COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the documents Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a blueprint for a European degree Proposal for a Council recommendation on a European quality assurance and recognition system in higher education and Proposal for a Council recommendation on attractive and sustainable careers in higher education
Date: 2024-03-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: Bologna Process, European cooperation, diploma, higher education, mutual recognition principle, professional career, recognition of diplomas, student mobility, teacher, teaching quality

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.3.2024  SWD(2024) 74 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the documents Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a blueprint for a European degree   Proposal for a Council recommendation on a European quality assurance and recognition system in higher education   and  Proposal for a Council recommendation on attractive and sustainable careers in higher education {COM(2024) 144 final}  
 
 
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Chapter 1: A European degree - a key element to achieve the European Education Area and to boost 
Europe’s competitiveness and attractiveness .......................................................................................... 6 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

The importance of transnational cooperation in higher education .......................................... 6 

The Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area ............................................ 7 

The European Education Area .............................................................................................. 10 

Joint transnational programmes in Europe ............................................................................ 11 

The need to act ...................................................................................................................... 16 

1.6.  Building bridges for effective European cooperation in higher education ........................... 20 

Chapter 2: A European degree - key parameters and its added value ................................................... 24 

2.1 

2.2 

Benefits and added value of a European degree ................................................................... 25 

Suitability of the criteria of a European degree and stakeholders’ perspectives ................... 31 

2.2.1 
programme  ………………………………………………………………………………….. 32 

European policy experimentation in higher education under the Erasmus+ 

2.2.2  
experimentation projects ............................................................................................................... 34 

Proposed criteria for the European degree to be tested by Erasmus+ policy 

2.2.3  

2.2.4  

2.2.5  

Revised list of criteria for a European degree ...................................................... 46 

Award process and actors..................................................................................... 52 

A possible European legal status for alliances of higher education institutions .. 54 

2.2.6 
programme and the study on a legal status of alliances ................................................................ 59 
Chapter 3: Breaking down barriers for a European degree – the obstacles to overcome...................... 62 

The findings of the policy experimentation projects funded under the Erasmus+ 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

Challenges related to Accreditation and quality assurance ................................................... 63 

Challenges related to programme and curricula structure and diploma templates ................ 64 

Challenges related to governance structure........................................................................... 66 

Challenges related to student enrolment and admission ....................................................... 67 

Types of overarching solutions to overcome the barriers ..................................................... 68 

Chapter 4: A fit-for-purpose European quality assurance system......................................................... 70 

4.1 

Quality assurance in higher education .................................................................................. 70 

4.1.1  

The need for agile quality assurance frameworks ................................................ 72 

4.1.2  

The importance of quality assurance for joint programmes ................................. 72 
Transnational cooperation in quality assurance .................................................................... 73 

4.2  

4.2.1  
Education Area .............................................................................................................................. 73 

Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher 

4.2.2  

European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes ....................... 74 

1 

 
 
 
4.2.3 

4.2.4 

European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education ............................... 76 

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education ..................... 76 

4.2.5 

The E4 Group ....................................................................................................... 77 
Important developments at EU level ..................................................................................... 77 

Challenges to quality assurance ............................................................................................ 82 

4.3 

4.4 

4.4.1 

4.4.2 

4.4.3 

Uneven implementation of the ESG .................................................................... 82 

Uneven Implementation of the European Approach ............................................ 84 

Need for better links between quality assurance and recognition ........................ 87 

4.4.4 

Remaining Obstacles to European-level quality assurance .................................. 88 
Chapter 5: European framework for flexible and attractive academic careers ..................................... 90 

5.1.  Background ........................................................................................................................... 90 

5.2. 

The diversity of European higher education ......................................................................... 92 

5.3 

Challenges and factors influencing academic careers ........................................................... 94 

5.3.1 

5.3.2  

Engagement in deep transnational cooperation .................................................... 97 

Innovative, effective, and attractive teaching..................................................... 100 

5.3.3  

Attractive working conditions and social protection .......................................... 108 
Chapter 6: Conclusions - the path towards the European degree ........................................................ 123 

6.1 A European degree .................................................................................................................... 123 

6.2 A fit-for-purpose European quality assurance system .............................................................. 124 

6.3 European framework for flexible and attractive academic careers ........................................... 125 

6.4 General conclusions .................................................................................................................. 126 

ANNEX I: Synopsis of stakeholder consultations .............................................................................. 128 

ANNEX II: Revised list of criteria for a European degree ................................................................. 143 

ANNEX III: List of barriers to the delivery of joint programmes and joint degrees identified by 
experts in the context of the Erasmus+ European policy experimentation projects on a joint European 
degree label ......................................................................................................................................... 146 

ANNEX IV: Glossary of Terms.......................................................................................................... 173 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction  

In the letter of intent accompanying the 2023 State of the European Union address, President von der 
Leyen highlighted a blueprint for a European degree as a key priority for 2024, and this is reflected in 
the 2024 Commission Work Programme1 in the form of a package with three concrete deliverables:  

•  Commission Communication on a blueprint towards a European degree: joint programmes 
bring  significant  value  to  students,  higher  education  institutions,  employers,  and  society. 
However, higher education institutions face significant obstacles in designing and delivering 
joint educational offers, often due to incompatible or restrictive national and regional rules. The 
Communication presents the added value of introducing a framework for a European degree, 
showing that it can be a catalyst for the European Education Area. The proposal outlines the 
blueprint of the European degree and presents a possible pathway towards its implementation. 

•  Proposal  for  a  Council  Recommendation  on  a  European  quality  assurance  and 
recognition  system:  transnational  cooperation  requires  trust  and  agile  procedures.  Current 
quality assurance and recognition procedures remain lengthy and cumbersome and are poorly 
fit for transnational joint programmes. This proposal seeks to further support the alignment, 
compatibility,  and  mainstreaming  of  European  and  Bologna  tools  such  as  the  European 
Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, and to go beyond by recommending that 
Member States, if conditions are met, enable higher education institutions to self-accredit their 
joint education provisions, and to evaluate alliances of higher education institutions externally 
at cross-institutional level, across all their joint activities, covering all their joint programmes. 

•  Proposal for a Council Recommendation on attractive and sustainable careers in higher 
education:  ensuring  that  academic  staff  benefit  from  equitable,  inclusive,  and  rewarding 
careers is a precondition for deeper transnational cooperation. The proposal aims to support 
national higher education systems in valorising and rewarding the diversity of the work their 
academic  staff  do  beyond  research,  including  developing  joint  programmes,  mobility 
opportunities, and innovative learning and teaching. It invites Member States to step up their 
actions to promote attractive working conditions, academic freedom, gender diversity and well-
being for higher education academic staff. 

Beyond the European symbolic value, a European degree would demonstrate a graduate's international 
experience, academic excellence, language proficiency, cultural adaptability, and a wider perspective, 
making them attractive to employers seeking globally minded and highly skilled individuals. 

The objective is to give students more opportunities to study and train in several EU countries in the 
context of a joint study programme – such as those offered through the European Universities alliances 
– and to be awarded a joint degree, as announced by Heads of State and Government in the European 
Council Conclusions of 14 December 20172.  

The initiative responds to the call from the higher education sector, in particular European Universities 
alliances,  to  facilitate and make  more  agile  and  attractive the delivery of joint educational  offers in 
Europe, which are still often hampered by incompatible national administrative rules, legislations, or 
the lack of adequate professional incentives. It also responds to the call from students and employers to 
give more visibility to the skills and competencies acquired in a diverse, international setting. 

1  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Commission  work  programme  2024:  Delivering  today  and  preparing  for 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-documents/commission-work-
638. 
tomorrow, 
programme/commission-work-programme-2024_en  
2 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32204/14-final-conclusions-rev1-en.pdf  

17.10.2023  COM 

Council  meeting 

(14  December 

Conclusions, 

European 

19/1/17 

EUCO 

(2023) 

2017) 

REV 

1. 

3 

 
 
 
Students would benefit from the most innovative pedagogies – as deployed for example in the European 
Universities  alliances,  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Masters,  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  (MSCA)  Joint 
Doctoral Programmes, or programmes labelled by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology 
(EIT) – to acquire future-proof skills sought by employers and to become innovators and entrepreneurs. 
Higher education institutions would also benefit from simpler processes to strengthen their cooperation 
in  developing  joint  degree  programmes  that  contribute  to  building  their  institutional  capacities  and 
raising their international profile. 

2018 Eurobarometer3 

Universities can better solve big societal challenges by engaging more effectively in transnational cooperation.  

• 

• 

92% of universities identified the elimination of legal and administrative obstacles to international 
strategic institutional partnerships as a key issue.  

93% of respondents believe it would be useful to create EU degrees delivered by networks of European 
universities,  offering  students 
in  different  EU  countries,  with 
a flexible choice of courses or modules.  

the  chance 

to  study 

A European degree would be delivered at national, regional, or institutional level on a voluntary basis 
according to a common set of criteria agreed at the European level. The common set of criteria would 
make  these  degrees  truly  European,  as  they  will  still  be  awarded  by  universities  accredited  at  the 
national or regional levels and be included in national legislation in the same way as other types of 
national degrees.  

The processes of accreditation and quality assurance would be done following the regular procedures, 
regardless of whether programme or institutional accreditation is followed. The European degree would 
be automatically recognised across the European Union without having to meet any additional criteria 
or undergo additional recognition procedures.  

To  move towards  a  European  degree, significant  work  is  needed  to  improve  and  streamline  quality 
assurance  processes  in  higher  education  and  to  ensure  attractive  conditions  for  higher  education 
academic staff involved in transnational cooperation. 

The way quality assurance is regulated in many Member States and the discrepancies between national 
legislative  frameworks  hinders  deep  transnational  cooperation  and  the  development  of  joint  degree 
programmes.  A  fit-for-purpose  European  Quality  Assurance  and  Recognition  System  is  key  to 
facilitating and simplifying the delivery of high-quality learning provisions delivered jointly between 
different countries, such as a European degree or micro-credentials. 

In addition, academic staff are indispensable for thriving European higher education institutions and 
deeper transnational cooperation. Building joint educational offers that include mobility, such as joint 
degree  programmes,  with  innovative  teaching  and  learning  methods,  requires  substantial  effort  and 
dedication from academics. However, this is still not properly valorised and recognised in their career 
development  and  promotion.  A  European  framework  for  attractive  academic  careers  is  key  to 
operationalising the parity of esteem for teaching, research activities, and involvement in transnational 
cooperation such as the development of joint degree programmes.  

The proposed higher education package is based on extensive evidence and consultation carried out 
with all relevant actors in the higher education sector, including higher education institutions, students, 
national  quality  assurance  agencies,  employers,  and  Member  States  authorities.  The  initiatives  also 
build on the preliminary results of six ongoing Erasmus+ policy experimentation projects on a European 

3 Eurobarometer, The European Education Area, 2018, https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2186  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
degree and four ongoing Erasmus+ European policy experimentation projects exploring a legal status 
for alliances of higher education institutions.  

This  package  aims  to:  increase  deeper  transnational  cooperation;  boost  the  competitiveness  and 
attractiveness  of  Europe’s  higher  education  sector  on  the  global  stage;  cultivate  a  flexible,  skilled, 
innovative and resilient labour force; foster a strong sense of European belonging; and bring Europe a 
step  closer  to  delivering  the  European  Education  Area  by  20254:  develop  a  common  EU  space  for 
learning  mobility,  multilingualism,  and  quality  education  for  all,  through  strong  transnational 
cooperation between education institutions, their staff, and their students.  

This Staff Working Document provides the background to and the evidence for this higher education 
package.  

•  Chapter 1 looks at the higher education landscape in Europe and existing joint programmes 

and identifies current challenges. 

•  Chapter 2 presents the added value of a European degree and discusses the main findings of 
the  policy  experimentation  projects  testing  the  criteria  and  award  process  of  the  European 
degree. 

•  Chapter 3 introduces the main barriers and obstacles identified by the policy experimentation 

projects that need to be overcome in order to implement the European degree. 

•  Chapter 4 introduces the need for a fit-for-purpose European quality assurance and recognition 
system. Drawing on studies and consultations, it puts forward recommendations addressing the 
different kinds of existing quality assurance and recognition systems: institutional, programme-
based, mixed, and cross-institutional. 

•  Chapter 5 discusses the need for a European framework for attractive, flexible, and sustainable 
careers in higher education. It summarises the findings of consultations and studies on this topic 
and identifies challenges and steps forward. 

•  Chapter  6  summarises  the  main  findings  of  the  Staff  Working  Document  and  outlines  the 

future steps towards the European degree. 

4  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  A  European  education  area  by  2025,  COM  (2017)  673,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/a-european-education-area-by-2025.html 

5 

 
 
 
Chapter 1: A European degree - a key element to achieve the European Education Area 
and to boost Europe’s competitiveness and attractiveness 

1.1. 

The importance of transnational cooperation in higher education 

Transnational cooperation is a core tenet of our European way of life. Europe’s higher education sector 
has been a pioneer in embracing this principle to give an entire generation of Europeans the opportunity 
to study, train, teach, and conduct research across borders and sectors. Efforts such as the Erasmus+ 
programme5, the Bologna Process6, Erasmus Mundus7, and the European Universities Initiative8 have 
set  the  ground  for  European  higher  education  institutions  to  network  and  cooperate  across  borders, 
deliver  joint  education  and  research,  and  raise  their  profile  internationally.  They  have  strengthened 
European integration and consolidated the European Union as a reference in the global higher education 
landscape.  

Anchored  in  transnational  cooperation,  Europe’s  higher  education  sector  has  demonstrated 
extraordinary  resilience  to  address  the  most  complex  challenges,  including  the  consequences  of  the 
COVID-19  pandemic9;  providing  continuous  support  to  Ukraine’s  education  sector  amidst  Russia’s 
unjustified war of aggression10; and encouraging action to ensure that Europe has the skills, talent, and 
innovation potential to achieve the green and digital transitions11 12. 

According to the U-Multirank's Higher Education Cooperation Index13:  

•  Higher education institutions that work together with other institutions, businesses, industries, 

governments, regional bodies, or across borders, perform better than those that are less focused on 
cooperation. 

•  European universities cooperate more intensively compared to other regions and have more joint 

degree programmes and higher student mobility rates than non-EU universities. 

•  Top performers in the Higher Education Cooperation Index have more students who graduate in 

time; a higher founding of graduate companies; and a larger publication output. 

The transnational component of education is essential to equip Europeans with the competencies they 
need  to  thrive  in  a  complex  and  hyperconnected  world.  Transnational  cooperation  enables  higher 

European 

European 

Education 

Erasmus+: 

Commission, 

Joint  Masters 

Erasmus  Mundus 

European  Commission, 

5  European  Commission,  Erasmus+:  EU  programme  for  education,  training,  youth  and  sport,  https://erasmus-
plus.ec.europa.eu/  
6 European Agency for Higher Education and Accreditation (EHEA), https://ehea.info/index.php  
7 
plus.ec.europa.eu/opportunities/opportunities-for-individuals/students/erasmus-mundus-joint-masters  
8 
https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/european-universities-initiative  
9  European  Commission,  Back 
https://education.ec.europa.eu/news/back-to-school-eu-support-to-pupils-students-and-teachers  
10  European  Commission,  European  Education  Area:  Support  for  people  affected  by  Russia's  invasion  of  Ukraine, 
https://education.ec.europa.eu/support-for-people-affected-by-russias-invasion-of-ukraine  
11  European  Commission,  European  Education  Area:  Green  education  initiatives,  https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-
topics/green-education/about-green-education  
12  European  Commission,  European  Education  Area:  Digital  education  initiatives,  https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-
topics/digital-education/about-digital-education  
13 'U-Multirank creates new "Higher Education Cooperation Index", showing the key to strategic success is cooperation', U-
Multirank,  September  21,  2021.  https://www.umultirank.org/press-media/press-releases/u-multirank-creates-new-higher-
education-cooperation-index/  

teachers,  August  21,  2021, 

to  pupils,  students  and 

to  school:  EU  support 

https://erasmus-

Universities 

(students), 

European 

Area: 

initiative,  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
education  institutions  to maximise  the  benefits  of  European  diversity14,  building on  the  core  shared 
values of inclusion and excellence.  

However, the same diversity that renders the European model unique presents challenges of its own 
that hamper the creation and delivery of joint educational provisions. They include lengthy and complex 
quality  assurance  procedures,  incompatible  legislative  requirements,  the  lack  of  automatic  mutual 
recognition of learning periods and qualifications obtained abroad, and the insufficient valorisation of 
the work of higher education academic staff that engage in transnational cooperation initiatives. 

1.2. 

The Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area 

Overcoming the complexity of bringing together the varied higher education systems in Europe has 
been the focus of the Bologna Process for the past two and a half decades. This process started with the 
Sorbonne Declaration in 1998 when the ministers of Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom 
committed to harmonising the architecture of the European higher education system. It was formalised 
in 1999 when 29 countries signed the Bologna Declaration15, agreeing to work together to develop the 
European Higher Education Area (EHEA) – a common higher education space built on common values 
and  using  common  tools  that  ensures  more  comparable,  compatible,  and  coherent  higher  education 
systems  in  Europe16.  Today,  the  European  Higher  Education  Area  includes  49  countries  and  the 
European Commission among its Members17.  

From  the  outset,  the  Bologna  Process  has  encouraged  joint  programmes  and  joint  degrees  as  a  key 
element in supporting the internationalisation of higher education institutions. This has been reflected 
in every Bologna communiqué that has been adopted since 1998. 

Ministerial Conferences are organised every two or three years to assess the progress made within the European 
Higher  Education Area.  Decisions  are  adopted  in  the  form  of  communiqués.  Joint  programmes  and  joint 
degrees have been encouraged in all of them (emphasis added in bold)18:  

Sorbonne, 1998: 

‘Progressive  harmonisation  of  the  overall  framework  of  our  degrees  and  cycles  can  be  achieved  through 
strengthening of already existing experience, joint diplomas, pilot initiatives, and dialogue with all concerned.’ 

Prague, 2001: 

To  further  strengthen  the  European  dimensions  of  higher  education  and  graduate  employability,  ‘Ministers 
called upon the higher education sector to increase the development of modules, courses and curricula at all 
levels with “European” content, orientation or organisation […] particularly [those] offered in partnership by 
institutions from different countries and leading to a recognized joint degree.’ 

Ministers also encouraged the Bologna  Follow-up Group (BFUG) to  ‘arrange seminars to explore [among 
other] areas: […] the development of joint degrees.’ 

the 

‘European  diversity: 

strength  of  our  union’,  The  Parliament,  May  23,  2022, 

14  Dalli,  H., 
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/european-diversity-the-strength-of-our-union  
15  Bologna  Process  Committee  1999,  Joint  declaration  of  the  European  Ministers  of  Education  convened  in 
Bologna on 19 June 1999, (The Bologna Declaration), http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/Ministerial_conferences/02
/8/1999_Bologna_Declaration_English_553028.pdf   
16  Council  of  Europe,  European  Higher  Education  Area,  https://www.coe.int/en/web/higher-education-and-
research/european-higher-education-area  
17 ‘As of the BFUG Meeting LXXX, held in Strasbourg on 11 and 12 April 2022, it was decided by the BFUG members to 
suspend the rights of representation of the Russian Federation and Belarus in the EHEA,’ https://www.ehea.info/page-members  
18  European  Agency  for  Higher  Education  and  Accreditation  (EHEA),  Ministerial  Declarations  and  Communiqués, 
https://ehea.info/page-ministerial-declarations-and-communiques 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Berlin, 2003: 

Ministers  noted  ‘that  initiatives  have  been  taken  by  Higher  Education  Institutions  in  various  European 
countries  to  pool  their  academic  resources  and  cultural  traditions  in  order  to  promote  the  development  of 
integrated study programmes and joint degrees at first, second and third level.’  

They also stressed ‘the necessity of ensuring a substantial period of study abroad in joint degree programmes 
as well as proper provision for linguistic diversity and language learning, so that students may achieve their 
full potential for European identity, citizenship and employability’; they agreed ‘to engage at the national level 
to remove legal obstacles to the establishment and recognition of such degrees and to actively support the 
development and adequate quality assurance of integrated curricula leading to joint degrees.’ 

Bergen, 2005: 

 ‘We express support for the subsidiary texts to the Lisbon Recognition Convention and call upon all national 
authorities and other stakeholders to recognise joint degrees awarded in two or more countries in the EHEA.’ 

They  called  for  progress  in  the  ‘implementation  of  the  standards  and  guidelines  for  quality  assurance  as 
proposed in the ENQA report’; the ‘implementation of the national frameworks for qualifications’; and ‘the 
awarding and recognition of joint degrees, including at the doctorate level’. 

London, 2007: 

‘Easily  readable  and  comparable  degrees  and  accessible  information  on  educational  systems  and 
qualifications frameworks are prerequisites for citizens’ mobility and ensuring the continuing attractiveness 
and competitiveness of the EHEA.’ 

Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 2009: 

‘Within  each  of  the  three  cycles,  opportunities  for  mobility  shall  be  created  in  the  structure  of  degree 
programmes.  Joint  degrees  and  programmes  as  well  as  mobility  windows  shall  become  more  common 
practice.’ 

Bucharest, 2012: 

‘We will allow EQAR-registered agencies to perform their activities across the EHEA, while complying with 
national requirements. In particular, we will aim to recognise quality assurance decisions of EQAR-registered 
agencies on joint and double degree programmes.’ 

‘We encourage higher education institutions to further develop joint programmes and degrees as part of a 
wider  EHEA  approach.  We  will  examine  national  rules  and  practices  relating  to  joint  programmes  and 
degrees as a way to dismantle obstacles to cooperation and mobility embedded in national contexts.’ 

Yerevan, 2015: 

‘A  common  degree  structure  and  credit  system,  common  quality  assurance  standards  and  guidelines, 
cooperation for mobility and joint programmes and degrees are the foundations of the EHEA.’ 

Paris, 2018: 

‘In order to encourage the development of more joint programmes and joint degrees, we will also enable and 
promote the use of the “European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes” in our higher 
education systems.’ 

‘We will foster and extend integrated transnational cooperation in higher education, research and innovation, 
for increased mobility of staff, students and researchers, and for more joint study programmes throughout the 
whole EHEA.’ 

8 

 
 
Rome, 2020: 

‘Deeper cooperation between higher education institutions will help to address the above objectives through 
joint teaching and research. We will strive to eliminate obstacles to cooperation at national levels and to enable 
all  higher  education  institutions  in  the  EHEA  to  benefit  from  it.  The  alliances  formed  under  the  European 
Universities Initiative constitute one important way of  exploring deeper, larger scale systemic cooperation, 
which can prove helpful for detecting and overcoming the obstacles to closer transnational cooperation by 
higher education institutions in the future.’ 

The  Bologna  Process  has  led  diverse  initiatives  to  build  consistency  and  transparency  across  the 
European Higher Education Area to improve quality, inclusion and equity19, excellence and innovation 
in higher education20 teaching and learning, and its global attractiveness21.  

Notably,  in  2005, the  Ministers  of  the  European  Higher  Education  Area  adopted  the  Standards  and 
Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), to provide Member 
Countries  with  shared  standards  and  guidelines  for  internal  and  external  quality  assurance  of 
programmes22.  

In 2015, the Ministers approved the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes23 
(European Approach) to facilitate the external quality assurance of joint programmes by using common 
standards, procedures, and tools, including the ESG. 

The European Approach entails a single review for joint programmes coordinated and offered jointly 
by higher education institutions from two or more countries. The review is led by a quality assurance 
agency  registered  in  the  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  (EQAR)24;  the 
result can be positive (valid for six years); positive subject to recommendations being met; or negative. 
In  all  cases,  the  review  report  is  publicly  published  in  the  Database  of  External  Quality  Assurance 
Results (DEQAR)25. 

The  European  Approach  has  minimised  the  workload  involved  in  accreditation  by  implementing  a 
single  procedure  and  has  increased  the  visibility  and  added  value  of  joint  degrees  in  the  eyes  of 
employers. However, the use of the European Approach remains modest – only 28 joint programmes 
have been fully accredited to date (February 2024)26. 

19  European  Commission,  European  Education  Area:  Improving  quality  and  equity  in  education  and  training, 
https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/improving-quality 
20  European  Commission,  European  Education  Area:  Higher  education,  https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-
levels/higher-education  
21  European  Commission,  European  Education  Area:  The  European  Education  Area 
https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/eea-in-the-world 
22  The  ESG  were  adopted  following  a  proposal  prepared  by  the  European  Association  for  Quality  Assurance  in  Higher 
Education  (ENQA)  in  cooperation  with  the  European  Students’  Union  (ESU),  the European  Association of  Institutions  in 
Higher  Education  (EURASHE)  and  the  European  University  Association  (EUA).  The  ESG  were  revised  in  2015, 
https://enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf  
23  European  Commission,  Yerevan  Communiqué,  Conference  of  Ministers  responsible  for  higher  education, 
Yerevan, 2015. https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/70/7/YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf 
24 
https://www.eqar.eu/register/agencies/  
25  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  (EQAR),  Database  of  External  QA  Results  (DEQAR), 
https://www.eqar.eu/about/annual-reports/2020-2/database-of-external-qa-results-deqar/  
26 European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR), Joint programmes that used the European Approach, 
https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-programmes/european-approach-cases/  

European  Quality  Assurance  Register 

for  Higher 

the  world, 

Registered 

Education 

agencies, 

(EQAR), 

in 

9 

 
 
 
 
1.3. 

The European Education Area 

EU-led initiatives have contributed to accelerating the implementation of Bologna commitments and 
brought a new impetus to shared ambitions in higher education.  Examples include the 2006 European 
Parliament  and  Council  Recommendation  on  further  cooperation  in  quality  assurance  in  higher 
education, which led to the creation of the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education 
(EQAR)27;  and  the  2018  Council  Recommendation  on  promoting  automatic  mutual  recognition  of 
higher  education  and  upper  secondary  education  and  training  qualifications  and  the  outcomes  of 
learning  periods  abroad28,  which  called  on  Member  States  to  ensure  the  full  implementation  of  the 
Bologna Process instruments. 

A  notable  development  was  the  European  Commission  Communication  on  strengthening  European 
identity  through  education  and  culture29,  published  on  14  November  2017  in  the  leadup  to  the  EU 
Leaders’  meeting  in  Gothenburg,  Sweden.  The  communication  set  out  the  vision  of  the  European 
Education Area as a common space for quality education and lifelong learning across borders for all.  

This  idea  was  endorsed  at  the  Social  Summit  in  Gothenburg  later  that  year  and  in  the  Council 
Conclusions of 7 June 2018, where Member States also expressed their support for the emergence of 
‘European Universities’ as ‘bottom-up networks that [...] work seamlessly across borders, and which 
could play a flagship role in the creation of a European Education Area [...], contributing to empower 
new  generations  of  European  citizens  and  to  strengthen  the  international  competitiveness  of  higher 
education in Europe’30.  

The first call of the European Universities Initiative was launched that same year. In September 2020, 
the  European  Commission  Communication  on  Achieving  the  European  Education  Area  by  202531 
identified the need to explore a framework to ease the delivery of joint degree programmes of higher 
education alliances. The European Council backed this idea in its 2021 Conclusions on the European 
Universities initiative – Bridging higher education, research, innovation and society: Paving the way 
for a new dimension in European higher education32, inviting the Member States and the Commission 
to explore the feasibility of European degrees.   

The 2022 Commission Communication on a European Strategy for Universities33 further developed this 
vision by proposing exploratory work towards a European degree as part of four flagships to boost the 
European dimension of higher education. As a first step, the Commission committed to exploring and 
developing  European  criteria  for  the  award  of  a  European  degree  label  that  could  be  issued  as  a 
complementary certificate for students graduating from transnational joint programmes. Later that year, 

L 

p. 

in 

64 

(OJ 

60), 

higher 

assurance 

education 

04.03.2006, 

27 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on further European cooperation in 
quality 
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:064:0060:0062:EN:PDF  
28 Council Recommendation of 26 November 2018 on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper 
secondary education and training qualifications and the outcomes of learning periods abroad (OJ C, C/444, 10.12.2018, p. 1), 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018H1210(01)  
29 Communication from the Commission on Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture, The European 
Commission's  contribution  to  the  Leaders'  meeting  in  Gothenburg,  17  November  2017.  COM  (2017)  673,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:673:FIN  
30 Council conclusions on moving towards a vision of a European Education Area (OJ C, C/195, 07.06.2018, p. 7), https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018XG0607(01)   
31 Communication from the Commission on Achieving the European Education Area by 2025, COM (2020) 625, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0625   
32 Council conclusions on the European Universities initiative – Bridging higher education, research, innovation and society: 
Paving 
education,  17  May  2021,  8658/21, 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8658-2021-INIT/en/pdf  
33  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  The  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for universities, 18.1.2022 Com(2022) 16, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A16%3AFIN 

in  European  higher 

a  new  dimension 

the  way 

for 

10 

 
 
 
the Council  Conclusions on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation34, 
invited the Commission to pilot the European criteria.   

The  Commission  co-developed  a  set  of  preliminary  European  criteria  with  Member  States,  higher 
education  institutions  and  other  stakeholders  and  launched  a  call  in  June  2022  under  the  Erasmus+ 
policy experimentation action to test them35. Six project consortia involving over 60 higher education 
institutions and 17 ministries across the European Union and beyond were selected to conduct the pilots 
over a one-year period starting in April 202336. 

The European Parliament, in its resolution of 16 January 2024 on the implementation of the Erasmus+ 
programme 2021-202737, added impetus to the Commission’s initiative on a European degree. Members 
of  the  European  Parliament  welcomed  ‘the  steps  taken  towards  a  joint  European  degree  label  and 
common  European  diplomas’,  highlighting  that  ’the  creation  of  common  curricula  and  research 
cooperation between universities in Europe are instrumental to address needs in strategic areas’. 

1.4. 

Joint transnational programmes in Europe 

Joint programmes allow higher education institutions to enhance the quality and attractiveness of their 
academic  offer  and  provide  students  with  learning  opportunities  that  individual  institutions  cannot 
deliver on their own. They enrich and facilitate mutual learning and cooperation; enhance student and 
staff mobility; and encourage the use of innovative pedagogies. 

The European approach to Quality Assurance of joint programmes approved by European Higher Education 
Area (EHEA) ministers at their conference in Yerevan, May 2015, provides a definition of joint programmes 
and joint degrees38:  

• 

• 

Joint programmes: an integrated curriculum coordinated and offered jointly by different higher 
education institutions from the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) countries and leading to 
double/multiple degrees or a joint degree.   

Joint degree: a single document awarded by higher education institutions offering the joint 
programme and nationally acknowledged as the recognised award of the joint programme. 

While it is difficult to estimate the total number of joint programmes that currently exist in Europe, data 
and literature suggest a growing trend for demand. In 2009, a Bologna Stocktaking Report estimated 
that there could be 2 500 joint programmes in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) 39. Building 
on this, a Background Report on the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, 
published in 2014, suggested that the number of joint programmes could be above 3 000, noting that 

34 Council Recommendation of 5 April 2022 on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation (2022/C 
160/01), OJ C 160, 13.4.2022,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022H0413(01) 
35 European Commission, Call for proposals: European policy experimentation in higher education, ERASMUS-EDU-2022-
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/erasmus/wp-call/2022/call-
POL-EXP, 
fiche_erasmus-edu-2022-pol-exp-he_en.pdf  
36 Six project consortia involving over 60 higher education institutions and 17 ministries were selected in June 2022 under the 
Erasmus+ policy experimentation action to pilot criteria for the award of a European degree label to joint programmes. The 
criteria were first proposed in the European Strategy for Universities (18 January 2023) and co-developed by the European 
Commission, Member States, higher education institutions and other stakeholders following the invitation of the Council in 
its conclusions on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation (5 April 2023). 
37  European  Parliament  resolution  of  16  January  2024  on  the  implementation  of  the  Erasmus+  programme  2021-2027 
(2023/2002(INI)), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0007_EN.html  
38  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  (EQAR),  Definitions,  https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-
programmes/definitions/  
39 Bologna Follow Up Group, Andrejs Rauhvargers, Cynthia Deane, Wilfried Pauwels, Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 
2009, Ministerial Conference in Leuven, April 2009, https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2009_Leuven_Louvain-la-
Neuve/94/7/Stocktaking_report_2009_FINAL_594947.pdf  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
‘many  more  joint  programmes  could,  however,  be  provided  as  joint  degrees  if  national  legislation, 
accreditation and recognition practices would become more suitable for awarding joint degrees’40. 

More  recently,  the  six  Erasmus+  European  policy  experimentation  projects  that  have  explored  the 
feasibility of a European degree have mapped about 1 000 joint programmes in Europe offered among 
140  higher  education institutions  –  including  partners  and associated  partners. Given that  Europe is 
home to almost 5 000 higher education institutions41, the total offer is likely larger and could grow even 
bigger with enabling frameworks at national, regional, and institutional levels.  

Joint  transnational  programmes  have  been  long  established  in  European  higher  education.  Notable 
examples include the Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters programmes42 and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie 
Doctoral Networks43, along with the more recent European Universities alliances.   

Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters programmes 

The initiation of the Erasmus Mundus programme in 2004 rapidly supported a global reputation for 
joint  programmes  at the  master  level  through multi-national  consortia from  Europe  and  abroad that 
construct a ‘joined-up’ teaching programme44.  

Statistics on the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree programmes (EMJMD) show that during 2014-202045: 

• 

• 

• 

369 higher education institutions were a coordinator or partner. 

60% of the top-10 European universities and nearly 75% of the 50 top-ranked European universities46 
participate in at least one of the 250 funded programmes, indicating excellence. 

 60%  of  participating  higher  education  institutions  were  ranked  beyond  the  top  500  in  the  world, 
underlining inclusiveness. 

•  Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree programmes have a global reach: 80% of the 7 718 students 

that received scholarships came from partner countries47. 

The  programme  remains  highly  competitive  and  has  delivered  significant  value  for  its  graduates. 
Erasmus  Mundus  has  also  been  a  rich  testbed  to  understand  the  challenges  involved  in  building  a 
transnational teaching and learning offer at the master level.  

Erasmus  Mundus 

European  Commission, 

the  European  Approach 

40  Background  Report  on 
for  Quality  Assurance  of  Joint  Programmes,  2014, 
https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/72/9/European_Approach_QA_of_Joint_Programmes_Backgroun
d_Report_613729.pdf  
41 European Commission, European Education Area: Higher education initiatives, https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-
levels/higher-education/about-higher-education 
42 
Erasmus+: 
plus.ec.europa.eu/opportunities/opportunities-for-individuals/students/erasmus-mundus-joint-masters  
43  European  Commission,  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions:  Doctoral  Networks,  https://marie-sklodowska-curie-
actions.ec.europa.eu/actions/doctoral-networks  
44 Each master programme is delivered by an international consortium of at least three higher education institutions from at 
least  three different  countries  and other  educational  and non-educational partners:   https://education.ec.europa.eu/study-in-
europe  
45 European Commission, European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Erasmus+ Programme, Statistical factsheets 
on 
(2014-2020),  Publications  Office, 
2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/639462  
46 This takes as a reference both the 2020 Academic Ranking of World Universities (Shanghai Ranking) and the 2020 Times 
Higher Education World University Ranking (THE). 
47 ’Partner Countries’ refers to third countries not associated to the Erasmus+ programme in 2014-2020. 

the  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Master  Degrees 

the  achievements  of 

Joint  Masters 

https://erasmus-

(students), 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The latest Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Graduate Impact Surveys48 reveal that graduates49 from these 
joint programmes: 

•  Report the greatest impact in their careers and intercultural experiences. 

• 

• 

Improve employment-relevant skills, such as language (78%), critical thinking (77%) sector- or field-
specific skills (76%), communication (74%), and analytical and problem-solving (74%) skills. 

Improve  personal  and  intercultural  development,  including  openness  about  new  challenges  (82%), 
tolerance  (79%),  confidence  in  their  own  abilities  (76%),  and  awareness  of  own  strengths  and 
weaknesses (75%). 

•  Are more likely to find a job that matches their education than the average master graduate50. 

The Erasmus Mundus Design Measures (EMDM) were introduced  in 2021 to support the design of 
innovative, transnational and integrated study programmes at master level51. Statistics from the Erasmus 
Mundus latest call for proposals52 report that coordinating partners of the newly selected proposals come 
from several Member States and that  a third of the higher education institutions participating in the 
Erasmus Mundus Design Measures were new organisations. 

in 

48 Preliminary figures from the forthcoming Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Graduate Impact Survey 2023. 
49 Both with and without an Erasmus Mundus scholarship. 
50  As  reported in  the  previous  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Master  Graduate  Impact  Survey  2020/21,  which  compared  the  data 
collected from Erasmus Mundus graduates with the EUROGRADUATE Pilot Survey conducted in 2018 (this analysis was 
not  repeated 
the  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Master  Graduate  Impact  Survey  2023).  See  https://www.esaa-
eu.org/fileadmin/esaa/content/news/files/2022/gis_202021_definite_report.pdf 
51 European Commission, Erasmus+: Erasmus Mundus Design Measures (EMDM), https://erasmus-
plus.ec.europa.eu/opportunities/opportunities-for-organisations/cooperation-among-organisations-and-institutions/erasmus-
mundus-design-measures-emdm?facets__field_eac_tags=185    
52 European Commission, European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Erasmus Mundus, analysis of the results of the 
second 2021-2027 call (joint masters and design measures)  – Erasmus+ Programme, Publications Office of the European 
Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/38904 

13 

 
 
 
 
Figure  1.1:  Geographical origin  of coordinating  partners  of  Erasmus  Mundus  actions  under  the 
second 2021-2027 call 

Source: European Commission, European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Erasmus Mundus, analysis of the results 
of  the  second  2021-2027  call  (joint  masters  and  design  measures)  –  Erasmus+  Programme,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/38904.  

Since  200453,  the  Erasmus  Mundus  programme  has  funded  719  joint  masters  and  43  joint  doctoral 
programmes54, and it has supported 155 Erasmus Mundus Design Measures since 202155. The figures 
underline that the reach of Erasmus Mundus is strong and still growing after nearly two decades and 
suggest  the  clear  latent  potential  to  build  more  transnational  joint  programmes  beyond  existing 
Erasmus-funded measures. 

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Joint Doctoral Networks 

Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Joint  Doctoral  Networks  are  a  prime  example  of  highly  integrated 
transnational cooperation in doctoral training. PhD candidates are enrolled in a joint programme and 
are jointly supervised, leading to the delivery of joint, double, or multiple doctoral degrees. The goal of 
this  EU-funded  action  is  to  train  highly  skilled  doctoral  candidates,  stimulate  their  creativity  and 
innovation capacity, and boost their employability56.  

88  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Joint  Doctoral  programmes  were  funded  between  2014  and  2023, 
involving  more  than  1  200  individual  fellowships57.  The  share  of  submitted  proposals  for  Joint 
Doctorates has remained stable over time, accounting for approximately 7% of all submitted proposals 
under  the  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  action  between  2014  and  202358.  This  speaks  of  the  continued 
interest for joint programmes at the doctoral level. 

53  Eurydice,  ‘Erasmus  Mundus  turns  20:  reflecting  on  two  decades  of  a  global  programme’,  January  30,  2024, 
https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/news/erasmus-mundus-turns-20-reflecting-two-decades-global-programme  
54 The Erasmus Mundus programme originally encompassed joint master and doctorate programmes before becoming part of 
the Erasmus+ umbrella in 2014. 
55 European Commission services. Internal statistics. 
56  European  Commission,  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions:  Doctoral  Networks,  https://marie-sklodowska-curie-
actions.ec.europa.eu/actions/doctoral-networks  
57 European Commission services. Internal statistics. 
58 European Commission services. Internal  statistics. Applicants can submit proposals for one of three types of doctorates 
under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie action: standard doctorates, industrial doctorates, and joint doctorates. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology 

The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)59 also has an extensive portfolio of joint 
programmes  across  its  Knowledge  Innovation  Communities  (KICs)  and  an  ‘online  campus’60  that 
provides education opportunities from over 200 partners. 

European Universities alliances 

Further impetus for joint transnational programmes at all levels (bachelor, master, and doctoral) came 
in 2018 with the launch of the first call for European Universities alliances. These are inter-university 
campuses  that  pool  their  expertise,  platforms,  and  resources  to  integrate  long-term  joint  education 
strategies,  and  deliver  joint  curricula  and  flexible  learning  pathways,  allowing  students,  staff,  and 
researchers to move seamlessly between alliance members61.  

To date, the European Universities Initiative62 has supported the creation of 50 European Universities 
alliances,  involving  more  than  430  higher  education  institutions,  and  has  the  ambitious  goal  of 
expanding to 60 European Universities alliances by mid-202463.   

Preliminary data from the monitoring framework of the European Universities Initiative, carried out in 
autumn 2023, shows that European Universities alliances have created nearly 160 joint programmes 
since  the  beginning  of  the initiative64.  A  particularly  important  development  is  the  creation  of  joint 
bachelor programmes, such as the Una Europa joint bachelor on European studies65.  

Una Europa's Joint Bachelor of Arts in European Studies 

The Una Europa Joint Bachelor of Arts in European Studies (BAES) is  one of the few joint programmes at 
bachelor  level.  Co-developed  by  11  partner  universities  and  accredited  using  the  European Approach  for 
Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, the programme examines the fundamental aspects and values of the 
European Union and of European states and societies.  

Adopting a multidisciplinary approach, it reflects on Europe’s role in the world. Through its extensive mobility 
programme, students can study in two or three universities, which gives them the opportunity to not only learn 
about Europe, but also to experience it first hand and grow in a truly international setting. 

Additionally,  the  European  Universities  Alliances  seem  to  have  increased  the  use  of  the  European 
Approach  for  Quality  Assurance  of  Joint  Programmes,  reflected  on  a  number  of  new  programmes 
recently accredited or that plan to do so.  

The Bologna Process had succeeded in establishing components and tools for accelerating the provision 
of transnational teaching and learning throughout the European Higher Education Area, but until the 
European Universities Initiative66, there had not been a mechanism in place to bring together all the 
elements into a full testbed that could further inform policy developments. 

European 

Commission, 

59 European Institute of Technology (EIT), https://eit.europa.eu/  
60 European Institute of Technology (EIT), EIT Campus online platform,  https://eit-campus.eu/  
61 European Commission, First 17 “European Universities” selected: a major step towards building a European Education 
Area, June 26, 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_3389  
62 
https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/european-universities-initiative  
63 European Commission, European Education Area: 50 European Universities to cooperate across borders and disciplines, 
July 3, 2023, https://education.ec.europa.eu/news/european-universities-2023-call-results?  
64  European  Commission.  Preliminary  data  from  the  study  Outcomes  and  transformational  potential  of  the  European 
Universities initiative (in preparation – not yet published). 
65 Una Europa, Joint Bachelor of Arts in European Studies, https://www.una-europa.eu/study/baes  
66  European  Commission,  European  Education  Area:  One  year  of  European  Strategy  for  Universities  marks  important 
achievements, April 5, 2023, https://education.ec.europa.eu/news/european-strategy-for-universities-one-year  

Universities 

Education 

European 

European 

initiative, 

Area: 

15 

 
 
 
 
Latent potential of joint transnational programmes 

The attractiveness and competitiveness showcased by the Erasmus Mundus programme over the past 
two decades and, more recently, by the European Universities Initiative, have not yet been translated 
into  the  widespread  and  systematic  adoption  of  the  transnational  model  across  European  higher 
education systems.  

Academic  and  administrative  staff  still  face  many  obstacles  when  building  transnational  and  multi-
disciplinary  programmes.  European  Universities  alliances  themselves  have  faced  considerable 
difficulties  in  putting  joint  programmes  in  motion:  a  study  by  the  European  University  Association 
shows that conferences of rectors point to accreditation and quality assurance of joint programmes as 
the most common challenge faced by the alliances67.  

The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)68, which brings together 
information about the diverse quality assurance practices across European countries, recognises that the 
European Approach has been an important development to facilitate the creation of transnational joint 
programmes in Europe. Nonetheless, as experienced by Erasmus Mundus Joint Master programmes and 
the European Universities alliances, the wider development of transnational teaching and learning is 
still often hampered by incompatible national administrative rules and legislation.  

The  diversity  of  approaches  is  documented  in  detail  through  the  European  Network  of  Information 
Centres and the National Academic Recognition Information Centre (ENIC/NARIC)69 network which 
provides  country  information  across  areas  such  as  quality  assurance,  the  recognition  of  foreign 
qualifications, and overall qualifications frameworks70.  

1.5. 

The need to act 

Despite the considerable progress that Europe’s higher education sector has made over the past 25 years, 
challenges still need to be overcome to meet the demand for transnational educational offer and facilitate 
the  development,  delivery,  and  recognition  of  transnational  joint  programmes  in  the  European 
Education Area.  

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced a unique challenge  to transnational cooperation, reflected in a 
steep decline in student mobility rates across the EU, from 11.2% in 2020 to 9.8% in 2021. However, 
as indicated in the Education and  Training Monitor 2023, the limited growth in the share of  mobile 
students in the years leading up to 2021, ‘suggests that there are other barriers to mobility besides those 
imposed by the pandemic that would need to be removed if the EU is to establish a European Education 
Area.’71  

Indeed, according to a recent study that included interviews with European Universities alliances, the 
main obstacles to transnational cooperation arise from restrictive elements of national legislation and a 
lack of the full implementation of agreed Bologna tools72.  

67 Claeys-Kulik, A., Bennetot Pruvot, E., Estermann, T., Jørgensen, T., The European Universities Initiative and system-level 
reforms:  Current  challenges  and  considerations  for  the  future,  European  University  Association  (EUA),  2022, 
https://eua.eu/resources/publications/1038:the-european-universities-initiative-and-system-level-reforms.html  
68 European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, https://www.enqa.eu/  
69 European Network of Information Centres (ENIC) and National Academic Recognition Information Centres in the European 
Union (NARIC), https://www.enic-naric.net/  
70 European Network of Information Centres (ENIC) and National Academic Recognition Information Centres in the European 
Union (NARIC), Countries of the network, https://www.enic-naric.net/page-countries-of-the-networks  
71 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Education and training monitor 2023 
– Comparative report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/936303 
72 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
‘The work on the creation of the collaborative degree programmes in the pilot phase of RUN-EU has 
shown  that  the  implementation  of  Bologna  tools  varies  quite  extensively  between  European  countries.  This 
includes, for instance, different duration and ECTS loads for same level degree programmes, different grading 
systems, study periods as well as a wide range of barriers to recognition.’ 

RUN-EU  (European  Universities  alliance  with  members  in  Austria,  Belgium,  Finland,  Hungary,  Ireland, 
Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands) – Call for Evidence. 

The implementation of Bologna tools and procedures has been uneven across the European Union. In 
some cases instruments are not allowed or, while allowed, they are restricted to a limited number of 
cases or cannot be used in practice due to additional national requirements. This limits the added value 
and the systemic impact of Bologna tools and means that the legal framework of one single country can 
limit progress for the rest willing to participate in joint transnational programmes.  

The Mobility Scoreboard 2022/202373 shows uneven progress toward automatic recognition among 
countries in the European Higher Education Area: 

•  Only 13 education systems74 have system level automatic recognition of degrees that are issued in 

all other European Higher Education Area countries.  

• 

• 

15 systems75 have automatic recognition for some European countries, usually based on regional, 
bilateral or multilateral agreements.  

11 education systems76 have no automatic recognition and separate procedures apply to the 
qualifications issued by all European Higher Education Area countries. 

While  more  joint  programmes  are  being  developed  by  universities  to  combine  the  complementary 
strengths  from  different  institutions,  only  a  minority  lead  to  a  joint  degree.  The  2020  study 
‘Implementing joint degrees in the Erasmus Mundus action of the Erasmus+ programme’ shows that 
only a third (32%) of Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters’ Degree programmes manage to deliver fully joint 
degrees77,  whereas  most  of  them  (44%)  deliver  multiple  or  double  degrees,  and  23%  award  a 
combination of joint and single degrees78.  

This means that less than half (43%) of the full partner higher education institutions taking part in an 
Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters’ programme succeeded in establishing joint degree arrangements with 

the  European  Union,  2023, 

report,  Publications  Office  of 

feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 
73 European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Eurydice, Mobility scoreboard – Higher education background 
report 2022/2023 – Eurydice report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/001589  
74 Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Croatia, Italy, Malta, Austria, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Türkiye. 
75  Belgium’s  three  higher  education  systems,  Czechia,  Iceland,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Lichtenstein, 
Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia. 
76 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Ireland, Spain, Switzerland, Slovenia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, North Macedonia, 
and Cyprus. 
77 21% provide a single diploma to all students, jointly awarded by all the higher education institutions of the consortium; 11% 
provide a single diploma jointly awarded by the higher education institutions where the students studied – ‘joint degrees per 
track’ – which means that different graduates may get different degrees. 
78 European Commission, European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Implementing joint degrees in the Erasmus 
Mundus action of the Erasmus+ programme, Publications Office, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/896549 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
one or more of their counterparts79. The reasons are linked to administrative difficulties and disparities 
between national (and regional) legislation. The more countries are involved, the more complicated it 
becomes to develop joint programmes and award joint degrees. 

Among the 40 first European Universities alliances supported by the Erasmus+ programme, about 160 
new  joint  degree  programmes  have  been  developed  at  all  levels  (bachelor,  masters,  and  doctoral). 
However, preliminary data from the 2023 monitoring framework of the European Universities Initiative 
indicate  that  European  Universities  alliances  often  struggle  to  align  legal  frameworks,  academic 
calendars,  accreditation  requirements,  tuition  fees,  and  administrative  practices,  even  more  when 
creating joint programmes at the bachelor level80.  

An  additional  challenge  concerns  the  decision  of  awarding  a  single  joint  degree  or  multiple  (dual) 
degrees.  Since  awarding  a  single  joint  degree  is  a  complex  process  that  requires  aligning  differing 
national  criteria,  it  is  not  always  possible  for  all  alliance  partners  to  act  as  full  degree-awarding 
institutions, leading some European Universities alliances to opt for dual/multiple degrees81.   

Similarly,  there  is  no  authoritative  or  transparent  framework  to  present  degree  transcripts  from 
transnational joint programmes that detail the extent of the achievements, skills, and competencies of 
international graduates. This is a problem in the current multi-national, multi-disciplinary labour market 
driven by innovation ecosystems. 

A  recent  report  examining  the  state  of  play  of  joint  degrees  under  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Masters’ 
programmes identifies legislative, institutional, and recognition barriers to the implementation of joint 
degrees82.  

At  doctoral  level,  a  2022  report  analysing  the  obstacles  faced  by  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Joint 
Doctoral Networks in Horizon 2020, indicates similar or even more complex incompatibilities, since 
doctoral degrees are subject to more rigid regulations83.  

A coherent and transparent framework for transnational joint degrees in the field of higher education is 
still missing and systemic change is required to bring it into existence. Some national and/or regional 
legislative frameworks in EU Member States do not clearly distinguish between joint degrees and joint 
programmes, and when legal provisions exist, the terminology differs substantially84. Although joint 
programmes  and  even  joint  degrees  might  not  be  explicitly  forbidden,  existing  regulations  on  the 
necessary components of joint programmes can render them de facto impossible.  

An  important  obstacle  to  the  implementation  of  joint  programmes  is  related  to  quality  assurance. 
Despite the adoption of the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes in 2015 by 
Ministers  of  the  European  Higher  Education  Area,  its  uptake  remains  modest,  with  only  28  joint 

79 European Commission, European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Erasmus+ Programme, Statistical factsheets 
on  the  achievements  of  the  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Master’s  Degrees  (2014-2020),  Publications  Office,  2021, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/639462.  
80  European  Commission.  Preliminary  data  from  the  study  Outcomes  and  transformational  potential  of  the  European 
Universities initiative (in preparation – not yet published). 
81  European  Commission.  Preliminary  data  from  the  study  Outcomes  and  transformational  potential  of  the  European 
Universities initiative (in preparation – not yet published). 
82 European Commission, European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Erasmus Mundus Support Initiative, Zalunardo, 
V., and Fernández-Figares, I. 'Joint Degrees and Erasmus Mundus: State of play report for the 2023 Erasmus Mundus Annual 
Conference "Boosting the potential of Joint Degrees in Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Programmes"', 2023, https://erasmus-
networks.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/Joint-Degrees-and-Erasmus-Mundus.pdf  
83 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Dėlkutė, R., Nikinmaa, J., Pupinis, 
M.  et  al.,  Study  on  mobility  flows  of  researchers  in  the  context  of  the  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions  –  Analysis  and 
recommendations  towards  a  more  balanced  brain  circulation  across  the  European  Research  Area  –  Executive  summary, 
Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2022,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/40d1c038-03e7-
11ed-acce-01aa75ed71a1/language-en%C2%A0  
84 European Commission, European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Implementing joint degrees in the Erasmus 
Mundus action of the Erasmus+ programme, Publications Office, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/896549  

18 

 
 
 
programmes having been accredited to date (February 2024)85. This confirms the need for further action 
to simplify and widen quality assurance for joint degree programmes. 

Indeed, a recent study investigating the impact and feasibility of a European degree found that some of 
the  main  challenges  that  higher  education  institutions  need  to  overcome  when  setting  up  joint 
programmes  include  the  need  to  undergo  multiple  accreditation  procedures,  difficult  reaccreditation 
procedures, and the varying durations for which joint programmes are accredited.  While in theory a 
single  accreditation  for  joint  programmes  should  suffice,  ‘multiple  parallel  procedures  are  often  a 
reality’.86 

Closely related to quality assurance is the challenge of ensuring automatic recognition of joint degrees. 
The 2018 Council Recommendation on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education 
and upper secondary education and training qualifications and the outcomes of learning periods abroad87 
called for the implementation of automatic recognition by 2025 – a key objective of both the European 
Higher Education Area and the European Education Area.  

However,  the  experience  of  European  Universities  alliances  suggests  that  the  lack  of  automatic 
recognition remains a pressing issue for joint programmes88. This is confirmed by the recent report from 
the  European  Commission  to  the  European  Council  that  shows  that  one-third  of  higher  education 
institutions check the quality assurance processes of the other institution when deciding on whether to 
recognise a qualification89.  

A  final  issue  is  the  need  to  ensure  attractive  working  conditions  and  reward  mechanisms  for  the 
academic staff engaged in excellent teaching and learning, including the design and implementation of 
joint programmes. World-class innovative teaching and learning are needed to deliver world-class joint 
programmes,  but  the  career  focus  of  most  higher  education  institutions  remains  research.  There  is 
limited parity of esteem for other activities such as teaching and learning, administration, community 
outreach, business development, or engagement in transnational cooperation.  

According to a recent study that surveyed higher education institutions representatives and academic 
staff, two thirds of respondents indicate that transnational cooperation in teaching and learning is part 
of  the  higher  education  institutional  strategy,  and  that  career  pathways  for  academic  staff  enable, 
support, and encourage engagement in transnational cooperation activities. However, only 40% agree 
that  engagement  in  transnational  cooperation  is  effectively  considered  in  appraisal,  promotion,  and 
rewards mechanisms90. 

85 https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-programmes/european-approach-cases/  
86 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.  25.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 
87 Council Recommendation of 26 November 2018 on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper 
secondary education  and training qualifications and the outcomes of learning periods abroad (2018/C 444/01) OJC 444/1, 
10.12.2018,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32018H1210(01))https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32018H1210(01)  
88 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.28. 
  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 
89 Report from the Commission to the Council on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on promoting automatic 
mutual recognition of higher education and upper secondary education and training qualifications and the outcomes of learning 
periods abroad, COM/2023/91, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2023:91:FIN  
90 Ecorys, based on research carried out in 2023 to assess the current situation regarding academic staff in higher education in 
Europe. 

19 

 
 
 
In  November  2022  the  Commission  published  its  progress  report  towards  the  achievement  of  the 
European  Education  Area91.  The  report  noted  the  strategic  importance  of  expanding  transnational 
learning  mobility  for  all  students  across  the  European  Education  Area;  having  a  fit-for-purpose 
European quality assurance and recognition system; and piloting a European degree label that attests 
the learning outcomes and skills obtained from joint transnational programmes. 

Following on from this report, the Commission has proposed a new target of at least 25% of graduates 
in higher education having a learning mobility experience (up from the current 20% target)92. This adds 
urgency to the challenge of overcoming barriers to transnational cooperation, including administrative 
burden,  lack  of  automatic  recognition  schemes,  and  incentives  for  academic  staff  engaging  in  the 
development and delivery of transnational joint programmes.  

1.6. 

Building bridges for effective European cooperation in higher education 

On 5 April 2022, the Council adopted a Recommendation on building bridges for effective European 
cooperation in higher education93 with the aim of enabling deeper and more sustainable transnational 
cooperation among higher education institutions across Europe.  

The recommendation invited EU Member States to implement more coherent legislative frameworks at 
national level that encourage and facilitate transnational cooperation; enable students to engage in cross-
border  study  programmes  and  training;  and  strengthen  the  inclusiveness,  excellence,  diversity, 
attractiveness, and global competitiveness of Europe’s higher education sector.  

The Council specifically called on Member States to facilitate the implementation of joint programmes 
and the award of joint degrees, as well as to explore the delivery of a joint European degree label and 
the  introduction  of  institutionalised  cooperation  instruments,  including  a  possible  legal  status  for 
European Universities alliances.  

It also included concrete recommendations to encourage sustained financial support for transnational 
cooperation (such as national funding for alliances of European universities); strengthen institutional 
autonomy;  support  an  institutional  approach  to  quality  assurance  and  the  implementation  of  the 
European Approach to Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes; encourage the provision of high quality 
virtual  collaborative  learning  and  lifelong  learning  opportunities;  and  ensure  diversity,  inclusion, 
equality, and gender balance in the governance structures of higher education institutions. 

The  European  Commission  was  tasked  with  evaluating  the  progress  made  by  Member  States  in 
implementing the recommendation. To this end, the Commission launched an online survey in spring 
2023  following  consultations  with  Member  States’  representatives  taking  part  in  the  European 
Education  Area  Strategic  Framework  Working  Group  on  Higher  Education.  29  responses  from  28 
countries94 were received with considerable feedback from national administrations.  

The draft survey report95 revealed that some Member States have made considerable progress in some 
areas. However, it also showed that progress is uneven, and that considerable work remains ahead.  

91 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Progress towards the achievement of 
the European Education Area – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/059480  
92 Proposal for a Council Recommendation ‘Europe on the Move’ – learning mobility opportunities for everyone, 15.11.2023 
COM(2023) 
https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/europe-on-the-move-recommendation-
COM_2023_719_1_EN.pdf  
93 Council Recommendation of 5 April 2022 on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation (2022/C 
160/01), OJ C 160, 13.4.2022, p. 1–8, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022H0413(01) 
94 The EU 27 Member States (including the Flemish and Walloon regions in Belgium) and Norway. 
95 The draft report is currently being updated with clarifications from respondents. The results reported in this Staff Working 
Document are thus merely indicative and subject to modification. 

719, 

20 

 
 
 
 
Exploring the potential implementation of a European degree and a legal status for alliances of 
higher education institutions 

Most  countries  indicated  that  they  encourage  the  provision  of  joint  programmes  and  joint  degrees, 
although the measures and scope vary. In some cases, members of European Universities alliances were 
encouraged to apply to the Erasmus+ call to test the implementation of European degree label. In others, 
the  establishment  of  joint  programmes  and  the  delivery  of  joint  degrees  is  simply  ‘allowed’  in  the 
framework of the institutional autonomy that higher education institutions have, with no specific support 
in  place.  Some countries reported  having  amended  their higher  education  legislation to  simplify the 
implementation of joint degrees, although in some cases the amendments apply only to higher education 
institutions that are part of a European Universities alliance.  

