COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Evaluation of the European Labour Authority (ELA)
Date: 2025-05-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: European Labour Authority, access to information, activity report, employment service, free movement of workers, labour mobility, operation of the Institutions, single market

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.5.2025  SWD(2025) 128 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE  Evaluation of the European Labour Authority (ELA) {COM(2025) 256 final} - {SEC(2025) 157 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 

1.1.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation .................................................................. 2 

1.2.  Evaluation methodology and limitations ............................................................ 2 

2.  What was the expected outcome of the intervention? ............................................ 5 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives .............................................. 5 

2.2.  Points of comparison .......................................................................................... 8 

3.  How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? ................................ 12 

3.1.  Organisation and finances ................................................................................ 12 

3.2.  Delivering outputs and activities ...................................................................... 19 

3.3.  External factors influencing the delivery ......................................................... 24 

4.  Evaluation findings (analytical part) ..................................................................... 27 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ............................... 27 

4.1.1.  Effectiveness ........................................................................................ 27 
4.1.2.  Efficiency ............................................................................................. 38 
4.1.3.  Coherence ............................................................................................. 47 
4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ...................... 52 

4.3.  Is the intervention still relevant? ...................................................................... 55 

5.  What are the conclusions and lessons learned? .................................................... 60 

5.1.  Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 60 

5.2.  Lessons learned ................................................................................................ 64 

Annex I.  

Procedural Information ........................................................................... 67 

Annex II.  Methodology and Analytical Models used .............................................. 76 

Annex III.   Evaluation Matrix ..................................................................................... 86 

Annex IV.   Overview of Benefits and Costs ............................................................. 112 

Annex V.  

Stakeholders Consultation - Synopsis Report ...................................... 127 

Annex VI.   ELA Intervention Logic ......................................................................... 141 

Annex VII.   The Set-up Process of ELA .................................................................... 144 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

DG EMPL 
CJI 
EC 
ECG 
ECO 
EURES 
ELA 
ETF 
FRA 
ILO 
IMI 
KPI 
NCO 
NLO 
PES 
SNE 
SOLVIT 

SPD 

TCN 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion 
Concerted and Joint Inspection 
European Commission 
EURES Coordination Group 
EURES European Coordination Office 
European network of employment services 
European Labour Authority 
European Training Foundation 
Fundamental Rights Agency 
International Labour Organization 
Internal Market Information System 
Key Performance Indicators  
National Coordination Office (EURES) 
National Liaison Officer (ELA) 
Public Employment Service 
Seconded National Expert 
EU-wide network of centres, which are part of the Member 
States’ national administration, that helps citizens and businesses 
resolve issues related to the application of EU law 
https://ec.europa.eu/solvit/index_en.htm) 
Single Programming Document – Document including a multi-
annual programming (3 years) and the annual work programme. 
Third Country National 

 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

Purpose 
In line with Article 40 of the Regulation establishing a European Labour Authority1, this 
document evaluates the European Labour Authority (ELA), a new decentralised agency 
whose  Founding  Regulation  was  adopted  on  20  June  2019.  ELA  is  one  of  the  five 
decentralised agencies that fall under the remit of the Commission’s Directorate General 
for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion (DG EMPL).2 As a new agency in its ‘start up 
phase’ ELA has been evaluated separately from the remaining four well-established EMPL 
Agencies.3  This  is  the  first  evaluation  of  ELA.  The  Founding  Regulation  provides  for 
subsequent evaluations every five years. 

In  line  with  the  Commission's  better  regulation  guidelines4,  the  present  evaluation 
provides, to  the extent possible, considering ELA’s early stage of development and the 
absence  of  a  comprehensive  monitoring  system,  an  analysis  of  the  effectiveness, 
efficiency, relevance, coherence, and added value of the agency. It furthermore takes first 
steps in assessing the agency's performance in relation to its mandate, specific objectives 
and activities, as set out in Article 40 of the Founding Regulation. While this evaluation 
may in several respects have more the character of a progress report, it aims to contribute 
to a better evidence base for the next evaluation. 

Scope of the evaluation 
The evaluation covers the period from the adoption of the ELA Regulation in 2019 up to 
the second quarter of 20235 and the entirety of the agency’s work. The evaluation covers 
the 27 Member States as well as EEA countries, in so far as ELA includes these countries 
in its work. 

1.2.  Evaluation methodology and limitations 

Methodology6 
The  evaluation  was  supported  by  an  external  study  (hereafter  ‘supporting  study’).  The 
study used a variety of primary and secondary data/sources and combined qualitative and 

1   Regulation - 2019/1149 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
2   The other four agencies are Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF and EU-OSHA. 
3   The Commission grouped agencies in three categories depending on the degree of maturity and stability 
of their tasks in the Communication on Programming of human and financial resources for decentralised 
agencies 2014-2020 (COM (2013) 519 FINAL. For more info on the evaluation of four EMPL Agencies, 
see.https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13400-EU-agencies-
Eurofound-Cedefop-ETF-and-EU-OSHA-2024-evaluation_en  

4   Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox (europa.eu). 
5   The supporting study covers developments including Q2 2023. However, where figures for the complete 

year 2023 are available, these have been used. 

6   See also Annex II. 

2 

 
 
quantitative research tools to collect a wide range of evidence and support as robust an 
analysis as possible. The supporting study was built on an evaluation matrix.7  

ELA’s management and monitoring documents were reviewed together with other studies 
and reports related to the Authority. The supporting study included extensive consultation 
work. It also included four case studies8. In-depth interviews were conducted with persons 
and organisations collaborating with and benefiting from ELA’s work as well as members 
of the governance structure. Targeted online surveys were conducted with key stakeholders 
and agency staff.9 The study also made use of the European Commission 12-week public 
consultation  on  the  Europa  website  Have  Your  Say10  that  collected  feedback  from  the 
general public. 

The assessment of ELA’s efficiency combined the quantitative information available and 
appended  this  with  more  qualitative  information  from  desk  research  and  stakeholders 
perceptions, given the limitations of available data.11 As regards costs, the report builds the 
analysis on the ELA budget and qualitatively discusses the costs for stakeholders outside 
ELA’s  budget  based  on  stakeholders’  feedback.  Two  workshops  were  organised:  one 
towards the end of the stakeholder consultation  to  get  an in-depth  understanding of the 
views of social partners and a validation workshop at the very end of the supporting study, 
to confirm the conclusions of the study with key stakeholders.12 For a fuller description of 
the methodology see Annex II. 

Limitations13 
During the evaluation process, it became clear that the evaluation matrix had limitations 
due to the absence of an adequate ELA monitoring system with key performance indicators 
(KPI), targets, and SMART objectives14. ELA also did not maintain all the indicators of the 
previously  established  monitoring  of  the  EURES’15  performance,  nor  did  it  set  up  a 
strategic  management  system  for  the  overall  performance.  Not  all  originally  envisaged 
indicators  were  finally  available,  and  the  indicators  introduced  in  2021  or  2022  were 
output-oriented, thus providing no insights into results.  At the same time, process-related 
aspects gained importance, which were not captured with the evaluation matrix. Therefore, 

7   Annex II and Annex III and Supporting Study. 
8   Supporting  Study,  Annex  VII,  Case  Studies  (Information  and  awareness  raising  in  road  transport, 
Coordination office  of EURES,  ELA’s support in concerted and joint inspections,  Mediation task of 
ELA). 
9   Annex V. 
10   For a detailed presentation of the consultation activities see Annex V and Supporting Study, Annex VI. 
11   Annex II and Supporting Study, Annex V. 
12   Supporting Study, Annex VI. 
13   Annex II, section 7 (Limitations and robustness of findings). 
14    New key  performance indicators were defined by ELA in the  Single Programming Document 2023-
2025.The first steps in setting up an internal management and control system and linked to it a system 
of  performance  indicators  had  not  yet  produced  relevant  information  in  summer  2023.  ELA  (2023), 
Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2022, p. 52, ELA (2024), Consolidated Annual Activity Report 
2023, p. 9/10 and 52/53 and Supporting Study, p. 96. 

15   However, the evaluation was able to retrieve some data based on the EURES Performance Measurement 

System, for the matching process for the years 2021-2022. 

3 

 
 
this report, while aiming to respond to the evaluation questions, includes indicators and 
reasoning  not  identified  in  the  evaluation  matrix  and  could  not  in  all  instances  cover 
indicators  which  were  identified  in  the  evaluation  matrix.  This  partially  restricted  the 
assessment of performance and achievement of objectives. 

To mitigate the absence of result-oriented indicators, the evaluation collected evidence by 
analysing ELA’s internal activity reports, data on the staff and budgetary situation of the 
agency  and  its  development  over  the  evaluation  period.  It  also  used  reports  from  the 
European Court of Auditors and output indicators (e.g. number of meetings etc.). 

Stakeholder  feedback  filled  most  of  the  information  gaps.  However,  reliance  on 
stakeholders’ input and views may lead to potential bias and influence robustness of the 
evidence and subsequent findings. Also, as understanding some of ELA’s tasks requires a 
good  knowledge  of  the  relevant  acquis  and  processes  (e.g.  on  posting,  coordination  of 
social security, tackling undeclared work), only a limited number of informed experts and 
stakeholders could be expected to provide in-depth feedback. 

Despite  efforts  to  reach  out  widely  to  stakeholders  through  the  various  surveys  in  the 
supporting study, some biases cannot be excluded as (i) stakeholders in different areas of 
ELA’s activities might have been mobilised to different degrees and (ii) persons who are 
less supportive might have been less inclined to respond than others. 

Stakeholders, and notably staff, may have (some) vested interests considering the role of 
ELA. This has been considered when using their input. However, stakeholders and staff 
are also experts, with a good knowledge of ELA features and a high interest in obtaining 
or providing a good service. As such, their views are relevant and valuable. To best use 
this  resource,  the  evaluation  examined  if  specific  groups  of  stakeholders  may  have 
impacted the outcomes of the surveys, e.g. by having particularly strong opinions. Care 
was taken to use the stakeholders’ and staff feedback in a targeted way (e.g. staff feedback 
is important in assessing internal organisation). Finally, feedback received from different 
surveys  and  interviews  has  been  compared  and  checked  for  coherence  with  the  overall 
picture (e.g. number and type of activities organised by ELA) and to the extent possible 
with written evidence.  

As  a  newly  established  agency,  ELA’s  structure  and  operations  evolved  significantly 
during the evaluation period. This limited assessment of its performance and efficiency as 
even by mid-2023 some activities just had started and results were not yet visible.  

Finally, it was in most cases not possible to identify impacts at country level arising from 
ELA’s  actions.  This  was  due  to  ELA’s  recent  establishment,  its  limited  size,  and  a 
monitoring  system  that  was  not  fully  developed,  not  to  mention  that  such  effects  will, 
considering  the  complexity  of  the  area,  be  difficult  to  estimate  even  under  much  better 
conditions. 

4 

 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Against the backdrop of increasing labour mobility and continuous reporting on problems 
for workers in  cross-border situations, Commission  President Juncker  announced in  his 
2017 State of the Union speech the setting up of a European Labour Authority. The general 
objective of the Authority is to contribute to ensuring fair labour mobility across the Union 
and  to  assist  Member  States  and  the  Commission  in  their  effective  application  and 
enforcement of Union law related to labour mobility across the Union and the coordination 
of  social  security  systems  (Founding  Regulation,  Article  2).  In  spite  of  an  increasing 
legislative acquis, labour mobility was often perceived as coming with the risk of social 
dumping, brain drain or insufficient protection of the rights of mobile workers and citizens. 
Therefore, the Commission identified six key drivers,16 motivating the set-up of ELA:  

• 

• 

• 

Inadequate  support  and  guidance  for  individuals  and  businesses  in  cross-border 
situations,  including  incomplete  or  sparse  information  available  to  the  public 
concerning their rights and obligations,  
Insufficient  access  to  and  sharing  of  information  between  national  authorities 
responsible  for  different  domains  of  labour  mobility  and  social  security 
coordination 
Insufficient capacity of competent national authorities to organise cooperation with 
authorities across borders 

•  Weak or absent mechanisms for joint cross-border enforcement activities 
•  Lack of a cross-border mediation mechanism between Member States across all 

domains of labour mobility and social security coordination 
Insufficient cooperation set-up at EU level 

• 

In addressing these drivers the intervention also responds to the Sustainable Development 
Goal 8, decent work and economic growth, as it allows mobile workers to benefit from fair 
working  conditions.  Fair  working  conditions  for  mobile  workers,  help  to  make  labour 
mobility a good choice and thereby to contribute to higher productivity of the workforce. 
Positive knock-on effects on other sustainable development goals such as ensuring peace, 
justice  and  strong  institutions  (SDG  16)  can  also  be  expected  to  occur  from  better 
enforcement  of  legislation  across  borders  or  the  better  mutual  understanding  between 
national authorities. 

ELA’s  activities  contribute  to  a  situation  where  intra-EU  cross-border  labour  mobility 
works  for  employers  and  employees  as  well  as  public  authorities  in  both  origin  and 
destination  countries.  This  contributes  to  a  more  efficient  allocation  of  labour,  thereby 
facilitating European economic growth and enhancing competitiveness.  

16   SWD(2018)68 final (Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European 

Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority), p. 9-20. 

5 

 
 
 
In  addition,  these  activities  contribute  to  protecting  the  rights  of  mobile  workers  by 
supporting  inspections  and  providing  mobile  workers  with  adequate  and  more  easily 
accessible information on their rights.  

Ensuring  transparency in  national  labour markets  and addressing the social concerns of 
both  local  and  mobile  workers  are  essential  preconditions  for  citizens  in  origin  and 
destination countries to recognise the benefits of labour mobility and acknowledge it as 
fair. 

From the start ELA was conceived as a hub, bringing together, coordinating, and ensuring 
a smooth flow of information between the relevant stakeholders, notably various national 
authorities and facilitating their cooperation. In all areas ELA has to rely on constructive 
cooperation with players at the national level. Provided the commitment of Member States 
to free movement, this was considered as the missing link to ensure fair labour mobility. 
ELA’s aim is to improve the availability, quality and accessibility of information regarding 
rights  and  obligations  in  relation  to  labour  mobility  and  supports  EU  Member  States’ 
authorities in providing services to individuals and employers through EURES. 

The  scope  of  ELA’s  activities  is  set  by  EU  legislation  on  free  movement  of  workers, 
including  explicitly  social  security  coordination  and  posting  and  social  aspects  of 
international road transport. 

The drivers which led to the idea to establish ELA, have developed into the objectives and 
tasks identified in the Founding Regulation. The establishment of ELA can be understood 
as (i) a service to Member States assisting them in better cooperation and coordination and 
as (ii) a means to help jobseekers, workers and companies by providing more transparency 
about employment opportunities in other Member States.17  

The Regulation sets four specific objectives18: 

1)  Facilitate access to information on rights and obligations regarding labour 

mobility across the Union as well as relevant to services.  

2)  Facilitate and enhance cooperation between Member States in the enforcement of 
relevant Union law across the Union and including facilitating concerted and joint 
inspections.  

3)  Mediate and facilitate a solution in case of cross-border disputes between 

Member States.  

4)  Support cooperation between Member States in tackling undeclared work. 

These specific objectives are then further detailed into operational objectives or tasks. The 
Regulation provides for seven tasks to be performed by ELA. These tasks correspond to 

17   Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1149. 
18   Article 2 does not explicitly use the term ‘specific’. This is the terminology introduced in the intervention 

logic (Annex VI) and is used throughout this document.  

6 

 
 
 
the eight operational objectives identified in the intervention logic aiming to address the 
problem drivers identified above19: 

a)  Facilitate access to information regarding rights and obligations concerning labour 

mobility for individuals, employers and social partner organisations. 
b)  Manage and coordinate the European Coordination Office of EURES. 
c)  Facilitate  cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States 
with a view to the consistent, efficient and effective application and enforcement 
of relevant Union law. 

d)  Coordinate and support concerted and joint inspections. 
e)  Carry out analyses and risk assessment on issues of cross-border labour mobility 

(including social security coordination). 

f)  Support Member States with capacity building regarding the effective application 

and enforcement of relevant Union law. 

g)  Support Member States in tackling undeclared work. 
h)  Mediate disputes between Member States on the application of relevant Union law. 
The table below provides an overview of the main ELA tasks and the relevant activities 
associated to those tasks. 

Figure 1:  Key activities per ELA task 

ELA tasks(operational objectives) 

Key activities 

Task 1a: Information and Services  

Task 1b: Coordination of EURES  

Task 2: Cooperation and exchange of 
information 

Translations; Working Groups on Information; Information support 
services; Sectoral Workshops 

Coordination and network governance; Preparation of the ECO work 
programme; Drafting the annual performance measurement system 
report; Managing the EURES portal; Provide training session for the 
staff  in  the  EURES  Network;  European  (Online)  Job  Days; 
Communication 

Establishing  and  managing  the  cooperation  and  information 
exchange  framework  between  national  authorities;  Promoting 
enhanced cross-border cooperation; Promoting the use of electronic 
tools  and  procedures  for  cross-border  cooperation;  Reporting 
activities 

Task 3: Concerted and joint inspections   Coordination of and support for inspections and facilitating proper 
follow-up; Proposals to Member States to carry out CJI’s; Working 
Group  on 
Information 
Inspection;  Learning  and  Training; 
campaigns; Strategic partnerships; Monitoring and reporting 

Task 4: Analysis and Risk Assessment  

Task 5: Capacity building  

Conducting analytical activities, including mappings, analyses and 
reports;  Mapping  of  Member  State’  tools  and  approaches  to  risk 
assessment; Integrating labour mobility analyses and risk assessment 

Organisation  of  specific  training  sessions;  Collection  of  good 
practices  and  organisation  of  relevant  events;  Mutual  learning; 
Promotion of capacity building activities 

19   In the Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 tasks 1 and 2 are put together. See intervention logic in Annex VI. 

7 

 
 
 
ELA tasks(operational objectives) 

Key activities 

Task 6: Tackling undeclared work  

Task 7: Mediation  

Source: ELA Annual activity report 2022 

Organisation  and  management  of  the  meetings  of  the  Platform 
tackling  undeclared  work;  Mutual  learning  activities;  Helping 
research new areas and build the knowledge base of the Platform; 
Communication and information activities 

Mediate  disputes  between  Member  States;  Information  and 
communication  activities;  Training  and  knowledge  sharing 
activities; Monitoring and reporting activities 

Preferably,  an  operational  objective  is  designed  to  support  a  single  specific  objective, 
whereas  a  specific  objective  can  well  be  achieved  by  more  than  one  strands  of  action 
(operational objectives). For the detailed intervention logic see Annex VI of this report. 
The  intervention  logic  and  its  hierarchy  of  objectives  constitutes  an  important  tool  for 
steering the process and developing indicators for monitoring and evaluation. The external 
factors which impacted on ELA’s activities are discussed in Section 3.2 (2).  

A  key  feature  of  ELA’s  area  of  competence  is  that  important  parts  are  covered  by 
Directives. This means that EU law is implemented via national legislation and different 
national  institutional  set-ups  add  a  layer  of  complexity  when  coordinating  national 
regimes.  

2.2.  Points of comparison 

The preferred option, as presented in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal to 
set up ELA, foresaw ELA to provide ‘support to information and services to citizens and 
employers,  cooperation,  joint  inspections,  analysis  and  risk  assessment,  information 
exchange, and capacity building, while facilitating the adoption of decisions as regards 
conciliation  mechanisms and cooperation in  case of  cross-border  labour  disruptions’.20 
Except for the support to cooperation in case of cross-border labour disruptions, these tasks 
have been included in the adopted Regulation. To achieve this, ELA was foreseen to take 
over  seven  existing  functions/bodies,  namely:  (i)  the  EURES  European  Coordination 
Office,  (ii)  the  Conciliation  Board  from  the  Administrative  Commission  (AC)  on  the 
Coordination  of  Social  Security  Systems,  the  (iii)  Audit  Board  and  the  (iv)  Technical 
Commission of the AC, (v) the European Platform to tackle Undeclared Work, (vi) the 
Expert committee on the Posting of Workers; and (vii) the Technical Committee on the 
Free Movement of Workers. Incorporation of those bodies was expected to simplify the 
institutional landscape and to carry out functions in a more integrated way.21 Except for the 
three bodies linked to the Administrative Commission (the Conciliation Board, the Audit 
Board and the Technical Commission), ELA took over all of these bodies.22 

20   European  Commission,  SWD(2018)68  final,  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  Proposal  for  a 

Regulation of the EP and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority, p.59. 

21   SWD(2018)68 final, p. 50. 
22   SWD(2018)68 final, p. 47. 

8 

 
 
In terms of effects, the impact assessment expected that the Authority would improve the 
provision of labour mobility analysis, by pooling relevant sources. Thanks to specialised 
and dedicated staff it would be in a good position to support joint inspections. The Platform 
Tackling Undeclared Work combined with National Liaison Officers would constitute a 
coordination mechanism for bilateral and multilateral information exchanges. The support 
provided by ELA would allow addressing problematic phenomena such as e.g. letterbox 
companies in an integrated manner. 

The coordination of EURES was expected to have synergies with similar activities carried 
out by bodies integrated into ELA.23 Joint capacity building and training measures could 
be initiated and outreach activities to workers and employers could be expanded to cover 
a broader range of topics and/or a wider audience. 

The absorption of the Conciliation Board was expected to extend the conciliation function 
to  other  areas  than  social  security  coordination  alone,  whereas  the  Audit  Board  and 
Technical  Commission  were  planned  to  be  integrated  by  ELA  on  the  grounds  of  the 
technical  nature  of  their  tasks.24  ELA  was  expected  to  feed  into  discussions  within  the 
Advisory  Committee  for  the  Coordination  of  Social  Security  Systems,  the  Advisory 
Committee on the Free Movement of Workers and the Committee on Road Transport by 
presenting  the  findings  of  reports  it  had  prepared  with  relevance  to  the  scope  of  those 
committees. The advisory committees  would continue their work as they did before the 
establishment of ELA and the Committee on Road Transport would continue its activities  
as part of the EU comitology structure.25  

The highly qualitative approach of the impact assessment in assessing the problems, effects 
and  impacts  was  linked  to  the  difficulties  of  establishing  causal  links  between  the 
envisaged new body and socio-economic impacts in an area of fairly complex rule-setting 
and enforcement.26 As a consequence several points of comparison rely heavily on the input 
and  feedback  from  stakeholders27  (Figure  2).  To  assess  the  success  towards  removing 
obstacles  to  fair  labour  mobility  would  need  to  rely  on  a  comprehensiveose  existing 
obstacles . Such inventory, which is particulary complex to establish, was not undertaken  
at the stage of the impact assessment, nor later on by ELA.  

Considering the changes between what was foreseen as part of the preferred option in the 
impact assessment and the finally adopted Regulation, the points of comparison presented 
in Figure 1 refer only to those areas included in the adopted Regulation. 

23   E.g. with the Platform Tackling Undeclared Work as a forum for the exchange of information and best 
practices and for engaging in cross-border cooperation and joint activities. SWD (2018)68 final p. 102. 
24   Respectively overviewing and facilitating cross-border payments settlement of reimbursement claims 
between social security institutions, and providing a forum to discuss technical aspects of the IT tools 
used in social security coordination, notably for the exchange of information (i.e. EESSI). 

25   SWD (2018)68 final p. 52/53. 
26   SWD(2018)68, p. 31. 
27   For limitations see section 1.2 above. 

9 

 
 
Figure 2: Points of comparison 

Specific Objective of 
the intervention 

access 

to 
Facilitate 
information on rights and 
obligations 
regarding 
labour  mobility  across 
the  Union  as  well  as  to 
relevant services 

in 

Facilitate  and  enhance 
between 
cooperation 
Member  States 
the 
enforcement  of  relevant 
the 
Union 
Union, 
including 
facilitating concerted and 
joint inspections 

law  across 

cooperation 
Support 
between  Member  States 
in 
tackling  undeclared 
work. 

Operational Objectives 

Point of comparison (situation prior to 2019) 

OO1.  Improve  the  availability,  quality  and  accessibility  of  information 
offered to individuals, employers and social partner organisations regarding 
rights and obligations to facilitate labour mobility across the EU  
OO2.  Manage  the  European  Coordination  Office  of  EURES  to  support 
Member States in providing services to individuals and employers 

OO3. Facilitate the cooperation and acceleration of exchange of information 
between  Member  States  and  support  their  effective  compliance  with 
cooperation obligations, including on information exchange. 
OO4. Coordinate and support (at the request of one or more Member States, 
or  by  suggesting  to  the  authorities  of  the  Member  States  concerned) 
concerted  or  joint  inspections  in  the  areas  within  the  Authority’s 
competence. 
OO5.  Assess  risks  and  carry  out  analyses  regarding  labour  mobility  and 
social security coordination across the EU 
OO6. Support Member States with capacity building aimed at promoting the 
consistent enforcement of EU law related to labour mobility across the EU 
OO7. Tackle undeclared work and encourage cooperation between Member 
States  through  the  European  Platform  to  enhance  cooperation  in  tackling 
undeclared work 

Insufficient access to information and transparency on cross-border mobility rules was 
considered a problem both for individuals and for businesses.  
E.g.  in  road  transport,  53%  of  the  respondents  to  a  public  consultation  carried  out  in 
2017 considered that EU guidance on explaining relevant EU legislation in this field was 
not,  or  only  partially,  useful.  This  is  especially  problematic  in  view  of  the  different 
interpretation of EU road transport legislation. 
For  EURES,  in  2019,  13  NCOs  estimated  that  more  than  75%  of  the  available  job 
vacancies were transferred to EURES, the total number of jobseekers on the EURES 
portal were 672 116 in 2019, with 413 036 registered via self-service.28  
National competent authorities lack the specialised knowledge and access to information 
to deal effectively with cross-border cases, this requires continuous exchange.  
Authorities are not able to verify the validity of documents issued by another Member 
State in real time (thus making inspections less effective). 
Authorities refrain from asking for information from another Member State about e.g. 
actual wage payments or wages to be paid in the case of posting. 
National  authorities  are  not  sufficiently  aware  how  their  performance  compares  with 
national authorities in other countries, and they have no easy access to discuss and to 
advise for organisational improvement. 

The European Platform Tackling Undeclared Work was established in 2016, with the 
purpose of enhancing cooperation between Member States in fighting undeclared work. 
Nonetheless, the impact assessment accompanying the proposal for the establishment of 
ELA  found  multiple  barriers,  such  as  the  lack  of  cooperation  and  enforcement 
mechanisms, the volatility of political investment in cooperation, as well as technical 
barriers to the exchange of information (e.g. differing legal competences between the 
contracting authorities, languages, and data collection methods). 

28 European Commission (2021), Study supporting the ex-post EURES evaluation and the second biennial EURES report, p. 31.  

10 

 
 
Mediate  and  facilitate  a 
solution in cases of cross-
border  disputes  between 
Member States 

OO8.  Facilitate  a  solution  in  the  case  of  a  dispute  between  two  or  more 
Member States regarding individual cases of application of EU law in areas 
covered by the Regulation 

At EU level, a conciliation mechanism exists only in the social security coordination 
area. The dialogue and conciliation procedure aims at differing interpretations arising 
from the provisions of the Coordination Regulations. Decisions are not binding and some 
follow-up may be agreed upon. 

Note: See Supporting Study (p. 14/15).

11 

 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION 

PERIOD? 

3.1.  Organisation and finances 

As from end of 2023, ELA has 144 members of staff. 29 60 of those are Seconded National 
Experts  (SNEs)  of  which  27  work  as  National  Liaison  Officers  (NLOs),  a  function 
explicitly identified in the Founding Regulation. ELA is organised in 3 thematic units (see 
Figure 3): cooperation support (46 members of staff – including the NLOs), enforcement 
and  analysis  (29),  and  information  and  EURES  (22)  and  2  horizontal  units:  resources 
(21), and governance and coordination (23). Within the units, staff is attributed to specific 
teams. Staff numbers have progressively grown over the evaluation period (see Figure 3 
below).  

Figure 3: Development of ELA Staff 30 

Source: supporting study, Annex V, p. 7 (and main document) 

is  structured  around  a  Management  Board  comprised  by 
ELA’s  governance 
representatives  from  each  Member  State,  two  Commission  delegates,  one  independent 
expert appointed by the European Parliament and four delegates from social partners. Only 
the 27 representatives of the Member States and the 2 Commission delegates have voting 
rights. The 5 further members of the Management Board have no voting rights.31 Including 

29   ELA (2024), Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2023, p. 57, Table IV. Difference with Figure 2 due 

to two open vacancies.  

30    TA:  temporary  agent.  AD:  Administrator,  AST:  Assistant,  CA:  Contractual  Agent,  SNE:  Seconded 

national expert. 

31   Management  Board  |  European  Labour  Authority  (europa.eu)  The  composition  of  the  Management 
Board is as follows: one member from each Member State with voting right (with alternate), 2 members 

12 

 
 
 
 
observers and the Executive Director of ELA, 43 persons  are expected to participate in 
Management  Board  meetings.  This  structure  is  complemented  by  a  stakeholder  group 
which is chaired by ELA’s Executive Director and composed of 5 representatives from 
trade unions, 5 representatives from employer organisations and 2 representatives from the 
European Commission, i.e. 13 persons altogether. The stakeholder group was set up to give 
social partners the possibility to exchange with the Executive Director and to advise ELA 
in all areas of its activity. While still involving many persons, ELA’s governance structure 
is less voluminous than those of tripartite agencies such as Eurofound or EU-OSHA, where 
next to representatives from national administrations also social partners from all Member 
States have their representatives in the Management Board.  

Different from other agencies such as Eurofound or EU-OSHA, an Executive Board is not 
mentioned in the Founding Regulation. Similarly other smaller, but official settings, such 
as  Advisory  Committees  or  Advisory  Groups  do  not  exist  and  are  not  foreseen  in  the 
Founding Regulation.32  

The Authority may set up working groups or expert panels comprising representatives from 
Member States, the Commission or external experts for the fulfilment of its tasks.33 ELA 
has  set  up  the  European  Platform  Tackling  Undeclared  Work  as  a  permanent  working 
group and has established 3 further working groups: on information, on inspection and on 
mediation. The working groups set up by ELA comprise representatives from all Member 
States and representatives from EEA countries, social partners, external experts, delegates 
from other agencies. 

The decision to locate ELA in Bratislava was taken after the adoption of the Regulation in 
June 2019.34  

ELA has achieved a fair level of visibility at the European level. Asking citizens whether 
they have heard of ELA, 13% of respondents indicated having heard of ELA. This is less 

from the European Commission with voting right (with alternates), one independent expert appointed 
by  the  European  Parliament  (no  voting  right,  no  alternate),  2  representatives  from  European  Trade 
Unions, no voting right (with alternates), 2 representatives from European Employer Organisations, no 
voting rights (with alternates), 4 observers from EFTA countries (CH, NO, IS, LI – not alternates), 4 
observers  from  other  EU  agencies  (no  alternates),  the  Executive  Director  of  ELA  taking  part  in  the 
deliberations without voting right. That  adds up to 43 persons.  The Chairperson  of the Management 
Board is elected from among the Members with voting rights. 

32   Regulation  (EU)  2019/127  establishing  the  European  Foundation  for  the  improvement  of  living  and 
working conditions (Eurofound), and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1365/75  Article 10 and 
12  (http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/127/oj)  and  Regulation  (EU)  2019/126  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 January 2019 establishing the European Agency for Safety and 
Health  at  Work  (EU-OSHA),  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2062/94,  Article  10 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/126/oj and Advisory Groups  – not mentioned in the Regulation but 
established to provide EU-OSHA with strategic guidance and feedback. https://osha.europa.eu/en/about-
eu-osha/governance-eu-osha/composition-advisory-groups   

33   Regulation - 2019/1149 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu), Article 16. Article 16 (2) does not prescribe the 

composition of working groups. 

34   https://www.ela.europa.eu/en/news-event/newsroom/member-states-decide-new-ela-seat  

13 

 
 
than  for  the  European  Health  Insurance  Card  (46%),  but  more  than  for  EURES  or  the 
EURES website (9%).35  

Figure 4: ELA organigramme 

To facilitate the analysis, ELA’s activities have been linked to operational objectives and 
operational objectives have been linked to a single specific objective (see Figure 5). Figure 
5 also includes an overview on how many staff and how much financial resources were (in 
2023) allocated to these activities36. In earlier years the allocation of the budget was not yet 
sufficiently stable (parts of the activities were still included in the Commission budget or 
not yet taking place).37 

35   Eurobarometer 528 (December 2022): Intra-EU labour mobility after the pandemic, Summary, p. 32. 
Familiarity  ranges  from  less  than  10%  in  Spain,  France,  Cyprus  and  Latvia  up  to  20%  and  more  in 
Germany, Estonia and the Netherlands (Intra-EU labour mobility after the pandemic - December 2022 
- - Eurobarometer survey (europa.eu)).  

36   This distribution is foreseen to remain stable for 2024 and 2025. 
37   See e.g. Figure 4 and Annex IV.  

14 

 
 
  
 
 
Figure 5 shows that two of the specific objectives of ELA, namely, to facilitate access to 
information and rights (including EURES) and to facilitate cooperation between Member 
States, absorbed more than 2/3 of human and financial resources. The next most significant 
area represented the horizontal activities, which arrived at 28.5% of staff and 14.4% of 
financial resources. Only around 2% of the resources were dedicated to the mediation role 
and 3.5% to 4.1% were used to support the activities on the fight against undeclared work.  

15 

 
 
Figure 5: Overview of the links between ELA’s specific objectives, operational objectives and activities with budgetary and human resources 

(2023)38 

Specific Objective 

Operational Objectives 

Activity 

Staff 

Budget39 

Facilitate access to 
information on rights and 
obligations with regard to 
labour mobility across the 
Union and relevant services 

Facilitate  access  to  information  regarding 
rights  and  obligations  concerning  labour 
mobility  for  individuals,  employers  and 
social partner organisations 

Communication  /  Awareness  raising 
Campaigns  

Information and Services  

Manage  and  coordinate 
Coordination office of EURES 

the  European 

EURES 

Facilitate and enhance 
cooperation between 
Member States in enforcing 
relevant Union law, such as 
facilitating concerted and 
joint inspections 

Facilitate  the  cooperation  and  acceleration 
information  between 
of  exchange  of 
Member  States  and  supporting 
their 
effective  compliance  with  cooperation 
obligations, 
information 
including  on 
exchange 

Coordinate and support concerted and joint 
inspections 

Cooperation and NLOs office 

Social partners liaison 

Logistic and technical support to CJIs  

Carry out analyses and risk assessment on 
issues of cross-border labour mobility 

Analysis & risk assessment 

Capacity building 

5 

11 

11 

27 
(18.8%) 

35 

1 

14 

9 

8 

1,710,117 

3,150,684 

11,756,213 

16,617,014 
(42%) 

5,577,017 

422,817 

3,259,544 

2,310,561 

2,981,117 

38   See Annex VI (Intervention Logic, for the links between activities, operational and specific objectives) and ELA (2023), Single Programming Document 2023-2025, p. 61 as well as 
Supporting Study, Annex III, Figures 5 and 6 (for the staff and budgetary figures). - Communication and awareness raising campaigns in Single Programming Document 2023-2025 
are considered a horizontal activity. 

39   Budget includes staff costs. 

16 

 
 
 
Support  Member  States  with  capacity 
building regarding the effective application 
and enforcement of relevant Union law 

Facilitation of digital tools 

1 

398,058 

68 
(47.2%) 

14,949,114 
(37.8%) 

Mediate and facilitate a 
solution in cases of cross-
border disputes between 
Member States 

Mediate  disputes  between  Member  States 
on the application of relevant Union law 

Mediation 

Support cooperation 
between Member States in 
tackling undeclared work 

Support  Member  States 
undeclared work 

in 

tackling 

Tackling undeclared work 

Activities not linked to a 
specific objective 

Governance & policy coordination 

Compliance & Internal Control 

Financial Resources 

Human Resources 

ICT and facilities 

Management and support 

17 

3 

3 
(2.1%) 

5 

5 
(3.5%) 

8 

6 

8 

7 

5 

7 

41 
(28.5%) 

693,168 

693,168 
(1.8%) 

1,602,979 

1,602,979 
(4.1%) 

1,455,502 

531,278 

1,062,556 

1,062,556 

664,097 

929,736 

5,705,725 
(14.4%) 

 
 
 
 
 
With an overall budget of EUR 49.5 million in 2024, the built-up phase of ELA has come 
to an end. ELA’s budget so far comes exclusively from the general budget of the Union. 
Further resources such as project related support are considered possible in the longer term. 
Key budget items are Information and EURES (i.e. activities 1 and 2: about 7.5 million 
euro),  Cooperation  and  NLOs  (7  million  euro),  horizontal  activities,  governance  and 
management without communication (7 million euro) and concerted and joint inspections 
(CJIs – 5 million euro). Capacity building; Labour Mobility Analysis/Risk Assessments; 
and Communication Campaigns counted for EUR 3 million each. From its very start in 
2019  until  the  end  of  2023  ELA  had  committed  a  budget  of  112  million  euro,  ELA’s 
payments amounted to around 73.5 million euro. By the end of 2023, outstanding payments 
were of around 39 million euro. 11.5 million euro was decommitted over the period up to 
the end of 2023.  

Figure 6: Resources allocated per activity40 

40   ELA (2022), Single Programming Document 2023-2025, p. 61 - the table provides the budget allocated, 

i.e. foreseen for the different activities. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Earlier budgets did not follow the same structure and where much lower. The overall budget in 2019 was EUR 2.12 
million, 2020: EUR 12.58, 2021: 22.38 million (EUR 9.28 million for Information and EURES). See Supporting Study, 
‘Full results of the cost-effectiveness analysis’ 

Prior  to  ELA  becoming  financially  autonomous  in  May  2021,  the  Commission  was 
responsible for its initial operations. Overall, the absorption rate of the budget (committed 
amount divided by the budget) is higher than 95% in all years except for 2019. However, 
the share of payment appropriations was quite low: until 2022, less than a quarter of all the 
committed amounts had been paid in a given year. In 2022 the payment implementation 
rate was 59%41 and in 2023 it was 74%.  

3.2.  Delivering outputs and activities 

In the respective consolidated activity reports the Management Board confirmed that ELA 
has delivered on its annual work programmes. The activities are further presented in Annex 
VIII. This section provides an overview of the outputs and activities (as far as available) 
for each of the four specific objectives of the agency. 

Under  the  first  specific  objective  (‘Facilitate  access  to  information  on  rights  and 
obligations regarding labour mobility’), a significant number of activities took place.   

To  facilitate  access  to  information,  ELA  organised  3  information  campaigns 
(#Rights4AllSeasons,  #Road2FairTransport,  #EU4FairConstruction)  and  substantially 
contributed  to  a  campaign  for  which  preparation  had  started  before  ELA  was  launched 
(#EU4FairWork). Furthermore, ELA has set up a translation facility which has translated 
from  beginning  2020  to  end  Q2  2023  around  600  documents  upon  request  by  national 
authorities. The Information Translation Facility is implemented through the Translation 
Centre  for  the  Bodies  of  the  European  Union  and  mainly  used  to  translate  inspection-
specific  documents  to  facilitate  concerted  and  joint  inspections  or  to  support  the 
accessibility of official national websites.42 The number of documents translated within a 
year had reached a peak in 2021, with slightly lower numbers in 2022 and 2023, indicating 
that an original backlog has been resolved. 

The use of the EURES Portal by employers and jobseekers fluctuated strongly over the 
last five years.43 In 2021, there were close to 63 000 new registrations of jobseekers via 
self-service  on  the  EURES  Portal,  and  approximately  680 000  jobseekers’  CVs  were 
transferred  through  the  single  coordinated  channel  to  the  EURES  Portal.  In  2022,  the 
number of new registrations via self-service decreased to around 14 700, while the number 

i.e. payments amounted to 59% of the commitment amounts made in 2022. 

41  
42   ELA (2023), Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2022, p. 32. 
43   Supporting Study, Annex III, section 1.2.1.2.   

