline situation (in 2016), and the degree to which relevant priority targets were effectively 
targeted  and  reached  was  examined.  Focus  was  given  to  exploring  the  extent  to  which  the 
recommended  three-step  approach  (skills  assessment,  tailored  and  flexible  learning  offer, 
validation  and  recognition)  together  with  support  via  outreach  and  guidance  services,  have  been 
implemented in Member States, and their effectiveness. In addition,  it has been explored whether 
and  to  what  degree  relevant  national,  regional  and  local  stakeholders  were  involved  in  the 
coordination  and  delivery  of  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation  in  different  Member 
States. At Member State level, the extent to which measures implemented in relation to Upskilling 
Pathways have been monitored and evaluated, and whether the results have contributed to ongoing 
improvements  to  their  design  and  delivery  was  assessed.  At  EU  level,  it  was  examined  whether 
mutual learning has been facilitated, and any relevant outcomes. Finally, contribution analysis  was 
used  to  assess  the  degree  to  which  the  Recommendation  contributed  to  observable  changes  in 
Member  States  in  relation  to  the  skills  levels  of  low-skilled  adults  and  developments  in  lifelong 
learning opportunities. The contextual dimension has been key in exploring the specific changes in 
their particular delivery contexts. 

The  examination  of  efficiency  has  explored  the  degree  to  which  the  objectives  of  the 
Recommendation have been achieved at optimal cost for different relevant stakeholders, and the 
factors which have contributed to this, including a consideration of the use of different sources of 
EU  funding  to  fund  actions.  Addressing  the  efficiency  criterion  has  involved  identifying  and  using 
appropriate  benchmarks  to  respond  to  the  different  evaluation  questions.  Quantitative  data  has 
been  used  as  far  as  possible,  but  supported  by  qualitative  data  from  the  case  studies,  existing 
(national/regional)  evaluation  reports  and  data  generated  from  the  targeted  and  public 
consultations. The analysis has comprised an assessment of the costs and benefits associated with 
the  implementation  of  measures  linked  to  the  Recommendation  for  different  stakeholders 
(including  adult  learners  themselves)  and  has  aimed  to  explore  the  factors  which  influenced 
efficiency of implementation, ascertaining whether observed benefits could have been achieved at 
a  lower  cost.  It  has  also  explored  the  use  of  financial  incentives  to  encourage  participation  in 
upskilling pathways. In addition, it has assessed which EU funding programmes (e.g. ESF, Erasmus+) 
contributed  to  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Recommendation,  and  the  degree  of  cost-
effectiveness of this use of funding sources. Bringing together the results of the different analyses, 
it has provided an assessment of the  overall degree to which the costs  of  the implementation  of 
actions related to the Recommendation have been proportionate to the benefits to individuals (adult 
learners), the economy and wider society.  

Assessment  under  this  criterion  has  focused  on  examining  relevance  at  several  levels  and  from 
several perspectives. Firstly, the degree to which the objectives set out in the Recommendation are 
still relevant both  to the current socio-economic context and  to  the current EU policy context was 
assessed.  Secondly,  and  in  order  to  achieve  these  objectives,  the  extent  to  which  the  measures 
defined  in  the  Recommendation  are  also  still  relevant  was  assessed.  Thirdly,  the  assessment  has 
explored the extent to which the measures defined in the Recommendation are still relevant to the 
needs of both the target groups and economic sectors. Finally, it was examined whether the target 
groups  specified  in  the  Recommendation  and  those  defined  by  different  Member  States  remain 
relevant.  

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Relevance 

Coherence 

Examining coherence implies the need to assess linkages, synergies and potential duplication with 
related EU, national and regional policies, instruments, initiatives and recommendations (policy and 
programme  coherence).  The  assessment  of  coherence  has  focused  on  complementarity  and 
coherence from two principal dimensions – ‘internal’ and ‘external’ coherence. In terms of ‘internal’ 

48 

 
Evaluation 
criteria 

Overview of key points 

coherence, the coherence between objectives, target groups and measures of the Recommendation 
was  examined.  The  assessment  of  ‘external’  coherence  has  explored  the  complementarity  and 
coherence  of  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation  with:  (a)  relevant  (education,  training, 
employment and social) policies at national and regional levels; (b) other related EU level policies 
(e.g.  the  Youth  Guarantee,  the  Long-Term  Unemployment  Recommendation,  etc.);  and  (c)  relevant 
EU funding mechanisms (e.g. ESF, EaSI, Erasmus+, etc.). Evidence to address the coherence criterion 
has been drawn principally from the mapping exercise and desk-based research, but also on other 
sources, notably the stakeholder insights gained from consultation and detailed Member State case 
studies.   

As specified in the Better Regulations Toolbox (tool #47), assessing EU added value involves looking 
for changes which can reasonably be argued are due to the EU intervention, over and above what 
could  have  been  expected  from  national  actions  by  the  Member  States.  Building  on  the  evidence 
gathered  and  analysis  carried  out  to  assess  the  other  criteria,  the  added  value  of  the  Upskilling 
Pathways with a particular focus on the degree to which it supported a common approach (in terms 
of  objectives,  design,  target  group,  coordination  and  support  measures)  to  providing  upskilling 
pathways for low-skilled adults was assessed. It was also assessed whether the objectives of the 
Recommendation could have been achieved solely by the action of the Member States, as well as 
the degree to which they still require EU level support and action. Detailed evidence from the case 
studies has been a key way  of  assessing the relative importance in particular contexts, alongside 
evidence  available  from  results  of  the  public  and  targeted  consultations,  as  well  as  the  mapping 
exercise. 

EU added value 

Source: Supporting study. 

Methodology and data sources  

The evaluation is based on a  mixed-method data collection approach, combining 
qualitative and quantitative research methods.  

This included:  

  Literature review and scoping interviews 

o  During the initial phase, the contractor undertook a preliminary literature 
review  on  upskilling  pathways.  This  laid  the  foundations  for  the 
subsequent tasks of the study. 

o  Scoping interviews were also conducted to gain further insights into the 

Recommendation. 

  Quantitative data mapping 

o  The contractor mapped the quantitative datasets relevant to the study. 
Specific  focus  was  given  to  datasets  available  at  least  from  the  year 
2015,  to  establish  the  baseline  for  the  evaluation,  and  until  the  year 
2021, to also allow for a comparison over time. The contractor gathered 
data  on  indicators  linked  to  adult  skills  and  education  level,  the 
participation of adults in adult learning, employment and unemployment 
rates,  as  well  as  further  indicators  related  to  economic  structure  and 
economic growth.  

49 

 
 
  Mapping of key policy measures  

o  To  better  understand  the  relevant  initiatives  in  place  both  at  the 
baseline and since the adoption of the Recommendation, a mapping was 
conducted  starting  with  a  systematic  review  of  EU  and  national  level 
sources.  On  this  basis,  the  research  team  developed  a  longlist  of 
relevant upskilling pathways measures in each Member State, over the 
period considered for the evaluation. 

  Targeted consultations 

Interviews with key stakeholders at national and EU level.  

o 
o  Targeted  survey  with  organisations  involved  in  the  coordination  and 
implementation  of  the  Recommendation,  organisations  representing 
low-skilled adults and adults participating in initiatives implementing the 
Recommendation. 
o  Exchanges  of  views 

the 
Commission. Meetings with the Directors General for Vocational Training 
(DGVT),  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Vocational  Training  (ACVT),  the 
European  Network  of  Public  Employment  Services  (PES  Network),  the 
National coordinators for adult learning and the European Qualifications 
Framework (EQF) advisory group. 

in  dedicated  meetings  organised  by 

o  Online expert meeting to discuss initial study findings and exchange on 

topics related to the Upskilling Pathways implementation. 

o  Validation  workshop  to  discuss  preliminary  study  fundings,  draft 

conclusions and recommendations. 

  Public consultation 

o  The  online  public  consultation  was 

launched  by  the  European 
Commission  on  16  December  2021  and  ran  until  17  March  2022.  The 
questionnaire  used  to  implement  the  survey  was  distributed  using  the 
online EU Survey tool. 

  Case studies  

o  To  gain  deeper  insight  into  the  actions  taken  in  response  to  the 
Recommendation  on  the  national/regional/local  level(s)  the  contractor 
carried out ten case studies across ten Member States. 

See Annex V for more information on the consultations, and Annex 1 of the supporting 
study for further information on the methodology and data sources. 

 Research limitations 

impact  evaluation  of  the 
It  should  be  noted  that  a  robust  counterfactual 
Recommendation is not possible due to data limitations and the multitude of factors 
other  than  the  Recommendation  which  may  have  influenced  trends  in  relevant 
indicators.  Moreover,  impacts  of  any  structural  changes  in  national  skills  policies 
influenced by the Recommendation may take longer to unfold.  

50 

 
Where  relevant,  this  evaluation  discusses  alternative  explanations  for  the 
observed trends, and presents stakeholders views to support their interpretation. 
Finally,  responses  to  the  public  consultation  or  targeted  consultations  need  not  be 
representative for the relevant target populations or all EU Member States. 
Where  possible,  the  evaluation  triangulates  results  from  several  information 
sources  to  increase  the  robustness  of  its  conclusions.  The  below  Table  provides  a 
more  extensive  overview  over  the  key  limitations  of  the  study  supporting  the 
evaluation, and outlines the mitigation measures taken to increase the robustness 
of the conclusions.  

Key limitations of the supporting study 

Limitation 

Explanation 

Mitigation measures 

To  establish  a  list  of  relevant  initiatives  to 
in 
assess  and  analyse  for  the  evaluation, 
particular  for  the  mapping  task,  the  initiatives 
that  collectively  are  considered  by  national 
authorities  of  each  Member  State  to  be  the 
most  relevant  and  representative  of  their 
country’s  response  to  the  Recommendation 
based  on  key  EU  policy  documents  on  adult 
the  Recommendation  were 
learning  and 
identified. 
State 
the 
representatives  were 
completeness  of  this  sample  of  initiatives  and 
asked  to  validate  the  sample.  Representatives 
were  able  to  remove  or  add  other  initiatives  in 
order  to  come  to  a  validated  list  of  initiatives 
that  best  represent  a  Member  States’  response 
to the Recommendation.  

consulted 

Member 

Then 

the 

on 

It  was  ensured  that  the  major  initiatives  that 
have  been  put  in  place  in  response  to  the 
Recommendation  or  that  are  related  to  the 
Recommendation  are  captured  in  the  analysis, 
this  was  verified  with  national  authorities  to 
ensure  completeness  and  have  further  cross-
checked  with  findings  from  the  interviews  and 
views  of  national  experts.  Whilst  this  does  not 
provide the full overview of all measures related 
to  upskilling  pathways,  it  has  enabled  the 
assessment  of  the  expected  impact  of  the 
Recommendation  in  2016  and  the  degree  of 
implementation since then. 

The  evaluation  methodology  has  allowed  for 
identification of existing studies and evaluations 
of  measures 
that  Member  States  deem 
representative  of  their  UP  response.  Along  with 

clearly 
of 
Lack 
identifiable  policies 
were 
that 
in 
implemented 
the 
to 
response 
Recommendation 

Member  States’  adult  learning  systems 
differ  greatly  in  their  organisation,  scope 
and  infrastructure  and  the  same  is  true 
for  the  overall  support  provided  for 
upskilling. In many Member States, actions 
which correspond to the Recommendation 
existed prior to its adoption in 2016. There 
is 
‘easy  access’  single 
repository  (at  EU  or  Member  State  level) 
of actions implemented by Member States 
in  response  to  the  Recommendation  after 
the  2018  reporting  of  implementation 
measures  by  Member  States,  analysed  in 
the 2019 stocktaking report.154 

therefore  no 

Limitations  of  the 
mapping 
methodology  

The analysis of the situation in 2016 and 
the  evolution  since  then  is  based  on  a 
sample of measures and therefore cannot 
be seen as a fully comprehensive analysis 
of all relevant policies in place.  

Limited  data  that 
directly  links  to  the 
Recommendation 
and  can  be  used 

lack  of  clearly 
As  a  result  of  the 
implemented 
in 
identifiable 
response 
Recommendation 
(explained  above)  there  is  also  a  lack  of 

policies 
the 

to 

154 SWD(2019) 89 final. 

51 

 
 
 
                                                 
for  monitoring  its 
results. 

Lack  of  data  on 
specific 
target 
groups, sectors and 
on specific skills 

causal 
of 
Lack 
impact  evaluation 
of  policies  due  to 
data availability 

Capturing the long-
term 
impacts  of 
in 
participation 
upskilling pathways 

to 

that 

linked 

is  directly 

data 
the 
Recommendation.  The  implementation  of 
the  Recommendation  is  not  monitored 
in  each 
uniformly  or  systematically 
Member 
a 
that 
State  meaning 
comprehensive  monitoring  data  is  not 
widely available.  

the 
rich  data  gathered  from  consultation 
activities, the surveys and the case studies were 
used  to  understand  and  analyse  the  results  of 
the 
upskilling 
Recommendation, 
its 
effectiveness in particular.  

to  assess 

in  order 

initiatives 

linked 

to 

The  low-skilled  adults  targeted  by  the 
Recommendation  encompass  a  wide 
range  of  different  groups,  including  for 
example migrants, older adults, low-skilled 
workers, unemployed adults and adults at 
risk  of  or  experiencing  poverty.  However, 
granular and comparable data on both the 
size  of  and  the  impact  of  upskilling 
measures on specific target groups is not 
readily  available.  In  particular,  data  on 
participation  in  education  and  training  for 
subgroups such as migrants, those at risk 
of  poverty  is  not  available.  Furthermore, 
data  on  specific  skills’  levels  is  also 
limited  with  the  latest  comparative  data 
on  numeracy  and  literacy  skills  being  the 
OECD PIAAC survey from 2017. 