Two  thirds  of  the  countries  said  that  they  are  waiting  for  the  outcomes  of  the  Erasmus+  policy 
experimentation projects (launched in 2023) before they examine the potential delivery of a European 
degree label. 

Over half of the countries surveyed indicated that some of their higher education institutions are able to 
test the implementation of a legal status for alliances of European universities. In half of those countries, 
this was possible before the adoption of the Council recommendation. Just as with joint programmes 
and joint degrees, the possibility to test a legal status for alliances of higher education institutions applies 
mostly to members of existing European Universities alliances. This represents, nonetheless, a positive 
step forward.  

Implementation of innovative joint transnational education activities 

There are other barriers that could restrict deep transnational cooperation, including the implementation 
and delivery of joint programmes and joint degrees. They encompass admission and enrolment criteria, 
the  languages  of  instruction,  the  absence  of  flexible  learning  pathways  (such  as  small  learning 
experiences and micro-credentials), inconsistent use of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation 
System (ECTS), the lack of automatic mutual recognition, and strict rules defining the template of joint 
degrees. 

Most  countries  reported  no  barriers  to  student  mobility  in  joint  programmes  on  any  of  the  aspects 
mentioned above, arguing that all (or most of them) had already been addressed in the past. However, 
this does not match the findings from the literature review, the studies carried out in preparation for this 
higher education package, or the outcomes from the Erasmus+ policy experimentation projects.  

Some of the respondents that provided more detail on identified or removed barriers, highlighted the 
use  of  EU  funding  to  address  issues,  including  the  provision  of  digital  education  opportunities,  or 
enabling the use of micro-credentials. Where barriers remain, some countries invoked the institutional 
autonomy  of  higher  education  institutions to  determine  their  own approach to  the  provision  of joint 
transnational education activities. 

Embedded mobility in joint transnational educational programmes 

Two thirds of respondents indicated that they provide legal or financial support for higher education 
institutions to increase and embed student mobility (physical, virtual, or blended) in joint programmes. 
Some of the support measures mentioned include changes in national qualifications frameworks to allow 
the  delivery  of  joint  degrees;  funding  for  higher  education  institutions  participating  in  a  European 
Universities  alliance;  embedding  mobility  and  internationalisation  in  performance-based  funding; 
providing students with grant top-ups and grant portability; the introduction of mobility windows; and 
the implementation of EU initiatives, such as the European Student Card96. Only a minority of higher 

96  European  Commission,  European  Student  Card  Initiative,  https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-
education/european-student-card-initiative 

21 

 
 
 
education systems reported having adapted their academic calendars, admission and enrolment systems, 
tuition fees, or grading rules. 

Sustained financial support for transnational cooperation 

Most respondents reported providing some kind of financial support for transnational cooperation This 
can be for all higher education institutions or additional support for specific transnational cooperation 
activities, such as taking part in European Universities alliances. Most respondents also indicated having 
mobilised  funding  sources  to  match  or  complement  EU  funding  (Erasmus+)  for  higher  education 
institutions taking part in European Universities alliances. However, the mechanisms and amount of 
support  vary  across  Member  States  –  from  specific  contributions  to  the  mandatory  co-funding 
requirement for members of European Universities alliances97 to fixed amounts, specific programmes 
at the national level, or financial support embedded in  core funding for higher education institutions 
(sometimes performance-based).  

Institutional autonomy 

Two thirds of respondents indicated that they perceived no need to take action to strengthen institutional 
autonomy.  However, the  rest  indicated that  change  is  needed  to  enhance  autonomy in  areas  such  as 
internal financial matters, involvement of staff and students in decision-making, internal governance 
arrangements, staffing and academic matters, and the protection of academic freedom. Among those 
that indicated no need for action, several countries pointed to the fact that institutional autonomy and 
academic freedom are protected in their national legal frameworks.  

These results do not always match the information reflected in the 2023 Autonomy Scorecard, published 
by the European University Association (EUA)98. Interestingly, some of the low performers in the 2023 
Autonomy Scorecard were among those that reported no need for action, whereas the highest performers 
tended to highlight the need to pay continued attention to safeguard institutional autonomy.  

Quality assurance 

Only a third of the countries reported relying mostly on institutional external quality assurance (which 
provides more flexibility for the award of joint degrees and other forms of transnational cooperation). 
Over  half  of  the  countries  surveyed  rely  on  a  mixed  approach  to  quality  assurance  that  combines 
institutional  and  programme-based  approaches.  Only  a  minority  of  them  indicated  having  plans  to 
transition towards a full institutional approach to quality assurance.  

Regarding  the  implementation  of  the  European  Approach  for  the  Quality  Assurance  of  Joint 
Programmes (European Approach), nearly two thirds of respondents mentioned that they either do not 
use it or use it with additional national criteria. While most countries allow external quality assurance 
to  be  carried  out  by  any  agency  registered  in  the  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher 
Education (EQAR), about a third do not allow it or impose additional national requirements. 

This underlines the uneven implementation of Bologna Process tools and commitments, as well as the 
complex quality assurance landscape facing the implementation of joint programmes and the award of 
joint degrees. 

High-quality  virtual  collaborative  learning  and  recognition  of  transnational  cooperation  in 
academic careers 

97 EU funding can only cover up to 80% of the approved European Universities alliance’s budget; the remaining 20% must be 
covered by the participating institutions. 
98  European  University  Association  (EUA),  Bennetot  Pruvot,  E.,  Estermann,  T.,  Popkhadze,  N.,  University  Autonomy  in 
Europe IV: The Scorecard 2023, EUA, 2023 https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua%20autonomy%20scorecard.pdf 

22 

 
 
 
The survey revealed that two out of three higher education systems affirm that they provide (or plan to 
provide)  support  for  higher  education  institutions  to  develop  virtual  and  online  collaborative 
international learning models and courses. More than half of the countries surveyed reported that they 
valorise and recognise (or have plans to do so) the time spent by academic staff on developing innovative 
pedagogies and new research practices through transnational cooperation.  

A  similar  proportion  stated  that  they  support  (or  plan  to  support)  the  development  of  shared  and 
interoperable  learning  environments  (virtual  and  blended)  and  virtual  campuses;  the  exchange  of 
educational content and FAIR data99; and the piloting of open-source solutions to overcome common 
challenges.  

Development of joint interdisciplinary transnational education activities 

Most  respondents  reported  supporting  challenge-based  approaches  where  learners  from  different 
backgrounds cooperate with researchers, companies, cities, regions, non-governmental organisations, 
and local communities in finding creative and innovative solutions to global and shared challenges.  

However,  half  of  them  do  so  by  referring  to  the  institutional  autonomy,  academic  freedom,  and 
flexibility enabled by their regulatory frameworks or to the fact that their higher education institutions 
receive  general  financing  for  all  types  of  activities  essential  to  them.  Half  of  those  that  reported 
providing no support in this area cited similar reasons, since the institutional autonomy that their higher 
education institutions enjoy already allows them to engage in challenge-based approaches if they wish 
to. Specific legal and financial support was reported by few countries. 

Almost all respondents reported providing  support (or having plans to support) high-quality lifelong 
learning  opportunities  to  facilitate  upskilling  and  reskilling.  Again,  some  responses  highlighted  the 
institutional  autonomy  of  higher  education  institutions  as  the  key  enabler,  but  half  of  the  countries 
reported having financial support measures in place that draw on national or EU funding. 

Governance 

The  inclusive  engagement  of  different  members  of  the  higher  education  community  in  governance 
structures is essential to ensuring effective transnational cooperation. Some countries said that they had 
no concrete plans to step up their efforts in this area, but this could be a sign of the maturity of a higher 
education system with a long tradition of autonomous institutions.  

The  results  suggest  that  the  governance  structures  of  most  higher  education  institutions  in  Europe 
generally  include  internal  and  external  stakeholders  –  from  students  and  academic  staff  to  social 
partners, employers, and others. However, it is not clear how their involvement impacts decision-making 
related to transnational cooperation. 

Over  half  of  the  respondents  reported  supporting  diverse  backgrounds  of  members  in  governance 
structures, gender balance, and opportunities for peer learning.  

FAIR 

99 
that 
refers 
https://researchtips.ugent.be/en/tips/00001866/. 

data 

data 

to 

is 

Findable,  Accessible, 

Interoperable, 

and  Reusable. 

See 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 2: A European degree - key parameters and its added value 

In recent years there has been a steady increase for the demand of joint study programmes and joint 
degrees, supported by the Bologna Process and the vision of a European Education Area, as well as by 
the  development  of  more  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Masters  programmes,  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie 
Doctoral Networks, programmes labelled by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) 
and  the  launch  of  the  European  Universities  initiative.  However,  this  increase  remains  well  below 
demand,  as  there  are  still  too  many  obstacles  for  administrative  staff,  academics,  and  students  in 
developing joint programmes and joint degrees. 

The evidence gathered points to many obstacles and barriers to the development of joint programmes, 
even  more  so  for  joint  degree  programmes.  The  underlying  reasons  are,  among  others,  big 
administrative  difficulties  and  too  many  disparities  between  national  (and  regional)  legislation.  In 
addition, the complexity increases dramatically with the number of countries involved in the delivery 
of joint programmes and award of joint degrees. Many more joint programmes could be offered as joint 
degrees if national legislation, accreditation and recognition practices became more conducive to their 
development. 

At the same time, there has been a strong political will to take forward the ambition of a framework to 
facilitate the delivery of joint degrees, starting with the European Council Conclusions of 14 December 
2017100 which called for the creation of European Universities alliances enabling students ‘to obtain a 
degree by combining studies in several EU countries and contribute to the international competitiveness 
of European universities’. 

In 2021, the Council conclusions on the European Universities initiative - Bridging higher education, 
research, innovation and society: Paving the way for a new dimension in European higher education101 
acknowledged  the  need  to  take  action  to  ease  the  delivery  of  joint  degree  programmes  of  higher 
education institutions. It invited Member States and the Commission to develop, within the context of 
the European Education Area  and in full respect of the national and regional higher education systems, 
‘clear  proposals,  starting  from  2022,  hand  in  hand  with  the  relevant  higher  education  national  and 
regional authorities, higher education institutions and stakeholders, to help remove where necessary the 
obstacles for cooperation at the European level, by exploring, for example, the need and feasibility for 
European degrees within the alliances of “European Universities”, and by promoting further European 
cooperation on quality assurance and automatic mutual recognition in higher education’. 

Following the invitation, in January 2022, the Commission Communication on a European Strategy for 
Universities102  took  up  the  challenge  of  proposing  a  pathway  towards  a  European  degree.  Shortly 
afterwards, in April 2022, this endeavour was further encouraged in the Council Recommendation on 
building  bridges  for  effective  European  higher  education  cooperation  with  a  mandate  to  conduct 
Erasmus+ policy experimentation. 

Meanwhile, available evidence from studies103 and the Erasmus+ policy experimentation projects shows 
that relevant stakeholders, including higher education institutions, national quality assurance agencies 
and students, also recognise the added value of a European degree for transnational higher education 

for 

2017) 

EUCO 

European 

the  way 

Conclusions, 

(14  December 

Council  meeting 

a  new  dimension 

100 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32204/14-final-conclusions-rev1-en.pdf 
101 Council conclusions on the European Universities initiative – Bridging higher education, research, innovation and society: 
education,  17  May  2021,  8658/21, 
Paving 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8658-2021-INIT/en/pdf 
102  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  The  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for universities, 18.1.2022 Com (2022) 16, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2022:16:FIN  
103 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.28. 
  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 

in  European  higher 

19/1/17 

REV 

1, 

24 

 
 
 
cooperation and for the European Union as a whole. The contributions collected suggest that higher 
education institutions and national agencies believe that the European degree will greatly enhance the 
global  reputation  of  European  higher  education  and  support  the  dissemination  of  European  values 
across  Europe  and  beyond,  while  students  expect  it  to  improve  their  employability  in  the  labour 
market104. 

In the light of the above considerations, this chapter presents a step-by-step approach that could be taken 
towards  the  awarding  of  a  European  degree,  i.e.,  the  awarding  of  a  European  degree  label  to  joint 
programmes that meet a set of European criteria, or as a degree inserted as a formal type of qualification 
in national legislative frameworks, awarded by higher education institutions on the basis of the set of 
European criteria. 

First, the chapter  presents an overview of the benefits of a  European degree. It then synthesises the 
preliminary findings of the policy experimentation projects funded by the Erasmus+ programme, which 
were set up to test and explore the concepts of a European degree label and a possible European degree 
as a type of qualification. The findings include the identification of the challenges that remain for the 
implementation  of  joint  degrees,  the evaluation  of  the  co-created award  criteria  and  how  the  award 
process could be operationalised.  

2.1 

Benefits and added value of a European degree 

The data available from studies105 and the preliminary outcomes of policy experimentation projects, 
show that a European degree would help to increase the number of joint programmes and joint degrees 
delivered,  would  enable  the  joint  delivery  of  innovative  and  transformative  education,  facilitate 
transnational higher education cooperation, and bring  several benefits for students, staff, employers, 
higher education institutions, higher education systems, and the EU as whole. 

A European degree would be delivered at the national level based on a common set of criteria agreed 
at the European level. It is this common set of criteria that would make these degrees truly European, 
as they will still be awarded by universities accredited at the national or regional levels and be included 
in national legislation as are other types of national degrees. The processes of accreditation and quality 
assurance could also be done following the regular procedures, regardless of whether programme or 
institutional accreditation exists. The European degree would be automatically recognised across the 
European  Union  without  having  to  meet  any  additional  criteria  or  undergo  additional  recognition 
procedures. 

Benefits for students 

Beyond  the  European  symbolic  value,  the  European  degree  would  demonstrate  a  graduate's 
international experience, academic excellence, language proficiency, cultural adaptability, and a wider 
perspective,  making  them  attractive  to  employers  seeking  globally  minded  and  highly  skilled 
individuals. It would offer not only more mobility opportunities, but also empower students to choose 
what, where and when to study, promoting brain circulation across Europe. 

104 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.28. 
  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 
105 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E.  et  al.,  The  road  towards  a  possible  joint  European  degree  –  Identifying  opportunities  and  investigating  the  impact  and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final 
the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 

report,  Publications  Office  of 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
In a recent study106, 9 out of 10 students signalled that a European degree would bring them opportunities for: 

•  Studying in another European country. 

•  Completing innovative study programmes.  

•  Receiving excellent education. 

•  Obtaining skills and competencies relevant to the labour market. 

A  European  degree  would  give  students  a  pathway  to  excellence,  employability,  and  a  global 
perspective, encapsulating the essence of a well-rounded and transnational-oriented education. It would 
provide  access  to  truly  transnational  joint  degree  programmes  and  streamline  the  process  of  credit 
recognition across diverse institutions, ensuring a seamless academic experience and allowing students 
to forge their own transnational educational pathways. 

‘Students  should benefit  from  a  European  degree  in  terms  of  individual  visibility  when  entering  the  labour 
market, and study programs should benefit as well in terms of attracting students. 

Heidelberg University (Germany) – Call for Evidence. 

Beyond academic benefits, the degree would also enhance students’ employability by equipping them 
with  high-level  skills  gained  through  high-quality  programmes  and  connecting  them  to  extensive 
networks of partner institutions. A survey that analysed three Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters graduation 
cohorts (2010/11, 2015/16, and 2019/20), found that graduates are more likely to find a job that matches 
their education than the average graduate from another masters’ programme; graduates also report that 
the area in which they perceive their  studies to have had the  highest impact is their careers107. This 
builds on the findings on the benefits of Erasmus+: a majority of Erasmus+ students (72%) report that 
mobility has been beneficial for their careers, and data suggests that mobile students tend to find a job 
faster and to be more satisfied with it than non-mobile students108. 

According to joint programme graduates who participated in the REDEEM 2 project survey, the three 
most  important  benefits  they  gained  from  their  joint  programme  included  personal  development 
(96.5%), a better understanding of the professional activity in their area of expertise (94.9%), and a 
better understanding of a culture other than their own (90.5%). They also reported that the skills they 
improved the most were the ability to work in an international context (63.7%), the capacity to adapt 
and act in new situations (52.5%), and intercultural competence (50.5%).  

Further  analysis  revealed  that  graduates  from  joint  programmes  tend  to  show  slightly  higher 
employment rates than regular graduates (90% vs 85%) and report a greater overlap between their work 
and their study field109. Moreover, the emphasis on interdisciplinary experiences and diverse learning 
opportunities  cultivates  a  broad  set  of  cross-cultural  competencies,  preparing  graduates  to  thrive  in 
diverse environments and contributing to strengthening a European perspective and identity.  

106 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.28. 
  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 
107  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture,  Institute  for  Advanced  Studies 
Vienna, Robert Jühlke, Martin Unger, Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Graduate Impact Survey 2020/21: Comprehensive report 
of results, 2021, https://www.esaa-eu.org/fileadmin/esaa/content/news/files/2022/gis_202021_definite_report.pdf  
108 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Erasmus+ higher education impact 
study – Final report, Publications Office, 2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/162060 
109 REDEEM2, Shaping the next generation of Joint Programmes in Science and Technology, https://www.redeem2.eu/  

26 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
According to a recent study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 
employers  use  language  proficiency  to  identify  characteristics  such  as  adaptability  and  openness  to 
other cultures, which are difficult to evaluate in recruitment processes110. The OECD highlights that 
multilingual Individuals are more likely to display a heightened intercultural understanding and actively 
participate in global issues than monolingual individuals. These are crucial skills that promote social 
cohesion in today’s diverse societies. The benefits that a European degree would bring to students are 
aligned with the expectations of young Europeans.  

The 2018 Eurobarometer on the European Education Area111 clearly identified the value that young 
Europeans attach to transnational education: 

•  90% of them regard an experience in another country as being important. 

•  91% of them agreed that their academic qualifications and learning periods in another country 

should be automatically recognised across all Member States. 

•  93%  of  them  saw  real  value  in  creating  European  degrees  being  awarded  by  ‘networks  of 
European universities, offering students the chance to study in different EU countries, with a 
flexible choice of courses or modules offered within the network’. 

•  97% agreed that it would benefit their learning experience if they had an opportunity ‘to work 
on  innovative  projects  alongside  academics,  researchers  and  companies  from  different 
countries […] [and] to study and work together across disciplines and departments’. 

•  77%  wanted  to  learn  a  new  language  and  84%  ‘would  like  to  improve  the  knowledge  of  a 

foreign language they have previously learnt’. 

These were powerful messages from our young people, and they place a strong expectation on higher 
education to deliver opportunities in transnational teaching and learning. Some seven years on from this 
survey, and with both physical and blended mobility featuring in Erasmus+, it is time to enable their 
expectations and take teaching and learning into a richer European context. 

Benefits for higher education institutions and academic staff 

For  higher  education  institutions,  a  European  degree  offers  numerous  advantages.  Firstly,  it  would 
support rationalisation efforts through a complementarity approach, allowing institutions to collectively 
provide  more  opportunities  than  they  could  individually.  This  collaborative  vision  enhances  the 
standing of universities within alliances on a European  (and global) scale. Joint degree programmes 
prompt  institutions  to  rethink  teaching  structures,  learning  methods,  and  competency  assessment, 
fostering a dynamic and modernised educational environment. 

Furthermore,  the  European  degree  would  enhance  internationalisation  opportunities  by  significantly 
reducing the administrative burden linked to the design and delivery of joint degree programmes.  In 
doing  so,  it  would  contribute  to  attracting  a  more  diverse  student  body  and  raising  the  institutional 
profile on the global stage. It would also facilitate collaborative research and development projects with 
partner institutions, offering specialisations in fields where individual expertise may be limited. The 
dissemination of successful models in education, research, and societal engagement further contributes 
to institutional growth. 

110 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ‘OECD Skills Outlook 2023: Skills for a Resilient Green and 
Digital Transition’, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/27452f29-en 
111 
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/flash/surveyky/2186  

Eurobarometer: 

Commission, 

Education 

European 

European 

Area, 

The 

27 

 
 
 
 
 ‘The idea of a European Joint Degree - the initiative, aiming to streamline the legal frameworks for 
awarding degrees across Europe, is seen as a pivotal step towards removing the national and international 
barriers that have historically hampered the establishment and sustainability of joint degree programmes’. 

EURASHE (European Association of Institutions in Higher Education) – Call for Evidence. 

The European degree would be a way to recognise and highlight the effort put into developing and 
implementing  joint  programmes.  It  would  help  to  empower  staff  and  provide  them  with  additional 
opportunities for recognition, professional development, and international collaboration and innovation. 
Better acknowledgement and valorisation of their involvement in transnational education would support 
academic  staff  in  seeking  out  and  exploiting  mobility  opportunities  and  expanding  their  academic 
networks.  

The complementarity approach of joint degree programmes not only enables staff to contribute to a 
more comprehensive educational offering but also  supports the exchange of teaching methodologies 
with  faculty  from  partner  institutions.  Staff  would  be  encouraged  to  be  more  mobile,  work  with 
international  partners,  and  update  their  knowledge,  skills,  and  methodologies  for  the  benefit  of  the 
whole academic community, for instance, by experimenting and testing new pedagogies, engaging in 
research projects, and increasing their capacity to navigate diverse classrooms.  

A  report  by the  European Tertiary  Education  Register  (ETER)  covering  more  than  1  500  European 
higher education institutions, showed that the internationalisation of academic staff is uneven across 
European  countries  and  types  of  institutions:  north-western  and  research-oriented  higher  education 
institutions attract the largest proportions of foreign academic staff112. 

Additionally, academic and non-academic staff would benefit from simpler cooperation mechanisms to 
establish, deliver and manage joint programmes. The development and delivery of joint programmes 
place a significant burden on staff in terms of efforts, time, and resources as many barriers need to be 
overcome for a joint programme to become a reality.  

A  recent  study  showed  that  about  80%  of  higher  education  institutions  surveyed  consider  that  a 
European degree would reduce existing barriers to the design, implementation, and delivery of joint and 
transdisciplinary programmes, as well as ease quality assurance requirements and the implementation 
of innovative educational components. Furthermore, 90% agree that a European degree would increase 
transparency and facilitate the automatic recognition of joint and double degrees113. 

Benefits for employers 

A European degree would allow employers to identify the talent that they need. The European degree 
is  designed  to  be  easily  understood,  facilitating  streamlined  recruitment  processes  for  employers 
seeking internationally minded individuals who are resilient, open to change, and have future-oriented 
skills.  

 ‘From the point of view of companies, especially SMEs, this initiative could contribute to meeting the 
challenges of the labour market, especially related to digital and green transitions, with qualified professionals 
who meet the required skills. The testing of the level of knowledge of a foreign language, the carrying out of a 
traineeship period abroad, a preparation oriented towards environmental and social sustainability, the ability 

112  European  Tertiary  Education  Register,  Internationalisation  of  Academic  Staff  in  European  Higher  Education,  2019, 
https://www.eter-project.com/uploads/analytical-reports/ETER_AnalyticalReport_01_final.pdf 
113 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final 
the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 

report,  Publications  Office  of 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to  use  technologies  and  digitalisation  are  common  requirements  that  should  be  at  the  basis  of  the  joint 
European degree’. 

Confartigianato Imprese (European network of Italian artisan businesses and small entrepreneurs) – Call for 
Evidence. 

A study on the impacts of learning mobility on the skills and employability of students, found that 64% 
of employers consider an international experience as important for recruitment and that 92% look for 
transversal  skills  such  as  tolerance,  confidence,  problem-solving,  and  curiosity  –  all  of  which  are 
boosted during international mobility114.  

This is further highlighted by mobile students themselves, who report perceived improvements in skills 
relevant  to the  labour market  after their mobility  abroad,  including adaptability  (91%), intercultural 
competencies  (90%),  communication  skills  (89%),  foreign  language  skills  (88%),  critical  thinking 
(79%),  planning  and  organisational  skills  (77%),  analytical  and  problem-solving  skills  (76%), 
teamwork (72%), and sector- or field-specific skills (71%)115.  

The skills of the future  

•  The recent report, ‘The Future of Recruiting’116, emphasises that the top five soft skills that 

recruiters will be looking for in the next five years include communication, relationship building, 
adaptability, problem-solving, and business acumen. 

According to the 2023 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Skills Outlook117: 

•  Multilingualism is associated with increased employability and higher wages. 

•  Multilingual individuals exhibit enhanced linguistic capacity, divergent thinking skills (associated 
with creativity), attentional control, working memory, and abstract and symbolic representation 
skills, which are growing in importance with digital innovations and Artificial Intelligence. 

•  Critical thinking is crucial for identifying fake news and is supported by dispositions such as open- 

and fair-mindedness and curiosity. 

•  Envisioning and creating sustainable futures requires creativity, adaptability, critical thinking, and 

the capacity to engage in effective communication and collective action.  

In  essence,  graduates  holding  a  European  degree  would  stand  out  as  uniquely  qualified  candidates, 
bringing a combination of problem-solving prowess, adaptability, multilingualism, multiculturalism, 
and  interdisciplinary  expertise  that  aligns  seamlessly  with  the  evolving  demands  of  the  global 
workforce. 

Benefits for national and regional higher education systems 

education 

114  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture,  Brandenburg,  U.,  Berghoff,  S., 
Taboadela,  O.,  The  Erasmus  impact  study  –  Effects  of  mobility  on  the  skills  and  employability  of  students  and  the 
internationalisation  of  higher 
summary,  Publications  Office,  2014, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/75430 
115 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Erasmus+ higher education impact 
study – Final report, Publications Office, 2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/162060 
116  LinkedIn  Talent  Solutions, 
solutions/resources/future-of-recruiting?trk=oth-event-TalentConnect  
117 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ‘OECD Skills Outlook 2023: Skills for a Resilient Green and 
Digital Transition’, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/27452f29-en  

https://business.linkedin.com/talent-

institutions  –  Executive 

of  Recruiting', 

'The  Future 

2023, 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At  national  and  regional  levels,  a  European  degree  presents  a  nuanced  approach  that  balances  the 
preservation of distinct characteristics inherent to national or regional education systems with a clear 
path towards transnational cooperation based on shared European values.  

This  collaborative  educational  framework  would  serve  to  attract  talent  while  simultaneously  giving 
local students opportunities for transnational education. In this way, it will act as a proactive measure 
against brain drain, promoting a healthy circulation of intellectual capital and  helping prevent brain 
drain by raising the profile of all European education systems. 

Brain circulation in the European Union 

The  limited  internationalisation  of  local  higher  education  institutions  can  incentivise  young  people  to  seek 
opportunities elsewhere. 

A recent report by European Commission services118 that surveyed 2 027 young Europeans (aged between 15 
and 29) found that: 

•  Nearly 60% (1 191) had left their home region at some point in their lives. Most of them (77%) had 

obtained a third level education at a university. 

•  The lack of adequate study opportunities in their local higher education institutions  was one of the 

three main factors that typically influenced their decision to leave their home region.  

•  Analysis  of  open-ended  responses  revealed  five  dominant  themes  in  which  this  factor  played  an 

important role in respondents’ decision to leave their home region: 

o  Courses offered by local higher education institutions do not match student interests. 

o  The quality and format of study programmes are perceived as unsatisfactory. 

o  The reputation of the local higher education institutions does not match student expectations. 

o  Desire to study in an international setting. 

o  Perceived mismatch between the studies offered by the  local higher education institutions 

and the job opportunities in the local labour market119. 

Based on interviews with stakeholders on the ground in the EU Member States, the report suggests that young 
people’s  motivation  to  stay  in  or  return  to  their  home  regions  can  be  encouraged  by  empowering  them  to 
participate  in  European  mobility  schemes  and  training  opportunities,  as  well  as  by  creating  links  between 
education, research, and the labour market through innovation and entrepreneurship. 

The  European  degree  would  serve  as  a  powerful  tool  to  enhance  the  attractiveness  of  national  and 
regional  education  systems,  particularly  those  that  are  less  internationalised.  The  simplification  of 
procedures  for  establishing  joint  degree  programmes  further  encourages  transnational  cooperation, 
making it more accessible and efficient. A recent survey showed that 9 out of 10 respondents –among 
higher education institutions and national authorities– believe that a European degree would allow for 
better cooperation between ministries and other educational authorities across the EU; facilitate brain 
circulation; and encourage international students to study in European institutions120. 

118 European Commission. Preliminary data from the study Youth for reviving (stagnating) EU territories (in preparation – not 
yet published). 
119 The statistical considerations for this questionnaire may be lower than for others with a higher response rate. 
120 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying  opportunities and investigating the impact and 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘The  successful  creation  of  the  joint  European  degrees  would  have  an  important  effect  on  the 

competitiveness and attractiveness of European higher education globally’. 

HAMK (Häme University of Applied Sciences, Finland) – Call for Evidence. 

The long-term spill-over effects of good practices from joint programmes would contribute positively 
to  inspiring  other  national  and  regional  systems.  In  essence,  at  the  national  and  regional  levels,  a 
European degree emerges as a catalyst for global talent attraction, educational system enhancement, 
and sustained labour market improvements. 

Benefits for Europe 

At  the  European  level,  a  European  degree  would  play  a  pivotal  role  in  fostering  a  strong  sense  of 
European identity by building on common values and shared educational experiences among students. 
A recent survey of students, higher education institutions, and national authorities, showed that 9 out of 
10  respondents  agree  that  a  European  degree  would  contribute  to  an  increased  sense  of  European 
citizenship, identity, and  belonging;  and  that  it  would  help  disseminate  European  values  across  and 
beyond Europe, such as academic freedom, inclusiveness, solidarity, sustainability, entrepreneurship, 
innovation, democracy, and the rule of law121.  

This would not only contribute to a more cohesive European community of citizens, but also align with 
the broader goal of achieving the European Education Area and accelerating the Bologna Process122. 
By  incorporating  exiting  Bologna  tools  in  its  criteria,  the  European  degree  would  boost  their  full 
implementation,  promoting  compatibility  across  European  higher  education  systems.  In  doing  so,  it 
would  facilitate  collaboration  among  institutions  and  educational  systems  and  foster  European 
competitiveness on a global scale.  

 ‘Overall, we believe that the concept of joint European degrees should be a means to strengthen the 
long-standing  commitments  stemming  from  the  Bologna  Process,  such  as  automatic  recognition,  student-
centred learning, mobility, internationalisation, and quality assurance’. 

EURASHE (European Association of Institutions in Higher Education) – Call for Evidence. 

Beyond  the  realm  of  education,  European  degree  programmes  will  contribute  substantially  to  the 
development of a mobile and highly skilled workforce at the European level, responding to the demands 
of an increasingly interconnected and dynamic global landscape. 

2.2 

Suitability of the criteria of a European degree and stakeholders’ perspectives 

of 

different 

–  Final 

approaches 

report,  Publications  Office 

feasibility 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147  
121 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.28. 
  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 
122 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.28. 
  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 

the  European  Union, 

of 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.1  European policy experimentation in higher education under the Erasmus+ programme 

The Council Recommendation on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation, 
adopted on 5 April 2022123, invited the Commission ‘to examine the options and necessary steps - in 
close  cooperation  with  Member  States,  higher  education  institutions,  student  organisations  and 
stakeholders - towards a possible joint degree based on a common set of co-created European criteria’.  

The  Commission  was  mandated,  among  other  things,  to  pilot  in  2022  the  development  and 
implementation under Erasmus+ of European criteria for the award of a European degree label to be 
issued as a complementary certificate to the qualifications obtained by students graduating from joint 
programmes  delivered  in  the  context  of  transnational  cooperation  between  several  higher  education 
institutions.  

Based on the results of this preparatory work, the Commission is to report to the European Council for 
further  decision  at each  step  towards  a  possible joint  degree  based  on  co-created  European  criteria, 
following the instruments of the Bologna Process.  

In June 2022, the Commission launched ‘European policy experimentation in higher education under 
the Erasmus+ programme’ call for proposals for projects to actively pilot the concept and criteria of a 
European degree label while reflecting on ways to remove obstacles to the setting up of joint degree 
programmes, including by establishing a possible European degree as a type of qualification.  

A set of criteria has been proposed for testing by the Commission services together with Member States 
(in the framework of the European Education Area Working Group on the Strategic Framework for 
Higher Education and the meeting with the Directors-General for Higher Education), higher education 
stakeholders and European Universities alliances. These European criteria for the award of a European 
degree label have been included in the technical annex of the Erasmus+ pilot call124.  

Erasmus+ policy experimentation projects were expected to: 

1.  Explore and test the relevance of the co-created European criteria for establishing a label which 
acknowledge  the  European  and  transnational  experiences  in  a  joint  transnational  programme 
leading to a higher education qualification at European Qualifications Frameworks (EQF) levels 6, 
7, 8 and the feasibility of their use. 

2.  Explore and recommend possible optimisation of the proposed set of criteria in view of maximising 

the attractiveness and potential impact of such a European degree label. 

3.  Elaborate  proposals,  in  cooperation  with  the  relevant  national,  regional  and/or  institutional 
authorities, aiming to facilitate the development and implementation of joint degrees in Europe. 
This would include proposing an approach that could be commonly agreed on for the delivery of 
joint degrees based on co-created European criteria by European countries at all education levels. 
These proposals should consider the existing instruments developed by the Bologna Process, such 
as the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes and reflect on the potential 
need for updating these tools. 

Six proposals were selected125: 

123 Council Recommendation of 5 April 2022 on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation 
(2022/C 160/01), OJ C 160, 13.4.2022, p. 1–8, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022H0413(01) 
124 European Commission, Call for proposals: European policy experimentation in higher education, ERASMUS-EDU-
2022-POL-EXP, p. 31-33, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/erasmus/wp-
call/2022/call-fiche_erasmus-edu-2022-pol-exp-he_en.pdf 
125 Funding and Tenders Portal,  'Pilot a joint European degree label', ERASMUS-EDU-2022-POL-EXP-EUdegree, 2022, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/erasmus-edu-2022-pol-exp-

32 

 
 
 
 
1.  European  degree:  Advancing,  Facilitation  and  Fostering  International  Collaboration  in  Higher 
Education  (ED  AFFICHE):  This  aims  at  proposing  improvements  to  the  proposed  criteria, 
assessment procedure, design, and delivery of a future European degree label. It was developed by 
Una  Europa,  4EU+,  CHARM-EU,  EC2U,  EUCONEXUS,  and  Unite!  The  project  conducted 
diverse surveys to relevant stakeholders to gather views on European degree criteria tailored to each 
target group126. 

2.  Future-proof  Criteria for  Innovative  European  Education (FOCI):  This  aims  to evaluate  various 
programmes according to the proposed European degree label criteria. It was developed by YUFE, 
EPICURE, and ECIU. The project used methodology and expert group methodology to ‘translate’ 
the mandatory criteria into indicators to be applied to the evaluation of 13 programmes127. 

3.  ETIKÉTA Label Content and Requirements (ETIKÉTA): This aims to promote the design and test 
of transnational cooperation instruments based on the proposed co-created criteria for the delivery 
of a European degree label. It was developed by ten partners under the ETIKÉTA consortium. The 
methodology  of  the  project  included  desk  research  and  comparative  analysis  of  seven  joint 
programmes existing within the consortium of the project128. 

4.  Joint  European  degree  Label  in  Engineering  -  Toward  a  European  Framework  for  Engineering 
Education (JEDI): This aims to develop a prototype label for European joint degrees, co-created 
with  16  higher  education  institutions  from  three  European  Universities  (EELISA,  EUt+  and 
ENHANCE) from the perspective of engineering, technology, and science-oriented education. The 
project  worked  with  diverse  experts  with  knowledge  about  joint  programmes  in  the  field  of 
engineering129. 

5.  European Degree Label Institutional Laboratory (EDLab): This aims to test the implementation of 
European and international joint degree programmes and the European degree label with special 
emphasis  on  Spain,  France,  Italy,  and  Portugal.  It  was  developed  by  ARQUS,  ENLIGHT, 
EUTOPIA and SEA-EU. The project conducted two surveys, 30 in-depth interviews, and 22 focus 
groups, with a total of 115 interviewees130. 

6.  EUROSUD  Report  of  Quantitative  &  Qualitative  Analysis  (SMARTT):  This  aims  at  analysing, 
testing, and piloting the new European degree label criteria, improving the quality, and increasing 
the transferability of future developments of European degrees across Europe and beyond. It was 
developed  by  EUTOPIA,  NEUROTECHEU,  and  UNITA.  The  project  developed  several 
methodologies including workshops with experts, interviews, focus groups, and surveys131. 

They bring together 63 partners from 23 countries (including 22 Member States) and more than 160 
associated partners from 30 countries (including 23 Member States). Work started in spring 2023 and 
should be completed by end April 2024. 

The following section synthesises the findings of the projects available at the time of the adoption of 
the  Staff  Working  Document.  Firstly,  it  examines  the  feedback  received  on  the  suitability  of  the 

eudegree;callCode=null;freeTextSearchKeyword=policy%20experimentation;matchWholeText=true;typeCodes=1,0;statusC
odes=31094502;programm=  
126 CHARM-EU, European Degree: Advancing, Facilitation and Fostering International Collaboration in Higher Education 
(ED-AFFICHE), https://www.charm-eu.eu/ed-affiche/ed-affiche  
127 ECIU, ‘ECIU, YUFE and EPICUR will lead an innovative approach to the European Degree’, ECIU News, January 31, 
2023, https://www.eciu.eu/news/eciu-yufe-and-epicur-will-lead-an-innovative-approach-to-the-european-degree  
128 FilmEU, ETIKETA Pilot Project, https://etiketa.filmeu.eu/  
129  ENHANCE,  ENHANCE  Universities 
https://enhanceuniversity.eu/enhance-universities-join-jedi-to-develop-joint-european-degree-label/  
130 NOVA University Lisbon, Edlab Project Kick-off – "European Degree Label Institutional Laboratory”, News, March 13, 
2023, https://www.unl.pt/en/news/nova/edlab-project-kick-european-degree-label-institutional-laboratory  
131  CIVIS,  CIVIS  gets  SMARTT!  EU  selects  CIVIS  to  pave  the  way  for  European  joint  degrees,  News,  February  2023, 
https://civis.eu/en/news/civis-gets-smartt-eu-selects-civis-to-pave-the-way-for-european-joint-degrees  

Joint  European  Degree 

to  Develop 

Label, 

JEDI 

Join 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
proposed  criteria  for  a  European  degree.  The  section  then  provides  details  on  what  the  process  of 
awarding a European degree label and a European degree as a type of qualification could look like and 
the roles of the different actors that would be involved in it. It is concluded with an elaboration on the 
necessity and feasibility of a legal status for alliances of higher education institutions, such as European 
Universities. 

2.2.2   Proposed  criteria  for  the  European  degree  to  be  tested  by  Erasmus+  policy 
experimentation projects 

As  part  of  the  study  commissioned  by the  Commission  to explore the  possible  pathways  towards  a 
possible  European  degree,  a  survey  was  carried  out  among  relevant  stakeholders  (higher  education 
institutions, national quality assurance agencies and students) to find out what they expect from the 
future European degree. In general, the main expectations of higher education institutions and quality 
assurance  agencies  are  the  strengthening  of  transnational  cooperation,  student  and  staff  mobility, 
innovative teaching and learning, labour market relevance and sustainability132. 

Almost all (97.6%) institutions agreed that transnational cooperation (e.g., joint programmes, courses, 
modules)  would  be  important  to  certify  a  European  degree.  Similarly  high  levels  of  support  were 
expressed for embedded physical student mobility and staff mobility (virtual or in-person exchanges) - 
92.8% and 90.3% respectively.  

While  higher  education  institutions  considered  the  international  dimension  of  future  joint  degree 
programmes to be most important, students expressed that labour market relevance (e.g., programme 
partnerships with industry and other organisations to offer internships) would be the main factor that 
would  attract  them  to  enrol  in  European  joint  degree  programmes  (68.8%).  They  also  pointed  to 
innovative teaching, learning and assessment methods and transnational cooperation between higher 
education institutions (65.2% and 62.7% respectively). Contrary to their institutions, students seem to 
be less attracted by embedded physical mobility (54.9%) and staff mobility (53.9%)133. 

This section presents the feedback from six  European policy experimentation projects on the list of 
initial proposed criteria for creating a European degree. It presents each criterion as originally proposed, 
summarises  the  feedback  from  the  projects  on  each  of  them  and  consolidates  the  suggestions  for 
adaptation. It also incorporates the findings of the mid-term working meeting with the European policy 
experimentation  projects  held  in  Brussels  in  October  2023  (hereafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘mid-term 
meeting’). The aim of the criteria was to underpin both:  

•  a European degree as a label, to be awarded selectively to joint study programmes leading to a 
joint degree and meeting a pre-defined list of criteria agreed at the European level.                

•  a European degree a qualification based on common European criteria, in the sense that a joint 
programme would be accredited to award the qualification if it met a pre-defined list of criteria. 

Proposed mandatory criteria in the context of the Erasmus+ European policy experimentation 
projects 

of 

different 

132 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility 
the  European  Union, 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 
133 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.28. 
  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 

report,  Publications  Office 

approaches 

–  Final 

of 

34 

 
 
 
 
1.  Higher education institutions involved in the programme delivery: the joint programme is jointly 
designed  and  delivered  by  at  least  2  higher  education  institutions from  at  least  2  different  EU 
Member States (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

The feedback reflected broad agreement among stakeholders while highlighting areas for clarification 
and expansion. There was 94.9% agreement among higher education institutions on this criterion, with 
suggestions to clarify whether the EU or the European Education Area (EEA) should be considered. 
Additionally, they recommended increasing the number of countries to three to add multicultural and 
multilingual value. There was a high level of agreement among stakeholders, including civil society at 
97.4%, ministries at 96%, quality assurance agencies at 95%, the labour market at 90% and students at 
88% (FOCI), although there are recommendations to include more partners and to specify that most 
programme activities should take place in Europe (ED AFFICHE).  

Benchmarking with existing joint programmes shows that this criterion is 100% in line with existing 
practice (ETIKETA). In addition, feedback from the mid-term meeting supported the feasibility of joint 
programmes  involving  at  least  two  higher  education  institutions  from  two  EU  Member  States.  The 
general  feedback  suggests that  this  criterion  may  need  to  be  clarified  in  guidelines  to  allow  for  the 
participation of more higher education institutions, including non-EU Member States, and that it should 
emphasise the involvement of each partner in the design and delivery of the joint programme, without 
requiring each student to participate in activities at each participating higher education institution. 

2.  Transnational joint degree recognition: 

a.  The  joint  programme  leads  to  the  award  of  a  joint  degree  (European  Qualifications 

Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

The  feedback  was  generally  supportive,  with  some  concerns  about  the  difficulty  of  awarding  joint 
degrees. There was 89.2% agreement among higher education institutions on this criterion. However, 
the  results  of  the  EDLab  project  also  suggested  that  the  consortium  agreement  should  state  that  all 
partners contribute to the provision of teaching/learning activities. Additionally, the joint degree should 
be a single document issued by or on behalf of all partner institutions, regardless of where the students 
have studied or the mobility path they followed (EDLab). Agreement among other stakeholders was 
90% for employers, 86.6% for civil society, 84% for ministries and 80% for quality assurance agencies 
(FOCI). ETIKETA showed 66.7% alignment with existing practices in joint programmes.  

In  addition,  feedback  from  the  mid-term  meeting  suggested  that  the  guidelines  should  include  a 
definition of ‘joint degree’ and how this criterion could be applied in cases where only one part of a 
consortium could award a joint degree, while other partners could still award their own. Similarly, the 
ED AFFICHE project advocated a precise definition of a joint degree and a greater emphasis on the 
added value it brings to students and their career prospects. 

b.  Transnational joint co-supervision and co-evaluation of dissertations: dissertations are co-
evaluated by supervisors or a committee with members from at least 2 different institutions 
located in 2 different countries (European Qualifications Frameworks 8). 

There was 79.8% agreement among higher education institutions on this criterion, with proposals to 
include co-supervision in addition to co-evaluation, even though some expressed complexity from a 
legislative perspective and recommended making it optional (EDLab). Additionally, the results of the 
EDLab  project  suggested  enhancing  the  criterion  to  include  European  Qualifications  Frameworks 
(EQF)  7  (masters  level)  and  specifying  this  criterion  in  a  consortium  agreement  or  other  related 
consortium  documents.  There  was a  particularly  high  level  of  agreement among  other  stakeholders, 
with ministries and  quality assurance agencies at 100%, students and civil society at 97.4% and the 
labour market at 90% (FOCI).  

3.  Transparency of the learning outcomes: 

35 

 
 
a.  The joint programme is described in ECTS (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

In general, the feedback reflected robust agreement among stakeholders, while acknowledging some 
challenges. There  was  an agreement of 92.8% among  higher education institutions on this criterion, 
with some noting the potential difficulty in measuring certain activities with ECTS (EDLab). Further, 
the  results  of  the  EDLab  project  suggested  encouraging  alignment  with  existing  European  Higher 
Education  Area (EHEA) tools  through the  recommendation  of  the  use  of  the ECTS  Users  Guide  to 
ensure that curricular design is based on achieving intended learning outcomes.  

The agreement across other stakeholders was high, with students at 96%, quality assurance agencies at 
95%, civil society at 93.4%, ministries at 92%, and the labour market at 90% (FOCI). There is a 95.2% 
alignment with existing practices in joint programmes (ETIKETA). The JEDI project also emphasised 
that the evaluation of learning outcomes should be mandatory (currently it is mandatory in 61% of the 
JEDI sample). The feedback also suggested the need to make learning outcomes more transparent by 
making them more visible to candidates and employers (SMARTT).  

The ED AFFICHE project recommended a more explicit and comprehensible explanation of criterion 
3a  (e.g.  by  adding  indicators  to  assess  it).  The  earlier  study134  had  already  identified  curriculum 
flexibility and programme length as potential obstacles to the adaptation of joint programmes to existing 
national requirements. 

b.  Diploma supplement: a joint Diploma Supplement is issued to the student at the end of the 

joint study programme (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

The feedback showed a high level of agreement among stakeholders, highlighting the importance of a 
joint  diploma  supplement. There  was  89.2%  agreement  among  higher  education  institutions  on  this 
criterion. Some suggested that it should be issued on request rather than automatically. Others were 
concerned about difficulties with legal and technical barriers in some countries and pointed to the need 
for  a  European  template  for  the  Diploma  Supplement  (EDLab).  In  addition,  the  EDLab  project 
suggested clarifying that a single joint diploma supplement is issued to all graduates using an agreed 
model and adapted to the joint nature of the programme.  

Agreement  among  the  remaining  stakeholders  was  high,  with  civil  society  at  100%,  ministries  and 
students at 96%, and quality assurance agencies at 95%, although labour market agreement is at 66.6% 
(FOCI).  There  is  a  78.9%  alignment  with  existing  practices  in  joint  programmes  (ETIKETA)  and 
feedback collected during the mid-term meeting supported the importance of issuing a joint Diploma 
Supplement, with an open question on whether this should be done on request. Information on the case 
of  the  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Masters  shows  that  61%  of  them  issue  a  joint  Diploma  Supplement, 
indicating its feasibility and importance for the implementation of a European degree. 

4.  Quality  assurance  arrangements:  internal  and  external  quality  assurance  is  conducted  in 
accordance  with  the  Standards  and  Guidelines  for  Quality  Assurance  in  the  European  Higher 
Education Area (ESG). The programme, the study field or the institutions are accredited/evaluated 
by an agency registered within the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education 
(EQAR). If external quality assurance is required at the programme level in the countries involved, 
the  transnational  programme  should  be  accredited/evaluated  preferably  using  the  European 
Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 
8). 

There was 87% agreement on this criterion among higher education institutions, with some concerns 
expressed about the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) being a barrier 

134 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible Joint European Degree – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final 
the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147  

report,  Publications  Office  of 

36 

 
 
 
for countries such as Italy and the potential limitation that the European Approach would bring to the 
label  due  to  its  scarce  use.  Furthermore,  the  results  of  the  EDLab  project  recommended  splitting 
criterion 4 into two to emphasise the institutional/study and programme levels.  

The level of agreement by other stakeholders was high, with quality assurance agencies and civil society 
at 100%, ministries at 98%, the labour market at 85%, and students at 97.5% (FOCI). Alignment with 
existing practices in joint programmes is 76.3% (ETIKETA). The ED AFFICHE project highlighted 
the need for joint European programmes to be subject to evaluation at the European level as a strategy 
to increase their value.  

The  feedback  collected during  the  mid-term  meeting  suggested  that  the  guidelines  should  include  a 
clarification of conditions and exceptions. The overall feedback emphasised that programmes, fields of 
study  or  institutions  should  be  accredited/evaluated  by  an  agency  registered  within  the  European 
Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) using the ESG, and where external quality 
assurance at programme level is required, the European Approach should be used. 

5. 

Joint arrangements for the joint programme: the higher education institutions involved have joint 
policies for admission, selection, supervision, monitoring, assessment, and recognition procedures 
for the joint study programme (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

84.2% of higher education institutions agreed with this criterion. Some suggested that the arrangements 
should  be  set  in  the  consortium  agreement  and  that  each  process  could  be  considered  separately, 
allowing  for  more  flexibility.  They  also  suggested  that  the  term  ‘arrangements’  is  preferable  to 
‘policies’ and that breaking down the criteria into several smaller items would enable to better define 
expectations (EDLab). The results of the EDLab project also suggested splitting the criterion into two 
to ensure arrangements at the decision-making and programme management levels. 

The agreement among other stakeholders was students at 90%, ministries at 84%, labour market and 
civil society at 80%, and quality assurance agencies at 75% (FOCI). There was a 92.1% alignment with 
existing  practices  in  joint  programmes  (ETIKETA).  The  ED  AFFICHE  project  recommended  the 
creation  of  a  guidance  document  for  the  criterion  on  how  to  regulate  policies  within  consortium 
agreements,  possibly  with  a  template  that  could  be  used  as  this  criterion  was  controversial  among 
stakeholders. 

The  feedback  collected  during  the  mid-term  meeting  emphasised  that  criterion  5  was  an  existing 
practice within the European Approach and Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters, which already incorporated 
joint policies for joint programmes. In addition, it was suggested to reformulate it as: ‘HEIs involved 
have set a consortium agreement that defines joint arrangements for admission, selection, supervision, 
monitoring,  assessment,  and  recognition  procedures  for  the  joint  study  programme.  The  joint 
programme  and  its  arrangements  are  designed  and  delivered  by  engaging  and  consulting  student 
representatives and other stakeholders.’ 

6.  Transnational  campus  access  to  services:  the  joint  programme  provides  enrolled  students, 
regardless of their location, with seamless and free access to the participating  higher education 
institution services such as e.g. Information technology (IT) services, shared infrastructure, and 
facilities,  (online)  library  services,  faculty  development  and  support,  academic  guidance  and 
psychological  counselling,  career  advice/mentoring,  alumni  systems  (European  Qualifications 
Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

There was 93.5% agreement among higher education institutions on this criterion, with some questions 
about the flexibility of the ‘mandatory’ services and the meaning of ‘seamless and free’, which could 
be  better  expressed  as  ‘offering  the  same  conditions  as  other  students’  or  ‘students  have  access  to 
services  in  all  participating  higher  education  institutions  under  the  same  conditions  as  all  enrolled 
students’. This could imply the possibility of registering students in all partner institutions offering the 
programme (EDLab).  

37 

 
 
The agreement across the different stakeholders was 100% for students, 95% for ministries and quality 
assurance agencies, 86.6% for civil society and 80% for the labour market (FOCI). There was 86.8% 
alignment with existing practices in joint programmes.  

The feedback collected during the mid-term meeting indicated that there would be practical barriers 
related  to  infrastructure  and  systems,  as  not  all  services  can  be  provided  ‘regardless  of  location’. 
Therefore, a list of services, guidelines and examples was needed. In addition, the ED AFFICHE project 
recommended the inclusion of more specific elements such as non-negotiable services such as health 
and welfare support. 

7. 

Flexible and embedded student mobility arrangements: 

a.  The joint programme includes at least 1 period of student physical mobility at another partner 

institution of at least 30 ECTS (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

The feedback showed a consensus among stakeholders, with reflections on inclusivity and suggestions 
for improving mobility opportunities. There was 85.6% agreement among higher education institutions 
on this criterion, with some considering that 30 ECTS is a low requirement for European Qualifications 
Frameworks (EQF) 6. They also suggested considering exceptions for students who could not undertake 
physical mobility by including virtual and blended mobility and making it the result of several shorter 
mobility periods (EDLab). In addition, the results of the EDLab project also suggested splitting criterion 
into two according to the European Qualifications Frameworks (EQF) level. 

Stakeholder agreement was 96% for students, 88% for ministries, 86.6% for civil society, 80% for the 
labour market and 65% for quality assurance agencies (FOCI). The ED AFFICHE project recommended 
specifying  that  the  lack  of  physical  attendance  does  not  prevent  a  university  from  awarding  a  joint 
degree. Feedback suggested that one mobility period should be preferred to two (JEDI). Feedback from 
the  mid-term  meeting  suggested  adding  examples  of  possible  activities  to  the  guidelines,  such  as 
teaching  activities,  international  events,  conferences,  joint  research  projects  and  publications  with 
researchers from partner institutions.  

b. 

Flexible PhD student mobility and transnational cooperation: the joint programme includes 
a  total  of  at  least  6  months  of  physical  mobility  at  another  partner  institution  (including 
secondment). In addition to physical mobility, the joint programme includes opportunities 
for doctoral candidates to participate in one or more of these activities at another partner 
institution: teaching activities, international events, international conferences, joint research 
scientific  projects  between  partner  institutions,  and  joint  research  publications  with 
researchers from partner institutions (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

The feedback revealed suggestions for improving mobility opportunities. There was a 73.4% agreement 
among higher education institutions on this criterion, with a recommendation to include other types of 
mobility  to  cater  for  doctoral  students  with  family  responsibilities  and  to  make  additional  mobility 
opportunities  optional  rather  than  a  minimum  requirement.  They  proposed  to  clarify  the  wording 
regarding  ‘including  secondments’,  which  implies  that  secondments  count  as  mobility  (EDLab). 
Stakeholder agreement was 100% for students, 92% for ministries, 86.6% for civil society, 75% for the 
labour market and 53.4% for quality assurance agencies (FOCI).  

Feedback from the mid-term meeting indicated that the guidelines should include examples of possible 
activities  for  doctoral  students,  such  as  teaching  activities,  international  events,  conferences,  joint 
research projects and publications with researchers from partner institutions.  

8.  Multilingualism: during the joint programme, each student is exposed to at least 2 different EU 
official languages, language classes excluded.  Exposure to EU official languages can take place 
in  active  and/or  passive  use  of  language(s),  at  any  level  in  teaching  and/or  learning  activities, 
examinations, research activities, professional or civic engagement activities and during mobility 

38 

 
 
periods, including by going on mobility to a country where a different EU official language is 
predominantly used in daily life (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

The feedback revealed concerns about the clarity of the criterion. There was 64% agreement among 
higher education institutions with this criterion. In particular, the term ‘exposure’ was deemed vague. 
Furthermore, the need to include language classes in the criterion was mentioned and the development 
of guidance on how to proceed when there is mobility between countries that share the same language 
(EDLab).  It  was  also  recommended  to  simplify  the  criterion  offering  space  to  a  wide  range  of 
‘exposures’. 

Stakeholder agreement was 88% for students, 66.6% for the labour market, 60% for ministries, 53.4% 
for  civil  society  and  30%  for  quality  assurance  agencies  (FOCI).  Most  of  the  higher  education 
institutions participating in ETIKETA supported the preference for ‘exposure’ to only two different 
official EU languages.  

Feedback from the mid-term meeting indicated that excluding language courses in this criterion would 
make it more challenging and require more effort from applicants in terms of programme design and/or 
provision of opportunities outside the formal curriculum. The ED AFFICHE project recommended that 
criterion 8 might be merged with optional criterion 2.  

The European policy experimentation projects also suggested the need to explain in the guidelines that 
exposure to EU official languages can take place actively and/or passively at any level, in teaching 
and/or learning activities, examinations, research activities, professional or civic engagement activities, 
and  during  mobility  periods,  including  mobility to  a country  where another  EU  official  language is 
predominantly used in daily life, including language classes. 

9. 

Innovative learning approaches: the joint programme includes embedded interdisciplinary and/or 
intersectoral  components  using  student-centred  and/or  challenged-based  approaches  (European 
Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

The feedback on criterion 9 showed a consensus on the need for clarity and flexibility. There was 72.7% 
agreement among higher education institutions on this criterion, with suggestions to avoid prescribing 
specific methodologies and recognition that the criterion is not easily quantifiable (EDLab). In addition, 
the  results  of  the  EDLab  project  suggested  transforming  the  criterion  into  a  category  ‘learning 
approaches’, consisting of four criteria relating to student participation in the learning process and its 
assessment, intersectoral components or activities, dissertations and policies for assessment, recognition 
and internship regulations. 

Agreement among stakeholders was 92% for students, 90% for the labour market, 84% for ministries, 
73.4% for quality assurance agencies and 53.4% for civil society (FOCI). The ED AFFICHE project 
highlighted the need to introduce some indicators or guidelines for this criterion, as higher education 
institutions may feel that it will condition teaching.  

The feedback from the mid-term meeting showed that the criterion is not clear, suggesting a need for 
refinement, such as changing ‘innovative’ to ‘student-centred’. The focus on ‘challenge-based’ methods 
may inadvertently exclude the potential for other and new, emerging pedagogies.  

10.  Graduate outcomes monitoring: the joint programme has a system to monitor graduate outcomes. 
This system can be at the level of the programme or institutional level(s). If possible, the content 
is aligned with the survey content of EUROGRADUATE (European Qualifications Frameworks 
6, 7, 8).  

Similar  to  some  of  the  criteria  above,  the  feedback  on  this  criterion  indicated  the  need  for  clearer 
terminology and the importance of a well-defined graduate tracking system. There was 65% agreement 
among higher education institutions on this criterion, with suggestions to replace the term  ‘graduate 

39 

 
 
outcomes’  with  ‘tracking  system’  and  to  remove  the  wording  ‘if  possible’.  They  also  highlighted 
potential challenges related to the fact that the EUROGRADUATE system was not widely known, but 
it was advisable to include this recommendation (EDLab).  

The level of agreement among stakeholders was 92% for students, 90% for quality assurance agencies, 
86.6% for the labour market, 80% for ministries and 53.4% for civil society (FOCI). The benchmark 
with existing joint programmes showed an alignment of 84.2% (ETIKETA). The ED AFFICHE project 
proposed the development of a guide to monitoring graduate outcomes, highlighting those most relevant 
to  the  sustained  success  of  joint  programmes.  The  feedback  from  the  mid-term  meeting  suggested 
replacing ‘graduate outcomes’ with ‘graduate tracking’ to avoid confusion and rewording as ‘The joint 
programme has a graduate tracking system’. 

11.  Inclusiveness and sustainability: 

a.  The  joint  programme  commits  to  wide  participation  through  socially  and  geographically 
inclusive admission through tailored measures for all categories of disadvantaged students 
(European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8).  

There  was  87%  agreement  among  higher  education  institutions  on  this  criterion,  with  a  call  for 
clarification on the categories of ‘disadvantaged’ students and concerns about the need for sufficient 
funding for some specific degrees that may not be open to all (EDLab). They also suggested removing 
the term ‘all categories’ because it raised concerns about its feasibility and including the concepts of 
diversity and support measures.  