19 

 
 
 
 
of  jobseekers  transferred  through  the  single  coordinated  channel  to  the  EURES  Portal 
increased to approximately 1.2 million (see Figure 7 below).44 

The decrease in the number of registrations through self-service from 2021 to 2022 can be 
partially  explained  by  the  fact  that  during  the  transition  phase  the  IT-platform  required 
EURES  to  use  two-factor  authentication,  whilst  the  increase  in  the  number  of  CVs 
transferred through the single coordinated channel is linked to the compliance efforts of 
the European Commission.45,46  

Figure 7: Number of newly registered jobseeker profiles on the EURES Portal* 

*Data for 2023 not yet available  

Source: Supporting Study contractor’s elaboration based on EURES annual PMS reports 2021-2022 and Commission 
SWD (2021), Ex-post evaluation of the operation and effects of Regulation (EU) 2016/589 on a European network of 
employment services (EURES) 

Under  the  second  specific  objective  (‘Facilitate  and  enhance  cooperation  between 
Member  States  in  the  enforcement  of  relevant  Union  law  across  the  Union  and 

44   No clear explanation for the significant surge in new registrations emerged as part of this evaluation. 
See  SWD(2021)217 final, p. 35 (Ex-post evaluation of the operation and effects of Regulation (EU) 
2016/589  on  a  European  network  of  employment  services  (EURES),  Accompanying  the  document 
Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the operation and effects of Regulation (EU) 
2016/589 on a European network of employment services (EURES), workers' access to mobility services 
and  the  further  integration  of  labour  markets  (submitted  pursuant  to  Article  35  of  Regulation  (EU) 
2016/589)) and Supporting Study, Annex III, section 1.2.1.2 

45   The possibility to opt for single factor authentication instead of the two-factor authentication became 

available from 9 October 2023. 

46   Decreasing  unemployment  rates  and  an  ageing  workforce  might  also  contribute  to  less  people 
introducing their CVs in such a  system, however, they cannot explain such strong change. Nor does 
COVID-19, where effects would have taken place from 2019 to 2020.  -  For an analysis of intra-EU 
labour  mobility  and  COVID  see:  European  Commission  (2022),  Annual  report  on  Intra-EU  labour 
mobility 2021. 

20 

 
 
 
 
including facilitating concerted and joint inspections’), activities gradually expanded 
during the evaluation period. 

The NLOs dealt in 2021 and 2022 with respectively 88 and 110 requests for information 
on national systems. Almost all were resolved.47 The time needed to resolve such requests 
was on average around 30 to 40 days. For 2023 the figure went down to 69 requests. This 
can be explained by an increasing number of informally resolved queries. Requests have 
also changed over time: from initially more simple requests concerning one or two other 
Member States towards more questions touching on all or almost all Member States. 

ELA’s NLO office organised in 2022 and 2023 events at national level, next to Member 
State events supported by ELA and visits of ELA staff in Member States and vice versa. 
These  events,  mostly  of  up  to  50  participants  coming  from  national  authorities  (often 
labour inspectorates), or social partner organisations, covered a broad range of topics: road 
transport, platform work, cross-sectoral  cooperation in  enforcement, posting  of workers 
and multilateral cooperation of enforcement authorities in several countries.  

In 2022, a toolbox for the exchange of information between Member States was prepared, 
together  with  two  reports  about  cooperation  practices  and  challenges  between  Member 
States in specific sectors.48 

Figure 8 shows the increase of concerted and joint inspections and participating Member 
States over time. In the first semester 2023 ELA supported 36 inspections and by the end 
of 2023 26 Member States had participated in such inspections49. The inspections focused 
on areas of particular importance for cross-border mobility: road transport, construction, 
and  agriculture.  They  also  targeted  specific  employment  situations,  such  as  long 
contractual chains with a high risk of involving letterbox-companies or other fraudulent 
forms of labour market intermediation.  

Figure 8: Number of cross-border inspections and Member States involved (2019-Q2 

2023) 

47   Supporting Study, Annex III, Figure 18. 
48   ELA (2023), Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2022, p. 16, p 23. 
49   Throughout 2023 Luxemburg had not yet participated in CJIs. see: ELA (2024), Annual Report on CJIs 

2023, p. 8. 

21 

 
 
 
 
Source: Supporting Study. Contractor’s elaboration based on ELA Annual Activity Reports (2019-2022), CJI 
Bulletins (2021, 2023) and the Report on CJIs (2022). Data for 2023 refers to Q1 and Q2.50 – In 2023 
altogether 76 cross-border inspections with 26 Member States involved. 

Guidance documents for CJIs have been established in 2020. 

For analysis and risk assessments ELA’s homepage refers to five publications.51 Three 
of these reports were established with the assistance of contractors. 

ELA’s  capacity  building  activities  ranged  from  the  collection  of  good  practices  via 
trainings and workshops to peer-to-peer learning. In 2022 ELA trained around 300 persons 
on CJI related topics, mostly national labour inspectors, but also social partners and ELA’s 
NLOs.52 In support of the implementation of digital tools, ELA started in 2022 a Mutual 
Learning and Understanding Framework, IMI-PROVE, focusing in first instance on the 
IMI system modules for posting of workers and road transport.53  The key instrument for 
data  exchange  under  social  security  coordination,  the  Electronic  Exchange  of  Social 
Security Information (EESSI) was not covered by ELAs activities during the evaluation 
period.54 In line with ELA’s mandate to generally encourage the use of digital tools, ELA 
organised  since  2022  yearly  ‘tech  conferences’  bringing  together  national  authorities, 
industry and academia, showcasing good practices.55  

On  the  two  remaining  specific  objectives  covering  mediation  on  the  one  hand  and 
tackling undeclared work on the other, the following information could be gathered: 

By the end of 2023 four mediation cases had reached ELA, ‘one of which had reached a 
successful  conclusion with  the adoption of a non-binding opinion. The remaining  three 
cases  were  closed  due  to  the  refusal  of  the  other  party  to  participate  in  the  mediation 
procedure.56  

50   The total number of inspections for 2023 was 76, with 26 MS involved (Luxemburg did not participate). 
51   https://www.ela.europa.eu/en/publications?f%5B0%5D=oe_publication_activities%3A151 

Publications | European Labour Authority (europa.eu) (30/07/2024)  
Construction sector : Issues in information provision, enforcement of labour mobility law, social security 
coordination regulations, and cooperation between Member States,   
Artificial intelligence and algorithms in risk assessment. A Handbook,    
Mapping of national measures taken by the EU and EFTA Member States in employment and social 
security for displaced persons coming from Ukraine,    
Application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in exchanging data for risk assessment, 
and Impact of teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic on the applicable social security. 

52   Supporting Study, p. 61. 
53   ELA_Brochure_A4.pdf 
54   This  activity  was  launched  in  May  2024:  Digitalisation  in  social  security  coordination:  enhancing 
effectiveness and efficiency – ELA launches the PROGRESS Programme | European Labour Authority 
55   E.g. the 2022 edition: ELA TECH Conference 2022 - Digital solutions for labour mobility | European 

Labour Authority 

56   ELA (2024), Consolidated Annual Activity Report of ELA 2023, p. 17. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
The Platform Tackling Undeclared Work under ELA continued its operation, providing 
a mix of expert input and mutual learning between its members.  

The Figure 9 below reflects a number of available output indicators, linked to ELA’s 
activities focusing mostly on the years 2021/2022, when most of the complete data was 
available.  

Figure 9: Outputs of ELA’s activities 

Task 

Indicator 

2020 

2021 

2022 

2023 
(Q1&Q2) 

Information 
and Services 

Coordination 
of EURES 

Support actions 
for specific 
sectors 
Total number of 
documents 
translated 

ELA campaigns 
(reach) 

Jobseekers 
registered via 
self-service on the 
EURES Portal 

Employers 
registered on the 
EURES Portal 

Unique visitors to 
the EURES Portal 

European Online 
Job Days 

N/A 

N/A 

15 reviews,  
3 workshops 

7 reviews,  
2 workshops 

8 reviews,  
0 workshops 

231 

183 

N/A 

#EU4FairW
ork (16 
million) 

N/A 

#Rights4AllSea
sons (60 million 
views in social 
media) 
63 000 

#Road2FairTranspo
rt (125 million 
online impressions)  

#EU4FairConst
ruction (N/A) 

14 700 

N/A 

N/A 

6 973 

5 733 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

3.7M 

28 

3.4M 

N/A 

44 

12  

Job placements 

N/A 

53 200 

48 731 

22 348 

CV’s transferred 
via single 
coordinated 
channel 
Requests referred 
to facilitate 
cooperation 

Requests solved 

National events 
by NLOs 

Cross-border 
inspections (CJIs) 

Cooperation 
and exchange 
of 
information 

Concerted 
and joint 
inspections 
(CJIs) 

N/A 

~ 680 000 

~ 1 200 000 

12 

12 

37 

87 

107 

104 

38  

29 

N/A 

N/A 

8  6 confirmed for 
the entire year 

5 (pilots) 

10 

33 

36 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member States 
attending CJIs 

Infringements 
identified 
Mutual 
learning/training 
for CJIs 
Number of 
experts trained 

Analytical reports 

3 

N/A 

1 

70 

1 

11 

N/A 

2 

80 

3 

Analysis and 
Risk 
Assessment 

Capacity 
Building 

Peer-to-peer, staff 
exchanges 

1 training 

4 workshops,  
1 staff exchange 

Tackling 
Undeclared 
Work 

Mutual learning 
formats 

N/A 

2 Learning 
Resource Papers 
1 Platform 
seminar 
1 Thematic 
review 
workshop 
5 Good practice 
fiches 
2 Peer learning 
dialogue 

Mediation 

Mediation cases 

N/A 

N/A 

Notes: n/a – not available 

25 

25 

1 762 

9 

315 

4 

2 trainings,  
2 workshops,  
15 staff exchanges,  
2 peer learning 
dialogues 
3 Learning 
Resource Papers 
1 Platform seminar 
2 Thematic review 
workshops 
1 Webinar 
12 Good practice 
fiches 
2 Peer learning 
dialogue 
10 Staff exchanges 
3 Output papers  
1 case initiated 

420 (until 
June) 
3 

200 

6 

3 trainings 

2 Learning 
Resource 
Papers 

2 cases 
initiated 

Source:  Commission  own  elaboration  based  on  ELA  reports,  mainly  the  Consolidated 
Annual  Activity  Reports,  EURES  Performance  Measurement  System  and  inspections 
reports  

The output identified in Table 9 corresponds to the six key drivers motivating the set-up 
of ELA, described in Section 2.1. While the overarching objective of ELA is to contribute 
to fair labour mobility across the Union, a direct effect of the identified outputs on this 
objective is difficult to measure due to the still limited time of operation of the agency as 
well  as  the  diversity  of  social  security  systems,  employment  conditions  and  industrial 
relations between Member States,  and the multifaceted nature of these systems. At this 
stage the assessment is therefore focused on progress towards the operational and specific 
objectives.  

3.3.  External factors influencing the delivery 

Considering the main developments affecting the EU labour markets and intra EU labour 
mobility during the period when ELA was set up, the intervention logic identifies three 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
main types of external factors to be considered when evaluating ELA, presented below. 
The impact of these external factors on the performance of the Agency are addressed in 
section 4 (see in particular 4.3). 

1.  Unforeseen  crises  (e.g.  COVID-19  and  the  Russian  war  of  aggression  against 

Ukraine) 

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted in particular the starting up of the agency, with delays 
in recruitment of staff, a shift of in-person meetings to online formats and delays in the 
organisation of key activities such as the concerted and joint inspections which only started 
in  September  2021.  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine  disrupted  mobility 
patterns in the EU, with more than 4 million people arriving from Ukraine and benefitting 
from temporary protection in the EU Member States.  

2.  Socio-economic trends (e.g. digitalisation and changing demography) 

Digitalisation affects labour mobility in various ways: it can contribute to more efficient 
exchange  of  information  between  Member  States57,  more  easily  available  information 
about  vacancies  and  applications  including  also  the  use  of  artificial  intelligence  for  the 
matching  between  vacancies  and  job  searchers,  but  also  lead  to  more  flexible  work 
patterns, such a cross-border telework creating specific challenges in the application of the 
rules  on  social  security  coordination.  An  important  step  in  digitalising  information 
provision and procedures was taken with the adoption in 2018 of the Regulation on a single 
digital gateway58. It foresees, among others, the access to EURES through the single ‘Your 
Europe’  portal  and  the  digitalisation  of  procedures  for  the  request  and  delivery  of 
entitlement  documents  for  the  purpose  of  social  security  coordination.  Since  the  latter 
requirement had to be implemented by the Member States by the end of 2023, it can be 
expected  to  play  a  role  in  the  support  ELA  will  be  providing  on  digital  tools  in  the 
forthcoming period.  

Finally, digitalisation affected and will affect the ways in which ELA carries out its tasks. 
Artificial intelligence can be expected to play an increasing role in providing information 
more efficiently and in a more targeted way (e.g. EURES), reduce the effort in carrying 
out translations and producing assessment and analysis.     

Demographic  developments  and  especially  the  ageing  workforce  are  resulting  in  an 
outflow of a significant part of the active population from the labour market. This increases 
labour shortages to which enhanced labour mobility can be part of the answer59. 

57   Such as through the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information system which connects 3400 

social security institutions in 32 countries 

58   Regulation  (EU)  2018/1724  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  2  October  2018 
establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance 
and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 

59   E.g. Communication ‘Demographic change in Europe – a toolbox for action’, COM(2023)577  

25 

 
 
 
3.  Relevant labour mobility and policy developments 

Since the inception of ELA and the end of the first semester 2023, the EU labour market 
has  changed  significantly:  employment  rates  have  increased60,  unemployment  rates  and 
differences  between  unemployment  rates  decreased61.  In  light  of  these  developments 
movers  are  in  the  meantime  less  seen  as  taking  the  employment  possibilities  of  local 
workers.  Instead,  they  are  more  seen  as  causing  brain  drain  and  aggravating  labour 
shortages in the countries from where they leave. As a means to address the substantial 
labour shortages in Europe, the attraction of third country nationals to the Union is gaining 
increasing attention. 

With Brexit intra-EU labour mobility figures declined, as the UK, which used to be a major 
destination for EU movers, was no longer part of the Union. However, in the meantime 
figures have largely recovered back to pre-Brexit levels.  

Changing mobility patterns call for a continuous adaptation of the policy and legislative 
framework.  The  complexity  and  sensitivity  of  these  adaptations  are  illustrated  by  the 
negotiations on the revision of the EU legislation on social security coordination which 
started in 2016 and could still not be concluded62.  

To clarify the rules applicable in the cross-border road transport, the Commission adopted 
in 2020 the Mobility Package I63 assigning in some cases explicitly a role to ELA.  

60https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfsi_emp_a/default/table?lang=en&category=labour.emplo

y.lfsi.lfsi_emp  

61https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00203/default/table?lang=en&category=t_labour.t_emp

loy.t_lfsi.t_une 

62   Commission  proposal:  https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16784&langId=en  It  should  be 
noted that the revision of these Regulations would not impact the mandate and tasks of ELA in the field 
of social security coordination. 

63   Mobility Package I - European Commission (europa.eu)  

26 

 
 
 
 
4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

To  assess  ELA’s  performance  this  report  follows  a  three  step-approach:  first  (Section 
4.1.1.)  it  looks  at  how  different  activities  have  contributed  to  the  specific  objectives 
(effectiveness). This part responds to the evaluation questions 1.1 to 1.8. In a second step 
the analysis looks into the efficiency of the activities and the functioning of the overall 
organisation (Section 4.1.2.). This part provides responses to evaluation questions 1.9 to 
1.14.  The  third  step  assesses  how  coherent  ELA’s  activities  are  with  those  of  other 
organisations and bodies (Section 4.1.3.), thus responding to evaluation questions 1.15 to 
1.20.64  

Overall,  the  intervention  has  supported  cooperation  between  national  authorities  in 
particular in facilitating inspections of posted and otherwise mobile workers. It organised 
events with Member States to raise awareness of ELA’s existence and its areas of activity. 
Progress towards its specific objectives can, in the absence of result indicators, only be 
approximated indirectly. Altogether, the evaluation points to room for improvement in the 
implementation of specific activities and when it comes to the coordination between the 
specific activities. Challenges related to staffing, budget management and execution, also 
emerged.  

4.1.1.  Effectiveness  

1.  Overall considerations  

ELA  has  delivered  to  various  degrees  (details  in  the  following  sections)  on  activities 
contributing to its four specific objectives. Differences in the level of delivery can mostly 
be  attributed  to  explicit  prioritisation  which  was  discussed  and  approved  in  the 
Management Board and considered necessary during the set-up process. The budget was 
allocated according to the planned level of priority. Satisfaction with the output provided 
was in general fairly high across the stakeholder groups, indicating a good quality of the 
products, still, interviewed national authorities as well as ELA staff underlined that better 
prioritisation of activities could further improve the usefulness.65  

ELA has made progress in improving the availability and accessibility of information on 
labour  mobility  rights  and  obligations  within  the  EU  through  information  campaigns. 
Stakeholders  appreciated  ELA's  proactive  engagement  and  the  development  of  tools 
enhancing cooperation between national authorities. ELA also contributed to facilitating 

64   For the evaluation matrix see Annex III. 
65   Annex V, p. 116 and Supporting Study, Annex VI p. 49 and p. 71-73.  

27 

 
 
 
and strengthening cooperation among Member States, including by supporting coordinated 
and joint inspections.66 

Performance indicators were not available for the reference period and activities covered 
by  the  evaluation,  strongly  limiting  the  possibility  to  monitor  development  and  assess 
ELA’s progress towards its specific objectives and to which extent the activities had an 
impact.67  

During the period under evaluation ELA started preparing ‘strategies’ in several of its areas 
of  activity  (e.g.  capacity  building,  EURES),  without  however  preparing  a  more 
encompassing strategy covering all its activities, with clear objectives and milestones.    

Consistent with the weaknesses of the performance measurement system, the interviews 
carried out during the evaluation and the results of the case studies revealed that the extent 
to  which  ELA’s  work  translated  into  tangible  change  on  the  ground  was  so  far  still 
unclear.68  

The stakeholder  surveys  reported that cooperation and interaction with  ELA came with 
increased costs and efforts for the concerned organisations, which were, however, mostly 
considered worth the investment due to the benefits of participating in ELA’s activities. 
Participants  in  ELA’s  activities  considered  that  some  meetings  were  too  long  or  being 
organised too frequently. They also pointed to the need for a better coordination between 
activities.69  This  corresponds  to  the  general  observation70  that  activities  of  different 
departments  within  ELA  (e.g.  Communication  and  Enforcement)  were  not  well 
coordinated and the responsibilities within ELA not easy to understand.71 

2.  Access to information on rights and obligations with regards to labour mobility 

across the Union and relevant services  

On the side of communication and awareness raising campaigns, ELA had a quick start 
with its information campaigns (undeclared work, seasonal work, construction and road 
transport) achieving a significant outreach.72 In the absence of outcome and result related 
indicators the effects of the campaigns cannot be assessed.  

66   Supporting Study, Section 4. 
67   As the period of ELA operation is increasing it can be expected that also its impacts will start to show 

and thereby increasing the need and importance of impact indicators.  

68   Annex V, p118/119 . 
69   Annex V, p. 123. 
70   Annex V, p. 121 and 123. 
71   Annex V, p. 121 - The organigramme also raises questions: e.g. is all analysis performed by the ‘analysis 
and risk assessment’ cell? – or do other ‘cells’ also perform analysis? – What is the division of labour 
between  staff  working on  ‘information  and  services’  and  the  ‘communication’  staff?  – Who  has  the 
responsibility for campaigns and how are the thematic units involved in those?  

72    #Rights4AllSeasons Campaign -60 million views in social media; #Road2FairTransport Campaign - 125 

million online impressions 

28 

 
 
 
ELA's information campaigns as a primary method for facilitating access to information 
were  generally  viewed  positively  by  stakeholders,  including  by  public  administration 
representatives  and  EU-level  social  partners.73  The  promotion  activities  as  part  of  the 
campaigns were particularly welcomed. 

Concerning the implementation and coordination of campaigns, communication between 
ELA and its stakeholders (ranging from national authorities to social partners – via surveys, 
interviews,  and  case  studies)  showed  some  weaknesses.  Main  issues  concerned  the 
timeliness  and  targeting  of  communication  by  ELA  and  reluctance  or  inability  by 
stakeholders to provide and disseminate the information as quickly as requested by ELA.74 
Stakeholders views varied based on their direct interest. ELA staff focused more on the 
volume of work and coherence in terms of tasks, whilst the Management Board looked at 
the outreach of such campaigns. Social partners were most concerned about their timely 
involvement in the preparation of the campaigns, and the impact to their main beneficiaries 
(workers  and  employers).75  National  authorities  as  well  as  social  partner  organisations, 
expressed the desire to be consulted and involved early on, so to be able to influence the 
campaigns,  to  better  link  them  with  own  activities  and  to  bring  on  board  further  (e.g. 
regional or thematic) partners. ELA showed awareness of these issues and indicated it was 
aiming to improve the situation.76 

When it comes to information and services, ELA’s information working group undertook 
a mapping of relevant information sources. Stakeholders, primarily social partners but also 
experts  from  public  employment  services  and  labour  inspectorates,  identified  a  further 
need for easily accessible and practical information concerning rights and obligations for 
mobile  workers  and  employers.  They  argued  that  much  of  the  existing  information  is 
fragmented  across  different  EU-level  and  national  websites  and  is  insufficiently  useful. 
Given that national authorities are in charge with the quality of the information available 
on their websites, there is a subjective approach regarding their views. Nevertheless, this 
issue is addressed through a focus on coherence with EU initiatives, such as the Single 
Digital Gateway, which provides a centralised approach. 

In  the  public  consultation,  the  provision  of  information  to  individuals,  employers  and 
social partner organisations regarding rights and obligations to facilitate labour mobility 
was the most frequently identified area for further involvement of ELA.77  

In 2020 ELA set up a facility, to provide translations of information on labour mobility 
and social security coordination, which 76 out of 124 respondents to public consultation, 

73    Annex V and Supporting Study, Section 4.1.1.1.. 
74   Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 1, p. 13. 
75   Annex V and Supporting Study, Annex VI, Sections 2.1.1. 4.6.1.1 and 5.4.1.1 
76   Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 1, p. 9. 
77   Annex V, p. 117 and Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU (2024), Fair Mobility in the EU and 
(https://belgian-

the 
presidency.consilium.europa.eu/media/nvenvc42/report_ela_eu2024be.pdf), Supporting Study, p. 49 

the  European  Labour  Authority, 

role 

and 

51 

48 

of 

p. 

29 

 
 
 
among them representatives of national authorities in 19 Member States (responses from 
24 Member States), considered as very useful. Only six respondents found this service not 
useful. The service was in particular welcomed by national authorities78, which benefited 
fully from the task. ELA’s support via the translation facility helped national authorities 
save  costs,  which  could  have  influenced    the  positive  approach.79  The  service  was 
perceived as valuable also by others stakeholders, (e.g. Social Partners, members of the 
ELA Management Board) centralising the service, ELA ensured a coordinated approach 
to  translation,  in  different  areas  of  its  work,  by  using  also  existing  Commission’s 
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT). 

the  annual  programming  cycle; 

As  regards  EURES,  ELA  took  over  the  management  of  the  EURES  European 
Coordination  Office  (ECO); 
the  Performance 
Measurement  System;  the  EURES  portal;  training  for  the  EURES  Academy;  EURES 
communication  activities;  the  European  (Online)  Job  Days;  and  the  Report  on  Labour 
shortages  and  surpluses.80  This  transition  went  smoothly81,  despite  persistent  staff 
vacancies  and  the  limited  experience  of  newly  recruited  personnel.82  During  the  initial 
phase, ELA was able to build on the enthusiasm of its staff and stakeholders, including 
substantial good will.83 However, over the period under evaluation, the effectiveness of the 
activities  in  support  of  EURES  declined  and  certain  issues  emerged  that  negatively 
impacted performance (see below). 84 

In taking over the management of ECO, ELA adopted a ‘business continuity’ approach, 
which facilitated the acquisition and learning process of the different tasks associated with 
the role of the ECO.85 Smaller adaptations were made, making the EURES Portal more 
user-friendly; increasing the ambitions of the Report on Labour Shortages and Surpluses 
by  adding  elements  of  general  labour  market  analysis;  new  ways  of  interacting  with 
national  coordination  offices  (NCOs)  by  focusing  on  bilateral  meetings;  the  EURES 
Communication Strategy for 2021-2024 was drafted to increase awareness of EURES; a 
review  of  the  training  offer  was  undertaken.86  These  changes  were  overall  positively 
received  by  the  national  authorities,  however,  the  partners  were  also  critical  about 
shortcomings of ELA’s work, such as a too long time-horizon for the implementation of 
the new Portal Strategy, a lack of induction courses for new staff or insufficient attention 

78   This is the best value for activities to provide information on rights and obligations concerning labour 
mobility.  It  is  followed  by  targeted  workshops  (74),  provision  of  accessible  information  (73)  and 
communication and dissemination activities (e.g. information campaigns (64)) (Responses to Question 
6 in the stakeholder survey; n=124). – For details: Supporting Study, Annex VI, p. 31. 

79   Supporting Study, Section 4.12.1. 
80   Supporting Study, Annex VII. Case study 2, Table 6.4 
81   Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 2, p. 34. 
82   Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 2, p. 21. 
83   For a detailed analysis see Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 2. 
84   Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 2, p. 34/35. 
85   Supporting Study, Annex VII. Case study 2, p. 22. 
86   Supporting Study, Annex VII. Case study 2, pp. 25-26. 

30 

 
 
 
to EURES ‘matchmaking’ function/activity (of jobseekers with vacancies) as compared to 
information  provision.  The  broader  analysis  concerning  labour  shortages  has  been 
publicised  in  conferences  together  with  Eurofound,  however,  it  meant  going  beyond  a 
focus  on  cross-border  labour  mobility  and  it  meant  entering  the  area  of  general  labour 
market analysis. National coordination offices repeatedly regretted that, different from the 
Commission, ELA as manager of ECO is not in the position to provide guidance on legal 
questions.87 

Responses to the surveys supporting the evaluation (by the EURES NCOs, Commission 
representatives)  and  the  findings  of  the  case  study  on  the  EURES  Coordination  Office 
indicate that EURES is not fully integrated into ELA’s portfolio of activities. NCO’s were 
the more critical voices in this context, given their direct interest in EURES. Nevertheless, 
also social partners and national ministries were vocal actors in terms of  identifying the 
need to improve ELA’s effectiveness in this activity  

The system which monitors job placements facilitated through the EURES Portal or staff88 
that was put in place by the Commission was no longer used by ELA. As a result, no figures 
are included in the programming documents as targets nor in the annual activity reports to 
present  the  achievements.  A  KPI  that  the  Commission  had  used  in  the  last  EURES 
evaluation  and  which  could  have  been  maintained89,  was  the  ratio  of  the  number  of 
placements  with  EURES  support  to  the  total  number  of  workers  that  changed  country 
within the EU within a year. The EURES network facilitated at least 84 580 placements in 
2018 and 83 360 placements in 2019. The Annual Reports on Intra-EU Labour Mobility90 91 
estimate that 880 000 persons changed country within the EU to work in 2018, and 825 000 
in 2019. EURES placements therefore corresponded to 9.6% of active movers in 2018 and 
10.1% in 2019. The number of EURES placements in 2021 and 2022 – 53 200 and 48 731 
(figure 9) – in relation to the annual number of active movers – 650 000 and 713 000 – 
results in a considerable decrease to 8.2% and 6,8% of the EURES market. 

Surveys,  interviews  and  the  EURES  case  study  show  that  a  significant  number  of 
stakeholder groups are dissatisfied about this development.92 Overall, the effectiveness of 
the  EURES  portal  in  so  far  as  it  is  used  by  citizens  is  declining,  falling  below  the 
comparison points identified (Figure 2). 

This development arises from specific decisions taken by ELA, as outlined above. Beyond 
that,  the  declining  effectiveness  could  be  partially  due  to  the  complex  division  of 
responsibilities between ELA and the Commission services as foreseen in the Founding 

87   Supporting study, Annex VI, p 135. 
88   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021SC0217  
89   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021SC0217 
90   https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ab706f9b-74bf-11eb-9ac9-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

91   https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/40821c65-2a24-11eb-9d7e-01aa75ed71a1 
92   Annex V, p. 120/121. 

31 

 
 
 
Regulation93.  While  the  Commission  continued  to  be  responsible  for  the  technical 
operation of the EURES Portal and related IT services and the financial schemes under 
EURES94, ELA managed the ECO and was the system owner of the EURES portal. Such 
a  division  allowed  the  Commission  to  outsource  the  ECO  management  while  EURES 
could continue to benefit from the Commission’s corporate solutions and IT developments. 
Over time ELA developed a different view on the steps to be taken. While the Commission 
services put priority on aligning EURES with Europass, this was not considered a priority 
by ELA as reflected in the allocation of staff and activities carried out by ELA95. On the 
other hand, ELA expressed a need regarding the development of a stand-alone IT platform 
towards end-users, something not foreseen in the EURES Regulation. 

3.  Facilitate and enhance cooperation between Member States in enforcing 
relevant Union law, such as facilitating concerted and joint inspections 

The  analysis  of  the  activities  contributing  to  this  specific  objective  showed  that  ELA 
introduced  structure  to  these  activities and has considerably  improved  their functioning 
compared to the start of the operation of the Authority. 96  

Four  operational  objectives  (six  activities)  contributed  to  this  specific  objective.  The 
financially biggest consisted in facilitating the cooperation and acceleration of exchange 
of  information  between  Member  States  and  supporting  their  effective  compliance  with 
cooperation obligations (for details see Figure 5). The cooperation and NLOs office as well 
as the social partners liaison function contributed to this operational objective.  

Most of the NLOs were appointed at an early stage in 2020. This resulted in a situation 
where in 2020 there was more staff seconded from national authorities than other members 
of staff (33 vs. 30). This created some difficulties with regard to the availability of NLOs 
to  work in  ELAs  premises.97 Following a selection procedure  organised by the relevant 
Member State, ELA carries out administrative checks on  the proposed designated NLO 
before the secondment starts98. Initially, ELA tried to integrate NLOs as well as other SNEs 
in the thematic work of ELA. This approach was revisited, and after extensive discussions 
in the Management Board, a specific team was formed in the cooperation support unit, the 
cooperation and  NLOs office, regrouping  the  NLOs and providing for  social partner 
liaison.  By  answering  questions  concerning  their  respective  national  systems  and 

93   Supporting Study, p. 84 and Supporting Study, Annex VII, p.33/36. 
94   The Targeted Mobility Schemes and the Cross-Border Partnerships. 
95   Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 2. 
96   Supporting Study, Annex VII, p. 55. 
97   European Court of Auditors (2023), Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2022, p. 168, 
para  3.18.8.:  ‘ELA’s  internal  rules  require  seconded  national  experts  and  national  liaison  officers  to 
reside in Bratislava. … ELA was unable to produce any proof, in response to a request we made, that a 
certain NLO lived in Bratislava. … ELA’s ex-ante checks on these declarations are weak: they are based 
solely on the declarations of the SNEs and NLOs, and not on documentary evidence. There are no ex-
post checks.’ Annual report on EU Agencies for the financial year 2022 (europa.eu). 

98   Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, Article 32 (1). For a recent effort see: Management Board Decision 2024/7: 
https://www.ela.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Decision_07_Revision_of_SNE_rules_2024.pdf. 

32 

 
 
 
organising events (conferences, workshops) with their respective national authorities (in 
some cases, several NLOs jointly organised such events for their national authorities) the 
NLOs provided a platform for ELA to present its activities.  

The supporting role played by NLOs in areas such as support to CJIs or cooperation and 
exchange of information across Member States was confirmed in interviews with national 
authorities. However, the interviews, as well as the survey with ELA staff, revealed also  
differences  in  the  interpretation  of  the  role  and  responsibilities  of  NLO,  by  the  NLO 
him/herself and/or the sending Member States.99 For the interviews, respondents from ELA 
staff flagged that MS should be left the discretion to decide on the number of NLOs, whilst 
other ELA staff pointed out that NLOs involvement in unit meetings and daily work should 
be decreased, defining also their role taking into account their limited capacity to perform 
administrative work. From the perspective of national authorities, given their direct interest 
in the work of the NLOs, the position was more favourable towards their involvement and 
contribution to ELA’s tasks. 

Logistic  and  technical  support  to  concerted  and  joint  inspections  (CJI)  is  often 
perceived as ELA’s flagship activity.100 Main outcomes of these inspections were, next to 
a  better  understanding  of  inspection  practices  in  the  participating  countries,  immediate 
access to and understanding of e.g. social security registers in  countries of origin.101 As 
such ELA’s support to CJIs was highly appreciated to facilitate and enhance cooperation 
between Member States. Nevertheless, the reports on these inspections, which are provided 
by the authorities in the hosting Member State, were often made available to ELA late in 
the  process  or  not  provided  at  all.  As  a  result,  ELA's  access  to  lessons  from  previous 
inspections  and  its  ability  to  develop  remedial  measures,  such  as  trainings  or 
communication material, were delayed.  

Discussions  in  the  inspections  working  group  led  to  routines  of  organising  CJIs  that 
allowed the involved parties to contribute to the best of their abilities. At the end of the 
period  under  evaluation  issues  concerning  late  or  insufficient  involvement  have  mostly 
phased out. 102 However, in the absence of a meaningful KPI an assessment of the effects 
of CJIs, beyond the perception of their usefulness cannot be made.  

Analysis and risk assessments was an area not identified as a priority within ELA (see 
Figure 5). Beyond the recognition that ELA’s analytical efforts are so far mostly limited 
to mapping, the supporting study identified a lack of coordination or cooperation between 

99   Supporting Study, Section 5.4.2. 
100   See e.g. Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU (2024), Fair Mobility in the EU and the role of 

the European Labour Authority, p. 6 and p. 12 (https://belgian-
presidency.consilium.europa.eu/media/nvenvc42/report_ela_eu2024be.pdf)  

101   Case study 3, Supporting Study, Annex VII and ELA (2023), Report on concerted and joint inspections  
102   This concerns all CJIs, but in particular so called ‘week of actions’ where inspections are conducted in 
several MS at the same time to attract attention and raise awareness of certain issues. See also Supporting 
Study, Annex VII, Case study 3. 

33 

 
 
 
ELA’s analytical efforts and the organisation of CJIs. This, however, was also related to 
reluctant reporting by Member States about structural issues occurring during CJIs. Data 
protection  and  privacy  issues  were  other  barriers  to  the  process103.  The  Founding 
Regulation does not provide ELA with a detailed position when it comes to processing of 
personal  data  and  national  authorities  are  reluctant  to  share  their  information,  which 
hindered  their  ability  to  offer  analytical  services  at  a  company  level  or  to  proactively 
identify  and  refer  suspected  cases  to  Member  States.  ELA  staff  highlighted104  that  data 
protection concerns were a major factor causing deficiencies in risk assessments and the 
integration  of  such  assessments  with  other  tasks,  including  CJIs  and  EURES  services. 
National authorities105 and the Report of the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU 
on the work of ELA raised similar concerns regarding the possibility of ELA to process 
personal data for some of the tasks defined in the founding Regulation.106    

Over the first years of ELA’s operation capacity building activities were organised on a 
rather ad hoc basis. Still, they were assessed very positively by stakeholders and they also 
played an important role for the development of the Authority.107 108 

According to ELA staff and Management Board Members capacity building was initially 
assigned a lower priority compared to other ELA tasks, despite Article 11 of the founding 
Regulation mandating its role in supporting Member States with consistent enforcement 
of  Union  law.  However,  the  importance  of  capacity  building  has  been  recognized  and 
reflected  in  a  growing  budget  and  the  launch  of  initiatives  such  as  the  'Call  for  Good 
Practices.' The initiative and subsequent training and workshops have been well-received 
by  stakeholders  for  fostering  technical  competencies  and  stakeholder  collaboration109. 
ELA's capacity-building efforts, which include activities like seminars and peer-learning 
events, have played a role in enhancing cooperation, information exchange, and supporting 
concerted and joint inspections. A capacity building strategy 2024 – 2030 was prepared 
during the evaluation period (adopted in 2023), capacity building was partly dealt with as 
a  specific  operational  activity110  and  partly  as  a  horizontal  feature,  with  links  to  other 
operational objectives.111  It is not clear whether the programmes mentioned as part of the 

103   Annex V, p. 119  and  Supporting  Study, p. 124. - Both ELA staff and stakeholders flagged concerns 

regarding data protection rules.  

104   Supporting Study, Annex VI Section 4.4.1.5.  
105https://wayback.archive-it.org/12710/20240719000258/https://belgian-

presidency.consilium.europa.eu/media/nvenvc42/report_ela_eu2024be.pdf 

106   Supporting Study, Annex VI, Section 4.4.1.5. 
107   Supporting Study, p. 62. 
108   E.g. in March 2023 ELA organised a 2-day training event on SOLVIT which was greatly appreciated 
and also the capacity building provided in the context of Posting 360 was appreciated by Member State 
authorities and Commission. 
109   Supporting Study, Section 4.1.1.2. 
110   ELA  (2022),  Single  Programming  Document  2023-2025  p.  28  and  p.  47.  –  Strategic  area  5  of  the 
multiannual programming is called ‘contributing to capacity building’ and Activity 8 of the annual work 
programme is ‘capacity building’.  

111   ELA (2023) Capacity Building Strategy 2024-2030, p. 6.  

34 

 
 
 
strategy  (IMI-PROVE,  Posting  360,  Transport  Support  and  PROGRESS)  constitute  the 
main/exclusive  activities  as  regards  capacity  building  or  whether  and  to  which  extent 
further  efforts  are  to  be  expected.  The  role  of  the  ‘Cooperation  and  NLO’s  office’  for 
capacity building is not explained in the strategy.  

Facilitation of digital tools received in 2023 limited support (see Figure 5), although it is 
expected to contribute to 4 specific objectives and one horizontal objective. This situation 
together with the importance attributed to digitalisation triggers the question why it is not 
mainstreamed into the different other topics, as it might have quite distinct implications in 
different areas.  

The activities performed under this specific objective led to progress as compared to the 
points of comparison. The NLOs provide for the possibilities to ask for information from 
another Member State and Joint Inspections have helped inspection authorities to achieve 
more  direct  cooperation  and  mutual  understanding  of  routines,  as  well  increased 
competences how to effectively inspect work situations of mobile workers.  

4.  Mediate and facilitate a solution in cases of cross-border disputes between 

Member States 

Mediation was one of the least prioritised operational objectives by the Authority112 over 
its first years of operation, with a very limited budget share dedicated to it in 2021 and 
2022 (respectively, 1% and 3% of ELA’s budget).113 

The purpose of these activities is to resolve cross-border disputes between Member States, 
without  prejudice  to  the  competence  of  the  Administrative  Commission  for  the 
Coordination of Social Security Systems. Article 13 of the Founding Regulation sets out 
that there should be a two-stage process and also further details of how the process should 
be organised. Based on these requirements ELA had set up a working group with Member 
States  which  –  supported  by  contractors  –  developed  detailed  and  extensive  rules  of 
procedures.  Four  main  documents  were  prepared.114  For  each  of  the  workflows  and 
guidelines, several accompanying templates to standardise the procedures were developed. 
This  set  of documents  was finalised in  August 2022.115 In parallel, ELA had negotiated 
cooperation  agreements with SOLVIT and with the Administrative Commission for the 

112   This was also perceived like that by ELA staff and Management Board members. In the survey only 8% 
considered mediation as prioritised. – Annex VII, p. 131 and Supporting Study, Annex VI, p. 72 (Figure 
68). 

113   Supporting Study, Annex V, Section 3.3.1.5.  
114   General  Guidelines  and  Workflows  for  the  mediation procedure  (only  in  English);  Guidance  for  the 
Member States on the ELA mediation procedure (in all EU-27 languages); Guidance for the Mediators 
and Mediation Board on the ELA mediation procedure (in all EU-27 languages); Workflow Guidance 
for  the  interaction between  ELA  and  the  Administrative  Commission  for  the  Coordination  of  Social 
Security Systems (only in English). 

115   Approved as ‘Guidelines on the Rules of Procedure for mediation of the European Labour Authority’ 

by ELA’s Management Board (Decision No 16/2022). 

35 

 
 
 
Coordination of Social Security Systems (concluded in 2021)116 and undertaken efforts to 
inform about and popularise the mediation role.  