To  perform  rigorous  causal  analysis  of 
Upskilling  Pathways  initiatives  and  their 
effectiveness, it is crucial to have data on 
the basic units targeted by the policy (i.e., 
the  so-called  target  group,  low-skilled 
adults)  and  people  belonging  to  target 
groups and economic sectors participating 
in  Upskilling  Pathways  initiatives.  Similar 
data  need 
the 
comparison  group,  meaning  access  to 
level  of 
microdata  (i.e.,  data  at  the 
individuals,  households  or  businesses  or 
communities).  As  this  has  not  been 
available,  causal  impact  evaluation  has 
not  been 
the 
fully  undertaken 
evaluation. 

to  be  available  for 

for 

(and 

organisations) 

The  full  benefits  of  the  participation  of 
individuals 
in 
upskilling  activities  cannot  be  captured  in 
the  short-term,  where  the  focus  is  on 
measuring  immediate  results.  Assessing 
the  full  outcomes  of  participation  ideally 
requires  longitudinal  research  involving 
follow-up  after  several  years  to  assess 
the long-term impact of participation e.g., 
in  terms  of  labour  market  outcomes, 

52 

long-term 

unemployed 

Data available for foreign-born populations, the 
unemployed, 
and 
inactive  as  well  as  data  disaggregated  by 
gender where relevant were examined.  
Beneficiaries  of  upskilling  pathways  and 
organisations representing or working with low-
skilled  individuals  were  targeted  through  the 
surveys  conducted  which  has  allowed  for 
understanding  how  the  Recommendation  has 
impacted  specific  target  groups,  as  far  as 
possible. In addition to this, all quantitative data 
has  been 
triangulated  with  primary  data 
collected through the consultation activities.  

Despite this limitation, other ways were explored 
to  try  and  assess  the  causal  impact  of  the 
Recommendation.  It  was  formally  tested  how 
key  outcomes/indicators  (have  changed  since 
the  Recommendation  was  published  and, 
drawing  on  the  mapping  exercise,  the  extent  to 
which any changes are associated with different 
levels  of  adoption/implementation  of 
the 
Recommendation,  through  an  interrupted  time 
series  analysis,  included  in  Annex  9  of  the 
supporting  study.  The  case  studies  also  include 
evidence  from  evaluation  reports/findings  of 
the 
specific 
Recommendation)  which  were  subject  to  a 
robust  counterfactual  impact  evaluation  (CIE). 
Whilst  these  findings  must  be  treated  with 
caution  (as  they  do  not  account  for  other 
factors)  they  provide  a  useful  insight  that  has 
been triangulated with other data sources. 

interventions 

(aligned 

to 

Several  important  impacts  from  the  initial  five-
year  period  of 
implementation,  have  been 
captured  including  through  the  case  studies 
where existing evaluations of specific measures 
have been analysed and drawn from to provide 
sound  estimates  for  the  expected  long-term 
effects  of  completed  upskilling  pathways  in 
adulthood). 

 
 
it  was  decided 

To capture the views of adult learners as far as 
possible, 
to  work  with 
representative  organisations  of  relevant  target 
groups  such  as  EU  and  national  level  NGOs 
working  closely  with  the  target  groups.  The 
surveys 
and 
organisations  representing  the  low-skilled  have 
allowed  for  gaining  insights  into  the  views  of 
beneficiaries. 

targeting 

learners 

adult 

The  relevant  differences  between  sub-groups 
based on disaggregation by type of organisation 
and groups of respondents were analysed where 
this  was  possible.  However,  when  results  are 
disaggregated,  inferences  should  be  made  with 
caution  with  regards  to  the  results.    Results 
from 
the  public  consultation  have  been 
triangulated  with  all  other  data  sources  and 
have been primarily used to illustrate or confirm 
findings  that  have  emerged  from  more  robust 
data collection activities.  

In terms of measuring progress over time, data 
for 2020 has been examined through the lens of 
the pandemic, considering any major changes in 
outcomes  as  outliers  in  response  to  a  major 
external  shock.  The  impact  of  the  pandemic  on 
the  implementation  of  upskilling  pathways  was 
explicitly  addressed 
in  the  evaluation  sub 
questions  and  by  examining  data  from  2019 
and 2021 to identify any trends in the indicators 
that may have been halted due to  the  onset of 
the pandemic. 

access  to  further  education  and  training, 
health and wellbeing, etc. The full range of 
benefits  for  individuals  and  organisations 
of the 2016 Recommendation will not yet 
be apparent in some cases.  

Capturing the views 
beneficiaries 
of 
including 
adults 
with  low  levels  of 
skills,  competences 
and knowledge 

There are clear challenges with consulting 
beneficiaries  of  upskilling  measures,  not 
least in identifying and gaining access due 
to  data  privacy  (GDPR)  and  similar  issues 
and 
(national/regional 
upskilling  providers  cannot  provide  –  and 
sometimes  do  not  hold  –  contact  details 
for previous participants).  

authorities 

Lack 
of 
representativeness 
of 
public 
consultation results 

the 

The  public  consultation 
received  60 
responses.  The  recoding  of  variables  to 
the  analysis  and  allow 
disaggregate 
differentiation  between  all 
response 
options was therefore not possible 

Impact  of  external 
shocks 

Data  and  evidence  on  adult  learning  (as 
other  domains)  from  2020  have  been 
heavily 
the  COVID-19 
pandemic.  

impacted  by 

Source: Supporting study.

53 

 
ANNEX III. DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Answers to the evaluation questions 

The  tables  provide  an  overview  of  key  findings  for  each  evaluation  question  under  each  evaluation  criteria  (effectiveness, 
efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value).  The  source  of  the  information  is  the  supporting  study  (see  section  4  of  the 
supporting study for further information). 

Evaluation question 

Answer 

Effectiveness155 

Q1.1 

To what extent  have the Member States  facilitated 
access  to  upskilling  pathways  for  adults  with 
low level of skills, knowledge and competences to: 
a) acquire a minimum level of literacy, numeracy and 
digital  competence;  and/or  b)  acquire  a  wider  set  of 
skills,  knowledge  and  competences,  relevant  for  the 
labour  market  and  active  participation  in  society  by 
making progress towards a qualification at EQF level 
3 or 4?  

The evidence shows that  Member States have made some efforts to facilitate access to upskilling pathways since the 
Recommendation was adopted.  10 Member States out of the 14 that had a  high need for change in 2016  – based on their 
existing  adult  learning  provision  and  the  size  and  needs  of  the  target  group  –  implemented  change  in  response  to  the 
Recommendation. However, of the 13 Member States where no change in response to the Recommendation was identified (AT, 
ES,  FI,  FR,  HU,  IE,  LT,  LU,  PT,  RO,  SI,  NL,  SE),  four  Member  States  (HU,  IE,  RO,  ES)  had  high  need  for  change  and  three  had 
medium need for change in 2016 (LT, LU, SI), showing that even in countries where change to upskilling pathways in line with 
the Recommendation would have been needed, change has not always occurred.   

The  indicators  relevant  to  upskilling  pathways  also  show  moderate  progress:  since  2016,  there  has  been  an  overall 
improvement  in  the  educational  attainment  level  of  adults  across  the  EU,  with  the  share  of  low-qualified  decreasing  in  all 
Member States (except Germany) in that time and the EU average falling from 23.4% to 20.7%. However,  there is limited 
evidence which shows that this improvement is the result of upskilling pathways implemented in response to the 
Recommendation. Long-term trends show that higher educational attainment levels are due to long-standing improvements 
of initial education. The direct macro effects of the measures taken in response to the Recommendation will only become fully 
apparent in the longer term, given that individual upskilling journeys usually take a number of years to complete. 

155 Supporting study, 4.1 Effectiveness. 

54 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Effectiveness155 

Nevertheless,  on  the  micro  level,  progress  on  the  objectives  of  the  Recommendation  is  evident:  results  from  evaluations 
conducted of specific measures/programmes linked to the Recommendation show that the qualification levels of adults that 
participated  in  these  measures  increased,  with  a  positive  effect  on  their  employability  and  employment  also  recorded. 
Participation in upskilling measures introduced since the Recommendation is held by stakeholders as having contributed to an 
improvement  in  various  areas  that  are  linked  to  social  participation  and  inclusion,  including  gaining  more  confidence  and 
improved  participation  in  society  overall.    Particularly  in  countries  that  had  high  need  for  change  in  2016,  stakeholders 
confirmed that the Recommendation has contributed to highlighting the challenge of the low-skilled, revealing issues 
with current learning provision and setting out a way forward for improving the upskilling provision for the target group. 

This discrepancy between progress on the macro-level due to the Recommendation (limited) and progress on the micro-level 
due to the Recommendation (more evident) cannot be explained fully by the results of the supporting study. However, it may 
suggest  that  measures  to  facilitate  access  to  upskilling  pathways  are  either  taking  place  on  too  small  a  scale  to  be 
reflected  on  the  macro-level  or  have  not  been  implemented  for  a  long  enough  period  of  time  for  their  results  to  be 
reflected in the quantitative data trends. 

All  Member  States  have  identified  priority  target  groups  for  upskilling  pathways.  However,  Member  States  have 
remained broad in their definition of the priority target groups of upskilling measures: around 45% of the measures mapped 
in-depth identify the low-skilled as their target, 40% specify the target group in terms of employment status (with a balanced 
split between the unemployed and employed), and 25% of  measures specifically refer to the inactive as a target group. The 
majority of mapped measures cover all age groups. 

Vulnerable  groups  are  targeted  by  Member  States’  initiatives  within  these  broader  groups.  Long-term  unemployed,  older 
workers,  people  with  disabilities,  nationals  with  a  migrant  background  or  third  country  nationals  are  the  groups  most  often 
targeted. Evidence shows that Member States have generally targeted those most in need of support, though some 
groups emerged as requiring further attention, including employed workers with low skills, older workers, women, and refugees 
or newly arrived migrants.  

However, there is evidence from the study that even though the right target groups have been identified,  challenges remain 
in effectively reaching them. These include lack of awareness of opportunities amongst the group itself, financial barriers to 
participation, and stigma/motivation of the target group. 

55 

Q1.2(a) 

To  what  extent  have  Member  States  identified 
priority target groups and economic sectors for the 
delivery  of  upskilling  pathways?  Were  the  most  in 
need  and  disadvantaged  groups  properly  targeted 
(e.g.,  persons  with  migrant  background,  Roma, 
persons  with  disabilities,  persons  with  a  minority 
racial  or  ethnic  background,  other  vulnerable  groups, 
etc.)? 

 
 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Effectiveness155 

Q1.2(b)  Which  were  the  outputs  and  results  for 
specific  groups  (in  both  qualitative  and  numerical 
terms,  including  the  profile  of  the  target  groups 
covered  as  well  as  the  number  of  participants  from 
each group -at EU and MS level-?)   

Q1.2(c)  Which  methodologies/criteria  were  used 
by  Member  States  for  identifying  the  different 
target groups and relevant economic sectors? Which 
were most/least effective, and why? 

Evidence that is available on the outputs and results for specific groups shows that participating in upskilling measures has a 
positive impact on different groups. Evaluations of specific upskilling pathways measures find that participants are more likely 
to progress into employment or further education after participation, with some evidence showing that this positive effect is 
higher for those groups that are in more vulnerable situations. 

Educational  attainment  level  or  employment  status  are  the  key  criteria  for  identifying  target  groups.  Sectoral  needs  are 
addressed in the design of upskilling pathways though this has not been done across all Member States systematically. Where 
it  is  done,  it  is  carried  out  either  on  a  yearly  basis  based  on  skills  forecasting/  demands,  as  demand  arises,  with  specific 
measures developed to address skills shortages, or through identification of regional needs. 

56 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Effectiveness155 

Q1.3.  To  what  extent  have  Member  States  applied 
in  the  design  of 
the  three  steps  approach 
upskilling  pathways?  How  effective  was 
this 
approach?  

According to the study, the majority of Member States (15) have made changes in implementation of the three steps 
either by adopting new measures or reforming existing ones, though the degree of changes varies Progress is noticeable in all 
steps  of  the  Recommendation  but  measures  for  validation  and  recognition  of  prior  learning  have  seen  the  biggest  increase 
since 2016, though they remain challenging to implement.   However, there is less evidence of clear efforts to ensure a 
smooth  integration  and  improved  permeability  of  the  three  steps  (and  accompanying  measures)  into  one 
comprehensive pathway. 

Skills assessment: Seven Member States have made changes to skills assessment approaches (BE, BG, CZ, HR, LV, MT, PL) 
The limited number of Member States that have made changes in this step can be explained by the fact that it was the step 
that  was  most  implemented  before  the  Recommendation  was adopted.  However,  evidence  from  the  interviews,  case studies 
and the surveys shows that meaningful skills assessments are not always implemented or used even in cases where they are 
in place. Challenges include lack of specific skills of staff, lack of awareness of the benefits of skills assessments and lack of 
know-how by the target group itself and lack of a formal process underlining how a skills assessment should be undertaken 

Tailored  learning  offers:  Six  Member  States  have  made  changes  in  their  provision  of  tailored  learning  offers  since  the 
Recommendation was adopted (BE, BG, DK, EE, MT, PL ) Out of these countries, three had high need for change in 2016 in this 
area of the Recommendation (BE, BG, MT). Nonetheless, it is clear that the provision of a tailored learning offer is relatively 
widespread now across EU Member States. Barriers remaining include the difficulty in identifying/adapting to diverse training 
needs of disadvantaged adults, insufficient funding for tailored programmes, lack of information about tailored programmes 
and insufficient offers in rural areas. 

Validation:  Eight  Member  States  have  made  changes  in  their  upskilling  approaches  since  the  Recommendation  to  better 
implement the step of validation (BE, BG, CY, DE, EL, IT, LV, SK). Six of these Member States had a high need for change in this 
step  (BG,  DE,  IT,  LV,  IT,  SK).  Even  though  there  have  been  efforts  to  improve  the  system  of  validation,  establishing  fully 
functioning validation systems remains a challenge across all Member States, linked to key obstacles including the challenge of 
integrating the validation system into the adult learning system as a whole and the lack of take-up of validation amongst both 
the low-skilled and employers. 

57 

 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Effectiveness155 

Q1.4(a)  To  what  extent  have  Member  States 
delivered  upskilling  pathways  in  cooperation 
with  relevant  stakeholders,  in  particular  social 
partners  and  local,  regional  and  national  economic 
actors? Were relevant public, private and third sector 
actors  in  education  and  training,  employment  and 
other relevant policy areas engaged? 

