COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Summary of consultation activities Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A Culture Compass for Europe
Date: 2025-11-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: artistic creation, artistic profession, creative industry, cultural cooperation, cultural heritage, cultural pluralism, cultural promotion, culture industry, heritage protection, right to culture

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.11.2025  SWD(2025) 785 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Summary of consultation activities Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A Culture Compass for Europe {COM(2025) 785 final}  
 
 
2 

3 
3 
4 

6 

6 

7 

Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

2.  MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE CONSULTATIONS 
2.1 
2.2 

Call for evidence on the Commission's ‘Have your Say’ website 
Targeted consultations 

Summary of positions expressed by Members of European Parliament (MEPs) in the first half 

3.  POLITICAL LEVEL EXCHANGES 
3.1 
of 2025 (Plenary, CULT committee) 
3.2 
ministerial meeting, Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council, working-level seminar) 

Summary of positions expressed by EU Member States in the first half of 2025 (informal 

4.  CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CULTURE COMPASS FOR 
EUROPE – MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE CONSULTATIONS 
8 
4.1 
9 
Assessment of the 2018 New European Agenda for Culture (NEAC) 
4.2 
Culture, cultural heritage and cultural and linguistic diversity as a foundation of EU values and 
10 
a condition of democracy 
11 
4.3 
Freedom of artistic expression and the independence of cultural institutions 
4.4 
12 
The working conditions of artists and cultural professionals and related issues 
4.5 
Access to and participation in culture and accessibility of culture (across age groups, across the 
13 
territory, regardless of gender, socio-economic background or disability) 
15 
4.6 
Culture, health and well-being 
4.7 
16 
Culture and education 
Creativity, competitiveness and innovation, including technological developments such as AI  17 
4.8 
4.9 
19 
Intrinsic value of culture and its role as a public good 
4.10 
Culture for social cohesion, democratic resilience and a sense of belonging and well-being 
(particularly in times of crisis and unstable global order) 
4.11 
4.12 
4.13 
neighbourhood and development policies) 
4.14 
4.15 
4.16 

19 
Safeguarding culture and cultural heritage from natural hazards and human-made disasters  21 
22 
Culture for an environmentally responsible development 
International cultural relations and partnerships (in the context of foreign, enlargement, 

Sector-specific elements/topics per sectors not covered under the above headings 
Monitoring, data and statistics 
Expectations of a new Culture Compass for Europe 

23 
24 
26 
28 

ANNEX 1: FIGURES FROM THE ‘SURVEY ON A CULTURE COMPASS FOR 
EUROPE’ 

30 

ANNEX 2: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO SUBMITTED FEEDBACK ON THE 
CULTURE COMPASS FOR EUROPE THROUGH RESPONSES TO THE CALL 
FOR EVIDENCE 

43 

ANNEX 3: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO RESPONDED TO THE TARGETED 
SURVEY ON THE CULTURE COMPASS 

48 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Since  2018,  the  Commission’s  New  European  Agenda  for  Culture  has  shaped  EU  policy 
making by outlining culture’s main policy dimensions and its positive impact on society, the 
economy, and international relations. 

In 2022, the European Parliament affirmed the successful implementation of the agenda and 
urged a systemic approach to future cultural policy. The Council (through the EU Work Plan 
for Culture 2023-2026), stakeholders in the cultural and creative sectors and industries (CCSI) 
and  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  (in  its  2020  report)  have  all  urged  the  creation  of  a 
strengthened EU strategic framework for culture. 

In recent years, Europe has faced significant transformations and disruptions that impact social 
cohesion,  democracy,  and  freedoms.  These  have  been  exacerbated  by  geopolitical  shifts, 
climate  change,  the  innovation  gap  and  social  inequalities.  The  CCSI  themselves  keep 
grappling  with  important  issues  like  attacks  on  freedom  of  artistic  expression,  precarious 
working conditions, and the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for culture and creativity. 

The  mission  letter  of  Glenn  Micallef,  Commissioner  for  Intergenerational  Fairness,  Youth, 
Culture  and  Sport,  underlined  the  need  for  a  more  strategic  policy  approach  to  culture, 
embedding it in the overarching EU policy goals and ensuring it becomes more accessible for 
all.  It  called  for  a  new  Culture  Compass,  an  overarching  strategic  framework  to  guide  and 
harness the multiple dimensions of culture1. 

In its 2025 work programme, the Commission announced the development of a framework to 
harness  the  multiple  dimensions  of  our  culture  and  cultural  heritage  to  make  the  most  of 
Europe’s CCSI2. 

In the face of ongoing and complex challenges and the many calls for a new EU strategy for 
culture, the Culture Compass aims to: 

(1) reposition culture as a strategic policy area and resource for Europe – one that serves as 
a  unifying  force,  embodying  European  values  and  enhancing  societal  cohesion, 
innovation, and international partnerships, and 

(2) guide policies in support of Europe’s CCSI. 

To design the strategy, the Commission engaged in broad consultations, including: 

•  a  special  Eurobarometer  on  citizens’  attitudes  towards  culture3,  conducted  between 

18 February 2025 and 16 March 2025 and released on 8 May 2025; 

•  a  meeting  with  stakeholders  to  kick-off  the  consultation  process  on  20 March  2025, 

hosted by Commissioner Micallef; 

•  a plenary debate of the European Parliament on 31 March 2025; 
•  a ‘call for evidence’ open from 15 April until 30 May 2025; 
•  a  targeted  online  survey  addressed  to  stakeholders,  EU  Member  States  and  non-EU 
‘Creative Europe’ countries and Moldova, open between 8 May and 7 July 2025; 
•  dedicated discussions with ministers from EU Member States on 8 April and 13 May 

2025, and discussions during a working seminar on 17 June 2025; 

•  an online consultation meeting with International Organisations on 19 June 2025. 

1 Mission letter of Glenn Micallef, Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture and Sport 
2 Commission work programme 2025 - European Commission 
3 Europeans’ attitudes towards culture - May 2025 - Eurobarometer survey. Main Eurobarometer findings have 
informed  the  preparations  of  the  Culture  Compass.  The  respective  data  sets  were  analysed  and  published 
independently and are not part of the present summary of consultation activities. 

2 

 
 
 
The  consultations  were  carried  out  in  order  to  reflect  stakeholders’  and  Member  States’ 
perspectives when developing the Culture Compass for Europe. This Staff Working Document 
summarises the consultation steps and main findings. It expresses the views shared during the 
consultation process, which do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission. 

2.  MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE CONSULTATIONS 

2.1 

Call for evidence on the Commission's ‘Have your Say’ website4 

A call for evidence is a tool the Commission uses to gather information at the early stages of 
the policymaking process. Anyone can reply to this call. It allows stakeholders and the general 
public  to  express  their  views  on  the  scope,  objectives,  and  possible  impacts  of  a  planned 
initiative,  or  the  evaluation  of  an  existing  policy  or  law.  It  is  part  of  the  Better  Regulation 
agenda5, which aims to ensure EU policies are evidence-based, transparent, and informed by 
stakeholder input. 

On  15 April  2025  the  European  Commission  published  a  call  for  evidence  inviting 
stakeholders to give their input on a Culture Compass for Europe.  

Stakeholders and members of the public could submit their feedback on a Culture Compass for 
Europe via a dedicated web page. The Commission received 297 contributions6. 99 submissions 
(33%) were from NGOs. Business associations accounted for 17%, other stakeholders 13%, 
and individual members of the public for 12%. Further contributions came from companies or 
businesses (8%), public authorities (7%), research institutions (6%) and trade unions (2%). 

Distribution of contributions per type of stakeholder (N=297) 

4 Call for evidence on a Culture Compass for Europe – Have your say 
5 Better regulation - European Commission 
6 Annex 2. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2 

Targeted consultations 

In addition to the call for evidence, the Commission invited CCSI stakeholders, EU Member 
States, and non-EU Creative Europe countries or candidate countries to provide input through 
targeted consultations which included: 

•  a consultation meeting with cultural stakeholders; 
•  a stakeholder survey; 
•  political level exchanges with EU Member States; 
•  consultations with relevant international organisations. 

2.2.1  Consultation meeting with cultural stakeholders, 20 March 2025, Brussels 

On 20 March 2025, the Commission launched the consultation process for the Culture Compass 
for Europe with a dedicated meeting in Brussels hosted by Commissioner Glenn Micallef. The 
purpose of this meeting was to:  

(i) 

(ii) 
(iii) 

initiate a structured dialogue with representative stakeholder organisations from the 
CCSI;  
gather early input on the direction and priorities of the future Compass; and  
outline  the  Commission’s  ambition  to  position  culture  more  centrally  in  EU 
policymaking.  

Over  50  cross-sectoral  and  sector-specific  organisations  participated,  representing  the  full 
spectrum of cultural and creative disciplines. 

2.2.2  Targeted survey 

A targeted survey was conducted between 8 May and 7 July 2025 to collect structured feedback 
on the current framework for cultural policy in the EU, emerging challenges, and priorities for 
future EU-level cultural cooperation. 

A total of 135 culture or related networks or organisations were invited to participate in the 
survey. The final response set included: 

•  70  respondents  from  CCSI  networks  or  organisations,  including  stakeholders  with  a 

youth or regional focus7; 

•  27 responses representing all EU Member States (24 completed replies to the online 

survey; 3 written responses); 

•  3 responses from non-EU Creative Europe countries or candidate countries. 

The  questionnaire  was  structured  into  the  following  six  sections  designed  to  capture  both 
quantitative and qualitative data. 

1.  Participant  profile:  respondents  shared  basic  details,  including  organisation  type  and 

country. 

2.  Evaluation of the 2018 New European Agenda for Culture8: respondents assessed its 
effectiveness across social, economic, and international goals, and reflected on policy 
mainstreaming and limitations. 

3.  Sectoral  challenges:  respondents  rated  15  key  challenges  (e.g.  precarious  work,  AI, 

artistic freedom), identified their top 5 priorities, and flagged policy gaps. 

7 Annex 3. 
8 COM/2018/267 final 

4 

 
 
 
4.  Principles for the new strategy: respondents gave feedback on proposed principles and 

objectives and on how culture can support EU priorities for 2024-2029. 

5.  Monitoring:  respondents  noted  the  importance  of  impact  assessments  and  preferred 

methods to track progress. 

6.  Final comments: an open section invited suggestions on the Culture Compass’s scope, 

design, and ambition. 

The questionnaire included structured response options, multiple-choice and rating scales, and 
several open-text fields to allow respondents to elaborate on specific issues. This approach was 
chosen to get an understanding of sectoral and Member State’s perspectives, both in terms of 
overarching policy themes and practical implementation challenges. 

Experts from the European Expert Network on Culture (EENC) examined the replies on behalf 
of the Commission. They statistically analysed the quantitative responses to identify patterns, 
priorities, and divergences among stakeholder groups. They coded the open-ended responses 
thematically to  capture recurring  narratives, illustrative examples, and  policy insights.  They 
analysed the qualitative additional inputs from three Member States separately and triangulated 
them with structured responses to integrate them into the overall findings. 

Annex 1 shows the figures developed based on data from the survey. 

2.2.3  Consultation with international organisations 

As  part  of  the  development  of  a  new  Culture  Compass  for  Europe,  the  Commission  held  a 
consultation  meeting  with  key  international  organisations  (UNESCO,  OECD,  Council  of 
Europe, WHO).  

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss how the Culture Compass can address key issues 
facing  the  CCSI,  support  democracy,  promote  cultural  rights,  and  strengthen  the  EU’s 
international cultural relations.  

It also explored how international organisations can contribute to and align with the Compass 
through their data collection, policy-making and implementation, and cultural governance.  

Key topics included: 

•  major global and European challenges for culture, such as digital technologies, social 

cohesion, artistic freedom, and climate action; 

• 

core  principles  and  objectives  for  the  new  Culture  Compass,  including  the  role  of 
culture in democracy, health, and sustainable development; 

•  how the Culture Compass can build on existing international policy frameworks and 

enable deeper cooperation with international organisations; 

• 

the  potential  of  the  Culture  Compass  to  promote  values-based  international  cultural 
relations, while avoiding duplication of efforts and ensuring local relevance. 

2.2.4  Methodology and limitations 

The  consultations  followed  the  principles  of  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines.  Data  were 
collected through a Call for Evidence and targeted survey. Participation was voluntary and self-
selected,  which  may  overrepresent  organised  stakeholders.  To  mitigate  this,  inputs  were 
triangulated across stakeholder types (NGOs, businesses, public authorities, individuals) and 
complemented by Member State and international exchanges. Analyses were conducted by the 
EENC. Results should be interpreted qualitatively, recognising limits of representativeness. 

5 

 
 
3.  POLITICAL LEVEL EXCHANGES 

3.1 

Summary of positions expressed by Members of European Parliament (MEPs) 
in the first half of 2025 (Plenary, CULT committee) 

At the plenary debate of 31 March 2025, MEPs welcomed the announcement of the Culture 
Compass for Europe initiative, viewing it as an ambitious framework to strengthen culture at 
the heart of the European project.  

Speakers  underlined  that  culture  is  not  a  luxury.  Rather,  it  is  a  pillar  of  European  identity, 
democracy, and competitiveness, an important sector with significant economic weight, and it 
is essential for social cohesion and resilience in times of internal and external challenges. A 
strategic vision and appropriate funding for culture are essential. 

The following central themes emerged from the various remarks: 

•  There was widespread agreement that culture needs a level of investment proportional 
to its importance and economic and social weight, with calls for a significant amount to 
be allocated to culture in the next Multiannual Financial Framework. 

•  Many MEPs highlighted that culture must not remain the privilege of big cities or elites. 
EU action should ensure equal access to cultural life in rural and peripheral regions, for 
minorities, and for disadvantaged groups. Participation of communities and citizens in 
shaping culture was stressed as a way to strengthen democracy and belonging. 

•  Culture was seen as essential to defending democracy, pluralism, and European values. 
Many  warned  against  political  interference,  censorship,  or  authoritarian  tendencies 
undermining  artistic  freedom  in  some  Member  States.  Several  demanded  legal 
guarantees to protect artistic expression similar to the guarantees in the European Media 
Freedom Act. 

• 

In a time of polarisation, culture was seen as key to resilient democratic societies and 
as an antidote to hate, manipulation, and exclusion. Culture was presented as a glue that 
unites people across differences, building trust, solidarity, and dialogue. 

•  Recalling  the  EP  Resolution  of  21 November  20239,  several  MEPs  stressed  that  the 
Culture  Compass  should  address  the  precarious  working  conditions  of  cultural  and 
creative  professionals.  Key  points  included  the  need  for  fair  remuneration,  social 
protection, and support for mobility and cross-border collaboration. Artistic freedom 
was highlighted as inseparable from decent working conditions, ensuring that creators 
can thrive without censorship, financial insecurity, or political interference. 