While  no  solid  estimates  were  available  concerning  the  number  of  potential  cases  for 
mediation, the use of this service by Member States could become more likely with ELA 
gaining more experience and stakeholders realising the value added and quality of ELA’s 
work over a longer period. Furthermore, against initial intentions,  none of the activities 
performed by the Administrative Commission (in particular the Conciliation Board) were 
transferred to ELA. As such, up until now, the contribution of the activity to the operational 
objective has been low and mainly indirect, thus overall, there is no progress with respect 
to the point of comparison. Possible causes for the lack of progress relate to the fact that 
no other tasks were transferred from the Administrative Commission to ELA. ELA was 
mainly expected to provide mediation in new areas. In that context it is worth mentioning 
the generally low number of cases and experience of other similar mediation bodies with 
longer  experience  in  the  field  (e.g.  the  Administrative  Commission  or  the  European 
Banking Authority).117 Furthermore, the entirely voluntary, non-binding118 and still heavy 
procedure combined with the need for ELA to build up trust among Member States could 
be  a  further  explanation  for  the  low  use  of  the  mediation  service  during  the  evaluation 
period. In addition, this activity was not prioritised by ELA. Finally, the mediation function 
was fully operational and available to interested parties only since September 2022, while 
the    evaluation  covered  the  period  until  June  2023.      Thus,  the  short  period  of  fully 
functional service (10 months) and the low number of cases does not allow for drawing 
robust conclusions.  

5.  Support the cooperation between Member States in tackling undeclared work 

The  key  action  under  this  operational  objective  was  to  transfer  the  European  Platform 
Tackling Undeclared Work (‘the Platform’) from the Commission to ELA. ELA decided 
to make the Platform part of the enforcement unit and to operate it in a way as similar as 
possible  to  other  working  groups  within  ELA.  While  enforcement  always  had  been  an 
important element of its work, the Platform follows a ‘holistic approach’, meaning that the 

116   Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 4, p. 61. 
117  As an example, seven cases were submitted to the Conciliation Board of the Administrative Commission 
between 2010 and 2017 (p. 17, IA supporting the proposal for European Labour Authority, SWD (2018) 
68  final.  The  European  Banking  Authority  mediation  procedure  dealt  with  2  cases  since  2018 
(Supporting  Study,  Annex  VII  Case  studies,  Case  study  4  on  mediation).  In  view  of  that,  it  may  be 
unrealistic to expect a high number of mediation cases per year. 

118  The importance of voluntary and non-binding nature of the mediation was emphasised by social partners 
in targeted consultations  in preparing the ELA proposal (p. 17, IA supporting the proposal for European 
Labour Authority, SWD (2018) 68 final,) as well as during the consultations supporting the evaluation. 

36 

 
 
 
Platform was not set up to ‘just’ fight undeclared work119, but to adopt a wider approach, 
including the exploration of causes of problems and – ideally – preventative work.120  

Since its start in 2016 the Platform did not limit itself to address issues related to un- or 
underdeclared work in situations with a cross-border dimension but was a forum of a fairly 
broad exchange between labour inspectorates and in some cases labour ministries to tackle 
undeclared and falsely declared work in its various forms, thereby also reducing the risk 
of workers to be exposed to labour exploitation and to explore how different internal set-
ups  support  or  complicate  the  authorities’  work.  Thus,  the  Platform  supported  mutual 
(organisational)  learning  among  high-ranking  practitioners,  with  a  fairly  heterogenous 
background, reflecting the diversity of structures at the national level. With this design, the 
Platform could be seen as a precursor to ELA as a whole (except for the EURES part).121 

Labour  inspectorates  and  national  ministries  were  the  two  most  positive  groups  of 
stakeholders on the performance of the Platform. Stakeholders viewed the opportunity to 
exchange with other national authorities as the most useful contribution created by ELA. 
Furthermore, 55% of the respondents to the public consultation considered the quality of 
ELA’s work in relation to the Platform as ‘very high’ or ‘rather high’.122 

Meanwhile,  a  number  of  social  partners  representatives,  highlighted  insufficient 
cooperation  between  the  Working  Group  on  Inspections  and  the  UDW  Platform123, 
expressed  the  need  for  more  sectoral  exchanges  to  address  diverse  determinants  of 
undeclared work, and emphasised the importance of integrating the Platform's knowledge 
into ELA's operational objectives.124 

Comparing the situation in 2023 with the situation in 2019, the Platform has managed the 
transition  to  ELA  and  maintained  a  strong  element  of  mutual  learning  and  exchange, 
including  on  questions  how  to  strategically  manage  labour  inspections  (Figure  9).  The 

a 

Holistic 

119   See e.g. the Summary of the first Seminar of the Platform Tackling Undeclared Work, December 2016: 
‘Developing 
Work’ 
https://www.ela.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-09/UDW%20PS-holistic-_exec%20sum.pdf  -  Next 
to  the  ‘fight’  against  undeclared  work,  which  is  typically  characterised  by  the  attention  to  better 
enforcement, the Platform paid equal attention to motivational aspects,  such as the design of voucher 
systems  for  household  services  or  minimum  income  schemes  and  information  campaigns  to  inform 
workers of their rights and of the advantages of declared work.  

Undeclared 

Approach 

Tackling 

to 

120   European  Commission  (2023),  Study  on  the  effectiveness  of  policies  to  tackle  undeclared  work, 
(https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/065213),  p.  39  ff.  –  The  study  shows  that  the  motivation  for 
undeclared work is often economic necessity i.e. insufficient possibility to generate minimum income 
with regular employment. 

121   The Platform had undertaken first step to organise CJIs, it had done preparatory work for ELA’s first 

campaign and it had organised mutual learning and capacity building events. 

122   Annex V and Supporting Study, Section 4.1.1.4.. 
123    Notably,  the  composition  of  the  Working  Group  and  the  UDW  Platform  is  very  similar,  with  most 

members being present in both. 

124   Supporting Study, Annex VI, Section 4.3.2. 

37 

 
 
 
potential to more systematically assess, together with the national authorities, how their 
performance compares with national authorities in other countries was not explored. 

4.1.2.  Efficiency 

Efficiency of such a young organisation as ELA is difficult to assess as the set-up phase 
develops  routines  and  explores  how  to  deliver  in  the  best  way  on  the  mandate.  Such 
experimentation comes with failures and organisational learning. 

The  absence  of  a  system  of  key  performance  indicators  did  not  allow  for  a  thorough 
monitoring  and  for  ELA  to  communicate  clearly  on  its  performance  towards  its 
stakeholders. Only 24% of the respondents to the stakeholder survey considered ELA to 
be highly efficient when performing its work.125 

The set-up process as well as staff structure and fluctuations made it difficult for the staff 
to handle ELA’s workload and to implement the budget. While significant improvements 
can  be  recognised  throughout  the  period  under  evaluation,  there  is  room  for  further 
improvements of the functioning of ELA (without additional resources). 

1.  Cost-effectiveness  of  actions  and  balance  between  operational  and 

administrative expenditure 

Throughout  most  of  the  evaluation  period,  ELA  did  not  have  a  coherent  strategy  for 
tracking  key  performance  indicators  (KPIs).  Without  such  an  analytical  framework, 
effectiveness as part of the overall cost-effectiveness assessment cannot be measured. The 
2022 Annual Activity report did include some task-related output indicators, but it lacked 
comprehensiveness and quantified results-focused indicators. This limited the analysis and 
assessment  of  the  cost-effectiveness  of  activities,  which  combined  the  quantitative  data 
with qualitative insights and stakeholders’ perceptions from desk research, surveys, and 
interviews.  

A comparison of the financial forecast included in the Proposal for the Regulation and the 
structure of the actual commitments made by ELA  shows that, even when disregarding 
2019,  the  set-up  process  went  somewhat  slower  than  expected,  and  the  share  of 
administrative costs was in particular in 2019-2020, linked to a small budget, higher than 
expected. Since 2021 the share of the administrative budget corresponds to the forecast. 
ELA had difficulties implementing the available budget, leading to increasing outstanding 
payments over the years. 

Figure 10:  Expenditure forecast in the Commission proposal for a Regulation (in 

million euro and as %) 126 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

125   Supporting Study, Annex VI, Question 20 of the Stakeholder Survey (24% of 205 respondents).  
126   COM(2018)131  final,  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 

establishing a European Labour Authority, p. 59. 

38 

 
 
 
 
Staff 

Admin costs 

Operational costs 

2.416 

6.658 

11.071 

15.125 

17.349 

17.696 

22% 

30% 

0.568 

1.115 

5% 

5% 

28% 

6.47 

17% 

34% 

5.16 

11% 

34% 

5.65 

11% 

34% 

5.763 

11% 

8.088 

14.172 

21.39 

24.695 

28 

28.56 

73% 

65% 

55% 

55% 

55% 

55% 

Total commitments 

11.072 

21.945 

38.931 

44.98 

50.999 

52.019 

Figure 11:  Actual commitments made by ELA (in million euro and in %)127 

Staff 

Admin costs 

Operational costs 

2019 

2020 

2021* 

2022 

2023** 

0.35 

19% 

0.99 

53% 

0.54 

29% 

3.07 

25% 

3.25 

26% 

5.99 

49% 

6.46 

30% 

2.75 

13% 

11.15 

13.92 

33% 

4.27 

13% 

35% 

5.62 

14% 

12.16 

18.06 

20.44 

57% 

54% 

51% 

Total commitments 

1.88 

12.31 

21.37 

33.48 

39.98 

* In 2021 part of ELA’s activities was still paid by the Commission  
** For 2023: budget, other years: commitments 

In  the  initial  stage,  ELA  was  developed  around  key  activities,  EURES,  the  Platform 
Tackling Undeclared Work, the network of NLOs and CJIs. Some activities (e.g. CJI) took 
time to develop and others were seen as non-priority because of resource constraints, such 
as lacking  staff  and  expertise. The latter  resulted in  some activities still not  being  fully 
developed at the end of the evaluation period. Such areas were e.g. ELA’s contribution to 
social security coordination or ELA’s analysis/risk assessment capacity, and the mediation 
function.  

Since 2021, more than 50% of ELA’s budget went to operational costs. That meant that 
operational expenditure accounted in ELA for a higher share than in other agencies falling 
under the remit of DG EMPL (Eurofound, Cedefop around 25%, EU-OSHA below 50%). 
The share of staff costs was lower (2023: 35%) than for the other agencies (Eurofound, 
Cedefop:  around  66%,  EU-OSHA:  more  than  40%).  This  corresponded  to  the  values 

127   ELA Annual Activity Reports 2019-2022, Supporting study, Annex V, p. 4 (Table 1).  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
estimated  in  the  Impact  Assessment,128,129  but  is  particularly  challenging  as  the  share  of 
SNEs, who are not able to initiate financial operations, is higher in ELA than with other 
agencies. 

Figure 12:  Operational and staff cost per ELA operational objective 2021 and 2022 

130 131 

Operational 
Objective 

Information 
Services  

EURES  

Cooperation  and 
of 
exchange 
information 

Mediation  

Concerted 
joint inspections  

and 

Tackling 
undeclared work  

Analysis  and  Risk 
Assessment  

Capacity building  

2021 

2022 

Operational 
costs 

Staff costs  Total costs  Operational 

Staff costs 

Total costs 

costs 

and 

 € 1,064,523 
65%  

 € 563,042 
35%  

 € 1,627,565  

 € 888,946 
61%  

 € 558,986 
39%  

 € 1,447,932  

 € 7,960,400 
97%  

 € 223,625  
3% 

 € 8,184,025  

 € 11,576,697 
96%  

 € 463,944  
4% 

 € 12,040,641  

 € 381,686 
45%  

 € 465,871  
55% 

 € 847,557  

 € 410,666  
22% 

 € 1,456,417  
78% 

 € 1,867,083  

 € 95,419 
53%  

 € 85,985  
47% 

 € 181,404  

 € 831,757 
63%  

 € 490,410  
37% 

 € 1,322,167  

 € 379,628 
69%  

 € 1,525,000 
70%  

 € 167,526  
31% 

 € 639,083 
30%  

 € 547,154  

 € 2,164,083  

 € 1,353,417 
90%  

 € 151,554 
10%  

 € 1,504,971  

 € 415,370 
67%  

 € 207,575 
33%  

 € 622,945  

 € 20,000  
8% 

 € 228,758  
92% 

 € 248,758  

 € 601,623 
64%  

 € 335,052 
36%  

 € 936,675  

 € 138,995 
43% 

 € 182,466 
57%  

 € 321,461  

 € 1,232,511 
74%  

 € 431,368 
26%  

 € 1,663,879  

Total 

 € 11,846,197 
83%  

 € 2,391,712  
17% 

 € 14,237,909  

 € 17,030,441  
80% 

 € 4,259,951 
20%  

 € 21,290,392  

Source: Own computations by the authors of the supporting  study based on the Annual Activity Report of ELA, the 
Annual Work programmes, and the Annual accounts. The total budget committed to Contract Agents, Temporary Agents 
and SNE staff was divided by the respective total amount of FTE allocated in different years to obtain the average staff 
costs per staff category. The committed budget was taken from the Annual Activity Reports, and the amount of FTE 
allocated was taken from the Annual Work programmes. To obtain the total staff costs, the average staff costs per staff 
category were multiplied by the number of FTE in each operational objective and for each staff category. For 2021, it is 
only known the division of FTEs over the Pillars, and the division over  operational objectives  within the pillars was 
based on the division in 2022. 

128   Annex IV and Supporting Study, Annex V, Table 2. 
129   The distribution between the different cost-categories appears to have stabilised as from 2022. 
130   Supporting Study, p. 90 (Table 8) or Supporting Study, Annex V, Table 5. 
131   Actual payments. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
The  strong  weight  of  operational  costs  was  mainly  due  to  EURES  and  the  Platform 
Tackling  Undeclared  work.  These  two  activities  accounted  in  2021  for  79%  of  the 
operational  costs  and  in  2022  for  70%.  Accordingly,  without  these  two  activities,  ELA 
would  have  had  a  substantially  lower  share  of  operational  costs,  to  be  expected  for  an 
organisation in a very fast built-up process. 

Comparing 2021 and 2022 figures also shows that still at that time, cost structures at ELA 
were  in  parts  not  yet  stabilised.  The  high  staff  costs  for  ‘cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information’  as  from  2022,  stem  from  the  payments  to  the  NLOs  contributing  to  this 
operational objective. The skewed budget allocation also became evident in the results of 
the activities. Some activities such as analysis and risks assessment, capacity building and 
mediation  were  still  underdeveloped  at  the  beginning  of  2023.  Interviewees  reported 
having perceived a lack of coordination between units of ELA. The presence of multiple 
newsletters within the European Labour Authority (ELA) also suggests that there may be 
an opportunity for improved internal coordination, which could potentially lead to better 
use of resources.132  

While travelling and meeting partners in person might have been important during the set-
up phase, responses from the surveys as from the interviews133 suggest that participants 
agree that meetings and travelling could have been organised in a more efficient way, with 
shorter, less or virtual meetings.  

Translations  are  essential  to  facilitate  understanding  in  a  multilingual  environment  and 
providing  translations  demonstrated  ELA’s  usefulness  and  increased  the  acceptance  of 
ELA by its national partners. Users highlighted that such translations would not have been 
achievable for them without the assistance of ELA. Whether this meant that the overall 
costs  of  translations  were  lower  because  of  the  Translation  Facility  cannot  be  directly 
measured. However, centralising such a service for which a lot of overlap between the type 
of information that is translated exists, could lead to efficiency gains. The average costs 
per  translated  document  decreased  from  roughly  EUR  2 300  in  2020  to  less  than  EUR 
2 200 in 2021. The evaluation didn’t gather evidence on the extent to which ELA used or 
explored other possible tools for translation (such as machine translation).  

The transfer of EURES to ELA has created a complex interface between the Commission 
and ELA. It has led to unintended effects, such as higher costs for the EU budget and higher 
costs for national EURES members and partners when searching for legal guidance and, 
compared to the past, less  jobseekers actually  individually  registered  with  EURES (see 
section  3.2  and  4.1.1).  The  cost  per  placement  is  a  key  metric  for  evaluating  the  cost-
effectiveness  of  EURES.134  The  ex-post  evaluation  of  EURES  showed  improving  cost-

132   E.g. the Platform Tackling Undeclared Work features traditionally a newsletter, while the Authority as 

such also features a newsletter, both covering in important parts similar topics. 

133   Supporting Study, Annex VI, Section 4.3.3, p 51. 
134 EURES activities are one of the few where the evaluation had results and costs developments and could 

compare the evolution of cost-effectiveness over time. 

41 

 
 
 
effectiveness from 2016 to 2019 due to a lower cost per placement. ELA has discontinued 
this indicator post-2019. A relative comparison in terms of placements through EURES 
shows  a  decrease  from  over  80 000  in  2019  to  nearly  49 000  in  2022  (the  latter  being 
influenced by no portal data included and COVID impact). Also, the placements decrease 
from 53 200 in 2021 to 48 731 in 2022, whilst the budget increased by 47%. Hence, the 
cost-effectiveness of the current arrangements cannot be considered as satisfactory.  

As regards the Platform Tackling Undeclared Work,  the budget which went to external 
contractors has remained very much stable, however, with 5 members of staff the number 
of people providing support to the platform has doubled compared to the situation when it 
was organised by the Commission. 

Joint inspections are rather resource intensive.135 The evaluation arrives at the estimate that 
in 2022 the average CJI did cost approximately EUR 46 000.136 Similar to other authorities 
(e.g. police), the national inspectors’ powers are linked to a specific territory. Hence, they 
are only able to accompany and assist the hosting organisation in another Member State 
and have no executive or investigative powers.  

A detailed analysis of full costs (including e.g. working time of national officials or costs 
of coordination between different organisation entities at the national level) incurred by 
Member States and other stakeholders, remained outside the scope of the analysis. It can 
nevertheless  be  noted  that  ELA’s  stakeholders,  national  authorities  as  well  as  social 
partners, recognise that while engaging with ELA leads to an increase in the costs for their 
organisations, for the majority benefits outweigh costs. 42% of the respondents are of the 
opinion  that  benefits  outweigh  costs  to  a  great  extent,  while  24%  consider  their 
involvement with ELA mainly as an obligation or an investment, suggesting that there is 
room for improvement. 

Figure 13:  How do the costs you have referred to compare to the benefits of ELA’s 

activities and services for your organisation? (n=121)  

135   They require labour inspectors from one Member State to travel to another and to stay there for some 
time, as well as providing interpretation at the place of inspection and efforts to coordinate between two 
(or more) organisations.  

136   See Supporting Study, Annex VII, Case study 3. In informal discussions ELA staff reported that in 2023 
the average costs per CJI were at around 20 000 Euro. Even if the calculation method might be somewhat 
different from the supporting study, this suggests considerable improvements from 2022 to 2023. 

42 

 
 
 
Source: Supporting Study, Annex VI, Survey to representatives of ELA stakeholders (2023) 

2.  Appropriateness of resource-investment 

From a financial perspective, there was broad agreement among staff and management that 
ELA had sufficient financial resources to carry out its tasks137, but there were issues with 
fund utilisation, particularly in the early years of operation.  

With 60 out of 144 members of staff being SNEs, ELA had the highest proportion of SNEs 
of  all  Union  decentralised  agencies.138  Since  SNEs  are  temporary  workers  not  directly 
contracted  by  ELA,  a  high  share  of  SNEs  provides  particular  challenges  for  the 
organisation. In a young organisation it increases staff instability as the limited duration of 
SNEs stay with the organisation is making consolidation more difficult. In the longer term, 
however, reliance on SNEs could be an advantage as they can bring diverse perspectives 
and  experiences  to  the  organisation.  It  may  also  present  an  opportunity  for  knowledge 
transfer  and  skills  development  within  ELA  and  back  to  the  Member  States,  thereby 
promoting a better understanding of how Europe works within national administrations. 
However, combined with a high level of contracting and a considerable number of trainees, 
this can create instability in the organisation.139 The issue was also raised by the European 
Parliament in its discharge for the year 2021140 and was acknowledged by ELA itself.  

The  European  Parliament's  discharge  procedures  for  the  European  Labour  Authority 
expressed  repeatedly  concerns  about  ELAs  financial  management,  and  highlighted  the 
importance  of  strengthening  the  management  and  control  systems  to  ensure  the  proper 
functioning of the Authority.141 Recruitment processes, including a gender imbalance of 

137   Annex V, Section Efficiency. 
138   Texts adopted - Discharge 2021: European Labour Authority - Wednesday, 10 May 2023 (europa.eu),. 
139   European Court of Auditors (2023), Annual report on EU agencies for the  financial  year 2022, para 

3.18.11 and 3.18.12. 

140   Texts adopted - Discharge 2021: European Labour Authority - Wednesday, 10 May 2023 (europa.eu) 

Article 11 and 12. 

141   Discharge  2021,  Art.  4  (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0191_EN.pdf) 
(https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/TA-9-2024-

and  Discharge  2022,  Art.  35-37 
0281_en.docx) .  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
senior management and operational deficiencies, in particular the significant reduction in 
the registration rates for EURES are further points mentioned critically in the discharge.  

As outlined in the Single Programming Document 2023-2025, ELA planned to increase 
the number of Temporary Agents. Nonetheless, ELA noted that its powers to change the 
distribution between Temporary Agents, Contract Agents and SNEs were limited, as the 
Authority was bound by the financial legislative statement accompanying the  Founding 
Regulation  of  ELA.  Thus,  only  a  rather  limited  change  to  the  distribution  between  the 
different types of staff was implemented.142 The situation in ELA was further complicated 
as 41 members of staff (28.5% - see Figure 5) worked on horizontal or administrative tasks, 
where SNEs are underrepresented and partly for legal reasons excluded (e.g. financial and 
human  resources).  These  figures  show  that  in  spite  of  ELA  being  bigger  than  e.g. 
Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF, EU-OSHA, EIGE and FRA, the share of staff working on non-
operational activities is approximately as large, and sometimes even larger (FRA and EIGE 
work with consistently lower shares).143 

Almost half of staff that responded to the survey (25 of 58 respondents) and one member 
of the Management Board indicated a mismatch between envisaged activities and available 
human resources in the period under evaluation144. Whilst most respondents to the ELA 
stakeholder  and  staff  and  Management  Board  surveys  agree  that  there  was  a  need  for 
prioritisation in ELA’s tasks, it was145 flagged by representatives from all groups that the 
way  in  which  de-prioritisation/  prioritisation  took  place  created  problems  in  the 
development process.  

Interviewees  with  trade  unions  represented  in  ELA’s  governance  structure,  stressed  the 
need for ELA to focus on a limited number of tasks to ensure efficiency. In some areas, 
such as (a) the mediation function, where very low demand existed, or (b) the provision of 
labour market analysis beyond direct connection with labour mobility, resources have been 
invested  in  efforts  which  cannot  be  considered  absolutely  necessary  for  a  highly  cost-
effectively and targeted operation of ELA. 

3.  Monitoring and reporting  

The Authority has implemented various monitoring and reporting mechanisms  since its 
inception, including the adoption of Consolidated Annual Activity Reports (CAARs) and 
an  Internal  Control  Framework  (ICF)  aligned  with  the  European  Commission's  revised 
framework.  The  ICF  was  further  refined,  and  in  2022,  the  Authority  developed  ICF 
indicators,  finalised  its  risk  register,  and  began  developing  dashboards  for  budget 
monitoring.  Despite  these  efforts,  there  was  no  clear  strategy  for  measuring  key 

142   Supporting Study, p. 91. 
143   European Commission (2023), Study supporting the evaluation of EU Agencies: Eurofound, Cedefop, 

ETF and EU-OSHA, p. 132. 
144   Annex V, Section Efficiency. 
145   Supporting study, Section 4.1.1.5.. 

44 

 
 
 
performance  indicators  until  2022,  which  limited  the  robustness  of  analysis  and  the 
assessment of the Authority's results in the evaluation. The Court of Auditors observed a 
lack  of  formalised  procedures  based  on  direct  evidence.146  The  Court  of  Auditors  also 
repeatedly identified weaknesses in ELA’s management, ranging from significant carry-
overs to irregular procurement procedures and the use of non-suitable members of staff 
(interim agent, trainee) to perform core financial activities.147  

In  2022,  the  Authority  identified  its  main  strategic  areas  and  developed  a  set  of 
performance  indicators  linked  to  these  areas,  which  were  reported  in  the  Consolidated 
Annual Activity Report for the first time, however, the identified focus on output-related 
indicators  and  targets  (e.g.  number  of  meetings,  number  of  reports)  does  not  allow  for 
insights  into  the  results  or  impact  of  ELAs  activities.  Such  insights  would  potentially 
become possible with indicators such as increased registrations in prior declaration tools, 
commitments  following  participation  in  mutual  learning,  achieved  matchings  between 
jobseekers and vacancies, or the value of sanctions imposed in the follow-up to CJIs. Such 
indicators  need,  however,  to  be  developed  with  regard  to  the  activities  and  the  data 
collection possibilities and will need to be discussed with Member States, as they might 
need to provide data. Additionally, more complex achievements like building trust between 
Member  State  administrations  and  improving  coordinated  policy  development,  due  to 
increased awareness of rules in other countries, are not captured by the current monitoring 
system. It might be possible to capture such achievements by using indicators such as the 
share of labour inspections at  national  level  which involve a cross-border dimension or 
indicators comparing the volume of cross-border mobility with inter-regional mobility at 
national level or the number of Member States which have a strategy to tackle Undeclared 
Work.  These  higher-level  achievements  need  to  be  reflected  in  a  good  monitoring 
system.148 

The available information and the stakeholder input clearly show that the mechanisms for 
monitoring,  reporting,  and  evaluation  were  still  in  their  infancy  and  required  further 
improvement.  This  view  was  supported  by  survey  responses  from  ELA  staff  and  the 
Management  Board149,  with  nearly  half  of  the  respondents  calling  for  more  consistent 
reporting across units and better performance management and monitoring.  

146   European Court of Auditors: 2021 – Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2021 (2022), 
Para 3.18.10., p. 173 Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2021 and European Court of 
Auditors: 2022– Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2022 (2023) Para 3.18.8. Annual 
report on EU Agencies for the financial year 2022  

147   European Court of Auditors: 2023 – Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2023 (2024), 
p. 179 (Follow-up of previous years’ observations) Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 
2023 

148   See Blauberger, Michael; Heindlmaier, Anita (2023) The European labour authority in practice, WSI 

study no 32e, p. 28. 

149   Supporting Study, Annex VI, p. 124. 

45 

 
 
 
Figure 14:   How could ELA improve the performance management system and its 
monitoring activities to effectively keep track of the Authority’s performance? 
(n=85) (multiple answers possible) 

Source: Supporting study - Survey to ELA staff and Management Board (2023) 

4.  Governance  

In 2021, ELA adopted its first organisational structure, which was ‘designed to promote 
an integrated and collaborative approach to fulfilling its mandate’ (see Section 3.1.).  

Survey results from ELA staff and the Management Board indicated mixed views about 
the governance structure's support for ELA's planning and implementation activities. 39 of 
the responding members of ELA staff (including NLOs) and Management Board strongly 
agreed to the statement that the governance structure of ELA was adequate, 31 found it to 
a moderate extent adequate, and 15 either had no opinion at all or where not convinced of 
the governance structure.  

Figure 15:  Has the governance structure of ELA – i.e. the Management Board, 
Executive Director and Stakeholder Group – adequately supported the planning 
and implementation of ELA’s activities? (n=85) 

Source: Supporting Study: Survey to ELA staff and Management Board (2023) 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
included 

insufficient  establishment  of 

internal  coordination  and 
Issues  raised 
communication structures, as well as a lack of project management tools and a predictable 
common calendar of activities. The survey of ELA staff and the Management Board also 
revealed significant staff disagreement regarding the clarity of task division across ELA's 
units and the level of cooperation between them. 

Despite these challenges, the majority of respondents among ELA staff and Management 
Board members held a broadly positive view of ELA's governance structures.  

The survey to ELA stakeholders, the public consultation and interviews suggested that the 
Management  Board  generally  functioned  well,  even  though  there  was  some  limited 
criticism on  the high frequency of management  board  meetings and  on the selection of 
some  board  members  who  were  not  decision-makers  or  relevant  stakeholders  at  the 
national level150.  

The  evaluation  did  not  find  significant  issues  with  the  functioning  of  the  Stakeholder 
Group.  Nevertheless,  social  partners  advocated  for  more  focused  discussions  and  a 
strategic role with active involvement of the Stakeholder Group in agenda setting151.  

4.1.3.  Coherence 

During  the  evaluation  period  ELA  became  well  embedded  in  the  broader  EU  policy 
governance structure. ELA attracted substantial political attention at all levels. This was 
due to the organisation of and participation in a high number of events (partly with the 
support of the NLOs) and  systematic Member State visits  by the  Executive Director  as 
well as to the support received from EU level social partners (trade unions in particular).152  

In line with  its  recent  establishment and the absence of major  policy changes since the 
adoption  of  its  Founding  Regulation,  ELA's  mandate  and  activities  were  coherent  and 
complementary  to  EU  level  policies.153  Cooperation  between  ELA  and  Commission 
services took place across different departments and topics.154 

ELA worked closely with national authorities to ensure the application of updated EU rules 
such as those stemming from the revised Posting of Workers Directive155, which aims to 
guarantee fair wages and a level playing field for posted workers, the social aspects of the 
Mobility Package I for the road transport, and the Single Digital Gateway Regulation156, 
aimed at providing easier access to information and administrative services for citizens and 

150   Supporting Study, Annex VI, Section 4.4.2 
151   Supporting study, Annex VI, Section 2.2. 
152   Supporting Study, p. 38 (Section 3.2.1.2). 
153   See also section 4.3 concerning the limitations of ELA’s activities. 
154   E.g. with DG MOVE and DG GROW on IMI-PROVE 
155   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/957/oj 
156   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1724/oj 

47 

 
 
 
businesses, thus ensuring coherence with EU legislation was a direct objective of ELAs 
activities.  

ELA’s activities were coherent with that of other agencies and bodies. Formal cooperation 
agreements  or  Memoranda  of  Understanding  were  concluded  with  the  European 
Commission157, Eurofound, Cedefop158, EU-OSHA159, the Administrative Commission for 
the Coordination of Social Security Systems160 and SOLVIT161. While coherence was not 
put  in  question  in  the  interviews,  it  was  highlighted,  that  cooperation  with  some 
organisations could be strengthened (explicitly identified were Europol and ILO). 

No stakeholders identified major overlaps. No indications were found of inconsistencies 
or contradictions  in  the  mandates and activities  of the Authority  and other  relevant  EU 
decentralised  agencies.  While  some  cooperation  with  other  agencies  (e.g.  FRA)  has 
developed, this cooperation was not developed enough yet to observe synergies.  

1.  Coherence  with  EU  level  policies  and  cooperation  with  the  European 

Commission 

ELA’s annual work programmes as well as the single programming documents of ELA 
demonstrate  the  coherence  between  EU  policies  and  ELA’s  activities.  The  Impact 
Assessment identified ensuring a deeper and fairer internal market and a deeper and fairer 
economic  and  monetary  union  as  the  Commission’s  political  priorities  in  2019.162  The 
Commission 2024-2029 has identified ‘Competitiveness’ and ‘European Social Fairness’ 
as priorities, concretely aiming at making business easier and deepening our Single Market 
and ensuring social fairness in today’s economy.163 It was also observed that other topics 
such  as  greening  of  the  economy,  demographic  change  or  managing  migration  and  the 
relations with third countries were already among President Juncker’s priorities164, without, 
however, featuring prominently in ELA’s portfolio. There has been a substantial continuity 
in  the  key  areas  of  ELA’s  competence,  indicating  the  continued  coherence  of  ELA’s 
activities  with  the  EU  policy  priorities  from  the  time  of  setting  up  the  Authority  until 

157   Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and ELA, ELA Management Board 

Decision 3/2022, of 15/03/2022. 

158   Memorandum  of  Understanding  between  ELA  and  the  European  Centre  for  the  Development  of 

Vocational Training, ELA Management Board Decision 17/2022, of 24/11/2022. 

159   Framework for cooperation between the  European Agency for Safety and Health at Work and ELA, 

ELA Management Board Decision 18/2022, of 24/11/2022 

160   Cooperation  Agreement  ELA-Administrative  Commission  for  the  coordination  of  social  security 

systems, ELA Management Board Decision 26/2021, of 17/12/2021. 

161   Cooperation Agreement ELA-SOLVIT, ELA Management Board Decision 18/2021, of 10/11/2021. 
162   SWD(2018)68 final (Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European 

Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority), p. 99. 

163   The European Commission 2024-2029 
164   European Commission (2015) The EU explained: Ten priorities for Europe -- ten priorities for europe-

NA0115476ENN.pdf  

48 

 
 
 
present, considering also the operational character of ELA, which does not allow for policy 
making.  

An  important  policy  area  with  implications  for  labour  mobility  and  ELA’s  tasks  is 
digitalisation. The compliance of Member States with the Regulation on a single digital 
gateway165 is complementing and facilitating ELA’s support on providing digital tools as 
well in providing information (see section 3.3 (p. 26) and section 4.1.1 (p. 30)). 

Understanding  the  distribution  of  roles  and  achieving  good  collaboration  with  the 
Commission  services  took  some  time.166  It  has  been  flagged  by  interviewees167  that  the 
relationship varied (based on the volume of exchanges and the work between the parties) 
depending  on  the  Directorate-General  with  which  ELA  collaborated  (DG  EMPL,  DG 
GROW, DG MOVE, DG DIGIT, and DG HOME). Cooperation appeared to be easier in 
areas which were characterised by less strictly predefined tasks.  

A point of discussion concerns ELA’s role vis-à-vis third-country nationals, as some of 
ELA’s activities are also relevant for migrant workers. Activities to support the recruitment 
or labour market matching of third country nationals from outside the EU to companies 
within the EU are not covered by the Founding Regulation. However, when third country 
nationals are exposed to risks related to intra-EU mobility or posting, ELA can intervene. 
For instance, problems occurring because of fraudulent forms of posting of third country 
nationals can and have been addressed by ELA and have been revealed during CJIs. In 
several areas of ELA’s work, including e.g. seasonal work or work on construction sites 
third country nationals are frequently in problematic situations and subsequently ELA can 
play a role in improving their situation.  

Other concrete examples of ELA’s work are linked to the people fleeing Russia’s war of 
aggression in Ukraine. In this context, ELA facilitated the development of the Talent Pool 
Pilot  through  EURES,  helping  people  fleeing  the  war  in  Ukraine  make  their  profiles 
available  to  potential  employers  across  the  EU.  Additionally,  ELA's  analysis  of  labour 
shortages provided input for the EU shortages list for the Talent Pool proposal, aimed at 
attracting talent from third countries and adapting to Member States' evolving needs. 

Support to third country nationals is a relevant part of ELA’s objective to assist Member 
States  and  the  Commission  in  the  effective  application  of  Union  law  related  to  labour 
mobility across the Union and the coordination of social security systems. However, ELA 

165   The Regulation was adopted in 2018 and Member States has to implement requirements by the end of 
2023. Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 
establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance 
and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 
166   See Memorandum of Understanding between European Commission and ELA: 

https://www.ela.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-04/decision-03-2022-mou-com.pdf . 

167   Annex V, p. 124/125 and Supporting Study, Annex VI. p. 142. 

49 

 
 
 
is different from other agencies and bodies which have a dedicated focus on criminal law 
enforcement, immigration and border management or fundamental rights.  

By  working  on  its  assigned  tasks  effectively,  in  full  coherence  with  the  EU’s  legal 
migration policies and the relevant legal framework concerning third country nationals and 
without requiring a change of mandate, ELA can contribute to reduce labour exploitation 
including  of  third  country  nationals  within  the  EU.  A  contribution  to  the  fight  against 
trafficking in human beings, as far as it involves labour exploitation, can thus be considered  
a positive development of ELA’s activities. 

Furthermore,  requests  towards  ELA  to  ‘do  more’  to  reduce  labour  exploitation  of  third 
country nationals do not fully take account of the operational possibilities of the Authority, 
which  has  no  executive  power.  It  is  within  the  practical  possibilities  of  the  Platform 
Tackling  Undeclared  Work  to  e.g.  develop  recommendations  concerning  inspection-
intensity or to encourage mutual learning and peer learning dialogues that allow for more 
effective and more efficient organisation of enforcement  activities, thus allowing to use 
available  resources  in  the  best  possible  way.  Still,  the  work  of  the  Platform  Tackling 
Undeclared  Work,  is  focused  on  exchange  of  information,  awareness  raising  within 
administrations  and  mutual  learning  and  as  such  less  directly  active  in  the  operational 
activities falling under ELA’s mandate as for instance the concerted and joint inspections.  

ELA is also well-placed to improve the situation of mobile EU and migrant workers by 
starting from particular problematic situations, thoroughly analysing the structures leading 
to  exploitative  working  conditions  including  for  third  country  nationals  or  in  specific 
sectors. By sharing this analysis with the concerned Member States ELA can have a direct 
positive impact towards fair working conditions for both mobile EU and migrant workers. 
In cases where the analysis shows existing  gaps  in, or infringements  of  EU legislation, 
ELA could inform the European Commission thereof.  

2.  Coherence of mandate and activities with Commission / EU agencies/ EU 

bodies 

ELA's activities were largely complementary to those of other EU agencies. The majority 
of  ELA  staff  and  Management  Board  and  external  stakeholders  agreed  that  ELA’s 
activities  were  coherent,  in  particular  with  Eurofound  and  EU-OSHA.  Key  topics  of 
Eurofound’s  work  concern  employment  and  labour  markets  as  well  as  anticipating  and 
managing  change  and  working  conditions  and  sustainable  work,  thus  also  looking  at 
imbalances in the labour market, however, without specific focus on labour mobility. EU-
OSHA  and  ELA  share  the  concern  for  healthy  working  conditions,  however,  with  a 
different  focus,  so  that  no  overlap  was  identified.  A  lesser  potential  for  synergies  was 
identified with Cedefop and ETF due to their different focus areas168. ELA's operational 

168   Annex V, p. 124/125 and Supporting Study, Annex VI, p. 92. 

50 

 
 
 
 
nature complemented the research-oriented activities of other agencies, with synergies in 
areas such as working conditions, employment, labour markets, occupational health and 
safety.  

Stakeholders and ELA-staff and Management Board most frequently identified Europol 
and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation as the most relevant 
other agencies169 for ELA. This was also reflected in the responses from national labour 
inspectorates, ministries, social partners and the Commission services. An example of an 
emerging cooperation between EU-level agencies is the collaboration between Europol, 
the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and ELA to fight labour exploitation. 
ELA provided its contacts with labour inspectorates to contribute to the work of the other 
agencies.170. This collaboration also demonstrates that these agencies are already active and 
complementary as regards third country nationals and labour exploitation.  

In  areas  such  as  skills,  AI,  and  research/studies,  by  leveraging  the  analysis  and  work 
already done by other agencies (e.g. on skills needs and labour shortages by CEDEFOP 
and Eurofound, or the support  for accession countries provided by ETF), ELA avoided 
overlaps even though  some risk for duplication remains  concerning skills  forecasts and 
labour shortages.  Close cooperation on the programming documents between Agencies 
and ELA  and clear ‘steer’  provided by the Commission’s guidelines  on the annual  and 
multi-annual programming (Article 24 of the Regulation) is meant to avoid overlaps and 
ensure synergies in the respective areas.  Beyond that, neither the supporting study nor the 
recent evaluation of the four EU agencies Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF and EU-OSHA see a 
risk  of  incoherence  between  these  aforementioned  agencies  and  ELA.  Specifically  as 
regards the coherence between ELA and EU-OSHA, , the latter has no specific focus on 
cross-border situations. Conversely, ELA has no direct competence on health and safety at 
the workplace. In cases where activities of both agencies target the same audience, such as 
in the campaign on seasonal work, cooperation was ensured. This campaign also showed 
the very distinct focus of the activities of the respective agencies. The potential for a merger 
of ELA with one of the aforementioned agencies is assessed as low, considering the very 
specialised  nature  of  ELA  focusing  on  intra-EU  labour  mobility  and  social  security 
coordination.171  

169   Supporting study, Annex VI, Section 4.3.5, p. 57. 
170   See  e.g.  the  report  prepared by  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights:  Six  points  for 

workplace inspectors (2024), https://fra.europa.eu/en/print/pdf/node/45503  

171   SWD(2024)XX p. 46 and 67. – See also European Commission (2023), Study supporting the evaluation 

of EU Agencies: Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF and EU-OSHA, p 197. 

51 

 
 
 
 
3.  Cooperation with other organisations  

ELA and the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems 
developed a Cooperation Agreement172, in particular concerning mediation cases involving 
social  security  coordination.  The  agreement,  mandated  by  Article  13(11)  of  the  ELA 
Regulation, aims to ensure good cooperation, coordinate activities, and avoid duplication 
in mediation cases. During the evaluation period, the number of mediation cases and other 
activities on social security coordination have been very limited. 