Q1.4(b) How have Member States ensured effective 
coordination  of  stakeholders  at  national  and 
regional  level  to  implement  the  Recommendation? 
Which  arrangements  have  been  put  in  place  and 
which  were  the  most  promising  in  terms  of  good 
practice? Were there any bad practices observed?  

The  evidence  gathered  in  study  has  shown  that  Member  States  have  delivered  upskilling  pathways  in  cooperation  with 
relevant  stakeholders  to  a  high  degree  although  there  are  differences  across  Member  States  and  challenges  remain  in 
effective  cooperation.  Stakeholders  most  commonly  involved  in  upskilling  pathways  are  social  partners,  public  employment 
services, local actors and NGOs.  
Social partners are engaged in different aspects of upskilling pathways, with higher levels of involvement in countries that 
have a strong tradition of social dialogue. There is however room across the EU to involve social partners more in upskilling 
pathways, in particular in evaluation and monitoring of upskilling measures. 
Public employment services often collaborate with social partners and other national authorities in the design of upskilling 
measures.  There  is  also  clear  involvement  of  actors  at  the  local  and  the  regional  levels  in  many  upskilling  pathways 
measures.  NGOs  in  particular  most  often  play  a  role  in  identifying  target  groups,  particularly  vulnerable  individuals,  and  in 
delivering outreach activities. There is room, however, to more systematically involve these local actors – that are closer to the 
target group – in the design and implementation of upskilling measures. 

Member  States  have  ensured  coordination  of  stakeholders  at  national  and  regional  level  to  implement  the 
Recommendation through coordinating bodies for adult learning policies and measures. These exist in the vast majority of 
Member States, with only five Member States indicating that they currently do not have such a coordinating body in place (CZ, 
DK, SI, SK, SE).  
However, stakeholders consulted  outlined that even if such cooperation processes are established on paper,  cooperation is 
not always fully effective in practice. Challenges that have been identified include cumbersome administrative processes 
and a lack of clearly defined responsibilities and roles between the partners which is particularly the case in this field of policy 
given that adult learning often sits between the remit of education and labour market authorities. 

58 

 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Effectiveness155 

Q1.5  To  which  extent  have  Member  States  provided 
outreach  and  guidance  services  to  support  the 
implementation  of  upskilling  pathways?  Which 
arrangements  have  been  put  in  place  and  which  are 
the  most  promising  in  terms  of  good  practice?  Were 
there any bad practices observed? Which stakeholders 
have  been  involved?  To  what  extent  have  Member 
States provided support to learners or indirect support 
to employers for upskilling their employees? To what 
extent  has  the  support  to  learners  and  employers 
addressed  obstacles  to  participation?  To  what  extent 
have  Member  States  provided  initial  training  and 
continuous  professional  development 
staff 
engaged  in  the  delivery  of  upskilling  pathways  (in 
particular to teaching professionals)? 

to 

There  is  widespread  evidence  of  outreach  to  potential  learners  in  upskilling  pathways  measures  in  all  27  Member 
States,  but  with  varying  degrees  of  effectiveness  in  implementation.  The  vast  majority  of  measures  mapped  that  are 
relevant to upskilling pathways offer some form of outreach to potential learners. Promising examples have several factors in 
common including local level cooperation, sufficient funding to ensure comprehensive outreach, and outreach that is embedded 
into  the  broader  system  of  support  to  adult  learners.  However,  more  holistic  types  of  support  including  psychological 
support  are  less  common  and  more  tailored  outreach  is  needed,  recognising  in  particular    the  heterogeneity  of  the 
target  group  of  low-skilled  adults,  and  the  intersectional  nature  of  their  vulnerabilities.  For  this  to  occur,  more  funding  and 
human resource capacity needs to be dedicated to outreach, whilst local actors that are closer to the target group need to be 
more systematically involved in outreach efforts.  

Guidance that is provided in the context of PES and that involves direct contact with a counsellor is available in 
all EU Member States to unemployed individuals156. However, services are not always available to the low-skilled that are 
in employment, whilst the low level of awareness of the offer of support also poses an obstacle to accessing guidance services. 

Evidence shows that the provision of outreach and guidance services to employers has been somewhat inconsistent 
and  piecemeal.  Whilst  many  Member  States  engage  with  employers  in  some  way  in  the  design  of  upskilling  pathways, 
systematic provision of guidance to encourage employers to support employees is limited. This lack of guidance has a more 
detrimental effect on SMEs than larger companies. 
Evidence  of  providing  training  and  continuous  professional  development  to  staff  involved  in  delivering  adult  learning 
measures was identified in the majority of Member States, though the degree of effectiveness of such support and the level of 
tailoring to the needs of the target group vary substantially. In some Member States, training is provided but it is not tailored to 
working with adult learners; in others Member States, a great focus is given to ensuring continuous professional development 
of staff  involved  in  adult  learning  provision  on  a  strategic  level:  in  some  Member  States,  there  is  a  strong  focus  on  CPD  of 
staff, but only on a project-basis, with limited evidence of systematic provision. 

156 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/827fcd9c-1a8c-11ec-b4fe-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-232128473  

59 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Effectiveness155 

Q1.6(a)  To  what  extent  has  the  Recommendation 
contributed to the observed changes in Member 
States,  including  changes  with  regards  to  levels  of 
literacy, numeracy and digital skills among the target 
population?   

Q1.6(b)To  what  extent  has  the Commission,  with  the 
support  of  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Vocational 
Training,  been  successful  in  following  up  on  the 
implementation  of  the  Recommendation,  e.g., 
through exchanges such as mutual learning? 

The  degree  to  which  the  decrease  in  the  share  of  low-qualified  across  the  EU  can  be  attributed  to  the 
Recommendation is very limited. The overall improvement in the educational attainment level of adults across the EU can 
only  to  a  small  extent  be  considered  the  outcome  of upskilling  pathways  activities,  given  that  it  is  likely  to  be  due  to  long-
standing  improvements  of  initial  education.  This  is  reflected  also  in  the  fact  that  the  downward  trend  in  the  share  of  low-
qualified  across  the  EU  has  been  visible  since  2011  (see  section  3.2.1  of  the  supporting  study).  The  interrupted  time  series 
analysis (annex 9 of the supporting study) has further confirmed this, only revealing one country (Belgium) where such a link 
between implementation of the Recommendation and change in the share of the low-qualified could be determined. 

However,  it  is  clear  from  the  consultations  with  stakeholders  undertaken  for  this  study,  that  the  Recommendation  has 
contributed to changes in an indirect way by acting as a catalyst for a renewed policy focus on the target group 
of  low-skilled  adults.  In  Member  States  that  had  high  need  for  change  in  particular,  the  Recommendation  is  viewed 
consistently  by  stakeholders  as  having  made  a  contribution  to  highlighting  the  challenge,  revealing  issues  with  current 
provision,  setting  out  a  way  forward  for  improving  the  upskilling  provision  for  the  target  group  of  low-skilled  adults  and 
stimulating cooperation between actors on this topic that did not previously exist. This confirms the finding outlined in Q1.1 of 
a discrepancy between progress on the macro-level due to the Recommendation (limited) and progress on the micro-level due 
to the Recommendation (more evident). Measures to facilitate access to upskilling pathways are either taking place 
on too small a scale to be reflected on the macro-level or have not been implemented for a long enough period of 
time  for  their  results  to  be  reflected  in  the  quantitative  data  trends,  but  some  progress  on  the  micro-level  in 
achieving the objectives of the Recommendation is evident. 

The three mutual learning events funded by the EaSI programme and organised by the European Commission on upskilling 
pathways have been beneficial in terms of supporting the sharing of best practices. EU funding has also been identified as one 
of  the  principal  contributions  of  the  Recommendation  with  the  ESF  in  particular  supporting  changes  in  Member  States, 
particular  those  with  less  developed  adult  learning  systems.  Projects  supported  by  the  Employment  and  Social 
Innovation programme (EaSI), funded under the three specific calls for actions have enabled the piloting of approaches to 
upskilling and encouraged experimentation. The Commission’s publication of a stocktaking report on implementation of the 
Recommendation  in  2019157  also  allowed  for  an  understanding  of  progress  in  Member  States’  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation.   

157 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/file_import/implementation-report-upskilling-pathways_en.pdf. 

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Effectiveness155 

Q1.7 To what extent have Member States evaluated 
and  monitored  measures  related  to  upskilling 
pathways  and used  the  results of their  evaluation  in 
informing  the  design  and  delivery  of  upskilling 
pathways?  

Whilst  measures  related  to  upskilling  pathways  are  monitored  by  Member  States  and  some  have  been  the  subject  of 
evaluations, the degree to which the results have impacted the design and delivery of the measures is limited. The 
involvement of a wide range of actors in the upskilling pathways measures (institutions from the labour market and education) 
means  that  cooperation  needs  to  be  very  robust  to  allow  for  such  data  to  be  tracked,  analysed  and  used  to  influence 
programmes. The lack of a systematic data collection process on the implementation of the Recommendation on the EU level 
was also identified as challenging, making it difficult to assess and compare progress EU-wide.   

61 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Efficiency158 

Q2.1 

What  were 
the  costs  associated  with  the 
implementation  of  the  Recommendation  for  the 
different  stakeholders  (including  adult  learners)  at 
various  levels  (national,  regional,  local)?  To  what 
extent have Member States encouraged participation 
in upskilling pathways through financial incentives? 

Q2.2 

Which  EU  programmes  have  contributed  to 
achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Recommendation? 
Was 
funding  from  different  EU 
the  use  of 
programmes cost-effective? 

158 Supporting study, 4.1 Eficiency.  

Costs  for  the  state  and  municipal  administrative  bodies  include  adjustment  costs  from  designing,  delivering,  and 
monitoring upskilling measures often occurred at the national level and, for countries with devolved education systems, at 
the  regional  or  local  administration  level.  Costs  also  arose  to  the  state  and  municipal  administrative  bodies  from  providing 
financial  incentives  to  encourage  the  provision  and  take  up  of  adult  education.  Evidence  shows  that  incentives  to  education 
providers are most common, followed by incentives to employers and then incentive to learners. Finally, should participating in 
learning mean that learners become eligible for new welfare payments or support there may also be an increased cost to the 
State or municipal administrative body. 
Evidence shows that learners can be expected to face some costs as a result of engaging in upskilling measures, including 
costs for travel, accommodation, and any equipment such as textbooks (if not reimbursed via the learning provider) and costs 
in the form of forgone earnings. Overall though the evidence available suggests that these costs for learners are likely 
to be relatively low.  

During the 2016-2020 period, a range of different EU programmes and funding mechanisms have provided funding to support 
the  implementation  of the  Recommendation.  By  far  the largest  source  of  EU  funding  was  the  European  Social  Fund 
(ESF), with over EUR 42 billion allocated to investment priority 10.iii (enhancing equal access to lifelong learning) for the period 
2016-2020.  Although  the  amounts  were  much  lower,  funding  was  also  available  under  strands  of  Erasmus+  and  EaSI, 
including  specific  calls  for  proposals  related  to  the  implementation  of  upskilling  pathways.  Funding  was  also  available  to 
support the implementation of the Recommendation under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Horizon 2020 and 
the Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP).  
Under  the  new  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF)  2021-2027,  there  are  more  specific  references  to  upskilling  and  re-
skilling in funding mechanisms, for example ESF+, the Technical Support Instrument (TSI) and Recovery and Resilience Facility 
(RRF),  which  is  likely  to  be  an  impact  of  the  awareness  generated  by  the  Recommendation.  From  2021,  other  funding 
mechanisms  supporting  upskilling  pathways  include  Erasmus+,  EaSI  (under  ESF+),  Horizon  Europe,  the  ERDF  and  the  Just 
Transition  Fund  (JTF).  Stakeholders  in  certain  Member  States  (e.g.,  AT,  DE,  DK)  highlighted  however  that  some  upskilling 
pathways measures are funded solely using national or regional funds. 
Although  it  is  impossible  to  provide  a  full  assessment  within  the  scope  of  this  study,  the  scale  of  EU  funding  available,  in 
particular via relevant priorities of the ESF, together with the range of activities targeted by different funding sources, suggests 
that significant resources were available to meet the needs targeted by the Recommendation. Nonetheless, there is 
a  risk  that  an  over-reliance  on  EU  funding  can  hinder  the  large-scale  impact  of  the  measures,  with  project-based 

62 

 
                                                 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Efficiency158 

measures introduced, as opposed to large-scale reform. This is particularly the case for adult learning, also because national 
funding for this policy area is often included within broader budget lines for education investments as a whole and can thus 
remain scattered and insufficient. 

The supporting study has also found that the use of funding from EU programmes has been cost-effective. The use of 
existing funds (as opposed to the creation of a new fund or budget line) has allowed the use of existing structures (e.g., ESF 
and  ERDF  Managing  Authorities,  Erasmus+  National  Agencies,  etc.)  and  administrative  mechanisms  (e.g.  IT  tools,  forms, 
reporting, etc.) to distribute and manage the funds which has led to economies of scale. The main concerns expressed about 
cost-effectiveness,  in  particular in  relation  to  the  ESF  and  ERDF,  relate  to  the  administrative  burden,  particularly  for  smaller 
beneficiaries.  Evidence  from  the  Commission’s  ESF  evaluation  however  concludes  that,  for  most  stakeholders,  the  benefits 
outweigh the costs. 

Adult learning measures introduced in the last five years have contributed to a range of benefits for individual learners, 
employers, and society, at both the national, regional, and local levels. The main benefits for learners are increased learning 
opportunities,  allowing  both  unemployed  adults  and  employees  to  gain  and  adapt  their  skills  and/or  gain  a  qualification  to 
become more productive. At the employer level, the adult learning measures introduced in the last 5 years have contributed to 
additional funding for training, fewer skills shortages, and more motivated staff as well as higher levels of productivity. At 
the  level  of  society,  upskilling  pathways  measures  implemented  since  the  Recommendation  have  likely  contributed  to 
increasing income tax and VAT as a result of increased wages and consumer spending and to lowering the cost of welfare 
payments, though this is challenging to quantify at this stage of implementation.  Other benefits highlighted by stakeholders 
include  awareness  raising  of  the  importance  of  prioritising  the  target  group  of  the  low-skilled,  and  enabling  a  common 
framework on which to base discussions and cooperation on adult learning across different stakeholders. 