•  Focus  was  put  on  further  facilitating  cross-border  projects,  and  supporting  co-
productions across disciplines, thus enhancing circulation of works and strengthening 
Europe’s CCSI. MEPs also underlined multilingualism as a cornerstone of European 
culture, with references to subtitling and translation as vital for ensuring access to works 
and protecting linguistic diversity. 

9  European  Parliament  Resolution  of  21 November  2023  on  an  EU  framework  for  the  social  and  professional 
situation of artists and workers in the cultural and creative sectors, OJ C/2024/4208, 24.7.2024. 

6 

 
 
 
•  There was concern about the risks that  AI poses to authentic creativity and creators’ 
rights, but also recognition of its potential if properly regulated. Some MEPs stressed 
the need to defend cultural sovereignty internationally – resisting overdependence on 
US platforms and pressures, ensuring copyright protection, and safeguarding authentic 
creativity against the risks of AI and digital exploitation. 

•  Many underlined Europe’s rich cultural heritage, UNESCO sites, and the role of culture 
in  shaping  European  identity,  cohesion,  and  external  influence.  Calls  included 
protecting  heritage  from  the  risk  of  conflicts.  Cultural  routes  were  also  seen  as  a 
grassroots means of connecting Europeans across borders. 

•  Culture was described as Europe’s strongest instrument of soft power. MEPs stressed 
that the EU must act as a global cultural actor, not paternalistically, but through mutual 
respect  and  exchange,  defending  values,  resisting  hybrid  threats,  and  strengthening 
external influence. 

•  Some MEPs warned against centralisation and EU overreach. 

In the summary report of June 2025 attached to the letter from the President of the Parliament 
to  the  President  of  the  Commission,  the  EP  CULT  Committee  calls  on  the  Commission  to 
deliver  a  strategic  and  strong  Culture  Compass  framework,  integrating  culture  into  all  EU 
policies,  improving  its  economic  potential  and  supporting  artists  and  professionals  in  the 
creative sectors.  

Specifically, it asked the Commission to include the following points in the Compass: 

a)  an EU strategy for international cultural relations; 

b)  accessibility and sharing of culture, especially for young people and those with fewer 

opportunities; 

c)  strengthening  Europe’s  cultural  heritage,  including  through  digital  preservation 
initiatives,  awareness-raising  measures,  the  introduction  of  mandatory  due  diligence 
standards for the trade in cultural goods, and enhanced cross-border cooperation in this 
regard, including through the exchange of information on relevant national legislation; 
and 

d)  an update on the concrete steps it will take to follow up on its proposed 13 initiatives 
on  the  ‘EU  framework  for  the  social  and  professional  situation  of  artists  and  other 
professionals in the cultural and creative sectors’. 

3.2 

Summary of positions expressed by EU Member States in the first half of 2025 
(informal ministerial meeting, Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council, 
working-level seminar) 

EU Member States held several meetings on the Culture Compass, at ministerial and at working 
level, and with the Commission. 

One was the informal meeting of culture ministers on 8 April 2025 in Warsaw. Another was 
the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council meeting of 13 May 202510, where the Polish 
Presidency of the Council of the EU (in cooperation with the Commission) invited EU culture 

10 Education, Youth, Culture and Sports Council, 12-13 May 2025 - Consilium 

7 

 
 
 
ministers  to  discuss  and  share  their  positions  on  priorities  and  key  themes  for  the  Culture 
Compass. 

Ministers  explored  ways  for  this  initiative  to  break  with  the  status  quo  and  to  ensure 
that culture’s strategic importance is recognised alongside the new political priorities emerging 
at  EU  and  Member  State  levels,  taking  into  consideration  the  specific  geopolitical  context. 
Throughout these discussions, Member States highlighted the need to ensure full respect for 
the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.  

Member States wanted the Culture Compass to: 

•  be a comprehensive and forward-thinking initiative that addresses challenges posed by 

technology, geopolitics, economic factors, and the evolving cultural landscape; 

•  be  a  strategic  framework  embedding  culture  into  core  EU  policies,  including 
competitiveness, social and security dimensions, with several Ministers noting that the 
Culture  Compass  should  strengthen  the  EU’s  resilience,  preparedness,  and  security 
through cultural policies; 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

include  artistic  freedom,  freedom  of  speech,  and  media  freedom  as  fundamental 
principles to safeguard; 

address challenges such as the impact of AI on the CCSI and the protection of copyright; 

consider the impact of climate change on culture and cultural heritage; 

improve working conditions and address the precarious nature of work in the CCSI; 

increase  cultural  sovereignty  and  preserve  cultural  heritage  in  the  face  of  external 
influences and pressures and promote European cultural identity; 

•  pay attention to developments and opportunities in related sectors, such as video games; 

• 

emphasise the role of culture as a strategic pillar of the EU’s international relations and 
as  a  vehicle  for  diplomacy  and  dialogue,  prioritising  international  cooperation  and 
closer ties with enlargement and neighbouring countries, and specifically highlighting 
the importance of support for Ukraine; 

•  be developed through a participatory and transparent process, one that involves Member 

States.  

After  the  Culture  Council  meeting,  the  Polish  Presidency  put  the  oral  statements  on  the 
Compass into writing and compiled them into a single document.  

Following these high-level discussions, the Commission and the Polish Presidency organised a 
working-level seminar with EU Member States on 17 June 2025 in Brussels.  

The  meeting  was  an  opportunity  to  reaffirm  the  main  themes  that  had  emerged  from  the 
consultations  up  to  then  and  to  further  consider  how  these  themes  could  be  translated  into 
concrete future actions and avenues for cooperation. 

4.  CHALLENGES  AND  OPPORTUNITIES  FOR  THE  CULTURE  COMPASS  FOR  EUROPE  – 

MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE CONSULTATIONS 

This chapter gives an overview of the contributions received during the consultations conducted 
in preparation of the Culture Compass for Europe. It is structured around overarching topics, 
which were recurrent throughout the consultation. The percentage scores indicated result from 
the analysis of the multiple-choice and rating questions of the targeted survey. 

8 

 
 
4.1 

Assessment of the 2018 New European Agenda for Culture (NEAC) 

Respondents  to  the  survey  assessed  the  effectiveness  of  the  agenda's  social,  economic  and 
international  objectives, 
the 
mainstreaming of cultural across EU policy areas.  

limitations,  and  evaluated 

identified  key 

lessons  and 

A  majority  of  EU  Member  State  respondents  consider  the  NEAC  to  have  been  effective  in 
meeting its three main objectives. Only a small percentage (4% for the social and economic 
dimensions,  8%  for  the  external  dimension)  of  Member  State  respondents  rate  it  as  ‘not 
effective’.  

Very few Member State respondents consider the attainment of any objective ‘very effective’ 
(13% for the social dimension, 4% for the external dimension, no respondents for the economic 
dimension). This suggests that most Member States consider that under the NEAC the three 
objectives have not been achieved to their full potential.  

Respondents from the CCSI and non-EU Member States were generally less generous in their 
ratings than EU Member States in their assessment. 

The open responses, while revealing a positive assessment from both CCSI stakeholders and 
Member States, also identify areas requiring greater attention in future policymaking.  

Respondents from cultural organisations broadly  acknowledged  the NEAC’s contribution to 
strengthening  the  structured  dialogue11  between  the  EU  and  the  sectors,  mainly  through 
platforms like Voices of Culture.  

The NEAC is credited with raising the profile of culture within EU policymaking and enabling 
cross-sectoral integration with areas such as education, health, inclusion, and innovation.  

A recurring theme was the emphasis on ‘care’ and ‘resilience’, especially as the NEAC became 
a  tool  for  mitigating  successive  crises.  The  Creative  Europe  programme  and  its  mobility 
instruments  (e.g.  Culture  Moves  Europe)  were  widely  praised  for  boosting  transnational 
cooperation, developing artistic skills, and enhancing EU competitiveness.  

The NEAC was also seen as foundational in promoting cultural diplomacy, skills development, 
cultural participation, and fairer working conditions. 

Member States similarly viewed the NEAC as an effective strategic framework, particularly in 
promoting: (i) the social dimension of culture (e.g. cohesion, inclusion, intercultural dialogue); 
(ii) the integration of culture across policy areas; and (iii) the link between culture and well-
being.  They  highlighted  the  positive  role  of  the  open  method  of  coordination  and  endorsed 
continued work on international cultural relations and artists’ mobility.  

Some Member States called for improved coordination across governance levels and noted that 
culture’s  role  in  education,  youth  development,  and  mental  health,  while  being  rightly 
recognised, should be strengthened further. Funding was another area of concern – stakeholders 
advocated for sustainable models, simplified access to EU schemes, and increased investment 
in grassroots and small organisations. 

Participants in the Culture Compass stakeholder meeting noted that the new Culture Compass 
should  build  on  and  update  the  2018  NEAC.  They  emphasised  that  the  EU  needs  clear 
guidelines and priorities, legislative monitoring of artistic freedom and a target of at least 2 % 
of the EU budget for culture. 

11 Dialogue with cultural and creative sectors and industries - Culture and Creativity 

9 

 
 
 
4.2 

Culture, cultural heritage and cultural and linguistic diversity as a foundation 
of EU values and a condition of democracy 

Respondents overwhelmingly affirmed that Europe’s rich cultural and linguistic diversity is a 
cornerstone  of  European  identity,  values,  and  democracy.  92%  of  EU  Member  State 
respondents  and  94%  of  CCSI  respondents  rated  this  as  very  important.  In  this  regard,  one 
Member State underlined the need for defence and promotion of cultural diversity to align with 
a vision of a Europe of Culture that asserts European sovereignty, capable of addressing various 
challenges.  

The objective to promote and safeguard cultural diversity was considered very important by 
92%  of  EU  governments  (4%  moderately  important,  4%  less  important)  and  92%  of  sector 
respondents (8% moderately important).  

Preserving and protecting cultural heritage for future generations was also prioritised – 83% of 
EU Member States and 61% of CCSI respondents rated it very important. 

The survey highlighted how heritage and diversity of cultural expressions underpin democratic 
resilience  by  fostering  a  shared  European  identity  and  civic  engagement.  For  example,  one 
response  highlighted  that  ‘culture  and  cultural  heritage  play  an  essential  role  in  upholding 
European  values  and  democratic  resilience’,  helping  to  encourage  critical  thinking,  public 
discourse, and civic responsibility across society.  

Likewise, stakeholders urged Europe to  ‘promote unity grounded in shared values … while 
embracing  cultural  diversity’,  arguing  that  a  dense  network  of  cultural  institutions  and 
initiatives can strengthen social cohesion and democratic participation.  

The contributions to the call for evidence also highlighted widespread agreement that cultural 
heritage and diversity are core to EU identity and democracy, with many respondents urging 
that culture be treated as a strategic end in itself rather than a policy instrument. 

Many contributions made at the Culture Compass stakeholder event stressed culture’s role in 
promoting  democracy,  dignity,  freedom,  human  rights,  equality,  diversity  and  solidarity. 
Several  contributors  also  emphasised  the  importance  of  cultural  heritage  and  called  for 
digitisation to protect heritage against threats like illicit trafficking and climate change. 

A recurring concern highlighted in the survey was that this important pillar is under pressure 
from technological, political, and societal upheavals. 

One national authority warned that ‘ongoing upheavals in the international order… are putting 
pressure  on  the  European  model  of  protection  and  promotion  of  cultural  and  linguistic 
diversity, heritage and freedom of expression’.  

Beyond  digital  threats,  respondents  noted  rising  nationalism  and  societal  fragmentation  as 
challenges.  They  emphasised  leveraging  cultural  heritage  to  counter  these  trends,  preserve 
collective memory, and consolidate shared values for Europe’s future. 

Respondents identified a gap in fully recognising culture’s role in democracy at the policy level. 
When asked about contributions to the EU political cycle, 96% of EU governments said culture 
could make a significant contribution to democracy and values. Among sector respondents, the 
proportion  indicating  a  significant  contribution  to  democracy  and  values  was  around  91%. 
Stakeholders urged the EU to more systematically integrate these considerations into policies 
such as education, social inclusion, and even security/defence. 

The responses also point towards a role for the EU to safeguard cultural rights and diversity in 
the  digital  environment.  A  recurrent  point  was  the  lack  of  visibility  for  diverse  cultural 
expressions, particularly in the online environment, which 63% of Member States and 35% of 

10 

 
 
CCSI  respondents  considered  a  very  important  challenge.  Respondents  worry  that  online 
platforms’ algorithms and market dominance marginalise non-mainstream or minority cultures, 
thus indirectly restricting freedom of expression.  

For example, contributors from  south-east  Europe highlighted that streaming  platforms lack 
local curators, forcing artists to ‘adapt to Anglophone norms to gain traction’, which threatens 
Europe’s  linguistic  diversity.  Member  States  similarly  warned  against  risks  of  cultural 
homogenisation  and copyright  infringements in  the digital realm, calling  for the ethical  and 
financial  responsibility  of  digital  platforms.  This  dovetails  with  broader  calls  to  ‘ensure 
freedom of expression both online and offline’ through policy measures.  

Strengthening cultural networks and funding across all regions, and treating culture as a public 
good integral to democracy (not merely as an industry), were seen as crucial steps to uphold 
European values in an unstable global context. 

4.3 

Freedom of artistic expression and the independence of cultural institutions 

Upholding  freedom  of  artistic  expression  was  seen  as  a  fundamental  principle  for  the  new 
Culture Compass, and was a dominant theme throughout the consultations. 96% of EU Member 
State respondents  to  the  survey and 87% of CCSI  respondents  considered  the principle that 
culture is the product of artistic freedom, freedom of expression and respect for human rights 
as very important.  

Restrictions related to artistic freedom were judged very important challenges to the CCSI by 
63% of EU governments and moderately important by 33%. In the CCSI, 66% considered these 
restrictions very important and 21% moderately important. 

Moreover,  the  survey  responses  strongly  suggest  that  the  EU  should  prioritise  safeguarding 
artistic freedom and institutional independence in its cultural policy framework. 

In the proposed objectives for a new EU strategy, 88% of EU Member States and 88% of CCSI 
respondents consider it very important to promote and safeguard artistic freedom in Europe. 
This  could  include  establishing  European  mechanisms  to  defend  artists  and  cultural  NGOs 
under threat. 

 Respondents to the call for evidence stressed the need for stronger EU safeguards for artistic 
freedom  and  institutional  independence.  Some  respondents  proposed  a  ‘European  Artistic 
Freedom Act’ and called for monitoring frameworks to address political interference.  