The  evaluation  also  addressed  ELA's  coherence  with  other  relevant  organisations  and 
stakeholders  at  the  EU,  international,  and  national  levels.  Complementarity  with  the 
International  Labour  Organisation  was  identified,  and  ELA  worked  with  the  ILO  with 
respect  to  inspections  and  mobility,  despite  the  absence  of  a  formal  framework.  The 
potential for improved cooperation was noted.173 

At  the  national  level,  ELA's  activities  were  seen  as  complementary  to  those  of  other 
organisations, agencies and stakeholders. ELA played a significant role in facilitating the 
sharing of national experiences, and providing coordinated information, which contributed 
to enhancing the capacities of various national authorities. 

Figure 16:  Do you think ELA’s activities are complementary to those of other 

organisations/agencies/stakeholders at national level? (n=179)174 

Source: Question 22 of the Online survey to representatives of ELA stakeholders (2023) 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?  

Considering that Member States remain responsible for the enforcement of EU legislation 
in the area of intra-EU mobility, ELA made a difference by supporting EU coordination 

172   The Agreement was adopted by the Management Board on 17 December 2021, signed by both parties 

in December 2021 and entered into force on 1 June 2022. 

173   Supporting Study, Annex VI, Section 4.3.5. p. 58. 
174  Activation:  If  answered  “National  Ministry”,  “National  labour  inspectorate”,  “Social  security 
coordination  organisation”,  “Social  partner”,  “National  public  employment  service”,  “Other  national 
body” in Q1 

52 

 
 
 
 
and cooperation in an area where otherwise cooperation would merely take place on a bi- 
or  limited  multilateral  basis  without  the  involvement  of  all  Member  States.  Such 
uncoordinated  situation  would  require  in  the  long  run  more  resources  and  is  less 
systematic, less flexible, less transparent and more complex than the coordination provided 
by  a  central  ‘hub’  currently  provided  by  ELA.  Practical  experience  indeed  showed 
weaknesses concerning the consistent and effective enforcement of rules in cross-border 
situations. 175  

The survey with representatives of ELA stakeholders highlighted that ELA was best placed 
to facilitate the cooperation and acceleration of exchange of information on labour mobility 
between  Member  States,  and  to  support  their  effective  compliance  with  cooperation 
obligations.  

Figure 17:  To what extent is an organisation like ELA, acting at EU level, best 

placed to do/achieve the following? n=205 

Source: Survey to representatives of ELA stakeholders (2023) 

When respondents were asked to elaborate on their answers, certain views emerged more 
frequently,  particularly  from  social  partners  and  EU  institutions/agencies.  While 
information activities were deemed useful, they should not be the main focus. Respondents 
suggested  that  national  campaigns  are  more  effective  for  providing  information  to 
individuals, and that the ELA contribution in this area might be limited. They noted that 

175   See  COM(2018)131  final,  eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0131 

p. 1-3. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
ELA is not fully reaching its potential due to its restricted mandate and suggested it needs 
more autonomy, such as  the ability to initiate inspections.  Additionally, ELA's analysis 
and  risk  assessment  work  was  criticized  for  not  meeting  standards,  offering  only  basic 
information already known by public authorities. 

Hence, ELA’s value added comes therefore from its abilities to coordinate on questions 
and issues concerning intra-EU labour mobility and social security coordination. Analysis, 
interviews with experts as well as surveys confirm this. The value added of ELA in this 
respect has not been put in question by respondents in the surveys and interviews. 176 

Based on the input from the public consultation, rights of workers in the context of cross-
border labour mobility (77%, i.e. 94 out of 122 responses), posting of workers (71%, i.e. 
87 out of 122), and tackling of undeclared work (59%, i.e. 73 out of 122) were the areas 
where  most  respondents  indicated  that  ELA’s  work  led  to  additional  value/benefits 
compared to what could have been expected from Member States’ bodies alone, either to 
a great or to a moderate extent.177 

ELA acts as focal point for activities concerning the implementation of EU legislation in 
the areas of labour mobility and social security coordination with a ‘hands on’ operational 
approach, the introduction of CJIs and the in-depth work on posting being first steps in that 
direction.178  

ELA’s  stakeholders  (national  administrations  as  well  as  social  partners)  consistently 
acknowledge that ELA has allowed for improved networking and knowledge sharing; trust 
and  coordination  among  national  administrations  have  improved;  training  and  capacity 
building activities were appreciated.179  

So far one Member State committed to send cost-free SNEs180 to ELA, which shows that 
the added value of the Authority is recognised and it is considered worthwhile to invest in 
its activities (process effect).  

The analysis as well as the surveys, however, also show that ELA still has difficulties to 
fully deliver on its added value. As an example, high quality and up-to-date information 
on labour mobility needs to be coordinated at Union level in order to ensure a consistent, 
clear, and efficient approach181, yet stakeholders still find information concerning rights 

176   Supporting study, Section 4.3.6. 
177   Supporting Study, Section 4.2.1. 
178   Annex V, p.123 and Annex IV (Benefits), see also Supporting Study, p. 107. 
179   Annex V, p. 124. 
180   Cost-free  SNE  meaning  that  wage  and  expatriation  allowance  etc.  are  paid  by  the  sending  country, 
whereas ELA only pays for expenses directly linked to the workplace (office, IT equipment, travel in 
case of missions etc). 

181   COM(2018)131  final  (Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

Labour  Authority), 

p. 

5. 

European 
establishing 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0131. 

a 

54 

 
 
 
and obligations fragmented and not sufficiently useful. ELA operates in a highly complex 
environment where national and EU level competences are balanced in a way that solutions 
are often not easy to achieve. The creation of EU added value in this area inevitably takes 
time.  

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

Around 10.1 million European citizens of working age (20-64) lived in 2023 in a European 
country other than their country of citizenship. This corresponds to 3.8% of the respective 
population in the European Union, an overall low share of the population. With the green, 
digital and demographic transitions, Member States are faced with labour shortages and 
major economic restructuring. Cross-border labour mobility is one of the means to address 
these  challenges,  including  by  alleviating  regional  labour  market  imbalances182.  The 
possibility  for  employers  to  temporarily  send  employees  to  another  Member  State  to 
provide services, without distorting the market and while protecting the rights of workers, 
as  provided  by  the  posting  rules,  contributes  to  an  efficient  use  of  resources.  Although 
there  is  a  clear  need  to  enhance  fair  labour  mobility  and  posting  to  sustain  European 
competitiveness  in  the  longer  term183,  the  overall  figures  for  cross-border  mobility  and 
postings remained low. Nevertheless, they increased slowly in the medium term despite 
the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Figure 18). 

Figure 18:  Labour mobility and cross-border transfer of social security payments 

(2019 and 2023) 

Working age movers 
(20-64 years) 
Cross-border workers 
Postings 
Transferred 
Pensions187 

2019184 
Total (EU-28) 

13 million  
(of which 3 million with UK)186  
1.5 million 
4.6 million 
5.5 million 

2023185 
EU-27 

10.1 million 

1.83 million 
5.5 million 
6.18 million  
(2022) 

182   https://www.ela.europa.eu/en/publications/labour-shortages-and-surpluses-europe-2023 
183   As  underlined  in  the  Draghi  report  ‘A  competitiveness  strategy  for  Europe’  presented  in  September 

2024. 
184   Intra-EU 

labour  Mobility 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/ab706f9b-74bf-11eb-9ac9-01aa75ed71a1/language-enhttps://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/ab706f9b-74bf-11eb-9ac9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

report 

2020 

- 

185   Intra-EU labour Mobility report 2024 (upcoming)  European  Commission  (2025),  Annual  Report  on 
Intra-EU labour Mobility – Edition 2024. Annual Report on Intra-EU Labour Mobility 2024 - European 
Commission 

186   2.64 million movers towards the UK and approx. 395 000 UK-citizens in the EU. 
187     

statistical 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=27441&langId=en 

cross-border 

pensions, 

See 

database 

2016-20222: 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
  
Family benefits188 

0.76 million 

1.2 million  
(2022) 

A 2023 report published by the European Parliament estimates, that in 2020 the EU added 
value – in terms of boosting the collective GDP – generated by free movement of workers 
to the main destination countries was in the order of EUR 104 billion. Continued attention 
to the concerns of mobile workers, including well-functioning social security coordination, 
i.e. the topics directly in the competence of ELA, were considered of high importance.189 
However, barriers to mobility persist, in the form of limited access to information, social 
security challenges and the risk of social dumping or labour exploitation.190 Since ELA was 
established, the EU has introduced further policies to address these obstacles, including 
digital tools like the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) to further 
reduce  administrative burdens, making social security coordination more  efficient. This 
requires  continued  support  by  an  organisation  monitoring  and  accompanying  their 
implementation and functioning at the EU-level, a task belonging to ELA’s competences. 
The objective of ELA to contribute to ensuring fair labour mobility across the EU and to 
assist Member States and the Commission in the coordination of social security systems 
within the Union191 remains relevant and important. A perception also shared by European 
citizens.192  

The  continued  relevance  of  contributing  to  fair  mobility  was  highlighted  at  various 
occasions throughout the last five years: during the pandemic the vulnerability of but also 
the importance of seasonal workers to ensure good food-supplies was an important topic. 
A recent study193 which analyses the situation of posted workers provides the underpinning 
of these findings. The strikes organised by truck drivers in 2023194 also demonstrated that 
efforts  are  still  needed  to  obtain  fair  labour  mobility  and  that  some  companies  exploit 
enforcement  gaps  resulting  from  a  lack  of  coordination  between  national  systems  in  a 

188   Export 

of 

family 

benefits, 

number 

of 

family 

members 

involved. 

https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=27442&langId=en  

189   European Parliament (2023), Increasing European added value in an age of global challenges, Mapping 

the cost of non-Europe (2022-2032), p. 222. EPRS_STU(2023)734690_EN.pdf (europa.eu)  

190   Intra-EU 

labour  mobility 

report 

2022 

- 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-

/publication/00ed7c30-dd96-11ed-a05c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

191   Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, Article 2 
192   European Commission (2024), Special Eurobarometer (546) on Social Europe; carried out among EU 

citizens in 2024, p. 10. (Social Europe - April 2024 - - Eurobarometer survey (europa.eu)) 

193   European Commission (2024),  Study supporting the Monitoring of the Posting of Workers Directive 
2014/67&EU: 

2018/957/EC 
Enforcement 
of 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=27555&langId=en  

Directive 

and 

the 

194   Several strike actions of truckers (mainly from third countries), driving on behalf of a EU companies (in 
particular the Polish freight company Mazur was identified) in western Europe (mainly Germany). Most 
public attention was with a strike in Graefenhausen. Lkw-Fahrer-Streik an A5 in Gräfenhausen: "Das ist 
doch kein Leben" | hessenschau.de | Wirtschaft 

56 

 
 
 
 
fraudulent way. A Eurobarometer survey195 confirmed the continued relevance of ELA’s 
specific objective to  facilitate access  to  information  on rights  and obligations regarding 
labour mobility. Nearly half (48%) the respondents considered that working abroad would 
help  them  to  do  their  job  better,  and  nearly  four  in  ten  (39%)  would  look  abroad  for 
improved job opportunities. When considering difficulties that were mentioned, having to 
deal  with  cumbersome  and  paper-based  procedures  to  prove  social  security  coverage 
entitlements  (4%)  were  the  most  frequently  mentioned  difficulties,  followed  by  having 
insufficient awareness of the EU rules and their rights (3%).196  

While the anecdotal evidence presented above only provide examples to demonstrate the 
persistence of challenges to cross-border mobility they show that EU action continues to 
be needed. While the public consultation confirmed that ELA’s activities have been highly 
relevant to ensure workers’ rights in cross-border situations, it is not possible at this stage 
to  draw  conclusions  on  whether  ELA  had  a  measurable  impact  on  the  reduction  of  the 
overall number or seriousness of problems. This is also due to the fact that ELA has so far 
not  invested  in  a  solid  stocktaking  of  the  size  and  scope  of  problems  in  its  area  of 
competence. Furthermore, awareness and reporting of problems have likely increased due 
to the setting up ELA.  

The public consultation carried out as part of this evaluation also indicated that ELA's work 
was considered highly relevant for workers' rights in cross-border labour mobility. Posting 
of workers and tackling undeclared work were also considered relevant areas. EURES was 
marked as a relevant area, but it is noteworthy that at the same time 44% of respondents 
answered  with  ‘do  not  know’.  This  shows  that  while  EURES  is  supposed  to  be  an 
instrument directly at the service of mobile citizens, there is still a lack of awareness of it.  

The areas of  ‘social legislation  in  road transport’ and social security coordination  were 
identified areas of somewhat less relevance which could possibly be due to the technical 
nature  of  these  areas  and  by  the  low  level  of  activities  on  social  security  coordination 
during the evaluation period. The mediation function is a specific activity currently limited 
to Member States’ authorities in the area of social security coordination and therefore not 
widely known among those that are not involved in that matter197 Nevertheless. the low 
number of mediation cases carried out during the evaluation period raises the question how 
relevant this activity is.  

195   EBS 528 (2022) “Intra-EU labour mobility after the pandemic – December 2022 – Eurobarometer survey 
(europa.eu)”. This trust in the advantages of labour mobility merits the support provided by EURES. 
196   Special  Eurobarometer  (546)  on  Social  Europe  carried  out  among  EU  citizens  in  2024. 

(https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3187), p. 54. 

197 More than half of respondents indicated that they did not know about this aspect (Figure 19). 

57 

 
 
 
Figure 19:  To what extent do you believe that the work of ELA has been relevant 

to the following areas? (N=122) 

Source: Public Consultation (2023) 

In terms of sectors covered by the activities of ELA, the focus was put during the evaluation 
period on sectors that fall within its mandate and have the highest levels of labour mobility: 
road  transport198,  seasonal  work,  and  construction.  From  that  perspective,  the  choice  of 
sectors to be covered by the activities was relevant. However, there were requests for ELA 
to  address  additional  sectors,  including  by  extending  the  mandate.  These  requests 
concerned particularly the aviation  and inland waterway sectors199. The scope of ELA's 
activities may encompass these sectors, provided that the matters tackled are within the 
boundaries of the directives and regulations under ELA's mandate (e.g. posting of workers 
and social security coordination).  

There  is  a  broad  consensus  across  all  stakeholders’  groups,  that  the  digital  transition, 
migration from outside the EU, and labour and skills shortages trends can be expected to 
further  impact  ELA's  work.200  During  the  evaluation  period,  ELA  demonstrated  the 
relevance  of  its  mandate  as  regards  digitalisation  in  support  of  labour  mobility  by 
organising  IMI-PROVE  and  well  attended  tech  conferences  (see  section  3.2).  With  the 
digitalisation  becoming  increasingly  important,  including  in  the  public  sector201,  the 
support  provided  by  ELA  to  Member  States  through  training  and  exchanging  of  good 
practices remains relevant.  It  can  also  be expected that  the nature of  ELAs  activities  to 
fulfil its objective to facilitate access to information will evolve and rely increasingly on 
the  use  of  AI  and  algorithmic  management.  Considering  that  access  to  information,  its 

198   In line with the 2020 Commission’s Mobility Package, ELA published in 2022 a Framework for action 

in road transport.  

199   Supporting Study, Annex VI (Stakeholder consultation report (Staff Survey)) 
200   Annex V, p. 122. 
201   Cf  Europe’s  digital  decade  target  to  have  100%  of  public  services  online  by  2030:  Europe’s  digital 

decade: 2030 targets | European Commission 

58 

 
 
 
 
content and the use of these instruments will still need to be managed, ELAs mandate in 
this area remains relevant. Specifically, for EURES, the introduction of AI will profoundly 
alter  the  job  search  and  recruitment  process202  by  enabling  the  EURES  network 
personalised  job  recommender  and  matching,  automated  candidate  screening  and 
providing  predictive  analytics.  ELAs  mandate  remains  relevant  in  accompanying  these 
changes.  

Considering migration from outside the EU, ELA carried out activities regarding people 
fleeing Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine.203 These activities cannot be considered very 
relevant since largely redundant compared to activities undertaken by the Commission and 
other agencies204.  

As regards labour and skills shortages, the relevance and coherence of this ELA activity 
can be questioned given the lack of focus on labour mobility aspects. The general issue of 
labour and skills shortages falls rather within the mandates of Eurofound205 and Cedefop206.  
Nevertheless, the ongoing challenge of labour shortages will continue to require support 
for labour mobility to fill in some of these shortages. This underlines the relevance of ELAs 
mandate on this aspect, also in future. 

For some stakeholders  (trade unions, EP) the relevance of  ELA  would be increased by 
giving  it  direct  enforcement  powers.  This  would,  in  their  view,  enhance  the  effective 
application and enforcement of Union law related to labour mobility and thus reduce unfair 
or exploitative treatment of workers in cross-border situations. Nevertheless, the absence 
of enforcement powers is a direct consequence of the subsidiarity principle enshrined in 
the Treaties of the European Union and its interpretation in the area of labour and social 
affairs.207  

202   See e.g. How AI can improve the talent acquisition process - European Union 
203   Support for people fleeing from Ukraine | European Labour Authority 
204   EU support for Ukraine | European Union 
205   One  of  Eurofound’s  objectives  is  to  provide  support  to  devising  employment  policies  (Article  1  of 

Regulation (EU) 2019/127) 

206   One of Cedefop’s tasks is to analyse labour market trends in relation to skills (Article 2 of Regulation 

(EU) 2019/218) 

207   This is similar to Europol and Eurojust that also provide support to Member States national authorities. 
As  an  example,  the  Europol  webpage  informs  the  public,  that  “The  Agency  supports  investigations 
initiated by Member States, though Europol officers never arrest citizens or instigate investigations.” 

59 

 
 
 
 
5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED?   

5.1.  Conclusions 

During the period under evaluation, ELA managed to finalise its organisational set-up and 
started delivering  on the objectives  set  out  in  its founding  regulation  and programming 
documents. ELA's work on intra-EU labour mobility and social security coordination was 
generally coherent with that of other EU entities, cooperation and information exchange 
was facilitated.  

Despite  calls  made  by  the  Commission  in  the  respective  opinions  on  the  draft  single 
programming  documents,  ELA  thus  far  did  not  develop  a  strategic  approach  for  the 
accomplishment of its objectives. In the absence of such strategy and since ELA has not 
set  up a comprehensive  and  outcome-oriented monitoring system  covering all activities 
and including KPIs, targets and SMART objectives, a definite overall assessment of ELAs 
performance of its tasks during the evaluation period is difficult. Progress towards ELA’s 
specific objectives can, in the absence of result indicators, only be approximated indirectly. 
While this evaluation may in several respects have more the character of a progress report, 
it aims to contribute to a better evidence base for the next evaluation. 

Stakeholder  feedback  suggests  that  the  delivered  outputs  were  used  by  relevant 
stakeholders.  It  also  pointed  to  insufficient  interaction  with  specific  stakeholders  (e.g. 
employers)  and  lack  of  targeting.  Altogether,  the  evaluation  points  to  room  for 
improvement  in  the  implementation  of  specific  activities  and  when  it  comes  to  the 
coordination between the specific activities. No major issues could be identified regarding 
the governance structure of ELA (consisting of a Management Board and a stakeholder 
group) even though the high frequency of meetings of the Management Board seems to 
point to a hybrid approach on the role of the Board between high-level decision making 
and supervisory activities providing guidance to the agency’s management. 

Effectiveness 

As regards the effectiveness of activities under the four specific objectives, the following 
can be noted:  

1)  Facilitate access to information on rights and obligations regarding labour mobility 

across the Union as well as relevant to services.  

launched 

by  ELA 

campaigns 

(#EU4FairWork; 

The 
#Rights4AllSeasons, 
#Road2FairTransport,  #EU4FairConstruction)  received  a  significant  audience  measured 
by the number of clicks and views. No conclusions on the effectiveness of these campaigns 
can  be  drawn  in  the  absence  of  outcome  related  indicators  or  indications  whether  the 
campaigns reached the right audience and increased their knowledge. Effectiveness seems 
to  have  been  negatively  affected  by  insufficiencies  in  timing  and  targeting  of 

60 

 
 
communication by ELA and reluctance by partners to provide and disseminate information 
within the deadlines requested by ELA.   

Despite  ongoing  efforts,  the  information  concerning  rights  and  obligations  for  mobile 
workers  and  employers  remains  fragmented  across  various  sources  at  EU  and  national 
level. ELAs translation facility was welcomed, in particular by national authorities208.  

In the start-up phase, the transfer process of EURES-ECO from the Commission to ELA 
went  smoothly.  The  overall  performance  was  however  affected  by  different  priorities 
between  ELA  and  the  EURES  network.  Even  though  ELA  discontinued  the  system 
monitoring  job  placements  facilitated  through  the  EURES  portal  or  staff,  based  on  the 
additional evidence gathered it can be noted that the effectiveness of the EURES declined, 
counted  in  the  number  of  job  placements.  Stakeholders  expressed  dissatisfaction  with 
ELA’s focus, pointing out that the divided responsibilities and differing priorities led to a 
decrease in the effectiveness of EURES activities. They also criticized ELA for spreading 
its  efforts  too  thin,  which  weakened  its  ability  to  fully  support  key  EURES  functions. 
Furthermore, ELA’s diverging views on the delimitation of responsibilities between ELA 
and Commission and on the interpretation of key tasks, put a strain on the coherence of 
ELAs activities with those of the Commission.  

2)  Facilitate and enhance cooperation between Member States in the enforcement of 
relevant Union law across the Union and including facilitating concerted and joint 
inspections.  

Together  with  information  campaigns,  ELA  has  put  a  priority  on  the  organisation  of 
concerted and joint inspections. The number of these inspections increased significantly 
and ELA managed to involve 25 Member States by the end of 2023. No conclusion can 
however be drawn on the effectiveness of CJIs, in the absence of a relevant KPI and related 
measurement of their impact. To make such an assessment, a useful information would be 
the change of behaviour in the inspected company after the initial inspection, i.e. how many 
of the violations detected in the initial inspection still exist in a follow-up inspection 6 or 
12 months later.  

Analysis and risk assessment activities were given a lower priority and there were only 
few outputs produced. Where those activities were carried out, a lack of coordination or 
cooperation between ELA’s analytical efforts and the organisation of CJIs could be noted, 
partially due to the absence of (timely) information provided by Member States and data 
protection concerns.  

Cooperation  and  exchange  between  Member  States  national  authorities  has  been 
effectively and smoothly facilitated by ELA209. The high proportion of SNEs including the 

208   This could represent a certain bias considering that the costs for translations were now incurred by ELA 

and not by national authorities. 

209   It  should  be  noted  however  that  during  the  period  under  evaluation  support  to  social  security 

coordination was not yet fully developed. 

61 

 
 
 
NLOs is a strength of ELA, allowing it to establish a network with and between national 
authorities leading to more direct and quicker information exchange between ELA and the 
national authorities. The high proportion of SNEs also creates challenges in particular in 
combination with the high level of outsourcing. This is important both for maintaining and 
enhancing expertise within the organization210 and because SNEs are not allowed to  engage 
in financial management.  

ELA started capacity building activities, including in support of digital tools such as the 
internal  market  information  system  (IMI) for road transport.  These activities have  been 
appreciated by Member States authorities. During the evaluation period, ELA did not yet 
extend  capacity  building  activities  to  digital  tools  in  the  area  of  social  security 
coordination211.  

3)  Mediate and facilitate a solution in case of cross-border disputes between Member 

States  

While  guidelines  and  organisational  arrangements  were  put  in  place,  the  use  of  the 
mediation  function  of  ELA  remained  low  and  limited  to  social  security  coordination. 
Considering that by the end of 2023 only four mediation cases reached ELA, of which 3 
were prematurely closed and 1 successfully finalised, no conclusions can be drawn on the 
effectiveness of this activity.  

Nevertheless, in the interviews, some stakeholders highlighted the need for ELA to focus 
on  a  limited  number  of  essential  tasks  for  efficiency,  noting  that  resources  were  being 
allocated to areas like the mediation function with low demand and labour market analysis 
beyond direct labour mobility, which were not essential for a cost-effective and targeted 
operation. 

4)  Support cooperation between Member States in tackling undeclared work. 

The transfer of the European Platform Tackling Undeclared Work into ELA did not create 
difficulties,  but  making  the  Platform  part  of  the  Enforcement  and  Analysis  Unit  has 
hampered the development of synergies with other ELA activities. This negatively affected 
the effectiveness of the Platform’s activities.  

Efficiency 

The absence of an adequate monitoring system did not allow for a solid assessment of the 
cost-effectiveness  of ELA’s operations. During  the evaluation  period, ELA managed to 

210   SNEs working for a limited period in ELA and with outsourcing may imply that less knowledge is built 

within the organisation itself. 

211   It should be noted however that ELA adopted in November 2023 its capacity building strategy 2024 – 
2030 covering the programmes IMI-PROVE (launched in 2022), Posting 360, Transport Support (both 
launched in 2023) and PROGRESS (launched in 2024).  

62 

 
 
 
reach financial autonomy, but still with a low level of budget execution212. Moreover, while 
all envisaged activities were being developed, they appear to be insufficiently mutually 
integrated,  negatively  impacting  the  Authority’s  efficiency.  Efficiency  gains  could  be 
observed in the organisation of translations. Further potential for such gains was identified 
for the organisation of CJIs and meetings, even though the actual savings that could be 
obtained from these gains could not be determined. It appears that the efficiency of EURES 
decreased  during  the  evaluation  period,  considering  the  increasing  cost  of  the  activity 
compared to the lower number of job placements. 

Coherence 

ELA’s mandate and activities were found to be coherent and complementary to those of 
other  EU  entities,  international  organisations,  and  national  stakeholders.  No  significant 
overlaps were identified, underscoring ELA’s distinct role within the EU framework.  ELA 
progressively enhanced the delivery of activities and outputs as set out in the respective 
work  programmes  which  in  turn  reflected  EU  policies  and  priorities,  including  those 
revised or enacted during the evaluation period (e.g. the Mobility Package I).  

EU added value 

ELA  has  successfully  facilitated  the  cooperation  between  national  authorities  on  joint 
inspections and has run information campaigns reaching many citizens. ELA ensured EU 
level cooperation and coordination between all Member States in an area where otherwise 
relations would only be established on a bilateral basis or with the involvement of a limited 
number of Member States.  

By  centralising  these  activities,  ELA  has  addressed  a  previously  unmet  need  for 
operational support in implementing EU policies related to EU labour mobility. However, 
beyond these achievements, there remains room for improvement in most areas of activity 
(see effectiveness and lessons learned).  

Relevance 

ELAs objectives and activities remain overall relevant, including in view of trends in EU 
labour mobility and its economic benefits, the evolving policy framework, aiming at better 
and more efficient implementation of rules, and digitalisation. However, some areas were 
considered  of  lesser  relevance,  most  prominently  the  mediation  function  and  some 
stakeholders  (e.g.  trade  unions  represented  in  ELA’s  governance  structure)  stressed  the 
need for ELA to focus on a more limited number of tasks to ensure efficiency. For EURES 
it is expected that AI supported matching will impact its operation.   

Despite calls for the strengthening of ELAs mandate, the evaluation does not point to  a 
pressing need for the revision of the mandate. Still, some potential areas for improvement, 

212  The budget absorption rate consistently exceeded 95% except in 2019, but payment appropriations were 
low with under 25% paid annually until 2022, when the rate improved to 59%, and further to 74% in 
2023. 

63 

 
 
 
possibly  needing  a  change  of  the  Founding  Regulation,  could  concern  competences  to 
handle personal data, a strengthened ability to ask Member States for cooperation around 
CJIs and more influence on the appointment of NLOs.  

5.2.  Lessons learned 

1.  An evaluation of the performance of ELA in line with Article 40 of the Founding 
Regulation  relies  on  the  availability  of  clear  objectives,  performance  indicators 
including  targets  and  the  measurement  of  these  that  was  not  available  for  the 
evaluation  period.  This  resulted  in  particular  in  difficulties  assessing  the  cost 
effectiveness of ELAs activities. ELA could thus improve its monitoring system. 
This could be achieved by: 

(i) defining SMART objectives at the level of the general objective as well as at 
the levels of specific and operational objectives;  
(ii) identifying meaningful KPIs to measure achievements;  
(iii) systematically setting targets for all KPIs; and  
(vi) better monitoring of services / outputs use and the effects at national level.  
(Section 4.1.1.1.) 

To develop an effective monitoring system, it is essential to distinguish between 
activities (e.g. meetings and social media posts) and objectives (e.g. cross-border 
recruitments, resolving irregular employment cases). Furthermore, an intervention 
logic  should  be  underpinned  with  an  operational  understanding  of  'fair  labour 
mobility'  and  SMART  objectives;  for  example,  beyond  assessing  stakeholder 
satisfaction with information accessibility, ELA could create indicators to measure 
the time and effort required for stakeholders to obtain necessary information or to 
measure the impact of activities. (see also points 3 and 5 below).  

2.  Besides providing the necessary input for future evaluation of the agency, such a 
monitoring  system  could  support  enhanced  strategic  management  by  the 
agency’s  leadership,  providing  steer  and  direction  to  the  organisation  and 
increasing its overall performance. A particular attention could be paid to provide 
meaningful objectives in areas that were less developed thus far (i.e. analysis/risk 
assessment,  mediation),  to  mainstreaming  digitalisation  efforts  and  to  enhanced 
cooperation and coherence within the organisation and with other organisations, in 
particular EU agencies. To fully develop and benefit from better coordination and 
synergies between activities, the organisational structure might need to be revised. 
(Section 4.1.1.1.) 

3.  A  clear  example  of  the  potential  benefits  of  enhanced  internal  coordination  and 
coherence concerns the concerted and joint inspections (CJIs) and analysis/risk 
assessment activities. While the analysis/risk assessment could help to better target 
the inspections, the outcomes of the CJIs could in turn feed into the analysis, help 
identifying systematic problems and provide input for training courses and capacity 
building. Reporting from inspections could be provided by Member States within 
a  limited  timeframe,  even  if  some  follow-up  to  CJIs  might  still  be  ongoing.  A 
clarification on ELAs position as regards data protection and privacy could help 

64 

 
 
 
gathering national data. Pending the input by Member States, ELA could envisage 
carrying out surveys to obtain more immediate feedback on the support provided.  
(Section  4.1.1.3.).  Relevant  indicators  that  would  be  helpful  could  be  e.g.  the 
number  of  inspections  initiated  by  the  ELA’s  analysis/risk  assessment,  benefits 
generated  by  joint  inspections  (e.g.  improved  workers’  situation,  collected/ 
recovered taxes and/or social security contributions) and other information about 
cases on cross-border fines.  

4.  ELAs activities, building on the work by its information working group and with 
the  involvement  of  social  partners,  could  be  further  intensified  to  increase 
usefulness  and  targeting  (e.g.  specific  sectors),  addressing  the  persistent 
fragmentation  at  both  EU  and  national  level  of  information  on  the  rights  and 
obligations of mobile workers and employers. (Section 4.1.1.2) ELA could further 
explore  efficiency  gains  by  using  digital  tools  (machine  translation)  for  its 
Translation Facility. (Section 4.1.2.1) 

5.  Regarding information campaigns, ELA could enhance the measurement of their 
impact and use. The themes (e.g. sector) for such campaigns should be based on a 
thorough analysis and could facilitate the definition of the precise objectives and 
target  groups  of  such  information  campaigns.  Relevant  indicators  that  would  be 
helpful could be e.g. requests by employers and workers for additional information 
about rights and obligations of specific groups of mobile workers targeted by the 
campaign. 

6.  While ELA has already established a first strategy for capacity building, it could 
be  further  clarified  whether  this  strategy  will  be  limited  to  the  mentioned 
programmes213  or whether and to which extent further efforts are to be expected.  

7.  ELA could increase its efforts to ensure EURES becomes fully part of its activities 
and focuses its analytical work on labour mobility. At the same time ELA could 
enhance the provision of adequate services to the EURES network enabling it to 
offer  services  to  jobseekers  and  employers  making  optimal  use  of  digital  tools. 
ELA could examine how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of EURES, 
the overall management  of EURES coordination group and it could be explored 
how  to  come  to  a  clearer  division  of  tasks  and  responsibilities  between  the 
Commission services and ELA, especially in relation to IT tools (EURES portal) 
and  legal  interpretation  of  different  aspects  of  the  EURES  Regulation  (Section 
4.1.1.2.). When it comes to the increased use of digital tools such as algorithmic 
management,  ELA  by  its  management  of  the  European  Coordination  Office  of 
EURES, could play a central role in identifying and addressing related risks such 
as potential job displacement, biased algorithms, and loss of human interaction and 

213   IMI-PROVE, Posting 360, Transport Support and PROGRESS 

65 

 
 
 
empathy  in  the  recruitment  process.  ELA  could  further  support  the  use  and 
development of digital tools by the Member States. 

8.  The very limited use of ELA’s mediation function requires a better understanding 
of its potential in terms of number of cases that could be presented. A discussion 
with Member States could start with a further exploration of the underlying reasons 
for the limited use of this  function  and, building  upon that, the  identification of 
options  to  allow  ELA  to  deliver  on  this  task  in  a  cost-effective  way.  (Section 
4.1.1.4.)  

9.  ELA could re-examine the role of the European Platform Tackling Undeclared 
Work and the place it occupies in the organisation. A key question in this regard 
is whether the Platform can be given a more strategic role and how it could be better 
integrated  with  other  activities  of  the  Authority,  such  as  the  working  group  on 
inspections. (Section 4.1.1.5)  

10. ELA could still improve efficiency in the organisation of its meetings and in its use 
of  resources  in  general,  both  financial  and  human.  As  to  the  latter,  ELA  could 
further explore the best ways to achieve an appropriate balance between developing 
in-house expertise and relying on external contractors. Furthermore, establishing a 
robust  administrative  framework  is  crucial  for  enhancing  budget  and  financial 
management  (especially  in  the  context  of  budgetary  execution),  procedural 
efficiency, and HR management. This includes formalizing written procedures and 
potentially adopting ISO processes to ensure streamlined operations and strategic 
resource allocation. The further stabilisation of ELA staff should ensure as ELA 
has  high  share  of  SNEs.  The  possibility  to  convert  SNEs  into  temporary  agents 
could help in addressing this challenge (Section 4.1.2.2.). 

11. Carrying  out  and  delivering  on  the  objectives  foreseen  under  the  current 
mandate could continue to be the focus of the agency as the evaluation points to 
room  for  improvement  as  regards  the  performance  of  the  agency  based  on  the 
current mandate and objectives. At the same time, it notes certain limitations in the 
mandate that could affect ELA’s potential. In case a change to the mandate or scope 
of activities of the agency were to be considered, a thorough analysis of the need 
for  such  modification,  the  costs  and  benefits  and  possible  side-effects  could  be 
required. Some targeted changes could be explored to enhance the efficiency and 
effectiveness of ELA’s work and could concern competences to handle personal 
data,  a  strengthened  ability  to  ask  Member  States  for  cooperation  around  CJIs, 
increased  information  provision,  ELA’s  role  vis-à-vis  third  country  nationals, 
ELA’s  responsibilities  with  regard  to  the  development  of  EURES,  and  the 
conversion of a number of SNEs into permanent staff. (Section 4.3.)  

66 

 
 
 
ANNEX I.   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

The  evaluation  was  led  by  the  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Inclusion  and  Social 
Affairs, with a Decide planning reference PLAN/2023/2058. 

Organisation and timing 
An Inter-service Steering Group (ISG) was set up, coordinated by the  Directorate-General 
for Employment, Inclusion and Social Affairs (represented by staff from EMPL E.1, EMPL 
E.2, EMPL C3, EMPL G5), and Commission services including the Secretariat General, and 
the Directorate-Generals for : Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE); Internal Market, Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW); Human Resources and Security (DG HR); Budget 
(DG BUDG); Communication (DG COMM); the Directorate-General for Migration and Home 
Affairs (HOME) was added to the Inter-service Steering Group later. It has been provided the 
opportunity to comment on the final report of the supporting study as well as the evaluation and 
to participate in the 6th meeting of the ISG, taking place on 26 September 2024. 

The ISG also acted as steering group for the supporting study supporting the evaluation, which 
was  carried  out  by  Ramboll.  Contract  VC/2023/0127  was  awarded  after  reopening  of 
competition  (tender  VT/2022/057)  within  the  multiple  framework  contract  VC/2021/0336). 
The contract VC/2023/0127 started on 02.05.2023. The first draft final report was submitted by 
the contractor on 26.02.2024. The draft was discussed in the inter-service steering group on 
19.03.2024. Several iterations of the draft final report followed on: 26.04.2024, 28.06.2024 and 
27.09.2024. The inter-service steering group provided the last set of comments on the draft final 
report by 19.07.2024 and the contractor delivered the revised final report on 27.09.2024, along 
with the agreed annexes (including an annex on the stakeholder consultation).  

The call for evidence published on 06.10.2023 explained the context, purpose and scope of the 
evaluation and informed stakeholders that an external evaluation study was being carried out, 
supported  by  a  public  consultation.  The  public  consultation  was  open  for  12  weeks  from 
06.10.2023  to  05.01.2024.  The  factual  summary  was  published  on  22.02.2024.  Targeted 
consultations were carried out mainly within Q3 and Q4 2023. See Annex V for further details 
on the stakeholder consultations carried out. 

Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 
All Better Regulation requirements were fulfilled.  

Consultation of the RSB (if applicable) 
The evaluation was selected for the scrutiny of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. The evaluation 
staff working document was discussed at the meeting on 13 November 2024. The Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board issued a negative opinion on 15 November 2025. Table 2 below shows how this 
report took into account the RSB comments before resubmission. The revised version of the 
document was sent to the RSB on xx January 2025. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evidence, sources and quality 
The evaluation was based on the evidence collection and analysis carried out by external experts 
(contract with Ramboll to carry out the supporting study, see above). 
Annex  II  provides  additional  information  on  the  methodological  approach  taken.  To  ensure 
quality,  the  ISG  provided  feedback  throughout  all  steps  of  the  evaluation  process,  and  the 
European Labour Authority was given the opportunity to comment on the supporting study to 
ensure accuracy of the factual information and data.  

Table 1: Chronological overview of the evidence collection process 

Date 
09.12.2022 
06/02/2023 
03/03/2023 
02.05.2023 
15.05.2023 
15.06.2023 

06.10.2023 – 05.01.2024 

04.12.2023 
Q3-Q4.2023 
26.02.2024 
19.03.2024 
26.04.2024 
26.09.2024 
27.09.2024 

Type of activity 

ISG meeting to discuss the Tender specifications 
Launch Request for services 
Offers received 
Signature of Contract 
ISG meeting: kick-off meeting with contractor 
ISG Meeting: Inception report of supporting study 
and discussion about the consultation strategy and 
public consultation 
Publication  of  Call  for  Evidence  and  Public 
consultation 
ISG Meeting: Interim report of supporting study 
Targeted consultations 
Draft final report 
ISG meeting: draft final report supporting study 
Revised draft final supporting study report 
ISG meeting on the draft Staff Working Document 
Receipt of final version of supporting study 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2: How RSB comments have been addressed 

Opinion (RSB comments) 

The  Board  notes  the  additional  information 
provided and commitments to make changes 
to the report. 
However, the Board gives a negative opinion 
because  the  report  contains  the  following 
serious shortcomings: 
(1)  The  report  does  not  adequately  explain 
how  the  performance  of  the  ELA  can  be 
assessed  given  the  lack  of  clear  objectives 
and  appropriate  performance  indicators.  It 
does  not  assess  ELA’s  contribution  to  fair 
labour mobility across EU. 
(2) The analysis is not clear about the serious 
limitations of the evidence and its robustness, 
and the actions needed to remedy this. 
(3) The conclusions do not accurately reflect 
the  critical  findings  of  the  analysis.  The 
lessons  learned  do  not  adequately  present 
operational suggestions for improvement. 

How  and  where  comments  have  been 
addressed 
•  The SWD has been significantly revised   to 
take on board the RSB comments contained 
in  the  15  November  opinion  and  in  the 
quality checklist received from the RSB on 
08 November. See below the main changes 
to address the points to improve: 

•  It might be noted that, while the absence of 
appropriate performance indicators indeed 
creates  problems,  it  is  an  issue  which 
cannot  be  fixed  with  the  evaluation.  The 
Commission will, however, continue to use 
its role in the management board and other 
bodies  to  urge  ELA  to  make  significant 
improvements. All this is better clarified in 
the 
the 
revised  version, 
limitations of the evaluation.  

including 

•  While 

the  absence  of  performance 
indicators  and  the  weaknesses  in  strategic 
management  are  key  weaknesses, 
the 
evidence  found  is  still  good  enough  to 
arrive  at  conclusions  and  lessons  learned, 
which  indicate  that  missing  performance 
indicators  are  not  the  only  area  in  which 
ELA can improve.  