Stakeholder agreement was 96% for students, 92% for ministries, 90% for the labour market, 85% for 
quality  assurance  agencies,  and  73.4%  for  civil  society  (FOCI).  The  benchmark  with  existing  joint 
programmes showed an alignment of 92.1% (ETIKETA).  The feedback collected during the mid-term 
meeting  suggests  that  the  guidelines  could  include  good  practices,  examples  of  categories  of 
disadvantaged  students  (Erasmus+  categories)  and  specific  procedures  for  students  to  report 
discrimination or other unfair treatment. 

b.  Compliance  with  the  European  Charter  for  Researchers,  Code  of  Conduct  for  the 
Recruitment of Researchers, and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action (MSCA) Green Charter: 
The  joint  programme  commits  to  respect  the  principles  of  the  European  Charter  for 
Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers and commits to the 
principles  of  the  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Action  (MSCA)  Green  Charter  (European 
Qualifications Frameworks 8).  

73.4% of higher education institutions agreed with this criterion (EDLab). Further, the EDLab project 
results suggested splitting the criterion into three. The level of agreement among stakeholders was 95% 
for students, 93.4% for quality assurance agencies, 88% for ministries, 86.6% for the labour market and 
80% for civil society (FOCI). Benchmarking with existing joint programmes showed 88.8% alignment 
(ETIKETA).  The  feedback  from  the  mid-term  meeting  suggested  that  compliance  with  the  above-
mentioned charters was feasible. 

Proposed optional criteria in the context of the Erasmus+ European policy experimentation projects 

1.  Alternative learning formats for transnational learning: in addition to physical mobility, the joint 
programme  includes  additional  formats  of  transnational  learning  activities  with  partner  higher 
education  institutions  (e.g.  online  or  blended,  in  the  format  of  regular  or  intensive  courses, 
summer/winter schools) (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7). 

Feedback on optional criterion 1 highlighted suggestions to merge it with criterion 7. There was 77.7% 
agreement among higher education institutions on this optional criterion, with suggestions to keep it 
optional or to merge it with criterion 7 as a complement to physical mobility. It is also suggested to 

40 

 
 
change the wording to: ‘In addition to physical mobility, the joint programme offers additional formats 
of transnational learning activities’ (EDLab). This criterion was 76.3% consistent with existing joint 
programmes (ETIKETA). 

2.  Language classes: the joint programme offers the possibility to take language classes to enhance 
the command of multiple European languages (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

Feedback on optional criterion 2 pointed to proposals to merge it with criterion 8. Feedback on criterion 
2 showed 85.7% agreement among higher education institutions. They suggested to not impose it but 
to offer it when relevant. They also expressed that this could make reference to extracurricular activities, 
and it should not be considered the responsibility of a joint programme (EDLab). Agreement among 
stakeholders was 84% for students, 80% for ministries, 73.4% for the labour market and civil society, 
and 70% for quality assurance agencies (FOCI).  

3.  Cooperation  with  the labour market:  the  joint  programme  supports  future labour market  needs 
and/or includes cooperation with businesses and sectors in its curriculum (European Qualifications 
Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

There  were  different  levels  of  agreement  between  stakeholders  on  this  criterion.  There  was  79.1% 
agreement among higher education institutions on this criterion, with the observation that the relevance 
of the criterion may depend on the field of study and should also cover the needs of careers in academia 
and basic research. However, they also mentioned this criterion is part of the European Approach for 
Quality  Assurance  of  Joint  Programmes  and  as  such  should  be  mandatory,  at  least  for  European 
Qualifications Frameworks (EQF) 6 and 7 (EDLab).  

The level of agreement among other stakeholders was 95% for the labour market, 92% for ministries, 
86.6% for civil society and 70% for quality assurance agencies and students (FOCI). There was 92.1% 
alignment  with  existing  practices  in  joint  programmes  (ETIKETA).  The  ED  AFFICHE  project 
recommended that optional criteria be added to the list of mandatory criteria.  

Participants  in  the  mid-term  meeting  noted  that  alignment  with  labour  market  needs  should  be 
mandatory,  but  that it  is  difficult  to  assess in  concrete  terms.  They  also  suggested  that  it  should  be 
strengthened through cooperation with business and/or industry and/or civil society and/or the public 
sector. 

4.  Work-based learning opportunities: the joint programme provides opportunities for international 
professional internships/work-based learning recognised through the award of ECTS (European 
Qualifications Frameworks 7, 8). 

The  feedback  showed  different  perspectives  on  its  relevance  and  implementation  among  different 
stakeholders. There was 78.4% agreement among higher education institutions with this criterion, with 
suggestions that it may not be relevant for all fields, or even unnecessary, and should remain optional. 
They also suggested that the term ‘international’ should be clarified to mean different from the country 
of origin or the countries in which the programme is offered. Further, they suggested including this 
optional criterion in the mandatory criterion 9 (EDLab).  

The level of agreement among other stakeholders is 93.4% for the labour market, 84% for students, 
80% for ministries, 73.4% for civil society and 70% for quality assurance agencies (FOCI). There is 
47.3% alignment with existing practices in joint programmes (ETIKETA). Notably, 83.3% of higher 
education  institutions  participating  in  the  JEDI  project  would  include  mandatory  requirements  for 
exposure to internships. The ED AFFICHE project recommended that optional criterion 4 be added to 
the list of mandatory criteria.  

41 

 
 
Participants in the mid-term meeting expressed different opinions, with some in favour of compulsory 
international  placements,  while  others  found  it  challenging,  particularly  depending  on  the  level  of 
employment in the field of study and the legal framework for traineeships. 

5.  Career development plan: the joint programme includes a career development plan devised with 
the  candidate  and/or  exposure  to  the  non-academic  sector  (such  as  internships,  seminars,  and 
networking) (European Qualifications Frameworks 8). 

The feedback on optional criterion 5 showed different opinions on its implementation. There was 66.9% 
agreement among higher education institutions on this criterion, with the suggestion that such plans 
were  usually  offered  at  the  institutional  level  rather  than  within  the  programme  (EDLab).  The  ED 
AFFICHE project recommended that this criterion be consolidated with similar  mandatory ones and 
made compulsory, as it underlines the capacity of the joint programme to provide career development 
services. The level of agreement between stakeholders varied, with ministries at 90%, civil society at 
80%, the labour market at 73.4%, students at 66.6% and quality assurance agencies at 60% (FOCI). 

6.  Environmental and sustainability measures: the joint programme includes components and actions 
related to environmental sustainability and implements measures to minimise the environmental 
footprint of its activities (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

There was 70.5% agreement among higher education institutions on this criterion, with suggestions that 
these  measures  should  be  implemented  at  institutional  rather  than  programme  level  and  that 
quantification or evaluation may be difficult. They also pointed out that environmental sustainability 
should be a focus in all programmes and therefore it should not be a determining factor in awarding the 
European degree. In addition, there was a potential contradiction regarding the promotion of physical 
mobility (EDLab).  

The agreement among stakeholders was 85% for the labour market and students, 80% for ministries, 
65% for quality assurance agencies and 53.4% for civil society (FOCI). There is 86.8% alignment with 
existing  practices  in  joint  programmes  (ETIKETA).  The  ED  AFFICHE  project  recommended  the 
development of a guide at the European level to facilitate a common understanding of the criterion. 
Participants in the mid-term meeting highlighted the importance of environmental sustainability, which 
could be further refined using environmental sustainability frameworks. 

7.  Digital skills development: the joint programme includes components and actions related to the 
development of high-level digital skills of students, it offers high-quality digital education content, 
as well as assessment of student skills (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

The  feedback  showed  different  perspectives.  There  was  74.1%  agreement  among  higher  education 
institutions on this criterion, with recommendations to assess high-level and high-quality digital skills 
against clear indicators, and to emphasise the importance of digital skills for all programmes rather than 
as a distinctive feature of a  European degree. They also highlighted the need for clarification of the 
terms ‘high level’, ‘as well as (digital) assessment of student (digital) skills’ and ‘high-quality digital 
education content’ (EDLab).  

The consensus among stakeholders was 80% for civil society, 73.4% for the labour market, 76% for 
students  and  50% for  quality  assurance agencies (FOCI).  Alignment  with  existing  practices in  joint 
programmes  is  92.1%.  The  ED  AFFICHE  project  recommended  that  a  guide  be  drawn  up  at  the 
European  level  to  guide  on  how  to  achieve  this  objective.  Participants  in  the  mid-term  meeting 
highlighted  the  importance  of  refining  the  criterion  on  digital  literacy  with  the  possibility  of  using 
DigComp to assess digital literacy. 

8.  Democratic values and social engagement: the joint programme offers the possibility for students 
to participate in activities promoting democratic values and addressing societal needs of the local 

42 

 
 
community(ies),  including  volunteering,  and  to  receive  ECTS  for  it  (European  Qualifications 
Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

Feedback  showed  mixed  opinions,  highlighting  concerns  about  the  allocation  of  ECTS.  There  was 
57.9% agreement among higher education institutions on this criterion, with some concerns about the 
feasibility of awarding ECTS for activities promoting democratic values and societal engagement due 
to  the  complexity  of  organising  and  assessing  these  activities  (EDLab).  The  EDLab  project  also 
suggested making this criterion mandatory. 

Across all stakeholders there was 86.6% agreement for civil society, 85% for the labour market, 70% 
for students and 55% for quality assurance agencies (FOCI). There is 26.3% alignment with existing 
practices in joint programmes. Participants in the mid-term review event expressed divergent views, 
with some arguing that this criterion should be combined with traineeships and made mandatory, while 
others  argued  that  the  award  of  ECTS  is  particularly  challenging  for  this  type  of  activity.  Some 
participants pointed out that the award of ECTS does not necessarily need to be integrated into curricula. 

9. 

Programme promotion and visibility:  The higher education institutions offering the joint study 
programme conduct joint promotion and awareness-raising activities to ensure visibility of the 
joint programme and provide the necessary information about it for students and other relevant 
stakeholders such as future employers (European Qualifications Frameworks 6, 7, 8). 

There was a fairly high level of agreement (85.3%) on this criterion among higher education institutions 
(EDLab). The EDLab project proposed to make this optional criterion mandatory by including it in 
mandatory criteria 5 and/or 9 and splitting it into two, highlighting the importance of providing the 
necessary information for students and other relevant stakeholders such as future employers.  

Across all stakeholders, the agreement was 84% for ministries, 80% for civil society, 75% for students, 
66.6%  for  the  labour  market  and  50%  for  quality  assurance  agencies  (FOCI).    There  was  76.3% 
alignment with existing practices in joint programmes (ETIKETA). Some higher education institutions 
are in favour of increasing the visibility and awareness of the criterion, possibly moving it from optional 
to mandatory (SMARTT). The ED AFFICHE project recommended that the Commission should take 
the lead in promoting the concept of a European degree internationally. Participants in the mid-term 
meeting agreed that joint programmes by their nature carry out joint promotional activities, making this 
criterion potentially redundant. 

Suggested additional criteria 

While there was a general agreement among the projects that criteria should not be too numerous, some 
projects explored the added value of potential new ones in early phases of their work to strengthen the 
availability of opportunities for staff, inclusion of students in decision making processes and feedback 
mechanisms,  openness  to  flexible  units  of  learning  such  as  micro-credentials  and  flexible  learning 
pathways. 

‘The scope of the initiative needs to be expanded to include other models of higher education in addition 
to  full  programmes.  This  is  crucial  in  a  higher  education  that  is  increasingly  moving  towards  more 
innovative  and  flexible  models  of  educational  provision  (e.g.  micro-credentials)  and  flexible  learning 
pathways’.  

FOCI  consortium  (composed of  eight universities  from  seven  countries:  Belgium,  Croatia,  France,  Greece, 
Lithuania, Poland, and the Netherlands) – Call for Evidence. 

Feasibility of the tested criteria in the context of the Erasmus+ European policy experimentation 
projects 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Alongside the suitability of the criteria developed, there is also the question of their feasibility. This is 
closely correlated with the obstacles and challenges outlined in the previous section, which would need 
to be overcome in order to pave the way for European degrees to be awarded. Firstly, most of the higher 
education institutions consulted in the study that preceded the adoption of this document acknowledge 
that  it  would  be  either  demanding  or  very  demanding  to  award  joint  degrees  to  graduates  of  joint 
European  programmes135.  This  view  was  shared  by  the  national  authorities,  who  admitted  that  the 
awarding of joint degrees is not fully permitted in all countries136.  

Similar  serious  difficulties  exist  in  the  area  of  quality  assurance.  Requiring  a  review  by  an  agency 
registered within the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) from another 
country or using the European Approach may not be feasible across Europe. The European Approach 
is not currently available in all countries and not all countries allow their higher education institutions 
to  freely  choose  an  agency  registered  within  the  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher 
Education. Problems are more likely to arise in countries where the European Approach is not available, 
where it is not possible to choose an agency registered within the European Quality Assurance Register 
for Higher Education, and where there is no national agency registered within the European Quality 
Assurance Register for Higher Education137. 

Table  2.1:  Availability  of  the  European  Approach  and  the  option to  choose  an  agency  registered 
within the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) 

European Approach is 
available 

European Approach is  
partly available 

European Approach is 
not available 

Germany, Cyprus 

Latvia, Slovakia 

Belgium-FL, Belgium-
FR, Bulgaria, 
Lithuania, Hungary, 
Austria, Poland, 
Romania, Finland 

Denmark, Malta, the 
Netherlands 

Estonia*, France*, 
Luxembourg, Portugal* 

Czechia**, Greece** 

Can choose an agency 
registered within the 
European Quality 
Assurance Register for 
Higher Education 
(EQAR) from another 
country. 

Can choose an agency 
registered within the 
European Quality 
Assurance Register for 
Higher Education 
(EQAR) from another 
country under certain 
conditions. 

of 

different 

–  Final 

approaches 

report,  Publications  Office 

135 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility 
the  European  Union, 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 
136 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.28. 
  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 
137 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.28. 
  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 

of 

44 

 
 
 
 
European Approach is 
available 

European Approach is  
partly available 

European Approach is 
not available 

Ireland*, Slovenia* 

Croatia*, Sweden* 

- 

Italy** 

- 

- 

Cannot choose an 
agency registered 
within the European 
Quality Assurance 
Register for Higher 
Education (EQAR) 
from another country. 

Information on the 
ability to choose an 
agency registered 
within the European 
Quality Assurance 
Register for Higher 
Education (EQAR) 
from another country is 
not available. 

* National agency is registered with the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR). 
** There is no national agency registered within the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR). 
Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., 
Potapova, E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree – Identifying opportunities and investigating the 
impact and feasibility of different approaches – Final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 

Other  feasibility  concerns  relate  to  the  description  of  a  joint  programme  in  ECTS  credits  and  the 
commitment  to  provide  students  with  seamless  and  free  access  to  services  such  as  Information 
Technology  (IT)  services,  shared  infrastructure  and  facilities,  (online)  library  services,  faculty 
development and support, academic and psychological counselling, career guidance and monitoring, 
and alumni systems. Stakeholders report that some national requirements on curriculum and programme 
length may hamper the definition of programmes in terms of ECTS credits. In addition, the coordination 
and interconnection of universities’ digital infrastructures may hinder the establishment of transnational 
campuses. 

Some of the criteria may require a greater effort on the part of the institutions to meet (in particular 
multilingualism  and  interdisciplinarity),  but  as  they  are  now  formulated,  they  still  seem  quite 
achievable. There is also a group of criteria that can be achieved quite easily, as they are already an 
integral  part  of  joint  degree  programmes.  These  are  the  required  number  of  participating  higher 
education institutions, joint policies for the joint programmes, the issuing of a diploma supplement, 
embedded student mobility, and inclusiveness and sustainability. 

Although sometimes challenging to meet, higher education institutions expressed their willingness to 
invest a significant amount of time in complying with the European degree criteria. More than half of 
the  respondents  to  the  survey  indicated  that  they  would  be  willing  to  spend  more  than  six  months 
developing  a  new  programme  in  line  with  the  co-created  criteria138.  45%  of  the  higher  education 

138 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility 
the  European  Union, 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 

report,  Publications  Office 

approaches 

–  Final 

different 

of 

of 

45 

 
 
 
 
institutions surveyed would spend at least 10 working days adapting their programmes to the European 
degree as a qualification, while a third would do the same for the label139. 

 ‘We intend the European degree as a seal of quality making our degrees more attractive on a global 
level. The set of common criteria associated with the European degree will serve as a guidance for the benefit 
of all Higher Education Institutions’. 

UNITA  (alliance  of  European  research  universities  spanning  France,  Italy,  Portugal,  Romania,  Spain, 
Switzerland, and Ukraine) – Call for Evidence. 

General perspectives 

From a general perspective, most of the feedback collected suggests that the proposed criteria seemed 
to be fit for purpose, provided that they come with clearer definition and guidelines.  

The projects proposed several recommendations for smoother implementation of the European degrees. 
First, restructuring the criteria to enhance clarity, drawing inspiration from the Standards and Guidelines 
for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and the European Approach for 
the Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes (European Approach). Second, use only mandatory criteria 
to avoid confusion regarding the meaning of optional, additional, or voluntary criteria. Third, it was 
clear for all projects that the criteria should be accompanied by a glossary of terminology and extensive 
guidelines explaining all basic concepts and providing examples of ways to comply. 

In addition, suggestions to expand the scope of the European degree to micro-credentials and to EQF 
level 5 programmes were also voiced and supported by most projects. It was suggested to work on an 
adapted list of criteria that could be applied to such learning experiences due to their differences with 
EQF levels 6, 7 and 8 joint programmes. Such an activity could take place in the framework of European 
degree policy labs, when designing guidelines for the implementation of the European degree. 

A revised list of criteria incorporating all gathered input was produced in February 2024 and is 
presented here below and in Annex II of this Staff Working Document. 

2.2.3   Revised list of criteria for a European degree 

Taking  into  account  all  feedback  collected  from  the  Erasmus+  European  policy  experimentation 
projects and facilitating direct exchanges between the projects and the European Commission, a list of 
revised criteria for the European was produced to serve as blueprint for the development of a European 
degree, as a label or as a qualification and for the development of guidelines for its implementation. 

The criteria are divided in 3 different clusters: Transnational programme organisation and management, 
learning experience and European values. 

Cluster 1:  Transnational programme organisation and management 

1. Higher education institutions involved:  

139 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree  – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility  of  different  approaches  –  Final  report,  p.28. 
  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The joint programme is offered by at least 2 higher education institutions from at least 2 different 
EU Member States. (EQF levels 6, 7 and 8) 

While this criterion defines the fact that any European degree must involve several institutions from 
different countries, the opportunity to raise the minimum of 2 to 3 different institutions from 3 different 
countries and to expand the geographical scope beyond the EU was discussed by the different projects. 
Existing practices under Erasmus+ funding schemes (Erasmus Mundus, MSCA) and the mandate of 
European institutions defined the scope of the criteria without ruling out potential expansion should 
political decisions be taken to expand the scope and ambition of a European degree. 

The future guidelines should precise that these are the minimum requirements. Beyond this minimum, 
there are no restrictions on the number of higher education institutions or the countries they are from, 
within or beyond the EU. 

2. Transnational joint degree delivery:  

The  joint  programme  is  jointly  designed  and  jointly  delivered  by  all  the  higher  education 
institutions involved. (EQF levels 6, 7 and 8) 

The joint nature of the programme is the very basis of a joint degree. Students should experience the 
programme as a single joint whole, not as separate parts provided by different partner institution and 
put together artificially to form a whole. 

The future guidelines should define that compliance with such a  criterion should be shown through 
agreement and alignment (specified in the consortium agreement or in other related joint documents) 
among  the  partners  on  the  format  and  content  of  the  programme,  with  jointly  designed  learning 
outcomes at programme level as a minimum and demonstrating that all partners contribute to teaching 
and/or the provision of other learning activities. 

The joint programme leads to the award of a joint degree. (EQF levels 6, 7 and 8) 

A joint degree is a basic element to reflect the joint nature of the programme it is also logical for a 
European degree to not be composed of several and multiple degrees as none of them alone could claim 
to be a European degree. It is also aligned with Bologna commitments to facilitate the delivery of joint 
degrees across the EHEA. 

The future guidelines should define that joint degrees are understood as a single document awarded by 
higher  education  institutions  offering  the  joint  programme  and  nationally  acknowledged  as  the 
recognised award of the joint programme, in line with the definition adopted in the European approach 
for quality assurance of joint programmes. 

A joint diploma supplement is issued to students. (EQF levels 6 and 7) 

The  diploma  supplement  is  an  important  tool  for  recognition  of  qualifications.  A  joint  diploma 
supplement is necessary to reflect the joint nature of the programme  and that students can have one 
document to share instead of several ones covering only parts of the learning experience. 

The guidelines to be developed should indicate that a joint diploma supplement clearly describe all parts 
of  the  degree  programme  and  contain  relevant  information  on  the  type  and  level  of  qualification  
awarded; the institutions that issued the qualification; the content of the course and the results gained,  
the  institutions  in  which  the  student  has  earned  the  different  parts  of  the  degree  and  details  of  the  
national education systems. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The joint programme describes the learning outcomes and credits in line with the ECTS Users 
Guide. (EQF levels 6 and 7) 

This criterion encourages alignment with existing EHEA tools and to ensure that curricular design is 
based on reaching intended learning outcomes. 

3. Joint arrangements for the joint programme 

The  joint  programme  has  joint  policies,  procedures  and/or  arrangements  defining  curriculum 
planning and delivery, as well as all organisational and administrative matters. 
Students’ representatives are part of the decision-making process to define the joint policies and 
procedures and/or arrangements. (EQF levels 6, 7 and 8) 

A  joint  programme  should  have  joint  structures  to  ensure  that  joint  policies,  procedures  and 
arrangements are agreed on, implemented and monitored. 

The future guidelines should precise that these policies, procedures and arrangements should cover at 
least policies related to admission, selection, supervision, progression, monitoring, assessment, degree 
awarding and recognition as well as any other policy or arrangement that would be deemed necessary 
for a European degree programme. 

The guidelines should precise that this may be done through joint committees and boards, and may be 
programme specific or, for example, set up at inter-institutional or alliance levels. 
The  guidelines  should  also  provide  guidance  on  the  inclusion  of  student’s  representatives  in  the 
decision-making process with examples of good practices. 

4. Quality assurance arrangements 

Internal  and  external  Quality  Assurance  is  conducted  in  accordance  with  the  Standards  and 
Guidelines  for  Quality Assurance  in  the  European  Higher  Education Area  (ESG).  The  higher 
education  institutions,  the  study  field  or  the  programme  are  evaluated  by  an  EQAR  registered 
agency. (EQF levels 6, 7 and 8) 

This  criterion  promotes  alignment  with  existing  EHEA  tools  while  respecting  the  diversity  of 
accreditation and quality assurance systems and the competence of the Member States. 

The future guidelines will support accreditation and evaluation agencies to integrate an evaluation of 
compliance with the criteria of a European degree within their existing processes and procedures.  

5. Graduate-tracking 

The joint programme monitors graduates through a graduate tracking system. (EQF levels 6, 7 
and 8) 

Monitoring graduates’ outcomes is important for quality assurance purposes, to assess the relevance of 
a programme, for promotion of the programme, build an alumni network among other things. 

The guidelines will precise that such a system can be at programme level or at institutional level as long 
as it is adapted to the characteristics of such a transnational programme, making use of existing tools 
wherever possible. 

Cluster 2: Learning experience 

6. Student-centred learning 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  joint  programme  is  designed  and  continuously  enhanced  and  delivered  in  a  way  that 
encourages students to take an active role in the learning process. Assessment of students reflects 
this approach. (EQF levels 6, 7 and 8) 

This criterion builds on the ESG (1.3 - Student-centred learning, teaching and assessment) to stress the 
importance of implementing student-centred learning, teaching and assessment. 

The guidelines should link this criterion with compliance with the ESG and indicates a set of indicators 
that can be used as well as provide examples of good practices. 

7. Interdisciplinarity 

The joint programme includes embedded interdisciplinarity components. (EQF levels 6, 7 and 
8) 

This criterion promotes the inclusion of some element of inter-disciplinarity in the curricula. This does 
not make it compulsory for every programme to be fully inter-disciplinary but to allow for an inter-
disciplinary dimension in the curricula (through one or several courses, modules, etc) 

The guidelines will further define these guidance in full respect of academic freedom and diversity of 
fields and disciplines. 

8. Labour market relevance 

The joint programme aligns with labour market requirements by incorporating intersectoral 
components or activities and the development of transversal skills. (EQF levels 6, 7 and 8) 

This criterion encompasses elements such as cooperation with other sectors (businesses, industries, civil 
society, the public sector, etc.), traineeships and any other activity that can be used to for students to 
develop transversal skills and ensure the labour market relevance of the programme. 

The guidelines will provide further guidance on indicators and good practices. 

9. Digital skills 

The joint programme includes components and actions related to the development of advanced 
digital skills of students, tailored to the capacities and circumstances of the joint programme, 
ensuring alignment with its scope and scholarly focus. (EQF levels 6, 7 and 8) 

Digital skills are skills that are relevant in all fields and disciplines. This criterion ensures that students 
are  prepared  to  embrace  the  digital  transition  by  incorporating  components  and  actions  for  the 
development of digital skills. This can be achieved through different means. 
The guidelines will provide indicators and examples of components and actions to comply with such a 
criteria, keeping in mind the need for a flexible and proportionate approach, aligned with the scope and 
the focus of each programme. 

10. Transnational campus – access to services 

The programme has joint policies for students and staff to have access to relevant services in all 
participating higher education institutions in equivalent conditions as all enrolled  students and 
local staff. (EQF levels 6, 7 and 8) 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All  students  of  a  joint  programme  should  have  equal  access  to  services  of  participation  institutions 
regardless of the fact they are physically present in the institution or not. The criterion also stress the 
importance for staff of joint programmes to have access to services of the different institutions. 

The guidelines will provide additional guidance on the kind of services that are deemed relevant in such 
contexts as well as examples of series of services that can be provided. 

11. Flexible and embedded student mobility 

The joint programme offers deep intercultural experience, including a minimum of 1 period of 
student  physical  mobility  (that  can  be  split  in  several  stays)  at  another  or  several  partner 
institution(s) representing overall at least 60 ECTS at EQF 6 level and 30 ECTS at EQF 7 level.  
The joint programme has a policy offering alternatives for students who are unable to travel. 
(EQF levels 6 and 7) 

Mobility is at the core of the vast majority of joint programme. It is also one fundamental aspect of 
European integration and a characteristic of the european higher education area. This criterion ensures 
that students are provided with opportunities to be mobile between the institutions offering the joint 
programme for a minimum of 60 ECTS at Bachelor’s level and 30 ECTS at Master’s level. 

The guideline will precise that such minimum requirements do not prevent the offering of more mobility 
opportunities and that they do not necessarily entail the completion of rigid blocks of mobility but allow 
for the stacking of several smaller periods of mobility. 

The joint programme offers deep intercultural experience, including a total of at least 6 months of 
physical mobility at another or several partner institution(s).  
The joint programme has a policy offering alternatives for students who are unable to travel. 
(EQF level 8) 

This criterion reflects the previous one, taking into account the need to distinguish Doctoral level from 
other levels. 

12. Co-evaluation and co-supervision for dissertations 

Dissertations  are  supervised  by  at  least  2  supervisors  and  co-evaluated  by  co-supervisors  or  a 
committee with members from at least 2 different institutions located in 2 different countries. (EQF 
level 8) 

Co-evaluation and co-supervision ensures a true joint doctoral experience. It is an important element 
promoted by the MSCA action. 

The guidelines will provide indicators and further details on how compliance with such a criteria can 
be assessed. 

Cluster 3: European values 

13. Democratic values 

The joint programme’s joint policies promote and adhere to democratic values. (EQF levels 6, 7 
and 8) 

This  criterion  is  proposed  as  a  minimum  requirement  due  to  the  important  role  of  education  in 
strengthening common European values and democratic citizenship. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The guidelines will support the assessment of compliance respect for democracy reflected in the joint 
programme’s policies and procedures. Several reference documents can be used as points of reference 
for this purpose such as the Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture developed 
by the Council of Europe, the Erasmus+ Charter for Higher Education and the European Charter for 
Fundamental rights as examples.  

14. Multilingualism 

During the joint programme, each student is exposed to at least 2 different EU languages. (EQF 
levels 6, 7 and 8) 

Multilingualism is one of the core values of the European project and is highly valued by employers 
and students. This criterion promotes an exposure to multilingualism as part of the programme. 

The  guidelines  will  define  how  this  exposure  can  take  place  (language  classes,  courses  or  modules 
taught in a different language than the rest of the curricula, etc.) 

15. Inclusiveness 

The joint programme commits to wide participation by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion 
and  by  adopting  tailored  measures  to  support  students  and  staff  with  less  opportunities.  (EQF 
levels 6, 7 and 8) 

This criterion stressed the importance for European degree programmes to be an inclusive opportunity 
for  all,  which  is  a  core  concern  of  students.  Target  measures  to  support  inclusion  of  disadvantaged 
students but also staff will support inclusive policies fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

The guideline will indicate indicators and guidance to measure this criterion. Such arrangements should 
be reflected in the admission policies and processes and detailed in detailed in the consortium agreement 
or in other related joint document(s). 

The joint programme commits to respect the principles of the European Charter for Researchers. 
(EQF level 8) 

These  well-established  principles  are  considered  key  to  ensure  inclusive  practices  in  doctoral 
programmes.  

The guidelines will indicate that clear reference should be made in the consortium agreement or in other 
related  joint  documents  to  the  commitment  to  respect  the  principles  mentioned,  and  processes  and 
policies are place to ensure this alignment. 

16. Green transition 

The  joint  programme  has  policies  and  actions  related  to  environmental  sustainability  and 
implements measures to minimise the environmental footprint of its activities. (EQF levels 6, 7 
and 8) 

This criterion expresses the commitment to promote environmental sustainability. The criterion is open 
enough to cover a wide range of activities. 

The guidelines will describe what kind of measures can reflect such commitment, keeping in mind the 
necessity to respect the diversity of contexts and programmes. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MSCA Green Charter promotes the sustainable implementation of research activities. This is in line 
with the goals of the European Green Deal, which aims to make Europe’s economy sustainable. 

The guidelines will refer to the fact that such commitment should be reflected in the joint policies and 
arrangements and that students and staff should be informed about these principles. 

2.2.4   Award process and actors 

Stakeholder  feedback  from  available  pilot  project  outputs  on  the  added  value  of  a  European 
degree as a label or a type of qualification 

Stakeholders concurred that a label alone has no legal value, and therefore may not achieve national 
recognition  or  regulatory  simplification,  limiting  its  added  value.  In  contrast,  European  degrees  are 
perceived  as  more  influential  due  to  their  regulatory  clarity  and  wider  understanding  among 
stakeholders. There was a common understanding that a  European degree would be more impactful 
than a label. 

 ‘As  long  as  the  Common  European  Degree  is  only  a  supplement  to  the  individual  degrees  of  the 

universities (be it a single, double or joint degree), it has little value’. 

Bielefeld University (Germany) – Call for Evidence. 

While  there  is  overall  agreement  on  the  degree  being  the  ultimate  objective,  questions  about  the 
feasibility and timeline for realising this goal were expressed. The introduction of a label faces minimal 
legal  hurdles,  whereas  progress  towards  a  European  degree  will  require  changes  in  regulatory 
frameworks at the national and institutional levels, as well as political commitment and advocacy. The 
European policy experimentation projects highlighted possible difficulties with national accreditation 
systems, and the consulted quality assurance agencies expressed scepticism regarding this pathway. 

Acknowledging these challenges, many European policy experimentation projects also agreed that the 
introduction of the European degree as a label could support systems to move towards degrees fully 
integrated into national legislation. The label could act as a catalyst by demonstrating the potential of 
joint degrees. This phased approach does not imply postponing the European degree until all countries 
have made the necessary legislative changes. Instead, the two options could coexist: the label could be 
introduced while countries begin to incorporate the European degree into their national legislation. In 
addition, the label could remain an alternative in scenarios where a European degree would be more 
challenging, such as in regulated professions. 

While the introduction of a European degree would require changes to legislation in some countries, 
the  European  policy  experimentation  projects  unanimously  recognised  the  importance  of  respecting 
national  competencies  in  education.  The  awarding  of  accredited  joint  degrees  aims  to  enhance  the 
attractiveness  of  European  education,  but  it  is  essential  that  this  initiative  does  not  undermine  or 
compete with existing national qualifications systems and standard educational offerings. This balance 
ensures that the enhancement brought about by the European degree complements, rather than conflicts 
with, the established educational frameworks within individual countries. 

Award process and actors 

In addition, one of the main questions discussed by the pilots for the implementation of the European 
degree is who would carry out the assessment of whether the programme meets the European criteria 
and decide whether a European degree (in whatever form) can be awarded. There is a broad consensus 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
that the European degree should integrate rather than duplicate existing processes. In order to minimise 
costs  and  maximise  benefits,  the  integration  of  application  and  evaluation  procedures  into  existing 
accreditation/evaluation procedures is considered to be the most effective. 

When assessing  whether  a  programme  meets the criteria  for  awarding  a  European  degree,  the  most 
common  recommendation  from  the  European  policy  experimentation  projects  is  that  the  awarding 
process  should  look  like  an  accreditation/quality  assurance  process,  even  in  the  case  of  a  label  and 
certainly  in  the  case  of  a  degree.  Many  favour  an  approach  that  would  involve  the  use  of  national 
accreditation and quality assurance agencies registered within the European Quality Assurance Register 
for Higher Education (EQAR). In this scenario, one agency could review the criteria for the European 
degree and its decision would be accepted in all participating countries without the need for separate 
review by their quality assurance agencies.  

Any agency registered within the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education would be 
eligible  to  verify  the  compliance  of  programmes  or  institutions  with  the  European  criteria,  fully 
integrating this process into existing procedures for programme accreditation and quality assurance. 
Higher education institutions that can self-accredit their own programmes could also award European 
degrees,  provided  they  can  demonstrate  that  they  have  the  appropriate  processes  in  place  to  ensure 
compliance with the European criteria. 

The pilots also emphasised the need for a fair and transparent process across countries, and suggested 
more detailed descriptions of the criteria and a set of indicators for better readability and measurability. 
The  development  of  a  comprehensive  toolkit  or  guidance  document  that  provides  definitions  and 
clarifies the meaning of each criterion would be an invaluable resource. Such a resource could serve as 
a guide for evaluators, defining the evaluation methodology and indicators and providing examples of 
good practice. 

As the pilots progressed, a third option emerged: the introduction of the European degree as a degree 
offered by alliances of higher education institutions with a legal entity. Under this option, alliances of 
higher education institutions that would have chosen to establish a legal entity could be accredited to 
deliver joint educational provisions, including a European degree. National legislation would need to 
allow such accreditation of new legal entities. This option was not explored in depth by all six pilots, 
but some did gather preliminary views on it revealing diverse perspectives. 

An overview of each option is presented below. 

53 

 
 
 
Entry point 1: a European label.  

A  label  is  given  to  joint  degree  programmes  meeting  the  European  criteria. While  the  label  will  provide  a 
powerful branding tool, it will not solve the obstacles encountered by higher education institutions to establish 
joint degree programmes. 

Entry point 2: a European degree.  

A  degree  is  awarded  jointly  by  several  universities  from  different  countries  (e.g.  a  European  universities 
alliance). The European degree is integrated as a new type of qualification into national legislation. This offers 
significant  simplification  both  for  higher  education  institutions  and  for  students  by  removing  disparities 
between  national  rules  and  equipping  EU  universities  with  a  common  and  clear  framework  to  create  joint 
degree  programmes.  As  any  degree,  it  would  be  accredited  following  national  legislation  and  National 
Qualification Frameworks by the competent authorities at institutional, regional, or national levels.  

A European degree could also be awarded by a European legal entity established by several higher education 
institutions from different countries (e.g. a European universities alliance with a legal status). Same as entry 
point  2a  but  with  a  legal  status.  This  path  would  offer  the  simplest  way  with  the  highest  efficiency  for 
universities in terms of associated costs and necessary resources.  

These more advanced and institutionalised forms of cooperation have been experimented with under 
the second topic of the 2022 call for proposals on ‘European policy experimentation in higher education 
under  the  Erasmus+  programme’,  which  invited  proposals  to  explore  the  feasibility  of  a  possible 
European  legal  status  for  alliances  of  higher  education  institutions.  The  preliminary  results  of  the 
selected projects are presented in the upcoming section. 

2.2.5   A possible European legal status for alliances of higher education institutions 

Transnational cooperation between higher education institutions has a widely recognised and positive 
impact on academic and research excellence and innovation in the higher education sector, and thus on 
the cohesion and competitiveness of Member States and the European Union as a whole. Nonetheless, 
the  pursuit  of  international  cooperation  between  higher  education  institutions  is  often  not 
straightforward.  

In  2020,  the  European  University  Association  conducted  a  survey140  among  219  higher  education 
institutions from across 34 European systems. Even then, just two years after the launch of the European 
Universities  Initiative,  59%  of respondents identified  administrative  obstacles to  cooperation  due  to 
different institutional structures and processes as one of the most significant barriers to deeper strategic 
cooperation. 

One of the barriers is related to the lack of a legal status for alliances of higher education institutions. 
They  see  a  strong  need  for  this  in  order  to  be  able  to  share  financial,  human,  digital  and  physical 
resources, infrastructures and services, as well as joint activities, including educational activities, more 
efficiently. 

These challenges have not gone unnoticed. The Council Recommendation of 5 April 2022 on building 
bridges for effective European higher education cooperation141 invited the Commission to ‘support the 
Member States and higher education institutions in testing the use of existing European instruments 
from 2022 onwards as a step on the way to facilitating deeper, long-term and flexible transnational 

140  European  Universities  Association,  Position  Paper  –  The  future  of  the  European  Universities  Initiative:  The  sector’s 
perspective, April 2020, p. 1, https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua%20council%20position%20on%20future%20of%20
eui.pdf  
141 Council Recommendation of 5 April 2022 on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation (2022/C 
160/01), OJ C 160, 13.4.2022, p. 1–8, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022H0413(01)  

54 

 
 
 
 
cooperation and in examining the need for and feasibility of institutionalised cooperation instruments, 
such as a possible legal status for alliances of higher education institutions’. 

In  the  same  recommendation,  the  European  Council  further  elaborated  on  the  objectives  that  such 
instruments – to be used on a voluntary basis - could strive for, highlighting, among others, ‘the sharing 
of capacities and data and the exchange of staff, where appropriate, and the implementation of joint 
programmes, with the aim of awarding joint degrees at the level of alliances, including a joint degree 
based on co-created European criteria’. 

As a result, in June 2022, the European Commission launched a European policy experimentation in 
higher  education  under  the  Erasmus+  programme142,  to  pilot  a  joint  European  degree  label  and  test 
institutionalised EU cooperation instruments, such as a possible European legal status for alliances. At 
the end of January 2023, 10  European policy experimentation projects were selected, four of which 
committed to testing institutionalised EU cooperation instruments, such as a possible European legal 
status for alliances: 

1.  European Status for a ECIU University (ESEU). 

2.  Blueprint for a legal entity for cross-border university alliances (Leg-UniGR). 

3.  UNITA as a model for institutionalised university cooperation: from the European Grouping of 

Economic Interest to the European Grouping of Academic Interest (EGAI). 

4.  EUt+ Status and structure experience (STYX). 

Out  of  these  four  projects,  two  are  focussing  on  a  European  Grouping  of  Territorial  Cooperation 
(EGTC)143,  one  on  a  European  Economic  Interest  Grouping  (EEIG)144,  and  the  fourth  project  is 
providing  a  comprehensive  analysis  of  different  existing  European  legal  instruments  in  the  light  of 
different use cases identified, while comparing them to existing national-level solutions.  

The European policy experimentation projects form the basis of the following findings. 

Existing alliances of higher education institutions with a legal status 

European  Universities  alliances,  supported  under  Erasmus+,  consist  of  partner  higher  education 
institutions pursuing a joint long-term vision. The rich diversity of the higher education landscape in 
Europe is also reflected in the different models for cooperation that the European Universities alliances 
have  set  up.  Depending  on  the  strategic  vision  of  the  alliance,  different  levels  of  integration  and 
cooperation are envisaged.  

Currently, out of 50 European Universities alliances, at least 12 alliances have already set up a legal 
entity:  4EU+,  Circle  U,  ECIU,  EU-CONEXUS,  EUNICE,  EUniWell,  FILMEU,  UNA  EUROPA, 
UNITA,  EUTOPIA,  E3UDRES2,  YUFE.  To  date,  despite  having  partner  institutions  from  different 
countries, most of them have chosen one of the legal instruments available under the national legislation 
of  certain  Member  States,  i.e.  non-profit  association  under  Belgian  law,  international  non-profit 
association under Belgian law, foundation under Dutch law, registered association under German law, 
and registered association under Austrian law.  

142 European Commission, Call for proposals: European policy experimentation in higher education. ERASMUS-EDU-2022-
POL-EXP, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/erasmus/wp-call/2022/call-
fiche_erasmus-edu-2022-pol-exp-he_en.pdf. 
143 Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European grouping of 
territorial cooperation (EGTC), OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19–24. 
144 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG), OJ L 199, 
31.7.1985, p. 1–9. 

55 

 
 
 
In  all  these  cases,  the  alliances  reported  administrative  and  operational  advantages  as  the  decisive 
factors for setting up a legal entity with a legal identity145. In addition, of the 40 European Universities 
alliances surveyed that started their operations in 2019 and 2020, 11 have reported that they are in the 
process  of  developing  a  legal  entity  for  their  alliance.  This  means  that  more  than  20  European 
Universities clearly see the added value of a legal status for their alliance.  Others have indicated to 
await progress and results of the Erasmus+ pilot projects, while nevertheless showing strong interest in 
the topic.  

Other alliances of European higher education institutions, beyond the European Universities alliances, 
have  also  made  significant  strides  in  establishing  a  legal  status  to  formalise  their  cooperation,  for 
example  through  a  non-profit  association  under  Luxembourg  law  and  a  European  Grouping  of 
Territorial Cooperation. 

An overview of some of the alliances with an established legal status can be found in Table 2. 

Table 2.2: Overview of alliances of higher education institutions with an established legal status 

Type of legal status 

Alliance(s) 

Not-for-profit organisation under German law. 

4EU+, EUniWell 

Not-for-profit organisation under Belgian law. 

Circle U, EU-Conexus, EUNICE, Film-EU, Una 
Europa, EUTOPIA, YUFE 

Foundation under Dutch law. 

ECIU 

Not-for-profit organisation under Luxembourg law. 

Université de la Grande Région146 

Not-for-profit organisation under Austrian law. 

E3UDRES2 

European Economic Interest Grouping. 

UNITA 

European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation. 

Eucor, European Campus of Studies and Research, 
La Agrupación Europea de Cooperación Territorial 
Galicia-Norte de Portugal (GNP-AECT) 

All of the four European policy experimentation projects selected in the context of the Erasmus+ policy 
experimentation  in  higher  education  testing  institutionalised  EU  cooperation  instruments,  such  as  a 
possible European legal status for alliances, aim at a relatively high level of operational and institutional 
integration. Some of the projects pointed to greater visibility in their region and in Europe as a driver 
for the formalisation of their legal status, while others aim at the full merger of their institutions in the 
long term to offer European degrees and seamless mobility of students and staff members. 

145  European  Commission.  Preliminary  data  from  the  study  Outcomes  and  transformational  potential  of  the  European 
Universities initiative (in preparation – not yet published). 
146 Note that Université de la Grande Région, as part of the Erasmus+ pilot projects, is looking into a change of legal status, 
from a not-for-profit organisation under Luxembourg law into a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation. 

56 

 
 
 
 
Following consultations with some of these alliances and European policy experimentation projects, it 
is concluded that these instruments address to some extent the operational and administrative dimension 
of transnational cooperation. However, they were not primarily designed for cooperation in the higher 
education  sector  and  therefore  did  not  provide  the  opportunity  for  significant  advances  in  higher 
education cooperation, such as the development of a joint education offer. 

Available national and EU legal instruments 

National and EU legal frameworks offer a wide variety of legal forms that could theoretically be applied 
to higher education institutions. Nevertheless, many of them have limitations that effectively hinder the 
achievement of the seamless transnational cooperation sought by higher education alliances. For this 
reason, for this Staff Working Document, the selection of available legal instruments concentrates only 
on those that are used or planned to be used in the higher education sector, with a focus on facilitating 
deeper cooperation in higher education.  

It  then  presents  an  analysis  of  their  suitability  to  the  needs  of  the  alliances  of  higher  education 
institutions identified in the context of the Erasmus+ policy experimentation projects. 

National instruments 

1.  Consortia and other public groupings 

In most EU Member States, consortia are defined as a cooperation between legal entities governed by 
a  civil  law  contract.  They  usually  do  not  give  the  consortium  a  separate  legal  personality147.  Their 
purpose is to improve and/or extend the cooperation of an association of institutions in order to achieve 
mutually  beneficial  objectives.  Depending  on  the  applicable  legislation,  consortia  and  other  public 
groupings may benefit from tax exemptions for activities of general interest, and ease of establishment. 

Examples of national alliances in higher education using consortia are to be found in Spain148 and in 
Italy149. 

2.  International non-profit association under Belgian law (AISBL/IVZW) 

This is a Belgian legal instrument that allows cooperation between natural or legal persons pursuing an 
objective of international utility for non-profit purposes. The association can be set up even if none of 
the founding members is resident in Belgium, but the head office must be in Belgium and the association 
must obtain a Royal decree.  

Three  European  Universities  alliances  have  made  use  of  this  instrument  –  Circle  U,  EU-Conexus, 
EUTOPIA, EUNICE and YUFE.  

3.  Non-profit association under Belgian law (ASBL/VZW) 

This is a Belgian instrument designed for a group of legal or natural persons who pursue a non-profit 
purpose. It must consist of at least two members, one of which must be established in Belgium. The 
association does not require a Royal decree but has a strictly prescribed organisational structure. 

The UNA Europa and FILMEU European Universities alliance have made use of this legal instrument. 

147 In some Member States consortia and other public groupings have a legal personality limited to the territory of the Member 
State in which they are established. 
148 Campus Iberus, https://www.campusiberus.es/?lang=en 
149 CNIT - National Inter-University Consortium for Telecommunications, https://www.cnit.it/en/ 

57 

 
 
  
 
4.  Non-profit association under Austrian law 

The E3UDRES2 European University is making use of this legal instrument. 

5.  Registered association under German law 

This is a German legal entity established for non-profit purposes. It must have at least seven members, 
one of whom must be established in Germany. The association must also have a general secretariat 
established in Germany. The incorporation procedure is relatively simple, and it offers the flexibility of 
a management structure. 

The 4EU+ and the EUniWell alliances are making use of this legal instrument. 

6.  Foundation under Dutch law 

A foundation is a legal entity under Dutch law. The purpose of a foundation can be defined relatively 
flexibly  by  the  founders,  but  must  have  primarily  social  objectives  and  its  income  must  benefit  the 
organisation itself. The only statutory body is a board. Other management structures are characterised 
in the founding documents. 

The ECIU alliance has made use of this legal instrument. 

7.  Non-profit association under Luxembourg law 

This is a Luxembourg legal instrument that allows the creation of a non-profit association. A minimum 
of three members is required for the formation of an association. The registered office of the association 
can be transferred without the association losing its legal personality. The incorporation procedure is 
fairly simple. The two governing bodies required by law are a board of directors and a general assembly. 

UniGR, has made use of this instrument, although currently they are in process of setting up a European 
legal status, in the form of a European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC). This is being done 
in the framework of the Erasmus+ pilot call for testing institutionalised EU cooperation instruments, 
such as a possible European legal status for university alliances. 

EU legal instruments 

1.  European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) 

The European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) is embedded in EU law through a European 
regulation150.  It  is  a legal  entity  established  on  the  territory  of the  European  Union  to  facilitate  and 
promote, in particular,  territorial cooperation with a view to strengthening the economic, social and 
territorial cohesion of the EU. It allows regional, local and other public authorities from at least two 
different Member States to set up cooperation groupings and to provide joint services.  

Beyond the areas defined in the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Regulation, the law of a 
Member State where the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation has its registered office applies 
to  the  functioning  of  the  European  Grouping  of  Territorial  Cooperation.  The  establishment  of  a 
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation requires the consent of the Member States. It is governed 
by the Regulation, a convention (an agreement between its Members) and the statutes adopted on the 

150 Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1082/2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) as regards the clarification, simplification and 
improvement 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
the 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R1302  

establishment 

functioning 

groupings, 

such 

and 

of 

of 

58 

 
 
 
 
basis of and in accordance with the convention, and must have at least two organs: an assembly and a 
director. 

The European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation has been used by several alliances of universities151 
and  is  being  further  experimented  by  the  projects  selected  in  the  context  of  the  Erasmus+  policy 
experimentation in higher education. 

2.  European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) 

The European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) is a legal entity directly incorporated into Union 
law152. The purpose of a European Economic Interest Grouping is to facilitate or develop the economic 
activities of its members and to improve or increase the results of those activities, but not to make profits 
for itself. A European Economic Interest Grouping must be formed by at least two companies, firms, 
legal persons or natural persons from two different Member States. 

The grouping must have at least two organs: a college of members and the manager or managers of the 
European Economic Interest Grouping. A contract for the formation of a European Economic Interest 
Grouping  may  provide  for  other  organs  and  define  their  powers.  The  European  Economic  Interest 
Grouping and its organs cannot exercise any power of management or control over the activities of its 
members - the members retain their legal and economic independence. 

UNITA, one of the European Universities piloting a legal status for university alliances, has already 
created and European Economic Interest Grouping and will use this legal status for several use cases, 
with an economic angle, for example concerning digital infrastructure and micro-credentials. 

2.2.6  The  preliminary  findings  of  the  policy  experimentation  projects  funded  under  the 
Erasmus+ programme  

Needs of alliances of higher education institutions in relation to institutionalised EU cooperation 
instruments, such as a possible European legal status for alliances 

In the context of the Erasmus+ policy experimentation in higher education, higher education institutions 
have identified several needs related to deeper cooperation across Europe in higher education, linked to 
a possible legal status for alliances: 

1.  Simplified provision of joint educational activities by the alliance 

Some alliances of higher education institutions, including also European Universities alliances selected 
under Erasmus+, aspire to facilitate the provision of joint educational activities by the alliance, and to 
be able to offer new learning opportunities, and to award quality assured and recognised educational 
qualifications. This would currently not be possible, as alliances are not recognised as higher education 
institutions. Also, at the level of the different partner higher education institutions, this is extremely 
difficult in most cases, taking into account the multiple accreditation and quality assurance processes, 
which place a heavy burden on alliances when offering new joint educational offers. 

2.  Joint resource management 

Some alliances of higher education institutions, including also European Universities alliances selected 
under Erasmus+, wish to pool and share physical infrastructure, as well as common interoperable digital 
infrastructure and solutions, allowing unrestricted access to all services and education. This would also 
include owning, sharing, receiving and managing data as a single entity, and acquiring and exercising 

151  European  Campus  of  Studies  and  Research, Eucor  –  The European  Campus,  The  Agrupacion  Europea de  Cooperation 
Territorial Galicia – Norte de Portugal EGTC, Lake Constance Arts & Sciences Association. 
152 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG), https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A31985R2137  

59 

 
 
 
intellectual property rights if agreed upon by the alliance, as well as the development of joint purchasing 
power. 

3.  Acquisition of funding from the public and private sectors 

Several  alliances  of  higher  education  institutions,  including  also  European  Universities  alliances 
selected under Erasmus+, in all their diversity, desire flexible access to public and private funding from 
a variety of sources. This encompasses eligibility to apply for national, regional and European funding 
sources  across  Europe,  attracting  private  and  corporate  funding,  or  generating  private  income  from 
continuous education. Alliances need to manage and distribute funding between themselves and other 
stakeholders. 

4.  Reliable counterparty for the eco-system stakeholders of the alliance 

Several  alliances  of  higher  education  institutions,  including  also  European  Universities  alliances 
selected  under  Erasmus+,  see  the  added  value  of  a  European  legal  status  in  being  a  legal  reliable 
counterparty concerning interactions with the alliance’s ecosystem stakeholders, i.e. contract signing 
for traineeships, joint information technology (IT) infrastructure, privately paid scholarships and private 
funding contributions, promotion of intersectoral mobility of academic and industry staff etc. Also, it 
can help to improve access to the ecosystems of all partner universities (e.g. innovation, industry and 
civil society actors, policymakers, and mayors).  

5.  International attractiveness, increased visibility and representation  

Several  alliances  of  higher  education  institutions,  including  also  European  Universities  alliances 
selected under Erasmus+, are seeking an EU legal instrument that reflects the European dimension of 
their cooperation, and which provides European added value and a neutral approach to alliances. This 
would  enable  joint  representation  to  supranational,  national,  EU  and  international  policy  makers, 
administrations and organisations, cooperation with third country higher education institutions and the 
wider ecosystem of entities (e.g., business, civil society, research centres), and offer a common identity 
and marketing label. 

6.  Management of students 

Several  alliances  of  higher  education  institutions,  including  also  European  Universities  alliances 
selected under Erasmus+, wish to cooperate seamlessly when it comes to the management of students 
active in the joint educational offer of the alliance, including aspects linked to mobilities and enrolment 
procedures.  

7.  Recruitment of staff 

Several  alliances  of  higher  education  institutions,  including  also  European  Universities  alliances 
selected under Erasmus+, aim to recruit staff at European level through simple, flexible recruitment 
procedures, under certain and clear legal rules regarding the fiscal implications and social security of 
employees. 

Preliminary  finding  of  the  Erasmus+  European  policy  experimentation  projects:  fitness  of 
existing legal instruments 

The four related Erasmus+  European policy experimentation projects have a wide approach, testing 
different  institutionalised  EU  cooperation  instruments,  such  as  a  possible  European  legal  status  for 
alliances. Below is an overview of the available and implementable legal forms that have been piloted 
and the current status of the projects. 

60 

 
 
Table 2.3: Legal forms piloted by the Erasmus+ projects 

Legal form 

Project 

Status of the project 

European Grouping of Territorial 
Cooperation (EGTC). 

Leg-UniGR 

Last  steps  before  launch  set-up  procedure  of  the 
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation. 

STYX 

Analysis  of  European  Grouping  of  Territorial 
Cooperation instrument ongoing, in the context of 
wider toolbox of legal instruments. 

European Economic Interest Grouping 
(EEIG). 

EGAI 

European  Economic  Interest  Grouping  (EEIG)  is 
set up and will now be tested with use cases (e.g. 
micro-credentials, IT infrastructure). 

The  ESEU  project  is  analysing  the  European  Grouping  of  Territorial  Cooperation  (EGTC),  the  European 
Company  (SE),  the  European  Cooperative  Society  (ECS),  and  the  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and 
Technology (EIT)/ Knowledge Innovation Communities (KICs). The preliminary conclusion is to maintain the 
existing legal entity of ECIU under Dutch law, and to provide recommendations for possible future EU action 
as the current instruments all have some limitations.  

Source: Overview of Erasmus+ European policy experimentation projects 

The  Erasmus+  European  policy  experimentation  projects  have  emphasised  the  diversity  of  alliance 
models,  and  the  need  for  any  legal  instrument  to  be  flexible,  i.e.  a  toolbox  to  facilitate  deeper 
transnational cooperation. The projects emphasised that any proposed solution should be voluntary and 
not replace national-level structures of the partner institutions.  

According to the results of the Erasmus+ European policy experimentation projects none of the existing 
legal instruments – neither those available at national, nor those available at EU level, fully correspond 
to the needs voiced by alliances of higher education institutions. The solutions at hand offer only partial 
answers to some of the challenges identified.  

All projects see the added value of an (improved) European level legal tool compared to a national level 
legal tool, also when it comes to increased visibility and representation, as well as equal treatment of 
all partner institutions. The key drawback identified so far, seems to be that the existing legal tools are 
limited when it comes to the provision of joint educational activities.  

Although several European Universities have been able to use the available legal mechanisms to set up 
an entity in a particular EU Member State or at European level (see noted above), they have managed 
to overcome only some of the operational and administrative obstacles. For those entities established at 
national level, the European dimension of their cooperation is not reflected, nor are some differences in 
national legislation addressed.  

National legal entities could be perceived as unduly favouring some members of the alliances that are 
located in the country of the applicable legislation. And last but not least, none of the available legal 
mechanisms seem to be fully able to cover the needs of alliances when it comes to simplified provision 
of educational activities by the alliance, as alliances are not recognised as higher education institutions.  

Some  of  the  alliances  point  to  the  fact  that  more  flexible,  profit-oriented  existing  legal  statuses  are 
subject to the restrictions imposed on higher education institutions by national legislation, while public 
law entities are seen as too rigid in their operation and too complex to set up. As a result, they limit the 

61 

 
 
potential scope of the alliance’s activities and its ability to expand in the future and are not fully suited 
to its needs. 

However,  the  review  of  the  different  legal  instruments  by  the  Erasmus+  European  policy 
experimentation projects has shown that the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Regulation 
at European level may have the potential to respond to the specific needs of higher education institutions 
in the future, if further changes to the European legislation are made. Its main advantages include: a 
common regulation laid down in EU law; the establishment of a grouping from different EU Member 
States  without  the  need  for  a  prior  international  agreement  to  be  signed  and  ratified  by  national 
parliaments; flexible organisation; a strong commitment on the part of the members; a legal basis for 
joint management of resources; and the increased visibility of the alliance.  

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  a  European  Grouping  of  Territorial  Cooperation  can  deepen 
interinstitutional cooperation between universities, there are still gaps that hinder the full achievement 
of the objectives of alliances of higher education institutions, such as: complex establishment procedure 
which include the need for national support; heterogeneous implementation of the European Grouping 
of Territorial Cooperation Regulation; issues with private participation (including private universities); 
limited guidance and practice in the higher education sector, as the European Grouping of Territorial 
Cooperation is not facilitating the provision of joint educational activities. 

Overall, given the great diversity of alliances of higher education institutions, as well as the different 
characteristics of the existing legal instruments, none of them can fully facilitate the achievement of the 
mission of the alliances as a whole.  

The need to navigate through many complicated legal systems and sets of obligations stemming from 
heterogeneous national legislation is the most significant challenge to the further institutionalisation of 
higher  education  alliances  and  networks.  As  long  as  there  are  no  tailor-made  legal  solutions  for 
cooperation between higher education institutions, this barrier is unlikely to disappear. 

Chapter 3: Breaking down barriers for a European degree – the obstacles to overcome  

Although  the  Bologna  Process  has  contributed  to  a  significant  progress  in  facilitating  transnational 
cooperation between higher education institutions, many challenges persist153.  

 ‘Currently, the challenges are related to a lack of a unified framework for joint programmes and the 

legal disparities between the countries in EHEA’.  

European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) – Call for Evidence. 

The insights derived from the reports of the six Erasmus+ policy experimentation projects allow these 
barriers  to  be  grouped  into  four  main  areas:  accreditation  and  quality  assurance,  programme  and 
curricula structure, governance structure, and student enrolment and admission.  

These reports mostly draw on expert consultations conducted to identify legal barriers, and to propose 
preliminary solutions that can be further investigated. However, these findings might be incomplete due 
to potential gaps in expert knowledge, and the incomplete representation of all EU Member States in 
the European policy experimentation projects. Therefore, to complement the information, especially for 

153 Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture , Eurydice, The European Higher Education Area in 2020: 
Bologna  process  implementation  report,  European  Union  Publications  Office,  2020,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/c90aaf32-4fce-11eb-b59f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
countries not represented in the European policy experimentation projects, findings of relevant studies 
completed in the period 2017-2023 have also been considered154. 