Digital  and  media  literacy  and  artistic  freedom  are  also  seen  as  crucial  to  counter 
disinformation, foreign information manipulation and interference. 

At the consultation event and in their written contributions, numerous stakeholders described 
serious  threats  to  artistic  freedom  arising  from  political  interference,  censorship  (and  self-
censorship), and shrinking civic space in certain countries.  

For  instance,  survey  respondents  noted  ‘endangered  democratic  values  and…  (self-) 
censorship’  of  artists  and  cultural  organisations,  especially  in  politically  changing  or 
authoritarian-leaning contexts.  

Specific  examples  included  the  strategic  underfunding  or  silencing  of  the  arts  in  some  EU 
countries (through censorship, dismissals and funding cuts) and concerns about state influence 
over cultural institutions.  

One entry warned of ‘political interference on cultural institutions’ and the erosion of cultural 
autonomy. 

11 

 
 
A clear gap identified is the uneven protection of artistic freedom across Member States. While 
freedom of expression is enshrined in EU values, respondents noted that in practice it requires 
‘stronger protection across all Member States, especially in times of political or social tension’. 
There were calls for the EU to monitor and uphold artistic freedom as part of its democratic 
standards,  while  one  Member  State  suggested  to  establish  shared  indicators  for  freedom  of 
expression, notably freedom of cultural expression. 

Cultural institutions are also vulnerable to political agendas. Without safeguards, institutions 
can  face  pressure  or  censorship.  The  independence  of  public  service  media  and  cultural 
institutions  was  flagged  as  needing  reinforcement  to  prevent  undue  political  or  economic 
influence.  

Participants  also  mentioned  that  artists’  freedom  is  linked  to  their  economic  conditions. 
Without fair remuneration and social security, creators may self-censor or be unable to take 
creative risks. 

Some respondents noted the need for EU guidelines or conditions on cultural funding to ensure 
it  does  not  enable  censorship  –  i.e.  support  being  conditional  on  commitments  on  free 
expression. They mentioned making Europe ‘a beacon in the world’ for cultural freedom and 
human rights, which entails acknowledging, for example, past wrongdoings under colonialism 
and actively championing free artistic exchange globally.  

In summary, a key recommendation from stakeholders was to strengthen cultural rights in the 
same way as efforts to strengthen the rule of law as part of the EU's democratic values agenda. 

4.4 

The working conditions of artists and cultural professionals and related issues 

CCSI  representatives,  Member  States,  and  other  contributors  underscored  that  precarious 
working conditions remain one of the most pervasive challenges in the CCSI. They pointed out 
that many artists and cultural professionals face unstable careers, low or irregular incomes, and 
inadequate social protection. Three-quarters of EU governments (75%) and two-thirds of sector 
respondents (66%) rated precarious working conditions as a very important challenge.  

Ensuring that authors and artists are fairly remunerated was considered very important by 88% 
of EU Member States and 60% of CCSI respondents. The corresponding objective – advocate 
for fair working conditions and remuneration of artists and cultural and creative professionals 
– was very important to 83% of EU governments and 77% of sector respondents. 

Fair remuneration for creative work in the digital age was cited as an ongoing concern, with 
calls to ‘ensure that authors and other artists are fairly remunerated for the exploitation of 
their creations’ despite evolving markets and technologies.  

Multiple respondents explicitly named ‘precarious working conditions’ as a priority issue, often 
linking it to related problems like mental health strain and talent leaving the sector.  

A shortage of skilled workers and challenges in developing new skills was rated very important 
by  54%  of  EU  Member  States  and  34%  of  sector  respondents,  with  another  33%  and  49% 
respectively calling it moderately important.  

Lack of public funding was a very important challenge for 79% of EU Member States and 77% 
of sector respondents. Difficulty in accessing private finance was very important for 58% of 
EU governments and 48% of sector respondents. 

A prominent narrative was the need for better social security and labour frameworks for artists. 
Some Member States gave examples of recent measures introduced at national level, such as a 

12 

 
 
basic income for the arts. Many contributors supported the idea of an EU-wide status or regime 
for artists and cultural workers to recognise atypical work patterns and portable benefits.  

Consultations  with  international  organisations  noted  that  strengthening  the  socio-economic 
rights of artists and cultural professionals requires addressing fair remuneration, mobility and 
social protection.  

Another  point  highlighted  that  culture  is  largely  driven  by  SMEs  and  underlined  issues  of 
access to finance and the need to improve workforce skills and human capital in the sectors.  

Stakeholders responding to the survey and call for evidence also highlighted the lack of support 
for  career  development  and  transition.  In  physically  demanding  arts  (e.g.  dance,  circus), 
performers face short careers and need retraining opportunities.  

The  mental  health  of  cultural  professionals  was  another  repeated  concern  –  respondents 
observed that the sector’s high stress and insecurity have led to a ‘mental health crisis’ that is 
often overlooked. 

Member State replies echoed these points. Member States consultations highlighted a shared 
concern for the working and living conditions of creators and cultural professionals.  

Fair contractual practices and bargaining power (especially for freelancers) were mentioned as 
areas needing attention. The COVID-19 pandemic’s aftermath also loomed large, exposing the 
vulnerability of cultural workers and leading to workforce shortages in certain fields (e.g. live 
events), further underscoring the need for more resilient employment conditions. The need to 
simplify access to EU programmes for individual creators and artists was also highlighted. 

Respondents pointed out that despite some EU initiatives (like recent Council conclusions on 
supporting young artists and cultural and creative professionals in starting their careers), gaps 
remain in implementation.  

Social protection for artists is fragmented by country, and ‘project-based employment [with] 
limited social protection’ continues to  be the norm  for many (as one comment  noted). This 
highlights  the  need  to  improve  baseline  standards  (including  pensions,  insurance,  and 
unemployment support) for cultural and creative professionals.  

Policy suggestions that emerged are to include cultural and creative professionals in broader 
EU labour policy reforms and to consider collective bargaining support or guidelines for fair 
contracts (especially with major intermediaries like streaming platforms). 

4.5 

Access to and participation in culture and accessibility of culture (across age 
groups, across the territory, regardless of gender, socio-economic background 
or disability) 

The consultation revealed a strong consensus that cultural participation must be broadened and 
barriers to access broken down.  

The principle that everyone has the right to access culture and participate in cultural activities 
was regarded as very important by 92% of EU governments and 79% of sector respondents, 
with an additional 8% and 18% respectively rating it moderately important. 

In the objectives for a new EU strategy, ensure access to and participation in culture for all 
was deemed very important for 92% of EU Member States and 73% of sector respondents.  

Ensuring  broad  and  equitable  access  to  culture  was  also  identified  as  a  key  principle  in  the 
stakeholder consultation meeting, where several contributors called for widening participation 

13 

 
 
for  children  and  young  people  and  emphasised  reaching  ageing  populations  and  rural 
communities. This was also highlighted during consultations with international organisations.  

Participants in the stakeholder event also stressed that cultural organisations are well‑placed to 
create inter‑generational spaces and engage under‑represented groups across the EU. 

Submissions  to  the  call  for  evidence  consistently  stressed  the  need  to  remove  territorial, 
economic, and disability-related barriers to cultural participation, advocating for EU support 
for inclusive infrastructure, accessibility measures, and community-based initiatives.  

Survey  respondents  highlighted  the  importance  of  making  culture  inclusive  across  all 
demographics and regions – ‘from early childhood till old age’, in all communities.  

A significant challenge noted is that large segments of the population do not regularly engage 
with culture, citing the special Eurobarometer survey from 2025 (according to which 51% of 
Europeans did not participate in an artistic activity in the previous 12 months) as a wake-up 
call for policies to stimulate participation. 

Many contributions focused on specific underrepresented groups and gaps: 

•  Youth:  Several  contributions  called  for  ‘more  targeted  cultural  policies  for  young 
people… to foster participation, creativity, and active citizenship.’ Young Europeans 
should  have  more  opportunities  to  both  experience  and  create  culture  as  a  way  to 
strengthen their European identity and skills. 

•  Geographic  and  social  gaps:  Respondents  from  various  regions  urged  better  cultural 
infrastructure and programmes outside major urban centres, noting disparities in access 
between  regions.  There  was  a  push  for  cultural  funding  to  reach  remote  or 
disadvantaged areas to ensure territorial balance in participation (e.g. support for local 
cultural centres, libraries, touring programmes). 

•  Migrants  and  integration:  A  notable  gap  identified  was  the  neglect  of  culture  in 
migrants’  integration policies. One respondent  observed that  ‘the cultural dimension 
has  been  largely  overlooked  in  practice’  when  integrating  migrants,  and  urged  the 
Commission  to  ‘embed  cultural  integration  into  broader  integration  frameworks’, 
empowering  migrants  to  engage  with  local  cultural  life.  Strengthening  regional  and 
local involvement in such initiatives was seen as crucial to social cohesion. 

•  Persons  with  disabilities:  Making  culture  and  content  accessible  for  persons  with 
disabilities was emphasised, particularly for ‘members of language minority cultures’ 
like  the  Deaf  community.  Deaf  people  often  find  their  sign  languages  and  cultural 
expressions undervalued. The consultation included a plea to value sign languages as 
‘unique cultural heritages’ and to support exchanges between Europe’s sign language 
cultures and hearing cultures, rather than treating accessibility as mere interpretation 
afterthought. 

Barriers to participation were widely seen as pressing challenges in the targeted survey replies. 
Among EU governments, 75% rated barriers for people in accessing culture or participating 
in  cultural  activities  as  very  important  (21%  moderate);  for  sector  respondents  the 
corresponding figures were 51% and 34%.  

Social exclusion and unequal access for people with disabilities was very important for 71% 
of EU Member States and 44% of CCSI respondents. Unequal access between rural and urban 
areas was cited as very important by 71% of EU governments and 42% of sector respondents.  

Lack of visibility of diverse cultural expressions in the online environment was very important 
for 63% of EU governments and 35% of sector respondents. 

14 

 
 
Contributors  pointed  out  several  persistent  gaps  hindering  cultural  participation.  One  is  the 
digital  divide  –  while  digital  tools  can  democratise  access,  unequal  digital  literacy  and 
connectivity can ‘risk widening participation gaps’ if not addressed.  

Another gap is a perceived lack of policy integration with social policies (e.g. inclusion, youth, 
education).  

Monitoring of cultural access and participation was also mentioned, since it is hard to tailor 
activities without good data on who does and who does not participate. This point is also linked 
to calls for better data collection in the culture sector. 

The  responses  suggest  a  need  for  a  multifaceted  strategy  to  boost  access  and  participation. 
Many argued that cultural rights should be treated as fundamental – ‘the strategy must prioritise 
cultural rights and community co-creation’ rather than viewing culture as a luxury.  

Overall, the qualitative input calls for an EU cultural policy that actively democratises culture, 
so that everyone – regardless of age, ability, income, or location – can participate in and benefit 
from Europe’s rich cultural life. 

4.6 

Culture, health and well-being 

This theme, while less extensively discussed than some others, still emerged as an important 
intersection.  

Contributions to the call for evidence affirmed the positive impact of cultural participation on 
physical and mental health, with stakeholders urging the EU to embed arts-based approaches 
into health and social care policies, including through social prescribing.  

Survey  respondents  acknowledged  a  dual  relationship  between  culture  and  well-being: 
culture’s  impact  on  individual  and  community  health,  and  the  health  needs  of  cultural 
professionals themselves.  

83% of EU governments and 68% of cultural-sector respondents regarded the statement culture 
is vital in fostering the well-being of individuals and communities as very important. A further 
17% of EU governments and 29% of sector respondents considered it moderately important. 

On the one hand, participants  noted the  ‘importance of culture for  the promotion  of  mental 
health and well-being’ in the general  population. Engaging  with  the  arts  – whether through 
active participation (like singing in a choir) or experiences like visiting museums and attending 
performances – was cited as beneficial for mental health, social bonding, and quality of life. 
The underlying idea is that culture can reduce loneliness, improve mood, and even assist in 
therapy and recovery processes.  

One international organisation consulted noted that the Culture Compass should recognise the 
paradigm  shift  towards  culture  and  health  mainstreaming  and  highlighted  the  need  for  new 
indicators. 

On the other hand, the well-being of artists and culture and creative professionals themselves 
was a frequently raised concern. The CCSI faces high rates of burnout, stress, and insecurity 
that take a toll on mental health. Musicians, actors, writers, etc., may struggle with irregular 
work, public scrutiny, and a lack of support systems, which can lead to anxiety and depression. 

The consultation identified that cultural policy and health policy rarely intersect, representing 
a gap in holistic policy thinking. Despite some EU projects (like those exploring arts in health), 
many felt there is no systematic approach to harness culture for well-being.  

15 

 
 
Additionally, the absence of sector-specific mental health support (such as counselling services 
or funding for wellness programmes in cultural institutions) was noted. Respondents implied 
that treating mental health purely as an individual issue misses the structural causes rooted in 
how the cultural sector operates, in link with the wider question of working conditions. 

4.7 

Culture and education 

The link between culture and education was  frequently emphasised, with  many respondents 
arguing that cultural awareness and creative skills must be nurtured through education at all 
levels.  

When asked how much the EU integrates cultural policy priorities into other policy areas, 33% 
of EU Member States said cultural policy is integrated into education and youth policies ‘quite 
a lot’, 38% ‘a little bit’, 17% ‘somewhat’ and 13% said they did not know. 

A common sentiment was that ‘culture and education are two sides of the same coin’ and need 
to be brought together more strategically. Participants observed that early exposure to arts and 
heritage  fosters  creativity,  critical  thinking,  and  intercultural  understanding  among  young 
people – competencies crucial for Europe’s future. 

A shortage of skilled workforce and the need to develop new skills to adapt to evolving market 
and technological practices was seen as very important by 54% of EU Member States and 34% 
of CCSI respondents. Another 33% of Member States and 49% of CCSI respondents considered 
this  moderately  important.  Only  13%  of  EU  Member  States  and  14%  of  CCSI  respondents 
considered this as less important.  

However, numerous comments were critical of the current approach, suggesting a gap between 
cultural  policy  and  educational  policy.  One  respondent  lamented  that  the  European 
Commission often speaks of ‘skills’ in a narrow sense, treating culture mainly as an industry, 
whereas the broader educational context is neglected.  

Stakeholders argued for integrating arts and culture into general education, not just into job-
training programmes. 

Several concrete issues were raised: 

•  Arts education in schools: It was noted that, in many countries, cultural education is 
‘not yet systematically embedded in school curricula or life-long learning strategies’. 
Access to arts education varies widely, with some school systems offering robust music, 
art, theatre programmes and others offering very little. This disparity leads to unequal 
cultural capital among Europe’s youth. Contributors called for EU-level encouragement 
for Member States to strengthen arts and heritage education from primary to secondary 
levels. 