•  A more careful and consistent  wording  of 
is 

learned 

lessons 

and 

conclusions 
provided. 

What to improve: 

(1)  The  report  should  clearly  explain  the 
purpose  and  scope  of  the  intervention,  the 
underlying needs that necessitated the setting 
up of ELA, and how the ELA was envisioned 
to  contribute 
identified 
to  solving 
problems.  The  report  should  analyse  the 
evolution of the nature and magnitude of the 
problems, 
the  key 
taking  account  of 
developments  in  the  functioning  of  the 
European labour market since establishment 
of ELA relevant to this evaluation. 

the 

•  To clarify further the purpose and scope of 
the  intervention  and  the  need  to  establish 
ELA, including its targeted role to solve the 
identified  problems,  Section  2.1.  was 
substantially redrafted explaining better the 
context and the actions taken. 

•  Additional  details  on  how  the  EU  labour 
market,  including  fair  labour  mobility, 
evolved  since  the  establishment  of  ELA 
were  further  developed  in  particular  in 
Sections 2.1 and 3.3.  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2)  Given  that  the  evidence,  as  indicated  in 
the  report,  is  limited  and  in  many  cases 
insufficiently  robust, 
the  report  should 
discuss this more explicitly. When using the 
staff  survey,  or  consultations  with 
the 
national  agencies  that  the  ELA  coordinates, 
or  ELA’s  reports,  the  report  should  clearly 
address potential stakeholder bias. The report 
should  consider  whether  further  evidence 
could  be  collected  (for  example,  from 
EURES). 

•  Specific  caveats  on  the  data  limitations 
were  introduced  in  Sections  1,  4.1.1.  and 
4.1.2. 

•  For  EURES,  additional  data  is  presented 
for  the  matching  process,  for  the  years 
the  EURES 
2021-2022, 
Performance Measurement System. This is 
reflected  mostly 
the  Effectiveness 
in 
(Section  4.1.1)  and  Efficiency  (Section 
4.1.2.). 

based  on 

regarding 

(3)  The  report  should  clarify  the  cost-
effectiveness  analysis. Given that at  present 
it seems that the analysis is based solely on 
the 
stakeholder  perceptions 
usefulness and satisfaction with ELA’s tasks, 
lacking a cost element, the relevant parts of 
the  report,  including  Annex  VII,  should  be 
revised  to  avoid  confusion.  Any  statements 
of  “positive”,  “negative”  or  “inconclusive” 
efficiency  should  be  underpinned  by  the 
analysis. 

•  Given  that  the  compulsory  Annex  IV  -
provides and overview of costs and benefits 
the relevant elements from Annex VII were  
adjusted and transferred to the main text.  
•  Section  4.1.2.  Efficiency  was  amended  to 
reflect  the  existing  caveats  of  the  process 
(lack  of  monitoring,  lack  of  KPIs,  no 
granularity  of  data).  This  was  further 
aligned  with 
the  Cost-Effectiveness 
sections  (methodology  and  limitations)  in 
Annex II. 

•  Table 1 from the previous Annex VII, was 
moved  to  the  main  text  Section  2.1.  to 
highlight  the  link  between  ELA’s  main 
tasks and key activities. 

the  developed 

•  Section  4.1.2.  Efficiency  was  further 
the  existing  cost 
consolidated  with 
developments and intended effects in terms 
of 
tasked  (information, 
inspections  etc).  Additional 
EURES, 
figures on EURES were also provided. 
•  The challenges presented in the Table 2 of 
the former Annex VII were incorporated in 
Section 4.1.1. and Section 4.1.2. 

(4) The report should examine the coherence 
between  the  ELA's  activities  and  relevant 
legislation  revised  or  enacted  during  the 
evaluation  period  (for  example  the  Single 
Digital Gateway).  

and 

•  To  clarify  the  coherence  between  ELA’s 
activities 
legislation 
implemented  during  the  reference  period 
we added additional arguments in Sections 
4.1.1. and 4.1.3.  

relevant 

•  These  amendments  detail  how  ELA’s 
activities  focused  on  support  for 
the 
Member States with the enforcement of the 
revised  Posting  of  Workers  Directive,  the 
social aspects of the Mobility Package for 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  road  transport  and  also  contributed  to 
the  implementation  of  the  Single  Digital 
Gateway Regulation.  

the 

(5)  External  factors  such  as  digitisation 
developments, the changing demography, the 
revision of the Regulation on Coordination of 
Social  Security  Systems  etc.  should  be 
analysed  in  more  detail,  including  the  way 
they  have  affected 
relevance  and 
performance  of  the  intervention  assessed. 
Moreover,  since  the  report  recognises  that 
digital transition, migration from outside the 
EU, and labour and skills shortages are likely 
to  influence  ELA’s  operations,  it  should 
further  examine  the  relevance  of  ELA’s 
current mandate to  address these significant 
trends in the future. 

•  Section  3.3  was  further  developed  to  
include more details on the external factors 
that were identified in the intervention. 
•  The analytical chapter (4) and in particular 
section  4.3  on  relevance  describes  the 
influence of these external factors on ELAs 
operations  and  the  relevance  of  ELAs 
mandate  to  address  these  trends  in  the 
future.  

•  Additional  clarifications  regarding 

the 
impact of digital transition, migration from 
outside  the  EU,  and  labour  and  skills 
shortages were included in Section 4. 3.. 

•  Both  the  conclusions  and  the  lessons 
learned have been thoroughly revised.  
•  A particular emphasis has been put on the 
methodological limitations and the absence 
of an adequate monitoring system.  

•  The 

lessons 

learned 

include  concrete 
suggestions on how ELA could come to an 
enhanced  strategic  approach  underpinned 
by  a 
robust  performance  monitoring 
system.  

fully 

(6) Conclusions should be thoroughly revised 
to ensure they are consistent with the analysis 
and  its  limitations.  Given  the  significant 
methodological limitations and the lack of an 
adequate  monitoring  system  with  KPIs, 
targets,  and  SMART  objectives, 
these 
in 
caveats  must  be 
conclusions. As regards lessons learned, the 
report 
critical 
observations  identified  in  the  analysis  and 
provide  a  thorough  overview  of  how  these 
limitations  may  be  mitigated  in  the  next 
evaluation period, including further detail of 
what  the  performance  monitoring  system 
based  on  sound  indicators  and  sampling 
strategy will look like. 

reflected 

address 

should 

the 

2nd Opinion: 

The  Board  ….  expects  the  lead  DG  to 
rectify the following aspects: 

1.  The  report  does  not  adequately  assess 
labour 
ELA’s  contribution 
mobility 
the  EU.  The 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the 
intervention  require  further  analysis, 
including why parts of the intervention 

to  fair 

across 

•  The  document  has  been  revised  in  a 
the 
to 

accommodate 

targeted  way 
comments made by the RSB.  

The main changes introduced are: 

•  ELA’s contribution to fair labour mobility 
has  been  clarified  by  establishing  a  better 
connection  between  effectiveness  and 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
have not worked as expected. 

relevance  of 

2.  The  continued 

the 
intervention is not sufficiently analysed. 
3.  The  conclusions  need  to  fully  reflect 
the  analysis 

insights 

from 

critical 
presented. 

What to improve 

(1)  The  evaluation  should  define 
in 
specific  and  measurable 
terms  what 
success  would  look  like  in  achieving  the 
general objective of enhancing fair labour 
mobility in the EU. It also needs, as far as 
possible,  to  provide  an  empirical  analysis 
of  the  prevalence  and  nature  of practices 
that  presently  inhibit  fair  labour mobility. 
The  intervention  logic  needs  to  provide 
definitions  of  the  specific  objectives  in 
SMART  terms,  and  clearly  identify  how 
attaining the specific objectives contributes 
to reaching the general objective in order to 
facilitate the assessment. 

to  develop  relevant 

(2)  Following  the  above  steps  the  report 
indicators, 
needs 
identify  and the data necessary to assess if 
the intervention has successfully improved 
the situation, including if there has been a 
change  in  the  scale  of  unfair  labour 
mobility practices since the introduction of 
the  initiative,  and  to  what  extent  this 
change  is  the  result  of  the  intervention 
rather  than  other  possible  factors.  The 
report should also provide sufficient detail 
adequate  performance 
of  what 
sound 
monitoring 
indicators  and  sampling  strategy  should 
look like, including for future evaluations. 
It  should  use  the  intervention  logic  and 
ELA’s  hierarchy  of  objectives  to  propose 
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the 
lessons learned section. 

an 
system  based  on 

efficiencies of the interventions on the one 
side  and  ELA’s  objectives  on  the  other. 
Also,  the  limitations  of  the  analysis  have 
been further clarified. 

•  The continued relevance of the intervention 
has been made more explicit in Section 4.3. 
•  Conclusions  have  been  adjusted  in  a 
targeted manner to better reflect insights of 
the analysis. 

•  It  is  explained  that  most  of  the  needs, 
justifying 
the  set-up  of  ELA  were 
‘negative’  in  nature,  i.e  directed  towards 
avoiding problems. This together with the 
diversity  of  social  security  systems, 
employment  conditions  and 
industrial 
relations, between Member States, makes it 
difficult to ‘measure’ progress towards fair 
labour mobility.  

•  While  it  was  not  possible  to  retroactively 
introduce SMART objective, for which the 
indicators  have  not  been 
respective 
collected 
revision  provides  more 
examples  how  SMART  indicators  might 
look like. 

the 

•  It  is  better  explained  in  the  SWD  that  the 
Impact  Assessment  primarily  relied  on 
anecdotal  evidence,  and  while  ELA  has 
attempted to map the situation and develop 
indicators to describe the scale and severity 
of  challenges,  providing  such  indicators 
remains challenging.  This  difficulty  arises 
because some of ELA's activities focus on 
largely  unseen  issues,  such  as  undeclared 
work or rule violations, while other efforts 
aim to improve cooperation, often assessed 
through indirect measures. 

•  Beyond that the changes introduced in the 
SWD  make  concrete  suggestions  for  the 
improvement of ELAs monitoring system, 
while respecting that ELA should develop 
this system to make it fit with its operation. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(3)  The report should further evaluate the 
continued relevance of the intervention. It 
should  assess 
to  what  extent  market 
failures  exist,  which  could  contribute  to 
decreasing fair labour mobility, and if they 
continue  to  persist.  The  report  should 
analyse if the prevalence of such problems 
has  changed  since  the  introduction  of  the 
intervention.  The 
report  should  also 
analyse  the  continued  relevance  of  the 
intervention  in  the  context  of  emerging 
policy  needs,  including  the  focus  on 
of 
and 
competitiveness 
regulatory burdens 

reduction 

(4)  The  analysis  of  effectiveness  and 
efficiency should be improved. In general, 
the  report  contains  limited  evidence  on 
impacts  generated,  in  the  absence  of 
appropriate KPIs and monitoring systems. 
The  report  relies  overly  on  stakeholder 
perception’s and does not analyse the full 
range  of  possible 
respondents.  The 
conclusions should better reflect dissenting 
opinions, for example on the relevance of 
the mediation activity. 

including 

some  points, 

(5)  On 
the 
mediation  service  and  EURES,  the  report 
indicates  inefficiencies  or  outcomes  that 
fall below expectations.  In such cases the 
report needs to analyse the causal reasons 
why the intervention has underperformed. 

Section 4.3. has been revised to: 

•  better clarify the continued relevance of the 

intervention,  

•  put the evaluation in the context of ensuring 

European competitiveness and 

•  explain  the  limits  to  which  the  report  can 
analyse ELAs impact on the prevalence of 
such problems. 

•  It has also been clarified in Section 2.1. that 
the 
systems 
of 
intrinsically  requires  efforts  and  rules  to 
ensure coordination.   

diversity 

national 

•  The  Conclusions  part  has  also  been 
amended  to  reflect  the  adjustments  from 
Section 4.3. 

•   

•  The  report  reflects  that  the  mediation 
function  has  hardly  been  used  so  far. 
Reasons for this are provided. It is pointed 
out  in  Section  2.1  on  possible  biases  of 
stakeholder  responses,  that  it  is  very 
difficult  for  the  evaluator  to  understand 
whether  the  answer  that  this  activity  was 
not useful, just states the obvious: meaning: 
it has not been used, or whether it includes 
the further reaching statement that it should 
be abandoned. In the revised version of the 
lessons learned it is clarified that this merits 
discussions with Member States as they are 
the main addressees of this activity. 

•  The  part  on  mediation 

the 
Conclusions  (5.1.3.)  had  been  amended 
with  dissenting  views  on  the  relevance  of 
the mediation function. 

from 

•  The  reasons  for 

the  shortcomings  of 
EURES  and  the  mediation  function  have 
been summarised/flagged in the respective 
sections (4.1.1.2. and 4.1.1.4.).  

•  For mediation, additional information from 
the  Case  study  in  the  context  of  the 
Supporting  study  was  added  to  better 
understand the general context and demand 
for mediation, also in light of a strong call 
by  stakeholders  for  the  mediation  to  be 
(Section 
and  non-binding. 
voluntary 
4.1.1.4.)   

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(6)  The  analysis  of  costs  should  be 
improved.  The  discussion  on  cost-
effectiveness does not clearly acknowledge 
the lack of relevant analytical framework. 
The  report  deals  mostly  with  costs  as 
presented in the ELAs budget allocations, 
the  full  costs,  accruing  to  all  of  ELA’s 
stakeholders, should be assessed. 

substantiate 

(7)  The  analysis  of  coherence  with 
relevant legislation and other EU agencies 
should go beyond merely listing them and 
should 
arguments  with 
examples  or  other  relevant  evidence.  The 
discussion  on  how  ELA's  mandate  aligns 
with  other  EMPL  agencies  should  (a) 
include findings of potentially overlapping 
outputs between ELA and  Eurofound  and 
(b)  clarify  the  distinct  focus  of  ELA  and 
EU-OSHA on healthy working conditions. 
This  should  inform  conclusions  on  the 
relevance of ELA’s missions 

to  be 

(8)  Critical reflections emerging from the 
analysis  of  effectiveness  and  efficiency 
need 
the 
conclusions.  When  the  evaluation  notes 
intervention  neither  delivers 
that 
expected benefits in terms of enhanced fair 

reflected 

fully 

the 

in 

•  For  the  mediation  function  the  lessons 
learned  have  been  revised,  indicating  a 
need for a discussion with Member States, 
to  explore  the  possibilities  for  a  cost-
efficient service.  (Section 5.2. point 8) 

•  The 

in 

link  between  weaknesses 

the 
performance  measurement  system  and 
difficulties to assess the cost-effectiveness 
of  activities  is  clarified.  It  is  also  better 
explained  that  the  analysis  is  built  on  the 
ELA  budget  while  costs  outside  ELAs 
budget (e.g. stakeholder expenditure as far 
as  not  reimbursed by ELA) could  only  be 
taken 
subjective 
assessment  of  stakeholders,  whether  for 
them  benefits  outweigh  costs.  (Section 
4.1.2.1.) 

account 

into 

via 

•  It is better explained that ELA was recently 
set up to better implement EU level policies 
and that since then no major changes of the 
political framework have taken place.  
•  Concerning  the  coherence  between  ELA 
and  other  agencies,  the  relationship  with 
Eurofound  is  explained  in  more  detail, 
whereas different from ELA, OSHA has  no 
specific  focus  on  cross-border  situations 
and  different  from  OSHA,  ELA  has  no 
direct  competence  on  health  and  safety  at 
the  workplace. 
the 
competences  of  both  agencies  have  the 
same  target  audience,  such  as  in  the 
campaign  on  seasonal  work,  cooperation 
was ensured. (Section 4.1.3.2.) 

In  cases  where 

•  The Coherence part from  the Conclusions 
was  also  amended  to  clarify  that  no 
significant  overlaps  were 
identified. 
(Section 5.1.) 

•  Targeted  changes  have  been  made  to  the 
dedicated sections on EURES/mediation in 
the  findings,  and  the  additional  critical 
reflections  were 
the 
conclusions (Section 5.1. – chapeau; 5.1.3. 
mediation and 5.1.1. EURES). 

introduced 

in 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
its 

labour  mobility  nor 
individual 
components  of  the  intervention  -  such  as 
EURES,  mediation  mechanism  -  work  as 
expected  this  should  be  reflected  in  the 
overall assessment of the initiative.  

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II.  METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

1.  Overall approach to the evaluation work 

The main goal of the evaluation is to deliver an assessment of the European Labour Authority 
(ELA) taking into account its efficiency, coherence and EU added value and relevance, during 
the period Q3 2019- Q2 2023. 

DG  EMPL  used  a  mixed  approach  for  this  evaluation,  by  building  on  the  work  of  external 
experts  to  (i)  collect  and  analyse  the  relevant  evidence  (including  consultation  work)  (via  a 
supporting  study);  (ii)  provide  initial  answers  to  all  evaluation  questions;  and  (iii)  present 
evidence-based conclusions and lessons learnt.  

The  supporting  study  followed  a  mixed  methods  data  collection  approach,  combining 
qualitative and quantitative research tools and sources to  collect  wide evidence on the  ELA 
performance. The evaluation focused on assessing the performance of ELA at a broader EU-
level  and  it  did  not  focus  on  the  performance  in  each  individual  Member  State  and  sector, 
primarily due to data and sampling constraints.  

The overarching methodological approach was based on ELA’s Intervention Logic (see Annex 
VI), which  formed the  foundation of the evaluation’s analytical  framework (see  Annex  III), 
encompassing the evaluation inquiries. To conduct the evaluation, the team of experts covering 
the supporting study completed the following tasks: 

•  Desk based mapping of ELA’s activities, outputs and results. 

•  Targeted stakeholder consultations, including: 

o  An online survey to ELA staff and Management Board members. 

o  An online survey to representatives of ELA stakeholders (including EU policy 
makers, relevant EU agencies, ELA national counterparts - i.e. labour and social 
security  authorities  including  relevant  ministries,  labour  inspectorates,  public 
employment services-, EU level Social partners and international organisations). 

o  23  targeted  interviews  with  representatives  from  the  European  Commission, 
ELA,  ILO,  ELA  Management  Board  members,  members  of  National 
Coordination Offices, and social partners. 

o  A  workshop  with  eight  representatives  from  EU  and  national  level  social 

partners. 

•  Public consultation and call for evidence, open to the general public. 

•  Four214 thematic case studies, including: 

o  Case study 1: Information and awareness raising in the field of road transport; 

o  Case study 2: European Coordination office of EURES; 

o  Case study 3: ELA’s support in concerted and joint inspections; 

214 The case studies originally foreseen for this evaluation were five, however the fifth case study (Functioning of 
ELA - Synergies between core tasks) is not presented as a standalone case study. Its key inputs have been 
integrated where relevant throughout the supporting study. 

76 

 
 
o  Case study 4: Mediation task of ELA 

•  Cost-effectiveness analysis. 

•  Validation focus group with a selected range of stakeholders. 

2.  Desk based mapping of ELA’s activities, outputs and results  

The objectives of the preliminary desk research were threefold: 

•  To  deepen  the  understanding  of  the  Authority  and  its  work  and  the  wider  policy 
context/framework  in  which  it  operates  to  ensure  the  refinement  of  the  intervention 
logic; 

•  To get a better understanding of the types of sources available, particularly to feed into 
the refinement of the evaluation framework and evaluation questions matrix, as well as 
to support the mapping exercise; 

•  To identify what information is already available through existing sources versus what 
knowledge gaps need to be filled through  the supporting study, which will guide the 
refinement of the evaluation matrix  and the development  of data collection tools for 
consultations.  This  notably  concerns  data/information  on  costs,  providing  initial 
information for the cost effectiveness analysis. 

Qualitative and quantitative information was gathered concerning ELA starting from Q3 2019, 
which was the baseline year, up to  Q2 2023. The information gathered contributed to a first 
assessment of ELA’s performance and inform subsequent tasks with a specific focus placed on 
finding out potential gaps in the evidence-base, to be addressed through primary data collection 
methods.  

Qualitative  data  was  gathered  through  desk-based  review  of  analytical  and  documentary 
evidence.  

The following sources were used: 

•  EU-level documents regulating the legal framework of ELA and other reports produced 

by European institutions; 

•  Analytical studies and auditors’ reports; 

•  Studies, documents and reports prepared by ELA; 

•  Planning, monitoring and reporting documentation produced by ELA and other internal 
to  ELA’s  operation,  administration  and 

administrative  documentation  related 
governance. 

Quantitative  data  was  gathered  through  planning,  monitoring  and  reporting  documentation 
produced by ELA (e.g. annual activity reports, annual accounts, etc.) as well as other internal 
administrative documentation.   

77 

 
 
3.  Consultation activities 

Consultation activities gathered the views of a wide spectrum of relevant stakeholders. 

The purpose of consultation activities was to collect the information needed to supplement what 
was  already  available  through  existing  sources  of  evidence.  This  consisted  of  a  public 
consultation and targeted consultations, including two online surveys (one targeted at ELA staff 
and Management Board, and one targeted at key ELA stakeholders), targeted interviews, and a 
workshop  with  social  partners.    Figure  1  below  presents  the  timeline  for  the  stakeholder 
consultation  activities  that  were  carried  out.  Both  surveys  were  launched  in  the  middle  of 
October (13th October) and remained open until 7th November. Following an initial analysis 
of  the  surveys,  23  in-depth  interviews  were  conducted  throughout  December/beginning  of 
January. Following the closure of the Public Consultation on 5th January, the analysis of the 
responses received was  performed. Ultimately, on 15th of February, a workshop with social 
partners was carried out. 

Figure 1: Timeline for stakeholder consultations 

The  evidence  collected  from  the  consultation  activities  was  triangulated  with  the  evidence 
gathered through the rest of the study tasks, as well as fed into the evidence base for each of 
these tasks as relevant. 

Survey  targeting  ELA  staff  and  Management  Board  and  survey  targeting  ELA 

stakeholders 

The surveys gathered data concerning all five evaluation criteria. They served a dual purpose 
for the research team: on one hand, quantifying diverse aspects of the Agencies' performance 
based  on  these  criteria,  and  on  the  other  hand,  gathering  qualitative  input  to  enhance  the 
evaluation process. 

The aggregated number of respondents for the two surveys is 290. Both surveys remained 
open for 25 days (from October 13th until November 7th, 2023). 

The  ELA  staff  and  Management  Board  survey  was  completed  by  85  respondents. 
Respondents working as staff members of ELA are the largest group of respondents (65.9% - 
56 out of 85 respondents), followed by members of the Management Board of ELA, 22.4% of 
the respondents (19 out of 85 respondents). Lastly, National Liaison Officers are the smallest 
group of respondents (11.8% of responses – 10 out of 85 respondents).  

ELA  stakeholders  survey  was  completed  by  205  respondents.  In  terms  of  place  of  work, 
respondents  working  for  national  ministries  are  the  largest  group  of  respondents  (23.4%). 

78 

 
 
 
Together  with  respondents  working  for  national  public  employment  services  and  national 
labour inspectorates, they represent over 61% of the total number of respondents.  

The survey results have been embedded in the ELA evaluation supporting study.  

Interviews 

The in-depth interviews fed into the analysis of all evaluation criteria. 23 in-depth interviews 
with the Authority’s key stakeholders, including EU institutions, social partners, the ILO and 
Member State representatives, and ELA staff (Table 1).  The purpose of these interviews was 
to  gather  in-depth  insights  that  were  unavailable  through  the  literature  review  and  were 
challenging to capture using the closed-ended questions employed in the rest of the consultation 
activities. 

Table 1: List of EU-level and international interviewees 

Category of stakeholder 

Type 
stakeholder 

of 

No of interviews 

EU-institutions  

EU Agencies 

International organisations 

Public authorities at national level  

DG EMPL 

DG MOVE 

DG GROW 

ELA 

ILO  

Management 
Board Members  

EURES  National 
Coordination 
Office 

Social partner at EU level 

ETUC 

1 

2 

1 

6 

1 

7 

3  

1 

Total 

Business Europe 

1 

23 

Workshop with social partners 

A workshop involving EU and national social partners was conducted to discuss awareness 
of  ELA  and  its  activities'  impact  among  social  partners  and  on-the-ground  workers  and 
employers. Held online, the session featured eight participants from various sectors, including 
construction, transport, food, and agriculture. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Public consultation  

The public consultation was available from 6 October 2023 to 5 January 2024 in 24 official EU 
languages  (i.e. it targeted the wider public)). Eight  weeks  after the conclusion of the public 
consultation,  a factual summary was published  on the European Commission’s  webpages215, 
whereas the consultation’s analytical findings can be found in Annex VI, which is appended to 
the final report. 

The aim of the public consultation was to allow a wider public to give its views concerning 
ELA.  The  consultation’s  questionnaire  included  both  close  and  open-ended  questions  and 
covered all five evaluation criteria.  

Dissemination efforts included promotion on social medial channels, both of the Commission 
and  ELA  (Facebook,  LinkedIn,  X),  and  sharing  the  survey  with  all  ELA  relevant  groups 
(Management  Board,  Platform  Tackling  Undeclared  Work,  Mediation  Working  Group, 
Information Working Group, Inspections Working Groups, Posting Forum, EURES European 
Coordination Group etc), the Employment Committee, the Public Employment Services (PES) 
Network, the Europass Advisory Group, the ESCO Advisory Committee, the Council of the 
European Union  (Social  Questions Working  Party), Members of the European Parliament – 
Employment  Committee,  European  Social  Partners  –  Sectoral  Social  Dialogue  Committees, 
academia representatives, other DGs (DG MOVE, DG GROW, DG HOME with their relevant 
networks – SOLVIT, European Migration Network etc), civil society organisations. 

144  contributions  to  the  public  consultation  were  made  via  the  EU  web-portal  “Have  Your 
Say”. Five ad-hoc contributions were sent via email by SGI Europe, DGB German Trade Union 
Confederation, the Danish Ministry of Employment, the European Cockpit Association and the 
French Ministry of Employment.  

Following a systematic quality check of all answers received, the total number of questionnaires 
considered for the analysis was 142.  

124 out of 142 responses were provided by stakeholders from across 24 Member States.216  

to  multiple-choice  questions 

Responses 
through  quantitative 
in 
analysis/descriptive  statistical  analysis.  Answers  to  the  open  questions  were  qualitatively 
analysed using NVivo. 

the  were  analysed 

Figure 2: Distribution of responses per type of respondent (n=142) 

215https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13978-2024-Evaluation-of-the-

European-Labour-Authority-/public-consultation_en 

216 The 3 EU countries without any responses were Greece, Latvia and Malta. 

80 

 
 
 
Call for Evidence 

The Call for Evidence, which was active for feedback from October 6, 2023, to January 5, 2024, 
received  30  responses  across  six  distinct  groups  of  stakeholders,  specifically:  business 
associations, trade unions, public authorities, companies or business organizations, EU citizens, 
and NGOs. Notably, nearly 70% of the feedback (20 out of 30 responses) was contributed by 
three key groups: business associations (8), trade unions (8), and EU citizens (4) 

4.  Efficiency analysis 

Taking into account the inherent challenges stemming from the start-up phase of an Agency, 
the analysis did make use of the quantitative information available and appended this with more 
qualitative information from desk research, surveys and interviews.  

The analysis started with a more general assessment of the Authority’s efficiency by analysing 
quantitative data on (financial) resources of the Authority. The budgetary evolution of ELA was 
further analysed alongside the absorption of the budget, the division between budget categories 
and tasks and, where relevant, compared these to other agencies and expectations made in the 
ELA impact assessment. Subsequently, the analysis focused on the specific activities of ELA.  

The analysis of these activities was based at the resources (both staff and operational) allocated 
towards the different activities, the main output/result indicators (where available, e.g. EURES) 
and the views from the stakeholders and staff of ELA.  

The  fact  that  ELA  did  not  yet  have  a  proper  monitoring  system,  some  tasks  had  very  low 
prioritisation leading to little results, and the lack of a proper benchmark makes a quantitative 
judgement of the cost-effectiveness of ELA not feasible. See also limitations in the section 7 
below (p. xx)_ 

5.  Case studies  

Case  studies  were  conducted  to  provide  an  in-depth  understanding  of  concrete  activities 
developed  by  the  Authority  in  the  last  few  years  that  were  in  line  with  ELA’s  main  tasks 
specified by Article 4 of the Regulation establishing ELA217.  

217 Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the  European Parliament and of the  Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a 

European Labour Authority. 

81 

 
 
 
 
Table 2. Overview of the selected case studies 

Case Studies 

Targeted ELA Tasks 

Case Study 1: Information and awareness raising 
in the field of road transport 

Facilitate  access 
to 
employers on labour mobility (Article 4(a)) 

information 

for 

individuals  and 

Case  Study  2:  Managing 
Coordination Office (ECO) of EURES  

the  European 

Coordinate EURES (Article 4(a)) 

Case  Study  3:  Supporting  and  promoting 
concerted and joint inspections 

Coordinate  and  support  concerted  and  joint  inspections 
(Article 4 (c)) 

Case Study 4: Mediation Task of ELA 

Mediate  disputes  between  Member  States  on 
application of relevant Union law (Article 4(g)) 

the 

Case  Study  5:  Functioning  of  ELA  –  synergies 
between core tasks 

ELA’s  tasks,  Article  4  (a-g)  –  This  material  was  directly 
included in the main report. 

These  case  studies  included  not  only  a  backward-looking  approach  to  identify  and  evaluate 
already conducted activities between 2019 and 2023 but also a forward-looking dimension to 
allow for lessons to be drawn for the future. 

Case  study  5  is  not  presented  as  stand  alone,  rather  the  findings  integrated  directly  into  the 
supporting study. These are presented as evidence gathered through the interviews and desk 
research collected during the Case study’s research.  

6.  Validation workshop 

A validation workshop, held online on June 5, 2024, aimed to present the supporting study's 
findings  and  capture  participants'  perspectives  on  its  conclusions  and  lessons  learned.  Nine 
stakeholders, including a European Commission representative, two Heads of Unit from ELA, 
two ELA Management Board members, two from the EURES coordination group, one from 
the ELA mediation working  group, and one social partner representative, contributed to the 
session. They confirmed the study's conclusions and lessons. 

7.  Limitations and robustness of findings  

A significant limitation to this research consists in the short timespan between the time when 
Agency became financially independent and operational after the adoption of the Regulation 
and this evaluation. The Founding Regulation was adopted in 2019, to create a new Authority. 
So as from 2019 the Authority was built up and activities started successively. As from early 
2020 the set-up process was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic: this external shock forced 
the Authority to perform the tasks in a remote/hybrid configuration.  

As a consequence, the date by which ELA was planned to be fully operational was postponed 
from 2023 to 2024. The financial independence was achieved in May 2021. 

82 

 
 
Furthermore,  this  evaluation  started  in  2023,  i.e.  before  the  setup  process  was  fully 
accomplished and with the objective of evaluating the performance of the Authority across its 
wide range of tasks up until Q2 2023.  

Hence,  the  research  is  subject  to  a  number  of  limitations,  mainly  stemming  from  data 
availability and the quality of data at hand. This section lists these limitations, together with the 
mitigation measures taken. 

Mapping of the Agencies’ activities, outputs and results  

Overall, the desk-based review of the Agencies’ monitoring data has shown that for the majority 
of the evaluation period, there was no strategy at ELA for KPIs measurement: only in 2022 the 
Authority developed a set of KPIs linked to the strategic areas.  

Moreover,  the  very  few  indicators  available  in  ELA’s  monitoring  system  hampered  the 
qualitative assessment of the results of the Authority’s activities, as the prevalence of output 
indicators limited the possibility to benchmark the effects of the activities. Moreover, the lack 
of available quantitative data (most of the indicators used in this study were only available for 
2021 and/or 2022) had a direct impact the efficiency/cost-effectiveness analysis. 

Consultation activities 

Most  stakeholder  groups  were  covered  by  at  least  two  forms  of  consultation  activities,  thus 
adding  to  the  robustness  of  the  data  collection  process.  All  the  identified  stakeholders 
participate in at least one consultation activity (see Table 3 below). 

Table 3. Stakeholder consultation strategy 

Description of stakeholder group 

Consultation approach 

Main group 

Specific types of 
organisations 

Public 
consultation 

Interviews  Online 

Workshop   

surveys 

EU institutions and 
bodies  

EU Commission 

EU Agencies 

ELA218 

European Parliament 
(relevant committees) 

Council of the 
European Union 
(Employment 
Committee) 

Public  authorities  at 
national level  

• 

• 

Relevant national 
ministries 
Labour inspectorates 

218 This includes operational, administrative staff, members of the Management Board and NLOs. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Social security 
coordination 
organisations 
Public employment 
services 
EURES National 
Coordination 
Officess 

Trade unions 
organisations 
Employers´ 
organisations 

• 

ILO 

Social partners 

International 
organisations 

Research & academia  

General public 

We should consider that the public consultation and the stakeholder survey did not have a finite 
population.  Hence, the sample of these surveys should not be considered as representative, and 
their results should not be generalised. While the same was not  true for the staff survey, its 
response rate also rendered its findings as non-representative. At the same time, while the staff 
and Management Board survey had a finite population, its sample size, albeit important, cannot 
equally be considered as fully representative.  

To address these limitations, the results of the different surveys were compared with each other, 
as well as with findings from interviews and desk-based research. Moreover, the information 
incorporated  in  the  final  report  underwent  validation  through  the  validation  focus  group. 
Consequently, even though the sample size of the forementioned surveys might not have been 
fully representative, the evidence used in shaping the final report gained in reliability due to 
this approach.  

Finally, despite extensive dissemination efforts, the sample size of the public consultation and 
the  stakeholders’  survey  was  relatively  limited.  Hence,  while  it  was  not  always  possible  to 
conduct  sub-group  analysis  for  different  stakeholder  groups,  such  analyses  have  been 
conducted whenever feasible. 

Cost-effectiveness analysis 

A cost-effectiveness analysis is a comparative method which evaluates cost per result indicators 
against  a  comparable  benchmark.  In  the  initial  approach  the  study  team  opted  to  compare 
indicators either over time or against indicators  of other agencies.  During the course of this 
study, it was found that this approach was largely unfeasible.  

First  of  all,  the  type  of  activities,  outputs  and  results  produced  by  ELA  do  not  easily  lend 
themselves to be used in a cost per output or result indicator which can be compared to similar 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
agencies.This  was  also  acknowledged  in  the  four  agencies  evaluation219,  where  this  type  of 
indicators were not used. 

A  comparable  benchmark  was  therefore  not  present  for  most  of  the  activities  of  ELA. 
Furthermore, an important caveat in the cost-effectiveness analysis was the lack of robust data 
on the effects of activities. 

The available indicators, most only introduced in 2021 or 2022, were output-oriented, and say 
little about the effects of the activities. For the majority of the evaluation period, there also was 
no clear strategy at ELA when it comes to measuring KPI’s. The Annual Activity report of 2022 
did  include  indicators  for  different  tasks,  but  these  were  very  much  focused  on  output  (i.e. 
number of activities/participants etc.). The indicators which were more focused on results were 
not quantified.   

In light of the above challenges, the evaluation relied on a mixed approach to make use of the 
quantitative information available and appended this with more qualitative information from 
desk research  and stakeholder perceptions from surveys and interviews. 

219  SWD (2024) 222 final and COM (2024) 414 final and  

85 

 
 
ANNEX III.   EVALUATION MATRIX  

Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

1.  To what extent were the actions of the European Labour Authority successful and why? 

Effectiveness 

1.1. 

To  what  extent  did  the 
Labour 
European 
Authority 
its 
objectives? 

achieve 

1.1.1.  To  what  extent  did 
contribute 

the  Union 

the 
to 
Authority 
ensuring  fair  labour  mobility 
across 
and 
assisted Member States and 
the 
the  Commission 
coordination 
social 
of 
security  systems  within  the 
Union? 

in 

[General 
Intervention logic, Art.2] 

Objective 

of 

the 

Impact 
qualitative: 

indicator  –  quantitative  and 

Stakeholders’ views on the overall effects and 
benefits of  the activities  implemented  by  the 
Authority  

Stakeholders’  perception  as  regards 
the 
extent to which the Authority’s objectives have 
been reached 

Evidence/examples  of  external  factors  that 
helped  or  hindered 
the  achievement  of 
intended outputs and results 

Composite indicator: Evidence on the degree 
to  which 
the  specific  and  operational) 
objectives of the Authority were met based on 
evidence  from  the  related  questions  below 
(Qs 1.1.1 to 1.1.7)  

The 
Authority 
contributed to fair labour 
mobility  and  supported 
MS 
in 
and  COM 
coordination 
social 
security  systems  within 
the EU. 

shortcomings 
Where 
identified, 
have  been 
these  are  duly  justified 
by explanatory factors 

[Long-term  Impact  of 
the Intervention] 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2022) 

ELA’s Monitoring data 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Interviews  

Workshop 
partners 

with 

social 

Case study 5: Functioning of 
ELA  –  synergies  between 
core tasks  

Public consultation 

1.1.2.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
Authority  facilitate  access 
to  information  on  rights 
and  obligations  regarding 
labour  mobility  across  the 

Input indicator – quantitative  

ELA budget allocated to information activities 

Output indicators - quantitative 

to 
rights 

The Authority facilitated 
information 
access 
and 
on 
obligations 
regarding 
labour  mobility  across 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Monitoring data 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Interviews  

Workshop 
partners 

with 

social 

Case  study  1:  Information 
and awareness raising in the 
field of road transport  

Public consultation 

Union  as  well  as  to  other 
relevant services? 
[Specific  Objective  1  (Art.2(a))  & 
the 
Operational  Objective  1  of 
Intervention (Art.5)] 

Number of support actions for information to 
employers  and  workers  in  specific  sectors, 
including road transport 

Number of workshops delivered and number 
of participants 

the  Union  as  well  as  to 
other  relevant  services 
[Intended  result  1  of 
the Intervention] 

Number of visits and downloads of guidelines 
and other training material from website and 
assistance to national services 

Number of translation requests processed  

Number of information campaigns  

Number  of  joint  activities  with  other  EU 
bodies,  national  authorities  and  social 
partners 

Result indicators - qualitative 

Satisfaction 
workshops 

levels  after  participation 

in 

Examples of synergies with other relevant EU 
agencies or networks  

End-user  satisfaction  with  the  accessibility, 
the 
completeness  and  usefulness  of 
information provided by the Authority 

Multiplier  effect  of  ELA’s  actions 
(e.g. 
campaigns being picked up at national level) 

1.1.3.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
Authority promote the further 
implementation 
the 
provisions  of  the  EURES 
Regulation?  How  did  the 

of 

Output indicators - quantitative: 

Number  of  ECG  meetings  organised  (after 
2021) 

The Authority promoted 
the 
further 
implementation  of  the 

EURES monitoring data 

Single Market Scoreboard 

87 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

EURES  network  and  portal 
develop  once  the  European 
Coordination  Office  was 
transferred to the Authority? 
[Specific  Objective  1  (Art.2(a))  & 
Operational  Objective  2  (Art.6)  of 
the Intervention] 

Number  of  unique  visitors  to  the  EURES 
Portal (after 2021) 

provisions 
EURES Regulation 

of 

the 

Results 
from 
evaluation of EURES  

the  ex-post 

Potential  links  between 
the 
transferal  of 
the 
ECO from the European 
Commission 
the 
Authority and the effects 
identified. 

to 

[Intended  result  1  of 
the Intervention] 

Surveys 

Case  study  2:  Managing  the 
European 
Coordination 
Office (ECO) of EURES  

Interviews 

Number  of  jobseeker  profiles  registered  on 
the EURES Portal (after 2021) 

Number  of  employers  registered  on  the 
EURES Portal (after 2021) 

Number of persons who found a job in another 
country with the help of EURES (after 2021) 

Number  of  EURES  Portal 
facilitated 
placements  in  relation  to  new  cross-border 
movers (after 2021) 

Number  of  job  vacancies  on  EURES  Portal 
(after 2021) 

Share  of  vacancies  posted  on  EURES  as  a 
proportion of national vacancies (after 2021) 

Number  of  recruitment/placements  and  job 
offers made through the EURES Portal (after 
2021) 

Number  of  training  activities  assisting  staff 
operating in the organisations participating in 
the EURES network (after 2021) 

Number  of  European  Job  Days  events 
organised (after 2021) 

Number of individuals reached at events (after 
2021) 

Number of EURES campaigns (after 2021) 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

88 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

Participants’ 
trainings 

satisfaction  with  EURES 

Participants’ satisfaction with Job Days 

Stakeholders’ 
presence of the EURES network 

feedback  on  social  media 

Stakeholders' 
feedback  on 
European Coordination Office 

the  EURES 

Stakeholders' 
the 
satisfaction 
functionalities and information on the EURES 
Portal 

with 

Stakeholders'  views  on  potential 
links 
between the effects observed and the transfer 
of the ECO to ELA 

Input indicator - quantitative: 

Total ELA budget spent on CJIs 

Member States’ costs for CJIs 

Output indicators - quantitative:  

Number of cross-border inspections (in total, 
by  sector  and  over  time),  at  the  request  of 
Member  States,  suggested  by  ELA  or 
resulting  from  cases  submitted  by  national 
social partners 

Number  of  cases  on  cross-border  fines, 
notification of fines, recovered tax and social 
security contributions 

Number of infringements found through CJIs 

89 

The Authority facilitated 
enhanced 
and 
cooperation 
between 
Member  States  in  the 
enforcement of relevant 
Union  law  across  the 
Union. 

