COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving and enforcing working conditions of trainees and combating employment relationships disguised as traineeships and Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships and replacing the Council Recommendation of 10 March 2014 on a Quality Framework for Traineeships
Date: 2024-03-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU employment policy, integration into employment, labour market, school-working life relations, traineeship, working conditions, young person, young worker, youth employment, youth unemployment

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.3.2024  SWD(2024) 68 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving and enforcing working conditions of trainees and combating employment relationships disguised as traineeships  and Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a reinforced Quality Framework for Traineeships and replacing the Council Recommendation of 10 March 2014 on a Quality Framework for Traineeships    {COM(2024) 132 final} - {COM(2024) 133 final} - {SEC(2024) 97 final} - {SWD(2024) 66 final} - {SWD(2024) 67 final}  
 
 
A.  Need for EU action 

What is the problem being addressed? 

There are 3.1 million trainees in the EU, and the demand for traineeships is expected to grow. 
Quality traineeships can be an entry into the labour market. However, challenges exist despite 
improvements  brought  by  the  2014  Council  Recommendation  on  a  quality  framework  for 
traineeships (2014 QFT).  

The first challenge relates to the problematic use of traineeships by traineeship providers, i.e. 
unlawful practices whereby regular work relationships are disguised as traineeships or whereby 
traineeships do not comply with the law. People in unlawful traineeships are deprived of their 
relevant  rights  enshrined  in  EU  law,  national  law  or  collective  agreements.  The  second 
challenge  is  the  existence  of  poor-quality  traineeships,  with  no  or  unjustifiably  low 
remuneration, no access to social protection and/or a substandard learning component, though 
they may be lawful. The third relates to  unequal access due to barriers faced by vulnerable 
groups, obstacles to cross-border traineeships and challenges for remote/hybrid traineeships. 

These problems negatively affect the transition of (young) people to the labour market, deprive 
some of them of labour rights they are entitled to and increase the risk of poverty and social 
exclusion. They also create unfair market competition, may perpetuate skills mismatches and 
hamper the EU’s competitiveness.  

What is this initiative expected to achieve? 

Its general objective is to improve the use, quality of, and access to traineeships across the EU, 
so that they provide a genuine learning and work experience facilitating education-to-work and 
job-to-job  transitions.  Specifically,  it  aims  to  strengthen  the  enforcement  of  applicable 
legislation and support trainees in accessing their labour rights, prevent the problematic use of 
traineeships,  support  fair  working  conditions  (including  remuneration  and  access  to  social 
protection),  improve  the  learning  component  of  traineeships,  and  access  to  traineeship 
opportunities.  

What is the added value of action at EU level?  

The EU initiative will contribute to achieving the Treaty’s objectives of promoting sustainable 
economic growth and social progress. It should trigger upward social convergence and enhance 
the coherence of the Single Market, by supporting Member States in ensuring a level playing 
field, the enforcement of applicable rules and a consistent and fair level of protection of trainees 
in the EU. It will also enlarge the pool of (future) workers with relevant skills, contributing to 
business competitiveness and social inclusion.  

B.  Policy options 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a 
preferred choice? Why? 

The impact assessment considered four policy areas addressing: problematic uses of (A), poor 
quality  of  (B)  and  unequal  access  to  traineeships  (C),  and  gaps  in  scope  (D).  These  policy 
options were selected due to their highest positive scores in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, 
coherence and proportionality, compared to the baseline.  

1 

 
 
Under Policy Area A the preferred option requires effective controls and inspections to detect 
and  take  enforcement  action  against  non-compliant  traineeships  and  work  relationships 
disguised as traineeships, supported by a non-exhaustive list of elements defined at EU level. It 
includes measures to support competent authorities in their assessment and dedicated support 
measures for trainees to enforce their rights. 

Under Policy Area B it ensures that trainees who are workers are not treated in a less favourable 
manner  as  regards  working  conditions,  including  pay,  than  comparable  entry-level  workers, 
unless justified on objective grounds. It i.a. provides recommendations on fair/proportionate 
remuneration,  access  to  social  protection  and  mentorship  for  all  trainees  and  to  extend  the 
information provided through written traineeship agreements.  