The  study  has  found  that  the  Recommendation  overall  has  been  efficient.  Many  countries  already  had  adult  education 
programmes  running  in  some  form  prior  to  the  Recommendation,  so  were  able  to  adapt  their  current  education  provision 
supporting  efficiency.  The  fact  that  the  low-skilled  have  been  prioritised  at  EU  level  has  also  been  identified  as  supporting 
efficiency as this EU focus has  meant that  other  key stakeholders, including education providers and institutions, have been 
increasingly engaged in offering courses that are in line with the needs of adult learners. There is also some evidence to show 
that,  through  raising  awareness  among  employers  that  adult  learning  contributes  to  fostering  productivity,  competitiveness, 
and innovation, employers have become more engaged with adult learning. 
Covid-19  is  noted  as  having  a  negative  effect  on  efficiency  through  slowing  down  delivery.  This  meant  fewer  adults 
undertook  training  than  originally  planned,  reducing  the  scale  of  the  benefits  seen  by  wider  society.  Other  challenges  to 

63 

Q2.3  What  are  the  benefits  associated  with  the 
implementation  of  the  Recommendation  for  the 
different  stakeholders  (including  adult  learners),  at 
various levels (national, regional, local)? 

Q2.4  What  factors  influenced  the  efficiency  and 
how  did  they  do  so?  Could  benefits  have  been 
achieved at a lower cost?  

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Efficiency158 

there  significant  differences 

Q2.5  Are 
in 
costs/benefits  between  the  Member  States?  If 
yes, what factors may have caused that?  

Q2.6.  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  of  the  actions 
Recommendation 
suggested 
the 
proportionate 
to 
individuals, economy and society?  

the  benefits  brought 

by 
to 

delivery have also impacted efficiency including the lack of specifically trained staff in the training sector and the difficulty of 
reaching  the  target  group  which  meant  that  more  funding  to  outreach  activities, along  with  better  integration  of  NGOs  with 
existing  links  to  the  target  groups,  was  required  to  bring  these  people  on  board.  Finally,  overlaps  identified  between  other 
measures focused on skills and adult learning was also noted as limiting efficiency as it has at times caused some confusion 
among potential learners on where to go to access training and who was eligible. 
Overall, based on the data available, it is unlikely that benefits of the Recommendation could have been achieved at 
a  lower  cost.  The  evidence  has  shown  that  positive  relationship  between  costs  and  benefits  appeared  to  be  mainly  due  to 
respondents  experiencing  low  implementation  costs  and  large  benefits  in  terms  of  raising  awareness  and  stimulating 
discussions with key stakeholders on the issue of adult education. 

The evidence suggests that the scale of both costs and benefits seen is influenced by the extent to which Member States 
pre-existing adult education measures and planned direction of travel aligned already with the Recommendation at the time of 
its  adoption.  In  countries  that  were  already  operating  measures  largely  in  line  to  the  Recommendation,  meaning  no  major 
changes in policy or legislation were required, stakeholders confirmed that they incurred no additional cost as a result of the 
Recommendation, or that these costs were very low. In countries where adult learning systems were overall less in line with the 
type of provision put forward in the Recommendation costs were higher. However, stakeholders from these countries also felt 
that benefits were likely to be relatively large, mainly due to the Recommendation increasing awareness of the importance of 
adult  education,  providing  a  framework  to  improve  the  provision  of  adult  education,  and  stimulating  cooperation  between 
stakeholders to improve the system. 
Evidence  indicates  that  the  costs  and  benefits  are  proportionate.  This  is  due  to  the  belief  in  the  critical  nature  of  the 
Recommendation  in  raising  awareness  of  the  importance  of,  and  availability  of,  adult  education,  along  with  the 
Recommendation’s  role  in  focusing  political  priorities  on  adult  education.  This  is  seen  as  a  large-scale  benefit,  due  to 
established links in published literature between participation in education and resulting benefits for the individual in the form 
of increased wages and/or moving into stable employment. By extension, society may then see benefits in the form of reduced 
welfare payments and increased tax revenue. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Relevance159 

Q3.1  To  what  extent  are  the  objectives  defined  in 
the Council Recommendation still relevant to the 
current socio-economic and EU policy context  

Q3.2  To  what  extent  are  the  measures  defined  in 
the  Recommendation  still  relevant  to  achieve  the 
objectives?  

The  supporting study confirms that the key objectives of the Recommendation continue to be highly relevant to the 
current EU socio-economic context and the EU policy context. Not only have challenges which were faced across Member 
States when the Recommendation was adopted in 2016 persisted, but new challenges – in particular those resulting from the 
impact  of  the  Covid-19  crisis,  the  ongoing  transformation  of  jobs  and  work,  and  the  acceleration  of  the  green  and  digital 
transition  –  have  in  fact  heightened  the  relevance  of  the  Recommendation’s  objectives,  in  particular  the  need  for  increasing 
basic skills. Low-skilled adults in particular are highly vulnerable to the evolution of the socio-economic context, including the 
acceleration of the need for digital skills, and require increasing policy attention. Despite variation across the Member States, 
the share of adults with low educational attainment remains high, and participation in adult learning is significantly below the 
target (60% of all adults participating in training every year) set at the EU Social Summit in Porto.   
The objectives set out in the Recommendation remain highly relevant to the EU policy context, in particular priorities set 
out in relation to the overall strategic agenda, the recovery from the pandemic, adult learning and social policy. The objectives 
have increased relevance in light of the 2030 headline target for adult learning, with a particular need to focus on increasing 
the participation of low-skilled adults in training in order to reach the goal. 

The  measures  defined  in  the  recommendation  are  still  very  relevant  in  order  to  achieve  its  objectives.  The  three-step 
approach  remains  a  very  useful  framework  to  guide  both  policy  and  implementation  of  upskilling  measures,  and  each 
step remains relevant in light of needs and also the ongoing development of upskilling measures in different member states. 
The  accompanying  measures  -  including  outreach,  guidance,  support  measures  and  effective  coordination  –  also  remain 
essential  components  of  approaches  to  upskilling,  in  particular  when  targeting  low-skilled  adults.  The  research  highlighted 
however the need to ensure that the different measures set out in the recommendation form part of an integrated whole, with 
clear  permeability  and  pathways  for  low-skilled  adults  between  each  step,  with  outreach  to  attract  participants  and  wrap-
around support and throughout  the entire process. The fact that low-skilled adults remain a vulnerable group that is further 
away from the education system – and often the labour market – as whole (see section 3.1), means that such an integrated 
three-step approach remains necessary for effectively supporting this group through learning pathways that can increase their 
skills. 

Q3.3  To  what  extent  are  the  measures  defined  in 
the Recommendation still relevant to the needs 
of  the  target  groups/economic  sectors  (e.g., 

The measures defined in the Recommendation are still  very relevant to the needs of the priority target groups across 
the EU. In line with the findings noted above, the Covid-19 pandemic has heightened the relevance of the measures defined in 
the Recommendation to the needs of the target groups, due to higher levels of vulnerability to the impacts of the pandemic. 

159 Supporting study, 4.3 Relevance.  

65 

 
                                                 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Relevance159 

tourism; textile, construction, mining etc.)? 

Q3.4  To  what  extent  are  the  target  groups 
addressed by the Recommendation and those defined 
by the Member States still relevant? 

This  includes,  for  example,  older  low-skilled  adults  and  low-skilled  adults  working  in  sectors  strongly  affected  by  the  crisis. 
Adult learners themselves, however, highlighted areas in which the relevance of the measures could be further increased for 
them,  including:  more  ICT  courses  (computer  and  smartphone),  support  for  wider  aspects  of  their  life,  help  in  combining 
learning with job seeking, more practical exercises, other types of learning (e.g., accounting, financial management) and more 
support with transport or work-related issues. 
The  measures  are  still  also  relevant  to  the  needs  of  different  economic  sectors,  in  particular  as  they  can  be 
implemented flexibly to adapt to differing and evolving needs. There was clear evidence of regional and sectoral needs being 
addressed  by  specifically  targeted  upskilling  initiatives  as  required  based  on  skills  forecasting  and  analysis.  Organisations 
representing low-skilled adults also noted that there was a need to take into account the geographic (rural/urban) context and 
training needs that are specific to certain regions. 

The  evidence  confirms  that  the  broad  target  group  of  the  Recommendation  remains  highly  relevant  across  Member 
States.  Low-qualified  adults  remain  further  from  the  labour market  than  those  with  higher  educational  attainment  levels  as 
seen in Section 3 of the supporting study. The focus on this target group has become even more relevant in recent years due to 
the  evolving  socio-economic  conditions,  particularly  due  to  the  pandemic  and  rapidly  accelerating  digital  transition,  and 
demographic  factors.  In  terms  of  specific  priority  groups  within  the  broader  group  of  low-skilled  adults,  the  flexible 
framework provided in the Recommendation supports its continued relevance as it allows Member States to identify 
their  own  priority  groups  in  light  of  national,  regional  or  local  needs.  The  most  frequently  selected  priority  groups  were  the 
long-term unemployed and the inactive. The study showed that other priority groups however also remained relevant, including 
people with disabilities, older workers, nationals with a migrant background and third country nationals. 

Evaluation question 

Answer 

Coherence160 

Q4.1  To  what  extent  have  the  objectives,  target 
implement  upskilling 
groups  and  measures 
pathways as defined in this Council Recommendation 

to 

160 Supporting study 4.4 Coherence.  

There  is  overall  a  good  level  of  coherence  between  the  objectives,  target  groups  and  measures  defined  in  the 

66 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Coherence160 

been  coherent  with  education  and  training, 
employment  and  social  policies  at  national  and 
regional level? 

Q4.2(a)  To  what  extent  have  the  objectives,  target 
groups  and  measures 
implement  upskilling 
pathways as defined in this Council Recommendation 
been  coherent  with  other  related  EU  level 

to 

Recommendation  and  relevant  policies,  legal  frameworks  (where  they  exist)  and  strategies  at  national  and  regional  level. 
Evidence from the supporting study shows that the nature of coherence with national and regional policies falls into three main 
categories. Firstly, in several Member States (e.g., AT, DK, EE, FR, HU, IE, SE), existing national and regional policies, as well as 
the legal frameworks (where relevant), for upskilling adults already aligned well with the Council Recommendation when it was 
published. Secondly, in another set of Member States (e.g., BG, CY, EL, HR, SK), the publication of the Recommendation led to 
national and regional policies targeting low-skilled adults, as well as in some cases (e.g., EL, HR) the legal framework governing 
VET,  being  adjusted  to  ensure  coherence.  Thirdly,  some  Member  States  (e.g.,  PL)  have  introduced  new  policies  to  ensure 
coherence  with  the  Recommendation;  although  these  national  and  regional  policies  are  often  broader  (e.g.,  the  Polish 
Integrated Skills Strategy does not only focus on low-skilled adults), they incorporate the key lines of the Recommendation and 
have provided important impetus to the policy focus in this field.  

Even though overall coherence with national and regional policies is good, the case studies have shown that there are  areas 
on  which  the  Recommendation  focuses  which  could  be  further  developed  or  prioritised  in  the  policies  in  specific 
Member  States  (e.g.,  training  of  trainers  (FR)  or  validation  of  learning  (AT,  EE)).  It  is  also  important  to  note  that,  in  some 
countries,  while  all  three  steps  of  the  Recommendation  can  be  found  in  the  national  offer  of  training  and  support  for  low-
skilled adults, they are not necessarily combined in a single programme (please see examples Q1.3 in the effectiveness section 
in the supporting study).  

Challenges and obstacles to aligning national and regional policies with the Recommendation include: a focus on other key 
policy priorities, the time needed to progressively align national policies with the Recommendation, resistance to from certain 
stakeholders  who  fear  that  the  existing  VET/dual  training  systems  could  be  undermined),  the  ongoing  absence  of  a  specific 
national  adult  learning  strategy  or  system,  frequent  changes  in  government  slowing  down  the  implementation  of  new 
measures,  ensuring  a  tailored  approach  for  low-skilled  adults  without  creating  a  parallel  system  or    fragmentation,  lack  of 
sufficient coordination at national level and the negative impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on adult learning. Factors which 
have  facilitated  coherence  with  national  and  regional  policies  include:  ensuring  that  all  key  national  stakeholders  have 
representatives  on  the  board  of  the  national  training  agency  and  implementing  joint  measures,  integrating  the  objectives, 
target groups and measures into the broader government's programme at the inter-institutional level, setting up an upskilling 
pathways  working  group  chaired  the  by  the  Ministry  for  Education  or  the  Ministry  of  Employment,  the  existence  of  specific 
national  policies  or  strategies  for  upskilling  low-skilled  adults  and  the  availability  of  specific  EU  funding  for  upskilling 
measures. 

The objectives, target groups and measures of the Recommendation have a good degree of coherence overall with other 
related EU level policies in the fields of training and employment, adult learning, equality strategies and other fields (e.g., 
recovery or digital strategies). These other EU policies are complementary to the Recommendation and do not duplicate it, with 

67 

 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

Coherence160 

policies?  

Q4.2(b)  To  what  extent  have  the  objectives,  target 
groups  and  measures 
implement  upskilling 
pathways as defined in this Council Recommendation 
been coherent with EU funding mechanisms?  

to 

Q4.3  To  what  extent  have  objectives,  target  groups 
and measures been internally coherent?  

limited  potential  for  overlap.  The  analysis  shows  a  general  trend  of  an  increasing  specific  focus  and  recognition  of  the 
importance of upskilling under other relevant EU policies over time, most likely linked to the influence of the Recommendation.  
Despite  the  overall  positive  assessment  of  coherence  with  other  EU  policies,  potential  areas  for  improvement  include: 
creating better linkages and synergies with policy fields outside the sphere of employment (e.g. education, social policy, health, 
environment);  developing  a  more  comprehensive,  systematic  and  strategic  approach  to  gender  and  equality  mainstreaming 
within  the  Recommendation;  and  providing  more  guidance  to  national  and  regional  stakeholders  about  how  the  multiple 
different EU policies, strategies, and recommendations in the fields of training, adult learning, skills/competences, and labour 
market integration work together. 