The Authority facilitated 
concerted  and 
joint 
inspections. 

[Intended  result  2  of 
the Intervention] 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

2022 

ELA’s 
inspections 

report 

on 

Single Market Scoreboard 

Monitoring data 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Interviews  

Case study 3: Supporting and 
promoting concerted and joint 
inspections  

1.1.4.  To  what  degree  did 

facilitate 

the 
and 
Authority 
enhance 
cooperation 
between  Member  States  in 
the  enforcement  of  relevant 
Union law across the Union, 
facilitating 
including 
joint 
concerted 
inspections? 

and 

[Specific  Objective  2  (Art.2  (b)), 
Operational  Objective  3  (Art.7)  & 
Operational Objective 4 (Arts.8 & 9) 
of the Intervention] 

 
 
 
  
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

Number  of  mutual  learning  and 
activities 
supported 

training 
to  CJIs  organised  or 

related 

Number  of  information  campaigns  on  CJIs 
organised 

Number  of  guidelines, 
templates  and 
procedures  developed  and  updated  for  the 
exchange  of  information  between  Member 
States 

Number  of  guidelines, 
procedures  developed  and  updated 
concerted and joint inspections 

templates  and 
for 

Number  of  strategic  partnerships  on  CJIs 
arranged 

Result 
quantitative: 

indicators  –  Qualitative  and 

Number of participants trained  

Number of Member States involved in CJIs 

Perceived 
cooperation among CJIs participants 

level  of  communication  and 

Stakeholders’  satisfaction  with  ELA  capacity 
building activities and instruments 

Stakeholders’  satisfaction  with  use  of  ELA’s 
risk  assessment  activities 
in  supporting 
inspections 

90 

 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

1.1.5.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
Authority cover the analyses 
and  risk  assessment  tasks 
linked  to  issues  of  cross-
border labour mobility? 

[Specific  Objective  2  (Art.2  (b)), 
Operational  Objective  5  (Art.10)  of 
the Intervention] 

Stakeholders’ 
satisfaction  with  ELA’s 
facilitation of cooperation exchange between 
the Member States 

Stakeholders’  satisfaction  with  guidelines, 
templates  and  procedures  developed  and 
updated 

views  on  benefits  and 
Stakeholders’ 
limitations  of  CJIs  (e.g.  improved  workers 
situation,  collection  of  social  security 
contributions, wider benefits of ELA support to 
all inspections, i.e. non-CJI) 

Output indicators - quantitative: 

Number  of  analytical  activities  (mappings, 
analyses, reports, etc.) 

Number of topics and sectors covered 

Number of meetings 

Number of peer reviews 

Number  of  workshops  organised 
in  risk 
assessment  activities  and  labour  mobility 
analyses 

Result 
quantitative: 

indicators  –  qualitative  and 

Number of stakeholders involved in analytical 
activities  

Number  of  stakeholders  involved  in  risk 
assessment  activities  and  labour  mobility 
analyses 

91 

The  Authority  covered 
effectively  the  analyses 
risk  assessment 
and 
tasks  

[Intended  result  2  of 
the Intervention] 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2022) 

Monitoring data 

Work  programmes/  planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Interviews  

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

1.1.6.  How  well  was  the  capacity 
building  task  implemented? 
To what extent did it promote 
the  consistent  enforcement 
of EU law?  

[Specific Objectives 1 & 2 (Arts.2(a) 
and  2(b)),  Operational  Objective  6 
(Art.11) of the Intervention] 

Stakeholders'  satisfaction  with  the  mutual 
learning assistance 

Stakeholders' satisfaction with the timeliness 
and  completeness  of  monitoring  and 
statistical data  

Stakeholders’ satisfaction with ELA’s analysis 
and risk assessment activities (e.g. relevance 
of topics analysed, quality and value added of 
ELA’s analysis)  

Output indicators - Quantitative: 

Number  of  documents  published 
(e.g. 
guidance  for  inspections  in  cross-  border 
cases, definitions, concepts) 

Number  of  peer-to-peer  and  group  activities 
organised 

Number of staff exchanges and secondment 
schemes between national authorities  

Number  of  sectoral  and  cross-sectoral 
training  programmes  and  training  materials 
(e.g. for labour inspectorates) 

Result indicator - qualitative: 

Stakeholders’ satisfaction with ELA’s capacity 
the 
building  activities 
documentation,  take  up  at  national  level  of 
ELA’s definitions and concepts, etc.) 

(e.g.  quality  of 

Authority 
The 
implemented  effectively 
its  capacity  building 
task, 
a 
consistent  enforcement 
of EU law 

promoting 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2022) 

Monitoring data 

Work  programmes/  planning 
documents  

[Intended  result  1  of 
the Intervention] 

Surveys 

Interviews  

1.1.7.  To  what  extent  ELA’s  task 
related  to  cooperation  and 
facilitation  of  exchange  of 

Output indicators - quantitative: 

The Authority effectively 
its 
implemented 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2022) 

92 

 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

information 
Member 
effective? 

between 
was 

Share  of 
deadlines 

States 

information  exchanged  within 

[Specific  Objective  2  (Art.2  (b)), 
Operational  Objective  3  (Art.7)  of 
the Intervention] 

Number of cases referred to ELA to facilitate 
cooperation  and  to  accelerate  the  exchange 
of information 

Number  of  requests 
information  by 
Member States on the effective application of 
Union acts with regards to cooperation 

for 

National  events  (initiated  by  ELA’s  NLOs) 
aiming 
improve  cooperation  between 
Member States and ELA’s outreach 

to 

Number of ELA’s activities to promote the use 
of Internal Market Information (IMI) System 

Result indicator - qualitative: 

Stakeholders’ 
cooperation  and 
activities 

satisfaction  with  ELA’s 
information  exchange 

Stakeholders'  opinion  on  administrative 
burden related to information exchange 

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

Monitoring data 

Work  programmes/  planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Interviews 

cooperation 
and 
information  exchange 
task, 
supporting 
Member  States  with 
effective 
their 
compliance 
with 
cooperation obligations 

[Intended  result  2  of 
the Intervention] 

1.1.8.  How well was the mediation 
task implemented? What are 
the main lessons learned? 

[Specific  Objective  3  (Art.2  (c)), 
Operational  Objective  8  (Art.13)  of 
the Intervention] 

Output indicators - quantitative: 

Number  of  meetings  and  deliverables  of  the 
Working Group on mediation 

Individual cases submitted to ELA/ Individual 
cases processed by ELA 

Number of training sessions organised 

Time needed to settle disputes 

successfully 
ELA 
implemented  mediation 
procedures 
which 
contributed  to  facilitate 
a  solution  in  cases  of 
cross-border  disputes 
between 
Member 
States 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Monitoring data 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Interviews  

93 

 
  
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

Number  of  implemented/respected  opinions 
by the Member States party to disputes  

[Intended  result  3  of 
the Intervention] 

Workshop 
partners 

with 

social 

1.1.9.  What are the concrete gains 
for  the  Platform  tackling 
undeclared  work  following 
the 
the 
European Labour Authority? 

integration 

into 

[Specific  Objective  4  (Art.2  (d)), 
Operational  Objective  7  (Art.12)  of 
the Intervention] 

Case study 4: Mediation Task 
of ELA  

Public consultation 

ELA Regulation 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Monitoring data 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Interviews  

Workshop 
partners 

with 

social 

Number  of  areas  under  ELA  remit  for  which 
dispute settlement is used 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Examples of resolved disputes  

Stakeholders’  views  on 
Authority concerning mediation 

the  role  of 

the 

Output indicators - quantitative: 

learning 

resource  papers, 
Number  of 
seminars,  workshops,  webinars, 
follow-
up/study  visits  and  other  mutual  learning 
formats 

Number of studies, toolkits and similar written 
outputs  aiming  to  improve  knowledge  of 
undeclared work 

tackling 
The  Platform 
undeclared work benefit 
the 
greatly 
integration 
the 
Labour 
European 
Authority 

from 
in 

[Intended  result  4  of 
the Intervention] 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Evidence / examples of changes in the focus 
of the activities of the Platform 

Examples of synergies between the platform 
and the Authority’s existing structures 

Stakeholders’  satisfaction  with  the  quality  of 
the  informative  materials,  tools  and  events 
related to undeclared work 

Stakeholders’  satisfaction  with  the  level  of 
cooperation  between  Working  Group  on 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

1.2.1.  To  what  extent  were  the 
activities  carried  out  by  the 
the 
line  with 
in 
Authority 
scope of the Regulation? 

1.3.1.  Which stakeholders used the 
the 

services  provided  by 
Authority?  

1.3.2.  Which  stakeholders  used 

1.3.3.  What 

which services and why?  
factors 
explain 
differences  in  use  of  given 
services / services? 

1.2. 

1.3. 

To  what  extent  were  the 
activities  of  the  European 
Labour Authority link to the 
legal  acts  included  in  the 
scope  of 
founding 
the 
Regulation  (Article  1(4)? 
Did 
the  Authority  go 
beyond these legal acts? 

To  what  extent  were  the 
services  of  the  European 
Labour  Authority  actually 
their 
by 
used 
including 
stakeholders, 
Institutions, 
EU 
stakeholders 
the 
States, 
Member 
international  bodies  and 
organizations?  

in 

How  do  stakeholders  and 
the  wider  public  perceive 
the quality of the services 
provided by the European 
Labour  Authority?  How 

Inspections  and 
Undeclared Work 

the  Platform  Tackling 

Stakeholders’ views on the integration of the 
Platform into the European Labour Authority 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  degree  to  which 
ELA performed activities beyond its mandate 

Legal  comparison  between  ELA’s  activities 
and outputs and the mandate of the founding 
Regulation 

Examples of the ELA activities that go beyond 
the provisions of the founding Regulation 

Output indicator – quantitative: 

Number  of  ELA’s  joint  activities,  meetings, 
workshops  with  other  EU  bodies,  national 
authorities and the social partners 

Output  indicators  from  question  1.1.4  about 
types of stakeholders involved in CJIs 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Location  of  unique  visitors  to  the  EURES 
Portal 

The  activities  of 
the 
Authority were linked to 
the  legal  acts  included 
in 
the 
the  scope  of 
founding Regulation.  

ELA Regulation 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Monitoring data 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Interviews 

The  services  of 
the 
Authority are used by a 
representative  sample 
of  different  stakeholder 
categories 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Monitoring data 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Interviews  

Workshop 
partners 

with 

social 

Type of users of ELA Translation Facility 

Public consultation 

Jobseeker profiles registered on the EURES 
Portal 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

visible  were  the  actions 
and 
which 
to 
stakeholders? 

1.4. 

To  what  extent  did  the 
European 
Labour 
Authority focus its work on 
areas  most  in  need  and 
where  they  can  have  an 
impact?  Did  the  Authority 
go  beyond  its  mandate, 
and to what extent? 

1.4.1.  What areas did the Authority 

focus its work on and why?  

1.4.2.  Did  the  Authority  undertake 
prioritisation of certain topics 
or 
this  been 
appropriate?  

tasks?  Has 

1.4.3.  Were  any  changes  made 

over the years? If so, why?  

1.4.4.  Were  these  changes  in  line 
with  changes  in  needs  and 
areas  where  the  Authority 
can have an impact?  

Economic  sector of  employers  registered  on 
the EURES Portal 

Result  indicators  from  question  1.1.4  about 
types of stakeholders involved in CJIs 

Degree of stakeholders’ awareness of ELA’s 
activities, per stakeholder group 

Type  of  stakeholders  participating  to  ELA’s 
joint  activities,  meetings,  workshops  with 
other EU bodies, national authorities and the 
social partners 

Satisfaction of Member States’ authorities and 
their  degree  of 
other  stakeholders  with 
involvement in ELA’s activities  

Degree  of  satisfaction  of  Member  State 
authorities  and  other  stakeholders  with  the 
quality (i.e. timeliness, completeness, clarity, 
usefulness) of ELA’s activities  

Input indicator – quantitative 

Budget allocated to ELA’s areas of work 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Specific  areas  in  which  ELA  carried  out 
activities in each year 

Alignment of ELA’s programming documents 
with outputs delivered in the different areas of 
work of the Authority 

Evidence / examples of changes in the focus 
of the activities of the Authority 

ELA’s views on the rationale for the areas in 
which work was focused 

96 

of 

the 
The  majority  of 
the 
activities 
Authority 
focused  on 
areas  most  in  need  or 
where  they  could  have 
an impact 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Monitoring data 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Interviews  

Public consultation 

 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

Stakeholders’ views on whether prioritisation 
of topics / tasks is appropriate  

Stakeholders’ views on the extent to which the 
activities  of  ELA  focused  on  areas  most  in 
need / where ELA could have an impact 

Stakeholders’ views on the extent to which the 
activities  of  ELA  focused  on  areas  linked  to 
the EU policy priorities (e.g. developments on 
digital transformation, transition to a climate-
neutral  economy,  population  ageing,  gender 
and  diversity,  labour  mobility  and  recovery 
from the COVID-19 pandemic, war in Ukraine, 
trends  affecting  EU  cross-border 
labour 
mobility) 

Activities and rationale of ELA’s campaigns 

Result indicator - qualitative: 

Stakeholders’ 
positive/negative effects of ELA’s work 

views 

on 

unintended 

Evidence  /  examples  of  factors  that  caused 
these unintended effects 

Where 
unintended 
effects  were  observed, 
these  were  mitigated 
where  possible  and  did 
not  cause  significant 
issues  

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Interviews  

Workshop 
partners 

with 

social 

1.5.  Were  there  other  broader 
achievements/unexpected 
from 
impacts 
ELA’s work? 

arising 

1.5.1.  Have 

been 

there 

any 
unintended  effects  /  impacts 
(positive  or  negative)?  If  so, 
what were they?  

1.5.2.  Which (internal and external) 
these 
/ 

to 
effects 

led 

factors 
unexpected 
impacts? 

1.6.  Which factors facilitated or 
hindered the effectiveness 
the 
the  work  of 
of 
European 
Labour 
Authority? To what degree 
did  host  Members  States 
fulfil  their  obligations  as 

1.6.1.  What did the Authority set out 
to 
achieve 
(general/specific/operational 
objectives)?  

1.6.2.  To what extent have targets / 

KPIs been met?  

1.6.3.  To what extent have intended 

outputs been achieved?  

Output indicators - quantitative: 

Quantitative  KPIs/  targets  of  the  Authority 
across  the  strategic  areas  of  work  of  the 
Authority  

Result indicators - qualitative: 

The  Authority  achieved 
its  objectives  to  a  large 
extent  

shortcomings 
Where 
have  been 
identified, 
these  are  duly  justified 
by explanatory factors  

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Workshop 
partners 

with 

social 

Headquarter Agreements 

97 

 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

in 

the 

defined 
Headquarters 
Agreements  between  the 
ELA and Member State? 

1.6.4.  To what extent have intended 

effects 

results been achieved?  
1.6.5.  To  what  extent  can 

the 
be 
observed 
attributed  to  the  Authority’s 
work?  
1.6.6.  What  external 

influencing 
factors played a role (if any)? 
1.6.7.  What were the obligations of 

the host Member States?  

1.6.8.  To  what  extent  did  the  host 
their 

fulfil 

Member  States 
obligations?  

1.7. 

adapt 

To  what  degree  did  the 
Labour 
European 
Authority 
to 
changes  in  EU  policy,  to 
political 
Commission 
priorities 
the 
evaluation  period  and  to 
the  political  and  socio-
economic 
in 
general? 

situation 

over 

1.7.1.  What  changes  to  the  socio-
economic context and policy 
priorities 
fields  of 
relevance  to  the  Authority 
took  place  during  2019-
2023?  

the 

in 

to 

1.7.2.  Was the Authority sufficiently 
to 
flexible 
socio-
changes 
and 
economic 
corresponding 
policy 
priorities in a timely manner? 

respond 
the 
context 

in 

Member  States  fulfilled 
as 
obligations 
their 
defined 
the 
in 
Headquarters 
Agreements 
between 
the  ELA  and  Member 
States  

Qualitative  KPIs/  targets  of  the  Authority 
across  the  strategic  areas  of  work  of  the 
Authority  

Comparison  between  achieved  results  and 
target outputs of the Authority  

Stakeholders’  views  on  links  between  the 
inputs/activities  of  the  Authority  and  the 
achievement of the results  

Stakeholders’  views  on 
the  effects  and 
benefits of  the activities  implemented  by  the 
Authority  

Evidence/examples  of  internal  and  external 
factors 
the 
achievement of intended outputs and results  

that  helped  or  hindered 

Stakeholders’ views on the extent to which the 
host Member States fulfilled their obligations 
as defined in the founding Regulation  

Output 
qualitative: 

indicators  –  quantitative  and 

Number  of  EU  citizens  who  work and  live in 
another  Member  State,  per  nationality  and 
economic sector 

The Authority effectively 
relevant 
adapted 
to 
changes 
socio-
economic  context  and 
EU policy priorities 

in 

EUROSTAT data 

Interviews  

Number of mobile workers of working age 

GVA per economic sector, EU27 

Number of road transport sector workers who 
cross intra-EU borders on a daily basis 

Number of cross-border workers  

98 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

Number  of  cross-border  workers  involved  in 
undeclared work 

on 

developments 

Policy 
digital 
transformation, transition to a climate-neutral 
economy,  population  ageing,  gender  and 
diversity,  labour  mobility  and  recovery  from 
the  COVID-19  pandemic,  war  in  Ukraine, 
labour 
trends  affecting  EU  cross-border 
mobility 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Extent  to  which  ELA’s  activities  cover  the 
policy priorities of the EU Commission 

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  impact  of  such 
changes to the socio-economic context on the 
Authority’s work  

Stakeholders’ views on the adaptability of the 
Authority  

Result indicators - qualitative: 

N/A - Exploratory 

in 

response 

implemented 

Actions 
to 
unforeseen  challenges  (e.g.  evidence  of 
adaptations/introduction 
new 
actions/services in response to the Covid-19 
and Ukraine crises in ELA Work Programmes) 

of 

reports/studies 
Planned  events/trainings, 
related to the impact of unforeseen crises on 
labour mobility issues 

99 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Surveys 

Interviews  

Workshop 
partners 

with 

social 

Public consultation  

1.8. 

How  did 
the  European 
Labour Authority ensure a 
concrete  contribution  with 
regard  to  the  unexpected 
and  additional  challenge 
of  the  COVID  pandemic 
and  the  Ukrainian  crisis, 
where relevant? 

1.8.1.  What were the actions taken 
by  the  Authority  to  mitigate 
unforeseen  challenges  (e.g. 
the 
COVID 
outbreak  of 
in 
Ukraine)? 

pandemic, 

the  war 

1.8.2.  To  what  extent  were  these 

actions effective? 

 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

Efficiency 

1.9. 

To  what  extent  were  the 
actions  of  the  European 
Labour  Authority  cost-
effective? 

1.9.1.  What  costs  were  associated 
with the activities / operations 
of the Authority?  

1.9.2.  How did these costs compare 
to the outputs produced and 
the  results  achieved?  Were 
they proportionate?  

The  operations  of  the 
cost-
Authority  was 
effective  

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Monitoring data 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Public consultation 

Cost-effectiveness analysis 

views 

Stakeholders’ 
the 
effectiveness of the actions undertaken by the 
Authority to mitigate unforeseen challenges 

concerning 

Input indicators - quantitative: 

Annual  amount 
expenditure 
allocated, 
disbursed at the level of:  

(€)  and  share 

committed 

(%)  of 
and 

•  Activities / outputs 
•  Results  

Trends in costs over time  

Analysis  of  budgets  of  the  Authority  (e.g. 
Changes/transfers  in  the  budgetary  titles, 
carry overs) 

Evidence  of  increases  /  decreases  in  costs 
over time  

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Outcomes of ELA’s audits 

to  which  any 

Extent 
recommendations 
concerning  budget  implementation  issues 
have been implemented/addressed 

Stakeholders’  views  on  proportionality  of 
costs with respect to benefits from complying 
with activities  related  to  interactions  with  the 
Authority (e.g. IT costs, administrative burden, 
costs for additional staff, etc.) 

100 

 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

to 

1.10.  To  what  extent  were  staff 
resources  and  workload 
appropriate 
fulfil 
efficiently  and  effectively 
the  Authority’s  objectives 
How 
activities? 
and 
the 
balanced 
was 
administrative 
and 
operational  budget  and 
why? 

1.10.1.  Were the Authority’s financial 
and 
resources 
sufficient  to  enable  them  to 
do its work efficiently?  

human 

1.10.2.  What  working  practices  and 
in  place? 

procedures  are 
Were these appropriate?  

1.10.3.  Were  there  any  differences 
over  time?  If  so,  what  are 
good  practices 
lessons 
learned? 

/ 

1.11.  To  what  extent  were  the 
internal  mechanisms  for 
monitoring,  reporting  and 
the  Authority 
evaluating 
for  ensuring 
adequate 
and 
accountability 
appropriate  assessment 

1.11.1.  What  mechanisms  were  in 
place  in  the  Authority  for 
reporting  and 
monitoring, 
evaluation? 

1.11.2.  Were  the  mechanisms  for 
monitoring, 
reporting  and 
evaluating  the  work  of  the 
for 
Authority 

adequate 

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  appropriateness 
of changes in costs over time 

indicators  –  quantitative  and 

Input 
qualitative: 

Annual  amount  (€/FTE)  and  share  (%)  of 
human,  administrative  and  operational 
and 
allocated, 
expenditure 
disbursed at the level of:  

committed 

• Activities / outputs  

• Results  

Recruitment/turnover/establishment  plans  of 
the Authority 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Authority  staff 
inefficiencies 
procedures  

/  management  views  on 
in  working  practices  and 

Authority  staff  /  management  views  on  the 
sufficiency  of 
financial 
the  human  and 
resources allocated to given tasks  

Identified good practices / lessons learned 

Result 
qualitative: 

indicators  –  quantitative  and 

Evidence / examples of internal mechanisms 
in  place 
reporting  and 
evaluation  

for  monitoring, 

101 

The resources allocated 
were 
and 
sufficient 
appropriate  to  achieve 
the intended outcomes  

The  administrative  and 
operational  budgets  of 
the  Authority  were 
balanced 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Monitoring data 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

Interviews  

Cost-effectiveness analysis 

Internal mechanisms for 
reporting 
monitoring, 
and evaluating the work 
of  the  Authority  were 
adequate  for  ensuring 
accountability and there 
were  no  gaps  which 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Previous 
EMPL agencies 

evaluations 

of 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

of 
the 
overall 
performance, 
while 
minimising 
the 
burden? 
administrative 
Did  digitalization  play  a 
role in the above? 

ensuring  accountability  and 
assessment  of  the  overall 
performance 
the 
Authority? 

of 

1.11.3.  Did 

these  mechanisms 
minimise  the  administrative 
burden imposed on staff? Did 
digitalisation  play  a  role? 
How?  

1.11.4.  Were  there  any  differences 
over  time?  If  so,  what  are 
lessons 
good  practices 
learned? 

/ 

1.12.  How  efficient  were 

of 

the 
governance  structures  of 
the  European 
Labour 
Authority? To what extent 
the 
the  size  and 
is 
composition 
the 
Authority’s  Management 
Board  appropriate  for  the 
size and nature of ELA so 
as  to  ensure  its  ability  to 
tasks  and 
perform 
efficient 
effective 
governance? 

and 

its 

1.12.1.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
organisational structures and 
/ or other factors support the 
achievement 
the 
Authority’s objectives?  

of 

1.12.2.  Were the compositions of the 
Management  Boards  and 
Stakeholder 
Group 
appropriate?  Why  or  why 
not?  

1.12.3.  Were there any inefficiencies 
in  the  governance  of  the 
Authority? 

1.12.4.  What  are  good  practices  / 
lessons learned?  

prevent  an  appropriate 
assessment  of 
their 
overall performance  

Surveys 

Interviews 

The  mechanisms  did 
not 
impose 
disproportionate 
burdens on staff 

Authority’s 
The 
governance  structures 
supported  their  mission 
statements 

ELA Regulation 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Interviews  

Benchmarks  of  ELA’s  performance 
in 
comparison with the EMPL Agencies in terms 
internal  programming, 
of  adequacy  of 
evaluating 
monitoring, 
mechanisms 

reporting 

and 

Authority staff’s views on the appropriateness 
of  the  mechanisms  for  monitoring,  reporting 
and evaluation  

Identified 
inefficiencies  

administrative 

burdens 

/ 

Identified good practices / lessons learned  

indicators  –  quantitative  and 

Result 
qualitative: 

Assessment  of  whether 
the  Authority’s 
governance  models 
is 
aligned  with 
for  executive 
recognised  good  practices 
agencies (cf. Roadmap on the follow-up to the 
Common  Approach  on  EU  decentralised 
agencies)  

Benchmarking of ELA’s Management Board’s 
size, composition and costs associated to its 
functioning,  with  respect  to  other  EMPL 
agencies  

Authority  staff  /  management  /  stakeholder 
views on the appropriateness of the size and 
composition of the Management Boards 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

The  data  protection 
aspects were taken into 
the 
account 
the 
deployment 
Authority’s activities. 

of 

in 

ELA Regulation 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

no 

were 
There 
disproportionate 
administrative  burdens 
or inefficiencies  

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Monitoring data 

Work  programmes/  planning 
documents  

Interviews  

1.13.  How  well  were  the  data 
protection  aspects  taken 
the 
into 
the 
deployment 
Authority’s activities? 

account 

of 

in 

1.14.  Were  there  any  potential 
areas  and/or  activities 
which  could  be  subject  to 
and/or 
simplification 
burden 
administrative 
reduction? 

Coherence 

1.13.1.  How were the data protection 
aspects 
the 
Authority  in  the  deployment 
of its activities? 

treated  by 

1.13.2.  Were  there  any  hindrances 
the  effective 
related 
to 
enforcement 
data 
protection mechanisms in the 
deployment of the Authority’s 
activities? 

of 

1.14.1.  Did  established  procedures 
minimise  the  administrative 
burden  of  the  Authority  and 
their stakeholders?  
Is 
simplification? How?  

there  any  scope 

1.14.2. 

for 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Data  protection mechanisms put  in place  by 
the Authority (e.g. reports on data protection) 

Perceived  effectiveness  of  data  protection 
mechanisms employed 

Input indicators - quantitative: 

from  Authority  and  other 
Cost  data 
stakeholders 
the 
compliance/implementation/administration  of 
the established procedures 

on 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  main  costs  and 
with 
benefits 
compliance/implementation/administration  of 
the established procedures 

associated 

Evidence  /  examples  of  inefficiencies  or 
administrative burdens (for the Authority and 
stakeholders)  

Authority  staff  /  stakeholder  views  on  the 
administrative burden imposed on them  

Identified options / areas for simplification  

Identified good practices / lessons learned 

103 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

1.15.  To  what  extent  are  the 
mandate  and  activities  of 
the  European 
Labour 
Authority  coherent  with 
DG  EMPL  policies  and 
with other EU policies? To 
the 
what  extent  does 
Authority 
work 
cooperatively  with  DG 
EMPL 
other 
and 
Commission services. 

1.15.1.  To what extent was the work 
of  the  Authority  aligned  with 
DG EMPL policies?  
1.15.2.  To what extent was the work 
of  the  Authority  aligned  with 
other relevant EU policies? 
Is 
there  any  evidence  of 
incoherence or misalignment 
with EU policies?  

1.15.3. 

1.15.4.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
Authority  work  cooperatively 
with  DG  EMPL  and  other 
Commission  services  and 
how?  

1.15.5.  What  are  good  practices  / 

lessons learned? 

1.16.  To  what  extent  were  the 
mandate  and  activities 
of  the  European  Labour 
Authority  coherent  with 
the 
EMPL 
agencies  or  EU  bodies? 
any 
there 
Were 

other 

1.16.1.  Were 

there 

any 
inconsistencies 
or 
the 
contradictions 
mandates and/or activities of 
the Authority and other EMPL 
agencies 
(i.e.  Eurofound, 
Cedefop,  ETF  and  EU-

in 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Correspondence  between  Authority’s  work 
programmes and relevant EU labour policies 
(as per ELA’s programming documents) 

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  degree  to  which 
the Authority was aligned with and supported 
EU policies 

and 
The  mandate 
activities 
the 
of 
Authority  was  coherent 
with EU policies  

The  Authority  worked 
cooperatively 
with 
relevant  Commission 
services 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Survey 

Interviews  

Stakeholders’ 
duplications which can be avoided 

views 

on 

overlaps 

or 

Evidence / examples of collaboration between 
the  Authority  and 
relevant  Commission 
services  

Authority  staff  /  management  /  Commission 
staff  views  on  the  degree  to  which  the 
Authority  and 
the  Commission  worked 
together cooperatively  

Authority  staff  /  management  /  Commission 
staff 
in  which 
cooperation could improve 

suggestions  of  ways 

Stakeholders’  views  on 
practices / lessons learned 

identified  good 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

of 

or 
Evidence/examples 
contradictions  between 
the  programming 
documents  of  the  Authority  and  other  EMPL 
agencies  

overlaps 

104 

of 

and 
The  mandates 
the 
activities 
Authority and DG EMPL 
agencies 
EU 
bodies  were  coherent, 
no 
there 

were 

and 

ELA Regulation 

Surveys 

Interviews  

Public consultation 

 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

unnecessary  overlaps  or 
duplications? 

OSHA)  or  activities  of  the 
agencies?  

Number of MoUs/SLAs signed between ELA 
and other EMPL agencies/bodies 

unnecessary  overlaps 
or duplications 

1.17.  To  what  extent  does  the 
European 
Labour 
Authority  work  with  the 
other  EMPL  agencies 
where  needed?  To  what 
they 
extent 
have 
cooperation 
developed 
among 
mechanisms 
themselves  during 
the 
evaluation period? 

1.16.2.  Were  there  any  overlaps  or 
unnecessary  duplications  in 
the mandates or activities of 
the Authority and other EMPL 
agencies or EU bodies? If so, 
what caused these? 

1.17.1.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
Authority build synergies with 
other  EMPL  agencies  (i.e. 
Eurofound,  Cedefop,  ETF 
and  EU-OSHA)  and  work 
together (e.g. joint projects)? 
1.17.2.  Did  their  cooperation  work 
optimally? Why or why not?  
1.17.3.  Was  there  a  change  in  the 
degree to which the Authority 
and  other  EMPL  agencies 
cooperated during the period 
under  review?  Why  or  why 
not?  

1.17.4.  Are  there  any  good  practice 
examples  or  lessons  to  be 
improve 
to 
learned 
and 
cooperation 
complementarity 
the 
future? 

in 

Stakeholders’  views  on  complementarity  / 
reinforcement / working together   

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  degree  to  which 
the  work  of  the  Authority  and  other  EMPL 
is 
or 
agencies 
complementary/does not overlap 

bodies 

EU 

Output indicator - quantitative: 

Number of collaboration agreements or MoUs 
signed between the Authority and other EMPL 
agencies  

The  ELA  and  other 
Agencies 
worked 
cooperatively  with  each 
other where needed 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Evidence/examples of joint activities between 
the Authority and other EMPL agencies  

Evidence/examples  of  overlapping  ELA’s 
activities/initiatives/studies/reports 
with 
respect to other EMPL agencies  

views 

Stakeholders’ 
reinforced 
collaboration/ synergies being actively sought 
during the 2019-2023 period  

on 

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  degree  to  which 
the ELA and other agencies worked together 
optimally  

Stakeholder  suggestions  of  ways  in  which 
collaboration could improve  

105 

the 

from 

“Study 
Results 
supporting  the  evaluation  of 
EU  agencies:  Eurofound, 
Cedefop,  ETF  and  EU-
OSHA” 

ELA Regulation 

Collaboration  agreements  / 
MoUs  

Interviews  

Surveys 

Public consultation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

1.18.  To  what  extent 

is 

of 

the 
mandate  and  activities  of 
the  European 
Labour 
Authority  coherent  with 
other  EU 
those 
decentralised  agencies? 
To  what  extent  does  the 
Authority 
work 
cooperatively  with  other 
EU  Agencies?  To  what 
extent  is  the  performance 
measurement  system  of 
the  Authority  in  line  with 
the  one  of  other  relevant 
EU agencies? 

1.18.1.  Were 

in 

there 

any 
or 
inconsistencies 
contradictions 
the 
mandates  and  activities  of 
the  Authority  and  other 
relevant  EU  decentralised 
agencies? If so, what caused 
these? 

1.18.2.  Were  there  any  overlaps  or 
unnecessary  duplications  in 
the  mandates  and  activities 
of  the  Authority  and  other 
relevant  EU  decentralised 
agencies? If so, what caused 
these? 

1.18.3.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
Authority build synergies and 
cooperate with other relevant 
EU decentralised agencies?  
1.18.4.  Did  their  cooperation  work 
optimally? Why or why not?  
1.18.5.  Are  there  any  good  practice 
examples  or  lessons  to  be 
improve 
learned 
to 
and 
cooperation 
the 
complementarity 
future? 

in 

Stakeholders’  views  on  good  practices  / 
lessons learned 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Evidence 
/  examples  of  overlaps  or 
contradictions  between  the  Authority  and 
other agencies  

Evidence  /  examples  of  complementarity  / 
reinforcement / working together / synergies 

Number of collaboration agreements between 
the Authority and other agencies 

Evidence/examples of joint activities between 
the Authority and other EU agencies  

of 

and 
The  mandates 
activities 
the 
Authority was coherent, 
there 
no 
unnecessary  overlaps 
or duplications 

were 

Legal  bases  of  the  Authority 
and agencies  

Collaboration  agreements  / 
MoUs 

Interviews  

Surveys 

Public consultation 

Evidence/examples 
collaboration during the 2019-2023 period  

reinforced 

of 

Authority’s 

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  degree  to  which 
were 
the 
complementary/did not overlap with the ones 
of other EU decentralised agencies  

activities 

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  degree  to  which 
the  Authority’s  cooperation  with  other 
agencies was optimal  

Stakeholder  suggestions  of  ways  in  which 
collaboration could improve  

Stakeholders’  views  on  good  practices  / 
lessons learned 

106 

 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

1.19.  To  what  extent  are  the 
mandates and activities of 
the  European 
Labour 
Authority  coherent  with 
those  of  other  relevant 
and 
organisations 
(at  EU, 
stakeholders 
international  and  national 
level)?  To  what  extent 
does  the  Authority  work 
cooperatively  with  those 
organisations 
and 
stakeholders?  To  what 
extent is such cooperation 
established 
all 
relevant organisations and 
stakeholders? 

with 

1.20.  How  well  was 

the 
Authority embedded in the 
broader 
policy 
EU 
governance  structures  for 
activity 
its 
respective 
is 
domains,  and 
there 
improving 
room 
coherence and efficiency? 

for 

1.19.1.  Which  other  EU  /  national  / 
level 
international 
and 
organisations 
implemented 
stakeholders 
activities  similar  to  those  of 
the Authority?  
1.19.2.  To  what  extent  was 

the 
Authority  and  its  activities 
coherent  with  those  of  other 
relevant  organisations  and 
stakeholders?  

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Evidence / examples of collaboration between 
international 
the  Authority  and  other 
organisations / stakeholders 

/  examples  of 

Evidence 
joint  activities 
between  the  Authority  and  other  national 
organisations / stakeholders 

Stakeholders’  suggestions  of  ways  in  which 
cooperation could be improved  

and 
The  mandate 
activities 
the 
of 
Authority  was  coherent 
those  of  other 
with 
relevant  organisations 
and stakeholders 

The  Authority  worked 
cooperatively 
with 
relevant  organisations 
and stakeholders 

1.19.3.  To  what 

1.19.4. 

1.19.5.  Are 

extent  were 
and 
sought 

synergies 
exploited?  
In  case  of  shortcomings, 
what factors explain these?  
noteworthy 
differences  across  relevant 
other 
and 
organisations 
stakeholders? If so, why?  

there 

Collaboration  agreements  / 
MoUs  

ELA Regulation 

documents 

Relevant 
of 
observed  organisations  and 
stakeholders  

Surveys 

Interviews  

Public consultation 

1.20.1.  How  did  the  work  of  the 
Authority feed into EU policy 
governance  (e.g.  European 
Semester)?  

1.20.2.  Were 

any 
there 
shortcomings?  If  so,  what 
were  they  and  what  caused 
them?  
Is  there  scope  for  improved 
coherence 
efficiency 
or 
gains? Why and how?  

1.20.3. 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Correspondence  between 
the  Authority’s 
outputs and EU policy governance structures   

Stakeholders’  suggestions  on  ways 
improve efficiency and coherence  

to 

EU  policy  documents  and 
legislation 

ELA governance documents 

Interviews 

in 

The  Authority  was 
embedded 
the 
broader  EU 
policy 
governance  structures 
for 
respective 
their 
activity domains 

There  is  no  scope  for 
efficiency  or  coherence 
gains 

107 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

2.  How did the Authority make a difference and to whom? 

EU added value 

the 

2.1.  What was the added value 
of  the  European  Labour 
level 
Authority  at  EU 
evaluation 
during 
period? To what extent did 
its 
add 
achievements 
value  in  terms  of  volume, 
scope,  process,  and  role 
effects220? 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Examples  of  volume,  scope,  role  and/or 
process effects of the Authority  

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  feasibility  of 
alternative approaches to achieve the same / 
comparable results 

Stakeholders’ views on the extent to which the 
same  results  could  have  been  achieved 
without EU intervention 

2.1.1.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
Authority  add  to,  or  support, 
existing  actions  or  policy 
areas  at  different 
levels? 
(volume effect)  
2.1.2.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
Authority  broaden  existing 
actions by supporting groups 
or policy areas that would not 
have 
support 
received 
otherwise? (scope effects)  

2.1.3.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
Authority  broaden  existing 
actions by supporting groups 
or policy areas that would not 
have 
support 
received 
otherwise? (scope effects)  

The  Authority  provided 
added value  that  would 
not 
their 
absence 

exist 

in 

Evidence from all other EQs  

Surveys 

Interviews  

Workshop 
partners 

with 

social 

Case studies 

Public consultation 

2.1.4.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
Authority support innovations 
that  have  been  taken  up  at 
level  or  national 
national 
innovative  actions  that  are 
then  mainstreamed? 
(role 
effects)  
the 
 To  what  extent  did 
Authority  influence  Member 

2.1.5. 

220 Volume effects are observed when an intervention adds to or supports existing actions; Scope effects are observed when an intervention broadens the reach or scope of existing actions; 
Role effects are observed when lessons learnt from the implementation of an intervention are applied elsewhere; Process effects are observed when an intervention leads to a change 
in operational processes. 

108 

 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

State  administrations  and 
organisations  involve  in  the 
Authority’s actions? (process 
effects)  

2.2. 

To  which  groups  of 
stakeholders 
concretely 
did  the  Authority’s  work 
make a difference? 

2.2.1.  Which  stakeholders  were 
the 

by 

impacted 

most 
Authority and how?  

2.2.2.  To  what  extent  did 

the 
benefits brought about by the 
Authority  trickle  down  to  the 
level  of  individual  citizens 
(where relevant)? 

N/A, 
question 

descriptive 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Degree of use of the outputs of the Authority 
per stakeholder group (EQ 1.3) 

Degree of use of the outputs of the Authority 
per  task  (e.g.  mediation,  cooperation,  risk 
analysis, etc.) 