•  Life-long  learning  and  informal  education:  Beyond  formal  schooling,  respondents 
highlighted the importance of life-long learning in culture – enabling adults to continue 
engaging in creative activities or learning about culture. They advocated for community 
arts programmes, cultural exchanges, and support for intercultural dialogue initiatives 
that involve educational components (such as workshops, residencies, etc.). 

•  Synergies with EU programmes: Some pointed out that existing EU programmes like 
Erasmus+ and Creative Europe could work better in tandem. While Erasmus+ has some 
cultural exchange aspects and Creative Europe has capacity-building aspects, a more 
coordinated strategy could embed creativity in educational mobility and vice versa. 

16 

 
 
The  primary  gap  identified  is  a  lack  of  holistic  policy  that  treats  cultural  competency  as  a 
foundational skill.  

Respondents  fear  that  overemphasis  on  STEM  and  digital  skills,  without  cultural  context, 
produces people who may be technically skilled but lack creativity or cultural literacy.  

Conversely,  treating  cultural  learning  as  separate  from  mainstream  education  risks  making 
culture a privilege rather than a right.  

Another gap is  insufficient  teacher training and resources  for cultural  education, which was 
alluded to in calls for better infrastructure and frameworks. 

In  essence,  respondents  want  to  ‘bring  education  and  culture  together’  to  cultivate  well-
rounded, creative individuals. This means ensuring education policy values culture not just for 
employability  but  for  personal  development,  while  cultural  policy  invests  in  education  as  a 
means of audience development and societal impact. Nevertheless, such dialogue should not 
lead to the instrumentalisation of one at the service of the other, as one Member State pointed 
out. 

4.8 

Creativity, 
developments such as AI 

competitiveness  and 

innovation, 

including 

technological 

Stakeholders recognised that technological change is profoundly affecting the CCSI – bringing 
both  opportunities  for  innovation  and  serious  challenges  for  competitiveness  and  creators’ 
rights.  

The advent of AI, in particular, generated extensive commentary. Dealing with the impact of 
AI and other technological developments while seizing opportunities was rated very important 
by 83% of EU governments and 70% of sector respondents. Another 13% of EU governments 
and 21% of sector respondents described this challenge as moderately important.  

The objective  ‘harness  the opportunities of  digital  technologies and  AI … while addressing 
related  challenges’  was  very  important  for  75%  of  EU  Member  States  and  51%  of  sector 
respondents. 

One international organisation consulted urged a paradigm shift that moves beyond the direct 
economic value of culture to recognise its indirect effects on innovation and competitiveness, 
highlighting tourism and spill‑overs to other sectors.  

It was also stressed that there is a need to recognise culture’s role in terms of competitiveness, 
and in relation to improving skills of workers and human capital. 

Another major theme was the need to protect creators’ rights and ensure fair competition in the 
digital  era.  Many  survey  respondents  were  concerned  that  global  tech  platforms  and  AI 
developers could undermine Europe’s creative ecosystem if left unchecked.  

For instance, several stressed that one of the biggest challenges ‘(…) is clearly the protection 
of authors’ rights in the face of AI’, urging rigorous implementation of the EU’s AI Act and 
Copyright  Directive.  They  noted  that  data-hungry  AI  models  are  often  trained  on  artistic 
content  without  consent  or  remuneration,  and  advocated  for  a  ‘transparency-first,  licence-
based approach’ to AI development that respects human creativity.  

This reflects a broad consensus that Europe’s competitiveness in culture should not come at the 
expense  of  its  creators.  Innovation  must  be  aligned  with  ethical  standards  and  intellectual 
property rights.  

17 

 
 
To ‘foster dynamic and competitive CCSI that drive economic and social innovation’ was rated 
very important by 79% of EU governments and 60% of sector respondents.  

Lack of global competitiveness was identified as very important by 29% of EU governments 
and 26% of sector respondents. 

Another  recurring  narrative  was  concern  over  market  concentration  and  Europe’s  digital 
sovereignty.  

Participants pointed out that non-EU tech giants (streaming services, social media, app stores) 
dominate cultural distribution and data, which  ‘reduces European  control  over distribution, 
data,  copyright  protection  and  algorithms.’  They  see  this  ‘digital  dependency  on  non-EU 
platforms’ as a threat to the diversity and competitiveness of European content.  

The  domination  of  a  few  gatekeepers  can  squeeze  European  creators  and  start-ups. 
Accordingly, respondents called for strict enforcement of the current legal framework to ensure 
a level playing field for European CCSI. 

At the same time, respondents urged embracing technology to boost creativity and innovation. 
Several participants in the Culture Compass stakeholder event noted that innovation was central 
to the CCSI’s economic contribution and competitiveness.  

The principle that ‘culture is a source of creativity and innovation’ was very important for 83% 
of EU governments and 78% of sector respondents to the survey.  

‘Human creativity is unique even when embracing AI’ was also rated very important by 79% 
of EU governments and 71% of sector respondents. They highlighted the significance of digital 
transformation within the CCSI – for example, digitising cultural heritage for preservation and 
broad access, and using innovative tools for content creation and dissemination.  

Several Member States called for a more strategic approach to innovation, including harnessing 
new media such as immersive media or video games. One Member State urged joint action on 
cross-border preservation of digital cultural heritage.  

Cross-sector  and  user-centric  innovation  were  also  mentioned,  including  suggestions  to 
‘develop and fund cross-sectoral approaches to accelerate the competitiveness and resilience 
of the cultural sector’. Audiences and consumers should be involved in co-creating cultural 
content (e.g. through participatory platforms).  

The  message  is  that  Europe  should  use  tech  advances  to  leverage  its  cultural  richness,  for 
instance,  by  supporting  cultural  and  creative  start-ups,  promoting  cultural  data  spaces,  and 
connecting tech developers with creatives. 

The consultation identified several gaps in the current landscape: 

•  Gaps between regulatory framework and practice: despite new EU laws, enforcement 

and potential gaps between policy intent and industry practice are a concern. 

•  Data and knowledge gaps: European creators lacked access to data (e.g. audience data 
held  by  platforms)  and  ecocomic  data  on  the  cultural  sectors  was  generally  scarce. 
These gaps make it hard for European SMEs to compete and for policymakers to craft 
informed strategies. 

• 

Investment gaps:  respondents worry that Europe lags behind in financing innovation 
compared to global competitors. There were calls for more R&D investment in CCSI 
tech, and support for entrepreneurship in the arts. One entry passionately described the 
need to ‘cultivate and empower businesses and individuals who can drive innovation’, 

18 

 
 
listing  steps  from  enforcing  fair  competition  to  reducing  bureaucratic  burdens  on 
cultural innovators. 

The comments suggest that the EU must strike a balance between harnessing new technologies 
for culture and protecting the cultural ecosystem from potential associated risks. 

4.9 

Intrinsic value of culture and its role as a public good 

Many respondents argued that culture’s intrinsic value must be recognised in policy, rather than 
valuing culture for its contributions to other sectors, urging the Culture Compass to defend the 
public good dimension of cultural life and expression.  

96% of EU Member State respondents and 86% of cultural-sector respondents to the survey 
regarded  the  statement  ‘culture  has  an  intrinsic  value  and  is  a  vital  legacy  for  future 
generations’  as  very  important.  Only  4%  of  Member  State  respondents  and  13%  of  sector 
respondents said it was moderately important, and 1% of sector respondents considered it less 
important. 

A significant narrative was that culture and art are often undervalued in broader policymaking. 
There was a call to give culture the funding and policy priority it ‘deserves’ in its own right. 
One  response  pointed  to  a  ‘systemic  undervaluation  of  culture  in  broader  policymaking, 
including its role in shaping the future’, noting a lack of trust in the cultural and artistic process.  

Contributors urged the EU to elevate culture’s status. If culture is truly as important as other 
sectors like finance or tech, it should receive comparable attention and resources, not be treated 
as an afterthought. Culture is not just a means to other ends (like jobs or social cohesion), but 
a core pillar of society and human development. 

Another trend was the importance of artistic quality, risk-taking, and creativity for their own 
sake. Respondents worried that chasing audience numbers or economic returns could lead to 
safer, lower-quality productions.  

Similarly,  some  respondents  noted  a  ‘lack  of  support  for  artistic  risk-taking’,  warning  that 
without  space  for  experimentation,  Europe’s  arts  could  stagnate  into  purely  commercial 
entertainment. High-level artistic creation and ‘artistic research’ (a form of knowledge creation 
in the arts) need recognition and support. 

A  perceived  gap  between  rhetoric  and  reality  was  pointed  out.  EU  treaties  and  speeches 
acknowledge cultural diversity and heritage, but actual investment and priority given to culture 
might not match that rhetoric. Public funding for culture often gets cut or is low relative to its 
proclaimed value.  

Another  gap  is  related  to  the  fundamental  cultural  rights  and  needs  (like  the  need  for 
communities to preserve their practices, or for artists to create even if the market is small).  

The lack of data on culture’s broader impacts was also mentioned as an issue. Better evidence 
of culture’s contributions could strengthen the case for treating it as a public good. 

4.10  Culture for social cohesion, democratic resilience and a sense of belonging and 

well-being (particularly in times of crisis and unstable global order) 

Survey  respondents  widely  agreed  that  culture  plays  a  pivotal  role  in  social  cohesion  and 
democracy, particularly in periods of crisis or instability. 83% of Member States and 77% of 
sector respondents found the statement ‘culture plays a vital role in fostering social inclusion 
and  opposing  discrimination’  very  important;  a  further  13%  of  Member  States  and  18%  of 
sector respondents rated it moderately important.  

19 

 
 
‘Culture is essential for active citizenship and a vital force in strengthening democracy and 
active  participation’  was  very  important  to  83%  of  Member  States  and  71%  of  sector 
respondents. As noted above, 96% of EU governments and around 91% of sector respondents 
indicated that culture can make a significant contribution to the upholding of democracy and 
fundamental values. 

A key narrative was that culture builds bridges among people, fostering mutual understanding 
and  a  shared  sense  of  belonging  that  can  withstand  polarising  forces.  Consultation  with 
international organisations linked cultural participation to inclusion and peacebuilding, calling 
for proactive upholding of fundamental rights and for culture to drive peace beyond Europe. 

In the survey, 83% of Member States and 83% of CCSI respondents rated the statement ‘culture 
flourishes  through  collaboration,  exchange,  mobility  and  co-creation,  fostering  mutual 
understanding across borders’ as very important.  

The objective to ‘strengthen cohesion in Europe within and across regions through cultural 
initiatives and exchanges’ was very important for 71% of EU governments and 70% of sector 
respondents.  Contributors  see  local  cultural  initiatives  as  essential  in  the  face  of  rising 
extremism and polarisation.  

One testimonial noted that ‘in a time of growing authoritarianism and deepening polarisation, 
small,  independent,  and  grassroots  cultural  organisations  have  never  been  more  essential’. 
These grassroots groups work directly with marginalised communities and youth, building trust 
where other institutions might not reach. However, they often operate on shoestring budgets 
and are fragile. Respondents argued that supporting the economic sustainability of grassroots 
and independent cultural actors is critical not just culturally but also for democracy. 

Another recurring point highlights culture’s role in civic engagement and social values. Several 
mentioned  that  the  contribution  of  culture  to  social  well-being  and  inclusion  is  not  fully 
recognised by policymakers. For instance, it was suggested to embed culture in the European 
Pillar  of  Social  Rights,  acknowledging  cultural  participation  as  part  of  social  rights  and 
community well-being.  

Similarly, culture should be seen as integral to Europe’s security and resilience strategies. One 
comment stated that ‘Culture must be recognised as central to Europe’s identity, cohesion and 
security, even amid geopolitical challenges.’ This highlights that a society bonded by shared 
cultural  experiences  and  understanding  is  more  resilient  to  external  shocks  and  internal 
divisions. 

Cultural heritage was also mentioned as a tool for unity and belonging. By leveraging Europe’s 
rich  heritage  in  contemporary  ways,  cultural  policy  can  consolidate  a  collective  European 
memory and identity that counters narratives of division. One respondent eloquently described 
how a ‘dense network of cultural institutions’ across Europe can ‘foster a stronger sense of 
shared identity, promote democratic engagement and civic participation’. 

Once  again,  the  digital  realm  was  highlighted.  Combating  misinformation  and  hate  speech 
through  promoting  media  literacy  and  digital  citizenship  is  a  cultural  challenge  linked  to 
democratic resilience. Libraries and cultural  centres can serve as safe spaces for community 
learning about these issues. 

In summary, the consultation identified that culture might be too siloed away from core social 
and political policy. Funding mechanisms are perceived as not reaching the smallest cultural 
actors who work on the ground.  Respondents  also  felt culture should be more prominent in 
crisis response strategies. For example, using cultural programmes to heal divided communities 
or trauma after crises is not yet a standard practice. 

20 

 
 
4.11  Safeguarding culture and cultural heritage from natural hazards and human-

made disasters 

Participants  acknowledged  that  cultural  heritage  faces  growing  threats  from  both  natural 
hazards  (like  earthquakes,  floods  andwildfires  exacerbated  by  climate  change)  and  human-
made crises (like war, terrorism and vandalism).  

The  ‘risk  for  safeguarding  and  promoting  Europe’s  cultural  heritage’  was  deemed  very 
important by 75% of Member States.21% rated it moderately important and 4% less important. 
Only  36%  of  sector  respondents  considered  this  risk  very  important,  while  35%  rated  it 
moderately important, 26% less important and 3% not important.  

The objective ‘preserve and protect cultural heritage for the benefit of future generations’ was 
rated as very important by 83% of Member States (and as moderately important by 13%, and 
as less important by 4%) and 61% of CCSI respondents (29% moderate, 10% less important). 
The  war  in  Ukraine  and  recent  global  events  clearly  influenced  responses,  with  many 
emphasising crisis preparedness for culture. 

Many respondents considered there was a strong need for better coordination and standards to 
protect cultural heritage in times of crisis. Respondents called for European cooperation in this 
area, given that disasters do not respect borders.  

One reply noted the ‘need for common standards for protecting heritage in the face of natural 
hazards,  armed  conflicts,  terrorist  attacks,’  coupled  with  improved  monitoring  and  cross-
border cooperation against trafficking in cultural goods.  

After disasters or in conflict zones, cultural artefacts are at high risk of being looted and sold, 
so EU policy should strengthen measures and cooperation to prevent and track illicit trafficking. 
Participants in the Culture Compass stakeholder event emphasised digitising cultural heritage 
to protect it from such threats as well as risks posed by climate change. 