The Council Recommendation has a  high degree of coherence with relevant EU funding mechanisms, in particular the 
European  Social  Fund  (ESF(+)),  Erasmus+,  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  (EaSI)  programme,  the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund  (ERDF),  the  Just  Transition  Fund  (JTF),  the  Structural  Reform  Support  Programme  (SRSP),  the  Technical 
Support Instrument (TSI) and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). Upskilling measures which are coherent with the aims 
of  the  Recommendation  have  been  funded  under  these  different  EU  funds.  To  further  enhance  coherence  with  EU  funding, 
clearer  signposting  could  be  provided  to  national  and  regional  stakeholders  of  the  EU  funds  available  to  support  upskilling 
pathways. 
An  overview  of  the  specific  measures  of  the  funding  instruments  which  allow  support  for  the  implementation  of  upskilling 
pathways is set out in in Q.2.2 (see Efficiency section in the supporting study). The analysis shows that there is an increase in 
the specific focus on the implementation of upskilling measures in EU funding mechanisms over time, for example 
with increased and more specific funding possibilities under the new Erasmus+ and ESF+ programmes compared to previous 
programming periods. 

The  Recommendation  shows  a  very  good  degree  of  internal  coherence.  There  is  clear  coherence  between  the  general, 
specific  and  operational  objectives,  inputs,  activities  and  expected  outputs,  results  and  impacts  in  the  intervention  logic.  The 
measures  proposed  in  the  Recommendation  (three-step  approach,  coordination  and  partnership,  outreach,  guidance  and 
support measures, follow-up and evaluation) provide a comprehensive and complementary policy framework which is internally 
coherent. 

68 

 
 
Evaluation question 

Answer 

EU added value161 

Q5.1  What  has  been  the  added  value  of  this 
Council  Recommendation  in  promoting,  informing 
and  supporting  a  common  approach  to  offering 
upskilling  pathways  to  low-skilled/qualified  adults,  in 
terms  of  their  objectives,  design,  target  group  and 
coordination and support measures?  

Q5.2  Could  the  objectives  of  the  Recommendation 
have  been  achieved  sufficiently  by  the  Member 
States acting alone? 

Q5.3 To what extent do the objectives and measures 
addressed  by  the  Recommendation  continue  to 
require action/support at EU level?  

The Recommendation generated EU added value in four main areas. It informed the design and a common framework for 
national upskilling policies including a three-step approach. It promoted the focus on low-skilled/qualified adults as a key target 
group  for  upskilling  measures  and  raised  awareness  about  multiple  vulnerable  groups  among  the  low-skilled/qualified 
population. It provided an impetus for more structured coordination, knowledge sharing and mutual learning activities among 
key  stakeholders,  contributing  to  a  more  joined-up  approach,  synergies in  searching  for  solutions,  sharing good  practice  and 
lessons learnt and increased peer support for tackling labour market needs across the EU. Finally, it offered financial support 
by leveraging funding at EU and national/regional level for delivering upskilling measures in the Member States. 
The  supporting  study  also  identified  some  ways  through  which  EU  added  value  of  the  Recommendation  could  be 
increased.  These  include:  Improving  visibility  of  the  Recommendation  at  the  national  level  by  strengthening  the  linkages 
between  the  national  and  regional  support  measures  and  the  Recommendation;  further  acknowledging  the  diversity  of  the 
target group and encouraging implementation of measures targeting sub-groups of low-skilled; continuing to tailor and adapt 
the  Recommendation  to  the  specific  policy  context  and  institutional  frameworks  of  each  country;  and  continuing  to  provide 
supervision and support at EU level with room for increasing mutual learning and knowledge-sharing. 

Evidence  from  the  study  indicates  that  the  objectives  of  the  Recommendation  could  not  have  been  achieved  to  the 
same  extent  without  the  EU  level intervention.  Despite  education  being  a  national  competence,  there  were  changes  or 
reforms  in  national  approaches  following  the  Recommendation’s  adoption  and  the  mutual  learning  activities  that  followed. 
Countries expanded the implementation of existing upskilling measures to low-skilled adults and strengthened their focus on 
the three-step approach (see Section 3 of the supporting study for further analysis).   

The  objectives  addressed  by  the  Recommendation  continue  to  require  action  and  support  at  EU  level.  Although  some 
progress has been achieved regarding the implementation of the Recommendation, some countries are only at the beginning of 
their reform process, meaning that knowledge-sharing, guidance and collaboration will still be valuable at EU level. Securing 
financial  resources, support  in  building  new  and  stronger  partnerships  among  Member  States  by  broadening existing  mutual 
learning activities to a wider group of stakeholders, providing a framework for monitoring and evaluating the implementation 
of  upskilling  measures  and  EU  action  support  in  improving  outreach  measures  are  areas  that  would  bring  key  added  value 
moving forward. 

161 Supporting study, 4.5 EU added value.  

69 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] 

The Table provides information on the resources used to implement the Recommendation and the changes generated (i.e. an assessment 
of  costs  and  benefits)  as  identified  by  the  evaluation.    Source  of  the  information  is  the  supporting  study.  See  annex  11  of  the 
supporting study.  

Cost 

Cost description 

Direct compliance costs  

Type 
(one-off 
or 
recurrent) 

Citizens/consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

Adjustment 
costs: 
Implementation 
costs 

Activities  undertaken  to 
familiarisation 
enable 
with 
the 
Recommendations 

One-off  

Not available 

Not available 

Not available 

Adjustment 
costs: 
labour costs 

Direct 

and/or 
existing 

Developing 
rewriting 
qualifications 
and 
frameworks 
standards, 
and 
(re)designing  modular 
courses. 

One-off 
(per course) 

Not available 

Not available 

Not available 

Adjustment 
costs: 

Modernising 
improving 

and 
learning 

One-off  

Not available 

Not available 

Not available 

70 

on 

government 

National and regional ministries 
bodies 
and 
responsible 
for 
education/employment  policies 
provided 
internal  staff  and 
stakeholder  training  to  provide 
the 
information 
Recommendations. 
No 
monetary estimates provided. 
and 
policymakers 
For 
organisations representing low-
skilled  adults  at  the  EU  level, 
these costs are typically limited 
to  one  or  two  staff  members 
working  across  adult  education 
rather  than  focusing  purely  on 
UP measures, so are estimated 
to  be 
(no  monetary 
estimates provided).  
Approximately  four  fifths  of 
survey  respondents  noted  that 

low 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Cost 

Cost description 

Equipment 
costs 

spaces 

Type 
(one-off 
or 
recurrent) 

Citizens/consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

Advertising/marketing 
costs  to  raise  awareness 
among 
of 
citizens 

courses 

Recurrent 

Not available 

Not available 

Not available 

Financial incentives 

Recurrent 

Not available 

Not available 

Not available 

(travel 

and 
Expenses 
accommodation 
costs),  
course  supplies  such  as 
in 
textbooks, 

reduction 

One-off 
(per  course 
per 
individual) 

Not available 

The  survey  of 
adult 
learners 
found  59%  of 
faced 
leaners 

Not available 

Not available 

71 

Other 

Indirect costs 

Indirect costs to 
individual 
learners 

costs 

they had incurred infrastructure 
costs to some extent. Only two 
Member  States  spoke  of  this 
cost  during  interviews,  noting 
they  experienced 
in 
modernising  and  improvement 
learning  spaces.  No  monetary 
estimates provided. 
Advertising/marketing  costs  to 
raise  awareness  of  courses 
learning 
among  citizens  of 
opportunities.  No  monetary 
estimates provided. 
of 
a 
Approximately 
survey 
and 
interviewees 
mentioned 
respondents 
providing 
of 
form 
some 
financial  incentive  to  individual 
learners,  employees  and/  or 
training 
providers.  Bulgaria 
highlighted  that  vouchers  for 
the  employed 
to  undertake 
training had been introduced as 
a 
the 
Recommendations,  with  a  total 
project  cost  of  €15.3million 
over 2018 to 2021.  

result 

third 

of 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Cost 

Cost description 

leaners  income  due  to  a 
reducing  their  paid  work 
hours  to  completing  the 
training. 

Direct economic benefits 

Type 
(one-off 
or 
recurrent) 

Citizens/consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

cost.  

training 
Estimates 
range 
provided 
from €10 to over 
€700 per course. 

Upskilling 
population/reduction 
skill shortages 

of 
in 

Recurrent 

Not available 

Improved 
welfare 

Increase  in  employment 
& productivity 

Recurrent 

Not available 

Improved 
market 
efficiency 

Increased 
opportunities 
information 
opportunities available 

learning 
and 
on 

Recurrent 

Not available 

a 

into 

basic 

and 
skills, 
soft 
No 

Gaining 
qualification, 
moving 
further 
education, 
gaining 
literacy, 
numeracy 
digital 
improved 
skills. 
monetary 
estimates 
provided. 
Moving 
employment, 
getting 
promotion. 
monetary 
estimates 
provided. 
Increased 
number  of  adult 
education 
courses 
available. 

a 
No 

into 

No 

72 

Not available 

Not available 

Improvement 
in  skills  and 
knowledge  of 
employees  and 
job  applicants. 
No  monetary 
estimates 
provided. 

in 

Increased 
employee 
productivity. No 
monetary 
estimates 
provided. 

Not available 

Increase  in  the  share  of  the 
population  with 
skills 
needed  for  green  and  digital 
transitions. 
No  monetary 
estimates provided. 

the 

Not available 

Not available 

Not available 

Increased awareness of citizens 
adult 
and 
employers 
education  courses  and 
the 
benefits  of  life-long  learning. 
estimates 
No 

monetary 

of 

 
  
  
Cost 

Cost description 

Type 
(one-off 
or 
recurrent) 

Citizens/consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

monetary 
estimates 
provided. 

provided. 

Indirect benefits 

Wider 
macroeconomic 
benefits 

welfare 
Reduced 
payments  and  increased 
tax revenue 

Recurrent 

Not available 

Not available 

Not available 

from 

Reduced welfare payments and 
increased tax revenue following 
the 
on 
population  and  an  increase  in 
employment.  No  monetary 
estimates provided. 

upskilling 

Improved 
participation in society 

individuals’ 

Recurrent 

Not available 

Improved 
health and wellbeing  

individuals 

Recurrent 

Not available 

Wider  welfare 
benefits 

Reduction in crime  

Recurrent 

Not available 

Improving  cohesion  of 
equal 
and 
society 

Recurrent 

Not available 

and 
  No 

integrated 
More 
into  society.  No 
monetary 
estimates 
provided. 
Improvement  to 
individuals’ 
health 
wellbeing. 
monetary 
estimates 
provided. 
in  crime 
Drop 
rates. Noted as a 
possible 
future 
benefit  by  one 
State. 
Member 
No 
monetary 
estimates 
provided. 
Improving 
cohesion 

of 

73 

Not available 

Not available 

Not available 

Not available 

Reduced 
spending. 
estimates provided. 

public 
No 

health 
monetary 

Not available 

Not available 

Reduction  in  the  financial  cost 
associated  with  crime 
(e.g. 
prisons and enforcement). 

Not available 

Not available 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Cost 

Cost description 

opportunities  

Type 
(one-off 
or 
recurrent) 

Citizens/consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

and 

society 
equal 
opportunities.  No 
monetary 
estimates 
provided.  

74 

 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

OUTLINE OF THE CONSULTATION STRATEGY 

This document provides a synopsis of the stakeholder consultations conducted for the 
evaluation  of  the  Council  Recommendation  of  19  December  2016  on  Upskilling 
Pathways:  New Opportunities  for  Adults.  The consultation  strategy  was  developed  on 
the basis of the Evaluation Roadmap.162 The Roadmap indicates that the  aim of the 
consultation  activities  is  to  gather  the  views  and  opinions  of  the  wide  variety  of 
stakeholders involved in policy making and implementation of the types of measures 
outlined  in  the  Recommendation,  to  inform  the  evaluation  work.  The  consultation 
activities  addressed  the  effectiveness,  efficiency, coherence, relevance and  EU  added 
value  of  the  Recommendation  and  the  progress  made  towards  raising  the  levels  of 
literacy, numeracy and digital competence amongst low-qualified/low-skilled adults.  

A  wide  range  of  stakeholders  were  involved  in  the  consultation  process,  including 
national  and  regional  authorities  responsible  for  adult  learning/training,  vocational 
education  and  training,  lifelong  learning,  skills  or  employment  policies;  social  and 
economic  partners;  education  and  training  providers;  organisations  representing  the 
low-skilled;  individuals  benefitting  from  upskilling  pathways  interventions;  as  well  as 
other  relevant  stakeholders  at  European,  national,  regional  level;  and  the  general 
public.  

To  adequately  reach  these  stakeholders,  different  consultation  activities  and 
methods163 were used:  

  A  public  consultation,  including  position  papers  submitted  by  organisations 

responding to the public consultation; 

  Targeted consultations, including:  

o 

Interviews with stakeholders on the EU and national level 

o  Case  studies  of  10  countries164  which  also  included  consultations  with 

key stakeholders in the form of in-depth interviews 

162  European  Commission,  Improving  adults'  basic  skills  (“Upskilling  pathways  recommendation”)  – 
evaluation:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12637-Improving-
adults-basic-skills-Upskilling-pathways-recommendation%E2%80%9D-evaluation_en  

163 See also the supporting study e.g. annexes 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8. 

164 Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden. 

75 

 
 
                                                 
o  Three  internet-based  surveys  targeting  coordinating  and  implementing 
organisations of upskilling measures, organisations representing/working 
with the low-skilled and adult learners themselves; 

  Other targeted consultations including exchange of views with the Directors 
General  for  Vocational  Training  (DGVT)  and  the    Advisory  Committee  on 
Vocational  Training  (ACVT),  exchange  of  views  with  the  European  Network  of 
Public Employment Services, consultation of the National coordinators for adult 
learning and the EQF advisory group).  