Stakeholder views on the degree to which the 
Authority made a difference to them / to other 
stakeholder groups 

all 

from 

Results 
other 
evaluation questions (notably 
on relevance & effectiveness)  

Surveys 

Interviews  

Workshop  with  EU-level 
social partners 

Public consultation 

3. 

Is the Authority’s work still relevant? 

Relevance 

3.1. 

To  what  extent  did  the 
Labour 
European 
Authority 
mandate, 
objectives  and  activities 
fulfil EU policy needs and 
relevant 
those 
stakeholders  during 
the 
evaluation period? 

of 

3.1.1.  To  what  extent  were  the 
mandate, 
Authority’s 
objectives 
activities 
and 
relevant  to  fulfil  EU  policy 
needs? 

3.1.2.  To  what  extent  were  the 
mandate, 
Authority’s 
objectives 
activities 
and 
relevant  to  fulfil  stakeholder 
needs? 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Evidence  /  examples  of  use  of  the  Authority 
outputs 
(for  EU  policy  and  by  other 
stakeholders, EQ 1.3) 

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  degree  to  which 
the work of the Authority met EU policy needs 
/ the needs of stakeholders 

3.1.3.  Were 

the 

mandates, 
objectives 
activities 
and 
complete?  Were  there  any 
gaps  not  covered  by  the 

109 

Authority’s 
The 
objectives 
mandates, 
activities  were 
and 
relevant 
fulfil  EU 
to 
policy needs / the needs 
of stakeholders  

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Results from other evaluation 
questions (i.e., effectiveness) 

Surveys 

Interviews  

Workshop  with  EU-level 
social partners 

 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Authority  that  should  have 
been? Which ones and why? 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

To  what  extent  are  the 
European 
Labour 
Authority  mandate  and 
activities still relevant, and 
has that been affected by 
the  COVID-19  pandemic 
and  the  Ukrainian  crisis 
(where pertinent)? 

by 

and 

3.2.1.  Was  the  relevance  of  the 
mandate, 
Authority’s 
activities 
objectives 
unforeseen 
affected 
like  COVID-19 
challenges 
and  the  Ukrainian  crisis?  If 
so, how? 
 What  mitigating 
actions 
were  taken  and  were  these 
successful? 

3.2.2. 

To  what  extent  is  there  a 
need 
the 
to  amend 
mandate  of  the  European 
Labour  Authority?  If  yes, 
what  would 
the 
financial implications? 

be 

3.3.1. 

3.3.2. 

In  light  of  the  (continued) 
relevance  of  the  mandates, 
objectives  and  activities  of 
the Authority, is there a need 
for amendments? 
If so, what would the financial 
implications  of  a  change  in 
mandates be?  

In  terms  of  foresight,  are 
there  any  future  trends 
including 
megatrends 
(such  as  demographic 
change,  migration,  etc.) 
the 
that  could  affect 
Labour 
European 

influence 

3.4.1.  What trends can be expected 
to 
the 
the 
mandates/work 
Authority in the future? How?  
the 
Authority  prepared  to  deal 
with these and how?  

3.4.2.  To  what  extent 

of 

is 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Results from EQ 1.4, 1.8 

Identified  challenges  that  emerged  during 
2019-2023  that  affected  the  work  of  the 
Authority 

Evidence  /  examples  of  how  the  Authority 
dealt with these challenges  

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  degree  to  which 
the  Authority  was  able  to  adapt  flexibly  to 
these challenges 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Results from EQ 3.1,3.2,3.4 (Relevance)  

Stakeholders’  views  on  the  need  to  adapt 
mandate, and what needs to be adapted 

Result indicators - qualitative: 

Identified (future) trends that may impact the 
work of the Authority 

Assessment  of  the  preparedness  of  the 
Authority  to  deal  with  the  future  trends  / 
challenges  

110 

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

Case studies 

Public consultation 

The 
mandate, 
objectives and activities 
of  the  Authority  are  still 
relevant 
and  were 
to 
sufficiently 
respond  to  unforeseen 
challenges 

flexible 

Consolidated  Annual  Activity 
Report (2019-2021) 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Results from other evaluation 
questions (i.e., effectiveness) 

Interviews  

Public consultation 

N/A, 
question 

explorative 

Interviews  

Authority 

The 
is 
prepared  to  cope  with 
future 
/ 
challenges 

trends 

EU  policy  documents  and 
legislation 

Work programmes / planning 
documents  

Surveys 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question  

Operationalised questions  

Indicators/descriptors  

Norms/Judgement 
criteria  

Data sources / analytical 
approach  

Authority’s 
relevance and how? 

future 

Stakeholders’  views  on  potential  (future) 
trends  that  may  impact  the  work  of  the 
Authority and how it would be impacted 

Interviews  

Workshop  with  EU-level 
social partners 

Public consultation 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV.   OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

The table below presents an overview of the costs and benefits identified within the scope of this study. The founding Regulation of ELA primarily imposes 
rules on the ELA itself, delineating tasks and responsibilities for its operations. Predominantly, the costs associated with compliance to the Regulation are 
borne by ELA, funded through the EU Budget. Citizens and businesses are not expected to bear costs as the Regulation does not directly impose obligations 
on them. Therefore, the table focuses on direct costs, which are borne by the authority itself. These costs represent the commitments made by ELA in each 
year and for different activities and are taken from the Annual Accounts and Annual Activity Reports of ELA. Regarding the staff costs per activity, this 
was not directly provided in the documents, but was calculated by the study team. To do this, average basic salaries and allowances were used for the 
different types of employees (contract agents, temporary agents and SNEs as well as the division of FTEs over the different activities was used (based on 
SPDs data) to calculate the staff costs per activity.  

The potential (indirect) benefits could theoretically extend to all actors, including companies and citizens. However, it is not feasible to identify and quantify 
how ELA’s activities eventually have an impact on downstream markets. The table therefore focusses on direct benefits incurred by the direct users of 
ELA’s outputs, resulting from the stakeholder questionnaire carried out in this evaluation. These are the organisations that made use of the outputs produced 
by ELA, such as national institutions/agencies, employer organisations, trade unions, research institutions, etc. Next to this, organisations that are working 
together with ELA in certain tasks such as other European agencies, National Coordination Offices, EU networks, etc. also fall under this category. 

Given the nature of this evaluation and the constraints imposed by the available data, we have chosen to compile a table that aligns more closely with the 
methodology employed in the evaluation of the other four decentralized agencies under the remit of DG Employment. For comparative purposes and to 
ensure comprehensive reporting, we have also included a table that more closely adheres to the format specified in the Better Regulation Guidelines. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. Costs of ELA’s activities and benefits over time 

Total 

Activities 
within 
EURES task 

Activities 
within 
Information 
and services 
task 

Activities 
within CJI 
task 

Activities 
within 
Analysis and 
Risk ass. 
task 

Activities 
within 
Cooperatio
n task 

Activities 
within 
Tackling 
Undeclared 
Work task 

Activities 
within 
Mediation 
task 

Capacity 
Building 
Activities 

Direct costs (borne by the authority) 

Total expenditure 
of the authority 

2019 

 1.9m  

2019 

2020 

 12.3m  

2020 

Total costs per activity (operational + staff) 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2019 

no data 

2019 

2020 

no data 

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2019 

no data 

2019 

2020 

no data 

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2019 

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2019 

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2019 

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2021 

 21.4m  

2021 

8.2m 

2021 

1.6m 

2021 

1.3m 

2021 

0.2m 

2021 

0.8m 

2021 

1.5m 

2021 

0.2m 

2021 

0.3m 

2022 

 33.5m  

2022 

12m 

2022 

1.4m 

2022 

2.2m 

2022 

0.9m 

2022 

1.9m 

2022 

0.6m 

2022 

0.5m 

2022 

1.7m 

Total operational 
costs 

Operational costs per activity 

2019 

 0.5m  

2019 

no 
costs 

2019 

2020 

 6m  

2020 

5.5m 

2020 

no 
costs 

no 
costs 

2019 

no 
costs 

2019 

no 
costs 

2019 

2020 

0.3m 

2020 

0.1m 

2020 

no 
costs 

no 
costs 

2019 

no 
costs 

2019 

2020 

0.1m 

2020 

no 
costs 

no 
costs 

2019 

2020 

no 
costs 

no 
costs 

2021 

 12.2m  

2021 

8m 

2021 

 1.1m  

2021 

 0.8m  

2021 

 <0.1m  

2021 

 0.4m  

2021 

 1.4m  

2021 

 0.1m  

2021 

 0.1m  

2022 

 18.1m  

2022 

11.6m 

2022 

0.9m 

2022 

1.5m 

2022 

0.6m 

2022 

0.4m 

2022 

0.4m 

2022 

0.4m 

2022 

1.2m 

113 

 
Total staff costs 

Staff costs per activity 

2019 

 0.4m  

2019 

2020 

 3.1m  

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2019 

no data 

2019 

2020 

no data 

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2019 

no data 

2019 

2020 

no data 

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2019 

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2019 

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2019 

2020 

no 
data 

no 
data 

2021 

 6.5m  

2021 

0.2m 

2021 

0.6m 

2021 

0.5m 

2021 

0.2m 

2021 

0.5m 

2021 

0.2m 

2021 

0.1m 

2021 

0.2m 

2022 

 11.1m  

2022 

0.5m 

2022 

0.6m 

2022 

0.6m 

2022 

0.3m 

2022 

1.5m 

2022 

0.2m 

2022 

0.2m 

2022 

0.4m 

Total 
administrative 
costs 

2019 

 1m  

2020 

 3.3m  

2021 

 2.7m  

2022 

 4.3m  

Direct benefits (to users of the authorities’ outputs) 

EURES portal 

Stakeholder 
rating of cost-
effectiveness of 
the authority 

Provision of 
information on 
labour 
mobility/social 
security 
coordination 

ELA's support 
to MS in 
relation to CJI 

Availability of 
monitoring and 
statistical data 

Cooperation 
and 
information 
exchange 
activities 

Quality of 
materials and 
events 

Support 
provided by 
ELA through 
mediation 

Workshops 
and Trainings 
provided by 
ELA 

42% of 
stakeholders 
indicated that the 
benefits of ELA's 
outputs outweigh 
the costs to a 

The portal 
experienced 
significant user 
engagement, 
with around 
63,000 

In 2021, a total of 
6 support actions 
were 
implemented, 
with 4 dedicated 
to seasonal work 

The number of 
cross-border 
inspection with 
the assistance 
of ELA 
increased from 

44% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
availability of 
timely and 
complete data to 

The number of 
resolved 
requests for 
information by 
Member States 
increased from 

Between May 
2021 and Q2 
2023, the 
European 
Platform under 
ELA produced  

Four mediation 
cases between 
2019 and 2023.  
Only one was 
successful.   

At least 14 
workshops, 
training 
sessions, and 
staff exchanges 
from 2020 to 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
be very useful, 
38% moderately 
useful, 1% not 
useful at all, and 
15% did not know 
(N=80) 

12 in 2020 to 87 
in 2021 and to 
104 in 2022.  

60% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
cooperation and 
exchange 
activities to be 
very useful, 
31% moderately 
useful, 0% not 
useful at all, and 
9% did not know 
(N=67) 

5 in 2020, to 10 
in 2021, to 33 in 
2022. In 2022, a 
total of 25 
Member States 
were involved in 
the CJI's. 

64% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
support of ELA 
in the 
communication 
between MS to 
be very useful, 
25% moderately 
useful, 0% not 
useful at all, and 
10% did not 
know (N=67) 

48% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
support 
provided by ELA 
through 
mediation to be 
very useful, 
27% moderately 
useful, 3% not 
useful at all, and 
21% did not 
know (N=33) 

2023. There 
were two 
editions 
launched for a 
call for good 
practises. 

Around 70% of 
stakeholder 
found both the 
workshops as 
well as the 
trainings to be 
very useful, 
20% moderately 
useful, 1% not 
useful at all, 
and 9% did not 
know (N=86) 

8 learning 
resource 
papers, 17 good 
practice s 
covering, 4 
seminars and 4 
thematic  review 
workshops, 4 
peer learning 
dialogues, 1 
webinar on the 
road transport 
sector,  and 3 
output papers. 

55% of 
stakeholders 
found the quality 
of the materials, 
tools and events 
to be very 
useful, 32% 
moderately 
useful, 1% not 
useful at all and 
12% did not 
know (N=82) 

great extent, 35% 
to a moderate 
extent, 12% to a 
small extent and 
12% stated that 
the benefits are 
lower than the 
costs (N=121)  

and 2 focusing 
on road 
transport. The 
following year, 
2022, saw a 
significant 
increase, with 20 
support actions 
launched; 9 of 
which target road 
transport, while 
the remaining 11 
addressed 
various other 
sectors including 
construction. 
During the first 
semester of 
2023, 8 support 
actions were 
carried out, 
evenly split 
between 
construction and 
other sectors, 
with 4 actions 
each. 

59% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
provision of 
information to be 
very useful, 33% 
moderately 
useful, 3% not 
useful at all, and 
4% did not know 
(N=124) 

jobseeker 
registrations in 
2021, dropping 
to 14,700 in 
2022. The 
number of 
individuals 
transferred 
through 
coordinated 
channels to the 
portal increased 
from 680,000 in 
2021 to 1.2 
million in 2022. 
The portal saw 
a decrease in 
employer 
registrations 
from 6,973 in 
2021 to 5,733 in 
2022, and 
unique visitors 
decreased from 
3.7 million in 
2021 to 3.4 
million in 2022. 
Job vacancies 
posted surged 
from 9.5 million 
in 2021 to 30 
million in 2022, 
with 18.6 million 
vacancies 
reported in the 
first half of 
2023. 

54% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
functionalities 
and information 
on the EURES 
portal to be very 
useful, 26% 
moderately 
useful, 2% not 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
useful at all, 
and 18% did 
not know 
(N=85) 

Topics 
explored 
during 
Platform 
events 

51% of 
stakeholders 
found the topics 
explored on 
Platform events 
to be very 
useful, 34% 
moderately 
useful, 2% not 
useful at all and 
12% did not 
know (N=82) 

EURES 
Network 

Targeted 
workshops 

Available 
guidelines, 
templates and 
procedures 

Quality and 
relevance of 
topics analysed 

Availability of a 
directory of 
National 
Contact Points 

60% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
targeted 
workshops 
organised by 
ELA to be very 
useful, 33% 
moderately 
useful, 3% not 
useful at all, and 
4% did not know 
(N=124) 

53% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
services related 
to the 
governance of 
the EURES 
Network by ELA 
to be very 
useful, 26% 
moderately 
useful, 2% not 
useful at all, 
and 19% did 
not know 
(N=85) 

Both regarding 
quality as well as 
relevance roughly 
40% of 
stakeholders 
found this very 
useful, 40% 
moderately 
useful, 3% not 
useful at all, and 
17% did not know 
(N=80) 

In 2020, the 
ELA 
successfully 
created a 
directory of 
National 
Contact Points 
(NCPs).  

39% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
availability of a 
directory of 
National 
Contact Points 
to be very 
useful, 40% 
moderately 
useful, 3% not 
useful at all, and 
18% did not 
know (N=67) 

Regular updates 
on guidelines 
and procedures 
are reported 
each year from 
2020 onwards, 
with additional 
tools and 
bulletins 
produced in 
2021 and 2022.  

48% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
guidelines, 
templates, and 
procedures 
produced by 
ELA to be very 
useful, 37% 
moderately 
useful, 3% not 
useful at all, and 
12% did not 
know (N=67) 

Materials, 
guidelines 
tools 

In 2022, ELA 
conducted four 
training 
sessions aimed 
at mediators, 
experts, and 
Member State 
representatives 
to enhance 
understanding 
and 
implementation 
of the mediation 
procedures. 
Additionally, 
ELA produced 
several 
communication 
materials, 
including an 
FAQs 
document, a 
video, and a 
leaflet to provide 
clear 
information 
about the 
mediation 
process, all 
published on its 
website in 2022. 

58% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
availability of 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
materials, 
guidelines and 
tools provided 
by ELA 
regarding 
mediation to be 
very useful, 
27% moderately 
useful, 3% not 
useful at all, and 
12% did not 
know (N=33) 

Exchange with 
other national 
authorities 

There were 15 
staff exchanges 
with other 
national 
authorities in 
2022. 

68% of 
stakeholders 
found ELA's role 
in the exchange 
with other 
national 
authorities 
concerning 
undeclared work 
to be very 
useful, 18% 
moderately 
useful, 2% not 
useful at all and 
11% did not 
know (N=82) 

EURES 
Trainings 

Translation of 
information 

In total 69 
training 
sessions were 
delivered by 
ELA, 
surpassing the 
target of 60.  

55% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
EURES 
trainings 
organised by 
ELA to be very 
useful, 19% 
moderately 
useful, 2% not 
useful at all, 
and 25% did 
not know 
(N=85) 

In the period 
2020-2023Q2, 
roughly 600 
documents have 
been translated 
via the 
Translation 
Facility launched 
by ELA. The cost 
per translated 
document 
decreased over 
time.  

61% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
translation 
activities 
organised by 
ELA to be very 
useful, 24% 
moderately 
useful, 5% not 
useful at all, and 
10% did not 
know (N=124) 

Risk 
assessment 
activities in 
supporting CJI's 

At least 10 
significant 
analytical reports, 
mappings, and 
manuals 
produced 
between 2020 
and 2023. 

39% of 
stakeholders 
found the risk 
assessment 
related to CJI's 
produced by ELA 
to be very useful, 
40% moderately 
useful, 3% not 
useful at all, and 
18% did not know 
(N=67) 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Job 
Days 

Communication 
and 
dissemination 

In 2021, there 
were 28 events 
organized. This 
number 
increased 
significantly in 
2022, with 44 
events—a 57% 
rise from the 
previous year. 
In the first half 
of 2023, 12 
events were 
held. 

Regarding 
participation 
reach between 
2021 and 2022, 
there was a 
53% increase in 
the number of 
jobseekers 
reached and a 
30% increase in 
the number of 
employers 
engaged. 
49% of 
stakeholders 
found the Job 
Days very 
useful, 25% 
moderately 
useful, 1% not 
useful at all, 
and 25% did 
not know 
(N=85) 

The 2022 
campaign, 
#Road2FairTransp
ort, centered on 
road transport, 
achieved over 9 
million video 
views, reached 
15.8 million people 
through outdoor 
advertising, and 
accumulated over 
125 million online 
impressions. That 
same year, a 
smaller campaign, 
#StandWithUkrain
e, was also 
conducted, 
although reach data 
is not available. In 
2023, preparatory 
work began for a 
campaign focusing 
on the construction 
sector, with reach 
data not yet 
applicable. 
50% of 
stakeholder 
found the 
communication 
and 
dissemination 
activities of ELA 
(e.g. information 
campaigns) to be 
very useful, 39% 
moderately 
useful, 4% not 
useful at all and 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
7% did not know 
(N=124) 

EURES 
communicatio
n activities 

49% of 
stakeholders 
found the 
EURES 
communication 
activities carried 
out by ELA very 
useful, 32% 
moderately 
useful, 2% not 
useful at all, 
and 16% did 
not know 
(N=85) 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The table presented below aligns with Tool #49 of the Better Regulation Guidelines (BRG). This table exclusively considers costs and benefits classified 
as 'incremental' in accordance with the BRG. Incremental costs and benefits are those arising solely as a consequence of the European Labour Authority 
(ELA)/the  Regulation,  and  which  would  not  have  occurred  otherwise.  It  is  important  to  note  that  establishing  a  baseline  scenario  presents  significant 
challenges, as evidenced in the cost-effectiveness analysis detailed in Annex V. This limitation was previously acknowledged in the impact assessment of 
ELA, which similarly lacked a robust baseline for costs and benefits. Consequently, the table herein includes only those benefits that can be definitively 
categorized as incremental based on the findings of this study. 

The content of this table largely aligns with the findings from the cost-effectiveness analysis. As a result, some activities demonstrate more benefits than 
others. In certain instances, there was insufficient data to draw conclusions about benefits, or the study revealed minimal to no benefits. A few examples 
are provided in the following bullet points, to illustrate how this table was filled out: 

•  Regarding EURES the study highlighted persistent issues with the transfer of the management of ECO and of the EURES portal system ownership 
to ELA. While the EURES portal and network naturally continue to produce outputs and achieve results, the study does not identify that the transfer 
to ELA brought significant added value. In fact, most indicators relevant to EURES are declining. Consequently, the table does not contain benefits 
specifically attached to the EURES Portal. The study does show some positive developments concerning the European (online) job days compared 
to the period before ELA. 

•  Regarding the Platform tackling undeclared work, which, like EURES, predates ELA, the study demonstrated that the integration of the Platform 

into ELA was successful and provided added value (although there is still room for improvement). 

•  As for Analysis and Risk assessment, there is a lack of concrete indicators to measure benefits. Furthermore, low prioritisation of this task in the 

initial years resulted in a low number of outputs. Both issues made it very hard to identify benefits specifically for this task. 

120 

 
Table 2. Costs and benefits of ELA’s activities for different target groups 

Other (businesses/citizens)  

ELA Stakeholders 

Administrations (ELA/EU Budget) 

Quantitative  

Qualitative 

Quantitative  

Qualitative 

Quantitative 

Qualitative 

EURES 

Cost:  Managing  the 
ECO of EURES and 
being  the  business 
owner of the EURES 
portal 

Recurrent 

Compliance costs 

Benefit:  Increasing 
number  of  people 
reached  at  EURES 
events 

Recurrent 

Improved  market 
efficiency 

Information and services 

Cost: 
access 
information 
services 

Providing 
to 
and 

Recurrent 

Compliance costs 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant  to 
this actor 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this  

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

Total costs (operational + 
staff): 
2021: 8.2 MEUR 
2022: 12 MEUR 

More  than  45,000 
jobseekers  reached 
at EURES events in 
2022,  increase  of 
53%  compared  to 
2021.  Almost 2000 
employers  reached 
at EURES events in 
2022,  increase  of 
30%  compared  to 
2021.  The  number 
of 
individuals 
reached  per  event 
slightly 
increased 
the 
to 
compared 
period 2018-2019. 

events 

are 
EURES 
for 
generally  beneficial 
jobseekers/employers 
as 
they  meet  potential  new 
employers/ 
employees. 

majority 

of 
The 
stakeholders 
that 
responded  to  the  survey 
indicated that the EURES 
Job  Days  were  very 
useful. 

quantitative  

No 
estimates available 

benefit 
This 
relevant to this  actor 

is 

not 

This  benefit 
relevant to this actor 

is  not 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant  to 
this actor 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this  

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

Total costs (operational + 
staff): 
2021: 1.6 MEUR 
2022: 1.4 MEUR 

121 

 
                        
 
 
 
 
 
Recurrent 

Benefit: 
translation facility 

New 

Improved 
wellbeing 

This  benefit  is  not 
relevant 
this 
actor 

to 

This  benefit  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

Cooperation and exchange of information between Member States 

From 2019 to Q2 of 
than 
2023,  more 
600 
documents 
were  translated  by 
the 
Translation 
Facility.  Between 
2020 and 2021, the 
cost  per  translated 
document 
decreased. 

Stakeholders  emphasize 
the  significance  of  this 
particularly 
task, 
highlighting the value of 
the  Translation  Facility. 
More  than  60%  of  the 
respondents to the survey 
to  stakeholders  finds  the 
translations very useful. 

This 
is 
benefit 
relevant to this actor 

not 

This  benefit 
relevant to this actor 

is  not 

Cost: Facilitate cooperation 
and 
of 
exchange 
information 
between 
Member States 

Recurrent 

Compliance costs 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant  to 
this actor 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

Total costs (operational + 
staff): 
2021: 0.8 MEUR 
2022: 1.9 MEUR 

Recurrent 

Benefit: Increasing number 
of  (resolved)  requests  for 
information by MS 

Increased  market 
efficiency 

This  benefit  is  not 
relevant 
this 
actor 

to 

This  benefit  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

2020,  ELA 
In 
resolved 
12 
requests  from  MS, 
in 2021, 87 requests 
were  resolved  and 
104 
2022, 
in 
requests 
were 
resolved. 

are 
Stakeholders 
generally  positive  about 
effective 
the 
development 
and 
operation  of  this  task, 
with  the  distinctive  role 
of  NLOs  acknowledged 
as crucial. 

This 
benefit 
relevant to this  actor 

is 

not 

This  benefit 
relevant to this actor 

is  not 

Recurrent 

Benefit: More collaboration 
among  Member  States  on 
labour mobility issues 

Increased  market 
efficiency 

This  benefit  is  not 
this 
relevant 
actor 

to 

This  benefit  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

quantitative  

No 
estimates available 

Numerous  stakeholders 
the 
highlighted 
of 
significance 
collaboration 
among 
Member States on labour 
mobility  issues  as  a  key 
added  value  brought  by 
ELA 

is 
benefit 
This 
relevant to this actor 

not 

This  benefit 
relevant to this  actor 

is  not 

Concerted and Joint inspections 

Coordinate 
Cost: 
and 
support 
concerted  and  joint 
the 
in 
inspections 
the 
areas  within 

Recurrent 

Compliance costs 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant  to 
this actor 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

Total costs (operational + 
staff): 
2021: 1.3 MEUR 
2022: 2.2 MEUR 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Authority’s 
competence 

High 
Benefit: 
number 
of 
inspections  carried 
out and high number 
of  MS  participating 
inspections 
in 
compared 
to 
before 
situation 
ELA 

The  number  of 
border 
cross 
and 
inspections 
Member 
States 
involved  increased 
significantly  over 
the years. 
2020: 5 inspections, 
3 MS 
10 
2021: 
inspections, 11 MS 
2022: 
33 
inspections, 26 MS 
2023  (only  Q1  and 
36 
Q2): 
inspections, 25 MS. 

Before ELA, the number 
States 
of  Member 
participating 
in  cross-
border  inspections  was 
quite 
Increasing 
number  of  MS  involved 
indicates  more  benefit 
due to ELA’s role. 

low. 

Recurrent 

Increased  market 
efficiency 

quantitative  

No 
estimates available 

More  concerted  and  joint 
inspections  eventually  lead 
to  a  better  performing 
European  Labour  Market, 
benefitting society. 

Benefit:  Broadened 
of 
perspective 
concerted  and  joint 
inspections 

Recurrent 
Increased  market 
efficiency 

quantitative  

No 
estimates available 

and 

More  countries  involved  in 
concerted 
joint 
inspections  eventually  lead 
to  a  better  performing 
European  Labour  Market, 
benefitting society. 

In  the  majority  of 
the  inspections,  the 
host  and  observing 
countries  were  not 
neighbouring  each 
other. 

in 

existed 

Before  ELA,  significant 
gaps 
the 
conduct  of  cross-border 
inspections 
between 
countries  that  did  not 
border  each  other.  Since 
ELA, 
types  of 
inspections  (with  non-
neighbouring  countries) 
increased. 

these 

benefit 
This 
relevant to this  actor 

is 

not 

This  benefit 
relevant to this actor 

is  not 

This 
benefit 
relevant to this  actor 

is 

not 

This  benefit 
relevant to this actor 

is  not 

Analysis and risk assessments 

Cost:  Assess  risks 
and 
out 
carry 
analyses  regarding 
labour  mobility  and 
social 
security 
coordination  across 
the EU 

Recurrent 

Compliance costs 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant  to 
this actor 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

Total costs (operational + 
staff): 
2021: 0.2 MEUR 
2022: 0.9 MEUR 

123 

 
 
 
 
Because of lack of data and low prioritisation of this task, this study did not identify significant benefits stemming from this task. 

Benefits: N/A 

Capacity Building 

Cost: 
Support 
Member  States  with 
capacity building 

Recurrent 

Compliance costs 

Benefit:  Usefulness 
of  workshops  and 
trainings  provided 
by ELA very high 

Recurrent 

Improved 
wellbeing 

Tackling undeclared work  

to 
Cost:  Support 
in 
Member  States 
tackling  undeclared 
work 

Recurrent 

Compliance costs 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant  to 
this actor 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  benefit  is  not 
relevant 
this 
actor 

to 

This  benefit  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

that 

the 
and 

Around  70%  of 
stakeholders 
indicate 
workshops 
trainings 
implemented 
ELA 
useful. 

by 
very 

are 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant  to 
this actor 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

Recurrent 

Improved  market 
efficiency 

quantitative  

No 
estimates available 

Although  there  is  no  direct 
evidence  gathered  in  this 
study,  theoretically  a  well-
functioning platform should 
lead to improvements in the 
EU labour market. 

quantitative  

No 
estimates available 

Benefit:  Integration 
of  the  platform  into 
ELA 

Mediation 

Cost:    Facilitate  a 
solution  in  the  case 
of a dispute between 

Recurrent 

Compliance costs 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant  to 
this actor 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

124 

This  cost  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

Total costs (operational + 
staff): 
2021: 0.3 MEUR 
2022: 1.7 MEUR 

This 
is 
benefit 
relevant to this actor 

not 

This  benefit 
relevant to this  actor 

is  not 

This  cost  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

express 
Stakeholders 
the 
satisfaction  with 
and 
maintenance 
relatively 
unchanged 
nature  of  the  platform. 
However, more synergies 
be 
should 
sought 
between 
other  ELA 
activities,  notably  in  the 
realm of inspections. 

Total costs (operational + 
staff): 
2021: 1.5 MEUR 
2022: 0.6 MEUR  

No quantitative  estimates 
available 

This  cost  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

Total costs (operational + 
staff): 
2021: 0.2 MEUR 
2022: 0.5 MEUR 

express 
Stakeholders 
the 
satisfaction  with 
and 
maintenance 
relatively 
unchanged 
nature  of  the  platform. 
However, 
more 
should  be 
synergies 
sought  between  other 
ELA  activities,  notably 
in 
of 
inspections. 

realm 

the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Although  the  number  of 
mediation  processes  has 
the 
been 
in 
limited 
the 
evaluation  period, 
for 
infrastructure 
mediation processes is in 
place,  which  could  lead 
to future benefits. 

Although the number of 
mediation  processes  has 
the 
been 
in 
limited 
the 
evaluation  period, 
for 
infrastructure 
mediation processes is in 
place,  which  could  lead 
to future benefits. 

No quantitative  estimates 
available 

This  cost  is  not  relevant 
to this  actor 

2019: 1 MEUR 
2020: 3.3 MEUR 
2021  : 2.7 MEUR 
2022  : 4.3 MEUR 

two 
Member States 

or 

more 

Benefit: 
in 
Infrastructure 
place  for  mediation 
processes 

Governance 

Recurrent 

Improved  market 
efficiency 

This  benefit  is  not 
relevant 
this 
actor 

to 

This  benefit  is  not  relevant 
to this actor 

quantitative  

No 
estimates available 

Administrative costs  

Recurrent 
Compliance costs 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

This  cost  is  not  relevant  to 
this actor 

This  cost 
relevant 
actor 

is  not 
this 

to 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V.   STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

1. 

Introduction 

This report provides an overview of all consultation activities and the input received through 
the call for evidence, which supported the evaluation study of the European Labour Authority 
(ELA).  

The report is structured as follows:  

Part 2 presents an overview of the consultation strategy. 

Part  3  provides  information  on  the  consultation  activities,  including  the  approach  taken  for 
dissemination, as well as the sample size, and the strengths and limitations of each consultation.  

Part  4  consolidates  and  discusses  the  findings  of  the  consultation  activities  across  the  five 
evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU-added value. 

2.  Overview of stakeholder consultation strategy 

The purpose of the consultation activities was to supplement the information gathered through 
the desk research, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the case studies. The list of stakeholders 
consulted  included  the  following  categories:  European  Commission  and  ELA;  National 
authorities;  Social  partners;  International  organisations;  EU-level  research  organisations  and 
EU-level  networks  in  the  field  of  labour  mobility  and  social  security;  Broader  public,  other 
interested persons or organisations. 

Several  data  collection tools were used:  two online surveys, in-depth interviews, a  public 
consultation, and a workshop with social partners. Additionally, the input gathered by the 
Commission though the Call for Evidence221 was considered. Overall, the consultation strategy 
met the General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the 
Commission. 

3.  Method 

Online surveys 

The  online  surveys  gathered  data  from  a  wide  sample  of  stakeholders,  which  fed  into  the 
analysis of all evaluation criteria. 

One survey targeting ELA staff and Management Board; 

One  survey  targeting  ELA  stakeholders  at  both  national  and  EU  level,  namely:  EU 
institutions  (i.e.,  relevant  DGs,  relevant  European  Parliament  and  Council  committees)  and 
relevant  agencies  (in  particular  the  Agencies  with  which  the  Founding  Regulation  of  ELA 

221  European  Commission  (2023-2024).  Have your  Say  Portal:  European  Labour  Authority  –  2024  evaluation, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13978-European-Labour-Authority-
2024-evaluation_en  

126 

 
 
 
 
foresees  the  establishment  of  cooperation  agreements222);  ELA  national  counterparts  (i.e., 
labour  and  social  security  authorities  including  relevant  ministries,  labour  inspectorates, 
national  labour  courts,  public  employment  services);  EU  level  Social  partners;  International 
organisations.  

Table 1. Surveys' response rates 

Survey to ELA Staff and 
Management Board 

Survey to ELA stakeholders 

Complete entries 

Partially complete entries 

85 

17 

205 

64 

Both  surveys  were  uploaded  and  distributed  through  Ramboll’s223  proprietary  survey 
software  SurveyXact224.  The  surveys  remained  open  for  25  days  (from  October  13th  until 
November  7th,  2023).  To  facilitate  completion,  participants  were  provided  with  a  functional 
email  address  and  encouraged  to  contact  the  project  team  in  case  of  questions  or  doubts, 
including questions of interpretation. Once the surveys were closed, the corresponding datasets 
were exported into Excel. The analysis of the results was based on a three-step process of 1) 
data  management;  2)  quantitative  analysis  /  descriptive  statistical  analysis;  3)  Qualitative 
coding analysis with the text-analysis software NVivo® allowed to systematically analyse and 
process qualitative data. 

ELA stakeholders survey: respondent’s profile 

A total of 205 complete questionnaires were received. In terms of place of work, respondents 
working  for national  ministries are the largest  group of respondents  (23.4%). Together with 
respondents working for national public employment services and national labour inspectorates, 
they  represent  over  61%  of  the  total  number  of  respondents.  Respondents  who  selected  the 
‘other’  categories  indicated  working  for,  inter  alia,  permanent  representations,  customs 
authorities,  equality  bodies,  regional  public  employment  services,  police  units,  and  national 
SOLVIT centres. From a geographical point of view, Belgium is the most represented country 
(13% of respondents declared working there – 26 out of 205 respondents). It is followed by 
Sweden (9% - 18 out of 205 respondents) and the Netherlands (6% - 13 out of 205 respondents). 
Estonia is the least represented country — only 0.5% of the total number of respondents (1 out 
of 205 respondents) declared working there. 

ELA staff and Management Board survey: respondent’s profile 

222 The Authority shall aim in all its activities at ensuring cooperation, avoiding overlaps, promoting synergies and 
complementarity with other decentralised Union agencies and specialised bodies, such as the Administrative 
Commission  for  the  Coordination  of  Social  Security  Systems.  To  that  end,  the  Authority  may  conclude 
cooperation agreements with relevant Union agencies, such as Cedefop, Eurofound, EU-OSHA, ETF, Europol 
and Eurojust. 

223 Contractor in charge with delivering the supporting study for the ELA evaluation 
224 http://www.surveyxact.com 

127 

 
 
 
 
A total of 85 complete questionnaires were received. Respondents working as staff members 
of ELA are the largest group of respondents (65.9% - 56 out of 85 respondents), followed by 
members  of  the  Management  Board  of  ELA,  22.4%  of  the  respondents  (19  out  of  85 
respondents). Lastly, National Liaison Officers are the smallest group of respondents (11.8% 
of  responses  –  10  out  of  85  respondents).  From  a  geographical  point  of  view,  among  the 
Member  of  the  Management  Board  of  ELA  and  National  Liaison  Officers  respondents  that 
decided  to  declare  their  country  of  nationality,  Sweden  and  Denmark  are  the  most 
represented  countries  (each  counting  10%  of  the  respondents).  These  are  followed  by 
Belgium, Finland, Lithuania, Portugal, and Spain (each counting 7% of the respondents). 

Interviews   

In  total,  23  in-depth  interviews  were  conducted  with  the  Authority’s  key  stakeholders, 
including  representatives  from  the  Commission  (4),  ELA  staff  (6),  Member  State 
representatives (10), social partners and ILO (3).  Interviews were conducted after the closure 
and analysis of the two surveys, which allowed us to tailor our interview questions to knowledge 
gaps that emerged from the survey.  

Figure 1. Number of group and one-on-one interviews conducted, by type of 
stakeholder 

Workshop with social partners 

A workshop was conducted with EU and national level social partners. Discussions focused 
on the degree of awareness about ELA among EU and national social partners, as well as among 
workers  and  employers  on  the  ground,  as  well  as  on  the  impact  of  ELA’s  activities.  The 
workshop  took  place  online  and  included  eight  participants,  representing  different  sectors 
(construction, transport, food and agriculture).  

Public consultation  

The public consultation was managed by the Commission and open to responses from anyone 
who was interested (i.e. it targeted the wider public). The aim of the public consultation was to 
allow a wider public to give its views concerning ELA.  

128 

 
 
 
Once the public consultation was closed, the raw data was downloaded from the EU survey 
platform  for  analysis.  Overall,  144  contributions  to  the  public  consultation  were  submitted 
through the EU web-portal “Have Your Say”. In addition to these, five ad-hoc contributions 
were shared via email by SGI Europe, DGB German Trade Union Confederation, the Danish 
Ministry  of  Employment,  the  European  Cockpit  Association  and  the  French  Ministry  of 
Employment.  Specifically,  the  latter  consisted  in  a  PDF  version  of  the  completed  public 
consultation questionnaire, hence the answers were merged with those provided through the 
“Have Your Say” portal, bringing the total number of submitted questionnaires up to 145. The 
other ad-hoc contributions were analysed separately, along with seven supporting documents 
uploaded by respondents with their contributions on “Have Your Say”. 

Firstly, a systematic quality  check of  all answers received was conducted, to  ensure that  all 
contributions were unique and not artificially created, as well as that these complied with the 
Commission’s  Rules  for  feedback  and  suggestions.  This  led  to  discarding  three  of  the 
contributions received from the analysis, for the following reasons: in the light of comments 
unrelated to the scope of the Public Consultation, one of these was deemed negatively biased; 
another contribution included both unrelated comments to the matter of the public consultation 
and  contradictory  answers;  finally,  one  contribution  appeared  to  be  grounded  in  a  lack  of 
understanding of the role and mandate of the Authority, which negatively biased the answers 
provided and led to unrelated comments. 

It is also worth noting that two of the contributions received provided rather similar feedback 
in response to the open questions of the questionnaire; the two respondents also belonged to the 
same category of stakeholders (i.e., representatives of the air transport industry). This suggests 
some degree of agreement/previous discussion of the responses provided. However, while some 
comments were similar, the responses overall differed. For this reason, both were integrated in 
the analysis. 

On the basis of the quality check explained above, the total number of questionnaires considered 
for the analysis was 142. 124 out of 142 responses were provided by stakeholders from across 
24 Member States.225 The highest number of responses came from Romania (17 out of 142), 
Belgium (16 out of 142) and Spain (12 out of 142). 18 responses were received from non-EU 
countries.226 Among these, the non-EU countries who provided the highest number of responses 
were  Turkey  (5  out  of  142)  and  Switzerland  (3  out  of  142).  Responses  to  multiple-choice 
questions  in  the  were  analysed  through  quantitative  analysis/descriptive  statistical  analysis. 
Answers to the open questions were qualitatively analysed using NVivo. 60 respondents were 
public  authorities227,  43  responded  as  EU  citizens,  the  rest  included  non-EU  citizens, 

225 The 3 EU countries without any responses were Greece, Latvia and Malta. 
226 The non-EU countries included: Turkey, Switzerland, Morocco, Angola, Bangladesh, Colombia, Ghana, Iraq, 

Nepal, Norway and Pakistan. 

227 30 out of 60 public authorities had a national scope, 21 had an international scope, seven a regional scope and 

two a local scope. 