3.1 

Challenges related to Accreditation and quality assurance 

Obstacles related to quality assurance and recognition are considered to be some of the most difficult 
to  overcome  and  often  overshadow  challenges  identified  in  other  areas.  The  heterogeneity  of 
accreditation  and  quality  assurance  criteria,  procedures  and  timeframes  across  European  countries 
creates significant hurdles for higher education institutions seeking to offer joint programmes and joint 
degrees. These complications arise from restrictive national legislation, high accreditation costs, and 
differing interpretations of the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

The main reported obstacles in the context of the Erasmus+ European policy experimentation projects 
were: 

1.  Accreditation timelines and procedures: each country has unique timelines and requirements for 
programme accreditation, making it difficult to coordinate joint initiatives. For example, countries 
such as Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands require programmes to meet local 
market  needs,  and  often  a  country-specific  macro-efficiency  test  is  required.  In  addition,  the 
accreditation process starts early in Belgium (Flanders) and France, while in Italy the deadlines for 
submitting curricula often conflict with the January examination period. In Spain, legal experts face 
challenges in finalising consortium agreements within the tight timeframe for accreditation. 

2.  Restrictions  on  joint  degree  creation:  in  some  countries,  additional  hurdles  are  created  by 
restrictions  on  the  types  of  degrees  eligible  for  joint  programmes.  Germany  and  Lithuania,  for 
example, only allow joint degrees at the bachelor and master levels. Poland limits joint degrees to 
certain  categories  of  universities.  In  Romania,  although  allowed  by  law,  the  organisation  and 
accreditation of joint degree programmes is not feasible in practice until the Romanian Agency for 
Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ARACIS) publishes its ‘Methodology for the accreditation 
of joint programmes’. 

3.  Challenges in interdisciplinary degree  creation: interdisciplinary  programmes  encounter  specific 
challenges, as many countries require them to focus primarily on a single discipline or allocate a 
substantial  proportion  of  courses  to  one  area.  For  instance,  in  Czechia,  more  than  50%  of  an 
interdisciplinary degree’s content must be focused on a single discipline. This type of restriction is 
also found in Belgium (Flanders), France, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Sweden, limiting 
the flexibility of these programmes. 

4.  Accreditation  procedure  for  programme  changes:  in  countries  such  as  Spain,  Croatia,  Italy  and 
Cyprus, any change in the composition of the consortium or in the core curriculum necessitates a 
new accreditation procedure. In Finland, the need for re-accreditation in such cases remains unclear. 

5.  Financial implications of accreditation: the cost of accreditation procedures is a significant financial 
barrier,  especially  when  multiple  accreditations  are  required.  In  Estonia,  Latvia  and  the 

154 European Commission, European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Implementing joint degrees in the Erasmus 
Mundus action of the Erasmus+ programme, Publications Office, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/896549; European 
Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, E. et al., The 
road  towards  a possible  joint  European  degree  –  Identifying opportunities  and  investigating the  impact  and  feasibility  of 
different 
Union, 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147; European Commission, Awarding Joint Degrees. State of play report for the 
2023  Erasmus  Mundus  Annual  Conference,  Boosting  the  potential  of  Joint  Degrees  in  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Master 
Programmes, 
https://erasmus-networks.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/Joint-Degrees-and-Erasmus-
Mundus.pdf; Frontex, Single Accreditation of Joint Programmes – Turning the Bologna Guideline into Reality Conference 
Report, 2017, https://www.frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Training/EJMBSM-Conference-report-2017.pdf  

Publications 

approaches 

European 

report, 

Office 

2023, 

Final 

the 

of 

– 

63 

 
 
 
 
Netherlands, the financial burden of these procedures falls on higher education institutions, adding 
to the challenges of setting up joint programmes. 

6.  Barriers to application of the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes: the 
practical application is limited in several countries, with Greece and Spain facing notable barriers. 
In Belgium (Flanders) it does not apply to joint doctoral programmes, and in the Czech Republic, 
France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia it is not considered feasible. 

Potential solutions 

The first common recommendation to facilitate the accreditation of joint programmes  proposes that national 
authorities should clarify how their rules and legislation apply to the accreditation and quality assurance of joint 
programmes in order to ensure a common understanding among stakeholders. Where possible, specific quality 
assurance and accreditation rules and derogations for joint programmes and joint degree programmes should be 
established: they should be in line with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European 
Higher Education Area and involving an agency registered within the European Quality Assurance Register for 
Higher Education (EQAR). 

Another proposed arrangement, which would require minimal legislative changes in Member States, is to allow 
alliances,  including  European  Universities  alliances,  to  choose  a  jurisdiction  and  to  manage  joint 
programmes/award joint degrees on the basis of that legal framework. The disadvantage of this option is that it 
may lead to most alliances choosing a few countries where it is easiest/cheapest to set up joint degrees. 

Participants also stressed that Member States should fully implement existing European frameworks, such as 
the  European  Higher  Education  Area  principles,  the  Bologna  Process  tools,  and  the  European  Approach  to 
Quality Assurance Framework. Additionally, proposals are made for more synergies in quality assurance and 
accreditation practices across EU countries. 

3.2 

Challenges related to programme and curricula structure and diploma templates 

The European Union holds only supplementary competence in the field of higher education. This means 
that the  legal  and institutional  frameworks in the  Member  States  differ  greatly from  one country  or 
region  to  another,  which  on  the  one  hand  reflects  the  great  diversity  of  the  European  academic 
landscape, and on the other hand poses significant regulatory obstacles.  

The results of the Erasmus+ European policy experimentation projects revealed that European higher 
education institutions grapple with the challenge of aligning academic years, grading scales, and credit 
workloads in the pursuit of joint programmes and joint degrees. Recognising blended or online learning 
can  be  contentious  in  some  regions,  while  the  form  of  final  exams  varies  widely.  Additionally, 
restrictive national legislation regarding language use and proficiency and the percentage of foreign 
teachers can disrupt programme development. These issues highlight the need for greater flexibility in 
the structural elements of joint programmes. 

The main challenges identified are: 

1.  Differences  in  academic  years: the  variation in the  duration  of  academic  years across  European 
countries complicates the alignment of joint degree curricula. This inconsistency poses challenges 
in synchronising academic schedules and programme structures. 

2.  Grading scales and workload: European universities face challenges in student evaluation due to 
different  grading  scales,  workload  per  ECTS  and  credit  transfer  methods.  While  the  standard 
allocation for bachelor degrees is generally 180 ECTS, Greece and Poland deviate from this norm 
and offer programmes with up to 360 ECTS. In addition, countries such as Czechia, Italy, Hungary, 
and  Austria  have  specific  grading  scale  requirements  which  further  complicate  the  evaluation 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
process. In France, for example, ECTS is not used at the doctoral level. Furthermore, some countries 
have set national restrictions, such as minimum ECTS thresholds for the completion of the second 
cycle,  adding  another  layer  of  complexity  to  the  compatibility  of  educational  standards  across 
Europe. 

3.  The recognition of blended/online learning varies, with some countries lacking clear legislation on 
online mobility. For instance, Czechia and Sweden do not have explicit policies, while Italy and 
Poland limit the percentage of distance learning allowed in programmes. In Italy, online final exams 
are  generally  prohibited,  and  in  Lithuania  joint  programmes  often  require  physical  academic 
mobility. 

4.  Final exam forms: the requirement for national or state examinations is not universally applied, 
leading  to  differences  in  assessment  methods.  Austria  regulates  the  procedure  for  final 
examinations,  Czechia  mandates  a  thesis  defence  and  a  public  state  examination,  and  Finland 
stipulates the length of the thesis. Italy regulates the number of final exams, and there are diverse 
requirements for theses, including length and the number of experts on the evaluation committee. 

5.  Minimum  duration requirements:  some  countries  impose minimum  semester requirements  to  be 
spent at the home or partner institution, which affects the mobility aspect of joint programmes. For 
example, Austria has minimum credit requirements at partner institutions for joint degrees. Similar 
restrictions  exist  in  Belgium  (Flanders),  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland,  France,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Finland. 

6.  Postponement of studies and de-enrolment: the rules vary on taking a break from studies for reasons 
such  as  pregnancy  or  illness  without  being  de-enrolled.  Countries  such  as  Belgium  (Flanders), 
Czechia,  France,  Hungary,  Poland,  Finland,  and  Sweden,  specific  rules  apply.  In  Finland  and 
Sweden, universities are generally prohibited from de-enrolling students. 

7.  Language proficiency and foreign teachers: legislation imposing language requirements on foreign 
teachers  and  limiting  their  number  in  study  programme  has  an  impact  on  the  development  of 
education  across  Europe.  Countries  enforce  various  rules,  such  as  language  requirements  for 
teaching, language proficiency tests and limits on the proportion of foreign teachers. For example, 
Belgium (Flanders) sets quotas on foreign language programmes, Czechia varies fees for non-native 
language programmes, and Denmark and Lithuania restrict teaching languages. Finland requires 
national language equivalents for programmes, while France requires part of the teaching to be in 
French, affecting diploma types. Italy restricts the nationality of teachers.  These diverse regulations 
create a complex landscape for programme development in Europe. 

8.  Regulations  on  graduation  diplomas  and  rules:  the  format  and  content  of  degree  certificates, 
including paper type, size, logos, language use, and signature requirements, are strictly regulated in 
many countries, such as Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, 
Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Finland, and Sweden. These rules detail the required information, logo 
placement and signature format in such detail that a joint award is a very difficult, if not impossible, 
task. 

9.  Regulated  professions:  almost  all  countries  have  regulated  professions,  each  with  its  own 
requirements and list of regulated professions. This diversity makes it challenging to set up joint 
programmes in these fields. Countries facing this challenge, as reported by the Erasmus+ policy 
experimentation  projects,  include  Belgium,  Czechia,  Denmark,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Italy, 
Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Finland, and Sweden. 

10.  Intellectual property rights legislation: differences in intellectual property rights legislation, where 
in some countries, such as Belgium (Flanders) and Sweden, students or researchers own their work, 
while in others, such as Czechia, the institution owns it, affect the development of course material. 

65 

 
 
 
Potential olutions 

The  preliminary  outcomes  of  the  European  policy  experimentation  projects  provide  evidence  that,  if  the 
Bologna  Process  instruments  had  been  fully  applied,  some  discrepancies  in  legislation  might  have 
disappeared. However, the Bologna Process in itself does not remove all country-specific obstacles stemming 
from curricular regulations.  

The  recommendations  from  the  European  policy  experimentation  projects  advocate  greater  flexibility  in 
national rules on joint programme structure and curriculum and joint degree templates. They  indicate that 
joint programmes could be allowed to set their own academic calendars, distinct from those of traditional 
degree programmes. In addition, the focus of legislation should shift to learning outcomes, allowing for the 
integration of online and blended learning methods. 

In situations where national legislation cannot be universally adapted, higher education institutions suggest 
that exceptions be made specifically for joint programmes. This could be the case for laws aimed at protecting 
the national language by limiting the language of instruction. Similarly, there are calls for national grading 
scales  and  examination  formats  to  take  account  of  joint  programmes.  Some  reports  also  recommend  the 
adoption of  a  standard  European  grading  conversion  table to  reduce discrepancies  and facilitate  smoother 
cooperation between partner universities. 

In general, European policy experimentation projects reflect the need to fully implement the recommendations 
of the Council Recommendation on  building bridges for effective  European higher education cooperation, 
and  to  give  consortia  of  higher  education  institutions  the  flexibility  to  agree  details  of  joint  programme 
structures, curriculum design and diploma templates in cooperation agreements. 

For the regulated professions, legal experts cooperating with the European policy experimentation projects 
suggested working on the compatibility of European requirements for degree programmes leading to regulated 
professions  and  involving  professionals  in  the  design  of  programmes  or  their  evaluation.  With  regard  to 
intellectual  property  rights,  the  European  policy  experimentation  projects  recommended  concluding  an 
agreement on property rights in order to avoid individual agreements with teaching staff or students. 

3.3 

Challenges related to governance structure 

The establishment of joint programmes and joint degrees necessitates clear governance structures, but 
restrictive legislation in some European countries complicates this aspect. Many European countries 
require consortium agreements, including Belgium, Belgium (Flanders), Czechia, Denmark, Germany, 
Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands Austria, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden. 

The  regulatory  frameworks  for  consortium  agreements  can  be  intricate  and  time-consuming,  and 
divergent rules on the composition and responsibilities of programme bodies/institutions add further 
layers of complexity. For instance, Croatia requires consortium agreements to include information on 
enrolment conditions, examination and evaluation methods for students, while Lithuania expects them 
to encompass student admission conditions, study procedures, assessment principles and crediting of 
student achievements. Ensuring compatibility between governance structures across borders is therefore 
essential for efficient and successful joint programmes and joint degrees. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
Potential solutions 

A  potential  solution  suggested  by  some  would  be  to  establish  a  unified  set  of  minimum  requirements  for 
consortium agreements throughout Europe with a proposed template. This would allow each consortium to 
include additional details about their partnership, provided they meet the minimum standards.  

This approach would streamline administrative processes while maintaining the flexibility to address specific 
partnership  needs.  Another, more  ambitious  solution,  to  the  above  impediments  is  to  grant  legal  status  to 
alliances of higher education institutions on a voluntary basis (discussed in more detail below).  

3.4 

Challenges related to student enrolment and admission 

Student  mobility  is  a  central  element  of  most  joint  programmes  and  joint  degrees,  but  legislative 
challenges  in  this  area  persist.  The  obligation  for  students  to  enrol  in  multiple  universities,  varying 
tuition fee structures, and inconsistent recognition of previous education can hinder accessibility and 
affordability.  Stringent  language  proficiency  requirements,  and  restrictive  legislation  on  student 
selection, can also limit the inclusivity and diversity of joint programmes. Streamlining enrolment and 
admission processes is crucial for attracting a diverse student body and ensuring equitable access to 
these educational opportunities. 

The main obstacles identified are: 

1.  Restrictions  on  student  enrolment:  the  mandate  for  students  to  enrol  simultaneously  at  several 
universities poses financial and administrative challenges. In Finland, students must be enrolled in 
a  Finnish  university  at  the  time  of  graduation,  while  in  France  students  must  be  enrolled  in  all 
universities  awarding  the  degree.  In  other  countries,  such  as  Czechia  and  the  Netherlands, 
enrolment  is  closely  tied  to  higher  education  institution  funding,  leading  higher  education 
institutions to favour students enrolled with them. 

2.  Tuition  fees:  differences  in  tuition  fee  structures  across  Europe  affect  the  accessibility  and 
affordability  of  joint  degree  programmes.  Denmark,  Finland,  and  Sweden,  for  example,  require 
non-EU students to pay tuition fees, while forbidding them for EU students. In Czechia, students 
pay fees for programmes taught in languages other than Czech. In France, fees are set at national 
level, with exceptions possible under specific agreements. In Italy, if the coordinating university is 
Italian, tuition fees are calculated on the basis of the student’s income conditions. 

3.  Restrictive legislation on student selection: strict regulations on student selection in some countries 
limit the diversity of the student body and complicate the admission process. In Flanders, it is not 
possible to limit the number of students admitted to first cycle programmes for those holding a 
secondary education diploma. Cyprus has different rules for distance learning/online programmes 
and face-to-face programmes, and separate rules for EU and non-EU citizens. Denmark, Hungary, 
and  Sweden  have  detailed rules  to  ensure  equal  treatment  in  selection.  Italy  applies  quotas  that 
differentiate between non-EU and EU students. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
Potential solutions 

The  pilot  project  reports  suggest  that  national  systems  could  introduce  a  rule  whereby  enrolment  at  one 
university  in  a  joint  programme  implies  enrolment  at  all  participating  universities.  Alternatively,  official 
enrolment  could  be  limited  to  a  single  institution,  with  registration  required  only  at  partner  institutions, 
clarifying which legislation and institutional rules apply. 

For tuition fee management, the simplification of public funding for joint programmes is recommended to lessen 
dependence on student registration and tuition fees while ensuring that students continue to benefit from the 
same conditions and policies regarding tuition fees as if they enrolled in local programmes. 

3.5 

Types of overarching solutions to overcome the barriers 

In the course of the work, one of the pilot projects (ED-AFFICHE) tried to move from country-specific 
obstacles  and  obstacle-specific  solutions  to  more  general  approaches  that  could  possibly  be  further 
explored by the European Commission and implemented by the Member States. This made it possible 
to propose six possible strategies for addressing the legal and administrative challenges to transnational 
cooperation  between  higher  education  institutions  resulting  from  national  or  regional  legal  or 
administrative frameworks. Some of the proposed solutions are overarching and could address several 
or all of the reported obstacles in a given country at the same time while a combination of different 
approaches could be used in another national or regional. 

Tailor-made legislation 

The most straightforward way of tackling barriers is an article-by-article approach to amending one or 
more legal texts. This approach requires an extensive and thorough mapping of existing barriers and a 
careful  process  of  modifying  legal  acts  that  pose  undue  difficulties.  Although  it  is  a  viable  way  to 
address the remaining challenges, it requires a high degree of coordination with other Member States. 
If Member States amend their legislation independently and without sufficient coordination, there is a 
risk that similar barriers will remain despite the changes. 

Sandbox 

The first of the overarching solutions is a ‘sandbox’. A sandbox is a test environment in which, in this 
case, joint programmes are given room to experiment. A competent authority declares that certain rules 
do not apply to joint programmes in order to allow them to be set up and implemented. The idea of a 
sandbox has already been tested in the EU. For example, Flemish legislation stipulates that international 
joint or double degree programmes that have gone through a European selection process (e.g. Erasmus 
Mundus Joint Masters) are not considered as new programmes and do not require initial accreditation. 

As the national or regional authorities create the conditions for these experimental spaces, this allows 
them to define the limits of inapplicability of legal provisions and to retain full control over the process. 
Nevertheless,  like  an  article-by-article  approach,  sandboxes  require  a  high  degree  of  cooperation 
between Member States. This follows from the fact that they can be effective as long as all Member 
States of higher education institutions participating in a consortium provide for the same exemptions in 
their legislation. Otherwise, their impact remains limited.  The long-term consolidation of sandboxes 
leads to a process of deregulation. 

Default legislation 

The  technique  of  default  legislation  is  widely  used  in  private  civil  law.  Instead  of  providing  for 
exceptions to binding rules, it renders the legislation non-compulsory, i.e. a default rule applies only if 

68 

 
 
 
 
the  parties  to  the  consortium  agreement  have  not  agreed  a  specific,  tailor-made  rule  for  their  joint 
programme.  For  instance,  Spain  has  recently  adopted  this  strategy  to  grant  flexibility  to  European 
Universities alliances. Again, this technique requires sufficient coordination between Member States. 
It can only be effective if the consortium partners are allowed to deviate from the same set of rules.  

Choice of legislation 

The  choice  of  legislation  refers  to  the  choice  of  the  legal  framework  applicable  to  a  joint  degree 
programme.  It  makes  it  possible  either  to  choose  a  single  law  governing  all  aspects  of  cooperation 
between higher education institutions, or to decide to apply different legal provisions to different parts 
of a consortium agreement. 

This overarching solution provides a high level of legal certainty and alleviates the main challenge for 
higher education institutions, which is to navigate through incompatible legal frameworks governing 
the  functioning  of  institutions  in  different  Member  States.  Any  discrepancies  could  be  resolved  by 
reference to one or more legal acts agreed between the partners in a consortium agreement. However, 
this strategy would require a clear position of all Member States on the possibility of applying foreign 
law  to  certain  parts  of  the  consortium  agreement.  Otherwise,  this  solution  may  have  far-reaching 
negative consequences, including the invalidation of the degrees awarded. 

Shift of competence 

The last overarching solution put forward by the ED-AFFICHE project was to shift the competences 
for coordinating transnational education from the Member States to the European Union. However, it 
was  pointed out  that  such a  solution  would  require  treaty  changes  and that  it  would be desirable  to 
preserve  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and  to  arrive  at  a  workable  legal  framework  for the  European 
degree while respecting the full competence of the Member States.  

The Technical Support Instrument  

Finding the right  solution for the  right  system  and  implement  it can be challenging. Through  the 
Technical Support Instrument (TSI), DG REFORM supports EU Member States with modernizing 
their higher education systems to attain national objectives, in line with the relevant EU priorities on 
enhanced quality, inclusiveness and digitalisation. This support aims at -inter alia- consolidating the 
legal  and  administrative  frameworks,  developing  policies,  streamlining  practices,  designing,  and 
implementing strategies for performance-based funding, and improving the governance models and 
quality assurance mechanisms of higher education institutions. Thus, it also contributes to innovation 
across Member States, helping them promote knowledge exchange and foster cooperation between 
universities,  research,  industry,  and  businesses,  with  a  view  to  address  skills  shortages  and 
mismatches on the labour market.  

Examples  of  reforms  supported  by  TSI  and  its  predecessor,  the  Structural  Reform  Support 
Programme (SRSP) include the following:  

-  Latvia  developed  a  new  academic  career  model  as  a  cornerstone  of  modernising  its  higher 
education, as well as a roadmap for implementing the model, bringing together international expertise 
and national priorities. 
-  Portugal  transformed  access  and  completion  policies  in  higher  education  for  greater  social 
inclusion. 
- Ireland introduced a new testing system to assess the cost implications of different policy decisions 
when designing higher education programmes, considering the socio-economic and macroeconomic 
impact of policymaking in higher education.  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Hungary  adapted  its  higher  education  regulatory,  quality  assurance  and  institutional  support 
frameworks to deliver online and hybrid study programmes. 
- Spain developed a roadmap for policy reform to foster cooperation between universities, research, 
and businesses. 
- Croatia built the evidence-base for the development of the E-Universities project funded under the 
Recovery and Resilience Facility.  
- Italy developed a better understanding of the barriers to and opportunities for knowledge exchange.  
- Slovakia identified policy options to strengthen the quality and attractiveness of its higher education 
system and developed an action plan to improve its governance and funding.” 

Chapter 4: A fit-for-purpose European quality assurance system 

This section first introduces quality assurance in higher education at the European level, setting it in the 
context of the 49-country European Higher Education Area cooperation in higher education, known as 
the  Bologna  Process.  It  then  provides  an  overview  of  key  developments  supporting  the  consistent 
application of Bologna tools across the European Union, including the Standards and Guidelines for 
Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and the European Approach for the 
Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes (European Approach).  

The section then introduces the key challenges to quality assurance in European higher education, in 
particular  the  uneven  take-up  of  the  ESG  by  Member  States  and  the  low  take-up  of  the  European 
Approach to evaluate the quality of joint programmes. 

This chapter is underpinned by a literature review and initial results of a study commissioned to ICF in 
preparation for this higher education package which included: extensive desk research; and analysis of 
quality assurance activities in EU Member States; interviews with key stakeholders155; and an online 
workshop with 34 experts from across the European Union. 

4.1 

Quality assurance in higher education  

The  2015  European  Credit  Transfer  and  Accumulation  System  (ECTS)  User  Guide  defined  quality 
assurance in education as being: 

‘the process or set of processes adopted nationally and institutionally to ensure the quality of educational 
programmes and qualifications awarded. Quality assurance should ensure a learning environment in 
which  the  content  of  programmes,  learning  opportunities  and  facilities  are  fit  for  purpose.  Quality 
assurance  is  often  referred  to  in  the  context  of  a  continuous  improvement  cycle  (i.e.  assurance  and 
enhancement activities)’.156  

Quality assurance aims for accountability and enhancement, which in turn  creates trust in the higher 
education institution’s performance157. A quality assurance system should provide information to assure 
the  higher  education  institution  and  the  public  of  the  quality  of  the  higher  education  institution’s 
activities (accountability), as well as advice and recommendations on how it might improve what it is 
doing (enhancement).  

Quality assurance can be undertaken both internally and externally.  

155 At both national and European level, including government authorities, quality assurance or accreditation agencies, higher 
education sector representatives, and experts. 
156 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, ECTS users' guide 2015, Publications 
Office of the European Union, 2015, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/87192  
157 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Brussels, Belgium, 
https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Internal  quality  assurance  is  where  a  higher  education  institution  reviews  its  internal  processes  and 
programmes  as  a  means  to  identify  areas  for  improvement.  Internal  quality  assurance  relies  on  the 
experiences of students and staff in the higher education programmes offered by the institutions, and 
on students’ study progress and outcomes after graduation158. The internal quality assurance process 
provides input for the external quality assurance process.  

According to Eurydice, the principle of institutional autonomy implies that the primary responsibility 
for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself, laying the foundation for the 
accountability of the university system within national quality frameworks159. This means that higher 
education institutions can choose those approaches and arrangements which better suit their own profile, 
needs and objectives, giving way to substantial variation by institution, or by type of institutions, within 
EU Member States in terms of structures and responsibilities.  

External quality assurance refers to evaluations by quality assurance agencies.  All EU Member States 
have at least one quality assurance agency160, except Luxembourg161. There has been a trend towards a 
one agency model, as a result of the merging of different entities that were previously involved in quality 
assurance in some countries. 

There are institutional, programme and combined approaches to quality assurance.  

At the programme level, quality assurance focuses on the evaluation of a particular programme, whether 
it  is  at  a  departmental/disciplinary  level  (such  as  an  undergraduate  programme  in  Geography,  or  a 
Master of Business Administration), or at a joint programme level where the programme takes place 
across a range of higher education institutions.  

Institutional quality assurance focuses on an entire institution and can cover everything from academic 
programmes,  to  research,  administration,  and  student  and  staff  services  (library,  laboratories, 
recruitment and appraisal, wellbeing, etc.)162. Institutional quality assurance involves an external quality 
review process to assess and ensure that higher education institutions meet acceptable levels of quality. 
In those systems where institutional accreditation is mandatory, it determines an institution’s entry to 
and operations within a higher education system. In systems where it is voluntary, it can be considered 
as a quality benchmark that the institution meets certain educational standards163. 

Some systems that rely on institutional quality assurance use a system of self-accreditation whereby 
higher  education  institutions  that  meet  certain  criteria  through  the  quality  assurance  processes  are 
authorised to establish study programmes and self-accredit their courses without having to seek external 
accreditation for each new programme164. 

In the EU, most countries follow a combined approach that includes both institutional and programme 
approaches.   

158 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance, 
Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1787/be5514d7-en  
159  Eurydice,  France:  11-  Quality  assurance,  https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/france/quality-
assurance-higher-education  
160 Eurydice, National Education Systems, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/  
161 Since there is no agency responsible for quality assurance in Luxembourg, the Ministry of Higher Education and Research 
receives support from foreign agencies and experts. 
162 While it can save resources for all disciplinary areas in an institution to be covered by a single institutional accreditation, 
there have been concerns about ‘what if’ an institution fails to be accredited, and whether some institutions are ‘too big to fail’, 
see https://www.scienceguide.nl/2020/11/komt-er-een-einde-aan-opleidingsaccreditatie-door-de-nvao/ 
163 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance, 
OECD 
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/benchmarking-higher-education-system-
performance_be5514d7-en  
164 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance, 
OECD 
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/benchmarking-higher-education-system-
performance_be5514d7-en  

Publishing, 

Publishing, 

2019, 

2019, 

Paris, 

Paris, 

71 

 
 
 
Quality  assurance  in  higher  education  fundamentally  ‘assures’  all  stakeholders  that  the  ‘quality’  of 
higher  education  institutions  and  their  staff,  management  processes,  teaching,  research,  and  other 
activities meet pre-defined ‘standards’. Furthermore, by meeting quality requirements higher education 
institutions can demonstrate that they are delivering ‘value for money’. If successful, quality assurance 
can also result in accreditation which gives a quality statement that can be ‘recognised’ by others  – 
hence there is a powerful linkage between quality assurance and recognition. 

4.1.1   The need for agile quality assurance frameworks 

Quality  assurance  is  an  essential  enabler  of  transparency  which,  for  example,  can  confirm  to 
stakeholders  that  a  programme  or  an  institution  meets  formally  stated  criteria,  such  as  those  set  by 
national  frameworks,  and  can  lead  to  higher  education  institutions  or  their  programmes  receiving 
accreditation  by  professional  statutory  and  regulatory  structures.  Quality  assurance  can  demonstrate 
that  students  are  provided  with  a  high-quality  teaching  and  learning  environment  and  curricula  (for 
example,  which  meet  national  subject  benchmark  statements),  leading  to  qualifications  that  are 
externally recognised by employers or other higher education systems and institutions. 

Quality assurance depends on what is being assessed and assured, but in all cases quality assurance 
systems need to be dynamic165.  

‘A  robust  quality  assurance  and  future-proof quality assurance  systems  are  very  relevant  for  the  European 
higher  education  area.  In  particular  a  system  that  allows  flexibility  and  trust  in  experimenting  with  new 
formats’. 

EuroTeQ Engineering University (European Universities alliance with members in Denmark, Czechia, Estonia, 
France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain) – Call for Evidence. 

As  teaching  and  learning  activities  evolve,  new  criteria  could  be  considered,  for  example: 
internationalisation; widening access, equality and inclusion; flexible pathways and the recognition of 
prior learning; preventing student  dropouts; employability; academic integrity; lifelong learning and 
micro-credentials; and addressing the green and digital transitions.  

4.1.2   The importance of quality assurance for joint programmes 

Quality assurance of higher education institutions and their programmes is the responsibility of Member 
States. Most quality assurance systems have  been  developed to evaluate them, and the principles of 
institutional autonomy also  mean that higher  education  institutions  themselves  can  set  their internal 
quality  assurance  benchmarks  that  respond  to  national  quality  assurance  criteria.  This  imposes 
challenges at the European level where there has been an increasing demand for joint programmes that 
involve consortia of higher education institutions from different countries.  

Joint  programmes  are  understood  as  an  integrated  curriculum  coordinated  and  offered  jointly  by  different 
higher education institutions leading to double/multiple degrees or a joint degree. 

•  While  it  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  exact  number  of  joint  programmes  in  the  European  Union,  some 

reports166 suggest that the number could be above 3 000. 

•  The six policy experimentation projects testing the feasibility of a European degree label have mapped 

about 1 000 joint programmes in Europe offered among 140 higher education institutions. 

165 ICF study in finalisation. 
166 Bologna Follow Up Group, Background report on the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, 
2014, 
https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/72/9/European_Approach_QA_of_Joint_Programmes_Backgroun
d_Report_613729.pdf  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Joint programmes must operate within the legal frameworks of several national or sub-national systems, 
which  can  involve  different  institutional  practices  and  approaches  to  accreditation  and  quality 
assurance, which can multiply the administrative overhead as more partners and countries are involved. 
Since this is an inevitable result of the autonomy of higher education institutions and the sovereignty of 
national higher education systems, any simplification of processes  must result from cooperation and 
commitment at national and sub-national levels. 

‘A European Quality Assurance and Recognition mechanism in higher education is essential as it will 
enable University Alliances to develop long-term fit for purpose joint degree programmes with strong quality 
assurance processes and procedures which will ultimately facilitate new student-centred collaborative joint 
degree programmes and microcredentials which are recognised across the Union’. 

RUN-EU  (European  Universities  alliance  with  members  in  Austria,  Belgium,  Finland,  Hungary,  Ireland, 
Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands) – Call for Evidence. 

In spite of the growing importance and numbers of transnational joint programmes in Europe, differing 
quality assurance procedures have an impact on cooperation between higher education institutions in 
different Member States.  

4.2  

Transnational cooperation in quality assurance  

The  Bologna  Process  was  launched  in  1998-1999167  as  crucial  step  forward  in  overcoming  the 
segmentation of the European higher education sector. The process was formalised in 1999, when the 
Ministers of the then 29 participating countries agreed on a common vision to create a European Higher 
Education Area168 (EHEA), a higher education space built on common values and using common tools 
to ensure more comparable, more compatible, and more coherent higher education systems in Europe. 
Currently, the European Higher Education Area involves 49 countries169 and the European Commission.  

Promoting cooperation in quality assurance is one of the key commitments of the Bologna Process, 
along with automatic recognition, and central elements are: the Standards and Guidelines for Quality 
Assurance  in  the  European  Higher  Education  Area  (ESG);  the  European  Approach  for  Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes (European Approach); the European Quality Assurance Register for 
Higher Education (EQAR); and, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education 
(ENQA). These are detailed below. 

4.2.1   Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 

The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) 
comprise standards and guidelines for internal and external quality assurance in higher education. The 
guidelines were first adopted by Ministers of the European Higher Education Area in 2005170, and were 

European  Agency 

167 European University Association (EUA), Bologna Process, https://eua.eu/issues/10:bologna-process.html  
168 
Education 
for  Higher 
https://www.ehea.info/pid34248/history.html  
169 The membership of Russia and Belarus is currently suspended due to the unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine. 
See the Statement by Members and Consultative Members of the Bologna Follow Up Group on Consequences of the Russian 
Federation 
Ukraine: 
https://ehea.info/Upload/STATEMENT%20BY%20MEMBERS%20AND%20CONSULTATIVE%20MEMBERS%20OF%
20THE%20BOLOGNA%20FOLLOW%20UP%20GROUP%20ON%20CONSEQUENCES%20OF%20THE%20RUSSIAN
%20INVASION%20OF%20UKRAINE.pdf  
170  https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/ENQA/05/3/ENQA-Bergen-Report_579053.pdf 

(EHEA),  A  Common  Vision, 

and  Accreditation 

Invasion 

of 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
revised in 2015171. Taking the twin approaches of enhancement and accountability, the ESG focus on 
three key quality assurance components:  

Summary of ESG standards172 

Part 1: Internal quality assurance 

Higher education institutions should have: 

Quality  assurance  policies  that  are  part  of  their  strategic  management  and  are  publicly  available,  as  well  as 
processes for the design and approval of programmes to ensure they meet their objectives and clearly communicate 
the learning outcomes and qualifications. 

Student-centred  learning,  teaching  and  assessment;  clear  regulations  on  student  admission,  progression, 
recognition, and certification; fair and transparent staff recruitment and development processes; and appropriate 
funding for learning and reaching activities. 

Information  management  systems  that  allow  the  collection,  analysis,  and  use  of  information  for  effective 
programme  management; publicly  available,  clear,  accessible,  and  updated  information on  their  activities  and 
programmes;  ongoing  monitoring  and  periodic  review  of  their  programmes;  and  cyclical  external  quality 
assurance in line with the ESG.  

Part 2: External quality assurance 

External quality assurance should: 

Address the effectiveness of the internal quality assurance (part 1); be fit-for-purpose and involve stakeholders in 
its  design  and  continuous  improvement;  be  reliable,  pre-defined,  consistently  implemented,  published  and 
followed up by external experts that include students. 

Base  its  outcomes  and  judgements  on  explicit  and  published  criteria  that  are  applied  consistently;  lead  to  full 
reports (including decisions) that are published, clear, and accessible to all; and have clearly defined complaints 
and appeals processes. 

Part 3: Quality assurance agencies 

Quality assurance agencies should: 

Undertake external quality assurance (part 2) on a regular basis with clear and explicit goals and the involvement 
of  stakeholders  in  their  governance  and  work;  have  an  established  legal  basis  and  be  recognised  as  quality 
assurance agencies by the competent public authorities; be independent and autonomous, with full responsibility 
for their operations and outcomes; and have adequate resources. 

Regularly publish reports on the findings of their activities; have processes for their own internal quality assurance 
to ensure their professionalism and the quality and integrity of their activities; and undergo an external review at 
least every five years to demonstrate their compliance with the ESG. 

4.2.2   European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes 

The  European  Approach  for  Quality  Assurance  of  Joint  Programmes  addresses  transnational  joint 
programmes which are one of the key characteristics of the European Higher Education Area. Joint 
programmes enhance the mobility of students and higher education staff, providing them with a rich 
European learning experience, and with a transnational curriculum that is both excellent in content and 

171 https://www.ehea.info/page-standards-and-guidelines-for-quality-assurance 
172 https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
fully ‘joined up’ across partner institutions173. Ministers across the European Higher Education Area 
have continuously encouraged the development of more joint programmes174.  

As  part  of  this  effort,  in  their  2012  Bucharest  Ministerial  Communiqué175,  the  Ministers  agreed  to 
review the rules and practices for joint programmes and degrees at national levels, and to identify ways 
of overcoming barriers facing them. In 2015, the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint 
Programmes (European Approach), was approved at the Ministerial Conference in Yerevan176 ‘to ease 
external quality assurance of these programmes: it defines standards that are based on the agreed tools 
of the European Higher Education Area, without applying additional national criteria’177.  

The European Approach aims to bring together quality assurance into a holistic approach, properly reflecting 
the jointness of joint programmes. It: 

•  Recognises that while countries have a diversity of approaches to external quality assurance, it 

represents a ‘common denominator’ across them. 

•  Relates only to joint programmes178 coordinated and offered jointly by higher education institutions 
from two or more countries; it does not address the quality assurance of programmes delivered 
jointly by different institutions from a single country.  

•  Entails a single review (led by an agency registered within the European Quality Assurance Register 
for Higher Education) for a programme no matter how many countries and institutions are involved.  

•  Delivers a review on whether the programme meets the criteria: 

o  Positive (valid for six years). 

o  Positive if specific recommendations are met. 

o  Negative (with a right of appeal against the decision). 

Those  are  important  distinctions,  because  they  acknowledge  that  the  European  Approach  does  not 
interfere with national agencies and their own approaches to higher education outside joint programmes.  

The European Approach is not restricted to higher education institutions within the European Higher 
Education Area. Institutions that are not in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and that are 
involved in a joint programme can investigate whether their national agency would accept the European 
Approach  and  recognise  the  decision  of  an  agency  registered  with  the  European  Quality  Assurance 
Register for Higher Education. 

European 

Information, 

(EQAR),  Background 

for  Higher  Education 

173  European  Quality  Assurance  Register 
https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-programmes/background/  
174 As explained in the first chapter of this Staff Working Document, every Bologna Communiqué adopted since 1998 has 
encouraged joint programmes and joint degrees as a key element in supporting  the internationalisation of higher education 
institutions. 
175 Bucharest Ministerial Communiqué, Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education 
2012, 
Area, 
https://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/Bucharest_Communique_2012_610673.pdf  
176  Yerevan  Ministerial  Communiqué,  European  Higher  Education  Area  Ministerial  Conference  Yerevan,  2015, 
https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/70/7/YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf  
177 European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR), European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint 
Programmes, https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-programmes/ 
178 Joint programmes have ‘an integrated curriculum coordinated and offered jointly by different higher education institutions 
from EHEA countries and leading to double/multiple degrees or a joint degree’. See European Quality Assurance Register for 
Higher Education (EQAR), Definitions, https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-programmes/definitions/  

Conference 

Ministerial 

Bucharest, 

Education 

Higher 

Area 

75 

 
 
 
 
The  European  Approach  had  been  developed  and  tested  by  a  range  of  national  quality  assurance 
agencies and other key stakeholders, with the particular understanding that the valuable transnational 
‘jointness’ of joint programmes was not clearly reflected in national quality assurance processes. 

While the European Approach clearly reflects the jointness of a programme, minimises the workload 
involved in accreditation through a single process, is attractive for employers who can clearly see the 
added European value in the programme, its implementation and use still remains uneven.  

4.2.3  European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education  

The European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) was founded in 2008 as ‘an 
independent  organisation  in  charge  of  establishing  and  managing  a  register  of  quality  assurance 
agencies’179.  It  currently  lists  57  agencies  in  31  countries180  that  work  in  line  with  the  agreed  ESG 
framework to ensure the quality of higher education institutions and study programmes.  

In  2018,  the  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  launched  the  Database  of 
External Quality Assurance Results (DEQAR), which provides access to the reports and decisions of 
agencies registered within the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education. Currently, 
there  are  93  769  reports  available  covering  3  895  higher  education  institutions181.  The  data  can  be 
downloaded and visualised online, and an Applications Programming Interface (API) allows the data 
to be integrated into other applications. 

4.2.4  European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education 

The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) was established in the 
year 2000 with a role to promote higher education quality assurance at the European level182. It is the 
European Higher Education Area’s designated stakeholder organisation for quality assurance agencies. 
The current membership includes 58 full members spanning 56 countries183. 

To become a full member of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, an 
agency must be based in the European Higher Education Area and provide an external review report 
that they are compliant with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher 
Education Area (parts 2 and 3).  

An affiliate organisation can be ‘organisations worldwide that have an interest in quality assurance of 
higher education but that cannot, or do not want to, be members of the European Association for Quality 
Assurance in Higher Education’. Currently there are 47 affiliate members184. Four Russian members 
are  currently  suspended  following  Russia’s  unprovoked  and  unjustified  war  of  aggression  against 
Ukraine185. 

Education 

for  Higher 

European  Quality  Assurance  Register 

179  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  (EQAR),  Close-up,  https://www.eqar.eu/about/close-
up/#history 
180 
https://www.eqar.eu/register/agencies/ 
181 European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR),  Database of External Quality Assurance Results, 
https://www.eqar.eu/qa-results/search/ 
182 ENQA was first established as the ‘European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education’. In 2004, it became the 
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, but kept its originally acronym. See European Association 
for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), https://www.enqa.eu/about-enqa/  
183  European  Association  for  Quality  Assurance  in  Higher  Education  (ENQA),  Member  and  Affiliate  Database,  
https://www.enqa.eu/membership-database/ 
184 European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), Affiliate, https://www.enqa.eu/membership-
database/status/affiliate/ 
185 European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), Statement agreed by the ENQA Board, Brussels, 
March 8, 2022, https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/ENQA-Board-statement-on-invasion-of-Ukraine.pdf  

Registered 

agencies, 

(EQAR), 

76 

 
 
 
4.2.5  The E4 Group 

The E4 Group entails cooperation between four organisations: the European Association for Quality 
Assurance  in  Higher  Education  (ENQA),  the  European  Students’  Union  (ESU),  the  European 
University  Association  (EUA)  and  the  European  Association  of  Institutions  in  Higher  Education 
(EURASHE) 186.  

The E4 Group developed the key principles of the European Approach and are the founding members 
of the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR).  

4.3 

Important developments at EU level 

In March 2006, the European Parliament and  European Council made a recommendation on further 
European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education187, recommending that Member States: 

‘encourage all higher education institutions active within their territory to introduce or develop rigorous 
internal quality assurance systems, in accordance with the standards and guidelines for quality assurance 
in the European Higher Education Area adopted in Bergen in the context of the Bologna Process.’  

To facilitate information and transparency, quality assurance agencies across Member States would be 
encouraged to join a ‘European Register of Quality Assurance Agencies’. Higher education institutions 
in a Member State should be able to ‘choose among quality assurance or accreditation agencies in the 
European Register an agency which meets their needs and profile, provided that this is compatible with 
their national legislation or permitted by their national authorities’.  

17 years on from the Recommendation, this provision is the only one fully implemented across all 27 
EU Member States (and it is the only one that did not require any change in national legislation). Moving 
to a mainly institutionally based quality assurance system has taken place only in nine EU Member 
States188. In 13 Member States there is a mix of programme and institutional quality assurance189, of 
which two (Hungary and the Netherlands) are planning to move towards institutional approaches. 

The use of the European Approach has also been modest (Figure 4.1). 

186  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  (EQAR),  EQAR's  Founders: 
https://www.eqar.eu/e4-group/ 
187 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on further European cooperation in 
quality 
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:064:0060:0062:EN:PDF  
188 Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, France, Malta, Austria, Slovakia, and Finland.  
189  Belgium  (French  community),  Czechia,  Germany,  Greece,  Spain,  Croatia,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Hungary, 
Netherlands, Poland, and Romania. 

the  E4  Group, 

04.03.2006, 

education 

assurance 

higher 

60). 

(OJ 

64 

in 

p. 

L 

77 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.1: Joint programmes that have used the European Approach (2016-2023) 

Source: based on data from the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education: https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-
programmes/european-approach-cases/ 

Since  2006  the  higher  education  landscape  has  significantly  changed.  A  key  development  was  the 
political commitment of the 27 Member States to building the European Education Area (EEA)190 by 
2025.  The  idea  emerged  from  the  November  2017  Social  Summit  of  EU  leaders  in  Gothenburg 
(Sweden).  A  Communication  from  the  European  Commission  on  Strengthening  European  Identity 
through Education and Culture191 proposed a vision to develop a joined-up education space for the EU 
with  a  focus  on  investing  in  young  people  with  new  skills  and  competencies,  modernising  and 
improving education systems, excellent teaching and teachers, and a new agenda for higher education.  

Following  on  the  European  Council’s  call  of  December  2017192  to  encourage  the  emergence  of 
‘European Universities’, the first call of the European Universities Initiative was launched in 2018 to 
create European Universities alliances – inter-university campuses that pool their expertise, platforms, 
and resources to develop and deliver joint curricula and flexible learning pathways for students. To 
date, 50 European Universities alliances have been funded involving more than 430 higher education 
institutions193 and leading to the creation of almost 160 joint programmes194.  

The  European  strategy  for  universities  calls  for  60  European  Universities,  involving  500  higher 
education institutions, by mid-2024. The alliances have taken transnational cooperation in developing 
joint programmes to a new level. Their activities go beyond the prevailing joint masters programmes to 
date (typified by Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters programmes195), towards bachelor offers, blended joint 
programmes,  programmes  involving  microcredits,  programmes  involving  business,  and  more 

European 

190  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  A  European  education  area  by  2025,  COM  (2017)  673,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/a-european-education-area-by-2025.html 
191  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  The  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture, 14.11.2017, 
COM (2017) 673, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=celex:52017DC0673  
192 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32204/14-final-conclusions-rev1-en.pdf  
193  European  Commission,  European  Education  Area:  European  Universities  alliances  and 
https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/european-universities-initiative/map  
194  European  Commission.  Preliminary  data  from  the  study  Outcomes  and  transformational  potential  of  the  European 
Universities initiative (in preparation – not yet published). 
195  European  Commission,  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency:  Erasmus  Mundus  Catalogue 
https://www.eacea.ec.europa.eu/scholarships/erasmus-mundus-catalogue_en  

Council  meeting 

(14  December 

their  partners, 

Conclusions, 

19/1/17 

EUCO 

2017) 

REV 

1. 

78 

 
 
 
 
sophisticated mobilities for students and staff. This has encouraged the use of the European Approach, 
reflected in more joint programmes relying on it since the launch of the European Universities Initiative. 

The November 2018 Council Recommendation on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher 
education  and  upper  secondary  education  and  training  qualifications  and  the  outcomes  of  learning 
periods abroad196 aimed to improve and facilitate procedures for automatic mutual recognition in the 
EU, linking it to quality assurance, which ‘has a key role to play in improving transparency, thus helping 
to build mutual trust’.  

It recommended that Member States ‘ensure the full implementation of the Bologna Process instruments 
for higher education in the Union’ and encouraged them to carry out external quality assurance through 
independent agencies that are registered on the European Quality Assurance Register. Member States 
were  asked  to  develop  national  guidance  to  support  higher  education  institutions  in  producing  and 
effectively implementing transparent criteria for recognition that are applied throughout each higher 
education institution. 

In  May  2021  the  Council  Conclusions  on  the  European  Universities  initiative  –  Bridging  higher 
education, research, innovation and society: Paving the way for a new dimension in European higher 
education197 emphasised that European Universities alliances could be pivotal in achieving a ‘seamless 
balanced mobility of students, mobility of teachers, staff and brain circulation’. The European Council 
suggested that the alliances could be developed as ‘testbeds’ for the interoperability of higher education 
institutions  in  delivering  brain  circulation  and  the  free  flow  of  knowledge.  The  alliances  should  be 
encouraged to ‘become more innovative and entrepreneurial, such as, for example, HEInnovate198 and 
InvestEU199,  and  promote  collaboration  with  Horizon  Europe200,  to  provide  synergies  and  avoid 
duplication of efforts. 

The January 2022 Commission Communication on a European strategy for universities201 had a specific 
focus to better link research, teaching and learning, inviting ‘closer cooperation between countries and 
actors of the higher education sector within the European Education Area, the European Research Area 
and the European Higher Education Area (Bologna process)’.  

Such  integration  requires  stronger  transnational  cooperation  in  higher  education  institutional 
transformation  and  ‘support  for  fundamental  academic  values  and  scientific  freedom,  developing 
academic  careers,  innovative  and  interdisciplinary  learning,  teaching  and  research,  as  well  as  the 
interconnectedness  between  these,  knowledge  circulation,  international  cooperation  with  partners 
beyond the EU and the contribution to the United Nation’s SDG’s’. To support such developments the 
European Commission committed to establishing a Higher Education Sector Observatory,  

The  5  April  2022  Council  Recommendation  on  Building  Bridges  for  Effective  European  Higher 
Education  Cooperation202  instrumentalises  the  European  strategy  for  universities.  Article  7  of  the 

for 

the  way 

a  new  dimension 

in  European  higher 

196 Council Recommendation of 26 November 2018 on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper 
secondary education and training qualifications and the outcomes of learning periods abroad (OJ C, C/444, 10.12.2018, p. 1). 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018H1210(01)  
197 Council conclusions on the European Universities initiative – Bridging higher education, research, innovation and society: 
Paving 
education,  17  May  2021,  8658/21, 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8658-2021-INIT/en/pdf  
198 HEInnovate, Is your Higher Education Institution prepared for future challenges? https://www.heinnovate.eu/en  
199 ‘The InvestEU Programme gives an additional boost to investment, innovation and job creation in Europe over the period 
2021-27. It aims at triggering a new wave – more than EUR 372 billion - in investments using an EU budget guarantee’, see 
https://investeu.europa.eu/index_en  
200 
opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en  
201  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  The  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for universities, 18.1.2022 Com (2022) 16. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2022:16:FIN 
202 Council Recommendation of 5 April 2022 on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation (2022/C 
160/01), OJ C 160, 13.4.2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022H0413(01) 

https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-

Commission, 

European 

Horizon 

Europe, 

79 

 
 
 
Recommendation has re-emphasised the value of quality assurance in higher education, particularly as 
there has been increased mobility across countries and more collaboration in teaching and learning.  

Article 7 The goal is to strengthen mutual trust through external quality assurance and accreditation of joint 
educational offers. 

Member States are encouraged to: 

•  Move  further  towards  the  use  of  institutional-based  external  quality  assurance  to  support  the 
development  of  a  genuine  institutional  quality  culture  that  leads  to  a  greater  accountability  and 
compatibility of systems across Europe. 

•  Consider the possibility of allowing for self-accreditation of programmes based on institutional quality 

assurance, to underpin the self-responsibility of higher education institutions. 

•  Where countries rely on programme-based external quality assurance, enable the full implementation 
of the European Approach, ensuring that the external evaluation of joint transnational programmes is 
carried out by one single agency registered in the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher 
Education  and  that  the  outcomes  are  automatically  accepted  in  all  other  higher  education  systems 
without adding further national requirements. 

‘Regarding  the  development  of  a  European  Quality  Assurance  and  Recognition  System,  Stockholm 
University would like to emphasise the importance of the higher education institutions own responsibility 
for quality assurance. Therefore, we value the possibility to allow for self-accreditation of programmes based 
on the institutions quality assurance procedures’. 

Stockholm University (Sweden) – Call for Evidence. 

The 6 April 2022 Council conclusions on a European strategy empowering higher education institutions 
for the future of Europe203 focus on higher education institutions simplifying administrative procedures 
to  widen the mutual  recognition  of  academic  qualifications  and to  ‘unlock’ the full  potential  of the 
European  Universities  alliances.  The  Conclusions  emphasise  the  importance  of  implementing  the 
European  Approach  for  Quality  Assurance  of  Joint  Programmes,  in  recognising  the  value  of 
transnational cooperation in teaching and learning, and enhancing the employability of learners.  

The Conclusions invite Member States and the European Commission to explore common criteria for 
a potential European label for joint programmes, and to facilitate a European quality assurance approach 
for joint programmes in line with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European 
Higher Education Area. 

In May 2023, and responding to the European Commission report (above) on the implementation of 
automatic recognition, the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Union called for further 
action in its Council conclusions on further steps to make automatic mutual recognition in education 
and training a reality204.  

The  Conclusions  strongly  emphasise  that  ‘Quality  assurance  plays  a  key  role  in  accelerating  trust 
building by highlighting methods and improving transparency’, but note that there has been uneven 
application of automatic recognition tools, in the use of the Diploma Supplement, and in recognising 

203 Council conclusions on a European strategy empowering  higher education institutions for the future of Europe, 6 April 
2022, 7936/22, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7936-2022-INIT/en/pdf  
204 Council conclusions on further steps to make automatic mutual recognition in  education and training a reality, 16 May 
2023, 9307/23, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9307-2023-INIT/en/pdf  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
learning  periods  abroad.  This  is  even  though  ‘within  the  Erasmus+  programme,  higher  education 
institutions  have  committed  to  fully  and  automatically  recognising  the  credits  obtained  during  a 
mobility period, recognition is still far from being the norm’. 

These developments at the EU level, particularly the European Universities Initiative, have given new 
momentum  to the  Bologna  Process.  The  use  of  the  European  Approach,  for instance, has increased 
overall –albeit moderately– since the launch of the first call for European Universities alliances in 2018. 
The European Universities alliances have also been exploring how they can implement the European 
Approach. For example: 

The Circle-U alliance has published ‘Quality assurance guidelines and rules to develop joint learning activities 
and programmes’205. Inspired by the European Approach it explicitly addresses  ‘teaching activities that are not 
yet implemented in the institutions (joint programmes and courses, blended learning and of course in the context 
of academic chairs’, and also for micro-credentials.  

The Una Europa alliance (at the 2021 European University Association Quality Assurance Forum) presented a 
trust-based  approach  to  joint  programme  quality  assurance,  emphasising  the  importance  of  subsidiarity  for 
partners, and agreeing core quality practices.  Transparency is essential in this process, and  ‘the partners share 
information on their internal quality assurance methods in a “knowledge base”’206. 

Furthermore, the Erasmus+ EuniQ207 project has made recommendations208 on the development of a 
quality assurance framework for European Universities alliances and a roadmap for its implementation. 
The proposed framework adjusts some criteria of the European Approach to cope with the complexities 
of European Universities alliances and is meant to be flexible to cope with future developments.  

According to the proposed framework, European Universities alliances should be able to choose one, 
two or more agencies registered within the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education 
(EQAR) for the coordination of the quality assurance evaluation, which should:  

•  Respect  the  internal  quality  assurance  arrangements,  diversity,  academic  freedom  and 

autonomy of the alliances and their constituent higher education institutions. 

•  Respect the mission and strategy determined by the alliances, focusing on their implementation 

and not on the choices they made.  

•  Focus  on  the  joint  provision  of  the  alliance  and  not  assess  the  individual  institutions,  their 

programmes or courses.  

https://una-europa.imgix.net/resources/7.18-Publication-quality 

205 Circle U., Quality assurance guidelines and rules to develop joint learning activities and programmes, https://www.circle-
u.eu/resources/quality-assurance/d1.8_circle-u-quality-assurance-policy.pdf  
206  Una  Europa,  Quality  Assurance  in  the  context  of  a  European  University:  a  lean  and  trust-based  approach  for  joint 
assurance-in-context-of-European-
programmes, 
University.pdf  
207 European University Association (EUA), EuniQ: Developing a European Approach for Comprehensive QA of (European) 
University Networks, https://eua.eu/resources/projects/811-euniq.html  
208  EUniQ,  Resonance  group  paper:  European  Universities,  legal  frameworks  and  the  ESG.  Some  recommendations, 
https://ehea.info/Upload/EUNIQ%20Policy%20paper%202%20Eur.%20Uni.%2C%20legal%20frameworks%20and%20the
%20ESG-final.pdf;  EuniQ,  European  Framework  for  the  Comprehensive  Quality  Assurance  of  European  Universities, 
https://www.nvao.net/nl/attachments/view/european%20framework%20for%20the%20comprehensive%20quality%20assura
nce%20of%20european%20universities  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.4 

Challenges to quality assurance  

4.4.1  Uneven implementation of the ESG 

Despite the progress made in the past two decades, there is still uneven implementation of the ESG 
recommendations, while, at EU level, implementation of the quality assurance provisions of the 2022 
Council Recommendation on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation is 
at an early stage. 

The  2018  Bologna  Progress  Report  on  Quality  Assurance209  highlighted  the  advantages  of  an 
institutional  approach  to  external  quality  assurance.  It  gives  higher  education  institutions  more 
autonomy  to  develop  their  own  internal  procedures  (fine-tuned  to  their  particular  needs),  which 
contribute to creating a quality culture when they are applied across the institution. It also encourages 
higher education institutions to create specialised central quality units that can take on the administrative 
load  from  academic teaching  and  research  staff,  and can also  provide  support  and  training to them. 
Furthermore, the workload of quality assurance agencies is reduced, as they review institutions rather 
than a large number of programmes. 

In  spite  of  the  clear  advantages  of  institutional  quality  assurance,  more  motivation  and  support  are 
needed for it to be adopted and further stimulate transnational cooperation. Positive examples of a move 
from programme to institutional quality assurance include: 

• 

In  Latvia,  an  Erasmus+  project  has  created  a  roadmap  for  the  institutional  accreditation  of 
higher education institutions by 2024210.  

•  The  Netherlands  is  planning  a  move  from  programme  level  to  a  form  of  institutional  level 
accreditation  (new  programmes  will  be  centrally  accredited  while  institutions  would  handle 
reaccreditation) by 2024211. 

All EU countries, except Czechia, Italy, Malta, and Slovakia, have implemented the ESG fully at system 
level212. A 2021 review213 of quality assurance frameworks of the 49 European Higher Education Area 
(EHEA) countries for the European University Association concluded that the ESG and the European 
Approach brought a common understanding to a diverse set of external quality assurance activities at 
country  and  regional  levels.  For  example,  quality  assurance  can  involve  external  review  of  a  joint 
programme,  it  can  involve  self-accreditation,  and  can  be  at  the  institutional  level.    The  validity  of 
accreditation ranges mostly from 5 to 8 years, with some only for 1 to 3 years214.  

209 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Study to evaluate the progress on 
quality assurance systems in the area of higher education in the Member States and on cooperation activities at European 
level – Final report, Publications Office, 2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/352582 
210 Ministry of Education and Science Republic of Latvia,  Project for the implementation of cyclical assessment of higher 
education  institutions  in  Latvia,  2024,  https://www.izm.gov.lv/en/projects/project-implementation-cyclical-assessment-
higher-education-institutions-latvia  
211 Wittenborg University of Applied Sciences, Shift from Programme Accreditation to Institutional Accreditation for Dutch 
Universities,  November  13,  2020,  https://www.wittenborg.eu/shift-programme-accreditation-institutional-accreditation-
dutch-universities.htm  
212 
https://www.eqar.eu/kb/country-information/  
213  European  University  Association  (EUA),  Gauging  external  quality  assurance  frameworks  in  the  European  Higher 
Education  Area,  July  12,  2021,  https://eua.eu/resources/expert-voices/237:gauging-external-quality-assurance-frameworks-
in-the-european-higher-education-area.html  
214  European  University  Association  (EUA),  Gauging  external  quality  assurance  frameworks  in  the  European  Higher 
Education  Area,  July  12,  2021,  https://eua.eu/resources/expert-voices/237:gauging-external-quality-assurance-frameworks-
in-the-european-higher-education-area.html 

European  Quality  Assurance  Register 

(EQAR),  Country 

for  Higher 

information, 

Education 

82 

 
 
 
Positive developments include: 

•  Austria in 2021 promoted the use of the European Approach to accredit and evaluate joint programmes 
through  the  establishment  of  a  peer  learning  network215  involving  other  European  agencies,  and  by 
to  involve  University  of  Applied  Sciences  through  the 
institutional  accreditation 
widening 
Fachhochschul-Akkreditierungsverordnung decree. 

•  Romanian universities can now offer joint programmes with other higher education institutions in the 
European  Higher  Education  Area  and  ‘upon  completion  of  integrated  study  programs,  the  study 
documents issued, including joint or double degrees, are legally recognized by the Romanian state’216. 

•  The  Hungarian  Accreditation  Committee  (MAB)  recommended  legislative  changes  to  facilitate  the 

quality assurance of the CHARM-EU European Universities alliance217. 