The consultations were implemented as foreseen.  

OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

The  evaluation  roadmap  was  open  for  consultation  for  four  weeks  between  12 
January 2021 and 9 February 2021, with the aim of gathering the views of relevant 
stakeholders on the Commission's understanding of the problem and possible solutions 
and  to  share  any  relevant  information  that  they  may  have  on  the  evaluation  of  the 
Recommendation. 

The  main  aim  of  the  public  consultation  was  to  provide  an  open  channel  for  all 
interested stakeholders to provide their input. The consultation took the form of an e-
survey  with  closed  and  open  questions,  addressing  the  key  evaluation  criteria  and 
tailored to  the different stakeholder  groups. The public consultation was open for  13 
weeks from 16 December 2021 to 17 March 2022. 

The targeted consultations aimed to gather more detailed input from stakeholders 
involved  in  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation  in  different  capacities.  The 
targeted  consultations  consisted  of  six  main  sub-activities  as  described  in  the 
following sections.  

Targeted  interviews  with  EU  and  national  level  stakeholders  focused  on  two 
key  stakeholder  groups:  EU  level  stakeholders  directly  and  indirectly  linked  to  the 
education,  training,  and  adult  learning  policies;  and  national  level  stakeholders 
responsible for adult learning, training, vocational education and training, skills policies 
(these included primarily Ministries of Employment and/or Social Affairs and Ministries 
of Education, as well as other stakeholders such as national agencies responsible for 
education and training, adult learning or vocational education and training that are not 
direct  Ministries).  The  targeted  semi-structured  interviews  were  conducted  from 
October 2021 to February 2022.   

A selection of ten case studies were conducted as part of the evaluation research. As 
part  of  the  case  studies,  additional  interviews  were  conducted  with  representatives 
involved  in  the  practical  implementation,  operations,  and  monitoring  of  national 
approaches  to  the  implementation  of  the  Council  Recommendation.  The  case  study 
interviews were conducted from March to April 2022. 

76 

 
Three 
internet-based  surveys  were  conducted.  The  first  survey  targeted 
coordinating  and  implementing  organisations,  with  a  focus  on  national  and  regional 
authorities  in  charge  at  operational  level  of  upskilling  initiatives.  The  second  survey 
targeted  organisations  representing  potential  target  groups  of  the  Recommendation 
and  working  with  low-skilled  adults.  The  third  survey  aimed  to  gather  the  views  of 
beneficiaries of upskilling measures namely adults with low levels of skills, knowledge 
and competences and organisations representing them. 

An  expert  meeting  was  held  online  on  24  February  2022  to  gather  the  views  of 
selected  consultees  on  preliminary  findings  on  all  evaluation  criteria,  and  provide 
examples  of  approaches,  good  practices  and  lessons  learnt.  Consultees  included 
thematic  experts,  as  well  as  representatives  from  national  authorities  with  overall 
responsibility  for  the  implementation  of  upskilling  pathways,  and  those  in  charge  of 
implementing upskilling pathways on the ground.  

A  validation workshop was  held  on 1 June 2022 as a final consultation activity to 
validate the findings of the evaluation study and for selected consultees to share their 
included 
lessons 
the  findings  and 
views  on 
representatives  of  national  authorities 
the  Recommendation, 
representatives  from  social  partners  and  EU  level  civil  society  organisations  and 
experts.  

learned.  Selected  consultees 
in  charge  of 

Lastly,  other  targeted  consultations  included  an  exchange  of  views  in  dedicated 
meetings  with  the  Directors  General  for  Vocational  Training  (DGVT),  the  Advisory 
Committee on Vocational Training (ACVT), the European Network of Public Employment 
Services  (PES  Network),  the  national  coordinators  for  adult  learning  and  the  EQF 
advisory group. 

Summary and reflection on challenges 

The  consultation  methods  were  implemented  as  planned,  in  line  with  the  agreed 
consultation strategy. The targeted interviews posed some challenges, such as delays 
due  to  the  unresponsiveness  of  a  number  of  national  level  stakeholders.  Moreover, 
some  EU  level  stakeholders  felt  that  they  did  not  have  the  relevant  expertise  to 
contribute  to  the  study  but  provided  contacts  of  their  national  partners.  There  were 
some  challenges  in  securing  answers  to  the  surveys,  as  there  was  a  geographical 
imbalance in the responses, with certain countries being over-represented. The impact 
of  this  on  the  consultation  strategy  was  minimal,  however,  as  the  other  targeted 
consultations conducted, and the interviews in particular, allowed the research team to 
still gather in-depth views of a range of stakeholders across the EU27. 

INFORMATION ON CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES AND STAKEHOLDER GROUPS CONSULTED 

All  relevant  stakeholders  as  identified  in  the  evaluation  roadmap  were  consulted 
through the consultation activities, as set out in Error! Reference source not found.. 

77 

 
Table 1 - Overview of stakeholders consulted in all consultation activities 

Type of 
stakeholder 

Public 
consultation 

Evaluation 
roadmap 

Targeted 
interviews 

Surveys 

Expert 
meeting 

Validation 
workshop 

Other 
targeted 
consultations 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

78 

Ministries and 
institutions 
responsible for 
education and 
training policy 

Ministries and 
institutions 
responsible for 
employment 
policies 

Other relevant 
public 
institutions 
responsible for 
adult learning, 
training, VET 
and skills 
policies 

Social and 
economic 
partners at 
national and EU 
level 

Education and 
training 
providers 

EU level 
institutions/ 
policymakers 

Organisations 
representing 
low-skilled 
adults and 
target groups 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Beneficiaries 

X 

Research 
/academia and 
other 
international 
organisations 

X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens 

X 

X 

Evaluation Roadmap 

The total  number  of respondents to the consultation on the evaluation roadmap  was 
14.  These  included  six  responses  from  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs),  five 
responses  from  economic  and  social  partners  (four  trade  unions  and  one  business 
association), one from EU citizens, and two from other types of stakeholders.165  

Public consultation 

The  total  number  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  was  60.  The  data  on 
respondents showed a somewhat unbalanced geographical distribution. A total of 
eight responses referred to Belgium as their country of origin (including four EU level 
organisations and one international organisation), followed by seven to Lithuania, five 
to both Italy and Germany, and three to Ireland and Poland. Not all EU Member States 
were represented among the respondents, and a total of four responses were received 
by respondents from non-EU countries. 

In  terms  of  the  type  of  respondents,  the  public  consultation  targeted  the  following 
main groups: 

  Group  A  –  organisations:  Public  authorities,  NGOs,  companies  or  business 

organisations, and trade unions; 

  Group B – individuals: either EU or non-EU citizens; 

  Group  C  –  others:  respondents  representing  other  types  of  groups  than  those 

listed in Group A or B. 

Out  of  the  60  respondents,  the  stakeholders  with  the  largest  number  of  responses 
were public authorities (n=13, 22%) and individuals who are EU-citizens (n=13, 22%), 
followed by non-governmental organisations (10, 17%) and those who indicated that 
they belonged to a group not listed as a main stakeholder group in the questionnaire 
(i.e.  Other)  (n=10,  17%).  The  remaining  respondents  represented  company/business 
organisations (n=6, 10%), trade unions (n=3, 5%), business associations (n=3; 5%) and 
non-EU citizens  (n=2, 3%).  Figure  1  presents  the  breakdown  of  respondents  by  main 
stakeholder groups. 

165  European  Commission,  Improving  adults'  basic  skills  (“Upskilling  pathways  recommendation”)  – 
evaluation:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12637-Improving-
adults-basic-skills-Upskilling-pathways-recommendation%E2%80%9D-
evaluation/feedback_en?p_id=18724489  

79 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1 - Breakdown of respondents by main stakeholder groups 

Public authority
EU citizen
Other
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Company/business organisation
Trade union
Business association
Non-EU citizen

13
13

10
10

6

3
3

2

2

0

4

6

8

10

12

14

Respondents were asked to further specify the  capacity in which they are replying to 
the public consultation by indicating which sub-group of stakeholders they belonged 
to  from  the  list  provided.  In  total,  56  respondents  (93%)  gave  their  answer  to  this 
question,  Figure  2  presents  the  breakdown  of  respondents  by  sub-group  of 
stakeholders  and  shows  that  the  largest  group  of  respondents  belonged  to  public 
authorities or bodies which are involved in adult learning/training, vocational education 
and training, lifelong learning, skills and/or employment policies (12 out of 56, or 21%). 

Figure 2 – Breakdown of respondents by sub-group of stakeholders 

International organisation
Adult learner (current or recent)
Private enterprise
EU level institution or policymaker
Other
Citizen
Adult not currently participating in adult learning
Social partner
Education and training provider
Ministry or other Government body
Organisation representing low-skilled adults
Other public authority or body

1
1

2
2

4
4
4

5
5

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

10

12

Ten  position  papers  were  also  submitted  in  response  to  the  public  consultation 
outlining different organisations’ views on the Recommendation/.  

Targeted interviews with EU and national stakeholders 

A total of 123 interviews were undertaken. 14 interviews of EU level stakeholders and 
109 interviews of national level stakeholders were undertaken. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 – Targeted interviews completed 

EU level 

DG EAC - Unit B2 (2 interviews) 

DG EMPL - Unit G1 

Eurochambers 

All-Digital 

European Federation of Education Employers 

European Training Foundation 

European Association for the Education of Adults (2 interviews) 

European Association of Regional & Local Authorities for Lifelong Learning 

ERGO Network 

European Forum for Technical and Vocational Education and Training 

European Basic Skills Network 

Eurofound 

Total EU level interviews 

14 

National level 

Type of stakeholder 

Countries covered 

of 

Number 
interviews 
conducted 

National and regional ministries and 
government  bodies  responsible  for 
adult learning/training 

National and regional ministries and 
government  bodies  responsible  for 
employment policies 

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, 
ES,  FI,  FR,  DE,  HR,  HU,  IE,  IT, 
LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, 
SI, SE 

41 

BE, BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI,  FR, 
HR, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, RO, SK 

22 

81 

 
Other  national  and  regional  public 
authorities or bodies 

BE, CY,  DK,  EL, ES,  FI, HU,  IE, 
LV, LU, MT, PL, RO, SK, SE 

35 

Social  partners,  economic  actors, 
and EU fora on skills 

CZ, FR, IT, MT, PT 

Representatives  of  education  and 
training providers 

HR, IT 

Total of national level interviews 

Case studies 

9 

2 

109 

48  interviews  were  conducted  for  the  case  studies,  with  stakeholders  from  the 
following categories in each of the case study countries:  

  Ministries,  governmental  departments,  or 

intermediaries  responsible  for 

implementing the initiatives;  

  Regional  or  local  authorities  that  are  engaged  with  upskilling  pathways,  adult 

learning or lifelong learning strategies;  

  Relevant implementing organisations of selected initiatives/schemes;  

  NGOs,  think  tanks;  research  centres,  academics  or  other  organisations  that 

engage with public policies in the areas of skills and adult learning  

  social partners (trade unions and employers); 

  Public employment services 

  VET centres and education centres involved in the practical implementation of 

upskilling initiatives 

Internet-based surveys 

the 

A  total  of  108  responses  were  received  for  the  survey  targeting  organisations 
implementation  of  upskilling  measures  or 
either  coordinating 
implementing  upskilling  measures.  The  data  showed  a  somewhat  unbalanced 
geographical distribution in the responses. While respondents represented all Member 
States with the exception of Hungary, a total of 21% (n=23) of respondents selected 
Bulgaria  as  the  country  in  which  their  organisation  was  active.  This  was  followed  by 
Italy  (n=12,  11%),  Lithuania  (n=9,  8%)  and  Portugal  (n=6,  6%).  Furthermore,  5%  of 
respondents selected Belgium (n=5) and Germany (n=5), whilst 6 countries received 4 
responses each (Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Romania), accounting 
for  4%  of  the  total  number  of  responses.  The  remaining  14  countries  had  3  or  less 
responses. 

82 

 
A  total  of  180  responses  were  received  for  the  survey  targeting  representative 
organisations  of  low-skilled  adults.  129  (72%)  responses  were  submitted  by 
organisations  based  in  Portugal.  The  remaining  responses  were  submitted  by 
organisations  based  in  Poland  (n=9,  18%),  Austria  (n=7,  14%),  Bulgaria  (n=7,  14%), 
Germany (n=5, 10%), Slovenia  (n=4, 8%), Belgium (n=3, 6%), Greece (n=2, 4%), Italy 
(n=2, 4%), Romania (n=2, 4%), Sweden (n=2, 4%). 

A  total  of  119  responses  were  received  for  the  survey  of  adults  participating  in 
upskilling  initiatives.  However,  more  than  half  of  the  responses  were  submitted 
from  Portugal  (n=41,  40%)  and  Poland  (n=33,  32%),  and  Italy  (n=17,  17%).  The 
remaining 11 responses were submitted from Slovenia (n=6, 6%), Romania (n=2, 2%), 
and Austria (n=1, 1%), Bulgaria (n=1, 1%), and Estonia (n=1, 1%), 

Expert meeting 

The online expert meeting was attended by a total of 40 participants, 25 of these were 
representatives from 12 Member States (Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Finland, Italy, Ireland, 
Latvia,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Spain).  The  remaining  15  were 
representatives from the European Commission and the research team. 

Validation workshop 

The  online  validation  workshop  was  attended  by  a  total  of  32  participants.  Of  these, 
seven  were  representatives  of  EU  level  organisations,  while  15  were  representatives 
from  14  Member  States  (Belgium,  Czechia,  Denmark,  Finland,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden).  The  remaining  10  were 
representatives from the European Commission and the research team. 

Other targeted consultations 

The  following  additional  online  meetings  were  organised  as  part  of  the  targeted 
consultations: 

  EQF  Advisory  Group  consultation  on  Upskilling  Pathways:  this  meeting  took 

place on 25 January 2022 and was attended by 37 participants; 

  PES  Network  and  National  Coordinators  for  Adult  learning  consultation  on 
Upskilling  Pathways:  this  meeting  took  place  on  4  February  2022  and  was 
attended by 34 participants; 

  Upskilling  Pathways  Consultation  webinar  with  ACVT/DGVT  members:  this 
meeting took place on 15 February 2022 and was attended by 41 participants. 