129 

 
 
academic/research  institutions,  trade  unions,  companies/businesses,  Non-Governmental 
Organisations (NGOs), business associations.228  

Figure 2. Distribution of responses by country of origin (n=142) 

The majority of respondents (not including EU/Non-EU citizens)229 claimed to be part of a large 
(250 people or more) organisation (52 out of 93), whereas 23 respondents were part of a medium 
organisation (50 to 249 employees), 13 of a small organisation (10 to 49 employees) and five 
to a micro-organisation (1 to 9 employees). 

Call for Evidence 

The Call for Evidence230, opened for feedback by the Commission between 6 October 2023 and 
5 January 2024, gathered 30 responses from six different stakeholder groups, notably: business 
associations, trade unions, public authorities, companies or business organisations, EU citizens, 
NGOs. Almost 70% (20 out of 30) of the responses came from three specific groups: Business 
associations  (8),  Trade  Unions  (8),  and  EU  Citizens  (4).  The  figure  below  illustrates  the 
distribution of the stakeholder groups’ responses: 

Stakeholder groups' distribution under the call for evidence (N=30) 

228 Respondents who identified as “other”, i.e. did not identify as any of the categories proposed, were not further 

classified. 

229 All respondents were asked about the size of their organisation except for EU citizens and non-EU citizens. 
230  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13978-European-Labour-Authority-

2024-evaluation_en 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
Validation workshop 

A  validation  workshop  was  conducted  to  present  and  gather  participants’  views  on  the 
conclusions and lessons learnt of the study. It took place online on 5 June 2024 and saw the 
participation  of  nine  stakeholders.  These  included  a  representative  from  the  European 
Commission, two ELA Heads of Unit, two members of ELA’s Management Board, two from 
the  EURES  coordination  group,  one  from  the  ELA  working  group  on  mediation,  and  one 
representing the social partner. Overall, the validation focus group confirmed the conclusions 
and lessons learnt of the study, thus serving as a robustness check instrument. 

4. 

Cross-synthesis of the results 

This  section  highlights  the  main  findings  gathered  through  the  different  stakeholder 
consultation tools. The findings in this section represent the conclusions that can be drawn from 
stakeholder  consultations:  therefore,  these  findings  may  differ  in  part  from  the  full  results 
presented in the main report, based on the combined assessment of stakeholder consultations 
with the desk research, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the case studies. 

Effectiveness 
ELA’s activities were moderately useful and of rather high quality, in the views of its staff 
and Management Board members, as well as external stakeholders. Nevertheless, some areas 
for  improvement  were  identified.  Specifically,  12%  of  ELA  staff  pointed  out  resource  and 
capacity constraints, particularly in areas like undeclared work and risk assessment and during 
the set-up phase. Additionally, 15% of respondents to the survey to ELA staff and Management 
Board members (eleven staff members of ELA, one National Liaison Officer and one member 
of ELA’s Management Board) suggested improvements in the quality of information and data 
management. 

Despite the usefulness  and the overall quality  of ELA’s  activities, stakeholder consultations 
portrait an unclear picture of how tangible the impact of ELA's work on individual workers 
and  employers  was.  Although  ELA  undertook  numerous  activities  to  refine  its  outreach 
strategies, social partners observed that progress was partial, with uncertainties about whether 
the  information  effectively  reached  the  intended  audience.  Social  partners  noted  in  fact  that 
ELA's campaigns, often conducted via social media, were measured by views and clicks, which 
did  not  necessarily  translate  into  meaningful  engagement  with  the  target  sectors.  Workers' 
representatives in particular expressed concerns that information from ELA arrived late or not 
at all, and was often too broad and not sector-specific. The overall picture that emerged is that 
while ELA communicated effectively with cross-industry social partners at a national level, it 
struggled to engage sector-specific partners. 

ELA’s  engagement  and  cooperation  with  national  authorities  varied  depending  on  national 
authorities'  working  practices,  priorities,  and  expectations  towards  ELA.  However,  Member 
States  often  faced  capacity  constraints  that  limited  their  participation  in  ELA's  initiatives: 
national authorities emphasised through the survey and the interviews that ELA's expectations 
and activities should always consider the availability of national counterparts. In fact, one of 
the  aspects  that  clearly  emerged  from  stakeholder  consultations  is  the  fact  that  ELA’s 

131 

 
effectiveness  is  bound  by  the  willingness  of  Member  States  to  engage  in/support  its 
activities231. This is particularly the case as concerns CJIs. Interviewees and respondents to the 
call  for  evidence  (trade  unions,  one  employers'  organisation  and  one  company)  stressed  the 
importance of involving national authorities more in ELA's cross-border work: they suggested 
including  not  only  employment  and  social  authorities  but  also  police,  tax,  and  integration 
authorities. 

Views were mixed as concerns the competences of ELA232. While it was widely acknowledged 
by  all  stakeholder  groups  across  the  different  consultations  that  ELA's  current  mandate 
aligned  with  stakeholders'  expectations,  some  criticisms  were  noted.  ELA  staff, 
Management  Board  members,  social  partners  and  NCOs  were  the  more  positive 
stakeholder groups about the implementation of ELA’s mandate: according to them, ELA did 
not explicitly conduct activities beyond its mandate, although there are indications of a 
broadening scope. This included ELA’s involvement in the EU Talent Pool Pilot to aid those 
fleeing the Ukraine war and addressing the growing issue of third-country nationals (TCNs) 
working in the EU. The growing phenomenon of the posting of TCNs within the EU, at the 
intersection between migration (outside the scope of ELA’s mandate) and labour, convinced 
many stakeholders of the need for ELA to develop activities in that regard. Social partners (both 
workers’ and employers’ representatives) were overall in favour towards the inclusion of TCNs 
within ELA’s scope: TCNs often work alongside EU nationals, and TCNs could help address 
shortages in some sectors (e.g. road transport). The Commission and some national authorities 
were instead more skeptical about the inclusion of TCNs within ELA’s mandate, fearing that 
the  expansion  of  the  mandate  could  overload  the  Authority,  encroach  on  Member  States' 
competencies, or create duplicate structures. All in all, while a few surveyed stakeholders (one 
trade  union,  one  public  authority,  one  academic/research  institution)  argued  that  ELA’s 
mandate should be strengthened in order to allow to enhance its enforcement role, others 
(one trade union and one employers’ organisation) argued that ELA should keep the current 
division of competences with the Member States. 

Finally, ELA’s prioritisation choices in terms of tasks appeared moderately appropriate, 
according to ELA staff and Management Board members, while external stakeholders such as 
national  authorities  lamented  a  prevalence  of  “quantity  over  quality”  during  the  evaluation 
period.  

Facilitate access to information on rights and obligations 

Consulted  stakeholders  broadly  recognised  the  work  carried  out  by  ELA  in  the  activity  of 
information  provision  to  individuals,  employers  and  social  partner  organisations  regarding 
rights and obligations to facilitate labour mobility across the EU and saw great potential in the 
role  that  the  Authority  could  play  in  this  area.  In  fact,  ELA’s  information  services  were 
considered very useful, especially by public employment services and social partners233. 

231   Supporting Study, Annex VI- Section 4.5.1 “Ad-hoc contributions and supporting documents” 
232   Supporting Study, Annex VI- Sections 4.6.1 and 5.4.1 
233   Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16 

132 

 
 
Despite the overall usefulness and quality of ELA’s work in facilitating access to information, 
areas for improvement were also highlighted234. In the views of some social partners, there was 
a  predominant  emphasis  in  information  provision  on  workers  rather  than  a  balanced 
consideration of workers and employers. Finally, several respondents235 to the call for evidence 
expressed concerns about ELA's information accessibility, advocating for streamlined sources 
to  facilitate labour mobility  and ensure compliance with  labour laws  across  Member States. 
Suggestions included establishing a central, multilingual online hub (or an “ELA helpdesk” 
as  labelled  by  a  social  partner),  launching  EU-wide  communication  campaigns,  and 
strengthening ELA's role as a primary cross-border contact.  

Finally, awareness levels and opinions on ELA campaigns differed, with praise for organisation 
and  criticism  for  limited  reach  and  timing  issues236.  Both  praise  and  criticism  were  equally 
present  across  social  partners,  public  employment  services  and  national  ministries. 
Additionally, there was a call by one national ministry highlighting the need to enhance the 
involvement of social partners in workshops for effective discussions among Member States237. 

Implementation of the provisions of the EURES Regulation 

EURES  activities  were  generally  found  to  be  very  useful  by  stakeholders,  with  public 
employment services being obviously the largest group of stakeholders providing an answer to 
this  question,  as  well  as  the  group  with  the  most  positive  assessment  of  this  activity. 
Nevertheless, room for improvement was stressed on the EURES Portal238, with social partners 
and national ministries being the more vocal actors in terms of proposing solutions to improve 
ELA’s effectiveness in this activity. Among the solutions provided, simplifying the registration 
procedure  to  the  Portal  (one  national  ministry),  incorporating  sector-specific  services  and 
information (one social partner), enhancing the portal's visibility and value for employers (one 
social partner).  

All in all, ELA did not fully meet stakeholders’ expectations with regard to EURES. While 
working  on  EURES,  in  the  views  expressed  by  most  national  stakeholders,  ELA  primarily 
emphasised information rather than matchmaking, and insufficient attention was given to the 
governance of the network. Finally, another key issue highlighted by stakeholder consultations 
was related to the process of handover of the EURES network and the business side of the IT 
portal. According to ELA staff, such process was not smooth, partly due to the fact that the 
COVID-19  pandemic  made  job-shadowing  difficult,  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  the  IT 
infrastructure of the Portal is still managed by the Commission.  

Cooperation and facilitation of exchange of information between Member States 

234   Supporting Study, Annex VI Section 4.6.1.1 and 5.4.1.1 
235   Six  employers’  organisations,  five  trade  unions,  three  EU  citizens,  two  public  authorities,  one 

company/business 

236   Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 11 
237   Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 16 
238   Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 17 

133 

 
 
According to the majority of stakeholders (in particular national authorities and EU citizens), 
ELA played so far an important role in supporting cross-border coordination, as well as a 
centre  of  knowledge  and  expertise,  and  in  providing  training  in  the  area  of  EU  labour 
mobility.  In  line  with  this,  the  primary  reasons  behind  respondents’  involvement  in  ELA’s 
activities included the fact that ELA is best placed to deal with cross-border issues, an intention 
to improve the quality of their work and the absence of another organisation that could cover 
similar activities. 

Questions about the quality of specific tools used by ELA to facilitate cooperation and exchange 
of information highlighted that, according to labour inspectorates, national ministries and public 
employment services,  workflow guidelines, model forms and templates, KPIs, analytical 
reports, workshops and seminars appear to be more useful compared to the availability 
of a directory of national contact points239.  

Facilitate and enhance cooperation between Member States in the enforcement of relevant 
EU law, including facilitating concerted and joint inspections 

ELA’s role in supporting CJIs was appreciated by most national stakeholders (in particular, 
labour inspectorates) although it was acknowledged that ELA’s enforcement powers are 
limited given the nature of ELA’s mandate. National stakeholders highlighted the catalyst role 
played by ELA (and by NLOs in particular) in ensuring a smooth implementation of CJIs and 
ensuring multi-lateral cooperation across several Member States. 

Social partners were the most critical stakeholder group. In fact, one of the shortcomings that 
emerged  from  stakeholder  consultations  consisted  in  social  partners’  involvement  into  CJIs, 
such as the lack of clarity in the guidelines pertaining to case submissions240.  

Areas  for  improvement,  identified  mostly  by  social  partners  and  one  national  labour 
inspectorate,  included  a  reconsideration  of  the  costs  covered  by  ELA241,  to  allow  more 
Member States to participate. In fact, according to these two groups of stakeholders, during the 
evaluation period some Member States were not actively involved due to financial and human 
resource constraints at the national level. Employers’ representatives also contributed to this 
perspective, stressing the need for ELA to provide administrative support to employers, as CJIs 
can impose a significant administrative burden on employers. 

Finally, employers’ and workers’ representatives expressed the need to have better follow-up 
activities after CJIs. Communicating on numbers of infringements per se was not particularly 
insightful, while sharing lessons learnt with social partners and organising training activities 
(e.g. to prevent other employers from the same infringements) would increase the impact of 
CJIs. 

Analyses and risk assessments linked to issues of cross-border labour mobility 

239 Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 23 
240 Supporting Study, Annex VI - Section 4.6.1.4 
241 Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 28 & Section 5.4.1.4  

134 

 
 
While risk assessments and analyses regarding labour mobility and social security coordination 
are  considered  potentially  one  of  the  most  important  ELA’s  activities,  especially  by  the 
Commission and ELA itself, the services provided by ELA appeared to be moderately useful. 
Labour  inspectorates  and  national  ministries  were  the  more  positive  groups  of  stakeholders 
about the performance of such activity, while the Commission and social partners were more 
critical.  

According mostly to representatives from the European Commission, ELA, EURES NCOs and 
members of the Management Board, ELA focused so far excessively on analyses, rather than 
on the crucial aspect of risk assessments. While ELA interviewees argued that constraints 
on personal data have limited comprehensive assessments, the Commission’s interviewees 
believed  that  ELA  could  have  nonetheless  conducted  more  general  assessments.  It  was  not 
possible to provide a conclusive answer to this debate, as there is still a legal opinion pending, 
based on a question raised by ELA about the extent to which analysis, risk assessment and joint 
inspections can process  data of individuals/companies while complying  with data protection 
provisions.  

Suggestions  for  improvement,  made  mostly  by  national  ministries  and  social  partners242 
included increasing the involvement of social partners, as well as  producing more detailed 
reports: these reports could include disaggregated data at the national level, targeting the needs 
of  different  organisations  and  effectively  engaging  with  the  existing  literature.  This  would 
better guide on-the-ground actions stemming from the results of these analyses. 

Capacity building 

ELA’s capacity building activities were considered very useful (especially workshops and 
trainings), in particular by national ministries and labour inspectorates. ELA offered various 
platforms  to  bring  Member  States  together,  organising  national  events,  drawing  and 
disseminating good practices, arranging study visits, and providing training. 

ELA  encountered  two  main  challenges  in  carrying  out  this  activity,  according  to  ELA 
interviewees:  internal  coordination  (due  to  some  overlaps  of  responsibilities  between  the 
different Units tasked to work on this task) and national resources (busy agendas in national 
administrations meant that ELA had to compete for attention).  

Among the suggestions made by stakeholders external to ELA (national authorities and social 
partners),  possible  areas  for  improvement  were  i)  ensuring  complementarity  with  national 
training programmes and ii) increasing ELA’s budget for capacity building, to compensate for 
the discrepancies between national labour inspectorates (in terms of budget, staffing, skills) and 
improving cooperation with EU institutions. 

Mediation 

242 Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 33 

135 

 
 
While mediation could potentially yield useful results and be an impactful activity for ELA243, 
particularly according to public employment services and national ministries, the main finding 
emerging  from  stakeholder  consultations  was  that  mediation  is  a  politically  sensitive 
mechanism  whose  effectiveness  was  too  early  to  assess.  Representatives  from  the 
European Commission and ELA staff highlighted controversies already during the Council 
negotiations  for  the  founding  Regulation.  In  fact,  ELA's  mediation  procedure  introduced  an 
element  of novelty, as  it allows Member States to mediate when disagreements arise on the 
correct application of rules in individual cases.  

While  ELA  did  the  required  preparatory  work  to  implement  this  activity  (i.e.  developing 
guidelines  for  Member  States,  mediators,  and  the  Commission,  along  with  standardised 
templates),  out  of  the  three  mediation  cases  received  within  the  reference  period  of  the 
evaluation, only one was successful, and in the remaining two cases ELA could not proceed 
given that the second Member State did not agree with the procedure. Two national authorities 
interviewed explained that the reasons why they had not made use of the mediation procedure 
is that they had not faced any need for it yet, suggesting that a final answer on the effectiveness 
and relevance on this task may be possible only in the future.  

Integration of Platform tackling undeclared work 

ELA’s work in tackling undeclared work appears to be overall very useful, according mainly 
to labour inspectorates and national ministries. Social partners244 instead highlighted insufficient 
cooperation between the Working Group on Inspections and the European Platform Tackling 
Undeclared  Work,  expressed  the  need  for  more  sectoral  exchanges  to  address  diverse 
determinants of undeclared work, and emphasised the importance of integrating the Platform's 
knowledge into ELA's operational objectives. 

In fact, the handover of the Platform to ELA resulted in both positive and negative changes. 
The main positive changes related to the widening of the geographical scope (e.g. ILO was 
more  involved),  and  to  an  increase  in  the  frequency  of  internal  communications. 
Nevertheless, some social partners and ELA staff argued that the integration of the Platform 
within ELA so far did not lead to a clear vision and synergies with other ELA activities were 
limited.  

Efficiency 
ELA’s human and financial resources appeared to be sufficient, according to the majority 
of ELA staff and Management Board members. While both ELA staff and Management Board 
members  agreed  on  the  adequacy  of  financial  resources,  44%  of  ELA  staff  responded  that 
human resources were ‘not at all’ sufficient245, which might need to be seen in the context of 
prolonged vacancies. According to 16 staff members of ELA, two National Liaison Officers 
and one Member of ELA’s Management Board, staffing issues were recurrent and seen to affect 

243 Supporting Study, Annex VI - Section 4.6.1.7 
244 Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 47 
245 Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 89 

136 

 
 
 
the quality of deliverables, causing low staff satisfaction, complications in daily operations, and 
a  preference  for  quantity  over  quality  in  organisational  activities  due  to  budget  constraints. 
Outsourcing  is  common,  and  an  imbalance  in  budget  allocation  (favouring  information 
provision over enforcement) was noted.  

In fact, one of the key concerns raised during the interviews is the possibility that ELA might 
be  relying  too  heavily  on  Seconded  National  Experts  (SNEs).  Interviews  with  European 
Commission representatives and ELA staff highlighted that the ratio of SNEs to statutory staff 
is  notably  larger  compared  to  other  EU  institutions.  The  SNEs  issue,  according  to  ELA 
interviewees, may have negatively impacted ELA’s efficiency in some ways, mainly related 
to the fact that SNEs cannot handle finances (placing a significant burden on ELA's internal 
staff).  Furthermore,  the  high  SNE  ratio  resulted  in  increased  turnover,  leading  to 
inefficiencies and loss of expertise. The reluctance of personnel to relocate to Bratislava (also 
due to the salary package offered) was also mentioned by ELA as a contributing factor to SNE-
related challenges. 

On the other hand, some external stakeholders (mostly from the European Commission) argued 
that ELA’s reliance on SNEs could be an advantage in the long term as it could bring diverse 
perspectives  and  experiences  to  the  organisation,  enriching  its  opportunities  for  internal 
knowledge transfer and skills development. 

Stakeholder consultations alone did  not  allow to draw a final  conclusion on whether ELA’s 
reliance on SNEs and contractors was rather negative or positive. Nevertheless, the evidence 
collected through the cost-effectiveness analysis and the desk research, as presented in the main 
report,  suggested  that  negative  aspects  offset  the  potential  benefits  of  ELA  as  a  lean 
organisation. 

ELA appeared to be moderately  efficient when performing its work246, according to  the 
stakeholders external to ELA, with no significant differences in the trend of responses across 
different stakeholder groups. Nevertheless, as stressed by stakeholders (mostly social partners 
and national authorities) internal working practices could be improved, concerning coordination 
and  planning  (e.g.  meetings’  duration  and  frequency,  enhancing  overall  coordination  and 
communication among ELA's services). 

Finally,  stakeholders’  views  (both  from  ELA  staff  itself  and  national  authorities)  on  ELA’s 
governance  structures  highlighted  that  the  Management  Board  overall  works  well.  As 
representatives of their countries, members often approached issues from a national standpoint, 
creating the need to reconcile various perspectives: in the views of most national stakeholders, 
ELA staff was able to mitigate this challenge. Nevertheless, the feedback on the Stakeholder 
Group's effectiveness was less positive and it could be improved, as some social partners 
express uncertainty about its actual benefits. Especially from the standpoint of this stakeholder 
group, there was a perception that ELA primarily used the Group as an information-sharing 

246 Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 50 

137 

 
 
forum, thus some social partners called for a transition of the Group into a more strategic role, 
with active involvement of social partners in agenda setting.  

Relevance 
There was broad consensus across all stakeholder groups that ELA is responding to existing 
needs in the area of EU labour mobility, with public authorities and EU citizens being the 
two more positive stakeholder groups. While all of ELA’s activities emerged to be relevant247 
some of the most relevant activities relate to rights of mobile workers, posting of workers and 
tackling  of  undeclared  work.  ELA  partially  met  the  needs  of  social  partners,  particularly 
employers:  room  for  improvement  related  to  the  demand  for  a  wage  calculator  for  posted 
workers and a business-related helpdesk. NCOs were instead the most dissatisfied group of 
stakeholders:  they  called  for  the  need  for  ELA  to  enhance  staff  preparedness,  ensure  the 
participation  of  decision-makers  in  meetings,  and  stressed  the  importance  of  maintaining 
EURES' core purpose as a matchmaking tool rather than transforming it into a dissemination 
instrument. 

Furthermore, ELA demonstrated adaptability in response to unforeseen challenges, proving 
flexibility in adjusting its services to address unexpected obstacles. While the perspectives 
of  ELA  staff  and  Management  board  members  on  this  matter  were  strongly  positive  (i.e. 
mentioning as successful examples the Authority’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and 
the help it provided to Member States concerning Ukrainian refugee integration), the views of 
some public employment services and social partners were relatively less enthusiastic. These 
two stakeholder groups expressed a less positive feedback on the handling of the Ukraine crisis 
(i.e. ELA’s response was limited by the fact that several Member States had already moved 
forward with initiatives, and due to political and legal constraints), and on the way ELA dealt 
with the impact of third-country labour on EU employment.  

Broad consensus across all stakeholder groups was found on the key trends that were expected 
to significantly impact the future work ELA: digital transition and technological development, 
migration from outside the EU, and labour and skills shortages.  

Coherence 
ELA’s activities appear to be moderately aligned with EU employment policy, according 
to EU institutions, agencies and other EU bodies (answers from stakeholders other than these, 
e.g. national authorities, were not requested in the surveys). Divergent perspectives surfaced 
regarding  the  migration  policy  issue248.  Other  areas  of  potential  non-alignment  were  the 
enforcement  of  social  security  coordination  systems,  and  efforts  to  combat  racial 
discrimination. 

ELA's  activities  seem  to  be  moderately  complementary  to  the  activities  of  other 
organisations,  agencies,  and/or  stakeholders  at  the  national  level249.  Out  of  the  40%  of 

247 Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 119 
248 Supporting Study, Annex VI – Section 4.1   
249 Supporting Study, Annex VI – Figure 54 

138 

 
 
 
external  stakeholders  who  answered  that  ELA’s  activities  are  complementary  to  a  moderate 
extent, there are no differing trends within the share of responses of social partners, national 
ministries, labour inspectorates and public employment services. One of ELA’s key sources of 
complementarity lies in its unique focus on cross-border challenges and its role in facilitating 
the enforcement of labour provisions, distinguishing it from other EU agencies250.  

In fact, ELA's activities complemented the work of other agencies such as Eurofound, and EU-
OSHA  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  those  of  Cedefop  and  European  Training  Foundation  (ETF). 
However, stakeholders perceived that further improvements in cooperation between ELA and 
these agencies were necessary. Some concerns were raised by a handful of respondents about 
potential  duplication  of  efforts  when  ELA  engages  in  research  activities  similar  to  those  of 
Eurofound or Cedefop, with a call for more action-oriented approaches. 

Suggestions251 included enhancing synergies between the Platform for Undeclared Work and 
Eurofound,  emphasising  the  collaboration  between  ELA  and  Eurofound  in  studying  mobile 
workers'  conditions,  and  exploring  partnerships  with  ETF  for  insights  into  foreign  worker 
origins.  

Finally, cooperation with other international organisations was limited, coherently with the 
nature of ELA’s mandate. In fact, ELA staff and Management Board members agreed on the 
fact that there is only a moderate complementarity between ELA’s activities and those of 
other  international  organisations  such  as  the  ILO,  with  no  significant  differences  in  the 
opinions of ELA staff in comparison with Management Board members.  

EU added value 
In terms of EU added value, all stakeholder groups broadly acknowledged ELA’s contributions. 
These included its ability to facilitate cooperation and accelerate the exchange of information 
on  labour  mobility  between  Member  States,  aiding  in  their  compliance  with  cooperation 
obligations. Furthermore, national authorities and labour inspectorates in particular emphasised 
ELA’s  added  value  in  improved  networking,  knowledge-sharing,  trust-building,  and 
coordination among national administrations, as well as in its training and capacity-building 
activities. Lastly, national authorities also appreciated the coordination on operational issues 
ensured  among  Member  States,  particularly  given  the  diverse  frameworks  and  institutional 
setups regarding labour issues. 

Areas  for  improvement,  where  ELA’s  added  value  did  not  fully  materialise  yet,  are  the 
facilitation of access to information, as well as EURES. Finally, the EU added value of ELA 
on  facilitating  a  solution  in  case  of  disputes  will  need  to  be  assessed  in  the  future,  as 
stakeholders’ views are not conclusive.

250 Supporting Study, Annex VI – Figure 56 
251 Supporting Study, Annex VI - Figure 109 

139 

 
 
 
ANNEX VI.   ELA INTERVENTION LOGIC  

The intervention logic displayed in the figure below forms the analytical framework for the study and each of the evaluation criteria can be linked to the 
different elements it contains:  

•  Effectiveness links the objectives of the Regulation and the activities of ELA to the results and impacts resulting from these to judge whether the 

intended results have been reached; 

•  Efficiency links the inputs of ELA to its outputs to judge whether the results have been reached in a cost-effective way 
•  Relevance links the needs to the objectives of the Regulation and the activities of ELA to judge whether the latter are addressing the former properly 

and fully 

•  Coherence links together different specific objectives of the Regulation (i.e. internal coherence) and the specific objectives of the Regulation to the 

objectives of other EU and international policy interventions (i.e. external coherence) to judge whether these are in line with each other 

•  EU added value links the results of ELA’s activities to the impacts to judge whether this EU intervention is the most appropriate to reach these 

impacts at EU level rather than at international, national, regional or local level. 

The intervention logic thus presents the main assumptions and anticipated impact that the Regulation and ELA are supposed to have (under the activities 
of ELA and the objectives of the Regulation). This was prepared based on the following acts:  

Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Labour Authority 

•  Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 establishing a European Labour Authority 
• 
•  Single Programming Document 2022-2024 
•  Single Programming Document 2023-2025 
•  Work Programme 2021 
•  Work Programme 2020 

140 

 
 
 
141 

 
 
142 

 
 
ANNEX VII.   THE SET-UP PROCESS OF ELA 

1. 

Delivery of the work programme 

The authority operated from its start 252 on the basis of calendar years, which meant that the first 
year  of  operation,  2019,  consisted  of  only  five  months.  It  was  characterised  by  preparatory 
actions,  including  the  establishment  of  working  groups  on  information  and  inspection,  and 
preparatory actions for the transfer of EURES and the Platform tackling undeclared work. ELA 
also  participated  in  the  campaign  #EU4FairWork,  organised  by  the  Platform  tackling 
undeclared work.  

In 2020, the first full year of ELA’s operation, preparatory actions continued. More operational 
activities were prepared and set up, such as further work on information sources, awareness 
raising  about  existing  sources,  the  establishment  of  a  translation  function,  elaborating 
arrangements and tools for CJIs, supporting pilot-CJIs, the organisation of mutual learning and 
training events for national inspectors and ELA staff as well as continued participation in the 
campaign  for  declared  work  (#EU4FairWork).  Discussions  started  with  the  Administrative 
Commission on the Coordination of Social Security Systems to prepare for cooperation. ELA 
prepared for taking on the management of the European Coordination Office of EURES and to 
integrate the Platform tackling undeclared work. ELA’s ability to deliver was thoroughly tested 
by the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the Management Board assessed 
at its meeting on 25 May 2021, that ELA had delivered according to plan.253  

2021  was  the  first  year  where  ELA  was  managed  by  the  then  newly  appointed  Executive 
Director254.  In  May  2021  ELA  acquired  its  financial  autonomy255  and  in  autumn  2021  ELA 
relocated from its provisional premises in Brussels to its permanent seat in Bratislava256. In the 
course of 2021 41 new staff members were onboarded by ELA, resulting in a total number of 
staff of 84 by the end of that year.  

Operationally  ELA  integrated  the  responsibilities  of  managing  the  European  Coordination 
Office  of  EURES;  information  and  communication  efforts  were  continued  with  support  to 
media campaigns and a review of national websites on labour mobility with a focus on cross-
border  seasonal  workers  and  workers  in  road  transport.  The  translation  facility  continued 
operation.  Cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  on  the 
enforcement of Union law was supported with workshops and training sessions, promoting the 

252   2020 and 2021 had yearly work programmes, whilst from 2022 Single Programming Documents (SPD) were 
introduced (which include multiannual and annual work  programmes, i.e. SPD 2022-2024 and SPD 2023-
2025) 

253   Consolidated Annual Activity Report of ELA 2020 (2021), p. 6/7.  
254   The Executive Director took office on 16/12/2020. 
255   The formally set date for financial autonomy was 1/08/2021. 
256   https://www.ela.europa.eu/en/news-event/newsroom/ela-opening-conference-9-november-2021  

143 

 
 
 
use of IMI in the area of posting and further efforts, including a comprehensive information 
session on road transport and the use of new IMI modules in Road Transport.  

ELA furthermore supported Member States by organising CJIs and mutual learning and training 
activities. It prepared for more analytical support services and developed a mid-term capacity 
building  strategy.  The  Authority  gained  in  visibility  and  started  liaising with  other  agencies 
(EU-OSHA, Eurofound, FRA, European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training, ETF, 
Europol).  

Work  continued  on  the  integration  of  the  Platform  Tackling  Undeclared  Work  and  the 
mediation  function  in  social  security  coordination.  As  from  the  second  semester  2021  ELA 
carried out  the tasks of the Technical  Committee on Free Movement of  Workers and of the 
Committee of Experts on Posting of Workers and these bodies ceased to exist.257 

The  2021  work  programme  foresaw  that  ELA  should  develop  a  structured  performance 
management system. The consolidated annual activity report, however, highlighted that work 
on the performance management system was delayed.258 

The Management Board concluded at its meeting on 15 June 2022, that ELA had achieved the 
set targets in 2021.259  

The above-described activities continued in 2022 and 2023, with the Authority becoming fully 
operational. For both years, the Management Board concluded that almost all planned activities 
were fully implemented and that ELA was ‘completing the setting up phase and becoming a 
fully operational agency by 2024’260.  

2022 was the first year for ELA to set up both a multiannual programming and an annual work 
programme (together they form the Single Programming Document (SPD)). In 2022 the work 
was structured around the three pillars of enforcement, cooperation and information.  

2022 was also the first year where ELA introduced indicators in its programming documents. 
The majority of indicators concerned outputs261. Only few indicators going beyond pure output 
were introduced.262  

While the multiannual programming 2023-2025 included some key performance indicators263 
the  2023  work  programme  did  not  provide  formal  indicators  but  rather  focused  on  output. 
Contrary to 2022, the SPD 2023 was no longer structured around the 3 pillars of enforcement, 

257   Recital 43 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 establishing a European Labour Authority, 
258   Consolidated Annual Activity Report of ELA 2021 (2022), (Annex I), p. 50 . 
259   Consolidated Annual Activity Report of ELA 2021 (2022), p. 8. 
260   Consolidated Annual Activity Report of ELA 2022 (2023), p. 6 and CAAR 2023 (2024), p. 5/6 
261   e.g. ‘number of topics and sectors covered’, ‘number of meetings’) 
262   E.g. ‘level of stakeholder satisfaction with ELA developed tools and procedures’ or ‘impact and follow-up by 

other ELA activities’.  

263   Quantified performance indicators were repeatedly identified as compliance with the original planning (e.g. 
percentage of xy requests processed (within a certain period)). I.e. by reducing ambition, performance appears 
to improve. 

144 

 
 
cooperation and information. The multi-annual programming was clustered around 5 strategic 
areas  and  the  annual  work  programme  proposed  10  operational  activities  and  6  horizontal 
activities.  

The output categories proposed in  these work-programmes include standardised output (e.g. 
number of translations, number of meetings) and specific or singular output (e.g. development 
of  a  toolbox,  scenarios  on  labour  mobility).  While  many  indicators  allowed  for  ‘counting’, 
quantified targets were not provided in either of the work programmes. Indicators referring to 
the acceptance of activities (such as number of participants or outreach of media campaigns) 
were not identified in the work programme, however, some indication of results is provided for 
communication  efforts,  where  the  outreach  of  media-campaigns  is  looked  at  in  more  detail, 
indicating that ELA’s performance has improved over time, arriving at  27 000 followers on 
social media by the end of 2023. The older agencies like Cedefop (around 50 000), Eurofound 
above  45 000),  European  Training  Foundation  (75 000)  and  OSHA  (more  than  250 000)264 
feature  somewhat  higher  figures.  The  annual  activity  reports  inform  accordingly  on  ELA’s 
activities.  In  some  areas,  such  as  the  coordination  of  social  security  or  analysis  and  risk 
assessment, the consolidated activity report 2023 reads that ELA was still at an early stage265, 
others such as mediation continue to suffer from limited demand.  

As part of the discharge procedure covering the financial year 2021, the European Parliament 
provided ELA with a set of observations266.  While appreciating ELA’s efforts to cooperate with 
other  bodies/tools  (SOLVIT,  Administrative  Commission  for  the  Coordination  of  Social 
Security  Systems),  the  European  Parliament  pointed  to  the  need  of  strengthening  the 
management  and  control  systems  (including  performance  management).  The  effects  of  the 
action taken by ELA to accommodate these concerns where not yet visible when this evaluation 
was performed.  

In  the  discharge  procedure  covering  the  financial  year  2022267,  the  European  Parliament 
reiterated observations on the internal management and control system in line with observations 
made  by  the  Court  of  Auditors.  It  also  noted  the  introduction  in  2022  of  a  multi-annual 
programming  and  annual  work  programme  with  indicators  and  newly  defined  KPIs.  The 
European  Parliament  furthermore  issued  observations  on  the  high  proportion  of  SNEs  and 
interim workers which could negatively affect the operational capabilities. As regards financial 
management,  the  European  Parliament  noted  the  high  amount  of  carry  overs  and  called  on 
Member States to enhance their collaboration with the Authority. 

2. 

Factors influencing the delivery 

264   These figures include around 143 000 followers of Napo – a figure used in OSHA-animations to inform about 

occupational risks and how to avoid them. 

265   See  CAAR  2023,  p.  11.  ‘ELA  successfully  started  its  information  and  services  activities  related  to  social 

security aspects’, p. 20: ‘ELA continued to develop a strategic risk assessment capacity’.  

266   Procedure  File:  2022/2108(DEC)  |  Legislative  Observatory  |  European  Parliament  (europa.eu)  –  See  in 
particular:  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0191_EN.html  - see  also  European 
Court of Auditors: 2021 Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2021 (2022), p. 170-175: Annual 
report on EU agencies for the financial year 2021 (europa.eu).  

267   Texts adopted - Discharge 2022: European Labour Authority - Thursday, 11 April 2024 (europa.eu). 

145 

 
 
High political urgency helped to establish ELA; however, it also resulted in a strong emphasis 
on the achievement of predominantly quantitative milestones; qualitative aspects receiving less 
attention.268  During  the  COVID-19 pandemic it became  more visible how vulnerable certain 
groups of mobile workers (e.g. seasonal or posted workers) are and that for them working and 
living conditions are directly interlinked. Fair conditions for these workers require to also look 
at accommodation, thus necessitating the cooperation between different stakeholders. 

ELA tried to adapt to these challenges while still developing its core activities. This created 
additional pressure on its staff269 and created some tensions with partners (in particular national 
labour inspectorates, employment services and national ministries).  

The sudden  surge of videoconferences  and remote working  in  the context of the pandemic 
occurred just when ELA was in a key moment of its set up process. The increased acceptance 
of videoconferences, including with national administrations was helpful. Still, the prevalence 
of virtual meetings came also with the challenge to move from what was initially perceived as 
a virtual to a real organisation, with real meetings and persons regularly coming to the office.270 
Also the high number of SNEs, who maintained a strong link with the organisation from which 
they were seconded, in some cases hesitating to actually move to Bratislava, posed an additional 
challenge. 

Recruiting staff to ELA was challenging271 for several reasons. A suitable labour market did 
not exist in Bratislava before ELA was established. For the recruitment of specialists concerning 
labour  inspections  or  employment  services,  ELA  needed  to  rely  on  persons  who  made  a 
transition  from  a  national  administration  or  EU-level  organisations  to  ELA  or  from 
consultancies who previously worked in that area. Bratislava was not seen as very attractive for 
high-quality  employees  due  to  the  high  cost  of  living,  which  was  perceived  as  not  being 
accurately reflected in the EU salary coefficient. Career paths are also more difficult to develop 
in a fairly small organisation such as ELA. This resulted in a high job offer rejection rate, with 
around 30% of the job offers made in 2020 and 2021, years with a particular strong increase of 
staff, not being accepted. 272. 

The adoption by the Commission of the Mobility Package I273 from 2020 with effects on the 
cross-border provision of road transport services, clarified the rules applicable in road transport 
and assigned in some cases explicitly a role to the Authority, thus providing further motivation 
to support national authorities with the implementation.  

268   See Supporting Study, section 4.1.2.2. 
269   Supporting Study: stakeholder consultation, p. 54: ‘High workload and inadequate internal procedures result 
in inconsequential handling of tasks, leading to low staff satisfaction. ELA's staffing issues impact operational 
readiness and cause distress among current staff’.  

270   Supporting Study, Annex VI. 
271   Supporting Study, stakeholder consultation, Q7 question to staff: 49 respondents: supported, 19 didn’t know 
and 17 did not at least moderately support the statement that there were challenges in the setup process (related 
to e.g. recruitment of suitable candidates) and section 4.1.1.7 in the main report. 

272   ELA Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2023. 
273   Mobility Package I - European Commission (europa.eu)  

146 

 
 
ELA is operating in a highly complex legislative and organisational environment, where on 
the one side coordinated changes of rules and procedures are difficult to reach, while on the 
other  side  urgently  requested.  This  can  be  illustrated  on  the  one  side  by  the  (still)  ongoing 
negotiations  to  revise  Regulation  (EC)  883/2004  and  to  modernise  social  security 
coordination274 and also by the negotiations of the Founding Regulations, when Member States 
hindered  ELA  to  take  over  the  tasks  of  the  Conciliation  Board,  the  Audit  Board  and  the 
Technical  Commission  of  the  Administrative  Commission  on  the  Coordination  of  Social 
Security Systems. While on the other side, political expectations expressed by e.g. the European 
Parliament, the leadership of the Commission and trade unions towards ELA are high275. 

A side-effect of the COVID-19 pandemic was the considerably accelerated digitalisation. In 
their responses to the surveys, stakeholders and staff express the expectation that the ‘digital 
transition’ will be one of the main trends impacting ELA’s future 276. Other trends which were 
expected to have a strong impact on ELA’s work in the future were migration from outside the 
EU and labour and skills shortages.277 

ELA  has  to  manage  relations  with  distinctly  different  groups  of  national  stakeholders  as 
concerns  labour  inspections/ free  movement  on  the  one  hand  and  in  the  area  of  facilitating 
cross-border  mobility  by  EURES  on  the  other.  EURES-related  partners  are  employment 
services. For the other activities developed by ELA, the main partners (also most represented 
in  the  Management  Board278)  are  labour  inspectorates  or  ministries  of  social  affairs  and 
employment from the Member States.  

3.  Other  

ELA’s  building  was  constructed  in  2018  and  complies  with  high  environmental  standards 
(LEED v3 Certificate). ELA undertakes efforts to minimise paper usage.279

274   See Commission proposal: https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16784&langId=en  
275   See ETUC https://www.etuc.org/sites/default/files/document/files/etuc_position_-

_for_a_strong_european_labour_authority.pdf 
State of the Union 2017: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_17_3165 

276   Annex ‘Stakeholder consultation’: p. 45: ‘The main trends expected to shape the organisation’s strategic focus 
in  the  future  are  the  digital  transition  and  technological  development,  labour  and  skills  shortages,  and 
migration from outside the EU.’ Or Question 17 stakeholder survey (p. 33) and Q10 staff survey (p.60). 

277   See ebd. 
278   For the list of Management Board Members and their CV see: Management Board | European Labour Authority 

(europa.eu) (retrieved 4/09/2024). 

279   2021 ELA Consolidated Annual Activity Report. 

147 

 
 
148