According  to  respondents,  culture  is  often  absent  from  disaster  preparedness  plans.  Unlike 
sectors such as energy or transport, culture has not been widely seen as ‘critical infrastructure’ 
– a gap respondents urge closing. One statement said ‘culture is [a] critical infrastructure and 
needs to be addressed in resilience and preparedness plans’.  

Another gap is funding. Emergency funds or rapid response support for cultural heritage are 
limited.  There  is  also  a  perceived  skills  gap  –  not  enough  professionals  trained  in  cultural 
emergency  response  –  and  limited  public  awareness  of  the  importance  of  saving  culture  in 
crises. 

Many  respondents  to  the  survey  and  call  for  evidence  observed  that  culture’s  role  in  crisis 
response and recovery is undervalued. Citing examples from the pandemic, as well as past and 
ongoing conflicts, they argued that cultural actors often lack the mechanisms or resources to 
respond effectively when crisis hits. As one comment put it, ‘the cultural sector lacks robust 
mechanisms to respond to crises … future frameworks should build cultural resilience’. This 
means having plans in place to safeguard collections, support artists, and use cultural tools for 
post-crisis healing. 

Another need identified relates to positioning culture as a tool for peacebuilding and resilience 
after crises. Respondents suggested that cultural cooperation and heritage restoration can foster 
reconciliation and stability. For instance, including cultural heritage in peace negotiations or 
reconstruction plans can help communities rebuild identity. 

One suggestion for the  upcoming policy was  to explicitly  incorporate  ‘culture as  a tool for 
peacebuilding’,  strengthening  social  cohesion  and  dialogue  in  post-crisis  contexts.  Member 

21 

 
 
States have repeatedly  emphasised the need for sustained cooperation to preserve Ukraine’s 
cultural heritage. 

Contributors clearly see protecting culture from  disasters as both a practical necessity and a 
symbolic stance: it signals that Europe values its history and identity even under threat. They 
suggest that the next EU strategy for culture should plan for the worst so that when crises strike, 
Europe’s  cultural  heritage  and  institutions  can  be  shielded  and  also  mobilised  to  help 
communities recover. 

4.12  Culture for an environmentally responsible development 

There was broad recognition in the responses that culture and environmental sustainability are 
interlinked.  The  challenge  posed  by  ‘climate  change  and  environmental  sustainability’  was 
judged very important by 67% of EU Member States (33% moderate) and by 47% of sector 
respondents (38% moderate, 14% less important, 1% not important).  

Stakeholders believe the cultural sector should both green its own practices and use its influence 
to promote sustainable development more broadly. They emphasised aligning cultural policy 
with the EU’s overall greening goals. 

Many  respondents  flagged  climate  change  and  environmental  sustainability  as  critical 
challenges for culture (it was one of the most frequently mentioned issues in quantitative terms). 
They see a dual role: culture must reduce its environmental footprint and actively engage people 
on environmental themes.  

The principle that culture is a driver and enabler of sustainable development, contributing to 
environmental, social and economic resilience was very important for 88% of EU governments 
and 64% of sector respondents.  

The objective advance the sustainability of  CCSI, with a strong emphasis on environmental 
sustainability was very important for 63% of EU governments and 57% of sector respondents. 

A  common  point  was  the  need  for  sustainable  infrastructure  and  funding  for  culture.  One 
comment  stressed  the  importance  of  equipping  the  sector  with  the  ‘right  infrastructure  to 
respond to environmental demands, but also to cater for artists’ needs to experiment, innovate’ 
in  green  ways.  This  includes  making  cultural  buildings  energy-efficient,  supporting  eco-
friendly  touring  (for  performing  arts),  and  enabling  the  use  of  environmentally  friendly 
materials in art production. A tailored approach was suggested, as environmental impacts and 
costs vary from one geography to another. 

Another theme was embedding culture in climate action and vice versa. For example, heritage 
preservation should align with climate goals – respondents mentioned linking heritage policies 
to climate adaptation, circular economy, and zero-pollution strategies.  

The idea of ‘regenerative cultural models’ came up, urging a shift from extractive practices 
(e.g. wasteful exhibitions or events) to more community-driven, sustainable approaches that 
incentivise regenerative practices. 

Cultural tourism was also discussed. Sustainable cultural tourism can create synergies between 
heritage  and  environment,  like  promoting  local  heritage  while  managing  visitor  impact  and 
using digital tools for smarter tourism. 

Respondents noted that environmental sustainability is still not systematically integrated into 
cultural policy. According to EU governments, the integration of cultural policy priorities into 
climate and environmental policies remains limited: only 33% said integration had occurred 
‘quite a lot’, while 21% said ‘somewhat’, 33% ‘a little bit’, and 4% ‘not at all’. An additional 

22 

 
 
8% were unsure. Policy frameworks have not fully caught up – a respondent noted they ‘should 
better reflect the role of culture in green transitions,’ including promoting sustainable event 
practices and circular design in cultural production.  

The  EU’s  New  European  Bauhaus  policy  and  funding  initiative  (NEB)  was  mentioned 
implicitly. One comment alludes to spatial planning and cultural places in the context of NEB 
and  climate  change,  suggesting  that  more  could  be  done  to  include  cultural  perspectives  in 
urban and environmental planning. 

Another gap identified is knowledge and capacity: many cultural operators (small museums, 
theatres, festivals) may lack know-how or funds to become greener. Additionally, measuring 
the carbon footprint of cultural activities is perceived to be in its infancy. 

4.13 

International  cultural  relations  and  partnerships  (in  the  context  of  foreign, 
enlargement, neighbourhood and development policies) 

Culture’s role in international relations was widely recognised. 63% of EU governments and 
74%  of  sector  respondents  considered  the  statement  that  ‘culture  is  an  essential  element  in 
international relations, fostering dialogue and peaceful co-existence’ as very important.  

Culture flourishing through collaboration and mobility across borders was also very important 
for 83% of EU governments and 83% of sector respondents.  

The qualitative responses to the survey underline that culture is a key part of the EU’s external 
relations, but also that more can be done to make these cultural partnerships fair and effective.  

Input  came  from  both  EU  Member  States  and  cultural  organisations  active  internationally, 
including in neighbouring regions.  

There was a call from one Member State for strong and accessible funding for cross-border 
cultural cooperation to contribute to the intrinsic value of a diverse and rich European culture. 
One Member State in particular called for the strengthening of joint media platforms. 

There was broad appreciation for existing EU efforts to integrate culture into external policies.  

On  the  integration  of  cultural  policy  priorities  into  external  policy  areas,  38%  of  EU 
governments  found  that  cultural  policy  was  integrated  ‘quite  a lot’  into  EU  international 
partnership and development policy, while 38% indicated ‘a little bit’, and 13% ‘somewhat’. 
Only  4%  stated  that  cultural  policy  was  not  integrated  at  all.  For  neighbourhood  and 
enlargement policy, the corresponding figures were 25%, 29%, 29% and 4%, respectively.  

Respondents acknowledged programmes like Creative Europe’s opening to non-EU countries, 
the work of the EU National Institutes for Culture, and initiatives such as the European Spaces 
of Culture. These were all seen as positive steps showcasing Europe as a global cultural actor 
and supporting dialogue beyond EU borders.  

For example, one respondent cited the integration of Ukraine into Creative Europe programme 
and the ACP-EU Culture programme that supports creative industries in Africa, the Caribbean, 
and the Pacific regions, highlighting how these ‘position culture as a tool for resilience, soft 
diplomacy, and sustainable development’. 

However,  a  strong  narrative  was  the  need  to  ensure  equitable  and  inclusive  cultural 
partnerships. When asked about culture’s contribution to EU political priorities, 75% of EU 
Member  States  viewed  culture  as  making  a  significant  contribution  to  global  partnerships. 
Among  CCSI  respondents,  about  44%  saw  a  significant  contribution,  18%  a  moderate 
contribution, and 39% no contribution.  

23 

 
 
The  objective  ‘promote  the  circulation  of  European  works  and  enhance  cross-border 
collaboration within Europe and beyond European borders’ was very important for 71% of 
Member  States  and  82%  of  sectoral  respondents.  To  ‘Strengthen  and  develop  further 
international cultural relations to promote global understanding and collaboration’ was very 
important for 58% of EU governments and 71% of sector respondents.  

Some respondents felt that the EU’s international cultural agenda is still too Euro-centric or 
driven by competitiveness. One comment warned that the EU agenda should not be just about 
projecting European ‘soft power’, but also about mutual exchange and understanding. 

A  significant  issue  raised  by  stakeholders  was  the  geographical  imbalance  in  cultural 
infrastructure between big western European countries and smaller or newer Member States. 
In reply to the call for evidence, one member of the public noted that ‘what is possible in France 
and Germany is not so in Slovenia, Bulgaria, Estonia or Malta.’, suggesting that the EU should 
tailor its support in order to level the playing field.  

The lack of support for cultural infrastructure in some aspiring EU members and neighbouring 
regions  was  also  seen  as  a  gap.  Targeted  cooperation  and  investment  are  needed  to  include 
these countries in a ‘shared European cultural space’ as part of the enlargement process. 

Another theme was openness to the world and making it easier for non-EU countries (especially 
in the neighbourhood or Global South) to collaborate with the EU culturally. Without opening 
up more, Europe risks becoming ‘provincial … a nationalistic cultural space’.  

Respondents encourage using culture as a bridge in international relations,  even in sensitive 
contexts (e.g. maintaining cultural dialogue with authoritarian countries as a means to support 
freedom, or using cultural exchange in conflict prevention). Member States also referred to the 
importance for the EU to increase cooperation with multilateral fora, in particular UNESCO 
and the Council of Europe. 

Several  stakeholders  participating  in  the  consultation  event  called  for  better  cooperation 
between Directorate‑Generals  focused on affairs inside the EU and those focused on affairs 
outside the EU (e.g. DG EAC and DG INTPA) to strengthen the EU’s global cultural presence. 
In the final discussion round, some organisations argued that the new Culture Compass should 
place  culture  at  the  centre  of  external  affairs  while  fostering  dialogue  and  peace  across  the 
world. One Member State also supported taking culture into account in the EU enlargement 
process. 

The overarching message is that culture should be at the heart of how Europe engages with the 
world  as  a  means  of  building  trust,  showcasing  European  values  (while  self-reflectively 
acknowledging its history), and forging equitable partnerships. 

4.14  Sector-specific  elements/topics  per  sectors  not  covered  under  the  above 

headings 

Respondents brought up a variety of sector-specific challenges and proposals that go beyond 
the cross-cutting themes. Different CCSI have unique circumstances. Stakeholders from these 
sectors highlighted issues pertinent to their fields. Key examples include: 

•  Cultural  heritage:  Some  representatives  from  the  heritage  sector  argue  that,  while 
closely  connected  to  the  broader  CCSI,  cultural  heritage  operates  with  its  own 
structures, needs and long-term preservation logic. 

•  Music  sector:  Some  representatives  from  the  music  sector  stressed  the  precarious 
situation of music creators, noting that ‘music authors [are] frequently confronted with 
insecure economic and social conditions’ such as low incomes and weak bargaining 

24 

 
 
power. They urged EU policies to address these challenges, like ensuring generative AI 
respects  creators’  rights,  and  tackling  market  concentration  in  music  (where 
independent  labels or publishers are being  acquired by larger companies,  often from 
outside the EU, potentially harming diversity). 

•  Live music and performing arts: Venue operators and live art representatives pointed 
out the post-pandemic struggles of live music and theatre. Rising costs (energy, touring) 
and  real  estate  pressures  are  ‘pushing  [music  venues]  out  of  city  centres 
(gentrification)’,  since  urban  planning  seldom  safeguards  cultural  spaces.  They  also 
raised  alarms  about  market  concentration  in  live  events,  with  major  corporations 
controlling  ticketing  and  venues,  which  ‘undermines  fair  competition  and  limits 
opportunities for independent operators’. Working conditions remain tough (irregular 
hours, low pay), and COVID-19 revealed workforce fragility and mental health issues 
in this sector. Environmental sustainability is a challenge too. Touring relies on carbon-
intensive travel, made worse by inadequate rail options. These issues suggest the need 
for  targeted  support  for  live  cultural  infrastructure  and  perhaps  regulations  on  anti-
competitive  practices  (like  ticket  resale  markets,  as  one  earlier  point  on  ‘taming  the 
illegal secondary ticket market’). 

•  Book  publishing  and  literature:  Stakeholders  in  publishing  raised  the  issue  of  AI-
generated content flooding the market. They see ‘unfair competition from AI users who 
can produce a publication in hours when it takes a human months’. They urge policy 
action like requiring transparency of AI training datasets and allowing rights-holders to 
object  to  their  work’s  inclusion  in  AI  training.  They  also  mentioned  ensuring  fair 
competition between online retailers and brick-and-mortar bookstores, and protecting 
the  entire  book  ecosystem  (authorship,  bookstores,  libraries)  as  part  of  cultural 
diversity. 

•  Architecture: The architecture sector argued that EU cultural policy should not treat 
the built environment only as heritage. Instead, it should ‘support a shared culture of 
high-quality  architecture  and  built  environment’  that  connects  heritage  with 
contemporary design. As they put it, ‘what we build today is the heritage of tomorrow,’ 
so  policies  should  empower  architects  to  create  sustainable,  inclusive  andbeautiful 
spaces, thus contributing to community well-being and Europe’s cultural fabric. They 
want recognition of architecture’s cultural dimension (beyond its technical aspects) and 
support for architectural quality and innovation. 

•  Crafts sector: Artisanal and craft industries highlighted a lack of visibility and data. 
One response noted ‘the lack of official statistics in crafts [makes it difficult] to develop 
targeted  policies’.  They  recommended  implementing  a  common  EU  classification 
(NACE code) for crafts to better capture data, and ensuring crafts are represented in 
European support programmes. They also suggested measures such as boosting craft 
businesses’ access  to  markets,  addressing the decline in  training and transmission of 
craft skills, and even proposing a European Year of Craft to shine a spotlight on the 
sector. 

•  Theatre: The European theatre sector identified a ‘policy gap’ in recognition. Unlike 
film (with festivals and awards like Cannes or Venice), European theatre lacks a high-
profile platform to celebrate and unite it. They proposed an ‘Athena Awards’ as a pan-
European  recognition  mechanism  to  promote  values  like  diversity,  innovation,  and 
artistic freedom in theatre, and to raise the international profile of European performing 
arts. This was presented as a tool of cultural diplomacy and sectoral development. 

25 

 
 
•  Circus and outdoor arts: Advocates for contemporary circus and outdoor performance 
art pointed out these sectors’ structural fragility and marginalisation. They often operate 
outside traditional venues (streets, tents, public spaces) and thus fall through the cracks 
of funding and policy frameworks that favour established institutions. The call here is 
for  recognition  of  these  sectors’  civic  and  social  impact  and  for  tailored  support  to 
sustain them. 