The Bologna Progress Report on quality assurance in 2018218 indicated that at that time, of 1 551 higher 
education  institutions  in  41  countries  surveyed,  71%  responded  that  their  compliance  with  quality 
assurance laws and regulations was their main focus.  

At the country level, a recent study219 noted that: 

•  16 EU higher education systems used quality assurance to enhance practice: Belgium (Flemish 
Community),  Belgium  (French  Community),  Denmark,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  France, 
Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden.  

•  Some countries were reported to have achieved full implementation of all the recommendations 
(Belgium, Latvia, Austria, Romania, and Finland), with Luxembourg and Hungary also being 
rated positively in all the recommendations for which data were available for those countries. 

•  All but four Member States have internal and external quality assurance systems that are aligned 
with the ESG, evidenced by the registration within the European Quality Assurance Register 
for Higher Education of the agencies performing external quality assurance.  

•  Lower  degrees  of  implementation  were  reported  in  relation  to  higher  education  institutions 
being  able  to  choose  quality  assurance  agencies  (registered  within  the  European  Quality 
Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education)  from  other  Member  States,  the  promotion  of 
cooperation between agencies, independence of assessments and in ensuring public access to 
the assessments performed by quality assurance agencies listed in the register. 

•  There has tended to be greater progress in relation to recommendations that do not explicitly 
require international cooperation than in relation to those that refer more directly to this type of 
cooperation. Implementation of the recommendation on higher education institutions being able 
to choose among quality assurance or accreditation agencies in the European register has been 
limited. 

Parliament 

Österreich, 

Parlamentskorrespondenz 

215 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2022/pk1027#XXVII_III_00750  
216  National  Centre  for  the  Recognition  and  Equivalence  of  Diplomas  (CNRED),  Education  System  in  Romania, 
https://cnred.edu.ro/en/education-system-in-romania/  
217  Hungarian  Accreditation  Committee,  Report  for  the  Year  2020  until  September  2021,  2021,  https://www.mab.hu/wp-
content/uploads/MAB-Annual-Report-2021_v2..pdf  
218 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Study to evaluate the progress on 
quality assurance systems in the area of higher education in the Member States and on cooperation activities at European 
level – Final report, Publications Office, 2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/352582  
219 ICF study in finalisation. 

28.09.2022, 

VOM 

1027 

NR. 

83 

 
 
 
 
4.4.2  Uneven Implementation of the European Approach 

The  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  (EQAR)  reports  that  the  extent  to 
which the European Approach has been implemented across higher education systems in the European 
Higher Education Area (EHEA) varies substantially (EU Member States are highlighted in bold) 220: 

•  European  Approach  available  to  all  higher  education  institutions:  Belgium  (Flemish 
Community), Belgium (French Community), United Kingdom (Wales), Denmark, United 
Kingdom (England), Spain, Croatia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Moldova, 
Netherlands,  United  Kingdom  (Northern  Ireland),  Poland,  Romania,  Switzerland,  United 
Kingdom (Scotland), Finland, Austria, Armenia. 

•  European  Approach  available  to  some  higher  education  institutions  or  only  under  specific 
conditions:  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Germany,  Estonia,  Greece,  Cyprus,  France, 
Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Georgia. 

•  European  Approach  not  available  to  higher  education  institutions:  Andorra,  Azerbaijan, 
Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Montenegro,  Italy,  Iceland,  Latvia,  North  Macedonia,  Albania,  Serbia, 
Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, Holy See. 

Such differences, where only 11 of the 27 Member States allow the full implementation of the European 
Approach, need to be overcome to achieve the aim that all joint programmes  are assessed through a 
single European procedure. 

 ‘Despite the European Approach there is no common course of action concerning the accreditation of 
joint  study  programmes  in  the  EHEA.  The  European  Approach  for  Quality  Assurance  of  Joint 
Programmes was adopted in 2015, yet not all EHEA member states are ready for its thorough application. The 
national legislations still do not allow in every member state the use of a Joint Degree’.  

St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences (Germany) – Call for Evidence. 

Achieving full implementation of the European Approach can depend on the administrative procedures 
concerning joint programmes. In Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, and Romania they are defined in law. In 
Italy, the law does not allow joint programmes. Some Member States will only attest to the programme 
parts  delivered  by  their  own  higher  education  institution  (as  in  Poland),  whereas,  in  Cyprus  and 
Portugal,  a  full  programme  can  be  reviewed.  Slovenia  has  a  separate  national  framework  for  joint 
programmes  where  a foreign  partner  is  not accredited  by  an  agency registered  within  the  European 
Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR).  

The European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education reports that 28 joint programmes have 
undergone a formal review using the European Approach to date221. Among them, there are three first-
cycle programmes, a positive development because unlike the second-cycle Masters and doctoral levels 
there has been very limited European funding to build joint bachelor programmes, whereas for masters 
and doctoral levels funding has been available through Erasmus+ (particularly Erasmus Mundus and 
capacity building projects) and Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions.  

  220 European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR),  National implementation of the European 

Approach, https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-programmes/national-implementation/ 

221 European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR), Joint programmes that used the European Approach, 
February 2024: https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-programmes/european-approach-cases/ 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
While the total number is modest, the range of countries involved indicates that the European Approach 
has  potential  applicability  in  higher  education  across  the  world.  The  countries  using  the  European 
Approach to date (number of institutions involved – as of January 2024) are: 

Albania (1);  Austria (5);  Belgium  (Flemish  Community)  (3);  Belgium  (French Community) 
(2); Bosnia and Herzegovina (1); Croatia (2); Czech Republic (2); Denmark (2); Estonia (1); 
Finland (2); France (14); Germany (12); Greece (1); Hungary (1); Ireland (2); Israel (1); Italy 
(5); Kosovo (1); Lithuania (1); Malta (1); Netherlands (8); North Macedonia (1); Norway (4); 
Poland (3); Portugal (3); Romania (2); Slovakia (1); Slovenia (2); South Africa (1); Spain (14); 
Sudan (1); Sweden (3); Uganda (1); United Kingdom (England) (1); United States (1). 

Even  though  the  European  Approach  has  not  been  extensively  used,  a  July  2023  report222  from  the 
Erasmus+-funded  ‘Quality  Assurance  Fit  for  the  Future’  (QA-FIT223)  project  indicated  that  joint 
programmes  are  actually  widely  developed,  with  60%  of  the  respondents  stating  that  their  higher 
education  institution  offered  them,  with larger institutions  offering more  than  30  joint  programmes. 
Respondents, which represented higher education institutions in the European Higher Education Area, 
also advised against any further quality assurance developments adding to their workload, and that the 
processes should not cover governance or strategic management aspects. 

Those who are considering developing a joint programme involving partners from multiple countries 
and institutions need to consider whether to apply for accreditation through the European Approach. 
Should  some  of  the  partners  then  develop  another  programme  they  would  need  to  go  through  the 
European Approach process again (programme-level quality assurance). This can be a disincentive. It 
would  be  more  efficient  if  the  partner  institutions  were  accredited  through  the  European  Approach 
(institutional-level quality assurance) because the quality assurance administrative overhead for a new 
joint programme would be nearly zero.  

The ‘full accreditation’ as in the European Approach is viewed as a competitive advantage – in effect a 
label of approval at the European level for six years and can be used in programme promotion and 
publicity.  The  ability  of  a  process  to  adapt  to  the  specific  disciplinary  sectors  being  evaluated  we 
regarded as being important, and a single evaluation (self-assessment and visit) involving all partner 
institutions across countries can result in a deeper understanding of issues such as diversity, inclusion, 
pedagogies, innovative teaching and learning, widening participation, and assessment. 

A  study  investigated  the  experience  of  cross-border  quality  assurance  for  the  accreditation  of 
engineering  education  in  Belgium  (with  a  partnership  of  French  and  Belgian  agencies).  An  initial 
challenge was that the French agency was not familiar with the Belgian approach and as a result, its 
‘accreditation standards were reformulated to pay more attention to ‘what’ (the outcomes) than to ‘how’ 
(the specific strategies and practices)’224. This resonates with the recommendations for quality assurance 
coming  from  the  European  Universities  alliances.  It  was  found  to  be  important  that  an  agency  not 
familiar with the other country systems should avoid making comparisons or recommendations based 
on their own national approach. 

In September 2023, as part of QA-FIT, the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education 
reported225 the results of a survey of ministries, higher education institutions, quality assurance agencies 
and students. Respondents were positive about the role that quality assurance has played in building 

222 European University Association (EUA), European Association of Institutions in Higher Education, Quality assurance fit 
for the future, 2023, https://eua.eu/resources/publications/1072:quality-assurance-fit-for-the-future.html 
223 European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), Quality Assurance Fit for the Future (QA-FIT), 
https://www.enqa.eu/projects/quality-assurance-fit-for-the-future-qa-fit/  
224  Teresa Sánchez-Chaparro, Bernard Remaud, Víctor Gómez-Frías, Caty Duykaerts & Anne-Marie Jolly, Benefits 
and 
challenges of cross-border quality assurance in higher education. A case study in engineering education in Europe, Quality 
in Higher Education, 2022, 28:3, 308-325, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13538322.2021.2004984 
225 European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education, Melinda Szabo, Blazhe Todorovski, Quality Assurance Fit for 
the  Future:  Analysis  of  Ministry  Survey  Responses,  2023,  https://www.eqar.eu/assets/uploads/2023/09/QA-
FIT_Survey_to_Ministries_FinalPaper.pdf 

85 

 
 
 
trust and transparency across countries at the European Higher Education Area level, whereas students 
reported positive impacts for their careers. Importantly, the survey showed how joint programmes at 
the European level have a positive social dimension by building on European values.  

However,  there  was  less  positivity  about  the  European  Approach  to  the  Quality  Assurance  of  Joint 
Programmes. Most responses indicated that the European Approach was not permitted in their national 
frameworks, but there was a clear majority of responses that accepted the relevance of the European 
Approach being applicable for the European Universities alliances joint programmes.  

Stakeholder interviews and other research for the ICF study reported some of the obstacles for achieving 
full implementation. For some, a change to national legislation is required to overcome differences in 
methodologies, language, timelines, and application deadlines. For others, the main deterrent is the cost 
(particularly in terms of human resources required) of moving to full implementation. In some cases, 
the  European  Approach  is  not  sufficiently  well-known  across  higher  education  systems  such  as  in 
Belgium’s  French-speaking  community  (although  in  Belgium’s  Flemish  community  the  European 
Approach is mandatory for all new joint programmes). 

‘The  complexity  of  current  [quality  assurance]  rules  and  guidelines  can  be  a  barrier  to  effective 
implementation and compliance. Simplifying these rules would not only make them more accessible to 
[higher  education  institutions]  but  also  streamline  the  [quality  assurance]  processes,  making  them  more 
efficient and less burdensome for institutions’. 

European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) – Call for Evidence. 

The 2018 Progress Report had noted that about one-third of the higher education institutions responding 
to a survey were not aware of the European Approach; where they were aware, they often confused the 
European  Approach  and  the  ESG.  A  further  problem,  reported  by  the  QA-FIT  project,  is  that 
information  about the  European  Approach  may  not be  available  in the  local  language226.  It  is  to  be 
expected that this confusion is reducing through significant events such as the annual Quality Assurance 
Forum held by the European University Association227.  

To widen the awareness of the European Approach, guides have been produced for different stakeholder 
groups. 

The ImpEA project228 provides a training toolkit covering the principles and practice of the European Approach. 

AQU Catalunya229 published its own guide for higher education institutions and its own officials in implementing 
the European Approach.  

The  Dutch  National  Agencies  Erasmus+230  coordinated  a  project  leading  to  the  publication  in  2020  of  ‘Joint 
Programmes from A to Z: A reference guide for practitioners’231.  This takes readers through a full journey from 

226 European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education, Melinda Szabo, Blazhe Todorovski, Quality Assurance Fit for 
the  Future:  Analysis  of  Ministry  Survey  Responses,  2023,  https://www.eqar.eu/assets/uploads/2023/09/QA-
FIT_Survey_to_Ministries_FinalPaper.pdf 
227  European  University  Association  (EUA),  2023  European  Quality  Assurance  Forum,  https://eua.eu/events/124-2023-
european-quality-assurance-forum.html  
228  Facilitating  implementation  of  the  European  Approach  for  Quality  Assurance  of  Joint  Programmes  –  ImpEA  Project, 
European Approach Online Toolkit, https://impea.eu/ 
229  AQU  Catalunya,  Guide  to  ex-ante  accreditation of  joint  programmes  using  the  European  Approach,  Barcelona,  2022, 
https://www.aqu.cat/es/doc/Universitats/Guide-to-ex-ante-accreditation-of-joint-programmes-using-the-European-Approach 
230 Dutch National Agencies Erasmus+, https://www.erasmusplus.nl/english  
231  European  Association  for  Quality  Assurance  in  Higher  Education,  European  Students’  Union,  European  University 
Association  (EUA),  European  Association  of  Institutions  in  Higher  Education,  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for 
Higher Education, Key Considerations for Cross-Border Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, Brussels, 
2017, https://impea.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Joint-Programmes-from-A-to-Z-Report-2020.pdf 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
considering participating in a joint programme to resourcing, delivering and sustaining it, with overall messages 
encouraging them to check the provisions and definitions of the European Approach.  

The  E4  Group  and  the  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  published  a  guide  for 
stakeholders  engaging  in  ‘cross-border’  quality  assurance  in  the  European  Higher  Education  Area232.  The 
document includes a roadmap in the form of guiding questions that stakeholders should consider before, during, 
and after the quality assurance procedure. It encourages institutions to consider first the rationale for engaging in 
cross-border quality assurance and what added value would result. It makes a strong recommendation that the 
European Approach should be used for joint programmes. 

4.4.3  Need for better links between quality assurance and recognition  

Robust quality assurance leads to accountability, transparency, improvement, and trust in the higher 
education  sector  –  essential  elements  for  the  automatic  mutual  recognition  of  higher  education 
qualifications between EU Member States.  

However,  recognition  procedures  vary  significantly  between  EU  Member  States,  types  of  higher 
education institutions, and education levels233, and are often complicated, lengthy, and expensive. This 
creates  frictions  for  students  to  move  and  make  use  of  their  higher  education  qualifications  in  the 
European Union, and for higher education institutions to engage in deeper transnational cooperation.  

‘ESU sees automatic recognition as a pillar for free movement of persons and an enabler for credit or 
degree  mobility,  and  as  such  supports  the  objectives  of  mobility,  such  as  internationalisation  and 

intercultural understanding’. 

European Students’ Union (ESU) – Call for Evidence. 

The  only  legally  binding  text  in  the  recognition  area  is  the  1997  Council  of  Europe/UNESCO 
Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region 
(Lisbon Recognition Convention)234. Signed by 55 countries, it aims to ensure that qualifications are 
recognised in other countries and that the process of recognition is not burdensome and is fairly assessed 
in a reasonable time. The Convention argues that recognition should take place by default and ‘can only 
be refused if the qualification is substantially different from that of the host country’, and where clear 
evidence is provided that this is the case. The Bologna Process monitors progress in this area. 

There are no legally binding commitments at the EU level. In line with the Treaty on the Functioning 
of  the  European  Union  (§  165  TFEU),  the  European  Union  shall  contribute  to  the  development  of 
quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting 
and supplementing their action. Consistent with this, academic recognition of foreign qualifications is 
the exclusive responsibility of EU Member States. 

Despite EU efforts to encourage automatic mutual recognition (see the Important developments at EU 
level  section),  a  recent  study  showed  the  uneven  application  of  automatic  mutual  recognition 
recommendations (see Figure 4.2)235.  

232  European  Association  for  Quality  Assurance  in  Higher  Education,  European  Students’  Union,  European  University 
Association  (EUA),  European  Association  of  Institutions  in  Higher  Education,  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for 
Higher Education, Key Considerations for Cross-Border Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, Brussels, 
2017, https://impea.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Joint-Programmes-from-A-to-Z-Report-2020.pdf 
233 ICF study in finalisation. 
234 Council of Europe, Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region 
(ETS No. 165), https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=165  
235 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Implementation of the 2018 Council 
Recommendation on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper secondary education and training 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.2: Automatic recognition of higher education qualifications in EU Member States 

Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Implementation of the 2018 
Council Recommendation on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper secondary education 
and  training  qualifications  and  the  outcomes  of  learning  periods  abroad,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
2023, https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-03/Evaluation%20Report%20-
%20Implementation%20of%20the%202018%20CR%20on%20promoting%20automatic%20mutual%20recognition.pdf 

Furthermore, the February 2023 Report from the  European Commission to the  European Council236 
showed that rather than recognition being automatic, one-third of higher education institutions checked 
the quality assurance arrangements of the sending institution when deciding on recognition. The report 
also showed a need for stronger guidance and clarity about implementing automatic recognition. 

4.4.4  Remaining Obstacles to European-level quality assurance  

There  remain  a  wide  range  of  barriers  to  the  wider  adoption  of  European  quality  assurance  tools. 
Implementation of the quality assurance provisions of the Council Recommendation on building bridges 
for  effective  European  higher  education  cooperation  is  at  an  early  stage.  Explicit  references  to  the 
inclusion  of  ECTS  and  micro-credentials  in  quality  assurance  or  the  quality  assurance  of  micro-
credentials also remain limited to a minority of systems. 

qualifications and the outcomes of learning periods abroad – Executive summary, Publications Office of the European Union, 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/086152 
236  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  on  the  implementation  of  the  Council  Recommendation  on  promoting 
automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper secondary education and training qualifications and the outcomes 
of 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2023%3A91%3AFIN 

COM(2023) 

23.2.2023, 

learning 

abroad, 

periods 

91, 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
A recent study237 identified that joint programmes often need to: undergo multiple accreditation and re-
accreditation  procedures;  navigate  differing  online  teaching  programme  requirements;  deal  with 
different accreditation durations; and determine whether institutional, programme, or self-accreditation 
is to be used. The study cited early (2022) qualitative feedback from the European Universities alliances 
that  even  where  the  European  Approach  is  available,  it  is  not  always  evenly  applied.  Lastly,  the 
differences between national higher education systems themselves were making it difficult to build trust 
that all joint programme institutions have the same level of quality, even where institutional quality 
assurance is applied. 

‘The initiative to establish a European Quality Assurance and Recognition System represents a pivotal 
step towards enhancing the coherence, trust, and transparency of higher education across the European 

Union’. 

YouthProAktiv (Non-governmental organisation) – Call for Evidence. 

The ICF study238 cited throughout this chapter further emphasised the prevailing barriers, noting that 
some national legislations remain restrictive, and that the cost-benefits of the European Approach are 
not widely appreciated. Coordinating resources, scheduling the quality assurance process, and sharing 
resources for the quality assurance process, can be difficult across countries.  

Some quality assurance systems may require reports from other country agencies to be checked, there 
may be uneven resources available (some agencies may be subsidised, others not, to undertake quality 
assurance. There can be a ‘fear of failure’ where ‘an assessment that is not complementary may raise 
questions for students about the value of their qualification in the country of study’. Finally, different 
languages in  the  documentation  of  the  different  national  systems  can  require  translation  and  add  to 
administrative burden. 

Besides the challenge in securing compliance with the ESG, and significantly increasing the use of the 
European  Approach,  EU-wide  quality  assurance  processes  also  need  to  ‘move  with  the  times’  and 
reflect the changing social, political, environmental and economic landscape, for example: the green 
and digital transition, employability, gender balance, academic integrity and fundamental academic and 
European  values,  synergies  between  education,  research,  innovation  and  service  to  society,  and 
programmes (leading to full degree or micro-credentials) enhancing skills and competencies of students 
and lifelong learners on key societal priorities. 

‘We  strongly  support  the  Standards  and  Guidelines  for  quality  assurance  in  the  European  Higher 
Education  Area  (ESG)  as  a  framework  that  fosters  trust  between  higher  education  systems  and  a 
foundation to gain automatic recognition throughout Europe. Nonetheless, the quality assurance system should 
be flexible enough to allow for a quick response to changes’. 

Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF), Directorate for Higher Education – 
Call for Evidence 

Higher education systems may address these aspects in different ways, for example by incorporating 
specific objectives in their regular external quality assurance or through focused or thematic quality 
reviews at system level. Such an approach should be carried out in full alignment with the ESG. 

237 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., Potapova, 
E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree – Identifying opportunities and investigating the impact and 
feasibility 
the  European  Union, 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147  
238 ICF study in finalisation. 

report,  Publications  Office 

approaches 

–  Final 

different 

of 

of 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 5: European framework for flexible and attractive academic careers 

Effective  and  innovative  transnational  cooperation  in  higher  education  requires  the  commitment  of 
high-quality  academic  staff  who  can  engage  in  deep  long-term  partnerships  with  peers  from  other 
institutions.  Their  efforts  must  therefore  be  appropriately  rewarded  and  valued  in  their  career 
advancement.  This  chapter  explores  the  importance  of  ensuring  that  academic  careers  in  European 
higher education are attractive, flexible, and sustainable across the European Union, ensuring parity of 
esteem between the different roles that academic staff play in their institutions  – from research and 
teaching and learning to engagement in knowledge transfer, leadership, open science practices, civil 
society, and transnational cooperation. 

The content of this chapter relies on desk research and the outcomes of a study commissioned to Ecorys 
in the preparation of this higher education package239. The study included an extensive literature review; 
five online consultation events with higher education stakeholders240; an online survey to gather input 
on  the  challenges  and  the  current  situation  in  higher  education  institutions241;  and  focus  groups  to 
discuss the results from the previous activities242. 

The chapter first sets the stage by exploring the different types of higher education institutions that exist 
in Europe, each with a different structure, priorities and practices that influence the career paths of their 
academic staff. It then frames the main challenges that influence the careers of academic staff, ranging 
across transnational cooperation, teaching and learning, career developments and working conditions, 
and academic freedom, diversity, and gender equality. The last section summarises the key findings and 
advances possible solutions. 

5.1. 

Background 

To achieve flexible and attractive academic careers in higher education across the European Union, and 
thereby contribute to achieving the European Education Area243 by 2025, the January 2022 Commission 
Communication  on  a  European  strategy  for  universities244,  identified  career-related  barriers  to  the 
development of deep transnational cooperation in teaching and learning. They include the lack of parity 
of esteem between different academic career paths, the rigidity of academic careers, and the working 
conditions of academic staff.  

To tackle these challenges, the European Commission committed to actions in close cooperation with 
stakeholders and Member States, including the development of a European framework for attractive 
and sustainable careers in higher education in synergy with the research career framework developed 
under  the  European  Research  Area  (ERA):  to  provide  better  support  for  innovative  teaching  and 

239 Carried out in 2023 to assess the current situation regarding academic staff in higher education in Europe.  
240  The  stakeholders  included  national  authorities,  employers,  academic  staff,  social  partners,  and  actors  involved  in 
transnational cooperation (including European Universities alliances and Erasmus Mundus Programmes). 

241 864 responses were received from universities (650); other higher education institutions (polytechnics, business schools, 
etc.) (91); teaching  and  learning  support  staff  at  a  higher  education  institution  (47); national  and  regional  ministries  and 
learning 
government  bodies 
organisations (9); employer organisations (7); organisations and social partners at EU level (2); and other respondents (34). 

education (24); national 

for  higher 

responsible 

teaching 

regional 

and 

and 

242  The  focus  groups  were  organised  by  theme:  flexible  pathways,  intersectoral  and  transnational  mobility;  workload, 
wellbeing, and time management; and career structures and appraisal mechanisms.   
243 European Commission, European Education Area: European Education Area, https://education.ec.europa.eu/  
244  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  The  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for universities, 18.1.2022 Com(2022) 16, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A16%3AFIN  

90 

 
 
 
 
 
learning approaches through training and career development for higher education academic staff; and 
to strengthen, promote and protect university autonomy and academic freedom.  

The  Council  Recommendation  on  Building  Bridges  for  Effective  European  Higher  Education 
Cooperation,  published  in  April  2022,  encouraged  Member  States  to  support  higher  education 
institutions in valorising and recognising in their career assessments the time spent by academic staff 
on developing innovative pedagogies and new research practices through transnational cooperation. 

In its May 2021 Conclusions on Deepening the European Research Area: Providing researchers with 
attractive and sustainable careers and working conditions and making brain circulation a reality245, the 
Council  had  already  called  on  the  European  Commission  to  design  a  framework  for  seamless  and 
ambitious transnational cooperation between European higher education institutions for both academic 
and  research  careers.  The  Conclusions  acknowledged  that  academic  career  development  and 
progression in higher education was dominantly focused on research, rather than providing a balanced 
career path.  

Notably, it was highlighted that to diversify research careers, there is a need to explore more diverse 
reward  and  assessment  mechanisms  that  take  into  account  not  only  research  outputs,  but  also  open 
collaboration,  societal  engagement,  teaching  and  skills,  impact,  services  to  society,  open  science 
practices,  mobility,  management  and  leadership  skills,  entrepreneurship,  and  collaboration  with 
industry.  

Building  on  this,  the  Council  Recommendation  of  18  December  2023  on  a  European framework to 
attract and retain research, innovation and entrepreneurial talents in Europe proposed concrete steps to 
make  research  careers  in  Europe  more  attractive  and  sustainable246.  The  Recommendation 
acknowledges  the  need  to  have  a  common  understanding  of  ‘researcher’  at  Union  level  and  of  the 
activities they perform in different sectors; to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of research; to 
address  persisting  gender  inequalities;  to  support  early-career  researchers,  attractive  working 
conditions, and stable contracts; to have transparent, merit-based recruitment and promotions systems; 
to ensure adequate social protection for researchers; to encourage researchers’ mobility and training so 
they  can  have  better  career  opportunities;  and  to  establish  performance  evaluations  that  recognise 
diverse research outputs, activities, and practices with an equal esteem and reward of the different career 
paths. 

Notably,  the  Recommendation  introduces  a  new  European  Charter  for  Researchers.  The  Charter 
consists of a set of principles underpinning the development of attractive research careers across Europe. 
The Charter details the rights and responsibilities of researchers, employers, funders, and policymakers 
across  four  pillars:  ‘Ethics,  Integrity,  Gender  and  Open  Science’;  ‘Researchers  Assessment, 
Recruitment and Progression’; ‘Working Conditions and Practices’; and ‘Research Careers and Talent 
Development’. 

As  will  be  explained  below,  the  needs  identified  for  research  careers  resonate  with  those  for  other 
academic career paths. However, a key factor that impedes the development of wider career paths for 
academic staff is the primacy of research over other academic roles that permeate the higher education 
sector.  It  is  thus  essential  to  ensure  synergies  between  the  proposal  for  a  European  framework  for 
academic  careers  and  the  recently  adopted  European  framework  to  attract  and  retain  research, 
innovation and entrepreneurial talents in Europe. 

conditions 

245  Council  conclusions  on  Deepening  the  European  Research  Area:  Providing  with  attractive  and  sustainable  careers  and 
working 
9138/21, 
circulation 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/49980/st09138-en21.pdf 
246 Council Recommendation of 18 December 2023 on a European framework to attract and retain research, innovation and 
entrepreneurial 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
talents 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_202301640  

29.12.2023), 

28  May 

2023/1640, 

making 

Europe 

reality, 

2021, 

brain 

(OJ 

and 

in 

C 

a 

91 

 
 
 
5.2. 

The diversity of European higher education 

The framework for academic careers needs to be sensitive to the diversity of European higher education, 
which  involves  much  more  than  ‘universities’;  furthermore,  not  all  higher  education  institutions 
undertake research, and not all undertake teaching and learning247: 

‘Europe is home to close to 5 000 higher education institutions, 17.5 million tertiary education students, 
1.35  million  people  teaching  in  tertiary  education  and  1.17  million  researchers.  Be  it  research 
universities,  institutes  of  technology,  schools  of  arts  or  higher  vocational  education  and  training 
institutions – the different types of higher education institutions are all hallmarks of our European way 
of life’248. 

The Eurydice network249 notes that there is a wide range of higher education institutions in Europe such 
as  public  and  private  higher  education  institutions,  traditional  universities,  universities  of  applied 
sciences, university colleges, business schools, specialised higher schools, polytechnics, non-university 
level  public  institutions  of  higher  education,  tertiary  professional  schools,  and  specialised  research 
universities.  Across  this  diversity  of  institutions,  some  are  more  research-focused,  some  are  more 
focused on applied sciences, some may be focused on specific thematic areas such as agriculture, law 
or cultural services, and others can be more focused on teaching and learning. 

The  importance  of  fully  recognising  the  role  of  teaching  and  learning  has  grown  as  technology 
advancements have provided means to empower both students and teachers to undertake innovative and 
independent  teaching  and  learning  learning  through  through  the  use  of  online  resources,  research 
engines, and more recently, advanced digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence and Extended 
Reality. Innovative transnational teaching and learning is the hallmark of forward-looking educational 
approaches, reflected in European Universities alliances250, the teaching programmes of the European 
Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)251, and the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master programmes252. 
The use of advanced digital technologies in teaching and learning helps equip both students and teachers 
with digital skills, supporting the closing of the digital skills gap in Europe and reaching the Digital 
Decade targets of 80% of adults with at least basic digital skills and 20 million ICT specialists in Europe, 
with more gender convergence, by 2030253. 

‘In order for Europe to be able to compete for skilled labour and innovations in the future, it is important 
that  universities  and  other  [higher  education]  institutions  are  attractive  workplaces  for  research  and 

education professionals’.  

Trade Union of Education in Finland (OAJ) – Call for Evidence.  

In  short,  teaching  and  learning  are  being  rapidly  disrupted  by  new  technologies,  pedagogies, 
methodologies and tools. At the same time, it is increasingly expected that higher education teaching 

247 More information about higher education institutions is provided by the European Tertiary Education Register (ETER), 
https://www.eter-project.com/  
248 European Commission, European Education Area: Higher education initiatives, https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-
levels/higher-education/about-higher-education  
249 Eurydice, National Education Systems, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems  
250  European  Education  Area,  The  European  Universities  alliances  in  action,  https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-
levels/higher-education/european-universities-initiative/about  
251 European Institute of Technology (EIT), Education, https://eit.europa.eu/tags/education  
252  European  Commission,  Erasmus+:  Erasmus  Mundus 
Joint  Masters 
plus.ec.europa.eu/opportunities/opportunities-for-individuals/students/erasmus-mundus-joint-masters-scholarships  
253 Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital 
Decade Policy Programme 2030 

https://erasmus-

(students), 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  learning  will  produce  graduates  with  the  competencies  and  skills  needed  by  society  and  the 
economy, with developments such as graduate tracking initiatives providing a robust understanding of 
the career trajectories of former students254.  

All  such  activities underline  not just the importance of  teaching and learning,  but  also the need  for 
academics to be able to move between teaching, research, business, and transnational activities so that 
they acquire the skills and competencies to deliver what students require to thrive in a fast-changing 
world. There is a need for diverse academic career pathways to be effectively recognised and rewarded. 

Higher  education  workload  is  often  divided  into  research,  teaching,  and  administration.  However, 
assessment  systems  usually  have  a  quantitative  approach  focused  on  publications,  rather  than  a 
qualitative one focusing on the variety of activities performed255.. Furthermore, the global influence of 
research  metrics  such  as  the  QS  World  Rankings256  reinforces  a  focus  on  research  among  higher 
education institutions, particularly as there is a very public race to be perceived as one of the ‘world’s 
top universities’ and ranking high in research can attract high calibre research staff, and funding. In this 
respect, the Council Recommendation of 18 December 2023 on a European framework to attract and 
retain research, innovation and entrepreneurial talents in Europe recommends assessment and reward 
systems  that  recognise  a  diversity  of  outputs,  activities  and  practices.  This  includes  among  others 
teaching, academia-industry cooperation, and interaction with society. 

It can also be noted that while research leave (sabbatical) can relieve academics of teaching and learning 
and administration so they can focus exclusively on research,there is not always an equivalent teaching 
and learning leave, where an academic is relieved of research and administration. Moreover, while it is 
possible to combine a higher education career with external mobility (such as transnational cooperation 
or industry secondments), it can be difficult to return to pure research after another activity. Also in this 
respect, the new framework for research careers recommends Member States to address such issues. 

Some  issues  relate  both  to  teaching  and  learning  and  research  in  areas  such  as  gender  balance,  the 
inclusiveness of recruitment practices, types of contracts (particularly the use of short-term contracts 
and  precarious  employment  situations),  academic  freedom  and  institutional  autonomy,  the  ways  in 
which higher education is financed, and the ways in which higher education institutions are ‘structured’.  

The  European  University  Association  argues  that  the  vision  for  Europe’s  universities  calls  for  a 
fundamental  reform  of  academic  careers257.  This  requires  achieving  parity  between  different  career 
paths and between research and teaching; incentives for activities with different forms of impact, such 
as innovation and mentoring; ensuring less precarious and more attractive career conditions to  retain 
talent; and more flexibility  in academic  careers to switch  to  other  sectors and from  other  sectors  to 
academia258. 

The  Young  European  Research  Universities  Network  (YERUN)  emphasises  that  making  careers  in 
academia  more  attractive  and  sustainable  requires  a  three-step  approach259:  valuing  the  diverse 

254  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture, Towards  a  European  graduate 
tracking  mechanism  –  Recommendations  of  the  expert  group  –  October  2018  -  October  2020,  Publications  Office, 
2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/970793  
255  The  EURAXESS  profiles  of  researchers  does  not  mention  teaching  at  all  (https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/europe/career-
development/training-researchers/research-profiles-descriptors)  and  nor  does  the  ERA  research  policy  agenda  2022-2024 
(https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/ec_rtd_era-policy-agenda-2021.pdf) 
256 QS World university Rankings, https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings  
257 European University Association (EUA), Thomas Ekman Jørgensen, Anna-Lena Claeys-Kulik, Pathways to the future: A 
follow up to “Universities without walls – a vision for 2030”, 2021, https://eua.eu/resources/publications/983:pathways-to-
the-future.html 
258 European University Association (EUA), Thomas Ekman Jørgensen, Anna-Lena Claeys-Kulik, Pathways to the future: A 
follow up to “Universities without walls  – a vision for 2030”, 2021, https://eua.eu/resources/publications/983:pathways-to-
the-future.html 
259 Young European Research Universities Network (YERUN), Three steps to make careers in academia more attractive and 
sustainable,  2024,  https://yerun.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Three-steps-to-make-careers-in-academia-more-attractive-
and-sustainable-.pdf  

93 

 
 
 
contributions  of  academic  staff  by  developing  national-level  approaches  that  encourage  more 
comprehensive  recognition  systems  and  diverse  career  paths;  creating  support  systems  for  the 
continuous  skills  development  of  academic  staff  (e.g.,  through  an  EU-level  funding  programme 
targeting  educational  excellence);  and  empowering  universities  through  sustainable  and  diversified 
funding, strengthening their institutional autonomy and allowing them to channel resources according 
to their needs, invest in skills, and build career paths between academia and other sectors. 

Academic careers therefore need to be ‘attractive’, allowing higher education institutions to attract and 
retain the best global talent and avoid a brain drain to other sectors or geographies; ‘flexible’, enabling 
mobility  between  teaching,  administration,  business  development,  research,  and  other  areas;  and 
‘sustainable’, by offering staff clear mid- and long-term options to grow and develop their careers. 

5.3  Challenges and factors influencing academic careers 

The literature on academic careers is strongly biased towards research careers and little is written about 
the need to treat all academic activities equitably. Nevertheless, there are important similarities in the 
barriers and challenges facing researchers and those in teaching and learning. 

Institutional structures are closely tied to management approaches and quality assurance processes, and 
the  traditional  model  of  higher  education  governance260  is  being  challenged  by  the  demands  of 
competitiveness over many scales and around an expanding range of economic and social factors261.  

Furthermore, the nature of managerialism in higher education can cause quality assurance to lose its 
meaning  and  become  a  ritual  for  compliance  only262.  For  example,  the  evaluation  of  quality  in 
determining  higher  education  rankings  (which  predominantly  focus  on  research)  does  not  always 
provide a realistic picture across all elements of higher education activities. What is measured largely 
determines the outcomes263. For instance, Bielefeld University improved from position 250 to 166 in 
one  year  in  the  Times  Higher  Education  rankings.  However,  analysis  showed  that  most  of  the 
improvement was due to the participation of a single scholar in a well-cited global health study (with 
over a hundred co-authors)264.  

In its ‘Universities without walls – A vision for 2030’, the European University Association (EUA) 
calls for a broader set of evaluation practices (beyond traditional bibliometric indicators)265 to evaluate 
the wide range of activities in higher education. For example, Slovenia emphasises the importance of 
gender equality in academic (research) careers, gender balance in decision-making, and the integration 
of the gender dimension in research and innovation content266.  

Austria has been implementing a broad reform agenda to provide strategic funding, diversify higher 
education  institutions,  and  promote  an  allocation  of  students  that  improves  the  quality  of 

and 

500–507, 

Consumption 

Monatsh 167, 

Huettenmaenn 

Production, Berg 

260  Bongaerts,  J.C.,  The  Humboldtian  Model  of  Higher  Education  and  its  Significance  for  the  European  University  on 
Responsible 
2022, 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00501-022-01280-w  
261  Jessop,  B.,  Varieties  of  academic  capitalism  and  entrepreneurial  universities. High  Educ 73,  853–870,  2017, 
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10734-017-0120-6.pdf  
262  Davis,  Annemarie,  Managerialism  and  the  risky  business  of  quality  assurance  in  universities, Quality  Assurance  in 
Education,  Vol.  25  No.  3,  pp.  317-328,  2017,  https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/QAE-06-2016-
0027/full/html  
263 Hence the Commission does not rank higher education institutions, but ‘invites’ them to evaluate their quality relative to 
best practice through tools such as HEInnovate, https://www.heinnovate.eu/en  
264  Brankovic,  J.,  The  Absurdity  of  University  Rankings,  London  School  of  Economics  blog,  March  22  2021, 
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/03/22/the-absurdity-of-university-rankings/  
265  European  University  Association 
https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/universities%20without%20walls%20%20a%20vision%20for%202030.pdf 
266 Slovenian presidency of the Council of the European Union, Ljubljana Declaration on Gender Equality in Research and 
Innovation, 2021, https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MIZS/Dokumenti/PSEU/Ljubljana-Declaration-on-Gender-Equality-
in-Research-and-Innovation-_endorsed_final.pdf 

(EUA),  Universities  without  walls:  A 

for  2030,  2021, 

vision 

94 

 
 
 
interdisciplinary  curricula  or  trans-disciplinary  research  platforms267.  The  Springboard  initiative  in 
Ireland268  helps  expand  higher  education  teaching  and  learning  to  provide  new  skills  to  both 
unemployed and employed people. 

Types of academic staff and career structures are highly heterogeneous and varied across countries269. 
Differences exist in activities (teaching, research), contract status (indefinite, fixed term), and career 
pathways. National strategies set out policy frameworks supported by specific measures on issues such 
as gender distribution, allocation of indefinite/temporary contracts, mobility, careers, and training.  

Furthermore,  there  is  an  emphasis  on  early-stage  researchers  (post-doctoral  levels  specifically)  for 
whom  teaching  is  a  minor  activity.  There  are  differences  in  remuneration  packages  (salaries,  social 
security,  pension)  in  career  pathways  in  terms  of  interdisciplinary,  intersectoral,  and  international 
mobility.  The  age  structure  of  some  higher  education  systems  also  limits  the  number  of  new 
appointments, reducing the regular inflow of new staff with new knowledge, skills and competencies, 
and  also  blocking  the  promotion  of  younger  academic  staff.  In  some  countries,  the  share  of  older 
academic staff (aged 50 and over) in 2017 was above 40% (Spain 43.3%, Italy 44.6%, Greece 48.9%, 
Finland 48.9%, Slovenia 51.7%)270. 

There are differences in legal definitions of the academic profession. The quality of higher education is 
evaluated differently across countries by external bodies271. Evaluations typically consider topics such 
as  teaching,  research  and  training  opportunities.  On  the  other  hand,  human  resource  management 
(recruitment, performance appraisal, promotion) is often overlooked (although data are collected on 
employment, contractual arrangements, and salaries). 

The European University Association notes the need to raise awareness on the precarity of academic 
careers in Europe and the need to recognise academics for the full range of their activities, including 
teaching; innovation with business, the public sector and civil society; and engagement in open science 
practices272.  

The  COVID-19  pandemic  had  a  particular  impact  on  accelerating  the  development  of  online  and 
blended teaching and learning. In its review of the impact of COVID-19, the Organisation for Economic 
Cooperation and Development (OECD) noted that female academics were more affected than males, 
for example in having their work-life balance deteriorate (74% vs. 63%). In terms of mobility, 12 out 
of  the  27  jurisdictions  answering  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development 
(OECD) survey suspended or cancelled international mobility programmes for students or academic 
staff. As digital technology becomes further integrated into higher education, academic contracts may 

Brief.  Modernisation 

267  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture,  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-
operation  and  Development, Supporting  entrepreneurship  and  innovation  in  higher  education  in Austria,  Organisation  for 
Economic  Co-operation  and  Development,  2019,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a06af4bd-2255-
11ea-af81-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  
268 Higher Education Authority, Springboard+, https://hea.ie/skills-engagement/springboard/  
269 European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Crosier, D., Kocanova, D., Birch, P., Davykovskaia, O., Parveva, T., 
Eurydice 
2017, 
https://www.eurydice.si/publikacije/Eurydice-Brief_Modernisation-of-Higher-Education-in-Europe_Academic-Staff-2017-
EN.pdf  
270 European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Crosier, D., Kocanova, D., Birch, P., Davykovskaia, O., Parveva, T., 
Eurydice 
2017, 
https://www.eurydice.si/publikacije/Eurydice-Brief_Modernisation-of-Higher-Education-in-Europe_Academic-Staff-2017-
EN.pdf  
271European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR), Agencies, https://www.eqar.eu/register/agencies/  
272 European University Association (EUA), Briefing from Europe’s universities to the EU Council Presidency Trio: France, 
Czech Republic, Sweden, 2021, https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/trio%20briefing.pdf  

Brief.  Modernisation 

Education 

Education 

Academic 

Academic 

Europe: 

Europe: 

Higher 

Higher 

staff, 

staff, 

in 

in 

of 

of 

95 

 
 
 
need to be revised to welcome new workload models, more training and professional development, and 
new career assessment mechanisms273.  

Approaches to supporting  the development of academic careers will likely need to address multiple 
stakeholder  perspectives:  employers  who  value  quality  of  education  and  competencies  and  skills; 
institutional  leaders  that  drive  and  value  organisational  modernisation;  staff  who  value  continuous 
professional development and reference points for practice; government that provides the appropriate 
framework for higher education institutions to flourish; students who value teaching and learning is up 
to date274. 

Overall, the literature review identified a range of factors influencing academic careers: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Human Resource Policies: recruitment processes, contract conditions, and remuneration.  

Appraisal and promotion systems and reward mechanisms. 

Flexible career development paths. 

Achieving a gender balance. 

The importance of teaching and learning as well as research (parity of esteem). 

Academic freedom. 

Workload pressures. 

Inclusion and equity. 

Financing models in higher education. 

Institutional structures. 

Lack of data and resources on academic careers. 

The  influence  of  these  factors  was  further  explored  with  higher  education  stakeholders  through  an 
online survey and focus groups conducted by Ecorys, which yielded additional data and insights.  

Figure 5.1 reflects the importance that respondents attach to different factors for their academic careers. 
There  is  a  clear  view  from  respondents  that  fair  and  attractive  contract  conditions  need  the  most 
attention, followed by adequate long-term resourcing for staff and the minimisation of precarious and 
short-term contracts.  

Other  aspects  in  the  list  (academic  freedom,  inclusivity,  flexible  career  pathways,  community 
engagement) are not to be regarded as being unimportant, but rather that there are clear areas for EU 
action to  be  considered.  There  was,  however,  a lower  prioritisation  of  equally valuing research  and 
teaching and learning, which could indicate that research has become culturally prioritised throughout 
higher education. 

273  Organisation  for Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD), The State  of  Higher  Education: One  Year into  the 
COVID-19  Pandemic,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris,  2021,  https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/the-state-of-higher-
education_83c41957-en 
274 Alsowaidi, S. S., Hasna, M. O., Unveiling the Interests of Stakeholders in Institutional Accreditation, International 
Research in Higher Education 8(2):44, 2023, 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312476986_Stakeholders_in_Higher_Education_Quality_Assurance_Richness_in_
Diversity  

96 

 
 
 
Figure 5.1: Opinions on the importance of different factors for academic careers 

Freedom of expression

Sufficient resources

Reduced precarity

Flexible pathways

Recognition of diverse roles

Parity for teaching and learning

Inclusivity

Fair contracts

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Respondents rated each aspect on a 1-8 scale, with 1 being the most and 8 the least important. 

Source: Ecorys, based on research carried out in 2023 to assess the current situation regarding academic staff in higher 
education in Europe. 

The subsections below explore in more detail the influences that the identified factors have on different 
aspects of academic careers, grouped into four thematic areas: transnational cooperation; innovative 
and effective teaching; working conditions; and the respect for academic freedom, diversity, and gender 
equality.  

5.3.1  Engagement in deep transnational cooperation  

Developing  joint  programmes  and  engaging  in  deep  transnational  cooperation  such  as  European 
alliances of higher education institutions requires specific skills and a high level of commitment from 
academic staff. Member States have acknowledged transnational cooperation as a key dimension of 
higher education to support Union values, strengthen the resilience of European society and economy, 
and  build  a  sustainable  future275.  Nonetheless,  there  is  a  clear  perception  among  higher  education 
stakeholders  that  the  time  and  energy  that  academic  staff  and  other  staff  devote  to  developing  and 
strengthening transnational cooperation are not properly valorised and recognised in their careers. 

‘The effort put into creating joint programs and degrees is still not valued or recognized for career and 
promotion purposes.  Participation  in  these  initiatives  is  essential  for  complementing  promotion and  career 
development, particularly with regard to research’. 

Universidade Lusófona (Portugal) – Call for Evidence. 

275 Council Recommendation of 5 April 2022 on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation (2022/C 
160/01), OJ C 160, 13.4.2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022H0413(01) 
275 Funding & tender opportunities (europa.eu) 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
A survey conducted in 2020 by the European University Association276 revealed that 96% of responding 
higher education institutions identify internationalisation as part of their institutional strategy277, with 
the top priority being enhancing the quality of learning and teaching, followed by attracting students 
from abroad, and developing strategic partnerships with selected higher education institutions abroad.  

Moreover, 87% of respondents had participated or had plans to participate in the European Universities 
Initiative – one of the deepest forms of transnational cooperation in higher education – with only 13% 
stating  that  their  institution  had  no  plans  to  participate.  However,  challenges  to  participation  were 
identified,  notably  the  ‘amount  of  extra  work  on  top  of  usual  business’  (80%  of  respondents),  and 
‘getting and sustaining commitment of academic staff’ (72%). Among those institutions that did not 
take part in the initiative, the lack of resources was among the main reasons for not participating278.  

The research conducted by Ecorys in preparation for this proposal painted a similar picture: two-thirds 
(65.5%) of respondents agree that transnational cooperation in teaching and learning is part of the higher 
education  institutional  strategy  (Figure  5.2)  and  that  career  pathways  for  academic  staff  effectively 
enable, support, and encourage engagement in transnational cooperation activities.  

However,  only  40%  agree  that  appraisal,  promotion,  and  rewards  mechanisms  effectively  take  into 
account  engagement in  transnational cooperation.  This  highlights the existing  disparity  between  the 
importance that higher education institutions attach to international cooperation and the institutional 
mechanisms in place to reward and recognise the academic staff that engages in it. 

Figure 5.2: Integration of transnational cooperation into institutional and human resource strategies 

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

48,84%

47,92%

22,92%

16,67%

21,99%

17,59%

4,98%

6,60%

7,87%

4,63%

9,49%

14,12%

11,92%

33,68%

30,79%

Transnational cooperation in
teaching and learning is embedded
in higher education institutional
strategy.

Career pathways for academic staff
enable, support and encourage
engagement in transnational
cooperation activities

Appraisal, promotion and rewards
mechanisms for academics
effectively take into account
engagement in transnational
cooperation.

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No opinion

Source: Ecorys, based on research carried out in 2023 to assess the current situation regarding academic staff in higher 
education in Europe. 

Furthermore, as shown in Figure 5.3, most surveyed universities (61%) agree that it is essential or very 
important  to  have  more  opportunities  for  transnational  cooperation  to  develop  innovative  forms  of 

the  European  Universities 

276 European University Association (EUA), Claeys-Kulik, A-L., Jørgensen, T. E.,  Stöber,  H. et al, International strategic 
institutional  partnerships  and 
survey,  2020, 
https://eua.eu/resources/publications/925:international-strategic-institutional-partnerships-and-the-european-universities-
initiative.html  
277 53% of respondents indicated that internationalisation is part of the general strategy of their institutions, whereas 43% stated 
that they have a specific internationalisation strategy in place. 
278 43% indicated the lack of non-financial resources (such as staff or infrastructure) and 38% the lack of financial resources 
for co-funding. 

Initiative:  Results  of 

the  EUA 

98 

 
 
 
 
teaching and learning, whereas most respondents agree that increasing opportunities for transnational 
cooperation is  relevant  to promote  gender  balance,  diversity,  inclusion,  and  well-being in  academic 
careers.  

Figure 5.3. The importance of having more opportunities for transnational cooperation 

30%

31%

30%

37%

27%

37%

30%

14%

17%

18%

6%

4%

4%

11%

3%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

More opportunities for transnational
cooperation in developing innovative
forms of teaching and learning,
community engagement,
entrepreneurship, and sustainability.

More opportunities for transnational
cooperation with activities aiming at
promoting gender balance, diversity,
and inclusion in academic careers.

More opportunities for transnational
cooperation with activities aiming at
promoting the well-being of higher
education staff.

Essential

Very Important

Important

Not Important

No opinion

Source: Ecorys, based on research carried out in 2023 to assess the current situation regarding academic staff in higher 
education in Europe. 

An additional challenge is further promoting opportunities for European and international mobility for 
academic staff. Encouraging staff mobility in higher education is essential so they can share experiences 
with peers and professionals from other sectors, develop innovative pedagogies, and inform curricula 
design with insights from the world of work. Stimulating innovative teaching and learning approaches 
and fostering closer connections with the job market have been priorities of the Erasmus+ programme 
(reflected in each of its work programmes: 2024279, 2023280, 2022281, and 2021282).  

‘Our  prior  research  shows  that  academic  staff  mobility  largely  supports  academics'  motivation,  job 
satisfaction and well-being (...) (W)e highly welcome proposals to remove structural barriers related to 
participation in transnational cooperation including staff mobility, particularly with regard to the recognition 
of additional workload and reward of the outcomes in the context of career assessment and development’. 

Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) – Call for Evidence. 

279 European Commission, 2024 annual work programme “Erasmus+”: the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth 
and Sport, C(2023)6157, 18 September 2023, https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/document/2024-annual-work-programme  
280 European Commission, 2023 annual work programme “Erasmus+”: the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth 
and  Sport,  C(2022)6002,  25  August  2022,  https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/document/2023-annual-work-programme-
erasmus-the-union-programme-for-education-training-youth-and-sport  
281 European Commission, 2022 annual work programme “Erasmus+”: the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth 
and  Sport,  C(2021)  7862,  8  November  2021,  https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/document/2022-annual-work-programme-
erasmus-the-union-programme-for-education-training-youth-and-sport  
282 European Commission, 2021 annual work programme “Erasmus+”: the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth 
and  Sport,  C(2021)  1939,  25  March  2021,  https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/document/2021-annual-work-programme-
erasmus-the-union-programme-for-education-training-youth-and-sport  

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However, a report on the resourcing of higher education systems in 24  responding Organisation for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) jurisdictions highlight that only half of the sampled 
countries have dedicated national programmes for funding and supporting staff mobility283.  

Moreover, the internationalisation of academic staff is uneven across European countries and types of 
institutions. Data from the European Tertiary Education Register (ETER) covering more than 1 500 
European  higher  education  institutions,  shows  that  north-western  and  research-oriented  higher 
education institutions attract the largest proportions of foreign academic staff284. 

The  lack  of  support  and  recognition  for  transnational  cooperation  activities  may  hinder  the  overall 
ambition to strengthen the European dimension of higher education and might be an issue for the full 
roll out and sustainability of the European Universities initiative.  

5.3.2   Innovative, effective, and attractive teaching 

Career pathways: appraisal, recognition, promotion and reward mechanisms 

There is diversity in how governments and higher education institutions define and structure ‘academic 
careers’.  A  Eurydice  report  from  2017  stated  that  ‘academic  staff  can  be  differentiated  by  several 
features: their main activities (teaching and research; teaching only or research only)’. Ten countries 
have  ten  or  more  categories  of  academic  staff  (for  example,  junior,  intermediate,  senior,  duties, 
qualification requirements, employment status, etc.); 22 countries have between six and nine categories; 
and seven have five categories285.  

Each  national  system  differs  from  each  other  despite  having  commonalities,  and  it  is  unlikely  that 
approaches towards teaching careers are any less diverse, which makes it difficult to speak of a singular 
or uniform career structure in higher education institutions. Some institutions have a stronger focus on 
arranging teaching and research along conventional disciplinary silos: even where an institution reforms 
its disciplinary silos into ones that are focused on multi-disciplinarity, the assessment systems often 
force the assessment of such activities back into disciplinary silos.  

Higher education educators need to employ multiple teaching strategies, by being experts, moderators, 
companions in group or problem-solving settings, and facilitators of self-directed learning286. There is 
a need for these educators to have diverse skills and be able to adapt to the heterogeneous roles that are 
demanded of them. Higher education teachers should have opportunities for training, collaboration, and 
feedback287. 

‘Cutting-edge innovation in higher education requires further training for the professionals while the 
ever-changing student body and the different societal challenges existent require a constant adaptation 

to learners needs. 

Lifelong Learning Platform – Call for Evidence. 

283 OECD (2024), "The state of academic careers in OECD countries: An evidence review", OECD Education Policy 
Perspectives, No. 91, p. 71, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea9d3108-en. 
284  European  Tertiary  Education  Register,  Internationalisation  of  Academic  Staff  in  European  Higher  Education,  2019, 
https://www.eter-project.com/uploads/analytical-reports/ETER_AnalyticalReport_01_final.pdf  
285  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency,  Eurydice,  Crosier,  D.,  Birch,  P.,  Davydovskaia,  O.  et 
al., Modernisation  of  higher  education  in  Europe  –  Academic  staff  –  2017,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/9642 
286 Cendon, E., Lifelong Learning at Universities: Future Perspectives for Teaching and Learning, Journal of New Approaches 
in Educational Research, 7(2), pp. 81-87, 2018, https://naerjournal.ua.es/article/view/v7n2-1  
287  European  Training  Foundation,  Stanley,  J., Listening  to  vocational  teachers  and  principals  –  Results  of  the  ETF’s 
international survey 2018, Publications Office of the European Union, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2816/151700  

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Among the suggestions for enhancing the culture of higher education are the development of career 
tracks of lecturers prioritising teaching (at least on parity with research), pedagogical training for all 
teaching  positions,  the  investigation  of  the  option  of  having  specific  professor  positions  with 
competencies  from  industry  and  business,  and  compulsory  international  cooperation  (of  study 
programmes)288.  However,  there  are  few  large-scale  professional  development  programmes  for 
academics on teaching skills, and the provision of continuing professional development varies across 
countries.  As  a  result,  it  becomes  difficult  to  create  a  heterogeneously  skilled  higher  education 
workforce that can adapt to research, teaching, and more289.  

‘Initial and continuous professional development of staff in teaching is both a right and an obligation of 
academic staff (...) Professional development should be supported by national authorities and higher 
education  institutions  through  accessible  opportunities  for  staff,  as  well  as  giving  adequate  time  to  pursue 
professional development’. 

European Students’ Union (ESU) – Call for Evidence 

The 2021 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development report on Excellence and Equity 
for All emphasises the significance of giving educators ample training and resources to increase their 
self-confidence  and  assist  them  in  approaching  new  and  improved  teaching  techniques  and 
opportunities290.  The  European  Training  Foundation  (ETF)  2018  study  on  vocational  education  and 
training (VET) educators291 confirms the need for educators to have effective training and professional 
development and investing into ICT/digital skills.  

Moreover, as highlighted in the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027, the education and training 
system is increasingly part of the digital transformation292. Digital competence should be a core skill 
and be embedded in the professional development of educators, who should be empowered to adopt 
innovative and digital teaching methods.  

In  line  with this, the  2023 Council  Recommendation on  improving the  provision  of  digital  skills  in 
education and training293 recommended that Member States provide quality training on the use of digital 
technology for teaching and learning purposes and reward and recognise efforts of teaching staff and 
higher education institutions to strengthen the provision of digital skills to all students.  

Challenges to the reform of career types in higher education include overload of administrative tasks 
that are not formally recognised in appraisal systems294, precarity of short-term contracts (leading to 

of 

in 

Higher 

Europe: 

Academic 

Education 

Brief.  Modernisation 

288  Myklebust,  J.,  White  paper  calls  for  quality  culture  improvement,  University  World  News,  February  4,  2017, 
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170204095749569  
289 European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Crosier, D., Kocanova, D., Birch, P., Davykovskaia, O., Parveva, T., 
Eurydice 
2017, 
https://www.eurydice.si/publikacije/Eurydice-Brief_Modernisation-of-Higher-Education-in-Europe_Academic-Staff-2017-
EN.pdf   
290 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Schleicher, A., Learning from the Past, Looking to the 
Future:  Excellence  and  Equity  for  all,  International  Summit  on  the  Teaching  Profession,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris,  2021, 
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/learning-from-the-past-looking-to-the-future_f43c1728-en 
291 European Training Foundation (ETF), Brolpito, A., Digital skills and competence, and digital and online learning, Turin, 
2018,  https://www.etf.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/digital-skills-and-competence-and-digital-and-
online  
292 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions on a Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027: Resetting education and training for the digital 
age, COM(2020) 624, 30.9.2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0624  
293 Proposal for a Council Recommendation on improving the provision of digital skills in education and training, COM(2023) 
206, 2023/0100(NLE), 18.4.2023, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52023DC0206  
294 Deem, R., On doctoral (in)visibility and reframing the doctorate for the twenty-first century, European Journal of Higher 
Education, 12:4, 373-392, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2105370  

staff, 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
short-term actions rather than longer-term building of teaching and learning content295, or excellent staff 
leaving  higher  education  for  better  paid  and  more  secure  jobs296  297.  According  to  the  head  of  the 
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development international migration division, researchers 
and students may not be as willing to relocate as they were pre-COVID, as they are able to do research, 
teach and learn remotely online298. 

Adding to these challenges, appraisal, reward, and recognition of activities in higher education remain 
mainly dependent on scientific output and publication. A study in Spain found that non-mobile careers 
are a strong predictor of the timing of rewards in the form of early permanent positions, questioning the 
assumption that mobility and the broad experiences correlated with it enhance career prospects299. Those 
who had their first employment after the PhD outside academia are at a disadvantage for early tenure 
in comparison with those whose first position as PhD holders was at a university or public research 
centre300.  

The importance of teaching and learning as well as research 

The  2022  Council  Recommendation  on  building  bridges  for  effective  European  higher  education 
cooperation highlighted the need for higher education institutions for their career assessment policies 
to recognise and value the time spent by academics on developing new innovative pedagogies and new 
research practices through transnational cooperation301.  

Studies  support  the  view  that  there  is  a  need  to  reform  academic  careers:  academics  need  to  be 
recognised  for  the  full  range  of  their  activities,  including  teaching,  innovation  with  business  public 
sector and civil society, and the recognition of open science practices302. 