METHODOLOGY FOR DATA PROCESSING 

The  feedback  on  the  evaluation  roadmap  was  conducted  by  carrying  out  a 
qualitative analysis of the responses to identify common trends and relevant insights. 

83 

 
For  the  public  consultation,  the  analysis  of  results  was  carried  out  using  both 
quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative data analysis included analysis 
of  frequency  distribution  for  each  of  the  variables  related  to  the  closed-ended 
questions,  and  cross-tabulations  between  specific  variables  and  characteristics  of 
respondents and between specific variables, though the low number of responses has 
limited  the  possibilities  for  this.  For  the  qualitative  data  analysis,  information  was 
classified by related variable (number of question) and analysed to identify additional 
information and trends.  

For the targeted interviews with EU and national level stakeholders, the write-
ups from the interviews were collected and exported into analytical grids, broken down 
by the different questions and by the respective evaluation criteria. The research team 
used  the  analytical  grids  to  carry  out  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  data  to  inform  the 
relevant sections and annexes of the interim and final reports. 

Information gathered from the case studies interviews was used in the analysis of 
each  country  case  study  report.  The  case  study  reports  were  used  to  inform  the 
analysis carried out by the research team for all sections of the final report. 

The surveys were analysed using both quantitative (to analyse the frequencies of the 
closed answers) and qualitative methods (for the open questions, to analyse complex 
concepts  and  substantiate  and  interpret  the  quantitative  data  with  relevant  insights). 
Survey findings were used by the research team for all sections of the final report. 

For the expert meeting and validation workshop, the outcomes of the discussions 
were collected in meeting reports drafted by the research team. These were used  by 
the research team for all sections of the final report. 

OVERVIEW OF RESULTS OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

Effectiveness 

Consulted stakeholders largely agreed that Member States have facilitated access 
to  upskilling  opportunities  since  the  adoption  of  the  Upskilling  Pathways  in 
2016. 65% (66 out of 101) of survey respondents from organisations coordinating and 
implementing upskilling initiatives agreed that adults with low levels of skills have had 
greater access to adult learning measures over the past five years to a great or a fairly 
large extent and 65% (31 out of 48) of respondents to the public consultation stated 
that  they  consider  the  Recommendation  as  very  or  mostly  effective  in  helping  low-
skilled  adults  take  part  in  adult  learning  measures.  However,  stakeholders  across 
different groups highlighted that  differences  remain across Member States. This 
mixed  picture  is  reflected  in  the  interviews,  where  national  authorities  consulted 
emphasised that the situation is not  uniform across the EU27. This view is confirmed 
by  the  survey  of  implementing  and  coordinating  organisations,  with  just  over  half  of 
respondents  (21  out  of  41,  51%)  stating  that  the  Recommendation  has  contributed 
only  to  a  small  extent  to  changes  in  levels  of  literacy,  numeracy  and  digital  skills. 

84 

 
Moreover,  both  the  responses  to  the  Roadmap  and  the  feedback  from  the  EU  level 
stakeholders  and  national  authorities  participating  in  the  validation  workshop 
highlighted the need to ensure that the measures to implement the Recommendation 
are adequate and high quality. 

There  was  large  agreement  amongst  stakeholders  (national  authorities,  PES,  trade 
unions, EU level stakeholders) consulted that Member States have identified a  broad 
target group for upskilling pathways, with most measures targeting the ‘low-skilled’ 
in  general.  In  the  survey  of  implementing  and  coordinating  organisations,  77  out  of 
108 respondents (71%) identified adults with low levels of basic skills as the priority 
target  group  of  adult  learning  measures.  Nonetheless,  the  surveys  and  interviews 
(national  authorities,  PES,  trade  unions,  EU  level  stakeholders)  show  that  Member 
States have made some efforts to prioritise the most in need within this broader 
group.  This  is  clear  in  the  results  of  the  survey  of  implementing  and  coordinating 
organisations, where the long-term unemployed (67% or 72 out of 108 respondents) 
and economically inactive people (47% or 51 out of 108 respondents) were the second 
and  third  most  selected  target  groups  of  adult  learning  measures.  The  case  studies 
also confirm  this, for  example by highlighting that a number  of Member  States  have 
prioritised  vulnerable  groups  in  their  provision  of  upskilling  measures.  Despite  this 
generally  effective  identification  of  the  target  groups  most  in  need,  the  study  (e.g., 
responses to the Roadmap, surveys) has also identified some groups that have not 
been adequately prioritised, including older workers, which were identified by 24% 
(26  out  of  108)  of  respondents  to  the  survey  of  implementing  and  coordinating 
organisations  as  the  group  that  should  have  been  targeted  by  upskilling  measures 
since 2016, but was not. 

Stakeholders  from  implementing  organisations  in  particular  identified  key  success 
factors in reaching target groups including: informal outreach by establishing personal 
relations with target groups and involving  actors outside public authorities; individual 
and tailored approach to training offers; strong cooperation between actors. However, 
some  barriers were also identified including  financial  obstacles; stigmatisation of the 
target  group  and  its  impact  on  motivation;  global  pressures  of  digitalisation  and 
automation  which  have  resulted  in  an  increased  need  for  upskilling  beyond  the  low-
skilled. 

The  consultation  activities  show  that  Member  States  have  made  efforts  to  apply  or 
improve the three-step approach in the design of upskilling pathways since 2016: 

  Consultations with national authorities and implementing organisations through 
the interviews, case studies and surveys confirm that the skills assessment is 
the most common step, with 60% (29 out of 48) of respondents to the public 
consultation indicating it had been implemented to a very large or fairly large 
extent in their country or in the EU, and 67% (52 out of 79) of respondents to 

85 

 
the  survey  of  coordinating  and  implementing  organisations  stating  that  skills 
assessment measures are accessible to priority target groups.  

  Tailored learning offers are also a relatively common step, with the 73% (80 
out  of  108)  of  survey  and  65%  (31  out  of  48)  of  public  consultation 
respondents across all groups indicating that learning offers are tailored to the 
needs of target groups to a large or fairly large extent.  

  Validation  is  the  step  that  is  the  least  implemented  in  Member  States,  with 
40%  (19  out  of  48)  of  respondents  to  the  public  indicating  it  had  been 
implemented  to  a  small  extent  or  not  at  all,  as  establishing  fully  functioning 
validation  systems  remains  a  challenge  regardless  of  the  strength  of  existing 
adult learning provisions.  

Consultees  across  groups  agreed  that  different  stakeholders  are  involved  in  the 
implementation of the Recommendation - from social partners, to PES, and local 
level  actors  (e.g.,  NGOs)  -  and  that  structures  for  cooperation  (e.g.  central  working 
groups  or  councils)  exist  in  the  majority  (22)  of  Member  States.  The  involvement  of 
stakeholders  was  also  identified  as  an  important  aspect  of  upskilling  measures  by 
respondents that submitted a position paper in the context of the public consultation. 
However, results from the public consultation suggest that cooperation is not always 
fully  effective:  while  the  validation  and  recognition  of  skills  acquired  is  seen  as 
being  delivered  to  a  fairly  large  or  very  large  extent  in  cooperation  with  relevant 
stakeholders  by  51%  (23  out  of  45)  of  respondents,  the  percentage  of  respondents 
selecting indicating that cooperation only happens ‘to a small extent’ or ‘not at all’ is 
only  marginally  different  (40%  or  18  out  of  45).  Replies  to  the Roadmap,  as  well  as 
views  expressed  in  the  surveys,  interviews,  expert  meeting  and  validation  workshop 
further highlight that the involvement of local actors should be improved, particularly 
to strengthen guidance and outreach,  and  that  social  dialogue can play a key role in 
the design, implementation and monitoring of upskilling measures.  

Despite  variations  in  the  level  of  implementation  and  impact  across  the  EU, 
stakeholders (national authorities, PES, trade unions, EU level stakeholders) agree that 
the  Recommendation  has  acted  as  a  catalyst  to  accelerate  progress  in 
upskilling, by bringing increased attention to adult, stimulating cooperation between 
relevant actors, raising awareness on the challenges faced by the low-skilled. However, 
EU  level  stakeholders  providing  responses  to  the  Roadmap  and  written  contributions 
following  the  validation  workshop  highlighted  the  lack  of  systematic  data  on  the 
upskilling measures implemented as a critical gap that does not allow to identify the 
direct impact of the Recommendation on the target group and on the situation of the 
low-skilled in Europe as a whole. 

Efficiency 

Stakeholder  consultations  identified  a  wide  range  of  costs  associated  with  the 
Recommendation: 

86 

 
  Adjustment/administrative  costs:  The  survey  of  coordinating  and 
implementing organisations found that 82% (55 out of 67) of the respondents 
had  incurred  adjustment/administrative  costs  to  implement  adult  learning 
measures over the last five years. Qualitative evidence from the interviews and 
identified  staffing  costs  as  a  common 
the  public  consultation  also 
expenditure 
the 
Recommendation.  Case  studies  further  highlighted  costs  associated  with 
organising  meetings/information  days  to  inform  other  stakeholders  of  the 
Upskilling Pathways measures. 

and  monitoring 

delivering, 

designing, 

linked 

to 

  Financial  incentives:  Financial  incentives  (e.g.,  to  education  and  training 
institutions;  employers;  learners)  were  mentioned  both  by  respondents  to  the 
surveys  and  the  public  consultation,  as  well  as  by  interviewees  particularly 
national authorities, as a common cost.  

  Costs incurred by learners: The consultations showed a difference in opinion 
with  the  regards  to  costs  incurred  by  learners  as  a  result  of  engaging  in 
upskilling  measures  (e.g.,  travel  and  accommodation  costs;  education  and 
training  material;  forgone  earnings  to  take  part  in  training).  58%  (60  out  of 
102) of respondents to the survey of adult learners indicated that they did not 
incur in any cost, whilst interviewed national authority stakeholders highlighted 
that costs to learners can be high. 

Adult  learning  measures  introduced  in  the  last  five  years  have  been  identified  by 
stakeholders  as  contributing  to  a  range  of  benefits  for  society,  employers,  and 
individual learners. In terms of benefits for the learners, according to the survey of 
coordinating  and  implementing  organisations,  approximately  nine  in  ten  respondents 
considered  that  the  adult  learning  measures  introduced  in  the  last  five  years 
contributed to individuals gaining a qualification (94%,  96 out of 102), gaining access 
to further education (93%, 95 out of 102), gaining access to employment (92%, 94 out 
of 102), and gaining basic literacy, numeracy and digital skills (89%, 91 out of 102). In 
addition,  the  vast  majority  of  respondents  to  both  the  survey  of  coordinating  and 
implementing  organisations  and  the  survey  of  organisations  representing  low-skilled 
adults  noted  that  the  measures  contributed  to  individuals  gaining  more  confidence 
(82%,  88  out  of  102,  and  86%,  44  out  of  51  respectively),  improved  individuals’ 
participation in society (77%, 83 out of 102, and 94%, 48 out of 51 respectively), and 
improved individuals health and wellbeing (73%, 74 out of 102,  and 76%, 39 out of 
51  respectively).  Respondents  to  the  survey  of  adult  learners  highlighted  a  similar 
range  of  benefits  for  adult  learners,  additionally  finding  that  leaners  benefited  from 
being able to change careers, from gaining a higher paid job, and  from being able to 
better support others in their learning.  

At  societal  level,  consultees,  in  particular  EU  level  stakeholders  identified  greater 
attention for education provision for low-skilled adults as a political priority as 
one  of  the  main  benefits  of  the  Recommendation.  According  to  national  authorities 

87 

 
consulted through the interviews and the case studies, the Recommendation not only 
provided a common framework, but also pushed authorities to give more attention to 
adult education. This, moreover, was perceived by consultees as having positive ripple 
effects in the medium to long term. 

While most consulted stakeholders, due to lack of data, could not identify factors that 
influenced efficiency or provide views on whether  benefits could have been achieved 
at a lower cost, the overall consensus was that the Recommendation has contributed 
to  improving  efficiency  of  adult  learning  measures.  However,  it  is  clear  from  the 
outcomes  of  the  interviews  and  surveys  that  the  Covid-19  pandemic  had  a  negative 
impact  on  efficiency,  as  it  slowed  down  delivery  efforts.  This  was  mentioned  by 
stakeholders from all stakeholder categories.  

Relevance 

Consultations showed a strong agreement across stakeholder categories that the key 
objectives  of  the  Recommendation  continue  to  be  highly  relevant  to  the 
current  EU  socio-economic  context,  with  87%  of  the  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation  (41  of  47)  indicating  that  providing  learning  opportunities  and  further 
guidance  support to low-skilled adults  is still very relevant today. 95% (39 of 41) of 
the  respondents  to  the  survey  of  coordinating  and  implementing  organisations  also 
agreed  that  the  objectives  of  the  Recommendation  were  still  relevant  to  the  current 
socio-economic and policy context in their country or region.  

Respondents  to  both  the  public  consultation  and  the  consultation  on  the  evaluation 
roadmap  stressed  the  relevance  of  the  Recommendation  in  responding  to  the 
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the digital and green transformation, 
particularly  in  relation  to  supporting  vulnerable  groups.  The  impact  of  the  Covid-19 
pandemic on the relevance of the Recommendation was also highlighted in replies to 
the Roadmap, in the position papers submitted in response to the public consultation 
and was confirmed by the survey of coordinating and implementing organisations, with 
55% (n=21) of respondents noting that the pandemic had increased the relevance of 
the measures defined in the Recommendation to the needs of the target group. 