Under Policy Area C it includes recommendations to 1) ensure equal access to traineeships for 
vulnerable  groups,  2)  facilitate  cross-border  traineeships  and  3)  improve  remote/hybrid 
traineeships. Under Policy Area D it extends the scope to all traineeships. 

The preferred option is a package of a Directive applying to trainees who are workers under 
EU law and an updated Council Recommendation covering all trainees.  

Who supports which option? 

The preferred option reflects the priorities of the 2023 European Parliament Resolution under 
Article 225 TFEU that called on the Commission to update and strengthen the 2014 QFT and 
turn  it  into  a  stronger  legislative  instrument.  It  also  responds  to  a  recommendation  by  the 
Conference on the Future of Europe and the positions of trade unions and youth organisations. 
However, due to subsidiarity, proportionality and legality considerations, the preferred option 
does in several areas not include the legally binding measures called for by these stakeholders. 
Employers agree with the general objective and most policy options under the preferred option 
but are against a legally binding measure and advocate for non-legislative action.  

C.  Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option? 

It will bring social benefits to trainees by reducing problematic and poor-quality traineeships. 
It  will  also  result  in  fewer  trainees  doing  traineeships  with  an  excessive  duration,  including 
repeated/consecutive traineeships with the same employer. Trainees would also benefit from 
fairer  remuneration,  more  access  to  social  protection  and  better  learning  opportunities. 
Depending on implementation, this could potentially affect up to 1.5 million unpaid trainees 
and  300,000  paid  trainees  without  access  to  full  social  protection.  Trainees  considered  as 
workers  will  benefit  from  equal  treatment  with  other/entry-level  workers  in  the  same 
establishment, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds. The preferred option 
would also  make traineeships more accessible to trainees from  vulnerable groups, including 
persons with disabilities.  

The preferred option is expected to  bring  economic benefits to traineeship providers  who 
will enjoy a fairer market competition. Moreover, employers would benefit from productivity 
and competitiveness gains due to a more skilled workforce. Additional benefits would come 
from  improved  labour  market  matching  and  higher  retention  rates  which  could  reduce 
employers’ search, matching and recruitment costs. Traineeship providers would also benefit 
from a wider, more diverse pool of candidates. 

2 

 
 
What are the costs of the preferred option? 

The  main  costs  of  the  preferred  option  relate  to  a  possible  increase  in  labour  costs  and 
administrative  or  judicial  procedures  and  penalties.  These  would  only  apply  to  traineeship 
providers where controls and inspections identify problematic traineeships and those offering 
poor  quality  traineeships.  It  also  implies  some  costs  to  adjust  to  the  new  provisions  and  to 
provide (upon request) information on trainees and their contracts to competent authorities.  

Some  stakeholders  were  concerned  that  these  costs  could  reduce  the  offer  of  traineeships, 
especially paid traineeships. The majority of these potentially lost traineeships are likely to be 
problematic  and/or  poor-quality  traineeships,  corresponding  to  the  aim  of the  initiative. The 
effect  on  the  reduction  of  paid  traineeships  is  expected  to  be  small,  given  the  benefits  for 
traineeship providers, demographic trends and tight labour markets.   

How will enterprises and SMEs be affected? 

SMEs  will  enjoy  a  larger  trainee  pool  and  better  level-playing  field,  helping  their 
competitiveness.   

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 

National  authorities  would  become  more  effective  in  detecting  and  combating  work 
relationships disguised as traineeships. A positive impact on public budgets would come from 
increased tax and social security receipts, from fines imposed and reduced social protection and 
activation spending. The main sources of costs would stem from implementation in national 
regulatory  frameworks,  strengthening  the  capacity  of  inspection  authorities  and  setting  up 
reporting  channels. A  small  negative  impact  on  the  budget  might  be  observed  if  traineeship 
providers decide to reduce the total number of paid positions.  

Will there be other significant impacts? 

The  preferred  option  is  expected  to  have  a  strong  positive  impact  on  ensuring  fundamental 
rights in the EU. 

D. Follow-up 

When will the policy be reviewed? 

The Directive will be evaluated 5 years after its entry into force, following a 2-year transposition 
period, and the Recommendation within three years after its adoption.  

3