The European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) points out that university 
missions  are  evolving  towards  greater  ‘hybridity’,  ‘blurring  the  traditional  distinctions  between 
teaching,  research,  innovation,  and  service’.  Despite  this  shift,  ‘assessment  and  career  development 
remains rooted in an outdated concept of linear paths and mainly focuses on research’303. 

Indeed, the European University Association argues that reforming academic careers requires. having 
parity between different career paths (and between research and teaching), incentives for activities with 
different  forms  of  impact  (innovation,  mentoring),  achieving  less  precarious  conditions  and  more 
attractiveness of careers to retain talent, and creating more flexibility for academic careers (to switch to 

of 

in 

la 

de 

staff, 

Higher 

Europe, 

Academic 

Education 

Recherche, 

Brief:  Modernisation 

295 European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Crosier, D., Kocanova, D., Birch, P., Davykovskaia, O., Parveva, T., 
Eurydice 
2017, 
https://www.eurydice.si/publikacije/Eurydice-Brief_Modernisation-of-Higher-Education-in-Europe_Academic-Staff-2017-
EN.pdf  
296 Myklebust, J., Foreigners outperform Norwegians on academic productivity, University World News, September 11, 2019, 
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190911134037454  
297 Berta, P., Mauguin, P., and Tunon de Lara, M., Attractivité des emplois et des carrières scientifiques, Loi de Programmation 
Pluriannuelle 
https://www.enseignementsup-
recherche.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/content_migration/document/RAPPORT_FINAL_GT2_Attractivite_des_emplois_et_de
s_carrieres_1178464.pdf  
298 Matthews, D., and Hudson, R., Scientific ‘war for talent’ heats up as pandemic restrictions ease, Science Business, January 
4, 2022,  https://sciencebusiness.net/news/scientific-war-talent-heats-pandemic-restrictions-ease 
299 Cruz-Castro, L., Sanz-Menéndez, L., Mobility versus job stability: Assessing tenure and productivity outcomes, Research 
Policy, Vol 39, Issue 1, pp. 27-38, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.008  
300 Cruz-Castro, L., Sanz-Menéndez, L., Mobility versus job stability: Assessing tenure and productivity outcomes, Research 
Policy, Vol 39, Issue 1, pp. 27-38, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.008 
301 Council Recommendation of 5 April 2022 on building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation (2022/C 
160/01), OJ C 160, 13.4.2022, p. 1–8, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022H0413(01) 
302 Deem, R., On doctoral (in)visibility and reframing the doctorate for the twenty-first century, European Journal of Higher 
Education, 12:4, 373-392, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2105370 
303 European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE), Towards the European Framework for Attractive 
and Sustainable Academic Careers, Policy paper, 2023, https://www.eurashe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/D2.2-Towards-
the-European-Framework-for-Attractive-and-Sustainable-Academic-Careers.pdf  

2019, 

102 

 
 
 
other  sectors,  and  from  other  sectors  to  switch  to  academia)304.  As  noted  by  the  Young  European 
Research Universities Network: 

‘The diversity of roles and tasks is not well recognised in terms of reputation and career progression, 
with a persistent imbalance in the weight given to some research-related outputs over other types of 
activities  (such  as  education,  leadership,  knowledge  valorisation,  open  science,  internationalisation, 
etc.). A more balanced approach would encourage everyone to contribute with their own talents and 
competencies  to  the  collective  work  carried  out  within  universities  by  valuing  their  diverse 
contributions  through  more  comprehensive  recognition  systems  and  by  developing  diverse  career 
paths’305. 

‘Portfolio’  career  paths  are  still  uncommon  in  higher education.  Moving from  research  to  business, 
administration  or  other  is  possible,  but  a  return  to  research  is  more  difficult.  This  reinforces  the 
perceived primacy of research in determining academic career mobility.  

‘Teaching pathways and collaboration-based routes are crucial for a more diverse career advancement, 
but  seem  not  to  be  sufficiently  recognised  and promoted, marking  a  strategic  priority  for  raising  the 
attractiveness of the academic profession among those who do not aspire to a career based purely on research’. 

European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) – Call for Evidence. 

As  shown  in  Figure  5.4,  73%  of  respondents  believe  that  research  and  innovation  are  supported  in 
academic career development paths; at the same time, 60% believe that career pathways do not allow 
to change the balance of academic staff roles (such as teaching and learning, community engagement, 
research, participation in management and leadership). 

304 European University Association (EUA), Thomas Ekman Jørgensen, Anna-Lena Claeys-Kulik, Pathways to the future: A 
follow up to “Universities without walls  – a vision for 2030”, 2021, https://eua.eu/resources/publications/983:pathways-to-
the-future.html 
305 Young European Research Universities, Three steps to make careers in academia more attractive and sustainable, p. 2, 
2024, 
https://yerun.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Three-steps-to-make-careers-in-academia-more-attractive-and-
sustainable-.pdf 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.4: (Opinions) Academic career development pathways enable and support… 

Research and innovation

21%

52%

17%

7%

4%

Digital innovation in teaching and learning

Cooperation with industry, entrepreneurs, and NGOs

Administrative and managerial roles

Environmental sustainability

Civic and community engagement

Entrepreneurship (e.g., incubators)

Innovative teaching and learning (e.g., living labs)

Sustainable careers for early career academics

Lifelong learning activities (e.g., micro-credentials)

Balanced academic roles

9%

8%

7%

8%

6%

6%

7%

7%

6%

6%

51%

27%

9%

5%

42%

41%

38%

41%

38%

35%

34%

29%

31%

29%

32%

10%

9%

10%

10%

11%

14%

14%

8%

27%

11%

18%

35%

34%

13%

9%

20%

4%

31%

27%

34%

12%

17%

36%

24%

7%

Temporary workplace mobility

4%

22%

35%

29%

10%

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

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Source: Ecorys, based on research carried out in 2023 to assess the current situation regarding academic staff in higher 
education in Europe. 

Respondents also believe that current career development paths place importance on other areas such 
as  digital  innovation  in  teaching  and  learning  (60%  agreement),  cooperation  with  industry  (50%), 
recognising administrative and managerial roles (48%), and civic and community engagement (47%). 
This sends a clear message that the diverse academic roles, including engaging in innovative teaching 
and learning, are important to academic staff and must be recognised in appraisal, reward, and career 
progression. 

However, there is a persisting bias in careers structures and overall social recognition towards research 
at the expense of teaching and other non-research academic activities306. In fact, according to a survey 
conducted  by  the  European  University  Association,  just  over  a  third  (39%)  of  European  higher 
education  institutions  fully  consider  teaching  performance  in  career  appraisal.  Institutions  consider 
teaching experience (50-52%) and evaluations of teaching performance (46-48%), but participation in 
teaching  enhancement is a  requirement for  only  30%  of  higher  education  institutions in  the  case of 
professorial appointments and for 35% in the case of lecturers or associate professors. Additionally, 
large differences exist in how these criteria are interpreted and used307. 

306 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Reducing the precarity of academic research careers, 
Industry  Policy  Papers,  No.  113,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris,  2021, 
OECD  Science,  Technology  and 
https://doi.org/10.1787/0f8bd468-en 
307  European  University  Association  (EUA),  Leadership  and  Organisation  for  Teaching  and  Learning  at  European 
Universities – LOTUS, https://eua.eu/resources/projects/786-lotus.html  

104 

 
 
 
 
Furthermore,  the  provision  of  training  for innovative teaching  and  learning  is  uneven  across  higher 
education  institutions;  There  are  processes  to  ‘professionalise’  teaching  such  as  in  Denmark308  and 
Spain309 but practices vary across Member States.  

An interesting example comes from the Netherlands. In 2019, the Association of Universities in the 
Netherlands  (VSNU),  published  a  position  paper  outlining  their  intention  to  work  towards  broader 
recognition and rewards for academic staff, with more emphasis on domains such as teaching, impact, 
and leadership, and less emphasis on the number of publications310; this was followed by a roadmap, 
published in 2023, to implement the necessary processes and tools in practice311.  

As part of this roadmap, the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is developing a new recognition and rewards 
system and a new recruitment and promotion policy where teaching, fundamental and applied research, 
impact,  patient  care,  educational  innovations,  public-private  partnerships,  policy  development  and 
leadership are equally recognised and rewarded312. The goal is to make various career paths available 
to assistant, associate, and full professors, with both horizontal and vertical development opportunities.  

Data and resources 

Improving the attractiveness of academic careers implies the monitoring of actions and the collection 
and use of reliable data. However,  the diversity of Europe’s higher education landscape makes data 
generation and collection a challenging task. While data platforms exist, they are often fragmented and 
operate in silos.  

The Eurydice network313, for instance, provides indicators and statistics in the field of higher education, 
but there remains a need for coherent and consistent data related to academic careers. The  European 
Tertiary  Education  Register314  (ETER),  is  a  European  database  containing  information  at  the 
institutional level on the activities and outputs of nearly 3 500 higher education institutions, including 
students,  graduates,  personnel,  and  finances,  which  are  complementary  to  Eurostat315  educational 
statistics at the country and regional level.  

The current efforts to develop a European Observatory on Higher Education together with the European 
Tertiary Education Register, underline the existing need for coherent, consistent and comparable data 
relating to academic careers, including in areas such as contract status, reward and promotion (beyond 
data about salaries), professional development activities, and tertiary teacher mobility.  

There are also challenges in data supply from highly diverse higher education systems across Europe. 
For example, in theory, many higher education institutions say that equality and diversity are prioritised 
in doctoral education, with 82% mentioning this in a 2022 survey as having very high or high priority316. 
However, the evidence of this commitment is not always forthcoming, as a global rankings scheme 
found out that out of 750 universities sending equality data on gender equality policies, many could not 

308 Eurydice, Denmark: 9. Teachers and Education Staff, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-
systems/denmark/initial-education-academic-staff-higher-education  
309  Eurydice,  Spain:  9.  Teachers  and  Education  Staff,  https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-
systems/spain/initial-education-academic-staff-higher-education  
310 VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO and ZonMw, Ruimte voor ieders talent, https://www.nwo.nl/sites/nwo/files/documents/2019-
Erkennen-en-Waarderen-Position-Paper_NL.pdf  
311  Joint  Recognizing  &  Valuing  Programme,  Ruimte  voor  ieders  talent  in  de  praktijk,  https://recognitionrewards.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2023/04/Ruimte-voor-ieders-talent-in-de-praktijk-Routekaart-Erkennen-Waarderen.pdf  
312  Vrije  Universiteit  Amsterdam,  Academic 
e363dd7ce9a5/de3480c3-3962-4a3e-a934-b61fe6deb90e/Academic%20Careerpath%202023%20VU_EN.pdf  
313 Eurydice, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/  
314 ETER European Tertiary Education Register Project, https://www.eter-project.com/  
315 Eurostat, Education and Training, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/education-and-training  
316 European University Association (EUA), Council for Doctoral Education, Hasgall, A., Peneoasu, A., Survey on Doctoral 
education 
https://eua-
trends, 
developments 
cde.org/downloads/publications/web_council%20on%20doctoral%20education_horizontal.pdf  

https://assets.vu.nl/d8b6f1f5-816c-005b-1dc1-

Europe: 

current 

career 

paths, 

2022, 

and 

in 

105 

 
 
 
provide any evidence of those policies working317. Higher education institutions often lack data and 
tools on how to monitor the effectiveness of their policies in practice318. 

Promoting equality, diversity, fairness, and inclusion in academic careers –from recruitment to training, 
funding opportunities, and career promotion– requires the collection and use of reliable data that can 
inform  institutional  policies  and  legislation.  To  account  for  multiple  discrimination  or  confounding 
variables, data should: be disaggregated by sex and/or gender, ethnic or racial origin, disability, age, 
religion,  and  sexual  orientation  while  paying  special  attention  to  possible  intersections  of  multiple 
categories; fully comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)319; and follow available 
European guidelines, including the European Handbook on Equality Data and the latest guidance note 
on  the  collection  and  use  of  data  for  of  Lesbian,  Gay,  Bisexual,  Transgender,  Queer,  and  Intersex 
(LGBTQI+) equality320. 

It is possible to collect potentially sensitive data within the requirements of the General Data Protection 
Regulation (GDPR) providing that specific safeguards and conditions are met. A compilation321 of best 
practices on collecting data on ethnic or racial origin, religion and sexual orientation (not necessarily in 
education)  provides  clear  examples.  For  example:  in  Ireland322  questions  on  sexual  orientation  and 
gender identity were introduced in the equality module in the General Household survey and Census; 
the Brussels Region323 asked questions about national origin; and there has been a survey in Germany324 
about experiences of discrimination. 

The consultations and focus groups conducted during the Ecorys study highlighted that there is a need 
to build better connectivity across excellent teaching and learning centres. Figure 5.5 notes that 90% of 
survey respondents saw value in coordinating and sharing information about academic careers. 

Data 

Protection 

14.1.2022, 

Regulation), 

sustainability 

SWD/2022/3, 

environmental 

317 Deem, R., On doctoral (in)visibility and reframing the doctorate for the twenty-first century, European Journal of Higher 
Education, 12:4, 373-392, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2105370 
318 Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on learning 
for 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=SWD:2022:3:FIN  
319 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural 
persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
(General 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679  
320  European  Commission,  Equality  data  collection:  Equality  data,  https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-
policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/equality-data-collection_en  
321  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights,  Compendium  of  practices  for  equality  data  collection, 
https://fra.europa.eu/en/promising-practices-list  
322 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Introducing questions on sexual orientation and gender identity in the 
equality  module  of 
the  Census,  https://fra.europa.eu/en/promising-
practices/introducing-questions-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-equality-module  
323 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Profile and pathway of job seekers in the Brussels Region: Monitoring 
by national origin, https://fra.europa.eu/en/promising-practices/profile-and-pathway-job-seekers-brussels-region-monitoring-
national-origin  
324  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights,  Survey  on  Experiences  of  Discrimination  in  Germany, 
https://fra.europa.eu/en/promising-practices/survey-experiences-discrimination-germany  

the  Irish  General  Household  Survey  and 

L119/127, 

4.5.2016, 

OJ 

106 

 
 
 
Figure 5.5. The importance of coordinating and sharing information about academic careers 

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

34%

33%

23%

6%

3%

Coordinating the sharing of information and best practice about academic careers and careers structures across
Member States.

Essential

Very Important

Important

Not Important

No opinion

Source: Ecorys, based on research carried out in 2023 to assess the current situation regarding academic staff in higher 
education in Europe. 

There  is  no  consolidated  list  of  innovative  centres  or  the  continuous  professional  development  and 
training offers that they provide. The existing Working Group on Higher Education325, coordinated by 
the European Commission, was cited as being an important potential focus for information gathering, 
along with the Observatory for Higher Education. Some examples of good practice are: 

Good practice examples at national and regional level 

The Centre for Teaching and Learning (Zentrum für Wissenschaftsdidaktik, ZfW) at Ruhr-University Bochum, 
Germany326 focuses on e-learning, didactics of higher education and academic writing. The Centre offers support 
to both teachers and students, with a view to improve teaching and learning at the university. 

‘Good Practice in Researcher Evaluation. Recommendation for the Responsible Evaluation of a Researcher in 
Finland’  is  a  national  recommendation  for  the  responsible  evaluation  of  a  researcher  in  Finland  and  includes 
‘Diversity of Activities’ as one of its core evaluation criteria, covering the role of teacher and supervisor, as well 
as societal impact and characteristics related to the field of research. The recommendation was adopted in February 
2020 and issued by a working group set up by the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies327. 

In Belgium, Wallonia’s National Fund for Scientific Research (F.R.S.-FNRS). The Board of Trustees approved 
its ‘Gender Equality Plan’ in April 2022, which includes actions to counter the gradual erosion of female presence 
throughout their academic careers, such as a mentoring programme for female researchers implemented, and the 
introduction of institutional structures to enhance gender balance, such as the appointment of a ‘gender contact 

325 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the group aims to promote mutual learning on policy reform of national 
education  systems  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  European  Education  Area  by  2025.  Membership  involves 
organisations, Member States’ authorities, other public entities including public entities from acceding and candidate countries, 
Iceland,  Liechtenstein  and  Norway,  Union  bodies,  offices  or  agencies  and 
international  organisations.  See 
https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/display/EAC/Higher+Education+Documents?preview=/48761849/55903424/EAC_ToR_Higher%
20Education.pdf  
326 Zentrum für Wissenschaftsdidaktik Ruhr-Universität Bochum, https://zfw.rub.de/welcome/  
327 Working Group for Responsible Evaluation of a Researcher, Good practice in researcher evaluation. recommendation for 
the 
7,  V2, 
evaluation 
2020https://edition.fi/tsv/catalog/view/170/128/567-1  

in  Finland,  Responsible  Research 

responsible 

researcher 

Series 

of 

a 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
person’  for  all  actions  pertaining  to  gender  issues.  There  is  systematic  monitoring  of  gender  data  with  yearly 
reports328. 

Charles University, in the Czech Republic, has appointed an institution-wide pedagogical skills coordinator329. 
This will be a long process of culture change in a large university, where a new vice-rector was appointed in 2022 
to  focus  on  enhancing  pedagogical  skills  across  the  university  faculty.  There  are  two  main  challenges:  first, 
resistance  from  faculty  members  to  engage  with  what  they  see  as  another  element  of  workload  (motivation, 
recognition and reward are not evident); second, there is a lack of skilled personnel who can give the training. 
They  also  need  a  clear  competence  framework  within  which  training  can  be  focused,  and  also  to  provide  a 
mechanism for recognition. 

In  Ireland,  developments  have  been  more  at  the  system  level,  with  mergers  of  universities  and  other  higher 
education institutions, resulting in a need to define who can ‘teach’ and what (if any) qualification is required. 
Ireland (with 7 ‘traditional’ universities) and a broad range of higher education institutions330, has seen a change 
in  focus  through  a  new  government  Department  of  Further  and  Higher  Education,  Research,  Innovation  and 
Science331.  It  has  a  focus  on  enhancing  accessibility  and  has  established  mergers332  between  technical  higher 
education institutions and universities to give a broad teaching and learning offer.  

5.3.3   Attractive working conditions and social protection 

Human Resource Policies: recruitment, contract conditions, and remuneration 

How higher education institutions recruit, who they recruit, into what disciplinary or interdisciplinary 
areas,  the  types  of  contracts,  and  levels  of  remuneration,  strongly  influence  the  performance  of  the 
institution in teaching and learning and research.  

The literature and other sources analysed presented a wide array of challenges related to the working 
conditions of staff in higher education institutions. This relates both to pressures to undertake specific 
work within short-term contracts, and to the ways in which academics are allocated their workload. 

Levels of job security vary across countries, with some higher education systems appointing academic 
staff with the expectation of a lifelong career as civil servants (although this may not be open to all 
staff); on the other hand, stability is often determined by the career level, with junior academics facing 
more precarious conditions333.  In recent years, higher education institutions have paid more attention 
to the conditions for postdoctoral researchers. Researchers increasingly remain in this position for many 

Committee, 

celoživotního 

learning:  Crafting  Engaging 

328 Qualitative and Quantitative Data on National Trends in Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy,  Women and 
Sciences 
https://stip.oecd.org/stip/interactive-dashboards/policy-
initiatives/2023%2Fdata%2FpolicyInitiatives%2F25527  
329  Centrum 
vzdělávání,  Active 
https://cczv.cuni.cz/CCZV-449.html  
330 Higher education in Ireland is provided by universities, technological universities, institutes of technology and colleges of 
education. In addition, a number of other third-level institutions provide specialist education in fields such as art and design, 
medicine,  business  studies,  rural  development,  theology,  music  and  law,  https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/175f3-
further-education/  
331 
Department 
https://www.gov.ie/en/organisation/department-of-higher-education-innovation-and-science/#  
332 Higher Education Authority, The landscape of higher education is changing. New types of institutions are being formed, 
and  other  institutions  are  engaging  in  strong  alliances,  including  consolidation  and  mergers,  https://hea.ie/policy/he-
reform/the-changing-landscape/  
333 European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Crosier, D., Kocanova, D., Birch, P., Davykovskaia, O., Parveva, T., 
Eurydice 
2017, 
https://www.eurydice.si/publikacije/Eurydice-Brief_Modernisation-of-Higher-Education-in-Europe_Academic-Staff-2017-
EN.pdf 

Learning  Environments, 

Brief.  Modernisation 

Innovation 

Education, 

Education 

Academic 

Research, 

Science, 

Europe: 

Further 

Higher 

Higher 

staff, 

and 

and 

of 

of 

in 

108 

 
 
 
 
years,  sometimes  even  in  situations  where  there  is  just  a  small  hope  of  long-term  employment  in 
academia334.  

‘Academics across Europe face decreasing job security due to budget constraints, reduced employment 
opportunities, and increasing precarity. Academics play a vital role for quality education and research in 

universities and their decent working conditions and fair salary should be addressed by the initiative’. 

European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) – Call for Evidence. 

The  term  ‘research  precariat’  emerged  in  the  literature,  indicating  the  condition  of  postdoctoral 
researchers  holding  fixed-term  positions  without  permanent  or  continuous  employment  prospects. 
Countries  are  addressing  research  precariat  by  taking  policy  action  in  a  variety  of  areas,  such  as 
recruitment, employment status, working conditions, professional development and mobility335. It is 
important to highlight that precarity affects not only research staff. For example, in the UK, 46% of 
universities  and  60%  of  colleges  use  zero  hours  contracts  to  deliver  teaching.  Staff  on  short-term 
contracts in UK universities can be ‘second-class academics’336.  

A survey of doctorate holders in Europe showed that while 87% of doctorate holders were employed 
on permanent full-time contracts in industry and about 70% in government, in academia it was only 
56% and in research organisations 57%337.  

The message from the literature is that human resource management policies across European higher 
education institutions need to be both ‘fit for purpose’ for modern teaching and learning needs, and 
consistent across countries to fully facilitate the flow of mobile academic staff across the  European 
Education Area. Yet, a study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development noted 
that higher education institutions often do not have enough human resource management capacity338. 
Despite initiatives such as EU RESAVER339, the different employment statuses of academics across 
different European countries translate into limited cross-border portability of social security and pension 
schemes, restricting the international mobility of academic staff340.  

A recent study notes that one of the changes in academic career recruitment is that it is increasingly 
human resource sections that decide who enters the academic profession, rather than the academics341. 
However,  the  value  of  a  strategic  view  of  human  resource  involvement  is  evident  in  the  Central 
European Institute of Technology, which adopted a new recruitment policy requiring a human resources 
manager to be involved in all recruitment. The change gave human resources access to data, and they 

in 

and 

2022, 

current 

Europe: 

334 European University Association (EUA), Council for Doctoral Education, Hasgall, A., Peneoasu, A., Survey on Doctoral 
education 
https://eua-
trends, 
developments 
cde.org/downloads/publications/web_council%20on%20doctoral%20education_horizontal.pdf 
335  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD),  Reducing  the  precarity  of  academic  research 
careers, OECD  Science,  Technology  and 
Industry  Policy  Papers,  No.  113,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris, 
2021, https://doi.org/10.1787/0f8bd468-en 
336 University and College Union, Stamp out casual contracts, https://www.ucu.org.uk/stampout  
337 European Science Foundation (ESF), Boman, J., Beeson, H., Sanchez Barrioluengo, M., Rusitoru, M., What comes after a 
PhD? Findings from the DocEnhance survey of doctorate holders on their employment situation, skills match, and the value 
of the doctorate, 2021, https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7188085  
338  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD),  Reducing  the  precarity  of  academic  research 
careers, OECD  Science,  Technology  and 
Industry  Policy  Papers,  No.  113,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris, 
2021, https://doi.org/10.1787/0f8bd468-en  
339  EU  RESAVER  is  a  single  European  pension  fund  for  individual  employees  of  research  organisations  in  the  European 
Education Area. It aims to help foster mobility and create an attractive labour market for researchers. https://www.resaver.eu/  
340 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on A new ERA for Research 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
and 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0214  
341 Deem, R., On doctoral (in)visibility and reframing the doctorate for the twenty-first century, European Journal of Higher 
Education, 12:4, 373-392, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2105370   

SWD(2020) 

Innovation 

30.9.2020, 

214, 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
were able to evaluate how many people apply, who they are and where they are coming from342. A new 
‘welcome  office’  manager  was  hired  to  assist  international  recruits  in  finding  their  way  around  the 
country and dealing with formalities such as visas, renting a house and finding childcare. 

Innovations in recruitment policies are important for higher education institutions to attract a variety of 
international and multidisciplinary talents. Some countries are making their visa process smoother, with 
new  academic  recruitment  drives,  visa  schemes  and  open-door  policies343.  However,  there  remain 
significant challenges through the prevalence of the English language in international higher education. 
The  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  notes  that,  as  a  result,  the  United 
Kingdom and Australia are examples of very competitive markets in attracting non-local academics344. 
There are examples of flexible contracting approaches that are focused more on researchers, but less so 
for teachers. 

The University of Antwerp has remodelled its academic staff recruitment application form to ensure an 
increased  focus  on  quality  and  avoid  that  single  metrics  (e.g.,  publication  records)  define  the  first 
selection round. Applicants are asked to indicate key achievements not only in research, but also in 
education and service to society, and to reflect on their leadership development journey in a standardised 
format that allows for objective comparison of applicants345. 

In Canada, the British Columbia Public Scholars gives academics two years of funding to orient their 
research planning and findings towards public participation and dissemination346.  

In Germany,347 there is a different emphasis on assessing academic careers between institutions with 
different teaching and research traditions. For Universities of Applied Science, there is an expectation 
that appointees to professorial positions will have experience beyond academia, and the teaching load 
is  about  twice  that  in  universities.  For  universities,  the  expectation  is  that  appointees  will  have 
postdoctoral  qualifications  and  experience  in  junior  academic  positions,  whereas  teaching-related 
criteria are taken into account to a lesser extent. 

As part of the funding model reform, Croatia and Slovakia have planned changes to contracts in higher 
education348. In 2022 in Spain349, a reform has increased job security for researchers by introducing a 
new type of indefinite work contract for all researchers, greater job security for postdocs (with contracts 
for  up  to  six  years),  and  recognition  of  experience  gained  abroad,  which  will  make  it  easier  for 
researchers to come back or move to Spain. Measures to ensure better gender balance are also included 
along  with  protocols  against  gender-  and  sexual-oriented  discrimination  and  sexual  harassment 
(following Horizon Europe requirements). Other measures include reforms to reduce the administrative 

2022, 

342 Zubașcu, F., New recruitment strategies help research managers attract talent to eastern Europe, Science Business, March 
22, 
https://sciencebusiness.net/widening/news/new-recruitment-strategies-help-research-managers-attract-talent-
eastern-europe 
343 Matthews, D., and Hudson, R., Scientific ‘war for talent’ heats up as pandemic restrictions ease, Science Business, January 
4, 2022, https://sciencebusiness.net/news/scientific-war-talent-heats-pandemic-restrictions-ease  
344  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD),  Reducing  the  precarity  of  academic  research 
careers, OECD  Science,  Technology  and 
Industry  Policy  Papers,  No.  113,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris, 
2021, https://doi.org/10.1787/0f8bd468-en 
345 Young European Research Universities Network (YERUN), Roquero da Costa Pinto, I.,  Gomez  Recio, S., Colella, C., 
Rethinking  Academic  careers:  Cultural  change  as  a  key  bottleneck  to  be  addressed,  2022,  https://yerun.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2022/06/YERUN-RethinkingAcademicVFinalSpreads.pdf  
346 Deem, R., On doctoral (in)visibility and reframing the doctorate for the twenty-first century, European Journal of Higher 
Education, 12:4, 373-392, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2105370  
347  Kleimann,  B.,  Hückstädt,  M.,  Selection  criteria  in  professorial  recruiting  as  indicators  of  institutional  similarity?  A 
comparison of German universities and universities of applied sciences, Quality in Higher Education, 27:2, 168-183, 2021, 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1889760  
348  European  University  Association  (EUA),  Bennetat  Pruvot,  E.,  Estermann,  T.,  NextGenerationEU:  What  do  National 
Recovery 
2021, 
hold 
https://eua.eu/resources/publications/984:nextgenerationeu-what-do-national-recovery-and-resilience-plans-hold-for-
universities.html  
349  Naujokaitytė,  G.,  Spain  votes  through  overhaul  of  research  careers,  Science  Business,  August  30,  2022, 
https://sciencebusiness.net/news/spain-votes-through-overhaul-research-careers  

universities?, 

Resilience 

Briefing, 

Plans 

and 

for 

110 

 
 
 
burden in the research and development sector and facilitate knowledge transfer and public procurement 
of innovation. 

In France, national reform aiming to promote excellence has enabled the emergence of professional 
figures such as project managers who play key roles in the successful delivery of excellence projects 
and  can  champion  community  engagements  and  outreach.  However,  they  often  face  precarious 
contractual  conditions350,  which  is  particularly  relevant  in  the  context  of funding increasingly  being 
allocated on the basis of calls for projects/tenders in higher education351. 

Remuneration is key to attracting and retaining academic staff, but differences across countries in the 
costs  of  living  have  an  impact  on  recruitment  and  mobility.  The  2022  index  of  household  price 
consumption352 shows how many currency units a given quantity of goods and services costs in different 
countries,  where  100  is  the  EU-27  average.  The  index  shows  a  significant  gap  between  the  most 
expensive countries such as Ireland (146) and Denmark (145), and the least expensive, which include 
Poland (62), Bulgaria (59), and Romania (58).  

Similarly, there also are big differences across national economies in the number and proportion of low-
wage earners353. For example, the level of remuneration for researchers/academics in France is not only 
lower than the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and European averages but 
also  lower  than  civil  service  salaries  and  even  more  so  compared  to  private  sector  wages.  This  is 
particularly acute for early careers researchers/academics, who are paid 63% of the average entry-level 
salary in Europe and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.  

Researchers in France at the highest end of the spectrum are paid only 91% of the European average 
maximum salary and 84% of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development  average 
maximum salary. This situation contributes to the decreasing attractiveness of careers in public research 
and the brain are also the best talents. Remuneration is also low for technical support staff working at 
research organisations and universities354.  

The proposal for a Council Recommendation European framework for attractive and sustainable careers 
in higher education that is included in this higher education package cannot in itself influence wage and 
cost of living levels, but it can encourage Member States to make academic careers more attractive and 
sustainable through activities such as funding higher education to counter imbalances, and the exchange 
of good practice and policy reviews (such as peer counselling).  

Workload allocation and pressures 

According  to  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development,  the  use  of  precarious 
contracts in higher education institutions impacts on the wellbeing of academic staff and on the ability 
of academia to attract and retain talent – especially when combined with long working hours, an overly 
competitive  academic  culture,  and  poor  interpersonal  relationships355.  While  some  elements  of  this 

for 

level 

final  household  consumption  expenditure 

350  Precarious  contracts  include  repeatedly  renewed  short-term  contracts,  part-time  contracts,  non-standard  contracts,  zero 
hours contracts. 
351 Harroche, A., Les petites mains de l’excellence. Place et rôle des chargées de projet dans la mise en œuvre d’une Initiative 
d’excellence, Revue française d'administration publique, 169, 151-167, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.169.0151 
352  Eurostat,  Price 
index 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=File:Price_level_index_for_final_household_consumption_expenditure_(HFCE)_2022,_(EU%3D
100).png  
353 Eurostat, Earnings statistics, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Earnings_statistics  
354 Berta, P., Mauguin, P., Tunon de Lara, M., Attractivité des emplois et des carrières scientifiques, Loi de Programmation 
Pluriannuelle 
https://www.enseignementsup-
recherche.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/content_migration/document/RAPPORT_FINAL_GT2_Attractivite_des_emplois_et_de
s_carrieres_1178464.pdf  
355 OECD (2024), "The state of academic careers in OECD countries: An evidence review", OECD Education Policy 
Perspectives, No. 91, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea9d3108-en. 

(HFCE)  2022, 

Rechereche, 

(EU=100), 

2019, 

de 

la 

111 

 
 
 
problem have been recognised, institutional responses tend to focus on encouraging individual rather 
than structural change.   

The survey conducted by Ecorys revealed that there are strong concerns about short-term precarious 
contracts in both teaching and research (Figure 5.6). Half of survey respondents (55%) disagreed that 
existing higher education policy and regulations minimise the use of fixed-term contracts. 

Figure 5.6. The impact of existing regulation on the use of precarious contracts 

Source: Ecorys, based on research carried out in 2023 to assess the current situation regarding academic staff in higher 
education in Europe. 

About two thirds of survey respondents reported negative attitudes towards the distribution of workload 
of academic staff in terms of fair distribution across staff types and seniority levels (68%), and roles 
(70%).  Respondents  pointed  out  that  workload  is typically  heavier  for  staff  with  research roles  and 
junior staff. Transparent mechanisms to assess the workload of academic staff also appear to be lacking 
according to most respondents (72%). 

Workload  pressures  can  also  lead  to  burnout  among  academic  staff.  An  analytical  review  from  the 
Network of Experts working on the Social dimension of Education and Training (NESET) mentions an 
international study which confirms that university employees that face precarious working conditions, 
particularly women, often experience high levels of burnout as a consequence of having to work harder 
to earn respect for their contributions, find their place, and keep it356. 

Additional challenges exist in the realm of up-skilling and re-skilling of higher education staff so that 
they  can  cope  better  with  the  changing  demands  of  an  academic  career.  The  Commission 
Communication on a European strategy for universities, calls for educational staff across the EU to be 
equipped with the green and digital skills for the future and the innovation and technological potential 
of universities needs to be put at work to tackle related societal challenges357.  

Staff should have opportunities for training on sustainability, to understand its relevance to their role 
and context; such opportunities should be recognised as professional development – and can support 

356 Riva, E., Lister, K., and Jeglinska, W. (2023). Student and staff mental well-being in European higher education institutions, 
NESET report, p. 39. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2766/933130 
357  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  The  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for universities, 18.1.2022 Com(2022) 16, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A16%3AFIN  

112 

 
 
 
 
their  career358.  There  is  also  a  need  for  training  courses  that  would  enable  teaching  staff  to  embed 
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in their teaching methods and materials, and to 
improve effectiveness359.   

Stronger synergies between the European Education Area and the European Research Area are seen as 
essential to ensure talent flow in academic careers, as employers need highly skilled and specialised 
labour, which higher education institutions could provide. However, while there is a clear EU policy 
focus on teaching and learning modernisation and innovation, the literature emphasises more researcher 
careers at the expense of teachers and teaching and learning in higher education.  

Norway has acknowledged this challenge. A government white paper to enhance the quality culture of 
higher  education  in  Norway  called  in  2017  for  the  development  of  career  tracks  of  academics 
prioritising  teaching  (over  research),  pedagogical  training  for  all  teaching  positions  (and  higher 
demands for higher positions), the investigation of the option of having specific professor positions 
with  competencies  from  industry  and  business,  and  compulsory  international  cooperation  (of  study 
programmes)360.  The  Norwegian  government  now  requires  higher  education  institutions  to  develop 
pedagogical merit systems to encourage more teaching initiatives and to reward important development 
work361. 

Financing models in higher education 

The European strategy for universities observes that funding of universities is often insufficient to fulfil 
their growing societal missions. Investment has either declined despite growing numbers of students or 
has not increased at the same pace362. Underfunding widens gaps among higher education institutions 
and across Member States, with an uneven playing field and an increased competition for resources363. 

A study for the European University Association364 underlined that adequate investment with sufficient 
and sustainable core funding and the ability to diversify funding streams are essential success factors 
for the future of universities. The COVID-19 pandemic led to additional investment needs and loss of 
revenues. Across Member States there are different funding mechanisms for teaching, research, and 
infrastructure, dependencies on national funding frameworks (and their budgetary pressures), reliance 
on  student fees,  and  an  uncertain  flow  of  external  finance from  commercial  contracts,  and research 
grants.  

Some funding models have particular impacts on academic career paths and higher education staff job 
security. For example, in Sweden, the key drawback of the high level of external funding is that many 

14.1.2022, 

sustainability, 

environmental 

358 Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on learning 
for 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
SWD/2022/3, 
content/EN/ALL/?uri=SWD:2022:3:FIN  
359 Guillén-Gámez, F.D., Cabero-Almenara, J., Llorente-Cejudo, C. et al. Differential Analysis of the Years of Experience of 
Higher Education Teachers, their Digital Competence and Use of Digital Resources: Comparative Research Methods. Tech 
Know Learn 27, 1193–1213, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09531-4 
360  Myklebust,  J.,  White  paper  calls  for  quality  culture  improvement,  University  World  News,  February  4,  2017, 
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170204095749569  
361  Norwegian  Ministry  of  Education  and  Research,  New  White  Paper  on  Quality 
http://www.qnhe.no/?p=399  
362 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for universities, 18.1.2022 Com(2022) 16, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A16%3AFIN 
363  Myklebust,  J.,  Humanities  research  vital  to  tackling  societal  challenges,  University  World  News,  February  13,  2021,  
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210213082320720 
364 European University Association (EUA), Thomas Ekman Jørgensen, Anna-Lena Claeys-Kulik, Pathways to the future: A 
follow up to “Universities without walls  – a vision for 2030”, 2021, https://eua.eu/resources/publications/983:pathways-to-
the-future.html 

in  Norway,  2017, 

113 

 
 
 
academic roles, even permanent ones, are not fully covered by institutional finances, and careers can be 
precarious365. 

Balancing funding for teaching (dependent often on student numbers and affected by whether higher 
education institutions are allocated student numbers centrally or recruit students via fees) and research 
(dependent  on  core  funding,  research  grants,  and  external  contracts)  is  part  of  the  challenge  for 
institutional  sustainability.  The  literature  also  showed  that  some  geographic  disparities  exist  when 
securing funding, especially between the East and West of Europe. Researchers in countries that joined 
the  EU  after  2004  won  a  small  percentage  of  the  total  funding  available  through  the  European 
Commission’s framework research programmes366. 

Examples of national reform related to (albeit more for research) funding of higher education have been 
cited in the literature. In August 2022 the Spanish Congress approved a reform of the 2011 science, 
technology  and  innovation  law.  The  reform  boosts  public  spending  on  research  with  an  increase  of 
public research spending to 1.25% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2030, which will help Spain’s 
research  spending  to  reach  the  EU  average  (being  0.9  percentage  points  lower  than  the  average  in 
2020)367.  

The  Italian  National  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan  has  included  EUR  3  billion  for  inclusion  and 
cohesion, and for strengthening the provision of lifelong learning. Croatia has implemented a training 
and upskilling programme voucher scheme, notably for green and digital knowledge368. 

Despite the funding of higher education institutions not being an area for direct action at EU level, there 
are  aspects  where  there  might  be  added  value  have  been  identified  in  the  literature.  The  European 
University  Association  views  public  authorities  as  responsible  for  allocating  core  public  funds 
corresponding to the growing responsibilities of universities, and for ensuring them financial autonomy, 
also through European funding programmes369.  

NextGenerationEU  investment  and  reform  components  have  elements  that  are  relevant  for  higher 
education systems. For governance and funding, these include the creation or enhancement of specific 
regulatory/advisory/funding bodies, an overhaul of the regulatory framework, changes to the university 
funding model and large-scale concentration measures370. 

The  2022  Council  Recommendation  on  building  bridges  for  effective  European  higher  education 
cooperation  has  aimed  to  create  strong  inter-connected  higher  education  institutions  to  tackle  the 
challenges related to green and digital transitions and to an ageing population, and to secure Europe’s 
capacity to boost technology-driven  competitiveness.  It  recommends that Member  States  commit to 
sustaining  financial  support  for  European  Universities  Alliances  and  to  deepen  transnational 

365  Myklebust,  J.,  Investigator  proposes  overhaul  of  university  funding,  University  World  News,  February  15,  2021, 
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190214103125883 
366  Between  2014  and  2020,  these  countries  were  awarded  less  than  6%  of  the  Horizon  2020  budget.  Zubașcu,  F.,  New 
recruitment  strategies  help  research  managers  attract  talent  to  Eastern  Europe,  Science  Business,  March  24,  2022, 
https://sciencebusiness.net/widening/news/new-recruitment-strategies-help-research-managers-attract-talent-eastern-europe 
367  Naujokaitytė,  G.,  Spain  votes  through  overhaul  of  research  careers,  Science  Business,  August  30,  2022,  
https://sciencebusiness.net/news/spain-votes-through-overhaul-research-careers  
368  European  University  Association  (EUA,  Bennetat  Pruvot,  E.,  Estermann,  T.,  NextGenerationEU:  What  do  National 
Recovery 
2021, 
hold 
https://eua.eu/resources/publications/984:nextgenerationeu-what-do-national-recovery-and-resilience-plans-hold-for-
universities.html; Croatia Public Expenditure Review in Science, Technology and Innovation, Report on Smart Skills, 2022, 
https://mzo.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/EUfondovi/Report-on-Smart-Skills---7-2023.pdf 
369  European  University  Association 
(EUA), 
https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/universities%20without%20walls%20%20a%20vision%20for%202030.pdf 
370  European  University  Association  (EUA),  Bennetat  Pruvot,  E.,  Estermann,  T.,  NextGenerationEU:  What  do  National 
2021, 
hold 
Recovery 
https://eua.eu/resources/publications/984:nextgenerationeu-what-do-national-recovery-and-resilience-plans-hold-for-
universities.htmlhttps://eua.eu/resources/publications/984:nextgenerationeu-what-do-national-recovery-and-resilience-plans-
hold-for-universities.html 

‘Universities  without  walls:  A  vision 

for  2030’,  2021, 

universities?, 

universities?, 

Resilience 

Resilience 

Briefing, 

Briefing, 

Plans 

Plans 

and 

and 

for 

for 

114 

 
 
 
institutional  cooperation  in  higher  education.  It  encourages  higher  education  institutions  to  involve 
learners, academics, and researchers more in the governance of transnational cooperation structures371.  

Institutional structures 

The internal organisation of higher education institutions (for example along historical faculties and 
disciplinary silos) will determine how teaching, learning and research are organised thematically. The 
institutional structures of higher education refer to numerous aspects of its management and functioning 
and involve: the accessibility and availability of its outputs and publications to the general public (Open 
Science372 and the sharing of teaching and learning resources)373; the transparency and inclusiveness of 
governance structures374; openness towards external (transnational) collaboration; responsiveness to the 
evolving  needs  of  teaching  and  learning  (including  digitalisation)375;  regulatory  frameworks;  and 
quality assurance processes.  

The success of initiatives such as digitalisation depends on the state of existing regulatory and quality 
frameworks in an institution. If these frameworks do not permit flexibility to innovate, it becomes more 
difficult to make strides towards institutional changes376.  

Legal and administrative challenges exist, such as the possible hindrance to joint degrees awards posed 
by national legal frameworks and regulation, and the varying requirements related to curriculum design 
and delivery in different higher education systems377. 

Strategies  governing  the  institutional  structures  of  higher  education  institutions  impact  academic 
careers. For example, institutional orientation towards privatisation and private financing has impacts 
on  which  fields  receive  investment  or  attention  (often  negatively  impacting  the  humanities)378.  The 
institutional  buy-in  of knowledge-based  economy (KBE)  models  can  divert  resources  into research, 
creating pressures in many universities to reduce teaching costs and therefore teaching time. 

Data from a European University Association survey shows that leadership buy-in plays a key role in 
the achievement of the green transition and Sustainable Development Goals379. This shows how the 
values and principles influencing the governing structures of the institution have impacts on teaching 
staff  and  the  valuing  of  different  higher  education  professionals380.  The  decisions  that  institutional 
structures make on funding can also impact how teaching and research are conducted and the procedures 
that  academics  must  adhere  to.  For  example,  when  institutions  accept  European  funding  such  as 

and 

Open 

Science, 

European 

innovation: 

Commission, 

https://research-and-

371  Proposal  for  a  Council  Recommendation  on  building  bridges  for  effective  European  higher  education  cooperation, 
COM(2022)  17,  18.2.2022,  https://education.ec.europa.eu/document/proposal-for-a-council-recommendation-on-building-
bridges-for-effective-european-higher-education-cooperation 
372 
Research 
innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/our-digital-future/open-science_en  
373 European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Meijer, I., Chan, T., The Netherlands’ plan on 
open science – Open science monitor case study, Publications Office, 2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/19799. 
374 European University Association (EUA), Briefing from Europe’s universities to the EU Council Presidency Trio: France, 
Czech Republic, Sweden, 2021, https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/trio%20briefing.pdf 
375 Cendon, E., Lifelong Learning at Universities: Future Perspectives for Teaching and Learning. Journal of New Approaches 
in Educational Research, 7(2), 81-87, 2018,  https://naerjournal.ua.es/article/view/v7n2-1  
376  Organisation  for Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD), The State  of  Higher  Education: One  Year into  the 
COVID-19  Pandemic,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris,  2021,  https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/the-state-of-higher-
education_83c41957-en  
377  European  University  Association  (EUA),  Considerations 
https://eua.eu/resources/publications/1026:considerations-for-a-%E2%80%9Ceuropean-degree%E2%80%9D.html  
378  Myklebust,  J.,  Humanities  research  vital  to  tackling  societal  challenges,  University  World  News,  February,  13,  2021,  
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210213082320720 
379 Gaebel, M., and Stoeber, H., Getting higher education working for a greener Europe, University World News, May 29, 
2021, https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210528092502495  
380  Jessop,  B.,  Varieties  of  academic  capitalism  and  entrepreneurial  universities. High  Educ 73,  853–870,  2017, 
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10734-017-0120-6.pdf 

for  a  “European  Degree”,  policy 

input,  2022, 

115 

 
 
 
Erasmus+  they  will  be  also  accepting  the  new  Green  Charter381  that  promotes  the  sustainable 
implementation of activities382. 

Institutional  structures  influence  human  resource  management  and  the  rewards,  recognition,  and 
recruitment  of  staff.  Everyone,  especially  teachers  and  educational  staff,  needs  to  be  involved  in 
decision-making383:  Higher  education  institutions  are  organisations  of  learning,  in  which  academic 
decision-making authority should be distributed384, involving all learners, academics and researchers 
more in the governance of cooperation structures385. In some higher education institutions in France, 
some recruitment competitions for research directors and university professorships have become almost 
internal competitions. This undermines career mobility and the extent to which researchers external to 
an  institution  or  who  are  returning  after  an  external  activity  fear  being  penalised  by  the  promotion 
criteria386.  

The Strategy for European Universities recommends that Member States commit to sustaining financial 
support for European Universities alliances, and to open up their institutions to deepen transnational 
institutional cooperation in higher education governance structures387. Indeed, international cooperation 
is identified to be a prerequisite for high quality research and innovation and learning and teaching, 
together  with  flexible  learning  and  career  paths388,  and  this  has  implications  for  the  management 
approaches of higher education institutions. 

The European University Association briefing paper on the position of and opportunities for higher 
education in national recovery plans in the context of NextGenerationEU indicates that on the topic of 
institutional  governance  and  funding  higher  education  institutions  can  focus  on  the  creation  or 
enhancement  of:  specific  regulatory/advisory/funding  bodies  (Bulgaria,  France,  Luxembourg,  and 
Romania);  the  overhaul  of  the  regulatory  framework  (Bulgaria,  Hungary,  Latvia,  and  Slovakia); 
changes to the university funding model (Bulgaria, Spain, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia); 
and large-scale concentration measures (Bulgaria, Ireland, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia)389. 

In recent years, support structures390 for the education of doctoral candidates (who need to be educated 
in  both  research  and  career  development)  have  increased  significantly,  and  many  higher  education 
institutions  have  introduced  structural  doctoral  education  throughout  doctoral  schools  and  doctoral 
programmes. As a result of this development, universities have had to equip themselves with adequate 

for 

INI 

Corps 

report, 

expertise 

Solidarity 

Concomitant 

programmes, 

381  European  Parliament,  Research  for  CULT  Committee  -  Effective  measures  to  ‘green’  Erasmus+, Creative  Europe and 
European 
2020, 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/629218/IPOL_IDA(2020)629218_EN.pdf  
382 Gaebel, M., and Stoeber, H., Getting higher education working for a greener Europe, University World News, May 29, 
2021, https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210528092502495 
383  European  Training  Foundation,  Stanley,  J., Listening  to  vocational  teachers  and  principals  –  Results  of  the  ETF’s 
international survey 2018, Publications Office of the European Union, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2816/151700 
384 http://www.qnhe.no/?p=399 
385    Proposal  for  a  Council  Recommendation  on  building  bridges  for  effective  European  higher  education  cooperation, 
COM(2022)  17,  18.2.2022,  https://education.ec.europa.eu/document/proposal-for-a-council-recommendation-on-building-
bridges-for-effective-european-higher-education-cooperation 
386 Berta, P., Mauguin, P., Tunon de Lara, M., Attractivité des emplois et des carrières scientifiques, Loi de  Programmation 
https://www.enseignementsup-
Pluriannuelle 
recherche.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/content_migration/document/RAPPORT_FINAL_GT2_Attractivite_des_emplois_et_de
s_carrieres_1178464.pdf  
387  Proposal  for  a  Council  Recommendation  on  building  bridges  for  effective  European  higher  education  cooperation, 
COM(2022)  17,  18.2.2022,  https://education.ec.europa.eu/document/proposal-for-a-council-recommendation-on-building-
bridges-for-effective-european-higher-education-cooperation  
388  European  University  Association 
https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/universities%20without%20walls%20%20a%20vision%20for%202030.pdf  
389  European  University  Association  (EUA),  Bennetat  Pruvot,  E.,  Estermann,  T.,  NextGenerationEU:  What  do  National 
Recovery 
2021, 
hold 
https://eua.eu/resources/publications/984:nextgenerationeu-what-do-national-recovery-and-resilience-plans-hold-for-
universities.html  
390  European  University  Association  (EUA),  ‘Building  the  Foundations  of  Research:  A  Vision  for  the  Future  of  Doctoral 
Education in Europe’, 2022, https://eua.eu/resources/publications/1028:building-the-foundations-of-research.html  

(EUA),  Universities  without  walls:  A 

for  2030,  2021, 

universities?, 

Rechereche, 

Resilience 

Briefing, 

vision 

Plans 

2019, 

and 

for 

de 

la 

116 

 
 
 
specialist  staff  to  respond to  the  growing  needs  of  doctoral  candidates391.  Since  doctoral  candidates 
become post-doctoral researchers, who then are recruited as academic staff in the longer term, the extent 
to which post-doctoral researchers are prepared for teaching becomes an important consideration. 

The  literature  also  notes  that  performance  agreements  can  strengthen  the  relationship  between  the 
higher  education  sector  and  public  authorities,  provided  the  negotiation  is  based  on  a  real  dialogue 
between institutions and their funding authority undertaken in a spirit of mutual respect392. There is also 
an opportunity to reinforce cultures of quality, starting with quality in institutional structures. Higher 
education institutions that succeed in developing both high-quality teaching and research are permeated 
by  a  culture  of  quality  at  every  level  and  typically  have  management  teams  that  clearly  prioritise 
educational quality393. 

Values and academic freedom 

The  European  Union  core  values394  emphasise  human  dignity,  freedom  of  movement,  democracy, 
equality, and the rule of law. These principles should underpin two core academic values: that higher 
education institutions should be free of external pressures (institutional autonomy); and that academic 
staff should be free of any external interference – including political or economic – to teach or research 
in a particular manner (academic freedom).  

The  EU  emphasises  the  fundamentals  of  freedom  and  democracy  in  the  European  Pillar  of  Social 
Rights395 and in the Treaty on European Union396, the importance of which was acknowledged in the 
European Strategy for Universities. The European University Association acknowledges the central role 
of both regulatory frameworks and the actions of higher education institutions to protect freedoms and 
autonomy397.  

The European Charter for Researchers, published in December 2023398brings European added value 
given the existing fragmentation of research careers in Europe at local, regional, national and sectoral 
level, which keeps Europe from maximising its scientific potential.  

However, there are factors that impinge on these core values. There can be political interference relating 
to which academic teaching and research fields are acceptable. This can happen through direct political 
pressure, through directed funding, through specific conditions being attached to business contracts, 
and  through  the  appointment  of  specific  leadership  roles.  There  can  be  civil  society  pressure  on 
academic staff through media coverage and campaigns or through social media. Job security can be 
weakened, putting pressure on academic staff to comply with particular contractual conditions in order 
to be eligible for another position.  

in 

and 

2022, 

current 

Europe: 

education 

391 European University Association (EUA), Council for Doctoral Education, Hasgall, A., Peneoasu, A., Survey on Doctoral 
education 
https://eua-
trends, 
developments 
cde.org/downloads/publications/web_council%20on%20doctoral%20education_horizontal.pdf 
392  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD),  Resourcing  higher  education  in  Ireland: Funding 
higher 
institutions, OECD  Education  Policy  Perspectives,  No.  51,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris, 
2022 https://doi.org/10.1787/67dd76e0-en 
393  Norwegian  Ministry  of  Education  and  Research,  New  White  Paper  on  Quality 
http://www.qnhe.no/?p=399  
394  European  Union,  Aims  and  values,  https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-
values/aims-and-values_en  
395 European Commission, Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion: European Pillar of Social Rights - Building a fairer and 
more inclusive European Union, https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/economy-works-people/jobs-growth-
and-investment/european-pillar-social-rights_en  
396European  Union,  Consolidated  version  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union,  2012  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT  
397  European University Association (EUA), Thomas Ekman Jørgensen, Anna-Lena Claeys-Kulik, Pathways to the future: A 
follow up to “Universities without walls  – a vision for 2030”, 2021, https://eua.eu/resources/publications/983:pathways-to-
the-future.html 
398 Euraxess, The European Charter for Researchers, https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/charter/european-charter  

in  Norway,  2017, 

117 

 
 
 
A recent report on academic freedom by the European Parliament points out that a ‘critical framework 
condition is the level of public funding.’399 According to the report, low levels of public funding can 
push  higher  education  institutions  to  look  for  external  funding  sources,  including  private  funding. 
However,  a  growing  dependence  on  non-governmental  funding  can  come  with  specific  conditions 
attached that may influence and even direct the focus of academics’ work. 

Institutional autonomy is an opportunity for higher education institutions to protect their core principles 
and make independent decisions on internal governance, financial, staffing, and academic matters, and 
protect their academic freedom. In the European University Association's vision of the higher education 
institutions  of  the  future,  universities  must  enjoy  significant  autonomy  and  the  capacity  to  make 
strategic choices on organisational, financial, staffing, and academic matters400. 

While higher education institutions across Europe have a history of autonomy, this is being challenged. 
For example, a proposed reform from the Norwegian Ministry to change the Universities and Colleges 
Act will see a university board chairman appointed by the Ministry of Education and Research, thus 
potentially  preventing  academics  from  being  involved  and  potentially  undermining  university 
autonomy401. 

Academic freedom is essential for higher education. The Council conclusions on a European strategy 
empowering higher education institutions for the future of Europe402 emphasised that ‘the EU should 
be positioned as a safe haven for academic freedom and democratic principles’. Furthermore, it called 
on  ‘the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  promote  and  protect  fundamental  academic  values, 
including academic freedom and integrity’. 

However, the 2023 Academic Freedom Index (AFi) shows variations in academic freedom across the 
EU. While Belgium, Czechia, and Estonia are in the top 10% regarding academic freedom, Greece and 
Poland are  only  in the  top  40-50%,  whereas  Hungary  is in  the  bottom  10-20%403.  As  the  European 
University Association has warned: 

‘Academic freedom and the institutional autonomy of universities are under pressure across Europe; in 
many instances this consists in isolated political attacks on scientific freedom, in other cases the threats 
are more  subtle,  taking  the  form  of growing  funding constraints  or excessive regulation,  which  can 
nonetheless  cause  lasting  damage  to  higher  education  and  research  systems  and  intellectual  life  in 
general. Moreover, universities in Europe do not have the same degree of institutional autonomy, nor 
is there a uniform trend towards greater autonomy. Greater institutional autonomy is fundamental for 
universities’ capacity to make strategic choices about organisational, financial, staffing, and academic 
matters’404. 

Recent literature has highlighted pressures on academic values and freedoms (for example, in the face 
of  populism  or  the  politically  targeted  allocation  of  funding)  and  explored  the  balance  between 
individual agency and structural control. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 
recognises constraints on academic freedom are identified as a contributing factor to the worsening of 

399 European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, EP Academic Freedom Monitor 2023, 
European Parliament, 2024, p. 124,  https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/393533  
400  European  University  Association 
https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/universities%20without%20walls%20%20a%20vision%20for%202030.pdf 
401  Myklebust,  J.  P.,  ‘Professors  publicly  add  to  pressure  for  elected  rectors’,  University  World  News,  May  20,  2016, 

(EUA),  Universities  without  walls:  A 

for  2030,  2021, 

vision 

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160519190025351 

402  Council conclusions on a European strategy empowering higher education institutions for the future of Europe, 6 April 
2022, 7936/22, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7936-2022-INIT/en/pdf  
403 Friedrich-Alexander-University Institute for Political Science, V-Dem Institute, Academic Freedom Index, Update 2023, 
2023, https://academic-freedom-index.net/research/Academic_Freedom_Index_Update.pdf  
404 European University Association (EUA), Briefing from Europe’s universities to the EU Council Presidency Trio: France, 
Czech Republic, Sweden, 2021, https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/trio%20briefing.pdf 

118 

 
 
 
working  conditions  for researchers (and  by  implication  also  teachers  and learners)405.  The  European 
University Association warns about threats of radicalisation and misinformation406, or by institutional 
pressure, or foreign interference to steer teaching and research content and activities407. There are further 
fears that the issue of academic freedom could split democracies and autocracies, making a common 
understanding of the term difficult408. 

Recent examples of challenges to academic freedom include measures faced by academics in Turkey 
(criminal investigations, detentions, prosecutions, mass dismissal, expulsion, and restrictions on travel), 
where more than 7 500 academics were targeted and nearly 60 000 students were displaced409. Such 
events  compromised  core  values  and  put  significant  pressure  on  academic  staff  to  comply  with  the 
government, and where this was not acceptable many academic staff left the country. The extent of 
student and academic displacement are clear warnings to the European Education Area that talent will 
move to places which preserve the core academic values of freedom, autonomy, and democracy. 

Foreign  governments  can  put  political  pressure  on  national  administrations,  higher  education 
institutions, and academic staff to self-censor what they teach or research, typified by current worries 
about  the  influence  of  the  Confucius  Institutes  funded  by  China410.  European  universities  and 
governments  are  strengthening  their  approach  to  collaboration  with  China  in  dual-use  technologies. 
There is a paradigm shift underway in how universities deal with foreign collaborations; the Danish 
minister for education and research said there was a high risk that Danish researchers were helping to 
build up foreign military capability and enabling human rights abuses, and unwittingly contributing to 
the reduction in freedom and democracy in the collaborating countries411. 

Such  changing  political  relations  can  generate  many  ethical  challenges,  and  in  2023  the  European 
Commission  published  a  toolkit  for  universities  to  mitigate  foreign  influence  in  research  and 
innovation412. 