•  Audiovisual (Film/TV) and Media: 

o 

Independent  audiovisual  production:  Producers  emphasised  protecting  the 
independence  of  European  film  and  TV  production.  Independence  (where 
producers hold rights and can make creative choices freely) is seen as vital for 
pluralism and cultural diversity. The EU was urged to ensure its media policies 
and funding (like the Creative Europe MEDIA programme) continue to favour 
independent production, allowing stories that are more diverse and sometimes 
critical or from minority voices to be told. This ties to concerns about media 
concentration and the influence of streaming giants. 

o  Film distribution and diversity: It was noted that European films struggle to get 
equal presence on both traditional TV and streaming platforms, with US content 
dominating. Respondents called for political support to increase the visibility of 
European content,  as  ‘much more diversity is needed’  in  what is available to 
European  audiences.  They  reiterated  that  protecting  cultural  and  linguistic 
diversity in film/audiovisual is not just cultural but also economically beneficial 
and tied to creative freedom. 

The sector-specific inputs suggest that while broad cultural policy themes are important, the 
EU should also address targeted issues in each industry. It should: 

• 

• 

engage  in  sectoral  dialogues  (e.g.  a  music  sector  strategy,  a  theatre  forum,  a  crafts 
advisory group) to identify tailored solutions and share best practices; 

consider  the  impact  of  support  measures  or  regulations  on  each  sector’s  unique 
ecosystem (for example, how AI legislation affects writers vs visual artists vs musicians 
differently, or how mobility rules impact touring circuses vs film crews); 

•  dedicate  sections  of  the  Culture  Compass  or  subsequent  action  plan  to  specific 
industries, ensuring none are left behind (because some sectors might need specific EU 
initiatives); 

• 

improve data collection per sector to inform evidence-based policy. 

4.15  Monitoring, data and statistics 

Monitoring and evaluation emerged as a high priority. 71% of EU governments and 75% of 
sector respondents considered it very important for the new Culture Compass to be monitored 
and its impact measured.  

For  most  government  respondents,  regular  consultations  with  stakeholders  were  the  most 
popular  monitoring  method  (18  governments  selected  this).  This  was  followed  by  progress 
reviews at EU level with specific indicators (13), assessments by independent experts (10) and 
other methods such as case studies (12). 

Sector organisations placed even greater emphasis on regular consultations (75 respondents) 
and progress reviews (47 respondents). They also favoured independent expert evaluations (31 
respondents)  and  suggested  additional  approaches,  such  as  more  qualitative  and  ‘narrative’ 

26 

 
 
reporting on impacts  that  goes  beyond quantitative KPIs  to  emphasise the lived experience, 
perspectives,  and  meaning-making  around  change  (27  respondents).  This  suggests  broad 
support  for  a  multi-faceted  monitoring  system  combining  stakeholder  dialogue,  quantitative 
indicators and independent review. 

Qualitative feedback provides detailed guidance on what such a monitoring system should look 
like. Many respondents stressed that quantitative indicators alone cannot capture the intrinsic 
value  of  culture.  They  suggested  collecting  stories  of  change  and  using  case  studies  to 
illuminate long-term, intangible impacts, particularly among less visible beneficiaries. 

Stakeholders  also  called  for  ongoing,  meaningful  dialogue  between  EU  institutions  and  the 
cultural ecosystem, not merely occasional consultations or box-ticking exercises.  

Several  contributions  advocated  for  a  European  cultural  observatory:  a  centralised  tool 
(possibly  hosted  by  Eurostat)  that  would  mobilise  Member-State  research  capacities  and 
provide updated statistics on employment, funding, diversity and digital transformation across 
cultural sectors.  

A specific proposal was to create a European music observatory to collect comparable data on 
employment,  gender  equality,  market  dynamics  and  audience  trends,  thereby  enabling 
evidence-based  policy  making  and  ensuring  transparency.  Respondents  argued  that  without 
robust  data,  issues  such  as  market  concentration,  precarious  work  and  gender  inequalities 
cannot be addressed effectively. 

Another recurring theme was the need to combine quantitative and qualitative methods. Many 
suggested that the Compass’s impact on heritage, for example, should be assessed not just by 
counting funded projects but by measuring their diversity, cross-border collaboration, policy 
changes and community benefits, captured through surveys and case studies.  

Some participants warned that established indicators (e.g. gender parity targets) may not reflect 
reality, especially in cultural activities where certain genders are under-represented, and that 
asking participants to disclose gender may infringe on privacy. They urged designers to allow 
respondents to opt out or state ‘I don’t know’ to avoid skewing statistics.  

There  were  also  calls  to  integrate  Eurostat  indicators  on  cultural  participation  by  age, 
geography, abilities and gender, and to harmonise data collection across EU programmes to 
support evidence-based advocacy.  

Because  economic  metrics  often  neglect  parts  of  the  sector  that  do  not  generate  easily 
comparable  income,  respondents  highlighted  the  importance  of  recognising  the  economic 
impact of amateur choirs, orchestras and grassroots initiatives. 

Member  States  stressed  that  monitoring  should  not  be  a  burden.  Some  cautioned  against 
centralised EU monitoring, arguing that culture remains primarily a national competence and 
that Member States are best positioned to respond to their populations’ cultural needs. They 
warned  that  EU-level  mechanisms  could  create  administrative  burdens  without  proportional 
added value.  

However, many respondents favoured an EU-wide framework complemented by national and 
local data. Proposals included regular progress reviews at EU level with specific indicators and 
milestones, regular consultations with cultural and creative sectors’ stakeholders, independent 
expert  assessments  and  monitoring  of  the  reach  and  accessibility  of  cultural  programmes, 
including engagement of under-represented groups and geographic coverage.  

Monitoring should also track the sustainability of cultural projects (e.g. environmental impact 
and long-term viability) and the integration of culture into other EU policies.  

27 

 
 
Several  respondents  pointed  to  national  tools  such  as  Spain’s  annual  Cultural  Statistics 
Yearbook  and  its  satellite  accounts  of  culture,  recommending  the  EU  adopts  similar 
comprehensive statistics and digital platforms like Culturabase to store and disseminate data. 

Contributors also underlined that communication and feedback loops are integral to monitoring. 
They  suggested  publishing  regular  reports  on  the  State  of  the  Culture Compass,  presenting 
these  reports  to  the  Council’s  Cultural  Affairs  Committee,  and  providing  country-specific 
recommendations during progress reviews.  

Academic institutions could conduct systematic reviews and qualitative studies to assess the 
impact of the strategy, while regional and local cultural institutions should be involved to ensure 
diverse perspectives.  

By combining quantitative data, qualitative insights and structured dialogue and reporting from 
Member States, the monitoring system can balance accountability with respect for the sector’s 
diversity and intrinsic value. 

4.16  Expectations of a new Culture Compass for Europe 

Data  from  the  survey  show  that  both  Member  States  and  organisations  in  the  CCSI  want  a 
future  Culture Compass  to  articulate  clear  objectives  and  provide  tangible  support  for 
policymakers  and  practitioners  in  areas  that  have  already  been  pinpointed  in  the  previous 
chapters of the survey. 

When asked how culture can contribute to different policy areas in the new EU political cycle 
(2024-2029), 96% of EU Member State respondents believed culture can make a significant 
contribution to democracy and values, 75% to strengthening the European social model, 29% 
to modernisation and reform and 88% to prosperity and competitiveness.  

Only 21% saw a significant contribution to defence and security and 4% to food security.  

Organisations and networks outside the public sector broadly agreed that culture contributes 
most to democracy and values (91% significant), followed by global partnerships.  

These  findings  support  the  qualitative  expectation  that  the  Culture Compass  should  frame 
culture as a driver of social cohesion, democratic participation, innovation and prosperity rather 
than an adjunct policy area. 

The survey also explored what stakeholders expect the Culture Compass to do for their own 
work or community.  

Among EU Member State respondents,  the most common expectation  was  that the strategy 
would  help  mobilise  resources  for  culture  and  prioritise  culture  in  other  policies,  with  75% 
strongly agreeing on each point and a further 42-46% agreeing to some degree.  

Just over half (54%) strongly agreed that the Compass should facilitate shaping strategies at 
different levels, and 42-46% strongly agreed that it should provide guidance for their work, 
support efforts to uphold rights or convey priorities they relate to.  

Qualitative  comments  support  these  themes;  many  Member  States  want  a  clear  reference 
framework to guide policy, while sector respondents want the Compass to legitimise cultural 
actors’ roles and enhance capacity-building.  

Organisations and networks were even more emphatic. Around four-fifths strongly agreed that 
the  Compass  should  help  mobilise  resources  (82%)  and  prioritise  culture  in  other  policies 

28 

 
 
(78%). Around 60% strongly agreed that it should support efforts to uphold rights. And more 
than half wanted it to facilitate strategy-shaping across levels.  

These actors place slightly less emphasis on the Compass as a guide for their own work (19% 
strongly  agree),  suggesting  that  they  already  possess  strategic  agendas  but  need  high-level 
political backing and resources. 

Overall,  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence  indicates  that  stakeholders  expect  the 
Culture Compass to: 

•  provide  a  clear  and  consistent  reference  framework  that  aligns  local,  national  and  EU 

cultural policies, offers guidance and sets common priorities; 

•  embed  culture  across  EU  priorities,  integrating  cultural  considerations  into  education, 

health, digital policy, climate, democracy and foreign policy; 

•  mobilise resources and improve funding access, including mainstream EU programmes and 

long-term financing, while advocating fair remuneration and working conditions; 

•  champion cultural rights and democratic values, safeguarding artistic freedom, diversity and 

inclusion, and strengthening citizen engagement; 

•  empower cultural professionals and institutions by clarifying strategic priorities, supporting 

capacity building and legitimising cultural actors’ roles; 

•  promote  cross-border  collaboration  and  sustainability,  including  heritage  preservation, 

circulation of European works and environmentally sustainable practices. 

29 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1: FIGURES FROM THE ‘SURVEY ON A CULTURE COMPASS FOR EUROPE’ 

Figure 1 In your view, how effective has the New European Agenda for Culture been in achieving its three main objectives? 
(EU Member States) 

Social dimension - harnessing the power of culture
and cultural diversity for social cohesion and well-
being

Economic dimension - supporting culture-based
creativity in education and innovation, and for jobs
and growth

% of EU Member State Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

4%

21%

54%

13%

8%

4%

38%

50%

8%

External dimension - Strengthening international
cultural relations

8%

33%

46%

4%

8%

Not effective

Somewhat effective

Effective

Very effective

No opinion/ I don't know

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

Figure 2 In your view, how effective has the New European Agenda for Culture been in achieving its three main objectives? 
(Culture and creative sectors and industries networks or organisations and Non-EU Member State representatives) 

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

Social dimension - harnessing the power of culture
and cultural diversity for social cohesion and well-
being

1%

38%

42%

6%

13%

Economic dimension - supporting culture-based
creativity in education and innovation, and for jobs
and growth

1%

57%

25%

6%

10%

External dimension - Strengthening international
cultural relations

5%

40%

34%

8%

13%

Not effective

Somewhat effective

Effective

Very effective

No opinion/ I don't know

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3 In your view, to what extent has the EU integrated/mainstreamed cultural policy priorities into the following policy 
areas (EU Member States) 

% of EU Member State Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Regional and urban policy

33%

29%

29%

8%

Home affairs and internal security

4%

17%

Employment, social affairs and inclusion

25%

33%

29%

17%

29%

29%

4%

13%

Justice, consumer rights and gender equality

17%

21%

42%

4%

17%

EU international partnership and development…

38%

38%

13%

4%

8%

Neighbourhood and enlargement policy

25%

29%

29%

4%

13%

Education and youth policies

33%

38%

17%

13%

Single market and industrial policies, including…

13%

50%

17%

8%

13%

Research and innovation

42%

29%

21%

8%

Digital economy and society

Climate action and environmental policy

38%

33%

29%

33%

21%

13%

21%

4%

8%

Agricultural policy

13%

13%

38%

Defence industry and space policies

21%

8%

Competition

13%

21%

42%

33%

38%

29%

25%

8%

Taxation

4%

13%

21%

29%

33%

International trade

13%

13%

33%

21%

21%

Quite a lot

A little bit

Somewhat

Not at all

Don't know

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4 In your view, to what extent has the EU integrated/mainstreamed cultural policy priorities into the following policy 
areas (Culture and creative sectors and industries networks or organisations and Non-EU Member State representatives) 

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

Regional and urban policy

9%

26%

30%

35%

Home affairs and internal security

12%

14%

22%

52%

Employment, social affairs and inclusion

10%

32%

30%

4%

23%

Justice, consumer rights and gender equality

14%

16%

30%

9%

31%

EU international partnership and development…

19%

30%

23%

5%

22%

Neighbourhood and enlargement policy

12%

27%

29%

3%

30%

Education and youth policies

32%

31%

17%

3%

17%

Single market and industrial policies, including…

10%

29%

29%

1%

31%

Research and innovation

18%

23%

29%

5%

25%

Digital economy and society

5%

42%

27%

9%

17%

Climate action and environmental policy

14%

31%

29%

6%

19%

Agricultural policy

3%
1%

14%

21%

Defence industry and space policies

1%

5%

5%

25%

61%

64%

Competition

8%

23%

18%

16%

35%

Taxation

1%

14%

10%

21%

International trade

3%

17%

22%

10%

53%

48%

Quite a lot

A little bit

Somewhat

Not at all

Don't know

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5 What are the biggest challenges facing the cultural and creative sectors and industries in Europe? (EU Member 
States) 

% of EU Member State Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Ensuring that authors and other artists are fairly remunerated for
the exploitation of their creations in an evolving market and
technology landscape

Dealing with the impact of artificial intelligence and other
technological developments while seizing the opportunities

Lack of public funding

Precarious working conditions

Risk for safeguarding and promoting Europe s cultural heritage

Barriers for people in accessing culture or participating in
cultural activities

Social exclusion and unequal access for people with disabilities

Unequal access to cultural participation opportunities in rural
(or less populated) and urban areas

Climate change and environmental sustainability

Restrictions related to artistic freedom

Lack of visibility of diverse cultural expressions in the online
environment

Difficulty in accessing private finance

Shortage of skilled workforce and challenges in developing new
skills to adapt to new market and technological practices

88%

83%

79%

75%

75%

75%

71%

71%

67%

63%

63%

58%

54%

8%

4%

13%

4%

17%

4%

21%

4%

21%

4%

21%

4%

25%

4%

21%

4%

4%

33%

33%

4%

29%

8%

33%

4%

4%

33%

13%

Barriers to the mobility of artists and the circulation of their
works across borders