Consulted  stakeholders  (EU  level  stakeholders,  national  authorities  responsible  for 
education  and  employment  policies,  social  partners)  also  agreed  as  a  whole  that  the 
three-step  approach  in  the  Recommendation  provides  a  useful  structure  and 
guidance  for  Member  States  to  adopt  measures  addressing  specific  needs  at  the 
national  or  regional  level.  National  authorities  responsible  for  upskilling  that 
participated in the expert group agreed that developing skills assessments is still a 
very  relevant  measure  for  achieving  the  goals  of  the  Recommendation.  Moreover, 
consulted stakeholders identified ensuring validation and recognition of skills and 
competences as a key area of relevance to support individuals in the recognition of 
their  skills  and  employers  in  understanding  how  these  match  their  needs.  National 

88 

 
authorities  responsible  for  upskilling  participating 
in  the  validation  workshop 
highlighted the three-step approach represents a key strength of the Recommendation, 
and that, for the future, efforts should focus on fostering the functional integration of 
all three steps. 

Lastly, the outcomes of the targeted consultations highlighted that the priority target 
groups set out in the Recommendation were still considered to be  relevant. This was 
further  confirmed  by  the  outcomes  of  the  public  consultation,  to  which  all  target 
groups  of  the  Recommendation  listed  were  considered  to  be  very  relevant,  with 
respondents identifying adults with low levels of basic skills (33 respondents out of 45, 
73%), older  workers above 55 years old (32 respondents out of 45, 71%), and long-
term unemployed adults (32 respondents out of 45, 71%) as the most relevant sub-
groups. However, consulted stakeholders across all stakeholder categories emphasised 
the  need  to  pay  greater  attention  to  the  heterogeneity  of  the  priority  groups  by 
ensuring that measures are better tailored to the needs of specific sub-groups of the 
low-skilled  where  needed,  and  that  more  efforts  are  made  to  strengthen  outreach 
towards these groups and increase awareness of the need for upskilling.  

Coherence 

Overall  stakeholders  (EU  level  stakeholders,  national  authorities  responsible  for 
education and employment policies, social partners) expressed the view that there is a 
good  level  of  coherence  between  the  objectives,  target  groups  and  measures 
defined  in  the  Recommendation  and  relevant  policies  and  strategies  national  and 
regional level. The survey of coordinating and implementing organisations shows that 
a very high share of respondents (88% or 36 out of 41) considered that the objectives, 
target  groups  and  measures  to  implement  adult  learning  measures  have  been 
training,  employment  and  social  policies  at 
coherent  with  education  and 
national/regional  level.  Stakeholders  shared  the  opinion  that  the  level  of  coherence 
tends to be much higher in Member States where specific national policies or 
strategies for upskilling low-skilled adults exist.  

that  aligning  national  and 

Despite  the  overall  positive  feedback,  stakeholders  from  national  authorities  in 
the 
particular  underlined 
Recommendation  can  still  present  challenges,  which  vary  depending  on  the  specific 
national  context.  In  particular,  EU  stakeholders  consulted  in  the  validation  workshop 
and the case study interviews identified a number of areas for improvement including: 
a more specific focus on diversity, gender equality and training of trainers in relation to 
upskilling; the validation of non-formal and informal learning; and the integration of all 
three steps of the Recommendation into a single programme.  

regional  policies  with 

Both EU and national level stakeholders (national authorities responsible for education 
and  employment  policies,  social  partners)  consulted  shared  the  view  that  the 
Recommendation has a good degree of coherence with other related EU policies 
and that there is no or very limited duplication or overlap, and good complementarity. 

89 

 
However, there was a difference in views between EU level stakeholders and national 
organisations implementing upskilling activities: 30% (12 out of 40) of respondents to 
the  survey  of  coordinating  and  implementing  organisations  did  not  know  or  did  not 
wish to provide an answer when asked about complementarity and synergies between 
the Recommendation and other EU policies. ‘Do not know’ was also the most common 
response  to  the  question  in  the  public  consultation  about  the  complementarity  and 
synergies between the Recommendation and other selected EU policies. 

largely  agreed  that  the 
Lastly,  consulted  stakeholders  across  all  categories 
Recommendation  has  a  high  level  of  coherence  with  relevant  EU  funding 
mechanisms,  albeit  to  varying  degrees  depending  on  the  type  of  instrument.  In 
responses to the public consultation and the survey of coordinating and implementing 
organisations, the European Social Fund (57%, 25 out of 44, and 79%, 30 out of 38 
respectively) and Erasmus+ (46%, 21 out of 46, and 55%, 21 out of 38 respectively) 
received the largest number of positive responses with regards to their contribution to 
achieving the objectives of the Recommendation.  

EU added value 

The  perception  of  EU  added  value  resulting  from  the  Recommendation  was  positive 
overall among the range of stakeholders consulted.  

The public consultation, the surveys and the interviews show that the Recommendation 
has likely contributed to an increased provision of validation and recognition of 
the 
skills.  Stakeholders  across  all  consultation  activities 
Recommendation  fostered  cooperation  between  key  actors,  by  highlighting  the 
importance of involving them at all levels and in different stages of policy design and 
implementation.  Views  of  organisations  implementing  upskilling  activities  were  less 
positive,  however,  in  relation  to  the  extent  to  which  the  Recommendation  has  led  to 
greater  convergence  between  approaches  adopted  at  Member  State  level:  less  than 
half  (37%  or  14  out  of  38)  of  respondents  to  the  survey  of  coordinating  and 
implementing  organisations  indicated  that  the  Recommendation  has  led  to  greater 
similarities across Member States.  

recognised 

that 

There  was  clear  consensus  amongst  all  stakeholders  (EU  level  stakeholders,  national 
authorities  responsible  for  education  and  employment  policies,  social  partners) 
consulted  that  the  key  added  value  of  the  Recommendation  was  increasing 
awareness  of  the  importance  of  recognising  the  heterogeneity  of  the  target  group 
and  their  different  skills  needs,  and  by  encouraging  knowledge-sharing  and 
mutual  learning  across  Member  States.  Moreover,  consulted  stakeholders  agreed 
that EU funding provides significant EU added value, as it ensures the continuation of 
existing upskilling measures. 

The majority of interviewed stakeholders across all categories (EU level stakeholders, 
national  authorities  responsible  for  education  and  employment  policies,  social 
partners) generally agreed that that the objectives of the Recommendation could not 

90 

 
have been achieved to the same extent without the EU level intervention. This 
view  was  confirmed  by  respondents  to  the  survey  of  coordinating  and  implementing 
organisations,  as  well  as  by  stakeholders  from  national  authorities  interviewed. 
However,  the  outcomes  of  the  stakeholder  consultations  identified  some  key  areas 
where additional EU action/support will be needed, and that would increase EU added 
value.  These  include  building  new  and  stronger  partnerships  among  Member 
States  by  involving  key  actors  in  existing  mutual  learning  activities;  providing  a 
framework  for  monitoring  and  evaluating  the  implementation  of  upskilling 
measures;  improving  outreach  measures  to  target  vulnerable  groups  more 
effectively; and further tailoring and adapting the Recommendation to the specific 
policy context and institutional frameworks of each country. 

91 

 
 
ANNEX VI. INTERVENTION LOGIC  

The Figure provides information on the intervention logic of the Recommendation (source is the supporting study). The intervention logic helped 
to identify the supporting evidence needed throughout the evaluation process. See also section 2.1 of the supporting study.  

92 

 
 
 
ANNEX VII. STARTING POINTS AND RELEVANT TRENDS IN INDICATORS AND POLICY MEASURES BY MEMBER STATE: OVERVIEW TABLES 

The  Tables  in  this  Annex  summarize  the  analysis  from  the  external  supporting  study  that  supports  Sections  2.2  and  3:  Table  VII.1  provides  an 
overview  of  the  indicators  and  existing  policy  measures  by  Member  State  in  2016  that  underpin  the  “need  for  change”  categorization 
described in Section 3.1. The categorizations in each of the five columns of this Table are aggregated into an overall classification as described in 
Section 2.2.2 of the supporting study. 

Table VII.2 summarizes the supporting study’s assessment of the evolution between 2016 and 2021: In the three right columns, the colour of a 
cell indicates the level of implementation of the step at the end of the evaluation period in 2021, and the symbol indicates the change in this level 
over the evaluation period. A ‘+’ sign indicates that the research team found a substantial positive changes in relation to the level of implementation 
of the step since 2016. Note that the absence of a ‘+’ sign in a Member States does not mean that no relevant measures have been taken, but that 
the  research  team  of  the  external  supporting  study  did  not  consider  them  as  substantial  relative  to  what  was  already  in  place  in  2016.  See  the 
supporting study further details (including an overview of the underlying policy measures in Annex 3). 

Table VII.1: Starting point in 2016 by Member State, grouped by need for change estimated by the supporting study 

Country 

Low-qualified  25–64-
year-olds – 2016 (%) 

Participation  of 
low-
qualified  in  education 
and 
training  25–64-
year-olds - 2016 (%) 

Austria 

15.5 (MN) 

Denmark 

19.7 (MN) 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

11.4 (LN) 

11.9 (LN) 

21.9 (MN) 

Netherlands 

22.9 (MN) 

Sweden 

15.0 (MN) 

Germany 

13.5 (MN) 

Latvia 

9.3 (LN) 

d
e
e
n

r
e
w
o
L

m
u
i
d
e
M

d
e
e
n

5.1 (LN) 

19.7 (LN) 

5.0 (LN) 

12.9 (LN) 

7.5 (LN) 

9.1 (LN) 

19.3 (LN) 

3.7 (MN) 

3.0 (MN) 

Skills assessment 

Provision of tailored & flexible  learning  Validation and recognition 

LN 

MN 

MN 

MN 

LN 

LN 

LN 

LN 

MN 

LN 

LN 

LN 

LN 

LN 

LN 

LN 

MN 

HN 

93 

LN 

LN 

MN 

MN 

LN 

LN 

MN 

HN 

HN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lithuania 

5.4 (LN) 

Luxembourg 

21.6 (MN) 

Portugal 

53.1 (HN) 

Slovenia 

12.7 (MN) 

BelgiumFR 

BelgiumNL 

24.9 (HN) 

2.4 (MN) 

6.9 (LN) 

4.1 (MN) 

2.4 (MN) 

2.8 (MN) 

Bulgaria 

17.7 (MN) 

0.5 (HN)166 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

17.3 (MN) 

20.5 (MN) 

Czechia 

6.6 (LN) 

Greece 

28.2 (HN) 

Hungary 

16.6 (MN) 

Ireland 

18.6 (MN) 

Italy 

Malta 

39.9 (HN) 

50.6 (HN) 

Poland 

8.7 (LN) 

Romania 

23.3 (HN) 

Slovakia 

8.1 (LN) 

Spain 

41.7 (HN) 

d
e
e
n

h
g
i
H

0.4 (HN) 

1.5 (HN) 

2.3 (MN) 

0.7 (HN) 

2.7 (MN) 

2.3 (MN) 

2.3 (MN) 

2.8 (MN) 

0.9 (HN) 

0.3 (HN)167 

 n/a 

3.4 (MN) 

MN 

LN 

LN 

LN 

MN 

MN 

HN 

HN 

MN 

HN 

MN 

MN 

LN 

LN 

HN 

HN 

MN 

MN 

LN 

MN 

LN 

LN 

MN 

HN 

HN 

HN 

MN 

MN 

HN 

MN 

MN 

LN 

HN 

HN 

MN 

MN 

MN 

HN 

MN 

HN 

LN 

LN 

MN 

MN 

HN 

HN 

MN 

HN 

MN 

HN 

HN 

HN 

HN 

HN 

MN 

HN 

LN 

LN = Lower need for change 
MN = Medium need for change 
HN = High need for change 
Source: Supporting study. For an explanation of the methodology used to come to these categorisations, please see Section 2.2.2 and Annex 1 of the supporting study. 

166 Data from 2017 was used to replace missing 2016 data. 
167 Data from 2015 was used to replace missing 2016 data. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table VII.2: Estimated change between 2016-2021, grouped by need for change in 2016 as estimated by the supporting study  

Overall need for change  Country 

Austria 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Netherlands 
Sweden 

Germany 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Portugal 
Slovenia 

BelgiumFR 
BelgiumNL 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czechia 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 

d
e
e
n

r
e
w
o
L

d
e
e
n
m
u
d
e
M

i

d
e
e
n

h
g
H

i

168 Data for 2019 was used to replace missing 2021 data. 
169 Data for 2017 was used to replace missing 2016 data. 

- 

change 

% 
Low-
qualified  25–64-year-
olds,  2016 to 2021 

change 

% 
- 
Participation 
of 
in 
low-qualified 
adult  learning  2016 
- 2021 

Skills assessment 

Provision of tailored  
& flexible learning 

Validation and recognition 

-9.0 
-9.1 
-7.9 
-6.7 
-18.7 
-15.3 
-16.7 

12.6 
-16.1 
-5.6 
-8.8 
-23.7 
-31.5 

-25.7 

-6.2 
-26.0 
-24.9 
-15.2 
-28.4 
-17.5 
-32.8 

= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 

= 
+ 
= 
= 
= 
= 

+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
= 
+ 
= 
= 
= 

13.7 
-24.4 
72.0 
57.4 
-44.0 
51.6 
37.3 

-10.8 
13.3168 
12.5 
-1.4 
0.0 
41.7 

42.9 

20.0169 
-25.0 
-6.7 
-26.1 
-42.9 
0.0 
73.9 

95 

= 
+ 
+ 
= 
= 
= 
= 

= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 

+ 
+ 
+ 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 

= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 

+ 
+ 
= 
= 
= 
= 

+ 
+ 
+ 
= 
+ 
= 
+ 
= 
= 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Italy 
Malta 
Poland 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Spain 

-6.5 
-24.1 
-21.8 
-18.5 
-17.3 
-13.4 

4.3 
42.9 
22.2 
266.7170 
 n/a 
52.9 

= 
+ 
+ 
= 
= 
= 

= 
+ 
+ 
= 
= 
= 

+ 
= 
= 
= 
+ 
= 

Source:  supporting  study.  An  ‘=’  sign  indicates  that  the  external  supporting  study  did  not identify  substantial  changes  to  the  level  of  implementation  of  the  step  relative  to  the 
situation in 2016; ‘+’ sign indicates that positive changes in relation to the level of implementation of the step have been identified since  2016. See Section 2.2.2 and Annex 3 of 
the supporting study for further details, including a more disaggregated assessment of the positive changes.  

170 Data for 2015 was used to replace missing 2016 data. 

96