Inclusion and equity 

Modern  teaching  and  learning  across  the  European  Education  Area  must  be  both  equitable  (a  level 
playing field across all education systems) and inclusive (of all abilities, gender, disabilities, ethnicity, 
health  conditions,  under-represented  groups,  and  non-traditional  learners).  As  highlighted  by  the 
Communication  on  a  European  strategy  for  universities,  ‘academics,  administrative  staff  and 
researchers from disadvantaged backgrounds are still underrepresented in higher education’413.  

vision 

for  2030,  2021, 

(EUA),  Universities  without  walls:  A 

405 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Reducing the precarity of academic research careers, 
OECD  Science,  Technology  and 
Industry  Policy  Papers,  No.  113,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris,  2021, 
https://doi.org/10.1787/0f8bd468-en 
406  European  University  Association 
https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/universities%20without%20walls%20%20a%20vision%20for%202030.pdf  
407  European  University  Association  (EUA),  ‘Building  the  Foundations  of  Research:  A  Vision  for  the  Future  of  Doctoral 
Education in Europe’, 2022, https://eua.eu/resources/publications/1028:building-the-foundations-of-research.html 
408 Matthews, D., ‘In a sea of discord and distrust, countries get together to define scientific values and principles’, Science 
Business,  July  12,  2022,    https://sciencebusiness.net/news/sea-discord-and-distrust-countries-get-together-define-scientific-
values-and-principles 
409  O’Malley,  B.,  ‘Purge  of  academics  has  reached  a  'staggering'  scale  –  SAR’,  University  World  News,  July  15,  2017, 
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170715061722938 
410 Fischer, K., ‘Latitudes: Political pressures and funding threats led to a wave of Confucius Institute closures’, The Chronicle 
of Higher Education, November 1, 2023, https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/latitudes/2023-11-01  
411  Matthews,  D.,  ‘European  universities  under  fire  over  work  with  Chinese  military’,  Science  Business,  June  16,  2022,  
https://sciencebusiness.net/news/european-universities-under-fire-over-work-chinese-military  
412  Matthews,  D.,  ‘European  universities  under  fire  over  work  with  Chinese  military’,  Science  Business,  June  16,  2022,  
https://sciencebusiness.net/news/european-universities-under-fire-over-work-chinese-military  
413 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for universities, 18.1.2022 Com(2022) 16, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A16%3AFIN 

119 

 
 
 
 
‘Ensuring  academic  freedom,  diversity,  and  gender  equality  is  paramount  for  unlocking  potential  for 
innovation. Promotion and recognition of these factors should also be emphasised, to make sure that they play 
a role in the selection, assessment, development and advancement of academic staff’. 

European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) – Call for Evidence. 

Challenges  to  inclusion  and  equity  relate  to  socio-economic  and  cultural  factors  such  as  social 
disparities, and accessibility. Diversity and social cohesion are key issues as universities aim to provide 
opportunities to people from diverse backgrounds, and access to higher education should be equitable 
and  open  to  all  who  qualify.  The  European  University  Association  argues  for  internal  university 
governance representing all groups within the higher education community414. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, European higher education institutions faced particular challenges of 
inclusion as learning and teaching moved almost totally online in many countries. For example, students 
with visual learning disabilities were often faced with learning and teaching moving to online screens 
and  the  prevailing  use  of  PowerPoint  presentations.  However,  such  challenges  also  stimulated 
innovation and heightened sensitivity to inclusion and equity, with the European University Association 
reporting that student well-being and inclusion received more attention during the pandemic415. 

Widening participation not just to disadvantaged students, but to all ages was emphasised in the 2021 
Council Conclusions on equity and inclusion in education and training in order to promote educational 
success  for  all416.  It  advises  that  higher  education  should  have  a  role  in  further  engaging  adults, 
promoting  upskilling  and  reskilling,  as  well  as  play  a  role  in  lifelong  learning  through  flexible 
alternatives to full academic programmes, by exploring the concept and use of micro-credentials417.  

The  Eurydice  report  Towards  equity  and  inclusion  in  higher  education  in  Europe418,  argues  that 
inclusion in the education system should be approached from a lifelong learning perspective. Higher 
education institutions should receive support to strengthen their capacity in responding to the needs of 
a  more  diverse  student  and  staff  body  and  create  inclusive  learning  environments  and  inclusive 
institutional cultures. International mobility programmes in higher education should be structured and 
implemented  in  a  way  that  fosters  diversity,  equity  and  inclusion  and  should  particularly  promote 
participation of students and staff from vulnerable, disadvantaged, or underrepresented backgrounds.  

In a recent review, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development highlights that much 
of the evidence has only examined gender identity through a binary lens419. As reported in the same 
evidence review, a recent study found that a majority of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, 

(EUA), 

(EUA), 

for  2030’,  2021, 

‘Universities  without  walls:  A  vision 

414  European  University  Association 
https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/universities%20without%20walls%20%20a%20vision%20for%202030.pdf  
415  Gaebel,  M.,  and  Stoeber,  H.,  ‘One  year  of  Covid-19:  the  impact  on  European  higher  education’,  European  University 
2022. 
Association 
https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/one%20year%20of%20covid19%20the%20impact%20on%20european%20higher%2
0education_final.pdf  
416 Council conclusions on equity and inclusion in education and training in order to promote educational success for all 2021/C 
221/02 (OJ C, C/221, 10.06.2021, p. 3, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8693-2021-INIT/en/pdf  
417  Council  Recommendation  of  16  June  2022  on  a  European  approach  to  micro-credentials  for  lifelong  learning  and 
employability 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
C/243, 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022H0627%2802%29  
418  European  Commission,  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency,  Towards  equity  and  inclusion  in  higher 
education  in  Europe,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2022,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/fa946919-b564-11ec-b6f4-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-255273612 
419  OECD  (2024),  "The  state  of  academic  careers  in  OECD  countries: An  evidence  review", OECD  Education  Policy 
Perspectives, No. 91, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea9d3108-en. 

27.06.2022, 

2022/C 

243/02 

10), 

(OJ 

C, 

p. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
and Intersex academics report having experienced discrimination because of their gender identity or 
sexual orientation420.  

The UniSAFE survey on gender-based violence in academia  shows that two-thirds (62%) of survey 
respondents ‘have experienced at least one form of gender-based violence since they started working 
or studying at their institution. Moreover, respondents who identify as LGBTQ+ (68%), who reported 
a disability or chronic illness (72%), and those belonging to an ethnic minority group (69%) were more 
likely to have experienced at least one incident of gender-based violence, compared to those who do 
not identify with these characteristics’421.Academics regularly face harassment and bullying. A recent 
analysis by the journal Nature found that 27% of surveyed scientists had experienced discrimination, 
bullying, or harassment in their current job, whereas a third (32%) had been witness to them422. 

Furthermore, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development underlines that the lack of 
environmental adaptations makes academia a challenging setting for academics with disability, chronic 
illness, and neurodivergence. Consequently, academics from these groups often hesitate to disclose their 
disability unless it is visible, often to the detriment of their health423. A lack of institutional action to 
address this kind of behaviours allows inequalities to be perpetuated in academia. 

Gender balance 

U-Multirank data424 shows that the share of female higher education staff is still lower across academic 
career paths, and it decreases with the level of seniority (female PhD students account for 48%, while 
this drops to 28% at the professor level). This appears to be the case even in institutions where females 
account  for  a  majority  of  students  (such  as  in  humanities  and  health  fields).  Additionally,  females 
appeared to be particularly underrepresented among academic staff in research-intensive institutions. 
Institutions characterised by science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields are still 
typically male-dominated. 

A  recent  analysis  using  microdata  from  the  European  Tertiary  Education  Register  found  a  similar 
pattern across higher education institutions in 28 European countries: women represent 44% of the total 
academic population, but only 28.4% of senior positions425. The study proposes a Gender Equality Index 
by calculating the difference between the share of women in senior academic personnel and the share 
of women in total academic positions; this index is negative for 96% of the universities analysed, the 
lowest being in those specialising in a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics discipline. 

A  2020  report  by  the  European  Expert  Network  on  Economics  of  Education  called  for  recruitment 
policies addressing the gender balance of  science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty 
composition  as  a  strategy  to  redress  the  gender  balance  in  science,  technology,  engineering,  and 

420  OECD  (2024),  "The  state  of  academic  careers  in  OECD  countries: An  evidence  review", OECD  Education  Policy 
Perspectives, No. 91, p. 71, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea9d3108-en; Estrellado, J., Breen, A., and Rider, 
N., ‘The “Double Burden” Facing Nonbinary Faculty and Graduate Students’, Spark: Elevating Scholarship on Social Issues, 
https://medium.com/national-center-for-institutional-diversity/the-double-burden-facing-nonbinary-faculty-and-
2019. 
graduate-students-1d824f78e080  
421  UniSAFE,  Results  from  the  largest  European  survey  on  gender-based  violence  in  academia,  November  7,  2022, 
https://unisafe-gbv.eu/project-news/results-from-the-largest-european-survey-on-gender-based-violence-in-academia/  
422 Woolston, C., ‘Discrimination still plagues science’, Nature 600, 177-179, 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-
021-03043-y 
423  OECD  (2024),  "The  state  of  academic  careers  in  OECD  countries: An  evidence  review", OECD  Education  Policy 
Perspectives, No. 91, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea9d3108-en. 
Brown, N. and Leigh, J., ‘Ableism in academia: where are the disabled and ill academics?’, Disability & Society, 33:6, 985-
989, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1455627 
424 U-Multirank,  ‘U-Multirank Gender Monitor 2021: An analysis of the female to male ratio within the higher education 
ladder’, 2021, https://www.umultirank.org/press-media/umultirank-news/umultirank-gender-monitor-2021/  
425 Bonaccorsi, A., ‘Academic personnel at European universities: Issues of career structure and gender equality (Version 1)’, 
RISIS Policy Brief Series Issue 14. 2023 https://zenodo.org/records/8177349 

121 

 
 
 
mathematics subjects426. The 2021 She Figures report, focusing on research and innovation, highlights 
that across the EU’s higher education sector, a higher proportion of women researchers, compared to 
men researchers, worked part-time and under precarious working contracts (11.1% for women and 7.2% 
for men), and as authors become more senior, women tend to publish less than men. Furthermore, in 
2019, women represented less than 25% of heads of institutions in the higher education sector427. 

A 2021 study from the European Training Foundation examining the results of its 2018 international 
survey428 shows that in vocational education and training institutions, teaching staff is more likely to be 
female while principals tend to be male. While progress is evident at the teacher level, there remain 
worrying gaps at senior levels.  

The Ecorys survey showed that there is a disparity between the perceived existence of gender policies 
and the actual gender balance in academic staff at various levels (Figure 5.7). There is also a difference 
in perceptions by gender. A higher percentage of male than female respondents agree that there are 
policies in place to ensure gender balance (54% versus 66%), and that there is gender balance among 
academic staff (46% versus 32%). 

Figure 5.7: Gender balance 

There is a policy to ensure a full gender balance (ages, 
seniority levels etc.) in higher education institutions

Overall, there is an equitable gender balance among 
academic staff at all levels

50%

44%

16%

10%

22%

16%

13%

6%

12%

11%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

31%

31%

32%

30%

25%

15%

7%

13%

10%

7%

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No opinion

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

No opinion

Female Male

Female Male

Source: Ecorys, based on research carried out in 2023 to assess the current situation regarding academic staff in higher 
education in Europe. 

The Austrian University Act has introduced organisational framework conditions for the continuation 
of equity policies, such as coordination centres for gender research, and encouraged universities to adopt 
their  own  women’s  promotion  and  equality  plans429  Additionally,  the  Austrian  Federal  Ministry  of 

– 

Statistics 

426 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, McNally, S., Gender differences in 
tertiary  education  –  What  explains  STEM  participation?,  Publications  Office,  2020,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/33c86740-cd54-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  
427  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  She  figures  2021  –  Gender  in  research  and 
https://projects.research-and-
innovation 
innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/knowledge-publications-tools-and-data/interactive-reports/she-figures-2021  
428  European  Training  Foundation,  Stanley,  J.,  Listening  to  vocational  teachers  and  principals  –  Results  of  the  ETF’s 
international  survey  2018,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2021,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/e451b262-00e6-11ec-8f47-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 
429  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture,  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-
operation and Development, Supporting entrepreneurship and innovation in higher education in Austria, Organisation for 
Economic  Co-operation  and  Development,  2019,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a06af4bd-2255-
11ea-af81-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

Publications 

indicators, 

Office, 

2021, 

and 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
Education, Science and Research promotes work-life balance with a series of gender-sensitive actions 
in research (e.g. gender-sensitive career models and selection procedures in public universities)430.  

Initiatives  in  other  parts  of  the  world  have  also  highlighted  how  creating  a  community  of  female 
academics  might  be  effective  in  encouraging  young  girls  to  seek  careers  in  science,  technology, 
engineering, and mathematics. These include programmes in the United States such as Empowering 
Women  in  Science  (Cornell)  and  Engineering  Women  (University  of  Minnesota),  which  showcase 
professional  women  in  science,  technology,  engineering,  and  mathematics  research  and  facilitate 
seminars  on  positions  and  compensation  in  science,  technology,  engineering,  and  mathematics. 
However, there is a lack of information provided on how such initiatives benefit female academics and 
improve their working conditions431. 

By reforming institutional structures, there are opportunities for higher education institutions to take a 
stance on gender equality through their institutional structures. For example, the Ljubljana declaration 
reiterates that gender equality in decision-making can have a large impact in the general gender equality 
of the institution and makes clear that ‘gender-based violence (including sexual harassment) has severe 
negative impacts on career outcomes in higher education and research’432.  

Chapter 6: Conclusions - the path towards the European degree  

6.1 A European degree 

Transnational joint programmes are a cornerstone of European higher education. They strengthen cross-
border cooperation among higher education institutions; encourage knowledge sharing and the use of 
innovative pedagogies among academic staff; equip students with useful skills and competencies for 
the labour market; allow higher education institutions to increase their study offer and international 
profile by playing to each other’s strengths; and reinforce a sense of European belonging in students 
and staff.    

This  has  been  reflected  in  the  success  of  European  initiatives  such  as  Erasmus  Mundus,  Marie 
Skłodowska-Curie  Joint  Doctoral  Programmes,  programmes  labelled  by  the  European  Institute  of 
Innovation  and  Technology,  and  the  European  Universities  initiative.  Nonetheless,  there  remain 
obstacles to developing and implementing transnational joint programmes, ranging from complex and 
lengthy quality assurance processes, to barriers to automatic mutual recognition of qualifications, and 
the  inconsistent  recognition  of  the  work  of  academic  staff  involved  in  transnational  cooperation 
activities.    

While the Bologna Process and EU-led initiatives have addressed some of these challenges, shared tools 
and mechanisms such as the ESG and the European Approach have been unevenly implemented across 
higher education systems in the European Education Area.  Furthermore, programme and curriculum 
structures and diploma templates, governance structures and student admission and enrolment rules are 
often  incompatible  between  Member  States,  effectively  limiting  positive  trends  towards  the 
establishment of joint degree programmes in Europe.  

The research carried out for this Staff Working Document has shown that a European degree could help 
overcome some of the remaining obstacles. Through the set of criteria co-created with Member States, 
it  would  bring  about  economies  of  scale,  allowing  higher  education  institutions  to  offer  more 

430  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  She  figures  2021  –  Gender  in  research  and 
innovation  –  Statistics  and 
indicators,  Publications  Office,  2021,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/67d5a207-4da1-11ec-91ac-01aa75ed71a1 
431 Sey, A., and Hafkin, N. (Eds.), ‘Taking Stock: Data and Evidence on Gender Digital Equality', United Nations University 
2019. i.unu.edu/media/cs.unu.edu/attachment/4040/EQUALS-Research-Report-2019.pdf  
432 Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, ‘Ljubljana Declaration: Gender Equality in Research and 
Education’, 
https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MIZS/Dokumenti/PSEU/Ljubljana-Declaration-on-Gender-
Equality-in-Research-and-Innovation-_endorsed_final.pdf  

2021. 

123 

 
 
 
 
opportunities to students, reduce the administrative burden associated with the design and delivery of 
joint degree programmes, facilitate collaborative teaching, research and development projects, empower 
staff and provide them with additional internationalisation opportunities, and increase the transparency 
and automatic recognition of joint degrees.  

With regard to the European degree criteria, the results of the study ‘The Road towards a possible joint 
European  degree”  and  the  preliminary  findings  of  the  Erasmus+  policy  experimentation  projects  in 
higher  education  have  demonstrated  a  high  degree  of  alignment  of  the  proposed  criteria  with  the 
expectations  of  students,  higher  education  institutions,  quality  assurance  agencies,  Member  State 
authorities and labour market representatives. Stakeholders mostly suggested changes that reinforce the 
transnational and joint nature of joint degree programmes, with a focus on the wide accessibility and 
inclusiveness  of  these  offerings,  and  ensuring  that  they  remain  firmly  rooted  in  the  foundations 
established under the Bologna Process. The feedback received also clearly signalled the need to provide 
more  detailed  clarification  of  the  criteria  in  the  form  of  guidance  developed  through  a  co-creation 
process. The criteria annexed to this Staff Working Document are a solid basis to engage on the next 
steps towards a European degree. 

The piloting of a European degree label, and a European degree as a qualification based on common 
European  criteria,  revealed  a  preference  for  a  European  degree  due  to  the  potential  regulatory 
simplification it would bring. In addition, there was a broad consensus that a European degree should 
integrate existing processes and become part of the regular accreditation and quality assurance process, 
for example involving national accreditation and quality assurance agencies registered in the European 
Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education.   

The Erasmus+ policy experimentation projects have also made it possible to identify a notable increase 
in the number of alliances of higher education institutions seeking stronger forms of institutionalised 
links in order to share financial, human, digital and physical resources, infrastructures and services, as 
well as joint activities, including educational activities. However, none of the existing legal instruments, 
either at the national or European level, fully allow for the achievement of the long-term objectives and 
missions  of  the  alliances,  suggesting  the  need  for  further  exploration  of  possible  and  voluntary 
cooperation instruments in the future.  

In this context, reflections were conducted to design a flexible approach towards a European degree, 
allowing each system to embark on this path according to its own circumstances and objectives. The 
entry points analysed consisted of a European label for joint degree programmes that meet the European 
criteria and a European degree, either jointly awarded by several universities from different countries 
and integrated into national legislation as a new type of qualification. or awarded by a European legal 
entity set up by a number of universities from different countries. 

6.2 A fit-for-purpose European quality assurance system 

Quality assurance is essential for accountability, transparency, trust, excellence, and improvement in the 
higher education sector. It is also key to encouraging automatic mutual recognition of qualifications and 
to enabling the development of transnational joint programmes. Quality assurance can take place both 
internally  and  externally,  at  the  programme  or  institutional  level,  with  most  EU  Member  States 
following a combined approach.  

Quality  assurance  frameworks  must:  be  agile,  dynamic,  and  fit  for  the  fast  changes  underpinning 
Europe’s higher education landscape, where teaching and learning activities continuously evolve and 
incorporate new innovative pedagogies; programmes become more international; lifelong learning and 
micro-credentials  are  mainstreamed;  the  importance  of  green  and  digital  skills  increases;  and  where 
values such as equality, inclusion, accessibility, and academic integrity grow in relevance.   

Over the past 20 years, the Bologna Process has pioneered common quality assurance procedures and 
tools to build more compatible, comparable, and coherent higher education systems in the European 

124 

 
 
Higher Education Area. Prime examples are the ESG, which provide guidance for internal and external 
quality assurance, and the European Approach, which entails a single quality assurance review (based 
on the ESG) for transnational joint programmes.  

The EU has adopted initiatives to encourage Member States to develop quality assurance systems in line 
with Bologna Process tools and to enable automatic mutual recognition of qualifications. The European 
Universities Initiative has spurred the development of transnational joint programmes and given new 
momentum to the Bologna Process. European Universities alliances have made use of the European 
Approach and are exploring ways to improve its implementation.   

Despite these efforts, challenges related to quality assurance remain. There is uneven implementation 
of  both  the  ESG  and  the  European  Approach.  Four  Member  States  have  yet  to  align  their  quality 
assurance systems to the ESG. However, higher education institutions are not always allowed to choose 
quality  assurance  agencies  registered  with  the  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher 
Education from other Member States; and not all quality assurance assessments are publicly accessible 
or fully independent.  

The European Approach has experienced modest success, with only 26 joint programmes having used 
it for accreditation as of January 2024. On the one hand, the implementation of the European Approach 
varies in the EU: less than half of EU Member States (11) allow its full implementation without imposing 
additional conditions, whereas six countries do not allow it at all. On the other hand, a significant number 
of higher education institutions are not aware of the European Approach and often confuse it with the 
ESG.  

Additionally, barriers to automatic mutual recognition still exist. A third of higher education institutions 
in the EU check the quality assurance arrangements of the sending institution when making a decision 
on recognition. Recognition procedures vary significantly between EU Member States, types of higher 
education institutions, and education levels and are often complicated, lengthy, and expensive.  

The findings suggest that solutions could require changes to national policy frameworks as well the 
provision of clearer guidance for the implementation of the European Approach, the ESG, and automatic 
mutual recognition of qualifications. In line with the April 2022 Council Recommendation on building 
bridges for effective European higher education cooperation, Member States are encouraged: to move 
further  towards  institutional-based  external  quality  assurance  (for  greater  accountability  and 
compatibility); to allow for self-accreditation of programmes based on institutional quality assurance 
(placing  the  primary  responsibility  on  higher  education  institutions);  and  to  enable  the  use  of  the 
European Approach without adding any additional national requirements.   

Furthermore, for quality assurance processes to stay relevant and reflect the changing social, political, 
environmental, and economic landscape, higher education systems must be able to incorporate specific 
objectives  on  key  societal  priorities,  such  as  the  green  and  digital  transitions,  lifelong  learning 
opportunities,  gender  balance,  inclusion,  employability,  academic  integrity,  and  synergies  between 
education, research, innovation, and service to society.  

6.3 European framework for flexible and attractive academic careers 

Europe’s  higher  education  sector  encompasses  a  wide  range  of  public  and  private  higher  education 
institutions  –  traditional  universities,  universities  of  applied  sciences,  colleges,  business  schools, 
specialised higher schools, polytechnics, non-university level public institutions of higher education, 
tertiary professional schools, and specialised research universities – each of them with a different focus 
and distinct priorities. 

This  diversity  is  reflected  in  the  different  roles  that  academic  staff  play  within  higher  education 
institutions, including engaging in research, teaching and learning, administration, knowledge transfer, 
open  science,  leadership,  community  engagement,  and  transnational  cooperation  with  other  higher 

125 

 
 
education institutions. However, not all roles are valued equally; research continues to be the priority 
area in recruitment and promotion; and most academic career paths continue to follow an outdated and 
rigid concept of linear career progression. 

The research undertaken identified factors that impact on the career paths of academic staff: the lack of 
parity of esteem between research and teaching and learning; recruitment processes, contract conditions, 
and  remuneration  and  reward  and  promotion  mechanisms;  inflexible  career  development  paths; 
workload  pressures;  gender  imbalance,  inclusion,  and  equity;  academic  freedom  and  institutional 
autonomy; financing models; and the lack of harmonised and reliable data on academic careers. 

Some of these observations resonate with the December 2023 Council Recommendation on a European 
framework to attract and retain research, innovation and entrepreneurial talents in Europe. This includes 
aspects such as career progression, salaries, recruitment and appraisal mechanisms, inclusiveness and 
gender equality, and mobility. However, the proposed research careers framework does not address the 
issue of uneven parity of esteem between research and teaching and learning, which poses challenges to 
recognising  the  work  of  academic  staff  engaging  in  other  academic  activities  such  as  transnational 
cooperation. 

Parity  of  esteem  between  different  career  paths  is  needed  and  should  be  reflected  in  recruitment, 
recognition and rewards policies. The identified issues suggest the need for a reform of academic careers 
to make them more attractive, flexible, and sustainable. 

Areas for action include improving contract conditions of academic staff, so they are fair and attractive, 
followed by adequate long-term resourcing for academic staff and the minimisation of precarious and 
short-term contracts. Moreover, the workload distribution across staff types and seniority levels must 
be balanced via transparent assessment mechanisms. Additionally, the engagement of academic staff in 
transnational cooperation must be recognised, which requires making academic career pathways less 
linear and more flexible to accommodate and value different academic roles.  

Other  challenges  identified  include:  the  need  for  sufficient  funding,  which  has  a  direct  impact  on 
ensuring  sustainable  and  attractive  career  conditions;  the  importance  of  transparent  and  inclusive 
governance structures in higher education institutions, which influence human resource management 
and the rewards system; the protection of academic freedom and institutional autonomy, which are key 
to  protecting  the  activity  of  academic  staff  and  their  work  conditions;  the  lack  of  an  inclusive 
environment;  and  persistent  gender  imbalances  that  are  more  acute  at  higher  levels  of  academic 
seniority.   

Academic staff across the EU should have access to social protection and fair remuneration, which in 
turn require higher education institutions to be able to rely on sustainable financial models and adequate 
core funding.   

Institutional  and  decision-making structures  in  higher  education institutions must  be  transparent  and 
inclusive. There must be mechanisms to tackle imbalances and discrimination, strengthen and recognise 
the  role  of  teaching,  and  ensure  equitable  workload.  The  harmonised  collection  of  reliable  and 
disaggregated data in full compliance with data protection regulations is required to monitor progress in 
the different dimensions of academic careers. This goes hand in hand with building better connectivity 
across  excellent  teaching  and  learning  centres  to  provide  academic  staff  with  databases  on  the 
professional development and training offers available to them.  

6.4 General conclusions 

Education  is  fundamental  for  the  future  of  Europe.  It  is  the  foundation  for  personal  fulfilment, 
employability, and active, responsible citizenship. It is essential to the vitality of our European societies 
and economies. Education systems need to rely on fit-for-purpose quality assurance and recognition 
systems  and  excellent  academics.  The  future  of  Europe  depends  on  its  capacity  to  equip  the  next 

126 

 
 
generations with future-proofed skills to accelerate and master the green and digital transitions, and to 
ensure European autonomy in strategic areas.  

As the key challenges of our time become more global, transnational education is no longer an option 
but a necessity to equip future generations with the necessary competencies to thrive in an ever more 
connected  world.  Higher  education  institutions  need  to  pool  expertise  and  combine  complementary 
strengths not available at any single institution, to provide graduates and lifelong learners with strategic 
skills for their future. The European degree can be the facilitator to reach this goal. 

127 

 
 
 
ANNEX I: Synopsis of stakeholder consultations 

Introduction 

The European Commission initiated consultations in early 2022 to gather stakeholders’ views on ‘A 
blueprint towards a future European degree, accompanied by Council Recommendations on Quality 
Assurance and Recognition System and on attractive and sustainable careers in higher education’. The 
consultations aimed to understand how the Commission can establish a European degree and, in this 
way, contribute to the achievement of the European Education Area.  

This section provides a synopsis of the key findings from the feedback received from stakeholders and 
Member States through the stakeholder events. The stakeholder feedback has been important in shaping 
the  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the blueprint towards a European degree and the two 
Commission proposals for Council recommendations.  

Consultation and activities  

The consultation aimed at gathering the views of stakeholders and Member States to ensure the creation 
of a European degree, which has been identified as a key priority for 2024 by President von der Leyen 
in  her  letter  of  intent  of  the  2023  State  of  the  Union  address.  The  objective  is  to  contribute  to  the 
establishment of the European Education Area and strengthen transnational higher education initiatives 
in  the  EU.  This  will  involve  stepping  up  transnational  cooperation,  enhancing  the  valorisation  and 
recognition of careers in higher education, and better preparing for the green and digital transitions. 

The  consultation  consisted  of  two  main  activities:  the  collection  of  feedback  through  a  Call  for 
Evidence, and a broad range of public and targeted stakeholder consultations involving key stakeholder 
groups. 

Call for Evidence 

From 9 January 2024 to 6 February 2024, the European Commission collected feedback through a Call 
for  Evidence  on  the  blueprint  towards  a  European  degree  and  the  Commission's  proposals  for  two 
Council recommendations on a European quality assurance and recognition system and on attractive 
and sustainable careers in higher education.  

The call attracted 150 contributions from a wide range of stakeholders, including 5 Member States, 10 
university associations, 22 European Universities alliances, 3 student organisations and 7 organisations 
representing industry and trade unions. This made it possible to gather information, expertise and views 
from  all  interested  parties  and  to  build  a  strong  evidence  base  for  the  development  of  the  three 
initiatives. 

Public and targeted stakeholder events 

Public and targeted consultation events were organised from the first half of 2022 up to the beginning 
of  2024  to  maximise  the  participation  of  all  interested  stakeholders.  The  events  aimed  to  gather 
perspectives on the scope and content of the proposed blueprint for a European degree and the two 
Commission’s  proposals  for  Council  recommendations  on  a  European  quality  assurance  and 
recognition system and on attractive and sustainable careers in higher education. Tables A1-A3 detail 
the public and targeted stakeholder consultation events. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A1: Public events 

Date  

Name of consultation event  

23 June 2022 

European and Innovation Summit  

28 September 2022 

LOTUS433 Erasmus+ project final conference 

27 June 2023  

European Education and Innovation Summit  

30 November 2023 

Education Summit  

Table A2: High-level targeted consultation meetings 

Date  

Name of consultation event  

14 November 2022 

23-24 November 2022 

23-24 March 2023 

14-15 December 2023 

High-level  meeting  with  Directors  General  for  Higher 
Education 

High-level  meeting  with  Directors  General  of  Higher 
Education 

High-level  meeting  with  Directors  General  for  Higher 
Education 

High-level  meeting  with  Directors  General  for  Higher 
Education 

Table A3: Targeted consultation meetings with the stakeholder groups, coordinators of European 
Universities alliances and Member States representatives 

Date 

2022-2024 

Name of consultation event  

Bilateral meetings with stakeholder organisations (EUA, 
YERUN, LERU, CESEAR, The Guild, Coimbra Group, 
EURASHE)434  

433 LOTUS: Leadership and Organisation for Learning and Teaching at European Universities. 
434 EUA: European University Association (EUA); YERUN: Young European Research Universities Network; LERU: League 
of European Research Universities; CESEAR: Conference of European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education and 
Research;  The  Guild:  The  Guild  of  European  Research-Intensive  Universities;  EURASHE:  European  Association  of 
Institutions in Higher Education. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Date 

Name of consultation event  

16 March 2022 

27 April 2022  

Meeting  of  the  EEA  Strategic  Framework  Higher 
Education Working Group 

Meeting  of  the  EEA  Strategic  Framework  Higher 
Education Working Group 

19 September 2022 

OECD Higher Education National Experts Group  

14 September 2022  

22 September 2022 

28 October 2022  

Meeting  of  the  EEA  Strategic  Framework  Higher 
Education Working Groups 

European  Sectoral  Social  Dialogue 
Working Group on Higher Education and Research  

in  Education 

Bologna  Follow-up  Group  Teaching  and  Learning 
Group (PLA)  

7 November 2022 

Bologna Follow-up Group 

21-22 November 2022  

CZEDUCON  (Czech  presidency  Higher  Education 
stakeholders conference)  

30-31 January 2023 

Meeting with Rectors of European Universities alliances   

28 February 2023 

Meeting  of  the  EEA  Strategic  Framework  Higher 
Education Working Group 

6 March 2023  

7 March 2023 

12 May 2023 

15 May 2023 

Meetings with representatives of European Universities 
(Rectors and Coordinators) 

Meeting  with  the  Higher  Education  and  Research 
Standing  Committee  of  the  European  Trade  Union 
Committee for Education (ETUCE)  

Consultation  with  employers  (European  University 
Association, etc.) on academic careers  

Consultation with alliances of European universities on 
careers 
transnational 

cooperation 

academic 

and 

130 

 
 
Date 

Name of consultation event  

16 May 2023 

22 May 2023 

31 May 2023 

22 June 2023 

26 June 2023 

(European  Universities  alliances,  Erasmus  Mundus 
programmes) 

Consultation  with  academic  employees  and  social 
partners on academic careers 

Consultation  with  national  authorities  on  academic 
careers 

Consultation  with  national  authorities  on  academic 
careers 

Meetings with representatives of European Universities 
(Rectors and Coordinators) 

Seminar  organised  by  the  Spanish  Presidency  on 
European Universities  

29-30 June 2023  

Meeting  of  the  EEA  Strategic  Framework  Higher 
Education Working Group 

10 July 2023 

11 July 2023 

12 July 2023 

13 July 2023 

Focus  group  on  Flexible  pathways/Intersectoral  and 
transnational mobility 

Focus group on Workload/Wellbeing/Time management 

Focus  group  on  Continuous  professional  development 
(pedagogy, green, digital) 

Focus  group  on  Careers  structures  and  appraisal 
mechanisms 

13 July 2023 

Focus group on Workload/Wellbeing/Time management 

14-15 September 2023 

Meetings with representatives of European Universities 
(Rectors and Coordinators) 

13-14 November 2023  

Meeting  of  the  EEA  Strategic  Framework  Higher 
Education Working Group 

131 

 
 
Date 

Name of consultation event  

12 February 2024 

Consultation with youth and student organisations 

21 February 2024 

Meeting  of  the  EEA  Strategic  Framework  Higher 
Education Working Group 

2 March 2024 

EU Youth Conference 

Many  of  the  events  had  a  focus  on  research  and  innovation.  A  consultation  process  with  umbrella 
stakeholder organisations and higher education experts, including meetings, workshops, interviews and 
surveys,  also  took  place  as  part  of  the  work  on  the  study  report  The  road  towards  a  possible  joint 
European  degree:  identifying  opportunities  and  investigating  the  impact  and  feasibility  of  different 
approaches between April 2021 and July 2022, and published in January 2023435. 

Reach of the stakeholder consultation strategy 

Overall, a wide range of stakeholders was reached and consulted through the activities described above. 
Table  A4  below  provides  an  illustration  of  the  stakeholder  landscape,  showing  the  groups  reached 
through each consultation channel. In general, all intended stakeholder categories were reached through 
at least one of the consultation channels.  

Table A4: Stakeholder outreach through consultation events 

Intended audiences for stakeholder consultation strategy 

Consultation 
activity  

Higher  
Education 
Institution  

University  
& student 
organisations 

University 
Umbrella 
networks 

Rectors’ 
Conference 

Social 
Partners 

Member  States 
representatives/ 
governments 

Call for 
Evidence  

High-Level 
Consultation 
Meeting 

Targeted 
Consultation 
Meeting  

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

435 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Burneikaitė, G., Pocius, D., 
Potapova, E. et al., The road towards a possible joint European degree – Identifying opportunities and investigating the 
impact and feasibility of different approaches – Final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/945147 

132 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Intended audiences for stakeholder consultation strategy 

Consultation 
activity  

Higher  
Education 
Institution  

University  
& student 
organisations 

University 
Umbrella 
networks 

Rectors’ 
Conference 

Social 
Partners 

Member  States 
representatives/ 
governments 

Public  
Events 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

Intended audiences for stakeholder consultation strategy 

 Consultation 
activity  

EU  
institutional  
partners  
(e.g. EP, CoR, 
EESC)   

Organisations 
representing 
regional,  local 
and  municipal 
authorities  

Citizens/ 
general public  

NGO’s 

Company/ 
business 
organisations 

Call for 
Evidence  

High-Level 
consultation 
meeting  

Targeted 
consultation 
meeting  

Public  
events 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

Stakeholder feedback 

European degree and possible legal status of alliances of higher education institutions 

Stakeholders have informed the Commission's work on a blueprint for a European degree through most 
of the public events, high-level meetings and targeted consultations outlined above. In addition, the 
findings have been complemented by the outcomes of a commissioned study, preliminary outcomes of 
the  10  Erasmus+  European  policy  experimentation  in  higher  education  projects  (piloting  a  joint 
European degree label and institutionalised EU cooperation instruments), and contributions received in 
response to the Call for Evidence. 

133 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Remaining obstacles to transnational cooperation of higher education institutions 

Throughout the consultation process, stakeholders reported significant challenges related to the design, 
delivery and management of joint degree programmes in Europe. Stakeholders highlighted the need to 
undergo multiple accreditation procedures, difficulties in re-accreditation or disparities in accreditation 
requirements  between  Member  States.  The  lack  of  automatic  recognition  of  qualifications  and 
insufficient recognition of prior learning, periods of study abroad and online learning were also noted.  

Stakeholders also pointed to the wide disparity of curricular requirements across Member States and 
higher  education  institutions  (e.g.  programme  length,  interdisciplinarity,  approach  to  micro-
credentials), the  existence of  very  specific rules regarding  the  mobility  of  students  and  staff,  use  of 
languages or parchment requirements that create very concrete obstacles to transnational cooperation.  

Higher  education  institutions  expressed  the  need  for  the  availability  of  tools  to  enable  more 
institutionalised forms of cooperation, in particular with regard to digital infrastructure and establishing 
a legal entity for alliances of higher education institutions. Other issues raised by stakeholders were the 
uneven levels of implementation of Bologna and EU instruments across Member States and academic 
partners, a lack of guidance or clear legal framework leading to insufficient awareness of the added 
value of joint degrees among students and employers. 

In  addition,  further challenges  were  highlighted  by stakeholders in the  Call  for Evidence, including 
cultural and linguistic barriers, financial barriers like disparities in tuition fees, scholarship regulations, 
or  costs  of  curriculum  development  and  implementation.  Some  administrative  barriers  such  as 
incompatibility of academic calendars, conflicting admission requirements and complex employment 
arrangements for teaching staff were also mentioned. 

Added value of a possible European degree 

Most higher education institutions welcomed the idea of a European degree. Stakeholders also reported 
an increasing interest in offering joint degrees. 

In general, stakeholders considered that a European degree could address most of the challenges that 
remain  in  the  provision  of  transnational  higher  education,  including  administrative  simplification, 
increased  transparency  of  joint  degrees,  improved  implementation  of  Bologna  Process  instruments, 
automatic recognition of joint qualifications, reduced barriers and simplification in quality assurance 
and the design and implementation of joint degree programmes. 

Stakeholders agreed that it would contribute to the enhancement of the global reputation of European 
higher  education,  to  the  dissemination  of  European  values,  to  the  facilitation  of  cooperation 
arrangements  across  the  EU,  and  to  encouraging  students  to  study  in  another  EU  country,  thus 
facilitating brain circulation within the EU while preventing brain drain. 

Students and employers emphasised that the labour market relevance of a European degree would be 
the main added value of such an instrument. Skills related to the digital and green transition and a set 
of transversal skills (adaptability, creativity, multilingualism, working in an intercultural environment), 
which are particularly sought after by employers, were considered particularly relevant.  

Stakeholders  generally  agreed  that  any  future  European  degree  should  be  accessible  to  all  higher 
education  institutions,  regardless  of  their  model  for  cooperation,  and  not  impose  an  additional 
administrative burden. Some alliances of higher education institutions pointed to the possible need for 
legislative  empowerment  of  national  accreditation  agencies  to  award  a  European  degree  label,  the 
adaptation  of  Erasmus+  funding  to  European  degree  mobility,  and  sufficient  funding  to  ensure  the 
socio-economic inclusiveness of programmes.  

134 

 
 
The use of existing national procedures for accreditation and quality assurance of programmes was the 
most preferred option by the stakeholders, especially by national  accreditation and quality assurance 
agencies and national authorities. 

There was a common understanding among higher education institutions and students that a European 
degree as a type of qualification would bring the most added value as compared to a label.  

Many stakeholders commented that the European degree as a label would have limited added value if 
it is a supplement to a degree as it would not align or bridge national requirements but adds on top of 
the  existing  complex  regulatory landscape.  Furthermore,  stakeholders  highlighted that the  European 
degree should not be reserved for European Universities alliances as it should be linked to the study 
programme, not to the awarding institutions. The importance of additional discussions, notably on the 
results  of  the  Erasmus+  European  policy  experimentation  projects  was  highlighted  by  some 
stakeholders. 

Suitability of the proposed criteria for the award of a European degree  

The proposed criteria are the result of extensive consultations conducted in preparation of the Erasmus+ 
European  policy  experimentation  call  for  proposals  on  a  European  degree  label.  Six  projects  were 
selected with partners from higher education institutions, student and youth organisations, businesses, 
national  and  regional  authorities  in  charge  of  higher  education,  accreditation  and  quality  assurance 
agencies and other stakeholders.  

As part of their objectives, these projects gathered feedback on the proposed set of criteria in order to 
assess their relevance and suggest improvements. Preliminary outcomes from publications and regular 
meetings  with the projects  showed that  there  is  an agreement that  the  proposed  criteria  are  deemed 
relevant and important, in particular those presented as mandatory. Criteria pertaining to labour market 
relevance of the programme, or the offering of traineeships for students were considered particularly 
pertinent by employers, students and higher education institutions. Stakeholders suggested that the list 
of criteria should be accompanied with clear definition, indicators and guidelines for their assessment 
in an accompanying document.  

Despite an overall agreement with the proposed criteria for the European Degree, stakeholders proposed 
specifications  and  additional  criteria  in  the  Call  for  Evidence.  Some  suggested  the  inclusion  of 
mandatory points on the development of soft and transversal skills. Such criteria would ensure a future-
proof education that promotes active learning and critical thinking. In the same vein, they suggested 
that the initiative should embrace lifelong learning and flexible learning pathways and include other 
models of higher education in addition to full programmes.  

Additionally, while most stakeholders agreed that physical mobility should constitute an important part 
of the European degree, some argued that students should have the opportunity to opt for blended or 
virtual  mobility  options.  Finally,  a  strong  plea  was  expressed  for  the  criteria  to  respect  academic 
freedom  and  autonomy  of  higher  education  institutions  and  the  diversity  of  national  and  regional 
education systems.  

Institutionalised EU cooperation instruments for a possible legal status for alliances of higher 
education institutions 

Stakeholder  feedback  also  addressed  one  of  the  possible  enablers  for  more  institutionalised 
transnational  cooperation  between  higher  education  institutions,  namely  a  possible  legal  status  of 
alliances of higher education institutions. The consultations have shown that there is a wide variety of 
models for cooperation between higher education  institutions in Europe, and that some partnerships 
seek to be recognised as higher education providers at European level to be able to recruit learners, offer 
new learning opportunities and provide quality assured and recognised qualifications. 

135 

 
 
The needs identified, and which could potentially be addressed by legal status, include facilitating the 
provision of educational services, management of students, joint management of resources, recruitment 
of  staff  at  the  European  level,  attracting  funding from  the  public  and  private  sectors,  and  increased 
visibility and representation vis-à-vis international policy makers, administrations and organisations. 

Stakeholders reported potential benefits of a legal status at the level of higher education institutions, 
staff, students, the private sector and national administrations. Some of these include increased legal 
certainty, economies of scale through sharing of operations and resources, greater staff mobility and 
new  employment  opportunities,  easier  access  for  private  actors  to  the  ecosystem  of  all  partner 
universities, transparency, and sustainability of operations. 

Quality Assurance and Recognition System 

This  proposal  for  a  Council  Recommendation  has  been  discussed  extensively  with  all  relevant 
stakeholders over the last three years, both as part of the general discussions that supported the creation 
of  the  European  strategy  for  universities,  and  more  recent  targeted  discussions  on  the  specific 
components of this Council Recommendation. Further, a Commission-contracted study examined the 
state of play of automatic recognition and quality assurance in the EU and the feasibility of a quality 
assurance and recognition system. The Call for Evidence and the contributions received in response to 
it concluded the consultation process.  

Issues raised 

Administrative burden 

Higher education institutions expressed concerns about sometimes excessively bureaucratic and lengthy 
procedures for quality assurance and recognition systems, particularly for joint programmes developed 
by  European  Universities  alliances.  Participants  in  the  Call  for  Evidence  considered  the  current 
procedures  burdensome  and  disincentivising  institutions  to  develop  new  joint  degrees  or  short-term 
mobility initiatives.  

They  suggest  that  overlapping  procedures  should  be  avoided  and  that  additional  layers  of  quality 
assurance  should  only  be  added  when  institutional  and/or  national  procedures  are  not  sufficient, 
contributing  to  defining  simplified  accreditation  procedures  for  European  Universities  alliances  to 
develop and implement joint programmes. Additionally, stakeholders emphasised the need to reduce 
administrative burden related to short-term mobilities and simplify administrative tasks related to data 
collection, reporting, and follow-up measures. 

Insufficient implementation of existing tools 

In  the  Call  for  Evidence,  stakeholders  expressed  concerns  that  existing  European-level  quality 
assurance  tools  had  not  been  fully  implemented  or  implemented  with  additional  requirements. 
Particularly, the implementation of the European Approach to Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes 
varies  significantly  across  Member  States,  creating  overlapping  requirements  and  making  the 
development  of  joint  degree  unattractive  for  higher  education  institutions.  Stakeholders  suggested 
implementing the existing system based on The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the 
European Higher Education Area and Bologna tools. They argued that the measures should primarily 
boost the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the existing instruments. 

Mismatch between quality assurance and societal needs 

Some stakeholders expressed concerns about the prominent focus on quality assurance processes while 
overlooking aspects such as learning outcomes, values, and engagement of societal stakeholders. They 
also considered that quality enhancement in this regard was often limited because it was difficult to 

136 

 
 
 
integrate  assurance  and  enhancement  in  a  fully  balanced  manner.  Furthermore,  they  posited  that 
institution-based external quality assurance would offer more flexibility for the development of joint 
programmes that should respond to societal needs.  

Certain stakeholders highlighted that it is necessary to broaden the scope of stakeholder engagement to 
include employers, industry representatives, and other societal stakeholders that can provide valuable 
insights into the skills and competencies required by the labour market, thus enhancing the relevance 
and applicability of higher education programmes. They also emphasised the need to include in quality 
assurance  processes  aspects  related to  digital  and  green  transitions  to  guarantee  the development  of 
qualified  professionals  who  meet  the  required  skills  in  these  fields.  Furthermore,  they  called  for 
enhanced transparency that can facilitate the readability of learning outcomes for the labour market.  

In  the  Call  for  Evidence,  student  representatives  emphasised  the  importance  of  ensuring  staff  and 
student involvement and grassroots participation throughout the quality assurance process.  

Availability of cross-institutional quality assurance 

Stakeholders  participating  in  the  Call  for  Evidence  expressed  varying  opinions  regarding  quality 
assurance systems at the cross-institutional level for joint activities and joint programmes. While some 
stressed  the  importance  of  institutional  autonomy,  others  welcomed  new  internal  and/or  external 
approaches to quality assurance.  

Some stakeholders emphasised that higher education institutions are responsible for their own quality 
assurance, which implies self-accreditation of programmes based on the institutions’ quality assurance 
procedures. Since joint degrees will still be awarded by higher education institutions themselves, they 
highlighted  that  it  is  necessary  to  respect  the  existing  institutions'  quality  assurance  systems.  They 
suggest that ‘multi-institutional quality assurance’ does not have to be external. It can be internal and 
subject to national external quality assurance.  

However,  when  separate  quality  assurance  systems  are  insufficient,  higher  education  institutions 
welcome the implementation of the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes. 
They highlighted that the shift towards multi-institutional external quality assurance needs to be fully 
considered and tested before implementation since its added value must be proved. They stated that a 
‘parallel  European  Quality  Assurance  and  Recognition  system  where  joint  programmes  could  seek 
recognition and therefore true 'jointness' makes sense’. 

Lack of automatic recognition 

Stakeholders in the Call for Evidence expressed concerns regarding the lack of automatic recognition. 
They considered that there should be a better link between quality assurance and recognition as a key 
step in making automatic recognition a reality. They highlighted that discrepancies among institutions 
and  countries  in  delivering  degrees  must  be  identified  and  removed.  They  supported  the  goal  of 
promoting automatic recognition, which is regulated at the national level.  

Others expressed the aspiration that whenever a degree has been approved at the European  level, it 
should  automatically  be  accredited  and  registered  at  the  country  level  of  the  higher  education 
institutions  involved  in  awarding  the  degree.  They  also  suggested  that  the  development  of  quality 
assurance and automatic recognition should consider new phenomena in the field of education, such as 
emerging skill sets and the potential of using Artificial Intelligence in recognition processes. 

Lack of trust 
Stakeholders in the Call for Evidence expressed a lack of mutual trust among some institutions and 
systems. This lack of trust creates additional burdens for the recognition of mobility credits and makes 
it difficult to recognise them. Hence, they call for the promotion of trust among European partners in 
the existing Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, 

137 

 
 
and the promotion of a culture of trust. This implies mechanisms for trusting existing quality 
assurance procedures and practices at the level of the partner higher education institutions, as well as 
on regional and/or national quality assurance processes to which partner institutions are subject. 

Attractive academic careers in higher education 

Stakeholder feedback on attractive and sustainable careers in higher education was collected through 
most of the public events, high-level meetings, and targeted consultations outlined in the tables above. 
In addition, targeted consultation events took place within the framework of the Study supporting the 
European Framework for Attractive and Sustainable Careers in Higher Education, carried out by an 
independent  consultant  between  May  2023  and  July  2023  to  gather  evidence  on  the  conditions 
underpinning academic careers in the European Union.  

The study involved an extensive literature review; five consultation events in May 2023 with national 
authorities, employers, academic staff, social partners, and actors engaged in transnational cooperation 
alliances of European universities; an online survey which ran between April and June 2023 to collect 
views on challenges, good practices, and potential actions from 864 respondents436; and five thematic 
focus groups that took place in July 2023 for in-depth discussions of the evidence collected. 

The information gathered was complemented by the feedback received through the Call for Evidence.  

Diversity of European higher education and academic career paths 

The general picture that emerged from the consultation process is that policy frameworks need to be 
sensitive to the diversity of the European higher education sector, which includes a wide range of public 
and  private  higher  education  institutions   –  traditional  universities,  universities  of  applied  sciences, 
colleges,  business  schools,  specialised  higher  schools,  polytechnics,  non-university  level  public 
institutions  of  higher  education,  tertiary  professional  schools,  and  specialised  research  universities– 
each of them with a different focus and distinct priorities. 

This  diversity  is  reflected  in  the  different  roles  that  academic  staff  play  within  higher  education 
institutions, including engaging in research, teaching and learning, administration, knowledge transfer, 
open  science,  leadership,  community  engagement,  and  transnational  cooperation  with  other  higher 
education  institutions.  However,  not  all  roles  are  valued  equally,  and  research  continues  to  be  the 
priority area in recruitment and promotion.  

Identified needs and challenges  

The  consultations identified  several factors that influence the  careers  of  academic  staff:  recruitment 
processes, contract conditions, remuneration, and reward and promotion mechanisms; lack of parity of 
esteem  between  research  and  teaching  and  learning;  the  possibility  of  having  flexible  career 
development paths; workload pressures; gender imbalance, inclusion and equity; academic freedom and 
institutional autonomy; financing models; and the lack of harmonised and reliable data on academic 
careers.  

Human resource policies: recruitment processes, contract conditions, and remuneration 

The survey revealed that most stakeholders consider that fair and attractive contract conditions need the 
most attention, followed by adequate long-term resourcing for staff and the minimisation of precarious 
contracts. Indeed, there is strong concern among academics about existing policy and regulations not 
being enough to curb the use of short-term contracts.  

436  This  included  universities  (650);  other  higher  education  institutions  such  as  polytechnics,  business  schools,  etc.  (91); 
teaching and learning support staff at a higher education institution (47); national and regional ministries and government 
bodies  responsible  for  higher  education  (24);  national  and  regional  teaching  and  learning  organisations  (9);  employer 
organisations (7); organisations and social partners at EU level (2); and other respondents (34). 

138 

 
 
 
The Call for Evidence also highlighted the prevalence of short-term contracts, decreasing job security 
and  social  protection,  unpredictable  career  pathways,  lack  of  career  flexibility  and  cross  sectoral 
mobility as factors making it difficult to attract and retain talent, particularly affecting PhD students, 
early career researchers, and vulnerable groups like women, ethnic minorities or people from lower 
socioeconomic backgrounds.  

Workload pressures 

Most  survey  respondents  reported  dissatisfaction  with  workload  distribution  across  staff  types  and 
seniority levels and underlined the lack of transparent mechanisms to assess the workload of academic 
staff.  Heavy workload and poor work-life balance were also cited in the Call for Evidence. 

Appraisal and promotion systems and reward mechanisms (that value and reward different academic 
roles) 

Valuing the engagement of academic staff in transnational cooperation emerged as a key issue both in 
the survey and in the Call for Evidence. While transnational cooperation in teaching and learning is part 
of the institutional strategy of many higher education institutions, it is often not sufficiently valued or 
recognised in appraisal, promotion, and reward mechanisms. The Call for Evidence further highlighted 
unequal recognition and reward of diverse roles encompassing teaching, learning, research, innovation, 
and civic engagement. 

Flexible career development paths and the importance of parity of esteem between teaching and learning 
and research 

Associations of European universities pointed out that academic careers are still rooted in an outdated 
concept of linear paths, which mainly focus on research. The survey showed that most academic staff 
still perceive research and innovation as having the greatest impact on their career development while 
indicating that career pathways are rigid and do not allow for change in the balance of academic staff 
roles (e.g. teaching and learning, community engagement, research, internationalisation, participation 
in management and leadership).  

The Call for Evidence indicated several obstacles to the development of flexible cross-sectoral career 
pathways such as lack of entrepreneurship, education and career development programmes, insufficient 
recognition of teaching and collaboration-based pathways, and of prior or non-formal learning.  

Financing models in higher education 

The survey identified the need for sufficient funding, which has a direct impact on ensuring sustainable 
and attractive career conditions, as a significant challenge. The topic was also widely discussed in the 
Call for Evidence emphasising the need for long-term and sustainable core public funding.  

Institutional structures  

Transparent and inclusive governance structures in higher education institutions are essential as they 
influence human resource management and the rewards system. The Call for Evidence highlighted that 
robust frameworks and strategies for human resources and cross-sectoral collaboration would increase 
attractiveness of academic careers.   

Academic freedom and values  

The  protection  of  academic  freedom  and  institutional  autonomy  is  key  to  protecting  the  activity  of 
academic staff and their work conditions. Contributions to the Call for Evidence further highlighted the 
importance  of  academic  freedom,  diversity,  and  gender  equality  to  unlock  innovation  in  the  higher 
education sector. 

139 

 
 
Inclusion and equity 

The  survey  revealed  that  policies  related  to  disabilities  are  more  visible  than  policies  relating  to 
diversity. Respondents had more positive attitudes towards policies to avoid discrimination and include 
people with disabilities than policies and actions ensuring equal representation.  

The  lack  of  an  inclusive  environment  with  the  necessary  accommodations  for  academics  with  a 
disability, chronic illnesses, or neurodivergence, discourages them from disclosing their disability and 
pushes them to impose additional expectations on themselves about their performance to the detriment 
of their health.  

The Call for Evidence drew attention to additional disadvantaged groups like people with caring duties 
or academics from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and to the need to address diversity and inclusion 
not only at hiring but also at the employment stage. 

Achieving gender balance 

Gender balance among academic staff is a particularly concerning issue. Survey results showed that 
while most respondents agree that there are policies in place to ensure gender balance in their higher 
education institutions, most of them consider that this is not reflected in a more equitable gender balance 
among  academic  staff.  These  perceptions  are  shared  more  strongly  among  female  respondents  than 
among  male  respondents,  with  the  former  tending  to  disagree  more  regarding  the  existence  and 
effectiveness of the policies in place.  

The  Call  for  Evidence  also  noted  increasing  underrepresentation  of  women  in  higher  academic 
positions, indicating a need for policies ensuring gender balance and preventing gender-based violence 
at all career stages. 

Lack of data and resources on academic careers 

The lack of reliable and disaggregated data on academic careers is an additional challenge. Promoting 
equality, diversity, fairness, and inclusion in academic careers – from recruitment to training, funding 
opportunities,  and  career  promotion  –  requires  the  collection  and  use  of  timely  and  reliable  data  to 
inform institutional policies and legislation. However, higher education institutions often lack tools and 
processes to collect data that allow them to monitor the effectiveness of their policies in practice, and 
while European data platforms exist, they tend to operate in silos and lack granularity.  

Proposed solutions 

The consultations converged on the need to make academic careers attractive, flexible, and sustainable. 
Stakeholders agreed that a key aim of the European framework for academic careers must be to ensure 
parity  of  esteem  between  research  and  teaching,  as  well  as  the  other  missions  of  higher  education 
institutions. 

This should be reflected in updated recognition and rewards systems and recruitment and promotion 
policies that equally encourage different career pathways, both within academia and across sectors, and 
provide opportunities for both horizontal and vertical development.  

Remuneration of academic staff across European universities and between roles must be fair, meet cost-
of-living-standards, and be attractive compared to other sectors in order to prevent brain drain among 
academics. Social protection should be afforded to all academic staff across the EU irrespective of their 
employment status or role. 

140 

 
 
Sustainable financial models in higher education are required. Higher education institutions must have 
sufficient and adequate core funding that is not dependant on simple metrics (e.g., number of students 
or research publications) and be able to diversify funding streams.  

Institutional  structures  and  decision-making  bodies  in  higher  education  institutions  should  be 
transparent and inclusive, ensuring gender equality. Initiatives to tackle imbalances and discrimination 
should be implemented, such as mentoring programmes for female academics or institutional structures 
to  enhance  gender  balance  (‘gender  contact  person’  or  diversity  charters)  at  all  career  stages. 
Mechanisms  must  be  in  place  to  strengthen  and  recognise  the  role  of  teaching  (‘pedagogical  skills 
coordinator’) and ensure equitable workload management policies.  

Promoting and respecting equality, diversity, fairness, and inclusion at all stages of academic careers 
requires the continuous collection and use of reliable and disaggregated data, which must be encouraged 
in full compliance with data protection laws. There is also a need to build better connectivity across 
excellent teaching and learning centres and provide academics with accessible databases of innovative 
centres and the professional development and training offers that they provide. 

Finally,  the  Call  for  Evidence  and  the  consultations,  particularly  with  representatives  of  higher 
education institutions, also pointed to the need to ensure synergies with the Council Recommendation 
on  a  European  framework  to  attract  and  retain  research,  innovation  and  entrepreneurial  talents  in 
Europe,  adopted  in  December  2023,  particularly  on  aspects  such  as  careers,  progression,  salaries, 
reward, inclusion, gender equality, mobility, and transnational cooperation. 

Youth check 

Building  on  the  achievements  of  the  2022  European  Year  of  Youth,  the  Commission  adopted  a 
Communication in January 2024437 setting out a series of actions to give young people a greater say in 
the decisions that affect them and to reinforce the youth dimension in a range of EU policies. In the 
Communication,  the  Commission  committed  itself  to  applying  a  'youth  check'  when  designing  EU 
policies to ensure that their impact on young people is systematically factored in. 

The consultation process leading up to the adoption of the blueprint towards a future European degree 
and the accompanying Council Recommendations has provided  an opportunity to pioneer the youth 
check process and to deliver on the promises made. The youth check of the initiative started before the 
adoption of the package and will continue beyond its date. It consists of four targeted meetings: 

•  Consultative webinar with youth representatives (12 February 2024). 

•  Panel discussion during the European Youth Conference organised as part of the EU Youth 

Dialogue (2 March 2024). 

•  Breakout session during the European Youth Week (12 April 2024). 

•  Youth Policy Dialogue with Commissioner Illiana Ivanova (19 April 2024). 

The  results  of  the  first  two  meetings  and  earlier  targeted  consultations  with  youth  representatives 
revealed  that  young  people  welcome  the  European  degree  initiative.  In  particular,  young  people 
recognise the importance and value of an international learning experience. Among the key factors that 
would attract them to enrol in European degrees were labour market relevance, innovative teaching, 
learning and assessment methods, and transnational cooperation between higher education institutions. 

437  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the European Year of Youth 2022, 10 January 2024, COM(2024) 1 final. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2024:1:FIN 

141 

 
 
 
 
At the same time, young people stressed that inclusiveness and wide accessibility of European degree 
programmes  should  be  the  guiding  principle  of  any  proposed  initiative.  Youth  representatives  also 
underlined the importance of appropriate student involvement in the design and delivery of joint degree 
programmes,  the  need  to  safeguard  student  rights,  and  the  need  to  include  a  local  perspective  in 
European  policymaking.  Some  expressed  concerns  about  the  implementation  of  the initiative in  the 
light of decreasing education budgets in EU Member States. 