46%

46%

Lack of competitiveness at the global level

29%

63%

8%

8%

Very important

Moderately important

Less important

Not important

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6 What are the biggest challenges facing the cultural and creative sectors and industries in Europe? (Culture and 
creative sectors and industries networks or organisations and Non-EU Member State representatives) 

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

Lack of public funding

Dealing with the impact of artificial intelligence and other
technological developments while seizing the opportunities

Precarious working conditions

Restrictions related to artistic freedom

77%

70%

66%

66%

21%

3%

21%

9%

30%

4%

21%

12%

1%

Ensuring that authors and other artists are fairly remunerated for
the exploitation of their creations in an evolving market and
technology landscape

60%

35%

4%

1%

Barriers for people in accessing culture or participating in
cultural activities

51%

34%

13%

3%

Difficulty in accessing private finance

Barriers to the mobility of artists and the circulation of their
works across borders

Climate change and environmental sustainability

Social exclusion and unequal access for people with disabilities

Unequal access to cultural participation opportunities in rural
(or less populated) and urban areas

Risk for safeguarding and promoting Europe s cultural heritage

Lack of visibility of diverse cultural expressions in the online
environment

Shortage of skilled workforce and challenges in developing new
skills to adapt to new market and technological practices

48%

47%

47%

44%

42%

36%

35%

34%

42%

8%

3%

43%

10%

38%

14%

1%

34%

21%

1%

38%

17%

4%

35%

26%

3%

43%

22%

49%

14%

3%

Lack of competitiveness at the global level

26%

38%

32%

4%

Very important

Moderately important

Less important

Not important

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7 What should be the main principles guiding cultural policy cooperation at EU level? (EU Member States) 

% of EU Member State Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Culture has an intrinsic value and is a vital legacy for future
generations

Culture is the product of artistic freedom, freedom of
expression, and the respect for human rights

Cultural diversity is a cornerstone of European unity and
identity

Everyone has the right to access culture and participate in
cultural activities

96%

96%

92%

92%

4%

4%

8%

8%

Culture is a driver and enabler of sustainable development,
contributing to environmental, social, and economic resilience

88%

8%

4%

Culture plays a vital role in fostering social inclusion; it is
essential to uphold gender equality and oppose all forms of
discrimination within cultural contexts

Culture is a source of creativity and innovation, driving the
transformation of our economies and their competitiveness,
generating jobs economic value, and cohesion

Culture is essential for active citizenship and a vital force in
strengthening democracy and active participation

Culture is vital in fostering the well-being of individuals and
communities alike

Culture flourishes through collaboration, exchange, mobility
and co-creation, fostering mutual understanding across borders
within Europe

While embracing the opportunities of artificial intelligence in
culture, human creativity is unique and is at the core of every
cultural creation

Culture is an essential element in international relations,
fostering dialogue, supporting partnerships and peaceful co-
existence between nations

83%

83%

83%

83%

83%

13%

4%

17%

17%

17%

17%

79%

21%

63%

38%

Very important

Moderately important

Less important

Not important

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8 What should be the main principles guiding cultural policy cooperation at EU level? (Culture and creative sectors 
and industries networks or organisations and Non-EU Member State representatives) 

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

Cultural diversity is a cornerstone of European unity and
identity

94%

5%

1%

Culture is the product of artistic freedom, freedom of
expression, and the respect for human rights

Culture has an intrinsic value and is a vital legacy for future
generations

Culture flourishes through collaboration, exchange, mobility
and co-creation, fostering mutual understanding across borders
within Europe

Everyone has the right to access culture and participate in
cultural activities

Culture is a source of creativity and innovation, driving the
transformation of our economies and their competitiveness,
generating jobs economic value, and cohesion

Culture plays a vital role in fostering social inclusion; it is
essential to uphold gender equality and oppose all forms of
discrimination within cultural contexts

Culture is an essential element in international relations,
fostering dialogue, supporting partnerships and peaceful co-
existence between nations

While embracing the opportunities of artificial intelligence in
culture, human creativity is unique and is at the core of every
cultural creation

Culture is essential for active citizenship and a vital force in
strengthening democracy and active participation

Culture is vital in fostering the well-being of individuals and
communities alike

Culture is a driver and enabler of sustainable development,
contributing to environmental, social, and economic resilience

87%

86%

12%

13%

1%

83%

14%

3%

79%

78%

77%

74%

71%

71%

68%

64%

18%

1%

18%

4%

18%

5%

21%

5%

21%

6%

26%

3%

29%

4%

30%

6%

Very important

Moderately important

Less important

Not important

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9 What should be the objectives of a new EU strategy for culture? (EU Member States) 

% of EU Member State Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Promote and safeguard cultural diversity

Ensure access to and participation in culture for all

Promote and safeguard artistic freedom in Europe

Advocate for adequate and targeted EU funding for cultural and
creative sectors and industries

Advocate for fair working conditions and remuneration of
artists and cultural and creative professionals

Preserve and protect cultural heritage for the benefit of future
generations

92%

92%

88%

88%

83%

83%

4%

4%

4%

4%

8%

4%

4%

4%

4%

8%

8%

13%

4%

Foster dynamic and competitive  cultural and creative sectors
and industries that drive economic and social innovation

79%

13%

8%

Harness the opportunities of digital technologies and artificial
intelligence to enhance the creation, production, curation, and
sharing of cultural content, while addressing related challenges

Promote the mainstreaming of culture and its integration with
other policies

Promote the circulation of European works and enhance cross-
border collaboration within Europe and beyond European
borders

Strengthen cohesion in Europe within and across regions
through cultural initiatives and exchanges

Advance the sustainability of cultural and creative sectors and
industries, with a strong emphasis on environmental
sustainability

Strengthen and develop further international cultural relations to
promote global understanding and collaboration

75%

75%

71%

71%

63%

58%

21%

4%

17%

8%

25%

4%

21%

8%

25%

4%

8%

33%

4%

4%

Very important

Moderately important

Less important

Not important

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  10  What  should  be  the  objectives  of  a  new  EU  strategy  for  culture?  (Culture  and  creative  sectors  and  industries 
networks or organisations and Non-EU Member State representatives) 

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

Advocate for adequate and targeted EU funding for cultural and
creative sectors and industries

Promote and safeguard cultural diversity

94%

92%

5%

1%

8%

Promote and safeguard artistic freedom in Europe

88%

10%

1%

Promote the circulation of European works and enhance cross-
border collaboration within Europe and beyond European
borders

Advocate for fair working conditions and remuneration of
artists and cultural and creative professionals

Ensure access to and participation in culture for all

Strengthen and develop further international cultural relations to
promote global understanding and collaboration

Strengthen cohesion in Europe within and across regions
through cultural initiatives and exchanges

82%

77%

73%

71%

70%

14%

1%
3%

19%

4%

25%

3%

21%

8%

23%

6%

Promote the mainstreaming of culture and its integration with
other policies

66%

25%

9%

Preserve and protect cultural heritage for the benefit of future
generations

Foster dynamic and competitive  cultural and creative sectors
and industries that drive economic and social innovation

Advance the sustainability of cultural and creative sectors and
industries, with a strong emphasis on environmental
sustainability

Harness the opportunities of digital technologies and artificial
intelligence to enhance the creation, production, curation, and
sharing of cultural content, while addressing related challenges

61%

60%

29%

10%

30%

10%

57%

32%

9%

1%

51%

35%

13%

1%

Very important

Moderately important

Less important

Not important

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  11  How  can  culture  contribute  to  the  priorities  of  the  new  EU  political  cycle:  Priorities  2024-2029  -  European 
Commission? (EU Member States) 

% of EU Member State Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Democracy and values

Prosperity and competitiveness

Strengthening European social model

Global partnerships

96%

88%

75%

75%

4%

8%

4%

21%

4%

25%

Modernisation and Reform

29%

46%

4%

21%

Defence and security

21%

75%

4%

Food security, water and nature

4%

75%

4%

17%

Significant contribution Moderate contribution No contribution No opinion/I don't know

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

Figure  12  How  can  culture  contribute  to  the  priorities  of  the  new  EU  political  cycle:  Priorities  2024-2029  -  European 
Commission?  (Culture  and  creative  sectors  and  industries  networks  or  organisations  and  Non-EU  Member  State 
representatives) 

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

Democracy and values

91%

8%

1%

Global partnerships

Prosperity and competitiveness

Strengthening European social model

77%

73%

73%

9%

3%

12%

22%

5%

18%

1%

8%

Modernisation and Reform

29%

39%

5%

27%

Defence and security

19%

44%

12%

25%

Food security, water and nature

18%

39%

9%

34%

Significant contribution Moderate contribution No contribution No opinion/I don't know

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

39 

 
 
 
 
Figure 13 What do you expect the new EU policy strategy for culture (a Culture Compass for Europe) to do for your work or 
community? (EU Member States) 

% of EU Member State Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Help mobilise resources for culture

Prioritise culture in other policies

75%

75%

13%

13%

21%

4%

Facilitate shaping strategies at different levels

54%

25%

8%

4%

8%

Support our efforts to uphold rights

46%

25%

13%

4%

8%

Convey priorities we relate to

42%

38%

8%

4%

4%

Provide guidance for our own work and priorities

38%

42%

8%

8%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

Figure 14 What do you expect the new EU policy strategy for culture (a Culture Compass for Europe) to do for your work or 
community?  (Culture  and  creative  sectors  and  industries  networks  or  organisations  and  Non-EU  Member  State 
representatives) 

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

Help mobilise resources for culture

Prioritise culture in other policies

Support our efforts to uphold rights

Convey priorities we relate to

82%

78%

61%

57%

14%

4%

19%

3%

30%

6%

3%

38%

5%

Facilitate shaping strategies at different levels

43%

42%

4%

12%

Provide guidance for our own work and priorities

19%

38%

21% 9%4%

9%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I don't know

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

40 

 
 
 
 
Figure 15 How important would it be for this new strategy to be monitored, and its impact measured? (EU Member States) 

% of EU Member State Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

How important would it be for this new strategy to
be monitored and its impact measured?

71%

29%

Very important

Important

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

Figure 16 How important would it be for this new strategy to be monitored, and its impact measured? (Culture and creative 
sectors and industries networks or organisations and Non-EU Member State representatives) 

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

How important would it be for this new strategy to
be monitored and its impact measured?

75%

25%

Very important

Important

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17 Ideally, how should the impact of the Culture Compass be measured? (EU Member States) 

0

2

4

Regular consultations with stakeholders from the
cultural and creative sectors and industries

Carrying out regular progress reviews at EU level
with specific indicators (e.g., cultural participation
rates, economic impact) and milestones

Other, please specify:

e
c
n
e
r
e
f
e
r
P

Number of people
6
10

12 14

8

16

18 20

18

13

12

Regular assessment by independent experts

10

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

Note: Multiple responses could be selected 

Figure 18 Ideally, how should the impact of the Culture Compass be measured? (Culture and creative sectors and industries 
networks or organisations and Non-EU Member State representatives) 

0

10

20

Number of people
40

30

50

Regular consultations with stakeholders from the
cultural and creative sectors and industries

Carrying out regular progress reviews at EU level
with specific indicators (e.g., cultural participation
rates, economic impact) and milestones

Regular assessment by independent experts

e
c
n
e
r
e
f
e
r
P

Other, please specify:

47

31

27

Source: Survey on a Culture Compass for Europe, data compiled by Panteia, 2025 

Note: Multiple responses could be selected 

60

70

80

75

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO SUBMITTED FEEDBACK ON THE CULTURE COMPASS 
FOR EUROPE THROUGH RESPONSES TO THE CALL FOR EVIDENCE 

Name/Organisation 
3D Research srl 
Aalborg University 
AEPO-ARTIS 
Africa Flying 
Alina Schartner 
Alliance de la Presse d’Information Générale 
Alliance for Socially Engaged Arts 
ALT@RT z.ú. / Studio ALTA 
ALTER EGO (X) 
Amaury Wenger 
Amatörteaterns Riksförbund 
Anonymous 
Anonymous 
Anonymous 
Anonymous 
Anonymous 
Anonymous 
Anonymous 
Anonymous 
Archontoula Barouda 
ARC Research & Consultancy Ltd 
Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE) 
Ari, Asociación de Editores de Revistas 
ARTE GEIE 
Artistic Freedom Initiative 
Assembly of European Regions 
Assembly of European Regions 
Asociace komerčních televizí, z.s. 
Associazione librai italiani 
ASSITEJ International 
BEDA - Bureau of European Design Associations 
Berlinklusion  Network  for  Accessibility  in  Arts  and 
Culture 
Bilkent University 
Bitkom e.V. 
Booksellers Association of the UK and Ireland 
Border Crossings 
Bureau Ritter 
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and Arts 
Bulgarian music association 
Bundesarchitektenkammer e.V. 
CEGAL 
CEPI 
CENTRE  OF  HIGHER  EDUCATION  IN  THEATRE 
STUDIES 
Centre  for  Research  &  Technology  Hellas  (CERTH)  - 
Multimodal Data Fusion and Analytics Group (M4D) 
Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra, on 
behalf  of  the  Horizon  Europe-funded  project  ‘IN  SITU: 
Place-based innovation of cultural and creative industries 
in non-urban areas’ (Grant Agreement No 101061747) 
Centre National de Création Adaptée 
Centre national de la musique 
Christian Brall 
Christos Stelios Ioannou Foundation 
Circostrada 
City of Malmö Culture Department 
CLABE – Club Abierto de Editores 
Cluj Cultural Centre 

Type of Organisation 
Company/business 
Academic/research Institution 
Non-governmental organisation (NGO) 
Non-EU citizen 
EU citizen 
Other 
NGO 
Other 
Other 
EU citizen 
NGO 
EU citizen 
EU citizen 
EU citizen 
EU citizen 
Non-EU citizen 
Non-EU citizen 
Non-EU citizen 
Non-EU citizen 
EU citizen 
Company/business 
Business association 
Other 
Other 
Other 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
Company/business 

Other 
NGO 
Company/business 
Company/business 
Company/business 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
Other 
Trade union 
NGO 

Academic/research Institution 

Academic/research Institution 

NGO 
Public authority 
EU citizen 
NGO 
Other 
Public authority 
Business association 
NGO 

Country 
Italy 
Denmark 
Belgium 
Kenya 
Austria 
France 
Belgium 
Czechia 
France 
France 
Sweden 
Italy 
Poland 
Spain 
Germany 
United States 
Senegal 
Georgia 
United Kingdom 
Greece 
Malta 
Belgium 
Spain 
France 
Switzerland 
Belgium 
Spain 
Czechia 
Italy 
Italy 
Latvia 
Germany 