The  Council  Recommendations  on  quality  assurance  and  recognition  systems  and  on  attractive  and 
sustainable academic careers were also viewed positively by young people. Facilitating the recognition 
of  learning  experiences  abroad  was  seen  as  a  key  factor  in  increasing  student  mobility  in  certain 
countries. Regarding academic careers, young people articulated the need to make academic careers 
more attractive to students and to address the precarious conditions of student jobs and early career 
researchers. 

Conclusions  

The results of the extensive stakeholder consultations revealed that a Commission Communication on 
a blueprint towards a European degree, together with Council Recommendations on quality assurance 
and recognition system and on attractive and sustainable careers in higher education, are welcomed. 
Stakeholders have clearly recognised the relevance of the interventions and their added value for the 
further development of the European Education Area. 

During the consultation process, stakeholders shed light on a number of challenges and obstacles to 
increased and seamless cooperation between higher education institutions in Europe and called for more 
institutionalised  forms  of  cooperation.  The  barriers  identified  ranged  from  incompatibility  of  legal 
systems  to  financial  and  administrative  burdens.  Against  this  background,  some  stakeholders 
considered  that  a  European  degree  and  accompanying  Council  recommendations  could  provide  an 
answer to many of the identified obstacles, while at the same time contributing to the enhancement of 
the global reputation of European higher education and the creation of a European identity.  

Notwithstanding this, stakeholders encouraged to ensure that the future European degree, as well as the 
underlying  criteria,  remain  accessible  to  the  widest  possible  range  of  higher  education  institutions, 
inclusive, labour market relevant and respectful of the principles of academic freedom and diversity. 
Furthermore, there is a need for ongoing discussion platforms on the future of a European degree, going 
beyond the consultation process accompanying the adoption of the initiative. 

With regard to the quality assurance and recognition system, stakeholders were generally unanimous 
that the existing status quo creates unnecessary administrative burdens and disincentives the creation of 
new joint degree programmes and the promotion of short-term mobility initiatives. The consultations 
highlighted  the  inadequate  implementation  of  the  Bologna  Process  instruments  and  the  need  for  a 
feedback  cycle  between  the  quality  assurance  system  and  societal  needs.  Stakeholders  welcomed 
measures to facilitate the automatic recognition of learning outcomes and advocated the promotion of 
a European culture of trust between recognition bodies. 

Finally, the consultations revealed that not all career paths are equally valued within the wide diversity 
of  higher  education  institutions in  Europe.  Stakeholders  drew  attention  to the  sometimes  precarious 
working  conditions  of  higher  education  staff,  decreasing  job  security  and  unbalanced  workload 
pressures. This calls for a review of appraisal systems and greater recognition of work undertaken in 
transnational cooperation, achieving parity of esteem between teaching and learning and research, a 
review of human resources frameworks and policies, and the provision of sustainable public funding 
for higher education institutions. Stakeholders also stressed that any reforms should be accompanied by 
measures  to  create  a  non-discriminatory  working  environment,  ensuring  equal  treatment  and 
opportunities for the most disadvantaged groups. 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II: Revised list of criteria for a European degree 

European degree (label) criteria  

European 
Qualifications 
Frameworks 
(EQF)  Levels 

Transnational 
programme 
organisation 
and 
management 

Higher education 
institutions involved 

The joint programme is offered by at least 2 higher 
education institutions from at least 2 different EU 
Member States. 

Transnational joint 
degree delivery 

The joint programme is jointly designed and jointly 
delivered by all the higher education institutions 
involved. 

The joint programme leads to the award of a joint 
degree. 

A joint diploma supplement is issued to students. 

The joint programme describes the learning outcomes 
and credits in line with the ECTS Users Guide. 

Joint arrangements 
for the joint 
programme 

The joint programme has joint policies, procedures 
and/or arrangements defining curriculum planning and 
delivery, as well as all organisational and 
administrative matters. 

Students’ representatives are part of the decision-
making process to define the joint policies and 
procedures and/or arrangements. 

Quality assurance 
arrangements 

Internal and external Quality Assurance is conducted in 
accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for 
Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education 
Area (ESG). The higher education institutions, the 
study field or the programme are evaluated by an 
EQAR registered agency. 

The joint programme is evaluated using the standards 
of European approach for quality assurance of joint 
programmes. 

Graduate tracking 

The joint programme monitors graduates through a 
graduate tracking system. 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7 

6, 7 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7, 8 

143 

 
 
 
European degree (label) criteria  

European 
Qualifications 
Frameworks 
(EQF)  Levels 

Learning 
experience 

Student-centred 
learning  

The joint programme is designed and continuously 
enhanced and delivered in a way that encourages 
students to take an active role in the learning process. 
Assessment of students reflects this approach. 

Interdisciplinarity  

The joint programme includes embedded 
interdisciplinarity components. 

Labour market 
relevance 

The joint programme aligns with labour market 
requirements by incorporating intersectoral components 
or activities and the development of transversal skills. 

Digital skills 

The joint programme includes components and actions 
related to the development of advanced digital skills of 
students, tailored to the capacities and circumstances of 
the joint programme, ensuring alignment with its scope 
and scholarly focus. 

Transnational 
campus – access to 
services 

The programme has joint policies for students and staff 
to have access to relevant services in all participating 
higher education institutions in equivalent conditions as 
all enrolled students and local staff. 

Flexible and 
embedded student 
mobility 

The joint programme offers deep intercultural 
experience, including a minimum of 1 period of student 
physical mobility (that can be split in several stays) at 
another or several partner institution(s) representing 
overall at least 60 ECTS at EQF 6 level and 30 ECTS 
at EQF 7 level.  

The joint programme has a policy offering alternatives 
for students who are unable to travel. 

The joint programme offers deep intercultural 
experience, including a total of at least 6 months of 
physical mobility at another or several partner 
institution(s).  

The joint programme has a policy offering alternatives 
for students who are unable to travel. 

Co-evaluation and 
co-supervision for 
dissertations 

Dissertations are supervised by at least 2 supervisors 
and co-evaluated by co-supervisors or a committee 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7, 8 

6, 7 

8 

8 

144 

 
 
European degree (label) criteria  

European 
Qualifications 
Frameworks 
(EQF)  Levels 

with members from at least 2 different institutions 
located in 2 different countries. 

European 
Values 

Democratic values 

The joint programme’s joint policies promote and 
adhere to democratic values. 

6, 7, 8 

Multilingualism 

During the joint programme, each student is exposed to 
at least 2 different EU languages. 

6, 7, 8 

Inclusiveness  

The joint programme commits to wide participation by 
fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion and by 
adopting tailored measures to support students and staff 
with less opportunities. 

The joint programme commits to respect the principles 
of the European Charter for Researchers. 

Green transition 

The joint programme has policies and actions related to 
environmental sustainability and implements measures 
to minimise the environmental footprint of its activities. 

6, 7, 8 

8 

6,7,8 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III: List of barriers to the delivery of joint programmes and joint degrees 
identified by experts in the context of the Erasmus+ European policy experimentation 
projects on a joint European degree label 

This list is based on deliverables produced by six Erasmus+ European policy experimentation projects 
on the basis of interviews, surveys, workshops, focus groups and other activities. The list cannot be 
considered  as  exhaustive  considering  the  lack  of  data  collected  from  certain  regions/countries  and 
representing the perspective of practitioners.  

Barriers must be understood as a national or regional specific rule (or lack of rule) that has been reported 
as  presenting  complications  for  the  establishment  of  joint  programmes  and  joint  degrees  without 
judgement on whether the rule is justified or not. 

Type of barrier 

Identified information 

Countries 

Barriers linked to accreditation 
criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, HR, CZ, EL, PT, SE 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE-FL, CY, DK, FR, EL, ES, 
HU, IT, LT, NL, PL, RO 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LU, LV, 
MT, SI, SK 

Restrictions to the creation of joint 
degree programmes. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, LT, 
PL, RO 

No information. 

AT, BE-FR, BE-FL, BG, DK, 
EE, FI, HR, HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, 
MT, NL, PT, SE, SI, SK 

Restrictions to the creation of 
interdisciplinary degrees. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, CY, DK, EL, ES, HR, FI, 
NL, PT 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE-FL, CZ, FR, HU, IT, LT, PL, 
RO, SE 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of barrier 

Identified information 

Countries 

No information. 

BE, BG, DE, EE, IE, LV, LU, 
MT, SI, SK 

Regulations on the diploma 
parchment and graduation rules. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

HR, NL, RO 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, BE-FL, BG, CY, CZ, DE, 
DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, 
IT, LT, PL, PT, SE 

No information. 

BE-FR, LV, LU, MT, SI, SK 

Requirements for a new 
accreditation procedure for 
changes in consortium partners or 
curriculum change. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, BE-FL, CZ, DK, FR, LT, 
NL, PT, RO, SE 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

CY, ES, EL, FI, HR, HU, IT, PL 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LU, LV, 
MT, SI, SK 

High accreditation costs 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, BE-FL, CY, CZ, DK, ES, FI, 
FR, EL, HR, HU, IT, LT, PL, PT, 
RO, SE 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

EE, LV, NL 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, IE, LU, MT, SI, 
SK 

Barriers to use the European 
Approach for Quality Assurance 
of joint programmes. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, DK, HR, LT, NL, PL, PT 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE-FL, BG, DE, EE, EI, EL, ES, 
FI, LU, HU, CY, CZ, FR, IT, LV, 
RO SE, SI, SK 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
Type of barrier 

Identified information 

Countries 

No information. 

BE-FR, MT 

Differences in academic years. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, BE-FL, CZ, DK, ES, FI, FR, 
HU, LT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

CY, EL, HR, IT 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LU, LV, 
MT, SI, SK 

Differences in grading scales and 
workload per ECTS. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE-FL, DK, ES, FI, HR, PT, RO, 
SE 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects 

AT, CY, CZ, FR, EL, HU, IT, 
LT, NL, PL 

No information  

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LV, LU, 
MT, SI, SK 

Recognition of blended/online 
learning. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects 

AT, BE-FL, CY, FI, HR, HU, 
NL, PT, RO 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

CZ, DK, ES, FR, EL, LT, IT, PL, 
SE 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LV, LU, 
MT, SI, SK 

Final exams form - possible 
national/state examinations. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE-FL, CY, DK, ES, HR, NL, 
PT, SE 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, CZ, FI, EL, HU, IT, LT, PL, 
RO 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, FR, IE, LU, 
LV, MT, SI, SK 

Minimum requirements in terms 
of physical presence. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

CY, CZ, DK, ES, IT, PT, SE 

148 

 
 
Type of barrier 

Identified information 

Countries 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, BE-FR, BE-FL, DE, EE, FI, 
FR, EL, HR, HU, IE, LT, LV, 
NL, PL, RO, SI 

No information. 

BG, LU, MT, SK 

Possibility of postponement of 
studies (due to pregnancy, illness 
etc.). 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, CY, DK, ES, FR, HR, IT, 
LT, NL, PT, RO 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE-FL, CZ, EL, FI, HU, PL, SE 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LU, LV, 
MT, SI, SK 

Restrictive legislation regarding 
the use of languages and 
Restrictive national legislation 
regarding the % of foreign 
teachers in a degree programme. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, ES, EL, HR, HU, PT, RO, 
SE 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE-FL, CY, CZ, DK, FI, FR, IT, 
LT, NL, PL 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LU, LV, 
MT, SI, SK 

Different intellectual property 
rights legislation (development for 
course material). 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, CY, DK, ES, FR, EL, HR, 
HU, IT, LT, PL, PT, RO 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE-FL, CZ, FI, NL, SE  

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LU, LV, 
MT, SI, SK 

Requirements related to regulated 
professions. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, HR, LT, RO, SE 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE, CY, CZ, DK, ES, FI, FR, EL, 
HU, IT, NL, PL, PT 

149 

 
 
Type of barrier 

Identified information 

Countries 

No information. 

BG, DE, EE, IE, LU, LV, MT, 
SI, SK 

Requirements for consortium 
agreements. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

/ 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, BE-FR, BE-FL, CZ, DE, 
DK, EE, ES, FR, EL, HR, HU, 
IT, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, 
SK 

No information. 

BG, CY, FI, IE, LU, LV, SI 

Obligation of double or single 
enrolment of students in chosen 
universities. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, BE-FL, CY, DK, ES, EL, 
HR, IT, LT, PL, PT, RO, SE 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

CZ, FI, FR, HU, NL 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LU, LV, 
MT, SI, SK 

Requirements regarding tuition 
fees. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, CY, CZ, HR, HU, PT, RO 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE-FL, DK, ES, FI, FR, EL, IT, 
LT, NL, PL, SE 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LU, LV, 
MT, SI, SK 

Restrictive legislation regarding 
selection of students. 

No barrier reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

AT, CZ, ES, HR, NL, PL, PT, 
RO 

Barriers reported by E+ policy 
experimentation projects. 

BE-FL, CY, DK, FI, FR, EL, HU, 
LT, 

IT, SE 

150 

 
 
 
Type of barrier 

Identified information 

Countries 

No information. 

BE-FR, BG, DE, EE, IE, LU, LV, 
MT, SI, SK 

Barriers reported per EU Member States 

Austria 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Joint degrees may face issues if supporting country-
specific documents differ. 

Specific documents are required to validate the 
degree title within the country, even for international 
joint degrees. 

Differences in grading scales and workload per 
ECTS. 

Austrian legislation mandates the use of a specific 
grading scale with no exception for joint 
programmes. 

Final exams form - possible national/state 
examinations (not common in all countries). 

The procedure for final examination is regulated with 
no exception for joint programmes. 

Minimum requirements in terms of duration (min. 
number of semesters to be spent at the home 
university). 

There are minimum credit requirements (usually 30 
or 60 ECTS) that students must obtain at partner 
institutions to receive their joint degree which limits 
the possibility for multilateral cooperation models. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

The establishment of a consortium agreement is 
mandatory between partners. 

Belgium 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Regulated professions. 

Access to the profession in medicine is regulated by 
the federal legislator in Belgium, even though the 
first cycle and second cycle degree programmes are 
regulated by the Flemish legislator.  

151 

 
 
 
 
 
Requirements for consortium agreements. 

The establishment of a consortium agreement is 
mandatory between partners. 

Belgium-Flanders 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Accreditation criteria, procedure and time frame. 

Specific timelines for accreditation procedures that 
start rather early (with an exception for European 
Universities but not for other joint programmes). 

A country-specific test on macro-efficiency in the 
local context is required (with exceptions for 
European Universities and Erasmus Mundus but not 
for other joint programmes). 

Restrictions to the creation of interdisciplinary 
degrees. 

Interdisciplinary degrees require universities to offer 
all related initial degrees. 

Only universities with existing second cycle degrees 
can establish interdisciplinary programmes. 

Degree titles are regulated by both the institution and 
its location, hindering course integration for joint 
degrees. 

Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of joint programmes. 

Joint doctoral programmes require accreditation from 
all participating institutions. 

Minimum requirements in terms of duration (min. 
number of semesters to be spent at the home 
university). 

Minimum requirement of physical mobility for joint 
bachelor and masters programmes, with students 
acquiring at least 20 credits at institutions other than 
their initial enrolment. Joint doctoral programmes 
require a minimum of six months' mobility. For joint 
PhDs, Flemish law mandates a minimum six-month 
stay in Flanders for PhD students. 

Postponement of studies (due to pregnancy, illness 
etc.). 

Students need to pass the first-year courses in a two-
year time period. 

Restrictive legislation regarding the use of 
languages and Restrictive national legislation 
regarding the % of foreign teachers in a degree 
programme . 

Quota on the number of foreign language 
programmes. Programmes need to have an equivalent 
in the national language.  Joint programmes in 
international cooperation can be conducted in two 
official languages of the EU.  

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Different intellectual property rights legislation 
(development for course material). 

Students/researchers themselves own the products of 
their work. 

Regulated professions. 

Access to the profession in medicine is regulated by 
the federal legislator in Belgium, even though the 
first cycle and second cycle degree programmes are 
regulated by the Flemish legislator.  

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Tuition fees. 

Fees are regulated by law for first degree and second 
degree programmes. 

Restrictive legislation regarding selection of 
students. 

It is possible to impose limits of admitted students in 
initial first cycle degree programmes for students 
who hold a degree of secondary education. 

Bulgaria 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Specific requirements exist for degree parchments, 
including paper format, watermarks, and official 
suppliers. 

Croatia 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Requirements for a new accreditation procedure for 
changes in consortium partners or curriculum 
change. 

Modifications in the programme structure necessitate 
re-accreditation. 

Differences in academic years. 

Barrier reported. 

Minimum requirements in terms of duration (min. 
number of semesters to be spent at the home 
university). 

Barrier reported. 

153 

 
 
 
 
Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. The 
consortium agreement must clarify enrolment 
conditions, examination, and evaluation methods for 
students. 

Cyprus 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Accreditation criteria, procedure and time frame. 

Barrier reported. 

Restrictions to the creation of joint degrees. 

Absence of a robust national framework specifically 
designed for joint programmes with extensive 
mobility schemes. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Barrier reported. 

Requirements for a new accreditation procedure for 
changes in consortium partners or curriculum 
change. 

Significant modifications in the programme structure 
necessitate re-accreditation. 

Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

Cyprus mandates the use of its own accreditation 
agency or requires its consent for accreditation. 

Differences in academic years. 

Barrier reported. 

Differences in grading scales and workload per 
ECTS. 

Challenges arise in aligning arithmetic grading 
systems with letter grading, especially when the 
correspondence between the two is not 
straightforward. 

Restrictive legislation regarding the use of languages 
and Restrictive national legislation regarding the % 
of foreign teachers in a degree programme. 

Barrier reported. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions 

Barrier reported. 

Restrictive legislation regarding selection of 
students. 

Different rules for distance learning/online 
programmes and for face-to-face programmes, as 

154 

 
 
 
well as different rules for EU citizens, and non-EU 
citizens. 

Czechia 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Restrictions to the creation of joint degrees. 

Lack of an adequate national framework specifically 
for joint programmes involving extensive mobility 
schemes. 

Restrictions to the creation of interdisciplinary 
degrees. 

A single discipline must represent over 50% in 
interdisciplinary degrees, determining the 
programme's classification code. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Diplomas must include the degree name, 
abbreviation, and a reference to the specific section 
of the relevant Act (e.g., "Magistr" (Mgr.) awarded 
under Act No. 111/1998 Coll.). 

Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

Czechia stated an inability to adopt the European 
Approach. There is either no or insufficient 
regulation in Czechia regarding the use of the 
European Approach. 

Differences in grading scales and workload per 
ECTS. 

Legislation mandates the use of a specific grading 
scale. 

Recognition of blended/online learning. 

The concept of online mobility is not regulated in the 
Czech legal system. While entire programmes cannot 
be conducted online, some classes can be, but they 
must be reported by the universities. 

Final exams form - possible national/state 
examinations. 

Students in all study programmes must defend a 
thesis and pass a public state examination in order to 
graduate. 

Possibilities of postponement of studies (due to 
pregnancy, illness etc.). 

Czech legislation specifies the consequences of 
interruption of studies, but makes an exemption for 
reasons of parenthood. 

155 

 
 
 
Restrictive legislation regarding the use of languages 
and Restrictive national legislation regarding the % 
of foreign teachers in a degree programme. 

A special fee for studying in a foreign language is 
collected. 

Different intellectual property rights legislation 
(development for course material). 

The institution where the student/researcher is 
affiliated has the main claim to the product of their 
work. 

Each final thesis has to be made available to the 
public for free. Those containing sensitive data can 
be redacted. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions. 

Programmes related to regulated professions need 
approval of the responsible ministry. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners 

Obligation of double or single enrolment of students 
in chosen universities. 

Enrolment is closely tied to funding. 

Germany 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Restrictions to the creation of joint degrees. 

Applicable to bachelor and masters level only. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Joint degrees may face challenges if the required 
supporting documents differ between countries. 
Specific credentials are necessary for the degree title 
to be recognized within the country, even for 
international joint degrees. 

Germany has precise requirements for degree 
parchments, such as paper format, watermarks, and 
designated suppliers. 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

At least 25% of the programme must be completed at 
foreign institutions. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

156 

 
 
 
 
Denmark 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Accreditation criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Recognition of blended/online learning. 

The academic profile of the programme must be 
documented to meet the demands of the local labour 
market. It is not sufficient to provide a needs analysis 
of the European/international labour market. 

Danish jurisdiction does not recognize distinctions 
like 'cum laude' on diplomas, affecting joint degrees 
with countries that do. 

Danish universities must issue degree certificates 
within two months of graduation, conflicting with 
biannual exam boards in other countries. 

Danish legislation does not currently accommodate 
'online mobility,' a common feature in joint 
programmes. 

Restrictive legislation regarding the use of languages 
and Restrictive national legislation regarding the % 
of foreign teachers in a degree programme. 

Teaching can only be done only in one foreign 
language (i.e., English). 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Tuition fees. 

It is mandatory for Danish universities to charge 
tuition fee from non-EU citizens but forbidden for 
EU-citizens. 

Restrictive legislation regarding selection of 
students. 

Detailed regulations about selection to guarantee 
equal treatment. 

Estonia 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules 

Over 80% of institutions emphasize the mandatory 
use of a specific degree template, reflecting a 
common regulatory practice in Estonia. 

157 

 
 
 
High accreditation costs 

Higher education institutions bear the costs of 
accreditation. 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence 

At least 20% of the joint curriculum must be 
delivered by a foreign institution. 

Requirements for consortium agreements 

Obligatory agreement between partners 

Finland 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Over 80% of institutions in Finland adhere to a 
mandatory degree template. 

Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

Reports of a lack of knowledge and understanding 
concerning the European Approach method. 

Final exams form - possible national/state 
examinations. 

Finnish law regulates the length of the thesis. 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

Minimum requirements in terms of number of credits 
(or semesters) to be acquired at each partner 
institution can be requested to get the degree. 

Possibilities of postponement of studies (due to 
pregnancy, illness etc.). 

Finland’s Universities' Act regulates the possibility of 
being absent due to mandatory or discretionary 
reasons. 

Restrictive legislation regarding the use of languages 
and Restrictive national legislation regarding the % 
of foreign teachers in a degree programme. 

Programmes need to have an equivalent in the 
national language. Language proficiency 
requirements exist. 

Different intellectual property rights legislation 
(development for course material). 

Barrier reported. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions. 

Respective ministries regulate the professions that 
fall under their jurisdiction. 

158 

 
 
 
Obligation of double or single enrolment of students 
in chosen universities. 

Students must be enrolled at a Finnish university at 
the time of graduation. 

Tuition fees. 

It is not legally permitted to collect fees from EU and 
EEC students, however Finnish higher education 
institutions can participate in joint programmes 
where other partners collect fees. 

Restrictive legislation regarding selection of 
students. 

Detailed regulations about selection to guarantee 
equal treatment. 

France 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Accreditation criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

France has early procedural timelines for 
accreditation, which poses challenges for joint 
degree creation. 

Restrictions to the creation of joint degrees. 

French universities can issue diplomas within 
partnerships only with prior state authorization. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

French law requires foreign partners to match the 
capacity to deliver equivalent, recognized diplomas 
in the same field. 

Partnerships must be reported to the French ministers 
of higher education and foreign affairs, with 
agreements not exceeding five years. 

Diploma issuance is strictly regulated, requiring 
printing on specific parchment from the Imprimerie 
Nationale. 

French language is mandatory on diplomas issued by 
French institutions. 

The signatory process for diplomas is complex, with 
strict rules on who can sign and the non-acceptance 
of electronic signatures.  

More than 80% of French institutions are bound by a 
compulsory degree template. 

159 

 
 
 
Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

France is identified as a country with either no or 
insufficient regulation regarding the use of the 
European Approach. 

Differences in grading scales and workload per 
ECTS 

At the doctoral level, France does not use ECTS. 

Recognition of blended/online learning. 

Barrier reported. 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

Minimum requirements in terms of number of credits 
(or semesters) to be acquired at each partner 
institution can be requested to get the degree. 

Restrictive legislation regarding the use of languages 
and restrictive national legislation regarding the % of 
foreign teachers in a degree programme. 

Some portion of any given programme needs to be 
taught in French. If this requirement is not met, 
French higher education institutions issue a different 
kind of diploma (a university diploma instead of a 
national diploma). Foreign nationals need to 
demonstrate an understanding of the French language 
adapted to the planned training. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions. 

Specific regulation exists for regulated professions. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners 

Obligation of double or single enrolment of students 
in chosen universities. 

Students must be enrolled at all universities awarding 
the degree at the time of graduation. 

Tuition fees. 

Fees are established at a national level, with 
exemptions possible within the framework of the 
agreement. 

Restrictive legislation regarding selection of 
students. 

Barrier reported. 

Greece 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Accreditation criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

Barrier reported. 

160 

 
 
 
Restrictions to the creation of joint degrees. 

Obstacles noted in awarding joint degrees on 
bachelor and master-level. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Over 80% of institutions in Greece adhere to a 
mandatory degree template. 

Requirements for a new accreditation procedure for 
changes in consortium partners or curriculum 
change. 

Barrier reported. 

Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

Ambiguous legislation that doesn't clearly 
differentiate between joint and double degrees. 

Differences in academic years. 

Barrier reported. 

Differences in grading scales and workload per 
ECTS. 

Bachelor programmes can range from 240 to 360 
ECTS. 

Recognition of blended/online learning. 

Barrier reported. 

Final exams form - possible national/state 
examinations. 

Doctoral dissertations are evaluated by a seven-
member examination committee. 

Possibilities of postponement of studies (due to 
pregnancy, illness etc.). 

Barrier reported. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions. 

Barrier reported. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Tuition fees. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Restrictive legislation regarding selection of 
students. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Hungary 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

161 

 
 
 
Accreditation criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

Hungary requires political approval, such as a 
ministerial decree, before or after the accreditation 
process for joint degrees. 

Restrictions to the creation of interdisciplinary 
degrees. 

Barrier reported. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Hungarian law mandates standard texts for all degree 
certificates and student status certificates. 

Requirements for a new accreditation procedure for 
changes in consortium partners or curriculum 
change. 

Barrier reported. 

Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

Barrier reported. 

Final exams form - possible national/state 
examinations. 

Final exams form - possible national/state 
examinations. 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

Minimum requirements in terms of number of credits 
(or semesters) to be acquired at each partner 
institution can be requested to get the degree. 

Possibilities of postponement of studies (due to 
pregnancy, illness etc.). 

National regulations for study leave periods exist. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions. 

Civil engineering has strict requirements for 
certificates that are issued by the Hungarian Chamber 
of Engineers. There is a given list of 
topics/competencies with a given number of ECTS 
that are needed to obtain a certificate. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Obligation of double or single enrolment of students 
in chosen universities. 

Barrier reported. 

Restrictive legislation regarding selection of 
students. 

Detailed regulations about selection of students. 

162 

 
 
 
Ireland 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

More than 80% of institutions in Ireland are required 
to use a specific, compulsory degree template. 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

Minimum requirements in terms of number of credits 
(or semesters) to be acquired at each partner 
institution can be requested to get the degree. 

Italy 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Accreditation criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

Deadlines for submitting complete study plans are 
challenging, often immediately following the January 
exam period. 

Restrictions to the creation of interdisciplinary 
degrees. 

Second cycle degrees categorized by "classe di 
laurea" with set educational objectives and ECTS. 

Elective courses are capped (8-15 ECTS), limiting 
interdisciplinary options. 

Ministry evaluates study plans for adherence to 
objectives, including courses from foreign 
institutions, which must fit into designated scientific 
disciplines. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Diplomas must include the degree programme name 
and "classe di laurea." 

Joint diplomas are allowed if they list the 
participating universities, degree programme 
denomination, and its national equivalents. 

Italian diplomas must be issued in the name of the 
Italian Republic and include signatures of the Rector 
and Director General. 

Specific requirements for parchments include paper 
format, watermarks, and official suppliers. 

163 

 
 
 
Requirements for a new accreditation procedure for 
changes in consortium partners or curriculum 
change. 

Significant modifications in the programme structure 
necessitate re-accreditation. 

Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

Italy stated an inability to adopt the European 
Approach. 

There is either no or insufficient regulation regarding 
the use of the European Approach. 

Differences in academic years. 

Barrier reported. 

Differences in grading scales and workload per 
ECTS. 

Legislation mandates the use of a specific grading 
scale. 

Recognition of blended/online learning. 

Final exams form - possible national/state 
examinations. 

Italian experts highlight the need for clear resolution 
protocols in cases of discrepancies within joint 
programmes. 

Italy allows a maximum of 10% of ECTS credits for 
blended/online courses. Online final exams are 
generally not allowed. 

The number of final exams is regulated in Italy. The 
legislation does not allow online final exams (with a 
list of well-defined exceptions) even if the teaching 
took place online.  

A maximum of 12 exams is allowed for a second 
cycle degree (elective courses, further educational 
activities and thesis are not included). 

Restrictive legislation regarding the use of languages 
and Restrictive national legislation regarding the % 
of foreign teachers in a degree programme. 

Legislations allows universities to have a maximum 
of 50% of foreign teachers as “core” of the 
programme. 

Tuition fees. 

If the coordinating university where students are 
enrolled is an Italian university, the law states that 
the fee is calculated on the base of student's income 
conditions. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Restrictive legislation regarding selection of 
students. 

Quotas distinguishing between non-EU and EU 
students. 

164 

 
 
 
Latvia 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

High accreditation costs. 

Higher education institutions bear the costs of 
accreditation. 

Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

The European Approach is not available in Latvia for 
accreditation purposes. 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

Each partner needs to deliver at least 10% of the 
entire programme. 

Lithuania 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Accreditation criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

Internal agreement and signature collection are slow 
and complex, more so than legislative issues, 
especially with multiple universities or European 
University structures involved. This can delay the 
accreditation process if signatures are required 
beforehand. 

Restrictions to the creation of joint degrees. 

Lithuania permits the issuance of joint diplomas 
exclusively for bachelor's and master's level 
programmes. 

Restrictions to the creation of interdisciplinary 
degrees. 

Programs may cover up to three study fields, but are 
named after the predominant one. 

Accreditation of joint specializations is constrained 
by the need to conform to the main field's criteria, 
demanding a minimum of 50% of credits. 

Certain engineering subjects are not allowed to be 
combined. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Barrier reported. 

165 

 
 
 
Differences in grading scales and workload per 
ECTS. 

Lithuania specifies a precise 26.67 hours of work per 
ECTS. Lithuania specifies ECTS credits for the 
thesis. 

Recognition of blended/online learning. 

Lithuania's joint programmes often require physical 
academic mobility. 

Final exams form - possible national/state 
examinations. 

Doctoral dissertations are evaluated by a Doctoral 
Committee consisting of nine high-level research 
scientists. 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

Physical mobility of the student in the joint 
programme is mandatory (of at least 15 credits). 

Restrictive legislation regarding the use of languages 
and Restrictive national legislation regarding the % 
of foreign teachers in a degree programme. 

The choice of languages must be explicitly stated in 
the consortium agreement. Language proficiency 
requirements exist.   

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Tuition fees. 

The consortium agreement is obligated to encompass 
student admission conditions, study procedures, 
principles of assessment, and the crediting of student 
achievements. 

The standard price of studies is determined in a 
course or group of courses, and if it is reduced, the 
state funding also decreases. Entry and registration 
fees for foreigners are higher due to the need for 
educational recognition. 

Restrictive legislation regarding selection of 
students. 

Barrier reported. 

The Netherlands 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Accreditation criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

A report on a macro-efficiency test in the local 
context needs to be done before a new programme 
can be accredited. 

166 

 
 
 
High accreditation costs. 

Higher education institutions bear the costs of 
accreditation. 

Advocates for a single accreditation process for joint 
programmes argue it should eliminate the need for 
multiple payments across countries, reducing 
workload and costs. 

Differences in grading scales and workload per 
ECTS. 

Each ECTS credit represents 28 hours of study. 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

For study programmes that receive government 
funding, at least 25% of the teaching should take 
place in the Netherlands. 

Restrictive legislation regarding the use of languages 
and Restrictive national legislation regarding the % 
of foreign teachers in a degree programme. 

Barrier reported. 

Different intellectual property rights legislation 
(development for course material). 

Barrier reported. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions. 

Barrier reported. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Obligation of double or single enrolment of students 
in chosen universities. 

Tuition fees. 

Enrolment is closely tied to the funding of higher 
education institutions. Details regarding enrolment 
for joint programmes can be mutually agreed upon in 
the consortium agreement. In the case of a joint 
programmes the university can still request that 
students are enrolled at the Dutch university for the 
whole period. 

Experts point out that restrictive rules on the ability 
to raise tuition fees add complexity to the 
administration of joint programmes. 

Poland 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

167 

 
 
 
Accreditation criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

Restrictions to the creation of joint degrees. 

Legal frameworks require government action, such 
as a ministerial decree, either before or after 
accreditation to ensure the joint programme aligns 
with national degree standards, which can further 
complicate and prolong the process. 

Polish higher education law allows only certain 
university categories to offer joint degrees with 
foreign institutions, with distinct regulations for joint 
doctoral programmes. 

Poland is among the countries reported to lack a 
comprehensive national framework specifically 
designed for joint programmes with extensive 
mobility components. 

Restrictions to the creation of interdisciplinary 
degrees. 

Universities are required to assign each field of study 
to at least one discipline. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

For fields covering multiple disciplines, one is 
identified as primary, with over half of the learning 
outcomes linked to it. 

National legislation requires diplomas issued by 
Polish universities to be in Polish as an original 
public document, with translations only allowed in 
copies. 

Over 80% of Polish institutions must adhere to a 
compulsory degree template. 

Requirements for a new accreditation procedure for 
changes in consortium partners or curriculum 
change. 

Barrier reported 

Differences in grading scales and workload per 
ECTS. 

Recognition of blended/online learning. 

Poland offers bachelor programmes ranging from 
180 to 240 ECTS. At least half of the ECTS should 
be obtained “in classes” directly involving academic 
teachers or other lecturers and students, thus limiting 
time for written assignments or project/individual 
work. 

A review committee for thesis evaluation includes a 
minimum of three persons, possibly from foreign 
institutions. 

Final exams form - possible national/state 
examinations. 

Doctoral dissertations are evaluated by a Doctoral 
Committee consisting of nine high-level research 
scientists. 

168 

 
 
Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

Certain programmes that differ from the regular 
duration (for example, 7 semesters for engineering). 
Regulations indicate that students may participate in 
short-term mobility abroad for studies or internships, 
lasting from 5 to 30 days, which must include a 
virtual component, either before or after the physical 
mobility period. 

Possibilities of postponement of studies (due to 
pregnancy, illness etc.). 

National regulations for study leave periods exist. 

Restrictive legislation regarding the use of languages 
and Restrictive national legislation regarding the % 
of foreign teachers in a degree programme. 

A special fee for studying in a foreign language is 
collected.  

If English is chosen as the language of teaching for 
the joint programme, then the whole programme 
must be taught in English. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions. 

The Act on Higher Education and Science lists 
concrete professions for which the educational 
standards need to be met. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Tuition fees. 

Barrier reported. 

Portugal 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Portugal has strict requirements for degree 
parchments, including specific paper format, 
watermarks, and designated official suppliers. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions. 

Barrier reported. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Romania 

169 

 
 
 
 
Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Accreditation criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

Barrier reported. 

Restrictions to the creation of joint degrees. 

Although the law theoretically allows for the 
organisation and accreditation of joint degrees, it's 
not feasible in practice until ARACIS publishes its 
“Methodology for accreditation of Joint 
programmes”. 

Restrictions to the creation of interdisciplinary 
degrees. 

Interdisciplinary programmes are regulated in the 
law only for doctoral studies. 

Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

Although the European Approach is theoretically 
available, practical implementation is pending until 
ARACIS finalizes the “Methodology for 
accreditation of Joint programmes.” 

Final exams form – possible national/state 
examinations. 

Integrated study programme completion involves a 
licensing exam, second-cycle integrated programmes 
require publicly defending a dissertation. 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

At master level: at least 1 year has to be studied in 
Romania; number of ECTS for one semester is 30. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners 

Slovenia 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Minimum requirements in terms of minimum 
physical presence. 

Minimum requirements in terms of number of credits 
(or semesters) to be acquired at each partner 
institution can be requested to get the degree. 

Slovakia 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

170 

 
 
 
 
Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

European Approach is not available. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Spain 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Accreditation criteria, procedure and timeframe. 

Existing need for market analysis tailored to specific 
national criteria. 

Restrictions to the creation of joint degrees. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Spain is among the countries reported to lack a 
comprehensive national framework specifically 
designed for joint programmes with extensive 
mobility components. 

Diplomas must feature the name of the King, the 
Spanish shield, and be in Spanish, as mandated by 
legislation. Lack of specific legislation for joint 
degrees creates challenges due to the absence of clear 
guidance. 

The signature process for diplomas is complex, with 
limited flexibility on signatory authority and the non-
acceptance of electronic signatures. 

Requirements for a new accreditation procedure for 
changes in consortium partners or curriculum 
change. 

Significant modifications in the programme structure 
necessitate re-accreditation. 

Recognition of blended/online learning. 

Barrier reported. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions. 

The Spanish Ministry publishes ministerial orders 
regulating these professions, that are negotiated with 
the respective other Ministers. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners. 

Tuition fees. 

Barrier reported. 

171 

 
 
 
 
Sweden 

Type of barrier 

Barrier(s) reported 

Restrictions to the creation of interdisciplinary 
degrees. 

Regulations on the diploma parchment and 
graduation rules. 

Degrees specify minimum credits in core subjects 
like chemistry and mathematics, limiting the scope 
for multidisciplinary studies within the credit 
constraints of a degree. 

The Degree Certificate must include the student's 
name, registration number, qualification title in both 
Swedish and English, cycle of award, reference to 
joint degree legal framework, list of completed 
courses from each university, and legal framework 
contact details. 

Over 80% of Swedish institutions are required to use 
a compulsory degree template. 

Barriers to use the European Approach for Quality 
Assurance of Joint Programmes. 

European Approach is not available 

Recognition of blended/online learning. 

Swedish legislation does not mention digital 
learning, leading to uncertainties. 

Different intellectual property rights legislation 
(development for course material). 

Students/researchers themselves own the products of 
their work. 

Restrictions related to regulated professions. 

Regulated professions exist in some academic areas, 
especially in the area of health. 

Requirements for consortium agreements. 

Obligatory agreement between partners 

Tuition fees. 

Mandatory tuition fee for non-European students on 
first degree and second-degree level and Swedish 
universities may not charge any fee for students from 
an EU/EEA country. On PhD-level no tuition fee can 
be charged. 

Restrictive legislation regarding selection of 
students. 

Detailed regulations about selection to guarantee 
equal treatment. 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV: Glossary of Terms 

Term 

Definition 

Academic staff 
in higher 
education 

Staff whose  primary or  major assignment is instruction or research in institutions 
offering  programmes  at  International  Standard  Classification  of  Education 
(ISCED438) levels 5 to 8. The targeted staff include staff based at higher education 
institutions who do both teaching and  research and staff who do teaching only or 
teaching mostly, regardless of the status and contractual conditions of the staff. 

Automatic 
mutual 
recognition of a 
qualification 

The right for holders of a qualification of a certain level that has been issued by one 
Member State to be considered for entry to a higher education programme in the next 
level  in  any  other  Member  State,  without  having  to  go  through  any  separate 
recognition procedure439. 

Automatic 
mutual 
recognition of 
the outcomes of 
a learning period 
abroad: at higher 
education level, 

The right to have the learning outcomes of a learning period recognised: as agreed 
beforehand in a learning agreement and confirmed in the Transcript of Records, in 
line  with  the  European  Credit  Transfer  and  Accumulation  System  (ECTS). 
Concretely, it means applying the rule set out in the 2015 ECTS Users' Guide that 
states that: ‘[a]ll credits gained during the period of study abroad or during the virtual 
mobility – as agreed in the Learning Agreement and confirmed by the Transcript of 
Records  –  should  be  transferred  without  delay  and  counted  towards  the  students' 
degree without any additional work or assessment of the student’440. 

Bologna Follow-
up Group 
(BFUG) 

The  Bologna  Follow-up  Group  (BFUG)  is  the  executive  structure  supporting  the 
Bologna Process between ministerial meetings (organised every two or three years) 
and overseeing the implementation of the ensuing decisions adopted in the form of 
ministerial communiqués 441.  

BFUG membership is based on the membership of the European Higher Education 
Area (EHEA)442. 

Bologna Process  The Bologna Process 443, launched with the Bologna Declaration of 1999, is one of 
the  main  voluntary  reform  processes  at  European  level.  It  aims  to  bring  more 
coherence  to  higher  education  systems  across  Europe.  It  consists  of  a  series  of 
ministerial; meetings and agreements between countries that belong to the European 
Higher Education Area (EHEA).  

438  UNESCO,  International  Standard  Classification  of  Education  (ISCED),  https://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/international-
standard-classification-education-isced 
439 Council Recommendation of 26 November 2018 on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper 
secondary education and training qualifications and the outcomes of learning periods abroad (OJ C, C/444, 10.12.2018, p. 1, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1568891859235&uri=CELEX:32018H1210(01) 
440  Council Recommendation of 26 November 2018 on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper 
secondary  education  and  training  qualifications  and  the  outcomes  of  learning  periods  abroad  (OJ  C,  C/444,  10.12.2018,  , 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1568891859235&uri=CELEX:32018H1210(01)  Ibid. 
441  European  Agency 
https://www.ehea.info/page-the-bologna-follow-up-group  
442 European Agency for Higher Education and Accreditation (EHEA), Members, https://www.ehea.info/page-members  
443  European  Agency  for  Higher  Education  and  Accreditation  (EHEA),  How  does  the  bologna  process  work? 
https://www.ehea.info/page-how-does-the-bologna-process-work  

(EHEA),  Bologna  Follow-up  Group, 

for  Higher  Education 

and  Accreditation 

173 

 
 
 
 
Combined 
approach to 
external quality 
assurance 

Refers  to  a  situation  where  a  higher  education  system  has  both  institutional  and 
programme approaches to external quality assurance. 

Competent 
Authority 

An individual or organisation that has the legally delegated or invested authority, 
capacity or power to perform a designated function444. 

Credit Transfer 

A process that allows credit awarded by one higher education awarding body to be 
recognised  and  count  towards  the  requirements  of  a  programme  at  another 
institution;  or  that  allows  credit  gained  on  a  particular  programme  to  contribute 
towards the requirements of a different one445. 

Database of 
External Quality 
Assurance 
Results 
(DEQAR) 

Diploma 
Supplement 

DEQAR  was  launched  in  2018  to  provide access  to  the  reports  and  accreditation 
decisions of EQAR-registered agencies446. 

The Diploma Supplement is a document accompanying a higher education diploma, 
providing a standardised description of the nature, level, context, content and status 
of  the  studies  completed  by  its  holder.  It  is  produced  by  the  higher  education 
institutions according to standards agreed by the European Commission, the Council 
of  Europe  and  UNESCO.  The  Diploma  Supplement  is  also  part  of  the  Europass 
framework transparency tools. 

It has eight sections of information: the holder of the qualification; the qualification; 
its  level  and  function;  the  contents  and  results  gained;  certification  of  the 
supplement; details of the national higher education system concerned (provided by 
the National Academic Recognition Information Centres (NARICs)); any additional 
relevant  information.  Graduates  in  all  the  countries  taking  part  in  the  Bologna 
Process have the right to receive the Diploma Supplement automatically, free and in 
a major European language447. 

A diploma supplement issued with a joint degree should clearly describe all parts of 
the degree, and it should clearly indicate at which institutions and/or in which study 
programmes the different parts of the degree have been earned448. 

444 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, ECTS users' guide 2015, Publications 
Office  of  the  European  Union,  2015,  https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/ects-users-
guide_en.pdf  
445  European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, ECTS users' guide 2015, Publications 
Office  of  the  European  Union,  2015,  https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/ects-users-
guide_en.pdf  
446  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  (EQAR),  Database  of  External  QA  Results  (DEQAR), 
https://www.eqar.eu/about/annual-reports/2020-2/database-of-external-qa-results-deqar/ 
447 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, ECTS users' guide 2015, Publications 
Office  of  the  European  Union,  2015,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/da7467e6-8450-11e5-b8b7-
01aa75ed71a1  
448 Council of Europe/UNESCO-CEPES, Revised Recommendation on the Recognition of Joint Degrees, 2016,  
https://www.enic-naric.net/fileusers/Revised_Recommendation_on_the_Recognition_of_Joint_Degrees_2016.pdf 

174 

 
 
 
Double degree 

A double degree is a specific type of multiple degree. Each degree must be signed 
by the competent authority of the institution concerned, and recognised officially in 
the countries where the different awarding institutions are located449. 

E4 Group 

The  E4  Group  entails  cooperation  between  four  organisations:  the  European 
Association  for  Quality  Assurance  in  Higher  Education  (ENQA),  the  European 
Students’  Union  (ESU),  the  European  University  Association  (EUA)  and  the 
European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) 450.  

The E4 Group developed the key principles of the European Approach and are the 
founding members of the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR). 

Europass 

Europass451 is a common framework for the provision of better services for skills 
and qualifications adopted in April 2018. The Europass platform launched in July 
2020 by the European Commission provides free tools and information to support 
people in their lifelong learning and career management. 

Europass  offers  people  the  possibility  to  create  a  profile  to  record  skills, 
qualifications and experiences in a secure online location and a CV and cover letter 
builder  to  effectively  communicate  their  skills  and qualifications  in  Europe  in  31 
different languages .The platform provides web-based tools for:  

- documenting and describing skills and qualifications acquired through working and 
learning experiences, including through mobility and volunteering;  

- supporting authentication services for any digital documents or representations of 
information on skills and qualifications (European Digital Credential for Learning); 

- self-assessing digital skills; 

-  documenting  the  learning  outcomes  of  qualifications,  including  the  Europass 
supplement  templates  (the  Diploma  Supplement,  the  Certificate  Supplement  and 
Europass Mobility).  

Moreover, Europass offers: 

-  information  on  job  opportunities  provided  by  EURES  (European  employment 
services); 

- information or links on learning opportunities, on qualifications and qualifications 
frameworks or systems in line with the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), 
on opportunities for validating non-formal and informal learning, and on recognition 
practices and relevant legislation in different countries, including non-EU countries; 

- information on services providing guidance on transnational learning mobility and 
career management; 

- skills intelligence as produced as part of EU activities and agencies within their 
areas of responsibility;  

449 European Commission, Erasmus+: EU programme for education, training, youth and sport,  Glossary of terms – Higher 
Education, https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/programme-guide/part-d/glossary-higher-education 
450  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  (EQAR),  EQAR's  Founders: 
https://www.eqar.eu/e4-group/ 
451 European Commission, About Europass, https://europa.eu/europass/en/about-europass  

the  E4  Group, 

175 

 
 
 
- and information on skills and qualifications that could be relevant to the particular 
needs of non-EU nationals arriving or residing in the EU to support their integration. 

Europass also provides open standards available free of charge for reuse by Member 
States and other stakeholders. 

Endorsed by Education Ministers of the European Higher Education Area in 2015, 
its objective is to improve quality assurance of transnational joint programmes by 
defining standards based on the ESG without the need to apply additional national 
criteria452.  

It entails a single review of the joint programme, led by an EQAR-registered quality 
assurance  agency,  which  can be  positive  (valid for  six  years),  positive  if  specific 
recommendations are met, or negative (with a right of appeal against the decision). 

ENQA is the European Higher Education Area’s stakeholder organisation for quality 
assurance agencies453. It was established in the year 2000 to contribute to developing, 
maintaining,  and  enhancing  quality  assurance  across  all  the  Bologna  Process 
signatory countries. ENQA currently has 58 full members spanning 56 countries454. 

European 
Approach for 
Quality 
Assurance of 
Joint 
Programmes 
(European 
Approach) 

European 
Association for 
Quality 
Assurance in 
Higher 
Education 
(ENQA) 

European Credit 
Transfer and 
Accumulation 
System (ECTS) 

The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System is a learner-centred system 
for  credit  accumulation  and  transfer,  based  on  the  principle  of  transparency  of 
learning, teaching and assessment processes. Its objective is to facilitate planning, 
delivery and evaluation of study programmes and student mobility by recognising 
learning achievements and qualifications and periods of learning455. 

ECTS credits express the volume of learning based on the defined learning outcomes 
and  their  associated  workload.  60  ECTS  credits  are  allocated  to  the  learning 
outcomes and associated workload of a full-time academic year. ECTS credits are 
generally expressed in whole numbers. 

European 
Education Area 
(EEA) 

The vision for the European Education Area as common space for quality education 
and lifelong learning across borders for all was set out by the European Commission 
in  2017456.  The  commitment  is  to  work  jointly  with  Member  States  towards  a 

452 European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR), European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint 
Programmes, https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-programmes/ 
453 European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), ENQA's Mission, https://www.enqa.eu/about-
enqa/ 
454  European  Association  for  Quality  Assurance  in  Higher  Education  (ENQA),  Member  and  Affiliate  Database, 
https://www.enqa.eu/membership-database/  
455 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, ECTS users' guide 2015, Publications 
Office  of  the  European  Union,  2015,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/da7467e6-8450-11e5-b8b7-
01aa75ed71a1  
456 Communication from the Commission on Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture: The European 
Commission's  contribution  to  the  Leaders'  meeting  in  Gothenburg,  17  November  2017,  COM(201)0673,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:673:FIN 

176 

 
 
 
 
European Education Area by 2025 based on trust, mutual recognition, cooperation 
and the sharing of best practices, mobility and growth457.  

European Higher 
Education Area 
(EHEA) 

The European Higher Education Area458 was created in 1999 with the signing of the 
Bologna Declaration. It is meant to be a common higher education space built on 
common values and using common tools that ensures comparable, compatible, and 
coherent higher education systems in Europe. 

Currently, EHEA members include 49 countries and the European Commission459. 
To  become  a  member  of  the  EHEA,  countries  have  to  be  party  to  the  European 
Cultural Convention460 and to declare their willingness to pursue and implement the 
objectives of the Bologna Process in their own higher education systems. 

European 
Qualifications 
Framework 
(EQF) 

The  European  Qualifications  Frameworks  is  an  8-level,  learning  outcomes-based 
framework for all types of qualifications that serves as a translation tool between 
different national qualifications frameworks461. This framework, set up in 2008 and 
revised  in  2017,  helps  improve  transparency,  comparability  and  portability  of 
qualifications  and  makes  it  possible  to  compare  qualifications  from  different 
countries and institutions.  

The  EQF  covers  all  types  and  all  levels  of  qualifications  and  the  use  of  learning 
outcomes makes it clear what a person knows, understands and is able to do. The 
level increases according to the level of proficiency (level 1 is the lowest and 8 the 
highest). The EQF is closely linked to national qualifications frameworks to provide 
a comprehensive map of all types and levels of qualifications in Europe, which are 
increasingly accessible through qualification databases.  

EQAR  was  founded  in  2008  by  the  E4  Group  as  an  independent  organisation  in 
charge of  establishing  and  managing  a  register  of  quality assurance  agencies  that 
work in line with the ESG framework462. EQAR currently lists 57 agencies in 31 
countries.  

Refers to the quality assurance processes carried out by quality assurance agencies. 
The aim of the external quality assurance is to assess the effectiveness of the internal 
quality  assurance  processes  of  the  institution,  and  whether  the  institution  has  a 
sufficiently  mature  quality  culture  to  ensure  the  high  quality  of  its  learning 
provisions. 

European 
Quality 
Assurance 
Register for 
Higher 
Education 
(EQAR) 

External quality 
assurance 

457 ‘A European education area by 2025’, Summary of Communication (COM(2017) 673 final) – Strengthening European 
identity through education and culture, 2022, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/a-european-education-area-
by-2025.html  
458 European Agency for Higher Education and Accreditation (EHEA), https://www.ehea.info/   
459  European  Agency  for  Higher  Education  and  Accreditation  (EHEA),  Full  members,  https://www.ehea.info/page-
full_members. The membership of Belarus and Russia is currently suspended. 
460  Council  of  Europe,  European  Cultural  Convention 
heritage/european-cultural-convention  
461  Europass,  The  European  Qualifications  Frameworks,  https://europa.eu/europass/en/europass-tools/european-
qualifications-framework  
462  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  for  Higher  Education  (EQAR),  Close-up,  https://www.eqar.eu/about/close-
up/#history 

(Paris,  1954),  https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-

177 

 
 
 
Higher 
Education 
Institution (HEI) 

Any type of higher education institution which, in accordance with national law or 
practice, offers recognised degrees or other recognised tertiary level qualifications, 
whatever  such  establishment  may  be  called,  as  well  as  any  other  type  of  higher 
education institution which is recognised by the national authorities as belonging to 
its higher education system.463 

Institutional 
approach to 
external quality 
assurance 

Means that the higher education institution needs to go through a periodic external 
quality  assurance  process  at  institutional  level  only.  It  allows  the  institution  to 
develop and deliver programmes without the need for an external quality review at 
programme level (this is called self-accreditation in many countries). 

Internal quality 
assurance 

Refers  to  the  quality  assurance  processes  carried  out  internally  by  the  higher 
education  institutions  themselves.  Higher  education  institutions  have  the  primary 
responsibility for the quality of their provision and its assurance. 

Joint degree  

A  single  document  awarded  by  higher  education  institutions  offering  the  joint 
programme  and  nationally  acknowledged  as  the  recognised  award  of  the  joint 
programme464. 

Joint degree 
programme 

Refers to a joint programme leading to a joint degree. 

Joint programme  Refers to an integrated curriculum coordinated and offered jointly by different higher 

education institutions, leading to double/multiple degrees or a joint degree465. 

Learning 
mobility 

Learning mobility is normally understood to involve physical mobility in which the 
learner/student  moves  to  an  institution  in  another  country  for  part  or  all  of  a 
programme  of  study.  The  majority  of  such mobility  takes place  in  the  context  of 
planned  and  organised  programmes.  The  credits  from  such  mobility  are  formally 
recognised by the sending institution. 

There  is  also  a  considerable  amount  of  ‘free  mover’  mobility  which  depends  on 
individual  initiative.  As  well  as  physical  mobility  it  is  increasingly  possible  for 
learners  to  participate  in  virtual  mobility  through  organised  joint  or  shared 
curriculum, or through Open Universities, Open Education Resources, MOOCs, or 
other on-line material466. 

Learning 
outcome 

Statements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on completion of 
a learning process. The achievement of learning outcomes has to be assessed through 
procedures based on clear and transparent criteria. Learning outcomes are attributed 
to individual educational components and to programmes as a whole. They are also 

463 Council Recommendation of 26 November 2018 on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper 
secondary education and training qualifications and the outcomes of learning periods abroad (OJ C, C/444, 10.12.2018, p. 1, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1568891859235&uri=CELEX:32018H1210(01)  
464  European  Quality  Assurance  Register 
programmes/definitions/  
465 European Commission, Erasmus+: EU programme for education, training, youth and sport,  Glossary of terms – Higher 
Education, https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/programme-guide/part-d/glossary-higher-education 
466 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, ECTS users' guide 2015, Publications 
Office  of  the  European  Union,  2015,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/da7467e6-8450-11e5-b8b7-
01aa75ed71a1  

https://www.eqar.eu/kb/joint-

for  Higher  Education 

(EQAR): 

178 

 
 
 
used in European and national qualifications frameworks to describe the level of the 
individual qualification467. 

Multiple degree 

Refers  to  at  least  two  separate  degree  certificates  awarded  to  a  student  upon 
successful  completion  of  a  joint  programme.  Each  degree  must  be  signed  by  the 
competent  authority  of  the  institution  concerned,  and  recognised  officially  in  the 
countries where the different awarding institutions are located. 

National 
qualifications 
frameworks 
(NQF) 

National  qualifications  frameworks  are  instruments  for  the  classification  of 
qualifications  according  to  a  set  of  criteria  for  specified  levels  of  learning 
achieved468. 

National qualifications frameworks encompass all education qualifications  – or all 
higher education qualifications, depending on the policy of the country concerned – 
in  an  education  system.  They  show  what  learners  may  be  expected  to  know, 
understand and be able to do on the basis of a given qualification (learning outcomes) 
as well as how qualifications within a system articulate, that is how learners may 
move between qualifications in an education system.469 

Professional 
services staff  

Staff who are not strictly considered “academic staff”, but have extensive high-level 
expertise in strategic, legal or communication functions (in particular in the field of 
higher education transnational cooperation); professionals working in areas related 
to  academic  tasks  but  with  no  direct  engagement  in  them  (such  as  training  in 
innovative  pedagogical  method,  or  developing  curricula);  or  higher  education 
professionals  with  extensive  knowledge  of  higher  education  and  other  relevant 
policies (working in quality assurance, human resources or student affairs. 

Programme 
approach to 
external quality 
assurance 

Quality 
Assurance 

Means that each individual programme (or group of programmes) to be delivered by 
one  or  more  higher  education  institution  needs  to  go  through  a  periodic  external 
quality assurance process review. 

Refers to the processes, both internal and external, carried out by a higher education 
institution or quality assurance agency, to ensure a learning environment in which 
the content of programmes, learning opportunities and facilities are equitable and fit 
for purpose. Quality assurance activities have the twin purposes of: 

•  Accountability: assuring the higher education community and the public of 
the  quality  of  the  higher  education  institution’s  activities  by  compliance 
with a set of standards. It can be the basis of providing certain rights to the 
institution: recruiting students, awarding degrees, obtaining public funding. 

•  Enhancement: providing advice and recommendations to and within higher 
education institutions on how they might improve what they are doing. 

467 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, ECTS users' guide 2015, Publications 
Office  of  the  European  Union,  2015,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/da7467e6-8450-11e5-b8b7-
01aa75ed71a1 
468  Council  Recommendation  of  20  December  2012  on  the  validation  of  non-formal  and  informal  learning  (OJ  C,  C/398, 
22.12.2012, p. 1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:398:0001:0005:EN:PDF  
469 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, ECTS users' guide 2015, Publications 
Office  of  the  European  Union,  2015,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/da7467e6-8450-11e5-b8b7-
01aa75ed71a1  

179 

 
 
 
 
Standards and 
Guidelines for 
Quality 
Assurance in the 
European Higher 
Education Area 
(ESG): 

Workload  

Taken together, accountability and enhancement create trust in the higher education 
institution’s performance. 

Quality assurance can take place at programme or institutional level or through a 
combined approach.  

A set of standards and guidelines for internal and external quality assurance in higher 
education, developed within the Bologna Process470.  

The ESG were first adopted by Ministers of the European Higher Education Area in 
2005471, and were revised in 2015472. 

An estimation of the time learners typically need to complete all learning activities 
such as lectures, seminars, projects, practical work, work placements, and individual 
study  required  to  achieve  the  defined  learning  outcomes  in  formal  learning 
environments. The correspondence of the full time workload of an academic year to 
60 credits is often formalised by national legal provisions. In most cases, student 
workload ranges from 1,500 to 1,800 hours for an academic year, which means that 
one credit corresponds to 25 to 30 hours of work. It should be recognised that this 
represents the normal workload and that for individual learners the actual time to 
achieve the learning outcomes will vary.473 

470  ‘Standards  and  Guidelines  for  Quality  Assurance  in  the  European  Higher  Education  Area  (ESG)’,  Brussels,  2015. 
https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf  
471 European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, ‘Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the 
European  Higher  Education  Area’,  2005,  https://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/ENQA/05/3/ENQA-Bergen-
Report_579053.pdf  
472  European  Higher  Education  Area  (EHEA),  Standards  and  Guidelines  for  Quality  Assurance  in  the  European  Higher 
Education Area, https://www.ehea.info/page-standards-and-guidelines-for-quality-assurance  
473 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, ECTS users' guide 2015, Publications 
Office  of  the  European  Union,  2015,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/da7467e6-8450-11e5-b8b7-
01aa75ed71a1  

180