Türkiye 
Germany 
Ireland 
Ireland 
Germany 
Bulgaria 
Bulgaria 
Germany 
Spain 
Belgium 
Greece 

Greece 

Portugal 

France 
France 
Germany 
Cyprus 
France 
Sweden 
Spain 
Romania 

43 

 
 
Business association 

Business association 
Other 
Company/business 
NGO 
NGO 
Business association 
NGO 
EU citizen 
NGO 

EU citizen 
NGO 
Public authority 
NGO 
NGO 
EU citizen 
NGO 
Company/business 
NGO 
NGO 
Business association 

Company/business 
Other 

Business association 
NGO 
Public authority 
Company/business 
NGO 

NGO 
NGO 

Other 
NGO 

(Danish  Authors’ 

Clubture Network 
Coalición  francesa  para  la  diversidad  cultural  (French 
Coalition for Cultural Diversity) 
Computer  &  Communications  Industry  Association 
(CCIA Europe) 
Concerto Copenhagen 
Conseil  Européen  des  Associations  de  Traducteurs 
Littéraires 
Copydan Verdens TV 
Council of Europe 
CulturaLink S.L. 
Culture Action Europe 
Culture Next / Cluj Cultural Centre 
Dansk Erhverv 
Dance and creative wellness 
Daniele Rozzoni 
Danske  Skønlitterære  Forfattere 
Society) 
Demy Papathanasiou 
Denkmalnetz Bayern 
Department of Housing Local Government & Heritage 
Digital Music Europe (DME) 
Domowina - Bund Lausitzer Sorben e.V. 
Dorothea Papathanasiou 
EBLIDA 
ECODoG (TI 2 d.o.o.) 
ELIA 
EMEE – European Music Exporters Exchange 
European  Magazine  Media  Association  –  European 
Newspaper Publishers’ Association 
Eonia AB 
EPIC-WE:  Project  funded  under  the  Horizon  Europe 
Programme 
EPC - EUROPEAN PRODUCERS CLUB 
ERIH European Route of Industrial Heritage 
ERSAF 
Eunia AB 
Europa  Nostra  -  The  European  Voice  of  Civil  Society 
committed to Cultural Heritage (on behalf of the European 
Heritage  Alliance  and  the  European  Heritage  Hub 
Consortium) 
Europeade ivzw 
European and International Booksellers Federation (EIBF)  NGO 
NGO 
European Arts & Disability Cluster (ADICLUS) 
Trade union 
European  Arts  and  Entertainment  Alliance  (EAEA) 
(composed of FIA, FIM & EURO-MEI) 
European Association of Independent Performing Arts 
European Association of Professors Emeriti (EAPE) 
European Broadcasting Union 
European Choral Association 
European Coalitions for Cultural Diversity (ECCD) 
European Composer and Songwriter Alliance (ECSA) 
European  Confederation  of  Conservators-Restorers’ 
Organisations 
European Cultural Foundation 
European Cultural Tourism Network (ECTN) aisbl 
European Dance Development Network 
European Film Agencies Directors Association 
European Festivals Association (EFA) 
European Games Developer Federation (EGDF) 
European Historic Houses 
European Music Council 
European Music Managers Alliance (EMMA) 
European network of Cultural Centres 

NGO 
Other 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 

NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
Business association 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
Trade union 
NGO 

Business association 

Croatia 
France 

Belgium 

Denmark 
Belgium 

Denmark 
France 
Spain 
Belgium 
Romania 
Denmark 
Netherlands 
Italy 
Denmark 

Greece 
Germany 
Ireland 
Belgium 
Germany 
Greece 
Netherlands 
Croatia 
Netherlands 
Belgium 
Belgium 

Sweden 
Spain 

France 
Germany 
Italy 
Sweden 
Netherlands 

Belgium 
Belgium 
Sweden 
Belgium 

Austria 
Italy 
Belgium 
Germany 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Belgium 

Netherlands 
Greece 
Spain 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Sweden 
Belgium 
Germany 
Estonia 
Belgium 

44 

 
 
Business association 
Business association 
NGO 
NGO 
Business association 
NGO 
Other 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 

Academic network 

Non-EU citizen 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
Public authority 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
Public authority 
Business association 
NGO 
Business association 

NGO 
NGO 
Other (Individual) 

NGO 

NGO 

NGO 
Trade union 
NGO 
NGO 

European  network  on  cultural  management  and  policy 
(ENCATC) 
European Publisher’s Council 
European Publishers Council 
European Theatre Convention (ETC) 
European Union Youth Orchestra 
European Video on Demand Coalition asbl 
European Writers’ Council 
Europe.Pro 
Eurocities 
Eurocinema 
FERA - Federation of European Screen Directors 
Fédération Internationale des Associations de Producteurs 
de Films (FIAPF) 
Federation of European Publishers 
Federación Internacional de los Actores (FIA) – see EAEA  Trade union 
Trade union 
Fédération  Internationale  des  Musiciens  (FIM)  –  see 
EAEA 
FilmEU - European University for Film and Media Arts – 
see Lusóna University 
Fundacja Siła Społeczna 
French joint union of authors 
Georgian (Irish) Society 
Gesac  (European  Grouping  of  Societies  of  Authors  and 
Composers) 
Gillian Gardiner 
Giovanna Dejua Foundation 
Hangvető 
Healing Culture Network e.V. 
Hellenic Copyright Organisation 
Hub Culturel Européen 
humaQ gGmbH 
ICOM - International Council of Museums 
ICOMOS Ireland 
IFPI - representing the recording industry worldwide 
IETM 
IMPALA  -  European  association  of  independent  music 
companies 
INNOVENT e.V. 
Institut umění - Divadelní ústav / CzechMobility.Info 
Interartes (Independent researcher) 
Internationale Gesellschaft der Bildenden Künste (IGBK)  NGO 
NGO 
International  Federation  of  Library  Associations  and 
Institutions (IFLA) 
International Federation of Musicians (FIM) – see EAEA 
International Union of Cinemas (UNIC) 
Interpret  Europe  -  European  Association  for  Heritage 
Interpretation 
Irish Georgian Society 
Irish Music Rights Organisation (IMRO) 
Joost Heinsius 
Julia Mihályfy 
KBb (Koninklijke Boekverkopersbond) 
Kids Regio 
KNŻ - Malta’s National Youth Council 
Kulturtreger 
Kunsten ‘92 
la Grainerie 
Landesmusikrat NRW 
Live DMA 
Live Performance Europe (Pearle*) 
Liveurope / Ancienne Belgique vzw 
Lluis Bonet Agustí 
Liminal 

Trade union 
NGO 
NGO 

NGO 
NGO 
EU citizen 
EU citizen 
Business association 
NGO 
Other 
NGO 
NGO 
Business association 
NGO 
NGO 
Trade union 
Company/business 
EU citizen 
Other 

Belgium 

Belgium 
Belgium 
Germany 
Austria 
Belgium 
Belgium 
France 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Belgium 

Belgium 
Belgium 
France 

Portugal 

Poland 
France 
Ireland 
Belgium 

United Kingdom 
Italy 
Hungary 
Germany 
Greece 
France 
Germany 
France 
Ireland 
Switzerland 
Belgium 
Belgium 

Germany 
Czechia 
Portugal 
Germany 
Netherlands 

France 
Belgium 
Germany 

Ireland 
Ireland 
Netherlands 
Hungary 
Netherlands 
Germany 
Malta 
Croatia 
Netherlands 
France 
Germany 
France 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Spain 
Greece 

45 

 
 
Industry  &  Arts 

(Maltese  Entertainment 

Lusóna  University  /  FilmEU  -  European  University  for 
Film and Media Arts 
Mad’in Europe 
Martin Vanda 
MEIA 
Association) 
MFE-MEDIAFOREUROPE N.V. 
Michael Culture Association 
Ministry of Culture and Innovation, State  Secretariat for 
Cultural Diplomacy 
Musaxia AB 
Municipality of Kallithea 
News Media Europe 
NoOx Worldwide 
Northern Dimension Partnership on Culture Secretariat 
Núria Andorrà 
ODiseIA (IA Gen Cultura) 
Opera Europa 
Oriente Occidente 
PATE - ASPCIACION PRODUCTORES ASOCIADOS 
Pearle* (Live Performance Europe) 
Platform ACCT 
Policy Area Culture of the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea 
Region 
Politecnico di Milano 
Prosxima Dance Company 
Public Libraries 2030 (PL2030) 
Q Altena 
Quo Artis Foundation 
QuotaClimat 
REGIONE LOMBARDIA 
Region Blekinge 
Region Halland 
Region Jönköpings län 
Region Kalmar län 
Region Kronoberg 
Region Gävleborg 
Region Stockholm 
Regional Initiative for Culture and Creativity network 
REMA - European Early Music Network 
Reset! Network 
Roberto Cimetta Fund 
Robert Dunne 
Sanasto – Finnish Literary Copyright Society 
Screen Producers Ireland 
Senate Department for Culture and Social Cohesion 
Sociedad de autores audiovisuales (SAA) – see FIAD 
Society of Audiovisual Authors (SAA) – see FIAD 
Spolek Kultura a Management 
Stefano Olcese 
Susanne Fiessler 
Svenska Folkdansringen 
Srebrno drvo 
ŠAPIENZA University of Rome 
Syndicat de la librairie française 
Šistema Cyprus 
Treci Trg 
TaskForce Culture 
Teatro dell’Argine 
Teatr Wielki w Łodzi 
The Climate Academy 
The  International  Federation  of  Film  Distributors’  and 
Publishers’ Associations (FIAD) 
The Norwegian Bookseller Association 

Academic/research Institution 

NGO 
EU citizen 
NGO 

Company/business 
NGO 
Public authority 

Company/business 
Public authority 
Business association 
Other 
Public authority 
EU citizen 
NGO 
NGO 
Other 
Business association 
Trade union 
Public authority 
Other 

Academic/research Institution 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
Public authority 
Public authority 
Public authority 
Public authority 
Public authority 
Public authority 
Public authority 
Public authority 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
EU citizen 
NGO 
Business association 
Public authority 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
EU citizen 
EU citizen 
NGO 
NGO 
Academic/research Institution 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
Other 
NGO 
NGO 

NGO 

Portugal 

Belgium 
Czechia 
Malta 

Italy 
Belgium 
Hungary 

Sweden 
Greece 
Belgium 
Italy 
Latvia 
Spain 
Spain 
Belgium 
Italy 
Spain 
Belgium 
Netherlands 
Germany 

Italy 
Greece 
Belgium 
Netherlands 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Sweden 
Sweden 
Sweden 
Sweden 
Sweden 
Sweden 
Sweden 
Belgium 
France 
France 
France 
Ireland 
Finland 
Ireland 
Germany 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Czechia 
Italy 
Germany 
Sweden 
Serbia 
Italy 
France 
Cyprus 
Serbia 
Switzerland 
Italy 
Poland 
Belgium 
Belgium 

Norway 

46 

 
 
The Union of Finnish Writers 
Time Heritage - A. Kamara kai Sia OE 
Trans Europe Halles 
TrueMotion 
Ukrainian Tourist Guides Association 
Union des Théâtres Polonais (Union of Polish Theatres) 
University of Bergen 
University of Valencia 
VAUNET - German Association of Private Media 
Västra Götalandsregionen 
WHO Regional Office for Europe 
YOUROPE e.V. - The European Festival Association 
Zavod Projekt Atol 
Zürich  University  of  Applied  Sciences  (see  EPIC-WE 
project) 

NGO 
Company/business 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
Academic/research Institution 
Academic/research Institution 
Trade union 
Public authority 
NGO 
Business association 
NGO 
Academic/research Institution 

Finland 
Greece 
Sweden 
Netherlands 
Ukraine 
Poland 
Norway 
Spain 
Germany 
Sweden 
Denmark 
Germany 
Slovenia 
Switzerland 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  3:  LIST  OF  STAKEHOLDERS  WHO  RESPONDED  TO  THE  TARGETED  SURVEY  ON  THE 
CULTURE COMPASS 

ACE - Architects’ Council of Europe 

ADICLUS - European Arts and Disability Cluster 

AEC - Association Européenne des Conservatoires 
AER - Assembly of European Regions 

ALDA - European Association for Local Democracy 

AR - Artists at Risk  

ASSITEJ International 

Balthasar NOVA 

CAE - Culture Action Europe  

CEATL - Conseil Européen des associations de traducteurs litéraires  

CELA - Connecting Emerging Literary Artists  

CEPI - European Coordination of Independent TV Producers 

CINOA - International Confederation of Art and Antique Dealers’ Associations 

Circostrada - European Network for Contemporary Circus and Outdoor Arts 

Circusnext Platform 

CRAB CREATIVE HABITAT – European Community of Rural and Peripheral Cultural and Creative Hubs 

DME – Digital Music Europe  

EBLIDA - European bureau of library, information and documentation associations  

ECA - European Choral Association 

ECF - European Cultural Foundation  

ECHO - European Concert Hall Organisation 

ECSA - European Composer and Songwriter Alliance  

ECTN - European Cultural Tourism Network  

EDN - European Dance Development Network  

EGDF - European Games Developer Federation  

EIBF - European and International Booksellers Federation  

ELIA - European League of Institutes of the Arts 

EMC - European Music Council 

EMMA - European Music Managers Alliance  

ENCACT - European network on cultural management and policy 

ENCC - European Network of Cultural Centres 

ERIH - European Route of Industrial Heritage 

ESNS - Exchange  

ETC - European Theatre Convention 

EUNIC - European Union National Institutes for Culture  

Eurocinema 

Europa Distribution 

Europa Nostra  

European Crafts Alliance (former World Craft Council Europe)  

European Producers Club  

EVA - European Visual Artists 

EWC - European Writers Council  

Federation of Screenwriters in Europe 

48 

 
 
FEDORA Platform 

FEP - Federation of European Publishers  

FIAPF - Film Producers Association 

Freemuse  

FRH - Future for Religious Heritage 

GESAC - The European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers  

ICOMOS - International Council on Monuments and Sites 

ICORN - International Cities of Refuge Network  

IMPALA - Independent Music Companies Association 

IMPF - Independent Music Publishers Forum 

IMZ - International Music + Media Centre  

IN SITU ACT 

IVF - International Video Federation 

LINA - European Architecture Platform 

Live DMA - Live Music Development Agency 

Liveurope  

NEMO - Network of European Museums Organisations 

On the Move  

Opera Europa - OperaVision  

PEARLE - Performing Arts Employers Association League Europe 

REMA - Réseau Européen de Musique Ancienne 

Reset! Network Arty Farty Association  

SAA - Society of Audiovisual Authors 

SoAlive Music Conference 

UNI-Europa 

Young European Artists 

YOUROPE  

49